Climate Mitigation Action: No Longer a Calamity of Costs

‘Bringing down emissions of greenhouse gases asks a good deal of people, not least that they accept the science of climate change’

(The Economist - 28.11.2015)

Illustrating that ‘barriers to mitigation action lie, primarily… within the domestic sphere’, Green (2015) emphasises the importance of convincing wider society that decarbonising the global economy is in their “self-interest”, and challenges ‘traditional assumptions’ that focus on the costs generated by climate mitigation action.

As a society driven by money and consumerism, with any mention of disruption to our habitual lives and what Green calls “the size of the economic pie”, panic strikes.

In response, Green defines a Nationally net-beneficial mitigation action, proposing a framework which simultaneously increases economic efficiency and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Encouraging us to consider “national interests” which stretch beyond economic efficiency, Green draws our attention to ‘overwhelmingly positive’ direct and co-impact benefits in ‘social welfare, individual well-being, social justice, sustainable development, environmental conservation and responsible global citizenship’.

   

Table 1) Key co-impacts of climate change mitigation actions (Green, 2012)

So perhaps now we have a framework which speaks to state and society alike? After all why do anything if it’s not going to benefit you, right? (I’m being sarcastic.)

However, although entertaining and exploiting the economic appeal of the world’s wealthier societies to stimulate their contribution to climate mitigation, I think it’s disgraceful that it should require this much persuasion and effort.

In a special climate change report ‘Hot and Bothered’, The Economist (2015) dedicates a section to countries most affected by climate change, highlighting their efforts to mitigate change through ‘conservative adaptation’, and I think putting the world’s richest nations to shame.

Take a look at Bangladesh, TheEconomist (2015) stated that ‘very few countries of any size are more gravely threatened by climate change than Bangladesh’. Battered by multi-dimensional climatic events including drought, flooding, cyclone activity, rising temperatures and sea level rise, Bangladesh faces the ‘most spectacular threat to human life’. 

This nation’s entire livelihoods are at stake, but are they sitting by, worrying about economic costs?

No.

With the help of BRAC, a large NGO, farmers are being trained to ‘switch from ordinary rice to salt-tolerant varieties, or to grow sunflowers instead’ (The Economist, 2015). BRAC have also pioneered a combination of agriculture and aquaculture due to the flooding of fields by freshwater during the monsoon season. This has provided the farmers with an alternative trade, enabling them to ‘raise freshwater fish in their flooded fields’ yet simultaneously grow rice ‘as the ground dries out [and] the fish move to a pool at one end’. This ‘integrated rice-fish farming’ provides Bangladesh with both socio-economic and environmental benefits – for more information on this look at Ahmed and Garnett’s paper (2011).

Integrated rice-fish farming Bangladesh

Innovations such as these are spreading throughout LEDCs, reflecting their need and accepted responsibility to adapt to changing conditions. Although they may not have the economic means to effectively mitigate such changes, their proactive nature speaks volumes. Begging the question “Why aren’t the rich nations doing anything?”.

As Green (2015) puts it rather nicely, ‘domestic barriers retard the pursuit of national net benefits from mitigation action’ - unwilling to change lifestyles and too lazy to look beyond short-term losses.

Wake up society. Smell the… pollution?... and realise that we have the power to be greater if we help mitigate climate change. 

I will end with a quote from Green’s (2015) influential paper and leave you with something to go away and really think about:

‘If the majority of mitigation action can be done in ways that are nationally net-beneficial, then one might well ask: why do we not see mitigation action commensurate with the scale of nationally net-beneficial action that is available? To borrow a phrase, why are we waiting?’

The Personal Problem of Plastic

The versatile nature of plastics means that they have become a ubiquitous element of our modern everyday existence in various forms.

However, aside from the benefits plastic provides for society the rapid increase in production and disposal over the last 60 years needs to be curbed due to the various negative impacts it holds for the environment.

Plastics are organic in nature, produced from natural resources such as crude oil and natural gas and thus responsible for GHG emissions with the combustion and processing of fossil fuels. However the environmental impacts of plastic isn’t limited to their contribution to climate change.

You’ve seen Happy Feet right?

Remember this guy?

Lovelace, from Happy Feet (2006)

This is Lovelace, the love guru of the penguin world.

Notice the can-rings around his neck? That’s the result of plastic pollution on the marine ecosystem, a growing area of concern for ocean researchers such as Fendall and Sewell (2009) as it ‘affects at least 267 marine species by ingestion or entanglement’.

Marine pollution of plastic bag - ingestion by turtle

Once processed, plastic continues its path of environmental damage and destruction. As a non-biodegradable material, plastics have a long life and thus a large ‘killing capacity’ when it comes to both the marine and terrestrial environment (Planet Ark, 2012).

A plastic product that has received much attention in recent years is ‘7% of wind borne litter escaping from landfills’, the plastic bag (Planet Ark, 2012). Which since its emergence in the 1960s has become a fundamental member of daily life.

Today there is a general consensus that ‘plastic bags are becoming a victim of their success’ and a global effort has been launched to rid society of the ‘culture of the bag’ we’ve become accustomed to (Roach, 2003)(BBC, 2015).

However, changing consumer habits associated with shopping since the 1960s will be a tricky task.

Are the general public up for the challenge? Or will decades of habit prevail?

Let me introduce you to this statistic featured in the BBC News (2015):

‘In 2006 the Environment Agency calculated the 82 bags required to carry the average person's monthly shop would produce as much carbon dioxide as travelling five miles by car.’

That’s the power of plastic - or should I say problem?

The environmental issues associated with plastic bags

Alerting the public of the environmental damage caused by our plastic bag greed is one way to generate reflexive changes in our consumption habits, however Fogg (2014) has voiced concern over the effectiveness of environmental awareness, stating: ‘One of the more depressing truths for anyone with green leanings is that awareness of problems does not in itself change behaviour’.

So what next?

A familiar feature of various news media has been the implementation of the 5p plastic bag charge in England last month to encourage the purchase of re-useable bags – bringing the problem of plastic directly into the domestic arena (Howell, 2015).

This approach applies the logic that "When there is an economic disincentive involved, consumers tend not to use a product" (BBC, 2015). However, although money is generally the language that (unfortunately) speaks loudest to society, it has been argued that 5p is ‘not a punitive amount’ and that it ‘merely acts to pay off one’s conscience, and is not a long-term solution’(BBC, 2015)(Fogg, 2014).

So if we can’t motivate society to change their consumer habits through education or economic punishment, then what can we do?

Check out this blog post: http://www.momscleanairforce.org/whats-plastic-got-to-do-with-clean-air/. Aside from the GHGs emitted when plastic is produced, this blog raises awareness of the health implications created by our demand and over-reliance on these handy plastic products.

Have you ever wondered what the secret recipe for a plastic bag is?

Ever marvelled at how soft, flexible, yet enduring they are?

Well my friend, this is due to clever chemicals that go by the name of “Phthalates”. However these chemicals have an alter ego which they are keeping secret from you. They are also endocrine disruptors which are ‘associated with a whole host of healthproblems’ including:

• ·         lower testosterone levels
• ·         decreased sperm counts & poor sperm quality in males
• ·         obesity
• ·         reduced female fertility
• ·         preterm birth & low birth weight
• ·         worsening of allergy & asthma symptoms
• ·         behaviour changes

Of course I’m not suggesting that any of you ingest plastic bags, but you know that “new car” smell? That’s the smell of the phthalates “off-gassing” and migrating into the air we breathe because they are ‘not chemically bound’ to our plastic bags.

I don’t know about you, but this horrified me.

So perhaps, if environmental issues and 5p charges aren’t enough to make you change your shopping habits, then maybe we need to start speaking to the egoistic sides of humanity and make the problems of plastic personal.

The Tyre Trepidation: A Consumer Responsibility

Transport is a continuously growing area of the economy, and one that has large environmental impacts.

Now, you may think that this is an unimportant and - let’s face it – boring subject to blog about, however tyres have been identified as a neglected ‘source of pollution’. Yes, these rubber doughnuts pose a rather serious ‘ecological threat’ throughout their lifecycle (Constantinescu, 2012).

Tyres are considered “an environmental nightmare” when they reach disposal age, at ‘risk of catching fire or breaking down, leaching toxic chemicals and heavy metals into soil structures and water tables’ (Norsa, 2015). However, a tyre’s environmental impact varies throughout its transition from raw materials to waste.

Tyre Fire in Jamaican Landfill Site

First, I invite you to observe the pressing issue of tropical forest clearance for rubber plantations which has captivated the concern of many conservationists. Briggs (2015) outlines that the tyre industry ‘consumes 70% of all natural rubber grown’ and is largely to blame for drastic land-use switches, causing negative impacts on soil and water, the significant LOSS of tropical biodiversity and putting endangered species at a greater risk of extinction.

Forest Conversion for Rubber Plantation in Northern Laos

It is predicted that an additional 8.5 million hectares of rubber plantation will be required to meet growing rubber demands by 2024.

That’s practically the size of Austria.

Yes, a space the size of a country will need to be cleared and converted, a scary reality which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

However, aside from forest and biodiversity loss, the largest environmental effect of the tyre occurs when it’s in use.

Now, tell me if I’m wrong, but when thinking about the environmental impacts of cars, driving style isn’t typically what springs to mind. However, a ‘driver's driving style is the most important factor influencing the environmental impact of tyres’ and generates the ‘largest share of emissions’ (Constantinescu, 2012). 

Shocked? Me too.

Studies have concluded that ‘the most important part of tyre management and most effective means of reducing environmental impact’ is the responsible behaviour of drivers, the consumer, the national citizen, us (Constantinescu, 2012).

So how do we go about encouraging wider society to adopt what Constantinescu (2012) calls “economic driving”?

Well, as a society largely driven by wealth and consumption, it makes sense that economic incentives are deployed, right? Put simply by Treadfirst (2014): ‘Care for your car and it will save you money!”. 

Advertisement to promote car-sharing scheme

Simple tips which save you money and are easy to follow are publicly advertised, leaving consumers with no excuse:

•  Travel lighter – declutter your car to reduce weight and drag
• Open your window – spare use of air conditioning
• Reduce your speed – rapid acceleration and sharp breaking wastes fuel
• Make new friends – share your commute and slash your costs

However, it is inherently difficult to change behaviours and practices that are ingrained into societal daily routines.

The future fate of effective tyre management to relieve damage to the environment is ultimately left in the hands of wider society and their willingness to change their driving habits.

So tell me, will you?

Climate Crisis: Eco-Worrier Reality for India

I ask you to cast your mind back to my previous Blog: “India: Eco-warrior or Eco-worrier?”. With India’s rising emission ranking in mind and the county’s need to drastically reduce its GHG contribution, I now invite you to engage with ITV’s recent report concerning ‘climate suicide’ in India’s New Delhi, ‘the world’s most polluted city’ (Jha, 2015).

The direct and rapid health impacts experienced by Delhi’s population as a result of globally extreme GHG emissions - sourced mainly from diesel cars - are a great cause for concern. The health implications of black carbon particulate matter is not a new phenomenon (Janssen et al., 2012), begging the question “why has India allowed this to happen?”, with Delhi’s most polluted spot – the junction of Chandni Chowk - measuring almost 28 times the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) "healthy" limit of PM2.5 particles per cubic metre (Jha, 2015).

Chandni Chowk Junction Traffic

As a result of rocketing GHG emissions, ‘three people in Delhi die every hour' (Jha, 2015). Lives I think we can all agree could have and should have been saved?

If that doesn’t shock you, India’s hospital corridors are said to be overflowing with patients suffering from respiratory problems, but it doesn’t stop there. India are witnessing an increasing number of vulnerable babies born premature, underweight and with birth defects as a consequence of pregnant women inhaling pollutants (Jha, 2015).

What is to be India’s fate if new life is damaged before entry into the world?

The effect of pollution in India is no longer invisible. It can no longer be ignored.

But is India too late to change the environment they’ve created out of greed and act out of morality?

Is this the morbid wake-up call that India needs?

Will premature death and ill health force government and public to come together and combat this “climate suicide”?

I hope so.

If this isn’t a domestic dilemma then I don’t know what is.

Willingness To Pay: Policymaking in the Public Domain

In this blog entry I’ve decided to take a more formal approach to presenting the domestic dilemmas of climate change and provide you an insight into how academics of the world are approaching the issue.

Focusing on the Energy Policy article ‘Willingness-to-pay and policy-instrument choice for climate-change policy in the United States’ by Kotchen et al (2013), I wish to draw your attention to a key method US policymakers deploy to measure the support of the public in their efforts to reduce GHG emissions 17% by 2020.

A willingness-to-pay (WTP) survey.

Yes, a survey. Disseminated by household and undertaken by American adults.

Now, you may be thinking that a survey is too simple a method in relation to the very real and global issue of climate change, however policymakers are turning to WTPs more and more in order to 'provide an economic justification for controlling domestic GHG emissions' and to highlight how important it is to communicate policy instrument choices i.e. “cap-and-trade” system and carbon tax (Kotchen et al., 2013).

Examples of WTP Survey Questions 2010-2011 (Kotchen et al., 2013)

In my opinion, this is an interesting way of engaging us, the public, with current climate-change debates and encouraging domestic contribution to GHG reduction. It also means that we are directly involved with enabling the success of GHG reduction policies and are not side-lined. For example, Kotchen et al (2013) state:

“American households have an average annual WTP of $79 for cap-and-trade, $85 for a carbon tax, and $89 for a GHG regulation, all of which are in support a 17-percent reduction in domestic emissions by 2020. These estimates contradict the frequently made argument that the costs of climate change policies are grossly disproportionate to the benefits.”

However, I have to raise the issue that surveys aren’t concrete nor legalised documents. People’s opinions are subject to change, in fact the answers they provide are largely determined by their mood at the time and what they feel they “should” write. Furthermore, the study highlights uncertainties driven by sociodemographic characteristics which hinder the effectiveness of WTP estimates and their practical application, with lack of belief in climate change, older, less-educated individuals and large, low-income households generating “don’t know” answers.

So, I argue that WTP surveys are unrealistic and unreliable representations of societal support for GHG reduction, and that to depend on the results they generate could be dangerous investment.

That said, I believe public inclusion and domestic contribution are crucial steps towards achieving climate change mitigation. After all, we’re all responsible for our own futures right?