Tag Archives: global warming

climate, conservation, environment, Politics

Kids Leave Dirty Footprints

Leave a comment

Want to reduce your emissions? Forget about the gas guzzler, holidaying at home, or buying local produce; cut your “carbon legacy” and have fewer children, says new research.

people

In recent weeks I’ve attended two public discussions dealing with the big-picture issues of sustainability and balancing development with conservation, and neither of them did much to allay my fears or educate me about the threats associated with population growth.

I may be joining the wrong events, but it seems all too easy to miss population off the formal agenda, or leave it to a brave audience member to raise the issue at question time – when it can be scooted over or dismissed with a glib reply.  A popular counter to worries over population growth in developed countries – at home as it were – is to state that growth is mainly happening in the developing world, where per capita consumption is relatively low.  For me, that seems to ignore the medium term consumption aspirations of developing countries (look at how fast China has moved) and underplays the ratio of the impact of an individual’s consumption between the developed and developing worlds.  But I suspect most of us don’t really know what to think, and lack meaningful data to work it out for ourselves.

Now that position has improved somewhat, with the publishing this month of a formal analysis of these very issues by researchers from Oregon State University.  Murtaugh’s and Schlax’s paper: ‘Reproduction and the carbon legacy of individuals‘ is published in the journal Global Environmental Change, and also  downloadable as a pdf here.  In the authors own words:

“Here we estimate the extra emissions of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children. The summed emissions of a person’s descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent.”

It’s more usual to work out an individual lifetime’s worth of carbon footprint.  But in the Oregon study, a parent is instantly given the burden of half their child’s carbon impact, and a quarter of the carbon impact from their child’s prospective child; and so forth.  When the numbers are worked through, and comparisons are made between the developed and developing world, it’s apparent that not having that extra kid is a great way to save the planet. According to the authors’ data, the impact of that decision far outweighs that of other good citizen actions – like downsizing the family car.  The figures I find most provocative are the comparisons of the impact of children born in different countries.  Take the USA and Bangladesh for example: I’d assumed just on a gut feeling that a US child’s carbon footprint would be 20 or 30 times that of a child born in Bangladesh.  The figures in the new paper, with the children’s decendents accounted for, put the ratio at 168:1 – equivalent to average carbon emissions of 56t and 9441t for the Bangladesh and US cases respectively.

The carbon reduction figures presented for the various lifestyle changes we can make, and calculated over an 80 year period, range from 17 metric tonnes CO2 saved by recycling materials, to 148 metric tonnes by increasing automobile gas mileage from 20 to 30 mpg.  Those numbers can be compared with the 9441t of emissions that could be avoided by not having an extra child.

This paper is written in the spirit of presenting data as an input for informed discussion.  The authors don’t take a moral position on human rights and population control – that’s for the politicians with the people to sort out.  And it’s not too far a stretch to make the analogy between this situation and  that which existed when the global warming debate was put on a more data-rich, objective, footing by the issuing of the Stern Report in 2006.  However the detail and assumptions in this work may be criticised, as surely they will be, it’s good to see some quantification around this complex piece of the sustainability jigsaw.

Reference:

Paul A. Murtaugh a,*, Michael G. Schlax b ‘Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals’, Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 14–20

(Originally posted at conservationtoday.org)

 

Also of Interest

Is population growth out of control (BBC September 2013)

climate, conservation, education, environment

Earth Hour – Consciousness Raised? (a bit?)

2 Comments

Well that’s the World Wildlife Fund’s ‘Earth Hour’ over and done with for another year.

earth-hour
(Artwork - Gareth)

At least that’s the cynic’s (realists?) view of this annual attempt to get the world’s lights switched off for an hour, on a rolling cycle from 8.30 – 9.30 pm, across the globe.   It’s just happened in the UK.

I’ve heard the arguments for and against what some see as a ‘stunt’.   I support it all the same.

Whatever else the organisers intended, events like this raise consciousness in those they touch – even if that excludes the worst offenders.

Against that is the view that one-off gestures make people feel good at the time, but that real benefit is lost in ‘business as usual’ during the year.  I’ve not seen any statistics, so won’t comment; maybe the WWF have done the research?

But I can’t get excited about criticism that people might actually use more power during the ‘lights out’ hour.   On balance, I hope there’s a reduction, but don’t see it as a huge deal if not.   I feel guiltier when I’m using power.

Events like Earth Hour raise consciousness; an essential ingredient in any discussion on global warming, religion, famine, conservation, or any number of contentious science-related issues.    The Earth Hour critics are right that you can’t force people to act, but you can nudge them in the right direction.   This is a preparing of the ground, warming people up gently so they don’t melt when faced with the full real cost of energy.   And rather than giving the impression that turning out lights will save the planet, Earth Hour might just spur some to follow up on the detail of the broader picture.

Next year maybe we need the ‘leave the X5 in the garage for a month stunt’, or the ‘cancel one of the two long-haul hols. stunt’?   A sustainable planet will require fundamental life-style changes –  to paraphrase Sir David King (again, sorry) at this year’s Darwin Day lecture: things won’t really sort themselves out until girls stop fancying blokes in Ferraris…… (go figure).

I did hugely exciting stuff in my dark hour.  First, I checked out the appartment building and found the lighting pattern pretty much as I remember it from any other Saturday night (no control – my not being scientific, sad, or both, enough to photograph the place over the two previous weeks).   Then to the supermarket with my re-useable plastic bag (by now I’m visibly radiating good-citizenship with my raised consciousness before me), arriving home 20 minutes early and requiring the PC be prematurely re-activated as a light source.

In that 20 minutes, I did the back-of-fag-packet calculation that a billion people (the WWF target) turning off a 100W  bulb = 100,000 MW or 200 power-stations at 500MW  or 100 at 1000MW.   My personal saving was much less than 100W, at  22W  for the 2 x 11W  fluorescent lamps we run in the lounge which, as a fraction of the power used by the 300W  TV  and 150W PC  found in most homes, supports the critics numerical case.   But if you think that’s what it’s about,  you’re missing the point.

Anyhow, off to phone my other half who’s in the USA at the mo’ – need to get those double Earth Hour Brownie Points.

conservation, environment, Politics

Back Pocket Big Picture

1 Comment

(This article originally appeared at conservationtoday.org)

Over Christmas, according to the Carbon Neutral Company’s online calculator, my wife and I were responsible for the release of 4.2 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere – our share of a 19000km round trip flight from London to Los Angeles.   With two such flights a year, that makes our individual emission 4.2 tonnes, or nearly half the UK per person annual average of  9.51 tonnes.

conserve

To reel off excuses for this travel (my better half hails from the US, and we like to see the in-laws in the flesh occasionally) is to miss the point, which is that I, and many more like me, at least now have some awareness and quantification of the impact we’re making; our consciousness has been raised.

We’re all part of the problem, each with our own circumstances,  and each needing a plan to address our impact.   My plan might involve paying the Carbon Neutral Company’s recommended carbon off-set fee of £35.70 in support of a Chinese hydro-electric project.  It won’t on this occasion, because while I support off-setting as one tool in the bag of control measures,  I’ve chosen instead to donate to projects benefiting animals already affected by the complex interplay of climate factors – which I’m about to come on to.

Starting the year with a  knowledge of your personal carbon footprint is only part of the story.  While sufficient perhaps for the average citizen to act upon and make a difference, policy makers, industry leaders, NGOs, conservationists, educators, and the plethora of other stakeholders and interest groups directly involved in climate change issues, need the bigger picture.

This is the bigger picture I’ll be working to in 2009, and it comes from the UK Government’s former Chief Scientific Advisor – Sir David King.   It’s been in my head, sparking ideas and resonating with a whole range of experience since I scribbled it on the back of a business card back in November.   I saw Sir David at an environmental media awards evening organised by PAWS, where he used the diagram to illustrate the important challenges of the 21st Century, and their inter-dependency.

Examples of specific  inter-dependencies are well represented in Conservation Today articles: from unpredictable climate induced pathogen interactions impacting biodiversity, to corporate actions influencing food production, to how health and education are changing the global population dynamic.   King’s representation is helpful in encapsulating the whole smash; its something you can carry around in your mental back pocket.   Away from specifics,  it also for me informs at least three more oblique, but no less important, themes that I’ll now expand upon:

  • The importance of  not generalising
  • The imperative for interdisciplinary and international cooperation
  • An opportunity for business and an alternative to rampant consumerism?

Don’t Generalise

I’ll illustrate how generalisations are dangerous with reference to two processes: desalination and GM crop growing.

Desalination is a process that has been criticised for its energy intensity and associated CO2 footprint.  King referred to the Australian province of Victoria’s response to seven years of drought conditions, whereby a third of its water will in future come from new desalination capacity.  Ultimately powered by Australia’s plentiful coal reserves, the plants will indirectly yield CO2, which will warm the planet, which will intensify the drought, which will demand more desalination plants.   It’s a simplified picture – but you get the point; in this case technology is a short term fix to a  grim spiral.

I’ve since though found a more positive example of ‘Green Desalination’ in the form of California’s Carlsbad Project.  Here, a 50 million gallon per day desalination plant is being built to supply up to 8% of San Diego County’s water needs, involving co-location of the plant with a new power station at the coast.   The encouraging  part is that when completed in 2011, it promises to be the first US plant to have a net zero carbon footprint.

So why can the Americans do it but not the Australians?    First off – don’t generalise – every situation is different; processes and power stations are not inherently evil.  San Diego County currently imports 90 percent of its water from a distance of more than 800km, from Sacramento Bay Delta and Colorado River, and the electricity needed to deliver and treat that water is close to what the new plant will use.   The mitigation of the remaining ‘CO2 gap’ will be achieved at the site through initiatives like green building design; on-site solar power generation; funding renewables; and acquisition of renewable energy credits.  Further carbon dioxide will be sequestrated by creation of coastal wetlands and reforestation (we know how important those are, see here) – and that will impact biodiversity.  See how our diagram is working here?

We also generalise when we impose the luxury of our western standards on to less wealthy societies.  Increased desertification and flooding in some Asian regions is combining with a healthier, more educated, and therefore at least temporarily increasing, population, to demand that rice farming become more intensive.  This means farming on land that may flood, requiring flood resistant rice strains – which are readily available as GM seeds.  In practice though, farmers wishing to export product beyond their own needs refrain from using GM rice because of the negative attitude it attracts in the west.  As a result, such farms may fail to meet even local food needs.  Given my personal stance on GM crops, that amounts to a case of  “one man’s lifestyle choice is another man’s starvation”.

The imperative for interdisciplinary and international cooperation

Inter-relating challenges demand an increased coordination of the political, infrastructure, research, and educational aspects associated with each.   Global warming is possibly the defining example of a need for innovatory thinking combined with an imperative for pan-disciplinary co-operation; not only across the sciences, but involving engineering, medicine, commercial, and policy elements.   The slow progress made at recent climate summits suggests the required international policy infrastructure just does not exist.  So where are the rays of hope?   The world has high hopes of Obama, and his promised global energy forum could be part of a more mature future; remember this:

“In addition I will create a Global Energy Forum—based on the G8+5, which includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa—comprising the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. This forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues. I will also create a Technology Transfer Program dedicated to exporting climate-friendly technologies, including green buildings, clean coal and advanced automobiles, to developing countries to help them combat climate change”

And closer to home, encouraging exemplar organisations have emerged, such as the  University College London’s Environment Institute, who are developing a pan-disciplinary approach to global warming; and King’s own organisation, the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford, which aims to help governments, companies, and individuals meet future environmental challenges in the context of the bigger picture.

An opportunity for business and an alternative to rampant consumption

I could easily have overprinted the big picture interactions diagram with a giant $ sign, given that all our challenges are inescapably embedded in an economic and political web of capitalist growth imperative, feeding on consumption and wealth generation.     Question is – has that web, via the present financial crisis and to a background of increased environmental awareness, had a wake up call in any positive sense?

I’m going to stick my neck out and take an upbeat, even optimistic, tack on how business and the capitalist monster can become our greatest assest in tackling the century’s environmental challenges.   How come?   Because I believe there will be a significant shift of attitudes in (a) business awareness of the opportunities from environment related projects (like the Carlsbad desalination scheme), (b) increased government investment in such projects, both as a way of countering recession and addressing the underlying environmental need, (c) a less predictable re-think on the part of private individuals about the role of consumption – particularly excessive consumption in the west –  on their well-being.   I’m most optimistic about (a) and (b), precisely because the required technologies and management practices are at present so underdeveloped.   I’m less sure about the form of, or optimistic about how we might achieve, the revised international infrastructure needed to moderate individual nation’s interests.

Aviation, conservation, environment, technology

General Aviation – Mostly Harmless?

Leave a comment

I wasn’t very environmentally friendly over the Christmas holidays.

A CO2 emission of 2.1 tonnes, my share of a return flight to the US, represented about a quarter of the average UK person’s total yearly emission of 9 tonnes.

c152
Mostly harmless?

I used this fact recently as a topical lead-in for another article, adding that I once flew light aircraft as a hobby (=double criminal for sure).   But that presumption stuck in my head and prompted some research into the impact those little private planes really have in the big picture of global warming.

‘General Aviation’ is the name used in its broadest sense to include all non-scheduled corporate aviation plus private and sport aviation.   Take out the corporate jets, and we’re left with the ‘Piston GA’ category of the sort covered by my license, and including familiar planes like the four seat Cessna 172.

USA emissions data fell most readily out of Google, with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) pointing to EPA data showing GA’s contribution of less than 1% of all US GHG emissions from the transport sector, and Piston GA only 0.13%.   They argue that this is small potatoes compared to other sources more worthy of the regulator’s attention (see table) .

Table from the AOAG showing 2005 EPA data
Table from the AOPA showing 2005 EPA data

So that’s 2.4 million tonnes of CO2 from relatively small piston engined aircraft (a Tg or tera gram is one million metric tons, or tonnes) .   FAA data on the number of private licenses suggests this emission is associated with 200,000, of the 600,000 or so total pilots in the US.

In the UK, there are far fewer private pilots overall (around 35,000 license holders), and Piston GA in particular has a much smaller role in the economy.

We can estimate C02 from an assumed fuel consumption for the Cessna 172 of 8.6 US gallons per hour, producing 2.3kg CO2 per litre, equating to 75kg CO2 per hour.  Estimating the average recreational pilot is flying less than 50 hours a year equates to 3.7 tonnes CO2, which for 35,000 licensed UK pilots is 130,000 tonnes CO2.

Having a low relative impact is not an excuse to do nothing in this case.  Two efforts to reduce emissions further are exemplified by the Carbon Neutral Plane Programme, which arranges for aircraft owners to offset their aircraft’s emission through financial support of CO2 reduction projects, and technology incentives like the Green Prize competition run by CAFE and reported here.  Technical innovations include engine modifications within existing airframes, such as the introduction of Full Authority Digitial Engine Control (FADEC) – for 15% fuel savings, the substitution of a single, high-efficiency jet in place of  two piston engines, and more radical solutions such as electric powered aircraft.

In summary:

  • The average guy you see out for a fly on a Sunday afternoon is putting 3.7 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over the year
  • If you take one  long haul holiday with your partner, your combined associated emission is larger, at say 4 tonnes CO2,  than the private pilot’s (double that if you take a couple of kids)
  • There are around 35,000 private pilots in the UK
  • There are over 60 million people in the UK – many taking foreign holidays

I guess we all need to decide which of our carbon burning activities are the more unnecessary and decadent – it’s not obvious.  And while I sense some unreasoned prejudice against it, my point is not to defend GA or any other position, but to illustrate the importance of understanding in general on CO2 issues: (a) impact per unit activity, (b) absolute impact, and (c) the opportunity cost of not putting your time, financial, intellectual, management, and emotional  resource where it can do the most good.


conservation, environment

For Peat’s Sake…..

Leave a comment

(This article was originally published at conservationtoday.org)

We can all take action to help combat global warming.  Here is something for the gardeners amongst you to think about.

Direct man-made CO2 emissions are problematic enough, but they are only part of a complex interplay of sources and sinks for greenhouse gases that is still beyond our full understanding. For example, there has for some time now been concern over frozen peat bogs thawing and releasing stored up methane, locked away for millenia, and far worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Leave it in the ground

But peat is our friend too; and you can help by leaving it where it is.

Why? Because peat is largely made up of dead plants, rich in captured carbon that has been prevented, due to the moist air-free bog environment, from fully decomposing back to CO2. Drain the bogs, distrurb or harvest the peat, and the carbon recombines with oxygen in the air, taking us back to square one.

The National Trust are at the forefront of public consciousness raising about peat in the UK, illustrating the issue with numbers that are far from intuitive. For example, the Trust estimates there are 100kg of carbon locked in every cubic metre of peat; which in CO2 terms is like driving a car for 2000 miles. In their report, Natures’s Capital, we learn peatlands are the UK’s single largest carbon reserve, amounting to around 3 billion tonnes, or equivalent to 20 years’ worth of man-made CO2 emissions. Across the globe, although peat covers only 3 per cent of the global land surface, the amount of carbon stored within it is enormous – equivalent to twice that of all the world’s forests combined.

As well as dead plants, peat contains so-called ‘Black Carbon’; that is carbon captured following moorland burning. In the UK, The British Geological Survey are researching how this and other soil carbons behave, and their likely impact on climate change. Only last month, a fascinating paper in Nature Geoscience highlighted how inaccurate knowledge about the ratio of soil black carbon to organic carbon in Australia – with implications on the global scale – can result in significant (almost 25%) over-estimation of CO2 release from global warming feedback mechanisms. On a planet-wide scale, the possible swings are massive.

So – back to what we can do. First, don’t forget its not just about climate change. Peat bogs in the UK are also an important habitat for wildlife and a source of colourful diversity for us humans. I’ve passed many a happy hike literally bouncing along on Peak District peat.

You might like to get involved in one of the remediation efforts run by the National Trust. And if you’re a domestic gardener – as a group consuming seventy percent of horticultural peat in the UK, and all from drained bogs that are killed in the process of its extraction – you can make a direct impact by simply not using it. And, as the UK accounts for 8% of the world’s northern peatlands, collectively holding 30% of all soil-based carbon, you have the potential to make a real global impact in your own back garden – as it were. The golden rules are:

  • Don’t buy peat
  • Only buy pot plants bedded in non-peaty compost
  • Quiz your garden centre on its compost/peat policy; share this article!
  • Support local wildlife trusts who are working to regenerate degraded mossed areas
  • Encourage your family and friends to do likewise
  • And write to your MP

Lastly, if you want to get more involved on the policy and campaigning side, get in touch with The Peatlands Campaign Consortium, who have been a major influence on the government in setting targets for reduced peat use.

environment, News, Reviews, Television

The Best Environmental Science On TV

2 Comments

On Monday, I joined an awards evening celebrating the best environmental science and technology productions made for European television. The categories were: drama, general programmng, new media, and an extra jury prize for exceptional content.

The MIDAS awards were hosted by PAWS – as the name suggests, a group promoting the public awareness of science. The evening also included a keynote address by Sir David King – until recently the UK’s Chief Scientific advisor, and a related panel discussion on climate change. I’ll share the messages from that in a future post.

On to the award winners. They won’t mean much outside Europe, but at least you can see the themes that are popular.

Best drama award went to the BBC‘s ‘Burn Up’ – which anticipates the lead up to Kyoto 2 in 2009 with a volatile mix of politics, science and big oil.

BBC’s Trailer to Burn Up

Best General Programming went to an edition of the Belgian VRT series Fata Morgana, about getting local people involved in environmental challenges. For four years I lived a stone’s throw away from the VRT TV tower in Brussels and, watching the clip, found the local flavour of this type of programming ‘very Belgian’ – meant in the most complimentary possible way!

Best New Media award went to Germany’s ZDF Interactive for their ‘Consequences of Climate Change’ – a truly interactive production in which viewers can explore the effect of drought and floods by keying in various parameters. This was an excellent use of new media I’m sure we will see much more of. If I can get a link to a clip or screenshots of this, I’ll post it.

The jury special prize went to The Netherland’s VPRO Television and ‘Waste equals Food’, concerned with cradle to grave understanding of products’ impacts on the environment. Examples included Nike’s design of running shoes for optimised recycling, the soles typically reappearing in sports court surfaces.

animals, environment, nature, News, Paleontology

CalTech’s Death-Star Insight on Global Warming

Leave a comment

WONDERING what the world will look like when the heat is on?

A newly discovered micro-fossil of an organism that lived during a previous global warming is helping researchers understand how aquatic life could adapt to the warmer, lower oxygen, waters that may accompany radical environmental transformations.

"Magnetic Death Star" - CalTech image

Dubbed the “Magnetic Death Star”, due to its round and spiky magnetite structure, the fossil was found among sediment deposited 55 million years ago during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when surging atmospheric carbon drove temperatures 9 degrees Fahrenheit higher. CalTech and McGill University workers believe the single-celled eukaryote evolved during the PETM, only to be out-competed and disappear again when conditions cooled off (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, DOI:10.1073 / pnas.0803634105).