Aviation Again

This article is about the aviation industry and the Farnborough show, in which big players try to sell aircraft to companies and governments. The show itself is a display of disposable consumer waste, as it is constructed every two years and has a life-span of just one week. The report also discusses the horrific levels of pollution caused by airports themselves, the chemicals used to treat planes etc, not to mention the noise pollution.

It is some small cause for celebration that now one of the major factors such companies are keen to push is the fuel efficiency of their planes. However, they still refuse to acknowledge what to me is a fact: that we need to reduce air travel. There are suggestions instead that we can further improve fuel efficiency. Thus far, however, every year we have succeeded in doing this, the number of flights being taken has increased at a much greater rate, so we are still going backwards rather than forwards. Some groups suggest that we need to introduce a congestion charge, and it seems clear to me that we need to tax aviation more. Several countries have done this, for example there is a charge of a Euro per passenger per flight in France now. But, it just needs to be done on a much larger scale. For most flying is a luxury that could be foregone. And no government is willing to risk saying something this unpopular. I understand why, but sooner or later we will have to face the facts: yes, travelling represents an amazing opportunity for experiencing new areas and cultures, but can our planet afford to pay the price for our personal gain?

As someone whose study has always been into Modern Languages and Cultures, I fully understand the desire to go and experience other countries and other ways of living, even just for holidays. But I have to accept that my doing so will directly contribute to their destruction. And I can't on any level justify to myself that my personal benefit can compare with the losses I will cause. There are very few people, for whom I would be satisfied I could justify their journeys. And none of them are for sunny weeks away or weekend city breaks.

Whilst many insist that the aviation industry is essential to our economies, we have to consider the picture in the longer term. The International Air Transport Association (IATA)'s chief executive, Giovani Bisignani suggests that eradicating damage from air travel would not be worthwhile: 'the result is only a 2% global improvement on CO2 emissions. But the impact on global economies would be disastrous'. Firstly, the proportion of CO2 damage caused by the aviation industry has dramatically increased every year in recent times and secondly, a 2% reduction of something this enormous would be a welcome victory for Earth! Do we really believe that in fifty years' time, our economies will still be valuing aviation as they now do? Or, will they be driven by the need to develop environmental technologies that our long-suffering planet can sustain?

I can believe that people have so little respect for the Earth, to be honest, sad though it is. What I can't understand is how they have so little respect for their own futures. Anyone who has a child must wonder how they will explain the state of our planet to them in decades to come. Just like the old war propoganda, where the small children ask Daddy what he did in the war, I am interested to know how people will answer their children and grandchildren when they ask us why we did so little to solve problems we could see would plague their existence when we had every chance and all the necessary technology to do it. And the simple answer is that it is all about money. I don't think it's an answer that would satisfy me and I don't think it will satisfy the generations that will follow us either. Not least becuase I don't even believe it's true. If Britain wanted to, we could very well strengthen our eceonomy by leading the field in the development and production of green technologies. Whilst more and more companies are springing up, they are still very marginal. This simply shouldn't be the case, and we really should have begun this process so much earlier. And once again, we fail to look far enough into the future. Even I, as a child, foresaw that we would face the problems we now do as well as how we could minimise them, though I am perhaps still shocked by how quickly the situation is deteriorating. And I reckon I can see where we'll be in another ten or fifteen years time, and it's just not going to be good enough.

No links today really, just a rant, but maybe I'll come back and add some more neutral links soon so that other people can make up their own minds and look at both sides...

Blue Skies ahead?

David Miliband (environment secretary) is discussing future ways to reduce CO2 emissions. He sees a future in which it may act as a new currency, allowing domestic homes too to carbon trade. He sees it as an empowering option, offering lower-income homes the chance to sell their excess and only charging those who transgress limits. He asserts it will allow more personal responsibility than simply banning certain products and services. Others, including Liberal Democrat, Chris Huhne are criticising the proposals: whilst they welcome more open dialogue on domestic Carbon emissions, they insist that we need to see strategies implemented that will yield immediate restults rather than continually discussing 'blue sky' ideas which, althugh laudable, are a long way from being realisable. We must not use such ideas as an excuse for doing too little now. He points out: 'Green taxes have fallen to their lowest level since Mrs Thatcher was prime minister. This is a shcoking indictment of a government that claims to care about the environment'. It is apparent that we need to look at these issues both in the long and short term; neither exclusively will succeed. The Departments of the Environment, Trade and Industry, and Communities and Local Government and the Treasury are considering the role of 'communityn level' approaches to mobilising indivuduals. They are expected to raise proposals such as the introduction of loyalty cards and lague tables to give people a sense of ownership of the problem in their report, due early next year. Read the BBC report on it here.

Hot, Hot and Green

There are loads of interesting stories I've read over the last week that I've been wanting to write up, but I really haven't had time, so here's another small installment and I'll try and get the rest on here soon, if they're still relevant. For now, though...

I've seen this several places now, and have found a decent copy I can use without stealing bandwidth, so here it is. Silly, but fun.

Here, briefly (and in French, I'm afraid), is a report about protests that have been taking place in France. It appeared in French newspaper Libération and discusses the issues activists have been raising with Formula1 racing. They have been protesting for five years now to try to abolish Le Grand Prix de France and this year met at the Eiffel Tower last weekend. They have organised marches and lobbied parlimentarians as well as writing to the president. They are particualrly keen to quote former French Prime Minister, Pierre Messmer who asserted that car fuel should be well managed and used economically. He suggested that drivers' speeds be reduced and said 'Naturellement, cette limitateion de vitesse a comme conséquence que les courses automobiles et les rallyes seront, jusqu'à nouvel order, suspendus' (summary: a consequence thereof will be that motor racing and rallies should also be suspended).

Temperatures remain really high across Britain this week and there have been warnings of record temperatures, which some are attributing to climate change. This does seem reasonable to me, however, I think we should sensibly remain cautious and avoid jumping to conclusions on that score. I don't honestly doubt that it is in part due to global warming, but we should remember that one of the records that may be beaten was set in 1911, when our ozone layer and ice caps were in very different states. This is the BBC's coverage. This report offers ways of keeping cool in the rising heat that won't impact further on climate change, thus precipitating the very problem. Here's the Met Office's site and here's the Department of Health's advice on dealing with the heat waves.

I personally am really enjoying the heat, but it is worth noting that it is not only humans who are struggling with it. The RSPCA and other animal welfare organisations have been publicly campaiging to ensure owners take suitable precautions for their pets in the hot weather and have been receiving a large volume of call-outs from concerned members of the public. Here's their advice pages on the matter. Also, the Times printed this report on the problems faced by the fish in our waterways due to the heat. Thousands have already been killed and thousands more are expected to die. They are being suffocated by the explosion of algae in the water, caused by increased sun. Conservationists have been doing what little they can to help by pumping air into the water. The Environment Agency have suggested that this deoxygenation will become more widespread over the rest of the summer and has asked the public to notify them of sightings of distressed fish so that they might be able to aerate local water.

Many believe that the Green Party in France is set to announce its new candidate who will stand for the presidential elections in 2007. He or she will clearly not be expected to win, but it wil be interesting to see who it is and what campaigns will be unveiled. For those who might not know, the elections in France are run in two rounds, about six weeks apart from one another. It is highly unlikely that the green representative will graduate to the second round of voting, but we'll see... Here's a site giving a summary of them (in French, alas) and here's the report I read suggesting this.

It's been a while, so I'll just briefly start with G8

"The G8 countries represent just 15 percent of the world's population but they produce 45 percent of all human emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas," said Ethan Green of Rising Tide North America, a group supporting the protests in the US.

Protesters who went to St Petersburg for the G8 meeting on energy have been in trouble. They blockaded a main road used by G8 participants in Russia's second city and 37 were subsequently arrested by riot police. Some had to be forcibly removed when they refused to co-operate and remained sitting. Several have complained of abusive treatment and there are reports that they are being denied legal representation. The protests took place in both Russian and English and the protesters were from a variety of countries (I hope they travelled ethically!) and were about G8 states' stance on nuclear energy. The activists maintain that the money to be spent on nuclear energy would be better invested in development of long-term renewable sources. They warn of the dangers of nuclear power and the time required to build new reactors among other things. Similar protests were held throughout the world in many major cities. Here's what seems a resaonable summary of the story. Here's the official G8 website and here are some of the official pictures from the meeting. Here are the results of a survey of a wider sample of the world's population, mainly from G8 countries, indicating serious concerns. Here's the BBC's in-depth coverage and lots of links. Here also is a protest site against the G8 summit, to which various organisations and inidividuals contribute, here's British-run orgniasation Dissent's site and here's Indymedia's coverage of the same, including video clips etc.

Power in US, Planes again, Plans for Defra and Proposals from Scottish Executive for new buildings

"If we don't have a policy that drives up the cost of coal, then nuclear is in trouble - coal is just too cheap in the United States" Henry Jacoby, MIT

As well as having arisen in UK again, the nuclear debate has been provoked in US too. Anti-nuclear campaigners are raising reminders of past nuclear disasters: Chernobyl, but also the US's own Three Mile Island accident of 1979. Some suggest that it is such fears that have stalled the progress of nuclear in the states, however, others are quick to point out that this should be attributed to economics rather than emotions. It would need massive government subsidies before it could be a viable alternative to other, cheaper energy forms, and the state simply haven't made the funds available. However, now Bush has promised 'investment incentives' for the next six nuclear plants built through the government's Energy Policy Act. Scott Peterson, a spokesman for the nuclear industry's advocacy group the Nuclear Energy Institute is fully in favour and states 'US energy needs are growing again and the country needs more nuclear power plants as a result.' I personally disagree. US energy needs are growing, but regardless of the debate as to the sources we should exploit to meet those needs, we have to cut energy consumption. The Carbon footprint is larger per capita in the States than it is in any other country, and it is still increasing. There is no excuse for this and we need to work at reducing it. Peterson cites rather the Department of Energy, who have 'forecast a 45% increase in energy demand by 2030' and sees Nuclear as the logical solution to the problem. The US's 103 nuclear plants currently produce a fifth of the country's energy, and this is set to increase as the Nuclear Energy Institute have predicted at least 10 applications for new nuclear plants in the US by the end of 2008. It seems there is greater acceptance of nuclear energy now than there has been for decades, and many are keen to become energy-independent in producing their energy nationally. The consensus is that this decision will be made on economic terms rather than political or ethical. Henry Jacoby is an expert on energy policy and writes that the future of nuclear power will depend on government policy. 'If we had a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade system like the European trading system, it would make a big difference'. Here's today's BBC report on it all.

Despite the recent coverage of the risks associated with air travel and the need to reduce it, it seems we are making little headway. Campaigners have long been fighting the ridiculously low air fares for internal and short flights that have fuelled the weekend city break. This is a battle they have been losing, as the state does nothing to reduce such travel through aviation fuel tax and continues to sanction the construction of secondary runways at airports. It appears that this situation is about to deteriorate further, however, as Jack Shenker reports on a new trend: low-cost long-haul flights. He sees many potential pitfalls for such an enterprise, so let's hope it doesn't come off. Here's the story.
I am naturally at least as travel-thirsty as most people, I think, but I can manage to make the sacrifice of not flying. I accept that this is at the least a very inconvenient lifestyle choice, and one that few are willing to make. But, until people realise the necessity of such abstention (which they surely will when it's too late), could they not cut down on unnecessary luxury travel for short breaks. If people must continue to fly, let it be for really good reasons, to reach essential destinations, for reasonable amounts of time. And, make sure to offset Carbon emissions at the least!

And, David Miliband has laid out targets for Defra (see links) in the future. He (rightly, in my opinion) suggests that we need to dramatically cut energy consumption in Britain. He proposed that citizens should feel bound by an 'environmental contract', whereby they would appreciate their rights and responsibilities with respect to the environment. He discussed waste issues in some detail, but also saw the need to work with the Industry secretary, Alistair Darling to change things at a more direct level. Here's a report on it and here's Defra's five-year strategy.

The Scottish executive had put forward a motion that could see new buildings subject to stricter efficiency laws. They would be required to generate at least ten per cent of their own energy from micro-renewables, such as wind turbines or solar panels on site. So far, I can't find all that much out about it, but hopefully it'll come off. I'll post again when I can find out more.
Communities Minister Malcolm Chisholm said that "Our target is to generate 40 per cent of Scotland's electricity from renewable sources by 2020, but I would like see us go beyond this and make further impact in reducing harmful carbon emissions". Let's hope the rest of UK follows suit, but for now, you can read all I've found out about it here...

More later, perhaps...

Flood Fears, Energy Enquiry, Rubbish Recycling and Tibetan Trains

There seems little point in referencing the government's latest Energy Review, since it has made headline news across the British press, so I'll post some other interesting stories that have had less coverage for now, but I'll definitely come back to it later, once the hype has calmed and there are more opinions around. In the meantime...

Local councils are registering fears that thousands of homes will be at risk this year. There are concerns that many coastal areas across Britain will be damaged over the winter months by the storms and floods that UK has faced in recent years, apparently consequences of global warming. Several local government authorities have requested financial aid to guard against such damage, however, the funding has simply not been made available. Government representatives have publicly voiced their renewed commitment to maintaining coastlines and protecting against the erosion that leaves residents with increased chances of being flooede, however, those at risk will be little consoled if the resources aren't made available. The Telegraph has a report on it here, which does offer facts and statistics and is more than just scare-mongering.

The Financial Times have recently undertaken a survey to consider which of the major energy providers are making efforts to combat climate change. At a time when companies are being asked to reduce their Carbon dioxide emissions in line with EU targets, greenhouse gas emissions from power utilities accounted for almost a third of UK's national emissions in 2005, representing an annual increase of 15%. The study concluded that Scottish Power (my energy provider!) were clearly making the biggest difference. They have increased efficiency and invested more in renewable sources. I know it is possible for consumers to elect to have all their electricity sourced from renewable means, cos that's what we do. And, they also give you your bills online to save paper, if you so wish. Eon-UK came second, according to the research, with EDF (Energie de France) in last place. For more information on the survey, have a look here.


Exeter City Council have failed to prosecute the first woman charged with spoiling a recycling batch. She allegedly placed non-recyclable items in her green, council-provided wheelie bin, which were spotted and reported. It is now legally an offence to do so, and the council as well as environmentalists are keen to point out that it only takes one person's carelessness to spoil an entire lorry-load of well-separated waste. In this instance, Exeter City Council failed to provide conclusive evidence that the woman charged was guilty, however, they have vowed to remain vigilant and will continue to charge those who they suspect of breaking the law. This will be in line with other local councils, as recycling in Britain is finally on the increase, and we pull away from the bottom of the EU cohort. The Independent cover it here and here's Exeter City Council's recycling resources web pages.

And last one for now: Tibet's first railway opens. It is celebrated, but environmentalists are keen to log concerns and call for monitoring. It will run through the Tibetan plateau and opened at the weekend; it is hoped to attract further tourism and lead to local development. It is hard to argue with the desires of the local people, however, WWF amongst others are advocating close observation. They are worried that alrady-delicate eco-systems could suffer, not least as they are so high up (more than 5,000 metres above sea level at its highest point) and the balance tends to be finer. There are also concerns that the permafrost upon which most of the railway rests may well be unstable within a decade, due to problems we are already experiencing with global warming. Let's hope it can be managed well, providing financial support for the Tibetans who need it with minimal disruption to the wildlife of the region. More on the story here.

Planes, poles and putting

Despite all the recent discussion about the future of aviation and the restrictions to which it will become subject in the name of the environment, Caroline Lucas (Green MEP in South England) argues in the Guardian that the future is far from stormy for the airlines. The full story is here, but the overview is that the industry is trying desperately to avoid cutting their emissions, whilst the flying accounts for an ever-increasing proportion of Europe's carbon dioxide output. The Association of European Airlines (AEA) has been busy lobbying the European Parliament over the decision as to how to legislate on CO2 emissions. As other industries are forced to reduce their emissions or pay the price, major airlines are happy to buy up their excess allowances. Although Tony Blair has shown no commitment whatsoever to encouraging the reduction of this most damaging industry (despite his rhetoric) and has continually sanctioned construction of secondary runways at airports and resisted taxing aviation fuel, th EU is mercifully slightly stricter on such matters. They seek to bring air travel under the jurisdiction of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Whilst this is better news, there are nonetheless reservations, since this will still allow large companies 'emissions trade'. This will not see any reduction in emissions, and in fact their damage will be more significant as they are more problematic in the troposphere than they are at ground level, where most are released. This will also neglect the fact that there are other dangerous emissions associated with air travel, which will be increased as they buy up allowances from other sectors. The obvious solution would seem to be capping air travel emissions directly rather than allowing them to trade and be incorporated into the current framework. And, Lucas does not fail to debunk the myth that economy airlines are evening a playing field and allowing those from lower social classes to fly more: over three quarters of economy flight seats are filled by the higher classes and the Civil Aviation Authority's passenger survey in 2003 found that the average passenger salary at low-fare airline airport Stansted in the UK was £46,000.

According to this BBC report, the UK's UK Natural Environment Research Council is to fund a project with Stirling University to sponsor exerts to travel to the Arctic and Antartic in order to undertake studies on carbon found in earth. It is known that Carbon is stored in the Earth, and there are concerns that it too may end up in our atmosphere as the poles undergo chage induced by global warming. I only hope that they will be travelling ecologically, or at least offestting their flights...

It's good news that golf courses are looking to start being more environmental. They have traditionally been hated by environmentalists (me included) for their negative impact on their surrounding areas, the areas they develop and the wildlife whose habitats they steal, not to mention those who campaign against pesticide use... This report discusses the movement amongs golf courses to be more 'green' by going less green. They are discouraging overwatering as well as pesticide and fertiliser use.

Here are 'Listen Again' features from 'You and Yours' on BBC Radio 4. There are two articles of particular interest to those with environmental concerns: firstly the section on the timber trade in Africa and our lack of success in sustainably managing it. The other is about Ryanair, who face potential investigations, having misled their customers on just how reasonable their prices are. They have implied that the taxes they are subject to are much higher than is actually the case, in an effort to convince consumers that their profit margins are smaller than they are in reality. Here's the link, though it won't last long.

Oil, Oil

This one's about oil. It is an economic report and discusses the enormous amounts of money that the big players are willing to pay in order to gain rights over remaining, yet diminishing, resources. Chinese company Sinopec has just paid $1 billion to buy the right to explore for oil off the coast of Angola, and this is not the first surprisingly high bid that has been made recently. As companies become increasingly desperate to divine more resources to exploit, they are willing to pay higher and higher prices, as this article discusses.


Another oil story concerns the recent slick off the North Welsh coast. It comes as a serious blow, so soon after the recent slick (see June 26) and is in almost the same place in the Menai strait, separating Anglesey from the Welsh Mainland. This time it was leaked from Caernarfon, and reports reached Holyhead's coastguard service in the early hours of yesterday morning. The Environment Agency (see links) are now involved and will be monitoring the situation. It is believed to be smaller than the slick a fortnight ago, at about one mile long and is believed to be being broken down naturally by waves. The EA see this is the nest solution as it will minimise the environmental impact of the slick. Here's the BBC story and here's ICWales's coverage.

Cotton, Climate Change, Chris Huhne and Carrier Bags

The BBC broadcast a special programme on climate change this morning. They asked James Lovelock, who expounded the Gaia theories to talk and invited a panel of seven eminent researchers and academics in the field to question him and his theories. While it has often been claimed that Professor Lovelock is extreme and alarmist in his position on climate change, and his theories have often been dismissed, the panel concluded that his predictions were not ridiculous and that though he may fall on the pessimistic side of them, his predictions do fall in line with those made by the IPCCC (see links). Where Lovelock is perhaps most controlversial is in his firmly held belief that nuclear energy will be the solution to the planet's problems. I personally don't agree with this. Whilst I can wholly understand his position and see the benefits of such an approach, as long as there are still viable alternatives with which we can turn around the damage we have done and are doing, then I am fully committed to exploiting them. I think as long as we can safely avoid nuclear whilst still managing to ween ourselves from our CO2 dependence, we should. Where the panel were divided was on whether or not Lovelock's publications would empower his readership and provoke them to act, or whether it would encourage further apathy from supposed hopelessness on their part. Here's a link to the BBC's website, and there's the possibility of listening to the panel's discussions from here. Here's the verdict of the votes the panel took and here's the questions the panel answered from the public. For those who don't really know what gaia theory is all about, here's one brief introduction, here's another overview and here's wikipedia's definition.

Here's the Independent's story on organic cotton today. They cover well the problems associated with standard cotton production, focusing both on environmental damage and human rights issues for workers in developing countries and trace the growth in the eco-friendly industry. It is hoped, and indeed predicted, that the organic cotton industry will follow in the footsteps of the organic food market, as more and more consumers demand such products. It will rely on some of the larger companies to develop more lines using organically produced materials, however, if the trend is to gain momentum. One dilemma which is raised is wehter consumers should buy fairly traded, non-organic cotton or organic: in this article, the decision is made in favour of organic, but I can see arguments for the reverse decision too, at least in the short term. What I think the article fails to address are the problems associated with any cotton production. Cotton is a very thirsty crop, requiring massive amounts of water intake, which suggests it is perhaps a material we should move away from altogether.

Here's some useful information on which countries and continents are responsible for the worst levels of CO2 emissions and how that has changed in the recent past. It is also asked what they are going to do about it.

Ikea has announced today that they are going to cut back on carrier bags. The scheme, born of environmental concern, will see the end of free carrier bags being offered to customers. For now, they will sell off their stocks at 5p per bag and they will phase in biodegradable bags at 10p in the future. They are simultaneously reducing the price of their strong, re-usable bags from £1.25 to cost price 25p per sac.

Finally, here's more from Chris Huhne. This one is about green taxes. He is proposing an overhaul of the tax system that would encourage people to take more responsibility by charging them money for their inefficient use of carbon-based fuels. He discusses models used by other countries, cheifly Denmakr, Sweden and Estonia and looks at the difference such a system has made there. He writes emphatically: 'It is precisely this green tax switch - from taxes on income from work on to taxes on carbon emissions and other pollutants - that Britain needs today. There is no other policy on offer that can realistically deliver the deep change in behaviour needed to make our own activity sustainable and set a lead for others'. It seems to me that his scheme will prove fairly unpopular with many, and it is certainly dramatic when compared to the current system under which we operate, however, I think it is reasonable, necessary even. I wholly support any mechanism which will force people to take account of the damage that they are causing. We have tried asking people to be more responsible and to place environmental issues higher on their priority lists and this really hasn't worked. The situation is now critical, but could still be greatly improved, so it is time to encourage those who do not rate green issues as valuable, concerns to contribute to a more sustainable future for their planet. Here's the link to his paper.

Liberal Democrats and the Government Energy Review

And thanks for the link to this article, which is Chris Huhne's thoughts on nuclear power and Tony Blair's latest energy review. The article is entitled 'Tried, Tested and Failed', so the Lib Dem stance here is fairly clear then...

Energy, Eden Project, Ecosmart Village, Ecocities, Ethical Shopping, Extinct Tuna?

News today about the increasing price of energy again. According to Ofgem reports, many more customers switched energy provider last month than is usual, some 900,000. This tactic does seem to help customers save money, however, it makes a small difference compared with the ever rising prices western energy suppliers are charging. Hopefully this increased economic difficulty will encourage awareness about the energy crisis and force people to look at better means of generating and supplying energy, so that we can be less dependent on unpredictable, and damaging, provisions. The BBC covered the story here.

Another energy topic that came up recently was sequestration. Japan announced last week plans to implement a scheme which would see a sixth of its CO2 produciton stored underground. The technology to facilitate this has long existed, but remains expensive and has never been used on such an enormous scale. It is not yet clear exactly how successful such methods are, and some have raised concerns that the liquid could leak into Earth, but geologists report no incidence of this thus far. Whilst the ideal would obviously be to expend less Carbon Dioxide in the first place (Japan currently emits 1.3 billion tonnes a year!), the plans are a step in the right direction and are being described as highly ambitious. Here's the Guardian's report on it.

Here's news that the aviation industry is fighting back already about the EU's provisional scheme to reduce air travel and make it cleaner. It is hardly a shock that they won't support the plans and they claim that their impact represents only a tiny proportion of global warming causes. This is hardly true, and certainly changing: the combination of other industries being forced to become more fuel efficient and reduce emissions and the fact that air travel is a massively growing industry as more and more people take more and more flights suggests that air travel will cause a higher proportion of our greenhouse gases than is currently the case. Lufthansa seems to be leading the lobby on MEPs before the crucial vote, but hopefully to no avbail.

This is about the Eden Porject and it's commitment to sustainability and recycling. Its founder is calling for an increase in the targets and challenges that we are setting ourselves. He is undertaking work with organisations and schools to educate and to make the tasks that lie ahead more fun and less depressingly onerous. He says that our environmental education is lacking behind that in many countries and has many suggestions to make on that score. To learn more about the Eden Project, go to their website here.

This is news that Barratt Homes have recently built a 'green village'. The company, whom I generally hate, and who currently build around 15,000 new homes a year in UK have recently built the EcoSmart Show Village, including a range of homes of different sizes. Unlike most eco-houses until now, these homes appear very conventional and fit in easily with the others on the estate. Barratt see that more and more buyers are demanding encironmentally friendly houses, and are pre-empting the future demand, which can only be good. In my opinion it is far too little far too late, but even if their reasons are entirely cynical and economical, that's fine. Let's hope it encourages others to follow suit. They include both simple, energy-saving technologies, and state of the art new experiments. Thus far, these homes are not for sale, but will instead be studied both by academics from Manchester University and the estate will be open to the public. Let's hope it is met with approval.

I wanted to reference this story, which follows on from yesterday's post about environmentalism in schools and making them green places. I particularly liked this story, though, as it's about a school in Cassop, not that far from where I live, where I know several people. It's an impressive effort. This Guardian story is also about teaching green issues. This report too considers building green schools for the future and whether they will implement systems that will be effective in the long term.

This isn't new, but I came across this amazing satellite picture recently showing the Gulf Stream, which is slowing down, so I'll put the link up for it. There's a link from this page to a great special report in the Guardain too.



Here's a link to a story about lobsters. It's from the Independent, so it probably won't last long, but it discusses whether or not they feel pain on being plunged into boiling water. One chain of shops, the leading organic chain store and owner of another chain, definitely thinks so and has banned their sale in all its shops. Matt Prescott, spokesperson for Peta (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - I'll add the link right) has been working with the company and welcomes this decision. He says that the creatures unequivocally can feel pain: 'Scientists say that there is no dispute that [lobsters] have brains and nerve endings and feel pain like other animals. [They should not be] stewing in their own excrement before being boiled alive'. There is not absolute agreement on this point (and clearly both sides have an agenda), however, what is clear that is lobsters are not keen to be boiled, and try desperately to claw their way out of cooking pots and the general consensus is that they can (See Advocate for Animals Report collating all the existing studies and data here: Cephalopods and Decapod Crustaceans: Their Capacity to Experience Pain and Suffering). The industry is still enormous in the States, but this is not the first case of a business choosing to stop selling live lobster, so it will be interesting to see how other companies respond, both in the States and elsewhere.

Today's independent has a related article on tuna. The WWF among others have been warning that it is being farmed to extinction. The growth in popularity of sushi bars is held partially accountable for this, and they have certainly increased the demand for the fish. The real problem, however, is the irresponsible way in which tuna is being fished, with complete disregard for laws and international quotas, as well as disrespect for restricted breeding areas. Here's the article I originally found in the Independent, and here's the WWF's own coverage of the matter.

I also wanted to flag up this article. It's a follow-up to something I posted on a little while back about eco-cities. It is about inspiration for other countries coming from China, more specifically Dongtan, which aims to be zero-carbon. Ken Livingston is keen to follow the pattern on a much smaller scale in London. Who would have thought that the UK would rely on China for inspiration on sustainable living in the 21st Century?

Here's good news that more and more consumers are choosing to buy ethically produced and traded products, and therefore encouraging companies to produce such items. According to Easier Financial News Online 'Over 82 per cent of UK consumers would choose to buy an eco-friendly product in favour of a non-eco friendly product in order to do their bit for the environment and the fight against global warming, according to research Co-operative Insurance (CIS).' When faced with easy questions like that, it's to be expected that shoppers will vote for the ethical product, but people need to put pressure upon compnies to encorage them to focus on producing such goods.

Here's the unsurprising news that Fairtrade is continuing to do well. The UK is a leading market here and the business has continued to grow. Larger companies such as Marks and Spencer have too made the switch this year, and now sell only fairly traded coffee. This is indeed welcome news. Although some have been critical of business's cynical reasons for switching, most agree that the motives behind such moves are unimportant, it is the effects that count. I only hope that we continue to broaden the variety of fairly traded products available. We have long been able to buy coffee and chocolate, but surely the aim for the future has to be that we can buy every item, safe in the knowledge that it has been fairly traded.

World Cup, Wind Turbines, Wetlands...

Well, I've been away for a week, so there will be loads of environmental newsy stuff to catch up on. I'll try and review some of the major stories I've missed this week, though...

Rather topically, here's a story about Germany's approach to the World Cup. They have made an incredibly commendable effort to make it ecologically friendly, including offering spectators travel passes inclusive within their ticket price on public transport to encourage green travel to matches. Many of the stadia in which the matches are being played are themselves 'green', some of which use solar energy panels, some of which harvest rain water etc. All the energy being used is provided by green hydroelectric plants in Switzerland and they are even committed to carabon offsetting the emissions that the competition will engender in Germany. This will be done using a variety of projects, including highly recommeneded ones in developing countries. There have remained several criticisms of the scheme, cheifly that it does not take account of the fans' travel to the venues, most of which will have been done through cheap airlines. Alternative means of transport, especially rail, simply must be made more efficient, but perhaps more importantly, more reasonably priced. The other main criticism of the competition that has caused energy inefficiency is the organisation that has involved fans travelling around the country between matches, as different stages have been held in different stadia. This decision was taken actively and has been defended, since it is argued that it gives visitors a chance to experience more of the country's varying culture and landscape. What might prove harder to defend is Beckenbauer's helicopter flights...

Here's another example of green building. A school in Liverpool has recently been built with sustainable design. It has reduced energy needs and also uses solar panels to offset that which it expends. It is well insulated, using concrete and a grass roof and uses harvested rainwater for its bathrooms. It is hoped that the school will act as a teaching aid as well as a green model. Here's a link from treehugger to a story about the school too.

This related article is absolutely full of useful links, especially for schools, some of which I'll reference here. It is all about an international programme called Eco Schools. It provides a framework in which schools can look at their impact on the environment and work out how to reduce it and aims to teach pupils to take ownership of such initiatives. Its website offers suggestions on how to do this. The Centre for Research, Education and Training in Energy (Create) is a charity offering similar advice. They list many other related internet sites, so I'll try and list some of them in the links section.






Here is news that Shell is planning to construct its first windfarm in Hawaii. It will be in an area with exceptionally high winds, and where energy costs are currently very high. It is hoped that a fifth of their energy will now come from renewable sources.







Greenpeace (see links) has undertaken a survey throughout several countries on computer usage. Their results are encouraging and show that the majority of computer users in each of the countries would be willing, and in fact, keen to pay extra to know that their computers were 'green'. Follow that story here. Dell has recently vowed to be more ecologically friendly in its production and will eliminate some toxic components from their goods. This is being praised by IT organisations as well as environmental ones. Have a look here.

A new programme has been created which will model how long the ozone layer hole over the South pole would take to recover. Scientists now believe that it will be approximately twenty years longer than had hitherto been thought. It still seems probable that the hole will shrink and recover if we manage to abstain from using CFCs and halons, which is the silver lining. Here's ENS's coverage.

Today is a big day also for wetland habitats, as Britain's biggest wetland is created. It is a government-funded project and will cover 115 hectares. It aims to improve flood defences and to create wildlife habitats for species being made homeless by development.

Finally, UK has set more rigourous goals for its second phase of the European Emissions Trading Scheme. The aims will focus largely on power companies, and allow most other organisations to continue operating at current levels. It seems to me that if it's possible to cap those in the energy industry, we should be aiming to apply them to as many organisations as is possible. These companies will however, have the possibility to 'sell' back their excess allowance, so hopefully energy efficiency will seem cost effective to them too. Hopefully we will be able to set a good, functional example to other countries. More on all that here.

I'm sure there are loads of other really interesting and important stories I have missed, but I'll try and catch up a little more tomorrow...