Following on from Gareth’s article “A Succinct Guide to Climate Change” [1], this article aims to outline a range of climate change impacts. For information on what climate change is, the causes of climate change, the uncertainty, and how we can stop it, please refer to Gareth’s article. However, if you are interested in the alarming impacts that climate change is having then please read on.

By now we are all aware of the impacts that climate change is having on our climate. Instead, this article will assess how climate change has an impact on: food security, water security, biodiversity and ecosystem services, and human security.

Food Security

Climate change has led to significant environmental degradation, including loss of biodiversity and land, and water degradation. Despite this, total global food production has continually grown since the 1960s because of agricultural adaptation. However, the benefits have been uneven and one billion people still go hungry. To make matters worse, food prices are now on the rise and are extremely volatile [2].

Food prices are on the rise because of the increased demand for food, while there is also an increase in poor harvests due to variable weather (due to climate change) and an increase in the use of biofuels, which are grown on valuable agricultural land.

The demand for food will double within the next 25-50 years, primarily in developing countries, and the type and nutritional quality of food in demand will change (increased meat demand). The challenge will be to sustain growth in the agricultural sector to feed the world, while biofuels take over agricultural land and climate change degrades what land is left [2].

To be able to produce enough food for the world, agriculture must continue to adapt by:

• Addressing water deficit problems e.g. through improved drought tolerant crops and irrigation technologies.
• Improving the temperature tolerance of crops.
• Combating new or emerging agricultural pests or diseases.
• Addressing soil fertility, salinisation of soils and improving nutrient cycling.
• Reducing energy-intensive inputs.
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining productivity.
• Improving the nutritional quality of food.
• Reducing post-harvest losses.
• Improving food safety.

Water Security

Human-induced climate change is projected to decrease water quality and availability in many arid and semi-arid regions, and increase the threats posed by floods and droughts in most parts of the world [3].

A summary of the global water crisis:

• Water scarcity is growing – by 2025 more than half of the world’s population is projected to live under conditions of severe water stress.
• Water quality is declining in many parts of the world.
• Many of the major “food-bowls” of the world are projected to become significantly drier.
• 70% of all freshwater is used for irrigation and 15-35% of irrigation withdrawals exceed supply rates and are therefore unsustainable.
• 50-60% of wetlands have been lost globally.

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Changes in climate have affected biodiversity already, and will continue to do so in the future.

Climate change will continue to have an impact on:

• The timing of reproduction or migration events.
• The length of the growing season.
• Species distributions and population sizes.
• The frequency of pest and disease outbreaks.
• The incidence of coral bleaching and mortality (through increasing water temperature, sea level and acidification).

The figure below shows that the main drivers of biodiversity loss are growing [4].

Climate change is projected to affect all aspects of biodiversity:

• Directly – through increases in temperature, changes in precipitation (and in the case of marine systems changes in sea level etc.)
• Indirectly – through climate changing the intensity and frequency of disturbances, such as wildfires.

The risk of extinction will increase for many species, especially those that are already at risk due to factors such as low population numbers, restricted or patchy habitats, and limited climatic ranges.

Ecosystems that may be most threatened by climate change include coral reefs, mangroves and other coastal wetlands, remnant ecosystems, ecosystems with restricted distribution, and high latitude/high altitude ecosystems.

Human Security

Climate change is also increasing the risk of conflict because of the following:

• Environmentally-induced migration: Tens of millions of people living in low lying deltaic areas or Small Island States will be displaced by increases in sea level and will be forced to migrate.
• Climate-induced decline in food production: Food shortages are likely to occur where there is already hunger and famine today.
• Climate-induced degradation of freshwater resources: Water shortages are likely to occur in areas where there are already water shortages.
• Climate-induced increase in storm and flood disasters: Increased incidence of severe weather events.
• In addition: Natural resources are being depleted with loss of ecological goods and services, and there is an increased incidence of disease.

The result: Climate change will cause an increased risk in local and regional conflict and migration, depending on the social, economic and political circumstances.

Security risks associated with climate change: the figure below highlights the regions which could develop into crisis hotspots [5].

Summary

The effects of climate change are having a severe impact on food security, water security, biodiversity and ecosystem services, and human security.

We must address climate change to prevent the following:

• Adverse impacts on food security: Decreased agricultural productivity and adverse impacts on fisheries.
• Adverse effects on water security: Decreased water availability and water quality, and increased risk of floods and droughts.
• Loss of key ecosystem services: Adverse effects on ecological systems and increased loss of biodiversity.
• Adverse effects on human health: Increased incidence of diseases and extreme weather events.
• Adverse effects on human settlements: Increased flooding, coastal erosion and sea level rise, and an increase in forced migration and risk of conflict.

It is imperative that the United Nations Climate Change Conference has a positive outcome in terms of a global agreement to cut carbon emissions, in order to try and reduce the impacts discussed in this report. On an individual level, there are actions you can take. Using our energy survey can help you discover your energy usage and consequently try and reduce it, or how about purchasing more sustainable products across a wide range of categories?

References

For more information on the United Nations Climate Change Conference, please refer to:

http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php

[1] “A Succinct Guide to Climate Change” http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/54/20/A-Succinct-Guide-to-Climate-Change.html

[2] FAO: The state of food insecurity in the world 2011 http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/

[3] IPCC: Climate change and water http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf

[4] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Synthesis) http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf

[5] German Advisory Council on Global Change: Climate change as a security risk http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2007/wbgu_jg2007_kurz_engl.pdf

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/a-succinct-guide-to-climate-change-impacts/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/masdar-a-sustainable-city/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/masdar-a-sustainable-city/#comments Fri, 09 Dec 2011 23:13:50 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=363 Continue reading →]]> Masdar is a sustainable city being built in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. It is a model for sustainable urban development, providing a high quality living and working environment with the lowest possible ecological footprint. Everything has been engineered for high function, low-consumption performance.

Sustainable Urban Development

Sustainable urban planning and development is an extremely important part of the global response to climate change; it is required because over half of the world’s population lives in cities, which are responsible for more than 70% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

The aim of Masdar City is to build one of the most sustainable cities in the world in a commercially viable way, while ensuring it is an attractive place to live. Building sustainability in a ‘commercially viable way’ is important if other cities are going to catch on and implement similar technologies and systems.

The essential factors that were considered for Masdar, and those that need to be considered for other sustainable urban developments, are shown below:

The Masdar City Master Plan

The design of Masdar is extremely complex and I will outline only some of the key concepts.

Masdar City was designed by Foster + Partners, a high profile architectural firm. The project blends high-tech design with the architecture and urban planning of traditional Arab cities.

Norman Foster, the founder and chairman of the firm, started with an in-depth study of old Arab settlements in order to understand how these communities coped with living in a region where the air can feel as hot as 150 degrees.

His research concluded that:

• Settlements were often built on high ground to take advantage of the stronger winds.
• Tall, hollow ‘wind towers’ were used to funnel cool air down to street level.
• Streets were narrow to accelerate airflow and built at an angle to maximise shade.

With this in mind, Masdar City is designed to be a perfect square, approximately one mile on each side and raised on a 23 foot high base to capture the desert breezes. It will have narrow streets, designed to maximise the shading of windows and walkways, and will also use wind towers to cool the streets. It is believed that by combining these approaches, Masdar City could feel roughly 70 degrees cooler, which would cut the amount of electricity used to run the city by half. 90% of the power used will be solar, while the rest is expected to be generated by incinerating waste – producing much less carbon than if it were sent straight to landfill.

Artist impression – Aerial view of Masdar City.

Wind tower used to funnel cool air down to street level.

However, of greater interest is how Masdar City is going to deal with transport, and in particular, what they will do with the car. Traditional cars are banned from entering Masdar, being replaced with a network of driverless electric cars that will operate underneath the city. A user will be able to step into a car, choose a destination within the city on an LCD screen and the car will then automatically pull out onto the road, silently, and drive itself!

When reaching their destination, users will be encouraged to use the stairs (as elevators are located discreetly out of sight) to get to the breezy streets of Masdar, where the only way to get around is on foot.

Driverless electric car station, located underneath the streets of Masdar.

Residential buildings are specifically designed to block direct sunlight from entering the rooms and so that the interiors aren’t visible from the outside. They are also designed so that views to the outside are angled, so that you can’t look directly into the windows of facing buildings.

Typical exterior of buildings in Masdar City.

Finally, the perimeter of the city will be camouflaged by an array of vegetation and almost all of the heavy-duty service functions (such as a 54-acre photovoltaic field, incineration plant and water treatment plant) will be located outside the city.

Too Good to be True?

Every aspect of Masdar City has been designed to be as sustainable as possible, with the overall aim of being a ‘carbon-neutral’ city. However, there are a few concerns over whether this is possible. For example, where will food come from? Will it be imported, carrying a high carbon footprint, or will it be grown locally? Additionally, if it is carbon-neutral, does this include the carbon footprint of construction?

Furthermore, critics suggest that the design of Masdar City reflects the gated-community mentality that has been spreading around the world in recent decades, believing that this community will be completely cut off from the rest of the world.

With these issues in mind, I still believe that the design and implementation of Masdar City is both exceptional and inspiring, and I hope people open their eyes to this feat of technological brilliance!

References:

All material was taken from the Masdar City website:

http://www.masdarcity.ae/en/

Please refer to this website for more information on how sustainable practices were implemented into the design of Masdar

The Figures

$211 billion was invested into green energy in 2010, a 32% rise from the $160 billion invested in 2009, and a 540% rise since 2004 [1]. There was a large leap in investment in renewable energy projects in the Third World and for the first time, developing nations spent more on “financial new investment” ($72 billion) than developed nations ($70 billion). Back in 2004, however, “financial new investments” in developing countries were only about a quarter of those in developed countries [1].

China was the world leader in green energy investment in 2010 (mainly due to wind farms), spending $48.9 billion – up 28% from 2009. Strong growth in investment was also seen in other emerging economies [1]:

• South and Central America: up 39% to $13.1 billion.
• Middle East and Africa: up 104% to $5 billion.
• India: up 25% to $3.8 billion.
• Asian developing countries (excluding China and India): up 31% to $4 billion

There was a notable increase in the investment of small-scale projects such as rooftop solar panels – up 91% to $60 billion globally. This was particularly apparent in Germany, where investment increased by 132% to $34 billion [1].

However, there wasn’t a growth in all sectors: there was a decline of 22% to $35.2 billion in the investment in large-scale renewable projects (e.g. wind farms) in Europe [1].

Reasons for the Rise

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggested that the drop in the price of solar cells and the rapidly growing interest in green energy in developing countries were the main reasons for the rise in investment [1].

Furthermore, Achim Steiner, executive director of UNEP stated: “The continuing growth in this core segment of the green economy is not happening by chance. The combination of government target-setting, policy support and stimulus funding is underpinning the renewable industry’s rise and bringing the much needed transformation of our global energy system within reach” [1].

Energy policy analyst at Finland’s Aalto University, Peter Lund, added: “Clean energy is starting to make a difference. However, it is very important to stress that new energy technologies’ markets still rely much on government support and stimulus” [2].

Will Investment Continue to Rise?

In the next 12 months there are some key gatherings that are likely to have a significant impact on the global push towards a green economy.

For example, the United Nations Climate Change Conference is taking place this year, from the 28^th November to the 9^th December [3], and the Rio+20 Summit is occurring next year [4].

These meetings are perfect opportunities to try and accelerate the move towards a low-carbon and energy-efficient economy. I believe that it is the outcome of important meetings such as these that will have a strong influence on the future investment in green energy.

References:

[1] UNEP – The ‘Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2011’ report.

Accessible at: http://jumanjisolar.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/unep_global_trends_2011.pdf

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2011-07-07-green-energy-spending_n.htm

[3] http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_17/items/6070.php

[4] http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/

Each year millions of plastic shopping bags are improperly disposed of and cause severe harm to the environment. These plastic bags are extremely durable, which may be good for carrying your shopping, but means they are very slow to decompose (up to 1000 years). As they decompose, toxic chemicals leach from the plastic bags into soils, lakes, rivers and oceans, causing environmental damage. Furthermore, plastic bags are one of the most common types of litter in inhabited areas; not only do they become an eyesore, they can also block drainage systems and contribute to flooding. Additionally, more and more of these plastic bags are being found floating in oceans. Plastic bags washed out to sea pose a threat to marine life; the bags can strangle wildlife or cause choking if ingested [1].

In 2006, nearly 11 billion single-use plastic bags were used in England, becoming a major environmental issue. Despite support from many sides, the government decided against a ban or tax on the bags, instead allowing retailers to create a voluntary agreement. The voluntary agreement initially helped to cut the number of plastic bags used. By 2009, plastic bag use was down by roughly 40% to fewer than 6.5 billion. However, latest figures from the government’s Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) show that in 2010, bag use rose by about 5% to 6.8 billion, suggesting that the agreement had only a limited success (see following table) [2].

Is legislation the answer?

No:

The British Retail Consortium (BRC) blamed the increase in plastic bag use on rising sales and shoppers making more short trips to stores rather than a single big weekly shop [3].

Bob Gordon (head of environment at the BRC) said: “It’s encouraging to see the majority of consumers are continuing to reuse their carrier bags and are taking as few new bags as possible. We urge customers to keep that up, particularly when changing shopping habits, including more trips to stores, present a challenge to maintaining the progress made in recent years” [4].

Gordon is against plastic bag legislation, especially in these difficult financial times. He believes that “customers are changing their habits without the need for compulsory bag bans or charges” and went on to say that “the overall numbers remain the sort of result other environmental campaigns can only dream of”. Gordon concluded that “retailers, working with consumers, will continue to do all they can to drive down the number of carrier bags being given out wherever possible but it’s time to accept bags are not the be-all and end-all of environmental issues” [4].

Yes:

The Green Party doesn’t agree. They believe that the only way to achieve a “serious and sustainable decrease” in plastic bag use is by introducing government legislation – a compulsory 10 pence tax on every plastic bag used [5].

A spokesperson said: “From the oil-based materials used in their production to the vast numbers lying as waste in open landfill sites, damaging wildlife and disfiguring public spaces, the Green Party will be glad to see plastic bags disappear” [5].

Recycling Minister Lord Henley said that “retailers need to take responsibility and lift their game to cut down on the number of single use carrier bags they hand out” and stated that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is seriously considering legislation to force supermarkets to stop handing out bags [5].

Legislation in the UK

A number of countries are implementing bag reduction strategies and there is proof in the UK that legislation works.

The latest WRAP figures showed a decline in the number of plastic bags used in Northern Ireland and Wales, the two countries that have introduced legislation to cut plastic bag use. However, plastic bag use has risen in England and Scotland, where no such legislation is in place. Between 2009 and 2010, Northern Ireland and Wales saw plastic bag use drop by 14% and 7%, respectively. However, plastic bag use in England and Scotland rose by 7% and 9%, respectively [4].

It is believed that the imminent 5 pence charge for plastic shopping bags in Wales, starting this October, helped cut the bag use in 2010. John Griffiths, Welsh environment minister, believes that legislation is the best way to drive down plastic bag use because voluntary agreements with retailers do not achieve enough. He said that a carrier bag charge is “the only way to ensure a real and lasting reduction in the use of carrier bags” [2].

Conclusion

Since the latest WRAP figures show that the voluntary agreement has not produced a continued decrease in plastic bag use and since legislation has clearly worked in other countries in the UK, I think it is only a matter of time until England faces a plastic bag tax. I’m sure there will soon be an increase in schemes trying to reduce plastic bag use, such as money-back schemes for those re-using shopping bags or labelling plastic bags with information that discourages their use (e.g. labelling plastic bags with the length of time they take to biodegrade). Furthermore, the decision to introduce legislation will be even easier if the bag tax in Wales is a success.

References

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0902_030902_plasticbags.html

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/28/plastic-bag-rise

[3] http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2097766/defra-rein-supermarkets-drifting-plastic-bag-targets

[4] http://www.packagingnews.co.uk/news/plastic-bag-usage-on-the-up-wrap-figures-show/

[5] http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2097766/defra-rein-supermarkets-drifting-plastic-bag-targets

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/plastic-bags-time-for-legislation/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/global-warming-biofuels-and-food-waste/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/global-warming-biofuels-and-food-waste/#comments Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:31:54 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=334 Continue reading →]]> Food Prices

World food prices have already more than doubled since 1990 and Oxfam predicts that this trend will accelerate over the next 20 years. They also predict that by 2030, the average cost of key crops could increase by up to 180%. The World Bank has warned that these rising food prices are pushing millions of people into extreme poverty [1].

Global Warming

Global warming has been largely blamed for the rising food prices. Research suggests that global warming has already had a detrimental effect on the world’s food production and has driven up food prices by 20% in recent decades [2].

The Earth Policy Institute believes that the relatively stable climate that has allowed agriculture to flourish in the last 11,000 years is now coming to an end [2]. If greenhouse gas emissions continue as they are currently, annual temperatures in important crop-growing regions of the world will increase by 2.5 to 4.3⁰C by 2100, according to IPCC scenarios. To make matters worse, precipitation is also expected to decline in some regions and heat waves are predicted to increase in frequency, intensity and duration. These consequences of global warming will have severe impacts on future agricultural production [3].

A report from the Earth Policy Institute states that crops in many countries are currently growing at or near their optimum temperature, so that even a small increase in temperature would severely impact the harvest. The predicted increases in temperature are likely to cause dehydration, prevent pollination and lead to slower photosynthesis – all of which would result in less food being available and, therefore, an increase in food prices [2].

Biofuels

The increased demand for biofuels has also received a large amount of attention in the food price debate. An increasing amount of food is being used for biofuels in order to meet the needs of the growing population. 18% of biofuels now used in the UK are made from wheat and corn – staple foods in the developing world – but the UK hardly used either of these just over a year ago. Additionally, 40% of US corn goes into biofuels. To make matters worse, the demand for biofuels is set to increase significantly – the EU alone is aiming to double the amount of biofuels used within the next decade [4].

Not only is an increasing amount of food being used for biofuels, but an increasing amount of land vital for food crops in developing countries is being turned over to grow biofuels. There is not enough land in the developed world to grow biofuels, so where better to look than in developing countries where the land is supposedly abundant and cheap [4].

Biofuels are set to put an even larger pressure on food availability, and thus food prices in the future, which is unacceptable when already about 1 billion people go hungry every day [4].

Food Waste

However, while global warming and biofuels are getting the blame for rising food prices, the global issue of food wastage isn’t getting enough attention. Earlier this year, a Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) study revealed that a third of the food produced for human consumption every year (approximately 1.3 billion tonnes) gets lost or wasted [5].

Food losses happen at the production, harvest, post-harvest and processing phases, which mostly occur in developing countries due to poor infrastructure and technology. Food wastage is more common in the developed world, occurring when retailers and consumers throw away perfectly edible food [5].

Food losses result in lost income for farmers and higher prices of food for consumers, so reducing losses should be a priority for increasing food security. It should also be remembered that losing or wasting food also wastes valuable resources such as water, land, energy and labour, and also needlessly produces greenhouse gases, contributing to global warming [5].

The FAO study revealed other alarming facts [5]:

• Each year, consumers in developed countries waste nearly as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa.
• The amount of food lost or wasted every year is equivalent to over half the world’s annual cereals crop.

Solutions: Where to start?

Although global warming and biofuels will be on-going issues, food security could be significantly helped if simple policies are set up to help reduce the amount of food lost and wasted each year.

For example, consumers in the developed world should be taught that throwing away food needlessly is unacceptable. They should also be taught that natural resources have limited availability, so it is more effective to reduce food losses than to increase food production in order to feed a growing population. These consumer attitudes could be changed through education in schools or political initiatives [5].

Furthermore, consumers should be discouraged from buying more food than they need by scrapping unnecessary food promotions in supermarkets e.g. buy two get one free. Restaurants can also help by removing cheap buffet deals that encourage customers to heap their plates with food and throw away large amounts that they can’t eat [5].

Simple solutions like these should be started straight away, while the bigger issues of global warming and biofuels continue to be discussed by world leaders.

References:

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13086979

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/05/food-prices-global-warming

[3] Ainsworth, E.A. & Ort, D.R. (2010) How do we improve crop production in a warming world? Plant Physiology, 154, 526-530.

Available at: http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/154/2/526.full.pdf+html

[4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/01/biofuels-driving-food-prices-higher

[5] http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/

Environmental Impact of Bottled Water

Production and Transportation

A significant strain is being put on the environment by bottled water companies through their production and transportation of plastic bottles and their use of valuable resources. It is extremely ironic when these companies then market their products as clean and healthy, when their production causes so much unnecessary environmental degradation [2].

Huge amounts of oil are needed to manufacture plastic bottles. 15 million barrels of oil per year are used to make plastic water bottles in the US alone – that’s enough to power 250,000 homes or fuel 100,000 cars for a year [3]. In addition to the large quantities of oil used, millions of gallons of water are also used in the manufacturing process. In fact, twice as much water is used in the production process than that sold in the bottle [4]. Transporting these bottles to markets burns even more oil; consider the carbon footprint of bottled water brands that travel across continents to markets e.g. Fiji water. When considering the life-cycle of a water bottle, its energy costs are roughly equivalent to filling up a quarter of each bottle with oil [5].

Packaging and Recycling

Bottled water is commonly packaged in polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which requires a large amount of energy to produce. Although PET is recyclable, relatively few plastic bottles are actually recycled (~13%) [6]. The billions of plastic bottles thrown away end up in landfills where it takes thousands of years for the plastic to decompose [3].

The Container Recycling Institute (CRI) estimated that 52 billion plastic bottles were wasted (not recycled) in the US in 2005 and 2 million tons of plastic water bottles ended up clogging landfills instead of being recycled. Approximately 18 million barrels of crude oil equivalent were used to replace these plastic bottles [7].

Although the recycling of PET plastic bottles increased slightly between 1995 and 2005, the amount of PET bottles being wasted (going into landfills) nearly tripled (see figure below) [7]. This rate of increase is clearly not sustainable and drastic change is needed if we want to prevent landfills from becoming completely full.

Why Else Should We Ditch Bottled Water?

Aside from environmental impacts, there are other reasons why we should reduce our consumption of bottled water.

A clear reason for ditching bottled water is the cost. Bottled water can cost up to 10,000 times more per gallon than tap water [4]. You should also remember that it is the packaging, transporting and marketing of bottled water that is expensive, not the water itself [8].

Secondly, it is a common belief that bottled water is purer and safer than tap water. In reality, however, tap water actually has more stringent quality standards than bottled water [4] and various blind taste tests have shown that people actually prefer the taste of tap water [1].

What Can You Do To Help?

The best thing you can do is reduce your consumption of bottled water. You should also reuse any bottles that you do already have by refilling with tap water. And if you are going to throw a bottle away then be sure to recycle. If you are worried about the taste or quality of your tap water then a water filter is your answer. There are even travel bottles with built-in filters that are available if you are away from home!

References

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2008-06-07-bottled-water_N.htm

[2] http://www.allaboutwater.org/environment.html

[3] http://www.container-recycling.org/media/newsarticles/plastic/2006/5-WMW-DownDrain.htm

[4] http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/reasons_to_ditch_bottled_water.php

[5] http://www.bottledwaterfreeday.ca/index2.php?section_id=16

[6] http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qbw.asp#environment

[7] http://www.container-recycling.org/assets/pdfs/reports/2007-waterwater.pdf

[8] http://www.fitsugar.com/Plastic-Water-Bottles-Really-Bad-Environment-256406

For a detailed review of the carbon footprint of bottled water, please refer to:

Gleick, P.H. & Cooley, H.S. (2009) Energy implications of bottled water. Environmental Research Letters, 4, p. 1-6.

Available at: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/1/014009/pdf/1748-9326_4_1_014009.pdf

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/bottled-water-and-the-environment/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-perfect-storm-energy-water-food-and-climate/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-perfect-storm-energy-water-food-and-climate/#comments Fri, 02 Sep 2011 19:14:32 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=319 Continue reading →]]> In the coming decades the world will face huge challenges as the population is increasing dramatically whilst the resources needed to support them rapidly decline. Within twenty years vast changes are required in order to avoid what scientists have termed ‘The Perfect Storm’.

What is ‘The Perfect Storm’?

In order to sustain the rapidly growing global population, the world will need to produce 50% more energy, 50% more food and 30% more fresh water by 2030. This needs to be achieved whilst also mitigating and adapting to climate change. Scientists refer to this as a ‘perfect storm’ of global events [1].

The ‘perfect storm’ scenario poses a number of important questions for scientists:

1. Can the growing population be fed healthily, fairly and sustainably?
2. Can we handle the increased water demands in the future?
3. Can we provide enough energy to supply the increasing population?
4. Can all this be done while we mitigate and adapt to climate change?

The drivers behind the ‘perfect storm’ scenario are examined below.

Population Increase

By 2050 the global population is predicted to rise to around 9 billion, with an increase of 6 million people per month [2]. Additionally, by 2030 the world population living in cities will increase from 50% to 60% [3]. The population increase combined with continued rural-urban migration will put huge stresses on a number of cities. In fact, it is estimated that the number of megacities (cities with over 10 million inhabitants) will increase from 19 to 29 by 2025 [1].

Economic Changes

In the coming decades, economic advances in the developing world will help increase prosperity and lift millions of people out of poverty. However, this will add to the problem because as people’s incomes rise, they are likely to increase their consumption of resources (i.e. energy, food and water) [1].

Demand for Food

An increase in population and prosperity will increase the food demand in the 21^st century. For example, between 2000 and 2030 there is predicted to be an 85% increase in meat demand and a 50% increase in cereals demand [4]. Furthermore, the increase in food demand in the 21^st century will be made worse by the greater constraints on land, water and energy use [1].

Demand for Energy

Between 2006 and 2030, energy demand is estimated to increase by 45% [5]. Some of this demand can be met by using ‘green’ energy sources such as biofuels for transport and biomass for heat and electricity, but the competition for land and crops is likely to cause conflict between the energy and food sectors [6].

Demand for Water

Total global water demand is projected to increase by 35 to 60% between 2000 and 2025 [7]. It has also been estimated that, by 2030, water demand for agriculture alone will increase by over 30% [7]. Already over 1 billion people live in areas affected by water scarcity and many more will be affected as global water demand increases [8].

Climate Change

Global temperatures are rising and extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe. This will have an impact on water and food in all regions. Rising sea levels and flooding will have an impact on water quality for many people, and will be most dramatic at delta regions, which are important for food production [1]. Many of the less developed countries depend on ocean food webs and ecosystems. However, climate change is causing oceans to become warmer, more acidic, less diverse and over-exploited (e.g. over fishing) [1].

Summary

The rapidly growing global population is creating an increased demand for energy, water and food, but is being faced with fewer resources and is also having to cope with climate change. To make matters worse, the drivers behind the ‘perfect storm’ scenario are inextricably linked and the demands must be met using fewer resources. For example, the increased food demand must be met on less land, using less water, fertiliser and pesticides than we have ever done before. More land will be needed for food production, but more land will also be needed for urbanisation and energy production (through biofuels and biomass). Another example is that more water is needed for the agricultural sector whilst more water is also needed for the growing cities [1].

Whilst mitigating and adapting to climate change, we need to be able to sustainably manage the growing demand for energy and water, and produce enough food for the increasing population. It is clear that significant change is needed within the next twenty years in order to prevent the ‘perfect storm’ of events from occurring.

[1] Beddington, J. (2009) Food, Energy, Water and the Climate: A Perfect Storm of Global Events? London: Government Office for Science.

[2] UNPD (2006) World Population Projections, The 2006 Revision. New York: United Nations Population Division.

[3] UNPD (2007) World Urbanisation Prospects, The 2007 Revision. New York: United Nations Population Division.

[4] World Bank (2008) Annual World Development Report. New York: World Bank.

[5] IEA (2008) World Energy Outlook 2008. Paris: International Energy Agency.

[6] Mitchell, D. (2008) A Note on Rising Food Prices. New York: World Bank.

[7] Shen, Y., Oki, T., Utsumi, N., Kanae, S. & Hanasaki, N. (2008) Projection of future world water resources under SRES scenarios: water withdrawal. Hydrological Sciences, 53 (1) p. 11-13.

[8] IWMI (2007) Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan.

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-perfect-storm-energy-water-food-and-climate/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-science-of-happiness/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-science-of-happiness/#comments Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:49:06 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=292 Continue reading →]]> The mission statement of the Energy Saving Warehouse is to ‘Save Energy, Save Money, Save Carbon’, with the main goal being to help the UK meet their Carbon Reduction Commitments by 2020. One way that everyone can ‘Save Energy, Save Money, Save Carbon’ is to decrease the consumption of material goods. However, many people believe that reducing material consumption will decrease their happiness and are reluctant to change. The aim of this article is to summarise recent scientific research that explains why reducing material consumption will not decrease your happiness, but in fact would be more likely to increase it!

The Problem: Material Consumption

Robert Costanza, the director of the Institute for Sustainable Solutions, suggests that the majority of the current global population is ‘addicted’ to fossil fuels and overconsumption, with not enough attention being given to sustainability and future generations [1]. ‘Addiction’ suggests that you depend on something, despite it being unnecessary or harmful, and Costanza suggests that excessive material consumption fits these criteria [1].

It is a common belief that high income and material consumption (e.g. TVs, Cars, iPods) lead to happiness, explaining why so many people are reluctant to curb their desires for material goods. The whole process of material consumption, however, uses a vast amount of energy, money and carbon.

Breaking the Addiction

In order to reduce excessive material consumption and therefore ‘Save Energy, Save Money, Save Carbon’ in the UK, the first step is to break the ‘addiction’. The best way to do this is to educate the public to clearly show the benefits of breaking this habit and the high costs of remaining addicted [1]. I aim to do this by highlighting recent scientific studies on what makes people happy.

The Science of Happiness

What contributes to human well-being and quality of life?

A large amount of research has emerged on what makes people happy; a simple internet search for ‘the science of happiness’ shows just how popular and widespread this subject has become. Several books have been published on this topic and a six-part BBC documentary called ‘The Happiness Formula’ was also aired in 2006.

Research suggests the conventional view of happiness, that high economic income and consumption will produce more happiness, should be challenged [1]. The following research comes from psychologist Tim Kasser (2002 book: ‘The High Price of Materialism’) and economists Richard Easterlin, Richard Layard (2005 book: ‘Happiness: Lessons from a New Science’), and Robert Frank (2001 book: ‘Luxury Fever’):

• People that focus on income and buying material goods to become happy are less happy.
• Additionally, people that do this actually have a higher chance of physical and mental illness.
• Material consumption beyond what is needed only gives us short bursts of pleasure that quickly wears off.
• People tend to adapt quickly to improvements in their lives, encouraging them to still want more.
• People want more material possessions when they compare themselves with others who are also buying more.
• Happiness and well-being usually correlates well with health, marital status and level of education, and correlates poorly with income beyond a certain fairly low threshold.
• Overall well-being would be higher if people consumed less, spent more time with family and friends, maintained physical and mental health, and enjoyed nature.

The Impact of Reducing Material Consumption

Scientific research suggests that reducing material consumption will not decrease your happiness. Quite the contrary, your well-being could actually be improved with fewer material possessions.

Besides the positive effects on your happiness, reducing the amount of material goods you purchase will also help ‘Save Energy, Save Money, Save Carbon’. For example, the manufacture of products, their distribution and transportation, and their eventual disposal uses energy and carbon. The energy and carbon used during their lifespan also contributes to the product footprint. In addition, the material goods themselves are expensive (e.g. iPhone 4 costs over £500), not to mention the amount of money spent to maintain them.

Reducing excessive material consumption will save energy, money, and carbon, and the ‘science of happiness’ suggests that by doing so, you are also more likely to be happier. Furthermore, if we carry on using carbon as quickly as we are by consuming so many material goods, not only are we harming our own happiness, but we are also harming the happiness of our children, grandchildren and other future generations, by destroying the world they will live in.

[1] Costanza, R. (2008) Stewardship for a “full” world. Current History, p. 30-35.

To find out more about the ‘science of happiness’ a good starting point is the following BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4783836.stm