Eco-hopeful

98 months to save the planet...

2008-10-09T22:31:00.005+01:00

When the campaign One Hundred Months (to save the planet) was launched two months ago, I signed up for the monthly action emails. But with so many websites urging us to sign up to get tips on greening our lifestyle I thought I'd wait a bit before recommending it to friends - is it more than just a good slogan to jolt people out of complacency? Two months in, and they say they've got 130,000 people signed up in 148 countries. And, what's more, the actions to do have been pretty sensible:

changing to a renewable energy supplier (Good Energy)
emailing MEPs deciding the EU's climate and energy package
emailing Ed Milliband, the new Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
going to the Climate Rush on Monday 13 October outside Parliament
emailing the US presidential candidates to ask them to to attend the critical United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Poland this December

So I'd say go and sign up and tell your friends about it too.

They're also promoting this book, which is as nifty a piece of design as I ever saw. I will probably buy it, and hope it cheers me up in the face of the news that the government has just approved 23,000 extra flights a year at Stansted airport.

Reshuffle brings hope

2008-10-03T22:14:00.003+01:00

Two weeks is a long time in politics. Two weeks ago Ruth Kelly, evangelist for a third runway at Heathrow, departed. No tears shed there. With the reshuffle imminent, I was hoping that John Hutton would find himself also shuffled elsewhere. He made no friends among those concerned about climate change by his single-minded determination to build a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, apparently battling his cabinet colleagues to do so.

So, reshuffle day today, and it's excellent news. Not only has Hutton been moved from Business to Defence (I hope he doesn't continue with the same carefree attitude to risk when in charge of weapons), but a whole new department has been created: the Department for Climate Change and Energy. This sudden attack of joined up thinking has taken everyone by surprise.

There's a nice article on the BusinessGreen blog about it all by the way

A selection of news stories

2008-09-24T21:27:00.005+01:00

I've been away for a couple of weeks, during which there have been some interesting stories in the news. So, in no particular order...

Six Greenpeace activists who caused £30,000 of damage to the coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth were found not guilty by a jury after expert evidence was presented that they were acting to present much greater damage from climate change. Twelve ordinary members of the public found the evidence convincing and brought in a historic 'not guilty' verdict. This is the first case where preventing property damage from climate change has been used as part of a 'lawful excuse' defence in Crown Court.

Some research reported in the Guardian found that those people who were most aware of climate change were actually doing the most damage to the planet by flying further and more often. There is clearly a massive gap in understanding here, since so many people think that recycling is a sufficient 'green' compensation for taking long-haul flights.

Mark Lynas, a respected environmentalist, has just come out in favour of nuclear power as part of the solution to climate change. The heated discussion on his blog centres around two issues, it seems. Firstly, how great a practical contribution nuclear power can make to cutting carbon emissions, and secondly, the true size of the risks that nuclear power presents. The second is a much more difficult question to resolve, since there are two elements to risk: how likely something is, and how bad the impact would be if it did happen. While I'm not in a position to draw authoritative conclusions on either of these questions (at least not without a lot more reading!) I strongly agree with Mark Lynas that the evidence should be examined afresh. When faced with the massive threat of climate change, the risk from nuclear power may turn out to be worth taking. On the other hand, nuclear power may prove to be an expensive distraction from renewables.

Finally scientists have reported methane being released from frozen seabeds in Siberia. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it has long been feared that if it is released as the permafrost warms up, this could cause runaway global warming. No one knows yet exactly what the new evidence means, but it is at the least a timely reminder of urgency.

Boris Johnson, eco-warrior

2008-09-08T14:30:00.006+01:00

Boris Johnson, as Mayor of London, has published a plan on adapting to climate change. All very worthy and necessary in itself, but no substitute for cutting emissions. As the metaphorical car of climate change careers towards the cliff, the brakes are clearly more important than the airbag.

So, what news of Ken's climate change action plan, published last year? Boris has kept the target to cut London's carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent cut (based on 1990 levels) by 2025. However, in the list of his environmental priorities as Mayor, this target appears as just one item in the list, alongside banning bottled water at GLA meetings, lobbying for a ban on single use plastic bags, and encouraging more hybrid buses. I'm not saying these are bad things. But the 2025 target will be achieved only if it is given a much higher priority than seems to be the case.

How green is Boris? On the positive side, he opposes a third runway at Heathrow, but the evidence suggests this is not for climate change reasons, since he endorses a 50 per cent increase in flights from London city airport. He has also been talking about the possibility of a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Low carbon zones have been announced to pioneer home insulation, locally generated renewable energy schemes, etc., but he has scrapped plans to introduce a climate change-related congestion charge and re-opened the consultation on the western extension to the congestion charge zone. Aside from climate change, if he fails to cut congestion further in London, the government may be fined for breaching air quality rules.

In an article in February 2006, he described climate change as 'a growing world religion', and in his earlier book 'Lend me your ears', stated that when George Bush refused to sign the Kyoto protocol 'he is doing what is right not just for America but for the world'. However, in an interview in the Guardian last week, he claims to have been convinced by the 2006 Stern Review, saying 'When the facts change, you change your mind'. A genuine conversion, or simply someone saying what is politically desirable? Definitely a case where actions will speak louder than words.

Switching to a 'green' electricity tariff

2008-08-19T17:45:00.009+01:00

Changing to a green electricity tariff is a simple action to take to help support renewable electricity generation. However, beware the greenwash on this one! Some background information:

Firstly, what is a green tariff? It doesn't guarantee that the electricity powering your computer is from a renewable source. However, for at least some of the units you use, the energy company guarantees to put back into the grid an equivalent amount of energy from renewable sources (currently more expensive). You, the customer, pay a little bit more for them to do this, and this increases the market for renewable energy, and supports the building of new renewables capacity.

All power companies have a legal requirement to make 9% of their electricity from renewables, or purchase certificates to make up the difference. Large energy providers seem to have found a handy way of paying for this. Rather than spread the costs among all consumers, those on 'green tariffs' pay more - but without the company actually producing any more renewable energy than it is obliged to anyway.

Small providers are generally a safer bet. The website http://www.greenelectricity.org/ compares various tariffs for the green benefits on offer. From next month there will be a bit more transparency as companies will have to comply with Ofgem guidelines about providing information. The Ofgem rating system has been criticised however. The National Consumer Council did a report which goes into more detail about the issues, but individual tariffs may have changed since it was written in 2006.

One final useful bit of jargon: ROC retiral. This is a Good Thing. ROCs (Renewable Obligation Certificates) are issued to companies producing renewable energy. They can then sell these to other energy company to enable them to meet their legal obligation (see above). Any renewables company that retires some of these certificates rather than selling them makes it harder for other companies not to invest in renewables themselves, and avoids counting the 'greenness' twice.

So, is it worth changing? Yes. Switching electricity suppliers isn't a substitute for saving energy, but here are two good reasons to take this action:
1. It's very easy to switch, through http://www.greenelectricity.org/ or another website.
2. It makes you feel good
3. When persistent sales-type people come to your front door trying to persuade you to switch suppliers, you can tell them you're with a green energy company, and they go away. This is a significant bonus in my opinion.

Biofuels: one of the worst good ideas

2008-08-14T14:11:00.006+01:00

The EU is proposing a binding target to increase the use of biofuels made from plant matter so they would make up 10% of all road fuels by 2020. This would mean lower fossil fuel use, so would be a good thing for the planet, surely? Unfortunately not, since land use changes to grow these crops is often likely to lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. There are also serious humanitarian concerns about land rights and food production. For example, this report from Oxfam cites the International Food Policy Research Institute who blame biofuels for 30% of the recent near doubling of global food prices.

Artificially increasing the demand for biofuels would have a serious effect in countries such as Indonesia. Current deforestation, driven by demand for palm oil, timber and paper, has already led to Indonesia becoming the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, behind only the US and China. This is not just from burning the forest, but also because the underlying peatlands, when drained and exposed, decompose emitting vast amounts of carbon dioxide.

The next vote on this issue is at the Industry and Energy Committee of the European Parliament in September. You can email your MEP from the Friends of the Earth website. Hopefully, you then get a reply from them in which they commit to voting against any targets for biofuel use. It's more likely, though, that they will only partially agree, or not commit themselves. No reason why you can't write back, and point out where you think they're wrong. There are useful tips for doing that here.

NB. the website writetothem.com is a good resource for this sort of thing. It lets you email your MP, councillor, MEP, MSP, London Assembly member, etc. at the click of a mouse.

Global warming: why is it a bad thing?

2008-08-10T18:55:00.006+01:00

"Climate change: Prepare for global temperature rise of 4C, warns top scientist" stated the Guardian's headline on Thursday. It was good to see these issues on the front page, where they should be, and the article was intelligent. Though I did feel that illustrating it with a picture of some plants, captioned "Drought-resistant plants...would become more common in British gardens" rather undermined its seriousness. However, inside, a table showed what the expected impacts would be. This is nicely set out, but still confusing in some ways. So I looked at its source, the Stern report, and found a much clearer version on page 57.

Clearly, there is a lot of uncertainty around these predictions, in that we can't be sure that any given impact will be as predicted, less than predicted, or indeed a lot worse (for example reports that the Arctic is losing ice so fast that the North Pole could have no ice cover in 5 years).

One of the problems getting most people to take global warming seriously is that the difference between, say, a summer's day of 20C and one of 23C is not dramatic. However, if global temperatures rise on average by just 1C, the disappearance of glaciers in the Andes will threaten water supplies for 50 million people, there will be 80% bleaching of coral reefs, including the Great Barrier Reef, and according to one study, we can expect 10% of land species to go extinct. At 2C, crop yield would start to decline in Africa, with potentially 20 - 30% decrease in water availability in Southern Africa and the Mediterranean.

Recent work by climate and policy experts modelled plausible scenarios. The most optimistic was that in 2010, climate-related disasters led to a dramatic change in international policy-making and a cap on total fossil fuel extraction, leading emissions to start falling as early as 2017. This scenario still led to a 2.89C rise in global temperatures by 2100. The next most optimistic was that current negotiations lead to a Kyoto style agreement for developed countries, with others joining as they achieve "first world" status. Under this, emissions continue to rise until 2030, and there would be an expected 3.31C rise in temperatures. At 3C, 1 - 4 billion more people are expected to suffer water shortages, and some models predict collapse of the Amazon rainforest.

The most pessimistic scenario was where governments make commitments on climate change, but then backtrack or fail to comply with them (i.e. as has happened so far). This has 90% probability of a 4.85C rise by 2100. At 5C, according to the Stern report, London and New York would be at risk from flooding, marine ecosystems would be seriously disrupted by acidity and many hundreds of millions in China and India would suffer from water shortages as Himalayan glaciers disappear.

Finally, one thing that has been given little emphasis in public debate is that somewhere well before 5C, positive feedback could kick in (i.e. triggering runaway global warming). For example, the Siberian permafrost melts, releasing methane, or tropical rainforests collapse, releasing carbon dioxide. One recent estimate put the 'tipping point in just 100 months' time.

So, not good. Next week I'll try and get back on the theme of 'positive things to do in the face of all this'.

Fuel poverty in the news

2008-08-07T13:06:00.006+01:00

At first sight there may seem to be a clash of priorities between those who worry about poor households facing higher fuel bills for heating and transport, and those who see these as a driver of essential energy efficiency measures to tackle climate change. The blindingly obvious solution is to invest in making homes well insulated and energy efficient - save money, save the planet.

Unfortunately Malcolm Wicks, the energy minister, doesn't see it that way . Displaying a worrying lack of joined-up thinking, he is quoted in the Observer as saying "We are not going to sacrifice fuel poverty on the altar of climate change."

In 2001, the government committed itself to the legally binding target of eradicating fuel poverty among vulnerable households in England by 2010, and across the UK entirely by 2016-18. Working together, Friends of the Earth and Help the Aged have secured a judicial review against the government for their imminent failure to reach these targets, with the case due to be heard in October.

Recent sharp increases in fuel bills, together with large profits announced by energy companies have contributed to growing public pressure for a windfall tax on energy companies, with the proceeds to be used to tackle fuel poverty. There is a full list of supporters of the windfall tax campaign on the Compass website, along with a petition. The Select Committee on Business and Enterprise have even suggested in their latest report that it would be a good idea, given the profits energy companies have made recently from free entitlements handed out under the EU emissions trading scheme, and the scale of fuel poverty.

Needless to say, the energy companies have dug their heels in, protesting that they pay high taxes already, and threatening to withdraw investment in renewable energy schemes. Reports are that the government is also less than enthusiastic about a windfall tax, and is looking at other measures. (A good report here in the Herald.) However, with the judicial review coming up in October, the government will be under pressure to ensure some serious money is spent, and if it doesn't come from the energy companies, it will come from the taxpayer.

The Elephant in the Room

2008-08-03T21:53:00.005+01:00

This week's big UK climate change story has to be the research by the Stockholm Environment Institute* as reported on the BBC, the Independent, the Telegraph and others. Official statistics used by the government seem to show that UK greenhouse gas emissions have been falling since the 1990s, despite the economy's growth (largely attributed to a one-off switch from coal to gas).

However, this new research shows what happens when all emissions associated with UK consumption are included in the statistics (international aviation, shipping and imports). Lo and behold, as the economy (and consumption) has been increasing, so have emissions too (as most environmentalists suspected). These extra emissions are substantial, accounting for half as much again as the UK emissions reported through the Kyoto protocol.

Essentially, as the UK manufacturing industry declined, it has been outsourcing its greenhouse gas emissions to countries such as China. For any given unit, such as a DVD player, the carbon emissions are actually greater when manufactured abroad, and transported to the UK - but on the UK's official balance sheet they count as zero.

So, the UK's responsibility is now clearer. But what happens to the emissions statistics from those countries that manufacture goods for us? Last year, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research calculated that net exports from China accounted for a quarter of its emissions. A report from the New Economics Foundation (NEF), Chinadependence, goes into more detail, with the statistic that the UK imports around 6.5 million tonnes of goods a year from China.

So the next time someone tells you that it doesn't matter what the UK does, because China is so polluting, tell them that perhaps we have more influence over Chinese pollution than we think.

Making the point on a related issue (omitting aviation and shipping from the climate change bill), see the Elephant in the Room - one of the neatest protests I've seen in a while.

Finally, a couple of fascinating statistics from the NEF report. In 2006, the UK sent 21 tonnes of mineral water all the way to Australia and brought 20 tonnes all the way back. In the same year, we both imported from and exported to Italy, 600 tonnes of, 'gums and other jelly confectionary'. Humans really are a strange species.

* Two reports, one published by Defra, the other by WWF, not published yet.

No-fly holidays

2008-07-28T21:22:00.005+01:00

Time for a post on a more cheerful theme. Frankly, if you think too much about climate change and environmental destruction, you will definitely need a holiday. Since flying less is generally agreed to be one of the best ways of cutting the carbon footprint, it's a good thing that there are lots of other possibilities. Here is a quick selection of websites I've collected.

The king here is without doubt The Man in Seat 61. If you haven't already, visit his website and marvel at the definitive one-man guide to going absolutely anywhere by train.
50 'best no-fly holidays' from The Observer last year
More Holidays without flying from Responsible Travel
Low fly zone - less practical advice, and more general encouragement
http://www.loco2travel.com/ - with a list of trains to European festivals, one for the young and trendy
The latest deals from Eurostar
A blog on Slow Travel

(NB I'm not endorsing the commercial websites in any way.)

In fact, finding no-fly holiday options seems to me to be the easy part. Many would-be greenies find it much more difficult to persuade their partner whose heart is set on somewhere long-haul, or on cheap deal minibreaks. And is there a non-friendship-breaking way of telling a friend or colleague that they should change their holiday habits? Answers on a postcard please.

Buying our way out of trouble

2008-07-24T20:48:00.005+01:00

Despite all the fanfare on the UK government's plans for renewables, they've been keeping rather quieter about negotiations in Brussels where they've been busy trying to water down an EU directive on renewable energy. The Guardian carried the story on its front page today, and Friends of the Earth is currently asking people to email John Hutton. One of the main ways the government wants to avoid meeting the EU target of 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 is to buy credits from elsewhere. If other European countries can meet the target without fiddling the figures, why can't we?

Elsewhere in the same paper, a piece by George Monbiot about a loophole in the Climate Change Bill allowing credits to be bought from abroad to meet emissions reductions targets. I'm starting to spot a theme here. Incidentally, the final stages of the Climate Change Bill in the House of Commons will now not be until October or November - plenty of time for lobbying your MP

G8 climate change challenge

2008-07-07T21:19:00.001+01:00

So, the G8 summit is in full swing. Will the world leaders rise to the challenge of setting targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, while incorporating a coherent response to food and economic crises? On past record it's unlikely, but watch this space.

If you've ever wished you could influence the leaders of other countries as well as your own, writing a letter is always a possibility, but if you fancy something more in tune with the information age, as well as strength in numbers, you could sign up to campaign alerts from Avaaz. They are a global campaigning organisation with around 3.2 million people signed up. While climate change isn't the only issue they campaign on, there are few (if any?) other means of mobilising from 100,000 to a million people internationally to sign up for petitions or donate money at short notice. Check out their website to see what they are doing at the G8 summit.

Renewable energy plan

2008-06-27T13:03:00.001+01:00

Some good news at last - the consultation published this week on the UK's renewable energy strategy, a belated attempt to meet the commitment to generate 15% of the UK’s energy from renewable sources. The plans involve building 7000 more wind turbines.

There has been enthusiasm from environmentalists, such as Greenpeace, but the government will need to deal with headlines about rising energy bills as a result.

If 15% seems ambitious, we should look at what is happening not so far away in Portugal. Already generating 20% of its energy from renewables, this is expected to rise to 60% by 2020. Portugal is building the world's largest solar photovoltaic farm and the world's largest windfarm. In the past three years, it has trebled its hydropower capacity and quadrupled its wind power. More information in the Guardian, along with some great pictures.

A couple of updates from the political world

2008-06-20T13:19:00.000+01:00

Firstly, if you want to make sure that your MP supports crucial amendments to the Climate Change Bill, here is an easy way to email them or write a more detailed letter.

Secondly, the recent speech by David Cameron mentioned not only a cap on carbon emissions from coal power stations, but also feed-in tariffs from renewables and criticism of the plans for a new runway at Heathrow (although aviation expansion more generally was not discussed). So, are the Tories really going green? Michael McCarthy is almost convinced.

Climate change and plastic bags

2008-06-16T13:23:00.000+01:00

I was at the Campaigh against Climate Change Climate Forum at the weekend. The main debate was 'Are we losing the fight against climate change?'. To sum up the speakers, the answer was, frankly, yes. Overall, we have not yet lost, but we are losing. Even in an optimistic international policy scenario, things are going to be pretty bad. If current trends in policy continue then it will be very bad. Very bad indeed. See this article by Mark Lynas, one of the speakers, and you get the general idea. But we have not lost yet, and there are lots of practical things that can be done to stop the worst happening.

So why is the government, which knows all this, still continuing with policies such as more aviation and new coal power stations, which are going to make things worse. It is difficult to understand, but part of the reason is a lack of public pressure because most people in this country don't really 'get' climate change either.

While public awareness of climate change has risen dramatically in the last few years, driven mostly by media coverage of increasingly alarming scientific reports, individual action lags far behind. Frustratingly, people tend to feel that they have 'done their bit' with a few minor actions such as recycling and using fewer plastic bags. The things that can really make a difference, such as cutting down on flying and car use and getting good home insulation, are still not really seen as mainstream, but the province of 'eco-hippies'. The blog climatedenial.org sets this out very well.

So how do you make people have a sense of urgency, but not feel so overwhelmed that any action seems pointless? Particularly when rising fuel prices and rising house prices are taking media attention away from the big picture. Anyone with the answers - your planet needs you!

Cleaning up dirty coal

2008-06-13T22:02:00.000+01:00

According to the Guardian, the Conservatives are set to take the moral high ground on coal-fired power stations. Apparently, next week they will announce a policy to set a strict limit on CO2 emissions from new coal power stations that would rule out any being built without carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). This is similar to a policy already in place in California.

Carbon capture technology works by separating and liquefying carbon dioxide emitted by power plants. This is then stored deep underground, often in depleted coal or gas fields. Although still unproven on an industrial scale, and expensive, estimates suggest that the technology could cut global emissions by between 28-50% by 2050. Recent reports from the Policy Exchange thinktank and WWF have criticised the government for appearing half-hearted on CCS technology. as did a letter to the John Hutton from the eminent scientists of the Royal Society.

When it comes to CO2 emissions, coal burning is the dirtiest form of energy generation. However, the government is planning to build a new generation of coal-fired power stations with the requirement only that they be 'capture-ready' to fit the new technology when it is proven - an insufficient guarantee. The first of these would be the controversial new power station at Kingsnorth, which has caused outrage among environmentalists.

The Environmental Audit Committee is currently carrying out an inquiry into the government's policy on carbon capture and storage. The chair of the committee has already been quoted in the Times calling the government 'reckless' for backing new coal power stations with no guarantee if or when CCS would be available. On this one, the Conservative party seem to be ahead of the game.

Climate Change Bill in the Commons

2008-06-10T13:31:00.000+01:00

Having now left the Lords, the Climate Change Bill has just been debated for the first time in the House of Commons. The text of the debate can be read on Hansard, and MPs discussed a wide ranges of issues such as the need to include aviation in the Bill; the need for limits on the UK's ability to buy credits from abroad, rather than making cuts in our own emissions; and the scale of the cuts required.

As yet no amendments have been voted on - so it's not too late to write to your MP to ask them for to strengthen the Bill. The website www.theyworkforyou.com lets you email your MP very easily. A wide range of organisations have got involved in the campaign for a strong Climate Change Bill. This briefing, which sets out the key issues very simply, is from a church coalition.

Finally, a (dis)honourable mention for those MPs who voted against a second reading of the Bill, in other words who believe there is no need for it: Peter Lilley, Ann Widdecombe and Andrew Tyrie.

Grow your own positivity

2008-06-08T18:34:00.000+01:00

I was cheered by this article in the Guardian on Friday. It asks the question, 'Why bother to make lifestyle changes to combat climate change when anything we can do is a drop in the ocean compared to the size of the problem?' The author concludes that while personal changes are not sufficient, nor is waiting passively for governments to act. He suggests starting by growing some food - a small positive action that can inspire further self-sufficiency and creativity in the cause of sustainability.

On a growing theme, here are a few links:
22 reasons to grow your own rocket from the Times Eco worrier blog.
The Real Seed Catalogue - an exciting range of rare, heirloom, and unusual vegetable seeds.
Feast from your window box - ideas on what to grow in tiny urban corners
A guide to growing your own vegetable garden and Ten rules of eco gardening - again from the Times.

Big NO

2008-06-03T21:37:00.000+01:00

The demonstration at Heathrow got good media coverage, but just in case you missed it, here's a picture of the NO. (See Campaign against Climate Change website for the original)

Planning Bill setback

2008-06-03T21:29:00.000+01:00

In the face of a back-bench rebellion, the government has just defeated amendments to the Planning Bill currently in the House of Commons. This means that the new Independent Planning Commission (IPC) will not have to take climate change impact into account when considering major developments such as power stations, roads and airports.

Friends of the Earth is asking people to write to their MP to ask them to support two more amendments: to make the IPC democratically accountable, and to ensure people and communities have a meaningful right to be heard.

Palm oil

2008-05-27T22:49:00.000+01:00

Greenpeace have been rather pleased with themselves over a recent campaign win. Unilever has announced that they will support the call for an immediate moratorium on any further deforestation for palm oil in Indonesia. Even though they represent only 3 per cent of the palm oil purchasers, they are the biggest buyer, so this is a big win. Although the campaign was fronted by endearing orang utans, the impact of rainforest destruction goes much further. Apparently, because of deforestation, Indonesia's CO2 emissions are the third highest in the world (a quick Google search finds this).

Still a long way to go (and the whole issue of palm oil for biofuel as well) but it's a good start.

Dodgy dealing

2008-05-27T17:45:00.000+01:00

An interesting (and depressing) front-page story in the Guardian yesterday. The system established by the Kyoto process which allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations is not just being abused, but abused on a massive scale. Apparently billions of pounds have been spent on dubious projects which do not do what they claim to.

That is why one of the House of Lords amendments to the UK Climate Change Bill is important: it stipulates that at least 70% of the UK's emissions cuts in any budgetary period should be generated domestically and not bought in from abroad, from similar schemes. The Government will of course be seeking to remove this amendment as the Bill passes through the House of Commons.

Heathrow carnival

2008-05-26T15:42:00.000+01:00

Next Saturday, 31 May, many thousands of people will be heading for Heathrow. Nothing so unusual in that - Heathrow is the UK's biggest airport. But this Saturday many of these will be there not to catch a flight but to protest against the plans for a third runway. Why is this such a bad idea? Many would argue that the local impact alone should be enough for the plan to be scrapped. At least 150,000 people will be under new flight paths to the new runway, and people under the existing flight paths would have planes going overhead every 90 seconds.

But the real killer is the climate change impact. Forecasts for aviation expansion over the coming decades estimate that the increase in capacity at Heathrow would add more in CO2 emissions than the total current emissions from Gatwick and Stansted put together.(1)

There's more information on http://www.make-a-noise.org/ and http://www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/

(1)http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/environmentalissues/ukairdemandandco2forecasts/ (Table 3.7)

Why eco-hopeful?

2008-05-14T13:46:00.000+01:00

Climate change is so vast, with such potentially catastrophic consequences for the human race and other life on this planet, that it's very hard to think about it and not be sucked into despair. What can one person do? Why not just enjoy ourselves and leave future generations to sort it out? Unfortunately, the only chance of stopping it is to do something now - in the next 5-10 years.

If I do small things such as changing lightbulbs, switching the TV off standby, or bigger things such as avoiding flying, it makes me feel a bit better. In reality, however, the impact on the world's carbon emissions is infinitessimal. But what if I talk to my friends about how cheap it was to insulate my loft, or how great my journey on the Eurostar was, and why these changes are important? Suddenly I'm helping create societal change.

If I find a couple of environmentally-minded people in my office, and together we push forward a plan to save money by being greener, it won't just be us turning off computer monitors, trying not to waste paper, etc.

A lot of the important decisions that affect how much the UK contributes to climate change are taken by government departments that are simply not taking the issue seriously. But this is an elected government. In China, people may be arrested if they campaign politically, but we have the freedom to do so - and the responsibility to use that opportunity. So I can join up with organisations that are campaigning on these issues, write to my MP, make a fuss!

I hope this blog will be useful and interesting to those like me who would like, to use a cliche, to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.