green113

Green 113

Some preferred solutions

Of course it is unspeakably presumptuous of me to suggest solutions. Despite the fact that every man and his dog, as well as every woman and her cat, each have their preferred solutions, it seems arrogant to imply that I understand the situation sufficiently well to propose meaningful remedies. Yet without propositions, would not all my analysis amount to little more than hot air [pause for smile at pun], and be nothing better than engagement in that most British of all activities: whingeing.

I have no particular desire to propose steering a middle course between extremes. I am, however, concerned that any proposals should:

a) make a difference to the environment, particularly regarding global warming, (nearly-empty gestures are the politics of posturing and manipulation);

b) be easily technically achievable, (Ronald Reagan's 'star wars' project may have been technically achievable, but only with considerable difficulty; John Prescott's road pricing by satellite tracking cars in the UK may become technically achievable, but will be made to work only with considerable difficulty; computerising the UK's National Health System is an excellent idea, that is technically achievable, on paper, but cannot be made to work);

c) be individually, nationally and supranationally affordable (the Stern Report, for the UK government, identified that, regarding the effects of global warming, the costs associated with not taking action are likely to far exceed the costs of taking timely action, but who is to pay?);

d) be easily politically achievable (in 2001 the UK government was unable to persuade the UK population of the benefits of an escalating fuel tax);

e) be acceptable to a majority of the EU population (people are not going to give up their cars, stop travelling by air, stop buying Kenyan roses and Argentinian strawberries, live without heating in the winter, or walk along unlit city streets).

Mains electricity will continue for the foreseeable future as a principal source of power for domestic (there are 20 million domestic units in the UK) use and for small businesses, partly because most appliances used domestically (computer, television, vacuum cleaner, dishwasher) and in small businesses (computer, photocopier, shredder) are primarily electrical, and partly because use of the existing transmission infrastructure involves no capital outlay whereas localised micro-generation of utilisable electricity would involve substantial capital outlay. However, space heating and water heating do not have to be derived from electricity, and could be managed, or part-managed, on a local scale, albeit that this would involve capital outlay; to do so would ease the load placed on mains electricity generation.

[To be continued ...]

I read on the website promoting Al Gore's documovie, An Inconvenient Truth, that to plant and nurture a tree for its lifetime borrows a tonne of CO2 from the atmosphere. However, I also read a report some months ago on the BBC News website suggesting that trees in temperate climate grow so slowly that their impact on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is minuscule, and that the carbon footprint involved in planting (and harvesting) trees on an industrial scale in the UK is greater than the amount of CO2 sequestered by the growing trees.

If Google's carbon footprint calculator is to be believed, my nine tonnes of CO2 emissions should be multiplied by three to include the other members of my immediate family. Although I remain unsure that this is correct, it would mean that I have a responsibility for 27 tonnes of CO2. Therefore, in order to mitigate my actual CO2 emissions, maybe I should personally plant 27 trees every year, and nurture them all for the rest of my life. Whilst I like this idea, and already have eight large trees in my garden, I believe that trees should be planted and nurtured regardless of CO2 emissions. Desirable though planting and nurturing trees may be, it is mildly dishonest to claim them for CO2 mitigation.

...

I should like to see a bio-fuel (ethanol, bio-kerosine and bio-diesel) network built up so that all vehicle fuel is produced from renewable sources. I am more relaxed than many commentators about the fact that valuable food is being used to produce biofuel, because I consider the current situation to be transitional: without the pump-priming effect of food-sourced bio-fuels there might never be a bio-fuel network. Iceland, Canada, the US and the Netherlands are each experimenting with hydrogen gas fuel cells. Although this technology is expensive, and only in its infancy, it is also very low on emissions. Driving home from work recently, I found myself behind a Nissan hybrid car. I feel certain that there is merit in fossil-free electricity being used to power cars. The only problem is that hybrid cars are not cheap cars: the demographic at which the Toyota Prius hybrid is aimed are unlikely to send out for bags of chips and mushy peas for their evening meal.

It would not be unreasonable to propose a re-expansion of the regional rail network in the UK, Ireland, and other parts of western Europe. Japan is well-served by local, regional and inter-city rail routes, and consequently domestic air travel is low. Japanese people are in the habit of taking the train if by doing so they can avoid driving. I wish that the Tyne & Wear Metro were extended west to Washington and then north to Gateshead, and south along the former Leamside line to Belmont/Carrville (for Durham Park and Ride), Sherburn, High Shincliffe, Bowburn, Metal Bridge (for Spennymoor) and Ferryhill. A Network Rail station at Ferryhill could link the Metro to the East Coast Main Line

[To be continued ...]