Posts Tagged energy
I’m a Huge Fan of Wind Power, But This is Insane…
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Energy on March 12, 2012
I class myself as being pretty ‘up’ on environmental issues, but I was shocked when reading an article in the ENDs Report the other day. It was concerning the fact that we pay massive sums for wind energy. Ok, you say, we know that… ah yes, but this relates to the that fact that we pay millions of pounds when the turbines are too productive. Like I said, it’s insane.
These constraint payments are made when a wind farm produces electricity that has nowhere to go, say in a period of high wind but low demand. It’s all part of the National Grid’s balancing mechanism, and is supposed to keep all things fair.
In essence the theory is that if you have to tell a power generator to lower its output you are in breach of contract and they are losing money, so you compensate them. Fair enough… I think.
The trouble is that when a conventional fossil-fuelled power station is asked to lower production, they consequently save on fuel, so their payments reflects this. When a wind farm has to ‘shut down’ they not only lose profits through idleness, but also due to the renewables obligation, they lose out on potentially huge subsidy production payments, and so the constraint payments have to be a lot more. From recent reports it seems that nearly £15 million has been paid out over the last 2 years. £15 million? That’s crazy money.
They kept this one quiet…
After doing a bit of research on this subject, I found myself less ashamed at not being aware of these payments when a Google search for ‘wind farm constraint payments’ threw up a number of hits that also contained the word ‘secret’. That’s hardly surprising.
I’ve had many a late night debate (often slightly drunken and occasionally heated) over the merits and pitfalls of wind power, and this topic has never been raised, not once. I have to say I’m quite glad about that, because if someone did bring this up in a debate it would surely flummox me.
While it probably cannot be argued that this amount of money is being paid to wind farms, the government does try to put a realistic spin on things. They (DECC) say that only 10% of constraint payments go to wind power. Ok, but they also say this:
“No generator of any type should receive an excessive benefit from constraint payments. That is why the Government is currently consulting on the introduction of a Transmission Constraint Licence Condition later this year to help ensure we don’t encounter problems in the balancing market when normal competition amongst generators is distorted by transmission constraints. Planned upgrades to the most congested parts of the transmission system are also underway which will help ease constraints. The upgrades will begin to take effect from 2013.”
In other words, they know there’s a problem and they’re sorting it. Well that’s something I suppose.
I’m still a huge fan of wind power and watching a giant turbine atop a green, verdant hill turning lazily in the breeze never fails to bring a smile to my face. This discovery, however, as really dented my optimism is the industry.
As I said in a recent post, I’m happy to pay a proportion of my energy bill to help fund future renewable energy projects. I’m not happy, though, to pay what would appear to be a tasty little loophole payment to the wind power companies. I understand that they may lose money in subsidies, but surely this should be factored into any cost benefit analysis that is conducted prior to investment, not realised at a later date and left up to the taxpayer/energy customer to fork out.
If this is an issue, then any future wind developments must not be able to fleece us like this. On a positive note; the first step, a call for more transparency over constraint payments, appears to have been taken already.
If wind is to increase in such numbers as are expected, we shouldn’t have to face a future where we continue to pay these massive sums for having too much energy. Why don’t they use it for something else, like pumped storage?
Really at this point I should also question the government’s stupidity and short-sightedness over this but – just like a turbine blade – that keeps coming around again, and again, and again. So I can’t be bothered. They’re stupid; we’re all very clever. Let’s just leave it at that.
If the anti-wind lobby or – heaven help us – The Daily Mail really gets hold of this story and runs with it we could be in trouble. Even I think it’s stupid, and I love wind power. So if you do know any slightly deranged, outspoken country folk who hate wind power, please don’t forward this blog onto them. Thanks.
So yes, crazy as it may be to be paying millions of pounds to stop wind farms doing exactly what we’ve already paid millions of pounds for them to do in the first place – making electricity; at least it looks like something is being done about this. Let’s keep a very careful eye on this space shall we…?
GR
P.S. I still think it’s insane.
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of Renewable UK
More Anti-Green Claptrap From The Daily Mail (but this time I’m onto them)
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Dodgy Journalism on February 27, 2012
I happened upon another anti-green article in the Daily Mail the other day (no surprise there), but what I found to be of real interest was the way the reporter cunningly used information from different sources to pile the pressure on his headline subject and twist the story to make it sound like green policies are responsible for much, much more than they actually are.
I’ve also got to say that this article was all over the place. It pulled figures from everywhere and then assembled them in such a higgledy-piggledy way that it was impossible to really make neither head nor tale of the piece. There’s one thing for certain though: it’s anti-green through and through. Still; at least the reporter didn’t hack anyone’s phone to get the scoop… or did he?
Disclaimer: Can I just say that I am not a Daily Mail reader; I just have friends and family who alert me to articles such as this. Thank you.
The article opens by claiming that green polices add 15% to a typical energy bill. Fair enough; they probably do. However, it then subtly starts to pile on the numbers by first saying that “the combination of green taxes and wholesale price rises” could push prices up by 36%. Note the part that says “…and wholesale price rises”. Next we are told of a hypothetical ‘high-price scenario’ included in a Whitehall paper, which would also then push up the numbers. Finally we are informed that, due to these factors, consumers will need to find an extra £500 a year for energy by 2020. Yep, that’s an extra £500 a year – shock, horror, dismay. At this point the reporter cleverly brings green taxes back to centre stage and works in a biased quote from those renowned experts on green policy The TaxPayers Alliance (?!), and hey presto, this £500 extra on your bill is all down to those nasty old green policies.
The article also says these green taxes will help to fund “wind farms, nuclear power stations, more solar panels and a new pylon network.” Erm, hello? Only two of these are ‘green’ technologies. Idiot.
I will give credit, however (much as it pains me) to the fact that the article makes mention of switching your energy supplier to save money, and also that the story ends with a pro-green policy quote from a Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman.
Nevertheless. What bugs me here is the Mail’s blatant attempt to turn its readers against any kind of green policy. This isn’t the first time they’ve done this either (thank goodness, as they keep me supplied with blog material). Joking aside though, why do they feel so strongly that we should not have to pay anything to safeguard our future?
Also let’s not forget: It’s not only climate change we are trying to combat here. We are also trying to give ourselves some energy security. I mean, do we really want to be beholden to Russia and other even more psychopathic regimes for our gas supplies?
And one last thing: Why does the reporter feel that green taxes are any less legitimate than other taxes? If these taxes from energy were used to fund, say, the police instead, would the Daily Mail still be so angry? (of course it would, what am I saying? It’s the Mail).
Protecting our environment and securing a healthy planet for our future generations is not a triviality; and it’s not going to come cheap. Somebody has to pay, and spreading the burden across the populace seems fair to me. It also seems fair that households who couldn’t care less about energy conservation will pay more towards these green policies because the tax is levied as a proportion of your bill. Ergo, families who do try to conserve energy will pay less. Fair indeed.
These green policies are intended reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to shield us from exactly the type of wholesale prices rises the article mentions. Surely the reporter would agree that this is a good thing to aim for, but how exactly does he propose we pay for it, if not with green taxes?
By all means, alert us to the potential rises that have been forecast, but don’t put them under the headline of “green taxes add 15% to your bill”.
Daily Mail readers aren’t known for their ability (or desire) to read between the lines. So – as the reporter is obviously intending – the reader comes away with the image that green taxes are adding £500 to energy bills, which of course, is absolute nonsense.
GR
For a more in depth (and a little more sensible) look at this very story click here…
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 me, Nostal6ie and Daniel Gilby
The World’s Most Inefficient Radiator?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Energy on November 28, 2011
All I want to do this week is share a photograph with you: Whist plodding around a National Trust property at the weekend, I think I may have stumbled upon the world’s worst place to site a radiator. Have a look at this picture and see if you agree with me:
As we all know, windows are one of the places in a house that let out the most heat. Add to that the fact that this a Georgian era house and that these windows are no doubt old and drafty, and you have a top contender for the World’s Worst Place To Put a Radiator Competition (no that doesn’t really exist – imagine how boring that contest would be!)
Yes I agree that it’s very common to put radiators under the windows of houses, but this is simply a space-saving measure on the builder’s part. In terms of efficiency and heat retention, it’s probably the worst place that you can put them. I once heard an estate agent on TV claiming that radiators are put there to warm the cold air coming in from outside. Er, no. Hot air flows from hot to cold meaning that a radiator placed under a window, or indeed in front of a window, will simply bleed heat out into the cold exterior.
From the look of it, this radiator is Victorian/Edwardian. Now as much as I love Victorian architecture and innovation, this is just plain stupid. And if this isn’t enough; the window next to this one is exactly the same. That must be one cold room.
I think somebody needs to tell the National Trust about how radiators actually work. Or perhaps their subscription fees are so high that they have money to burn. Nah, just kidding; I think the National Trust is great value for money.
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…
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
Eco-Lie#5: Eco Nappies? Not When They’re Disposable
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Eco-Lie on November 7, 2011
It’s been while since the Eco-Lie outbreak began, and it appears that humanity still has no cure in sight. The sights of today’s post are set on Sainsbury’s and their Little Ones Eco Nappy range.
For me, to put the word ‘eco’ on a disposable nappy is wrong. Let’s face it, the only true eco nappy would be one that doesn’t exist at all – but we can all imagine the consequences of that! The fact of the matter is that to stop new parents being swamped in a deluge of nasty stuff, we need nappies.
Having had two children myself, I’m a bit of an authority on nappies, but I’m also no eco-angel: I’ve used the lot: reusable nappies, ‘natural’ disposable nappies, huggies (once) pampers (twice) and even a tea towel fastened with a safety pin (a one-off emergency measure). And yes; I’ve also used my fair share of Sainsbury’s Little Ones nappies (hangs head in shame). The huggies and pampers are horrible, plastic, chemical filled things that I only used because a friend lent me them when I was caught short. I used washable cloth nappies for my first child (lift head in pride), but just didn’t have the time or space to do the same with the second (re-hang head in shame).
I’m not going to get into the ‘which nappy is best’ debate. Suffice it to say that plenty of research has been done and the results show that reusable nappies are, by far, the most planet-friendly and wallet-friendly option. Plus, the more children you have, the better value they become. You can read a different article I wrote on the subject here.
Disposable nappies, though, are a menace to the environment: they use up valuable resources to manufacture, can take up to 200 years to decompose and 90% of them end up in landfill. Does this sound eco to you? Now I’m sure these Little Ones nappies are an improvement on the above, but not so much that they merit being called ‘eco’.
Sainsbury’s say their eco nappies use a minimum of 60% plant-based material, but I’m sorry, they shouldn’t be going anywhere near the word ‘eco’ until that’s up to at least 99.7%. I do know of a brand of nappies that come in compostable packaging, but do these ones? Nope. It’s polyethylene all the way on this eco-friendly product.
Are they alone?
Just so Sainsbury’s don’t feel hard done by, I thought I’d have a look at the other supermarkets and see what name they give their own range of eco nappies. Do they try and fool us too?
Asda: Yep, just as I suspected, they’ve pulled a fast one and called them Adsa Eco Nappies. They’ve had to recall them though due to a complaint about the materials used – very eco, well done Asda.
Tesco: They don’t have their own eco brand of nappies. I did notice, though, that next to the description of its Value disposable nappy, Tesco inform us about the nappy’s carbon footprint. Now I hate to sound snobbish here, but I’m going to anyway: do you really think that the people who buy Tesco Value nappies care about the environment? No, I don’t think so…
Morrisons: Not sure, as they don’t have an online shop (how last decade) and I couldn’t be bothered to go in a store to have a look.
So then, it’s not only Sainsbury’s who try and fob off the environmentally conscious (but very busy) parent, with a disposable eco nappy, Asda do it too.
Staying on the subject of Asda for a minute: one other thing that came up during my eco nappy hunt was the Asda Little Angels Eco Nappy Sacks… What?!!! Eco nappy sacks? You have got to be joking! There’s no need for nappy sacks at all: it’s a complete waste of resources to use an individual plastic bag for each nappy that you end up putting into that giant plastic bag… called a bin. Here’s what Asda say, “We have added a special ingredient which helps this product degrade 30 times faster than a normal nappy sack, protecting the planet for your little angel.” Oh, so that’s just 33 years for these eco nappy bags to degrade then, well that’s fine – what a wonderful eco-friendly product.
In summary then…
I’m aware that Sainsbury’s aren’t the only company to stock eco disposables, but they are the ones who I’m picking on today (Asda just happened to get in the firing line). While I do applaud any attempt to make a product less damaging to the environment, this doesn’t detract from the validity of the statement that eco disposables are an oxymoron. Nothing that’s used in such massive numbers as nappies and is also disposable can be at one with the ecosystem. Again, this is a blatant attempt by the marketing men to sell more products on the back of our guilt over killing the planet.
There’s nothing really wrong with using these nappies, as they are a better option than some. But please, please don’t be fooled into thinking they are good for the environment, they are not. You can find much better alternatives out there.
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…
Burnt, Buried or Liquidised: My Macabre Guide to a Planet-Friendly Funeral
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Technology on September 26, 2011
Insurance adverts abound on daytime television telling us not to leave a huge debt for our loved ones to pay when we kick the bucket. But how can we best avoid leaving a huge debt for the planet to pay as well?
Green funerals are nothing new: The Tibetans have been chopping up dead relatives and feeding them to the vultures for years; sailors have traditionally been buried at sea to become fish food; and funeral pyres have been used for centuries, not only creating a welcome source of heat, but also leaving nothing more than a pile of ashes that can be used to fertilise crops. Modern technology, however, has brought the green funeral bang up to date.
The contemporary funeral can be quite a hefty affair in regards to the resources it uses: a hardwood coffin; a blazing inferno to cremate the body; land space to bury the body and, quite often, a half-mile long presidential motorcade following the hearse.
Much has already been written on environmentally-friendly funerals so I will not duplicate that here. What I want to look at in this post is the newest technology currently emerging.
So what’s new then?
Ok. If you want to go green when you die (as opposed to grey) you may want to try these:
The Ecopod
The Ecopod. No, this is not a new product from Apple; it’s actually a “revolutionary and beautiful new design in coffins” that’s made from recycled newspaper and mulberry pulp (I love the gold one – very bling). Alternatively, if you want to avoid taking up any more of the Earth’s precious space than you have to, try squeezing yourself in to one of this company’s Acorn Urns (just watch out for giant squirrels).
Actually getting your body to the funeral is a source of carbon emissions – but do not fear (the Reaper), help is at hand in the form of the Brahms Electric Hearse. This is the only way to travel to your final resting place if you want to be green. I suppose you could use a horse drawn gun carriage like the queen or, even better, be buried right beneath your deathbed. But failing these options – go electric.
Another way of keeping your carbon footprint down at a funeral is don’t invite people who will have to travel for miles to your send-off. Either make no friends during your life or – more sensibly – perhaps you could set up a live Internet stream. Ok, I know this may be getting just a little bit silly, but I’ve always said it’s best to laugh at death. Ha ha.
Right then: so you’ve popped your clogs, you’ve been placed in an alien-esque cardboard pod, been driven to the cemetery with minimal carbon emissions and have no friends in attendance… how then do you wish to be disposed of? Burial? Nope; too much land-take and methane emissions. Cremation? Nope; too much energy and carbon emissions. OK, how about being liquidised then? That’s right… liquidised – or to use the correct term; disposed of via alkaline hydrolysis.
There’s a new machine on the funeral circuit that will reduce a body down to liquid in about 2-3 hours. A Glasgow company Resomation make the contraption and they’ve called the process the same: Resomation. Really? That’s the best they could come up with? Could they not call it something a little more imaginative like Body Blitzing or The Death Dissolve?
According to the manufacturers, Resomation is a green alternative because:
- (Research) has shown that the substitution of Resomation for cremation as part of a funeral will reduce that funeral’s emissions of greenhouse gases by approximately 35%. Ok, not bad…
- The energy needed for the Resomation process in the form of electricity and gas is less than one-seventh of the energy required for a cremation. Even better.
- In the UK up to 16% of all mercury is estimated to be emitted from crematoria because of the fillings in teeth, Resomation produces no airborne mercury emissions. Great.
- Sterile liquid is safely returned to the water cycle free from any traces of DNA. Erm, excuse me, what was that? Returned to the water cycle? Are they saying that if I choose Resomation there’s a chance my kids could be drinking me in their tea a couple of weeks later? No thanks.
This is how the BBC describes the resomation process. Now I know I’ll be dead when it happens and won’t feel a thing, but geez…
Resomation… works by dissolving the body in heated alkaline water. The system works by submerging the body in a solution of water and potassium hydroxide which is pressurised to 10 atmospheres and heated to 180C for between two-and-a-half and three hours. Body tissue is dissolved and the liquid poured into the municipal water system. The bones are then removed from the unit and processed in a “cremulator”, the same machine that is used to crush bone fragments following cremation into ash. Metals including mercury and artificial joints and implants are safely recovered. (BBC News) Again, I think I’ll pass thanks.
If, like me, you find this idea rather unappealing then take comfort in the fact that crematoria are also looking into reusing the waste heat from the cremation process to heat the crematorium facilities, thus lowering the carbon footprint. Although, for this to be properly utilized, you’ll have to wait to die in winter. However, if you would favour a summer demise, there’s also talk of heating swimming pools with this energy.
In summary then…
In all seriousness, there are 600,000 funerals a year in this country – or over 1600 a day. That’s a lot of land filled with bodies, energy consumed for cremations and associated emissions of methane and carbon. The above ideas (resomation included) really could help to lower these, so why not point people in this alternative direction when they are making funeral plans.
If you feel you really must keel over and die, then have some consideration for those of us you leave behind on this ever-shrinking planet. Thanks.
GR
For a more serious (somber) look at this issue plus some good advice check out this link or this one.
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 Hmproudlove, Ecopod, Brahms Electric Vehicles, Austeng and Stephen Orsillo.
A Personal Shade of Green
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Guest bloggers on September 21, 2011
I’m very excited this week to present my first guest blogger: Alberta Ross. Alberta is author of the Sefuty Chronicles; a series of dystopian books set in a world following catasprophic climate change. As part of her tour for the third book in the series, Jack’s Tale, she is writing as guest on the ‘Review.
It’s an honour to have Alberta write for me this week, so without further ado, I shall hand you over…
A Personal Shade of Green – by Alberta Ross
Gareth has let me in here as I take my Sefuty Chronicles on a book tour. I have written, indeed still am writing, a post apocalyptic dystopian series on the after effects of extreme climate change. There are as many scenarios as to our future as there are versions of history. Mine is just one. It is dependent on us running out of resources in the south of the globe and having limited resources in the North.
I have been ‘green’ for a few decades now – consciously since the early 1980s and really I suppose all my life in some form or other. Brought up straight after World War 2 it was an era of rationing, compost heaps, recycle and reuse. I remember my father’s string box (large, everything back then seemed to be tied with string not Sellotape) every inch collected and knotted to the previous. My mother darning socks endlessly – I was in my time a champion darner! Fruit picking and bottling, veg growing – chicken raising (Boxing Day and Easter treats! No £2 chickens then) I have always had a slightly parsimonious soul.
When I set off on my travels around the world I always preferred overland as one could get the feel of the changes of landscape and culture better. Travelling always on a shoestring also meant less air travel, the time of cheap flights via the internet was well into the future. Green because that’s how it was and then as I say in the 80s green from conviction.
Most of you reading this will be a variety of shades of ‘green’ with a common interest in ‘saving the planet’. But just how much difference can we make as individuals?
I am writing a post apocalyptic series of novels about life after extreme climate change has wrecked the world. My vision of civilisation’s collapse! Ignited I suspect in one of my glummer moments.
How green am I, are you? Some folks garner our admiration, those who have stepped off the grid, live by their own sweat and not only go barefoot but hover just above the soil leaving no footprint. I do admire them and know I fall short.
I love my terrible computer/printer/iPod/mobile phone/radio/car sort of in that order. If my vegetables are eaten by bugs or struggle against the weather I nip into the village for replacements. I buy too many books and now I have an e-reader download too many! Although my annual mileage is now below 4000 I don’t want to give up the freedom the car gives me.
I make choices which not only include carbon footprints but all the other peripherals to green living, ethics, morality and safety. These last do complicate the matter.
I try to buy organic food because? Animal welfare should be better (I should have said at the beginning I’m an old lady and have learnt a fair amount of cynicism in my life); the condition and heart of our oh so thin covering of soil should be better. But then do I buy organic from abroad over the UK non organic, better still local; jobs for the Brits, jobs for our neighbours but not organic, which? Take an organization which makes Fair Trade chocolate as a side line to its ordinary chocolate – does one buy the Fair Trade knowing the other is made with at best exploitive work practices at worst slave trade and stolen children? Or take a cosmetic firm which has a natural non-tested on animal range along side its more dubious powders and potions – do you put money in their coffers?
Life is full of choices such as these. We can rant at government’s lack of political will, that’s easy. Yell at the radio/TV when we hear the latest idiocy, easy. Throw up hands in horror at the latest exposé, even easier. It is so easy to know what should be done, so difficult to do.
Take plastic bags (beloved of one of my characters in the second book, 100 years in the future
‘I thought about his words and decided that if a material would never rot, it couldn’t be classed as a nuisance but a blessing.’ The Storyteller’s Tale.
Of course this is set in a time of resource famine. But a plastic bag or a cotton for life bag? Resources for manufacture of both will trash the planet but the cotton probably faster. One will be manufactured in factories – what work ethics? Cotton production is still mired in unethical practices world wide. The Aral Sea is almost dead and gone because of the intensive use of water for the growing of the crop and the chemicals from the manufacture of it leaching into what lake is left. Plastic/cotton? They can both be reused and the cotton can be composted and will rot fairly quickly, leaching chemicals into the earth as it does, and the plastic will eventually decades later enter the food chain. Which to choose?
I like cotton to wear and thought I was being ‘good’ until I found out about the issues. Now I feel obliged to recycle the old instead of buying the new. But I put precarious lives at risk of loosing employment.
Can one individual save the world?
Can many save the world in the time we have allotted to us to do so?
Should you and I shout at the politicians for not having the political will for thinking past the next elections? Can we, justifiably, if we are all reading this online? What about our usage of electricity, of the data banks of server providers’ use of electricity? I switch off as I am sure many of you do too. We are few; the computer data bases are many.
Councils are forced into lip service to recycle and what a minefield that is! Which plastic? Which ‘can’ goes into which bin? We buy less plastic bags, begin to reject excess packaging. Are we insisting on food grown in this country i.e. green beans from here not from Africa? Do we always eat in season? No more tomatoes in winter, strawberries in April. Do we insist on paying the proper price for food or do we always want cheap out of season flown in at vast carbon expense food? Do we update our ‘toys’ when a shinier one arrives. Do we trash our clothes at the end of the season or treasure them?
How ‘green’ are we all really? Are our choices mere pin pricks? Do my underground rainwater collector and 13 water butts make me ‘green’? Does the fact that I compost and recycle everything in the garden make me ‘green’? How much of a contribution to saving the world from climate change does my disconnecting the computer make?
Does my small effort make a difference, does yours? Of course it does.
Will it help to change anything? Of course it will.
Will it be in time to halt climate change? No.
Will it be in time to prevent the catastrophic events I write about in The Sefuty Chronicles?
Maybe. Hopefully. Fingers crossed and please do not let the following wind die and becalm us.
I am hopeful, why? I am an incurable optimist. I see and hear the younger members of society caring. I believe in the goodness of humanity and stand in awe at how ‘clever’ Homo sapiens can be (for goodness’ sake isn’t that why we are in this mess after all!)
So in The Sefuty Chronicles my bunch of survivors, a handful admittedly – I did kill 8 billion before the books even started! – continue humanity onward, hopefully. I found I couldn’t extinguish Homo sapiens completely; I have fiddled with their genetics a trifle, just to help them along! I hope we find a way to continue on this planet, it would be a shame if we make ourselves extinct!
AR
If you have anything to say on this great post, please feel free to use the comments box below (Alberta will see them), the ‘Review’s facebook page or contact Alberta on twitter.
Alberta’s Bio
I spent the first part of my adult life travelling the world, the middle years studying and now have settled down to write. From the first part I have endless photographs, memories and friends. From the second I have a BSc Hons, an MA and friends. Now in this part everything comes together.
Over the years my interests have expanded, as has my book and music collection. A short list would include reading (almost anything) science, opera, folk, gardening, philosophy, crazy patchwork, freeform crochet, ethics, social history, cooking (and eating of course) gardening, anthropology, climate change and sustainability.
My parents gave me, apart from a love of reading and music, an interest and curiosity in everything which in itself has become a total inability to be bored and for this I am always grateful.
A Method To My Madness: A Look at Method Green Cleaning
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Products and Tips on September 12, 2011
There’s a new environmentally-conscious cleaning product finding its way into UK shops right now, and I’m so impressed with the stuff, I thought I’d write a review about it.
The product is called Method and it works really well. That’s it. What more can I say?
Oh all right then, here’s some more info: Method is manufactured by a San Francisco based company of the same name. Their products are “made with naturally derived, biodegradable ingredients that clean like heck and smell like heaven”. I have to say; they’re right. However, it’s not just the goods themselves that turn me on to this company; it’s the ethos behind the brand and also the packaging.
The ethos is sustainability and community and all of their products are non-toxic and never tested on animals. The packaging is not only dead cool, but also the cleaning bottles are made from 100% recycled material and the rest is readily recyclable.
The company has been around for about 10 years now, but it’s only recently I’ve seen – or even heard of – their products. According their press, they have been selling in this country for 6 years. So that one slipped passed me, did it not?
Method appears to be a young, innovative company and part of the reason I’m so fond of their products is because of what happens behind the scenes. They’ve put sustainability and environmental responsibility at the core of their business model, including: climate modelling, an awareness of their partners’ business practices and transparency in everything that they do. For a full list of all the cool things this company is doing click here.
For me it’s not enough for a company to just throw a few natural ingredients into a cleaning product and say it’s environmentally-friendly; they also have to show consideration for the environment in every aspect of their business.
As an amendment to the first version of this post – and after a question about the carbon footprint of using a product in the UK that’s made in the the US – Method do manufacture in the UK too.
Like many people, I’m a huge fan of the Ecover brand, in no small part because of the way that they also conduct themselves. However, here is a company that may usurp Ecover’s long held eco-crown. We shall see.
Over the last few years various different natural cleaning products have been released on to the market, and I have tried many of them. This is the first one that has really grabbed my attention as a serious rival to Ecover - hence this blog post.
Although having said that, one aspect Ecover does have over its rivals is the ability to refill bottles when they’re empty, as opposed to buying new ones.
In summary then…
Method products look the part, do the job well and smell really nice. I recommend you give them a try. That’s it.
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 Method
Eco-Lie#4: To Help Protect The Environment? Oh Please…
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Eco-Lie on August 29, 2011
Ok then, this is a very simple Eco-Lie, but one which I couldn’t ignore (as it’s stuck on a van parked in my street).
Telecommunications company, BT, are putting these stickers on the back of their vans in an attempt to convince us they’re protecting the environment by limiting their vehicles to 70mph.
Erm, sorry? I may have missed something here, but aren’t all vehicles on UK roads limited to 70mph? You know; by that little-understood phenomenon known as the speed limit? It’s much more likely that BT simply are trying to protect their fuel bills.
If they’re really concerned about protecting the environment, perhaps they should consider limiting their vehicles to 50mph and adding a rev limiter as well. Agreed, this may not prove too popular with the drivers, but we’re not trying to protect them, are we?
I suppose that – in principle – the idea of limiting vans to 70mph is a good idea. At least it would save us from glancing up at a rearview mirror filled with the business-end of a commercial van as it tries to stake a claim to the fast lane of the motorway. However, for BT to stick this on the back of its vehicles is blatant greenwashing. Please guys, we’re not that naive. It’s fair enough for a company to reduce costs, but claiming it’s for environmental reasons is just taking the mick.
Still; at least their vans are faster than their broadband.
So, as the Eco-Lie wall of shame claims another victim, it’s time to don my ‘Sherlock Holmes’ deerstalker hat and partake in some snooping to uncover more instances of gratuitous greenwashing. In the meantime, will someone please give BT a ring and let them know how silly they look?
Can I also just thank my six-year old daughter for her covert mission to snap this picture for me without the owner of the van noticing. Don’t get me wrong; he’s a lovely guy, but he may have raised an eyebrow had he seen me snapping away at the rear of his vehicle. Well done Sweetie, good job.
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 My Little Girl
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
