Warning: implode() [function.implode]: Invalid arguments passed in /home/ecohive/public_html/wp-includes/query.php on line 1807
eco-hive.co.uk » News
Sep
30
2008
0

Meat rationed to four portions a week, says report on climate change

• Study looks at food impact on greenhouse gases
• Return to old-fashioned cooking habits urged

People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change, a major new report warns.

The report, by the Food Climate Research Network, based at the University of Surrey, also says total food consumption should be reduced, especially “low nutritional value” treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.

It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops – alongside more modern tips such as using the microwave and internet shopping.

The report goes much further than any previous advice after mounting concern about the impact of the livestock industry on greenhouse gases and rising food prices. It follows a four-year study of the impact of food on climate change and is thought to be the most thorough study of its kind.

Tara Garnett, the report’s author, warned that campaigns encouraging people to change their habits voluntarily were doomed to fail and urged the government to use caps on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pricing to ensure changes were made. “Food is important to us in a great many cultural and symbolic ways, and our food choices are affected by cost, time, habit and other influences,” the report says. “Study upon study has shown that awareness-raising campaigns alone are unlikely to work, particularly when it comes to more difficult changes.”

The report’s findings are in line with an investigation by the October edition of the Ecologist magazine, which found that arguments for people to go vegetarian or vegan to stop climate change and reduce pressure on rising food prices were exaggerated and would damage the developing world in particular, where many people depend on animals for essential food, other products such as leather and wool, and for manure and help in tilling fields to grow other crops.

Instead, it recommended cutting meat consumption by at least half and making sure animals were fed as much as possible on grass and food waste which could not be eaten by humans.

“The notion that cows and sheep are four-legged weapons of mass destruction has become something of a distraction from the real issues in both climate change and food production,” said Pat Thomas, the Ecologist’s editor.

The head of the United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change, Rajendra Pachauri, also sparked global debate this month when he urged people to have at least one meat-free day a week.

The Food Climate Research Network found that measured by production, the UK food sector produces greenhouse gases equivalent to 33m tonnes of carbon. Measured by consumption – including imports – the total rises to 43.3m tonnes. Both figures work out at under one fifth of UK emissions, but they exclude the indirect impacts of actions such as clearing rainforest for cattle and crops, which other studies estimate would add up to 5% to 20% of global emissions.

The report found the meat and dairy sectors together accounted for just over half of those emissions; potatoes, fruit and vegetables for 15%; drinks and other products with sugar for another 15%; and bread, pastry and flour for 13%.

It also revealed which parts of the food chain were the most polluting. Although packaging has had a lot of media and political attention, it only ranked fifth in importance behind agriculture – especially the methane produced by livestock burping – manufacturing, transport, and cooking and refrigeration at home.

The report calls for meat and dairy consumption to be cut in developed countries so that global production remains stable as the population grows to an estimated 9bn by 2050.

At the same time emissions from farms, transport, manufacturing and retail could be cut, with improvements including more efficient use of fertilisers, feed and energy, changed diets for livestock, and more renewable fuels – leading to a total reduction in emissions from the sector of 50% to 67%, it says.

The UN and other bodies recommend that developed countries should reduce total emissions by 80% by 2050.

However, the National Farmers’ Union warned that its own study, with other industry players, published last year, found net emissions from agriculture could only be cut by up to 50% if the carbon savings from building renewable energy sources on farms were taken into account.

The NFU also called for government incentives to help farmers make the changes. “Farmers aren’t going to do this out of the goodness of their hearts, because farmers don’t have that luxury; many of our members are very hard pressed at the moment,” said Jonathan Scurlock, the NFU’s chief adviser on renewable energy and climate change.

Different diets

The way we eat now (average person in the UK, per week)

1.6kg meat and 4.2 litres of milk, which is equivalent to:

6 sausages (450g)

2 chicken breasts (350g)

4 ham sandwiches (100g)

8 slices of bacon (250g)

3 burgers (450g)

3 litres of milk

100g of cheese and a helping of cream

Future recommended diet (average person, per week)

500g of meat and 1 litre of milk, which is equivalent to:

1 quarter-pound beefburger

2 sausages

3 rashers of bacon

1 chicken breast

1 litre of milk or 100g of cheese

Written by HiveOne in: News | Tags:
Sep
29
2008
0

The Individual Will Soon Pay for their Environmental Impact.

The Minister for Climate Change Joan Ruddock has admitted that the individual will soon pay for their environmental impact.

“The Climate Change Bill will impose a legal cap on CO2 emissions, which will affect every aspect of life in the UK.”

“The Government has already undertaken a pre-feasability study on Personal Carbon Accounts. While there were no insurmountable technical problems identified, it would require huge investment with a somewhat uncertain outcome.

Although it appears attractive, and I myself am very interested in its potential, the study found very little public support. People are very suspicious of the technology that would be required to allocate and monitor the carbon accounts.”

It seems that it is now high time that we all cooperate and reduce our impact before we are lumbered with another tax.  It is also a concern that it is the less well off households that will be squeezed and to a far greater extent than the comparative effect on big businesses.

With the recent incompetencies in UK public offices which have led to the loss of numerous documents and data, we should be worried about the effectiveness of government monitoring and enforcement of personal carbon accounts.

Written by HiveOne in: News |
Sep
29
2008
0

Labour’s shocking CO2 admissions

Tens of thousands of ‘green collar’ jobs will be lost because of the government’s policy of buying reductions from other countries

    • guardian
    • Thursday September 25 2008 10:34 BST

Last week a leaked government document revealed that Labour ministers are lobbying the EU to allow Britain to meet up to half of its 2020 emissions reductions targets by buying credits from the developing world.

It is true that a tonne of carbon dioxide pollution saved in Bangalore is the same as a tonne saved in Birmingham – but by paying others to make carbon reductions for us, Labour are selling Britain short by subsidising abroad the efficiencies and savings we need to make at home.

There are many thousands of new and well-paid jobs that could be created in the UK with a major national push on energy efficiency, microgeneration and renewable energy technologies. If we are only to pick the lowest hanging fruit of cheap emissions reductions in Britain and then just turn to the carbon markets to pay developing countries to fill the gap on the cheap, then we will be passing on the opportunity to lead the world in the conversion to a low-carbon economy.

If we opt to only make the minimum of reductions here at home we will still lumber on with business as usual, using old and energy inefficient practice. This will lock in a new generation of polluting infrastructure that will become increasingly expensive for us to offset in the future, as the cost of polluting increases with a rising carbon price.

This is not the way it has to be – Other countries are embracing change: Germany already has over 250,000 jobs in renewable technologies. Yet Britain has, at best, 15,000. We don’t even know exactly how many green tech jobs we have in the UK because the government doesn’t bother to count them.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have declared that they see 5 million “green collar” jobs being created in the new US energy economy. Indeed it is expected that global green industries will be worth £350bn a year by 2010 – as big as the global aerospace industry is today. That is the opportunity before us today – and we can be sure that if Britain doesn’t move to seize this new market, others will.

No one pretends that squeezing more efficiency out of our economy will be easy, but at a time of economic stress for Britain Gordon Brown should be looking for ways to create more jobs in the UK, not lobbying to use tax payers’ money to create green tech jobs overseas. While the reduction of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere will be the same regardless of where it happens – and it must happen – our political leaders must ensure that as much of the economic opportunity as possible remains here in Britain.

Written by HiveOne in: News |
Sep
29
2008
0

Renewing our obligations

The government has done so little to deliver on renewable energy that I doubt its good faith. But here is the remedy

    • guardian
    • Saturday September 27 2008 09:12 BST

The government is committed to massive new nuclear build in Britain. We do not yet know the details of Gordon Brown’s nuclear plan, least of all how all the new nuclear power stations are to be paid for. But substantial public subsidy is definitely part of the deal, as described by David Lowry on Commentisfree and David Burke, writing in Prospect. After all, EDF would hardly have paid £12.5bn for British Energy if it did not have a clear promise of jam tomorrow.

But while the Brown nuclear plan (I am referring here to Gordon Brown, of course, not his brother Andrew, EDF Energy’s head of media relations) glides serenely ahead, where does this leave the UK’s renewable ambitions? Remember that the UK already has a policy to generate 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020, and that this target will need to be doubled to around 40% for the UK to achieve its share of the new EU-wide target to source 20% of all energy from renewables by the same date.

So far, Brown has been far more active in trying to water down the UK’s EU renewable target than in finding ways to meet it, in spite of the enormous renewable resources of wind, wave and tide, which sweep our shores. But even if he succeeds in the latest ploy to knock 11% off the UK’s target by not counting the energy used in aviation, the UK still has a lot of renewable generation capacity to build – approaching 50,000MW of wind for a start.

And this creates a problem: nuclear power and intermittent renewables make a very poor match. Ministers and most nuclear advocates now insist that they have nothing against renewables – on the contrary, they adore them, and all they are advocating is a sensible mix of nuclear power and renewables to give the UK a wonderful new low-carbon electricity system. But the idea does not add up.

The wind turbines (onshore and increasingly offshore) that will have to produce most of our renewable electricity can only generate when and where the wind is blowing. The problems of over- and under-supply created by this intermittency can be minimised by spreading wind turbines over a broad geographical area, and by mixing them with other intermittent renewables, such as wave and solar PV. But as the renewable fraction increases, so the need to smooth out the intermittency in the electricity supply rises, and to do this with coal-fired power stations is to defeat our purpose.

Nuclear power has a similar but opposite problem. Once a nuclear power station is up and running, the best way to run it is to keep on producing electricity at a constant rate – until it develops some fault and cuts out altogether, that is. Add the two together, nuclear and intermittent renewables, and what do you get? You might imagine the two complement each other.

But the opposite is the case. Because nuclear is “always on”, it does nothing to smooth the supply curve from wind, or to better match total supply to demand, which is also highly variable. Indeed, the renewable supply profile fits consumer demand better than the nuclear straight-line output because the wind blows more during periods of peak electricity demand – that is mornings and evenings, and winter. By adding nuclear power into the mix, electricity supply actually fits demand worse, not better.

So, the more the government backs nuclear power, the more it is undermining the future of renewables in the UK’s energy supply. By backing the nuclear horse so strongly, it is revealing its probable real long-term aim: to use the ineffective and costly Renewables Obligation to fail to meet its targets (which it is guaranteed to do) and then claim that its nuclear power should count as “renewable” because it is low-carbon. Anyway, 2020 is several elections away, and whoever is in charge at the time can deal with the problem then.

But maybe I’m wrong and the government really does want renewables to have a major role. If so, here are five important things it ought to be doing to demonstrate its good intentions:

1. The natural companion to intermittent renewables is not nuclear but hydropower, which can be turned on and off to supply electricity when it is needed, and to store energy for when it is in surplus. So, we should seriously expand hydropower capacity in the UK, which currently stands at about 1,500MW, with a view to using it not for baseload generation but to balance gaps between supply and demand. The pumped storage facility at Dinorwig in Wales is already doing this on a huge scale, if for brief periods, with its ability to kick a colossal 1,320MW into the grid at 12 seconds’ notice. We need a large number of plants designed to perform a similar role, but over periods of hours and days, rather than minutes. Small-scale hydro could also have a big role in balancing the output from individual wind farms, perhaps sharing the same grid connections. The new 100MW station at Glendoe (Scotland’s first new large hydro plant in 50 years) is to be welcomed, but there is an even bigger role for small-scale hydro, which could produce a further 650MW.

2. We should also improve our connections to other European countries, as this will help to smooth the overall renewables supply curve, and so benefit all countries. Denmark, Germany, Spain and Portugal are far enough away from the UK for their wind farms to be out of sync with ours, so by linking them all together, wind power surges in one country can compensate for dips in others. There is also growing output from photovoltaic panels (PV) in Germany, Spain and Italy, which can further smooth the renewable supply curve. Also note that Denmark uses its connection to Norway, which gets 99% of its electricity from hydro, to dump surplus wind energy, and draw on the hydro when the wind drops. We should do the same. Concentrated solar power (CSP) from Spain, Portugal and North Africa will also make a huge contribution to renewable generation and supply stability. Like hydro (and unlike solar PV), CSP can store up energy (as heat) and use it to generate electricity when needed.

3. We also need to beef up our own UK grid to link the places our renewable power will be coming from far away from existing power stations – and using undergound power lines so as not to disfigure our upland landscapes. A new west coast interconnector would be an excellent way to link the many power sources along the UK’s western seaboard, and link to Ireland at the same time. The electricity distribution system also needs to be re-engineered to accommodate small- and medium-scale embedded generation, from local combined heat and power plants to solar PV tiles on domestic roofs. We also need to use price signals on the grid to make our demand responsive to supply, so that, for example, freezers stock up on cold when electricity is cheap, and coast along when the price is high.

4. Scrap the failed Renewables Obligation and replace it with a feed-in tarriffs system, or another system of fixed-price contracts to give renewable developers much needed security for long-term investment. This system would aim to deliver electricity quality – that is a smooth output matching demand – not just quantity. To do this, it would pay a premium for diversity of supply to bring in less productive locations, and less economic technologies such as wave power and solar PV. Note that the British Pelamis wave power technology has now been deployed in Portugal thanks to the far greater commitment to renewables of the Portuguese government.

5. Finally, the government should come clean about the deals it has made with EDF and other nuclear generators. It must be seen to hold firm to its promise not to subsidise nuclear power, either overtly or covertly, made in the 2006 Energy Review: “It will be for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and to cover the full cost of decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs.”

Written by HiveOne in: News |
Sep
29
2008
0

Organic food ‘proven’ healthier

Researchers say there is now firm evidence that organically-grown produce is healthier to eat than conventional crops.

The Soil Association, the group which campaigns for organic farming, has told BBC Radio 4’s Costing the Earth programme that organic crops contain more nutrients.

Director Patrick Holden said research has shown that they contain more secondary metabolites than conventionally-grown plants.

Secondary metabolites are substances which form part of plants’ immune systems, and which also help to fight cancer in humans.

Mr Holden said organic crops also have a measurably higher level of vitamins, and that this can benefit people who eat them.

By contrast, he said, “intensive farming is devitalising our food”.

Mr Holden said the research, from Denmark and Germany, would be presented in the UK at the association’s conference on organic food on 8 January.

‘Dangerous delusion’

The researchers’ findings will strengthen the organic lobby, which has been accused of making exaggerated and even unwarranted claims.

The programme spoke to scientists who said they knew of no evidence of any nutritional benefit from eating organic food.

Others claimed it could be positively dangerous, especially when it was fertilised with sewage containing potentially harmful organisms.

Some maintained that many of the natural pesticides produced by plants were potentially more of a risk than the synthetic ones used in conventional agriculture.

And with organic food costing appreciably more than ordinary products, one US cancer specialist said organic farming was a “dangerous delusion”.

Poor people would find it hard to afford the fruit and vegetables they needed to reduce their cancer risk, he argued.

But the World Health Organisation has estimated that between 3.5 and 5m people globally suffer acute pesticide poisoning every year.

Organic food, the programme concludes, has individual advantages and disadvantages but overall it is almost certainly beneficial on the broader scale.

BBC News

Written by HiveOne in: News |
Sep
29
2008
0

A Grumbling Welshman…

Firstly I would like to thank you for supporting Eco Hive, things are really moving along now. I’m sure we will see more exciting developments in the near future.  Cheers.

Has anyone noticed that many businesses have ‘sustainability at heart’ yet their actions seem to suggest otherwise?

I often grumble whenever I’m in a supermarket and the excessive product packaging is visible on every

Escess Packaging

shelf, whilst having to put an extra layer on myself as I walk through the labyrinth of open faced fridges and freezers. I wonder how they would react if I left any excess packaging from my basket at the till? I think it really quite a visual protest, actually. Has anyone adopted this particular protest tool? If so, please tell me how it went!!

Plastic containers consume lots of energy and resources in the manufacturing processes and cardboard is made of paper/wood pulp which needs to be sourced from somewhere (and cheaply!). The transport of overly packaged products means there are more lorries on the roads and more freighters needing shipping, all making environmental impacts and carbon footprints needlessly high. With fuel and energy prices as high as they are I would have thought that there would be a much greater initiative in industry to solve these inefficiencies.

Enough supermarket bashing for the moment! (Although I’m sure they will wander past my sights again!). These inherent environmental inefficiencies are found in many many businesses.

I bought some items online from a reputable high-street store only this week and when it arrived I almost fell over when I saw what the product was delivered in… A box well over four times the size of its contents and packaged with 28 foot of paper!! Someone must be having a laugh at mine and the worlds expense! I’m sure my purchase wasn’t packaged by a non-sentient robot however the tool responsible for this oversight seems to be no smarter… Needless to say, I had a word with the offending company in the hope that the lowly customer might be able to instigate some kind of positive action.

Atleast I'm not the only one who thinks this!

Atleast Im not the only one saying it!

I know that packaging is not the biggest issue but it is an ongoing one and it highlights the vast array of small, simple ways in which we can improve the efficiency of the world around us. So if you do one thing today to improve our environment… perhaps you should ask the supermarket manager to recycle your shopping waste for you. I’m sure she / he might get the idea after the office inbox becomes full of wasted plastic and cardboard!

So get involved, get in contact!

Thanks for keeping an eye on the environment and another on us.

Written by HiveOne in: News |
Sep
29
2008
0

Soil Association urges ban on pesticides to halt bee deaths

  • The Guardian,
  • Monday September 29 2008

Honey Bee

A honeybee. Photograph: Judi Bottoni/AP

The Soil Association has urged the government to ban pesticides linked to honeybee deaths around the world.

The chemicals are widely used in UK agriculture but have been banned as a precaution in four other European countries. Last week the Italian government issued an immediate suspension after it accepted that the pesticides were implicated in killing honeybees, joining France, Germany and Slovenia.

Peter Melchett, the Soil Association’s policy director, said: “It is typical of the lax approach to pesticide regulation in the UK that we look like being one of the last of the major farming countries in the EU to wake up to the threat to our honeybees.”

The pesticides, known as neonicotinoids, are approved to kill insects on a range of crops in the UK including oilseed rape, barley and sugar beet. Their use on oilseed rape is of particular concern to beekeepers as the crop’s yellow flower is very attractive to honeybees.

Germany suspended sales of the pesticides in May after 700 beekeepers along the Rhine reported that two-thirds of their bees had died following the application of clothianidin. In France, imidacloprid has been banned on sunflowers since 1999 and as a sweetcorn treatment since 2003, after a third of honeybees were wiped out. The Soil Association is calling on the environment secretary, Hilary Benn, to ban the pesticides in a letter sent today.

Imidacloprid and clothianidin are produced by a division of the chemical manufacturer Bayer. Imidacloprid is its bestselling pesticide and is used in 120 countries. Bayer has always maintained that neonicotinoids are safe for bees if correctly applied. “Extensive internal and international scientific studies have confirmed that neonicotinoids do not present a hazard to bees,” Utz Klages, a spokesman for Bayer CropScience, said recently.

The National Farmers’ Union said it was opposed to any ban on pesticides. Paul Chambers, NFU plant health adviser, said: “Banning pesticides using the precautionary principle is not based on good science. Pests and disease are the problems facing honeybees in the UK. The government needs to put more money into researching honeybee health.”

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also attributed the decline in honeybee populations to a variety of factors. A Defra spokesman said: “There are no plans to ban pesticides.”

Beekeepers worldwide have reported catastrophic losses of from 30% to 90% of their honeybee colonies during the last two years. Two-thirds of all major crops rely on pollination, mainly by honeybees.

Written by HiveOne in: News |
Sep
23
2008
0

Crisis must be turned to green benefit, scientist says

Climate technology needs help, government told
Latest market intervention ’shows what can be done’
Governments need to show the same boldness to intervene in the markets to kickstart a move to a low-carbon economy as they did when they helped the banks stave off financial crisis last week, a leading academic has demanded.

“Both require strong regulation for efficient economic outcomes,” said Terry Barker, a climate change expert at Cambridge University, who fears the Lehman Brothers and HBOS problems foreshadow a global economic downturn.

Barker’s concerns were backed up by one of the government’s scientific advisers, who fears that a downturn could lead to a lack of investment in vital new sectors such as developing carbon capture and storage plants.

“When you have a downturn of this kind, it does lead to a disinvestment in this kind of technology,” said Robert Watson, a former World Bank adviser who is now at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

There were marked similarities between the lack of transparency and action on complex lending risks that had wreaked havoc in the banking community and the kinds of dangers being stored up by corporate and political inaction over global warming, said Barker, the director of the centre for climate change mitigation research at Cambridge.

“Both threaten the economy with catastrophic collapse,” added the economist, who has worked with the UN’s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, and was speaking with Watson at the Entrepreneurship for a Zero Carbon Society conference at Cambridge University.

Barker believes the problems on Wall Street will take potential investment money out of the system. But he says a determined response by ministers could encourage the channelling of that cash into vital work on climate change.

He fears that governments and business leaders have massively underestimated the risks posed by rising sea levels and changing weather patterns – any costs associated with moving to a low-carbon economy were, he said, “negligible” compared with the costs of doing nothing.

The banking crisis meant the rules of engagement by governments had changed completely, said Barker. The same system of “force majeure” was needed to tackle climate change through new eco-taxes, and help to supplement carbon trading.

In the past, cost-benefit analyses had been applied to justify inaction on global warming, but this was inappropriate given the enormous scale of the social, environmental and other threats being faced. “The Amazon rainforest and coral reefs cannot be substituted by money. It’s obvious, but it needs repeating,” said Barker.

The Cambridge academic said EU carbon reduction targets were far too low and would have to be raised if the world was to stand a chance of tackling the problem. There needed to be a 40% reduction in carbon output by 2020, not the 20% target that was currently in place.

Watson said action was needed on all fronts if the world was to avert disaster – and Britain should be forging ahead with nuclear, carbon capture and storage (CCS), and renewables such as wind, to ensure energy supplies were retained while carbon emissions fell.

With regard to CCS, he said the world needed an equivalent of the Apollo space programme of the 1960s and 70s aimed at putting a man on the Moon. There should be 20 CCS prototypes developed at the same time – the possible $1bn (£500m) cost for each facility was tiny compared with the $300bn worth of fossil fuel subsidies or the trillions of pounds’ worth of economic activity that the Stern Review had indicated would be endangered every year by inaction on climate change.

Written by HiveOne in: News |
Sep
23
2008
0

Danish island cut its carbon footprint by a staggering 140%

Isle of plenty

In the past 10 years, one Danish island has cut its carbon footprint by a staggering 140%. Now, with a simple grid of windfarms, solar panels and sheep, it’s selling power to the mainland and taking calls from Shell.

  • Robin McKie
  • The Observer

 

The Danish island of Samso is entirely self sufficient,

these huge turbines are off the isalnds southern tip. Photograph: Nicky Bonne

Jorgen Tranberg looks a farmer to his roots: grubby blue overalls, crumpled T-shirt and crinkled, weather-beaten features. His laconic manner, blond hair and black clogs also reveal his Scandinavian origins. Jorgen farms at Norreskifte on Samso, a Danish island famed for its rich, sweet strawberries and delicately flavoured early potatoes. This place is steeped in history – the Vikings built ships and constructed canals here – while modern residents of Copenhagen own dozens of the island’s finer houses.

But Samso has recently undergone a remarkable transformation, one that has given it an unexpected global importance and international technological standing. Although members of a tightly knit, deeply conservative community, Samsingers – with Jorgen in the vanguard – have launched a renewable-energy revolution on this windswept scrap of Scandinavia. Solar, biomass, wind and wood-chip power generators have sprouted up across the island, while traditional fossil-fuel plants have been closed and dismantled. Nor was it hard to bring about these changes. ‘For me, it has been a piece of cake,’ says Jorgen. Nevertheless, the consequences have been dramatic.

Ten years ago, islanders drew nearly all their energy from oil and petrol brought in by tankers and from coal-powered electricity transmitted to the island through a mainland cable link. Today that traffic in energy has been reversed. Samsingers now export millions of kilowatt hours of electricity from renewable energy sources to the rest of Denmark. In doing so, islanders have cut their carbon footprint by a staggering 140 per cent. And what Samso can do today, the rest of the world can achieve in the near future, it is claimed.

Last year, carbon dioxide reached a record figure of 384 parts per million – a rise of around 35 per cent on levels that existed before the Industrial Revolution. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that such changes could soon have a dramatic impact on the world’s weather patterns. Already, Arctic sea ice is dwindling alarmingly and scientists say the world has only a few years left to make serious carbon-output cuts before irreversible, devastating climate change ensues. Samso suggests one route for avoiding such a fate.

Everywhere you travel on the island you see signs of change. There are dozens of wind turbines of various sizes dotted across the landscape, houses have solar-panelled roofs, while a long line of giant turbines off the island’s southern tip swirl in the wind. Towns are linked to district heating systems that pump hot water to homes. These are either powered by rows of solar panels covering entire fields, or by generators which burn straw from local farms, or timber chips cut from the island’s woods.

None of these enterprises has been imposed by outsiders or been funded by major energy companies. Each plant is owned either by a collective of local people or by an individual islander. The Samso revolution has been an exercise in self-determination – a process in which islanders have decided to demonstrate what can be done to alleviate climate damage while still maintaining a comfortable lifestyle.

Consider Jorgen. As he wanders round his cowsheds, he scarcely looks like an energy entrepreneur. Yet the 47-year-old farmer is a true power broker. Apart from his fields of pumpkins and potatoes, as well as his 150 cows, he has erected a giant 1 megawatt (mw) wind turbine that looms down on his 120-hectare dairy farm. Four other great machines stand beside it, swirling in Samso’s relentless winds. Each device is owned either by a neighbouring farmer or by a collective of locals. In addition, Jorgen has bought a half share in an even bigger, 2.3mw generator, one of the 10 devices that guard the south coast of Samso and now help to supply a sizeable chunk of Denmark’s electricity.

The people of Samso were once the producers of more than 45,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide every year – about 11 tonnes a head. Through projects like these, they have cut that figure to -15,000. (That strange minus figure comes from the fact that Samsingers export their excess wind power to mainland Denmark, where it replaces electricity that would otherwise be generated using coal or gas.) It is a remarkable transformation, wrought mainly by Samsingers themselves, albeit with the aid of some national and European Union funds and some generous, guaranteed fixed prices that Denmark provides for wind-derived electricity. The latter ensures turbines pay for themselves over a six- or seven-year period. After that, owners can expect to rake in some tidy profits.

‘It has been a very good investment,’ admits Jorgen. ‘It has made my bank manager very happy. But none of us is in it just for the money. We are doing it because it is fun and it makes us feel good.’ Nor do his efforts stop with his turbines. Jorgen recently redesigned his cowshed so it requires little straw for bedding for his cattle. Each animal now has its own natty mattress. Instead, most of the straw from Jorgen’s fields is sold to his local district heating plant, further increasing his revenue and limiting carbon dioxide production. (Carbon dioxide is absorbed as crops grow in fields. When their stalks – straw – are burned, that carbon dioxide is released, but only as a gas that has been recycled within a single growing season. By contrast, oil, coal and gas are the remains of plants that are millions of years old and so, when burned, release carbon dioxide that had been sequestered aeons ago.)

Samso’s transformation owes its origin to a 1997 experiment by the Danish government. Four islands, Laeso, Samso, Aero and Mon, as well as the region of Thyholm in Jutland, were each asked to compete in putting up the most convincing plan to cut their carbon outputs and boost their renewable-energy generation. Samso won.

Although it lies at the heart of Denmark, the nation’s fractured geography also ensures the island is one of its most awkward places to reach, surrounded as it is by the Kattegat, an inlet of the North Sea. To get to Samso from Copenhagen, you have to travel by train for a couple of hours to Kalundborg and then take one of the twice daily ferries to Samso. A total of 4,100 people live here, working on farms or in hotels and restaurants. The place is isolated and compact and ideal for an experiment in community politics and energy engineering – particularly as it is low-lying and windswept. Flags never droop on Samso.

The job of setting up the Samso experiment fell to Soren Harmensen, a former environmental studies teacher, with thinning greyish hair and an infectious enthusiasm for all things renewable. Outside his project’s headquarters, at the Samso Energiakademi – a stylish, barn-like building designed to cut energy consumption to an absolute minimum – there is an old, rusting petrol pump parked on the front steps. A label on it says, simply: ‘No fuel. So what now, my love?’ Step inside and you will find no shortage of answers to that question.

Soren is a proselytiser and proud of his island’s success. However, achieving it was not an easy matter. It took endless meetings to get things started. Every time there was a community issue at stake, he would arrive and preach his sermon about renewable energy and its value to the island. Slowly, the idea took hold and eventually public meetings were held purely to discuss his energy schemes. Even then, the process was erratic, with individual islanders’ self-interest triggering conflicts. One Samsinger, the owner of a cement factory, proposed a nuclear plant be built on the island instead of wind turbines. He would then secure the concrete contract for the reactor, he reasoned. The plan was quietly vetoed.

‘We are not hippies,’ says Soren. ‘We just want to change how we use our energy without harming the planet or without giving up the good life.’

Eventually the first projects were launched, a couple of turbines on the west coast, and a district heating plant. ‘Nothing was achieved without talk and a great deal of community involvement,’ says Soren, a message he has since carried round the planet. ‘I visited Shropshire recently,’ he says. ‘A wind-farm project there was causing a huge fuss, in particular among the three villages nearest the proposed site. The planners would soothe the objections of one village, only for the other two to get angry – so local officials would turn to them. Then the first village started to object all over again. The solution was simple, of course. Give each village a turbine, I told them. The prospect of cheap electricity would have changed everyone’s minds.’ Needless to say, this did not happen.

On another visit – this time to Islay, off the west coast of Scotland – Soren found similar problems. ‘I was asked to attend a public meeting to debate the idea of turning the island into a renewable energy centre like Samso. But nearly all the speakers droned on about ideals and about climate change in general. But what people really want is to be involved themselves and to do something that can make a difference to the world. That point was entirely lost.

‘Later I found that a local Islay distillery was installing a new set of boilers. Why not use the excess water to heat local homes, I suggested. That would be far too much bother, I was told. Yet that was just the kind of scheme that could kick-start a renewable-energy revolution.’

Of course, there is something irritating about this Scandinavian certainty. Not every community is as cohesive as Samso’s, for one thing. And it should also be noted that the island’s transformation has come at a price: roughly 420m kroner – about £40m – that includes money from the Danish government, the EU, local businessmen and individual members of collectives. Thus the Samso revolution cost around £10,000 per islander, although a good chunk has come from each person’s own pockets. Nevertheless, if you multiply that sum by 60m – the population of Great Britain – you get a figure of around £600bn as the cost of bringing a similar revolution to Britain. It is utterly impractical, of course – a point happily acknowledged by Soren.

‘This is a pilot project to show the world what can be done. We are not suggesting everyone makes the sweeping changes that we have. People should cherry pick from what we have done in order to make modest, but still meaningful carbon emission cuts. The crucial point is that we have shown that if you want to change how we generate energy, you have to start at the community level and not impose technology on people. For example, Shell heard about what we were doing and asked to be involved – but only on condition they ended up owning the turbines. We told them to go away. We are a nation of farmers, of course. We believe in self-sufficiency.’

Jesper Kjems was a freelance journalist based in Copenhagen when he and his wife came to Samso for a holiday four years ago. They fell in love with the island and moved in a few months later, although neither had jobs. Jesper started playing in a local band and met Soren Harmensen, its bassist, who sold him the Samso energy dream. Today Jesper is official spokesman for the Samso project.

Outside the town of Nordby, he showed me round its district heating project. A field has been covered with solar panels mounted to face the sun. Cold water is pumped in at one end to emerge, even on a gloomy day, as seriously hot water – around 70C – which is then piped to local houses for heating and washing. On particularly dark, sunless days, the plant switches mode: wood chips are scooped by robot crane into a furnace which heats the plant’s water instead. The entire system is completely automated. ‘There are some living creatures involved, however,’ adds Jesper. ‘A flock of sheep is sent into the field every few days to nibble the grass before it grows long enough to prevent the sun’s rays hitting the panels.’

Everywhere you go, you find renewable- energy enthusiasts like Jesper. Crucially, most of them are recent recruits to the cause. Nor do planning rows concerning the sight of ‘eyesore’ wind turbines affect Samsingers as they do Britons. ‘No one minds wind turbines on Samso for the simple reason that we all own a share of one,’ says electrician Brian Kjar.

And that is the real lesson from Samso. What has happened here is a social not a technological revolution. Indeed, it was a specific requirement of the scheme, when established, that only existing, off-the-shelf renewable technology be used. The real changes have been those in attitude. Brian’s house near the southern town of Orby reveals the consequences. He has his own wind turbine, which he bought second-hand for £16,000 – about a fifth of its original price. This produces more electricity than his household needs, so he uses the excess to heat water that he keeps in a huge insulated tank that he also built himself. On Samso’s occasional windless days, this provides heating for his home when the 70ft turbine outside his house is not moving.

‘Everyone knows someone who is interested in renewable energy today,’ he adds. ‘Something like this starts with a few people. It just needs time to spread. That is the real lesson of Samso.’

 

Written by HiveOne in: News | Tags:
Sep
23
2008
0

Meet the urban sharecroppers

Meet the urban sharecroppers

Want to grow your own organic fruit and veg but don’t have the time? Why not find a neighbour who longs to garden but doesn’t have the space? Tanis Taylor reports on the rise of garden-sharing schemes

  • The Guardian

It was a small notice, in between the ads for childminding and English lessons. “Free gardening. I will cultivate an abundant vegetable plot for you in your garden and we will share the produce 50/50.” Then a number.

When I got home I looked at my garden – unused, unloved, under wood chip. I looked at Google Earth. Almost half of the 3.1m households in London have a garden. Put together, they would occupy an area roughly the size of the Isle of Wight, and could insulate us against food price hikes and keep us all in fresh vegetables. Most are lawns or crazy paving.

The idea of garden-sharing began in cities, among people who wanted to grow fruit and vegetables to eat but didn’t have the time, space or confidence. The most obvious solution was to pool resources; for knowledgeable people with time on their hands, but little space, to help the time-poor; and for those – often elderly – with large, unmanageable gardens to get labour in exchange for yield.

It started informally with flat dwellers annexing the odd flower bed and gradually it grew. Communal gardens cropped up, gardening groups emerged. Fritz Haeg created an edible estate in the front gardens of a Southwark tower block. Projects such as the Tavistock Garden Share Alliance and pilot schemes such as LandFit and Swapaplot paired up unused gardens with the green-fingered. Suddenly there was a blush of Yahoo message groups, adverts in the local library, communal street sheds and action days. People began to share support and tips at first, then labour, compost, watering duties and harvests. Sales of vegetable seeds overtook those of flowers for the first time since the second world war.

The GroFun (Growing Real Organic Food in Urban Neighbourhoods) project in Bristol encourages members to pitch in on each other’s gardens and, in exchange, can call an “action day” for help in their own garden. Rich Andersen and Valentina Cavallini, self-confessed plant killers, posted an email on the GroFun Yahoo message board for help with their garden. On a sunny Saturday, 10 members set about making raised beds from salvaged bed slats, planting, digging and showing them what to do with their seedlings. They were not experts but they all pitched in and by sunset Anderson and Cavallini had a workable garden with a dozen tomato plants, eight potato and six broccoli seedlings.

“We would never have done it alone. For people like us who haven’t done gardening before, there’s that barrier of how am I going to start?” says Anderson. “Here you have a pool of people who basically break the back of setting up a garden for veggie growing. And then you just have to maintain and care for it.” The group then becomes a resource, for questions and support.

“Originally, the idea was to have each member producing a single crop that could be swapped systematically,” explains Nadia Hillman, GroFun founder. But, as she realised, garden-sharing resists administration. It is organic and unorganised (as opposed to disorganised). When harvests happen, members are simply alerted to “tomato yield” or “spinach!” via a Yahoo post.

In London, where locals retain a cautious distrust of their neighbours and face greater space constraints, project Food Up Front concentrates on the front garden. Often overlooked or concreted over, the front garden’s orientation can be better than the back: it is highly visible, therefore more sociable, and if you go on holiday you can easily get a neighbour to water the plants without ever having to exchange keys.

Residents are assigned a local street rep and given a starter kit, guidance, some high-yield seeds and access to the Project Dirt messageboard, where they can arrange to share watering duties, swap seedlings and plot-hop with members in their area. “Some 47% of members had never grown food before,” says co-founder Sebastian Mayfield. “We encourage them over that initial confidence hump. After that they go off-piste, join up with each other and strike out on their own.” The movement has 220 members and has engulfed entire streets of south-east London. One neighbour grows potatoes in another’s border; and every Monday and Thursday a group of Streatham volunteers work the garden of an arthritis sufferer – growing tomatoes, brassicas, salad greens such as chard and sorrel, potatoes, cabbage and runner beans, and sharing the crops.

“It’s very much a community effort,” says Maya Matthews, a Streatham volunteer. “You don’t know anything when you start out but you’re with like-minded people and you all pitch in and work it out together.” At pub nights, residents discuss peculiarly urban concerns such as how to grow potatoes on concrete (a compost bag, turning up the edges as the shoots grow); why an Ikea container on wheels makes the perfect raised bed (you can wheel it around to chase the sun) and the trials of citrus-growing on a west-facing high-rise.

The advantages of garden sharing are evident. It’s empowering to reconnect – not just with the soil, but with your community. And to rely on neighbours rather than the hegemony of a supermarket chain that imports 85% of its food (and keeps only three days’ worth in store). With household bills rising, fuel prices soaring and washed bags of salad at £1.49, it’s a good idea to be able to supplement the supermarket shop locally, and cheaply. “The benefits are enormous,” says Hillman. “You learn skills, enjoy a better quality of life, get outdoors and meet your neighbours. You get to stand in your garden and pick fresh tomatoes rather than sitting in traffic on your way to Sainsbury’s. Plus, we will have the edge in an energy-scarce future when everybody else has to learn how to be self-sustaining.”

Community entrepreneurs such as Julie Brown of Growing Communities envisage a future of urban market gardens, a patchwork of micro sites that will supply boroughs with fresh fruit and vegetables for box-schemes from our own backyards. We did it in wartime Britain when concerted communities boosted food production by 91%. We could do it again. We could go out to the garden, brush off the wood chip, and utter that four-letter, most un-British of expletives: “Help”.

Written by HiveOne in: News | Tags:

Powered by WordPress, conserio and xoppla. The Buckmaker Magazine