Saturday, 30 June 2018

Bloglovin

<a href="https://www.bloglovin.com/blog/19513415/?claim=k49c68jz6j4">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>


Follow me on Bloglovin for updates here -
https://www.bloglovin.com/blogs/protecting-wild-19513415
at No comments:

Are Electric Cars the Answer?

Related image
Photograph from Financial Tribute, October 2017 -
https://financialtribune.com/articles/auto/74460/china-electric-car-output-to-hit-1m-next-year
With greenhouse gas emissions continuing to rise combined the immanent threat of peak oil many of us are turning to hybrid or electric cars to get us from A to B. With 1.9 million electric cars being used globally in 2017, there has been an increase in both interest and investment in the electric car industry with global car manufacturers creating for 'eco-friendly' electric cars, the most popular of which being the Nissan Leaf. However, is purchasing one of these cars actually reducing your ecological footprint and fossil fuel consumption at all? And are there better alternatives we should be investing in?

Firstly lets look at the total greenhouse gas emissions. Per km, the average petrol run car produces the equivalent of 125g of CO2 whereas the average hybrid produces 82g per km. If your car were to be a pure electric car, the emissions would be even lower averaging at 57g per km. This is mainly due to the fact that no combustion occurs in the engine of an electric car but this doesn't mean they're completely green. Firstly, the average electric car produces 3.3 tonnes more CO2 during the production in comparison to the average for petrol cars. There are also the greenhouse gases produced during electricity generation as during 2015 roughly 66% of electricity was generated using fossil fuels, the so called 'green' cars are still contributing towards the enhanced greenhouse effect. However, there is evidence to suggest that electric cars have the potential to produce 80% less greenhouse gas emissions compared to a petrol car. Personally, I believe this to be possible as it has been proven that electric cars are more energy efficient, but the amount of emissions will vary depending on the nations energy mix as well as the future development of the car batteries. Overall, there are fewer emissions produced by electric cars and they do not produce any exhaust emission resulting in fewer NOx and PM emissions which will help improve air quality, particually in urban areas. Taking all these into account, statistically electric cars are better for the environment in terms of emissions and can be shown to improve air quality.

Despite this fact, fossil fuels still account for the majority of electricity generation with 51% of the UK's energy in 2016 being generated by natural gas and coal. This means that greenhouse gases will still be being produced and with the current geopolitical issues surrounding natural gas, the growth in electric cars could put a strain on our current reserves which can be described as touchy at best, particularly in Ukraine. Although less oil is used for electricity generation, electric cars could lead to a growth in the coal industry and open cast mining in particular has a huge environmental impact. There is large habitat damage which reduces biodiversity and puts a strain on vulnerable species due to the removal of vegetation that is considered 'overburden'. There is also the issue of sulphur dioxide emission, increasing acid rain and the release of toxic trace element polluting the water supply. The increase in demand for electricity has the potential to increase the amount of nuclear power stations as nuclear fission has an extremely high energy density, much higher than that of any current technology. There are many growing concerns as even though there are no greenhouse gas emission and it is recyclable, there is the issue of nuclear waste production and radiation which threaten the health of workers as well as the surrounding area if radioactive dust particles are released into the atmosphere. The unstable nature of radioisotopes means that there is a risk of a nuclear reactor explosion which could mean that occurrences similar to Fukishima and Chernobyl could become more common if the demand for nuclear energy would to increase.

The other main benefits is the economic savings. Most electric cars are tax free which means a saving of between £140 and £2070 annually, depending on how polluting your car is. There is also the reduced maintenance cost as no greenhouse gases and polluting exhaust gases mean there is no need for oil changes and the engine is kept cleaner for longer. There is also the Plug-in Car Grant meaning there is an additional saving with a reduced buying price but it is more than likely this grant will not last long if electric car sales begin to rise.

The biggest con however, is the lack of infrastructure available. With charging points still being relatively uncommon, many people would not feel comfortable using a pure electric car for a long journey. The batteries also have a long charging time meaning that already long journey could take twice as long and drivers will be forced to use the limited charging stations available which could could cost a pretty penny. Without the infrastructure available, it is unlikely many users will see the benefits that are being advertised as many see this as there being an increase risk in breakdown and just as inconvenience especially for those who commute regularly. With a lack of infrastructure personally I cannot see the demand for pure electric cars rising but I feel that hybrid cars are a solution to this problem as this removes the risk of running out of fuel and eliminates that risk of there being no charging stations on route.

Overall, I feel that there are better and more reliable alternatives to pure electric cars that are greener. Personally I feel that with a development in the hydrogen engine (even though it is expensive and not available yet) the future of cars will be more sustainable. This would also combat the major environmental issue of the nickel needed for car batteries and have an even lower ecological footprint.



Resources -


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, 4 June 2018

Can Cotton Be Sustainable?

Skyrocketing electricity costs makes cotton-growers take ...
Image from www.heraldsun.com.au

I was in Primark the other day (not the most eco-friendly I'll admit) and I noticed that they had a sustainable cotton section. Cotton farming requires a huge amount of land that is often derived from unsustainable deforestation methods (i.e. slash and burn) and the growing and harvesting process has a huge environmental impact so I was happy to see a big retailer trying to reduce the environmental impact. However this did get me thinking what made this cotton sustainable? Can cotton farming ever be sustainable?

 Firstly why is cotton farming so unsustainable? 

 Cotton farming has huge ethical and environmental implications the first of which being the huge water consumption with the average water footprint being 10,000 litres per kilogram. With 730 million without access to clean water globally, cotton farming increases water scarcity in the areas with the greatest need for water. Cotton is also considered the 'dirtiest crop' by many organisations, such as the EJF, with cotton farming using 16% of all insecticides. Over 98% of all insecticides kill no target species causing a decline in the main pollinator species. There is also a risk of contamination of aquatic environments from runoff causing a decline in aquatic organisms. There are also health implications for workers and with 99% of all cotton farmers living in third world countries, there is a lack of safety and hazard testing. For example, a common pesticide used for cotton farming is easily absorbed via the skin and has the potential to kill. Other health implications of insecticides include respiratory illnesses, memory loss and seizures. There is also a huge amount of pollution produced as a result of deforestation and the chemicals used in the dyeing and bleaching process causes a large amount of environmental degradation. These chemicals include heavy metals and benzidine/chlorine bleaches which have been linked to an increased risk of cancer. 

 There is also a huge socioeconomic impact with the workers in third world nations receiving low wages and the rich TNC's receiving the majority of profits, driving the poverty cycle. The majority of workers receive wages lower than the amount needed to meet their basic human needs. Many of these workers work long working days (with hours above the limit set by the International Labour Organisation) and overtime often goes unpaid. There is also a huge number of children working in the fields and Uzbekistan has been outed for shutting schools and forcing children to work in cotton fields. 

 This begs the question what is the difference between 'normal' cotton and sustainable cotton, like the one used in Primark?

 Sustainable cotton is defines as the sources being 'either organic, better or recycled' which has the potential to vastly reduce the environmental footprint of cotton farming. With the greatest amount of energy being used, resulting in a large amount of pollution, is during the extraction and processing of cotton so recycled cotton will greatly reduce the ecological footprint. Cotton that is certified GRS (Global Recycle Standard) ensures that cotton has been produced with minimal environmental and chemical impacts throughout the entire production process. This ensures the cotton farm has a chemical management system in place to meet all the legal requirements and to reduce the amount of pollution and run off. It also ensures that all companies meet the set target for energy use (as set by Textile Exchange) and there are frequent reviews to help improve energy efficiency. there are also set targets for water use and air pollution levels helping to reduce the environmental impact further.

Organic is defined as "produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, or other artificial chemicals" in the Oxford dictionary. Although natural pesticides and fertilisers can still be harmful, there is less contribution to acidification and eutrophaction, reducing the impact on aquatic life and the soil in the surrounding area helping both the local people and the biodiversity. The chemicals used to treat regular cotton can bio-accumulate within the food chain meaning the impacts can be seen in the top predators even though they are not in direct contact with the chemical as it is stored in the fatty tissue of smaller, prey organisms. Pesticides have been linked to 67 million annual deaths in birds in the U.S. alone due to the bio-accumulating properties. With less pesticide use, there is a greater chance of bio-diversity recovering in cotton farming areas.

Image result for certified organic cotton label
Photo of certified organic cotton labels from babycribbed.com

There are also major differences to the workers, with organisations working to improve working conditions. The Better Cotton Initiative ensure that farmers receive more of the profits, better working conditions and healthcare and has been based on UN labour standards. This mean there is a better quality of life for the workers as there is less fear of discrimination and better workers rights so they are not afraid of becoming unemployed if they do not receive a pay cut. The increase in disposable income means there is a greater chance of improving sanitation, education and access to clean water and food. The knock on effects mean that workers under these initiatives have a chance at a better quality of life.

There are a large number of cotton standards and projects to help improve the sustainability but with less than 1% of the worlds cotton being certified organic, there is still a huge amount of demand and need for unsustainable farming methods to meet the huge demand. With 120.8 million bales (at 480 pounds each) being produced in 2017, more retailers need to enforce these farming methods to ensure the minimal environmental impact and ensure we have cotton as a resource for the future. However, in my opinion cotton is one of the most unsustainable materials and there are better options for retailers to invest in with a much smaller impact. For example, not only is hemp a more durable material, which will help reduce the production demand, but also requires half the amount of land that cotton does and requires less water at 2,000 L per kg. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry. A life cycle assessment carried out but the Textile Exchange staes that organic farmed cotton was "significantly more environmental friendly" but organic cotton also requires more land than convential cotton as it has a much lower yield so some believe that it may lead to an increase in deforestation, questioning the sustainability of organic cotton. There are also more sustainable materials such as linen and soy silk showing there are materials out there that can improve the sustainability of the fashion industry.

Overall, my personal view is that recycled cotton is a better option than organic and conventional cotton due to the reduced chemical and land use. Despite this I do feel that there are better options available and companies should be investing in these materials. I do feel that some responsibility should lie with the consumer as there are alternatives such as buying second hand clothing and choosing your clothing brands more carefully.



References - 

at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)