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.

…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.

{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.

It’s that time of year again – Saturday March 26th at 8:30pm is Earth Hour.

For those of you who don’t know about Earth Hour it’s a worldwide movement where people switch of the power for one hour. You  might ask how much energy is saved by switching everything off for one hour, but it’s more than that – it’s a politic statement, a social, cultural and environmental statement…

(more…)

Environmental disasters are currently at the forefront of world news with the BP gulf oil catastrophe in particular dominating the headlines over the last few months. In response,  explore.org, the non-profit multi-media organization, has teamed up with HATCH to champion the selfless acts of others through a short film award at this year’s HATCHfest Bozeman film festival.

The explore/HATCH Award presented by explore.org will be given to the filmmaker who best tells the story of a remarkable individual’s actions in response to a devastating environmental event.

Winner of the explore/HATCH award will be flown to HATCHfest Bozeman September 22-25 in a full expenses-paid trip and be presented with a Canon HD SLR camera package from explore.org’s founder, Charles Annenberg Weingarten, and HATCH.

If you’re interested in submitting your film then please visit http://explore.org/about/explorehatch_award/ for full details. The deadline for filmaker submissions is August 25th. Good Luck!

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 Wave in London, on Saturday, seemed to be a great success. It started with a train ride up to Waterloo and a tube trip to Bond Street where I stepped out into the busy London streets filled with Christmas shoppers.

Grosvenor Square was the starting point of the march where crowds gathered to see guest speakers on the stage from a number of organisations with the crazy beatbox style of Beardyman to gee the crowds up.

Organised by the Stop Climate Chaos Coalition over 50,000 people gathered to make their voices heard and everybody wore blue to create a wave as they marched to and surrounded Parliament. Ed Milliband, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, and Peter Mandelson were  in attendance for a short while and Gordon Brown even invited 24 people in at the end of the march for a discussion.

For me it was good to be part of a great bunch of people all aiming for the same thing – to get some action on climate change rather than the meagre proposals that timid governments are currently putting forward. It’s big business and shareholders that are the problem here , thinking that their profit is more important than using some of their gains to reduce emissions, cut carbon, stop pollution and quit destroying the environment. The obvious question for big business here is where will their profit come from once they’ve depleted the planet?

But I digress. The Wave was great, everyone was friendly and the police did a good job, even the scowling chief officers keeping a watchful eye on the photographers. The Hare Krishnas, complete with mobile drumkit, bass and electric mandolin (all amped up) put a smile on many people’s faces, as did the guy dressed as a polar bear protesting at the tar sands extraction outside the Canadian Embassy on the rout of the march.

Here are all the photos from The Wave on flickr and here are my photos.

Less than 1% of funds spent to prop up financial system could help prevent future global food crises

Many millions of people in poor countries will go hungry when future global food crises strike unless the world’s half a billion small-scale farms receive urgent funding and support from the UK and other governments, says development agency Progressio on the first day of a crucial global food security summit in Rome (Nov 16th-18th).

In a new report, Fertile Ground, Progressio warns that decades of neglect by governments of small scale farmers who feed 2 billion people worldwide, a third of  humanity, have stretched poor farming communities to breaking point, requiring urgent action. The report notes that last year’s global food crisis:

• Added 44 million people to those already undernourished
• Drove 110 million more people into poverty
• Pushed up the price of some commodities by 200%

States Fertile Ground:

“Our global food system is in crisis. The number of hungry people on our planet is rising steadily and for the first time in history has now passed the 1 billion mark… Governments must face the facts and take action now in order to be confident of feeding the estimated 9.2 billion people who will share our planet by 2050.”

Fertile Ground reports a dramatic decline in the amount of aid spent on agriculture, which has fallen by 83% in the past 30 years, as government and other donors favoured intensive, large-scale solutions to the modern challenges of food production. In the process, small-scale farmers have been left behind. The report cites many threats and trials facing small-scale farmers:

• Climate change will leave 40 per cent of sub-Saharan African countries facing the risk of significant declines in crop and pasture production
• 2.6 billion people are already affected by significant levels of land degradation
• 80% of farmers in Africa and 40% in Latin America and Asia still rely on their own labour and hand tools. Many lack access to technical expertise which could help boost production.

Says Petra Kjell, Progressio’s Environment Policy Officer:

“The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) suggests that governments spend $44 billion per year in support of agriculture, which is less than 1 per cent of what they spent to prop up the global financial system. If a significant proportion of that investment went towards assisting small-scale farmers around the world, then a vital step will have been taken to cushion the impact of future food crises.”

The report, which is informed by Progressio’s work with small-scale farmers in countries like Malawi and Ecuador, states that for centuries small-scale farmers have provided a food security buffer against outside shocks, supplying poor communities with local food at local prices. By growing produce in harmony with the environment – or ‘agroecologically’ – farmers are also able to better protect their land and crops from erratic weather linked to climate change, the report notes. It calls for urgent action by governments and policy-makers to ensure these practices continue, through:

• More investment and support for small-scale farmers through international aid and national budgets
• A greater voice for small-scale farmers in national and global decision-making processes which affect the way they live and work

The Rome Food Summit, which is being hosted by the FAO, will bring together leaders and high-ranking officials from around the world. Its main purpose is to address mechanisms to tackle the rising threat of global hunger.

Petra Kjell concludes:

“Small-scale farmers make a huge contribution to our planet. Yet they have been hopelessly under-supported for decades. Unless they are now prioritised by governments, future food crises will be much worse, with dire consequences for millions of people. We must act now to make sure small-scale farmers receive the support they so desperately need.”

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.