The Importance of Peatlands

Photo of a peatland habitat. from leeds.ac.uk

In the UK, 10% of our land area are covered in peatlands and are vital not only to our economy and wildlife but as a form of carbon sequestration. Despite these factors, peatlands are given little care, unless designated by governments, as they are often just seen as bogs with nutrient rich soil making them ideal spots for the growing agricultural industry. However, the elevated water table means that drainage is required which removes the required vegetation (also know as bog builders)  that have lead to a dramatic decline in global peatland habitats. So what is being done to reverse this and why are these habitats so important?

So peatlands are essentially a soft, nutrient rich soil that forms over a long period of time, in a similar way to coal, under anaerobic conditions. These habitats also acts as a large store of water that leads to the colonisation of Sphagnum mosses that lead to the development of peat habitats such as swamps and wetlands. In the UK there are 10 key peatland Sphagnum species with most common being Baltic Bog-moss that is protected under UK legislation. These mosses have a sponge like structure meaning they store large quantities of water, preventing the surrounding area from drying up. This specific property also helps to prevent any decay and decomposition aiding the accumulation of peat and helping to maintain these diverse habitats. The bog building plants also help to shape the habitat by creating pool and hammock structures that increase the water table, making more water more available to plants on the surface. If these species are removed, it would cause a decline in peat formation, water supply and affect the topography of the habitat.

Global, peatlands are currently storing 500 GT (which is more than all forests) of carbon as a result of peat being made of dead and decaying vegetation which is stored instead of being released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. When peatlands are drained and deforested, that stored carbon is then released into the atmosphere so imagine the damage that would be done if all the peatlands around the world were gone? RIP polar bears. These habitats also act as a store of water which not only benefits biodiversity but can also increase ground water levels in the surrounding area and the moss structure helps to filter the groundwater. This means that our water reservoirs would face serious decline in these peatland habitats continue to decrease in size and quality.

Peatlands tend to have a low species diversity due to the habitat creating a small niche so only specialised organism can live there. As the habitat is currently declining many of the species are subsequently following, including the Common Scoter and the Mountain Hare, and the specialised habitat requirements of these species mean they cannot colonise other habitats. As these habitats are declining the competition between and amongst species is increasing therefore reducing the population However, action is being taken especially regarding the protection of breeding birds as several peat habitats, including the North Pennies, have been designated a SPA (Special Protection Area). These areas are maintained and managed in order to increase specific bird populations. Most of these habitats are also listed a SSSI's (sites of special scientific interest) which are areas managed by Natural England due to their biological or geological interest. This ensures that land owners take all the necessary precautions to protect these areas, including many peatland habitats, from damage.

Despite vast restoration efforts, I feel that the importance of these areas is not emphasised to the general public, mainly because they aren't necessarily as aesthetically pleasing as the bright and vibrant tropical rainforests we see. Do I think more could be done? Absolutely. However, the UK government is making good efforts to designated and protect these areas but could invest in future expansion projects to increase the size of our peatlands.


Resources

• http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/publications/commission-inquiry/work-commission/peatland-hydrology 
• https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/wildlife-explorer/mosses-and-liverworts/sphagnum-moss
• http://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/publications/commission-inquiry/work-commission/peatland-biodiversity
• http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5905

Does Our Environment Affect Our Welfare and Health?

There's no question that we are having a grave impact on our environment whether that is through climate change or habitat destruction. Many of us believe that in order to improve our happiness and welfare we need to have a high income and economic growth in our country but there have been many reports to suggest that there is a strong link between growing the economy and environmental degradation. So what does this mean for our health? Can we really be at our happiest and healthiest with the current trend of over exploitation?

According to the World Bank, in 2014 globally we emitted 36.2 million Ktonnes of CO2 in contrast to the 9 million Ktonnes emitted in 1960 which has made us more vulnerable to respiratory illness. The WHO has linked 3 million deaths each year to outdoor air pollution with reference to illness ranging from asthma and bronchitis to lung cancer. These reports also state these illnesses are higher in industrial areas and larger cities due to excess transport fumes and burning of fossil fuels. There has also been a link between high concentrations of air pollution and cardiovascular illness which puts us at greater risk of heart attack, stroke and angina. One way this occurs is through particulate matter entering the blood stream, restricting the movement of blood vessels, increasing blood pressure and therefore increasing our risk of suffering a heart attack.

Sunlight provides us with vitamin D which is needed to regulate calcium and phosphate within the body, helping to maintain healthy bones and muscles. We as humans require 10 micrograms of vitamin D a day, most of which we are supposed to get naturally through sunlight meaning we do have to step out of the house occasionally. A lack of vitamin D in extreme cases can cause rickets in children that leads to weak bones and deformities. This causes a high number of bone fractures and can eventually cause a curvature of the spine, leading to a permanent disability. Low vitamin D can also cause osteomalacia, which is similar to rickets, in adults causing bones to soften. With 1 in 5 people in the UK having low vitamin D levels, it is important we spend more time outdoors (and maybe consider a supplement in winter).

There have also been studies suggesting a link between time outside and an improvement in mental health with studies showing time outdoors reduces stress and reduces the symptoms of depression and anxiety. Scientists have suggested that urban and man made environments has 'constant simulation' that leads to mental fatigue, making those living in cities at greater risk of mental illness. Those living in rural areas also have better sleep with less noises keeping them awake. This will help to improve concentration, lower stress and improve moods which will allow people to be more productive.

There is also the obvious benefit that walking in a natural environment keeps us active, aids weight loss and maintains a healthy heart. Sitting down for too long can cause a decline in bone density and increase blood pressure after deposits in the blood vessels are not removed. All of these factors have been linked to a lower life expectancy by increasing our risk of stroke, heart disease and diabetes just to name a few.

So we all need to get outside in nature to help improve our health and wellbeing. However, I'm not saying that if you live in a city you're going to get ill and live a shorter life because that's not the case. Most large cities have parks and open spaces you can visit and city councils should be turning old sites into open spaces to encourage the urban population the get out and appreciate nature and we should all be doing our bit to protect it to protect the health of the future generations.


References
https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution#death-rates-from-air-pollution
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/support/practical-support/air-pollution
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d/
https://patient.info/health/osteoporosis-leaflet/vitamin-d-deficiency

Mangroves: The Natural Defence for Coastlines

Figure 1 - A map highlighting the distribution of mangrove forests (in black) throughout the globe (Romañach, 2017)

Across the intertidal zone are a collection of mangrove forests located along the coastlines of equatorial countries (figure 1), the largest being The Sundarbans in Bangladesh covering a total of 140,000 ha. These forests are often referred to as 'the roots of the sea' due to the complex aerial root system that spend the majority of the time above sea level enabling the plant to survive in the anaerobic soil, making these ecosystems tolerant to a hypersaline environment. With 40% of mangrove species labelled threatened by the IUCN, these coastal areas could be at greater risk of coastal erosion, storm surges and sea level rise. It is important these issues are understood to aid conservation of global coastlines as well as these beautiful unique habitats.

Figure 2 - A photograph showing the dense root systems of mangrove forests that reduce erosion 

Erosion is defined as “the process of eroding or being eroded by wind, water, or other natural agents”  and the complex, uneven aerial root system (figure 2) of mangroves reduces erosion of the shore. Mangroves have reportedly reduced the height waves up to 66% and slow the flow of seawater as the vegetation acts as a buffer between the land and sea. This enables 70-80% of incoming sediment to settle resulting, increasing biomass. This helps to increase the fertility in these harsh environments, increasing biodiversity, as mangrove soils have a high nutrient content. This gradual accumulation of biomass, over a long-time period, allows peat to form which is a long-term carbon sink helping to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. The dense roots bind soil particles together meaning an increase in mangrove trees means that less soil particles will become dislodged by incoming waves. This reduces the risk of flooding and damage to infrastructure in coastal communities. This risk increased in Guyana as after the removal of mangroves, coastal erosion increased 3 m annually.

The dense vegetation helps to reduce the impact of hurricanes and tsunamis inland by reducing the force of the storm surge. Figure 3 shows a storm surge is a large increase in sea water due to extreme weather, that often carries debris, that causes damage to infrastructure and flooding. The complex structure of mangrove forests increases the frictional resistance resulting in a drop in the force of the storm surge and slowing the flow rate of the wave. Storm surges are the biggest cause of damage during storms affecting causing large scale damage to properties, roads, biodiversity and coastal erosion. Studies have reported that mangroves can reduce the amplitude of a storm surge by 6 to 10 cm/km resulting in a decline in inland flooding and may fewer individuals at risk. However, the force from the waves can damage the mangroves often resulting in uprooting and damaging trunks so the health of mangrove forests should be monitored to ensure future storm surges have a reduced impact.

Figure 3 - A graphic showing the large increase in wave size during a storm surge 

Not only do mangroves provide a habitat to endangered species, including the Bengal tiger, but there are also major benefits to the human population as they reduce the risk to coastal settlements. Despite these major benefits, deforestation of these unique habitats is still on the rise due to the growth in aquaculture and the high value of mangrove wood potentially putting coastlines at risk.

Bibliography

• Gracia, A., Rangel-Buitrago, N., Oakley, J., & Williams, A. (2017). Use of ecosystems in coastal erosion management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 156, 277-289. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301588#bib42
• ICUN. (2010, April 8th). Mangrove forests in worldwide decline. Retrieved from ICUN Threatened List: http://www.iucnredlist.org/news/mangrove-forests-in-worldwide-decline
• Leggett, M. (2011, April 5th). Carbon grasped by Mangrove roots vastly underestimated. Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from Earth Times: http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/carbon-grasped-mangrove-roots-vastly-underestimated/662/
• NOAA. (2018, June 25th). What is storm surge? Retrieved October 12th, 2018, from National Ocean Service: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/stormsurge-stormtide.html
• Oxford University. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English (Third ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 10th, 2018
• Romañach, S. (2017). Conservation and restoration of mangroves: Global status, perspectives, and prognosis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 154, 72-82. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569117301710#fig
• Sivasothi, N. (2001). How plants cope in the mangroves. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from Guide to the Mangroves of Singapore: http://mangrove.nus.edu.sg/guidebooks/text/1043.htm
• Spalding, M., Mclvor, A., & Tonneijck, F. (2014). Mangroves for coastal defence. Cambridge: The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from https://www.nature.org/media/oceansandcoasts/mangroves-for-coastal-defence.pdf
• United Nations. (2017). The Sundarbans. Retrieved October 11th, 2018, from UNESCO: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/798

Animal Agriculture and Climate Change

https://climatevulture.com/category/blog-topics/agriculture/

Climate change is a major global issue with it being a key talking point amongst governments and IGO's (*ahem America*). Everyone is aware of the obvious contributors including exhaust emissions and fossil fuels but recently it has been suggested that animal agriculture may be a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than originally thought. There has been evidence to suggest that as our meat consumption has grown so have our carbon emissions but this could also be due to the growth of industry, population and a greater dependence on fossil fuels. So does this mean documentaries like Cowspiracy are wrong?

It is suggested that livestock is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. With the addition of the byproducts, it could be as high as 51% with a projected increase of 80% by 2050. These byproducts include transportation, food and heating. Most of these emissions are methane that are produced by the growing cattle industry and bad land management and with methane having a global warming potential 86 times greater than carbon dioxide, it is no wonder livestock are essentially destroying out planet. Methane is produces in the stomach of cows and sheep as the ingested plants undergo fermentation that produces methane as a by-product essentially meaning cow farts are destroying the environment. It doesn't take a genius to realise that as the "need" for beef grows so will these toxic methane emissions. In fact methane emissions from livestock are similar to those produced by natural gas, questioning if we should be shifting from promoting electric cars to a more plant based diet.

With animal agriculture covering an estimated 45% of land, livestock is a primary contributor to habitat loss and deforestation on a global scale. Globally, all agriculture is responsible for 80% of deforestation, with the biggest causes for habitat destruction in the Amazon basin being cattle ranches and soya plantations. Although crops are a cause for deforestation, we will see a very small percentage of these yields as most will be used for animal feed. In order to achieve maximum yield and profit, cattle require a large amount of food. If we think about this in terms of tropic levels, as we move up a level (or a stage in the food chain) 90% of energy is lost so we need more cows to produce the amount of beef we need to meet our energy needs. This means more cattle ranches and more animal feed. As most of us are aware, forests are an important carbon sink and help to reduce the enhanced greenhouse effect and if agriculture continues to grow, so will the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Did you know a farm with 2,500 cattle produces the same amount of waste as over 410,000 people? If it is disposed of incorrectly it can result in anaerobic digestion, again resulting in the release of methane. Another side effect is eutrophication reducing nutrient availability, creating algal blooms and a decline in biodiversity. Not to mention the fact it is a direct cause of water pollution and poses a huge health risk to animals and humans alike.

So overall do I believe a plant based diet will help reduce carbon emissions. Yes, all the facts support this. However it is important that we also understand that we have a meat eating culture spanning thousands of years and we have been taught our whole lives nutrition must contain animal products. Therefore this change cannot be expected to happen overnight but even if you only eat meant 3 or 4 times a week, you will still have significantly cut your carbon footprint.



Resources -

• https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/this-is-how-animal-agriculture-causes-deforestation/ 
• http://stockfreeorganic.net/deforestation-livestock-destroying-the-living-earth/
• https://news.mongabay.com/2012/09/agriculture-causes-80-of-tropical-deforestation/
• http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/
• https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas
• https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/901V0100.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EP
• https://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99205.pdf

Can Cotton Be Sustainable?

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.

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 - 

• Risks of cotton processing, Organic Cotton, (2016), https://www.organiccotton.org/oc/Cotton-general/Impact-of-cotton/Risk-of-cotton-processing.php 
• Ethical Issues in Cotton Production,  Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd, (August 2017), http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/fashionindustry/cotton.aspx
• Global Cotton Production, Statista, (2018), https://www.statista.com/statistics/259392/cotton-production-worldwide-since-1990/
• What Is the Most Animal and Eco-Friendly Material for Clothing?, Lindsay Patton, (January 26 2015),  http://www.onegreenplanet.org/environment/what-is-the-most-animal-and-eco-friendly-material-for-clothing/
• Global Recycled Standard, Textile Exchange, (2017), http://textileexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Global-Recycled-Standard-v4.0.pdf
• 13 brands sign sustainable cotton pledge - but is organic cotton really better?, Vlvlan Herdrlksz, Fashion United, (7 June 2017), https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/13-brands-sign-sustainable-cotton-pledge-but-is-organic-cotton-really-better/2017060724755

The Cost of Biofuels

With growing greenhouse gas emission being linked to oil consumption, it's no surprise that we as a population are keen to find a more sustainable alternative, the main opinion being that bio-fuel is most likely the best option. With global bio-fuel production growing 137 billion L in 2016, with this figure projected to rise, we really need to ask the question of this is the most sustainable alternative.



So what are bio-fuels?
Bio-fuels are fuels created from organic matter (i.e. biomass and bio-waste) as an alternative to crude oil products with the most common forms being bio-diesel and ethanol. With bio fuels being widely used in developing countries it makes up 10% of global energy consumption and Brazil tops global production with 19.2 million L being produced in 2007. So fuel made from plants, sounds sustainable right? In my opinion this couldn't be further from the truth.

The first issue that should be raised is land use. In the US, annual oil usage is 134 billion gallons and in order to meet this demand 168 million acres of sugarcane would be needed. To me, this seems near impossible to achieve and the complete opposite of sustainable, especially when you factor in the rate the population is growing. With a growing population (that we are currently struggling to feed), shouldn't the land be used to grow food? The lack of agricultural land will result in an increase in food imports, increasing the food miles per person. Won't this just increase fossil fuel use from aircraft and container ships?

Say hypothetically we manage to overcome the fuel over food issue, the loss of biodiversity will be huge. Mass deforestation will have to occur to meet demand, putting already threatened species at risk. With Brazil being the leader in bio-fuel production, would this put even more pressure on the
already shrinking Amazon rain forest considering soy is used for bio-diesel? The Cerrado region has 8-9 million hectares of sugarcane plantation (used for ethanol fuel) which is a main cause for the ecosystem declining by 60%. With WWF claiming up to 10,000 species a year are going extinct, a growing bio-fuel industry would only increase this number as there would be a greater demand for this? Combine this with the growing demand for food and this figure rises even higher. Although I feel ethically we should conserve these areas, humans also benefit from biodiversity both economically and in terms of well-being. We gain food, water, fertile soil and some medicines from natural ecosystems, most of which are highest in ecosystems with the richest biodiversity. These can be sold and exported (e.g. tropical fruit, coffee) increasing income and security for individuals. Biodiversity also has cultural significance and have been linked to better mental health and social relations. Seeing as we gain so much from the natural ecosystems already present, should we not be looking at other alternatives for fuel?

The main benefit to bio-fuels is they are green and cut carbon emission right? Wrong. Yes, I am aware the plants used will act as a carbon sink so it could be argued that the bio-fuels themselves do not produce any additional greenhouse gases. However we need to take into consideration the secondary greenhouse gases produced as a by product of production. The majority of deforestation occurs as a result of 'slash and burn' methods will release a huge quantity of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and methane (which is more polluting that CO2). There will also be an increase in demand for fertilisers, increasing NO2 levels and ,considering NO2 has a global warming potential around 300 times greater than CO2, this will only amplify the enhanced greenhouse effect. There is also the added cost of fuel from machinery for planting and harvesting as well as the emissions from the production/conversion process which will have to be done on an industrial scale. With all of these considered, it really does question how green bio-fuels really are.



My opinion is that there are other renewable energy sources available that could be developed that are more sustainable. Although I am all for phasing out petrol and diesel, I don't feel that the way to doe this is with biofuels.

Resources -

• International Energy Association, Tracking Progress: Transport biofuels, https://www.iea.org/etp/tracking2017/transportbiofuels/ 
• FAO, Agricultural Outlook 2016, http://www.fao.org/3/a-BO103e.pdf
• WWF, biodiversity, http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/
• BioGrace, Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels, EU, http://biograce.net/content/biofuelrelatedpolicies/ghgemissionsfrombiofuels
• European Federation for Transport and Environment, Bio-diesels Impact, https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/biodiesel%E2%80%99s-impact-emissions-extra-12m-cars-our-roads-latest-figures-show