If someone turned around in the middle of the street and proclaimed “I can predict the future!” it wouldn’t be too strange to see the majority of people desperately avoiding eye-contact, and moving along. It’s also pretty fair to say that even when we watch the weekly weather forecast, there’s a growing cloud of doubt at the backs of our minds. But if, say, somebody had designed a format of questions which will help you achieve an evaluation that considers both cause and effect for one given project, and from the findings gives a report which reveals its prediction – do we listen?

Science may be the greatest form of rhetoric our generation has ever known; but are we really listening? It’s hard to say. Everyday a broadsheet will print new findings which support the need for renewable energy and the threats posed by climate change. But more often than not, the destruction of the earth is no longer a gripping subject, and the page is turned.

Could we need a more practical solution to slot in the tool-belt of everyday life? It’s possible. An environmental impact assessment (EIA) will have most of us switching off as fast as we can switch on the TV. But, ignoring its drab name, there is a certain tangible quality to EIA-thinking.

EIA is an exactly-what-it-says-on-the-tin strategy tool designed for decision makers to see straight to the centre of their current concerns. It considers the possible impact – be it positive or negative – that a project may have on its, or other, environments. Considering natural, social and economic variables, the assessment aids decision makers by helping them decide whether to proceed with a given project, after outlining its total forecasted environmental impact.

Doesn’t that sound like something we need as a general public and as individuals: the capability of foresight based on our actions before they happen. It sounds like such a simple request, but imagine if the Government released a leaflet detailing the ways in which we could categorically assess our own individual projects of being a civilian – and the effects that may, or may not, have on the environment.

Despite the thought of it sounding a little too close to a George Orwell novel, the practical side of it is something all of us should consider at some point.

Throughout Europe the E.U. has set out a mixture of guidelines and mandatory procedures to help assess environmental impact. Granted these have been put in place to mitigate damages caused to the environment by European industry; but some of the key sections in an EIA, such as; description of the project; a list of considered alternatives; description of the significant effects on the environment; and mitigation, all exist to help users see clearly the impact their actions will have on the environment.

Now, of course, this example is based only on conjecture, or, at best, a woolly paradigm. But in a modern age confounded by headlines, threats, and pre-packaged solutions, perhaps a EIA-thought is something socially refreshing that we could really do with taking a look at. Just consider some of the actions and services we take for granted right now – food, transport, electricity – an EIA might reveal a way in which we could simply do a little more by wasting a little less.

Posted under Articles, EcoWarriors

In the age of contraception, child birth has a taken on a moral angle that existed far less acutely in the past: the question around having children now represents a real decision to be made, and increasingly it seems that many environmentally conscious parents-to-be are further being pressured into accepting an anti-procreation stance, encouraged by thinkers who argue that further population growth in a carbon-led economy will do untold damage to the planet.

It’s a hotly contested issue; literally a matter of life and death, the environmental debate over population control is the clearest symbol of our own acknowledgement or denial of the benefits and detriments of our presence in the natural order, with advocators of population slow-down admitting in essence that the human race, multiplied, equals multiplied destruction.

The moral jury is still out on the subject, though. In the Guardian’s green living blog, Lucy Siegle has argued as follows:

To spawn or not to spawn? Naturally the planet has a view. Hitherto its mouthpiece has appeared to be the Optimum Population Trust (patron: David Attenborough)Proc. Its core message: that the projected 70-80 million additions to earth every year represent environmental catastrophe. Every day 10,000 new inhabitants will, according to the OPT, begin using life-sustaining resources and emit carbon when the planet just can’t take it. We are no longer able to live on the interest from the earth’s natural capital – we are eating into the actual capital. The OPT’s “Stop at Two” pledge encourages us to stop procreating after we’ve replaced ourselves. But eco warriors send mixed messages. For every Norwegian sex activist wanting to “Fuck For Forest” (a non-profit “erotic ecological organisation” which involves more than just treehugging), there’s a green campaigner angsting over oestrogen pollution from the pill and condoms killing coral reef.

Where lies the answer? And can pro-environmental rationale really validate potential population controls? The gravity of the issue draws heavy attention to the potential sacrifices one might have to make as an environmentalist, and also the absurd weight of the issue to which we must all throw ourselves – to the point of an unsolvable despair, for some – if as a populace we are to tackle and redress the damage so far done as a result of our carbon culture.

The ultimate problem, though is this: regardless of moral questions, is it ever going to be practical to ask people to stop having sex?

Let’s see.

Posted under Articles

Over the last six months weather in Britain has been a little bit freaky. From several bouts of snow – the heaviest and most frequent to have fallen for a good few years – to several periods of doom and gloom and torrential downpours, it’s been something of a grey blur, and the spring doesn’t look set to kick in either: with April approaching, the usual ‘April showers’ are giving way to torrents of rain and little sunshine.

Given that sunshine was a little too sparse for some last summer too, the grey haze that has been an eradication of “traditional” seasons could be worrying for some Take a little comfort, then, from recent information which suggests that the Middle ages were even wetter; in fact, one study is linking the strange lack of sunshine to the “black death”.

Ominous indeed: what could the adverse effects of our changing seasons be? Though calls for a new weather induced-black-death-pandemic would be a little on the ridiculous side, what this information does show is that climate can have a real effect on a given population. Now, this wouldn’t be the place for speculation on what that effect could be in the modern era, but it’s certainly food for thought the nonetheless.

And it dispels that view that things in the good ol’ days of yore were better, doesn’t it?

Faint witticisms aside, it does represent an interesting thought experiment: is our climate just fostering a misery in us or is it going to have biological effects too? Whilst the link between climate and the plague of the Middle Ages certainly represents an exceptional circumstance, it raises certain questions about what we’re doing not only to the “environment” around us but also ourselves, in our society of high-carbon output;.

Hmm.

And if you’re wondering how people worked out that the Middle Ages had wetter summers, here follows the answer, from Professor Dr Jan Esper of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz:

“Annual growth rings provide us with an accurate indication of summer droughts for each individual year, dating back to late medieval times”

Who knew the insides of trees could be that interesting?

Posted under Articles, Climate

At the heart of our problem of global warming is CO2 emissions, and the root cause of that issue can be boiled down to the mining and use of fossil fuels as a way of generating electricity for the vast power grids that keep in operation the world’s most developed countries; even a nation like the UK alone – which, because of it’s size, generates little in comparison to some countries – contributes heavily to annual worldwide CO2 emissions levels, and when you include large industrial nations like India, the US and China, it’s easy to see how quickly our current carbon-heavy economies are contributing to a seemingly unsolvable problem.

Plenty of companies, though, are looking to do the little they can to make a dent in that carbon monopoly; in the UK alone companies like Ecotricity, Green Energy UK and Good Energy are showing that when you compare green energy suppliers with more traditional coal-based suppliers, the ethical angle has a lot to offer.

Offering plenty of options – from 100% green energy tariffs to low mix renewable energy solutions -  this new generation of energy suppliers are fighting corner to corner and toe to toe with their older rivals. Growing in popularity at an impressive rate (most of us hadn’t heard of Ecotricity, Good Energy or Green Energy UK 5 years ago, but most interested parties now treat them like household names) these companies understand that saving energy is incredibly important, and that – if trends are to be believed – such companies can always compete with more traditional energy companies because green electricity prices follow brown.

And so, the ‘Green Three’ can continue their good job safe in the knowledge that they won’t be too easily priced out of the market for having ethical commitments at the bottom of their business beliefs. It’s hoped, too, that with the government’s UK Low Carbon Transition Plan, these companies might get more attention from government, and increase their output that way. If they do, then it will mean a better service and more availability for the average customer, and should allow for green energy suppliers to grow and grow.

FOr those who want to compare gas and electricity companies, Ecoswitch takes care of all the hard work. Just visit www.ecoswitch.com/greenenergy, where you can compare green energy tariffs and save a bundle in just a few minutes.

Remember: a little time out now could save a lot!

Posted under Articles, Gas & Electricity

Urbanisation and its inherent consequences have taken precedence in a recent UN report. The UN’s agency for human settlements, UN-Habitat, has outlined the prevalence of the “endless city” as being one of the most significant and problematic phenomenons to face modern civilisation over the next fifty years.

The report, which was launched earlier this week at the World Urban Forum, highlights a global shift towards urbanisation and the emergence of ‘mega-regions’, such as the Hong Kong-Shenhzen-Guangzhou region in China which houses approximately 120 million residents.

Findings revealed that now over half the world’s population resides in its cities. Anna Tibaijuka, UN-Habitat official, released forecasts that in the oncoming quarter of a century over 70% of the world will have moved to a city; with only a marginal percentage remaining outside these sprawling borders.

The impacts of urbanisation typify both a direct and indirect threat to surrounding ecosystems. Such environmental degradation has in the past lead to a decline in biodiversity and to a reduction in the ‘life-condition’ or natural services that ecosystems provide. Fresh air, clean water, aesthetics, recreation – all come under threat as urbanisation rapidly increases.

Furthermore, the related dysfunctional attributes that urban dwellings breed in and around their surroundings will surely see an increase in slums, ghettos, economical divides, cultural disparity, as well as unbalance and inequality.

Increased energy consumption, transport costs and poor housing stand central in the UN report, and will remain a clear concern for ecologists, politicians and the general public alike.

Some of the world’s largest mega-regions – those brought under scrutiny by UN investigation – include; Nagoya-Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe, Japan, estimated to reach 60m in the next five years; as well as Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, Brazil, housing 43m people.

A conclusion drawn by the report comments on the increasing social trend to live in affluent and ‘world-class’ surroundings. However ecologists warn that despite urbanisation making economic sense to capable industries, the mass migration towards cities will, on the whole, exhibit a negative move towards modernisation.

And with a political climate hot for sustainability and ecological commitment, there is a throbbing questions which remains: Is our planet capable of housing such designs?

The fact of the matter is we are yet to know. Nevertheless, statistics show that we are already at tipping point in terms of environmental balance. But whether or not this consideration remains chief to political activity will not be seen for some time. What stands as paramount to society is as much a mystery today as it will be tomorrow. However, what needs to be addressed are the figures – and they speak for themselves.

Posted under Articles, Environmental News

In a highly controversial advertising campaign, eco warriors Greenpeace has called-out global chocolate seller Nestle through a provocative satire which aims to stop the international chocolatier from sourcing their palm oil from companies who are accused of destroying Indonesia’s rain forests.

The internet advert, or ‘viral’, launched the campaign last Wednesday, posting their online affront to mixed reviews.

Generating a loaded following from eco-enthusiasts around the world, the viral was first aired via the home of online viral entertainment YouTube but was soon pulled due to copyright infringement.

The mock advert mimics Nestle’s leading chocolate bar Kit Kat, turning their slogan ‘Have a Break, Have a Kit Kat’ into an environmental comment on the state of Indonesian rain forests and the threats posed to its natural habitat.

‘Give the orang-utan a break’ fronts the one minute video where an office worker innocently pulls out a glossy, wrapped orang-utan paw and begins snapping segments in front of appalled onlookers. The brief but tremendously effective satire finishes with images of rain forests being chainsawed and pulled down into devastation.

At present the site has received over 500,000 hits, and is growing daily. Thousands of Greenpeace supporters followed by emailing Paul Bulcke, Nestle CEO, with questions directed to their current environmental policy and the state of palm oil harvesting in relation to the company as a whole.

It has since been reported that the Nestle CEO has blocked any further online investigation and Andre Kudelski, a member of the board of directors, is due to send a press release in order to address the issues raised.

Palm oil harvesting is one the major contributors to the degeneration of rain forests worldwide. The orang-utan and hundreds of other wild species are being put under threat because of this unethical business venture. Greenpeace’s impact has stirred global appeal and will surely bring about an address worthy of public inquest.

The viral video can still be found online, but its topic runs much deeper than the emotions evoked for any sympathetic or ethically concerned spectator. Greenpeace spokesman had this to say about the support produced by the internet sensation:

“Facebook users went to Nestle’s fan page to ask what the company was doing about their palm oil suppliers, where they were met with rude and arrogant responses from the company. Word of this spread like wildfire around the internet, and has been the talk of many high-profile blogs and news websites.”

Such activism not only threatens the chocolate seller’s domestic and friendly product image but sends shock waves through their business policy and to the core of its brand integrity.

Posted under Articles, Corporate

Ever since the official German reunification ceremony on 3rd October 1990 was held at the Reichstag building (also known as the Bundestag), its changing shape and inspired architectural engineering has entertained wide-eyed tourists and budding environmentalists from all around the globe.

A building steeped in history and a dubious past, the Reichstag came under the creative eye of England’s own architectural master mind Norman Foster – nationally renowned for design achievements such as 30 St Mary Axe, or as it is informally known, ‘The Gerkhin’. Foster won the rights for the reconstruction of the building and finished his magnificent make-over just before the dawn of a new millennium in 1999.

But it is the crowning piece of architectural mastery Foster insisted on (about half way through the original renovation plan) that take, so to speak, centre stage. The inclusion of a cupola – or dome-like structure – was added to blueprints in order to subtly echo the original 1894 design but place it in an entirely modern setting.

The dome itself is situated at the very peek of the Reichstag, and for all intensive purposes, provides three-hundred-and-sixty-degree panoramic views out onto Berlin’s cityscape. The glass work not only emphasises a looking-out to an international city, but it also purports an inward eye to peer down into the dome itself to see what is truly being housed on site.

Elegantly wrapped in glass and steel, what surrounds the central chamber of German democratic government is a number of innovative, eco-friendly designs that work together in order to move the building away from its past and towards a greener future.

Now running completely on renewable energy, the Reichstag combines water, wind and solar power, in order to make a true statement of a national commitment.

Germany is and has been over recent years one of the leading advocates for the renewable energy industry. So why would we expect anything less from a building that houses its nation’s voice and key decisions? The building can be seen as an emblem to Germany’s dedication to environmentalism in a modern age.

Take the intricate solar panelling system: utilising photovoltaic and microgeneration at each and every tasteful corner, the building also incorporates a mirror design circuit which captures the sun’s natural energy, sending it flowing through heating systems towards a porous rock foundation that sits below the building for any excess heat to be stored and used again at a later date.

It is an inspiring building. One that does not want to ignore its relationship with the past, but also one that seeks to recognise its investment in the future. The levels of transformation and conservation are wonderfully balanced to such a degree that any onlooker can take not of, as well as, pride in the sheer beauty of it.

Posted under Articles, Eco Build

It is a hot subject in the ever-changing topical world of ecology, but why – one may ask – does biodiversity matter to Britain?

Quite simply, because without it we no longer have Great Britain as we know it… Ask a question you get an answer.

But in all seriousness, there is a growing number of wild species being stricken from the environmental list that once made Britain great. Frogs, gulls, it seems even the most common of British conservational nobodies are in danger of becoming celebrities for all the wrong reasons. Take, for instance, the eel; a creature renowned for its capacity to live and breed and prosper in the most hostile of habitats – this creature is now considered critically endangered! And that’s not to mention public favourites such as the honey bee, which are slipping in droves by the day.

What’s even more frightening is that as we lose key-links in the eco-cycles which gave birth to the British countryside, we may soon lose parts of the British countryside itself.

But the borders of biodiversity are not only shrinking within Britain’s small ecological circles; the international debate over the totemic bluefin tuna is still rife, worldwide. And the fact that industrial powerhouse Japan remains resistant to the proposed bans is an absolute absurdity.

A prohibition on bluefin fishing has been put forward to span several years in order to allow breeding to take full effect and save this magnificent species from slipping off the very edge and brink of extinction. Surely it’s a simple quandary to solve: the population of the bluefin tuna is a hair’s width away from extinction under the current fishing laws, but remains on the cusp. If the fish is allowed to breed for a substantial amount of time it will return to its former glory as a species. This is when the fishing ban could come under reform and modernise to accommodate a more sustainable balance…Simple, yes?

Apparently not. Japanese trade officials are slamming their heavy hands on the proverbial democratic table in protest against the bans. Instead they’re insisting on a continued license to fish the Atlantic and hook even the last specimen in order to feed their swollen-stomach seafood industry. But the logic behind these actions is all but obvious.

If the bluefin tuna is fished at current rates it will not survive the turn of the new year: mitigating that side of industry regardless of any demands. Does it not, therefore, seem like a smarter – let’s say, more of a ‘long-term’ – business strategy to keep the species around for years to come?

And it is cross-roads such as these that remain at the very centre of biodiversity as a subject around the world and back home in Britain. Put it this way: if you were a painter would you choose to paint in one colour; if you were a writer would you choose one word to express your story; and if you were a musician, could one note suffice? These questions and more do seem ridiculous; but in the face of it they’re not too far from the truth.

In simple terms, we are, as a race, choosing to eliminate choice. We are reducing the bounty of a world which – as a matter of fact – relies on eco-systems and biodiversity to exist as we know it. And we are doing this one species at a time: disrupting the harmony of things (and if you’re uncomfortable with the word ‘harmony’ try thinking of ’cause and effect’ – without the honey bee would we have as many flowers each Spring?).

Britain faces a growing decline in a number of ecological areas, sure to provoke only an unbalance throughout the nation’s conservation sites and countrysides. But what remains to be done is still a little misty. However, like anything, the first step is awareness. Once a problem is addressed it ceases to be a problem and moves, quite covertly, into the realms of the questionable – Would it really be Summer without the bumble bee? Winter without creeping moss? Britain without a countryside? – and then soon enough, an answer appears.

Posted under Articles, Wildlife

With British local elections taking place on May 6, it’s a fairly open secret that the current Labour government will call the general election for the same day in order to increase voter turnout and have a decent shot at retaining power, with pre-election polls showing that the gap between the Conservatives and New Labour are narrowing.

The potential change of government, of course, remains. With that change would come potentially influential changes in policy, and that will apply to the still forming UK environmental policy and legislation, as much as with more established policy areas.

Given that the growing interest in environmental policy led to Labour’s formation of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), and that the department is still in its infancy (it was formed in October 2008), an understanding of the effects of a shift in government is vital.

What, then, are the potential repercussions for environmental policy after the general election in May 2010?

If the Conservatives Takes Power

On the subject of a Conservative win in the upcoming election, there is something of a resignation in the UK press. An understanding of the main points on their environmental policy, then, is a must for anyone who takes an interest in the future of sustainability and the environment in Britain.

They have pledged to enact the following:

• Offer every household a Green Deal, the right to have up to £6,500 worth of home insulation improvements, enabling households to reduce their energy bills, with the costs being met from the much greater savings that arise;
• Transform electricity networks with ‘smart grid’ and ‘smart meter’ technology that automatically matches supply and demand, allowing a huge increase in renewable power;
• Create a decentralised energy revolution by introducing a system of feed-in tariffs to encourage micro-generation of electricity;
• Expand offshore wind and marine power and provide government backing for a network of large-scale Marine Energy Parks.

Similar to current New Labour plans in that the introduction of smart meters and a smart grid are a top priority, the Conservatives have spoken little of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) – where Miliband as will be seen, has championed it – but equally haven’t made many inroads into green energy, other than a cursory commitment to the growth of offshore wind power. Their plans for a large-scale marine energy network, though, is ambitious: how it could be implemented, though, remains to be seen.

If Labour Remain in Power

Ed Miliband will probably remain in his position as Secretary of State for the DECC, and as such remain the effective orchestrator of British environmental policy in the wake of changes to international obligation after the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit.

Generally speaking Miliband has been a popular appointment to the position of ‘Climate Change Secretary’ and would be one of the chief beneficiaries of a Labour re-election, with his generally good work having sounded him out as a potential candidate for future Labour leadership.

In his two year tenure Miliband has enacted the ‘Low Carbon Transition Plan’, and championed research into Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), which he has earmarked as a practical application of the ‘clean energy’ principle attached to the use of renewable energy, and the relatively limited funds attributed to environmental concerns from the government coffers.

A persistent presence at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Miliband is an active player in the international scene, and despite his relatively low profile in the UK, has carved out a reputation that makes him one of the government’s more established politicians in international negotiations.

For continuing work in environmental policy, then, a Labour re-election – provided Miliband isn’t shifted around cabinet – could be the UK’s best option. Miliband and the DECC haven’t been without their criticisms, though: tentative support for nuclear power drew many in dissenters, and CCS is a little moderate for some. His seeming silence on the large-scale production of renewable energy capabilities, too, could lead to questions about his true environmental commitments.

If There’s a Hung Parliament

Long out of power, the Liberal Democrats could see their first shot at government in decades: speculations are rife on the prospect of a hung parliament, and for the first time the Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they would consider a potential coalition with the Conservatives.

The introduction of the Liberal Democrats into government could prove for interesting changes in relation to environmental policy. That, though, would depend on the party’s decisions regarding loyalties to the UK’s two major parties.

With the Liberal Democrats, renewables seem to enter the equation:

Both Labour and Conservatives support the construction of new nuclear power stations. More nuclear power will soak up subsidy, centralise energy production and hinder development of Britain’s vast renewable resources. Nuclear has a dirty legacy and increases global security risks. We oppose construction of further nuclear power stations.

Liberal Democrats will drive a massive programme of investment in renewable energy sources such as wind, wave and solar. We will also transform the National Grid into a smart decentralised grid which will respond dynamically to the changing patterns of energy demand. Smart metering and guaranteed prices will unlock the potential of local and community energy generation, giving people control over the energy they use.

Interestingly, and alarmingly for many, it could be that only a hung parliament may draw out any potential for renewable energy investment. Given that the chance of an actual Liberal Democrat victory is highly unlikely, it would seem that all renewable energy supporters can hope for is that in a coalition government, the Liberal Democrats could pressure their chosen dominant partner into certain commitments involving the technology.

Posted under Articles, Gas & Electricity

The credibility of carbon free homes up and down the country has been put under national scrutiny this week as Gordon Brown’s government announced that only 24 buyers have taken advantage of a 2007 initiative put in place by the Prime Minister to instigate and attract the construction of environmentally friendly homes across the UK.

Mr Brown, in his final Budget as Chancellor, had announced that stamp duty would be scrapped on all new or developing properties worth up to £500,000 which achieve a zero carbon rating. Three years ago Mr Brown revelled in the press by concluded that the scheme would save an estimated average of £10,000 for each eco-home purchase. Deemed a key weapon in the fight against climate change, the then Chancellor set aside £15m for the tax relief.

It seems as though the now Prime Minister set himself for a great fall. Less than one carbon neutral home a month has sold since October 2007. Only a shocking 24 buyers have taken full advantage of the tax break since its initial introduction.

Grant Shapps, the shadow housing minister, had this to say: “Gordon Brown just can’t seem to stop himself from announcing grand schemes designed to do little other than grab that day’s headline.

“Rather than Ministers putting all their efforts into announcing glitzy pledges in order to grab a few column inches, it would be better for them to sit down and seriously work out ways to slash the 27 per cent of carbon emissions that emanate from Britain’s homes.”

With 2020 requisites looming, there is some weight to comments like these. However the tax break initiative found its roots in establishing and accelerating market interest for the national development eco-homes. Before October 2007, carbon neutral homes were scarcely heard of, let alone given column space in national newspapers. Despite the initiative’s serious lack of interest from a general buying market in a time of steady recession, the scheme has certainly succeeded in opening up the widening niche area of Green living.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, said the stamp duty land tax (SDLT) relief scheme was designed to “help kick-start the market for new highly efficient technologies in homes, both for the fabric of the building and in the use of micro-generation.”

Over the past three years there certainly has been a boom in micro-generational technologies, supporting grant schemes, development initiatives for connecting trades, as well as a steadily growing market for sales.

If the relief scheme can be perceived as a steamroller for what followed in terms of renewable energy development and carbon neutral design, then perhaps not all is lost.

Ms McCarthy-Fry continued: “We have always made it clear that the SDLT relief for zero carbon homes would evolve and we expect to see more of these homes built in the future.”

Despite recent press scrutiny, the Government remain committed to establishing an environmental policy that will see all new properties to be carbon-neutral by the year 2016. This would require a vast amount of new technology, which critics have already brought under financial consideration.

Further to these investigations, the eco-critics stand steadfast to the need for existing home sites to be brought into the carbon neutral generation before flagship developments go ahead.

Posted under Articles, Eco Build