Afternoon:
2°c
Wealthy households pollute as much as four jumbos taking off
Mark Prigg, Science and Technology Editor4 Dec 2009
Residents in some of London's most affluent areas are exposed today as the city's biggest polluters.
On the eve of the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen, the most comprehensive survey of the capital's emissions has found that well-off boroughs are producing as much as 40 per cent more carbon dioxide than their poorer neighbours.
The study, by consumer research group Experian, found those in Richmond were the worst offenders, with the average household producing 26.1 tonnes of CO2 a year: the equivalent footprint of almost four jumbo jets taking off. Barnet and Kingston were next with 25.16 and 24.15 tonnes of CO2 a year. Households in Newham and Barking and Dagenham produced the least, seven tonnes a year less than Richmond.
The study, for the Local Government Chronicle, mapped emissions of every household in Britain. Using a mathematical model developed with the Stockholm Environment Institute, it made predictions based on data including age of properties, number of residents, power use and number of holidays.
Experian director Lindsay Kirby said: “In London there is a huge amount of variation within the boroughs, and even between households of the same street. But in general it is the leafy suburbs that have the highest emissions: affluent consumers with multiple cars, who go on several long-haul holidays a year.
“The leafy suburbs may have residents who know more about the issues, but are not willing to change their lifestyle by giving up their cars or holidays.” The firm is in talks with several councils to use data to target the worst offenders.
Researchers also ranked people into 10 types of green consumer, including “eco-evangelists” convinced of green beliefs but let down by their lifestyles; “convinced consumers” willing to take action on the environment; and the “wasteful and unconvinced”.
The City of London and Wandsworth had the most eco-evangelists while Tower Hamlets topped the list of wasteful and unconvinced.
Wandsworth said it was using the data to develop more services for residents. Sarah McDermott, cabinet member for the environment, said: “This report reinforces our experience. We have also made it clear to residents that reducing energy use and producing less waste helps reduce council tax bills.”
Geoff Acton, in the same role at Richmond, pointed to “significant achievements” such as a parking permit policy in which households pay more according to how much their vehicles pollute. He said: “We are highly committed to reducing CO2 but short of impoverishing the area, we're always going to produce a certain level compared to other areas.”
CO2 emissions, tonnes per household
Richmond 26.10
Barnet 25.16
Kingston 24.15
Bromley 24.10
Harrow 23.83
Sutton 23.06
Westminster 22.98
Hillingdon 22.94
K'ton/Chelsea 22.89
Merton 22.72
Enfield 22.68
Ealing 22.62
Redbridge 22.61
Haringey 22.49
City of London 22.28
Hounslow 22.26
Brent 22.23
Wandsworth 22.20
Havering 22.12
Croydon 22.11
H'smith/Fulham 22.05
Bexley 21.53
Lambeth 21.39
Islington 21.21
Waltham Forest 20.98
Southwark 20.20
Camden 19.95
Greenwich 19.91
Lewisham 19.75
Tower Hamlets 18.90
Hackney 18.84
Barking & D'ham 18.39
Newham 18.36
London average 21.91
Reader views (4)
@Jill, Newcastle...
But the list runs the other way! Its the poor areas that are producing less CO2.
- Jacqui Smith'S Dvd Collection!, Hackney, London, 04/12/2009 13:40
Report abuse
Completely bonkers, this should have been broken down to a common figure of CO2 per person, per borough and not per houshold.
Those that are wealthy can afford to be green, those that are poor have to make do with what they have. Clearly people that have the deep fat fryer running all day feeding their thirteen children all from different fathers that are running around in an ancient smoke belching car using electricity and gas all day because they are unemployed are of course more green that the smug ego warrior donning his Lycra with a small smug frisson every day to cycle to work, eat his green salad and only having one child that goes to a private school and heating his property with solar panels - because its good for the planet.
If people use their sense and ensure that London’s permanent population is fully employed before the transients that are taking the work and repatriating their earnings then, just perhaps the poor might just be able to afford to embrace some of the green ideas that so exercise and motivate the so-called educated
- Jill, Newcastle, 04/12/2009 12:49
Report abuse
Surely these data are skewed by the fact that e.g. in my borough, Camden, there are a lot of flats and relatively few single occupancy houses. These "per household" statistics are likely to carry little meaning. However, the basic message is right: some people are ruining the planet with their heedless lifestyles. Unfortunately, "Don't care" will be made to care, but only when it is too late.
Unless we make it easy for people to be green, they won't do anything. Until we build proper infrastructure like safe cycle lanes, sort out the privatised travesty of London's rail network and stop building car-focused retail developments in hard-to-get-to locations, then things will only get worse.
- Robert C, London UK, 04/12/2009 09:19
Report abuse
Carbon dioxide is not pollution, you fool.
- Freddy, London, 04/12/2009 09:14
Report abuse
