Posts Tagged green
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
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…
Oh Canada. What Are You Doing?
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on December 19, 2011
You may have read recently that Canada has officially pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Although the move has long been expected, it still comes as a disappointment to many. This action, however, is not a protest on Canada’s part because it feels the accord isn’t working – it is working. Nor is it because Canada feels that the weak agreement just isn’t strong enough to really effect a positive change on the planet. Oh no, quite the opposite. It’s pulling out because it can and it will and nobody has the power to stop it, so there.
The Canadian government has stated that meeting its targets for reducing greenhouse gases is too expensive. Apparently, the country hadn’t realised that there would be some form of cost attached to saving the planet and everything on it.
What gets me about this whole fiasco is the way countries can convene at a summit like Kyoto, fail to agree on anything put forward, argue over the exact text in a document, insert a comma here, remove a legally binding cause there, while all the time watching these proceedings trudge on for days and days upsetting no end of politicians, diplomats and official representatives of various organisations. And all of this for what? So that we end up with an agreement where any country may pull out simply if it doesn’t work for them. Nobody said this was going to be cheap or easy, but I guess Canada didn’t notice that part of the final draft.
I remember when Canada used to the country everybody loved: America’s more intelligent, less offensive next-door neighbour. Home of the Mountie, maple syrup and Bryan Adams. Now it seems to be taking on a new persona; that of a corrupted, greedy, former environmental advocate.
We’ve always frowned at Canada’s financial and logistical assistance for those partaking in the Arctic seal hunt, and they’ve played no small part in the collapse of North Atlantic cod stocks. However, in more recent years Canada appears to be also cementing itself a new image as an American-idolising devotee to environmental destruction. With its push to extract oil from tar sands, a product often referred to as the world’s dirtiest oil, and now the shunning of Kyoto, it seems that this once highly-regarded country is turning its back on protecting the planet in order to turn a profit.
Withdrawing from Kyoto is effectively a message to the rest of the world that Canada doesn’t care about the future of this planet (as long as it will cost, that is). Naturally the politicians are saying that they will adhere to their own targets and lower carbon emissions their own way, but it’s perfectly clear to the rest of us that whatever measures are adopted won’t come close to the measly 6% cut in emissions they were committed to under Kyoto – in reality they have actually increased carbon emissions by about 16%.
Another aspect of Canada’s withdrawal is that they would face stiff penalties under the agreement for falling short of the agreed targets. I can’t belive that to get away from paying the penalties that they agreed to in 1997, a nation can simply just pull out. Surely that makes a complete mockery of the penalty system in the first place. I mean let’s imagine this: it’s the 2014 World Cup final: England are playing Spain and are winning 4-3. There are two minutes left to play. Wayne Rooney brings a Spanish player down in the penalty area as he’s about to score a goal. Consequently, the referee awards the Spanish player a penalty kick. Now, if this game were being played in ‘Canada’s world’ Wayne Rooney would just sulkily turn to the referee, tell him that a penalty kick is far too stiff a punishment for this offence, announce he’s not playing anymore, leave the field and thus the Spanish would no longer have their penalty kick. They loose, England win. It’s bizarre (although the addition of the ‘Canada Rule’ may add another dimension to football).
Let’s face it though; no one can really blame Canada for this. The true fault lies with the politicians who cannot look further than their own term of office or their own GDP. The original Kyoto Protocol was put through the grinder and watered down so many times that it became the wishy-washy, toothless, non-binding agreement that allows countries to do these type of things. Because countries (and their governments) are inherently selfish, we will never see a truly monumental climate agreement and countries like the US and China will be free to avoid any commitment while countries that do commit will also be free to… erm … uncommit.
What Canada has done just reinforces my view that politicians will only attempt to save humanity as long as it’s feasible for them to do so and if it will earn them either a few extra votes of a little cash on the side. Meanwhile, it makes a mockery of any future global agreements on pollution, climate change, deforestation, biodiversity, etc, etc…
The thing that worries me now is that any such accord in the future will be looked upon as just a piece of paper that you sign at the bottom, but don’t actually have to take action on if you don’t want to or you can’t afford it. It sets a really scary precedent for other nations to look to.
Anyway, to finish off, let’s move on to other un-related matters: Does anyone fancy defaulting on a trillion Euro debt? Anyone? Anyone? Yes, Greece; I’m looking at you…
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 Christina Deridder Vasyl Helevachuk and Alexey Gostev
7 Billion People on the Planet (and now I know where they’re putting them)
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change on October 31, 2011
So then, the Earth is now home to 7 billion people, or to put it another way – 7,000,000,000 people; an awful lot of zeroes don’t you think? Still, this post isn’t really about that; it just happens to coincide rather nicely with what I was going to write anyway, which is the tale of a rather scary drive I went for recently.
So was this scary drive a hair-raising blat in an F1 car? Nope, I should be so lucky. A high-speed burn around roads with vertical drops on either side perhaps? No way. A pillion ride on the back of a motorbike with a one-armed, mentally unstable, blind driver. Definitely not… No, this was the drive from Hong Kong city to the airport.
So why did I find this drive so scary you ask? Well, to begin with it was at night. No, I’m not scared of the dark (much). But the darkness does bring into very stark reality the massive, illuminated high-rise apartments that line this route to the airport. There are literally thousands of homes that stretch across your field of vision, from one periphery to the next, top to bottom and way off into the distance. Each lit window perfectly highlighting the degree to which we are packing ourselves onto this planet and the huge amounts of energy and resources that we are consequently consuming. For someone who lives in the UK and is used quant Victorian terraces, these things are monstrous.
For mile after mile my view was filled with these towering high-rises. They weren’t, however, striking simply because of their height, but additionally because of their mammoth width and depth. These things aren’t just a thin wall of steel concrete and glass – they’re more like a forest, stretching back in numerous layers for as far as the eye can see – literally over the hills and far away. A truly momentous sight to behold.
Without meaning to brag, I’m a pretty well-travelled individual. I’ve been to many of the world’s cities and high-rise building themselves are nothing novel to me. However this wall of windows and balconies really is quite breath taking, due in no small part to the sheer number and density of these buildings.
To see these types of constructions and trying to picture the masses of people that they allow to be crammed into such a small area is staggering. As I mentioned earlier, it really brings home the resource and energy consumption required to feed this relentless expansion of humanity and the pressure we’re placing on our planet.
Keep reading – it’s not all doom and gloom
I did, strangely enough, find myself in two frames of mind on this journey. First, as you know, I was agog at what I was seeing and fearing for the future. Simultaneously though, I caught myself admiring mankind’s ingenuity and far from fearing for the future, rather bizarrely, I actually felt quite optimistic. Surely any animal that can design, build and sustain this kind of… colony… has the capacity to go much, much further.
Ours is a culture that has given birth to War and Peace, The Beatles, Salvidor Dali, IVF, space exploration, and Santa Claus. Surely we must also be able to save ourselves from self-destruction?
Conversely though – and swinging back to the fear for the future once again – ability isn’t the problem is it? It’s not that we are unable to build and power ourselves toward a clean, sustainable future. That’s the easy part. It’s whether or not we have the inclination to; whether or not our Humanity will come and rescue us from our Human affliction.
These high-rises went up not because somebody wanted them, but because they needed them. When is mankind finally going to feel the same about stopping our destruction of Planet Earth – the very thing that allows us to thrive like this? Do we have to witness ever more destructive natural events and wait for something really disastrous to happen before we – universally – feel the same need to tackle it? Will it be too late by then?
Back to the 7 billion…
I’ve always felt that we in the UK are slightly sheltered from this population explosion. Yes we’re overcrowded, yes we have a problem with immigration and yes we all know of someplace where a beautiful piece of green land has been given over to a housing development. However, the population spikes are not happing in our country and it’s very easy to see them as simple statistics.
Seeing this overload of humanity in Hong Kong however, brought into glaring reality the fact that this planet is small, and getting smaller all the time. The growth of humanity is not a bad thing independently; we just have to make sure we put into place all of the necessary mechanisms to keep us alive without completely wrecking the planet and the environment that sustains us – all 7,000,001,111 of us. That’s right, in the few minutes it’s taken you to read this, over 1000 babies have been born.
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 planetware, redbubble, bubble.love, Micheal Wolf (magicalurbanism), An Informal Perception and quangas
Five Stupid Quotations From Climate Change Sceptics (and how I’d answer them if only I could think on my feet)
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Climate Change Denial on October 24, 2011
As an environmentalist … No. Stop. Not environmentalist; I hate that word. (Thinking out loud again, sorry)
Ok. Take 2:
… As an advocate of the movement to save this planet and everything on it from extinction due to climate change; pollution; deforestation; drought; famine; irresponsible multinationals; GM food; banks; nuclear proliferation; media moguls; desertification; Audi drivers and oceanic acidification, I often find myself embroiled in a heated debate over climate change with people I like to refer to as The Denialists.
Occasionally, I will manage to have a meaningful, in-depth, well-researched, enlightening discussion with one of these people. All too often, though, most denialists just seem capable of coming up with the same tired arguments and replies regarding the realities of climate change and environmental degradation. Below are the five that I hear time and again:
Stupid quote#1: “Man-made climate change isn’t real: Earth’s climate has always gone in cycles”
Answer#1: Yes agreed, the earth’s climate has always gone in cycles – hot, cold, hot, cold, hot, cold, etc. Well done. However, what we are doing by polluting the atmosphere with too many additional greenhouse gases is interrupting the delicate process that causes these cycles thus pushing the whole system into overload. Ironically, we are jeopardising the precise mechanism that denialists so love to wave in our faces.
The earth has maintained an intricate balance over the last few billion years because it had all the tools it required: sunlight, clouds, ice, forests, gases, minerals, plants, animals, etc, etc. What we’ve done over the last few centuries is come along and thrown some truly momentous spanners in the works. Still; the unbelievers think that we should just let the Earth get on with it while we do the same. Ok. What an interesting experiment…
Stupid quote#2: “What’s the point in curbing carbon emissions when China and India are building a coal-fired power station every week?”
Answer#2: Yes, yes, yes. That’s the attitude. Why bother? We’re buggered anyway.
Geeeeez people, since when did two wrongs make a right? Of course this makes the task before us even harder, but we’re tougher than that, aren’t we? This life we currently enjoy must be worth fighting for, if not for us, then for our children and our grandchildren.
An analogy that springs to mind here is that it’s like the guy who goes to the gym and is then perceived to undo all the good work he’s just done by having a burger and a cigarette afterwards. Yes, you could argue that there’s no point in going to the gym if he continues to eat junk food and smoke. I would argue, though, that whether or not he eats badly and smokes, he’s still ultimately doing himself more good by going to the gym than if he’d stayed away.
If by curbing our destructive ways of life we are – at best – just cancelling out what China and India are doing; well then at least we’re doing something.
Dr Jorge Argibay also added this valid point: “It is precisely by doing something about carbon emissions that we can acquire the authority to ask China and India to do the same!” Exactly, thanks Jorge.
Quote#3: “The Earth will survive no matter what we do to it”
Answer#3: Perhaps. But we’re talking about our survival here, aren’t we? Excusing inaction by offering this quote is dumb at best. Surely we want to protect this planet’s ability to sustain life so that our ancestors can also enjoy life… don’t we? To say something like that shows up a selfish streak a mile wide.
Anyway, how do we know the planet will survive? Has it ever been tested like this before? I agree, that it’s managed to thaw its way out of an ice-age or two, but let’s remember: the earth has at its core a massive nuclear fusion reactor that’s hot enough to melt rock. So it’s not really surprising it has the capacity to thaw itself. But to cool itself when so many of its cooling mechanisms have been stripped away, altered or poisoned? Who really knows?
Stupid quote#4 “We’re not running out of fossil fuels. We have loads of oil, gas and coal left”
Answer#4: Agreed, but this oil and gas is continually getting harder and more expensive to find and extract. This also comes at great risk.
I’ll just sum up with these three words: Deep. Water. Horizon.
Stupid quote#5 “Climate change is a myth fabricated by the big corporations and governments of the world so that they can increase profits and raise taxes on the back of it”
Answer#5: So the entire world’s scientific community is on the payroll of the corporations? Oh please. That’s as silly as saying that George. W. Bush planned and executed 9/11. Admittedly, there are plenty of vested interests in keeping the climate change debate alive, but the fact that it’s made up simply to make money just doesn’t ring true.
As for the governments; well, they don’t need excuses to raise our taxes, let alone an excuse that costs as much as concocting something as big as climate change. Get real people.
In summary then…
So then, if like me, you find yourself confronted by climate change denialists who seem intent on spouting these ever-used quotations to back up their arguments, then please feel free to call upon the answers above, if like me, you also find that you can only ever think of a suitable repartee once the debate is over (usually around a week later in my case).
Of course you are probably clever enough to counter to these dumb-assed quotes for yourself. If you do have cleverer, wittier or shrewder answers to these arguments than mine, then please let me know and I’ll add then to this post (and also use them myself, if I may). Thanks.
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 Arvind Balaraman, Valerij Dedkov, An Apollo astronaut and Kostas Tsipos
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
The Heavens Look on as Wind Power Gets the Ultimate Approval…
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Just some nonsense on August 18, 2011
I appologise if the title of this post may be a bit grand and hyperbolic; all I really want to do is show you a photograph. But hey, in these days of tags, keywords and search engine optimization, I think I can be excused for using a slightly over-inflated title, can’t I?
So then, all I ask you to do is look at this photo and see if you can see the eyes?
I’ll admit that I didn’t even notice these eyes until my (cloud-gazing) brother pointed them out to me. (If you’re having trouble, there is one eye on each side of the top blade)
The only explanation I can come with for this phenomenon is that it must be the heavens looking on in approval (although, I do think these ethereal eyes also look a tad like the Mona Lisa’s).
So that’s it then. The wind debate is over. Whether or not people argue that wind power is too expensive, blots the landscape, turns migrating birds into shredded duck and doesn’t really work anyway; we have official word from the Big Man Upstairs that it’s ok by him; and that’s good enough for me.
Well that’s it for now. There’ll be no news from me next week as I’m going on holiday; off for a round the world trip consuming lots of jet fuel, disposable aviation cutlery and staying in lots of expensive hotels… Nah, just kidding. I’m going camping in Devon. Back soon…
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, then do join the discussion on the facebook page. The more contentious the better please…
Photo courtesy of Scottish Power via Renewable UK
Searching to Save the Rainforest
Posted by Gareth Eynon in Products and Tips on August 15, 2011
There’s an internet search engine I’ve been using for the last couple of months, which gives 80% of the money it receives from sponsored links towards rainforest conservation. Great in principle, but does it work? Well, read on…
The search engine is called Ecosia, and if you haven’t heard of it yet, then I recommend you give it a try. Initially I thought this would be just another green gimmick; but as I have subsequently come to realise, there is very little difference between this search engine and most of the others out there. The overriding difference is that by using this one you come away from the computer feeling that you may have actually done a little bit of good while performing what is an ever-increasingly, everyday task.
Now, please pardon my laziness, but all of the following information is taken from Ecosia’s own literature so do excuse me if I just copy, paste and let them tell you the important stuff:
How It Works: In a nutshell
- You search with Ecosia.
- Perhaps you click on an interesting sponsored link.
- The sponsoring company pays Bing or Yahoo for the click.
- Bing or Yahoo gives the bigger chunk of that money to Ecosia.
- Ecosia donates at least 80% of this income to support WWF’s work in the Amazon.
Why the rainforest?
Six reasons why sustaining the world’s rainforests is important:
- Tropical rainforests are the most diverse ecosystems on our planet. More than 30 million species call these regions home – that’s two-thirds of all the world’s species.
- Deforestation and the resulting increase in CO2 emissions are considered the second largest cause of climate change today.
- Rainforests function as the “lungs (of) our planet“: they absorb and trap a massive amount of CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere, keeping the natural balance in check.
- Thanks to their pivotal role in regulating Earth’s climate, tropical rainforests help sustain the lives of all humans beings – not just the estimated 50 million natives inhabiting these regions.
- The past 50 years saw the destruction of half of the world’s tropical rainforests. At the current rate, an area the size of thirty soccer fields is destroyed every minute.
- Despite the immense threat that exists to the rainforest, purely political solutions to its destruction have proved insufficient.
So does it really give money to the rainforest, or is it just a publicity stunt?
Well, if you look at the screenshot above which was taken on the 6th of July 2011, and compare it to the screenshot taken today (15th August 2011), you can see that in the space of 40 days, Ecosia has donated £16,621 to the rainforest. So yes, it does work. What it also highlights is that I’m in the wrong business; sixteen grand in just 40 days? Blimey, no wonder Google has more money than God!
And my verdict is…
Well after a couple of months use, I have to say that this is now my search engine of choice. It easily does the job as good as any others, such as Ask. However, having said that, for a more in-depth search I have had to resort back to Google a couple of times. If, for example, you are searching for a reasonably well-known blog or product, then Ecosia will sort you out with no worries (and you may end up helping to contribute to rainforest conservation). If your search is for something a little bit more obscure then you may have to look elsewhere; but like I said, this has only happened to me once or twice.
In summary then…
Ecosia is a great little search engine: It’s quick, it’s thorough and unlike many novel ideas such as this, it actually works just as well as its counterparts. I’ve made it my primary search engine for about a month now and would highly recommend it to anyone.
GR
If you have anything to say on this article, or indeed anything raised in The Green Review, please join the discussion on our facebook page. The more contentious the better…
Photos courtesy of Ecosia
Changes to UK Planning Law Sparks Concern For Our Beloved Countryside
Posted by Gareth Eynon in News on August 8, 2011
The National Trust and The Campaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE) are about to come to blows with MPs over proposed changes to the planning law. They both argue that the changes will make it too easy for new developments to go ahead, consequently threatening green belt land.
This developing argument has led to a war of words between the charities, who claim the countryside will suffer as a result of the changes, and the government, who claim this just is a smear campaign by the left.
Of course changes by the government will usually have somebody or other up in arms; but when The National Trust – that most sensible and venerable of British institutions – throws off the gloves, then you know something is truly wrong.
The government reassures us that Green Belt land, National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSI) will remain protected. However, this then raises concern about the rest of the country’s green field sties and wildlife habitats that do not benefit from this security.
Part of what concerns The National Trust and CPRE is that our cash-strapped government is putting short-term financial gain ahead of robust countryside protection. It is feared that this will clear the way for more housing estates, power stations, roads and supermarkets. Conversely though, it may also make it easy for developments such as wind farms to get permission – although that will not please everybody.
The National Trust is due to mobilise its 3.6 million members for the first time in its history by asking them to sign a petition against the proposals, which shows how worried they must be about this change to the planning laws.
The reason for the change is to reduce the current planning policy from 1000 pages to 52, thus making the whole planning process more simple and transparent. While this appears to be prudent in principle, the government seems to be getting it wrong, yet again.
CPRE say that this is the biggest change to planning policy since 1947 and will allow local referendums to overrule current protection for rural areas.
As a member of The National Trust I am looking forward to seeing what they will do in regard to this spat with the government. If you too are concerned about this issue please can take action via the CPRE website, or The National Trust website.
You could, of course, sign both petitions, just like I’m going to do right now. Go on: get involved and make a difference.
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 Davidmartyn. Thanks.
