Our carbon footprint is a small part of our ecological footprint. In addition to greenhouse gases and our carbon emissions, we dispose of many things with our rubbish on a daily basis that stay in the environment for a long time.

In addition to plastic bags and packaging and synthetic materials that are slow to degrade, there are also lots of toxic substances, which cause a number of environmental issues.

It is incredible that nowadays one can still buy thermometers containing significant amounts of mercury and a range of very toxic chemicals, such as those contained in most household paints. For example, let me cite what it says on the label of a gloss paint manufactured by a well-known British manufacturer (ICI/Dulux). It indicates the paint contains "volative organic compounds which contribute to atmospheric pollution". Oh dear, and I just wanted to paint a door, I didn't want to destroy the environment. The label continues: "Contains ethyl methyl ketoxime. May produce an allergic reaction. Contains white spirit. Avoid contact with skin and eyes. Do not empty into drains and watercourses. Some local authorities have special facilities for disposing of waste paint."

It is scandalous that manufacturers are still allowed to sell this kind of thing and rely on the consumer to dispose of it safely. Everyone knows that most people will at the very least wash their brushes in running water in the sink, and the majority will dispose of the empty or not-so-empty pot of paint in the rubbish, which will end up at a landfill and add to the toxicity of the environment through the rainfall that drains through the landfill.

There is an impressive range of organic paints in the market already and there is the know-how to produce all sorts of household paint without any toxic component. Why then are manufacturers allowed to sell household paints that are toxic to the environment?

Turpentine remains one of the most popular items in art shops. A look at the label of another well known British manufacturer (Winsor & Newton) says: "Toxic to aquatic organisms, may cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment." This is from a product that is meant to be a medium for oil paints and also the most popular solvent to clean oil paint brushes, which needless to say is then disposed down the sink and ends up in the ocean via the sewage systems.

Governments must scrutinise the toxicity of substances more closely and forbid manufacturers from making them available to the public. There is the technological expertise to replace these subtances by harmless equivalents.

The general principle of sustainable development is to transform our ecological footprint into something that is self-degrading and can be absorbed in our planet's natural cycles. We should eradicate the use of non-degradable synthetics and toxic substances. For example, the use of formica in furniture and plastic components makes no sense when nature gives us wood as a perfect and high-quality element to manufacture our furniture.  

CARBONICA - PROTECTING THE WORLD'S RAINFORESTS 

Click  here to reduce your carbon footprint

George Monbiot writes in yesterday's Guardian ("The planet is now so vandalised that only total energy renewal can save us", 25/11/08) saying that to prevent runaway climate change we need a total decarbonisation of our economy. 

 This is correct. Emission cuts on their own will not deliver the mitigation of climate change that we need.

"Mitigation" is a widely brandished term to talk about how to combat climate change. We talk of a "mitigation model" to prevent our planet from warming, and usually this involves CO₂ emission cuts, in the hope that we lessen the damage we are causing to the environment. This is not the same as reversing it.

We can take the analogy of an obese person who is getting fatter and fatter every day because they eat 20 hamburgers a day. Telling them to cut their intake and eat 10 burgers a day instead, will help them decrease the rate at which they are putting on weight, but it will not be a recipe for slimming. If they are more drastic and cut their intake to just a few a day, that will bring them closer to a stable situation, but to reverse this and start slimming requires other ingredients in their life, such as physical exercise.

Our atmosphere has a concentration of greenhouse gases of 430 ppm in CO₂ equivalent, which is tremendously high, and very close to the threshold of 450 ppm that is widely accepted to be a point where climate change can begin to take a very dramatic turn. It is time to start slimming. Eating fewer burgers or cutting down our emissions will not do the job. Any threshold of CO₂ emissions, however low, is a form of environmental vandalism and adds to the already existing problem.

The high concentration of greenhouse gases is already retaining an excess of heat in our planet and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future (see our article on global warming).

Even if the UK's Climate Change Bill delivers the target of 80% emission cuts by 2050 and the world joins in with the successor of Kyoto (to be decided in Copenhagen next year) delivering the same level of cuts as the UK (which is very unlikely and over-optimistic), then all we will be able to say is that we have vandalised the environment much less than we would otherwise have done, but the problem of global warming in 2050 will still be much worse than it is now in any event, because during 4 decades of emission cuts there will be emissions nonetheless.

The crux of the matter is that to reverse the problem we must have negative net emissions. This means that our target must be to go beyond zero emissions, beyond decarbonisation and being simply carbon neutral, we must look into capturing carbon from the atmosphere on quite a gargantuan scale.

The world has lost most of its forests in the last century. Redressing the balance involves a reforestation process on a vast and fast scale, in order to dramatically increase the Earth's ability to capture carbon from the atmosphere. The UN's working group on Climate Change has suggested financial compensations to tropical countries who halt deforestation and illegal logging. This is encouraging but not strong enough. Deforestation must stop immediately and we ought to be putting all our financial resources on a very ambitious and long-term reforestation effort.

TO CLAIM YOUR FREE TREE:

Send an email to customer@carbonica.org and write the promotional code CT42 in the subject. Leave the message body empty.

We will write back within 24 hours confirming your free tree will be planted. One tree is equivalent to a carbon offset of 1 tonne of CO₂. 

TO GIVE SOMEONE A FREE TREE FOR CHRISTMAS:

Send an email to customer@carbonica.org and write the promotional code VT50 in the subject. In the message body write the email address of the recipient of your gift, and a message to them (optional).

You will receive an email confirmation that your free tree will be planted for your friend, and your friend will receive an email with your message and a confirmation of their free tree gift.

Terms and conditions apply.

Only one tree per person. Promotional carbon offsets are not for resale and are subject to availability.

The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 and its successor will be determined next year in Copenhagen. There is every sign that Copenhagen 2009 will not be ambitious enough to tackle climate change.

The UN is convening under the Framework Convention on Climate Change next month in Poland to discuss an action plan, following the "Bali action plan" for a framework of cooperation and mitigation that will pave the way to the Copenhagen treaty.

In preparation for this meeting, a UN working group has published a document that puts together the submissions of different countries, their expectations and wish-lists of what the future agreement should be like. The document is not very encouraging reading. As everything with the UN, a gigantic slow-moving organization, whose policies have a decades-lag of where we ought to be to see to the current needs, the document is a toned-down and unambitious action plan that is the outcome of putting together many conflicting interests.

The document suggests a "level of stabilization" of 2^oC for the global temperature increase, and states that we should make sure that temperature rises do not exceed 2.4^oC. This is amusing. We hope the UN knows that we do not have any control over temperature rises, not least because we cannot even predict them with entire certainty. We have in principle control over the level of greenhouse gas emissions, but not over how our atmosphere will react to this and the temperature increase that will follow.

Furthermore, emission cuts will diminish the rate of warming of our planet, but the temperatures will continue increasing over time for as long as the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere (currently 430 ppm) remains high. Therefore the concept of any "level of stabilization" makes no scientific sense until the concentration of CO₂ returns to a sustainable level. In order to achieve that, we need to go beyond emission cuts and deep into the territory of carbon capture.

The document also discusses that the concentration of CO₂ should be kept below 450 ppm for as long as possible. However it is entirely possible that even within the current projected emission cuts, we will reach this level in about 10-20 years, at any rate much before 2050.

Norway makes the encouraging suggestion of offering financial help to tropical countries who commit themselves to halt deforestation. The importance of this is enormous. The document also makes the important point that rainforest restoration as a form of carbon capture is to be encouraged. We very much believe that it ought to be a key ingredient of the future agreement.  

This is the latest video from The Prince’s Rainforest Project, called Vanishing Species, created to draw attention to the fact that over a million species will be endangered within 40 years, due to deforestation.

It is a powerful video clip and definitely worth seeing. Add it to your site and spread the word.

For more info on The Prince's Rainforest Project, visit  www.princesrainforestsproject.org/

New research demonstrates the key role of rainforest restoration to offset carbon emissions. In a research article published in the journal Environmental Research Letters,  a group of researchers found that forest restoration in the tropics is most efficient to combat climate change because carbon capture assists the water cycle, creating cloud feedbacks and decreasing the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

We have always believed in the beneficial impact of our rainforests in fighting global warming, and it is nice to come across research articles endorsing this view. The full article can be read here: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=59298093.1/1748-9326/3/4/044006/erl8_4_044006.pdf?request-id=c66ad5b9-243f-47f2-b72a-854c7674e6f8 (in PDF format).

The authors emphasize the importance of scientifically assessing the geographical location, specimens of trees and habitat prior to planting, to ensure that the ecosystem will be efficient as a carbon sink.

Without a scientific assessment, tree planting can result in unexpected side effects. For example in temperate climates such as Western Europe and North America, and more specifically in snow covered land, trees can contribute to the darkening of the landscape and increase sunlight retention, increasing regional warming. It is important to assess these factors to manage the forest as a carbon sink and to combat global warming, not to contribute to it.

For this reason Carbonica only supports reforestation and afforestation (conversion of open land into forest) in the tropics (specifically Central America), where the scientific case to consider these as efficient carbon capture and global cooling mechanisms is strong and well documented.

CARBONICA - PROTECTING THE WORLD'S RAINFORESTS 

Click  here to reduce your carbon footprint