Major Economies Forum Climate Plan

The 17 strong Major Economies Forum (MEF) is due to meet in Italy to hopefully agree on a climate plan. The MEF member countries account for 80 percent of the world’s emissions, therefore any possibility of reducing emissions by a significant level is wholly dependent on the MEF. US President Obama is chairing the event, so the likelihood of some sort of agreement is pretty high. The real issue here is will the agreement have any merit or will it be a token gesture to give the impression of success?

 

Unfortunately the primary concern of any country’s leadership is economic, the issue of climate change comes a poor second to any country’s economy. With the world in recession at the moment, the last thing any government wants to do is commit to anything that can damage their industrial output. Reducing emissions can be achieved by any industrialised nation, but at a cost. For the developed world it can mean restricting industry, stifling growth and reducing the prosperity of its citizens. For the developing world it can mean a slower path to prosperity and more citizens remaining in poverty for longer.

 

There needs to be a concerted long term effort by the MEF to manage the massive level of emissions they produce year after year. Ways have to be found to minimise the economic damage while maximising the reduction in emission levels. I’m sure some decisions will be unpopular with the public, but new and innovative ways of reducing emissions have to be found. The alternative is increasing global temperatures leading to the expected rise in sea levels, larger areas of the planet affected by drought, food and water shortages, increasing migration and more armed conflicts. 

Texas tops the most polluting state list in the USA

Unbelievable as it may sound, the Lone Star state (Texas for all of us non-US citizens) produces more greenhouse gas emissions than many countries, including the UK! According to the US Energy Information Administration, Texas released 670 million tonnes of CO2 in 2003, making it the seventh biggest polluter in the world, producing more than the second ranked state, California and third ranked state Pennsylvania put together. That’s a pretty big number for a state with 23.5 million residents. Granted Texas does have a high concentration of polluting industries, but 28% of these emissions came from vehicles. While the industrial component of these emissions will be difficult to change, the vehicular emissions should, in theory be much easier to reduce.

There are 20 million cars in Texas, 5 million of which are pick-up trucks. Driving smaller and less polluting cars would be a positive step in the right direction. In practice however, this seems like a step too far for the average Texan. In a poll last spring, only 4% of Texans included the environment as a pressing issue for the USA. The Texas governor Rick Perry has apparently expressed doubts over global warming being a man-made problem. With a state leadership in denial of global warming, the chances of Texas taking effective measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are slim to zero.

The attitude towards their cars is summed up pretty well by a Texan mother whose family of six have three 4x4’s and two pick-up trucks “I would definitely put size and safety over the emissions thing." I’ve never been to Texas, but I would imagine living in a US state with good roads and a serious lack of wild elephants and rhinoceroses, driving a normal fuel-efficient car is probably quite safe. Whereas the “emissions thing” is pretty much a dead cert to cause problems for everyone around the world, Texans included.

[via The Telegraph]

Carbon off-setting increasing child labour

In a bizarre twist on the viability of carbon off-setting, there is now evidence that some of the schemes are causing an increase in child labour in poorer countries. In an example of such a scheme, Climate Care is paying poor and impoverished families in India to stop using diesel-powered pumps to irrigate their fields and replace them with human-powered treadles instead. One family ‘benefiting’ from Climate Care’s scheme is the Ram family. Their six year old daughter and her four young brothers now work flat out in the searing sun to pump water into their family field. Climate Care is the company that sells off-sets to British Airways customers, so they can feel better about their long-haul flights.

Michael Buick of Climate Care admitted that children were working the pumps, but he said people had to focus on the benefits to the whole family. He went on to say his group was proud of its scheme, which had led to more than half a million foot treadles being sold, and had won several awards. Ashutosh Pandey of Emergent Ventures India, which advises companies on clean technology said: “The problem is the number of times child labour is involved… It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
The effectiveness and overall impact of carbon off-setting needs to be reviewed. Carbon off-setting has to actually work, otherwise it is simply an exercise in assuaging people’s guilt.

[Via The Times]

Go ‘green’ in a Hummer

I know it sounds like a contradiction in terms, but yes, you really can go green in a big ol’ Hummer! Who says saving the planet means driving a small eco-car? Certainly not SAE Energy of Wichita, Kansas. SAE Energy are headed by Johnathan Goodwin and Larry Urry, who together founded the company to convert ordinary diesel and petrol cars to use alternative fuels and run more efficiently to reduce harmful emissions, oh and increase horsepower too.

What sets these guys apart is the fact that they take big traditional American fuel guzzling cars like the ubiquitous Hummer and other 4x4’s and convert them to run on various combinations of alternative fuels mixed with petrol or diesel using software and systems they perfected themselves. They use mostly standard factory produced parts and combine them with their clever in-house technology. Their incredibly innovative approach is getting them noticed, with an upcoming series on the Discovery Channel and a project for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, their star is definitely on the rise.

Talking of Hummers, they are working on a 2005 H3 Hummer that will be dual-engined. One engine will be electric, the other will act as a turbine. Now here’s the clever bit, when the batteries are running low, the turbine will kick-in for a few minutes and recharge the batteries. The turbine will run on biodiesel, so the emissions are lower. In total, this particular Hummer will have twice the horsepower and yet it will get 60 miles to the gallon. Can you imagine, a 5,000 pound Hummer with 600 horsepower going from 0-60 in around 5 seconds? Hope the brakes are good! For us mere mortals, SAE Energy have developed a $5,000 add-on kit that can convert any diesel powered car to use 50% less fuel and produce 80% less emissions. – FastCompany.com

I find it pretty amazing that these two guys working with limited finances and facilities are doing something the major US car manufacturers with all the money, staff and resources available to them have so spectacularly failed to do. SAE Energy has shown it is possible to make big powerful cars that are fuel-efficient and less polluting, so why aren’t the car makers doing it? I suppose it comes down to consumer demand, if consumers want greener cars and are prepared to put their money where their ethics are, then manufacturers will have no choice but to meet this demand.

ExxonMobil accused of ‘misleading advertising campaign’

Friends of the Earth (FoE) has just launched an online video called ‘The Exxon Files’, an animated spoof of the X-Files that gives the low-down on ExxonMobil’s funding of climate change deniers. There have long been suspicions, and even evidence of ExxonMobil giving millions of dollars to a variety of thinktanks, scientists and lobbyists to rubbish the science underpinning the human impact on global warming. FoE Europe campaigner, Christine Phol, said: "ExxonMobil invests millions of euros funding thinktanks and lobbyists committed to blocking internationally agreed policies to combat climate change whilst at the same time spending major sums on advertising designed to present itself as an environmentally responsible company." You can help the FoE campaign by watching the video and registering your support for their planned complaint to the Belgian authorities over ExxonMobil adverts at Brussels airport.

The adverts say that ExxonMobil is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, but the company’s corporate citizenship reports shows an increase of 8.7 million tonnes of CO2 emissions between 2003 and 2006. Paul de Clerck, another FoE Europe campaigner, described the adverts as just one example of ExxonMobil's "deliberately misleading advertising campaign". He went on to say: "The 'greening' of oil giant Exxon is nothing more than a slick public relations exercise… Instead of spending millions (of euros) on manipulating the facts, they should make real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Of course ExxonMobil denied the claims, their spokesperson said: “The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory only diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to sustain and improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions” ExxonMobil’s response would be laughable if the issue of global warming wasn’t so serious.

[Via The Guardian]

UK power companies fail to tackle climate change

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has claimed that the UK’s biggest power companies are failing to deal with climate change. In its annual survey, the WWF rated the UK’s top six energy companies in order of their attempts to tackle climate change. Top of the league came Centrica (owner of British Gas) for tackling carbon emissions and promoting energy efficiency followed by Scottish Power for having the highest investment in renewable energy resources. They were followed by E.ON UK, Scottish and Southern Energy, EDF Energy and finally RWE Power. EDF Energy and RWE Power had demonstrated the least progress in tackling climate change, but even the companies at the top of the list still lacked the vision necessary to combat climate change.

WWF’s head of climate change, Keith Allott said: "If you combined the best elements of Centrica's and Scottish Power's strategies, you might begin to see a real leader pushing towards a green and efficient power sector… The power sector's emissions have been rising in recent years and many companies are focusing on building new fossil fuel or nuclear stations rather than providing efficient energy services and clean renewable energy." For all their ‘green’ claims, the power companies are still not doing enough. Maybe consumer pressure would spur them on. If enough consumers changed suppliers to the ‘greenest’ companies, the rest would soon change their attitude to climate change.

[Via The Guardian]

Public transport costs rise as motoring costs drop

The benefits of going green are not lost on businesses and governments. Green has political capital right now. Green sells and green gets votes. The UK government likes to talk up its green credentials, to be in effect the government that cares for the planet. There seem to be new sound-bites and new initiatives to tackle climate change coming out all the time.

This may play well in the papers and on the television news, but in reality are these just more empty words and token gestures? Looking at the government’s transport policy, it would appear to be just another smokescreen to keep the public placated. In the last 30 years, the cost of travelling by car has fallen by 10% while the cost of travelling by train and bus has risen by 50%. Not exactly the best way to get people out of their cars and onto public transport! In the last 10 years, motorists have driven up to 270 billion miles a year, which any way you look at it adds up to a massive amount of CO2 emissions.

Is there a simple solution? As our population grows and people become wealthier, more people will own and drive cars. To compound the problem, there is the perception that public transport is more dangerous, especially for women travelling on their own, and of course there is the stigma of not owning a car and having to get on a bus or train. This is a complex problem, and will involve a culture change among many people. The car has been promoted as a sign of independence and status, for some people it defines who they are. The government can help by improving public transport generally and by making it cheaper and safer. They can even risk the wrath of motorists and increase the cost of driving, but that I think will be step too far for any government that depends on voters to stay in power. In the end it will come down to individuals making choices that either help reduce climate change or increase climate change.

[Via The Independent]