Don't bother carbon offsetting
Ok, so we are all trying to look after this world and make it a better place, right?
Carbon offsetting, recycling, fiver in a charity box a week, that kind of thing.
I found this article in the guardian and it has really challenged me.
There really are no easy answers. We need to start to realise that, and start to engage with the hard choices - the ones that really do affect us. Let's face it - there is no easy avoiding of our impact on the world.
---So, what should we really be doing?---
A long article, i grant you, but worth it if you are feeling too comfortable recycling your plastic bags.
-Ollie
Ethical living
Carbon myths
Recycling and banning plastic bags are all very well, but they won't save the planet. Instead, we should fly less, go vegan and insulate the loft, says Chris Goodall
Chris Goodall The Guardian, Thursday December 13 2007
The global warming consequences of our personal actions are usually invisible to us. We have no easy means of knowing how our way of life generates carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases. It is far from obvious that it takes more energy to produce a paper bag than its plastic equivalent, or that extra loft insulation usually reduces gas consumption more than solar panels. Unsurprisingly, this means that most of us are ignorant about what really matters, which makes us vulnerable to comforting half-truths. These myths are a problem in themselves because they discourage us from addressing the important sources of emissions. But our ignorance also encourages businesses to promote goods and services that offer little or no carbon-saving.
So, for example, when British people are asked in surveys about the actions they can take to be more responsible about global warming, domestic recycling always comes top. Reducing air travel comes far down the list. But the global warming impact of our Mediterranean holidays is hundreds of times more than the toll from not recycling. We see the plastics going into the dustbin every week, but pollutants from jet engines are hidden. So people who carefully sort their recycling every week continue to fly. And businesses that are trying to be ethical devote more effort to reducing packaging than getting their employees to travel less.
We like our myths. Suggesting that British league football isn't the best in the world or that Monty Python wasn't always funny is a quick way to start an argument and lose friends. But some of our cherished carbon myths are dangerously counterproductive. Here is my list of the most common:
I like low-energy lightbulbs. In fact, I sell them at the local farmers' market to offset my personal carbon sins. But even if a householder replaces all their bulbs, the total impact on yearly electricity consumption is likely to be no more than about 400 units (kWh) of electricity. A new plasma TV bought at the same time will outweigh any energy savings. The government talks about banning old-style bulbs, but no one dares mention the explosive impact on energy consumption of the latest generation of large TVs and games consoles. The power used by these monsters embarrasses their manufacturers and the online brochures usually omit all details of electricity use. I couldn't find a single retailer that dares to list the power consumption of plasma TVs. The best rule for cutting home electricity consumption? Keep your old TV. If you still feel the need to buy something, get a new super-efficient fridge.
Nothing arouses fury like the disposable plastic supermarket bag. Gordon Brown singled them out in his first speech on climate change as prime minister. The widespread hatred now extends to almost all plastic food packaging. But although plastic bags are detestable, they are almost irrelevant to climate change. Each of us uses about 2kg a year of shopping bags, and they perform multiple useful functions in the home after they have carried our shopping from the supermarket. Food packaging of all types is no more than 5% of the weight of our groceries. Wasted food, which rots in landfill and generates methane, is a far more serious cause of global warming. Rather than getting our retailers to strip the 3g of protective polythene from our cucumbers, we need to concentrate on reducing the 30% of food that goes to waste every week.
There is nothing wrong with hybrid petrol/electric cars. But they are an extraordinarily expensive way of avoiding emissions. The Toyota Prius may be lovely, but its emissions are no better than the latest generation of small diesels, which cost little more than half the price. Buy a small car instead and spend the savings on insulating your walls. It will have far more effect. Worried about the effect on your status of driving a small car? Buy an electric vehicle and people will simply think of you as eccentric.
It makes sense to avoid unnecessary transport of food. Local food is fresher and probably healthier, and your purchase contributes to the local economy. But food transport, unless it is by air, is usually a relatively small part of a meal's carbon impact. Reducing the amount of meat you eat has far more effect than deciding to buy locally. A kilo of beef from the farm next door will have 50 times the global warming effect of a can of beans shipped from Canada. Taking a few steps towards a vegan diet will reduce carbon emissions far more than local purchasing. Avoiding meat and also buying locally is better still.
Politicians extol the virtues of domestic generation of electricity. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have committed themselves to paying us 45p a unit for electricity from the solar panels on our roof, about 10 times the wholesale price paid to the large, coal-fired Drax power station, in North Yorkshire. Microgeneration may be fashionable, but it is an astonishingly expensive way of reducing emissions. Less glamorous, but more effective, would be a plan to put a £20 note in the centre of every roll of loft insulation. British houses are the worst insulated in northern Europe and subsidised insulation would cut emissions far more cheaply than encouraging wind turbines or solar photovoltaic panels
Myth 1 Eco lightbulbs are the best way to save electricity at home
Myth 2 Flying is responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions
Myth 3 All packaging is wicked
Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward
Myth 5 Avoid food miles
Myth 6 Microgeneration is a good way for Britain to cut emissions
· Chris Goodall is the author of How to Live a Low Carbon Life (Earthscan) and founder of carboncommentary.com
· Post questions and answers to Ask Leo The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1 3ER Fax: 020-7713 4366. Email: ethical.living@guardian.co.uk Please include your address and telephone number guardian.co.uk/environment
Carbon offsetting, recycling, fiver in a charity box a week, that kind of thing.
I found this article in the guardian and it has really challenged me.
There really are no easy answers. We need to start to realise that, and start to engage with the hard choices - the ones that really do affect us. Let's face it - there is no easy avoiding of our impact on the world.
---So, what should we really be doing?---
A long article, i grant you, but worth it if you are feeling too comfortable recycling your plastic bags.
-Ollie
Ethical living
Carbon myths
Recycling and banning plastic bags are all very well, but they won't save the planet. Instead, we should fly less, go vegan and insulate the loft, says Chris Goodall
Chris Goodall The Guardian, Thursday December 13 2007
The global warming consequences of our personal actions are usually invisible to us. We have no easy means of knowing how our way of life generates carbon dioxide and other climate-changing gases. It is far from obvious that it takes more energy to produce a paper bag than its plastic equivalent, or that extra loft insulation usually reduces gas consumption more than solar panels. Unsurprisingly, this means that most of us are ignorant about what really matters, which makes us vulnerable to comforting half-truths. These myths are a problem in themselves because they discourage us from addressing the important sources of emissions. But our ignorance also encourages businesses to promote goods and services that offer little or no carbon-saving.
So, for example, when British people are asked in surveys about the actions they can take to be more responsible about global warming, domestic recycling always comes top. Reducing air travel comes far down the list. But the global warming impact of our Mediterranean holidays is hundreds of times more than the toll from not recycling. We see the plastics going into the dustbin every week, but pollutants from jet engines are hidden. So people who carefully sort their recycling every week continue to fly. And businesses that are trying to be ethical devote more effort to reducing packaging than getting their employees to travel less.
We like our myths. Suggesting that British league football isn't the best in the world or that Monty Python wasn't always funny is a quick way to start an argument and lose friends. But some of our cherished carbon myths are dangerously counterproductive. Here is my list of the most common:
I like low-energy lightbulbs. In fact, I sell them at the local farmers' market to offset my personal carbon sins. But even if a householder replaces all their bulbs, the total impact on yearly electricity consumption is likely to be no more than about 400 units (kWh) of electricity. A new plasma TV bought at the same time will outweigh any energy savings. The government talks about banning old-style bulbs, but no one dares mention the explosive impact on energy consumption of the latest generation of large TVs and games consoles. The power used by these monsters embarrasses their manufacturers and the online brochures usually omit all details of electricity use. I couldn't find a single retailer that dares to list the power consumption of plasma TVs. The best rule for cutting home electricity consumption? Keep your old TV. If you still feel the need to buy something, get a new super-efficient fridge.
Nothing arouses fury like the disposable plastic supermarket bag. Gordon Brown singled them out in his first speech on climate change as prime minister. The widespread hatred now extends to almost all plastic food packaging. But although plastic bags are detestable, they are almost irrelevant to climate change. Each of us uses about 2kg a year of shopping bags, and they perform multiple useful functions in the home after they have carried our shopping from the supermarket. Food packaging of all types is no more than 5% of the weight of our groceries. Wasted food, which rots in landfill and generates methane, is a far more serious cause of global warming. Rather than getting our retailers to strip the 3g of protective polythene from our cucumbers, we need to concentrate on reducing the 30% of food that goes to waste every week.
There is nothing wrong with hybrid petrol/electric cars. But they are an extraordinarily expensive way of avoiding emissions. The Toyota Prius may be lovely, but its emissions are no better than the latest generation of small diesels, which cost little more than half the price. Buy a small car instead and spend the savings on insulating your walls. It will have far more effect. Worried about the effect on your status of driving a small car? Buy an electric vehicle and people will simply think of you as eccentric.
It makes sense to avoid unnecessary transport of food. Local food is fresher and probably healthier, and your purchase contributes to the local economy. But food transport, unless it is by air, is usually a relatively small part of a meal's carbon impact. Reducing the amount of meat you eat has far more effect than deciding to buy locally. A kilo of beef from the farm next door will have 50 times the global warming effect of a can of beans shipped from Canada. Taking a few steps towards a vegan diet will reduce carbon emissions far more than local purchasing. Avoiding meat and also buying locally is better still.
Politicians extol the virtues of domestic generation of electricity. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have committed themselves to paying us 45p a unit for electricity from the solar panels on our roof, about 10 times the wholesale price paid to the large, coal-fired Drax power station, in North Yorkshire. Microgeneration may be fashionable, but it is an astonishingly expensive way of reducing emissions. Less glamorous, but more effective, would be a plan to put a £20 note in the centre of every roll of loft insulation. British houses are the worst insulated in northern Europe and subsidised insulation would cut emissions far more cheaply than encouraging wind turbines or solar photovoltaic panels
Myth 1 Eco lightbulbs are the best way to save electricity at home
Myth 2 Flying is responsible for only 2% of carbon dioxide emissions
Myth 3 All packaging is wicked
Myth 4 Hybrid cars are the way forward
Myth 5 Avoid food miles
Myth 6 Microgeneration is a good way for Britain to cut emissions
· Chris Goodall is the author of How to Live a Low Carbon Life (Earthscan) and founder of carboncommentary.com
· Post questions and answers to Ask Leo The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1 3ER Fax: 020-7713 4366. Email: ethical.living@guardian.co.uk Please include your address and telephone number guardian.co.uk/environment
Tags: carbon, dioxide, emissions, environmental, ethical, low-energy, offsetting, recycling
Replies to This Conversation
-
Permalink Reply by Sam Radford on -
Wow. Challenging article. Thanks for posting. Part of me is left wondering though, 'how do I know that this guy is any more right than the others telling me different stuff'? Its such a murky area and there are so many half-truths. But what IS the truth? And how do we find out about that?
Half the time I just end up feeling confused. And I know that's not great coz the temptation then is to just end of doing nothing...which is not what I want to end up doing.
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Gibson on -
In a slightly confusing manner, the writer is pointing out the need to prioritize the most effective ways of achieving emission reductions (25-40% reduction needed by 2020 according to UN scientists if the planet is to have a future)
It is primarily the Government's job to devise a strategy that will achieve the necessary reductions and to communicate with and incentivise everyone in the UK to get on board. From what I've picked up over the past year or so, in terms of what individual householders can do, the priorities are: reducing energy use in our homes, reducing our transport emissions, reducing our meat intake and recycling most of our rubbish. (by the way, if you're wondering what meat eating has got to do with it, cows etc produce methane which is a potent greenhouse gas and require disproportionate water, land, energy and food resources). Within each of these categories there are priorities re. energy use at home the biggest priority is to insulate your home. First thing, assuming you've draughtproofed, is to have the cavity wall insulated if your house has one. Cavity wall insulation makes a big saving of energy. If no cavity wall you can insulate the roof space to the latest spec. Energy-efficient appliances and lightbulbs would be the next in line. Within transport we need to walk and cycle more, use public transport, share car journeys, drive smaller fuel-efficient cars/ motorbikes, avoid using planes. I guess we would eat less meat if the government hiked up the price through taxation . On recycling our rubbish, the most important thing to recycle is waste food which is easy enough with a compost bin. The government should be incentivising us to do these things by making it attractive to do them or unattractive not to do them (eg. subsidising insulation of houses- they're already doing this but did you know that this was available to you? We'd buy more fuel-efficient cars if such vehicles were tax-exempt. We'd buy electric cars if there was a tax rebate for so doing and they were exempt from the city congestion charges that are coming our way (London already exempts electric cars and is providing free charging points) We'd fly a lot less if taxation made it expensive again.
So, to my mind we need to pressurise the government to make us all aware of the priorities and to provide incentives to take the actions that will create the biggest reductions in emissions. We need to do all these things and continue to take the less significant actions like reducing plastic bag use and recycling paper. There are endless organisations and websites telling us what we need to do but we need a national strategy if we're going to make the radical changes that are needed.
-
Permalink Reply by Ollie Francis on
-
more government legisation?
Can we really transfer responsibility from the micro to the macro that easily? Doesn't this negate, to some degree, personal responsibility?
On the other hand, judging from the state that we have, potentially and collectively, got ourselves into, should we in fact keep back ANY responsibility for ourselves and hand it all over to governmental bodies and incentives?
Or would that just spoil the fun?
;-)
-
Permalink Reply by Roger Gibson on
-
The point I was trying to make was that it's only the minority that are changing their lives radically in the light of global warming and another minority who are changing their habits peripherally. Both these minorities need to know what exactly are the priorities for change. The government should be educating us about this alongside all the efforts of non-profit orghanisations. But it's not enough for a minority of people to change: industry, agriculture, commerce has to make radical change. The majority needs to be educated, motivated and cajoled into serious change. These things will never happen unless we pressurize governments to make them happen.
See the video I've uploaded I reckon it clarifies things.
-
Permalink Reply by Andrew on -
My reply may be little late, but hopefully still valid. My general feeling is that our style of government in the western world embraces free market economics, i.e. government intervention distorts the market. Intervention is normally bad (e.g. read up on disastrous Communist food policies of Russia and China before they embraced market economies). However, some would say the market is already artificially distorted because the TRUE cost of food production or manufacturing, or petrol production, on the environment isn't charged. If this was factored in, with an independent body calculating the environmental cost, then free market policies would quickly result in environmental care and protection. This has already begun with the European carbon tax. Where carbon credits can be traded, and there is a clear financial incentive for industry to clean up. And it's the only way this world is going to work. Food should not be subsidised - charge the full amount. If the carbon cost of the new Zealand lamb travel was factored into the cost at the Tesco till, then you know which one you would pick up. British lamb would be cheaper. If the carbon cost of petrol production was factored into the cost then less would drive, and there would be a MUCH greater financial incentive to find an alternative. There would be less flooding the British market with cheap Chinese goods, which would have a travel cost imposed. This would give financial incentive for British manufacturing, as it would be cheaper for the first time since the Industrial revolution. And this my friends is how I see it working - a simple price choice of environmentally costed goods; not expecting someone to choose more expensive toilet paper because it benefits some random chap in the rainforest. That leaves me with a bad taste in the mouth, because it pretends I am the culprit, and I am not an idiot. It is industry that damages the environment chiefly, not my choice of sofa. If governments apply these carbon taxes to industry, the world will be better off. We will be environmentally better off long term, put perhaps poorer now. But at least I am not expected to save the world at the supermarket - I see that as otherworldly impractical green babble. The problem to this approach is that the governments of the world all need to enforce the independently costed environmental taxes in their own countries. And it's very difficult for elected politicians to muster the political will to enforce an environmental tax that may bring higher costs to their constituents. Especially in election year. It's also very difficult for governments to play fair and charge the same tax as other countries, when they each want their industries to do better. But if one cheats, then they all will... Ah, solutions, solutions. Andrew
Groups
-
The Coffeehouse Book Club
10 members
-
Vox Sheffield
6 members
-
yelō
7 members
-
Oasis South Africa
3 members
Chat
Loading Chat...
© 2008 Created by Sam Radford
