Action 93: A week to go until the start of the COP26 conference on climate change. We shall be expecting a lot from world leaders: radical plans, actions and financial input. We too need to be part of the solution. What radical action could you take to make your life style more sustainable?
The dangers of the climate crisis are real, but we can all be part of the solution. The single most important thing we can do is to reduce our carbon footprint to net zero.
Today’s activity is about things go down. In this case a marble – but hopefully it will also be your carbon footprint too!
For this activity you will need a cereal packet, some thin card – eg another food packet – a stapler, scissors and glue. To finish you will need a flat board such as a cork table mat or chopping board, and some tape.
Cut the thin card (mine is a cake packet) into three strips that are a little longer than the width of the cereal packet and about 6cm wide. This you bend into box-shaped gutter. The side of my packet comes ready folded into this shape.
Fold and staple the flaps at one end of the gutter.
At the other cut a gap in the base of the gutter and then fold and staple the end flaps.
Once all three gutters have been made, glue these to the side of the cereal packet. Angle the gutters so that they slope downhill with the gap/ hole at the lower end.
It may help if you unstick the bottom of the cereal packet so that you can lay it flat.
Cut out triangles of plain paper to fill the gaps between the gutters. On these you draw some pictures or write a message – as I chose to do. Glue these onto the cereal packet.
To make the marble run stable, we are going to fix it to a flat board – I used an old chopping board. If you haven’t already, unstick the bottom flaps of the cereal packet and spread them out. Place the cereal packet on the board and tape the flaps down. Now your marble run should be stable. If it still a bit wobbly put a packet of sugar or a tin of baked beans inside the cereal packet to weigh it down.
Have fun!
Action 86 : Plan now for a less materialistic Christmas. Shortages in the shops might be a blessing in disguise encouraging us to plan for a celebration focused on people rather than lots of food and presents. Think about what you most enjoy about celebrating Christmas.
15th October 2021
Last week we looked at the tendency for agriculture to a) expand into virgin territory at the expense of flora and fauna biodiversity, and b) to be concentrated around a narrow number of crops and animal species. Agricultural practices are the source of further challenges.
In a drive to be more productive and more economic, many agricultural businesses have gone for the large scale – large farms, large fields, large machinery – creating landscapes that devoid of trees and hedges and instead are vast tracts of identical crops. Monoculture does not support biodiversity. Fields of rape may provide near endless quantities of flowers that are attractive to pollinators, but once they have flowered there is a dearth of food sources for those pollinators. With their demise, comes the demise of other birds and animals that rely on them as part of the food chain.
Monoculture also provides a good environment for the spread of plant diseases and the proliferation of weeds – the latter might be suppressed by a diversity of plants, some overshadowing the weeds, or by insects and larvae that might feed on them. The net result is that to sustain monoculture, crops must be sprayed with pesticides and herbicides, neither of which is good for biodiversity. For the soil this can be a particular problem. Soils rely on insects, beetles, and many micro-organisms to keep the soil rich with nutrients and to maintain a good soil structure. Soils that become damaged or depleted of nutrients become reliant on the addition of chemical fertilisers to maintain their productivity. However these can be damaging to biodiversity, especially when nitrates are washed through the soil into local water ways where they form algae blooms and damage both flora and fauna.
Whilst agriculture can be part of the biodiversity problem, it can also be part of the solution.
Regenerative Agriculture
Whilst the term ‘regenerative agriculture’ was first used in the early 1980s as concept that aimed to make agriculture not just sustainable, but positively beneficial for the environment. However it has only more recently gained popularity.
There is as yet to fixed definition of what regenerative agriculture is, nor how it is to be practiced. Terra Genesis International working in Thailand has determined its principles as:-
What I think is interesting here is the inclusion of the people involved in farming and their communities.
The UK’s Regenerative Food and Farming (https://regenerativefoodandfarming.co.uk/) recommends the following farming practices:-
Such agricultural practices not only benefits biodiversity, they also improved get capacity of the soil to sequester carbon, reduce the carbon emissions of the farming industry, assist with flood prevention and reduce the water needed by farms.
For further reading on nature friendly farming, check out:-
The longer we are able to use an appliance or piece of equipment, the more we recuse it’s carbon footprint: the carbon footprint of manufacture is spread over a greater number of years, and the carbon footprint of recycling it is deferred.
Writing this, I am reminded that I should keep my gardening tools clean and the wooden handles re- oiled.
Introducing B Corps
B Corps – Benefit Corporations – are the fair trade equivalent for businesses. Whilst remaining profit making concerns these are businesses that also undertake to meet certain in social and environmental standards. Their bottom line is threefold: profit, people and planet.
To attain B Corp status companies are assessed against five categories:
Provided they meet the minimum standard, they are awarded B Corp certification. This is reviewed on a three yearly basis.
The benefit for the business is an enhanced brand image, and improved ability to recruit staff and investors. The downside is the cost of obtaining certification which might exclude some small but ethical businesses.
There are 2778 B Corps world wide and 193 based in the UK. They include OddBox and Riverford veg boxes, Innocent and Danone drinks etc, Triodos and Coutts banks, Judes icecream, Lilly’s pet food, Volcano coffee roasters, Camden Town brewers, Vibro Barefoot shoes, and various media, marketing, and management companies. A full listing can be found here: https://bcorporation.uk/directory?search=&industry=&country=United%20Kingdom&state=&city=&page=5
Social enterprises also aim to make a profit, which they then use to create positive social change through providing training and employment opportunities, supporting businesses in marginal areas, helping end homelessness, making donations to support communities in need etc. Increasingly social enterprises are focusing on environmental outcomes too. They tend to be small concerns, including repair workshops, bakeries, cafes, arts venues, grocery stores, gardening units, local energy generation, recycling units etc. Social Enterprise UK lists how you support these enterprises through what you buy: https://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/buysocial/where-can-i-buy-social/
The money in our pockets, like (or perhaps better than) our vote in an election, can change the world we live in.
‘A dog is for life, not just Christmas.’ A message created 40 years ago by the Dogs Trust and still valid today. The Trust encourages people to think carefully before buying a puppy, to thoroughly research the implications of being a dog owner, understanding the needs and demands a dog will make and assessing whether these are compatible with the family’s own lifestyle. And remembering that ability to,love and care for the dog needs to be there for the whole of its life span.
Each year scientists calculate how much resources are being used globally and the rate at which those resources are being renewed. Are we using more resources than the planet can sustain or less? In 1987 the first recorded Earth Overshoot Day was 23rd October. This year (2021) it was 29th July. We are consuming way more resources than the earth can sustain. In such a world we need to give the same consideration when we buy and use things, as we do when we buy a new pet.
17th September 2021
Over the last few weeks Green Tau has looked at various aspects of our
individual/ household carbon footprint and how we might reduce it as part of the overall global target of achieving net zero by 2050.
The things we buy all have their own carbon footprint, whether that’s a pair of socks or a new car or a newspaper. The carbon footprint of things includes growing or producing the raw materials, be that iron, cotton, timber etc. Then there is the processing of those materials – turning iron into steel, spinning the cotton into yarn, timber into paper. And a further series of processes will transform those elements into the final product. Then there is the carbon footprint involved in transportation between the various stages of production and onwards to the warehouse and shop.
It is a complex chain with lots of variables which may explain why it is hard, as consumers, to establish the carbon footprint of most consumer goods. But here are a few:-
The book by Mike Berners Lee, How Bad are Bananas?, is a good reference point.
Can we reduce our carbon footprint when buying things? Yes.
We can do some research and find out which products might have a lower carbon footprint. For example organic cotton has a lower footprint than non organic cotton because it doesn’t use pesticides and fertilisers. Polyester items have double the carbon footprint of cotton ones, but some polyester fabrics are made from recycled plastic which is better than that made from oil. Synthetic fabrics such as viscose and rayon are made from cellulose – eg from wood or bamboo – but require a high chemical input which adds to their carbon footprint. Tencel on the other hand uses a process with a much smaller footprint.
We can consider the life span of the product. A lap top that only lasts 2 years is less environmentally friendly than one with a lifespan of 10 years as the initial carbon cost is spread over 10 rather than 2 years. We might at this point also consider how easily the product can be repaired. Some laptops are more readily repairable. Maybe the product is something we can repair ourselves such as darning a pair of socks or replacing a zip on a pair of trousers.
We can consider the running costs involved with the product. How much energy will it take to recharge different smart phones? How much energy will different flat screen TVs use? What about buying a hand powered alternative such as hand turned coffee grinder or a manual whisk?
We might consider whether the product has an after life – ie can we pass on to someone else when we have finished with it? Books we have read can be passed onto a friend and donated to a charity shop. The same is true of clothes. Children’s clothes can be passed onto a younger sibling, or you might hold a ‘swishing event’ with friends.
We should also consider how the product will be recycled at the end of its life. Some clothes manufacturers and retailers will take back old clothes and recycle them. This is easier when the fabric is from a single rather than a blend of materials. Newspaper and books can ultimately be recycled with other paper products. Electrical goods are currently less readily recycled.
Alternatively we could borrow, rent or buy second hand. Equally we should consider whether we need the thing anyway! If we are to achieve net zero as a world, I am sure it means we will have to consume less, repairing and reusing what we do have.
Reducing our carbon footprint in the home is essentially about reducing the amount of energy we use – whether that is for lighting, cooking a meal or having a wash. Here are some tips.
10th September 2021
The Appliance of Science
Heating consumes most of our household energy and consequently carbon budget. Of the remainder some is used for heating water – for baths, showers etc – but most is used in the kitchen: about 60% on average. The typical kitchens contain a cooker, kettle, fridge and washing machine. There may also be a freezer and a tumble dryer. And then any number of smaller appliances which can take up so much space – coffee machine, blender, mixer, toaster, juicer, rice steamer, slow cooker, waffle maker, sandwich maker, bread maker, deep fat fryer, ice-cream maker, coffee grinder, electric whisk, soup maker, griddle …
Think of an average day in the kitchen. Boil the kettle for a hot drink: approx 25g CO2 per mug of hot water; pop bread in the toaster: 75g; microwave a bowl of porridge: another 25g; run the dishwasher: 275g (70 minute programme); run the washing machine: 400g (100 minute cycle) plus 20 minutes in the tumble dryer: 250g; brew a fresh coffee with the coffee machine: 50g; bake a cake: 750g; half an hour’s ironing: 350g; make supper (eg pasta, sauce and vegetables) using three hot plates 250g; put another load through the dishwasher: 275g; boil the kettle for a bedtime hot drink: 25g. That adds up to 2750g. Meanwhile the fridge is contributing 1250g per day and the freezer 750g, giving a total of 4750g.
If we move around the home, we have the computer and the TV which might each be another 250g CO2 per day, the vacuum cleaner, mobile phone chargers (most homes have more than one), internet hub, Alexa, hair dryer, pressure shower etc. Plus all the light fittings.
Perhaps it is not surprising that energy consumption in our homes accounts on average for 22% of the UK’s national carbon footprint. But if we are to achieve the UN’s targeted 45% reduction on CO2 emissions by 2030 – and net zero by 2050 – we need to find ways of reducing our personal footprint. We can change the way we use our household appliances and next week’s Eco Tips will look at ways of making efficiency savings.
We can use more energy efficient appliances – but is buying something new the best answer if that means throwing away equipment that is old but still working?
Every appliance we buy, large or small, has already produced a carbon footprint by virtue of its manufacturing, and distribution. Information on the size of these footprints is not readily forthcoming. This may in part be because often these appliance – or their components – are manufactured elsewhere in the world. Current accounting procedures would allocate these carbon costs to the country of production and not the country of consumption.
As well as considering the manufacturing carbon footprint of the appliance, we also need to consider the life span of the appliance. A fridge that has a life of 20 years will better repay its carbon footprint, than a fridge that is only used for 5 years. Sadly many appliances now seem to have a very short life. Whereas a fridge or cooker might have lasted 30+ years, modern day equivalents have an expected lifespan of 10 -13 years. Even then they may not serve their full span as in out throw away society, many are discarded as part of the popular pastime of kitchen refurbishment.
The UK has one of the highest rates of throwing away electrical appliances. In 2019 this was almost 24kg of waste per head. Less than 20% of our electrical waste (e waste) is currently recycled with the rest going to landfill with the potential harm of toxic chemicals leaking out, whilst at the same time failing to salvage valuable metals and other elements that could be reused. E waste will be a future topic for Green Tau.
NB Recent EU legislation requires that electrical appliances should a, be repairable and b, that manufacturers should provide spare parts for up to ten years after a model has gone out of production. The UK introduced similar legislation in July of this year, although manufacturers have a two year window in which to bring in these changes.
