What about China?

Qu: Why are humans to blame for climate change? 

Every now and then I allow myself the luxury of believing one of those guilt-relieving theories that humans are not responsible for the rate at which the Earth’s climate is changing. There is no correlation between the increase in our GHG (green house gas) emissions and the 1.5-2C increase in temperature since the pre-industrial era. 

No, nothing to do with me; climate change is just part of the natural pattern of the current interglacial period – or it’s due to the Earth’s 40,000-year tilt, or its 23,000-year wobble – or can’t we blame Sunspot activity? 

Then I take a look around and face facts. Over the last 250 years, by digging up and burning coal, oil and natural gas, humans have put carbon, safely captured in the Earth’s sinks, back into the atmosphere. 

Now, as The Stern report showed in 2006, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere exceeds the highest levels in the period for which data exists (covering the past 650,000 years). The increase of carbon dioxide causes global temperatures to rise, higher temperatures reduce the ability of the earth and oceans to absorb carbon dioxide, leaving more in the air. This creates a dangerous feedback: higher temperatures increase carbon dioxide concentrations and higher concentrations increase temperatures.

According to the Stern report greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at the time were 430ppmCO 2e (parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent, which includes methane) and rising at 2ppm each year.  Above 450ppm CO2 global temperatures would have a 50% chance of rising to 2°C above pre-industrial levels and a 5% chance of reaching 3.5°C. 

This is no time to kid ourselves; we are firmly in the Anthropocene age: a new era in planetary history in which humans impact on the ecosphere. Yet some people are still in denial. Scientists are reported as being “astonished” by incidents such as the collapse of the Larson B ice shelf in the Antarctic or methane bubbling from permafrost. In reality, the scientific community has seen climate change coming for over 180 years (see the work of Joseph Fourier on gases in 1827). Source

In 1985 an international group of scientists got together with climate modelers (meeting as individuals so their report was unconstrained by commercial or political pressure), they predicted, “substantial warming” that was unambiguously “attributable to human activities”. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. This meeting led to the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, then to Kyoto in 1997. 

At the December 2007 UN Climate Change Conference in Bali the last few countries finally agreed that human activity is responsible for global warming. This conclusion has been reached despite the best efforts of Big Oil, which has given massive grants to any scientist or pseudo-scientist who would cast a few doubts.  It had taken politicians 22 years to catch up with scientists.

The question now is; if humans have caused global warming is it too late to do something about it? Carbon dioxide takes time to permeate the atmosphere and cause global warming, so present temperatures are the result of 30-year- old emissions. Today’s emissions will therefore impact on temperatures during the coming 30 years. 

Thankfully politicians are beginning to take climate change seriously, the recent increase in carbon reduction goals from 60% to 80% by 2050 shows that the UK government at least, is finally realizing the urgency. Another leap forward is an amendment to the Energy Bill meaning that individuals who contribute renewable energy to the grid will be financially rewarded. This energy scheme has been successful in Germany and is a step towards empowering individuals to create a future that is not dependant on oil. 

All these steps forward have been triggered by groups of individuals who have refused to bury their heads and have instead campaigned for change. We can make a difference and now is the time to do it. 

Bethan

Links to souces: 

James Bruges: The Big Earth Book 

QU: Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of car tyres are worn down on roads every year. What effect do the tons of rubber dust have on the Earth and on us?

Everyone knows that cars are bad for the environment – of course they are – we love to bemoan the rate at which they consume our rapidly declining stocks of fossil fuels. It’s rare, however, that you find people blaming the tyres, normally we only notice them when one is looking a little flat. Perhaps this needs to change; research indicates that pollution from tyre dust is linked to an expanding range of health problems including allergies, asthma and even heart disease! 

The problem is that what goes into a tyre eventually comes out as the tread wears down. And what goes in? The list of ingredients is not as simple as rubber from a rubber tree! To form the rubber into hard-wearing vehicle tyres, an extensive range of chemicals including xylene, benzene, petroleum naphtha, chlorinated solvents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, anthracene, phenanthrene, phenols, amines, oil, acids and alkalis, polychlorinated biphenyls, halogenated cyanoalkanes, processing aids, and plasticisers. Tyre processing also involves several heavy metals including zinc, cadmium, lead, chromium and copper.

Argh! It gets worse; as you drive, tiny fragments of this cocktail of ingredients break off creating a particularly insidious form of air pollution known as tyre dust or particulate matter.

Until recently scientists working for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thought that tyre dust didn’t present a threat to humans because the particles are too small to enter our lungs. But in the last decade studies have shown that about 60 per cent of the fragments can enter the very deepest parts of the human lung and cause damage. In areas of high traffic tyre dust can cause asthmatic attacks and pose a serious threat to the elderly, babies and young children. More worryingly tyre dust has now been linked to heart disease and diabetes. 

The impact of tyre dust on human health is undeniable. So it is particularly frustrating that there appears to be no immediate answer to, or recognition of the problem. In fact relatively little data exists to quantify the emission rates, size, distribution and composition of particulates from tyre wear. When government think-tanks talk about tyres, they generally focus on waste disposal, this is undoubtedly important, but clearly its scope is woefully inadequate. 

It’s time that the bigger picture of tyre lifecycles is examined so we can begin to reduce their impact on health and environment. In the meantime you can reduce your car’s contribution to the dust by ensuring it’s tyres are inflated to the proper level and correctly balanced, keeping your speed down and making sure you don’t overload it. Even better you can leave the car in the garage and hop on your bike – wearing your safety dusk mask of course!

Bethan

Sources:
The Ecologist
Green Living Tips

Qu: Would it be possible to put waste, i.e. bio-degradable rubbish and sewage into an air-tight container, let it produce methane gas, siphon it off to cook with and power gas-fired central heating, filter off the water, and be left with compost to put on gardens?

Yes – very possible, in fact it’s already being done. It’s called Anaerobic Digestion and the process is widely used to treat wastewater sludges and organic wastes. Anaerobic digestion can reduce the emission of harmful landfill gases into the atmosphere and is a renewable energy source because the process produces a methane and carbon dioxide rich biogas suitable for energy production. Also, as the question suggests, the nutrient-rich solids left after digestion can be used as fertiliser.

So why isn’t this process used everywhere? Anaerobic digesters require a high level of technical expertise to maintain as careful control of the digestion temperature, pH, quality of input and loading rates is crucial. Because of these complexities, despite being recognised by United Nations Development Programme as one of the most useful decentralised sources of energy supply and being less expensive to run than large powerplants, anaerobic digesters are not widely used in industry. (source)

Anaerobic Bioreactors, a type of landfill, can also transform decomposing material into an energy source. By removing oxygen and pumping lechtate (water which has collected waste products from the decomposing matter) and other liquids around the bioreactor the waste produces methane, which can be collected and used instead of fossil fuels. (source)

Perhaps the most exciting and accessible use of the anaerobic production of methane from plant waste is the ‘pyrolysis unit’ – invented for domestic use in India by Ravi Kumar. A family collects waste plants, dries then and puts them into the unit’s circular casing. This casing is sealed to stop oxygen combining with CO2. A small fire is started in the central void; this heats up the plants and causes them to emit gases through small holes in the casing. The gases ignite and burn for long enough to cook dinner (about an hour). Then, brilliantly, the remaining charcoal can be raked out and used as fertiliser – what’s more the soil’s subsequent ability to lock in carbon dioxide also increases. (James Bruges – What About China?- p19)

Hope that helps, 

Bethan

Qu: Having read your answer on the effect of patio heaters (last bastion of the smoker) on global warming I wondered what the effect of the 6 billion cigarettes smoked annually around the world has on the global environment?

Oh dear, this answer sure ‘ain’t pretty. Now I’m really going to have to disown all my still-fag-smoking now ex-mates. 

Let the anti-ciggie tirade begin! Starting at the end and working backwards seems appropriate as cigarettes are most obviously harmful to the environment when discarded, marring the view as they lie scattered beneath the fore mentioned patio heaters. 

Sadly, cigarette butts are most often than not thrown to the floor and left as litter.  It is estimated that over 4.5 trillion cigarette butts are irresponsibly disposed of annually, making them the most littered item in the world. 

There seems to be a general consensus (ask any smoker) that cigarettes are bio-degradable over a 25 year period– however this figure is debatable and some experts doubt that the filters will ever degrade. Even as they break down cigarettes are harmful as they release the 4,000 chemicals that they contain, contaminating the soil or rivers, lakes and ocean that they are washed into. Wildlife is also affected as these toxins enter the food chain and many creatures fatally consume the indigestible fibers. Cigarette packaging is often littered as well; in the UK alone, each day, 122 tonnes of cigarette related debris is thrown out.

As they are smoked they are an environmental nuisance, as 90% of their smoke gets into the atmosphere, adding to air pollution (remember the days that you couldn’t even see to the bar when you walked into your local) and having a negative impact on the health of anyone nearby. 

If you think all that is bad then wait till you hear about the environmental impact of cigarettes. It is estimated that up to 200 000 hectares, usually in the developing world, are cleared to make room for tobacco farming every year. The sensitive tobacco plants are then treated with a nasty cocktail of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides to protect them from insects and disease. Tobacco farms are often by villages and, when the chemicals inevitably leak into the soil, they begin to poison the waterways, ecological systems, crops, and livestock in the surrounding communities.  Tobacco uses more nutrients than several other crops, and this quickly degrades the surrounding soil.  It is also believed that the toxic chemicals may indirectly cause the development of pesticide-resistant mosquitoes and flies.      

Living by a tobacco farm is no fun then, but this gets a whole lot worse if you’re unlucky enough to be one of the workers harvesting the plants. When the wet leaves are picked nicotine can be absorbed through the skin resulting in nicotine poisoning.  This ‘green tobacco sickness’ causes dizziness, nausea, vomiting and breathing difficulties and affects 41% of workers every season. 

On top of the land clearance for tobacco planting we must also take into account the trees that are felled to process the leaves and to produce the wrapping and packaging for cigarettes. Nearly one hectare of forest is needed to dry every hectare of tobacco meaning that over 600 million trees are destroyed annually for this purpose. On top of that six kilometers of paper is used per hour by the machines that roll and package cigarettes! 

And then there is tobacco’s contribution to world hunger. According to Dr Judith MacKay, Director of the Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control in Hong Kong, tobacco’s “minor” use of land denies 10 to 20 million people of food. 

Anyone fancy popping out for a smoke? Didn’t think so!

Bethan

Thanks to these links for the above information.

http://www.smokefreecalgary.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=3-119&lang=1 
http://www.litterbutt.com/
http://?www.aadac.com/87_447.asp?
http://tobaccofreekids.org/campaign/global/pdf/ag2.pdf
http://?www.hpb.gov.sg/hpb/default.asp?pg_id=865&aid=105
http://?www.cigarettelitter.org
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/publichealth/tobacco/environ.html?
http://www.ash.org.uk/html/international/html/environment.html?http://www.longwood.edu/cleanva/cigarettelitterhome.html

Qu: What’s your stance on energy saving light bulbs? I’ve heard several reports that they contain mercury and can be dangerous.

The media had a field day at the end of last year with some serious scaremongering regarding the dangers of energy-saving bulbs (CFL’s).

It all began when The Daily Mail picked up on a report by the Environment agency calling for a public awareness campaign to explain that the packaging of energy-efficient lighting contains small amounts of potentially toxic mercury and should therefore be disposed of with care.

The Mail ran a typically hysterical piece headlined “An energy saving bulb has gone – evacuate the room now!”

The general thrust of the article being, ‘energy-saving light bulbs are so dangerous that everyone must leave the room for at least 15 minutes if one falls to the floor and breaks.’

This is, of course, an exaggeration of the facts. Toxicologist Dr. David Ray, from the University of Nottingham, told the BBC that 6-8mg of mercury is present in a typical low-energy bulb. A pretty small amount considering thermometers, which we happily stick in our mouths, contain about 3 grams of the stuff.

Dr. Ray concludes that a smashed bulb causes little danger – but warns that this increases proportionately to consistent exposure and greater numbers of smashed bulbs. DEFRA also played down the threat to health, saying; ‘No amount of mercury is good for you, but the very small amount contained in a single modern CFL is unlikely to cause any harm, even if the lamp should be broken,’

(It’s also worth noting that strip lighting has always contained mercury – yet no-one seems to be complaining about that!)

The Mail went on to finger energy-saving bulbs as a potential source of cancer following a report by British Association of Dermatologists (BAD).

In this next distortion of the facts they claim that the ‘new’ lights (they’ve actually been around for over 30 years) “can trigger migraines, as well as dizziness, loss of focus and discomfort.” However the article goes on to say that these symptoms would only affect people already suffering from certain conditions (like epilepsy and photosensitivity). Dr Colin Holden from B.A.D. explains that people suffering from photosensitive skin conditions should be allowed to continue to use daylight (tungsten) bulbs to prevent “photosensitive eruptions ranging from disabling eczema-like reactions, to light sensitivities that can lead to skin cancer.”

Fine, those with a medical condition would obviously be prescribed the old bulbs, but that shouldn’t stop everyone else switching to CFL’s.

The real concern, the one that started this debate in the first place, is the environmental impact of disposing of the energy-saving bulbs. The Environment Agency’s call for a public information campaign acknowledges a need for greater awareness before tungsten bulbs are completely phased out. Careful disposal of the energy-saving bulbs will prevent the mercury content being released into the atmosphere. Thankfully more and more places now provide the facilities for you to drop off your used bulbs to be disposed of safely, including council refuse tips and some bulb retailers (Ikea, DIY stores etc.) and this service will become more widespread as CLF bulbs become more popular.

Besides, it’s reported that, even if everyone just threw their CFL light bulbs into the main rubbish to go to landfill, the amount of mercury entering the environment would still be less than that which currently enters the environment as a result of the production of the electricity needed to power all the traditional lightbulbs. Besides, CFL bulbs last far longer than traditional ones so there will be far less of them to throw away (source). So, no excuses, off you pop to the shops to buy your new bulbs…

Bethan

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

Sorry – couldn’t resist! But seriously… the recent decline, due to Colony Collapse Disorder (CDD), in the world’s bee population is nothing to joke about. Bees play vital part in ensuring the global food harvests are successful through their role as pollinators. Without bees many crops would fail; a sobering thought considering the rise in demand for food due to an expanding population and the transfer of much crop production into biofuels.

The mysterious disease attacks colonies quickly; over the course of a week the majority of the bees will desert the infected hive go off to die elsewhere. The US is worst effected with CCD recorded in at least 24 states and concerned British Beekeepers are lobbying DEFRA to fund research into finding a cure.

The most worrying thing is that because no-one seems to know what is causing CCD, there is no way of tackling it. There are many theories on the cause; one is that the bees may be suffering from stress as beekeepers increasingly transport them around the country to carry out pollination contracts in commercial orchards.

Some researchers blame the increase of mobile phone towers, which are said to inhibit the bees navigation systems. Others think that bees are suffering from a poor diet; the growing use of chemical herbicides and pesticides and the low nutritional value of GM crops could both be responsible. Global warming is also a factor as it accelerates the growth rates of pathogens like fungi, viruses and mites, which are known to damage colonies.

US scientists found that infected hives were shunned by other bees and insects, indicating that there was something toxic in the colony itself. They also found that the few bees left behind in the hive were carrying “a tremendous number of pathogens” virtually every known bee virus, as well as fungal infections, suggesting that the bees’ immune systems were being suppressed in some way. (source)

It’s also worth noting that organically raised bees, which are not subjected to genetically modified crops and chemicals, are not experiencing Colony Collapse Disorder.

Boris Johnson was voted Mayor of London this weekend. Considering the emphasis Ken Livingston placed on the need to address London’s climate change issues Boris has a hard act to follow. So, I took a look at the environmental policies in Boris’s campaign to see how seriously the new Mayor is taking his responsibility to the planet…

So here you have it, in Boris’s own words…

Oh dear… the phrase ‘polishing mud’ comes to mind; Boris seems unprepared to tackle the root of the issue – cutting pollution and CO2 emissions at source doesn’t appear on the agenda. In fact he’s even championing the return of the routemaster! Even though new ‘clean fuel fleet’ is proposed the move is still little more than a token gesture that panders to a nostalgic whim – at huge expense to tax payers. The bendy buses may not be popular but they are more economical than predecessors.

Boris is also ‘reforming’ the congestion charge – and will not be imposing Ken’s proposed £25 levy – another step back in the fight to make London greener. Capping the congestion charge or even reducing it may make all those SUV driving yummy mummies in west London happy but what about all the residents who cycle to work? More cars on the road increase pollution and make the roads more dangerous. By reforming the charge he is actively encouraging people to leave their bike at home…

As for Boris’s pledge to ban bottled water… saving on plastic is a good idea — but most offices have water dispensers don’t they? Considering that one of the biggest climate concerns in future is global water shortage, surely effort is best directed at reducing the pollution reaching our already contaminated water and finding ways to conserve supplies?

Bethan

Ask a climate change question…

Making a change for the greener doesn’t have to be a mammoth effort or cost you loads of money – how about making your life easier and saving money? National Downshifting Week (NDSW) runs for 7 days from the 19th of April – don’t worry if you missed it; when you see how simple it is to make your life easier and your environmental impact less you’ll be wanting to downshift all year long.

Tracy Smith, founder of NDSW, is passionate about “slowing down your pace, finding a better work/life balance, embracing living with less and leading a simpler, greener and happier life!” Sounds great doesn’t it?

So how do we go about it? The NDSW website is full of practical and fun ideas; now the sun’s out how about starting with your garden? Try turning one of you’re sunnier beds into a vegetable patch and what about starting a compost heap? You’ll be recycling your food waste and providing nutrients for your new plants. If you’re not green-fingered what about supporting your local growers by getting your produce from them. A trip to a farmers market is great fun and you can often pick up varieties you won’t find in the supermarkets.

Look out for Tracy Smith’s new ‘Book of Rubbish Ideas’ – it’s an interactive guide to reducing your household waste, it’s published by Alastair Sawday’s and will be available in September.

Bethan

Ask a climate change question…

We’ve all been there haven’t we… one minute you think the fuel crisis is set to be solved by the use of bio-fuels and the next someone’s telling you that using land to grow them is leading to a global food shortage.

Or, thinking it’s still okay to take that mini-break so long as you offset the C02 from your flight until a well-meaning soul tells you it’s all a load of ‘green wash’ intended to make you feel better while lightening your wallet. Who do you believe?

If you feel confused you are not alone; it’s becoming harder and harder to get a clear picture of the situation. The problem is that so much time and money is being invested in researching climate change and developing new ‘green’ technologies that there seems to be a new theory everyday. More and more it’s big businesses, with dubious motives, who fund the research so it’s easy to be cynical about the statistics they provide. The media doesn’t help either; end-of the-world sells, and news channels seem set on terrifying us with predictions of impending doom on Earth.

None of this very empowering, in fact it’s tempting to stick your head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening. Unfortunately it is happening and it really is up to us as individuals to take responsibility for our actions. If we wait around for the government to take action we could be here for some time – their priority is keeping the economy growing in the short term not investing in long-term climate change solutions. Unless individuals make their voices heard politicians will continue to make policies informed by corporate lobbyists. Rather than being a horrible chore it should have you leaping for joy – the future is in your hands! You have the power to make a difference.

Bethan

Ask a climate change question…