|
Over recent weeks, a number of leading voices in the environmental debate brought you their views on a range of issues in the Green Room.
This week, we have offered the writers an opportunity to respond to your comments.
SIR MARK MOODY-STUART - Society depends on more for less
While many of those commenting were supportive of a tough regulatory framework to channel the market in vehicles, buildings, appliances and so on in the direction of much greater efficiency, there were two groups of objectors with whom I have considerable fellow feeling.
 |
We all need to support sensible efforts led by governments
|
The first are those who say they have a powerful car which gives them great pleasure, but which they use very little.
Meanwhile they bicycle to work, do not fly much and live a simple life, etc. Why should they be penalised?
The fair answer to this would be individual personal carbon allowances - giving the choice to an individual as to how it is used.
I may be wrong, but I think this would be impossibly complicated; there would also be complaints from those who live in the country or have to drive to work as a result of a lack of public transport, or who live in an old house difficult to make efficient.
The proposal is to apply the regulatory framework to new vehicles, equipment and buildings.
It is often more inefficient in carbon terms to scrap and replace. What we need to do is to make all new stock very efficient.
This is important everywhere, but particularly in areas such as China where growth is very high - but the industrialised world needs to take a lead.
Incidentally, I do agree with those who say that hybrids may not be the most efficient answer - the frameworks should be based on sound measurements of overall efficiency, leaving the market to find the solution, which may indeed not be a hybrid.
The second set of complaints is from those who see this as "Stalinist" regulation.
I too hate unnecessary regulation and regulation which tells us exactly what to do. If governments pick solutions we will fail, as has been repeatedly shown.
But a framework which sets a level of energy efficiency and then leaves the market to deliver the most competitive solution is very different from Soviet central planning.
Lastly, to those who think it is a bit rich for a former chairman of Shell to make such suggestions, I would only say that I drove a hybrid when I was chairman of Shell, and Shell has for many years promoted energy and fuel efficiency.
Shell and BP both acknowledged the challenge of climate change in 1997, well before it was common for companies to do so.
The reason the world has made far too little progress is that solutions do not lie in the hands of one section of society or one group of companies alone.
We all need to support sensible efforts led by governments.
Sir Mark Moody-Stuart is non-executive chairman of Anglo American, and is a member of the UN Global Compact and chairman of the Global Compact Foundation
JOHN NELSON - Consumers must stop forest destruction
In my article about the destruction of forests in Cameroon, I did not mention the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) because the issue is highly contentious as a result of weak certification processes.
|
Securing recognition for the rights of African forest communities before their resources are taken away by government and industry is essential if the balance between the wealthy and the poorest-of-the-poor is to be redressed
|
Certified timber is only as fair and ethical as the logging companies trying to meet those standards. For example, from my article, Ngola Baka's forests are being certified now by the logging companies' consultants using FSC critieria, despite the problems we helped communities document on their land use maps.
In other places in Cameroon and the Congo Basin, forest communities' lands are expropriated for parks, contrary to international human rights standards, and with often worse effects than logging.
And now the pressure is growing, as the global climate debate seeks out key carbon resources to defend and enhance. But what about the local people?
Helping forest communities in Africa to generate and then publicise solid information on the impacts of logging and conservation on their livelihoods is part and parcel of Forest Peoples' Programme's (FPP) work.
My experience in rural places in more than a dozen African countries over 20 years confirms that rural communities like Ngola Baka also want jobs and economic growth. But in most rural places in Africa there are not enough hands to labour, nor capital to invest.
The problem of logging is not rooted in overpopulation or economic growth, but rather in the gross inequities involved when commercial industries take control of natural resources upon which poor people rely for their survival. It is as simple as that.
Securing recognition for the rights of African forest communities before their resources are taken away by government and industry is essential if the balance between the wealthy and the poorest-of-the-poor is to be redressed.
Wealthy societies' obsession with population control is frankly obscene when contrasted against the daily struggle of forest communities who just want most of their children to live to become teenagers.
John Nelson is Africa policy adviser for the Forest Peoples Programme, a UK non-governmental organisation (NGO) working to support forest communities around the world to secure their lands and destinies
MARTIN WRIGHT - Flying clouds the real climate culprit
Many of the respondents to my piece accused me, in effect, of complacency about the dangers of flying.
So let's nail that one, for starters; aviation is a large and growing problem for the Earth's climate, and until we have zero-emission aircraft (in 2030 / in your dreams, depending who you believe) we should all avoid flying whenever there's a realistic alternative. Which includes not travelling at all, of course.
|
When we're facing an enemy on all fronts, for goodness sake let's get our priorities right - and pick the battles we can win
|
But, whether you like it or not, forest destruction is a much bigger threat and an even more urgent one. And yet it receives precious little media attention by comparison.
Aviation contributes about 3% of total greenhouse emissions; deforestation about 25%, second only to energy.
Yes, emissions from planes probably do disproportionate damage at altitude - but their impact is still dwarfed by forest loss.
As the Stern Review put it, the destruction of rainforests in just the next four years will release more carbon into the atmosphere than every flight from the dawn of aviation until 2025.
So if we grounded every single plane on the planet tomorrow, the speed and scale of deforestation would still tip us over into climate catastrophe.
Yet the great irony is that forests are, almost without exception, worth more standing than felled or burned. Economically, it's a no-brainer.
Saving forests makes sense in the here and now. It should be a sight easier to find practical, profitable and fair ways of doing so - several of which I mention in my piece - than it is to persuade everyone to quit flying.
So ask yourself: when you're preaching to the unconverted, which of these arguments is more persuasive?
Invest now in forests to secure a decent pension for yourself and a liveable planet for your children?
Or give up flying for good, forget any idea of a dream holiday or a crucial business trip, and stay piously put in the British rain? (Unless you're one of the lucky few blessed with the time or money to enjoy slow travel).
When we're facing an enemy on all fronts, for goodness sake let's get our priorities right - and pick the battles we can win.
Martin Wright is editor (at large) of Green Futures Magazine
RICHARD FULLER - Feeling the pinch of compact cities
It was extremely interesting reading through all the comments on the issue of compact cities, and I want to thank all of the contributors.
|
Some environmentalists see compact cities as a way to reduce per capita impact, while others focus on reductions in urban green spaces and the loss of contact between people and nature
|
The overwhelming consensus among the posted comments was that we do indeed have a problem, with population being frequently cited.
While population levels are no doubt important, my perspective is that whatever the size of the population we still have a balance to strike between urban land-take and the wellbeing of urban people and biodiversity.
A few contributions focused on green fanaticism, yet I doubt that the battle lines could or should be drawn on environmental grounds.
Some environmentalists see compact cities as a way to reduce per capita impact, while others focus on reductions in urban green spaces and the loss of contact between people and nature.
I think this debate cannot and should not caricature one side or the other as the product of unthinking anti-progress environmentalism.
Eric Stepp, of Portland, Oregon, pointed out that "most of the solutions to Dr Fuller's concerns have already been put into practice".
Exactly! We have the know-how and there has been piecemeal application of much academic theory, but the tricky bit must be to translate this into coherent national policy. This is why I think a public debate is so urgently needed.
I agree wholeheartedly with Geoff Williams' (Calgary) exhortation for "islands of humans in a matrix of nature, not unconnected islands of nature".
Ben Essada raised the important point of who benefits from urban planning decisions, particularly in relation to academics studying these issues and those charged with developing and implementing town planning policy.
I completely agree that different sectors of society consistently win and lose.
Dr Olga Barbosa has done some work here in Sheffield, showing that access to green space varies dramatically across the city.
Perhaps surprisingly, her work showed that more affluent sectors of society generally live further away from green spaces than less affluent groups.
This makes sense when one thinks of the direct trade off between urban density and the amount of green space available. While less affluent groups have better access to public green space, gardens tend to be smaller in such neighbourhoods.
Thanks again to all contributors for their thought-provoking comments on this issue.
Dr Richard Fuller is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Sheffield, examining the ecological sustainability of urban spaces
DAVID BROWN - Pulling the plug on wasting water
Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who took the time to respond to my article and contribute to the debate around water use.
|
The UK may be an island but we can still run out of drinking water - as demonstrated by the floods last summer
|
Water charging is clearly an issue that many people feel strongly about, but I fear that my point has been misunderstood by some.
As some of the comments demonstrate, consumers need to be educated about their water use. Only then can we start tackling wasted resources.
I am not suggesting that rates should be raised across the board. In fact, with proper pricing structures in place, some consumers' rates could actually go down.
The UK may be an island but we can still run out of drinking water - as demonstrated by the floods last summer.
Chemical engineers around the world are working to solve this problem by using processes such as reverse osmosis. But such research and development takes time and costs money - it may be that we have to pay more before reaping the benefits of cheaper water based on a metering system.
We need a plan to deal with events like flooding. This would include setting out how we obtain clean water when systems have been contaminated, and also how we use it fairly.
Chemical engineers are working on innovative technologies that can be implemented by water companies. But as ever, this will take time. Meanwhile, it is everyone's responsibility to use resources properly.
Paying for the water we use is one of the ways in which we will all become more conscious of what we let go to waste.
We must not forget that this is a long-term solution, not a short-term fix; and in the future, everyone should have access to technology that allows them to recycle water and use "grey water" where appropriate.
Until then, utility companies need to implement transparent pricing policies to make it clear exactly what we are using - and what we are wasting.
David Brown is chief executive of the Institution of Chemical Engineers
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental issues running weekly on the BBC News website.
If you think there is a topic we should cover or someone we should invite to contribute, tell us using the form below:
The BBC may edit your comments and not all emails will be published. Your comments may be published on any BBC media worldwide.
|
One-Minute World News
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
E-mail this to a friend
Printable version
Airbus A-400-M gets inaugural flight
© MMIX
Bookmark with:
What are these?