www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

Over at the BBC there’s a great video story on a car that runs on air.

The car, well, a small van actually, has a tiny engine that runs on compressed air and uses other fuels for longer journeys. That means that during the urban cycle the vehicle makes absolutely no emissions at all. Except, for now, a bit of noise.

Inventor Guy Negre, an ex Formula 1 engineer, said that:

“The first buyers will be people who care about the environment”

Which is highly likely as the vehicle is reported to be capable of up to 140 MPG.

Monsieur Negre has been promising to deliver this concept for about 10 years now, but with the backing of Tata, the Indian manufacturing giant, the concept is close to completion.

Tata’s backing helped MDI Enterprise S.A. to put the finishing touches to their Compressed Air Technology (CAT) engines.

*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.

Somebody mentioned this statistic on one of those comedy TV shows last week and we though we would check it out. And sure enough we found that very same phrase in its entirety:

“Road traffic in Great Britain has grown by 84% since 1980“

That is a LOT of traffic, nearly double in under 30 years. It does add credence to the commonly held view that

“Weren’t the roads much quieter when we were kids?”

Absolutely, and there is the proof - half as much traffic when we were young and the population increase doesn’t justify that increase in road traffic. The dramatic increase in traffic is due to the fact that motoring costs have remained fairly stable during the last 30 years and disposable income has increased. Also more women are driving than ever before.

And as for our much-maligned public transport system (in private hands), there isn’t much change except that train use is up by 50%. More people use the bus in big London now, the elderly have subsidised travel and there has supposedly been significant investment in the buses and railways. Although how bus & train companies can make their owners into millionaires at the expense of passengers is fascinating reading. Must have something to do with plans to extort 20% from some rail users.
For more detailed reading look at the Department for Transports Transport Trends 2007 edition (1.48Mb PDF)

Yes, you read that right, we said Carbon Footyprint. There’s an online text ad doing the rounds at the moment that caught our attention…

“Make the beautiful game a greener game”

…and it clicks through to CarbonFootyprint.com

Now Carbon Footyprint is an interesting website as it’s all about getting football fans to go green and reduce the carbon footprint of the FA Cup. How do you reduce the carbon footprint of the FA Cup? Well, you get a coach to the match, you catch a lift with friends or you watch the FA Cup on the TV at home or in your local pub. So no change there then.

So why all the fuss about reducing your carbon footprint for mainly the FA Cup when there are so many more league matches? Well, the FA Cup is sponsored by the energy company E.ON and E.ON, “the power behind Powergen”, are right on the green bandwagon at the moment with their other campaign Business Energy Green. (Make sure you check out where Powergen come in the Green Energy League Tables)

To give them their dues, E.ON ARE promoting car sharing and watching football on the TV for all matches, but the promotion is heavily focused on the FA Cup (sponsored by E.ON… oh sorry, we already told you that)

It’s all a nice gesture to encourage football fans to go green and but shouldn’t it be E.ON that’s going green? Well, they’re “one of the leading green generators in the UK” and intend to invest £1bn (yes, that’s a whole £1 billion) in renewable energy over the next five years, or as much as £200m every year, with £53 million spent on energy efficiency in 2006 alone.

It’s a cute attempt to urge everyone else to go green but we sense this all to be a big public relations drive to drum up more business. After all, E.ON has shareholders to answer to and has targets to meet, already with success in their nine month sales up by 7% this year with targets of between 5% and 10% for the 12 months.

What’s more, E.ON’s net profit for the year so far is nearly £3b so their £1b pledge to invest in renewables over 5 years is a pretty paltry sum.

Carbon Footyprint? Greenwash anybody?

German-made cars have seen their CO2 emissions go UP according to a report from the European Federation for Transport & the Environment (T&E) whereas French, Italian and Japanese car manufacturers saw their vehicles’ emissions go DOWN.
T&E says that the figures for 2006 when compared to 2005 show that French, Italian and Japanese CO2 emission figures actually dropped by an average of 1.6% whereas the German cars’ emissions increased by 0.6%.

Now this may not be a massive increase but it’s ironic that the country that has been most influential in pushing for climate change targets should be the country whose car manufacturers seem to be doing the opposite.

Let’s be fair here, it’s not all German car-makers who are at fault. BMW have actually reduced their cars’ emissions by 2.5% whereas it’s Volkswagen whose emissions have gone up, by just 0.8%, and Daimler-Chrysler (Daimler) have seen their emissions rise by a nasty 2.8%!

The report indicates that weight is an issue with vehicle emissions and that weight-saving has reduced CO2 output whereas the heavier cars have seen an increase.

You can read the full report “Study reveals increasing climate divide between
Europe’s carmakers”.

Japan is making very good progress with Toyota in particular singling out praise for cutting around 5% on their vehicles’ emissions.

After Richard Branson’s £1.6 billion Pledge towards green fuels last year comes a new ‘green’ deal with Branson’s Virgin Atlantic ordering 15 of Boeing’s new ‘green’ Dreamliner passenger jets.

Boeing’s new Dreamliner plane, the 787, is supposedly around 25% more fuel efficient than Virgin Atlantic’s current airliner, the Airbus A340. The plane is also reported to be quieter which it is believed will come as a relief to communities living near airports. [When one of the new Virgin plane flies in, that may be the case, but in the grand scheme of things that sounds a little patheric to us - Ed.]

This move to buy new fuel-efficient Boeing planes, coupled with Richard Branson’s Virgin Fuels research into a green aviation fuel, means that there is a possibility that there could be ‘green’ air travel when the planes are delivered in 2011. Virgin and Boeing have entered into a partnership to develop a new biofuel for their commercial jets as part of the effort to reduce carbon emissions.

However, with world air travel supposedly set to double over the next decade, an initial 25% fuel efficiency seems pretty minimal compared to a 100% increase in air traffic and aircraft pollution.

Which green fuel is to be used in the new Virgin fleet is not yet established with ethanol, a popular fuel in the emerging green car market but not at all poular with the Mexican people, being out of contention as it freezes at an altitude of 15,000 feet.

Want to find out how much you’ll be paying for your Vehicle Excise Duty (VED aka road tax) in 2007/2008? The Chancellor promised to tax the most polluting vehicles: Band G vehicles, the most polluting at 226g/km of CO₂ and above, had their tax raised from £210 to £300 this year and will rise again to £400 in the tax year 2008/2009.

Pre-graduated VED (registered before March 2001)

Graduated VED for Private Vehicles (registered from March 2001)

^*for new cars registered after 23 March 2006

Gordon Brown is expected to raise taxes substantially on “gas guzzling” cars for Wednesday’s budget.

Last year the chancellor’s “green budget” gave £35 reductions in car tax to smaller cars but only increased the tax on larger cars by £45, a figure less than the price of a tank of gas and far from being a deterrent to those who can afford to purchase, own and drive large cars, namely 4×4s and “soft-roaders” or “Chelsea tractors”, as these road-hogging fashion-accessory-cum-status-symbols have become known.

Some quarters believe that the road tax may double to £400 for inefficient vehicles, although falling well below the mark of £1000 demanded by green groups for the worst polluters. Friends of the Earth, for instance, have called for Gordon Brown to exercise substantial measures if he is to leave a “green legacy” as the chancellor.

He may also offer a few concessions to property owners who are prepared to “go green” with possible stamp duty land tax exemption for the purchasing of “zero-carbon” homes as he first hinted at in his pre-budget report.

Prince Charles, the UK’s “Green Prince”, who has described climate change as the ‘biggest threat to mankind’, will be taking a 7,000-mile round trip to the United States later this month to pick up an environmental award.

The prince has been awarded the Global Environmental Citizen Prize from Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment. He will fly, along with the Duchess of Cornwall and an entourage of 18 officials, to the US to collect his green award.

After Prince Charles was invited to pick up the green award, the Foreign Office built a programme around the ceremony to justify the trip, but has so far made no mention of any plans to offset the carbon emissions of the trip.

The £116,000 UK taxpayer-funded trip, which consists of 14 business-class and 6 club-class seats, takes Charles and his party to New York and Philadelphia on the 27th and 28th January.

Of course with recent anger at the British government’s supposed aims to cut CO₂ emissions and address global warming issues on one hand and yet proceed with an expansionist policy on Britain’s airports on the other, this is yet another high profile case of bad judgement and utter hypocrisy, and not just by the royal himself but by the Foreign Office who oversee this trip.

A spokesperson for Clarence House, the official residence of HRH the Prince of Wales, said the award ceremony was part of a two-day visit, which would highlight environmental issues such as conservation, urban redevelopment and youth regeneration, but not carbon emissions from pointless air trips.

Prince Charles will collect the Global Environmental Citizen Prize from former 2005 winner Al Gore at the Harvard Medical Centre’s award ceremony attended by Mr Gore and Hollywood actress Meryl Streep.

The circumstances of the trip have led one member of the House of Commons’ public accounts committee to call for an investigation into the cost of the trip by public spending watchdog, the National Audit Office (NAO).

Labour MP Ian Davidson said that Prince Charles;

“…Seems to be travelling yet again on an international flight to collect a green award and padding out his programme with other events to justify the expense and extravagance of another foreign journey.

This does not sit well with the green image that the prince is trying to project.”

Joss Garman from Plane Stupid, the aviation environmental campaign group, said:

“Flying to an environmental award ceremony is a bit like turning up to an Oxfam award ceremony in a stretch limo.

Prince Charles may as well be picking up an award for green hypocrisy, especially since he could have used this to highlight the seriousness of climate change by accepting the award via video link up.

Flying is the single most polluting way in which you can travel.”

The best thing Charles can do is to cancel the trip, save the British taxpayers some money, stay at one of his luxury homes to broadcast his comments live to the ceremony via the Internet and then contribute some his own great fortune, around £116,000 will do, to a carbon neutral cause, maybe even donating that wealth to support The Woodland Trust.