Five Degrees difference changes our landscape

It is estimated that the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will almost certainly lead to a 2 Degree rise in global temperatures. It has been suggested that because the consequences of a 2 Degree rise are already certain, it would be better to invest in preparing for the consequences of more extreme weather events and rising sea levels rather than reducing emissions.

However, if mankind does not change it’s appetite for fossil fuels then average temperatures will rise by more than 2 Degrees. As Bill McKibben of 350.org said, there are different degrees of hell. The consequences of a 3 Degree rise are much more severe than 2 Degrees, and 4 Degrees is even worse.

For those who say that the world has survived greater variations in average temperature, they are right. Over the last 5 billion years temperatures have been more extreme and the world has kept turning. But is has a devastating impact on mankind and all biodiversity.

The last time the global average temperatures were 5 Degrees different from today was during the last ice age, when temperatures were much cooler. As a result, New York was under 15 meters of ice. The impact of a similar rise in global average temperatures would be different but just as catastrophic.

The big carbon footprint in food

Everything has a carbon footprint. But when most of us think of our carbon footprint we think in terms of the carbon emissions from energy, such as electricity or transport. Few people would consider the large contribution to the household carbon footprint of food. However, a recent study by Taverner Research (commissioned by Willoughby Council on Willoughby residents), looked at the holistic carbon footprint per household and found that almost half the emissions, 47% on average, are a result of the food we buy.

The study shows that a household of three people is responsible for 38.7 tonnes of carbon emissions per annum on average, with food being the largest contributor (47%), then travel (27%), Household Energy - including electricity, gas, heating and cooling (24%) and Waste (2%). Table 1 shows the household carbon emissions per activity in tonnes of CO2e.

Table 1: Carbon Emissions per household activity

Interestingly, but not unexpected, the research showed that carbon emissions per occupant decreases as the number of people living in the household increases. Because occupants share some energy consumption and therefore each occupant is responsible for fewer carbon emissions. The study found that an individual on their own is responsible for 14.9 tonnes of carbon emissions on average, which is much higher than the average carbon emissions per individual across all research participants of 11.97 tonnes.

Carbon emissions are almost one-third lower per occupant in a household of five people compared to a household with a sole occupant.


This research clearly shows we need to consider more than just the energy we use when considering our impact on the environment. While there is merit in cohabitation in order to reduce the carbon emissions per occupant, the real opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint appear to be found in what we eat. A big part of an individual’s carbon footprint comes from food. Our next article looks at ways to reduce your carbon footprint from food.

Effective Carbon Offsets are an Answer to Climate Change

The Australian Government has delayed the implementation of an Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) until 2013. This failure at the political level has severely retarded the ability of Australia as a nation to effectively combat climate change. With no framework to regulate the reduction of carbon emissions in Australia, the onus is now on individuals and organisations to voluntarily reduce emissions in order to help drive the transition to a low-carbon future.

So how does an organisation or individual most effectively reduce global carbon emissions? Certainly, the need to avoid and reduce energy use is necessary and financially beneficial, but more is needed to achieve the deep cuts in carbon emissions required to reduce damaging climate change.

We need to reduce the amount of carbon mankind emits to the atmosphere. One way to achieve this is through effective carbon offsets.

Carbon offsetting allows you to reduce carbon emissions by a cheaper and more convenient process elsewhere than you can achieve yourself.

Forestry and renewables have been common offset solutions. About half of Australia’s offsets are created through forestry; the rest is mostly renewables with some greenhouse gas trapping projects (mostly methane).

However, many of these schemes deal with the symptom and not the cause - they do not directly promote the reduction of carbon emitted by industry. They are reactive. Worse still, the lack of an ETS in Australia has serious implications for the use of Australian projects as voluntary carbon offsets for Australians, as they may not be additional.

A more effective carbon offset, which is measurable, verifiable and additional, is the internationally recognised carbon emission credit from a carbon market such as the European ETS. Paul Gilding, ex-CEO of Greenpeace International, referred to buying and voluntarily cancelling the rights of industry to emit carbon dioxide from a limited pool of carbon emission credits as the ‘most pure’ form of carbon offset.

Do international offsets have a positive effect on countries who do not have a carbon market? Yes, because climate change is a global problem. Reducing carbon emissions anywhere in the world will help save the future as we know it for the entire world.

What makes a tonne of carbon emissions?

To help you understand how your everyday activities add to the changing climate we have created a table showing what makes a tonne of carbon emissions.

Each of these activities results in 1 tonne of carbon emissions on average.

• Travelling in a plane for 5000 kms / 3100 miles (about 3.5 return trips Sydney/Melbourne; 3 return trips New York/Chicago; 11 trips London/Paris)*
  
• Driving a car with petrol/[US gas] about 4100 kms / 2500 miles
  
• Using a clothes dryer for 15 hours
  
• Turning on 10 light globes (100 Watts) for 68 days
  
• Using a window air conditioner for 75 days
  
• Staying 34 nights in a hotel

* for more detail on the carbon emissions from flying visit Travel Math

If you have any examples of an activity that results in approximately 1 tonne of carbon emissions please add it in a comment!

Are Deep Cuts In Carbon Emissions Optional?

Most people consider sustainable initiatives a necessity, but some believe that carbon offsetting is optional. It is important to consider why carbon offsetting is any more optional than the sustainable initiatives to measure, avoid and reduce carbon emissions. If the answer is the cost to offset carbon and the Return-On-Investment, then the time has come to change our way of thinking.

The current scientific evidence on climate change indicates there is a drastically urgent need to make deep cuts in carbon emissions immediately.

Reducing energy consumption alone will not achieve enough. For as we reduce energy consumption, the energy we save is being consumed by an increase in consumer demand and an increase in global population.

The real solution is to encourage industry to invest in alternative low-carbon solutions. This requires an increase in the price of carbon so that low-carbon solutions such as renewable energy appear economically attractive.

Reducing carbon emission credits in a carbon market can achieve this goal, because it helps speed up the transition to a low-carbon future. Climakind gives organisations access to cancel carbon emission credits (CECs) and works with them to ensure their efforts to the right thing and help stop damaging climate change are recognised. Find out how at http://www.climakind.com/.

Image credits flikr missallphoto's

A Climate Change Failure

Australia's delayed action on climate change is an 'absolute failure of leadership'. Those were the words Kevin Rudd uttered only months before declaring this week that the Australian Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS - Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) would be delayed until 2013 at the earliest.

No wonder the people of Australia are frustrated. The Prime Minister was adamant that the CPRS was the "most important structural reforms to our economy in a generation" and branded climate change as "the great moral and economic challenge of our time".

Lenore Taylor sums up the political back-tracking and side-stepping in The Sydney Morning Herald article "Rudd's ETS flip-flop sparks climate chaos" as does Paul Kelly in The Australian, "Rudd's dangerous climate retreat".

However, the failure to adopt and Australian ETS does not stop Climakind but rather strengthens the initiative. While Australians have been denied the opportunity to act directly to conclusively reduce carbon emissions in Australia they can still have an impact on the reduction of global carbon emissions.

If you are frustrated by the inaction on climate change and want to reduce global carbon emissions then do something about it by following simple tips to reduce your carbon footprint and by joining Climakind to cancel carbon emission credits!

What are the alternatives to carbon offset / carbon neutralise emissions?

In our last blog “What’s in a carbon offset” we looked at the value of neutralising carbon emissions. We concluded that more and more people are using carbon offsetting, believeing that it will reduce carbon emissions. But the question still remains, does a carbon offset really help to reduce carbon emissions. The fact is, the degree of success depends on the type of credit used. Let’s look at the types of credits available.

Basically there are three types of carbon credits used to offset carbon emissions. For the sake of this blog I am going to refer to them as Tree Credits, Renewable Energy Credits and Carbon Emissions Credits. Though technically speaking when most people think of offsets they are referring to Tree Credits and Renewable Energy Credits. Carbon Emissions Credits offer a powerful and effective alternative because they can be used to actually reduce carbon emissions. But more about that soon, for the moment let’s look at the three options:

1. Tree Credits. These credits are generally made from growing forests or stopping forests being cut down. The trees sequester (suck) the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping reduce carbon in the atmosphere. Now, while we love trees and always need more of them there are issues with using them as carbon credits. The band Cold Play found this out recently when their efforts to neutralise their concerts backfired. Their credits were based on mangrove plantations. The mangroves died.

The issues also include the centuries-long management processes required to ensure the trees live healthily. As a purchaser it is difficult to police how the money spent and whether the trees actually survive long enough to suck up the carbon dioxide you paid for. But most of all, it is reactive. It deals with the carbon emissions after they have occurred rather than stopping them from ever occurring.

The reality is we already emit more carbon dioxide that we can plant trees!

2. Renewable Energy Credits. These credits are created from projects to produce renewable energy or trap greenhouse gases. The carbon credits represent the emissions that would have been caused had the renewable project not occured. Ie if the hydro dam was not built a coal fired power station would have been. The money from the carbon credits is used to fund the project. The idea is that carbon emissions have been avoided and therefore can be made into credits and used to offset emissions somewhere else in the world.

This is a noble cause as a large number of these projects occur in developing countries. The poor living standard and fast paced growth in these countries requires enormous amounts of energy. Renewable Energy offset projects help fund this low carbon growth. That’s why they are an appealing option because you are helping to fund a project that reduces emissions, gives power to communities and creates employment.

However, there are risks with creating carbon credits from these projects. Mostly the question of additionality; would the project have occured without the carbon credits? If so the carbon credits have no value as offsets because they have not actually reduced carbon dioxide. International Rivers has been reporting on this for years. There is also the question of the impact on the environment on the value of the credits. Ie. If a hydro dam is built what is the impact on the people, the forests that were in the valley (a carbon sink) and the downstream community reliant on the water?

3. Carbon Emissions Credits. These credits are created by schemes to limit the amount of carbon emissions from industry. These schemes, often referred to as cap and trade or emissions trading, provide a limited pool of carbon credits, credits that industry requires in order to legally emit carbon dioxide. The credits are regulated by the government. In a well designed scheme like the European Emissions Trading Scheme, emitters are heavily penalised if they do not have sufficient credits. The idea is that each year fewer and fewer credits are issued so that the emissions reduction targets are met.

While these carbon emissions credits are required by the regulated industries they can also be used voluntary, providing an alternative to the classic carbon offset of Trees and Renewable Energy above.

The advantage of voluntarily cancelling carbon emission credits is that it reduces the credits available to emitters. This encourages emitters to be innovative and to develop low-carbon solutions.

Think about it this way, cancelling carbon emissions credits is proactive emission reduction, because the right to emit carbon is cancelled before it is used. Using these credits voluntarily also provides certainty and security because the transaction is transparent and can withstand the scrutiny of market regulators.

As Paul Gilding, ex CEO of Greenpeace, said in his recent article “How to carbon offset your family holiday”, retiring carbon emissions credits may not be the most exciting form of reducing emissions but it is the most pure.

More and more individuals and businesses are using carbon credits to neutralise their carbon emissions. There are several carbon credits to choose from. The characteristics of these carbon credits can be represented by a spectrum of quality.

Hopefully as people become acutely aware of the issues surrounding damaging climate change, and as they become more educated about the different types of carbon credit, more people will choose to use the most pure form of reducing carbon emissions by cancelling carbon emission credits.