Recession is a word that brings a shiver to the spine of many people. But need it be all doom and gloom? If you can look beyond economic crisis, the insolvencies and redundancies, there may be a silver lining. Since the global recession began, carbon emissions have fallen for the first time in years, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). But, the Global Carbon Project believes carbon emissions are continuing to rise, despite the recession. So, has the recession provided respite from climate change or is it all fiction?

When the UK joined other countries in recession, few thought about the impact it would have on the environment. But the European Environment Agency believes the recession has “reduced industrial output, energy consumption and transport.” Experts claim this has lead to the biggest decline in carbon emissions for decades.

The recession could have reduced carbon emissions

As with most opinions, there is always an opposite argument. The pessimists, or realists, depending how you view them, believe that the recession is not benefiting the climate, yet worsening preparation for the future. A recent report from the IEA claims investment in renewable energy projects has “fallen by 20 per cent in the last year,” and if nothing is done to change this there will “be far-reaching and potentially serious effects on climate change.” This is a thought concurred by Colette Lewiner, of the European Energy Market Observatory, who says the recession has “reduced gas and electricity consumption globally reducing many utility companies to cancel investments in renewable energy projects.” She believes “addressing this crisis is essential.”

Economic growth in developing countries is increasing carbon emissions

But even if we have reduced carbon emissions during the recession, according to some experts, it will all be in vain because not all countries are in the same financial turmoil. Abyd Karmali, carbon emissions director for Merrill Lynch, says “economies in places like China and India are still growing despite the global recession.” This compensates for the reduction in our carbon emissions with an increase in their own. In Europe and the USA the recession may have had a knock on effect reducing carbon emissions, but with China and India still developing and emitting more and more carbon every year, it seems linking the recession to reduced carbon emissions is a little premature.

Nineties recessions

In the nineties the Thatcher Government faced a similar problem. The British economy was in recession and they had the pressing environmental matter of acid rain. As with the current recession, there was forced closure of heavy industry. This consequently reduced sulphur dioxide levels and, in turn, rainfall that was less acidic. The Government were praised for their role in this, although technically they had no choice but to close industry. But as recalled by Professor Rick Battarbee, of University College London, “once the recession was over the emissions were up again.” So, the recession briefly provided respite for the environment in the past. But what was learnt from this? Professor Battarbee believes that this time, “when people expand their economies, they must do so without burning fossil fuels.”

It’s important that the recession is not considered an excuse for not acting, like many fear, but as an opportunity for continuing reduction in carbon emissions.

A tight coupling between the economy and the environment

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) believe they have an answer that would kill two birds with one stone, so to say. By making “urban areas greener” we could improve both the economy and the environment. For example, “investing in green roofs would reduce the risk of flooding in cities by absorbing heavy rain. It would also cool the summer air, improve air quality and support biodiversity,” according to Richard Simmon, chief executive of the CABE. But it would also create “new and sustainable jobs” in the private sector, aiding the economy.

The IEA say to stop global warming reaching the two degree Celsius threshold, which many claim would be catastrophic, millions needs to be invested into renewable energy and greener living. Whether the recession will hamper this funding is yet to be seen, but claims of the recession being beneficial for the environment are extremely premature. According to Professor Battarbee, the world is already “committed to a 0.6 degree Celsius warming effect, even if carbon output fell to 0 per cent today.” So its not just about cutting carbon emissions, it’s about doing it before it’s too late. The debate is still open as to whether the recession is a help or a hindrance to the climate. But should we have let it get to this? Needing a recession to make us stand up and take notice? Yvo de Boer, the UN’s head of the climate secretariat, sums it up well. “It would be a pretty depressing way to make progress – to find that recession was helping the world kick an addiction to burning fossil fuels.”

The possible expansion of Heathrow airport has led to worries concerning the environmental, social and political impact it would have in the UK. Arguments put forward for and against the proposed expansion have made this topic one of the most hotly debated in years.

Although a third runway at Heathrow may seem less likely since the Conservatives formed a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats, there is still a strong possibility that, in the not too distant future, the debate will resurface.

We were lucky enough to speak to John Stewart, chair of HACAN ClearSkies, regarding pollution, biofuels and the third runway.

Stephen Hawking has shocked the scientific community by announcing that alien life is not only entirely plausible, but that attempting to make contact with extra-terrestrials could be detrimental to the human species.

In a Discovery Channel documentary, the internationally-renowned theoretical physicist admitted that the majority of alien life will simply exist as microbes and very basic animals. He also suggested that there is a very real danger of intelligent life which could have the capacity to invade and strip the earth of its resources. He explained by drawing an analogy to the effects of Christopher Columbus on the Native Americans.

Professor Stephen Hawkings recently announced his theory on alien life

“To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational,” said Hawking before highlighting that “the real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like.”

In speculating on what aliens may have evolved to become, Hawking refused to get drawn into the complexities. Understanding such complexities has often proved difficult for followers of his elaborations of Einstein’s theories and pioneering investigations into black holes.

“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet.”

Hawking is certainly not alone in his theories that significant life may exist outside the realms of current technological detection. His Hollywood approach to alien invasion may seem cavalier to some, but he can claim considerable support in his views from other physicist authorities.

Prof. Brian Cox of the University of Manchester has also speculated that primitive life may exist closer than we think, although he stops short of describing their preferred mode of transport.

Regardless of which political party reigns triumphant in the upcoming UK general election on May 6, one area where we can expect to see change is the UK policy on the illegal timber trade. With the three leading political parties agreeing, at the very least, the UK needs a domestic ban on the importation of illegal timber.

The agreement between Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats fully underlines the importance of this issue. With all parties stating in their election manifestos that a UK ban on illegally logged timber is essential. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have gone one step further by suggesting a campaign for an EU-wide ban to be implemented if they can gain support from other EU nations.

Need to end illegal timber trade to reduce climate change says Environment Minister

UK Minister of Environment Hilary Benn, believes the EU cannot expect to see a decline in deforestation if it continues to allow the importation of illegal timber from foreign soil. He also indicated at the 15th Illegal Logging Update, held at Chatham House, that if an agreement on a ban could not be met at a continental level, then the UK would take action at a national level.

Benn also criticised the policies of other EU members with regards to illegal logging. He believes it is the responsibility of EU nations to stop illegal timber from entering Europe and, in turn, help reduce the global warming effect that is caused by deforestation. He said: “It’s no good being in the same boat as everyone else if that boat is sinking.”

But, it is not just the EU politicians that are divided over this topic. The European timber industries also have their fair share of sceptics. Some industries favour a ban because it would reduce competition. However, others are concerned that a ban could lead to excessive bureaucracy for forest owners.

Despite concerns expressed by some EU members, it is believed that an agreement to suit all parties may be within reach.

Although the UK does face opposition to a ban, it is not alone in its desire to put a stop to the illegal timber trade. André de Boer, of the European Timber Trade Federation insists: “We must make illegal trade an offence under criminal law.”

If a law is passed, Benn is sure concerns regarding increased bureaucracy will be short lived. “A prohibition would be a boost for the domestic timber industry,” he said.

The cost of incorporating this law into EU policy is unclear, but Benn believes “the argument for getting this done in Europe is overwhelming.”

A unique MSc course, which considers the effect urbanisation has on carbon emissions, is set to launch at University College London (UCL) this year, says Professor Yvonne Rydin. It will provide much needed urban planning professionals to a field that is in critically short supply.

The course, which is in Sustainable Urbanism, will tackle the development of urban areas in a bid to reduce the detrimental effects rapid urbanisation has on the climate.

UCL

A statement from the Bartlett School of Planning, at UCL, said “it will provide students with both the skills to conceptualise a sustainable city and those to design one.” Prof Rydin considers the practice of sustainable development an “essential” aspect in the fight against climate change”.

“50 per cent of carbon emissions are associated with buildings, and that excludes the travel side,” said Prof Rydin. She believes the “design and location of a building is extremely relevant to energy efficiency and it can also increase the use of public transport, cycling and walking.”

The MSc, which starts in September 2010, is a full-time programme lasting 12 months and costs £6,540 (for EU students) and £16,120 (for non-EU students). Applications from a wide range of backgrounds will be considered, but applicants must have a minimum of a second-class degree.

However, with the current economic situation, will this course improve job prospects?

Prof Rydin believes mounting pressure to tackle climate change has driven the job market to request graduates with “green credentials”, which is what this course will provide. “The reason we are doing this masters is because there is a market for students after they have graduated.”

The announcement that British Airways and the Solena Group will join forces to provide an environmentally friendly biofuel for some BA flights from 2014 has done little to endear them to environmentalists. Opposition groups are refusing to show any signs of support for the groundbreaking deal even though carbon emissions would be reduced significantly.

The deal will see 500,000 tonnes of waste converted to biofuel each year, a carbon saving equivalent to that of 48,000 cars being taken of the road per annum. It is a sign that airlines are aware they must reduce carbon emissions in a bid to tackle global warming.

But demonstrators are now worried about the repercussions this could have on developing countries should more airlines follow BA’s lead. John Stewart, chair of HACAN ClearSkies, said “If biofuels are used on a large scale to fuel aircraft, they are likely to be competing for land with food crops in the countries in the developing world.”

In 2008 the European Union announced it was committed to obtaining 10 per cent of all transport fuels from renewable energy sources by 2020. To reach the target the EU require approximately 17.5 million hectares of land; equivalent to half the size of Italy. A report by ActionAid claims two-thirds of this desired land will come from developing countries.

The report also said “Additional land will be required in developed nations, displacing food and animal feed crops onto land in new areas, often in developing countries.”

Opposition to the biofuel deal will come as no surprise to airline companies, even with the potential benefits that biofuel offers. The biofuel plant, which will be built in East London, will also reduce the amount of methane released into the atmosphere as a result of landfill waste, and reduce sulphur emissions which are released through the burning of kerosene.

Stewart also expressed concern when asked if the biofuel deal may increase the possibility of the third runway at Heathrow being built. “It will not change our outright opposition to a third runway. More environmentally friendly fuels will do nothing to reduce the noise impact of the third runway.”

However a spokesperson for BA refused to rule out the possibility that the biofuel deal may be used as a bargaining tool in the future should plans to build the third runway get the all clear.

Bat colonies may be at risk from wind turbines according to scientific research, which could spell trouble for bats in Islington.

Islington council is determined to reach its 2010 target to reduce carbon emissions by 15 per cent, and is likely to add to the four existing wind turbines in the area.

But reports from across North America and mainland Europe suggest that wind turbines are to blame for a number of bat fatalities. Erin Baerwald of the University of Calgary, Canada, reports that bats suffer “barotraumas”, when a change in atmospheric pressure around the turbine causes hemorrhaging in their lungs. Baerwald’s research, published in Current Biology, suggested this had occurred in 90 per cent of bat fatalities associated with wind turbines.

According to the London Bat Group, bats are found in all London boroughs. The construction of wind turbines could be a problem for migrating populations, especially the common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus) which is prevalent in Islington.

Climate change has already caused bat populations to decline across Britain, primarily because of loss of habitat and feeding sites. The addition of further wind turbines may cause bat populations to decline further.

But Professor John Altringham, a bat expert at the University of Leeds, said: “I can’t see wind turbines having a significant effect on bats, assuming appropriate assessments are done at sites.”