WILL BLUE AND YELLOW MAKE GREEN?

Cross-party political consensus is vital if we are to address our environmental challenges, so CIWEM welcomes the new Conservative-Liberal coalition.

Many of the environmental policies outlined by the new Government have been lobbied for through CIWEM’s ground-breaking manifesto, Fitting the Bill. The Institution especially welcomes their promise to create a low carbon economy through the creation of a green investment bank, feed in tariffs, a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters, as well as their transport policies, such as the introduction of high speed rail. And the replacement of the air passenger duty with a per flight duty sends a clear signal on the environmental impacts on aviation. CIWEM also welcomes the appointment of Chris Huhne MP as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Caroline Spelman as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

However, CIWEM believes the Government must go further and create a low carbon society. CIWEM believes that the environment has to play a fundamental role in our economy, education and agriculture, allowing us to live within environmental limits. The Government must also address issues surrounding biodiversity, waste and continue with the development of a comprehensive water bill, none of which were mentioned in the coalition deal.

CIWEM’s Executive Director, Nick Reeves, says: “The importance of the new Government adopting a strong stance on environmental issues cannot be overstated. Strong political leadership is required to face issues such as the overexploitation of resources, species extinction, population growth and climate change. We also hope that any commitment to nuclear first resolves the issue of what to do with nuclear waste and that it doesn't undermine a wholesale commitment to renewable energy.”

“The environment cannot continue to be sidelined in the manner it was during the parties’ campaigns. Whilst the economy and banking crisis are clearly important issues requiring immediate actions, they are dwarfed in their potential impacts by what climate change could bring about in the future. The new Government is in a unique position: it can set the UK onto a trajectory of an adaptable, low-carbon society; or it can go down in history as the Government that failed to act in time. The public will look to this Government for strong leadership; it is not the time for procrastination.”

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) is an independent professional body and a registered charity, advancing the science and practice of water and environmental management for a clean, green and sustainable world.

Fitting the Bill: A Manifesto for Environmental Action is available to download on http://www.ciwem.org/policy/policies/manifesto09.pdf

Source: CIWEM

IMPACTS OF URBANISATION ON WATER QUALITY

Human interference is causing deterioration in the water quality at Ramsar site Deepor Beel in India, according to a new paper published in CIWEM’s Water and Environment Journal.

The study investigated the impacts of rapid urbanisation on the water quality of the Deepor Beel, a natural, freshwater wetland in India that harbours a large number of migratory aquatic birds and provides livelihoods to local people through fishing and surrounding flora.

The deterioration in the water quality is the cumulative result of human interference through encroachment, extensive fishing, agriculture, habitat destruction, hunting and pollution from pesticides and fertilisers. The Beel has lost much of its importance as a source of income for the people living on the banks as the fish population has declined rapidly. This is the result of the large organic load introduced by municipal wastes.

The water of the Beel is overburdened with inorganic and organic pollutants, beyond permissible limits and guideline values. Although people seldom use the wetland water for drinking, a large number of wild animals, domestic cattle and poultry are dependent on it for their water needs, so some pollutants are entering the human food chain.

Although wetlands are best known for their function as habitat for birds, fish and other wildlife, their less well known hydrological and water quality functions include reducing the severity of flooding and erosion by modifying the flow of water and improving water quality by filtering out contaminants. The study highlights the need for adopting appropriate management plans for restoring the wetland to its pristine state.

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, CIWEM, is an independent professional body and a registered charity, advancing the science and practice of water and environmental management for a clean, green and sustainable world. www.ciwem.org 

“Impact of urbanization on the quality of water in a natural reservoir: a case study with the Deepor Beel in Guwahati City, India” was written by Krishna G. Bhattacharyya and Nibedita Kapil from the Department of Chemistry, Gauhati University, Guwahati, Assam, India.

Source: CIWEM

Cycling & Children

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

When it comes down to cycling it is something that kids just love. It is being said time and again that if you get you child a bicycle you give him the best toy he could ever get.

I remember when I got my first bike and the distances we cycled. My mother – God bless her – would have a fit if she would have ever known.

My first bicycle was a hand-me-down, much as my clothes were, from an army brat. It was a cruise much like on ET – minus the basket and the alien, as the basket was not boyish enough and aliens were difficult to get hold of in those days – and I covered miles on it.

Twenty to thirty miles a day was nothing for us and our parents would have gone mad, I am sure, had they known what we were doing “playing on our bikes”.

Too many children today are being molly-coddled and, aside from the fact that they often are not even allowed to play outside – parents fearing all manner of evil things happening – bicycles seem to be seen as dangerous by parents, much like knives.

Their little darlings could hurt themselves should they fall off.

So they kids sit indoors in a virtual reality world growing fatter by the day with heart attacks happening at age eight.

While spending quite a bit of time – too much actually – in front of a computer I have never outgrown the bicycle nor found driving in any way pleasurable. Cycling, on the other had, is most o the time a pleasure to be even when having to go some distances.

To make cycling safer for children and adults alike in Britain the transport infrastructure must change and be made (more) bicycle centered. And I am sure this is the same in many other countries, though I also know that it is different in other European countries where the bicycle is much more considered than in Britain or the USA.

As far as children are concerned having and riding a bicycle gives them a sense of freedom and independence and this they will value and with it the bike. Give you child a bike and see him or her bloom.

© 2010

Save Water, Save The Planet

By taking small steps to conserve water, you can help the planet in big ways.

Just because water comes gushing out of our faucets, it doesn't mean that it's an infinite resource.

According to the April issue of National Geographic, Americans use about 100 gallons of water at home each day, compared to millions of the world's poorest who subsist on fewer than five gallons of water per day, per person; 46% of people on earth don't have water piped to their homes; women in developing countries walk an average of 3.7 miles to get water; and most alarmingly, in 15 years, 1.8 billion people will live in regions of severe water scarcity.

In the same issue, National Geographic explains this water shortage: The Tibetan Plateau, a huge sheet of ice and snow that feeds all the major rivers that supply about two billion people in more than a dozen countries, is rapidly shrinking due to its sensitivity to global warming.

To save water and put less pressure on nature, we need to be more mindful about how we use water. Switch off the faucet when brushing our teeth, turn off the shower when we shampoo or lather up, install water efficient toilets, dish washers, and washing machines.

There is currently financial incentives in replacing old appliances with Energy Star ones. This incentive extends to include low-flush toilets. If you don't have time or money to replace the toilet, simply bottle a jar or plastic bottle of water and sink it into the toilet's flush tank. This will displace an amount of water that translate to a easy and sound earth friendly practice.

Does a low-flush toilet really matter? The EPA declares that an estimated 4.8 billion gallons of water are flushed down the toilet every day. According to the American Water Works Association, the average household uses 20-28 gallons per day just to flush the toilet. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 took a step in reducing water waste by mandating that all new toilets produced for residential conform to a 1.6 gallon-per-flush (gpf) standard, moving away from conventional 3.5 - 5 gpf models

For those who already know about carbon footprint, learning more about water footprint will heighten awareness of how much water each consumer product and business practice consumes.

A product's water footprint is an inventory of the total amount of water that goes into its manufacture. For a cup of coffee, for instance, it costs about 40 gallons of water to grow the coffee plant and to cool the roasters during processing.

This doens't mean that we need to give up our java, it means that we need to stop assuming that a cup of coffee is just a cup of coffee. Regardless of a cup of coffee's price, we're paying an environmental cost whether we realize it or not.

The water footprint is designed to help consumers and businesses understand just how much water is required to make products.

However, it's a great deal more complicated than that as experts try to consider all the factors involved in tabulating the environmental cost of water usage and wastage.

Counting gallons is not enough. Before consumers can know what to do with the water footprint number, they need to know where that water comes from.

For example, Corn grown in Minnesota depends on rainwater, which is abundant and not otherwise used by people. But in Arizona, corn crops compete with human consumption. The current definition of the water footprint doesn't address these discrepancies.

In a study published in the February issue of the journal Global Environmental Change, an authority on the subject of water footprint named Ridoutt proposed a strategy that takes the original location of the water into account when evaluating the environmental impact of its use in product manufacturing.

To illustrate, Ridoutt chose two common household food items: an 18-ounce jar of Dolmio pasta sauce and a small bag of peanut M&M's. For the pasta sauce, the volume of water needed to grow the tomatoes, sugar, garlic and onions added up to 52 gallons. For the M&M's, the total volume going into all the ingredients was a whopping 300 gallons.

Comparing these conventional water footprint values would lead one to think the bag of M&M's takes a far worse toll on freshwater resources. But that isn't the complete picture, Ridoutt says.

Because tomato plants are typically grown in hot, dry climates, they are watered using irrigation systems that draw from the same locations as human drinking water. On the other hand, the cocoa and peanuts in M&M's are grown in more temperate regions, where the crops absorb rainwater directly from the ground. Taking location into account, Ridoutt says, drastically changes how you think about the water going into your food. According to his calculations, the pasta sauce is about 10 times more likely than the M&M's to contribute to water scarcity.

Ridoutt is not the only one trying to redefine the water footprint. Conservationists around the world are trying to figure out how to best include environmental impact in the footprints so they can be incorporated into food labels. The International Organization for Standardization now has a project underway to tackle this problem using methods similar to Ridoutt's.

Although many researchers support Ridoutt's work, others say we don't yet know enough about global water cycles to accurately measure environmental impact. Organizations such as the Water Footprint Network and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) still believe that simply reporting the total volume of water is currently the best and clearest way to communicate a water footprint.

Whatever the experts say, it's always a good idea not to waste a precious resource like water.

Source: WWF

MAKING SPACE FOR GREEN PLACES

Green infrastructure (GI) can provide sustainable regenerative solutions for the urban challenges we face, according to CIWEM’s new briefing report Multifunctional Urban Green Infrastructure.

With a dramatic increase in land use pressure coming from over 80 percent of people living in urban areas and an increase in temperature due to climate change, it is essential that green infrastructure is embedded into planning and funding priorities.

A variety of green and open space standards have been put in place over the years relating to access and provision, and there are many places in the UK that boast significant amounts of green space, but a lack of attention has been paid to its function.

GI can provide numerous solutions to environmental challenges. Cooling can be achieved through green corridors, open spaces, street trees and green roofs, removing some of the causes of urban heat island effect; urban green space also reduce run-off and increase natural infiltration, whilst the restoration of natural river channels adds to flood prevention; conservation of functional habitats supports biodiversity; and GI can help to ameliorate air pollution through providing more attractive green transport solutions. Community involvement in the design and management of green infrastructure can also add to social inclusion and promote stewardship.

However, green infrastructure is not addressed in an integrated manner. CIWEM’s report calls for the current range of PPSs cross referenced to promote multi-functionality and sustainable approaches to urban planning.

Strategic planning should create networks and corridors for wildlife, incorporating protected habitats and BAP species, whilst Regional Spatial Strategies should be used to embed green infrastructure into regional and local policy. CIWEM hopes to see a presumption for SuDS in new developments, designed and maintained according to CIRIA Guidance C697, and further attention should be paid to retrofitting SuDS to existing properties.

CIWEM also believes that density thresholds are needed for new housing on private gardens to ensure that adequate green infrastructure is provisioned, and planning guidance is required to ensure that local authorities and developers are fully aware of the potential biodiversity value of private gardens. Funding for parks and green space is currently non statutory for local authorities. Whilst investment in grey infrastructure runs into billions of pounds, the value of green space as part of environmental infrastructure for flood prevention and for climate change adaptation needs to be accounted for. CIWEM urges the Government to prevent future cuts to ensure this vital resource is maintained. It is hoped that CIL regulations will provide funding for the creation and maintenance of extensive green infrastructure.

CIWEM’s Director of Policy, Justin Taberham, says: Urban temperatures in some cities are creeping up to levels that could make them unlivable in if climate change projections come to pass. This could have serious implications for public health and urban dwellers. Therefore, CIWEM believes the aim should be to achieve areas of multi-functionality in urban areas where land is valuable and the challenges are greatest. Green infrastructure should be embedded into spatial planning and viewed as part of the wider infrastructure of urban areas.”

This report is aimed at policy-makers and practitioners and discusses the drivers and barriers to increasing green infrastructure provision in our towns and cities.

Multifunctional Urban Green Infrastructure is freely available to download from http://www.ciwem.org/resources

Source: CIWEM

Senate Climate Bill: “Achieving Fast Mitigation” Through Non-CO2 Strategies

Action on black carbon, methane, HFCs and biochar to avoid abrupt climate change

Washington, DC, May 2010 – The Senate climate bill unveiled mid-May 2010 by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) contains a section entitled “Achieving Fast Mitigation” to address non-CO2 climate forcers, including black carbon soot, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). These non-CO2 greenhouse gases and pollutants, together with others like ground-level ozone, make up 40-50 percent of total climate forcing.

One of the non-CO2 forcers’ most important attributes is that they are short-lived in the atmosphere – days to a decade and a half – meaning reductions will produce benefits fast and help to avoid the tipping points for abrupt climate change. Reductions in CO2 on the other hand, while essential for the long term, won’t produce cooling for hundreds of years.

“We’re in a race against time with climate change and it’s becoming more and more important to capitalize on the mitigation opportunities that can produce big benefits quickly,” said Durwood Zaelke , President of the Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development. “Kerry and Lieberman are breaking the mold of CO2-only climate policy with their section to achieve fast mitigation by reducing non-CO2 climate forcers as well as using carbon-negative strategies such as biochar. This is historic. It shows the way to win, in the short term, and in the long term.”

The call to phase down production and use of HFCs – a group of “super” greenhouse gases with hundreds to thousands the global warming potential of CO2 – is similar to the HFC provision in the Waxman-Markey bill and complements the proposal submitted in April by the US, Canada, and Mexico under the Montreal Protocol ozone treaty which, if the Parties reach agreement in November, would result in avoided emissions of at least 100 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent.

Another good reason for targeting non-CO2 climate forcers is that the technology is already available. Environmentally-friendly alternatives are available to replace HFCs in most refrigeration and air conditioning applications, and the majority of black carbon emissions can be reduced through particulate filters in diesel vehicles and cleaner-burning cookstoves in developing countries. This is reflected in the bill’s voluntary grant program to reduce black carbon emissions through the use of particulate filters as well as a study on black carbon emissions to report on both domestic reduction opportunities and how the US can assist with reducing emissions globally.

Methane is a greenhouse gas with 20 times the warming potential of CO2 and also contributes to another climate forcer and health hazard, ground-level ozone. The Senate bill would expand the efforts of the US-led Methane to Markets Partnership to help reduce global methane emissions as well as scale up research on new methods for reducing emissions and capturing methane for energy use.

In order to bring atmospheric levels of CO2 back down to the safer zone of 350 parts per million, and keep global temperature rise below 2˚C, the world will also need to start implementing carbon-negative strategies. Expanding biochar production is one such strategy which could provide up to 3.67 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent in climate mitigation per year by 2040, using only waste biomass, and perhaps as much as 20 to 35 billion tonnes per year if plantation-grown biomass is used. The Kerry-Lieberman bill will “provide grants to up to 60 facilities to conduct research, develop, demonstrate, and deploy biochar production technology for the purpose of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere.”

“These fast-action strategies offer multiple collateral benefits that go far beyond the climate issue,” said Zaelke. “For example, reducing black carbon emissions is important for climate change but it is also a major boon for public health; biochar can sequester CO2, but it can also serve as a natural fertilizer for crops, boosting food production, and can solve some of our agricultural waste problems. Methane can be captured and turned into energy. These are critical co-benefits that should appeal to both sides of the aisle.”

In addition, the bill would require an interagency study on other potential non-CO2 fast mitigation strategies led by the US EPA in collaboration with the Secretary of State and Secretary of Energy. The study would include a focus on measures that are carbon-negative and those that could help increase Arctic and urban albedo to reflect solar radiation.

“Cutting CO2 is essential for the long haul, but fast action right now is key for vulnerable regions like the Arctic and island nations,” added Zaelke. “The bill’s fast mitigation measures show the way to protect them.”

Read the bill here: http://kerry.senate.gov/americanpoweract/intro.cfm

Source: Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development

Game farmers slate new welfare code

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

DEFRA has issued a new code of practice for the welfare of gamebirds, setting out minimum space allowances and other recommendations.

This code was, however, immediately condemned as an "unworkable mess" by the Game Farmers' Association.

The code is expected to come into effect on 1 October 2010 and will include recommendations on providing food and water, and the use of certain types of equipment.

It also specifies space allowances for housing breeding pheasants and partridges, with 1sq m a pheasant, 0.5sq m a grey partridge and 0.29sq m a red large partridge.

Food and farming minister Jim Fitzpatrick said: "The government promised to address concerns about the welfare of gamebirds, and I believe that the new code strikes the right balance between welfare needs and protecting businesses."

But the GFA referred to the new changes to the code as "last-minute" and chairman Jonathan Crow said: "The government's code, as now laid, will spell chaos for the industry unless it can be changed."

He continued: "The code must now be withdrawn and re-worked - a process with which we will be happy to help."

Other organizations represented on DEFRA's Gamebird Working Group, set up in 2007 to draft the code, were equally angry.

Chris Davis, a specialist vet with The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, said that the space allowances could be "disastrous" for gamebird welfare.

"One only needs to imagine a pair of partridges kept for any length of time in a metre-square pen on grass to think of the problems."

Another gamebird vet, Stephen Lister, said: "The emergence of space allowances is particularly confusing, especially as this was not a feature of any of the options in the consultation document. I am not aware of the science on pheasant space requirements, nor why grey partridges need something so different from redlegs."

The GFA also raised the issue that the area limit for partridges is not stated as a minimum so, if a partridge system is either smaller or larger, there is a risk of prosecution.

As it stands, Parliament cannot change the detail in the code at this stage. If it is not withdrawn by the minister or annulled in its entirety by Parliament during the next 40 sitting days, the code will automatically be approved.

It is unclear whether compensation for disruption of livelihoods as a result of the new code would be payable.

Despite the fact that I am neither a game farmer nor have I read the code as yet the truth is that if it is from DEFRA, as it it, the GFA will be correct in when they say that it is an "unworkable mess", for anyone who remembers the MAFF and the gobbledygook that their guidelines use to be will understand what the GFA says.

Having had experience with them in the forestry sector I can very well understand the unhappiness, to use a gentle term, of the game farmers concerned who are supposed to work with and implement the code.

As to the size of pen; do those government people actually know how big a 1m square are but is?

Once again our government and its agents show that they do not live on the same planet as everyone else and are definitely resident in a parallel universe. Which one we do not know but it certainly is nowhere close to Planet Earth, that much is certain.

© 2010

‘WHEEL OF MISFORTUNE’ HIGHLIGHTS DANGERS OF BIOFUEL

Game Show Takes Deadly Turn with Knives Thrown at ‘Orangutan’

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Portsmouth, UK – Staff at Lush Cosmetics are used to going the extra mile to help draw attention to ethical issues, from stripping-off to extol the virtues of unpacked “naked” products to suspending themselves from hooks in windows to draw attention to the killing of sharks; but now one of Lush Portsmouth’s staff will literally put their life on the line to draw attention to the environmental and social cost of biofuels.

On Wednesday 19 May, 2010, Store manager Tom Pearson will be dressed in an orangutan costume, strapped to a spinning “Biofuel Wheel of Misfortune”, while a knife thrower hurls foot-long razor sharp knives at him.

This is going to take place at Lush Cosmetics, Unit 1, Cascades Shopping Centre, Portsmouth, PO1 4RL.

The “wheel is misfortune” is a twisted take on the wheel of fortune game show, with each segment of the wheel documenting the problems with biofuel, as follows:

• Rainforest Destroyed;

• Less Space to Grow Food;

• Massive Carbon Emissions;

• Orangutans Endangered; and

• Land Taken From People.

Every store in the UK will be displaying a wheel of misfortune in the window this week, but only Derby and Portsmouth will have the live knife-throwing events.

Customers will be asked to sign a postcard calling on the government to scrap subsidies (called ROCs) for biofuels, and each person that signs a card will get to a spin of the wheel and a chance to win a limited edition “Get your ROCs off” soap.

Lush have campaigned against palm oil for several years, and there are now plans to build power stations in Britain fuelled by palm oil from Indonesia, where rainforests are being chopped down to make way for palm plantations. Demand for palm oil as a biofuel is now one of the main drivers of deforestation in Indonesia and so Lush have been working with Biofuelwatch to find out how we can stop the burgeoning biofuel industry. Biofuels are also responsible for increasing hunger and poverty in many developing countries. Action Aid have documented how jatropha, a poisonous plant with oil-rich seeds, is being grown as a biofuel in India and Africa, taking land that would otherwise be used to feed people.

Lush Campaigns Manager Andrew Butler says, “The world’s tropical forests are already on the brink of collapse through aggressive logging and clearance for food crops. If the EU and UK government continue to subsidise biofuels for transport fuels and electricity generation then we can kiss goodbye to the last remaining forests and all the people and animals who depend of them for survival.”

Lush’s “Biofuel Isn’t The Answer” campaign will run in all 90 of their UK stores from 17th to 23rd May. For more information please visit www.lush.co.uk

Biofuels, for those that may not know, are made from plants, such as palm fruit, jatropha and corn. These plants are processed into oil which is then burned to generate electricity, produce heat, or are used in transport fuel for cars, trucks and busses.

So what’s wrong with biofuels?, you may rightly ask.

At first glance the idea of moving away from non-renewable and polluting fossil fuels to using plants which you can keep growing to meet our energy needs seems like a good idea. Unfortunately our energy needs are so vast that the amount of land needed to grow fuel is causing massive deforestation, taking land away from food production and is displacing people, increasing poverty and hunger in places like Indonesia, India and parts of Africa and South America.

Couldn’t biofuels help people in developing countries by providing industry and income?

The development charity Action Aid has looked at the effect growing crops biofuel is having on people in developing countries in a report called “Meals per gallon”. Here’s what the author of the report, Tim Rice, had to say: “Biofuels are driving a global human tragedy. Local food prices have already risen massively. As biofuel production gains pace, this can only accelerate. Poor people can spend as much as 80 per cent of their income on food. Even small increases in the price of staples such as maize and wheat mean that many more will become increasingly desperate.”

Turning a food crop like corn into a fuel stock means that the price of corn goes up as rich energy companies start buying it up for fuel, taking it out of the reach of poor people who can on longer afford to feed themselves and their families.

What about non-edible crops like jatropha?

Crops like Jatropha are non-edible and some people claim they can be grown on “marginal” land (i.e. land that is not forest and is not suitable for growing food crops). There are two problems with this, first is that so-called marginal land is usually very important to local people, as it is used for collecting fire wood and medicinal plants. Second, jatraopha requires fertile agricultural land in order to be commercially viable, producing enough oil per hectare to make economic sense for the energy companies to use it. Companies growing jatropha as a biofuel are now using land that would otherwise be used by local people to grow food, adding to the burden of hunger and poverty many already face. Again, Action Aid has documented this widely. Here is Elisa Mongue’s story:

Elisa is a smallholder farmer in Mozambique. She used to grow many different crops on her land including maize, millet and pumpkins. Then the family smallholding, their livelihood and primary source of food, was seized by a company to grow industrial biofuels for our cars. The company did not ask her permission to take the land nor have they given her any compensation. Alisa says, "I don’t have a farm, I don’t have a garden…I have given up because we don’t have anything to eat."

Are biofuels currently used in the UK?

Unfortunately biofuel is already in all of the fuel used in UK petrol stations. Currently the mix is around 3% biofuel in our road fuel, but EU targets aim to increase this first to 5% then to 10%.

There are also plans by a number of companies to use biofuel to produce electricity. This is happening because currently the government given the maximum subsidies to biofuels as a “green” and “sustainable means of producing energy. These subsidies are in the form of Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROCs) and biofuel power stations are eligible for the same amount of ROCs as off-shore wind farms!

Who is campaigning against biofuels?

There are lots of groups campaigning against biofuel, from Friends of the Earth to Greenpeace, Action Aid to Oxfam. Lush are working with a small grassroots group called Biofuelwatch on this issue. Biofuelwatch are run by volunteers who are been instrumental in fighting against every biofuel power plant that’s been put forward in Britain. We’ve already given Biofuelwatch a grant through Charity Pot, and we hope this campaign will help to raise their profile and also make more people aware of this important issue.

What are Lush asking people to do?

The most important thing we can do is to stop the government from subsidising biofuel energy production. At the moment biofuels are profitable and therefore viable because they are given millions in subsidies, which ultimately we all pay for through a levy on our electricity bills. We need to get as many people as possible to insist that the government stop subsidising biofuels by signing our postcard to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Biofuels are not sustainable, not even at the greatest stretch of anyone's imagination and it is but yet another way for the internal combustion engine and the oil industry to be kept artificially alive.

I have said it before and will do so again: We must find different ways and electric vehicles must be a start when it comes to the car and van. We also may have to consider once again how we travel and where are stuff is made and how it comes to us.

For more info visit www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

© 2010

SlingSax from Envirosax – Product Review

Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

SlingSax are a handy, hands-free accessory for busy people on the go. Easy tie-together handles allow SlingSax to be worn long and diagonally to rest on the hip, and the handles can be adjusted to suit different body shapes.

The SlingSax is a very stylish messenger-style bag which is equally suited for men and women. The bag is easy to deploy and easy to roll up again as well.

The SlingSax can be worn in a variety of ways and the only difference between a messenger bag per se and the SlingSax is that the latter does not have a flap.

The sleek design, however, suits busy urban dwellers who need their hands free while negotiating buses, trains and the daily grind. Convenient, stylish and featuring recycled content, SlingSax are the epitome of contemporary eco conscious living.

The SlingSax is made from RPET, that is to say that it has a 45% recyclced PET contents.

Envirosax Pty Ltd has gone into partnership with Unifi Inc of the USA to make its own Envirosax RPET. The Envirosax RPET is a mix of 55% flat filament polyester and 45% Repreve® polyester.

The 45% Repreve® in the ENVIROSAX RPET is made up of 100% recycled product, with 80% pre-consumer and 20% post-consumer recycled polyester content (mainly plastic bottles).

The key point however, is that Envirosax Pty Ltd can verify and prove that the 45% Repreve® is in fact 100% recycled content, as it has been tested and certified by the only company in the world able to accurately do this - Scientific Certification Systems (SCS).

Another nice product from Envirosax and I, for one, love it.

© 2010

Full Disclosure Statement: The GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW received no compensation for any component of this article.

Solar speakers, solar lights, solar chargers ...

... are they any use?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The answer here must be manifold for it depends where they are used and how but ... and here come the but ... they only really are efficient in countries where there is lots of sunlight.

I have made that experience with the BOGO Light. The MKI is perfectly OK charging in UK light conditions, bar in winter, but the MKII really needs much more direct sun and lots of it.

Also, and that is what many manufacturers, vendors and writers don't tell you is that when it comes to the lights and chargers they don't just run on the solar; they charge internal batteries. And yes, that also applies to many of the cell phone chargers and such. Some are just solar panels but others do have back-up batteries in them and the charge goes via them to the phone, for instance.

Recently one vendor stated that he wished that everything would be solar powered now that the government has introduced a way of making solar panels pay for themselves, especially toys, cameras and phones.

He then continues: “Apparently we use over 600 million batteries every year, but we're rubbish at recycling them. Since February of 2010, by law, battery retailers have to take old ones back, which is good news, because they are pretty toxic.”

While this may be thus the problem is also that solar, as indicated, does not always work and what does he think the power actually comes from in the end? Rechargeable batteries built into the device often, and that in such a way that they cannot even be replaced.

When it comes to flashlights it has occurred to me that standard rechargeable batteries are much better than any fancy solar lights and if one does need an alternative way of changing them, let's think of one.

One thing to remember when we talk about rechargeable batteries and flashlights; the batteries lose charge over time when they are not used and rechargeables are not much use for long-term storage emergency flashlights as you may find them drained when you need the light.

Crank-handle flashlights also, by the way, have a battery or batteries in which to store the charge and the reliability of them still leaves much to be desired of both the lights and the batteries that are built into them especially. Again, the batteries are built-in and cannot be removed or replaced. Obsolescence of the device factored in again and the lifespan is about twelve to eighteen months, if lucky.

If you want to use solar or crank-handle power for recharging then, in my opinion, recharge removable batteries and use those. They can, at times, in the UK, gotten cheaply at Lidl stores, for instance and the next time they have them again I shall buy a whole load of them. I missed out on that last time.

© 2010