10:10 climate change campaign

[GeraldineMumsnet]

We thought you might like a sneak preview of a climate change campaign that's launching on 1 Sept (and that MNHQ is backing, hence us banging on about it here).

It's called 10:10 and will ask individuals and organisations to cut their carbon emissions by 10% by 2010.

It's the brainchild of Franny Armstrong, who made the McLibel documentary and the climate change docudrama The Age of Stupid, and is backed by various organisations, companies and veeps.

Sorry, but there aren't any more details yet - ie what sort of changes we can make to cut our carbon emissions - but once there are we'll flag these up.

At HQ we're definitely not experts on how to reduce carbon emissions, but some of you almost certainly are and we'd like to pick your brains about the changes (big or small) individuals and organisations can make to reduce their carbon footprint.

The campaign's website is www.1010uk.org (but there's nothing much there until next Tuesday).

There's a big launch do at Tate Modern in London also on Tues between 4pm and 7pm, which should be a good, family-friendly event.

Hope to see you there
Thanks
MNHQ

Very interesting what greenpeace is saying visit the following link:

www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/efficiencity/index.html

Although it may of course be the only option short term, though I wish there were more investments into other forms of energies - why are not all new build houses fitted with solar panels, for example?

Household energy should be charged at a standard rate for an acceptable amount of electricity and a much more expensive tarriff when the electricity or gas being used is excess to true requirements.

It could be worked out per capita. And each person gets only one allowance. No allowances for second homes or the fact that you have a moat that's is urgent need of dredging.

And people who have made their houses passive (producing sufficient electricity for their needs) or active (producing more electricity than their household needs) should be given a monthly cash payment by the government.

Swedes - I love the theory but how does it work in practice?

Energy use across different energy types varies depending on your environment and accommodation. I use quite a lot of electricity because I live in a dirty urban area where clothes need frequent washing and drying, which consumes a lot of electricity. But I use very little heating fuel, as we have (very economical) collective heating and a well-insulated building, and I only use public transport/my feet during the week.

My parents use very little electricity: living in the clean countryside with a garden, they wash and dry far fewer clothes than I do. But their consumption of heating oil and petrol for their two cars makes my eyes water.

I wish there were more investments into other forms of energies, too. (Renewables forms)

Greanpeace says:
"Renewables will bring benefits - not just of clean, fuel-free energy, but the jobs and economic growth that come from pioneering new industries and technology.
www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/solutions/renewable-energy

Check out my page on facebook:www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=154853965608#/pages/Clean-and-Secure-Energy-Future-Pressure-group/154 853965608

Swedes do you think that would be better than straightforward carbon rationing?
I have a suspicion that a stepped electricity tariff would hit poorer people particularly hard, because they are more likely to be dependent on immersion heaters and storage heaters, rather than better off people who can afford an efficient condensing boiler.
Overall the richer people almost certainly have a much larger carbon footprint because of the amount of 'stuff' that they can buy, but proportionately less of it is likely to be in terms of primary energy consumed in the home.
I guess we're quite a good example - we use relatively little electricity (under 1 kWh per day for the three of us on average), but we just bought a tractor . . . (justified only by the expectation/hope that the carbon emissions will be spread over a very large number of years!)

hmmm, there would have to be allowances for those who need more lectrcity though. Children on feed pumps and vents. Exyta washing for the doubly incontinent child. (honestly, SN kids are a nightmare environmentally!)

How about we all stop buying newspapers? We could start with the DM?

OOh and I like the black background!!!

Tis all very complicated but a great idea in theroy.

If solar energy etc was at a more affordable price (rather than hiked up because there are some gov grants) then Im sure more people would have it.

I dream of a passive or positive home, but cost wise, its just not feasible. Couldnt afford to buy a bog-standard 1 bed flat atm.

I love this site and get lost for hours looking through the green projects. Lots of great things on there actually.

Takver - wealthy people tend to have bigger homes (and more homes), I would have thought. Power showers, swimming pools, floodlit tennis courts and Agas.

And perhaps the government could give proper incentives to social landlords to upgrade their heating systems - perhpas by a stepped tarriff on income tax from rental income according to how efficient the rental is?

And make sure all council houses are energy efficient?

This government just tinker around the edges. Starting all sorts of PFI schemes (which remain off balance sheet) so they can announce they "have given the go ahead to a green energy initiative ..... "

Hmm, still not convinced Swedes, I agree the very rich would pay more, but they can probably afford it, but I think you'd end up hitting the poor, elderly & disabled more than the comfortable middle classes.
Having said that, I don't disagree at all with what you're saying about tinkering around the edges. I think I probably do support some kind of carbon rationing, even though I suspect it would still have all kind of unintended effects and be exploited by the better off. Kind of like the planning system is not at all fair in practice, and has loads of bad effects, but overall its probably better that we have one than not IYSWIM.

I like what GreenPeace is proposing Sustainable energy communities Visit efficient city

You just highlighted the crux of the problem Pofacedandproud with regard to the nuclear energy!

I was hoping to find UK supporters for my page/group in faceBook, but nobody seems to be interested not even my friends!

May be it is because you already got nuclear power station so you don't see the point in joining.

I wanted the group to be international for two reasons:
1)Because the political decisions of a country affects the neighbor countries in Europe. (e.g.: If France got nuclear power stations, wwill pollute Italy and UK too).
2)Because EU is funding international projects with at least 3 different countries.

I paste here what the content of the leaflet "What might receive EU funding -
Research, technology development, and hardware investments will
not be funded. Nor will the IEE programme fund isolated, single
actions at national or local level. The strength of Europe lies in
bringing people of different countries and cultures together, to work
on a common challenge in a way that continues to have a positive
impact after programme funding cycles are over."
ec.europa.eu/energy/intelligent/library/doc/IEE_flyer_09_en.pdf

Actually, I just got one of my friends to support me!

I have found an excellent video where experts explain how we can save the hearth!!!

Sorry www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfzVQwW_8Jk

Really recommend this fabulous book.
It actually does the sums which tell you what kind of thing will actually be effective (eg the fact that avoiding leaving your mobile phone charger on for a whole year will save the same amount of energy as having one less hot bath).
I really need to cut down my hot baths

I have just ordered sustainable energy book recommended above.by kathyis6inches high Will reserve comment till I have read it but have heard excellent reviews

Ooh - wish I had more time to read and join in here. I do feel like some of you that we have been doing a lot as a family - now starting to look at going vegetarian, as the whole impact of meat production is pretty scary - just thought I'd throw that idea out for discussion . . .

Oops - I killed that vibrant discussion totally then!

Hope the launch went well

even cutting down your meat consumption is a big step in the right direction Notquite. I don't eat meat, although I do eat some fish. Most of my meat avoidance is coloured by the energy intensiveness that goes into rearing the animals, plus more than a few ethical questions about meat production generally.

eating less meat gives you the chance to bulk out your diet with veg, pulses and soya based products which will make you healthier in the long run too.
And you will save money.

I'm frightened that so many people are overweight/obese when it is a luxury to be able to eat more calories than you need. And that Pharma's answer is to make pills to help you excrete these extra calories so you can literally flush the energy down the toilet without piling on the pounds.

Re Blackle: be aware that its effectiveness in energy-saving is dependent on the monitor. For CRT (tube monitors), it lowers consumption. For LCD monitors, it actually raises power consumption (LCD monitors have to create the color black, which requires more energy than white). If you've got an LED monitor, you're already very energy-efficient with your computing.

Just so's you know.

Well I've looked at the 10:10 site and I don't think I'll be pledging anything

The Guardian's coverage suggests we should be wearing manmade fibres as they produce less emissions than cotton

cotton is a very enviromentally unfriendly crop- uses loads of pesticides (hence the emissions) and water.
They do say bamboo and hemp instead.
Not sure about linen.