Green (Living) Review

Autumn and harvest are certainly coming; according to Lakeland

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Autumn and harvest are certainly on their way; the Lakeland “in the kitchen” autumn catalog will be quicker though and not as much hard work.

The catalog is jam packed with everything that you will need to process the harvest from your grow your own patches and for baking, cooking, and everything in between.

They also have a great range of steamers, remembering that steaming food is probably the best and healthiest way of cooking.

The catalog should have arrived with most customers by now and it is worth a serious perusal for sure.

Also check out for the Lakeland stores near you, as there are a fair number of them now dotted around the UK by now.

TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s victory in ethical fishing fight

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Fishermen will be banned, under new rules and guidelines, to become legislation, of the EU, from throwing dead catch back into the sea in the most radical reform of their industry in 40 years.

The shake-up completes a victory for campaigning TV chefs and their 700,000 supporters who signed a petition demanding seafood is produced more ethically and it will end a practice which sees 4 million tonnes of edible fish, including threatened species such as cod and haddock, being thrown back every year because of quota rules.

TV chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall said he was delighted that the European Commission was implementing changes and said: “The current system is bankrupt, as the compulsory discarding of millions of tonnes of fish every year demonstrates.”

Fishermen throw back up to 80 per cent of their catch because the fish are the wrong size or because of rules on quotas, sending stocks in the North Sea plunging to less than ten per cent of post-war levels.

In addition to that there are the kind of fish that are being thrown back that are not, generally, on the menu because people do not know and understand those fish. Pollock is one of those and, as far as I am concerned, I prefer Pollock to Cod.

On Wednesday, July 13, 2011, the EC has been outlining reforms to its common fisheries policy to limit catches to sustainable levels by 2015.

It admits some fishermen will lose their jobs but says that without action to protect stocks, the losses will be even worse.

The proposals will include providing support for fishermen to retire and a more scientific approach to managing stocks.

MEPs have 12 months to consult on the plans before they are made law next year.

Liberal Democrat MEP and founder of the Fish For The Future group Chris Davies said: “Our waters are capable of supporting many times more fish than now exist. It is not too late for the situation to be reversed, but we have now reached a crisis point.”

And, we must not forget that, if the public can be educated to eating other, equally good edible fish, such as the afore-mentioned Pollock, we can reverse things. The stocks of threatened fish can be permitted to recover while the consumer eats the fish of which there still is an abundance.

Like in other aspects management is the key, and this is true for fishing grounds as it is for farms and game estates.

However, man has gone around catching fish and killing deer and other animals as if there was a supply that would go on ad infinitum. When someone then points out that this is not the case counterclaims are made stating that the stocks of fish (or whatever) are not actually low or threatened.

No one wanted to believe that the Grand Banks fishing grounds off Labrador were under threat until, suddenly, there were no longer any cod to be had there. This is now a couple of decades past and still the stocks are nigh non existent.

Nature is not something that we can go on exploiting without impunity.

British Columbia man faces six months in jail for growing food

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

What on earth is happening with councils and such like, wishing to sue people for growing food? Has the world gone mad?

Lantzville farm before and after image - Image: Dirk Becker

Only recently we heard about the story of a woman in Michigan who is facing jail time for planting a garden and, many of us, I am sure, may have thought that that was just an exception. Alas this does not appear to be the case.

Sadly, this type of heavy-handed by-the-letter enforcement of bylaws exists at the same time as people embrace urban agriculture as a viable source of high quality nutrition.

A man in Lanztville, British Columbia is facing a similar battle with the local government after converting his 2.5 acre "residential" lot from a gravel pit into a thriving organic farm. His refusal to "cease all agricultural activity" could land him six months in jail. And this is total and utter idiocy. But, then again, many local authorities seem to act in such a stupid manner.

Acting on a single complaint from a disgruntled neighbor the regional district sent a letter to Dirk Becker giving him 14 days to "remove the piles of soil and manure from the property." The quoted bylaw states that property owners will ensure their property doesn't become or remain "unsightly". Specifically this refers to "the accumulation of filth, discarded materials or rubbish, which includes unused or stripped automobiles, trucks, trailers, boats, vessels, machinery, mechanical or metal parts." Admittedly, it can be argued that, to some a manure pile could be considered "filth". But, considering how Becker regenerated his 2.5 acres this characterization is an insult.

From these matters that have come to light recently the world seem to be going mad and that at a time when we need more people – in fact everyone of us – growing as much food as possible for personal use and even for passing on to others, by barter or sale.

Food security is what is at stake but our governments do not seem to understand this.

Timber harvesters & sustainability or better the lack of it

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Timber harvesters are not sustainable in their use and the question arises as to FSC certification as to sustainability as well here when we consider this practice.

I am no Luddite but harvesters and even chainsaws in forestry are not sustainable; definitely not in the long run.

Harvesters also cause serious damage to the forest environment through their activities.

When you consider the size of those machines, the weight and the amount of fuel they require sustainability certainly does not rank high. And the use of such machines also turns the lumber thus produced into a not very sustainable wood.

From an ethical standpoint the machine also is a questionable tools as it replaces many jobs and despite that timber products have not come down in price.

In many places even tractors for pulling out the felled trees are being replaced – once again – by (heavy) horses and in some instances even the felling is being done by old-fashioned methods, such as the two-man crosscut saw and the axe.

The truth is that, with petroleum-based fuels getting more and more expensive, the time may not be all that far off that we will need to be doing things like this “by hand” and with horses again, rather than by the heavy machines used today.

The certification of any wood product must also include in which way the timber was being felled and whether that was done in a sustainable way.

The greenest government ever, Cameron said

What happened to it now?

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Every step we take the Con-Dem coalition – with the Tories in the very lead – is cutting about every green law that there is and was. Now yet another one is falling to the axe. We cannot carry on like this. We need more green laws rather than less in Britain. This definitely is not the greenest British government ever.

While it is true that the Con-Dem coalition government has inherited the biggest deficit in government finance ever, nigh on, from the previous Labor (and all the old Labor men and women are rotating in their graves) administration that ran Britain for well over ten years and ran everything into the ground.

However, the fact that there is no money in the coffers does not mean that the green laws should be abandoned. On the contrary rather and we should be pushing for eco-laws more and more. It does not seem to work any other way. But those laws also must be sensible ones and not the kind of trying to penalize householders for not recycling enough by putting cameras into wheelie bins.

We need positive green laws that will – properly – encourage people to go green and do the right thing but we do not need to spy in them and penalize them.

But there must also be green laws that put it on businesses to clean up their act and that also means that we need a law that will stop, finally, the export of waste to Third World countries such as West Africa where our E-waste ends up for recycling.

One green law after the other, especially the ones that would sort our businesses of all kinds and bring them in line to do the green thing, is being abandoned by this “greenest ever” government.

Instead of doing the right thing and green thing this “greenest ever” government is giving businesses permits to pollute; a blank check actually, permitting them to pollute often without the slightest bit of danger of being hit on the head for it.

In the same way the British Con-Dem coalition government under David Cameron is going down the nuclear route, a route that is fraught with many dangers and serious implications for future generations, instead of even considering – properly – the alternative renewable sources and especially a change in the way we produce and use electricity.

The greenest government ever certainly is doing little to nothing to live up to its name and claim and as long as certain vested interest lobby groups hold sway nothing will ever change, period.

Charity begins at home

British overseas aid in an age of austerity

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

To most people in Britain the government claim that giving lots of aid to various Third World countries, even while cuts are being made everywhere at home, protects our borders and keeps us save from terrorism at home certainly does not wash, and neither does it with me.

None of those places that we are pumping money into, which often disappears before it ever can do any good, will ever come to our aid is and when we need help. Charity begins at home and not in some far flung corner of the globe.

Libya is not our business and neither is Afghanistan and especially not drought and hunger in Africa, e.g. Somalia or wherever. There is hunger and poverty enough right here at home to get on with and keep busy for a very long time to come.

People in Britain certainly do not agree with the ring fencing of the Foreign Aid budget and the fact that we are sending funds abroad for often dubious development projects while people at home are losing their jobs and children live below the poverty line.

If individuals and companies wish to support good causes and charities working in development then that is up to them and that is charity proper but the country, the government, has no business in sending tax monies abroad as “development aid”.

Neither does the government have any business being involved in a conflict that we have created by invading the various countries, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is no threat to the realm coming from those tinpot outfits over there and if then the defense of the realm begins in the territorial waters and not in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither are part of the realm and it is the British Army's brief to “defend the realm” and not to “go forth and conquer”.

We are not becoming safer on the street of Britain because of our military involvement in the various places, the opposite is rather the case. And development aid does not do anything either.

Our armed forces should be based in such as way as to be able to defend the real, as it should be, but not be dying for no good reason on some foreign field, in the “defense” of oil, for that is what it is all about.

Charity begins at home, as does the defense of the realm.

I rest my case, it is getting heavy...

How celebrate Recycle Glass Month

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

September is Recycle Glass Month – in the United States ate least – and, at the time of writing in the middle of July, it is not far off now. But why have an entire month dedicated to recycling glass? What’s so great about glass recycling?

Lynn Bragg, President of the Glass Packaging Institute, has a few good reasons.

“Glass is 100 percent recyclable, and can be recycled endlessly with no loss in quality or purity. An estimated 80 percent of recovered glass containers are made into new glass bottles,” she says.

SO, you are still not convinced? Don’t worry, she has more reasons.

“Recycling glass containers provides for significant production efficiencies and environmental benefits,” she says. “For every six tons of recycled container glass used, a ton of carbon dioxide is reduced. Fewer raw materials are also consumed, and using recycled glass extends the life of plant equipment, such as furnaces.”

OK, now we have established that it is important to recycle glass, and you may have a bunch of glass containers laying around that house that you might not even think about. While wine bottles and peanut butter jars might quickly come to mind, all glass containers are recyclable, and many of the smaller and more difficult to think of ones more often than not wonder into the trash rather than the recycling bin.

Take for instance, glass containers for cosmetics and perfume; these are recyclable.

“Even glass containers that hold candles are recyclable,” Bragg says. “And don’t forget to recycle glass bottles and jars that hold soups, sauces, condiments and picnic favorites like pickles and olives.”

Speaking of condiments, Heinz recently re-released its ketchup in the iconic glass bottle, so now you can recycle that, too.

“Heinz ketchup was brought back in the 14-ounce glass bottle in response to consumer demand. We’re pleased to see major brands revisiting glass this summer as a way to appeal to their customers,” says Bragg. “Consumers obviously know the benefits of glass for maintaining the quality, purity and taste of products. We’re hopeful these companies will continue offering their products in glass for the foreseeable future.”

Bragg also offered some tips to make sure you’re recycling glass properly.

First of all, make sure you know your local recycling rules. If it’s required by your local recycling program, separate glass by color or from other recyclables.

Make sure you’re not contaminating the recycling stream. Keep out non-container glass, like light bulbs and mirrors, and other contaminants, like metal caps and neck rings, to ensure the glass you recycle can be used to make new glass bottles.

Remember that ceramics, porcelain, Pyrex and dishware are the most destructive contaminants for glass recycling and can damage recycling and manufacturing equipment. So, never place them in your recycling bins.

Now you are all set to recycle glass properly in celebration for Recycle Glass Month in September.

On the other hand, you could, before considering recycling for this or that class container, including bottles, to look for ways to reuse and upcycle them. Reuse and upcycling is better still than recycling, as it does not have to destroy the container in order to make a new one.

We should also pressure our politicians to rethink the way things are done and lobby for a return of deposits on glass containers so that they are brought back to the stores to the go back to be refilled.

In addition to that it would be good if we could get back to being able to get bottles refilled, whether with wine, or beer or even ketchup.

Avoid disposable utensils and paper products

How to avoid disposable utensils and paper products

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Summertime is the season when disposable products look tempting. Paper napkins, plastic cutlery and throw-away plates are tempting for backyard dinners and picnics – but they are not worth the waste nor the expense.

Do you ever think how much money you spend and how much waste you generate by using disposable products day in and day out.

One of the easiest things to do is just stop using paper towels, whether to dry your hands or whatever else. On the other hand if you have to use paper in the kitchen then use toilet roll. It is as efficient and often much cheaper than paper kitchen towels.

For use in general create some reusable napkins by ripping up old towel or old sheets and, if you can sew, hem them and viola you are all set to go. Cloth napkins are a great alternative to paper napkins.

For dining outside get some plates from thrift stores, and other such places, and those can often be had for “pin money”. You may wish to have them in complimentary colors but not necessarily matching designs; then again, who cares about color and designs. Those can stay outside on the porch and can be used whenever you are eating outside. Seeing that those plates are acquired it does not matter if one gets broken; they can be easily and cheaply be replaced.

Do the same for flatware. Instead of getting plastic (or even wood or bamboo) buy knives, forks and spoons at thrift stores and charity shops, again they can often be had for pennies, and put them in a glass jar or a tin can and you can leave them outside on the porch in the same way as the plates ready for whenever you want to eat outside.

I even do this with my cutlery for general usage. It all has come to me in the main as individual pieces from charity and thrift shops for very little money and I have even found quite a fair number of spoons, forks and knives left behind in the park from picnics. Waste not want not is and has always been my motto.

Disposables are bad for your wallet and bad for the Planet; let's use reusables.

Feed your tomatoes well

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Now, with the tomatoes growing – in most places bar my garden, it would seem – ensure you don't forget to feed your tomatoes well. We demand a lot from them and they need to thus be kept well fed too.

It also pays to remember potatoes are in the same family as tomatoes so you can always give your main crop a boost with a dose of tomato feed.

While this is a little late to mention, I know, but ideally you should not grow potatoes and tomatoes in too close a proximity, and that is despite and because they are related.

Both are prone to blight but it is, in my experience, tomatoes that catch it much easier that do potatoes but, once your tomatoes have got it and they are close enough to the potatoes they will pass it on to the latter and destroy the crop.

Another thing to remember with regards to potatoes and tomatoes is that the green “fruit” of potatoes are poisonous and are not (green) tomatoes.

Both are in the deadly nightshade family and the green fruit on the potatoes are actually the poisonous fruit of that plant. Tomatoes too, at times, has a green deadly nightshade fruit. It is for that reason that I do not recommend taking green tomatoes off a vine too early. A poisonous “apple” might creep in otherwise.

Talking of tomatoes, per se, considering the problems I am having this year with them, and the problems I have had in the last two years, I might consider giving up on them, unless a real good one comes along, and concentrate on other veg.

Ten million tons of newspaper are still tossed into the landfills

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Ten million (10,000,000) tons of newspapers are still tossed into landfills in the United States, according to reports, and I am certain that Britain and the rest of the European Union are not far behind that figure.

That is an awful lot of paper, and thus tree matter, which could either be recycled, and if only for shredded paper as animal bedding, or which, better still, would not even be generated as waste.

Who really, in today's world, still needs to read newspapers on dead trees, that is to say, on paper printed? Still we do, I know.

In London we get a fair number of free – to the reader at least – newspapers such as the Metro, which is distributed as railways and underground stations, an FT Lite, and in the afternoon distributed on the streets, the Evening Standard.

If I am in London, I must say, I do often pick up a couple of them. They do often give me some food for an article or two, though I never seem to find the time and opportunity to read them properly on the train; I am too busy reading books for review.

But as to news, unless local, which again comes via (a) free (local) newspaper(s), I do not use paper versions of newspapers in any way, shape or form. I cannot see a reason for them and have no use for them, in this digital age.

It is, therefore, strange to see, to me at least, that still there are so many newspapers going out to the punters. How many, I wonder, do actually get read in any proper way?

With an RSS reader subscription – which cost nothing – most news is instantly available to read online or, with the right software, to turn into a storable document format for reading later, or even printing, if so desired, such as PDF.

The same is true for magazines. I don't subscribe to any of them anymore – bar the one that comes with my membership of the Forestry Society – as I can get most of the material that I would want to read a specialist magazine for online from a variety of sources.

Yes, true, some material is behind a “pay wall” but then, well, that does not bother me either for there is always somewhere else where the same information or news article is found for free.

Coming back to the issue of ten million tons of newspapers in landfills, however. Here we have a case in point where, as weaning people off the paper is not going to be that quick, recycling comes in and where the municipalities need to do more to recycle the papers, even if only for animal bedding.

Archive