In May of this year the Environmental Audit Committee recommended that the government introduce a personal carbon trading scheme in Britain. As with cap-and-trade at the national level individuals would be provided with a personal carbon quota, and each time they bought goods, petrol or the like they would have to pay an allowance. Like the industry equivalent, if a person ran short of credit they would have the option of purchasing more from someone who hadn't used their quota. The idea being that a personal ration of carbon would force individuals to be actively conscious of their CO2 expenditure, and thus limit their usage. The fact that individuals could make money from selling on unused credits would also add a financial incentive to curbing usage.
At present however, the government is balking at the idea. This is largely because it would cost billions of pounds to implement (and we're in a financial crisis dontyaknow) but also because it lacks widespread support among the population. Nevertheless, the groundwork is being laid and there are suggestions that a scheme could be in place by 2020.
As someone trying to get a handle on my carbon footprint I would welcome such an initiative. It would help me understand where I'm unnecessarily burning credit (grapes flown in from Greece perhaps) and allow me to make informed decisions about what I do use it for. That said, I'm not sure I'm representative of the general population. How eagerly will the majority of people welcome enforced limits on the goods they can buy and the travel they can do? What government would be brave enough to introduce such a politically volatile scheme? And would such a scheme simply see the less well-off funding the carbon extravagances of the rich?
Wednesday 7 October 2009
Tuesday 6 October 2009
The road to neutrality is a bumpy one!
A couple of weeks into my efforts to reduce my carbon footprint I have come to a number of conclusions.
1) there are some pretty simple changes that you can integrate into your life without having to drastically alter your habits...
2) if you really want to cut down on CO2 usage then you have to be prepared to make some pretty big sacrifices.
My inital steps - turning appliances off standby, not buying bottled water, notching the heating down a few degrees, recycling, being conscious of what I am buying and throwing away - were pretty simple and they've stuck. I've found that once the idea of reducing your CO2 usage is implanted in your mind you find yourself automatically making more carbon friendly decisions. It's kind of like Weight Watchers - when you know everything you do adds up you are a bit more careful about what your consuming. Taking it to the next level however, is proving a little more difficult. Those changes that would make the biggest difference - like reducing international travel, using my car less, or improving the energy rating of my house - mean real committment. Financial and personal. Take using my car for example. I have a two year old daughter who accompanies me pretty much everywhere. Popping her on the back of a bicycle in the pouring rain is not really an option. Dragging her (physically) onto public transport to go to the shops and then lugging everything back home is just not something I feel keen on. So I find myself taking short car journeys, all the time plagued by the knowledge I'm running up my CO2 account. It leads me to question my committment. Clearly, if the option is there for me to integrate a change without huge personal sacrifice I'll do it. If it means significant inconvenience, or financial outlay I'm less eager. Presumably this is the case with most people. The question is, how much should an individual be expected to change their lifestyle to cut their carbon footprint?
1) there are some pretty simple changes that you can integrate into your life without having to drastically alter your habits...
2) if you really want to cut down on CO2 usage then you have to be prepared to make some pretty big sacrifices.
My inital steps - turning appliances off standby, not buying bottled water, notching the heating down a few degrees, recycling, being conscious of what I am buying and throwing away - were pretty simple and they've stuck. I've found that once the idea of reducing your CO2 usage is implanted in your mind you find yourself automatically making more carbon friendly decisions. It's kind of like Weight Watchers - when you know everything you do adds up you are a bit more careful about what your consuming. Taking it to the next level however, is proving a little more difficult. Those changes that would make the biggest difference - like reducing international travel, using my car less, or improving the energy rating of my house - mean real committment. Financial and personal. Take using my car for example. I have a two year old daughter who accompanies me pretty much everywhere. Popping her on the back of a bicycle in the pouring rain is not really an option. Dragging her (physically) onto public transport to go to the shops and then lugging everything back home is just not something I feel keen on. So I find myself taking short car journeys, all the time plagued by the knowledge I'm running up my CO2 account. It leads me to question my committment. Clearly, if the option is there for me to integrate a change without huge personal sacrifice I'll do it. If it means significant inconvenience, or financial outlay I'm less eager. Presumably this is the case with most people. The question is, how much should an individual be expected to change their lifestyle to cut their carbon footprint?
Monday 28 September 2009
Achieving a mandate for action in Copenhagen.
For those actively interested and involved in climate change issues it is sometimes easy to forget that the majority of individuals are decidedly less animated by the subject. A poll conducted by Ipsos Mori in June 2007 for instance, found that 56% of those interviewed believed scientists were still questioning climate change, and that the problem was exaggerated to make money. It also found that "terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess" were all of more concern than global warming. (BBC). Two years on one gets the sense that little has changed. Certainly, people are aware of the climate change debate on an abstract level, but if the vast majority were asked what was happening in Copenhagen in December only a small percentage would be able to tell you. The problem is that while there is broad consensus among the scientific and international community, the general public remain detached from the issue.
Why?
In my view, it is less a matter of apathy than it is of ignorance about the severity of the threat. The degree of urgency expressed by scientists, politicians and environmentalists at the global level is failing to translate down to the man on the street. This, it appears, is in part a conscious decision. At a conference I attended on Climate Change in June the common view was that "scaring the public" would only lead to a paralysis of fear. As such, reforms are being brought in that produce carbon reductions without the individual necessarily having any understanding of (or interest in) the issue of climate change. On one hand this is positive, in that people are integrating carbon friendly changes into their lives without a major sacrifice. On the other hand, unless someone actively chooses to educate themselves on the topic, they are likely to be ill-informed and inactive.
This is problematic for several reasons, not least because as long as the electorate and consumer remain lukewarm on the subject of climate change so too will political and business leaders. Until decision makers believe they have a mandate to act they won't. Not with any conviction anyway. Based on this can we realistically expect a robust outcome from Copenhagen when the majority of the population are unaware that the conference is taking place, and have little (if any) interest in its outcomes? Probably not. If however, there was strong, and widespread support among individuals it would be difficult for the leadership not to seek a solid framework.
For this reason, rather than simply debating among ourselves, those of us who view a comprehensive deal in December as critical must try to get the word out. We can do this by getting involved in campaigns, speaking with our friends and neighbours, writing letters to our MPs, and launching petitions. We can also lead by example, and make changes in our own lives. Rather than maintaining climate change as an intellectual debate we need to ensure that information on the topic is more widely disseminated, and that people understand (really understand) why it's important for them to get involved. Even more importantly we have to make sure that our politicians and businesses have a clear mandate to take action on our behalf.
Want to get actively involved? Here are some useful links:
Campaigns
Campaign against Climate Change
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
Global Climate Campaign
Check your footprint
ACT ON CO2 (UK specific)
Carbon Footprint Calculator
Make a change in your own life...
10:10
My Carbon Savings
Why?
In my view, it is less a matter of apathy than it is of ignorance about the severity of the threat. The degree of urgency expressed by scientists, politicians and environmentalists at the global level is failing to translate down to the man on the street. This, it appears, is in part a conscious decision. At a conference I attended on Climate Change in June the common view was that "scaring the public" would only lead to a paralysis of fear. As such, reforms are being brought in that produce carbon reductions without the individual necessarily having any understanding of (or interest in) the issue of climate change. On one hand this is positive, in that people are integrating carbon friendly changes into their lives without a major sacrifice. On the other hand, unless someone actively chooses to educate themselves on the topic, they are likely to be ill-informed and inactive.
This is problematic for several reasons, not least because as long as the electorate and consumer remain lukewarm on the subject of climate change so too will political and business leaders. Until decision makers believe they have a mandate to act they won't. Not with any conviction anyway. Based on this can we realistically expect a robust outcome from Copenhagen when the majority of the population are unaware that the conference is taking place, and have little (if any) interest in its outcomes? Probably not. If however, there was strong, and widespread support among individuals it would be difficult for the leadership not to seek a solid framework.
For this reason, rather than simply debating among ourselves, those of us who view a comprehensive deal in December as critical must try to get the word out. We can do this by getting involved in campaigns, speaking with our friends and neighbours, writing letters to our MPs, and launching petitions. We can also lead by example, and make changes in our own lives. Rather than maintaining climate change as an intellectual debate we need to ensure that information on the topic is more widely disseminated, and that people understand (really understand) why it's important for them to get involved. Even more importantly we have to make sure that our politicians and businesses have a clear mandate to take action on our behalf.
Want to get actively involved? Here are some useful links:
Campaigns
Campaign against Climate Change
Friends of the Earth
Greenpeace
Global Climate Campaign
Check your footprint
ACT ON CO2 (UK specific)
Carbon Footprint Calculator
Make a change in your own life...
10:10
My Carbon Savings
Friday 25 September 2009
Voices of dissent - heretics or heroes?
It is interesting that one of the fiercest areas of debate to have emerged over the last few days (within the Th!nk2 competition) is to what extent global warming is occurring and whom, or what, is to blame. As far as I can tell everyone is in agreement on the fact that the earth is heating up, but there are a few who question whether humans have played a part within that. What's really interesting is that these people have positioned themselves as sceptics, consciously placing themselves in direct opposition to other discussions. It's intriguing because while everyone agrees on what's occurring, their disagreement over the root cause has incited an incredible amount of furor.
The heated debate that has ensued has got me thinking about the role of dissenters. It was not so long ago that those who believed the world was warming were considered scientific outcasts. Heretics of progress if you will. The vast majority of the population considered notions of a heating planet to be ravings of a few addled minded "greenies". Over the past thirty years however, the voices of dissent have gained ground and now non-believers have been cast in the role of sceptics. As the debate of the last few days has demonstrated, today if you disagree with the view that human beings are responsible for global warming then you will be subject to vehement opposition.
This tells me a couple of things. Firstly, it is clear that dissent has to play a role in forwarding our understanding of a topic. If everyone was forced to agree with the majority opinion then we would never progress in our thinking. Defending your viewpoint forces you to clarify your stance and fortify your facts. That said, the larger burden of proof necessarily lies with the dissenter. If the majority are in agreement on a topic, then you must find a way in which to convince them of your position. If you are dogmatic and belligerent in presenting your views it is unlikely you will meet with a receptive audience.
Debates such as this are vital. It is foolish to rest on our laurels, or to uncritically accept what other people are telling us. Continually re-examining the evidence can only ever strengthen our understanding of what we're dealing with. That said, how we express dissent is pivotal to how we then deal with it.
The heated debate that has ensued has got me thinking about the role of dissenters. It was not so long ago that those who believed the world was warming were considered scientific outcasts. Heretics of progress if you will. The vast majority of the population considered notions of a heating planet to be ravings of a few addled minded "greenies". Over the past thirty years however, the voices of dissent have gained ground and now non-believers have been cast in the role of sceptics. As the debate of the last few days has demonstrated, today if you disagree with the view that human beings are responsible for global warming then you will be subject to vehement opposition.
This tells me a couple of things. Firstly, it is clear that dissent has to play a role in forwarding our understanding of a topic. If everyone was forced to agree with the majority opinion then we would never progress in our thinking. Defending your viewpoint forces you to clarify your stance and fortify your facts. That said, the larger burden of proof necessarily lies with the dissenter. If the majority are in agreement on a topic, then you must find a way in which to convince them of your position. If you are dogmatic and belligerent in presenting your views it is unlikely you will meet with a receptive audience.
Debates such as this are vital. It is foolish to rest on our laurels, or to uncritically accept what other people are telling us. Continually re-examining the evidence can only ever strengthen our understanding of what we're dealing with. That said, how we express dissent is pivotal to how we then deal with it.
Thursday 24 September 2009
If British Airways can do it, so can I...
I never thought I would look to British Airways for climate change inspiration. Well in actual fact, I wouldn't say they are my raison d'etre right now either, but it was interesting to see that as I embark on a quest to cut my own carbon footprint so too are the airlines. The aviation industry is urging the UN to include a proposal to cut airline emissions by 50% for 2050. It comes on the back of pressure for the industry to introduce reforms, something that was not included as part of the Kyoto protocol. BA's Chief Exec Willie Walsh stated, that their proposal represented "a chance to rectify that omission" (see article).
It is pretty clear that this is a preemptive move to prevent higher taxes being levied on the industry. If the end result is a reduction in overall emissions being produced by the worlds' airlines however, should that be of concern? (A topic for another blog perhaps). What has got me thinking is the correlation to the individual. We too were not included in the Kyoto protocol. Our countries were of course, but me, Yu-Wen-Cho, and Dajana Lueppker were not. What then is our role in all this? Is it that we wait for our political and business leaders to come up with a set of plans that we hope will do the job? What if those plans include changes we wouldn't particularly welcome - further taxes on transport or food for instance? We too should think about introducing changes before we're subjected to heavy handed legislation. It would at least make the transition easier.
Of course, as opposed to the airlines we can't pass the cost onto anyone else. That said, many carbon reduction activities also translate into savings - driving a smaller car, buying secondhand, using less electricity and gas, changing your light bulbs, walking more, eating less red meat. In fact, it seems clear that by reducing your footprint, you can also reduce your outgoings. Something that a lot of people could benefit from at the moment.
Anyhow, I am now looking at my current efforts as a preemptive strike. Surely real change can't be brought about if the 6945538785 (and rapidly counting) inhabitants of this planet go about their business in the same way. (Go check out the population counter if you want a visual reminder of just how quickly we're multiplying!) Whether you think you should have to make changes or not is beside the point really, the reality is that you will have to do something at some stage - and you can either do it voluntarily or by force. I'm choosing the voluntary route...
So Day 2, how am I going? Well, yesterday got off to a rather good start actually. Instead of running on my treadmill for an hour (which I assume must burn a fair about of electricity) I decided to go for a jog outside. Aside from the fact I forgot to take water and nearly collapsed of dehydration after 7km, it was really rather pleasant being among nature rather than in my spare room. It did occur to me that if people were to turn to free outdoor activities (running, walking, hiking, biking) they could save themselves the cost of gym memberships, exercise equipment and class fees and make a decent cut to their carbon emissions. Of course this isn't a radical revelation, but it is worthwhile realising that it is possible to make some fairly simple changes in your life that are not only of benefit to you but for the environment. And win-win has to be a good thing doesn't it!
Aside from my run, I made sure to switch off every light except for the room I was in. I decided not to go into town. I turned all my appliances off standby. Oh, and I've also decided to buy a bike so that I can cut down on my car trips to the train station, shops etc. etc. Rather than going out and buying a brand spanking new bike imported from Asia however, I am bidding on a second hand mountain bike on ebay (please no attempts to outbid me!). I figure I not only save the emissions on a new bike, but it's also lots cheaper - and I just have to pick it up from someone local. Check, check and check!
So all in all I am feeling positive about the initial steps I've made. Now I just need to look for more inspiration... the cement industry perhaps?
It is pretty clear that this is a preemptive move to prevent higher taxes being levied on the industry. If the end result is a reduction in overall emissions being produced by the worlds' airlines however, should that be of concern? (A topic for another blog perhaps). What has got me thinking is the correlation to the individual. We too were not included in the Kyoto protocol. Our countries were of course, but me, Yu-Wen-Cho, and Dajana Lueppker were not. What then is our role in all this? Is it that we wait for our political and business leaders to come up with a set of plans that we hope will do the job? What if those plans include changes we wouldn't particularly welcome - further taxes on transport or food for instance? We too should think about introducing changes before we're subjected to heavy handed legislation. It would at least make the transition easier.
Of course, as opposed to the airlines we can't pass the cost onto anyone else. That said, many carbon reduction activities also translate into savings - driving a smaller car, buying secondhand, using less electricity and gas, changing your light bulbs, walking more, eating less red meat. In fact, it seems clear that by reducing your footprint, you can also reduce your outgoings. Something that a lot of people could benefit from at the moment.
Anyhow, I am now looking at my current efforts as a preemptive strike. Surely real change can't be brought about if the 6945538785 (and rapidly counting) inhabitants of this planet go about their business in the same way. (Go check out the population counter if you want a visual reminder of just how quickly we're multiplying!) Whether you think you should have to make changes or not is beside the point really, the reality is that you will have to do something at some stage - and you can either do it voluntarily or by force. I'm choosing the voluntary route...
So Day 2, how am I going? Well, yesterday got off to a rather good start actually. Instead of running on my treadmill for an hour (which I assume must burn a fair about of electricity) I decided to go for a jog outside. Aside from the fact I forgot to take water and nearly collapsed of dehydration after 7km, it was really rather pleasant being among nature rather than in my spare room. It did occur to me that if people were to turn to free outdoor activities (running, walking, hiking, biking) they could save themselves the cost of gym memberships, exercise equipment and class fees and make a decent cut to their carbon emissions. Of course this isn't a radical revelation, but it is worthwhile realising that it is possible to make some fairly simple changes in your life that are not only of benefit to you but for the environment. And win-win has to be a good thing doesn't it!
Aside from my run, I made sure to switch off every light except for the room I was in. I decided not to go into town. I turned all my appliances off standby. Oh, and I've also decided to buy a bike so that I can cut down on my car trips to the train station, shops etc. etc. Rather than going out and buying a brand spanking new bike imported from Asia however, I am bidding on a second hand mountain bike on ebay (please no attempts to outbid me!). I figure I not only save the emissions on a new bike, but it's also lots cheaper - and I just have to pick it up from someone local. Check, check and check!
So all in all I am feeling positive about the initial steps I've made. Now I just need to look for more inspiration... the cement industry perhaps?
Wednesday 23 September 2009
Oh my, what big feet you have...
Having returned from the Th!nk2 launch in Copenhagen last night, and with Climate Change at the forefront of my mind, I decided to check my carbon footprint. A simple means (I thought) to confirm my part in the valiant effort to safeguard the survival of humankind. To my horror, it turns out my feet are rather larger than I'd expected. No strike that, they are veritably enormous. I am the Godzilla of carbon. Just how big are we talking here folks... well it seems I've clocked up a whopping 10.98 tonnes in the last year (give or take a few kilograms). And that is just for household energy, appliances and travel. Nothing to do with food consumption, purchases or any number of other things.
While this admission may provoke a few gasps of horror out there in cyberspace, more than likely most of you are thinking "so what?".
A little perspective perhaps.
According to ACT ON CO2, which is where I calculated said footprint, the national average for this calculation is 4.46 tonnes. So essentially I'm living a double life - and not a sexy, 007 type thing either. While it's not a revelation that would keep most people awake at night - I'm telling you, it's put a cold sweat on my brow. Why? Well the problem is (cue acute blushing) I consider myself er... herm to be rather sound on the green credentials. I did afterall volunteer on an emissions reduction project at my previous company, I am examining carbon emissions as part of my PhD, I do wax lyrical on the necessity of doing something about climate change, and I have just signed up to a blogging competition on this very same topic. Yes, the problem is, the very, very big problem is, I'm a hypocrite.
The shocking revelation of my carbon gluttony has definitely pulled me up short. As my friend Jo put it, nothing is more irritating than someone standing on a soapbox while simultaneously flouting the same ideals they're espousing. I'd have to agree. So where does that leave me? Well it's clear that some changes are needed - some rather drastic ones. And so here it is, with 75 days left to COP15 I've decided to dedicate the next three months to investigating, examining, reforming and refining my nasty habits in a bid to cut my carbon footprint to below the national average. The reality is, if someone who actually believes that climate change is a serious threat can't make the necessary changes to their lifestyle, who can?
The question is, how far will I be prepared to go? Am I willing to go without my usual appliances? Is getting stuff off freecycle an option I'd consider? Can I stomach the thought of eating raw and local? Will it seem worth it when I'm walking to the station in the pouring rain? And more crucially am I prepared to (gulp) give up my beloved traveling? The goal here is not simply personal redemption, I want to genuinely understand what changes an average individual can make to their carbon footprint without drastically altering the way they live. No moving into a wigwam in the middle of the Devon, no giving up of trips into the big city and certainly no growing of vegetables in the front yard.
I'll keep you posted...
While this admission may provoke a few gasps of horror out there in cyberspace, more than likely most of you are thinking "so what?".
A little perspective perhaps.
According to ACT ON CO2, which is where I calculated said footprint, the national average for this calculation is 4.46 tonnes. So essentially I'm living a double life - and not a sexy, 007 type thing either. While it's not a revelation that would keep most people awake at night - I'm telling you, it's put a cold sweat on my brow. Why? Well the problem is (cue acute blushing) I consider myself er... herm to be rather sound on the green credentials. I did afterall volunteer on an emissions reduction project at my previous company, I am examining carbon emissions as part of my PhD, I do wax lyrical on the necessity of doing something about climate change, and I have just signed up to a blogging competition on this very same topic. Yes, the problem is, the very, very big problem is, I'm a hypocrite.The shocking revelation of my carbon gluttony has definitely pulled me up short. As my friend Jo put it, nothing is more irritating than someone standing on a soapbox while simultaneously flouting the same ideals they're espousing. I'd have to agree. So where does that leave me? Well it's clear that some changes are needed - some rather drastic ones. And so here it is, with 75 days left to COP15 I've decided to dedicate the next three months to investigating, examining, reforming and refining my nasty habits in a bid to cut my carbon footprint to below the national average. The reality is, if someone who actually believes that climate change is a serious threat can't make the necessary changes to their lifestyle, who can?
The question is, how far will I be prepared to go? Am I willing to go without my usual appliances? Is getting stuff off freecycle an option I'd consider? Can I stomach the thought of eating raw and local? Will it seem worth it when I'm walking to the station in the pouring rain? And more crucially am I prepared to (gulp) give up my beloved traveling? The goal here is not simply personal redemption, I want to genuinely understand what changes an average individual can make to their carbon footprint without drastically altering the way they live. No moving into a wigwam in the middle of the Devon, no giving up of trips into the big city and certainly no growing of vegetables in the front yard.
I'll keep you posted...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
