by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The paper industry's total environmental footprint is estimated to be three times higher than that of the aviation industry and Europeans use four times as much paper as the global average.
These figures have led more than 50 European NGOs to join forces to urge individuals and businesses to shrink their paper use.
The Shrink campaign, launched recently, is working with twenty major European companies to help them reduce the amount of paper that they are using unnecessarily.
People are also being encouraged to pledge to cut their consumption on the campaign's website through simple actions such as signing off junk mail and using double-sided printing when possible.
While signing off junk mail is supposed to work I also know of people who have tried doing that and, for some reason, their junk mail volume has tripled. Mind you, this is in the USA.
While it is annoying to receive all that junk mail, and in the UK it is actually the Royal Mail that is one of the main culprits of the junk mail in that they carry the “to the householder” letter and it is part of Royal Mail's advertising revenue; that is to say that Royal Mail gets paid for every letter they shove through your mailbox, I have found that I just make use of all the paper that comes in – amongst those are paper press releases for instance – and reuse the paper as and where possible, especially if there is a plain back. This reuse does not just include using the paper as scrap paper and drafts paper but up to and including printing our business cards on them. Practical recycling, thank you!
The network of NGOs, known as the European Environmental Paper Network (EEPN), said using less paper will have a wider impact than simply reducing the number of trees cut down to make paper. And, theoretically, the less trees cut down to make paper the more trees there will be to reduce the CO2 impact. However, it would be nice if that would work like that. The greatest problem is, though, that the trees that are there, many of them at least, have been planted for the paper industry.
On the other hand is the fact that the paper industry consumes a huge amount of water and a huge amount of energy, so the climate change impacts of this are also staggering. Estimates are that the paper industry globally is responsible for about three times the emissions to that of the aviation industry. Many of us in the environmental lobby all get very upset about the impact of people flying everywhere, but most of us have not even as much as calculated the impact of something like paper, which we use every day, and which many of us in the “movement” even often do not use efficiently.
Virgin paper can use between 6.3kg (13.9 pounds) and 9.8kg (21.6 pounds) of CO2 equivalent to produce each kilogram (2.2 pounds) of paper and its production can also have huge social consequences for people living in the developed world.
However, having said this, a great majority of paper is derived, as wood source, from FSC approved sustainable forests, many of which only exists because of the paper industry. This is something that we must bear in mind while we advocate the reduction of the use, or better the inefficient use, of paper. If we would stop paper production from wood then, of this we can be sure, those forests will no longer be managed and may be felled and then the land used for other purposes. Purposes that may have a much greater impact on the environment and the climate.
Alongside the global Shrink campaign, the EEPN in the U.K. is targeting some of the country's biggest paper consumers, such as banks, magazine publishers, catalogue companies and supermarkets, to encourage them to use less paper in packaging, mailings and publications.
In today's world, with the great majority of us all having computers, personally I find it ludicrous that so many catalogues and other such publications are still produced on real paper and mailed out rather than in virtual paper, as PDFs, and then burned onto CD or stuck on a USB stick.
This is the same with press releases that I receive, whether on a trade or other show or from the companies direct. It is all too often on paper and then, very often on coated paper. Such coated paper is basically laminated with a very thin film of plastic that then makes the paper basically non-recyclable.
The EEPN said they hoped organizations would realize that the move could benefit not just the environment, but their bottom line too.
Paper that is used inefficiently is costing a awful lot of money to do that and companies will realize, if pointed into the right direction, that this will affect their bottom line, ultimately.
© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Shrink paper use Europe is being urged
Burning more wood for the greater good
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The idea of using wood for fuel might not be new, but, according to Government, we need to burn more to take full advantage of the environmental benefits.
Who would have thought it that the British government wakes up to such revolutionary ideas as using wood and the world to the environmental benefits of burning (waste) wood.
Environment minister Joan Ruddock is pushing the potential of burning waste wood in an effort to divert the degradable material from landfill and make the most of its embodied energy.
The significant carbon and energy benefits of recovering energy from waste wood are detailed in a new information report on the sector that surveys the activities of producers, aggregators and users of waste wood.
Recycling and energy markets for clean, virgin wood have been growing in recent years but waste wood has been a largely overlooked resource.
While every homesteader in the USA and the UK has been talking about burning waste lumber for years for heating and cooking the rest of the world is just waking up, it would appear, to the fact that we throw a great resource into the landfill, namely waste wood.
However, before we burn those old pallets and (other) building lumber offcuts we should also have a look as to whether the same wood could not first be used for other products before, finally, after finishing its life, being burned in homes and power stations. In the latter instance, and the power stations is something the UK government is talking about, we all know, the ideal places where to use such waste lumber is in micro power plats, and ideally CHP units.
According to Government statistics up to 10 million tonnes of waste wood is being produced in the UK each year, most of which goes to landfill. That is a lot of wood. I wonder how many cords or cubic meters of virgin wood that equates to.
Ms Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change and Waste, said: "It has been estimated that recovering energy from 2 million tonnes of waste wood could generate 2600GWh electricity and save 1.15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, with greater benefits available by recovering heat as well as power.
"This is a huge potential resource that is being wasted."
Government acknowledges that the majority of waste wood is likely to be treated, painted or otherwise contaminated but argues that with more combined heat and power plants which meet the requirements of EU directives on the burning of contaminated waste, there is a huge potential for this waste stream.
Well, sure the wood will be treated, and probably pressure treated even, but under good heat most of those compounds burn off rather harmlessly. Why is no one actually mentioning this fact? Care needs to be taken, and we are all aware of that, I am sure, of wood that has been creosoted (and I mean where real creosote has been used) or waste wood of the likes of telegraph poles and wooden railroad ties. Both are dipped in boiling tar as mean of preserving them and the tar in such wood when being burned can cause real problems, as I can attest to, having had a chimney fire from burning railroad ties. Luckily the chimney was a metal one in a trailer home and was one of the double lined ones. No damage done and in fact in that case the heat clean-burned the chimney.
© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Eco Towns – a green oasis or a mirage?
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Are those “Eco Towns” that are currently being proposed a knight in shining armor or are they but misguided desperation?
I must admit that I am not a house builder, a banker or an energy magnate. I am neither a property developer, a broker or an oil buyer. Nor did I benefit from the last umpteen years of house price rising, simply because I have never owned a house, and have been renting always. Nor have I, so far, inherited a house from someone (anyone out there who wants to leave me one in their will?). Also, I have never every even gone down the line of changing my energy supplier to get a better deal and a lower rate. I might get tempted if one came along that would be truly green, so to speak, but so far all I have seen is hype and lies, such as from N-Power. I also do not really have to worry, personally, as to the cost of gasoline or diesel as I do not own nor drive a motor vehicle of any kind.
Having said all that, however, I cannot, but, help noticing that there are some pretty serious goings on in the markets at this moment in time.
Share prices of the major British house builders have fallen by up to, and in some cases by more than, 80% during the last twelve months. There are banks issuing rights calls in order to bolster their threadbare balance sheets and refill their coffers left, right and center and one major bank in Britain – Northern Rock – has already gone to the wall, basically. There there are the major oil suppliers and controllers of this substance who seem to be downing the last few drinks at the bar before time is called. There is all that going on and in addition to that food prices are spiralling ever upwards for the first time in years. These are scary times indeed and many people, here in Britain, and in other developed nations, such as and especially the United States are very worried as to where this is going. It is not, it would appear, the politicians that do the worrying, but the people on the grassroots level. The rise in prices of gasoline and diesel in the United states has led farmers to return to mule power, for instance, and their fuel is about half (and that is a lot by US standards) in comparison to the costs in the United Kingdom.
As prices fluctuate in every direction imaginable and perceivable it is very hard to see any real end to it, presently. So far, to my knowledge, there has not been a single mainstream statement, figure or proposal that clearly points the way back to what was getting to be a very comfortable status quo. When one reads some of the broadsheet newspapers lately it appears to be a page by page roller coaster with one column flirting with the idea that we are heading for global collapse immediately followed by a reassuring, though often more than shaky, article proposing that an end date to the debacle is in sight.
Perhaps in these turbulent times there is a shining knight on the horizon? Is he not right now approaching on his horse? Look it is Sir "Eco Town", the savior of us all. So, at least, we are lead to believe, here in the UK.
"Eco" - what an interesting word. But who really knows what it means exactly? Is it environmentally friendly? Is it fair trade? Is it the new "green"? Is it more than "green"? Is it all of the above? I personally do not really know even despite the fact that I write on “green” issues, and neither, I am sure, do most people. And I am not even sure that the government knows either. At times “eco” seems to be a fashionable term that can be strapped to any concept or plan with the immediate effect of breathing new life and viability in to it., whether or not it can do anything really. Much like the “Eco Button”, the ever so highly praised and hyped tool to reduce your PC's “carbon footprint” (oh, how I hate that word).
How fast are Eco Towns coming to our rescue? Well, not all that fast at all. The first of them, if we are lucky, will be ready in 4-6 years, but knowing how any projects end up in this country it is more like 6-10 years, I should think. Aside from everything else, those “Eco Towns” are going to need an awful of a lot of energy to bring them into being. In addition to that we all will have to buy into the concept for it to work; we have to buy those houses in those “Eco-towns” and move in.
So, once those much-praised “Eco-towns” are built then what do we do? Re we to desert our existing towns and all move into Eco-towns? What good will they be when we have Eco-towns? How will we all cook our tea and whatever in boring old normal town? What about all the old roads, shops, internet cables, phones, sewers, drains, water pipes, electric cables, central heating systems, high streets, the rest of the infrastructure and all that – I do not think that I need to go on? What about all of that and everything else?
First of how many of those “Eco-towns” are there being built? Will it be a chosen 50,000, or whatever the small number may be, who get to live in Eco-town luxury whilst the rest of us all will have to tough it out outside the walls? I suppose these Eco-towns will also be immune to the tempestuous markets? All the food, energy and shelter comfortably catered for within the confines of those gated communities?
The “Eco-Towns” are, the way I see it, nothing but another gimmick of this government. Another silly idea to make themselves look “green”.
Let us “green” our existing villages, towns and cities and through empowerment regain a sense of community and more than just a sense of... let us, in fact, go a create community, real community.
Gordon Brown found himself in the firing line again in the papers not so long ago that for daring to ask the North Sea oil producers to up production and then hinting that nuclear power is the way forward.
The opposition, on the other hand, surprisingly, were pointing out that if 1 in 3 houses were retrofitted with micro-generation and the energy market decentralized we would not need the nuclear power stations.
This does strike a chord with me as empowerment is the fastest way to enable a group – in this case a country – to achieve anything. It also strikes a chord with me as I have been advocating, ever since it made sense to me after reading “Small is Beautiful” just that, namely, small decentralized power generation plants but everyone I have ever spoken to in the field of energy production and government just benignly smiled at me as if I was an imbecile for suggesting that.
Micro-generation and decentralized energy production is, in my opinion, the only way forward. Neither oil, gas or coal, and not even nuclear – unless we can go down the fusion route – will help us. The infrastructure also if way too vulnerable. Local generated heat and power, however, does not suffer from those problems.
The building in of resilience to our communities is what we must do. We must look to build communities that will smooth the transition from an oil dependent community to an alternative form of energy, all the while seeking to drastically reduce the amount of CO2 in response to the changing climate.
And there is also more than one problem that I have with those “Eco-Towns” a-la British Labor (now there is a joke) government (and here is yet another of those joke – government, as they couldn't govern a school let alone a country), but one especially, and that is the fact that, according, so the British government would like everyone to believe, the Freiburg model, about 1/2 of the residents in such “Eco-Towns” will nor be PERMITTED to own a car. Duh? They government is going to order and compel one half of the residents – which half precisely – that they cannot and must not and will not be allowed to own a car? Welcome to 1984. A little late, I know, but arrived it has. The lie also lies in them claiming it to be according to the Freiburg model: in Freiburg it is more than 50% who have chosen – CHOSEN by their own free will – not to want to have a car. Slight difference, is it not. Freely chosen not to have a car or being told you cannot have a car and will not be allowed to have a car. Now, I do not own or drive a car and as a cyclist I would be happy to have a few cars less on the road but... to my dying day I will defend anyone's right to own a car if they so wish.
So, how are we going to mobilize and motivate our communities to vacate their current abodes for pastures greener (or rather "eco") next door without a sense of community? It is community that makes up a village, a town, a neighborhood. What if community could regain itself in situ and can, in fact, "eco" and “green” the existing towns? What is to say that we cannot build resilient sustainability in to our existing neighborhoods without involving the oil intensive construction of yet more estates, and towns, even though those may be “eco” ones?
Personally, I do not think that we need the fabled “Eco Towns”. Instead, what we need are empowered villages, towns and city neighborhoods; real communities of people of all types, ages and classes.
I think that, rather than even thinking about those gimmick towns, those so-called “Eco-towns”, for that is all that those are, gimmicks, we should, nay we must, “green” our existing villages, towns, city neighborhoods, and create real local green communities in the existing places that there are currently. There is NO NEED whatsoever for such “Eco-towns”. They are neither a “green oasis” nor a “knight in shining armor”. They are, in fact, a waste of time and money.
If we go down the road that the current British government seems to have embarked upon, namely that of constructing such “Eco-towns”, we – one – will be wasting lots of money and especially energy and resources and – two – the possibility of using such monies in regenerating our existing villages and towns, our existing neighborhood and “green” those. It can be done, and more than likely a lot easier and a lot better than building those new towns.
© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Moratorium on biofuel 'would lower food prices'
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
A moratorium on grain and oilseed-based biofuels could slash food prices by up to 20% within the next two years, according to leading agricultural researchers.
Leading figures from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) suggest that suspension of production of grain and oilseed-based biofuels this year would reduce corn prices by about 20% and wheat by about 10% in 2009-10.
During a briefing on global food prices organised by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), a group of international experts backed such a moratorium.
However, they argued that other crops, such as sugarcane, could still be a valuable source of biofuels.
Joachim von Braun, director general of the IFPRI, told reporters he was not advocating a general moratorium on all biofuels because, as he said, there are biofuels and there are biofuels – there are good biofuels and bad ones.
He added that the waste-based and sugarcane-based biofuel production can be very good and the opportunities of agriculture being an energy producing sector should not be in principle discarded.
His suggestion was backed by Robert Zeigler, director general of the International Rice Research Institute.
"If we are talking about biofuels derived from maize, soybean oil, palm oil, yes I think I would support a moratorium on that," he said, “but if we are talking about biofuels generated from sugarcane or other non-consumable plant products then I would not support a moratorium there."
One can but wonder why we are toying with the idea of food-based, e.g. grain-based, biofuels in the first place. The Brazilians have shown the way for years and years – decades by now, if I am not mistaken, that ethanol can be had from other materials, including, so I understand, grass clippings. Now, if the latter is the case, I am sure that with all the grass clipping on people's lawns being wasted en entire industry could be created.
Multi-fuel engines can quite happily, like the diesel engines designed by and for military vehicles, including the Humvee, burn waste cooking oils without any loss in power and range, and this without the oil even having to be converted in any way. All that needs to happen is the bits filtered out. Why is it not being done.
How can we even contemplate to grow and use food crops for the production of fuel for vehicles while people go hungry and prices go to unaffordable levels? The powers that be apparently can do so without blinking an eyelid.
Palm oil for biofuels is an anathema in the first place as the growing of the palm for said oil is devastating large areas of rainforests, areas that we cannot permit to be lost.
Why, therefore, is nothing done to develop fuels from other sources, properly? Why are people who do their own biofuel being prosecuted at times? It all boils down, yet again, to money and the interests of the big conglomerates and the governments.
M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Pea pod soup
At one time I thought growing English peas was a waste of time and garden space for what we got back. Now I grow lots of peas since my wife discovered how to make soup from the pods.
In case you would like to try it, here is the recipe.
- 2 qts green pea pods (pods only)
- 1 tsp salt
- 1 onion
- 1 tsp pepper
- 2 Cups milk
- 3 TBSP flour
- 1 tsp sugar
- a little Nutmeg
- 3 TBSP butter
With a sandwich, this is really good, especially on a cold day.
Owen Newman 2008
WWF wades in onto carbon capture debate
The World Wide Fund for Nature, once upon a time known and World Wildlife Fund, the world's biggest environmental charity has recently called for a moratorium on new coal-fired power stations in the UK until carbon capture and storage technology has been shown to work and can be installed from the outset.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of trapping a power station's emissions at source and pumping it into suitable underground sites - often the empty spaces left by drilling oil.
CCS can, however, only be seen as a stop-gap solution in the transition to clean energy generation but as yet no large-scale demonstration projects have come to fruition.
In the UK, the government has said that all new coal-fired power stations must be 'carbon capture ready', or suitable for the retro-fitting of the technology at a future date, which effectively means very little.
"Currently, claims of CCS readiness do little more than refer to the need for power plants to leave space on the site for CCS equipment to be retrofitted in the future," said Keith Allott, head of WWF-UK's climate change programme.
"There's no deadline for conversion to full scale CCS, let alone any guarantee that this would then be met. Reliance on an as yet unproven technology, however promising it may be, is a risky business - the future of the planet's climate cannot rely upon good intentions.
"To avoid dangerous climate change, there needs to be a rapid decarbonisation of the power sector and a radical shift in the way in which the UK and indeed the world sources its energy.
"Renewables and greater energy efficiency should form the bulk of that shift, but fossil fuels using proven and strongly legislated CCS could also play a role."
The charity has commissioned researchers at Edinburgh University to explore what 'capture ready' actually means and how best to ensure that readiness translates into action on CCS.
The findings are detailed in a WWF report, Evading Capture.
WWF is calling for the introduction of an emissions standard similar to that already in force in California, which will set legal limits on the amount of CO2 that new and replacement power stations can emit.
While no one seems to talk about it there should be a way, and I am sure that there is, one that would not even involve that mush effort, to make the burning of coal in power station a much cleaner effort. Scrubbers could, for starters, be employed with which to remove the sulfur and other elements. This is already being done in other countries. So if it can work there then it should be able to work here assuming the political will is there.
In addition to that why do we have to use coal anyway in such power stations? There should be, once again with the right political will, for a large number of years at least, enough wood to burn in such station if we would be just prepared to do a “Dutch Elm Disease eradication program”. Such a program would yield lots of seasoned elm wood for such stations, a very clean burning wood of very great heat value.
This, as a stop-gab, during which time cleaner energy still could be looked at, developed and put on stream.
We also, and this is most important, get away pronto from the large electricity generating power stations in this country currently and get over to power generating at a much more local level and that for more than one reason. The studies and suggestions from the book “Small is Beautiful” by Fritz Schumacher should be a guide in this. The floods of 2007 and the fact that those came close to shutting down power for hundreds of thousands should be a reminder of the fact that large power stations are a disaster waiting to happen.
And local electricity generation then gives the chance for clean energy generation at a local level, whether by CHP units, fuelled by wood chips, straw, methane, etc. or by wind, solar and water; all can be used.
Due to the fact that local power generation does not require the long overland lines the power generated can be of a much, much lower AC voltage than what must, by needs, be the kind from the huge power plants.
We must, in everything, and this includes heat and power, think local rather than regional or bigger even. Tine we cut things down to size again.
M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Program aims to promote greener households
In the Republic of Ireland a new program has been launched to promote environmental issues in households and community groups.
The Green Home Program, developed by a partnership between An Taisce and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), aims to promote and support environmental awareness.
Communities which demonstrate high standards in sustainable actions will be awarded a green flag to display in recognition of their efforts.
The program includes several key environmental areas on which households and groups can gain information and implement measures to aid the environment and reduce their home costs.
Waste reduction, energy efficiency, sustainable travel and water conservation are areas that highlighted as key environmental issues across Ireland.
M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Dish washing by hand – vs – dishwasher
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
In an article that I read recently the comparison was made of washing dishes by hand versa the dishwasher and it was claimed that a dishwasher was more environmentally friendly and had a smaller carbon footprint than doing the dishes by hand.
To be perfectly honest my response to that is “duh?” This article must have been written by someone who is getting some kickback from the dishwasher manufacturers for sure. There is no way, at least not that I can see, where the dishwasher could be more environmentally friendly than hand washing the dishes. Before I would and could take that as gospel, however, I would require a lot of convincing.
For some reason it just is incomprehensible to me that washing dishes by hand should be worse for the environment than using a dishwasher. Excuse me please but every time a dishwasher runs a cycle, and there are a couple of them during its operation, it does heat up another, fresh, load of water. Unless you use a commercial dishwasher that uses the same water all day long keeping it constantly heated. That too would not make sense to me as regards to energy efficiency and all that. So, where precisely, are the savings and where is it better for the environment if we use a dishwasher instead of washing the dishes by hand?
Right, so, every time it does a cycle the domestic dishwasher heats the water to a relatively high temperature. Now, if I do my dishes in a bowl in the sink I use a certain amount of hot water from either the tap or other means and then with that water I do glasses and cups, followed by plates and such, and last by pots and pans. All in the same water, with occasional rinsing in hot water of certain stuff. I am sure that I do not use as much water or as much energy, nor as much detergent, as does any kind of domestic dishwasher.
In my book washing dishes by hand is the environmentally friendly thing to do in the same way as is line drying ones clothes, as and where possible. I once tried using a dryer but gave that up as a bad idea. Someone gave me that dryer but unfortunately they did not also leave me a legacy with which to run it. When a pair of jeans needs over four hours in a dryer to get dried then, I am afraid to say, I rather stick it on the radiator and run the heating for a while – if it is not on at the time anyway. While it may take a little longer on the heating it will get dry nevertheless and I do not have to waste four hours of electricity at about 2KW, both in terms of environmental footprint as well as in terms of finances. Four hours at that rate is a lot of money when it comes to the electricity bill, money that I ca n use much better elsewhere.
However, as far as the dishes are concerned, I am sure that washing them by hand is much better for the environment and for my pocketbook, so I shall continue to wash them by hand. What about you?
© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Lights Out!
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Think about your sleeping schedule and how it effects your power consumption.
While it is certainly true that late at night power is usually at less demand, that is to say, after a certain watershed when everyone else has gone to bed. However, would it not be better to use less electricity yourself?
Tailoring your sleeping hours and sleep pattern somewhat closer to those of Mother Nature – the way She is in your region – would be a very good way to go. That way your lights will be on less and you will make larger use of natural light and unless you live in a bunker where natural light does not penetrate or, like me, live deep amongst trees where natural light too is not always that bright, your energy bill and your impact on the environment will be much less.
It will also benefit you personally in the way of health as our bodies – well those of most of us – are programmed in such a manner as to work with daylight and sleep when it is dark. I know not every body seems to function in that way but most of us are hardwired to follow that pattern.
© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
Turn off the tap while brushing your teeth
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
I must say that I have never understood why anyone would want or need to have the tap running when brushing their teeth, especially in some case the hot tap, and have always found this rather strange.
This may, however, be due to the fact that I was raised with the beaker for use with brushing teeth, and we did not have running water, neither hot or cold, though the cold running water could be had when it was raining, as I am of Gypsy stock, and I grew up a rather old way.
Once we moved into a house this habit remained though, that is to say, the use of a beaker of water for the rinse after brushing teeth. There is no need whatsoever for running a tap while cleaning one's teeth, no need and reason whatsoever. If need be then simply wet your toothbrush before you begin and use a glass of water, as I said, to rinse your mouth once you have finished or, if you must, even in between.
Turning off the water while you brush your teeth will save about 4 gallons a minute. That's 200 gallons a week for a family of four. If your water is metered then you will find that you will also make significant savings this way. Where, like here where I live, we are but charged a flat rate – which is unfair in a way to those like myself that save water and who live on their own and do not use that much – there are not financial savings to be had this way but the environmental savings are still the same.
© M Smith (Veshengro), June 2008
