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 

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: 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

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

…and you could be standing for some time according to an article in the BBC’s Green Room. Ann Pettifor (Exc of Advocacy International) argues that it’s all very well to switch your appliances off, change your lightbulbs to EE and make sure you recycle but that’s all just a drop in the ocean considering the rate at which we’re heading towards runaway climate change.

In ‘What About China’ James Bruges uses this story to describe the same sentiment…

‘Father and daughter are watering the garden. Father is at the tap while the girl controls the hose. When they have finished the father says, “that’s enough now, stop all the holes in the spray head with matchsticks.” “Dad,” she replies, “are you mad? Turn the tap off!”‘

The father’s stupid approach is rather like present policies where we are urged to travel less and turn our heating down a few degrees. Meanwhile world leaders are encouraging the extraction of as much fossil fuel as possible. I don’t agree that our individual commitment is irrelevant – we each have a very real responsibility to examine our habits and change them for the greener – but I do think that just plugging away in a vacuum is a bit like sticking your head in the sand.

Once out of the ground fossil fuels will be burned. The key to emissions reduction is to stop extraction at source. Unfortunately it’s the politicians who control the government’s energy policies so it’s up to us to persuade them to change.

You can make a difference in the political arena. Use your vote. Urge your politicians to put a cap on the use of fossil fuels and join the transition movement where communities work together to find a post-carbon way of living. Click here to read ‘Operation Noah’s’ practical guide lobby your local MP.

Bethan

Ask a climate change question…

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…