|
Thursday, 14 February 2008 |
|
14 February, 2008: More from London Fashion Week (see news on Est ethica in my Website of the Week section). The catwalk is now an animal-friendly zone. Yesterday an RSPCA dress from Wildlife Works was centre stage. Wildlife Works's goal is 'Consumer Powered Conservation'. A proportion of sales goes to save endangered and threatened wildlife, by protecting wilderness habitats and by giving incentives (jobs, schools, etc) to local people to encourage them to value wildlife.
Part of the Autumn/Winter ’08 collection, this ethically made dress goes even further, with £40 from each £350 dress going to RSPCA campaigns such as ‘fur free’ and ‘welfare-friendly chicken’, and 3% of total sales helping to fund the Wildlife Works eco factory and wildlife sanctuary in Rukinga, Kenya.
With such heart-warming causes, you'd think the model would look a bit less glum. Cheer up, buttercup! (She's probably just hungry.)
|
|
|
Thursday, 14 February 2008 |
 14 February, 2008: Eco-Worrier Anna Shepard just let me know about her new regular feature What Should I Do With This?. Have a look and email Anna to contribute a conundrum. If everyone does, this will become a great resource for figuring out what to do with all the lingering bits and bobs you can't bring yourself to throw on the tip, but can't drop at your local recycling centre.
My own case is literally that: thousands of CD jewel cases that are superfluous since we bought giant media notebooks. I'm sure iPod addicts have the same problem. The cases are plastic, so should be recyclable, but the only company I found insisted I bring them to North London (on the Tube, forget it!) or mail them. When faced with the choice between a massive postage bill or cluttered cupboards, I have chosen indecision (and therefore cluttered cupboards). Off to ask for Anna's help. She'll probably suggest I start at Recycle This, which has clever tips for avoiding the tip.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Wednesday, 13 February 2008 |
13 February, 2008: Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has announced a higher congestion charge for the most polluting cars. From 27 October cars with the highest greenhouse gas emissions (Band G vehicles) will pay £25 to drive in the Congestion Charge Zone. High-pollutin' cars owned by those living inside the zone will be stripped of their 90% discounts, meaning those who can afford to live in the centre of London don't get to use our capital as their private 4x4 racecourse. 
High-five, my fellow pedestrians! (Not only do heavier cars emit more CO2, in a collision they're twice as likely to kill us.)
"Nobody needs to damage the environment by driving a gas guzzling Chelsea Tractor in central London," says Ken. "The CO2 charge will encourage people to switch to cleaner vehicles or public transport." If not, they'll have to follow the "polluter pays principle".
Cars with the lowest emissions (Bands A and B) will get a 100% discount, and The Alliance Against Urban 4x4s thinks they deserve a Valentine as well. The Alliance has campaigned for years for a higher congestion charge for 4x4s and other gas guzzlers. The group is encouraging people to secretly post love messages under the windscreen wipers of low-emission cars (such as the G-Wiz, Smart fortwo, Prius and Honda Civic hybrid). Download yours here.
|
|
|
Monday, 11 February 2008 |
 11 February, 2008: Do you have some nasty little secrets lurking in the closet? Sweatshop chic, animal cruelty, throwaway fashion that's trendy today, trashed tomorrow...
It's London Fashion Week (as you can see on my Website of the Week page) so now's the time to inspect your wardrobe and switch to ethical threads.
Animal-friendly fashion boutique Bourgeois Bohème aims to turn every Fashionista into a 'Compassionista' with its newly launched line of stylish yet cruelty-free shoes made in ethical factories from microfibre, an eco-friendly leather alternative.
|
|
|
Monday, 11 February 2008 |
 11 February, 2008: Leading textile testing laboratory, Shirley Technologies tells us that 10% of the textiles (towels, clothes, bedding, etc) it tests fail ecological tests. And the most harmful are from the US.
Surprise, surprise. Well it is a surprise if you've seen the US Cotton industry's 'Feel the Difference' campaign (right), complete with angelic young maidens and a 'Pure, Sensual and Sustainable' tagline.
STL tells us the cotton typically fails for pH (meaning the fabric may cause rashes, itching or allergic reactions), allergenic dyes and alarmingly, toxic heavy metals. "There are some very nasty chemicals used in the production of clothing and household articles, including formaldehyde (which is carcinogenic), extractable heavy metals such as cadmium and chromium, and pesticides," says Phil Whitaker of STL. "As the consumer becomes more and more aware of organic and ecological issues, the key point is that the makers [for instance, illegal sweatshops] are exposed to a deadly chemical cocktail, all day every day, to produce merchandise."
The issue hasn't escaped the notice of UK textile designers. A group including Lisa Harland of Harlands Organic Furnishings is starting to tackle greenwashing in the textile industry. Have a look at Lisa's blog entitled 'The Environmental Impact of the Furniture Industry'. It also includes a disturbing film from Peta on Merino wool. She also wants consumers to know that chemical flame retardants are now widespread, due to fire and safety regs, and that some of these chemicals may have harmful effects on humans and should be replaced with non-toxic or natural alternatives. These chemicals are also tested on animals, so should be avoided for any truly ethical furnishings. Anthony and Jesse at Q Collection also have a lot to say on the subject of ecological and ethical upholstery.
|
|
|
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!).
|
|
|
Wednesday, 30 January 2008 |
|
28 January, 2008: WhalesRevenge.com is trying to gather a million signatures on an international petition to stop whaling. The site was started by Australian Patrick Bonello, who was inspired after watching graphic TV footage of Japanese whaling ships slaughtering whales. The site also has a Space Invaders-style game, where you help the Greenpeace good guys by sinking whaling ships (if you can avoid their harpoons long enough).
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Saturday, 12 January 2008 |
 11 January, 2008: Novelty Christmas jumpers, books you've already read, perfume you sneeze at, a DVD of 'The X Factor's Most Magical Moments'? If Santa (or cousin Sam) didn't put on his bifocals when reading your Christmas list, take heart. You needn't chuck imperfect pressies into the back of the cupboard and forget them until next year (when you plot your revenge with your own selections). Instead find your unloved gifts a new owner (one who'll cherish them, yes even the 'Boyzone, Live in Dublin' DVD) on Mission Fish, eBay’s charity site. You just choose a non-profit and designate a percentage of your sales to go to the cause. If the item sells, the buyer pays you, then MissionFish collects the donation from you, pays the non-profit organisation and provides a tax receipt.
Choose from over 12,000 worthy non-profits already registered on Mission Fish (including Friends of the Earth and GlobalGiving) or add your own good cause.
|
|
|
Friday, 11 January 2008 |
10 January, 2008: If you've been watching Hugh's Chicken Run on C4, you may be making a few changes to this week's menu. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall is hoping to start a chicken revolution in the UK – no, not  by encouraging strike action in the henhouse, by changing consumer behaviour. He wants us to buy ethically reared, free-range chicken, instead of cheap factory-farmed chicken often sold for less than a price of a pint.
After all, isn't an animal's life worth more than £1.99? These creatures have short, wretched lives in cramped conditions without natural daylight – not exactly the 'frolicking in the unspoilt countryside' lifestyle the label photos often hint at. The chickens regularly develop severe injuries and disabilities due to unnaturally fast weight gain and restricted movement.
Consumer behaviour can change – and supermarkets and government can play a role. Publicity about the plight of battery caged hens led to more consumers demanding free-range eggs. Marks & Spencer and Waitrose now sell only free-range eggs, and in the run-up to a new EU law coming in 2012, Sainsbury's, the Co-op and Morrisons are phasing out eggs from caged birds. Hugh is calling on supermarkets to end the price wars, which put pressure on farmers to intensify their farming methods. 
Now you may love or loathe Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (or just want to give him a really hot shower, a shave and a haircut). Either way, don't miss tonight's final episode. This chicken revolution won't end with the final show. Sign up for the Chicken Out! campaign for a free-range future. It's being led by River Cottage locals, who are boycotting intensively reared chickens and choosing free-range birds instead. Add your name to  the list to show your concern and if you eat meat, join the boycott. At the moment, 95% of the chicken sold in the UK is intensively farmed, so there's a long way to go.
Jamie Oliver is a partner in the campaign, and his new show Fowl Dinners (starting Friday at 9pm on C4) will try to encourage us to change our perspective on poultry products.
The Soil Association applauds the campaigning efforts of Hugh and Jamie and believes a shift towards more ‘free-range’ production would be a positive step, but reminds us that we should go even further. The Soil Association’s organic poultry systems offer the highest standards of animal welfare as acknowledged by respected animal welfare groups such as Compassion in World Farming. A recent government survey found that eggs from intensively farmed or even free-range birds have a significantly higher level of Salmonella than those from organic laying hens, confirming the Soil Association’s view that there are serious potential human health implications from intensive farming. Find out more at SoilAssociation.org.
|
|
|
Thursday, 10 January 2008 |
22 February, 2008: You tell us (and win big money)! Everyone's desperate for big green ideas that can have a positive impact on our lives (and the planet). NESTA (The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) has extended the deadline for its Big Green Challenge until 11.59pm Monday the 3rd of March.
The Big Green Challenge is a £1 million prize fund created to encourage people to find new ideas for reducing CO 2 emissions in their community (local, regional, national or worldwife).
|
|
|
Thursday, 10 January 2008 |
|
22 February, 2008: Today Recycle for London has launched a plastic-bag-free day for London, asking Londoners to just say no to plastic bags. Recycle for London and thelondonpaper handed out 10,000 free cotton shopping bags in Oxford Street and Regent Street. "It is extremely worrying that over 37 million plastic bags are used by Londoners each week," says Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron. "Today’s campaign is a suitable reminder for Londoners to stand back and look at the amount of rubbish they create on a weekly basis."
"The 2.2 billion plastic shopping bags given out by retailers in the capital each year end up in landfill, incinerated, or floating in the sea as an environmental menace to wildlife," says Jenny Jones, Green Party Member of the London Assembly, who supports the campaign. "Government must act by introducing a national tax similar to the one in Ireland that resulted in a 90 per cent reduction in usage of throwaway plastic bags."
|
|
|
Thursday, 10 January 2008 |
9 January, 2008: A survey by NESTA (The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) has found that four out of five Brits believe ideas from ordinary people can  make a huge difference to serious social problems like climate change. Eighty per cent of people in the UK believe they’ve had an idea that would have a positive impact on everybody’s lives but, for the vast majority (72%), their moment of genius remains untapped over worries such as lack of funding or fear of failure. Unleash your bright ideas with NESTA and transform your creativity into carbon-cutting initiatives!
Today marks the opening of the application process for NESTA’s Big Green Challenge. The challenge is to reduce CO 2 emissions in your community (which can be local, regional or more widely dispersed) by 60%. If you're interested in taking part visit the website and submit an initial application (deadline is 29 February!) "The New Year offers an opportunity to bring these ideas to the surface," says NESTA's Chief Executive Jonathan Kestenbaum. "By providing a financial incentive and expert support, we hope to encourage communities to come together to find new ways to tackle climate change.”
Now – how to make my dreams of replacing nuclear plants with energy-producing gyms a reality... Solves the obesity crisis and climate change in one fell swoop (or many, MANY miles on the treadmill and exercise bike!)
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Blog 
