MacDonalds tries to go green

McDonalds, an institution more commonly known for its poor environmental policies and damage to the planet is trying to ‘green-up’ its image by using waste from its restaurants to generate power. Whether this is enough to outweigh the environmental damage McDonalds inflicts on the world is another question. The idea is for a small pilot scheme using 11 of its restaurants in Yorkshire, which if successful will be rolled out to all the other McDonald sites. Waste from the restaurants in Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley will be shipped to Veola Environmental Services who will treat the waste at its Energy Recovery facility in Sheffield.

Steve Easterbrook, President and CEO of MacDonalds UK said: “As a progressive company, we are constantly trying to find ways to run our business in a more sustainable way. However, like many companies, we find that we are currently constrained by the lack of infrastructure needed to support initiatives like this across the UK… If the trial is successful we are keen to explore how we can extend it to other parts of the country as part of our ongoing efforts to improve our impact on the environment and local communities." Nice sentiment, but does it fit in with McDonald’s corporate strategy on environmental policies? You decide.

[Via The Telegraph]

ExxonMobil accused of ‘misleading advertising campaign’

Friends of the Earth (FoE) has just launched an online video called ‘The Exxon Files’, an animated spoof of the X-Files that gives the low-down on ExxonMobil’s funding of climate change deniers. There have long been suspicions, and even evidence of ExxonMobil giving millions of dollars to a variety of thinktanks, scientists and lobbyists to rubbish the science underpinning the human impact on global warming. FoE Europe campaigner, Christine Phol, said: "ExxonMobil invests millions of euros funding thinktanks and lobbyists committed to blocking internationally agreed policies to combat climate change whilst at the same time spending major sums on advertising designed to present itself as an environmentally responsible company." You can help the FoE campaign by watching the video and registering your support for their planned complaint to the Belgian authorities over ExxonMobil adverts at Brussels airport.

The adverts say that ExxonMobil is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, but the company’s corporate citizenship reports shows an increase of 8.7 million tonnes of CO2 emissions between 2003 and 2006. Paul de Clerck, another FoE Europe campaigner, described the adverts as just one example of ExxonMobil's "deliberately misleading advertising campaign". He went on to say: "The 'greening' of oil giant Exxon is nothing more than a slick public relations exercise… Instead of spending millions (of euros) on manipulating the facts, they should make real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Of course ExxonMobil denied the claims, their spokesperson said: “The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory only diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to sustain and improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions” ExxonMobil’s response would be laughable if the issue of global warming wasn’t so serious.

[Via The Guardian]

UK power companies fail to tackle climate change

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has claimed that the UK’s biggest power companies are failing to deal with climate change. In its annual survey, the WWF rated the UK’s top six energy companies in order of their attempts to tackle climate change. Top of the league came Centrica (owner of British Gas) for tackling carbon emissions and promoting energy efficiency followed by Scottish Power for having the highest investment in renewable energy resources. They were followed by E.ON UK, Scottish and Southern Energy, EDF Energy and finally RWE Power. EDF Energy and RWE Power had demonstrated the least progress in tackling climate change, but even the companies at the top of the list still lacked the vision necessary to combat climate change.

WWF’s head of climate change, Keith Allott said: "If you combined the best elements of Centrica's and Scottish Power's strategies, you might begin to see a real leader pushing towards a green and efficient power sector… The power sector's emissions have been rising in recent years and many companies are focusing on building new fossil fuel or nuclear stations rather than providing efficient energy services and clean renewable energy." For all their ‘green’ claims, the power companies are still not doing enough. Maybe consumer pressure would spur them on. If enough consumers changed suppliers to the ‘greenest’ companies, the rest would soon change their attitude to climate change.

[Via The Guardian]

Fear turns Catalina green

The small but idyllic Catalina Island is turning green. Catalina is a small island off the southern coast of California. It has a population of around 3500 mostly conservative and affluent citizens. Not exactly stereotypical green activists, but the people of Catalina are embracing change to help reduce their impact on global warming. Their aim is to reduce their carbon emissions to as near zero as possible and be as self-sustaining as possible.

The reason? One film by Al Gore, you know the one, “An Inconvenient Truth” and the fact that their island paradise will very likely be underwater if global warming continues at its present rate.

Fear is driving their desire for change. It is fear that is creating the impetus for real change. The good people of Catalina are looking at their lifestyles and making changes to help themselves, both as individuals and as a society. They hope to be an example of model living that will influence others across the USA. The fact that it is helping the planet may initially have been of little interest to them, but does it really matter? The end result is the same: they are causing less damage to the planet.

So perhaps what some people need to drive positive change is fear. Rather than appealing to people’s sense of duty or concern for the environment, we should be making them afraid of the consequences to them. A good dose of fear may save the planet where common sense has failed.

The Great Global Warming Swindle appears to have been a swindle

How many of you watched ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ recently on channel 4? If you did, you will remember the whole programme was an attempt to portray global warming as a purely natural phenomenon caused primarily by solar activity. Even more disturbing, was the film-makers attempt to convince us the theory that global warming is being caused by human activity was false and basically a lie. Apparently we are all victims of a great big con.

Now it appears we were victims of a con. A con by the film-makers themselves. The programme has been referred to Ofcom, the regulatory watchdog, to consider a complaint by 37 scientists. The programme has been accused of misrepresenting the prevailing views and facts relating to global warming. Even one of the climate sceptics whose research work was used on the programme has accused the film-makers of broadcasting falsehoods.

I watched this programme with my partner and we were both shocked by the portrayal of global warming as nothing more than a natural cycle, the rising levels of carbon dioxide relegated to mere coincidence. It made us wonder at the time who was funding the programme and what their agenda was. Whatever it was, I found the whole thing irresponsible and detrimental to the cause of reducing the human activities associated with global warming. Nice one channel 4, way to save the planet.

UK Ministry of Defence pays £12 million to identify potential climate change conflicts

In the UK, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has agreed a £12 million contract with the Meteorological (Met) Office to identify areas of the world where climate change could cause conflict and pose security threats to the UK. The MOD needs to know both the locations of future conflicts and the environmental and climate outlook too for future military planning. The Met Office will use its expertise to determine areas that will be affected by global warming over the coming decades. The research will focus on two main possibilities, locations where drought could lead to food and water shortages and locations where previously unfertile land becomes fertile, either through rising temperatures or increased rainfall.

It is believed conflict could arise from both of these scenarios. The MOD’s chief scientific adviser, Roy Anderson said: "The MoD has identified climate change as a key strategic factor affecting societal stresses and the responses of communities and nations to those stresses. We have a pressing need for the best available advice on future climate change and, based on these predictions, assessments of the impacts of those changes on human societies at the regional and local scale." This particular project is only one part of a wider scheme to determine the effects of climate change globally and nationally. Defra, the environment department, has pledged £74m to help scientists provide more detailed forecasts of how UK weather is likely to change over the coming decades. The emphasis of the UK government has very clearly shifted from trying to determine if global warming is real to what the effects of global warming will be.

Computer models predict that the Middle East will become increasingly hotter and drier, with 30% less rainfall by 2010. In such a volatile area, increased drought will only add to the tensions and conflicts. With oil still the mainstay of Europe and the US economies, this is an area that is very likely to draw us into conflict.

Worryingly for the MOD, it is predicted that by the end of the century there could be as many as 130 days each year that are too hot for soldiers to operate.

In the US, a report for the government back in March warned that the US must be prepared to intervene in escalating crises around the world brought on by climate change. Global Business Network, a consultancy based in San Francisco said in their paper ‘Impacts of Climate Change’ “…crises may force the US as a global leader to act in situations that it might otherwise have preferred to ignore…to adopt a ‘pre-emptive’ approach to forestall the worst effects of collapsing ecosystems, water systems…”

Looking at the whole raft of measures the UK government is putting in place, it would appear that they are resigned to global warming and are looking at ways to deal with the impact rather than try to stop it happening. If this is the case in the US and other countries too, it looks like it is up to us as individuals to do everything we can to minimize our carbon emissions, both personally and with the products and services we buy.

[Via The Guardian]

Tories embrace the environment with new policies

The conservative party is fast becoming the party of the environment, with an 800-page report due to be published on Thursday outlining a raft of policies to make us all more environmentally friendly. The report promises to be bold and innovative in its approach to protecting the environment. There are proposals to ban electrical appliances that exceed precise limits on energy consumption. Another idea worth mentioning is to force manufacturers to fit appliances with devices that switch them off rather than leave them on stand-by. These are great ideas, they will force manufacturers to develop technology that is better geared to reducing climate change emissions.

The other important element of this policy document is the concept of increasing taxation on energy wasteful practices, such as buying big petrol guzzling cars and giving rebates to households that take positive steps to reduce their energy use. Some may see this as a cynical marketing ploy to attract voters, but I like to think that whatever the motivation behind the policies, as long as the policies are effective, it does not really matter.


[Via The Telegraph]

Eco-housing gets a boost

The second largest house-builder in the UK, Persimmon has pledged to support the government’s plans for low carbon emission housing. The company has said it wants to help build the 3 million houses needed by 2020. They have agreed to introduce environmental measures in the new homes to try to get the zero carbon emissions standard the government wants. They are currently testing things like wind turbines and photovoltaic solar cell roof tiles. The company in return wants the government to change the planning laws to speed up the planning application process and make it easier for them to buy land to build on.

This may appear to be a worthwhile move by a building company, but is it? Building new homes with renewable energy technologies is a great idea and needs to be a statutory requirement for all new houses, not a marketing ploy by builders. The worrying element of this deal is the relaxation of the planning application law that could allow builders to use precious greenbelt land to build on. They are in effect holding the government to ransom. The government knows the country needs 3 million new homes, so they will have to cave-in to house-builders demands to ease planning and building restrictions.

[Via The Guardian]

Biofuel demand starts to hurt poorest communities

As predicted by many environmentalists recently, the demand for corn (or maize) for biofuel production has started to cause suffering among the poorest of communities. Western demand for biofuel is leading to higher prices and declining food stocks for people in the poorest countries. An example of this is Mexico, where demand for corn in the USA has increased dramatically since president Bush stated his aim that the US produce 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017. Corn is a main staple in the Mexican diet, and when the price jumped by 50% there were protests in the streets. The Mexican government had to step in and enforce a price freeze. As demand grows further there are fears that decreased stocks and price rises will create more problems in Mexico. As Doña Catalina, making and selling tortillas from her little shop says "Poor corn..It isn't meant to go in cars. It is meant to feed our children and our grandchildren. And their grandchildren too."

The scale of demand for biofuel crops such as corn is staggering. In the US alone there are already 121 ethanol biorefineries with a 76 under construction. Even so, this will only meet a third of president Bush’s quota of biofuel production. The whole international biofuel production process has to be managed effectively and fairly otherwise it will be another case of the richer developed countries inflicting suffering on the poorest countries to satisfy their own greed.

[Via The Guardian]

Wind turbines in your backyard

There are many people, myself included that believe wind and solar power is a good solution to our energy needs. So far, the majority of wind farms have been planned and located in the countryside, far away from population centres. This does blight the countryside and affect the local wildlife and population, but for the majority of people there is no consequence apart from greener electricity. Local councils and residents have in the past, and continue now, to campaign against wind farms in their local area. All that is about to change. Ecotricity have started a new policy of seeking planning permission to install wind turbines in urban areas. This makes it far easier for them to get planning permission approval. Apparently urban populations do not oppose wind turbines and local residents have little objection to them. I suppose this is because we are used to having big ugly structures all around us in cities, whereas in the countryside people are more used to living in a beautiful and peaceful environment. Whatever the reasons are, this is a good move by Ecotricity and will mean more green electricity for more people without spoiling the countryside.

[Via The Guardian]

The real cost of distressed denim

Distressed denim may be all the rage in the fashion world at the moment, but the style comes at an environmental and human cost. In Tehuacán in Mexico it is the local people that pay price for our fashion. Once famous for its mineral springs and spas, Tehuacán, the ‘City of Health’, is now home to around 700 clothes manufacturers, many with little or no environmental controls or standards. Workers are routinely exploited, their employee rights ignored. The worst environmental culprits are the dozens of factories that make the faded or distressed denim that is so fashionable right now. The chemicals used in the process are discharged into the rivers and streams around the factories, turning the water blue and damaging the crops that depend on the water systems.

The main chemical used is potassium permanganate, a strong bleaching agent that was once used to induce abortions. Mariano Baragán, a local farmer said: "As well as being blue, it burns the seedlings and sterilises the earth." The government agencies that should be monitoring the factories are allowing this to happen, probably because the local economy depends on the factories, and their foreign corporate customers. It is these corporations that should be enforcing stricter controls on their client factories to protect both the workers and the environment. We as customers ultimately have the power to change this with our buying power. We chould only buy products from ethical and fairtrade companies.

[Via The Guardian]

Climate change hits Inuit way of life

Climate change is something that we sometimes perceive as abstract and a bit unreal at the moment, in our country at least. We have not really had to experience the devastating effects of global warming on our way of life, yet. For the Inuit people of Canada, Greenland, Alaska and Russia’s far east, climate change is real and it is current. Rising temperatures, melting ice and rising sea levels are affecting entire communities and their traditional way of life. This is not something that they need to worry about in the future, this is their reality now. Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the former president and international chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) is trying to raise awareness of the effect of global warming to her people. She talks about increasing numbers of hunters falling through the ice. She explains about her neighbour: “He fell through the ice and found him two days or three days later when his legs were frozen…

…It's a remarkable story because he is an experienced hunter yet even he couldn't read the condition of the ice. What you see on the surface of the ice may look like what you've been taught for generations, but the ice is forming differently because the Arctic sink is warmer”

She goes on to say: “In Baffin, yes, the floe edge is much closer than before. In Greenland, the ice sheet is melting much faster than anything that they have ever experienced in the past few years. Alaska has been hit very hard as communities are literally falling into the sea.” This really brings home to me how important it is for us to do everything we can to reduce our own carbon footprint. It is not just about us, and our future, it is about other people around the world and their present. We owe it them.

[Via The Guardian]

Offshore wind farms are a danger to whales and dolphins

Offshore wind farms are expected to account for around 20% of our electricity needs by 2020, which is good news for the government as it is at least one target they may be able to meet and it is good news for the planet as it means reduced carbon emissions and lower global temperature rises, which makes it good news for us too. Unfortunately these constructions are very likely to harm whales and dolphins, both during construction and in the longer term. A report by the Whale and Dolphin Society states that during construction, the noise can be heard up to 80km away and at closer ranges whales and dolphins can have their hearing damaged and can exhibit dramatic behavioural changes. Once the wind farms are in full operation, the noise from the service boats will continue to cause damage to marine life.

As a vegan, I do not want to see any living creature caused pain or suffering. On the other hand, global warming if left unchecked will do incredible harm to many life forms, humans included. Is this a lesser of two evils? I personally do not think so. We created the mess we’re in, and we should sort it out without causing harm to animals or people. We should endeavour to find solutions the climate change that are ethical and fair to all living creatures.


[Via The Independent]

Government policy on climate change lacking

The Commons Environmental Audit Committee has urged the government to take more effective and co-ordinated action to reduce the emissions that are causing climate change. The cross-party group of MP’s on the committee believe that government policy is becoming incoherent and the measures put in place do not go far enough.

The government has set the UK a target of reducing carbon emissions by 60% of 1990 levels by 2050 in a legally binding plan under the draft Climate Change Bill. The government believes that this will be sufficient to keep global temperature rises to 2 degrees Celsius. The most recent research however suggests that this level of reduction will not be enough to achieve the 2 degree Celsius rise the government wants. Even if this was enough, the UK’s carbon emissions have risen rather than fallen, making it highly unlikely that the government’s own target will be met.

The committee points to series of failings on the government’s policy towards meeting not just its own targets, but also its Kyoto commitments. The problem is, people are not prepared to take the necessary steps as individuals, and the government is wary of introducing regulation for fear of becoming even less popular. It is a strange situation really, most people agree that something needs to be done to stop the rise in global temperature, but no one really wants to do much about it, other than easy token gestures.
[Via The Independent]

Website helps you to reduce CO2 from your car

There are a few simple steps you can take to reduce the environmental impact of driving your car. By choosing the right car and driving the right way you can cut down CO2 emissions.

The Department of Transport in association with What Car? magazine has launched a website with details of the most fuel efficient cars in all classes. The website lets you input the type of car you are interested in and it gives you details of the top 10 in the class for fuel efficiency and emissions. The car categories are: Supermini, Small family, Family, Estate, MPV, Compact Executive, Executive, Coupe, Open-top, Hot hatch, Compact 4x4, Large 4x4, Luxury and Performance Car. These categories were developed by What Car? magazine, to cover the majority of cars people will buy.

According to the website, if drivers follow their Smarter Driving Tips, CO2 emissions from their existing cars could reduced by 8%, and even better, if drivers buying new cars bought the most fuel efficient in its class, it could lead to a 24% reduction in CO2 emissions from new cars. It just goes to show that by taking very simple steps we can reduce our individual carbon footprint.

Water transport promises greener way

Using coastal waters and the canal system to transport goods around the country can produce 80% less carbon emissions compared to road haulage according to a report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs select committee. That would be a pretty massive reduction in carbon emissions if all UK companies would switch form road to water freight. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen because of the higher costs involved.

Despite British Waterways promising to double the freight carried on water by 2010, the amount carried by water has dropped from 4.3m tonnes to 3.4m tonnes between 2000 and 2005. The British Waterways agency believes this is because it is uneconomic to transport goods by water in comparison.

The obvious answer would be for the government to increase the tax on road haulage to make water haulage more attractive. The government increases taxes all the time, so this would fit in nicely with their tax ethos. The other way to get more freight on Britain’s waterways is to give subsidies or tax breaks to firms using water haulage.

If the government is at all serious about reducing the UK’s carbon emission levels, this would be a very easy option to take. It may mean a slight increase in prices, or slightly less profit for the companies, but compared to the alternatives, this is a small price to pay.

[Via The Guardian]

Velib cycle scheme hits Paris

Paris is trying out a cycling scheme first developed in Lyon, which looks like a good way to reduce city centre congestion and therefore pollution and carbon emissions. The Velib scheme has 10,600 bikes located at 750 docking stations, with plans to increase this to 20,600 by the end of the year. The docking stations are located at 300m intervals, mainly at transport hubs and popular sites. Commuters can pick up a bike at a docking station and return it to any other docking station. The first half hour of use is free, but after that there is an incremental charge for every additional half hour of use. Users of the scheme can book a Velib pass online or at stations, costing a mere €1 for a day pass, €5 for a weekly and €29 for a yearly, this is an inexpensive and environmentally friendly way of getting to and from work.

The Velib scheme is part of Paris’s mayor Bertrand Delanoë’s aim to reduce car traffic by 40% by 2020. The mayor has already had an extra 200km of cycle paths built, and plans to double the number of cycle lanes by 2008. This popular scheme is a good model for other towns and cities to follow. Creating more cycle paths makes cycling safer and more attractive to commuters. This is a simple way to reduce carbon emissions and get people fitter and healthier at the same time.

[Via International Herald Tribune]

African organic farms under threat

Starting Monday 23rd July, the Soil Association (SA) is debating the merits of banning the certification of African organic produce due to the CO2 emissions created by the aircraft that fly the produce to our stores. The SA is hearing views on the issue until September, when it will act to impose either a limited or total ban. There is pressure from UK farmers to impose the ban. If the SA imposes a ban on the labelling of African organic produce as organic, it will effectively destroy the livelihood of millions of people across Africa. There are a number of reasons why such a move would be immoral, and would do little to protect the environment.

The farmers in Africa that have worked for years to get organic certification create on average 30 times less CO2 than UK citizens (World Bank figures). They see the West as the main contributors to climate change, yet they are the ones being punished for it. London's Cranfield University in a recent study calculated that roses grown in Kenya saved more CO2 than if the flowers were grown in Holland. This is because of the greater use of renewable energy sources in Kenya compared to the high energy consumption in Holland. Even factoring in the CO2 from the air transport, the African produce has still created less CO2 emissions than the European produce.

[Via The Guardian]

Public transport costs rise as motoring costs drop

The benefits of going green are not lost on businesses and governments. Green has political capital right now. Green sells and green gets votes. The UK government likes to talk up its green credentials, to be in effect the government that cares for the planet. There seem to be new sound-bites and new initiatives to tackle climate change coming out all the time.

This may play well in the papers and on the television news, but in reality are these just more empty words and token gestures? Looking at the government’s transport policy, it would appear to be just another smokescreen to keep the public placated. In the last 30 years, the cost of travelling by car has fallen by 10% while the cost of travelling by train and bus has risen by 50%. Not exactly the best way to get people out of their cars and onto public transport! In the last 10 years, motorists have driven up to 270 billion miles a year, which any way you look at it adds up to a massive amount of CO2 emissions.

Is there a simple solution? As our population grows and people become wealthier, more people will own and drive cars. To compound the problem, there is the perception that public transport is more dangerous, especially for women travelling on their own, and of course there is the stigma of not owning a car and having to get on a bus or train. This is a complex problem, and will involve a culture change among many people. The car has been promoted as a sign of independence and status, for some people it defines who they are. The government can help by improving public transport generally and by making it cheaper and safer. They can even risk the wrath of motorists and increase the cost of driving, but that I think will be step too far for any government that depends on voters to stay in power. In the end it will come down to individuals making choices that either help reduce climate change or increase climate change.

[Via The Independent]

Electricity firms are trying out new Smart meters

Four major UK electricity suppliers has signed a contract with the government to install 40,000 smart meters as part of a two year trial. The government is giving £10 million towards the costs of this. The purpose of the trial is to determine whether smart meters actually reduce people’s electricity consumption. It is hoped the smart meters will help people change the way they use electricity.

The smart meters will have a clip-on display unit that shows electricity use in real time. This means the consumer can see exactly how much each appliance is costing them to run. Whether this will make people change the way they use electricity remains to be seen. I’m sure people will be more likely to turn off lights and appliances on stand-by once they see how much it is costing them. The aim is to have every home fitted with smart meters by 2017.

The consumer watchdog energywatch believes this is inadequate and has asked the government to make all new and replacement meters smart meters. This makes so much more sense. Why install new meters and replace existing ones with ordinary meters, then in a few years time have to go through the whole process again and replace them all with smart meters. The only reasons I can see for this is that with the existing meters the electricity companies can give estimated bills and can make more money by over estimating electricity use, and if they install smart meters people will use less electricity so they will make less profit. It seems like a strange thing for any retailer to do, to ask their customers to buy less of their product! Maybe the government needs to bring in legal requirements for the use of smart meters.

[Via The Guardian]