Now this was a more tricksy issue than originally expected.  I quickly decided to avoid anything relating to transportation for two reasons.  Firstly I am a little biased about car, plane etc usage, and, more importantly, it is difficult to differentiate business and private travel in government figures.  After a short time I decided that there was no point looking at the CRC scheme or the Feed In Tariffs even though I had gathered a lot of information about them – the problem is they are just too new and therefore data relating to their effectiveness (or not) will not be available for some time.

So I concentrated on the Climate Change Levy, Renewables Obligation Certificates and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

The Climate Change Levy is a tax on energy use by business and was introduced in 20o1.  From what I could see, probably due to its relatively low level, the fact that it didn’t change in level for 6 years and came in just after the price of electricity dropped dramatically, it has had no perceivable effect – after all it is just another number on the bottom of a utility bill (a quick calculation gives it a price of around £9 per tonne of carbon).

The renewables obligation certificate was meant to encourage energy suppliers to invest in renewables by obliging them (wonder where they got the name from?) to either obtain a specified amount of energy from renewables or to pay a fine which was then distributed to those that did comply.  It seems to have increased the amount of renewable energy generated, but the costs are passed onto customers (business and domestic) and government targets (10% by 2010) are nowhere near being met.  An improvement was made when they changed the level of certification for different types of renewables so that newer technology was worth more than established sources such as wind.  I think that the renewables obligation has also helped reduce methane emissions from landfill as the majority of these are now capped and used as an energy source.

The final scheme is the fabled EUETS – a cap and trade scheme.  This hasn’t worked to reduce emissions either.  It was aimed at power suppliers and high energy users such as cement manufacturers.  However, initial allocations appear to have been higher than business as usual scenarios – perhaps they were optimistic about growth prospects, more likely the government had no way to check the figures and did not want to ‘impair competitiveness’ – it was not just the UK government that was guilty of over and free allocations.  The first phase of the scheme has passed and the second and third do not look any more promising.  No minimum price has been established for carbon and probably never will as there are too few participants and the cap on emissions is not low enough meaning the true value of carbon is not seen.

So, overall I found that when I looked at emissions figures from 1997 (the year of the mythical Kyoto treaty) although emissions had dropped in some cases, it was not by much and did not seem to have been as a direct result of policy.  The only thing that did seem to have occurred, particularly with the EU ETS (and I think is the saving grace of the CRC) is that the issue of energy usage has become a talking point in the board room.  A favourite quote that I found was that for business to change their energy use they needed not only a carrot and stick approach but a tambourine as well.  As usual I think that government was too afraid to annoy business, energy companies and voters to do anything radical or useful – I came away from the project feeling more than a little demoralised.

In the meantime I have just finished reading a book (Why We Disagree About Climate Change) which has helped me to clarify my thoughts about Copenhagen.  The basis of the book is that everyone has different priorities in life, and perceive the risk of Climate Change differently depending on their circumstances, nothing that is not obvious there.  However, one of the later chapters talks about how the idea of an all encompassing agreement at Copenhagen was flawed and was never going to happen.  Climate Change has now been altered from a physical manifestation into something more, it is linked to world poverty, economic development and even to religious beliefs.  With so many facets to the problem (a so-called ‘dirty problem’) how will we find one solution, a magic silver bullet that will fix everything.  The plain answer is that we won’t and, while we are convinced that we will (i.e. we will get  an extension to Kyoto) we will stop looking at the solutions to the parts of the problem that we can fix.  OK, they may not be the ultimate best answer, but making some progress until something better comes along is surely better than waiting for a solution that may never come.

For example, why was deforestation under discussion?  Surely most people believe that it is wrong, so why wasn’t an agreement made by the interested parties, does someone in Iceland have to agree about rainforest destruction?  I am sure they agree that it is bad, but put it in with something they don’t agree with and they will vote against.

I have come to the conclusion that I, personally, if I am honest, don’t care about climate change.  Any changes to be seen in my lifetime are likely to be already set in motion, I don’t have children and therefore have no future generations to directly care about.  I do, however, care about other things that are affected by or do affect climate change.  I care about needless waste, lack of energy resources, reduced levels of oil available for the important things because we have wasted lots for electricity and transport, loss of biodiversity, lack of water, lack of available education and the fact that there are just too many people on this planet to consume as much resource as we do, but climate change – not really.  Start to look at solving these problems individually and then we will solve the problem that we perceive to be climate change and, if not, we will still be making the world a better place.

Then came the Credit Crisis and the market slump associated with the attendant global recession. Suddenly oil was relatively cheap again, and that brief period filled with innovative spirit seemed to turn to scepticism over the economic impact of carbon taxes. Nations became absorbed in their own relative competitiveness rather than the impact their actions would have on all of us.

Political posturing, and I’m looking at all you NGOs too, has turned climate change is a charged topic. Whilst the majority of people don’t care at all, those that do tend to be entrenched believers or sceptics; the depth of feeling seems to approach religious intensity. Unfortunately the real issue is masked by this squabble over carbon: we waste valuable resources by thoughtless pursuit of an unsustainable lifestyle, and one day we’ll by neck high in rubbish with little left to show for it.

I live in the UK and I’m guilty of doing my part to wipe out our species. Whilst I’m one of those that try to minimise my purchases and recycle whatever I can, a grossly unpatriotic position in the current economic climate, the standard of living I enjoy is plainly unsustainable. Those in other countries have just as much right to experience a similar standard of living, but that would accelerate our decline.

Alternative lifestyles are going to have to be adopted if we’re to experience more than a hellish existence on this planet, but the alternative needn’t be a poor compromise. It’s possible that there are better ways to live with a lighter footprint – and it’s not just about carbon – if we choose to look for them and consider our actions:

• What to buy and why I need it?
• Where does it come from and how much do I need?
• What I eat and how it’s produced?
• How many children I chose to have and what will their impact be in the future?
• Where I look for work and how our companies operate?

But how does this relate to my Copenhagen disappointment?

In the end I concluded that I’d no right to expect such a meeting of politicians from diverse cultures to achieve anything significant. I believe that modern government isn’t designed to produce results, it’s intended to generate a safe level of inertia that keeps us from civil war, and in this it’s been supremely successful for centuries.

Even during periods of party political unity – mostly during world wars – government hasn’t driven progress, it’s the actions of the individual, or small groups, that have made the difference, with government usually very late to the game.

And this is where my regret led me; political action and public protest isn’t the answer, the future lies in the decisions we all make as individuals about our lives at home and as part of the corporate world. Governments can’t change the World, but we could.

Today is Blog Action Day, the theme this year is Climate Change, influenced no doubt by the upcoming Copenhagen summit.  These days it is hard to go through an entire day without finding a reference to Climate Change or Energy Saving, the Energy Saving Trust even has an annoying advert on the television.  I am not sure how much all of the reminders and the small snippets that appear on the news will make a difference.  I think there are two major problems; firstly people get bored with hearing about how we are all doomed, there is often the feeling that there are enough things to think about in life as it is, why worry about climate change when there is nothing we can do about it anyway?  It is everyone else that is causing the problem, besides, the worst will happen elsewhere in the world, and probably not in my lifetime.

Then we come to the second problem: what can you do about it that will make a difference?  There is so much information out there, some of it conflicting, that it can be difficult to know where to start and who to believe, no matter which level you are at in terms of ‘green-ness’ it can be confusing.  It is probably easier to not bother yet, better wait until more information is out there, until the ‘experts’ make their minds up.

The problem is, time is ticking and we all have a responsibility, why waste resources when it is just as easy not to, why waste money just because it is too much effort to turn a light out when leaving a room?  If you can make the changes at home then take these good and virtuous habits to work – your example can make a difference, I have seen it happen.

So what practical changes can you make?  How long have you got?  Everything you use, whether it is energy, water, fuel, food, resources such as paper, they are all, to some extent, finite, we can’t replace them all at the same rate that we are using them, and the planet cannot absorb all of our activities as they currently stand.

Firstly, energy.  Turn lights off, don’t leave things on standby, only leave your mobile etc plugged in for as long as it takes to charge (you’d be amazed at how many people leave them in overnight – they don’t stop drawing power because the battery is fully charged), turn your computer and monitor off when you leave work.  One of the best things you can do is to buy an energy monitor – they will help you find where energy is being wasted.  Want to think bigger – try switching energy supplier to one that uses renewables – they may not be the complete answer to our problem at the moment, but the more that is invested the bigger the improvements that will be made in the technology.

Water – old fact, but, 9 litres of water for every flush if you don’t have a dual flush toilet, put a bottle of water in the cistern to reduce the level down, save water and money at the same time.  Fit a water butt to your drainpipe to use for garden watering – they may look a bit unsightly, but, lets face it, so do satellite dishes, but most of us find somewhere to put one.  Don’t leave a sprinkler on your garden for hours – grass is hardy stuff, that’s why it is used for lawns, it doesn’t need constant watering and nobody else notices how green your lawn is!

Fuel – School run- why are there so many people dropping their children off?  Can’t they walk, I worry more about people being run over by someone on the school run than about other dangers facing children today.  How about just walking to work once a week for a change.  I would suggest public transport, but in Daventry, unless you are willing to set off 24 hours in advance it is a little pointless.  Planes – I love planes, I think they are a fantastic feat of engineering – but they are used too much and deliver their pollution to just the wrong place.  I can’t go on one again, maybe you can, but just one return transatlantic trip would double our household carbon footprint for the year (in terms of gas, electricity and transport) – I don’t think it is worth it.

Food – one of my major worries.  Why buy food only to throw it away?  There is a lot of talk in the press about food security and can Britain feed itself.  We probably can’t, we probably shouldn’t, our national income increased when we started trading with the world; there are some things that can be done better elsewhere.  But there are things we are good at growing, and, if we stopped throwing so much away we could grow all the staples that we need.  After all, the Romans didn’t invade us all those years ago because they were fed up of living somewhere dry and sunny!

Resources – whether it is paper in the office, packaging on our food, why is there so much that we are throwing away?  Admittedly the levels of recycling have grown massively, and Daventry District Council should be applauded for its household recycling (although, if you are a business, tough, you have to sort that out yourself), but wouldn’t it be better to just use less.  Does your broccoli really need a bag to make sure it gets home safely, does your Easter Egg need so much cardboard and plastic that your child could live in it?  I don’t think so.

So, what has this to do with Baby Steps?  If we all make a small change, one step at a time it will make a difference.  Then, if we make the next step, and the next step who knows what kind of change we can make?  There are so many resources out there if you need help.  If, as recently reported, the onset of power shortages has been put back by 3 -5 years because of the recession, an unintentional change in our habits, what can we do if we really try?

I have always thought of them as secretive and elusive, but never as incredibly rare in the UK, which is what I discovered when reading an article in the June 2009 issue of British Wildlife. The RSPB website estimates that there are 75 breeding (booming) males, but the magazine article puts the number of nest sites as closer to 40. So, why the interest? There are two reasons.

Along with many other species of animals and birds, bitterns used to be quite common, and, yes, you’ve guessed, they used to be regulars at the dinner table. However, bittern pies and the decline in suitable habitat (reedbeds) led to their extinction, although they resettled in the 1950s and have been making a slow and steady comeback.

The second reason is linked to climate change. By far the majority of the current breeding population is in Suffolk – that LOW lying part of the country. There is a fear that the increased possibility of storm surges in this part of the country poses a major threat to the reed beds that are frequented by bitterns. (Did you know that the Thames barrier, when first built in the 1980s was operated approximately once a year, more recently it is in use 6 times each year because of increased storm surges.) The worry is that saltwater incursion from high tides and storm surges will make the reedbeds uninhabitable for many species, including the bittern.

However, there is some good news. Bittern numbers have increased since a major initiative was launched to safeguard their habitats, and, at a faster rate than was initially hoped for. The RSPB, Natural England and the Wildlfe Trust are joining forces to make new habitats for the bitterns away from the coast. It is hoped that by siting these close to current nesting areas some pairs will move over. They are also trying to make sites which have booming males but no evidence of nesting activity a little more attractive in the hope that the forlorn male will have more chance of attracting Miss Right – more fish maybe.

In addition they are allowing nature to take its course – some sea defences (shingle banks) which were naturally formed have been buggered about with by well intentioned people resulting in a change of profile. This was in the misguided hope of boosting sea defences, but it hasn’t worked, the water has still breached the defences, vegetation hasn’t colonised and the water hasn’t been able to percolate away – bit of a mess really. At last common sense has prevailed and we are learning that nature made something for a reason.

So, fingers crossed for the bittern and its associated friends that live in the reed beds, hopefully we will soon know how many and where they are and give them a chance of survival, if not a sea view.

Designers claim that plants not only provide a beautiful alternative to other materials used in construction, they also offer additional benefits, including noise reduction, natural cooling, air conditioning and a psychological boost to those who use the buildings.

Depending on the type of planting used, and where the wall is sited, there are habitat benefits to be had for the local wildlife. Some designs purposely incorporate bee boxes and nesting sites for birds.

Compared with other approaches to greening the urban environment: green roofs, parks and planting trees, vertical gardening is admittedly very high maintenance, with water and light being the main issues.

Some of these walls are actually sited indoors, or in internally facing courtyards, with poor quality light. The usual methods of keeping plants alive in these situations are plant selection, or artificial lighting: a poor environmental choice.

The watering problem is not an insurmountable one. Designs use drought tolerant planting at the top of the wall, with those preferring a wetter environment further down, an efficient watering system and water storage; rain water and even air conditioning condensate are used to reduce water costs.

This is where we could have a serious problem. Rapid change shortens the time scale, but if species and their habitats are allowed to move: to cooler areas as ambient temperatures rise, or salt marsh moving inland as the coast erodes, they can buy time for natural selection to have an effect. Unfortunately human activity is so widespread that we can block such progressive change with our constructions, such as highways, cities, and dams.

Our species is enhanced by rich biodiversity; think of how our food is produced, and where many medicines are sourced. It’s clear we need to adopt a more holistic approach to the natural world: it’s essential it becomes an integral part of our lives.

This imperative is reflected in a change in the way conservation is being approached, as noted on Page 5 of Living landscapes: A call to restore the UK’s battered ecosystems, for wildlife and people, published by The Wildlife Trusts.

To recreate genuine living landscapes, we need to embrace this approach:

• Move from dominators and controllers of nature to
  appreciators and influencers of nature;
• Move from nature as special interest to nature as
  providing our living conditions – locally, regionally and
  globally;
• Move from a situation of nature in boxes to nature in the
  neighbourhood and nature in the landscape.

Everyone has a part to play in this kind of strategy, so when considering flood defences, coastal erosion projects, transport systems, or even paving your garden, please consider the impact on our living landscapes.

• Electricity.
• Natural gas.
• Transport.
• Water.

I’ve been tracking three of these for sometime, as previously discussed using the Carbon Account, but as a starting point, I’ve had to extract water data from our bills.

I’m hoping to personally read the water meter weekly in the future, as I do the other utilities, but it’s dependent on being able to see my submerged meter… Anglian Water, I’m looking at you.

Energy not CO₂.

I prefer to work with energy units (kWh), rather than the now popular kgCO₂. Energy is more definitive whilst the mixture of energy supply sources is shifting; some energy is ‘green’, and some is not, but it’s not something I can control.

To make this review process meaningful, I’m going to need an idea of my current energy profile: where I’m spending the energy I consume. That way I can make sound decisions about were to cut back.

Converting meter readings into energy.

Converting from meter units to energy requires a little maths in the case of natural gas, transport, and water. Here’s a brief explanation of how I went about it armed with a little technical data and the information from my bills.

Natural Gas.

The conversion for the gas supply was provided on my bill:

Energy consumed (kWh) = (2.83 x 39.5679 x 1.02264) / (3.6 x 100) x volume of gas used (ft³)

Most of these numbers are volume and energy conversion constants, but the 39.5679 figure is the calorific value of the natural gas: its energy content.

Transport.

In our case, transport can be defined almost exclusively as a 35 mpg car, so the job here is to convert mileage into a mass of fuel burned, and then into the chemical energy released.

I’ve take data from the seventh edition of Technical Data on Fuel, which given a density of 0.75 kg/litre, and a calorific value of 44000 kJ/kg for petrol:

Fuel consumed (kg) = ( miles / mpg ) x 4.54609 x 0.75

Energy consumed (kWh) = ( fuel consumed x 44000 ) / 3600

If you work this out for our car, each mile travelled uses 1.191 kWh of energy.

Water.

I’ve used data from issue 4 of the BRE Water Centre newsletter:

• Energy used in supply = 0.468 kWh/m³
• Energy used in treatment = 0.437 kWh/m³

It states that about 90% of all mains water supply is returned for treatment, which allowed me to estimate a total energy consumption associated with water supply of 0.861 kWh/m³.

These data are from 1998/99, and as such a little old, but I’ve check the results against more recent Government information, and it appears to be accurate enough.

The results.

The data collected over the last year result in the following average energy mix profile.

The only thing that surprised me was the insignificance of the energy contribution from our water supply. It would appear that the environmental impact is almost entirely related to the availability of water in a changing climate.

As for reductions… we use Gas for central heating, water heating and some of the cooking, and it looks like the best target for improvement.

Don’t forget water.

Water treatment is an energy intensive activity, and as such is an important contributor to our output of carbon dioxide. Unfortunately, data on the carbon balance of the water industry is harder to find than that for the power generators, so it is often conveniently ignored.

By soaking up rain water and releasing it back into the air as the plants transpire, green roofs reduce the amount of water flowing into our treatment plants. Their capacity to soak up water helps reducing the surge of water in storm sewers as a result of heavy rain. This is a great flood prevention measure, also reducing the incidence of emergency waste water release into the environment.

Controlling the temperature.

The transpiration process requires heat to produce water vapour, this cools the entire roof. A green roof comprises a number of layers and presents significant thermal mass, and as a result it helps to keep buildings cool in the summer. Both effects reduces the need for cooling in our buildings and saving energy.

It’s true that the UK climate is a little wet during the cold winter months for green roofs provide any insulation. However, the growing number of data centres that support our communications and Internet infrastructure generate large amounts of waste heat. It’s here that the cooling effects of the green roof may be most beneficial throughout the year.

The importance of green spaces.

Green roofs could provide important benefits for biodiversity of our urban areas, by providing green spaces where most people live people, and more varied habitat for embattled wildlife.

Aside from making our built environment a better place, many species will need to move in order find a suitable habitat, thus adapting to climate change. Green corridors are an important part of this mobility within urban environments, and by created them on our roof tops we are helping species find a viable niche in a changing world.

I don’t have any problem with this strategy, but it’s best outcome is to preventing things getting any worse.

Whether natural process or man-made crisis, climate change is already happening and raises a range of ecological problems. By focusing too hard on carbon emissions we’re missing a vital piece of the jigsaw: how do we mitigate the effects of the changes that are already inevitable?

Clearly we’re going to have to alter the way we live and behave. To survive we’re going to have to do what humans do best: adapt, and to succeed we need to throw our intellectual net a little wider than the obsessive focus on carbon emissions.

This small series of articles is intended to look at climate change issues and potentially beneficial ideas. In the next post I’ll start with mixture of heat, water, and the application of green roofs.