Latest Articles cooler living

Debate: can we turn off the air conditioning this summer?

Zhang Haidi — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:33:00 -0400

If Chinese citizens turned their cooling off three minutes early, carbon emissions could be radically reduced. Zhang Haidi, recalling the beauty of floral window boxes, says it’s a small sacrifice.

The narrow streets of Bamberg, a charming old town in the German state of Bavaria, are hard to forget. I am particularly fond of the windows, many of which are decorated with window boxes of flowers displaying a profusion of colours.

And then I think of Jinan, the eastern Chinese city where I lived for many years. The number of cars in Chinese cities has rocketed in recent years, with roads becoming ever more congested. The buildings alongside those roads have become taller and more numerous – and instead of window boxes full of flowers, the only decoration on the outside of Chinese buildings tends to be air-conditioning units.

As summer approaches, the news media carry reports of air-conditioning manufacturers’ sales promotions, with hundreds of new systems being sold in a single day, thousands in a single month. But there’s no mention of the ozone-depleting substances produced by some refrigerant gases, or how much power these appliances will consume and the associated emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). In summertime business meetings, the air conditioning often is on at full blast, leaving attendees shivering. Sometimes a window is even left open to let some cold air out.

Summer in Bamberg can also be scorching, but no homes have air conditioning, and very few shops or buses do either. I used to wonder how they survived the summer. A friend told me that even though the temperature can reach 42º Celsius (about 107º Fahrenheit), the locals have their ways of coping with the heat: take a walk by the river; sit under the trees; use an electric fan; have a cold drink – but do not install air conditioning. They know that air conditioning produces greenhouse gases and, to protect the environment, emission of those gases needs to be reduced.

I was impressed. To protect the environment, the people of Bamberg were willing to make a sacrifice. But how many people are able to put this into practice?

Humanity has always struggled with the weather. It is one of the processes that helped us evolve into strong and intelligent creatures. But our modern civilisation sees us rely more and more on the products of industry, and our resilience is decreasing. Some feel that a simple electric fan is not enough to keep them cool in summer and that they need air conditioning, even while they sleep. Some children have become part of an “air-conditioned generation”: they don’t get hot in summer or cold in winter, and are unable to cope with either wind or sun.

My friend in Bamberg said that the natural environment is essential for humanity’s continued survival. Improved quality of life depends on a good natural environment -- green hills and clear water, wildlife and flowers. Not only do these leave us happy and carefree, they also help to regulate the temperature.

China's Ministry of Science and Technology has published a handbook on ways the public can reduce energy use and emissions. One way is to turn off your air conditioning three minutes before you leave the house, rather than as you walk out the door. At a conservative estimate, one person doing this would save five kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity a year and reduce CO2 emissions by 4.8 kilogrammes. If all the users of China's 150 million air-conditioning units did the same, 750 million kWh of electricity could be saved annually, with CO2 emissions reduced by 720,000 tonnes.

Could you do without air conditioning in summer, or at least reduce its use? Would you rather see flower boxes or humming machines on the window sills of buildings?

Let us know on the forum what you think.

Zhang Haidi is a well-known writer and translator in China. Paralysed from the waist down since the age of five, she is self-taught and has become an influential figure in China.

Debate: should we stop eating meat to help the planet?

Maryann Bird — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:21:00 -0400

The environmental impact of the livestock industry is huge. Now, people, animals and cars are competing for scarcer and costlier grain supplies. Maryann Bird asks if it’s time for the planet to “go veggie”.

The global food crisis has put a new focus on the debate over the benefits of a vegetarian diet. Apart from the usual arguments about animal rights, healthy eating, chemical residues, food-borne illnesses, pollution and waste, dwindling fish populations and more, there is the question of feeding the livestock raised for slaughter.

Cows, sheep, pigs, chickens and other animals destined for our dinner tables need to be fed – indeed, fattened up – before they are killed. As more countries around the world develop their economies and their people become wealthier -- especially in Asia and Latin America -- the demand for meat is booming. At a time when a steadily climbing global human population needs food, more grain is being used as animal feed.

Additionally, more and more forested land (even in unique places such as the Amazon rainforest) is being cleared for pasture and plantation. And while humans and animals both now require more grain – wheat, corn and rice -- and soybeans for food and food products, there is now a further hungry mouth demanding grain supplies: the biofuels industry. All of this has driven grain prices up in places where hungry people can least afford it, and provoked protests – some violent -- in countries across the global south.

The World Food Programme (WFP) recently announced that high food prices are creating the biggest challenge that the United Nations agency has faced in its 45-year history, a silent tsunami threatening to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger. "This is the new face of hunger – the millions of people who were not in the urgent hunger category six months ago but now are,” the agency’s executive director, Josette Sheeran, said in April 2008.

The prices of grain and dairy products -- including bread, pasta, tortillas, flour, milk and eggs -- are on the rise everywhere, in addition to the direct cost of meat itself.

As Lester R Brown of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington has written: “The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world’s 2 billion poorest people. The risk is that millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as higher food prices drop their consumption below the survival level.”

As well as the grain-price and grain-competition aspects of the meat-producing industry, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reported in 2006 that: “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”

In a report entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, researchers concluded that the impact of the sector – while socially and politically very significant – was so environmentally massive that its impact needed to be urgently reduced. According to the report, livestock – while providing a third of humanity’s protein intake and creating livelihoods for one billion of the world’s poor -- also:

-- has degraded about 20% of the world’s pastures and rangeland (and 73% of rangelands in dry areas);

-- is responsible for 18% of greenhouse-gas emissions measured in carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent – more than transport’s share;

-- accounts for more than 8% of the world’s human water use;

-- contributes to eutophication, “dead” zones in coastal areas and degradation of coral reefs;

-- adds to health-harming pollution in water, through animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilisers and pesticides;

-- affects the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables;

-- pre-empts land that once was habitat for wildlife, thereby reducing biodiversity.

Chiefly among wealthy nations, “high intakes of animal-source foods, in particular, animal fats and red meat”, are linked to cardio-vascular disease, diabetes and some types of cancer.

In addition, vast amounts of energy are expended in transporting animals to slaughterhouses, killing them, refrigerating their carcasses and distributing their flesh. Producing one calorie of meat protein, according to research at the University of Chicago, means burning far more fossil fuel and outputting far more CO2 than does a calorie of plant protein.

Musician Paul McCartney, a longtime vegetarian, recently urged the world to turn vegetarian in the fight against global warming. “The biggest change anyone could make in their own lifestyle would be to become vegetarian,” the former Beatle said in April. “I would urge everyone to think about taking this simple step to help our precious environment and save it for the children of the future.”

Heard enough argument? Should we all be reducing, or entirely eliminating, animal flesh from our diets? Is it time to become vegetarian? Or would you find it too difficult to reduce or give up some foods you enjoy (and other animal products)?

Let us know on the forum what you think.

Maryann Bird is associate editor of chinadialogue.

Carried away with pride

Hannah Pool — Fri, 02 May 2008 06:00:00 -0400

A year after Modbury in southwestern England became the first town in Europe to ban plastic bags, Hannah Pool pays a visit to see how life has changed for shoppers and traders. What will the residents target next?

The town of Modbury in the county of Devon, in south-west England, is an unlikely spot for a revolution. Nestled on the South Hams coast, 27 kilometres east of Plymouth, it is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it sort of place. With a population of around 1,600, it is the kind of community that considers you a newcomer unless you have several generations of family buried in the grounds of the local church. "It's fiercely rural and fiercely Devon," says Rebecca Hosking, a wildlife documentary-maker and arguably Modbury's most -- perhaps only -- famous resident.

At this time last year no one had heard of either Hosking or Modbury, but both have become synonymous worldwide with one thing: plastic bags. On May Day last year, the unassuming town rather grandly announced that it would be the first community in Europe to become "plastic shopping bag-free". Hosking, the leading force behind the ban, was horrified by the marine pollution she had seen while filming in the Pacific Ocean. After seeing her film [Message in the Waves], local traders implemented a self-imposed ban on plastic carriers. Within a fortnight the whole town was behind the project.

Twelve months on, townsfolk are keen to paint the scheme as 100% successful. Request a plastic bag these days in Modbury and you will be asked politely if you really need one, and if you absolutely do, you will be charged five pence (10 US cents) for a corn-starch alternative. The Co-op store also sells string bags, and for around $6 you can pick up a specially designed canvas Modbury "bag for life" (ethically produced, of course).

But it is clear the success has come at some cost. Modbury's shopkeepers and residents have become accustomed to satellite vans and camera crews from around the world setting up camp on their streets, and Hosking herself has grown used to being referred to as "the bag lady".

The backlash took a while, but it was fierce. First, there were descriptions of Modbury both as a radical town, full of reactionary hippies, and as a place overrun by gas-guzzling “Chelsea tractors”, as large four-wheel-drive (4x4) vehicles are increasingly being called in Britain. ("Any 4x4 you see will be a working one, and it will be covered in mud," says Sue Sturton, owner of the local gallery.) Then came the accusations that banning plastic bags was a pointless token gesture, "rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic", as the climate scientist James Lovelock called it.

"Absolutely, I agree," says a slightly exasperated Hosking. "We always said plastic bags were just the tip of the iceberg. It's a shame that message got lost."

Some traders have been criticised in the national press because they still use plastic packaging. "It's sad that people feel the need to criticise,” says Sturton. “The only claim we've made is that we were going to make Modbury plastic shopping bag-free, which it is."

But Hosking bore the brunt of the backlash. "I got called a green Stalinist, and someone wrote, 'Rebecca Hosking is a watermelon: green on the outside and red in the middle,'" she says, with a laugh. "I get embarrassed. A lot of environmentalists are so cross with the amount of time that has been given to plastic bags. There are far more important things to be talked about."

In fact, mention plastic bags in Modbury these days and you are likely to be met with a groan. Modbury has moved on: once the inhabitants had got rid of plastic bags, it became impossible for them to ignore other forms of packaging. It was a chain reaction, says Hosking, proudly. "They have woken up."

For example, the butcher, Simon Wilkinson, now packs meat in biodegradable cornstarch bags, the florist wraps bouquets in cornstarch cellophane and has replaced ribbon with paper and raffia, and Adam Searle, owner of the local delicatessen, puts sandwiches in brown paper bags rather than plastic boxes.

"Previously, I used plastic pots for clotted cream and olives, and I used plastic boxes for salad boxes, but now I've moved over to these," Searle says, holding out one of his new cartons. "They look like plastic, but are made out of corn starch. They are 100% biodegradable, so break down to nothing on your compost heap. We've also moved away from using plastic packaging for sandwiches, so now I just present them on a paper plate in a brown paper bag. Initially, we switched to white paper bags, then I realised bleach was used to make them so I moved over to the plain brown ones, which are better for the environment."

Even these are offered reluctantly: Modbury would rather we got out of the habit of using disposable bags altogether, than simply switching to paper (which still often comes with a large carbon footprint). And it is not just the evils of plastic bags that Modbury has woken up to: Wilkinson recently replaced all his fridges and vacuum packers with energy-efficient models. "We've also changed all our packaging," he says. "We've even gone back to greaseproof paper. All our packaging is biodegradable."

Go into Pip's, the greengrocer, and you will now see giant tubs of eco-sensitive detergent behind the counter. Most of the produce in the shop is also sold loose (the shop smells wonderful as a result), and brown paper bags hang by the rows, rather than the plastic bags the most greengrocers and supermarkets use. In fact, the few items that are still wrapped in plastic, such as grapes, salads and cucumbers, look out of place and unappetising because of it.

The bag ban has affected how residents think about other things. "After a month, all the traders wanted to know what they should do next," says Hosking. They have a new target: on April 27, the nearest tidal time to the first anniversary of the town going plastic-bag free, the people of Modbury scheduled a mass beach clean.

"Whatever we can recycle, we will,” says Hosking. “Whatever we can't, we'll take photos of it so we can log what is washing up. Whatever we notice is the most significant thing will be the next thing we'll work on to remove."

Does she have a hunch what the most likely contender will be? "Plastic water bottles. They really are a long-time problem," says Hosking.

The traders already have started talking to the nearest spring-water company, Devon Hills, about whether it would be willing to switch to reusable glass bottles. Searle also has been researching the viability of using cornstarch bottles. There is one being produced in Australia that he is particularly taken by: "They have a seed in each bottle, so when it breaks down on a rubbish heap, a tree will grow from your bottle. I think it's a beautiful idea."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/

Homepage photo by Kate_A

The English town of Modbury has made a global name for itself through its campaign to be plastic-bag-free, and it has other environmental goals in mind. Like many cities and towns around the world, China has launched a campaign against plastic-bag pollution, banning the use of the thinnest bags beginning June 1.

What ecological initiatives can your town take a leading role in?

Let us know on the forum what you think.

Debate: is economic recession good for the environment?

Maryann Bird — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:09:00 -0400

Should we dread the possibility of a global economic slide – or heave a sigh of relief? Maryann Bird kicks off a new debate on chinadialogue.

Eighteen months ago, in a landmark review of the economics of climate change, former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern warned that international action needed to be taken immediately if we are to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. His message was clear: act promptly or pay a far higher price later.

“Our actions now and over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20^th century,” Stern wrote. “And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes.” Unless governments invest in the technologies necessary to create a low-carbon economy, he said, a global recession could slice 5% to 20% off the world’s wealth.

Given the increasing flow of greenhouse-gas emissions from developing counties (including China), Stern now thinks that some of his figures were too conservative, that “we underestimated the risks”. Meanwhile, many developed countries around the world, led by the United States, are believed to now be in economic recession. Such a downturn may seriously affect business and governmental willingness to make the kind of investment for the future that Stern and many others view as critical.

How serious the steep economic slide becomes, and for how long, remains to be seen. But amid the forecasts of gloom and doom, there are some who think recession can be a good thing for the health of the planet. For example, the British environmental campaigner and writer George Monbiot asked, in an October 2007 article on his website, headlined “Bring on the recession”:

“Is it not time to recognise that we have reached the promised land, and should seek to stay there? Why would we want to leave this place in order to explore the blackened waste of consumer frenzy followed by ecological collapse? Surely the rational policy for the governments of the rich world is now to keep growth rates as close to zero as possible?”

Journalist Brett Robertson, on the Australian website newmatilda.com, wrote in a February 2008 article that “Only a recession can save us now.” Like Monbiot, Robertson acknowledges the pain that accompanies recessions, particularly regarding jobs and housing for ordinary workers. Still, he is critical of “growthism”, the belief that economic growth is “unambiguously good”. Monbiot views growth is “a political sedative, snuffing out protest, permitting governments to avoid confrontation with the rich, preventing the construction of a just and sustainable economy”.

In Robertson’s words: “[W]e should be looking at the easing of global demand with relief, not with dread. As well as buying us some time to deal with climate change, a global slowdown would ease the pressure on inflation, ease the housing affordability crisis and give us time to ease the skills deficit. In the long run, we would not be missing out on any opportunities in the resources sector. One of the advantages of relying on non-renewable resources is that anything we leave in the ground today, we are bequeathing to the next generation.”

The main problem with “growthism”, argues Robertson, is that “it denies the physical limitations of the economy” – an economy that “represents real stuff”, such as minerals, corn, oil and other resources. He continues: “Real things originally come from nature, and nature has limits on the things it can provide for us, and the rate at which it can absorb our waste. […] Economists hope to ignore these limits through the magic of price signals and resources substitution. […] Running out of tuna? Use salmon. Running out of pine? Use redwood. Running out of the atmosphere’s ability to absorb carbon dioxide without leading to catastrophic climate change? Just use … oh, wait, there’s no substitute for that.”

So, will a recession help to put a useful brake – from an environmental point of view – on consumption, waste and excess use of resources? The US Department of Energy (DoE) has already reported a small decline in petrol (gasoline) use -- about one-half of 1% -- since the beginning of this year.

Meanwhile, there is the issue of “recession ethics”. Will an economic downturn blight the growing trend toward ethical goods, services and business practices? Ethical Corporation – a London-based independent publisher and conference organiser – asked in a March 2008 report if economically squeezed shoppers will “hang up their ideals” and opt for the cheapest commodities, while corporate social responsibility programmes fall to budget-cutters’ axes.

“In a rational world,” writes journalist Rikki Stancich, “facing climate change issues and tighter budgets, consumers will shift from the throwaway culture toward a more sustainable one – paying slightly more for higher quality, longer-wearing products and investing in good that are more energy and cost efficient.” But in a world in which people do not know how NOT to consume, “the credit crunch may therefore be a good thing in that it might prompt consumers to take a longer-term view on the product choices they make.”

So, is recession good for the environment? Only in the short term? How much will it harm ethical producers in developing countries? Or are ethics recession-proof?

Let us know on the forum what you think.

Maryann Bird is associate editor of chinadialogue.

Homepage photo by mugley

Challenges for young people at China’s NGOs

Dan Murphy — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:27:00 -0400

Civil society groups not only play an important role in tackling China’s environmental crisis, they also employ the environmental leaders of tomorrow. Considering these young people will benefit the green groups of the future, says Dan Murphy.

Zhang Tianming is a 23-year-old college graduate from Kunming, southwest China, with spiky, prematurely greying hair and great sense of humour. Zhang studied environmental science at a good university, and interned at a well-known Chinese environmental NGO. He helped to lead his campus green group and is passionate about environmental issues: it is his dream to work for a green NGO. His next job, however, is likely to be with a private company.

After graduation, Zhang worked for a short time with a “government-organised non-governmental organisation”, or GONGO. But he left after several months. It was poorly managed, he says, and career advancement was very difficult unless you had already worked in government.

Civil society plays an expanding role in China’s environmental issues. NGO directors are often public figures, well-connected in politics, academia or the media. But few observers spare a thought for the young workers at China’s green NGOs, who often lack the same social recognition, international connections, job security or prospects.

Pressures

“My family has worked long, hard hours selling fruit in the market in order to support me and send me through school,” says Zhang. “Now I need to find a job to help support my family.” Zhang’s family says that the security, higher pay and enhanced social status that come from working with a private company or in government will provide him with a better future.

As China’s single-child generation think about caring for their ageing parents, Zhang is not alone in feeling family pressure on account of his work with an environmental group. Another young NGO worker I spoke to has hidden his true profession from his family, telling them for years that he works for a private company.

People are often unfamiliar with the NGO sector, and young staffers are often seen as having a low social status. At a recent meeting with the director of a local NGO and a group of Chinese and American students in the south China city of Nanjing, the questions from the US students centred on pollution and public policy. Many Chinese students, however, were more guarded. They questioned the role NGOs could play in Chinese society, and asked why anyone would work at an NGO, rather than a private company.

The rising cost of living and the threat of inflation have made this caution more acute. Many NGOs are supported by fixed-termed funding and are not financially self-sufficient. When it comes to cutting staff, young people are often the first to go, and finding a job in a different sector can be difficult. Prospective employers do not always value NGO sector experience.

Internships are financially challenging too. Interning for a green NGO during university, Zhang slept on the floor of the office to save money. Nonetheless, competition for jobs at Chinese NGOs is stiff, and there are relatively few outside Kunming and Beijing, which are known as China’s “NGO capitals”.

Another stumbling block is the education system. When Zhang was at university, his newly established environmental science programme lacked structure and proper organisation. Consequently, he and other students were forced to study independently.

Camaraderie

There is some good news, however, for young people wanting to help the environment. Zhang first learned about green issues and NGO management while helping out with his university environmental group. For him, the organisation was a fantastic way to learn about the issues and gain leadership skills.

Last year I attended a meeting in Nanjing, largely organised by college students, which drew over 30 local green groups as well as reporters and a representative from the local environmental protection bureau. The event was a great success, and gave many students valuable experience organising and advertising for the event.

In the end, some of the same social pressures that make working at an NGO difficult can make it rewarding. Perhaps because many people misunderstand the work of green groups, there is a strong sense of camaraderie within the NGO community. Like many young people in China, Zhang’s interest means he still works as a volunteer for an environmental group during his spare time.

But what does the future hold for Zhang? If he was presented with an average-salaried, stable position at a green group, he says he would take it. But at least for now, Zhang will be putting his scientific knowledge and leadership skills to use at a company.

Lowering the hurdles that Zhang and young people like him face will be a difficult task, but it may be essential to train a new generation of NGO leaders in China.

Are you a young person working for an NGO in China? Or are you campaigning on green issues in the west? Did you find this article accurate, or do you have another story to tell? Leave a comment – and tell us about your experience.

Dan Murphy graduated from the Johns Hopkins University-Nanjing University Center for Chinese and American Studies. He currently lives in Brooklyn, New York.

Homepage photo by Joshua Wickerham via Flickr

Green dreams on British campuses

Bibi van der Zee — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:07:00 -0500

Academia is making moves to tackle climate change, but are universities going far enough, fast enough? Some are finding it difficult to move out of their comfort zones, writes Bibi van der Zee, who sees no margin for complacency.

Following planes and scooping up their emissions, making buildings out of carbon, weighing rubbish and getting staff on their bikes: these are just a few of the ideas that British universities are coming up with to combat climate change, according to a recently published report. It all sounds wonderful, but it's hard to believe that this is the full picture.

And, of course, it is not. The report, Greening Spires – Universities and the Green Agenda, is a showcase, put together by the lobby group for higher education, Universities UK, and it paints an extremely rosy picture of an academia gone crazy for greenness. There is no doubt that in some areas British academics are leading the world.

In Leeds, for example, the report highlights research into contrails, the aviation vapour trails from planes that cause disputes about how to measure emissions from aircraft because no one can work out if they intensify the greenhouse-gas effect of flying, and if so, by how much. "Part of the problem is actually getting at them," explains Dr Piers Forster. "You could possibly go up in a balloon, but air-traffic control wouldn't like it. One of the techniques being used at the moment is flying behind the plane in another plane and kind of scooping up the contrail." His research may offer crucial answers.

At Southampton, students and staff have worked together to design a new eco-friendly professional services building. At Derby, they've been trying out a pay-per-weight rubbish system, and have shown after eight years that it really does work: Jo Anne Hasbury, the university's environmental manager, says they're emptying 50% fewer rubbish bins. At St Andrews, they're energetically pushing green travel for students and staff, to the extent of repairing old bicycles and setting up a bike-loan scheme for staff, while also operating a ride-share programme, sorting out bus discounts for students and putting up bicycle sheds.

At Greenwich, Professor Colin Hills is trying to make the leap from theory into reality with his Carbon8 system, a method for turning construction waste and carbon dioxide into small pellets that can be re-used as building aggregate.

But the problem is that while all this certainly takes us in the right direction, Universities UK's glowing report fails to mention the nagging anxiety in the sector that things are really not moving far enough, fast enough. One might like to believe that academics would be the first to embrace uncomfortable new scientific truths, but some universities appear to be finding it as hard to move out of their comfort zone as the rest of us: vice-chancellors are afflicted with the same short-termism – slow leadership -- that hobbles politicians.

The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) has been monitoring global temperatures for over 30 years now and was one of the first places in the world to grapple with climate change. Its director, Professor Phil Jones, comments wryly that progress towards environmental awareness within his own university has been “slow, to say the least. It took me years, for example, to convince them not to turn the heating on one day in autumn, and just leave it on until spring. There have been plenty of climate-change sceptics, even here.”

The past two years appear to have begun finally to galvanise academia: the Stern report for the British government on the economics of climate change and regular reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have focused minds. Also, the publication in 2005 of an action plan for sustainable development by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) asked universities to start integrating the environmental message into their courses and to look at their own consumption of energy and water, and their own transport habits.

Steve Egan, Hefce’s deputy chief executive, says that an upcoming strategic review will “identify the key opportunities and challenges in sustainable development. We welcome the lead that many higher-education institutions have taken in integrating sustainability into their roles as educators, researchers and leaders in their communities and through their business operations. We also acknowledge that the sector has to rise to an increasingly challenging agenda and help others to do the same.”

The areas that must be focused on are estate management (universities are huge and wasteful beasts), encouraging research into monitoring and solving environmental problems (this is moving along quite nicely), and education itself.

The Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) has been agitating for action for 12 years now, and is optimistic but also frustrated at the gentle pace of change. “The sector thinks it's doing quite well, but clearly it could do a lot better,” says the executive director, Ian Patton.

As an example, he cites the University of Southampton’s Professional Services Building, an initiative that brought together students, staff and green-building professionals so that a simple building project ended up becoming an educative tool. “You would imagine that this sort of thing would be happening all over the place, but actually it's seen as incredibly pioneering,” says Patton. “We really struggle to find other universities integrating the education and the theory in the same way. There are some standard-bearers -- places such as Warwick, St Andrews, Gloucester -- where this stuff is in their DNA; it's who they are. But these places are the exception, not the rule. We need to get a move on; we're living on a planet that has limited resources, and we need to start dealing with that now.”

Fortunately, he points out, students are starting to take action for themselves, with campaigns including student organisation People & Planet's Green League 2007 table last summer, which ranked universities according to their environmental awareness. The results were surprising. Oxford and the London School of Economics (LSE) both got “fair” ratings, while York and Glasgow scraped by below them. The three top-ranked universities were Leeds Metropolitan, Plymouth and Hertfordshire. “That really shook a few vice-chancellors,” says Patton. “I imagine that resolutions were made not to come that far down again.”

But the biggest problem is that, in the end, this is not just an issue for universities. This is going to be a problem for all of us. Paul Allen, development director at the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in Wales, is very anxious about the blindness of the academics. “Do they realise that we need to have a huge re-skilling for Britain, that in the years ahead we are going to have to learn how to do things very differently? Are they planning courses that are going to re-educate our young people? No. They're teaching young people in buildings where the lights are on all the time, in buildings where the energy is badly managed, where no one has even thought about approaching green electricity providers.”

EAUC’s conference this year is focusing on skills for sustainability. If the architects, engineers, designers and scientists have not been armed with the necessary skills, the necessary carbon descent cannot be achieved.

So, as Greening Spires suggests, things are moving forward, yes. But is it fast enough? Climate change does not leave any margins for complacency.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/

Homepage photo by andyket

Students put global warming in the spotlight

Kate Cheney Davidson — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 10:30:00 -0500

A campaign to galvanise students and policy-makers in the US is reminiscent of demonstrations in the 1960s. Kate Cheney Davidson reports on the educational effort dubbed “Earth Day for the climate”.

Photo: Emily Todd

Not many people get excited about seeing a lump of coal, but Professor Wendy Anderson can hardly contain herself.

Standing on a grassy strip at Drury University in Springfield, Missouri, Anderson, a biology professor, waits impatiently for her delivery of seven tonnes of coal. The “coal dump,” as she calls it will kick off a day of intense discussion on energy conservation and global warming at the school. It takes seven tonnes of coal each day to power Drury’s main campus for three hours.

Across the country on over 1,500 university campuses, as well as high schools, faith-based organisations and civic groups, people will gather to discuss climate change and related topics as a part of “Focus the Nation” day. Organisers are calling it the largest teach-in in American history, with thousands of students, over 40 members of Congress and hundreds of state-elected officials taking part.

Teach-ins started in the United States as a type of non-violent protest against the Vietnam War. In 1965, a group of professors at the University of Michigan decided to use their classrooms as a platform to discuss the moral arguments against US involvement in Vietnam. Despite intense resistance by the school administration, and a bomb scare, the teach-in was successful and became a popular form of protest across the country.

Eban Goodstein, a professor of economics at Lewis and Clark College in Oregon, and founder of Focus the Nation, seized on the idea of a nationwide teach-in as a way to engage students and political leaders on global warming. Although similar to other single day events like Step It Up and the Live Earth concerts, Goodstein stresses that this event is more educationally focused.

“What’s different about Focus the Nation is that we’re more institutionally based. It’s not just a bunch of activists organising rallies, but rather educational engagement.”

Bill Barnes, a professor of economics and environmental studies at the University of Portland in Oregon, helped organise his school’s teach-in, which involves 24 different sessions on topics ranging from climate science to the politics of global climate-change agreements. According to Barnes, this type of intellectual exchange doesn’t just happen on a regular basis.

“You would think that academics cooperate, but they don’t. You miss the big-picture problems when that happens,” Barnes said.

Students need the big picture, argues Barnes, to understand the complexity of climate change and what it will take to fight it.

“They don’t understand at 18 what’s happening. It’s not on their TV. Reading the newspaper is not something they do.”

At Missouri State University, biology professor Alexander Wait gave a talk at his campus entitled, “Birds, Bees, Beer and Other Reasons to Care About Climate Change.” Faced with a worldwide shortage of hops, Wait is hoping that a future without beer will spur college-aged kids to act.

But some students do “get it” when it comes to climate change. Lacey Riddle, a senior Environmental Ethics and Policy major at the University of Portland, says her generation is ready to take a stand on the issue.

“We might have been a little too quiet for a little too long, but that’s okay. We don’t have to sit back and let it happen,” she said.

As a part of the daylong event, Focus the Nation is also connecting students to their elected officials in a variety of ways, from face-to-face meetings to video conferencing.

Riddle admits that there is a large amount of frustration and disappointment among her peers about the lack of political leadership on the issue.

“It’s really a disgrace that we’ve waited so long. The science has been around since at least the 70s,” Riddle said. “Now the time has come to tell them how we feel.”

Like many in her age group, Riddle is in favor of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, because, she says, his policy on global warming is so much stronger than Hillary Clinton’s.

Organisers insist their event is non-partisan, but recognise the issue of global warming is highly political. Which is why, they say, they chose to hold it in the midst of a presidential primary season, a time when top political leaders are most attuned to voters’ concerns.

Professor Barnes, who also serves on the Focus the Nation board of advisors, says they hope to make it an annual event that will culminate in a national policy on climate change.

“It’s going to become the equivalent of Earth Day, but for the climate.”

The event has already attracted international attention from countries like France and Canada who want to hold their own Focus the Nation day. But so far, says project director Goodstein, there is no word from China. He’s not surprised.

“America has the moral obligation to go first. We’ve been [contributing greenhouse-gas emissions] for much longer. Until America leads, it’s going to be very difficult for the Chinese to mobilise their own society to take up this challenge.”

Kate Cheney Davidson is US editor of chinadialogue

Homepage photo by Luke Redmond

The new face of youth activism in China

Weiya Huo — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 11:38:00 -0500

Global warming is now emerging as a focus for green NGOs in China, and student groups are leading the way. A new network is helping to link young people together to take action on climate, says Weiya Huo.

Go to any meeting in China about the country's environmental situation and you will notice an increasing number of young adults in attendance. At China's recent Environmental NGO Sustainable Development Conference, almost 100 members of youth environmental groups took part, and they had their own dedicated forum. In fact, China’s youth have become an essential force in the country’s environmental movement.

This year, with climate change the increasing focus of widespread debate, the country's young people have started to act by founding China’s first young people's network focused on global warming, China Youth Climate Action Network (CYCAN), which incorporates seven separate organisations.

It started in August with a group of 10 young people concerned about China’s environment – mainly heads of student green groups and other youth organisations – who met at a farewell dinner for a foreign student. After a lively discussion about China’s climate-adaptation policies, the state of university green organisations, student climate-change activism overseas and technological issues, they decided that isolated action lacked impact – and a network would be beneficial.

They started making plans immediately, and declared the date of the meal to be CYCAN’s birthday. The network made its public debut on October 28-29, when it organised training sessions on climate change for officials from campus green groups; 13 took part from Beijing and 21 from groups elsewhere in the country.

Lack of funds meant that the first day of training was held in a building under renovation at Peking University. This is nothing new; funding has always been a problem for Chinese student green groups. The training covered basic global warming issues, the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, as well as how China’s youth should act and cooperate on climate-change issues.

To coincide with the UN-led climate talks in Bali, CYCAN is holding large-scale events to show the determination and action of China’s youth around the nation. The group's long-term aim is to increase the involvement of China’s youth groups in climate-change issues, and to organise events.

Youth activism can not be separated from the Chinese government’s own stance on climate change. Since China unveiled its national climate-change programme in June, it has begun to play an active role in solving a global problem. This plan stimulated Chinese young people, who believe they should use their determination, resources and experience to be a part of the solution. Without this background, CYCAN could not have come into being.

But in a sense, CYCAN is just a network for action – not a structured organisation. Its aims and beliefs come from its member organisations. For instance, the Peking University CDM Club is one of CYCAN’s founding organisations. Its members are all students at Peking University who are familiar with climate-change issues and policies. Some of its former members now work implementing Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in their places of work, and many of them played an active role in the October training sessions.

Another member group, the China Green Student Forum, was established 11 years ago. In 2007, it partnered with China Mining University’s Roots & Shoots group to audit energy use on Chinsese campuses, with help from the energy-saving firm Topenergy. In the process, they acquired first-hand information on energy usage at China's universities.

Before CYCAN, China’s student green groups were taking action on climate change, but they were limited to their campuses and had little impact outside their universities. The majority of their activities also lacked innovation. Consolidating resources from around the country means those concerned about global warming can hold bigger, better and more innovative events.

Although climate change is attracting increasing attention around the world – and many countries are implementing policies to reduce its effects – discussion and activism related to global warming has only just started among Chinese NGOs. The attitudes of young people, therefore, are particularly important.

In recent years, China’s youth environmental groups are increasing their focus on climate change and to starting to take action. It is too early to say if they can make their voices heard, we must wait and see. But environmental issues need widespread participation, particularly from young people, in the future.

Weiya Huo is editorial assistant for chinadialogue in Beijing and the former editor-in-chief of China Green Student Forum

From the campus to… Bali

Erin Condit-Bergren — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 06:38:00 -0500

“Our generation didn’t make this mess, but we are the ones who have to clean it up.” Students are leading the way to a cooler climate in the US, and their Chinese counterparts are joining too. Erin Condit-Bergren blogs from Bali.

“We want more! Eighty percent by 2050!” This was the call which greeted Nancy Pelosi, the speaker – or presiding officer – of the United States House of Representatives. Pelosi had turned up to address over 5,000 students and young people at Powershift, the largest conference ever held in the US to address the climate-change crisis. The tide has turned in the US, traditionally regarded as a global warming villain on the international stage due to the intransigence of its current administration. US citizens are demanding action before it’s too late – and students and youth are leading the way.

From the youth-led Energy Action Coalition (whose 26-year-old head, Billy Parish, has been named one of the year’s sexiest men) to Campus Greening efforts to testify before Congress, American young people are disproving the “Generation Quiet” label given by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. A delegation from SustainUS, the US Youth Network for Sustainable Development, will even be dogging the heels of their government’s delegation to the ongoing international climate change negotiations in Bali, Indonesia.

Bali is a key moment for international climate-change negotiations which will help to shape global policy for years to come. Key issues are determining a framework for further global greenhouse-gas reductions (after the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012), an Adaptation Fund to help the most vulnerable countries endure the hardships of a changing climate, and measures to reduce deforestation – a key cause of rising carbon emissions.

The buzz of activity from US youth at the negotiations, demanding that their government take immediate, decisive action including participation in the Kyoto Protocol, is in marked contrast to the general perception of Americans as ostrich-like consumers, blithely shopping while the Earth burns. Young people in many other high-emitting countries are also taking the lead. China is often vilified for its coal-burning power plants (despite the fact that on a per capita basis China emits one-third as much carbon as Europe, or one-sixth as much as North America). Yet China leads the world in solar technologies and, as Peng Li has pointed out on chinadialogue, environmental degradation is a key issue for China’s students. Two students at Tsinghua University have even created a podcast blog to tell the world about China’s green initiatives.

It is time for young people in the countries that are major emitters to stand up against climate change – our generation didn’t make this mess, but we are the ones who have to clean it up. Bali is only the next fight in the long battle to save our planet. You can support the Canadian, American, Australian, and Solar Generation youth delegations to Bali by signing this petition at Avaaz.org.

What’s more, you can also keep track of the US youth delegation at Bali Buzz blog and It’s Getting Hot in Here, and chinadialogue will be featuring future posts from young Chinese activists in Bali. If we’re going to avoid climate chaos, it’s time for action!

No purchase necessary

Kate Evans — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 06:19:00 -0500

Anti-consumer activists in 65 countries will celebrate Buy Nothing Day on November 24. What’s it all about? And why would anyone take part in a 24-hour shopping moratorium? Kate Evans reports.

Individuals are consumers solely motivated by self-interest, certain economists will tell you. And it is this self-interest that keeps prices low, balances demand with supply and ensures the economy prospers. It may be a system based on greed, they say, but greed is natural – and the system works.

But does it really? In fact, the system works for big business and consumers in the developed world, but rarely for anyone else. Simply witness the gross inequalities in living standards across the globe. Developed countries only make up 20% of the world’s population, yet consume over 80% of Earth's natural resources. According to the World Resources Institute, “on average, someone living in a developed nation consumes twice as much grain, twice as much fish, three times as much meat, nine times as much paper, and 11 times as much gasoline as someone living in a developing nation.” Not to mention what this does to the environment. Each year, the average UK consumer buys 35 kilograms of textiles and sends 30 kilograms to landfill.

The fifteenth annual Buy Nothing Day will take place on November 24, 2007. Environmentalists, social activists and concerned citizens across 65 countries will take part in a 24-hour consumer fast to highlight the environmental, social and ethical consequences of consumerism. With the mantra “buy less, live more,” its creators encourage us to switch off from shopping – and tune into life. Timed to coincide with one of the busiest shopping days in the US retail calendar, as well as the unofficial start of the holiday-shopping season, Buy Nothing Day has led to many forms of action, from relaxed family outings to free street parties and politically charged public protests. Anyone can take part simply by spending a day without spending.

Kalle Lasn is co-founder of the Adbusters Media Foundation, the organisation responsible for launching Buy Nothing Day as a yearly, global event. He explains that while most participants used to see the day as simply an escape from the marketing and frantic consumerism that have come to characterise modern life, the focus has shifted in light of the new political mood surrounding climate change.

“So much emphasis,” says Lasn, “has been placed on buying carbon offsets and compact fluorescent lightbulbs and hybrid cars that we are losing sight of the core cause of our environmental problems: we consume far too much.”

“Buy Nothing Day isn't just about changing your routine for one day. It’s about starting a lasting lifestyle commitment. With over six billion people on the planet, it is the responsibility of the most affluent – the upper 20% that consumes 80% of the world’s resources – to set out on a new path.”

To mark this occasion, and highlight the consequences of excess consumerism, the People and Planet group at the UK’s University of York are holding a “swap shop” in a student common room. Students are encouraged to bring any outfits, books, CDs and other items that they no longer use, but which another student might want. They can then swap their unwanted stuff with items donated by other students.

One of the event organisers, Ellen-Marie Winther, explains: “We are aiming to inspire students to re-use, and reduce their consumption. Our event gives people the opportunity to freshen up, get something new, make some space in their closets – all without spending money.”

Buy Nothing Day may only be a first step in addressing the issue of excessive consumption, but it does raise some important questions. Why do we insist on consuming so much? Why are we convinced it will make us happy? Searching for answers, I asked a friend why she likes to shop. “I like to own things,” she replies, “and I like fashion. There’s something nice about handing over money, it makes you feel powerful.”

It seems that too many people in the developed world buy into a consumer lifestyle without considering the workers that make cheap goods on miserable wages and in poor working conditions. Closer examination of the supply chain reveals some shocking figures. For instance, in Uzbekistan, the world’s second-largest cotton exporter, tens of thousands of children are taken out of school and forced to work in cotton fields for little or no money. This should destroy cheap fashion’s feel-good factor, yet shopping remains a major hobby for many people. Most people I know already own enough, but they still insist on buying more.

Buy Nothing Day may not break the cycle, but its message might help take us in the right direction. As consumers we need to question what we buy – and challenge the companies who manufacture our products. Perhaps more importantly, we need to make a commitment to consuming less and recycling more. We need to realise the true risks for the environment and our consumption’s impact on developing countries. Consumerism might seem to offer great choice, but it comes at a high cost. This year, Buy Nothing Day will be the biggest ever 24-hour stand against consumerism. Will you be part of it?

Kate Evans is a student at York University.