The DECC After Six Months – How Has it Performed?

decc

Symbolising a change of priorities for the New Labour Government in its treatment of the environment, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), established in October of 2008,was created as a way to handle the increasing importance of climate change on the political agenda in the UK.

It was formed as a way to combine the work on policy for energy research and consumption, previously conducted in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), and the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on climate change regulation.

That these two areas were combined to form their own stand alone department is testament to the increasing pressure of environmental lobbyists and the general development of a public environmental consciousness, and the government is now ready to recognise, at least in words, the importance of regulation, policy and research, on climate change problems and energy consumption.

According to its own departmental website, the aim of the Department of Energy and Climate Change is to,

“Face unprecedented challenges to our environment, our economy, and the future security of our energy supplies…the decisions we make now will affect the planet and our way of life for generations to come. DECC exists to tackle these challenges. Our creation reflects the fact that climate change and energy policies are inextricably linked – two thirds of our emissions come from the energy we use. Decisions in one field cannot be made without considering the impacts in the other.”

UK Environmental Problems – What the DECC Has Had to Face

Anti-Nuclear Power Lobbies

Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband, has backed calls for the integration of nuclear power in the UK’s fight against global warming and climate change. As a result, anti-nuclear power lobby groups have argued that the creation of the DECC places Ed Miliband in a position of unnecessary strength when it comes to decision-making on future plans for energy in the UK.

Miliband and the DECC are having to face criticism that the department now holds a position to which it does not directly qualify; critics argue that decisions on such matters as nuclear power should be held by experts in an independent body, outside of the jurisdiction of the DECC.

Backlash on Coal-Fired Power Stations

The DECC has had to walk a political tightrope in recent months, when it comes to their policy on coal-fired power stations. With plans to replace traditional power stations with carbon capture technology; those in the industry have questioned the legitimacy of research into the new alternative. As a department, the DECC is expected to maintain the interests of both industry and environmental lobby, and over months to come it will be expected to come down either on the side of those who would wish for a potential get-out clause on carbon capture technology, and those who argue that this would undermine the environmental ethos of the DECC.

Claims of Hypocrisy

It was reported this week that the building which houses the DECC has been rated at the lowest possible level of energy efficiency according to government’s own guidelines. As the department was newly created, it has been argued that, as a symbol of things to come, the DECC might have been housed in a building that could lead by example.

The exposure of the building as an energy efficiency ‘F’ has led some to claim that the DECC is not acting in deeds what it is saying in words, and that New Labour is simply paying lip service to environmental concerns.

The DECC’s Time to Prove – The Next Six Months

With a host of potential flashpoints already brewing in the DECC’s melting pot, Ed Miliband and his department have a lot to prove if they wish to provide evidence for their own creation in October 2009. With supports arguing that the department has inherited the problems that arise as a result of neglecting climate change as subsidiaries of other government departments, the DECC will now need to address key issues sincerely and effectively.

That the DECC was first created, though, is at least a step in the right direction.

Posted under Articles, Climate, Uncategorized

This post was written by Chris Woolfrey on May 20, 2009

-->

All-Energy ’09 Exhibition and Conference – Book Your Place!

all-energy-09-logo

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

This post was written by Chris Woolfrey on May 19, 2009

-->

Not in MY backyard: product versus production

neflogo

A report by think-tank, the New Economics Foundation (NEF), has shown (for those of us unable to do the maths ourselves!) that the UK is too dependent upon the rest of the world and is moving in to, what it calls, ‘ecological debt’ at an earlier stage than before. The report, cited in The Guardian, states that Easter Sunday is technically the date on which the UK goes beyond its means for 2009; using the crops, pastures, forests and fisheries of other countries. The NEF state that by the same measurements, back in 1961 the equivalent day was the 9th of July, It also highlights just how dependent the UK has been upon the labour forces of other countries, as well as the raw and processed products they supply.

For centuries now, the UK and/or England and/or Great Britain has looked to the (usually financially poorer) corners of the globe to supply and service the apparent ‘needs’ and wants of their consumers. As science, politics, climate change and social movements collide with increasing ferocity, the effects of our behaviour on the wider world, are ever clearer. Reports like the NEF’s highlight the need for us all to make significant changes to the way we live as individuals and as nations. The report goes as far as saying that until we make changes in the UK, we will not begin to tackle the problems that face us all globally. As our populations increase, so too do the potential problems surrounding energy, food and water dependence. If some countries, like those in the UK, take more than their fair share from the global pool of resources, the problems that face us all are magnified enormously.

In many countries in Africa, the natural resources have long been used by external powers. Since the early ‘scramble for Africa’ in the 1800s, colonial powers (and their modern day equivalents) have fought for the resources, including the land itself for crop production. A recent BBC Radio 4 report by Mike Wooldridge, discussed the ways in which both India and China are competing in the continent. Whilst many people throughout Africa remain hungry, much of the rich land is used to grow food and bio-fuels for richer, Western (and Eastern) countries. It is such profiteering that adds to what the NEF report sees as a ‘bizarrely’ wasteful system of world trade. Such systems include the equal importing and exporting of the same goods that, if used by local consumers, would cut down on the exorbitant fuel wastage alone. As ever, it is us, the consumers, that hold the individually minute power, that will, collectively, offer the solutions to the very manageable problems.

If you need some inspiration for how to make the Eco-switches towards a more sustainable lifestyle, the film Garbage Warrior is a perfect starting point and offers true inspiration.

Posted under Climate, Uncategorized

This post was written by Josh Brown on April 11, 2009

-->

Stimulus Yes But Stimulus of What?

fawley_oil_refinery

James Howard Kunstler, a long term advocate..

I’ve been sceptical of the “stimulus” as sketched out so far, aimed at refurbishing the infrastructure of Happy Motoring. To me, this is the epitome of a campaign to sustain the unsustainable — since car-dependency is absolutely the last thing we need to shore up and promote. I haven’t heard any talk so far about promoting walk able communities, or any meaningful plan to get serious about fixing passenger rail and integral public transit. Has Mr. Obama’s circle lost sight of the fact that we import more than two-thirds of the oil we use, even during the current price hiatus? Or have they forgotten how vulnerable this leaves us to the slightest geopolitical spasm in such stable oil-exporting nations as Nigeria, Mexico, Venezuela, Libya, Algeria, Columbia, Iran, and the Middle East states? And we’re going to rescue ourselves by driving cars?

I know it is difficult for Americans at every level to imagine a different way-of-life, but we’d better start tuning up our imaginations, because endless motoring is not our destiny anymore.

Posted under Uncategorized

This post was written by Leif Ahnland on March 2, 2009

-->

Capitalist Turncoats

patagonia-real-estate

Doug Tompkins is another of those present day enigmas in the category I-got-rich-polluting-but-will-use-my-money-doing-something-nice; allowing for a flexible definition of polluting of course.  If it is a bad conscience  fuelling the conversion or just a change of mind is ine, usually it seems to be the realisation that there is money . T Boone Pickens, who has made the majority of his billions on oil related activities, recently decided to promote  into a nation powered by wind and natural gas. The Pickens plan probably owes some of its components to Mr Pickens Microsoft founder went on to set up found the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation with his wife. They want to ‘close the global digital divide’ -presumably with computers using Windows but that is yet another story.

Mr Tompkins on the other hand He became ridiculously wealthy “selling people countless things they didn’t need”. Now he’s spending it saving the planet. Dan McDougall enters his private Patagonian wilderness to hear how the tycoon turned environmentalist has declared war on industrialists, whalers – and Greenpeace

A dark intertwine of deep green fjords stretches beneath us towards the horizon where the confluence of the glacial current merges with the black stillness of the open sea. Far to the south, where epic waves torment Cape Horn’s cold granite cliffs, three great oceans – the Pacific, the South Atlantic and the Antarctic – meet in a cacophony of turbulent waves and deadly squalls. It is the stormy heart of the most unpredictable weather system on earth. “My Patagonia,” in the words of the poet Mario Miranda Soussi, “is a landscape of infinite water, torn apart by a torrent of love, navigating a single river swollen by miracles.”
The verdant terrain we are crossing at 500ft above the Patagonian rainforest canopy is no less violent: fern-covered Jurassic mountains crashing into each other, snarling vegetation suffocating the trees, roaring rivers tossing huge boulders and rocks kilometres downstream. Fleetingly, we fly over a few small corrugated tin houses, their red roofs glinting in the evening sun; remote dwellings only there, it seems, to show how vast the terrain is. Even the mighty Andean Condor, with its 3m wingspan, appears no bigger than a seagull in this landscape.
The shadow of the plane that carries us is lost on the side of an enormous massif as we begin to lose altitude. The single prop dips and weaves in the thermals as we approach the tree line, cutting the uppermost branches off a 200-year-old pine tree, and then hurtles towards the dusty runway. Our pilot is Doug Tompkins, 66, a multimillionaire philanthropist conservationist and the most controversial American in South America. He is an individual at the vanguard of a new aggressive environmentalism who has spent hundreds of millions of his own dollars buying up a slice of Patagonia the size of Northern Ireland, and has practically split a sovereign country in two – all in the name of saving the world. Fifteen minutes earlier, Tompkins had flown us over the gaping crater of his own volcano, and taken an impossible 360 degree turn so close to the lip that we almost passed out from the sulphurous emissions.
We are among the first guests this year to stay at his remote farmhouse. Tompkins spent Christmas and New Year on the Antarctic high seas, the acting quartermaster on the controversial Sea Shepherd, a vessel he has supported through thick and thin through his friendship with the ship’s captain, Paul Watson. Tompkins later tells me that he spent much of his time bombarding the Japanese whaling fleet with putric acid bombs. He was the oldest man on the ship, but he pulled his weight by doing night watch, and even scrubbed the deck.
The experience of ramming Japanese ships on the world’s most treacherous oceans has clearly taken its toll on him, and he looks gaunt. But he is also agitated. It’s been a difficult weekend. Over coffee, toast and his own homemade blueberry jam he spent our first breakfast together telling me it was time to “Take it up a notch” in his bid to save the planet. “Greenpeace,” he told me, “were wimps. They’ve turned into a corporation. They hoover up donations from around the world and do nothing. As activists, they are dead in the water. It’s time for a new activism to get the message across. We need to take the destruction of this earth and its animals to those responsible – and face them down. We are out in the snow and the wind taking it to the Japanese. Greenpeace are in their warm London offices lobbying politicians. Direct action is the key now, and the public are behind us.”
The story of how Doug and his wife, Kris McDivitt Tompkins, arrived in Patagonia started out simply enough, but it has quickly become one of the most enduring controversies in modern South American history. Once fashion moguls behind three of the high street’s most famous brands – Esprit, The North Face and Patagonia – the couple are now mounting the world’s largest private conservation effort, buying vast stretches of wilderness in Chile and Argentina to protect it from development.
Tompkins founded The North Face, his outdoor gear company, in the 1960s and, with his first wife, the clothing company Esprit. Kris, who is a decade younger than Doug, was CEO of Patagonia, an outdoor clothing company that was the first US corporation to give 1% of its sales to an environmental fund.
Tompkins first dabbled in land conservation as far back as 1979, creating the redwood-studded Esprit Park on a San Francisco city block. In 1990, he helped Britain’s Cat Survival Trust buy 10,000 acres of rainforest in Misiones, Argentina, now El Piñalito Provincial Park. In 1994, he married Kris and the couple moved to Chile. They sold their shares and said a not-so-fond goodbye to corporate America, deciding to focus full-time on conservation in Patagonia. Since then they have bought up an astonishing 2.2m acres of wilderness for parks and reserves.
As Bill Gates and Warren Buffet launched audacious philanthropic campaigns to wipe out HIV and malaria, the Tompkins have quietly poured almost $300m into reserves and ecological causes through their private San Francisco- registered charitable foundations.
Parque Pumalin, where we are now standing, is owned by one of these foundations – almost 800,000 acres of temperate rainforest stretching from the Chilean coast to the Andes. It holds 25% of the world’s remaining Alerce trees, related to the giant Sequoias of California, as well as pristine waterfalls, lakes, campgrounds, cabins and trails. It doesn’t stop there. To the southeast of Pumalin, in Valle Chacabuco, a former sheep ranch is being restored to grasslands and 300 miles of fences have been removed. The locals have become guides, restoration specialists and wildlife managers, just as small farmers around Pumalin have become park employees and organic farmers.
In the Argentine province of Santa Cruz, McDivitt Tompkins used $1.7m from her Patagonian Land Trust to buy the 155,000-acre Estancia Monte Leon. Endangered deer, sea lions and elephant seals take refuge here, along with Magellanic penguins. Her foundation gave the land, as well as a management plan, to Argentina as the Monte Leon National Park in 2004. The newest project is to rescue an area in subtropical Argentina where giant anteaters, tapirs and jaguar will be reintroduced.
Today, the couple are the ecological equivalent of rock stars, such is their standing in environmental circles that they both get top billing wherever they go to talk in the world. Prince Charles recently received them at Clarence House to discuss organic farming. Yet they are far from self-publicists. Securing an interview with the intensely private couple took eight months of perseverance.
But not everyone is a fan. Accused by right-wing Chilean politicians of effectively splitting the country in two in a conspiratorial land grab, the Tompkins have faced a barrage of criticism over the past few years. The Catholic church and Chile’s former president, Eduardo Frei Montalva, have both attacked the Parque Pumalin project repeatedly, claiming the couple have evicted peasants and blocked traffic along the region’s only road-and-ferry lifeline, the Carretera Austral.
The campaign against them has, at times, attracted popular appeal in a region where US involvement has often meant CIA-backed coups and support for right-wing dictators, such as Augusto Pinochet. In newspaper headlines and on websites, the Tompkins have been accused of dark motives and sinister schemes, some of them ridiculous, some downright entertaining – they are here to replace local cattle with American buffalo, to corner the world granite market, to establish a new Zionist state, to steal Chile’s water and sell it to Africa.
“The country is divided into two and the guilty party is a North American who doesn’t even live in this country,” warned the conservative weekly Que Pasa recently. “His objective is, to say the least, dark, covering a vast territory from mountains to sea.”
The superintendent of Region 10 (one of 13 provinces in Chile), of which Tompkins owns 20%, keeps a thick file on the American on his desk. The Chileans have even placed a bizarre police station in the centre of Parque Pumalin to keep an eye on him. It’s a dream posting for the officers who sunbathe and play football all day with only sheep for company. The army keeps an active base near him, too: since his land shares a 44-mile border with Argentina, the army sees him as a potential threat to national security. So much for saving the planet.
“Imagine if a super-rich millionaire bought a quarter of Northern Scotland,” one Chilean friend and Santiago-based journalist told me, “and then informed the local populace that he was keeping it for their own good because their government couldn’t be trusted to look after it. Even if true, it’s a hard truth to swallow for us all. We are a country with growing energy needs, and water and wind energy in Patagonia could be the key to keeping our economy afloat when fossil fuels go the way of the dodo.”
“We knew from the start that the biggest challenge for us would be overcoming not just political opposition but mistrust over our motives as outsiders. We have thrown the obstacles in our own path, this is what we do,” Tompkins tells me at his Pumalin farmhouse. We are perched, awkwardly, on one huge sofa surrounded by an expensive mixture of crafted blond woods and organic white paint. Outside is a beautiful Japanese garden and a series of organic greenhouses – not to mention the couple’s private runway and hangar for their four planes. Every detail of the 100-year-old farmhouse’s renovation was designed by Tompkins himself.
“I’ve never ever tried to make life easy for myself,” Tompkins continues. “Land use is highly political here, more than most places: if we wanted to retire in peace we wouldn’t be here. These parks are our life’s work, not the clothing chains we created, selling people clothes they don’t need. We are the ones who keep putting obstacles in our own way by buying more land. I’m a troublemaker and I’m proud of it. We know what to expect – more confrontation, more outrage, more mistrust. When we began working on Parque Pumalin, rumours flew that we were establishing a nuclear waste site for the United States or, oddly for Episcopalians which we both are, setting up a Jewish state. It would be funny if these theories weren’t being taken very seriously. If we weren’t getting the hate mail or the graffiti outside our mainland offices.”
Tompkins claims that things are finally improving, with the government at least. Last August, Pumalin was designated a nature sanctuary, a special status conferred by the Chilean government in order to provide additional environmental protection. As a result of the announcement, the Chilean Pumalin Foundation will supervise the park’s administration and development as a national park for the Chilean people with full public access, yet one that remains privately owned. With its new designation, Parque Pumalin has become the world’s largest private reserve.
At the heart of the reserve is a mist-shrouded, old-growth rainforest, which receives an astonishing 6,000mm of rain a year and is home to the towering Alerce trees, some more than a 1,000 years old. Once common, the Alerce has been logged to the brink of extinction. To Tompkins, the struggle to preserve biodiversity is his primary concern, it is “the point upon which everything turns,” he says. In the early 1990s, he started the non-profit Foundation for Deep Ecology to promote the ideas of Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, who died last month, aged 96.
Naess’s philosophy opposes all “mega-technology” – from nuclear power plants to television sets and even wind turbines, and calls for a dismantling of the “techno-industrial society”. Although Tompkins uses computers and pilots small planes to and from his projects in Chile and Argentina, he is unapologetic in his support for Naess. “I use satellite phones and a Mac. I use a camera like everyone else, but for me this is a strategic embrace to try and communicate the messages I believe in. Mega technologies present the biggest threat to the world today, more so than fossil fuels. We have distanced ourselves from nature,” he says.
As we speak, Tompkins’s wife, who calls him Lolo (young man in Spanish), calls us to the table for lunch. “We have a saying here,” says Kris, “that if we wait long enough, the whole world will turn up on our doorstep. We host environmentalists from the four corners. People who come here to see the work we are doing.” Close friends of the couple understand that she is, in fact, the dynamo behind the pair’s success. We are joined by an American environmental campaigner and his son who are visiting Tompkins to raise funds for a project in their home state of Oregon. Within moments the youngster finds himself chastised by Tompkins for tacitly admitting it would be hard to give up his laptop. “You are weak,” shouts Tompkins at the startled young man. “This is a fight to the end. You need to step away from technology’s hold on you.” The young environmentalist, who rides a skateboard to work for fear of polluting the planet, looks crestfallen.
Doug Tompkins grew up in Greenwich Village and the resort town of Millbrook, upstate New York; his father owned a Manhattan antiques store. He was kicked out of the prestigious Pomfret School in Connecticut and then, like many Americans in the 1960s, he drifted west, moving to California to climb and ski. While he was working as a tree surgeon near Lake Tahoe in 1963, he met Susie Russell. He’d been hitchhiking, she picked him up. They were both 20. Married a year later, they moved to San Francisco, where he borrowed $5,000 to start The North Face, selling it a few years later for $50,000. Esprit started out, literally, on Susie’s kitchen table in 1968. By 1986, its worldwide sales topped $1bn.
Known as Little Utopia and Camp Esprit, the San Francisco-based company was a leader in developing neo-hippie perks, offering employees free foreign language lessons, and sending them rafting in the foothills of the Himalayas. Happy employees at Esprit ultimately made for serious profits: along the way Tompkins acquired a $1m collection of art, including work by Bacon, Picasso, Balthus and Hopper.
In the 1980s, with Esprit flying high, Tompkins read George Sessions’s and Bill Devall’s primer, Deep Ecology: Living As If Nature Mattered, and decided to make a change. As he states on his Deep Ecology website: “Within the few hours that it took to read the book, I experienced a powerful epiphany. Everything suddenly made sense.” As the company grew, Tompkins perfected what was later dubbed “MBA” (Management by Being Absent), going off for months on climbing and kayaking adventures. His mind was seemingly elsewhere. In 1990, after several years of wrangling and a divorce from his first wife Susie, she and three partners bought him out. The deal gave him $125m plus 25% of Esprit Far East.
In Pumalin, Tompkins keeps a tight grip on the park, micro-managing his conservation effort in the same way he did with Esprit. No decision is made without his express permission, be it the style of stone used on a pathway to the lettering on a signpost in one of the parks. “Doug Tompkins is such a control freak that he has to pick the toilet-paper holders for all these places,” jokes his close friend Yvon Chouinard, chairman of clothing manufacturer Patagonia Inc.
What is undeniable is that Tompkins’s methods, good or bad, have put him on the frontline between development and conservation. The idyll of the Patagonia he lives in is deceptive. Timber companies and cattle breeders are busily harvesting the forests, and the lakes of the region are steadily becoming polluted by salmon farmers exporting to Japan and Europe. South America’s last non-tropical rainforests are being chopped down, the wood ground into chips for the cellulose industry, and Chile’s environmental laws are not strong enough to protect the trees.
Tompkins is blunt, because he has his work cut out. “Sure, I offend people,” he says. “I do it all the time, but we only have one shot at this. I can’t buy every wilderness in the world. There are wealthy men out there who if they stood up and did the same we would have a fighting chance of saving our ecosystems. Why would a retired billionaire want to keep his money anyway? What good is it to him when he is dead?”
To this end, Tompkins considers other charitable efforts, such as the fight against poverty, illiteracy, or disease, secondary to preserving biodiversity, a fact that many charities find impossible to digest. “Look, you can plough money into Africa, you can be like Bill Gates and take on malaria, these are all admirable pursuits, but it’s really quite simple. There’s not going to be any social justice on a dead planet. We need to pay our dues to live on this earth; we need to pay the rent and I’m doing that with the work we are carrying out here in Patagonia.”
“There are too many of us,” he adds. “Say what you like about the Chinese, but they got it right with their one-child policy. We must accept our place in nature. The earth’s population must shrink if we want to survive.”
Subtlety, Tompkins is the first to admit, is not his strong point. Getting results is. Everything here, in majestic Pumalin at least, depends on his success and much of the water that runs through the land he owns is scheduled for
damming by energy companies. He vows to stand in their way. Energy is a hot topic in Chile, where natural resources are few. Ten Patagonian rivers are targeted for dams planned by Spanish-Italian multinational Endesa and Chile-based conglomerate HidroAysén, with the backing of the government. At stake are pristine ecosystems and rural farms, but an even greater issue involves building the world’s longest transmission lines. Thousands of high-voltage towers would run 1,500 miles to bring power to Santiago and the country’s energy-hungry mining operations in the north. “Water,” says Tompkins, is “Absolutely everything”.
And currently it is salmon farming that is his particular bête noir. As we arrive in Pumalin, 500,000 Atlantic salmon have escaped from farms into the Pacific fjord, causing devastation. To show the extent of the catastrophe, we take to the skies. A few miles north of his farmhouse, he banks steeply so we can look at the tethered cages of the salmon farms that line one of the fjords which dissect his estate. The seafloor beneath salmon cages quickly becomes a dead zone, carpeted in a deep slime of faeces and unconsumed protein from feed pellets, resulting in toxic algae blooms and red tides.
The profligate use of antibiotics to ward off disease in the overcrowded pens has, in the past six months, led to an increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria – many of the salmon are sick. “Look at this shit,” says Tompkins. “This whole enterprise is fed by the depletion of the marine food chain. It takes 3-5lb of fishmeal to produce 1lb of salmon. Madness. It’s damned madness, I tell you.”
Yet salmon farming is one of the crown jewels of Chile’s economic boom, worth around £2bn, and its competitive advantage on the world market is based largely on the claim that the fish are raised in “the world’s purest cold waters”. Chile has a 35% share of the world market: half the salmon consumed in the US began life in a cage in a Chilean fjord.
“It’s just another battle I have to take on,” says Tompkins, banking left and heading back to the fjord.
As I prepare to leave his home I wonder if guilt is driving Tompkins. He knows I investigated his former company Esprit while I was working as a foreign correspondent based in India, where I found eight-year-old children making garments for the US chain without its knowledge, now owned by a Hong Kong-based consortium. Tompkins denies that exploitation, in particular of children, contributed to his enormous profits.
“Look, I’m not proud of how I made my money; the carbon footprint aside, fashion is one of the most intellectually vacuous industries. We had to manufacture desires to get people to buy our products. We were selling people countless things that they didn’t need. It set the agenda for the other multinationals that shift disposable items in unfathomable bulk. The retail industry is a monster hoovering up the planet’s vital resources.”
Tenacious and obsessive, passionate and compulsive, arrogant and caustic are the words most often used to describe him. No one suggests Tompkins is modest. “I want to raise the consciousness of the world,” he recently told a Chilean news magazine. In the mid-1980s, at the height of Esprit’s success, he told another interviewer that he was obsessed with two things: “Moving in places where the ordinary human doesn’t go” and achieving “world-class status”.
Soaring above Doug Tompkins’s forest canopy are Pumalin’s prized Alerce trees. Cashing in on its light weight, its straight grain and its resistance to rot, loggers have decimated the tree population. The Alerces growing in Pumalin are some of the species’ last survivors, and the near destruction of the tree is a sort of Chilean morality tale, for this is a country whose economy is based, to an extreme degree, on the extraction of raw materials and the exploitation of natural resources.
Tompkins feels an affinity with the trees: “I’m a survivor like them. They keep threatening to throw me out, but I’m still here, fighting the good fight. I hope I’ve got 20 years’ fight left in me yet.”
As we pack our bags, a helicopter hovers above the farmhouse and drops on to the airfield. At the helm is Sebástian Piñera, Chile’s former ambassador to the UN and now a billionaire businessman. Piñera, a charismatic Harvard graduate, is the majority owner of Chile’s largest airline, Lan, and also a major television station. He is here, he claims, for fuel on his way to the mainland, but a camera crew is in tow. They film me speaking to Piñera.
Although nowhere near as vociferous as Tompkins on the issue, I know Piñera is dabbling in conservation himself. He recently bought 120,000 hectares of Chiloé Island, one of the country’s most remote wildernesses. Will he buy more, I ask him – as much as Tompkins?
“More land? No. I don’t think so – 120,000 hectares is a lot of land. More than any man needs. Nobody should have too much land, it belongs to the people. This is an issue I feel very strongly about.”

Posted under Uncategorized

This post was written by Leif Ahnland on February 9, 2009

-->

Feng Shui on Wall Street – “Just a little bit more to the left…”

feng-shui

Note: This is labelled as Uncategorised as it has little to do with anything factual. But, since it is the Chinese New Year this weekend and the most recent figures confirm that the spectacular Chinese economic double-digit GDP growth over the last decade is losing momentum, the items below earn, perhaps, some weird sort of interconnected relevance.

Feng shui masters tell us that the Year of the Ox, which begins on Monday, will bring calmness to the stock markets.

‘This year of the Ox is an “earth” year, when people will take a breather and reflect on what they should do after a turbulent 2008,’ according to Hong Kong feng shui master Raymond Lo, who was interviewed by Reuters a couple of days ago.

So why not relax. Take your shoes off. After all, it has been very tiring to try to keep up with everything. The calendar offers us the opportunity to say, ‘Let’s start over, this year I will [insert illusion here]!’ The trouble is of course that come February, we notice that the waistline is pretty much the same as a month earlier. Just like the quick tabloid magic powder lose-weight-in-two-weeks diets are no real solution, short term cash injections will not help if we do not start exercising and eating less.

But fear not, this year help -in the form of an omnipresent super dietist- has arrived. We will all get thinner thanks to the general scrimp-and-save fever that has substituted the hopelessly naïve borrow-and-spend frenzy from the last few years. Hey, even White house officials are now ‘tightening their belts.’

More non sequiturs, anyone? ‘With the Moon in the Red and the ascendant in decline, the signs are up and about.’ Why, thank you ever so much, Mr Shui. Madame Tarot might have had something to add but we have not been able to reach her for comments.

The logics of Wall Street, High Street or any Bank-lined street anywhere right now, are completely dysfunctional. This is not news but just confirmation that as the recession celebrates its first birthday; its unmarried parents [Ms Market and Mr State] do not know what to do with their overly energetic, rampant lovechild. To be sure, technically it was born just now but make no mistake, the official birth date of this recession as just a formality. As for when it was actually conceived is another matter of debate.

In the UK, Prime Minister Brown just announced another bank bailout plan. Banks in the US, in response to declining revenue of companies with otherwise spotless loan track records, foreclose their loans as a pre-emptive measure. Some estimates suggest that over 50% of American small home building companies will fail. To the endless list of rude awakenings, we keep adding black Tuesday to grey Monday to bleak Sunday to scary Saturday to every down the spiral day since the beginning last year. And now we will substitute the Ox for the Rat.

Since this is not a 100% serious article (apart from the fact that the gloom in it is obviously not made up), here is a Wikipedia link with some excerpts from the article on the Ox as a zodiac sign. Enjoy.

The Ox is the sign of prosperity through fortitude and hard work. This powerful sign is a born leader, being quite dependable and possessing an innate ability to achieve great things. As one might guess, such people are dependable, calm, and modest. Like their animal namesake, the Ox is unswervingly patient, tireless in their work, and capable of enduring any amount of hardship without complaint.

Anyone springs to mind? Yes. 1961 was actually an Ox year. On second thought, here is the rest of the Wikipedia entry, it is irresistible.

Ox people need peace and quiet to work through their ideas, and when they have set their mind on something it is hard for them to be convinced otherwise. An Ox person has a very logical mind and is extremely systematic in whatever they do, even without imagination. These people speak little but are extremely intelligent. When necessary, they are articulate and eloquent.

People born under the influence of the Ox are kind, caring souls, logical, positive, and filled with common sense and with their feet firmly planted on the ground. Security is their main preoccupation in life, and they are prepared to toil long and hard in order to provide a warm, comfortable and stable nest for themselves and their families. Strong-minded, stubborn, individualistic, the majority are highly intelligent individuals who don’t take kindly to being told what to do.

The Ox works hard, patiently, and methodically, with original intelligence and reflective thought. These people enjoy helping others. Behind this tenacious, labouring, and self-sacrificing exterior lies an active mind.

The Ox is not extravagant, and the thought of living off credit cards or being in debt makes them nervous. The possibility of taking a serious risk could cause the Ox sleepless nights.

Ox people are truthful and sincere, and the idea of wheeling and dealing in a competitive world is distasteful to them. They are rarely driven by the prospect of financial gain. These people are always welcome because of their honesty and patience. They have many friends, who appreciate the fact that the Ox people are wary of new trends, although every now and then they can be encouraged to try something new.

It is important to remember that the Ox people are sociable and relaxed when they feel secure, but occasionally a dark cloud looms over such people and they engage all the trials of the whole world and seek solutions for them. Also the Ox people are all caring and loving but at times when you mess with them they will tear out in anger.

Wow. The Ox is now in charge. May Wikipedia and Chinese astrology be for real, both of them?

Posted under Environmental News, How To's & Guides, Uncategorized

This post was written by Leif Ahnland on January 24, 2009

-->

Eco-Friendly Cosmetics

eco-friendly-copsmetics

Woman everywhere take note; not only can we be eco-friendly in the way that we live our lives. We can be organic in the way that we ‘make ourselves up’. There are various benefits to using organic cosmetics;

  1. It is better for your skin
  2. It has been made out of organic materials
  3. It benefits the farmers that have made the organic materials for the product
  4. It has been made in such a way that it will not affect the environment

There are a number of different shops that offer these products in this particular market. The most well known being The Body Shop. Being the second largest cosmetic franchise in the world, they sell a lot of cosmetics.

“The company also pledge that by 2010, 80% of all it’s products will be artificial preservative free, as the company are researching many ways to use natural preservative, using tea-tree oil for example, one of nature’s natural anti-bacterials.”

To further ensure that the product that you are using is ‘green’, you could make it yourself. This is one of the easiest ways to be 100% sure that the product you are using is;

  1. Recyclable; any product left over can be recycled either in a compost heap or via a food recycling bin
  2. ‘Green’; you know what you have put into it, therefore you know that the product is made entirely from plants, fruits etc…

There are all different ranges of make-up, however, each of these ranges sell the same products, all claiming to be better than their competitor. I have found that the best organic make-up range tends to be The Body Shop not only does it tend to feel light on your face, it doesn’t give you spots and is a fairly decent product.
Boots Natural Range are also a good manufacturer of organic make-up. Depending on how well-off you are depends on whether or not you are able to maintain your levels of make-up with an organic make. Boots Natural Range is a cheap and fairly reliable manuacturer of make-up and enables you to live the ‘green’ life that you have aspired to lead.

In a lifetime, the human race wash, at the very least, once a day. This means that we a lot of shower gels, body scrubs etc. You name it, someone will probably be using at this very second. Being ‘green’ there are alot of shower gels out there are made from 100% recycled bottles, but there are also organic shower gels, body scrubs etc, that you can use. One that I find nice to use is Jo Woods Organics Tula Cleansing Body Mousse. But there are a number of other organic shower gels that you can use in order to be clean and feel good about your lifestyle. Such as Weleda, Jo Woods, Korres Natural Products, Green People Organic Aloe Vera Shower Gel just to name a few.

To find out more about these products, click on the links provided below:
www.boots.com
www.Korres.com
www.weleda.co.uk
www.jowoodsorganics.com

Posted under Eco Reviews, Lifestyle & Fashion, Uncategorized

This post was written by Victoria Mellor on January 12, 2009

-->

A Deeper Shade of Green – Ecotricity Shows the Way

ecotricity

Most companies should have noticed by now that ‘going green’ became economically viable from one day to the next. It is suddenly impossible not to show some green in the corporate portfolio and perhaps nowhere more so than in the energy sector, especially those catering openly to the public. So it turned somehow into the consumer’s responsibility and the mantra kicked in: consumers have power because numbers have power. As a consumer I can choose. Yes, as a consumer, I. CAN. CHOOSE. Choose yes but choose what?Electricity behaves much like running fluids but very little like non-moving ones; that is to say we have to keep moving it or transform it to other forms of energy, storing it in batteries or bodies of water in dams for example. This dictates the rules for a dynamic and sort of exclusive stock market, energetically buying and selling kW and Ampere across borders.

So it is only natural that some companies, wanting to come across as really green, just start to buy and sell electricity from existing renewable sources. There is nothing really wrong with that, it provides stimulus and incentives to build more wind turbines and have us cover our roofs in photovoltaic. But those companies, often taking advantage of the fact that green electricity still comes at a higher price, do not necessarily do anything to add green energy to grid.

When a company offers you a ’100 per cent green’ tariff what it is actually saying is that for every unit of electricity you use it will provide the national grid with the same amount but from a renewable source.*

While there is a lot of goodwill (and market shares) to be gained by showing that the electricity sold is a solid 100% green; the actual impact on the total can be a sad 0%. Tricky one that.

There is another way. With only 37.4% coming from renewable and 18% coming from nuclear sources, the remainder an unhealthy mix of natural gas and coal, the 2008 version Ecotricity does not look all that green.** They call renewables Deep Green, burning biomass, sewage and landfill Pale Green and the rest simply conventional. How deep a shade of green are they with 60% coming from good old brown technologies? Their answer, and it is a pretty convincing one when you start looking at other numbers, is that they match customers expenditure investing in building wind turbines. They are not alone doing that but they are way ahead of any competitor. Other companies claiming to do the same average £8-16 whereas Ecotricity, in 2007, spent £555 per customer Needless to say, that is by a large margin more than ALL other electricity providers in the UK put together.

Established in 1995, Ecotricity is said to be the first company in the UK to have offered green tariffs. Oh, excuse me, make that the world. They start to become really interesting by now. Which is why we have formed a sort of partnership with them?

It is not just the Eco-prefix in the name that makes us tick; they are an out-of-the-box-thinking player on a bumpy pitch.

Click here to learn more about and [eco] switch to Ecotricity.

* Article ‘Green Electricity… Are You Being Conned?’ in The Ecologist 01 June 2005, read it here.

** Retrieved from ecoswitch.com/greenenergy/ on 14-12-2008, see it here.

f ahnland

Posted under Climate, Companies, Gas & Electricity, Renewable Energy, Uncategorized

This post was written by Leif Ahnland on December 14, 2008

-->

Who are EcoSwitch?

You all know the company EcoSwitch, and are familiar with their informative articles on the net. But are you aware of the other features that they provide;

Green Searchecoswitch

Eco Forum
Eco Profiles
Eco Radio

Green Search enables you to search for only green companies. You may be searching for a way to make your electricity consumption greener; Green Search would return only green company results. This enables you to take your life greener without having to troll the internet finding a way of doing this, and what’s better than having it all at the click of a button!

The Instant Messaging feature on ecoswitch.com enables you to communicate with people via the magic of the internet. But what makes it so different to msn? Being an eco-friendly site, it enables you to swap tips about you can makes your life a greener place. You are also able to learn new things whilst teaching other others how to be as environmentally aware as you are.

Eco Video enables you to watch videos on being how to be more environmentally aware. It’s like YouTube; it allows you to upload your own videos and watch others that have been uploaded and you can rate and comment on videos.

Eco Profiles allows you to network and meet new people. You are able to connect with others that are interested in the environment, and how they can do their bit to change the state of the world. Meeting new people is always fun and trading tips means that you can both make your life greener together. You may ask what is so different about Eco Profiles to their Instant Messaging feature; Eco Profiles allows you to exchange nudges, comment on someone’s profile, write a little bit about yourself and upload a photo. It makes it that bit more personal to you, and allows people to put a face to the person that they are talking to.

Eco Radio is just like any other radio; you are able to listen to music when you tune in. The difference being that they play adverts from eco-friendly companies. It is also hosted on an eco-friendly server. This means that the hosting company is doing its bit to change the world.

But not only are they providing this service, they have their website hosted with an eco-friendly company. With this company it means that with every new server and customer, they plant an extra tree in the ground. This offsets their carbon emissions that are given off by their servers, because the trees suck up the carbon dioxide given off by the data centre.

At the overall look of this website and company, it is a forerunner in the race to make the world more environmentally aware. It has features that encourage people to look around and join the eco profiles and instant messaging features. Tuning into Eco Radio will enable people to listen to the latest music. You are able to look up anything from recycling to finding an eco-friendly destination for your next holiday on ecoswitch.com. This type of company makes it easier for people to make their lifestyles greener and do their bit for the environment.

Posted under Uncategorized

This post was written by Victoria Mellor on November 20, 2008

-->

Recycling – Something to Think About

containers

Recycling, saving the planet? Or is it just plain old time wasting?

The notion of recycling is as ancient as human civilisation if you think about it. People did not throw things away because of necessity; the saying ‘the less we have the harder we have to think’ is still true. But then we got plastics, paper cups to name but two of many other disposable items that you use once and then throw away. It became so easy to just get a new one when something broke instead of mending it. A frenetic following of fashions has not helped, as it encourages low quality merchandise. After all, why bother getting something lasting if it is only for one season.

Gradually over a couple of decades -and more fervently so during the last few years perhaps- we have begun to realise once more how necessary reuse and recycling is. Technically speaking, it is simply the processing of used materials for them to be used again and again, in order to prevent the waste of potentially useful resources. But what it entails is reduction of consumption of raw materials, energy, and air and water pollution, ultimately a lowering of greenhouse gas emissions. Recycling is a key part of modern waste management. Or at least will be once we really start to do it.

Items that we use every day of our lives are recyclable materials; cardboard, glass, paper, plastics and electronics (such as computers and mobile phones).

The London Borough of Bexley has made it compulsory for all households to recycle items and biodegradable waste. They have supplied all households with three boxes and two bins;

Green Bin: Non-Recyclable Waste
Brown Bin: Biodegradable Waste
Maroon Box: Plastic Bottles & Cans
Black Box: Glass
Green Box: Paper & Cardboard

They also collect non-recyclable waste once a fortnight; this has forced people to become more aware of the amount of rubbish they have that can be recycled. This system has boosted recycling in the area considerably. Other places are initiating similar initiatives. Norwich City Council have started to, for want of a better word, litter sidewalks with blue bins, for recycling cardboard, plastic bottles etc. We will see how that works out. Other systems with recycling points -common in Germany, Sweden and many other countries- are alternatives that seem to function reasonably well.

Did you know that recycling an item made from recycled aluminium uses 5% of the energy required to make it from raw materials? Or that recycling two glass bottles saves enough energy to boil water for five cups of tea? (This probably should make us think far enough not to boil unnecessary litres if what we need is just ONE cup of tea.)

To sum it up: If less waste goes to a landfill, there will be a reduction in the release of methane, which is a particularly vicious greenhouse gas and contributor to climate change. Voilà.

Want to help save the planet? Recycle it.

Posted under House & Home, Uncategorized

This post was written by Victoria Mellor on October 22, 2008

-->