Picking up climate change bill

Have you read your electricity meter today? No? Will you tomorrow? Maybe, if like the majority of the 700-strong audience at a public debate on climate change you decide to read it daily as one simple step that will make you more aware of the energy you use.

Four panellists, all leading scientists and authorities on climate change, a packed house at the Royal Geographical Society, London, and Oxford-based environmental charity Earthwatch, got to grips with the simple changes everyone can make to reduce their energy consumption - in the home, in using the car, and in what we buy.

A massive increase in awareness of global warming has taken place in recent years. It has moved way beyond science, forcing us all to think about the environmental costs of the way we live.

That global warming is happening and attributable to human activity is irrefutable, according to 99 per cent of scientists, declared distinguished environmentalist Sir Crispin Tickell, who chaired the debate.

"Where there is any uncertainty, it is over the degree of change and where the tipping points are," said Sir Crispin.

A Climate Bill is due in the Queen's speech and the past week has seen he release of what the Prime Minister called the most important report his Government had published: the ground-breaking Stern Review from the Government's chief economist.

The report warns us of the devastating price, in economic terms as well as environmental, of failing to act now on climate change.

Awareness is one thing, however, action another. And it is particularly difficult for the individual to know what to do, or indeed if there's any point when faced with such an enormous global threat. But the message coming from the debate was a resounding Yes' to personal action now and Yes' to it making a difference.

Climate Change - Your Choice focused on what the individual can do. But as Sir Crispin emphasised, this was not to ignore the urgent need for action nationally and internationally.

During the evening, the audience faced 15 choices, five from each panellist (see panel), voting at the end for just one and committing thereby to one step towards reducing their carbon footprint.

"Keep an eye on your electricity meter regularly," said Dr Brenda Boardman and challenge yourself to do everything you can to reduce what you use. This was just one of many proposals from the head of the Lower Carbon Futures team at the Environmental Research Institute, Oxford University, whose main research is cutting the use of energy in the home.

"It doesn't sound much, but a whole lot of little things mount up," she said. "The average household uses 10kWh (kilowatt-hours) of electricity every day on lights and appliances. Get it down to 5kWh a day and you'd save £180 a year."

So, a double benefit: consumers and environment gain, a theme that reoccurred throughout an evening full of practical measures.

"You and I are responsible in our homes for about half of all the emissions that affect our planet," said Dr Boardman. "The main fuels are gas and electricity, although electricity is the most polluting fuel in the home. There are good reasons to cut back on both.

"It's not so difficult, I've done it myself, you can get quite obsessive about it," she continued, suggesting we fit low-energy light bulbs in every light fitting, not just the two or three most households have, switch lights off - disregard the myth that switching lights on and off is worse, she said - make sure the television and DVD players, phone-chargers and so on are not left on standby, buy A+-rated energy-efficient appliances (not plasma televisions, her bte-noire), and don't use the tumble drier. At the very least, she urged, "buy green energy".

Next up was Dr Jillian Anable, from the Centre for Transport Policy, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, who had the unenviable task of persuading us to rethink use of cars.

"People have a blind spot when it comes to travel," said Dr Anable. "I'm not talking about giving up cars - just the need for restraint." She suggested we record car and fuel use for every journey to help us think about why we used the car in the first place. We'd then appreciate the monetary costs, journey for journey. The AA says cars cost 50p a mile to run.

One in four car trips - one in two in London - are less than two miles, she continued, and, coming to her main message: short car journeys are the most polluting as the car has not yet warmed up.

"There are blocks to people walking or cycling - they do not necessarily think to do it," she conceded. "I hear about public transport, the danger for cyclists and so on, but if we act without waiting for these things to come right I believe services will be cranked up as a result.

"Did you know that travelling at 80mph in a medium-size petrol car uses 15 per cent more fuel than going along at 70mph, the motorway speed limit?" she asked. More than half of drivers speed on motorways, 15 per cent drive over 80mph. This means if everyone stuck to the speed limit we would, as a nation, save one million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

Finally, food, fun and fashion' from Prof Tim Jackson, head of a new research group on Lifestyles, Values and Environment (RESOLVE) at Surrey University, who pointed out their impact on the environment.

"Over half of the carbon coming from all our activities comes from our decisions over these three," said Prof Jackson.

We should aim for a low-carbon lifestyle, he suggested, change the way we shop, and buy locally-grown produce instead of food from miles away. We could also move away from the culture of television, and possibly more subversive, he suggested we could mend and make do more as a step towards changing attitudes and consuming less.

Reading the meter may have won the vote, with green electricity second and walking or cycling short journeys third, but said Dr Brenda Boardman: "What we really want is for people to do all 15!"