Climate change – Page 3

Green Tau: issue 91

An even greener National Trust?

29th July 2024

Over the last few weeks I have made a grand tour of England and Wales, visiting iconic National Trust sites. Ours is still a green and pleasant land, from St Michael’s Mount in the south west to Newcastle’s Souter Lighthouse in the northeast; from Windermere in the northwest to Box Hill in the south east, from Worms Head on the Gower Peninsula in the west to Kinder Scout in the middle. It is green and pleasant because people care passionately about the environment!

This is not to say that there isn’t room for improvement – uniform green fields full of grazing sheep may in reality be products of monoculture, and placid waters may mask life-damaging pollutants.

One of the greatest threats to our green and pleasant land is climate change. Rocketing temperatures in the oceans are fuelling a wet and windy summer here and across Northern Europe. Flooding and tree damage, poor harvests and dwindling numbers of butterflies is one of the many consequences. Late autumns and early springs upset the breeding patterns of birds, and the flowering cycles of plants. Intermittent heat waves stress many plants and animals, and increase the risk of wild fires.

And yes, generally, people do care and do want a sustainable, green, accessible, biodiverse rich environment in which to live. The National Trust is one of the bigger organisations that is making that a reality. And we know we must do all we can to limit the output of carbon dioxide to keep climate change in check. And again the National Trust is addressing this specific issue with a target of net zero by 2030.

We know we need fossil fuel companies to cut back their output and transition to renewables. We know we need pension funds, insurers and banks to use their financial power to press for faster change.

So why then does the National Trust – the nation’s largest conservation charity – still bank with Barclays, the biggest funder of fossil fuels in Europe?

This week there is a week of action, coordinated by Christian Climate Action, which aims to press the National Trust to go that one more step, to become that bit greener, by switching from Barclays to a bank that is fully aligned with the National Trust’s environmental credentials.

The actions at various National Trust sites across the country with banners and placards – possibly even with visits by Peter Rabbit -will be peaceful and friendly, inviting people to learn more about banking with Barclays is an issue and inviting them to sign a petition asking the National Trust to drop Barclays – something which other charities, such as Oxfam and Christian Aid, have already done.

Counting on … day 122

10th July 2024

In less than a month the world’s population will have used up a year’s worth of renewable resources. Earth Overshoot Day – this year 1st August – is the day when our consumption of resources exceeds the rate at which the earth can regenerate those resources for future consumption.

Natural resources regenerate over time. For example annual plants such as wheat, poppies, beans lettuces produce seeds each year which can sprout and produce a fresh crop. Some do this on an annual cycle, whilst others, such as rice, may reproduce several crops per year – depending on climatic conditions. Other plants have a much longer regenerative time frame. An oak for example may take 150 years to be of an age to produce acorns.

The same is true for fauna. Some species such as fruit flies will produce the next generation within a matter of days, where as for an elephant, the time scale is closer to twenty years.

Other regenerative resources include water, nitrogen and carbon. The life cycle of these varies according to climatic, topographical, and other factors. In tropical rain forests water can go through a daily cycle of rainfall, evaporation, condensation and once again, rainfall. In the artic regions rainfall is usually infrequent with much of the water then being locked away as ice sheets and glaciers.

Air, soil and water have regenerative features in terms of absorbing and ‘cleaning’ pollutants. One of the major causes of the current climate breakdown is our human action in pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than can safely be absorbed. The safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 280 part per million. In March 2024 CO2 levels were at 425 ppm and still rising.

Counting on …. Day 94

26th April 2024

Green wash is advertising or marketing that makes out that a product is greener/ more environmentally friendly than it actually is. It is an attempt to delude or deceive the consumer.

TerraChoice has identified ‘seven sins of greenwashing’ –

“Hidden Trade-off”: a claim that a product is “green” based on an unreasonably narrow set of attributes without attention to other critical environmental issues.
“No Proof”: a claim that cannot be substantiated by easily accessible information or a reliable third-party certification.
“Vagueness” is a poorly defined or broad claim that the consumer will likely misunderstand its meaning. “All-natural,” for example, is not necessarily “green.”
“Worshipping False Labels”: a claim that, through words or images, gives the impression of a third-party endorsement where none exists.
“Irrelevance”: a claim that may be truthful but unimportant or unhelpful to consumers seeking environmentally preferable products.
“Lesser of Two Evils”: a claim that may be true within the product category, but risks distracting consumers from the more significant environmental impact of the category.
“Fibbing”: a claim that is simply false. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing)

The BBC suggests the following certification schemes that can give assurance as to the ethical values of a producer:-

Leaping Bunny – which means that the product has not been tested on animals.

B Corp – means that a business is legally required to do beneficial things for the environment and the people who help create their products.

Carbon Trust – meets a certain standard of carbon emission reduction, meaning the product is trying to minimise its carbon impact.

Fairtrade – the product has been made by people who received a fair wage for their work.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) – the product is made using sustainable or responsibly managed wood sources. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/58465027)

Another source of good advice is Ethical Consumer via their web site or magazine – https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/

In a world where we already consume too much, I can’t help feeling that any advertising that encourages us to consume more than we need, is greenwashing.

Counting on …. Day 93

25th April 2024

Earth Overshoot Day is the day on which our global ecological footprint exceeds the earth’s bio capacity. (This year’s date has yet to be announced).

“Humanity is living beyond its means, which results in an environmental dilemma – because it is living at the expense of the Earth. Every year, the consumption of resources outstrips the natural regenerative capacity of our planet.” (1) So reports myclimate.org

The day on which we have consumers one year’s worth of resources and tip into the red, is known as as Earth Overshoot Day. Last year, 2023, it fell on 2nd August, which means that in the whole of that year we consumed resources that were equivalent to 1.7 earths! Clear this is cannot be sustainable on an ongoing basis.

To create a sustainable lifestyle that safeguards our future, we need to address three key things:

“Efficiency: better usage of resources so that goods are produced with less energy and resources.

Consistency: linear production replaced by the circular economy, which minimises waste. Renewable energy is key here.

Sufficiency: A sustainable change in lifestyle under which the economy is geared to moderate consumption of resources rather than constant growth. The goal is to fulfil the wishes and requirements of our society without disproportionate waste or consumption.” (1)

For further information –

https://overshoot.footprintnetwork.org/about-earth-overshoot-day

The Green Tau: issue 45

(1) https://www.myclimate.org/en/information/faq/faq-detail/earth-overshoot-day-how-do-we-handle-our-resources/

Counting on … day 92

24th April 2024

Ecological footprints are a measure of how much of the earth’s natural resources needed to sustain human life – ie how much clean water, clean air, soil for growing crops, oceans for fish, trees for timber, water/ wind/ fossil fuels etc for energy, land for buildings, etc needed for each human. This footprint will vary from person to person depending on their lifestyles – how much and what they consume, and how much and what sort of waste they produce.

The ecological footprint of someone who lives off the grid, growing their own food and recycling their waste, will have a smaller ecological footprint than someone who owns multiple homes, flies and drives a large SUV, eats a meat rich diet, and buys lots of clothes and other consumer goods.

Ecological footprints are also measured in terms of global hectares per capita (see yesterday’s blog).

Using information from https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/ecological-footprint-by-country, 

USA – 8.04 gha

Australia – 7.77

Oman – 7.29

France – 4.6

UK – 4.20

China – 3.71

Brazil – 2.81

India – 1.19

Zimbabwe – 1.03

Democratic Republic of Congo – 0.01

You might like to use an online calculator to estimate your carbon footprint (these can be very rough and ready rather than precise but give a ballpark idea). These calculators are not just measuring your carbon footprint but your ecological footprint – how much of the earth’s resources your lifestyles uses.

https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home

https://footprint.wwf.org.uk

Counting on … day 90

19th April 2024

How sustainable is wind power?

The following comes from a report by the German broadcaster, Deutsche Welle (DW).

“On average, wind turbines are operated for about 25 years. During this time, they generate 40 times more energy compared to the energy required for the production, operation and the disposal of a wind power plant.

“So-called upstream emissions, generated mostly through the production of carbon-intensive steel and cement, are included in the overall carbon balance of a wind turbine’s life cycle.

An onshore wind turbine that is newly built today produces around 9 grams of CO2 for every kilowatt hour (kWh) it generates, according to according to the UBA. A new offshore plant in the sea emits 7 grams of CO2 per kWh.

“Compared with other technologies, wind power does well in terms of carbon emissions. By comparison, solar power plants emit 33 grams CO2 for every kWh generated. Meanwhile, power generated from natural gas produces 442 grams CO2 per kWh, power from hard coal 864 grams, and power from lignite, or brown coal, 1,034 grams.” (1)

But what about the renewability of the turbines? Can their component parts be recycled so conserving the materials used? Wind turbines have a lifespan of 30+ years. At present the number being decommissioned is small but will grow – DW suggests that by 2050 up to 50,000 wind farms in Germany alone will need replacing. Whilst to some extent the concrete for the bases can be crushed and recycled as hardcore etc, and the steel and other minerals from pylons can be recycled, recycling the blades is less easy as they are a composite of glass fibre, plastic, carbon etc. Old blades may end up in landfill. However – “The first recyclable rotor blades for large offshore plants are currently being produced in Denmark. By 2030, the plant constructor Siemens Gamesa plans to only sell recyclable rotor blades: from 2040 the production of the company’s wind power plants is expected to be completely carbon neutral.” (1)

Nevertheless, wind power is one of the least environmentally damaging sources of energy.

https://www.dw.com/en/how-sustainable-is-wind-power/a-60268971

Counting on … day 87

16th April 2024

Green cement – part 2

As part of the need to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions to address the climate crisis, reducing emissions from cement production is essential.

50% of the emissions come from the release of carbon dioxide as a byproduct during the clinker making process. One solution is carbon capture- capturing the CO2 before it escapes into the atmosphere, pressurising it to a liquid which is injected into rock strata deep underground. This technology has yet to be developed for use at an industrial scale.

Another solution is to replace the limestone with an alternative that produces less CO2 – such as magnesium oxide mixed with magnesium chloride solution. However such alternative cements may not have all the attributes of cement when in use – different construction methods may be needed.

40% of the emissions are attributable to the energy needed to heat the clinker kilns. Switching to renewable energy to replace coal is one solution but requires considerable investment in green electricity production and distribution.

Using materials other than limestone – such as volcanic rock – that can produce clinker at lower temperatures is another possible solution. Another alternative is to replace a proportion of the cement with an alternative binder such as ground granulated blast furnace slag or pulverised fly ash. Again this may alter the properties of the cement and require different construction methods.

10% of the emissions comes from energy used in mining and transporting the raw materials. Energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy will be a way forward.

Further reading –https://theconversation.com/green-cement-a-step-closer-to-being-a-game-changer-for-construction-emissions-126033

(https://theconstructor.org/concrete/green-cement-types-applications/5568/

Counting on … day 84

11th April 2024

Fossil Fuel Subsidies -1

This overview of fossil fuel subsidies comes from the IMF: “Subsidies are intended to protect consumers by keeping prices low, but they come at a substantial cost. Subsidies have sizeable fiscal consequences (leading to higher taxes/borrowing or lower spending), promote inefficient allocation of an economy’s resources (hindering growth), encourage pollution (contributing to climate change and premature deaths from local air pollution), and are not well targeted at the poor (mostly benefiting higher income households). Removing subsidies and using the revenue gain for better targeted social spending, reductions in inefficient taxes, and productive investments can promote sustainable and equitable outcomes.” (1)

The article goes on to explain the difference between explicit and implicit subsidies, the former being the obvious direct payments to fossil fuel producers to bring down the unit cost of the fuel. The latter is a subsidy that is likely always present, vis in the practice of not charging the fossil fuel producers for the costs of pollution, climate change etc that are a consequence of their business.

“Implicit subsidies occur when the retail price fails to include external costs, inclusive of the standard consumption tax. External costs include contributions to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, local health damages (primarily pre-mature deaths) through the release of harmful local pollutants like fine particulates, and traffic congestion and accident externalities associated with the use of road fuels”(1)

By way of example they provide the following bar chart:

(1) https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies

Counting on … day 80

5th April 2024

Green Steel

Steel manufacturing produces more CO2 than any other heavy industry, comprising around 8% of total global emissions.

Traditionally steel is made in a blast furnace where the iron ore is he@ted at high temperatures together with coal. As the coal burns it produces carbon monoxide which bonds with and removes oxygen in the iron ore so purifying it to produce metallic iron. The carbon monoxide binding with oxygen becomes carbon dioxide and is one of the main sources of carbon emissions. Other sources of emissions will vary depending how the furnace is heated etc.

The industry is developing various ways of producing steel without – or with reduced – carbon dioxide emissions – known as green steel.

Replacing coal with hydrogen: Green steel can be produced by using hydrogen to remove the oxygen from the the ore – producing water (H2O). Ideally this would be green hydrogen – ie hydrogen produced using renewable energy. This method of producing steel requires heating the furnace to a higher temperature.

Reusing existing steel: steel can easily be recycled in arc furnaces powered by electricity – which ideally would be electricity from renewable energy sources with no carbon dioxide emissions.

Around 30% of the world’s steel is made from recycled steel. However steel cannot be recycled endlessly without loss of quality. Each time it is recycled the proportion of unwanted elements such as copper, nickel and tin increases. On the other hand steel has long in-use life which means that the amount of steel made available for recycling does not at present keep up with the growing demand for more steel. Our modern economies are big users of steel!

(For more detail see https://theconversation.com/green-steel-is-hailed-as-the-next-big-thing-in-australian-industry-heres-what-the-hype-is-all-about-160282)

Which ever form of green steel is produced, the availability of large amounts of renewable energy is going to be critical.

As important will be the way the transition is managed as furnaces are large and highly expensive pieces of kit – ie needing substantial investment – and can take years to install which in some instances has led to workers being laid off – as is proposed at the Tata steel works in Port Talbot. (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/25/tata-port-talbot-job-losses-labour-subsidy?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other).

Other important issues to address are how steel is used – with product design ensuring a long life, whether other materials could be used – timber for example in building construction, and how effectively scrap steel is collected and recycled.

Further reading – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64538296

Counting on … day 79

4th April 2024

Bioenergy can also be obtained from trees – the timber is burnt to either as direct form of heat from a stove of fire, or in a power station to drive steam turbines that generate electricity. Burning timber is the most common form of bioenergy used in the UK. Whilst it can be claimed that only waste timber is used – cuts and shavings from timber plants – the reality is that power stations such as Drax import timber which already starts to add to its carbon footprint. International rules imported timber is zero carbon as the emissions are counted in the country where the trees are harvested. In fact these emissions are often not recorded at all. And whilst the timber arrives here as preformed pellets, the timber intact comes from whole trees from mono culture plantations or from virgin forests.

In reality burning timber as a bioenergy is not a zero carbon option. The carbon stored in the timber is going to be released at some point in the future but if that tree is left to grow, and in its own good time, die, that carbon is locked in longer. Even better as the tree decays in its natural environment it will take years to decay during which time it will provide a habitat for a great variety of different plants and creatures. Further a large part of the carbon will be absorbed into the soil, again storing it away. If on the other hand the tree, having been felled, is used to make doors, floor boards, paper, furniture etc so the carbon is locked away for many more years to come.

For further reading – https://www.rspb.org.uk/helping-nature/what-we-do/influence-government-and-business/nature-protection-and-restoration/bioenergy

Is burning wood for energy worse for the climate than coal?

Biomass Basics

Carbon capture and storage CCS for the ongoing burning of fossil fuels to generate energy – https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/26/tone-deaf-fossil-gas-growth-in-europe-is-speeding-climate-crisis-say-activists?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other