Archive for July, 2011
Eco-Lie#2: Eco cars? I Don’t Flippin’ Think So!
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Eco-Lie on July 29, 2011
Ok, next in line for a telling off in the Great Eco-Lie Outbreak are a number of car manufacturers: namely Vauxhall, Renault, Seat, Ford and KIA (this list grows as I find them).
On a couple of occasions recently, while trundling along minding my own business, I have noticed that written on the back of the (painfully normal) car in front is the word ‘eco’. Well, the profanities issuing forth from my mouth at this point are akin to those normally reserved for middle lane drivers and those who don’t signal at roundabouts (Oh, I can feel my blood boiling right now). Ok, well maybe the word ‘eco’ in connection with a car doesn’t make me that mad; but it does still make be blink twice in incredulity.
What on Earth is ‘eco’ about a car? Yes they are necessary, yes I own one, and yes a little Fiat 500 is better for the planet than a Range Rover. However, all cars pollute the atmosphere, require enormous amounts of raw materials and energy to manufacture and when they reach the end of their relatively short life (around 8 years or 150,000 miles) they require a huge amount of infrastructure to dispose of properly – which, admittedly has improved in recent years.
I agree that it’s a good thing these manufacturers are addressing their products’ impact on the planet, but calling cars green is stretching it at best; calling them ‘eco’ is just way off the mark. And also (yes I know, one shouldn’t start a sentence with ‘and’, but I’m having a rant so leave me alone) … where was I? Oh yes. And also, when they add this word ‘eco’ they follow it up with some marketing spiel like, “because we feel you shouldn’t have to compromise performance just because you want a car that’s kind to the planet, blah, blah, blah”. Ok then, if you’re not sacrificing performance; why not make all of your cars like this’?
In fact, don’t take my word for it, here’s some sales pitch from Vauxhall, written verbatim – but watch for the twist at the end: “We all love cars and we all love to drive. We still want performance, practicality and a pleasurable experience behind the wheel. The big question is – can you have both?” Erm, both? Don’t you mean all three? Blimey, who writes this stuff? More to the point, who checks it? Idiots.
Ford also make me laugh with their sales pitch: “So while you’re helping the environment, you’ll be helping your bank balance too.” Since when did buying a brand new car help either the environment or one’s balance? Fools.
Now I’m sure that most of the owners of these cars feel they are doing their bit by buying an ‘eco’ model, and perhaps they are. I must also praise some manufacturers for really making an effort to improve their impact on the planet. However, I just can’t agree that a word essentially meaning ‘in harmony with nature’ is used to describe a car. Hyundai, for instance, call their lower emissions range Blue Drive. Nice.
So, that being said, am I simply getting hung up on a single word, when the concept is the same? You betcha I am! My problem is what that word conveys, and when it’s used so out of context, then I believe it to be misleading. Yes, I do have a problem with that.
One last thing on the subject of cars: Is it me, or is the BMW X6 by far the most pretentious car on the road, mostly driven by guys with a massive ego and a tiny… conscience?
So there. Another one to add to the great Eco-Lie outbreak. Next time, I shall look at an Eco-Lie that anyone who has stayed in a hotel cannot have missed. Can you guess what it is?
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photos courtesy of Jean Schweitzer and Taylor Jackson
Sitting on the Nuclear Fence
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on July 25, 2011
As an environmentalist, concerned parent and lover of all things non-radioactive, I feel that I should be fundamentally opposed to nuclear power. Unfortunately though, this issue has me in a bit of a quandary:
We are currently careering headlong towards hugely destructive climate change and a potential energy crisis. However, no matter what we may think of nuclear power, it could help to alleviate some of the pressure on society.
In light of these uncomfortable facts – much like a Greenpeace banner – I find myself perched on the proverbial fence.
The Fukushima disaster in Japan has really split the world’s nuclear power producers on where to go next: Japan’s Prime minister is calling for a nuclear-free future; Germany has said it is to phase out nuclear power by 2022; Switzerland will halt expansion of its nuclear programme; and the Italians have also voted no to nuclear. On the other hand, France is to spend a further 1 billion Euros on nuclear energy production; the USA is hinting at building 4-6 new units by 2020; and although the UK’s coalition government can’t make up its Tory/Liberal mind, it does seem that a future with nuclear energy is on the cards.
So where do I stand on this issue? (Bloody good question!)
Yes, nuclear power scares me: My concerns are over the hugely polluting process of uranium mining, what to do with the waste, nuclear proliferation and potential accidents (Fukushima showed that nothing can be ruled out and France has just had an accident). I’m not going to go into detail as we all know why we fear nuclear. However, while all of these are issues of great magnitude, so is climate change and our dwindling reservses of fossil fuels.
Where I feel pulled over to the other side of the fence is in relation to CO2 emissions. As we all know, man-made CO2 emissions from electricity creation (among other things) are causing our climate to change in a way too fast for us and the natural world to keep up with. This has potentially devastating results for all inhabitants of planet Earth. Nuclear power provides an answer to this in that its CO2 emissions are practically zero.
The future?
The future of nuclear power may be glowing bright due to some new inventions: a hybrid fission/fusion reactor that takes nuclear waste sludge and turns it into electricity, and nuclear batteries.
Now don’t worry folks, we aren’t going to see our little ones placing highly radioactive batteries into their new toys come Christmas morning, and then watching them cook the turkey just by standing next to it. No; nuclear batteries are refrigerator size mini reactors that could be placed at the centre of military bases, mining installations and other such large remote complexes. One company (among others) pioneering this technology is Hyperion, who have named this device The Hyperion Power Module. One of these babies will chuck out 25 megawatts and be capable of powering about 25,000 homes.
My first reaction to this technology is this: What’s to stop some crazy terrorist putting one in the back of a lorry, parking it outside the Houses of Parliament and blowing it up? Well, apparently they’ll be encased in so much concrete and security that it would be impossible to steal one. Hmmmm: Titanic? Unsinkable? I wonder… Talking of which; they are considering using them to power cruise ships as well. Ok then, I’ll rephrase the question: What’s to stop some crazy terrorist sailing a nuclear cruise ship up the River Thames, parking it outside the Houses of Parliament and blowing it up?
Jokes aside though, I do think that this technology could have a place in the future, especially in the developing world.
One of my biggest concerns over nuclear power is the waste that is creates. The amount of nuclear waste we produce steadily mounting and it can remain dangerous for thousands of years. This necessitates the need for it to be buried deep underground – but even then it still poses a risk.
An answer here could possibly be evident in the shape of the compact fusion neutron source (CFNS). This contraption will ingest nuclear sludge in one end and generate power at the other. According to an article in Fast Company, the CFNS will eat up so-called nuclear “sludge,” which is a dangerous, highly toxic, long-lived radioactive by-product of existing nuclear power stations. The sludge is formed into a jacket around the core fusion reactor. The CFNS spits out neutrons and heat which “burn” the sludge, releasing more energy as heat – which is used to generate more electricity -and reducing the sludge into less dangerous material.
Pure fusion reactors have long been the ultimate goal, since they release vast amounts of energy from small amounts of “fuel” and have very few dangerous by-products. But the Super X Divertor could act as a solution until the difficult problems of building a fusion reactor are solved.
Before you go panicking about nuclear fridges being driven into the centre of the world’s major cities or do a little celebratory dance because the answer to nuclear waste has been solved; slow down just a tad. Neither of the above technologies have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and we are still a long way from clean nuclear utopia.
For me, the issue of nuclear power tugs at my principles much like the issue of testing medicine on animals: I hate the thought of animals subjected to pain and death just so we can live longer; but would I sacrifice a member of my family to cancer just so these creatures don’t have to suffer? No, I wouldn’t. I also wouldn’t like to see the world plunged into catastrophic climate change and power outages just because nuclear power doesn’t sit well with our conscience.
The fact of the matter is renewable energy cannot fill the energy gap quickly enough – much as I wish it could. Additionally, fossil fuels cause climate change and are steadily running out, simultaneously becoming more and more expensive to extract – a price that we the consumer are paying.
Nuclear power may not be perfect, but it does have the potential to give us that emissions-free, back up supply we so desperately need.
In the meantime, however, hopefully we can sort out once and for all how best to use the sun, wind, water and waste as a means of supplying energy to the ever-increasing and ever-industrialising population of Planet Earth.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m desperate to live in world of completely clean energy and would love to see nuclear phased out altogether. But my fear of the effects of climate change lead me to ask if perhaps there may be a place for this technology.
So then, what should we do in regards to the future of nuclear power? Well, if I knew the answer to that, I would be writing my acceptance speech for the Noble Peace Prize; not this blog.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of Ian Bracegirdle, Mamay and Alban Egger
Badger Culling Won’t Help Fight Bovine TB: It May Even Make Things Worse
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Agriculture on July 18, 2011
This morning the government is due to announce its decision on the badger cull intended to reduce bovine tuberculosis (bTB). However, new research which has only just been published, shows that culling could not only be a waste of time, money and life, but it could actually make the problem worse.
After I posted links to related stories on Twitter yesterday and saw the response it garnered, I decided to stop the presses at the Review and write this post instead of the one I had originally planned, which was a look at the macrobiotic behaviour of the flu virus cell when exposed to various forms of Nestle chocolate and how that may be employed against the expansion of Tesco.
So, joking aside (yes that was a joke), the issue of badgers causing bTB in herds of cattle is actually very serious, and has been around for many years now. Over the last 10 years, it’s estimated to have cost the British taxpayer around £500 million and caused no end of heartache to the affected farmers.
The problem is that roaming wild badgers can spread bTB to herds of cattle, and farmers organisations claim that killing the badgers will vastly reduce the spread and impact of the disease. Consequently, the UK government is having to make a decision as to whether to let farmers in western England embark on a shooting spree to cull the said badgers.
In 2009, 1 in 10 herds were infected with bTB, resulting in the premature slaughter of 35,000 animals. According to Defra’s chief scientific advisor, shooting badgers that may infect a herd is the most cost effective way of stopping the spread of the disease.
Recent research, however, which has been undertaken over the last 10 years, has found that culling around 11,000 badgers only reduced the number of bTB cases by 12-16%. It also found that badgers who survive the cull are likely to wander over further areas as their social structure is upset. This then has the effect of spreading the disease over an even greater area, a consequence known as the ‘perturbation’ effect.
These new findings are based on the analysis of data from a study by the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra): The 10-year Randomised Badger Culling Trial. The man behind the trials, Lord Krebs, said “You leave 85% of the problem still there, having gone to a huge amount of trouble to kill a huge number of badgers. It doesn’t seem to be an effective way of controlling the disease”.
While the farming community is understandably desperate to find a solution to this problem, they really should take note of this new research and – at worst – delay the forth-coming cull. If the government does grant them permission, they will be given practically free reign to exterminate as many badgers as they can find.
The National Trust is running an experiment over the next four years to see how effective trapping and vaccinating badgers may prove to be. There is also hope an oral vaccine will soon be developed, thus reducing the cost and effort considerably. Unfortunately this method can cost up to 10 times as much as shooting, which also raises the question of the farmers’ motivation for the badger cull; if it’s solely a cost issue, then that’s really sad. Hopefully the government will hold fire (pardon the pun) and see that a solution is on the way and mass extermination of the (often perfectly healthy) badgers is a draconian answer and will prove very unpopular.
The badger trust claims that cattle to cattle transmission is still the main cause of disease spreading to new areas and that the phenomenon of badgers spreading the disease is still not fully understood. They also say, “foxes, squirrels, rats and deer are among wildlife known to suffer from TB. But in 2008 Defra said two research projects had concluded that except for two species of deer the likelihood of other mammals (excluding badgers) being a significant source of infection to cattle was extremely low. It’s worth noting that all six species of deer in the UK suffer from TB”. It’s also worth mentioning that with the pasteurisation process, bTB will not pass to humans through milk.
Many scientists and conservationists, including the esteemed naturalist David Attenborough, argue that finding a vaccination against the disease is the only truly sustainable way to control bTB.
I hate to see animals killed for no good reason and a cull never sat well with me, but I was told by the powers-that-be that it was best for the long-term. This looks like it isn’t the case anymore, so I can’t sit idly by and watch thousands of innocent creatures slaughtered for no good reason. Hence this post.
If the decision does go against the poor old badgers today there is likely to be a legal challenge. If that happens, please spread the word about this new research and help get the decision reversed. Thanks.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of The Badger Trust
Yet More Anti-Green Clatter Spills Forth From The Daily Mail
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on July 14, 2011
The Daily Mail - that most beloved of English institutions – has released yet another anti-green article. This one seems designed to get Middle England all fired-up at the indignation of having to adjust the UK’s highly-polluting energy supply so as to protect our children from a future of devastating climate change. How awful!
This article – which, incidentally, was front-page news – is getting all flustered because it claims that families will have to fork out an extra £1000 a year as part of their energy bills in order to fund a switch to green energy and nuclear power.
What a load of rubbish. Nowhere will you find anyone in-the-know who agrees with this figure. It is plucked out of thin air simply to allow the Mail readers their daily 5 minutes of irritation at this cruel, cruel world. Even the Daily Telegraph – another paper that dislikes anything remotely green – only claims an increase in bills of £160 over the next 20 years. (Although, the way things are going, I’m expecting that type of increase on my bill next month).
The Mail’s reporter says that the move is intended to cut emissions to meet UK and EU targets. No. The move is intended to shift the UK toward a future where we can enjoy a clean, secure energy supply without polluting the atmosphere or worrying about Russia turning off the gas. Oh, and apparently it’s also intended “to appease the climate lobby”.
So what is this climate lobby then? Are they the ones who agree that climate change is a threat, or are they the energy companies who stand to make large profits from the upshot of this? Are they wind power advocates or supporters of nuclear power? Hmmm: A nice, clear-cut definition; thanks for that.
I’ll admit, I still don’t know where I stand with regards to nuclear power, but I have to say, it’s nice to see nuclear being mentioned in this article alongside the usual culprit, wind power.
So then, the Mail is getting on its high horse because we’ll all have to pay higher bills as we move away from a fossil fuel-based energy supply. I presume they are referring to these same fossil fuels that are responsible for the numerous, unrelenting price hikes we’ve suffered over last few years? Ok; great idea. Let’s just forget about green energy and stick with what we know shall we? That’ll really keep the costs down.
So where did the Daily Mail get this figure of £1000 per year from? Was it Ofgem? The Carbon Trust? The Department of Energy and Climate Change perhaps? No. It was a bank called UniCredit; well there’s some objective journalism for you.
Another of the sources in this article, Dr Benny Peiser, says, “Britain itself could be sitting on a gas gold mine, which would power homes for decades”. The only ‘gold mine’ I imagine he can be talking about is shale gas, and that’s a very bad idea.
Now, I’m not so naïve as to think we can have a lovely new clean energy system and not have to pay for it. But it really gets-my-goat (in case you hadn’t noticed) when papers like the Mail pull figures from sources that are employed simply to make good headlines.
Finally (and strangely) I would like to finish by saying a big thank you to the Daily Mail. Much as you annoy me with your journalistic tripe; without you I think I may struggle for material to use in my blog. Keep up the bad work and long may our relationship continue. Cheers.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of Daniel Gilby and npower Renewables (from Renewable UK)
Eco-Lie #1: Renewable Jet Fuel?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Eco-Lie on July 11, 2011
Humanity is currently at the mercy of a new and fearful outbreak of Eco-Lie.
No, I am not referring to the nasty, disease-inducing bacteria, but to companies that put a very dubious green spin on their products and processes by adding the word ‘eco’.
For me ‘eco’ means that something is ecological, that it is in tune with the sensitive ecosystem we call Earth. Altering a product to make it a little bit greener is commendable, but that does not make it ‘ecological’. I also want to expose other wrongful uses of the words: environmentally-friendly, green, renewable, etc. So, below are the main perpetrators of this latest Eco-Lie outbreak.
I will add to this category as I come across fresh offenders, but please, feel free to drop any Eco-Lies you come across in the comments box or via the facebook page. I will be more than happy to expose them for the scams that they are.
So then, Eco-Lie #1:
Boing says this about its new jumbo jet, “ The new 747-8 Freightliner flies to its international air show debut in historic fashion, crossing the Atlantic Ocean to the Paris Air Show using a renewable aviation jet fuel. This is the world’s first transatlantic crossing of a commercial jetliner using biologically derived fuel. Each of the airplane’s four-GE GEnx-2B engines is powered by a blend of 15 percent camelina-based biofuel mixed with 85 percent traditional kerosene fuel (Jet-A)”.
Ok Boing, you’re obviously trying to put a green spin on things, but don’t take us for fools: Renewable jet fuel? A biologically derived fuel? Erm, didn’t you say something about this being 85 percent kerosene? Please. Most of us are aware that biofuels are not really green. We also fear that should the aviation industry turn to this ‘clean’ form of energy, the problem will get a lot worse.
So Boing, you have made the Eco-Lie wall. Well done. An aeroplane fuel made of 85 percent kerosene is anything but ‘renewable’. When you manage to fly a plane on nothing but the massive amount of waste created by the airlines; then we’ll talk.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of iknowmeinuk
Putting a Green Spin on Things: Gas Powered Tumble Dryers
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Products and Tips on July 9, 2011
You may well have read my recent post on ceiling mounted airers, in which I looked briefly at the impact tumble dryers have on the planet. Well, in researching that post I found a surprising bit of kit that I never knew existed: the gas powered tumble dryer.
I’m well aware that the average domestic user shouldn’t really be using a tumble dryer, but perhaps you own a business that requires one, or maybe run a children’s football team and get lumbered with the kids’ muddy kit every Sunday evening. If you are one of these people then read on. If not; get a washing line.
There are 10 million tumble dryers in the UK, accounting for 4.3% of our domestic energy consumption. Ok… Stop for one second: 4.3% of our domestic energy consumption? Geez people, what’s wrong with the sun and the wind? Do we really have to throw so many clothes into these machines? I have a family of four, including two young, messy children, we live in small Victorian terrace and we have never, ever felt the need for a tumble dryer.
Anyway, sorry about the rant – on with the post.
Gas powered tumble dryers are beneficial to your pocket and the planet for the reason that they use gas, which is cheaper than electricity and emits less CO2
The average carbon emissions from a domestic electric tumble dryer are 159kg of CO2 per year and they cost about £37.00 to run (based on 148 4.7kg cycles) A gas tumble dryer should produce 54% less carbon than this and cost 61% less to run.
There is only one gas tumble dryer available in the UK market and that is the White Knight (a somewhat grand title for a clothes dryer, don’t you think?) However, you may be able to purchase a second hand gas tumble dryer from a launderette, which would be an even greener option (reuse); just remember to remove the coin mechanism – or perhaps not; it may look quirky and cool.
Of course there are some downsides to using a gas tumble dryer:
- They have to be fitted (and maintained) by a CORGI registered gas fitter; an electric version simply needs to be plugged in.
- If you use renewable electricity in your home, you will not benefit from any savings by using a gas tumble dryer. But then again, if you do have robust green principles and have taken the time and expense to install a renewable energy system, I’d be surprised to find a tumble dryer in your house anyway.
You can pick up a gas tumble dyer from about £300 so they’re not too expensive in comparison to electric models as is so often the case with ‘green’ technology.
To finish, I would like to say that we shouldn’t really be using tumble dryers at all. There are plenty of other ways to dry clothes without the need for these machines. Nevertheless, if you do truly need a tumble dryer, or feel you really can’t live without one, perhaps you should think about a gas powered version. At least it’s greener than the alternative.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photo courtesy of my mother-in-law. Gracias
Top Toilet!
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Products and Tips on July 4, 2011
I have just got back from a National Trust property and had to share with you my admiration for their composting toilet.
Of course I should say that I like it because it’s so environmentally-friendly: it’s made mostly from wood, it uses no water in its operation and it creates a useful end product in the form of compost. However, much as I love this privy for those reasons, my primary reason for sharing this with you is becasue it just looks so damn cool – relatively speaking of course.
One aspect I particularly liked was the door’s self-closing mechanism: two iron bars hung up on a piece of rope. I mean you have to admire the simplicity. (It would’ve been nice if the rope had been made from environmentally-friendly hemp; but you can’t have everything)
Now I would have liked to give you a proper review of this contraption: you know comfort, ambiance, lighting, warmth; that kind of thing; but I went before I left the house. Sorry.
Hopefully you can understand my excitement for this environmentally-friendly toilet (yeah right) and hopefully I have shown you that there can be more to public toilets than rude graffiti and George Michael.
Good work National Trust; let’s see some more of these please.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
