Related posts:

1. Carbon and Copenhagen The EU Emissions Trading System has failed to drive real...

1. Climate change sceptics are to be called ‘deniers’. You know. Like holocaust deniers.

Deny everything, Baldrick.

The precautionary principle does not give you license to pummel sceptics into the ground with the sheer weight of your indignant rage.

Assume that most people at Copenhagen understand the basics of climate change, but be prepared to continue debating the issues and educating those who doubt, or more likely do not understand, the science. Don’t fall into the trap of being accused of intellectual arrogance or dogmatism, when that is what you’re trying to tackle in the first place.

Which leads us to the next thing…

2. All opinions are equally valid.

Gaia is hurting.

No. They’re not.

Ignorant, prejudiced, ill-considered bilge will issue forth from thousands of orifices at Copenhagen, and it will not all be from climate change ‘deniers’ or loony right-wingers. Some utter bilge is uttered with such ferocious, righteous anger as to take the breath away, and none more so than from some climate change protestors, activists, and other individuals whose grip on reality is just as tenuous as your average Melanie Phillips.

You may crochet your own underpants and not eat food that casts a shadow, but if you believe labrador tea is a better treatment for tuberculosis than antibiotics, we have a problem.

3. Nick Griffin is at Copenhagen representing the EU.

Immigrants, coming here and blah blah etc...

No, he’s not.

He’s a deluded idiot, and he was only elected to the EU Parliament through a combination of voter apathy and disenfranchisement. He recently appeared on Question Time in the United Kingdom and was laughed at, solidly, for around an hour. His views on climate change are as bonkers as his views on what constitutes an indigenous British person.

Mind you – we in the UK allowed him to become elected, so we probably deserve the embarrassment of being represented by him.

4. Carbon. Carbon. Carbon, carbon, carbon, carbon.

Carbon and on and on

How about we try talking about biodiversity? What about social justice? Ever heard of habitat fragmentation?

Every single discussion about the environment doesn’t have to centre around carbon, carbon offsetting, carbon trading, carbon footprints. Yes. Of course. Carbon is important. But look at that word.

Carbon.

Aren’t you just a little bit bored of seeing it, and worried by the growth of the ‘carbon economy’ as a panacea for all ills?

5. The whole climate change panic is a Marxist conspiracy to drag us back to the dark ages.

Children of the Quorn

Really? Really? Asking people to consider skipping meat one day a week does not a mung bean eating agrarian utopia make. Get over yourself.

Related posts:

1. Carbon and Copenhagen The EU Emissions Trading System has failed to drive real...
2. Are you optimistic about the future? I've just finished an Environment course with the Open University,...

Conquistadors, wars, slavery and syphilis won’t help, of course, but cutting down all of your trees is asking for trouble. And yet this is still happening all over the world, notably in Indonesia, where giant swathes of virgin rainforest are being felled and replaced with monoculture crops (specifically the oil palm), and in Brazil and Africa.

In a worrying recent development, a global forestry treaty, REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), due to be signed at the Copenhagen climate change conference this December is set to allow countries to cut down virgin rainforest, plant monoculture crops such as soy and palm oil, call the results forest, and even claim millions in funding for their preservation. Only if essential safeguards preventing deforestation in favour of monoculture crops is restored will the treaty serve to prevent deforestation, instead of effectively subsidising it.

But why is deforestation such a bad idea? We’ve all been hearing about deforestation for years, but what actually happens, why is it so disastrous, and how does deforested land turn into desert?

No two situations are the same, but here are some of the things that happen when you cut down all of your trees:

Habitat fragmentation

Fragmented habitats - an aerial view of an area deforested by soybean farmers. Image: Greenpeace

Habitat fragmentation is what happens when the preferred physical and biological environment in which an organism or group of organisms live  (their habitat) is broken up. This creates more ‘edge’ or boundary areas with non-preferred habitats, reduces the size of habitats, and alters the micro-climate of each fragmented pocket of habitat. Species immediately become more vulnerable.

Habitat fragmentation in tropical forests is primarily caused by deforestation. Deforestation may be performed for logging, agriculture or rural development, or as a consequence of activities such as oil exploration, mining, road building, and dam construction. Tropical forest habitats may also be fragmented in the longer term by geological or climate change, but the blame for deforestation usually lies at our door.

Species extinction and human cost

Species which would usually avoid living at the edge of their habitat are at greater risk of predation by other species that may avoid venturing within the forest, including humans. The ‘edge effect’ may also increase competition for food and other resources, and a change in microclimate at the habitat edge may cause exposure to higher temperatures and winds, all with less shade and protection. The edge effect is exacerbated the more fragmented the habitat is – like the coast of Norway, there is exponentially more ‘edge’ as time goes by.

Orangutans are reluctant to leave their habitat even if it is destroyed around them. Image: Orangutan Foundation

Habitat fragmentation leads to smaller habitats, increasing competition for resources, creating a scarcity of some resources and having potentially a far greater impact if species within the food web die off and in turn starve dependant species. Finally, smaller populations of species in fragmented habitats are more susceptible to extinction through decreased genetic diversity and disease.

Assessing the vulnerability of a species within a fragmented forest habitat is difficult, as different species of different sizes have different space requirements, and so may be more or less susceptible to habitat fragmentation and reduced size. Some species may also have a symbiotic relationship with partner species within a habitat which, if lost, will be disastrous for them. Finally, some species simply emigrate to alternate habitats – if you have legs and wings, and you’ve run out of food, it’s time to move.

But this doesn’t always happen. Orangutans are unwilling to leave the canopy even if they’re perched at the top of the last tree in the forest. It also goes without saying that humans affected by deforestation and changes to their habitat may simply have nowhere to go. Tribes may not be able to move for economic, political or social reasons. There are many examples of tribes who, having been displaced from their traditional lands, with no source of income and no means of subsistence, fall into a downward spiral of alcoholism, drug use and despair. Right now, the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode tribe, one of the last uncontacted tribes outside the Amazon, are losing their land to beef production.

Soil erosion and desertification

Exposure to higher temperatures and winds at the habitat edge, without the benefit of plant cover and root systems due to the damage to plant species, leads to soil erosion. In the case of most rainforest environments, the nutrients needed for plant and animal life to continue are stored in the canopy, not the ground. Felling and burning the forest leaves soil bereft of nutritional value, unable to support the vegetation that would bind it together and regulate moisture. Crops grow only with the intensive use of fertilizers, polluting watercourses and causing eutrophication (a buildup of algal plant life which chokes all other plant life).

This erosion has the potential to encroach ever further into fragmented forest habitats, increasing fragmentation and eventually leading to desertification, wiping out entire habitats and driving plant and insect species to extinction. An entire habitat may also be at risk from changes in water flows due to erosion, flooding and increased river levels. Changes in wider climate such as precipitation levels may indiscriminately affect the entire habitat, including the interior.

The Nasca and us

The Nasca disappeared around 1500 years ago, and the recent Cambridge University study suggests that a significant factor in their demise was their destruction of the huarango trees that played such an important role in regulating soil moisture and nutrients. The Nasca, in their drive to plant more crops and to build, destroyed their own environment.

World population in the time of the Nasca was around 300 million. It is now over 6.5 billion. The landscape has changed beyond recognition, but the mistakes the Nasca made are being repeated now, on an exponentially wider scale. What’s different now is that we in the Western world are witnessing the destruction of other tribes, species and environments, to maintain ours. Tribes like the Ayoreo-Totobiegosode, and species like the orangutan, are more vulnerable than the Nasca ever were, because they are shouldering the burden of our consumption.

More info and actions:

• Uncontacted tribe’s forest bulldozed for beef – write a letter to the President of Paraguay
• Support the Orangutan Foundation campaign ‘Protect me and my tree’
• Palm oil – rainforest in your shopping (Friends of the Earth)
• Important safeguards to protect rainforests lacking in REDD negotiating text
• Boreal forests store twice as much carbon as tropical – so why aren’t we doing more to protect them?

Related posts:

1. REDD A fascinating article on the Washington Monthly website by (I...

People have asked me what the course covered – after a moment’s thought, the response would usually be:

• Flooding (there seemed to be a lot about flooding)
• Competition for resources
• Environmental responses, the unpredictability of them

Thinking back over it, these three things sum up some of the most pressing environmental issues of our time.

Water. Food. Space. A projected population of 9.3 billion people by 2050. That’s nearly four times as many people as there were on Earth in 1950. And all these people are placing ever greater pressure on an environment that some would argue has already passed breaking point. And it isn’t just overcrowded developing countries that are set to suffer, though their suffering will be worst; in the UK, all the evidence suggests that we are heading towards a monsoon climate, with heavy winter rain in the north of the country, and major flooding events on a regular basis. Architects (encouraged by insurance companies) are now designing houses, for construction in this country and other Western industrialised nations, that float. Our environment is changing, now, and our ability to survive no longer depends on our ability to control that change, but to adapt to it.

The numbers are near-incomprehensible – not just on population, but on the human ecological footprint, and on a dozen other indicators of planetary health. One part of the course was a discussion on whether we should feel optimistic or pessimistic about climate change, and the challenges it presents us. The consensus from a panel of experts appeared to be “let’s be optimistic, as the science is good, our understanding of the issues is good, but we have a mountain to climb”. The scientists may say this, but looking at the upcoming climate change summit in Copenhagen this December, it’s hard not to worry about the potential for a raft of half-baked, woolly policies, frustration and failure from nation states with conflicting interests, even now, when instinctively one’s feeling is that it is now absolutely too late for economic concerns, for quibbling over whether Kyoto was the best deal for all countries, for waiting for the United States to take the lead. It’s tempting to feel thoroughly pessimistic about our prospects.

The truth is, nobody knows precisely what will happen to our climate, our planet, in the next fifty or one hundred years, and particularly the ramifications for all life. Changing technology and science, changes in international politics, conflict over resources, flooding, disease, food shortages, inequalities, notions of development, the unpredictability of environmental responses – all bets are off. Copenhagen could see binding legislation compelling countries to cut their CO2 emissions. The US may not fudge on the commitments it needs to make this December. We may also move beyond the current preoccupation with carbon emissions, and look to issues such as biodiversity and sustainable development that have been comparatively neglected.

So I promise is that I will maintain this blog, along with all of the others that have contributed to Blog Action Day, as a place for discussion, to try to keep the bigger picture in mind, to balance optimism with realism.

And I’ll try and update it more often. Sorry.

Related posts:

1. Carbon and Copenhagen The EU Emissions Trading System has failed to drive real...

What is carbon offsetting?

Carbon offsetting is the process of attempting to redeem the CO₂ generated by a particular activity, by paying a contribution to a project that will remove an equivalent amount of CO₂ from the atmosphere, or prevent its release.

Got that? OK. Let’s try again.

“…carbon offsetting is Enron environmentalism, a neat accounting trick that does little to stop global warming. The government should focus on transforming the way we use energy here in the UK at the same time as helping to put the growing economies of the developing world on a low carbon pathway.”
Greenpeace statement on carbon offsetting, 17 January 2007

An offset is essentially a financial instrument, measured and traded in units corresponding to one tonne of CO₂. Buy an offset, create a tonne of pollution (or visa versa). Your money funds projects to develop renewable energy, carbon sequestration (capturing and burying pollution), energy efficiency, or forestry. Theoretically, by the time you’re done, it’s as if you never polluted in the first place. In reality, assuming the project you contributed to was even fully successful, your carbon emissions may not be neutralised for years.

Proponents of offsetting see it as anything from a great way to create investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency to a panacea for developing countries. Another way of looking at carbon offsetting is that it is a license to pollute, what George Monbiot describes as “an excuse for business as usual”. When the ideal aim of reduction of CO₂ emissions costs money and takes investment, effort and changes to infrastructure and behaviour, offsetting offers a great way out by paying for these things to happen elsewhere while you continue doing what you were doing all along.

Carbon offsetting is controversial, difficult to prove, and yet the most popular way so far to mitigate climate change.

How does offsetting work?

Cough up if you cough up.

Carbon offsetting activities can be split into two main types; the large scale offset trading of companies and governments to comply with greenhouse gas emissions capping within a regulatory regime set out by the Kyoto Protocol, and the smaller scale activities of organisations, companies, governments and individuals within a voluntary regime. That means anything from nation states building wind farms to a family paying for a few trees to be planted to offset their flight to Spain.

Since the introduction of the Kyoto Protocol on February 16 2005, 183 countries have agreed to put in place efforts to reduce 5 percent of their GHG emissions between 2008 and 2012 from 1990 levels, including Europe. The UK has since undertaken to reduce carbon emissions by 34% on 1990 levels by 2020, announcing the Low Carbon Transition Plan on 15 July.

Under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), also introduced in 2005, companies can buy and sell carbon credits representing one tonne of carbon emissions. In exchange for a payment, a company is allowed to emit carbon, with the payment contributing to the cost of projects that defray the environmental impact of those carbon emissions. If a company has excess permits, it can sell these in an open marketplace.

The failure of the ETS

The ETS has been compromised by political and commercial meddling since its inception. Emissions caps were initially set too high, ignoring the scientifically indicated effective level, and industrial lobbying has led to a market flooded with surplus permits.

After the introduction of the ETS, industry lobbied the EU over the perceived commercial threat posed by a strict carbon trading scheme – to tourism and transport, for example. To placate industry, emissions permits were over-issued, for free or from abroad in the form of Certified Emissions Reduction (CER) credits from the Clean Development Mechanism, a system where industrialised, high-carbon nations can buy credit from developing, low-carbon nations. This flooded the permits market, commoditising permits and driving down their value to less than €1 in the early stages. An ETS carbon credit costs about €14 at the time of writing, less than half of its peak value in 2008.

With low-cost, readily available emissions permits, combined with a reduction in emissions in the last decade due to recession and off-shoring, many European companies have acquired a massive surplus of emissions permits. For example, German company Integriertes Hüttenwerk has 10.3 million surplus permits, one in ten of all surplus permits in the EU. That’s roughly the amount of emissions one person creates by flying return from London to Sydney. Two and a half million times.

European industry is likely to have 400 million tonnes worth of surplus permits in the period 2008-2012, which could be sold for over €5 billion in profits, or simply banked for future use, potentially depressing permit prices for the foreseeable future, while having no effect on emissions levels. There is no formal mechanism for clawing these surplus credits back. Companies are effectively able to continue business as usual, profit from surplus credits, and further enable other companies to pollute. High limits on the use of CER credits and further stockpiling could lead to a possible surplus of 1.6 billion permits in the ETS, which may be kept in reserve up to 2020.

Failing the environment

The environmental concerns attached to the failure of the EU ETS are numerous.

• Firstly, with the reduced value of emissions permits and overall volatility of prices, no predictable revenue stream exists to undertake large-scale sustainable energy projects or other projects aimed at reducing the impact of emissions. A lack of investment in low-carbon technologies arguably renders the ETS redundant as one of its primary aims is to fund this investment.
• Secondly, the ability of companies to purchase CER credits through the Clean Development Mechanism allows industrialised nations to purchase credit from developing countries with lower emissions, enabling them to continue to pollute by claiming the credit of low-carbon nations. It goes without saying that the effects of climate change caused by continuing carbon emissions are often felt most severely in precisely those developing countries.
• Thirdly, European companies sitting on a potential surplus of 1.6 billion tonnes of emissions permits need take no action on cutting domestic emissions, keeping surplus permits banked for sale or offsetting.
• Finally, any benefit of lower emissions levels due to decreased fossil fuel consumption as a result of decreased industrial output is cancelled out by the sustained activity of polluting companies with surplus credits, as well as their having enabled other companies – particularly power companies – to pollute with traded credit.

The next steps

The United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen this December presents an opportunity to address the failures of the current approach to climate change, stymied by the competing concerns of the economy and the environment – as the EU ETS so clearly illustrates.

Fixing the ETS

The EU ETS could still provide a template for fledgling international emissions capping schemes, even for a global emissions market.

UK campaigning organisation Sandbag is focussed on emissions trading, specifically fixing the problem of surplus low-price EU emissions permits. Sandbag provides supporters with the means to buy and ‘retire’ (tear up) emissions permits, thus taking permits out of the system which can not then be used to pollute. Companies like Carbon Retirement also focus exclusively on buying and retiring emissions permits.

Sandbag is also campaigning to tighten emissions caps, forcing industry and governments to take the action that the ETS was originally designed to promote – to develop low-carbon energy infrastructure. These measures, along with financial incentives for permit cancellation and setting reserve permit prices, could repair the bloated and ineffective ETS.

Gold Standard organisations such as Climate Care also provide brokerage, trading and offsetting services with a focus on investment in effective, high quality projects offering sustainable development.

Protest and awareness

Campaigning organisations continue to serve an essential function by raising public consciousness to the issues around climate change, and stimulating debate.

On the day of publication of the UK government’s Low Carbon Transition Plan, the World Development Movement described it as a ‘dangerous get-out-of-jail-free card’ due to the reliance of the plan on carbon offsetting. Furthermore the WDM has initiated the ‘Big If’ campaign to protest against the construction of the new E.ON coal fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent, inviting supporters to vote for candidates who oppose the construction of coal fired power stations, organise vigils, and ‘stand in the way’. Actor Pete Postlethwaite, supporting the campaign, told the press at the launch of environmental documentary ‘The Age of Stupid’ that the government should be dissolved if it proceeded with the construction of new coal fired power stations. Projects like the new Kingsnorth facility can only go ahead with the use of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to sequester the huge amounts of carbon they will generate, and represent a step in the opposite direction from the development of renewable or low-carbon energy production.

Offsetting done right?

Surui land viewed with Google Earth

The Surui people of the Brazilian Amazon have been fighting a grassroots campaign with the assistance of environmental and monitoring groups, to protect their tribal lands from deforestation. They first drove settlers away in 1982 after their tribe was virtually wiped out by disease and loss of land in the wake of incursions by land speculators and loggers. The Surui have gained support from organisations who seek to promote the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) approach to carbon capture, an approach based on the principle that forests are worth more intact than felled.

Though reforestation is a controversial approach to carbon offsetting (amongst other reasons, CO₂ capture can be difficult to guarantee), the REDD approach suggests that leaving forests intact could go some way to mitigating up to one fifth of the world’s carbon emissions, and that intact forests, if closely monitored, are an essential component of a successful low-carbon future for the world. REDD attracts funding to communities in developing countries; the Surui map their lands with laptops and a high-resolution version of Google Earth, and they have been given funding for community education and health projects, and the establishment of sustainable industries. Industrialised countries can sink money into REDD projects as a component of their current cap-and-trade activities.

REDD may be our last, best hope of saving the tropical forests.
Rhett Butler, Washington Monthly

REDD has the potential to gain more support at Copenhagen as it is shown to be more vigorously monitored, offering quantifiable benefits and development opportunities for indigenous people, and able to offer other benefits such as the preservation of biodiversity.

The future

It is vital that EU leadership (in climate change) continues. We have to invest in the future and the future is low-carbon.
Nicholas Stern (author of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change)

UN climate chief Yvo de Boer identifies four essential points that must be agreed at Copenhagen:

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?
2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?
3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?
4. How is that money going to be managed?

Along with initiatives like REDD, clean energy development and low-carbon technology transfer to developing countries, fixing the EU ETS offers only part of the solution – and it’s worth noting that every question asked by de Boer above involves money. Idealistic ambitions to save the world will come to nothing if no one is willing to foot the bill.

Related posts:

1. Carbon neutral with that? Lucy Siegle points out in today’s Observer that everything is...
2. Sandbag New website http://sandbag.org.uk/ offers a solution to carbon emissions by...
3. REDD A fascinating article on the Washington Monthly website by (I...