www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

This green and pleasant land, in our opinion, isn’t green enough. We’re not just talking about environmental and energy-saving initiatives but also the fact that this country was once covered in trees and mankind, in his infinite “wisdom”, has seen to remove so many of them. However, Norfolk County Council have been planting trees in rural villages, not for environmental reasons, but for traffic calming.

The new Coalition Government, in its ruthless drive to cut costs, has slashed the road safety budget, meaning that local authorities are free to choose whether or not they can invest in speed camera initiatives. To the complete dismay of road safety campaigners, cash-strapped councils are rumoured to be bailing out of road safety schemes despite the fact that some cameras can actually generate revenue, not to mention saving lives.

But Norfolk County Council’s innovative idea, at a cost of £70,000, appears to be slowing drivers down. On the approach to four of the county’s rural villages, Martham, Horstead, Mundesley and Overstrand, the council’s strategic planting scheme seems to be having an affect.

Planting 200 trees at these four locations, the council have created a “lazy diagonal” on the approach to the villages with the trees planted at ever-decreasing distances apart. The idea is that the tress play with the drivers’ peripheral vision so, as they approach a village at speed, the placement of the trees creates the sensation of increased speed so the drivers naturally apply the brakes and slow down.

As well as reducing speed and hopefully accidents, the initiative is also a carbon reduction scheme and, in part, a historic restoration exercise. Looking back at old photographs of Norfolk, councillors saw that the “avenue affect”, a classical sight in France, has been lost in this county and the tree-planting strategy was also restoring these bygone vistas.

Stuart Hallett, Norfolk’s casualty reduction manager said that the trees were not replacements for speed cameras, especially on fast roads, but as the planting of the trees in the rural locations was reducing speeds by around 2MPH it was showing positive results in the villages.

“What we tried to do in some locations was get over this idea of the village dominating the road environment, not the road dominating the village, so the driver’s perspective is ‘I am travelling through a community, I need to respect that and slow down’.”

said Hallett in an interview with The Independent.

The scheme has yet to release the full figures but let’s hope they get the results they need. A reduction in costs, carbon emissions and in road casualties coupled with the re-greening of this land sounds like a very positive win-win situation for drivers, for villagers and for the environment too.

I’ve just had an interesting note from Volvo Cars UK regarding the Emission Equality Congestion Charge campaign.

As you may already know, London has a Congestion Charge which aims to limit the amount of traffic in busy London streets. The benefits are numerous and the reduction of traffic is beneficial in many ways. London residents see & hear less vehicles (70,000 less vehicles a year, according to official figures, public transport flows better, cyclists have a better time getting around, the air is less polluted and money goes into local government coffers (hopefully to invest in better public transport and cycling schemes).

There are however concessions to the Congestion Charge with the Alternative Fuel Discount – to qualify for this discount vehicles

“must be powered by an alternative fuel, bi fuel or dual fuel, and not solely by petrol or diesel. It must also meet strict emissions criteria.”

Under the current rules, the AFD gives drivers a 100% discount, but Volvo Cars UK believe the method of discounting is now obsolete because the Volvo S40 DRIVe emmits less CO₂ than most hybrid vehicles and it is the current What Car? Green Car of the Year.

Volvo questioned the fairness of the AFD scheme saying that, if the discount should exist then it should not bias any one particular technology over another. You can see their point: If a hybrid emits more CO₂ than a Volvo S40 DRIVe and gets a 100% discount then that’s hardly fair is it?

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has since launched a consultation on this matter, the Emission Equality Congestion Charge Campaign, instigated by Volvo.

The Mayor of London’s new ‘Greener Vehicle Discount’ proposes that any cars registered after 1 January 2011 that emit less than 100g/km of CO₂ and meet the Euro V standard for air quality will be exempt. In addition, and as a way of encouraging the uptake of electric cars, the same exemption will apply to full battery electric and plug-in hybrid cars.

Transport for London (TfL) invites feedback on the new proposals with the deadline for responses by 2 August 2010, so visit their website to express your views on the proposed changes to the Congestion Charge.

Once a decision has been reached, the results will be published and the changes will be in force from 4th January 2011.

Welcoming the announcement, the MD of Volvo Cars UK, Peter Rask, said:

“When we started the Emission Equality campaign, it was clear to us that the discounts offered to hybrid and alternative fuel cars were out of date and unfair to the many thousands of motorists who’d decided to take a different technical route to achieving a lower level of emissions.

“On behalf of all manufacturers of conventionally-powered low emission cars, all we asked The Mayor for was a level playing field. I’m very pleased that this consultation has been launched and the proposals could give Londoners a far broader choice of low-emission cars in the future.”

Volvo already offers a sub-100g/km Volvo C30 SportsCoupe with prototype full battery-electric C30s in the pipeline and plans to release a V70 plug-in hybrid estate in 2012 that emits less than 50g/km CO_2.

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.

Tesla motors, the makers of the Lotus-based Tesla Roadster electric sports car, are currently showing at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

On display at the Tesla Motors stand is their 1000th production car, a one-off custom Roadster Sport, and their 750th production car still covered in the road dirt from its 2,700 mile drive from Los Angeles to the motor city.

The 750th roadster was driven from LA to Detroit to demonstrate its range and drivability. The 1000th roadster is to be sold for $175,000 and the full amount will be donated to charity including a children’s charity, a food & waste charity and two environmental charities: the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation.

If you’re in the area go see the Tesla stand and show your support for electric vehicles. The show runs until the 24th of January and the amount of gas-guzzlers on show seems to be diminishing as car-makers focus on more economical and zero-emission cars.

GM’s Hummer, the 2.5 ton 12 MPG Ego Carrier, has long been an icon.

On the one hand it has been a “status” symbol – an extra 2,700 kg of perceived self-importance, a sign of machismo, being unstoppable, oozing with attitude, couldn’t-care-less gas-guzzling excess and having a tiny penis.

On the other hand the Hummer has represented everything worthy of contempt – all of the above, the death to other drivers in a road traffic accidents and the inspiration behind FUH2.

When oil prices shot up over the last few years it spelled the end of the Hummer. Even in the land of plenty U.S. gas prices, even though a gallon of petrol was still less than half the price it was in the U.K., were too much for American Hummer owners to handle and the brand’s popularity declined.

So with car maker GM in huge financial trouble, facing bankruptcy and wishing to offload the excess baggage of the world’s most hated vehicle and other “assets”, along comes China’s Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery Company with an offer to buy the Hummer brand for around $100 million.

Today however, according to the BBC, it is reported that China is “to block” the Hummer takeover.

A Chinese firm’s bid to buy the gas-guzzling Hummer car brand will be blocked on environmental grounds, according to Chinese state radio.

Now that is a turn-up for the books. It seems that China is increasing efforts to cut pollution and the Hummer brand and product are completely at odds with this new green direction of the Chinese state.

For the Chinese authorities to be purportedly turning down Hummer on “environmental grounds” brings a smile to anyone who has gone green. Doesn’t that just prove what a bunch of eco fascists we are?!

President Obama is not hanging about is he? Yesterday he announced America’s intent to provide global leadership on climate change (Gordon Brown, are you listening?) and to allow states to set their own vehicle emissions targets for vehicles.

On the BBC TV news last night, forward-thinking California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was openly delighted by the policy shift. I can imagine why; everytime I see pictures of Los Angeles there’s a big smog cloud over it, probably from what seem like millions of vehicles pouring into and out of the “City of Angels”.

It was President Bush who bore complete indifference to the “quality” of America’s air; the ex oilman who brazenly displayed the badge of “World’s Biggest Polluter” allowed America’s love affair with the testosterone-fuelled big SUVs to grow without limits and look where that got them. High oil prices killed the SUV, for a little while at least, but it did force the “big 3″ car makers to completely reassess their policy on leaner, greener cars – something they should have done years before.

So now, with America’s cars spewing out 25% of the country’s carbon emissions, individual states can start pruning back on the consumption of oil, so maybe there’ll be some left for the rest of the world. Hi MPGs will be rewarded and Toxic Texans will have to drive Smart Cars by law [Sorry, that's untrue but I couldn't resist it - Ed]

The most important thing is that Obama has signalled a clear intent to keep his promises and to forge ahead with America’s green policies. Amen to 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.

On Monday afternoon we heard that the decision on whether to expand Heathrow Airport by building a third runway was imminent and that a Government decision would be made this week.

The day’s talk seemed to be dominated by the pro-expansion camp, consisting of parties with vested interests, including the unions Unite and GMB who, according to the news, argue that 50,000 jobs would be created with a further 15,000 new jobs upon completion of the project. The pro-expansion group Future Heathrow boast that 72,000 jobs would be created. On their website, Future Heathrow say that a total of 500,000 jobs would be dependent on the expansion of Heathrow and the third runway.

That sounds like the sort of “good news” the public might want to hear in times of an economic crisis where unemployment is rising and people desperately look for jobs. But our question is this: Just how many of those 65,000-72,000 jobs are short-term? How many jobs are tied-up solely during the construction time of the third runway and sixth terminal?

All the vested interests concur that a bigger Heathrow would be for the benefit of the WHOLE of the UK economy and on BBC’s Newsnight programme (Monday) Lord Soley, the man heading the coalition for expansion, said that Heathrow was falling behind other major European airports, naming Schipol (Amsterdam), Paris and Frankfurt as threats to Heathrow’s position as Europe’s number one airport, even having surpassed it already. In his words

Heathrow can either expand or continue its decline.

His point is that because other European airports are expanding then so must Heathrow, supposedly in an effort to stay competitive, or rather dominant, if you read between the lines. Or is that to regain its crown or to at least try and catch up with the other "usurpers"? Afterall, it would be another ten years before the expansion were completed.

In addition further pros for expanding Heathrow namedrop the "integrated transport system" argument, where road and rail all connect up to provide ease of travel between places. You can read Lord Soley’s full argument on the matter here.

So this begs further questions: Is there an "arms race" in airport expansion? Obviously the continued or returned dominance of Heathrow is an absolutely paramount goal for those who see financial gain from it but what if other airports continue to expand too and, once again, in the future overtake or merely stay ahead of Heathrow? Will there be a fourth runway? Just how far does this go? How much of Britain’s countryside and heritage needs to be tarmac’d over before the expansion stops?

As for the "integrated transport policy" into which Heathrow seems to play such a vital role, why is the onus on planes rather than improving rail? Does this scheme also include expanding motorways by adding extra lanes to cater for an expected rise in road traffic to the bigger airport? Why do railways seem to be so neglected?

This seems to fall in nicely with proposed government policy on public works spending in order to "kick start" the economy again. Widening motorways is seen as a way to a) create quick & easy manual labour jobs and b) relieve road congestion, whereas the real answer is to 1) invest in creating jobs in the emerging green sector and b) make drivers use the slow lane, rather than clogging up the middle and "fast" lanes. That would save public money being spent on unnecessary, not to mention environmentally unfriendly, projects that would have nothing but short-term, short-sighted and low-brow benefits.

So with the weight of over 100 lobbyists, businesses and groups, who all stand to gain financially from, and people in suits arguing the business benefits of the proposal, it looks pretty gloomy for those who wish to protect any history & culture, schools, 2,000 residents, 750 homes and the church with its graveyard at the site of the new runway.

But wait – The Conservative Party are against the third runway, the Lib Dems too, 50 Labour back-benchers and London Mayor Boris Johnson. Greenpeace, WWF and Plane Stupid are also against the development. There are a further four other airports serving London, including Stansted which was invaded in December for its own expansion plans, so why the rush to bulldoze Middlesex?

And then, late in the day, another piece of news comes in; Greenpeace, along with the famous impressionist Alistair McGowan, actress Emma Thomson and Zac Goldsmith, former editor of The Ecologist, supported by named individual MPs from the three main parties and environmental activist George Monbiot to name a few, announce that they have purchased a football-field sized plot of land right in the path of the new proposed runway!

Any attempts to build the third runway at Heathrow will require that the plot of land is included and the four legal owners are (obviously) firmly against that. Furthermore, there is an opportunity for the public to become “beneficial owners” of the plot, to be included in the legal deed of trust and to be represented should there ever be any legal move to seize the land.

Even with a compulsory purchase order, this move by the concerned citizens will certainly delay efforts of expansion, putting a "spanner in the works", as one person put it. Read about Airplot to see how it works.

Underpinning this whole debate is a small but extremely important detail that I find incredible that nobody seems to be talking about or even paying the slightest bit of attention to: Oil. Will oil prices start going up again? At what rate will oil prices go up? Being a finite resource, when does the oil run out and what are the plans for alternative aviation fuel? If flight expands at the rates some predict, won’t that just put further pressure on oil supply, thus increasing demand and driving up price? Will this demand also accelerate the point at which peak oil is reached or are we there already?

The Hummer has to be the most-hated vehicle in history; a 2-ton, 10 mpg piece of utterly pointless machinery for people with egos the size of a planet and a very small penis.

Then there are the chauffeur companies that even have them as stretch-limos! Come on, a stretch hummer? Whoever thinks a Hummer is cool is seriously lacking in the brain department.

So if you hate the Hummer as much as it deserves to be hated, then you’ll be happy to see the Monster Truck t-shirt from Fat American.

Beyond the sheer contempt these vehicles encourage in the vast majority of rational & sensible people, the story of the Hummer and it’s extensive use by the US military in fields of conflict where security of oil supply for an overly-thirsty nation is more palatably known as “democracy”, is the same story behind this biodiesel t-shirt. As the text on the Fat American website says:

On this SUV is a yellow magnetic ribbon that states “Support Our Troops”. The ribbon is manufactured in China and profits from the sale of it don’t go to disabled veterans or the families of dead soldiers. The owner of this SUV supports the war since it is patriotic to do so. The war is largely about oil and since this SUV requires a large amount of it, its owner is glad when gas prices go down.

Stopped at a traffic light next to this SUV is a small electric car with a “END THE WAR! Bring Our Troops Home Now!” sticker.

The driver of each car stares at the other in disgust but only one of the drivers has a valid reason to do so.

When the light turns green, both cars take off, one of them emits a poisonous exhaust. If you look at the fumes closely you might see the skulls of US troops and Iraqi civilians who paid for the gas in the SUV’s tank.

That’s pretty succinct. We couldn’t have said that better ourselves. But that’s not all, the piece finishes on another gem of a quote from Ralph Nader:

The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun.

The t-shirt is $20 with free shipping in the US & Canada, how much to the UK, Europe & the rest of the world I don’t know. The American Apparel #2001 shirt the design is printed on is sweat-shop free but unfortunately not organic.

Nice.