Reduce Your CO2

We all enjoy dreaming, and I’m no exception. It gives me a warm feeling inside to imagine how things would be if our wishes actually came true.

For anyone who cares about our world’s future, reducing CO2 emissions and improving the earth’s ability to absorb them shouldn’t be a dream, but when you look at the snail speed at which governments are currently moving, at the excuses put forward every time another target is missed, then perhaps fantasy is a more apt word than dream. And the most common excuse used is ‘we don’t have enough money’.

Only last week I read that the UK’s ambitious targets for building wind farms don’t have a chance without investment that is currently not forthcoming. As the Guardian commented - it’s all very well setting an ambitious and necessary target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050, but we all know that unless there is a dramatic change in the attitude towards investment in renewable energies, it will never be achieved. Whilst positive noises are being made in public, negotiations go on behind the scene to back out of targets or push them back, and every time the investment needed is cited as the main reason. Apparently our governments just can’t afford to put in place the necessary schemes to achieve the goals they are setting, in spite of the dire warnings on what may happen if they don’t.

And yet, when there is a global crisis in the financial markets, suddenly there is enough money to save our banks. Not millions, not billions, not even hundreds of billions, but trillions are immediately made available to help out our ailing financial institutions and their oh so poor employees. Of course it was important to save the banks - it was either that or financial chaos, but the point is that the money - a lot of money - was there in the event of a crisis.

The world’s governments now seem to agree that if radical action is not taken to reduce CO2 emissions, and fast, our planet will go through some dramatic changes before the end of this century, changes that could affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people. If they’re right, then surely this is a crisis on the scale of the financial meltdown we are experiencing, although with one difference: we can see it coming, and we have time to do something about it?  In fact, if we do something about it now, it will cost us a hell of a lot less than in twenty years’ time when some of the predicted and potentially irreversible changes have already started to take place.

For instance, it is estimated that the UK’s plan to generated 36% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020 will cost around £50 billion. Even taking economies of scale into account, surely a complete conversion to renewables would only cost maybe £500 billion, and this over as much as 20 years? So why are there regular rumours that suggest that we will miss the 2020 target due to cost issues, and by a mile too?  If we look at things from a global perspective (which is of course more relevant), how much do we think it would cost to protect and even start to restore the rain forests, or to push for a complete conversion of transport to a cleaner fuel source by 2020? Yes, it’s a huge amount of money, but all I know is that drip-feeding in order to keep all parties happy today and to win votes, is certain to make many more people unhappy tomorrow.

The media often use the phrase ’short termism’ these days - basically another way to describe the policies of governments that are reactive rather than proactive. We have a real opportunity to avoid short termism in the battle to reduce CO2 emissions, and I just can’t understand why more isn’t being done to take advantage of it. Yes, it will cost a lot, but it has just been proved that the money can be found. Maybe it’s not a dream after all…

This week, the Met Office’s Hadley Centre published the results of a study into the potential effects of climate change, and the level of action required to avoid drastic increases in temperature over the next 100 years. They estimate that anything but ‘early and rapid’ action against climate change will result in a rise in global temperature of 2.9 degrees centigrade or more by 2100.

Also this week, Drax, Britains’s biggest coal-fired power station, announced that they are investing in direct-injection biomass co-firing systems for all 6 of their coal-fired units, which should cut their CO2 emissions by more than 2.5 million tonnes per year.

So here is a recognised weather authority giving a clear warning, and a recognised polluter taking positive action. If Global Warming is just a great corporate plot, then what is the point of all this action? I don’t think that the Met Office are particularly known for being ordered around by the government, and as for Drax, well I thought that power suppliers just wanted to build more power stations!

I have followed the Global Warming / Climate Change debate with interest for a long time. I’ve obviously always been more persuaded by the ‘for’ than the ‘against’, but I’ve also been fascinated to observe the typical human reaction to warnings of ‘future catastrophe’. ‘Give me proof!’ they say, and, when there’s no immediate catastrophe for them to feel and touch, they go on as before. ‘What’s the point?’ they say, pointing to the other polluters who are doing nothing about reducing their CO2 emissions. ‘It’s not my fault!’ they say, abstaining all responsibility and continuing as before.

Most of us just won’t believe that something is wrong until it bashes us over the head. The problem in this case is that by the time Climate Change bashes us over the head it will probably be too late - at least that’s what the Met Office are saying, and they are by no means the first.

So back to the question in the title: What’s it going to take for us to realise that things are going wrong, and that we need to take action, and lots of it? Well I have to admit that we’re not really being helped by our government making promises out of one side of their mouth and reneging on them out of the other side, but these moves by 2 disparate UK institutions this week brought it home to me. Let’s stop fannying around or maybe it really will be too late.

So what are you waiting for? Floods? Hurricanes? Killer freeze or killer heatwaves? Why bother waiting? There’s plenty you can do right now that really won’t stretch you, and if we all did it, maybe we can avoid that catastrophem whether we believe in it or not. Only one problem, though. If we do take action and avoid catastrophe, there will always be the naysayers saying ‘Told you so! There wasn’t a catastrophe in the first place!’

As I’m sure anyone interested in the subject of reducing CO2 emissions finds, there are some subjects that come back again and again. One, which I suppose should not be that surprising, is that of our gung ho ‘let’s reduce emissions by 80%’, ‘we are the number one in Europe for fighting climate change’ government once more working behind the scenes to make it easier for them to hit the famous EU CO2 emissions targets.

This time, according to an article in the Guardian’s enviroment section, who have got hold of a leaked document, they are lobbying to remove emissions from aviation from the energy targets, as it won’t be possible to produce the necessary biofuels by 2020. The thing is that if aviation emissions were removed from the target, it would make it significantly easier to hit, and that this far smaller reduction would have less of a positive impact on the environment.

This is apparently one of several attempts being made to find ways to reduce the actual targets that have to be hit by 2020. Others include allowing countries to count the impact of initiatives put into place before the deadline even if they will actually take far longer to have an effect, and various manipulations of carbon credits to enable them to buy their way out of actually making the promised reductions.

If there’s one thing that gets to me more than a government that does nothing, it’s one that makes a lot of noise about doing lots of things whilst not really doing them behind the scenes. Over the last few years, EU governments have all got together and said ‘we have a problem, and we want to fix it’. The UK government has stated their desire to be champions in this area, and have made many wonderful promises. If you look closer, however, it is clear that they are spending just as much time setting up the excuses to justify not achieving what they have promised to achieve - either that, or setting up the next government for a fall!

Either there’s a problem or there isn’t. Let’s put away what we the public think for a minute, and put ourselves in the position of a / the government. They have decided there is a problem, a big one, and a big threat to our future, and they have told us that this is what they think. They have then made a big song and dance about everything they are going to do, that has to be done, increasing and re-increasing targets until they are genuinely ambitious. Then, behind the scenes, they have been negotiating various reductions that makes hitting any of the targets impossible.

Lets say I make a simple commitment to replace all the lightbulbs in my house and turn down my thermostat by 10 degrees. Let’s also say however that I tell all my friends about it in order to show how wonderful I am, receiving pats on the back and big smiles all round. If I was then to go and see some of my key friends and say ‘do you think it would be ok if in fact I just replaced half the bulbs, because, you know, the one in the bathroom doesn’t turn on quick enough, so I can’t see to pee, and the one by my bed is not good for reading, and in fact I like a really hot shower and….’. What would they think?

I know what I’d think.

I came across a wonderful news piece this week, which I just had to share. Apparently the authorities in Austria have advised football fans not to fly the Austrian flag on their cars, as doing this increases drag, and therefore increases petrol consumption, thus in turn increasing CO2 emissions.

Now I’m the first to jump upon a good idea to reduce CO2 emissions, however strange it may be, but this particular edict did at first make me chuckle at the thought that being Green may now be appropriated by the ‘Politically Correct’ mob, with people being picked up for committing ‘eco crimes’ of which they were totally unaware. If you think about it, there are a fair amount of these in every day life, and we just have to hope that the ‘eco police’ don’t get too tough, or we’re all in serious trouble.

Examples that struck me (whilst planting my tongue relatively firmly in my cheek) were:

• Taking exercise. Surely taking lots of exercise means that we are turning more oxygen into CO2, which, like it or not, comes out of our mouths every time we breath out. Just imagine the emissions generated by a marathon!!
• Pets also produce CO2 as well as generating methane and consuming in many cases food that could be equally eaten by human beings. If we go on wanting pets, more are bred, and it just gets worse and worse.
• We all love live music, especially rock and pop, but look at how much electricity is consumed by your average rock concert… This is a much talked-about issue, but I haven’t seen solid solutions produced so far, so maybe we should just bit the bullet and no longer go to gigs? After all, U2 have got enough money already, and they want to save the world, so they will understand, won’t they?
• The mobile phone revolution has done wonderful things for communication. The ability to communicate whenever and wherever has saved lives, made millions, changed the world. It has also meant, though that people talk even more, a lot, all of the time. Whilst before people on their own in taxis did nothing, now they talk on their phones. The same walking down the street, or having a coffee, or lying in bed. And what does talking do? Yes, more CO2 emissions. So let’s get rid of mobiles right now.
• Everyone talks about methane produced by cows, but what about we humans? Apparently the average human being emits half a litre of gas a day, although only some of this is methane, and far less than that produced by cows. But still, it is possible to avoid farting by monitoring ones diet, so shouldn’t we all make more effort to fart less, or should we even install fart capturers in our toilets?
• And then of course there’s computers. Using computers uses electricity and generates CO2 emissions. We are using computers more and more. I am using a computer to write this article. Maybe I should sto

Ok, enough wacky ideas - although today’s wacky could become tomorrow’s day to day! I actually do understand the point about cars and flying flags - and anyway, they are ugly. But the whole story got me thinking about how sometimes we can get carried away, and I just had to write it down.

As I mentioned in my last article on World Environment Day, I posted a question on the United Nations Environment Programme web site voicing my disappointment on the media coverage for WED in the UK, and asking about media support for such events.

Here is my question, and also the reply I received from Naomi Poulton, who was actively involved in the organisation of WED:

A reasonable reply, and I’m happy to see that Naomi backs up the title of my last article: Every Day is World Environment Day. Still, I’m not sure if she fully picked up on the key point I was making, which was that there is not enough ‘teasing’ of these events. There was good coverage on the day, and I have even seen some since, but what you really need to see is what you get when a new film comes out or a new music cd - articles all about the ‘event’ as much as a month before, building up awareness, getting more people involved, etc. I read at least 3 different newspapers on a daily basis as well as regularly browsing the BBC, and I saw nothing about WED until the day.

Anyway as I said, it’s in the diary now for next year, with a week’s warning too, so I at any rate will start teasing it in. In fact, I think I’m going to build up a diary of all ‘Environment’ events and set up a free teaser service. If I can get word out there, it might start to make a difference, so do let me know about any events I should note down.

Today is World Environment Day, another day, another attempt to stimulate worldwide awareness of the environment and to get people and governments to take action. Awareness? Once more I didn’t know a thing about it until….. today!

I learnt about the event at around 9.15 am this morning when reading one of the free papers on the tube on the way into work. Just a small article, and nothing telling me how I could get involved, or if I could get involved. On looking it up on the web from work this lunchtime I discovered that the day is being hosted by New Zealand. Or should I say was, because of course in New Zealand, the day is already over!

I also learnt that WED has been going for a long time - since 1972 in fact, and that there are events taking place all over the world, and quite a few in the UK, to mark it. What surprises me, however, is that I knew absolutely nothing about it, and I am an avid consumer of all things media, especially if it’s about the environment. There has been no lead up to the day, no-one has contacted me, my friends and family, or my company about doing something, and now it’s too late.

I have two thoughts arising from this:

1. The environment has become an almost daily topic of discussion for almost everyone. We are all beginning to understand that it is important that we all do our bit, whether we believe that the world is in trouble or not. It’s just common sense. Days like World Environment Day are an opportunity to raise awareness even further, but they are just not getting the publicity they need, even when organised by powerful global organisations such as the United Nations. This needs to change, and the people responsible for communications within these organisations need to look at the reasons why the message is not yet getting out there as it should. Maybe they should worry less about the ‘official’ media channels, and make use of other powerful communications such as the blogosphere?
2. On the other hand, shouldn’t every day be World Environment Day? I am of course a fan of any event that gets the CO2 reduction message out to as many people as possible, but to me this message, and the simple things we can do to reduce emissions, should become a part of our everyday lives. If we keep a few basic actions in mind at all times, it becomes so easy to make a difference - and to save money too, and then these ‘event’ days become about something else: a chance for all the people who understand the issue to place more pressure on their governments who still seem reluctant to take the necessary action.

Anyway, now I know about it, I’ll put it in the diary for next year (done - that’s the wonder of digital diaries). In the meantime, if you want to know more, why not visit the official World Environment Day site. I’ve also posted a question for Naomi Poulton, a member of UNEP who is answering questions about the day. I’ve asked her whether she feels they get the media support they need to publicise WED and other events. I will update this article with her reply as and when I get it.

Just in case anyone has had their head in the sand for the first 5 months of this year I just wanted to confirm officially: things are getting tighter financially, and it’s going to get worse. At any rate, that’s my reading of what I see going on around me in the UK. Mortgages (if you can get one) are going up, petrol is going up as are other fuel bills, food is going up, house values are going down…

So what should we do about it? Well we can do the classic thing and moan a lot and wait to be helped by the government, or we can look at our lives and see how we can ’slim down’ our expenses, cutting out the unnecessary costs in order to leave us more to spend on the things we can’t do without.

There have been several articles in the papers recently wondering whether a recession will cause businesses and consumers to give up on their efforts to cut their CO2 emissions as there are more important things to worry about. I think that this is a complete contradiction in terms for both businesses and consumers. Reducing your CO2 emissions will always save you money, and in some cases it will cost you nothing or next to nothing.

Above all, there are all the obvious things you can do, many of which are covered in my Reduce Your CO2 Tips of the Day. Most of these apply to offices and to homes and nowadays it’s often offices who are the main culprits, committing such sins as leaving monitors, printers and even lights on all night. Businesses also have an advantage in that, if you own your offices, investing in solar or wind power will have an immediate effect on overheads whilst being considered an investment that adds value to the company. At home, it’s simply a matter of changing your behaviour, for instance by doing the round of all the sockets every night to switch them off, or not day dreaming in the shower!

Many of us know about these relatively simple actions, and to me they should not be presented so much as something we HAVE to do because the world is in danger (although this may be true). First and foremost, they are common sense. Why waste money? Why spend more money heating your house than is necessary? If there’s one thing that winds me up, it’s the comments of global warming naysayers about conusuming for all their worth, because they can, and because it won’t have any effect anyway. Let’s put aside the effect bit, and simply look at what they are proposing: let’s spend as much money as possible where we don’t need to, just because we can.

Ok, enough ranting. Reducing CO2 emissions is about becoming more efficient, and in many cases with little or no effort. Right now this is what everyone needs to know, and it’s what I’m saying to anyone who will listen. What would be really good, would be if governments tried out the same message. Let’s stop talking about more or less green taxes and where they go. Let’s cut down on the doom and gloom, which causes huge divides of opinion, apathy in some, and panic in others. Let’s just concentrate on using our common sense and sitting back to enjoy the fact that by saving money on our energy bills we have stopped the credit crunch from affecting us.

 Oh, and we’ve reduced our CO2 emissions in the process….

I don’t generally believe in kicking a man when he’s down, but it’s pretty difficult not to when he’s lying there with a great big sign stuck to his back saying KICK ME. And that, to me, is the case with Gordon Brown right now, as he stumbles from one problem to the next. So I’m not going to hold back, and what’s more, I’m going to kick him for an idea aimed at reducing co2 emissions.

‘Stealth tax’ is one of the many expressions coined during the New Labour era, basically referring to taxes that don’t hit the tax payer directly, or immediately. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown became particularly good at one type of stealth tax, the one where he would announce an increase one year, but it was timed to come into effect a year later, by which time many people have forgotten about it. In this case, he has gone one better, and announced a tax rise that would come into effect in a year’s time AND would apply to all cars bought in the last 7 years!

The tax in question is the Vehicule Excise Duty, better known as Road Tax. As of next year, the co2 emissions bands that decide what car owners will pay each year will be increased from 7 to 13, with a sliding scale of costs running from £0 for a car with emissions of under 100 g/km to £440 for one with over 255 g/km of emissions. They will go up again in 2010, with the top-end cost becoming £445, and with a new, additional first year rate being introduced that is even more punitive to gas guzzlers.

In principal this is a good idea, as it encourages us all to pay attention to co2 emissions when purchasing a new car. It is a good example of the ‘carrot and stick’ method, and for once the ‘carrot’ is pretty interesting - only £30 a year for a car with 111-120 g/km of emissions, and a reduction of some form for all cars with 140 g/km or under. The problem, however is with the backdating to 2001.

Let’s say that my car generates only 120 g/km of co2 emissions, and I bought it in 2002. I’m laughing, as my car tax will go down to £30 next year before going back up to £35 the year after. My neighbour’s car on the other hand generates 195 g/km of co2 emissions. He also bought it in 2002, and his tax next year will go up from £170 to £260 - an increase of £90.

It’s all very well saying ’serves him right - he drives a gas guzzler’, but think back to 2002, or 2006 for that matter. How many people bought their cars based on their co2 emissions? Petrol was cheaper then, and car tax was uniform for all. Can my neighbour really be punished for a decision he made as long as 6 years ago, based on information he did not even have at the time?

It could be argued that he will be encouraged to buy a newer, cleaner car, but should he be forced to do this, especially as, if he waits until 2010, he will also have to pay the higher first year rate? To me this isn’t a stealth tax, it’s a stealth ’stick’, and a totally unreasonable one, compounded by a fact I’ve already mentioned on this blog: so-called ‘green taxes’ such as this do not necessarily get used by the government to reduce the UK’s co2 emissions.

I’m all for the government taking serious measures to encourage us to reduce the emissions we generate via transport, but the important word here is ‘encourage’. Pricing people into unhappiness at a time when money is very tight is NEVER going to work, and I sincerely hope Mr Brown goes on doing what he’s also becoming well-known for……. U-TURN. I don’t mind at all if he keeps the proposed approach for all new cars, but punishing people for a decision they didn’t even realise they were taking is not going to solve what we recognise is a huge problem.

I read today in the Guardian that Drax, the UK’s largest power station, powered by coal, and providing up to 7% of the UK’s electricity, has launched a project to replace 10% of the coal it uses with biomass.

Basically, a powder made of materials such as wood chips, sunflower husks and grasses, will be injected into the coal-fired furnaces, thus reducing the amount of coal burnt on a daily basis. As biomass is regarded as carbon neutral, this also reduces the overall amount of co2 emissions from the power plant, helping Drax on the way to their target of reducing their emissions by 15% by 2012. The first stage should go live around 2010 (though watch this space for confirmation of that part). If it works out, the amount of biomass injected could be increased, reducing emissions even further.

Ok, so they’re still going to be burning masses of coal, but this is still a positive step in the right direction rather than no steps at all. It is also a realistic step, that will have an effect in 2-3 years rather than building a nuclear power station, which will have an effect in 10 years or so.

The problem we have with power today is that we need it, and more and more of it, and we need it to be reliable too. There is no immediate solution that can enable us to replace current co2 emitting power stations with oh so clean and 100% reliable solutions, or at least not unless we install millions of wind turbines, solar panels and tidal flow generators, completely ignoring the sometimes reasonable cries of those who believe they have a negative effect on the environment. What’s more, these solutions still have their issues - no wind, no sun, up and down tides don’t make for regular supplies.

So for now, every step forwards however small is positive, and I for one welcome a potential 10% reduction in emissions from Drax. Here’s to 2 further steps: increasing the reduction to 20% and, more importantly, doing the same for all the other coal burning power stations in the UK and, more importantly, the world. This will give us time to work on the more long-term, reliable renewable solutions we need.

An article in the environment section of today’s Guardian has caught my eye, as it talks about what must be one of the most original low emissions heating solutions yet proposed - and what’s more there are no issues with installing solar panels or wind turbines that annoy the NIMBY neighbours…

It’s called IHT - Interseasonal Heat Transfer, and the main energy source is already there (well ok, as you will see, there is some ‘adaptation’) - roads, runways, carparks, tennis courts, anything made of asphalt. Basically, IHT takes the heat absorbed by asphalt surfaces and transfers it to liquid, which is then stored in insulated tubes until it is needed, when it can be pumped out. At a basic level, this solution can be used to heat and, using convection in the opposite direction, cool roads to help them last longer and avoid freezing or melting. When combined with a geothermal heat pump, it can however also be used to heat buildings.

The advantage of this solution is of course that there are no additional blots on the landscape to worry about. Yes, you have to dig up your road, car park or runway in order to install the system, but then how many roads are dug up every year?

Invisible Heating Systems, who are selling the solution, claim approximately 33 square metres of tarmac will heat 100 square metres of a house, and that 400 square metres can provide 108 mW of power per annum.

Of course this is almost certainly not a cheap option, but I think it holds huge potential, at least for public areas and businesses, with greater funds or public sector support, and more likely access to large areas of tarmac. It is also a genuine example of the kind of lateral thinking that engineers and scientists must use to find solutions to reduce CO2 emissions. New inventions are needed, but they will always take longer to get to market. Harking back to Blue Peter and using the tools and materials already available to use will often bring about solutions that are more efficient, and more acceptable too. This is one technology I will be following closely.