Modern Living

[Flyfisher]

Interesting article here comparing the UK over the last 30-40 years.

It would seem that we're better educated (well, spending more time in education), living longer (but being ill for longer), enduring more noise, and being at less risk of crime against the person.

But the statistic that seemed odd to me was "Carbon dioxide emissions in the UK dropped by 18% between 1970 and 2004.". Why would there have been such a large reduction over that period?

 

[Mark]

looking at the actual report it suggests that there was a major change following deregulation of the power industries. The move from coal/oil to gas power generation is the main reason.

decline of industry of course is also relevant.
industrial production of co2 has halved since 1970, transports contribution has doubled and is now as significant as industry.
domestic production (coal fires ?) is down by 15-20%

 

[Flyfisher]

Thanks for that. I didn't notice a link to the original report, but after your comments I re-read the webpage and looked a bit harder

Industrial decline makes sense, of course, and I had thought about the decline of domestic open fires although I thought these were already becoming a rarity by 1970. But whatever the reasons, it helps puts the purported CO2-reduction challenge in perspective.

 

[biffvernon]

In 1970 most electricity and a lot of domestic heating was coal fuelled. The development of North Sea gas made gas central heating affordable and the 'dash for gas' in the electricity saw off what was left of the post-Thatcherite coal industry. All this allowed the UK Government to be very smug about meeting the Kyoto commitments on CO2 reductions while most countries struggled. Last winter (2005/6) there was a bit of a crisis in the gas supply, which put the gas price up suddenly and resulted in a substantial switch back to coal fired electricity production but this winter has been easier with a combination of a mild winter, both here and across the whole of Europe, and the opening of the Langelad pipeline from Norway so the proportion of gas fired electricity has risen again.

Of course to get a true picture of our CO2 emissions we ought to include that which results from the manufacture of products we use but are actually made in China and elsewhere, along with their transport.

 

[Flyfisher]

Of course to get a true picture of our CO2 emissions we ought to include that which results from the manufacture of products we use but are actually made in China and elsewhere, along with their transport.

True, although that would still only give a more accurate national picture, which is not really that helpful if the problem is truly global. It might enable the government to be smug that it's doing its bit (if true), but no one govenment can achieve much on their own, except maybe the biggest culprits like the USA, China and India perhaps.

 

[Penners]

Of course to get a true picture of our CO2 emissions we ought to include that which results from the manufacture of products we use but are actually made in China and elsewhere, along with their transport.

I suppose morally you're right. But statistically surely that's unworkable.

If every country tried to measure their CO2 emissions this way, we'd end up with statistics that are a complete mess.

As FF says, it's a global problem, and the only way to get a true global picture is to measure each country's actual emissions, and tot them up.

 

[worms]

Penners,

I'm not convinced about the "statistical mess" argument - surely we are in the statistical mess and need to get out of it by using statistics that are meaningful! If we export production and don't measure consumption then our stats are way off! We know what our imports are and we need to control our own carbon footprint, so it is consumption we need to be measuring.

For example, UK Government is proud of the reduction in our methane production from cows - because cow numbers in UK have reduced. But we still eat the same amount of beef, so our methane production has simply been shifted to Ireland and Brazil.

Many other examples such as our steel industry which must have been a big contributor to CO2 production in the 70s but is now mainly overseas.

 

[Penners]

I'm not convinced about the "statistical mess" argument - surely we are in the statistical mess and need to get out of it by using statistics that are meaningful

I understand what you're saying, Worms, and I'm certainly in favour of meaningful information on the problem.

But I'm suggesting that - if we start adding in emissions from other countries to whom we have exported some of our industrial processes, how can we be sure that everyone else will do the the same? I think that risks - as I said before - statistical confusion.

Much better if every country submits stats on its own total emissions, and all these are added together for a clear global picture.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, imagine the difficulty of compiling 'true' carbon statistics if you had to calculate and subtract the carbon content of all your exports and calculate and add the carbon content of all your imports.

I agree with worms that this would give a truer indication of the total carbon footprint of a country, but I also agree with penners and suspect that the bureaucracy (and opportunity to fiddle the figures?) involved would be a nightmare.

 

[AMc]

You can control your consumption of heavy footprint imported goods to some extent with taxation but you can't directly control the manufacturing processes in the country you import from. You can't force another country to not use dirty coal power to run it's factories so measuring and accounting for their carbon output isn't really helpful. It's important to be aware of it, but not get hung up on it.

The only way we can sensibly control the UK's carbon footprint is by looking at the production/consumption here and try to encourage with sticks and carrots more sustainable methods.

My understanding is that energy generation, construction and transport are our biggest C02 contributors so we need to look at reducing those before we start trying to include factors beyond our direct, local control.

 

[biffvernon]

The only way we can sensibly control the UK's carbon footprint is by...

not buying stuff.

 

[Nemesis]

Agreed - that way shipping and air freight costs can be reduced..

 

[worms]

I think there are some grey areas in the thinking here (except Biff's "not buying stuff" argument).

As AMC says, energy generation and construction are important sources of CO2. If you want to only count home produced CO2 in your stats, does that mean that for construction you don't include the CO2 generated, if the cement was made overseas? But you do if it is home produced? I can't see the logic in that.

And for energy production, you will note that the English target for electricity is to source 20% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020, not to generate it from renewables, allowing us to import the carbon saving. In contrast, the target for Scotland is 40% of the electricitygenerated.

Seems to me that Government is all over the place on this with a convenient set of movable goalposts so that we count it in when it suits us and out when it doesn't!

 

[Nemesis]

Costs of air travel and shipping aren't counted either.

 

[Nigel Watts]

measuring one's own domestic and personal CO2 emissions is a good start. My sons and I have been doing this now for a few months. Our worst week was the first we measured - around a third of a tonne. Since then we have been averaging significantly less

That was until we flew to India over Easter - over three tonnes each way (4 people x 7,500 km x 0.11 kg/km, each way). That is the equivalent of about half a year's worth of domestic energy.

 

[Penners]

does that mean that for construction you don't include the CO2 generated, if the cement was made overseas? But you do if it is home produced? I can't see the logic in that.

The logic is that each country concentrates on its own CO2 emissions. So, in your example, the country that makes the cement will account for that particular CO2.

Atmospheric carbon isn't a national problem. It's global. And I believe that the most straightforward way to get a true picture of the global situation is for each country to report its own emissions, regardless of whether they were generated in the production of goods for export.

That way the picture is clear, and everyone knows what stats they are responsible for.

 

[Flyfisher]

The only way we can sensibly control the UK's carbon footprint is by...

not buying stuff.

I agree it would reduce our carbon footprint but I'm not sure how sensible it would be given that our economy (and pretty much the whole world these days) is consumer-driven and that our financial well-being is largely dependent on continued economic growth. A worldwide economic recession might not be much fun.

I think this sort of thing is at the root of the problem of changing people's behaviour. Do nothing and face a (say) 80% chance of something bad happening or do something like the above (and/or other things) and face a 100% chance of something different, but still bad, happening.

 

[biffvernon]

When continued economic growth is dependant on finite resources it will not continue. Did you not hear the Reith Lecture Survival in the Anthropocene?

 

[Flyfisher]

I agree. It's obvious that, long term, it can't continue. I wasn't arguing that it will last, only that it's the basis of our current economies. I agree it's probably not sustainable.

With hindsight we may find that we're privileged to be living in a relatively short age of incredible affluence. Unless we can 'invent' our way out of the looming problems by coming up with some form of cheap, renewable and non-damaging energy to sustain our current social and economic systems, then I suspect we're heading for a big fall.

 

[Penners]

Did you not hear the Reith Lecture: Survival in the Anthropocene?

Yes - frankly I was quite surprised at Prof JS's fairly upbeat tone. He seemed to be fairly confident that commercially-led technology would find a way.