I hadn’t realised that I had never written about my decision not to fly…so here it is.

The flying revolution, romanticised by the beautiful old airplanes and pilots with flying goggles and aviator jackets, and made doubly appealing by films like “Magnificent Men in their Flying Machines” (a classic for children), has been appealing from the outset.

How could it not be?

As it became safer, more commercialised and glossy it became more accessible to ordinary people who aren’t pilots, members of the armed forces or a celebrity.

Take a little bit of romance, add new opportunities to travel all around the world and the possibility for anyone to explore as much as they dare and you get an overview of the emotional power of flying. I even feel all of those things myself…

When I was 17 or 18 years old, 3 or 4 years ago, I decided to stop using airplanes. Before that, there was a period where our family would make about one flight a year, of varying distances; this period included a long-haul flight to Australasia, and flights to Turkey and Lapland, all great places. My last flight was made amidst great soul searching. I had been on the verge of making the decision but I had to go to Tobago for the wedding of my aunt and uncle. Because of emotional blackmail of friends and myself, I had no other choice but to make this final journey, so I know the unpleasant feeling and I agree that the whole process of check-in and take-off is exciting. It gives you the impression that you are on vacation. but since then, I have discovered a very different way of travelling.

Why would you decide not to fly?

There’s many a different argument why we shouldn’t. Here are some that I considered:

Carbon emissions:

For any environmentalist this is the big one!

1. Flying uses 3 times as much energy per mile travelled (per passenger) than a train.
2. The effect of emitting greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels is more potent at the height that a plane travels than at ground level. By EU standards (for planes) this means the same greenhouse gases released by an airplane are 2.5 – 2.7 times stronger than those released by a car at ground level.

Combined, these two effects mean that per mile you travel in a plane, you are causing 7.5 times as much environmental damage than if you travelled by train. And the difference is even bigger if you travel by coach or car because they emit less than trains. Furthermore, the shorter the plane journey, proportionally, the more harm you are causing because the plane’s emissions are highest at take off and landing. Eurostar has calculated that by taking the train from London to Paris instead of flying each passenger cuts their travelling emissions by 90%, a HUGE figure!

As a local community puts it on their website:

“Let’s try to put it into perspective:
We try to be reasonable in our car use, by for example not making unnecessary trips to the shops which are only a couple of miles away.

Maybe over the course of the year, by cycling, car sharing etc, we might save 100 trips, and therefore perhaps feel that we have done something positive for the environment.

But each car trip, of 4 miles, is the equivalent to just one passengers’ share of an airplane for just 11 seconds.”

And just for those who advocate “offsetting” when you fly, DON’T BOTHER. Please check out this fantastic little film about why carbon offsetting just does.not.work

Consumer power:

As a privileged individual from a developed country with enough money (or ability to make the money) to be able to afford to make decisions between means of transport (i.e I am not forced to fly to get anywhere) I should take my consumer power seriously. Those of us who have always had consumer power don’t even think about what we are spending our money on or who is getting the profit in the end. We just don’t.

Large companies with different product lines watch very closely where consumers spend their money and where they don’t, withdrawing lines that people aren’t taking up and coming up with different versions and ‘limited editions’ of lines that people do like. Airlines cannot afford to fly empty planes, so vote with your purse.

It’s time to take responsibility for where you spend your money, time to put my money where my mouth is in my case.

Quality of experience:

This is a less penalising justification for choosing public transport over flying!

Whilst this will depend on whether you mind sharing a room with strangers, or whether you are prepared to talk to someone sitting next to you, quality of experience means that when you travel by slower means you are likely to meet more people. Amazing people, annoying people, kind people, people you can’t communicate with through language, scary people. But that is the beauty of public transport travelling!

I have met an African Diamond dealer; a recently self-released hermit who had cleared bodies from the beach of the Boxing-Day Tsunami, set up an orphanage and hung out with the Malaysian Princess; Mongolian clothes smugglers; an old Dutch man who took disabled young people on train journeys around the world; a friend of the Prince of Monaco who paid for my train ticket, and many many more interesting characters.

Every single one of them added to my journey and memory of the trip. Some of them gave me great advice, I gave to some of them (great) advice too-I have still have the silver water bottled in a viagra dropper bottle that the hermit had brewed himself (believe it or not I did actually let him put some of his home-brewed silver water IN my eye….that was a little stupid though).

Then there’s the views. When you are high up in the atmosphere you have none for the majority of the journey. I always feel much more of a connection to where I’m going if I’ve been watching my progress.

The food is often much better on trains (not relevant on coaches) than on planes! On our train journey from the UK to Mongolia there was a Russian food cart going through Russia and Siberia, and then a Mongolian food cart when the train reached the Russian/Mongolian border. It was all far more interesting than vacuum-packed bread and fruit salad that disintegrates into compost in your mouth.

Culture Shock: Most simple of all: why do you think people get culture shock as soon as they step off a plane in Mumbai? Finding themselves surrounded by poverty and unfamiliar colours, smells and people for 5 minutes they turn right around and step right back onto the first plane heading straight back to London – this has happened.

There is no context for your arrival in Mumbai. Lifting off in London financial capital of wherever, a developed country blah blah blah, there has been no transition to the less developed country half way round the world, only an extraction from reality for however many hours it takes, and then you’re placed on the ground again, somewhere “a whole world away” from your own.

By public transport you see the changing landscape, you see the transition between countries, peoples and ways of life to an extent, even though you are travelling at 80mph. You have at the very least, an idea of what’s coming, and so the likelihood of culture shock is drastically reduced. When I arrived in Mongolia, at no point did I get one of those realisation moments “oh my god I am in Mongolia!”, no, every time I realised I hadn’t had one of those moments I just thought “I bloody well am in Mongolia because it took me 6 days to get here”.

Some other powerful arguments

Love miles: I’ve heard many a staunch environmentalist talk about their decision not to fly….and then happily qualify their decision with the ‘love miles’ argument. That is, “well I live in the UK but my daughter has permanently moved to India” so you excuse yourself with a return flight to India every few years, because you obviously love your daughter. This argument is such an emotive one. No one, when pushed, is willing to give up their familial relationships for the sake of their carbon emissions. Opening up the world brings its consequences, positive and negative, one of them being people’s unwillingness to just settle in the country where they were born, or for some, have more than one home on more than one continent. There is no easy answer to this one, but all of the weighing up I keep referring to should still be relevant…..blinded by love comes to mind…..

Expense: There’s a touch of the chicken and egg scenario in this one. Yes planes are often cheaper, yes you could argue you then have more money to spend in the local economy when you arrive if you flew more cheaply.

There needs to be the demand for the cost to go down as well as much better government investment in their public transport infrastructures. If there was an international commitment to streamline public transport networks similar to the way airlines can manage their flights, the travel times would also be streamlined as well as the cost.

In the meantime the argument I use for justifying spending more money on train travel than I do on clothes, food etc, is simply that travelling must be costly, why should we be able to transport ourselves around the world with as little cost to ourselves but maximum cost to the planet and those who rely on it? Public transport is a ‘good thing’ to put my money into I tell myself, and if I can’t afford the non-flying option this time around, I just don’t go, saving the money for one great trip when I do have sufficient funds, making it all the more worthwhile.

I will never be able to evade the fact that I come from a family who did have a holiday once a year, and so could afford to choose not to fly most of the time, so I cannot justify myself to those families who work all the year round to be able to afford one cheap flight for the family to go on holiday ever year/2 years, etc. But given that the majority of flights are either business or those families who fly on holiday at least twice a year, it is those people who I aim my argument at, because they make up the primary consumers of flights, when they needn’t.

The ‘Greater Cause’: Whatever your cause is, with the advent of the internet and globalisation it’s likely it will have an element of business/contact/actions outside of the country you live in. Amongst the environmental movement, rightly so in my opinion, there are many that battle with the conundrum of flying to spread the word, strategically working with people in other countries, attending conferences (e.g the UN Climate Negotiations) to try and affect change on a greater level (on an international and state level) which you could never achieve by yourself etc etc I could go on.

This one has a powerful draw for someone like myself who advocates both personal actions, national actions and international co-operation on an issue like climate change and sustainably. Every decision I make to travel (so far avoiding flying) has been painstakingly researched to look for alternative less carbon-heavy methods of travel, how I would be contributing once I got there, and the likelihood that I would actually be adding something that would be missing if I wasn’t there. In 2010 I made the decision to stay in the UK for the UN Climate Negotiations annual Conference of the Parties (COP16) in Cancun, Mexico; I knew that I could support a team of other people to do what I would have done, and they were already going, so there are often ways round conundrums, even if its a bit self-sacrificing.

When there just aren’t ways round it, I have heard powerful personal justifications of how seriously the decision was taken, and that within the current system of flawed non-flying transport infrastructure, it is still the quickest and most economical way to travel long-haul. As long as this attitude does not give way to apathy and taking the effects of your actions for granted, as long as it really means you fight for a better world when you get there, or, it makes you more able to fight for a better world (e.g soul food from love miles!) I might hesitatingly, and with a heavy heart make the decision to fly.

Ultimately I have to weigh up how much of a hypocrite I can bear to be, how much flying would compromise everything I am fighting for, and how much I need to go.

If only I had stayed ignorant, life would be so much easier!

Follow my blog at www.izzykb.wordpress.com and find me on twitter: @IBottoms

Why conserve?

For conservationists, scientists and wildlife enthusiasts alike, extinction is an alarming word. But it can be easy to forget that extinction is a completely natural process – during the estimated 3.8 billion years that life has existed upon planet Earth, the diversity of organisms has been in a constant flux, with natural extinctions being balanced by equally natural speciations.

There have been five documented mass extinctions during the history of life on Earth, the most well known of which was the KT (Cretaceous-Tertiary) Event, which culminated with the disappearance of dinosaurs and made way for the evolution of mammals. It is generally agreed among scientists to have been associated with a serious of dramatic extraterrestrial impacts, which had a devastating impact upon the diversity of life.

What may be well less known, however, is the general consensus among scientists that Earth is currently on the brink of a sixth mass extinction event. This sounds like an incredibly daunting prospect, especially if we consider the previous mass extinctions; the Permian-Triassic extinction event, for example, eliminated an approximated 57% of all families extant at that time. Clearly, this suggests we are on course for an enormous upheaval of life as we know it, should this prediction be true.

What I find pretty scary is that, despite this pending event, life for many of us seems to remain pretty constant. We may be bombarded with an increasing number of messages daily telling us that sea levels are rising, but this is yet to significantly influence the majority of people in the Western world. The truth of the matter is, this mass extinction is beginning to happen right underneath our noses. We can no longer plead ignorance. Indeed, it’s scientifically proven that global warming, pollution, poaching and deforestation are causing extinctions at a rate unparalleled by the previous mass extinction events.
Economic and scientific reasons for conservation aside, I wonder…why don’t we take more action to prevent these extinctions just because we should? We are members of the only species on Earth with the power to actively conserve and protect the species we share our planet with, yet we let this power go to waste. We all have the same right to be here, and I personally think we have a moral obligation to take more of an interest in the world around us, and the magnificent living things we share it with.

So, with 2012 barely under way, my resolution will be to think more carefully about how my day to day actions impact upon the environment, (even though I will probably never see them directly for myself), and make a conscious effort to consider the wonderful creatures who also call planet Earth their home.

For People & Planet’s environmental campaigns, see our Climate Change pages.

What is SCOOP?

SCOOP provides organic, exploitation free or local produce at cost price to all members of the community. The co-op is not-for-profit, is run entirely by volunteers and we have a shop in one of our campus colleges, open once a week from 10-6pm. Students can benefit from the direct experience of running and managing a social enterprise. However, SCOOP is not just a simple management exercise, but an attempt to engage in co-operative living (which is great!) We are mostly a group of people who love to talk about, eat and share good food. We have monthly “Meet and Eat’s” where we cook and share homemade dishes together, make recipe books and a blog as a group and participate in a monthly campus Farmer’s Market along with local producers to get to know the community.

How did it start?

SCOOP started out in 2009 as a seed of an idea in a York People & Planet meeting. One of our members had been to visit Leeds, whose food co-op has been running since the groovy seventies, and was inspired to start one here! The idea grew a little bit at a time, with a small group of people starting out by researching and organising suppliers, local farms and food deliveries and collections from someone’s house. Our student union were pretty unhelpful, seeing it as a complex feat with lots of health and safety issues, and so we developed our own strategies working with the wonderful charity, Sustain, for a bit of extra advice.

In order for the co-op to develop to the stage of a fully functioning shop the founding members worked hard to establish the basis for volunteers to work together to share their interest in good food. We had to determine whether there was a demand for such a service, research suppliers for our stock, run meetings to manage the day-to-day tasks, raise funds to start our orders, advertise for shop and volunteers to help run it as well as working out our legal and spatial position.

Once we had established ourselves as in demand and a workable project we approached the Senior Management Committee of our University with a portfolio of everything we had achieved and our aims for the future. After a bit of convincing they gave us the space we needed to open a shop and when we applied to the York Alumni Fund for a grant we were awarded £1260 as a start-up fund for jars, scales and shelving etc.! We are now open every Wednesday from 10-6pm and have weekly meetings to discuss the running of the shop as well as our overall goals for the future.

Where next for SCOOP?

The co-op is now a student society, which our members thought gave it some long-term security, and is so popular and supported that we aim to open twice a week in the near future and would like to move to a more central position on campus with a much bigger shop space. We would love the shop to be open every day during term time like it is in Leeds so that students always have a choice about where to exercise their buying power, in an ethical co-operative where their opinions are taken into account - or in an impersonal chain supermarket?

Why do people love SCOOP so much?

The co-operative is run entirely by its members and so each person’s opinion is highly valued and listened to. Any decision is made using consensus-decision making which is a powerful way of coming to a conclusion that is supported by everybody in the group. If one person disagrees about something then they can block the decision from going ahead and a discussion is had about how the idea could be improved. This idea of sharing skills, working together for a similar aim, coming together as a community and helping each other to develop valuable skills is something which takes into account how important every single person in a group is. And SCOOP provides the most yummy, ethically-sourced food around, and that is the best thing since sliced bread!

The idea of ‘Boris Island’, an airport in the Thames Estuary, has had a bit of a resurgence recently. On last week’s Question Time (19/1/12), the Conservative Party co-Chair, Baroness Warsi, said the issue requires a “serious and grown up” debate over the issues of aviation, climate change, and economic growth. She then suggested that any notion of the debate being ‘grown up’ was dependent on an acknowledgment that the aviation industry has to expand. (watch on iPlayer, from 48min).

To me, this seemed to imply that: (a) a ‘grown up debate’ is one in which you agree with Baroness Warsi; or (b) that while environmental issues are OK for the student-types, at the grown-up’s table the only things that matter are economics and the growth of business. It’s a view seemingly shared by her Chancellor:

“we shouldn’t price British business out of the world economy. If we burden them with endless social and environmental goals – however worthy in their own right – then not only will we not achieve those goals, but the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer.” (The Chancellor’s Autumn Forecast Statement)

Now, I’d quite like to join in this debate, but I’m also terrified of a receiving a sharp, patronising rebuttal from the Baroness or one of her minions, so I’ve decided I should only engage on her terms, in the most ‘grown up’ way I can.

So first, what are the direct costs of aviation to the economy? It’s estimated that tax breaks to aviation come to about £10 billion a year. Aviation fuel is exempt from tax and air tickets and aircraft equipment are exempt from VAT.  In a 2005 report, Friends of the Earth calculated that this amounted to “an annual subsidy of £45,000 for each of the 200,000 jobs in the aviation industry”.

And what about the indirect costs? Attempts have been made by the UK National Ecosystem Assessment to place economic value on the natural environment in terms of the benefits provided to society and to continuing economic prosperity. It’s estimated that wetlands are worth £1.5bn a year, just in relation to the role they play in improving water quality. Probably something that should be taken into account when considering them as a location for a new airport. Similarly, it should be noted that there are huge economic costs associated with adapting to the effects of climate change - globally, the UNFCCC has said this will be in the region of £44bn-£63bn by 2030, although scientists argue it could easily reach £300bn.

Surely any ‘grown up’ debate has got to be influenced by such considerations. It’s patently obvious that our continued prosperity is intrinsically linked to the condition of our environment.  And it’s not just the bearded, lentil-eating tree-huggers saying this now; the hard-headed, suit-wearing economists have joined in as well. Environmental issues should be at the heart of any ‘sensible’ debate about the economy, not just an after-thought or postscript to appease a few pressure groups.

So should the aviation industry be encouraged to grow, despite the damage it causes to the environment (and the implications that has for the economy) and despite the fact that its growth is in part dependent upon support from the tax payer? Or should it be encouraged to pay its fair share and accept that its role in causing climate change puts a natural limit on its potential for growth?

We clearly can’t expect to prevent climate change with a continually growing aviation industry. If we want to seriously reduce carbon emissions, we also need to make sure airlines operate more efficiently at their current size. We could start by getting rid of the tax breaks currently afforded to them - this would increase their costs, and would surely make flying half-empty planes up and down the country on a daily basis economically unviable. Such a market-driven push for efficiency would seem to be straight out of George Osborne’s economic handbook – or at least it would if you replaced ‘carbon emissions’ with ‘public spending’, and ‘airlines’ with ‘public services’.

Fairer taxes on the aviation industry would mean an end to the cheap flights which have previously driven its growth, but this wouldn’t necessarily harm the economy as a whole. The Green Fiscal Commission has argued that the revenue from increased environmental taxes could create an extra 450,000 jobs over ten years. Also, people flying less doesn’t mean the reasons for travel no longer exist - businesses will still need to operate internationally, people will still want holidays, etc. Therefore, any reduction in demand for flights is likely to stimulate a growth in demand for video-conferencing, train travel, and domestic tourism - the very industries vital to the growth of a sustainable economy.

In her speech to the Conservative Party Conference last year, Baroness Warsi claimed one of the government’s main goals was “making sure this generation does not bankrupt the next”. I’d like to hope that one day she realises they’re passing on more than just an economy, and that its condition will be almost irrelevant if it’s not supported by a healthy environment.

Unless you are a certain flame-haired supermodel who can afford a flat in London and a first-class commute to lectures, shared accommodation is a necessity during university. I have to say my experience of shared living was mixed: communal baking, charades and having friends around were excellent; dying rats under the floor boards and shelling out for monthly bills; not so excellent.

If you have ever had to suffer the stench of a decomposing rat, you have my sympathies. Equally, if you have tried to explain to a housemate why having four light bulbs on in one bedroom is a waste, I also feel your pain. There is an element of reason involved, of course. Walking around the house with three jumpers, two t-shirts, gloves, tights, trousers and several pairs of socks on at once is definitely no fun (believe me, I would know), but it is surely important to save money– and the planet too. If SJP of Sex and the City had practiced energy-saving initiatives, she could have bought more shoes instead of needing a bail out from Big. And who wouldn’t want more shoes, or anything else for that matter?

There are many ways to cut down on unnecessary energy use but measuring your electricity use is a good place to start. There are ways to get free measurement devices that plug in and calculate your costs . Oxford University have also created an imeasure which is more work but still provides results as you can find out which appliances eat up your money and use them less. One ‘out there’ suggestion is to use cling-film for secondary glazing – tape it around your windows and then hair dryer it taut. I did this to keep a ladybird infestation out, but it works just as well to keep heat in. Tin foil behind a radiator may help too; recycle foil take-out boxes to be optimally sustainable.

I also recommend outlining the ‘Landlords Energy Saving Allowance’ to your landlord. Up to £1,500 can be claimed against tax each year to improve a property’s eco-credentials. Who knows, there may be some green landlords out there, so spread the word. Encourage your landlord to install better insulation on the roof or around water pipes, and point them in the direction of claims information.

There is one caveat to implementing energy saving suggestions: the rest of your household. Lead by example, gentle persuasion, reminders, and advice as the first steps to switching off appliances and turning down the heating, which can then be backed by technological solutions. Forgetting to turn something off is not an excuse anymore. There is of course an App that can remotely turn off electronics – can you believe that? If nothing else works, try positive conditioning. Get housemates to turn off lights or computers then surreptitiously give them a sweet. Repetition is key. Soon energy saving behaviour will occur with just the vague memory of a delicious sweet for encouragement. In a nod to Thorndike, like rats pressing a lever, those lights go off.

The latter suggestion may not be such a good idea (though I’d love to try it just to see if it works!) but it is definitely hugely beneficial to try and implement energy saving initiatives around the house you’re letting. If nothing else, try it for a month as evidence for the months to come, and watch your bills go down. Before you feel the pinch of huge bills, try turning to this advice. It just might help!

Katie

If a successful campaign needs a story, then since 2009 the global climate movement has been in deep trouble.

We certainly started off with a great story. I love to tell it to people all the time. Gather round kids, I say to fresh-faced activists and strangers in pubs, listen up – here’s how we changed the world. In the early noughties the UK and Scottish Governments were somewhat interested in climate change, but they were pretty convinced that we didn’t need new legislation to tackle it. “Leave it to me”, said Tony Blair, “the climate is safe as long as we’re in charge”. We didn’t agree, and after a monumental protest, lobby, and direct action campaign the Climate Change Change Act and Climate Change (Scotland) Act were passed with cross-party support in both legislatures. Onwards and upwards. Gordon Brown then created a cabinet level position for Climate Change, a move which remains somewhat unique internationally. With our climate bills in hand, the then minister for Energy & Climate Change Ed Milliband, went to the UN Climate Change Summit at Copenhagen. We’d set the course for the UK, and now we were going to lead the world! (more…)

This post was submitted by the UK youth delegation to the UN climate talks in Durban, coordinated by UKYCC

It’s that time of year again, when diplomats and negotiators, in iron-clad grey suits come face to face with young people who are ready to flashdance and cheerlead their way to the future.

Those two things might seem worlds apart, but in just a few days in Durban, South Africa, the UK youth delegation from the UK Youth Climate Coalition will join with other young people from across the world for the United Nations annual climate talks.

The countries of the world come together once a year to try to formulate a plan that will reduce emissions and prepare for inevitable changes to our climate. That meeting is called the Conference of the Parties, and its 17th annual meeting is about to start.

We believe that young people are the ones who truly have the overwhelming passion and energy to show that, despite the lack of success these talks have had during our lifetimes, we want the most ambitious solution possible to climate change.

And the reason we’re so strong as a group is because we all have our own individual experience. The climate negotiations are crucial to solving climate change, but they are not the be all and end all. We’re all involved in a huge variety of projects around climate change and empowering young people in our local communities, and that’s where our strength and energy come from.

Youth are not the bystanders in this process, we are the ones who will be dealing with the consequences of these decisions for decades to come. And what’s more, progress, or lack of it, has impacts for every young person back on the streets of the UK. Progress towards a low-carbon, clean future, would provide new opportunities for growth and jobs. Politicians and diplomats are bargaining and procrastinating over our future.

And don’t be beguiled by our facepaint, silly costumes, propensity to dance and sing and wear colourful clothes. We’ve also spent the year fundraising hard and in particular learning about climate change policy. Behind our sunglasses and flowery shirts, we’re armed with the tools to have conversations with negotiators on their level.

What’s more, we hope to communicate what’s going on in these talks back to young people in the UK and that they will get in touch with us. Every young person has a stake in this process and we want to make sure that they know what’s being decided in their name, about their futures.

And we’re also excited to link up with the hundreds of young people from all over the world who scrimp and save to come to South Africa, who study detailed policy, who plan creative actions to open politicians’ eyes. We want to help shape the efforts needed and decisions taken to tackle climate change for the lives of all young people.

Find our blogs at un.ukycc.org, follow us @ukyccdelegation and email us your thoughts and hopes for a clean, safe future - delegation.enquiries@ukycc.org

Youth Delegation to the UN Climate Talks, UK Youth Climate Coalition

Unless you are a certain flame-haired supermodel who can afford a flat in London and a first-class commute to lectures, shared accommodation is a necessity during university. I have to say my experience of shared living was mixed: communal baking, charades and having friends around were excellent; dying rats under the floor boards and shelling out for monthly bills; not so excellent.

If you have ever had to suffer the stench of a decomposing rat, you have my sympathies. Equally, if you have tried to explain to a housemate why having four light bulbs on in one bedroom is a waste; I also feel your pain. There is an element of reason involved, of course. Walking around the house with three jumpers, two t-shirts, gloves, tights, trousers and several pairs of socks on at once is definitely no fun (believe me, I would know), but it is surely important to save money– and the planet too. If SJP of Sex and the City had practiced energy-saving initiatives, she could have bought more shoes instead of needing a bail out from Big. And who wouldn’t want more shoes, or anything else for that matter?

There are many ways to cut down on unnecessary energy use but measuring your electricity use is a good place to start. There are ways to get free measurement devices that plug in and calculate your costs . Oxford University have also created an imeasure which is more work but still provides results as you can find out which appliances eat up your money and use them less. One ‘out there’ suggestion is to use cling-film for secondary glazing – tape it around your windows and then hair dryer it taut. I did this to keep a ladybird infestation out, but it works just as well to keep heat in. Tin foil behind a radiator may help too; recycle foil take-out boxes to be optimally sustainable. Alternatively, sign up to People & Planet’s Big Green Makeover project and you’ll get all the training and resources you need to help fellow students do this for free!

I also recommend outlining the ‘Landlords Energy Saving Allowance’ to your landlord. Up to £1,500 can be claimed against tax each year to improve a property’s eco-credentials. Who knows, there may be some green landlords out there, so spread the word. Encourage your landlord to install better insulation on the roof or around water pipes, and point them in the direction of claims information.

There is one caveat to implementing energy saving suggestions: the rest of your household. Lead by example, gentle persuasion, reminders, and advice as the first steps to switching off appliances and turning down the heating, which can then be backed by technological solutions. Forgetting to turn something off is not an excuse anymore. There is of course an App that can remotely turn off electronics – can you believe that? If nothing else works, try positive conditioning. Get housemates to turn off lights or computers then surreptitiously give them a sweet. Repetition is key. Soon energy saving behaviour will occur with just the vague memory of a delicious sweet for encouragement. In a nod to Thorndike, like rats pressing a lever, those lights go off.

The latter suggestion may not be such a good idea (though I’d love to try it just to see if it works!) but it is definitely hugely beneficial to try and implement energy saving initiatives around the house you’re letting. If nothing else, try it for a month as evidence for the months to come, and watch your bills go down. Before you feel the pinch of huge bills, try turning to this advice. It just might help!

Katie

Philippa de Boissiere was one of 8 students who took part in People & Planet’s tar sands solidarity exchange this summer:

“Our trip to Alberta, Canada marked the start for us of an ongoing commitment to take on the most destructive oil project on Earth. Our visit was in response to an invitation from the former Beaver Lake Cree Nation (BLCN) Chief, Al Lameman, whose community is being directly threatened by the expansion of tar sands.
There was a lot to take in from our experience of this dirty oil extraction industry. We were treated to a full PR assault from Suncor representatives, harassed by industry workers whilst surveying the destruction of the boreal forest and left choking by the fumes emitted from toxic waste ponds.
More importantly however, we developed links of solidarity with indigenous people from Beaver Lake. Over campfires, meals and some dancing at their annual Pow-Wow we learnt of a wise and loving culture. We were able to send a powerful message on behalf of the People & Planet network that the Beaver Lake Cree Nation do not stand alone in taking on the most powerful oil companies on the planet.

This blog was written by Marco Cadena, a member of the Young Friends of the Earth network

Millions are already facing the devastating impacts of climate change, and the European Environment Council meeting this coming Monday wasn’t even going to discuss emission reduction targets at their meeting.

However, civil society groups all across Europe are campaigning loudly for climate action, one of these campaigns is Push Europe - a youth-led climate campaign building a strong movement demanding real European action on climate change.

It is really simple: we need real emission cuts, there is no time to sweep the emissions under the carpet through the dangerous obsession of carbon trading.

Young Friends of the Earth, People and Planet, 350.org and many other organisations are now calling on European leaders to recognise that there isn’t time to fiddle around: we’re getting closer to the tipping point. We’re heading towards a five degree world, with catastrophic consequences all around the world.

It’s time to tell Chris Huhne, who will represent the United Kingdom this coming Monday (10th October), that climate change isn’t something that Environment Ministers shouldn’t discuss. In fact, there is a need for increased political ambition to bring the stagnate international climate negotiations forward.

Europe has massive historical responsibility for causing climate change, but it’s focussing solely on carbon markets with very low real emission reduction commitments.

It is time for real action for Europe and for the rest of the world.

Email Chris Huhne before Monday to call for strong action now!

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/eu_climate_32796.html