www.everythingsgonegreen.co.uk

{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}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}
I was walking home from the local shops last night when I spied between the wood and wire panels of a fence, a load of beer cans stuffed inbetween. Then, a few minutes later, as I was walking through the woodland at the end of my road, I saw more beer cans littered around. As per usual, it’s often Fosters cans that you see littering the place.

This makes me think – Why are there no reverse vending machines in Farnborough? For that matter, why are there so few reverse vending machines anywhere in this country?

Can you believe it was 2 and a half years ago that we first wrote about reverse vending? The couple in that story, from Petersfield in Hampshire, paid for their honeymoon by collecting litter and feeding the reverse vending machine. The very same thought went through my mind last night – The benefits are many:

1. I could benefit personally by picking up those empty aluminium cans and taking them to get money for them. Money plus the satisfaction of doing a good job for the community and seeing my neighbourhood clean is the most beneficial personal outcome. Mercenary, I know
2. Any other Tom, Dick or Harry passing could make a few coins by doing so.
3. The perpetrators who dropped the litter in the first place could clear up after themselves and get a small discount on their drinking habits. But then, if they’re the sort of people who drink Fosters lager and drop litter in the first place, then that’s probably hoping too much for them.

So why are there still so few reverse vending machines around? Whilst I have the utmost respect for anti-litter campaigns and the likes of organisations like Keep Britain Tidy, I still think that messages like “You shouldn’t drop rubbish” and “you should keep it tidy” are weak and, to prove a point, they have been ignored for years. What we need is something to help backup that message with where and why you should do so, and “keeping it tidy” still isn’t enough – the financial incentive in these austere times, should help for the more thrifty amongst us.

So if there are any reverse vending companies out there or anyone else who can answer the question “Why are there no reverse vending machines in Farnborough?” then we’d love to hear from you. And, if that doesn’t get enough attention, then we’re going to have to approach a few of these reverse vending companies, supermarkets and councils ourselves and get some answers for you readers.

When I die I want to be a… tree!

Well, if that’s what you want, your last wish can come true thanks to the BIOS Urn.

Originally designed in 2000 by Gerard Moline, the latest incarnation of the BIOS urn, from Spanish designer Martín Azúa, is made from coconut shell, compacted peat and cellulose with a funky green design on the outer sleeve.

The biodegradable urn comes complete with a seed to sow in the ashes of the deceased or you can substitute this with a seed or cutting of your own.

So if being a grey headstone is not for you or the benefit of the world then consider being a mighty oak and get your BIOS urn exclusively from LIMBO.

I just flicked the TV on before going to work and caught a story on BBC1′s “Breakfast” news show highlighting the fact that we will all be getting more junk mail in the UK.

Apparently Royal Mail’s management have agreed to pay conditions with the postal workers’ union just so long as Britain’s postmen start shoving more junk through our letter boxes.

The deal is said to be quite lucrative for Royal Mail and for the union, which had previously agreed that postal workers should only deliver three items of junk to an address per week, this is quite a compromise.

On the BBC Breakfast show the presenters questioned two guests; one a proponent of “direct marketing” and the other a representative of the group Waste Watch. (Sorry I don’t have any more detail, I missed the names and the introductions)

What we saw was a scruffy talk about junk mail with a lack of clarity on exactly which form of junk mail was being discussed with the direct marketing representative spearheading a charm offensive on behalf of junk mail.

Junk mail, by my definition, is any brochure or advertising that comes through my door unsolicited. What Royal Mail seem to be advocating, and making money from, is “unaddressed mail”. This “unaddressed mail” includes those envelopes addressed to “the owner” or “the occupier”.

With those two terms, junk mail and “unaddressed mail” cleared up nicely the people on the sofas then proceeded to discuss the generic term “junk mail” which allowed the direct marketing guy to positively present his figures. I suspect he was talking about “unaddressed mail” but was allowed, pretty much unchecked, to spin the facts as applying to junk mail/direct marketing in general and not purely “unaddressed mail”.
“Mr. Direct Mmarketing” said that 80% of direct marketing was opened and read by recipients. He also added that direct marketing is not a waste of time because the process generates around £130 billion of business a year. In addition he said that less than 2% of household waste is direct marketing/junk mail. He also repeated the soundbite, a couple of times, that the perception that “junk mail is bad” is “a complete myth”.

In response the representative of Waste Watch said that only 1% of junk mail was acted upon.

The direct marketing guy relished the opportunity to market his industry virtually unopposed and massaged the figures to his own advantage. £130 billion is a lot of business but how much of that business is won by direct marketing via “unaddressed mail”? How much is won by door-to-door direct marketing? How much business and revenue is generated by junk flyers?

I was a little surprised at the smug fact that less than 2% of household waste is junk mail/direct marketing. Was this by weight or by item? I decided to have a quick look in my recycling box that sits in the kitchen. OK, the food waste goes into a bucket and onto the compost so I didn’t count that.

Granted, there was more general recyclable material by weight and bulk, especially considering there are steel cans, aluminium beer cans, cardboard boxes, cardboard tubes etc but the item count?

• Junk mail – 20
• Recycling – 30

That’s probably about a week or two’s worth of recycling on show and the junk mail is all direct marketing and no “unaddressed mail”.

So, in terms of “unaddressed mail” my own personal figure tallies up with the marketing guy – less than 2% of my household waste is “unaddressed mail”, infact, this week, it’s 0%, but hardly a fair representative figure.

In terms of weight of junk mail, again, it’s probably very light and may well be about 2% of my recycling.

But as a proportion of my waste it’s 40%.

Hold on – there’s a BIG flaw in my manipulation of the figures here – it’s only a week or so’s worth of rubbish AND it’s only my recycling.

Yes, I have only thrown away ONE item of rubbish this last week – a pasta packet, that’s it.

So, back to the BBC breakfast story; who is right and who is wrong? Who lost and who won?

Well, the direct marketing guy probably won the charm offensive, he marketed his own corner really well and was given free reign to use some great figures and say twice, “it’s a myth” that junk mail is bad. And yes, my own example of rubbish is from a green guy who wastes very little anyway – of course “the average household” may well waste SO MUCH MORE and the junk will be an even tinier percentage of their household waste.

But as time goes on and we become less wasteful, the guy from Waste Watch is right. If only 1% of the junk mail message gets through then 99% of the paper, print, energy and manpower is wasted on going straight back into the bin/recycling. It may make the commercial world go around but 99% waste is not sustainable from an environmental perspective.

So, if you guys & girls out there have any figures to demonstrate the direct marketing claims one way or another then please feel free to let us know

Personally I think it’s a big shame that Royal Mail are keen to promote more waste for the sake of money. Read the Royal Mail door-to-door opt-out page. It’s almost laughable that they’re trying to get you to reconsider before you even send your details in;

Opting out means no one at the address will receive unaddressed mail items – is this acceptable to everyone living at the property?

Yes. The cat doesn’t need double glazing or a conservatory or a kebab or a pizza or a valuation on the property or timeshare or a haircut…

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.

The idea behind the bottle bank arcade machine is that making things fun makes them more usable…

Any opinions on the fact that it’s sponsored by VW?

I’m currently staying in Germany, the land of recycling, where they’ve had recycling machines for years, so it’s nice to see that we’re catching up in England and the county of Lancashire has now its first reverse vending machine.

Blackpool and The Fylde College has installed Lancashire’s first Reverse Vending Recycling Machine at their new University Centre. Students and staff are being encouraged to recycle more bottles & cans. Every can or bottle that is placed in the machine is a unit worth 5 pence and vouchers are issued to spend in the new Grads Café Canteen in the Central Hub.

The innovative reverse vending machine not only compacts and saves recyclable materials but also monitors and records the types of units deposited, allowing the data to be viewed online so that the college can review the success of the vending initiative.

Ruth Paisley, Vice Principal of Resources & Planning at Blackpool & The Fylde College commented:

“We’re really pleased to be leading the way environmentally with innovative new ideas and a commitment to reducing our impact on the environment.

“We were one of few projects committed to achieving a post-construction BREEAM ‘Excellent’ merit, meaning we have stuck to our plans and not compromised on environmental impact in order to cut costs.

“I’m sure the ReVend machine will also give students and staff even more of an incentive to recycle their waste.”

It would be great to see this initiative extended to other schools & colleges and even better to see reverse vending machines in every high street in Britain, so let’s hope this is the first of many. If you’re interested in reverse vending machines then pay a visit to the Reverse Vending Corporation.

I was only away for 9 days and I came home to find a ton of junk mail on my doormat.

Apart from a couple of magazine subscriptions, the usual bills and letters (including welcome mail from Ecotricity and Triodos Bank) the majority of what I received was junk.

So, apart from just 11 legitimate pieces of mail the rest was:

• 4 flyers ( in the local newspaper – 2 for national companies)
• 3 collection bags from charities.
• 2 Estate Agents’ flyers.
• 6 fast food flyers.
• 5 National company flyers.
• 1 Speculative Insurance invitation.
• 10 other items of random junk

So legitimate mail was outnumbered by roughly 2:1 OK, I can sign up to the Mail Preference Service but it doesn’t stop the junk in the local rag or the stuff that leaflet droppers are paid to deliver. Ah well, more stuff for the recycle bin and the compost bin then.