SacredFacts

Cheat Neutral

Thanks to David Brain and Ben Russell for this:

Think offsets buy you out of responsibility for your carbon emissions? Just take that logic elsewhere....to Cheat Neutral perhaps:

Offset that flight....

So where were we? I survived a week on the slopes at (reasonably) high speed. However, everywhere I turned the debate about air travel, and its effect on the environment, seemed to be raging.

In the EasyJet in-flight magazine, CEO Andy Harrison was keen to address the Stern Report and dispel some myths: in built simplicity and a low-cost approach makes them more efficient than others he says; they therefore balance economic development and impact on the environment; they support EU emission trading; taxation is not the answer ("giving the government money does not improve the environment") but reform of state subsidised airlines might help. And, he says, aviation accounts for just 1.6% of global greenhouse gases anyway. Remember that figure.

Then in The Guardian, George Monbiot gets stuck in as usual: Uk airplane emmissions by 2050 will account for 49% of the governments CO2 reduction targets. And planes other greenhouse gases create a global warming effect 2.7 times greater than Carbon dioxide alone. Aviation, he says, will account for between 91% and 258% of the greenhouse gases the UK will be permitted to produce in 2050 (Are you following these figures?) and, he says, emission trading won't work - the answer in his view is to limit airports and travel.

Over in the Telegraph, Andrew Pearce doesn't bother too much with the figures. He just berates environment minister Ian Pearson for suggesting we shouldn't indulge in cheap flights and basically argues that you can't ignore the market. Quite where that leaves the planet, he doesn't say.

Meanwhile in Newsweek, Richard Branson says investment in science can make the skies green - which is why he's supporting a $3billion project for biofuel production. The Prime Minister, having bought offsets for his holiday flights, seems to agree Science will be the answer.

As I reflected on all this over a Chocolat Chaud at 1600m, I also read that it was the warmest alpine winter for 1300 years, that if I had travelled by train to the Alps I would have been responsible for 5.7g of CO2 per kilometer as opposed to 180g by plane, but that at least the resort I was in runs its lifts on hydroelectricity. And although over the border the upmarket Swiss resort of Zermatt proudly declares itself to be car-free, there is a very busy heliport bringing in rich skiers.

So what to make of it all? A classic battle of mis-matching statistics - figures which don't relate to each other and which are cherry picked and spun to suit commercial or political (including environmental) interest. It leaves the layman confused rather than illuminated. In such circumstances the only thing you can be really sure of is that the stakes are higher than Mont Blanc and the debate has a long way to run.

And that hot air rises.

Carbon Footprints

I've discovered the blog of Peter Armstrong who has made - and tracked - rather more impressive efforts than I have yet managed to cut his energy use and carbon footprint. Largely through the purchase of a heat pump.
(via John Naughton)

Russia and the environment

I went to a talk organised by Article 19  - the global campaign for free expression (Disclosure: I am a trustee). They have published a new report on access to information (or lack of it) on the environment in Russia. This may seem slightly esoteric - it isn't. It basically says Russians are being denied access to information about pollution, food contamination, nuclear waste and radiation -- and are dying as a result.  On the panel were Alexey Kiselev from Greenpeace in Russia, Frederica Prina from Article 19, Freiderike Behr from Amnesty and Steven Eke from the World Service. The head of Article 19, Agnes Calllamard, made an important point, saying that the right to access to information, enabling informed choices,  was as important as the right to food, water, health - and in this case they were linked. The panel agreed there is still a culture of secrecy in Russia where officials regard the public as "opposition", there is good legislation but it is not implemented or enforced, many officials are in denial and blame the west as a reflex, and there are still ominous legacies like 40 closed cities and sites and a "secret decree on secrecy" which is used to prevent disclosure.   As Steven Eke said, there are a number of conflated issues: general secrecy, lack of free media and scrutiny, lack of accountability, specific environmental issues, which combine into a dense and complex problem.

Allegedly five of the most polluted places on earth are in Russia, life expectancy is falling but there is little publicly acknowledged connection between the two. A BBC poll suggests more than 80% of Russians trust state TV - less than 2% trust independent sources of information on the internet.

Wasteful Britain

According to the Energy Saving Trust, the UK is the most energy wasteful country in Europe.
71 % leave appliances on standby
67% boil more water than they need in the kettle
65% leave electrical chargers plugged in.

I hadn't realised that last one was such a problem - two phone chargers now unplugged.

climate philanthropy

It does feel as if the global warming issue is reaching a Gladwellian Tipping Point. Richard Branson has today announced that he will donate 100% of his profits from his travel firms (trains and airlines) into climate change research and the hunt for renewable energy sources.

Going Carbon Neutral 2

Unlike Justin Rowlatt, Newsnight's "Ethical Man", I have been unable to call in the resources of the University of Surrey to help calculate my household energy usage and advise on steps to take. So in the end I went for what seemed one of the most thorough of the various online carbon calculators. Actually, the result was so bad I tried it again on several others. However, it does appear we emit more than double the national average. About 20 tons of Carbon a year. Something must be done. We already recycle, have above average house insulation, low energy bulbs. But commuting and travel seem to be the big problems. That and insufficient discipline in not allowing anything electronic to stay in standby mode - even if it does mean missing the overnight download of programme information to the TV's programme guide. My wife is also convinced that overfilling the kettle plays a part.

Last week's Tyndall Group Report gave us four years to reverse the current growth in emissions.

This week Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth is launched in the UK - and the website offers a few clues on what to do.

David Cameron and others are going for personal wind turbines - but there seems real doubt they are a sensible way forward for most people. I'm more inclined down the solar panel route.

More follows.

Links

The Project for Excellence in Journalism in the US has posted the transcript of a round table discussion about the future of online media.

This essay in Foreign Affairs magazine from Valin Nasr summarises the argument in his book "The Shia Revival" suggesting you need to understand the shift of power from Sunnis to Shias to understand what's happening in the Middle East - and a moment of opportunity for the West in spite of Iraq.

We can expect a flood of 9/11 anniversary coverage. On OpenDemocracy.net Tom Burgis catalogues much of what's changed in 5 years.

We also just passed the fifth anniversary of Iranian blogs. Iran now being the fourth largest country in the world for blogging.

This week's Economist has a useful survey of climate change.

Going Carbon Neutral

So, as I mentioned, my household is going carbon neutral by the end of the year. What does this entail?
Well, there's the lazy way and the thorough way it seems to me. The lazy way is to estimate your carbon emissions using one of the many free online carbon calculators and then just buy an offset. Clearly this is better than doing nothing but I have two problems with it. The online carbon calculators all use slightly different means of calculating emissions - which is more accurate? How can you get a real figure for emissions? And then of course just buying an offset is the rich man's solution. Surely we have to do what we reasonably can to reduce emissions and then offset what can't be reduced. I also want to engage the kids in understanding an individual's contribution to pollution and responsibility to contribute to a wider benefit - in this case reducing carbon emissions. It'll matter in their lifetimes. Writing a cheque doesn't quite do it.

And before all that you have to decide whether you are calculating this for yourself as an individual, for your family as a household or for yourself or your family in terms of lifestyle (including travel, leisure etc).

So we're going for the home first as a family and having done that will extend it to our wider lifestyle.
I'll be doing some research to get the most accurate estimate I can of real household emissions, and we'll be researching what more we can do to reduce them. We already recycle, have low energy bulbs throughout the house and serious insulation in the house. But I'm sure there will be more. Updates soon - I know you can't wait..

Warm for the time of year

This week Frances Cairncross, Chairman of the British Association for the Advancement of Science warned that the climate is heating up and we badly need policies to help us cope. It's an issue which is finally getting real traction.

David Aaronovitch in The Times discusses the political positions on climate change and the natural scepticism some policies provoke.

The Al Gore bandwagon rolls on promoting his climate change film and book and website from Hay to Edinburgh to Sky News and around the world.

Meanwhile James Lovelock, founder of the Gaia theory, is apocalyptic in his new book, but believes nuclear power is at least part of the answer. A view shared by the government . Others fear the risks around nuclear power - not least Charles Clarke this week warning the government's energy review overlooked the risk of terrorism.

Someone told me that if the government gave low energy lightbulbs to every house in the country it would cost less per year than a nuclear power station and save more energy than one would produce. Somehow, that sounds apocryphal. Which has always been the problem with this subject. Not enough clear, firm facts on which to base choices and a lot of vested interests directing the debate.

But there seems to be unanimity now across the political spectrum that it's happening and the consequences will be truly difficult for future generations.

So I've made one choice. I'll seek to make my household carbon neutral by the end of the year. Watch for updates on progress.