Making sense of emissions

Every year, our local airport, Staverton, publishes its green policy - http://www.gloucestershireairport.co.uk/AboutUs/Environmental.aspx and the latest review is here

http://vmcommin/documents/g2090/Public%20reports%20pack%2010th-Dec-2013%2018.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10

We noticed in a report in the Gloucestershire Echo that there was consideration of ‘recalibrating’ the cap on emissions from Staverton. It’s worth noting that the emissions cap is pretty much a voluntary arrangement, and that they are free and able to move the goalposts should the airport so desire.

Curious as to what was going on, and wondering if we needed to take action on this, I started poking round. I read the green policy, and then went on to look at how emissions are assessed.  Defra methodology can be read about here - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224437/pb13988-emission-factor-methodology-130719.pdf

Calculating emissions is not an exact science. What this means is that the method we use at any given time to calculate said emissions is a best guess, so we cannot be totally confident that what we think we are putting out has been accurately gauged in the first place. There is also an element of averaging involved – it is not a precise measure. The methods of calculation are being fine-tuned all the time.

I made contact with the council in Cheltenham, to try and find out a bit more about what’s going on here. What I learned is this: There was no formal method for calculating CO2 available when the airport’s green policy was first developed, so a method was devised by an independent consultant. The methodology is shown in the green policy and if you’re curious, do go and have a read. It’s quite manageable for the non-expert (eg, me!). National guidance has since been issued that adds consideration for planes flying at high altitude. I was told the effect of this would be that if 100 tonnes of CO2 was previously reported, this would now be reported as 190 tonnes under the new system. Not all planes from Staverton fly at the relevant altitudes, so there are more calculations to do before any decisions are made.

The airport has operated within the 4.000 tonne CO2 target it’s been set. In 2012/13 it showed a 16.6% reduction on the previous year due mostly to another small change in the national guidance. Some of the improvement can be attributed to more efficient aircraft. That impression of an improvement may be misleading though, given the direction new guidelines have taken.

The new method of calculating emissions means that the same activity will result in a much higher figure in the future. It is my understanding that the emissions ceiling may be recalibrated in response to this. Or to put it another way, having worked out that flying creates more CO2 than previously thought, the response is not to reduce the number of flights out of Staverton or to insist on more efficient planes, but to just move the goalposts so that ‘business as usual’ continues.

I’m not sure what the point is of trying to ascertain our actual emissions, if the response will be just to change the rules so that what we were doing continues unaffected.

Biofuels are not Green

Biofuel suggests something natural and sustainable, which is misleading. The majority of biofuel is bad news for the environment and not an appropriate solution to fuel demands.

 

In July 2013, MEPs agreed to cap biofuels, with legislation aimed at curbing the negative impact on the climate caused by land use change due to biofuel production. Displacement of food production and its consequences will also be considered. Biofuel is not carbon neutral, but until this year we’ve not been doing enough to recognise the actual impact of biofuel.

Climate change already puts pressure on the global food supply and food prices. Using agricultural land for fuel will only add to these problems. Putting crops into cars leads to rising food prices and rainforest destruction. Greens think that we should not be using food crops for fuel at all, or using arable land to grow fuel crops instead of food.  

Overwhelming evidence shows that Europe's demand for biofuel accelerates the destruction of tropical rainforests. Green policy is very clear that we should not be exploiting the planet to the detriment of other species. We do not have the right to make other creatures extinct and destroy unique habitats just to put fuel in our cars. We need to recognise that we are part of fragile ecosystems and damage them at our peril. If compassion does not guide us to protect our environment, self-interest really should take us towards the same conclusions anyway.

Some biofuels can contribute to meeting part of our energy needs. Where biofuels are sourced as a waste material, or a bi-product of food production, their use may well make sense. This is mostly likely only relevant at a local scale – for example it makes sense to use waste cooking oil. Local innovations are going to be an important part of our long term fuel solutions, but with an expanding population to feed, we cannot afford to use farmland for fuel and we cannot afford the CO2 impact of replacing rainforests with biofuel crops either.

Ape Alliance campaign in the streets of Stroud most Saturdays, to draw attention to the impact biofuels are having on our ape cousins and raise awareness of other threats to apes and wildlife. http://www.4apes.com/ They are asking members of the public to write to their MP and MEP to request support for a moratorium on the EU Biofuel Directive and its targets and obligations guaranteed. Visit http://www.4apes.com/get-involved/campaigns for more information if you want to raise any of these issues.