Friday, 14 December 2007

Carbon Myths


Chris Goodall has looked at the general public's level of ignorance what their personal actions can achieve to reduce the production of 'greenhouse gases' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/13/ethicalliving.carbonfootprints). He feels that this is not only important in encouraging effective action but also in preventing people being 'sold' "goods and services that offer little or no carbon-saving." He notes the belief that eco-light bulbs are the best way of saving electricity in the home. They do provide modest savings but this is more than cancelled out by the same people buying large plasma TVs and games consoles. He also draws attention to the frequent mantra in the UK that flying is 'only' annually responsible for 2% of world carbon dioxide production. He points out that actually the UK's contribution via this mode of transport is 6% and growing rapidly (note the enthusiasm for new runways and airports). Goodall suggests that the impact of aviation gases (because of where it is produced) is almost 3 times that of the amount of carbon dioxide generated and that air travel anyway generates almost as much CO2 as the Government's target for reduction by 2050. He also questions whether all packaging is 'wicked', noting the current distaste for the plastic bag. Goodall feels that some packaging in necessary and is not an especial source of greenhouse gases. Bags, of course, can be damaging in particular circumstances particularly when a Leatherback turtle mistakes one for a jellyfish! He feels that the amount of discarded food (30% of what is produced) is much more important as much of this goes into landfill producing very potent methane gas. Goodall also questions whether hybrid petrol and electrical cars are a good means of reducing emissions as they are expensive and the latest generation of small diesels produce similar levels of gases. He also notes that, whilst the concept of 'food miles' is relevant, one also has to consider the nature of the food item. For example, beef from the farm next door can have 50 times the impact on global warming as beans flown in from Canada! Goodall also is skeptical about the enthusiasm of some political parties for encouraging with cash the microgeneration of electricity by people placing solar panels or wind turbines on their roofs. He believes that giving the same cash to encourage the British to insulate their notoriously poorly insulated houses would be a much more effective policy. Goodall clearly has some very interesting 'takes' on many of these issues and a certain amount of 'myth busting' is absolutely needed. I don't, however, go along with all his suggestions. I am, for example, not convinced that one answer is for all humans to become vegans. Perhaps there are simply too many of these omnivorous primates?

4 comments:

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...

Hi Prof
With regard to your comment about vegans, you may be interested to read a report about the global impact of livestock called "Livestock's Long Shadow" written by the Livestock Environment and Development Initiative (LEAD) found on the Vegan Society's website - link below
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm

Regards
Nic

Paul Brain said...

Thanks for that Nic- a useful link! I do, however, still feel that limiting human population growth is important.

Nic said...

I'm definitely with you on that one - although you're the only person I know that agrees with me!

It's a Dead Parrot!

Scientists (what do they know?) are generally agreed. Most think the Paris Accord of limiting global heating to 1.5 degrees Centigrade abov...