Kitabı oku: «How Can I Stop Climate Change: What is it and how to help»
how can i stop
climate change?
Helen Burley and Chris Haslam
contents
Foreword by Tony Juniper, Friends of the Earth’s Executive Director
Chapter 1 The climate is changing around us
Chapter 2 The science of climate change
Chapter 3 How much carbon can we live with?
Chapter 4 Saving energy
Chapter 5 Using cleaner energy
Chapter 6 How we can make change happen
Chapter 7 In the home
Chapter 8 Out and about
Chapter 9 Scaling up your impact
Chapter 10 Resources
Find out more
Index
How to join Friends of the Earth
Acknowledgements
Copyright
About the Publisher
foreword
“I was recently at the launch of the new high-speed rail link from London to Paris. Passengers boarded at eleven in the morning and arrived right in the heart of Paris just 180 minutes later. As the train slipped through the autumn countryside of southern England and northern France people talked face to face, read the morning papers and ate and drank in comfort and quiet. The people on Eurostar’s Tread Lightly might not have known it but they were also doing the planet a favour. Each passenger going from London to Paris by train is creating just a tenth of the climate-changing emissions of someone making the journey by aeroplane.
For me that day was a moment of inspiration, a reminder of how humanity’s technical brilliance, plus a dose of common sense, can take us - literally - to places we once thought impossible.
This book is about a better life. It’s about turning the challenge of climate change into a way forward for us all, and coming out on the other side healthier, fitter and happier. And because we need to do something now, rather than in 40 years’ time, it’s about making that journey at high speed.
Our starting point is the science - what’s happening to our world and why. The story has been brilliantly told by others, notably by the Nobel prize-winning scientists who make up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former US vice-president Al Gore. We explain some key facts - about what’s going on, and what’s likely to happen if we let it (Chapters 1 to 3) - before moving on to the big question: what are we going to do about it?
Imagine a home that you don’t need to heat because the sun does it for you. Imagine your fridge running on the never-ending power of the tides that beat at Britain’s shores. Imagine buses so reliable and clean you actually want to leave the car at home. Imagine the end of fuel poverty, better food, fewer traffic jams and happier neighbourhoods. Imagine a new economic wave, new jobs in new industries supplying whole new markets. All this happens to be possible because the things that we need to do to stop climate change (read about them in Chapters 4 to 9) will also improve our quality of life.
The solutions are out there, but who’s going to make them happen? From fitting low-energy light bulbs, to flying less and recycling more, there are many things each of us can do (lots of practical information in Chapters 7 to 9). Among the green self-help manuals around encouraging each of us to do our bit to take the stress off the planet, few make this key point: that even if each of us were to deal with the environmental impact of our home, our travel and our shopping, it would still not be enough. Yes I can turn off the lights but I don’t run the polluting power station that makes the electricity. I can use my car less but why should I, if some gas guzzler is allowed to take up my space on the road? I can insulate my loft and even install solar panels on my house but what about my neighbour who can’t afford it, and what about my kids’ school, which uses far more energy than my family does?
Most climate-changing pollution is outside my direct control. Greenhouse gases are just part of how things work – like the way food is produced, public institutions are run, our roads are built. I can directly control only about a third of my own tiny share of Britain’s carbon footprint. Someone has got to change the way things work on a big scale - and fast. In fact the science implies that the UK should cut its emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, by at least 80 per cent by the middle of this century. When you think about how dependent we are now on oil, gas and coal, this looks like a huge task. Who’s going to do it?
As consumers we have a certain amount of muscle – and we should use it. Nagging our shops and services for greener stuff helps to push them in the right direction: being an ethical consumer also tells the politicians that we’re ready for change.
But we’re not just shoppers. Each of us is part of a family, neighbourhood, or town. We can talk to our friends and family, get things done in our clubs, societies, schools, unions, and associations to reduce their carbon footprint.
Most important, we have rights and a voice as citizens. We can tell our elected representatives – from the town hall to parliament – that we want a greener life. They should get on and make it easier for all of us to do the low-carbon thing. Governments can ban cars with poor fuel consumption, set tough standards for products and provide alternatives to flying. Governments can structure markets to make companies innovate: obliging local authorities to specify clean green energy for all new homes, for example, would create a huge business opportunity and, as other countries have shown, do a lot to cut emissions.
But this scale of change will only happen if enough of us ask for it. When I joined the staff of Friends of the Earth in 1990 one of the first things I did was to promote our findings on how halting deforestation would be good for the climate. Since then we have notched up a series of wins for the environment. We have put green issues firmly on the political agenda, sought broad changes to the way our economy works and persuaded politicians to take real steps to protect our communities and future generations. And we’ve always done it with strong public backing: the reason you have doorstep recycling is because thousands of people like you asked for it.
At about the time this book will first appear in the shops a new Climate Change Act will be passing into UK law. This will be the world’s first legally binding national framework for long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If the government has done its job properly the law will set a target for cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, including emissions from aviation and shipping. Friends of the Earth’s Big Ask campaign and the voices of hundreds of thousands of people have been crucial in securing this breakthrough. It shows how powerful we are when we act together. In all my years working on the environment I have never been so excited about the changes that we’re about to see – changes that people like you have made possible. There’s a lot do, but we are making real progress.
The book in your hands is one of the next steps. It is the perfect companion for making the most of the opportunity created by the new Climate Change Act. The solutions are out there. Get on board and make them live.
None of us can deal with climate change alone - we have to act together. How can I stop climate change? I can’t. But we can.
Tony Juniper, Executive Director, Friends of the Earth, 2002–08.
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
“The honest answer to the question ‘How can I stop climate change?’ is ‘I can’t. But we can.’”
Executive director, Tony Juniper
chapter 1
the climate is changing around us
Flood, drought, storm, heatwave.
What’s happening to the weather?
a warmer world
Even without the scientists telling us, we can all see a new pattern emerging: freaky weather, unusual temperatures, ice sheets crashing into the sea, migrating birds turning up ahead of schedule, plants flowering early…
From the UK and Europe to Australia and the Americas, this chapter offers some snapshots of the way our planet is changing around – and because of – us.
The graph below shows the global temperature for each year from 1850 to 2006. Climate experts use 14 °C as a reference point. The wavy line reveals the unmistakeable trend – that the world has been getting hotter over the past 150 years.
As surely as the Wimbledon tennis tournament brings rain, fresh strawberries say lazy summer sunshine. But in 2007 you were more likely to be eating strawberries at Easter than in June. A bizarrely hot spring meant they were ripe and ready to pick by April. Too early for Wimbledon. Too early for the students who normally pick them. And too early for the strawberry farmers who employ the students.
The last time April in England was as warm as in 2007 Abraham Lincoln was still alive and Lewis Carroll was polishing
Global warming: the hard data
off Alice in Wonderland. It followed an unusually mild January, February and March. Frogspawn thrived in garden ponds in February, and insects like peacock butterflies, bumblebees and ladybirds appeared earlier than usual. Then came what looked like being the wettest summer in the UK since the outbreak of the First World War.
As England basked in its April sunshine Spain was doused in unseasonal rain, with disastrous consequences as salad crops were flooded, leading to soaring tomato prices. And then, while the UK saw flooding, Europe flipped into yet another heat wave.
Of course our weather is changeable – it always has been. One hot day doesn’t make a summer, and a few record temperatures don’t necessarily prove that the world’s climate is in the throes of fundamental change. But average temperatures are definitely rising – as worldwide records clearly show. And we are now seeing the very kinds of changes to weather patterns and the Earth’s natural systems, habitats and wildlife that scientists have for years been predicting will flow from global warming.
weird UK weather facts
| fact | Brogdale in Kent holds the record for the hottest-ever recorded temperature in the UK: 38.5 °C on 10 August 2003. |
| fact | In June 2004 the wind blew across Northern Ireland at 126 miles per hour, leaving 8,000 homes without electricity. |
| fact | Summer 2003 broke UK records for the hottest weather – with fatal results for more than 2,000 people. In mainland Europe the death toll topped 35,000. |
| fact | July 2006 was the hottest month on record in the UK. |
| fact | In April 2007 the average monthly temperature in Central England reached 11.6 °C, the highest for the month since records began in 1659. |
three need-to-know terms
Greenhouse effect: How the Earth keeps warm. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun, raising the temperature down here. Without greenhouse gases, our planet would be too cold to support most life.
Global warming: The way the average temperature on the Earth’s surface is increasing. Scientific evidence clearly shows an increase of greenhouse gases is largely to blame.
Man-made warming: Greenhouse gases – the main ones are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and water vapour – are naturally present in the Earth’s atmosphere. The amount of greenhouse gases has remained relatively stable for thousands of years, but in the past century they have increased sharply. This is largely as a result of burning fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas, which produces carbon dioxide.
five myths about climate change
‘The Earth is so big that human beings cannot possibly affect it.’ Fact: While the Earth has for millions of years been capable of balancing emissions of carbon dioxide – with plants, soil and sea soaking up the carbon dioxide emitted by nature – the extra carbon dioxide that humans have put into the system has upset the balance. The atmosphere is surprisingly thin: if the Earth were the size of a football the atmosphere would be no thicker than a coat of varnish.
‘Scientists don’t agree that climate change is caused by humans.’ Fact: A 2004 study of 900 published papers on climate change found they all agreed that climate change was happening and was caused by human activity. There are some sceptics – but the fiercest arguments today tend to focus on the scale of the problem and the best way to tackle it rather than whether or not climate change is happening at all.
‘We have to choose between the economy and saving the planet.’ Fact: There is no such choice – in the long term, without a stable climate there will be no economy to save: the impacts on society of runaway climate change would be catastrophic. Keeping climate change in check will involve developing new technologies and industries and this will have economic benefits; and although investing in such opportunities has a cost, the cost of not dealing with climate change will be higher.
‘It’s too late to do anything about climate change.’ Fact: Some climate change is already happening. But it will get much worse if we let it. The more greenhouse gases we allow into the atmosphere, the greater the effect on our climate will be. Scientists warn that we are approaching tipping points that will trigger ever-more rapid changes to the climate, so the sooner we act, the better.
‘Bring it on. The UK’s climate will be much warmer – life here will be better.’ Fact: Britain is likely to be warmer and some people may welcome that. But we’re also likely to see heavier rain, flooding and storms, as well as heat waves and drought in the summer. Water shortages have already hit the southeast of England. Impacts elsewhere will come sooner and harder, and the UK is likely to feel the knock-on effects – as places become inhospitable, crops fail and huge numbers of people are uprooted.
climate change is already affecting us
As climate systems adapt to changes in temperature, winds and ocean currents alter. This is leading to unpredictable and more extreme weather: more intense periods of heavy rain, more storms, and, in some regions, extreme drought. Climate change is having other knock-on effects. Rising temperatures are melting snow and ice all over the world: glaciers are retreating, Arctic ice sheets are shrinking and Antarctic ice shelves have cracked and fallen into the sea. Melting glaciers, combined with the fact that warmer water expands, are causing rising sea levels. Sea levels rose by 17 cm during the 20th century.
Many people’s lives are already being altered by climate change. Some are adapting, but others face real hardship.
Let’s look at some of the specific ways that climate change is affecting our planet.
rain and storms
Four people died and thousands had to evacuate their homes when torrential rain hit England in June 2007, causing flash floods, chaos to travel and billions of pounds worth of damage. A month later the heavy rains returned, leaving a swathe of central England under water. The Severn and Avon rivers flooded thousands of homes; the Thames burst its banks in Oxford and flowed into nearby villages. Roads were closed and train services failed. Between May and July twice as much rain as normal fell, breaking records going back to 1766.
Although unusual, the summer floods of 2007 were not entirely without precedent. Back in 1920 the River Lud in Lincolnshire burst its banks, washing away bridges, houses and cars in the small market town of Louth; 23 people died. Homes and businesses in Louth were under water again in 2007.
A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT:
Tewkesbury in Gloucestershire got a taste of a future with climate change in the summer of 2007 – among the wettest ever for many communities across Britain.
It’s impossible to pin the blame for one weather event on climate change. But scientists say our changing climate is making such extremes more likely.
Yet the UK experience to date has been relatively mild. In August 2002 floods swept central Europe: Germany had a record-breaking 35 cm of rain in 24 hours and in Dresden, water levels of the River Elbe reached their highest since records began in 1275. In 2005 more than 65 cm of rain fell in Mumbai, India, in 24 hours – the country’s heaviest ever recorded rainfall. In China torrential summer rains in 2007 affected an estimated 100 million people and hundreds died in flash flooding and landslides. In South Asia millions fled their homes and thousands died after heavy monsoon rain caused flooding in parts of Northern India, Nepal and Bangladesh. In Assam 90 cm of rain fell in 20 days, flooding farmland.
hurricanes, cyclones and monsoons
Hurricanes over the Atlantic during the summer are nothing new. But the 2005 season made many people think about climate change again. Hurricane Katrina, which tore through New Orleans in August that year, was not the most powerful of the storms, but it did the most damage. Nearly 2,000 people died and many thousands lost their homes – and this in the world’s richest country.
More recently hundreds died in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India in 2007 when Cyclone Yemyin hit the region. The disaster was made worse by heavy monsoon rains bringing severe flooding.
melting glaciers and ice sheets
Rising temperatures are damaging the major ice sheets at the Poles. In Greenland, which is warming faster than other parts of the world, vast glacial rivers are cutting through the ice. In the summer of 2007 sea ice shrank to a record low, with an area twice the size of Britain disappearing in the space of a week. Scientists predict that by 2030 the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer.
Generations of Inuit in the Arctic Circle have depended on hunting and fishing to feed their families, but changes in the sea ice make navigation difficult and hunting on thin ice perilous. Experienced hunters have died where the ice has given way.
THAW POINT:
Argentina’s Perito Moreno Glacier is one of the few that are not retreating because of global warming. But for how much longer?
Aqqaluk Lynge, President of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Greenland, says, ‘Climate change in the Arctic is not just an environmental issue with unwelcome economic consequences. It is a matter of livelihood, food, and individual and cultural survival. The Arctic is not wilderness or a frontier, it is our home and homeland.’
Further south, in the semi-frozen areas of Alaska and Siberia, thawing of the once-permanently frozen ground is turning solid foundations for buildings and roads into soft bog. Houses are sinking as the land subsides.
Warmer weather is also causing problems for Europe’s snowy regions and the people who live and work there. Alpine glaciers are in retreat and snow is arriving later and melting earlier in the year. Alpine glaciers shrank by 10 per cent in 2003 alone. Germany’s last glacier, the Zugspitze, which provides drinking water for the Rhine Valley, is melting so rapidly that people in the area have tried to protect it from the sun by covering it with canvas.
a lifetime of change
Fernand Pareau has been an Alpine mountain guide in Chamonix, France, for more than 50 years. Aged 81 in 2007, he has witnessed huge changes, including more tourists and more traffic in the mountains.
He says the natural environment has altered, with a shift in the seasons, and changes in snowfall. Whereas there were once four distinct seasons, now winter comes late and summer comes sooner. Birds like magpies – previously not seen at such altitudes – are now common.
‘It’s not beautiful anymore, because when you’re in Chamonix, you look at the Bosson Glacier… it’s black, so it’s not beautiful. You see the waterfalls there but it’s not white anymore, it’s ugly,’ says Fernand. ‘I think that for the future, if global warming continues like this, people will come to the mountains much less.’
melting in the Himalaya
It’s common to talk about glaciers ‘retreating’. They are of course melting, and have been doing so for a long time. But the rapid speed of melting today is causing problems.
In 1985 Norbu Sherpa’s family home, his fields and animals in the Nepalese Himalaya were swept away by an outburst from the Dig Tsho glacial lake. He had been training to be a monk but after the family lost everything, he gave up his religious calling to work as a trekking guide. Today he and his family are still rebuilding their lives. ‘Those were the most distressing hours of my life,’ Norbu glacial lakes. In the Everest region glaciers Sherpa says.
There are more than 3,000 glaciers in the Nepalese Himalaya, most feeding into retreated by up to 60 m between 1970 and 1989. As the glaciers retreat, water levels in the lakes rise. A study for the United Nations Environment Programme warned that more than 20 lakes in the Himalayas are potentially dangerous because of climate change – at risk of bursting their banks.
The retreat of Himalayan glaciers also poses a threat to the millions of people in India and across Asia who rely on snow and glacial melt for their water; scientists think that in 20-30 years these supplies will be greatly reduced.
LEAVING HOME TO THE WAVES:
‘When I was a small boy this island was big. As I grew older the island got smaller As you can see the island has broken and it’s now in two pieces. The sea is eating the island away.’ Jacob Tsomi, chief of the Dog clan, Carteret Islands
The Carteret Islands – a small horseshoe of atolls in the Pacific Ocean – form part of Papua New Guinea. Their once-fertile vegetable gardens are now all poisoned by salt. Lying less than 1.5 metres above sea level, the islands are frequently flooded by tidal surges. Bernard Tunim, who lives on Piul Island, describes the effects of a tidal surge: ‘We planted banana, taro, even tapioca, cassava and other fruit trees. But just last month we had these high tides and it swept the whole area. We had waves coming from three sides, and so this place was flooded with sea water. All that we had from banana to taro and cassava just dried up. But we don't want to move because we know that this is our own land.’
Bernard says the islanders are angry at the prospect of having to leave their home – victims of a problem they are not responsible for. ‘We believe that these islands are ours and our future generation should not go away from this island.’
rising rivers
Seasonal flooding is a way of life for people on the flood plains of Bangladesh; but recent years have seen a combination of heavy monsoons, deforestation and faster glacial melting swelling the rivers. Andean villagers in Peru face a similar threat: it’s estimated that some 30,000 people have died as a result of sudden glacial floods. Disappearance of the ice also poses a threat to the water supply for the 7 million people who live in Lima.
rising seas
The coastlines of Vietnam and Bangladesh, small islands in the Pacific and Caribbean, and large coastal cities such as Tokyo, New York, Cairo and London are all threatened by rising seas.
Flood defences such as the London Thames Barrier can provide some protection – at a cost. The £535 million barrier was designed to offer protection against highly infrequent but dangerous storm surges. It had been used 103 times by 2007.
The impacts of higher seas are well known: high tides and storm surges come further and further inland, damaging property, washing away roads, contaminating fresh water and making it difficult for anything to grow. The low-lying Pacific island Tuvalu now depends on imported food and its people are seeking refugee status in neighbouring New Zealand as the sea takes over their homes.
Thames Barrier, 1983–2007
wildfires
Hot, dry weather increases the risk of wildfire. In recent years wildfires have rampaged through southern Europe, Australia, California and the Amazon.
Wildfires can improve conditions for vegetation and encourage wildlife. But with dry weather and strong winds they can also burn out of control. As temperatures rise, northern California is predicted to see wildfires increase by up to 90 per cent by the end of the century. In 2007 Greece experienced some of the worst wildfires ever recorded in the country, destroying forests around Olympia and scorching stones that have been there for 2,500 years. Sixty-five people died in a spate of fires over a ten-day period.
Britain’s moorlands, particularly peat bogs in the Peak District, are vulnerable. In the summer of 2003 satellite images showed clouds of smoke drifting from the moors over the Irish Sea. Aircraft at Manchester Airport were unable to land and drivers kept their headlights on during the day for several days.
Scientists pin the blame for an increase in wildfires in the western United States on rising temperatures (below).
Forest in flames
where we’re feeling the heat
Climate scientists predict that with summers becoming hotter and drier in some regions, there will be more cases of extreme drought. Here’s how different parts of the world are already being affected.
By 2100 – within the lifetimes of our grandchildren – half of he world’s land could see reduced rainfall, causing drought.
record-breaking temperatures in the UK
Temperatures in central England have increased on average by 1°C since 1960, and individual months are getting warmer year by year.
People are feeling it. The heat wave of summer 2003 killed more than 2,000 people in the UK, and in 2006 a heat wave led to a shortage of grazing land for dairy herds, pushing up the costs of milk production. A 2006 survey of farmers found 60 per cent claiming that they were already feeling the effects of climate change. In some parts of southern England farmers are introducing crops once thought more appropriate to more exotic climes, including apricots, sunflowers and maize. Olives are thriving in Devon and English wines are gaining fans as growing conditions become more suitable. But not all fruits are benefiting – milder winters are not very good for blackcurrants, for example, which need cold weather to bear fruit. And drier summers mean that more and more fruit farmers are having to irrigate their crops.
heat waves in Europe
The past decade has seen chaotic weather across Europe. A heat wave in 2003 contributed to the death of an estimated 35,000 people across the continent, prompting experts to call it one of the deadliest climate-related disasters in Western history. Financially the damage was estimated at more than 13 billion euros. Harvests were badly hit and in France six power stations had to close because of low water levels in the rivers used for cooling systems.
And it appears 2003 was not an exception: temperatures again hit record highs of 46°C in south-east Europe in 2007, contributing to the deaths of more than 500 people in Hungary. According to climate experts, summers like 2003 are likely to become more and more common.
CURRANT CONCERN:
Fruits such as apple, strawberry, and blackcurrant need a sustained cold period to flower and fruit normally. But winters are becoming progressively milder – worrying times for the UK’s £230 million-a-year fruit industry.
English wine – treading new ground
Total area of vineyards in production in the UK
Source: Indicators of Climate Change in the UK (ICCUK)
The expansion of English and Welsh vineyards, although not attributable to climate change alone, shows the impact of warmer summers, market forces and wine-makers’ expectations of global warming within our lifetime.
have potatoes had their chips?
Walter Simon has been growing potatoes in Pembrokeshire, Wales, for more than 20 years. Farming has altered in that time, he says, as a result of changes in the weather. Planting happens earlier, and the harvest comes earlier too. Walter concedes that milder winters have made life on the farm easier in some ways – outside pipes no longer need lagging and the sheds where he lays out the potatoes for seed no longer have to be proofed against draughts. Now his main worry is making sure the sheds get enough ventilation to keep them cool.
Walter grows early potatoes and relies on irrigation to water his crop, but he worries about growing seasons extending elsewhere in the country. An earlier harvest in the east of England, for example, could push him out of the market. In 20 years’ time, he says, they probably won’t be growing potatoes in Pembrokeshire. ‘We’ll be growing apricots or something,’ he suggests. ‘But it is the speed of the change that concerns people. It’s not been as gradual an evolution as things may have been in the past.’
down under gets a roasting
In the space of just five years, 2002-2006, Australia suffered three of its worst droughts on record. ‘A frightening glimpse of the future with global warming’ was how South Australia’s Premier, Mike Rann, described the 2006 drought.
In South West Australia annual total rainfall has declined by some 15-20 per cent in the past 30 years. As elsewhere an early casualty is farming. Harvests have been failing completely or drastically reduced. Rice production has plunged by more than 90 per cent during the past decade. Irrigated crops such as citrus and vines are particularly vulnerable as water levels decline (grape production fell by nearly a third in 2007).
The high temperatures are having some more bizarre consequences. Players at the Australian Open tennis tournament in 2007 had to abandon the outside courts during the day because it was too hot. They restarted in the evening and went on into the night – one match ended at 3 am.
BREAK POINT:
Global warming affects our world from top to bottom, including sporting events such as the Australian Open, where 40 °C+ daytime temperatures forced night time play in 2006.
farming in a drier world
Farmer Alan Brown has survived ten years of below-average rainfall in New South Wales, Australia. In 2006 he had his worst year to date when, for the second time, his harvest completely failed.
An established farmer with 900 hectares of land and a mixture of sheep, cattle and winter crops, Alan says, ‘Everything I have revolves around the value of my land – and if my land is not producing, it isn’t worth anything.’ With less and less grazing available, Alan has taken to hand-feeding the animals for up to eight months of the year (he would normally do this for only three).
Winter rains are crucial in New South Wales. Moisture does not remain in the soil for long, and when winter rains fail, the outlook is dire, particularly for farmers who depend on irrigation. The financial effects are being felt in the wider community. Villages that once supported several shops and services are down to just one general store. Parents are finding it cheaper to move their children to cities for schooling – thus splitting the family. Alan worries that Australia is witnessing a prolonged drying, symptomatic of climate change. ‘If we are going to survive in a drier environment, we need plants that can survive with less water. It’s not something that we have bred for in the past.’
drying up in the Amazon
Covering an area of more than 2 million square miles, and home to a third of all animal species, the Amazon rainforest has been described as the Earth’s lungs. It absorbs vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, releasing oxygen and playing a crucial role in keeping our climate on an even keel.
But as our planet warms, this great natural resource is at risk from long periods of dry weather. In 2005 water in the Amazon River was so low that sections were impassable by boat. The Brazilian army was called in to distribute water and food, and big ships were left stranded. In one state alone, fire laid waste to 100,000 hectares of forest – an area two-thirds the size of Greater London. Scientists estimate that burning in the Amazon adds some 370 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year.
did you know?
Some scientists say climate change is affecting the frequency of El Niño – the occasional reversal of the weather over the Pacific region. This phenomenon has a huge influence on weather systems around the world. During El Niño flooding becomes more likely on the Pacific coast of the Americas and cold water fish supplies disappear.
the spreading desert
Dust storms are common in China when the wind blows. In northern China once-fertile land is being destroyed as the heat and lack of water kill vegetation. The dry soil quickly turns to dust. Dust and dried-up soil are whipped up from dry areas in the north of the country and move in clouds that can travel enormous distances – some have reached as far as Vladivostok in Russia.
GREEN WALL OF CHINA:
Specially planted shrubs will form part of a 700 km live barrier, intended to hold back inner Mongolia’s desertification and prevent dust storms disrupting the 2008 Olympics in nearby Beijing.
In South Korea massive dust storms blowing over the border from China were so bad in 2002 that primary schools had to be closed. The storms, which have already cost China more than US $2 billion a year in lost land and productivity, threaten the livelihood of at least 170 million people, and are increasing in frequency. There are even fears that they could blight the 2008 Beijing Olympics. More than 30 per cent of the total land area of China is now being affected by desertification.
Indeed a third of the Earth’s land surface is vulnerable to desertification. Over-grazing and damaging irrigation schemes have already taken their toll, but climate change may be the final straw for such areas. According to the United Nations, desertification could drive 50 million people from their homes in the next ten years.
is California’s fruit bowl drying out?
It’s not only the poorest farmers who are losing out from climate change. California’s agriculture industry is worth an estimated US $30 billion and employs more than 1 million workers. The most populous state in the United States, California has a varied climate, from snowy mountains to desert heat, and the region is no stranger to extremes of weather. But global warming is likely to make those extremes much worse.
Fruit-growers know how sensitive trees are to changes in temperature. The trees need a cold period to allow buds to set, and then a steady warm period for fruit to grow. In hot weather fruit matures more quickly, producing earlier harvests and smaller fruit. Californian grapes are vulnerable to high temperatures, which can lead to premature ripening that affects the quality of the wine. The problems facing US farmers are recognised by Government. The US Congress in 2007 approved a US $3 billion agricultural disasters relief fund, specifically for farmers affected by weather events.
on the grapevine
You may have drunk wines from California’s Napa Valley – it’s home to some of the New World’s finest.
Annie Favia has been working in Napa’s wine industry for more than ten years and says the changes in the climate are there to see. ‘I can’t say specifically that it is climate change, but it is definitely getting warmer,’ she says. ‘You get these heat spikes when you get scorching temperatures and they can last for up to a week at a time. The hot weather burns the fruit. The sugar level in the grape goes up before the fruit is ready and the result is you get higher and higher levels of alcohol.’
Annie and her husband Andy Erickson are small-scale producers, making up to 800 cases a year for the high end of the wine market: a bottle of Favia sells for between US $50 and US $500. Annie has tried to protect the grapes from the scorching temperatures, installing micro-sprinklers that spray a fine mist and keep the temperatures down. ‘We are using irrigation a lot more,’ she says. ‘So far it hasn’t been a problem for us, but there are a couple of regions in Napa that are water-deficient.’
More than 80 per cent of agriculture in California depends on irrigation, mainly fed by snow melt in the mountains. But snowfall is predicted to decline by anything from 30 to 90 per cent by the end of the century, leaving growers at the mercy of unreliable rain. ‘We are way out of control,’ says Annie. ‘We are changing things and we do not know what is going to happen. That is pretty scary.’
climate crisis in Africa
Farming is the backbone of most African economies. Four out of five Africans live in the countryside and farm or keep livestock for their livelihoods. As extreme weather hits the continent some of the world’s poorest people are bearing the brunt of climatic shifts. Eastern and Southern Africa have been badly affected by changes in rainfall. Until recently the rainy season would normally arrive in April and May but it hasn’t done so since 2002. Rivers and irrigation canals are running dry.
According to development agencies such as Christian Aid many people in rural areas are living on the edge of starvation. As temperatures rise, declining crop yields could leave hundreds of millions unable to produce or purchase enough food. In 2006 nearly 4 million
people in Kenya needed emergency food aid and millions of cattle perished following three consecutive years of failed rains. Lack of rain and grazing for animals is destroying the way of life for cattle-herders, fishermen and farmers, who find themselves competing and sometimes in conflict over a dwindling resource. Without food or crops to sell, people are struggling. Those with livestock or access to pasture have to defend it from those without. In northern Kenya, shepherds carry automatic rifles. Others survive only with the help of food aid. Some turn to the towns and cities in search of an alternative living, often leaving children with grandparents to work the land.
SHARE ISSUE:
The early impacts of climate change are being felt by the people least responsible for bringing it on. The IPCC predicts mounting pressure on water resources, and a halving of yields from rain-fed agriculture for some African countries by 2020.
water shortages in Kenya
‘When I was young there were grazing fields, water, milk, blood and meat,’ says Lore Kapisa who heads a family of 20 in Turkana, Kenya. ‘But we have seen huge changes over the past ten years: our livestock have died, our grazing fields have shrunk and our water dried up.’ The people in Turkana have lived in the arid terrain in the north-west corner of Kenya by farming animals. Lore has struggled for the past ten years because of relentless drought. As water and pasture become scarcer, disputes between neighbouring groups are spiralling into violence and Lore now carries an automatic rifle to protect his herd. But rather than food aid Lore wants water, pasture and a vet. This, he says, would enable them to continue their traditional ways of life. ‘We have been sick and without food, but we are human beings capable of being productive. Food aid creates dependency and reduces us to lesser human beings.’
Chapter 2
the science of climate change
We know climate change is happening, but what’s causing it? This chapter looks at the facts behind the freaky weather, and the implications for our planet if things carry on as they are.
why climate change is happening
Vital signs Three charts that tell a story – as global temperatures and sea levels have risen snow cover in the northern hemisphere has shrunk. The red lines give a bird’s eye view of key changes over the past 150 years based on yearly measurements (the grey dots), while the narrowing blue bands shows the room for doubt declining as measurement techniques have improved. Source: IPCC.
the greenhouse effect
Most life on Earth relies on energy from the sun to provide warmth and light. Some of the sun’s energy reflects off the Earth’s surface in the form of infrared rays, and gases in the atmosphere trap and/or reflect this energy - just as glass keeps heat in a greenhouse. The greenhouse effect helps keep the Earth warm enough to support life.
But some of these gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are building up because of pollution created by human activity. The result is more trapped heat and a sharp rise in the rate of warming.
SUN TRAP:
A thin blanket of gases around the Earth prevents some of the sun’s energy from escaping back into space.
five warming signs
Higher temperatures: Scientists have established that the global average temperature has increased by 0.76°C in the past century. Records going back over 150 years show that globally 19 of the 20 hottest years have occurred since 1980.
Melting ice: Arctic and Antarctic ice is thinning and sections of ice shelves are breaking off completely. Temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as quickly as the global average.
Coral bleaching: Scientists have found a rise of 2°C can kill coral. Reefs are home to around a quarter of known marine species.
Rising seas: We saw an increase of 17 cm during the 20th century.
Drier: Droughts have become more intense over the past 30 years, and have lasted longer, particularly in the tropics and sub-tropics.
fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect
Plants, trees and ocean plankton containing carbon absorbed many millions of years ago fossilised underground to form oil, coal and gas. When these are burnt the carbon is released, and combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. The first person on record to recognise the power of fossil fuels to change the climate was Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist who published his ‘greenhouse law’ in 1896. Arrhenius estimated that doubling carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to a rise in temperature of 5 °C and thought this promised a warmer climate in colder parts of the world. His maths wasn’t far off but few people today would agree with his predictions that rising temperatures are a good thing.
greenhouse gases
The greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide ozone, water vapour, sulphur hexafluoride and halocarbons. They make up quite a small proportion of our atmosphere; some have a more powerful warming effect than others.
carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is naturally occurring. People and animals produce it when breathing out whereas plants absorb and metabolise it, releasing oxygen in return.
The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million (ppm); or simply by weight (kg, tonnes).
Scientists believe carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the Earth’s distant past. Geological evidence suggests that in the Cretaceous period (65-144 million years ago) it was three to six times higher than today.
RING LEADERS:
Trees are in the frontline of defence against climate change – the vast sub-arctic forests of the north being among the most important. The United States, for instance, would be having an even greater impact on global warming if its forests weren’t absorbing around a tenth of its carbon dioxide emissions.
The world was also 10-15 °C warmer then and there was no ice at the Poles. For much of the time that people have been on Earth, carbon Carbon moves between dioxide levels have been stable at around 270-280 ppm. But land, sea and air. This cycle since the Industrial Revolution they have been rising quickly, was in a finely tuned reaching 380 ppm in 2005. This is largely a result of our use of natural equilibrium, but coal, oil and gas: producing, distributing and burning fossil fuels it’s being disturbed by accounts for three quarters of all the emissions of carbon humankind’s use of fossil dioxide caused by humans. The rest comes from changes in fuels, land use change and the way land is used, particularly cutting down and burning deforestation. This trees. Scientists have calculated that carbon dioxide is diagram shows where and responsible for 63 per cent of global warming. And it can stay how much carbon is stored in the atmosphere for up to 200 years. Its long lifespan means and the yearly changes in that carbon dioxide released today will still be affecting the billions of tons of carbon climate for hundreds of years. (GtC).
Carbon moves between land, sea and air. This cycle was in a finely tuned natural equilibrium, but it’s being disturbed by humankind’s use of fossil fuels, land use change and deforestation. This diagram shows where and how much carbon is stored and the yearly changes in billions of tons of carbon (GtC).
CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION:
With their economies run on fossil fuels, the countries of the developed world have been responsible for 77 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
carbon and carbon stores
Often described as the building block of life, carbon is present in all living things. It is the fourth most common element in the universe and is found in millions of different compounds. Commonly found in mineral form as coal, it is also in oil and methane (the main constituent of natural gas). When burnt, carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon monoxide (CO) and, more often, carbon dioxide (CO2). The world’s oceans, forests and soils absorb huge quantities of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere.
Plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis. When a tree is cut down and burnt, some of the stored carbon in the tree converts back into carbon dioxide and escapes into the atmosphere.
Oceans absorb around half of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mostly as dissolved bicarbonate. Like plants, plankton in the sea take up carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. But as oceans warm they absorb less. The increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also increasing the acidity of the oceans and damaging marine life.
Organic material in soil takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. More carbon is held in the world’s soils than in the atmosphere. But the capacity of the soil is limited and over time the amount of carbon dioxide escaping into the atmosphere will increase.
methane
Methane (CH4) is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas but levels in the atmosphere have more than doubled since the pre-industrial era. Farming contributes a huge amount: one dairy cow produces an estimated 500 litres of methane daily, mainly when burping – and there are some 10 million cattle in the UK. But methane also comes from landfill sites, burning fossil fuels, wetlands and drying peat bogs (swamp gas). It has a relatively short life span, of 11-12 years. Even so, methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, absorbing 20-25 times more infrared energy than carbon dioxide, and it is responsible for 24 per cent of global warming.
AN ILL WIND:
Domestic animals produce about a quarter of the world’s methane emissions – around 100 million tonnes annually. That’s more in carbon dioxide equivalent than emissions from transportation.
nitrous oxide
Like other greenhouse gases levels of nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased as a result of human activity. Chemical fertilisers and the burning of wood and fossil fuels are contributors. Nitrous oxide stays in the atmosphere for around 150 years and is responsible for about a tenth of global warming.
halocarbons
CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), HCFCs (hydrochlorofluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) – a group of greenhouse gases collectively known as halocarbons – have been building up in the atmosphere as a result of industrial processes. For many years CFCs were used in aerosol sprays and fridges. But scientists realised that these gases were damaging the Earth’s ozone layer – which blocks out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Public opinion and environmental campaigners helped persuade politicians to phase out CFCs. Although some of the gases used to replace them (HFCs and HCFCs) are also greenhouse gases, they are responsible for less than 3 per cent of global warming.
Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas
Each greenhouse gas has a different capacity to cause global warming. This, combined with the actual amounts in the atmosphere, gives the ‘global warming potential’ – shown in this case for the next 100 years. Carbon dioxide is the main culprit, followed by methane. Source: Met Office Hadley Centre
the montreal protocol
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer has been described as the most effective international agreement designed to tackle environmental pollution, with developing countries being offered money to help phase out CFCs. Twenty years after it was signed CFC levels began to fall and experts are now predicting that the ozone layer will recover in the next 100 years.
ozone
Ozone in the upper atmosphere acts as a greenhouse gas while in the lower atmosphere it is part of summer smog. It may have an indirect effect on climate change. High concentrations of low-atmosphere ozone prevent plants taking up carbon dioxide.
water vapour
Although water vapour is a greenhouse gas – and the most abundant of them – human activity has only a small direct effect on the amount of it in the atmosphere. The precise role of water vapour and clouds in global warming is unclear, but scientists know that as the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapour, causing more clouds to form. Clouds in turn can have an insulating effect, trapping warm air. But clouds may also cool things down by reflecting sunlight away from the Earth.
BLUE SKY SINKING:
The oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in a cycle that takes around 1,000 years to complete. The extra pollution thrown into the atmosphere by humans is distorting this process.
rising levels of greenhouse gases
Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now more than a third higher than they were in pre-industrial times.
Scientists have compared recent rises in temperature and levels of greenhouse gases with historic data based on ice samples and tree rings. On a graph this data produces a ‘hockey stick’-shaped curve depicting a rapid increase in temperature from 1900 onwards. Levels of carbon dioxide are now rising faster than at any time in the past 20,000 years.
In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that human activities are very likely to have been responsible for most of the global warming in the past 50 years. And because some greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for many years, current emissions will go on warming the Earth for centuries.
Rising levels of greenhouse gases – ‘the hockey stick’ curves
keeling curve
In 1958 US scientist Dr Charles D Keeling at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii began measuring the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Plotted on a graph, his results form a rising curve now known as the Keeling Curve. This shows that carbon dioxide levels vary with the seasons – by as much as 3 per cent over 12 months – because many trees in the Northern Hemisphere do not take up carbon dioxide during winter. Over and above this variation, however, we can detect a steady increase in the past 50 years.
Dr Keeling was the first scientist to report that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was increasing, alerting the world to the threat of climate change.
dimming – hot or cold?
Whereas greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere, aerosols and solid particles reflect heat and light from the sun and prevent sunlight reaching the ground. This has a cooling effect – sometimes referred to as global dimming – and is caused by pollution from industrial processes, transport, wood-burning stoves, forest fires and volcanoes. Conversely, particles such as dust and soot can also increase warming by absorbing sunlight.
No one knows the precise impact of such pollution, but it may be masking the full impact of the greenhouse gases. It may also play a role in cloud formation, causing further complex influences on the climate. Areas downwind of pollution sources may suffer regional impacts. A recent study observed that a brown cloud of pollution over the Indian Ocean was warming the sea and could be contributing to melting of glaciers in the Himalayas.
snapshot of our future climate:
less snow and ice
more severe storms and floods, particularly along coasts
more rainfall at higher latitudes
less rainfall over land in the tropics – more drought
less predictable winds, rain and temperature
more heatwaves
the threat of extreme change
Some scientists believe that warming presents a risk of more extreme irreversible climate change as the Earth’s natural systems swing out of balance.
Thawing permafrost: Peat bogs in Siberia and Alaska are thawing, releasing carbon dioxide and methane that they have stored for thousands of years.
The albedo effect: melting snow and ice exposes rocks, trees and tundra which are less reflective so they absorb more of the sun’s energy, adding to warming and melting more snow.
Ocean warming: Methane deposits, known as clathrates, are stored in sediments under the oceans. Warming might lead to the release of huge quantities of methane gas into the atmosphere.
Scientists say there is a greater than 90 per cent chance that the great ocean conveyor – the Meridional Overturning Circulation – will slow down this century, and it could switch off in the longer term. This would imply a huge change in natural cycles.
Recent studies by NASA director and scientist James Hansen suggest that ice sheets can melt much faster than the thousands of years envisaged by the IPCC. This is because melt water under the ice sheet speeds up the breaking up and melting of the ice. Hansen also found that other greenhouse gases – and soot particles – are speeding up melting in the Arctic. This is because the dark flecks absorb more heat. As a result, he warned, an average temperature rise of just 1°C could lead to a sea level rise of between 2 and 6 metres. If Greenland’s ice sheets melt quickly this will change the temperature in the Atlantic ocean, with dramatic effects on the world’s weather systems.
If a small amount of human-induced global warming triggers massive natural warming, the result is likely to be climate change that happens over decades rather than centuries.
The great ocean conveyor belt Ocean currents redistribute heat around the planet, (below), for example bringing warm water from the tropics to the UK via the Gulf Stream, and cold water to Newfoundland, with striking effects on both countries’ climates. Source: IPCC.
uncertainty and the sceptics
The complexity of the Earth’s climate means that there has been some scientific uncertainty about global warming. Although the theory of the greenhouse effect was first put forward more than 100 years ago, clear evidence that it was happening was not readily available until the 1970s.
Today there is little room for doubt that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity. The IPCC – a naturally cautious body – stated in 2007, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90 per cent) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’
But earlier scientific uncertainty has proved a fruitful area for media debate, amplifying the doubts of people who have questioned climate change. Some have exploited scientific doubt to spread complacency and confusion because they have seen addressing climate change as a threat to their interests. Certain companies, for example, have tried to divert attention from the environmental impact of fossil fuels.
“Some will always make a case for doubt in an issue such as this, partly because its implications are so frightening. But what is not in doubt is that the scientific evidence of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is now overwhelming.
Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister (1997-2007)
Scientists have explored alternative theories on the rising temperatures – for example, that they are down to variation in the sun’s cycles. But this does not explain the fit between rising levels of greenhouse gases and rising temperatures. In fact, computer models looking at the effect of the sun’s output on our current climate show that if natural variations were the cause, the Earth should now be cooling, not getting hotter.
The sun’s activity has in fact been decreasing since 1985. Natural phenomena simply do not explain why temperatures have risen in the past 30 years.
An assessment of more than 900 scientific studies on climate change, published over a ten-year period, found that none of the research disputed the consensus view that human activity is responsible for global warming.
fuelling the scepticism
While some scientists have pursued legitimate lines of enquiry over the science of climate change, others have deliberately exploited doubts for commercial and political gain. In the United States PR strategists advised the oil industry on how to set up groups to stir up doubts over the science and influence public opinion – in much the same way as the tobacco industry had earlier tried to persuade the public that smoking did not damage their health.
Oil has been key to the global economy for a century, and action to tackle emissions from fossil fuels has been seen to threaten the industry. So it is perhaps not surprising that politicians and many others were at first persuaded not to take global warming seriously.
the scientific consensus
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international body set up by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) to assess scientific information on climate change. It brings together climate scientists and government experts to consider research from around the world. In 2007 it shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, the maker of An Inconvenient Truth.
four climate hotspots
Scientists have identified a number of hotspots around the world that could trigger fundamental changes in the global climate, including:
Amazon rainforest: Changes in the Sahara could reduce the fertility of the Amazon region, speeding up destruction of the rainforest.
North Atlantic ocean current: Melt-water from Arctic ice sheets could slow the North Atlantic ocean current, leading to cooling in northern Europe.
Asian monsoon: Changes to weather systems in the Atlantic could have a serious effect on the reliability of Asia’s annual rainfall.
Sahara desert: Dust from the Sahara fertilises the Amazon, but if the region gets wetter, there will be less soil erosion and more chance of plants returning to the Sahara.
Scientists are working to understand how such hotspots could affect the climate – and what impact climate change will have on the hotspots themselves.
The IPCC’s fourth report, issued in 2007, highlighted the growing evidence of observed climate change from around the world and looked at future predictions.
Its evidence is based on a consensus among the scientists involved. It is mainstream thinking – endorsed by international governments – and as such it can err on the side of caution. Some have suggested that the IPCC is in fact presenting a ‘bestcase scenario’, underplaying the evidence for more violent climate change. One author based at the Met Office Hadley Centre Richard Betts says that means that the result is ‘bullet proof’ in terms of the certainty of the science it contains. ‘When I read this [the IPCC report] for the first time I did feel fear – I had worked on it for three years and I knew it was right,’ he says.
what will the world be like with a changed climate?
Scientists can predict with increasing accuracy how the climate will respond to rising levels of pollution in the atmosphere. In 2007 the IPCC highlighted the scientific predictions about the impacts of climate change over the next 50 to 100 years, revealing a world in which billions of people will be at risk. Sub-Saharan Africa, large river delta areas in parts of Asia, small island states and the Arctic regions are likely to be particularly vulnerable.
“ It’s the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit and who are the most vulnerable as far as the impacts of climate change are concerned.
Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC
the Hadley Centre’s global climate models
The UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre is spearheading international research. Early climate models were simplistic replicas of the climate, covering temperature, rain and carbon dioxide, and were more useful for monitoring changes in the weather than for predicting future climate. Today’s models include a vast number of variables and have been shown to be capable of describing historical changes in the climate with reasonable accuracy. Interactive cloud systems, oceans, land-surface cover and aerosol pollution are all factored into the predictions made by models such as the Hadley Centre’s latest (global climate model) HadGEM1. This looks at 38 different layers of the atmosphere – allowing for greater accuracy in the predictions, and more regional detail than in older models.
Africa: Many countries are already becoming drier and this is predicted to get worse. Some 75-250 million people likely to face water shortages by 2020. Farm yields in some parts will be reduced by half by 2020. Greater risk of flooding near the Equator. Sea-level rise will affect some coastal areas by the end of the century. A quarter of Africa’s population lives in coastal areas.
Continental temperature trends
Asia: More than 1 billion people facing reduced supplies of fresh water in large river basins by mid-century. Deltas in China, India and Bangladesh at risk from rising seas. Salt water likely to contaminate the ground water. Floods may bring diseases like diarrhoea and cholera. Warming oceans will affect fish and fishing communities.
Europe: More flash floods and greater coastal erosion. In Southern Europe heat and less rainfall will be bad news for farming. Human health at risk from heat waves and smoke from wildfires. Drier summers in Central and Eastern Europe will put water supplies under stress. Forests and peat areas at risk from wildfires. In Northern Europe growing seasons likely to increase, and forest likely to flourish. Less need to heat homes but risk of more winter floods.
South America: Tropical rainforest in Eastern Amazonia likely to be dry grassland by mid-century. Species such as black spider monkeys, bearded sakis, red-handed tamarins, jaguar and pumas, will come under severe threat and some truly magnificent and significant species are likely to be lost for ever. Drier, and in some areas, saltier conditions could reduce food yields. Warmer conditions could boost soybean production in temperate areas. Vanishing glaciers will threaten water supplies in cities such as Lima, Peru, as well as hydroelectric power and farming.
North America: Farmers in northern regions could have longer growing seasons for a few decades. California may dry out and become more vulnerable to winter floods. Hotter weather and wildfires will pose health hazards. Parts of the eastern coast will see more intense hurricanes and tropical storms, storm surges and flooding.
Australia and New Zealand: Australia sees increasing water shortages by 2030 and significant loss of animal and plant varieties by 2020, particularly from the Great Barrier Reef and the Queensland Wet Tropics. Water shortages predicted for New Zealand’s North Island and rising temperatures will benefit farm yields for a time on the South Island. Risk of coastal flooding from mid-century in Australia and New Zealand.
UK climate change in the 21st century
Projected temperature increases, based on one of two IPCC scenarios – Low Emissions (+2.0°C, 525 ppm CO2 in 2080s) or High Emissions (+3.9°C, 810 ppm CO2 in 2080s)
climate change in the UK
With UK temperatures expected to increase by 2-3.5 °C by the 2080s, hot summers will be more frequent and very cold winters rare. Winter flooding is predicted to become more common, while farmers face shifts in growing seasons.
Sea levels will go on rising by 26-86 cm in the South East by 2080. Extreme high-water levels are likely to become more frequent, particularly on the east coast of England, and houses on floodplains are especially vulnerable. The Thames Barrier is likely to need replacing by 2030 if today’s levels of protection are to be maintained. Flooding is likely to hit the least well-off most: the most deprived 10 per cent of the population are eight times more likely to be living in the coastal floodplain than the wealthiest 10 per cent.
A study of UK wildlife found that eight species are under threat from climate change because of changes to habitat. Increased drought could mean fewer slugs and snails available as food for song thrushes in the south of England, with the population at risk across England, Wales and Ireland if warming continues. Skylarks, black grouse, common scoter and capercaillie are also likely to see their preferred habitat disappear. Stag beetles, currently only found in southern England, could find more suitable habitat further north. A warmer South East will attract new species: mosquitoes are already on the up and there are fears that malaria carriers could soon be in the UK. Some species will find they cannot adapt: the Snowdon lily could die out while the snow bunting is unlikely to be found in the UK.
the human cost
The human costs of inaction on climate change are incalculable. Millions of the world’s poorest people will experience dramatic changes in their way of life.
Regions close to the Equator – many of which rely on small-scale farming for food – will see bad harvests from a temperature rise of just 1-2°C. Farmers may be able to adapt by using different crop varieties and relying more on irrigation. But studies suggest that temperature increases above 3°C will be hard to accommodate. Heat will be bad news for dairy farmers: cows are less fertile, produce less milk and do not live as long in hot conditions. Cattle and pigs are also affected by heat – they tend to breed less.
Adapting to climate change will be difficult for small and family farms, for pastoralists and people who make a subsistence living on poor land, especially in parts of Africa and Asia. Without adaptation, crop yields are likely to fall and be badly affected by extreme weather events. Wealthy areas rich in resources are likely to adapt more easily.
Fishing communities will struggle as fish species migrate or die out. River fish will be affected as rainfall and snow melt patterns change. Millions of people, particularly in some of the poorest communities, rely on fishing to supplement their families’ diet.
Food will not be the only area of the economy that is damaged. The timber industry will see extreme weather and more wildfires, insects and pests.
Thousands – if not millions – of people have already left their homes because of the changing climate. The International Red Cross says 25 million people could already be classified as ‘environmental refugees’ in 2001 and it has been estimated that climate change could push the total number of displaced people worldwide to 1 billion by 2050. One study estimated that around 15 million were likely to be displaced from Bangladesh alone. In China 4,000 villages are likely to be abandoned as a result of the spread of the Gobi desert. Huge numbers of people on the move are thought likely to increase the risk of conflict in some areas where resources are most scarce.
health risks
The health of millions is at risk. The very young and very old will be most vulnerable. The IPCC warns of:
more malnutrition with long-term impacts for child growth and development
more deaths, disease and injury due to extreme weather events; people in urban areas will be most at risk – cities intensify temperatures because buildings hold heat
an increase in diseases, including diarrhoea and cholera as a result of water contamination caused by flooding
more problems such as chest infections and asthma because of increased low-level ozone
changes to the way infectious diseases spread.
The warming of colder regions will lead to fewer people dying of the cold. And changes to the climate could limit the spread of malaria in some parts of Africa. But over all, the health benefits of climate change are vastly outweighed by the negative effects, particularly in poorer areas.
Mortality and climate change Estimated deaths in 2000 attributed to climate change (compared to a 1961–1990 baseline) show that Sub-Saharan Africa and the rest of the developing world bear the health burden of climate change.
the cost to wildlife
Plants, birds and animals cannot easily adjust to rapid changes – either in temperatures or in their food supply. The potential toll on the wildlife-rich rainforest of the Amazon is an extreme example. Experts believe the golden toad and harlequin frog – both native to Costa Rica – have disappeared as a direct result of climate change. Animals as diverse as polar bears, tigers, penguins and pikas are at risk. Some 70 per cent of coral in the Indian Ocean has already died as a result of the heat.
The IPCC predicts that 20-30 per cent of plant and animal species are at an increased risk of being wiped off the face of the Earth if global average temperatures rise by more than 1.5-2.5°C. Indeed some scientists put climate change at the top of the list of threats to biodiversity in many regions.
JUMPING OFF POINT:
Scientist JA Pounds says Central American frog species have disappeared due to deadly infectious diseases spurred by global warming. ‘Disease is the bullet killing frogs, but climate change is pulling the trigger,’ he said.
In the UK long dry periods damage food supplies for migrating birds. Breeding redshanks, lapwings and snipe dropped by up to 80 per cent at five reserves in the south of England following the dry summer in 2005. And warmer seas are leading to fewer plankton off the British coast, with an impact on the sand eel population – resulting in less food for nesting birds like puffins.
As plants, insects, birds and animals migrate so the nature of our landscape will change. Traditional English woodland, populated with oak, beech and bluebells could become a thing of the past, as sycamore becomes the more dominant species and cow parsley could force snowdrops and bluebells out.
the economic cost
It’s easy to see the immediate costs of clearing up damage caused by floods, storms or warping railway tracks; less obviously, farmers across the world are paying the price in lost harvests, lower yields and higher prices. People who rely on rainforests for food, farming and forestry are losing their way of life.
In the developed world, the insurance industry generally picks up the tab for extreme weather. But in Europe the cost of flood damage alone would be expected to rise by up to £82 billion a year, and the costs of Hurricane Katrina have been put at US $125 billion. Many people in the poorest countries do not have insurance policies; but even in the rich developed world, many can’t afford insurance as the risk of extreme weather rises – particularly for those living in flood plains.
An economic assessment of the cost of climate change, commissioned by the UK Government and published in 2006, suggested that unchecked climate change could damage economic well-being worldwide by at least 5 per cent and by as much as 20 per cent. In other words a fifth of the world economy is at risk.
‘The impacts of climate change are not evenly distributed – the poorest countries and people will suffer earliest and most.’ The Stern Review, October 2006
how different temperature rises could affect us
The IPCC predicts temperature increases of 1.8-6.4 °C this century, depending on the amount of fossil fuel used. Its best estimate is 4 °C. While rises at the lower end of this spectrum would have terrible impacts for millions of people around the world, a rise of more than 6 °C could spell shocking global consequences.
HOT TIP:
A future with extreme climate change? Don’t go there. Experiments in South Africa’s Succulent Karoo desert show that a 4-6 °C rise in daytime temperature kills three quarters of plant species.
the six-degree scenario
Evidence suggests that the end-Permian extinction, 251 million years ago, may have been triggered by a rise of temperatures of 6 °C: it almost wiped out life on Earth. Forests, swamps and savannahs were washed away, land turned to desert; the warming oceans, which lose oxygen as temperatures rise, would have become stagnant and toxic. Some scientists believe the warming of the ocean would have been enough to trigger the release of huge clouds of methane from the sea bed, poisoning the atmosphere. Life on Earth did survive 6 °C of warming, but those changes took place over 10,000 years. Human releases of carbon dioxide are almost certainly happening faster than any natural releases since the beginning of life on Earth.
Writer Mark Lynas has studied historical records to examine the potential effects of temperature rises of up to 6 °C. Here is a summary of his six-degree scenario:
+1 °C: Deserts spread across parts of the United States, turning farmland to dust from Canada in the north to Texas in the south. The Gulf Stream could switch off – plunging Europe into an icy winter. Coral reefs around the world are wiped out.
+ 2 °C: Oceans turn increasingly acidic, killing off plankton and affecting sea life. European summers are plagued by heat waves as strong as the killer of 2003. Wildfires spread around the Mediterranean. Greenland tips into irreversible melt, accelerating sea-level rise and threatening coastal cities. The polar bear and walrus become extinct.
+ 3 °C: Deserts spread across parts of Africa, driving millions of refugees to surrounding countries. A permanent El Niño grips the Pacific, causing weather chaos worldwide. Drought and wild fires rage across the Amazon, destroying swathes of forest, releasing yet more carbon. World food running short. Water shortages threaten parts of India, Pakistan, Australia and Peru.
+4 °C: Tens of millions become refugees as rising waters threaten the Nile Delta and low-lying Bangladesh. The West Antarctic ice sheet collapses, pumping 5 metres of water into global sea levels. Southern Europe becomes like the Sahara, with deserts spreading in Spain and Portugal.
+5 °C: The Earth is hotter than at any time for 55 million years. Desert belts expand across Europe, America and Asia. Some populations try to move towards the poles. Most of the world is uninhabitable.
+6 °C: Huge firestorms sweep the planet as methane hydrate fireballs ignite. Seas release poisonous hydrogen sulphide. Most of life on Earth has been extinguished. Humanity’s survival is in question.
chapter 3
how much carbon can we live with?
Climate change will get worse if we allow greenhouse gas emissions to grow unchecked. So where are the emissions coming from? And how much more can the planet take?
scientific predictions
Models show that if we go on with business as usual and fail to address greenhouse gas emissions we can expect average temperatures across the world to rise dangerously. Precisely how much warmer it will get is the subject of huge investigation but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gives a range of between 2.4°C and 6.4°C above preindustrial levels by the end of this century. If we don’t take action, scientists believe the most likely point within that range will be a rise of 4°C by the end of this century – that’s enough to produce catastrophic results.
measuring carbon
The proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is usually expressed as parts per million by volume (ppmv); this tells us the concentration of carbon dioxide in numbers of molecules per million molecules of air.
Emissions can also be measured by: the weight of carbon dioxide (carbon plus two oxygen atoms) – in grammes, kilogrammes and tonnes – over a period of time. High levels of emissions are measured in millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide or by the weight of carbon alone. One tonne of carbon is equal to 3.67 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Other greenhouse gases are sometimes expressed in million tonnes of the carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2e) – in other words, the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same effect.
how high are global emissions?
In a little more than a century human activity has added 200 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere. Today we are pumping out just over 7 billion tonnes of carbon a year – that’s twenty times the weight of all the water in Lake Windermere. It’s also equivalent to 26 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. A further 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year come from changes in the way we use land – mostly by cutting down forests that, when growing, play a vital role in soaking up carbon dioxide.
Scientists agree that we need to stabilise emissions, then reduce them. But at what level?
carbon footprint
‘Carbon footprint’ can be useful shorthand to describe the amount of carbon dioxide we generate – individually, in our cities, nationally, or from the products we use. The term ‘footprint’ is also used to describe the impact of emissions, by providing a measure based on the area of things like forests, oceans and grassland that are required to absorb the carbon dioxide.
Later in this chapter, we’ll use this measure of impact to look at the carbon footprints of different countries. Elsewhere in the book we’ll be focusing on carbon dioxide emissions, particularly in the UK, where government figures for emissions are given in weight.
the 2°c target
The UK government, together with the rest of the European Union, has pledged to stabilise greenhouse gases to prevent average global temperatures rising more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Allow greater temperature change, climate scientists say, and we start to play havoc with agriculture, the economy and the natural environment – committing millions of people to hardship and millions of species to extinction. Perhaps even more worrying is the prediction that a higher rise than 2°C would increase the risk of spiralling and irreversible climate change.
UK path to a safer future
Steady but steep - the UK needs to make serious cuts in carbon dioxide emissions over the next 40 years to play its part in avoiding runaway climate change. Based on research by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester, the chart assumes the need to stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide at 450 ppm.
To stay within a 2°C rise the science tells us we would need to keep greenhouse gases (and other pollutants) at no more than 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent. But we’re already racing towards that threshold: carbon dioxide alone had already reached 380 ppm in 2006, and emissions are rising by nearly 2 ppm per year.
And there’s more. As a result of the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere scientists warn that 2°C could be the lowest increase we can hope for.
So how much time do we have to turn things around? Because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for so long, and because it takes a while for it to affect the climate, the fossil fuel we burn in power stations today will still be affecting the climate at the start of the next century. That means we have to reduce emissions as quickly as possible, rather than hoping to make big cuts five years from now. The sooner we make cuts, the better.
Two facts illustrate the urgency of the task that faces us if we want to stay within a 2°C rise:
1 Greenhouse gas emissions have to start falling by 2015. They must then continue to decline.
2 Industrialised countries need to cut emissions by about 90 per cent by the middle of this century.
So can it be done? Some argue that it is unrealistic to expect to cut carbon emissions quickly and deeply enough to stay within 2°C. But the scientific consensus is that we must.
where in the world do the emissions come from?
Most carbon emissions from human activity come from industrialised countries, whose economies rely on manufacturing and transport powered largely by fossil fuels.
The United States, home to fewer than 1 in every 20 people in the world, is responsible for about a fifth of global carbon dioxide emissions.
Europe accounts for 15 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, working out at around 9.3 tonnes per person per year. That’s enough to fill two Olympic swimming pools for every person in Europe.
China became the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2006. But China’s emissions per person are less than those of the United States: in 2003 the average American emitted nearly six times as much carbon dioxide as the average person in China.
Across the world average emissions were 3.7 tonnes per person in 2003. But in some African countries, such as Mali and Burundi, they were less than 0.1 tonnes per person.
Comparative worldwide emissions (2003)
NB: Includes international aviation and shipping, excludes land use change. Source: World Resources Institute
A country’s greenhouse gas emissions depend on the size of its economy, the types of industry it has and the kinds of energy it uses. Demand for heating and air conditioning are also key factors: rich countries with hot summers use lots of energy for air-conditioning; cold countries use more for heating.
China has become a major emitter of greenhouse gases only in the past 20 years while the United States and the UK have been pumping out carbon dioxide throughout the past century. And it is the total quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is driving global warming, not just the annual amount added to this total. So it’s the developed countries that are mostly responsible for the problem.
seven people who can make a difference
1 The President of the United States
2 The President of China
3 The British Prime Minister
4 The Mayor of London
5 Your boss
6 Your council leader
7 You
comparing carbon footprints
A country’s real contribution to the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere depends not just on the energy it uses, but also on the way it uses land and the stuff it consumes. The amount of land being farmed will affect emissions of methane and nitrous oxide as well as the amount of carbon dioxide held by the soil. (Forests help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.) Goods imported from overseas also have their own carbon footprint and use up natural resources.
To get a clear picture of a country’s overall footprint, then, we need to look at what it is consuming, including imports. The Global Footprint Network uses information on all of these areas to estimate each country’s total impact on the planet in terms of environmental cost, and has come up with a measure it calls global hectares. Using this measure, humanity’s global footprint is put at 13.9 billion global hectares. That’s 24 per cent more than the natural resources available on Earth. This is a problem: we are exceeding the planet’s ability to absorb our impact.
Global footprints (global hectares/person, 2003)
UK emissions
Half a billion tonnes. That’s how much carbon dioxide the UK emits each year. Some 60.2 million people live in the UK – that’s just less than one in every 100 people in the world; but in 2005 our emissions were around 2 per cent of the global total – double our fair share.
In fact the true total is even higher: 556 million tonnes is the official figure, but that doesn’t include our share of emissions from international aviation and shipping; nor the emissions created by all the products we buy from overseas.
Add to that the UK’s history and the footprint gets heavier still. We have been pumping out carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution. It is this historical record that leads many to argue that greenhouse gas emissions are a problem created by the developed countries, including the UK, and to insist that it is the old industrial world’s responsibility to reduce its emissions first. Richer countries, particularly the United States, have been reluctant to cut emissions before developing nations do, claiming it will damage their economies. This has been a major barrier to international agreements to tackle climate change.
the need to cut
Politicians may argue about who is responsible for cutting just how much carbon dioxide; but to keep within the 2°C threshold, globally we need to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide massively by 2050. This looks like a tall order – but it is possible.
Where can the cuts come from? And what difference will they make to the way we live?
is it all about population growth?
Some people argue that tackling climate change means doing something about the world’s growing population: the Earth’s resources are limited and there simply is no longer enough to go around if we go on consuming at this rate; our survival, some say, depends on keeping our numbers down.
The global population has grown more than six-fold just over 200 years to around 6.6 billion in 2007. It is expected to stabilise at around 9.2 billion by mid-century. But the countries with the fastest growing populations are among those who have done the least to affect climate change
Carbon dioxide emissions per person are far higher in the richest countries of the world such as the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia and the UK. By contrast, many countries in Africa have per capita emissions that are negligible in comparison – less than one-hundredth the level. Many countries in Latin America have per capita emissions that are only around one-tenth those of the richest countries.
Global population is not the root of the problem: it is the rapid use of energy and natural resources by the richer and fossil-fuel dependent economies that is putting pressure on the planet.
Carbon-dating climate change – a timeline
End of the Permian period (251 million years ago). Geological evidence suggests carbon dioxide concentrations were four times higher than today. Much of Central Europe and the southern United States was desert, and seas were 20 metres higher. Methane releases from the sea beds are thought to have wiped out many living things. Some estimates suggest that 95 per cent of life on Earth was eradicated.
Start of the Holocene (10,000 years ago). End of the last ice age and the beginning of a relatively stable climate.
Medieval Warm Period (900-1200 AD). Relative warming in the Northern Hemisphere, with wine grown in the UK and droughts in North America. Temperatures in Europe are thought to have been 1°C -2°C warmer than at the start of the 20th century, but little evidence exists of warming on a global scale.
1750-1800 Start of the Industrial Revolution and the use of coal to drive industry.
1800 Start of the Anthropocene. According to some climate scientists, the stable period of the Holocene is coming to an end: humanity’s influence over the world’s climate is so great that the current age should be known as the Anthropocene.
1896 Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish chemist, identifies the global warming properties of greenhouse gases, predicting that a doubling of carbon dioxide levels could raise temperatures by 5°C.
1979 First World Climate Conference highlights concerns about levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (see p.54) is established.
1987 The Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, makes the case for, and provides a definition of, sustainable development.
1990 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes its first assessment; it says climate change is a concern and human activities are likely to be contributing.
1992 Rio Earth Summit. World leaders meet in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to discuss the state of the planet, signing up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
1997 Kyoto Protocol. The first legally enforceable international treaty designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Signed by 141 countries, the Kyoto Protocol eventually comes into force in 2005.
2001 Newly-elected US President George Bush refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. ‘I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 per cent of the world, including major population centres such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy.’
2002 Larsen B ice shelf breaks up. A piece of ice a quarter the size of Northern Ireland falls into the sea in the Antarctic.
2003 European heat wave. Some 35,000 Europeans die as a result of extreme temperatures.
2004 UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is ‘shocked’ by scientists’ warnings on climate change. He tells reporters that ‘unchecked climate change has the potential to be catastrophic in both human and economic terms’.
2005 UK Prime Minister Tony Blair makes climate change a priority for the G8 rich countries summit at Gleneagles. UK emissions continue to rise.
2006 UK Government agrees to introduce new legislation designed to tackle climate change. UK emissions continue to rise.
2007 The IPCC and former US Vice President Al Gore share the Nobel Peace prize. Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, highlighting the threat posed by climate change, wins an Oscar. Japan announces that climate change will be a priority at meeting of the G8 industrialised countries.
breaking down the UK’s carbon footprint
When looking at where our carbon dioxide emissions come from we can slice the cake a number of ways. The flow chart shows one breakdown by end-user. But a common way to think about emissions is in terms of three key end-uses – electricity, heat and transport.
electricity
Demand for electricity is responsible for roughly a third of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. That’s because we rely on fossil fuel: large, centralised power stations burn coal and gas to generate most of our electricity. The UK does produce some electricity using renewable sources such as wind and hydropower, but at the moment this provides only around 4 per cent of our electricity.
Demand for electricity in the UK has doubled since the 1970s – partly as a result of the growing number of smaller households, most with their own fridge, freezer and microwave. Over this period power stations have become more efficient, but a diminishing supply of North Sea gas, combined with high oil and gas prices, have led generating companies to turn to coal. Coal produces higher levels of carbon dioxide emissions than gas does and can cause other pollution problems as well.
heat
If we’re looking at our footprint in terms of the end use of the energy, heating homes, offices and public buildings plus the heat used in industry actually account for the biggest slice of
a snapshot of the UK’s CO2 emissions in 2005
The areas of the boxes show how each sector contributes to the UK’s total of 595 MtCO2 in 2005. We’ve included international aviation and shipping. Source: BERR/Friends of the Earth.
the UK’s emissions. Industry and domestic consumers alike How we heat our rely mainly on oil and gas. Total demand for heat energy is homes falling slightly, partly thanks to improvements in efficiency. And despite the recent trend towards coal, the switch to gas that has been happening since the 1970s means that carbon emissions from heat generation have been falling. In our homes, gas is the main source of energy – and domestic use is rising slowly.
How we heat our homes
Source: BERR
Carbon emissions from industry (2002)
power hotspots
If we look at our emissions in terms of broad economic sectors, the biggest sources are business and transport and our homes.
About 40 per cent of the UK’s carbon emissions come from businesses, with industry accounting for about half of that. The chemicals industry accounts for a fifth of all the energy used in industry, with food, drink and tobacco the second biggest industrial consumer. The UK’s service economy – i.e. banking, insurance and shops – is less energy-intensive, but as the dominant sector still uses lots of heat and power. In fact services account for a fifth of our greenhouse gas emissions.
As individuals our main energy-consuming activity is heating our homes. Private transport comes second – followed by food and drink, health and hygiene and heating water. Holidays, clothing, cooking and books and newspapers come low down on the list.
transport
Transport is often referred to as the problem sector: since 1990 transport emissions have risen by a fifth. Some 22 per cent of UK greenhouse gases come from road vehicles – perhaps not surprising since running a car today is cheaper in real terms than it was ten years ago. But aviation is a fast-growing problem.
| Emissions for a journey from London to Edinburgh | kg CO2 per passenger |
| 1 Plane | 96.4 |
| 2 Car | 71 |
| 3 Rail (high speed electric) | 11.9 |
| 4 Coach | 9.2 |
According to the Department for Transport, aviation emitted 2.5 million tonnes in 2005. But this figure only includes domestic civil aviation. If the UK’s share of international aviation is included (calculated as half of all flights taking off or landing in the UK), then emissions for aviation were more than ten times that. Even then a crude measure of carbon dioxide emissions from aviation does not reveal the true extent of the impact that flying has on the climate. Because aeroplanes create pollution high in the upper atmosphere, the impact of the emissions is magnified. How much of a difference this makes is still being studied, but conservative estimates suggest UK emissions from aviation account for 13 per cent of the UK’s climate change impacts. Emissions from shipping are also on the rise, as more and more goods are traded around the world.
Transport emissions (2006)
Excluding international flights and shipping
Including international flights and shipping
UK transport emissions are big and getting bigger. Watch out for the way they’re reported: emissions from international aviation and shipping have not generally been included. But when they are it’s clear how serious a problem air travel presents.
our carbon exports
None of the above takes account of the greenhouse gases the UK is responsible for elsewhere in the world. British companies play a huge role in international trade and many of the goods they sell and that UK consumers buy are manufactured overseas. Yet the energy used to produce them does not show up on the UK greenhouse gas inventory.
Take one of the UK’s most successful companies, British Petroleum (BP). Its direct activities, such as exploration, drilling and refining, combined with the sale of its products, are estimated to have resulted in emissions of nearly 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2004. That’s more than double the carbon dioxide produced by the UK. According to one financial company, emissions from all the oil, gas and coal sold by FTSE 100 companies is likely to be close to fifteen per cent of the global total from all fossil fuels.
farmland
According to government figures, agriculture is responsible for 8 per cent of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. This is largely from methane and nitrous oxide rather than energy use.
Intensive farming relies on chemical fertilisers, which increase the amount of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. Fertiliser production is the largest source of nitrous oxide emissions in the world and producing fertiliser itself relies heavily on fossil fuels. Making and transporting fertilisers is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the farm sector, but these emissions are not included in the government’s figures for agricultural emissions. Sheep and cows emit methane as a result of the digestive process, resulting in high levels of emissions from livestock and dairy farming.
Meat farming is responsible for two thirds of the nitrous oxide and more than a third of the methane associated with human activity. One study found that every 1 kg of beef produced results in emissions of more than 36 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent: two-thirds of the energy used goes to produce and transport cattle feed. Producing food for livestock and clearing land for grazing is having a huge impact on valuable forests. Greenhouse gas emissions from livestock have been put at around 18 per cent of the global total. And demand for meat is rising, especially in the developing world: meat production is predicted to double between 2000 and 2050.
the UK’s carbon footprint
Despite the government’s recognition that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, UK emission levels have continued to rise over the past decade.
Some parts of the economy have started to reduce their carbon footprint, but emissions from transport and electricity generation are rising – the latter the result of the recent switch back to coal in power stations.
The government’s draft Climate Change Bill set a target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. But science suggests that this will not be enough. ‘It is clear to us that climate science suggests that this figure may not be adequate to prevent global temperatures rising above dangerous levels,’ said a House of Commons Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill in August 2007.
The crucial factor is not the target at some distant point in the future, but how much carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere. Making cuts sooner rather than later will result in less carbon in total. If the UK is committed to keeping global temperatures within 2°C it may need to look at cuts of 90 per cent by 2050.
eating our way to climate change
The contribution of food to global warming doesn’t stop at the farm gate. More than 30 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in Europe are estimated to come from the food and drink sector. In the UK the food chain contributes more than one in every five tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
Much of the food on our supermarket shelves has travelled the world, some of it ‘air-freighted for freshness’, some by ship – and almost all of it by road. A piece of beef can travel 12,000 miles just to reach the UK shops. Ninety per cent of the fruit we eat and 40 per cent of our veg are imported into the UK. Air freight has the highest emissions of carbon dioxide per tonne of food – and is being used more and more.
Even food from the UK tends to be well-travelled. The average potato’s journey starts at the farm, goes by lorry to a factory or warehouse for packaging and is then taken by lorry to a centralised warehouse before distribution to the stores. One in four heavy goods lorries on UK roads are transporting food, clocking up 5.5 million food miles in 2004. That’s the equivalent of one potato travelling 220 times around the Earth. But on average, lorries are only just over half full. More efficient distribution could greatly reduce the impact of food miles.
Focusing only on food miles ignores the fact that producing and processing food accounts for around 14 per cent of energy consumption by UK businesses; and food, drink and tobacco manufacturers consume more energy than is used in iron and steel production. Keeping food cool contributes to the emissions total: fresh food, especially meat, is stored and transported in refrigerated containers that produce greenhouse gases.
Globally, food production contributes around 30 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions, half of which come from methane. And to think that on average we throw away around a third of the food we buy – where, left to rot in a landfill, it generates yet more methane.
the footprint of a packet of crisps
To discover the carbon footprint of a standard packet of Walkers Cheese & Onion Crisps, the Carbon Trust plotted out the key stages of Walkers’ supply chain, from sowing the potato and sunflower seeds (for the oil) through to getting the crisps on the shelves and disposing of the packet. By looking at the energy consumption of each stage, and converting this into emissions, it worked out the total carbon footprint. Result: a packet of Walkers Cheese and Onion Crisps has a footprint of 75 g.
business as usual?
Do nothing to cut carbon dioxide emissions and the amount in the atmosphere will just build up. Climate modellers describe this scenario as ‘business as usual’. It assumes that emissions continue to rise at current rates – assuming continuing growth in the economy, and the on-going use of fossil fuels. If this were to happen, carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel would more than double by 2050 globally. Yet if we reduce the amount of energy we use, or start to switch to non-fossil fuel energy, we will slow down the rate of growth in emissions. It may sound obvious but the faster we make changes, the quicker carbon dioxide levels will stabilise.
‘The investments made in the next 10-20 years could lock in very high emissions for the next half-century, or present an opportunity to move the world onto a more sustainable path.’ Stern Review
how can the cuts be achieved?
There are many ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But the biggest savings will come from two simple strategies: using less energy and using cleaner fuels. We look at these more closely in the next two chapters.
chapter 4
saving energy
Saving energy is a great way to shrink our carbon footprint. In fact it’s the first thing we should do. Why spend on power that we don’t really need?
save it
If we’re to play our part in reducing the dangers of climate change, we need to make serious cuts in our energy use. But how can these cuts best be made? In Chapter 7 you’ll find out what you can do as an individual, but here we look at the first big steps we can take as a society to save energy.
where the savings will come from
Imagine living in a home that was so well designed and insulated that it almost heated itself. Or living in a city where clean, fast public trains and buses turned up on time and took you where you needed to go. Where traffic jams, road rage and pollution were a thing of the past.
Making our energy work harder doesn’t mean going back to the Dark Ages – or even to the winter of 1974 when a three-day working week, electricity rationing and power cuts got the country through an energy shortage. Although we use more energy now than we did in the 1970s, we can save more as well. In fact the UK could cut its energy use by nearly a third just by eliminating waste.
In 2007 the government outlined energy-saving measures that would reduce carbon emissions by 6 per cent by 2020, saying that two-thirds of those savings would be from households, a quarter from business and 10 per cent from the public sector. Critics said even more could be done.
reasons to use energy efficiently
Fewer carbon emissions = cleaner air Fewer carbon emissions = better for the climate Do more with less = save money, reduce waste
how can these cuts best be made
The main sources of carbon dioxide emissions in the UK are electricity generation, road transport, energy use in the home, and industry.
homes and buildings
There are 21 million homes in the UK, from modern apartments to 200-year-old houses. Most rely on electricity from the National Grid and use gas to provide hot water and heat, with some households using solid fuel or oil as heating fuel.
On average, each UK household uses energy that produces 6 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. Typically, 30 per cent of our overall carbon footprint from homes comes from heating, a further 11 per cent from heating water, 13 per cent from electricity for lighting and appliances and 3 per cent comes from energy used for cooking.
Although we need to use energy to keep warm, cook and run the fridge, leaky buildings and inefficient appliances aren’t making the best use of a lot of the energy we burn. In many UK houses almost half of all the energy used for heating simply escapes through the roof, windows and walls. Draughty buildings mean our central heating systems are working almost as hard to heat the outside as they are the inside of our homes.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. Designers have come up with plans that could slash the amount of energy we use in our homes: common-sense measures such as insulating walls and loft, double-glazing and lagging hot water pipes can quickly lead to less wasted energy.
Some local authorities have been trail-blazing in the race to improve energy efficiency in the home. In 2003 when the London borough of Merton stated that new developments in the borough must get 10 per cent of their energy supply from renewable sources, builders responded by looking for ways to make houses more energy-efficient. They wanted to keep their costs low by shrinking the absolute size of that 10 per cent of renewables. More than 160 other local authorities have since followed Merton’s lead.
The government has been criticised for failing to support the roll-out of the Merton Rule nationwide. To reach zero-carbon status, a building must have no overall carbon emissions as a result of energy use – achieved through high standards of insulation and heating design, combined with renewable sources of energy.
There are encouraging signs that the move to better building design and efficiency is taking hold – especially in continental Europe; but even around the UK there are a growing number of low-carbon buildings. Some individuals are achieving remarkable savings by adapting or building their own homes; and some commercial developers are beginning to see that energy-efficient buildings will make good business sense.
To encourage buyers to go for low-energy housing, zero-carbon homes are exempt from Stamp Duty (about £2,100 for the average house). An estimated 9 million new homes are needed in the UK by 2050: with that in mind, tougher building standards would do a lot to reduce the UK’s carbon footprint.
fact
Building standards for new and refurbished properties are set out by the Building Research Establishment (BRE). A property built to its ‘very good’ Eco Homes standard will cut carbon emissions by 32 per cent, as well as reducing water use by 29 per cent
Where heat is lost from a typical house (% of total heat loss)
smartening up existing properties
Most of us don’t live in new-build energy-efficient homes. Britain has streets of draughty Victorian and post-war properties – more than 4.4 million homes were built before 1920 and another 3.6 million date from pre-1945. Even by 2050 we’re more than likely to be living in a building that’s already standing today. So there’s no sense pinning all our hopes on new buildings. We need to deal with the big carbon footprint of the buildings we already have. What can be done to make them more energy-efficient?
The government estimates that what it calls cost-effective energy-saving measures could reduce carbon emissions by 17 per cent by 2050. Adding loft insulation to a house can save almost 1.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, while cavity wall insulation can reduce emissions by a further 1 tonne a year – saving up to £160 of household energy bills into the bargain. Millions of homes in the UK could benefit from cavity wall insulation.
Older properties can be insulated internally and externally. Internal insulation can save more than 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. External insulation costs more and can be difficult to install if there is not enough space under the eaves of the roof. Savings of up to 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year are possible for a typical three-bedroomed semi-detached house.
clever ways to save energy
Energy-efficient appliances inside the home can help lighten the carbon footprint of daily life. European standards have encouraged manufacturers to produce smarter fridges and washing machines, but electricity use in the home is still increasing because of the burgeoning number – and in some cases their increasing sophistication. On the other hand, clever gadgets can reduce the amount of electricity appliances use. Smart plugs and remote controls can cut emissions, simply by eliminating the use of Standby and intelligent central controls can improve the efficiency of your heating system. So-called ‘optimum start technology’, another way of saving energy, works by reducing the need to put heating on in advance.
Freiburg – Germany’s solar city
In 1944 British aircraft flattened more than 80 per cent of Freiburg in the south of Germany. Walk around the city today and you see an astonishing transformation. Not only have many historic buildings been restored but Freiburg has become a beacon of sustainability.
From its railway station to football stadium, this city of 200,000 people has almost as many solar panels as the whole of the UK. Thanks to a feed-in tariff the electricity companies buy solar power generated by households at up to three times the price that the householders buy electricity. This has made solar electricity cost-effective – and the impact is clear.
Solar panels producing both electricity and hot water are everywhere you look. Freiburg is also home to Europe’s foremost solar power research institute and a host of solar-powered concept buildings. One of these is a house that rotates on a pillar, following the sun. Another is an office tower with the southern side completely covered in solar panels.
The Freiburg suburb of Vaubon gets two thirds of its electricity from the sun. Its ‘passive houses’ virtually heat and cool themselves. Built on a North-South orientation to make the most of sunlight, with all windows double-glazed and large south-facing ones to let in more sunlight, they are also highly insulated to keep in the warmth. Fresh air is brought in through underground ducts using the soil to regulate the temperature. Solar collectors and ground source heat pumps provide warm water.
But there’s more. Vaubon’s ‘energy plus’ homes are designed to produce more energy than they consume. Triple-glazed windows are treated so that virtually no solar heat is wasted, 40 cm-thick external walls are fitted with high-quality timber and felt for optimum insulation, and a solar power station on the roof generates electricity.
Freiburg’s green credentials don’t stop at heating homes. It also boasts a highly energy-efficient transport system. Five tramlines (waiting time no more than seven minutes) and 22 bus routes encourage people to use public transport, and the city’s cycle lane network has grown from 29 km to more than 400 km in the past 15 years. There are more bikes than residents in the city. Cyclists have the right to ride both directions on one-way streets. One third of Freiburg’s streets are reserved for bicycles, one third for trams and buses and a third for private vehicles. A new bicycle facility next to the train station offers a safe cycle lock-up, rental and repairs. The city centre is a car-free zone, drastically reducing pollution and creating a relaxed atmosphere. With a car sharing scheme half of Vaubon’s 5,000 inhabitants have opted out of being car owners. A speed limit of 15 km per hour, a ban on parking except for loading, and bike racks along residential streets all encourage people to use bicycles.
Arriving in Freiburg is like walking on to the film set of a futuristic city. But it is here now and demonstrates the extraordinary potential we have to reduce our carbon emissions today.
Changing light bulbs can yield yet more savings – in fact the International Energy Agency estimates that we could save 10 per cent of our global electricity bill by switching to energy-saving light bulbs. Each 100 W bulb replaced by a compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb will save up to 38 kg of carbon dioxide a year – and will last 12 times as long. Incandescent tungsten filament light bulbs are to be phased out by 2011 and LEDs (light-emitting diodes) could become 80 per cent efficient in the future. Simply switching off the lights can make a difference too. Research has shown that we waste £180 million worth of electricity by leaving lights switched on – and 770,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
If we were more aware of how much energy we were using, the chances are we would use far less. So, rather than hiding the electricity meter away under the stairs, putting it on display can help save energy, cutting electricity consumption by between 5 and 15 per cent. Households can install free meters as part of a government-backed trial and there’s an increasing number of canny gadgets to keep you on top of your home’s electricity use.
top tip
The Energy Performance Certificate (issued by an Energy Assessor) is a major part of the new Home Information Packs (HIPs) which are now required in England and Wales when you sell your home (right). The certificate shows your home’s energy efficiency rating from A (most efficient) to G (least), and its environmental impact (CO2) rating as well as advising how both of these can be improved.
save to spend
It’s a curious thing: although there’s huge potential for saving energy in our homes, offices and industry, evidence suggests that energy savings can, perversely, lead to more energy use.
A theory known as the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate describes how, in a free market, increased energy efficiency results in cheaper prices – so consumption increases. Add to this the fact that companies take advantage of savings by spending the money elsewhere. Halve your gas bill and you have extra cash to spend on other things, which are likely to have their own carbon price. This is known as the rebound effect.
Energy efficiency is good for householders and for business. It means that more can be done with less. It also means that people who previously could not afford to have warm homes, may now be able to. But if the end result is an increasing demand for energy, this could mean more carbon dioxide emissions.
Not everyone agrees with the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate, and there is evidence to suggest that the rebound effect is small compared to the total amount of energy and emissions saved. But the theory sounds a warning. Being more efficient is the first, necessary step. But we need to make sure the savings are invested in further efficiencies.
the art of the possible – the energy-saving house
Six low-energy homes are being built at Nottingham University as part of a teaching project run by the university’s School of the Built Environment.
Reducing energy demand was the starting point for the houses. But it was also crucial, for the purposes of the demonstration, that they did not cost more than conventional properties.
Five of the six houses were designed with different building methods and the latest energy-saving technologies – an upgrade of a 1930s house would complete the project. When the homes are finished, students or staff of the university will live in them, and their energy use will be monitored continually via a website.
Dr Mark Gillott, project leader, explains that making the homes desirable was crucial: ‘We wanted to give the houses a wow factor when people walk in. We want people to think “I want to live in this house.”’
Innovative building techniques are key to making the homes affordable. A four-bedroomed family house – the first property built – uses a lightweight recycled steel frame, rather than bricks and mortar, but with its pitched roof, looks like a conventional home. The frame, which took less than five days to put up, is insulated with plasterboard designed to absorb and give out heat. Savings in construction time and labour costs meant more money could be spent on the latest technologies to generate and conserve energy.
The foundations use an insulated concrete framework; but rather than conventional concrete this is made primarily from ground granulated blast furnace slag – a byproduct of the iron industry, which produces a tenth of the carbon dioxide emissions produced in the manufacture of Portland cement. Good design and renewable technologies combine to provide power and heat. An underground pump channels warm air (11-12°C) into the south-facing conservatory on the ground floor of the house, where it is warmed by the sun, and then pumped into the rest of the house.
In the loft a ventilation and heat-recovery unit converts solar energy from roof-mounted panels to produce hot water and warm air for under-floor heating. South-facing windows are triple-glazed and have blinds and external louvres to stop it getting too hot in summer. Balconies add to natural shade.
Smart energy controls allow the house to respond to changes in the weather – or to be controlled remotely via a website or a phone line. Appliances are all energy-saving models and lighting uses highly efficient light-emitting diodes (LEDs).
A water-saving system uses rainwater for the outside tap, washing machine and downstairs shower; and water from the bath and shower for flushing toilets. Aerators in the shower fittings increase the water pressure, and sensors on tap fittings ensure they are only used when needed.
Dr Gillott says, ‘It’s designed so that there’s plenty of daylight, and it’s a warm and comfortable place to be in winter and ventilated and airy in summer.’ Good design, he emphasises, is crucial. ‘It’s what we say to the architecture students all the time. Don’t leave it to the engineers to bolt on solutions afterwards.’
Two of the five new-build properties will cost under £60,000 and Dr Gillott hopes one of these will achieve zero-carbon status. ‘There are no barriers from the technology to say that we cannot generate all the energy we need. There’s no reason why we can’t generate a zero-carbon home,’ he says. ‘The question is whether the industry will embrace it quickly enough to achieve it. Really, it is only legislation that can make the difference.’
the workplace
Just as big energy savings could be made in the housing sector, we can also smarten up the carbon impact of the workplace – whether that’s a major corporation, government building or a home study.
Energy-efficient buildings play an important role. Good design can, for example, make the most of natural light and provide shade from too much sun. Here are three examples:
A recent Royal Navy building in Arbroath uses thermal heat stores and sunpipes to make the most of natural warmth and daylight in an energy-efficient office building for the Royal Marines.
The Swiss Re building, affectionately known as the gherkin, was designed as ‘London’s first environmentally progressive working environment’, making use of natural light and ventilation, with an extracted air cooling system.
A Tesco store at Diss in Norfolk is designed to use 20 per cent less energy. Small steps such as adding doors to chill display units can make a huge difference to a supermarket’s energy use.
For what you can do in the workplace, turn to Chapter 9.
PRETTY PICKLE:
London’s iconic Gherkin reveals how architects can combine cutting-edge design with environmentally advanced features to reduce the carbon footprints of office buildings.
Making the scale of change needed to tackle climate change will take more than a handful of companies doing their bit. Good news, then, that one of the UK’s biggest employers, the National Health Service (NHS), is trying to get to grips with its energy use. The NHS employs more than 1 million people and estimates suggest it emits 1 million tonnes of carbon a year. Hospitals have been set targets for reducing emissions and the Carbon Trust (a government-funded independent company that helps businesses and the public sector to do this) is working with hospitals and primary care trusts to find the most cost-effective ways of achieving their emission targets. Tom Cumberlege, Public Sector Manager at the Carbon Trust, says part of the challenge is to get all the staff involved, rather than leaving energy management to the estate manager. As with homes, schools and commercial buildings, the staff at hospitals who are there day in day out can make a big difference to their impact on the environment.
changing behaviour, cutting emissions
Changing the way people behave is one way of cutting emissions in the workplace, according to Chris Large. Chris manages Global Action Plan’s Environment Champions programme, working with businesses to reduce their impact on the environment. He recruits volunteer Champions from across an organisation to help identify how changes can be made. The Champions come up with ways of persuading their colleagues to save energy, recycle more and use fewer resources. They audit environmental impacts across the business, looking at energy use, lights left on, waste and recycling rates. ‘Champions think of things that people can do to make a difference,’ Chris explains. ‘It can be really simple guidance, such as how to print double-sided, or how to spell-check before your print.’
Some offices have introduced rewards for people who turn off their computers at the end of the day; others issue parking-ticket style warnings to those who forget. Champions also work on ways to get their message across. Knowing your office throws away a stack of paper higher than Big Ben can motivate people to think before they print, Chris says.
Three to four months into the project, the Champions carry out a follow-up audit to see what they have achieved.
And the results? Staff at the Britannia Building Society’s London head office, to take one example, boosted paper recycling by 59 per cent; in the Leek office, staff saved £3,000 on fuel bills. A survey of employees’ attitudes at Britannia’s Leek office found that nearly three-quarters claimed to have changed their habits at work as a result of the scheme, and nearly a third said they had also changed what they do at home.
a degree cooler - London School of Economics
The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) is one of 48 universities so far taking part in a government-sponsored effort to curb the carbon impact of getting a degree in the UK.
With more than 170,000 square metres of floor space and 40 properties around the capital the LSE is energy-hungry: in 2006/07 its energy budget was some £2.5 million for gas, oil and electricity. The use of renewable electricity in many buildings has already reduced the greenhouse gas emissions significantly to 6,920 tonnes in 2007 and numerous energy efficiency projects underway which shave another 1,000 tonnes off that.
The Higher Education Carbon Management Scheme, supported by the Carbon Trust, offers institutions advice on cutting waste, energy, emissions – and bills. And it seems to be working: the universities taking part in 2006 generated a saving of 55,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide and £3 million.
LSE’s Environmental Manager, Victoria Hands says: ‘The School is looking at all areas of activity and involving a broad range of stakeholders to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Its new Academic Building – designed to achieve an ‘excellent’ rating by the Building Research Establishment’s environmental method (BREEAM) – incorporates a number of energy-saving features. For starters they didn’t simply bulldoze the old building and start again, with all the new materials and waste that would imply: parts of the old building have been re-used with the foundation, the façade and the structure reintegrated into the design. A ground-source pump extracts cold water from an aquifer approximately 75 metres deep to provide comfort cooling to teaching rooms and lecture theatres. The basement houses recycling facilities and secure bicycle parking, showers and lockers. A highly efficient boiler has replaced the 1980s model, making a significant impact on energy consumption. Elongated windows on the lower floors and an atrium allow lots of daylight in, reducing the need for electric light, which is further controlled by movement detectors. Offices and seminar rooms have adjustable fan units which may be turned off if windows are open. Lecture theatres and classrooms have air quality and temperature sensors to regulate heating or cooling. Solar thermal collectors on the roof will supplement hot water requirements. The roof has also been strengthened to support two wind turbines that may be installed with the appropriate planning permission. A rooftop garden attracts birds and insects.
LSE has adopted sustainable and renewable energy measures throughout its buildings. New monitoring systems regulate indoor temperatures providing heating and cooling in the most efficient way. These systems are kept at a minimum during holidays. A software programme controls energy consumption in many buildings and halls of residence.
Director of planning and development, Julian Robinson, says he’s proud to be working for an organisation that is serious about its wider environmental obligations. He sees the new academic building setting a benchmark ‘which we will expect to exceed on our next major building project’.
a healthy approach to cutting emissions
Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London spends more than £10 million a year on energy – so finding ways to cut consumption made financial sense as well as helping to cut carbon emissions.
Working with the Carbon Trust, the two hospitals, which treat 750,000 patients every year, aim to knock a fifth off their carbon emissions, with savings of 14,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide already identified.
Good housekeeping and better energy awareness among the 9,500 staff will help reduce energy use, says David Porter, Head of Estates Management at Guy’s and St Thomas’. But the Trust is also investing in improved technology to boost efficiency.
Staff are encouraged to switch off lights, recycle more and think about energy use as they go about their jobs, with posters around the sites and energy-saving messages on the Trust’s intranet. Staff energy reps meet regularly to come up with new ideas.
A £2 million programme is upgrading lighting controls, improving insulation and fitting thermostatic valves on radiators in the hospitals, with estimated annual savings of £1 million. Maintenance staff are looking at how the hospital buildings can be run more efficiently, ensuring that ventilation systems are turned down when units are not in use. Plans to install combined heat and power on both sites will allow the hospitals to generate some of their own electricity, reducing energy bills and carbon emissions significantly.
David Porter says, ‘Everyone can make a contribution, no matter how small each individual action appears. Small changes can add up to significant amounts, both in terms of financial savings and environmental benefits.’
industry
Industry accounts for a big chunk (18 per cent) of the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions; and electricity-generating power stations are responsible for a further 27 per cent. Between these two sectors, nearly half the UK’s emissions are outside the direct control of most of us.
Economic experts at the IPCC say that setting a high price for carbon would make it more attractive for industry to be more efficient. Energy-efficiency measures could create savings of 7-10 per cent without a carbon price, increasing to 23-46 per cent savings if the price of a tonne of carbon rose to US $100.
In the UK the government has so far used a number of financial regulations and incentives to get industry to change. It has sought to encourage action to cut emissions, providing advice and guidance through the Carbon Trust and Envirowise (see p.390). It has introduced a special tax – the Climate Change Levy – on the energy that business and public sector uses. It has also backed emissions trading as a means of encouraging energy efficiency, with the UK part of the Europe-wide Emissions Trading Scheme (see Chapter 6). Originally designed for large energy users, Emissions Trading has subsequently been extended – so that more companies will have to buy the right to pollute.
For more on how we need to clean up the electricity sector, see Chapter 5.
business savings
Chemicals manufacturer Holliday Pigments in Hull found it could save energy by using some of the heat generated by processes in its factory to generate steam, saving some £50,000 from energy bills and reducing its carbon footprint. Broadcaster Sky cut its footprint by 5 per cent in 2005-2006 through steps such as improving energy efficiency in its buildings and vehicle fleet. It also set up a carbon credit card for staff, giving points for carbon-friendly behaviour such as cycling to work. The company switched to renewable electricity supplies and offset its remaining emissions by investing in renewable energy projects in New Zealand and Bulgaria.
offsetting – does it count?
Carbon offsetting has become big business in recent years with companies offering to offset emissions by investing in carbon-saving projects. The idea is that for every tonne of carbon dioxide produced, a tonne is either removed from the atmosphere – by planting trees intended to act as a carbon sink – or avoided, by replacing a polluting activity with a clean alternative, such as renewable energy.
Some offsetting schemes have been criticised on a number of counts. Although trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they must remain in situ to prevent the carbon being released again, so there would have to be strong guarantees that forests planted this year to offset emissions were not cut down a couple of years later. There are other problems with tree-planting offset schemes, too: large plantations where just one type of tree is grown are bad news for wildlife and can cause problems for people locally.
Offsetting schemes that invest in renewable energy projects can benefit communities in the developing world, and a gold standard has been established for offsetting schemes that deliver genuine benefits. This guarantees that the investment is made in a scheme that would have struggled to find funding in any other way.
However robust an individual offset scheme, Friends of the Earth points out that it is simply a way for the industrialised world to buy the right to continue polluting rather than cutting emissions at source. Offsetting allows companies and individuals to claim that they are tackling carbon emissions when they may not be doing anything to cut emissions at source. Such an approach will do little to reduce the UK’s emissions of carbon dioxide. The spread of carbon offsetting may have helped stimulate awareness of climate change, but many people now argue that it should be a last resort – and that genuine cuts to carbon emissions must come first.
local authorities
The government estimates local authorities can cut their own energy use by 11 per cent. Although local authorities themselves are responsible for a small proportion of UK emissions they have powers beyond their own buildings, land and work force: they also influence suppliers and services through the goods and services they buy; they control local planning and development, and are responsible for green spaces and promoting public transport.
A scattering of local authorities have embraced the need to take action on climate change. More than 220 have signed a commitment to make this a cornerstone of their policies. The year 2000 saw the launch of The ‘Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change’ (updated in 2005), in which all signed up councils were encouraged to develop a climate change action plan and set targets for reducing emissions.
Nottingham City Council, the first authority to sign, has reduced its carbon emissions by 30,000 tonnes by using renewable energy supplies. Its policies have helped stabilise emissions from transport in the city and boosted recycling rates. The council is now looking to become carbon neutral.
schools
Some 6,000 primary and secondary schools across the UK are involved in the Eco-School scheme, which encourages teachers and pupils to work together to come up with ways to save energy, improve recycling and save water at school.
As well as cutting emissions, schools taking part find the scheme has other benefits, including better links to the wider community, improvements in the school ethos and relations between staff and pupils, and reduced bills. Some funding is available from the government to support low-carbon and energy-saving measures, but critics say there is not nearly enough to go round.
transport
Road transport accounts for between a fifth and a quarter of UK emissions. Emissions from transport are on the up: more and more vehicles on the road mean that carbon dioxide emissions have risen by 9 per cent since 1990. With government figures showing carbon dioxide emissions from transport set to soar, can anything be done to save energy and emissions in the transport sector?
According to the experts, savings are possible but require a big shift in behaviour, encouraged by changes to transport policies – locally and at national level.
on the road
When it comes to travelling by car, there are two basic ways to reduce the level of emissions: driving more efficiently and driving less.
driving more efficiently
More efficient driving means getting more miles out of every gallon of fuel or using different fuels. So we need to look at the way people drive and the types of car they use. The performance of modern vehicles varies enormously, from small vehicles that can do 65-70 mpg, to big gas-guzzlers that manage less than 15 mpg. Carbon dioxide emissions are directly related to miles per gallon and so can vary from 104 g/km for a Toyota Prius hybrid to 520 g/km for a sports car (Lamborghini Diablo 132) and 387 g/km for a 4X4 (Toyota Land Cruiser). Within each class of car performance varies too: at 186-219 g/km, for example, a Lexus hybrid is much more polluting than the Prius. An average motor emits 90 kg of carbon dioxide for every full tank of petrol used.
A UK government-commissioned study found that, assuming the car will continue to be the way most people choose to get around, the best thing to do will be to make cars as low-carbon as possible. The European Union has set a target for car manufacturers to reduce average emissions from new cars to 140 g/km carbon dioxide by 2010; new cars sold in the UK in 2006 were above this average, at 167.2 g/km. Tougher emissions standards for vehicles would make one of the biggest contributions to cutting transport’s carbon fuel bill.
driving less
Another way of cutting emissions is to reduce the numbers of car journeys. In the UK 17 million people go to work by car. Workplace travel schemes can make it easier to leave the car at home – with employers providing cycle facilities, showers and loans to buy a bike, or setting up lift-share schemes or loans for season tickets on public transport.
SUPER CYCLEWAYS:
By 2025 London could be the cycling capital of the world. Around £4 million will see cycling become a fully-funded part of the public transport network. Plans include a new free bike lending scheme (offering 6,000 bikes every 300 m) and 12 cycle highways to make pedal power a real travel choice for everyone.
Flexible working can reduce the need to commute – working from home one day a week can cut transport emissions by 20 per cent. A study by BT into the impact of home working found that, on average, employees working from home reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by 15.2 kg per week. Even assuming that some savings would be lost by increases in home energy use, the study found total emissions for 5,000 employees were reduced by some 3,663 tonnes per year.
Cycling and walking can be easy alternatives for short car trips, but longer journeys and city-wide travel need better public transport. Good bus services, light rail and trams can provide alternatives to driving, substantially reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
The city of Curitiba in Brazil has been held up as a model of what public transport can achieve if investment and urban planning keep the needs of people in mind. The city, which has a growing population of more than 1.6 million people, invested in buses as its main public transport, creating special bus-only avenues. The system, which is cheap to use, carries some 2.14 million passengers a day despite high levels of car ownership. The result has been cleaner city air and some of lowest rates of fuel consumption per person in Brazil.
Freiburg in Germany (see also pp.94-95) is one of many European cities to have developed a low-carbon approach to getting about. The city has 160 km of sign-posted cycle paths, cycle-only streets and special access on one-way routes. Buses and trams carry 67 million people a year, with cheap tickets for families.
In France the Mayor of Paris has introduced a low-cost bike rental scheme in the capital, providing bicycles at 750 stations around the city. Users of the Velib bike scheme can buy either an annual pass (priced at £20) or a one-day pass (less than £1), with short journeys completely free. Paris has some 230 miles of cycle paths and the number of cyclists in the city has increased by 50 per cent in the past ten years.
A charge on drivers entering the city centre, combined with investment in public transport, has cut the level of traffic in inner London, with increases in the numbers of people travelling by tube and bus. One opinion survey found that 1 in 5 drivers would leave their car at home and use public transport if road charging schemes were introduced across the UK.
Improvements to public transport can tempt drivers out of their cars for longer distance trips, with both coach and rail travel offering lower carbon dioxide emissions per passenger mile. Planning policies can also have an impact – for instance local development plans can ensure new shops are accessible by public transport or by foot.
A UK government study found that with the right policies, emissions from road transport could be reduced by 60 per cent from 1990 levels by 2030. Some of these savings depend on using hybrid vehicles and alternative fuels, but measures such as road pricing, energy-efficient driving and changes to freight distribution systems also had a role to play.
Ücretsiz ön izlemeyi tamamladınız.
