A link sent to me by a friend (thanks Dave) about recycling in my home town of Hull. Apparently much of it is transported up to 250 miles away to be sorted.
Which begs the question: is it worth it? Are the air miles and energy required for recycling really good for the environment, or just a PR exercise to sooth troubled consciences (as so many environmental initiatives are)?
You can read the full article here:
County's recycled rubbish will be shipped hundreds of miles to be sorted
Thursday 12 August 2010
Friday 6 August 2010
Washing up vs dishwashers
A quick search on google yields a list of results that indicate dishwashers are more environmentally friendly than washing up.
Now, being a cynical soul, (as well as one who believed beyond doubt that washing up was more environmentally friendly until a month ago) I was initially inclined to believe that this myth had been circulated by the people who wanted us to believe it the most - people who sold dishwashers.
But after looking more carefully, I can see that this is actually true - provided the following:
- the dishwasher is new (ish) and energy efficient - don't just go for the cheap option
- you only run it when it's full
- you don't rinse dishes beforehand
- you don't utilise the drying option
But how is this possible? Surely using our free, natural and environmentally friendly hands has GOT to be more environmentally friendly than powering a machine?
Apparently not. There's an interesting article on it here: Diswashers vs hand washing (on what is, incidentally, an excellent site called green living tips).
The energy required to heat up the water, coupled with the amount of water used (especially if rinsing before and after) and the frequency of completion means that washing up is generally more environmentally damaging - with a few clauses:
- The energy and materials required to manufacture a dishwasher are much greater than that required to manufacture a sink (and our hands!)
- Dishwasher tablets are, apparently, more damaging to the environment than most washing up liquid brands
- Running it frequently or when it's not full can be very damaging - which means it can be difficult if you just need to wash a few things to cook with (especially if you have no draining board, as is the case in our new flat!)
All in all, I am still fairly cynical about the environmental credentials of any machine. It stands to reason that if you do one lot of washing up per day and you are sensible with water, it would be more environmentally friendly. For many people however, especially with families, this isn't possible and so a dishwasher would be a better choice.
There is also the fact that it saves on time and makes room for other (usually environmentally damaging) activities. Such as watching TV, going on the computer, writing blog posts...
Now, being a cynical soul, (as well as one who believed beyond doubt that washing up was more environmentally friendly until a month ago) I was initially inclined to believe that this myth had been circulated by the people who wanted us to believe it the most - people who sold dishwashers.
But after looking more carefully, I can see that this is actually true - provided the following:
- the dishwasher is new (ish) and energy efficient - don't just go for the cheap option
- you only run it when it's full
- you don't rinse dishes beforehand
- you don't utilise the drying option
But how is this possible? Surely using our free, natural and environmentally friendly hands has GOT to be more environmentally friendly than powering a machine?
Apparently not. There's an interesting article on it here: Diswashers vs hand washing (on what is, incidentally, an excellent site called green living tips).
The energy required to heat up the water, coupled with the amount of water used (especially if rinsing before and after) and the frequency of completion means that washing up is generally more environmentally damaging - with a few clauses:
- The energy and materials required to manufacture a dishwasher are much greater than that required to manufacture a sink (and our hands!)
- Dishwasher tablets are, apparently, more damaging to the environment than most washing up liquid brands
- Running it frequently or when it's not full can be very damaging - which means it can be difficult if you just need to wash a few things to cook with (especially if you have no draining board, as is the case in our new flat!)
All in all, I am still fairly cynical about the environmental credentials of any machine. It stands to reason that if you do one lot of washing up per day and you are sensible with water, it would be more environmentally friendly. For many people however, especially with families, this isn't possible and so a dishwasher would be a better choice.
There is also the fact that it saves on time and makes room for other (usually environmentally damaging) activities. Such as watching TV, going on the computer, writing blog posts...
Tuesday 3 August 2010
Good Living on Facebook
Good Living has a group on Facebook - if you're a facebook geek (like me) you might be interested in joining :-)
You can find it here: Good Living: Facebook group
You can find it here: Good Living: Facebook group
Sunday 1 August 2010
Planting trees to offset carbon - what's wrong with it?
It's human nature: we like to fix problems after they've happened. There's no impetus to do so beforehand, because we cannot comprehend the scale of the damage until we have to face it.
That's how I see carbon offsetting.
Many scientists are in agreement that we are currently at a tipping point: it's not too late to solve the problem of climate change, but it will be soon.
But because we like our cosy lifestyles (I'm not knocking it - I'm just as bad) we'd rather invest time and energy on a quick fix than alter our lifestyles and expectations.
So we invented carbon offsetting to try and manipulate the carbon cycle to our advantage.
The carbon cycle consists of carbon pools (where carbon is stored, for example vegetation, the ocean etc) and carbon flows, by which carbon flows between these pools. Plants naturally remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (converting carbon dioxide into new plant tissue) causing carbon dioxide to flow from the atmosphere into vegetation.
Therefore, by planting extra trees, we can supposedly offset the negative effects of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carry on polluting at will. This idea is promoted by many companies as a way to ease the conscience of ethically sensitive consumers.
Sounds good, yes? Surely it's better to do something than nothing.
But that completely misses the point.
If people are encouraged to offset carbon emissions, then they are receiving the message that it's OK to pollute. The burden can be passed onto someone else (usually a poor community which is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the forest).
The facts are clear to see: this is not acceptable. Something must be done to reduce climate change emissions as well as mitigating them. The situation is too urgent to simply carry on as we are.
Not only this, but carbon offsetting schemes are very often flawed P.R. exercises:
- Carbon offsetting forests are often forced on poor communities which lack either the knowledge or the skills to maintain them. Such communities can even be displaced by such schemes.
- These forests can consist of trees which are alien to the environment in which they are planted, therefore damaging the local ecosystem and descreasing biodiversity.
- The lifespan of a tree is not guaranteed: it can be killed by disease, deforestation or climate change itself, therefore eliminating any benefits. We all remember the debacle of the Coldplay Forest (Telegraph article: The Coldplay Forest).
- Sometimes old trees can be cut down in order to plant trees to supposedly offset carbon!
- There is a lack of accountability.
- They deflect attention away from reducing carbon emissions.
Don't get me wrong - planting trees is obviously a good thing.
In the face of widespread deforestation, and climate change, tree planting is an extremely positive activity and one that can indeed reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
However, it should not be viewed as 'offsetting' - it is something that should be done as well as reducing emissions.
It is telling that the firest travel company to introduce the idea of carbon offsetting to mitigate the effects of flying (Responsible Travel) were also the first to get rid of it (you can read why here:http://www.responsibletravel.com/Copy/Copy101331.htm)).
Friends of the Earth are also strongly opposed to the idea of carbon offsetting (you can read why here: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/dangerous_distraction.pdf)
So for the sake of the planet, please don't make the mistake of using companies that offer carbon offsetting, or promoting such companies to others.
Prevention is better than cure.
That's how I see carbon offsetting.
Many scientists are in agreement that we are currently at a tipping point: it's not too late to solve the problem of climate change, but it will be soon.
But because we like our cosy lifestyles (I'm not knocking it - I'm just as bad) we'd rather invest time and energy on a quick fix than alter our lifestyles and expectations.
So we invented carbon offsetting to try and manipulate the carbon cycle to our advantage.
The carbon cycle consists of carbon pools (where carbon is stored, for example vegetation, the ocean etc) and carbon flows, by which carbon flows between these pools. Plants naturally remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (converting carbon dioxide into new plant tissue) causing carbon dioxide to flow from the atmosphere into vegetation.
Therefore, by planting extra trees, we can supposedly offset the negative effects of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and carry on polluting at will. This idea is promoted by many companies as a way to ease the conscience of ethically sensitive consumers.
Sounds good, yes? Surely it's better to do something than nothing.
But that completely misses the point.
If people are encouraged to offset carbon emissions, then they are receiving the message that it's OK to pollute. The burden can be passed onto someone else (usually a poor community which is charged with the responsibility of maintaining the forest).
The facts are clear to see: this is not acceptable. Something must be done to reduce climate change emissions as well as mitigating them. The situation is too urgent to simply carry on as we are.
Not only this, but carbon offsetting schemes are very often flawed P.R. exercises:
- Carbon offsetting forests are often forced on poor communities which lack either the knowledge or the skills to maintain them. Such communities can even be displaced by such schemes.
- These forests can consist of trees which are alien to the environment in which they are planted, therefore damaging the local ecosystem and descreasing biodiversity.
- The lifespan of a tree is not guaranteed: it can be killed by disease, deforestation or climate change itself, therefore eliminating any benefits. We all remember the debacle of the Coldplay Forest (Telegraph article: The Coldplay Forest).
- Sometimes old trees can be cut down in order to plant trees to supposedly offset carbon!
- There is a lack of accountability.
- They deflect attention away from reducing carbon emissions.
Don't get me wrong - planting trees is obviously a good thing.
In the face of widespread deforestation, and climate change, tree planting is an extremely positive activity and one that can indeed reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere.
However, it should not be viewed as 'offsetting' - it is something that should be done as well as reducing emissions.
It is telling that the firest travel company to introduce the idea of carbon offsetting to mitigate the effects of flying (Responsible Travel) were also the first to get rid of it (you can read why here:http://www.responsibletravel.com/Copy/Copy101331.htm)).
Friends of the Earth are also strongly opposed to the idea of carbon offsetting (you can read why here: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/dangerous_distraction.pdf)
So for the sake of the planet, please don't make the mistake of using companies that offer carbon offsetting, or promoting such companies to others.
Prevention is better than cure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)