Vehicle Emissions Scandal: Is It Happening In The EU too?

Hard on the heels of news that Volkswagen have been rigging U.S. emissions tests on it's diesels, there is now growing evidence that various manufacturers are doing similar things with E.U. tests. See here for the details.

The VW Emissions Scandal: No Surprise

Yesterday the news broke that Volkwagen have been rigging it's U.S. emissions tests. Basically VW diesel vehicles have been setup to detect when they're being tested and then ensure the tests see considerably less emissions than there actually are. In effect, the car appears cleaner than it actually is (See here for more).

This will cost VW billions in fines and lawsuits in America alone, not to mention ruin it's reputation. And this is only the beginning: Europe, South Korea and Australia are just the first to start investigations of their own.

What were VW thinking? Surely they knew this could happen?

But are they the only car company doing this? I suspect not. As I reported at the end of this post way back in early 2013, many car manufacturers were/are suspected of rigging EU tests anyway by tailoring their test vehicles to give the very best result.

So, no, the VW scandal doesn't surprise me. The big surprise is that it took this long for a manufacturer to be exposed.

Six months to go...

The build up to the Paris Climate Conference in December continues:

• 'Green' groups are trying to wind up the pressure on politicians with mass marches/demos/events (There's one in London on June 17th). 
• Major corporations whose businesses depend on the outcome of the conference - one way or the other - are lobbying governments. 
• Nations around the world are making announcements about the emissions cuts they're planning.
• G7 leaders are issuing promising joint statements about climate change.
• And scientists continue to roll out papers and studies that underline the need for action on climate change.

I get the sense that, finally, something significant will happen by the end of this year. Politicians seem to get it - That the decision they make, or don't make, this time round, will determine the future of mankind on this planet. We cannot afford another Copenhagen, we have to act now or any action we do take will be too late.

Why? Because the science tells us that's the case. If the politicians accept that climate change needs to be dealt with, then they've also got to accept the timescales that need to be followed: Carbon emissions must peak around 2020 and fall rapidly after that if we are to have a chance of keeping climate change below 2 degrees C (Any higher would be disastrous).

I am cautiously optimistic that they'll get it right in Paris. And what with the news that China's emissions may peak as early as 2025 now, there is at least some hope that carbon can be cut fast enough to give future generations a chance.

After A Climate Deal: Part 1 - Will It Hold Together?

This is the first part of what I hope will be mini-series speculating about what might happen after a global climate deal in Paris come December 2015.

The series is, of course, based on the rather big assumption that there will be a deal. This is by no means certain.

First off, there are a number of countries taking part in the negotiations who want to limit it or scupper it altogether. Middle East nations, Russia, Canada, and Australia to name a few.

Then there are the major differences of opinion between developed and developing countries over issues like who cuts emissions most, and how much rich nations will pay the poorer ones for adapting to climate change (Reparations by any other name). It's possible that the developing nations will veto any deal they see as unfair or doesn't help them out enough.

But.....assuming they do get through all that AND there's a strong deal at the end of it, will it actually hold together?

As I see it, there are a number of challenges to overcome:

• The final deal is unlikely to be legally binding. So what's to stop countries not bothering, or not doing enough? Only national pride (i.e. Honouring an agreement) and that's only good until the party in opposition when the government signed the agreement, get into power e.g. Look at the Kyoto agreement: Bill Clinton's signature had barely dried before his successor, George W. Bush, tore it up. Even if the agreement were legally binding, Canada have shown how much that's worth. They dropped out of Kyoto in the nick of time to avoid heavy fines because their emissions were actually increasing.
• The U.S. Republican party are almost certain to tear down anything and everything that has even the faintest whiff of 'green' about it the next time they get in power. That includes any Climate Deal, the Environmental Protection Agency (Obama's only tool for making cuts at the moment), and the Clean Power Plan. They are idealogically opposed to emissions cuts regardless of any economic, environmental, or social benefits. If the Republicans do back out of the agreement, then it is likely the whole deal will unravel.
• What happens the next time a worldwide recession happens? Will countries axe funding for emissions cuts? Seems likely doesn't it?

Notice the common link in all those challenges? Politicans. Signed deals, like promises, mean nothing to them.

So, what I'm hoping for is that a strong climate deal inspires so many millions of ordinary people around the World, that the politicians don't dare renege on it. After all, the deal will be nothing less than a rallying call for everybody on the planet, not just governments, to unite against the common threat of climate change.

We can all be part of the solution.

Are We Closer To A Climate Deal?

The whole point of the People's Climate March was to convince world leader's that people what the politicians to meet the challenge of climate change head on.

300,000 marched through the streets of New York last Sunday in anticipation of the special meeting of leaders called by U.N. secretary general Ban Ki Moon for 2 days later.

President Obama even gave mention to the march in his speech at that meeting.

Ban Ki's intention was to add some momentum to the climate decision making process in the lead up to next year's meeting in Paris where we should get a final, international climate deal.

And it does appear that the U.S. and China finally seem to be getting the message: There is no negotiating with climate.

Both of them showed a new sense of realism and urgency. They appear to finally get the fact that it's getting late, and our generation holds the fate of all future generations in it's hands.

Unfortunately, it's a bit early to celebrate yet.

Firstly, a credible climate deal has yet to be agreed, and there are many sticking points to be worked through.

Secondly, politicians are famous for making promises they don't keep.

Thirdly, whatever Obama puts in place in his own country, can be overturned the next time a Republican gets into the Whitehouse: Because, as far as they're concerned, political dogma trumps anything else.

The only hope we have of a strong deal that get's carried out is if the people make it loud and clear that the politians have no choice but to listen to us for a change.

So, yeah, this week's been a promising one, but we need to keep the pressure up.

The People's Climate Marches have to get bigger and much louder. Our kids are depending on us.

Joining The People's Climate March In London

Well, we were there yesterday, how about you?

It was quite a day really. Huge numbers were there (I later found out it was 40,000). Emma Thompson (the actress) joined us (Er, the march, not my family). And with loads of people in animal-based carnival costumes, and a number of bands walking with us, there was often a carnival-like atmosphere to the march.

I'm sure the cynics would say the march was made up of hippies, tree-huggers, conspiracy theorists, and nut-jobs, but I didn't get that impression at all. There were a great many ordinary, concerned citizens like us, citizens who just want governments to stop talking and start acting on climate change.

Are Electric Cars The Future? Part 2

The Tesla Roadster (EV)

Electric vehicles (EVs) have been a regular subject in this blog. Mainly because they represent a technology that could help us head off the worst of climate change.

The trouble is, like all new technology, it has a number of issues it's got to overcome before it can reach it's true potential.

Around 2 years ago I looked at those issues in this post, and concluded that, with time they'd be sorted out.

The main problems back then were:

• The cost of buying an EV e.g. Some £22000 for a Nissan Leaf (after government subsidy of £5k).
• Limited range on a full charge (80 - 90 miles. Less in the Winter).
• Re-charging took several hours (up to 13).
• Very few charging points available.
• The perception that batteries have a short life and are very expensive to replace (Up to £7000).

 All pretty serious obstacles to EVs taking over from standard cars.

So, has anything changed since I wrote that post? Actually, yes.

For a start, as predicted, prices haven fallen (e.g. £16490 for a Leaf). If that's still too rich for you, then consider this: Comparing EV to petrol for 10k miles p.a. you save £3k per year.

This is because a) Electricity is cheaper than petrol and not subject to fuel tax; b) EVs are more efficient than their petrol equivalents; c) Servicing and maintenance is minimal as there are fewer moving parts in an electric motor (the only part which will require maintenance is the batteries); d) EVs are exempt from road tax (Source: Here)

Here in the UK, superfast charge points are being rolled out at many motorway service stations. They can charge batteries to 80% in 20 to 30 minutes (See here for more) - About the time it takes to have a coffee and visit the loo.

The gathering pace of the charge point rollout is mirrored in many countries in Europe. More about charging here.

The technology behind EVs and their various components is improving day by day. And it should receive a considerable boost from the introduction of a Formula E racing season (the EV equivalent of Formula 1). The inaugural 10 race season started this month in Beijing and is driven through the streets of major cities around the world like London, Berlin, Buenos Aires, and Miami. With major manufacturers and big money involved, there should be plenty of innovation coming to ordinary EVs in the new future.

Climate March: Time To Make A Difference

On Sunday the 21st of September 2014, we get the chance to show our leaders that we want them to take decisive action on climate change: The biggest climate march ever will be taking place across the globe.

This will be just 2 days before world leaders get together for a major UN climate summit in New York. Let's make sure they get the message that we them to do more than just talk.

Want to join the march? This link will help you find the nearest march to you.

Make a difference. Do it for your children.

Vacuum cleaners: Is Less Power A Bad Thing?

The EU have brought in a new rule that bans vacuum cleaners with wattages over 900W. It's part of a plan to improve energy efficiency in domestic appliances, and it won't stop at vacuums.

Will it work?

Well, the EU argues that more watts does not mean more cleaning power. The manufacturers would like you to believe that, which is why some of them regularly bump up their products' wattage, but it's not necessarily true.

What's actually important with vacuums is that they are efficient e.g. Getting the most suction per watt as possible. That's a design thing, and it's perfectly possible.

Naturally the manufacturers are up in arms about it, mainly because most of their ranges are now banned and they will have to re-design. The cost of that will either hit their profits or push up prices (Bet I can guess which...).

However, in the long run, lower wattage appliances mean better energy efficiency, cheaper electric bills for us, and lower carbon emissions. Do that all across Europe, for all appropriate appliances (e.g. Kettles wouldn't be), and the EU have made a big dent in their carbon cutting targets.

Fighting Climate Change: Will Meat Be Off The Menu?

Carbon emissions from global agriculture is comparable to those generated by all the world's transport put together. Each of them making up around 15% of total emissions.

The rearing of livestock makes up around half the carbon from agriculture. A phenomenal amount.

With an increasing world population, and a growing proportion able to afford meat, these emissions can only go up, making a huge contribution to climate change.

Additional environmental impacts arise from all the forests that are being cleared to provide land and feed for the expanding livestock population.

All this is environmentally and economically unsustainable.

So what can be done? Will we all have to become vegetarian?

Not really, say scientists: We need to eat less red meat, especially beef, because it takes a lot more land to feed a cow (e.g. 28 times more than chicken) kilo for kilo; eat less meat (how about having a meat free day or having fish instead?); and stop wasting food (not just us consumers but all the along the supply chain).

If we all did this, we'd not only be helping the environment, we'd be saving money, and eating healthier. It's a win-win-win.