Did you know that bees are responsible for pollinating one-third of the crops we eat? They are a critical part of the global food system, and their health is essential for our own diets. Bees play a vital role in the pollination of crops, and are responsible for the production of many fruits, vegetables, and […]
Spruce up your wardrobe and turn your existing clothes into statement pieces with our iron on patches for Changemakers like you We recommend sewing your patches onto garments or accessories to ensure longevity and wear-and-tear. However, ironing your patches is a great way to keep them in place and ensure precision, especially if you aren’t much […]
Citizen science contributes to the work of scientists, by engaging the public in activities that assist with observation and data collection, in many domains of science, including conservation, natural resources, and environmental science. Last week, when I jumped in my car and headed on what I thought was going to be a fun little road trip to see some turtles, I had no idea that I was visiting one of the most globally significant conservation programs for endangered sea turtles, and one of the most successful citizen science conservation efforts in the country. Citizen science programs, when planned and prepared effectively, like at Mon Repos, can also equip people with the information and tools to make significant positive changes to their local area and, most importantly, see direct outcomes of science and conservation efforts; making citizen science a promising tool for environmental protection and biodiversity, informing policymaking, fostering public input and engagement, and promoting direct action.
Citizen science builds scientific knowledge
‘Citizen science’ is when members the public engage in activities that assist scientists in their research— by submitting data, sharing experiences, or spreading valuable information. Scientists who often face resource or time constraints can benefit from having more data available to analyse and a pool of volunteers willing to help. Citizen science programs can vary in type and scope. Some involve simple data collection work at the local level— like bird watchers who give feedback to scientists about the birds they spot, while others are larger-scale projects that might require volunteers to study up and learn protocols before heading into the field.
Citizen science can be a rigorous process of scientific discovery, one that can produce high-quality data and add to our scientific knowledge, and there are many types of projects can benefit from citizen science, provided they are well designed and include the right method of public participation.
Citizen science is a powerful tool for tackling conservation challenges
Citizen science doesn’t just provide a way to collect data; it also engages the general public in scientific issues and can be a powerful way to tackle conservation challenges. In an article about the benefits of citizen science for conservation (1), the authors conclude that “citizen science informs natural resource management, environmental protection, and policymaking and fosters public input and engagement.”
Citizen science programs can also be a tool to inform and educate the public about conservation challenges, and some of the solutions to the problem.
One reason that members of the public aren’t motivated to address climate change and other local or global environmental challenges is that the impacts are relatively distant from their day-to-day life. But engaging people first-hand in these issues, and showing them the consequences that we face, stops it from being such an abstract concept, and motivates them to at a minimum care about the issue, and hopefully to act.
Case Study: Mon Repos Turtle Centre, Queensland
Mon Repos Conservation Park, 14 kilometers east of Bundaberg at the Southern part of the Great Barrier Reef, is a globally significant site for research on and protection of the endangered loggerhead sea turtle, a prehistoric species thought to have emerged around 40 million years ago. The unique ecological conditions at Mon Repos Beach support a key stage in the ancient life cycle of the loggerhead and two other species – flatback and green turtles.
While loggerhead turtles spend decades at sea reaching sexual maturity and forage and breed many hundreds (or thousands) of kilometers away, the beach at Mon Repos where they were born is where the females return to lay their eggs from November to February. In February and March, the final clutches of hatchlings make their way into the ocean and travel via the East Australian Current past New South Wales and New Zealand, before making their way to South America. Only 1 in 1000 of the turtles will reach maturity, at about age 30, when the lucky survivors return to Mon Repos. The others will face threats like plastic waste; by the time the hatchlings have made it from Bundaberg to the Gold Coast, 50% of them will have ingested plastic.
Only 1 in 1000 of the turtles will reach maturity… by the time the hatchlings have made it from Bundaberg to the Gold Coast, 50% of them will have ingested plastic.
Turtle research has been ongoing at Mon Repos since the late 1960s when biologist Colin Limpus began tagging turtles to study them. At the time he was a high school teacher, who would bring his students down to the beach to learn about the turtles. As he became increasingly interested in finding answers to his questions about the turtles— like how far and how long they travelled before returning to Mon Repos— Col took up researching the turtles full time.
From the 1990s onwards, when the waters off the coast were established as a marine park, ecotourism to the region grew, formalised through the design and construction of a visitor centre, and by 2013, the visitor centre at Mon Repos was receiving more than 30,000 people annually to experience night-time turtle nesting and hatching through a ranger-led “turtle encounter.” Each night, from October to March each year, the team at Mon Repos also spend the entire night collecting data for the research centre, protecting the eggs and turtles from predators, tagging hatchlings, and ensuring that the hatchlings make their way safely to sea. In order to do this, Mon Repos relies on volunteer citizen scientists to assist rangers in their data collection and efforts to care for the turtles, making it one of the longest-running citizen science projects in the country.
The inspiration for this article, was my own turtle encounter at Mon Repos. I was inspired by the ways in which decades of citizen science, that began with a curious high-school teacher, has created the world’s most significant loggerhead turtle conservation site, and aided the world’s understanding of the manifold ways that humans impact on species loss, including fishing-related harms, plastic ingestion, ocean contamination and, more recently, climate change.
This project is just one example of how citizen science has made, and will continue to make valuable contributions to our understanding of the natural world. One of the things that has made Mon Repos so successful is that it carefully matches the right type of science project and the right method of public participation.
Project design must carefully combine the needs of science with public involvement
When properly designed, carried out, and evaluated, citizen science can provide sound science, efficiently generate high-quality data, and help solve problems. However, if not carefully planned and prepared, efforts to involve citizens in science can become futile and resource intensive, with little benefits to either party. Citizen science should follow the same rigorous process of scientific discovery and be indistinguishable from conventional science— apart from the participation of volunteers doing fieldwork.
To help science or conservation groups plan an effective citizen science project, the Australian Citizen Science Association has 10 guiding ‘Principles of Citizen Science’ which should inform all citizen science projects:
Citizen science projects actively involve citizens in scientific endeavour that generates new knowledge or understanding. Citizens may act as contributors, collaborators, or as project leader and have a meaningful role in the project.Citizen science projects have a genuine science outcome. For example, answering a research question, informing conservation action, or facilitating policy decisions.Citizen science provides benefits to both science and society. Benefits may include learning opportunities, personal enjoyment, social benefits, the publication of research outputs, contributing to scientific evidence that can influence policy on many scales (locally, nationally, and internationally), and connecting the wider community with science.Citizen scientists may participate in various stages of the scientific process. This may include developing research questions, designing methods, gathering and analysing data, and communicating results.Citizen scientists receive feedback from the project. For example, how their data are being used and the research, policy or societal outcomes.Citizen science, as with all forms of scientific inquiry, has limitations and biases that should be considered and controlled for. However, unlike traditional research approaches, citizen science provides greater opportunity for public engagement and participation, increasing accessibility of science in society.Where possible and suitable, project data and meta-data from citizen science projects are made publicly available and results are published in an open access format. Data sharing may occur during or after the project, unless there are security or privacy concerns that prevent this from occurring.Citizen scientists are suitably acknowledged by projects. This may include acknowledgement in project communications, result reporting and publications.Citizen science programs offer a range of benefits and outcomes which should be acknowledged and considered in project evaluation. Communication and evaluation of projects could include scientific outputs, data quality, participant experience and learning, knowledge sharing, social benefits, capacity building, new ways of science engagement, enhanced stakeholder dialogue, and wider societal or policy impact.The leaders of citizen science projects take into consideration legal and ethical considerations of the project. These considerations include copyright, intellectual property, data sharing agreements, confidentiality, attribution, participant safety and wellbeing, traditional owner consultation, and the environmental impact of any activities.
Changemaker chat with a conservationist
While visiting Mon Repos, I met Elisha, who I’d previously only connected with online, for a changemaker chat for the podcast. Elisha is not only a ranger at Mon Repos turtle centre, but also combined her love for travel with her passion for conservation, to create her very own eco-travel company, Chasin Clean Coasts, and a podcast, Chasin Travels.
I got to chat with Elisha and hear all about her story, travel tips, and of course, what it was like starting her very own travel company… right before the coronavirus pandemic. With the world opening up for travel post-covid, I know that I’m super keen to get back out there and experience the world— and I definitely recommend Mon Repos if you’re ever on the QLD coast!
It was also great to be reminded that if you want to start your own business or passion project, you don’t need to have the whole path mapped out, you just need to take the first step, and figure out the next step as you go…
By Loughlin Shannon
Now entering its third year, Australia has seen many highs and lows during the global pandemic. Covid’s impact stretched beyond just our health system, with Australia’s economy reaching record highs as businesses adapted to the changing times, but also record lows amid Covid case surges.
Few expected these economic highs and lows to occur so close together, but in true Roaring 20s style, 2022 brought us just that. After a $21 billion Christmas cash splash, ANZ data shows Australia’s retail spend has now fallen to Covid lockdown levels. And Sydney’s spending is at its lowest point since the pandemic began.
With many Aussies tightening their purse strings once again, changemakers may be wondering how to make a difference on a budget. So, with Australian international and interstate borders (mostly) open, let’s start with an airline add-on most change-making travellers won’t think twice about.
Your Carbon Footprint: Polluter Propaganda?
Since British Petroleum popularised the idea of one’s own ‘carbon footprint’ in a 2003 advertising blitz, awareness of consumption-driven pollution has risen substantially. And every step of the way, big businesses have been eager to encourage consumers to take personal responsibility for their environmental impact.
Carbon footprint calculators became widespread online, and although methodology varies between services, it’s now never been easier for one to seek out an estimate of their own environmental impact. But the rise of e-commerce, spurred on by the pandemic, began the trend of bringing one’s footprint to them before they even asked.
Insert Graphic One
Buy-now-pay-later service Klarna’s app shows customers the emissions created from delivering their online shopping — a journey I covered extensively last year. And the major Australian airlines go one step further, selling carbon offsets to their passengers when they check out online.
Those airline offsets may seem like a good deal for changemakers. I took advantage of an offer to offset 149kg of carbon last year for just $1.70, and 100 per cent of my contribution was passed on to carbon offset projects around the country. My donation was even matched dollar-for-dollar by the Qantas Group.
But a 2017 report from consumer advocacy group CHOICE found that while the airlines’ carbon offset programs were Australian Government accredited, none of them were certified by Gold Standard — an international standards body established by the World Wildlife Fund in 2003.
And ‘accredited’ programs don’t necessarily offset the exact amount of carbon you’re paying for. A 2021 Guardian/Greenpeace investigation found 10 forest protection schemes made predictions that “were often inconsistent with previous levels of deforestation” and “overstated” the threat to the trees they allegedly protected.
Verra, the agency which accredited those projects, strongly disputes that investigation’s findings. In a statement, they wrote “the Guardian article exhibits clear bias,” and “is riddled with substantive errors that betray ignorance about how carbon offset credits work”.
Price Match Carbon Credits From the Comfort of Your Couch…
So your mileage with carbon credits may vary, but let’s say you’ve been travelling over Christmas and you want to buy some anyway. Where can you get the best deal, and how can you be sure every kilo of carbon you pay for is really offset?
The answer: airline offers aren’t the place to look. While the airline I flew with charged me $11.41 per tonne of carbon, you can get a far better deal by shopping around. And the United Nations operates an online marketplace where you can do just that.
The UN Carbon Offset Platform allows anyone to purchase carbon credits directly from Clean Development Mechanism projects around the world. After you make a purchase, you get sent a certificate you can personalise, showing how much carbon you’ve cancelled and why you cancelled it.
So how does the UN’s platform stack up? Right now, two-thirds of the CDM projects listed beat Jetstar’s offer on carbon price. And the UN says all CDM projects “meet strict technological standards and are rigorously scrutinised through an international monitoring, reporting and verification process”.
The cheapest project on the platform right now — a rice husk based cogeneration plant with 2.5MW of generation capacity for the Indian electricity grid — will sell you a tonne of carbon for just $4.88. That’s a whopping 57 per cent saving compared to Jetstar’s checkout offer.
SAVE SOME MONEY: Shop around for carbon credits to get the best deal!
You may be getting a raw deal buying carbon offsets with your plane ticket, but that’s not the airlines’ fault. The ABC reported in December that 2021 was a “bull market” for domestic carbon credits, driving up prices for everyone. But airlines do have control over another part of the carbon credit story.
…Or Leave the Airlines to it
Of course, you could save even more money on carbon credits by just letting your airline pick up the tab. A 2016 agreement made by the member states of the UN International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requires airlines — including those in Australia — to buy a certain number of carbon credits every year themselves.
The agreement is called the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), and it initially required airlines to have net-zero emissions growth beyond an average of 2019 and 2020 levels. This would mean if an airline emitted more carbon in 2021 than the 2019/20 average, they would have to offset the difference.
But, just like everything else, Covid changed this plan for the worse. 2020 saw a halving of flight activity compared to 2019, which reduced CORSIA’s predicted emissions average by 25 to 30 per cent according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
This would have substantially increased emissions reduction requirements, so the International Air Transport Association asked the ICAO to remove 2020 from the average. ICAO agreed, increasing allowed emissions, which reduced carbon offsetting requirements by between 25 and 75 per cent.
The IEA says a combination of this change and a slow post-Covid recovery for the aviation industry will eliminate carbon reduction requirements for airlines entirely. “If flight activity rebound takes as long as most industry projections expect, this decision will nullify any offset obligations during CORSIA’s pilot phase.”
So, don’t feel too guilty about skipping out on carbon credits when flying, the airlines sure didn’t.
SAVE EVEN MORE: Leave cancelling carbon to the big polluters — they’ll be required to.
Save money and the planet this January with the Humanitarian Changemakers Network! We’ve got tips for getting the best deals on reducing your carbon footprint, shopping mindfully, and the most effective charities to support. Just go to humanitarianchangemakers.net/news or search ‘Changemaker Q&A’ on your preferred podcast platform.
This week: are high flying changemakers getting a raw deal on carbon credits? We’ve found the best deal for travellers to reduce their emissions — and it’s not from airlines. Search Changemakers Q&A on your preferred podcast platform to listen now!
Now entering its third year, Australia has seen many highs and lows during the global pandemic. Covid’s impact stretched beyond just our health system, with Australia’s economy reaching record highs as businesses adapted to the changing times, but also record lows amid Covid case surges. With many Aussies tightening their purse strings once again, changemakers […]
We had a chat to Elisha Petrie, who combined their love for travel with their passion for conservation, to create their very own eco travel company, Chasin Clean Coasts, and podcast Chasin Travels. I’m excited to hear from Elisha about her story, travel tips, and of course, what it was like starting her very own travel company… right before the coronavirus pandemic. With the world about to open up for travel post-covid, I know that I’m super keen to get back out there and experience the world. It was also great to be reminded that if you want to start your own business or passion project, you don’t need to have the whole path mapped out, you just need to take the first step, and figure out the next step as you go.
Greenwashing is the process of conveying a false impression or providing misleading information about how a company’s products are more environmentally sound. Greenwashing is considered an unsubstantiated claim to deceive consumers into believing that a company’s products are environmentally friendly.
Basically, greenwashing is using PR or marketing tactics, or event just strategic messaging, To make it sound as if an organization’s products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly when they actually aren’t.
The problem with greenwashing is that it is a marketing tool used to drive profit, rather than to take environmental responsibility.
The phrase “greenwashing” topped headlines in August 2021 when environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, called out the fashion industry for partaking in the phenomenon. As the first to be on the cover of Vogue Scandinavia, Thunberg used to speak up against it. In a social media post that accompanied her cover announcement, Thunberg stated:
“Many are making it look as if the fashion industry are starting to take responsibility, by spending fantasy amounts on campaigns where they portray themselves as ‘sustainable’, ‘ethical’, ‘green’, ‘climate neutral’ and ‘fair’” she wrote, “But let’s be clear: This is almost never anything but pure greenwashing. You cannot mass produce fashion or consume ‘sustainably’ as the world is shaped today. That is one of the many reasons why we will need a system change.”
The problem with “sustainability”
The challenge with words like “ethical” and “sustainable” is that they are quite subjective, and there’s no standards to which they can be held against and compared to in order to determine just how sustainable or ethical they are. Like what does that even mean? If you saw a bottle of “sustainable” detergent. What standards would you expect that product to meet? Chances are, if you asked someone else they’d give you a completely different response.
Often, the option that you might think is more sustainable, often isn’t universally the most sustainable option. You might think that biodegradable packaging is better than recyclable, but if the waste is only going to end up in landfill without the proper conditions it needs to break down, it likely won’t break down anytime soon. So, recyclable packaging that can be reused might be a better choice.
Similarly, you might think that a natural plant or animal-based fibre like cotton is better for the environment than a synthetic fabric. Natural fibers usually have a smaller environmental impact than synthetic fibers because natural fibers do not use as many chemicals during the production process, but some natural fibers are less eco-friendly than others because some plants require more water. Similarly, some synthetic fibres are very durable, can make stain-resistant or waterproof clothing, which might be a better option for a higher quality clothing item that will last many seasons.
This is why it’s important to always remember that there is no “one size fits all” approach to sustainability.
How to spot greenwashing
Be wary of buzzwords:
Terms like “organic, ethical, eco-friendly, natural, cruelty-free, or green” are often used, and while these words might be an accurate way of describing something, they are quite elusive and they make something sound “greener” than it actually is.
“Natural” is a very vague term that could mean anything, like it doesn’t contain artificial ingredients or harsh chemicals— but the “natural” products in contain could be unsustainable or unsustainably sourced. You could have a “natural” t shirt that is made from really unsustainably sourced cotton.
“Cruelty-free” means that the product didn’t go through animal testing at any point in the supply chain, but that doesn’t mean it Doesn’t contain animal products, or toxic products, or micro-plastics, etc.
When you see terms like this, do your research to see whether they have provided more information, if they do not, they are likely greenwashing.
Research the company/brand:
A quick search on a brand’s website should tell you exactly what they mean if they are using any of these terms, and you should be able to find details of their suppliers, or where their materials are sourced. Transparency about who their partners are and how they do things is a good thing, even if they aren’t ideal— most of the time, secrecy or hiding the truth from your consumers indicates that they are probably not doing the right thing.
While some products and services will be advertised as, or actually be environmentally conscious, the company that owns it might not be— if you’re buying a vegan leather belt from a jeans manufacturer that actively pollutes rivers, or purchasing chocolate with recyclable packaging from a company that also sells single-use plastic water bottles, that money is still going to the same company.
Look for verification: If a company is indeed doing as it claims, it will often have some kind of verification or a certification from an approved auditing organisation— Certified Fair Trade, Certified B Corp, Certified organic, Biodegradable or Recyclable. These are all great starting points, but again, it’s important that you don’t just accept these at surface level. Look at the whole product or brand, and see how else they’re trying to do the right thing.
It’s not as simple as it sounds
As a consumer, it probably sounds simple right— can’t brands just make changes. And while they should, it’s not as simple as it sounds.
For a cleaning company to switch their bottles to a biodegradable plant-based plastic, they need to run tests and make sure that the product will last as long, in the same temperature conditions, and not get damaged during transport, as the current materials. Current contracts with suppliers would need to end, and new contracts with partners need to be drafted and agreed upon. Labels would need to be redesigned. This stuff can take time, and be resource intensive.
I want to acknowledge from first-hand experience just how hard it is to run a sustainable and ethical business. When we started Changemaker Co., our Upcycled & Slow Fashion Brand to fund the work we do here at the Humanitarian Changemakers Network, it was challenging to enter a market where there are always existing policie and processes that dictate what is considered “business as usual.” And again, because there’s no ‘one size fits all” approach to sustainability, it’s often an iterative process that involves making changes and doing the best the best you can with what you’ve got.
For example, before we started Changemaker Co. we pre-launched Our range of definition tees on the Humanitarian Changemakers Network website, and I was really keen to make sure these shirts were on organic cotton tees. So we did that, but then we found that the only suppliers that could offer us organic cotton were all based in Europe, and because most of our audience and market are based in Australia, the transport miles involved in sending those items here, plus the fact that the supplier didn’t offer biodegradable packaging and only offered plastic, just didn’t sit well with us.
So instead, we partnered with an Australia based printer, who uses water-based inks, and while their shirts aren’t organic, they use brands like AS Colour, which are very transparent about their sustainability Policy & Practices, stating “we are committed to eliminating single use plastics, and plastic in general, from our supply chain…” and on top of this, they ship from Brisbane and in completely biodegradable packaging, which drastically reduces transport miles and eliminates unnecessary plastic.
Shirts like these are printed to order, meaning the finished product doesn’t exist until an order is placed, and then it’s printed just for the customer. This slow to approach to fashion is obviously far better than creating a bulk of stock and having to push those products out, risking a surplus of unsold stock and unnecessary waste.
However, it’s still not perfect, and we would like to eventually transition to offering all of our designs on upcycled second hand tees, which we already have a small collection of. But again, this is a time and resource-intensive process that we can quite afford yet, but as we grow and scale, we hope to transition to being a fully upcycled brand. Sustainability certainly isn’t simple for businesses and organisations, and especially ones that are far more established and have higher standards and levels of accountability than what we have, change often has a slow and iterative process to ensure things are done correctly.
How do we change things?
It’s important to remember that like with any type of social change, the responsibility isn’t solely on individuals, although as citizens and consumers we do have a role to play.
As a consumer, you can vote with your dollar— purchase products that align with your values. You don’t have to stop purchasing things altogether, but choose to support brands that are doing the right thing, if you are in a position to do so. In capitalism, supply and demand is a powerful thing, and if there is more demand for sustainable products, supply chains will follow.
Of course, you’re also a citizen, and you have the power to tell brands and leaders what you want to see from them. Write letters, leave customer feedback or testimonials, comment on their social media— these might seem like small actions on their own, but brands actually want to please their consumers (that’s how they make money,) so they do value your opinion.
When it comes to a greener future, the vehicle we choose to get there really matters.
In July, amid Lockdown Five in bitterly cold Melbourne, I went online and made a very aspirational purchase. A brand new pair of boots were set to become mine, as I looked forward to making an entrance into my first in-person university class of my degree.
Of course, we all know how that went. The boots arrived… at the beginning of Lockdown Six.
I promise you there is a broader point to this, because I don’t want to discuss the boots – even though they’re very good – but rather how they got to me.
The boots were made (if the label is to be believed) in Portugal. But by the time I ordered them, they were in a U.K. warehouse of a notorious fast-fashion company, because yes, I am part of the problem.
Australia Post took it from there, “manifesting” my parcel from the warehouse and driving it to the airport. My boots arrived in Australia 36 hours after take-off. The next stop was a sorting centre in Melbourne’s north, and from there they were driven to another hub in the city’s south.
There’s just one problem with that: they drove my boots past my house.
This isn’t a jab at postal workers, who are working under incredibly difficult circumstances right now. Nothing went wrong here, because I do live closer to the destination hub than the origin.
People who finished high school in Queensland should understand the issue Australia Post faces: questions asking students to find the most efficient route through a network of hubs are part of the Queensland Core Skills test.
The more specific the destination, the greater the challenge becomes. Originally, my parcel just had to make it onto a plane to Australia – benefitted by economies of scale. By the end, it had to be narrowed down to my house.
Those economies of scale also come into play when considering the environmental impact of my parcel. This impact matters to Australia Post, who buy offset credits to make their deliveries carbon neutral, offsetting over 200 thousand tonnes of emissions since the program started in 2019.
But the best carbon is the carbon never emitted in the first place. So, let’s look at the energy it took to get my parcel from the U.K. to my house.
At the beginning of its journey, the fuel consumption of my parcel was shared across all of the other packages on the plane. By the end, there were less parcels to share that same fuel burden across.
That means despite planes using so much more fuel than a parcel truck, the plane flight from the U.K. to Australia was more energy efficient than the truck drive between sorting centres.
And this isn’t theoretical thinking or a guess. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the U.S. conducts regular studies comparing the fuel efficiency of various modes of transport – from planes to cars.
They compared the total fuel consumed by all the trips of a given transport mode against the total distance travelled by each passenger. Here’s what they found:
Intercity rail – that’s trains that travel between cities – were found to be the most efficient mode of transport. Close behind is transit rail, comprised of both “heavy” and “light” rail – think the New York City subway or Melbourne’s tram system.
Surprisingly, motorcycles and planes are about equally as efficient. That’s because motorcycles are very light and don’t require much fuel, while the higher fuel needs of planes are dispersed among hundreds of passengers.
Cars are in the middle, followed by commuter rail. Confusingly, it’s defined as having “usually only one or two stations in the central business district” – so not quite on the scale of intercity travel but larger than a metro rail system.
One reason why commuter rail could be less energy efficient than its intercity and transit counterparts could be the energy it uses in the first place. Unlike light rail, which uses electricity, Oak Ridge say “most” of the 25 systems they analysed rely on diesel power.
Another gas guzzling mode of transport? Light trucks – think the Australia Post parcel truck used to cart my boots around Melbourne. In fact, a plane passenger can travel 14.23 miles further than a light truck passenger using the same amount of energy.
That’s 22.9 kilometres – more than a half marathon!
Diesel is also part of why buses are less efficient than cars in this analysis, which may surprise you. But the much bigger reason buses are less efficient than cars is that they have less passengers.
The U.S. Department of Energy explains: “Transit buses are not very efficient at their current ridership rates, where, on average, a given bus is less than 25% full.”
Let’s go back to the Oak Ridge report and look at the real numbers to see what impact that has on efficiency. In 2017, transit buses used 91.6 trillion British thermal units (Btu) worth of energy, compared to the 6,339.3 trillion Btu cars used.
But car passengers travelled 2.2 trillion miles, compared to just 20.2 billion (note the ‘B’ there) miles travelled by bus passengers. This means bus passengers used 1.44 per cent of the energy to travel only 0.92 per cent of the distance car users did. Ouch!
But bus users still have an edge over the least efficient use of energy by far: the somewhat murky ‘demand response’ category. Even if you’re not clear on what that means, you’ve likely travelled this way, as demand response includes taxis and rideshare.
They’re the least efficient way to travel because demand response drivers use energy in order to get to a passenger before actually transporting them. Buses may transport more refrigerated air than passengers in the U.S., but they spend less time completely empty.
So, there’s the numbers. The road travel leg of my boots’ journey to me was more logistically complicated and energy inefficient than the air travel leg. But you might have a question about that: why does it matter?
The unfortunate truth, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change informed us last month, is that humans have been having an “unequivocal” impact on the environment, and transportation is part of that impact.
And for the Federal Government, saving carbon means more money from continued foreign investment. On ABC TV’s News Breakfast, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg spoke about the importance of net-zero emission targets to Australia’s economy.
“I certainly see it in our interest being part of these global agreements,” said Frydenberg. “Financial markets have always factored in these significant structural shifts.”
But for now, the energy used to make our cars, planes, and trains go has to come from somewhere. And as we’ve already discussed, diesel is the source of energy for some of our public transport options.
Even electric transport – electric cars or light rail – aren’t as green as they could be right now. That energy, more often that not, can have an inconvenient source, too. We’re still a ways off from solar-powered trains.
But those numbers from the report we’ve just looked at, do show how public transport could be a big part of the planet’s journey to net-zero, as well as reveal a huge problem it faces.
Public Transport is Sooo Pre-Covid
We’ve actually already touched on the problem facing public transport. It’s those pesky numbers that show buses are more energy inefficient than cars.
That shouldn’t be the case; economies of scale should disperse the higher energy use of buses over the greater number of passengers they take. But in the United States, there aren’t enough transit bus passengers to offset the increase in energy use.
So, how many more passengers would it take for buses to tie with cars, not beat them? Let’s use that 25 per cent passenger figure from the U.S. Department of Energy as a starting point; they said it was less, but they didn’t provide any additional information, so as far as I’m concerned that’s on them.
We know that bus passengers currently travel 0.96 per cent of the distance car passengers do, but use 1.44 per cent of the energy. To make passenger miles match energy use, it needs to increase by 1.57 times.
That’s a passenger increase from 25 per cent to 39.25 per cent. To get there, every two current bus passengers would need to convince one friend to ride with them.
Of course, this would also make the bus heavier and use more energy. However, a 2018 study published in Springer’s Transportation journal shows overall energy efficiency increases as bus occupancy rises – the distance the new passengers travel outweighs their additional weight.
The study analysed the fuel efficiency of different occupancy levels of four different bus models, comparing the amount of energy used per passenger kilometre travelled. It found the average full bus used about a quarter of the energy per passenger kilometre compared to a 20 per cent full bus.
That’s a huge energy saving that would certainly put buses above cars, and maybe even planes, in terms of efficiency. There’s just one problem, it’s clear, at least in the U.S., that people don’t really like buses, or any public transport at all.
Back home, we face similar issues. The Australian Bureau of Statistics found 14 per cent of Australians used public transport in March this year, down from 23 per cent pre-Covid. One in six people who used public transport regularly before the pandemic haven’t used it at all since March 2020.
It doesn’t look likely public transport use will return to normal levels once restrictions ease, either. 61 per cent of people the ABS surveyed said they don’t expect their current habits to change.
For some who’ve stopped or reduced their public transport use, they may be working from home. But for others, public transport may not be an attractive option, and that may have been the case pre-pandemic.
It’s an issue that’s created some unlikely advocates. The Head of Public Policy for RACQ – that’s right, the car insurance company – called on the Queensland Government to act last year. Dr Rebecca Michael said “we need to do everything we can to encourage more sustainable transport”.
Michael’s concern is the increased road congestion created by more drivers on the road. She’s advocated for an integrated public transport authority to be created in Queensland, which would tackle issues around service reliability, frequency and affordability.
But there’s another issue passengers face before even getting on the bus, and that’s getting there in the first place.
The Last Mile Problem
Earlier we discussed how the last leg of my online shopping’s journey to me was the most logistically complicated part of it. There’s a name for that phenomenon in the postal world: the last mile problem.
DFDS, a major European shipping and logistics company, says “the main challenge of the last mile is to handle low-density deliveries cost-effectively.” That’s because the last mile of a journey is by far the priciest; 53 per cent of delivery costs come from the last mile.
One of the causes should be familiar by now: the DFDS Scandinavia Vice President Niklas Andersson says “delivery trucks and vans are too often half-empty when they make their rounds”.
“The current situation simply isn’t environmentally sound,” he added. “We can’t continue to compete on price and delivery times without hurting the environment in the long run.”
But the last mile problem isn’t unique to shipping. The distance between a bus stop or train station and one’s home or workplace can also create friction for public transport users. For some, it’s a pain point that leads them not to use it altogether.
For example, unless someone’s lucky enough to have a bus stop or train station near their home, the walking distance could be a deal breaker. When you’re coming home from a stressful day at work, the last thing you want is more surprise exercise.
Former Queensland Deputy Premier Jackie Trad was invested in this issue. She oversaw Brisbane’s Cross River Rail project, which involves building several new train stations around the city.
In March 2019, the locations for these stations were announced, including one near an investment property Trad had purchased a week before the announcement. Trad didn’t formally disclose the purchase to Queensland Parliament in the required time-frame, leading to corruption allegations from the state opposition.
The Liberal-National Party referred the issue to Queensland’s Crime and Corruption Commission in July. Three days later, Trad rang Commission chairman Alan McSporran to “self-refer” the matter.
“There’s no compromising my integrity, I didn’t feel as if I was being influenced or there was an attempt to,” McSporran said at the time. He later recused himself from any further CCC investigations into the matter.
In September, the Commission announced “no evidence … supported a reasonable suspicion of corrupt conduct,” and didn’t launch an official investigation. “However, as a general proposition,” they added, “failing to declare and properly manage a conflict of interest creates a corruption risk.”
Despite this finding, Trad was removed from the project by Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk the next day. “The Premier has a right to expect the highest standards from all of her ministers and on this occasion, I did not meet those standards,” Trad told media.
Last year, Trad told Guardian Australia the matter – along with another CCC investigation into a different matter which cleared her of wrongdoing – was part of a campaign against her.
“There’s a concerted campaign against me because I guess I’ve stood up, I’ve stood up for the values my community care about and because there have been positive outcomes in that respect.”
Walking distance isn’t the only thing that can reduce the burden of the last mile. For people who live in outer suburbs where walking isn’t an option, adequate parking space can allow people to use public transport for a portion of their trip.
The train stations with the best carparks tend to be in marginal federal electorates, at least if former Infrastructure Minister Alan Tudge has anything to do with it. He oversaw the implementation of the Urban Congestion Fund, established in the 2018-19 Federal Budget.
The $4.8 billion fund included $660 million in funding for the construction of commuter car parks to ease traffic congestion. 40 sites for car parks were chosen in the first part of 2019, in the lead up to the federal election that April. Of those, 27 were selected the day before the election was called.
In June this year, the Australian National Audit Office released a report on the program. They found the selection process involved canvassing the MPs of 23 Coalition-held electorates, as well as Coalition Senators or candidates in a further six electorates held by opposition parties.
The result: 77 per cent of sites chosen were in Coalition-held electorates, with a further 10 per cent in the other six canvassed. 64 per cent were in Melbourne, despite the majority of Australia’s most congested roads being in Sydney. And most of Melbourne’s sites were in the south-east, despite most of the city’s congested roads being in the north-west.
The ANAO found the implementation of the Urban Congestion Fund was “not effective,” and criticised the selection process, calling it “not demonstrably merit-based”.
Alan Tudge denied any wrongdoing and said decisions were “made on the basis of need” in August. “33 of them were ticked off by the department before coming up for decision and we took those to the Australian people and the Australian people voted for them.”
So with bruised trust in both state and federal levels of government to tackle the last mile problem, the Brisbane City Council looked overseas for a solution.
Scooting to Net Zero?
“Please unlock me to ride me, or I’ll call the police.”
That was the threat made on many U.S. streets in 2018. The source: new e-scooters that quickly earned the ire of locals.
While these companies had launched before that, 2018 saw the rideable industry’s most rapid expansion. Scooter companies grew from five to 70 U.S. cities that year, entering the national conversation for the first time.
But not all of those conversations were good. The adoption of the “move fast and break things” philosophy of the rideshare industry by scooter companies put them in hot water with local governments. Four cities banned them altogether.
The business model of rideables also raised problems for disabled people. That’s because riders could leave scooters in the middle of footpaths when they were finished riding, making city streets harder to navigate.
This issue led to a lawsuit from accessibility advocates filed in 2019, who alleged the “uncurbed growth” of the rideables industry “comes at the detriment of the rights of all disabled persons … causing Plaintiffs injury, severe anxiety, diminishing their comfort and discriminating against them based on their disabilities.”
Four of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed in 2020. A motion for class certification was denied in June this year.
In response to the poor initial entry in the U.S. market, European rideable company Lime took a different approach when entering the Australian market.
Brisbane was the first city in Australia to trial e-scooters in 2018, following consultation between the local council and Lime. When it comes to the last mile problem facing public transport, Brisbane City Council believes e-scooters could fill that niche.
In its draft e-mobility strategy, the council wrote “e-mobility options have potential to complement the role of public transport and provide short distance transport options within communities so people can conveniently access local services.”
“We could have said ’no’ to this technology, like other cities have done,” wrote councillor Ryan Murphy in the 2020 report, “but this would leave our residents and visitors worse off, with fewer options and less choice when it comes to getting around Brisbane.”
E-scooter programs have now expanded around the country, with trials now running in every state except New South Wales. State Transport Minister Andrew Constance ruled out a trial in March, branding programs in other states “a disaster”.
Constance’s claims aren’t entirely without merit. Last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission found Lime failed to disclose safety issues to riders. That’s despite knowing about 50 incidents, some of which resulted in broken bones.
Lime conceded they broke consumer law in a written statement to the ACCC, writing: “We are a young company and while we don’t always get it right, we learn fast.” The company pulled out of Brisbane completely in June this year.
Brisbane’s rideable market is now served by Neuron Mobility and Beam, who both secured three-year contracts in May. Both companies introduced e-bikes to their offering in July, replacing Brisbane’s CityCycle scheme that was scrapped last year.
So, can e-scooters and e-bikes get people out of their cars? Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner is quietly confident, revealing in June that “between 30 and 50 per cent” of rideable trips were replacing car trips in the city.
For Neuron and Beam, their shareable business models appear to be safe for now. Personal e-scooters are on the market if you want to cut out the middle-man, but the lowest cost model is $999 from JB Hi-Fi. That’s around 22 months’ worth of monthly passes from Neuron.
As trials continue around the country, lawmakers and stakeholders are waiting to see if rideables can really take public transport users the last mile.
When it comes to tackling climate change there are two types of measures: climate change mitigation, and climate change adaptation. Most of the work we will do as activists falls under climate change mitigation- because we are calling on our own…