Sustainable | News & Views

Al Gore, Gary Neville or Cheryl Cole: who would you trust on climate change?

From the Guardian

We are often told that we are living in the “age of celebrity”. Yes, it’s an utterly depressing thought, but some believe we should exploit this collective obsession by putting to good use the mighty influence many celebrities wield. Charities have long latched on to the idea that for their message to be heard in the media mêlée it must have a “face” attached. And, of course, the media is heavily complicit in this “game”, too.

Environmental campaigners, like everyone else, have actively sought the support of celebrities to help not only broadcast their message, but also add an air of authority. The reason is simple: many people – whether they admit it or not – look up to celebrities.

Ahead of Climate Week – a series of events scheduled for March which “offer an annual renewal of our ambition and confidence to combat climate change” – the organisers have commissioned a survey to illustrate which celebrities would most likely get us to “act on climate change”. The results are intriguing and perplexing in equal measure.

Climate Week asked Millward Brown, a brand research consultancy, to utilise its “Cebra” (celebrity-brand) index. Twenty celebrities were chosen to represent a spread of people who were either a “well-known activist”, “environmentally inclined but not an activist”, or “not known for activism”. A “nationally representative sample of 500 adults aged 16-65″ was then asked how much influence each celebrity had on environmental issues. They were also asked to allocate a score to each celebrity using the measures of “familiarity”, “affinity”, “media attention”, “role model” and “talent”. And here, in order of influence, are the results:

1) Al Gore
2) Bill Gates
3) Arnold Schwarzenegger
4) Boris Johnson
5) David Beckham
6) Ken Livingstone
7) Chris Martin
Cheryl Cole
9) Gwyneth Paltrow
10) Duncan Bannatyne
11) Phil Schofield
12) Robbie Williams
13) Fearne Cotton
14) Leonardo DiCaprio
15) Holly Willoughby
16) Colin Firth
17) Graham Norton
18) Sienna Miller
19) Paloma Faith
20) Gary Neville

>>> Please read the full article here

Why use LED?

Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are much more efficient at producing visible light than traditional light sources such as filament bulbs, and fluorescent lights. LEDs are made of semi-conductor material; light is produced when electrons are passed through the semiconductor material.

Unlike traditional light sources, LEDs do not get hot, so very little energy is wasted as heat. LEDs also do not produce ultraviolet or infrared rays, which are light waves which can not be seen by the human eye. What LEDs do is convert a higher percentage of energy into light within the visible spectrum which means that less power is required to produce the same amount of useful light.

The lifetime of an LED lamp is around 50,000 hours—that means that, under normal use, an LED bulb will not need replacing for 12 years. Using LED lamps means that replacement bulb costs are reduced, as well as man hours spent replacing the lamps. Most LED lamps consume between 1 and 3 watts of energy. This means that the electricity cost to run an LED bulb is much lower than standard incandescent, compact fluorescent and halogen lamps. In some cases, switching to LED lamps can yield a 95.4% saving on electricity charges.

Some materials used in the manufacture of other lighting sources, such as fluorescent lamps, require the use of harmful chemicals. Fluorescent lights contain mercury, which means that when the lamp comes to the end of its life it has to be disposed of in a landfill site. LED lamps contain no toxic materials which mean when they come to the end of their life they can be recycled, a better solution for the environment.

In the present day, everybody should be responsible for helping to reduce carbon emissions and halt global climate change. In the UK over 50% of household carbon emissions are attributable to lighting. Changing to LED bulbs would make a very significant difference to the amount of energy consumed by UK homes and businesses.

>>> Please read the full article here

Carbon Economy to create 1 million jobs

More than a million jobs will be created by the low carbon industries, according to Business Secretary Lord Mandelson speaking at the Prime Minister’s job summit, Lord Mandelson said that the low carbon sector of the economy was set to grow dramatically and that it could help ease rising unemployment figures.

Lord Mandelson said:”The global market for low carbon and environmental goods and services is currently worth about £3 trillion, and it is projected to grow strongly over the next decade as both the developed and the emerging world makes the shift to low carbon or post-carbon.”

He added: “We could see more than a million jobs in this sector by the middle of the next decade”.Last year, Prime Minister Gordon Brown suggested that people facing unemployment could find jobs in the green industries and offered retraining for some to learn to install insulation.

An Oxfam report recently noted that environmental issues and poverty should be tackled side by side and pointed out that insulation helped people cut both their energy bills and their carbon emissions.

>>> Please read the full article here

US wind industry forged ahead in 2010

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the national trade association of America’s wind industry, emphasises that the wind power industry combated challenges in 2010 and laid the foundations for a strong return in 2011.

While the industry “saw the all-too-real impacts of having no long-term US policies toward renewable energy”, the industry nevertheless made significant advances in 2010, said Denise Bode, CEO of the association.

Bode highlighted that wind power supply chain manufacturers continued to announce new US plants despite an uncertain economic climate. The industry reached over 50% domestic content for turbines installed in the US. In addition, advances were made in regional transmission plans, the market for smaller turbines grew 15%, and offshore wind took major steps on the path to the first US installations, said Bode.

The year 2010 closed out with Congress extending by one more year the Section 1603 Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy, a policy that helped the industry emerge as a bright spot in the US economy and keep 85,000 Americans working even at the depth of the recession, Bode said.

The numbers posted by the US wind industry in the third quarter of 2010 made for its slowest quarter since 2007. According to AWEA, once the year’s final numbers are tallied, they are expected to show that China installed approximately three times as much wind-powered electricity as the US in 2010, and Europe twice as much, as US installations fell to just over half of 2009.

Factors in the US decline included an absence of long-term US energy policies (such as a Renewable Electricity Standard), resulting in an unstable business environment, and utilities being less eager to enter wind energy power purchase agreements.

>>> Please read the full article here

UK spends more on carbon labelled goods

From LowCarbonEconomy

The total annual retail value of consumer goods sold in the UK bearing the Carbon Reduction Label has reached £2 billion, and could double in the next two years, according to a report by the Centre for Retail Research.

The announcement comes as new research shows that 9 out of 10 homes in the UK bought a carbon labelled product last year.

The milestone figure was reached after Tesco confirmed it has added the Carbon Reduction Label to its own brand dried egg and dried Finest pasta. It means that the average UK household spends £77 on carbon labelled products per year.

If sales of business (B2B) products were added, the total sales value of goods bearing the label would rise to approximately £3 billion. CEMEX UK, Marshalls plc and Continental Clothing all feature the label on their B2B products.

The Carbon Reduction Label also continues to grow internationally. Last summer, Aldi put the label on the bottles of its own-brand olive oil in stores across Australia. And last month, the New Zealand Wine Company became the first wine maker to measure and commit to reduce the carbon footprint of a bottle of wine, putting the Carbon Reduction Label on their Mobius Marlborough sauvignon blanc.

Euan Murray, director of footprinting at the Carbon Trust said:

“It’s great to see carbon labelling growing both in the UK and internationally through our partnership in Australia with Planet Ark. With the emergence of a carbon conscious consumer we are confident that more and more international brands will commit to carbon labelling as it will help deliver the triple benefits of reducing cost by reducing energy spend, boosting their company’s reputation and helping to ensure customer loyalty.”

>>> Please read the full article here

That snow outside is what global warming looks like

From The Guardian

There is now strong evidence to suggest that the unusually cold winters of the last two years in the UK are the result of heating elsewhere. With the help of the severe weather analyst John Mason and the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, I’ve been through as much of the scientific literature as I can lay hands on (see my website for the references). Here’s what seems to be happening.

The global temperature maps published by Nasa present a striking picture. Last month’s shows a deep blue splodge over Iceland, Spitsbergen, Scandanavia and the UK, and another over the western US and eastern Pacific. Temperatures in these regions were between 0.5C and 4C colder than the November average from 1951 and 1980. But on either side of these cool blue pools are raging fires of orange, red and maroon: the temperatures in western Greenland, northern Canada and Siberia were between 2C and 10C higher than usual. Nasa’s Arctic oscillations map for 3-10 December shows that parts of Baffin Island and central Greenland were 15C warmer than the average for 2002-9. There was a similar pattern last winter. These anomalies appear to be connected.

The weather we get in UK winters, for example, is strongly linked to the contrasting pressure between the Icelandic low and the Azores high. When there’s a big pressure difference the winds come in from the south-west, bringing mild damp weather from the Atlantic. When there’s a smaller gradient, air is often able to flow down from the Arctic. High pressure in the icy north last winter, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, blocked the usual pattern and “allowed cold air from the Arctic to penetrate all the way into Europe, eastern China, and Washington DC”. Nasa reports that the same thing is happening this winter.

Sea ice in the Arctic has two main effects on the weather. Because it’s white, it bounces back heat from the sun, preventing it from entering the sea. It also creates a barrier between the water and the atmosphere, reducing the amount of heat that escapes from the sea into the air. In the autumns of 2009 and 2010 the coverage of Arctic sea ice was much lower than the long-term average: the second smallest, last month, of any recorded November. The open sea, being darker, absorbed more heat from the sun in the warmer, light months. As it remained clear for longer than usual it also bled more heat into the Arctic atmosphere. This caused higher air pressures, reducing the gradient between the Iceland low and the Azores high.

So why wasn’t this predicted by climate scientists? Actually it was, and we missed it. Obsessed by possible changes to ocean circulation (the Gulf Stream grinding to a halt), we overlooked the effects on atmospheric circulation. A link between summer sea ice in the Arctic and winter temperatures in the northern hemisphere was first proposed in 1914. Close mapping of the relationship dates back to 1990, and has been strengthened by detailed modelling since 2006.

Will this become the pattern? It’s not yet clear. Vladimir Petoukhov of the Potsdam Institute says that the effects of shrinking sea ice “could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and northern Asia”. James Hansen of Nasa counters that seven of the last 10 European winters were warmer than average. There are plenty of other variables: we can’t predict the depth of British winters solely by the extent of sea ice.

I can already hear the howls of execration: now you’re claiming that this cooling is the result of warming! Well, yes, it could be. A global warming trend doesn’t mean that every region becomes warmer every month. That’s what averages are for: they put local events in context. The denial of man-made climate change mutated first into a denial of science in general and then into a denial of basic arithmetic. If it’s snowing in Britain, a thousand websites and quite a few newspapers tell us, the planet can’t be warming.

According to Nasa’s datasets, the world has just experienced the warmest January to November period since the global record began, 131 years ago; 2010 looks likely to be either the hottest or the equal hottest year. This November was the warmest on record.

>>> Please read the full article here

Carbon trading tempts firms to make greenhouse gas

From The New Scientist

A handful of Chinese and Indian chemicals companies seemingly have the world over a barrel or rather a large number of barrels of a super-greenhouse gas called HFC-23, which is 14,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

This week, apparently following Chinese threats to vent stockpiles of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, a UN panel issued two million valuable carbon credits to a company called Juhua. It has a factory in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, where the gas can be destroyed.

Nobody needs HFC-23. It is a waste by-product of the manufacture of a refrigerant called HCFC-22, used mostly in developing nations. To curb the release of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, the signatories to the Kyoto protocol agreed to pay carbon credits to refrigerant manufacturers that agree to capture and destroy it. The manufacturers can then sell the credits to western companies that want to offset their obligations to cut emissions of other greenhouse gases, under a Kyoto scheme known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The offer only applies to HCFC-22 plants that were built before 2000. Even so it has proved highly lucrative. By some estimates, the value of the carbon credits is up to 100 times the cost of incinerating HFC-23. The resulting income of Chinese companies alone is estimated to reach $1.6 billion by 2012.

>>> Please read the full article here

Polar bears can be saved by emissions cuts, study says

From The BBC

It has been suggested that emissions of greenhouse gases have already put the Arctic ice cap and the polar bear on an irreversible path towards extinction.

But a new study suggests rapid emission cuts could help preserve ice cover to save the iconic bear.

Details are published in the academic journal Nature.

A US Geological Survey team led by Dr Steven Amstrup predicted back in 2007 that two-thirds of the world’s 22,000 polar bears would disappear by half way through the next century.

This was based on industrial emissions continuing on a “business as usual” basis.

Elsewhere, a study suggested industrial emissions of greenhouse gases might have already put the world on target for temperature rises which would result in rapid and perhaps irreversible ice loss in the Arctic.

Dr Amstrup and colleagues now say that such dire forecasts might be avoided if industrial societies act quickly to cut emissions.

Key to their argument is the conclusion that there is no “tipping point” in the Arctic beyond which the battle is lost.

“In this paper we looked at what would happen if we allowed greenhouse gas emission to rise up to the level where some of these rapid ice loss events started to occur but [we] then arrested the increase in emissions at that point,” Dr Amstrup told the BBC.

“What we found is if we did that, then ice didn’t just continue to decline after these rapid loss events, but there was some substantial recovery and then maintenance of sea ice throughout the century.”

“The good news for polar bears is we haven’t crossed a tipping point beyond which polar bears and their Arctic habitat can’t recover.”

>>> Please read the full article here

Co-op and Marks & Spencer named UK’s ‘greenest’ supermarkets

From The Guardian

Co-op and Marks & Spencer named UK’s ‘greenest’ supermarketsThe Co-op and Marks & Spencer are today named as the UK’s “greenest” supermarkets in a new survey which rates retailers’ progress in areas such as sustainable and ethical sourcing. Tesco, Asda and Netto were identified as the three worst performing companies.

As households stock up for the festive season, Ethical Consumer magazine urges shoppers to cut the environmental cost of Christmas by shopping from retailers with a proven track record of pursuing “green policies”.

The environmental and ethical performance of 19 of the country’s leading supermarkets and convenience stores were scrutinised in the survey, included detailed analysis of the companies’ corporate social responsibility reports.

The results reveal a clear divide between the top two performing supermarkets the Co-op and M&S and the other 17 companies.

Policies praised at these two major high street chains include the Co-op’s fish policy, whose goal is to operate its fish-sourcing policy in line with the aims and objectives of the Marine Stewardship Council. The Co-op also sources 98% renewable electricity in its 5,500 sites across the UK.

M&S was highly praised for its palm oil policies. It now stipulates the use of sustainable palm oil in many of its own-brand goods and is advised on the issue by WWF. M&S also scored well for its climate change policies which include a target of using non-crop derived biofuels in its fleet of vehicles.

Rob Harrison of Ethical Consumer, and co-author of the buyers’ guide, said: “If you’re lucky enough to live close to a local independent shop that has an ethical stocking policy then this is where we would recommend people to shop. However the reality is that the vast majority of us now shop in supermarkets and we would therefore urge shoppers to choose either the Co-op or M&S.”

He went on: “These two companies have made genuine efforts to reduce the environmental and ethical impact of their operations and have demonstrated that they are setting the environmental agenda for supermarkets.”

>>> Please read the full article here

2011 “make or break” for electric cars

The next two years will be “make or break” for the electric vehicle market in the UK, one expert has claimed.

Dr Ben Lane, managing editor of nextgreencar.com, said from a “sales point of view” 2010 was not a good year for low carbon vehicles, however he believes now “a number of key elements are all coming into place”.

These elements were said to be manufacturers making high-quality models, advances in lithium battery technology allowing vehicles to travel further between charges and political support for electric cars. “2011 and 2012 will be make or break years and the signs at the moment are that it will be ‘make’,” Dr Lane said.

The comments come following the announcement of the nine models to be covered by the government’s Plug-In Car grant. Mitsubishi’s i-MiEV, the Peugeot iOn and the smart fourtwo electric drive will be the first vehicles eligible for the maximum £5,000 grant when it comes into force in January. The recently named European Car of the Year, the Nissan Leaf, will also be covered by the scheme.

>>> Please read the full article here