Ethical For Life

Major Economies Forum Climate Plan

2009-07-05T11:35:00.000+01:00

The 17 strong Major Economies Forum (MEF) is due to meet in Italy to hopefully agree on a climate plan. The MEF member countries account for 80 percent of the world’s emissions, therefore any possibility of reducing emissions by a significant level is wholly dependent on the MEF. US President Obama is chairing the event, so the likelihood of some sort of agreement is pretty high. The real issue here is will the agreement have any merit or will it be a token gesture to give the impression of success?

Unfortunately the primary concern of any country’s leadership is economic, the issue of climate change comes a poor second to any country’s economy. With the world in recession at the moment, the last thing any government wants to do is commit to anything that can damage their industrial output. Reducing emissions can be achieved by any industrialised nation, but at a cost. For the developed world it can mean restricting industry, stifling growth and reducing the prosperity of its citizens. For the developing world it can mean a slower path to prosperity and more citizens remaining in poverty for longer.

There needs to be a concerted long term effort by the MEF to manage the massive level of emissions they produce year after year. Ways have to be found to minimise the economic damage while maximising the reduction in emission levels. I’m sure some decisions will be unpopular with the public, but new and innovative ways of reducing emissions have to be found. The alternative is increasing global temperatures leading to the expected rise in sea levels, larger areas of the planet affected by drought, food and water shortages, increasing migration and more armed conflicts.

Biofuels Contribute To Rise Global Food Rises

2008-06-21T07:09:00.001+01:00

A review of the UK’s biofuels strategy has shown that the increased uptake of biofuels has contributed significantly to the rise in food prices around the world and has left more than 100 million people short of food. The report by a panel of government experts was chaired by Professor Ed Gallagher, the head of the Renewable Fuels Agency and is due to be published on Friday 27th June. The review was set-up by Ruth Kelly, the UK’s Transport Secretary in February 2008 out of concern about the rising cost of food products.

The report’s findings are not really a surprise, well not to anyone with common sense at least. What do politicians expect to happen when vast amounts of land normally used to grow food crops is diverted to growing crops for biofuels manufacture? In the USA, a third of all maize is now used for biofuels production and in the EU half of all vegetable oils are used for biofuels. This pattern is repeated in many other countries as poor farmers and large corporations alike work out that the profit to be made from crops for biofuels is far higher than for food crops. This has led to shortages and hence higher prices. While most of us in the West can afford to pay the higher prices, for people living in poverty already, this rise in prices is causing further unnecessary hardship.

Despite this obvious consequences of the rush to replace petroleum with biofuels, the UK government has already put in place a target of all petrol and diesel to contain 2.5% biofuels and is raising this to 5% by 2010. The EU is proposing a figure if 10% by 2010. The USA is also determined to expand the use of biofuels for oil security rather than climate change reasons and is pushing hard to maximise the domestic use of biofuels. Unless there is more research into the effects of increased biofuels uptake and a regulatory body to ensure growers, producers and suppliers of biofuels work in an ethical and sustainable way, we are going to do far more harm to our planet and our people. Already the growing food crisis is affecting many hundreds of millions of people, the social and environmental damage may not be obvious to us in the West, but to many displaced farmers and peasants the suffering has already began.

[via The Guardian]

ichapters Plant A Tree Scheme

2008-02-13T18:57:00.003Z

ichapters is an online book store selling both digital and printed student textbooks. Over the last month they have worked with ChangingthePresent.org and PasoPacifico.org to plant a tree for every eBook and eChapter sold via their website. So far they have planted 45927 trees. This is an amazing figure for a campaign that has only been running for four weeks.

Dr. Sarah Otterstrom, Founder and Executive Director of PasoPacífico.org said: “Today’s youth are aware of the global environmental crisis and want to act. This partnership provides an exciting way for students to participate in the solution… Trees are central to healthy life on earth. A single tree can provide a home to a multitude of species, filter water and provide fuel, shelter, and comfort for local people. Simply put, trees benefit people.”

What a fantastic idea this is, maybe other companies could follow ichapters example and contribute something to the environment. The only problem I can see with this campaign is it finishes on Friday 15th February. A great deal of good has been done by ichapters, in both raising awareness and reducing their carbon footprint, but why only do it for one month? Why not keep the Plant A Tree campaign going for as long as ichapters is doing business? We need to do so much more to protect our environment, token gestures are simply not enough. We all need to do something positive to reduce our impact on climate change and we need to start now.

Texas tops the most polluting state list in the USA

2008-01-18T19:09:00.001Z

Unbelievable as it may sound, the Lone Star state (Texas for all of us non-US citizens) produces more greenhouse gas emissions than many countries, including the UK! According to the US Energy Information Administration, Texas released 670 million tonnes of CO2 in 2003, making it the seventh biggest polluter in the world, producing more than the second ranked state, California and third ranked state Pennsylvania put together. That’s a pretty big number for a state with 23.5 million residents. Granted Texas does have a high concentration of polluting industries, but 28% of these emissions came from vehicles. While the industrial component of these emissions will be difficult to change, the vehicular emissions should, in theory be much easier to reduce.

There are 20 million cars in Texas, 5 million of which are pick-up trucks. Driving smaller and less polluting cars would be a positive step in the right direction. In practice however, this seems like a step too far for the average Texan. In a poll last spring, only 4% of Texans included the environment as a pressing issue for the USA. The Texas governor Rick Perry has apparently expressed doubts over global warming being a man-made problem. With a state leadership in denial of global warming, the chances of Texas taking effective measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are slim to zero.

The attitude towards their cars is summed up pretty well by a Texan mother whose family of six have three 4x4’s and two pick-up trucks “I would definitely put size and safety over the emissions thing." I’ve never been to Texas, but I would imagine living in a US state with good roads and a serious lack of wild elephants and rhinoceroses, driving a normal fuel-efficient car is probably quite safe. Whereas the “emissions thing” is pretty much a dead cert to cause problems for everyone around the world, Texans included.

[via The Telegraph]

Ocado gets even greener

2008-01-16T11:21:00.001Z

Shopping on-line and having your groceries delivered to your kitchen has always been a greener option. One delivery van can replace 20 car journeys, so the saving in fuel and CO2 emissions is obvious. Ocado, the delivery service of Waitrose supermarket, are raising their game when it comes to being the greenest grocery delivery company. They are investing in a TV advertising campaign for the first time in a bid to win our hearts and minds. They already offer a ‘green’ delivery slot on their website, which means you can choose to use a delivery van that is already scheduled to deliver in your area, therefore saving even more fuel and emissions. Ocado already offers a carrier bag return and recycle service, but it is now introducing a brand new recycling centre on its warehouse site at Hatfield.

This follows last month’s introduction of biodegradable carrier bags. As the competition for the greenest home delivery supermarket picks up momentum, we can expect to see new innovations from all the major players. Tesco has recently been lauded for introducing an all-electric delivery van service and offering its customers the choice of carrier bag free delivery.

German government warns its citizens of the dangers of Wi-Fi

2008-01-16T11:18:00.000Z

While our government plays down the harmful effects of electromagnetic fields or electro-smog, and even ignores the advice of its own Health Protection Agency chair Sir William Stewart, the German government is advising its citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi and mobile ‘phones as much as possible. Their advice goes further, and warns people of the dangers of electro-smog from other household electrical products. The German Environment Ministry is recommending that people minimise their exposure to Wi-Fi radiation and is “actively informing people about possibilities for reducing personal exposure”.

The German equivalent of our Health Protection Agency, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, is calling for caution in the use of electrical equipment. A representative of the office said Wi-Fi should be avoided “because people receive exposures from many sources and because it is a new technology and all the research into its health effects has not yet been carried out”

With access to the same research and information, the German government has drawn the opposite conclusion from our own. It looks like the German government is putting the interests of its people before the interests of big business, whereas our government is more concerned about big business and is happy to sacrifice our health to keep us buying increasing amounts of technology and appliances.

[Via The Independent]

Moom natural organic hair remover

2008-01-16T11:13:00.000Z

I know this is not the kind of thing you would normally expect me to write about, but I was passed this item by my partner Dawn. Well, I cannot say I have ever used it, or am ever likely to either, but the product does look good. Moom is a natural hair remover, it is organic and contains only natural ingredients – chamomile, sugar, lemon juice, essential oil and water. The range comes in organic Tea Tree Set for normal/sensitive skin, Organic Rose Set for mature/dry skin and Organic Lavender Set for extra sensitive Skin. Oh and there is M4Men, for men I suppose. The sets sell for £14.99 and there are also Facial Kits for £4.99. Moom is supposed to be less painful than waxing and leaves the skin softer, smoother and hair free for up to eight weeks. Great stuff, and it is not tested on animals, the ingredients are organic and no chemicals are used, their packaging is kept to a minimum and the jars are recyclable. You can buy Moom from the Moom website or good high street and on-line beauty and health food retailers.

China plans to use more non-grain crops for its biofuels

2008-01-04T17:27:00.000Z

China is planning to increase the use of biofuels, aiming to use 2 million tonnes of bioethanol and 200,000 tonnes of biodiesel by 2010. By 2020 China hopes to be using 10 million tonnes of bioethanol and 2 million tonnes of biodiesel. This is pretty much in line with other developed countries, but the difference is that China is not going to be using corn as the basis of its biofuel production. Chen Deming, the vice chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission said: "In the future, all the biofuel production will use non-grain crops." The problem is that using corn and other food crops for biofuel reduces the amount of staple food crops available globally, which means higher prices and less availability, especially for the poorest communities.

This is what is happening in places like Brazil and the USA, but China will not do this according to Chen Deming, who said "By doing this, these countries have increased corn planting and decreased soy acreage, thus raising agricultural prices. Our land is precious, we will not do this," Chen said. China intends to use less productive land to grow crops for biofuels. Good on China, they’re doing something positive to reduce their CO2 emissions without causing food shortages or higher food prices.

[Via Reuters]

Is nuclear power the way forward?

2008-01-03T16:24:00.000Z

According to the UK government, nuclear power is the way forward for our future energy requirements. The supporters of nuclear power say it is far more environmentally friendly than many other forms of electricity generating methods. Nuclear power is cleaner, produces less carbon emissions and will eliminate our need to import energy, so the theory goes. Unfortunately, the whole picture may not be as rosy as the nuclear power supporters would have us believe. There are drawbacks to nuclear power that need to be taken into consideration.

For example, Greenpeace believe that pouring so much money into nuclear power will cut off funding for research into renewable power generating technologies. And then of course is the issue of the nuclear waste created by the nuclear power industry. Nuclear waste needs to be disposed in a safe and environmentally friendly way. Is this really possible? The issue of an industrial accident at a nuclear power plant is always a worry, but now we have the added threat of a terrorist attack too. The problem is, not enough money has been put into renewable energy generation, so now we are left with few choices. I really think the government never had any intention of investing in or using renewable energy on any kind of scale large enough to make it viable. To me, all their talk of renewable energy just seems like a PR exercise.

How long does it take Woolworths to change a lightbulb?

2008-01-02T18:10:00.000Z

The answer surprisingly, is four years. Well, not just any lightbulb, but the high energy incandescent ones that are sold in Woolworths’ stores. Woolworths has agreed to take all high energy consuming incandescent lightbulbs off its shelves by 2011, which seems a ridiculously long time given the urgency of climate change. Greenpeace staged a protest outside Woolworths’ London HQ as part of their campaign to get Woolwroths to take these inefficient lightbulbs off their shelves by 2008. Robin Oakley from Greenpeace said: “We're here to tell Woolworths that their customers want them to move a lot faster. Removing power crazy lightbulbs from the shelves should be a first, quick step on the road towards offering truly sustainable products across the board. Instead, Woolworths are doing the bare minimum, while most of their competitors are going much further.” For example, Currys have agreed to remove all high energy incandescent lightbulbs by 2007, Habitat by 2009, Sainsburys and Asda by 2010.

Oakley added: "The scientists are telling us that we have less than ten years left to really drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, but Woolworths are telling us that it takes four of those years to change a lightbulb. If the company really cares about offering their customers value for money they should only be selling CFL bulbs, which save households around £50 every single year.” Good point, but he problem is the cost of the CFL bulbs. For some people on low incomes, the initial cost of the energy efficient lightbulbs can be prohibitive.

[Via The Guardian]

Government is backing a campaign to grow GM crops in the UK

2007-12-30T15:14:00.000Z

Our wonderful government is backing a new campaign to grow GM crops in the UK. Despite the health concerns of scientists, environmentalists and the general public our government is putting its weight behind the campaign. A senior government source said: "GM will come back to the UK; the question is how it comes back, not whether it's coming back". Julian Little. Chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council said: "We have absolutely every confidence that GM will be used in the UK… It's worth remembering that there are approximately 100m hectares (247m acres) of GM crops being grown around the world by about 10 million farmers. There is absolutely no question at all that this is technology that is being seen to work in other countries and why on earth would you not want to be interested in the UK?… There is no question in our minds that we'll win".

Environmental groups have already taken a strong stance against the use of GM crops in the UK. Clare Oxborrow of Friends of the Earth said: "Unfortunately the public and media have thought we've won the battle and GM's gone away and people aren't really worrying about it at the moment. It certainly hasn't gone away". Graham Thompson of greenpeace UK said: "The population has comprehensively rejected GM in the UK and over most of Europe so they're constantly having to be as bullish as possible. The purpose of the crops primarily is to give intellectual property rights to biotech companies."

We all need to take a stand against GM crops. We need to lobby our MP’s now before it is too late. We are already exposed to toxic chemicals in our food chain, the last thing we need are GM crops. No-one knows the long-term consequences of GM crops, they simply have not been around long enough.

[Via The Guardian]

Climate change is happening faster than expected

2007-12-28T11:11:00.000Z

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned in its new report that stopping global warming is now impossible. According to the IPCC, climate change has already happened with a 1.1 degree Celsius temperature rise already in the global climate system. The IPCC says that some major climate changes such as increases in flooding and in heatwaves cannot now be stopped because of this temperature increase. The IPCC goes on to say that world leaders have eight years to take the necessary action to begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions if they will have any chance of keeping the global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. The report gloomily predicts that greenhouse gas emissions will increase by up to 90% by 2030, and the EU’s target of stabilising the global temperature at 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels looks unlikely to be met.

The co-chair of the IPCC's working group II, Martin Parry, said the world had passed the point at which there was a "perfect solution… It is a choice between a damaged world and a more damaged world… Ten years ago we were all talking about our children and grandchildren. Now when you look at these impacts they will be in the lifetimes of people in [this] room." Scary stuff. If this doesn’t get world leaders moving on this problem, I don’t think any thing will.

[Via The Telegraph]

MacDonalds tries to go green

2007-12-27T15:22:00.000Z

McDonalds, an institution more commonly known for its poor environmental policies and damage to the planet is trying to ‘green-up’ its image by using waste from its restaurants to generate power. Whether this is enough to outweigh the environmental damage McDonalds inflicts on the world is another question. The idea is for a small pilot scheme using 11 of its restaurants in Yorkshire, which if successful will be rolled out to all the other McDonald sites. Waste from the restaurants in Sheffield, Rotherham and Barnsley will be shipped to Veola Environmental Services who will treat the waste at its Energy Recovery facility in Sheffield.

Steve Easterbrook, President and CEO of MacDonalds UK said: “As a progressive company, we are constantly trying to find ways to run our business in a more sustainable way. However, like many companies, we find that we are currently constrained by the lack of infrastructure needed to support initiatives like this across the UK… If the trial is successful we are keen to explore how we can extend it to other parts of the country as part of our ongoing efforts to improve our impact on the environment and local communities." Nice sentiment, but does it fit in with McDonald’s corporate strategy on environmental policies? You decide.

[Via The Telegraph]

Carbon off-setting increasing child labour

2007-12-26T15:53:00.000Z

In a bizarre twist on the viability of carbon off-setting, there is now evidence that some of the schemes are causing an increase in child labour in poorer countries. In an example of such a scheme, Climate Care is paying poor and impoverished families in India to stop using diesel-powered pumps to irrigate their fields and replace them with human-powered treadles instead. One family ‘benefiting’ from Climate Care’s scheme is the Ram family. Their six year old daughter and her four young brothers now work flat out in the searing sun to pump water into their family field. Climate Care is the company that sells off-sets to British Airways customers, so they can feel better about their long-haul flights.

Michael Buick of Climate Care admitted that children were working the pumps, but he said people had to focus on the benefits to the whole family. He went on to say his group was proud of its scheme, which had led to more than half a million foot treadles being sold, and had won several awards. Ashutosh Pandey of Emergent Ventures India, which advises companies on clean technology said: “The problem is the number of times child labour is involved… It’s not being monitored properly. It’s not reducing emissions. People are selling their diesel pumps to others who are using them.”
The effectiveness and overall impact of carbon off-setting needs to be reviewed. Carbon off-setting has to actually work, otherwise it is simply an exercise in assuaging people’s guilt.

[Via The Times]

First UK council to introduce new code of practice for Wi-Fi in schools

2007-12-26T15:51:00.000Z

For the first time in the UK, Carmarthenshire County Council is drawing up a code of practice for the use of Wi-Fi in its schools. Councillor Ieuan Jones said: "We are going to monitor the situation as closely as we can because we all have these concerns. The dangers of these Wi-Fi connections are possibly along the lines of using hand-held mobile phones." Meryl Gravell, the council leader, said: "A code of practice is absolutely necessary. The safety of our children in school is paramount for all of us." The council is going to enforce this on all schools under its control, and hopes the code of practice will be adopted nationally. There is growing concern at the harmful effects of mobile phone and W-Fi radiation, especially to children. The government’s own health protection watchdog chief, Sir William Stewart called for an official review of the use of Wi-Fi in schools.

Unfortunately, the government has ignored Sir William’s advice, along with the mounting scientific evidence that shows radiation from Wi-Fi devices, mobile phones and their masts can cause numerous ill-effects, including cancer. Only last week the European Environmental Agency warned of the health risks of exposure to electromagnetic fields (from electrical devices and appliances) and electromagnetic radiation (from mobile phones and Wi-Fi) and recommended a reduction in the permitted levels of both. The German government is advising its citizens to use landlines rather than mobile phones and wired connections rather than Wi-Fi. And yet our government is telling us Wi-Fi and mobile phone use is perfectly safe. I know who I believe, and its not our government!

[Via The Independent]

Go ‘green’ in a Hummer

2007-11-07T17:31:00.000Z

I know it sounds like a contradiction in terms, but yes, you really can go green in a big ol’ Hummer! Who says saving the planet means driving a small eco-car? Certainly not SAE Energy of Wichita, Kansas. SAE Energy are headed by Johnathan Goodwin and Larry Urry, who together founded the company to convert ordinary diesel and petrol cars to use alternative fuels and run more efficiently to reduce harmful emissions, oh and increase horsepower too.

What sets these guys apart is the fact that they take big traditional American fuel guzzling cars like the ubiquitous Hummer and other 4x4’s and convert them to run on various combinations of alternative fuels mixed with petrol or diesel using software and systems they perfected themselves. They use mostly standard factory produced parts and combine them with their clever in-house technology. Their incredibly innovative approach is getting them noticed, with an upcoming series on the Discovery Channel and a project for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, their star is definitely on the rise.

Talking of Hummers, they are working on a 2005 H3 Hummer that will be dual-engined. One engine will be electric, the other will act as a turbine. Now here’s the clever bit, when the batteries are running low, the turbine will kick-in for a few minutes and recharge the batteries. The turbine will run on biodiesel, so the emissions are lower. In total, this particular Hummer will have twice the horsepower and yet it will get 60 miles to the gallon. Can you imagine, a 5,000 pound Hummer with 600 horsepower going from 0-60 in around 5 seconds? Hope the brakes are good! For us mere mortals, SAE Energy have developed a $5,000 add-on kit that can convert any diesel powered car to use 50% less fuel and produce 80% less emissions. – FastCompany.com

I find it pretty amazing that these two guys working with limited finances and facilities are doing something the major US car manufacturers with all the money, staff and resources available to them have so spectacularly failed to do. SAE Energy has shown it is possible to make big powerful cars that are fuel-efficient and less polluting, so why aren’t the car makers doing it? I suppose it comes down to consumer demand, if consumers want greener cars and are prepared to put their money where their ethics are, then manufacturers will have no choice but to meet this demand.

ExxonMobil accused of ‘misleading advertising campaign’

2007-11-07T17:26:00.000Z

Friends of the Earth (FoE) has just launched an online video called ‘The Exxon Files’, an animated spoof of the X-Files that gives the low-down on ExxonMobil’s funding of climate change deniers. There have long been suspicions, and even evidence of ExxonMobil giving millions of dollars to a variety of thinktanks, scientists and lobbyists to rubbish the science underpinning the human impact on global warming. FoE Europe campaigner, Christine Phol, said: "ExxonMobil invests millions of euros funding thinktanks and lobbyists committed to blocking internationally agreed policies to combat climate change whilst at the same time spending major sums on advertising designed to present itself as an environmentally responsible company." You can help the FoE campaign by watching the video and registering your support for their planned complaint to the Belgian authorities over ExxonMobil adverts at Brussels airport.

The adverts say that ExxonMobil is reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, but the company’s corporate citizenship reports shows an increase of 8.7 million tonnes of CO2 emissions between 2003 and 2006. Paul de Clerck, another FoE Europe campaigner, described the adverts as just one example of ExxonMobil's "deliberately misleading advertising campaign". He went on to say: "The 'greening' of oil giant Exxon is nothing more than a slick public relations exercise… Instead of spending millions (of euros) on manipulating the facts, they should make real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Of course ExxonMobil denied the claims, their spokesperson said: “The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory only diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to sustain and improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions” ExxonMobil’s response would be laughable if the issue of global warming wasn’t so serious.

[Via The Guardian]

UK power companies fail to tackle climate change

2007-11-07T17:23:00.000Z

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has claimed that the UK’s biggest power companies are failing to deal with climate change. In its annual survey, the WWF rated the UK’s top six energy companies in order of their attempts to tackle climate change. Top of the league came Centrica (owner of British Gas) for tackling carbon emissions and promoting energy efficiency followed by Scottish Power for having the highest investment in renewable energy resources. They were followed by E.ON UK, Scottish and Southern Energy, EDF Energy and finally RWE Power. EDF Energy and RWE Power had demonstrated the least progress in tackling climate change, but even the companies at the top of the list still lacked the vision necessary to combat climate change.

WWF’s head of climate change, Keith Allott said: "If you combined the best elements of Centrica's and Scottish Power's strategies, you might begin to see a real leader pushing towards a green and efficient power sector… The power sector's emissions have been rising in recent years and many companies are focusing on building new fossil fuel or nuclear stations rather than providing efficient energy services and clean renewable energy." For all their ‘green’ claims, the power companies are still not doing enough. Maybe consumer pressure would spur them on. If enough consumers changed suppliers to the ‘greenest’ companies, the rest would soon change their attitude to climate change.

[Via The Guardian]

Fear turns Catalina green

2007-10-15T11:49:00.000+01:00

The small but idyllic Catalina Island is turning green. Catalina is a small island off the southern coast of California. It has a population of around 3500 mostly conservative and affluent citizens. Not exactly stereotypical green activists, but the people of Catalina are embracing change to help reduce their impact on global warming. Their aim is to reduce their carbon emissions to as near zero as possible and be as self-sustaining as possible.

The reason? One film by Al Gore, you know the one, “An Inconvenient Truth” and the fact that their island paradise will very likely be underwater if global warming continues at its present rate.

Fear is driving their desire for change. It is fear that is creating the impetus for real change. The good people of Catalina are looking at their lifestyles and making changes to help themselves, both as individuals and as a society. They hope to be an example of model living that will influence others across the USA. The fact that it is helping the planet may initially have been of little interest to them, but does it really matter? The end result is the same: they are causing less damage to the planet.

So perhaps what some people need to drive positive change is fear. Rather than appealing to people’s sense of duty or concern for the environment, we should be making them afraid of the consequences to them. A good dose of fear may save the planet where common sense has failed.

Cats and dogs go green

2007-10-15T11:43:00.000+01:00

Love your cat? Love your dog? Love the planet? Now you can love all three equally at the same time! Animal Pure produce and sell natural and organic pet care products for all cat and dog owners that care about their pets as well as the environment. Inspired by their adopted dog Rick, who suffers from skin allergies, the good people behind Animal Pure developed a range of products that is both organic and as chemical free as possible.

The range is split into a small cat care range and a much bigger dog care range. I suppose dogs need more looking after than cats do. The range includes cat and dog beds, toys, grooming products, dog collars, leads and doggy herbal supplements. They even have eco-friendly coats to keep your dog dry and toasty warm in the winter.

Animal Pure’s products certainly look well-made, and are good value too. They have used recycled materials where possible, with extensive use of hemp and other natural materials to protect your pet and the environment.

The Great Global Warming Swindle appears to have been a swindle

2007-10-15T11:40:00.000+01:00

How many of you watched ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ recently on channel 4? If you did, you will remember the whole programme was an attempt to portray global warming as a purely natural phenomenon caused primarily by solar activity. Even more disturbing, was the film-makers attempt to convince us the theory that global warming is being caused by human activity was false and basically a lie. Apparently we are all victims of a great big con.

Now it appears we were victims of a con. A con by the film-makers themselves. The programme has been referred to Ofcom, the regulatory watchdog, to consider a complaint by 37 scientists. The programme has been accused of misrepresenting the prevailing views and facts relating to global warming. Even one of the climate sceptics whose research work was used on the programme has accused the film-makers of broadcasting falsehoods.

I watched this programme with my partner and we were both shocked by the portrayal of global warming as nothing more than a natural cycle, the rising levels of carbon dioxide relegated to mere coincidence. It made us wonder at the time who was funding the programme and what their agenda was. Whatever it was, I found the whole thing irresponsible and detrimental to the cause of reducing the human activities associated with global warming. Nice one channel 4, way to save the planet.

UK Ministry of Defence pays £12 million to identify potential climate change conflicts

2007-09-13T14:13:00.000+01:00

In the UK, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has agreed a £12 million contract with the Meteorological (Met) Office to identify areas of the world where climate change could cause conflict and pose security threats to the UK. The MOD needs to know both the locations of future conflicts and the environmental and climate outlook too for future military planning. The Met Office will use its expertise to determine areas that will be affected by global warming over the coming decades. The research will focus on two main possibilities, locations where drought could lead to food and water shortages and locations where previously unfertile land becomes fertile, either through rising temperatures or increased rainfall.

It is believed conflict could arise from both of these scenarios. The MOD’s chief scientific adviser, Roy Anderson said: "The MoD has identified climate change as a key strategic factor affecting societal stresses and the responses of communities and nations to those stresses. We have a pressing need for the best available advice on future climate change and, based on these predictions, assessments of the impacts of those changes on human societies at the regional and local scale." This particular project is only one part of a wider scheme to determine the effects of climate change globally and nationally. Defra, the environment department, has pledged £74m to help scientists provide more detailed forecasts of how UK weather is likely to change over the coming decades. The emphasis of the UK government has very clearly shifted from trying to determine if global warming is real to what the effects of global warming will be.

Computer models predict that the Middle East will become increasingly hotter and drier, with 30% less rainfall by 2010. In such a volatile area, increased drought will only add to the tensions and conflicts. With oil still the mainstay of Europe and the US economies, this is an area that is very likely to draw us into conflict.

Worryingly for the MOD, it is predicted that by the end of the century there could be as many as 130 days each year that are too hot for soldiers to operate.

In the US, a report for the government back in March warned that the US must be prepared to intervene in escalating crises around the world brought on by climate change. Global Business Network, a consultancy based in San Francisco said in their paper ‘Impacts of Climate Change’ “…crises may force the US as a global leader to act in situations that it might otherwise have preferred to ignore…to adopt a ‘pre-emptive’ approach to forestall the worst effects of collapsing ecosystems, water systems…”

Looking at the whole raft of measures the UK government is putting in place, it would appear that they are resigned to global warming and are looking at ways to deal with the impact rather than try to stop it happening. If this is the case in the US and other countries too, it looks like it is up to us as individuals to do everything we can to minimize our carbon emissions, both personally and with the products and services we buy.

[Via The Guardian]

Tories embrace the environment with new policies

2007-09-11T11:10:00.000+01:00

The conservative party is fast becoming the party of the environment, with an 800-page report due to be published on Thursday outlining a raft of policies to make us all more environmentally friendly. The report promises to be bold and innovative in its approach to protecting the environment. There are proposals to ban electrical appliances that exceed precise limits on energy consumption. Another idea worth mentioning is to force manufacturers to fit appliances with devices that switch them off rather than leave them on stand-by. These are great ideas, they will force manufacturers to develop technology that is better geared to reducing climate change emissions.

The other important element of this policy document is the concept of increasing taxation on energy wasteful practices, such as buying big petrol guzzling cars and giving rebates to households that take positive steps to reduce their energy use. Some may see this as a cynical marketing ploy to attract voters, but I like to think that whatever the motivation behind the policies, as long as the policies are effective, it does not really matter.

[Via The Telegraph]

Eco-housing gets a boost

2007-09-04T10:12:00.000+01:00

The second largest house-builder in the UK, Persimmon has pledged to support the government’s plans for low carbon emission housing. The company has said it wants to help build the 3 million houses needed by 2020. They have agreed to introduce environmental measures in the new homes to try to get the zero carbon emissions standard the government wants. They are currently testing things like wind turbines and photovoltaic solar cell roof tiles. The company in return wants the government to change the planning laws to speed up the planning application process and make it easier for them to buy land to build on.

This may appear to be a worthwhile move by a building company, but is it? Building new homes with renewable energy technologies is a great idea and needs to be a statutory requirement for all new houses, not a marketing ploy by builders. The worrying element of this deal is the relaxation of the planning application law that could allow builders to use precious greenbelt land to build on. They are in effect holding the government to ransom. The government knows the country needs 3 million new homes, so they will have to cave-in to house-builders demands to ease planning and building restrictions.

[Via The Guardian]

Biofuel demand starts to hurt poorest communities

2007-09-04T10:06:00.000+01:00

As predicted by many environmentalists recently, the demand for corn (or maize) for biofuel production has started to cause suffering among the poorest of communities. Western demand for biofuel is leading to higher prices and declining food stocks for people in the poorest countries. An example of this is Mexico, where demand for corn in the USA has increased dramatically since president Bush stated his aim that the US produce 35 billion gallons of biofuels by 2017. Corn is a main staple in the Mexican diet, and when the price jumped by 50% there were protests in the streets. The Mexican government had to step in and enforce a price freeze. As demand grows further there are fears that decreased stocks and price rises will create more problems in Mexico. As Doña Catalina, making and selling tortillas from her little shop says "Poor corn..It isn't meant to go in cars. It is meant to feed our children and our grandchildren. And their grandchildren too."

The scale of demand for biofuel crops such as corn is staggering. In the US alone there are already 121 ethanol biorefineries with a 76 under construction. Even so, this will only meet a third of president Bush’s quota of biofuel production. The whole international biofuel production process has to be managed effectively and fairly otherwise it will be another case of the richer developed countries inflicting suffering on the poorest countries to satisfy their own greed.

[Via The Guardian]