Cavers and Climate change

2023

Wookey

<wookey@wookware.org>

Why?

Quick look at the footprints of caving. Then carbon budget situation, and some info on available offsets. Before we discuss what to do.

Carbon Footprinting is measuring emissions from activities.

Done in CO2e.

Lets do some sums

Caving itself is pretty-much zero-carbon

but...

• Equipment
• Travel

Equipment

• Rope (nylon)
• Metalwork (hangers, jammers, crabs) (aluminium)
• Harness, slings (nylon)
• Helmets (ABS)
• Fleece (acrylic)
• Cordura oversuit (nylon)
• PVC oversuit, tacklesacks (PVC)
• Kneepads, Wetsuits (neoprene)
• Light, battery (electronics/plastic/aluminium)

Life Cycle
Assessments

Good data from Edelrid: Rope is 0.05kg/m

Everything else is very approximate

Petzl do have numbers but unpublished

Used general nylon, aluminium, steel, PVC, neoprene numbers with some manufacturing fudge factors.

Manufacture

Much better in France (63gCO2e/kWh)
than Malaysia (663gCO2/kWh) (Factor of 10)

Gas process heat (180gCO2e/kWh) much better than electrical (500-950) (except in France, Costa Rica, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and Uruguay)

• Aluminium: 12.9kgCO2e/kg
• Nylon cloth: 1kgCO2e/kg
• PVC: 3.5kgCO2e/kg
• Neoprene: 4kgCO2e/kg
• Electronics: 50kgCO2e/kg

Caving Kit

• Basic set: 61kg
• Full set with 100m of rope: 87kg

Variable lifetimes

Ballpark-tastic: use Wook-based numbers.

Footprint/yr

Annual embedded CO2e

• Basic set: 10kg/yr
• Full set with 100m of rope: 13kg/yr

Remember those numbers.

Travel

Individual Travel, one way

• Leeds -> Yorkshire Car          14kg
• London -> Yorkshire Car        66kg
• Cambridge -> Ardeche Car  174kg
• Cambridge -> Austria Car    198kg
• Cambridge -> Mulu Plane   6,625kg

Ardeche      Austria

Trains, coaches and 3-people-per car is good.
Planes and solo cars aren't.

Caver types

• Caving monthly locally:
    12 trips, 20 miles.
• Local caver digging/caving weekly:
    48 trips, 20 miles.
• Caving monthly from Cambridge:
    12 trips, 400 miles.
• European Expedition:
    1 trip, 1800 miles.
• Asian Expedition:
    1 trip, 14000 miles.

• Equipment: 13kg
• Travel: 50-6000kg

Gear footprint is small.
It's all about transport: cave nearby for reduced emissions.

Context

• Average UK (production) footprint: 5.5t
• Average UK (consumption) footprint: 12t
• Imported stuff: 3t
• Car Commuting 20 miles to work: 2t
• Heating average house (gas): 3t
• Share of govt,defence, schools: 2.5t
• Food: 0.4-1.5t

Why does this matter?

1-slide science

CO2 was 278ppm 200 years ago. Now 420ppm and rising.
Takes 1000-odd years to get it out of the atmosphere.

Other GHGs matter too, (but this talk too short...)

Climate change problem has been understood for 30 years - nothing major has changed since 1990.

It is a cumulative problem

What are total emissions and what atmospheric CO2 level do we end up at?

What we say

Copenhagen Declaration
(and Camp David, Cancun, Doha, Warsaw, etc)

Committed to 'hold increase in global temp below 2C, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science, and on basis of equity'

Carbon Budget

For under 2C, from IPCC:

• That's from 2011. We used 160Gt since then already.
• Land use changes 2015-2100 are another 100Gt.
• Cement 2015-2100 is another 150Gt.

Carbon Budget Remaining

If poorer countries get some budget for development
(assume peak in 2025)

2°C mitigation requires (for Annex 1/OECD nations):
10% reduction in emissions year on year, i.e.

• ~40% reduction by ~2018 (c.f. 1990)
• ~70% ~2024
• ~90% ~2030

i.e Nothing like the 80% by 2050 of the UK Climate Change Act

And non-marginal reductions considered 'impossible'.

4C average is 5-6C over land, 8-10C in Arctic.

OK, so 2C is too hard
What about 4C?

There is a widespread view that 4°C is:

• incompatible with an organised global community
• beyond ‘adaptation’
• devastating to eco-systems
• Effects are built-in now. Antarctic destabilisation already done.

• highly unlikely to be stable (‘tipping points')

... consequently ...
4°C should be avoided at ‘all’ costs

50% of emissions come from <10% of the people.

That's us
 

• Academics
• Anyone who gets on a plane once/yr
• Anyone paid £30K or more
• Politicians

Mitigation is a consumption issue, not a population issue.

Why don't you hear this?

Nobody wants to hear this.

'growth' is sacred.

BECCS is assumed.

For policy makers the message is simple but uncomfortable

• Should avoid 4°C at all costs
• Annex 1 nations need ~70% decarbonisation over next decade or so
• Only small % of global population need radical mitigation
• Low carbon energy supply is too little too late in the West
• Principal response is to reduce energy demand now
• Carbon trading & prices are not sufficient for non-marginal (large) reductions

Is it hopeless?

No, not yet, but it's not good.

Action from the rich (you) is necessary, and we don't like that.

Change is possible

Footprint yourself

Change your travel

Change your diet

Enerphit your house: 80% heating reduction

PV, Divest

Invest

Vote for people that take this seriously

Campaign, march, write, donate

Talk to friends and family

Do it right now, not next year.

Are offsets any use?

• Offsets are not a substitute for changes in behaviour and system change.
• Offsets are typically paying poor people to reduce their emissions because you don't want to change yours.
• Done wrong they are worse than useless (you carry on as before, the offset is fake or burns down)
• Done right they are better then doing nothing.

Which calculator?

• There are plenty to choose from.
• Calculation is just as important as offset (particularly 'climate factor' used)
• Radiative Forcing Index (IPCC 1999) is very important. Factor of 3 above 9km.
• RFI is 1.27 for 500km, 1.6 for 750km, 2.5 for 1000km+
• atmosfair.de and ecopassenger.org are robust

Which Offsets?

• Trees are very unreliable
• Verra found to be 90% unreliable
• Additionality is critical - would it have happened without the payment anyway?
• Climeworks is excellent: from atomsphere into rock. But £1000/tonne
• EU ETS price is ~90€/tonne
• Offsets all £3-£30. Very suspicious at low prices
• REDD and REDD+ (the plus indicates local job benefits) are highest quality for trees
• NCC (Natural Capital Credit) approach makes a lot of sense

CREDITS

This presentation borrows heavily from Kevin Anderson's excellent work.