www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

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

…but see tax and red tape as barriers to environmentalism

(This press release sourced from is4profit) Small businesses believe going green can boost their bottom line – but see tax and red tape as major barriers to becoming more environmentally friendly, according to Forum of Private Business research.

Just 10% of business owners responding to the Forum’s latest environmental panel survey have done nothing to reduce steep utilities costs while 41% have streamlined business processes, 28% have reduced energy usage and the same number have embraced more energy efficient equipment.

While 77% of respondents disagree that being green is impossible in the present economic climate 52% argue that green taxes inhibit their ability to invest in reducing energy use and 75% believe that environmental legislation focuses on the needs of larger businesses rather than small firms.

In all, 52% of the small businesses surveyed believe they cannot become more environmentally friendly until they are able to be more profitable.

The Forum’s Chief Executive Phil Orford said: “Small businesses see the benefits of green practices and technologies to the environment and, given rising energy costs, to their bottom lines. They are clearly taking steps towards introducing them but the lack of adequate support from the Government and utilities providers is frustrating.

“We need better information about the choice of support and equipment that is available, and incentives to help business owners embrace environmental processes and trade more sustainably locally, regionally and internationally, rather than ever more taxation. Small businesses should be at the forefront of thinking about the green agenda.”

The impact of industry practices and environmental policies

Just 8% of respondents believe regulators have been effective in protecting them from the ‘bad practice’ of utilities providers, while a significant 87% believe there should be one single government department responsible for utilities regulation and funding schemes.

Further, 38% of panel members have used or recommended to their staff national or local environmental initiatives introduced by the Government, such as the Cycle to Work scheme, while 48% have not – with 63% reporting they have not sought support from government agencies or organisations such as Business Link.

While 33% of respondents believe ‘green’ energy providers are markedly more expensive than traditional suppliers and are therefore not worth considering, 38% disagree with this.

In all, 78% think that using local suppliers is environmentally responsible. However, 76% believe that to effectively manage resources it is necessary to be able to measure energy usage.

While 65% of the small businesses surveyed believe that the cost of energy is more important than maintaining a continuous supply, 43% disagree. In addition, 66% report that introducing measures to guard against extreme weather conditions such as flooding and fire is less important than securing the best returns for their businesses at present, with 31% disagreeing with this.

Controlling costs

A total of 38% of respondents have taken proactive cost control steps by switching utilities suppliers, but few businesses are using environmental consultants with over half of respondents (54%) indicating they do not believe they are appropriate for their businesses.

Other methods of cost reduction being explored by Forum members include tightening up administrative (31%) and travel (35%) processes as well as reducing purchasing procurement costs (45%) – with some businesses benefiting from the Forum’s Buying Support Agency.

While 53% said they receive no support in reducing bills from their energy suppliers, 29% said this depends on the provider concerned. A total of 15% reported that they do receive support.

A total of 73% of respondents focus on ‘common sense solutions’ to reducing waste but 31% only begin to assess how to reduce energy costs when they receive a bill or contract renewal form, while 16% use meters to identify poorly functioning equipment or inefficient processes.

Smart metering and green technologies

While half of all respondents believe there are no barriers to using meters, 64% of those with metering issues identified cost as a major concern.

Others cited poor information and a lack of government leadership as responsible for a lack of confidence in meter suppliers – few firms trust that suppliers or utilities regulators will prevent unit prices from rising following the introduction of smart meters.

Some 20% of respondents believe smart metering is not appropriate for smaller firms, either due to the lack of an economy of scale, difficulties in installation because their property is terraced, listed or rented, or because the type of electricity supply they use renders metering inappropriate.

The inconvenience of changing to meters and even of them inhibiting core business functions were also mentioned as reasons why some respondents are hesitant about installing them.

While 24% of panel members would consider installing energy generating equipment, such as wind turbines or solar panels if there were more loans or grants to help them to do so, 20% said they do not believe it is their decision to make because they rent their premises, the property is listed or they are trying to sell it.

However, some businesses renting properties would be interested in receiving information about how tenants and owners can benefit from such improvements – 11% would like to know more about green technology so that they can maximise their use of it. Just as important for many respondents is accurate information about the costs and pay back terms involved.

In all, poor information (20%) and cost (15%) are seen as the biggest barriers to greater investment in environmental services and technologies.

The Forum is calling on the Government to:

• Think small first when producing environmental policies affecting businesses: including ensuring policies and regulations are simple, proportional and clear to give business owners the greatest opportunity to understand and, where appropriate, implement government policy.
• Incentivise the green agenda: rather than simply introducing taxes to persuade business owners that the green agenda is more than a revenue raising exercise with little in return, such as by providing environmental support structures that are more readily accessible to small businesses.
• Clarify the business case for energy efficient technology and provide better information on the choices available: while small firms see the importance of metering and measuring energy use, there are practical difficulties relating to the installation and operation of meters and green technologies.
• Support businesses that adopt green measures early: including rewards for large-scale property improvements such as tax relief and soft loans – giving these businesses the confidence to make further investments in low carbon infrastructures. The Green Investment Bank should be able to support micro-generation schemes to improve the nation’s energy security.
• Support a local agenda: with better support for and promotion of local schemes, closer links between small firms and the communities in which they operate including allowing retailers to use Energy Performance Certification to show off their green credentials and creating a local green agenda to ensure that regenerating high streets is done in a sustainable manner, reducing the barriers put in the way of businesses by planning departments.

is4profit has further business advice articles that may be of interest in their green business section.

Bottled Water. A multi million (billion?) pound industry where businesses put water in bottles, market it heavily and make big fat profits.

And all you need to do is turn on the tap and out it comes. You already pay your water rates/have a water meter, so why on earth are you paying someone else to make big profits on something you’re already paying for?

And then there’s the whole industry of making the plastic bottles to fill up and throw on the streets or in the trash – What a waste of resources, just take a reusable bottle out with you, fill it up at home.

Did you know that…

• on average, people in the EU buy 85 bottles of water per year?
• A typical UK local authority will dispose of up to 10 million water bottles per annum?
• Worldwide, the human race threw away 5,000 bottles every second, that’s 150 billion bottles a year!

But what if you came out without your water bottle? What happened to all those drinking fountains that were around when we were younger? What about those Victorian drinking fountains?

Well, that’s where the Find-a-Fountain project comes in.

Drinking fountain, Lewes. (c) 2008 The Justified Sinner

The ‘Find-a- Fountain’ project, developed by environmental entrepreneur Guy Jeremiah and now part of the 1859 Drinking Fountain Association, aims to record all publicly accessible drinking water fountains across the UK via a specially designed interactive website. Also optimised for smartphones, the service enables individuals to key in their location to find their nearest free water source or to share the whereabouts of a new site.

The Find-a-Fountain project hopes to start a renaissance in the use of drinking fountains in order to reduce the UK’s reliance on inefficiently produced bottled water, and lessen its negative impact on the environment. It is hoped that this campaign will also lead to a second phase which will facilitate the installation of new drinking water fountains around the country and the restoration of old fountains which have fallen into disrepair, like the campaign to restore Bristol’s drinking fountains.

Through public records, www.findafountain.org has so far logged over 600 of the nation’s drinking water fountains and is now calling on volunteers to upload details of their own local facilities or free public drinking water sources.

Guy Jeremiah, founder of Find-A-Fountain, said:

“This is an ideal opportunity for anyone to play a part in reducing the environmental damage associated with the consumption of bottled water. The average person in the UK buys 85 bottles of water a year and a typical local authority in the UK has to dispose of up to 10 million bottles a year, at a significant cost to tax payers. So, we’re calling on everyone to join us in helping to find fountains and free drinking water sources. It’s a great project for walkers, photographers, students, cubs, brownies, geo-cachers, urban explorers, local historians and anyone who cares about the environment. It’s a small thing to ask with the potential to make a big difference.”

To encourage volunteers to get involved, Aquatina collapsible pocket-water bottles will be given away to the first five hundred people to add a fountain to the website.

So, what are you waiting for? Get looking for those water fountains and log your results over at www.findafountain.org

{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.

{EAV_BLOG_VER:d8d8317f40d9f024}
In an article that kicks off by cramming in a dizzying glut-fest of as many marketing buzzwords as possible, Ethical Corporation have written an interesting piece about how social media appears to be driving sustainability in big business these days.

If you can wade your way through the jungle of marketing terms such as brand managers, brand transparency, brand value leadership, brand gatekeepers, strategic differentiation and brand equity, there’s an interesting look at how the world appears to be changing in the light of social media.

What this new episode boils down to is that we seem to be seeing a transformation in business as we see greater transparency through social media.

Kit Kat Killers

One great example of transparency resulting from social media is how Kit Kat slapped a Fairtrade logo on its products, an act of blatant greenwashing, conning consumers into thinking Kit Kat was a responsible brand and appealing to ethical consumers.

But, back in 2010, when Greenpeace accused Nestlé, owners of the Kit Kat brand, of duplicity the eyes of the world then focused on Nestlé, their products and the “little green lies” they told.

Kit Kat products are made using palm oil and, without sustainable sourcing, the demand for palm oil causes deforestation. Deforestation for palm oil, in Indonesia for instance, destroys the habitats of Oran-utangs, and Oran-utangs are an endangered species. How could a popular global product boast “Fairtrade” credentials when its drive for profits were guilty of destroying forests, and killing threatened species in Indonesia? (See the Greenpeace feature on palm oil)

So Greenpeace went on a crusade against Nestlé and Kit Kat, rebranding the product Nestle Killer. Particularly effective, was Greenpeace’ hard-hitting Give the Oran-utang a Break campaign.

The social media campaign from Greenpeace had an instant impact with an increase in some very negative (buzzword alert!) brand awareness. The word spread far across twitter, when I was watching it at the time, and I remember how Nestlé and Kit Kat got a good public kicking with a sustained burst of activity from angry twitter users.

What the Ethical Corporation article failed to mention was the actual result. Written by a brand marketing professional the piece went on to describe how brand managers could, er, better manage their brands under the scrutiny of a world eager to prevent further lies, damn lies and greenwash.

The global Swiss brand published a press release announcing Nestlé open forum on deforestation, Malaysia. This was as a direct result to the Greenpeace campaign to which they closed on their own announcement Sweet success for Kit Kat campaign: you asked, Nestlé has answered. Nestlé also became a member of the Roundtable for Responsible Palm Oil.

Nike? Transparency?

The other “example” of social media driving greater transparency and sustainability, about Nike, is a bit weak. In fact it’s more of a brand-boosting piece about how Nike are using environmentally-friendly rubber and helping a few homeless people. It’s basically more about Nike’s Public Relations crusade than anything about transparency, sustainabilty and social media.

A global company as big as Nike should be doing far more than focusing on just two issues and then milking them for all they’re worth. As a “concerned citizen” their policy really doesn’t make the grade. You’ve only got to look at our piece last month on Big Brands Polluting Rivers in China. Whilst Nike allegedly restrict the use of hazardous chemicals in their manufacturing process, their suppliers are still pumping out polluted waste water. Nike are, by association, still contributing to the problem by continuing to source from suppliers who fail to clean up.

In Conclusion

The Greenpeace social media campaign is the only one that’s forced any transparency. If anyone has any further examples of how social media is forcing transparency and sustainability onto global corporations then I’d be happy to add them to the list.

Other examples of the power of social media in bringing about positive change are the “Arab spring” where the government of Egypt was toppled in a social movement, part-powered by social media.

But that’s not all about what sustainability is about is it?

Transparency should be applied to all brands, businesses and corporations, all their products. Everything they do should be sustainable from the source materials they use, to the energy they consume, and to the way they run their offices, make their goods, ship them to the public and how the products are dealt with after the end of their life.

In short, the complete product lifecycle and the institutions behind them need to look at every single process and make them ALL  environmentally-friendly, carbon-neutral, ethically-sourced, socially-responsible and utterly transparent.

It’s NOT about all the things that marketers and brand managers, at the end of the food chain, can do to seem in touch with their products. It’s about a grass roots culture of making EVERYTHING go green so that processes do not need to be fixed at the tips and go backwards but from the root, from the source. Only then will everything else fall into place.

</sermon over>

We’ve been thinking about experimenting with a green roof here at Everythings Gone Green Towers for quite some time now. Our house roof is far too steeply pitched but our garage, in the back garden, is an ideal candidate for some green roof experimentation.

Green roofs, which can be partially or completely covered in vegetation, are an excellent way to reduce your carbon footprint. They can be installed on existing properties and new builds and provide so many positives.

The Sedum green roof is much like turf, and can be rolled out quickly and easily. Sedum is a large genus of around 400 species of succulents, so they are virtually maintenance-free because they soak up a lot of moisture.

Beyond sedum green roofs, your imagination and the structure of the building, are the only limits with some green roofs having ponds and trees!

New research from energy and environmental consultancy, Atmos Consulting, says that green roofs are definitely beneficial. Whilst we’re looking at a domestic green roof here in Farnborough, Atmos Consulting have been looking at the viability and impact of green roofs on businesses. They say that green roofs help businesses to achieve their sustainability targets and that the “payback times” are getting shorter.

The benefits of green roofs, according to research, are numerous. Atmos say that green roofs are:

• Heat Insulators  Green roofs insulate buildings and thereby cut energy costs. As an example, a recent study has shown that green roofs save 2 litres of fuel oil per square metre.
• Cool Insulators  By insulating a building in the summertime it has been seen that heat absorption of a building can be reduced by as much as 84% – By keeping the temperature down the need for cooling is reduced, thereby cutting the use of air conditioning and encouraging further cost savings.
• Durable: Green roofs are expected to last between 2.5 and 3.5 times longer than roofs made from “standard materials”. Again, the cost of repair and replacement of a regular roof is much reduced over the same lifetime.
• Pollution Reducers: A square metre of grass can remove 0.2kg of particulates per annum. They also trap chmicals and pollutants that would otherwise go straight to drainage systems. (If water companies had to treat waste water less would water bills go down?)
• Run-off Reducers: A green roof will retain as much as 90-100% of of the very critical first hour of heavy/storm rainfall and around 50-60% of run-off over the period of a year. Again, drainage costs are reduced and this aids the management of flood prevention.
•  Wildlife Habitats: Insects, birds and other wildlife love green roofs and so they are a boon to increasing local ecology and biodiversity.
• Sustainable: Government-set sustainability targets can be partially met by installing a green roof. Of course, there are many other factors but green roofs play a contributory role in meeting BREEAM assesments for instance.
• PR Generators: Installing a green roof can generate lots of positive publicity. Local and national press, trade magazines, environmental, energy and green publications and organisations will be happy to promote further the news of green roofs in domestic and commercial applications.

Vicky Ward, Ecological Consultant at Atmos, is positive about the green roof revolution, saying;

“Green roofs have long been popular with companies that want to better the environment, and go a long way to achieving sustainability targets.

“Thanks to developing technology the payback periods are becoming much shorter, making green roofs a sound financial investment. We urge anyone developing new properties or renovating existing ones to consider them.”

If you’re thinking of doing your own green roof project we highly recommend you take a look at the book Small Green Roofs: Low-Tech Options for Homeowners, co-written by Dusty Gedge, among others, who you can follow on twitter, handle @greenroofsuk.

{EAV_BLOG_VER:d8d8317f40d9f024}Hot on the heels of our local McDonalds Litter post comes a story we spied on the BBC website: Greenpeace links big brands to Chinese river pollution.

According to Greenpeace two rivers in China have been found to contain toxic chemicals used in the textile industry. Samples were collected from the waste water outlets of two textile firms at the Yangtze River delta, in southern China, and the Pearl River delta, in eastern China, and found to contain nonylphenols and PFCs.

Greenpeace said that whilst some brands such as Adidas, Nike and Puma had policies in place  to restrict the use of dangerous chemicals in finished products, the textile manufacturing process was still full of holes, particularly regarding waste water discharge and especially in China where environmental laws are particularly slack.

Investigating the Youngor Textile Complex near Shanghai and the Well Dyeing Factory near Hong Kong, Greenpeace said that Abercrombie & Fitch, Adidas, Bauer Hockey, Calvin Klein, Converse, H&M, Lacoste and Puma amongst others, were connected to the guilty polluters.

After being contacted by the BBC regarding these claims Adidas distanced itself from the pollution at the Youngor plant saying they did not source fabric from the plant and did not use Youngor for processes involving water that was discharged into the River Fenghua. H&M, Nike and Puma also told the BBC the same story. No other brands would comment on the pollution issue.

Lacoste were the only clothing brand that said they took the matter seriously and said they’d investigate further.

So, the brands are in the spotlight again, let’s hope they fulfill their social responsibilities and start bringing their suppliers into the green world!

{EAV_BLOG_VER:d8d8317f40d9f024}I had an opportunity to chat with one of our local street cleaners the other day and he was saying that our local McDonald’s was the worst offender in terms of the sheer amount of litter he had to pick up. One day during the week he completely filled 10 large refuse sacks full of just McDonalds trash.

This is no surprise when you go to McDonalds, Farnborough Gate, or McDonalds Drive Through in London Rd, Camberley, on a Sunday morning – Both of these places are completely covered in fast food trash. Whilst they open and spark-up the fryers and rush to serve hungry punters with cheap food, the streets are still awash with the filth from their wrappers.

This is nothing new, it’s being going on for years. Whilst McDonalds has attempted to change its image from a fast food joint with primary-coloured, bright red and yellow fascia and fittings to this new “green” and “sustainable” image of raw wood and earthy tones, serving healthy salads to divert you from its core products of sweet, fatty burgers, the average McDonalds client is still a litter lout. A local traffic cop was even spotted throwing his McDonalds wrappers out of his squad car window. When questioned, he said he was only putting it there temporarily until he could pick it up and get to a bin! So why didn’t he keep it in his car then?

This leads on to the fact that the local penalty for dropping litter is £50 on-the-spot fine. If the threat of forking out £50 because you threw the rubbish from your 99p burger on the floor is such a deterrent then why are the areas around McDonalds still such utter sh*tholes when it comes to litter?

Like a Leopard can’t change its spots, McDonalds can’t brainwash the public by painting things green, serving the occasional dish of leaves, sponsoring football and sticking tiny messages on its cartons saying “please be responsible and place this nicely in a litter bin rather than out of the window of your big-bore Vauxhall Nova, you chavvy little scumbag!”

McDonalds is synonymous with high street litter. McDonalds is a champion of “keep Britain dirty”. There may very well be a McDonalds environmental policy, but its not worth the pixels it’s printed on.

As I have been told, first hand, it’s cheaper to pay someone to pick up the litter than it is to try and take the perpetrators to court – whether it’s the police or a council employee slapping £50 fines on the offending chav’s cars or taking the multinational to task for its worthless, caring image, to give someone the minimum wage for picking up their crap is the low-cost option.

It’s not just us either. Check out Nigel Ball’s McJunk. Nigel’s been on the case of McDonalds junk since 1999 and he’s even published a book about it. Then there’s the filthy McDonalds restaurant in Adelaide a few years ago… Not McLoving It? No, us neither.

{EAV_BLOG_VER:d8d8317f40d9f024}Tucked away on page 17 of this week’s Star Courier local newspaper is a little story about our Farnborough Airport (FAB)

It starts:

“Planes from Farnborough Airport might be pumping carbon dioxide into the sky but the airport itself has been praised for its green efforts.”

The airport has been awarded Airport Carbon Accreditation at a level coined as “reduction” level which the paper notes is “the second highest of four possible ratings.”

Being interested in the environment around here I looked up the Airport Carbon Accreditation scheme’s website and discovered that “reduction” level isn’t the second highest but the second lowest!

The first (lowest) level, mapping, is where the airport actually identify the sources of CO2 emission, calculate their carbon emissions, produce a carbon footprint report and have a 3rd party verify this, in this case the Carbon Trust.

The second level, where Farnborough Airport are now, is reduction which means they have successfully achieved the “mapping” level and have provided evidence of effective carbon management procedures. They have also shown that their reduction targets have been achieved, although what these targets are, we do not know.

The next stages that Farnborough Airport needs to achieve are optimisation, where they engage third parties in the airport in their carbon reduction, and finally neutrality, where the airport itself ultimately becomes carbon neutral over all the emissions over which it has control.

Whilst there’s much back-slapping going on at the airport for their achievement, there’s still a long way to go. As the airport’s environmental manger states in the newspaper article:

“…our next environmental challenge is to develop carbon reduction strategies in conjunction with our tenants and service providers.”

This is good as it will achieve “optimisation” level, although who the tenants and service providers are, I do not know. If this includes the old airfield buildings which are now part of the IQ Farnborough business park then I’d recommend somebody turns the lights of in the empty multi-story car parks at night when there’s nobody there!

The main question that still needs answering though is this: What is the airport’s carbon footprint and what is the carbon footprint of the flights coming in and out of Farnborough?

TAG recently won their call to increase traffic at the airport from 28,000 flights a year to 50,000. If you believe the figures over at How much CO2 is released by an aeroplane? then you can see that a small business jet, most of FAB’s traffic, might emit 1.766 kg/km whilst the average CO2 emissions for a car are about 166g/km or, or, to equate better, 0.166 kg/km according to these figures. That means that, on average, a car emits ten times less CO2 than a small 9-man business jet but there are far more cars on the roads around Farnborough than there are planes to and from Farnborough Airport.

Interestingly, from a sustainability point of view, if you take another look at those figures you’ll see that they believe fuel consumption of the light jet is 0.684 L/km whereas a car that does 30MPG achieves 0.094 L/km (By using this fuel consumption conversion calculator, this kilometres/litres to litres/100 km conversion calculator and a calculator. The same small business plane uses 7 times more fuel than a car and emits 10 times more CO2 – There are more local car trips than plane journeys but what is the average mileage of these cars vs these planes.

Summary

Whilst it’s commendable that TAG Aviation are trying to make Farnborough Airport (FAB) more environmentally-friendly, there still seems to be a very long way to go. I’d be interested to know when they believe they’ll be able to achieve a carbon neutral status for the airport but I’m extremely interested to see the figures for CO2 emissions from the planes and what they intend to do to rectify that problem. (Plant more trees?)

Air quality is another issue and I know that for a fact because I work within spitting distance of FAB. Some days the waft of avgas is overwhelming and i wonder what sustained periods of breathing those fumes in do to our health?