While rail and sea transport may have environmental advantages over road and air, sometimes campaigners go too far in extolling its virtues.
An example: The WLT is based in East Anglia, and we work with colleagues in Netherlands. I personally prefer travelling by train, because it is less hassle. But to go to Amsterdam by train (on the 'new high-speed train and boat service' mentioned in the latest Ethical Conasumer (EC95 July/August 2005), is not a very realistic alternative to flying, and is certainly not hassle-free. A 7.30 am start from our office gets you to Amsterdam at 5.30pm, just in time to check in to an hotel. After the following day's work, you can go back to your hotel, and then either get up for a 5.30am departure, or hang around until 2pm, the following afternoon, and finally get back to to the WLT office at 9.45pm. The alternative to this three-day trip, is a plane from our local (Norwich) airport, that gets in to Amsterdam at 9am, and allows a full days work before flying back in the evening. It's going to be difficult to convince any business traveller that the 'high-speed' train and rail service, with the expense of two nights accommodation plus all the hassle, is a viable alternative,
And before we get too carried away with anti-flying sentiments, we should remember that flying is actually a form of public transport, every bit as much as railways. A full aeroplane, may be more energy efficient than a bus with three or four passengers, or a nearly empty train -- both of which are very common sights. Surely the problem is that with the privatisation free-for all, there are no rational planned strategies for transport? While profitability, is the main (only?) criterion deciding which routes and which type of transport are viable, it is going to be very difficlut, if not impossible to change the habits of travellers. A large proportion of the travel undertaken is not essential -- it is for 'pleasure'. And even a significant proportion of 'essential' business travel is because we have chosen to live a long way from our place of work.
Finally, there is the problem of public transport in rural areas. In the modern world, no one expects to be tied to their villages as they were in the past, and in any case, there are no longer the shops and services once found there. But is public transport always the answer?
Monday, 13 June 2005
Wednesday, 8 June 2005
Just how green are biofuels?
By Professor Renton Righelato, Trustee of the World Land Trust
In many parts of the world, ethanol, produced by fermentation of carbohydrates from crops such as maize, sugar cane and sugar beet, is seen as way of supporting farmers and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuel. Higher oil prices are making “gasohol” increasingly economic, even without subsidies. Brazil's production from sugar cane is growing rapidly and they may soon become a major exporter1. Gasohol is presented as green petrol; the concept is superficially attractive - carbon is recycled from sugar cane to car to atmosphere and back to cane - but just how environmentally beneficial is it? A hectare of cane in Brazil can produce around 4 tonnes of ethanol, equivalent to around 5,000 litres of fossil fuel. After taking into account the fossil carbon needed to make the ethanol, there is around 13 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) less released from fossil carbon for every hectare of land converted to sugar cane2. For biodiesel from soya oil the CO2 benefit is somewhat less.
On the other side of the equation is the cost in terms of creating agricultural land or the opportunity cost of not regenerating forest. When a hectare of forest is burnt and ploughed up, as much as 500 tonnes of carbon dioxide can be released into the atmosphere3. The damaging impact of this on atmospheric CO2 and global warming is immediate; even it it were recoverable, it would take nearly a century to overcome through the use of gasohol.
Regenerating rainforest on existing agricultural land takes some 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide/hectare out of the atmosphere each year as it grows; it is thus almost twice as efficient a strategy for reducing CO2 levels as making gasohol.
Whilst there may be short-term economic arguments for biofuels like gasohol and biodiesel, let us not be taken in by the green-wash. For climate change and for biodiversity they are a disaster. The logic of carbon taxation would demand they be taxed more highly than fossil energy, not less!
This is an update on Prof. Righelato's previous post: How green is green diesel? from June 12, 2003
In many parts of the world, ethanol, produced by fermentation of carbohydrates from crops such as maize, sugar cane and sugar beet, is seen as way of supporting farmers and reducing dependence on imported fossil fuel. Higher oil prices are making “gasohol” increasingly economic, even without subsidies. Brazil's production from sugar cane is growing rapidly and they may soon become a major exporter1. Gasohol is presented as green petrol; the concept is superficially attractive - carbon is recycled from sugar cane to car to atmosphere and back to cane - but just how environmentally beneficial is it? A hectare of cane in Brazil can produce around 4 tonnes of ethanol, equivalent to around 5,000 litres of fossil fuel. After taking into account the fossil carbon needed to make the ethanol, there is around 13 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) less released from fossil carbon for every hectare of land converted to sugar cane2. For biodiesel from soya oil the CO2 benefit is somewhat less.
On the other side of the equation is the cost in terms of creating agricultural land or the opportunity cost of not regenerating forest. When a hectare of forest is burnt and ploughed up, as much as 500 tonnes of carbon dioxide can be released into the atmosphere3. The damaging impact of this on atmospheric CO2 and global warming is immediate; even it it were recoverable, it would take nearly a century to overcome through the use of gasohol.
Regenerating rainforest on existing agricultural land takes some 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide/hectare out of the atmosphere each year as it grows; it is thus almost twice as efficient a strategy for reducing CO2 levels as making gasohol.
Whilst there may be short-term economic arguments for biofuels like gasohol and biodiesel, let us not be taken in by the green-wash. For climate change and for biodiversity they are a disaster. The logic of carbon taxation would demand they be taxed more highly than fossil energy, not less!
- Economist, 14 May 2005, 75-77. Special Report on Biofuels.
- Macedo, Copersucar Technological Centre
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Avoided Emissions in the Production and Utilization of Sugar Cane, Sugar and Ethanol in Brazil: 1990-1994
www.mct.gov.br/clima/ingles/comunic_old/coperal.htm - Palm et al. 1999. Strategic information on changes in carbon stocks and land use.
www.asb.cgiar.org/data/dataset/IDAOJYZB.htm
This is an update on Prof. Righelato's previous post: How green is green diesel? from June 12, 2003
Monday, 6 June 2005
carbon emissions and population
Over last week-end there was a lot in the press about the damage being done to the environment by cheap air travel, among other sources of carbon emissions. This is all true, but the solutions being offered are often very unrealistic. And the ultimate origin of these problems is still being ignored by nearly all the green groups, and certainly by the politicians. That is human populations. And I am not just talking about the one billion in India. I am talking about the 60 million in Britain, that is still growing. In England the rate of of oil consumption (which can be used as a reasonable measure of carbon emissions) was an alarming 28 barrels a day, per 1000 of population. [The figures are from a couple of years ago, but serve to illustrate my points]. The equivalent figures for the USA were 68 barrels a day per 1000. But the population of India, although topping a staggering one billion people, only used less than 2 barrels of oil per day, per 1000 of population. The population of America has grown by over 10% since 1990, and if it grows at the same rate over the next decade, that increase in population will demand as much oil and emit as much carbon as the whole of India.
This puts a perspective on the realities of controlling carbon emissions. Controlling human population is the priority, and controlling it in the developed world the highest priority of all. We are not going to convince people to lower what they perceive as their standard of living. Therefore the only way to reduce demand for resources is to reduce the population consuming them. But no politician or economist is going to accept this -- their whole way of thinking is based expanding economies and growth. The depressing truth is that none of the solutions proposed for alleviating climate change are actually viable. At best they are delaying the inevitable. Which is why I believe that preserving existing habitat, such as rainforest, and preventing all that carbon being released, is just about the best we can do. And it also preserves all the biodiversity and species richness that goes with it. None of the other options on offer have these benefits, which are probably more important, in the long term than anything else.
This puts a perspective on the realities of controlling carbon emissions. Controlling human population is the priority, and controlling it in the developed world the highest priority of all. We are not going to convince people to lower what they perceive as their standard of living. Therefore the only way to reduce demand for resources is to reduce the population consuming them. But no politician or economist is going to accept this -- their whole way of thinking is based expanding economies and growth. The depressing truth is that none of the solutions proposed for alleviating climate change are actually viable. At best they are delaying the inevitable. Which is why I believe that preserving existing habitat, such as rainforest, and preventing all that carbon being released, is just about the best we can do. And it also preserves all the biodiversity and species richness that goes with it. None of the other options on offer have these benefits, which are probably more important, in the long term than anything else.
Thursday, 2 June 2005
Belize losing its credibility as Ecotourism destination
The past couple of years have seen Belize's reputation as an ecotourism destination seriously dented.
First there was the Chalillo Dam, which was pushed through despite widespread international opposition. This is widely perceived as a political issue, which has little or no benefit to the Belizean economy. Belize has a need for energy, but there are plenty of alternative sources. But worse was to come, with the arrival of hundreds of cruise ships. These visitors have little benefit to the majority of Belizeans. But put an extra burden on an already overburdened infrastructure.And big ships cause irreparable damage when they hit Belize's unique reef. Another potential disaster has been the "liberalisation" of fishing restrictions -- luckily on hold for the time being. And now the Government have approved a Dolphinarium. Not the sort of facility that is going to enthuse ecotourists, who prefer to see their dolphins wild and free.
Further problems have arisen in one of Belize's "star" reserves -- Crooked Tree Wildlife Sanctuary. Belize Crodcodile and Reptile Breeders Ltd, have started clearing land within the Sanctuary. The Chairman of the company is Luke Espat, who is also one of the main shareholders in the development company that wants to enlarge the facilities for cruise ships. One can assume from his behaviour, that the future of wildlife and natural resources is not something he considers at all important.
Ecotourism is good for the country, but not good for individuals who want to make huge profits, and it does seem that a few wealthy individuals are going to get even wealthier. Ecotourism is also, by definition sustainable, but the rapid development associated with cruise ships is far from sustainable, and may simultaneously kill the ecotourism on which Belize has built its reputation.
First there was the Chalillo Dam, which was pushed through despite widespread international opposition. This is widely perceived as a political issue, which has little or no benefit to the Belizean economy. Belize has a need for energy, but there are plenty of alternative sources. But worse was to come, with the arrival of hundreds of cruise ships. These visitors have little benefit to the majority of Belizeans. But put an extra burden on an already overburdened infrastructure.And big ships cause irreparable damage when they hit Belize's unique reef. Another potential disaster has been the "liberalisation" of fishing restrictions -- luckily on hold for the time being. And now the Government have approved a Dolphinarium. Not the sort of facility that is going to enthuse ecotourists, who prefer to see their dolphins wild and free.
Further problems have arisen in one of Belize's "star" reserves -- Crooked Tree Wildlife Sanctuary. Belize Crodcodile and Reptile Breeders Ltd, have started clearing land within the Sanctuary. The Chairman of the company is Luke Espat, who is also one of the main shareholders in the development company that wants to enlarge the facilities for cruise ships. One can assume from his behaviour, that the future of wildlife and natural resources is not something he considers at all important.
Ecotourism is good for the country, but not good for individuals who want to make huge profits, and it does seem that a few wealthy individuals are going to get even wealthier. Ecotourism is also, by definition sustainable, but the rapid development associated with cruise ships is far from sustainable, and may simultaneously kill the ecotourism on which Belize has built its reputation.
IUCN losing its way?
The International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as it used to be known, has been nick-named I Used to Conserve Nature by some scurrilous NGOs disillusioned with the direction IUCN has been moving in recent years. The reason is not hard to understand, when you read IUCN's latest Bulletin. In actual fact, IUCN was originally founded as the International Union for the Protection of Nature, and later changed Protection to Conservation and added Natural Resources.
The most recent Bulletin, has within its 32 pages over 50 photographs of several hundred people, but less than half a dozen of nature, and most of those are covers of books. The people are generally seen sitting at conference tables, receiving awards, standing behind microphones, or attending yet another workshop. Rivetting. Makes you really glad you put money into the conservation organisations that fund IUCN.
I have been a member of IUCN in one guise or another for 30 years, and am still a loyal supporter of some of its aims and objectives. I am also very enthusiastic about the work done by individual members of staff. But as time goes by, IUCN has become more and more like just another UN-style beaurocracy, and the latest Bulletin epitomises this decline. Acronyms and buzz-words abound, and are only out-numbered by good intentions.
According to the opening page of the Bulletin the week-long Congress held in Bangkok November last year, attracted 4,800 participants, including 40 ministers, 1000 scientists, 150 business people etc. There were over 500 sessions and events. One wonders what this all cost Looking at it superficially, there is no way it could have cost less than an average of $5000 a head to actually attend (including airfares), which adds up to a tidy $24 million. And that is without any costings for the time of the people attending, and the opportunity costs of their time spent away from their normal work. A very, very conservative way of estimating this would be to double the actual cost. Add a couple of million for secetariat expenses, publications (such as the Bulletin) and it all comes to a minimum of $50 million. Of course getting the rue figures is nigh on impossible, since most organisations don't like disclosing such information, But $50 million would be a reasonable minimum.
For $50 million one can conserve a lot of wildlife. With plenty of good tropical forest available at $10-$20 a hectare, this means around 5 million hectares (50,000 sq kms) of forest could have been saved -- twice the size of Belize, and roughly the size of Costa Rica. That's a lot of wildlife. Even at 10 times the price, 5000 square kilometres would save a lot of critically endangered species.
I have been actively involved in wildlife conservation for over 30 years now, and watched the number of workshops, and the number of professional conservationists all increase dramatically. At the same time, the loss of habitat has been dramatic and catastrophic. The funding for one, could provide the funding for the other.
But perhaps the most bizarre feature of the IUCN Bulletin, and its report on the Congress is the lack of any mention of human populations. I cannot claim to have read the Bulletin from cover to cover ( I have some respect for the few remaining grey cells I possess), but a glance through certainly demonstrated that it was not given prominence, if indeed it was mentioned at all. With a current world population of around 6.5 billion, and an increase on last year's of around 75 million, there can be no question that this is the single most important issue confronting nature. It is the issue that drives global warming, rainforest destruction and everything else. But it appears to be politically unacceptable to discuss it.
I believe it is high time that conservationists went back to their roots. The International Union for the Protection of Nature was founded by some of the most eminent international conservationists of the time including Hal Coolidge, Julian Huxley, Max Nicolson and Jean Delacour; they knew what they were doing when the used the term Protection. What is needed is a new movement to protect what little is left. Protection is not incompatible with sustainable development, but conservation is a word that has now been thoroughly abused, and allows the theorists, and the workshop organisers to take over. Protection needs action -- not discussion, nor a profusion of desk bound administrators and accountants.
I will still continue to support the bits of IUCN that are trying to fulfil its original aims and objectives, but I wonder how long it will be before a new organisation will be formed to fulfil the wishes of the disillusioned members who are interested in wildlife.
These are of course personal views -- but if any other individuals who belong to member organisations of IUCN are reading this, I would be interested to know thier views - and publish them here if they wish.
The most recent Bulletin, has within its 32 pages over 50 photographs of several hundred people, but less than half a dozen of nature, and most of those are covers of books. The people are generally seen sitting at conference tables, receiving awards, standing behind microphones, or attending yet another workshop. Rivetting. Makes you really glad you put money into the conservation organisations that fund IUCN.
I have been a member of IUCN in one guise or another for 30 years, and am still a loyal supporter of some of its aims and objectives. I am also very enthusiastic about the work done by individual members of staff. But as time goes by, IUCN has become more and more like just another UN-style beaurocracy, and the latest Bulletin epitomises this decline. Acronyms and buzz-words abound, and are only out-numbered by good intentions.
According to the opening page of the Bulletin the week-long Congress held in Bangkok November last year, attracted 4,800 participants, including 40 ministers, 1000 scientists, 150 business people etc. There were over 500 sessions and events. One wonders what this all cost Looking at it superficially, there is no way it could have cost less than an average of $5000 a head to actually attend (including airfares), which adds up to a tidy $24 million. And that is without any costings for the time of the people attending, and the opportunity costs of their time spent away from their normal work. A very, very conservative way of estimating this would be to double the actual cost. Add a couple of million for secetariat expenses, publications (such as the Bulletin) and it all comes to a minimum of $50 million. Of course getting the rue figures is nigh on impossible, since most organisations don't like disclosing such information, But $50 million would be a reasonable minimum.
For $50 million one can conserve a lot of wildlife. With plenty of good tropical forest available at $10-$20 a hectare, this means around 5 million hectares (50,000 sq kms) of forest could have been saved -- twice the size of Belize, and roughly the size of Costa Rica. That's a lot of wildlife. Even at 10 times the price, 5000 square kilometres would save a lot of critically endangered species.
I have been actively involved in wildlife conservation for over 30 years now, and watched the number of workshops, and the number of professional conservationists all increase dramatically. At the same time, the loss of habitat has been dramatic and catastrophic. The funding for one, could provide the funding for the other.
But perhaps the most bizarre feature of the IUCN Bulletin, and its report on the Congress is the lack of any mention of human populations. I cannot claim to have read the Bulletin from cover to cover ( I have some respect for the few remaining grey cells I possess), but a glance through certainly demonstrated that it was not given prominence, if indeed it was mentioned at all. With a current world population of around 6.5 billion, and an increase on last year's of around 75 million, there can be no question that this is the single most important issue confronting nature. It is the issue that drives global warming, rainforest destruction and everything else. But it appears to be politically unacceptable to discuss it.
I believe it is high time that conservationists went back to their roots. The International Union for the Protection of Nature was founded by some of the most eminent international conservationists of the time including Hal Coolidge, Julian Huxley, Max Nicolson and Jean Delacour; they knew what they were doing when the used the term Protection. What is needed is a new movement to protect what little is left. Protection is not incompatible with sustainable development, but conservation is a word that has now been thoroughly abused, and allows the theorists, and the workshop organisers to take over. Protection needs action -- not discussion, nor a profusion of desk bound administrators and accountants.
I will still continue to support the bits of IUCN that are trying to fulfil its original aims and objectives, but I wonder how long it will be before a new organisation will be formed to fulfil the wishes of the disillusioned members who are interested in wildlife.
These are of course personal views -- but if any other individuals who belong to member organisations of IUCN are reading this, I would be interested to know thier views - and publish them here if they wish.
Friday, 13 May 2005
Save cash & Save the planet
This month's BBC Wildlife magazine includes a feature based on information from Friends of the Earth, on how to save money by being environmentally friendly. All sensible advice -- composting, saving energy, buying local organic food, keeping car tyres properly inflated. It then summarises it all by stating that all the savings (over £300) "...Could pay for a guilt free trip to see any one of Britain's wildlife spectacles, such as the gannets of Bass Rock or the red kites in Wales." This of course makes a farce of the whole thing. Having saved minuscule amounts of energy, by keeping car tyres inflated properly, it is advocating burning huge amounts of fossil fuel driving the length or breadth of Britain! Come on FoE we're not that dim.
More seriously, this is an ancient paradox that I have mused on many times before. Saving energy, being environmentally friendly, often makes sound economic sense. But if we save money by insulating our roofs, what do we spend that money on? Invariably high on most people's list is a holiday in an exotic location -- ecotourism perhaps, but nonetheless, energy intensive, ozone depleting, international travel. And I am as guilty as the next.
Energy, climate change, resource depletion are all very, very, important issues. But there is one issue that is much, much, more important, and is the force driving all these issues. Human population growth. This is an issue that has been swept under the international carpet. And under the current UK leadership, highly unlikely to move up the agenda. I therefore highly recommend a paper in a recent issue of the Geographical Journal by Anthony Young (Geographical Journal 171 (1):83-95).
All the talk about poverty alleviation, glib statements from governments and NGOs about 'making poverty history' are nothing more than hot air, unless the population issue is addressed simultaneously. As Anthony Young concluded: "If rates of population increase in developing countries are not lowered, efforts to reduce poverty, hunger, and suffering which these cause will constantly be thwarted, often nullified; and sustainable use of natural resources, avoiding land degradation, will not be achieved." It's a grim prediction, and concomitant with this prediction we will see increasing numbers of devastating famines, epidemics and probably an increase in resource-based wars. The World Land Trust is not able to do much about any of this -- but I urge those working for relief charities and others concerned with human welfare to examine carefully their activities. Poverty relief in the absence of population reduction is a futile exercise, which will actually have the potential to exacerbate human suffering in the future.
More seriously, this is an ancient paradox that I have mused on many times before. Saving energy, being environmentally friendly, often makes sound economic sense. But if we save money by insulating our roofs, what do we spend that money on? Invariably high on most people's list is a holiday in an exotic location -- ecotourism perhaps, but nonetheless, energy intensive, ozone depleting, international travel. And I am as guilty as the next.
Energy, climate change, resource depletion are all very, very, important issues. But there is one issue that is much, much, more important, and is the force driving all these issues. Human population growth. This is an issue that has been swept under the international carpet. And under the current UK leadership, highly unlikely to move up the agenda. I therefore highly recommend a paper in a recent issue of the Geographical Journal by Anthony Young (Geographical Journal 171 (1):83-95).
All the talk about poverty alleviation, glib statements from governments and NGOs about 'making poverty history' are nothing more than hot air, unless the population issue is addressed simultaneously. As Anthony Young concluded: "If rates of population increase in developing countries are not lowered, efforts to reduce poverty, hunger, and suffering which these cause will constantly be thwarted, often nullified; and sustainable use of natural resources, avoiding land degradation, will not be achieved." It's a grim prediction, and concomitant with this prediction we will see increasing numbers of devastating famines, epidemics and probably an increase in resource-based wars. The World Land Trust is not able to do much about any of this -- but I urge those working for relief charities and others concerned with human welfare to examine carefully their activities. Poverty relief in the absence of population reduction is a futile exercise, which will actually have the potential to exacerbate human suffering in the future.
Sunday, 8 May 2005
Carbon Balanced with the WLT
A few weeks ago we launched our completely overhauled web site dealing with carbon emmissions. We are not the first orgainisation to deal with this issue -- there are several others selling carbon credits -- such as Future Forests, and Carbon-Balanced(R) and CLevel. just type in carbon balance, carbon sequestration or any similar phrase into Google and you find them. The big difference bewteen the World Land Trust and all the others I have been able to find, is that we are a charity and the others are not. In itself this does not make us better than anyone else. But it does make us more transparent. Charities have to publish summaries of their accounts on the Charity Commission web site, and have to make their accounts available to supporters. For-profit Companies do not.
We are also more directly involved in the delivery of the results -- unlike most of the for-profit businmesses who are paying other organisations to carry out tree planting and other schemes.
It is not surprising that the costs of carbon sequestration through the World Land Trust is often significantly cheaper than through some of the commercial companies. And a final, but significant difference, is that the WLT is moving rapidly towards having carbon that can be legally traded. The companies that have cashed in on public concerns over global warming will soon have to demonstrate much more clearly how they are implementing their schemes and how much of the money raised really goes to conservation or any other activity.
We are also more directly involved in the delivery of the results -- unlike most of the for-profit businmesses who are paying other organisations to carry out tree planting and other schemes.
It is not surprising that the costs of carbon sequestration through the World Land Trust is often significantly cheaper than through some of the commercial companies. And a final, but significant difference, is that the WLT is moving rapidly towards having carbon that can be legally traded. The companies that have cashed in on public concerns over global warming will soon have to demonstrate much more clearly how they are implementing their schemes and how much of the money raised really goes to conservation or any other activity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
