UKC

Es Tresidder is a regular UKC contributor and an environmental consultant. He has written a thought provoking article on climate change and the relationship between climbing and carbon emissions.

In this article Es interviews several climbing companies and well known climbing figures, such as Yvon Chouinard from Patagonia, as well as making his own case for reducing air travel in Europe.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=48885

In reply to UKC News:

180g per km. If I do 500km on my 40l tank then that's 90kg of CO2?Twice the weight of the petrol that has been burnt? Am I stupid or is someone taking the piss here?
Pete

In reply to whistler:
Turns out that I am stupid. You learn something everyday.
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/how-to-turn-8-p
Still think it's green propaganda rubbish...

In reply to whistler:

>"CO2"

Perhaps the o2 bit of co2 just appears out of thin air.

In reply to UKC News: Days are numbered? I guess that will be incremental. The poor having less days than the rich.

In reply to UKC News: I thought that this was an excellent non-preaching and open contribution to the question facing climbers. What frightens me is how few climbers I know are willing to change anything despite them all being generally well informed. I guess we need to pass some sort of threshold where there are enough climbers saying "can't we get to Chamonix by train?" or "Maybe a 3-day trip to rodellar isn't really on?" so that it starts to become socially awkward to suggest such things. Personally I'm fed up of listening to people bragging about great Alpine/Sunrock weekends that they've had, like its is somehow more adventurous to fly somewhere.

The difficulty is that its all so vague - I mean what's acceptable? Can you say that taking four flying holidays a year is unacceptable while still taking one yourself?

I guess I'd just like to see it becoming normal for people to consider the environmental cost when deciding what and how many holidays to take. I'd certainly like to hear more people grumbling about 2 and 3 day trips.

I'd also like to ask Es (or anyone else) about his views on carbon offsetting when you fly. Does that make it all alright?

In reply to Dave Musgrove Jnr:



IMHO - no. But it's better than not offsetting at all.

If you see what I mean. It's no good the developed world running around doing business as usual, thinking that a small cost to reduce a carbon emission elsewhere will make it okay. This is for a number of reasons, but the umbrella reason is that even offsetting is not sustainable and that ultimately emissions have to be reduced well below levels that offsetting will 'reach' (if it can be called reaching, the details of offsetting, and what an offset is is a whole new article). So it's a very short term, stop gap solution, often with dubious reduction credentials.

But as said, better than not offsetting at all.

In reply to ClimberEd: Agreed. IMO Offsetting does not make it OK, but it's better than doing the travelling and not offsetting at all.

In reply to UKC News:

Sorry for being pedantic, but if you are cycling to Stanage, Scotland or Chamonix you will produce CO2 at a rate of maybe 1.5-4 l/min. Aerobic metabolims means consuming O2 and generating CO2.

In reply to Dave Musgrove Jnr:

I think it would help if mags stopped producing features about weekend trips which require flights abroad. It's one of the reasons why I stopped reading whichever mag it was that Bernard Newman edited - the complete head-in-the-sand, nothing-to-do-with-me-gov attitude is, to my mind, completely at odds with the idea that climbers care about the environment.

In reply to hwackerhage:

and plane passengers don't breathe?

In reply to hwackerhage:



Not excess CO2 though. Unless you had a 'fossil' breakfast.

In reply to tony:
Well said. I still have a subscription to Climber as it's a good mag but they need to get away from promoting this idea of short-haul, short-break trips. Don't know how many people actually do lots of trips of this type but it's not helpful that they're being promoted in this way. Of course if you only do one short trip a year, in transportation CO2 terms it's no different to doing one long trip. Difference is that you're unlikely to consider going by train if going for only a few days. Might be more expensive (though not necessarily) but a far better way to travel in many respects.

What about all the travelling round the UK that us climbers do? Suppose you do 40 return trips a year averaging 250 miles each, so 10,000 miles. That's for a fairly active climber who does a mix of mostly day and some weekend trips and lives somewhere like Birmingham (clearly a Sheffielder who mostly climbs in the Peaks will do a lot fewer miles whereas a Londoner will probably do a lot more). If the car does 180g/km, that would be 1,800kg. That's two return flights to Chamonix. This surprised me - I thought the UK emissions would be quite a bit higher. Not a license to drive all over the place back home but does put things in perspective.

Of course it's not quite so simple. Every car journey will create incremental C02, whereas an extra passenger on a plane will not make much difference since the plane is going to fly anyway (a bit more weight to carry). On the other hand, if people stopped flying so much, there would be fewer planes in the air due to lower demand.

In reply to ClimberEd:

OK we fly too much, but climbers are a tiny proportion of fliers. Ever been to India or China? They will become the main CO2 emitters (we can't stop their economic growth, nor should we). Global, international, mass-level legislation and technological fixes will be needed before any dent in the problem is made - a few climbers talking about one holiday instead of 4 makes not the slightest difference.

In reply to UKC News: One word - Cows.

They belch out more methane, which is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, but more and more forest is being chopped / burnt to provide farm land for cows. If we really wanted to slow things down we should stop eating beef and drinking milk.

This reminds me of the arguement about using peat in the garden, the majority of peat by something like 90% is used in electricity generation plants. Yet this is very rarely mentioned.

In reply to jhenryb:

mail me. we can discuss

In reply to ClimberEd:

Sorry, I was tired.

The point is that you have to show leadership in these things, and change. There is no point in asking anyone else to take action if you're not taking action yourself. Even if it seems like the action you take will have minimal effect.

The bigger picture is that we can't expect China, India et al. to do anything if we aren't doing anything about our own actions as they'll just throw the 'per capita' (how do you do italics on here) argument at us.

In reply to jhenryb: China and India's expectations of what a middle class life style is, is based upon what they see Europeans and North Americans doing. It's no surprise that budget airlines have taken off in India.

In reply to krikoman:
Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but there's much less of it, so the greenhouse contribution from methane is less than a quarter of that of CO2. Cutting down on beef and dairy products would make a small difference, but is a less effective approach than reducing use of fossil fuels.

Chopping down forests is a double hit - it reduces the amount of CO2 sequestered from the atmosphere, and, as you say, much of the tropical deforestation is for cattle ranching, so it's a bad thing. There are considerable efforts being put into reducing the amount of beef sourced from such deforested land, with many of the major supermarkets and users of beef such as McDonalds signing up to agreements to refuse uncertified beef. However, enforcing the certification process is no easy task.

In reply to ClimberEd:

Been thinking about this overnight, and I agree that it's up to each individual up to a point, but it's just not enough to add up to a difference against the hugely stacked odds.

I'm actually pretty green: I walk everywhere (work, shops, climbing wall, gym), I fly less as a result of changing my job, I offset my carbon when I do, I voted green last time (along with about 200 other people in my ward). But it doesn't add up to leadership, does it? It's pissing into a raging wind. And if I hadn't been to India or China in the past, or seen >1 million Americans take to the skies every day, I might think I was making a difference.

Lobbying for gov't spending on technological mop up schemes is, I think, the best hope.

In reply to jhenryb:

Government action isn't going to be restricted to mopping-up schemes - they are untried and untested and there are no guarantees they'll deliver the reductions needed. There are going to be lots of different schemes needed, from sequestration (the posh word for mopping up) to overall emissions reductions. One of the tools in the emissions reduction armoury will be a proper costing of the carbon emissions in the price of whatever goods or services you're buying. In the case of flights, the fares will be increased in order to reflect the cost of the carbon emissions. Like it or not, the days of cheap flights will be coming to an end soon.

It's also possible that we'll all be given an individual carbon account, so we have an allocation of emissions each year. It'll be up to the individual to decide how they want to spend that allocation - one round-the-world trip would probably use the lot, so you'd have to but further allocations just to let you get by with daily use of electricity etc. For a fair and equitable international solution, the individual carbon allowance would be considerably less than we each currently use, on average, in the UK.

In reply to tony:
All sounds good to me, but it doesn't solve growth in Asia. I'm talking about global efforts - you know, those 200 ships/rigs in the oceans fixing CO2 from the atmoshphere.

In reply to jhenryb:

None of which have been proved to work yet - it's all very speculative at the moment.

In reply to tony:

Why don't we bring the debate back to UK climbing. You could have UKC buses for winter climbing to the north, buses to Stanage etc.

Climbers do a lot of travel. Limiting the amount of it or making it more efficient would be good.

In reply to tony:
Indeed, that's why we need more investment in research. If a big fix could be made to work, it's problem solved.

In reply to Donald M:

These services already exist - it's called public transport.

In reply to jhenryb:

How about if Donald added the words "reliable", "frequent" and "affordable" to his suggestion?

I am certainly reluctant to fly on climbing trips but often find it is the only practical choice*. This is due to cost (train was 4 times more when I was planning my summer alps trip) but also ease of booking. I can book flights to Geneva in about 5mins. Trains will take about an hour if I am not fussy about cost and about 3 months if I am due to the cheap fares on different railways coming out at different times.

*I realize this is a cop out and I simple shouldn't go. The thinking behind my decision to go anyway, and that of thousands like me, is basically the reason we are totally screwed. Fortunately I don't think the full effects of climate change will come about until I am dead. I feel sorry for people being born today.

In reply to MG:

Would you use the train to Fort William? Probably not at the service is so slow due to the complete lack of investment over the last 80 years and the route it takes.

You could take the train to Aviemore though. It's not that expensive, fairly frequent and in my experience very reliable.

Anyone who skied in Scotland in the 80s will remember the huge number of coaches. Now it's all cars. Nothing to do with the skiing more the decline of clubs and rise in individualism.

In reply to Donald M:

Depends how long the trip is for. The train is a nice option for a long weekend in Knoydart, Rum, etc. (from Mallaig), and it's also the only practical transport option for doing end-to-end cycling in the Hebrides.

Price is a bigger barrier than speed - the scenery lets you forgive the latter.

In reply to tony:


I don't know when they are scheduled to come in to force, but the company that I work for is already including forecasts of the "Carbon Reduction Charge" and "Climate Change Levy" in its estimation of the future running cost of new IT infrastructure. Presumably these costs will eventually filter down to customers.

Will those charges also be applied to airlines? As far as I know they don't currently pay tax on aviation fuel - the argument apparently being that a country could turn itself in to an international air travel "hub" by choosing not to levy such a tax. So could climate change taxes (or the lack thereof) end up being another factor which encourages international corporations to relocate operations, like cheap labour is now?

In reply to UKC News:

What an utter cesspit of myopic drivel! Articles of this ilk serve only to highlight the evangelical zeal of the envoronmental lobby (or is it also to generate a suitable nationial mindset leading to the benefit those who profit from green industry?).

If were are to take the IPCC figures as given, reducing atmospheric CO2 is going to take real pain on a global scale. Forget meat production and intensive agriculture, forget mass transportation, forget any notion of quality of life resembling 20th century, never mind 21st. Get used to going hungry and watching your children's life expectancy fall because if the IPCC are correct, we have not the time to 'invent' or restructure our way around these changes. Yet if everyone in the UK stopped using anyform of motorised transport of any form tomorrow, there would be less then 0.4% reduction in global CO2 output.

Suggestions we should limit the odd quick flight abroad, a few less stag weekends, cycle 20 miles instead of driving and the like bear more in common with techniques of subversion employed by the Christian (or Islamic) faith in the Dark Ages than to any modern scientific dogma. They will have absolutely no effect on global CO2 whatsoever. The little people cannot solve this problem, and will not solve this problem. Anyone trying to convince you that you can only have another agenda.

Environmental consultants are the next HSE: self-perpetuating but ultimately futile. Get on with your lives people and ignore these people, even if they do have to make a living.

In reply to Toccata:

"Yet if everyone in the UK stopped using anyform of motorised transport of any form tomorrow, there would be less then 0.4% reduction in global CO2 output."

Which would be 0.4% more than would occur if the whole world continued to take the kind of attitude you seem to have (ie We're f*cked anyway, so I'm going to make sure I get mine before the whole sh*thouse goes up - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not apologising for the assumption yet on the basis of your post).

Surely if the IPCC figures are to be taken seriously then it's already a case of EVERY reduction is absolutely necessary... My impression of this article was that it was about people squaring themselves up with their own personal conscience and doing what they can in their own lives... that's BEFORE they start thinking about governments. I'm afraid in light of that your comments sound like they come from a pretty weak character.If we could talk about it face to face you'd have a better chance of explaining your point of view fully, but such is the nature of internet forums. But Jeez, man, take some responsibility for yourself, nevermind what the rest of the world is doing. That's how all things start...

Tony

In reply to Toccata:
Only the deeply dim would think that actions taken in the UK will, on their own, make any difference. However, if we don't take actions, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should make any difference, and under such a scenario, we really are f*cked.

So, it's essential that actions are taken on an international basis - coordinated and equitable to all. The extent of the pain, as you put it, will depend on the depth of actions taken now, rather than later. The option of not doing anything will only lead to a worse outcome than if action is taken.

In reply to TonyG:

Although I don't like Toccata's presentation of the facts I think he is right. To me, reduction measures look pretty much doomed to have no significant effect until it is too late (ie major climate change with widespread famines, sea level rises etc all leading to serious political unrest). Either we are lucky and the system somehow self-adjusts to a new equilibrium or some major human intervention to remove and store greenhouse gases or otherwise create cooling is required. Seems to me the most effective action is to lobby for increases in research funding in these areas.

In reply to Offwidth:

I agree with you Offwidth. The outlook seems pretty bleak. But what is there beyond normal people? To use the "little people" terms that Toccatta used, what on earth should make us even imagine that governments will do the necessary if all the "little people" are carrying on business as usual and not giving a damn because they already believe it's pointless? As I said, all things have to start somewhere, and change on a large scale rarely just conjures itself out of thin air. If people believe that climate change is a reality, then they have to make the simple choice on their own between dealing with their own conscience or carrying on in bad faith.

In reply to Offwidth:

If greenhouse gases continue to increase, temperatures will continue to increase. There will be further tipping points which will accelerate the rate of warming - decreasing ice cover, methane emissions from thawing permafrost and ocean methane hydrates in particular. I'm not quite sure how you summon up any luck from that lot.


The most effective route remains emissions reductions - what is in doubt is the most effective and equitable way of achieving the required reductions. Trying to hang out for some miracle by way of sequestration or solar radiation management is just sticking your head in the sand. That's not to say that there may not be a need for such measures, but there's no indication that they can be implemented at a quicker rate than reducing emissions.

In reply to Toccata: next it'll be a government conspiracy eh?

"if the IPCC are correct, we have not the time to 'invent' or restructure our way around these changes"

It amuses me (though I disagree with) the way you've taken the IPCC's estimates then decided that in your opinion we can't adapt. Because it goes against a lot of the climate, technological and industrial research that currently exists. There are also many examples of where we can engineer ourselves out of situations (not that I'm saying its the way forward).

I've seen the "little people" make conscious decisons at a community scale that benefit them enormously, as well as making them much more resilient to possible future changes. Entirely self motivated. I'll happily agree that we'll see a minimal reduction in carbon from reducing our transport use but what exactly qualifies you to say that the little people won't solve this?
And if I think individuals can make a difference, what is my other agenda?

In reply to Toccata:


You an oil industry lobbyist?

In reply to UKC News: I presume the CO2 output for the car to the alps, is taking into account carbon emitted during the vehicle's construction. As it seems a huge amount for a return trip to chamonix, more than the mass of fuel the vehicle would use? Anyone?

In reply to summo:

Nope, that's just the running cost, though the exact number depends on how efficient your car is.

Petrol is made of Carbon and Hydrogen, where each bit of carbon weighs 12 units and each Hydrogen weighs 1. Oxygen (from the air) weighs 16 per bit - so when all the carbon in petrol is turned into CO2 it does indeed weigh a lot more than it used to.

In reply to summo:

No, if you read the article, it's based on average UK car CO2 emissions of 180g CO2/km. The mass of the CO2 emissions is greater than the mass of fuel because of the greater mass of the oxygen in CO2 compared with the lower mass of hydrogen, which is the other main element in petrol.

In reply to es:

Yes but plane passengers produce much less carbon dioxide. It is about 0.25 l/min at rest. But even if you cycle 100 km in 4 h you'll only produce 4 h * 60 min * 2 l/min = 1680 l CO2. 500 L CO2 is roughly 1 kg and thus you'll produce very roughly 3 kg CO2 for 100 km on your bike.

In a car you'll generate 2.3 kg CO2 per litre of petrol and you'll need about 8 l of petrol per 100 km. Thus you'll produce roughly 18 kg of CO2 (no wonder because you have to burn fuel to carry all that metal around with you).

To put it all together you'll produce roughly 6 times as much CO2 in a car then when cycling the same distance on your bike*/**.

*Unless I or the various quickcheck google sources have messed up these calculations.
**Btw did you cycle to Switzerland from Scotland when you did the Eiger?

In reply to UKC News: we are on our way out of the last ice age its getting warmer anyways.

In reply to UKC News: Can someone explain why carbon figures for plane and train travel are per passenger? Surely a plane with 500 people on can't produce 500 times as much carbon as one with 1 on?

In reply to Mick Brinks:

They assume some average carry rate (I think it might be 80% for planes, at least McKay does in Without Hot Air, but that's off the top of my head)

In reply to ClimberEd:
I agree. Politicians, T.V. celebs (including Attenborough) take note. The number of flights which take place under the label "essential" could be minimised at a stroke.
Meeting another world leader, making an eco-documentary, adopting a kid from a third world country - these are the people who are in the news and make it seem acceptable to jet off 5000 miles at the drop of a hat.

Until they lead by example, how can you expect the average punter to think twice about an all inclusive seven nights in Turkey for £140?

In reply to UKC News:

I don't profess to know the answer to the global dilemma but am concerned enough to try and do my bit with minor lifestyle changes and choices including offsetting when I fly. However, I really doubt that we as individuals by our limited efforts will be any more succesful than King Canute at turning the tide of Global Warming.

I think short term impacts could be made by more robust action at government level but even then only if urgent international agreements could be made and implemented and I really can't see that happening any time soon.

My faith is in the scientific community coming up with a solution to reverse the trend. For anyone really interested, and with a bit of time to spare it may be worth reading the transcript of the 2007 Dimbleby Lecture given by Dr Craig Ventner. It at least gave me some cause for optimism. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/12_december/05/...

Persevere with the text, it gets more positive and relevent towards the end.

In reply to UKC News: Its ok people, with the massive economic downturn production has been slashed globally cutting carbon emissions massively, this can be seen in a reduction of extracted hydrocarbons. If only we could do something about forest fires, cows and volcano's we could all nip to spain

In reply to UKC News:

I think you're all missing one massive but scientifically indisputable fact.

CO2 does not affect climate change in the doomsday way they have you all thinking.

Fact.

Here's how incase the oil company's/government/moneyed peoples have got to you first...

An increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should cause a temperature rise in the upper atmosphere, rather than on the earth's surface. Atmospheric temperature measurements show no increase in atmospheric temperature.

Now, get this-tables are published of GWP (Global Warming Potential) for various gases but water vapour is NOT included. Yet, we know that it has a GWP of 20 times greater than CO2.

Also note that the atmosphere contains a mere 0.036% CO2 and between 2% and 4% water vapour.

In summary, water vapour completely dominates thermal absorption. Water vapour accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect - CO2 between 4% and 8%.

The "Carbon Cycle" can be broken down as follows:

Land Respiration and photosynthesis = 120 units/year
Ocean Respiration = 110 units/year
Volcanoes = 0.1 units/year
Burning fossil fuels = 5 units/year

So don't worry about melting the planet by taking your yearly trips on foreign rock.
Its all good.

In reply to hwackerhage:

I think you may be confusing me with EsT

He's male - and can climb and run - I'm female and can only just about do either.

I'll try not to infer anything about the quality of your research from this

In reply to KKilroy:
Your mail is incorrect. Water vapour is included in all IPCC calculations on global warming precisely because it is the most significant GHG. However, precise measurements show that it is not increasing in concentration in the atmosphere. Meanwhile anthropogenic CO2 is increasing in concentration, in very good match with temperature rise.

Check out http://www.gcrio.org/ipcc/qa/09.html for example.

In reply to summo:

Of course the emitted CO2 will exceed the mass of the fuel. For every carbon atom, two oxygen atoms are extracted from the atmosphere to join it when the fuel burns.

In reply to UKC News: Thanks to everyone for all the feedback and discussion. Sorry I've not had time to come on here and answer the questions that folk have asked. Instead of doing that, which I think would end up dragging on and on, I'm going to do a live Q+A session in a couple of weeks. In this I'll start by answering the questions from the two forum threads then take any questions that come up on the day.

Cheers, Es.

In reply to Martin W:

Yes they will - from 2012 on.

In reply to es:

Sorry for confusing you with the real McCoy!. Anyway it is a good discussion.

In reply to UKC News:


As per the "get rid of the cow" suggestion above, I'm going with the meat minimisation approach.

Livestock production, globally, produces as much greenhouse gases as ALL the trains planes and automobiles in the world.

This was calculated in a major UN study a couple of years ago, titled "Livestock's Long Shadow".

In any "environmental footprint" calculator, vegetarians will have half the footprint of regular meat eaters.

I expect the usual vociferous (carnivorous?) flurry of outrage at these statements - but that's just from people who can't bear to admit those bleeding heart hippies are right.

In reply to ttmor: A fair point, we need to eat a lot less meat. Having said that, not all animals are equal in respect of their carbon footprint, and not all fertile areas can easily produce food directly without an animal intermediary.

The elephant in the room, as always, is dairy. As a committed carnivore, we really have to wean ourselves (ho ho) off the amount of milk we consume. It's a horrendously inefficient use of resources, even by the standards of intensive meat production.

In reply to toad:

It's true about the animals and areas.... but yeah, cows and dairy are the real culprits.

Hell if everyone could agree to just have a couple of meat-free days a week it'd make a significant impact.

In reply to Es Tresidder: What actually qualifies you as an environmental consultant? I once knew an american lass who claimed to be a vegan and loved bacon

In reply to muppetfilter:

Why don't you read about him, and look at his website etc.