|
Sunday, 16 March 2008 |
If you're only reading my blog, why not venture out and explore the rest of the site? If you haven't yet read this month's Favourite Find, take a closer look here. Of course this site isn't solely about shop-shop-shopping our way out of climate chaos (which, let's face it, just isn't going to happen). Take a closer look at underlying issues and potential solutions, starting with this week's Website of the Week. |
| |
|
|
Sunday, 02 March 2008 |
 Spare a thought for plastic bags. They've had a really rotten week, victims of a modern-day witch-hunt. Even Prime Minister Gordon Brown was on their case, announcing in the Daily Mail (which launched a high-profile campaign to cut plastic bag use) that he aims to make supermarkets stop giving away free plastic bags within the next year. M&S was basking in the green spotlight after announcing it would start charging for plastic food bags from May, annoying IKEA which hastily reminded us all that it's saved 100 million plastic bags since launching a 10p charge in June 2006, then phasing out plastic bags in July 2007.
Why are plastic bags suddenly Billy-No-Mates? (well, Tesco is still happy to be seen with them, vowing it will resist a bag charge). Plastic bags aren't the most serious factor in climate change, but they do eat up resources and cause major pollution and damage to wildlife, on land and especially in the seas. And it's not just the odd dolphin; apparently the entire ocean is now a 'plastic soup', according to Charles Moore, the American oceanographer who founded the Algalita Marine Research Foundation and discovered the 'Great Pacific Garbage Patch', a swirling mass of over 100 million tons of rubbish that's now twice the size of the continental US. When it drifts close to land, even pristine beaches suddenly become no-go zones (as seen recently in Hawaii).
Revelations about the amount of plastic in the sea (both big bits and microscopic particles) are sharpening the minds of many as we realise that the 17.5 billion plastic bags given away each year in the UK alone (more than 290 per person) don't just lie low in landfill after being chucked in the bin. Speaking of bins, many people are asking me what they'll line their bins with if there's no ready supply from supermarkets. This sets off a big conversation about how much rubbish we generate in the first place (mostly packaging and food) and how we might be able to reduce that waste in future. Here's where the big supermarkets could really made a significant difference, with reduced packaging and naturally biodegradable packaging.
I recently met several inspiring women at (go figure) an 'Inspiring Women' event (by FreshIdeas Events) including Kresse Wesling of Bio-Supplies, Babaloo and EAKO. Kresse is a real powerhouse. Instead of  namby-pamby ideas about wanting to be a bit greener, she finds real, practical solutions to reducing waste. Her first company Bio-Supplies makes environmental packaging alternatives. This is just what the world needs, 'invisible' solutions that the consumer doesn't have to fret about: coffee cups made from waste grasses (instead of virgin trees), biodegradable food packaging (so one can enjoy the occasional ready meal without too much green guilt). When eco becomes easy, we're freed up to make even more significant lifestyle changes to reduce our carbon footprints. Kresse's second company Babaloo makes chic ethical and environmental products for parents and babies (including a 'bio-nappy' she's launching next year), and her new business EAKO turns industrial waste into covetable products (like transforming old fire hoses into smart bags) while giving 50% of profits to relevant charities (See Fire-Hose.co.uk). "Business is the fastest way to make change," says Kresse, and she knows what she's talking about: she won the Entrepreneurial Woman of the Future award at the Real Business awards last November. (By the way, if you have any mass quantities of unwanted textiles, she'll take them off your hands and figure out something clever to do with them.)
 |
|
|
Sunday, 02 March 2008 |
|
I hope all the mums out there had a wonderful Mother's Day. If you missed it, have a closer look at my recommended Mother's Day gifts in The Green Pound, my section on conscientious consumerism. After all, there's always next year...
|
|
|
Wednesday, 13 February 2008 |
|
There are two major problems with London cycling.
1) Fear of your own mortality. It's truly dicey out there. One distracted driver changing a CD or chatting on the mobile, one lorry cutting a curve slightly too sharply, one bus driver with a chip on his shoulder and your life will flash in front of your eyes. Or end.
2) The weather. Perhaps I should be made of sterner stuff, but I believe there are others like me, who shirk in the face of a summer shower, not to mention an icy winter deluge. The perpetual threat of rain makes some of us reluctant to commit to commuting by bike. 
Ken Livingstone to the rescue! (Note to self: don't let this site turn into a Ken fan-zine). The Mayor has just announced a revolutionary £500m plan to make cycling a feasible alternative for those of us who aren't dyed-in-the-lycra enthusiasts. I think this plan addresses both the above issues. 1) The proposed commuter cycle routes and cycle zones around urban town centres will not be the stop/start/long-way-round nightmare of many of today's cycle routes but proper wide lanes with dedicated junctions and clear signs. (I hope this will help cyclists will feel safer and therefore able to respect traffic lights: I'm sick and tired of me and my children dodging rogue bikes when the green man is lit up!) The first lanes should be in place by 2010 with five more by the 2012 Olympics.
2) Ken's bold proposal for a scheme like Paris's Vélib’ system means more of us will feel free to join the revolution. The plan is for 6,000 bicycles for hire from ranks every 600 feet throughout the city centre. This truly is transport freedom, as you're not tied down to a bicycle. You can use whatever transport suits you for different journeys at different times of day (many ranks will be at Tube and rail stations). Pedal to work if the weather's nice, and if it's raining cats and dogs that night, just hop on a bus or tube to go back home. It will also help folks like our friend A who had such a great night out he got a taxi home, then couldn't remember the next day where he'd parked (and fibbed to his wife that the bike was stolen. Naughty!)
My husband and I hopped on the Eurostar recently for a pre-Valentine's escape to France (he was investigating sustainable transport plans, I was investigating the shops, galleries and cafés of Lille and Paris). With our friend Ali we tested out the Vélib' with great success. I particularly like the big baskets, lights and tingly-jingly bell. Everyone was using them, from trendy young things to golden oldies. That did cause one annoying glitch: racks at popular spots are sometimes full, though you're given 15 minutes to find alternative parking. It did mean people hanging around and waiting for someone to take out a bike and free up a parking spot, but everyone seemed fairly polite and jolly about it. Parisian motorists aren't completely on board – I had a near-miss with a flung-open door, trouble making the odd right turn and a nasty encounter in a particularly wide intersection  – but as cyclist numbers soar drivers are resigning themselves to sharing the road. I can't wait to try out the London bikes. Whizzing across Paris at midnight was truly thrilling (one part freedom, one part heart-pumping exercise, one part sheer adrenaline-fuelled terror).
"The aim of this programme is nothing short of a cycling and walking transformation in London," says Ken. "By ensuring that Londoners have easy access to bikes... as well as making our city a safer and more enjoyable place to cycle, we will build upon London’s leading position as the only major world city to have achieved a switch from private car use to public transport, cycling and walking. The expansion of cycling and walking will help reduce our impact on climate change and reduce traffic congestion." Go Ken Go! I really must stop – I'm starting to sound like a cheerleader, despite my lifelong philosophical opposition to the (so-called) sport.
|
|
|
Thursday, 07 February 2008 |
Who else is glad that January's over? It seems everyone's been in a slump, me included. Last year we switched to Good Energy, the greenest – and most expensive – plan around, so I was feeling smug about my eco cred. Despite this (or because of it?) I became a tumble dryer addict (well it was awfully cold outside). Was it a perverse sense of entitlement (visions of green hills and windmills) or a petulant, passive-aggressive reaction to the hefty direct debit?
Either way, as oil crept up to $100 a barrel and electricity prices rocketed, the price we paid began to seem reasonable. A big justification for switching to green energy has been that in the long run, it will be more cost-effective than non-renewable (and carbon intensive) energy. Then a letter from Good Energy announced a 13.2% rate hike due to rising electricity costs. (Is it just me or does this not make any sense?) Instead of seeing green, I suddenly saw red.
The worm turns. And another thing: I'm fed up with my wormery and pining for a simpler way to keep food waste out of landfill. If I'm almost ready to throw in the trowel, will Wayne and Waynetta ever jump on the worm bandwagon? At this stage, a few greener-than-thous up to their elbows in compost won't lessen the effect of climate change. We need 'no-sweat' solutions that will motivate the masses to reduce greenhouse gases. Let's hope the Mayor's new report calling for investment in anaerobic digestion and gasification technology works ( if the Archers can do it, why can't we?). People have gone along with recycling at home; having a separate bin for food leftovers would be a breeze compared to running a worm hostel. 
Fight or flight? But I have to admit, the real reason for my eco slump was my 3000-mile flight home for Christmas. The hypocrisy is crippling, though it's not quite as bad as jetting off for a Caribbean jaunt, is it? Perhaps if I hailed from a dusty Midwestern town, a trip home could qualify as a penance, but alas my hometown boasts a stunning beach, making each visit a holiday as well as a family reunion.
We did manage to fit in a little eco-activism. Riding a horse on the beach is not allowed on health and safety grounds, yet 4x4s can whiz along from October to mid-March. After an hour of playing dodge-Dodge  (and dodge-Jeep) as we built our sandcastles, we'd had enough and staged a mini-protest. After all, the beach isn't deserted during the winter months, especially since global warming means people wear shorts into December. (Even the ones who really shouldn't). Though the tide has long since washed our sandman away, we're finally back in the mood for all things green. And to make up for the airmiles, we're sticking to trains for half-term hols. Isle of Wight, here we come (yet again!).
|
|
|
Monday, 28 January 2008 |
 Save the whales. Protect the panda. But sharks? No thanks. I am scared of sharks. Not just a little nervous, pathologically panic-stricken. Jaws made a big splash at cinemas when I was 10 and changed my life forever.
"Don't be a drama queen!" you say? As phobias go, this one is easily managed. Arachnophobes can never truly relax – creepy-crawlies could be anywhere. To avoid sharks, just stay out of the sea. Simple – if you grow up in Derbyshire, Warwickshire, London or even the British seaside (just show your goose bumps and you can stay safely on dry land without an inquisition). But grow up on the warm coast of North Carolina, and the shark issue rears its ugly head. A lot.
Is it safe to go back in the pool?
 After watching the film (through my fingers), I didn't dip a toe in the ocean for an entire year, a slave to my 'fight or flight' instinct. (I chose flight.) And once I heard that sharks could survive in a chlorinated pool for 24 hours, I avoided pools too, at least on my own (even one companion halves the risk of attack). Of course there's the fact that someone would actually have to catch a shark and put it into the pool, but I was taking no chances.
When I did eventually venture back into the ocean, its magic was lost on me. Whether riding waves on a boogie board or years later having a romantic dip in the still blue Caribbean, I could never truly savour the moment, too busy looking over my shoulder for a telltale fin. Damn you, Peter Benchley and Steven Spielberg!
So you'll forgive me for allowing myself a brief smile when I read that sharks are becoming extinct. Oh to live my life again sans sharks. I'd be a carefree sprite instead of a neurotic worrywart. Oh, the waves I would surf, the moonlit dips I would skinny...
 The smile was momentary – logically I am aware that shark extinction is bad news, even for me. Disrupting natural food chains has unpredictable results, as shown in a 2007 study by American and Canadian scientists (led by experts at Dalhousie University, funded by Pew Institute for Ocean Science.) Over 70 million sharks are killed for their fins and meat each year, plus the millions scooped up accidentally in fishermen's nets. This means the smaller fish and rays they would have eaten now survive. Sounds good so far. Trouble is, the researchers found these smaller predators are running riot, gorging on smaller fish, scallops and shellfish – and if those are wiped out, the consequences will be more dire than just not-so-satisfying fish pies.
“Maintaining the populations of top predators is critical for sustaining healthy oceanic ecosystems,” says the study's co-leader Charles Peterson, a professor at the Institute of Marine Sciences, UNC-Chapel Hill (one of my almae matres). “Despite the vastness of the oceans, its organisms are interconnected, meaning that changes at one level have implications several steps removed."
Similar scenarios are happening on land. Climate change, pollution and habitat destruction are threatening more plant and animal species than ever. Given millennia, they would adapt, but the speed of these changes means unpredictable outcomes. And as in the oceans, land life is all interconnected. So how will extinctions (or severely reduced numbers) of various species affect our food supply, our lives, our planet?
Last year, the world's attention was on the honeybee and CCD (colony collapse disorder) where up to 90%  of bee colonies simply disappeared. Now, the spotlight's on frogs and other amphibians, which are being struck down by a fungus exacerbated by warmer temperatures stemming from climate change. Up to half of the world's amphibian species could die out if the trends continue.
Like sharks, amphibians are a vital part of their ecosystems. If they disappear, the consequences will reverberate, in ways we may not even yet suspect. Well, they eat insects, so we can certainly predict one very unpleasant consequence of fewer amphibians.
Amphibians' thin skins make them susceptible to pollutants and chemicals (they've already shown fertility problems and feminisation). And now they're dying. Are frogs modern-day canaries in the coalmines? Why aren't we paying attention?
 The Amphibian Ark (AArk) is fighting back, declaring 2008 The Year of the Frog. It's working with top zoos to try to breed threatened amphibians in captivity.
It's not just frogs. Scientists believe animal species are dying out at a shocking rate, what's being called the Earth's 'sixth mass extinction.' But it would be impossible to breed the world's some 10,000 endangered species in captivity.
The Frozen Ark is taking the next step, preserving animal DNA for study long after they've disappeared from the earth. The project is supported by the Natural History Museum, the Zoological Society of London and Nottingham University.
Plants are threatened too, and Kew Gardens is creating a 'Millennium Seed Bank' to preserve seeds of the world. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Saving the animals (especially cute and cuddly ones) used to be a hobby for the idle rich. Today, the fate of all animals (yes, even sharks) should motivate us all. After all, we're next – and there's no ark on the horizon.
|
|
|
Tuesday, 18 December 2007 |
 They say that breaking up is hard to do. If you didn't already have a tear in your beer, now they say it's bad for the planet too.
Researcher Jianguo Liu, an ecological sustainability expert at Michigan State University has co-authored a study calculating the damage divorce causes to the environment. Taking data from 12 countries they found that when one household splits into two, electricity use rises 53% while water use rises 42% (hardly surprising when the steamy shower-sharing days are just a foggy memory). In the US in 2005, divorced households used 73 billion extra kilowatt-hours of electricity.
As most couples who split up can't bear to be in the same room together – much less the same house – it's no shock that divorce and breakups mean increased pressure on housing stock and increased demand for new builds (and resulting infrastructure such as roads), not to mention the increased likelihood of additional car ownership. If there are children involved, there may also be duplication of furniture, books,  toys and electronic gizmos in the two homes. And the study didn't even include the carbon costs of smashed wedding china, Saville Row suits smouldering on bonfires, wedding albums thrown on the tip – or the ecological fallout from putting yourselves back on the market.
The growth of single-person households (whether through relationship breakdown or not) is significantly eco-unfriendly, as other research has shown that one-person households use more energy, land, household goods and appliances per capita.
So what's someone in a crumbling relationship to do? Lie back and think of Gaia? Or bide your time until you find your next soul/flat mate and move in on the first date?
A 2005 study by Richard Lucas (coincidentally also at Michigan State University) found that a person's happiness plummets around divorce (especially men) then rebounds over time, but on average never returns to levels from the marriage's heyday. The data (from an 18-year study) found these results didn't vary according to age or sex.
My mother (in an unscientific survey) always told me this was the case, especially with men in my hometown. The ones who left their wives for younger models (or just the lass at the department store cosmetics counter) felt dissatisfied in later years. After all, the first wife fancied him in the salad days, but could he ever feel secure that the second (or third) spouse fell for his charms or just the shiny ones he bought for her at Tiffany? Was it simply a matter of (younger and firmer) tit for tat?
Obviously serious issues such as violence, neglect and infidelity often lead inevitably to divorce. But sometimes the causes behind relationship breakdown seem to be exhaustion and a feeling (for both parties) of being taken for granted. Once children arrive and you're sleep-deprived and short on me-time, it's easy to turn on each other (instead of turning each other on as in the halcyon days). Resentments grow, along with fantasies of an easier life with someone new – especially if there's a cute-and-carefree colleague in the mix.
Harder (but ultimately more rewarding?) to turn off the telly/computer/Wii and rediscover each other, before your bond is irretrievably broken. Flirt a little. Have fun together. Less whining and a bit more wining and dining (and perhaps a few sessions with Relate) may just help you realise you've already found Mr or Mrs Right and save your marriage – and help save the planet while you're at it.
|
|
|
Tuesday, 27 November 2007 |
|
...or Freddie, Lily and Sebastian. Will your little darlings get everything on their Christmas lists this year? Believe it or not it's that time again, a holly jolly Christmas (or Chanukah). The sound of the season used to be jingle bells, but these days it's the non-stop ker-ching of tills (or the buzz-tickety-tick of printing receipts and the clickety-click of computer keyboards). This year many mums and dads seem to be in a quandary. On the one hand we acknowledge we should stop supporting an unsustainable consumer culture. Yes indeedy. But on the other hand, who wants to be a grinch?
Let me share with you the fateful fable of Wanda, from Whatever Wanda Wanted (below, by Jude Wisdom – a beautifully illustrated little Christmas gift,  by the way). Little Wanda's parents are very busy folks, so they decide to buy their cherub everything she could ever wish for, to show how much they love her. Wanda only has to stamp her tiny foot and off they scurry to fetch "life-sized dolls, pond-sized paddling pools, cinema-sized tellies". So, is Wanda delighted with her lot, grateful to her hardworking parents, surrounded by gaggles  of girlfriends? You'll find the answer written all over the wee poppet's face (right). Haven't we all seen miserable Wanda-alikes who stamp and scream and never seem satisfied, even with the mad materialism of western childhood? Luckily for Wanda, a magic kite teaches her a lesson by making her serve time on a deserted island, where she learns ‘There’s more to life than things’.
Unfortunately, Hamleys and Early Learning Centre don't stock magic kites, so who will teach our own little tykes to appreciate the things money can't buy? Do we have the courage to stick up for our principles, to cut back on Christmas overindulgence and find the real reason for the season? The trouble is, we all know that childhood is fleeting (especially in the noughties) and our little angels won't be little (or angelic) for long. We don’t want to deny them (or ourselves, if we're honest) the gleeful piles of colourful parcels. We see it as a way to cling to innocence, but is it? What's more knowing than today's pint-sized cynical consumers, clued up on all the trends and scornful of anything less than A-list gift lists?
In addition to how possessions affect our personal contentment, there's also the moral issue of global responsibility. After all, modern gifts don't make themselves – and you can be fairly sure they're not fairly traded, especially if they're an 'unbelievable bargain'. And what about the carbon cost of materials and transport, energy-gobbling electronic toys and the plastic mountains of products – and packaging? 
'Crap creep' is spreading and difficult for modern parents to avoid. On our half-term ‘eco escape' to the Isle of Wight [train, bus replacement service, ferry then taxi – that journey was a laugh a minute] we popped into the local pub for lunch. The children's specials came with ice cream, but not for modern tots a humble scoop. The confections appeared in a plastic-fantastic penguin called 'Punky' (must be the Mohican). In days of yore, this would have qualified as a toy, but in today’s throwaway culture, it’s to be doted on for five minutes then tossed in the bin. My son was delighted with this Underground Ernie train (below) he got for his birthday, but does a tiny metal train really need this much protective plastic packaging? And don't get me started on the chattering Dora the Explorer and Elmo given to my children last Christmas. How do I hate Elmo? Let me count the ways...
[By the way, did you hear that the early episodes of Sesame Street are out on DVD with an 'adults-only' warning label as they "may not suit the needs of today’s preschool child”? What, today's tots can't handle quirky characters like the notorious addict Cookie Monster (obesity risk) and shameless misanthrope Oscar the Grouch (no Prozac in those days) and instead get stuck with banal bores like Elmo (why such a high-pitched voice? WHY?) “We might not be able to create a character like Oscar now,” Executive Producer Carol-Lynn Parente told the New York Times.]
Back to Christmas, should we – could we? – boycott overpackaged tat and keep things ‘real’ this year? I may not be able to vet gifts from family and friends, but I've surely got Santa's ear and it's time for a word.
I’m not implying that poor children are happier, but in the frenzied free-for-all of modern holiday shopping, one can't help but think rather nostalgically of the days when tiny Tims and Tessies jumped for joy at discovering an orange in the toe of a stocking. It beggars belief today.
We had some bits and bobs delivered recently, and my children have had more fun with an empty box (pirate ship, house, rocket) and a long cardboard tube (tunnel, racetrack) than with any presents received last Christmas. I am not mean enough to suggest you wrap up empty boxes to stash under the tree, but the experience has given me hope for a happy holiday minus mounds of made-in-China, all-singing and all-dancing toys. More isn’t always more. A few quality gifts are surely a sensible option (speaking as one who's just had a major clearout and discovered several of my daughter's birthday toys pristine in their boxes, months post-party).
For friends and family gifts this year, we may give ‘experiences’ instead of yet more stuff: gift certificates for trips on the London Eye, dinners out, the theatre (only £10 each for Travelex tickets at the National Theatre) or babysitting vouchers for friends to have a date night. We've just received a charming early Christmas gift ourselves: homemade preserves. I wouldn't dream of inflicting my own cooking on others, but it's a great option for domestic gods and goddesses, and will surely be appreciated more than another pair of socks or gloves. Another idea: let your children join in the baking. Mum and Dad then have an excuse for less-than-Nigella-worthy goodies, and that's the sort of quality time when memories are made. Stop and smell the biscuits.
So might it be possible to find a balance between cherishing your children (and their childhood) and not spawning spoiled brats who suck up until the money changes hands, then diss you with disdain? (Anyone else have panic attacks when reading The Guardian's ' Living with Teenagers' column?) Let us turn to the master, Dr Seuss. From the climax of How The Grinch Stole Christmas (written in reaction to the over-commercialisation of Christmas – in 1957. Whatever would the Doctor think of us today?): 
Every Who down in Who-ville, the tall and the small,
Was singing! Without any presents at all! He HADN'T stopped Christmas from coming!
IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!
It came without ribbons! It came without tags!
It came without packages, boxes or bags!
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.
"Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more"
Trust yourselves and your children. Spend more time than money on them this year.
|
|
|
Monday, 22 October 2007 |
 Want to avoid adding a comfy but cringe-worthy layer of winter fat this year? Turn your heating down – apparently you burn calories trying to keep warm. (And no, that doesn't meant you're allowed an extra dollop of custard on your sticky toffee pud).
Lowering the heat has other advantages too, including financial. Last winter, we bundled up and tried to keep the thermostat down (along with not using the dryer, turning off lights when leaving rooms and switching to eco bulbs). We watched the savings add up 'instantly' on our new Efergy meter, and it was right – when we finally let the meter reader in, we were £400 in credit, a great excuse to switch finally  to a green electricity supplier. Lest you worry I'm becoming a smug green goddess, read on. Just after switching suppliers I plugged in my hot rollers to get glammed up for an evening out (indulge my little luxuries, please) and in my haste, forgot to unplug them until the next afternoon. Hardly the icon of efficiency, then. Also, we switched to a mainstream green tariff, but I subsequently learned from The Nag that our plan didn't actually increase the amount of renewable energy produced. The Nag recommends Good Energy or Ecotricity’s New Energy Plus, so I've just had to switch again.
This week (22-28 October) is Energy Saving Week, so there's no time like the present for each of us to tighten our green belt. Every day has a theme: Monday is Women's Day, Tuesday is Work Day, Wednesday is Digital Day, Thursday is Families Day, Friday is Men's Day, Saturday is Home Improvers Day and Sunday is Faith Day. Visit the Energy Saving Trust website for ideas to incorporate into your week – and perhaps into the rest of your life. Click here to make your commitment to save your 20%.
Hopefully some Hampshire residents will be clicking. According to a new analysis by CarbonPlan and the Stockholm Environment Institute, the fragrant folk of Winchester require 6.52 hectares each to support them in the style to which they've become accustomed. If everyone lived this way, we'd need over 3.6 planets, something money can't buy. But it can, apparently, buy happiness – did anyone else notice that Winchester was also recently named as the best place in England to live (according to Location, Location, Location). The problem is, what we perceive as giving us the good life isn't so good for the planet.
The Winchester City Council isn't taking the CarbonPlan study lightly; it has stepped up its efforts to raise awareness and improve its eco cred, with a Carbon Management Programme and a Climate Change Plan. And anyway, it seems the people of Winchester (and some of my best friends are from Winchester) are not alone. Many of us are becoming cynical about the green message, sceptical that anyone else is doing anything to make a difference and prone to exaggerating our own green actions, according to a new Eco Attitudes report by ICM, released today for the Ideal Home Show. 
Men are the naughtiest, with a third believing too much attention is given to green issues, and 19% thinking small behavioural changes won't make any difference. Men scored worse than women on almost every aspect of green living, including recycling, buying sustainable materials, using eco bulbs, turning down the heating, washing at low temperatures and filling the kettle frugally. Forget domestics over who's holding the remote, the report found green arguments aplenty, with 15% of us squabbling with partners about saving our home comforts vs saving the planet.
Apparently, Brits are suffering from eco fatigue, with a third of us tired of the attention given to eco issues and 23% being bored by eco news. Cheer up – the evening news will be absolutely gripping when additional wars break out over diminishing oil and water supplies, and weather-related disasters occur weekly. In the meantime, stock up on some earth-kind cardis, jumpers, scarves and even gloves and turn down your thermostat.
|
|
|
Wednesday, 26 September 2007 |
Property porn is the dirty little secret of today’s middle classes. And just as many women don’t understand the allure of prurient pictures of topless lasses (after all, they’re all the same, right?) the uninitiated don’t understand the pull of property. What primal urge causes seemingly rational people to lurk outside estate agents, shivering in the rain whilst peering through the window at house details? Not to mention all those late nights on the laptop behind closed doors, hunched over FindAProperty’s homepage, fantasising about houses well out of their league.
After a while, even photos of million-pound piles no longer satisfy our cravings and we turn to stronger stuff – the glossy magazines (delivered in all their naked, full-colour glory – whatever happened to discreet, blacked-out covers?) flaunting hedonistic habitats in the world's most desirable destinations.
But where does our appetite for property peeping get us? Just as the pneumatic breasts of porn starlets grow increasingly removed from reality, so the ever-more-opulent homes of the rich cause us to feel (admit it!) slightly ashamed of our own humble abodes.
We're just not satisfied with 'Home Sweet Home' these days. We want the wow factor, especially when we’re convinced the Joneses have a bigger telly, a more sumptuous sofa, a more extravagant window treatment. We yearn for the castle of the oligarch, with its de rigueur home cinema, spa, gym and state-of-the-art bells and whistles. Men in particular seem unable to resist the thrill of boys' toys, from 'intelligent home' controls and mood lighting to supersized plasma screens for every room, even the bath (so much for quick, eco-friendly showers; I sense a prolonged and steamy soak may be required).
Today’s obscenely extravagant villa shamelessly flaunts its excesses: indoor squash court and climbing wall, air conditioning, lift, even a car lift for its stacked garage. Top architects will happily fashion a slide from master suite direct to the heated indoor pool – complete with underwater sound system, natch. (Just mind your mini-mes don’t scurry up the slide when you’re least expecting visitors).
We no longer think such things gauche or vulgar. Bring on the gold taps with hot and cold running champagne! Temperance and frugality are yesterday's virtues, today's vices. "I'll have what she's having!" we cry (even if we have to settle for the slightly less lavish model). We're all conditioned to crave the 'luxury lifestyle experience' promised by the homes of the future.
Today, 'kitchenistas' hanker after the hottest new cookers, American-sized fridges dispensing ice and water (still or sparkling?) and never-knew-we-needed-it gadgets (such as the Reveo MariVac Food Tumbler for last-minute marinating!) in this season's colours and finishes (glossy red is so last month).
Of course if your furnishings are fashionable, then it follows they'll be unfashionable soon enough, and you'll be tempted to rip everything out and start afresh (just as those savvy manufacturers planned, go figure). As someone whose childhood home boasted an avocado kitchen (and bathroom) I always advise choosing neutral appliances and cupboards (especially white) that can last throughout the years with minor 'updates': a lick of paint or new tea towels, neither costing the earth.
 I can understand the allure of decadent digs, especially a blissfully luxurious bathroom. When I was a teenager, I stumbled across some adult-oriented material – seductive brochures filled with swanky home spas promising an out-of-this-world experience: the intense desert-like heat of the sauna followed by hydro massage, a refreshing tropical rain shower and 'cooling Chinook winds'. Like many a teen, I developed a rather unhealthy relationship with the illicit material, stealing downstairs to pore over the pages, imagining a future where that sort of sordid, steamy experience would be part of my everyday reality.
I can even empathise with the hunger for a home cinema, more so after a recent night out to see The Bourne Ultimatum – after a technical glitch halfway through we were all sent home  unsatisfied. But I've always had qualms about home film libraries: after all, how many times do you really need to watch Meet the Fockers? With a home cinema installed, would one ever again read a book?
And who can promise that a hedonistic home is a happy home? I recently toured a modern mansion complete with home cinema (21 heated seats), games room and all the latest gizmos. The owner was obviously proud, but afterwards confessed to a deep and prolonged depression, despite having every material thing a fairy godmother (or in this case, fairy godfather) could bestow. Perhaps it's time to consider whether instant gratification is really gratifying. Expensive luxuries often come at a higher cost than what's shown on the tag, in terms of working hours v family life and an increasing burden of debt. More and more families are tempted to stretch to impossible bank repayments and repossessions are mounting.
 And what of one’s carbon footprint? If these plugged-in and clued-up houses are going to be carbon-neutral, they better get some great whacking windmills on the roof pronto. Eco hero Orlando Bloom is being applauded for his new green house in London – complete with solar panels – but he’s also bought a four-bedroom Hollywood house with a ‘waterfall pool’ and hot tub. Even if that hot tub is solar-powered, how sustainable is a second, third, fourth home anyway? Especially if it's 6000 miles away?
Where will it all end? Perhaps down the pan. Japanese toilet manufacturer Toto’s Neorest offers ‘an experience beyond words' and 'sophisticated sensuality' with a lid that automatically opens and shuts, a heated seat, front and back-aerated warm water spray, with ‘oscillating and pulsing comfort washing’, a warm air dryer and an air purifier (so your faeces really doesn't stink).
Oooh I just got my hot little hands on today’s Evening Standard Homes & Property (my weekly fix of property porn) only to read that Vernon and Tess have bought a holiday home in New Zealand and the Caribbean's being tipped as the perfect place for UK buyers. We’re all doomed, aren’t we?
Just as we're using up the last of our planet's resources, some scientists are suggesting we search for another habitable habitat. They've even found a potential candidate, a 'Goldilocks' planet (not too hot, not too cold) only 20.5 light-years away (one light-year is approx 5.9 trillion miles). If it all works out, just imagine the property pages – not to mention the prices.
Lately I've been craving some extra space. I am really lusting after a loft, but I'm trying to control my desires. Maybe I could justify it if I added a solar panel in the process – or should I just lie back and think of the planet?
|
|
|
Friday, 14 September 2007 |
|
I don't like camping. There, I've said it. I know the typical greenie loves nothing more than a night sleeping on the hard, icy ground, communing with nature, but nature and I aren't the most bosom of buddies. As my mother always says, "My idea of roughing it is a night in a Holiday Inn."
But if you believe what you read in the papers, glamping was all the rage this summer, with everyone extolling the virtues of nights spent under the stars, especially if tucked inside a pretty Cath Kidston tent or sleeping bag. Well, I too am a sucker for a pretty polka-dot pattern, but no matter what the packaging, it's still roughing it.
We did camp this summer; four days at Fairport Convention's Cropredy Folk Festival, our annual outing that quenches my thirst for the 'romance' of camping for the next 11 months. The festival was fantastic and four sunny days in a row (miracle!) made camping just about tolerable (though still chilly at night). In the old days, my husband and I would sling on our backpacks and hop on the train, then catch a bus to the village to pitch up quickly then pop down the pub. With two children (and a larger tent that we still haven't quite got the hang of) it's more like a military operation, and yes, we hired a car.
 We hear a lot these days about green travel, but no one talks about eco-friendly travel that’s also family-friendly. As someone who’s been there, done that, I can say for the record, the reality is usually not pretty-as-a-postcard. Getting around London with two tots and no car can be grim enough some days (you'll note the dearth of sonnets about 'tube stairs and pushchairs') but travelling further afield is even more fraught and frustrating.
I’m not advocating flights or long car journeys – I truly believe the train is a more family-friendly way to travel, especially if they’d get some family-priority carriages so one didn’t have to feel guilty about the children chattering (and maybe while they're at it they could reserve a carriage for those thoughtful folks who like to share their musical proclivities with other passengers via leaky earphones). In a car, kids are strapped into seats for hours at a time (tempting parents to succumb to electronic babysitters to avoid the 'Are we there yets'). On the train, children can draw, play games or walk around to stretch their legs. It also feels much safer (and is, statistically).
The hardest part is what to do after you arrive at your destination station with your children – and all their gear. And if you're camping, forgeddaboudit. We're a family of train veterans, with trips to Cornwall, Dorset, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Surrey and more. We even made the eight-hour trip to Aberdeen relatively unscathed, but partly because our friends met us there with their own cars (and car seats). If you're hiring a car at the other end, it means schlepping car seats on the train and transferring by taxi to the car hire office. And if you're braving public transport in a backwater, have your Bach's Rescue Remedy to hand.
Virgin Trains has linked up with the Whizzgo car club to make that transition to hire car hassle-free. Once you’ve joined (quote WGVTU Virgin Trains for a £10 discount on the WhizzGo smartcard, bringing the cost  down to £15, plus a refundable insurance payment of £125) you can simply book a car near your station online. We’re quite happy with our Streetcar, but we’ll be joining this network as well, and hope it will make complicated trips that little bit easier.
Now if someone could sort the transitions for train/ferry/train travel. Our 'green getaway' to Brittany this summer (similar to one planned by David Cameron and co) promised to be blissful. Dinard is a lovely resort for the car-free, with restaurants, patisseries and the beach just outside your door. The town was superb, but the journey was a nightmare. As foot passengers on the ferry from Poole to St Malo, we were truly at the bottom of the totem pole. The ferry left an hour late, then limped along on limited power, arriving at 11pm instead of 7pm – not ideal for middle-aged parents with two children in tow, especially in a taxi desert. The return journey was below par too. The ferry was late again, and due to a taxi shortage at Poole (thanks to zero communication between ferry and taxi companies), we missed the 15.30 and 16.30 trains and ended up on the 17.30 back to London. I simply can't recommend (sane) travellers take this journey just to go green (especially as the belching fumes made us sceptical of any carbon savings over a flight). As we'd caught a bus at daybreak in Dinard that morning and arrived home after 9pm UK time, it was quite a long day (we could have flown to Rio de Janeiro in that time, for goodness sake). I kept repeating, "There's no way Sam Cam is on this wretched ferry." We did hear rumours that they flew at the last minute, and after our experience, who could blame them?
 The Isle of Wight has the train/ferry combo down to a T. We caught the train to Portsmouth Harbour and zoomed straight aboard the ferry (foot passengers only, so no waiting for those pesky cars to board). The ferry ride is around 15 minutes (long enough to savour the view, not long enough to feel wobbly). When you disembark, you're inside the Ryde Pier train station. The 'vintage' Island Line trains are fine, but our holiday flat was well beyond the last station, meaning a clunky transfer (with bags, buckets and spades) onto a bus. I don't think today's modern, middle-class families would accept this as a viable way to travel for leisure (and pleasure). Even our parents think we're mad – or masochists.
I do wish the island could ban visitors' cars altogether – they clogged up the streets in every village. Forcing  visitors to leave their cars at home would mean improvements in public transport and a better atmosphere (in every sense of the word) for pedestrians and cyclists. Next time, we'll book a hotel at a beach near a station – or maybe hitch our dreams to a sleek Airstream at Vintage Vacations (top). It's definitely a cut above camping, with an extra helping of retro chic.
The further away you get from actual tents, the more I can understand camping's allure. Yurts are often the butt of jokes, but you must admit they're more tempting than tents, especially Canvas Chic, in the Ardèche gorge and the Cornish Yurt Holidays at Yurtworks. If even glamping is a step too far, pick up Alistair Sawday's Green Places to Stay guide, for unique green choices worldwide, with many close to home if you're keen to polish your green halo by avoiding leisure flights.
EcoFriendlyTourist.com is a great online resource for info on earth-kind travel, with tips on how to see through greenwashing. The site’s new independent guide to green places to stay in the UK has details on thousands of rooms in hotels, guest houses, self-catering cottages and B&Bs. Must start dropping hints now about booking one for next year's Cropredy...
|
|
|
Thursday, 06 September 2007 |
You might see quite a lot of Tamzin Outhwaite in the
next few days. A bit of bare female flesh is irresistible to columnists, and a
photo of Tamzin in a flimsy negligee (with a lush green background, naturally) is
being used to promote ‘ Future Friendly’. This morning, I attended the launch of Future Friendly,
billed as a 'high profile new retail initiative between four of
Britain's leading agenda setting environmental organisations… and major
consumer brands.'
I was eager to hear what would be unveiled – perhaps a new
label guaranteeing green, sweatshop-free products on the high street, which certainly wouldn't go amiss. With reputable
co-presenters (Sir Trevor McDonald and sustainability expert Joanna Yarrow) and highly respected environmental organisations (Energy Saving Trust, Waste Watch,
Waterwise and Global Cool) on board, I was braced for truly groundbreaking news.
First they announced the
Future Friendly Awards, which will give £10,000 to four ‘heroes’ to help fund
their sustainability projects. So far so good. But the ‘visionary’ initiative was a new green logo with what seemed to me to be dubious distinction. All the brands awarded the logo thus far (Ariel,
Fairy Liquid, Flash and Lenor) are from Procter & Gamble, who are behind the whole project. The green-coloured Future Friendly logo will lead
consumers to believe that the products have been
awarded this label on green merit. But have they?
There was confusion about who judges the products and how (odd as products bearing the logo will appear on shop shelves next week) so after the presentation I
asked the Procter & Gamble spokesman about
the criteria for judging and awarding the logo. “There is no objective
criteria,” he said. If it's just meaningless marketing, then surely any company could design cute green logos to slap on its products.
These P&G products have not been re-formulated with fewer chemicals, nor are their plastic containers now recycled. The charities involved support this initiative because of P&G's work to raise eco awareness, most notably Ariel’s 'Turn to 30'
campaign. But the green benefit is not inherent in the product, but is dependent on the
consumer’s behaviour and use of the product.
It’s like a doughnut selling itself as ‘part of a low-calorie diet’. That’s
absolutely true – if the only other food you eat is carrot sticks.
When asked about the eco benefits of Lenor fabric softener, the P&G
spokesman said it’s concentrated, so the bottles are smaller. I asked if people should just stop buying fabric softener altogether (I’ve taken to adding a few
drops of lavender oil to the rinse drawer for a fresh scent), but he insisted
consumers will only move so far and we mustn’t push them too hard. And the eco
benefits of Flash All Purpose Cleaner? Well, you don’t need hot water to clean
your kitchen, only the chemicals contained within the plastic bottle. Speaking
of hot water, I hope P&G finds itself in a bit tomorrow and has to defend
these labels – and to justify them, perhaps even by improving the eco cred of
the products in question. If one of the planet's largest manufacturers doesn't use recycled plastic, where will the demand come from? We need to 'close the loop' by using recycled plastic or it will all end up in landfill – here or in China, which makes recycling pointless.
I should
have seen the warning signs when Joanna waxed lyrical about small steps and
said that we "don’t have to make dramatic, sweeping changes to
the way we live.” It might be
inconvenient, but we do. The government estimates that a 60% cut in
emissions is necessary to avoid a 2°C increase in temperatures – and the
Tyndall Centre study (commissioned by Friends of the Earth and the Cooperative
Bank) concluded that those of us in rich countries actually need to cut emissions by 90%. We cannot kid
ourselves that simply buying 'Future Friendly' products means we are doing our bit.
|
|
|
Wednesday, 15 August 2007 |
 These days, many people are torn between conflicting desires:
wanting to do the
right thing but also wanting to keep up with the Joneses, nay even to
overtake them (preferably in a powerful yet cushy 4x4, complete with
wow-factor gizmos).
Ahem. Where was I? Oh yes, in
the BBC’s Green Room, where Dr Matt Prescott (eco consultant and
director of banthebulb.org) ponders whether humans can overcome our basic instinct to compete (in order to attract mates) and instead, club together to go
green and save the planet. Photo: ©iStockphoto.com/Kris Hanke.
Persuading people to reduce conspicuous consumption may prove a hard sell. Advertisers play on our insecurities and our longing to
fit in – and to stand out as a 'great catch' – and competition pervades every purchase. It's no longer 'just a car' or 'just a pair of shoes'; products are imbued with an image that the purchaser is (literally) buying into. Some consumers believe their identity is so intrinsically linked with their goods, they act as human billboards: wearing visibly branded clothing or even getting logos shaved into their hair or tattooed on – now that's letting advertising get under your skin. Celebrity endorsements  exacerbate the problem: we want to believe that a little of that glamour will rub off on us if we choose the same razor as David Beckham. It sounds silly, but ads use sleek style and especially repetition to make believers of us all.
Well, most of us. Some people claim they're immune to marketing; they simply buy a car to get from A to B and take no notice of what their sunglasses 'say' about them. They're lucky. Even as an avowed pedestrian, I've speculated about what car is really 'me' (perhaps the fun-loving New Beetle (convertible, why not?) with a daisy in the dashboard bud vase or maybe a Mini Cooper: curvy and cute, not too ostentatious.) Of course my new fantasy car would be a greener-than-thou electric one.
Electric cars are usually too small to appeal to today's consumers, but what exactly is it that a massive 4x4 says about you? It used to bellow "He Man" in a husky voice and was the ego-friendly choice for guys who wanted to appear strong, confident and a bit outdoorsy: all that extra room for a laddish Labrador or a set of power tools. That was the illusion anyway – the reality was more likely a couple of kiddy car seats and the weekly supermarket shop.
Today, a colossal car is just as likely to purr, "I am a devoted mother – I care about the planet, sure, but I care about my children's safety even more." This argument is not without its logic. Last year the Department for Transport stated that drivers
of 4x4s or people-carriers are 50 times less likely to be killed in
collisions with another car than drivers of smaller cars. Of course, it's a self-perpetuating phenomenon – more giant cars on the road means other drivers are even less safe (not to mention
pedestrians and cyclists).
This escalation of size mirrors the state of American football, where players are growing faster than weeds in an organic allotment. In the 1980s William 'The Refrigerator' Perry made a name for himself, mainly due to his incredible bulk (326lbs). These days, he'd blend right in: in 2006, nearly 20% of players weighed over 300 pounds, with an average
BMI above 31 (obese). If even America’s athletes are obese what hope is there for the couch
potatoes watching the game whilst gorging on crisps and pitchers of beer?
 Dr Prescott is correct in assuming that the competitive instinct is too
strong to disappear, but I believe he underestimates the allure of geek chic. I'm not the only one who fancies Clark Kent over Superman and Bill Bixby over Lou Ferrigno, green or not (above). As the harsh reality of climate chaos hits home, our ideas of 'What's Hot' may drastically change, with women boycotting bulky blokes in gas guzzlers in favour of slender, bespectacled sorts with supersized solar panels.
Hollywood hottie George Clooney seems bang on trend, sensing that the new babe magnet might just be a clean, green electric machine. George bought one of the first Tango cars on the market (left) and will soon be taking a spin in a new electric Tesla Roadster. He gains greenie points, but remains an alpha male, one step ahead in the style stakes – the price tag makes these cars tantalisingly out of reach for the average Joe. 
I know many people are sick of celebrities crowing about their green cred (real or exaggerated), but at least some of them are trying to promote solutions, rather than just their next pop album. Leonardo DiCaprio has also been busy showing us that green can be glam. See a preview of his new eco-documentary The 11th Hour here. If this is the future of geek chic, bring it on. |
|
|
Sunday, 08 July 2007 |
Last week, as the rains pelted down
and my indoor drying racks groaned under sopping shirts, I faced an
ethical dilemma: whether 'tis nobler to suffer the guilt of running the
tumble dryer or to make guests sleep on damp bed linens and possibly
suffer pneumonia. As
the bulimic teenager of time ogled the treacle tart of fate, I panicked
and fired up the Zanussi for the first time since early April.
Later in the day, was I purging my sins by scrubbing tins with
an old toothbrush before recycling them? No. Instead, I actually found myself in the queue at
Argos, hardly the bastion of budding EcoManiacs. Of course Argos – like most major high-street chains – is
working to green up its act: 90% of the garden furniture is now FSC-certified and Argos
vows to send zero waste to landfill by 2010 (learn more about the Eco Policy
here).
As our guest room is still missing an
actual bed, there was nowhere for our guests
to lay their weary heads. No, I wasn't at Argos for a hastily purchased
bed, but a pump. We'd decided to put the guests up in our room
while we camped out on the trusty inflatable
mattress; unfortunately our pump wasn't so trusty. I found that a carbon-guzzling, battery/electric pump costs less than an
old-fashioned hand pump, but why? It's this
sort of false economy that keeps people from going green (and from
getting fit – think leaf blower instead of rake).
Later, after an invigorating workout with said pump, I was cheered to hear
that Rebecca Feiner's car club article
had been published in The Daily Telegraph, featuring my family and Streetcar. [Right, photo by Claire Lim for The Daily Telegraph]
Unfortunately, none of my
pithy and poignant observations about car-free living made the final
cut
(hrmph!) but I hope the feature encourages more people to join up and
free
themselves from the taxes, paperwork, inspections, insurance and
monthly payments that are the privilege of car owners (not to mention
the worries about petrol prices and pesky thieves).
I am somewhat surprised the government is allowing the car
clubs to proliferate. There's often a conflict between the government's
environmental objectives and its business ones (such as the promises to
increase UK airport capacity
while also reducing carbon emissions). If even half the country's
citizens joined a car club, surely the car manufacturing industry would
collapse.
There's no risk of that yet, but as more people join, they'll be
spreading the word about how convenient car clubs can be. We only use
ours once or twice a month, but it can really help out in a pinch. In
fact, we'll be
getting ours out this week. A friend is moving and has offered us her
'vintage' sofabed. That should salve the green guilt for the moment.
 |
|
|
Blog 
