www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

Today the UN published its Human Development Report 2011.

The report has shown, for a number of years now, how human development has raised living standards across the world. But this year’s publication highlights how a reverse to this trend is affecting poorer populations. The Human Development Report 2011 places the blame firmly on environmental degradation and social inequality as factors affecting human development.

Whilst the report argues that human development should continue for the benefit of all mankind, it points straight at the fact that sustainability needs to be taken more seriously. That’s not just environmetal sustainability but also economic and political sustainability.

The HDR focuses on the human right to a  healthy environment but also highlights then need for equity in environmental policy, pushing the point that some members of the world society may be disenfranchised by their lack of say in environmental issues which may effect their immediate environment more directly than more developed nations.

Editors Comment: Whilst the Human Development Report 2011 is very welcome, it merely puts into print what has been said on the ground for years. Most of the people I know and talk to acknowledge that the environment is pretty damned important. They also understand that the developed and developing world can’t keep using the planet’s resources at the rate they have been since the industrial revolution.

Of course, it has been noted that it’s very hypocritical of “the west” to turn around and condemn China and India for their increased use of natural resources when the west has been so greedy itself – The UK, less than 1% of the world population, apparently uses 3% of the world’s resources. The USA, at nearly 5% of the world’s population, has been using 25% of the world’s resources. So when China alone, at around 19% of the world population, is being scolded for apparently building two coal-fired power stations a week, you just have to get that into perspective.

We can always take a “been there, done that” attitude in the west and say that China should learn from our mistakes. But “we” haven’t learned from our own mistakes, have we?! That does play to the point that the HD report makes that people should be more involved in democratic processes. It’s big business, the rich and the lobby groups, the political elites who have their hand on the tiller. If we can prise their grip off the controls of power then maybe we can have true and genuine democracy at long last.

The times are a-changing. We’ve had populist movements in Egypt, Libya & Tunuisia. The riots in the UK were a wake-up call and there have been violent demonstrations in Greece. The Occupy Wall Street movement has splintered and spread across the world. Conversations between friends about inequality being the greatest threat to the world are manifesting now as public talking points.

Human Development will only advance and be beneficial to all mankind if we can just STOP what we are doing right now, think about it and put into place all the controls that will wrest power from the top and place it at ALL levels. People need to be educated, the birth rate needs to come down, there should be no more environmental degradation let alone devastation. we should all respect the world and know our place in it, knowing that we are all equals.

Let’s hope that the Human Development Report isn’t just another wad of expensive research and that we all finally act for the benefit of all not just our selves.

It’s been reported today that the cycling industry is worth some 3 billion pounds to the UK economy.

With cycle-manufacturing, cycle accessory manufacturing, retail and other cycle-related employment all thrown into the mix, that’s a healthy figure and a good sign of the state of the cycling industry in this country.

As many as 23,000 people are employed in these UK cycle and cycle-related industries and they contribute some £600 million to our economy in wages and taxes.

Last year 3.7 million cycles were sold in the UK, that’s up 28% on 2009′s figures, and apparently manufacturing accounted for £51million worth of revenue in 2010.

The total number of UK cyclists is now estimated at some 13 million, although not all of these cyclists are full time bikers.

Why?

Well, motoring is getting more expensive. I recently had to buy a car and was shocked that in the 18 months I’ve been out of driving a car, fuel has rocketed to around £1.45 a litre. £20 in the car doesn’t get us much above the quarter tank full and that only lasts some 80 miles or so

And when you hear stories that youngsters are being charged thousands for car insurance, like this 20 year old apparently being given a £53,000 insurance quote (on a Vauxhall bloody Corsa!), you can see why people would rather walk or cycle.

A few of my friends have been involved in, for instance, the Cyclescheme and had discounts of around 33% on some decent cycles (Specialized and Giant cycles – both good brands) and they’ve certainly added to the ranks of cyclists in this country. We’re especially lucky around here, having some great cycle paths in Farnborough and some really excellent off-road tracks in the surrounding MOD land.

What’s more, cyclists apparently have o7.4 sick days a year less than their non-cycling counterparts who take off 8.7 sick days per year, so that’s further proof that cycling is good for you.

So, rising fuel and insurance costs, improved cycle networks and concern for the environment are all factors influencing Brits to get out on their bikes and skip using the car…

…long may the cycling revolution continue

{EAV_BLOG_VER:d8d8317f40d9f024}
We’ve had an interesting email from the Make Wood Work campaign.

In essence, the UK Government’s Renewables Obligation (RO) policy encourages the use of bio-mass burners for electricity generation with financial subsidies. Whilst, from an environmentally-friendly point of view, biomass burning creates energy from waste materials, the forest products industry is concerned that using wood for bio-mass burners will damage their industry.

They have a good point. If the waste material from the wood industry is used for biomass burning then it is being diverted away from the recycled wood industry where collected waste wood is used to created further products. If biomass burning is encouraged then the wood will be burnt and the capacity for the energy industry to a) be heavily subsidised and b) burn vast amounts of timber is not only a worry for the forest products and wood panel industries, but also for the environment, for local economies and for the greater social good too.

By using wood and waste wood in products, there is greater environmental good with the carbon being “locked up” in the products and reused and recycled, stimulating initiatives to find further ways to innovatively use waste wood. The biomass energy industry would simply burn the timber and produce greater carbon emissions than the waste wood recycling and reprocessing industries.

Basically, the government’s well-intended renewables obligation policy is distorting an “already fragile wood supply and demand balance in the UK”. You only have to look at Channel 4 News’ report Timber prices up as power plants boost biomass use to see what the subsidised energy industry is having knock-on effects elsewhere by voraciously burning timber.

So, quite simply put:

RO means wood and waste wood go stright to burners to generate “renewable” energy. Wood, that takes 30/40 years to grow, is burnt. Waste wood is burnt. Wood and waste wood are simply destroyed.

A rethink of RO means wood goes to the wood products industry and actually makes useful products. More people are gainfully employed in business and industry and there is innovation in creating from wood and waste wood.

We’re not against biomass energy as it does have the potential for energy production from sources that would not otherwise be of any use, but to use wood and waste wood is a short-sighted and destructive path.

For more information take a look at the Make Wood Work campaign website, their video is particularly interesting.

I decided last year to start investing some of my savings with Triodos Bank. As a green and ethical citizen I though that I’d vote with my “green” and give it to an ethical bank that would invest my meagre savings in a positive way. Whilst I’ve deposited the tiniest amount with them, I intend to move most of my savings to Triodos to ensure all my money is being looked after by and invested in sustainable causes.

So it was great interest today that I saw a press release from Triodos Bank – Hot on the heels of the RBS Customer Charter and the Natwest Customer Charter it seems that Triodos are about as pleased with RBS and Natwest as RBS and Natwest customers are! Here’s the Triodos press release:

Commenting on the RBS / Natwest customer charter, Charles Middleton, UK managing director at Triodos Bank, said:

“These service commitments should be bread and butter for all banks. Firstly, customers have a right to a basic level of service yet it’s clear that some banks continue to fail to deliver. Little wonder, then, that when asked, one in five (21%)  Brits could not find a single reason to recommend their bank*.

“Customers are entitled to expect more from their banks.  The customer service element should be a given but we believe the public should be asking for, and getting, more than this, for example, some sense of what their bank is doing with the money they entrust to it, and greater transparency on investment decisions.  Amazingly, 35% of UK banking customers think their money simply sits in a bank vault or benefits from occasional interest. Few realise how a bank may actually be using their money, and most banks don’t make it easy for customers to be more aware of this and give their opinion. However, 61% of people would like to be with a bank that shares their values.

“We urge dissatisfied customers to take action, approach their banks and demand not just a basic level of service, but more than this, including transparency on how they use savers’ deposits, so that the public can vote with its feet on issues that matter to them.”

A recent, separate survey among Triodos Bank customers revealed 94% of the ethical bank’s customers would recommend Triodos to others.  Other findings from Triodos customer survey among 1000 customers in February:

• 63% choose to save with Triodos as they know how their money is being used
• Less than 5% feel negative or indifferent about saving with Triodos, most customers are satisfied, happy, content
• 51%  trust Triodos to do the right thing
• 69% feel like they are doing the right thing by banking with Triodos

* Opinium Research carried out an online survey of 2,000 UK adults aged 18+ from 19th to 21st January 2011. Results have been weighted to nationally representative criteria.

Well, I wasn’t polled or interviewed but I can say, as a green, an environmentalist, cheerleader of localism, organic food fan, ethics ambassador, supporter of social responsibility & sustainability  etc etc etc that I feel 100% satisfied with the way Triodos Bank handle and invest my money.

Long may it continue

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.

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.

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has been running a consultation for the regulation of inorganic phosphates in domestic laundry and cleaning products (DLCPs) since October 2009. The closing date of the consultation is 21^st January 2010.

The consultation by DEFRA’s Water Quality Division seeks to gather comments on the banning of inorganic phosphates for forthcoming regulation.

In their own words, DEFRA states that:

Many rivers do not meet EU standards for phosphorous content. Phosphorous reduces the oxygen content of water and harms aquatic life. A ban will help to reduce inorganic phosphate pollution and mean the water industry has to use less energy and chemicals to remove phosphorous from sewage effluent.

So, by banning inorganic phosphates:

1. Britain’s rivers will be cleaner as the water quality improves, meeting EU targets at the same time.
2. Our aquatic life will no longer be harmed and
3. By not adding additional chemicals to DCLPs the water companies will not need to purchase and use further chemicals in order to treat waste water to remove the chemicals that were added to it elsewhere in the first place!

Banning inorganic phosphates from DCLPs looks like a win-win-win situation from here. Not only do we clean up our rivers & environment and help our wildlife but we also make huge efficiencies by banning inorganic phosphates. With the water industry using “less energy and chemicals to remove phosphorous from sewage effluent” you would expect their costs to decrease; they would be more energy-efficient, they would have less overhead in having to not purchase and use additional chemicals and their treatment methodologies would be simplified with less processes.

In addition the water industry would be taking another step toward their corporate social responsibility which is good for their conscience and good for their public image. Efficient, clean and green; what could be better?

The only losers in this equation would be the manufacturers of inorganic phosphates but with demand for phosphates increasing, particularly due to the increase in world population and the demand for meat & crops, phosphates will continue to be used in artificial fertilisers. However, as phosphates are a finite resource prices have increased massively, so discontinuing their use is an economic benefit for manufacturers of DLCPs.

The alternatives are plant-based environmentally-friendly products such as the excellent Ecover range of cleaning products (such as their lemon & aloe vera washing-up liquid or non-biological washing powder) which have minimal impact upon the environment.

So, if you have any thoughts on banning inorganic phosphates from domestic laundry and cleaning products then head over to theNetregs “Detergent regulations consultation”, read the details of the consultation and tell them your thoughts on the matter before the 21^st January 2010.

The deadline of 1^st January 2015 for the complete “ban” (with it being an offence to market DLCPs with more than 0.4% inorganic phosphates) has been set up to allow the industries concerned time to change their products and packaging, although with the speed at which they can launch products, this seems far too generous (five years to remove inorganic phosphates and “redesign” the packaging?!)

For further reading about see the Wikipedia entry for phosphates or the excellent SNB phosphate recovery website.

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.”

A one-day climate summit in New York yesterday saw about 100 world leaders attend ahead of the crucial Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December.

China, now the world’s biggest polluter, taking the shameful crown from the United States, seemed to make the biggest commitment with President Hu Jintao saying that the country would cut carbon emissions by a “notable margin” by 2020.

The United States’ climate change envoy, Todd Stern, was reported to have said that China’s stance was helpful but that they needed to “provide figures”.

US President Barack Obama didn’t provide any figures for his own country nor did he say anything ground-breaking or commital, prompting criticism that the US, producing around 20% of world pollution, is taking too long to act.

Britain’s own Gordon Brown had said, two days before the summit, that the Copenhagen Conference is in danger of collapse if world leaders neither attended nor made committments towards a low-carbon world economy and was understood to have been trying to convince other world leaders to attend Copenhagen. Brown was the first world leader to commit to Copenhagenyet he has been accused of failing to provide strong leadership in Britain’s own green initiatives.

Whilst China stole the headlines, Japan’s new Prime Minister, Yukio Hatoyama, announced the “Hatoyama Initiative”, pledging to cut Japan’s carbon output by 25% by 2020 (compared t 1990 levels).

UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, said the talks had privded fresh impetus for Copenhagen whilst formwr US vice-president and environmental activist Al Gore praised China for its loose committment.

The countdown now ticks until the 7th December although France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy has called for leaders to meet again in mid November. It remains to be seen whether our leaders are prepared to make any tough decisions.