| Deal or no deal?
Colin Inman - 21st December 2009
The Copenhagen Summit proved a desperate disappointment for those of us who saw the event as the last best chance for humanity to save itself from catastrophic climate change. The signs were there in advance that there would be no legally binding targets, and the resulting Accord is more of a wish list than a serious deal, a desperate attempt to save face rather than admit that no meaningful deal was available.
The Summit revealed the best and worst of human nature. We saw the huge hope and goodwill from the peaceful demonstrators, and much sign of the potential for nations to co-operate. However particularly towards the end of the Summit we saw the petty name-calling, back-sliding, and attempts to protect selfish short-term interests. This was the tragedy of the commons writ large. There was little talk of contraction and convergence, and more about the protection of national interest. We saw the silly squabbles that can emerge when you get any group of people together played out for all to see on the world stage.
It is clear that the ground-work that should have been done before the Summit had not been done, partly due to poor organisation, but also because of the divergence of views between nations approaching the event.
With every year that passes before drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are made, the less likely it becomes that the optimistic "safe" limit of a two degree increase in global temperatures can be acheived. Three or four degrees now seems more likely, and for anyone who has read Mark Lynas' "Six Degrees", that is a frightening and sad prospect. The world of the future will be transformed, and there will be massive loss of biodiversity. There is likely to be conflict over scarce resources and galloping inflation, as the lines on a graph of a growing population and dwindling food supplies and fresh water cross each other.
The climate sceptics were handed a gift in the run up to the Summit by the stupidity of the East Anglian scientists and their dodgy dossier, and the oil companies deliberate obfuscation and decades of delay and propoganda have paid off handsomely, sowing doubt among a public who fail to understand the science or will grasp at straws rather than give up their flights to the sun.
We are much better at reacting to events than preventing them, the precautionary prininciple is a hard one to sell when so many of us are enjoying the fossil fuel party. A large proportion of the population want to see concrete evidence of climate change staring them in the face before adjusting their lifestyles. Of course by then it will be too late.
A Culture of Waste
Steve Evans
The revelation that BBC employees spent over £10 million of licence-payers’ money on flights in the last year alone is a staggering revelation that shows complete disregard for the environment by the nation’s biggest broadcaster. Instead of setting an example to the private sector of environmental responsibility, it is clear that thousands of staff are treating travel as a jolly at our expense. The revelation was only made after a Freedom of Information request by the Liberal Democrats who are to be congratulated for their persistence in pursuing this issue.
Readers of Eco will no doubt be aware that flying is the most damaging form of travel to the environment, creating the highest level of carbon dioxide emissions per mile, and also due to the emissions being at a high level of the atmosphere where they do most damage. Many organisations are currently being encouraged by the Government to develop green travel plans, in which staff are encouraged to walk, cycle, and uses buses and trains, rather than use their car. The revelation of routine flying on this scale by BBC employees will cause immense damage to the BBC’s reputation as a responsible and ethical organisation. The BBC is reknown for the quality of its wildlife programmes, and this reputation will being severly dented by the evidence of the extent to which employees of the corporation are harming the environment.
Even if one disregards the environmental issues of flying, expenditure of this level on air travel, much of it first class, will not go down well with the British public as many families are tightening their belts in the face of rising bill. There is little hope of persuading families who are struggling to afford an annual holiday not to fly, if one of Britain’s leading and respected employers is encouraging its staff to fly with complete disregard to the cost, both financial and environmental.
Eco towns: building a greener future, or just more development?
28th May 2008
Eco towns are the Government’s flagship approach to providing more affordable housing, while tapping into popular concern for the environment. With so many young people struggling to get on the housing ladder, and growing awareness about green issues, you might think that the policy would have universal backing. However as with so many of the Government’s amibitions, things have not gone entirely to plan. There have been demonstrations at many of the proposed sites from local people concerned about the loss of agricultural land or countryside, while others have voiced concerns that the eco towns would not actually offer any real environmental benefits if people continue to use their cars to commute to jobs elsewhere. In some cases developers have dusted off already rejected planning applications, and resubmitted them with an “eco” tag.
According to the Government’s aims, eco-towns offer the opportunity to achieve high standards of sustainable living while also maximising the potential for affordable housing. Ministers have demanded that each new site should have a "separate and distinct" identity, with good links to surrounding towns for jobs, transport and services. To prevent them turning into commuter dormitories, at least 30% of the homes have to be affordable with a secondary school, business space and leisure facilities. The policy offers the chance of brownfield regeneration, more family homes and new jobs.
New eco-towns, of between 5,000 - 10, 000 homes, would have strong public transport links to nearby towns and cities. They would make the best use of brownfield land and could be built on public sector surplus land such as former MoD or NHS sites. Ministers believe these new developments could help drive the environmental technologies needed to ensure all new homes are zero carbon within a decade, as set out in last December's zero carbon timetable.
The former housing minister Yvette Cooper said:
"We desperately need more homes - and we desperately need to cut carbon emissions to tackle climate change. New eco-towns could build low carbon design into the fabric of the community, not just into individual houses. We have already made substantial progress, with the new timetable for zero carbon development and proposals for places like Northstowe. But we need to go further. Now is the time for us to look at new eco-towns, put forward by local councils. They could use public transport and new green designs to deliver low cost and low carbon homes for the future, making good use of brownfield land."
The current housing minister, Caroline Flint, told Eco that the new towns would help to tackle climate change, as well as providing affordable new housing:
"We have a housing shortage in this country and that's why we need to build more homes, but we also need to think about sustainable homes in sustainable communities."
Conservative spokeman Mr Shapps said the Conservatives would "always back plans for sustainable eco-communities" however:
"But I'm afraid there are several on this list which will cause immediate concern to local people because they're being built on green fields," he added. "Of the housing we'll be living in, halfway through this century, three-quarters of it is already built …..Unless you do something about the existing stock, putting up a few eco-towns amounts to a tiny fraction of the total housing we will require." He also stressed the need to ensure inhabitants of new eco-towns did not have to commute in order to work. If this happened, the sites would be "not that environmentally-friendly at all."
Key features of Eco Towns:
Zero Carbon
Zero carbon means no net carbon emissions from all energy uses in the home.
Currently the energy used to heat, light and run our homes account for 27 per cent of all the UK's emissions at around 40 million tonnes.
Key features of a zero carbon development could include technologies such as:
Combined heat and power
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is a fuel-efficient energy technology that, unlike conventional forms of power generation, puts to use the by-product heat that is normally wasted to the environment. CHP can increase the overall efficiency of fuel use to more than 75 per cent, compared with around 50 per cent or less from conventional electricity generation.
District heating and cooling systems
District heating is a system for distributing heat generated in a centralized location for residential and/or commercial heating
requirements. District heating systems (DHS) distribute steam or hot water to multiple buildings. The heat can be provided from a variety of sources, including geothermal, CHP plants, waste heat from industry, and purpose-built heating plants.
Aquifer Thermal Energy
Aquifer thermal energy storage uses underground water reserves called aquifers. There are two wells (typically) on either side with hydraulic coupling. One well is for the warm water and the other one is for the cold.
In the winter, warm water is cooled and passed to the cold well. Energy is extracted by a heat exchanger for heating purposes. In summer, the process is reversed and cold water is used for cooling. Once heated, the water is stored in the cold well. The advantage about this system is that it is environmentally safe; the water which circulates from underground to the heat exchangers and back can not be contaminated as it always remains in the system.
Ground Source Heat Pumps
Ground source heat pumps (GSHP) transfer heat from the ground into a building to provide space heating and, in some cases, to pre-heat domestic hot water.
Passive Heating
Passive heating systems are used in buildings which are insulated to a very high standard and make use of solar thermal gain and heat exchanges on ventilation systems, so that no external energy source (other than perhaps background heat generated by people living there and appliances) is required to keep the building warm.
Solar and Wind Energy
Solar energy can be used in a number of ways to provide energy. Passive solar energy is the use of sunlight to keep buildings warm through the direct warming effect of the sun on a building, eg via walls and glazing. Thermal solar panels which provide space heating and hot water. Another method is to convert solar energy to electricity in photovoltaic cells.
Having started with over 40 possible sites, the government has drawn up a short-list of 15-
Bordon, Hampshire
Coltishall, Norfolk
Curborough, Staffordshire
Elsenham, Essex
Ford, West Sussex
Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire
Imerys, nr St Austell, Cornwall
Leeds city region, West Yorkshire
Manby, Lincolnshire
Marston Vale and New Marston, Bedfordshire
Middle Quinton, Warwickshire
Pennbury, Leicestershire
Rossington, South Yorkshire
Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire
Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire
Only time will tell whether eco towns offer real environmental benefits, or are just more development of our crowded island. Like the new towns and garden cities developed in the last century they have captured the zeitgeist, and are now likely to go ahead. The main thing now is to ensure that they really do what it says on the label, and deliver sustainable communities where people can live their lives in the locality, without the need to use their cars because jobs, schools, leisure and services are all on their doorstep. It is an ambitious challenge, and one which deserves support. However as the Conservative spokesperson has pointed out, eco towns only represent a tiny fraction of the overall housing stock, and it is far more important what happens in the rest of Britain than a few flagship developments. Like the ambitious target for all new homes to be zero carbon by 2016, we must not ignore the rest of the housing stock in the rush to make new developments green.
Inside Britain's happiest eco town - Independent
Eco towns a mistake - Lord Rogers - Telegraph
Spread the Word
The internet is an incredible tool, and properly used, can be used as a tremendous force for good. It is capable of spreading a message around the world in a fraction of a second. To prevent catastrophic climate change we need a peaceful revolution in awareness and action now. The situation is urgent, and we need to get people out of their cars, to stop flying, and to consume less. Peaceful revolutions can happen overnight. It happened when the Berlin Wall was pulled down by People Power, something that was unthinkable for a whole generation. Eco calls on its readers to help spread the green message via the internet, and to make a peaceful green revolution happen.
All you have to do, is to send details of Eco to everyone in your email address book-
ECO
Do you get it?
Be Part of the Solution
and Spread the Word!
Please do it now. Tomorrow is too late.
|
|
Greenland's ice cap confirms the need to act now
Satellite study shows melting has doubled in last five years
Evidence showing the Greenland ice cap is melting at faster rates than feared adds greater urgency to the need for action, according to Keith Taylor, Green Party Principal Speaker.
"This new satellite evidence has shortened the timeframe for action significantly," he said. "What this study has shown is that by the time the solutions the government are advocating - new technologies such as carbon capturing or old mistakes like nuclear power - materialise, the palace of Westminster will be underwater, along with large portions of the world.
"Avoiding taking any meaningful action to reduce carbon emissions, such as halting aviation expansion and investing heavily in renewable non nuclear carbon free energy generation is a betrayal of future generations. We have to show that decisive action is not only essential but desirable - that the people's and planet's well-beings belong at the core of sustainability.
"We need legislation to ensure the necessary cuts are made and increased funding for efficiency and microgeneration, not voluntary codes and a paltry, under-publicised renewables fund. We need a reduction in air travel through a tax on the aviation industry and a moratorium on building cars with inefficient engines, not airport expansion and a continuation of the £9bn per year public subsidization of airlines.
"We would do well to look at the bold and visionary actions of braver governments, like Sweden's and Iceland's, who are demonstrating there is a future free from reliance on oil."
Notes:
The Green Party's energy campaign, 'Green Energy Works', is at: www.greenenergyworks.org.uk
The campaign aims for 2 million people to sign up to green electricity by the end of 2006 to show the government that people want more investment in energy saving and renewable energy generation, not nuclear power.
The Green Party is also conducting its own public consultation on the future of energy in the UK between 1 February and 15 April 2006.
Suicide Pact
All the warning lights are flashing red. The polar ice-caps are melting. The seas are warming, killing off the plankton on which the whole oceanic food chain depends. The tundra containing massive quantities of frozen methane hydrates is starting to melt - remember methane is many more times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The threat of runaway global warming is staring us in the face. And what do we do? Nothing. We are carrying on as usual. Are there urgent Government announcements of emergency measures? Do we limit car use to absolutely essential use only? Do we start turning off all the unnecessary lighting, heating and air-conditioning?
Any pilot or train driver who ignored all the flashing red lights would be labelled as reckless and negligent. The current lack of action suggests a sort of conspiracy of silence, a suicide pact on a massive, global scale. Do you want to be part of it? Did anyone consult you? If you want to stop us sleepwalking into a nightmare future, help us spread environmental consciousness through letting all your friends know about Eco. The Third World War is happening, right here, right now. Our generation is not asked to go over the top of the trenches into the face of machine gun fire. We are asked to cut back on our extravagent, greedy, and wasteful lifestyles. Your planet needs you. Which side are you on? If you are not panicking about climate change then you haven't realised the extent of the problem. Have you signed up to the suicide pact, or do you want to help spread the message of a peaceful green revolution? The time to act is now. No more talking and procrastination. Tomorrow is too late.
Brain Wanted
19th February 2008
Readers of Eco may have followed the BBC documentary "Tribe Wanted" with interest. It certainly made good television, and is a fascinating social experiment. But an "eco" community as the "Tribe Wanted" site proclaims? Sorry, but no.
To make this claim betrays an extraordinary lack of awareness of how air travel is wreaking irreversible damage on the world's climate, pumping vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and already leading to the melting of the polar icecaps. The flights made by members of this village "community" will ironically contribute to the sea levels rises that will see the island of Fijian Vorovoro sink beneath the waves in a few generations.
It is all very well using solar and wind power on the island, and having composting toilets, but as Dick Strawbridge's son pointed out on visiting to advise the islanders, the fact that you fly to get there outweighs any effort to be "green" once on the island. It is rather sad to see that renewable energy company Ecotricity seem to have been taken in by the eco claims, and are advertising on the "Tribe Wanted" site.
Even if one ignores the impact of flying, it was apparent that little of the island's food was being grown on the island, and large volumes of waste were being created that did not exist until the western visitors arrived.
So yes, it made great television, but please don't abuse the word eco when describing what is happening on Vorovoro.
When less means more
The relevance of this section to the reader will depend on how you live, and your consumption of energy and material goods. To a pensioner shivering in a barely furnished flat, a beggar on the street, a family on a brutalised high-rise estate or to someone scraping a living in the “Third World”, exhortations to consume less are insulting.
While aware of the many exceptions, there is a broad continuum of lifestyles:
low impact
low consumption………………high consumption high environmental impact
The further to the right of this continuum you are, the greater the benefit if you join the Green Revolution to the Planet’s ecosystems, and ultimately to you, your friends and your family. Those of us with a high consumption lifestyle have most to gain because we have most to lose if the planet’s life-supporting ecosystems that support our lifestyle collapse. It is far easier to cut back now in a gradual, voluntary way, and still have those ecosystems in place, than to face starvation and degradation due to violent climatic change, confronted by famine, floods storms or deserts, when it is too late to change anything.
The reason that giving up some materialist trappings is not such a sacrifice is because there is a trade-off. They separate us from family, friends, real culture, traditions and nature. Material things can make us independent at the expense of community. Laundrettes, libraries, public transport, and live entertainment bring people together, unlike washing machines, personal stereos, cars and television. Moreover, if we consume less the less we need to earn, meaning we may not have to work quite so hard or such long hours. If some of our wealth goes to those in greatest need, there may be a reduction in discontent and crime. Everyone wins.
The Green Revolution does not mean giving up everything and wearing a hair shirt for the sake of it. It is not Luddite. It is just recognition that beyond a certain level, the cost of high consumption to you, to society, and to global ecosystems, is greater than the benefit, and that level is much lower than we have often been willing to recognise until disaster stares us in the face. |