www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

The BBC has reported on another body of scientists adding their collective voice to the climate change debate.

This time it’s the AGU, the American Geophysical Union, the world’s largest organisation of earth & space scientists, that has revised its public policy to add further weight to the climate debate.

In December the AGU changed its official statement on climate change after years of activity in studying the effects and possible effects of climate change. The revised statement reflects the research from many of the AGU’s members supporting the effects of how climate change the planet. The AGU has 50,000 members in 137 countries.

The AGU has said that current climate change is “not natural” and can be best attributed to human activity and the pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Carbon emissions should be cut by half by the end of the century, the AGU has warned.

Globalisation is a fascinating concept: you buy goods that are cheap because they were made in a country where the production costs are lower and then you wonder why the company down the road making the same local goods at local prices goes out of business!

Seriously though, that may be a bit harsh as there are (some) good sides to globalisation. Take, for instance, specialist software developers - we’ve had first hand experience that if you can’t find a local developer it’s OK that you go shopping in Australia and Holland if that’s where you find the exact skills you’ve been looking for.

But it’s the original opening scenario that is worrying and very topical - The United States, in desperate attempts to stave off a recession, is planning tax rebates to boost the economy. Individuals will get up to $600 and married couples up to $1200. Those couples with children will get an additional $300 per child.

Now this may seem surreal and a little sensationalist giving people back the money they paid to government, to the tune of $100 billion for households and $50 billion for business, so that they can spend more to then help their own economy. Will it boost the fortunes of the world’s (current) biggest polluter? Maybe, we’ll have to wait and see.

But what does this have to do with globalisation? The fact is that the tax plans have caused Asian markets to rally on the news. Why?

As somebody interviewed in that BBC news story remarked:

“The markets are reacting to news that Bush and Congress have agree[d] to accelerate tax rebates for US consumers so they can go out and buy more exports from Asia”

So it looks like the American economy does well by its own people buying boatloads of foreign goods. That seems to be a very precarious situation to be in and a huge green flag to encourage rampant consumerism in order to further even greater globalisation.

So what happens when the Asian economies develop to such an extent that their prices catch up with those in the West? Where do consumers buy their cheap goods? Does the economy stumble again? Is this a scary enough scenario to get everybody to buy local?

Japan’s Oji Paper has admitted to lying “for decades” about the amount of recycled paper in their products.

The leading paper maker in Japan has come clean about the fact that, in one case, the amount of recycled fibre in their copy paper was not 50% as claimed but only between 5 and 10%.

Some of Oji Paper’s envelopes were thought to contain as much as 70% recycled paper whereas the real content was just 30%.

Oji Paper’s admissions come hot on the heals of Nippon Paper Group who also greenwashed their products, especially millions of new year greeting cards where again the proportion of post-consumer paper was much lower than the company boasted.

Nippon Paper’s shares dropped 10% on the news and Oji Paper’s shares fell 5% with Fuji Xerox and other firms stating they would not stock Nippon Paper’s products.

Kazuhisa Shinoda, Oji Paper’s president, refused to resign but did take full responsibility and apologised for misleading clients & consumers. He attributed the drop in recycled materials to increased orders yet falling amounts of recycled material entering the production process.

This item is bought to you on a recycled story

*cough*

Did you just say “You can drive a big truck and still be responsible”?

Those are the words of Jim Press, Vice Chairman of Chrysler, to the BBC as he sings the praises of the new 2008 Dodge Ram - a truck that has 5.7 litre 345 horse power V8 engine and is apparently 5% more fuel-efficient than its predecessor. With that in mind he adds that “it’s kind to the environment”.

I’m sorry, Jim, but over here in England, our reaction to that would be “Bollocks!” Forgive my crude words, but that’s probably the biggest load of old crap I’ve heard this year. How can driving a 5.7litre 345 HP V8 truck be both responsible and “kind to the environment”?

I had a quick scout of the ‘net for MPG figures for the 2007 Dodge Ram and there’s evidence that the 2007 Dodge Ram does, on average, 14-16 MPG.

So, Jim Press, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt… let’s say your new 2008 Dodge Ram does 16MPG and we’ll add 5% to that figure… Oooh, that truck does 16.8 MPG! That’s a whole 0.8 miles, an extra 1.28 kilometres, an additional 1408 yards for every gallon. Whoopee, Dodge are so environmentally friendly and oh so green.

You can drive my old station wagon and get 26MPG with 5 people and all their luggage in it and be 60% more efficient if you DON’T buy a New Dodge Ram.

Read this forum to see reactions of “WOW, fantastic” to some old Rams getting as much as 10.9 MPG…

Is this greenwash, utter bullshit or just sheer self-delusion?

The ill-considered rush to provide biofuels for Europe & the world has led to a number of negative environmental issues.

Where biofuel was once seen as an easy alternative to producing greener vehicles, it was thought that simply fuelling the same old vehicles with “greener” fuel would be the answer to the CO₂ issues.

However the use of biofuel, mainly due to these negative issues, is almost negligible.

In particular the EU’s policy to provide 10% of its road fuel from plants has created a situation where, for instance, natural rainforest habitat in Indonesia has been destroyed to plant palm trees from which palm oil can be extracted. Unfortunately the gains in getting biofuel from palm oil are grossly offset by the loss of biodiversity and the orang-utan is under threat of extinction due to deforestation.

In some extreme cases there are reports of people being forced from their land by greedy companies who then plant palms for biofuel production.

The interesting change is that it’s not the traditional energy companies that are producing fuel - it’s now in the hands of food companies!

So Europe, quick to react to the situation of the biofuel craze, but slow on other markets for palm oil, is to revise its policies on biofuels. Stavros Dimas, EU Environment Commissioner, has said that Europe intends to clampdown on biofuels from palm oil where natural environment is destroyed & poor people are driven from their lands, by introducing a certification scheme.

The EU would do well to work closely with Friends of the Earth and work toward making ALL palm oil production sustainable and not just palm oil for biofuel purposes.