www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

The BBC’s speculatively-titled story “Chancellor looks to green budget” is pretty thread-bare, starting with the opening line:

Green taxes and measures to help people struggling to pay energy bills are likely to be among changes in the chancellor’s first Budget on Wednesday.

It goes on to speculate that the chancellor, Alistair Darling, might put a levy on larger vehicles like people carriers, putting their price up by £2000.

And that’s it!

Well, if that’s all the chancellor can do for green issues in the UK Budget on Wednesday then that’s pretty poor for helping people go green. Isn’t a people carrier a more efficient way of carrying 6 or 7 people than having to drive 2 vehicles? If there’s any truth in that rumour then it would be a right poke in the eye for people who car-share.

We understand putting taxes on the least fuel efficient vehicles, but isn’t that why some people pay more road tax than others and why inefficient vehicles cost more to run purely from the fact that their MPG is so poor?

Come on Darling, where’s the incentives to go green. Saying “you can’t do this” or “can’t do that” is simply negative. Why don’t you give us:

• Increased grants for home solar projects
• Increased grants for home insulation
• More green spaces for community allotments
• Increase tax on the most polluting vehicles
• Greater taxes on polluting businesses
• A stop on the expansion of any more UK airports
• Serious public debate over nuclear energy

etc etc

That would be a good start. He’s already effectively nationalised the Northern Rock bank, why can’t he part-nationalise some of our public transport to stop the greedy private companies from milking the public?

Let’s wait until Wednesday, aye?

*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?

One of the big problems with litter is that the global big brands pump millions of pounds into promoting and advertising their products, they shift massive numbers of units, lots of profit is made, they all enjoy the spoils of their business and ultimately don’t care about the fact that their global brands are also creating massive amounts of rubbish!

The detritus from big brand produce litters every corner of this green & pleasant land and, quite frankly, we’re all tired of seeing it. And now to name and shame just one of these big brand polluters, one of these global litterers… one of Britain’s most popular alcoholic drinks…

FOSTERS LAGER

This scattering of Fosters Lager cans were littering a leafy area beside a path on a cycle home one night and every single one of those cans is a Fosters lager can. Now we’re not big fans of the mass-produced brands anyway, but for their mass-market by-products to litter our home town is not only rude & unsightly but it costs local taxpayers money too… somebody has to clean it up and that’s the council’s job.

Therefore your hard-earned pay, in the form of council tax, pays for street-cleaners and litter pickers to remove the trash.

So the point is this:

Shouldn’t mass-market global brands be contributing a good percentage of their profits toward cleaning up the by-products of their products? Should there be a litter tax whereby for every item of a certain brand/item that is swept up from public places there is a charge to the producer/manufacturer?

There are pros & cons to each solution but this approach would encourage corporate responsibility, stimulate social responsibility and make the world a cleaner place.

What do you think?

I received an email from a client today with the following phrase at the foot of their note…

“Think Green - Please do not print this email unless you really need to“

That’s not only perfectly good advice but also very appropriate - I know someone who I have tried time and time again to deter from printing virtually EVERYTHING on their PC onto paper. And yes, they do print their emails. These emails are then stored away and forgotten.

Why oh why do they bother? It is so frustratingly pointless.

What a complete waste of paper, toner, electricity, money, time and space.