Beginning tomorrow, All-Energy Conference ’09, a renewable energy conference with 360 exhibitors from a diverse range of nations across the world, will provide attendees with the chance to meet with alternative energy providers and discuss genuine solutions for making the switch to renewable and alternative energy.

Split between the 360 exhibitors and several conference discussions on the possibilities and potential pitfalls of renewable energy, the conference will certainly provide the inquisitive with a chance to delve further into an understanding of the conceptual and practical, as well as future, benefits of the green revolution and alternative energy research.

The All-Energy ’09 Exhibitors

With such a large roster of exhibitors, All-Energy ’09 is the biggest meeting of its kind, and the names included in that roster are particularly notable. All-Energy ’09 will provide space for AE & E Austria, Planet Trends and the Renewable Energy Association, amongst others.

What’s certain, though, is that each exhibit will provide a chance for audiences to gain a sound practical knowledge of the options available to them when it comes to renewable and alternative energy, and the endeavours of those in the field to make a switch to such a lifestyle genuinely possible.

The All-Energy ’09 Conference Discussions

Alongside the plethora of exhibitions available for viewing to all attendees, the All-Energy ’09 event will house a number of discussions across the two days, with speakers including current Secretary of State for the Environment and head of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband.

Not only will attendees have the chance to court alternative and renewable energy providers, then; they will also get first-hand evidence from the UK’s most influential environmental politician, on plans for the future of energy consumption and renewable energy research in the UK.

As such, the event can boast a sound combination of practical application and future planning, and should prove to be the most successful conference of its kind to date.

Staying Green with Carbon Offsetting at All-Energy ’09

Mindful that what is said in words must be acted in deeds, the All-Energy ’09 organisers are also providing solutions and information on carbon offsetting for those who wish to travel to the event with the environment in mind.

This symbolic gesture is firm evidence that, unlike other events of its kind, the All-Energy ’09 Conference has the environment, and the genuine potential of alternative and renewable energy sources, firmly at heart.

More proof of that fact can be found in the sense that the event is totally free to all those who register; for the exhibitors, speakers and organisers, the two day event is about raising awareness, and developing the potential for energy sources across the world.

In order to register, or gain further information, visit the All-Energy ’09 website.

Posted under Articles, Corporate, Uncategorized

Now in its eighth year, The Responsible Business Summit, which began on 11 May and concludes on 12 May, once again contains some of the biggest names in business. With key speakers including the CEOS of Timberland, Eurostar, IKEA, Shell and BP, the summit will represent a real chance for discussion on environmental policy in business, with genuinely influential people at the head.

The theme for this year’s summit, in the words of the Responsible Business Summit itself, is as follows:

“Given the current economic climate, this year’s summit will be focused on how corporate responsibility will be affected by recession. Will your CSR department be shrunk, or even closed altogether? Or will CSR be an invaluable source of new business opportunities and innovation that your board cannot afford to lose?”

That corporate social responsibility is increasingly on the agenda of the business world is evident even from the title of the summit, but it has been a real victory for environmentalists that often, CSR is seen as relative to a business’ environmental policy.

The summit will open with a discussion on the topic ‘The business ethics imperative: Can responsible business save the reputation of capitalism?’, and will of course include companies such as Shell and BP, so environmental thinkers will be looking closely; it is a genuine chance for these companies, closely tied to the world of fossil fuels, to nail their colours to the environmental mast.

And for a business, where they lay their sword could prove to be decisive, as another talk in the summit demonstrates:

The 2008 Cone/Duke University Behavioural Because Study shows that 79% of US consumers would switch brands, if a brand supported a good cause they cared about. But this approach could equally cost your company its reputation, if it turned out to be a commercial tool, rather than a reflection of your company’s CR values. So where do you draw the line between business sense and responsible business?

It seems that underlying the 8th Annual Responsible Business Summit will be an appeal to the commercial heart of a business; CSR, often in the form of environmental policy, is good for employers, employees, and the consumer, but it is also good for profits.

That appeal could prove vital in bringing business – which, as a result of its scale, is a proportionally large contributor to climate change – further in line with the message of environmental thinkers. That the summit will also include a discussion dedicated to reducing the carbon footprint of businesses, and the affect that can have on corporate reputation.

We will see if there any genuine positive outcomes from the 8th Annual Responsible Business summit, but the presence of such environmental issues on the agenda, is a small victory in and of itself; environmental policy continues to grow in importance for the commercial sector, and with it, the chance for genuine change in our consumption habits, too.

For more information: The Responsible Business Summit website.

Posted under Articles, Corporate

Green Car: The New All-Electric Tesla Model S. Family sedan – range 300 miles

EVERY day, as I wake up, I see a layer of brown smog hanging over London. We are not alone. Every big city with a million or more people (we have six) has a pollution problem. It affects the quality of the air we breath and motivates us to fly more at this time of year – many of us trying to soak up fresh Alpine Air (if we are lucky).

We all know pollution, air quality problems, increasing CO2 levels and Climate Change are caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. One of the biggest contributors to Climate Change is the transport sector and the Government have now recognised this. Not only has Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently said that EV’s would be one of the key cornerstones of his economic recovery plan, but Mayor Boris Johnson has unveiled a plan to introduce 100,000 Electric Vehicles (EVs) and back the technology with the introduction of 25,000 charging stations in the capital.

The Government’s wholehearted backing of green car technologies comes at a historic and exciting time for green car companies in the U.K. And there are several green electric car manufacturers now that you should know about – if you care about the environment as much as we do!

TESLA MOTORS – LAUNCH OF ROADSTER, NOW THE SEDAN (pictured above)

In the two weeks following the launch of Tesla Motors new Model S – an all-electric family sedan that carries up to seven people and travels up to 300 miles per charge – over 700 reservations have been taken. Credit crunch or no credit crunch, people are flocking and backing green car technologies like never seen before. And the performance of the Model S is not just encouraging, but astounding – 0-60 mph in 5.6 seconds and an electronically limited top speed of 130 mph. Yes it could go faster! To make your journey more comfortable, there is an inbuilt 17-inch touch screen with in-car 3G connectivity – meaning you consult Google Maps, listen to Pandora Radio or check the car’s state of charge remotely on your iPhone. The Model S can be recharged from any 120V, 208V or 240V outlet or quick-charged from an external direct current supply in only 45 minutes.

Two other cars, the Nice Megacity and the Reva L-Ion, both ‘city’ cars with a top speed of 50mph, are also proving popular.

REVA – L-Ion

Since 2001, India based Reva have sold over 2000 units according the New York Times. Initially, there were problems with the Reva after Jeremy Clarkson did a crash test and labelled it the ‘worst car in Britain’! Reva have now strengthened the car and have introduced new Lithium Ion technology that allows the car to travel 75 miles and reach a top speed of 50mph. The price tag varies between £7995 for the Reva I which uses lead battery technology and the latest Reva Lithium Ion which retails for £15,795. It is marketed through GoinGreen based here in Britain.

NICE Megacity

Similarly, the Nice Megacity is proving very popular. Not only does it sound amazing with its all electric sound, but it is manufactured in Europe (France) and is distributed from Nice Car Company’s Notting Hill base. The price tag on the nice range of cars is £8995-£14,000, so not unreasonable for the latest cutting edge technology. You can now book your test drive of the Nice Car at the Westfield shopping centre in London or if you live outside London, you contact them for alternative arrangements.

THE WAY FORWARD – WHAT SHOULD I DO?

I urge each one of us to do our bit and there is still time. Many people feel hopeless given the enormity of the Global Warming Problem but there is good news. At the recent Sustainability Summit at the Dorchester in London (which EcoSwitch attended), David Nussbaum, CEO of WWF UK, said it definitely wasn’t too late. If we all do our bit now – and many of us are warming up to the idea of tacking pollution and Climate Change – then we will mitigate the impact of Global Warming. We did it with aerosols and the Ozone Layer and we can do it again with Climate Change.

We can start with a switch to a greener car. If you can’t afford it yet, please save a bit each month so you can.

In the meantime, you can still do simple things which have a very positive effect on our environment, such as switching to a green electricity provider. Did you know that Power Stations in this country are responsible for an estimated 33% of all CO2 emissions? You can cut your individual 33% by switching to one of the genuine green energy companies – Ecotricity, Good Energy or Green Energy. You will then be ready to order your green car – remember electric cars are only as green as the electricity you put into them. So it is important to find a genuine provider as there are lots of ‘Green’ tariffs but they vary enormously in quality.

EcoSwitch.com will shortly be launching a comparison of the most genuine green companies (links above) to help you with the switch – and it should only take 5 minutes to apply.

Posted under Cars & Transport, Climate, Corporate, Gas & Electricity, Renewable Energy

SWEDEN/UNITED KINGDOM/FRANCE/US

The Swedish furniture and home decoration giant IKEA recently unveiled a computerised car-sharing scheme in France; a special customised service from an established car-sharing service designed to get more customers to IKEA stores. It had been marketed as an IKEA concept car, a new way to drive sustainably in order to go shopping. Indeed, IKEA’s whole business model is a by-product of urban sprawl; we are ‘forced’ to take the car to indulge in home styling. True, often there is the offer of free travel by bus to and from the decentralised stores, but in reality well over 90% of the customers drive according to the company’s press release.

Relaying his views on the initiative, Fred Pearce who writes the excellent Green wash column in the Guardian, moves on to a second point concerning IKEA:

The car-sharing scheme is part of a rather haphazard green wash strategy that has been going on at IKEA for a while. Last week its website announced that ‘IKEA has signed up to WWF’s Earth Hour 2009.’ IKEA didn’t turn all its store lights out. It might have been bad for business. Instead it ‘turned all lighting in-store to minimum levels consistent while maintaining a safe working environment for co-workers and customers.’ Shouldn’t they do that all the time? Or, since only half of their UK stores stay open that late on a Saturday, they could have shut the rest, allowing all the lights to go out.*

Pearce’s simply points to the fact that, in some ways, WWF’s Earth Hour 2009 turned into a corporate event and offered a good opportunity for companies of all sizes to brandish the green flag but asking little by means of effort in return. It is probably true that anything as big as the WWF campaign but with such a low barrier of entry is abused as a means to acquire green goodwill. On the other hand, shutting off all lights in store while still open could create quite an interesting situation but not a very productive one. Still, the problematic of any symbiotic relationship is to understand if it is indeed a parasitical one. (View EcoSwitch’s article on Earth Hour here.)

Another thing that IKEA introduced on a massive scale was initially cheap and low-quality furniture for little money. Antiques in the future may not be all that easy to renovate. And now the company is criticised by the Environmental Investigation Agency for using timber from dubious sources to which it responded that ‘trying to trace this information to certify compliance all the way through the supply chain to the harvesting of each and every tree is unrealistic.’ It is understandable that a behemoth like IKEA would indeed face a large task to trace all timber it uses. But to say that it is unrealistic is, as Pearce comments, about money and not about technology or feasibility. The US will impose laws in July requiring traceability to make impossible the use of illegally logged timber. To actively oppose such legislation, as IKEA is claim to have been doing, make their other initiatives rather hollow or, in another wording, look like green wash.

What

.

Article ‘IKEA – you can’t build a green reputation with a flat pack DIY manual’ by Fred Pearce in the Guardian on the 3rd of April 2009, read it here

Posted under Corporate, Environmental News, House & Home

UNITED KINGDOM

According to Lord Browne of Madingley, former head of BP, ‘Britain must revert to greater state control of energy markets to hit ambitious targets on renewable energy and climate change.’ So calling him Lord Browne Energy is perhaps unfair. Then again, it probably is not. For example, he said the recent decision by Shell to stop investments in wind, solar and hydro-electric power reflected a move ‘back to basics’ for oil and gas companies. He said he sees it as ‘a pure business decision. Oil companies have a tremendous number of things they’ve got to do in developing oil and gas. That’s where their expertise is and that’s probably where they’re focused,’ Browne said, apparently not seeing the conflict.

Shell pulled out of the British wind sector last year. It believes only biofuels, and carbon capture and storage make sense, alongside oil and gas. Warning signs that market mechanisms are failing to deliver the necessary growth in clean energy should come as no surprise. Browne said:

Competition has been the guiding star of UK energy policy since the 1980s and it worked well while there was a surplus of energy infrastructure capacity. But price competition is now failing to deliver the new, more diversified infrastructure that we urgently need to bolster energy security and meet our climate change targets. I remain convinced that the market is the most effective delivery unit available to society. But the market will need a new strategic direction and a new framework of rules, laid down by government. We must fundamentally rethink the objective of energy policy in this country.*

The EU asks of Britain to generate 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020 with the bulk of this to be met by the electricity sector. There are proposals for thousands of offshore wind turbines off the UK coast and Lord Browne compared the current need for urgent investment and new infrastructure with efforts to develop North Sea oil and gas fields in the 1970s and 1980s, saying:

High oil prices provided a strong market pull. But governments also gave industry a helping hand, creating generous tax incentives and regulations, and helping to build strategic infrastructure. There’s even more cause for government intervention today. That’s because energy security and climate change mitigation are public goods. They would not otherwise be recognised by the free market.*

For anyone with a cynical view of the world of business in general and the motivation of oil companies in general, Shell’s retreat from renewables could be seen as a way of raising the stakes and negotiate the ‘government intervention’ Browne speaks of to their benefit. One option he suggested:

One option would be for the government to direct state-controlled banks to lend money for green infrastructure projects, as is being done in Ireland. Policymakers must be frank – the cost of supporting renewable energy will be borne by consumers who pay a little more for their delivered energy.*

More precisely, Lord Browne’s logical loops will have the government putting the money up front, consumers footing the bill at the other end and the big energy companies sitting back, avoiding risk and having a fresh market served on a plate to dig into. The smaller or unconventional operators on the other hand, will keep running into problems getting permits or similar setbacks. Ecotricity has already proved that green energy (from renewables) does not have to cost more than brown (coal, oil, gas) energy. (What is happening right now is that carbon offset fee of £50 per year should be added to every ‘Green’ energy tariff, something we will cover in an upcoming article.)

Wrapping it up, Lord Browne said ‘it is vital that environmental policy was at the heart of government’ and went on to say:

It’s essential that we do not compartmentalise climate change as an issue. Environmental integrity should be made a tangible part of other social priorities, such as economic prosperity and national security. This will require a new approach to policy across all levels of government and all government departments.*

There we have it then, straight from the top brass in the inner sanctum of the HQ of our energy future. We should all be well relieved. But, Browne’s ties to brown energy do not make statements with ‘essential’ and ‘environmental integrity’ and ‘priority’ in them very reassuring. There is a lot of manoeuvring to be done before the ship that is the energy future of the world is on the right course with the wind filling its sails. Former heads of oil giants are allies to be wary of.

.

* Article ‘State intervention vital if Britain is to meet its green energy targets, says former BP boss’ by Alan Rusbridger and David Adam in The Guardian on the 25th of March 2009, read it here,

Posted under Climate, Corporate, Environmental News, Gas & Electricity

The ‘eco-warriors’ amongst us may be interested to learn of Marie Mason, a 47 year-old ‘environmental militant’ who is currently serving a 22 year sentence for arson. In 1999 she, along with her partner, caused $1m of damage to offices at Michigan State University. They were protesting against research in to GM crops funded in part by the US Agency for International Development and bio-tech company, Monsanto. No one was injured or killed by the fire, and thus the 22 year sentence seems somewhat disproportionate. Her lawyer described it as “using a cannon to shoot a mouse”. Since September 11^th, however, increasing numbers of demonstrators have been subject to anti-terrorist legislation and these were used to lengthen Mason’s sentence.

Monsanto is a huge multinational company and is responsible for numerous chemical products, perhaps the most familiar being ‘RoundUp’. Through its research and development, it has also created what is known as ‘terminator technology’; this creates genetically modified seeds that do not produce fertile seeds with each crop. Consequently, farmers in some of the poorest parts of the world, are forced to buy more seeds from Monsanto and their subsidiaries. The ramifications of this clearly stretch far beyond the environmental effects; many severely impoverished farmers in India have committed suicide as they are unable to earn enough to feed themselves and their families. Thankfully, people like seed-activist Vandana Shiva (who you may recognise from the film The Corporation), have stood up to the likes of Monsanto and have begun the revolutionary steps of opposing the incredibly powerful forces of multinationals.

There is a palpable imbalance between the freedoms afforded to ‘eco-warriors’, who apparently cause 22 years worth of material damage, and those who introduce the kinds of technology that threaten the environment and the livelihoods of generations to come, in perhaps incalculable ways. Nevertheless, the passion of activists like Mason, who has been a lifetime campaigner and protestor, is inspirational. Similarly, those like Shiva, offer hope and direction through simple actions that use the most renewable energy of all; people power.

Posted under Companies, Corporate, EcoWarriors, Environmental News

The long awaited Nano is close to completion, as the Tata company announce the launch of what has become known as ‘the world’s cheapest car’. A report in The Guardian explains that the 4-seater vehicle, originally intended only to be sold in India, is being modified for sale in Europe for 2011 and in the US shortly after. Selling at around 100,000 rupees (£1,350) the car will apparently be India’s greenest, giving 23.6km to the litre. Nevertheless, environmentalists are concerned by the surge of cheap cars about to hit India, then Europe, the US and no doubt most other regions, if all goes to plan.

There are of course many, many reasons why this is probably not the best of ideas right now, with regards to the climate change/global warming issues that we’re all becoming increasingly familiar with. It seems unlikely that making it even cheaper to own one of the things known to cause considerable problems and environmental damage, will help alleviate the symptoms of global warming. And ‘the world’s cheapest car’ does not come without costs.

Several reports have highlighted the protests against the Tata company’s acquisition of farm land in West Bengal, following suspected dodgy dealings with the government. Business Week reported in August 2008, that 30,000 people took to the streets, and consequently production shifted from Singur to Pantnagar. Despite being expected to significantly boost the Indian economy and increase foreign investment, as other car manufacturers also move to India, the human costs are equally high; ‘the world’s cheapest car’ clearly does not have ‘the world’s best-paid plant workers’.

Combined with the minority, ‘developed’ world’s existing obsession with gas-guzzlers and unnecessary car journeys, the introduction of 100s of 1000s of new vehicles, is likely to make the problems of climate change snowball. As much as it may be a technological, economic and a manufacturing marvel, the Nano may be a very good answer, to a misguided and ill-thought out question.

Posted under Cars & Transport, Climate, Companies, Corporate, Environmental News

A number of recent reports (including the BBC’s and WWF‘s) have highlighted the plight of Sumatran Tigers in Indonesia and in-turn, have drawn attention to the links between our consumption patterns and the welfare of whole eco-systems in far-flung parts of the globe. The situation in Indonesia, where the tiger’s habitats are threatened, shows how the demand for paper products and palm oil, effects not only the forests themselves, but the animals and people who depend upon them. Oxford-based rainforest alliance group, Global Canopy Programme, recently reiterated that deforestation is a key catalyst for global warming; claiming that one day’s deforestation is the equivalent to the carbon footprint of eight million people flying London to New York. In Indonesia, a country without a significant amount of industrial emissions, the deforestation that takes place has helped make it the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world; second only to the U.S. and China (see reference).

Over 1 million hectares of Indonesian forest, precious to the tiger’s survival, have been pulped since the 1980s. One of the giants in the region is Asia Pulp & Paper, and, the reports suggest, their actions, along with those of illegal loggers, have put the lives of locals at risk; with over 55 deaths in the last 12 years from tiger attacks. The tigers too are in danger. As their habitat gets smaller and smaller, they are forced to leave the remaining forest and many have subsequently been shot. With a dwindling population that sits around 400, every tiger lost is a major threat to the survival of the species. So, as the companies push for greater access to more of the forest, to meet our demand for paper, the emissions increase and the livelihoods of locals and the precious ecosystem are severely damaged.

Consumers, and indeed non-consumers, are in the position to lessen the demands that large companies are making on the planet and its resources. Greater knowledge and understanding, can help connect the dots to face the challenges ahead.

Posted under Corporate, Environmental News, Wildlife

A report in New Internationalist this month highlights the plight of children working in Cote D’Ivoire, processing cocoa and helping the chocolate industry thrive. Written by Bama Athreya and Tim Newman of the International Labor Rights Forum, it details the complexities of an industry that itself explains it does not have the ‘market incentives’ to ensure slavery is not used within the supply chain. The leading companies, Nestle, Cadbury’s and Hershey’s, whilst offering various ‘fair-trade’ options, are unable to deny that their profits are built, significantly, on the back of slavery, and very often child labour. Cargill, one of the key suppliers to all three, admitted that they cannot retain competitive market prices, without using poorly=paid slave and child labour. Whilst there is an immense demand for chocolate, as there is particularly in the West, the wages offered to workers will be kept low and their rights will similarly be side-stepped in order to maximise profits for the shareholders of Nestle et al. These corporations are legally bound to put the interests of their shareholders before anything, including human rights. As consumers within an expanding market place, we can choose to send our hard-earned cash to these corporations, or to the smaller co-operatives and independents.

Fair Trade is by no means immune to corruption. It would be foolish to suggest that all products labelled with the little blue and green chap or chappess we are all so familiar with, offer a 100% guarantee that all fair wages due were fairly paid. Nevertheless, buying products, especially chocolate, that show the connection with the farmer and that claim to ensure a fair and relative wage, can go some way to raising the wages and standards for workers. The ‘market incentives’ that the big players talk of, are the actions of the little players; us. The individual choices we make may only be a drop in the ocean, but we all have the power to decide which ocean we want to drop in.

You can find out more about this and other related articles in the April 2009 issue of New Internationalist. Similarly, you may like to watch Black Gold, a film that details the situations for Ethiopian coffee growers, whose ‘fair’ price is unfairly squashed down by the big players.

Posted under Articles, Companies, Corporate

ENERGY

For economic reasons, Shell will no longer be investing in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power , the oil company announced this Tuesday. Instead, it plans to invest more in biofuels which environmental groups blame for driving up food prices and deforestation.

Shell is the world’s largest buyer of crop-based biofuels and will now invest an unspecified amount in developing a new generat­ion of biofuels which do not use food-based crops and are less harmful to the environment. An even bigger problem with biofuels is not that it uses food-crops but that it often uses agricultural land in direct competition with them. And then we have the question of how clean they really are. As a transition technology it might have a role to play but as a long-term strategy the case for biofuels is weak at best. Friends of the Earth (FoE) has criticised Shell for turing away from renewables such as wind in favour of biofuels, saying:

Shell is backing the wrong horse when it comes to renewable energy – biofuels often lead to more emissions than the petrol and diesel they replace. [But at least they are] being a bit more honest about the fact they are a fossil fuel company. It has seen the limitations of the greenwash it was putting out a few years ago.*

The company said it would concentrate on developing other cleaner ways of using fossil fuels, such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. It hoped to use CCS to reduce emissions from Shell’s controversial and energy-intensive oil sands projects in northern Canada. So there we are, back to square one and a half. Carbon capture is all well and good in theory but it does not. The amounts of carbon that needs to be dealt with on a daily a daily basis is simply staggering.

Shell predicts that 80% of energy will come from fossil fuels and 20% from alternative energy sources by 2025 but spend only 1% of its budget on alternative technologies. The last five years $1.7bn of $150bn total investment has gone towards alternative energies, saying that many alternative technologies are simply not attractive investment opportunities. Linda Cook, Shell’s executive director of gas and power, said:

If there aren’t investment opportunities which compete with other projects we won’t put money into it. We are businessmen and women. If there were renewables [which made money] we would put money into it. It’s now looking like bio­fuels is one which is closest to what we do in Shell. Wind and solar are interesting [but] we may continue to struggle with other investment opportunities in the portfolio even with big subsidies in many markets. We do not expect material investment [in wind and solar] going forward.*

It is probably natural for a company such as Shell to reason like this, saying that biofuels fits its core business of providing fuels, logistics, trading and branding. It is only a pity that the core business has been pursued in a remarkably cynical way by Shell and its competitors, where the bottom line is short term money-making. They simply will not EcoSwitch their ways, will they?

.

Article S’hell dumps wind, solar and hydro power in favour of biofuels’ by Tim Webb in the Guardin on the 17th of March 2009, read it here

Posted under Companies, Corporate, Environmental News, Gas & Electricity, Renewable Energy