The 10 Worst Mistakes Leading to Global Warming

The build up of greenhouse gases in theglazing, with virtually no insulation and may be still
atmosphere and resulting global warming is theheated by electricity.
result of centuries old habits and ill thought outWhile most properties in the UK are of a
policies that may do more harm than good. Herepotentially higher standard, in 2005 there were still
are listed the ten worst mistakes which haveover nine million homes with uninsulated cavity
either led us to the present situation, or appearwalls and 6.3 million lofts that have either no or
incapable of solving it.poor insulation in England alone. These types of
1) Economic growthproperty are easy and cheap to retrofit with
The New Economics Foundation recently said "Weinsulation and this could save a third of the heat
urgently need to change our economy to livelost; yet progress carrying out these measures
within its environmental budget since there is noare still slow.
global, environmental central bank to bail us out ifWhile new homes are designed to conform to
we become ecologically bankrupt"much higher thermal standards, many are still not
Economic growth has become a cultural obsession.built to an adequate quality, with 57% of houses
To achieve this, consumer products are designedand a third of all properties failing a standard
with either a physical or psychologicalpressure test. These leaks result in air ingress
obsolescence to increase sales and profits andcompromising the effectiveness of the insulation.
provide the illusion of wealth. This leads to waste,These low quality standards are thought to be
resource depletion, and profligate energy usepartially the result of a lack of building inspectors
resulting in widespread environmental damage atand the privatisation of building controls.
both a local and global level.6) Food waste and meat
It is still widely believed that we can continue toThe UN says that Food production must double
expand economically yet reduce carbon emissionsby 2050 to meet the demand of the world's
at the same time without a revolutionarygrowing population. However, most of the worlds
technological fix. This myth has been heavilyfarming land is already in use, so increased food
marketed through the catchphrase 'sustainableproduction will require extending intensive farming
growth', but despite almost half of a century ofmethods with greater use of pesticides and
effort to dissociate growth from increases infertilisers leading to the increased release of
fossil fuel use these factors are still inextricablygreenhouse gases.
linked.Paradoxically, the UK government policy is
The scale of the problem should not beattempting to deal with both of these problems
underestimated. We continue to live in a societysimultaneously with plans to "boost food
where extravagance is still envied rather thanproduction in Britain and reduce its impact on the
frowned on. Introducing more sustainableenvironment". However, it is estimated that only
economic policies will be politically difficult without aabout 45% of the food actually produced at the
paradigm change in our values.farming stage that is used, is really necessary for
2) World population explosionadequate nutrition, and most of the remaining
Whereas the political right wing abhors restricting55% of waste is preventable. This amounts to
economic growth, many in the left wing areabout 10% of the total UK carbon output, almost
crippled with their own ideological dogma; theas much as its entire transport system! No doubt
opposition to population control. Their argumentthis situation is repeated elsewhere throughout
revolves around tenuous claims that poorthe developed world.
developing countries, which generally have theMuch of the food production in the world is also
greatest increases in population, contribute little toused for animal feed to produce meat. Together
global warming. However, this doesn't tie with thewith the emissions these animals produce directly,
evidence.meat is responsible for a substantial proportion of
NASA recently estimated that black carbonthe world greenhouse gas emissions. The recent
emissions (such as smoke) from biomass burningincrease in food prices has been partially driven by
is the second greatest contributor to net radiativehigher meat demand due to a more affluent
forcing after transport, and significant quantities ofworld population, as well as the demand for
this originates from cooking and heating in openbiofuels which competes with food for land use
wood fires, a common practice in developing(see item 10). One study found that grain-fed
countries. However, more importantly all globalbeef is responsible for 13.82g of CO2 equivalent
residents will aspire to high living standardsemissions per Kcal of energy, compared with
exacerbated through blanket advertising. China's1.67g for an intensively reared chicken, and only
middle classes already number several hundred0.14g for the average vegetable.
million people due to the countries earlierWithout more sustainable farming practices and
population explosion and more recent economicthe reduction of waste by the affluent, the future
success fuelled from high carbon coal. China islooks bleak for food availability as well as for the
now the world highest emitter of greenhouseenvironment.
gases and Indonesia the third highest highest,7) Automotive biofuels
although much of this is still driven by industrialThe environmental principles behind the use of
exports to developed countries.biofuels appear simple enough. The carbon
It seems therefore that even people with a lowabsorbed by the feedstock plant from the
carbon lifestyle could store up an environmentalatmosphere during growth is supposed to
time bomb for the future. In fact calculationscompensate for carbon emissions of the fuel
show that population control is nearly five timesproduced from it. However, there are numerous
more cost effective in mitigating global warmingother energy inputs required to refine biofuels,
emissions than green energy technologies like windand this energy is sourced mainly from fossil fuel
and solar power.power stations. Intensive farming of the biomass
3) Non-global carbon trading schemesfeedstock also requires fertilisers that release
While emission trading schemes are not inherentlyNitrous oxide, another powerful greenhouse gas.
bad, regional ones with arbitrary limits such as theWorse still, new land allocated for growing biofuels
European emissions trading system are a recipecan release substantial carbon to the environment
for disaster. In theory this scheme places a limitdue to the tilling of soils and deforestation. For
on the total allowable carbon emitted from theexample, it has been calculated that biofuels
major industries within these countries. However,sourced from food crop-based plants in Brazil,
many sectors of the economy and imports areSoutheast Asia, and the United States on land
excluded. International transport for example hasthat was rainforest, peatlands, savannah, or
been difficult to include until now, partly due to thegrassland releases between 17 to 420 times
difficulty allocating emissions to specific countries.more carbon than if fossil fuels were used instead.
Of the businesses that are involved, theseAlong with cattle farming, the rush to produce
subject governments to intense politically lobbyingbiofuels is one main reason for deforestation and
which then over-subscribe free carbon allowancesassociated ecological damage.
to them which have led to windfall profits. WorseAlthough more expensive, it is possible to produce
still, participants are allowed to import goods andrelatively low carbon sources of biofuel from plant
outsource labour from non-complaint countrieswastes and 2nd generation biofuel technologies
that do not subscribe to carbon limits at all. Theywhich use the whole plant material, but little is
are also allowed to offset their emissions there,produced at present. The European Union has set
effectively paying developing countries to reducetargets to source 5.75% and 10% of transport
emissions so they can increase theirs, but thisfuels from renewable's by 2010 and 2020
sometimes results in payments for projects thatrespectively without excluding unsustainable
might had happened anyway! The net effect is ansources. Surely this is an appalling oversight.
increase of consumer energy prices within the EU8) Public transport using large buses and trains
while having virtually no influence on reducing theIt is often claimed that to reduce transport
rate of increase in global carbon emissions.carbon emissions we need to introduce more
Other market-based schemes are claimed to bepublic transport to entice people out of their cars.
superior to the EU trading system. However, anyThis may work well in metropolitan areas,
scheme is only as effective as the loopholes. Anyespecially if the infrastructure is adapted to
successful mechanism must be global in scope,support them. However, outside areas of high
with the limits or tax levels dictated by thepopulation density public transport is used by a
environmental objectives free from businessdiminishing number of people, and is largely reliant
lobbying or political pressure.on customers who either cannot drive or afford a
Unofficial offsetting schemes are a microcosm ofcar, which will continue to reduce. This low
the same problem. These typically allow smallerdemand for public transport results in either a
organisations to offset their carbon emissionsreduced service, or under-utilised vehicles requiring
using conservation projects such as reforestationenormous subsidies from the taxpayer and
without having to reduce emissions directly. Thisgenerating high emissions per passenger carried.
effectively provides them with environmentalThe US Transportation Energy Data Book
credentials which they can advertise to customersestimates that transit buses and commuter trains
while continuing with a business as usual approach.carried only 8.8 and 31.2 passengers on average
However, once again it is difficult to be sure thatso these vehicles are operated mostly empty and
these projects are truly additional.spend much of their time carrying mainly their
There are many other problems with offsetting,own weight around. As a consequence, cars use
especially with forestry projects. Forestry in high17% less energy per passenger than transit buses
latitudes are less effective at absorbing carbonand 17% more energy per passenger than
and reducing temperatures than in the morecommuter trains!
politically unstable tropical regions, so it is difficultIt is therefore necessary to rethink radically of
to guarantee that the forests in these later areashow to adapt and operate our public transport
will be managed well into the future. This is criticalsystem to meet the needs of a dispersed
since that beside preventing illegal logging activities,modern society, and if possible make it financially
the climate may change leading to drought andself supporting while retaining a low environmental
forest fires. Another problem is that preventingimpact.
deforestation in one area may also simply drive9) Large carr
loggers elsewhere, so once again there isWhile the improved structural safety of cars has
necessary for national and global monitoring.required some weight increases, there has also
4) Feed in tariffs and micro-generationbeen strong consumer marketing to bolster
Feed-in tariffs used in several EU countries obligedemand for larger and higher performance cars.
electricity companies to pay private consumers aThese provide greater prestige value for the
premium rate for any excess renewableowner and greater profit margins and turnover
micro-energy they produce at home, although thisfor the motor industry than much smaller cars
payment is gradually reduced over time. To coverwhich are inherently more efficient.
the up front costs of installing the technology theWhile cars have been getting heavier,
initial premium has to be extortionately high whichdemographic changes are leading to either smaller
will be passed on by the electricity companies tofamilies or single occupant households. As a result,
the rest of their customers, as higher bills.the number of occupants per car is decreasing
Feed-in tariffs are supposed to accelerate theand cars are getting significantly heavier relative
development of renewable technologies andto the people they carry. A typical vehicle in
provide producers with enough initial sales toEurope will need to carry about 20 times the
achieve economies of scale and become marketweight and 100 times the volume of the driver it
competitive without a subsidy. However thecarries. This is a grossly inefficient way of
qualifying projects, which usually consist oftransporting people around.
photovoltaic panels, are far less inefficient than ifDue to the limited scope of reducing energy while
they were scaled up into energy parks located inincreasing the size of vehicles at the same time,
the sunniest regions such as Southern Europeanmanufacturers have considered using exotic
and southwest United States. Instead they havetechnologies and fuels instead. The biggest white
been mostly installed on house roofs in Germany.elephant of all has been hydrogen fuel cell vehicles,
Ten years ago the German government offeredwhich has diverted attention away from more
generous feed-in tariffs costing E1.2bn. Their totalviable technologies. Fuel cells are extortionately
contribution to the country's electricity supply wasexpensive and generally require low-density
0.4%, however even these meagre savingshydrogen that is difficult to transport and store. In
allowed other industries to raise their emissions bypractice it is not even carbon free, since the most
the same amount due to the EU Emissionseconomic method of producing hydrogen is by
Trading scheme (see item3). Estimates alsosteam reforming of natural gas that results in the
suggest that Germany's solar programmerelease of carbon dioxide. Yet despite all this
destroyed more local jobs than it created, andeffort, a recent European trial of fuel cell buses
many of the panels installed were manufacturedshowed that they emitted more carbon than their
abroad in the Far EastDiesel engine equivalents despite costing £1
The UK government is about to repeat themillion each!
mistake. It is estimated that feed in tariffs will10) Travelling to business meetings
cost £8.6bn to save 20m tonnes of CO2 byModern telecommunication technologies offer
2030. This means it will cost around £430 toimmense opportunities for reducing air and land
save one tonne of carbon dioxide compared withbased travel especially within the business sector,
£8 per tonne by building a nuclear power plant,since there are few of these activities which
or a net saving using energy conservationcannot be performed by teleconferencing and
measures.teleworking. However, there is scant evidence
5) Poor design and build quality of propertiesthat these simple solutions are being taken
Building homes with high levels of insulation andseriously. While many corporations enthusiastically
passive solar heating always seemed like aembrace high profile projects which present an
sensible precaution even before the more recentenvironmentally concerned image, they are
energy and climate crisis since it helped tocontent to let their employees spend valuable
prioritise fuel supplies for industry during times oftime travelling to meetings and conferences which
war or industrial action. However, residentialcould be more efficiently served by
planners and house-builders throughout most ofteleconferencing. No doubt they perceive a
the last century largely overlooked even thesemarketing advantage using direct interpersonal
basic measures. As a consequence much of ourcommunication, or perhaps the allure of the free
older housing is grossly energy inefficient, which isforeign trip is overwhelming and used most by
now difficult and expensive to retrofit withthose in executive positions who dictate
energy conservation measures. Three millioncorporate policy.
properties in the UK still fall into the lowest twoWhilst there is no single solution to the problem of
categories of energy efficiency, which are oftenglobal warming, it can be mitigated through a
occupied by low-income occupants. Many of thesevariety of innovative, coordinated and practical
buildings are solid-walled, with a pitched roof, singlesolutions combined with well thought out policies.