Cotton, Climate Change, Chris Huhne and Carrier Bags

The BBC broadcast a special programme on climate change this morning. They asked James Lovelock, who expounded the Gaia theories to talk and invited a panel of seven eminent researchers and academics in the field to question him and his theories. While it has often been claimed that Professor Lovelock is extreme and alarmist in his position on climate change, and his theories have often been dismissed, the panel concluded that his predictions were not ridiculous and that though he may fall on the pessimistic side of them, his predictions do fall in line with those made by the IPCCC (see links). Where Lovelock is perhaps most controlversial is in his firmly held belief that nuclear energy will be the solution to the planet's problems. I personally don't agree with this. Whilst I can wholly understand his position and see the benefits of such an approach, as long as there are still viable alternatives with which we can turn around the damage we have done and are doing, then I am fully committed to exploiting them. I think as long as we can safely avoid nuclear whilst still managing to ween ourselves from our CO2 dependence, we should. Where the panel were divided was on whether or not Lovelock's publications would empower his readership and provoke them to act, or whether it would encourage further apathy from supposed hopelessness on their part. Here's a link to the BBC's website, and there's the possibility of listening to the panel's discussions from here. Here's the verdict of the votes the panel took and here's the questions the panel answered from the public. For those who don't really know what gaia theory is all about, here's one brief introduction, here's another overview and here's wikipedia's definition.

Here's the Independent's story on organic cotton today. They cover well the problems associated with standard cotton production, focusing both on environmental damage and human rights issues for workers in developing countries and trace the growth in the eco-friendly industry. It is hoped, and indeed predicted, that the organic cotton industry will follow in the footsteps of the organic food market, as more and more consumers demand such products. It will rely on some of the larger companies to develop more lines using organically produced materials, however, if the trend is to gain momentum. One dilemma which is raised is wehter consumers should buy fairly traded, non-organic cotton or organic: in this article, the decision is made in favour of organic, but I can see arguments for the reverse decision too, at least in the short term. What I think the article fails to address are the problems associated with any cotton production. Cotton is a very thirsty crop, requiring massive amounts of water intake, which suggests it is perhaps a material we should move away from altogether.

Here's some useful information on which countries and continents are responsible for the worst levels of CO2 emissions and how that has changed in the recent past. It is also asked what they are going to do about it.

Ikea has announced today that they are going to cut back on carrier bags. The scheme, born of environmental concern, will see the end of free carrier bags being offered to customers. For now, they will sell off their stocks at 5p per bag and they will phase in biodegradable bags at 10p in the future. They are simultaneously reducing the price of their strong, re-usable bags from £1.25 to cost price 25p per sac.

Finally, here's more from Chris Huhne. This one is about green taxes. He is proposing an overhaul of the tax system that would encourage people to take more responsibility by charging them money for their inefficient use of carbon-based fuels. He discusses models used by other countries, cheifly Denmakr, Sweden and Estonia and looks at the difference such a system has made there. He writes emphatically: 'It is precisely this green tax switch - from taxes on income from work on to taxes on carbon emissions and other pollutants - that Britain needs today. There is no other policy on offer that can realistically deliver the deep change in behaviour needed to make our own activity sustainable and set a lead for others'. It seems to me that his scheme will prove fairly unpopular with many, and it is certainly dramatic when compared to the current system under which we operate, however, I think it is reasonable, necessary even. I wholly support any mechanism which will force people to take account of the damage that they are causing. We have tried asking people to be more responsible and to place environmental issues higher on their priority lists and this really hasn't worked. The situation is now critical, but could still be greatly improved, so it is time to encourage those who do not rate green issues as valuable, concerns to contribute to a more sustainable future for their planet. Here's the link to his paper.