The Green Mile

Emmissions from the industry contribute to air pollution

P T Jyothi Datta

When Mumbai experienced 94 centimetres of rain in a single day in July 2005, it was a calamity that India's financial capital witnessed for the first time in 95 years. Caught unprepared, the city's residents had little choice but to cope with waterlogged homes, waterborne diseases and a nagging thought.

Could they have been responsible for such a climatic catastrophe and its aftermath, as a result of unplanned growth and eroding mangroves?

Heat-waves in Europe in 2003 killing thousands of people, floods in China, Bangladesh and the recent unprecedented downpour in Mumbai have brought home the harsh reality.

Climate change experts will not point out a single climate-related catastrophe as a sign of the troubled climatic times to come. But they do caution that the frequency of floods, warm winters and unnatural summers, is likely to increase if action is not taken.

The case for combating climate change at both government and individual level was hammered home last month with publication of the Stern Report, commissioned by the UK government. Sir Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank chief economist, had been asked to report on the economics of climate change.

Climate scientists have been telling governments to get their people to change their lifestyles on general climatic grounds. But Julian Hunt, professor of climate modelling at UCL and member of the House of Lords, says the importance of the Stern report is that it outlines the financial cost of delaying doing something and the cost of doing nothing.

Green policies

So in addition to rolling up its sleeves and outlining green policies for industry, governments are now also drawing-up plans to get the individual involved. For instance, the UK government's carbon-credit cards proposal seeks to personalise responsibility and make individuals accountable for the energy they consume.

The aim is to initiate carbon-trading among private citizens, as happens already between nations in line with the Kyoto protocol. It is one of the pet projects of David Miliband, the Environment Secretary, and has support among Britain’s heavyweight environmental study groups.

“Despite the cynicism in some quarters, the system of rationing out carbon among the country's adult population will work if there is the political will,” says Mr Keith Tyrell, climate and energy editor of The ENDS Report, a well-respected journal for environmental policy and business in the UK.

At the best, says Mr Tyrell, the scheme is at least two to five years away, though this does not diminish his enthusiasm. The idea is that each person will be given a certain number of carbon credits to start with. When he or she buys petrol, uses electricity etc, credits get reduced from the card. So a person who does not own a car, could sell carbon credits in the market to another consumer who may need more to support additional flights that he or she may need.

Credit cards with a difference

Carbon credit cards do not penalise everyone like a carbon tax. In fact, carbon rationing is very equitable, Mr Tyrell says. Though it remains to be resolved whether these cards would be voluntary, the carbon credit-card system does not involve privacy issues that caused the controversy around having identity cards, he says.

The system is technically feasible and does not require too much investment in the preparation of an infrastructure, says Mr Tyrell. A pilot scheme has already been introduced by the Royal Society of Arts.

But carbon trading among individuals is only one of the proposed solutions. In his recent pre-budget report, the Chancellor Gordon Brown increased the price on fuel, doubled air-passenger duties and gave sops to zero-carbon, energy-efficient homes.

Green campaigners may say that the UK government has soft-pedalled the issue, when in fact tough measures were required to tackle climate change. But, by exempting zero-carbon homes from Stamp tax when they are bought and sold, Mr Brown has put energy-efficient homes in the popular domain.

According to Richard Starkey, researcher with the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, households are responsible for about 40 per cent of the energy emissions in the UK.
Another recent report, by the government-funded Carbon Trust, is likely to create awareness of areas where individuals can play a part in resisting climate change.

The big culprits

Recreation emerges as the single largest source of emissions, representing 1.95 tons of carbon emissions per person per year. Recreation, such as seaside trips, creates 200kg of emissions per person per year and television, videos and stereos account for another 35kgs.

Heating, including burning gas, electricity and oil, accounts for the second biggest source of carbon dioxide, at 1.49 tons per person per year. And food is the third biggest emission source, at 1.39 tons per person per year from cooking, eating and drinking.

Food miles, clocked by the distance travelled by a product till it gets to your supermarket shelf or dining table, is also a concept gaining importance and the Carbon Trust report says that food transport is equivalent to 300kg per person per year, driving to the supermarket is another 40kg; a restaurant meal generates 8kg per diner.

The annual carbon footprint of the average Briton at 10.92 tonnes of carbon dioxide is roughly half the 19 tonnes of carbon dioxide produced by the average American every year, the report says.
Plotting the British citizen’s carbon footprint, the report elaborates on the carbon emissions by household items, hygiene, clothing, commuting, aviation, education, phones. There is plenty of room here for individuals to adjust their habits.

Clean on carbons

Transparency over carbon emissions, which lies behind all this, got royal endorsement recently when Prince Charles said that his Duchy Originals range would be labelled with details of the greenhouse gases emitted in making the goods, which range from sausages to shampoos.

Under the scheme, every stage will be analysed to quantify how much climate-changing gas is released in producing each of the 200 items, say British media reports. The Prince of Wales is known to be pro-green and recently he instructed aides to use bicycles to help cut down the carbon emissions of his household.

Lord Hunt observes that countries may soon also consider taking action to favour products grown locally, as opposed to having them shipped across continents, a thought that contradicts world trade concepts on free market access.

Reports indicate that air-miles on goods are comparable or larger than those involved in transporting people, he says – another argument for going local. At the moment this is a matter of individual choice, however, and obviously one where the consumer can make a personal impact, however small.
To help the shopper, retailers such as Boots and Marks & Spencer are considering a carbon audit of their supply chains.

As regards domestic equipment, the energy efficiency of washing machines is becoming increasingly important in attracting the ethical consumer. Detergent brand Ariel from Procter & Gamble advertises efficient cleaning using less water and power; travel operators devise plans to reduce a traveller’s carbon footprint or the amount of carbon dioxide consumed by taking a flight out on holiday, for instance.

Airing the issue

One industry that has come in for the rough end of the stick in the climate debate is aviation and its contribution to global warming, with appeals to the public to take fewer flights, especially those on cheap airlines.

But Mr Giovanni Bisignani of the International Air Transport Association defends the industry in his column in The Guardian: “UN scientists from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate aviation's contribution to global carbon emissions to be just 2 per cent….road traffic contributes 18 per cent globally, while the fossil fuels used to generate heat and power contribute 35 per cent.”

People are indeed travelling more in India, China and East Europe, he says. But this is being balanced by slower growth in mature markets. And the net impact, estimated by the IPCC, is that aviation's contribution may grow to 3 per cent by 2050.

The aviation industry is looking to control emissions further through a next generation aircraft which will have greater fuel efficiency at three litres per 100 passenger kilometres – better than any hybrid car in the market, argues Mr Bisignani. Past initiatives in straightening routes, reducing congestion and eliminating delays slashed carbon emissions from aircraft by more than 12 million tonnes in 2005, he claims, equivalent to removing three million cars from Britain's roads.

As companies look to blend in with changing lifestyles and climate concerns, Lord Hunt also points out the significance of emerging economies like India and China. The individual cultural and lifestyle choices that people there make in future will be of critical importance.

What is the target lifestyle or emission pattern that developing countries want to achieve, he asks, adding that it should be comparable to the best practice of the industrial world rather than the worst consumerist patterns. The ball is in the court of the developing countries, he says, as ground work begins on taking the Kyoto Protocol to its next level after it runs out in 2012.