Quicunque

Greenwash: (a portmanteau of green and whitewash) is a term that is used to describe the actions of a company, government, or other organization which advertises positive environmental practices while acting in the opposite way (thank you, Wikipedia).

In the draft for the proposed Climate Change Bill, which was published back in March this year, the UK government revealed a long-term goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by 2050. That's an ambitious target - nearly 10 times what has been achieved so far - and actually pretty commendable. If the bill is approved, the UK will become the first country in the world to set such a long-range and significant carbon reduction target into law.

However, the credibility of the proposed law is undermined by the fact these targets exclude aviation and shipping. UK aviation - specifically the ridiculously cheap flights offered by no-frills operators like Ryanair and EasyJet - is a sector that's enjoyed huge and more or less unchecked expansion over the last few years, and the Department for Transport estimates that its carbon dioxide emissions will more than double between 2000 and 2050. So how can a 60% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions during that period possibly be achieved?

The answer is - you shift the emissions problem elsewhere.

As the law is currently drafted, Britain will be allowed to meet its targets by buying carbon credits overseas, notably in developing countries. About 70% of Britain's emission savings between 2008 and 2012 will be made by buying overseas credits. Theoretically, all the proposed savings could be made that way, and then we wouldn't have to bother ourselves about the environmental consequences of cheap air travel.

Seems to me that the purchase of carbon credits from overseas is simply postponing Britain having to do something directly about curbing its own carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems overall, it just shifts the problems elsewhere.

In the meantime, for my Autumn break I can either travel to London by train for £177, or fly to Amsterdam for £22... crazy?

I picked up an interesting, and quite scary, fact from the RAC's annual "cost of motoring index" recently. The average family car now costs £5,627 per year to keep on the road (that's 11,455.71 US dollars at current conversion rates)

Sounds a hell of a lot, doesn't it? The good news is that it's actually a drop to the same level as two years ago, partly due to growing fuel-efficiency of vehicles. The bad news is that the government is alarmed because the fall in car running costs is unlikely to persuade motorists to make greater use of public transport, which in turn means the government is unlikely to meet its environmental targets.

But the one thing successive governments have failed to take on board is that to encourage "greater use of public transport" there actually needs to be a public transport system that's affordable and accessible to a majority of people. The drive to promote public transport can't and won't work while bus and train fares continue to rise (why pay £200 to go to London on the train when the petrol to make the journey by car would cost £20?) and rural or unprofitable routes are limited or non-existant. Giving up the car to make the world a better place is a wonderful concept, but walking, biking, or taking the one bus a day simply isn't a feasible option for many people.

At one time, Britain had a rail and canal transportation network that was the envy of the world. But then the abundance of cheap fossil fuel energy made car ownership available to all, and the whole transportation infrastructure changed. Railway stations were axed, more roads were built. Freight moved off the railways and canals onto the roads. As people bought cars, they no longer lived and worked in the same locale but commuted in the comfort of their own vehicles. Modern urban planning changed to accomodate our new mobility, and became designed for maximum car use.

So now we just can't get anywhere without our own transport. We can't do the grocery shopping because the supermarkets are outside towns in huge retail parks. We can't even go to the cinema in the evening because the multiplex too is outside town. We can't walk to work because we don't live in city centres anymore, but in cosy suburbs miles away, and we can't catch a bus or train because there aren't to speak of any outside urban areas.

Giving up cars would require major lifestyle changes for most of us. We'd have to go back to living in urban centres close to where we work. Outside-of-town superstores and entertainment facilities would have to move back into town. And most importantly - there would need to be a cheap and efficient system of public transport. You don't have to be a cynic to know this isn't going to happen...

I hate driving and the impact it has on my environment and I would happily exchange the comforts and privacy of my own personal little metal box for an alternative, but since there isn't an alternative, I have to be a realistic, but guilty, car driver.