Author: Andrew Nind

In early December, followers of BBC news will have seen David Shukman’s reports from the U.N’s 24th Climate Change Conference in Poland.  The reports showed Polish coal miners hard at work and smoke from power station chimneys billowing into the air.  They emphasized the irony of a climate conference taking place in a country wedded to the world’s most polluting fossil fuel.

Now here is a question: which country, Poland or the United Kingdom, emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?  Answer: the UK.  Which country produces more per capita?  Answer: Poland, which has a smaller population.  But which country emits more per capita on a consumption basis, taking account of the carbon embedded in imports and exports?  Answer: the UK.  All easily verified from a number of sources, including (for instance) Defra and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

Then there is international aviation – which would tip the balance even more against the UK.  In October 2017, the Dept for Transport published “UK Aviation Forecasts 2017”, which included material on the UK’s CO2 emissions associated with flying.  It reported that 38 MtCO2, around 10% of the emissions we produce as a country, is due to flying.  This is much higher than most statistics released by the industry, which suggest that flying only accounts for some 2-3% of the total.

Why the difference?  Because most reporting of the airline’s impact on the environment is misleading.  Firstly, international flights are generally left out of statistics.  In the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, only flights within the European Economic Area are taken into account.  Flights to/fro anywhere else in the world are simply ignored.  Given that Europe is pretty small on a global scale, this means that all long-haul flights are omitted from the EU ETS and associated statistics.

Secondly, radiative forcing – the extra impact over and above direct CO2 emissions from flying at high altitude – is also omitted from the statistics.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends a multiplier of between 2 and 4 to convert direct CO2 emissions from aviation into CO2-equivalent (CO2e) greenhouse gas impact emissions.  The DoT’s figure of 38 MtCO2 is just direct emissions.  Even if we use the bottom of IPCC’s scale (Defra uses a figure of 1.9), the implication is that in Britain today, flying accounts for at least 75 MtCO2e per annum.

International aviation has been left out of the Paris Agreement 2015.  There are no internationally-agreed targets to reduce it.  This omission is sometimes rationalized on the grounds that it is complex to attribute the emissions to individual countries.  But is it?  The DoT report simply uses the UNFCCC’s own recommendation of attributing flights in one direction – i.e. flights leaving Britain should be included in British emissions totals while flights arriving in Britain (from a different country) should not.  Is this not sensible and straightforward?

Without political will to do something about it, the damage from aviation is under-reported and hence under-recognized.  It flys under the radar, so to speak.

So what is to be done? In May 2018, Sonia Sodha, the Observer’s chief leader writer, wrote a piece in the Guardian newspaper suggesting an individual cap on air travel, that individuals could trade with one another.  An air mile allowance, say enough to cover a long-haul flight or three short-haul flights per annum (this may be too much in fact, but we have to start somewhere). 

This is the best suggestion I have seen.  It does not rely on blind faith (“technology will save us”) or hit the impecunious unfairly.  It provides a flexible mechanism whereby those who have the most reason to fly can acquire the means to do so – at an appropriate price. 

It would be very unpopular with business and holiday makers.  But if we are worried about popularity, then hope is in short supply.

I am sometimes asked: what actions can we take to reduce our individual climate footprint?  I confess the question always unsettles me a little, as I feel it has been answered.  I do wonder whether we over-complicate the issue because deep down we are reluctant to change.

Be that as it may, here are a few seasonal thoughts.  With a month to go until Christmas, we naturally think about being warm, what presents we might buy and receive, and – if we can afford it – a holiday to rediscover sunshine.

The simple sweater

The late David Mackay used to comment that perhaps the most effective single action that everyone could take (in a non-equatorial country like Britain) was to turn the thermostat down and put on a sweater.  Even a degree makes a considerable difference to energy consumption if it is cold outside.

Last year, I bought a tasteless Canadian lumberjack shirt (I am a tasteless Canadian and it was the appropriate thing to have for a tasteless celebration of Canada’s 150th anniversary).  Wearing it about the house, it is quite remarkable how much warmer I feel.  For those with class and discernment, I think it is possible to buy similar items that even look good.

People should not be cold; but wearing enough clothing is a useful first line of defence (or perhaps a second line of defense, if in addition you are able to be physically active).  We have no inviolable right to pad around the house in shorts and T-shirt on a winter’s day.  Turning up the thermostat might well be necessary, but why not do that as the last resort rather than the first?

The meaning of Christmas

Growing up, I remember watching a screen adaptation of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens on a low-quality black-and-white television.   The story was a lot more vivid in my imagination than on a rudimentary cathode ray tube display.

We rightly think of Christmas as a time of generosity towards our fellow humans.  Perhaps, though, what really matters most is to be generous to the poor.  We can be generous-spirited to everyone, rich and poor, but the former are less in need of material stuff.

The trouble is that, given our consumption levels, stuff is pretty bad for the planet.  New stuff at least.  Yet our culture seems to think it is miserly to give people things unless they are brand new and sparkling.  Why does that have to be the case?  Could we not find the spirit of Christmas in giving things to each other that might be second-hand, or perhaps not bothering too much with material gifts – devoting the money saved, perhaps, to those in genuine need?

Many will say we have to spend money on stuff for the good of the economy and jobs.  The sooner we can break out of this damaging mindset, the better.  As a society, we can choose to reduce consumption, even if it means re-jigging the world of work.

Holidays closer to home

I am an energy consultant; and one of my more interesting conversations in recent years was with managers from a Malaysian power company.  They claimed that London has more sunshine than Kuala Lumpur, where it tends to be relatively cloudy.

I must admit that I have not confirmed this myself, so the claim is hearsay.  Please do not rely on this specific example in conversation.  Yet it makes one think.  It is definitely true that solar resource – the Malaysians were looking at prospects for renewable energy in different countries – depends on clear skies rather than warmth.  If it’s sunshine we’re after, and relief from the ill effects of its seasonal deprivation, then we could think about having a winter holiday close to home.  Maybe it’s being outside during the daytime that’s really what matters most, rather than being somewhere hot.

We could even go wild and invest in some high tech outdoor clothing to keep out the biting wind and damp.  That’s less damaging than flying south, even if we’re forced to buy it new …

Just a thought.