Towards A Brighter Tomorrowland

Dear my lovely readers, I want to take this moment to thank you for reading (and hopefully enjoying!) my Blog.

This will be my last post for a while, I hope you've found my entries interesting and that they've taught you that we are all responsible for the environmental and climate change around us, and more importantly that we DO have the power to make a change and contribute to their mitigation.

I will leave you with this inspirational speech from the Disney's (2015) Tomorrowland, in the hope it encourages you reflect on the issues we have discussed throughout my Blog and motivates you to stand up and fight for a brighter future.

So, will you "gobble" up the impending environmental and social catastrophe "like a chocolate eclair"?

Or will you help turn the possibility of a better future into a reality?

Just because the "future doesn't ask anything of you today", doesn't mean we should sit back and await its arrival. 

It's the Simple Things: Household Climate Adaptation in the UK

“Household energy consumption is a motor of substantial production of greenhouse gas emissions and thus a central arena of climate mitigation policies”

~ Schaffrin & Reibling (2015)

Figure 1) Steps to achieving a low-carbon household

Continuing my analysis of the UK, a fundamental issue with the domestic climate mitigation lies in the divergent household incomes – dictating ‘disparity in energy use’ and ability to change ‘household energy practices’ (Schaffrin & Reibling, 2015).

Under the UKs ‘liberal welfare regime’, low-income households ‘devote a higher share of their income’ despite significantly LESS energy consumption, placing them at high risk of ‘energy poverty’ (Schaffrin & Reibling, 2015)!

For a developed country, this situation seems very backwards to me and poses the question: How are we meant to achieve low-carbon households amongst inequality?

Perry et al (2008) present the interesting idea of a Locally Integrated Energy Sector (LIES). Used to reduce local carbon footprints and tackle CO₂ production and energy waste, LIES works by integrating local renewable energy sources i.e. ‘wind, solar cells, heat pumps’ etc, with ‘excess heat and power available from local industry’, transferring heat ‘from one process to another via a carrying medium’ i.e. steam.

To me, this sounds like a practical method which reduces CO₂ emissions and increases energy efficiency in both domestic and industrial settings.

However, various obstacles stopping the adoption of LCZ (low- & zero-carbon) technologies and ‘energy efficiency measures’ in households remain (Caird et al., 2014):

• Loft insulation: ‘loss of storage or space’
• Energy-efficient lighting: poor ‘colour quality, brightness, warm-up time’
• Upgrading and installation barriers for renters and low-income households
• ‘high up-front costs’
• ‘lack of information’
• ‘hassle and disruption'

And, as if by magic, the argument FOR financial incentives and financial penalties on ‘inefficient technologies’ - suggesting their ‘phasing out and prohibition’ - is reborn (Caird et al., 2014). Perry et al (2008) also argue that government policies should be aimed at the ‘high-consuming group’, as opposed to standardising across high- and low-income households. I also think that the energy efficiency of older properties should be prioritized, reintroducing the government grant due to the extra expense.

But, what happened to cycling, walking, using public transport and car sharing?!

We should focus less on encouraging the installation of LCZ technologies and more on the simple, low-cost and low-effort ‘energy saving actions’ which EVERYONE can do to reduce household consumption (Attari et al., 2011).

• Turn your heating down & wear an extra jumper
• Reduce the washing machine’s temperature settings
• Close doors and curtains to keep heat in

After all, household adaptations are ‘in practice voluntary undertakings’, so surely it makes sense to start small (Dannevig et al., 2012)?

Feeling the Heat: UK's Solar Panel Subsidy Cuts

Firstly I’d like to wish all my readers a HAPPY NEW YEAR, and apologise for the not so cheery blog post you’re about to read.

You may have noticed that the news was dominated by reports over government subsidy cuts to households installing solar panels - ‘just days after agreeing to move swiftly to a low-carbon energy future’ at COP21 (Macalister, 2015).

Is this a step backwards in the UKs transition to a green future?

Does it undermine the efforts made in the domestic arena to tackle climate change?

“These cuts are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”

                                                                                    ~ Carrington (2015)

Financial incentives have ‘encouraged the installation of solar panels’ in the past and are crucial to fostering ‘environmental citizenship’ (Brignall, 2015; Upham, 2012). Subsidies including the ‘feed-in tariff’ (Fit) have been labelled by Greenpeace UK as ‘vital’ to facilitating household contribution to the renewable industry and a low-carbon UK (Casson, 2015).

So, their removal is certainly questionable, and will alter future household investment in renewable energy and perhaps the survival of the UK’s renewable industry itself! – not the best start to 2016!

Table 1) % of respondents citing obstacles to installing renewable technology 

- please observe PV and Solar Panels (Upham, 2012)

Stating that ‘policy reaches into everyday lives and private spaces’, Bulkeley’s (2015) paper highlights the challenge of both ‘unlocking carbon’ and ‘locking in new and renewable forms of energy’, rendering the subsidy cuts as even more puzzling!

What’s worse, fossil fuel subsidies have NOT been cut, providing no means of incentivizing people to curb fossil fuel consumption (Coca, 2015)! Confused? Me too!

“When the cost of technologies come down, so should the consumer-funded support.”

                                                                        ~ Amber Rudd

 (Secretary of the Department of Energy & Climate Change)

However, when talking to Paul Wilson from Baxi SenerTec (04/01/2015), I realised it’s not quite so black and white. There are genuine issues with Solar Panels in the UK and reasons for government cuts.

Issues:

• Weather is ‘not conductive’ to generating continuous heat & electricity
• Electrical grids ‘cannot cope’ with the power sent back to them, causing “dumping”

Cut Justification:

• Not considered a ‘viable renewable energy source for the UK market’
• Payback schemes give ‘companies, not individuals, the opportunity to profit from renewable energies’
• Solar PV seen as a profitable market as opposed to ‘something that helps the planet’
• The UK is the only country that offers government payback for using renewable energy sources

Paul also explained how the UK is ‘on track to achieve the CO₂ reductions set by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’, and that in comparison to global leaders in CO₂ production, we’re ‘well down the list’ – a refreshingly positive outlook of the UK’s energy mix.

Table 2) Territorial MtCO₂ - UK ranking 15th in 2014 (Global Carbon Atlas, 2014)

So, what’s next for household contribution? Without solar panels how can we help?

This is certainly a domestic dilemma which requires attention.

Bangladesh: Transforming Lives through a Green Lens

In contrast to the doom and gloom that has characterised my past Blogs - and the majority of reports concerning Bangladesh - I wish to draw your attention to Bangladesh’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions and the solar energy revolution which has received a lack of what Shahan (2014) calls ‘cyber ink’.

Due to its location, Bangladesh receives very good solar radiation all year round, rendering it ideal for the development of solar energy, converting ‘sunlight into direct current electricity’ efficiently (Modal & Islam, 2011).

Although having faced a ‘severe power crisis’ for over a decade – relying heavily on natural gas reserves which have a predicted longevity of just over 15 years! – It is in fact the DISTRIBUTION of energy which is considered the “weakest link” in the country (Sarker et al., 2003).

Here, I wish to applaud solar energy in Bangladesh as not only an environmentally beneficial switch – reducing GHG emissions - but one that simultaneously promotes equality, lighting rural Bangladesh through ‘solar home systems (SHSs)’ (Mondal & Islam, 2011).

Graph showing the annual installation of Solar Home Systems in Bangladesh

According to The World Bank (2015), ‘rural electrification’ has had a life-changing effect on rural populations, creating new social and economic opportunities including ’70,000 direct jobs’ (Sarkar et al., 2003).

 Above and Below Photos of SHS installed in rural Bangladesh homes

We (myself included) take for granted our immediate access to media resources such as the news and weather forecasts – although perhaps those in Cumbria are more attentive at present – however for these rural families it is a luxury with the potential capacity to increase mitigation effectiveness against extreme weather events that these people face on a regular basis (The World Bank, 2014).

However it’s not all praise for Bangladesh.

The Economist (2015) argue that there are more important things Bangladesh should be investing in, arguing that solar panels are ‘no substitute for reliable electrical power’ and that money spent on clean energy over health and sanitation improvements will ultimately make it harder for the world’s poorest to deal with climate change.

Although I believe adequate health and sanitation is a basic human right and should be invested in, in light of COP21 and the importance of pursuing sustainable development, I disagree with The Economist (2015).

The country-wide implementation of solar energy is a crucial step towards “greening” Bangladesh’s energy mix and is a development which I believe generates an optimistic outlook towards achieving the maximum 2°C global warming.

Game, Set, Match: COP 21

Drawing on my previous blog “Coming Clean at COP21”, I wish to enhance the important role of the public in COP21. As an international agreement, affecting everybody on the planet, I believe that the process of negotiations should be turned inside-out out with public voices informing political and economic responses – as opposed to being spoken for by those in power.

“When you are dealing with the risks posed by climate change, you must play to win… or people will die”

                                                                                                                        ~ Foran, 2015

Drawing strange (yet effective) parallels with the phenomenon Game of Thrones, Foran (2015) highlights how COP21 is a game with very serious consequences. From the recurring phrase “Winter is Coming”, Foran translates the never-ending global warming suffered most by the poorer nations of the world’s “Global South”.

So what’s the common denominator here?

People. People playing the game. People affected by the game’s outcomes.

Applying a Marxist perspective, Foran (2015) argues we should say “NO” to COP21 (controversial), however he successfully stresses the importance for a ‘just climate future’ and the need to tell the world ‘the full truth about climate change’ through mediums with stretch beyond IPCC reports – something I whole-heartedly agree with. Arguing for the decentralization of decision-making, it is crucial that we educate the world and give the public the voice to improve and challenge the political and economic powers controlling our futures.

McGrath (2015) BBC News

But what does COP21 actually mean for us?

McGrath (2015) puts this simply: ‘there are wins and losses for every country taking part’. For ‘low-lying islands’ and poor nations the COP21 agreement ‘offers hope’ (Kinver, 2015). For those living in industrialised and developed nations, ‘decarbonisation’ will take its place as the new heartbeat of finance and government departments. The effects of this transition will undoubtedly spill into the domestic sphere, increasing tax and commodity costs: clothing, food, petrol etc - relying heavily on public support to turn this “green future” into a reality.

Although many people will read this and think it unfair for the public to take on the responsibility of the large corporations that have dumped this climate dilemma upon us, like Boyd and Hume (2015), I believe that ‘education at all levels’ has the power to generate public enthusiasm and ‘community responsibility’ to contribute to climate mitigation. A key aspect of COP21 is Article 6: ‘Education, training and public awareness’, recognising the importance of providing an ‘outward-looking social focus and… public resource for learning’ in winning the climate change game.

So, are you up for the challenge? 

Do you have a sufficient "knowledge base" to battle climate change?

Climate Change: The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come

With Christmas fast approaching I thought it appropriate to write a blog dedicated to pumpkin pie and Christmas trees – with a climate change twist of course.

So, does climate change have the power to threaten Christmas?

The sad reality is yes, it does.

“Pumpkin pie may be missing by Christmas, thanks to climate change”

~ Glenza (2015)

Take a look at the “pumpkin state” Illinois. Subjected to ‘more widespread wet conditions from big rain events’, increased precipitation by 10% in the winter and spring months is impeding pumpkin growth, resulting in a 50% decline in crop yields (Glenza, 2015).

Requiring warm and dry weather conditions for optimal growth, climate change is set to dictate the future of America’s ‘beloved pie’ (Glenza, 2015).

So will America’s pumpkin-palette continue to be satisfied? Or is it a case of “too little too late”?

Well, thanksgiving has survived, but will the pumpkin prevail for Christmas?

Next, I invite you to turn your attention to another treasured Christmas tradition, the humble Christmas tree.

“Climate change is continuing its rampage through everything you love by threatening Christmas trees”

                                                                                                            ~ Laskow (2013)

Described by Piotrowski (2014) as ‘bad news for Christmas trees’, at the hands of climate change and global warming, Norwegian spruces are ‘getting cold feet’ as they lose their blanket of snow and new tree growth is limited by a thinning snow pack.

Furthermore, due to poor Christmas tree growth, many growers have decided not to plant new ones! And to add salt to the wound, Laskow (2013) states that uneven supply and demand will mean Christmas trees will increase in price and ‘only rich families will be able to afford real trees’! Obviously, I am aware that plastic trees are a common feature of households, however the production of this replacement is itself contributing to climate change!

Although the Christmas trees condition is not yet critical, without climate change mitigation, Santa Claus might struggle over where to put the presents in the future.

Is the threat to Christmas enough to encourage society to ‘treat our earth with respect’? Or should we do as Chartres (2009) suggests and capture the lesson of ‘loving thy neighbour’ and the generosity and compassion we exercise most at Christmas and apply it to the wider world in order to challenge the ‘eco-gloom’ of the future?

I’d love to hear your views on the matter.

Climate Change: A Catalyst for Conflict

Until recently, ‘the dimension of climate change associated conflict has so far received little attention’, however I feel it necessary to bring such analyses into the domestic domain. Therefore, in this Blog I will be drawing on two complementary studies by Bowles et al (2015) and Kelly et al (2015) in order to heighten the very real consequences anthropogenic climate change has on civil society, challenge those who believe it’s all just a hoax and emphasise the urgency for effective climate mitigation through a different lens.

Conflict, as an ‘indirect pathway’ dictated by climate change, has been studied by political and social scientists and is deemed by many as the most important (Bowles et al., 2015).

As pressure on and the instability of natural resources under extreme climatic events increases - such as prolonged drought and frequent flooding - geopolitical strength is challenged as governments struggle to provide for their citizens; holding the capacity to ‘test or rupture social fabrics and resilience’ and stimulate violent outbursts (Bowles et al., 2015).

To place this argument into more meaningful context, Bowles et al (2015) and Kelley et al (2015) study the conflict in Syria through the lens of the severe 2007-2010 drought experienced by the Fertile Crescent; labelling it a ‘fertile breeding ground for discontent’. 

Graph showing the mean winter precipitation,surface temperature and total population in Syria(1900-2015)

As an agricultural region reliant on annual rainfall to feed 2/3rds of its cultivated land, there is no questioning that such an event had a ‘catalytic effect’ on Syria. Transforming it from breadbasket to “bare-basket” as wheat production fell significantly (Kelly et al., 2015).As an agricultural region reliant on annual rainfall to feed 2/3rds of its cultivated land, there is no questioning that such an event had a ‘catalytic effect’ on Syria. Transforming it from breadbasket to “bare-basket” as wheat production fell significantly (Kelly et al., 2015).

In response to ‘agricultural collapse’, farming families migrated in mass to urban peripheries, increasing the strain on city resources and becoming ‘the heart of the developing unrest’ as the Assad regime failed to respond to the issue (Kelly et al., 2015).

Studies of historical and ongoing conflicts provide evidence of conflict as activated by climate change and are crucial warning-windows into the future of countries experiencing state and climate vulnerability - and beyond (Bowles et al., 2015). With specific reference to COP21 negotiations, if the devastating environmental effects of climate change aren’t enough to stimulate effective mitigation policies, then perhaps past conflict, present terror threats and the imminence of future global conflict will be?

Suggested by Bowles et al (2015), the public are most motivated to mitigate climate change when it’s framed as an issue holding potential, direct consequences for them. Thus, I argue if climate change is viewed as a ‘threat to human security’, then perhaps efforts to effectively adapt to living sustainably will be more welcomed?

One can only hope.