Facing Up To Global Warming Published

Facing Up To Global Warming: what is going on and how you can make a difference?

This new book was published today and  explores climate change and how individuals can make a difference. 

 Below is the Preface from the new book.

In 1972, a startling book was published called Limits to Growth . This book became hugely influential in the environmental movement, and while it alerted us to the fragility of our future on planet Earth, it also, inadvertently, helped to eventually undermine the credibility of environmentalism. The book predicted when certain non-renewables, including fossil fuels and metals, would become exhausted. The predictions were based on the best available knowledge at that time, but what it never envisaged in the early 1970’s, was that within a decade humans would be extracting oil, gas, and minerals in some of the remotest, extreme, and fragile places on Earth … a process that has continued and expanded to the present day. So the predictions proved incorrect in practice, but it reinforced the idea that all resources are limited and are slowly being exhausted.

This book became a driving force for many environmental scientists who realized that we have to act both collectively and individually to preserve our home, planet Earth, with its unique biosphere and which is home to millions of different living organisms of which we are just one species. For me personally, being an environmental scientist has been a long and often disappointing journey and at various times I have been shocked, scared, and often depressed by the unfolding of the current crisis which is so intertwined with global warming. But, to my surprise, in recent years I have begun to feel more hopeful that perhaps we can deal with our climate and resource problems to create a sustainable planet. So in this book, I have attempted to explain what the problems are and suggest some solutions. However, the book comes with a warning. During the 15 chapters that follow, I am going to make a lot of you really annoyed and possibly upset, I apologize in advance. I am not trying to shock; I am simply putting the facts before you so that you can make up your own mind. Neither am I telling anyone that their lifestyle is wrong, or alternatively, that they are better than the next person because they have invested in green energy or a hybrid car. The book is an overview; it is not a text on the theory of sustainability or population dynamics; it simply looks at what the individual should know and addresses some of the issues closest to our everyday lives.

There are hundreds of academic and specialist texts on sustainability, but they fail to link sustainability to tackling global warming, especially at the individual level. Adopting any form of sustainable actions in your life will cause significant effects both direct and indirect. Such actions will lead to changes that will influence economic and social norms … so sustainability if properly applied will mean socio economic change. I begin the text by giving a brief overview of the problems of climate change and the real difficulties that having such a rapidly growing population is placing on the idea of a sustainable and equitable planet. Discussions on population is always a very emotive issue and so I have simply given some basic facts, and shown that as population grows our ability to live sustainably on planet Earth becomes more challenging. So this is not a comfortable book.

Is the text political? I have tried not to be, but if you advocate changing people’s lifestyles, then it will appear to be political. Then, we have the concept that everyone on the planet matters and that the concept of global justice and human rights is important when assessing the sustainability of our own lifestyles. So trying to avert these climate-mediated crises by ensuring that everyone has enough for their needs without being wasteful is a good starting point. However, that starting point has to be an acknowledgment that all people are equal, and that we should all have the right to pursue happiness and well-being. Is this naïve? Of course it is, but what else are we to strive for in a truly global and fair society. Global warming raises serious social as well as economic questions and many of these are going to be very difficult to deal with in practice, and my aim is to try and make you think about these issues from a personal perspective. Can we have finite economic growth? Can we have finite consumerism? Unfortunately, the answer has to be no to both of these questions, which means that both economists and social geographers or planners have a lot of work to do and that we are going to have to eventually reinvent our economy and social environment to achieve these goals.

There are also many other important environmental issues that we also need to consider and many of these are also linked to global warming such as deforestation, exploitation of new fossil fuel reserves, intensification of agriculture, and overexploitation of water resources. However, many of these issues such as pollution, are less important in the context of global warming, as we now have them largely under control. We have made huge strides in dealing with air, water, and land pollution over the past 40 years, and there are scientists and regulatory bodies all dealing with these issues on an on-going basis. Such issues are predominately local or at worst regional, but rarely global, and what is important is that we have the technology and infrastructure to deal with them. But controlling carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions must now be everyone’s priority. If we have to reduce carbon emissions by 80 % by 2050 to avert a global crisis, this will mean using significantly less energy in the developed world than we currently use, and while this does not necessarily mean an immediate and huge change in our everyday lives, it does mean changes to our current lifestyles. This is not going to be easy and the burden has to be shared by everyone. However, the fact is that people feel very threatened by the idea of altering their lifestyle, even when change can be for the better. 

We also need to understand that some sectors of society are using more than their fair share of global resources, but that in the context of global warming everyone must act responsibly if we are to succeed in mitigating climate change. Those in developing countries also desire the technology, food, travel, etc. we enjoy, and to break this cycle we in the developed world need to begin to pull back from our current high-energy lifestyle while allowing the poorer nations to develop and become sustainable.

This book will never be welcomed by those who are pretty happy with the status quo and who have not become genuinely concerned, possibly scared, by the possibility of what global warming may do to our home, planet Earth. This is a very general text that looks at different aspects of our lives which we, as individuals, have control over. It is simple things like travel, food, recycling, using resources … all those things which we are all involved in on a daily basis; and how our actions affect the future of planet Earth and our ability to sustain that ever growing human population. I hope that this book will help you think and act from a position of knowledge and reassurance.

I hope that the majority of you will be reassured that we are beginning to tackle global warming successfully, but in order to succeed in stabilizing our new climate, and I believe we can, we need your help through direct action. You really can make a difference. This book is a personal journey and during it I will be asking you to do various things. Some are critical others will be just things that I hope you will try, but to work, I need a commitment from you. The journey is not free, it comes at a cost, and you have to decide just how much you are willing to pay for your planet.

This is about your future.

Nick Gray

Trinity Centre for the Environment

Link: http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319201450

https://twitter.com/Nickgraytcd

Air pollution reaches a new high in China

冀

The airpocalypse is what people are calling the extended periods of smog that have been intensifying over the past few years in China’s capital Beijing.   In the city deaths from lung cancer have increased by 56% over the decade up to 2010 coinciding with massive industrialization and an increase in the number of cars using the city’s street exceeding 5 million. The most serious problem appears to be PM2.5, minute particles released from fires and vehicle exhausts which has strong links to lung cancer.  To counteract the effects of the smog particles all schools in the capital will be closed when smog  incidents persist for more than three days.  Twenty percent of the world’s confirmed cases of cancer now occur in china with atmopsheric pollution a major causative factor.  Seven of the top 10 most polluted cities in China are in the Hebei province in the North of the country which is a major centre for coal powered electricity generation and steel manufacturing resulting in the heavy atmospheric pollution that also contributes to the problem in Beijing.  In 2014 the city will be setting even stricter quotas on the number of new car registrations to just 150,000, a reduction of 40% over the previous year’s quota.
Nick Gray

Carpooling: The Drive to Green.

It was the summer of 2010; myself and a friend were on a trip of a lifetime inter-railing around Europe. For those of you who have never inter-railed, an inter-rail pass is a train ticket for EU members allowing you to travel between countries in the EU over a period of time.
Inter-railing is an experience to say the least. Leaving aside the crazy nights out, the sun, sea, historical sites and the people you meet along the way. You can often arrive in new location tired, hungry, and bagged down and with no idea of where you’re staying, or what you’re doing.

It was this mixed bag of emotions which we were carrying when we were hurled off an overnight train in Stuttgart mid journey from Munich to Paris. The train had been double booked, they had no record of our reservations, and no sympathy for the tired tears that ran down our grubby faces – Off we stepped at 3am into Stuttgart. We desperately needed to get to Paris on time –but how? Despite the lack of customers one solitary café remained open despite the lack of customers. This Café introduced us to a Danish girl who was fluent in English and German, she kindly helped us to look up tickets for the next train, and at two hundred Euros each we quickly resigned to the fact that we were doomed.   Seeing our reaction the Dane stepped up her game and introduced us to the Mid- European phenomenon of Carpooling.

The majority of us have heard of people sharing lifts to work or school in order to save; time, money and of course the environment. This goes a step further. We found a website advertising free spaces in a car which was travelling from one destination to another, each passenger pooled their money together to pay for the petrol. So there we were at 4.30 am calling a strange number arranging a lift to Paris from Stuttgart and by 7 am we were in a car with four other people! By pooling together we saved the money and the environment through more efficient use of petrol as it would take the same amount of petrol to take one of us from Stuttgart to Paris.

Carpooling evidently means more people in a one car, this means less cars on the road, this can directly lead to less pollution; Less air pollution, noise pollution, less carbon emission, less greenhouse gas emission. Evidently carpooling is a major and direct step towards a cleaner and greener environment.  When we arrived safely in Paris we wished our fellow commuters a nice trip and parted ways. For a simple 30 euro each we made an economical saving of 170 euro each, in comparison to the alternative train ticket, while simultaneously saving the environment.

Although many people have questioned the safety element of ‘getting in a car with a stranger’ this carpooling idea could easily be adopted to the business sector of Ireland with many people making trips from Dublin to Galway or Cork on a daily basis it would be a safe and easy way to save the money and the environment to simply set up a business carpooling community and drive towards green.

Jane Farrelly

Internationalisation and long-distance relationships : the carbon impact of the ERASMUS generation’s air travels

 Since its creation in 1987, the Erasmus programme has developed into what is now considered a massive success and a considerable achievement in terms of connecting European Universities and people. From a few thousands students in 1987-1988 to about 180 000 in 2007-2009, more than 3 millions students overall benefited from this programme and grants and went abroad to study as Erasmus students. They were thus offered the unique chance to travel, discover new countries, learn about new cultures, mix with new people, in  the hope that, on top of often learning another language, they would create emotional bounds with other places and people which would make them truly internationalised European citizens.

However, as much as internationalising affections and relationships might have the capacity to bring European people closer, it certainly doesn’t shorten the actual distances which separates their countries. By allowing and encouraging young people to go abroad, and to become attached to places and people far from their home, the European Union has participated in creating an even more mobile category of people, whose nomadism is not primarily professional but sentimental. My point here is that such bounds have an ecological cost, particularly in regards to transportation use.

Erasmus students have to deal with two kinds of long-distance ties : those which precede their departure and that they wish to maintain when they’re abroad, and those they create in their host country, which they will attempt to conserve after leaving it. The first category typically includes family and childhood friends, and requires regular visit usually justified by specific circumstances (Christmas, important events, grave issues...). Romantic relationships are even more demanding, since visits are spontaneously expected to be as frequent as possible. They are also likely to receive visits from their friends and family during their time abroad. The second category may involve a girlfriend/boyfriend as well, and more generally friends, from the host country or elsewhere, but most likely not from the exact same place. Some of these people will remain dear enough to be visited later on, and they will perhaps visit too, which means that former Erasmus students will be tempted to travel around to see all their friends, those who stayed, and those who spread out as they went back to their home country.

It is quite clear that such intense travelling would have a massive impact on personal carbon footprint, in which transportation habits play a big part: it is estimated that approximately 56% of CO₂ equivalent per year (CO₂e yr^-1) of the personal footprint derives from travel (1). Let’s take an example to verify and illustrate that. We choose Ireland as host country, which already implies that the vast majority of Erasmus travels (home country/host country) will be airline travels. Now, consider a German student from Koln, coming to Dublin as Erasmus student. If he stays 4 months, doesn’t get any visit and only takes a plane to come and go back at the end of his stay, the carbon cost of his Erasmus experience, in regards to air travels only, is 0.19 tonnes of CO₂e (2). Now, assume he stays in Dublin the entire academic year, and goes back for Christmas and in March to see his girlfriend. She visits him once; his parents come as well, and so does his brother, and two of his closest friends. Overall, his Erasmus adventure will have caused 18 air travels, (9 return trips), resulting in the emission of 1.71 tonnes of CO₂e (assuming all of his friends and family depart from Koln as well). To that, we should add the travels he does the following year to come back and visit his friends still living in Dublin (0.19 t CO₂e), and as he travels to Barcelona to see a friend he met in Dublin (0.22 t). One of his Irish acquaintances also grabs the opportunity to visit Koln during the festival (0.19 t). That will make a total emission of 2.31 tonnes of CO₂e caused by the air travels linked to one Erasmus student – and this doesn’t include embedded costs (construction and maintenance of airports and airplanes, extraction of fuels…). Considering that the Irish mean personal emission is 5.70 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per year, it does represent a considerable amount of greenhouse gases – especially if it can be generalised to all Erasmus students.

Out of 15 Erasmus students studying in Trinity College for the academic year 2012-2013, and randomly picked among personal acquaintances 14 of them had had at least 4 visits from friends and family. They all made the trip home for Christmas, and the majority came back another time during the year. On average, being in a relationship with somebody from home cost 2 extra return trips. They all intended to come back to Dublin for holidays in the future. One of them, from France, had started a relationship with an Erasmus student from Latvia he had met in Ireland. They were looking up the flights and trying to find ways to meet regularly, anticipating for when they would be separated by about 2000 km. When asked what they meant by ‘regularly’, he answered ‘You have to spend some time together at least every two or three months, otherwise there’s no point, it can’t work, you know, you better give it up right away. Three months is already, like, a really long time.’

Of course, the impact on CO₂e emissions will vary greatly depending on the duration of the stay, the closeness of the relationships and individual financial resources. But as a whole, it appears to increase considerably the use of aviation, which is a major component of individual footprint. It can be argued that some of these travels would have occurred anyway, as people grow used to going on vacation abroad. Erasmus students would then draw travels to specific destinations, but not actually cause them. On the other hand, international, uprooted students typically don’t have a car, which diminishes their personal footprint. More generally, we can hope that Erasmus students grow more conscious of global stakes, and that their international contacts and knowledge give them tools to deal adequately with collective issues such as climate change. Yet again, only a fringe of the population is allowed to become internationalised – and is therefore responsible for high emissions of CO₂e due to air travels. Traditionally, internationalisation was reserved for the elite. Now, and thanks to the Erasmus programme so to say, it includes the educated middle-class. Fortunately, most of these ecologically costly international ties are likely to fade away with time, and the impact will thus reduce as years passes. The worst-case scenario in terms of greenhouse gases emissions is then international relationships resulting in lengthy commitments, as they create couples and families built between two countries and heavily relying on air travel. And we ought to hope that such intercultural successes remain scarce.

Marion Lieutaud 

References: 

(1) Kenny, T. and Gray, N.F. (2009), ‘A preliminary survey of household and personal carbon dioxide émissions in Ireland’,  Environment International, 35, 259-272

(2) Calculator Carbon Footprint : http://calculator.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx?tab=3

 

My Carbon Cycle

The daily commute is something most people dread. Living in Glenageary and spending 5 days a week in college in the city centre, I spend approximately 90 minutes a day on buses (if I’m lucky and dodge the traffic!) which amounts to a whopper 450 minutes a week sitting on an over-crowded bus listening to other peoples music bleeding from their headphones. It’s time I loath to waste, but it’s not just time that I’m wasting.

My bus journeys make me accountable for about 20km of CO₂ production weekly! Inspired by the clearing of the rainclouds and the signals that we may actually begin to experience something resembling Spring, I set myself what seemed like an achievable task: to forgo the buses for a week and instead cycle to college for the week. It seemed like a win/win situation: I’d be using a carbon neutral form of transport and I’d be saving on bus fare. “Why doesn’t everyone do this?” I asked myself as I set off on a crisp March Monday morning.

“Why doesn’t everyone do this?”

About an hour later, as I arrived panting into college, feeling like my legs were about to burst into flames, I found the answer to my own question: This is hard! Every tweak we make to our lives to make them more sustainable requires us making sacrifices.

I believe, in the developed world we are so accustomed to a plethora of amenities and indulgences which work their way into becoming part of our day-to-day lives. Removing even the smallest of these from your routine, is a huge shock to the system. It’s a change that can take a huge amount of adjustment to our daily routine and an element of sacrifice. Therefore, people living comfortable, perhaps financially sustainable lifestyles just simply can’t be bothered. Why go without when making a sacrifice which results in decreasing your carbon footprint puts extra strain or discomfort in your life when the benefits cannot be immediately seen?

It is an uphill battle that environmentalists face: convincing those so consumed with the present that they are directly contributing to the destruction of our future. The allure of immediate gratification is hard to compete with, however we must persevere and accept that seemingly small individual sacrifices now amount to huge collective benefit in the future.

This is a lesson I’ve heard many times, but only really rang true with me when I decided to make a personal sacrifice for the good of the environment in which I live. Taking the bus was by far the easier, passive option. But I had to ask myself, can I afford to knowingly be that selfish and not feel guilty? The answer was no. I’ve persevered with the cycling with some exceptions here and there (there’s no accounting for torrential downpour!) and have willingly made an achievable sacrifice for the greater good. Not to mention the bus fare I’m saving!

Stephen Lehane

Sharing is caring

Image

We all know that using public transport is more environmentally friendly than driving your own car alone, but it is also often more costly, time-consuming and inconvenient. So to make life easier, but still make a difference, we should share; share the car, and share the journey.

Public transport options are vastly more environmentally friendly than private transport options. But if we simply share the journey, then emissions are similar to public transport:

·         Car (medium-sized) with driver and two passengers (40g CO₂/passenger km)

·         Car (medium-sized) with driver and single passenger (60g CO₂/passenger km)

·         Taxi (medium-sized) with two passengers (80g CO₂/passenger km)

So with simply adding a passenger or two to our car/taxi journey we can greatly reduce the carbon footprint per passenger, even sometimes surpassing public transport options.

The idea of carpooling for the daily commute has been around in popularity since the 1970s but popularity faded over the years due to the fall in gas prices, lack of flexibility in routes/times, and lack of reliability among participants. However nowadays it seems to be making somewhat of a comeback, facilitated by the internet and mobile phones.

Dynamic carpooling takes advantage of smartphones` GPS to determine the route, match up drivers and passengers and use social networking for establishing trust and accountability. A number of popular websites exist globally and in Ireland to enable the success of dynamic carpooling: carpooling.ie, zimride.com, erideshare.com.

But instead of sharing just the journey, how about going one step further, and also sharing the car itself? Sounds crazy, right? Well we`ve all been doing this for years already, whenever we go on a holiday abroad and hire a rental car. Only this time, we hire the car for our commute/shopping trip/weekend away.

By paying a nominal annual fee and then per-mile rates, 24/7 access is granted to a fleet of cars parked in various spots all over a city. The beauty of the scheme enables customers to only pay when they actually use their vehicle; no insurance, VRT, road tax, NCT are payable by the customer. In fact, privately owned vehicles tend to only have a 5-10% utilization rate anyway, so why would you pay so many extra charges to only rarely use your car?

In addition, not owning a car might make us actually consider our transport choices and choose the most efficient means available. We could end up walking, cycling or taking the environmentally friendly public transport options if they are accessible to us, and only resort to the use of a shared car when we absolutely need to, thus reducing costs and CO₂ emissions further.

Some of the more popular carsharing companies include gocar.ie and zipcar.com. Customer feedback indicates that up to 15 privately owned vehicles are taken off the road per shared vehicle, either when customers decide against purchasing cars in the first place, or from selling their car. This amounts to a substantial saving in the CO₂ emissions that arise from the production of motor vehicles in the first place (via sourcing of raw materials, or manufacturing).

Finally, whether we choose to carpool or carshare, the net result would be a decrease in cars on the road, thus reducing emissions, traffic congestion, and parking demand, allowing us to commute cheaper, greener, quicker and more stressfree

In the end, we all have choices to make that will affect our wallets, but also the planet we live on. So if we truly want to start thinking and acting in a more sustainable manner, choosing to share is one way of showing we care.

COLM DUFFY

Travelling Outside the Box

Ecolodge in Sweden

Image:

http://www.wildsweden.com/accommodation/kolarbyn-ecolodge/

Everyone enjoys getting away from the normality of their lifestyle and visiting somewhere new (and hot for us Irish). However a lot of us are also interested in trying not to have a large carbon footprint. So how do we balance both of these things, so that we can enjoy our summer holidays while not destroying our planet? Eco-tourism may be the answer. This means travelling in a sustainable way.  It is any form of tourism that does not reduce the availability of resources and does not inhibit future travellers from enjoying the same experience. However is this really possible to do, especially with us living on a small island and flying being the major transport option to get anywhere?

In the past 30 years the earth has lost nearly a third of its natural habitat. Aircraft emissions contribute to greenhouse gases and tourism development, in the shape of new hotels and resorts, continues rapidly in environmentally sensitive areas. However all is not lost; the number of travellers taking eco-tourism holidays is growing three times faster than those choosing mainstream trips and is predicted to make up 5 per cent of the global holiday market by 2024, according to the latest research by the tour operator Thomson.

With a bit of effort, we can all become more eco-friendly in our travels. One of the main methods for this is limiting the amount of air and car travel, due to their greenhouse-gas emissions. Although this is not always possible, perhaps we should be trying to travel by ferry, train and bus instead. Along with this, there are an increasing number of exciting companies promoting new eco-friendly ways to holiday.

Eco Tourism Ireland is one such company for those wanting to holiday right on our own soil. Their belief is to actively contribute to the conservation of local biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensure that steps have been taken to minimise impact on local nature and culture. Going further abroad, companies such as Responsible Travel can find you an eco holiday which could include staying in tree houses in the Isle of Wight to living in a tepee in Tasmania. If it interests you even more, perhaps a holiday dedicated to conservation would be right for you, such as working on an organic farm in South Africa or rescuing animals in Ecuador. The options are limitless.

So next time you’re thinking about what you’d like to do for your next holiday, think outside the box rather than going for the usual pool-side holiday in Spain. Do something different, make new, exciting memories and care for the earth.

Sinéad Barrett

iCar or weBus?

Does the accentuated presence of the I in society cause unethical transport choices?

I have always believed Public Transport is a good choice for the environment. However, recently it dawned on me that this is only the case as long as ‘we’ are many who choose this option. In Dublin so few people are now opting for taking the bus, that it is more energy efficient to travel in a personal car with a driver and one passenger, than it is to take the bus...

I must here warn the reader that the following is to be thought of as a discussion queue on the subject of citizenship and public transport, not as a contribution on carbon calculations. Currently the most commonly registered car in Ireland has a B Band engine capacity which is estimated emitting around 140g CO₂/km (Link). Divide this emission figure by two (driver plus one passenger), and it gives us around 70g CO₂/passenger km. A Dublin bus with 90 passengers emits about 1,450g CO₂/km (‘Surprise carbon offenders’, Link ). This would equate to around 16g CO₂/passenger km if the bus had a constant of 90 passengers. However at current usage the emissions using Dublin bus is an unimpressive 77g CO₂/passenger km (Link). Using this information, estimation calculation tells us that if we want our public bus service to be more energy efficient than a B Band car with a driver and one passenger, then we have to ensure that there is on average a minimum of 21 passengers per Dublin Bus at all times (1450/70).

Without shying away from the fact that the public transport system may need to change numerous aspects of its current service to make this more appealing, my question for the forum is not in terms of how Dublin bus can please us. It is rather philosophical in nature and asks if it is ethically sound to always embrace the ‘personal choice’ theorem? If the bus transport service in Dublin is losing some of its viability as a sustainable transportation method due to insufficient number of passengers, then is there an argument for public transport to be formulated more as a ‘citizen obligation’ for the better of the ‘we’, rather than as a ‘service’ available at the leisure of the ‘I’?

Elin Haettner

It's the small things that count the most!

Everyone knows that out planet is suffering, we hear and see it on a daily basis. Most people are very aware what actions are required to sustain our planet so that the next generation can reap its benefits. And they are more then happy to do their bit for the planets well being, whether it is recycling or cutting down on their CO₂ emissions. But are they actually doing enough?

I’ll be the first to admit that I don't do enough for our planet even though I lead my to believe I do sometimes! Like most people, I recycle and I wash my clothes at lower temperatures. However, if I leave the house, I more than likely would have left a light on somewhere, thus increasing my carbon footprint. On other occasions where I could easily walk, I tend to get a bus or a lift.

It’s these simple things that most people tend to ignore which is crucial to the planets sustainability. I’m not trying to accuse everyone of not pulling their weight; I just think that if we noticed these small things and tried to improve on them, the effect would be quite substantial towards a sustainable future.

So the next time you feel like going to the shop, put down the car keys and put on the jacket and walk down there! Your future generation will thank you for it yourself!!

(Also don't forget to turn the lights off before you leave!!)

Shane Mc Garry