Lawn Ranger

Peter will not be happy.

Keep off the grass

One can indeed get on dodgy turf weighing the economically-driven (though when it's with the truth it becomes quicksand) and the environmental.

You're (on the side of) right, they don't have a blade worth standing upon in word or deed in trying to make money from green this way.

Now, time to pop back to the travel section of this paper where, apparently, 'Angel Falls' is a must see:)

Peter is the lovely chap who pops in once a week to kick me from being creative eco-luvvie into self-sustaining business person. He thinks the two are compatible, but some compromises can and need to be made.

And as the belt tightens, I am seeing his point. Better fed than dead. And if you are fed, you can keep doing what you do... to support the family ... and, with luck, make an enviROI+ difference.

I don't think such as the Guardian is doing any damage, and in fact has a long history of keeping the green flag flying, often persuasively.

But it's just that, well, sometimes the rather overt Planet Ban-it in one corner tends to jar with the corporate money making going on a few pages over. Often it can, and is used by those who might disagree to highlight if not flaws in their advocacy, but certainly selective campaigning. I am sure many in Islington will gladly return their back lot to natures' best, but also that it will be well up on the priority list of green guilt compared to giving Angel Falls a miss.

For what it is worth, I have to say puring gunk onto weeds is not the best eco-option, but I do confess to zapping a few dandelions with something last summer, as excavating them made my lawn look the Somme.