Greenest and meanest

Eco-design expert and Dumped guru, Rob Holdway, gives you the lowdown on our volunteers, rubbish and Dumped.

Can you explain how you assessed carbon outputs for the volunteers? Who had the biggest surprise? What did the group learn as a whole? What did you learn from this exercise?

Each one of the group has an environmental burden beyond that of material waste. Every product we consume and every journey we make generates more waste throughout the processes of extraction, manufacture, distribution and use. This process not only generates physical waste but also global warming gasses.

I asked the 10 remaining volunteers living on the dump to discuss their own green credentials. They lined themselves up with the greenest at one end and the least green the other. I wanted to see how green they perceived themselves to be. I then asked some simple questions about their lives to see who had the lowest carbon impact.

There were some surprises. First, the group lined themselves up from the greenest, Selena, then Lawrence, Jarvis, Christine, Ian, Sylvia, Jason, Aaron, Jermaine through to the least green, who they decided was Sasha.

Their real green order was a bit of a shock for some. It starts with greenest, Lawrence, then Aaron, Jason, Selena only makes it to number four, Ian, Jarvis, Christine, Sylvia, Sasha, Jermaine

Scientific estimates suggest that to live sustainably we have to be at around 2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person each year. The UK national average is around 10.6 tonnes, while in the USA it's a whopping 25 tonnes. The average African produces less than 1 tonne. The most sustainable member of the group, Lawrence, is still living at almost four times that which is judged to be sustainable. Much of the carbon dioxide that Lawrence is responsible for, and this applies to all of us, comes from all the public services like hospitals, policing, waste management, civil service and government which give each one of us a baseline of 5 tonnes before we even start. Not many people know that!

Compare your Habbits with the dumped volunteers

If we were all to fly, drive and consume as much as we are doing now, but we all paid for someone to offset our carbon emissions for us, would that solve the problem of climate change?

I don’t like the term 'offsetting'. It kind of suggests you can carry on polluting and just appease your guilt. You can buy a 4x4 Range Rover and have your emissions offset by Climate Care. How is this sustainable? This could be called ‘greenwashing’.

If the Chinese bought cars like we do in the West (and they are starting to) 20% of their land mass would be turned to concrete - roads and car parks! Although offsetting is a step in the right direction, you can’t ignore your responsibility for owning a 4x4 by offsetting.

Huge numbers of offsetting schemes have started up. However, the industry is largely unregulated. Carbon offsetting does have a role and can lead to quick wins. People will buy 4x4s so I guess it’s best they do something. But, assuming that the offset actually worked (ie delivered the required saving in that calendar year), there could only be a limited number of years that it would continue to work.

Our carbon footprint is increasing; we just can’t keep increasing consumption. Energy efficiency of products has improved by over 30% over the past 20 years, which should have led to a drop in electricity demand. However, almost all the savings are eaten up with increasing electricity demand from new products. We are fighting hard just to tread water.

Guide to carbon offsetting