Forgive me Lord, for I have drunk a glass of milk

There is gathering momentum for product labels to be required to state their “carbon footprint”. So that consumers can feel guilty about contributing to climate change and perhaps do something about it. Nothing illustrates how difficult it is to calculate the environmental impact of daily life , than the attempt to label a milk carton with its carbon footprint. When it comes to environment impact, nothing is what it seems.

Now, what can be the carbon footprint of a carton of milk. After all its as natural a product as can be.

On first thought nothing at all. A little later it strikes us – yes the act of transporting it and packaging it surely has a carbon impact. And what about refrigeration – another significant carbon impact. Slowly milk is starting to look a little less saintly.

But wait a minute. Maybe we should revert to the old Indian habit of getting fresh milk from a cow or buffalo milked in front of your house. Then no transportation, refrigeration and all that carbon spewing stuff.

But what about the stuff the cow eats to produce the milk. Now cattle feed is grown somewhere (carbon spewing fertilizer eeks !) manufactured somewhere and transported. All this adds to the carbon. Right we’ll tell the milkman; no artificial feed for your cow ; it can graze on the natural grass, or more likely, eat paper if you are a self respecting city cow in India.

But it so happens that the greatest contributor to greenhouse gas emission in the supply chain of milk is not in the feed; not in the carton; not in the transportation; not in the refrigeration. Its in bovine flatulence. No, I’m not joking. It’s a real fact. Cows produce so much methane that Arthur C Clarke has written in one of his books that if an alien civilization approached earth, the first signal that there is life on this planet would be from the chemical footprint of our atmosphere caused by bovine flatulence.

If you still don’t believe me, click hereand go to the bottom of the article.

Now the ahem, noxious output of the cow is governed by the nature of the feed. Natural grass feeding may actually be more harmful to the environment. Back to square one.

Just goes to show that nothing is simple when it comes to the environment. Popular fads may actually cause more harm than good – see an example I wrote about sometime ago here. What is needed is a comprehensive research and clear advice from a global organization of high credentials. Focus on the big ticket items only. And then all of us can act on them. And stop making people feel guilty on petty stuff.

Cheers – gulp down your glass of milk.

Read More

Did you turn your lights off on Saturday ?

(photo from www.webwombat.com.au)

Saturday 8.30 PM to 9.30 PM local time was Earth Hour as most people know by now. 4000 cities and towns in 88 countries joined the event initiated by the World Wildlife Fund to dim non essential lights to highlight the threat of climate change. The organisers had hoped to reach 1 billion people, and possibly succeeded.

Climate change is a key issue facing the world today. Most people would agree that the threat is real and that all of us need to act. An event such as Earth Hour is great for building awareness and touching people. I too switched off my lights yesterday.

However, the issue of climate change, is a very complex subject. It is in some danger of being hijacked by sensationalists, who are completely intolerant of any other viewpoint. Very often, some of the actions urged will actually make the situation worse. There is no simple answer - every action by humans will leave some carbon footprint or the other and sometimes what seems apparently eco friendly may actually be not so good at all. Take even the case of the Earth Hour.

What did most people do for illumination when they switched the lights off ? They probably lit a candle. Most candles are made of paraffin, a heavy hydrocarbon derived from crude oil. An article published in the Christian Science Monitor says that if you burn a paraffin candle for one hour, you would probably release 10 grams of carbon di oxide. If you had turned off a CFL bulb, you would probably have saved 5-13 gms of CO2, depending on what the source of your electricity was. So if you had a candle lit party in Kansas, for example, and lit a candle for every CFL you switched off, you actually added to the climate problem; not reduced it.

Of course, the Earth Hour did greatly reduce the CO2 emitted. A lot more lights were extinguished than candles lit. And by no means is CFL everywhere. Incandescents still rule the world and they emit for more CO2 than paraffin candles. So overall, this was a great event.

But my point is that an action is not always what it seems. A lot more research is needed , preferably under the auspices of the UN, to bring out a guide to the most sensible steps that mankind should take. This should not be left only to the tree huggers. You need a cross section of experts who can recommend the right actions that make the most difference and who can balance the needs of development and the needs of protecting the environment.

I switched off my lights, but can, will, and should, do more. But it would help if somebody (not Michael Moore) told me what's truly the best to do.

Read More