by Michael Smith (Veshengro), RFA
An old growth forest, ancient or primary forest or ancient woodland, is a woodland of great age that exhibits unique biological features. Depending on tree species and forest type, the age can be from 150 to 500 years.
Old growth forests typically contain a mixture of large live and dead trees or "snags", while unharvested fallen tree logs in various states of decay litter the forest floor.
Foresters and botanists use certain criteria to determine old growth forests. Sufficient age and minimal disturbance is necessary to be classified as old growth. The characteristics of old-growth forest include the presence of older trees, minimal signs of human disturbance, mixed-age stands, canopy openings due to tree falls, pit-and-mound topography, downed and decaying wood, standing snags, multi-layered canopies, intact soils, a healthy fungal ecosystem, and presence of indicator species.
Second growth forest are forests regenerated after harvests or severe disruptions like fire, storms or insects is often referred to as a second-growth forest or regeneration until a long enough period has passed that the effects of the disturbance are no longer evident. Depending on the forest, to become old growth again may take anywhere from a century to several millennia.
Old growths forests are extremely important as old growth forests are often rich communities of great biodiversity harboring wide varieties of plants and animals. These species must live under stable conditions free from severe disturbance. Some of these creatures are rare.
The age of the oldest trees in an ancient forest indicates that destructive events over a long period were of moderate intensity and did not kill all the vegetation. Some suggest that old growth forests are carbon "sinks" that lock up carbon and help prevent global warming.
As said earlier, the characteristics of old-growth forest include the presence of older trees, minimal signs of human disturbance and therefore in Britain and much of Europe there are no real “ancient woodlands” and this despite the fact that many misguided and ill-informed environmentalists claim that there are. The great majority of all those forests and woodlands have been touched by human hands and many until not so long ago. All the woodlands often referred to as thus are in fact old coppice woodlands that have been worked up until the 1950's and cannot every return by itself to Nature.
Only at the border between Poland and Belarus there is a more or less primeval forest containing the last herds of European bison. Further in the East then, behind the Urals, there it is possible to find real ancient forests and woodlands. All other European woods and forests have, however, at one time or the other, often well into the not so distant future, been worked by man for human benefit.
The previously mentioned coppice woodlands of Southern England, for instance, if left to “return to Nature”, as is being demanded by those environmentalists that have no knowledge of forestry, will simply fall apart. Without man's intervention the thousand to fifteen hundred year old coppice stools will simple break apart and that will be the end then of those woods.
For this very reason, e.g. the fact that unless those coppice woodlands will break apart – literally – if not worked in the next couple of years again by woodsmen and underwoodsmen. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the use of those woodlands as productive woodlands would be re-initiated. Now would be a good time to start. The coppice stools will otherwise, if not coppiced again in the next couple of years, literally break apart and that will be the end of the trees and of the woodlands.
While it is often thought that ONLY old growth forests are carbon "sinks" that lock up carbon and help prevent global warming but in a way all forests, ancient and more modern, contribute towards the prevention of climate change. The term “global warming” is rather misleading nowadays as the warming, in fact, stopped about seven years ago and plateaued out and has remained at the same level ever since. Climate will, nevertheless, still change until the temperatures will fall again, as they have always been doing in this cyclic changes the Earth seems to be going through every 1000 or so years.
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
Old Growth Forests and Ancient Woodlands
Review finds that biofuels could CAUSE greenhouse gases
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Biofuels will harm biodiversity and may even cause greenhouse gas emissions, an independent review has concluded, though the review ruled out a moratorium on the use of biofuels in petrol. Why not?
Gallagher review, by the Renewable Fuels Agency's (RFA), into the indirect effects of biofuels, said that the increasing demand is also contributing to rising food prices, which in the short term could have a severe impact on the poor.
As it would appear, this review and study found that biofuels, aside from the environmental impact they will have, and the impact as to food shortages and hunger, could have an impact as regards to greenhouse gases that could be as bad – if not even worse – than gasoline and diesel.
The RFA, however, ruled out a moratorium on biofuels. Instead it called on government to reduce the rate of increase of the UK's biofuels target to just half a percent a year, bringing the target to five percent in 2013 to 2014.
The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), which came into force in April 2008, does require, however, that 2.5% of fuel on forecourts in 2008/2009 have to be biofuels, increasing by 1.25% a year to 5% in 2010/2011.
The review also said that the European Union's target of 10 percent biofuels by 2020 is not justified by scientific evidence but could be possible if conditions are put in place to ensure sustainability.
Presently anyone who does not wear blinkers should realize that this is not sustainable and it is rather questionable as to whether any conditions can be put into place to ensure sustainability. Food crops are being turned into fuel, such as maize (corn) for ethanol, or palm oil for bio-diesel, the latter, while not being a food crop does cause, for lack of a better word, the clearing of forests and also the planting of those palms in favor of food crops. Neither of it is sustainable. So, I do not think that we need a sustainability study on this. It is glaringly obvious.
Why on earth do we want to created fuel for ICE vehicles from food crops or such. We must get away for the overuse of the ICE vehicles and go over to something more sensible.
On the other hand, and it has been tried, diesel engines, especially those so-called multi-fuel diesels can automatically use waste cooking oil without any problems whatsoever. So, why are we playing around with growing foods for bio-diesel when waste cooking oils can be used for this. Maybe, instead of “safely” disposing of cooking oil as, so I understand, is the present practice, we should use all of those oils to turn into fuel and it would not even need much work bar, theoretically, filtering out the bits of food debris in the oil.
I would love to know the amount, daily, of cooking oils that are “disposed” off in this country's McD's and other such outlets and that could be made use of to fuel vehicles.
Professor Gallagher said: "Our review makes clear that the risks of negative impacts from biofuels are real and significant, but it also lays out a path for a truly sustainable biofuels industry in the future."
Does it? It would be nice if Professor Gallagher would point out where the sustainability lies with bio-fuels. Somewhere along the line I seem to be missing it.
Responding to the review, government announced it will consult on slowing down the rate of increase in the RTFO and will press for the EU's 10% target to be kept under regular review.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said: "We need to proceed more cautiously than previously thought, but we should not give up on the potential for some biofuels to help us tackle climate change now and in the future."
Greenpeace chief scientist Dr. Doug Parr said: "This review sends a stark message - using food crops to fuel our cars risks making climate change worse and increasing food prices for the world's poorest people."
He called on Gordon Brown to promote other green motoring alternatives, such as making our cars more fuel efficient and boosting the number of vehicles powered by clean, renewable electricity.
Like Greenpeace we at the Green (Living) Review also would urge the British government and the European Union as a whole to seriously look at alternatives to the ICE in cars and trucks and to promote alternative transport ways and means.
For local transportation, as the Danes and the Dutch keeping showing us, the bicycle is a great alternative to the motorcar, especially also with regards to the fact that one does not have to find parking spaces and even if one can find them one has to pay for parking in most places.
In the countryside the horse and buggy might even be something to be considered (again), as well as the use of horses in agriculture and in forestry.
Yes, we may need some more people to actually do some physically work again in those and other industries but I doubt that it will kill any of us. In fact it may just about save the health of many of us.
Fuel efficient designs for cars have been around for years and decades only the companies were not permitted to put them into mass production. Why not? Because of vested interest of industry and government.
The chief executive of Ensus, the company which is building Europe's largest biorefinery in North East England, said: "We are very concerned at the suggestion of backtracking on existing commitments under the RTFO.
"We think this is unnecessary when sustainable production can already be achieved."
Well, he would say that, would he not for he has a vested interest in the production of biofuels. What we have to do is go back to the drawing board and rethink what we are doing.
While it might have looked at the beginning as if we had an answer to something there with biofuels it would seem now that we rather do not and therefore we should put on the brakes here for the present and look at more sustainable transport, whether electric vehicles or human-powered vehicles or animal power.
Do we really have to use the motorcar in the way that we do? No, we do not.
Food for thought... so long as we still have food...
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
Green products 'should be the norm' – UK Government
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The British government has said that green products must become the norm on Britain's supermarket shelves and that the most harmful products need to change. I assume that one can but agree. However, one can also but wonder with what draconian laws they are going to want to enforce this.
The most harmful products, maybe, need not change; they must be superseded with products that do the same job but that are not harmful or, if need be, maybe, that are a lot less harmful.
Ministers made that call as they published updates on progress with the “Waste Strategy and the Sustainable Products and Materials Programme”. Oh dear, now there is a mouthful. I presume that it will have an acronym like WSSPMP or such.
Waste Minister Joan Ruddock said that government and industry were working together to make the whole life cycle of products and services more green.
"We know that people are concerned about their effect on the environment, but they do not get to see the full picture of what goes into producing the goods they buy and they do not see what happens after they have thrown them away," Ms Ruddock said.
"It needs to be easier for people to buy products that will save them money and reduce their impact on the environment, and that's exactly what we're doing.
"There are real savings to be made. Through this action to green the products and materials we use, UK households could save £5 billion a year on their bills." That is billion as in English billion and not American billion.
She added that the so-called “credit crunch” was making it even more important for businesses to use resources more efficiently.
Now it would be very nice if those green products actually would save people money and would be safer. Most of the time the green products cost an arm and a leg to buy and, as we can see with CFLs, have themselves an inherent danger, namely that of mercury.
When it comes to some products of the green range than may, nowadays, be cheaper on the supermarket shelves, such as Ecover dish washing liquid for instance, then there are issues there too. Firstly Ecover has been linked to high level a dangerous substance – namely Dioxane 1,4 – in it and secondly I personally have found that it cannot stand up in cleaning power and in value for money against a leading general brand of washing up liquid. The other one, though a little more expensive, of a non-green kind (though its color is very green) requires less of the liquid to use and works much more efficient with less irritation to my hands than with Ecover and, as one uses less, one saves money. So, where the savings are going to come from that Ms Ruddock mentions beats me.
The Sustainable Products and Materials report, which sets out progress with the piloting of ten Product Roadmaps, including the Milk Roadmap, was launched earlier this year.
It also includes details of government initiatives such as the “agreement” with retailers to take inefficient light bulbs off the shelves by 2011.
I really must say I like the term “agreement” here. Do we call that whitewash or greenwash, for the truth is that there is a law coming into effect that will make it illegal to sell incandescent light bulbs of the aforementioned inefficient kind and only CFLs will be permitted to be sold (and used) after the law comes into effect. So it is not so much as an agreement as a requirement on shops to remove the incandescent light bulbs from their shelves and from sale.
That is the way Britain tried to tackle all the environmental issues, with laws and threats and such. Same as in regards to waste reduction and recycling. It just does not appear to be possible to offer incentives for people to do “the right thing”, as is the case in so many other countries.
The summary of progress with the Waste Strategy revealed that the amount of residual household waste has dropped and household recycling is increasing.
Is this indeed the case or is it just a case that the bins are emptier, simply because fortnightly collections have been started and people fly tip rubbish rather than putting it into the bins.
It also showed the amount of commercial and industrial waste being sent to landfill has continued to fall and less biodegradable waste is finding its way to landfill.
The parks and open spaces, and farms, I should think, have seen a significant increase in fly tipping of ordinary household waste, including biodegradable waste, and especially also the so-called “green” waste, that is to say, garden refuse. The latter because in many ares the councils have been “forced” to take away the free collections of garden waste from householders and people now either have to bring such waste to the municipal refuse tips or have to pay a fee to have it collected.
Not a very green alternative that having to take it by vehicle to the rubbish dump as that often involves waiting in long lines for and hour or more with the engines of the cars left running.
Ministers said further work is needed to identify whether an increase in reports of fly tipping is a result of more fly tipping or improved information from local authorities to its Fly Capture national database.
This, no doubt, means a lot of wasted money for long-winded studies to then claim it is due to better reporting. That is a load of poppycock.
As someone who is involved with parks and open spaces on a daily basis I can vouch for the fact that the incidences of fly tipping, from small to large, are on the up and up, and I am certain that they are going to continue to rise the more we see the fortnightly collections and the removal or reduction of the other collections.
M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
NEW REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF LEAD USED IN HUNTING AND FISHING
NEWS RELEASE
BETHESDA, MD — Lead introduced in the environment through recreational hunting, shooting sports, and fishing poses a potential hazard to both wildlife and humans, according to a new technical review by The Wildlife Society (TWS) and American Fisheries Society (AFS).
“The Wildlife Society (TWS) supports legal and ethical hunting and fishing and recognizes its important role in supporting wildlife conservation,” said Michael Hutchins, PhD, executive director/CEO of TWS. “However, we are very interested in preventing potential lead toxicity associated with these outdoor activities from adversely affecting wildlife, fish and the environment as a whole while maintaining healthy populations for future generations.”
Large quantities of lead ammunition and fishing tackle are produced annually -- the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that roughly 72,600 metric tons of lead shot and bullets are deposited in the U.S. environment each year at outdoor shooting ranges alone. And while estimates of lost fishing tackle are much less, lead tackle also poses a potential toxicological threat. Lead (Pb) is a nonessential heavy metal with no known functional or beneficial role in biological systems. Although lead is relatively stable, under some environmental conditions (e.g., soft acidic water, acidic soil), lead objects can weather and the element can mobilize, spreading the toxic properties. However, the TWS/AFS technical review concludes that the greatest hazard arises from direct ingestion of lead ammunition and fishing tackle by wildlife, particularly birds.
Topics covered include the chemical properties of lead, sources and estimated quantities of lead originating from hunting, shooting and fishing, as well as the pathways of exposure and the effects of lead on plants, animals, and humans. Current regulations on lead ammunition and fishing tackle, along with alternative materials, are also evaluated.
“This review is a long overdue look at the big picture regarding the overall risk that lead ammunition and fishing tackle pose to natural resources,” said Gus Rassam, PhD, AFS executive director. “We believe this report will provide a good starting point for developing management policies that protect both humans and wildlife while allowing for the continued enjoyment of hunting and fishing.”
The review contains suggestions for future research and possible paths for new policies and/or regulations. Those of highest priority include:
-Broad scale monitoring on the incidence of lead poisoning in wildlife in countries where the extent of the problem is poorly documented or unknown;
-Data on the prevalence of lead poisoning related to fishing tackle in reptiles and aquatic birds;
-Information on the weathering, dissolution, and long-term fate of lead fragments, and bioavailability of lead in various ecosystems;
-The hazards of spent ammunition and mobilized lead to wildlife at or near shooting ranges; and
-Evaluation of regulations restricting the use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on exposure and health of biota in various ecosystems.
TWS, founded in 1937, is a scientific and educational organization dedicated to enhancing the ability of wildlife professionals to conserve diversity, sustain productivity, and ensure the responsible use of wildlife resources for the benefit of society. AFS, founded 1870, is the world’s oldest and largest fisheries science organization. Its mission is to improve the conservation and sustainability of fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries professionals.
To obtain a copy of the technical review, “Sources and Implications of Lead-Based Ammunition and Fishing Tackle on Natural Resources,” visit www.wildlife.org.
Source: The Wildlife Society
<>
Biofuel policies in OECD countries costly and ineffective, says report
NEWS RELEASE
16/07/2008 - Government support of biofuel production in OECD countries is costly, has a limited impact on reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security, and has a significant impact on world crop prices, according to a new study of policies to promote greater production and use of biofuel in OECD countries.
OECD’s Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies says biofuels are currently highly dependent on public funding to be viable. In the US, Canada and the European Union government support for the supply and use of biofuels is expected to rise to around USD 25 billion per year by 2015 from about USD 11 billion in 2006.
The report estimates that biofuel support costs between USD 960 to USD 1700 per tonne of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide equivalent) saved.
Support policies include budgetary measures, either as tax concessions or direct
financial support for biofuel producers, retailers or users. Blending or use mandates require that biofuels represent a minimum share of the transport fuel market and result in increased fuel costs to consumers due to the higher production costs of biofuels.
Trade restrictions, mainly in the form of import tariffs, protect the domestic industry from foreign competitors but impose a cost burdon on domestic biofuel users and limit development prospects for alternative suppliers.
The report calls on governments to refocus policies to encourage lower energy consumption, particularly in the transport sector. It also calls for more open markets in biofuels and feedstocks in order to improve efficiency and lower costs. The report recommends a clear focus on alternative fuels that maximise the reduction of fossil fuel useage and greenhouse gas emissions. Further, research to accelerate development of second generation biofuels that do not require commodity feedstocks is suggested.
The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a primary reason for current biofuel policies but the savings are limited. Ethanol from sugar cane - the main feedstock used in Brazil – reduces greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 percent compared to fossil fuels. But emission reductions are much smaller from biofuels based on feedstocks used in Europe and North America.
Biofuels produced from wheat, sugar beet or vegetable oil rarely provide emission savings of more than 30 to 60 percent while savings from corn (maize) based ethanol are generally less than 30 percent. Overall, the continuation of current biofuel support policies would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport fuel by no more than 0.8 percent by 2015.
The impact of current biofuel policies on world crop prices, largely through increased demand for cereals and vegetable oils, is significant but should not be overestimated.
Current biofuel support measures alone are estimated to increase average wheat prices by about 5 percent, maize by around 7 percent and vegetable oil by about 19 percent over the next 10 years.
Taking into account the 2007 US Energy Independence and Security Act and the proposed EU Directive for Renewable Energy, 13 percent of world coarse grain production and 20 percent of world vegetable oil production could shift to biofuel production in the next 10 years, up from 8 percent and 9 percent in 2007, respectively.
OECD’s Economic Assessment of Biofuel Support Policies can be downloaded here. This is a PDF file.
Source: OECD
<>
Jumping on the Green Bandwagon
Greenwashing in action
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Recently we received an email here at the Green (Living) Review from KEEPME BAGS of Greenhithe, Kent, advertising – whether this email was intended to us as a “press release” or something else I do not know – their “ECO Bag of non-woven polypropylene”. The claims for those ECO PP Bags from “Keep Me Bags” are as follows:
“100% recyclable, robust & 100% reusable, biodegradable, non toxic, made using very clean and energy efficient manufacturing processes, printed with water based inks, flame retardant and air permeability, ECO friendly - new generation of environment-friendly materials, made from spun bonded 100% Polypropylene.”
While I am not arguing in any way with the claims for being 100% recyclable, and those of robustness and and of the ability to be reused, nor have any problems with them, I am having great problems with the claim of those bags as being biodegradable. Polypropylene is a plastic, basically; a synthetic material, that is oil based and that is NOT biodegradable, whatever any vendor or manufacturer might like to claim in order to sell those to companies who may be rather ignorant as to what is or is not biodegradable.
Plastics of any kind break down in the environment, that is true. But that is just it; the material slowly breaks down by the action of light and and soil and weather into ever smaller fragments of – plastic. And, while doing so it releases harmful substances into the soil and water. Cheers. They do not compost and therefore are not biodegradable.
The same applies for any other plastic bag unless the bags are made of PLA, that is to say corn starch or lactic acid based “plastic” type of materials. Those latter ones do, indeed, biodegrade; they in fact compost nicely.
It would very much appear that the green bandwagon is the one to jump on at present and too many companies wishing to be seen as green buy such bags unbeknown of the fact that they are being lied to as to the biodegradable claims and such like.
In this case we are talking about a polyester fibre, non-woven – which means the fibers are being bonded together (by some sort of glue, one should guess) and we are being given all those “green” credentials. This is a definite case of greenwashing, much like the “Eco-Button”, that useless piece of electronic trash.
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
Growing potatoes in biodegradable cardboard boxes
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Growing potatoes in raised beds works well but building a raised bed can be costly and requires hard work. An easy to build, inexpensive, useful and attractive alternative for growing of potatoes can be had by using cardboard boxes.
Because of the hard work of building raised beds and the cost of it I decided to use the existing beds for other crops rather than potatoes and left growing potatoes out for a couple of years.
However, this year I came up with the idea of cardboard boxes, in lieu of the potato patio planters which are rather costly to the tune of about US$35 around these parts of the world. I am thinking, though, of maybe building my own (oar maybe I can find a manufacturer who would like me to review a couple of them). So, I have took two boxes that I had lying about, lined them up in the garden and planted potatoes in the bottom of the box using a soil mixed with mild potting compost. As the potatoes grew, I have added more soil. So far they are growing beautifully but we don't know as yet as to how good they are producing and as to whether it works at all, though there seem to be some small potatoes already to be had.
Such boxes are free, can be quite attractive and will bio-degrade and compost at the end of the season. New ones can be set up the following year and years in different parts of the vegetable garden to help rotate the crops. The top flaps of the boxes can be closed to protect the tender plants from a late frost. It is easy to build up soil around the growing potatoes; harvesting is also easy. You can either reach in for new potatoes, or you can peel the rotting sides away at the end of the season.
It is important to consider that as with all container planting you may need to check a little more on the watering.
So, why not grow your spuds in cardboard planters? No cost (for the planters, I mean) and at the end of the useful life of the “planter” it will compost to soil.
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
Food Waste
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
While I, personally, as many of my readers will have come to know, hate waste of any kind and would love to see everything that is considered waste re-purposed and reworked into something (else) useful, I abhor the waste of food and food waste above all.
I know that while some some waste, and this is also and especially true as regards to food, is unavoidable, for one reason or the other, the wholesale waste of food in our nations' kitchens is horrendous.
Having had a childhood where food was not always plentiful and in constant supply, to say the least, wasting food, especially unnecessarily, to me is just an anathema.
My Elders had clandestine “allotments” where we grew green vegetables and potatoes and such – much left to Nature to look after for most of the time – and we also made use of especially of Nature's bounty in general, including for meat and fish and as kids we knew how difficult it was to have enough.
Therefore, when I see how people in most of the “rich” countries, such as the UK, the USA, and such, just waste food makes me was to hit those people with abandon with something heavy.
In my primary line of work I some across needlessly wasted and discarded food of all kinds on a very regular basis. The value of unopened food thrown away from one largish picnic alone amounted to about US$100 (£50) and I am sure that daily we look at that amount ending up wasted in just one of Park here.
I do not even want to mention the food that is wasted in restaurants, hotels and such, and especially also in events catering, and also in the Houses of Parliament themselves. So, when Gordon Brown tried to tell the British people to stop wasting food I doubt he had a look at the kitchens and restaurants at the Palace of Westminster and other government institutions.
But, in one way he is right. We must stop wasting food.
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
A COOKING REVOLUTION IN INDIA
NEWS RELEASE
Envirofit Introduces Clean Burning Biomass Cook Stoves That Reduces Fuel Consumption, Cooking Time and Toxic Emissions
Sustainable Business Model to Encourage Local Enterprise
Bangalore, India, July 2008: In an endeavour to address the increasing and harmful impact of Indoor Air Pollution in India, Envirofit has announced the launch of a range of clean burning biomass cookstoves in the country. Designed by an international team of globally recognized scientists and engineers, the cookstoves reduce toxic emissions by as much as 80%, while using 50% less fuel and reducing cooking cycle time by 40%.
The cookstoves have been developed as a result of a partnership between Envirofit and Shell Foundation (UK) initially launched in 2007 to engineer and deliver clean burning biomass stoves that are affordable and attractive to people who are impacted by Indoor Air Pollution (IAP).
“Biomass (wood, crop waste and animal dung) is likely to remain the primary cooking fuel for a large majority of rural Indian households for many years to come. Against this background and the alarming number of annual of indoor air pollution-related deaths the world over, we are committed to developing products that will make a significant contribution to healthier and cleaner living,” said Harish Anchan, General Manager of Envirofit India Pvt Ltd. “Through the stoves we have developed, we are providing women an opportunity to continue to cook as they would before, but in an environment that is less polluting and hazardous.” Envirofit is a US based non profit corporation that designs, manufactures and markets world-class engineered technology products to improve the quality of human life across the globe.
The Envirofit cookstoves burn traditional biomass fuels and are engineered to emit significantly less toxic emissions and use less fuel. Built of durable, high-quality material and engineered to address the unique cooking habits of Indian women, the Envirofit cookstoves are a result of over five years of research and testing in coordination with internationally recognized academic institutions such as Colorado State University.
Available in 5 models and priced between Rs 500/ and Rs 2000/, the cookstoves are currently available in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and will be introduced in other states across the country in a phased manner. They are aesthetically designed with high- quality materials and available in a range of colours with single pot and multi-pot cooking options. The stoves have already successfully undergone pilot testing in Chitradurga and Dharmapuri. Certified under the most stringent environmental testing conditions in the USA, the cookstoves are currently awaiting BIS certification.
“Although cooking habits in semi-urban and rural India are steeped in tradition and perpetuated by myths, the response to our stoves has been very strong as each stove has been developed based on extensive market research and local customer insights,” said Harish Anchan. “We are in discussion with financing institutions for low cost financing options to provide additional options for families to buy the stoves.”
Envirofit cookstoves are now being made available in over 700 villages in Karnataka and 300 villages in Tamil Nadu through a multi-tier distribution strategy. Envirofit’s aim is to develop local and regional enterprises through the channel network so that the business becomes self sustaining. The current channel network in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu includes dealers, distributors, village entrepreneurs as well as not for profit organizations like MYRADA, the Tamil Nadu Foundation and the Cauvery Women’s Federation.
Envirofit is targeting over 40 channel partners throughout the two states with roughly 600 outlets planned by the end of 2008. Significant business opportunities exist for local entrepreneurs, distributors, and retailers as Envirofit plans to increase its footprint across India by 2010.
“There are an estimated 1.6 million deaths per year due to toxic indoor air pollution (IAP).
We are proud to be partnered with Envirofit International to introduce clean-burning wood stove technology in India while employing the first market-based business model,” said Ajit Abraham, Shell Foundation India who supports the project as part of their Breathing Space Program. ”The aim is to see 10 million stoves sold in five countries in the next five years.” Established by Shell Group in 2000 as an independent, UK registered charity, Shell Foundation’s mission is to develop, scale-up and promote enterprise-based solutions to the challenges arising from the impact of energy and globalization on poverty and the environment. The Breathing Space Program aims to achieve a significant long-term reduction in deaths related to IAP.
Globally, reliance on solid fuels is one of the 10 most important threats to public health.
Indoor Air Pollution in India results from burning biomass (like wood, crop waste and animal dung) during cooking in the home. The toxic emissions and smoke from this cooking claims as many as 500,000 lives in India every year, most of whom are women and children due to their increased exposure in the home. One person around the world dies every 20 seconds from the cumulative effects of IAP, resulting in approximately 1.5 million deaths per year. India accounts for 80% of the 600,000 premature deaths that occur in south-east Asia annually due to exposure to IAP. The World Health Organisation estimates that pollution levels in rural Indian kitchens are 30 times higher than recommended levels and six times higher than air pollution levels found in New Delhi.
Founded in 2003, Envirofit International, Ltd. is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation that
develops engineered solutions to improve the human condition on a global scale, with a primary emphasis on applications in the developing world. Envirofit India Private Ltd was formed in 2007 to research, market and deliver clean burning cookstoves to the Indian market. Envirofit utilizes the same rigorous product-development methodology and protocols used in modern industry to develop and commercialize energy-efficient, pollution-reducing technologies that have the greatest potential positive impact on global environmental, economic, and public health issues. For more information, visit Envirofit International's website at http://www.envirofit.org or for channel opportunities in India contact Envirofit India at 080 41153808 or 9343333722.
Shell Foundation, the partner in this project, was established by Shell Group in 2000 as an independent, UK registered charity (no.1080999) operating with a global mandate. It focuses on enterprise-based solutions to poverty and environmental challenges linked to the impact of energy and globalisation. It acts like an investor, identifying financially sustainable solutions to these challenges that can be taken to scale and replicated to achieve global impact. By 2010 the Foundation will have used $75 milllion to leverage $350 million from other organizations.
Source: Envirofit International
Free Trees for Kent
A FREE tree scheme has been made available to more people in the county of Kent, United Kingdom.
Now also residents, organisations and businesses in Canterbury and Thanet can apply for up to 25 native trees.
Existing areas that are covered already are Bexley, Dartford, Gravesham, Maidstone, Sevenoaks, Swale, Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge and Malling.
The scheme, which is sponsored by Network Rail and the Kent County Council, gave out nearly 9,000 trees in 2007.
Apply for an application before October 21 by calling 08458 247600 or see website
