Posts Tagged ‘Environment’

An Idiot’s Guide to the Environment

You may have heard a lot about being ‘environmentally friendly’ or of the advantages of recycling, or even about the poor ozone layer. But do those phrases leave you cold? Do you wonder whether the ‘environment’ is one issue or several? Well sit back as I try to make clear for you something that is really important, but that can be difficult to research without being bamboozled:

The Ozone Layer

People of a certain age will know that the ozone layer was in peril in the late 80s and early 90s. This was due to a particular gas used in aerosols and some refrigerators and similar electrical appliances that damaged this layer of the atmosphere. The ozone layer protects all living things from the harmful effects of the sun’s light. The gases that were the cause were CFCs. The sun’s light that was being let through was those rays in the ultraviolet.

What do I need to do?

The Ozone layer problems are largely historical and are not related to global warming or the need for recycling. If you have an old fridge or freezer (or even if it’s reasonably new) make sure it is disposed off legally and recycled!

Recycling

Recycling is important because there are finite amounts of some materials. For example, on Earth there is only a limited amount of each type of metal and metal cannot be created from anything else. Recycling is the only sensible way to manage these genuinely limited resources. So when you recycle a drinks can, a battery, tin foil or a tuna can, you are helping to stop the human race from running out of these metals. Recycling batteries is especially important as they contain mercury which is a rare metal and also extremely poisonous. The metal in domestic appliances is largely recycled these days as a result of the EU’s WEEE rules.
Plastic recycling is similar to metal recycling in that plastic is made of a material that there is a limited amount of (oil). When we run out of oil (even if that is centuries from now), we will not be able to make all the plastics that currently rely on fossil oil (that is, oil derived from long dead trees as opposed to oil that can be extracted from recently alive plants such as sunflower oil etc.) Another reason to recycle plastic is because of something that happens to the chemicals when they are made into plastic: they are made almost completely impervious to rotting.
Paper recycling is nowhere near so clear cut. The best argument is actually one about global warming, so I have left that to that section.

The main thing to note is that the main reasons for recycling are not related to global warming. There are serious environmental reasons to recycle, but the majority of them are not to do with global warming.

Global Warming

This is the daddy of the environmental causes. For this reason, like evolution in biology, it is often attacked by people who want to attack environmentalists generally.
Carbon Dioxide (or CO2 to use its chemical symbol) and some other gases have an effect on the atmosphere which helps it to absorb more of the sun’s energy. This has the effect of causing the atmosphere generally to warm up. There are other effects of a change to the chemical make-up of the air, but they are reasonably subtle and not worth mentioning in this initial guide.
The trouble with heating the atmosphere is that it causes ice in some parts of the world to melt. And when it melts, the colour of these areas changes from light to dark. This may sound like a small thing but it has the unfortunate effect of stopping sunlight from being reflected back out into space, further heating the Earth.
The main thing when considering how to manage global warming (more properly, global climate change) is what causes an increase in the overall amount of CO2. The easy answer is burning things, but that is not always the case. If you plant a tree, it absorbs an amount of atmospheric carbon. When you burn that tree, you release some of that carbon back into the air. But what you have not done is contributed much to climate change. The real problem is when carbon that has been buried for a long period of time is released. That is mostly carbon trapped in coal and fossil oil and gas.
There are arguments about the benefit of using the bus or train over your car, and there are some odd results of different activities, but the principle is simple — if you can be more efficient when using electricity or your car, you will be helping.
The odd results are things like local vs. foreign farming. Some research has found that even with the fuel burning required in shipping a fruit product from Africa to England, there are fewer emissions attributable to the African product because of the greater mechanisation of English farms. It is difficult to legislate for that sort of effect, but it’s best not to worry about that sort of thing.
Some people will also point out that the climate is not usually stable and that it may not be human activity that is causing the changes in climate we can all now see. While that may be true to some extent, very little harm is done by trying to reduce our use of limited resources such as fossil fuels. So why not be more efficient anyway?!

I mentioned earlier that paper recycling could be considered a global warming mitigating environmentally friendly activity. I said this because when paper goes into landfill, it will decompose in a way that causes the greenhouse gas, methane, to be released. Unfortunately for the environment, methane is actually even more effective at trapping the sun’s energy than carbon dioxide. The same thing happens when food waste is binned, so do consider whether there is some way you can compost.

Conclusion

Next time someone says that they are doing something environmentally friendly, I hope this has helped you understand how that activity is environmentally friendly; I hope, too, that it has helped you understand that there is a difference between the environmental causes.

If you would like to learn more, or take part in discussion, take a look at the Green Living Grog

, , ,

2 Comments


Green Living

Interested in living more greenly, but don’t know how: collaborate with us all here: Green Living Grog.

,

No Comments


Recycle your tetra paks

You may know, if you live in Adur District, that we can recycle cardboard cartons used for drinks like orange juice etc. And if you live in Worthing, the same is true (as we share this service).

But if you live elsewhere, the following website shows which Councils can recycle cartons.

, , ,

No Comments


Green questions unanswered

I thank readers for commenting on my last green question post but I think I didn’t make myself clear. Perhaps it is obvious that I was right that the kettle uses more fossil fuels than a kettle, but there are many other questions we don’t know the answer to.

For example, is it better to drive at 45mph in fifth gear or 39mph in fourth gear if both make the engine do 2000rpm? Is it better to go slowly, change gear less but stay in a low gear or go slightly faster (where the engine is more efficient) but need to change up and down gears regularly? Is it better to keep an old inefficient, working boiler or waste the manufacturing effort of making a new efficient boiler (without mentioning the associated waste costs)? Is it better to throw out a massive, old cathode ray television and replace it with an LCD TV, or keep using it until it dies? Or should you replace your TV with an LCD one at all because of the metals used in their manufacture (even though they’re massively more efficient)? Should I use my unused energy-wasting lightbulbs or skip them for the energy saving ones I have in the drawer and throw the old-style ones away?

Now some of those questions are obvious, and I do know the answer) but some are not and there’s no single place where I (Joe Public) can find the answer easily. Those thousands of volunteers that Rob is hoping for need this information.

, , ,

1 Comment


Green taxes re-thought

George Osborne was on Radio 4 this morning making a very clear and intelligent argument in favour of the principle of green taxes.

I think most people these days are a little cynical about green taxes. Isn’t it true, they say, that green taxes are about revenue rather than behaviour? Isn’t it true that outside of London there is no viable alternative to private transport? And isn’t it true that a tax meant to disincentivise a behaviour, in the absence of an alternative, serves only to hurt the lower and middle earners?

Well Osborne’s solution is to create price stability — ensure the effective price of oil maintains a certain level and there will be a realistic chance of people investing in alternatives. Make long-term guarantees about the minimum level of landfill tax and then companies can be sure that it is worth investing in making money out of the situation.

While we would all like to believe that people and companies do the right thing because it’s the right thing, there’s absolutely no harm in allowing companies to profit from environmentally friendly practices. Even though there are arguments about the ‘green-ness’ of the Toyota Prius, no-one can claim it has been bad for the Toyota company.

Our current government announces things at pre-budget report stage and if they’re unpopular, changes its mind on the day of the budget. Osborne and co. have promised that there won’t be a raft of surprise new measures on the day of the budget which will allow companies and early-adopter consumers to know that their purchases and money-making exercises are going to have a sound-business case in five years time.

Like social welfare and the NHS, the Conservatives have taken the lead on another policy area — environmental realism.

, , , , , , , , ,

No Comments


Green questions

Everyone who cares about the environment (which I do despite my disagreements with left-wing environmentalists) must ask questions like this, but does anyone really know the answer?

The other day I was filling the kettle and accidentally overfilled it. So in an effort not to waste electricity I emptied the kettle down to the level where it contained enough water for the two cups I was making. My girlfriend asked whether I had done the right thing: Had I wasted more energy in wasting cleaned water than I had saved in not causing the kettle to stay on longer?

The question is a reasonable one. And it is a similar question to many others we all must ask as we go about our daily lives. So if human-caused climate change is such a big issue, why isn’t the results of research into these things being made available?

One final comment: I would like to apologise; my stats tell me that a small number of you have visited here almost every day since my last post — thank you and sorry for the delay in resuming service. Oh, and if you saw the Netherlands, Italy game last night, lucky you. Wasn’t it great?!

, , , ,

3 Comments


Train or car (no dilemma)

I would really like to have given a few more updates this week, but I really don’t have enough time!

So just a quick note: I am going into town later to do some shopping. I am literally a two minute walk from the railway station and, for all my differences of opinion with left-wing environmentalists, I do care about the ability of this planet to support humanity. I therefore decided to get the train in.

But then I was reminded that I have to go over to Ditchling tonight — I may have time to come back but I may not. Once again the lack of a genuinely available public transport system has caused me to burn unnecessary carbon. It is the responsibility of all of us to do what we can to protect the environment, but some of “all” of us have more capabilities to do that. Central government needs to make strong, clear policy announcements on public transport, and especially the railways, in the South East generally, and in the countryside specifically.

There are clearly not enough tracks between Brighton and London (fast trains must go sufficiently after a so-called slow-train that it does not catch the other train up — how pointless is that?) and there are absolutely no tracks (or buses in most cases) between rural towns and villages in Sussex.

, , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments


Public transport

Like most people I try to avoid public transport wherever possible. Not only is a car normally, cheaper, but it’s more comfortable and quicker too.

But to be fair to the services available, I had not yet tried the journey from my new home to my old work. My new home is only a two minute walk from the railway station and Legal & General in Hove is a pacy fifteen minutes walk. So the combined journey time, with the fifteen minutes on the train itself, is about half an hour. This compares very favourably with the rush hour journey time by car (because, of course, of the lack of public investment in viable roads from Shoreham past Chichester).

So, in future, if it weren’t for the frankly bizarre prohibitive cost, I would be more than keen on using this alternative. Actually, I’ll have to again tomorrow as my car remains at the garage.

On the cost, I still need to have it explained to me. How can it possibly cost more to transport many passengers than to transport one? And if you can share your car not only is the cost halved instantly, but it also becomes even more competitive. The do-gooder socialist environmentalists wish to correct this imbalance by charging car drivers more for the privilege of moving about their own country by private means (where do-gooder socialist environmentalists could, without too much squinting, be replaced with the single word “facists”).

As a short exercise, here is a comparison of the costs:

1. Private car: 13 pence per mile (if through town) or 10 pence per mile (if using the A27 trunk road which I do). This is a total of £1.20 for the 9.2 mile journey.
2. Train: £3.10 in each direction (ignoring spurious discounts if you choose to use the train every day)

Even if we add the 48 pence per day of road tax (which presumably exceeds expenditure on roads these days) the car remains a cheaper option. And if we removed the imbalance caused by fuel duty the car would be nearly a half cheaper again.

But why? How do economies of scale not come into play here? The train was full and the train in front of it was full too (I had to watch it pass as it does not stop here in Lancing) so the passengers on the train were not subsidising empty seats. The train uses electricity which everyone knows is created relatively efficiently (much more efficiently than burning a small amount of petroleum under the bonnet of several hundred vehicles) and, to cap it all, the train companies are largely subsidised by Her Majesty’s wealth-suppressor (sorry, the tax man).

So, someone, tell me why!

, , , , , , , ,

3 Comments


Lefties and lefties and the BBC

Gah! Anyone watching BBC Breakfast this morning cannot help to have been annoyed by the bend-over-backwards-until-your-country-is-overrun-with-murderers lefty do-gooders on the sofa… I only saw five minutes to be fair, before I left for work, but why on Earth are we subjected to so much “the status quo is perfectly acceptable” or “we should be more left-wing” nonsense, and no “we should be more right-wing”? When I say right-wing, of course, I mean the right-wing I espouse on this site: more freedom from taxes, more freedom from oppressive laws, more freedom from the State and more freedom.

And now a new Socialism is rearing its head. So far there have been three: Socialism, Communism and Environmentalist-Socialism. Now there is a fourth: International-Anti-trade-Environmentalist-Socialism! I’ve never really believed that post-Victorian socialists had the interests of the poor or the ‘worker’ at heart but this must be the final, unequivocal evidence?

, , , , , , ,

No Comments


Climate Change can be solved

During a week where wild fires have spread across Greece, literally unprecedented rain has affected England and killed four and where Italy and the surrounding area have experienced unusual heat, it is difficult to avoid the suggestion that climate change is having an effect. I still have a nagging doubt, but it’s meaningless to debate anyway in my opinion.

Interestingly, though, June’s Scientific American magazine has a passage which I think presents the barrier to solution quite clearly:

To accomodate the economic aspirations of the more than five billion people in the developing countries, the size of the world economy should increase by a factor of four to six by 2050; at the same time, global emissions of greenhouse gases will have to remain steady or decline to prevent dangerous changes to the climate. After 2050, emissions will have to drop further, nearly to zero, for greenhouse gas concentrations to stabilize.

Assuming the scientific community’s poor understanding of the climate is accurate then it is reassuring that the solution (technology) as proposed by the author (Jeffrey D. Sachs) costs approximately 1 penny per kilowatt hour. That’s on top of a current electricity price of approximately 8.1 pence.

I have long said that environmental-socialism is not the solution and I am heartened to read the technological-solution being espoused.

, , , ,

2 Comments



SetPageWidth