Every Chop Counts!

Meat production is one of the less obvious contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions. During the production process of 1kg of beef, 34.6kg of carbon dioxide is emitted. This is equivalent to the carbon emissions of an average European car for every 250km it travels. [1]

Don’t get me wrong, I am not about to propose that we cut meet from our diets – I enjoy my Sunday Roast far too much for that! But what I am proposing is that we become more sustainable in our meat consumption.

For example, at home, we now buy a larger ham or chicken for our Sunday Roast and instead of throwing out the leftovers or giving them to the dog, we save them for sandwich making during the week. By doing this, we cut down our spending on meat by not buying premade sandwich meats, which add a large amount of emissions to the environment during production. Furthermore, the level of packaging for disposal is significantly reduced by not buying these products. Not only this, but by eating these leftovers you are producing less food waste and are not left stuck with packets of half finished ham and chicken slices in your fridge that have gone off as people have forgotten to finish them, etc.

I am aware that the leftover meat will only be able to cover a few days worth of lunch making before you run out, but this is not a bad thing! What I propose you to do here is have a meat free day, and then start this process again the following day.

Cutting out these premade meats from your diet is not only good for the environment – it’s good for you! More often than not, these meat products are full of unhealthy additives making eating the real deal much better for you.

The key thing here is to think twice before you buy, making small reductions in your consumption can have a massive knock on effect in your life and the environment. It is taking these small steps that can put you on the road to living sustainably.

Niamh Duggan

[1] Davies, C., (2008) Meat by Numbers, The Guardian (Online) Avaiable at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.beef?intcmp=239 (accessed: 25^th March 2012)

CO2 -A problem today - A synthetic fuel tomorrow?

It is evident that increases in atmospheric CO₂ are causing catastrophic and subsequent irreversible effects on our planet. Acknowledgement that a problem exists and taking action are two separate entities often confused. How many times have you heard someone say ‘’I know the effects of global warming and its repercussions!’’, yet that same person continues to live the same way week after week?. The time has come to forget the ‘what we know’ mind-set and concentrate on the ‘what we can do’ aspect.

Research by Scientists at the National Laboratory for Sustainable Energy in Denmark has identified a possible solution to increasing carbon emissions. The process of electricity generation by conversion of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and oxygen into CO₂ and water vapour by Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) can in fact be reversed. This realisation is highly significant and means that by supplying electricity to these devices atmospheric CO₂ and water vapour can be converted into carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which can then be combined chemically to make synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. Although the process costs money, there is a realistic possibility of producing synthetic petrol at a value of 73.97 cent per litre. Link

It may not be convenient, nor is it ideal but when solutions to carbon emissions are in short supply, something is better than nothing. Through continuous co-operation and interaction with one another the goal of becoming carbon neutral in future becomes highly feasible, and is something that we as individuals, communities, and nations should be backing 100%.

‘A bend in the road is not the end of the road... unless you fail to make the turn'.

Ross McDonald

Future Food Shortage Crisis

The plight that climate change has caused has been documented to death such to the extent that people have become immune to hearing about holes in the ozone layer and the melting icecaps. For some reason it seems people still cannot grasp the seriousness of the situation and how these changes will affect their lives and the lives of their successors.  For that reason this blog will address something we can all associate with, one of the most basic fundamental commodities we all need for survival and yet is something most take for granted. I am talking about food.

It was estimated that in 2010 13.6% of the world’s population was undernourished. This in itself is startling, however what is even more starling and worrying is the fact that it is estimated that our global population will double in the next ninety years. This means more people to feed with even less resources than now due to the rapid effects of global warming such as desertification,  higher temperatures and rising sea-levels. Ireland is an agricultural island nation, this fact means we will be very badly affected by these changes as we will be forced to change agricultural methods, try and produce climate-resistant crops and deal with the rising sea- levels that will claim fertile land. These revelations beg to question how it will be possible to provide for double the amount of people that are alive now when we cannot even provide for the current number of people adequately. The horrible truth is that realistically we will not be able to. That is of course unless we try to make a change now.

There is no point in lying and saying we can undo the harm we as a population have already caused because we cannot. However, we can prevent further damage and prolong the time we have before we have to face this crisis. With this valuable extra time we may be able to develop climate-resistant crops and introduce new methods for agriculture. Therefore, it is important that we make a change and commit to living sustainably through reducing carbon emissions and helping to control the rising global population.

Kate Hinchion

Sustainability in Ireland a Prime Example

In the long run people who live in suitably built, sustainable houses save a small fortune on heat and electricity bills every year: an example of which can be seen by looking at the eco- village in Cloughjordan, Co. Tipperary. This eco-village does more than promote sustainability; it is aiming to establish a sustainable community.

The eco-project entitled, “The Village, Building, Sustainable, Community” is a concept were there are homes, business and the community, as a whole live an almost 100% sustainable life. This eco-village has set up directly beside the town of Cloughjordan. While originally “The Village” wanted to be totally independent of all other buildings, towns or villages, planning restrictions would not allow this, so they settled for Cloughjordan.  The idea of “The Village” is to build around eighty homes, twelve or so business and a community centre along with some plots to grow vegetables and cereals, as well as keeping a small farm to produce milk and some forestry; all this on a site which is sixty-seven acres in size. The way the land is used is important to the residence of the village as they want to gain as much out of it as possible: in order to achieve this they have set up a community land use plan:

“The community's land use plan is based on the principles of environmental and ecological diversity, productive landscape and permaculture. The eco-village has 67 acres of land which has three broad uses- residential, woodland and farmland” 

The Village

John May

Travelling Sustainably

I live to travel. It is when I am at my happiest.  We live in a diverse and beautiful world and in my short time here I plan to see and experience as much of it as possible. I can think of nothing better than hopping on a plane and landing in some new and exotic place, far from home and ready for adventure. I have always known travel comes at a high cost to our environment, but I’ve tended to ignore that fact. I was dreading our ‘Living Sustainably’ lecture on travel. I knew it was going to be confronted with a list of reasons of why travelling is a bad thing. I was right. ‘Hopping on a plane’ massively increases person’s carbon footprint. Approximately 20% of an Irish household’s carbon emissions are due to air travel. This is a huge figure. Emissions from flying can range from 140g to 260g CO₂ e per passenger km-¹.

I travelled to Tanzania last summer. My flight over, via Amsterdam, released in total 1,100kg of CO₂ per passenger. I also flew from Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania to Lilongwe in Malawi. This flight emitted 176kg of CO₂ per passenger. Finally my flight home, via Johannesburg and Paris, released a staggering 1,400 kg of CO₂ per passenger. In total, it increased my carbon footprint by 2,676kg of CO₂. This colossal amount of carbon emission could have been avoided if I had simply stayed at home. Some say travel is a luxury, and perhaps a luxury we can no longer afford. It is ironic that every time I travel I am helping to destroy this magnificent world that I am travelling to see.  Our lecture left me troubled and so I decided to focus my blog post on it.

Should I have stayed at home? 

No. I don’t think so. Living in Tanzania this summer is something that I could never regret. It was a massively educating and defining life experience for me. I have never felt as alive as I did there. I learned to live a totally new way of life. I met people I would never have otherwise had the chance to meet. They taught me to look at my life in a completely different way. It is something that I hope everyone will someday get the opportunity to do. It is a cliché to say that travel ‘broadens the mind’, but it is a cliché for a reason.

However, we cannot ignore the huge impact these ‘mind-broadening’ experiences have on the environment. So what can be done?

We can attempt to cut down our footprint in all other aspects of our life. When travelling we can try be as ecofriendly as possible. However, doing these things will never fully negate the true cost of a flight. What I think must be realized is that you do not have to fly to travel. There are a huge number of other alternatives that are overlooked. It is true that these alternatives will take longer, but they are also usually cheaper. And hey, getting there is half the fun!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Trans_mongolian_gobi.jpg

For overland travel not enough can be said about catching the train. Taking the train can cut passenger emissions by up to 90%. You can reach practically any country in Europe from the UK by rail. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Ireland, but the UK is only a ferry ride away. People are also quite unaware of how well connected Europe and Asia are by rail. Many of the rail routes are tourist attractions in their own right, not simply a means of getting somewhere. Famous railways, such as the Trans-Siberian Railway, the Jungle line in South-East Asia, and the Palace-On-Wheels in India, attract thousands of travellers every year.  What better way to view a country than by watching breathtaking landscapes, and sprawling urban centers fly by your window.

And what if there is no rail route? Well there will always be a bus. I travelled from Arusha to Dar es Salaam by bus. It was a ten hour journey. This will probably conjure up horrific images of cramped conditions, no air-conditioning and potholed African roads. However, I must say I thoroughly enjoyed this journey. Yes, things were not as spacious and airy as they could have been, but on this trip I bonded with many other travellers, listened to African chants being sung to pass away time and chatted with locals about their lives and their reasons for travelling. I would have missed out on a lot if I had taken the plane instead.

Travelling by sea can be a bit trickier. Ferry timetables can be more infrequent than trains or buses and prices can be quite expensive. However it is definitely worth considering the option. There are myriad of transatlantic passenger ships, along with ferries to the Mediterranean, Scandinavia and even West Africa. Like train travel, a boat trip can be a once in a lifetime experience as well as an effective way of cutting carbon emissions.

I hope I’ve encouraged the reader to consider these other options. Longer journeys can seem like an inconvenience, but they can also be some of the most rewarding parts of a trip.

After college I plan to go to Beijing. I also plan not to take a single foot off the ground. I will go to the UK with the ferry and then take the train through Europe to Moscow. From here I can get the Trans-Siberian Express to Beijing. I will follow the old Silk Road on the way home, taking advantage of China’s railways. I will bus through Central Asia, then catch a train from Kazakhstan to Moscow and begin the homeward stretch through Europe. Direct travel expenses, train tickets etc., will cost me no more than €1,500. For this price I will get to see the diverse countryside of Europe, the vast wildernesses of Siberia, the steppes of Mongolia, the Great Wall of China, the foothills of the Himalayas, the hidden valleys of Central Asia, the Gobi Desert. I will share train Cabins with people from all over the world and make friends along the way. I think of nothing more thrilling. All the while my trip will have minimal adverse effects on the environment. How can an impersonal flight to Beijing and back again compete with this?

I do not think travel is luxury. It is a necessity. It changes your perspective on life. It gives you respect for other cultures and appreciation for the world you live in. It dispels ignorance and encourages tolerance and acceptance. It is the way we travel that is the luxury. When commercial flights became available, we lost one of the crucial and beneficial parts of travel, the journey. In this article I hoped to renew some appreciation for this part of travel. If more people began to use alternative options, think of the effect it could have on our world. Flights would increase in frequency; new ferry and train routes would be established. This could have a profound effect on the world. 20% of an Irish household’s footprint is due to air travel, and this is only a measure of fuel used, indirect costs could be extremely large too.

Please check out the excellent websites, such as http://www.seat61.com/, http://alittleadrift.com/ and http://www.busstation.net/index.htm, can help you to plan train and bus journeys all over the world and give advice on travelling without flying.

Lara Cassidy

Agreeing to Painting Paradise rather than Conserving It

Society today is empowered with knowledge regarding sustainable living. We are more aware than ever of the devastating impact that we are having on our environment. Governments have implemented plans, strategies and quotas, yet we continue to cut away chunk after chunk of our natural habitat and replace it brick by brick with concrete and carbon dioxide. We side step the rules, cheat the system and admire the photos of nature while grumbling at our expanding dull, grey environment. Below I outline how we silence our conscience while disregarding the impact that we are having on the environment.

The Kayoto Protocol was set up in 1992 in order to reduce and stabilize emission levels. Although in theory the concept looks good it has ultimately failed because America refused to sign on, claiming that it was ‘fatally flawed in fundamental ways’. As the largest total emitter and the largest emitter per capita in the world this resulted in drastic under-achievements of KP.

The Cap and Trade system implicated in Europe in 2008 initially sounded positive. However we created loopholes for major companies allowing them to buy extra CDM/JI credits on the market, which now are too inexpensive to impact the emission levels of a company at any significant level. We also were extremely generous with the emission allowances allocated to countries, therefore impinging on the possible positive outcomes for our environment.

In short we seem satisfied with paying lip service to sustainable living in an effort to silence our conscience without really acting upon ideas. In order to actually make a difference we must begin to implement our policies correctly and be willing to come to a compromise between economics and sustainability.

Rebecca O’Connor

Could you live a day without energy?

For most of us in the modern world electricity/gas/oil power various activities that we need and/or enjoy throughout our days, from the hot shower in the morning to the midday cappuccino. If you strip back the day, how many things that we do in fact require no energy?

Personally, walking to college seems like the most eco-friendly part of my day. I wake up with the heating already on, turn on the lights, eat something from a refrigerator, shower, dry my hair, boil the kettle, turn on some music, take the lift and that’s all before I leave the house!

Therefore I propose a challenge for myself and who ever reads this to go a day without electricity. Just one day, 24 hours. Cold showers, non-perishable food and cycling may be required of the day! A man named Colin Beavan aka ‘No Impact Man’ went a whole year without electricity in New York City. With its hotter than hell summers and sub zero winters this was not an easy task. His documentary and story has inspired me to think ‘what if?’. I could never reach the feat of a whole year like Colin, not to sound pessimistic, but a day is possible. I admit I am too accustomed to the modern world and its frivolous yet enjoyable aspects, such as that midday cappuccino. Though energy was required to make the clothes we wear, produce the food we eat and build the bed in which we sleep, the aim of a no impact day is to lessen the load of current energy used and thus to get us thinking green! Link

Jessica Maddock