Scotland aims to reduce carbon emissions by 42 percent on 1990 levels by 2020, which is more than double the official EU target (20 percent) and six percent higher than the UK target of 34 percent.

On the initiative, climate change minister Stewart Stevenson said: “Greater forest cover will help cut emissions through either directly absorbing CO2 or by providing more sustainable materials for construction and renewable energy.

“As a nation we are determined to make progress and achieve our target to reduce emissions by 42 percent by 2020, while at the same time contributing to other objectives such as food security.”

The drive is part of a larger project by the Climate Group States and Regions to persuade other states and self-governing regions to ‘plant a tree for everyone on the planet’.

According to the Scottish government’s calculations, planting 100 million trees over five years is the equivalent of planting 10,000 hectares per year, which is an increase on the average of 7,000 hectares per year planted during 1998-2009.

Read the full article here
http://www.lowcarboneconomy.com/community_content/_low_carbon_news/8899/100m_trees_to_be_planted_by_2015

A study into ”oxo-degradable” plastics, often labelled as degradable or biodegradable, found there was uncertainty about their impact on the natural environment.

The carrier bags, bin bags and flexible packaging, made from common plastics with small amounts of chemicals to speed up their breakdown, are also not suitable for recycling with other plastics, reuse or composting, the research by Loughborough University found.

In the wake of the study funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, ministers called on the industry not to claim the plastics were better for the environment than more conventional ones.
And the Co-operative said it would not be using carrier bags made from that type of plastic in its stores in future.

Oxo-degradable plastics contain additives to help them degrade into smaller pieces more quickly with the help of heat or light. The report said adding the metal compounds to the plastics did not improve their environmental performance and ”potentially gives rise to certain negative effects”. Researchers said it was hard to estimate how long the plastics would take to degrade, though somewhere between two and five years has been suggested if they are left out in the open UK environment.

But they do not degrade in the absence of oxygen so are unlikely to break down in landfill, where much of the plastic would end up. One of the claims made for oxo-degradable plastics is they reduce litter as they are biodegradable, but the report said they would still be lying around for several years before they broke down in the environment.

And there are concerns about the impact the degraded fragments of plastic could have in the natural world, potentially being consumed and building up in insects, animals and fish.

The additives also make the plastics unsuitable for recycling with mainstream plastic packaging and for reuse, particularly for long term storage because they will begin to disintegrate. The report called for the description of the plastics as ”biodegradable” to be replaced with a greater explanation of how exactly it will break down, or the correct method of disposal.

Iain Ferguson, environment manager for the Co-operative Food, said: ”We have already decided to stop purchasing carrier bags with the oxo-biodegradable additive and with the support of our customers and staff, we have reduced carrier bag numbers by 60% in the last three years.”

Defra said bags and other products made from compostable plastic are tested to make sure they are able to bio-degrade within six months, and are marked with logos showing they are suitable for composting.

>>> Read the full article here

Eco-driving skills could become mandatory under new government proposals to reduce carbon emissions from the freight sector.

The plans would mean that drivers are tested on energy-efficient driving techniques, as part of their EU Driver Certificate of Professional Competence, which is compulsory for all professional bus, coach and lorry drivers.

According to Department of Transport estimates, eco-driver training could result in savings of up to three million tonnes of CO2 over five years.

Minister Paul Clark said: “We are absolutely committed to reducing emissions from across the transport sector. Given that 20 percent of all transport emissions come from road freight, these drivers must be a priority.

“With initiatives like this I am confident we will succeed in creating a greener and cleaner industry fit to meet the environmental challenges we face.”

A consultation of approximately 16 weeks will aim to enable at least 90 percent of lorry drivers to take up eco-driver training. The government also plans to extend take-up through promoting the schemes.

Overall, transport accounts for a quarter of man-made greenhouse gas emissions from the UK.

>>> Read the full article here

SCHOOLS in three US states – Louisiana, Texas and South Dakota – have been told to teach alternatives to the scientific consensus on global warming. The moves appear to be allied to efforts to teach creationism in public schools. Such efforts have in the past been thwarted when courts ruled them unconstitutional, but those advocating the teaching of sound science may find it harder to fight misrepresentations concerning climate change.

Last week, South Dakota’s state legislature adopted a bill which “urges” schools to take a “balanced approach” to teaching about climate change, because the science is “unresolved” and has been “complicated and prejudiced” by “political and philosophical viewpoints”.

When New Scientist asked what these were, the bill’s sponsor, Don Kopp, mentioned claims commonly cited in opposition to the idea of human-induced global warming: for example, that any global warming is due to changes in solar activity. “I am against bankrupting the country to fight warming,” he said, “without being sure it’s true.”

The measure makes no mention of evolution, but its wording resembles bills in other states primarily aimed at teaching alternatives to evolution. Since a court in Pennsylvania ruled in 2005 that “intelligent design” had religious origins, so could not be taught in state schools, states have used vaguer language in bills when calling for schools to teach alternatives to established science.

In Michigan in 2005, one such bill also called for students to “critically evaluate… theories of global warming”. It failed, as have all similar bills – except in Louisiana, which in 2008 passed a law requiring “open and objective discussion” of warming, evolution and human cloning. Kentucky is now debating a similar bill.

In March 2009, Texas adopted school standards that both allow creationist claims and say students must “evaluate different views on the existence of global warming”. Texas buys more textbooks than any other state, so publishers often conform to Texan demands, including adding scepticism about warming.

Bundling warming with evolution in calls for “academic freedom” may make it harder to challenge these laws. Steve Newton of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, observes that the US constitution restricts the teaching of religious ideas in state schools, but not the teaching of bad science. A study last year found that evangelical Christians, who account for most creationists, are up to three times as likely as other Americans to deny that warming has human origins.

Moves against climate science and in favour of creationism are linked in other ways too: some see warming, like evolution, as the product of a hostile scientific establishment. When the US Chamber of Commerce, which opposes stringent cuts in greenhouse emissions, called for a public hearing on climate science last August, it called it “the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century”, after the 1925 Tennessee trial about teaching evolution.

>>> Read the full article here

Housing and planning minister John Healey announced yesterday (March 9th) that councils are to be at the forefront of the green homes agenda, by delivering on new government proposals to reduce carbon emissions from developments.

The new guidance will support councils in granting planning permission to green projects, such as housing developments that might have electric car charging points, or be situated so that residents can walk to work rather than use cars.

Projects that contribute to towns’ “green infrastructure” should be prioritised, according to the new policies.

In addition, further training will enable councils to support applications for renewable energy developers.

Mr Healey said: “The tougher, better guidelines for planning give councils a new blueprint, reflecting the latest targets and ensuring councils put combating climate change at the heart of future development ultimately saving people money on their bills and reducing emissions.”

>>> Read the full article here

The Department for Transport will from January 2011 provide grants worth £5,000 against the cost of a fully electric or plug-in hybrid car.

In order to qualify for the grant, the amount claimed must not represent more than 25 per cent of the cost of the car. Furthermore, the vehicle must have a range of at least 70 miles, a minimum top speed of 60mph, and meet European safety standards.

London, Milton Keynes and the North East will receive funding for 11,000 charging points in car parks at railway stations and supermarkets. Many of these will enable rapid charging, although not all will be installed before 2013.

Similar electric car grants already exist in America and China.

A spokesperson for the Environmental Transport Association (ETA) said: “The grant is intended to coincide with the launch of mass-produced electric cars like the Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi iMiev – currently the choice of electric vehicle is very limited.”

Which electric cars will be eligible for the £5,000 grant?

When the scheme first launches, only two cars – the Tesla Roadster and Mitsubishi iMiev – will qualify for the £5,000. However, many more models are promised in 2011. The following electric vehicles are currently undergoing testing on British roads.

>>> Read the full article here

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has asked the world’s science academies to review work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Work will be co-ordinated by the Inter-Academy Council, which brings together bodies such as the UK’s Royal Society.

The IPCC has been under pressure over errors in its last major assessment of climate science in 2007.
Mr Ban said the overall concept of man-made climate change was robust, and action to curb emissions badly needed. The Inter-Academy Council will convene a panel of experts to conduct the review, and will be run independently of UN agencies.

One issue that was raised at the UN news conference was how independent the scientists on the Inter-Academy Council’s review panel will be from the scientists who contributed work to the IPCC in the first place. “Let me be clear – the threat posed by climate change is real,” said Mr Ban, speaking at UN headquarters in New York.
“I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of [the IPCC's 2007] report.”

Robbert Dijkgraaf, the council’s co-chair, said the review panel will be chosen so that it includes both inside knowledge of the IPCC and outside perspectives.
“The panel will look forward and will definitely not go over all the vast amount of data in climate science,” he said.

REVIEW’S TERMS OF REFERENCE
Analyse the IPCC process, including links with other UN agencies
Review the use of non-peer reviewed sources, and quality control on data
Assess how procedures handle “the full range of scientific views”
Review how the IPCC communicates with the public and the media

“It will see what are the [IPCC's] procedures, and how can they be improved, so we can avoid certain types of errors.”

But Roger Pielke Jr, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado who has recently criticised the IPCC over its assessment of the costs of climate-related disasters, said the terms of reference appeared to have some significant omissions. “How will it deal with allegations of breakdowns in procedures in the AR4?”, he asked. “The terms of reference say nothing about looking at the AR4 procedures, but it would be difficult to do a serious evaluation without actually evaluating experience,” he told BBC News.

“Should it ignore the AR4 issues, then it will risk being called a whitewash.” Prof Pielke also suggested the panel might look at apparent conflicts of interest within the IPCC’s staff. The conflict of interest charge has been levelled against the IPCC’s chair, Rajendra Pachauri, over his business interests.

But standing alongside Mr Ban, he welcomed the review.
“The IPCC stands firmly behind the rigour and reliability of its Fourth Assessment Report from 2007, but we recognise that we can improve,” he said. “We have listened and learned from our critics, and we intend to take every action we can to ensure that our reports are as robust as possible.”

The review was demanded by world governments at last month’s meeting of the United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) Governing Council. The Inter-Academy Council has been asked to finalise its conclusions by August, in time that its recommendations can be discussed and adopted at October’s IPCC meeting.

>>> Read the full article here

The decision – taken at the governing council meeting of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Bali – potentially offers everyone a way out of the mire currently engulfing climate science, from top-name researchers to the Joe and Joanna Public whose taxes fund them and who expect them to get things right.

The review should be finished within about six months, and the results discussed – and changes instituted – at the IPCC’s meeting in October.

In some quarters this is being touted as an investigation of IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri, who certainly annoyed some (not least in the Indian government) when he initially rebutted criticism of the Himalayan glacier date error in a manner lacking much diplomacy.

In fact, though, it is envisaged as a process that will be thorough and rigorous, but constructive; what you might summarise as “tough love”.

There is no point in governments either soft-soaping or lambasting the organisation to the extent that it loses all its credibility. After all, its conclusions should in principle have a major role in determining what policy options those self-same governments pursue in the arenas of disaster preparedness and energy supply.

So yes, it is possible that Dr Pachauri will not survive the process; and indeed it is possible that he will not want to, if the job description gets so heavily amended that continuing would result in him having to give up all his other interests.

But there are more important questions to be addressed.

To what extent do conclusions of the IPCC’s fourth assessment report (AR4) from 2007 stand up to scrutiny?

Should its processes for gathering and sifting information be amended – and in particular, is there a case for excluding “grey literature” (anything other than peer-reviewed science)?

Does it select its major contributors as objectively as it should? Does it communicate its conclusions effectively to policymakers and the public?

“Climate-sceptical” organisations may already be in ecstasy about a process that – they will argue – may bring down the IPCC, and by extension block political moves towards regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

And this, in turn, may prompt some people involved with the IPCC to put their heads in their hands and complain that the last thing they need is another process that will see lances levelled at the edifice of anthropogenic climate change.

That, I suggest, would be a mistake. Many commentators sympathetic to the organisation have insisted in recent months that it could do with a dose of reform; so why not have reforms recommended by a review that aims for a constructive outcome, rather than by a host of unsympathetic and unaccountable bloggers whose scientific or pseudo-scientific utterings are sometimes impelled by political theologies?

As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, reform ideas for the IPCC produced by sympathetic academics so far include producing shorter, more focused and more intelligible reports; setting itself up as a wiki-form web-based platform; and farming out parts of its function to regional organisations or national science academies.

There are some who’ve argued that because the actual number of mistakes in the AR4 was triflingly small, there is no need for review or reform.

But in significant parts of politics, the media and the public, that argument has already been lost, and now it has been lost in reality as well; the review will happen.

Do we need all major scientific papers on climate to be available to all, rather than hidden from most behind the subscription-only business plans of journals such as Nature and Science?

Another reason for getting such a review up and running now is that in June, governments are due to decide whether they will establish an organisation loosely modelled on the IPCC that will collate and sift scientific evidence on biodiversity loss.

Although governments have decided the IPCC needs a review, they have also decided that the world needs an IPCC. And that should come as welcome news to those who feared that a tide of “denialism” was about to swamp the world’s body politic.

>>> Please read the full article here

1. Go for a walk – There is nothing more refreshing or eco-friendly than going for a stroll! It uses absolutely no carbon energy and can be a replacement for your school or work trip meaning you save on petrol as well as keeping fit!

2. Eat seasonally – Save on energy consumption by buying local, seasonal and fresh produce. Try not to buy anything that has been flown in from abroad and have a go at trying some new foods to mix up your diet!

3. Go to a local exercise class – Support your local community and businesses by attending a local exercise class. Whether it’s pilates, yoga or spinning this can be a great way to trim up and meet new people in the area.

4. Take your nutrients – Shops like Holland & Barretts provide a great range of vitamins and supplements that will help keep you fighting fit and your metabolism high.

5. Cycle to work – Cycling has many benefits for your body. It’s great cardiovascular exercise and, now the weather is warming up, can be a brilliant way to get to and from work.

6. Don’t take too many baths! – Not only do too many baths waste water and energy, they are also bad for your skin! Having too many can dry out your skin meaning you require more moisturiser and products that can be detrimental to your bodily health.

7. Get your Five-a-day – Make sure you get your recommended five fruits and vegetables a day. Keep them seasonal, keep them local and try them in all kinds of combinations. You will be surprised what a difference it can make to how you feel.

8. Lose weight the sensible way – Don’t invest time, money and energy in fad dieting and overpriced exercise machines. Go for a run, take the kids to the park and eat right and you will see that weight come off at a healthy rate that is maintainable.

9. Eat less meat – Get your protein from other sources, such as nuts, and help cut your personal carbon footprint as well as naturally increasing the healthy foods you eat during the day.

10. Have fun – Enjoy the outdoors, enjoy your food and look and feel eco-fabulous!

To celebrate the end of Fairtrade fortnight, the MoreEco team thought they would put together an article that explains exactly what Fairtrade is, and why you should do your best to buy their produce.

What is Fairtrade?

The concept of ‘fair trade’ has been around for over forty years but did not include a formal system until the late 1980s. It was established by Christian Aid, CAFOD, Oxfam, Traidcraft and the World Development Movement and later joined by the Women’s Institute. The first product to be certified was Green & Black’s Maya Gold Chocolate followed by Cafedirect coffee and Clipper tea. The concept has taken off dramatically since these first products were certified and now includes a variety of food, clothing and gift ranges. The Fairtrade Foundation is an independent non-profit organisation which envisions a world in which sustainable development, equality and fair pay form the basis of any trade structure. In order to achieve this, Fairtrade attempts to transform previous trading structures in order to help the disadvantaged and poverty-stricken. They work with businesses, communities and individuals all around the world to improve the trading rights and position of organisations who are often taken advantage of.

Why Should You Buy Fairtrade?

Fairtrade is not just any non-profit organisation. Not only do they provide a fair and honest service to the communities and businesses involved but they also provide the consumer with great quality produce at a fair price. You reap the benefits of investing in Fairtrade products. The Fairtrade certification enables the consumer to make informed decisions about their purchase choices and means they can be safe in the knowledge that their money is providing a reasonable income for those people who are involved. The quality of the produce is well worth the price, especially with the realisation that the people putting in the groundwork get fair compensation for their services.

Fairtrade Towns

Fairtrade also promotes the education of local communities involved with trade structures and issues. As a charity it believes that ordinary people can make a dramatic difference to the livelihood of the producers and aims to increase awareness of this belief. Fairtrade towns are those which are committed to promoting understanding of trade issues in their local community – to find out more please take a look at the Fairtrade website.

Fairtrade Fortnight 2010

Fairtrade Fortnight 2010 took place from the 22^nd of February until the 7^th of March and was labelled ‘the big swap’! Fairtrade asked the nation to swap their usual produce choices to Fairtrade – whether it be coffee, chocolate, fruit or socks. By doing this the general public proved that they care about their responsibility as consumers and can make a real difference to the lives of the people who grow or sew that which we buy, eat and wear. Fairtrade fortnight was a phenomenal success with celebrities such as Emma Watson creating Fairtrade fashion lines, Oxfordshire schools hosting a week of incredible green events and Cadbury’s offering songs from the likes of Paolo Nutini and Sway when you registered your swap to Fairtrade. The nation spoke out and showed the world that Britain cares about the lives of the farmers and workers that provide us with so much of our material goods. Why not try to make the swap to Fairtrade certified products yourself and reap the benefits of great quality products that make a real difference to the lives of the producers.