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.

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.

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.

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.

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.’

Renewable energy is very much in the public eye these days and the UK has an enormous looming energy problem owing to years of vacillation on policy, and complacency because the UK had it’s own oil and gas (now largely depleted). All the money from these resources has been spent and virtually none was invested in energy for the future. Now our nuclear power stations are mostly going out of commission and we didn’t develop the nuclear technology that we invented to create an exportable UK-based nuclear industry. In the meantime, the take-up of renewable energy has been pathetic owing to lack of investment and direction at government level, and a very damaging application of the planning laws that has prevented many wind farm and solar developments from being started. The government is talking about turning this situation around in the Energy Transition white paper, but nothing in that is even close to implementation and there is no sense of urgency, although that situation might change after the Copenhagen summit.

In the news today we are told that the UK needs to invest billions of pounds in developing energy infrastructure or we will be almost entirely dependent upon imported gas, which puts us in a terribly weak position and vulnerable to the vagaries of other countries, such as Russia. We have seen this coming for many years but we now have a huge national debt and it is difficult enough to work out how to repay the debt we have, let alone investing further billions in new projects.

I have an investment interest in a UK company called PV Crystalox Solar. This is the largest UK business working in renewable energy producing photo-electric cells which are widely exported. The shares have suffered this year as the market for their product has greatly reduced at a time when the World drastically needs these technologies to be used. Interestingly, one problem for PVhas been that the Spanish government were providing grants for people to erect solar panels and sell electricity back to the national grid, but the take-up was so huge that they have put a cap on it, stopping further applications for the moment.

The UK government is still talking about doing the same thing but haven’t yet, probably because they are afraid that they’ll loose tax revenue (in VAT and company tax from energy companies) if they do. Some investment in the electricity market and grid is also required, but there are huge benefits for people in installing solar and other power generation in their homes and for the country in setting up wide-spread micro-generation, especially for energy security and cost in the coming years. There are also, obviously, substantial environmental benefits.

So we seem to have a situation where people are interested in taking up renewable energy technologies, the UK government desparately needs to solve the energy problem and The Earth systems that support us need us to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. However, nothing substantial is happening in the UK and renewable energy companies are having a tough time keeping their businesses going when they should be thriving.

It feels like being a passenger in a train in which the driver is having an argument with the guard and is not at the controls as the train progresses inexorably towards the buffers.

In my Sunday newspaper was a big article about the oceans turning to acid  – right now, not some time in the future. If this goes on happening (and CO2 levels which cause it are increasing rapidly), then vast amounts of extra CO2 will be emitted by the oceans instead of absorbing it as carboniferous shells are dissolved. The other result will be that the marine foodchains will be completely disrupted.

This is just another huge impending disaster story to add to those we here on the news and read and those we don’t hear about.

My point is, that there is a huge disconnect between the environmental reality and humanity’s behaviour. Before the industrial revolution, and in more primitive cultures to this day, humans were forced to take account of the environment in order to survive. Many cultures placed the environment first in every decision that could affect it because that was how the society could assure it’s continuity. Where this didn’t happen, the result could be like Easter Island, where an advanced civilization simply died out.

It seems that we are unwilling to accept that we still are an integral part of our environment and that we cannot control it and we cannot over-burden it. Many people I speak to, including the young who are going to live through the coming decades, are fatalistic, taking the view that they will enjoy today and hope that tomorrow is OK. If it’s not going to be OK, then there will be a level of suffering that will make today’s troubles look like a holiday.

For people like me who are trying to do something about it, it is like pushing a large boulder up a slippery slope: challenging, if not discouraging and of questionnable value. It becomes increasingly evident that unless the mainstream does start to get involved, then leaving it to a rump of environmentalists is going to achieve little (see previous blog ‘Death To The Environmentalist’.)

One environment, one humanity, one survival.

We are living our lives completely normally and by taking some quite simple and inexpensive measures, there is no doubt that, at Vulcan House, we have a low footprint. The question that bugs me is, why don’t most people do the same?

What is the reality and how has it been achieved?

The reality is that we are not currently using the central heating so only burn gas for cooking and water, which on a weekly basis is not adding up to much CO2 output at all. Once the heating is turned on, we will be consuming much more gas so our energy conservation measures will come into play – insulation, draft exclusion, getting the timing and levels of the heating right. We actually want to buy a wood-burning stove, which will reduce gas consumption further as burning wood is recycling CO2 into the atmosphere that has been produced recently, rather than releasing it from ancient carbon stored in coal, oil or gas.

We currently use about 7.5 Kilowatt-hours of energy per day, which is very low compared to most 2 person x 3 bedroom households. This is achieved through using low energy light bulbs, especially where lights are on a lot, and simply not wasting electricity. However, in addition, we procure our energy from Good Energy. This is a UK energy supplier that sources all of it’s electricity from renewable generators (wind, hydro mostly) and they have calculated that the underlying carbon produced through their entire purchase is 32 tonnes per year. They then is off-set this through supporting Converging World, which works the same way as compensating for your air flights. So the actual carbon cost of my electricity is extremely low. The overall financial cost looks to be not very much higher than Scottish Power, which was our previous, relatively carbon -intensive, supplier.

This does not mean that we will start to waste electricity, because I like low bills – I can use the money elsewhere; but also there is only so much renewable electricity to go around at this point – it is precious. However, all in all, it does make me feel much better about the power we do use.

Apart from domestic energy, it is still work in progress and our lives are far from being carbon neutral. We flew to France on holiday this year and there are always decisions to be made  that affect our overall footprint. However I feel that the change we have made to VulcanHouse energy use in the past 3 years is a major achievement that could be copied by many people without sacrificing their lifestyles.

If you want to know more, do email me at dgkennedy@alloverde.com

Not all energy companies are the same….

Electricity is supplied to you through the National Grid. It is generated by coal, gas, nuclear or even oil-fired power stations, and also from hydro-electric and wind turbine installations. Up to 70 percent of the energy stored in the original fuel is lost in generation and transit, which is a terrible waste, but with a national grid system running wires through the air, this can’t be helped.

When you use electricity, you are not personally emitting carbon dioxide, so it seems clean. However, a great deal will have been emitted if the electricity was generated by coal, gas or oil-fired power stations and this has to be calculated into your personal footprint.
Nuclear generation is NOT a renewable source but the carbon dioxide output is relatively low, although we are leaving a terrible legacy of waste for future generations.

If the electricity was generated by renewable sources, such as wind, solar or hydro, then this will have a much smaller effect on your personal carbon output and your overall environmental footprint will be lower. The electricity market makes it possible for you to buy electricity that is up to 100% renewably generated.

The electricity in the grid comes from all sources, but the companies responsible for your supply source their power from particular installations, and the mix varies widely.

Scottish Power, EDF Energy and nPower for instance use a lot of coal and gas generated electricity producing between 500 to 700 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour. This means that when you pay your bill, you are supporting these types of generation.

On the other hand, Good energy, Green Energy and Ecotricity source their power mostly from renewable installations, producing between 100 and 300 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour. There are also 100% green tariffs available from some other smaller providers.

Renewable suppliers do not necessarily cost much more than the dirty ones, although the industry doesn’t always make it easy for you to work out as they charge differently. However you can make quite a difference to your carbon footprint by choosing a low-carbon energy supplier.

In summary, to SAVE MONEY, don’t waste energy in your home and do make use of the resources available (locally to me, a leaflet from the energy savings trust and AVDC was recently put through your door).

To reduce your carbon footprint further, choose an energy supplier that buys electricity from renewable sources.

Have a look at http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk or www.zapcarbon.com