Lesson video

Hello, my name is Mr. March, and I'm here today to teach you all about changing attitudes to unsustainable energy consumption.

So grab everything that you need for today's lesson and let's get going.

So by the end of today's lesson, you will be able to explain ways in which attitudes to unsustainable energy consumption are changing.

There are three key terms for today's lesson.

Those are carbon footprint, ecological footprint, and finding net zero.

Carbon footprint refers to the total amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by an individual, product, process, country, et cetera.

Ecological footprint refers to the impact of a person or community on the environment, and it's express as the amount of land required to sustain their use of natural resources.

And finding net zero refers to balancing the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere with the amount removed from it.

There are two learning cycles for today's lesson.

I'm gonna start with learning cycle one, which is all about calculating carbon footprints.

A carbon footprint then is a way of measuring the total amount of greenhouse gases that something adds to the atmosphere.

They are comparable.

Carbon footprints are comparable.

We're able to compare one against the other.

We can compare products, for example, and see which has the lower carbon footprint.

As Jacob asks, "Why would you want to compare the carbon footprints of different products?" Now, you may like to pause the video here whilst you consider your answer to that question or perhaps even have a discussion with someone near you.

Well, the reason, as I'm sure you were able to discuss, is as Lucas says.

Lucas says, "It's so you can buy the one that makes the least contribution to global warming." Now, another measure is something called the ecological footprint, and this is a measure of the human impacts on the environment.

The amount of ecological assets needed to actually produce a product or support a population and the amount needed to absorb its waste.

A biocapacity deficit is when a population consumes resources and generates waste faster than nature can actually absorb the waste and generate new resources.

So let's now have a look at this cartogram that you can see in front of you.

And it's really interesting because it's showing world ecological footprints in relation to the countries' population sizes.

So remember the map that you can see in front of you is based on per capita or per person.

So 1.

63 global hectares per person is the world's biocapacity limit.

And ecological footprint under that is sustainable.

Now let's turn our attention to that cartogram in front of you and you can see that it's being colour coded.

And if we turn our attention to the green areas, these are areas or countries which have a biocapacity of 1.

63 or under, and therefore this is very sustainable.

They are within that biocapacity limit.

They are using their share of resources, but no more than that which would be deemed unsustainable.

A country with an ecological footprint of over 1.

63 gha per person is using resources in a way that is unsustainable in the long term.

So now let's turn our attention to those red areas, for example, Europe and the United Kingdom, for example.

And we can see that people in those countries are using more than their fair share of resources and therefore it is unsustainable.

So a quick learning check.

It says, what is the maximum ecological footprint for sustainable resource use? Now, you can see you've got four different options on the screen in front of you.

What you need to do then is pause the video here whilst you read through those four options and select what you think is the correct answer.

And the correct answer was A, 1.

63 gha per person or less.

Really well done if you were able to select A as the correct answer.

Our second learning check says true or false? Carbon footprints and ecological footprints measure the exact same thing.

So what you need to do then is pause the video here whilst you consider and then select your answer.

And the correct answer was false.

Now, once again, I'd like you to pause the video whilst you consider as to why or how this statement then is false.

And the reason it's false is that although carbon footprints and ecological footprints both provide comparable measures of human impacts on the environment, carbon footprints measure greenhouse gas emissions while ecological footprints measure the total demand on Earth's resources.

So really well done if you were able to get those two answers correct.

A carbon footprint is measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2e.

This is the equation, and that includes other greenhouse gases.

So it doesn't just look at carbon dioxide, it looks at other greenhouse gases, such as methane, for example.

Let's now have a look at an example, the example being a white cotton t-shirt.

This example then is of a t-shirt manufactured in Asia and shipped to Europe for retail or to be bought.

So let's now have a look at it.

So the first way we can start measuring the carbon footprint of this t-shirt is by looking at the ingredients, the resources needed to actually make this t-shirt.

So growing the cotton utilises fertilisers, irrigation, so therefore water, as well as machinery.

And the total amount of carbon dioxide equivalent in this example is 0.

3 kg CO2e.

Then there's the processing and manufacturing of that t-shirt.

So the spinning, the dyeing, and the sewing.

Again, this accounts for 1.

5 kilogrammes.

And the next step then is transport to retail.

And there are two different ways that this can be done.

It can be done by sea, which would account for 0.

5 kilogrammes of CO2e, but also by air, which is more costly in terms of carbon because it accounts for 2.

5 kilogrammes CO2e.

Next, we have the washing and wearing of the t-shirts.

Now, washing and drying, for example, 50 times would equate to two to three kilogrammes of CO2e.

And finally, disposal by landfill.

As it decomposes, it releases methane.

And again, this accounts for 0.

5 kilogramme CO2e.

So we can see how just a simple garment like a t-shirt has a huge CO2 cost attached to it or CO2e.

Time now for a learning check.

It says, which of the following would be likely to lower the carbon footprint of a cotton t-shirt bought in the UK? Now, you can see you've got four different options on the screen there.

What you need to do is pause the video, read through the options, and select all the answers that you think are correct.

And the two correct answers were B, recycling rather than disposal in landfill, that thereby removes the released methane gas as a result of decomposition.

And finally, transportation by ship rather than by air.

We can see that when materials or products are transported by ship, it comes with a much lower carbon cost than if it was done by air.

So really, really well done if you were able to select B and C as the correct answers.

Now, carbon footprints for food include the greenhouse gas emissions from growing, producing, transporting, storing, and finally disposing of the food.

Now, on the left-hand side of the screen in front of you, you can see lots of different food products and you can see the carbon footprint associated with each and every one of them.

Now, clearing forest for farming actually increases the carbon footprint because forests are a carbon sink.

So by clearing rainforest areas or forestry areas to make way for perhaps pasture for farm animals or perhaps to grow crops, this thereby increases the carbon footprint of that food item.

Furthermore, livestock animals emit methane, which is a greenhouse gas, and they do this mostly through burping and this adds to the carbon footprint of meat and dairy.

And we can see that clearly exemplified really with that graph on the left-hand side.

Look at the top of the graph where we can see the ones which are most responsible or have the largest carbon footprint.

And once again, you can see that it's been colour coded.

If we can look at those different colour codes down the bottom, we can see that beef, for example, or cheese or chocolate or coffee seems to have a high carbon footprint in terms of land use change.

Now, it may well be that in terms of beef production or chocolate production or coffee production, areas of rainforest, for example, have been cut down to make way for fields for pasture for cattle or for coffee plantations or for cacao plantations.

And that thereby increases its carbon footprint.

So we can begin to see which food products have the highest carbon footprint.

And in this graph here, you can see it's things such as beef, lamb, cheese, chocolate, coffee, palm oil, et cetera, so it's a really interesting graph to really understand the carbon footprints associated with different food products which we buy here in the UK.

Now, country carbon footprints are calculated by adding up all the greenhouse gas emissions produced within a country over a year.

And this is really the equation right here.

So it starts with looking at every activity having an emission factor, and this is the amount of CO2e it emits.

So for example, in the example of driving, CO2e released per mile of driving, this then is multiplied by the activity levels.

For example, how many miles are driven per year in a country.

Carbon removals are then subtracted, for example, the amount of CO2 absorbed by the country's soil and trees.

And this thereby gives you your country carbon footprint.

So individual carbon footprint, so carbon footprints related to perhaps you or me, are calculated by estimating total greenhouse gas emissions produced by a person's daily activities over a period, and it's usually a year.

Carbon footprint calculators can be used to work out this estimate.

And they typically do this by asking you a series of questions about your lifestyle.

Emission factors are then used to calculate your estimate, and these are an example of four different questions that are typically asked when trying to calculate your carbon footprint.

So it's questions such as, how often do you eat beef? How many times do you fly per year? How warm do you keep your home in winter? How much do you spend on clothes and footwear per month? These are the types of different questions that are asked to try to calculate your individual carbon footprint.

Now, you may like to pause the video here whilst you consider your answer to those four different questions on the screen, or better still, even have a discussion with someone near you.

Time now for a learning check.

It says, which of these foods has the highest carbon footprint? So you can see you've got A, beef, B, cheese, and C, lentils.

What you need to do is pause the video here whilst you consider and then select your answer.

And the correct answer was A, beef.

Now, this may be related to things such as deforestation, but really, really well done if you too were able to select A as the correct answer.

Our next learning check says true or false? Knowing the carbon footprint of a product or activity helps people make choices that contribute towards reducing carbon emissions.

So once again, I'd like you to pause the video here whilst you consider whether this statement then is true or false.

And the correct answer was true.

Now, once again, I'd like you to pause the video whilst you consider as to why or how this statement is true.

And the reason it's true is that seeing what activities are increasing your own carbon footprint makes it possible to actually make changes that reduce carbon emissions.

Choosing products with smaller carbon footprints over those with larger footprints does the same.

However, the biggest emitters of carbon are not actually individuals, but rather companies and industries.

So how do we hold them to account for emissions? So once again, you may like to pause the video here whilst you have a discussion about that final question.

Time now for our practise questions.

And we have two practise questions for our first learning cycle.

And the first one says to study this graph and explain two reasons why carbon footprint per person varies between countries.

The second question says that Sofia wants to reduce her carbon footprint.

I would like you to suggest four changes she could consider making.

And here's one to start you off.

Consider eating less beef and pork and reducing the amount of dairy in your diet as these have relatively high carbon emissions.

So what you need to do right now then is pause the video here whilst you attempt these two practise tasks.

Best of luck.

And now time for some feedback.

So for the first question, your answers could have included the following.

One reason could be what people eat because diets with a lot of meat and dairy in them have much higher carbon emissions due to factors such as methane emissions from livestock.

A second reason could be how often people drive their own petrol or diesel cars.

Countries where people cannot afford their own cars and most people walk, cycle, or travel by public transport would have lower carbon footprints per person as a result.

And now the second question.

Now, your suggestions may have included the following.

Walk, cycle, or use public transport instead of using the car.

Recycle, reuse, and buy secondhand where you can.

Wash clothes at a lower temperature and avoid tumble drying where possible.

Reduce food waste by planning meals and using leftovers.

Calculate your carbon footprint online and see where you can make the biggest emission savings.

So really, really well done if you were able to include anything like that in your own answer.

We're on now to our second and final learning cycle, and this is all about changing attitudes to energy consumption.

Carbon footprints and ecological footprints have been really, really important in changing attitudes to energy consumption.

They have made people feel personally responsible for the impacts of unsustainable energy consumption, and it's about changing those attitudes, trying to make people more aware about their carbon and ecological footprint so that perhaps we can make changes to our lifestyles.

There are several reasons for these changing attitudes towards our energy consumption.

For example, climate change awareness.

Activism by campaigners like Greta Thunberg, media coverage of IPCC reports, really are trying to show us the effects of our over energy consumption.

There are also government policies as well.

For example, the UK's net zero targets have affected consumer products, building regulations, and once again raising awareness.

Next, there's education.

Schools are much better today about teaching about the importance of sustainability and the impacts of climate change caused by you and me, by individuals, but also by companies as well.

And then also there's the rising energy costs.

Now, consumers are interested in ways to actually reduce those costs through energy efficiency as well as energy conservation.

Affluence, or should I say wealth, is related to attitudes to energy consumption, but in really, really complex ways.

Affluent societies can afford more, and this is increasing energy consumption.

There's more technology perhaps in the house and this therefore uses more energy.

Affluent societies can afford more energy-efficient technologies though.

So on the one hand, they're using more energy, but the technology that they're using is using more energy-efficient technology.

Affluent societies are better educated and this is often linked to increased environmental awareness.

So yes, on the one hand, affluent societies have more technology and this is using more energy, but a lot of this technology is more energy-efficient.

And also, affluent societies are more educated and more aware about the global issues as a result of high energy consumption.

Affluent societies may feel they're doing enough by, for example, buying sustainable coffee and recycling.

Affluent societies measure success by things such as exotic holiday destinations and bigger houses.

So there may be this complacency in affluent societies that they're doing enough by buying sustainable coffee or recycling when perhaps it's barely touching the surface.

But also success in affluent societies is by having more, doing more, going places, and buying things.

And all of this comes with a carbon footprint.

Time once again for a learning check.

And it says, true or false? Rising affluence, so money wealth, does not always make societies care more about reducing unsustainable energy consumption.

So what you need to do once again is pause the video whilst you consider whether the statement is true or false.

And the answer is true.

Now, once again, I'd like you to pause the video whilst you consider as to why or how this statement is true.

And the reason it's true is that societies that have taken steps to reduce energy consumption do include affluent ones, but the main reason why unsustainable energy consumption is increasing globally is people getting wealthier in developing countries and emerging economies.

So really well done if you were able to get those two answers correct.

Next learning objective says, which one of these reasons for changing attitudes to energy consumption would UK net zero targets best fit into? So once again, you've got four different options on the screen.

What you need to do is pause the video whilst you consider and then select your answer.

And the correct answer was C, government policies.

Really well done if you were able to select C as the correct answer.

Now around the world, there is some significant opposition to net zero targets.

Net zero policies are part of the way many governments around the world are reducing carbon emissions to more sustainable levels.

In the UK, there are really significantly high levels of support for net zero targets, but some groups have concerns and the concerns mainly centre around the following.

For example, will net zero policies be too expensive for households and businesses? Will net zero policies mean people aren't as free to live the way that they want to? And finally, will net zero policies make a difference if other countries around the world just keep emitting the same or more carbon emissions? And as Alex says, or he asks a really good question, which I want you to consider as well, "What would these groups, what would these groups who are concerned want to do instead of net zero?" Now, you may like to pause the video here whilst you consider your own answer to that question.

So how is the UK actually planning to achieve net zero by 2050? Plans include the following.

Electricity generation to be decarbonized by 2035.

Now, how is the UK going to do that? It's going to try to expand its offshore wind farms and invest in more nuclear power, nuclear power stations, as well as solar energy, and thereby completely decarbonize its electricity generation.

Furthermore, there's gonna be nature and land use.

So trying to bring in more afforestation programmes, planting more trees, but also more sustainable farming methods as well.

Zero-emission vehicles, banning the sale of new petrol or diesel cars by 2030 and more investment in EV infrastructure, so charging points as well as in public transport as well.

Then there's also carbon capture.

So add CCS or carbon capture storage to industrial clusters can actually capture nine million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2035.

So actually removing the carbon dioxide that's already in the atmosphere.

Next, there's green technology.

So offering grants, for example, for hydrogen fuel technology.

And finally, building and heating.

This is a really important factor.

So solar panels and heat pumps in all new builds, all new homes can support, as well as support for insulation and boiler upgrades.

So trying to make our homes more energy efficient and thereby reduce the amount of energy that we are consuming for heating, for example.

So before, we looked at the different concerns of people towards net zero and the opposition then to net zero, and one of the concerns or questions they had was, do net zero policies add to the cost of living for people? Well, in the short term, yes.

For example, EVs are much more expensive than petrol cars.

However, governments provide subsidies so they give some money or they reduce the cost of certain items to actually help people pay for energy-efficient technology.

In the long term, energy-efficient tech saves people money and the cost of doing nothing on climate change is very high as much as 3.

3% of GDP by 2050.

So perhaps it's worth the expense of these net zero policies because in the long term, it's actually cheaper.

As Izzy says, "I heard too that EVs are getting cheaper as the technology improves," and this is 100% correct.

The next concern that people had was around freedom.

The question really was do net zero policies mean people can't make their own decisions or make their own choices? Policies aim to guide people's behaviour rather than to control them.

For example, when new petrol and diesel cars are banned, people can still choose to drive old petrol and diesel cars.

There's no law stopping them from doing that.

However, net zero policies will make some choices less affordable and less attractive as a result.

Now, Lucas asks a really good question, a moral dilemma, "Should some individuals always be able to do what they want if it isn't good for lots of other people?" Now, you may like to pause the video here whilst you consider your own answer to that question or discuss it with someone near you.

The next concern really centred around this question, which was, will net zero policies make a difference if other countries keep on emitting carbon? Well, if all countries wait for others to act, then no progress would be made at all.

One country needs to make the first step for other countries to follow.

They need to be that trailblazer.

Any reduction in emissions helps to reduce the impacts of climate change.

And green technology creates jobs and boosting economic growth.

Countries that act earlier may become leaders in this technology and therefore could perhaps sell this technology to help other countries reach their net zero targets.

Now ,Aisha asks a really good question.

She says, "The only country in the world to withdraw from the Paris Agreement is the USA.

That's correct, right?" Well, the USA has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, but many individuals, businesses, and state governments in the USA are continuing with green policies.

For example, the state of California remains a leader in green policies despite the USA's federal government's position on reducing carbon emissions.

Time now for a learning check.

It says true or false? In the short term, net zero policies may add to the cost of living for people in the UK, but in the long term, net zero policies should reduce these costs.

So what you need to do right now then is pause the video here whilst you consider and then select your answer.

And the correct answer was true.

Now, once again, I'd like you to pause the video whilst you consider as to why or how this statement is true.

And the reason it's true is that energy-efficient techs, such as electric vehicles and upgraded heating options, are expensive.

And in the short term, they could add to the people's cost of living expenses.

But over the long term, energy efficiency reduces energy costs as well as reducing high costs from the impacts of climate change.

So really well done if you were able to get those two answers correct.

So time now for our two final practise tasks for our final learning cycle, and the first one says to outline what this survey data says about attitudes to net zero in the UK.

Now, these are the results of government surveys on the expected impacts on the UK economy of the transition to net zero, and the surveys were carried out in summer 2023 and summer 2024.

So please then make sure you analyse these two survey graphs in detail.

The second question says to suggest three reasons why a majority of people in the UK want to reduce the UK's carbon footprint.

And the two resources in front of you are included to indicate possible reasons.

Figure A is showing climate change and extreme weather, and figure B is showing air pollution and fossil fuels.

So please pause the video here whilst you attempt these two practise tasks.

Best of luck.

Time now for some feedback.

For the first question then, your answer may have included these points.

So overall, most people, over 50% who answered the survey, thought that net zero would have some positive economic impacts in the long term.

For the short term, fewer people thought net zero would have positive impacts on the economy around 22%.

And more people thought net zero would have negative impacts up at 37%.

For both long term and short term, the percentage of people who didn't know went down slightly from 2023 to 2024.

For the second question then, your reasons could have included the following.

Concern about climate change.

This would make people want to reduce the UK's carbon footprint because they wanted to avoid a future with a more extreme weather caused by climate change.

As well as concern about air pollution.

The health impacts of air pollution might make people interested in reducing emissions from fossil fuels, especially those used for transportation in order to improve air quality in cities.

It continues, economic reasons.

People might see green technology as something that could help the UK's economy grow and create new jobs.

As well as ethical reasons.

People might feel responsible for causing environmental problems for people in other countries who are being hit the hardest by climate change now.

And finally, concern about the UK's ecological footprint from people who want to reduce carbon emissions as part of actions to reduce impacts on nature.

So really well done if you were able to include anything like that in your own answer.

Time now for our learning summary and what do we need to know from today's lesson.

We need to know that carbon and ecological footprints have influenced attitudes to energy consumption.

Most people in the UK actually support actions to reduce unsustainable energy consumption.

Attitudes though do recognise that net zero has costs, especially in the short term.

So really, really well done during today's lesson.

It was a pleasure teaching you, and I will see you again on the next lesson.

Goodbye.