As reported by the Guardian today, using data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which takes readings from Mauna Lao in Hawaii.
Atmospheric CO2 nows stands at 387 ppm (parts per million), a figure that is now some 40% higher than the level pre industrial revolution, and the mean growth rate for 2007 was some 2.14 ppm.
"From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm."
Now no-one really knows exactly what the increasing CO2 levels will actually do to our planet's biosphere and climate, but the models used by the IPCC are projecting some pretty scary trends, and anything mankind can do to mitigate the rate of CO2 increase seems, at least to me, to be getting rather important, to say the least. Yet, we seem to still be doing loads of talking (and arguing), setting targets [see post below], and actually achieving, well, sod all! Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is climbing, inexorably, increasing almost year on year, and at a rate not seen for millions of years.
I'm beginning to fell like I'm sitting inside a global scientific experiment; we don't know what might happen, or when it will, but something sure as hell is going to, sometime in the future. Let's hope mankind finally doesn't realise it has to act at a point that is too late?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Targets, Targets & More Targets.....
.... and the majority of them will NOT be met.
I didn't have time to post this from the Telegraph last week but it really does need exposing. It is highlighting a report from the Policy Exchange think tank.
"Two thirds of the key climate change targets made under Labour were now unlikely to be met."
"They found that rather than being an honest motivator of achievement, where failures were acknowleged and lessons learnt, a pattern of "creative accounting" had emerged where targets looked in danger of being missed."
"The report concluded that the sheer number and complexity of targets made them easy to forget or miss and therefore they lost their motivating force."
Not a bulls eye in view - no real surprises there then!
I didn't have time to post this from the Telegraph last week but it really does need exposing. It is highlighting a report from the Policy Exchange think tank.
"Two thirds of the key climate change targets made under Labour were now unlikely to be met."
"They found that rather than being an honest motivator of achievement, where failures were acknowleged and lessons learnt, a pattern of "creative accounting" had emerged where targets looked in danger of being missed."
"The report concluded that the sheer number and complexity of targets made them easy to forget or miss and therefore they lost their motivating force."
Not a bulls eye in view - no real surprises there then!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
In a hole. Up in smoke. Round again.
Stumbled across this today. Worth a look: How we dispose of our waste
Now, if we can just squeeze a sliver of 'reuse' in there.
Now, if we can just squeeze a sliver of 'reuse' in there.
Friday, May 09, 2008
From a source with 'Statistics' in it: a survey
How green are we? New figures show Britons back recycling
And I'm backing Britain. With my Volvo, my Apple Mac....
Look, all positive trends are welcome, and a big up for 'better' is OK, but what has been the cost of getting these 'figures'?
And there is still all the other stuff on the negative end of enviROI that might affect the total.
I think I will treat this with the same level of regard I do most other stats... and polls.
And I'm backing Britain. With my Volvo, my Apple Mac....
Look, all positive trends are welcome, and a big up for 'better' is OK, but what has been the cost of getting these 'figures'?
And there is still all the other stuff on the negative end of enviROI that might affect the total.
I think I will treat this with the same level of regard I do most other stats... and polls.
Gordon is a....?
I exaggerate for effect, but what at the moment is it about those with high-profile jobs who have the name Gordon?
I have just watched celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay undo, for the slim 3o pieces of silver of a a few days of PR (designed to rumble on by being 'controversial'), yet more good will that normal, sensible, patient environmental campaigners may have managed to create with the general public.
He is on screen, claiming that restaurateurs should be fined for serving anything but local, in-season fare. And, just for good measure, he 'expects' his namesake to get it into the statute books pronto.
Thing is, if it takes off as well as some as his fellow media luvvies' Planet Ban-it efforts, Dear Leader may just be coaxed out of his bunker to get behind it... at least enough for a Daily Mail spread.
What... a load... of... tosh. Green tosh at that. And shaem on any media that gives him airtime, at least without slamming him in every which way for the rank hypocrisy on top of the sheer impracticality. At least the BBC had one slot with one guest who said so.
In theory there is the germ of an idea, but compulsion. Legions of funded government food tasters to check where your faggots came from, on threat of fine or the pokey?
Puh-lese. Even for the ratings desperate crews we have out there in celeb, PR and media land this is below the the basement foundations of where the barrel has been left.
The guy has never mentioned a dicky bird about 'green' issues 'til now. And flies the planet making money on anything but. So I guess he's a shoe-in as host on the next luvvie-fest in aid of awareness.
And the almost daily discussions of what 'we' should be doing are getting as insulting as they are daft. Not all of the audience have the time, money or inclination to spend £40 a meal per head and 5 hrs a night preparing it all. Nor, I suspect, can my local pub do much more than get what they can, when they can from where they can. But when they go local, I try to support it... by voluntary choice.
This whole circus in the name of green is becoming a sorry charade, with the lunatics now ell in charge of the agenda, whilst those supposedly in charge hide away 'til it's safe or they can claim a target has been hit.
Guardian - Seasonal disorder - a few in agreement
Guardian - Season's eatings from Gordon
Guardian - Has Gordon Ramsay bitten off more than he can chew? - What a load of brow-furrowing rubbish that simply feeds his ego... and PR aims.
The Observer - Ramsay's bad case of pots and kettles
Indy - Eat only local produce? I don't like the smell of that - There's a thing. Now it's race-related. Let's see if we can work homophobia in and it's a full set! I was moved to write (and in so doing noticed another poster, called 'junk-male', which is... not nice):
Sweet. Those mostly intolerant of other's views being intolerant of she who is intolerant of he who is intolerant (for purely PR reasons) of others' freedom of choice.
Still, it sells papers, so not a complete loss. What a great country, eh?
I have just watched celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay undo, for the slim 3o pieces of silver of a a few days of PR (designed to rumble on by being 'controversial'), yet more good will that normal, sensible, patient environmental campaigners may have managed to create with the general public.
He is on screen, claiming that restaurateurs should be fined for serving anything but local, in-season fare. And, just for good measure, he 'expects' his namesake to get it into the statute books pronto.
Thing is, if it takes off as well as some as his fellow media luvvies' Planet Ban-it efforts, Dear Leader may just be coaxed out of his bunker to get behind it... at least enough for a Daily Mail spread.
What... a load... of... tosh. Green tosh at that. And shaem on any media that gives him airtime, at least without slamming him in every which way for the rank hypocrisy on top of the sheer impracticality. At least the BBC had one slot with one guest who said so.
In theory there is the germ of an idea, but compulsion. Legions of funded government food tasters to check where your faggots came from, on threat of fine or the pokey?
Puh-lese. Even for the ratings desperate crews we have out there in celeb, PR and media land this is below the the basement foundations of where the barrel has been left.
The guy has never mentioned a dicky bird about 'green' issues 'til now. And flies the planet making money on anything but. So I guess he's a shoe-in as host on the next luvvie-fest in aid of awareness.
And the almost daily discussions of what 'we' should be doing are getting as insulting as they are daft. Not all of the audience have the time, money or inclination to spend £40 a meal per head and 5 hrs a night preparing it all. Nor, I suspect, can my local pub do much more than get what they can, when they can from where they can. But when they go local, I try to support it... by voluntary choice.
This whole circus in the name of green is becoming a sorry charade, with the lunatics now ell in charge of the agenda, whilst those supposedly in charge hide away 'til it's safe or they can claim a target has been hit.
Guardian - Seasonal disorder - a few in agreement
Guardian - Season's eatings from Gordon
Guardian - Has Gordon Ramsay bitten off more than he can chew? - What a load of brow-furrowing rubbish that simply feeds his ego... and PR aims.
The Observer - Ramsay's bad case of pots and kettles
Indy - Eat only local produce? I don't like the smell of that - There's a thing. Now it's race-related. Let's see if we can work homophobia in and it's a full set! I was moved to write (and in so doing noticed another poster, called 'junk-male', which is... not nice):
Sweet. Those mostly intolerant of other's views being intolerant of she who is intolerant of he who is intolerant (for purely PR reasons) of others' freedom of choice.
Still, it sells papers, so not a complete loss. What a great country, eh?
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Well, they have asked...
The questions at least go up. Let's see what gets asked... and answered:
David Miliband on Newsnight
Qu 1: Will it ever be possible to see the choices (especially many, much vaunted 'alternative' options) broken out as peer-reviewed, agenda-free, non-lobbyist-influenced, 'clearly identified subsidy-support requiring' and based in fact? Also in spin-free, clear, objective, accurate, pro and con terms so that 'we', the voting, tax-paying public, can assess, decide upon and/or support, confident that we are not being managed by government, compliant media and interest groups to achieve box-ticking targets that have little to do with our kids' futures by being little more than just 'looking' like 'carbon' is being reduced?
Qu 2. If so, please do. A few starters for 10 (off the top of my head - sorry, no legions of research wonks at my disposal, as have most govt. ministers and programme makers)...
Wind farms.
Nuclear.
Latest Road Tax logic.
Coal fired power stations with no scrubbing systems planned.
Vast quangos with even greater comms budgets that DO what, exactly?
Focusing on trivia such as plastic bags when there is a LOT more, more critically, going on.
Cutting support in key areas allowing an individual option to help, such as solar, etc
Plus a few others I am sure others have/will provide...
Addendum:
BBC - Climate modelling uncertainty
New questions added to the above:
I have just watched the BBC Environmental 'analyst' Roger 'is that ok with you, it's now been HarraBINNED' objective piece from last night, which I am sure reflects the 'emerging truth' view of the government and its compliant media establishment.
I also note that, as stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, that AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours. Hence, if this IS the case...
Qu: Why are government still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits?
Qu: Why are most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits?
Qu: If, as claimed in the piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why don't you just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
If there was a leadership contest announced I bet you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
Qu: Why, as it is as sure as night follows day that this will become a back-burner (warming) issue again with the next sound-bite or ratings story, should anyone believe the next Chicken Little initiative you and your colleagues trot out now, or when next resurrected in the future?
Qu: If it is as serious as you claim it to be, why do you not make it as serious on every and any agenda you can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
If war broke out... again... I'm sure the wheels of government and media would still turn. We'd just all be a bit more... focused. Not a bad thing?
Qu: Why do you think the government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven so totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all?
Actually, the answers to the preceding questions might explain that. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
Qu: Do you think that anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what you, the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
If this is not front page news tomorrow, throughout the UK at least, I will have my answer.
Yet I will plod on, whilst raising and supporting my family, trying to use and waste as little as I can, but trusting and feeling inclined to do what I am told 'is good for me' even less.
That... is the legacy of those who have brought us to this point.
Not great for a national lead...er... followership, really. And while the bunker may buy you more time than most, it is not really a solution.
Addendum 2 - Talk about Newsnight
Kismet. What I wrote above was not posted. Not sure why. Maybe there was a glitch (Like that can't happen! If so there was no indication on the site, but I did notice the word 'error' in the URL string. Not really expecting Auntie to acknowledge or address this anytime soon - though it's now 'down' at time of writing), maybe I wrote to much... or maybe you cannot post twice.
Anyway, it has given me an opportunity to digest and reply to the piece in a more considered way, and with a better chance of being seen, and making my point. Look how many replies refer to 'the single greatest issue to humanity', and how many, er, don't.
100+ questions posed. A few asked live. It will be interesting to see what we get, as promised, subsequently today.
Before even watching the Miliband piece, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
If, as claimed in Mr Harrabin's accompanying piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
And if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won - how soon did AGW get dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda you (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
Front page news? It has barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even here!
That... is the sad legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And I have my answer.
The speech - “GREEN PEACE: ENERGY, EUROPE AND THE GLOBAL ORDER”
- is it just me, or is anything with the words 'global order' ('new world' is just as snappy) a tad sinister?
Indy - NEW - Ministers cannot win case for green taxes if they won't apply them to green causes - The thick plotten, methinks
Guardian - NEW - A fair trade - A quaint 'open letter'
David Miliband on Newsnight
Qu 1: Will it ever be possible to see the choices (especially many, much vaunted 'alternative' options) broken out as peer-reviewed, agenda-free, non-lobbyist-influenced, 'clearly identified subsidy-support requiring' and based in fact? Also in spin-free, clear, objective, accurate, pro and con terms so that 'we', the voting, tax-paying public, can assess, decide upon and/or support, confident that we are not being managed by government, compliant media and interest groups to achieve box-ticking targets that have little to do with our kids' futures by being little more than just 'looking' like 'carbon' is being reduced?
Qu 2. If so, please do. A few starters for 10 (off the top of my head - sorry, no legions of research wonks at my disposal, as have most govt. ministers and programme makers)...
Wind farms.
Nuclear.
Latest Road Tax logic.
Coal fired power stations with no scrubbing systems planned.
Vast quangos with even greater comms budgets that DO what, exactly?
Focusing on trivia such as plastic bags when there is a LOT more, more critically, going on.
Cutting support in key areas allowing an individual option to help, such as solar, etc
Plus a few others I am sure others have/will provide...
Addendum:
BBC - Climate modelling uncertainty
New questions added to the above:
I have just watched the BBC Environmental 'analyst' Roger 'is that ok with you, it's now been HarraBINNED' objective piece from last night, which I am sure reflects the 'emerging truth' view of the government and its compliant media establishment.
I also note that, as stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, that AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours. Hence, if this IS the case...
Qu: Why are government still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits?
Qu: Why are most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits?
Qu: If, as claimed in the piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why don't you just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
If there was a leadership contest announced I bet you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
Qu: Why, as it is as sure as night follows day that this will become a back-burner (warming) issue again with the next sound-bite or ratings story, should anyone believe the next Chicken Little initiative you and your colleagues trot out now, or when next resurrected in the future?
Qu: If it is as serious as you claim it to be, why do you not make it as serious on every and any agenda you can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
If war broke out... again... I'm sure the wheels of government and media would still turn. We'd just all be a bit more... focused. Not a bad thing?
Qu: Why do you think the government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven so totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all?
Actually, the answers to the preceding questions might explain that. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
Qu: Do you think that anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what you, the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
If this is not front page news tomorrow, throughout the UK at least, I will have my answer.
Yet I will plod on, whilst raising and supporting my family, trying to use and waste as little as I can, but trusting and feeling inclined to do what I am told 'is good for me' even less.
That... is the legacy of those who have brought us to this point.
Not great for a national lead...er... followership, really. And while the bunker may buy you more time than most, it is not really a solution.
Addendum 2 - Talk about Newsnight
Kismet. What I wrote above was not posted. Not sure why. Maybe there was a glitch (Like that can't happen! If so there was no indication on the site, but I did notice the word 'error' in the URL string. Not really expecting Auntie to acknowledge or address this anytime soon - though it's now 'down' at time of writing), maybe I wrote to much... or maybe you cannot post twice.
Anyway, it has given me an opportunity to digest and reply to the piece in a more considered way, and with a better chance of being seen, and making my point. Look how many replies refer to 'the single greatest issue to humanity', and how many, er, don't.
100+ questions posed. A few asked live. It will be interesting to see what we get, as promised, subsequently today.
Before even watching the Miliband piece, I wrote on my blog that if this is not front page news today, throughout the UK at least, I will have answers to some key questions.
As stated by many world leaders, and summed up by Ban Ki Moon, AGW 'is the single greatest threat to humanity'. Hard to get on board with this by most current piecemeal, contradictory, politically opportunistic and frankly hypocritical behaviours.
Yet government is still just tinkering around the edges when the mood suits, with most efforts by this country more designed to distract from other issues, or to raise taxes that are hard to relate to tangible environmental benefits.
If, as claimed in Mr Harrabin's accompanying piece, it will take a 1,000 more computer systems to confirm this issue once and for all, one way or the other, why not just DO it? This is the future of the planet, apparently.
And if there was a leadership contest announced I bet (and almost won - how soon did AGW get dropped in favour of probing 'juicier' news options) you'd be hard pressed to get an imminent meteorite strike on even the Science & Tech blog of most media for the next few months.
If this is as serious as claimed to be, why not make it as serious on every and any agenda you (government and media) can think of, starting now, where practical to the exclusion of all else?
Government, and media organs such as the BBC, have so far proven totally unsuccessful in persuading the majority of the electorate on almost any aspect of this issue to date, despite billions being spent (quangos, comms budgets, PR... some subsidy-driven efforts) with almost nothing tangible to show for it all. But then, it seems in many quarters these days that having polices that work, make sense AND can be sold successfully to those who vote is not what democracy should be about.
I wondered if anything said, discussed, promised and (though probably subsequently reneged upon) shared during a minor late-night news show watched by a small minority of the population, complemented by a few hundred others on this website, is going to make a blind bit of difference to what the government, the UK , the EU or the rest of the world actually DOES any time soon, vs. waffling on and on whilst bleeding most of us dry financially as you do so?
Front page news? It has barely raised a serious % of commentary the very next day even here!
That... is the sad legacy of those who would claim to lead, and inform, and have brought us to this point.
And I have my answer.
The speech - “GREEN PEACE: ENERGY, EUROPE AND THE GLOBAL ORDER”
- is it just me, or is anything with the words 'global order' ('new world' is just as snappy) a tad sinister?
Indy - NEW - Ministers cannot win case for green taxes if they won't apply them to green causes - The thick plotten, methinks
Guardian - NEW - A fair trade - A quaint 'open letter'
Culture of calamity
Bad news sells. Sad, but true.
But it's really getting too much in the media's desperation to fill 24/7 content hungry spaces, and boost ratings. And context seems to go out of the window. Along with any attempt at seeking a satisfactory resolution. The event is all, and the worse, the better. Now... moving on....
So I look at two back-to-back pieces on BBC News.
First up, we have the 'fact' that few parents allow their kids to walk to school. O.....k. So, er, what? Nope, that was it. A few vox pops with a couple of the legions of 'BBC average families' to say they wouldn't do it, and that's about it. What... was... is the point? If they wanted to depress us, they sure succeeded.
Next, waste. WRAP has cranked out another survey, and 'we' waste scag loads. But other than a few minor (if sensible) suggestions such as not over-buying, and a few daft ones (much as I like and respect Janey Lee Grace, she is now a media elite for whom having her fresh produce delivered is not perhaps a real financial hardship... and frankly the manner of its delivery does not seem to suggest much difference in our propensity to reject that which we over-buy), it was simply a case of 'isn't it all just awful'.
Actually, I would be interested in how these food waste figures play out across all sorts of comparisons. The BBC of course famously weighed in on the packaging debate, and without much of that which they took to task, food waste would be a lot worse. They really love it all ways.
There's even the totality of the figures. The numbers seem horrendous, but are they really that bad? Some waste is inevitable, and any reduction and hence savings in money and emissions is to be striven after. But this unremitting negative 'you're all sooooo bad and the country is sooo awful' is just getting a pain.
BBC - Food waste on 'staggering' scale - 3.6m tonnes
Guardian - Britons wasting £10bn worth of food a year, research says - guess we all got the same PR, then.
Indy - What a waste: Britain throws away £10bn of food every year - or, to put it another way...
This last post (Martin O'Brien) is more than interesting. As was the one tucked away earlier noting that the media-frenzy Planet Ban-it of the month is not, if temporarily, packaging. Good job too, as if used correctly, it actually goes a long way to preventing food waste.
But for all the shock and awe expressed, especially by the ladies who launch campaigns at the drop of a budget, as a consumer I remain a little uncertain what all this froth and both makes suggest one DOES.
I rather suspect all here (myself included) throw out zippy. So what do we have for those less incentivised so far to save (money, waste...etc)?:
'Wrap suggested households seeking to balance their finances could save money by following basic tips to prevent food waste, such as planning shopping trips better and keeping a closer check on use-by dates. It also pointed out that many people do not know the difference between a "best before date", which has no implications for food safety, and use-by data, which must be followed.'
Good advice. Not exactly startling in its own right, and nor have I seen it expressed very loud, clear or often. In fact I have seen one, I am sure award-winning, 'Love Food: Hate Waste' ad (at how much media spend???) in a Sunday Supp. It had a crying tomato. Showed it to my wife, kids and Mum. Not a clue what it was on about. You know, I think the money on that, and those who spun it up, could have been better spent elsewhere.
Like most 'awareness' in the name of green that is being served up so far. We need actions and incentives, not platitudes and winger-waving.
Dizzy Thinks - food-for-thought - a mostly fair, and funny complement
But it's really getting too much in the media's desperation to fill 24/7 content hungry spaces, and boost ratings. And context seems to go out of the window. Along with any attempt at seeking a satisfactory resolution. The event is all, and the worse, the better. Now... moving on....
So I look at two back-to-back pieces on BBC News.
First up, we have the 'fact' that few parents allow their kids to walk to school. O.....k. So, er, what? Nope, that was it. A few vox pops with a couple of the legions of 'BBC average families' to say they wouldn't do it, and that's about it. What... was... is the point? If they wanted to depress us, they sure succeeded.
Next, waste. WRAP has cranked out another survey, and 'we' waste scag loads. But other than a few minor (if sensible) suggestions such as not over-buying, and a few daft ones (much as I like and respect Janey Lee Grace, she is now a media elite for whom having her fresh produce delivered is not perhaps a real financial hardship... and frankly the manner of its delivery does not seem to suggest much difference in our propensity to reject that which we over-buy), it was simply a case of 'isn't it all just awful'.
Actually, I would be interested in how these food waste figures play out across all sorts of comparisons. The BBC of course famously weighed in on the packaging debate, and without much of that which they took to task, food waste would be a lot worse. They really love it all ways.
There's even the totality of the figures. The numbers seem horrendous, but are they really that bad? Some waste is inevitable, and any reduction and hence savings in money and emissions is to be striven after. But this unremitting negative 'you're all sooooo bad and the country is sooo awful' is just getting a pain.
BBC - Food waste on 'staggering' scale - 3.6m tonnes
Guardian - Britons wasting £10bn worth of food a year, research says - guess we all got the same PR, then.
Indy - What a waste: Britain throws away £10bn of food every year - or, to put it another way...
This last post (Martin O'Brien) is more than interesting. As was the one tucked away earlier noting that the media-frenzy Planet Ban-it of the month is not, if temporarily, packaging. Good job too, as if used correctly, it actually goes a long way to preventing food waste.
But for all the shock and awe expressed, especially by the ladies who launch campaigns at the drop of a budget, as a consumer I remain a little uncertain what all this froth and both makes suggest one DOES.
I rather suspect all here (myself included) throw out zippy. So what do we have for those less incentivised so far to save (money, waste...etc)?:
'Wrap suggested households seeking to balance their finances could save money by following basic tips to prevent food waste, such as planning shopping trips better and keeping a closer check on use-by dates. It also pointed out that many people do not know the difference between a "best before date", which has no implications for food safety, and use-by data, which must be followed.'
Good advice. Not exactly startling in its own right, and nor have I seen it expressed very loud, clear or often. In fact I have seen one, I am sure award-winning, 'Love Food: Hate Waste' ad (at how much media spend???) in a Sunday Supp. It had a crying tomato. Showed it to my wife, kids and Mum. Not a clue what it was on about. You know, I think the money on that, and those who spun it up, could have been better spent elsewhere.
Like most 'awareness' in the name of green that is being served up so far. We need actions and incentives, not platitudes and winger-waving.
Dizzy Thinks - food-for-thought - a mostly fair, and funny complement
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
INTERVIEW - Joanne Sonenshine, manager of environmental policy at CEA
As it was kindly offered, I recently took the opportunity of having a transatlantic chat with Joanne Sonenshine, manager of environmental policy at CEA.
This is the US Consumer Electronics Association. They are keen to share knowledge and best practice (they have a consumer website - myGreenElectronics* - with a load of very useful info, laid out nice and simply and clearly. There may be a few conversion issues on currency, power ratings and places to take stuff to recycle, but essentially it's international) with other organisations and countries, and here in the UK it is working closely with UK-based Intellect.
They are hoping to offer some thoughts on what will happen to the old TVs in the UK when people switch to digital.
However, given the opportunity, we did cover a few other issues. But first digital.
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
I don't propose to go into much background here.
Suffice to say that the world is going digital for all sorts of reasons, mostly good ones. But there is a consequence, and that is what happens to all those old analogue bits of kit left around, and the poor sods who paid for them... and are about to be staring at a blank screen.
Well, you are going to have to 'get with the programme' guys, which means doing some stuff. And/or paying for more.
One rather mind-blowing fact is that the entire continental USA will be one day (Feb 17, 2009) analogue, and the next day digital. Click of a switch. And that prospect did not seem to phase the lady who is in a position to know, even though my jaw is only just now creeping back off the floor. I was staggered. A bit like my home nation's handover is... will be.
Here in the UK there is a site, I know (must dig it out) and it has all started...somewhere. A fishing village in Cumbria maybe? And then it will roooooolll out sloooowly around the country, in a well-oiled, machine-like delivery that only those who brought you Heathrow T5 can manage. I guess the one shot approach is a bit of best practice that has not made it across the pond for starters.
Back in the States, the numbers are pretty awe-inspiring, especially for the potential eco-consequences.
What was interesting was mention of a coupon scheme funded by government to enable householders to go a pretty fair way to funding converter boxes to enable their old sets to still be used. I've lost my notes on that, but of the order of 2 x$40 was mentioned. I have no knowledge of such a similar level of support here. Quelle surprise.
WEEE...haaaay!
This recently in from Dave at Solarventi is a worthy sidebar to add in context. WEEE is the effort that links the consumer, manufacturer, retailer and authorities when it comes to disposal of redundant kit.
As it came post chat I couldn't discuss the situation in detail with Joanne, but of course the States don't have an EU, and hence don't have a WEEE Directive. But what they do have is similar efforts, to varying degrees, state by state. Sound familiar?
*myGreenElectronics.org
I wanted to end with this (again), as I like information that's useful, and I like sites that share stuff clearly and easily... and freely.
I'd really recommend the odd roam.
I found one section that initially seemed to be missing actually is covered within. And that's repair. Not really a surprise, as this is simply not in the modern lexicon any more. Fair reasons, if not happy excuses, falling down to time and money... and complexity.
But there is a link to another site - Greenerchoices.org - where there was some nifty stuff that at the very least gives you a fighting chance on re-kickstarting some bit of electronic kit, from PCs to Mobiles to TVs. I've certainly bookmarked it.
The main site also has useful stats to focus the mind a bit more on our profligate ways and how things are improving at least:
* The average energy consumption by televisions in standby mode has already been reduced from 30W in 1995 to 1.8W today, and it is continuing to decrease. Similarly the power consumption of televisions when in use has come down from 400W to 30W since the 1970s.
* A TV on standby for one hour uses less electricity than a 100W light bulb does in two minutes, and the TV would have to be on continual standby for nearly a month to use the same electricity needed to boil a kettle.
* Sony BRAVIA TVs can consume as little as 0.3 Watts in standby (off is still better, guys, but it does rather put some recent 'excitements' in context)
And to close, a little toot of my 'practice what you preach' trumpet. It actually stemmed from a conversation about the Energy Star rating used in the States (and, from what I recall, in Asia at least a decade ago. I certainly remember the logo on IT kit there. Here we have that colour bar thing now, right?). Because...
* Apple’s Mini Mac (that yours truly is typing with now) uses only 25W when on, less than half the power of a conventional light bulb, and less than the 30W that many older computers consume even in standby or idle mode.
I'd like to say I planned it that way, but it just kinda worked out. For once:)
I just hope I will be doing as well when digital hits my town.
Addendum - Having just watched BBC News announce its launch, I had hoped Freesat may add to our knowledge. Sadly, at time of writing, it's down. STOP PRESS - It's now up!
Daily Mail - BBC and ITV launch 'free' 80-channel satellite system which costs up to £200 to install - The DM as my only source of info!
Guardian - BBC and ITV launch belated digital satellite service - Now others arrive...phew!
The Register - NEW - Freesat launches in UK
IPD - 23/04/08
This is the US Consumer Electronics Association. They are keen to share knowledge and best practice (they have a consumer website - myGreenElectronics* - with a load of very useful info, laid out nice and simply and clearly. There may be a few conversion issues on currency, power ratings and places to take stuff to recycle, but essentially it's international) with other organisations and countries, and here in the UK it is working closely with UK-based Intellect.
They are hoping to offer some thoughts on what will happen to the old TVs in the UK when people switch to digital.
However, given the opportunity, we did cover a few other issues. But first digital.
THE DIGITAL DIVIDE
I don't propose to go into much background here.
Suffice to say that the world is going digital for all sorts of reasons, mostly good ones. But there is a consequence, and that is what happens to all those old analogue bits of kit left around, and the poor sods who paid for them... and are about to be staring at a blank screen.
Well, you are going to have to 'get with the programme' guys, which means doing some stuff. And/or paying for more.
One rather mind-blowing fact is that the entire continental USA will be one day (Feb 17, 2009) analogue, and the next day digital. Click of a switch. And that prospect did not seem to phase the lady who is in a position to know, even though my jaw is only just now creeping back off the floor. I was staggered. A bit like my home nation's handover is... will be.
Here in the UK there is a site, I know (must dig it out) and it has all started...somewhere. A fishing village in Cumbria maybe? And then it will roooooolll out sloooowly around the country, in a well-oiled, machine-like delivery that only those who brought you Heathrow T5 can manage. I guess the one shot approach is a bit of best practice that has not made it across the pond for starters.
Back in the States, the numbers are pretty awe-inspiring, especially for the potential eco-consequences.
What was interesting was mention of a coupon scheme funded by government to enable householders to go a pretty fair way to funding converter boxes to enable their old sets to still be used. I've lost my notes on that, but of the order of 2 x$40 was mentioned. I have no knowledge of such a similar level of support here. Quelle surprise.
WEEE...haaaay!
This recently in from Dave at Solarventi is a worthy sidebar to add in context. WEEE is the effort that links the consumer, manufacturer, retailer and authorities when it comes to disposal of redundant kit.
As it came post chat I couldn't discuss the situation in detail with Joanne, but of course the States don't have an EU, and hence don't have a WEEE Directive. But what they do have is similar efforts, to varying degrees, state by state. Sound familiar?
*myGreenElectronics.org
I wanted to end with this (again), as I like information that's useful, and I like sites that share stuff clearly and easily... and freely.
I'd really recommend the odd roam.
I found one section that initially seemed to be missing actually is covered within. And that's repair. Not really a surprise, as this is simply not in the modern lexicon any more. Fair reasons, if not happy excuses, falling down to time and money... and complexity.
But there is a link to another site - Greenerchoices.org - where there was some nifty stuff that at the very least gives you a fighting chance on re-kickstarting some bit of electronic kit, from PCs to Mobiles to TVs. I've certainly bookmarked it.
The main site also has useful stats to focus the mind a bit more on our profligate ways and how things are improving at least:
* The average energy consumption by televisions in standby mode has already been reduced from 30W in 1995 to 1.8W today, and it is continuing to decrease. Similarly the power consumption of televisions when in use has come down from 400W to 30W since the 1970s.
* A TV on standby for one hour uses less electricity than a 100W light bulb does in two minutes, and the TV would have to be on continual standby for nearly a month to use the same electricity needed to boil a kettle.
* Sony BRAVIA TVs can consume as little as 0.3 Watts in standby (off is still better, guys, but it does rather put some recent 'excitements' in context)
And to close, a little toot of my 'practice what you preach' trumpet. It actually stemmed from a conversation about the Energy Star rating used in the States (and, from what I recall, in Asia at least a decade ago. I certainly remember the logo on IT kit there. Here we have that colour bar thing now, right?). Because...
* Apple’s Mini Mac (that yours truly is typing with now) uses only 25W when on, less than half the power of a conventional light bulb, and less than the 30W that many older computers consume even in standby or idle mode.
I'd like to say I planned it that way, but it just kinda worked out. For once:)
I just hope I will be doing as well when digital hits my town.
Addendum - Having just watched BBC News announce its launch, I had hoped Freesat may add to our knowledge. Sadly, at time of writing, it's down. STOP PRESS - It's now up!
Daily Mail - BBC and ITV launch 'free' 80-channel satellite system which costs up to £200 to install - The DM as my only source of info!
Guardian - BBC and ITV launch belated digital satellite service - Now others arrive...phew!
The Register - NEW - Freesat launches in UK
IPD - 23/04/08
Half the equation
Calculating your home's carbon footprint
I share this because I mainly agree with, and applaud it, but also because it serves as a good example of how over-enthusiastic enviro-converts either miss, or gloss over realities. And basic science. And human nature.
Measuring stuff is great... and necessary. And can be useful. But to be meaningful and truly useful you need controls, and.or comparisons. Plus a whole wadge of information to help you in a direction once you have the data.
I remain totally bemused by the fact that a pack of crisps contains 75g of carbon. So..er.. what? Buy another pack? Don't buy it at all? What?
It's better with energy consumption, but in isolation hard to see what I can do with it save buying a bunch of kit (I have) and spending a ton of time (I do) to get depressed (don't ask).
Using the methodology shared here I can and will do the necessary calculations to measure my home's carbon footprint annually, but remain unsure as to how this, in isolation, is a great way of reducing the contribution it makes to climate change.
OK, if I drive the number down (especially as the £ per unit of energy goes up rises) I will feel better, but it seems a little vague to me on real impacts.
I share this because I mainly agree with, and applaud it, but also because it serves as a good example of how over-enthusiastic enviro-converts either miss, or gloss over realities. And basic science. And human nature.
Measuring stuff is great... and necessary. And can be useful. But to be meaningful and truly useful you need controls, and.or comparisons. Plus a whole wadge of information to help you in a direction once you have the data.
I remain totally bemused by the fact that a pack of crisps contains 75g of carbon. So..er.. what? Buy another pack? Don't buy it at all? What?
It's better with energy consumption, but in isolation hard to see what I can do with it save buying a bunch of kit (I have) and spending a ton of time (I do) to get depressed (don't ask).
Using the methodology shared here I can and will do the necessary calculations to measure my home's carbon footprint annually, but remain unsure as to how this, in isolation, is a great way of reducing the contribution it makes to climate change.
OK, if I drive the number down (especially as the £ per unit of energy goes up rises) I will feel better, but it seems a little vague to me on real impacts.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
You gotta larf, eh?
Ch 4 - FactCheck: has rubbish tax been binned?
So now we know... what we don't know. Or do we?
'See no weevils, hear no weevils, speak not of...' anything that might pin one down, apparently.
Yet for all that, at each turn it all comes back like a boomerang, and a barge full of night soil hits the wind farm.
No way to run a country. Or anything, for that matter.
So now we know... what we don't know. Or do we?
'See no weevils, hear no weevils, speak not of...' anything that might pin one down, apparently.
Yet for all that, at each turn it all comes back like a boomerang, and a barge full of night soil hits the wind farm.
No way to run a country. Or anything, for that matter.
Lead Balloon
With all due credit to the author: If there is a God, he's not green. Otherwise airships would take off
I like the idea. It's just the disconnect with the realities of the numbers of people there now are, the time they have and the money they can spend. Another topic in many ways, but this just comes across as silly.
I think it's triff.
Sign me up! All I'll need is no day job and limitless funds... or write on enviro issues for eco-aware (if not actually practicing) publications.
I can see it now: 'My blog of a slow food sojourn around the World in the footsteps of Phiny Fogg'
Chapter 2 - Oh, the inhumanity!
'To the clink of organically sourced New Zealand Chablis in recycled (plastic, while lighter, may contain BPA) glasses, we glanced down to see millions of RyanAir eco-unawares/don't cares gobbling up their two week annual holidays crammed on non-eco-tourist (ie: keep the proles out) beaches. I am moved to head to my cabin and Blackberry a post forthwith. It is to be hoped the sights will improve over the next few months when we get to more remote places... Richard has invited us to his island to learn about the next initiative whilst watching some rocket display.'
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, in a normal family home near you...
I like the idea. It's just the disconnect with the realities of the numbers of people there now are, the time they have and the money they can spend. Another topic in many ways, but this just comes across as silly.
I think it's triff.
Sign me up! All I'll need is no day job and limitless funds... or write on enviro issues for eco-aware (if not actually practicing) publications.
I can see it now: 'My blog of a slow food sojourn around the World in the footsteps of Phiny Fogg'
Chapter 2 - Oh, the inhumanity!
'To the clink of organically sourced New Zealand Chablis in recycled (plastic, while lighter, may contain BPA) glasses, we glanced down to see millions of RyanAir eco-unawares/don't cares gobbling up their two week annual holidays crammed on non-eco-tourist (ie: keep the proles out) beaches. I am moved to head to my cabin and Blackberry a post forthwith. It is to be hoped the sights will improve over the next few months when we get to more remote places... Richard has invited us to his island to learn about the next initiative whilst watching some rocket display.'
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, in a normal family home near you...
Oh, 07 - Licence to...?
We have mentioned bisphenol-A containing plastics here before.
I think that, no matter what, any food or beverage container with it in will soon no longer be on the shelves.
Not so much because of the potential hazards (which remain woefully varied... and disputed), but because of the way the issue has been handled by the government/media cabal of trust that exists these days.
At least in this case it is a 'better safe than sorry' default, so perhaps it could be worse. Unless, of course, you make the things. On the strength of what I saw today, if I had an Avent bottle crammed in junior's gob right now I would be one worried mummy and react accordingly. Who the heck would risk anything, especially with weasel disclaimers like 'so long as you boil water separately first/don't scratch the surface, it should be fine'.
Speaking of which, for recycling purposes (to what, I wonder?), it has an '07' inside the 3-arrow triangle. And, to know if it doesn't have BPA, you are helpfully advised that if it is flexible it won't. Which is about as loose as it gets, to the point of being useless.
Anyway, in the same slot there was the coincidental news that 'breast is best', so no agenda there. It's a shame that my trust factor is so low that beyond the news handling I also often have my doubts on the motivations of our sources of advice and information.
Addendum -
Just watched Dr. Rosemary on the BBC Brekky show, and she impresses more at each outing. To the rote-reading blonde and bouffant's scaremongering she was a breath of 'for heaven's sake' fresh air. Not that this slot will undo all the others that surrounds it. It suspect we are seeing the end of an industry here. I just wish it was for better reasons than this.
Addendum 2 -
Guardian - Science Weekly for May 5: "Ice, mud and blood" - If only for an insight into how the media 'do science... and a funny first comment in reply.
I think that, no matter what, any food or beverage container with it in will soon no longer be on the shelves.
Not so much because of the potential hazards (which remain woefully varied... and disputed), but because of the way the issue has been handled by the government/media cabal of trust that exists these days.
At least in this case it is a 'better safe than sorry' default, so perhaps it could be worse. Unless, of course, you make the things. On the strength of what I saw today, if I had an Avent bottle crammed in junior's gob right now I would be one worried mummy and react accordingly. Who the heck would risk anything, especially with weasel disclaimers like 'so long as you boil water separately first/don't scratch the surface, it should be fine'.
Speaking of which, for recycling purposes (to what, I wonder?), it has an '07' inside the 3-arrow triangle. And, to know if it doesn't have BPA, you are helpfully advised that if it is flexible it won't. Which is about as loose as it gets, to the point of being useless.
Anyway, in the same slot there was the coincidental news that 'breast is best', so no agenda there. It's a shame that my trust factor is so low that beyond the news handling I also often have my doubts on the motivations of our sources of advice and information.
Addendum -
Just watched Dr. Rosemary on the BBC Brekky show, and she impresses more at each outing. To the rote-reading blonde and bouffant's scaremongering she was a breath of 'for heaven's sake' fresh air. Not that this slot will undo all the others that surrounds it. It suspect we are seeing the end of an industry here. I just wish it was for better reasons than this.
Addendum 2 -
Guardian - Science Weekly for May 5: "Ice, mud and blood" - If only for an insight into how the media 'do science... and a funny first comment in reply.
Monday, May 05, 2008
What we need is a report on wasteful reports
A letter in the Indy:
Unsustainable bulk of official advice
Sir: The Communities and Local Government's Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide, April 2008 has just appeared on the web as part of the Government's drive to prevent global warming. I dare not print it off, as it runs to 302 pages. It costs £40 for a hard copy. There are an average of 300 words per page, but some pages have fewer than 50 words on them, surrounded by blank space .
Some of the text is in 8-point, so it has not been produced with the sight-impaired in mind. With proper copywriting and layout, it could be reduced to 80-90 pages and still be more accessible to the reader. That's 25 per cent of the paper and ink, and more readable. How about a code for sustainable government publications?
Nice critique, sir. Love the irony of the last line.
Unsustainable bulk of official advice
Sir: The Communities and Local Government's Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide, April 2008 has just appeared on the web as part of the Government's drive to prevent global warming. I dare not print it off, as it runs to 302 pages. It costs £40 for a hard copy. There are an average of 300 words per page, but some pages have fewer than 50 words on them, surrounded by blank space .
Some of the text is in 8-point, so it has not been produced with the sight-impaired in mind. With proper copywriting and layout, it could be reduced to 80-90 pages and still be more accessible to the reader. That's 25 per cent of the paper and ink, and more readable. How about a code for sustainable government publications?
Nice critique, sir. Love the irony of the last line.
Rack rate
A telling piece about the 'cost' of our online addictions.
Green data center threat level: Not green
Note the cost debate swirling below.
Green data center threat level: Not green
Note the cost debate swirling below.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Bank Holiday Meddling
You know the saying, 'If it ain't broke, get bored on a wet Sunday and meddle?' Oops.
I hope I haven't messed things up.
It all started with my creating a new blog, 'El Burro Hotay!', to take postings that really have no bearing to environment, even loosely. Stuff I just need to get off my chest and/or archive.
And, in so doing, I discovered Blogger has a bunch of new toys under its layout palette, such as Blog site links (with luck EBH! is there now), etc. Watch this space.
I hope I haven't messed things up.
It all started with my creating a new blog, 'El Burro Hotay!', to take postings that really have no bearing to environment, even loosely. Stuff I just need to get off my chest and/or archive.
And, in so doing, I discovered Blogger has a bunch of new toys under its layout palette, such as Blog site links (with luck EBH! is there now), etc. Watch this space.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Bio-ethanol - good or bad as a fuel?
Of late there has been a lot of criticism of bio-ethanol as a fuel, especially that derived from what would otherwise be used as food crops. But this article from Business Week questions a few of the criticisms, and points out that the rush, at least in the USA, to produce ethanol from corn (we still call it maize on our side of the pond), has not contributed as much to the increasing cost of corn than is assumed.
A thought provoking article that is well worth a perusal.
A thought provoking article that is well worth a perusal.
Friday, May 02, 2008
BA fleet goes hybrid
When I saw this headline I had this peculiar vision of rows of Boeing 747-800 Prius models lined up at Heathrow, with tons of batteries in their holds getting charged up off the mains!
But, alas, no. This story from FleetNews.co.uk reports that BA are going to equip its sales force with a fleet of Honda Civic Hybrids.
“We have set ourselves targets not only to cut emissions in the air but also on the ground and each driver will be reducing their carbon footprint by one third every year through this strategy.”
I suppose every little bit helps.
But, alas, no. This story from FleetNews.co.uk reports that BA are going to equip its sales force with a fleet of Honda Civic Hybrids.
“We have set ourselves targets not only to cut emissions in the air but also on the ground and each driver will be reducing their carbon footprint by one third every year through this strategy.”
I suppose every little bit helps.
The pen is mighty funny
Dilbert hasn't played green for a while (but has gone colour in the interim...not sure I'm keen), but now he has, he has returned in style.
Why not over here?
This from a regional Irish Newspaper, the Guardian, highlights just what a government committed to actually doing something (rather than just talking about doing it) can achieve.
"The homeowner will pre-pay €100 towards the cost of this assessment, with Sustainable Energy Ireland subsidising the balance. Approximately two thirds of the cost of this assessment, will therefore, will be covered by the Government. The assessor may advise that the house requires such work as attic insulation, interior or exterior wall insulation, low emissions double-glazing, heating control or a range of other energy efficient works. Grants will then cover up to 30% of the cost of these works, to a maximum of €2,500. On completion of the works a follow-up energy assessment on the building will be undertaken so that there is a 'before and after' test of what has been done."
Simple, assessable, checkable and measurable benefits!
So, the big question is, why have our own Gov's schemes been such a total dog's breakfast, to the point where the majority have now been passed into the hands of the big utility companies? Is it simply that, for our lot, 'talking about doing' is just that much easier then 'doing'?
"The homeowner will pre-pay €100 towards the cost of this assessment, with Sustainable Energy Ireland subsidising the balance. Approximately two thirds of the cost of this assessment, will therefore, will be covered by the Government. The assessor may advise that the house requires such work as attic insulation, interior or exterior wall insulation, low emissions double-glazing, heating control or a range of other energy efficient works. Grants will then cover up to 30% of the cost of these works, to a maximum of €2,500. On completion of the works a follow-up energy assessment on the building will be undertaken so that there is a 'before and after' test of what has been done."
Simple, assessable, checkable and measurable benefits!
So, the big question is, why have our own Gov's schemes been such a total dog's breakfast, to the point where the majority have now been passed into the hands of the big utility companies? Is it simply that, for our lot, 'talking about doing' is just that much easier then 'doing'?
Plan for greener dairy industry
An interesting article from NewsSniffer, regarding the plans to make the dairy industry 'greener'.
Lots of well intentioned plans and targets included:-
"the roadmap aimed to address the environmental consequences of producing liquid milk through the supply chain from farms to retailers."
"Producers have also pledged to improve water efficiency by up to 15% per litre, source 40% of energy from renewables by 2020 and recycle or recover 70% of non-natural waste on farms."
"Processors have committed to doing their bit by aiming to source 20% of non-transport energy from renewables or combined heat and power, and to a 30% reduction in water use."
All well and good, but I can't help commenting on this one in particular:-
"The Milk Roadmap includes measures such as sourcing half of all packaging from recycled materials by 2020."
Only half? When I was much, much younger, we all had 100% reusable and recyclable milk containers. I seem to recollect that they were made out of glass, and we called them, errrr ..... what was it, oh yes, I remember now ....... bottles!
Lots of well intentioned plans and targets included:-
"the roadmap aimed to address the environmental consequences of producing liquid milk through the supply chain from farms to retailers."
"Producers have also pledged to improve water efficiency by up to 15% per litre, source 40% of energy from renewables by 2020 and recycle or recover 70% of non-natural waste on farms."
"Processors have committed to doing their bit by aiming to source 20% of non-transport energy from renewables or combined heat and power, and to a 30% reduction in water use."
All well and good, but I can't help commenting on this one in particular:-
"The Milk Roadmap includes measures such as sourcing half of all packaging from recycled materials by 2020."
Only half? When I was much, much younger, we all had 100% reusable and recyclable milk containers. I seem to recollect that they were made out of glass, and we called them, errrr ..... what was it, oh yes, I remember now ....... bottles!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)