We need an environmental Snopes

After listening to last week’s Energy Swap, it became clear that well-intentioned people often have a hard time identifying the relative environmental impact of different aspects of their behaviour. For example, is it ok to fly to Spain once a year if I recycle all the time? If I switch off all the stand-by functions on the tv, dvd and so on, does that mean I can use a halogen light instead of a cfl?

In the face of this uncertainty, it is all too easy for environmental myths to be propagated. An extreme example might be this list from the US Chamber of Commerce. Similarly, Björn Lomberg’s argument in the Skeptical Environmentalist that limited resources should be spent on poverty alleviation, rather than climate change, was misinterpreted by many who conflated improvements in local air quality with denial of climate change. Confusion can also happen on the domestic scale and it is easy to understand how households who want to reduce their environmental impact might be tempted to throw up their hands in frustration when told the truth about behaviours they believe to be green.

What we need to solve this problem is a reputable clearing house of environmental information: myth-busters, like Snopes, who clear the air about popular rumours, misconceptions and so on. This would be a long-term project but one worth pursuing. In the meantime though, households who want an initial assessment of their environmental impact should explore online tools such as Best Foot Forward’s environmental footprint calculator, the RSA’a carbon limited site, or Oxford University’s iMeasure electricity measuring site. The government also recently announced plans to introduce a CO2 calculator to help with this problem.

Energy Swap pt II

The Energy Swap continues and in last week’s episode, the Texans arrived in the UK. There were a few great lines – “Is this the typical size [oven]? Seriously?” – but mainly it continued as it began: a hodge-podge of environmental issues, some related to energy.

There was at least some attempt to explore the reasons for the observed differences. In a discussion with an expat Texan couple now living in the UK, the Texan visitors debated the relative contributions of education and geography. For example, compared to the UK, Texas’s southern climate reduces the food miles associated with many ‘staples’ such as bananas. Education too has had an impact on the environmental behaviour of Texans (at least for local issues); littering in particular is much more socially unacceptable there than in the UK. But with cheap land, cheap fuels and a poor awareness of the global consequences of consumption, it is all too easy for energy use to soar.

It’s clear though that both families have a hard time separating these environmental issues from each another. How, for example, do the benefits of flying less or recycling regularly compare? I’ll consider this in an upcoming post. In meantime, don’t forget to listen to the final episode, this Friday, 11 am, bbc Radio 4.

Free home energy monitor?!

According to the BBC, the upcoming energy white paper is going to propose that every home in the UK be able to request a free — free! — energy monitor. Wow.

In the article, a designer of monitors rightly says:

“The biggest risk is that after the government announces this, they might specify this too weakly to make it useful. We might end up making 22m pieces of plastic that end up in people’s drawers because they aren’t any good.”

Of course the devil is in the detail but still, if every household had access to real-time information on their energy consumption, it could make a significant contribution to improving the efficiency of domestic energy use; review studies show it could save 5 to 15% of annual consumption. So keep your eyes open this summer when the white paper will be published detailing this and hopefully other equally newsworthy proposals.

The energy swap begins

As I mentioned earlier, the BBC is running a series called Energy Swap, the premise of which is that an English family swaps homes with a Texan family to find out the differences in energy consumption due to lifestyle. The first episode ran last Friday and it’s got one of the best opening montages ever.

(with ominous Who Wants to Be a Millionaire style music)

“Why do they need to use so much concrete to make the road so wide?”

“Treehuggers…the dirty hippy type that don’t bathe. And they smell horrible.”

“What’s the colour of money? It’s green.”

The programme continued in the entertainment mode focusing mainly on giving a descriptive introduction to the people and places. For example, we learned a few interesting facts about the inefficient Texan home: computer on for three years (not a server by the way, for those tech-minded readers), an air-conditioner straining to cool an uninsulated 140°F loft and a monthly electricity bill of $850.

In the longer term though, the programme hopes to make a serious point: how do you convince people that individual action can make a difference to climate change? One way in which the first episode, I believe inadvertently, explored this question was by highlighting the difference between how households engage with local and global pollution issues.

For example, with one exception, the participants consistently conflated recycling and energy issues. While there is certainly a connection between waste management and climate change, it’s frustrating to hear one person talking about efficient lighting only to be interrupted by someone asking about recycling. In the context of domestic energy consumption, they’re largely apples and oranges. However how you deal with your waste is much more immediate and tangible than the consequences of carbon emissions from a distant power plant and so it’s not surprising that this is what many people think of when discussing ‘the environment’.

A second related example came when the host interviewed a representative from the local environment agency in Dallas. She described that city’s smog problem and its impact on health and well-being. Consequently, when the local utility proposed building 11 new coal-fired power plants, there were significant objections on local air pollution and health grounds.

As I said, I don’t think these cases were intentionally presented as evidence for a larger argument about household responses to climate change. But still, I will be interested to see how the programme develops over the next two episodes and if you have a chance, do listen in. At the very least you’ll get to hear a great opening montage.

Energy swap

BBC Radio 4 will beginning broadcasting a series called ‘Energy Swap’ this Friday at 11 am. The premise sounds fascinating:

Two families, one from the heart of gas-guzzling Texas and the other from rural Cheshire, exchange their lives for one week to experience the society and communities that shape their carbon footprint.

If you can’t listen to it live, BBC has a ‘listen again’ feature so you should be able to catch up on old episodes.