Contemplating what I have read and heard over the past few weeks, it seems that a consensus is developing on what can be done in the fight against global warming.
1. We must expect some temperature rise and it will likely be above 2 deg C. The question is how much can we limit it above this mark.
2. Cap and Trade of carbon emissions via main energy producers must be done to limit and put a price on carbon
3. We have to get carbon sequestration to work as we will keep on burning coal and therefore must limit the damage.
It is encouraging that some sort of consensus is developing so that we can focus on making it work.
Other lessons are that people will only change (me included) when it hits their pocket - hence the importance of Cap and Trade. Also we will not switch from polluting sources of power to renewables in any meaningful way especially it it will cost us more. Therefore we are dependant on finding ways to limit the damage of our profligate ways - hence the need for sequestration. This cannot be a long term solution but hopefully it will buy us time until we can develop and implement cleaner technologies.
So, not the best solution but hopefully a solution of sorts.
Monday 16 June 2008
Wednesday 11 June 2008
When to Dump Your Old Car
The argument that cradle to grave calculations points to old vehicles being used as long as possible (Guardian Letters, May 29th) is not so straight forward. The issue was researched for an article in the Observer (The end of the road? June 10th, 2007). Of the carbon emissions produced during the car’s lifecycle, 10% are linked to the vehicle’s manufacturing process while 90% are down to the provision and use of fuel by the car.
So when to replace an older car depends on your car and mileage. If you have an old small car that does 40mpg or better and you cover less than 4,000 miles a year, and you live in the country, then keep it. But if you are a high-mileage driver and live in a city centre, then trade up to a newer model with good fuel economy. If the car’s fuel efficiency is worse than this then the decision to change is even more compelling. The author of the article, Martin Love, chose to replace his ten year old car.
So when to replace an older car depends on your car and mileage. If you have an old small car that does 40mpg or better and you cover less than 4,000 miles a year, and you live in the country, then keep it. But if you are a high-mileage driver and live in a city centre, then trade up to a newer model with good fuel economy. If the car’s fuel efficiency is worse than this then the decision to change is even more compelling. The author of the article, Martin Love, chose to replace his ten year old car.
Personal Carbon Trading
Seminar- Cambridge University 4CMR 16th May 2008-05-17
Chaired by Prof. Terry Barker of 4CMR with introduction by Dr Philip Sargeant of Camb. Energy Forum
Main conclusion: Personal carbon allowances give responsibility to the individual and bring home to them the importance of their role in carbon reduction and an ability to track the effect and cost of their actions. However, is the cost of setting up such programmes (estimated at 10x that of top down Cap and Trade) justified by this extra utility?
Dr Richard Starkey; Univ. Manchester, Tyndall Institute
Gave overview of Domestic Tradable Quota programme where individuals given quota to meet average Home Energy and Travel needs. These are given us using a card system whenever such services are purchased. If you exceed quota then can purchase extra or can sell unused quotas at going rate.
Other goods – food, household goods, leisure – area not covered but carbon cost of these would be accounted for by a top down system of permits purchased by the energy companies and therefore reflected in their price. Otherwise would be too costly to calculate carbon value of all these other goods and include them in the DTQ scheme. MR comment: This may mean that the high energy user/traveller is paying more per kg Carbon than high use food/goods/leisure user since the former is paying twice – in extra DTQ’s plus higher energy costs.
Such a system would only be worthwhile if it provided some extra value over the simpler top down permit approach. It would cost 20x (£1-2 billion per year) more to set up and run. The question is would it offset these costs by giving people personal responsibility, awareness and control of their carbon usage. I am not convinced especially as it requires considerable public education and expertise to optimise their use of the system.
Dr Adrian Wrigley – Entrepreneur/researcher
He challenged the current tax system looking at the cost of collection and the opportunity cost arguing that above about a 45% tax rate it cost more to run than was brought in. He developed a triangle graphic showing three types of taxes: income at the top, land at bottom right and resources bottom left. The current mix is close to the top. He argued that we should progressively move down the triangle to achieve a position near the base (i.e. no income tax) but slightly towards the land tax. While politically contentious to achieve such a radical change it was economically appealing. It also addresses the issue of climate change since the resource component will influence individuals and companies decisions on resource and therefore carbon use.
Dr Douglas Crawford Brown – Univ’s North Carolina/Cambridge
He argued that we should be focused on total energy use and reduction rather than increased energy efficiency since the latter can lead to increased use because of the feel good factor and lower cost of use. He gave the example of his 3,500 sq ft US home which is far more energy efficient than homes of twenty years ago but because of its size consumes far more energy. His 1,600 sq ft UK home uses far less and adequately meets his needs but UK people should not feel so smug, the reason we have smaller homes is cost. This reinforces the fact that price is a key disincentive for energy use.
Note also that we sneer at people with large SUV’s but not at the large house behind which may well consume far more energy.
He also noted that in Charlotte N.C. he used the bus because it is free. In Cambridge, he does not because it is it costs so much. So he cycles. We should use the Cambridge congestion charges to make bus use free or certainly very low cost.
In the US moves to tele-working caused increase in car use as the kids then used the car to get to school rather than being dropped off, so beware of the consequences of change as people may not do what you think.
Chaired by Prof. Terry Barker of 4CMR with introduction by Dr Philip Sargeant of Camb. Energy Forum
Main conclusion: Personal carbon allowances give responsibility to the individual and bring home to them the importance of their role in carbon reduction and an ability to track the effect and cost of their actions. However, is the cost of setting up such programmes (estimated at 10x that of top down Cap and Trade) justified by this extra utility?
Dr Richard Starkey; Univ. Manchester, Tyndall Institute
Gave overview of Domestic Tradable Quota programme where individuals given quota to meet average Home Energy and Travel needs. These are given us using a card system whenever such services are purchased. If you exceed quota then can purchase extra or can sell unused quotas at going rate.
Other goods – food, household goods, leisure – area not covered but carbon cost of these would be accounted for by a top down system of permits purchased by the energy companies and therefore reflected in their price. Otherwise would be too costly to calculate carbon value of all these other goods and include them in the DTQ scheme. MR comment: This may mean that the high energy user/traveller is paying more per kg Carbon than high use food/goods/leisure user since the former is paying twice – in extra DTQ’s plus higher energy costs.
Such a system would only be worthwhile if it provided some extra value over the simpler top down permit approach. It would cost 20x (£1-2 billion per year) more to set up and run. The question is would it offset these costs by giving people personal responsibility, awareness and control of their carbon usage. I am not convinced especially as it requires considerable public education and expertise to optimise their use of the system.
Dr Adrian Wrigley – Entrepreneur/researcher
He challenged the current tax system looking at the cost of collection and the opportunity cost arguing that above about a 45% tax rate it cost more to run than was brought in. He developed a triangle graphic showing three types of taxes: income at the top, land at bottom right and resources bottom left. The current mix is close to the top. He argued that we should progressively move down the triangle to achieve a position near the base (i.e. no income tax) but slightly towards the land tax. While politically contentious to achieve such a radical change it was economically appealing. It also addresses the issue of climate change since the resource component will influence individuals and companies decisions on resource and therefore carbon use.
Dr Douglas Crawford Brown – Univ’s North Carolina/Cambridge
He argued that we should be focused on total energy use and reduction rather than increased energy efficiency since the latter can lead to increased use because of the feel good factor and lower cost of use. He gave the example of his 3,500 sq ft US home which is far more energy efficient than homes of twenty years ago but because of its size consumes far more energy. His 1,600 sq ft UK home uses far less and adequately meets his needs but UK people should not feel so smug, the reason we have smaller homes is cost. This reinforces the fact that price is a key disincentive for energy use.
Note also that we sneer at people with large SUV’s but not at the large house behind which may well consume far more energy.
He also noted that in Charlotte N.C. he used the bus because it is free. In Cambridge, he does not because it is it costs so much. So he cycles. We should use the Cambridge congestion charges to make bus use free or certainly very low cost.
In the US moves to tele-working caused increase in car use as the kids then used the car to get to school rather than being dropped off, so beware of the consequences of change as people may not do what you think.
Thursday 8 May 2008
How low-energy LEDs could soon be lighting our homes
Scientists have found a way to increase the light-output efficiency of LEDs through pioneering nanoelectronics
Michael Pollitt The Guardian, Thursday May 8 20008
Rahman's first LED devices are intended for use in backlights within LCD TVs, replacing cold cathode tubes and helping make thin TVs even thinner. As for those bright, money-saving LED lightbulbs for the home, there may not be a long wait. "You should be able to buy them in two to three years' time,"
Thursday 1 May 2008
Learning from Sweden
The following is cut from an article from today's Guardian on carbon reduction efforts in Sweden
"More broadly, is there anything Britain could learn from Sweden? "Homes have virtually no insulation in Britain. You could do a lot just by doing more of that," says Johansson. "When a building is renovated in Sweden, it can be properly insulated and renovated, cutting energy consumption by at least half."
"Impose a carbon tax," suggests Lindberg. "You would make it more attractive financially to go for green solutions than for carbon options."
"A carbon tax is the most cost-effective way to make carbon cuts and it does not prevent strong economic growth," adds Carlgren.
Cutting carbon emissions Swedish-style
• Swedes get a 10,000 kronor (£860) rebate when they buy a green car, ie a car that consumes less petrol, or runs on biofuels or natural gas.• Stockholm introduced congestion charging last year. Cars going into or out of the inner city zone pay 10, 15 or 20 kronor, depending on the time of the day (the busier it gets, the more you pay).
• The government hiked the carbon tax by 2.6% in January to 2.34 kronor per litre.
• A climate change bill will be presented in September, which could include measures to promote freight transport by rail at home and a possible increase to the green car rebate. "We will be focusing on the transport sector," says the Swedish environment minister, Andreas Carlgren. In Sweden, most oil and gas is used for transport.
• Sweden gets all its electricity either from hydroelectric power or nuclear plants."
Wednesday 30 April 2008
Is It Getting Warmer?
An article on Radio 4 yesterday addressed the fact raised by Nigel Lawson for his new 'sceptic' book - see below- that how come the world's average temperature has not increased since 1998? The argument was that if we use 20 years of rising temperatures to make a case for warming then surely ten years of no increase puts the hypothesis in severe doubt.
They interviewed the ex-BBC Science Editor (I think) who is also now in the sceptic camp. The scientist brought into the give the 'global warming' view said that this was just an analogy that was too be expected in such a complicated system and that there is much other evidence e.g. melting glacier to support the case.
In the end they made a bet, for £100, that there would be a year of significantly higher temperatures before 2011. We shall see.
They interviewed the ex-BBC Science Editor (I think) who is also now in the sceptic camp. The scientist brought into the give the 'global warming' view said that this was just an analogy that was too be expected in such a complicated system and that there is much other evidence e.g. melting glacier to support the case.
In the end they made a bet, for £100, that there would be a year of significantly higher temperatures before 2011. We shall see.
Cap and Trade - It's the Way
I went to two talks over the past week on carbon trading.
The first was in London hosted by E-Factor with the Key Note speaker was Peter Fusaro of Global-Change a New York based energy consultancy and hedge fund advisor. He was championing the cause of freeing up the markets to address climate change with governments first establishing a regulatory framework for carbon trading with challenging limits on carbon emissions, which can be ratcheted down over time, and a stringent monitoring and enforcement function.
This would provide a secure environment in which companies would be keen to invest in the application of current and development of new technologies to achieve rapid carbon reduction. I tend to agree with him. Appeals to individual conscience to reduce carbon emissions will only work with a small proportion of the populace, not because they are not moral, but they are busy just trying to manage their own lives and their families. Energy saving will comes further down their priority list and will reach he top only when it is too late for the climate and then they may well not know what to do.
By using the price mechanism through cap and trade you get industry involved, which will bring huge investment and then the consequent price signal will mean that people have to take notice.
The EU Emissions Trading System may have stumbled in its first faced but these are just set up issues and can be addressed in the next round which started this year. Mr F says that the US will set up their own scheme within 18 months to 2 years once the new administration is settled in. Bringing the US on board in the war on climate change is essential if anything meaningful is to be achieved. The Regulation and market combination is the most powerful mechanism we have to change things. We may wish we can appeal to people's better nature but we do not have the time and when it comes to the crunch it likely does not work.
The other presentation was in Cambridge by Ben Castle from the RSA. It was about Personal Tradable Carbon Allowances. While the project and discussion was quite illuminating in the issues involved and this may eventually be a useful way of ensuring worldwide equity on carbon emissions (e.g. one tonne each, it would be too complicated to establish and for individuals to manage their allowance. Far better to start with company cap and trade and perhaps move to individuals if this ever proves necessary.
My conclusion is that I will firmly put my foot in the cap and trade camp while working for local initiatives and national policy change to reduce carbon emissions and improve quality of life.
The first was in London hosted by E-Factor with the Key Note speaker was Peter Fusaro of Global-Change a New York based energy consultancy and hedge fund advisor. He was championing the cause of freeing up the markets to address climate change with governments first establishing a regulatory framework for carbon trading with challenging limits on carbon emissions, which can be ratcheted down over time, and a stringent monitoring and enforcement function.
This would provide a secure environment in which companies would be keen to invest in the application of current and development of new technologies to achieve rapid carbon reduction. I tend to agree with him. Appeals to individual conscience to reduce carbon emissions will only work with a small proportion of the populace, not because they are not moral, but they are busy just trying to manage their own lives and their families. Energy saving will comes further down their priority list and will reach he top only when it is too late for the climate and then they may well not know what to do.
By using the price mechanism through cap and trade you get industry involved, which will bring huge investment and then the consequent price signal will mean that people have to take notice.
The EU Emissions Trading System may have stumbled in its first faced but these are just set up issues and can be addressed in the next round which started this year. Mr F says that the US will set up their own scheme within 18 months to 2 years once the new administration is settled in. Bringing the US on board in the war on climate change is essential if anything meaningful is to be achieved. The Regulation and market combination is the most powerful mechanism we have to change things. We may wish we can appeal to people's better nature but we do not have the time and when it comes to the crunch it likely does not work.
The other presentation was in Cambridge by Ben Castle from the RSA. It was about Personal Tradable Carbon Allowances. While the project and discussion was quite illuminating in the issues involved and this may eventually be a useful way of ensuring worldwide equity on carbon emissions (e.g. one tonne each, it would be too complicated to establish and for individuals to manage their allowance. Far better to start with company cap and trade and perhaps move to individuals if this ever proves necessary.
My conclusion is that I will firmly put my foot in the cap and trade camp while working for local initiatives and national policy change to reduce carbon emissions and improve quality of life.
Tread lightly: Stop buying farmed flowers
The following is taken from an article in the Guardian today:
"As with food, a greater distance from the country of origin to the UK does not necessarily equate to a higher carbon footprint for cut flowers. A study conducted by Cranfield University found that 12,000 rose stems grown in Kenya incurred a carbon footprint of 2,200kg CO2, while the equivalent supply from Holland generated 35,000kg CO2.
That's almost
0.2kg per Kenyan rose
3kg per Dutch one
"As with food, a greater distance from the country of origin to the UK does not necessarily equate to a higher carbon footprint for cut flowers. A study conducted by Cranfield University found that 12,000 rose stems grown in Kenya incurred a carbon footprint of 2,200kg CO2, while the equivalent supply from Holland generated 35,000kg CO2.
That's almost
0.2kg per Kenyan rose
3kg per Dutch one
A better option, therefore, is to adopt the same approach to flowers as to food, and aim to buy locally produced, seasonal varieties as much as possible. The website Online Florists has a list of what's in season. You can order seasonal bouquets of flowers that have been grown outdoors from Isles of Scilly Flowers and Scent from the Islands.
If you have the space, the best idea is to grow flowers yourself. Daffodils and tulips are a good bet for spring in the UK, sunflowers, sweet peas and rudbeckias offer bright summer colours, while heathers, ivy and holly can be used for winter decorations. Wiggly Wigglers sell almost 100 types of wildflowers and traditional flowers for planting in British gardens."
Tuesday 22 April 2008
Tuesday 8 April 2008
Science Guy
To give him his due credit, the person involved in the discussion with Nigel Lawson on Newsnight was Chris Rapley
Nigel Lawson (ex-Chancellor) Fuzzy Thinking
Yesterday was not a good day for climate change news. After the Dr James Hansen of NASA indicated that even the current EU emission reduction targets are not nearly aggressive enough to stave off devastating climate change (maybe more on this later) we had the ex UK Chancellor, Nigel Lawson promoting his book in the Financial Times in which he claims that we are all "foolishly over reacting to climate change"
His main points are that:
1. While human activity does contribute to climate change it is not the only or the most important factor - he says that natural variation is more significant
2. The Earth did warm up in the last half of the the last century but there has been no significant warming in this century - true
3. That the economic costs of slowing change (in terms of investment and reduced economic development) far outweigh the projected costs of adapting to change and the IPCC projections of the impact of climate change on world GDP (reduced by 1-5%).
4. That by attempting to make change the EU will put itself at an economic disadvantage to the fast developing countries which he says will not agree to switching to a low carbon economy.
So his message is stop this folly of trying to halt climate change and just get on with finding technology and other ways to help us adapt.
Oh boy, not only is this view profoundly defeatist but it will likely be taken up by all the deniers as evidence that we should do nothing to try to stop things getting worse.
Luckily I then saw the discussion on BBC Newsnight last night between Jeremy Paxman, Nigel Lawson and the head of the Science Museum who was previously head of the British Antarctic Survey. The Science guy had little time for Lawson's arguments and petty well rubbished them since he argued that Lawson was just cherry picking on the science. He agreed that there had been no further warming this century but that can be expected with a complicated natural system like the Earth when you can get little apparent change and then dramatic effects. We cannot therefore be complacent.
The Science guy also argued that we cannot just wait to see what happens and try to fix it, as it could well be too late. It did make me question the IPCC figures on the projected effect of climate change on World GDP. A reduction of 1-5% seems widely optimistic. If sea levels rise by many metres and we lose the world's main financial and trade centres then the disruption would be far greater than this.
In the end Lawson's arguments seemed pretty thin. His point about whether we can get global agreement that all the main economies should do something is very relevant but that cannot mean that we should stop trying. It seems to be our only hope.
His main points are that:
1. While human activity does contribute to climate change it is not the only or the most important factor - he says that natural variation is more significant
2. The Earth did warm up in the last half of the the last century but there has been no significant warming in this century - true
3. That the economic costs of slowing change (in terms of investment and reduced economic development) far outweigh the projected costs of adapting to change and the IPCC projections of the impact of climate change on world GDP (reduced by 1-5%).
4. That by attempting to make change the EU will put itself at an economic disadvantage to the fast developing countries which he says will not agree to switching to a low carbon economy.
So his message is stop this folly of trying to halt climate change and just get on with finding technology and other ways to help us adapt.
Oh boy, not only is this view profoundly defeatist but it will likely be taken up by all the deniers as evidence that we should do nothing to try to stop things getting worse.
Luckily I then saw the discussion on BBC Newsnight last night between Jeremy Paxman, Nigel Lawson and the head of the Science Museum who was previously head of the British Antarctic Survey. The Science guy had little time for Lawson's arguments and petty well rubbished them since he argued that Lawson was just cherry picking on the science. He agreed that there had been no further warming this century but that can be expected with a complicated natural system like the Earth when you can get little apparent change and then dramatic effects. We cannot therefore be complacent.
The Science guy also argued that we cannot just wait to see what happens and try to fix it, as it could well be too late. It did make me question the IPCC figures on the projected effect of climate change on World GDP. A reduction of 1-5% seems widely optimistic. If sea levels rise by many metres and we lose the world's main financial and trade centres then the disruption would be far greater than this.
In the end Lawson's arguments seemed pretty thin. His point about whether we can get global agreement that all the main economies should do something is very relevant but that cannot mean that we should stop trying. It seems to be our only hope.
Grants for Renewables
The just relaunched Low Carbon Building grants from BERR, the Government Department, seem like a big disappointment. I was hoping to be able to install a solar heating panel on my roof.
The department website (http://www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk/micro/solartherm/) says that this should cost between £3,200 and £4,500 and you would qualify for a grant of £400 or 30% of the cost whichever was the lower. They also say that this would save you around 30% of your hot water heating costs.
The maths do not look attractive. If half of my current £600 per year heating costs are for hot water that means we would save £100 per year through the solar panels. That says it would take around 35 years to pay off the cost of the panels and the grant makes little difference to this return.
OK there are good moral reasons for installing the panels to cut carbon emissions (the BERR site says an average of 330kg per household per year) and the price of energy if likely to go up. But t if the financial arguments are so weak then few people will want to make the improvement and government grants are doing nothing to change their minds.
What a shame.
The department website (http://www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk/micro/solartherm/) says that this should cost between £3,200 and £4,500 and you would qualify for a grant of £400 or 30% of the cost whichever was the lower. They also say that this would save you around 30% of your hot water heating costs.
The maths do not look attractive. If half of my current £600 per year heating costs are for hot water that means we would save £100 per year through the solar panels. That says it would take around 35 years to pay off the cost of the panels and the grant makes little difference to this return.
OK there are good moral reasons for installing the panels to cut carbon emissions (the BERR site says an average of 330kg per household per year) and the price of energy if likely to go up. But t if the financial arguments are so weak then few people will want to make the improvement and government grants are doing nothing to change their minds.
What a shame.
Monday 17 March 2008
Old House Refurbishment
We are in the process of setting up a DIY team/project to help people in Cambridge make improvements to their houses to cut down on carbon emissions. Plus I'm doing the same to my own and looking for the next affordable step.
A 'problem' with Cambridge is that most of the current housing stock is around 100 years old or more - so single skin brick which cannot be easily insulated.
However, i saw a report yesterday which said that refurbishing old houses was more nergy efficient then new build over a 50 year life span due to the carbon required to build the housev refurbishment. Links are:
resting http://www.emptyhomes.com/documents/publications/reports/New%20Tricks%20With%20Old%20Bricks%20-%20final%2012-03-081.pdf
It was reported in Sunday's Observer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/16/homeimprovements.householdbills
The report led me on to looking at the Nottingham house which is about the same age as mine (Victorian/Edwardian) and therefore I can learn from many of the steps that they took:
http://www.msarch.co.uk/ecohome/feature.html
I think the next big steps for me are:
1. Insulate inside front walls (like the above house, I don't want to spoilt the outside brick work) but insulate/redner the outside back and side
2. Solar how water heating panels on the roof
3. Maybe heat exchanger onthe extraction fan?
More work...
A 'problem' with Cambridge is that most of the current housing stock is around 100 years old or more - so single skin brick which cannot be easily insulated.
However, i saw a report yesterday which said that refurbishing old houses was more nergy efficient then new build over a 50 year life span due to the carbon required to build the housev refurbishment. Links are:
resting http://www.emptyhomes.com/documents/publications/reports/New%20Tricks%20With%20Old%20Bricks%20-%20final%2012-03-081.pdf
It was reported in Sunday's Observer.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/mar/16/homeimprovements.householdbills
The report led me on to looking at the Nottingham house which is about the same age as mine (Victorian/Edwardian) and therefore I can learn from many of the steps that they took:
http://www.msarch.co.uk/ecohome/feature.html
I think the next big steps for me are:
1. Insulate inside front walls (like the above house, I don't want to spoilt the outside brick work) but insulate/redner the outside back and side
2. Solar how water heating panels on the roof
3. Maybe heat exchanger onthe extraction fan?
More work...
Friday 14 March 2008
Thought on Footprinting
The recent Prof Azapagic presentation gave some figures for carbon footprinting that were different from other sources - e.g. some organic foods were worse that expected. Apparently work is almost complete on developing a British Standard for footprinting goods and processes to be published around mid year.
So we will be able to compare apples with apples
So we will be able to compare apples with apples
A Possible Way Through
Today's blog was going to be called 'avoiding the worst' but now it's only optimistic titles - my one good deed for the day.
Last night, in meeting arranged by hicca - just Google to find website, I went to hear Mark Lynas - a journalist from Oxford who wrote '6 Degrees'. It's an understandably depressing book looking at the likely effect of each degree rise in temperature. It was turned into a National Geographic film that was apparently shown on Sky recently. Luckily he just showed snippets from the film and focused mainly on questions and answer.
His main views/messages were:
1. The critical date is 11 Dec 2009 which is the next UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. We either agree on a worldwide framework with binding targets to reduce carbon emissions of it will be too late.
- he said 'yes' to a question of where people should attend the Kingsnorth, Kent Climate Camp 3-11th August. He says will be there and that these meetings look scary on the news because of the large police presence but they are friendly and peaceful.
2. He is more optimistic as he see changes happening like huge and growing investment in renewables, much more public interest, transition towns and other initiatives sweeping across the UK etc. He thinks thinks that an awareness tipping point has been reached and that we can stay below 2 Deg C - unfortunately most others that I hear say this is now unlikely but maybe we can stay within the ball park.
3. At Bali he saw no hordes of industry lobbyists swarming through the corridors - business has bought into the need for change. They just want governments to agree the framework and targets
4. He thinks carbon credits are too complicated. We already have the price mechanism to
affect behaviour so we should use that.
5. He advocates focusing on the production of fossil energy (oil/gas/coal) measuring and controlling how much is produced. The worldwide limit will be set each year and reduced over time to meet emission targets. Companies will bid for the right to produce and the funds will be used to support those countries/sectors that need help e.g. under developed/threatened lands or renewable sector etc. Meanwhile the higher price will filter down into the cost of goods that are carbon intensive
6. He reckons that this will lead to growth driven by the move other energy sources/technologies.
Some of my comments on this:
- It sounds simple and elegant. I hope the clamp that this will put on world economic activity will be offset in development in new sectors, otherwise political opposition may kill it. He says it happens over years so the world economy can adjust.
- It does not take account of other ecological pressures e.g. water, land etc. I think he would say we need to fix the carbon
- What do economists think about this? And other specialists? I will raise it in other meetings.
Last night, in meeting arranged by hicca - just Google to find website, I went to hear Mark Lynas - a journalist from Oxford who wrote '6 Degrees'. It's an understandably depressing book looking at the likely effect of each degree rise in temperature. It was turned into a National Geographic film that was apparently shown on Sky recently. Luckily he just showed snippets from the film and focused mainly on questions and answer.
His main views/messages were:
1. The critical date is 11 Dec 2009 which is the next UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. We either agree on a worldwide framework with binding targets to reduce carbon emissions of it will be too late.
- he said 'yes' to a question of where people should attend the Kingsnorth, Kent Climate Camp 3-11th August. He says will be there and that these meetings look scary on the news because of the large police presence but they are friendly and peaceful.
2. He is more optimistic as he see changes happening like huge and growing investment in renewables, much more public interest, transition towns and other initiatives sweeping across the UK etc. He thinks thinks that an awareness tipping point has been reached and that we can stay below 2 Deg C - unfortunately most others that I hear say this is now unlikely but maybe we can stay within the ball park.
3. At Bali he saw no hordes of industry lobbyists swarming through the corridors - business has bought into the need for change. They just want governments to agree the framework and targets
4. He thinks carbon credits are too complicated. We already have the price mechanism to
affect behaviour so we should use that.
5. He advocates focusing on the production of fossil energy (oil/gas/coal) measuring and controlling how much is produced. The worldwide limit will be set each year and reduced over time to meet emission targets. Companies will bid for the right to produce and the funds will be used to support those countries/sectors that need help e.g. under developed/threatened lands or renewable sector etc. Meanwhile the higher price will filter down into the cost of goods that are carbon intensive
6. He reckons that this will lead to growth driven by the move other energy sources/technologies.
Some of my comments on this:
- It sounds simple and elegant. I hope the clamp that this will put on world economic activity will be offset in development in new sectors, otherwise political opposition may kill it. He says it happens over years so the world economy can adjust.
- It does not take account of other ecological pressures e.g. water, land etc. I think he would say we need to fix the carbon
- What do economists think about this? And other specialists? I will raise it in other meetings.
Thursday 13 March 2008
Lifecycle footprinting
12 Mar 2008; Went to see Prof Adisa Azapagic of Manchester University as part of the Suatinable Development Series in Cambridge.
She stressed the need to look at the full lifecycle carbon footprint of products and production processes if we are to make informed decisions on what we consume - "what can be measured can be managed". It was very informative. Starting with an global view on Green House Gas emissions she then drilled right down to the product level. Here are the highlights:
Lifecycle approach takes into account indirectactivities not just those directly involved in production - therefore include materials and energy used plus emissions and waste e.g. for:
Fuels this inolves Extract and Refine --> convert to power (the direct bit) --> Distribute --> Use --> Waste so which energy source ismost sustainable on this measure in CO2 equiv g/kWh?
Coal 680; gas 440; nuclear negligible (agreed that this ignores other factors like radioactivity) she also looked atrenwabkesoruces and PV solar was the 3rd worst after coal and gas - due to pollution from making chips.
Transport (CO2 eq g/person/km:
Plane (longhaul) 115
Plane shiorthaul (e.g. in Europe) 325
Rail (Long dist) 10
Rail (regional 20)
Bus (120)
Car (180)
So don't use plane within Europe
Biofuels (CO2 eq g/MJ)
Petrol 95
Bioethanol (wheat) 78
Bioethanol (sugar beet) 50
Bioethanol (corn) 125
Bioethanol (Rape/canola) 76
Bioethanol (soy) 60
So don't use ethanol from corn/maize and youneed 100% of any bioethanol (not just 10% added) l to make a significant difference from petrol
Food
Xmas/Thanksgiving dinner for 8 people produces 20kg CO2 equiv; the turkey is 13kg of this - be as veggie as you can
Meat v Veg
Potatoes 0.2
Tomatoes (UK) 9.3
Pork 5.4
Chicken 4.1
Beef 14
Lamb 14.3
Turkey 5.1
Tomatoes - grown in:
UK 9.3 (we grow in heated green houses)
Netherlands 3.5
Spain 0.2
So eat from where grown naturally even if transported long distance by road
Also eat seasonal foods that don't require heated environments/refrigeration)
Packaging for a typical soft drink
Aluminium 390
Carton 40
Glass 350
PET etc (high - could not catch figures but polyethylene was next best after carton)
I assume that this says glass is not good even if broken and recycled but I asume that reused milk bottles from milkman are OK).
But Milk (CO2 equiv per litre):
700 g Methane
600g Other GHG's
-----
1300 Total
Questions after, covered amongst other things:
1. Cooking method can affect (e.g. stir fry better than roasting)
2. As we get wealthier we use more carbon - is growth policy compatible with saving the world? She does not know how we will break the growth/carbon link. If things become cheaper (in carbon terms) e.g. low energy light bulbs then we tend to leave them on longer
In summary, as this data gets published it gives useful way to make informed decisions at personal and government policy levels since lifecycle approach is the only way to look at true climate warming cost of what we consume.
She stressed the need to look at the full lifecycle carbon footprint of products and production processes if we are to make informed decisions on what we consume - "what can be measured can be managed". It was very informative. Starting with an global view on Green House Gas emissions she then drilled right down to the product level. Here are the highlights:
Lifecycle approach takes into account indirectactivities not just those directly involved in production - therefore include materials and energy used plus emissions and waste e.g. for:
Fuels this inolves Extract and Refine --> convert to power (the direct bit) --> Distribute --> Use --> Waste so which energy source ismost sustainable on this measure in CO2 equiv g/kWh?
Coal 680; gas 440; nuclear negligible (agreed that this ignores other factors like radioactivity) she also looked atrenwabkesoruces and PV solar was the 3rd worst after coal and gas - due to pollution from making chips.
Transport (CO2 eq g/person/km:
Plane (longhaul) 115
Plane shiorthaul (e.g. in Europe) 325
Rail (Long dist) 10
Rail (regional 20)
Bus (120)
Car (180)
So don't use plane within Europe
Biofuels (CO2 eq g/MJ)
Petrol 95
Bioethanol (wheat) 78
Bioethanol (sugar beet) 50
Bioethanol (corn) 125
Bioethanol (Rape/canola) 76
Bioethanol (soy) 60
So don't use ethanol from corn/maize and youneed 100% of any bioethanol (not just 10% added) l to make a significant difference from petrol
Food
Xmas/Thanksgiving dinner for 8 people produces 20kg CO2 equiv; the turkey is 13kg of this - be as veggie as you can
Meat v Veg
Potatoes 0.2
Tomatoes (UK) 9.3
Pork 5.4
Chicken 4.1
Beef 14
Lamb 14.3
Turkey 5.1
Tomatoes - grown in:
UK 9.3 (we grow in heated green houses)
Netherlands 3.5
Spain 0.2
So eat from where grown naturally even if transported long distance by road
Also eat seasonal foods that don't require heated environments/refrigeration)
Packaging for a typical soft drink
Aluminium 390
Carton 40
Glass 350
PET etc (high - could not catch figures but polyethylene was next best after carton)
I assume that this says glass is not good even if broken and recycled but I asume that reused milk bottles from milkman are OK).
But Milk (CO2 equiv per litre):
700 g Methane
600g Other GHG's
-----
1300 Total
Questions after, covered amongst other things:
1. Cooking method can affect (e.g. stir fry better than roasting)
2. As we get wealthier we use more carbon - is growth policy compatible with saving the world? She does not know how we will break the growth/carbon link. If things become cheaper (in carbon terms) e.g. low energy light bulbs then we tend to leave them on longer
In summary, as this data gets published it gives useful way to make informed decisions at personal and government policy levels since lifecycle approach is the only way to look at true climate warming cost of what we consume.
Wednesday 12 March 2008
The reason why
OK, here goes, start blogging...
I saw a presentation by Dr Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Institute on Climate Change in Oct 2007 here in Cambridge. He started by asking the audience not to blame the messenger which did not bode well. Sure enough his news was scary in that talk of making cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 was misleading. We should view the atmosphere like a bank account in which we can withdraw so much carbon absorption capacity until it is all used up. Once it's used it's gone, as emitted carbon stays around for hundreds of years. So waiting until 2049 and then turning off the lights to meet out reduction target will not work. We need to start now and only have ten years to start to make drastic cuts to bring down our emissions to 90% of our current rate by 2035. If we don't then we face disastrous climate change.
That got me interested. So I began to seek to learn more and find organisations intent on making a difference. Cambridge is a great place for doing this as there are so many talks by academics at the forefront of this issue and people who want to do something. I have learned a lot over the past 6 months but have only just started. I hope to share my thoughts and gain from others as this blog develops.
But the aim is not to spread doom and gloom. It is to become more aware and learn how to cope and adapt. See you soon, I hope
I saw a presentation by Dr Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Institute on Climate Change in Oct 2007 here in Cambridge. He started by asking the audience not to blame the messenger which did not bode well. Sure enough his news was scary in that talk of making cuts in carbon emissions by 2050 was misleading. We should view the atmosphere like a bank account in which we can withdraw so much carbon absorption capacity until it is all used up. Once it's used it's gone, as emitted carbon stays around for hundreds of years. So waiting until 2049 and then turning off the lights to meet out reduction target will not work. We need to start now and only have ten years to start to make drastic cuts to bring down our emissions to 90% of our current rate by 2035. If we don't then we face disastrous climate change.
That got me interested. So I began to seek to learn more and find organisations intent on making a difference. Cambridge is a great place for doing this as there are so many talks by academics at the forefront of this issue and people who want to do something. I have learned a lot over the past 6 months but have only just started. I hope to share my thoughts and gain from others as this blog develops.
But the aim is not to spread doom and gloom. It is to become more aware and learn how to cope and adapt. See you soon, I hope
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
