Go North Young(ish) Man...woman... and teens

I'd like to claim it was an eco-mission.

But, in reality, it was just our summer hols.

But there were some eco-bits, which I'll share.

Like the EuroTunnel/Star. Greenest crossing. Not by design, but try getting an RV in an EasyJet.

Actually, can't fault it, for speed or price or simplicity. The threatened strike was less thrilling, but we dodged that.

Our route took us from Calais to visit friends in Denmark and then back via a festival gig for the missus in Holland.

Just a few pix and notes of relevance.

N. Europe is covered in wind turbines. 

Big 'uns. Look at that blade on the flatbed in the picture.

And, for the most part, they were turning. Because the wind was blowing.

It was blowing a lot.

I know this as i was driving a high-sided RV weighing not much over a honking great bridge when it pushed on the side like sail... scaaaarrrreee.

Other than this, the recycling was noticeable by its integrated design (those bins above went down into the ground 2-3m, which means a big old bin liner) and relative unobtrusiveness. Though we saw almost no domestic wheelies, and the camp sites were woeful. Frankly camping in any form is not eco, sorry. You generate a lot of mess and are not in the mood to expend much resolving green issues.

Finally there were the museums.

There was one on the German/Dutch border that was great, covering marine history. The boys really liked the toys made by sailors, all of which moved or played, etc.

And then there was the Vikings. We went to a great village recreation.

Hey, those guys had green roofing a long time ago.

And their recycled door security systems were...effective. Nothing says 'who goes there?' liked a skinned hoofed quadruped.

Finally, there was the loo arrangements...

I'll leave you with that image. It won't leave me for a while.

Sons, sun & sand (lots of sand). Plus wife.

We're back (and have been a few weeks - only now with kids off to school can I get back to the 'other' day job)

Full disclosure: we flew for 6hrs, budget class, to Egypt, for a Nile cruise.

And enjoyed every minute of it. No regrets (the T-shirt is not mine, but raised a wry-smile come 'so, what do you do' at evening cocktails intro-time)

However, learning from many who ponder and post in the world of environess, I will attempt to justify a smidge of what we got up to by writing about it, especially a few eco-aspects of it all... good... but mainly not as good as one may have hoped.

OK, we were in a sunny place. Make that sunny to the tune of 45 degrees some days, pretty much dawn to dusk. That... is a lot of energy falling on every sqm of a vast expanse, day-in, day-out. Trust me. As the only family not out the first day for a tanning session, we observed the results on the others.

Yet... I could see no great evidence of any solar collection, domestic, commercial or national, either photovoltaics or even hot water. Bizarre.

What I did note was the gentle chug of diesels, 24/7, which sadly results in a pervasive fug hanging over the Nile and its banks. Makes for nice sunsets, but not much else.

And I can't understand the need. Where the grid doesn't run, like a boat, so many thing surely could be solar powered to avoid using up GHG-emitting fuel in this way? If it's possible in the UK (see link below, but caution on the numbers, and deal!) with our weather...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ianmcowie/100007449/how-the-roof-over-your-head-could-earn-1000-out-of-thin-air/

Now, a lot of this may be down to cheap 'leccy thanks to the Aswan dam. A rather uninspiring structure, TBH, but quite a feat. Actually, I was a bit more impressed with the one the British built several decades before. It also had the benefits of a lock system to allow navigation, something the Russians 'forgot' to add. Apparently. I suspect this may have led to, and still inspires some... frustration, downstream.

Which brings me to the other eco-aspect from this trip: the importance of water. Look at that shot out the plane window: no water, no nothing. More than that, no irrigation; no growth more than a few yards in. The country is a high % of sun-blasted sand and little else.

Man has a great capacity to harness nature for good, but also a great responsibility to ensure it is done properly.

Sadly, as I write this I add below a URL that poses some of the dilemmas facing our own mega-water-harnessing scheme.

The Ecologist - http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/522790/severn_barrage_faces_economic_rather_than_environmental_hurdles.html

Finally, I leave pondering a matter of historical interest, namely was the climate back in Ramases' time as oppressive as now?

Telegraph - Biblical plagues really happened say scientists

Wish you were here... VISA

Like today, yesterday was gorgeous.

And we are lucky; we live in a part of the UK that when it is gorgeous we don't actually need to go any further than our front door to enjoy it.

In fact we ventured only as far as the back garden.

I attacked the jungle, and then me and the boys pulled my trolley round the dump.

Then we had a BBQ, having picked up the makings en route home.

And then we did sod all the rest of the day. Bliss.

I'd advocate this to anyone.

Thing is, I also see why it might not always be that great, and especially when it's part of a holiday that might fall in a period of unplanned (unlike the trip) bad weather.

The horrifying cost of Britain's top attractions

Been there, been overcharged for that, and got the rip-off T-shirt.

Which is why a holiday to sunnier climes where the boys need no more than water, sand and a spade to spend a blissful 12 hrs is still a pretty good option.

So I think some balance in the 'stay at home' advocacy is in order. To deny the facts is silly.

The water is lovely

Camping is great.

In fact, I have just added to our repertoire thanks to an Argos half-price offer.

However it is wise, as with many things, to be realistic.

As I look out my window at a bus floating past down the street, I'd be the first to admit that it can and does have limitations.

But what do we have on the BBC News this morning? A pretty idealistic view of the whole experience, and as a piece of advocacy one has to say, on a day like today, 'good luck with that'.

And we're not talking one of those PR-funded jollies that seduce the London media beyond the M25 to enjoy a week's pampering under canvas... well, in an Eco-Yurt the size of my Mum's cottage.

But in trotting out the party line I do think they do often push things beyond credibility. I'd be hard-pressed to say my kids 'had much more fun than sitting on the beach all day'. Especially when it is heaving down. And that's when the financial aspects kick in. Of course travel is less (mind you..) and at £25 the accommodation is reasonable, but we have seldom seen UK holidays come cheap. Decent meals for four, and entry to 'attractions', can really add up.

Sorry, while staying home is part of the mix, trying to sell against an all-inc. getting away from it all with something different and some sun and warm water is a bit disingenuous. Especially when you know almost none of them will be doing it themselves if they can help it.

Great to share the option, and its joys, but lay off the eco-guilt ladle guys.

Offsetting journalistic integrity

This will make me popular. I've tried to answer a Telegraph travel writer's (how do they get to afford 2nd homes?) question: Corporate guilt breeds corporate jargon

At least you care enough to ask the question. I'm not sure the two answers derived so far are going to help much, though. Or indeed most others you may get (from the carbon 'industry') that may seem to be more factual.

Personally I can think of worse things than a second home, so long as you don't leave the heat/aircon (preferbaly it's fan-cooled anyway) running (depending on location) when you're not there. And if it's rented out then the person there is not 'emitting' elsewhere. Other than travel... which is just the start of how complex all this is.

On balance offsetting seems to me at least marginally better than not doing anything at all in mitigation, though certainly not as good as not adding more C02 than you otherwise might (again, a tricky call. I'd prefer you in a villa in France accessed by EuroStar than flying business to report on a property fair in Dubai, staying in a 6* emissions column - read Leo Hickman's Final Call ).

So you're right that we have become a nation obsessed with our footprints, fed in no small measure by 'awareness' campaigns such as the latest, ActonC02, that really do little else than make us worry a lot with little real information. And that opens the doors for the unscrupulous to pounce, seemingly with little regulation.

Because, like you (and with the dubious advantage of being exposed to perhaps a bit more info in my line of work) I have no real idea what 'it' actually involves in all its manifestations. And until I am, preferably with help from those who profess to care about my kids' future (from activist to government - didn't Davids Miliband (when Enivro dude) and Cameron both 'float' offsets trading as part of their respective proposals?), I'll have to suspect those not being clearer about their Green intentions, and hiding behind faceless jargon, are doing so with good reason: serving their interests. I doubt corporate guilt has much to do with it, as they only have that if and when caught out.

And those seem to have naught to do with my kids' futures if it's to create a decent enviROI, which may (another debate, but I'm sold on man's negative contribution) be derived from reduced CO2. You're right that whacking a fir in the firmament hardly seems the best way (better, to me, if you are in the need to 'make up', is to reduce deforestation - I could argue the science from my own limited background, but an existing carbon sink being lost that's in excess the USA's total annual emissions annually seems like a quick fix worth not losing). Though not all offsetters, to be fair, are just in to trees as the 'solution' .

Wouldn't it be nice to have more clarity from all involved in the 'carbon' industry, including preachy media, and rather than ratings-producing 'tis/tisn't facts and debates that get us nowhere, we have tangibles that let us assess the situation and act on it sensibly and in good conscience?

I have tried to be fair and balanced. But I hope my frustration with a media more keen on stirring the pot (look at the replies she got) than getting to a useful solution does not come through too negatively that my point does not get made.

Flying in the face of reality

I'm just back from my first holiday in a while, and intend to share some thoughts inspired by my travels soon, but first would like to share a press release from the NCC (National Consumer Council).

UK holidays are good for the environment but bad for the pocket

The NCC calls for collective action on climate change by urging government, business and regulators to address the domestic tourist industry and make UK destinations more attractive and better value for consumers.

As record numbers of Britons fly abroad, the NCC argues that far more could be done for climate change by making UK holidays better value, in particular by reversing the high costs of rail fares, accommodation and leisure facilities.

Despite the UK being hit by floods this summer, a new report reveals that many people think Britain is becoming warmer and a better place to spend holidays. Around one in three (32%) say they are prepared to switch future holiday plans to avoid flying. But, in the face of high costs and inertia, only one in twenty five (4%) do so. Examples emerging from research show that:

· Barcelona is cheaper than Blackpool. For example, the total cost of travel to Blackpool with accommodation in mid-August can work out more expensive than a similar trip to Barcelona. A return flight with seven nights’ accommodation costs £518. This compares to £554 for a return train ticket from London to Blackpool and a week’s accommodation.

· Planes are cheaper than trains. Seven in ten people have decided not to travel by train because of the cost of a ticket, according to fellow consumer organisation Passenger Focus. Only 40% of people who do travel on trains feel they are getting value for money. However, the vast majority (80%) would travel more on trains if the fares were a bit cheaper.

Ed Mayo, NCC Chief Executive said: ‘People are increasingly being asked to think before flying, but poor value at home means that this is a stick without a carrot.’

The NCC’s report: The Environmental Contract: How to harness public action on climate change

I couldn't agree more with almost all of this, but there are certain facts that cannot be escaped.

While my holiday was mainly to see relatives, it did coincide with being in a place that had sun, sea and sand.

Ignoring costs of travel and accommodation, the simple fact is that because of these factors (plus being happy with a $2 bowl of noodles for lunch), I sat in a deckchair for several days doing sod all (and spending same), while my kids played in the sea and made sandcastles. Sadly, in the UK each day of any holiday requires at least £100 to feed and entertain, sun out or not (more if not).

This is a simple matter of money. And a lot of it. And little here will change that, though many of the initiatives suggested will help. Along with global warming... if that is indeed what is going to happen. This summer has not bee the best evidence for this, though.

A holiday is about relaxing. Sitting in a wet tent seeing your bank account getting sucked dry hourly is not really going to do that. Sorry.

Something for another time

I was idly watching (is there any other way?) BBC Breakfast 'News' this morning, when an innocuous little piece came on about some Eastern European state whose capital has become a City of Culture.

So far, so what. But my ears pricked up when it was introduced in the voiceover by mentioning the fact that such places had been 'opened up' as weekend short-hauls by the explosion in budget airlines. 'Interesting,' I thought, 'I wonder where this is going?'.

Well, for the majority of the next 5 minutes it went there with a full crew to have a very good time, seemingly without irony.

Then we were back at the studio, with one of the BBC's 'experts' (folk who are a) a mate, b) next door and c) On a Sunday prepared to get up at a silly hour. So I have no idea who she was) to discuss it all.

And then, near the end, we had the eco-tilt.

'I suppose we should acknowledge the environmental aspect of all this', she said.

Well, that would be a plan, considering all that has preceded it, both in the BBC's corporate contribution simply by making the piece, but also the consequences of 'selling' the notion so well.

I don't pretend it's an easy one, but I found the jocular bouffant-du-jour anchor chain's final comment so very telling 'Well, yes. But that is something for another time.'

Er, when? And if not by you, who? And why?