Europeans overwhelmingly consider the environmental impact of products they buy

Four out of five Europeans say that they consider the environmental impact of the products they buy reveals a Eurobarometer survey published today. Environmental consideration was highest in Greece where more than 9 in 10 of those surveyed said the impact of a product on the environment plays an important aspect in their purchasing decisions. In the same survey Europeans were evenly divided about claims by producers on the environmental performance of their products while nearly half thought that a combination of increased taxes on environmentally-damaging products and decreased taxes on environmentally-friendly products would best promote eco-friendly products. There was also strong support for retailers to play a role in promoting environmentally-friendly products and for mandatory carbon labelling.

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "The battle against climate change must be fought on all fronts and everyone must contribute. It is not only the remit of companies and governments; consumers also have their part to play. By purchasing environmentally and climate-friendly products individual customers send the right signal to producers who respond in turn by producing more eco-friendly products."

Impact of products on the environment important

In the Eurobarometer survey published today on Europeans' attitude towards sustainable consumption and production, an overwhelming majority of Europeans (83%) said the impact of a product on the environment plays an important aspect in their purchasing decisions. With 92% in favour Greeks were more likely to consider the environmental impact of the products they buy while the Czechs were the least likely (62%).

Mixed views on claims by companies on the environmental performance of their products

Europeans surveyed were evenly divided about claims by producers about the environmental performance of their products with 49% trusting the claims and 48% not trusting such claims. The Dutch were more likely to trust these claims (78%) while Bulgarians were the least likely (26%).

Higher taxes on environmentally-damaging products and lower taxes on environmentally-friendly products

Some 46% of EU citizens also thought that the best way to promote environmentally-friendly products would be to increase taxes on environmentally-damaging products and decrease taxes on environmentally-friendly products. Britons were most in favour of such a double taxation system while the Maltese much less so (28%) preferring instead reducing taxes on environmentally-friendly products only.

The important role of retailers in promoting environmentally-friendly products

Those surveyed were strongly in favour of retailers promoting environmentally-friendly products. Approximately half of EU citizens (49%) thought that they should increase the visibility of such products on their shelves or have a dedicated green corner in their store. A third (31%) of Europeans said that the best way for retailers to promote green products is for them to provide better information to consumers.
Strong support for carbon footprint labels

Despite just under half of Europeans saying that ecolabels play an important role in their purchasing decisions and only 1 in 10 saying the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions created by a product should feature on environmental labels, some 72% of EU citizens thought that a label indicating a product's carbon footprint should be mandatory in the future. Attitudes on the subject varied widely between Member States with the Czechs the least in favour of such labelling (47%) and Greeks wholeheartedly behind the idea with 90% in favour.

A carbon footprint label would show the total amount of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide – emitted during its lifetime, from production to disposal. At present no such scheme exists Europe-wide, but at the December 2008 Environment Council ministers invited the Commission to study the introduction of carbon footprint labelling.


More information Sustainable consumption and production web pages: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm

Richest 10% create bigger ecological footprint

The richest 10 percent of Canadians create a bigger ecological footprint – a whopping 66 percent higher – than the average Canadian household, says a new study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).

The study, Size Matters: Canada’s Ecological Footprint, By Income, is the first Canadian study to link national income and consumption patterns with global warming.

“When we look at where the environmental impact of human activity comes from, we see that size really does matter,” says Hugh Mackenzie, CCPA research associate. “Higher-income Canadians create a much bigger footprint than poorer Canadians.”

Among the study’s findings:

The richest 10% of Canadian households create an ecological footprint of 12.4 hectares per capita – nearly two-and-a-half times that of the poorest 10%.
While the size of an individual’s ecological footprint increases as household income increases, the real jump is at that top 10% level. When it comes to environmental impact, it really is a case of the rich and the rest of us.

The bottom 60% of Canadian households’ ecological footprint is below the national average but even the lowest-income Canadians create an ecological footprint that is several times the average for those in poorer nations.

“All Canadians share responsibility for global warming,” says co-author Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence. “But wealthier Canadians are leaving behind a disproportionately larger footprint – and should be expected to make a disproportionate contribution to its reduction.”

Mackenzie says the study contains lessons for policy makers: “Clearly ecological impact is stongly related to income. Greenhouse gas emissions policies should reflect that reality or risk being less effective and unfair to low- and middle-class Canadians.”

Swedish SEKAB will introduce the world's first verified sustainable ethanol

Swedish SEKAB announced this week that it is the first company in the world to supply verified sustainable ethanol. The ethanol comes specifically from Brazilian sugar cane and is verified for its environmental, social, and climate perspectives.

The criteria are in line with demands highlighted in the ongoing processes being led by organisations like the UN, EU, ILO and a number of NGOs. The requirements assure that the ethanol isn’t produced using child labor, slave labor or destruction of the rain forests. Other requirements are directed at wages, working conditions, and labor laws.

In terms of the climate, the demands will result in a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from farming, production and transport by at least 85 per cent compared with gasoline.
An independent international verification company will audit all production units twice a year to ensure the established criteria are met.

"The first harvest of sugarcane for verified sustainable ethanol has just begun," explains Anders Fredriksson. "Over 100 000 Swedish owners of E85 cars can begin filling up with verified sustainable ethanol in August."

Biofuels could boost global warming, finds study

Growing and burning many biofuels may actually raise rather than lower greenhouse gas emissions, a new study led by Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen has shown.1 The findings come in the wake of a recent OECD report, which warned nations not to rush headlong into growing energy crops because they cause food shortages and damage biodiversity.

Crutzen and colleagues have calculated that growing some of the most commonly used biofuel crops releases around twice the amount of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O) than previously thought - wiping out any benefits from not using fossil fuels and, worse, probably contributing to global warming. The work appears in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and is currently subject to open review.

'The significance of it is that the supposed benefits of biofuel are even more disputable than had been thought hitherto,' Keith Smith, a co-author on the paper from the University of Edinburgh, told Chemistry World. 'What we are saying is that [growing many biofuels] is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse.'

Crutzen, famous for his work on nitrogen oxides and the ozone layer, declined to comment before the paper is officially published. But the paper suggests that microbes convert much more of the nitrogen in fertiliser to N2O than previously thought - 3 to 5 per cent or twice the widely accepted figure of 2 per cent used by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

For rapeseed biodiesel, which accounts for about 80 per cent of the biofuel production in Europe, the relative warming due to N2O emissions is estimated at 1 to 1.7 times larger than the quasi-cooling effect due to saved fossil CO2 emissions. For corn bioethanol, dominant in the US, the figure is 0.9 to 1.5. Only cane sugar bioethanol - with a relative warming of 0.5 to 0.9 - looks like a viable alternative to conventional fuels.

Some previous estimates had suggested that biofuels could cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to 40 per cent.2

Global picture

The IPCC's N2O conversion factor is derived using data from plant experiments. But Crutzen takes a different approach, using atmospheric measurements and ice core data to calculate the total amount of N2O in the atmosphere. He then subtracts the level of N2O in pre-industrial times - before fertilizers were available - to take account of N2O from natural processes such as leguminous plants growing in forests, lightning, and burn offs.

Assuming the rest of the N2O is attributable to newly-fixed nitrogen from fertilizer use, and knowing the amount of fertilizer applied globally, he can calculate thecontribution of fertilizers to N2O levels.

The results may well trigger a rethink by the IPCC, says Smith. 'Should we go along the road of adding up the experimental evidence for each of the processes or are we better off using the global numbers?'

Critical reception

But other experts are critical of Crutzen's approach. Simon Donner, a nitrogen researcher based at Princeton University, US, says the method is elegant but there is little evidence to show the N2O yield from fertilized plants is really as high as 3-5 per cent. Crutzen's basic assumption, that pre-industrial N2O emissions are the same as natural N2O emissions, is 'probably wrong', says Donner.

One reason he gives is that farmers plant crops in places that have nitrogen rich soils anyway. 'It is possible we are indirectly increasing the "natural" source of N2O by drawing down the soil nitrogen in the world's agricultural regions,' he explains.

Others dispute the values chosen by Crutzen to calculate his budget. Stefan Rauh, an agricultural scientist at the Instituteof Agricultural Economics and Farm Management in Munich, Germany, says some of the rates for converting crops into biofuel should be higher. 'If you use the other factors you get a little net climate cooling,' he said.

Meanwhile, a report prepared by the OECD for a recent Round Table on Sustainable Development questions the benefits of first generation biofuels and concludes that governments should scrap mandatory targets.

Richard Doornbosch, the report's author, says both the report and Crutzen's work highlights the importance of establishing correct full life-cycle assessments for biofuels. 'Without them, government policies can't distinguish between one biofuel and another - risking making problems worse,' said Doornbosch.

Zoe Corbyn via rsc.org

1 PJ Crutzen et al, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 2007, 7, 11191
2 J Hill et al, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2006, 103, 11206 (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0604600103)

U.S. House passes green energy bill

The House of Representatives just passed an energy bill, 241-172, that includes a renewable electricity standard (RES) of 15 percent by 2020, strong lighting efficiency standards, increased incentives for investment in renewable energy, and safeguards to protect sensitive public lands from oil and gas drilling. The House failed to vote on fuel economy improvements. The RES requires utilities to obtain at least 15 percent of their power from a combination of energy efficiency and renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass energy by 2020.

“By passing the renewable electricity standard the House of Representatives has taken a real step forward in enacting the clean energy policies we need to reduce global warming pollution. This shows the House is ready to take strong action on global warming in the fall,” said Karen Wayland, legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “We need this same leadership in the conference committee. By combining a strong renewable energy standard with the Senate’s fuel economy improvements, this Congress can make a serious down payment on preventing the worst impacts of global warming.”

Measures that were not included in the House bill but must be addressed in the conference committee with the Senate to make meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and protect the environment are:

• Matching the Senate’s fuel economy improvement provision of 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
• Adequate safeguards to ensure that intensive biofuels production does not result in water pollution, habitat destruction, or loss of forests.
• A greenhouse gas standard that would require advance biofuels to emit 50 percent less global warming pollution than gasoline.

“America needs the president to sign an energy bill with a renewable electricity standard and fuel economy improvements, and strong incentives for energy efficiency. This will lead to meaningful reductions of global warming pollution and protect our natural resources,” said Wayland.

via NRDC

New Jersey governor signed the toughest U.S. global warming law

Governor Jon Corzine made New Jersey the first state to call for strict greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 in an effort to fight global warming and climate change. Corzine signed the Global Warming Response Act that mandates greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey to be cut by 16 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.

The new law also sends a message to the Bush administration, who opposes mandatory emission cuts, preferring voluntary goals instead. But that, Corzine says, is not enough. "We want to send a message to Washington. Wake up, get with the program and start doing something about greenhouse gasses," the Democratic governor told reporters.

Other states have introduced their own measures since the federal government has yet to require mandatory emission regulations. California also passed a greenhouse gas law recently that mandates emission cuts. And while it has a long term goal of cutting emissions by 80 percent in 2050, it is merely a target, and not enforceable like that of the New Jersey law.

Cleaner skies with Easyjet "Ecojet"

British low cost carrier Easyjet has unveiled it’s “Easyjet EcoJet” which they claim can reduce CO2 Emissions by 50% by 2015.

EasyJet said it was in discussions with Boeing and Airbus – the world's largest plane manufacturers – and engine maker Rolls-Royce about producing a next generation of green aircraft.

The easyJet 'ecoJet', crafted by two qualified aeronautical engineers employed by the airline, features "open rotor" engines that will produce 25% less carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre flown than the airline's current Airbus planes.

It will cut fuel burn by a further 15% with wings and fuselage constructed from lighter aluminium composite material. A further 10% will be saved by slower inflight speed and, in a development not linked to the aircraft, changes to air traffic control across Europe.

Boeing and Airbus, whose order books and production lines are full due to a glut of orders, would be able to produce a new plane from scratch within eight years according to Easyjet chief executive.

Climate change is a serious problem that affects us all. There is strong evidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases are changing the world's climate. The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2), produced when we burn fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas for energy.

Over 40 per cent of CO2 emissions in the UK come directly from what we do as individuals; for example, heating and using electricity in our homes - and driving vehicles. Flights are the next biggest source of individuals’ CO2 emissions.

Everyone contributes to climate change

Everyone has a carbon footprint - it's your own personal measure of how much carbon dioxide you create and how much you contribute to climate change.

Calculate your carbon footprint!

The Act on CO2 calculator is currently seeing an overwhelming response and we're working to fix the problems you may be experiencing. Please bear with us and visit again later today. Thank you for your interest and patience.

Use the Act on CO2 calculator to find out what your carbon footprint is. You'll also get a personalised action plan with recommendations about how you can help tackle climate change - including links to further information on Directgov and the Energy Saving Trust website.