Zero Carbon - what does it mean?

David this is brilliant. What an excellent post!

shane

CRAGger Bedford

Yeah nice one David!!

So we should be calculating a sustainable level of carbon based on the amount of ppms in the atmosphere that are deemed to have an “acceptable” temperature increase. That kind of means that not only is “zero carbon” inadequate as a target it’s also the wrong target.

a couple of questions spring to mind;

1. with the current fixation on the term “zero carbon” and a real need to simplify complex process for the masses to grasp, is it worth having a definition of zero carbon?? and what would it be? The definition “zero carbon is reached when zero net co2 is added to the atmosphere” could mislead people into thinking that 35-ish% of our current emissions is acceptable and that’s probably why the government have been focusing on 60% reductions. The danger is that unless we step up this will continue to prevail and guide developers etc.

2. I like the table, what would the methane table look like? and other GHG’s? any links would be good.

3. You don’t seem to incorporate the “contraction and convergence” theories. What’s your thoughts?

4. I’d like to set up a 20 year reduction road map for our group; what calculations would i need to rework your table?? Would i have to divide by the relevant population increase over the time span but then multiply by higher acceptable increase in atmospheric emissions?

5. I’m guessing that you’re using 50% as a personal allowance based on direct transport and home energy emissions. If we had a clear way of calculating the embedded material emissions do you think we could start to factor that in?

thanks
Shane

thanks
Shane

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

I thought it needed updating – I’d lost track of the figures myself. I got a bit carried away though!!

That kind of means that not only is “zero carbon” inadequate as a target it’s also the wrong target…. 1. with the current fixation on the term “zero carbon” and a real need to simplify complex process for the masses to grasp, is it worth having a definition of zero carbon??

I’d say not. Zero carbon just isn’t achievable in the real world without using offsets of some kind ie. only “net zero carbon” is possible. But once you start using offsets, it becomes unclear how much of the carbon savings are accounted for by offsets and how much by real reductions. If sometimes claims “zero carbon”, we should be asking “and how much is offset?”. If those offsets are dodgy or don’t scale up, then the carbon reductions aren’t as much as is being claimed. I’d use “low carbon” (and then ask “how low?”) – it’s more honest.

2. I like the table, what would the methane table look like? and other GHG’s? any links would be good.

You can find these at www.simcap.org under “data” then “EQW pathway set 3” – the direct link to the spreadsheet is http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~mmalte/simcap/data/EQW_S350C-S750C.xls. Look for the “EQW S350 World” tab – there is data for every single greenhouse gas!

3. You don’t seem to incorporate the “contraction and convergence” theories. What’s your thoughts?

Well, that was mostly because you need a model to calculate the different pathways – it is far quicker and easier to divide by the world population and find an equal allowance for everyone.

But I also think C&C is a pragmatic, compromise solution – I don’t think you can justify it ethically. Essentially it grants rich nations extra rights to pollute in the short-term, at the expense of poorer countries. The onus should be on rich countries to justify any extra rights above the equal level – they shouldn’t grab them by default (for example, a kid at a party may be given a bigger slice of cake if he’d been especially good or worked hard, but it wouldn’t be right for a certain group of big kids to just take bigger slices and then force the others to justify why they should have a fair share!).

4. I’d like to set up a 20 year reduction road map for our group; what calculations would i need to rework your table?? Would i have to divide by the relevant population increase over the time span but then multiply by higher acceptable increase in atmospheric emissions?

I’d just use the figures for 2010 and 2030 below, just averaging between them for the intervening years (the data doesn’t give individual years). It sounds like you want to play a higher risk game! Here’s the figures for 450ppm, which carries a 54% mean risk of dangerous climate change – that’s odds on! Are you willing to play this game, with such high stakes?

These do seem high, especially as we already seem to be past 450ppm CO2e – I’ll have to check the assumptions (does it include all the potential feedbacks?) and check it against others. (NB you have to run the model to get these, not just multiply up, because the models don’t scale up linearly):

5. I’m guessing that you’re using 50% as a personal allowance based on direct transport and home energy emissions. If we had a clear way of calculating the embedded material emissions do you think we could start to factor that in?

That’s what we generally count, mainly because it’s practical and verifiable. But I’d love to see us expand our personal footprint, if it can be done simply. Food is the other burning issue.

david

website team CRAGger Sevenoaks

Oh dear, I’ve got a bit “fire and brimstone” here – sorry. I just think it’s important to be clear on the size of the allowances that are really justifiable by rational argument.

One could argue that the climate here in the UK means we should have a larger share to heat our homes – in contrast, say, to tropical countries. However, given the historic wealth we have accrued through burning fossil fuels, that seems hard to justify. Other arguments I have heard say that countries with lower population densities need more transport fuel. However, it seems to me that planning policy (ie. suburban sprawl vs. high density cities) is just as important as population density (ie. the extent of intercity travel or transport) – diminishing its weight as an argument for higher allowances.

Practically, you’ll probably that the shock of presenting a frequent flyer (say 10-20t) with a 2t allowance, then saying “hey, you owe £400” will send them scampering for the hills. Some ways of getting around this:

• A higher, shared group target that converges towards the fair sustainable level over a few years. Start on, say 4t for the first year, and then drop it to 3t and then 2t, so you join the sustainable level after a few years. This lets you in gently whilst you get used to the system, and, while not consistent with “avoiding dangerous climate change” at least you can say you’re moving in that direction. Be courageous, though, as it will give you s stronger challenge and more funds to play with for doing projects. This will still be a shock for new members joining after a couple of years (esp. high emitters) but you could combine it with 2 & 3, below to get around that.

• No allowance in the first year. Members could take the first year “out” from the allowance system to get used to the size of their footprint and ways they can bring it down to a reasonable figure. People do find it unfair (and with good reason) to be penalised for something they don’t feel they have control over – this gap gives people the chance to “take the reins” of their footprint and feel in control before going for penalties.

• Use individual targets and a convergence system (see the Sevenoaks example). If there is a wide spread of footprints at the start, people will likely see this as fairer because they will be paying similar amounts (ie. burden sharing) rather than having the same allowance but paying vastly different amounts (ie. resource sharing). However, your average allowance will likely be above that consistent with “avoiding dangerous climate change” (see above); and it will seesaw from year-to-year as high-emitters join the group. After all, though, it is important to engage high emitters.

shane

CRAGger Bedford

David, in response to my question;

“1. is it worth having a definition of zero carbon??”

you said

“I’d say not. Zero carbon just isn’t achievable in the real world without using offsets of some kind ie. only “net zero carbon” is possible.”

Upon reading this, it became apparent to me how easy it is for us to be using the term Zero Carbon and be discussing completely different things. For example i can see 6 different uses of the term Zero Carbon that are either currently in use or are logical.

1. Zero Carbon (literally)
2. Zero Carbon (housing, cars, technology etc)
3. Zero “Net” Carbon (Activity, journey, company etc)
4. Zero “Net” Carbon (Planet)
5. Zero “Net” Carbon (Biological system, energy crop, food crop etc)
6. Zero “Fossil” Carbon

There’s possibly others. They have a variation of meanings, equating to different boundary sets, different activities, different science and perhaps most important, for me, is the different levels of credibility attached to each one, which causes a blurring of credibility. Moreover people can interchangeably be using the term Zero Carbon for any of these and the opportunity for abuse is immense.
so in answer to my own question “is it worth having a definition of zero carbon??” i’d say “yes”.

The differences as i see them for each are as follows;

1. Zero Carbon (Literally) – This of course is an impossibility with carbon being the basic building block of all life. But it is increasingly being used by people on the fringe to ridicule environmental policy related to carbon.
A silly example;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSHM_6opiUs

2. Zero Carbon (housing, cars, technology etc) – This generally means that there are no direct emissions from the use of the technology or house. This use of Zero Carbon excludes embedded energy and focuses on direct energy. BedZed and the Government etc use it when trying to develop Zero Carbon developments. In housing it also means Net Zero Energy as often houses produce more energy than they need and export the energy and use this as a “credit” against any fossil emissions they may have created.
A paper from Communities and Local Government focusing on direct energy consumption http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/futuretow…

Bedzeds definition;
BedZED was designed to be a zero carbon development – for us this means to:

A. Reduce the demand for energy through:
• high levels of insulation and use of natural light and passive heating and ventilation
• inclusion of low energy appliances and light fittings in all the homes

B. Supply the remaining energy required from renewable sources
which do not contribute to the devastating effects of climate change.
http://www.bioregional.com/news%20page/news_stories/ZED/zerocarbon%20201…

3. Zero “Net” Carbon (Activity, journey, company etc) – Probably more commonly stated as Carbon Neutral, but Zero Carbon is not uncommon in the world of offsets. In this use, the source of emissions have no set boundaries and are related to varying activities and are often agreed by the client and offsetter. The zero aspect is calculated as a tonne emitted for tonne avoided or absorbed.
Some offsetters using this defintion;
http://www.gozero.org.uk/cof
http://www.zerocarbonfootprint.co.uk/

Reference in wikipedia;

“Being carbon neutral, or carbon neutrality, refers to neutral (meaning zero) total carbon release, brought about by balancing the amount of carbon released with the amount sequestered or offset”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_neutral

4. Zero “Net” Carbon (Planet) – This is the stabilisation point in atmospheric carbon, where Zero Carbon could be used to mean that zero net carbon is added to the atmosphere. It’s thought that this point will be reached when we achieve a reduction to around 60% to 80% of our current emissions and the boundaries for this are absolute. So here the notion of 1 tonne emitted for 1 tonne absorbed/avoided does not apply.

5. Zero “Net” Carbon (Biological system, energy crop, food crop etc) – When ever the term Zero Carbon is used with energy crops, people are implying that for every tonne emitted there’d need to be a tonne absorbed in the crops growth. In fact more often than not the term is currently being used to state that biofuels aren’t Zero Carbon when boundary sets look at the supply chain and embedded or life cycle energy (e.g. was fossil fuels used during farming) and change of land use (e.g. possible emission from forest clearing etc).
This report discusses the problems of biofuels and how they’re often described as Zero Carbon;
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/members/jonesj/docs/biofuels_oct07.pdf

6. Zero “Fossil” Carbon – This is the definition which is the backbone of the Zero Carbon Britain report and means, in the words of Jamie Bull, one of the lead authors “Zerocarbonbritain was exactly that – no fossil fuels at all. So I guess if you account for that carrying capacity it was actually carbon negative.”
http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/

I don’t mean to debate or discredit any of the definitions but demonstrate that depending on the application, the term Zero Carbon, will mean completely different things and not only open to abuse its easy to see the potential for confusion even between “experts”.

John-Paul Frazer (2001) wrote about sustainability but i think this is applicable to zero carbon;
A term such as Zero Carbon is highly significant as the whole world strives to create strategies for achieving it. Definitions dictate how the problem is perceived, and determine the form of the solutions! In addition, stakeholder interests strongly influence language – In practice ‘Zero Carbon’ is often used to create a veneer of environmental respectability, a ‘green-wash’. Definitions should be argued from fundamentals, which can be a minefield of subjectivity. This should not stop us from attempting it. After all, strategies and technologies are merely tools and need directing.

on a side note, in response to my question;

“4. I’d like to set up a 20 year reduction road map for our group; what calculations would i need to rework your table??

you said

“It sounds like you want to play a higher risk game!”

i haven’t been very clear here as we’re trying to reach “Zero” or “Low” carbon in 20 years.

Shane

shane

CRAGger Bedford

this report debates the narrow banded definition of zero carbon housing
http://www.ukgbc.org/site/news/showNewsDetails?id=67

it has a good section on existing definitions within the built environment but doesn’t, as far as i can see, discuss the other carbon realities of the house user.