www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

Today a contractor turned up on behalf of South East Water and installed a water meter at my request. It was a pretty quick and easy job and the water meter was actually installed at the point in the public highway (the footpath at the end of my drive actually) where the water pipes into my property rather than in the house as I had suspected (I was concerned it would be yet another  a big ugly box just like the gas and electric meters that take up space inside an understairs cupboard in the hallway)

I have to admit, the main reason for getting a water meter installed was a financial one. Currently I occupy a 3-bedroomed semi-detached house on my own whilst my better half and daughter spend an extended period of time abroad. The local council reduce my council tax rates for single occupancy but the water company do not. The annual bill for water is approximately £320 and that is based on the rateable value of the property.

Somewhere down the line you can only assume that the water companies have estimated the average use and cost of water supply, drainage and sewerage for a typical 3-bed semi with X amount of people living there. In my case that doesn’t apply so it makes pefect sense to be metered – So, presumably, the cost of my water bills should  come down.

Now here’s the green bit…

Because this is a green-thinking household there is a bath in the house but showers are more than 99% of the time. A shower uses a third of the volume of water that a bath does (plus it’s quicker to take a shower than run a bath, as we all know) OK, there is a Turner Monsoon pump fitted to boost the water pressure of the shower (and it uses electricity) but that’s because the water pressure is really pathetic in the bathroom and it’s virtually unusable without a boost. Continuing to have showers rather than baths will keep the water consumption down. Winner.

Then there’s the fact that  a low-flush toilet was installed in the bathroom, the only WC in the house. Not only does it use less water to flush than the previous Armitage Shanks cistern from 1964 but it has a dual-flush that uses less water (depending on whether you flush number 1s or number 2s ). Winner #2.

Also, by not driving a car, partly out of green choice, partly for health & fitness and partly for financial reasons, the cars don’t get washed. Winner #3.

And then there’s the water butt in the garden. Because the local council had a great deal on a compost bin we saved enough money to have a water butt purchased & delivered for the same cost as had we just had the composting bin on its own. Winner #4.

So it looks like this could be a win-win situation – Not only does this household save water but it saves money too. If you’re green and you haven’t got a water meter installed then it might be time to consider doing so. I’ll keep you posted as to how long it is before the water company start reducing our water bills – you know what these big companies are like when it comes to letting go of your cash…

Footnote: I just had a look at the volumetric water meter manufacturer’s website. Being a marketing guy myself I wasn’t totally enamoured at the language used for the V210 meter:

V200 and V210 volumetric meters are designed to maximise revenue collection.

Now I know the website is not consumer-focused but when they stumble across the term “maximise revenue collection” it doesn’t sound fair does it? Maybe I should suggest to the manufacturer that they use the term “optimise revenue collection” – that would be far more agreeable, don’t you think?

I just flicked the TV on before going to work and caught a story on BBC1’s “Breakfast” news show highlighting the fact that we will all be getting more junk mail in the UK.

Apparently Royal Mail’s management have agreed to pay conditions with the postal workers’ union just so long as Britain’s postmen start shoving more junk through our letter boxes.

The deal is said to be quite lucrative for Royal Mail and for the union, which had previously agreed that postal workers should only deliver three items of junk to an address per week, this is quite a compromise.

On the BBC Breakfast show the presenters questioned two guests; one a proponent of “direct marketing” and the other a representative of the group Waste Watch. (Sorry I don’t have any more detail, I missed the names and the introductions)

What we saw was a scruffy talk about junk mail with a lack of clarity on exactly which form of junk mail was being discussed with the direct marketing representative spearheading a charm offensive on behalf of junk mail.

Junk mail, by my definition, is any brochure or advertising that comes through my door unsolicited. What Royal Mail seem to be advocating, and making money from, is “unaddressed mail”. This “unaddressed mail” includes those envelopes addressed to “the owner” or “the occupier”.

With those two terms, junk mail and “unaddressed mail” cleared up nicely the people on the sofas then proceeded to discuss the generic term “junk mail” which allowed the direct marketing guy to positively present his figures. I suspect he was talking about “unaddressed mail” but was allowed, pretty much unchecked, to spin the facts as applying to junk mail/direct marketing in general and not purely “unaddressed mail”.
“Mr. Direct Mmarketing” said that 80% of direct marketing was opened and read by recipients. He also added that direct marketing is not a waste of time because the process generates around £130 billion of business a year. In addition he said that less than 2% of household waste is direct marketing/junk mail. He also repeated the soundbite, a couple of times, that the perception that “junk mail is bad” is “a complete myth”.

In response the representative of Waste Watch said that only 1% of junk mail was acted upon.

The direct marketing guy relished the opportunity to market his industry virtually unopposed and massaged the figures to his own advantage. £130 billion is a lot of business but how much of that business is won by direct marketing via “unaddressed mail”? How much is won by door-to-door direct marketing? How much business and revenue is generated by junk flyers?

I was a little surprised at the smug fact that less than 2% of household waste is junk mail/direct marketing. Was this by weight or by item? I decided to have a quick look in my recycling box that sits in the kitchen. OK, the food waste goes into a bucket and onto the compost so I didn’t count that.

Granted, there was more general recyclable material by weight and bulk, especially considering there are steel cans, aluminium beer cans, cardboard boxes, cardboard tubes etc but the item count?

• Junk mail – 20
• Recycling – 30

That’s probably about a week or two’s worth of recycling on show and the junk mail is all direct marketing and no “unaddressed mail”.

So, in terms of “unaddressed mail” my own personal figure tallies up with the marketing guy – less than 2% of my household waste is “unaddressed mail”, infact, this week, it’s 0%, but hardly a fair representative figure.

In terms of weight of junk mail, again, it’s probably very light and may well be about 2% of my recycling.

But as a proportion of my waste it’s 40%.

Hold on – there’s a BIG flaw in my manipulation of the figures here – it’s only a week or so’s worth of rubbish AND it’s only my recycling.

Yes, I have only thrown away ONE item of rubbish this last week – a pasta packet, that’s it.

So, back to the BBC breakfast story; who is right and who is wrong? Who lost and who won?

Well, the direct marketing guy probably won the charm offensive, he marketed his own corner really well and was given free reign to use some great figures and say twice, “it’s a myth” that junk mail is bad. And yes, my own example of rubbish is from a green guy who wastes very little anyway – of course “the average household” may well waste SO MUCH MORE and the junk will be an even tinier percentage of their household waste.

But as time goes on and we become less wasteful, the guy from Waste Watch is right. If only 1% of the junk mail message gets through then 99% of the paper, print, energy and manpower is wasted on going straight back into the bin/recycling. It may make the commercial world go around but 99% waste is not sustainable from an environmental perspective.

So, if you guys & girls out there have any figures to demonstrate the direct marketing claims one way or another then please feel free to let us know

Personally I think it’s a big shame that Royal Mail are keen to promote more waste for the sake of money. Read the Royal Mail door-to-door opt-out page. It’s almost laughable that they’re trying to get you to reconsider before you even send your details in;

Opting out means no one at the address will receive unaddressed mail items – is this acceptable to everyone living at the property?

Yes. The cat doesn’t need double glazing or a conservatory or a kebab or a pizza or a valuation on the property or timeshare or a haircut…

Last night I went to a climate change consultation with my local Rushmoor Borough Council.

40 local residents were invited down to Aldershot on a cold February night to discuss the borough’s policy and, arranged into small groups, we brainstormed Rushmoor BC’s plans for the environment and the future.

Of course, the number one topic raised was the issue of climate change itself. Currently, if you spend a lot of time in the media, the subject of climate change seems to be getting a real kicking. The Climategate affair, involving the leak of data from the University of East Anglia on the eve of the Copenhagen summit, followed by the controversy over the predictions of retreating Himalayan ice and now Sir David King’s attack on the IPCC mean that a lot of scepticism is creeping in and, last night, a few dissenting voices were heard in the room.

The important consensus though was that climate change is happening. It’s not just global warming or global cooling, but variations in “local” climate all over the world and, whether it’s man-made or natural, it’s best to prepare for it.

So, that first hurdle over, Rushmoor BC presented their plans for the next 20 years. The big issue locally is the Aldershot Urban Extension, meaning that our neighbouring town of Aldershot is to be the subject of a 4,500 home expansion. Whilst brownfield sites are preferable for new builds, it seems inevitable that so many more homes will be needed and the council will have to develop a new “town” of so many houses.

This will surely impact upon on our small Borough which is already a busy commuter area (with great links to London and the south coast via train and motorway). The plans are to lessen the impact of any new development, and Rushmoor BC made bold statements to meet and exceed environmental building standards by an additional 15%.

That prompted questions of “are the current environmental standards stringent enough?” meaning that beating them by 15% is a fairly easy task plus that age old question of “the council says it will meet & beat standards but will it actually do it?”

Many ideas were bandied around in our group with a lot of focus on restoring localisation, creating closer community, water run-off into the River Blackwater etc. Plus there was great interest in the proposed new power plant, powered, presumably, by local waste and providing heat & energy. The notion of creating an “eco town” was popular with the notion that Rushmoor could be as well-regarded as the city of Brighton which is always thought of as one of Britain’s greenest urban places.

The usual topics of individual wind & solar power arose with ground-heat pumps and green roofs being thrown in for good measure.

Overall, a wealth of ideas were explored and there seems to be a consensus that the majority of people were in favour of bold steps in order to make the borough a greener place in terms of planning over the next 20 years or so.

The Natural Environment

The second part of the night revolved around Rushmoor’s natural environment. Surrounded by military land, we are blessed with a fairly natural environment that is protected by its ownership under the MOD.

The consensus was that we should not only protect every single piece of green environment that we have around here but that we should also restore and improve upon it. Natural and man-made attrition of the trees in the borough is something close to my heart as I’ve seen numerous trees come down locally over the years, never to be replaced. Do we get an organisation like the Woodland Trust involved to help us re-green Rushmoor?

Cycle paths were mentioned again as local citizens expressed a desire to expand cycle routes and to encourage more use of cycles in the borough. One resident even complained that where he locked up his cycle in the North Camp part of town they had removed the cycle racks and never replaced them!

Conclusion

There was a very healthy discourse over the evening and a number of people felt as though this was just the first of many discussions regarding the environment in Rushmoor. The many notes that were made were taken away to be digested by the council and they will have much food for thought.

Some great ideas came out of the meeting and, for starters, I would like to see the replacement and replanting of more trees, an extension of cycle tracks and a push to get more people cycling, loft insulation for all, better buses and routes and a green roof initiative.

Every piece of green and MOD land must be fought for and preserved and the inevitable expansion of Aldershot MUST be sustainable, green and a benefit to current residents not a detriment.

Finally, I’d like to see flights to Farnborough Airport capped as they are. I’ve seen no major benefit to the local economy from the planes flying in and, working near the airfield, the avgas fumes are unpleasant and unhealthy, not to mention the M3 motorway and the ridiculous “sound barrier” erected for residents who brought houses right next to the M3 but complained it was too noisy! (irony?) Thanks to them the sound bounces off the wooden fences and pollutes an even greater area.

Let’s hope Rushmoor Borough can only get safer, greener and cleaner.

When I switched my Sky box on the other day (at the wall socket, of course) I was greeted with a message screen that I had not seen before.

The vivid green screen that turns to red with the glassy Sky logo and a chameleon perched atop it is accompanied by the narrative:

We can all do our bit to be greener.

By switching your Sky box to standby, together, we can save enough energy to light all the homes in Birmingham for a whole year.

Remember, go red, be greener.

Switching to standby, aye? I thought that standby was the problem because it still uses electricity whereas the really green option is to just switch off at the wall.

All I can find regarding Sky being greener is an article that says a software update last year, rolled out to 9 million customers, could switch off the Sky box during the day, supposedly when not in use. I’ve seen the Sky box tell me it was going to switch off after 2 hours of inactivity and Sky reckon it saves their customers £20 Million a year – that’s about £2 per customer.

Now, if Sky could go just that little bit further and totally switch the whole box off that would be even better

Why buy organic? What is organic? Why isn’t everything organic if it’s so much better? Why is organic more expensive?

If you know the answers to these questions then you’ll be happy to see this wonderful little movie from The Soil Association. If you have friends that need convincing that organic food is actually better than intensively farmed food then, again, you’ll like this.

We like the “public service broadcast” style because, in essence, it is a public service to understand and remind people why organic food is better for the food itself, us, the consumer, and the land and for nature.

(In particular we like the Jack Drummond tone of the film, but that’s another story, especially as we’re reading The Vitamin Murders at the moment. Green book review coming soon)

And if you like this film feel free to pass it on

As if you didn’t already know it, big oil are against safeguarding the environment.

Is that alarmist? Propagandist? Or is it just another big lie because all of us environmentalists “hate cars” and are suckered by “peak oil” which is all a big scam to give governments more control over our lives?

Actually, big oil railing against the environment is totally true, and here’s the proof:

In a communication to lobbyists, Jack Gerard, the President of the American Petroleum Institute, wants to “move aggressively” to counter any efforts at climate change legislation.

The oil industry aims to turn public opinion against limitations on environmental destruction by exaggerating the figures that environmental reforms will cost. Big oil and the industries that continue to consume oil and damage the environment are quite happy to disseminate lies in order to derail important environmental protection legislation.

This is all quite disconcerting when the big oil companies are already greenwashing public opinion in to believing that they are the way forward in the future of renewable energy whilst actually stifling investment and innovation in such areas.

The main point is that legislation in the United States will pave the way for positive action s to protect the environment and combat climate change at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December 2009.

Back in March, Gerard said:

I have no doubt that as the new administration and new Congress take office, energy policy will be a topic of renewed and even more intense debate. It is up to us to lead the way in forging a new path forward.

Reading between the lines, the oil industry is concerned that it will lose power as oil reserves decline, even though oil prices would rise for an ever-more scarce natural resource. The “new path forward” is that it wishes to control energy in the future too.

Our challenges will be great, but I strongly believe that this is the time for us to create an effective partnership involving industry, government and consumers to nurture and sustain sound energy policies for our country’s future.

The challenges are the loss of revenue and loss of control with the “partnership” being a cynical attempt to hoodwink consumers into believing the oil companies are the future, even if they currently oppose anything that will threaten or damage their present near-monopoly.

Watch out for the rallies, apparently planned to “exert maximum pressure on Democrats in conservative areas”.

A few weeks ago I went to the local Army Show in Aldershot, The Home of the British Army. I posted a quick tweet on twitter to say I was there and one friend made an interesting comment;

kind of feel being green and supporting an army event is a little wrong?

I’d not really thought of that, as considerate and conscientious as I normally am about all matters. It was a fair point. What is not green about the British Army? Well, there’s the use of depleted-uranium warheads, armoured vehicles are not renowned for their fuel-economy, natural and human resources are used to research & develop ever more effective ways of killing people defending the nation. We could stray well into the world of ethics here in many ways, but Dave had a point.

However, apart from those simple issues that come to mind, and there could well be many more, there’s no reason not to support the British Army from a green point of view. Let me explain;

I live within 50 yards of a forest with a lake in the middle of it. When you look at the aerial view of the forest and my neighbourhood you can see that my road comes to an abrupt halt at the edge of the forest. That forest, Hawley Woods, appears like a great green lung, a carbon sink, on the outskirts of my town.

The swathe of forest at the end of my road is a perfect place into which to extend the small estate where I live and build more houses. It’s a very real threat as I used to live in nearby Fleet & Church Crookham in Hampshire. In this small town & village conurbation the erosion of green land has been constant – Ancells Farm, Zebon Copse, Elvetham Heath and now the Hitches Lane development. The march of “progress” has been relentless as fields have disappeared to make way for more tightly-packed modern housing estates.

Back in the Fox Lane region of Farnborough, the last remaining suburban farm down the road has made way for around 50 new houses. Yet because there are army barracks across the other side of Hawley Woods the land all belongs to the Ministry of Defence (M.O.D.) and nobody else can build on that land. The main reason for living in my current property, apart from the convenience of being between London and the south coast, easy access to rail and road links, good job prospects, relatively affluent part of the country etc is the proximity of the woodland. If the M.O.D. ever moved or closed Gibraltar Barracks, e.g. for efficiency, streamlining and cost-cutting reasons, then there is a huge likelihood that the forest would make way for housing.

So is being green and supporting the British Army at a local event wrong? Consider that Aldershot has declined socially and economically as troops have been moved away from the area to other Barracks (the Paras to Colchester, for instance) and the once-excellent Louise Margaret/Cambridge Military Hospital has been all but killed off (apart from some minor outpatient services to Frimley Park Hospital). Nearby Church Crookham lost Queen Elizabeth Barracks, home of the Ghurka Rifles, and that is now to be a housing estate where it was once the country’s last wooden billet barracks and green fields.

The modernisation of the British Army has had a huge negative social & economic impact as the military has slowly left its traditional and spiritual home town of Aldershot. If the Army can treat their main home this way then what level of conservationism is there for retaining an interest in land that is “less” important?

So, is it a little wrong to support the British Army when you’re a green? Very probably yes. But there is also an overwhelmingly positive aspect to the fact to the side that the Army occupy a lot of land that is often unfarmed, untouched by the public or by private interests.

If you look at the Green Party’s own Peace & Defence Policy there is very little there from a green & environmental angle as most of the subjects regarding the peace & defence policy are primarily from social and ethical viewpoints. Yes, there are secondary environmental considerations there and, whilst the policy talks of simply cutting military spending you have to question all the practicalities of simply & ruthlessly executing the terms of the manifesto.

I replied to my friend with

The M.O.D. own a LOT of land ’round here. Turn my back on the forces & the land here gets built on. So no problem

The very same day the BBC’s Countryfile TV Show had a small piece on the Castlemartin range in Pembrokeshire where the British Army test live ammunition from their tanks. Whilst the forces might be shooting explosive rounds from 50-ton machines and doing 4 MPG, the land has never been farmed and remains one of the country’s largest wild grasslands. Castlemartin is home to many rare breeds of flora & fauna and the restricted public access has maintained the green status of the place.

So were we still a little wrong? Maybe, but also a lot of right too.

Friends, Britons, countrymen… lend me your ears.

Today, Friday 10th July 2009, is supposedly Green Britain Day. The concept has been thought up by French nuclear energy giants EDF.

However, as has been said , this whole concept is a complete sham because:

1. EDF are French not British.
2. EDF are not green because they are the world’s biggest corporate producer of nuclear waste.
3. The green union flag has been stolen from British wind-power generators Ecotricity.

So really it’s not Green Britain Day but rather Greenwash Day. Do not be fooled by the company that:

1. Has Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s brother, Andrew Brown, as their Media Director (funny that, aye?)
2. Has spent a reported £50 million in advertising revenue on the campaign.
3. Brought Britain’s nuclear energy generator, British Energy, for some £25 billion.

Dale Vince, CEO of Ecotricity, is right in saying that this could be the biggest greenwash in corporate history, so shame on EDF for these bully-boy tactics.

You drive your car less, you cycle more, recycle more, use less packaging, re-use your grocery bags, use low-powered bulbs, switch to wind-powered electricity and remember to switch everything off when you go to bed or leave the house.

You use both sides of the paper, you only ever wash at 30°c or 40°c, you use biodegradeable washing liquid or eco balls, you let nature dry things and the tumble dryer gather dust, you walk wherever possible, buy local goods from local people, you shower rather than bath and turn your thermostat down. The gas is turned down to a minimum, the loft is lagged, you used hemp insulation, and the DIY was done with only FSC timber.

Everything is natural where possible and you donate to good causes, you go green, you vote green and environmental, you think ecological, you’re efficient, you’re kind and considerate, your books are second-hand and you prefer the packaging when it has been reused… preferably not just once but twice… or more!

You care and you like to see that quality in others, you learn and you share and you wish that the world would be better place and you pay a slight premium to have food without chemicals and meat without steroids, compassion in world farming and fair trade on your table.

Ethics, sustainability, care and attention. Down with obsessive consumerism, up community projects. At one with nature, respect it and the planet.

And then someone says… that’s Eco Fascism.

---

I was only entering the book A Blueprint for Survival into my Facebook page when I spied the mere two star rating and a short review;

My copy dates from 1972, interesting to revisit over thirty years on, we are all still here! My note on the inside back cover still stands, ECO FASCISTS.

Well, I’ve not read the whole book yet as I’ve only just started. I shall make a judgement at the end as to whether I think they are “Eco Fascists” and whether I, a green and a moderate, might also be an “Eco Fascist” and I shall make more than a 2-line judgement or review as I think the subject deserves better than that.