3 years after the Indian Ocean Earthquake of December 2004

“The sea is a different colour today - a Tsunami might come”, the old woman said, her eyes tinged with sadness as she sold bottled water from a counter in a long row of dilapidated shacks.

The scars of the 2004 Asian Tsunami can be seen everywhere. Besides the fear that remains in peoples faces, a nearby tree lay un-rooted whilst trucks trundle uncertainly across a rickety wooden bridge. The legs of the original concrete bridge, destroyed by 100 ft waves, stick out of the water like broken teeth.

Your local travel agent might have you believe that it’s all over, that the resorts have been rebuilt and it’s business as usual on Thailand’s Andaman coast. But cycle a few hundred meters outside of the resorts where Westerners enjoy cool Singha beers and the warm hospitality of the Thai people, and it’s a very different story.

Many people have struggled to rebuild homes (unrecognisable as such by Western standards), and are having a hard time time living from the remaining natural resources which were devastated following an undersea earthquake so large that our Earth wobbled on its Axis and our days are now 2.7 microseconds shorter.

The human toll from the Tsunami came to 229,866 people lost, including 186,983 dead and 42,883 missing. Survivors continue to mourn their losses, left with farm fields still contaminated by salt water, limited infrastructure for the treatment of sewage and provision of fresh water and the collapse of local fishing industries.

The healthy return of tourism to the region is certainly helping to inject funds into local economies, and a sense of normality is slowly returning, but the memory of 26th December 2004 continues to traumatise many survivors struggling to scrape a living from a coastline still bearing many scars of the most deadly natural disaster in living memory.

Today I would like to look at a situation where the reverse is true, visiting the Germany eco-town of Freiburg .

At first glance, those Germans may appear to have limited green credentials. Fearful of potential impact on their high performance car industry, Germany has lobbied aggressively in recent months to delay new EU legislation aimed at improving vehicle fuel economy. Germany is also home to six of Europe’s ten most polluting power stations and has been keeping quiet about plans to build 24 additional coal powered plants.

However, in terms of concrete and practical actions aimed at making a real difference to the environment, this nation of passionate recyclers, high speed railway builders, and renewable energy nuts appear to be way out in front.

The proof of this can be seen in the eco-town of Freiburg on the South Western edge of Germany’s Black Forest. What’s particularly unusual about Freiburg is that unlike many eco-towns, which have been built from scratch for energy efficiency, Freiburg was established in the 12th century and it’s green status is simply the result of sound planning and sustainable practices.

The German government’s building and home maintenance policies are heavily geared to minimising impact on the environment, with substantial loans and subsidies available for green building technologies. Home investments aimed at reducing CO2 emissions can be offset by 30 year loans, with rebates of up to 20% if certain efficiency levels are met.

Freiburg has taken maximum advantage of these policies, and the local government (where the Green party have up to 40% of the popular vote in some areas) has adopted a resolution which permits construction of new buildings only if they adhere to certain “low energy” specifications. The net result is that whilst a typical British home uses 220 kilowatt hours of energy per year per square meter of floor space, newer homes in Freiburg use only 15.

The city has an extensive public transport network, allowing the centre of the city to be completely car free, and the residents of the city are well known for their love of cycling and recycling. The result is a city where life is pleasant, living is good, and costs are low.

Reducing our environmental footprint doesn’t have to be hard, and it doesn’t require billions in additional taxes - it just requires a little ingenuity and some common sense.

However, actions speak louder than words, particularly the words of politicians.

When the British Government announced their most recent budget earlier this year, there was much applause from green groups after chancellor Alistair Darling announced almost draconian increases in taxation on gas guzzling cars.

But how effective are these taxes? Do we have a clear set of policies that are making a real difference, or is there some truth in accusations that governments are using a green agenda to raise additional tax revenue?

Early projections suggest that the latter may be true, with the UK treasury estimating that new green motoring taxes will provide an additional £4 billion ($7.9 billion) in tax revenues, but reduce vehicle emissions by only 1% (0.06% of the total CO2 emissions in the UK).

The new motor taxes have obviously been widely criticized, with the shadow Treasury minister describing it as “This is a massive tax hike which will have virtually no impact on the environment,” adding that “Despite their claims, the Government don’t expect this move to change behaviour at all - it is just another eco-stealth tax of the worst kind.”

To which the British government has feebly responded “The Government is committed to protecting the environment and tackling climate change. Part of this commitment involves promoting sustainable environmental improvements through tax and other economic instruments, and incentivising the development and uptake of lower emissions vehicles.”

Many fear that these are merely warm intentions, and not concrete commitments. Considering that, for example, current investment in energy research is approximately one tenth of the amount spent on space research, and that UK CO2 emissions are still rising after over a decade of pseudo green government action, it would appear that a new approach is needed.

Until then it will be hard to argue with the sentiment that for many governments green = more tax.

Photo courtesy of Flickr.

For this reason, solar power has long been discounted in favour of wind on this blustery island where one’s neighbours are likely to raise a few eyebrows should one be so eccentric as to cover the roof in solar panels.

This was certainly on the mind of Ashley Seager when he laid out the princely sum of £8,500 ($16,900) in 2007 for the installation of a 3 kilowatt solar power generation system for his South London home. However, one year later and despite a year of weather that has been poor even by British standards, Ashley’s investment is beginning to pay dividends having generated 92% of the Seager household’s annual electricity requirement.

Global warming has not yet turned the British Isles into a tropical paradise, but this experience demonstrates that solar energy is still a viable option, even the most dreary climate, resulting in electricity bills low enough to bring a little sunshine on even the rainiest day.

But - there are a few caveats..

The payback time on the Seager’s solar system will be approximately 13 years - not the shortest investment, and for a British family considering the same investment today the payback time will be even longer; Until recently the British government offered a 50% grant on home solar installations -which has now been capped at £2,500 due to demand, forcing many solar installers out of business despite the rapidly falling cost of the technology. (in comparison, Germany - whose government offers generous renewable energy support -  fitted solar installations to 130,000 homes last year compared to 300 in the UK).

Secondly, payback time is greatly influenced by the fluctuating cost of energy. Solar systems generate electricity during the day which goes mostly unused whilst the family are at work or school. The excess electricity is sold back to the power company and then re-purchased in the evening when the sun has set and energy use is at it’s highest. Although rising electricity costs increase savings, most power companies in the UK buy electricity from solar homes for less than the price at which they sell it back again. Again, in comparison, those renewable-crazy Germans buy electricity for twice the price at which they sell it.

The complex regulations, grants and tariffs which surround micro renewable energy are still shifting as the UK government tries to land on a sensible set of long term energy policies. This uncertainty makes solar a more unlikely option for the less well-heeled, but the savings and the eco credibility factor certainly mean that the Jones’s may soon be swapping those raised eyebrows for solar panels..

Learn more about solar energy, and find out how much you can save (California only) at Renewzle.

With thanks to The Guardian. Photo courtesy of Flickr

The speech was widely covered here on Green Options and in the general media, with many feeling that this was a case of too little, too late.

Of course, this was not particularly surprising, and few people were gearing themselves up for the potential announcement of a dramatic change in policy. But what has been interesting is the unprecedented criticism from world leaders disappointed with the lack of US commitment:

Germany were particularly critical, German Environment Minister being quoted saying: “[Bush is] lagging hopelessly behind the problems with his proposals … [his speech] does not do justice to the global challenge. His speech follows the motto: ‘losership instead of leadership,’ … We are glad that there are other voices in the U.S.A.”

U.N. Secretary Yvo De Boer was a little more measured: “It’s not clear how the Bush plan would fit in with the goals set out by scientists … But for now, it’s good there is a proposal on the table from the U.S. Let’s see where this goes.”

European Union president Stavros Dimas warned that the proposals “will not contribute to the fight against climate change. Time is running out and we have the duty to reach an agreement in Copenhagen in 2009″. Meanwhile, a spokesperson from the EU environment commission added: “This does not match with the level of ambition needed on the part of developed countries, considering their responsibilities in the challenge we face “

From further afield, South African Environment and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk flatly refused to accept the US proposals: “There is no way whatsoever that we can agree to what the US is proposing”, describing the Bush Administration as “isolated” on this issue.

Finally, Se Wei, Chinese delegate at the Paris Climate talks described the proposal as simply “not enough”.

Meanwhile, emissions continue to rise..

Photo courtesy of Flickr. With thanks to ClimateIntel.

Some people are prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to promote environmental alternatives, demonstrating just what is possible in a world that has long been reliant on fossil fuels.

I recently wrote of a Swiss family who are at the half way point of an epic round the world eco journey travelling only by foot, bicycle and wind power. During this journey they aim to cross seven seas and climb seven of the world’s highest mountains.

Now, a Swiss doctor is undertaking an adventure of similar proportions. Matrin Vosseler, in a bid to raise awareness on climate change has walked across much of Europe and the Middle East, sailed a solar powered boat across the Atlantic, and is now walking across the United States from West to East.

Walking with the emblem of the Sun on his back, Vosseler hopes to spread the message on climate change to the 500 to 25,000 people he comes into contact with each day:

“Every driver sees me. I wave to many of them and many wave back. They think ‘what kind of person would walk through the United States with a sun on his pack?’. And they eventually connect when they see a report in the newspaper or on television about me. So it’s a tremendous opportunity to spread the message.”

Dr Vosseler is currently somewhere along highway 40, with only a couple of thousand kilometres to walk before he reaches Boston where he plans to hitch a ride with a sailboat back to Europe.

You can follow Martin Vosseler’s progress across America using Google Maps, or find out more about his journey on his personal site (German Only).

Source: SwissInfo

But our affair with the car has blinded us to some of the obvious drawbacks, such as its lack of compatibility with urban life which leaves our cities clogged by semi stationary vehicles with fuming engines and fuming drivers.

This point has not been lost on Yvonne Joos of Umverkehr, an environmental organization which recently launched a campaign to improve public transportation in Swiss cities, re-addressing the balance between the car and life in the city. Launching the campaign against a backdrop (pictured) demonstrating the difference between a car free, care free city and today’s car dominated environment, Joos told reporters “Traffic is continuously increasing in cities and agglomerations and at some point the amount of car traffic will no longer be supported.”

Explaining that a single tram has the capacity to replace 210 cars on the road, Umverker point out the numerous benefits of a less car dominated city environment. Besides the obvious improvements in air quality and noise pollution, an increased focus on public transport will make cycling safer - many commuters have rejected the bicycle on safety grounds – and result in less stress for those who must use cars and currently face ever increasing traffic chaos.

Obviously Switzerland has one crucial advantage in such campaigns – the fact that a comprehensive and reliable public transport infrastructure already exists. Having experienced the horrors of public transport in other parts of the world I am sorry to say that for many of us the car, and our love affair with it, are set to stay.

Photo courtesy of umverkehR

Additional source: SwissInfo

Ultimately the spy, an employee of C2i International who specialize in ’special risk management’ (otherwise known as industrial espionage) was little match for Plane Stupid, who described him as “more Austin Powers than James Bond”.

Accounts of the episode reveal that Ken Tobias (real name Tobias Kendall), made a number of basic errors, including:

• Wearing expensive designer clothes (which he attempted to disguise by wearing a Palestinian scarf to give some environmental credibility)
• Turning up to meetings consistently early
• Demonstrating an unusual eagerness to reap mayhem on British airport infrastructure by suggesting the grandest and most aggressive schemes
• Allowing information on planned activities to be published almost immediately in the press

Kendall was ultimately outed after Plane Stupid members became suspicious and began feeding their mole with false information, which would reliably come to the attention of the aviation industry and be published in newspapers within days.

Following further identity checks and a direct confrontation in a London restaurant Kendall silently slipped back into the shadows, and is currently refusing all media requests for contact. Kendall is no doubt reconsidering his career in the underworld after what seems to have been a dismal performance.

The mystery still remains as to who hired C2i to infiltrate Plane Stupid, with fingers currently being pointed at British Airways, The British Airport Authority and even the British Government. In the final analysis no one seems to have benefited from the affair, except perhaps for Plane Stupid who are doubtless grateful for the additional publicity.

Further reading: Graham Thompson in The Guardian

As expected, there were no major advances made, but unexpectedly there were few disagreements either. The wheels of diplomacy continue to grind slowly towards a solution which may or may not deliver some actual benefits. There are some who suspect that negotiators are biding their time until new US administration gets to work later this year. Then there is the other theory that the world has just gotten tired of seemingly never ending negotiations in tropical locations.

In this regard, I finally decided to ignore the subject and wait until something more tangible comes out of one of the many negotiating rounds, but then something caught my eye which re-ignited my principle criticism of the whole process: reading a report from the head of the Swiss delegation Thomas Kolly, I noticed that the total Swiss entourage comprised around 1,000 government, environmental research and business representatives, all travelling half way around the world to attend the conference.

I understand that the talks take time, I understand that complex solutions can’t be found quickly, but what I can’t understand is why we need so many people to attend each discussion? Yes, face to face talks are essential, but is it really necessary to travel with a complete circus in tow? Does this really set a good example to the masses who are being encouraged to make dramatic cutbacks to their energy usage?

No. What it basically achieves is damage to the credibility of the environmental movement, not to mention all those additional emissions. To re-use an already well worn pun - the last thing we need at climate negotiations is even more hot air.

Your grumpy climate change commentator will be back with news on climate negotiations as soon as something has actually been negotiated.

Note: this article has nothing to do with the editor of Green Options refusing my travel & expenses request for the Hawaii Climate Change summit meeting earlier this year.

Photo courtesy of Flickr.

Not much of a story there.

When there is not much happening in Switzerland and I need to file an EcoWorldly post, I usually look at wider Europe. My notes on bus travel in other nations around Europe read: mostly reliable, mostly clean, mostly efficient.

Still not much to write home about.

And then I read Pem Charnley’s article about bus transportation in Britain, which struck much more of a chord. Having recently written here about the woeful state of British rail transportation, I thought it might be appropriate to continue Pem’s theme and recount my experience of bus travel when I returned to our sunny island for a brief visit recently.

The story starts in the West Midlands with a Saturday shopping trip from my residence in Warwick to the nearby town of Royal Leamington Spa. As before, I shall evaluate the transport infrastructure of the 4^th richest nation in the world using some carefully chosen criteria.

Time

British bus firms are fully committed to the information age, providing extensive online timetable and route information. Many bus company websites look as if they were designed by a 12 year old in the late ‘90s, but all the required information was available to help me plan, allowing me to set off for the bus-stop in plenty of time.

Arriving at the bus-stop, I was curious to note that the faded and stained timetable displayed at the stop didn’t match the information provided on the web. After some initial concern I began to realise that the published timetables are anyway irrelevant since British buses run to their own, secret timetable. This time table is determined by a complex formula based on the average time taken to smoke a packet of cigarettes and drink several cups of tea, multiplied by the number of pages in The Sun newspaper.

I once thought that bus-shelters were vandalised by bored youths with no other outlets for their frustrations. Now I know that they are vandalised by people tired of wasting their lives waiting for busses with no other outlets for their frustrations.

Travel Experience

Eventually, a bus appeared on the horizon. I stood at the curbside expectantly as the bus roared straight past me leaving me standing bewildered in a fog of diesel fumes. It seems that for a bus to stop for a single passenger only, he or she must display the appropriate level of desire to travel in order to justify the inconvenience of stopping. You see, bus services are heavily focused on convenience - the driver’s that is, not the passenger’s.

I now know that in this circumstance one must wave an arm, jump up and down a little and stand partly in the road in order to demonstrate to the driver that one is really committed to the journey. If possible, try to make eye contact with the driver - just so there is no doubt that you really are waving at the bus and not at some other moving object.

Some people may say that standing in a busy road and staring down a 20 ton bus is dangerous, but personally I like a little adventure on my travels.

On boarding the bus, however, enthusiasm begins to wane. I remember as a child that sitting on the top deck of a double-decker bus was a fun experience – one can look down on other cars, see into other peoples gardens and generally feel a little more elevated than normal.

Unfortunately, I seriously doubt that the cleaning staff have ever stepped foot on the top deck of a bus in the West Midlands. The floor is strewn with litter, the windows are opaque with grime and the air smells like the stair-well of a town centre multi-story car park (UK residents will know the odour to which I refer). Instead of feeling elevated, one feels quite the opposite.

To summarise the travel experience, it can be said that once one gets the hang of it, the experience is functional, if not entirely sanitary.

Cost

Bus travel is not expensive. But value for money depends on how many times you have to buy the same ticket – allow me to elaborate;

Having survived the outbound journey, done some shopping, waited seemingly endlessly for the bus home, become hungry, brought a sandwich and waited around in the cold a while longer, a bus finally arrived. Unfortunately I was unable to board immediately - once the arriving passengers had alighted the driver immediately jumped out of the bus to have a cigarette with a colleague parked in the next bay. If you ever doubt that bus drivers can physically move quickly then just watch one go for a break.

Meanwhile the queue of passengers shivered in the cold while the empty busses sat chugging diesel fumes into the air.

Eventually our driver grudgingly got back to business, allowing the weary looking queue of travellers to board his bus. He was a charming fellow, and as I waited for him to take the fare from the passenger in front of me I presumed he was married to a lady named Kate – at least by the letters A T E which I noticed were tattooed on his last three knuckles. On seeing his forefinger I realized that I wrong about this, just as I had been naive about so many aspects of this journey. I was about to understand that the forefinger ‘H’ merely completed the motto instilled on the customer service training course.

Pesenting the return ticket that I had purchased some hours previously, I was told rather bluntly that “You can’t come on this bus with that ticket”.

Certain that there must be some confusion I explained that I had brought it earlier this morning and invited this ambassador of Travel West Midlands to inspect the ticket more closely.

“Wrong bus.” He explained flatly. Sensing my confusion with his special talent for empathy, the driver tiredly explained that I was holding a ticket issued by the Stagecoach bus company, which runs similarly liveried busses on the same route. Reluctantly he pointed to the Stage Coach bus in the next bay as it pulled away, driven by his smoking companion. I’m all for competition in public transport, but a little bit of integration would be useful. Besides, on what are these two firms competing? Rudeness, dirtiness, lateness, hopelessness?

In resignation at my fate I asked for a new ticket, but it wasn’t to be. Having only a £10 note for the £1.25 fare proved to be the final obstacle of my journey as the Travel West Midlands employee of the month told me he didn’t have enough change for the £10, and suggested that I either wait for another bus or get some smaller currency. There was little interest in exploring solutions for this predicament – it was apparently my problem, and bizarrely, he suddenly had a schedule to keep.

I took my £10, and went to look for a taxi.

Conclusion

I don’t wish to sound crass, but in most of the UK busses are only for poor people, or people that for some other reason can’t drive. It is clear that even the most ardent environmentalist would choose a car instead of submitting to this hell on a daily basis. And if you think I am exaggerating then I challenge you to try this for yourself on a cold, damp Saturday morning.

I’ve been on busses in third world countries, where passengers share space with goats and chickens, where the most relaxing place to sit is on the roof and where the driver employs an assistant to wipe the front windshield – whilst the bus is still moving. But although third world transport may lack comfort, it does not lack civility. Sharing space with livestock is one thing, but feeling like livestock is another.

My notes for bus travel in Britain read: avoid.

Photo courtesy of Flickr

Named SeaGen, the 1.2 megawatt installation will generate power for over 1,000 homes using energy harvested from tides in Strangford Lough, east of Belfast.

Northern Ireland has considerable natural resources and although wind power has been Ireland’s primary source of renewable energy to date, tidal power generates more energy per acre than wind power - a form of energy that many object to on grounds of its space requirements. In addition, tidal installations have the crucial advantage that tides are constantly moving, allowing power to be generated constantly, whereas wind energy is subject to frequent troughs and peaks with shifting weather patterns.

Cementing its commitment to renewable energy, Ireland’s state-owned electricity supplier ESB has announced an investment of almost 11 billion euros ($17.4 billion) in renewable sources including tidal and wave technology to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming.

As an aside: The Titanic, launched in 1912, sank after hitting an iceberg. This episode was partially blamed on excessive pressure to make a fast Atlantic crossing being placed on the Titanic’s captain by the ship’s owners. In some ways, this event is reminiscent of today’s pressure for economic growth in the face of mounting environmental uncertainties. Let’s hope for better luck this time around.

Britain may not have much choice in this matter as its government seems determined to take the nuclear route in an effort to bring Co2 emissions in line with its reduction pledges and mitigate its dwindling North Sea oil and gas supplies.

Announcing plans to enter into a technology partnership with France, the UK government proposes replacing its 24 aging reactors - which currently provide 20% of the nation’s electricity - with a new set of nuclear power plants which will double Britain’s nuclear power generating capacity. In doing so, Britain hopes to become a “world leader in nuclear technology”, according to Energy Secretary John Hutton.

Whilst nuclear energy has at least one advantage in providing plentiful carbon free power, there are numerous objections, not least due to concerns over safety, long term handling and storage of radioactive waste and the potential distraction from long term renewable energy projects. Indeed, there are many complex arguments behind the nuclear question, a topic which cannot be succinctly summarised in a single blog post, and on which I must admit I lack a clear opinion.

Therefore I decided to call in some people who actually know what they are talking about.

Rod of Atomic Insights and Matt from TalkClimateChange have agreed to lend their expertise to this discussion in a currently ongoing debate on our discussion boards, which I am sure will provide the necessary depth of argument and cover the full range of pro’s and con’s.

We’ll be back with a follow-up post containing the highlights (and maybe a final opinion) from this debate next week. In the meantime, feel free to watch the debate or chime in with your views.

Having had a minor makeover in the form of a new terminal building which brings some aspects of travel via Heathrow into the 21^st century, most travellers are still subjected to an experience which does more to discourage flying than any environmental campaign could ever hope to achieve.

However, the real controversy at Heathrow right now concerns the proposal to build a third runway in response to ever increasing demands for capacity. This proposal has a significant environmental footprint; carbon emissions from additional flights alone will be equal to the those of the entire nation of Kenya, up to 4,000 houses may be bulldozed, including the entire village of Sipson, a graveyard and several historically relevant buildings.

Unsurprisingly there has been some resistance, and not only from environmental groups. All four of London’s mayoral candidates, the UK Environment Agency and many members of Parliament, including all of the government’s opposition parties have voiced strong objections to the scheme. Indeed, it appears that the only proponents of the scheme are the owners of Heathrow Airport, the current British Government and British Airways.

The Alternatives

However, there are many citizens who are happy to sit on the fence on this issue, or who simply believe that there are no alternatives. With ever increasing pressure for more flights and more airport capacity, isn’t an additional runway inevitable? This is the central question to the issue - without a good set of answers it almost certainly is inevitable in the name of the holy grail of economic progress.

So, without having thought too hard about it, and with my normal lazy approach to blog post research, here are the initial answers which I rattled off over a bottle of wine and some dinner last night:

• Realistic Long Term Economics: Looking at the reverse side of the issue that started the whole discussion - what are the true and long term economics of the scheme, including all hidden costs? The third runway will cost approximately £12 billion ($24 billion), and have a payback period of around 50 years. During that time period it is highly likely that increasing fuel costs, and increasing political bravery on climate and environmental issues may dampen current demand - after all, if aviation continues to grow indefinitely at the current rate then we are looking at an entirely new and very serious set of problems. Maybe we should check the real figures once more?
• A Natural Cap - If the British Government really is serious about achieving its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets, then surely limiting the expansion of aviation through natural infrastructure constraints provides a very easy method of capping emissions? In the long term it must be easier and less expensive to limit flights through available runways rather than through artificial measures such as carbon taxes?
• Substitutes and Alternatives - Many short haul flights from Heathrow could easily be substituted by rail. Experience in France and Germany has shown that high-speed rail can easily out-compete short haul air travel, with domestic flights in those countries being virtually non-existent. Details on the number of flights to popular nearby destinations such as Manchester, Paris and Edinburgh are hard to obtain, although freeing up these take-off and landing slots may go a long way towards alleviating current capacity problems.
• Regional Expansion – Many of the UK’s regional airports are under-developed and offer few destinations, whilst travellers drive hundreds of miles along some of the world’s most congested motorways to reach Heathrow at an estimated cost to travellers of £400 million per year. If the UK must have more air travel capacity must it be centralised in one of the most congested areas of the planet?

I would welcome an improvement in the travel experience at Heathrow airport as much as anyone - I use it frequently and I’ve no objection to economic progress. What I do object to is the lack of foresight in many planning decisions and the frequent selection of the easy option. Building an additional runway at Heathrow is a certain solution to a growing problem – but it is a solution, not the solution as many people think.

What do you think?

 See also on EcoWorldly: Kelly’s No Hero

So who are the world’s most railway friendly countries, and what can we learn from them about implementing practical rail services that people will actually want to use?

Data provided by The International Union of Railways shows Japan as the world leader among major economies in rail kilometres per inhabitant, followed by Europe lead by the Swiss. The United Kingdom comes, unsurprisingly, near the bottom, with the USA coming last - US citizens traveling one thirteenth the distance of the Japanese by rail.

Japan

The fully privatised rail transport network is a popular mode of transport for the Japanese, who are pioneers of the high-speed “bullet train” or “shinkansen” which travels at speeds close to 200mph. With high speed rail links between major cities providing the fastest and most convenient method of getting from A to B Japanese trains are famously punctual, and drivers pride themselves on timing stops to the exact second.

Switzerland

Switzerland is home to the most dense railway network in the entire world, with only the smallest and most remote villages missing a railway station. Switzerland may currently lack the high speed trains used in Japan and in neighbouring countries Italy, France and Germany, but it’s trains are always clean and on time - if lacking the exact per second accuracy of the Japanese. The Swiss take great pride in their railways, and so tolerate the thumping financial losses sustained by the state owned railways each year.

United States

By contrast, passenger travel in the United States barely gets a look-in against the bus, airplane and automobile. Much of this is due to the geography of the US, being sparsely populated with vast distances between cities. However, with rising fuel costs and congestion at airports and on highways there has been renewed interest in the potential development of high speed rail services within the US in recent years.

Whilst the latter part of the 20th century has seen a continuous decline in rail travel across the world, with many favouring the speed of the airplane or the personal freedom of the automobile, population growth and environmental concerns are slowly bringing rail back in to favour. In twenty years rail travel around the world may look very different - with its many wide open spaces providing far more scope for high speed rail development than more densely populated countries in Europe and Asia, perhaps the US has the opportunity to become a rail world leader?

See also: Britain: My Worst Rail Experiences Ever

Having waited all week for a relevant wildlife related idea to pop into my head, I ventured onto Google to look for information on local Swiss animals. I was surprised to learn that the chief animal topic in Switzerland does not relate to rare alpine species becoming endangered due to de-glaciation, or to urban foxes, or squirrels, or other wild animals, or to any thing else I might have guessed, but is principally related to the fair treatment of animals used in meat production.

The Swiss are proud of their happy animals, who spend their lives between birth and the slaughterhouse (the animals, that is) being well looked after, free from growth hormones, battery farming, over crowding, excessive road transport and other mass production practices which are counter to animal welfare. Swiss cows in particular lead a happy life, grazing on the fresh alpine grasses and herbs that give their milk a distinct flavour and makes their meat taste delicious.

This leads me to the fundamental question of this post: should we be eating animals in the first place?

I’d like to briefly explore this topic and invite your feedback, since it is a question which surfaced in my mind several weeks ago whilst standing in line for a veal bratwurst. Having been a relatively care free meat eater for most of my life, I suddenly recalled a recent conversation with my vegetarian fiancée regarding a visit to a slaughter house that crossed meat off her menu forever. At this moment the image of a young cow being executed filled my head, and I had to change my order in a sudden traumatising moment of animal compassion.

I’ve been psychologically challenged as an omnivore ever since. Cows and lambs seem to be a complete no-no - I have great difficulty eating them now that I’ve started viewing them as creatures with feelings, rather than just tasty things to eat. I appear to have less sympathy for pigs and chickens, but I think this is changing too. I cut do

But concrete action has been slow, and whilst the world continues to talk, emissions continue to rise. However, another small but significant step has been made during the past week with an agreement between EU leaders to commit to legislation setting firm targets for a 20% reduction in Co2 emissions before 2020.

Janez Jansa , Prime Minister of Solvenia who currently holds the rotating EU presidency told reporters that EU leaders have taken a “huge step forward” with this agreement.

Beyond emissions reductions, the agreement also seeks to reduce energy imports, liberalise internal energy markets to increase competition, reduce taxes on environmentally friendly products, and to achieve world leadership in renewable energy technologies.

Unsurprisingly, some concerns have been raised. Germany and France, in particular have expressed worries about the impact of emissions reduction legislation on the competitiveness of their industries. EU nations with expensive labour costs such as Germany have struggled in recent years under increased competition from low wage countries in the far East and South America as global competition continues to intensify. France and Germany have recently been at loggerheads over proposed vehicle emissions reductions, amid concerns over the impact on their auto manufacturing industries.

Seeking to arrest these concerns, Jansa stated “We are convinced that the costs of these measures will be much lower than if we don’t act”. Indeed, it looks as if the debate is now moving quickly beyond what to how much?

See also: The Swiss Decide on Global Warming

Discuss climate change issues in Green Options Forums

The Swiss Alpine Museum in Bern is hosting a photographic exhibition which documents the gradual disappearance of many of Switzerland’s glaciers. Featuring contrasting photos of Swiss landscapes over the last 100 years the pictures reveal the full extent of glacial retreat in some regions.

See the dramatic contrasts between old and new at the melting glaciers picture gallery.

Photo of the Matterhorn Glacier courtesy of Flickr.

Several weeks ago, EcoWorldly investigated public transport options around the world in a series of articles which concluded that public transport can be a pleasant, effective and extremely viable form of transportation.

During the week we looked at many positives, from bus travel in South Korea, to Rail Travel in Europe and even Camel Transport in the desert.

But what of the negative aspects of public transport? These aspects are becoming increasingly important, since despite the best efforts of governments and environmental groups, motorists will not give up the car unless viable alternatives exist.

Authors, Anthony Miall and Davil Milsted, wrote in The Xenophobes Guide To The English, “The English take an almost masochistic pride in their public transport system, a system which even a third world country would consider as a disgrace.” With this in mind, and having previously had the opportunity to sample public transport around the world from the Railways of India, Thailand and China, to the Metro of Mexico City, the River Boats of Dubai and the cross country buses of Guatemala - not to mention the super efficient railways where I live in Switzerland - I decided to sample the railways of my native Britain once again to see how they compare against the rest of the world, and more importantly, against the car.

Were Miall and Milsted right or wrong? After evaluating my British railway experiences from several different perspectives, here are my conclusions:

Cost

“That will be 92 pounds please sir,” asked the clerk behind the ticket counter at Coventry station.

“No, I’m sorry - I would like a single ticket to London, second class,” I replied, being sure that my initial request had been misunderstood - no doubt due to the the thick wall of glass and scratchy intercom that separated us in order to isolate rail workers from lower life forms such as passengers.

“Yes, 92 pounds,” he answered testily, oblivious to the fact that this sum of money could have easily transported me by aircraft to Helsinki, Barcelona, Estonia, practically any destination in Europe, much less the 1 hour train ride to London.

In disbelief I handed over my credit card, just as a helpful passenger in the queue behind me pointed out that if I asked instead for a return ticket, then my journey would be significantly cheaper - which it was, by almost half.

Whereas fares in most countries are a simple mathematical function of distance travelled, class of travel and sometimes age of traveller, in the UK it appears that a whole new branch of mathematics has been devised to calculate rail fares which is well beyond my understanding. Meanwhile the ticket clerk’s eyes remained focused on something far in the distance as he no doubt wondered how anybody could be so stupid as to not understand why a day-return is cheaper than a single ticket.

Time

Having quickly become used to the experience of daylight robbery, which is effectively rail travel in Britain today, my initial expectation was of fast and efficient travel - after all, those huge amounts of cash must end up somewhere, right?

At 10.42 my train had yet to arrive. Ok, 2 minutes late is not a problem. At 10.52, by which time a Japanese train driver would be reaching for his Samurai sword, there was still no sign of a train. Never mind, as an Englishman, one rarely complains and tries to maintain a stiff upper lip in all circumstances. By 11.00, presumably having finished his tea break, the Station Master (or whatever they call themselves these days) made an announcement informing expectant passengers that our train would be 50 minutes late due to “congestion in the Reading area”.

Congestion? Trains? I had always, and apparently wrongly understood that congestion was a phenomena attributable to road traffic: random variations in traffic volume which can lead to buildups of heavy traffic in some areas and hence delays, known as congestion.

Trains, on the other hand, rely on a strict schedule, known as a Timetable which is designed to ensure that the journeys planned match the infrastructure available. Clearly the mathematicians at work in the fare calculation department have also had a hand in timetabling, using perverse forms of mathematics to introduce random variability and therefore congestion into the timetable.

Non UK residents often dismiss jokes about British railway problems such as delays due to “Leaves on the line” and “Wrong kind of snow.” Surely this is typical British over exaggeration of the pessimistic side of life? Few realize that just like congestion, these are genuine announcements heard by many a traveler on our island.

Facilities

British Railway stations are often windswept and desolate places. If you ever want to know what the end of the world may feel like, and if you can stand the smell of urine, then spend 30 minutes waiting at Southampton Central station, or Birmingham International, or any number of passenger confinement areas around the country.

Many of these hubs of the British transport network feature cosy warm cafes and book shops, providing glimpses of civilization. The trains themselves feature useful innovations such as small shops, bars, Internet access and power outlets for laptops. In fact pretty much every need is catered for, except that of actually getting to your destination on time.

Many toilets are equipped with sophisticated hygienic systems, such as touch free toilet flushers, taps and soap dispensers. In fact, railway staff have such confidence in the ability of these systems to provide the ultimate in toiletry hygiene that they stopped actually cleaning them years ago.

Summary

Accepted, this article fails to look on the bright side. But is my experience atypical? No. Talk to many UK rail travelers and they will recount similar and frequent experiences. The real problem is that, unfortunately, many people expect little more and are subsequently conditioned to favour the car and to discount public transport as ill-effective.

If we are serious about moving people from private to public transport then we must first focus on providing a system that people can feasibly use, and which meets our real needs for freedom of mobility.

I no longer live in the UK, but if I did, having been spoiled by the comparative luxury of public transport in other parts of the world, I believe I would have some serious reservations about selling the car and submitting my self to the purgatory of British rail transport.

Unfortunately Miall and Milsted were undoubtedly correct.

Photo courtesy of Luke Seall.

Under the Swiss system of direct democracy voters have a right to challenge parliamentary laws or pass constitutional amendments by collecting a minimum of 100,000 signatures to force a ballot. In just 18 months, a coalition of green organizations have collected over 150,000 signatures, enough to force a vote on increasing Switzerland’s current 20% Co2 reduction targets to a slightly more ambitious 30%. The initiative has been so popular that people have reportedly been queuing up to sign the petition.

The Swiss government had previously set a greenhouse gas reduction target for 2020 of just 20%. Vollacott recently told reporters that climate scientists warn that a 40% reduction will be necessary to reduce global warming to just 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures, although a 30% reduction was a realistic and achievable target. Germany has already announced that it will reduce emissions by 40%, and it has been noted that 60% reductions are feasible, but only at great cost.

The Swiss vote will be keenly watched by governments around the world as a useful barometer of real-life public opinion on global warming - this will be the first time to date that people in any nation have had the opportunity to directly mandate changes which are likely to result in higher prices for power, fuel and carbon intensive goods. Many people claim to be in favor of tackling climate change, few have passed the acid test whereby they are required to pay for it themselves.

With thanks to SwissInfo. Photo courtesy of Flickr.

In modern times, trade between North and South has seen an increasing volume of trucks making the long, slow journey through narrow valleys, high passes, and long tunnels, many of which twist and spiral their way through the rugged mountain terrain. At the beginning of school holidays, tailbacks at the entrance to the 15 mile Gotthard road tunnel can reach 30 kilometres as droves of Northern Europeans migrate South for the food, wine and sunshine of Italy.

Concerned by the consequent increase in pollution (amplified as the narrow valleys trap particulate emissions from cars and trucks, which threatens the balance of delicate alpine eco-systems), the Swiss voted in 1994 to limit trans-alpine freight transport to 650,000 trucks per year. Achieving this will involve a massive engineering project, with 2,000 people working on the new Gotthard Base Tunnel, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

A Massive Engineering Project

Deep beneath the Alps, the new tunnel will be the world’s longest at 35 miles. Built at an altitude of 1,540ft above sea level, the tunnel will be buried by up to 2 kilometres of rock in places and has the unique feature of remaining level throughout it’s length. This will allow trains to reach speeds of 145mph through the tunnel, reducing journey time from Zürich to Milan to a mere 2.5 hours and significantly reducing road freight pollution by allowing trucks to be driven directly onto special rail cars.

Building the tunnel, which is expected to cost at least $8 billion, has required the use of the world’s largest tunnel boring machines, which will excavate over 24 million tons of rock - enough to build 5 Gizeh-pyramids. Other world firsts have been achieved, such as a vertical 1 kilometre elevator shaft which provides workers with access to parts of the tunnel.

Unfortunately, not everybody is happy with the rate of progress. The original act of parliament called for reductions in road freight to be achieved by 2009, but with the tunnel not due for completion until 2015 these targets will be missed - “We have to accept that the government is far behind schedule,” said Kaspar Schuler, director of Greenpeace Switzerland.

Until then, trans-alpine travelers can continue to enjoy the magnificent views afforded whilst driving across the Swiss Alps, knowing that grand designs below will assure the long term future of the local environment.

Further Reading: BBC, Wikipedia, Swissinfo

Photos Courtesy of Wikipedia and Flickr