What connects a Pacific grey whale and you last visit to the shops?
July 18, 2010 by Doug Kennedy
What connects a Pacific grey whale and you last visit to the shops?
On your last visit to the shops, it is almost certain that you came home with some plastic that you hadn’t taken out with you: if you are really careless, then it would include the plastic carrier bags from the shops you visted, but it’s hard to avoid the odd polystyrene punnet in shrink wrap. Then there are the cardboard boxes with plastic wrappers on the food inside, and sometimes also on the outside!
Then there are those little bottles of water in shrink-wrapped multipacks, and packs of fruit drinks with tough wrappers that will be around long, long after the drink has been consumed and excreted into the sewage system.
Shrink-wrap can’t normally be recycled by local authorities, nor can polystyrene, nor many other packaging materials, so they end up in land fill or being burned in the incinerators that no-one likes in their back yard (so why do those same poeple continue to produce so much waste?), along with much of the recyclable plastic.
Some of it just gets chucked anywhere: just look at the verges of a major road that hasn’t been cleared by the local authority for a while. I have been picking up this sort of litter as I walk or run through parks and the countryside for decades, but what gets missed just blows somewhere. Today’s haul was a dirty nappy in Ashridge Forest, left just off the dirt footpath in a pretty piece of woodland. There was plastic in that too.
What has this to do with grey whales? Have a look at these web pages:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/11/plastiki-rothschild-plastic-bottle-catamaran (millions of tonnes of plastic swilling around in the Pacific Ocean while sea life disappears)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/beached-grey-whale-in-sea_n_544130.html (A beached grey whale contains large amounts of domestic plastic.)
None of these materials existed 50 years ago, when plastics were still relatively expensive and the technology was at an early stage, so the entire phenomenon has built up during one generation. Our society is more obsessed with cleanliness and smelling nice than it ever was, but we seem to pay less and less attention to the filth and pollution that we leave in our wakes as we drive on through our lives.
It cannot make sense that every time we buy a sandwich, a drink and a coffee, which are consumed in 10 minutes, we throw away:
Sandwich: shrink wrap or plastic sleeve, carboard pocket, the bits we didn’t want to eat.
Drink: A clear plastic bottle with label and coloured plastic cap.
Coffee: Polystyrene or carboard cup, plastic top, plastic or wooden stirer, paper sugar packet.
What can you do about it? Quite a lot actually, but only if you are willing to think a bit more about your actions, and to not just take the most convenient course every time, which usually means buying everything in one trip to the supermarket: local shops and outdoor markets usually put less packaging on food items. And you can always select items that have less packaging, or tell the butcher that you don’t really need two plastic bags and plastic film around those chops.
If you are feeling really bold, you could protest to the retailer.
If you disagree with all of this and are one of those people who think that their convenience is paramount, and that chops need 3 layers of plastic, then you won’t have read this far anyway. But if you did read this far, I’d be interested to hear how you can justify it.
A Rose, no poisons, just the odd thorn
July 14, 2010 by Doug Kennedy
Here is a nice pink rose that grows in our garden. This is the one of the second bloom of flowers we have had this summer: the first was of very large, multiple blossoms with a delicious scent.
The bush is perfect! No black spot or other diseases, no aphids to speak off (I do pick them off about once a week if I see a cluster). It has produced numerous shoots this year and stands about 120 cms tall, in spite of having been pruned quite hard in the winter.
So what am I doing? Boasting? Well, not really – there is a point to this. Our garden has had NO chemical fertilisers or pesticides put on it for the past 3 years. The entire garden is remarkably pest free. Now, that is in part due to the very cold winter, which killed off many nasties and seems to have left us with wonderful floral displays. But it is also due to the fact that this bush has had a dressing of our own well-rotted compost, and every day, gets a pot of cold darjeeling tealeaves and water poured over it.
I learned this lesson a long time ago from my uncle Tom in Jersey, who carried seaweed up from the beach to turn his patch of sand into a beautiful garden that produced the best peas and potatoes you have ever tasted each year. And, being a good Scot, he was much to careful to buy nasty poisons, and knew that the seaweed was far too good a fertiliser and soil sustainant to pollute with rubbish.
The agricultural and horticultural industries would like you to think otherwise, and festoon our garden centre shelves with vast quantities of potions and poisons and magic ingredients to ensure the fecundity and health of our gardens. But in fact, what they do is destroy the balance, which results in pests becoming far more prevailant than they would be without them.
Gardens are not like single-crop intensive agriculture: they depend upon diversity and a healthy ecosystem being sustained. Pest problems can mostly be dealt with by a bit of hard work, or sustained attention and husbandry: ie. good gardening. Chemicals are short cuts that often create as many problems as they solve.
The International Day for Biological Diversity – Did you miss it?
July 12, 2010 by Doug Kennedy
The United Nations proclaimed last Sunday, May 22nd 2010 The International Day for Biological Diversity (IDB).
I didn’t know in advance, but I did hear it on the news over the weekend. What about you: did you notice? On that day, a friend sent me a document written by The Wildlife Trusts in 2006 containing guidance for parish councils on how to fulfill the requirements of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 regarding biodiversity: our parish council chair had never heard of the NERC Act and knew of nothing contained within their plan.
Genetically Modified (GM) Foods Are An Unnecessary Evil
June 15, 2010 by Doug Kennedy
Yesterday I walked for about a mile through grassy fields, about half of them overgrown with grasses, nettles and other vagrant species. This was not in the middle of nowhere, but in prime Buckinghamshire farmland: some of the most fertile and longest farmed in England. These fields were completely vacant – no livestock, and certainly no crops.
Were these fields to be left alone, apart from mowing, for long enough, they could become meadows, rich in wildflowers, with nesting places for skylarks and other birds, and a refuge for hares. That is unlikely – it’s not the culture around here, but if we are so much in need of food that we want to plant GM crops, why are the in this state?
Much of the actively farmed land in this area has livestock on it – beef cattle mostly, some sheep and a little dairy. Cattle are notoriously inefficient in terms of food per acre, eating and drinking many times the weight of meat produced during their lives, let alone the methane they blow out of their rears.
Then there is all the land throughout the South East that is used for rearing horses, which are a hobby. There is an industry around them which provides work and pleasure for many of course, and they are lovely animals. But again, this is land that is supposedly so scarce that we need to plant GM crops.
Again the same question is begged – if we can afford to put so much land to livestock, can there really be a food crisis so severe that industrially produced GM crops are needed?
It may well be that the prices paid to farmers for crops make them less attractive, or even unaffordable to grow, but that raises questions about the ‘free and efficient market’ that is supposed to apply. The market for food is a bit of a free-for-all, certainly, meaning that it is the interests of the rich and powerful that are best served, rather than the good of the land. The fact that farmers are sometimes paid less than the food costs to grow creates great inefficiencies and waste, and also that the problem is not short supply.
It is a fact that the UK has a growing population. They need to be fed, and some very knowledgable people say that this will become a problem. But why are GM crops necessary? We seem to have plenty of land available for growing crops that could feed any number of people, but we just don’t use it. Of course, as long as supermarkets can import food cheaper than our farmers can produce it the problem is even less urgent. If we foresee a problem down the road, which is quite likely,we should plan for that both in terms of quantity of food grown and population size.
GM crops use lots of aggro-chemicals, including pesticides. Pesticides are intended to kill things – the bees, butterflies and other vital insects that unintentionally ingest them included. Even without GM crops this is a problem: One of our local villages had an open gardens day on Sunday and in 4 large gardens I didn’t see ONE honey bee (quite a few bumble bees) and few butterflies. The advent of GM crops in the UK is only likely to make this situation worse, owing to the quantities of chemicals needed for them.
Then there are the ‘unintended consequences’ of planting GM crops. By their nature, we don’t know what these will be, but these are alien plant types that require a lot of technology to make them successful, and their wide distribution could be catastrophic. You can forget about organic farms nearby as their crops are likely to become infected.
Then there is the fact that GM seed takes a lot of research and development – they cost millions and millions of pounds. So the companies that produce them own the genetic material, and will want to sell it as widely as possible once they are allowed to. They are very powerful and will offer big incentives to get farmers roped in. As the market grows, the company becomes more powerful, and eventually, the trap shuts, and the farmers and consumers are in it – you can’t re-use the seed, nor cross it with other varieties yourself. You have to buy the seed, AND the ghastly pesticides from The Company PLC (probably American or Chinese owned).
We have enough land to grow food for ourselves and more: it is a matter of how we choose to use it…. and whether we allow the global human population to continue to explode (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/).
One Sunday’s News: What Is Important?
May 2, 2010 by Doug Kennedy
From one Sunday newspaper today, May 2nd 2009:
Item 1: 33.8% of honey bees in the USA disappeared or died since last year. The picture is much the same in the UK, though figures aren’t all in yet and is a bad year in a continuing trend. The main, but not only cause, is ‘Colony Collapse Disorder’ where whole colonies just die or disappear: what triggers it isn’t known, but taking into account chemical residues in wax, hives and honey, pesticides are a likely contributor. And if you think that farmers all stick to the usage guidelines for these poisons, you are probably deluding yourself.
If flowers aren’t pollinated, then most fruit (which includes vegetables such as beans) can’t grow. The immediate effect on our food would be very sad, the long-term implications are frightening.
Millions of gallons of crude oil are being spewed out into the sea in the Gulf of Mexico from where they were stashed away by nature millions of years ago. There is no easy fix and vast areas of coast and sea bed in the Gulf and beyond are imminent danger of destruction. The cost in fish, birds and other sea creatures will be huge, even if they can stop the flow. If it goes on for weeks, as it may well, the size of the disaster will be enormous and terribly tragic.
This sort of news appears somewhere every day of course, and the scientists warn us that we are on a cliff edge. So what is actually important to each of us today?
Unless there is a World-wide revolution and What Is Important becomes OUR ENVIRONMENT, it is hard to be optimistic.
Climate Change Deniers Aren’t Like Scientists
April 19, 2010 by Doug Kennedy
Last November, illegally obtained emails were publicised widely by climate change deniers, most strident among them Nigel Lawson, who claimed that the scientists must be exagerating their findings and not sharing the real data.
So there was huge disruption and worry at East Anglia University and damage done to the reputation of climate change science in general aided and abetted by the media, who claimed that climate science itself was a scandal.
The latest investigation results to be published last week exonerate the U.E.A. scientists and it turns out that one reason for the (admittedly inappropriate) emails was that the scientists were constantly asked for their data and it had become too onerous as they didn’t have the resources to deal with the queries.
Now scientists are a sceptical bunch who rarely, if ever, say that something has been ‘proved beyond doubt’, or is ‘fact’. Unlike the newspapers, they do not tend to shout rubbish and lies from the rooftops, then forget about it when it turns out to be wrong (unless sued of course). If a scientific theory is shown to be erroneous, they argue about and investigate more and update their findings, regarding being wrong as part of the process of investigation and learning rather than as a sin.
So where are these climate change deniers who were so noisy a few weeks ago now? Have they, or the newspapers who gave them voice, screamed at us that, in fact, climate science is NOT a scandal and that the scientists have been vindicated, whereas the deniers were wrong?
It has been very quiet. The damage has been done, but no-one involved seems to have to do anything to repair it.
It does nothing to improve my opinion of Lawson or his self-seeking cronies.
Tilting at Windmills – is it worth it?
February 7, 2010 by Doug Kennedy
A friend of mine, who is a population activist makes no bones about his attitude – population is the problem, so concern about carbon emissions and personal footprints is a waste of time as any efforts we make are like building a wall of sand with a spade against the incoming tide of population growth.
I, and some more-or-less like-minded individuals around Thame are spending time and effort trying to influence people to live more sustainably in all sorts of ways – energy, waste, local food, transport and so on. The local politicians steer clear of us by and large and MPs make suppotive noises but do nothing, and the mainstream of the local populace at best show a polite interest and acknowledge that we must do more, and urge us to ‘keep up the good work’.
This is a pretty wealthy area so residents tend to have high environmental footprints as they can afford multiple cars, larger houses, foreign holidays and don’t mind spending money on heating bills. They keep themselves busy so haven’t got time for all this ‘hair shirt stuff anyway’.
The UK government prides itself in taking a global lead on the environment, which they do in words but far less in actions (see previous posts). Ed Milliband, the Secretary in charge of the Department for Environment and Climate Change ( a new department created by Labour) generally makes the right noises, but is one minister among many around the Cabinet table, where the voices for short-term economic recovery will be louder, and money for new investment will be extremely tight or missing. So although there is talk of supporting a ‘grass roots’ movement throughout the country along with major changes in energy generation and transport, there is no money for it and no real policy pressure. Thus local councillors can effectively ignore the initiatives, like Agenda 21, that are supposed to nurture the seeds of change.
And it is true that the populations of India, China, Indonesia and Brazil, are so large that our puny efforts making a difference are totally inisignificant. Projections about the increase in GWG outputs from relatively minor increases in car use and other consumerist activities from these countries are frightening.
There is, of course, NO PLAN, and we have no idea where all the resources are going to come from to support the changes, and there is global alarm but little action to address the affects.
And I’ve just put down the phone from my good-hearted brother, who really is one of society’s good guys and how has just returned from 3 weeks in the West Indies having an absolutely lovely time. And who am I to say that his doing so is irresponsible?
So why do we bother?
Another voluntary activity that uses up my time, energy and sometimes money is The Best Of Both Worlds (Outdoor recreation and conservation) at BoBW.co.uk. Because of government cut-backs we are losing the little funding that we had (about £10,000 per year) and the civil servants who sit on the working group that I chair are under a lot of pressure, or keep being pushed onto other things. Therefore I find I’m having to spend more and more time on it and can’t see where the funding is going to be coming from even next year. Fund raising is a big job, so is my place to do it?
Who gains benefit out of BoBW? Not me – I do use the countryside and try to do so responsibly, but it has no impact and little relevance to me. The nationl governing bodies of outdoor sports and recreations do benefit, and they help out and donate through the CCPR. They are the biggest users probably. Land managers and conservation bodies and officers benefit to an extent as BoBW provides a lot of information and a framework to help in access decisions.
The biggest beneficiaries are the agencies (Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales, Environment Agency) who have sponsored it’s creation and who are withdrawing funding now.
So again, why do I bother? It’s increasingly difficult to believe in initiatives to better our environment and society when society doesn’t seem to care. Words are easy, but money and action are what counts.
I really would appreciate your thoughts.
It ain’t happening, but it is..
February 7, 2010 by Doug Kennedy
Headline 1 – Sceptic Scientists Demonstrate Climate Is Warming Up
A group of Alabama climate scientists who are collecting data from a satellite and who are regarded as climate sceptics have announced that the Earth warmed more in January 2010 than any year since records began in 1979.
Headline 2 – People don’t believe it.
At the same time, opinion polls show that people in general have become much more skeptical about global warming since the well publicized errors in the climate report published by the IPCC, and the dodgy emails at East Anglia University.
So basically, we like business as usual, and if you have the money, it’s fun. If you want to put this into perspective, I recommend reading “The Rise And Fall Of Consumer Cultures” by Erik Assadourian which can be found, along with other stuff, through Transforming Cultures at blogs.worldwatch.org/. I’ve spouted stuff along similar lines in these blogs, but he does it much better.
Climate Shenanegans and Does What Scientists Say Matter?
January 29, 2010 by Doug Kennedy
“What blooming weather: so much for global warming!” is a cry I have heard more than once as we suffer a cold winter.
Of course, weather and climate are different – we experience weather every day, and a year is a long time. Climate applies over tens, or hundreds of years and describes the general, overall situation. We find it difficult to see this perspective when battling through the snow of January 2010 or sweltering in the heat of June 1976. One degree centigrade is nothing within the variation of weather, whereas if a climate changes by a degree it is significant.
If the entire global average temperature goes up by one degree, it is a major change, and this is what is happening.
Climate scientists around the world have persuaded politicians that global warming is happenin. For some of those politicians, it is a disaster that is happening now as their countries are in danger of inundation from the sea already; most accept that global warming is caused by human activities but are having some difficulty in doing anything about it, but there are some who have not accepted it or who choose to ignore it as an issue. The overall status is that scientists think it is happening and have warned humanity that it needs to be dealt with.
A large minority of the UK and US populations do not accept that humans cause global warming, and recent revelations of wrong information in high level publications and nefarious emails among climate academics have given great impetus to the sceptics. There are few sceptics among the scientific community, but their voice tends to be magnified through the media by political and business interests, so these mistakes will have a resonance far beyond what is merited.
An interesting comparison the case of Dr Wakefield and his anti-MMR vaccine campaign. I heard yesterday that the General Medical Council roundly condemned him and his actions which caused thousands of mothers to withdraw their children from vaccination. The result has been increased levels of measles and mumps, which have killed and damaged children. I feel strongly about this as my sister’s immune system was permenantly damaged by measles in the 50s, before vaccines were available. Every study and enquiry into the matter has concluded the Wakefield was wrong, and it transpires that he had a conflict of interest anyway, but that hasn’t stopped the press and some people in vociforously promoting his cause. And this in spite of the damage the diseases are doing children today.
So my conclusion is that we believe what we choose to believe, and scientists can experiment till the sky falls in, but even if all of their conclusions point the same way, the public at large won’t necessarily accept them. We also tend to pick out the parts that suit our individual points of view, such snippets are often wielded like a large debating club, even if they are inaccurate, flawed or plain wrong.
BUT, we must accept that we have been warned that global warming is a threat that puts civilization and millions or billions of lives at risk within the coming century. If we just continue as normal and do nothing to alleviate the risk, how will future generations look upon us? If the outcome is disastrous, then our generation will be cursed and despised. If things don’t turn out so badly, then we will still have used up the great bulk of all of the oil and gas resources of the world in two generations, and be leaving a planet strewn with trash and pollution.
As a friend said to me the other day, ‘Perhaps I just don’t care that much.’
Global Warming is not the problem….
January 7, 2010 by Doug Kennedy