Your city could be exporting deadly air pollution – here’s why

industry-1752876_1920

Air pollution is often seen as a local problem requiring local and regional solutions. Karachi, London, Lagos, Mexico City and Paris are just a few of the world’s cities grappling with poor air quality. With city-dwellers increasingly being asked to ditch the car – especially if it’s diesel – and use greener modes of transport, it’s easy to forget that air is also mobile. As a result, there’s very little attention being paid to the impact of cross-border air pollution on human health and well-being.

300 million children are currently breathing in toxic air

Globally, air pollution caused by microscopic fine particles (PM₂.₅) kills 3.5m people each year. These particles can easily enter the respiratory tract. They rank fifth worldwide among all risks to health after high blood pressure, smoking and diet. Breathing filthy air can increase the risk of heart disease, lung cancer, stroke and affect mental health. And it is the vulnerable in society who suffer the most, with 300m children currently breathing in toxic air. Indoor and outdoor air pollution, together with second-hand smoke, causes 570,000 deaths in children under five years of age each year, due to respiratory infections such as pneumonia.

The movement of air pollutants from transport and agricultural activities in one country can affect the air quality in another. Such as the smoke from Indonesian forest fires which has caused a toxic haze to descend over parts of Malaysia and Singapore. Another example is the atmospheric brown cloud – a transnational air pollution phenomenon which contains aerosols such as soot and dust that poses risks to human health and food security, especially in Asia.

Exporting emissions

Cross-border air pollution has been an issue for some time: in the 1970-80s, the UK was nicknamed the “dirty man of Europe” for belching out industrial sulphur emissions, which contributed to acid rain in Europe – a reputation that the Greens fear will be regained after Brexit.

But it’s only recently that the scale of the air pollution effects of international trade has been assessed, with one study suggesting that around 400,000 premature deaths occurred in 2007 in a different region of the world than the one in which the air pollutants were emitted.

Goods and services produced in one region for use by another region are responsible for 22% (762,400) of air pollution-related deaths worldwide. In particular, Chinese particle emissions were responsible for 64,800 premature deaths in other regions, including over 3,000 deaths in Western Europe and the US. By contrast, Chinese products bought in Western Europe and the US are linked to over 100,000 deaths in China in one year.

Goods and services produced in one region for use by another region are responsible for 762,400 of air pollution-related deaths worldwide.

International trade has seen many developed countries transferring their manufacturing abroad, in order to take advantage of cheap labour and lax environmental standards in often less wealthy nations. As a result, air pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, has effectively been exported to developing countries.

Making the switch

So, while murky grey images of smog smothered Beijing or New Delhi may prompt others to ask why they don’t clean up their act, it’s important to remember that these cities are shouldering an enormous manufacturing burden, as much of the world’s goods and services are outsourced to China and India.

There is now a need for governments to switch from calculating greenhouse gas emissions based on production to one based on consumption of goods and services. This has important implications for global climate and air mitigation policies because as much as 20% to 25% of overall carbon dioxide emissions come from the production of goods and services which are traded internationally.

Although there has been success in achieving better air quality over the past the six decades, this doesn’t erase the need to face up to big global environment challenges. Cities are responsible for around 70% of global greenhouse gases. While carbon dioxide has warming influences on the climate in the long term, short-lived climate pollutants such as black carbon (a primary part of particulate matter), methane and ozone have warming influences on the climate in the near-term. Local action, such as banning diesel cars, addresses both air and climate pollutants. This can achieve immediate effects by reducing near-term warming and improving air quality levels.

There’s no coherent legal framework which aims to protect the atmosphere.

There are several international conventions to regulate air pollution and related issues. But for now, there’s no coherent legal framework which aims to protect the atmosphere. This has led to calls for a new Law of the Atmosphere to provide effective cooperation on air pollution and climate change at regional and global scales. As it stands, the likelihood of such a law gaining support is low, given the climate change scepticism exhibited by powerful world leaders such as presidents Trump and Putin.

Everyone has the right to clean air. But air pollution requires no visas, and its devastating impact can be felt far from the source. No longer can the leaders of developed nations shy away from the fact that their citizens’ consumption and lifestyle choices have a significant impact on people in others part of the world. As consumers, we have the power and the responsibility to demand better environmental and social standards – so we can all breathe life, wherever we live.

This article was first published at The Conversation

Advertisements

Can Car Labelling Lead to Better Air Quality and Lower Carbon Emissions?

b739246960d722c9ba9989ba5ae75a2b

Environmental labelling of products and services has been used as a way to ‘nudge’ consumers to make greener choices but can car labelling lead to lower vehicles emissions and better air quality?

Car labelling was introduced in 1992 to inform European consumers about the fuel consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of new passenger cars enabling them to contribute to achieving a 40% reduction in economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.

Reducing transport emissions has health and climate protection benefits. The 250 million passenger cars in use in the European Union (EU) account for 14% of the final energy use and 12% of the fuel-related CO2 emissions. Therefore increasing the fuel efficiency of cars can reduce urban air pollutants, CO2 emissions and fuel costs.

Energy labelling has been successful in encouraging consumers to purchase energy efficient domestic appliances (e.g., refrigerators, freezers, dishwashers and washing machines) with 90% of appliances sold in the EU now labelled as class A.

Although causality is difficult to establish, estimates suggest that the EU energy label has contributed to CO2 emission reductions of some 14 Mt annually over the period 1996 and 2004. However, an estimated 10% of energy savings are lost due to poor enforcement and a lack of cooperation and application across EU Member States.

When it comes to buying a new car, consumers consider factors such as price, fuel consumption, comfort, size, reliability, safety, engine power as well as brand and image. Although environmental attributes listed in a car label, information about fuel consumption and environmental impacts appear to be less important than other factors (e.g., price or hauling capacity) in the choice of a car model Moreover, information on fuel consumption can be perceived by consumers in an ambiguous manner.

A review of the current status of car labelling in the EU found that EU Member States rely either directly or indirectly on the distance-specific CO2 emissions [g/km] determined in the laboratory test procedures. However, laboratory testing has come under criticism for being unrepresentative of real-world driving and therefore underestimates the actual on-road CO2 emissions of cars.

The gap between the distance-specific CO2 emissions measured in the laboratory and on the road has been widening in the past decade and reached 31-49% in 2014. This observation suggests that the data underlying car labelling in the EU systematically underestimate both fuel costs and environmental impacts.

For example, an average European gasoline car is labelled with 129 g CO2/km and a fuel consumption of 5.6 l/100 km. However, on the road this vehicle may actually emit 169-193 g CO2/km and consume 7.3-8.3 l/100 km of fuel (assuming a gap of 31-49% between the certified and actual on-road fuel consumption) resulting in increased yearly fuel cost and CO2 emissions.

Such discrepancies risk consumers losing trust in the claims of the car label, which, in turn, could undermine the current and future efforts to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars.

In addition, the different methodologies used by EU member states to translate CO2 emission values into label classes has resulted in differences in the labelling for efficient medium size to luxury cars.

Not only that, the current European car labelling schemes unable to differentiate vehicles that emit between zero and 95-100 g CO2/km. This shortcoming will become of increasing importance as hybrid, plug-in hybrid and electric cars are being promoted as a solution to poor urban air quality.

Finally, although consumer awareness of the European car label is steadily growing, it still remains low with comprehension affecting both familiarity and trust in the label.

More than 80% of people living in urban areas that monitor air pollution are exposed to air quality levels that exceed World Health Organization (WHO) limits with vehicle emissions being a key contributor to poor air quality. To move towards a more sustainable transport system we need to promote walking, cycling and public transport as well as clean and efficient fuels and vehicles.

The car will always have a role in society and therefore if consumers want to buy a car then they should go for the greener and cleaner vehicle. Car labelling could be influential in purchasing decisions but it has to be accurate and reflect emissions and fuel consumption under real-world conditions.

Despite these limitations, car labelling should be part of an overall strategy to reduce transport-related CO2 emissions and increase  societal well-being.

The Carbon Cost of Christmas

8322843924_e468686b2c

 

Christmas time is accompanied by seasonal increases in our level of consumption. But what is the environmental impact of Christmas?

From eating and drinking to giving and receiving, it is the time of the year when we do things to excess. Unfortunately, it also means we are likely to have a greater impact on the environment.

A number of studies have attempted to calculate the carbon footprint of Christmas.

So, let’s start with the Christmas tree. When it comes to the use of an artificial versus a natural Christmas tree, one study found that when compared on an annual basis, the artificial tree (6 yrs life span) has three times more impact on climate change and resource depletion than the natural tree. The natural tree contributes significantly less carbon dioxide emission (39%) than the artificial tree.

As for Christmas dinner, it has been estimated that a British style Christmas dinner is equivalent to 20kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission – 60 per cent related to life cycle of turkey. Total equivalent emissions for UK Christmas dinners is 51,000 tonnes – or 148 million miles travelled in a car. Cranberry sauce is the worst offender for transport-related carbon emissions.

tree_87637075

Even Santa Claus is not excluded from scrutiny. With  another study suggesting that Santa’s 133 million mile trip around the world is responsible for emitting about 70 million tons of CO2!

However, if we look at the total consumption and spending on food, travel, lighting and gifts over three days of festivities (Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day). Then this could result in as much as 650 kg of CO2 emissions per person – equivalent to the weight of 1,000 Christmas puddings!

Such studies will vary in their assumptions, data sets and methodologies and may not necessarily be comparable. However, we don’t need any study to tell us what we already know –  that our consumption peaks at this time of the year.

christmas-pudding-recipe-og_63107007250911bd1a10a3

But we can still have a good Christmas and be kind to the planet?

With a bit of thought we can limit the impact we have on the environment this Christmas and still have a great time. There are a number of actions we can all take which can reduce our CO2 emissions.

Food
• Support your local economy and try buying from local organic suppliers.

• Compost your vegetable peelings after you’ve finished cooking to make sure that this extra organic waste doesn’t head straight to landfill.
• Plan your meal carefully to reduce the amount of uneaten food thrown away – check who likes Brussels sprouts!
Travel
• Plan your Christmas travel to reduce the distance travelled and try and use environmentally friendly modes of transport or car share.
Lighting
• Less is more when it come Christmas lighting! Opt for a small tasteful lighting display and turn the fairy lights off before bed and save both money and carbon.

Shopping

polar-bear-christmas-tree

• When it comes to Christmas presents buy quality not quantity. Well-made goods last longer and will not have to be replaced in the New Year.
• A good Christmas gift doesn’t necessarily have to be expensive.
Think about giving alternative gifts such as a charity or environmentally friendly gift, an experience or giving your time.
• Give your unwanted gifts to charity or to local hospitals or hospices.

In this time of seasonal goodwill, we should all spare a thought for the planet!

A Merry Christmas to you all, everyone!

How Can We Protect An Ageing Population From The Effects of Environmental Change?

sri-lanka-flood-older-man-carried_246x211By 2050 there will be an unprecedented increase in the number of people aged 55-plus representing nearly a quarter of the global population.

The rise in the numbers of older people is happening more rapidly in developing countries where 60 per cent of the world’s older people currently live, particularly in Asia and Africa.

An ageing population has wide-ranging implications for environment, economy and society. Changes in age structure together with an expanding population, rapid urbanisation and levels of consumption are all placing pressure on the global environment.

This presents challenges in eradicating poverty, ensuring environmental justice and achieving an environmentally sustainable development, especially in the least developed countries of the world.

Acceleration of Global Ageing

The interaction between an ageing population and the environment poses significant challenges and opportunities for public policy.

However, policy makers at the international level have given little attention to the effects global environmental change will have on this demographic group.

Older people are a diverse group. Some are educated, fit, active and wealthy, have access to most of the goods and services they need and desire and play a key role in caring for themselves and other family members including grandchildren. In contrast, others are poor, frail and require care and financial support.

There are major regional differences, with poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia resulting in many older people in these areas lacking access to clean water, sanitation, nutrition and basic health care, making them highly vulnerable to environmental threats.

A study by the Stockholm Environment Institute reviews the key issues relevant to global ageing and environmental change. It examines older people not only in terms of their vulnerability to environmental threats but as potential contributors to environmental sustainability. The study recommend three areas for action if we are protect older people from future environmental change.

REDUCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT OF AN AGEING POPULATION

Elderly woman with social care assistant

Promoting greener attitudes and behaviours and influencing individual lifestyle choices across the life course are measures that can and should be used to reduce the future and current environmental footprint of older people.

This is particularly important at a time when many rapidly developing countries are seeing an increase in a high-consuming middle-class group who will eventually grow older.

There is an equally important need to engage older people using appropriate approaches such as peer-to-peer approaches which could provide more credibility.

Targeted engagement of older people not only fosters greener behaviours but also responds to their perceived lack of opportunities for social involvement and inter¬action.

Recent studies undertaken on direct interaction with the older age sector on climate change have demonstrated that, used in the appropriate way, it is a headline topic that stimulates lively discussion and debate on many issues related to environment and sustainability

Appropriate infrastructure and incentives that encourages greener behaviours in later life will also be needed. Since there will be a high number of urban seniors, achieving age-friendly cities will be important. In particular, older people require supportive and enabling living environments to compensate for physical and social changes associated with ageing.

These include walkable outdoor space and accessible public buildings, accessible and affordable public transport, appropriately designed, affordable and energy efficient housing with access to local services, opportunities for social participation and social inclusion, civic participation and employment.

PROTECTING OLDER PEOPLE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

We need policies that reduce the environmental vulnerability of older people and that focus on each part of the dynamic process that creates vulnerability.

These include policies that ensure people reach later life with sufficient reserves (e.g. coping skills, strong family and social ties and savings and assets), reducing the challenges they face in later life, and providing adequate health and social protection.

These factors will be different for older people in the developed and developing world. In developing countries, lack of basic infrastructure such as clean water and sanitation and health and social care combined with poverty and malnutrition make them vulnerable to environmental threats.

HelpAge International has discussed the need for climate and development strategies to be responsive to the realities of the ageing population and climate change. They suggest without age appropriate action, the effectiveness and success of climate adaption and national development and resilience strategies could be significantly compromised.

HelpAge International outlines ten strategies to coping with an ageing population in a changing climate .

In addition, Help the Aged identified ten basic requirements to make developed world communities better for older people.

These requirements included: adapting new and existing accommodation to suit people of all ages; transport options that meet the needs of all older people; keeping pavements in good repair; provision of public toilets; public seating; good street lighting and clean streets with a police presence; access to shops and services; places to socialise; information and advice; and ensuring older people’s voices are heard on issues from social care to volunteering opportunities.

If we are going to better protect individual countries need to be adopted. Policies that provide social protection, encouraging healthy life¬styles, acquisition of coping skills, strong family and social ties, active interests and, of course, savings and assets, will be important. All will assist in ensuring that people’s reserves are, and remain, strong in later life.

MOBILISING OLDER PEOPLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

volunteerSeniors’ knowledge of the local environment, its vulnerabilities and how the community responds allows them to play a key role in reducing the environmental impact of disasters. In particular, their knowledge of socio-ecological system and coping mechanisms can in some contexts be critical when developing local disaster risk reduction and adaptation plans .

Growing old in the twenty-first century will bring with it the unique challenge of a changing global environment with variable climate and weather patterns which will impact on all aspects of life. Policies therefore need to be ‘age proofed’ so that they can support older people through their life course.

If we are to prevent and minimise the negative impact of environmental change on older people, there is an urgent need to better understand the interaction between global ageing and the environment. We need to harness the contribution older people can make to addressing environmental threats, while reducing their vulnerability.

Can Economic Growth Deliver the Future We Want?

With Britain’s economy slipping into a double dip recession there is an urgent need to stimulate economic growth. This is widely seen as a panacea that will save us from austerity but can the pursuit of economic growth deliver the future we want?

The post-war period saw many nations equating economic growth with progress driven by technological innovation. While capitalism and the quest for economic growth have produced many benefits, this has come at a cost to the natural environment which is often not reflected in the balance sheet. The expansion of the production of good and services has required large amounts of labour, materials, energy and capital. Economic production has produced pollution and waste, degraded natural habitats and depleted natural resources to an extent that our future survival is now under threat.

In 2008 the world experienced multiple crises with regard to finance, fuel and food that contributed to the worst international economic recession since the 1930s Great Depression. The global financial crisis led to global per capita income contracting and the volume of world trade declining. It demonstrated serious flaws in our current western economic model of development and highlighted the need to reconsider the principles that have guided our economic policy making.

It is now time to think again about economic growth and how we actually measure it. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has been used as a key indicator to measure the sum of all goods and services produced in a country over time. However, this national indicator of economic progress does not consider inequality, pollution or damage to people’s health and the environment. Critics have called for GDP to be replaced with new indicators that better measure how our national policies can truly deliver a better quality of life for all.

Economic debate has tended to imply a choice has to be made between going green or going for growth. Yet we have no choice if we are to address simultaneously the current crises in global economic and environmental systems. The traditional pursuit for growth has expanded the economy to such a size that it now must conform to global environmental constraints.

Further growth will be uneconomic because it will produce more social and environmental costs than it does benefits. The only option is for ‘green’ growth that meets the dual objectives of economic growth and environmental protection with a focus on better outcomes not more outputs – a shift from quantity to quality.

In Prosperity Without Growth Tim Jackson argues that this will require a different kind of economy for a different kind of prosperity – one where human beings can flourish within the ecological limits of a finite planet. Our growth economy is driven by the consumption and production of novelty which locks society into an iron cage of consumerism. Change at the personal and societal level is necessary to make the transition to a new form of prosperity that does not depend on unrelenting growth.

In June world leaders were called upon to commit to a revolutionary paradigm shift from traditional quantity-oriented fossil fuel dependent growth towards green growth. More than 100 heads of State and government attended the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero to shape new policies to promote prosperity, reduce poverty and advance social equity and environmental protection. The Summit marked twenty years since the original 1992 Rio Earth Summit that set out the framework to address climate change and implement sustainable development into practice.

A transition towards a greener economy requires long-term sustainable growth and the efficient use of natural resources, reduction of carbon emissions, and eradication of poverty. This will require developing a green economy in the UK and working at an international level to tackle long term challenges.

In the short-term the transition to a green economy will involve additional costs and difficult choices. We will need to transform what we produce and how we produce it and take advantage of resource efficiencies. This will be achieved by using new technologies and adopting different ways of living and working, and investing in infrastructure. All economic sectors will need to grow without undermining the capacity of the environment to support our future quality of life. They will need to develop greater resilience to future environmental challenges such as climate change, material, energy and food insecurity and natural disasters.

The transition to a green economy will allow businesses to benefit from resources efficiencies and market opportunities and contribute to creating new green jobs. UK business could save as much as £23 billion a year through efficiency savings by improving the way they use energy and water, and by reducing waste. In addition, they could take advantage of the global market for environmental goods and services which has been estimated to be worth about £2.27 trillion, with forecasts predicting 4 per cent growth on an annual basis.

However, a recent report by the Institute Public Policy Research (IPPR) examined the views of over one hundred British industries on the transition to a green economy, particularly in the energy, transport and manufacturing sectors. Despite David Cameron’s Coalition government claiming to be the greenest government ever, IPPR found that industry was critical of the Coalition due to a perceived disconnect between the rhetoric of ministers and the policies they were pursuing.

Recent policy changes such as the feed-in tariffs for solar photovoltaic installations were seen as shifting the goal posts and doing little to maintain business and investor confidence in the green growth agenda. The report highlighted the need for policymakers to taken on a more active role in addressing the barriers to green growth faced by many manufacturing and energy-intensive industries.

Greening the economy will undoubtedly be good for business, people and the planet. The Earth Summit resulted in the International community simply affirming the need to achieve a green economy. However, the rhetoric contained in the final report of the conference needs to be matched by action. Clear financial incentives are need to encourage greener investment and behaviour in government, businesses and consumers.

If we are to create the future we want we need to need to develop a new form of prosperity that is not dependent on continual growth. Fundamental change to the structure of society and the market economy is needed if real environmental gains are to be achieved. Change on the scale achieved in the industrial revolution is required driven by clean, efficient and sustainable renewable energy technologies. The only solution to austerity is to ensure the UK is firmly placed at the forefront of this new global green revolution.

© Gary Haq 2012

Are Green Taxes Pointless?

OVER the last two decades UK carbon emissions rather than falling have increased by 20 per cent, according to figures recently published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

Carbon emissions associated with our spending on goods and services contribute to the national carbon footprint wherever these emissions arise in the world. Imports such as products made in China now account for almost half of the country’s carbon emissions.

The lack of progress on carbon reduction has led many to question the use of green taxes at a time when there is an urgent need to kick-start the economy. Critics believe green taxes have imposed unnecessary costs on UK industry – shifting emissions and jobs overseas.

Speaking at last year’s Conservative Party conference Chancellor George Osborne said: “We’re not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business”. So are environmental taxes pointless and are we wasting our time trying to cut the UK’s carbon footprint?

Taxation and death are two certainties in an increasingly uncertain world. Tax is a way we all contribute to our society yet the link between tax and enjoying the benefits of a good society seem to have been lost some time ago. Mark Twain once wrote: “The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.”

Public resistance to taxation seems particularly strong when it comes to the use of green taxes whether this is a tax on carbon, fuel, bins or plastic bags. Green taxes have been used both to raise revenue and reduce environmental impacts.

In 2010 environmental taxes accounted for 8 per cent of total taxes and social contributions – equivalent to 3 per cent of the UK Gross Domestic Product. In total the Government received £42 billion from environmental taxes – £3 billion more than in 2009. The increase in tax revenue came mainly from fuel duty and the associated VAT on petrol and diesel.

Fuel duty was never intended as a green tax but has successfully discouraged car use. In last year’s budget the Chancellor cancelled the fuel duty escalator which each year added an extra penny on top of inflation. However, a planned rise in August will increase the price of petrol by 3p per litre. This has already resulted in pensioners, cabbies, van drivers and hauliers taking to the streets in protest.

Rising oil prices mean pump prices will reach a record high and has sparked fears that there could be a repeat of national fuel protests similar to those seen in September 2000. In an age of austerity fuel increases is seen as an additional pressure on hard-pressed motorists and businesses that rely on fuel.

Another green tax is the air passenger duty which has been used to discourage air travel. The duty will rise by 8 per cent this year, eventually rising to 50 per cent by 2016. Britain’s four largest airlines EasyJet, British Airways, Ryanair and Virgin Atlantic claim the increase would mean fewer visitors to the UK and will result in job losses in tourism, aviation and hospitality industries. The rise will price out families from flying with an average family of four facing a £500 levy to fly to Australia in four years’ time.

If the UK is to meet its target of an 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, major reforms of the electricity sector are needed. From April 2013 the conservative-led coalition government will introduce a ‘carbon floor’ price to increase the financial incentive to adopt low-carbon technologies. This tax aims to make the polluter pay a minimum amount for the right to pollute.

The floor price will start at around £16 per tonne of carbon dioxide and reach a target of £30 in 2020. The policy has been criticised as being ineffective and unfair as other EU companies will not face a minimum price for carbon.

The government admits around 40 per cent of the total costs of the floor price is likely to be borne by households – increasing the average household electricity bill by as much as 6 per cent.

Much of the opposition to green taxes is based on the impression that individuals and businesses are already being taxed too much. Unfortunately, there will always be opposition to green taxes until there is widespread recognition of the environmental and societal costs caused by our high consuming lifestyles.

Whether this is the health and environmental impacts of vehicle-related air and noise pollution or the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from air travel and the domestic energy sector. We have become so disconnected from the natural world that we do not see it has been fundamental to our way of life. Nor does our current economic system place enough value on the services the environment provides to society.

A 2009 report by the Green Fiscal Commission claims there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that environmental taxes are effective. Numerous examples of successful green taxes in other countries exist. These include the Danish energy taxes, the Swedish tax on nitrogen oxide emissions from energy plants, the German energy and transport taxes, the UK climate change levy and fuel duty escalator, the Finnish, Swedish and UK waste taxes, the London congestion charge and the Dutch waste water effluent charge.

The failure to cut national carbon emissions over the last two decades is being used to argue for green taxes to be diluted or scrapped altogether. Such an argument misses the point. What we need to address is our insatiable appetite for cheap throwaway products we find in pound shops up and down the country.

The surge in imported goods from developing countries that rely on dirty coal-fired power stations means we have successfully exported our pollution. It also means that we should accept responsibility for the emissions caused by the production of the goods that we buy.

If green taxes are to be made more publicly acceptable and effective they need to be straightforward so that taxpayers understand the behavioural change signal being sent. In order to build trust and acceptance of green taxes there needs to be greater use of ‘hypothecation’ of revenues.

This means earmarking tax revenues derived from a green tax for a specific environmentally friendly purpose. For example, the licence fund is used to finance the BBC. Therefore transport taxes could be used directly to improve public transport and infrastructure. Taxpayers will then clearly see the benefits of the green tax.

In an age of austerity it is easy to claim green taxes inhibit growth. However, such an argument does not recognise the economic, cultural and social benefits we gain from the multitude of resources and processes that are supplied by nature. Collectively, these benefits are known as ‘ecosystem services’ and include products such as clean drinking water and processes that result in the decomposition of wastes.

Green taxes are therefore important to ensure we protect our ‘life support system’. Rather than being seen as stealth taxes they should be seen as transparent incentives to change behaviour and to help us to make the transition to a low carbon and sustainable society on which our future prosperity depends.

© Gary Haq 2012

What Do Older People Think About The Environment?

We are all getting older. There are now approximately 760 million people globally aged 60-plus compared to just 200 million back in 1950. By 2050 people aged 60-plus are predicted to reach 2 billion people.

We are all getting older. There are now approximately 760 million people globally aged 60-plus compared to just 200 million back in 1950. By 2050 people aged 60-plus are predicted to reach 2 billion people.

Increased lifespan demonstrates the success of modern medicine particularly in developing countries. However, an ageing population will have major implications for health care, pensions and working practices.

An older society will require a cultural change in how we perceive and treat older people and policy makers will need to prepare for the challenges of an ageing population. Not just in terms of need but also the contribution older people can make to society in later life.

Evidence shows that some older people in certain regions of the world can be disproportionately affected by environmental problems such as air pollution, climate change-related heat waves and other natural disasters.

In addition, recent research, surveys and consultations have exposed the missed opportunities associated with the lack of closer engagement of the over 55s in general discussion on environmental issues.

It is therefore important that seniors around the world make their voices heard so that policy makers can take action to better prepare for the needs of an ageing population.

In June 2012 the environment will once again be in the international spotlight as world leaders descend on Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) for the United Nations Conference for Environment and Development or “Earth Summit”.

In an attempt to address the “missing voice” of older people and to encourage wider involvement, an consortium led by the Stockholm Environment Institute is seeking the views of older people around the world on the environmental issues of primary concern and their ideas for tackling them.

This survey is being conducted by an international consortium of older people organisations and universities. The consortium is led by SEI at the University of York (UK) and the Simon Fraser University Gerontology Research Centre (Canada) and includes Help Age International, Age UK, Community Service Volunteers’ Retired and Senior Volunteer Programme (RSVP) and the Council On The Ageing (COTA) – Victoria (Australia).

If your are over 55 then make sure your voice is heard by completing the On-line survey at www.envirosurvey55.com before the 30 April 2012.

© Gary Haq 2012