<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Carbon Commentary &#187; Newsletter #4</title>
	<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com</link>
	<description>A critical appraisal of issues in the move to a low-carbon economy</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:16:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>China is keeping the UK within the Kyoto limits</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[corporate emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/china-trade.jpg" height="270" width="400" />

Post-industrial countries like the UK import an increasing fraction of their manufactured goods from China. The carbon emissions from the Chinese factories making these goods are not included in the UK’s totals. How much greater would the UK’s emissions be if we included the impact of goods manufactured in China?

In this article, we make some estimates based on a briefing note recently produced by the Tyndall Centre. The numbers I use are imprecise – and I am using them for reasons not envisaged by Tyndall – but I believe that the increase in the imports of Chinese goods has probably reduced UK emissions by about 6% below what it would have been. Perhaps more dramatically, the trade deficit is rising so fast that it is depressing UK emissions by a further 2% a year.

Without the safety valve of Chinese imports, the UK would be very likely to breach its Kyoto targets, which only measure domestic emissions. This is important in itself, but a more striking conclusion is that the trade with China has disguised a failure to cut emissions growth below the growth of British GDP. The UK government, and others around the world, regularly claim that CO2 output has been ‘decoupled’ from economic growth. The analysis contained in this note suggests that the apparent decoupling is actually an artefact of the growing deficit in trade with China.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/china-trade.jpg" height="270" width="400" /></p>
<p>Post-industrial countries like the UK import an increasing fraction of their manufactured goods from China. The carbon emissions from the Chinese factories making these goods are not included in the UK’s totals. How much greater would the UK’s emissions be if we included the impact of goods manufactured in China?</p>
<p>In this article, we make some estimates based on a briefing note recently produced by the Tyndall Centre. The numbers I use are imprecise – and I am using them for reasons not envisaged by Tyndall – but I believe that the increase in the imports of Chinese goods has probably reduced UK emissions by about 6% below what it would have been. Perhaps more dramatically, the trade deficit is rising so fast that it is depressing UK emissions by a further 2% a year.</p>
<p>Without the safety valve of Chinese imports, the UK would be very likely to breach its Kyoto targets, which only measure domestic emissions. This is important in itself, but a more striking conclusion is that the trade with China has disguised a failure to cut emissions growth below the growth of British GDP. The UK government, and others around the world, regularly claim that CO2 output has been ‘decoupled’ from economic growth. The analysis contained in this note suggests that the apparent decoupling is actually an artefact of the growing deficit in trade with China.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35#more-35" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/35/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Taking risks with the brand</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:06:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Innocent]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[NatureWorks]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[food and grocery retailing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/innocent.jpg" align="right" height="273" width="176" />The Goodall household is well-trained. Compostable products get put on the compost heap. Plastic bottles end up in the recycling bin. Where should Innocent’s new smoothie bottles made from bio-degradable corn starch go? Surprisingly, the answer is into landfill.

Innocent, the company with one of the purest brands in the UK, has made a mistake. For the last year it has used a new material called PLA for one of its ranges of drinks. It admitted last week that it would cease to use this bio-plastic later this year. But on its website it was still making some surprising claims. It says that the bottles made from this bio-plastic break down in garden compost heaps. They will not. PLA needs to be heated for several days to temperatures far greater than those in a domestic compost bin before it begins to rot. The bottles would break down in a commercial composter, but very few local authorities operate one of these plants. Innocent’s ethical consumers are going to find a large number of plastic bottles at the bottom of their compost heap next spring.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/innocent.jpg" align="right" height="273" width="176" />The Goodall household is well-trained. Compostable products get put on the compost heap. Plastic bottles end up in the recycling bin. Where should Innocent’s new smoothie bottles made from bio-degradable corn starch go? Surprisingly, the answer is into landfill.</p>
<p>Innocent, the company with one of the purest brands in the UK, has made a mistake. For the last year it has used a new material called PLA for one of its ranges of drinks. It admitted last week that it would cease to use this bio-plastic later this year. But on its website it was still making some surprising claims. It says that the bottles made from this bio-plastic break down in garden compost heaps. They will not. PLA needs to be heated for several days to temperatures far greater than those in a domestic compost bin before it begins to rot. The bottles would break down in a commercial composter, but very few local authorities operate one of these plants. Innocent’s ethical consumers are going to find a large number of plastic bottles at the bottom of their compost heap next spring.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36#more-36" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/36/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Peak Oil</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/37</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/37#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:06:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[fossil fuels]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/37</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/peak-oil.jpg" hspace="10" vspace="5" />

The Peak Oil question is beginning to become a central part of the daily debate on energy matters. On one side is an increasing number of independent scientists and oil engineers who note that world oil production is barely rising. Existing fields are running down and new reserves are found rarely. On the other side of the debate are the major institutions of the global oil industry. The International Energy Agency sees world oil supply rising from about 88 million barrels a day now to about 116 million barrels in 2030.

This last week saw another analysis (from Germany’s Energy Watch Group) suggesting that world oil production actually peaked in 2006. From now on, the group says, we can expect rapid declines. Many people worried about climate change see Peak Oil as a good thing. They believe that a shortage of oil and natural gas will slow down the rise in energy consumption and therefore help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The argument is actually more complex – it may well be that Peak Oil will tend to increase CO2. We will not be saved from ourselves by running out of oil.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/peak-oil.jpg" hspace="10" vspace="5" /></p>
<p>The Peak Oil question is beginning to become a central part of the daily debate on energy matters. On one side is an increasing number of independent scientists and oil engineers who note that world oil production is barely rising. Existing fields are running down and new reserves are found rarely. On the other side of the debate are the major institutions of the global oil industry. The International Energy Agency sees world oil supply rising from about 88 million barrels a day now to about 116 million barrels in 2030.</p>
<p>This last week saw another analysis (from Germany’s Energy Watch Group) suggesting that world oil production actually peaked in 2006. From now on, the group says, we can expect rapid declines. Many people worried about climate change see Peak Oil as a good thing. They believe that a shortage of oil and natural gas will slow down the rise in energy consumption and therefore help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>The argument is actually more complex – it may well be that Peak Oil will tend to increase CO2. We will not be saved from ourselves by running out of oil.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/37#more-37" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/37/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Video conferencing: at last a good alternative to travel?</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:06:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[AT&amp;T]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Cisco]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Pearson]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Reed Elsevier]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Tate and Lyle]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Teleris]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[VSee]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Wachovia]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[aviation]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[carbon reduction initiatives]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[corporate emissions]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[offices]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/video-conference.jpg" />

Video conferencing has been around for a surprisingly long time. AT&#38;T ran the first call in 1927. Since then, pundits have been consistently predicting that video conferencing was just about to take off. They have been wrong for eighty years. Why should we believe the techno-optimists now?

In the last year, several companies have launched video conferencing products that provide an experience similar to real meetings. The quality is surprising and even sceptics have begun to see the advantages of using a meeting room for an hour rather than spending three days going to Hong Kong and back. Cisco’s Telepresence product is generating enthusiasm that is tempered by the enormous costs of setting up the equipment and providing the bandwidth. But the company says that prices will fall dramatically over the next few years.

Is this going to be enough to get people out of planes? The signs are good. Even low bandwidth alternatives suitable for home use are getting praise from the experts. So if Cisco doesn’t make video conferencing work, Bay Area start-ups like VSee will probably start eating into the market for lower cost products.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/video-conference.jpg" /></p>
<p>Video conferencing has been around for a surprisingly long time. AT&amp;T ran the first call in 1927. Since then, pundits have been consistently predicting that video conferencing was just about to take off. They have been wrong for eighty years. Why should we believe the techno-optimists now?</p>
<p>In the last year, several companies have launched video conferencing products that provide an experience similar to real meetings. The quality is surprising and even sceptics have begun to see the advantages of using a meeting room for an hour rather than spending three days going to Hong Kong and back. Cisco’s Telepresence product is generating enthusiasm that is tempered by the enormous costs of setting up the equipment and providing the bandwidth. But the company says that prices will fall dramatically over the next few years.</p>
<p>Is this going to be enough to get people out of planes? The signs are good. Even low bandwidth alternatives suitable for home use are getting praise from the experts. So if Cisco doesn’t make video conferencing work, Bay Area start-ups like VSee will probably start eating into the market for lower cost products.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38#more-38" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/38/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Food packaging and climate change</title>
		<link>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39</link>
		<comments>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:06:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Chris Goodall</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Newsletter #4]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[domestic]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[food and grocery retailing]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[shops]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/food-packaging.jpg" align="left" height="74" hspace="5" width="69" />A recent Henley Centre survey suggested that 86% of people were eager to buy goods with less packaging, up 20% in the last two years. Nothing arouses as much spontaneous anger among British householders as the ‘over-packaging’ of foods. Recent newspaper headlines conveyed righteous indignation about the policies of UK retailers, in particular the failure to make all packaging recyclable.

The newspapers completely missed the point. Three issues need to be emphasised:
<ul>
	<li>Food packaging is a vanishingly small fraction of UK waste. Waste food is far more important.</li>
	<li>Good packaging is vital: it helps protect food from damage and helps lengthen its shelf life.</li>
	<li>Recyclable food packaging may actually be bad for climate change.</li>
</ul>
Making these points too loudly can get you lynched in some middle-class areas of Britain. Nevertheless, it needs to be said repeatedly that packaging, particularly of food, is not the environmental disaster it is made out to be.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.carboncommentary.com/wp-includes/images/food-packaging.jpg" align="left" height="74" hspace="5" width="69" />A recent Henley Centre survey suggested that 86% of people were eager to buy goods with less packaging, up 20% in the last two years. Nothing arouses as much spontaneous anger among British householders as the ‘over-packaging’ of foods. Recent newspaper headlines conveyed righteous indignation about the policies of UK retailers, in particular the failure to make all packaging recyclable.</p>
<p>The newspapers completely missed the point. Three issues need to be emphasised:</p>
<ul>
<li>Food packaging is a vanishingly small fraction of UK waste. Waste food is far more important.</li>
<li>Good packaging is vital: it helps protect food from damage and helps lengthen its shelf life.</li>
<li>Recyclable food packaging may actually be bad for climate change.</li>
</ul>
<p>Making these points too loudly can get you lynched in some middle-class areas of Britain. Nevertheless, it needs to be said repeatedly that packaging, particularly of food, is not the environmental disaster it is made out to be.</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39#more-39" class="more-link">(more&#8230;)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/29/39/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
