Coming Soon...

...my first book, The No-Nonsense Guide to Climate Change, published by New Internationalist. Available March 2011 in all good bookshops. An accessible overview of the science, the solutions, and the politics of climate change, complete with dubious analogies, wry asides and the inevitable poetic interlude. I'll remind you again once it's out, obviously...

Venturing into performance poetry

A few weeks back, I attended a rather wonderful event called "Venturer Camp" (or "V-Camp"), which is run by the Woodcraft Folk (a sort of alternative Scouts/Guides organisation, without the religious and patriotic overtones or gender separation, and with a stronger focus on environmental and social issues).

It was like a bizarre, teenage parallel universe in a field in Derbyshire, run on admirably communal lines - the youngsters were heavily involved in cooking, cleaning, running the onsite services and documenting Camp events via a nightly "news" screening. The place even had its own currency and time zone (I kid you not).

I was only there for a day and a night, but still came away with some pretty strong memories - it's probably the only place in the world where I could perform my poetry in front of five hundred 13- to 16-year-olds and be received with rapturous applause and enthusiastic audience participation. They even joined in without being asked at the end of my climate change denial poem. This means I can now pretend that I am totally cool and, like, down with the kids (so long as I conveniently ignore the fact that the room contained probably the only 500 teenagers in the country who'd react that way to my poetry).

The other great thing that happened was that a group of campers attended the poetry workshop I was running, wrote some poetry of their own, and then got up on stage that very evening to perform it to the rest of the camp. That takes guts - especially as none of them had performed poetry on stage before. I reproduce below - with their permission - two of the poems, from the two youngest participants in the workshop, Edith and Luke. Remember, they wrote these in a single short poetry workshop (after various exercises and discussions I gave them about half an hour of writing time), and then got up on stage in front of hundreds of their peers and gave, in both cases, fantastic spirited performances (in fact, the written versions of the poems don't fully do them justice, as is so often the case with performance poetry).

**************************************

Poem 1:

Eureka! Fantissimo!
I've solved the problemo!
No more cars, exhaust or smoke,
No more petrol smell as you choke
On the fumes from the old banger in front.
Never again that tiresome hunt,
For the car for you. the one.

For I have a proposition,
A fantastic, wonderful, ingenious solution!
For instead of cars, motors and so on
We will travel in bubbles for now on!!

For I have created a humongous bubble wand
That will blow bubbles 10 foot and beyond!
We will drift and float, bounce off walls,
Down roads, knowing we are free from the problems cars caused!

This idea is gold,
I don't need to be told
How fantastic I am for solving this boring
Issue that we call Global Warming!

- Edith Bannister, August 2010

*********************

Poem 2:

hunger is demanded
so wealth can be handed over
the lines on a map
to handfuls of chaps
who seek only profit

and problems are worsened
as thousands of persons
are crushed in the rubble
then corpses are doubled
despite the donations
to relief organisations
because they are denied permission
to land and start their mission
by the soldiers of men
who seek only profit

earthquakes caused
families in scores now buried
change Obama?

Haiti needs food
Haiti needs tents
US sends guns and sweatshops

but dawn is breaking
nations are waking
people are rising

so are the seas

but our alliance
acts in defiance
to imperialist giants
and their environmental catastrophes

Cuban medics were there before
treating the sick
helping the poor
and since the eco-disaster they've been joined by Ecuador

Venezuela cancelled debt
Nicaragua sent a jet
full of supplies for Bolivian doctors
who did the work that Britain didn't

this is solidarity
saying no to US hegemony

dawn has broken
the masses have spoken
revolution is on their lips

Alerte! Alerte! Alerte que combina!
La espada de Bolivar por America Latina!

- Luke Lucas, August 2010

*************************

Two very different poems, two budding talents to keep an eye on in the future...

(Also, rhyming "hegemony" with "solidarity"? Awesome.)

Radio Silence

Sorry for being off air for a while - interesting occurences in my private life (in a good way!) have been taking up a lot of my time, and now I'm busy writing a book (just a small one mind), so probably won't be posting much in the next month or so.

In the meantime, you should probably figure out how you're going to get to this year's Climate Camp - it's happening THIS MONTH and it's gonna be ace.

Chickening out of the climate challenge

It’s the defining issue of our times. It already kills 300,000 people every year, and threatens almost everything we take for granted about the world. We need urgent action across our whole society to avoid catastrophic consequences within our lifetimes. Yet in three hours of televised leadership debate, climate change has so far been discussed for…eight minutes. Last week, we learned that Brown and Cameron want more nuclear power (Clegg doesn’t), Brown wants a third runway at Heathrow (the other two don’t), Cameron wants to do something or other about insulation and all three of them want an international solution. They all agreed it was jolly important, then moved on to spend more time discussing what they’d like to say to the pope than they’d spent on the entire avoiding-global-cataclysm question. Great.

Luckily, there have been other opportunities to examine the three main parties’ policies on climate change – for example, the Guardian environment debate (analysed by George Monbiot here), and a new national carbon calculator (which I worked on with the Guardian web team), which maps out the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and lets you play around with them.

The energy and climate change spokesbods from Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were all invited to plug their policies into the calculator to see how they measure up. Before we look at how they did, let’s remind ourselves of where we need to get to. Leaving aside the 2050 carbon reduction targets – anyone can promise anything for 40 years in the future – the science is telling us that we need to reduce the UK’s current emissions by as much as 50% by 2020 [1] in order to carry out our fair share of a sensible global cut. In other words, we should aim to halve our carbon emissions over the next two parliaments. It’s a tall order – but the consequences of not doing it are far worse, and many of the changes would benefit us in other ways (better public transport, warm homes, safer roads, healthier food, and so on).

Of the three big parties, only the Lib Dems have been brave enough to post their calculator results online. They’ve managed a 50% reduction (although it isn’t clear by when) – by switching electricity generation entirely over to wind, sun and tidal power, improving the energy efficiency of homes and businesses, cutting out food waste, reducing flights, moving people and freight from road to rail and converting half of the country’s car fleet to electric vehicles. Pretty bold stuff – but interestingly, they haven’t touched the top two sliders. These control the UK’s level of material consumption – how much stuff we use – and by leaving this untouched the Lib Dems have needed to make much bigger carbon cuts elsewhere in the economy.

However, it is worth noting that even leaving the consumption sliders where they are is a surprisingly radical thing to do. Our economy is based on the bizarre idea of endless growth on a finite planet, which requires the ever-increasing consumption of limited natural resources. Holding consumption steady – or reducing it, as the calculator suggests we will ultimately have to do – will require us to run our economy in a totally different way, finding ways to lead happy, healthy and exciting lives without relying on the myth of infinite growth. Have the Lib Dems cottoned on to this?

Labour, meanwhile, claim to have “a positive vision of jobs, empowerment and fairness with plans sector by sector from agriculture to transport…within a clear framework for carbon emissions.” Sadly, they haven’t taken the opportunity to show how these plans might translate into emissions reductions on the calculator, or how they are compatible with Government proposals for aviation expansion and new coal plants. They do say they are working towards cutting emissions to 34% below 1990 levels by 2020 – by my calculations, that’s 15% below 2007 emissions (on which the calculator is based). This is a far cry from the real reductions we need.

Intriguingly, while the Lib Dems’ Simon Hughes says that the calculator shows that we can power the UK without nuclear plants, Labour’s Ed Miliband claims that it shows the opposite. I’d suggest that the calculator simply presents the fact that nuclear power is just one option in a mix. We have other viable choices and so we can take it or leave it – which means that the arguments about the costs, reliability, risks and waste associated with nukes are absolutely crucial.

Both the Lib Dems and Labour also lament the lack of carbon capture and storage in the model – but this technology has not yet been proven to work on a large scale, so it would be speculative to include it in the calculator. Similarly, there's talk of far more efficient wind turbines, solar panels etc. in the near future, but to keep things grounded the calculator includes only existing technology. It also only includes things that we can reasonably measure – restoring Britain’s forests sounds like a good idea from the Lib Dems, but it would be near impossible to attach an accurate emissions saving figure to such a project. We just don’t understand enough yet about how carbon is stored and released from plants and soils.

The Conservatives’ Greg Clark completely fails to engage with the calculator, and instead decides to talk about watermelons. The Conservatives seem to believe that putting a price on carbon and giving out insulation grants will allow the market to sort the problem out by itself. But leaving the fate of humanity to the vagaries of the market (the workings of which are of course heavily influenced by large polluting corporations) seems incredibly reckless, and doesn’t take account of the urgency of the climate crisis. It also denies us the option of a carefully planned and fair transition to a low-carbon society, respecting the rights of workers in high-carbon industries to job transfers, retraining and compensation.

Nothing in the calculator suggests that we need to “micromanage” the details of people’s lives (Clark’s “watermelon environmentalism – green on the outside, red on the inside”). We need sensible plans for shifting our society onto a better path, and hopefully tools like the national carbon calculator can help us to understand the kind of changes we need to make.

The Guardian don't seem to have asked the Green Party to have a go on the tool. I suspect they'd do a bit better than the other three. However, this calculator was never intended solely as a tool for politicians and policy-makers. No matter how good or bad their pre-election climate proposals may seem, whoever takes power on May 6^th will not take the necessary steps to tackle climate change unless there is enough public pressure to force them to do so. I’d urge everyone reading this to use the calculator yourselves, to test out politicians’ climate proposals to see how effective they really are. Map out your own vision for a low-carbon future and start taking action to achieve it, by putting pressure on decision-makers and creating effective solutions in your own community. If the big political parties won’t take this issue seriously, then it’s up to us to do it for them.

[1] According to research by Professor Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall Centre we need UK emissions to start falling by 2012 at the latest, and then drop by 9% year-on-year. This works out at about a 46% reduction on 2007 levels by 2020 – and this figure may even be an underestimate, as it does not take into account all the latest research into climate tipping points.

Danny Chivers is a freelance carbon analyst and environmental writer.

That breakdown in full

So people have started asking about the Guardian web tool - which is great.

One question I've been asked is about the full, detailed breakdown of UK emissions. Due to reasons of space, it's not possible to have a slider for everything on the Guardian tool - but there's a fairly detailed (approximate) breakdown of UK emissions sitting behind it. It's all in the data and references sheet here - but that isn't the most user-friendly of documents (sorry) so I thought I'd reproduce the full breakdown below - hope you find it useful!

This first table lists the emission sources by approximate theme (click to enlarge):


This second table shows the same information, but ranked in order of size (click to enlarge):


Some important things to note:

- All figures are approximate. Decimal places are included for reasons of clarity - the figures are almost certainly not accurate to this level!
- All figures are from 2007
- Imported goods refers to net imports - exported emissions have been deducted from this total (from this study)
- "British tourists overseas" refers to the emissions created by UK residents' travels abroad - not from flights, but from transport, acommodation etc. at their holiday destination. The emissions from foreign travellers doing the same things in the UK has been deducted from this total, to give a net figure (calculated by Dieter Helm)

Hope this is useful - I'll happily answer any questions in the comments below!

How to cram the entire UK carbon economy onto a single page

Where do all of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions come from? It sounds like such a simple question. After spending the last six months working with the Guardian in an attempt to answer it, I can confirm that it really, really isn’t.

When I first decided to map out the UK’s emissions back in 2008, I soon realised that the task was a tiny bit more complex than it first appeared. Many of the official government figures contradicted each other. The Department for Environment calculated transport emissions in a different way to the Department for Transport. The Department for Business, Economy and Regulatory Reform kept changing the way it measured domestic and commercial energy use. I soon found myself having to choose between different official statistics, and find increasingly elaborate ways to fit the various clashing numbers together into a sensible big picture.

Adding in international aviation and shipping (which until recently were excluded from the Government’s official emissions total) seemed relatively straightforward – but how to account for the extra climate impact of emissions released at high altitude? What about the fact that since 1990, the UK has shut down huge chunks of its manufacturing industries and now imports large quantities of goods from overseas? Any fair analysis of our nation’s carbon footprint has to look at our total consumption, not just the emissions that take place within our borders. A proportion of the smoke that belches from factory chimneys in China, India and Indonesia in truth belongs to us.

Then there’s the sticky matter of food. The greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture – particularly methane from livestock and nitrous oxide from chemical fertilisers - are still subject to intense research, and there’s much we still don’t understand. Early findings and best guesses have had to suffice here for now.

Then, of course, there’s been the fun of trying to calculate the interactions between all of these different factors and build them into a user-friendly tool. After wrestling with these challenges by myself for a year, I was delighted to start working with the Guardian web team in 2009; they not only scrutinised, double-checked and improved on my model, but also took on the daunting task of translating all this stuff into a whizzy working online tool.

This has been a pretty enormous piece of work – it is, we’re fairly sure, the most complex online carbon calculator in existence. It allows you, the user, to tinker with the UK’s electricity supply, consumption patterns, transport and energy use, and see the results played out in real time. You can try out different policies or changes in public behaviour, and see what impact they might have on our total carbon footprint. But it’s still not finished – it’s very much a work in progress, and we hope to keep updating and improving it over the coming months.

So please, have a play with the tool, and send us your feedback – was it easy to use? Did anything seem strange or surprise you? Has it changed your mind about any particular policies or climate change solutions? If you’re really interested, please check out the calculations, assumptions and data sources behind the model (which are all freely available online), and please do send us your questions or suggestions for improvements.

A tool only has value if it is used – so please do use it, and if you like it, spread the word!

Thanks for visiting

Welcome to my new blog!

I'll be using this space for updates about the professional projects I'm working on - the carbon footprinting, journalism, talks and training, poetry engagements, campaign research, schools workshops, and the cycle and solar powered stage "Cyc du Soleil".

Follow the links on the right for more details about these different aspects of my work, and feel free to email me for more information.

I also have a more personal blog, for poetry, campaigns and other stuff that doesn't belong here.