Tag Archives: climate

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

Leave a reply

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.

The energy swap begins

Leave a reply

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.

Celebrity don’t fly

Leave a reply

The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce recently launched a project called Carbon Limited. It’s a neat idea that allows users to sign up, answer a few questions and then see how your personal carbon emissions compare versus a 5 tonne per year target. There’s also an interesting feature that lets you compare your emissions to celebrities, such as Environment Minister David Miliband, ex-Blur bassist Alex James, Channel 4 presenters Jon Snow and Krishnan Guru-Murthy and environmentalist George Monbiot.

I did the assessment and came out at just over 6 tonnes per year – 0.5 t domestic, no car travel but one long-haul flight. I though this was acceptable (the flight’s a once-in-a-lifetime trip) but when I compared myself with the celebrities, they all did better than me. Not that I’m competitive or anything but that really bugged me. Fortunately the interface allows you to drill down and compare emissions by sector. And when I did, I discovered that celebrities don’t fly.

The instructions say to omit business travel and I imagine that the Channel 4 presenters must travel quite a bit for work. Even George Monbiot, who is self-employed, could, I suppose, count flying to Toronto to promote his book as business travel. But I found it hard to believe that the celebrities had no personal air travel whatsoever.

Since discovering this, I’ve checked back a couple times and I think it may just be a poor programming job at the RSA’s end. On the 24th for example, the celebrities weren’t emitting any carbon at all. And then today, they are all emitting the exact same – about two tonnes domestic, one tonne for flights, and no car travel. Clearly something’s not right here.

Initiatives like this and the ECI’s iMeasure domestic energy comparison site are valuable tools to help people understand their carbon footprints. Yet while comparison with others is an important feature of these sites, the numbers must be trustworthy if there’s to be any real value. So while I hope that the RSA will address any technical glitches with their website soon, if they really want to maximise its impact, interviews with the celebrities should be posted to guide readers through their emissions profiles and to highlight the steps they have taken to save carbon.