The Post-Christmas Fiesta

It's that time of year when the bills from Christmas start arriving, and people tighten their belts to save money. When companies are looking to cut the price of their goods so that you can buy them more cheaply (while they still make a profit), there are a couple of tricks they can use.

One way is to send the manufacturing process to a different country where manufacturing costs are lower (such as legal minimum wage levels). This is how we currently get more stuff for less money. But there was a time when we were happy with less for less money. Perhaps we need to get back to this.

Let me give an example.

Ford Fiesta Mk1
Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Introducing the Ford Fiesta (Mark 1), one of the best selliing cars of the 1980s in the UK. Cars and the environment may not always be happy bedfellows, but the Fiesta shows us an alternative route to lower prices that we chose not to continue, despite its success.

The Fiesta was popular because it was affordable. And it was affordable because the base model had everything non-essential stripped out. Fewer parts means less cost, and less time to get the car off the production line and into the shops. It also means less energy used in production, and therefore less waste and pollution both in manufacturing and disposal (at the scrapyard). The list of missing parts might surprise you, but if you think about it, most of them aren't necessary for a basic car that's used to commute to work and very occasional longer trips. And remember, this was a major car maker in the 1980s.

What's inside the box?

• Stereo - nope. It was possible to buy parts to fit a stereo underneath the dashboard yourself, although this involved drilling holes. There were holes pre-drilled into the panels by the back seats which worked well as speaker grilles, but you had to invent your own way of mounting your own speakers behind them. Then, of course, you would have to drill into the car bodywork to fit a radio aerial. Alternatively, you could skip all that and have a portable battery-powered radio sitting on the passenger seat. Or sing accapella.
• Windscreen wipers - only at the front, and they were either on or off. There was no intermittent setting, although there was a "one wipe only" function.
• Windscreen washers - one nozzle on the bonnet, which squirted in two directions at the same time. Operated by a foot pump on the floor, similar to the ones you use to blow up airbeds. Unconventional but simple, and it worked faultlessly.
• Courtesy light - on or off. If you wanted a light to come on when you opened the doors, you had to work the switch yourself.
• Mirrors - there was no passenger-side mirror; in the early 1980's this wasn't a legal requirement in the UK. Use of the other mirrors and checking over your shoulder were advised.
• Lights - the sidelight was inside the headlamp assembly rather than on its own. Again, fewer parts equals less assembly time. And forget halogen headlamps - the bulbs were basic tungsten bulbs. You could fit halogen ones yourself if you wanted to.
• Rear fog light - not originally fitted, until a change in UK law made it mandatory. The factory then started bolting a lamp unit to the back of the car.
• Heated rear window - nope. This could be a real pain if you needed to reverse out of your driveway on a cold morning. Remember, there was no rear wiper either. There was an interesting way to demist the rear window - see "air vents" below.
• Air vents - there were no air vents that blew in your face. There was a flap in the middle of the dashboard that you could lift up, and it would blow air straight down the middle of the car. Teamed up with the heater fan on full speed, it would eventually demist the back window.
• Reversing lights - nope. You could improvise by switching on the rear fog light, which lit up the road behind you with a red glow.
• Gearbox - four gears forward, one gear back. One less gear means fewer parts.
• Windows - manual window winders in the front. The back windows didn't open at all. But if you've ever been in the back of a car when the front windows are open, you'll know that ventilation isn't a problem.
• Heater - two fan speeds. No aircon.
• Seats - vinyl faux leather - very cold on wintry mornings! These were common in lower-end cars in the 1980s. Dealers and car accessory shops sold seat covers that you could fit yourself.
• Clock - nope. It was easy enough to buy a digital clock that stuck onto the dashboard, again, from a car accessory shop.
• Wheel covers - none. The wheels were painted silver instead.
• Glovebox - nope. There was a little cubby-hole for passengers to put their stuff, like a glovebox but without a door.
• Door pockets - nope. There was plenty of storage space on top of the dashboard, but things tended to slide around as soon as the car went round a corner. There were home-grown solutions, which involved sticking boxes and small storage containers of various kinds to the dashboard with sticky foam pads.
• Parcel shelf - nope. The contents of the boot were there for all to see. You could cover it with a blanket though - but again, you needed to supply the blanket.
• Carpet - carpet throughout, except in the boot. I guess the designers figured that luggage doesn't really need home comforts. The boot floor was a large piece of hardboard painted black. There was a hole in it so you could lift it up to get at the spare wheel.

A couple of the items were only absent on the most basic model, while almost all were available on the "luxury" Fiesta Ghia model - although its' price tag was beyond the reach of many buyers. With so many missing items that we take for granted these days, you might wonder how Ford managed to sell these cars at all. But they did, and they were very popular because of the trusted name and the low price tag.

The Fiesta supported manufacturing jobs in the UK, Spain and Germany, where the cars were built. The basic nature of the base models also fuelled a vibrant market in car accessories like seat covers and fitting kits for stereos. This in turn supported a large number of small independent motorist shops across the UK and a couple of national chains.

While the Mark 1 Fiesta would certainly look out of date today, the second-hand market in the 1990's was strong, even with the cars then being 10 years old or more. Compare that to today. I recently overheard a friend saying that their 7 year old car was "out of date" because the built-in stereo wasn't MP3 compatible (and couldn't easily be replaced for one that was) and the built-in sat nav was unusable because the manufacturer had stopped producing updates for it (and again, it couldn't be swapped out).

In today's world, even basic cars come with a relatively high level of equipment as standard. Probably as a result, motorist shops have largely disappeared from our high streets. Car manufacturing often doesn't benefit the local economy as much either, as it's increasingly being done in far-flung countries to reduce cost (although, notably, Ford still have factories in Spain and Germany that build the current Fiesta). And some budget car brands apparently make up for their low car prices by increasing the price of servicing parts (the original Fiesta actually won a UK Design Council award for reducing running costs).

As you might have guessed, my first car was a second-hand Fiesta. I prefer my current fuel-efficient low-emission car with it's creature comforts, although I do begrudge having to pay for the standard "accessories" that I never use (particularly when most of my daily commute is on public transport). The Fiesta is an extreme example of "back to basics". But far better to start basic, and add things as you need them, I think. It's the best way to reduce waste.

A wise person once told me "you can't have everything for nothing". Wise words indeed.

(Note: I haven't commented on Ford's current models or manufacturing processes. This is entirely on purpose; the article isn't intended as a crtitique of Ford, but as a view of manufacturing in general).

Image: adapted from original "Ford Fiesta MK1 front 20071023.jpg", licenced under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported licence. Original available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Fiesta_MK1_front_20071023.jpg

How to have a happy eco-friendly Christmas

As the festive season approaches, many people are buying presents, planning food, and arranging parties. But is there a way to enjoy the celebrations while minimising the impact on the environment?

I think there is. Here are some suggestions.

Don't overbuy presents
Let's face it, we've all done it. And we've had someone do it to us, maybe without realising. It results in that familiar guilty feeling that someone has splashed out on you, while you only got them something relatively small. And whether you're young or old, some of those extra presents always seem to end up unwanted or unused - which is a real waste! So:

  - Have a present list and pass it to family and friends
  - Agree a spending limit with others. People are often more receptive to this than you would think. And it means people can concentrate on the real value of the present and not just how much it cost or how many items they've bought.
  - When you go out shopping, know what you're buying and for who. Ask for present ideas if you're unsure.
  - Try giving gifts that are a bit more personal and don't involve buying new stuff. For example, offering an evening babysitting, or offering to cook a meal. You can write the details on paper and present them in an envelope if you want to give something on Christmas day.

Party Planning
Disposable plates and cutlery make for easy clean-up, but they're not so good for the environment. There are more environmentally friendly alternatives to paper and plastic that are made from plant fibres with minimal processing. But the best way is to use tableware that you can wash in a dishwasher and re-use.

Full of food?
It's difficult to estimate how much food and drink your guests will want, and how much they will bring along themselves. If you've got leftovers at the end of the evening, suggest that everyone takes something home with them (and perhaps something different from what they brought).

Or why not prolong the festivities? Before throwing away the remains of the food, find out if you can freeze or refrigerate it and use it up over a few days or more. Search the Internet and you will find information on preserving all sorts of food easily and safely. And I mean all sorts - for example, did you know that you can freeze some types of cheese?

So, in conclusion...
Be good to others, to yourself, and to the environment. But most of all, have a great time. See you in 2013!

Natural Synthetics

I heard recently that scientists in the Antarctic have discovered masses of microscopic plastic fibres underwater. Could this be the biggest environmental polution problem yet?

One of the main causes, apparently, is synthetic fibres from clothes coming loose in the wash, and being rinsed down the drain. The fibres then make their way into the sea, and for some reason (which I'm still unclear about) end up in the Antarctic. Here, they are swallowed by marine life, causing harmful effects. Again, I'm unsure how microscopic particles do this, although I do know that a whole carrier bag can kill if swallowed by, say, a turtle.

So there were a few gaps in the news article that was reporting this story, and I need to do some research of my own to fill the gaps. But what came next in the news story took me by surprise.

An "expert" gave their opinion that the problem would be much better if people stopped wearing cheap synthetic clothes, and bought clothes made from natural fibres, such as cotton and wool. On the face of it, this sounds like great advice. Natural fibres break down in the water, whereas synthetic fibres don't degrade.

I might have believed this a few years ago before I started doing my own research. The trouble is, this advice only looks at the problem from one side. While natural fibres are biodegradable, they also take a lot of energy to grow and process. The research I've seen shows that the energy needed for this is far more than the energy needed to produce synthetic fibres. And when you consider that most of the energy used to grow natural fibres comes from fossil fuels, the overall environmental impact of natural fabrics can be much worse.

There are some people who point out that synthetic fabrics cannot be made without oil. But they forget that modern intensive cotton farming also needs oil - not just for the farm machinery, but as ingredients in pesticides, herbicides and other agrochemicals.

So the fish might not be swallowing plastic shards, but the pesticide run-off from the cotton field that washes into the rivers might get them instead. Basically, you can't win either way. But synthetic fibres seem to have the edge, as they need less energy overall to make, and tend to last longer.

What we really need is a new fabric that is energy efficient to produce and lasts a long time, but breaks down when disposed of. I think this is technically difficult, and probably won't be developed while mass consumers are focused on price versus designer brands. However, some moves are being made, and bamboo fibres are looking promising.

Bamboo is quick and easy to grow, and can be spun into a stretchy, breathable, cotton-like fabric. I have a few pairs of bamboo socks, and they're very comfortable. What's more, they're about the same price as ordinary socks. Unfortunately, they're still not as biodegradable as cotton.

Other developments may take longer. I guess what it boils down to is that no-one wants to develop a product that doesn't make a profit. But sometimes there is no monetary profit in looking after the enivronment. This, I think, is the greatest environmental dilemma of all.

Legs or breasts?

As someone who doesn't eat much meat (although I'm not a vegetarian), I'm intrigued by some of the issues posed by the farming and meat industries. Things like: if most chicken products are made with chicken breast, what happens to the rest of the meat?

The answer came to me on a recent television programme about cheap food and animal welfare. Some of the chicken thighs and legs make it onto our dinner tables, or in the summer months, onto our barbecues. Some of the other meat from the chicken goes into chicken mince and chicken burgers. But most of it doesn't.

Meanwhile, over in the Far East, cheaper cuts of meat are standard fare in some countries. For example, when I was in Japan a few years ago, I noticed that restaurants had chicken gizzards, cock's combs and chicken skin on the menu. One restaurant had chicken escalopes, but they were made from chicken skin with a thin layer of meat attached. There were no chicken breast products. If you consider that Japan is one of the more wealthy Far Eastern countries, you can see that their choice of chicken meat is a matter of tradition rather than price.

I should tell you that it's not the same in every country; for example, I've had fantastic street food in Malaysia that was made with chicken breast. Things are certainly different between countries.

But I was surprised to learn that we eat so many chicken breasts in Europe that we can't supply them from our own farms. Guess what happens?

Yes, we take the breast from our chicken, and sometimes the thighs and legs. Then we send the rest of the meat and skin off to the Far East. In exchange, they send us the breast meat from their chickens.

Bits of chicken are travelling back and forth all over the world, right now. There is a global trade in chicken parts.

But cheap chicken breast on the dinner table, or in our sandwiches, comes at a cost. The big problem is that animal welfare standards in some Far East countries are far worse than the minimum legal standard in Europe. Apparently, Thailand have been criticised for this, and they are a major exporter of chicken products to the UK. But you won't find this fact mentioned prominently on the packaging.

It can help to check where your chicken comes from; as I mentioned, meat that comes from somewhere in Europe has come from farms that maintain minimum standards of animal welfare. Although some intensive farms are still pretty poor, they could be a lot worse.

The other thing to check is how the chicken was reared. If you buy a Freedom Food chicken, for example, then the chicken is raised to the RSPCA's minimum standards. It may still be intensively farmed (and less than ideal in my opinion), but it gives a balance between animal welfare and the price tag. But if you can afford it (which isn't always possible, I know) then free range or organic chicken is better.

The only problem is that the "higher welfare" products aren't often available as convenience foods. You'll struggle to find free-range chicken burgers in the supermarket, or even organic chicken breast in most local butchers shops. You might have to buy and cook a whole chicken, but this can end up cheaper in the long run if you split up the cuts of meat and freeze them for later use. Not sure how to do that? Google.

I was brought up next door to a mixed dairy and arable farm that diversified into other livestock. I know that things have changed in the farming industry over the years. Not all of the changes have been for the better, in my opinion, and some farmers have been forced to do what they have to, to feed their own families. But the ultimate power to change this is with the consumer.

Rechargeable batteries

One of the problems with rechargeable batteries is that they never seem to last as long as the advertising claims. But are they still worth buying?

I use rechargeable batteries in a few different gadgets. The manufacturers usually say that their batteries can be recharged hundreds or even thousands of times. But I've found that I usually have to discard them after much less use than that.


The problems and the reasons behind them

Some of the batteries I have will no longer charge to their full capacity. Apparently, this is part of an ageing process that can't usually be reversed. So the affected batteries are charged, but they only last for a very short time.

The other problem is with batteries that lose their charge over time, even when they're not being used. Most rechargeable batteries do this to some extent, with many needing to be recharged after a few months. However, I have some batteries that lose their charge completely over a period of one week. If I can use them on the day I charge them, there's no problem. Apparently this is an ageing process too, and is perhaps why these particular batteries were less costly than other makes.


The solutions

All the batteries I'm using are the (fairly) modern NiMH types. There's a new kid on the block though: Nickel Zinc batteries. They seem to have a number of advantages, including a slightly higher voltage, which enables them to work in some gadgets that don't normally play nicely with rechargeable batteries. However, Nickel Zinc batteries need a special charger - you can't use a normal one.

It is possible to "recondition" NiMH batteries by running them flat (so there's no charge) before recharging them. Although it also seems that if you run them too hard, too often, then you can also run into problems. Chargers that recondition automatically tend to be quite pricey compared to the standard equivalents, so I'm not sure if it would be cheaper and more efficient to just put the batteries in an old torch (flashlight) and leave it switched on until the light goes dim.

Hybrid batteries are also useful to know about. They're a special kind of NiMH battery that keep their charge for longer. I find these are ideal for my camera, which can get no use at all for a few months, but then be called into action for an impromptu day out or event. Hybrids are also supplied ready to use, straight from the pack, which can be useful in some situations. The two main brands I've come across are Uniross Hybrio and Sanyo Eneloop. You might not think of Sanyo as a big battery producer, but for many years they have made "own brand" rechargeables for other people. 


The Conclusions

Going back to the point I mentioned at the start, a battery that can apparently be charged "up to" 500 times may not achieve 500 charges in your home. It's marketing-speak. Take it with a pinch of salt.

As for disposable batteries, they can be recycled in the UK, and there are collection points at most major supermarkets. But it still seems to be far more efficient and cost-effective in the long run to use rechargeables.

Overall, rechargeables are great. They save money, save the environment, and most of the time they work very well. Sure, there are a few niggles, but I'd rather have rechargeable than disposable batteries any day.

Saving your energy

I've just watched the news on T.V., where people were being interviewed about price increases for electricity and gas. There seemed to be a lot of blame apportioned to the energy companies, but I'm not sure that's the whole story.

We could endlessly debate the merits of profit-making private energy suppliers versus the old system of public-sector gas and electricity boards. But we'd still be watching T.V. news stories about price increases.

The profits of the energy companies are the most obvious and visible aspect. The less obvious one is that the gas we use in our homes, and to fuel our power stations, is increasingly coming from abroad. The U.K. isn't self-sufficient in gas, even though we have all the North Sea oil and gas rigs. They can't meet the demand on their own, so the gas we use is being piped from further and further afield.

The longer the pipeline, the more it costs to operate and maintain it. Also, when you deal with overseas countries, you often deal in overseas currencies that can change in value - as you'll know if you've been abroad on holiday. More importantly, when the energy companies buy the gas, they're only a middleman. The foreign gas supplier can put their prices up when they want, and if the energy companies or their customers (that's you and me) aren't willing to pay the extra, then the supplier doesn't have to give it to us. But because there are limited places to obtain gas, the choice of alternative supplier is also limited.

Obviously, if the supplier's price is too high, then few energy companies would buy from them at all. But the point I'm trying to make is that your home energy supplier doesn't have as much influence on prices as you might think.

So the way to pay less for your household energy in the long term is to cut back on use. Changing supplier might also save you save you some money, but the wholesale price to your supplier will likely be the same, and it's the one thing you can't change.

You could also look at more efficient appliances when it comes time to buy replacements. For example, wood burning stoves are touted as a cheaper and more environmentally friendly alternative to a gas fire. We're still trying to figure out if a wood burner is cheaper overall though, as the cheapest log burner we can find is around £400, plus fitting and some necessary building works. When an electric fire costs around £100, and a basic electric heater is less than £20, then I'm not really sure which is the cheapest option overall. Will the increased cost of electricity outweigh the low purchase price? I don't know, but I think I'd need my calculator to work it out!

In the meantime, the cost of energy will increase, and unfortunately, none of us will have much choice but to carry on paying for it. The best we can do is try to use less, which will help the environment too.

Image: Gas Flame by George Shuklin, Public Domain. Obtained via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_flame.jpg

Shopping local

On a recent visit to Belgium, I noticed something was missing from the outskirts of the towns and cities I visited: large supermarkets. I began to wonder if I'd just not noticed them. After all, if they didn't exist, where did people buy their food?

I eventually saw some smaller supermarkets in the suburbs, but they were a long way from the massive American-style retail parks common to the UK.

All became clear after a visit to a small town centre cafe, where I indulged in a capuccino and some people watching. I noticed that many locals came into town on their bicycles. They bought meat from the local butcher, bread from the local baker, vegetables from the greengrocer, and bumped into friends for a chat along the way. There was a small town centre supermarket, but it didn't have a car park. Again, most customers walked or cycled. There were no massive queues, no big car park traffic jams, and no-one losing their temper.

No, I hadn't fallen asleep and started dreaming. This was real. In some respects, it was like being transported back in time 30 years, to a time when the high street was the centre of retail trade in the UK. But it was also surprising that shopping in this way could still be an easy, stress-free experience - even with today's high-speed lifestyle, and even if you had to go to several shops just to get the basic essentials.

In the process of going into several independent shops on a regular basis, you'd meet several familiar faces. Those shop owners would get to know their customers personally, without needing a computer and a loyalty card to track their regular purchases. In turn, this seems to foster a sense of community. And that's an experience that the out-of-town megastores have difficulty matching.

In the process of demanding low prices and instant availability, I wonder if we've lost something quite important at the heart of our communities.

So shop local - maybe your community needs you!

Image: adapted from Maastricht Shopping Street by Redvers, Public Domain, obtained via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maastricht-shopping-street.redvers.jpg (yes, I know Maastricht isn't in Belgium, but I am impressed that you're reading this bit at the bottom).

How bad are bananas?

I have to admit, I don't actually like bananas. But I've just bought a book called "How bad are bananas? (the carbon footprint of everything)". And it contains far more than just musings on bendy-shaped yellow fruit.

Bananas galore!
Image: Martin Wiesheu

The author, Mike Berners-Lee, meausres carbon footprints for a living. While it's not an exact science, he does at least explain how he arrived at his figures, and is very careful with some of his results that contradict popular wisdom.

I even found the answers to the hand drier versus paper towel debate and the fruit juice dilemma :

• Using two paper towels is equivalent to using an electric hand drier. Surprisingly, there is no difference in the energy used, even though the paper towels are usually transported by truck. So if you can get away with using a single paper towel, that's the more environmentally friendly option. However, even this is trumped by a cyclonic hand drier, like the Dyson Airblade, which wins hands down.

• Fresh juice seems to beat concentrated juice. Oranges are usually transported by boat, which is fairly efficient. However, creating fruit juice concentrate uses lots of energy. So despite the fact that concentrates are made to reduce the volume and weight of the juice, so it can be transported more easily, it doesn't translate into less energy being used overall. It just means that a single boat can carry more.

I found some other surprising facts about transportation that I hadn't considered. For example, a bottle of wine imported from New Zealand to the UK could have a lower carbon footprint than one from Italy. Products from within Europe tend to be transported by road, whereas the New Zealand wine will arrive on a boat. So even though Italy is closer to the UK, it's the mode of transport that makes the biggest difference. The concept of "food miles" is beginning to look a bit suspect to me now.

By the way, the same logic applies to bananas too. They may come from far away, but they usually arrive by boat.

Which begs the question, why don't we ship more freight by sea and waterway?

Photo by Martin Wiesheu, CC-BY-SA licence, obtained via http://www.flickr.com/photos/49325640@N00/3768818

Designed for the dump

Was your laptop built for this?
Image: Alex E. Proimos

This week, a certain well-known maker of computers and phones has come under criticism for launching a product that is not as environmentally friendly as it could be. According to reports, their new laptop has a battery that isn't removable or replaceable. This might not sound like a big deal, but it does have surprising implications.

The battery is often one of the first things to stop working in a laptop or other gadget. By installing a battery so that no-one can replace it (not even a computer engineer) then you're limiting the life span of the device. Which, cynics would argue, is a great way to lock people into buying the latest gadgets.

Sadly, there are many companies that seem to be doing this. Some people have called this approach "designed for the dump" - in other words, a product is designed so that it becomes useless after a couple of years, can't be repaired, and has to be thrown away.

On the one hand, this doesn't seem great for the environment. On the other hand, it causes people to buy products they wouldn't otherwise buy, and so keeps people in jobs and money in the economy.
Personally, I like shiny gadgets and new technology. But I don't like how quickly it can become unusable when it's still capable of working.

There's an interesting video about the life of electronic gadgets that goes into more detail. It's available below, and also via YouTube.



Image credit: Trash Mountain by Alex E. Proimos, licenced under CC-BY licence, obtained via http://www.flickr.com/photos/proimos/6983485707/

The public transport dilemma

I'm writing this on the train home from work. Normally I don't commute on the train, as it's slow for me and expensive. But it does give me an excuse to cycle to the station and back, and get some exercise in the process! So I try to use the train once a week.

I'd love to get public transport every day, but it's just too much hassle and expense. So I compromise. Three days a week, I drive a fuel-efficient car to the outskirts of the nearby city, then catch public transport from there to the city centre. And one day a week, I work from home.

I've never really understood why we have a public transport system based on 1950's life - when people commuted from the suburbs to the centre. Today, the offices and factories have moved out of town, but you often still have to go into the centre to come out again.

I do think that we need to end our obsession with the car. But public transport is often a poor relative of the car when it comes to commuting.

Unfortunately, it's often the case with long-distance travel too. I recently priced up a trip to Belgium for 3 people, booking 2 months in advance. The train was over £700. Taking the car, and using the Dover to Calais ferry, cost about £120 including fuel. No contest - I can't justify the £700 spend.

I think there are some possible solutions, but they need money and time.

Firstly, long-distance train travel has to be cheaper. If I need to be in London for the morning, I can go by car for about £60, by parking in outer London and getting the tube into the city. By coach, it's under £60. By air, it's about £150. By train it's £230. Why?

Secondly, since we're stuck with the "out of town" syndrome (shops, offices, healthcare) then we need to have transport hubs in these places. Travelling 12 miles into and out of the centre, in order to reach a destination 3 miles away, is not the kind of thing that promotes public transport as a viable option! We have cities with successful Park and Ride systems, but we need to build on this.

Thirdly, we need to make cycling more accessible. In Belgium and the Netherlands, many locals don't think twice about cycling to the shops or to the station. In the UK, we've embraced leisure cycling, but we charge commuters 20p per day to access the toilet, so they can change out of their sweaty cycling gear before getting on a train!

The car still has a place, and is a valuable form of transport. Trains and other forms of public transport need a chance to shine too; but this won't happen unless people start using them more.

So why not try using public transport or your bike once a week? It might not be as bad as you think.

Which is greener: hand driers or paper towels?

In the toilets at work, we have both electric hand driers and paper towels. I'm always surprised by the amount of people that use the paper towels, as I've never seen them as good for the environment. On the other hand, some people can't believe I use the hand drier, and ask if I'm aware how dirty they can be.

I looked into this, and they do have a point.

Hand driers usually have filters that need regular cleaning to remove dust and grime. If this isn't done, then bacteria can breed inside the machine, and then get blown onto your freshly washed hands. However, I do wonder if this is any worse than the bacteria that's always on toilet door handles, from people who haven't washed their hands. I'm still alive, so I guess it's not a major issue.

The argument for paper towels is that they're greener because they can be recycled and they don't use electricity. I've looked into this.

Dirty paper towels are often unsuitable for recycling, because they are made from low-grade paper, and are contaminated with bacteria (and worse) from people's hands. There's also a vast amount of energy used to fell trees, cut them, ship them to the paper plant, grind them into pulp, dry them (using hot air!), cut them into sheets, and drive them to the office. So I reckon using a hand drier eliminates a lot of unnecessary energy use.

Unfortunately, the information I have is from sources connected with either the paper industry or the hand drier manufacturers. I don't have concrete figures or independent evidence, so it's difficult to prove either argument. At the moment, I'm sticking with the hand drier.

So what's your preference - paper towels or hand drier?

In Transition

I've just finished watching a documentary film called In Transition. It's about communities that are trying to become less dependent on oil, and products made from it.

I thought it was worth mentioning, because unlike many films of this genre, it manages to do this without any hysteria or evangelism. Sure, some of the people interviewed are die-hard environmentalists. But most of the people are just ordinary folks trying to make a small change, and in the process, making new friends in their local neighbourhood. Like the chef who proudly announces that all the ingredients for his dishes come from within a 50 mile radius of his kitchen, and he personally knows the farmer who supplied the meat.

There were a few technical terms in the film that weren't explained fully (I'm guessing there probably wasn't enough time). So if phrases like "Peak Oil" don't mean much to you, then you might not get the most out of the film. It's still worth watching though. There's a different film that explains these terms in a wonderfully simple way, which I'll share in a future post.

Here are some great quotes from the film that I couldn't help noting down:

 - In the US, a carrot travels an average of 1838 miles in order to reach the dinner table.

 - In the UK, 50 percent of all vegetables and 95 percent of fruit come from overseas. There are crops like garlic that we could grow in the UK, but instead we import them from China and other countries.

 - In England, 142,000 acres of orchards have been cut down in the last 100 years (I've noticed myself that even in the British apple season, we import apples from overseas).

All of this means a lot of transportation, which invariably uses oil. A consultant presenting the issues to a local council meeting summed up the problem: "We're moving from a time when our consumption of fossil fuels - be it oil or gas - is the key factor in our economic success, our sense of wellbeing, our personal prowess; to a time when our dependency on fossil fuels is our degree of vulnerability".

Despite this, I thought the film ended without any definite conclusions. However, there was an invitation for viewers to send in their own stories on video for use in a sequel.

You can now watch the film online for free, in the window below, or via Vimeo.Grab a mug of tea first - it runs for about 50 minutes.


In Transition 1.0 from Transition Towns on Vimeo.

The Endless Summer

Fresh vegetables at a street market
Image: Biswarup Ganguly

Everyone knows about the health benefits of fruits and vegetables. But did you know that choosing the wrong ones could have an impact on your wallet, your wellbeing, and the environment?

The phrase "Endless Summer" was coined some years ago, to explain how it's always summer in some part of the world. This makes it possible to have fruit and vegetables on sale all year round, no matter whether they're in season or not. Thanks to an Endless Summer, they are always in season somewhere, and can be transported to store shelves anywhere in the world.

As you'd imagine, the environmental impact can be huge, especially if goods have to be kept refrigerated on the journey. And by the time they reach the store shelves, they're already a few days old and have lost some of their nutrients.

Of course, someone has to pay for the transport costs too. That would be you. Well volunteered!

The way around this? Look for produce that's grown in your home country, or at least close to it. Ideally, try to buy from local producers or farmers markets. If there's a poor harvest (which still happens even in developed countries) the local outlets will still have small amounts of local produce. The supermarkets, however, have to buy in bulk and will often buy abroad instead. The supermarket may be cheaper in this case, but don't forget that there is still a cost to the environment.

Even better than all this is to grow your own vegetables. It's easy (no, really it is), and you can start with a plant pot or grow bag on your patio or balcony.

We might not be able to make the summer last all year, but we can make food choices that have a feel-good factor.

Image: Vegetables by Biswarup Ganguly, CC-BY licence, obtained via Wikimedia Commons.

Can you dig it?

I hated gardening when I was a youngster. My parents lived in a house with a large garden, and grew their own fruit and vegetables. I was given my own corner for planting, but I hated weeding and hated waiting for things to grow.

Not much has changed. The wife and I have our own house and garden, but still the old bugbear about weeds and waiting. But we're more aware of the benefits of growing your own fruit and vegetables, and they're certainly worth the effort.

We don't have a greenhouse. We don't have any special expertise, other than the advice our parents give us, and what it says on the seed packets. We don't have a big garden area, and we have probably some of the worst soil to work with (heavy clay).

But if we can grow tomatoes, bell peppers, potatoes and purple broccoli, then anyone can! Some things we've learned are:

 - not much grows in heavy clay soil, and it's very difficult to improve it. You'll know if you've got some if it sticks together in large clumps when you dig it, and it tends to crack in hot, dry weather. Growing things is a hit and miss affair, but...

 - old buckets, plastic bins and washing-up bowls are great for planting veggies. We clean them thoroughly, drill some holes in the bottom for drainage, then fill with two-thirds topsoil, one-third organic compost, and some "fish blood and bone" mix. All are available from a garden centre. You can even decorate the outside if you're feeling arty!

 - slugs can be kept at bay by burying old glass jars in the ground, so they are flush with the soil. Then fill them with beer. Slugs love the ale, but they get drunk, fall into the jar, and drown!

Hopefully I'll be able to show some of our gardening results later in the year. But for the moment, here's a photo of some of our plants that are well on their way to the dinner table.

Seedlings. From left to right: parsnip, bell pepper, potato, broccoli, carrot
(Photo: mpmedia)

 

 

 

Positive News

Image: NS Newsflash

As they say, "No news is good news". And I've found that one of the ways to keep a positive outlook is to ignore many of the stories in popular media. I still read newspapers occasionally, but I'm careful which paper I buy. I don't like to start the day on a negative note if I can help it.

A surprising number of friends have adopted the same attitude, saying that many news outlets seem to have a negative tone. And it can be difficult to tell a real news story from marketing and political "spin".

I'd like to share a great example that I encountered last week. We were with some friends in a local pub at the time, when the barman started talking about the news.

He had read in his newspaper that 1 in 5 convicted criminals in the UK are residents of other countries, and the majority of those are from Poland. Someone at the bar overheard. "That's ridiculous", he said, "all those foreigners coming over here to commit crime".

I pointed out that, by the same figures, 80% of convicted criminals are UK residents. And only a fraction of the remainder are Polish nationals.

A few people's eyes widened. "Oh yeah...". There was a sudden realisation that the shocking news story wasn't shocking after all. It was, I suspect, written by someone with a hidden agenda. Now, hopefully, no-one will be suspicious of the Polish customers who wander into the pub. Or the locals who buy imported Polish beer.

This all reminded me of a legendary story from the cold war era, where a car race was organised between two teams, from America and Russia.

The Americans won the race, and the US newspapers reported that the Russians lost. However, the Russian newspapers reported that the Russian team came second, and the American team was next to last.

Both stories look like they have opposite views, but in fact they are presenting the same facts in completely different ways. Just goes to show that there's always another side to the news.

Photo credit: Newspapers B&W (4) by NS Newsflash, CC-BY licence, via Flickr

Turned off by low energy bulbs?

Since moving into a new house a few years ago, we've been slowly replacing the ordinary light bulbs with energy-saving ones.

Everything has gone reasonably well, but there are a few lessons learned. As they seem to be the same things that turn other people off low energy lamps, I thought they were worth sharing.

CFLs

A CFL Bulb
Image credit: Nroose

These are fluorescent light bulbs, and are what most people think of as "energy saving". However, I had two issues.

Firstly, they were not very bright, especially for the first few minutes. This was a problem on the stairs - but it was easily cured by buying a slightly higher powered bulb. It still uses less energy than the filament bulb it replaced.

Second were the energy costs to transport the bulbs all the way from China, where most of them seem to be made. I eventually found some made in Hungary, which is at least closer to home; though they probably go by road, so I can't really tell if they're greener.

LEDs

LED bulbs use less energy than CFLs, they switch on instantly, and they don't need to "warm up" to give their full brightness.

LED bulbs
Image credit: Fcancela

Most of the cheap 1 watt LED bulbs are very dim, and I found they are best suited for background or decorative lighting. They tend to have a clean white light that is easier to see by, but it can look harsh compared to a normal bulb.

More modern LED bulbs are rated at 3 watts and above. There are some that are designed to mimic the warm colour of a normal bulb, rather than the brilliant white light normally associated with LEDs. And, in a contrast to normal energy saving bulbs, I found I could get away with a lower powered bulb than I expected, even though it was one of the "warm" ones.

LED bulbs cost a lot more than CFLs (£15 upwards), but they use even less energy and last a very long time. I calculated that they'll pay for themselves in a few years in our kitchen, where they have replaced halogen downlights.

A bright idea!
Image credit: Oscarjosue

Replacement

I tried to replace the old bulbs only when they blew. Despite the fact that the newer bulbs use less energy, there's still a lot of energy used in their manufacture. Besides which, there's no point throwing away something in working order!

The Verdict

I'm convinced that energy-saving bulbs *can* work well. But as with many things, it helps to have a bit of insight, and not pay too much attention to marketing hype.

Image credits:

"Cuerpo humano jaqaru" by Oscarjosue, CC-BY-SA licence. Obtained via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cuerpo humano jaqaru.jpg.

"Compact fluorescent straight" by Nroose, public domain. Obtained via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Compact_fluorescent_straight.jpg.

LED lights based on an original image "Green Ray Lights" by Fcancela, Free Art Licence 1.3  Obtained via http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Green Ray Lights.jpg.

Making money from the sun?

A close relative was visiting us at the weekend, enthusing about a new money-making scheme she'd signed up to: solar panels.

A salesman had called round, and sold her a grid-connected system - in other words, the solar electricity she doesn't use gets put back into the electricity supply network for others to use. And, because she's effectively running a miniature power station, she gets paid for doing so.

The salesman estimated that the system would pay for itself in 6 years. But this seemed overly optimistic, given the small size of the system he quoted. The government has publicly said that they will subsidise the payments to solar generators for many years to come. But there's something about politicians' promises, in combination with salesmans' promises, that made me feel uneasy.

Thankfully, another relative used to work for a renewable energy company, so we were able to support our opinions: solar PV may be a good way to help save the planet, but we don't view it as a get-rich-quick scheme.

Thankfully, there's a cooling-off period on the contract, so there's time to reconsider.

Is there really a money-making opportunity in solar PV panels? And where does the money come from?

(photo credit: Solar Panels by Ell Brown, licenced under Creative Commons CC-BY licence, obtained via http://www.flickr.com/photos/ell-r-brown/7083596231 )

Beyond marketing: juice concentrate

When I look at fruit juice labels, I always find the phrases "not from concentrate" or "made with concentrated juice". I often wondered what this meant, and why concentrated juice is usually cheaper.

But is one really better than the other? I did some research, and found that the answer is far from clear cut.

Concentrates start as fresh fruit juice, but some of the water is evaporated. The resulting concentrated juice takes up less space, and uses less energy to transport. If you're shipping orange juice from (let's say) Brazil to Europe, that seems a pretty important consideration. Eventually, when the concentrate arrives at the juice factory, the missing water is added back in and the juice is delivered to the shops.

Juice marked "not from concentrate" doesn't go through this process. This makes it sound fresher, because it's squeezed closer to home. But it does mean that the whole fruit has travelled further, as opposed to just the juice from the fruit - which means more Food Miles.

In terms of nutrients, the government's "five a day" campaign makes no distinction between types of juice - one glass of juice equals one portion of fruit.

Which gives something of a dilemma. Unprocessed and fresh, or fewer food miles: which do you go for?

(Photo credit: Orange juice carton by Gerald_G (CC0/public domain licence). Obtained via: http://openclipart.org/detail/9149/fast-food-drinks-juice-orange-by-gerald_g )

Earth Hour

http://www.earthhour.org

Do you fancy an atmospheric, candle-lit night in? Well, here's a great reason to have one.

Earth Hour has been running for several years now, and is supported by WWF, the World Wildlife Fund. The idea is to switch off your lights for one hour, starting at 8.30pm on 31 March. This has three purposes:

 1. It's a fun way to save energy and money.
 2. It's a good reminder of how reliant we are on energy, and what things might be like if we were without it.
 3. It's also a good time to reflect on our own energy use, and how it might affect the environment.

In our house, we joined in last time by having candlelit snacks and a few board games. However, ours was the only house in the street with the lights off. I'm glad to see that this could radically change this year, as WWF are predicting that hundreds of millions of people around the world will be involved. All will be switching off their lights at 8.30pm local time, creating a kind of ripple across the globe.

I've already seen posters in the local community (with the title "60+ : Go beyond the hour"). The WWF have also scored a coup by signing up many famous landmarks, from the Eiffel Tower in France to Sydney Opera House in Australia. It looks like this year could be a big one!

The WWF have a site explaining more about the campaign here: http://www.earthhour.org , and there's a UK-specific site here: http://earthhour.wwf.org.uk .

Reducing food waste

I always feel guilty when I end up throwing good food away.

I try to avoid over-buying when I go shopping, and always check the Use By dates before I buy. But sometimes meal plans change, and things get lost at the back of the fridge.

I looked in the fridge last night and saw a pack of butter that was hiding at the back. It's Best Before date was 31 May. That may not sound bad, but I realised that it meant May last year - when I bought it.

I'd been checking the butter regularly though, and it always smelled fine and there had been nothing growing on it. So yesterday I tasted a bit - and it was fine.

So I've made some chocolate chip flapjack with butter that's a year out of date. Talk about reducing waste to the extreme! I'm eating the first couple with my morning coffee today, and if you see me posting again, you'll know I haven't poisoned myself!

What's your record for (safely) consuming out of date items? (that's a question, not a challenge!)