Last week (4th March 2020), the European Union gave details of a proposed new law which is aimed at reducing the EU's carbon emissions.
The European Green Deal will: Provide 100 billion Euros to help fossil fuel dependant countries transition to renewables; Aim to reduce EU emissions by 50% by 2030, and be carbon neutral by 2050; Make the EU economy more 'circular' by increasing the amount of products that are recycled.
All useful proposals, but climate activist Greta Thunberg immediately angrily dismissed it. She said it was 'empty words' and that the EU was just 'pretending' to be leaders in fighting climate change. She said the Green Deal didn't go far enough and they were effectively giving up on the 2015 Paris agreement. She argued that you can't make deals with physics and this law would give us less than a 50% chance to limit warming to 1.5C, "Distant targets mean nothing if the current high emissions continue for even a few more years". See here for details.
So, is Greta right?
Before I answer that, let's have a recap on the physics of climate change: We've known for well over a century now that certain gases are 'Greenhouse gases' i.e. That they effectively trap heat. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an example that gets all the press, but there are number of others like methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.
The reason why so much attention is given to CO2 is because it's by far the main culprit for climate change, and we are pumping tens of billions of tonnes of it into atmosphere every year. Far more than the natural environment can absorb.
Just as worrying is the fact that, once emitted, CO2 lasts in the atmosphere for between 20 to 200 years. In other words, a high proportion of the emissions you generate during your lifetime, will around for your children and grand-children to enjoy.
That's a VERY important point: What we emit today will, for all intents and purposes, stay in the atmosphere. Therefore the problem continues to build, year-by-year.
So, there will come a point when we've pumped out so much CO2 that the agreed goal of keeping warming down to 1.5C will be out of the question. And, considering the extremes of weather we're already experiencing at 'just' 1 degree of warming, missing 1.5C would be a serious mistake.
Scientists have actually worked out how many billions of tonnes of CO2 would actually take us to the point where we miss that target. They call it a carbon budget. At current emission rates, we'll have broken that budget by around 2028. And, even if we do stay within it, there is only a 66% chance that we'll stay below 1.5C.
That's why Greta and those Climate Extinctionists, are kicking up a fuss: They know that, if we are to stay within budget, we have to take drastic action now. Setting far-off targets in 2050 and then doing what amounts to very little in the short to medium term just won't work.
Greta was right, the EU have got it wrong. They need to listen to the scientific advice, and seriously increase their ambition, otherwise we'll overshoot 1.5C by some way.
Wednesday, 11 March 2020
Thursday, 5 March 2020
A Carbon Neutral World: What Can We Do?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that all the world's governments actually get round to doing the right thing, and finally start acting like there's a climate emergency, and fast. Bringing in all sorts of high impact measures that would rapidly reduce the world's carbon emissions (See my previous 'A Carbon Neutral World' posts for how that might be done).
That would be a game changer but it still wouldn't be enough. Why? Because ordinary citizens like you and I need to change our ways too.
We need to look at every aspect of our lives and ask how we can reduce our carbon footprints and make changes accordingly. This is often portrayed by climate sceptics as going back to medieval times but that's ridiculous.
In fact, reducing our footprints needn't have much impact on our lifestyles, other than save us money, make us fitter and healthier, and less materialistic. Here's how:
Food
Eating less red meat (e.g. Beef and lamb) and replacing it with pork, chicken, fish and vegetables, would be cheaper, reduce your cancer risk, and cut your carbon footprint.
Beef and lamb are expensive meats, pork and chicken are noticeably cheaper. Fish might sometimes be on a par with red meat cost-wise, but it's good for you.
Vegetarians and vegans have far smaller footprints than people who eat red meat regularly, but even if you just have the occasional red meat meal and eat veggie one day a week, you've made a significant cut in your food's footprint.
Also, try reducing the amount of food you throw out. Not only is binning food a waste of money, but it adds to your carbon emissions. So plan your meals, and don't buy in more than you're family's likely to eat.
Transport
Many of us depend on a car. Unless you're in a city or town with good public transport, chances are the car is a necessity. However, not all car journey's are necessary. Get used to asking yourself if you really need to do that journey. Can you make a phone call instead? Can you get a lift off someone else? Can you walk or cycle there instead? Can a bus or train get you there? Are you just going off to buy something you don't really need or could have bought online? Can you combine several trips to the same place into one visit?
If you take this approach, you avoid wasting fuel and wear and tear on your car, and end up fitter.
If you live in a well connected city, then you're a mug to use your car, because public transport is often cheap, gets you around just as quickly, and reduces the stress of driving on busy streets. Many city dwellers actually get by without a car. It's not as convenient and you need to plan your timings and routes but it's workable. And they've saved themselves the cost of a car and it's running costs.
If you have to have a car, make it an economical one. They're cheaper to buy and run, and have lower emissions because they do more miles to the litre. If you can, get a hybrid or electric car.
Flights: Try to reduce the number you have. Just because you can afford to have several a year doesn't mean to say you should. Stay-cations can be good, getting there by train can be fun. Cutting down on the number of flights saves you money, and makes each flight more special.
UPDATE: The UK govt. issued a document last month (March 2020) that appears to be saying they'll be taking the cutting of emissions from all transport (including aviation) a lot more seriously. They actually said that want taking public transport to be the natural first choice for people. Environmentalist have described the language it uses as "Gob-smacking". Having read the 80-page document myself, it makes it clear current and planned changes aren't good enough and will be consulting widely to make dramatic cuts in emissions sooner rather than later. Let's hope this is not all political BS and they're actually sincere. You can find the doc here.
Energy Usage
It's surprisingly cheap to add basic insulation to your home. It's helps you stay warmer, and can give you significant savings on your energy bills.
There are a whole bunch of other well known ways you can reduce your energy bills and carbon emissions (Check out the rest of my blog for ideas).
Another one I'd recommend is to always replace your appliances with A-rated ones when the old ones stop working (unless you can get them repaired). A-rated white goods can save you a packet over their lifetime.
Also, when your old gas boiler dies, get a condenser boiler. These can be substantially cheaper to run.
Buy Less Stuff
Materialism is the new religion of our age. Many of us feel the need to fill up our empty lives with stuff we don't need because the adverts tell us to.
We have to have the latest clothes, replace our expensive phones on a regular basis, buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, and impulse buy 'fluff' we don't actually need, on a regular basis, just to make us feel good about ourselves for 5 minutes.
It's this rampant consumerism that threatens to kill our planet one way or another.
We need to stop buying stuff we don't need, and replacing stuff that doesn't need replacing.
We need to stop being slaves to fashion. Throwing out perfectly serviceable items simply because they've been labelled as 'last season'.
When something breaks down, we should try to get it repaired first. If we can't fix it, then get it recycled. If it broke down too soon, then buy a replacement from another, more reliable manufacturer.
Don't buy 'sealed' devices which can't be repaired, or can only be repaired at great cost. Buy from manufacturers that have reliable and easily repaired products.
Look for 'modular' devices which you can upgrade without throwing out the whole device.
Re-use, repair, reduce (the amount you buy), and recycle.
UPDATE: Looks like the EU are of a like mind to me. They want all products sold in the EU in future to allow easy repair. Basically they want to put an end to our throwaway society. Read more here.
That would be a game changer but it still wouldn't be enough. Why? Because ordinary citizens like you and I need to change our ways too.
We need to look at every aspect of our lives and ask how we can reduce our carbon footprints and make changes accordingly. This is often portrayed by climate sceptics as going back to medieval times but that's ridiculous.
In fact, reducing our footprints needn't have much impact on our lifestyles, other than save us money, make us fitter and healthier, and less materialistic. Here's how:
Food
Eating less red meat (e.g. Beef and lamb) and replacing it with pork, chicken, fish and vegetables, would be cheaper, reduce your cancer risk, and cut your carbon footprint.
Beef and lamb are expensive meats, pork and chicken are noticeably cheaper. Fish might sometimes be on a par with red meat cost-wise, but it's good for you.
Vegetarians and vegans have far smaller footprints than people who eat red meat regularly, but even if you just have the occasional red meat meal and eat veggie one day a week, you've made a significant cut in your food's footprint.
Also, try reducing the amount of food you throw out. Not only is binning food a waste of money, but it adds to your carbon emissions. So plan your meals, and don't buy in more than you're family's likely to eat.
Transport
Many of us depend on a car. Unless you're in a city or town with good public transport, chances are the car is a necessity. However, not all car journey's are necessary. Get used to asking yourself if you really need to do that journey. Can you make a phone call instead? Can you get a lift off someone else? Can you walk or cycle there instead? Can a bus or train get you there? Are you just going off to buy something you don't really need or could have bought online? Can you combine several trips to the same place into one visit?
If you take this approach, you avoid wasting fuel and wear and tear on your car, and end up fitter.
If you live in a well connected city, then you're a mug to use your car, because public transport is often cheap, gets you around just as quickly, and reduces the stress of driving on busy streets. Many city dwellers actually get by without a car. It's not as convenient and you need to plan your timings and routes but it's workable. And they've saved themselves the cost of a car and it's running costs.
If you have to have a car, make it an economical one. They're cheaper to buy and run, and have lower emissions because they do more miles to the litre. If you can, get a hybrid or electric car.
Flights: Try to reduce the number you have. Just because you can afford to have several a year doesn't mean to say you should. Stay-cations can be good, getting there by train can be fun. Cutting down on the number of flights saves you money, and makes each flight more special.
UPDATE: The UK govt. issued a document last month (March 2020) that appears to be saying they'll be taking the cutting of emissions from all transport (including aviation) a lot more seriously. They actually said that want taking public transport to be the natural first choice for people. Environmentalist have described the language it uses as "Gob-smacking". Having read the 80-page document myself, it makes it clear current and planned changes aren't good enough and will be consulting widely to make dramatic cuts in emissions sooner rather than later. Let's hope this is not all political BS and they're actually sincere. You can find the doc here.
Energy Usage
It's surprisingly cheap to add basic insulation to your home. It's helps you stay warmer, and can give you significant savings on your energy bills.
There are a whole bunch of other well known ways you can reduce your energy bills and carbon emissions (Check out the rest of my blog for ideas).
Another one I'd recommend is to always replace your appliances with A-rated ones when the old ones stop working (unless you can get them repaired). A-rated white goods can save you a packet over their lifetime.
Also, when your old gas boiler dies, get a condenser boiler. These can be substantially cheaper to run.
Buy Less Stuff
Materialism is the new religion of our age. Many of us feel the need to fill up our empty lives with stuff we don't need because the adverts tell us to.
We have to have the latest clothes, replace our expensive phones on a regular basis, buy a new car every 2 or 3 years, and impulse buy 'fluff' we don't actually need, on a regular basis, just to make us feel good about ourselves for 5 minutes.
It's this rampant consumerism that threatens to kill our planet one way or another.
We need to stop buying stuff we don't need, and replacing stuff that doesn't need replacing.
We need to stop being slaves to fashion. Throwing out perfectly serviceable items simply because they've been labelled as 'last season'.
When something breaks down, we should try to get it repaired first. If we can't fix it, then get it recycled. If it broke down too soon, then buy a replacement from another, more reliable manufacturer.
Don't buy 'sealed' devices which can't be repaired, or can only be repaired at great cost. Buy from manufacturers that have reliable and easily repaired products.
Look for 'modular' devices which you can upgrade without throwing out the whole device.
Re-use, repair, reduce (the amount you buy), and recycle.
UPDATE: Looks like the EU are of a like mind to me. They want all products sold in the EU in future to allow easy repair. Basically they want to put an end to our throwaway society. Read more here.
Tuesday, 4 February 2020
A Carbon Neutral World: Farming & Agriculture
For the vast majority of people, there is very little understanding of farming. Most of us live in towns and cities, far removed (in all senses) from the realities of this essential part of the economy. We have little grasp of what it means to be a farmer.
We moan about the use of pesticides, the 'overuse' of fertilisers, the destruction of hedgerows, the cutting down of forests, battery farming, the creation of 'dust bowls', livestock being given too many anti-biotics and so on.
But, ultimately this is all our fault. There are over 7 billion people in this world and our demands, especially for meat and palm oil products, are driving the farming and agriculture industry to look for ways to meet that ever-increasing demand.
After all, they are just business people wanting to make a profit. If they didn't, they'd get out of this unpredictable industry (as we're discovering in Britain at the moment, with increasing numbers of farmers selling up despite subsidies).
So, when we talk about de-carbonising the farming industry, we have to keep in mind the above, and the fact that many farms are just one or two bad seasons away from giving up.
The range of agricultural activities across the world is wide, to say the least. From subsistence farming in developing countries to factory farming of animals on an unbelievable scale in the U.S. So there is no one-size-fits-all solution to decarbonising farming.
However, the UK can be used as an example of what sort of things need to be considered:
Agriculture creates about 10% of Britain's carbon emissions through carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
CO2 is generated by farm machinery and when lime is added to acidic soil to improve it.
Methane is produced by ruminant animals like cattle from both ends, and is by far the biggest contributor to farming's carbon footprint (56%).
Nitrous oxide is produced when synthetic fertilisers are broken down in the soil, and also by the breakdown of manure.
The best way to reducing emissions is to prevent animals from producing so much methane. This could be achieved by keeping them indoors, where you can control what they eat, and deal more efficiently with what they 'output'. This sort of "intensive farming" already exists in form of battery or factory farming, although the purpose so far is more about efficiency and profit than methane control. But it could be adapted.
However, it's becoming increasingly unpopular with the public, who prefer animals to have access to fields.
You might also increase the amount of meat per unit of emission by using things like growth hormones. But this is banned.
It would be more acceptable if cattle could be breed to be less 'gassy' or come up with a food supplement that means they produce less methane. The former is unlikely to happen quickly but the latter shows promise. There are already tests to find out if various supplements such as seaweed will work. Early signs are promising.
Ultimately though, eating less meat, particularly beef and lamb, will cut the methane emissions dramatically, simply by cutting the number of farm animals.
Nitrous oxide can be reduced by farmers having a better understanding of the amount of fertiliser their soil actually needs through technology. For example, they can use sensors on drones to see the fertility of their land in fine detail. The data can then be feed into the vehicles they use to spread fertiliser, so that they apply the amount that's needed.
There is also interest in so-called no-till agriculture, where the ground isn't ploughed when planting seed. It appears that this actually increases the fertility of the soil because you're not compacting it. This locks in carbon and lets nature improve the soil naturally.
Food waste, from every step in the chain, from field to table, is also a sizeable contributor, as rotting food gives off methane. With better planning and better use of what would otherwise go to landfill, this could be cut substantially.
British farmers face considerable pressure from the weather, supermarkets, ever changing legislation, and consumer demands, but there also appears to be good news. There are promises of payments to look after the environment, there are financial incentives to generate energy by using manure for bio-gas, and there is increasing demand for sustainable forestry to supply wood-fired power stations.
On a worldwide basis, eating less red meat, stopping forests being cut down for farmland, reforesting, dramatically reducing food waste, using fertilisers effectively, and more efficient farming practices (getting more crop from the same area of land) will all prove essential in reaching net zero.
Far too much land is used simply to produce feed for livestock.
Next: What can you and I do?
We moan about the use of pesticides, the 'overuse' of fertilisers, the destruction of hedgerows, the cutting down of forests, battery farming, the creation of 'dust bowls', livestock being given too many anti-biotics and so on.
But, ultimately this is all our fault. There are over 7 billion people in this world and our demands, especially for meat and palm oil products, are driving the farming and agriculture industry to look for ways to meet that ever-increasing demand.
After all, they are just business people wanting to make a profit. If they didn't, they'd get out of this unpredictable industry (as we're discovering in Britain at the moment, with increasing numbers of farmers selling up despite subsidies).
So, when we talk about de-carbonising the farming industry, we have to keep in mind the above, and the fact that many farms are just one or two bad seasons away from giving up.
The range of agricultural activities across the world is wide, to say the least. From subsistence farming in developing countries to factory farming of animals on an unbelievable scale in the U.S. So there is no one-size-fits-all solution to decarbonising farming.
However, the UK can be used as an example of what sort of things need to be considered:
Agriculture creates about 10% of Britain's carbon emissions through carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
CO2 is generated by farm machinery and when lime is added to acidic soil to improve it.
Methane is produced by ruminant animals like cattle from both ends, and is by far the biggest contributor to farming's carbon footprint (56%).
Nitrous oxide is produced when synthetic fertilisers are broken down in the soil, and also by the breakdown of manure.
The best way to reducing emissions is to prevent animals from producing so much methane. This could be achieved by keeping them indoors, where you can control what they eat, and deal more efficiently with what they 'output'. This sort of "intensive farming" already exists in form of battery or factory farming, although the purpose so far is more about efficiency and profit than methane control. But it could be adapted.
However, it's becoming increasingly unpopular with the public, who prefer animals to have access to fields.
You might also increase the amount of meat per unit of emission by using things like growth hormones. But this is banned.
It would be more acceptable if cattle could be breed to be less 'gassy' or come up with a food supplement that means they produce less methane. The former is unlikely to happen quickly but the latter shows promise. There are already tests to find out if various supplements such as seaweed will work. Early signs are promising.
Ultimately though, eating less meat, particularly beef and lamb, will cut the methane emissions dramatically, simply by cutting the number of farm animals.
Nitrous oxide can be reduced by farmers having a better understanding of the amount of fertiliser their soil actually needs through technology. For example, they can use sensors on drones to see the fertility of their land in fine detail. The data can then be feed into the vehicles they use to spread fertiliser, so that they apply the amount that's needed.
There is also interest in so-called no-till agriculture, where the ground isn't ploughed when planting seed. It appears that this actually increases the fertility of the soil because you're not compacting it. This locks in carbon and lets nature improve the soil naturally.
Food waste, from every step in the chain, from field to table, is also a sizeable contributor, as rotting food gives off methane. With better planning and better use of what would otherwise go to landfill, this could be cut substantially.
British farmers face considerable pressure from the weather, supermarkets, ever changing legislation, and consumer demands, but there also appears to be good news. There are promises of payments to look after the environment, there are financial incentives to generate energy by using manure for bio-gas, and there is increasing demand for sustainable forestry to supply wood-fired power stations.
On a worldwide basis, eating less red meat, stopping forests being cut down for farmland, reforesting, dramatically reducing food waste, using fertilisers effectively, and more efficient farming practices (getting more crop from the same area of land) will all prove essential in reaching net zero.
Far too much land is used simply to produce feed for livestock.
Next: What can you and I do?
Monday, 3 February 2020
UK Citizen's Assembly
If, like me, you're frustrated at the lack of progress on tackling climate change, you're probably wondering why the politicians aren't getting on with it.
There could be any number of reasons for their inaction including: lack of understanding of the urgency of the problem; they're in league with the fossil fuel industry; they're too busy running the country to give it enough time; and they're afraid of the political consequences of actually treating it seriously.
My belief is that it's a mix of the above, with their relative importance varying from country to country. Ultimately though, I'm convinced that when governments actually get down to working out what policies would be needed to achieve their stated goals (e.g. Net zero by 2050), they fear how their voting public will react. And the more the politicians procrastinate, the more 'extreme' will be the measures they will have to take and, in theory, the more extreme the push-back the voters could give them.
This dilemma is further increased by the fact that there are any number of ways of achieving net-zero but some policies may be less likely to annoy the voters than others.
But which ones? Politicians have shown themselves to be remarkably out of touch with the people they supposedly represent. They are also very risk averse.
So it's very interesting that the UK now has a 'Citizen's Assembly' to sort out what Britain should be doing to reach it's carbon emission targets.
The Citizen's Assembly has been commissioned by no less than six parliamentary committees (Committees set up by the government to study and give advice on particular areas of interest). In this case, they have borrowed an idea suggested by Extinction Rebellion.
The Citizen's Assembly consists of 110 ordinary citizens carefully selected (using questionnaires) to be representative of the mix of views on climate change held by the UK's population (From "There is no crisis" to "There definitely is a crisis"). The idea is that, over a number of weekends, the Assembly will see a number of guest speakers, have the science explained to them by experts, be presented with the full range of potential ways of reaching Net Zero by 2050 (The UK's current target that's been written into law), and vote on which ways they would like to be put in place by the government.
The idea is that, given the assembly is representative of the population as a whole, any decision arrived at by them can be confidently taken up by government as a roadmap, with a greatly reduced risk of political fall-out.
If the assembly is truly representative (i.e. Not statistically biased in some way), and if they receive the best possible advice, and if the recommendations look workable, and if the government takes the recommendations, then we could be looking at history here.
The Citizen's Assembly has only met once at the time of writing, so there are a few weekends to go, but I look forward the final recommendations.
More here.
There could be any number of reasons for their inaction including: lack of understanding of the urgency of the problem; they're in league with the fossil fuel industry; they're too busy running the country to give it enough time; and they're afraid of the political consequences of actually treating it seriously.
My belief is that it's a mix of the above, with their relative importance varying from country to country. Ultimately though, I'm convinced that when governments actually get down to working out what policies would be needed to achieve their stated goals (e.g. Net zero by 2050), they fear how their voting public will react. And the more the politicians procrastinate, the more 'extreme' will be the measures they will have to take and, in theory, the more extreme the push-back the voters could give them.
This dilemma is further increased by the fact that there are any number of ways of achieving net-zero but some policies may be less likely to annoy the voters than others.
But which ones? Politicians have shown themselves to be remarkably out of touch with the people they supposedly represent. They are also very risk averse.
So it's very interesting that the UK now has a 'Citizen's Assembly' to sort out what Britain should be doing to reach it's carbon emission targets.
The Citizen's Assembly has been commissioned by no less than six parliamentary committees (Committees set up by the government to study and give advice on particular areas of interest). In this case, they have borrowed an idea suggested by Extinction Rebellion.
The Citizen's Assembly consists of 110 ordinary citizens carefully selected (using questionnaires) to be representative of the mix of views on climate change held by the UK's population (From "There is no crisis" to "There definitely is a crisis"). The idea is that, over a number of weekends, the Assembly will see a number of guest speakers, have the science explained to them by experts, be presented with the full range of potential ways of reaching Net Zero by 2050 (The UK's current target that's been written into law), and vote on which ways they would like to be put in place by the government.
The idea is that, given the assembly is representative of the population as a whole, any decision arrived at by them can be confidently taken up by government as a roadmap, with a greatly reduced risk of political fall-out.
If the assembly is truly representative (i.e. Not statistically biased in some way), and if they receive the best possible advice, and if the recommendations look workable, and if the government takes the recommendations, then we could be looking at history here.
The Citizen's Assembly has only met once at the time of writing, so there are a few weekends to go, but I look forward the final recommendations.
More here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)