Having too many children can damage the environment

I know that traditionally, having children is pretty much down to each individual and there has never been any statutory control in this area. A new report by the Optimum Population Trust has been published earlier this week that states families should have a maximum of two children, as any more is damaging to the environment. I know this smacks of interference into people’s lives, but maybe if people are being reckless in their behaviour and damaging the planet, which let’s face affects us all, there does need to be some kind of regulation in place.

The think-tank have worked out that over an 80 year lifespan, the average UK child will create the equivalent carbon footprint of 620 of return flights to New York. When you factor into the equation that each child will have their own children, the carbon footprint gets even bigger. As well as their carbon footprint, there is the use of the Earth’s resources, water and food. The fact that the world is overpopulated is open to question, some people would like to believe the Earth can support an ever growing population. The think-tank obviously believes the world is not big enough to support the human population as it stands, and as it grows, the world will struggle to support us all.

The report has been met by some as an intrusion into their freedom to live their lives as they wish. But, is an individual’s right to freedom of lifestyle more important than the good of the wider community? Where is the line that separates freedom of choice and global responsibility? The government will in the future have to decide where to step in to perhaps curtail personal choice for the greater good. Scary thought, but it may have to happen some day as resources become limited.

[Via The Guardian]

Personalise your style with Armour Sans Anguish

We all want to be a one-off and now you can be with Armour Sans Anguish (clothing without sorrow), the brainchild of two fashion forward girls called Tawny Holt and Julie Edwards, who are both passionate about one-of-a-kind, recycled and sweatshop free clothing. Deconstructed vintage style is their forte and looking through their collections (which get snapped up pretty quick), Armour Sans Anguish excel at it.

Julie is a consummate pro when it comes to repurposing old items, having acquired the skill of thriftiness from a very early age. Tawny majors in Cultural Anthropology and Feminist Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz and has always loved making things.

Online eco-store BTC Elements are currently selling a beautiful Armour Sans Anguish, 'Layered and Lovely' reconstructed tulle dress, created from reclaimed and secondhand fabric, for $200. If you're a fan, get purchasing now, before it sells out, like all their other beautiful creations.

[Via ethicalfashionista]

Live Earth saves the planet

If music be the food of love for the Earth, then play on…The whole world must have known about Live Earth, but unfortunately most of the world was watching something else on their television sets. The idea of rock concerts across seven continents simultaneously broadcast to a potential audience of 2 billion people to get across the message that we all need to do our part in saving the Earth is a worthy one. We can only applaud the efforts of Al Gore to take the message to as much of the world’s population as possible. Getting the audience to add their names by text or email to a worldwide petition is inspired.

The number of music stars that gave their time freely must show how much they care about the environment, mustn’t it? I mean, their lifestyles are so green and ethical aren’t they? Maybe I’m being cynical, but I tend to think that what matters is action rather than words. Being on a stage telling people to save the planet is easy, taking the steps to achieve it are much harder. I’m sure doing this concert will do wonders for their eco credentials and no doubt the television exposure must have been worth a fortune in PR

The only problem is, names on a list will not change the world. After the concert, people will still get into their cars to drive home via a fast food restaurant to eat processed meat products and go home to their normal lives. What will change because of this concert? How many people will change their lifestyle because of Live Earth?

The problem of rising global temperatures is so huge now that only drastic action by everyone is going to make the difference. Token gestures just will not cut it I’m afraid. Are we prepared to make the changes, even if they mean sacrificing our lifestyles? I think not. People are too comfortable with their way of life to take the steps needed to save the Earth.

live earth

UK farmers want to lead the way with biofuel crops

Where many environmentalists see the surge in biofuels as something to be cautious with, the UK’s farming industry wants to expand into growing crops for biofuels. British farmers see this as an opportunity to go from a subsidised farming industry to a competitive and successful market-driven one. The UK has already fallen behind the USA and other European countries in the uptake of biofuel crops and green fuels in general. The National Farmer’s Union’s vice president, Paul Temple was dismissive of fears that using food crops for biofuel would push up food prices, saying that it was “absolute nonsense” put about by food processors. He went on to say “This is a big win for both urban and rural economies because we already produce significant exportable surpluses at the bottom end of the market…biofuels offer farmers the chance to move out of the subsidised economy to the market economy but the UK has been slow out of the blocks compared with Germany, France and America." Great for the farmers, and the taxpayers that subsidise them, but what about the world’s poorer communities?

His view is at odds with a United Nations report prepared with input from all 30 of its organisations. The report believes the rush to expand the use of biofuels will not only increase deforestation, but will push small farmers off the land and lead to serious food shortages and increased poverty among the world’s poorest communities unless the whole thing is carefully managed. Judging by past experience the biofuel revolution will not be ‘well managed’ but will instead be profit driven rather than environmentally driven.

[Via The Guardian]

Advocates For Animals takes on Tesco

Why is it that animals are loved by most people, yet their suffering is tolerated by the majority? We all recoil at the RSPCA adverts on the television that show cats and dogs in awful states, yet how many of us think about the farm animals that are kept in the most torturous conditions? When people tuck into their breakfast eggs and bacon do they think about the suffering of the animals they are eating? Advocates for Animals is one of Britain’s leading animal protection organisations and provides a voice for animals. They campaign against animal cruelty in all its nasty, horrid forms.

Which brings me unfortunately onto the topic of battery hens. We all know how cruel the treatment of chickens is on factory farms, yet supermarkets still support the practise of keeping chickens in tiny cages with barely room to move. One of Tesco’s egg suppliers has been exposed by Advocates for Animals for keeping up to eight chickens in wire cages that are legally only permitted to hold a maximum of five. It is bad enough that chickens are kept in cages for their entire life, unable to stand up properly or to stretch their wings or legs, but to cram even more into these tiny cages is criminal.

Advocates for Animals has launched its ‘Go Cage-Free’ campaign to try to persuade Tesco to stop selling eggs from caged hens. The campaign will focus on educating the public about the plight of caged hens and visiting Tesco stores in 16 towns to spread their message.

The supermarkets have the buying power to dictate to farmers how they treat their livestock. It is about time supermarkets used their clout to ensure that all farmers they deal with treat their livestock with humanity and stop the barbaric practises of factory farming. If supermarkets are unsure about this issue, maybe we can help them to decide by not buying eggs from caged hens. The supermarkets depend on us for their profits, so if we spend our money ethically, they will have to change their policies. We can make the difference!

Reducing farm animals methane production

The easiest way to reduce climate change gases in the atmosphere is for all humans to become vegan. That is pretty much a very simple and painless way to reduce global warming gases. Obviously this is not going to happen, so scientists are working on ways to make cows and sheep produce less methane. Did you know that a quarter of all the methane produced by human activity comes from farm animals?

There are differing approaches to this problem around the world. In Germany for example, scientists at Hohenheim University have developed a plant-based pill that is combined with a special diet to reduce the methane cows produce by converting it to glucose. In New Zealand and the UK, the approach taken is to get farmers to grow different types of grass that have high levels of sugar. This diet of sugar rich grass changes the way bacteria in the animals’ stomachs break down plant material into waste gas. The problem with this type of grass is that it is more difficult to grow, so scientists are trying to make a genetically modified version which is hoped will be easier to grow. Which in effect is getting GM crops into the food chain through the back door.

The obvious answer to this particular methane gas problem is for people to stop eating meat and dairy products. The complex and expensive answer is to change the animals diet with pills and GM feed. Guess which one is more likely to happen?

[Via The Guardian]

The darker side of the biofuel ‘green’ revolution

Biofuels have been touted as the green alternative to petrol for some time now. A number of governments, ours included, have set targets for the uptake of biofuels in the next few years as a means of reducing their countries CO2 emissions. Unfortunately in doing this they have opened the door to unscrupulous and unethical businesses to exploit both the planet and people. Just one example of this is taking place in Uganda. The Mehta sugar corporation wants to expand its sugar cane plantations for biofuel production.

This may sound like a good thing, but that is far from the truth. The Mehta sugar corporation wants to expand its operations into the Mabira Forest Reserve. At the moment the reserve is protected by law due to its importance to the country’s eco system, the forest is home to 300 bird species and many rare primates, and the forest stores CO2.

The Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni said that handing the forest over to the Mehta group would create jobs and boost the competitiveness of the sugar industry in the area. Again the conflict between the environment and the needs of the economy area at odds. Can there ever be a convergence of economic need and environemntal need? I think there can, but the element of greed has to be removed from the equation. I believe there can be compassion and ethical conduct in business. There have been protests against this in Uganda, and in April three people were killed at a demonstration. The push for biofuels is creating the conditions for exploitation of the world’s forests and increased hunger in the developing world as more agricultural crops are sold for biofuel production, creating food shortages and inflated prices.

Is the West’s drive to convert to biuofuels actually going to reduce the global levels of CO2 or is it merely reducing emissions from some countries so they can meet their targets and increasing emissions in others? The overall net effect may be a rise in CO2 emissions if we’re not careful.


[Via The Independent]