Eligibility

Unlike Feed-In Tariffs, there is not a maximum limit to the size of the renewable heat technology implemented under the RHI.

Systems supported include:

• Bioenergy:
  • Solid biomass boilers
  • On-site combustion of biogas
  • Injection of biomethane into the gas grid
• Ground source heat pumps or geothermal sources
• Air source heat pumps
• Water source heat pumps
• Solar thermal heat panels
• Renewable combined heat and power (CHP)

The RHI supports heating at all scales, including households, businesses, offices, public sector buildings and industrial processes in large factories (DECC, 2010).  Presently, any systems installed before 15^th July 2009 will not be eligible for the RHI and any systems installed after that will only receive payments after April 2011.  All equipment and installers must be MCS certified and work is underway to change and extend the upper limits of MCS certification as it is restricted to 45kW for all systems but biomass, which is restricted to 300kW.  Also, in order to qualify for RHI payments over the lifetime of the scheme, the system owner must sign a declaration that agrees to maintain the equipment to good working order (rhincentive.co.uk, 2010). However, as the RHI is under consultation, the eligibility criteria is subject to change before the initiative is implemented.

Tariffs

The DECC considers the tariff levels to bridge the financial gap between the cost of conventional and renewable heat systems at all scales.  This is done by compensating the financial costs associated with renewable heat by covering the difference in upfront capital and ongoing costs.  Compensation is also provided for some non-financial barriers such as the disruption of digging up gardens to install ground source heat pumps etc. Finally, the tariffs should pay an investment return which is proposed at 12% for all technologies but 6% for solar thermal.

Metering

The majority of renewable heat technologies will be measured on a “deemed” number of kWh or the “reasonable heat requirement” that the installation is intended to serve (DECC, 2010).  This is to discourage the generation of additional energy for export and more incentives unless it can be utilised within district and community heating networks.  Therefore, there are different methods of metering for each size level of technology:

Small scale systems:

Payment will be based on a “deemed” output based on the efficiency expected in a well insulated property.  This will be assessed through the existing Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) 28 used for the energy rating of buildings.

Medium scale systems:

This will be the same as small scale systems generally, however there will be the option to meter solid biomass installations.  Although the same tariffs levels will apply for metering up to the deemed number of kWh for the property, when this is exceeded, an addition lower tariff per kWh will be paid to cover the excess (rhincentive.co.uk, 2010).

Large scale systems and process heat:

This will be paid by calculating the metered number of kWh multiplied by the tariff per kWh.

Biomethane injection and district heating:

This is proposed to be metered at all scales.

It important to note that as the RHI is still at the consultation stage, the tariff levels and eligibility is liable to change before April 2011.

How much money can the RHI save you?

If solar thermal panels and a biomass boiler were installed in an average household that uses 15,000kWh of heat a year, the Renewable Heat Incentive will provide:

• 13,700kWh of heat generated would pay the homeowner £1,400 a year (the kW difference is made up through energy efficiency measures such as installation)
• Biomass fuel costs could be up to £575 per year
• Therefore the minimum annual benefit is £825 per year

The benefits

Overall, this initiative provides an income for the heat you generate by renewable sources and allows you to make a difference to the environment.  The cost of your energy bill will be reduced as most properties in the UK generate heat at source (your property) using a gas or oil boiler.  This usually results in high energy bills, but the RHI has been structured to not only pay for the heat you generate but also to reduce other costs.  Therefore, the average home in the UK is expected to make at least a net profit of £600 a year.  In addition to a reduction in your energy bill, the RHI will also mean that you will not be affected by the changes in fuel prices as badly.  The price of oil and gas fluctuate regularly, so installing a renewable heat system that does not rely on these fuels will give you some protection against this and will mean you are not as vulnerable as before. Finally, switching to heat generation from renewable sources means you contribute to the aim to generate 12% of the UK’s energy from renewable sources by 2020.

It is highly unlikely that you could be worse off from implementing a renewable heat technology.  The RHI will allow you to reduce your carbon footprint and energy bills, become more self-sufficient and earn some extra income. So now is the time to consider your options.

[1] rhincentive.co.uk (2010)

They have created an energy storing pavement that converts your foot steps into useful energy, which could be used to power street lights and other electrical devices. The pavement is currently being road tested in Toulouse and early reports are positive. Utilising the energy created by pedestrians could not only save fossil fuels from being burned but save councils or retailers and other businesses money in the process. A shop where a similar material is used as carpeting throughout the store could potentially save thousands a year on lighting and electricity bills and provide a novel retail experience for consumers.

The pavement could also be used in rural areas or developing nations with no access to a reliable energy source, powering computers and other equipment.

So how does it work?

Everything time we step on the ground we give a little bit of energy to the floor, this energy arrives in the form of kinetic energy, the energy associated with movement. Normally this energy is converted to heat and sound energy and in usable terms is wasted. The special pavement converts this kinetic energy that would otherwise be wasted into electrical energy. Each step only provides a small amount of energy, but as a metre of pavement can receive tens of thousands of steps a day this can add up to a very useful amount of energy. The energy can then be stored in batteries or used directly by street lights.

Hitting the Dance Floor

Not content with just powering our street lamps the Dutch designers Jaap van den Braak also have their eye on sustainable partying. They have designed a Sustainable Dance Floor™  which uses the energy of dancing party goers to power the music and lights of the party. Not only does the energy created by the dancers power the disco but lights on the floor interact with the movement showing how much energy is being created, encouraging the dancers to throw shapes even harder on the dance floor. Now if that’s not an excuse to get down, I don’t know what is.

It works via a similar process to the pavement – converting kinetic energy into useful electrical current, however due to the energetic nature of dancing far more energy is supplied, meaning relatively few dancers could indeed power the party. The dance floor is available for retailers to rent now, more information can be found at the website  [1].

The pavement is just at testing state at the moment (to be sustainable long term itself it needs to last for a certain number of years, taking millions of steps) but early signs are promising meaning soon you could be powering the fight against climate change just by going for a stroll.

If you would like to learn more about cleaner sources of energy then why not take a look at our informative pages?

[1] www.sustainabledanceclub.com

In fact, all of life on Earth in it’s amazing complexity and diversity is possible due to the wonderful properties of this element. So if carbon is so great, why does it seem to be spending most of it’s time on the metamorphical elemental naughty step?

Simply put, there’s just a little bit too much in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is what we call a greenhouse gas. Thermal radiation (heat energy) from the Sun enters our atmosphere; a proportion of which gets absorbed by the Earth whilst some is reflected back into space. Greenhouse gases trap some of this heat energy that would otherwise simply leave the Earth, causing an increased global temperature. Think of it like a jumper, trapping the heat that comes from your body making you warmer, only on a planet-wide scale.

Now before you start shaking your fists skyward it should be noted that some greenhouse gases are really rather useful. According to NASA if there were no greenhouse gases the average temperature of this planet would be around 33 degrees Celsius lower than it is today. To put that into perspective the last ice age roughly 20’000 years ago which covered most of the UK under a sheet of ice saw an average global temperature around only five to ten degrees lower than present.

So carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring molecule, and has helped maintain a planet with a temperature warm enough to sustain life for the last four billion years. However since the industrial revolution the burning of fossil fuels by humans has increased the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere rather dramatically.

Fossil fuels are the decayed carbon rich remains of ancient living organisms. For millions of years fossil fuels were deposited in the form of coal, oil and gas into the Earth. Fossil fuels contain carbon rich compounds (that is carbon bonded to other elements, mainly in this case hydrogen) which can be burned to produce lots of useful energy but also releases carbon dioxide as an emission.

Of course fossil fuels are natural, but the rate that they are being burned is not. We have used up fossil fuels that were deposited over hundreds of millions of years in only a few generations. This has caused the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase, and is the primary cause of what is known as “global warming” the increase in Earth’s temperature due to man made emissions.

Most scientists agree that global warming is a real threat. Ice caps could melt, land could dry up, weather could get more unstable leading to increased flood and hurricane risk and entire ecosystems could be lost, unable to cope with rising temperatures.

To reduce the risk and effects of global warming scientists argue we must reduce our carbon emission. This means reducing energy consumption by recycling, being more efficient and changing our often wasteful lifestyle. We can also get clean energy from renewable resources that don’t burn fossil fuels and release carbon dioxide, such as solar energy, wind farms and tidal power.

The idea of Carbon Trading is relatively simple. Companies are given the rights to emit a specific amount of CO₂ which are known as Carbon Credits. Should any company need to emit more CO₂ than it has been allocated credits it is forced to buy surplus credits from any company that has successfully reduced its own CO₂ output below the set threshold.

In effect the higher polluting company is charged for polluting, whilst the lower polluting company is rewarded for being environmentally friendly & efficient and society benefits from CO₂ being reduced in the most cost effective manner.

The financial reward for an energy efficient company are twofold; a lower cost due to reduced resource usage and the chance earn money trading surplus Carbon Credits. The system also attaches the “polluter pays” principle to CO₂, bringing the greenhouse gas into line with other dangerous pollutants.

Companies can also gain the right to emit carbon by implementing or investing in carbon offsetting projects, where the carbon they emit is offset against a reduction in greenhouse gases through other projects, such as planting trees or installing wind turbines.

In the current carbon trading system there is no lower limit that price Carbon Credits can be traded for. This means the price of Credits are entirely dependent on market forces and the price of Credits can fall dramatically, as shown in April 2007 when prices fell to 0.5€/ton.

A floor value or lower minimum trade value set at around €50/ton of carbon would provide a boost for efficient low carbon companies, as well as making carbon neutral energy production an increasingly economically attractive option for investors.

As governments across Europe reduce the amount of Carbon Credits they give to industry to comply with their own targets Carbon Credits should see a rise in price over time as demand increases. However a set floor price to Carbon Credits provides a guaranteed financial incentive meaning there may never have been a better time to go green.

To make matters worse many new building now use spotlights. There are two issues with spotlights, one is that to illuminate a large room many more are needed. The second is that energy saving bulbs that fit spotlights are still relatively expensive and sometimes hard to source, which can be off putting for people looking to switch over to energy saving types.

I’ve recently moved into a rented flat with 10 GU10 type spotlights, none of which were energy saving. I was surprised at the high cost of energy saving bulbs (£6 each) but then I decided to do a little maths. They might cost more to buy but as they use less electricity they should save me money in the long term, right?

Most utility providers charge per kWh of energy used. Around 22.2 pence/kWh was taken from a large UK based utility provider. We can work out how much energy in kWh our bulbs use by multiplying the duration that they are used per month, the power of each bulb and the number of bulbs we have.

Say the lights are on for 45 hours a week (5 hours per weekday and 10 hours per day on the weekend)

That’s 45 x 4 = 180 hours a month. If you have 10 bulbs at 50 watts each then the total energy used per month is

180 hours x 50W x 10 bulbs = 90 kWh.

At 22.2 pence/kWh the price is 90 kWh x 22.2 pence/kWh = £19.98

If you were to change your light bulbs to energy saving ones then only 3W might be used per bulb. This makes the energy used and cost per month far smaller

180 hours x 3W x 10 bulbs = 5.4 kWh.

At the 22.2 pence/kWh the price is 5.4 kWh x 22.2 pence/kWh = £1.20

Of course the bulbs do cost more, ten bulbs will cost around £60, but that’s not to say they will not make a saving in the long run. Using the above formula we can work out how much the bulbs will cost over a period of months. The energy saving bulbs start off more expensive due to a higher initial cost, but as they are cheaper to run per month they soon start to make you savings.

As you can see from the graph after around 10 weeks the bulbs have paid for themselves. By the end the year (52 weeks) a total saving of £194 has been made. At a value of 0.544 kg of Carbon per Kwh of electricity used at home [1] changing over also stops 600 kg of Carbon being emitted each year which of course will help help stop global warming.

Saving money and helping the environment? Now that’s almost worth calling your friends about.

[1] Derfa 2009 figures at http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/cut-carbon-reduce-costs/calculate/carbon-footprinting/pages/conversion-factors.aspx [29/10/2010]

Virtual water is defined then as the volume of water that has been used making the product that we say is virtually embedded in the product [1]. If a product is highly water intensive to produce then the mass of virtual water embedded can be orders of magnitude greater than the mass of the original product. For example 1 kg of cotton can contain 3644 kg of embedded water, so pair of jeans (0.5 kg) will have 1822 kg of water embedded in them [2].

Like all goods virtual water can also be exported and imported. If one country exports a water intensive product to another we can say the water has been virtually traded between the two countries [3]. Although there has been no physical transfer of water between the two nations the net result is the same. Countries can also export their water intensive activities to other countries creating a net import of virtual water.

You might think that it would follow that countries with more fresh water resources available would net export virtual water to those with less but this is rarely the case. In fact it is often the countries that suffer from water scarcity that produce the most water intensive crops (for example coffee or cotton) and by exporting them they too export virtual water. This can further increase global water inequality as countries suffering from water scarcity can loose even more of their precious water resources.

It is not simply a question of simply the total volume of water that has gone into making a product but we must also look at what type of water has been used. These are colour coded as blue, green and grey virtual water [4].

• Green water is the volume of water that is evaporated from the moisture stored in the soil, formed originally by precipitation.
• Blue water is the volume of fresh water evaporated that comes from ground water and surface water resources, such as lakes, ponds and rivers.
• Grey water is the volume of fresh water that is polluted at any stage of the process making a product.

Water embedded in a product can therefore be green, blue, grey or any combination of any of these three types.

Green water comes from precipitation and it is the most environmentally positive option. Using green water does not diminished long term water resources in a region as you are simply using precipitated water that would otherwise evaporate from the soil due to natural causes.

Using blue water removes water from resources such as lakes and aquifers. This reduces the volume of fresh water available for others in society as well the environment. If too much water is taken from lakes and aquifers then the available fresh water in a region may simply run out which can have devastating consequences for populations as well as the environment and biodiversity.

Creating grey water pollutes water resources. This can damage the environment as well as reducing the volume of quality water available for local populations.

Of course the methods used to make any product will have a huge effect on its virtual water composition. Beef made from cows feeding on natural rain-fed grassland will be embedded with green water, whilst beef from cows eating processed feed derived from irrigated crops will be embedded with blue water, which in turn has a huge impact on their respective environmental impacts.

To reduce our global water consumption we need to be careful about the virtual water in the products we buy and where this water has come from. Checking country of origin on a lot of products can help although even this brings up conflicting issues. If buying for example flowers from a less developed country removes virtual water it also provides much needed help to local economies.

If export of virtual water has lead to an increased global water inequity then this process could also be reversed. Water rich nations could export water intensive products to water scare nations, allowing these nations to reserve their own resources. Governments must also look at ways of “greening” the methods of production of goods, thereby reducing strain on limited water resources.

As global populations rise, individual water demands increase and global climate changes we are bound to witness a rise in demand and fall in availability of fresh water across the globe. Although itself just a concept “virtual water” may find itself increasing becoming part of a real world solution to this potential environmental and humanitarian crisis.

References

1. Allan, J.A. (1998) Virtual Water: A Strategic Resource. Global Solutions to Regional Deficits. Groundwater 36: 545-546.

2. Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., Savenije, H.H.G., Gautam, R. (2006) The water footprint of cotton consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecological Economics, Vol. 60, No. 1. (2006), 186-203

3. Renault, D., Zimmer, D. (2003) Virtual water in food production and global trade review of methodological issues and preliminary results. World Water Council 2003.

4. Hoekstra, A.Y. (2003), ‘Virtual Water: An Introduction’, in A.Y. Hoekstra (ed.), Virtual Water Trade: Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting on Virtual Water Trade, 13–23.

Take mobile phones for example. Around 25 million phones are sold every year in the UK. If you consider the adult population of the UK is around fifty million that means more than half the population are replacing their phone every year. It’s an indication of a culture than increasingly views objects as disposable. This is not the single use definition of disposable that we may be used too, for example the paper plate that lasts just a meal but the principle is the same, just on a different time scale. When we tend to buy a product it rarely lasts as long as it should or could and pretty soon the object becomes obsolete.

There are two major ways this can happen, planned and perceived obsolescence.

Say a car manufacturer is designing a new car. After designing, tooling, machining, testing, marketing and advertising a huge amount has been spent putting the model out before the first car has even been produced. To recoup this money and make a profit they need to have the car on sale for a certain number of years. After a while it will be replaced with a whole new line as sales start to decline. If the car is still on sale for say ten years it’s clearly not going to sell very well if it starts to fail within those ten years. But when the car is taken off market what need does the manufacturer have that the car should really last much longer or still be desirable? In fact the sooner the car is replaced the sooner the manufacturer will have another potential customer. Often replacement parts are prohibitively expensive, encouraging the consumer to buy again as opposed to repair goods.

Objects we buy are not designed to last extended periods of time, simply so we have to keep on buying them. This is what is known as planned obsolescence. MP3 players whose batteries stop holding charge over a few years and printers that stop working after a short time are examples. If you buy these items sustainabily in the first place then this could limit the environmental impact when it comes to the end of their usable lives. The technology in a washing machine has not changed that much in the last 30 years (things spin, soap and water are added, clothes get clean) but who has a washing machine over five or ten years old? There are two reasons for this, the first is due to planned obsolescence; the washing machine may well not last five years anyway, but the second is more subtle, after five years we just might want a new one. This is something called perceived obsolescence.

Perceived obsolescence is the process by which a product that you own is made to seem obsolete. The new must have phone, the seasons must have colours – all designed to make your perfectly good items you already own seem out dated. And what do you do when you’ve got an out dated product? Well, buy a new one of course. What you had already worked perfectly, but social, cultural and advertising pressure means that as a society we feel compelled to keep on buying the most current items out there. As a society we are coerced into being repeat consumers, regardless of the environmental cost.

Aldous Huxley’s novel A Brave New World tells of a fictional future dystopia where the population are brainwashed to buy as many goods as possible, and not to make do with what they have. “Ending is better than mending. The more stitches, the less riches” [1] is one of the mantras of the age. The novel was written in 1931, an era when a coat or jacket would be repaired if broken, and then passed down to family members if outgrown. Now a damaged jacket would in all likelihood be thrown away, as wearing a coat that you have obviously mended just isn’t done. This hasn’t been achieved via brainwashing, at least not in the conventional sense; cultural, media and advertising pressures have done this job.

Economies boom when populations spend. One of the first actions the British government did after the 2008 recession was lower VAT rates from 17.5% to 15% in an effort to increase the public’s spending [2]. Increasing the rate we consume products was deemed so important the loss of 2.5% of governmental revenue from VAT was seen as a small price to pay for keeping people buying products.

If spending creates wealth in the short term it also causes long term environmental issues. It is becoming clear that the Earth simply cannot sustain production of certain goods at the current rate we are making them. The cost to the environment comes on many fronts. The Earth’s mineral resources are finite, and manufacturing and transporting good entails a high carbon cost so every step of the chain contributes to global warming. The water footprint (that is the amount of water needed to make a product) of new goods is another huge consideration. For instance for every kg of cotton that goes into a new pair of jeans 3644 kg of water will have gone into making that cotton [3].

There’s also the question of where we put all our newly obsolete goods. Many of the goods we replace each year are non biodegradable meaning we either need to recycle them (which is not always possible), put them in rapidly overfilling landfills or incinerate them causing airborne pollution.

To mitigate against serious environmental damage to this planet our society needs to modify its behaviour. This needs to be more than just a token effort of living a little greener by turning off lights or trying to fly a little less but a deep seated shift in the way we view resources, commodities and consumerism. What is certain some point the Earth will run out of its capacity to support our current way of living and our lifestyle will have to change. The question for society is if we will have the foresight to change our lifestyles now or if this change will be forced upon us.

1. Huxley, A. (1932) A Brave New World, Chatto and Windus: London

2. HM revenue and Customs (2008) Vat – Changes In The Standard Rate: A Detailed Guide For Vat Registered Businesses.

3. AK Chapagain, AY Hoekstra, HHG Savenije, R. Gautam. (2006) The water footprint of cotton consumption: An assessment of the impact of worldwide consumption of cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producing countries. Ecological Economics, Vol. 60, No. 1. (2006), 186-203

In an international first the South American country of Ecudor has signed a pact with the UN stating that it will leave millions of tons of oil untouched indefinitely in return for financial compensation from the international community. The oil reserves situated  in the Yasuni natural park would have the potential to release millions of tons of CO2  into the atmosphere if extracted and burned. The drilling process would also cause massive damage to the 675 square miles of Amazonian rainforest sitting above the oil reserves. The rainforest contains a huge amount of biodiversity, as well as being home to many indigenous tribes whose way of life would be threatened by the drilling process.

Yasuni National Park

Instead of drilling Ecudor will sell Guarantee Certificates that promise the oil will remain underground indefinitely, saving over 410 million tons of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.1 Like the EU carbon trading scheme where permits to release carbon can be traded the scheme will produce Yasuni Guarantee Certificates (CGYs in the native Spanish) which  the Ecuadorian government will issue to bidders equivalent to the amount of carbon saved.

Money for the credits could come from a variety of different sources. One source of income is likely to be from EU countries buying the oil as part of the EU ETS. Buying CGYs would be a way for European countries to offset their own carbon emissions to stay within EU limits. However for this to happen the CGYs would have to be recognised within the European Trading System. If sold this way the total amount of income received by the certificates would be dependent on the market conditions and the price of carbon within the scheme.

Other credits could be bought up be NGOs, philanthropists, charities and companies much like other current carbon offsetting schemes

Although asking for international money Ecuador does not want to be seen as a charity. The approximate 1 billion barrels of oil have a net value of around $7 billion, meaning the $3.6 billion they are asking for is less than market value. Helga Serrraao from the Ecuadoran foreign ministry said “We will keep the oil underground indefinitely. We think $3.6 billion is a fair contribution from developed countries.”

The system could pave the way for other countries rich in oil to gain wealth from their natural resources without contributing to global warming or critically damaging local ecosystems. It’s not just environmental concerns that may get countries considering the idea, in many countries the extraction of oil has left thousands without job prospects and seriously reduced life expectancy. However the certificates are very unlikely to be purchased for the value of the crude oil they replace and so the scheme may be of limited appeal to economically less developed nations.

The scheme is not without issues. Taking the oil off the market will not effect worldwide oil demand but will effect supply, and as this decreases the price of oil could rise accordingly. A rise in price could lead companies across the globe to drill out even  dirtier sources of oil resulting in a net increase in environmental damage. Other critics argue that Ecuador is essentially blackmailing the world, using its vast biodiversity as leverage and forcing Europe to pay dearly for its environmental conscience.

However, true change in the way we  treat  this planet will only come about when we decide to make the decisions to hold off the removal of fossil fuels from the earth for reasons other than just the economic arguments. Climate change will only be diverted from its current course when we decide to leave fossil fuels in the ground that we could remove for profit, even if, in 2010 at least, this might require some financial incentive.

If you would like to learn more about environmental issues then visit our learning portal.

Ref.

1. http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ecuadors_plan_save_amazon_and_fight_climate_changethe_yasun%C3%ADitt_initiative

So what is sustainability and what does it mean to live in a sustainable way? Thankfully the task of defining sustainable development was covered by the UN led Brundtland Commission, who in 1987 defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” But what does this mean for us and how can we ensure we are acting in a sustainable way?

Let’s look at two scenarios, and go through why some decisions are considered sustainable and others not. Imagine a society trying to produce electricity for its population, one option would be burning coal in a power station.

Burning fossil fuel is unsustainable in two important ways. Firstly fossil fuels are non renewable and will some day run out. If present day society burns the world’s fossil fuels reserves without investing in renewable energy technology then future generations will suffer an energy shortage and their energy needs will not be meet. Burning fossil fuel also releases carbon dioxide into the environment, resulting in global warming. Although the effects of global warming are being realised across the planet now, its consequences and problems are likely to be increasingly felt by future generations. This means burning coal seriously jeopardises the environmental future of this planet and thus compromises future generations and is by definition unsustainable.

Imagine a different approach, where the government decided to invest in the renewable technology of a wind farm to produce electricity. The turbines are powered by wind, caused by variations in air pressure ultimately powered by the sun. This is a renewable source of energy. Using it now has no relation to how much will be available for  future generations. Producing electricity via wind turbines releases very little carbon dioxide, so the atmosphere remains largely unaffected and future generations can enjoy a world with reduced anthropogenic global warming. Using wind power not only avoids damaging the environmental health of the planet – but creates an infrastructure that ensures present and future generations can meet their energy needs.

It is important to note that the outright banning of all fossil fuels with immediate effect across the globe would mean that the energy needs of most populations could not be met. Crops would fail, entire societies could collapse and people would die.  This again is also against the definition of sustainability. At the root of many controversial environmental topics, such as organic food or GM crops is the question of sustainability and the balance between environment, current and future populations. For example whilst organic foods might be better for the environment some argue that a world wide switch to organic product might not produce enough food to meet the world’s dietary  needs now, and so be in effect an unsustainable practise.

So sustainable development has to balance the needs of the present with the needs of the future. Sustainable development is more than just a scientific theory, it’s an action and for anyone with a passion for the environment a challenge. Although there are some practises for which debate and research may go on for years, many are rather more clear cut. Investing in renewable energy, minimising waste, reducing energy consumption and recycling are all great practises for anyone wanting to help make a more sustainable society.

There are many other key species that arguably play a far greater role in the ecosystem of the Earth, whose loss could cause huge environmental repercussions on a world wide scale. One such example  are phytoplankton – microscopic water based organisms which encompass thousands of different individual species. Phytoplankton are unlikely to be used as a poster-species for an environmental charity and yet phytoplankton are perhaps the most important group of organisms on the planet.

Phytoplankton are microscopic organisms capable of photosynthesis – a process that produces energy and oxygen whilst removing carbon dioxide from the environment just like terrestrial plants. Like their land-based equivalents phytoplankton are also vital in controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Phytoplankton are the oceans primary producers of the marine food chain – the first step that supports the entire marine ecosystem.

However a study published in Nature suggests that a decline of up to 40% of the world’s phytoplankton could have occurred in the last 50 years, triggering what could be one of the world’s largest environmental disasters.

Why the decline?

It seems at first glance almost contradictory. Warmer weather and increased carbon dioxide should provide optimal growing conditions for any photosynthesising organism – in fact the very term “greenhouse effect” derives from the greenhouses used in agriculture – where increased temperature and carbon dioxide levels are used to create a higher crop yield.

The natural world however is never quite that simple. Like all plants phytoplankton also need nutrients to survive. In the ocean most of these nutrients come from colder nutrient rich waters found beneath the surface layers. As global warming forces air temperature to rise the water near the surface heats up. This process increases thermal stratification – where the temperature difference between the warmer surface water and cooler nutrient rich deep water reduces mixing between the two layers. A paper in 2006 by Jef Huisman of the University of Amsterdam predicted a similar mechanism using computer models stating “A larger temperature difference between two water layers implies less mixing of chemicals between these water layers. Global warming of the surface layers of the oceans, owing to climate change, strengthens the stratification and thereby reduces the upward mixing of nutrients.” The net result is warm but nutrient poor surface waters resulting in decreased phytoplankton growth.

Phytoplankton reduction and the atmosphere.

Up till now the 2006 paper had been largely theoretical -  but the newly published  paper by marine scientists Daniel Boyce, Marlon Lewis & Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax could prove the theory chilling accurate and provide evidence for one of the worst environmental effects of global warming seen yet.

The paper compiled and researched nearly 450,000 different measurements of plankton levels and water clarity measurements  that researchers have made between 1899 to 2008. Using historical data and satellite imagery the paper has suggested a that a decline of almost 1%  per year of phytoplankton has occurred in recent years, totalling a 40% reduction in phytoplankton since 1899 with most of the decline occurring post 1950 – when carbon emissions began to increase dramatically.

The scientists completing the research made sure to use a long time frame to make sure they were witnessing an actual decline and not simply just any  natural fluctuations that can occur in phytoplankton populations. Diminishing phytoplankton levels could have a dramatic effect on those who rely on fish for food or income.

“Phytoplankton is the fuel on which marine ecosystems run. A decline of phytoplankton affects everything in the food chain, including humans,” Dr Boyce, one of the paper’s authors, said.

The importance of phytoplankton cannot be overstated.  A reduction in levels of phytoplankton could have far reaching and long term ecological consequences. Quite apart from a reduction of oceanic abundance and biodiversity it could also seriously effect the terrestrial environment. Reducing phytoplankton levels would diminish an important carbon sink, which would increase atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and exacerbate global warming creating a positive feedback loop with disastrous consequences. As the planet warms the oceans lose the ability to store carbon, which in turn contributes to global warming which further reduces the ocean’s ability to store carbon.

“Phytoplankton are a critical part of our planetary life support system. They produce half of the oxygen we breathe, draw down surface carbon dioxide and ultimately support all of our fishes” said Dr Worm, one of the paper’s authors “If this holds up, something really serious is underway and has been underway for decades. I’ve been trying to think of a biological change that’s bigger than this and I can’t think of one.”

Although more research is needed the paper could provide the glimpse at not only the largest change in the global ecosystem witnessed with a human time frame but potentially one of the most devastating.

If you would like to read more about environmental issues such as this one then take a look around our learning portal.