Posts Tagged ecosystem
Why Are We So Behind in the War on Plastic Bags?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Resource Efficiency on February 7, 2012
While the UK may be no eco-angel, it is nonetheless fairly good when it comes to environmental initiatives: a firm governmental backing of renewable energy and domestic recycling programmes are a couple of examples that spring to mind. When it comes to plastic bags, however, we are well behind other countries.
I spend quite a lot of time in the US, and one thing that constantly strikes me on my visits here is how well US businesses have done at lowering the use of plastic bags in their shops. We like to look at America as an environmental bad boy, but when it comes to the environmental plague of plastic bags, we fall far behind them. Of course there are still plastic bags issued in the US, but the majority of shops I have visited recently are giving away paper bags: Walgreen’s, Whole Foods, Crate and Barrel, Victoria’s Secret (ahem) and even Walmart – yes Walmart – have gone down the paper bag route.
In France – another country not really known for its eco-credentials – their biggest supermarket, Carrefour, now charges for plastic bags. So what’s wrong with the British retailers?
If you contact any supermarket about this matter, they will give you their usual spiel about how they are taking the plastic bag issue seriously, doing their bit, blah, blah, blah… What they really mean is they’re paying lip service, but can’t actually be bothered to tackle the problem properly.
Anyway… my reason for this post isn’t simply to have a moan (my usual reason for reaching for the keyboard), but to share a government petition that I think deserves our attention. It reads as follows:
17 billion plastic bags a year are given to British consumers. The average Briton accepts 5 times a weeks. 200 million tonnes of plastic is produced worldwide and 10% ends up in the ocean. When plastic bags get into the ocean they can entangle, suffocate and even kill marine animals. Plastic doesn’t biodegrade, it just breaks up into smaller pieces. The number of plastic bags issued by UK supermarkets in the past year has risen by 333 million. Plastic bags are becoming a big problem and there are better solutions! Instead we should have reusable cotton bags/recyclable paper bags/biodegradable starch based bags. Banish the bags and go with reusable/biodegradable ones instead! If we want to cut the amount of waste sent to landfill this is the big step forward…
These bags are menace to the planet and apart from offering meagre rewards as an incentive, UK supermarkets seem adamant on sticking to their current polices.
Ideally we should all be using reusable bags when we go shopping, but that’s not always possible, and besides, it’s unfair to place the entire obligation for this on the consumer. The retailer also has a duty here.
So assuming there will always be a necessity for retailers to provide bags, the natural alternative is for the traditional polyethylene bags to be replaced with paper ones. Now nobody can argue that the production of paper is without its own environmental impacts; but it’s much better than plastic. It doesn’t use fossil fuels to manufacture, the primary component can be gained from renewable resources and – most importantly – when discarded, the paper will biodegrade, causing far less damage to the natural environment.
So that’s it. If you’re a reader of this blog, you don’t need me to labour on about the perils of polyethylene. All you need to do is go and sign the petition and get the government to put pressure on the retailers. We live in one of the great democracies of the world… let’s use that voter power.
Sign it here. 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…
Why Can’t Creationists Just Accept That They’re Wrong?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on January 9, 2012
I have recently watched a number of anti-evolution/anti-big bang videos created by creationists (pardon the pun), and I cannot believe that people can be so blinded by faith.
The videos I’m referring to are from a Youtube user I follow, Potholer 54, and are all nominees for his annual Crocoduck Awards. In these videos we have a bunch of creationists who are all trying to persuade us that evolution is fake and that they can prove it; which of course not one of them manages to do.
My reason for putting pen to paper – in the digital sense – is because I was aghast at what some of these guys are trying to convince us of and, apart from shouting at the computer, the only other outlet for my frustration is this blog.
So, what is it that’s got me so annoyed? Well here are a few of the choice moments:
• A filmmaker positioned in the entrance hall to what is obviously a Christian convention asking the delegates how old they think the Earth is. Well duh! Obviously they’re all going to say it’s 6000 years old. And why is that? Because, apparently, if you add up all the years mentioned in the bible, it comes to 6000 years. Therefore, the Earth can only be 6000 years old because it’s written so in the scriptures. Yeah ok. It’s also written in the scriptures that a virgin had a baby and that, many years later, after being thoroughly crucified by the Romans (masters of execution of the time) that very same baby was able to resurrect himself enough and hold a conversation with his virgin mother. Right.
• Then we have a guy who says that the big bang never happened because all evidence for this is based on the Oort Cloud. He argues that it’s impossible for the Oort Cloud to exist because all evidence alluding to it is flimsy and, more importantly, no one has ever seen the Oort Cloud. Hence, he says, the big bang never happened and there must be a creator being instead. I put to this guy via his comments box that no one has ever seen the creator either (except in a story) and that, by his own argument, the creator cannot exist either. I got no reply.
• There’s Steve Harvey, who thinks all atheists are idiots and can’t understand how humans evolved from monkeys, if we still have monkeys today. Sorry, but who are the idiots?
• Then there are blokes – yes I say blokes; plural – who revel in telling us they find it impossible to make life by recreating the conditions similar to an early Earth in a test tube, or in one instance, a snow globe… yes a snow globe. Therefore it has been proven that life on Earth couldn’t evolve from simple proteins, amino acids etc. I mean how could it? If you can’t create life inside a snow globe, that has to be proof doesn’t it?
• In the first video there’s even a guy who is thinks he’s proving that there has to be a creator using the ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg’ argument as if he thinks no body out there can answer this question.
I could go on and on with these examples, but what I really want to talk about is why these guys feel that it’s so important to disprove evolution. If you are a true believer in God, then why can you not accept that perhaps He didn’t create the Earth and all life upon it? Does that truly undermine His ability to still be God. Well… I guess it does actually. Ok, so that’s the question posed in the title answered then. But there are still some things about anti-evolutionists that wind me up.
For example, an underlying theme of these videos is that it’s wrong to preach that evolution is factual because it has never been proved. Ok, for one, evolution has been proved over the last 200 years by the collection and assimilation of EVIDENCE. What is it about the creator story (Adam and Eve, the Earth created in 6 days, etc.) that seems to have people thinking that has been proved. Excuse me while I just bang my head on the desk… ah, that’s better.
It makes me laugh when the biggest anti-evolution argument appears to be a lack of evidence: “it’s only a theory”, “answer me this”, “answer me that”, but when you ask a creationist for their evidence, they will invariably point you in the direction of the bible. That’s it? That’s all they’ve got? And they accuse evolution of an acute lack of evidence? Oh please.
One guy in these videos is angry that a science teacher would dare to challenge the minds of 12-year olds by teaching them about evolution and allowing them to make their choices as to what they want to believe. As far as I’m aware, science in general feels that it’s fine to believe whatever you want; if you have faith and don’t believe in evolution, fine. However there are teachers out there who teach that God created the world, and if you believe in evolution you should be burned at the stake. Well, that seems fair I guess.
To me these arguments reek of desperation. I wonder if, deep down, half of these guys are saying what they do because they truly believe it, or just because they feel they have to. I’ve got nothing against people having a faith and I can see how truly uplifting it can be for many. But this banging on about evolution being a load of nonsense when the counter argument is based purely on faith just bewilders me.
Do go and watch some of these videos, but be prepared; they will wind you up…
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 Charles Darwin, Lisricka and someone called Anon
Perhaps Melting Icebergs Are A Good Thing…
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on January 2, 2012
At the fear of going against the environmental grain, I have been wondering recently if perhaps large sections of ice melting away from the poles may not be such a bad thing. No, I haven’t crossed over to the Dark Side; please read on and I’ll explain my thinking.
First of all; if any of you have read Gaia Theory by James Lovelock, my idea may be easier to comprehend. If not, then I will quickly explain what this notion is about as it’s fundamental to my idea. Well actually, I’ll let somebody else explain it, as they’ll be far more succinct than I ever could be:
“The (Gaia) theory asserts that living organisms and their inorganic surroundings have evolved together as a single living system that greatly affects the chemistry and conditions of Earth’s surface. Some scientists believe that this “Gaian system” self-regulates global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors in an “automatic” manner. Earth’s living system appears to keep conditions on our planet just right for life to persist.”
Ok. So the Earth is a self-regulating system that does its best to control the conditions on the planet so as to maintain life in this symbiotic relationship.
Some may argue – and many have argued – that as humans we have got out of control, gone beyond the Gaia System and that we are now throwing massive spanners into the works in the form of excessive greenhouse gases, pollution, deforestation, expansion, etc. However, Gaia is strong, adaptable and, like any good guardian, is doing her best to keep the planet from going all-to-pot.
Ok, I hear you ask, but what has this got to do with putting a positive spin on melting ice caps?
Well; let’s look at out bodies as similar self-regulating systems (which of course they are):
If we are too hot, our body has a natural countermeasure to cool itself down in the form of sweat. Agreed? Good.
If that doesn’t work, then a nice cool refreshing gin and tonic should do the trick… and what do you add to the glass to cool down your gin and tonic? That’s right. Ice.
Do you see where I’m going with this?
So then, if the Earth is a self-regulating system and it feels it’s getting too hot, particularly around the oceanic areas, maybe adding a drop or two of ice could prove be a prudent form of action. Returning to the thought posed by the title of this post, one has to ask the question that if the Earth wasn’t dumping large chunks of ice into an ever-warming ocean, what difference would that make to global temperature rise? Do we actually need these influxes of massive chunks of ice to prevent the oceans overheating and triggering runaway climate change?
Now before you get angry and think that I am irresponsibly spreading anti-climate science clatter please just bear in mind that (a) this is only a thought, (b) I am still a firm believer in the dangers of climate change and a firm advocate for action, (c) not nearly enough people read my blog for this to become a mainstream notion.
The optimistic side of me is saying that this is a brilliant form of cooling by the Gaia System and is buying us enough time to sort our act out and stop the harm we are inflicting on the planet and therefore to ourselves and our future generations. The less optimistic and slightly more realistic side of me is saying that this melting ice is simply a symptom of us warming the planet faster than it can cope with and is a harbinger of dangerous times to come. The highly pessimistic side of me is saying, yes, this is proof of the Gaia System trying to cool itself down but that’s of no help to us because if Gaia feels she needs to keep melting ice into the oceans to cool herself then we’re still buggered and we can kiss goodbye to the majority of our built environment and farmland to the water. Make no mistake; Gaia exists for the good of the planet, not the good of Humanity. If the Earth has to cool itself down, a losing a few billion humans in the process will not deter it one iota.
Having said this however, I hope you will take away the thought that although the idea of more and more ice melting into the sea is not appealing; perhaps a greater power is in fact looking after us and giving us that second chance to make amends. Let’s just make sure we use that second chance eh?
Happy New Year to you all!
GR
The book Gaia Theory is well worth a read and had a profound effect on me personally. But in case you want a bit more of an in-depth explanation of Gaia Theory right now, try this link so some text written by James Lovelock, the author of Gaia Theory.
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 Jose Tejo, Jan Martin Will and Tom Dowd
Climate Change: This Time, it’s Personal!
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on October 17, 2011
Until now, my concerns over climate change have been pretty much altruistic in their outlook. In other words, I’ve primarily been worried about the potential droughts, famine and floods that – let’s face it – will have a far worse impact on the poorer people of the world and our future generations than they will on us.
I’ve always thought that I will somehow remain sheltered from any cataclysmic climate events and that I personally won’t feel the nastier effects of our impact on the planet.
Not any more:
While reading recent news reports I have watched climate change creep a lot closer to home, sporting venomous fangs, multiple eyes and long hairy legs.
In a previous post, I had a moan about how climate change had altered the UK’s weather pattern and stolen my summer, which is bad enough on its own. Now though, it’s responsible for venomous, biting spiders appearing in UK homes, with potentially more to come.
I’ve always known that climate change could (and would) affect me in some way or another, but I figured this would be in the form of higher food prices, energy shortages or perhaps some exposure to extreme weather. I didn’t expect to have to worry about biting spiders.
This green and pleasant land I live in was once so gentle: If out for a stroll in the countryside, the worst one had to fear was prickles from a blackberry bush, a rose thorn stuck in a finger, a swipe from a stinging nettle, maybe a bee or a wasp sting, or – at very, very worst – an adder bite. All painful, but none of which life threatening – expect perhaps the adder bite in extreme cases. Being attacked by a spider, though, was almost unheard of, and it appears you can get bitten whilst just sat at home in the garden.
We are now seeing the nests of false widow spiders appearing in homes in Milton Keynes (of all places). According to Milton Keynes Council, “They won’t kill you but one person’s already had to go to hospital with symptoms including chest pain, nausea and vomiting.” Nice.
The false widow has been in the UK sometime, but was confined to a small area of Devon. This, however, has changed over the last few years and the spider is now spreading around the country.
Another arachnid delight we are seeing more of since the 1990’s is the tube web spider (the nice looking chap with green fangs pictured above). This is another invading venomous spider, and unlike native spiders, one that will not run away if provoked, but will jump up and attack you. “Well that’s simple”, I hear you say, “just leave them alone”. Ok, try telling that to my two-year-old wannabe-entomologist.
This is all because of climate change (and a little globalisation)
While global trade may be responsible for bringing the spiders here, it’s climate change that’s keeping them here. In the past these spiders would not have survived the UK winter, but the trend towards shorter, milder winters is allowing these immigrants to survive. Stuart Hine, of the Natural History Museum’s Insect Identification Service said that the much more dangerous black widow may not be far behind the false widow, and it may be “just a matter of time” until it shows up here. Marvelous.
Yes, I’m a wimp…
I have never really liked spiders. Nevertheless, I’ve had to man-up since being a father and a husband (more so the latter) and I do take my spider-purging duties very seriously. However, I have previously been comforted by the fact that none of the spiders I’m trying to squeeze between a glass and some paper will bite me. So how am I supposed to act like the man-of-the-house now that the spiders terrify me as much as they do my wife? (Although I don’t think I’ll ever let out a feral call of distress quite as chilling as she does on seeing one)
Like so many others concerned about climate change, I cannot promptly or personally do a thing about it. Naturally I do my best to avoid further environmental degradation: I make green choices wherever I can, and I also try to get others to do so too. But as far as what I can do about these invading spiders – I am helpless. I don’t like that. In no small part because it makes me oh so conscious that as individuals, no matter what we do, we are all strapped into this climate rollercoaster no matter where it may be going.
In regard to the spiders; all I can do is hope that a little bit of eco-karma will come my way, protecting me and my family for these nasty creatures, instead, sending them the way of the climate change denialists and those who just can’t be bothered to change. Yes; let these guys get bitten by a venomous spider while they are telling the rest of us that climate change is a myth concocted by the corporations, or whatever other nonsense they care to prattle on about. Maybe then they’ll realise this is for real.
As for me. Well, I know climate change is for real, but after reading these reports about venomous spiders – it just got a lot more real.
And here’s the really ironic part…
I wrote this blog on Saturday, all ready for publishing on Monday (hence this is just an addendum at the end). On Sunday afternoon, however, I went up to fetch some bits from my loft (attic) and what did I find crawling around in the rafters? A bloody false widow, that’s what! And a nasty-looking thing it is too. So much for eco-karma, eh? I’m off to buy a 4×4…
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…
Photos courtesy of eurospiders and Shae Cardenas
Have You Heard of Neonicotinoids? No, Nor Had I, But They’re Killing Our Honey Bees
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Agriculture on September 5, 2011
The national press recently told us about a resurgence in UK wildlife, with otters, red kites, egrets, salmon and peregrine falcons all making a healthy comeback. However, while this is great news, there is still one species – the honey bee – that is dropping off in alarming numbers.
It has been widely reported over the last 5 -6 years that honey bees are in trouble. But if you’ve missed all that here’s a quick recap:
Honey bees numbers are currently decreasing at an alarming rate, and nobody really knows why. The thing that is baffling entomologists is a phenomenon called colony collapse disorder (CCD). CCD was first observed in the USA about 6 years ago and has been perplexing and alarming beekeepers and scientists ever since. Basically what happens is the worker bees from a colony will simply disappear, leaving behind them a hive full of honey, larvae and one very lonely Queen bee. Mysteriously, in most cases no dead bees are found in or around the hive. (It’s almost like something from an M Night Shyamalan movie)
In 2007/2008 it was estimated that 70% of honey bees in the US disappeared due to CCD. Various reasons have been blamed on the dramatic decrease in bee numbers and a 2009 report into CCD (the first of its kind) reported that a “combination of different causes” we’re responsible. Now, I’m sorry, but for me that’s like the BBC saying the weather tomorrow will be ‘rather unsettled’ – in other words, they don’t really know what’s going on.
As humans relying on agriculture to survive, we consequently find ourselves dependent on the humble honey bee. It is estimated that bees pollinate 80% of our fruits and vegetables, or, to put it another way, the British Bee Keeping Association (BBKA) say, “One in three mouthfuls of the food we eat is dependent on (bee) pollination”. That’s a lot of food.
Let’s be clear here: This isn’t just about honey production people; this about the food supply for the entire human race (although I do rather enjoy honey too). Plus, if we loose this pollinator, it will make the food price increases we’re currently suffering seem like a mere inconvenience.
It is estimated that the value of the pollination from honey bees in the US alone is worth around £8bn; that’s a lot of extra money to find if the bees disappear.
Even more alarming is the research conducted by some French and German universities who put the cost of bees disappearing at €350bn (£310bn). The Soil Association has reported that, in 2007, Lord Rooker, then a DEFRA Minister, said, “If nothing is done about it, the UK honey bee population could be wiped out in 10 years”. None of this sounds like good news to me.
Of course that’s not all. If I remove my anthropocentric (selfish human) hat for a moment, it must also be noted that bees are a cornerstone species and losing them would be a massive blow to global biodiversity.
So what about these neonicotinoids then?
Ok, now to the point of this post: While nobody can say for sure what is causing this catastrophe, many factors have been blamed, including: GM crops; Varroa mites; mobile phone masts; climate change; a new pathogen called Nosema Ceranae; bad beekeeping practices; hive beetles and Asian hornets.
However, there does seem to be a consensus currently evolving that says neonicotinoids could be the primary suspect in this ‘who done it’ mystery.
Neonicotinoids are pesticides that are primarily designed to kill whitefly. They come under various different names and are inceasingly being recognised as a weapon of mass destruction when it comes to the bees. The trouble is that farmers are liberally spraying their crops with this stuff to protect them from pests, but as the bees pop in for a spot of lunch, they quickly find themselves the unintended victim.
These pesticides don’t kill the bees outright – which is part of the reason their effect may have gone undetected for so long and also why they are deemed ‘safe’ in agricultural trials. What they do is disrupt the neurological receptors in the bees, inhibiting their communication, foraging and homing abilities, smell, immune systems and learning functions; all of which are essential to the survival of a colony species, such as the bee.
France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia have all banned neonicotinoids to one degree or another, but far more action still needs to be taken if these chemicals are found to be responsible – even partly – for bee deaths.
Keith Pettitt, an experienced Sussex beekeeper, commented that ”urgent adequate funding from governments on a global scale to support authoritative, coordinated, independent research to establish if these insecticides are responsible for bee mortality and possible links to CCD is badly needed.”
Adding their weight to the beekeepers’ “widely held belief … that these insecticides are contributing or are directly responsible for bee mortality”, a number of concerned companies have now launched campaigns to ban neonicotinoids. Do have a look at these, and perhaps even get involved:
Scarily, there are many who argue that if nothing is done to protect them, the honey bees could be gone in just 20 years. Albert Einstein, is reputed to have said: “If the bee disappears off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left.” So if we do nothing or – even worse – if we can’t actually figure this one out, then by my calculations, humanity has about 24 years left. Well then, at least we can stop worrying about climate change.
This story almost feels like we’re back in the 1960′s and listening to Rachel Carson as she tells us about the effects of DDT. Will we never learn? Even if it turns out that the synergentic effects of all the suggested factors are causing a decline, and not just neocotinoids, surely we should still look to having them banned. They’re nasty. We can find a way around harmful pesticides.
Finally, moving to a much broader subject than just food production; bees have long been seen as a barometer for the health of the planet, a canary in the coalmine, so to speak. If what is happening to them is also happening to the natural world at large, we’re in big trouble.
I was going to produce a list here of things we can all do to help the bees, but Buzz About Bees has already done it, so use this link instead.
Let’s hope (and pray) we find a solution to this problem 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…
For more information, check out the trailer for what looks like a really cool documentry, The Vanishing of the Bees
Photos courtesy of Vladimir Ivanov, Buzz About Bees and Mykola Velychko
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
Jellyfish and Chips; Plus Other Exciting Jellyfish Recipes for a Changing World
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on August 1, 2011
It has been reported by the UK press this week, and subsequently mentioned by Al Gore in his blog , that the UK coastline is set to become like ‘jellyfish soup’ this summer. In respect of this abundant harvest we are about to receive, I thought I would scour the web for jellyfish recipes and put them in this week’s post.
Mmmm, I can almost hear your bellies grumbling in anticipation…
The full recipes are featured at the end of this post, but here is what you can look forward to for dinner tonight:
- Jellyfish and Chips
- Jellyfish Tempura
- Jellyfish Burgers
- Jellyfish Salald
- Sesame Jellyfish
- Jellyfish and Pork Bone Soup
- Jellyfish cocktail
So why jellyfish then?
It has been reported for a number of years that jellyfish numbers are increasing dramatically, especially around the coastlines of Europe and – more importantly to me – the UK. A number of factors have been blamed for this: overfishing, ocean acidification and climate change.
Overfishing allows jellyfish to become the dominant species in a particular ecosystem, and once that happens, juvenile fish which share the same food source as the jellyfish (plankton), get crowded out and starve. Also, when there are large numbers of jellyfish present, other fish species run the additional risk of death by stinging, as happened at a salmon farm in Northern Ireland.
Climate change is also being blamed, as it’s warming the oceans waters and fundamentally changing the oceanic ecosystems at a rate too fast for other, less hardy and already threatened marine species to keep up with. One of the biggest threats is in the form of the box jellyfish, which is seeing a huge increase in numbers partly due to its excellent survival abilities.
Oh, and if you needed more convincing to rid the oceans of jellyfish, did I mention that it’s not only a delicacy in the Far East, but is also seen as a health food.
I haven’t reproduced these recipes simply just for fun; the jellyfish problem is a clear and present danger to the health of our oceans. It would make sense for Humanity to switch to this (over) abundant food source and give the other species in the oceans a chance to recover.
If you do try any of these recipes and they’re any good, do please spread the word: I can almost picture the marketing spiel now, Try Jellyfish Today – it’s the New Cod!
I’m off now to source some nice fresh local jellyfish and see what my culinarily-gifted wife can concoct. If she can’t make jellyfish taste good, we’re really in trouble. Bon Appetite!
THE RECIPES:
Jellyfish and Chips – A Twist on a British Classic*
Ingredients:
- 4 x fish fillets (in this case locally sourced jellyfish)
- Plain flour Salt and Pepper
- For the batter:
- 570ml / 1pint water
- 225g / 8oz plain flour
- 4 eggs
- 1 Tsp bicarbonate of soda
- 1 Tsp tumeric
- Lemon wedges to garnish
Method:
The batter:
- Whisk all the batter ingredients together.
- The batter is of the right consistency when if a finger is drawn across the back of a spoon coated in the batter a sharp, decisive trail is left behind. (Generally the thicker the batter the better and crisper the results)
- Check the batter seasoning and adjust to taste with salt and pepper
To deep fry:
- Liberally dust each fillet of fish in the prepared flour Lift each fillet from the flour and lower into the batter, ensuring each fillet is generously coated
- Gently lower the fish into the oil (gently to avoid any splash!) Leave the fish to cook for 3-5 minutes depending on size
- As the fish cooks the batter will darken in colour and when each fish is nearly cooked it will rise to float on the oil’s surface
- The fish is cooked when if broken open the interior flesh is white – if the flesh is still slightly translucent it will need longer cooking
- Remove the fish from the oil with a spider or slotted spoon
- Place the fish on a wire rack or prepared roasting tray to drain
- Sprinkle a little salt across each fillet to soak up any excess oil
- Serve
Jellyfish Tempura – A Japanese classic
INGREDIENTS
- About 200g salted jellyfish
- Sunflower oil, for deep frying
- 25g cornflour
- 25g plain flour
- 2 tsp toasted sesame seeds
- A pinch of salt
- 100ml of fresh, ice cold soda water
Method:
- Rinse the salted jellyfish under cold running water for 5 minutes. Then place in a bowl and add boiling water. Allow to sit for about 15 minutes. Drain and then rinse with cold water. Drain, cut into chunks about 2 centimetres across and dry thoroughly by rolling in kitchen roll and squeezing.
- Sift the cornflour, flour and salt together in a bowl, add the sesame seeds and stir in the soda water to make a thin batter (the soda water must be fizzy for best results).
- Dip the chunks of jellyfish into the batter and drop them in the hot sunflower oil to fry for around 1 minute. The batter should expand and crisp up to a golden colour. Lift out and allow to drain. Serve with a sweet chilli or soy dipping sauce.
Jellyfish Burgers – great for a summer BBQ
Ingredients:
- 125g jellyfish ready-to-eat (if you can only find salted jellyfish, that’s fine, but they must be rinsed, then soaked in water for at least 4hrs or overnight to remove the salt)
- 500g potatoes
- 75g butter
- Salt & Pepper
- 3tsp toasted sesame oil
- 3tbsp fresh spring onions, finely sliced
- 1 tsp fresh ginger
- 2 Large handfuls fresh coriander leaves and stalks, finely chopped
- 2 tsp sweet chilli dipping sauce
- Vegetable oil for frying
- To serve: Sweet chili dipping sauce
Method:
- Squeeze as much water as possible out of the jellyfish, then pat dry with cloths or kitchen roll to remove more water. Chop thinly into shreds the size of tagliatelle, and about 2cm long. Place on a cloth to continue drying (you really need to get as much moisture as possible out of them). Meanwhile…
- Make your mashed potato:
- Peel the potatoes, then chop them into walnut-sized chunks.
- Place them in a pan of hot water, bring to the boil and continue boiling for 12-15 minutes until tender
- Drain the potatoes thoroughly, then mash thoroughly (we should use a potato ricer)
- Add the butter, salt and pepper and stir through.
- In a bowl, mix the toasted sesame oil, spring onions, ginger, chopped coriander and sweet chili dipping sauce together and stir well.
- Put the mash into one large mixing bowl and add HALF of the toasted sesame oil/herb mixture, and mix together. In a second bowl, add the chopped jellyfish and the remaining toasted sesame oil/herb mixture, and mix together.
- To make your burgers (you are basically making a mashed potato sandwich with the jellyfish mixture in the middle):
- First take a handful of herby potato mixture and make a very flat disk the size of your palm. Lay it on a chopping board. Take a slightly smaller handful of the jellyfish mixture and place it on the potato so that it doesn’t reach the edges. Take another handful of potato and place it on the top. Mould the mixture around so that the jellyfish is cased in potato.
- Heat a non-stick frying pan until medium-hot, add a tablespoon of vegetable oil and fry the burgers one at a time for only 2 mins on each side. You just need to brown the outsides (remember that the jellyfish and potato are all cooked and ready to eat.
- Serve with jellyfish salad (see below) and sweet chili dipping sauce.
Jellyfish Salad – the healthy option
- 1/2 lb Dried salted whole jellyfish shopping list
- 1 1-pound daikon radish
- 2 teaspoons salt
- 1/2 large chicken breast
- 1/2 egg white
- 1 teaspoon cornstarch
- 1 teaspoon sesame oil
- 1/2 teaspoon salt
- 1 1/2 teaspoon sugar
- 2 teaspoons dry sherry
- 3 tablespoons peanut oil
- 2 tablespoons sesame oil
- 3 scallions
- Soak the jellyfish in a large bowl of cold water for 24 hours changing the water a couple of times.
- Peel the daikon with a vegetable peeler; slice thinly; stack slices and cut into matchstick shreds.
- Put into a mixing bowl toss with the 2 teaspoons of salt and let stand 1 hour.
- Meanwhile drain water from jellyfish. Pour boiling water over the jellyfish and let stand for 15 seconds.
- Drain and run under cold water.
- Set aside.
- Bone the chicken breast and slice thinly; cut slices into shreds.
- Mix chicken with the egg white cornstarch and teaspoon of sesame oil; refrigerate for 30 minutes.
- While the chicken is marinating cut jellyfish into the thinnest possible shreds by rolling up each sheet and slicing it thinly.
- Place in a large bowl.
- Wring most of the moisture from the daikon shreds; add to the bowl with the jellyfish.
- Heat 3 cups water in a saucepan.
- When boiling turn off the heat and add the chicken shreds stirring to separate the pieces. Simmer for 1 minute.
- Drain and rinse under cold water. Drain and add to the bowl with the jellyfish.
- Blend the salt and sugar with the wine until they dissolve.
- Heat the oils in a saucepan and add the seasoned wine. It will sputter and evaporate.
- When the oil is hot don’t let it smoke turn off the heat and add the scallions. Cool. Toss with the salad just before serving.
- 1/2 lb jellyfish
- 2 teaspoons light soy sauce
- 3 tablespoons sesame oil
- 2 teaspoons Chinese white rice vinegar
- 2 teaspoons sugar
- 3 tablespoons sesame seeds
Method:
- To prep jellyfish:
- Rinse very well in cold water and drain. Put in a stainless steel bowl and cover with boiling water for 15 minutes or until tender. Then drain rinse with cold water for 6 minutes. If you are not using the jellyfish right away, you can soak in the fridge, but change the water ever hour or so. Drain thoroughly and blot dry with paper towel.
- Mix soy sauce, sesame oil, vinegar, and sugar in a small bowl.
- Let sit 30 minutes.
- Just before serving, garnish with sesame seeds.
- You may heat this recipe if you like; just stir-fry it in a wok about 3 minutes, but it is best served cold.
- 113g Jellyfish
- 300g Pork shoulder bone
- 1 sprig spring onion
- 38g Glutinous rice wine
- 38g Mint
- Salt
- Caltrop starch
Method:
- Soak jellyfish until it is soft. Rinse well. Tear it into small pieces. Marinate with wine, salt and caltrop starch.
- Boil the pork shoulder bone in approximately 8 bowls of water. Add in jellyfish and boil for 50 minutes. Add spring onion and mint and boil 10 minutes more. Add caltrop starch solution. Ready for serving.
Jellyfish Cocktail (contains no actual jellyfish)
Looking for a flavor-filled, blue highball with a cool visual effect and is fun to build? The Jellyfish is a great option. It has the appearance of a Caribbean-blue sea and white tendrils floating around that give the cocktail its marine-inspired name. To obtain the full effect of the drink you’ll want to slowly pour the ingredients over one another, ending with a careful float of cream.
Ingredients:
- 1 1/2 oz vodka
- 1 1/2 oz blue curacao
- 1 1/2 oz white sambuca
- 1/2 oz cream
Preparation:
- Fill a highball glass with ice and add vodka.
- Float the blue curacao slowly on top, trying to minimize the mixing of the liquids.
- Float the sambuca on top in the same manner
- Float the cream on the very top using the back of a barspoon.
- Stir delicately, but not too much to ruin the “jellyfish” effect.
Nutritionists amongst you may be interested in the complete breakdown of the nutritional information of jellyfish, according to the US Department of Agriculture.
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…
Also, if you know of any other exciting jellyfish recipes, or if you actually try any of the ones above, please share them and your experiences of them via the facebook page.
Photos courtesy of Cathy Figuli
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
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
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
