Skip to main content

Climate change is a huge problem. Often people feel so overwhelmed that they don’t know what to do. And there just seems to be so much noise around what we should be doing. So, I have been thinking about how we might distil this down to a handful of imperatives, i.e. the five commandments of climate change. Unlike the better-known ten commandments, these would require just one stone tablet. However, my thinking is not sufficiently advanced to call the stone tablet carver just yet.

If you are a tourism operator, it might be worth thinking about these commandments and advertising to your clients the extent to which you are adhering to them. It could go a long way to establishing your climate credentials. Here they are and I would be interested in your feedback on them (greg@bodekerscientific.com).

The first commandment

Don’t take carbon atoms out of the ground and put them into the atmosphere.

I like thinking about atoms - please indulge me for a few sentences… I once asked my daughter how old she was. She said she was seven years old. I then pointed out that the atoms in her body were all created in the sun around 3.5 billion years ago and that since she consists of nothing but atoms, surely she is then 3.5 billion years old? I think that was the first time I heard her say to her brother (who is 3 years older), “Dad’s weird”. It wasn’t the last.

Back to the point: Carbon atoms are found in molecules such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) – I have marked them in bold. When you burn coal or oil, the carbon contained therein combines with oxygen in the air to create CO2. Earth cools itself by emitting infra-red radiation. CO2 is very efficient at absorbing that radiation and re-emitting it, with around half of that emission coming back down to Earth and warming it. This is the greenhouse effect, with CO2 being a strong greenhouse gas. But what of the C atoms in the oil that came out of the ground used to make my skellerup gumboots? Not nearly as bad since it didn’t result in the carbon atoms going into the atmosphere. They’re stuck there in my gumboots. Taking oil and coal out of the ground is a little bad (because CH4 is released into the atmosphere when you do that), but whatever you do, don’t then go and burn it! Unfortunately, that means that you can’t drive a petrol or diesel power car or burn coal, e.g. to make steel.

The second commandment

Do like your mum said – if you take carbon atoms out of the ground, be sure to put them back.

If you can’t avoid breaking the first commandment, and there are several cases when you simply can’t help it, obey the second commandment. Offset your emissions, e.g. through tree-planting programmes but make very sure that those programmes are robust and that the forests in which those trees are grown are permanent, i.e. permanently remove the carbon atoms from the atmosphere.

Direct air capture technologies are also in development where CO­2 is directly captured from the air, liquified and then pumped into disused mines or geological faults, but these are not yet commercially viable.

The third commandment

Don’t put gases into the atmosphere that are good at absorbing infrared radiation.

This recognises that carbon dioxide and methane are not the only greenhouse gases. There are several others, some of which don’t contain carbon atoms (e.g. nitrous oxide (N2O)). Some are replacements for chemicals that cause depletion of the ozone layer (a scientific problem I worked on for 20 years).

To allow different gases to be compared for their propensity to warm the climate, a measure called the global warming potential (GWP) was developed. The GWP describes how much more (or less) a 1kg emission of that gas will lead to global warming over a 100-year period compared to a 1kg emission of CO2.

Methane has a GWP of around 30. CFC-13, a gas that is a strong destroyer of ozone, has a GWP of 13,900; as a result, the Montreal Protocol that banned many ozone depleting gases (including CFC-13) helped reduce global warming by those gases. Some of the hydrofluorocarbons developed to replace gases that destroy ozone still have high GWPs (e.g. 12,400 for HFC-23).

The fourth commandment

Don’t convert some gas in the atmosphere to a different gas that is a stronger greenhouse gas.

This is a big one for New Zealand because this is where cows and sheep make their appearance. Many people argue that methane emissions from cows and sheep shouldn’t be included in greenhouse gas emissions budgets (and in any associated taxes) because it is all part of a natural cycle. And, to some extent, they’re right. Cow and sheep farming certainly doesn’t break the first commandment (and so the second doesn’t apply). Let’s think about atoms again. When a cow burps out a molecule of CH4, where did that C atom come from? It came from the grass the cow ate a couple days earlier. And the C in the grass came from a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere – a CO­­2 molecule got converted into a CH4 molecule. But now comes the annoying bit. That CH4 molecule is 30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas compared to the CO2 molecule it got made from (see the GWP above). So those cows, in addition to producing delicious milk and yummy steaks, are also ‘machines’ that convert a relatively weak greenhouse gas (CO2 – although if you put enough of it into the atmosphere, as we have, it still has a huge impact on the climate) into a much stronger greenhouse gas (CH4). The carbon in the CH4 molecule in the atmosphere, over around 10 years, gets converted back into a CO2 molecule (the natural cycle) but, while the C atom is in the form of a CH4 molecule, it has a much bigger effect on the climate than if the C atom has stayed as a CO2 molecule. So, I really should become a vegetarian but, so far, I have resisted because steaks taste so good. Mea culpa.

The fifth commandment

Don’t engage in activities that would cause others to break commandments one to four.

This gets tricky. I ride my bike to work and back every day as part of my weight-loss programme. It doesn’t work. Admittedly it’s 194 metres door-to-door and takes 35 seconds (45 if there’s traffic). I got into the habit of cycling to avoid using a petrol-powered car as much as possible. But looking at my bike, I see how much of it is made of steel. The production of that steel almost certainly required the use of fossil fuels and so, in buying my bike, I caused someone else to break the first commandment. Furthermore, I am quite sure it was transported on a diesel-powered truck from the factory where it was manufactured to Henderson Cycles in Alexandra where I bought. There goes the first commandment again. But what if the steel was created in a ‘carbon zero’ mill? What if the truck that transported it was battery powered? Ah, but maybe the person who owns the steel mill used the profits from the mill to fly with his/her family to some exotic holiday destination. Me buying my bike added to those profits, enabling him/her, in part, to fly around the world emitting greenhouse gases. Should I have enquired about the holiday habits of the owner of the mill before I bought my bike? You can do this sort of thinking forever. One day, when the ‘externalities’ of climate change have all been priced correctly into products and services, the market will take care of this. Until then, for this commandment, all I can say is that if you have several options, choose the one that will ultimately lead to minimising greenhouse gas emissions somewhere down the rabbit hole where such thinking takes you.

Conclusion

This is where I have got to with crafting my five climate change commandments. Are they useful? Do they help in terms of how to think about mitigating climate change? Are they too obscure? Please let me know what you think. And please let me know what, specifically, you would like me to write about (I did get one suggestion from my November piece and will get onto that soon).

Related Stories

  • Batteries and storing energy

    “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it’s the only one we have” as Émile-Auguste Chartier once said. This quote springs to mind when I think of the Lake Onslow scheme. For those who may not know about the Lake Onslow scheme, the idea is to convert Lake Onslow, which sits in a shallow depression in the hills between Roxburgh and Middlemarch, into a giant battery. Importantly, Lake Onslow is around 685m above sea level while the Clutha River downstream from Roxburgh is at around 94m above sea level. That’s a 591m difference (see, those three years of maths at university are paying off).

    Read more about Batteries and storing energy
  • Extreme events and climate change

    Consider the Paris Agreement where countries around the world have agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels. Some people think “Who cares? It was 2°C warmer today than it was yesterday. 2°C is peanuts!”. Or consider sea-level rise. That could be around 3mm/year along the coast of Otago. That’s 3cm in a decade. Again peanuts, right? A wave could be 5 metres high so why are we worried about a 3cm rise over a decade?

    Read more about Extreme events and climate change
  • The Central Otago Destination Management Plan and Climate Change

    CODC recently released its Destination Management Plan (DMP). I have read it and I think it’s excellent – and painful. Why painful? Because change is painful and this DMP highlights many changes to the way we do things that will be required. In this piece, I am going to share my thoughts on those aspects of the required changes articulated in the DMP that relate to climate change and are directly relevant to tourism services providers. Climate change poses an existential threat to some of the values that underpin the DMP, in particular Mauri - pressures imposed by land and water use are already being exacerbated by climate change and will be more so in the future.

    Read more about The Central Otago Destination Management Plan and Climate Change
  • Wood-burners and climate change

    I often get asked about whether using wood-burners for interior heating contributes to climate change. For the purposes of this article, let’s set aside the effects that the use of wood-burners have on out-door air quality. Smoke from using wood-burners contributes to poor air quality; you only need to walk around Alexandra on a cold winter’s night with a strong inversion layer to notice that. But that’s mostly a different issue to climate change – I say ‘mostly’ because the aerosols (smoke) from wood-burners, if anything, make a small contribution to cooling the climate by reflecting solar radiation back to space before it reaches the ground.

    Read more about Wood-burners and climate change
Go back to all articles

Sign up for our newsletter and stay up to date with what's happening in Central Otago

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.