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: 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: 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

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

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…

The floods in Burma are the latest in a long list of natural disasters reported the news.The Tsunami in Thaliand in 2004 and floods in New Orleans and Bangladesh in 2005 have claimed thousands of lives and destroyed millions of homes. Scientists argue that the increasing rate of extreme weather, including cyclones, hurricanes and earthquakes is directly related to the rate of climate change. But haven’t we always had storms and earthquakes? How can climate change be the cause? Isn’t global warming making the world warmer?

Confusing isn’t it! It’s tempting to think global warming is a good thing and welcome the warm weather especially in the UK when sunshine seems so rare. Unfortunately, as James Bruges points out in ‘What about China?’ that kind of thinking isn’t very realistic – not even in the short term.

Remember last summer – we all thought it would be long and hot but in fact it was pretty murky for the most part apart from a burst of intense heat wave. Meanwhile Europe and the US had catastrophic fires that devastated homes and crops. There’s no doubt the world is warming up but that doesn’t mean picnics in the park and a better tan. If no action is taken the greenhouse effect could lead to a rise in average global temperatures of between 1.5-4.5 degrees C. Such increases will make the world hotter than it has been for more than 100,000 years.

That means more bad weather; storms and hurricanes become more frequent and stronger as oceans heat up causing more water to evaporate. Continental heartlands dry out more in summer causing massive droughts and crop failure and floods increase as sea levels rise (currently at a rate of 1 to 2mm each year) due to expansion of the top layer of the oceans as the polar ice caps melt.

Not a pretty picture is it? So what can you do? Being well informed is the first step; If you want to learn more, the open university has a fantastic website with detailed information about various climate change topics.

Bethan

Ask a climate change question…