Theme
The key theme running throughout these articles is that we need a clearer understanding of what key players are actually doing, because sometimes their actions aren’t going to achieve the outcomes we need for the environment. As Greta Thunberg has called out, “There is something very wrong when adults say one thing and do another”.
1) Energy suppliers claim to sell '100% renewable' electricity without producing any green power
This article highlights a form of greenwashing that occurs in the energy sector which needs to stop. It asks the big question, what do energy suppliers mean when they say they are 100% renewable? The consumer protection group Which? has highlighted a flaw in some energy producer’s business plans, with firms claiming they provide zero-carbon energy, even though much of their supply comes from fossil fuels. This article argues that there should be better clarification around supply chains, with suppliers needing to become more transparent and stop misleading customers.
Only 40/300 energy suppliers compared by Which? could be classified as supplying 100% renewable energy. The majority of the others either had little to no control over a renewable generation source or contracts with other renewable generators. On the flip side, a third of people surveyed believed that through purchasing a renewable tariff, this meant that ALL of the electricity delivered to their home was from renewable sources. This sounds like greenwashing, as they claim to be environmentally friendly, when really they are not.
The counter-argument is that through purchasing Renewable Energy Guarantee of Origin (REGO) certificates these suppliers offset their carbon impact and therefore do merit this accolade. But isn’t that just outsourcing their responsibility. The REGO certificates schemes might be a movement in the right direction, but shouldn’t it be classified in a different way, to show what it really is?
2) Guest post: The problem with net-zero emissions targets
In this article, Prof Duncan McLaren, a research fellow at Lancaster University’s Lancaster Environment Centre, proposes a move away from the commonly accepted single target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 2050. He argues that this single target is flawed, as it allows policymakers to avoid reducing GHG emissions. Instead the target should be broken down into more defined categories, bringing more clarification.
The net-zero target is a combination of A) stopping the release of GHG's by cutting emissions and B) removing CO2 from the atmosphere using "negative emissions technologies" (NETs). It is commonly understood that the target is met when these two balance out, however, McLaren argues problems arise when trying to find the correct equilibrium between these two processes. He suggests that too heavy a reliance and trust is placed upon NETs, and the largely speculated effect that they will have at taking carbon emissions from the atmosphere in the future. It is naive to place too much trust in these technologies, which currently either don't exist or are not functional on a large scale, and whose consequences are still unknown.
The article then goes into more depth explaining the positive and negative effects of including NETs in forecasts, and how this can affect policy choice. The negatives being that society tends to be overly focused on NETs, and their future effect. This can result in the formulation of a speculated cost benefit analysis that it will be cheaper to act in the future rather than now, resulting in society using this as an excuse to avoid mitigation right now. Obviously, this is selfish and not the correct way to act, raising huge questions around climate justice. There is the positive argument that through investment now, society will have the opportunity to benefit from economies of scale and more advanced technology in the future.
To conclude McLaren puts forward a solution, calling for a formal separation of negative emissions targets and emissions reduction. The net-zero goal was introduced to bring more clarity to the climate debate, but now he believes a separation will only help to enhance this further. He feels strongly that this separation will contribute to climate justice. It will expose those actors who try to hide behind rhetoric and are lacking in negative emissions investment and development, for instance, states claiming to deliver net-zero emissions via the purchase of international offsets, rather than by transforming consumption habits or reducing oil production.
3) Look and feel good: How tech could save the fashion industry
On a more positive note, this article presents three examples through which some in the fashion industry are using technology to reduce the mind-bogglingly damaging impact they have on the environment. Fashion contributes more to climate change than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. And as if that isn’t enough, it also releases half a million tons of synthetic microfibers into the oceans each year.
Consumers and companies are starting to cotton on to the vast environmental impact of the fashion industry and the large amount of economic value lost due to the industry's high waste culture. Examples of this can be seen through fashion corporations making pledges to act more sustainably, such as Zara pledging to use solely organic cotton by 2025, or through Nike pledging to use 100% renewable energy to power its factories.
This article looks at three beneficial uses of technology:
A) Introduction of robotic devices running off artificial technology, to reduce the amount of waste from the production process.
B) Using blockchain technology to increase transparency in supply chains, in turn increasing the levels of accountability between actors and showing consumers where their clothes have been produced.
C) Using big data to help brands estimate the environmental impact of their production process, producing a picture of their sustainability footprint.
There are some good examples in the article of these technologies being put into practice, including the circular economy being created on the Isle of Wight by Teemill, and the partnership between Stella McCartney and Google to use Big Data to analyse the environmental footprint of her supply chain for cotton and viscose. These sound like good first steps, but I fear it is going to take a much more widespread and fundamental change in the industry’s and consumers' mindsets to make any significant difference to the environment.
Here’s to hoping. As Greta says, “There is no planet B”, so we’d better make the most of it, and quickly. I leave you with this, have a look in your wardrobe before you splurge on your next shopping spree, I bet there’s a lot in there you could re fall-in love with and wear many more times instead of contributing to this polluting industry. Charity shops also rock our socks.
By Josh Morley-Fletcher, 4th-year International Relations student
Photo courtesy of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6uYTeFFoWc
Comentarios