March certainly hasn’t been short of talking points in the sustainability space. Blue & Green Tomorrow takes a look some of the month’s biggest stories and examines how other news outlets tackled them.
Last week’s news agenda was dominated by one thing: the budget statement. We had all hoped that the so-called “greenest government ever” would live up to its promise, and that George Osborne would announce a few strong and exciting measures related to renewable energy and sustainability.
We were left wanting. At Blue & Green Tomorrow, we asked, “What about the environment?” (Budget 2012: what about the environment?), and questioned how sustainable Osborne’s environmental plans really were (An unsustainable budget).
The significant lack of planned environmental action in the budget was proven by the BBC, whose ‘Green Measures’ section in its ‘at a glance’ round-up (Budget 2012 at a glance: George Osborne’s key points) momentarily disappeared immediately after Osborne’s statement, before reappearing at the bottom of the page with a rather forced three lines about the Carbon Reduction Commitment.
The Guardian’s reporting of Osborne’s speech focused on his ‘dash for gas’ (Budget 2012: chancellor fires starting gun on dash for gas), after he picked out natural gas as “the largest single source of our electricity in the coming years”, leaving the renewables industry scratching its head.
The Guardian’s Damian Carrington echoed the words of our very own Simon Leadbetter in a piece titled George Osborne’s fossil-fuelled fantasy is the road to nowhere.
In it, he wrote how Osborne had said, “Environmentally sustainable has to be fiscally sustainable too”. Carrington argued that “the reverse is the greater truth: short-term economic growth fuelled by environmental degradation is the road to nowhere.”
Another big story that sent shockwaves through financial circles was Goldman Sachs’ now ex-executive director, Greg Smith, who very publicly announced his resignation and the reasons behind his decision in a New York Times article on March 14 (Why I am leaving Goldman Sachs).
B> wrote how Smith had pointed the blame on the firm’s “toxic and destructive” environment (Goldman Sachs’ “toxic and destructive” environment forces director to quit), which had, in the end, made his decision an easy one.
It was later announced that Goldman Sachs lost $2.15 billion of its market value on the day of Smith’s letter, leading us to produce a nifty infographic that showed the scale of damage that rippled through the company (Infographic: Goldman Sachs and the cost of the written word).
Irish comedian and author, Colm O’Regan, wrote an opinion piece for the BBC News site a day after the publication of Smith’s public resignation (Goldman Sachs resignation: Muppet letter is everyone’s fantasy).
“Many of us have imagined writing a letter of resignation that shakes our bosses to the core”, O’Regan wrote, “but few have actually done it, and rarely even then has the letter been read by millions.
“Greg Smith, who quit Goldman Sachs this week, has realised our fantasy.”
A senior Goldman Sachs executive told the BBC that the letter could prompt change (Goldman Sachs resignation letter ‘could prompt change’), and the subject was also deemed a hot topic for the BBC Radio 4 Today programme to discuss (Goldman Sachs man’s feisty exit).
The final piece of March news that made headlines across many media outlets surrounded Dow Chemical’s sponsorship of this summer’s London Olympics.
The multinational corporation has come under fire for its involvement in the Games, because of its direct links to the 1984 Bhopal disaster (Dow Olympic sponsorship faces scrutiny).
Dow vice-president, George Hamilton, told The Guardian that critics of his company’s sponsorship deal with London 2012 are “irresponsible”, and that, “The people attacking Dow have woefully underestimated our character and who we are” (London 2012: Dow Chemical defends Olympic Stadium sponsorship deal).
The Telegraph reported how prime minister David Cameron had backed Dow’s role as one of the main sponsors (London 2012 Olympics: David Cameron backs Dow Chemical’s sponsorship of Games), and that the company had tried to shift the blame for Bhopal over to an Indian battery manufacturing firm (London 2012 Olympics: Dow Chemical puts blame for ongoing crisis in Bhopal at Indian government’s door).
That’s all for our March roundup of the major news headlines. We live in hope that the April instalment offers a selection of more optimistic stories picked out by the national media. In the meantime, B> will continue to report on positive announcements in the sustainability space, highlighting sustainable investment as the real difference maker.
To find out more about sustainable investment, fill in our online form.
Picture source: Jon S
Will Self-Driving Cars Be Better for the Environment?
Technologists, engineers, lawmakers, and the general public have been excitedly debating about the merits of self-driving cars for the past several years, as companies like Waymo and Uber race to get the first fully autonomous vehicles on the market. Largely, the concerns have been about safety and ethics; is a self-driving car really capable of eliminating the human errors responsible for the majority of vehicular accidents? And if so, who’s responsible for programming life-or-death decisions, and who’s held liable in the event of an accident?
But while these questions continue being debated, protecting people on an individual level, it’s worth posing a different question: how will self-driving cars impact the environment?
The Big Picture
The Department of Energy attempted to answer this question in clear terms, using scientific research and existing data sets to project the short-term and long-term environmental impact that self-driving vehicles could have. Its findings? The emergence of self-driving vehicles could essentially go either way; it could reduce energy consumption in transportation by as much as 90 percent, or increase it by more than 200 percent.
That’s a margin of error so wide it might as well be a total guess, but there are too many unknown variables to form a solid conclusion. There are many ways autonomous vehicles could influence our energy consumption and environmental impact, and they could go well or poorly, depending on how they’re adopted.
One of the big selling points of autonomous vehicles is their capacity to reduce the total number of vehicles—and human drivers—on the road. If you’re able to carpool to work in a self-driving vehicle, or rely on autonomous public transportation, you’ll spend far less time, money, and energy on your own car. The convenience and efficiency of autonomous vehicles would therefore reduce the total miles driven, and significantly reduce carbon emissions.
There’s a flip side to this argument, however. If autonomous vehicles are far more convenient and less expensive than previous means of travel, it could be an incentive for people to travel more frequently, or drive to more destinations they’d otherwise avoid. In this case, the total miles driven could actually increase with the rise of self-driving cars.
As an added consideration, the increase or decrease in drivers on the road could result in more or fewer vehicle collisions, respectively—especially in the early days of autonomous vehicle adoption, when so many human drivers are still on the road. Car accident injury cases, therefore, would become far more complicated, and the roads could be temporarily less safe.
Deadheading is a term used in trucking and ridesharing to refer to miles driven with an empty load. Assume for a moment that there’s a fleet of self-driving vehicles available to pick people up and carry them to their destinations. It’s a convenient service, but by necessity, these vehicles will spend at least some of their time driving without passengers, whether it’s spent waiting to pick someone up or en route to their location. The increase in miles from deadheading could nullify the potential benefits of people driving fewer total miles, or add to the damage done by their increased mileage.
Make and Model of Car
Much will also depend on the types of cars equipped to be self-driving. For example, Waymo recently launched a wave of self-driving hybrid minivans, capable of getting far better mileage than a gas-only vehicle. If the majority of self-driving cars are electric or hybrids, the environmental impact will be much lower than if they’re converted from existing vehicles. Good emissions ratings are also important here.
On the other hand, the increased demand for autonomous vehicles could put more pressure on factory production, and make older cars obsolete. In that case, the gas mileage savings could be counteracted by the increased environmental impact of factory production.
The Bottom Line
Right now, there are too many unanswered questions to make a confident determination whether self-driving vehicles will help or harm the environment. Will we start driving more, or less? How will they handle dead time? What kind of models are going to be on the road?
Engineers and the general public are in complete control of how this develops in the near future. Hopefully, we’ll be able to see all the safety benefits of having autonomous vehicles on the road, but without any of the extra environmental impact to deal with.
New Zealand to Switch to Fully Renewable Energy by 2035
New Zealand’s prime minister-elect Jacinda Ardern is already taking steps towards reducing the country’s carbon footprint. She signed a coalition deal with NZ First in October, aiming to generate 100% of the country’s energy from renewable sources by 2035.
New Zealand is already one of the greenest countries in the world, sourcing over 80% of its energy for its 4.7 million people from renewable resources like hydroelectric, geothermal and wind. The majority of its electricity comes from hydro-power, which generated 60% of the country’s energy in 2016. Last winter, renewable generation peaked at 93%.
Now, Ardern is taking on the challenge of eliminating New Zealand’s remaining use of fossil fuels. One of the biggest obstacles will be filling in the gap left by hydropower sources during dry conditions. When lake levels drop, the country relies on gas and coal to provide energy. Eliminating fossil fuels will require finding an alternative source to avoid spikes in energy costs during droughts.
Business NZ’s executive director John Carnegie told Bloomberg he believes Ardern needs to balance her goals with affordability, stating, “It’s completely appropriate to have a focus on reducing carbon emissions, but there needs to be an open and transparent public conversation about the policies and how they are delivered.”
The coalition deal outlined a few steps towards achieving this, including investing more in solar, which currently only provides 0.1% of the country’s energy. Ardern’s plans also include switching the electricity grid to renewable energy, investing more funds into rail transport, and switching all government vehicles to green fuel within a decade.
Zero net emissions by 2050
Beyond powering the country’s electricity grid with 100% green energy, Ardern also wants to reach zero net emissions by 2050. This ambitious goal is very much in line with her focus on climate change throughout the course of her campaign. Environmental issues were one of her top priorities from the start, which increased her appeal with young voters and helped her become one of the youngest world leaders at only 37.
Reaching zero net emissions would require overcoming challenging issues like eliminating fossil fuels in vehicles. Ardern hasn’t outlined a plan for reaching this goal, but has suggested creating an independent commission to aid in the transition to a lower carbon economy.
She also set a goal of doubling the number of trees the country plants per year to 100 million, a goal she says is “absolutely achievable” using land that is marginal for farming animals.
Greenpeace New Zealand climate and energy campaigner Amanda Larsson believes that phasing out fossil fuels should be a priority for the new prime minister. She says that in order to reach zero net emissions, Ardern “must prioritize closing down coal, putting a moratorium on new fossil fuel plants, building more wind infrastructure, and opening the playing field for household and community solar.”
A worldwide shift to renewable energy
Addressing climate change is becoming more of a priority around the world and many governments are assessing how they can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and switch to environmentally-friendly energy sources. Sustainable energy is becoming an increasingly profitable industry, giving companies more of an incentive to invest.
Ardern isn’t alone in her climate concerns, as other prominent world leaders like Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron have made renewable energy a focus of their campaigns. She isn’t the first to set ambitious goals, either. Sweden and Norway share New Zealand’s goal of net zero emissions by 2045 and 2030, respectively.
Scotland already sources more than half of its electricity from renewable sources and aims to fully transition by 2020, while France announced plans in September to stop fossil fuel production by 2040. This would make it the first country to do so, and the first to end the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Many parts of the world still rely heavily on coal, but if these countries are successful in phasing out fossil fuels and transitioning to renewable resources, it could serve as a turning point. As other world leaders see that switching to sustainable energy is possible – and profitable – it could be the start of a worldwide shift towards environmentally-friendly energy.