Carbon | News & Views

Emissions Equality – The need to improve air quality

VOLVO ANNOUNCES THREE-POINT PLAN TO HELP THE CAR INDUSTRY IMPROVE UK AIR QUALITY.

Volvo Car UK has launched a three-point plan aimed at providing all motorists with a broader range of emissions information when they buy their next car – irrespective of marque – to help combat the UK’s rising problem of poor air quality.

With the UK facing a fine of up to £300m for its poor air quality and the Environmental Audit Committee predicting 50,000 premature deaths* through air pollution, Volvo believes it’s time to educate drivers of a car’s complete emissions picture rather than just CO2 in isolation.

Automotive emissions other than CO2 (NOx, Hydrocarbons and Particulates**) are the key contributors to poor air quality, particularly in urban areas, and are one of the main reasons why the UK suffers from one of the highest recordable asthma rates in the world***.

Volvo is proposing:

1. Volvo Car UK will encourage the Department for Transport and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders to mandate a second environmental label covering non-CO2 emissions for all new and used cars up to five years of age. This would sit alongside the current CO2 label on all cars displayed.

The CO2 and other emissions information shouldn’t be combined in one single label as drivers still need to understand CO2 emissions for tax purposes. All of this information is readily available on the VCA website but needs presenting in an easier to understand format such as www.CleanGreenCars.co.uk and be made more accessible to all drivers.

Volvo believes there is room for a new environmental label similar to the one in the United States of America, run by the US Environmental Protection Agency which scores the environmental impact of vehicles, including both air quality and CO2 emissions.

2. Volvo Car UK is launching a phone/PC App in the next few weeks to make all air pollution and CO2 emission information readily available to drivers for when they visit a showroom to choose their next car.

3. Volvo Car UK will create an Emissions Equality Automotive Air Pollution Think Tank to move the subject of emissions and air quality further up the agenda of the automotive industry over the coming 12-24 months.

The Think Tank already has a number of high-profile members covering all sides of the debate, including Environmental Protection UK’s Policy Officer Ed Dearnley, environmentalist andTV naturalist Chris Packham, Professor of Environmental Health from Kings College London Frank Kelly, the automotive environmental commentator Jay Nagley from www.CleanGreenCars.co.uk and Volvo’s own environmental consultant Don Potts.

To support the campaign they have developed a great animation which helps explain the issues in an easily to understand way. You can watch this great eco video here.

Further discussion and debate will also be directed to facebook and twitter, where conversation will be tagged #EmissionsEquality.

Additional Information;
*Source: Environmental Audit Committee
**The Vehicle Certification Agency’s description of non CO2 emissions is as follows:
CO – Carbon monoxide reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood.
HC – Hydrocarbons contribute to ozone formation. Some kinds of HCs can also be carcinogens and are also indirect greenhouse gases.
NOx – Oxides of nitrogen react in the atmosphere to form nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which can have adverse effects on health, particularly among people with respiratory illness.
***http://www.asthma.org.uk/news_media/media_resources/for_journalists.html

New UK Government Signs-up to 10:10

10:10’s Duncan Clark reports on the government’s committment to cut 10% of its emissions over the next 12 months. To find out more <click here>

It’s been an amazing few days: on Wednesday, the 10:10 team were thrilled when the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition announced a commitment to reduce the entire carbon footprint of central government by 10% in a year. The pledge confirmed that both parties’ earlier manifesto pledges to do 10:10 had made it through the thorny negotiation process.

Then, yesterday evening, just as 10:10 were hosting one of their fortnightly 10:10 seminars, the phone rang. It was 10 Downing Street, inviting us down to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) this morning to meet prime minister David Cameron, along with the new secretary for energy and climate change, Chris Huhne.

The government’s 10% announcement – equivalent to taking 200,000 cars off the road – is a monumental victory for 10:10 and testament to how far the campaign has come in the eight short months since its launch.

Best of all, when the 10:10 team interviewed him, Chris Huhne agreed to come to 10:10 HQ to give a seminar and discuss their plans – which include everything from a fridge scrappage scheme to turning off the lights overnight in some of the country’s biggest landmark buildings, as well as the biggest ever day of climate change action on 10/10/10.

Should we be looking beyond electricity in green car design?

Over the last few years, car manufacturers have been working away to create a viable alternative to a petrol-fuelled vehicle. The solution seemed to be the electric car.

Peugeot has recently announced that its electric car, the i0n, is due to go on sale in the UK by the end of the year. Nissan has created the concept car the Leaf, while Renault has been working on the futuristic Twizy concept car, which will soon be entering the virtual world of The Sims.

But behind the scenes researchers in Israel have been working on making hydrogen a viable competitor as an alternative to petrol.

Previous problems identified with hydrogen have been its flammable nature and the difficulty in storing the gas within a vehicle, as it requires large, heavy tanks.

The Israeli scientists believe that they have overcome one of these problems by creating much smaller and lightweight storage containers.

The gas would be stored in a series of very small glass tubes. Almost 400 of these tubes would then be bundled together to create an “array”, which is about the size of a drinking straw. Finally, 11,000 of these arrays would be place in the vehicle.

This would take up half the space and weigh half as much as other storage methods, yet still power the vehicle for 240 miles.

So does this mean that manufacturers will all start scrambling to create hydrogen powered cars? The answer is probably not.

Electric cars still have the upper hand when it comes to refuelling, as there is already a national grid established, meaning large amounts will not have to be laid out to create a charging infrastructure.

In addition, car makers will be looking at their profits and will be unwilling to dispose of all the equipment they invested in to produce electric cars before seeing a return.

Hydrogen fuel cells are also often used in electric vehicles to charge batteries and extend the distance they can travel without having to stop. The new research will mean that the two could be able to operate better hand in hand.

Car manufacturers will continue to look at the bottom line, and green enthusiasts will continue to look at the carbon footprint various fuels, but should they also be keeping one eye on hydrogen technology in the coming years?

>>> Please read the full article here

Is it a surprise that the Copenhagen Accord may not work?

When representatives of 192 countries converged in Copenhagen at the end of 2009, it was thought to be a seminal step forward in the world’s fight against climate change.

Out of this conference emerged the Copenhagen Accord and the agreement that a two degree limit would be the benchmark by which the international community would measure global warming.

However, no firm agreement was made about how this would be achieved.
Just six months later, researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have said that the pledges made in Copenhagen may not be enough to keep global warming within the agreed limits.

Published in the journal Nature, the research suggests that current emission levels could see the earth heat up by more than three degrees by 2100. It estimates that there is a 50 percent chance of this happening.

Currently the UK is pledging to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, although this may change depending on the result of the upcoming election.

The researchers said that even if all nations reduce the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by half by 2050, there is still a 50 percent chance that global temperatures will rise by two degrees C.

In fact it was found that it’s possible that global carbon emissions could increase by 20 percent by 2020.

According to the Times, the report concluded that the nations which signed up at Copenhagen were simply putting off difficult decisions.

The United Nations has also pointed out recently that it is very unlikely that the targets set out in the Copenhagen Accord will be met.
And is it really a surprise that such vague pledges may not bring about the changes needed?

In brief, those who signed the accord agreed that action must be taken on climate change and agreed to the provision of certain levels of funding, both long term and short term.

Developing countries will be required to report their efforts every two years, although no similar clause was included which applies to developed nations.

Perhaps, most significantly no sanctions were identified for those who fail to meet their targets.

So, in light of this new research, is it time for the world to accept that the Copenhagen Accord was just a vague idea and we’re still waiting for the real action to tackle climate change to begin?

>>> Please read the full article here

UK water use ‘worsening global crisis’

By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News

The amount of water used to produce food and goods imported by developed countries is worsening water shortages in the developing world, a report says.

The report, focusing on the UK, says two-thirds of the water used to make UK imports is used outside its borders.

The Engineering the Future alliance of professional engineering bodies says this is unsustainable, given population growth and climate change.

It says countries such as the UK must help poorer nations curb water use.

“We must take account of how our water footprint is impacting on the rest of the world,” said Professor Roger Falconer, director of the Hydro-Environmental Research Centre at Cardiff University and a member of the report’s steering committee.

If the water crisis becomes critical, it will pose a serious threat to the UK’s future development
Professor Peter Guthrie

“If we are to prevent the ‘perfect storm’, urgent action is necessary.”

The term perfect storm was used last year by the UK government’s chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, to describe future shortages of energy, food and water.

Forecasts suggest that when the world’s population soars beyond 8bn in 20 years time, the global demand for food and energy will jump by 50%, with the need for fresh water rising by 30%.

But developing countries are already using significant proportions of their water to grow food and produce goods for consumption in the West, the report says.

“The burgeoning demand from developed countries is putting severe pressure on areas that are already short of water,” said Professor Peter Guthrie, head of the Centre for Sustainable Development at Cambridge University, who chaired the steering group.

“If the water crisis becomes critical, it will pose a serious threat to the UK’s future development because of the impact it would have on our access to vital resources.”

Key to the report is the concept of “embedded water” – the water used to grow food and make things.

Embedded in a pint of beer, for example, is about 130 pints (74 litres) of water – the total amount needed to grow the ingredients and run all the processes that make the pint of beer.

A cup of coffee embeds about 140 litres (246 pints) of water, a cotton T-shirt about 2,000 litres, and a kilogram of steak 15,000 litres.

Using this methodology, UK consumers see only about 3% of the water usage they are responsible for.

The average UK consumer uses about 150 litres per day, the size of a large bath.

Ten times as much is embedded in the British-made goods bought by the average UK consumer; but that represents only about one-third of the total water embedded in all the average consumer’s food and goods, with the remainder coming from imports.

The UK is not unique in this – the same pattern is seen in most developed countries.

The engineering institutions say it means nations such as the UK have a duty to help curb water use in the developing world, where about one billion people already do not have sufficient access to clean drinking water.

UK-funded aid projects should have water conservation as a central tenet, the report recommends, while companies should examine their supply chains and reduce the water used in them.

This could lead to difficult questions being asked, such as whether it is right for the UK to import beans and flowers from water-stressed countries such as Kenya.

While growing crops such as these uses water, selling them brings foreign exchange into poor nations.

In the West, the report suggests, concerns over water could eventually lead to goods carrying a label denoting their embedded water content, in the same way as electrical goods now sport information about their energy consumption.

The Engineering the Future alliance includes the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) and the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM).

>>> Please read the full article here

Green policy: We need a seismic shift in thinking

Andy Atkins

The massive disruption to European air travel from the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland is a stark reminder of the massive force of nature – and the powerlessness of our actions when we feel its full might.

It’s a timely reminder of the urgent need to heed warnings from the world’s leading climate scientists about the huge threat we face unless we slash greenhouse gas emissions and tackle global warming.

But despite widespread agreement among the main political parties that climate change is one of the biggest challenges we face, the issue has taken a back seat since Gordon Brown blew the general election whistle earlier this month.

Before the economic crisis took hold, all the main parties seemed to grasp the importance of making climate change a major issue.

David Cameron kicked off his party leadership by making the environment a leading priority, urging people to “vote blue, go green” in the runup to the 2006 council elections.

Nick Clegg told a 2008 climate rally that some were saying: “In a recession we can’t afford the luxury to worry about the planet … they are wrong, you are right.”

And at last year’s Copenhagen climate talks, Gordon Brown warned of the “economic catastrophe equivalent in this century to the impact of two world wars and the great depression in the last.”

Cross-party support in the last parliament led to the passing of the historic Climate Change Act. Championed by Friends of the Earth, this was the first national legislation anywhere in the world to set legally binding targets for cutting emissions.

All three parties have sizeable sections devoted to the environment in their manifestos, and these are certainly stronger and bolder than last time round. But none of them fully grasps the size of the environmental challenge we face.

There is little to choose between Labour and Conservative electoral pledges.

Perhaps most deplorable is the fact that neither includes a commitment to delivering the 42% reduction in greenhouse gases that the government’s key advisors – the committee on climate change – say is required by 2020. Labour hinted at it, but only if various international conditions are met, while the Conservatives don’t even have a 2020 target.

Labour are strong on making our homes more energy efficient, promising to improve 7 million homes through tougher standards for rented housing and a loans scheme for homeowners, with the aim that all lofts and cavity walls will be insulated by 2015. However, these laudable intentions are undermined by promises to widen motorways and build more runways.

A lack of detail permeates Conservative plans. How much money will its Green Investment Bank have? How big an impact will green government procurement plans have on the markets for eco products? And what emission standards will be set for new power stations? The promise to scrap airport expansion plans is welcome.

The Liberal Democrats have been most impressive – second only to the Green Party – in putting green issues at the heart of their policy proposals by including them on most pages and in every section of their manifesto.

The next UK parliament will be critical if the UK is to play its part in reducing emissions and seizing the enormous economic opportunities of developing a low-carbon future, which could deliver hundreds of thousands of new green jobs and business opportunities.

Strong leadership will be required from whichever party wins the election to ensure that the UK plays a fair role in tackling global warming. And this will be so much easier if they are supported by the other parties too. Climate change is too important to be a political football.

The starting point for the next government must be a far stronger target for cutting UK emissions – without buying carbon offsets from abroad.

Local carbon budgets should also be introduced for every local council. They have a crucial role to play in meeting our climate goals. And we need a new law to tackle the significant greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation caused by the UK’s dependence on imported feeds for livestock – which will also support better UK farming and domestic feed production.

And the next UK government must also play a prominent role in pushing for a strong and fair international agreement on cutting emissions where those responsible make the deepest cuts first, and developing countries are supported to grow in a clean, green way.

Aviation emissions have been reduced by the Icelandic volcano , but it’s also brought chaos, misery and frustration to tens of thousands of people. Cutting emissions and tackling climate change is essential – but this must be achieved through bold strategies, not volcanic activity.

It’s a seismic shift in political thinking that we desperately need.

>>> Please read the full article here

Green Party sets ambitious carbon reduction targets

The Green Party has said that carbon emissions must be cut at a much faster rate than the government is currently proposing.

In its 2010 election manifesto, it said emissions need to be reduced by 90 percent by 2030, instead of 80 percent by 2050 as the government has advocated.

“This means an annual reduction of about ten percent per year from now until 2030,” the party pointed out.

It said that only by achieving these cuts can the UK hope to prevent “runaway and disastrous climate change”.

To do this, the Greens put forward a number of proposals, such as discouraging the use of fossil fuels by bringing back the fuel duty escalator and introducing carbon quotas for all UK households and businesses.

The party would also introduce a “massive” programme of direct government investment in large-scale wind and other renewable generation, with the aim of obtaining half of the UK’s energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Environmental measures also formed part of the election manifestos of all three of the main political parties.

>>> Please read the full article here

Google calls for price on carbon

Google has spoken in support of a price on carbon to tackle global warming, insisting it makes good business sense.

Dan Reicher, the organisation’s director of climate change and energy initiatives, told the Guardian that carbon pricing would provide the incentive companies need to invest in green technology.

This would in turn create a new market for environmental innovations that Google and others could exploit.

“Putting a serious price on carbon will both get us closer to the serious energy reductions we need to make but also accelerate the domestic development and adoption of these technologies,” he explained.

Mr Reicher said there are “various ways to get a carbon price” and insisted that it would not just be businesses that would benefit.

Households could save money by reducing their energy consumption and adopting energy efficiency technology, with carbon pricing encouraging them to do so.

Meanwhile, the Guardian has reported that the Aldersgate Group is putting together a report containing recommendations from a coalition of low carbon firms, which it would like to see implemented by the new UK government.

They include extending the role of carbon pricing in the country.

>>> Please read the full article here

Climate change space mission begins

A satellite that will measure the thickness of the ice at the earth’s poles is being sent into orbit today (April 8th).

The Cryosat-2 spacecraft will be launched from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at 14:57 BST.

If it makes it into space, it will send information back to a team of UK-led researchers, allowing them to monitor the melting of sea ice.

They will use the data to determine how global warming is affecting ocean currents, sea levels and the world’s climate.

The first Cryosat craft was launched in 2005 but crashed minutes after take-off, landing in the Arctic Ocean.

Project manager Richard Francis, from the European Space Agency, told the BBC that the launch of the new satellite will be nerve-wracking.

However, he added: “It will be so exhilarating when the spacecraft finally makes it into orbit and we get the first contact with it.”

According to figures from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, ice cover in the Arctic increased this winter during an unusually cold spell, reaching levels not seen since 2001.

>>> Please read the full article here

80 percent cuts in carbon emissions possible

Cutting Europe’s carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 is possible, but the continent must eradicate carbon-emitting power generation.

This is the conclusion of a new report by the European Climate Foundation, which states that an 80 percent cut on 1990 levels would require a move to an almost zero-carbon power supply.

In the short term, the cost of implementing these policies would be higher than conducting business as usual, but over the longer term it would not lead to higher energy prices, the document stated.

Matt Philips, a spokesman for the European Climate Foundation, said: “When the Roadmap 2050 project began it was assumed that high-renewable energy scenarios would be too unstable to provide sufficient reliability.”

It was also thought that they would be uneconomic and that major breakthroughs in technology would be needed to move in this direction.

“Roadmap 2050 has found all of these assertions to be untrue,” he said.

According to data from the European Commission, carbon emissions from companies covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme fell by 11.2 percent last year.

>>> Please read the full article here