2008 carbon footprint

8.57 tonnes CO2 - CarbonFootprint.com
7.60 tonnes CO2 - Resurgence
5.49 tonnes CO2 - Energy Saving Trust
5.27 tonnes CO2 - ActOnCO2 (UK government's)


Back in June 2007 I wrote about my carbon footprint, as worked out on a range of calculators. Last summer I intended to re-measure and compare, but felt such an activity was better suited to dark and cold winter evenings. So my new footprint is for the calendar year - January to December 2008.

Depending on calculator used the carbon footprint ranges from 5.27 to 8.57 tonnes of carbon dioxide. Resurgence and CarbonFootprint.com's calculators endeavour to include lifestyle and industrial share as well as the energy and travel factors. When taking energy and travel alone these footprints fall into the same range as the other two, at 5.1 and 5.57 tonnes.

Two major changes from last time are using the car and having double/secondary glazing fitted. It's been interesting to see what changes they have brought.


Travel

2.46 tonnes CO2 - Resurgence
2.29 tonnes CO2 - CarbonFootprint.com
2.01 tonnes CO2 - Energy Saving Trust
1.99 tonnes CO2 - ActOnCO2

Last year my footprint was 6.3 to 7.5 tonnes CO2 annually depending on the calculator used. But when my average driving mileage of 10,000 miles pa was factored in it rose to around 9.5 tonnes!

So one plan for 2008 was to restrict mileage to 6000 pa, roughly 500 miles a month or a tankful of fuel each month. Five hundred miles sounds a lot and is a lot and in general wasn't too hard to stick to. But two long-distance trips – to Norfolk in the spring and recently to visit family in Shropshire - were all it took to push me over by 831 miles. So I failed. Or failed to stay below my target, but I did learn that lower mileage is achievable. Several times I told others or myself I couldn't afford (meaning 'spare') the petrol that month, or consciously decided I didn't really need to go/do where/whatever. Some people seemed incredulous that I was rationing my fuel use... until fuel prices went over the pound/litre rate mid summer. All future long distance travel must be managed better. Or differently. I will have to think about this.

I also have attempted being a better driver – maxing at 60 mph on dual carriageways and slower on main roads. I've tried smoother gear changes and check the car tyres monthly. I keep records of mileage done when filling the tank. All the stuff they bang on at us to do.

My 2008 travel footprint ranged between 1.99 and 2.46 tonnes for the 6831 miles. Because it's an older car (R reg), each calculation was based on a generic 1.4 litre petrol car. However the smttCO2 website calculates emissions from every model and age of car. My Peugeot 306 hatchback emits 176g CO2 per kilometre and so, for my mileage, 1.93 tonnes for the year – less but in the same range as the calculators. Probably they also incorporate factors like oil changes and service materials - fair enough.

Two years ago I signed up to TargetNeutral, a carbon offsetting project initiated by BP. I was and am sceptical about the merits and morals of offsetting carbon but then as now feel that showing willing and concern is the important point (to oil companies and politicians!). Hence, despite having paid around ten quid to 'offset' my 2+ tonnes of CO2 (shockingly cheap, carbon, innit!) I am not subtracting 2+ tonnes from my footprint. Why not? Because although TargetNeutral purchases carbon credits from projects that sound worthwhile I have no idea if their carbon figures are also being used elsewhere, ie multiple accounting.

For instance, if a wind farm was installed here in Cornwall thus removing x tonnes of CO2 pa and TargetNeutral bought these emission reductions as carbon credits, that's one thing. But should, for example, the local authorities then be able to incorporate these reductions into Cornwall's renewable energy figures? In some ways, yes, but not when an overall (eg national) picture of emissions reduction is wanted as the figure could be counted twice. Unless I've missed something! So, for now, I'll continue offsetting but not including the figure in my own footprint. The most viable current option to reduce carbon remains to reduce mileage not buy your way out.

(A few catches about TargetNeutral – you have to buy BP fuel and use a Nectar loyalty card (so your purchases are logged). And then go online once a year to confirm details and pay up. BP fuel seems to cost a little more than elsewhere but that's fine as I seem to get more mileage per tank on it.)


Energy

3.48 tonnes CO2 - Energy Saving Trust (of which 3.22 heat/0.26 appliances)
3.28 tonnes CO2 - ActOnCO2 (of which 3.06 heat/0.22 appliances)
3.28 tonnes CO2 - CarbonFootprint.com
2.63 tonnes CO2 - Resurgence

I've spent an hour getting my head around the variation in these energy footprints from different calculators. Surely all should be the same, considering the same 6113 kwh annual figure was used? Resurgence uses a conversion figure of 0.43, same as I used last time and understood to be the industry standard conversion figure.

But on a National Energy Foundation page it says that 0.537 should be used when calculating carbon footprints and is "based on a 5 year rolling average UK electricity generation mix of coal, nuclear and gas turbines, as well as renewables". And, no surprise here, 0.537 x 6113 kwh = 3.28 tonnes CO2. (Why EST's is a bit higher can remain a mystery for now! Either they add some for energy loss during transmission (sensibly) or they hadn't updated their rolling 5 year figure.)

The lower figure of 0.43 apparently is appropriate if estimating "emissions in line with Climate Change Agreements (CCAs)... or when estimating energy savings". This lower figure is "based on marginal emissions (which are usually those from high efficiency Combined Cycle Gas Turbines)". Aaah. I see. Sort of.

I thought that when I last calculated my footprint, 0.43 was seen as the conversion figure representing the average UK mix of electricity generation. But in 2008, according to ElectricityInfo.org, the average UK mix comprised coal 33%, natural gas 43.5%, nuclear 16.1%, renewables 5.5% and other 1.9% with CO2 emissions at 0.48 kg/kwh.

Ecotricity's mix includes renewables at 37.4% (up from 26% in 2007), and its CO2 emissions were 0.267 kg/kwh. I think this means I could get away with using a conversion factor of 0.267 for my annual energy use... but won't. The national availability of renewables is limited, at 5.5% (also shockingly low, innit?), and so the national share must be used however irksome it is being forced to use a rolling 5 year figure when one for 2008 is available.

So, my energy related emissions were 3.28-3.48 tonnes of which 3.06-3.22 was from hot water, heating and lighting, and 0.22-0.26 from appliances. Both figures are down from last time (3.48 and 0.38 in 2007, respectively). Quarterly usage to end December also was lower than a year ago. The double and secondary glazing were fitted in late November and early December – it will be fantastic if they are responsible for this small reduction on the heating side!

Appliance related emissions dropped more markedly – this might be because I have made every effort to switch off and unplug everything not in use – though tend to have forgetful phases with the kettle, and very unremembering with the cooker. An old anglepoise lamp also remains plugged in and switched on but that's due to its temperamentality. Otherwise all is off as much as possible. I never would have believed it could make this much difference. But all the official advice suggests doing it, so it was worth trying!


Industrial Share, Lifestyle and Other Extras

3.0 tonnes CarbonFootprint.com
2.5 tonnes Resurgence

Only Resurgence and CarbonFootprint.com's calculators included an industrial and lifestyle section.

Resurgence invites you to analyse your life by, amongst other things, income. It suggests for every £5000 of income you add a tonne of carbon, reducible only if you endeavour to buy second hand, locally made, craftsman made, repair etc. They also allocate everyone a tonne from the national share of common and public amenities. I made my lifestyle emissions 2.5 tonnes last time, and arrived at the same figure this year.

CarbonFootprint.com's worked from lifestyle questions with multiple choice answers. For example it asked whether you 'always', 'sometimes' or 'never' bought organic food. With this question and a few others I found the range of answers limiting – there was no 'mostly' to choose, and 'always' would have been a lie on my part. So after running the test again with 'fully' answers where I needed an alternative, I worked out what I believe to be my truer position – 3.0 rather than 3.14 tonnes.

Both calculations are subjective and only a guide. In time as more goods and services become carbon costed we all will start to know our true lifestyle carbon cost.

How soon will the time come that I can give a carbon cost for a batik? Not this coming year, I expect. But it remains an aim.


Water

The carbon cost of water and water industry related services isn't included in the calculators (though may be incorporated in the lifestyle sections). I haven't found a source online giving a conversion figure but have emailed South West Water to ask them.

Water carries its own cost of course – the planet is running dry from over consumption and waste of fresh water. My household water use for the year to 5 November 2008 was 34,527 litres or 94.59 litres a day. Although year on year it's down nearly 7000 litres, or 9 litres a day, when I think of it as 47 two-litre bottles full of water and lined up every day inside my house I struggle to comprehend how – where - I could be using so much!

But just as with the carbon calculators, there's also water use from lifestyle to consider. WaterFootprint.org have a calculator that gives a per capita average depending on the country you live in. Mine comes out at 694 cubic metres a year... or in litres, 694,000. Scarey! Way, way higher than household use! Their website also has a more detailed water use calculator but I need to weigh my average food intake before I can do that.



Thinking about it all

My footprint has come down since last time – sort of. Last time around I'd had to stop driving for a year, and that made it considerably lower than now. But it is near on impossible to earn a living and 'live' here without a car (mine or a friend's) because of the lack of public transport and distances from certain facilities, including train stations. So until I move, a reality of life is running a car. After 15 years I have given up trying to get the authorities to supply a bus service that extends beyond the few daily shopper buses to the local town (8 miles away), or a cycle path that will take cyclists off the dual carriageway. When I move, accessibility to public transport will feature!

At 5.27 my footprint also remains below the UK national average of 9.96 tonnes but above the government's current target footprint of 4.22 tonnes (ActOnCO2).

Residents of the South-West apparently have slightly lower Ecological footprints than the national average – 5.23 compared to 5.36 global hectares, and citizens of three local cities Plymouth, Truro and Exeter ranked 1st (ie lowest footprint), 9th and 14th respectively out of 60 British cities for their ecological footprint. So regional lifestyle is assisting me. On the personal calculator here my ecological footprint came in at 2.33 global hectares - or rather 23.3 gha (don't understand why ten times higher) but still equivalent to 1.48 planets. Down from last year's 1.9 planets... but still obviously an unsustainable amount of planet.

So, my aims for 2009 are to keep lowering usage. Keep mileage below 6000 pa, and better use of trains and buses for long distance travel. With electrical consumption I'll check what difference the double/secondary glazing has made in three months time, when the coldest of weather has passed, and then consider future options for improvement. I'll also continue measuring energy use of equipment used for batik - this is the ultimate aim of course, to give batik a carbon footprint. Water... I must figure out where those 47 bottles worth are being used!

energy update - and carbon panic!

The Beeb's online news states that a Brit's annual carbon emissions are 2.67 tonnes (US 5.6, China 1.1, India 0.3, Kenya 0.1). My latest electric stats showed 2.8 tonnes for the year - how could this be? How could I be using more than the average person just on electricity alone? How had I not sussed this before? Further research makes the difference between carbon emissions and carbon dioxide emissions apparent...

Average UK emissions of CO2 were between 9.1 and 9.5 tonnes annually in 2005 (see here and here, both quoting from same source), which translates to 2.6 tonnes carbon annually per person. I was relieved not to be worse than average, but not for long... Monbiot's article reminded me that the goal is reducing to about a tonne of CO2 equivalent pa. There's a long way to go.

My electric usage seems to have stabilised at 2.7 to 2.8 tonnes CO2 annually (to work out yours multiply your total kwh by 0.43 for kgCO2, then divide by 1000 for tonnes CO2. Or see Carbon Trust for more info). There's not much more switching off of unused or unnecessary appliances and lights, or other chipping away I can do. It's time for substantial changes... and investment.

A joiner has advised that all my single glaze windows can be converted to double glaze - they are well-made wooden windows, only 14 or so years old and in good condition. I'm just waiting for the quote now. The past two years I'd put up temporary double glazing film, like polythene taped to the frame, and they made such a difference to heat retention that double glazing is a must. Can't think why I've delayed so long (other than house selling intentions). The studio has had lined curtains as well as blinds for the past two years, and a thermal-backed blind arrived yesterday for the (double glazed) skylight. Before the winter I want to get lined curtains up in every room.

But still all this won't be enough. Especially if Peak Gas is on the horizon, never mind Peak Oil. Paul Mobbs, whose talk on Energy Beyond Oil I went to last week, suggested 58% of domestic energy consumption goes on space heating, with water heating at 24%, lighting and appliances at 12% and cooking at 6%. My house is all electric, heating is from storage heaters (two modern, one old) with a blow-heater in the bathroom and for back-up. As I work at home they seem practical, place is nice and warm for starting work in the morning. But I have two lovely open fireplaces (sitting room and kitchen), desolate without woodburner or (wood-fired) rayburn. Apparently woodburners make storage heaters less effective - as one starts cooling down at night, the other is gauging how much work to do to get and keep the place warm - and can't help but get it wrong. Can only be one or the other. But I'm going to investigate this further... if power rationing kicks in in a few years time it's good to have an alternative ready! And I like the idea of (slow) cooking or keeping the kettle warm on top. There's also an innate good feeling from seeing/hearing flames.

Solar hot water is another option to investigate. But the shower does its own heating (very practical this time of year when luke warm is all that's needed - a luxurious 15 minute shower uses less than a unit), and there are no radiators to fill. It would be good for boiling out wax of course, but other than washing and washing up there aren't many other needs for hot water. Cooking? Coffee?

Think I'll concentrate on curtain lining and double glazing this year, and (unless I've moved) come back to technological matters next year.

irony and purpose

Next month the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation comes into force requiring biofuel to be included in 2.5% of petrol and diesel. It is now widely known (see here and here) that most biofuels are now discredited for being more damaging than the fossil fuel they are meant to replace. Not just for increasing greenhouse gas emissions but for putting up global food prices and destruction of pristine habitats such as rainforest.

The irony of a fuel designed to reduce greenhouse emissions but that actually increases it is not lost on me with my predicament over the direction, future, purpose of my art. My batiks reflect and interpret the natural world and/or environmental issues in the hope of inspiring or enlightening others to appreciate and live more respectfully with nature. But until recently I had minimal consideration for the consequences of their actual existence... not just the materials and processes used but the fact yet another "object" had been created and added to the world of consumerism.

edited 7 April

asking the right questions

I went to a Transition Town event in Wadebridge on Wednesday to hear both Rob Hopkins, the founder of Transition Totnes and the wider Transition Towns movement, and Anthony Gibson, Communications Director of the National Farmers Union and founder of Taste of the West, speak about Peak Oil and the future. Without digressing too much I already felt that Transition seems the only way forward for western culture, and certainly for those of us at the geographic/geopolitic margins – never mind that rural areas are the food and water providers.

Although both speakers had areas of common ground (eg locally produced food, return to importance of British farming, great need for re-skilling people) they diverged strongly over the sourcing of energy beyond peak oil. Rob believes in addressing a powerdown, there being no serious feasible option to provide a fuel replacement to oil (petrol) to give us and our culture the mobility it has become accustomed to. Anthony is still selling biofuel as the future solution, though I don't feel he is as strong an advocate as he used to be. He indicated that second and third generation biofuels should overcome some of the problems of currently produced biofuels. He believes that British farmers further in the future may not be producing crops for biofuel (other than for farm use) and instead will be producing high quality food for domestic consumption with biofuel being imported from developing countries. But for now he encourages farmers to go for growing biofuel crops, even where it displaces food crops, as it's where the market is at now.

The market? As a member of the audience pointed out, the market, the existing economic system, seems to be causing the problems as it doesn't recognise that nature and the planet are finite, and can the answer really be to chase money all the time. Frustratingly this economics discussion often and did also on Tuesday lead to the dead end/let's-not-go-there-now of if not the market then there is only state control. When really we need another system, one that looks beyond GDP and competition or quota and control to... something modelled on nature's patterns, planetary capacity. Yes I'm no economist and I don't know the answer except change is needed.

As events are meant to, it got me thinking. Certainly I am looking to make my practice sustainable and ecologically sound, but is attempting to use quantitative measurement the right way? After all, the tipping point for irreversible climate change cannot be proved without actually going there, which only apocolyptickers would advocate doing. I am attempting to use carbon equivalent emissions as a measurement tool, which I still think is OK. But can I really pitch a petro-chemical method with no conceivable long-term future against one of renewable abilities? Do I really need to prove it? Have I been asking the right question?

Shouldn't I instead be asking:

How should I be making batik in a transition culture?

What purpose will batik hold for my community? What can batik give?

Or even:

Should I be making batik? Or something else?

Yeah yeah, sounds a bit drastic eh. But as a Transition Network leaflet says:

"The need for change is urgent and these profound changes can't happen overnight. We still have some time - if we act now. By thinking and acting together, the transition to a way of living that consumes substantially less carbon energy yet is a happier, more fulfilling and abundant place will become much more achievable."

sun and mud

I've been playing with solar power. Five or so years after first pondering it I have bought a Freeplay Ranger solar-powered and wind-up radio, and also a Freeloader portable solar charger for mobile and camera. I love them both!

Proof that "objects" are anything but... an hour after ordering the new radio I turned on the kitchen radio: hissssssssss.... Hmm. It was working at breakfast. Only a few hours later it had died. Over twenty years old I think, it worked brilliantly for most of that. And presumably held on faithfully until the last moment, right until knowing the next generation was safely on its way. Something like old and ill people who "hang on" until an occasion, a particular moment has been reached and then they die, presumably more at peace than before.

Unfortunately I had earmarked the new radio for the studio, but couldn't transfer the existing studio radio to kitchen because I play (music) tapes on it (especially while the CD player is out of action). I thought a second new radio would be needed but you know what's so great: having a portable radio again! I take it round with me to whichever room I'm in, and it's no effort! I hadn't realised just how lazy and consumerist wired appliances can make us, well, me anyway.

So far it's stayed playing just by being on window sills (after an initial 24 hour electric charge) but I am spending a lot of time maximising direct sun dose of both toys. Ideally they need to be outside in direct sunlight but unless I also am outside that's not so easy. They are trickle charging through the windows but several days of daylight and some sun-through-the-window didn't re-charge the Freeloader enough to fully charge the mobile; it took another 10 minutes on electric.

But what about charging a wax pot by solar, or rather charging a battery to provide power for the wax pot? It doesn't seem feasible at the moment – not just financially but also in terms of creating enough juice to fire the thing! None of the solar panels I've read about online will do more than run laptops, electric lawnmowers, TVs, lamps etc, certainly nothing hotter than a toaster. So definitely not wax pots or Burcos (I use the Burco to boil wax out). But solar thermal collectors for heating hot water (for boiling out) might work, though personally I use little hot water during our warmer months. Then there is the question of Cornwall's sunniness... plenty hot water in summer, warmish only in winter.

Carbon reduction through lower power consumption is the main reason for me investigating renewable-powered tools. But I also believe within a few years electricity will start being rationed, either by a number of off-hours per day or through personal allowance. There's a few studio-based essentials I feel handy to have around – radio for news, wind-up torch and an ability to charge the mobile and camera. But if I have to seriously curtail waxing time I need to find either an alternative way to heat wax (and water to remove it) or find a non-heat-requiring resist.

In Malaysia (where I first made batik) wax was heated in a wok over a naked flame, either from a gas stove or charcoal fire. In my current studio set-up with its low ceiling, neither sounds desirable especially in winter when window-opening is minimised. But I need to find out how carbon intensive these methods are – if they are carbon-practical alternatives then my workspace may need to change from an indoor one to... hmmm. Outdoor working is great but the cold, draughts, damp and everything else about the Great British Outdoors are not conducive to wax resist working.

I've been fascinated by mud resist since first hearing this is how Mali people decorate cloth. But their batik doesn't use mud to resist dye in the conventional sense, instead mud is applied to yellow-dyed cotton, with something (iron?) in the mud turning the yellow brown. Un-mudded areas are discharged with a caustic solution returning them to white. It would be great if china clay could be used in some way – but again I stumble with my lack of chemical knowledge. I do want to experiment with china clay, local river muds and natural dyes, but the potential size of the experiment seems overwhelming! Either I spend aeons on trial and error, or I seek help!

By chance a few weeks ago while visiting an artist/gardener in the next village she produced some decorative batik she'd made as a student. Which led into discussion of various techniques... as she had used mud resist! And then she produced her notebook full of recipes and samples – which I have on loan... It's a start!