www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

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…

I’ve just been reading the article Stolen e-mails embolden climate change skeptics regarding the Climategate affair where scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit had their emails hacked. Now I’m all for “leaks” of information that may be of public interest but that “thousands of e-mails and other documents made over the course of 13 years” are available is a considerable breach. I just hope it was perpetrated by Americans who hacked into the UEA CRU’s system so that we can horse-trade for Gary McKinnon, although I suspect this is a far cry. But I digress…

The article about the stolen emails pits Sarah Palin, the next Republican Presidential hopeful, versus President Barack Obama and the fact that he is going to Copenhagen to possibly get some sort of deal on the climate talks and that she doesn’t want him to go. This is yet another typical polarisation of opinion that we seem to see everywhere these days; you’re either with us or against us. Agree or disagree. Black or white. Hot or cold? Deal or no deal?

Let’s all, please, STOP FUCKING AROUND by being either red or blue, green or not green and just DO SOMETHING about the environment WHETHER WE BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE OR NOT.

Now this doesn’t apply so much to the hippies and the tree-huggers who are already well on their way to a sustainable lifestyle, but mainly to the middle and the far right of the spectrum;

This planet we live on is an ecosystem. You hear that? Eco SYSTEM – A system that has developed and evolved over millions of years and has found its own balance. We humans are upsetting that balance. We have chopped down millions of acres of rainforest. We are polluting our seas. Many species are in danger of extinction. We are pumping crap into the air, crap into our rivers and oceans and we’re eating crap, selling crap and consuming crap. Despite our technological breakthroughs and our many human achievements we are still a pretty fucking stupid bunch of primates aren’t we? When I was a kid I laughed at the phrase “Don’t shit on your own doorstep”, but we do, don’t we? All the time.

Now, do yourself, and the rest of us, a favour and start thinking about what’s actually going on and then do something about it. Even something as simple as having this ridiculous “touch effects technology” bullshit and having your clothes smell “nice” every time you brush against stuff is NOT good for the planet. By thinking the latest “fabric softener” is wonderful is a fallacy: it’s just chemicals and advertising. Go out into the countryside and take a deep breath… THAT is fresh. Chemicals with the scent of pine is NOT FRESH.

So, whether you believe in climate change or not…

• Ditch the gas guzzler
• Drive less
• Walk
• Cycle
• Take public transport, the train, the bus
• Share a car, car pool
• Stay at home, work from home
• Turn the thermostat down
• Insulate your loft
• Get a new efficient gas boiler
• Wear a hat or a jumper rather than crank the heat up
• Buy organic
• Ask for less packaging
• Buy local
• Visit the farmers’ market
• Eat less meat
• Consume less
• Turn off the TV
• Don’t believe the hype
• Reconsider that widescreen TV purchase – do you really actually need it?
• Wake up, open your mind
• Talk
• Discuss
• Listen
• Learn
• Get involved
• Care about your local environment
• Don’t buy nasty chemicals, use environmentally-friendly stuff
• Remind yourself what nature’s really like
• Respect wildlife, take an interest
• Use sustainable materials
• Invest ethically, use an ethical bank
• etc
• ad verbatim
• …

I could go on, there is SO MUCH we can all do and we CAN ALL DO these things. Demand ethics, sustainability and environmentally-friendly goods, services and practices and then they will become the DE FACTO services – all the old unsustainable ways will go the way of the dinosaurs when there is no demand for them and organic will naturally be cheaper than non-organic.

I’ll say it one last time: Whether you believe in climate change or not, whether you think it’s man-made or not, just use your brain and stop being a trash human, stop being so selfish, drop the ego and start being more considerate and work out where you fit in the grand scheme of things.

As the Native American saying goes:

“We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.”

I was only away for 9 days and I came home to find a ton of junk mail on my doormat.

Apart from a couple of magazine subscriptions, the usual bills and letters (including welcome mail from Ecotricity and Triodos Bank) the majority of what I received was junk.

So, apart from just 11 legitimate pieces of mail the rest was:

• 4 flyers ( in the local newspaper – 2 for national companies)
• 3 collection bags from charities.
• 2 Estate Agents’ flyers.
• 6 fast food flyers.
• 5 National company flyers.
• 1 Speculative Insurance invitation.
• 10 other items of random junk

So legitimate mail was outnumbered by roughly 2:1 OK, I can sign up to the Mail Preference Service but it doesn’t stop the junk in the local rag or the stuff that leaflet droppers are paid to deliver. Ah well, more stuff for the recycle bin and the compost bin then.

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.

Ministers will apparently give the go-ahead for the controversial third runway at London’s Heathrow Airport later today according to the BBC.

Despite open opposition from around 50 of the Government’s own MPs, opposition MPs, environmental groups, concerned citizens and residents of the houses in the path of the runway, the announcement will be made today under the provision that the expansion is within strict environmental parameters.

The promise of quieter and more fuel-efficient planes seems to be the key to a near-doubling of the amount of air traffic expected at Heathrow. With almost twice as many aircraft and an alleged 55% increase in fuel efficiency, it doesn’t take a genius to work out that pollution would be at similar levels to today. This totally contradicts the government’s targets to reduce emissions by 80%.

Either the government is simply nodding its head to the pro-expansion camp who only have to promise to meet strict environmental criteria in order to get its way, or the government knows that this cannot be achieved and is arrogantly forging ahead anyway or the airline industry gets concessions where other sectors, industrial or public, would have to cut their carbon emissions by even greater levels to meet the targets. The former seems more probable as this government has an increasing propensity to trample over public opinion, after all, and let’s not forget the fact that this country’s leader was never democratically elected.

The government has caved in to the lobbying of big business and industrialists with money and influence. They get their own way and the people are treated with utter contempt. The “jobs and prosperity” that are supposed to be handed out to the immediate area is a travesty because 2000 locals will see their homes demolished and be forced to move elsewhere.

As for meeting the stringent criteria, the pro-expansionists would say that wouldn’t they? Who will be held accountable when we all realise that we’ve been lied to in order that a select few will squeeze a profit out of this “obvious” money spinner? Does nobody have the brains to realise that there’s a huge green industry that’s just waiting to be tapped? Does nobody have the balls to get involved in green initiatives? In America Barack Obama is promising to create “nearly half a million jobs by investing in clean energy”… where’s the British equivalent? Focusing job creation and transport in Heathrow is asking for trouble. At least a green initiative would be “all over the country”.

Once again, if the third runway and sixth terminal are completed, that will be ten years away. The short-term job promises will mean those labourers are laid off after completing their unpopular work. Who knows what will happen in the next decade but I don’t expect oil prices to go down and air travel, already on a knife edge, is hardly in a position to boom. This whole expansion is timely to “create jobs” in a recession but is ultimately based on a lie.

We don’t like the energy company E.ON

Previously they’ve attempted greenwash to promote their image by getting football fans to car share in their carbon footyprint campaign.

Then somebody kindly pointed out that E.ON’s new Kingsnorth power station is to be coal-fired, belching out as much CO2 in one year as E.ON are asking football fans to save over a period of 200 years!

Asking us to do our bit whilst they continue to pollute is ludicrous.

And now, according to the BBC, Mark Owen-Lloyd of E.ON showed yesterday exactly what the power company thinks of high energy bills.

When asked at a presentation in a seminar run by the energy regulator Ofgem what a cold winter would do for energy prices, the E.ON executive said it would mean “more money for us”

With a profit of £877 million last year and energy bills up 30% recently, that sort of remark shows the sort of contempt that the energy companies have for Joe public.

Despite making a statement that this was a personal remark and did not reflect the views of the company, it makes you wonder just how many more people like this are working at E.ON… all of them? In business you don’t tell the customer you’re there to make money from them, you simply think it and keep your mouth shut. E.ON’s Mr Owen-Lloyd was obviously too excited about the bonuses he’s going to rob earn from the poor and the elderly to exercise any “restraint”.

This isn’t just energy generation, this is cold-hearted business, the sort of business where greed wins over service.

What are you going to do if you don’t like it, go somewhere else and get your energy? Because all the other big energy companies in this “free market” have put their prices up too. So basically we’re all being bent over a barrel by the big energy companies whilst they extract a fat profit from your shallow pockets in order to line theirs.

Gotta have a bit of bubbly at the shareholders meeting? Sounds about right.

Remember we said last night that British Gas jacked their prices up by 35%?

Remember their MD saying British Gas was doing “all that they could” to help people out including sending them a couple of energy-efficient lightbulbs?

Well today Centrica, the owners of British Gas, have reportedly made profits of £5million a day.

British Gas claimed that the 35% price rise was to “restore reasonable profitability”.

Look, you greedy bastards, take a hit like the rest of us. Stop robbing people in order to keep the shareholders sweet and deal with a lower profit margin! The sheer greed of these people is utterly contemptible.

Are we mad? No. But Phil Bentley, the MD of British Gas is!

Today British Gas announced a staggering 35% rise in gas prices. It also announced a 9% increase in electricity prices too.

The ITV Evening News interviewed a number of people, who are already struggling to make ends meet, about how they might cope with the huge price rises and then asked Phil Bentley, the MD of British Gas, whether he thought it was right to raise gas prices by 35% when this could put thousands of homes at risk of being subject to “fuel poverty”.

His reaction was that British Gas are doing “everything they can” to help people out including sending out energy efficient lightbulbs. WTF!?

So your average annual gas bill rises by over £210 a year and British Gas think that giving you a couple of energy efficient bulbs will help? What planet do they live on?

Sure, BG are using your extra money to invest in further electricity generation for next year and beyond (I still have a problem with gas companies not specialising in gas) but that’s cold comfort for the people who will freeze to death this winter.