Cities, celebrities, students, religious communities and environmental and corporate accountability organizations urge support for public water systems
A broad range of national and local organizations, cities, celebrities, student groups and communities of faith launched the Think Outside Bottle Pledge today calling on people to choose public tap over bottled water.
The Pledge supports the efforts of local officials to invest and build confidence in public water systems.
Momentum has been growing over the last year for cities and consumers to reevaluate corporate control of water sources, including city water systems. The explosive growth of the bottled water industry, fueled by misleading advertising, has contributed to a loss of confidence in public water systems.
However, scientific studies have shown that bottled water is on average no safer than tap water, and may sometimes be less safe, containing elevated levels of arsenic, bacteria and other contaminants.
What’s more, up to 40 percent of bottled water comes from the same source as tap water, which is highly regulated for its safety to consumers. In contrast, the bottled water industry is regulated by the FDA, which lacks the capacity to fully monitor bottled water plants and largely relies on bottlers to police themselves.
This summer the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed a resolution, with leadership from the mayors of San Francisco, Salt Lake City, and Minneapolis, supporting municipal water systems. U.S. consumers currently spend $15 billion a year on bottled water. At the same time, there is a $22 billion funding gap between what cities need to spend on water infrastructure and the money available to them.
In the face of shortfalls, cities in the U.S. and around the world are turning increasingly to private corporations to manage public water systems – sometimes at great expense to the public and to the overall quality of service.
Bottled water also takes a toll on the environment, and city budgets. Last year, at least four billion pounds of plastic bottles ended up in city waste streams. It can cost cities more than $70 million in dumping and incineration fees alone. Furthermore, making bottles to meet Americans’ demand for bottled water required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil last year and generated more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
The Pledge drive will continue over the coming months and be used to educate consumers about why they should choose the tap over the bottle.
THOUSANDS PLEDGE TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOTTLE
TY-MAWR LAUNCHES WELSH WOOL INSULATION – TY-MAWR THERMAFLEECE
Welsh wool will be used to insulate and warm homes and buildings throughout Wales in an initiative launched between Ty-Mawr Lime, the Brecon based company renowned for development a range of traditional environmentally friendly building products, and Second Nature UK.
Ty-Mawr have been stocking Thermafleece manufactured by Cumbrian based company Second Nature UK for several years but have always been keen to promote and sell a wool insulation product primarily consisting of Welsh wool. With their experience and knowledge of the market and their customers Ty-Mawr proved that there was a strong market demand to use Welsh wool as an insulation.
Christine Armstrong from Second Nature UK said; “Ty-Mawr have worked incredibly hard over the years to establish a market for Thermafleece within Wales, the volumes that they sell meant that it became a viable option to source and segregate Welsh wool for the insulation. We can now guarantee that 75% of the wool used within the Ty-Mawr Thermafleece comes from Wales.”
Joyce Morgan-Gervis, of Ty-Mawr Lime said: “We currently sell up to 10 tonnes of sheep’s wool insulation a month and now we will be able to ensure a market for the coarser grade wool from Welsh hill sheep which is highly suitable for insulation. Ty-Mawr Thermafleece is a more natural, safe and healthy alternative to mineral insulation and represents a huge saving in embodied energy. It has thermal and acoustic properties and can be used for roof, wall and floor insulation.”
Joyce added; “If just 10% of the 155,000 new homes predicted to be built per annum used Ty-Mawr Thermafleece it would use up all the wool from the breeding ewes in Wales!”
The news which was announced at the start of National Construction Week has been welcomed by Leuan Wyn Jones, Minister for the Economy and Transport - Wales, who described it as an important boost for the rural economy.
Posties plant trees to fight climate change
No longer is the postie just the person who gets your letters and parcels from A to B, the humble postie has joined the fight against climate change.
Employees from Royal Mail, Post Office Ltd and Parcelforce Worldwide are signing up to a newly launched scheme to offset their carbon emissions.
Staff who join the initiative will make regular tax-free donations directly from their wage packets to the Woodland Trust, enabling the charity to plant and look after thousands of trees in the UK.
Royal Mail has developed its own carbon calculator, “Ollie”, which asks employees about their home energy usage, car and air travel before calculating how many trees will need to be planted to offset their emissions.
They can also get tips on reducing their carbon footprint.
It is believed to be the first time a company's employees have been able to take part in such a scheme, and the Woodland Trust is challenging other businesses to follow Royal Mail's example.
Clare Allen, head of corporate partnerships at the Woodland Trust, said: "The excellent start this scheme has had with Royal Mail shows its employees are eager to do their bit to help the environment and reduce their carbon emissions.
"The Woodland Trust would like to thank them for their support."
Ms Allen added: "Planting trees creates vital habitats for more species than any other, traps pollution, generates oxygen, stabilises soil and forms a stunning part of our landscape.
"And yet woods are scarce, with only 12% of the UK wooded, compared to 46% on average in Europe."
The scheme is the brainchild of Dr Martin Blake, head of sustainability at Royal Mail Group.
"This unique product provides our people with the opportunity to ethically and appropriately offset their residual carbon emissions in what is the final step in a process of reduction," he said.
"What we are doing is spreading the word about a sustainable environment, not just giving people a way to offset."
It must be said thought what it would rather be nice if, instead of talking all the good talk that DR Blake was giving, he would encourage Royal Mail to really be caring for a sustainable environment by stopping the delivery of junk mail to people's letterboxes, the kind of junk mail that has no addressee on it but that is being carried by the postie on behalf of “post office advertising sales” or whatever that department may be called.
I know I have it heard being said by Royal Mail that has to carry such real spam mail (at least in cyberspace we can have spam filters and many of them actually work quite well) or that they would have to increase the postal rates otherwise. Firstly, Royal Mail keeps putting up the charges regardless because it appears not to be making enough profit for its shareholders, unlike New Zealand Post which, so I have been told, has actually reduced the charges twice by now and it making profit. But then, I guess, like with everything that is in the UK: while other postal services may be able to make profit and even reduce the rates this could never work in Britain because Britain is different.
It is all nice and fine talking about carbon footprint reduction of Royal Mail and its associated companies, but it is all nothing but hot air as long as Royal Mail keeps delivering unwanted bulk mail to households and businesses.
Michael Smith, January 2008
Recycling is blue
MEDWAY Council is stepping up its campaign to get residents to recycle their household waste.
As of January 25, the authority will no longer be providing black bags and will instead be distributing more blue recycling bags.
It is part of the “Think Blue, Not Black” campaign, which also aims to raise awareness about the amount of recyclable rubbish that ends up in landfills.
Nearly 70 per cent of rubbish currently sent to landfill sites could be recycled or composted.
Medway recycles more than 32 per cent of domestic waste, marginally above the national average of 32%, but needs to do more to meet targets to recycle and compost 40% of its waste by the year 2010/2011.
Is Nuclear the Option?
The British government has given the go-ahead for new nuclear power stations but the question that will be on many minds is to whether nuclear really is the option for our energy need, or should one better say, energy greed.
While even the eminent scientist who coined the very idea of “Gaia” and created the “Gaia Hypothesis” is now advocating the “nuclear option”, much to the chagrin of groups like “Friends of the Earth” and “Greenpeace”, the question is and remains: is nuclear truly a viable environmental option and especially a sustainable one.
First of all we must look at our energy consumption, especially in this instance that of electricity, and reduce the use of it, and here, mostly by using more energy efficient lights and devices, but also , and maybe more importantly so, by turning things off.
There is no need to have the entire house illuminated when you are only, at that time, and that is most of the time, spending the evening in the den/family room in front of the TV or the PC.
Councils too must learn to reduce. What good is it to have an abandoned school with all the lights turned on just in case someone breaks in and might hurt himself in the dark. I always thought any self-respecting burglar would carry a decent flashlight. Come on! They don't even have to worry about batteries for them anymore with all the cheap wind-up torches around now. The thing is that those self-same councils will forever admonish the residents not to waste energy, and even penalize them if they do, but what do they do. “Oh”, they say, “but it is just so we cannot be sued by someone breaking into that building and hurting themselves in the dark.” Sorry, but he or she should not have been breaking in in the first place. But, sorry, I digressed a little.
As said, we must, first and foremost, reduce our energy consumption by use of the right appliances and also, and especially, by turning things off. Not only will it be financially rewarding for those that do that, because of the monies saves, but it will reduce the impact on the environment.
Secondly we have to take a much closer look, in the UK (and some other countries, whether in Europe or abroad), at micro-generating stations; that is to say wind, solar and furnace powered electricity generation for individual homes, farms, city blocks.
In addition to that we need to look at other options, aside, I mean, from wave, hydro, solar and wind; namely the generating of electrical power from waste incinerators, as it is done in other countries such as, as I understand, in Sweden, for example, and in Germany.
Before “Friends of the Earth” and such like begin screaming again about we must recycle rather than incinerate I am talking here about incineration of that waste that cannot be recycled or composted and would end up, yet again, in the landfills. Yes, there is and always will be some left that cannot be reused or recycled, how ever much we might like and try.
Another is to use the gas generated by those landfills and other such places, such as sewerage works, namely methane gas, as source for power stations. It can be done for it has been done, though on a rather small experimental stage at present only in the UK.
In Germany, for example, also micro-generating is very much in and the reward for those that do are great. It would appear that in those countries rather than hitting people over the head that do not and cannot recycle, generate their own power, etc., they reward those that do handsomely. Time, maybe, the UK (and others with the wrong attitude) learned a lesson from that. Then again, we know, that we will be told in the UK that while those things all may work very well in countries such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and others, it could not work in Britain as Britain is different.
However, we must make such things work and if that means changing the governments and the attitudes of business and industry, etc. then so be it.
None of the alternatives, so often held up as the be all by many of the environmental movement, e.g. wind, wave, hydro, and solar, will be able to provide for our energy greed in the UK (and elsewhere). Yes, I did say greed. We must use simply less, and this, obviously, not only in terms of electrical energy. While me must use all the alternatives to coal and oil and even natural gas, all of which are non-renewable, we also must look at options other than wind, solar, and water. Fast growing tree crops are also not the option. However, there are the waste products of various industries, especially forestry and timber, that could well fire some power stations.
Dr. Jame Lovelock, the inventor, so to speak, of the Gaia Hypothesis, says that we must embrace the nuclear power route for electrical energy production, also as far as CO2 reduction is concerned. And if Dr. Lovelock has gone so far as to say thins then the truth is that the alternatives cannot and will not meet our current and increasing energy consumption.
Aside from accidents, enter Chernobyl – an event that will hardly ever be forgotten – and possible terrorist attacks on nuclear power station, what concerns most people, I am sure, and I would see myself included here, is the safe disposal of the spent fuel from the fission reactors. If nuclear fusion would be the means of generating energy then the story, so I understand, would be different.
This then, brings to mind the question as to why has no one developed fusion further? Some years ago, apparently, a fully functioning small station was created in the then still USSR. Is it simply because there is no reprocessable fuel to be had from fusion for to make into weapon grate plutonium?
Some rather searching questions need to be asked here, methinks. Food for thought...
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), January 2008
Free low energy light bulbs for Londoners
The people of London are being given a chance to trade in their traditional light bulbs for energy efficient equivalent one in a joint scheme run by City Hall and the private sector partners.
From Friday, January 11 to Sunday, January 13 those wanting to get their hands on the free low-energy bulbs can pop into any of London's B&Q DIY stores and swap up to two old incandescent bulbs for energy efficient versions.
The scheme, which organisers have dubbed a “light bulb amnesty” (though one must say that is probably a rather silly title), is expected to be the first of many initiatives aiming to encourage the public to make small lifestyle changes which can add up to have a significant impact on carbon emissions.
It is a shame though that the same changes are not made in City Hall itself if we consider the waste and pollution that the New Year's Eve firework constituted. Apparently the London Assembly and its Mayor are of the “do as we tell you but don't do as we do” persuasion.
According to City Hall's calculations, if every home in London switched to low-energy bulbs, the capital would slash emissions by 500,000 tonnes of carbon while making a savings of £139m on energy bills.
Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, told reporters that this kind of initiative could encourage people to take the first step in making their life styles greener.
"We can avoid catastrophic climate change not by changing the quality of our lives but by changing the way we live," he said.
While the energy benefits of the bulbs are beyond doubt, the amnesty does clash with a comment by the Environment Agency in a BBC interview warning about the potential health and pollution risks associated with the bulbs, which contain a small amount of mercury.
Let us face it, folks, this is NOT just a small comment about a small amount. There seems to be an official warning in circulation that, if such a light bulb is accidentally broken that the room is to be vacated for 15 minutes. This is, I am afraid to say, not very awe inspiring as to the environmental benefits of those bulbs.
Oh, sure, the do save money as they consume less energy and in the same way also reduce pollution and such and thereby help the environment but... what about the mercury?
Asked about the unfortunate timing of the EA announcement, Mr Livingstone said: "We shouldn't get too alarmist about this. Every now and then there's a scare on mercury.
"I expect every adult of my generation is wandering round with a large amount of mercury in their fillings. 20 years have gone by and we're all still here.
"The truth is that mercury is released in the production of anything by the power plants. Much more is released into the atmosphere through the extra energy used by [non energy efficient] light bulbs."
This, to me, is rather a far too flippant reply by Ken Livingstone, London's Mayor, and one should be rather concerned about a mayor who has such an attitude. While it is true that many of us adults, especially those of a certain generation, have a mouth full of mercury fillings, mercury is dangerous, very dangerous indeed, to human (and animal) health and that is the reason that mercury is now being phased out in tooth filling, and therefore we should not be complacent about its presence in said light bulbs.
Mr. Livingstone went on to say that it was important for London's borough councils, responsible for waste management, ensure that facilities are in place to ensure the safe disposal of bulbs and make it easy for the public to use them so that doing so becomes second nature.
The safe disposal of the bulbs is but one problem, is it not. The warning, that I mentioned earlier, should be something that should concern us too.
Surely there must be a way of producing energy efficient lighting, as in light bulbs, that do not have mercury in them. We hardly here are using mercury vapor lamps, are me. So, how about it, people out there light bulb manufacturing. I am sure you can come up with something safe(r).
While B&Q is hosting the amnesty, British Gas is supplying the bulbs.
Michael Smith (Veshengro), January 9, 2007
The Halfords Experience
New Years Eve 2007 – I had intended to buy a new bicycle to use as a steed to go to and from work rather than using, all the time, my good Raleigh Pioneer Classic touring cycle; one of those that were still hand-built, some years back, in Nottingham, England.
Knowing from their website that Halfords had some deals going on some bicycles I went there intending to buy one there and then in the local store. That, however, was not to be. While there were about ten of the bike I wanted to buy on display, fully assembled, standing in various locations around the store and the “Bikehut” area I was told, in no uncertain terms that I could no buy one straight away but it would take a couple of days for them to assemble one for me. Mentioning that they had fully assembled ones of the kind that I wanted on display and that I was happy to buy one of them I was told that “we cannot sell you one of those”. I then requested to speak to a manager and was told that there was no manager available and anyway, they everyone was busy – period.
Customer service – what customer service? This is how you lose a sale was my comment on leaving the store.
While Halfords will sell you a bike – if you are prepared to wait a couple of days while they put it together for you, their “Bikehut” staff do not seem to be trained competent enough to be able to take a fully assembled bicycle “off the shelf” and get it road-ready – something that should and does take no more than five to ten minutes – and thus make for happy customers.
Needless to say I do not think I will be using Halfords again in a hurry.
As I wanted a new bicycle, however, on the day I walked further in to the town of Epsom, Surrey, to the local cycles shop, Action Bikes, in Upper High Street.
I can do nothing but heap praise upon the two young gentlemen in the store for their service.
I had been looking for a bicycle for around the £100 or below and the one at Halfords I had my eye on was about £90. Telling one of the guys at Action Bike what I was looking for he immediately showed me a Falcon “Nevada” mountain bike for just a penny under the hundred. Great.
My question as to whether I could take it with me right away was met with the reply: “Sure! Just give about ten minutes to check it over and you are ready to go” and so I did.
This proves, yet again, that you can buy bicycles – or whatever – in a catalog shop or a hypermarket or a place like Halfords but proper bicycle service you will only get from a dedicated cycle shop and proper maintenance and repair only from properly trained competent mechanics who live and breathe bike, like do most of those in proper bike shops.
Action Bikes – Epsom (see advert), can be found at 21-23 Upper High Street, Epsom, Surrey KT17 4QY. Tel. 01372 744116.
They are open every day, seven days a week, with the exception of a few statutory holidays.
Tell them you saw them mentioned here on the Green (Living) Review.
Michael Smith (Veshengro), January 2008
London's New Year Firework Extravaganza Definitely NOT Green
The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who wants to basically force every Londoner into a green, environmentally friendly lifestyle (something, that one must applaud in a way) allows, nevertheless, the use of fireworks to the tune of more than one million pound sterling (US$ 2,000,000 plus) to pollute, with smoke and noise, the London environment on the stroke of midnight on January 1, 2008.
This definitely is not green nor environmentally friendly. The impact on the London environment will have been enormous with one explosion per second. One can just about imagine the stench of gunpowder that will have been lying over London for hours to come.
No, I am not a spoilsport nor a killjoy but, aside from the environmental impact a lot of good – for the environment and for other needy causes – could have been done with this over one million pound sterling of, so one can only assume, London Council Tax Payers' money. Am I glad I am no Londoner.
Just like the annual waste of money for the same things, namely extravagant fireworks, at the occasion of the Thames Day each year, in the days of the GLC. The jump from Red Ken to Green Ken does not appear to have worked that well. Or is it that Mr. Livingstone hopes to go out with a bang, seeing that his job is up for grabs, I understand, this year. Maybe the London electorate will let him know how they fell about the waste of funds that went up in smoke.
I sure would not vote for him (again) if I were a London voter; for someone who is a “do as I tell you but not as I do” politician. Then again, are not most politicians like that?
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), January 2008
