Search

Flying home for Christmas? Carbon offsets are important, but they won’t fix plane pollution

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/susanne-becken-90437">Susanne Becken</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-mackey-152282">Brendan Mackey</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Australia is an important player in the global tourism business. In 2016, <a href="https://www.tra.gov.au/research/research">8.7 million visitors arrived in Australia and 8.8 million Australians went overseas</a>. A further 33.5 million overnight trips were made domestically. But all this travel comes at a cost. According to the <a href="http://tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/carbon-emissions/">Global Sustainable Tourism Dashboard</a>, all Australian domestic trips and one-way international journeys (the other half is attributed to the end point of travel) amount to 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide for 2016. That is 2.7% of global aviation emissions, despite a population of only 0.3% of the global total. The peak month of air travel in and out of Australia is December. Christmas is the time where people travel to see friends and family, or to go on holiday. More and more people are <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/analysis-of-a-119-country-survey-predicts-global-climate-change-awareness/">aware of the carbon implications of their travel</a> and want to know whether, for example, they should purchase carbon offsets or not. Our <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969699716302538">recent study in the Journal of Air Transport Management</a> showed that about one third of airlines globally offer some form of carbon offsetting to their customers. However, the research also concluded that the information provided to customers is often insufficient, dated and possibly misleading. Whilst local airlines <a href="https://www.qantasfutureplanet.com.au/#aboutus">Qantas</a>, <a href="https://www.virginaustralia.com/nz/en/about-us/sustainability/carbon-offset-program/">Virgin Australia</a> and <a href="https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/sustainability-customer-carbon-offset">Air New Zealand</a> have relatively advanced and well-articulated carbon offset programs, others fail to offer scientifically robust explanations and accredited mechanisms that ensure that the money spent on an offset generates some real climate benefits. The notion of carbon compensation is actually more difficult than people might think. To help explain why carbon offsetting does make an important climate contribution, but at the same time still adds to atmospheric carbon, we created an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh-erzGlR0">animated video clip</a>. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xsh-erzGlR0?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Jack’s journey.</figcaption></figure> The video features Jack, a concerned business traveller who begins purchasing carbon credits. However, he comes to the realisation that the carbon emissions from his flights are still released into the atmosphere, despite the credit. The concept of “carbon neutral” promoted by airline offsets means that an equal amount of emissions is avoided elsewhere, but it does not mean there is no carbon being emitted at all – just relatively less compared with the scenario of not offsetting (where someone else continues to emit, in addition to the flight). This means that, contrary to many promotional and educational materials (see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGB2OAg5ffA">here</a> for instance), carbon offsetting will not reduce overall carbon emissions. Trading emissions means that we are merely maintaining status quo. A steep reduction, however, is what’s required by every sector if we were to reach the net-zero emissions goal by 2050, agreed on in the <a href="http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php">Paris Agreement</a>. Carbon offsetting is already an important “<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261517714000910">polluter pays</a>” mechanism for travellers who wish to contribute to climate mitigation. But it is also about to be institutionalised at large scale through the new UN-run <a href="https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/market-based-measures.aspx">Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA)</a>. CORSIA will come into force in 2021, when participating airlines will have to purchase carbon credits for emissions above 2020 levels on certain routes. The availability of carbon credits and their integrity is of major concern, as well as how they align with national obligations and mechanisms agreed in the Paris Agreement. Of particular interest is <a href="http://www.carbon-mechanisms.de/en/introduction/the-paris-agreement-and-article-6/">Article 6</a>, which allows countries to cooperate in meeting their climate commitments, including by “trading” emissions reductions to count towards a national target. The recent COP23 in Bonn highlighted that CORSIA is widely seen as a potential source of billions of dollars for offset schemes, supporting important climate action. Air travel may provide an important intermediate source of funds, but ultimately the aviation sector, just like anyone else, will have to reduce their own emissions. This will mean major advances in technology – and most likely a contraction in the fast expanding global aviation market. <h2>Travelling right this Christmas</h2> In the meantime, and if you have booked your flights for Christmas travel, you can do the following: <ul> <li> pack light (every kilogram will cost additional fuel) </li> <li> minimise carbon emissions whilst on holiday (for instance by biking or walking once you’re there), and </li> <li> support a <a href="http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/consumer/Standards.html">credible offsetting program</a>. </li> </ul> And it’s worth thinking about what else you can do during the year to minimise emissions – this is your own “carbon budget”.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89148/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/susanne-becken-90437">Susanne Becken</a>, Professor of Sustainable Tourism and Director, Griffith Institute for Tourism, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-mackey-152282">Brendan Mackey</a>, Director of the Griffith Climate Change Response Program, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828">Griffith University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/flying-home-for-christmas-carbon-offsets-are-important-but-they-wont-fix-plane-pollution-89148">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

5 tips for getting off gas at home – for a cleaner, cheaper, healthier all-electric future

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/trivess-moore-12580">Trivess Moore</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-pears-52">Alan Pears</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicola-willand-441807">Nicola Willand</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Burning gas in our homes to cook food or heat air and water has become a contentious issue. Gas is an expensive, polluting fossil fuel, and there’s mounting evidence to suggest it’s also <a href="https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2022/december/health-risks-from-indoor-gas-appliances">bad for our health</a>. Five million existing Australian households will need to <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/getting-off-gas/">get off gas</a> within the next 30 years. But for homeowners, the upfront cost can be a major barrier to action. Renters rarely get a say over the appliances installed in their homes. And apartment owners can struggle to make individual changes too. In most cases it’s worth making the switch, for the energy bill savings alone. For example, analysis suggests a household in Melbourne switching from gas to electricity can save <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-electric-homes-are-better-for-your-hip-pocket-and-the-planet-heres-how-governments-can-help-us-get-off-gas-207409">up to A$13,900</a> over a decade. If you’re contemplating upgrading gas appliances in your home, or even disconnecting from the gas network altogether, here are a few handy tips and resources to cut through the confusion. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2JuZgXz6zNo?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Homes must switch away from gas by 2050, says policy think tank (ABC News)</figcaption></figure> <h2>Tip 1 – Find trusted, independent information</h2> There is no shortage of information on how to make the switch from gas to all-electric appliances. The challenge is finding <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-need-a-lemon-law-to-make-all-the-homes-we-buy-and-rent-more-energy-efficient-204369">trusted and independent information</a>. Not-for-profit organisation <a href="https://renew.org.au/">Renew</a> has compiled a range of <a href="https://renew.org.au/resources/how-we-can-help/efficient-electric-homes/how-we-can-help-going-off-gas/">presentations, guides, case studies and research</a>. <a href="https://www.choice.com.au/">Choice</a> provides independent reviews of household appliances, including operating costs. The Australian government’s <a href="https://www.energyrating.gov.au/">Energy Rating website</a> provides information on appliances to help consumers compare performance. Some <a href="https://www.yarracity.vic.gov.au/services/take-climate-action">local councils</a> and <a href="https://totallyrenewableyack.org.au/">community groups</a> also provide information, support and bulk-buying schemes. You could also visit some of the all-electric homes open to the public for <a href="https://sustainablehouseday.com/">Sustainable House Day</a>. This can help you learn what works from people who have already made the change. The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/MyEfficientElectricHome">My Efficient Electric Home</a> group on Facebook is another active and helpful forum. If you are going all-electric as part of a wider retrofit, consider an independent <a href="https://www.homescorecard.gov.au/">Residential Efficiency Scorecard assessment</a>. This will help you understand what to else you can do to maximise <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-other-99-retrofitting-is-the-key-to-putting-more-australians-into-eco-homes-91231">thermal comfort, environmental benefits and financial outcomes</a>. <h2>Tip 2 – Plan your approach</h2> Once you understand what to do, the next step is planning how to go about it. Think about what is most important to your household. What is driving the change? If it’s your health, you might like to start by eliminating indoor air pollution from the gas stove. Or if you want to save money, start using reverse-cycle air conditioning to heat your home, rather than gas. There are three main ways to go all-electric: <ul> <li> Replace all your gas appliances at once. Making the change quickly minimises disruption to your home. You may save money on installation costs by doing everything in one go. You will avoid ongoing fixed gas supply charges once you disconnect from the gas network, but you may be required to pay an “<a href="https://energy.act.gov.au/switching-off-your-gas-connection/">abolishment fee</a>” for permanent disconnection. That fee can vary significantly, depending on your location and gas provider. Costs <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/environment/sustainability/would-you-pay-1000-to-get-off-gas-consumer-dismay-over-disconnection-cost-20230223-p5cmw9.html">could be up to $1000 (or more)</a> but some states like Victoria have capped the price a <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/fossil-gas-death-spiral-regulator-sets-exit-fee-to-socialise-cost-of-mass-disconnection/">household can be charged at $220</a>. Renters wouldn’t be able to permanently disconnect without permission from the landlord, so they would still be open to paying the daily connection fee even if they found alternative electric options for everything else. </li> <li> Replace your gas appliances one at a time, as finances allow. However, there will come a point where <a href="http://www.ata.org.au/wp-content/projects/CAP_Gas_Research_Final_Report_251114_v2.0.pdf">financially you will be better off</a> replacing all the remaining gas appliances. This is largely because it will not be affordable to keep paying the daily connection cost for gas if you just have one gas appliance remaining. </li> <li> Just stop using gas appliances in favour of existing electric appliances that do the same job, such as a <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-traps-laid-by-the-fossil-gas-industry-for-uninformed-households/">reverse cycle air conditioner for space heating</a>. You may have – or can buy – plug-in electric alternatives, such as a microwave ovens, portable induction cooktops, air fryers and heaters. These can be a good option for renters when landlords won’t make changes. </li> </ul> You could even borrow portable appliances to see how they work before committing to buying your own. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tLjWZicC4mE?wmode=transparent&start=2" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Households share their electrification journey (Renew)</figcaption></figure> <h2>Tip 3 – Access available rebates and resources</h2> Most states offer various rebates for households to reduce the upfront cost of replacing gas appliances. These could reduce costs by thousands of dollars. Some rebates also target rental housing. Here is a list of key rebates available in different states: <ul> <li><a href="https://www.epw.qld.gov.au/about/initiatives/household-energy-savings-program">Queensland</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/households/rebates-grants-and-schemes">New South Wales</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.climatechoices.act.gov.au/policy-programs/home-energy-support-rebates-for-homeowners">ACT</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/for-households/victorian-energy-upgrades-for-households">Victoria</a></li> <li><a href="https://recfit.tas.gov.au/household_energy/energy_saver_loan_scheme">Tasmania</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/energy-and-environment/using-saving-energy/retailer-energy-productivity-scheme">South Australia</a></li> </ul> Some not-for-profit organisations (such as the <a href="https://www.bsl.org.au/services/energy-assistance/">Brotherhood of St Laurence</a>) offer financial and other support for lower-income households struggling to pay their energy bills. <h2>Tip 4 – Wait for a sale or negotiate a better deal</h2> It might sound simple but you can always save money by waiting until these electric appliances are on sale. If you are buying multiple appliances you can try to negotiate a better price. Factory seconds outlets offer lower prices as well. <h2>Tip 5 – Know the issues</h2> While the shift to all-electric will likely provide many benefits there are some things you need to consider: <ul> <li>The carbon emissions from electricity are falling fast, and many homes have rooftop solar. Combining <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/getting-off-gas/">all-electric with solar panels</a> will maximise returns.</li> <li>You may have to adjust to how new technologies operate and perform. For example, you may need <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/goodfood/tips-and-advice/do-you-really-have-to-buy-new-cookware-all-your-burning-questions-about-induction-cooking-answered-20230810-p5dvd0.html">new, metallic cookware for an induction cooktop</a> and become familiar with their fast response. Additionally, some people find heat from reverse cycle air conditioners to be drier and/or draughtier than gas heating. Floor-mounted units heat more effectively.</li> <li>It is not just the energy performance of appliances that matters. For example, noise from heat pump hot water services can vary across different brands. They can also require more space for installation.</li> <li>Undertaking a wider energy retrofit (for example, increasing insulation in walls, ceiling and underfloor, upgrading windows to double glazing) may mean you can buy a smaller, cheaper reverse cycle air conditioner when replacing gas heating.</li> <li>Electric appliances also need maintenance to make sure they perform optimally. For example, reverse cycle air conditioners have filters that must be regularly cleaned. While this can be done by households, it can be hard for people with mobility issues.</li> <li>Depending on the capacity of your electricity switchboard or wiring, extra electric appliances may require upgrades.</li> <li>For renters, while you could use portable appliances, you may not be able to disconnect from gas completely, meaning you would still have to pay a daily connection fee.</li> <li>Gas and electricity prices can change over time, for many reasons. For example, if fixed gas distribution costs are spread over fewer customers.</li> </ul> <h2>A worthwhile investment</h2> Australian states and territories have started banning gas in new builds. Victoria and the ACT will soon require <a href="https://theconversation.com/cooking-and-heating-without-gas-what-are-the-impacts-of-shifting-to-all-electric-homes-210649">new housing and major renovations to be all-electric</a>. Others are likely to follow. For people in existing housing around Australia, it can be daunting to make the switch. Many of us have grown up with gas in our homes and when one appliance breaks, the easiest thing to do is replace like-for-like. But the weight of evidence shows it’s worth taking the time to look at the alteratives and invest in upgrading to all-electric appliances. The benefits far outweigh the costs. <img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211261/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/trivess-moore-12580">Trivess Moore</a>, Senior Lecturer, School of Property, Construction and Project Management, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-pears-52">Alan Pears</a>, Senior Industry Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicola-willand-441807">Nicola Willand</a>, Senior Lecturer, School of Property, Construction and Project Management, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/5-tips-for-getting-off-gas-at-home-for-a-cleaner-cheaper-healthier-all-electric-future-211261">original article</a>.

Home & Garden

Cooking (and heating) without gas: what are the impacts of shifting to all-electric homes?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/trivess-moore-12580">Trivess Moore</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-pears-52">Alan Pears</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joe-hurley-157161">Joe Hurley</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Gas connections for all new housing and sub-divisions will be <a href="https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-victorian-homes-go-all-electric-2024">banned in Victoria</a> from January 1 next year. The long-term result of the state government’s significant change to planning approvals will be all-electric housing. The ACT made <a href="https://www.climatechoices.act.gov.au/policy-programs/preventing-new-gas-network-connections">similar changes</a> early this year, in line with a shift away from gas across <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47559920">Europe</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/19/gas-stove-culture-war-united-states">other locations</a>, although the NSW Premier Chris Minns has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/31/nsw-wont-ban-gas-in-new-homes-as-premier-declares-i-dont-need-another-complication">baulked</a> at doing the same. Around <a href="https://www.energy.vic.gov.au/renewable-energy/victorias-gas-substitution-roadmap">80% of homes</a> in Victoria are connected to gas. This high uptake was driven by gas being seen as more affordable and sustainable than electricity over past decades. The situation has <a href="https://www.iea.org/events/net-zero-by-2050-a-roadmap-for-the-global-energy-system">changed dramatically</a> as renewable electricity generation increases and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-27/aemo-wholesale-electricity-prices-fall-impact-power-bills/102654498">costs fall</a>. <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-electric-homes-are-better-for-your-hip-pocket-and-the-planet-heres-how-governments-can-help-us-get-off-gas-207409">Research</a> has suggested for more than a decade that the benefits of all-electric homes <a href="https://bze.org.au/research_release/energy-efficient-buildings-plan/">stack up in many locations</a>. New homes built under mandatory building energy performance standards (increasing from <a href="https://thefifthestate.com.au/innovation/building-construction/victoria-kicks-the-can-down-the-road-again-on-the-national-construction-code/">6 to 7 stars</a> in Victoria in May 2024) need smaller, cheaper heating and cooling systems. Installing reverse-cycle air conditioning for cooling provides a cost-effective heater as a bonus. Savings from not requiring gas pipes, appliances and gas supply infrastructure help to offset the costs of highly efficient electric appliances. Mandating fully electric homes means economies of scale will further reduce costs. <h2>How does this ban help?</h2> To achieve environmentally sustainable development, reforms of planning policy and regulation <a href="https://theconversation.com/sustainable-cities-australias-building-and-planning-rules-stand-in-the-way-of-getting-there-84263">are essential</a> to convert innovation and best practice to mainstream practice. Planning policy is particularly important for apartment buildings and other housing that may be rented or have an owners’ corporation. Retrofits to improve energy efficiency can be difficult in these situations. Banning gas in new and renovated housing will <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/getting-off-gas/">cut greenhouse gas emissions</a>. It’s also <a href="https://theconversation.com/gas-cooking-is-associated-with-worsening-asthma-in-kids-but-proper-ventilation-helps-151591">healthier for households</a> and <a href="https://www.sustainability.vic.gov.au/research-data-and-insights/research/research-reports/the-victorian-healthy-homes-program-research-findings">reduces healthcare costs</a> as well as <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/getting-off-gas/">energy bills and infrastructure costs</a>. The Victorian government suggests the change will save all-electric households <a href="https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-victorian-homes-go-all-electric-2024">about $1,000 a year</a>. Houses with solar will be even better off. The government appears to be offering wide support to ensure these changes happen, but this will need to be monitored closely. Some households will face extra costs for electric appliances and solar panels. The government’s announcement of <a href="https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/new-victorian-homes-go-all-electric-2024">$10 million</a> for Residential Electrification Grants should help with some of these costs while the industry adjusts. There will be impacts and benefits for the local economy. Some jobs may be lost, particularly in the gas appliance and plumbing industry. The government has announced financial support to retrain people and they will still have essential roles in the existing housing sector. Many gas appliances are imported, including ovens, cooktops and instantaneous gas water heaters. Some components of efficient electric products, such as hot water storage tanks, are made locally. Local activities, including distribution, sales, design, installation and maintenance, comprise much of the overall cost. <h2>Challenges of change must be managed</h2> Sustainability benefits will depend on what <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/getting-off-gas/">happens with the energy network</a>. We need more renewable energy, energy storage and smarter management of electricity demand. The shift to all-electric homes may mean winter peak demand for heating increases. Energy market operators and governments will have to monitor demand changes carefully to avoid the reliability issues we already see in summer. However, improving energy efficiency, energy storage and demand management will help reduce this load (and household costs). While the benefits are clear for new homes, the changes may <a href="https://www.bsl.org.au/research/publications/enabling-electrification/">increase gas costs and energy poverty</a> for residents of existing housing who don’t shift to efficient electric solutions. The government has reconfirmed financial rebates to help households switch from gas. In addition, existing housing may face building quality and performance issues. Some may require electrical wiring upgrades as part of the transition. Social acceptance of some electric appliances may also be an issue. For example, <a href="https://www.rmit.edu.au/about/schools-colleges/property-construction-and-project-management/research/research-centres-and-groups/sustainable-building-innovation-laboratory/projects/heet-housing-energy-efficiency-transitions">our research</a> has found some households dislike the way heating from reverse cycle air conditioners feels. Others do not like cooking on induction cooktops. Consumer education and modifications to appliances and buildings may be needed to increase acceptance and avoid backlash. Some electric appliances are available overseas but not in Australia. Higher demand may increase the range of imports. For example, floor-mounted heat pumps can make heating feel similar to gas heating while still providing effective cooling. We should not assume electric appliances are all equal. To improve consumer protection, action is needed on weak standards and limited and inconsistent public information. For example, information on noise levels and efficiency under a range of weather conditions must be standardised. Moving housing away from gas is an <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-99-2760-9">important step</a> in the transition to a zero-carbon economy and energy system. Careful management is needed to ensure this transition is effective, accepted and fair. Continued planning reforms are also essential to ensure environmentally sustainable development of housing and communities. Other urgent priorities include urban cooling and greening, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/turning-the-housing-crisis-around-how-a-circular-economy-can-give-us-affordable-sustainable-homes-208745">circular economy approaches</a> to reduce the material and waste impacts of housing and thus the carbon that goes into building and running homes.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210649/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/trivess-moore-12580">Trivess Moore</a>, Senior Lecturer, School of Property, Construction and Project Management, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-pears-52">Alan Pears</a>, Senior Industry Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joe-hurley-157161">Joe Hurley</a>, Associate Professor, Sustainability and Urban Planning, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cooking-and-heating-without-gas-what-are-the-impacts-of-shifting-to-all-electric-homes-210649">original article</a>.

Home & Garden

Southampton to Shanghai by train – one climate change researcher’s quest to avoid flying

Academics travel a lot. Whether for fieldwork or conferences, we’re often <a href="https://theconversation.com/university-sector-must-tackle-air-travel-emissions-118929">encouraged</a> to do it. Often internationally, invariably by aeroplane. But while globetrotting might make us feel important, a recent <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619311862">study</a> suggests there’s no connection between academic air-miles and career advancement. With the obvious realities of the climate crisis, and with air travel being the <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-wake-up-to-the-devastating-impact-flying-has-on-the-environment-70953">single quickest</a> way an average person can contribute to climate change, some academics are trying to stay on the ground whenever possible. Within a broader <a href="https://www.flightfree.co.uk/">campaign</a> to encourage people to go “flight-free”, there’s a community of <a href="https://academicflyingblog.wordpress.com/">academics</a> challenging the reliance on flying that’s typically sat uneasily at the heart of their careers. I’m a member of that community. I pledged not to fly in 2019 and 2020, and then won a fellowship to study Chinese attitudes to sustainability which required me to go to China for fieldwork. Suddenly, the consequences of my pledge became very real. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285327/original/file-20190723-110154-1grcjbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Not only do planes release a lot of CO₂ during flight, the white ‘contrails’ they leave behind warm the atmosphere further. <a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/passenger-airplanes-on-air-busy-traffic-1089042554?src=lgi_phsJCpzeLwXItWfMbw-1-17&studio=1">FotoHelin/Shutterstock</a></figcaption></figure> Life on the rails When I told my managers that I intended to get to China by train, I was met with a mixture of responses. Some thought I was mad, some admired my principles, some thought I was an awkward bugger. Maybe they were all right. In any case, what I was doing had certainly created more work for myself. I began trying to convince senior staff to release funds from my research budget to arrange visas, and thinking through the nitty-gritty of a trip across Europe, Russia and a big chunk of China itself. The cost of the trains was over £2,000, dwarfing the £700 I could pay for a London to Beijing return flight. Time-wise, the train trip took just under two weeks each way. But in terms of carbon emissions my trip was a steal, contributing <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2019">just 10%</a> of the emissions of the equivalent flights. The cost, complexity and discomfort of such a long solo trip did occasionally make me wonder if it wouldn’t just be easier to fly (answer: it would). But I was determined to honour my pledge and show other academics – by my own extreme example – that it is possible to do international work without flights. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285316/original/file-20190723-110175-szuvp8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>The author meets a train guard in Siberia. Roger Tyers, Author provided</figcaption></figure> Considering it involved 21 train connections, my journey went surprisingly smoothly. I took a series of “short” trips from Southampton, changing in London, Brussels, Cologne, Berlin and then onto my first sleeper train from Warsaw to Kiev (avoiding Belarus which would have required another visa). My first experience on the Kiev-bound, Soviet-style sleeper train was something of a shock. Unsure of the etiquette when sharing a tiny cabin with two or three others with limited English, I soon learned that body language, Google translate and sharing food breaks the ice. Luckily, my no-flying trip was a recurring source of conversation, fascination and bafflement for many of my fellow travellers. After one night in Kiev, I took another overnight train to Moscow. Russia was something of a test – on my return journey I travelled 2,600 miles between Irkutsk and Moscow, spending 90 hours on a single train. Had this not been a work trip, I would have gladly stopped more often. Making friends with fellow passengers – mainly Russians on work trips or family visits, or European and Chinese tourists doing the bucket list Trans-Siberian route – certainly helped pass the time. The Siberian scenery – millions of trees on a seemingly endless loop – became somewhat repetitive, but the monotony afforded me time to read, write, plan and contemplate. The most spectacular journey was the Trans-Mongolian section, passing the edge of Lake Baikal, the world’s largest lake rimmed with snow-capped mountains, over the green steppes of northern Mongolia, across the Gobi desert, and finally through the mountainous valleys encircling Beijing. It’s hard not to be awed and inspired that these train lines exist in such remote parts of our planet. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1003%2C1003&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1003%2C1003&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285302/original/file-20190723-110154-qqgn2n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /></a><figcaption>The track stretches for miles across the Mongolian plains. Roger Tyers, Author provided</figcaption></figure> Calling at Beijing China now has more high-speed railways than the rest of the world combined, and they do it in style. Beijing to Shanghai, a trip covering 1,300km, takes less than four and a half hours, with a solid internet connection throughout and the most legroom I enjoyed on any of my trips. The downer is that China’s electrified trains will, <a href="https://theconversation.com/china-wrestles-with-insecure-gas-supplies-but-stays-strong-on-longer-term-plan-for-renewables-117445">like most of their electricity</a>, be powered by coal. But on the upside, these trains are likely to take passengers off domestic flights – a lesson for Europe and the US. I enjoyed using them to visit my other field sites in Hangzhou and Ningbo before finally retracing my steps back, over 6,000 miles to the UK, clutching a load of new data, a heap of memories, and a sore back. The focus group data I collected in China, with members of their urban middle classes, has enforced my view that both ‘bottom-up’ social and cultural pressure, as well as “top-down” infrastructure and fiscal policy will be required in any country facing up the complex challenges of climate change. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/285360/original/file-20190723-110162-1jhj505.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>The author at the end of his outward journey in Tiananmen Square. Roger Tyers, Author provided</figcaption></figure> I admit that my story is somewhat privileged – not everyone can take the train to China for work, and I doubt I’ll make a habit of it. Much depends on geography too. The UK is relatively well connected by surface transport options like rail, but many still fly - the UK has the <a href="https://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2018-10-24-02.aspx">third largest</a> air passenger market, behind only the US and China. The bigger policy goal is to make train tickets less expensive relative to flights. In the meantime, academics can play a leadership role, both individually and <a href="https://theconversation.com/researchers-set-an-example-fly-less-111046">institutionally</a>. Universities could consider publishing records of staff flights, building low-carbon travel modes into grant proposals by default, and making videoconferencing facilities fantastic. Recent <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619311862">research</a> has shown, unsurprisingly, that climate researchers are taken more seriously if they practise what they preach. If we can lead by example in reducing our own flying carbon footprints while still conducting great research, then others – students, policymakers and other professionals – are far more likely to take notice. Writen by Roger Tyers. Republished with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/southampton-to-shanghai-by-train-one-climate-change-researchers-quest-to-avoid-flying-120015" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Getty Images

International Travel

Cheaper gas and electricity are within our grasp

Virtually every country in the world is facing a crisis in energy costs, yet while other countries can’t do much about it, Australia can. Australia could get its east coast gas producers to supply the domestic gas market for less than A$10 a gigajoule. Earlier this year, prices were more than $40 a gigajoule, and now sit at $25-30 a gigajoule. Tuesday’s budget factored in retail electricity price rises of <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492030/original/file-20221027-18797-tg4woh.JPG">more than 50%</a> over two years. The increases in retail gas prices exceeded 40%. Outlining the budget on Tuesday, Treasurer Jim Chalmers said any responsible government facing these kinds of price hikes needed to “consider a <a href="https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/transcripts/joint-press-conference-main-committee-room-parliament-house">broader suite of regulatory interventions</a>” than in the past. Chalmers had “more work to do” and would work with the states. Here is the key step I think should be taken. To restrain electricity prices, cut gas prices The quickest way to get electricity prices down is to significantly lower the cost of gas. Gas generators come online after cheaper forms of generation have already been pressed into service, and so help set the final price charged. Getting gas prices below $10 a gigajoule would also help households that are facing crippling gas bills, as well as industries that rely on sensibly priced energy for their existence including Australia’s glass, paper and fertiliser industries. Once those industries close, they are unlikely to return. Here’s what’s been done so far. The Turnbull, Morrison and recently the Albanese governments have each reached agreements with the three liquid natural gas producers operating out of Gladstone in Queensland that together control around 90% of east coast reserves. ‘Sufficient supply’ isn’t affordable supply The agreements require the supply of sufficient gas to meet the needs of east coast gas consumers. For a while they worked to reduce then-high domestic prices to sensible levels, because international prices were low. But now international prices have climbed to multiples of usual levels, agreements to supply without specific reference to prices are no longer enough. An agreement to supply “sufficient” quantities of gas at $25-40 per gigajoule is an agreement to not supply much. After industries close, supply will be “sufficient” for the remaining users who can afford it, but it won’t be what we want. We need to get the east coast liquefied natural gas (LNG) producers to supply sufficient gas to the east coast at prices below $10 a gigajoule. They would continue to make a profit at those prices, albeit much less than otherwise. As it happens, the Commonwealth has the power to get such commitments, because it has the power to stop exports. That power gives it complete leverage. We need to be clear on two points. First, there is no suggestion here that the LNG producers’ long-term contracts are at risk. Asian buyers need not be concerned. All three LNG projects were underwritten by long-term contracts at fixed prices. What we are talking about is the gas the three producers have available beyond their need to service these long contracts. This gas can either be exported to the spot, or short-term, market at very high prices or sold domestically. They should be told they can only export gas to the currently lucrative international spot market if they sell sufficient gas domestically to get prices clearly below $10 a gigajoule. Other exporters reserve gas Second, what I am suggesting is akin to what all other gas exporting countries do. Australia has by far the highest domestic gas prices of any gas exporting country. No other country would tolerate its gas being exported while its domestic market is paying the same high prices as international customers. The gas companies need to come to the party, either to earn their “licence to operate” or to avoid the threat of export controls. If they know the threat of export controls is real, I believe they will do what’s necessary without the need to actually control exports. A final point: there can be no argument about “<a href="https://sersolutions.com.au/what-is-sovereign-risk-and-how-does-it-affect-australia/">sovereign risk</a>”, the idea that foreign companies will no longer do business with Australia if it changes the rules. The long-term gas exporting contracts would remain intact. Australia would simply be aligning itself with all other gas exporting nations – and, by the way, with <a href="https://www.wa.gov.au/government/publications/wa-domestic-gas-policy">Western Australia</a>, which has long looked after its residents and businesses by reserving gas to ensure reasonable domestic prices.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193388/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Writen by Rod Sims. Republished with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/cheaper-gas-and-electricity-are-within-our-grasp-heres-what-to-do-193388" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Building and construction emissions and energy use reaches record levels

Despite improvements in energy efficiency, greenhouse pollution levels from the building and construction sector reached an all-time high in 2021. A new report on the building and construction sector by the United Nations Environment Programme released for COP27 found energy demand in buildings – for heating, cooling, lighting and equipment – increased by 4% from 2020 levels. As a result, the sector’s emissions increased 5% compared to 2020. While the increase partly reflects a re-bound in building and construction activities after the pandemic, energy and emissions levels were also above 2019 levels. This is significant because the sector accounts for around a third of total energy demand, the report says. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres told the opening forum of COP27 that the future of the planet is in our hands. “…and the clock is ticking. We are in the fight of our lives. And we are losing. Greenhouse gas emissions keep growing. Global temperatures keep rising. And our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible. “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator. “ With the release of the report, UNEP executive director, Inger Andersen added: “If we do not rapidly cut emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, we will be in deeper trouble.” The UNEP report argues investments in energy efficiency must be sustained in the face of growing crises – such as the war in Ukraine and rising energy and living costs – to help with reducing energy demand, avoiding greenhouse gas pollution and reducing energy cost volatility. “The solution may lie in governments directing relief towards low and zero-carbon building investment activities through financial and non-financial incentives,” Andersen says. Also critical to reducing the sector’s emissions are including buildings in climate pledges under the Paris Agreement – known as Nationally Determined Contributions – and mandatory building energy codes. The report’s recommendations include: building coalitions of stakeholders in support of sustainable buildings, governments introducing mandatory building energy codes and government policies, increasing investment in energy efficiency and commitments from industry. <img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=222598&title=Building+and+construction+emissions+and+energy+use+reaches+record+levels" width="1" height="1" /> <div id="contributors"> <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/building-emissions-reach-record-levels/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This article</a> was originally published on Cosmos Magazine and was written by Petra Stock. Image: Getty Images </div>

Real Estate

Warming oceans may force New Zealand’s sperm and blue whales to shift to cooler southern waters

The world’s oceans are absorbing more than <a href="https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/ocean-impacts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">90% of the excess heat and energy</a> generated by rising greenhouse gas emissions. But, as the oceans keep warming, rising sea temperatures generate unprecedented cascading effects that include the melting of polar ice, rising seas, marine heatwaves and ocean acidification. This in turn has profound impacts on marine biodiversity and the lives and livelihoods of coastal communities, especially in island nations such as New Zealand. In our latest <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X22007075?via%3Dihub" target="_blank" rel="noopener">research</a>, we focused on great whales – sperm and blue whales in particular. They are crucial for maintaining healthy marine ecosystems, but have limited options to respond to climate change: either adapt, die, or move to stay within optimal habitats. We used mathematical models to predict how they are likely to respond to warming seas by the end of the century. Our results show a clear southward shift for both species, mostly driven by rising temperatures at the sea surface. <h2>Computing the fate of whales</h2> Data on the local abundance of both whales species are <a href="https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v690/p201-217/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">deficient</a>, but modelling provides a powerful tool to predict how their range is likely to shift. We used a <a href="http://macroecointern.dk/pdf-reprints/AraujoNew2007.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">combination of mathematical models</a> (known as correlative species distribution models) to predict the future range shifts of these whale species as a response to three future climate change scenarios of differing severity, as outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">IPCC</a>). We applied these models, using the whales’ present distributions, to build a set of environmental “rules” that dictate where each species can live. Using climate-dependent data such as sea-surface temperature and chlorophyll A (a measure of phytoplankton growth), as well as static data such as water depth and distance to shore, we applied these rules to forecast future habitat suitability. We chose a scenario of “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">modest</a>” response to cutting greenhouse gas emissions (the IPCC’s mitigation strategy RCP4.5), which is the most likely given the current policies, and a worst-case scenario (no policy to cut emissions, RCP8.5), assuming the reality will likely be somewhere between the two. Our projections suggest current habitats in the ocean around the North Island may become unsuitable if sea-surface temperatures continue to rise. These range shifts become even stronger with increasing severity of climate change. For sperm whales, which are currently abundant off Kaikōura where they support eco-tourism businesses, the predicted distribution changes are even more evident than for blue whales, depending on the climate change scenario. While our results do not predict an overall reduction in suitable habitat that would lead to local extinctions, the latitudinal range shifts are nevertheless bound to have important ecological consequences for New Zealand’s marine ecosystems and the people who depend on them. <h2>How whales maintain ecosystems</h2> Great whales are marine ecosystem engineers. They modify their habitats (or create new ones), to suit their needs. In fact, these activities create conditions that other species rely on to survive. They engineer their environment on several fronts. By feeding in one place and releasing their faeces in another, whales convey minerals and other nutrients such as nitrogen and iron from the deep water to the surface, as well as across regions. This process, known as a “<a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013255" target="_blank" rel="noopener">whale pump</a>”, makes these nutrients available for phytoplankton and other organisms to grow. This is very important because phytoplankton contributes about <a href="https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/plankton-revealed" target="_blank" rel="noopener">half of all oxygen to the atmosphere</a> and also captures <a href="https://www.imf.org/Publications/fandd/issues/2019/12/natures-solution-to-climate-change-chami" target="_blank" rel="noopener">about 40% of all released carbon dioxide</a>. By helping the growth of phytoplankton, whales indirectly contribute to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/tiny-plankton-drive-processes-in-the-ocean-that-capture-twice-as-much-carbon-as-scientists-thought-136599" target="_blank" rel="noopener">natural ocean carbon sink</a>. On top of this, each great whale accumulates about <a href="https://www.arcticwwf.org/the-circle/stories/protecting-the-earth-by-protecting-whales/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">33 tonnes of carbon dioxide in their body</a>, which they take to the ocean floor when they die and their carcass sinks. <figure></figure> Ultimately, the impact of warming oceans on whale distribution is an additional stress factor on ecosystems already under pressure from wider threats, including acidification, pollution and over-exploitation. <h2>A way forward to help whales</h2> Sperm whales are the largest toothed whales (odontocetes) and deep-diving apex predators. They primarily feed on squid and fish that live near the bottom of the sea. Blue whales are baleen whales (mysticetes) and filter small organisms from the water. They feed at the surface on zooplankton, particularly dense krill schools along coastlines where cold water from the deep ocean rises toward the surface (so-called <a href="https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/upwelling.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">upwelling areas</a>). These differences in feeding habits lead to divergent responses to ocean warming. Blue whales show a more distinct southerly shift than sperm whales, particularly in the worst-case scenario, likely because they feed at the surface where ocean warming will be more exacerbated than in the deep sea. Both species have important foraging grounds off New Zealand which may be compromised in the future. Sperm whales are currently occurring regularly off Kaikōura, while blue whales forage in the South Taranaki Bight. Despite these ecological differences, our results show that some future suitable areas around the South Island and offshore islands are common to both species. These regions could be considered sanctuaries for both species to retreat to or expand their habitat in a warming world. This should warrant <a href="https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/Environmental-Report-Card-Marine-Areas-with-Legal-protection_0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">increased protection of these areas</a>. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/warming-oceans-may-force-new-zealands-sperm-and-blue-whales-to-shift-to-cooler-southern-waters-188522" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

Supervolcanoes: deadly for life, deadly for climate

A collaboration of Australian and Swedish scientists has found that current carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rates are 200 times that of even the most catastrophic ancient supervolcano event. Known as the ‘Great Dying’, that event about 252 million years ago wiped out at least 90% of the species on Earth, and 96% of marine animals. But not all supervolcanic events are linked to mass extinctions. Recent research led by Dr Qiang Jiang, then at Curtin University’s School of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Australia, indicates that some past supervolcanic events involved a slower rate of release of CO2 or less CO2 overall, or both, and that this was unrelated to the size of the eruption. To investigate these ideas, Jiang and team looked at the two largest supervolcanic regions of the past 540 million years – approximately the time at which complex life forms emerged on Earth. The largest, the Ontang Java province, is now split into three pieces around New Zealand and the Solomon Islands, explains Dr Hugo Olierook, study co-author and Research Fellow of Geology at Curtin, with most of it underwater or inaccessible. So the team turned its attention to the second-largest volcanic province, known as the Kerguelen large volcanic province – a body of solidified lava that’s three times the size of France in the southern Indian Ocean. The researchers dated samples collected from Kerguelen using Argon-Argon dating, which indicated an age of around 120 million years. “The new age data revealed that the Kerguelen eruptions were, in fact, active right across the global oceanic anoxic event 120 million years ago,” says Professor Fred Jourdan, Director of the Western Australian Argon Isotope Facility at Curtin. “But while they may have rapidly degraded the environment for marine organisms, it did not lead to a deadly mass extinction.” Armed with powerful microscopes and lasers, the team then looked deep inside the basalt samples for tiny (10-micron diameter) frozen magma blobs known as inclusions and measured the pockets of volatiles – molecules that become gasses easily (water, CO2 and hydrogen sulphide, for instance) – released from the magma blob as it solidified and shrank. When compared to similar gas studies of supervolcanoes associated with mass-extinction events, Jiang and team found that the Kerguelen province emitted at least five times less CO2 and at a rate 30 times slower than volcanic eruptions that wiped out entire life forms. Out of the big five extinction events since animals arose, four have been attributable to supervolcanoes, which deplete oceans of oxygen and cause global climate change on time scales too small for evolutionary adaption of many land and marine animals. Earth does have mechanisms through which carbon is drawn down into oceans, rocks and soils, explains Olierook. “Shells incorporate carbon into their structure, and oceans themselves draw down carbon into ocean beds, but this happens on the order of a few hundreds of thousands of years.” When the rates of CO2 emissions far outpace the drawdown cycle – such as during CO2-rich supervolcanic events, then the balance is upset. So, why are some supervolcanoes rich in CO2? There are a few likely reasons. When hot magma rises to the surface, it can interact with the rock layers it cuts through. In the case of CO2-rich supervolcanoes, Olierook says that the magma has intruded through “organic rich sedimentary basins, heating them up and turning to a sort of peat and coal, the kind of material that easily becomes CO2”. In the case of the two largest supervolcanoes, they “sat in the middle of the ocean. So, there was no really big amount of organic-rich material there,” he says. There is also the possibility that the rising magma itself is carbon-rich – something Olierook hopes to research further in the future. Finally, the research team compared the current rates of CO2 emission with those during the supervolcanic events that resulted in catastrophic mass extinctions. “Alarmingly our calculations also show that we are now currently emitting carbon dioxide 200 times faster than those supervolcanic eruptions that caused the most severe mass extinctions,” says Olierook. While this sounds like bad news all around, it also contains a faint glimmer of hope. “If we’re able to slow down our CO2 emissions now, we will actually see the effects of slowing it down now,” says Olierook. “We are certainly not at the point of having the highest ever CO2 in our atmosphere, yet – there was far more CO2 in the atmosphere, say 100 million years ago. “So, if we can focus on slowing the rate of CO2 emissions down, we could get to a level where our planet can cope with the emitted CO2.” This article originally appeared on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/supervolcanoes-deadly-life-and-climate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Clare Kenyon. Image: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

Travelling around the globe might not have to cost the Earth

The last time you booked a flight online, you may have been offered the chance to ‘offset’ the carbon produced by your travel. This is due in part to recognition that the aviation industry is responsible for around 5% of human-made emissions resulting in climate change. The efforts by this sector to respond to its environmental impact can range from switching fuels (from coal to biomass, for instance), more efficient combustion processes (by improving aircraft engines, for example), protecting forests or promoting sustainable development in local communities. Now, in a potentially ground-breaking innovation for long-haul flights, a team of researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürisch (ETH Zurich) have developed an all-in-one solar-powered tower that’s able to use energy from the Sun’s rays to convert water and carbon dioxide into synthetic fuels. Think: water + carbon dioxide = energy. Sound familiar? Well, it should. It’s what many plants do to make energy for themselves. The ETH Zurich process has a lot in common, really, explains Dr Jessica Allen, a chemical engineer and renewable energy technologies expert at the University of Newcastle. Although in this case, “industrial photosynthesis might be a better term as this particular process doesn’t involve any physiological mechanisms like plants and living material”, says Allen. The proof-of-concept solar tower consists of 169 Sun-tracking panels that reflect and concentrate sunlight into a tower-top solar reactor. Here, energy from the Sun’s rays meets a combination of water, carbon dioxide and a special structure made of ceria (cerium oxide), which is porous and “acts like a filter network, undergoing many reduction-oxidation (also known as redox) reactions”, says Allen. These reaction cycles produce syngas (synthesis gas), which is then converted to liquid fuels such as diesel and kerosene (which is used as jet fuel for long-haul flights) via a well-established process known as the Fischer-Tropsch reaction, which typically occurs in the presence of metal catalysts, temperatures of 150–300°C and pressures of several tens of atmospheres. Much work remains to translate the process to industrial scale. Currently, the energy efficiency of the process is only at 4%, meaning that out of 100 parts of energy available, only four parts are captured in the process. This is something the researchers are keen to push up towards around 15%. According to Allen, that’s still at the low end of the energy efficiency of current solar-to-electricity and solar-to-thermal energy generation. She says that efficiency is crucial when it comes to systems that use land area for solar collection (such as solar panels and the ETH Zurich tower’s reflectors): “A low efficiency will mean a large land area to generate the required fuel.” Where the CO2 comes from is also very important. At present, it’s injected into the system, but the next obvious step is to start capturing it directly from the air. At that point the fuel production process might be considered carbon neutral, as the amount of CO2 captured from the air is the same as the amount released during fuel combustion. Direct-from-air carbon dioxide capture comes at a cost, though. “There is a fairly major energy penalty for doing direct air capture, because it’s quite hard to filter out carbon dioxide from the rest of the gasses,” says Allen. Then there’s the carbon footprint related to the manufacture and production of equipment and materials, but Allen urges a long-term outlook: “In the system that we’re in at the moment there will be an emission penalty for the materials, however, in the long term, we’ll eventually be manufacturing these things using zero emission approaches.” This will make the whole process – and not just the fuel itself – carbon neutral. The average fuel consumption of a Boeing 747 (which are still used as long-haul cargo transport today) is around 4L per second. For a flight of 10 hours, this equates to 144,000L of fuel. In the future, EHT Zurich researchers will work to increase the system’s energy efficiency to 15%, capture more heat in the process and improve the ceria structures in the reactor in addition to capturing CO2 directly from the air. Their long-term aim is to scale the process to an industrial size – in which enough fuel can be produced to truly fly us into a carbon-neutral aviation future. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/carbon-neutral-travel-wont-cost-earth/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Clare Kenyon. Image: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

Here are the most effective things you can do to fight climate change

Limiting global warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels requires reaching <a href="https://theconversation.com/net-zero-carbon-neutral-carbon-negative-confused-by-all-the-carbon-jargon-then-read-this-151382">net zero</a> emissions by the middle of this century. This means that, in less than three decades, we need to reverse more than a century of rising emissions and bring annual emissions down to near zero, while balancing out all remaining <a href="https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/climate/how-can-companies-handle-so-called-residual-emissions">unavoidable emissions</a> by actively removing carbon from the atmosphere. To help speed this process as individuals, we’ve got to do everything we can to cut down our use of fossil fuels. But many people <a href="https://www.ipsos.com/en/ipsos-perils-perception-climate-change">aren’t aware</a> of the most effective ways to do this. Thankfully, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-key-points-in-the-ipcc-report-on-climate-change-impacts-and-adaptation-178195">latest report</a> by the UN climate change panel <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/">IPCC</a> devotes a chapter to all the ways in which changes in people’s behaviour can accelerate the transition to net zero. The chapter includes an analysis of 60 individual actions which can help fight climate change, building on <a href="https://environment.leeds.ac.uk/faculty/news/article/5471/global-study-uncovers-best-ways-to-change-consumption-to-cut-carbon-footprint">research</a> led by Diana Ivanova at the University of Leeds – and to which I contributed. We grouped these actions into three areas: avoiding consumption, shifting consumption and improving consumption (making it more efficient). <h2>What to avoid</h2> By far the most effective things to avoid involve transport. Living <a href="https://theconversation.com/car-ownership-is-likely-to-become-a-thing-of-the-past-and-so-could-public-transport-110550">without a car</a>reduces greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 2 tonnes of CO₂ emissions per person per year, while avoiding a single long distance return flight cuts emissions by an average of 1.9 tonnes. That’s equivalent to driving a <a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/co2-performance-of-new-passenger">typical EU car</a> more than 16,000km from <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Hamburg/Ulaanbaatar,+Mongolia/@50.3406451,40.6332697,4z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x47b161837e1813b9:0x4263df27bd63aa0!2m2!1d9.9936819!2d53.5510846!1m5!1m1!1s0x5d96925be2b18aab:0xe606927864a1847f!2m2!1d106.9057439!2d47.8863988!3e0">Hamburg, Germany to Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia</a> and back. Since the vast majority of the world’s population do not fly at all – and of those who do, only a <a href="https://www.businesstraveller.com/business-travel/2021/03/31/majority-of-flights-taken-by-a-small-percentage-of-flyers/">small percentage</a> fly frequently – fliers can make very substantial reductions to their carbon footprints with each flight they avoid. <h2>What to shift</h2> But living sustainably is not just about giving things up. Large reductions in emissions can be achieved by shifting to a different way of doing things. Because driving is so polluting, for example, shifting to <a href="https://theconversation.com/12-best-ways-to-get-cars-out-of-cities-ranked-by-new-research-180642">public transport</a>, walking or cycling can make an enormous change, with <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-transformed-a-london-borough-into-a-game-to-get-fewer-people-travelling-by-car-heres-what-happened-171035">added benefits</a> for your personal health and local air pollution levels. Likewise, because of the high emissions associated with <a href="https://theconversation.com/meat-eating-is-a-big-climate-issue-but-isnt-getting-the-attention-it-deserves-170855">meat and dairy</a> – particularly those produced by farming sheep and cows – shifting towards more sustainable diets can substantially reduce your carbon footprint. A <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/veganism-environmental-impact-planet-reduced-plant-based-diet-humans-study-a8378631.html">totally vegan diet</a> is the most effective way to do this, but sizeable savings can be made simply by <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-meat-on-your-plate-is-killing-the-planet-76128">switching</a> from beef and lamb to pork and chicken. <h2>What to improve</h2> Finally, the things we do already could be made more efficient by improving <a href="https://theconversation.com/oceans-and-their-largest-inhabitants-could-be-the-key-to-storing-our-carbon-emissions-180901">carbon</a> efficiency at home: for example by using insulation and <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-space-for-a-heat-pump-heres-how-your-whole-street-could-get-off-gas-heating-180005">heat pumps</a>, or producing your own renewable energy by installing <a href="https://theconversation.com/solar-panels-on-half-the-worlds-roofs-could-meet-its-entire-electricity-demand-new-research-169302">solar panels</a>. Switching from a combustion car to an electric one – ideally a battery EV, which generates <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2014/03/f9/thomas_fcev_vs_battery_evs.pdf">much larger reductions</a> in emissions than hybrid or fuel cell EVs – will make your car journeys more efficient. Plus, its effect on emissions will increase as time goes by and the amount of electricity generated by renewables grows. In the race to net zero, <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-breakdown-even-if-we-miss-the-1-5-c-target-we-must-still-fight-to-prevent-every-single-increment-of-warming-178581">every tonne of CO₂</a> really does count. If more of us take even a few of these suggestions into account, we’re collectively more likely to be able to achieve the ambitious goals set out in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-agreement-is-working-as-intended-but-weve-still-got-a-long-way-to-go-173478">Paris climate agreement</a>. Of course, these changes will need to be backed by major political action on sustainability at the same time. If we’re to use less fossil fuel energy, the use of fossil fuels needs to be either restricted or made more expensive. The social consequences of this need to be carefully managed so that <a href="https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/what-carbon-pricing">carbon pricing schemes</a> can benefit people on lower incomes: which can happen if <a href="https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/policy-briefs/taxreform.html">revenues are redistributed</a> to take the financial burden off poorer households. But there’s a whole lot more that governments could do to help people to live more sustainably, such as providing better, safer public transport and “<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-walking-to-cycling-how-we-get-around-a-city-is-a-gender-equality-issue-new-research-175014">active travel</a>” infrastructure (such as bike lanes and pedestrian zones) so that people have alternatives to driving and flying. There’s no avoiding the fact that if political solutions are to address climate change with the urgency our global situation requires, these solutions will limit the extent to which we can indulge in carbon-intensive behaviours. More than anything, we must vote into power those prepared to make such tough decisions for the sake of our planet’s future. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/here-are-the-most-effective-things-you-can-do-to-fight-climate-change-183555" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Travel Tips

Global emissions almost back to pre-pandemic levels after unprecedented drop in 2020, new analysis shows

Global carbon dioxide emissions have bounced back after COVID-19 restrictions and are likely to reach close to pre-pandemic levels this year, <a href="https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2021-386/">our analysis</a> released today has found. The troubling finding comes as world leaders meet at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow in a last-ditch bid to keep dangerous global warming at bay. The analysis was undertaken by the <a href="https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget">Global Carbon Project</a>, a consortium of scientists from around the world who produce, collect and analyse global greenhouse gas information. The fast recovery in CO₂ emissions, following last year’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-emissions-are-down-by-an-unprecedented-7-but-dont-start-celebrating-just-yet-151757">sharp drop</a>, should come as no surprise. The world’s strong economic rebound has created a surge in demand for energy, and the global energy system is still heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Most concerning is the long-term upward trends of CO₂ emissions from oil and gas, and this year’s growth in coal emissions, which together are far from trending towards net-zero by 2050. <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429724/original/file-20211102-28770-1s1j889.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="people seated around U-shaped table" /> The troubling findings come as world leaders meet at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow. Evan Vucci/AP <h2>The global emissions picture</h2> Global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels dropped by 5.4% in 2020, compared to the previous year. But they are set to increase by about 4.9% above 2020 levels this year, reaching 36.4 billion tonnes. This brings them almost back to 2019 levels. We can expect another 2.9 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions this year from the net effect of everything we do to the land, including deforestation, degradation and re-vegetation. This brings us to a total of 39.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ to be emitted by the end of this year. The fast growth in emissions matches the corresponding large increase in energy demand as the global economy opens up, with the help of <a href="https://www.f4b-initiative.net/post/majority-of-17-2-trillion-covid-stimulus-packages-doing-more-harm-than-good-to-environment">US$17.2 trillion</a> in economic stimulus packages around the world. CO₂ emissions from all fossil fuel types (coal, oil and natural gas) grew this year, with emissions from coal and natural gas set to grow more in 2021 than they fell in 2020. Emissions from global coal use were declining before the pandemic hit in early 2020 but they surged back this year. Emissions from global gas use have returned to the rising trend seen before the pandemic. CO₂ emissions from global oil use remain well below pre-pandemic levels but are expected to increase in coming years as road transport and aviation recover from COVID-related restrictions. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429469/original/file-20211031-17-1pa5f0i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429469/original/file-20211031-17-1pa5f0i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Global fossil CO₂ emissions. Source: Global Carbon Project, https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget <h2>Nations leading the emissions charge</h2> Emissions from China have recovered faster than other countries. It’s among the few countries where emissions grew in 2020 (by 1.4%) followed by a projected growth of 4% this year. Taking these two years together, CO₂ emissions from China in 2021 are projected to be 5.5% above 2019 levels, reaching 11.1 billion tonnes. China accounted for 31% of global emissions in 2020. Coal emissions in China are estimated to grow by 2.4% this year. If realised, it would match what was thought to be China’s peak coal emissions in 2013. India’s CO₂ emissions are projected to grow even faster than China’s this year at 12.6%, after a 7.3% fall last year. Emissions this year are set to be 4.4% above 2019 levels – reaching 2.7 billion tonnes. India accounted for 7% of global emissions in 2020. Emissions from both the US and European Union are projected to rise 7.6% this year. It would lead to emissions that are, respectively, 3.7% and 4.2% below 2019 levels. US and EU, respectively, accounted for 14% and 7% of global emissions in 2020. Emissions in the rest of the world (including all international transport, particularly aviation) are projected to rise 2.9% this year, but remain 4.2% below 2019 levels. Together, these countries represent 59% of global emissions. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429471/original/file-20211031-75805-1jh07jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429471/original/file-20211031-75805-1jh07jf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Regional fossil CO₂ emissions 2019-2021. Source: Global Carbon Project, https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget <h2>The remaining carbon budget</h2> The relatively large changes in annual emissions over the past two years have had no discernible effect in the speed at which CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere. CO₂ concentrations, and associated global warming, are driven by the accumulation of greenhouse gases – particularly CO₂ – since the beginning of the industrial era. This accumulation has accelerated in recent decades. To stop further global warming, global CO₂ emissions must stop or reach net-zero – the latter meaning that any remaining CO₂ emissions would have to be compensated for by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere. Carbon budgets are a useful way of measuring how much CO₂ can be emitted for a given level of global warming. In our latest analysis, we updated the carbon budget outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="https://templatelab.com/climate-change-report-2021/">IPCC</a>) in August this year. From the beginning of 2022, the world can emit an additional 420 billion tonnes of CO₂ to limit global warming to 1.5℃, or 11 years of emissions at this year’s rate. To limit global warming to 2℃, the world can emit an additional 1,270 billion tonnes of CO₂ – or 32 years of emissions at the current rate. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429886/original/file-20211103-19-fl69o8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429886/original/file-20211103-19-fl69o8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> The remaining carbon budgets to limit warming to 1.5℃ and 2℃. Updated from IPCC 2021. Source: Global Carbon Project, https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget These budgets are the compass to net-zero emissions. Consistent with the pledge by <a href="https://eciu.net/netzerotracker">many countries</a> to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, CO₂ emissions need to decline by 1.4 billion tonnes each year, on average. This is an amount comparable to the drop during 2020, of 1.9 billion tonnes. This fact highlights the extraordinary challenge ahead and the need to increase short- and long-term commitments to drive down global emissions.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170866/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/pep-canadell-16541">Pep Canadell</a>, Chief research scientist, Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere; and Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/csiro-1035">CSIRO</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/corinne-le-quere-315624">Corinne Le Quéré</a>, Royal Society Research Professor of Climate Change Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-east-anglia-1268">University of East Anglia</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/glen-peters-114835">Glen Peters</a>, Research Director, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/center-for-international-climate-and-environment-research-oslo-707">Center for International Climate and Environment Research - Oslo</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/pierre-friedlingstein-903247">Pierre Friedlingstein</a>, Chair, Mathematical Modelling of Climate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-exeter-1190">University of Exeter</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/robbie-andrew-422668">Robbie Andrew</a>, Senior Researcher, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/center-for-international-climate-and-environment-research-oslo-707">Center for International Climate and Environment Research - Oslo</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rob-jackson-213135">Rob Jackson</a>, Professor, Department of Earth System Science, and Chair of the Global Carbon Project, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/stanford-university-890">Stanford University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-emissions-almost-back-to-pre-pandemic-levels-after-unprecedented-drop-in-2020-new-analysis-shows-170866">original article</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Travel Trouble

Reducing air travel by small amounts each year could level off the climate impact

Just before the pandemic, aircraft engines were burning <a href="https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/pressroom/fact-sheets/industry-statistics/">one billion litres</a> of fuel a day. But then the number of daily civil aviation flights fell from <a href="https://www.iata.org/en/iata-repository/pressroom/fact-sheets/industry-statistics/">110,000</a> to less than 50,000 during 2020, on average. With the easing of travel restrictions, air traffic is increasing back towards its pre-pandemic peak. Most world leaders and delegates will have flown to Glasgow to attend COP26 – the 26th annual UN climate change summit – in person. But as they haggle over emissions targets to limit global warming to 1.5°C, and not <a href="https://theconversation.com/cop26-what-would-the-world-be-like-at-3-c-of-warming-and-how-would-it-be-different-from-1-5-c-171030">3°C or more</a>, aviation is unlikely to be included in them, given the lack of low-carbon alternatives to long-haul flights. But it should be. <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac286e">In new research</a>, my colleagues and I calculated that if the aviation sector continues to grow on its present trajectory, its jet fuel consumption will have added 0.1˚C to global warming by 2050 – half of it to date, the other half in the next three decades. Aviation is responsible for 4% of the 1.2°C rise in the global mean temperature we have already experienced since the industrial revolution. Without action to reduce flights, the sector will account for 17% of the remaining 0.3°C left in the 1.5°C temperature target, and 6% of the 0.8°C left to stay within 2°C. Airlines effectively add more to global warming <a href="http://globalcarbonatlas.org/en/CO2-emissions">than most countries.</a> <h2>Warming footprints</h2> At the current rate, the world will have warmed by 2°C <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM_final.pdf">within three decades</a>. To quantify how different activities contribute to warming, scientists measure carbon emissions. This is because how much the Earth warms is proportional to cumulative carbon emissions in the atmosphere. This is a very good approximation in many cases, but it is inaccurate for emissions caused by aeroplanes travelling at altitudes of up to 12 kilometres. As well as CO₂, aircraft engines emit nitrogen oxides, water vapour, sulphur and soot, causing <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04068-0">contrail cirrus clouds</a> and other complicated chemical reactions in the atmosphere. The sum of these so-called non-CO₂ effects adds more warming on top of the CO₂ emissions. So the total warming footprint of aviation is between two and three times higher than a conventional carbon footprint. <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430221/original/file-20211104-21-xa7pet.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="An aeroplane's trail viewed from between two tall buildings" /> Condensation trails produced by aircraft engines contribute to global warming. <a href="https://pixabay.com/photos/architecture-skyscraper-skyline-3984725/" class="source">MichaelGaida/Pixabay</a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" class="license">CC BY</a> While a large share of a flight’s CO₂ emissions remain in the atmosphere for many thousands of years, the non-CO₂ effects diminish over time, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2020.117834">vanishing within about ten years</a>. So any growth in aviation, measured in global jet fuel consumption, has an amplified impact as both CO₂ and non-CO₂ effects add up. But a decline in aviation can partly reverse some warming, as the non-CO₂ effects disappear over time until only the CO₂ effects remain. Think of the non-CO₂ effects like a bathtub – it fills up when the taps are turned further and further, despite a slow outflow down the plughole. But the same bathtub will eventually empty if the taps are gradually turned down. The non-CO₂ effects of flights on the atmosphere will slowly disappear if fewer and fewer flights are taken, so that aviation’s contribution to warming eventually levels off. In that situation, the increase from continued CO₂ emissions would balance the fall in non-CO₂ effects, and although aviation would still contribute to climate change, the total warming from both would remain constant over time. How much would aviation need to shrink to level off its influence on global warming? Our calculations show that flying does not need to stop immediately to prevent aviation’s contribution to global warming expanding. Flying has already caused 0.04°C of warming to date. But with a yearly decrease of 2.5% in jet fuel consumption, currently only achievable with cuts in air traffic, this warming will level off at a constant level over the coming decades. <h2>When do we really need to fly?</h2> COVID-19 had a huge impact on the aviation sector. Air traffic is still approximately 10-20% below pre-pandemic levels, but is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac286e">rebounding quickly</a>. Politicians should shift subsidies from flying to more sustainable modes of transport, such as train journeys. And there is much more that can be done. <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430217/original/file-20211104-25-1v0sxdb.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="An aeroplane parked at an airport" /> Forced changes in flying habits due to the pandemic have led some to permanently cut back on flights. <a href="https://pixabay.com/photos/airplane-aircraft-airport-travel-4885803/" class="source">Dmncwndrlch/Pixabay</a>, <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" class="license">CC BY</a> Lockdowns and the shift to remote working made many people rethink the necessity of flying. People resolving to fly less can contribute considerably to reducing the number of unnecessary flights. Combining in-person and virtual attendance in hybrid meetings wherever possible is a great way to support that shift. Reducing the space that business classes take on aeroplanes is another way to cut the number of flights, as it allows more passengers to travel on one flight. Not allowing airport expansions could also have a big impact. The UK’s Climate Change Committee, an expert body which advises the UK government, has recommended <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sector-summary-Aviation.pdf">not expanding airports</a> to align the sector with climate targets. Yet the expansion of Heathrow airport is currently <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51646562">planned to go ahead</a>. Sustainable aviation fuels, and hydrogen or electric planes, are being developed, but none of these technologies are currently available at the necessary scale. At the moment, there is little chance of the aviation industry meeting any climate targets if it aims for a return to its pre-pandemic rate of growth. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/milan-klower-879339">Milan Klöwer</a>, Postdoctoral Researcher in Weather and Climate Modelling, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-oxford-1260">University of Oxford</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/reducing-air-travel-by-small-amounts-each-year-could-level-off-the-climate-impact-171184">original article</a>. Image: Free-Photos/Pixabay

International Travel

Convenience, comfort, cost and carbon: what’s the best way to travel, save money and cut emissions?

As New Zealanders plan their summer holiday trips, it’s worth considering different travel options and their respective cost, both to the budget and the environment. I’ve <a href="https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Research/Transport_article_Conversation_3.pdf">compared several travel modes (with all assumptions made found here)</a> — a small diesel car, electric car, bus, train or plane — for a door-to-door 300km return journey. The process has identified limitations for each mode, which may help policymakers better understand the challenges involved in developing a low-carbon transport system. New Zealand’s annual transport emissions have <a href="https://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Climate%20Change/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-inventory-1990-2018-vol-1.pdf">nearly doubled</a> since 1990 and account for more than a fifth of total greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions from cars, utes and vans have continued to increase even though the <a href="https://www.motu.nz/our-research/environment-and-resources/emission-mitigation/shaping-new-zealands-low-emissions-future/a-timeline-of-the-nz-emissions-trading-scheme/">NZ Emissions Trading Scheme</a> has been in place for 14 years and has added a “carbon levy” of around 10-15 cents per litre to petrol and diesel. The Climate Change Commission has <a href="https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/our-work/advice-to-government-topic/inaia-tonu-nei-a-low-emissions-future-for-aotearoa/">recommended</a> the government should: <ul> <li> reduce the reliance on cars (or light vehicles) and support people to walk, cycle and use public transport </li> <li> rapidly adopt electric vehicles </li> <li> and enable local government to play an important role in changing how people travel. </li> </ul> But is it realistic to expect governments to change how people travel? Providing information is perhaps the key. <h2>Transport comparisons</h2> A person’s choice of transport mode is based on a mixture of cost, comfort and convenience as well as speed and safety. But most New Zealanders choose their car out of habit rather than from any analytical reasoning. Carbon dioxide emissions are rarely a factor in their choice. Although more people now agree that climate change is a major issue, few have been willing or able to take steps to significantly reduce their transport-related carbon footprint. This analysis is based on my personal experiences travelling between my house on the outskirts of the city of Palmerston North to attend a meeting in the centre of Wellington. It relates to any other similar journey with a choice of transport modes, although the details will vary depending on the specific circumstances. I compared a 1500cc diesel car I owned for ten years with an electric car which has a 220km range and is mainly charged at home, using rooftop solar. The airport is 8km away from the house, the railway station 7km and the bus station 5km. I included “first and last mile” options when comparing total journey time, cost, carbon emissions, comfort and convenience. <iframe id="ph0I4" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ph0I4/8/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none;" frameborder="0"></iframe> <h2>Things to consider before a trip</h2> Travelling by car for one person is relatively costly but has good door-to-door convenience and can be quicker than the bus, train or plane, except during times of traffic congestion. Comfort is reasonable but the driver cannot read, work or relax as they can on a train. Car drivers usually consider the cost of fuel when planning a journey, but few consider the costs of depreciation, tyre wear, repairs and maintenance as included here. Should more than one person travel in the car, the costs and carbon emissions will be lower per passenger. <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437335/original/file-20211213-17-446b2y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="Woman taking picture from small plane" /> A short plane journey, if nearly full, can have lower emissions per passenger than one person going by road in a diesel car. Shutterstock/Peter Gudella Taking a short-haul flight over this distance is relatively costly and the journey is no quicker since there is considerable inconvenience getting to and from the airports. The carbon dioxide emissions per passenger can be lower than for a diesel car (with just the driver), assuming the plane has around 80% occupancy. For one person, taking a bus or train can be significantly cheaper than taking a car and also offers lower emissions. However, the longer overall journey time and the hassles getting to and from the stations are deterrents. Infrequent bus and train services, often at inconvenient times, can also be disincentives to choosing these modes. <h2>Going electric</h2> <img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437334/original/file-20211213-25-4k5xtx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" alt="Car park reserved for electric cars to recharge" /> Electric cars offer convenience and low emissions. Shutterstock/Ed Goodacre The electric car has low carbon emissions, especially if charged from a domestic solar system. Coupled with reasonable comfort and convenience and the lowest journey cost per person when carrying two or more passengers, this supports the government’s policy to encourage the deployment of EVs. Travelling by train is perhaps the best option overall for one person making this journey. The total cost is less than half that of taking a car. Emissions are around a third of the diesel car. Comfort is good, with the opportunity to work or relax. Making the whole journey more convenient will help encourage more people to travel by train and help reduce transport emissions. But this will require national and local governments to: <ul> <li> encourage Kiwirail to provide more frequent services </li> <li> electrify all lines </li> <li> provide cheap and efficient “first-and-last-mile” services to railway stations </li> <li> undertake a major education campaign to illustrate the full cost, carbon emissions and convenience benefits resulting from leaving the car at home.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165526/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> </li> </ul> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralph-sims-204224">Ralph Sims</a>, Emeritus Professor, Energy and Climate Mitigation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/massey-university-806">Massey University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/convenience-comfort-cost-and-carbon-whats-the-best-way-to-travel-save-money-and-cut-emissions-165526">original article</a>. Image: Shutterstock/Matej Kastelic

Travel Trouble

Electric cars are better for the environment

<div> <div class="copy"> A global analysis has verified that electric cars and heat pumps generate less greenhouse gas over their life cycle than their archaic petrol and fossil boiler counterparts, which together account for a quarter of the world’s emissions. Considering several different climate policy scenarios over the next three decades, European researchers <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0488-7" target="_blank" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">report</a> in the journal Nature that electric vehicles and heaters are the better options in all cases, dispelling claims they <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/25/are-electric-vehicles-really-so-climate-friendly" target="_blank" aria-label=" (opens in a new tab)">aren’t any greener</a>. “Fears that electric cars could actually increase carbon emissions are unfounded in almost all parts of the world,” says lead author Florian Knobloch, from Radboud University in The Netherlands. “Electric cars and heat pumps lead to lower carbon emissions overall, even if electricity generation still involves substantial amounts of fossil fuel.” The researchers simulated 59 regions, including the US, China and most of Europe, which together account for 95% of the global demand for heating and transport. In 53 of these, emissions from electric cars were found to already be lower than fossil fuel alternatives. The few exceptions included places like Poland, which still rely mostly on coal to generate electricity. “However,” says Knobloch, “with energy production decarbonising worldwide, the last few debatable cases will soon disappear.” Countries did vary considerably according to the amount of electricity generated from alternative and renewable sources. In Sweden and France, for instance, average lifetime carbon dioxide emissions from electric cars are 70% lower than petrol cars, while in the UK they are 30% lower. The researchers estimate that by 2050 half of the cars on the road could be electric, which would drop global emissions by up to 1.5 gigatonnes per year – equating to those currently generated by the whole of Russia. For each of the regions in the analysis, Knobloch and colleagues conducted a life-cycle assessment of emissions generated from cars and heating systems, including the production chain and waste processing. Building on previous research, which has only considered the present situation, they also accounted for the vast range of cars and heating systems available. The comprehensive analysis simulated three future scenarios. The first two involve continuing with current climate policies or enacting feasible policies in line with the two-degree target set by the Paris Agreement. The third, a worst-case scenario that the authors say is unlikely, considers what would happen if ambitious targets are implemented for electric cars and heating while overall emissions continue on their current trajectory. The empirical model includes future consumer technology choices, based on detailed consumer market databases, and the resulting emissions from power generation, transport and household heating using historical observations. “We combined the resulting scenario projections with bottom-up estimates of life-cycle emissions from producing different technologies and their fuels,” Knobloch explains. At the study’s inception in 2015, electric cars and heaters both emitted a third less harmful gases than their air-polluting alternatives. Looking ahead, all three tested scenarios looked positive. Staying on current trajectories would lead to 10% lower emissions globally on average by 2030 and 16% by 2050. If Paris Agreement targets are met, that drops to 44% and 74% lower emissions, respectively. This also holds true for low-efficiency electric vehicles and heat pumps, which performed better than high efficiency petrol cars and fossil boilers, leaving no doubt about the best way forward. “Taking into account emissions from manufacturing and ongoing energy use, it’s clear that we should encourage the switch to electric cars and household heat pumps without any regrets,” says Knobloch. “Even in our worst-case scenario, there would be a reduction in emissions in almost all cases. This insight should be very useful for policy-makers.” Image credits: Shutterstock </div> <div id="contributors"> This article was originally published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/yes-electric-cars-are-better-for-the-environment/" target="_blank">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Natalie Parletta. </div> </div>

Technology

Big-business greenwash or a climate saviour? Carbon offsets raise tricky moral questions

Massive protests unfolded in Glasgow outside the United Nations climate summit <a href="https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/11/net-zero-is-not-zero-carbon-offsetting-focus-at-cop26-under-criticism/">last week</a>, with some activists <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/cop26/cop26-indigenous-carbon-protests-video-v417423df">denouncing</a> a proposal to expand the use of a controversial climate action measure to meet net-zero targets: carbon offsetting. Offsetting <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-stabilise-the-climate-without-carbon-offsets-so-how-do-we-make-them-work-169355">refers to</a> reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere in one place to balance emissions made in another. So far, more than 130 countries have committed to the net zero by 2050 goal, but none is proposing to be completely emissions free by that date – all are relying on forms of offsetting. The use of offsets in meeting climate obligations has been <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/50429/offsets-taskforce-hit-protests-cop26/">rejected by climate activists</a> as a “scam”. Swedish climate campaigner <a href="https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1455904676227002375?s=20">Greta Thunberg</a>, joining the protesters, claimed relying on buying offsets to cut emissions would give polluters “a free pass to keep polluting”. Others, however, argue offsetting has a legitimate role to play in our transition to a low-carbon future. A <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/towards-net-zero-practical-policies-to-offset-carbon-emissions/">recent report</a> by Australia’s Grattan Institute, for example, claimed that done <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-stabilise-the-climate-without-carbon-offsets-so-how-do-we-make-them-work-169355">with integrity</a>, carbon offsets will be crucial to reaching net zero in sectors such as agriculture and aviation, for which full elimination of emissions is infeasible. So who’s in the right? We think the answer depends on the kind of offsetting that is being employed. Some forms of offsetting can be a legitimate way of helping to reach net zero, while others are morally dubious. <h2>Climate change as a moral issue</h2> The debate over offsetting is part of a key agenda item for COP26 – establishing the rules for global carbon trading, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/as-cop26-climate-summit-continues-attention-turns-to-carbon-markets/">known as Article 6</a> of the Paris Agreement. The trading scheme will allow countries to purchase emissions reductions from overseas to count towards their own climate action. To examine carbon offsetting in a moral context, we should first remember what makes our contributions to CO₂ emissions morally problematic. <iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pHLVDlb6rCU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> The emissions from human activity increase the risks of <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar3/wg2/chapter-1-overview-of-impacts-adaptation-and-vulnerability-to-climate-change/">climate change-related harms</a> such as dangerous weather events – storms, fires, floods, heatwaves, and droughts – and the prevalence of serious diseases and malnutrition. The more we humans emit, the more we contribute to global warming, and the greater the risks of harm to the most vulnerable people. Climate change is a moral issue because of the question this invites on behalf of those people: <blockquote> Why are you adding to global warming, when it risks harming us severely? </blockquote> Not having a good answer to that question is what makes our contribution to climate change seriously wrong. <h2>The two ways to offset emissions</h2> The moral case in favour of offsetting is it gives us an answer to that question. If we can match our emissions with a corresponding amount of offsetting, then can’t we say we’re making no net addition to global warming, and therefore imposing no risk of harm on anyone? Well, that depends on what kind of offsetting we’re doing. Offsetting comes in two forms, which are morally quite different. The first kind of offsetting involves removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. Planting trees or other vegetation is one way of doing this, provided the CO₂ that’s removed does not then re-enter the atmosphere later, for example as a result of deforestation. Another way would be through the development of <a href="https://eciu.net/analysis/briefings/net-zero/negative-emissions-why-what-how">negative emissions technologies</a>, which envisage ways to extract CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it permanently. The second form is offsetting by paying for emissions reduction. This involves ensuring someone else puts less CO₂ into the atmosphere than they otherwise would have. For example, one company might pay another company to reduce its emissions, with the first claiming this reduction as an offset against its own emissions. Australia’s Clean Energy Regulator issues <a href="http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/OSR/ANREU/types-of-emissions-units/australian-carbon-credit-units">Australian Carbon Credit Units</a> for “eligible offsets projects”. These include for projects of offsetting by emissions reduction. The regulator certifies that a company, for example, installing more efficient technology “deliver abatement that is additional to what would occur in the absence of the project”. Another company whose activities send CO₂ into the atmosphere, such as a coal-fired power station, can then buy these credits to offset its emissions. <h2>So what’s the problem?</h2> There is a crucial difference between these <a href="https://www.offsetguide.org/understanding-carbon-offsets/what-is-a-carbon-offset/">two forms of offsetting</a>. When you offset in the first way – taking as much CO₂ out of the atmosphere as you put in – you can indeed say you’re not adding to global warming. That’s not to say even this form of offsetting is problem-free. It’s crucial such offsets are properly validated and are part of a transition plan to cleaner energy generation compatible with everyone reaching net zero together. Tree-planting cannot be a complete solution, because we could simply <a href="https://theconversation.com/there-arent-enough-trees-in-the-world-to-offset-societys-carbon-emissions-and-there-never-will-be-158181">run out of places</a> to plant them. But when you offset in the second way, you cannot say you’re not adding to global warming at all. What you’re doing is paying someone else not to add to global warming, while adding to it yourself. The difference between the two forms of offsetting is like the difference between a mining company releasing mercury into the groundwater while simultaneously cleaning the water to restore the mercury concentration to safe levels, and a mining company paying another not to release mercury into the groundwater and then doing so itself. The first can be a legitimate way of negating the risk you impose. The second is a way of imposing risk in someone else’s stead. Let’s use a few simple analogies to illustrate this further. In morality and law, we cannot justify injuring someone by claiming we had previously paid someone who was about to injure that same person not to do so. The same is true when it comes to the imposition of risk. If I take a high speed joyride through a heavily populated area, I cannot claim I pose no risk on people nearby simply because I had earlier paid my neighbour not to take a joyride along the same route. Had I not induced my neighbour not to take the joyride, he would’ve had to answer for the risk he imposed. When I do so in his place, I am the one who must answer for that risk. In our desperate attempt to stop the world warming beyond the internationally agreed limit of 1.5℃, we need to encourage whatever reduces the climate impacts of human activity. If selling carbon credits is an effective way to achieve this, we should do it, creating incentives for emissions reductions as well as emissions removals. What we cannot do is claim that inducing others to reduce emissions gives us a moral license to emit in their place.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171295/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/christian-barry-14000">Christian Barry</a>, Professor of Philosophy at the ANU, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/garrett-cullity-1287732">Garrett Cullity</a>, Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/big-business-greenwash-or-a-climate-saviour-carbon-offsets-raise-tricky-moral-questions-171295">original article</a>. Image: EPA/Robert Perry

International Travel

Greta Thunberg calls out Jacinda Ardern over emissions

Climate activist Greta Thunberg <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.9news.com.au/world/climate-change-greta-thunberg-takes-another-swipe-at-jacinda-ardern/8606cc8d-4c73-4c0b-840b-493451825c60" target="_blank">has called out</a> world leaders, including New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, for not doing enough to combat climate change. During an interview with <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2021/sep/25/greta-thunberg-i-really-see-the-value-of-friendship-apart-from-the-climate-almost-nothing-else-matters?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other" target="_blank">The Guardian</a>, Ms Thunberg said she couldn’t think of any politician who has impressed her. When asked about Ms Ardern specifically, Ms Thunberg noted that New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions haven’t decreased. “It’s funny that people believe Jacinda Ardern and people like that are climate leaders. That just tells you how little people know about the climate crisis,” she said. “Obviously the emissions haven’t fallen. It goes without saying that these people are not doing anything.” <blockquote style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CUSA2t1sOGe/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="13"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" rel="noopener" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CUSA2t1sOGe/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank">A post shared by Greta Thunberg (@gretathunberg)</a> </div> </blockquote> In December, Thunberg described New Zealand’s commitment to reducing 1 percent of emissions by 2025 as “nothing unique to any nation”. In April, it was revealed that New Zealand’s emissions increased by 2 percent in 2019. Though emissions fell by 4.5 percent in the year ending in March 2020 due to the pandemic, levels began to increase towards the end of the recorded year. Climate Change Minister James Shaw said Ms Thunberg was correct to say New Zealand’s emissions hadn’t increased. “That is why the work our Government is doing is so important - and clearly we have a lot of work to do,” he told <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/300416129/greta-thunberg-takes-another-swipe-at-jacinda-arderns-response-to-climate-change" target="_blank">Stuff</a> on Sunday. “This is a marathon event involving every minister and every part of Government.” From 2022, the Climate Commission wants New Zealand to meet a decreasing “carbon budget”, which details the amount of greenhouse gas the country can “spend” each year. In December, Ms Ardern responded to Ms Thunberg’s initial comments by clarifying that New Zealand had bigger goals than one emissions target. “If that was the sum ambition of any government, then that would be worthy of criticism; it is not our sum ambition and it is not the totality of our plans on climate change,” the Prime Minister said. “But again, I think that it is actually for us just to get on with the business of fulfilling our obligations and expectations.” Image: Getty Images

Travel Trouble

Cooking with gas? It could be wreaking havoc with kids’ health

The Climate Council has released new research finding the use of gas is Australian households puts kids at a higher risk of asthma. Additionally, the <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/gas-habit-how-gas-harming-health/">Kicking the Gas Habit: How Gas is Harming Our Health</a> report also found that gas-powered cooking has more harmful impacts on Australia. Using gas for cooking and heating harms our health, while the extraction process exposes communities to hazardous substances. “Far from the ‘clean and natural’ image that the gas industry markets, gas cooktops are known to produce contaminants that increase the risk of childhood asthma, in particular, nitrogen dioxide and certain forms of particulate matter, like PM2.5,” the report said. The Climate Council also found that children and those in poorer households are at the highest risk from gas use in home and schools. How does gas at home affect kids? Kate Charlesworth, Climate Council spokeswoman and report author, compared the risk of a child developing asthma from living in a home using gas to a child living with household cigarette smoke. “Cooking with gas is estimated to be responsible for up to 12 per cent of the childhood asthma burden in Australia,” she said. Asthma Australia CEO Michele Goodman called on families to do everything they can “to improve health outcomes for our children”. “Australia has some of the highest rates of asthma in the world, and it is the leading cause of disease burden among school-aged children,” she said. “Some people will be shocked to learn that cooking dinner on a gas stove could be contributing to their child’s asthma symptoms, we need education to improve awareness for indoor air pollution,” she continued. To reduce the risk, Goodman says people should increase the ventilation at home by using “modern extraction fans over gas stoves, flues for gas heaters, and simple measures like opening windows.” But, she said “this won’t eliminate the risk completely.” Gas extraction also harms communities The report also found that people living near coal seam gas developments in Queensland’s Darling Downs “were more likely to be hospitalised for tumours, as well as blood and immune diseases.” It called on the government to shift away from gas and adopt cleaner energy alternatives like solar or wind power. “Gas is a polluting fossil fuel. Governments can prevent health issues, and reduce harm, by helping households and the country move away from gas,” the report said. Gas extraction and processing was also found to “involve many hazardous substances, including those that cause cancer, interfere with childhood development, trigger asthma and contaminate the local environment through airborne pollution and wastewater.” What is the Climate Council? According to <a href="https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/">its website</a>, the Climate Council is the country’s leading climate change communications organisation that has been providing advice to the public on climate change and science-based solutions since its inception in 2013. “We’re made up of some of the country’s leading climate scientists, health, renewable energy and policy experts, as well as a team of staff, and a huge community of volunteers and supporters who power our work. “As an independent voice on climate change, we get climate stories into the media, produce hard-hitting reports, call out misinformation as we see it and promote climate solutions such as the transition to renewables.”

Body

A chemical engineer explains: What makes pepper spray so intense? And is it a tear gas?

In recent weeks, the world has looked on as governments use chemical irritants to control protesters and riots. Whether it’s tear gas, pepper spray, mace or pepper balls, all have one thing in common: they’re chemical weapons. Chemical warfare agents have been used twice in Sydney in the past week alone. Police <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-07/sydney-police-defend-pepper-spray-use-on-protesters/12330558">pepper-sprayed</a> demonstrators at Central Station, following Saturday’s major Black Lives Matter protest. The next day, tear gas <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-08/tear-gas-fired-into-exercise-yard-of-sydney-long-bay-jail/12332572">was used</a> to break up a fight at Long Bay jail, as prison guards filled an exercise yard with tear gas canisters – also impacting nearby residents. These events followed the deployment of <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/05/politics/park-police-tear-gas/index.html">chemical riot control agents</a> – specifically “pepper bombs” – in Washington DC last week. They were used to clear protesters from a public park so President Donald Trump could walk from the White House to a nearby church for a photo opportunity. The White House made a highlight reel to celebrate Trump’s heroic walk across the street for his bible photo op... US Attorney General William Barr said “<a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/the-continuing-tear-gas-debate/">there was no tear gas used</a>”, claiming “pepper spray is not a chemical irritant. It’s not chemical.” I’m a chemical engineer and chemist who studies chemicals in the environment. So I thought I’d clear the air about what makes pepper spray such a powerful chemical irritant, and a chemical weapon. What’s inside pepper spray? The active compounds in pepper spray are collectively known as capsaicinoids. They are given the military symbol OC, for “oleoresin capsicum”. The most important chemical in OC is capsaicin. This is derived from chilli peppers in a chemical process that dissolves and concentrates it into a liquid. Capsaicin is the same compound that makes chillies hot, but in an intense, weaponised form. Not all capsaicinoids are obtained naturally. One called nonivamide (also known as PAVA or pelargonic acid vanillylamide) is mostly made by humans. PAVA is an <a href="https://cot.food.gov.uk/committee/committee-on-toxicity/cotstatements/cotstatementsyrs/cotstatements2002/pavastatement">intense irritant</a> used in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/09/pepper-spray-used-in-non-violent-situations-in-prison-pilot">artificial pepper spray</a>. Is pepper spray a tear gas? We’ve established pepper spray is a chemical, but is it also a kind of tear gas? “<a href="https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/riotcontrol/factsheet.asp">Tear gas</a>” is an informal term and a bit of a misnomer, because it isn’t a gas. Rather, tear gas refers to any weaponised irritant used to immobilise people. More specifically, tear gas is often used to describe weapons that disperse their irritants in the air either as liquid aerosol droplets (such as <a href="https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a28904691/how-tear-gas-works/">gas canisters</a>), or as a powder (such as pepper balls). This definition distinguishes tear gas from personal self-defence sprays which use foams, gels and liquids. Tear gas canisters typically contain the irritants 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile (CS) and phenacyl chloride (CN). Both CS and CN are man-made chemicals discovered in a lab, unlike capsaicin (the traditional ingredient in pepper spray). But despite capsaicin coming from chilli peppers, pepper spray is still a weaponised irritant that can be delivered as an aerosol or powder. It should unequivocally be considered a type of tear gas. Pepper spray as a weapon The chemical irritants OC, CS and CN have military symbols because they are chemical weapons. They are termed “<a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/06/10/rubber-bullets-protesters-victoria-snelgrove-boston">less-lethal</a>” because they are less likely to kill than conventional weapons. Their use, however, can still <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2020/06/08/tear-gas-and-pepper-spray-can-maim-kill-and-spread-coronavirus/#47f17a2a725f">cause fatalities</a>. Technically, pepper spray and other tear gases are classified as lachrymatory agents. <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-tear-gas-139958">Lachrymatory agents</a> attack mucous membranes in the eyes and respiratory system. Pepper spray works almost instantly, forcing the eyes to close and flood with tears. Coupled with coughing fits and difficulty breathing, this means the targeted person is effectively <a href="https://healthland.time.com/2011/11/22/how-painful-is-pepper-spray/">blinded and incapacitated</a>. Because lachrymatory agents work on <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK544263/">nerve receptors</a> that help us sense heat, they also induce an intense burning sensation. The combined effects of pepper spray can last anywhere from 15 minutes to more than an hour. Lachrymatory agents emerged on the <a href="https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germans-introduce-poison-gas">battlefields of World War I</a>. Artillery shells were filled with chemicals such as <a href="https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/05/17/chemical-warfare-ww1/">xylyl bromide and chloroacetone</a> and fired at enemy soldiers. Agents that induce choking, blistering and vomiting were added as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/10/science/chemical-weapons-world-war-1-armistice.html">chemical arms race</a> escalated. In the 1920s, the <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/1925-geneva-protocol/">Geneva Protocol</a> was enacted to ban the use of indiscriminate and often ineffective chemical weapons on the battlefield. Today, the unjustified use of chemical riot control agents <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/04/201242913130963418.html">threatens to erode</a> the systems that are meant to protect us from the most dangerous weaponised chemicals. Written by Gabriel da Silva. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-makes-pepper-spray-so-intense-and-is-it-a-tear-gas-a-chemical-engineer-explains-140441">The Conversation.</a>

Art

Climate explained: does your driving speed make any difference to your car’s emissions?

Does reducing speed reduce emissions from the average car? Every car has an optimal speed range that results in minimum fuel consumption, but this range differs between vehicle types, design and age. Typically it looks like this graph below: fuel consumption rises from about 80km/h, partly because air resistance increases. But speed is only one factor. No matter what car you are driving, you can reduce fuel consumption (and therefore emissions) by driving more smoothly. This includes anticipating corners and avoiding sudden braking, taking the foot off the accelerator just before reaching the peak of a hill and cruising over it, and removing roof racks or bull bars and heavier items from inside when they are not needed to make the car lighter and more streamlined. Driving wisely In New Zealand, <a href="https://www.aa.co.nz/about/newsroom/media-releases/events/aa-energywise-rally-starts-with-a-rush/">EnergyWise rallies</a> used to be run over a 1200km course around the North Island. They were designed to demonstrate how much fuel could be saved through good driving habits. The competing drivers had to reach each destination within a certain time period. Cruising too slowly at 60-70km/h on straight roads in a 100km/h zone just to save fuel was not an option (also because driving too slowly on open roads can contribute to accidents). The optimum average speed (for both professional and average drivers) was typically around 80km/h. The key to saving fuel was driving smoothly. In the first rally in 2002, the Massey University entry was a brand new diesel-fuelled Volkswagen Golf (kindly loaned by VW NZ), running on 100% biodiesel made from waste animal fat (as Z Energy has been <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/05/02/106691/biofuels-z-energys-tortuous-carbon-solution">producing</a>). A car running on fossil diesel emits about 2.7kg of carbon dioxide per litre and a petrol car produces 2.3kg per litre. Using biofuels to displace diesel or petrol can reduce emissions by up to 90% per kilometre if the biofuel is made from animal fat from a meat works. The amount varies depending on the source of the biofuel (sugarcane, wheat, oilseed rape). And of course it would be unacceptable if biofuel crops were replacing food crops or forests. Regardless of the car, drivers can reduce fuel consumption by 15-20% by improving driving habits alone – reducing emissions and saving money at the same time. Fuel efficiency When you are thinking of replacing your car, taking into account fuel efficiency is another important way to save on fuel costs and reduce emissions. Many countries, including the US, Japan, China and nations within the European Union, have had fuel efficiency standards for more than a decade. This has driven car manufacturers to design ever <a href="http://www.climatechangeauthority.gov.au/files/files/Light%20Vehicle%20Report/CCA_TransportReport_Appendices.WEB.pdf">more fuel-efficient vehicles</a>. Most light-duty vehicles sold globally are subject to these standards. But Australia and New Zealand have both dragged the chain in this regard, partly because most vehicles are imported. New Zealand also remains hesitant about introducing a “<a href="https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/government-announces-consultation-light-vehicle-fleet-feebate">feebate</a>” scheme, which proposes a fee on imported high-emission cars to make imported hybrids, electric cars and other efficient vehicles cheaper with a subsidy. In New Zealand, driving an <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-switching-to-electric-transport-makes-sense-even-if-electricity-is-not-fully-renewable-136502">electric car results in low emissions</a> because electricity generation is 85% renewable. In Australia, which still relies on coal-fired power, electric cars are responsible for higher emissions unless they are recharged through a local renewable electricity supply. Fuel and electricity prices will inevitably rise. But whether we drive a petrol or electric car, we can all shield ourselves from some of those future price rises by driving more efficiently and less speedily. Written by Ralph Sims. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-does-your-driving-speed-make-any-difference-to-your-cars-emissions-140246">The Conversation.</a>

Cruising

Prince Charles cops a lashing for taking helicopter to speak on aircraft emissions

The Prince of Wales has been blasted after it was reported the royal flew over 200 kilometres in the Queen’s helicopter to give a speech on climate change and aircraft emissions. The 71-year-old royal heir was reportedly picked him in the chopper at Highgrove, Gloucestershire, and flown to Cambridge, where he was then chauffeured in a Bentley to the Cambridge University’s Whittle Laboratory on Friday. It was there Prince Charles told scientists to “act quickly to rescue this poor old planet”. He said during a speech: “We haven’t got time to waste. “We have run out of time now to rescue this poor old planet from man-made emissions and all the complications we’re now facing, all the challenges we’re facing.” However, it was only moments later the royal caught his mother’s helicopter back to see the Queen – a trip that caused around 2.5 tonnes of carbon emissions, and hundreds of gallons of aviation fuel. The total cost is reported to be at a staggering $23,000, according to reports by Sunday Mirror. He has been blasted in the past for taking trips by eco groups, who have accused him of not “walking the walk” on his pleas for people to look out for their carbon footprint. Graham Smith, CEO of campaign group Republic, told the Mirror: “He wants to play the role but not walk the walk. His view seems to be that it’s one rule for him and one rule for the rest of us. "Driving or using the train would have been pretty easy.” Dr Lucy Gilliam, aviation and shipping campaigner for environmental group Transport & Environment, added to the topic by saying: “He could have used a private car with a chauffeur, ideally an electric one if he really wanted to walk the walk. He can definitely afford a Tesla. “I don’t doubt that Prince Charles really does get the message, but if he wants to be really effective, he must make those changes that will send such an enormous signal to the world.” A Clarence House spokesman said: “The Prince is not personally involved in decisions around his transportation arrangements, though he ensures all carbon emissions are offset every year. “They are made based on what is possible within the constraints of time, distance and security. “In order for him to undertake as many engagements as he does across the UK and around the world he sometimes has to fly. “As he has often said, as soon as there is a more sustainable way of making these journeys, he’ll be the first to use it.”

Travel Trouble

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Flying home for Christmas? Carbon offsets are important, but they won’t fix plane pollution

5 tips for getting off gas at home – for a cleaner, cheaper, healthier all-electric future

Cooking (and heating) without gas: what are the impacts of shifting to all-electric homes?

Southampton to Shanghai by train – one climate change researcher’s quest to avoid flying

Cheaper gas and electricity are within our grasp

Building and construction emissions and energy use reaches record levels

Warming oceans may force New Zealand’s sperm and blue whales to shift to cooler southern waters

Supervolcanoes: deadly for life, deadly for climate

Travelling around the globe might not have to cost the Earth

Here are the most effective things you can do to fight climate change

Global emissions almost back to pre-pandemic levels after unprecedented drop in 2020, new analysis shows

Reducing air travel by small amounts each year could level off the climate impact

Convenience, comfort, cost and carbon: what’s the best way to travel, save money and cut emissions?

Electric cars are better for the environment

Big-business greenwash or a climate saviour? Carbon offsets raise tricky moral questions

Greta Thunberg calls out Jacinda Ardern over emissions

Cooking with gas? It could be wreaking havoc with kids’ health

A chemical engineer explains: What makes pepper spray so intense? And is it a tear gas?

Climate explained: does your driving speed make any difference to your car’s emissions?

Prince Charles cops a lashing for taking helicopter to speak on aircraft emissions

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Flying home for Christmas? Carbon offsets are important, but they won’t fix plane pollution

5 tips for getting off gas at home – for a cleaner, cheaper, healthier all-electric future

Cooking (and heating) without gas: what are the impacts of shifting to all-electric homes?

Southampton to Shanghai by train – one climate change researcher’s quest to avoid flying

Cheaper gas and electricity are within our grasp

Building and construction emissions and energy use reaches record levels

Warming oceans may force New Zealand’s sperm and blue whales to shift to cooler southern waters

Supervolcanoes: deadly for life, deadly for climate

Travelling around the globe might not have to cost the Earth

Here are the most effective things you can do to fight climate change

Global emissions almost back to pre-pandemic levels after unprecedented drop in 2020, new analysis shows

Reducing air travel by small amounts each year could level off the climate impact

Convenience, comfort, cost and carbon: what’s the best way to travel, save money and cut emissions?

Electric cars are better for the environment

Big-business greenwash or a climate saviour? Carbon offsets raise tricky moral questions

Greta Thunberg calls out Jacinda Ardern over emissions

Cooking with gas? It could be wreaking havoc with kids’ health

A chemical engineer explains: What makes pepper spray so intense? And is it a tear gas?

Climate explained: does your driving speed make any difference to your car’s emissions?

Prince Charles cops a lashing for taking helicopter to speak on aircraft emissions

Join Over60