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]

Government policy on climate change lacking

The Commons Environmental Audit Committee has urged the government to take more effective and co-ordinated action to reduce the emissions that are causing climate change. The cross-party group of MP’s on the committee believe that government policy is becoming incoherent and the measures put in place do not go far enough.

The government has set the UK a target of reducing carbon emissions by 60% of 1990 levels by 2050 in a legally binding plan under the draft Climate Change Bill. The government believes that this will be sufficient to keep global temperature rises to 2 degrees Celsius. The most recent research however suggests that this level of reduction will not be enough to achieve the 2 degree Celsius rise the government wants. Even if this was enough, the UK’s carbon emissions have risen rather than fallen, making it highly unlikely that the government’s own target will be met.

The committee points to series of failings on the government’s policy towards meeting not just its own targets, but also its Kyoto commitments. The problem is, people are not prepared to take the necessary steps as individuals, and the government is wary of introducing regulation for fear of becoming even less popular. It is a strange situation really, most people agree that something needs to be done to stop the rise in global temperature, but no one really wants to do much about it, other than easy token gestures.
[Via The Independent]

Website helps you to reduce CO2 from your car

There are a few simple steps you can take to reduce the environmental impact of driving your car. By choosing the right car and driving the right way you can cut down CO2 emissions.

The Department of Transport in association with What Car? magazine has launched a website with details of the most fuel efficient cars in all classes. The website lets you input the type of car you are interested in and it gives you details of the top 10 in the class for fuel efficiency and emissions. The car categories are: Supermini, Small family, Family, Estate, MPV, Compact Executive, Executive, Coupe, Open-top, Hot hatch, Compact 4x4, Large 4x4, Luxury and Performance Car. These categories were developed by What Car? magazine, to cover the majority of cars people will buy.

According to the website, if drivers follow their Smarter Driving Tips, CO2 emissions from their existing cars could reduced by 8%, and even better, if drivers buying new cars bought the most fuel efficient in its class, it could lead to a 24% reduction in CO2 emissions from new cars. It just goes to show that by taking very simple steps we can reduce our individual carbon footprint.

Water transport promises greener way

Using coastal waters and the canal system to transport goods around the country can produce 80% less carbon emissions compared to road haulage according to a report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee. That would be a pretty massive reduction in carbon emissions if all UK companies would switch form road to water freight. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen because of the higher costs involved.

Despite British Waterways promising to double the freight carried on water by 2010, the amount carried by water has dropped from 4.3m tonnes to 3.4m tonnes between 2000 and 2005. The British Waterways agency believes this is because it is uneconomic to transport goods by water in comparison.

The obvious answer would be for the government to increase the tax on road haulage to make water haulage more attractive. The government increases taxes all the time, so this would fit in nicely with their tax ethos. The other way to get more freight on Britain’s waterways is to give subsidies or tax breaks to firms using water haulage.

If the government is at all serious about reducing the UK’s carbon emission levels, this would be a very easy option to take. It may mean a slight increase in prices, or slightly less profit for the companies, but compared to the alternatives, this is a small price to pay.

[Via The Guardian]

Velib cycle scheme hits Paris

Paris is trying out a cycling scheme first developed in Lyon, which looks like a good way to reduce city centre congestion and therefore pollution and carbon emissions. The Velib scheme has 10,600 bikes located at 750 docking stations, with plans to increase this to 20,600 by the end of the year. The docking stations are located at 300m intervals, mainly at transport hubs and popular sites. Commuters can pick up a bike at a docking station and return it to any other docking station. The first half hour of use is free, but after that there is an incremental charge for every additional half hour of use. Users of the scheme can book a Velib pass online or at stations, costing a mere €1 for a day pass, €5 for a weekly and €29 for a yearly, this is an inexpensive and environmentally friendly way of getting to and from work.

The Velib scheme is part of Paris’s mayor Bertrand Delanoë’s aim to reduce car traffic by 40% by 2020. The mayor has already had an extra 200km of cycle paths built, and plans to double the number of cycle lanes by 2008. This popular scheme is a good model for other towns and cities to follow. Creating more cycle paths makes cycling safer and more attractive to commuters. This is a simple way to reduce carbon emissions and get people fitter and healthier at the same time.

[Via International Herald Tribune]

Gadget swapping parties (not just for men)

Clothes swapping events have been going on for some time now, we read about them everywhere. This is great for all you ethical fashionistas, but what about us ethical techies? we want to do our bit to save the planet too! Well, now there is something for us too, Cadge-IT swapping parties. The concept of Cadge-IT is to get a group of guys to bring their unwanted electrical gadgets, power tools, sports kit, basically whatever they have bought and no longer want, have a few drinks and then swap stuff.
According to YouGov, each household has around £460 worth of unused products, which adds up to £9 billion nationwide.

That’s £9 billion worth of products buried and forgotten in people’s lofts and garages. Rather than waste it, swap it should be the message for everyone. It’s a simple and fun idea that will help towards reducing climate change gas emissions. Although the idea is aimed at men, I’m sure women will participate in our gadget parties before too long!

[Via The Independent]

Airlines attacked by MP’s

British airlines have been criticised by MP’s for not doing enough about carbon offsetting. Whenever I see politicians accusing others of ‘not doing enough’ about climate change the phrase about ‘pot, kettle and black’ pops into my head for some reason. Aircraft produce greenhouse gases, and until the engines that power the aircraft are developed sufficiently to produce less greenhouse gas emissions, there is not much the airlines can do about it. Carbon offsetting is both unproven and unreliable in reducing CO2 emissions. The government pushing the airlines to promote carbon offsetting will not necessarily reduce climate change. This just looks like another token effort to give the appearance of effective action.

The aviation industry is a contributor to climate change because people want the convenience of flying to any destination whenever they want to. We as a society and as individuals have to decide if we value our planet more than our way of life. The two are simply incompatible at the moment. The way we are choosing to live is damaging the planet, and the more our population grows, the more damage we do. It all comes down to how much we are prepared to change to save our future.

[Via The Telegraph]

Europe’s greenest city is in Sweden

The Swedish city of Växjö has been awarded the European Union’s award for sustainable development. Växjö is very likely the greenest city in Europe, with a level of 3.5 tonnes of carbon emissions per person, it is the lowest of any urban area in Europe. The average in Sweden is around 5 tonnes, and in the USA it is 20 tonnes. This puts into perspective how environmentally friendly Sweden is generally. The city decided ten years ago to become a fossil fuel free city and set itself a target date of 2050 to achieve this. Their electricity power plant runs on biomass, using woodchip and other wood waste from the local sawmills. The plant not only provides electricity, but the hot waste gas is condensed and purified then pumped around the town to supply water boilers and room heaters.

This is an incredibly efficient use of the local resources and shows the kind of joined up thinking that is needed to get the most out of our limited resources. The next step for the council is to get the local people to change from petrol powered cars to more environmentally friendly cars. I have no doubt the good people of Växjö will go even further in reducing their impact on the environment. Växjö is certainly leading the way to a greener way of living.

[Via The Independent]

The increase in rainfall is due to human activity

A new paper published in the journal Nature today has concluded that human activity is causing the global shifts in rainfall patterns and contributing to both the wetter weather and hot dry weather we are experiencing. This is something most people felt was true anyway, but this is the first important study to show the direct link between human activity and increased rainfall. The research was carried out by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office in conjunction with a number of national climate research institutes. The study looked at weather records from around the world going back to 1925 and used 10 computer models to predict the weather changes. The only models that could explain the recorded change in rainfall were the ones that factored in human induced climate change.

So there you have it, evidence that we have altered the planet’s weather systems and made our own lives more difficult. The worrying thing is there may be worse to come. Hopefully the government will take the flooding seriously enough to spend the money to improve flood defences and set up a flood response unit that can quickly send assistance to the affected areas.

[Via The Guardian]

Energy firms want government money for carbon capture research

The main electricity generating companies involved in the development of carbon capture technology have asked the government to give them £1 billion to help with project costs. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of capturing the CO2 emissions from large producers like power plants and then compressing and storing the CO2 in deep geological formations or in deep oceans. The technology to capture the CO2 exists, but the actual storage of the compressed CO2 is new and untested. This is the area energy companies want the government to invest in. Although this will eliminate around 90% of the CO2 from power stations, the process itself is energy intensive, costly, and will produce its own CO2 emissions. Whether CCS gives an overall reduction in CO2 emissions is still to be demonstrated.

BP has already abandoned its plans to build an experimental hydrogen plant using carbon capture in the North Sea due to government inaction. Other companies are threatening to do as BP has done and shelve their plans for CCS plants unless the government coughs up the money. Should the government, and by extension us the taxpayers, give money to private companies to carry out research that will benefit them and make them money? I suppose if the government doesn’t meet the costs of the project, the companies could always put their prices up to recover the costs anyway. Either way, we end up paying for the whole thing. It CCS actually helps the planet, then maybe it is just worth it.

[Via The Guardian]

USA looks to new technology to reduce climate change

I know the accepted view of the USA’s efforts to reduce climate change is poor to say the least. And yes, I know it is pretty easy to take swipes at President Bush and his environmental policies, after all, he has steered the USA away from any global climate control treaties over the last few years. On the surface, it does look like President Bush is putting the US economy before the planet. Maybe there is truth in these perceptions, but, to give credit where it is due, the US Department of Energy (DOE) is spending money on research into new technologies that promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes.

One such area of research is CO2 sequestration. Nine specially selected projects have received a total of $24 million to develop technologies that will allow CO2 to be captured and safely removed from coal-fired power stations’ emissions. This is a fascinating area of research, and once the technology is fully developed, should make it easier for the USA to reduce its CO2 emissions without having to drastically change or impair their economic performance.

In combination with changes to the way people use energy, this kind of technology, if it comes online soon enough, can make a real difference to the growing problem of climate change. The beauty of this kind of approach is that it can be exported to big emitters like India and China and allow them the economic growth they need to sustain their populations whilst minimising their impact on global warming. Hopefully with enough research into ways of reducing CO2 emissions from existing processes and research into new energy sources, we may just beat global warming.

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]

Electricity firms are trying out new Smart meters

Four major UK electricity suppliers has signed a contract with the government to install 40,000 smart meters as part of a two year trial. The government is giving £10 million towards the costs of this. The purpose of the trial is to determine whether smart meters actually reduce people’s electricity consumption. It is hoped the smart meters will help people change the way they use electricity.

The smart meters will have a clip-on display unit that shows electricity use in real time. This means the consumer can see exactly how much each appliance is costing them to run. Whether this will make people change the way they use electricity remains to be seen. I’m sure people will be more likely to turn off lights and appliances on stand-by once they see how much it is costing them. The aim is to have every home fitted with smart meters by 2017.

The consumer watchdog energywatch believes this is inadequate and has asked the government to make all new and replacement meters smart meters. This makes so much more sense. Why install new meters and replace existing ones with ordinary meters, then in a few years time have to go through the whole process again and replace them all with smart meters. The only reasons I can see for this is that with the existing meters the electricity companies can give estimated bills and can make more money by over estimating electricity use, and if they install smart meters people will use less electricity so they will make less profit. It seems like a strange thing for any retailer to do, to ask their customers to buy less of their product! Maybe the government needs to bring in legal requirements for the use of smart meters.

[Via The Guardian]

People lead the way in saving the planet

There is a quiet revolution taking place, right under our noses. Change is happening throughout the land. As public awareness of climate change grows, more ordinary people are making changes to their lifestyle to at least try to save the planet. Although the effects are limited when viewed at an individual level, when taken as a whole, the cumulative results are much greater. Little things like people drying their clothes in the old fashioned way on a washing line rather than using a tumble dryer can make a huge impact on electricity use. An average tumble dryer creates 1.5kg of CO2. Taken over a year this figure is far from negligible, taken across the country the figure is pretty significant.

Using a washing line creates none. Asda have reportedly sold 1.2 million clothes pegs between January and April of this year, an increase of 1,400% on the same period last year, and ales of clothes lines and rotary dryers is up by 147%. So, it becomes obvious that every little change we make to reduce our carbon footprint is worth doing, no matter how small it may seem to us as an individual, because as a society if we all make these small changes, we can make a big difference to our future.

[Via The Independent]

Live Earth saves the planet

If music be the food of love for the Earth, then play on…The whole world must have known about Live Earth, but unfortunately most of the world was watching something else on their television sets. The idea of rock concerts across seven continents simultaneously broadcast to a potential audience of 2 billion people to get across the message that we all need to do our part in saving the Earth is a worthy one. We can only applaud the efforts of Al Gore to take the message to as much of the world’s population as possible. Getting the audience to add their names by text or email to a worldwide petition is inspired.

The number of music stars that gave their time freely must show how much they care about the environment, mustn’t it? I mean, their lifestyles are so green and ethical aren’t they? Maybe I’m being cynical, but I tend to think that what matters is action rather than words. Being on a stage telling people to save the planet is easy, taking the steps to achieve it are much harder. I’m sure doing this concert will do wonders for their eco credentials and no doubt the television exposure must have been worth a fortune in PR

The only problem is, names on a list will not change the world. After the concert, people will still get into their cars to drive home via a fast food restaurant to eat processed meat products and go home to their normal lives. What will change because of this concert? How many people will change their lifestyle because of Live Earth?

The problem of rising global temperatures is so huge now that only drastic action by everyone is going to make the difference. Token gestures just will not cut it I’m afraid. Are we prepared to make the changes, even if they mean sacrificing our lifestyles? I think not. People are too comfortable with their way of life to take the steps needed to save the Earth.

live earth

Reducing farm animals methane production

The easiest way to reduce climate change gases in the atmosphere is for all humans to become vegan. That is pretty much a very simple and painless way to reduce global warming gases. Obviously this is not going to happen, so scientists are working on ways to make cows and sheep produce less methane. Did you know that a quarter of all the methane produced by human activity comes from farm animals?

There are differing approaches to this problem around the world. In Germany for example, scientists at Hohenheim University have developed a plant-based pill that is combined with a special diet to reduce the methane cows produce by converting it to glucose. In New Zealand and the UK, the approach taken is to get farmers to grow different types of grass that have high levels of sugar. This diet of sugar rich grass changes the way bacteria in the animals’ stomachs break down plant material into waste gas. The problem with this type of grass is that it is more difficult to grow, so scientists are trying to make a genetically modified version which is hoped will be easier to grow. Which in effect is getting GM crops into the food chain through the back door.

The obvious answer to this particular methane gas problem is for people to stop eating meat and dairy products. The complex and expensive answer is to change the animals diet with pills and GM feed. Guess which one is more likely to happen?

[Via The Guardian]

The darker side of the biofuel ‘green’ revolution

Biofuels have been touted as the green alternative to petrol for some time now. A number of governments, ours included, have set targets for the uptake of biofuels in the next few years as a means of reducing their countries CO2 emissions. Unfortunately in doing this they have opened the door to unscrupulous and unethical businesses to exploit both the planet and people. Just one example of this is taking place in Uganda. The Mehta sugar corporation wants to expand its sugar cane plantations for biofuel production.

This may sound like a good thing, but that is far from the truth. The Mehta sugar corporation wants to expand its operations into the Mabira Forest Reserve. At the moment the reserve is protected by law due to its importance to the country’s eco system, the forest is home to 300 bird species and many rare primates, and the forest stores CO2.

The Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni said that handing the forest over to the Mehta group would create jobs and boost the competitiveness of the sugar industry in the area. Again the conflict between the environment and the needs of the economy area at odds. Can there ever be a convergence of economic need and environemntal need? I think there can, but the element of greed has to be removed from the equation. I believe there can be compassion and ethical conduct in business. There have been protests against this in Uganda, and in April three people were killed at a demonstration. The push for biofuels is creating the conditions for exploitation of the world’s forests and increased hunger in the developing world as more agricultural crops are sold for biofuel production, creating food shortages and inflated prices.

Is the West’s drive to convert to biuofuels actually going to reduce the global levels of CO2 or is it merely reducing emissions from some countries so they can meet their targets and increasing emissions in others? The overall net effect may be a rise in CO2 emissions if we’re not careful.


[Via The Independent]

Are Biofuels the 'Holy Grail' for transport?

For many people, biofuels are the perfect choice for a greener transport system. They give us independence from the Middle East and all its problems and they are a green alternative to petrol and diesel. That is one side of the story. Like all stories there is another side, a darker side. Some people paint an altogether different picture. Biofuels are creating third world hunger, hardship to farmers and causing the destruction of the world’s remaining rain forests. This is pretty much the reality of the rush to make money from the boom in biofuels. Once again ordinary people are being sacrificed in the stampede for profit. The EU leaders and Brazil’s president joined forces to urge for an international market to ensure biofuels are produced in an ethical and environmentally sound way.

What is needed is strict and enforced regulations to ensure the rise in demand for biofuls does not lead to more of the worlds rainforests being destroyed to make way for biofuel crops. The saving in CO2 from cars using biofuel would be more than offset by rise in CO2 from the deforestation. The other and equally important point is how the biofuel crop producers, the farmers and farm workers are treated. The whole process needs to have standards in place to protect workers rights, to ensure fair pricing and to ensure biofuel crops do not displace food crops and increase hunger in poorer countries. Whether such a policy can be enforced or even agreed remains to be seen.

[Via The Guardian]

Trees cut down in Australia by angry farmers

In a conflict growing in bitterness, farmers across Australia each cut down one tree on their land. The farmers are threatening to raise the number of trees they fell each day, so that by the end of the week more than 128,00 trees could be cut down in one day. The cause of their anger is the government’s refusal to review the land-clearing laws that prevent farmers from felling trees on their land. The problem according to the farmers is that by banning them from clearing trees from their land, they are losing acres of usable farmland, making many farms unviable. The government response is that the trees are needed to soak up CO2 and without the law, huge areas would be cleared to make arable land.

This is a sensitive and difficult issue, with no obvious possible resolution. On the one hand, the trees are vital to help combat rising levels of CO2 and on the other the farmers’ livelihoods are on the line. The farmers claim that the destruction of their farming capacity will cause food shortages in Australia.

Even with the law protecting the environment, illegal land clearing is a big problem in some Australian states. A WWF study in New South Wales estimated that in 2006 alone, 80 million reptiles and 13 million birds were wiped out because their habitat was destroyed. Again this highlights the problem that is being faced by politicians everywhere, how to balance the needs of the planet with the needs of ever growing populations. This is an issue that will not go away and will need to be resolved at some point.

[Via The Times]