Crunch carrots, cut climate change

We really need to be redoubling our efforts to tackle climate change. Just look at the blog entry before this one, where Stern says the problem is far worse than he'd previously described in his highly influential report - and the entry before that on government giving the cold shoulder to action on climate. Many think of efforts to tackle climate change in terms of flying less, driving less, using renewable, low carbon energy sources, insulating our homes, recycling materials...but adjusting our diet is not so commonly mentioned.

Changing to a lower meat, higher fruit and veg diet can in fact be one of the most effective ways of lowering carbon emissions and tackling climate change, especially if beef consumption is reduced or eliminated. Consider the estimated total eco footprint of meat compared with fruit and vegetables: 6.9 to 14.6 hectare yrs per tonne for meat (calculated using average global yield and embodied energy data - the range is due to pasture-fed vs grain-fed animals); as against 0.3 to 0.6 hectare yrs per tonne for a range of fruits, roots and vegetables (calculated using average global yield for a range of veg, with an allowance for transport, processing and energy for farming).

These estimates from the book Sharing Nature's Interest by footprint experts Chambers, Simmons and Wackernagel (2000) show the the environmental impact of meat is 11 to 49 times higher than fruit and vegetables. This chimes with the basic science because the food chain for meat is obviously longer, with many vegetables and grains being grown for use as animal feed. [Meat impacts are 1.5 to 8.5 times higher than grains and pulses too.]  Beef farming has a very high climate impact due to: rainforest clearance to create the farmland, perhaps by burning; grain feeding the animals; methane released by the cows metabolism, (and dont forget the long distance trade in frozen meat).

In short: crunch carrots more, eat meat less and you will contribute to cutting climate change! Whether the fruit and veg are chemically grown abroad, or locally and organically grown, they're going to have lower climate impact than any kind of meat. There are other benefits too as lower meat diets are cheaper and healthier. Carrots for instance - given that it was National Carrot Day on 3 Feb and that it will be International Carrot Day on 4 April  - have the highest vitamin A content of all veg and are loaded with vitamin B6, vitamin C and potassium too. Find out more from this amazing, if somewhat bizarre site: http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/    

Climate change: consummate concern

Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse'. Author of 2006 review speaks out on danger to economies as planet absorbs less carbon and is 'on track' for 4C rise

Lord Stern, author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners, now says he underestimated the risks, and should have been more "blunt" about the threat posed to the economy by rising temperatures.

In an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Stern, who is now a crossbench peer, said: "Looking back, I underestimated the risks. The planet and the atmosphere seem to be absorbing less carbon than we expected, and emissions are rising pretty strongly. Some of the effects are coming through more quickly than we thought then."

The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are "on track for something like four ". Had he known the way the situation would evolve, he says, "I think I would have been a bit more blunt. I would have been much more strong about the risks of a four- or five-degree rise."

He said some countries, including China, had now started to grasp the seriousness of the risks, but governments should now act forcefully to shift their economies towards less energy-intensive, more environmentally sustainable technologies... Full story from link below:

Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse' | Environment | The Observer

Climate cold shoulder

Here's an interesting Radio 4 program on what lies beneath widespread denial of climate change. Laurie Taylor talks to Sally Weintrobe, the editor of the first book of its kind which explores, from a multi disciplinary perspective, what the ecological crisis actually means to people. In spite of a scientific consensus, many continue to resist or ignore the message of climate communicators - but why? What are the social and emotional explanations for this reaction?
 
What is this climate problem anyway? The key stores in the global carbon cycle are shown in the image I've drawn (below, click to enlarge). The arrows representing the flow of carbon between key stores are annotated with the mechanism of transfer.

 

Key aspects to note: Chalk and limestone and fossil fuels are very large carbon stores formed over very long periods but when used they very quickly release carbon to the atmosphere. Burning forests and changing land use by logging and then farming beef or soya both very quickly releases carbon into the air and cuts the rate of carbon removal. Ocean capacity to absorb and store carbon is decreasing as it’s warming up, and oceans are acidifying. The result of this and more: carbon concentration in the atmosphere is rising. 
 
People, especially those living in the most economically developed societies, currently impact heavily on the carbon cycle. Total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per person per year in the UK are now more than 10 tonnes, when a sustainable level is 2 tonnes. Elsewhere in the economically developed world it can be higher than this eg in the USA.
 
 In constructing homes, factories, roads...people consume huge quantities of fossil fuel and cement (see image). Extracting/producing, transporting and using fossil fuels and cement in itself releases large amounts of carbon.
 
In heating and lighting homes and using many gadgets people consume large amounts of natural gas and electricity (largely produced by burning fossil fuels in power stations).
 
In transporting themselves around by car and their factory mass produced and consumed goods around the globe by heavy lorry, planes and ships, huge amounts of petrol, diesel and aviation fuel are burned, emitting carbon.
 
Demand for land is high and growing eg to feed a growing world population and to meet high demand for meat. Beef farming in particular is land and energy intensive - large scale deforestation (see image) has occurred to make land available for it.
 
One reaction to all this: the UK Climate Change Act, 2008 under the last Labour Govt, which sets a carbon reduction target of at least 80% by 2050 from 1990 levels, and carbon budgeting. However, the Coalition Govt has, amongst a long list of green failures: dropped the pledge to cut EU emissions by 30% by 2020 and is instead getting the EU "back on track" to cutting energy consumption by 20% by 2020; abandoned a planned rise in the renewable energy target; axed a commitment to replace air passenger duty with a per-flight tax; severely limited the scope of green financial products supposed to enable people to invest in green infrastructure; favoured greater reliance on finite and climate change causing natural gas; favoured fracking for shale gas....see here for more. 

Find out more on climate change from: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/climate.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/

Congestion charge case

Bristol’s horrendous traffic continues to lower our health, wellbeing and quality of life. This will continue to damage present and future generations if we don’t do something soon that is effective. I’m therefore glad that Bristol's Mayor George Ferguson has not ruled out introducing a congestion charge for the city (see here and here).

Bristol’s transport problems are serious: every day too many vehicles are trying to use local roads; there are very limited possibilities for building more roads and in any case more roads bring more traffic and more damage; drivers spend half their time crawling in jammed traffic; congestion is costing business very large amounts of money; traffic congestion generates more air pollution and produces more climate change causing carbon emissions; congestion causes frustration and raises stress levels.

A congestion charge would ideally try to achieve: significantly reduced traffic in the most congested areas; similarly reduced delays; shorter journey times; reliable delivery times; the saving of many hours of journey time; the raising of large sums of money for re-investment in transport, especially public transport; switching to sustainable transport modes; a boost for public transport use; a system that pays for itself over time.

Lessons from London’s congestion charge should encourage us. Boris would have got rid of it altogether if it did not have merit. Congestion and traffic levels there would be worse without it. Numbers of cars and car movements would be even higher. Movements of buses, coaches and taxis would be more resticted. Tens of thousands fewer bus passengers would not enter the charge zone during the morning peak. Bus reliability and journey times would be worse and the time passengers wait at bus stops would be longer. Disruption on bus routes due to traffic would be worse.

We clearly have a serious problem in Bristol. We need to both provide a disincentive to car use and raise money to improve the public transport and other alternatives. If the details of any congestion charge scheme for Bristol are right, the decision making processes are fair and we can implement the scheme properly then I'm strongly in favour.

Efficiency elide

Debates on UK energy policy focus almost exclusively on energy generation/production and often neglect even to mention energy saving and energy efficiency. It’s always going to be cheaper to save energy and be efficient than it is to generate it - not only does it cut household bills and increase the profitability of businesses by reducing their outgoings, it also cuts pollution rapidly, is a very good job creator, can increase comfort, cut noise levels, and can sometimes be done using materials normally thrown away...So whilst we are so wasteful of energy why consider building large numbers of new power stations of any kind? Why is our primary focus not on creating a lower energy, energy thrifty culture? Basic, already existing technologies can be used but the challenge is to combine these with thrifty attitudes and behaviours.

The energy generation debate at present often zooms in on nuclear and wind. Nuclear power is low carbon emission in operation but we’ve had it since the 1950s and it has done nothing to stop climate change. The UK currently has nuclear 16 reactors in operation at 9 different sites - and it’s had more in the past. We've come to rely on fossil fuels and population has increased as has our level and intensity of consumption but expanding nuclear power for decades - and expanding power generation by all methods - has been part of unsustainable plans for industrial and economic expansion. This attitude still prevails. Until we change from unsustainable economic expansion to properly and fully applying sustainable development - including an energy policy with energy saving and efficiency as its primary focus - then we won’t tackle economic, social and environmental problems such as climate change.

The scale at which we waste energy is vast, so the scope for energy saving is huge. For example the Energy Saving Trust said that UK households waste £1.3 billion by just leaving TVs and other electronic devices switched on... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/9355870/Energy-Saving-Trust-households-waste-1.3bn-for-leaving-gadget-switched-on.html#  . In hard economic times and with energy prices rising you'd think people would be more careful with their consumption but apparently they aren't, so we’ve made little progress towards a energy thrifty culture. Research in 2006 found the UK was top of the European energy waster league. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6075794.stm

Part of the problems is the fact that my local paper can’t even write a balanced and correct piece about nuclear power, let alone cover energy issues in the round as it should do. People are often ill-informed as a result.  Here's my case against nuclear power: http://tinyurl.com/c75rvbg .Here's  a  post arguing for energy efficiency, combined heat and power and decentralised energy: http://tinyurl.com/cxagb4o.  Some thoughts on local renewable energy developments here: http://tinyurl.com/bm5m764.

Plane good sense?

Leading candidates in the race to become Bristol's first elected mayor have spoken out against the proposed £150 million expansion of the city's airport. Three of the four main candidates publicly announced at a debate in the city yesterday that they were opposed to the plans, which aim to ensure the Lulsgate site can cater for up to 10 million passengers per year...(more here on the expansion of Bristol airport and also business and housing issues).

Labour's Marvin Rees, the only candidate of the four present (Independent George Ferguson plus Labour, Lib Dem and Conservative candidates) to come out in favour of expanding Bristol airport as currently planned said, "What we need to do is have a coherent plan that looks 40 to 50 years in the future."  But what fuel will the planes run on in 30, 40, 50 years given that the current fossil fuel source is finite and also subject to price instability and hikes in price? And what will be the state of our climate if we continue high carbon emitting activities such as mass scale flying?

Scepticism squashed?

The BBC report that: A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures...

...latest study, released early on Monday (GMT), concludes that the average temperature of the Earth's land has risen by 1.5C (2.7F) over the past 250 years.

...In a piece authored for the New York Times, Prof Muller, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.

"Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause."...

Full story and access to lot of data, analysis, comment and debate via the BBC report here. Arguably it is because Prof Muller et al had a moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism that he reasoned that a change of mind was justified by the evidence. Long may moderate, practical, pragmatic scepticism reign.

Trains and planes

Improving the local rail network - great (see story here) Very consistent with cutting carbon emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, as outlined in the Climate Change Act. However, the Govt then faces in completely the opposite direction by supporting an expanding Bristol Airport - ten million passengers a year will increase not cut carbon emissions (as well as depriving our local and national economy of money and support for local businesses when people spend abroad instead of here).

Carbon Centre

At last! More serious attention is being given to the accurate measurement of carbon emissions. One might well ask why it's taken so long when our society has been committed  since the late 1980s - in words at least - to sustainable development. Sustainable carbon emissions are the number one performance measure within sustainable development...

A new UK facility aimed at improving measurement of carbon emissions and boosting development of clean technology is due to open. The Centre for Carbon Measurement will be based at the National Physical Laboratory in south-west London. It will raise accuracy of climate data, support better emissions monitoring to ensure a fair carbon market, and verify claims made about low-carbon products...more

Climate and carbon

This week is Climate Week. I'm all in favour of raising awareness of climate change and the need for urgent action on a significant scale though I find that many of these sort of initiatives provide more opportunities for greenwash and greenspeak than real, concerted green action. I note that significant contributors to climate change such as Tesco, EDF, H&M...are sponsors of the week!!! I have serious doubts about the policies of Govt, councils and business on carbon reduction and climate change - they are too small scale and too slow and so dont match best science. We are missing out on good, sustainable economic development as a result too. Many approaches dont show joined up thinking eg more products are being marked with their carbon footprint but shoppers dont have any information to tell them what is too high or too low a footprint and there is no requirement for them to stay within a carbon budget in any case. Anyhow, here's a screencast I've made giving an essential guide to carbon footprinting - call it one of  my contributions to the week:

Climate: no change

Climate change is rated as a very serious problem. So why has action not been correspondingly urgent? Here's a screencast I've made exploring this question in terms of: visibility; historical precedent; immediacy; complexity; blame; personal impacts.

South Bristol link road bulldozed through (along with many others)

The Treasury neatly side-stepped a year's work by experts, campaigners and civil servants on 45 local transport projects in the DfT's 'development pool'...as the Chancellor announced he was providing funding for all 45 schemes and gave the go-ahead to the Kingskerswell Bypass and the South Bristol Link Road to grab headlines...

...As well as the Kingskerswell Bypass and the South Bristol Link Road, the go-ahead was also given to the Lincoln Eastern Bypass, the A164 Humber Bridge to Beverley, and the A43 Corby Link Road...

We are all justifiably angry as ourselves, the Kingskerswell Alliance and Transport for Greater Bristol had hired consultants to produce an evidence-based response to the funding bids showing major flaws in the plans. Instead it appears the schemes have been bulldozed through to allow the Chancellor to do some headline grabbing posturing today.

Analysis of the Kingskerswell Bypass showed that it would simply move traffic jams further down the road. It would also be environmentally devastating, trashing the habitats of rare bats, birds and newts. The South Bristol Link Road will at best shave just 2 minutes off journey times, and passes through Common Land and the green belt.

This is unlikely to be the end of the road for the campaigns as there are grounds for legal challenges now, and later there will most likely be protests.

Roads blog Campaign for Better Transport

Seven billion of us

Human population is currently 6.989 billion. It will reach 7 billion next month. You can see the statistics in real time here http://www.worldometers.info/ .

United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon on Thursday singled out sustainable development as the top issue facing the planet with the world's seven billionth person expected to be born next month.
Key to this was climate change, and he said time was running out with the population set to explode this century.
"Next month, the seven billionth citizen of our world will be born," the UN secretary general said during a speech at Sydney University.
"For that child, and for all of us, we must keep working to fight poverty, create decent jobs, and provide a dignified life while preserving the planet that sustains us.
"That is why the sustainable development agenda is the agenda for the 21st century.
"Above all, that means connecting the dots between challenges such as climate change and water scarcity, energy shortages, global health issues, food insecurity and the empowerment of the world's women."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/sustainable-development-worlds-top-issue-un-chief-2351721.html

Climate change means a new economic model of development

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said ..."Climate change is not about tomorrow. It is lapping at our feet - quite literally in Kiribati and elsewhere."
..."The science has made it plainly clear that climate change is happening now and, unfortunately, much, much faster than you may think," he said.

"Having visited Kiribati and the Solomon Islands has strengthened my conviction that climate change is a distinct threat to humanity, it is even a threat to international peace and stability."

Ban said the rising oceans were sending a signal that something was "seriously wrong with our current model of economic development".

"We will not succeed in reducing emissions without sustainable energy solutions," he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/pacific-shows-climate-change-a-reality-un-chief-2350506.html

Evidence and explanations on climate change are available from many highly reputable sources. Listed here are a selection from: the Met Office; the United Nations; the Royal Society; the UK Government's Dept of Energy and Climate Change; and NASA.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change

http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/gateway

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

http://royalsociety.org/Climate-Change/

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/explaining/explaining.aspx

http://climate.nasa.gov/ (click image above to see a larger version).

Zero Carbon Britain Day Saturday July 16th

...There are, in fact, a lot of things we can do to reduce our emissions. A list of what you can do is too long for this post but I would suggest insulating your house, unplug things that arent needed, cut flying. Get a more efficient car, boiler, light bulbs, fridge etc. Use a shower not a bath, uses less water and less energy to warm the water. Choose local food and services Eat more vegetables, and be more choosy about meat, chicken has less emissions than beef, the smaller animals are better...

Green Reading: Zero Carbon Britain Day Saturday July 16th



More here http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/

Ocean dumping that fights climate change

Really interesting article in the latest Green World magazine called Save the whale, Save Ourselves? by Dr Luke Rendell from the University of St Andrews. It turns out that saving whales would not only protect magnificent species themselves - it would also help protect the human from climate change. Nice example of joined up, systems, thinking. Oceans absorb an awful lot of climate changing carbon emissions. However, the amount absorbed depends in part on the amount of iron present in sea water. Experiments where iron has been dumped into the ocean have shown increased, temporary plant growth and thus increased carbon uptake - but such artificial dumping could itself be highly damaging and unsustainable. If only there was a good source of iron, naturally available in-situ - there is and its called whale poo! Whales eat eg krill, or squid...concentrate and naturally make available iron to plants in the sea in their poo (eg Humpback Whale poo pictured). So, protect whales, whale numbers increase, whale poo increases, ocean plant growth is improved, more carbon is taken up and this helps fight climate change, which helps us through...natural carbon capture and storage. We should protect whales whatever mind you.

http://www.greenworld.org.uk/

Living a one tonne life: update on research

Update on this research received: Could a ‘One Tonne Life’ Make it Possible for Households to Reduce CO2 Emissions to a Level That Would Avoid Climate Change?



· Transport emissions drop more than 90%



· CO2emissions produced in the home halved



· Food carbon emissions reduced 84% by going vegan



· Manufacturing of house and goods prevents ‘One Tonne’



Stockholm, Sweden; Monday, 13thJune 2011: “One Tonne Life”, a collaboration project between A-hus, Vattenfall, Volvo Cars and other partners has shown that households could reduce their carbon output from 7.3 tonnes per person to a stable 2.5 tonnes per person, living a comfortable everyday life. Furthermore, more extensive changes prove that it is possible to get this figure down to just 1.5, a level that could help us become carbon neutral and avoid serious climate change according to ‘A One Tonne Future’.



In January 2011, Swedish family, the Lindells, embarked on this six month groundbreaking project to find out if they could reduce their carbon emissions to hit this important target. They were helped in a variety of ways, not least with a climate-smart house featuring solar cells on the roof that were used to recharge the electric car parked in the driveway. The family – father Nils, mother Alicia and children Hannah and Jonathan – undertook this inspiring journey which involved moving to a new, climate smart house and examining each of their everyday habits to find out where they could reduce or, indeed, eliminate their carbon emissions.



The family report that with their energy smart house, appliances, energy meter and electric vehicle, reducing their emissions to 2.5 tonnes did not require any major compromise in their everyday lifestyles. After that, however, things got tougher and living at the 1.5 tonne level was a tough compromise.



The family made most progress in transport and electricity consumption. Emissions from transport dropped by more than 90%, mainly due to the family’s Volvo C30 Electric being recharged with electricity from hydro-power. The family’s house, built by A-hus, produces its own electricity and,with supplementary renewable electricity from hydro-power, carbon dioxide emissions from purchased electricity reduced to almost zero. All told, carbon dioxide emissions from the family’s home were more than halved compared to their emissions level in their previous home.



The family also made immense progress through their eating habits. By meal planning and being more informed about the food we eat, varying the choice of meat and eating more vegetables, it is possible for people to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Towards the end of the trial period, the Lindells ate only vegetarian dishes, and dairy produce was replaced with soya and oat-based alternatives.



In order to reduce their emissions still further, in the final 1.5-tonne week the family reduced the size of their home by closing off one room. They went without TV, shopping and eating out. However, their “rucksack” of 900 kilograms stopped them from reaching the one tonne target. This “rucksack” consists of the CO² emissions that take place when various products are manufactured, such as the house, solar panels, car, furniture and clothes. However, they demonstrated that it is possible to get very close to one tonne, however it does involve a change in lifestyle and the information to make the right changes.



Key features of the One Tonne house



The wooden “One Tonne Life” house has triple-layer walls with exceptional insulation, minimal air leakage and low-energy windows and doors. Through its solar photovoltaic system the house is a net producer of energy. All electricity not consumed by the family was fed into the national grid or used to recharge the electric car. The family’s Volvo C30 Electric emits no carbon dioxide at all when recharged with renewable electricity.



Household appliances account for up to half of a normal household’s total energy consumption, the house is equipped with the latest energy saving appliances from Siemens. To help track progress the Family had an ‘Energy Watch’ system that registers the power usage and compiles data for analysis. This allows consumption to be followed in real time or over a selected time period and learn how their personal habits influence electricity consumption. Experts from the Chalmers University of Technology followed the family in order to ensure a reliable calculation of the family’s carbon dioxide emissions. Methodology can be found here.



Further information and access to the project’s Flickr and Youtube account can be found here http://onetonnelife.com

Historic climate change deal...observations

Interesting story to say the least, with much of this climate change deal being most welcome. However amongst the quotes in it is this one where a 'senior government figure' said: "This country is now the world leader in cutting carbon emissions. We are the only nation with legally binding commitments past 2020." Excuse me but the UK has not cut its carbon emissions yet AT ALL, not even after 25 yrs of being 'signed up' to sustainable development!! See here and here on how UK carbon emissions have risen by 12% instead of falling by 15 or 16% as politicians have wrongly and misleadingly asserted. Its easy to talk the talk and spin your 'successes' and that's how conventional politicians work -but only real practical actions that achieve good outcomes solve problems.

The deal also includes 'carbon capture and storage technology – which would extract carbon dioxide from coal and oil plants and pump it into underground chambers'. This is not an established technology and of course it allows the ongoing use of mass quantities of fossil fuels which cause climate change.

Historic climate change deal with legal powers agreed by Cabinet Environment The Observer

BBC News - Carbon emissions 'hidden' in imported goods revealed

The extent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions "hidden" in imported goods is growing, according to two studies. Official statistics do not include emissions created by making imported goods but researchers say they should. It comes as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports 26% of global emissions come from producing goods for trade. The Carbon Trust found such "embedded" CO2 could negate domestic carbon cuts planned in the UK up to 2025...The Carbon Trust research, posted on its website as draft findings not for circulation, confirms that the UK has increased emissions since 1990 rather than decreasing them, as politicians typically claim.

What may alarm ministers even more is a projection that the radical CO2 cuts planned by government into the 2020s may be offset by ever-increasing levels of CO2 in imports.

BBC News - Carbon emissions 'hidden' in imported goods revealed

Lib Dem 'green' claims

Wailur Rahman and Zahir Malik claim that the Lib Dems have been ‘campaigning on the environment long before the Green Party was created’ and have a ‘strong track record of delivering on the green agenda in Bristol’ (‘Credibility challenged’ letter, Post 19 April). If this is the case and it’s been effective then Bristol would be greener and more sustainable but total carbon emissions per person has risen to 12 tonnes compared to a sustainable level of 1 or 2 tonnes and this is in part caused by the atrocious traffic levels, poor public transport and huge waste of energy from Bristol’s homes and other buildings. Our carbon footprint would be made worse by Lib Dem plans to flog acres of Bristol’s green spaces against the wishes of local people!

They say the ‘idea of a transport hub at Temple Meads is not a new idea; it was even looked at when Avon County Council was in existence’. If the idea has indeed long been around and has been actively and effectively worked on we’d have a transport hub at Temple Meads – but we haven’t. If, as the Lib Dems claim, their commitment to tackling climate change is strong why haven’t they used the power and influence the have had over the years to bring about this and other changes?

The only logical conclusion is either that the Lib Dems have not been committed, not been campaigning, not been delivering or that the work they do is seriously ineffective – or both! The same applies to Labour and Tory claims. Thus, the Greens are challenging them and Lib Dem local election candidates in particular find their position is seriously under threat.