Carbon 101

Can changing a lightbulb make a difference? Nope—but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t. Annabel McAleer takes it back to basics, to discover how carbon became the c-word of the 21st century

Carbon is the c-word of the 21st century. We all know we should decrease our carbon footprint, offset our carbon emissions and go carbon-neutral. But what contributes most to our carbon footprint? Does carbon offsetting really work? And will anything you do actually make any difference?

Graphics: Adrian Clapperton. ‘Lump of coal in the middle of diamonds’ photo by Mohammadali via Flickr

We are all made of stardust.

It’s a hippie cliché straight out of the 70s, but it’s true—and kind of beautiful. The explosion of distant stars, billions of years ago, created the carbon atoms that now make up every living thing on Earth.

In its purest form, carbon is as pedestrian as the graphite in a pencil, as intoxicating as glittering diamonds. Bonded to a couple of oxygen atoms, it’s our very breath. Without it, life on Earth could never have existed.

But despite being the basis of all known life, carbon’s rep is in ruins. We’re told to decrease our carbon footprint, offset our carbon emissions, buy carbon-neutral products. If you’ve secretly been wondering how—or even why—read on.

Stage 1: What’s wrong with carbon?

First, the basics. Carbon, in the sense that we most often talk about it these days, usually means the gas carbon dioxide (CO₂). Often, ‘carbon’ is used as shorthand for all greenhouse gases, which can be converted into ‘carbon dioxide equivalents’ (CO_2e).

As we all learn as kids, CO₂ is essential to photosynthesis, the vital chemical process in plants that we all depend on for food and oxygen. It’s also essential to Earth’s climate; without it, the average global temperature would be around −18°C.

Of all the gas molecules that make up Earth’s atmosphere, an average 387 parts per million (ppm) are CO₂. This tiny amount—only 0.0387 percent—is creating an enormous problem.

SOURCE: Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority

ASSUMPTIONS: Electricity emissions factor 0.1792kg CO2e/kWh (Guidance for voluntary, corporate greenhouse gas reporting: Data and Methods for the 2007 Calendar Year, Ministry for the Environment); 365 wash cycles/year (AS/NZS 2040 test standard for washing machines); 52 drier cycles/year (AS/NZS 2042 test standard for clothes driers); five hours TV viewing/day plus 19 hours standby (TV turned off with the remote rather than the on/off button on the set)

Back in the pre-industrial days (and up until the late 1800s), the concentration of CO₂ was stable at around 280 ppm.

Then we invented cars, deforestation and coal-fired power stations, and before most of us knew there was a problem, we’d increased the concentration of CO₂ in our atmosphere by 38 percent.

Of course, plenty of our emissions are taken care of naturally, soaked up by the world’s great carbon sinks: forests and oceans. There’s 50 times more CO₂ dissolved in the sea than there is in the air—oceans have absorbed about one-third of all human CO₂ emissions so far—but the oceans are becoming more acidic as they get closer to saturation point.

Forests, oceans and the soil can absorb ten billion tonnes of CO₂ every year. But in 2005 alone, human activities released 29 billion tonnes of CO₂ into the atmosphere—an overshoot of almost 200 percent. No wonder our atmosphere is out of kilter.

Current levels of atmospheric CO₂ are now the highest they’ve been in at least 800,000 years; many scientists believe they’re the highest in 20 million years. Ocean acidity has increased by 30 percent over the past 200 years, the fastest rate of change in 65 million years. That’s a stark warning from nature: we’ve been releasing more CO₂ than it can cope with—much more.

Stage 2: How’s my carbon footprint?

We’re not actually creating all the carbon that we’re adding to the atmosphere. All the carbon atoms on Earth were created in giant supernovas, and most of them have been here since day one, more than four billion years ago.
We’ve simply been taking the ancient carbon that was stored safely and permanently underground in the concentrated forms of oil, natural gas and coal reserves, and burning it. (No doubt our grandchildren will think us insane.)

Cars, planes and power stations are super-efficient at turning stable deposits of carbon into free-floating greenhouse gases. Not only that, for the past few hundred years we’ve been clearing the forests that soak them up, and farming millions of greenhouse gas-emitting animals for food.

Of course, you’re not digging coal or chopping down rainforests yourself, but in today’s industrialised, globalised, technology-rich world, almost all our activities result in the release of greenhouse gases. That means each of us directly contributes to climate change. And unlike most of the world’s problems—civil unrest in Sierra Leone, say, or global economic meltdown—each of our contributions to climate change can be calculated and compared.

The science of measuring the emissions of activities and products is still young and inexact, but it’s possible to calculate the approximate greenhouse gas emissions (converted to CO_2e) embodied in everything we make, and produced by everything we do.

Your carbon footprint is a direct measure of your personal contribution to climate change. Someone whose activities produce 16 tonnes of CO_2e a year is making twice the contribution to climate change as someone producing eight tonnes.

There are loads of websites where you can measure the carbon footprint of your home and holidays (Landcare Research’s CarboNZero programme is a world leader; see www.carbonzero.co.nz). But how much carbon is too much?

Stage 3: How big is too big?

You wouldn’t go on a diet without knowing what your healthy weight should be, so before you try to reduce your carbon footprint, it helps to know what you should be aiming for—and the activities that quickly add up to big emissions. We all know that cutting down on pies does a lot more for the waistline than swearing off celery, but many of us will still drive 30 kilometres to a farmers market for ‘local’ food.

So how big’s the average carbon footprint, and what should we be aiming for?

The average New Zealander was personally responsible for emitting 7.7 tonnes of CO₂ in 2004, the most recent figures available. But when we divvy out all the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, including methane and nitrous oxide from farming cows and sheep, New Zealand released a shameful 18.7 tonnes of CO_2e per capita in 2005—making us the fifth most-carbon-polluting country in the world.

What should our target be? New Zealand doesn’t yet have a formal emissions reduction plan, but the National-led government has set a 50 percent reduction target (from 1990 levels) by 2050. New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions have already increased 23 percent since 1990, so achieving ‘50 by 50’ will actually require a 60 percent reduction on today’s emissions.

Even that may be an inadequate target; many developed countries are aiming for reductions of 80 to 90 percent from 1990 levels by 2050. Our Pacific Island neighbours, threatened by rising sea levels, and most NGOs are calling for a short-term reduction target of 40 percent by 2020.
At an individual level, a modest 60 percent target means every New Zealander will need to reduce their personal CO₂ emissions to around three tonnes. Even then, government and business must take decisive action to reduce transport, electricity and farming emissions for the country to reach the 50 by 50 target.

SOURCE: CarboNZero

Then there’s the global way of looking at it. The planet’s trees, seas and soil can absorb 10 billion tonnes of CO₂ every year; if emissions decreased to this level, the climate system would stabilise. By 2050, it is predicted there will be nine billion people in the world. If we divide the safe level of carbon emissions by the number of people on Earth, that gives each of us a target carbon footprint of just 1.1 tonnes by 2050. This approach is called Contraction and Convergence, and it has some powerful supporters, including the European Parliament. For India and China, it’s the only game in town.

Stage 4: Take real action

Reducing your carbon footprint from almost eight tonnes to just three—or as little as one—over the next 40 years may seem extreme, if not downright impossible. New sources of fuel, renewable energy technologies and exciting toys like electric cars may eventually make some of these changes relatively painless (fun, even). But they’re still years—or decades—away. Scientists are urging us to act now, within the next three or four years, to avoid reaching tipping points in nature (such as melting Arctic sea ice) that may set irreversible climate change in action.

So what can ordinary people do that will make a real difference, right now?

Let’s be honest. One person changing one lightbulb is going to make stuff-all difference to climate change. Switching a 100-watt incandescent bulb to a 20-watt compact fluorescent lightbulb will save 143 kilograms of CO₂ emissions over the life of the bulb.

The good news is that those small savings add up fast. Change seven bulbs (in your own home or someone else’s) and you’ve saved a tonne of carbon. If you and the other 59,999 or so people who read this magazine replace just one bulb, we’d save a whopping 8,580 tonnes of CO₂ emissions.

SOURCE: CarboNZero

If that doesn’t sound so whopping to you … well, you’ve got a point. Changing all the lightbulbs in New Zealand isn’t going to undo the new coal-fired power stations rumoured to be springing up every week in China, like planet-destroying triffids. It’s enough to wear down the sprightliest eco-warrior.

If you’re feeling overwhelmed, anxious, guilty, frustrated, angry and helpless, you’re not alone. The scale and complexity of the problem, combined with its urgency, can be paralysing.

We’ve all read lists of innumerable ‘tiny things’ we can do to reduce our carbon footprints, but it’s increasingly hard to believe that our small actions will make any difference to such a big issue. Lightbulbs seem an inadequate weapon to wield in our planet’s defence, and many climate curmudgeons argue that we’re so screwed there’s no point doing anything at all.

Perhaps it is time to lighten up a little. Believing it’s your personal responsibility to ‘do your bit’ to ‘save the planet’ is doomed to failure, argues George Marshall, author of Carbon Detox: Your step-by-step guide to getting real about climate change (Hachette 2007).

“Your reasons for changing must be more personal,” he writes.“Change because you decide it is the right thing for you and because you want to do it. Do it because it is the smart, 21st century thing to do. Do it because you don’t want to contribute any more to a major problem that will hurt people. And if you do want to do something, make sure that it is something that actually has results.”

One thing that will have a big result, now, will take you ten minutes and cost you nothing. Write a letter to your local MP, asking them to support policy that will reduce our country’s greenhouse gas emissions, and to support New Zealand’s participation in a strong agreement to reduce global emissions at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December (see good.net.nz/mp for letter writing tips).

This conference must result in an international treaty to limit global greenhouse gas emissions, replacing the Kyoto Protocol. Many believe the meeting is the last chance the world has to avoid dangerous climate change. Political engagement in the lead-up to the conference is vital.

SOURCE: New Zealand Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

ASSUMPTIONS: Average methane and nitrous oxide emissions per animal per year, including emissions from enteric fermentation, manure management and agricultural soils. Figures exclude agricultural inputs such as fuel, electricity and fertiliser

You matter

People are already being chronically affected by climate change; people are already dying. The ongoing conflict in Darfur has been driven by drought, desertification and water shortages, all caused by climate change, the UN reported in 2007.

We know there’s a direct relationship between emissions
and effects. Craig Simmons, technical director at UK sustainability consultancy Best Foot Forward, correlated official data from climate-related disasters with global CO₂ emissions.

He concluded that one person could die, starve, be made sick or left homeless for every 102 tonnes of CO₂ added to the atmosphere.

By that—admittedly highly speculative—estimate, every 13 years or so the average New Zealander contributes enough CO₂ emissions to cause the suffering or death of another person somewhere else in the world. On the basis of the same estimate, if all Good readers changed one old-school lightbulb to a CFL, 84 people would stay safe and healthy.
So perhaps changing a lightbulb means something after all.

Taking one less flight, regularly car-pooling to work, or switching to a renewable electricity supplier means even more—and it’s a difference you can measure. The effect of writing to an MP about your concerns can’t be quantified, but this year it may be the single most effective action you can take.

Actions that are insignificant in isolation, add up to something important, even world changing, when multiplied. It took billions of people making billions of decisions to create the current climate crisis; it will be solved exactly the same way.

Annabel McAleer

Stage 5: Does offsetting make it okay?

There’s nothing new about offsetting. During the Middle Ages, cash-strapped Catholic bishops came up with a scheme that allowed sinners to buy their way out of purgatory; in the Netherlands, you could literally get away with murder if you had 11 ducats in your back pocket.
The pardoners nowadays go by such names as CarboNZero, GreenlandNZ and Offset the Rest, but the principle is much the same. Now we pay to offset our climate indulgences: flying, driving an SUV or ogling an enormous TV. The idea is that we negate our own greenhouse emissions by subsidising the curbing—or capturing—of someone else’s.

Offset companies are carbon brokers, buying credits from projects that plant trees or encourage a switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy. They then sell those credits, at a mark-up of around 30 percent, to individuals and companies who want to go ‘carbon neutral’.

Let’s say you fly to the Gold Coast with the kids; that emits around 1,600 tonnes of greenhouse gases, according to Air New Zealand. When you buy your tickets, the airline gives you the option of paying $55.20 to offset those emissions. The company will use that money to buy Kyoto credits from a carbon-saving project (currently TrustPower’s Tararua III wind farm).

Providing this kind of funding for sustainability initiatives is one of the major benefits of offsetting. Offset schemes direct money to valuable projects all over the globe: from local production of solar-powered cooking stoves in developing countries, to industrial-scale wind farms in New Zealand.
But the greatest contribution of offset schemes may be to get ordinary people and businesses thinking about their carbon footprints. By shifting climate change from an abstract concept to a personal budget, offsetting can be a critical first step towards changing behaviour.

Sounds reasonable, but carbon offsetting has taken a lot of flak from climate hardliners. British environment commentator George Monbiot called it “pernicious and destructive nonsense”. He points out that offsetting makes no meaningful dent in emissions in developed countries, where the required cuts in greenhouse gases have to come from. Consumers in Britain offset nearly 51 million tonnes of CO_2e each year, around one percent of the UK’s annual emissions. In New Zealand, CarboNZero’s customers have to date offset 117,534 tonnes. We emitted 77.2 million tonnes in 2005.

For years now, companies like Land Rover, BP and many airlines have been inviting customers to participate in offset schemes. But Mike Childs, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth in Britain, says that’s a mistake. “All these companies are sending out a very strong signal to consumers that they can continue to drive 4 x 4s, fly and use petrol as much as they want; that they don’t have to change their life and can spend £15 to rectify the damage.
“That’s clearly wrong—you can’t buy a reduction in emissions.”

SOURCE: CarboNZero

ASSUMPTIONS: Medium car (1600–2500cc) commuting 12km twice/day, five days/week, 48 weeks/year

There are other concerns. Much of the burgeoning offset industry is poorly regulated and policed. “A lot of players have seen this as an opportunity to make some quick money, they’re all diving in there. It has been the Wild West,” CarboNZero programme business manager Mike Tournier told the New Zealand Herald. “We’ve had clients come to us who’ve spent over $25,000 and bought junk credits.”

In March, the New Zealand Commerce Commission issued draft guidelines for offset schemes, warning ‘carbon cowboys’ that they are subject to exactly the same fair-trading laws as everyone else.

Overseas, a number of tree-planting schemes, one of the commonest consumer options, have made claims about carbon sequestration that didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Uncertainty about rates of CO₂ uptake and the methane emissions of plant life means there is some doubt about forestry’s real value as an emissions sink. Besides, trees will eventually die, releasing stored carbon back into the atmosphere.

Charlie Kronick, policy officer at Greenpeace UK, warns consumers against offset schemes based on tree planting. “If you are considering carbon offsetting, don’t go for monoculture tree plantations. They’re not reliable; you can’t keep track of what the benefit is and you can’t measure the effect.”

In response, reputable offset companies have shifted away from trees and into renewable energy and clean-tech projects.

One thing everyone can agree on is that the best solution is to minimise emissions in the first place.

“We’ve all got to climb Mount Climate Change,” says Mike Mason, founder of UK offset company Climate Care. “The greenies would like us to … go straight up the north face. I’m saying there are an awful lot of people who can’t or won’t or who need to be led, so maybe we can find a path round the back instead.”

Dave Hansford