By Andrew Porter, Political Editor
Last Updated: 6:27AM BST 07/07/2008
Duty on fuel would be lowered when oil prices are high and raised when they fall to give a fairer deal to motorists, under Conservative plans.
A "fair fuel stabiliser" is the Tory answer to rising costs of living and would enable the Government to reduce the pain of increases while "sharing the gain" when oil prices fall.
George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, claimed that if his plans had been introduced in the last Budget, motorists would now be paying 5p a litre less for petrol.
Mr Osborne said: "We need a totally different approach to fuel duty where government helps families instead of harming them.
"With duty rising when oil prices fall, we would be putting something aside in the good years to help in difficult times."
The Treasury denounced the plans as "gambling with public finances". However, Edmund King, the AA's president, broadly welcomed them, saying his organisation had suggested a similar system to the Chancellor in January.
Mr King said: "Record pump prices and high levels of excise duty are affecting the mobility of millions. The Government needs to review fuel duty as the price of a barrel of oil has doubled in just 12 months."
Kitty Ussher, the Treasury minister, said: “If George Osborne were to do this, he would need to raise nearly another £3 billion in taxes elsewhere to plug his tax gap — that’s getting close to an increase of 1p in basic income tax.
“This is on top of the £10 billion of unfunded spending commitments he has already made. His proposal is a dishonest gimmick that would either mean the Tories would have to hike up taxes somewhere else or leave a massive hole in the public finances.”
Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, also poured scorn on the proposals. He said: “Mr Osborne is presuming a knowledge of future trends in oil prices not shared by most people who look at these things professionally.”
The Conservatives’ plan would take Treasury predictions for oil prices as a “base” — and fuel duty would then be altered if they subsequently proved to be wrong.
Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, predicted in the Budget that a barrel of oil would cost about $84 per barrel, but it has since risen to more than $140.
Mr Osborne insisted that the system would be cost-neutral. He also contrasted the proposals, which are being put out for consultation, with the Government’s 2p increase in fuel duty, scheduled for October.
However, both Gordon Brown and Mr Darling, have been dropping heavy hints that the 2p rise will again be frozen, as it was in March.
Monday, 7 July 2008
UK needs more wetlands, say conservationists
Large areas of wetland need to be created in the next 50 years to protect wildlife, reduce flood risks and store carbon, conservationists say today. According to the Wetland Vision Partnership, England has lost 90% of its wetlands in the past 1,000 years. Carrie Hume, its project manager, said: "Wetlands offer natural flood storage and improved water quality, lock away huge amounts of carbon, provide havens for wildlife and fantastic places for people to visit." One of the partnership's schemes is the Great Fen project, which aims to create 3,700 hectares of wetland between Huntingdon and Peterborough.
Press Association
Press Association
Waste not want not, Gordon Brown tells families
From The Times
July 7, 2008
Britons are throwing away £1 billion of food a year
Philip Webster, Political Editor in Hokkaido
Families facing spiralling shopping bills were told by Gordon Brown yesterday to stop wasting food, as a government report said that Britons were throwing away groceries worth more than £1 billion a year.
A cross-Whitehall study into higher food costs has identified waste as a factor. The report said that British households disposed of four million tonnes of food each year that could have been eaten. The Cabinet Office inquiry into food policy, ordered by Mr Brown soon after he became Prime Minister, accuses families of wasting an average of £420 a year on food, The Times has learnt.
Mr Brown reinforced its message yesterday, calling on people to stop throwing food away as he travelled to the G8 summit in Japan. “If we are to get food prices down, we must do more to deal with unnecessary demands, such as by all of us doing more to reduce our food waste,” he said.
A second government report will blame the switch to biofuels in Britain and Europe for a big part in pushing up food prices. It will also raise serious questions over whether this has produced the environmental benefits that were expected from adding plant-based fuels to petrol and diesel.
The two reports, aiming to tackle the demand side of the food price problem, will be published as Mr Brown calls on the G8 to address the supply problems by taking action to double production of key food staples in Africa within 5 to 10 years.
He and other leaders will demand international action to contain food prices, including a doubling of investment in agricultural research and development, and help for training a new generation of scientists and experts in developing countries.
The 140-page Cabinet Office report on food, which took 10 months to prepare, was discussed by the Cabinet last Tuesday. It finds that, having been broadly stable for 20 years from 1985 to 2005, world food prices have risen substantially because of a combination of poor harvests in exporting countries, higher energy and fertiliser costs, the diversion to biofuels and a long-term rise in demand for grain.
The average British household now devotes 9 per cent of its spending to food, down from 16 per cent in 1984. But the poorest households use 15 per cent of their spending for food while the richest pay just 7 per cent.
The pressure is even worse for low-income households because they spend proportionately more on basic foodstuffs such as milk, eggs and bread – products that have seen the biggest price rises in recent months.
Globally, soaring food costs have hit developing countries the hardest. Household spending on food by poorer families in these areas is typically between 50 and 60 per cent of income.
The report is understood to conclude that cereal production needs to increase by 50 per cent and meat production by 80 per cent between now and 2030 to meet demand. The solution lies in raising production in the developing world.
If yields in Africa and elsewhere reached their potential, global food output would be much higher, far fewer people would go hungry and social instability would decrease. In the developing world, up to 40 per cent of food harvested is lost because of inadequacies in the processing, storage and transport systems, the report added.
“We would like to see production of key foodstuffs in Africa double,” Mr Brown said yesterday. There are growing warnings that soaring prices could spark unrest and political instability.
The Gallagher report on biofuels, to be published by the Transport Department, is expected to sound a warning that far more research is needed on the impact of biofuels such as corn ethanol and biodiesel on land use and food production before the Government sets any targets for their use in transport.
Britain is expected to press for EU targets on extending the use of biofuels to be scaled back. Food prices have risen because farmers have replaced traditional food crops with those to produce biofuels.
The Gallagher report is expected to accept there is a case for biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels and a source of income for poor farmers.
But it will distinguish between first-generation fuels, which use food crops such as corn and rapeseed, and second-generation fuels, based on fibrous nonfood plants, which can be grown without taking the place of other crops and raising prices.
Mr Brown will today press for the creation of a new expert panel, similar to that on climate change, to be an early warning system on food supplies and demand, and the risk of price shocks.
One of the priorities at the G8 in Japan will be to give impetus to the struggling world trade talks to cut distortions in the markets and allow farmers in the developing world to exploit their comparative advantage.
Britain has already spent more than $1 billion on tackling rising food prices, through agricultural research, humanitarian relief and strengthening crop resistance to climate change.
In an interview at the weekend, Mr Brown said that there were “good and bad biofuels”.
The Prime Minister also said that rich nations must not abandon action to tackle climate change and world poverty in the face of the credit crunch.
Amid campaigners’ fears that the summit in Japan could see previous pledges on aid and global warming scaled back, the Prime Minister said they should, in fact, be accelerated.
“The world is suffering a triple challenge: of higher fuel prices, higher food prices and a credit crunch,” he said.
“My message to the G8 will be that, instead of sidelining climate change and the development agenda, the present economic crisis means that instead of relaxing our efforts we have got to accelerate them.
“This agenda is not just the key to the environment and reducing poverty, but the key to our economic future as well,” Mr Brown said.
July 7, 2008
Britons are throwing away £1 billion of food a year
Philip Webster, Political Editor in Hokkaido
Families facing spiralling shopping bills were told by Gordon Brown yesterday to stop wasting food, as a government report said that Britons were throwing away groceries worth more than £1 billion a year.
A cross-Whitehall study into higher food costs has identified waste as a factor. The report said that British households disposed of four million tonnes of food each year that could have been eaten. The Cabinet Office inquiry into food policy, ordered by Mr Brown soon after he became Prime Minister, accuses families of wasting an average of £420 a year on food, The Times has learnt.
Mr Brown reinforced its message yesterday, calling on people to stop throwing food away as he travelled to the G8 summit in Japan. “If we are to get food prices down, we must do more to deal with unnecessary demands, such as by all of us doing more to reduce our food waste,” he said.
A second government report will blame the switch to biofuels in Britain and Europe for a big part in pushing up food prices. It will also raise serious questions over whether this has produced the environmental benefits that were expected from adding plant-based fuels to petrol and diesel.
The two reports, aiming to tackle the demand side of the food price problem, will be published as Mr Brown calls on the G8 to address the supply problems by taking action to double production of key food staples in Africa within 5 to 10 years.
He and other leaders will demand international action to contain food prices, including a doubling of investment in agricultural research and development, and help for training a new generation of scientists and experts in developing countries.
The 140-page Cabinet Office report on food, which took 10 months to prepare, was discussed by the Cabinet last Tuesday. It finds that, having been broadly stable for 20 years from 1985 to 2005, world food prices have risen substantially because of a combination of poor harvests in exporting countries, higher energy and fertiliser costs, the diversion to biofuels and a long-term rise in demand for grain.
The average British household now devotes 9 per cent of its spending to food, down from 16 per cent in 1984. But the poorest households use 15 per cent of their spending for food while the richest pay just 7 per cent.
The pressure is even worse for low-income households because they spend proportionately more on basic foodstuffs such as milk, eggs and bread – products that have seen the biggest price rises in recent months.
Globally, soaring food costs have hit developing countries the hardest. Household spending on food by poorer families in these areas is typically between 50 and 60 per cent of income.
The report is understood to conclude that cereal production needs to increase by 50 per cent and meat production by 80 per cent between now and 2030 to meet demand. The solution lies in raising production in the developing world.
If yields in Africa and elsewhere reached their potential, global food output would be much higher, far fewer people would go hungry and social instability would decrease. In the developing world, up to 40 per cent of food harvested is lost because of inadequacies in the processing, storage and transport systems, the report added.
“We would like to see production of key foodstuffs in Africa double,” Mr Brown said yesterday. There are growing warnings that soaring prices could spark unrest and political instability.
The Gallagher report on biofuels, to be published by the Transport Department, is expected to sound a warning that far more research is needed on the impact of biofuels such as corn ethanol and biodiesel on land use and food production before the Government sets any targets for their use in transport.
Britain is expected to press for EU targets on extending the use of biofuels to be scaled back. Food prices have risen because farmers have replaced traditional food crops with those to produce biofuels.
The Gallagher report is expected to accept there is a case for biofuels as an alternative to fossil fuels and a source of income for poor farmers.
But it will distinguish between first-generation fuels, which use food crops such as corn and rapeseed, and second-generation fuels, based on fibrous nonfood plants, which can be grown without taking the place of other crops and raising prices.
Mr Brown will today press for the creation of a new expert panel, similar to that on climate change, to be an early warning system on food supplies and demand, and the risk of price shocks.
One of the priorities at the G8 in Japan will be to give impetus to the struggling world trade talks to cut distortions in the markets and allow farmers in the developing world to exploit their comparative advantage.
Britain has already spent more than $1 billion on tackling rising food prices, through agricultural research, humanitarian relief and strengthening crop resistance to climate change.
In an interview at the weekend, Mr Brown said that there were “good and bad biofuels”.
The Prime Minister also said that rich nations must not abandon action to tackle climate change and world poverty in the face of the credit crunch.
Amid campaigners’ fears that the summit in Japan could see previous pledges on aid and global warming scaled back, the Prime Minister said they should, in fact, be accelerated.
“The world is suffering a triple challenge: of higher fuel prices, higher food prices and a credit crunch,” he said.
“My message to the G8 will be that, instead of sidelining climate change and the development agenda, the present economic crisis means that instead of relaxing our efforts we have got to accelerate them.
“This agenda is not just the key to the environment and reducing poverty, but the key to our economic future as well,” Mr Brown said.
'Green' marketing loses buzz and credibility
By Eric Pfanner
Published: July 6, 2008
PARIS: At an annual gathering of the advertising industry a year ago in Cannes, the environment was the topic du jour. "Be seen, be green," one agency urged on the invitation to its party at a hillside villa. Al Gore, invited by another agency, flew in to deliver a message linked to "An Inconvenient Truth," his film about climate change: that the ad industry could play an influential role in encouraging business and consumers to change their ways and slow the process of global warming.
The sun was still beating down on the Côte d'Azur last month as advertising executives from all over the world returned for this year's festival. But Al Gore, the former U.S. vice president, was nowhere to be found, and the party buzz was about the U.S. presidential elections, the Euro 2008 soccer tournament or even the business of advertising itself. "Green" marketing, while booming, had lost some of its buzz.
The advertising industry is quicker than most to pick up on changing consumer tastes and moods, and experts say many people are growing skeptical about the proliferation of ads with an environmental message.
Over the past year, as if in answer to Gore's plea, marketers around the world have jumped onto the green bandwagon.
But the sheer volume of environmental advertising and the flimsiness of the claims in some of the campaigns show signs of generating an unintended effect. Instead of serving as a call to action or casting brands in a positive light, these ads are generating an increasingly skeptical response.
"After 18 months, levels of concern on any issue tend to drop off," said Jonathan Banks, business insight director at Nielsen, the market research company, in Britain. "I fear that something similar may happen with this."
With everyone - from oil companies to dishwasher makers to banks - promoting environmental credentials, consumers have been deluged in green-linked advertising and consumer complaints have risen.
The Advertising Standards Authority, an industry-financed organization that monitors the contents of advertising in Britain, said it had received 561 complaints from consumers about environmental claims made in 410 ads last year. That was up from 117 complaints in 83 ads only a year earlier.
The European Advertising Standards Alliance, an umbrella group for similar organizations across Europe, said it had seen sizable increases in complaints in other countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands, particularly involving automotive advertising.
Watchdog organizations like these say they are struggling to deal with the increased numbers both of ads and complaints. The British standards authority has guidelines for environmental ads, stating that they must not be misleading, but Matthew Wilson, a spokesman, said the agency was sometimes finding these rules insufficient to deal with the growing volume and complexity of environmental advertising.
The authority last month held a seminar on the issue, inviting marketers, ad agencies and environmental groups to discuss ways to update the guidelines.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, which monitors the contents of advertising, has begun a similar process, holding hearings and workshops on possible changes to its codes relating to green marketing.
Some countries have already gone further. In France, for instance, politicians, environmental groups and industry leaders at a summit meeting last autumn agreed to take steps to ensure the responsibility of green-themed advertising. Following the meeting, a special panel was established to review such ads.
As regulators work out their response, bloggers and other Internet critics have already started to expose what they see as "greenwash" advertising.
A French group called l'Alliance Pour la Planète, for example, cites an ad for a Japanese-made sport utility vehicle that billed it as having been "conceived and developed in the homeland of the Kyoto accords," the international emissions-reduction agreement.
Some ad executives in France are concerned that their industry seems to be bearing a disproportionate amount of blame as environmental groups seek to raise awareness about climate change.
Jean-Pierre Séguret, chief executive of the French arm of the advertising agency DDB, said that many young employees in France were leaving the ad business to go to work for nongovernmental organizations, including green campaign groups.
To try to improve the image of advertising, agencies like DDB are creating sustainable development programs, moving to make their own businesses more environmentally friendly.
"We're not working on this because it's trendy," he said. "We want to implement a real strategy."
Agencies are also trying to work their way around consumer skepticism as they devise strategies for clients.
Mike Lawrence, executive vice president of corporate responsibility at Cone, a brand strategy agency in Boston, said some consumer concerns may stem from the way in which many green-themed ads are done, rather than any objection to associating brands with an environmental message.
"There's a gap between what the marketers are doing and what the consumers are receiving," he said. "The marketers may not realize the gap is there, and that's a dangerous thing."
The problem, he said, occurs when marketers make exaggerated claims about a product's attributes, which may be fine when selling toothpaste or vacations. Most people probably know that the toothpaste won't actually make their teeth sparkle or help them get the girl, but they play along with the joke.
But when an advertiser says its product will actually "improve the environment," or some variation on that theme, savvy consumers recoil, Lawrence said, knowing that, in all likelihood, what is actually meant is that the product is only less bad for the environment than it could be, or than competing goods.
"This can really backfire with environmental advertising," Lawrence said.
To try to avoid this problem, agencies are advising marketers to back away from vague, unsubstantiated claims, the kind that bloggers and other critics are quick to spot.
Instead, they are urging advertisers to make sure their environmental messages are highly specific, pointing to specific steps that a company has taken to improve its record or to get consumers to take small but concrete action that can help reduce carbon emissions. Increasingly, such ads also feature a link to a Web site for viewers to read more.
For example, Procter & Gamble, which makes laundry detergent, has been running an ad campaign in Britain in which it urges consumers to wash clothing at 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit), rather than higher temperatures, as a way to use less energy. Similarly, Reckitt Benckiser has been advertising what it says are the environmental benefits of washing dishes in a machine, rather than by hand; this consumes less water and energy, the company says.
Skeptics, however, might note that Reckitt makes dishwashing detergent for machines, but not for washing dishes by hand.
Arlene Fairfield, senior vice president at the DDB Brand Integrity Group in Seattle, said advertisers were increasingly worried about looking inconsistent if sweeping green claims were followed by a corporate crisis - even one not directly related to the environment.
"They want to make sure there aren't going to be any skeletons in the closet," she said. "Or if there are, they want to be prepared."
BP, one of the first big companies to give itself a green makeover, has recently scaled back its image-building activities, after an explosion at a refinery in Texas in 2005 killed 15 people. The explosion was unrelated to environmental issues, but made claims of good citizenship seem hollow.
The Brand Integrity Group works with companies on how to avoid inconsistencies, helping them devise internal as well as external environmental policies and communications strategies. Amid the growth in green marketing, business for such agencies has been booming. Big ad agency companies are creating specialist units to work on environmental campaigns, and green-focused start-up agencies are proliferating, too.
All of them face a challenge long confronted by marketers dealing with more mundane matters, like how to move the merchandise.
"We're going to get to a point where green is ubiquitous and you have to do something pretty different to distinguish yourself," Fairfield said.
For some consumers, advertisers and regulators, it seems, that point has already been reached.
Published: July 6, 2008
PARIS: At an annual gathering of the advertising industry a year ago in Cannes, the environment was the topic du jour. "Be seen, be green," one agency urged on the invitation to its party at a hillside villa. Al Gore, invited by another agency, flew in to deliver a message linked to "An Inconvenient Truth," his film about climate change: that the ad industry could play an influential role in encouraging business and consumers to change their ways and slow the process of global warming.
The sun was still beating down on the Côte d'Azur last month as advertising executives from all over the world returned for this year's festival. But Al Gore, the former U.S. vice president, was nowhere to be found, and the party buzz was about the U.S. presidential elections, the Euro 2008 soccer tournament or even the business of advertising itself. "Green" marketing, while booming, had lost some of its buzz.
The advertising industry is quicker than most to pick up on changing consumer tastes and moods, and experts say many people are growing skeptical about the proliferation of ads with an environmental message.
Over the past year, as if in answer to Gore's plea, marketers around the world have jumped onto the green bandwagon.
But the sheer volume of environmental advertising and the flimsiness of the claims in some of the campaigns show signs of generating an unintended effect. Instead of serving as a call to action or casting brands in a positive light, these ads are generating an increasingly skeptical response.
"After 18 months, levels of concern on any issue tend to drop off," said Jonathan Banks, business insight director at Nielsen, the market research company, in Britain. "I fear that something similar may happen with this."
With everyone - from oil companies to dishwasher makers to banks - promoting environmental credentials, consumers have been deluged in green-linked advertising and consumer complaints have risen.
The Advertising Standards Authority, an industry-financed organization that monitors the contents of advertising in Britain, said it had received 561 complaints from consumers about environmental claims made in 410 ads last year. That was up from 117 complaints in 83 ads only a year earlier.
The European Advertising Standards Alliance, an umbrella group for similar organizations across Europe, said it had seen sizable increases in complaints in other countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands, particularly involving automotive advertising.
Watchdog organizations like these say they are struggling to deal with the increased numbers both of ads and complaints. The British standards authority has guidelines for environmental ads, stating that they must not be misleading, but Matthew Wilson, a spokesman, said the agency was sometimes finding these rules insufficient to deal with the growing volume and complexity of environmental advertising.
The authority last month held a seminar on the issue, inviting marketers, ad agencies and environmental groups to discuss ways to update the guidelines.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, which monitors the contents of advertising, has begun a similar process, holding hearings and workshops on possible changes to its codes relating to green marketing.
Some countries have already gone further. In France, for instance, politicians, environmental groups and industry leaders at a summit meeting last autumn agreed to take steps to ensure the responsibility of green-themed advertising. Following the meeting, a special panel was established to review such ads.
As regulators work out their response, bloggers and other Internet critics have already started to expose what they see as "greenwash" advertising.
A French group called l'Alliance Pour la Planète, for example, cites an ad for a Japanese-made sport utility vehicle that billed it as having been "conceived and developed in the homeland of the Kyoto accords," the international emissions-reduction agreement.
Some ad executives in France are concerned that their industry seems to be bearing a disproportionate amount of blame as environmental groups seek to raise awareness about climate change.
Jean-Pierre Séguret, chief executive of the French arm of the advertising agency DDB, said that many young employees in France were leaving the ad business to go to work for nongovernmental organizations, including green campaign groups.
To try to improve the image of advertising, agencies like DDB are creating sustainable development programs, moving to make their own businesses more environmentally friendly.
"We're not working on this because it's trendy," he said. "We want to implement a real strategy."
Agencies are also trying to work their way around consumer skepticism as they devise strategies for clients.
Mike Lawrence, executive vice president of corporate responsibility at Cone, a brand strategy agency in Boston, said some consumer concerns may stem from the way in which many green-themed ads are done, rather than any objection to associating brands with an environmental message.
"There's a gap between what the marketers are doing and what the consumers are receiving," he said. "The marketers may not realize the gap is there, and that's a dangerous thing."
The problem, he said, occurs when marketers make exaggerated claims about a product's attributes, which may be fine when selling toothpaste or vacations. Most people probably know that the toothpaste won't actually make their teeth sparkle or help them get the girl, but they play along with the joke.
But when an advertiser says its product will actually "improve the environment," or some variation on that theme, savvy consumers recoil, Lawrence said, knowing that, in all likelihood, what is actually meant is that the product is only less bad for the environment than it could be, or than competing goods.
"This can really backfire with environmental advertising," Lawrence said.
To try to avoid this problem, agencies are advising marketers to back away from vague, unsubstantiated claims, the kind that bloggers and other critics are quick to spot.
Instead, they are urging advertisers to make sure their environmental messages are highly specific, pointing to specific steps that a company has taken to improve its record or to get consumers to take small but concrete action that can help reduce carbon emissions. Increasingly, such ads also feature a link to a Web site for viewers to read more.
For example, Procter & Gamble, which makes laundry detergent, has been running an ad campaign in Britain in which it urges consumers to wash clothing at 30 degrees Celsius (86 degrees Fahrenheit), rather than higher temperatures, as a way to use less energy. Similarly, Reckitt Benckiser has been advertising what it says are the environmental benefits of washing dishes in a machine, rather than by hand; this consumes less water and energy, the company says.
Skeptics, however, might note that Reckitt makes dishwashing detergent for machines, but not for washing dishes by hand.
Arlene Fairfield, senior vice president at the DDB Brand Integrity Group in Seattle, said advertisers were increasingly worried about looking inconsistent if sweeping green claims were followed by a corporate crisis - even one not directly related to the environment.
"They want to make sure there aren't going to be any skeletons in the closet," she said. "Or if there are, they want to be prepared."
BP, one of the first big companies to give itself a green makeover, has recently scaled back its image-building activities, after an explosion at a refinery in Texas in 2005 killed 15 people. The explosion was unrelated to environmental issues, but made claims of good citizenship seem hollow.
The Brand Integrity Group works with companies on how to avoid inconsistencies, helping them devise internal as well as external environmental policies and communications strategies. Amid the growth in green marketing, business for such agencies has been booming. Big ad agency companies are creating specialist units to work on environmental campaigns, and green-focused start-up agencies are proliferating, too.
All of them face a challenge long confronted by marketers dealing with more mundane matters, like how to move the merchandise.
"We're going to get to a point where green is ubiquitous and you have to do something pretty different to distinguish yourself," Fairfield said.
For some consumers, advertisers and regulators, it seems, that point has already been reached.
Bioplastics: The challenge of viability
By Erica Gies
Published: July 6, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO: Biodegradable plastic products offer the possibility of relieving consumers of guilt and manufacturers of the responsibilities associated with growing landfills and garbage-choked oceans. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, only 6.9 percent of plastics were recycled in the United States in 2006, partly because many plastics are composites of different materials and are hard to recycle.
In addition, consumers have recently become more aware of how many products are oil-based, said Steve Davies, marketing director of NatureWorks, a company that makes a bioplastic from plants. With oil prices up sharply, "it's now obvious to just about everybody that our overdependence on oil is bad for our environment, bad for our economy."
The term bioplastics actually has two meanings: sometimes it is used to refer to plastics that contain a percentage of renewable materials; and sometimes to plastics that are both made from renewable materials and are biodegradable.
This ambiguity - and the fact that some bioplastics may also contain petroleum-based polymers - can cloud the green pedigree of a product.
Meanwhile, studies show that consumers are also confused about terms like "renewable" and "biodegradable." "Consumers believe that if it's renewable, then it's inherently good and it's inherently biodegradable," said Steve Mojo, executive director of the Biodegradable Products Institute, an advocacy group. "They also believe that biodegradation is a magical process that will make things disappear."
In fact, biodegradable means susceptible to degradation by microorganisms. But nothing actually breaks down in landfills. Modern landfills are, by design, hermetically sealed tombs for waste.
Nor will biodegradable products necessarily break down if tossed on the side of the road or buried in a backyard. A less confusing term is compostable, which means a product that can be returned to the soil in a beneficial manner.
"Compostable tells a consumer what to do with it," Mojo said, "whereas biodegradable doesn't."
Manufacturers can label products sold in the United States as compostable if they meet standards set by the American Society for Testing and Materials.
Eugene Stevens, a member of the society and a chemistry professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton, has conducted research on biopolymers for more than 30 years. "It's a little complicated, but in general, if it biodegrades to 90 percent within six months in an industrial composting environment with no toxic components, that's compostable," he said.
Europe has a similar protocol.
There are currently three main types of bioplastics, all derived from plant-based starch, which in the United States is typically cornstarch. Vegetable oil or animal fat can also be used to produce polymers that can be substituted for petroleum-based polymers in starch blends to increase overall bio-based content, Mojo said.
Bioplastics manufacturers also are researching the possibility of using cellulose as a feedstock. As in the search for biofuels, cellulose offers the prospect of an abundant supply that could be harvested without chopping down forests or diverting crops and arable land from food production.
But cellulose-based methods, which use acid hydrolysis or enzyme processes, still have technical and cost problems that have blocked development on a commercial scale.
The most recent advances try to combine acid hydrolysis and enzyme digestion into a single process; but commercial success is probably still 5 to 10 years away, Stevens said. "Whoever finds the answer to that will be very, very rich," he said. "That is the holy grail."
NatureWorks, a joint venture between Cargill, the U.S. agribusiness giant, and the Japanese chemical company Teijin, manufactures pellets of polylactic acid, or PLA, one of the three main starch-based bioplastics.
PLA can be used to make flexible packaging for fresh foods and beverages like water, milk or orange juice, and to make protective film for wrapping fresh vegetables and flowers. It can also be processed into more rigid products like disposable knives, forks and plates, or hard plastics for cellphone or laptop casings. PLA fibers can also be manufactured for clothing, home textiles, diapers or personal hygiene wipes.
Davies, the marketing director of NatureWorks, said that most manufacturers would be able to modify existing plants to process PLA, rather than having to invest in new equipment. But he also said that the end product had to sell on its merits, like any other.
"What we hear loud and clear from the brand or the retailer that's facing the consumer is that it can't feel 'green,"' Davies said. Consumer priorities, from the highest down, are that a product must perform well; be emotionally or aesthetically appealing; and last, that it be better for the environment.
"What we've seen in the green movement, going back 20 years, is the expectation that 'green' would sell," he said. "And it hasn't."
Still, NatureWorks has enjoyed double-digit growth, helped by Wal-Mart, which has switched more than 100 million of its delicatessen food containers to PLA from polyester and has also prompted its suppliers to deliver more environmentally responsible products.
Compostable bioplastics are designed to be stable while in use. Breakdown begins when they are exposed to moisture, water, microorganisms and a high temperature - the environment created in an industrial composting facility.
Yet, when it comes to disposing of a used product, composting, attractive as it sounds, is not always the best option.
As with any product purporting to be green, "you need to do a life-cycle analysis on these new materials relative to the incumbents in order to better understand the environmental benefits of production, use, and disposal," said Mojo of the biodegradable products advocacy group.
Davies, of NatureWorks, said the best thing to do with used PLA bottles, from an economic and environmental perspective, was usually to recycle them, even though they might be compostable.
"That's one of the most promising things about PLA," said Brenda Platt, director of the sustainable plastics initiative for the Institute for Local Self Reliance, an organization that promotes environmentally sound and equitable community development. "It can be chemically recycled back into lactic acid. So just like with glass and metal, those materials can be recycled over and over again."
Across the entire U.S. economy, however, so-called closed-loop recycling, in which used PLA is endlessly recycled into new products, is perhaps 20 years away, Platt said.
It is a chicken-or-egg problem: Because PLA represents a tiny percentage of the total plastics market, traditional recycling plants lack the equipment needed to manage it; conversely, there is no financial incentive to invest in recycling PLA until the available material reaches a critical mass.
"Right now, if a PLA bottle ends up in a recycling facility, it's either going to be rejected and end up in a landfill, or it is going to be a contaminant in PET recycling," Platt said, referring to polyethylene terephthalate, the material used in most plastic bottles. Contaminated bales of PET plastics are not recycled.
For this reason, the Institute for Local Self Reliance says that it is best to avoid the widespread distribution of products marketed as green or sustainable when there is little chance that they will be either recycled or composted. Compostable is a misnomer in a country where only a handful of cities have curbside compost pickup, said Platt, of the institute.
Davies, of NatureWorks, agreed. If consumers see a product labeled compostable, "they'll think, 'oh, I can flip it out the car window and it will disappear on the side of the road,' and it absolutely won't," he said.
Davies said that responsible labeling is essential. He also advocates fitting infrared scanning technology at recycling facilities to identify and separate bioplastics from conventional materials.
But, Platt said, that proposal is utopian. The technology is expensive, and out of reach for the 400 to 500 recycling facilities in the United States, most of which sort plastics by hand.
Robert Reed, public relations manager for Norcal Waste Systems, a solid-waste company based in San Francisco, agreed. Norcal, which runs comprehensive recycling and composting programs, employs workers to sort and separate different materials. Germany, Switzerland and Sweden require manufacturers to prominently mark products that are compostable, and U.S. manufacturers should do the same, Reed said.
If manufacturers do not take responsibility for easy sorting, the problem is just pushed to someone further down the line, he said. "If you're going to take a step, take a step. Don't take a half-step."
Platt said her institute wanted pilot studies on products in closed venues, where end-of-life solutions can be developed under controlled conditions and then scaled up.
But ultimately, she said, bioplastics are part of an "intermediate economy." When consumers finally recognize the value of materials, they will reject throw-away solutions in favor of more durable and reusable products, she said.
Published: July 6, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO: Biodegradable plastic products offer the possibility of relieving consumers of guilt and manufacturers of the responsibilities associated with growing landfills and garbage-choked oceans. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, only 6.9 percent of plastics were recycled in the United States in 2006, partly because many plastics are composites of different materials and are hard to recycle.
In addition, consumers have recently become more aware of how many products are oil-based, said Steve Davies, marketing director of NatureWorks, a company that makes a bioplastic from plants. With oil prices up sharply, "it's now obvious to just about everybody that our overdependence on oil is bad for our environment, bad for our economy."
The term bioplastics actually has two meanings: sometimes it is used to refer to plastics that contain a percentage of renewable materials; and sometimes to plastics that are both made from renewable materials and are biodegradable.
This ambiguity - and the fact that some bioplastics may also contain petroleum-based polymers - can cloud the green pedigree of a product.
Meanwhile, studies show that consumers are also confused about terms like "renewable" and "biodegradable." "Consumers believe that if it's renewable, then it's inherently good and it's inherently biodegradable," said Steve Mojo, executive director of the Biodegradable Products Institute, an advocacy group. "They also believe that biodegradation is a magical process that will make things disappear."
In fact, biodegradable means susceptible to degradation by microorganisms. But nothing actually breaks down in landfills. Modern landfills are, by design, hermetically sealed tombs for waste.
Nor will biodegradable products necessarily break down if tossed on the side of the road or buried in a backyard. A less confusing term is compostable, which means a product that can be returned to the soil in a beneficial manner.
"Compostable tells a consumer what to do with it," Mojo said, "whereas biodegradable doesn't."
Manufacturers can label products sold in the United States as compostable if they meet standards set by the American Society for Testing and Materials.
Eugene Stevens, a member of the society and a chemistry professor at the State University of New York at Binghamton, has conducted research on biopolymers for more than 30 years. "It's a little complicated, but in general, if it biodegrades to 90 percent within six months in an industrial composting environment with no toxic components, that's compostable," he said.
Europe has a similar protocol.
There are currently three main types of bioplastics, all derived from plant-based starch, which in the United States is typically cornstarch. Vegetable oil or animal fat can also be used to produce polymers that can be substituted for petroleum-based polymers in starch blends to increase overall bio-based content, Mojo said.
Bioplastics manufacturers also are researching the possibility of using cellulose as a feedstock. As in the search for biofuels, cellulose offers the prospect of an abundant supply that could be harvested without chopping down forests or diverting crops and arable land from food production.
But cellulose-based methods, which use acid hydrolysis or enzyme processes, still have technical and cost problems that have blocked development on a commercial scale.
The most recent advances try to combine acid hydrolysis and enzyme digestion into a single process; but commercial success is probably still 5 to 10 years away, Stevens said. "Whoever finds the answer to that will be very, very rich," he said. "That is the holy grail."
NatureWorks, a joint venture between Cargill, the U.S. agribusiness giant, and the Japanese chemical company Teijin, manufactures pellets of polylactic acid, or PLA, one of the three main starch-based bioplastics.
PLA can be used to make flexible packaging for fresh foods and beverages like water, milk or orange juice, and to make protective film for wrapping fresh vegetables and flowers. It can also be processed into more rigid products like disposable knives, forks and plates, or hard plastics for cellphone or laptop casings. PLA fibers can also be manufactured for clothing, home textiles, diapers or personal hygiene wipes.
Davies, the marketing director of NatureWorks, said that most manufacturers would be able to modify existing plants to process PLA, rather than having to invest in new equipment. But he also said that the end product had to sell on its merits, like any other.
"What we hear loud and clear from the brand or the retailer that's facing the consumer is that it can't feel 'green,"' Davies said. Consumer priorities, from the highest down, are that a product must perform well; be emotionally or aesthetically appealing; and last, that it be better for the environment.
"What we've seen in the green movement, going back 20 years, is the expectation that 'green' would sell," he said. "And it hasn't."
Still, NatureWorks has enjoyed double-digit growth, helped by Wal-Mart, which has switched more than 100 million of its delicatessen food containers to PLA from polyester and has also prompted its suppliers to deliver more environmentally responsible products.
Compostable bioplastics are designed to be stable while in use. Breakdown begins when they are exposed to moisture, water, microorganisms and a high temperature - the environment created in an industrial composting facility.
Yet, when it comes to disposing of a used product, composting, attractive as it sounds, is not always the best option.
As with any product purporting to be green, "you need to do a life-cycle analysis on these new materials relative to the incumbents in order to better understand the environmental benefits of production, use, and disposal," said Mojo of the biodegradable products advocacy group.
Davies, of NatureWorks, said the best thing to do with used PLA bottles, from an economic and environmental perspective, was usually to recycle them, even though they might be compostable.
"That's one of the most promising things about PLA," said Brenda Platt, director of the sustainable plastics initiative for the Institute for Local Self Reliance, an organization that promotes environmentally sound and equitable community development. "It can be chemically recycled back into lactic acid. So just like with glass and metal, those materials can be recycled over and over again."
Across the entire U.S. economy, however, so-called closed-loop recycling, in which used PLA is endlessly recycled into new products, is perhaps 20 years away, Platt said.
It is a chicken-or-egg problem: Because PLA represents a tiny percentage of the total plastics market, traditional recycling plants lack the equipment needed to manage it; conversely, there is no financial incentive to invest in recycling PLA until the available material reaches a critical mass.
"Right now, if a PLA bottle ends up in a recycling facility, it's either going to be rejected and end up in a landfill, or it is going to be a contaminant in PET recycling," Platt said, referring to polyethylene terephthalate, the material used in most plastic bottles. Contaminated bales of PET plastics are not recycled.
For this reason, the Institute for Local Self Reliance says that it is best to avoid the widespread distribution of products marketed as green or sustainable when there is little chance that they will be either recycled or composted. Compostable is a misnomer in a country where only a handful of cities have curbside compost pickup, said Platt, of the institute.
Davies, of NatureWorks, agreed. If consumers see a product labeled compostable, "they'll think, 'oh, I can flip it out the car window and it will disappear on the side of the road,' and it absolutely won't," he said.
Davies said that responsible labeling is essential. He also advocates fitting infrared scanning technology at recycling facilities to identify and separate bioplastics from conventional materials.
But, Platt said, that proposal is utopian. The technology is expensive, and out of reach for the 400 to 500 recycling facilities in the United States, most of which sort plastics by hand.
Robert Reed, public relations manager for Norcal Waste Systems, a solid-waste company based in San Francisco, agreed. Norcal, which runs comprehensive recycling and composting programs, employs workers to sort and separate different materials. Germany, Switzerland and Sweden require manufacturers to prominently mark products that are compostable, and U.S. manufacturers should do the same, Reed said.
If manufacturers do not take responsibility for easy sorting, the problem is just pushed to someone further down the line, he said. "If you're going to take a step, take a step. Don't take a half-step."
Platt said her institute wanted pilot studies on products in closed venues, where end-of-life solutions can be developed under controlled conditions and then scaled up.
But ultimately, she said, bioplastics are part of an "intermediate economy." When consumers finally recognize the value of materials, they will reject throw-away solutions in favor of more durable and reusable products, she said.
French nuclear rivalry may hamper UK energy plans
David Gow in Brussels
The Guardian,
Monday July 7, 2008
France's two biggest energy groups, EDF and GDF Suez, are vying to build the country's latest nuclear power plant, casting fresh doubt on their participation in Britain's planned nuclear renaissance.
Last week President Nicolas Sarkozy gave the go-ahead for a second new-generation European pressurised reactor (EPR) on an existing site. It will be France's 60th nuclear power plant.
State-owned EDF said immediately it was ready to take part in the project in view of the increased demand for electricity and constraints imposed by global warming, and said it owned several potential sites for the new reactor.
GDF Suez indicated its interest but said it would decide by early 2009 at the latest. Analysts said it is certain to go ahead given its plans to extend its nuclear presence from Belgium to France.
EDF, which is helping to build France's first EPR at Flamanville on the Normandy coast, is still said to be considering whether to increase its rejected offer to buy British Energy, Britain's main nuclear power operator. Industry sources say its interest is waning, given that BE shareholders want much more than EDF's indicative offer of 680p a share. EDF is thought unwilling to go much above 700p.
The French group is the only player left in the running to acquire the government's 35% stake in BE after Suez, Spanish group Iberdrola and Germany's RWE withdrew from the bidding process. It has been talking with Centrica, owner of British Gas, about the UK group's role in the process.
The British government, already facing delays to its planned nuclear new-build programme because of skills shortages, could meet further setbacks if the BE sale fails to materialise.
The Guardian,
Monday July 7, 2008
France's two biggest energy groups, EDF and GDF Suez, are vying to build the country's latest nuclear power plant, casting fresh doubt on their participation in Britain's planned nuclear renaissance.
Last week President Nicolas Sarkozy gave the go-ahead for a second new-generation European pressurised reactor (EPR) on an existing site. It will be France's 60th nuclear power plant.
State-owned EDF said immediately it was ready to take part in the project in view of the increased demand for electricity and constraints imposed by global warming, and said it owned several potential sites for the new reactor.
GDF Suez indicated its interest but said it would decide by early 2009 at the latest. Analysts said it is certain to go ahead given its plans to extend its nuclear presence from Belgium to France.
EDF, which is helping to build France's first EPR at Flamanville on the Normandy coast, is still said to be considering whether to increase its rejected offer to buy British Energy, Britain's main nuclear power operator. Industry sources say its interest is waning, given that BE shareholders want much more than EDF's indicative offer of 680p a share. EDF is thought unwilling to go much above 700p.
The French group is the only player left in the running to acquire the government's 35% stake in BE after Suez, Spanish group Iberdrola and Germany's RWE withdrew from the bidding process. It has been talking with Centrica, owner of British Gas, about the UK group's role in the process.
The British government, already facing delays to its planned nuclear new-build programme because of skills shortages, could meet further setbacks if the BE sale fails to materialise.
Field narrows in bid to clean up Sellafield nuclear site
The winner of the Sellafield contract will be at the forefront of the UK’s £70 billion nuclear decommissioning industry
Angela Jameson, Industrial Correspondent
Ministers have whittled down the contenders for a £1 billion-a-year contract to clean up the Sellafield nuclear site to two, with a decision expected to be announced next Friday, The Times understands.
The favourites, from a shortlist of four, are understood to be CH2M Hill - the US engineering and construction services company that was hired to clean up New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and SBB Nuclear - a consortium that includes Babcock & Wilcox, Serco, and Bechtel, the privately-owned US engineering consultancy.
Senior industry sources believe that the SBB Nuclear consortium is well ahead on price, but that the Government favours CH2M Hill primarily because it is a single company with clear lines of responsibility.
CH2M Hill is also renowned for its involvement in Rocky Flats, a former weapons facility that required one of the largest and most complex clean-up projects in the US.
The company has also spent a lot of time in Cumbria and has more support from the local community and unions.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was understood to have sent its recommendations to John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, at the start of the month. However, the final decision on who will win the contract, which starts next March, rests with Mr Hutton.
The winner of this competition will be at the forefront of the UK's £70 billion nuclear decommissioning industry. The contract is initially for five years but could be extended to 17 years.
A nuclear industry insider said: “[SBB Nuclear] appears to be far cheaper than the other parties. But Bechtel is renowned for bidding low to secure contracts.
The Jubilee Line Extension, in which Bechtel was involved, experienced delays accompanied by soaring costs. Bidders for the clean-up contract have been asked to propose financial models of how they would wish to be reimbursed and incentivised for the contract.
It is thought that SBB Nuclear may have suggested a financially engineered repayment model that looks cheap in the early years but sees the consortium's rewards accelerate further into the contract.
As well as CH2M Hill and SBB Nuclear, the other bidders are a partnership between Fluor Corp and Toshiba, and Nuclear Management Partners, a consortium comprising Washington International Holdings, Amec Nuclear Holdings and Areva.
Whichever consortium wins will find itself in the throes of a dispute with Sellafield's 10,000-strong workforce.
After months of negotiations the employees have rejected a 2percent pay settlement and will ballot on industrial action later this month. Workers are expected to vote for a strike which would shut down of the plant for up to a week.
Nuclear workers have received relatively generous awards in the past, but unions believe that the latest below-inflation offer is too little during a time in which the nuclear industry is undergoing considerable change.
They were calling for a 3.8per cent increase - the same level as the retail prices index (RPI) in March. However, views have hardened since then as the Government has dug in its heels and RPI has gone above 4 per cent.
Mike Graham, national officer for energy at Prospect, the engineering union, said: “We are absolutely disgusted with the pay offer and it could well lead to industrial action. This is the time of the biggest change for Sellafield and we are being offered a very low reward.”
Prospect's opposition to the offer is backed by the GMB and Unite, the general unions.
Angela Jameson, Industrial Correspondent
Ministers have whittled down the contenders for a £1 billion-a-year contract to clean up the Sellafield nuclear site to two, with a decision expected to be announced next Friday, The Times understands.
The favourites, from a shortlist of four, are understood to be CH2M Hill - the US engineering and construction services company that was hired to clean up New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and SBB Nuclear - a consortium that includes Babcock & Wilcox, Serco, and Bechtel, the privately-owned US engineering consultancy.
Senior industry sources believe that the SBB Nuclear consortium is well ahead on price, but that the Government favours CH2M Hill primarily because it is a single company with clear lines of responsibility.
CH2M Hill is also renowned for its involvement in Rocky Flats, a former weapons facility that required one of the largest and most complex clean-up projects in the US.
The company has also spent a lot of time in Cumbria and has more support from the local community and unions.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority was understood to have sent its recommendations to John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, at the start of the month. However, the final decision on who will win the contract, which starts next March, rests with Mr Hutton.
The winner of this competition will be at the forefront of the UK's £70 billion nuclear decommissioning industry. The contract is initially for five years but could be extended to 17 years.
A nuclear industry insider said: “[SBB Nuclear] appears to be far cheaper than the other parties. But Bechtel is renowned for bidding low to secure contracts.
The Jubilee Line Extension, in which Bechtel was involved, experienced delays accompanied by soaring costs. Bidders for the clean-up contract have been asked to propose financial models of how they would wish to be reimbursed and incentivised for the contract.
It is thought that SBB Nuclear may have suggested a financially engineered repayment model that looks cheap in the early years but sees the consortium's rewards accelerate further into the contract.
As well as CH2M Hill and SBB Nuclear, the other bidders are a partnership between Fluor Corp and Toshiba, and Nuclear Management Partners, a consortium comprising Washington International Holdings, Amec Nuclear Holdings and Areva.
Whichever consortium wins will find itself in the throes of a dispute with Sellafield's 10,000-strong workforce.
After months of negotiations the employees have rejected a 2percent pay settlement and will ballot on industrial action later this month. Workers are expected to vote for a strike which would shut down of the plant for up to a week.
Nuclear workers have received relatively generous awards in the past, but unions believe that the latest below-inflation offer is too little during a time in which the nuclear industry is undergoing considerable change.
They were calling for a 3.8per cent increase - the same level as the retail prices index (RPI) in March. However, views have hardened since then as the Government has dug in its heels and RPI has gone above 4 per cent.
Mike Graham, national officer for energy at Prospect, the engineering union, said: “We are absolutely disgusted with the pay offer and it could well lead to industrial action. This is the time of the biggest change for Sellafield and we are being offered a very low reward.”
Prospect's opposition to the offer is backed by the GMB and Unite, the general unions.
Toyota plans solar-powered air conditioning on next Prius gas-electric hybrid model
The Associated Press
Published: July 7, 2008
TOKYO: Toyota's ecological Prius gas-electric hybrid will become even greener next year with solar-powered air conditioning on some high-end models, The Nikkei reported Monday.
The solar panels on the roof of the new Prius model will provide 2 to 5 kilowatts of electricity, the major Japanese business daily said in a report without citing sources.
Toyota Motor Corp. plans to purchase the panels from Japanese electronics maker Kyocera Corp., the newspaper said.
Toyota spokesman Paul Nolasco declined comment, saying the company doesn't comment on product plans.
A Toyota official, speaking on condition of anonymity because product plans are not supposed to be disclosed to the media ahead of time, has said details on what will be a third-generation Prius will likely be revealed in May of next year. He did not elaborate.
Sales of the Prius have been booming, thanks to soaring gasoline prices and growing worries about global warming. A hybrid delivers better mileage by switching between a gasoline-fueled engine and an electric motor.
Toyota has made hybrid technology the pillar of its growth strategy, promising to deliver hybrids in every model in its lineup soon after 2020. Toyota has sold more than a million Prius models over the past decade and is planning to sell a million hybrids a year sometime after 2010.
Toyota is also pursuing an aggressive strategy for ecological production by using solar panels and other technology at its plants.
Adding solar panels to a model targeting mass consumers would mark a first for a major automaker, The Nikkei said.
Published: July 7, 2008
TOKYO: Toyota's ecological Prius gas-electric hybrid will become even greener next year with solar-powered air conditioning on some high-end models, The Nikkei reported Monday.
The solar panels on the roof of the new Prius model will provide 2 to 5 kilowatts of electricity, the major Japanese business daily said in a report without citing sources.
Toyota Motor Corp. plans to purchase the panels from Japanese electronics maker Kyocera Corp., the newspaper said.
Toyota spokesman Paul Nolasco declined comment, saying the company doesn't comment on product plans.
A Toyota official, speaking on condition of anonymity because product plans are not supposed to be disclosed to the media ahead of time, has said details on what will be a third-generation Prius will likely be revealed in May of next year. He did not elaborate.
Sales of the Prius have been booming, thanks to soaring gasoline prices and growing worries about global warming. A hybrid delivers better mileage by switching between a gasoline-fueled engine and an electric motor.
Toyota has made hybrid technology the pillar of its growth strategy, promising to deliver hybrids in every model in its lineup soon after 2020. Toyota has sold more than a million Prius models over the past decade and is planning to sell a million hybrids a year sometime after 2010.
Toyota is also pursuing an aggressive strategy for ecological production by using solar panels and other technology at its plants.
Adding solar panels to a model targeting mass consumers would mark a first for a major automaker, The Nikkei said.
Green worker
Be cool at work - wear fewer clothes to beat the heat
The Guardian,
Monday July 7, 2008
Tsutomu Hata was ahead of his time. In 1994, the then-Japanese prime minister appeared in public wearing what he described as an energy-saving suit. But this wasn't some hi-tech Honda-designed outfit that allowed him to work for twice as long without the need for sleep or coffee - but a conventional office suit with the sleeves chopped off at the elbow. The idea was to encourage Japanese office workers to dress down in the summer so that their companies could turn down the air conditioning, and save some energy.
For the last four years, the Japanese government has been running an extremely successful campaign to get office workers to wear fewer clothes. The environment ministry estimates that around a third of the country's offices take part in the Cool Biz initiative, turning down their air conditioning units and saving millions of tonnes of C02 emissions in the process.
For those few days each year when the sun finally shows its face in the UK, it would be much greener if we, too, didn't crank up the air conditioning. You will need to get your colleagues on side though - there's no point turning up to the office in your Bermuda shorts and expecting all the fans to be switched off.
When you suggest the idea to your co-workers - and you may need to word the proposal carefully to avoid any embarrassing misunderstandings regarding your intentions - there is a precedent in this country. In July 2006, as we headed into a minor heatwave, the TUC launched its own Cool Work campaign, mirroring the Japanese approach. It asked employers to relax dress codes in the summer for the sake of the environment - and efficiency.
For some people, dressing down opens up the can of fashionista worms that used to come out on school mufti days. Instead of putting on the regulation clothes, you're forced into making a public statement about yourself. For some of us, that's an unnerving proposition. In Japan, fashion designers designed alternative Cool Biz work styles. There are even Cool Biz fashion shows and a Cool Biz manual, offering advice on matching belts and shoes.
· Adharanand Finn is the author of Make a Difference at Work. To order a copy for £8.99 with free UK p&p, go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop
The Guardian,
Monday July 7, 2008
Tsutomu Hata was ahead of his time. In 1994, the then-Japanese prime minister appeared in public wearing what he described as an energy-saving suit. But this wasn't some hi-tech Honda-designed outfit that allowed him to work for twice as long without the need for sleep or coffee - but a conventional office suit with the sleeves chopped off at the elbow. The idea was to encourage Japanese office workers to dress down in the summer so that their companies could turn down the air conditioning, and save some energy.
For the last four years, the Japanese government has been running an extremely successful campaign to get office workers to wear fewer clothes. The environment ministry estimates that around a third of the country's offices take part in the Cool Biz initiative, turning down their air conditioning units and saving millions of tonnes of C02 emissions in the process.
For those few days each year when the sun finally shows its face in the UK, it would be much greener if we, too, didn't crank up the air conditioning. You will need to get your colleagues on side though - there's no point turning up to the office in your Bermuda shorts and expecting all the fans to be switched off.
When you suggest the idea to your co-workers - and you may need to word the proposal carefully to avoid any embarrassing misunderstandings regarding your intentions - there is a precedent in this country. In July 2006, as we headed into a minor heatwave, the TUC launched its own Cool Work campaign, mirroring the Japanese approach. It asked employers to relax dress codes in the summer for the sake of the environment - and efficiency.
For some people, dressing down opens up the can of fashionista worms that used to come out on school mufti days. Instead of putting on the regulation clothes, you're forced into making a public statement about yourself. For some of us, that's an unnerving proposition. In Japan, fashion designers designed alternative Cool Biz work styles. There are even Cool Biz fashion shows and a Cool Biz manual, offering advice on matching belts and shoes.
· Adharanand Finn is the author of Make a Difference at Work. To order a copy for £8.99 with free UK p&p, go to guardian.co.uk/bookshop
Religion's role in the climate debate
It is the duty of the religious, scientific and political communities to persuade a cynical public that global warming is a very real threat
Danny Rich
guardian.co.uk,
Sunday July 6, 2008
A recent Observer Ipsos Mori poll found that the majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans, and believes, despite the assertion by 2,500 experts on the United Nations international panel on climate control, that scientists are exaggerating the problem. The poll concluded that many did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority thought they need to make "significant and radical changes".
It makes a refreshing change that it is scientists who are coming under the cosh, since very often it is those same scientists — including the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins — who have led the ferocious assault on religion and its value to modern society.
A few days before the poll was reported, a delegation, of which I was a member, presented to Hilary Benn MP, secretary of state for the environment, a photograph petition taken at the recent biennial conference of Liberal Judaism, a group of 34 synagogues representing some 10,000 Jews.
A session at the conference had been devoted to a debate on climate change and was addressed by a rabbi, a senior researcher from the oil industry and an academic, and at its end those participants who wished to gathered for the photograph.
The photograph called for two major provisions in the climate change bill: that the level of carbon emission reduction should be 80% (and not the original 60%, which is based upon dated science); and that action and its reporting by industry should be mandatory.
Liberal Judaism's representatives made such a demand, knowing that every one of us would have to pay a price, not because it is fashionable but because our tradition teaches us that the natural world is "loaned" to humanity to exploit but not to destroy.
Benn spent more than 45 minutes with the delegation, appeared to take seriously what it was saying, and observed that "even cabinet ministers need support".
Religion and politics are both human phenomena connected with various aspects of human life. Religion ought to impel its adherents to act and politics is the means by which that action is implemented. Both politics and religion can be double-faced. They can contribute to the welfare of individuals by, for example, serving the poor and vulnerable. But equally they may be utilised to support oppression and exploitation.
It is, therefore, not difficult to "blame" either religion or politics for the ills of our world, but suspicion and cynicism — whether of politics, science or religion — are cut from the same cloth and are equally destructive. Fundamentalists of all kinds expose the weaknesses of an alternative system but are blind to its strengths. The faults in both our modern political system and our ancient religions can be rectified but their strengths may be hard to replace.
If the world faces climate catastrophe then maybe it is time for the scientific and religious communities to come together, working with governments, to persuade a suspicious and cynical population that it is in their own interests — and particularly the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable of the world's inhabitants — to act now. And if you are religious, it should not be difficult to persuade you.
Danny Rich
guardian.co.uk,
Sunday July 6, 2008
A recent Observer Ipsos Mori poll found that the majority of the British public is still not convinced that climate change is caused by humans, and believes, despite the assertion by 2,500 experts on the United Nations international panel on climate control, that scientists are exaggerating the problem. The poll concluded that many did not want to restrict their lifestyles and only a small minority thought they need to make "significant and radical changes".
It makes a refreshing change that it is scientists who are coming under the cosh, since very often it is those same scientists — including the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins — who have led the ferocious assault on religion and its value to modern society.
A few days before the poll was reported, a delegation, of which I was a member, presented to Hilary Benn MP, secretary of state for the environment, a photograph petition taken at the recent biennial conference of Liberal Judaism, a group of 34 synagogues representing some 10,000 Jews.
A session at the conference had been devoted to a debate on climate change and was addressed by a rabbi, a senior researcher from the oil industry and an academic, and at its end those participants who wished to gathered for the photograph.
The photograph called for two major provisions in the climate change bill: that the level of carbon emission reduction should be 80% (and not the original 60%, which is based upon dated science); and that action and its reporting by industry should be mandatory.
Liberal Judaism's representatives made such a demand, knowing that every one of us would have to pay a price, not because it is fashionable but because our tradition teaches us that the natural world is "loaned" to humanity to exploit but not to destroy.
Benn spent more than 45 minutes with the delegation, appeared to take seriously what it was saying, and observed that "even cabinet ministers need support".
Religion and politics are both human phenomena connected with various aspects of human life. Religion ought to impel its adherents to act and politics is the means by which that action is implemented. Both politics and religion can be double-faced. They can contribute to the welfare of individuals by, for example, serving the poor and vulnerable. But equally they may be utilised to support oppression and exploitation.
It is, therefore, not difficult to "blame" either religion or politics for the ills of our world, but suspicion and cynicism — whether of politics, science or religion — are cut from the same cloth and are equally destructive. Fundamentalists of all kinds expose the weaknesses of an alternative system but are blind to its strengths. The faults in both our modern political system and our ancient religions can be rectified but their strengths may be hard to replace.
If the world faces climate catastrophe then maybe it is time for the scientific and religious communities to come together, working with governments, to persuade a suspicious and cynical population that it is in their own interests — and particularly the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable of the world's inhabitants — to act now. And if you are religious, it should not be difficult to persuade you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
