What about China?

One of the key issues at the recent G8 summit was the global increase in the cost of food. As discussed previously, the rising price of staple foods has been linked to the increased cost of oil, which has caused land previously used for food crops to be turned over to crops for bio-fuels.

At the summit in Japan, the World Bank President Robert Zoellick highlighted the growing food shortage and urged the US and ‘rich countries’ in the EU to reform their bio-fuels policies and concentrate on food production. All well and good but it’s hard to believe all this talk is going do much to curb the rate at which your weekly shopping bill is creeping up, especially considering the frequency of missed G8 targets.

But we’re not as helpless as we imagine, the average consumer might not be able to dictate how farmers use their land but we can make sensible choices when it comes to dinner time. You’d think, with the increased prices, that people would be making an effort to make each meal count, but a recent survey estimates the average UK household throws away £8 of leftovers a week and each year in the UK as a whole wastes 4 million tonnes of food. People are spending about 9% of their income on food, with poorer households forking out up to 15% of theirs on staple foods such as milk, eggs and bread - foods that have been hit hardest by price increases in recent months.

This week Gordon Brown urged Britons to stop wasting food and to avoid making unnecessary purchases. But it’s not just the consumers who need to change their habits, the government might be more successful in reducing waste if they tackled supermarkets directly. The Liberal Democrats environment spokesman Steve Webb, blamed the governments “cosy” relationship with supermarkets for their failure to change policies which make it harder for householders to avoid food waste: “They refuse to stock small portions, which are essential for the growing number of one-person households, and offer too many buy-one-get-one-free deals on perishable goods.” Supermarkets also account for a large percentage of waste and throw away large quantities of edible food through poor stock management.

So, what can you do? Try planning your evening meals for the week and using up tins you’ve shoved to the back of the cupboard. Making extra in the evening means you take care of lunch the next day too - and this saves on energy, as you won’t be turning the cooker on again. Cooking for more people always works out more economically so offer to cook for your flatmates or friends and get them to return the favour another night. You can also try avoiding supermarkets; they might seem cheaper at first but in the long term it means smaller shops can’t survive or have to put their prices up further. If you do have to go to the supermarket write a list and stick to it - don’t be tempted by offers which will leave you with a fridge full of out of date food.

Bethan

Qu: To what extent will reductions in carbon emissions in the UK as a result of greener cleaner technologies be compromised by predicted world population growth of (according to a study by the U.N) a further 2.5 billion souls by the 2050?

Good question, and one that seems to be ignored in the general media hype surrounding climate change. Everywhere you look media channels and big business alike are out to persuade individuals to ‘do their bit’ by reducing their personal CO2 emissions. All well and good and as an empowering strategy to positively impact climate change but one that starts to look more like a convenient marketing strategy when you consider predicted population growth. The sad fact is that unless we do something drastic out-of-control population growth will wipe out the gains by even the most ambitious conservation and recycling schemes.

As John Feeney, writing for The Guardian, points out: “To avert catastrophe, we need to reduce both factors in the equation: our numbers and per person consumption.”

Yet the population issue is routinely overlooked. Feeney goes on to highlight the work of the Global Footprint Network (GFN), which tells us that, given the current population, each person has an allowance of just under 1.8 gha (global hectares of biologically productive land and sea) to maintain a sustainable global footprint. Given our current average of 2.2 gha per person we are exceeding the earth’s limits by 25%.

The GFN calculate that a drop in consumption to 1.8gha per person in the UK would involve a reduction in consumption to match level of Uzbekistan. Globally this would mean radically raising or reducing the living standards of some countries not a very realistic prospect.

?And these stats don’t take into consideration the UN’s projected increase in population of 40% by the middle of next Century. Compensating for the rise would mean shrinking the global footprint to under 1.3 gha, roughly the level of Guatemala or Nigeria. Again - not a vision of the future I’d put my money on being realized.

Although it is important to do your best to minimize personal contribution to global consumption it’s equally useful to be aware of the issues involved. In the face of the UN’s predictions population is a very real factor in the climate change debate and should be treated as such by governments and the media.

Bethan

Further reading & useful sites:

The Optimum Population Trust
Sustainable Population blog

Qu: If turning off appliances, recycling etc. are just a drop in the ocean; is there any point doing them at all?

With all the media hype, the threat of peak oil and messages of impending catastrophe for the planet, I don’t blame you for feeling over faced. Ultimately global change will happen quickest if instigated by global leaders. Once out of the ground fossil fuels will be used and harmful pollutants emitted. Politicians must devise and implement policies that reduce the amount of coal, gas and oil extracted within, or imported into a country. The sad truth is that if leaders don’t control the amount of fossil fuels at source all our attempts to reduce emissions in a hundred little ways make a very small impact on the overall situation.

However, that doesn’t mean your efforts are useless. Every little does help, so keep up your recycling, turn of those appliance and encourage others to do the same. You can also use your vote to influence the way the government prioritises. Politicians won’t change unless the public puts pressure on them. If you don’t then it’s left to corporate lobbyists, who can twist legislation to ensure that corporate interests are served. As James Bruges writes in What About China? A new wave of thinking suggests that the solution must involve individuals.The atmosphere does not belong to corporations - not even to governments or countries. We all, as individuals, have an equal right to its life-maintaining properties.

Instead of getting demoralized find out who your local MP is and urge then to put a cap on the use of fossil fuels. Get inspired about what you can do by learning more about the transition town movement, where communities are successfully working together to find a post-carbon way of living.

Bethan

Qu: I’ve heard that patio heaters are worse than trans-Atlantic flight for carbon emissions. Can this be true?

Hmmm… I’ve heard this one before, it’s the kind of gloomy end-of-the-world rumour that people like to pontificate as they light up outside the pub under one of the offending appliances!

Patio heaters are obviously so wasteful, in that their job is essentially to heat the open air (!), that they are often held up as an example of societies improvident tendencies. It’s true; they are a complete waste of energy, but as a nation we have many much more wasteful habits which we choose to overlook so a bit of perspective is needed to answer the question.

The average UK patio heater has a consumption of 8.9 kilowatts (kw). That’s quite a lot for a ‘non-essential appliance’. In fact a patio heater turned on for an hour uses enough power to boil a kettle from cold 80 times. And 8.9kw is the average, but most of the, the ones smokers huddle under in pub gardens, emit 12kw or more - there are plenty of 15kw patio heaters out there.

They use bottled LPG (propane) for fuel and for every hour of use a 12kw heater emits 2.6Kg of CO2. (source)

So, how does that compare to the CO2 from a transatlantic flight? Well there’s quite a lot of variance depending on the carbon calculator you choose to use as the assumptions behind them differ - which isn’t very reassuring! For the sake of this question I’ve taken a middle of the road figure provided by CO2balance. This company quotes a distance of approx. 5586 km (return from London Heathrow to New York) and CO2 emissions of 2.54 tCO2 for one passenger.

Your flight would take approximately 7 hours, during which you would produce approx. 2540 kg CO2. Running your 12kw patio heater for the same amount of time will produce 18.2kg. So if you use time as a comparison your flight is much worse.

The answer really depends on your patio heater usage and how many flights you take. The Market Transformation Programme (MTP) who supply government stats report state that use of patio heaters by individuals is relatively low. It’s pubs and restaurants that make the most impact and with the smoking ban increasing the demand for cosy outdoor things are set to get worse.

Before the introduction of the smoking ban, MTP estimated 2006 emissions from heaters at 20.3 ktCO2. They’ve predicted that in the wake of the ban emissions could be between 141 and 282 ktCO2 annually. (yes, that’s KILO TONS). (source)

However before you go vigilante and start persecuting all those pubs trying to heat the world, it’s worth looking at the wider picture. The UK’s total production of CO2 in 2006, according to DEFRA, was 556.5 million tonnes, meaning that the patio heater’s share is negligible, even at the upper end of the MTP’s estimates. Passenger cars, on the other hand, accounted for a chunky 68.7 million tonnes and air travel is increasing every year - and being actively encouraged with the opening of the new Heathrow terminal.

My advice is to boycott the pubs that use the offending appliances (put a jumper if you want to be warm while you smoke), then start finding holiday destinations you can drive to - or even better, reach by train.

Bethan

Q: What exactly is the purpose of carbon trading? It seems to me it legitimates the use of carbon in the name of saving it.

Carbon or emission trading, sometimes known as cap and trade, is the name given to an administrative scheme used to control pollution by providing financial incentives to reduce CO2 emissions. Companies and other groups are given credits that represent the right to emit a specific amount, not exceeding a limit imposed by the government or central authority. If the company wants to emit more than their allowance they can buy credits from those who pollute less. (source)

So, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. The idea is to give an economic incentive to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost to society.

Your scepticism about the scheme is shared by many experts who agree that trading emissions, as a solution to global warming is flawed with problems. Like you, some think that it is a way of allowing polluters in the developed world to shift the burden of making cuts onto factories in the developing world. As many of the companies receiving income from selling their credits then go on to spend it on expanding their factories, the emissions saving is cancelled out. Worse still, emissions trading may have set back the battle against climate change by diverting investment from long-term solutions such as renewable-energy technology.

In theory carbon trading presents real opportunities for new business approaches - an economic driver for a low carbon economy - but it’s a new field, market forces are yet to settle and there are problems with monitoring and enforcement.

As the director of Yale’s Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Dan Esty, says; “Carbon trading is a promising strategy for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, but the current structures have serious flaws.” (source)

Given current appraisals of the scheme it is tempting to side with it’s detractors, who maintain that the only real winners in emissions trading have been polluting factory owners who can sell menial cuts for massive profits, and the brokers who pocket fees each time a company buys or sells credits.

Bethan

With diesel topping 120p per litre and a further 2p rise in fuel tax planned for the coming months, many companies reliant on road mobility are up in arms. Lorry drivers staged a protest this week, blocking the M4 from London to Cardiff. MP’s too have been protesting, against Alastair Darling’s proposed vehicle tax on older, inefficient models.

It seems that owning and running a car is only going to get more expensive - an additional household cost that is predicted to hit poorer families, long-distance commuters and SUV owners hardest.

But is it really such a bad thing? The government has pledged to reduce CO2 from cars by a third by 2030 and these price increases are a strong incentive for people to rethink their long-term reliance on cars and for companies to invest in energy efficient technologies.

That said, the situation is by no means an entirely positive one. Worryingly, the increase in fuel is a major contributor to a global food shortage, which is causing food price inflation to rocket.

“The food price rises are a result of record oil prices, US farmers switching out of cereals to grow biofuel crops, extreme weather and growing demand from countries India and China, the UN said yesterday.” (source).

A combination of increased oil and fuel prices paints a grim picture for the economy; now, more than ever, it’s time to rethink your habits, if only for the sake of your bank balance. Leave the car in the garage and jump on your bike for a start Got lots of heavy bags? Change of clothes? Gym kit? A laptop? No excuse - invest in some panniers and get pedaling. As for food prices - try planting some veges in your own garden - salad leaves like rocket and spinach can be expensive in those ready to wash packets from the supermarket but are surprisingly easy to grow - especially at this time of year. Buy locally produced food and be aware of what you use every week so you can avoid wastage. Easy!

Bethan

Ask a climate change question here…

Q: What about China (and India and the USA?!) Why should we bother making sacrifices in the UK to cut our CO2 emissions when any reductions we make will be more than outweighed by emissions from these bigger countries?

Thanks for this…the very question which gives this blog its name! It comes up frequently which is why it’s the first question in the book ‘What About China?’ Seeing as the book isn’t out until July I can give you a sneaky preview with this abbreviated version of James Bruges answer but click here to register for a 40% discount when it’s published.

‘China is making a huge effort to raise the living standards of its people. With limited oil reserves, it is turning to coal for its energy. Clean coal technologies, where the carbon is sealed underground, are expensive, but China says it will pursue this option if wealthy western nations take the lead. So far none has done so. This attitude shows the importance of leading by example: China won’t do it unless our governments do it, and our governments won’t do it because “it will make our industry uncompetitive”.

We, the electorate, must show by example that we consider the fight against global warming to be more important than commerce. Each of us is at the beginning of a chain that could influence first our own reluctant governments and then global agreements.

On average each person in the world is responsible for 4.6 tonnes a year. In Britain each person is responsible for 12 tonnes. A Chinese citizen is below average at 4.2 tonnes and an Indian is well below average at only 1.4 tonnes. An American is responsible for a whopping 20.2 tonnes. It would be reasonable for China to claim that its emissions per person should be allowed to rise in order to lift it’s population out of poverty - particularly since the west has benefited historically from huge emissions over many years and is responsible for 80 per cent of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

China’s efforts to combat global warming put western governments to shame. China is phasing out incandescent light bulbs, it has banned plastic bags in major cities, it is putting immense research into renewable technologies and it is turning out thousands of graduates with expertise in these fields. C S Kiang, who advises the Chinese government says, “Humanity made a mistake 200 years ago and now east and west does not matter - everyone is involved. China’s problems are the problems of the world. If we do not solve them together the world is going to be in a bad shape.”‘

Got any more questions? Just let me know…

Bethan

Spurred on by the prediction that in 2020 there will be over 1.6 billion tourists, the UN have just launched a new eco travel website called ‘Green Passport’. The site aims to raise awareness about the implications of travel on global issues, focusing on climate change.

Great, but the site still assumes that the majority of people will be jetting off by plane for their break - a trend that is unsustainable given the current increase in air travel. At the moment air travel accounts for just over 3.5 percent of total CO2 emissions worldwide, which doesn’t sound that much until you consider that the IPCC estimates that by 2050 it will up to 15 percent (source). Not surprising when you consider that a family of four flying to the USA cause more emissions than their entire domestic energy use in a year!

The damage caused by flying is not just the resulting GHG emissions - the noise pollution of all those jet engines taking off is pretty horrific too. Just ask anyone who lives under the flight path at Heathrow! BA’s new flight 26 from Hong Kong is the first of 15 proposed flights legally scheduled to land before 6am. According to The Guardian’s Leo Hickman the new flight’s 5 am arrival could disturb the sleep of up to 2 million Londoners. If you think that’s bad, things are far worse in Paris where up to 150 flights per night are allowed to land at the Charles De Gaulle airport.

Far better to ditch plane travel altogether! Why bother wasting time cuing at Heathrow when you can hop on your bike and explore your local area? Sawday’s ‘Go Slow England’ is a fantastic guide to special places to visit around England with an emphasis on ‘good food, artisan producers, craftsmanship, community, landscape and history’.

If you still feel the need to cross the channel go by ferry or take a train, The man in seat 61 is a good place to start if you’re looking for advice on slow travel.

If you need a bit more inspiration to travel slow check out these blogs: a woman who went cross-country to Australia for a wedding. A round the world trip without flying and a man who cycled to china and back for the hell of it!

Bethan

Click here to ask your climate change question

Radio 4’s Tom Heap’s recent comments on the high impact of a carnivorous diet on the environment are not groundbreaking news. The UN has calculated that livestock warms the planet more than transport and for years The Vegetarian Society have campaigned to raise awareness about the damaging effect to the climate of eating meat.

Cows and sheep burp, fart and even breathe methane - a gas with about 20 times the global warming power than carbon dioxide! Their manure is also heavy with nitrates, which pollute both water and air. What’s more, livestock are relatively inefficient at turning food into protein so feeding them involves clearing acres of land for crop production, leaving less room for climate friendly forests.

Fearing their carbon-heavy practices will be penalized; the meat industry has found low GHG solutions indoors. Once caged, the animals’ diets can be strictly controlled, they don’t ‘waste’ energy by running around and their manure can be burnt as fuel avoiding damaging evaporation and seepage into rivers.?

Peter Bradnock of the British Poultry Council says: “Organic poultry meat has about 45% more global warming potential than indoor-reared poultry meat.”

So, why not eat your pork pie and avoid global warming? All well and good for you, but what about the animals? In ‘What About China?’, The Soil Association’s Robin Maynard points out that the practice of battery farming leads to disease, mutilation, injury and even cannibalism amongst the cramped and frustrated animals.

If you’re still secretly swayed by the climate argument for battery farming, get this: because factory farmed animals are at higher risk of disease they are routinely fed growth-promoters and antibiotics, a practice which has been identified as promoting the development of MRSA and other super-bugs. Over 30 years ago the Swann Committee warned the meat industry about the consequences of feeding animals the same drugs used on humans but unfortunately, this didn’t persuade the meat industry to change their ways. The full consequences of this decision are still emerging; in 2007 a new strain of MRSA was found in intensively farmed pigs and super-bugs are increasingly found in hospitals across the UK.

Bethan

Ask a climate change question…