Posts Tagged carbon
Good News! But It Was Well Hidden Amongst The Bad News
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change, News on November 14, 2011
You may have read an article in the Guardian this week (or elsewhere) telling us that greenhouse gas emissions are up to the levels predicted in only the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios. So despite the decades of warnings, it appears that we’re still ploughing headlong into self-destruction. Oh well, no surprise there.
Normally, I would relish writing a post on this and why it’s going to be the death of us all, and how the planet’s doomed, etc, etc. However, I am not feeling too good this week, and being in such a fragile state, I don’t actually want to linger on the bad news. Instead I want you to read a more uplifting paragraph from the same article. (Plus, I am using this as an excuse to be lazy and just settling for a little re-blogging).
First of all, just to keep you up to speed, here is the crux of the original story: The latest figures that show the levels of greenhouse gases humanity is chucking into the atmosphere are way up there with the worst case scenarios forecast in all the climate models and predictions. In other words… we’re buggered. But like I said; I can’t be bothered with that right about now.
The good news I wanted to share with you is this:
“The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gas limiting treaty have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8% below 1990 levels”. (I personally think this should be front-page news, but the media doesn’t do happy stories, does it?)
So you see? We can do it. There is a ray of hope. Enough said. That’s it for this post… I’m off now to suffer in the throws of my man-flu. Peace.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photo courtesy of Max Blain
The Heavens Look on as Wind Power Gets the Ultimate Approval…
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on August 18, 2011
I appologise if the title of this post may be a bit grand and hyperbolic; all I really want to do is show you a photograph. But hey, in these days of tags, keywords and search engine optimization, I think I can be excused for using a slightly over-inflated title, can’t I?
So then, all I ask you to do is look at this photo and see if you can see the eyes?
I’ll admit that I didn’t even notice these eyes until my (cloud-gazing) brother pointed them out to me. (If you’re having trouble, there is one eye on each side of the top blade)
The only explanation I can come with for this phenomenon is that it must be the heavens looking on in approval (although, I do think these ethereal eyes also look a tad like the Mona Lisa’s).
So that’s it then. The wind debate is over. Whether or not people argue that wind power is too expensive, blots the landscape, turns migrating birds into shredded duck and doesn’t really work anyway; we have official word from the Big Man Upstairs that it’s ok by him; and that’s good enough for me.
Well that’s it for now. There’ll be no news from me next week as I’m going on holiday; off for a round the world trip consuming lots of jet fuel, disposable aviation cutlery and staying in lots of expensive hotels… Nah, just kidding. I’m going camping in Devon. Back soon…
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photo courtesy of Scottish Power via Renewable UK
Searching to Save the Rainforest
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Products and Tips on August 15, 2011
There’s an internet search engine I’ve been using for the last couple of months, which gives 80% of the money it receives from sponsored links towards rainforest conservation. Great in principle, but does it work? Well, read on…
The search engine is called Ecosia, and if you haven’t heard of it yet, then I recommend you give it a try. Initially I thought this would be just another green gimmick; but as I have subsequently come to realise, there is very little difference between this search engine and most of the others out there. The overriding difference is that by using this one you come away from the computer feeling that you may have actually done a little bit of good while performing what is an ever-increasingly, everyday task.
Now, please pardon my laziness, but all of the following information is taken from Ecosia’s own literature so do excuse me if I just copy, paste and let them tell you the important stuff:
How It Works: In a nutshell
- You search with Ecosia.
- Perhaps you click on an interesting sponsored link.
- The sponsoring company pays Bing or Yahoo for the click.
- Bing or Yahoo gives the bigger chunk of that money to Ecosia.
- Ecosia donates at least 80% of this income to support WWF’s work in the Amazon.
Why the rainforest?
Six reasons why sustaining the world’s rainforests is important:
- Tropical rainforests are the most diverse ecosystems on our planet. More than 30 million species call these regions home – that’s two-thirds of all the world’s species.
- Deforestation and the resulting increase in CO2 emissions are considered the second largest cause of climate change today.
- Rainforests function as the “lungs (of) our planet“: they absorb and trap a massive amount of CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere, keeping the natural balance in check.
- Thanks to their pivotal role in regulating Earth’s climate, tropical rainforests help sustain the lives of all humans beings – not just the estimated 50 million natives inhabiting these regions.
- The past 50 years saw the destruction of half of the world’s tropical rainforests. At the current rate, an area the size of thirty soccer fields is destroyed every minute.
- Despite the immense threat that exists to the rainforest, purely political solutions to its destruction have proved insufficient.
So does it really give money to the rainforest, or is it just a publicity stunt?
Well, if you look at the screenshot above which was taken on the 6th of July 2011, and compare it to the screenshot taken today (15th August 2011), you can see that in the space of 40 days, Ecosia has donated £16,621 to the rainforest. So yes, it does work. What it also highlights is that I’m in the wrong business; sixteen grand in just 40 days? Blimey, no wonder Google has more money than God!
And my verdict is…
Well after a couple of months use, I have to say that this is now my search engine of choice. It easily does the job as good as any others, such as Ask. However, having said that, for a more in-depth search I have had to resort back to Google a couple of times. If, for example, you are searching for a reasonably well-known blog or product, then Ecosia will sort you out with no worries (and you may end up helping to contribute to rainforest conservation). If your search is for something a little bit more obscure then you may have to look elsewhere; but like I said, this has only happened to me once or twice.
In summary then…
Ecosia is a great little search engine: It’s quick, it’s thorough and unlike many novel ideas such as this, it actually works just as well as its counterparts. I’ve made it my primary search engine for about a month now and would highly recommend it to anyone.
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 Ecosia
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
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
Beware: These Images Are Banned
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on June 15, 2011
I sincerely hope that by bringing you this post I am not going to get into any trouble. I say this because, first, I am reproducing somebody else’s work without consent. Second, this work has been banned by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA).
I am referring to Act on CO2’s climate change adverts that were banned last year. I looked at them again the other day and had a right good giggle. Therefore, at the risk of infringing advertising law, I thought I would bring you these highly sensitive and extremely contentious banned adverts.
Just before we proceed: Because I haven’t asked the Act On CO2 campaign (i.e. the government) for their permission to use these images, I think I should at least aim to appease their lawyers by pointing you in the direction of their website… their facebook page… and their twitter account. Hope that’s ok guys.
PLEASE NOTE: The following images have been censored as overblown, exaggerated and downright silly. Read on only if you have the stomach for it…
Dodgy stuff eh? Here’s some more…
And my personal favourite…
The stated reasons from the ASA for banning these were because “the claims about the possible advent of strange weather and flooding in the UK, and associated imagery, were exaggerated, distressing and misleading”. Oh yes, very distressing; I’d better not show the kids.
They say these adverts were banned for over-exaggerating climate change; fair enough, that’s their prerogative. But I wonder why other adverts that over-hype and blatently lie about the effects of their product still allowed. For example: it’s quite obvious to most people that just because you spray on a little bit of Lynx deodorant, girls are not going to throw themselves at your feet (I know, I’ve tried). Drinking Red Bull will not give you wings. Or perhaps you’ve sat there waiting for hours on end for your Citroen C4 to transform into a robot and do a funky little boogie in the car park; it’s not gonna happen.
In all these cases, it’s the message and that counts and how this message is conveyed is given a large amount of artistic licence, yes? So then, even under the agreement that these adverts’ claims on climate change aren’t proven, should there not have been some allowance for a little imagination and humour? Enough said.
Finally then, I would like to sign off with Act On CO2′s poignant message: It’s Our Children Who Will Pay The Price.
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…
Thanks to What’s Up With That for the original images, which can be found here, here and here.
Energy Related Carbon Emissions Are Up: Or Is That Made Up?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change Denial on June 10, 2011
So, the International Energy Agency has told us that energy related carbon emissions reached an all time high last year. Not really surprising, but is this going to make a jot of difference to some of the nonsense being emitted by climate change denialists? I doubt it.
After the recession afforded the Earth a little breathing space in 2008 and 2009, we are now back to our old ways and pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Energy sector emissions in 2010 reached a staggering 30.6 gigatonnes, or, put another way: 30,600,000,000 kilograms.
Please don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against climate change denialists per se; and I honestly think that there needs to be a counter balance within this debate. What does frustrate me, however, is the notion that climate change has been conjured up by those in power to hike up taxes and inflict any number of horrible schemes upon us – the innocent public. Let’s be realistic here people; they’ll raise taxes anyway.
I can fully appreciate the uncertainty inherent in climate science: unforeseen feedback loops, oceanic thermal currents and the unpredictability of global weather patterns. I mean the BBC weather people almost always get it wrong over the 5 day forecast; let alone the next century. (And if you can’t trust the BBC, then who can you trust?)
Because of this uncertainty and the gradual, almost imperceptible nature of climate change, it is very easy for us humans to wonder if this is for real and if we should really believe the hype.
Well, lets ask ourselves: what’s actually at stake? Anything that’s really important to us?
Off the top of my head I would say:
- Global food and pharmaceutical production (we kind of need food, and drugs are pretty handy too)
- Potential mass migration (the UK seems to struggle with just a few plumbers from Poland)
- Life in the oceans (no more fish fingers, dagnammit)
- Many of the Earth’s plant and animal species (us included)
- The whole space and time continuum (well, maybe I made that one up).
So that’s just a tiny part of the list, but I think some of the stuff above is pretty important. Don’t you?
When it comes to denial, it’s like I said: many, many, many of the climate scientists’ predictions are not set in stone and may never happen (hopefully). However, there are some things that science seems pretty certain about:
- CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Fact.
- Greenhouse gases are partially responsible for maintaining Earth at a nice cosy (average) temperature. Fact.
- We have just pumped record levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Fact.
To me this looks like the climate scientists may be onto something when they tell us that putting extra CO2 into the system may have some dodgy results for all of us.
Now, if we take these scientific certainties versus the high stakes, we come up with the chance – I repeat; the chance – that our climate will be adversely effected. In light of this, would it not be wise to be a little bit cautious? Just a tad? You know: curb the emissions, find alternatives to power our lives, change some of our destructive behaviour: that kind of thing.
I admit that there are people out there who would have us all living back in the Measly Middle Ages, but I’m not one of them and I certainly don’t want that. However, when people are shouting, and posting and blogging and digging and tweeting about how climate change is a hoax, perhaps they wouldn’t mind easing off a touch and looking at the certainties; there are a scary amount of them.
So there it is; another blog having a pop at the denialists (I still don’t know if that’s a real word). But, in my defence, these guys are always doing a little “I told you so” dance when a piece of hard scientific evidence backs up their argument. I am now doing the same; so there.
Energy related emissions are at a record high. Isn’t it time even the sceptics try to do something about this?
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 Julia Pivovarova and Lostbear
The Daily Mail Strikes Again
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on May 31, 2011
If you are the owner a wood burner or open fire, get rid of it now BEFORE IT KILLS YOU!!!
Sorry; no need to panic. I was just using some Daily Mail style hyperbole to get you to read my article.
You may think I’m exaggerating about the hyperbole, but trust me, I’m not. I have just been forwarded an article by this ‘news’paper telling us that wood burners will give you cancer. For real; read it here if you want.
So what is this information doing in an environmental blog? Well, in my opinion, wood burners are good for the planet: they use a renewable fuel, they use a fuel that’s carbon neutral, they use a fuel that can be sourced locally, plus they can replace or augment radiators in your home, lowering its carbon footprint.
So not just as an environmentalist, but also as a conscientious reader of the news, I am fundamentally opposed to articles such as the one in question, which turn a quite ordinary piece of news into the end of the world as we know it.
This reckless journalism by the Mail isn’t doing anyone any favours. Ok, agreed, it is reporting one of science’s latest findings; but telling us that breathing in smoke is bad for you? Well duh!? What a revelation that is!
What I find irresponsible is the fact that they use these findings to try and convince us that wood burners and open fires are evil. If they were that bad Santa would be long dead by now… and he’s not. Is he?
Now I’ve got no beef with the story itself, it is vaguely interesting and based on fact, but titling it ‘Wood-burning stoves can be as deadly as exhaust fumes by producing smoke that can cause heart disease’ is just a tad over the top isn’t it?
Fair enough, the author mentions health impacts associated with open fires in the developing world, but we already knew that burning fires inside homes comes with an element of risk.
It’s not until the last few paragraphs that the author actually gives us some useful information about how best to burn wood to avoid unnecessary smoke. Thanks for the advice. Seriously.
I would like to know what the reporter suggests for those of use who use wood burners and open fires so we don’t kill ourselves. Should we replace them with electric heating systems and then all laugh when he writes a piece moaning about the wind turbine erected near his house to help produce the extra electricity?
Gosh what a pile of nonsense. Wood burners are great, so long as you don’t start breathing in the smoke. Got that? Don’t breath the smoke; it’ll give you cancer, you know.
If you’re considering buying a wood burner or resuscitating that old open fire in the front room; go right ahead. It’s not just good for the natural environment, but it’s also good for your own personal environment: the ambiance created by burning wood in the corner is unbeatable. Don’t listen to these spoilsports who have nothing better to do than sensationalise the normal.
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 Vladimir Tatarevic
