What is carbon?

Carbon is referring to the gas carbon dioxide, or CO₂. This is a gas that is everywhere on the planet; in the air, in our bodies, in our fizzy drinks and, most importantly in this case, in our atmosphere. The atmosphere is made up of a plethora of different gases including the famous ‘greenhouse gases’, which include, water vapour, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. These are the gases that are responsible for keeping the Earth warm and sustaining life. Without these gases, our planet’s average temperature would be about 33˚C cooler than it is now. CO₂ and the other greenhouse gases work by trapping heat from incoming solar radiation (sunlight) inside the atmosphere, while the rest is radiated back out into space. The Earth – over the last 4.5 billion years – has struck a very fine balance and combination of CO₂ along with the other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, absorbing and exhaling of just the right amounts of solar radiation to keep us, and every living thing on the planet alive. Humanity, however, is pumping more and more carbon into the air so that there is now too much.

Imagine, if you will, that CO₂ is a like a blanket surrounding the earth, much as a blanket covers you in bed. Constantly adding more covers onto this blanket will make you too hot, especially if you have no way of removing the extra covers. The result would be that you would get sweaty, irritable and wouldn’t sleep very well. Much the same thing is happening to the planet. As well as getting too hot, the earth is reacting to this increase in temperature by changing its climate, for instance producing more rainfall. This is what we call climate change. In years gone by the term more commonly used was ‘global warming’, but scientists have shied away from this phrase as it implies a simple rise in temperature. The truth is far more complicated.

The causes of climate change

So, we know that CO₂ contributes to climate change, but where does it come from? First of all, CO₂ is a naturally occurring gas that is essential to life on Earth, without it animals, plants and trees would not survive. The Carbon we’re concerned with is the man-made stuff, or ‘anthropogenic carbon emissions’. These come from a variety of sources, but the biggest offender is the burning of fossil fuels: natural gas, coal and oil. These fossil fuels come from organic matter that has decayed over millions of years and is now buried deep underground (dead dinosaurs and such like). When these fossil fuels are burned they release the carbon – among other things – that has been stored in them for millennia, straight into the atmosphere.

As humans in an industrial society, our biggest domestic emissions of carbon come from:

• Driving our cars: As the petrol is burned it releases CO₂ into the atmosphere via the exhaust pipe.
• Using electricity: TV’s, lights, computers, kettles, mobiles, laptops, games consoles, fridges, dishwashers, etc. Note: Now, I know what you may be thinking; “but these devises don’t emit carbon, how can they be responsible for climate change?” This is true they don’t emit CO₂. But, whenever you use electricity in your home, the power station that’s supplying the electricity has to burn fossil fuels – usually coal or gas – and this emits vast amounts of carbon, and other pollutants.
• Heating our homes and our water: The CO₂ here comes directly from the gas boiler.
• Cooking our food also burns gas and releases carbon.
• Many, many other activities that go on day to day as part of our society emit CO₂, but for now I’m concentrating solely on our domestic emissions.

The signs, and symptoms of climate change

Apart from the obvious changes in global temperatures, we could witness a dramatic increase in extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts, heat waves and floods. The results of this maybe global shortages of food due to crop failures, mass migrations, our first major war over water rights and naturally, those infamous melting polar caps and rising sea levels. But then again, some people say nothing will happen and world will be fine. It’s up to you to look at the evidence, decide what you believe and act on it.

Is climate change really happening?

Yes.

Is climate change man-made?

Yes and no. The planet creates plenty of its own CO₂ and maybe the recorded increases in carbon levels are due solely to this – but most climate scientists don’t really believe that. There are many people who argue that, historically, the Earth has experienced many fluctuations in temperature and we are unnecessarily worried about it happening again. However, remember that these fluctuations were caused by the natural processes of the planet and happened so slowly that many species had time to adapt and evolve. What we are doing by increasing CO₂ levels is disrupting the planet’s natural ability to regulate its climate, and we are also doing it at such a rapid pace that most species, including us, may not be able to adapt in time.

To add to that, we are exacerbating the problem by cutting down vast areas of rain forest – the lungs of the world; polluting our oceans –the biggest absorber of CO; filling the ground with rubbish; and spilling oil and other toxins all over the place.

Why all the uncertainty?

Because the climate of the future is extremely hard to predict. An immense amount of different factors affect the planet’s climate system and they are forever in flux. Predicting exactly what’s going to happen is fraught with uncertainty, and is one reason that there are so many ‘global warming sceptics’ out there*. Put it this way, if the BBC weather says that it will be sunny tomorrow, you will probably believe them. If they say it will sunny in a week, you may be a bit more sceptical. What would you think if they said that on this day next year it will be partly cloudy in the morning, sunny in the afternoon, with a touch of rain for the evening? I know that I wouldn’t believe them. This is the same with climate change. In a hundred years from now we can’t really say with any certainty what’s going to happen, but we do know that too high a concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will have an effect. We’re just not sure exactly what that may be. I’m all for erring on the side of caution.

*See also Andrew Brooks’ article, Climategate on the learning portal, for another, interesting look at climate change scepticism.

How do we stop it?

Good question. In essence (and to keep within the simplicity of this article), we have to curb our greenhouse gas emissions back to a level akin with King Arthur’s time. No, just joking. Obviously it’s not that drastic, but emissions do need to be reduced severely, and the longer we go on without mitigating it, the more painful and expensive it will be to adapt to it. Also remember that it takes over a hundred years for CO₂ to dissipate in the atmosphere, so whatever we do, we need to do it now.

So what can we all do?

Basically, save energy at work and home. Reduce your impact on Mother Earth. The options are far too many and varied to go into here, but to find out more, have a look at other articles on the Energy Saving Warehouse website and also elsewhere in the media.

I appreciate that the issue of climate change is a contentious one and jam-packed full of uncertainty, but there is a real and present danger that we are headed for a disaster of biblical proportions. If you have read this article and it has sparked a little interest on your part, then please look further into the issue, it is extremely wide-ranging and interesting.

Before getting onto the windows, I will quickly mention two other main sources of property heat loss. First is the loft. The vast majority of heat is lost through un-insulated loft space. To insulate the loft is an easy job and doesn’t cost very much at all. If using the most common insulation material, mineral wool, the recommended level of insulation is 270mm. Compared to a loft with no insulation, this will save about a tonne of CO₂ a year. (Energy Savings Trust) So, if you haven’t insulated your loft – do it now. Enough said. If you do live in an old property, the chances are that it will be constructed from stone, so you do not have the option of cavity wall insulation. It is possible to improve the insulation of stone walls, but this can be costly, loose you interior space or affect the look of the exterior of your property. In the future I will do some research and hopefully write a piece on this very subject. For now, however, it will suffice to say that the windows in your character property are one of the biggest sources of heat loss, but they can be improved relatively easily.

Space heating represents by far the largest proportion of household energy use (see below), so the fastest way to save energy, save carbon and save money, is to reduce your heating bill.

Because of the large proportion of energy loss through windows, one of the fastest ways to reduce the heating bill is to address this issue. The most common way of doing this is by replacing your windows with double glazed ones. However, if like me, you bought your house partly because of its period features the last thing you want to do is put in modern – albeit energy efficient – UPVC windows. When writing these articles I always try and speak not just from what I have learnt at university, but also from my experience as a homeowner as well. Up until recently, on the advice of two double gazing companies, I couldn’t get good, authentic-looking, wooden double glazed sash windows. This is not true and a quick Internet search will uncover a few specialists in this field. So with this in mind, what can be done to the windows?

I am going to go through the options that I have looked at and, hopefully, there should be some ideas in there for all budgets.

Without replacing windows:

• Do nothing, just learn to live with the noise and draughts and turn your heating up in the winter (not recommended).
• Place some draught excluder around the joins in the window. I am referring here to the strip of plastic that has small brushes fixed to one side. This doesn’t look very nice, but will reduce draughts significantly.
• Put up a pair of heavy lined curtains in front of the windows.
• Install some shutters. These are very trendy at the moment, and although they will not be quite as effective as curtains, they do have the advantage of not taking up as much room as curtains because they are usually fitted within the frame of the window.
• Have the frames repaired/reconditioned. This will reduce noise and draughts.
• Convert existing single glazed sashes to double glazed units.

Replacing windows:

• Replace the window completely for modern double glazed UPVC windows – this is the cheapest option, but, will look slightly out of place on a period property.
• Replace the window for modern double glazed UPVC ‘sash style’ windows – this will look better than normal double glazed units, but will still sacrifice authenticity.
• Replace the window for authentic-looking, wooden double glazed sash windows. Although this is probably the most costly option, it will give you both the insulation and noise reduction properties of modern windows, but will also keep the character of your home – also worth thinking about if you’re considering selling in the future.

Use a combination of any of the above, whatever your budget will stretch to – all improvements, no matter how small, soon add up. And remember, as soon as you lower the heat loss, you will see a big saving in your energy bill and reduce your carbon emissions.

Finally, light a big warm fire, pour yourself a glass of hot gluhwine, roast some chestnuts, put your feet up, watch It’s a Wonderful Life on TV and just forget all about the cold weather outside. Lovely.

So, now that we know the windows can be replaced without sacrificing character and charm, what savings can be made? Let’s take, for example, five single glazed sash windows in a small Victorian terraced house (like mine). If they were upgraded to double glazed – but still authentic looking – sash windows, the saving in energy could be around 256 kilowatt-hours (kWh) and 235kg of CO₂ emissions per year. At today’s gas prices that’s about £45.00 off your energy bill annually.

Please note these figures are just examples. You can see all the sums at the end of the article under U-Values.

The cost of replacing your windows is completely dependent on which option(s) you go for so I’m not going to provide a price guide. However, to keep costs down, you my want to consider replacing just the front windows for double glazed traditional sashes, to keep the character of the property, and putting modern double glazed units at the back. The choices are endless and are completely reliant on your budget.

Finally, there are a few other methods that you can use to reduce draughts and noise.

• Place a heavy lined curtain around exterior doors.
• Place some draught excluder tape around the frames of both internal and external doors. This is a very simple job to do and will take about 5 minutes per door, but you will notice the difference.
• Purchase a draught excluder for the bottom of doors that lead to places like porches and external exits. I’m referring here to the sand filled ones that cover the gaps in the bottom of the doors.
• If you are lucky enough to own an open fire, make sure there is a damper plate – or some other way of closing the hole – in place at the back. An awful lot of heat is lost up an open chimney when the fire’s not in use.
• If you have the original exposed wooden floorboards, seal the gaps between them and also look at the gaps between them and the skirting boards. Running a wet hand along any potential gaps on a cold, windy day will soon tell you where the drafts are. You could also cover them in carpet and a quality underlay – but that will cost you 100 times as much as draft excluding and again you will loose a period feature.

So hopefully there are a few things to mull over here. If you do want to pursue the window repair/replacement options take a look at these companies listed below. They will also help to give you an idea of the costs involved.

• The Original Box Sash Windows Company – www.boxsash.com
• Timber Windows. Com – www.timberwindows.com
• The Sash Window Specialist – www.sashwindowspecialist.com

U-Values

By way of illustrating the differences in energy loss between certain types of window I will now give a brief explanation of the arithmetic of thermal transmittance using the U-Value of different windows. Please bear with me, it’s really not that complicated.

Basically, the U-Value is a measure of the performance of any building material. Using the U-Value we can measure the rate of heat loss through a window. This is calculated by multiplying the area in square metres (m²), by the U-value, by the temperature difference between inside and outside. The lower the U-Value, the lower the heat loss.

U-Values are expressed as W m^-2 ˚C ^-2(Watts per square metre per degree Celsius)

So assuming you have window that is 2 m² in area, the U-Value of the window is 5 and it’s 20˚C inside the house and 5˚C outside (20 – 5), then the rate of heat loss will be:

2 x 5 x (20 – 5) = 150 Watts

If we assume that this rate of temperature difference is the average for the heating season of 6 months and the house is heated for 12 hours per day, then the loss in energy per year would be:

150 watts x 12 hours = 1.8 kilowatts hours (kWh)

1.8 kWh x 182 days (or 6 months) = 328 kWh

At an average gas price 3.5p per kWh this would cost £11.48 (per window)

Comparatively a double glazed unit with a U-Value of 1.1 would cost around £2.55 per window – a saving against the above single glazed unit of around £9.00 per window. (see below)

2 x 1.1 x (20 – 5) = 33W

33 x 12 = 0.4kWh

0.4 x 182 = 73kWh

73 x 3.5p = £2.55

£11.48 – £2.55 = £8.93

If we assume that a property has 5 windows, all of similar size, then by replacing the windows the house owner could save £45.00 per year on their energy bill.

Assuming 0.184kg of CO₂ of per kWh (Carbon Trust, 2009) the saving in carbon emissions would be around 47kg of CO₂ per window.

Below is a table highlighting the different U-Values of windows and the amount of energy that is lost through each window on a hypothetical year and how much this would cost. This is only a rough guide.

So by using the above sums and simply inserting the area of your windows, you can compare the heat losses of any windows you may have now, compared to what you may wish to purchase in the future; just another tool in the box of the conscientious home owner.

References

Boyle, G. 2004 Renewable Energy: Power for a sustainable future. Oxford University Press. The Open University, Milton Keynes.

Energy Saving Trust. www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Home-improvements-and-products/Home-insulation-glazing/Loft-insulation/All-about-installation.

Pilkington United Kingdom Limited. www.pilkington.com/resources/defaulttable.pdf

Timber Windows www.timberwindows.com/content/More_Information/Technical/technicaldetails.pdf.

The thermal system as we know it was invented in 1909 by William. J Bailey, who used a thermosyphon system with an insulated storage tank so that the water would stay hot at night – hence the (rather odd) name ‘The Day and Night Solar Water Heater’. Despite the odd name, he did rather well for himself selling a good few thousand models. However, the discovery of cheap natural gas in the 1920’s saw a virtual end to his business and it wasn’t until the 1970’s oil price hikes that a resurgence of the solar water heater was seen.

A modern version of Bailey’s thermosyphon arrangement is still very much in use today, but only in counties where the climate allows. In frost-free parts of the world such as Africa, the Mediterranean and the Middle East, the thermosyphon is widely used to heat water for domestic use. This type of arrangement dispenses with a circulation pump and relies on the natural convection of rising hot water to pump the system. The water passes directly through the solar panel and is then stored in the tank set atop the system. Because of the amounts of solar radiation available in these areas, the collector panel is generally about half the size of a similar one in Northern Europe.

The collectors used in Northern Europe are typically one of two types: a flat plate collector or an evacuated tube collector. Both of these come under the title of ‘pumped’ collectors.

A pumped collector will allow water to heat up in the absobtion panel. When hot enough a pump will be activated via a heat sensor, or control box, and the hot water will be transferred down to a hot water storage tank that contains a heat exchanger. The heat from this water is then radiated out into the water in the tank, thus heating it up. The reason that the water doesn’t flow directly through the collector and into the tank, as with the thermosyphon system, is because it has to contain an anti freeze solution allowing it to run through the cold European winter months without rupturing a pipe.

Flat plate collector

The flat plate collector comes in two varieties: glazed and unglazed. The glazed version consists of three main components: and insulated back plate; an absorber plate; and the glazing. The back plate forms the back (funnily enough) of the unit. It is insulated to reduce heat loss. Attached to this is the absorber plate, which is simply a set of copper pipes attached to a metal plate (usually steel). The water to be heated will circulate through these pipes in the direct path of solar radiation, thus picking up the heat present in the sunlight. The absorber plate is painted with a high absorbency black paint that maximises absorption. Put simply, the reason that the black paint is used is because black will absorb all of the colours/wavelengths with the spectrum, while conversely, white will absorb none. Once the water is hot enough, it is pumped to the heat exchanger in the storage tank.

The unglazed version is used to heat water to a lower temperature than would be used for domestic hot water, for instance the water for an indoor swimming pool. This consists of exactly the same as the collector described above, but without the glazing element… obviously.

Evacuated tube collector

The other commonly used type of solar thermal collector is the evacuated tube collector. This is a more efficient – and more expensive – system. It consists of a number of modular tubes arranged next to each other vertically, with the water pipe attached along the top. Each tube consists of a heat pipe, an absorber plate and evacuated glazing.

This time the absorber plate is a metal strip that runs down the centre of each tube, again painted with high absorption black paint. In most cases the tube are about 1.5 – 2 metres long and about 10 – 15 centimetres wide. It uses a heat pipe to transfer the absorbed solar energy to the water running horizontally along the top of the collector in the pipe joined to each tube and then down to the storage tank. The heat pipe is a device that contains a liquid, which is pressurised so as to boil at the top – thus heating the water – and condense at the bottom. This means that it has a high level of thermal conductivity and transfers large amounts of energy. This absorber strip and heat pipe assembly is placed inside an evacuated glass tube. The evacuated part of the name stems from the fact that the air in the space between the absorber tube and the glass is ‘evacuated’ to leave a vacuum, in much the same way as double-glazing, greatly reducing convective heat losses. The tubes are capped at both ends, mounted side by side to a frame and inserted into the water-carrying pipe at the top to form the collector. An evacuated tube collector will need a little maintenance from time to time, but should still last 25 years’ plus.

A very simple rule of solar thermal collectors is; a flat plate collector will cost you less, but won’t be as efficient as an evacuated tube collector, which will do the job better but cost you more. A little research into what best suits your budget and needs is essential.

This technology is primarily aimed at the domestic user, with the most common method of water heating coming from a rooftop-mounted solar thermal collector. Note: before you get too excited about the possibility of showering with water heated using only the sun; there are a couple of issues to point out to potential buyers. Although any reputable supplier of this equipment should survey your property first, you should bear in mind that:

• You will need a hot water storage tank – if you live in a small property and only use a combi boiler, then this is not for you. This storage tank – which should be supplied as part of the package – will double as your domestic hot water cylinder, one of which you probably already have inside the airing cupboard.
• Ideally a solar hot water collector will be fitted on an angled roof that faces south. This is not to say that if your roof faces east or west that you can’t install one, it’s just that in this case the collector would only get it’s maximum amount of sunlight in the morning (east) or afternoon (west), dramatically reducing it effectiveness.
• DIY kits are available, but you need to be competent, especially when it comes to plumbing.

How does it work?

In simple terms, solar radiation (sunshine to you and me) is absorbed into the collector, which is typically 3–5 square metres in area. As the water contained within the system becomes hot, a pump transfers this hot water to a heat exchanger within the storage tank, which then in turn, heats up the water in the tank ready for use – easy.

There are essentially two types of collector that are used in Northern Europe: the flat plate collector, which looks like a more traditional solar panel, and the evacuated tube collector, which looks like a large chrome radiator.

The Savings

The average financial savings that can be made are now around £100* per year. The emissions savings that can be achieved are between 260kg and 580kg of CO₂ per year, if replacing a gas or electric heater respectively [1]. Additionally, it’s worth considering the payback time. Let’s say that you buy system and it costs you £2500, and that you also get a grant of £400. At a saving of £100 per year, you will have made your money back in around twenty years. I know that sounds like a long time, but consider this: A decent system should last you longer than that, – most appear to be made to last 25 years or more as they are relatively simple with very few moving parts. Also remember that energy prices will continue to rise, and as they do the savings will also increase. So a payback time of considerably less should be achievable. Once you paid yourself back, you will be enjoying truly free hot water, not to mention doing your bit save the planet and help stop climate change.

Remember

To maximise the efficiency of the system, also consider these tips:

• Buy a washing machine or dishwasher that runs off the hot water feed, saving the need for the machine to heat its own water.
• Time your hot water usage to coincide with the times that the tank is full of hot water, with the added chance of the sun heating a replacement tank afterwards. For example, on a sunny day if you put a load in the washing machine have a shower and then wash the dishes all after lunch, the sun will have heated your water in the morning and then willl have plenty of time to heat up more for the evening. Lovely.
• Avoid the ‘rebound effect’ i.e. “this water’s heated by the sun, so I can forget about conserving it ”.
• Look for a system that uses a small solar PV (electric supply) panel to run the pump, saving even more energy. If not possible try, to add one on later, they’re not that expensive.

To look more into the grants that are available, visit the low carbon building programme [2]. At the time of writing, the grant available for a solar thermal system is £400. There are some other top-up grants around, often form local councils, but with the current climate (pardon the pun!) they may soon disappear. Check out the grants database at Energy Saving Trust [3].

*With an average house bill now around £1000 per year and considering 30% of a household energy bill is on water heating. Solar hot water can deliver a third of that equating to an average saving of around £100 per year. Some suppliers claim that they it can deliver up to 70% of hot water demand, but if you work on just a third, then everything else is a bonus

[1] DECC (2010)http://www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk/Microgeneration-Technologies/Solar-thermal-hot-water Accessed 13/05/2010

[2] www.lowcarbonbuildings.org.uk

[3] www.energysavingtrust.org.uk

Guardian Online (2008) Household fuel bills could rise 40%www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jun/24/oilandgascompanies.gas. Accessed 13/05/2010

This article is going to look at the impact that fast fashion is having on the environment and what can be done with all of these clothes that are thrown away after only a few wears. It will also examine which textiles can be recycled and how best to do it.

The ‘Primark Effect’

The high street fashion industry has been spearheaded by companies such as Primark, who sell clothes that are reputed to be at the cutting edge of popular fashion and are also cheap enough that people can constantly buy clothes as they come ‘in’ and get rid of them as they go ‘out’. This has been dubbed ‘The Primark Effect”. While the creation of so many new clothes may have its own impacts, it’s the disposal of them that is causing the real problem. Even though many ways of recycling clothes exist, over a million tonnes still find their way to landfill; a figure up from 7 percent of total waste 6 years ago to around 30 percent now [1].

The fast fashion industry accounts for about one-fifth of the UK clothes market, which in itself is worth £23 billion. Some of the companies operating in this field include Primark, Zara, Pilot, New Look, and H&M.

As an example of just how fast fast fashion can be, Zara can have new clothes designed, made and on the shop floor ready for sale in just 10 – 14 days [3]. I would imagine that’s how long the garment will last as well.

There is a double whammy of buying cheap clothes too. First, because they are cheap they don’t last very long. Second, because they are cheap the wearer doesn’t feel the need to get a lot of wear from them and will consign them to the bin without much thought.

Part of the reason these clothes are so cheap is because they are generally made to an inferior quality and, consequently, will not last very long before they bobble, shrink, lose their shape, fray or tear. Even if the wearer can do a Gok Wan style reinvention of them, they are not likely to last very long anyway. This results in a lot more textile waste going to the tip.

Tackling the problem

The government is tackling this issue by means of defra’s Sustainable Clothing Action Plan, which is now in its fourth year and “aims to improve the sustainability of clothing, by gathering evidence on the environmental, social and economic impacts” [2]. There are a number of high profile companies who have signed up to the programme including: Nike, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, Asda and Tesco. Unfortunately though, none of the fast fashion retailers joined up, which sends the message that they are not interested in sustainability unless it will improve their profit margins.

Some initiatives of the scheme include:

• Carbon labelling of the garment to indicate its lifetime carbon emissions.
• Encouraging the use of sustainable materials.
• Greening the whole production process, including energy management and resource efficiency.
• Maximising the recycling, re-use and end of life management.

Ironically, the economic downturn, which usually puts the brakes on commercial spending, doesn’t seem to have affected the fast fashion industry and the sellers on the high street are still making millions of pounds worth of profit. The only explanation can be that they are perceived as being cheap, and when the cash is short at hand, the hand heads for the bargains.

The environmental impacts

The environmental effects of simply making so many clothes must be huge. If the garment is made of a natural fibre then it requires land and water. If the fibre is man-made then it requires plastics and the energy used to manufacture these plastics. Then there are the wastes and effluent associated with the pre-treatment chemicals, dyes and finishes. Once the clothes are made they then have to be transported, usually from the Far East. This transport of the clothes also has it’s own environmental affects. Often after a relatively short amount of time the clothes are then either falling apart or no longer in fashion and many increasingly end up in landfill.

The only feasible reason for the large increase in clothing waste – especially in a recession – is the Primark Effect. The increase in waste must feasibly equate to an increase in manufacture as well. So that’s a rise in fossil fuel consumption, water use, fertilizer and pesticides, plus all of the associated carbon emissions. If the aforementioned increase is put in terms of waste tonnage, that’s an extra 800,000 tonnes of waste, just so we can keep up with current trends. Madness.

A picture released by Greenpeace showing the effluent from denim factories being released into the Dong River, China [3]

While clothes may be essential to our lives, it has to be asked how many extra, unnecessary environmental impacts result from so many clothes being consumed due to the Primark Effect.

Recycling the clothes

There are many things that can be done with unwanted clothes. Charity shops are always willing to take good quality garments, as are the organisations that transport clothes to the poorer peoples of the world and also supply disaster relief efforts. Of course there’s always eBay. Another interesting use for your old clothes are Swishing parties [4].

It’s not only clothes in good condition that can be reused. The rest can often be recycled in some way of other. Many of the garments that are too far-gone to be sold on are turned into shoddy wool or shoddy cotton. This is where the clothes are shredded and the fibre is re-spun to make shoddy wool (if good quality), or the shoddy may be used for such purposes as carpet underlay, padding or mattress stuffing. High quality shoddy wool is being embraced more and more by those looking to produce sustainable clothing lines.

The trouble with many of the clothes bought in fast fashion stores is that they are made from man-made fabrics which are harder to recycle, especially when there is a mix of fabrics. Nylon, for example, can be recycled, but a nylon-cotton mix, cannot.

If you are after cheaper clothes, but aren’t necessarily that concerned about being at the cutting edge of (high street) fashion, then check out the sales racks in some of the more expensive shops. Here you can find much better quality clothes than those of the fast fashion industry for knock down prices.

Having said all this; just because the mechanisms are in place to ease the burden of thrown away clothes, this cannot excuse the rate at which the high street is turning over its stock. In the age of austerity simply being cheap is no excuse to inflict further damage on an already over-burdened ecosystem.

In summary then…

We are only human, we all love a bargain and sometimes we can get a little blinkered by those irresistible prices. Next time you feel your shopping senses pulling you towards one of the fast fashion retailers, just bear in mind the type of industry you may be about to condone.

Admittedly one of ESW’s principles is to save you money, but not at the cost of the planet. Forget filling up your basket with a load of ill fitting, cheap tat; go spend the money on one or two good quality garments instead.

The environmental impacts stemming from resource consumption and waste as a result of the Primark Effect are significant. The need to introduce sustainability into the industry has been recognised by many clothes manufacturers and sellers, but the fast fashion trade continues to make huge profits.

Even with all of the recycling and reuse options available, it is still far better for the planet to buy a few good quality clothes that will last, as opposed to many that will be faded, bobbled and in tatters within a year.

All the time there is a demand for these types of clothes, the high street will continue to churn them out. This is a problem that can only be solved by the consumer. But how do you convince hardcore fashionistas to slow down and buy less? Good question.

Make sure you are purchasing responsibly across all aspects of your life, not just when buying clothes.

Addendum

On the day this article was finished, a story appeared in the Sunday Telegraph claiming that the days of cheap fashion from China are over. The article cited rising standards of living in the developing world and price increases in cotton as a few of the reasons.

So there may actually be a happy ending to this particular environmental story.

Further Reading

Swishing: The Eco friendly Option for Shopaholics

References

[1] http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/400883/primark_effect_still_clogging_up_uk_landfills.html

[2] http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/products/roadmaps/clothing/documents/clothing-action-plan-feb10.pdf

[3] http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/news/textile-pollution-xintang-gurao

[4] http://swishing.com/

It has long been recognised that humanity’s current economic systems coupled with an over-reliance on fossil fuels is not conducive to a sustainable, low carbon economy. As part of a response to this, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has recently produced a report [1] claiming that investment in green economies will stimulate economic growth and lead the world toward an age of sustainable development.

The report, which has been published at a meeting in Kenya this week (22.2.2011), states that an investment of just 2 percent of current global GDP (about US $1.3 trillion) can deliver a green economy and kick start the transition to an economic system that would avoid the risks of climate change, water scarcity and the loss of ecosystem services [2].

The report’s findings claim that with a redirecting of investment and a reformation of domestic and international policies, the global economy would grow by higher levels than predicted in other scenarios. It is argued that by 2050 this could lower the global ecological footprint by 50 percent compared to a business as usual scenario.

The method for achieving the report’s goals is fundamentally a decoupling from growth that relies upon the material and energy intensive investments of today. It will involve the reallocation of subsidies that are currently given to sectors within the ‘brown’ economy. For example, the fossil fuels industry receives around $600 billion in subsidies and the phasing out and redirecting of these would go a long way to funding the transition.

There are ten key sectors that have been cited as the main areas for change if a green economy is to be realised, these are: agriculture, buildings, energy supply, fisheries, forestry, industry including energy efficiency, tourism, transport, waste management and water. The $1.3 trillion would be invested as follows:

• $108 billion for greening agriculture.
• $134 for greening the building sector.
• $360 billion for greening the energy supply sector.
• $110 billion for fisheries, including what would be a controversial reduction in fleet sizes.
• $15 billion for forestry.
• $75 billion for greening industry.
• $135 billion for greening the tourist industry.
• $190 billion on greening the transport industry.
• $110 billion on waste and recycling.
• A similar amount on the water sector.

Achim Steiner, UNEP Executive Director and UN Under-Secretary General said “The Green Economy provides a vital part of the answer of how to keep humanity’s ecological footprint within planetary boundaries. It aims to link the environmental imperatives for changing course to economic and social outcomes—in particular economic development, jobs and equity,”

Another catalyst for growth is poverty eradication. The report highlights a case study in India where over 80 percent of the £5 billion of a rural employment guarantee act has been invested in water conservation, irrigation and land development. This has resulted in not only major environmental gains and better sanitary conditions for millions of people, but also the creation of employment benefiting nearly 60 million households.

The upshot of adopting the ideas put forward in the report would be a redistribution of the winners and losers, with the environment faring better than it does today. In turn the result would be a low carbon, resource efficient economy that would benefit both the developed and developing worlds.

Opinion

While this report makes many very good arguments, it is unlikely to be realised in anywhere near the numbers that are spoken about. A major objective of this report is to underline the sustainable public policy and investment path on the Road To Rio+20 in 2012. As such it will form an initial part of the green lobby’s negotiating at this conference. As it will involve the shrinking of some industries and the reallocation of money and jobs to other, greener, sectors, this proposition will not go unopposed.

Naturally by sticking its head above the parapet and calling for such huge amounts of capital to be reinvested in so many sectors, the report is going to come under fire from many areas. This does not, however, undermine the validity of the UNEP’s findings.

While it may involve massive investment, it must be remembered that the report calls for only 2 percent of GDP to be invested. A few years ago, the $1.3 trillion dollars cited in the report would have seemed like an astronomical sum of money. However, compared to the figures seen in the media recently associated with the near collapse of the banking system, this doesn’t seem so high a price for a large step towards sustainability.

References

[1] http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/GreenEconomyReport/tabid/29846/Default.aspx

[2] http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_summary_en.pdf

• Mast mounted: these are free standing and are erected in a suitably exposed position, often around 2.5kW to 6kW
• Roof mounted: these are smaller than mast mounted systems and can be installed on the roof of a home where there is a suitable wind resource. Often these are around 1kW to 2kW in size.

• Harness a plentiful energy source: in the UK we have 40% of Europe’s total wind energy.
• Cut your carbon footprint: wind electricity is green, renewable energy and doesn’t release any harmful carbon dioxide or other pollutants.
• Cut your electricity bills: wind is free, so once you’ve paid for the initial installation your electricity costs will be reduced.
• Store electricity for a calm day: if your home isn’t connected to the National Grid you can store excess electricity in batteries and use it when there is no wind.

• Are there any large obstacles like buildings, trees or hills near your home? Small domestic wind turbines work best in exposed locations, without turbulence caused by these type of obstacles
• Is your home is a windy area? To be effective you need an average windspeed of no less than 5m/s.
• Is your home located away from the National Grid? Small domestic wind systems are particularly suitable for use in remote locations where mains electricity is unavailable.
• Do you need planning permission? Small domestic wind systems normally do require permission from your local authority, so check before you install a system.

• invest in energy efficient appliances – find energy saving products
• use energy when the wind is blowing – do your laundry on a windy day to take advantage of the free electricity
• charge up your batteries whenever you have excess electricity

Teleconferencing means two or more people can enjoy a telephone conversation no matter where they are, whether that is a different room or a different city. There are many advantages teleconferencing has brought with businesses benefiting from a more efficient method of working and communicating with other colleagues.

Making efficiency gains will be an attractive feature for every business. As teleconferencing can take place anywhere in the world, between different offices and between different clients, employees won’t need to travel as much which will save company finances as well as the time and energy of employees which can be redistributed to other projects.

Cost Reductions can be significant too. Being able to teleconference with many people in different locations at the same time will certainly reduce costs. Compared to the traditional method of cost of the train or flight and the hotel room, teleconferencing offers many cost savings but increasingly carbon savings as well.

A lot of company time can be saved by using conference calling. Using teleconferencing means the employee can cut straight to the meeting and eliminate unnecessary travelling, stress and exertion.

Teleconferencing also means if urgent decisions are required then meetings can be organised at very short notice. Video conference providers also allow you to record meetings therefore the meeting minutes can be assembled after the meeting, saving time for all parties.

Companies that embrace teleconferencing can reduce outgoings, improving margins and lowering their companies carbon footprint.

A recent article in the Daily Mail [1] puts the blame for a 6-mile deadly toxic lake of sludge firmly at the feet of the wind turbine industry.

What you are about to read is not a wind power myth-busting exercise nor is it trying to persuade anybody that wind power is the best thing since sliced bread. It is going to examine why wind seems to be such an easy target.

The evil that is wind power

The newspaper article in question covers the story of a rare earth mine and refinery in Baotou, China. The piece is centred around the rare earth element neodymium (Nd) and how the extraction of it is causing devastation to the local environment and populace. Some negative effects of the mining include:

• A 6-mile toxic lake in which children have fallen through the crust and drowned in sludge.
• Local villagers losing teeth, suffering from severe skin and respiratory diseases, children born with soft bones and unusually high rates of cancer.
• The covering up of toxicity and radioactive levels.

This story is truly harrowing and highlights yet another example of everyday people being on the receiving end of flagrant corporate irresponsibility and would normally be the type of story a pro-environment correspondent would cover. Unusually, though, the writers have aimed their sights directly at wind turbine manufacturers. The reason for this is because neodymium is a critical component of the magnets used in any new turbine. However, pointing the accusing finger at the wind industry is just a little weak.

Neodymium is not the only rare earth element extracted at this facility – there are 17 in total – and it is not solely used in wind turbines. There are many other uses for neodymium including: magnets (we know that); glass (usually as a colorant); alloys; catalysts and ceramics. [2]

There are then even multiple uses for neodymium magnets including: MRI scanning machines; security alarms and switches; TV and video applications; hard drives; chip detectors and maintaining the muscle tone of NASA astronauts (handy) [3].

In addition to ‘sexing up’ the link between the harmful effects and the wind industry, the article provided no proof, nor even mentioned, if this was the exact mine where all turbine manufacturers purchase their neodymium. They may well use a completely different supplier; one whose social and environmental responsibility is a bit higher up the agenda. Let’s hope so.

So why write the article?

On reading further, one grasps the true intention of the story as it begins to rant over the planning of windfarms in Scotland. At this point it becomes clear from which direction the writers are coming. This is an anti-wind article holding aloft the plight of the Chinese villagers as their standard to tell us all how evil the wind industry is.

What they are saying is not all bad, by any means. What’s happening in China is deplorable, and they do have a point when calling into question certain practices and effects of windfarms: the concrete used to create foundations and the roads that will be built to service the turbines, for instance. Nobody can blame them for being angry with this, but the article does seem to be spinning facts in order to reignite the huge backlash over the construction of windfarms.

Why’s everybody always picking on wind?

Of all the renewable energy sources, wind generally seems to be the biggest criminal. But why is it such an easy target and why is the opposition to this technology so vehement? Some possible answers could be:

• It’s expensive and consumers don’t want to see their energy bills increase any more. A popular complaint is that the renewables obligation (RO), which is forcing energy companies to produce a certain amount of their power from renewable resources, is being paid for by increasing customers’ energy bills. Well this may be true, but that will happen with the growth of any large-scale renewable technology. Also the feed-in tariff is not without its problems, but again this will happen with any technology.
• Wind farms are not very concentrated and have to cover large areas of land in comparison to, say, a coal-fired power station. This means that wind has many different planning applications and will consequently step on a lot toes.
• It’s very obvious. Nobody can argue that turbines can’t be seen. Whether you agree that they ruin the countryside or not is purely subjective and let us not forget; much of the countryside we love is man-made anyway.
• It’s intermittent. Agreed, but very few argue that wind can do the job on its own; it must be a part of a diverse energy mix.

The anti-wind sentiment goes much further than mere NIMBYism, and some of the protests do deserve to be taken seriously. However, there also seems to be a bit of a witch-hunt going on and articles like the one in question only makes it worse. The following example shows how strangely the anti-wind lobby can behave:

Much as I am wary of statistics and hypocritical it may be to use a statistic to cast dispersions on another statistic, I thought that this little titbit of information was rather interesting: Renewable UK monitor various media publications to gauge the public’s perception of wind power by examining the letters sent to praise or complain about the topic. They found that in 2001/2002 out of the 1190 letters that were published 727 of these were negative, but nearly 200 of these negative letters were written by just 12 people. That’s right, 12 people. [4] This is either really sad or – more probably – highlights a concerted effort by a few people to turn the public against wind power – just like the article.

What then do we do?

Something the writers left out of the article is, if we give up on wind; what then? Forgetting climate change for a moment – because they probably don’t believe it’s real anyway – and concentrating on other concerns such as rising energy prices, dwindling reserves of fossil fuels and security for the UK’s energy supply; what alternatives do they propose?

In the UK our choices are limited. The climate doesn’t lend itself to large-scale solar because of lack of decent sunlight. Nuclear, although a probable option, is very far from pollution-free and also very expensive; We do have the potential for wave and tidal energies, but both are fledgling industries and while they most definitely should be developed, they are not yet ready to fill the void. What we do have in the UK is wind. It may not be perfect but it’s our best option at the moment to start tackling the energy problem before it becomes a crisis. Or do we just carry on as normal and not do a thing?

The financial pinch with renewables will always come at the initial investment stage. It is a burden we have to bear. Alternatively, we could do nothing and simply let our children and grandchildren bear the brunt of whatever climate change may have up its sleeve, along with a much bigger bill to put it right. What’s happening now is exactly what the experts foretold when they said that climate change will cost more to adapt to the longer we leave it. This is it. This is the here and now where we have to spend and invest in the new technologies.

The simple law of economies of scale dictates that as more renewable energy technology is manufactured the price will come down. The RO and feed-in tariff subsidies are intended to do just that. If the lower prices are not then passed onto the consumer, then that’s an issue for the government to manage. It is not an excuse to halt the development of renewable energy.

Search any anti-wind forum and you will find a multitude of posts arguing that wind is being paid for by us, the taxpayer. There are also people who get annoyed that it’s foreign companies who are reaping the benefits of British wind farms. Well, it may be worth asking them to whom they pay their energy bill. It wouldn’t be a foreign energy company by any chance, would it?

It may be that the anti-wind lobby is relying on a techno-fix of another variety to save the day: Nuclear fusion or some kind of particle acceleration power generation may be relatively close – wonderful. But until the day the next form of clean energy emerges in such numbers that we can stop burning fossil fuels and tear down the turbines, we need a contingency plan.

The problems with the neodymium mining – and a plethora of other similar issues – cannot go on, agreed. But nor can we simply do nothing about climate change and shrinking energy reserves. No energy source is completely clean, but wind is cleaner than most. Also, with the backing of a growing, influential wind industry perhaps something can even be done to help clear up the mess at Baotou.

In summary then…

While wind may not be the perfect solution, it currently stands out as one of our best option to draw large amounts of energy from a renewable resource. It is understandable that many may have strong reservations over the technology, but the question should also be put to them: if not wind, then what? Protesting against wind energy with reasoned and valid arguments is one thing, and should be encouraged within a modern democracy. Writing misleading articles, however, in a national newspaper with the intention of swaying public opinions is not right (it’s nothing new either).

It must be mentioned, though, that the article should at least be praised for raising the issues happening in China, it’s just a shame it’s so mis-directed. Nevertheless, halting the expansion of the wind industry will not make the problems at Baotou disappear.

So, are we the public destined to languish in the middle of this eternal debate that climate change is a contrivance and everything we try to do to stop it is simply a governmental conspiracy or a corporate get-rich-quick scheme? Or are we are to forge ahead with something effective and meaningful? If so, this onslaught on wind power needs to stop.

Further reading on large-scale wind energy:

http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/131/20/Wind-Power—Large-Scale.html

http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/53/20/Wind-Power-Development-Critically-Examine-Major-Barriers.html

http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/201/20/Building-an-offshore-green-economy.html

http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/40/20/Wind-Power-An-Advantageous-Energy-Solution.html

References

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#comments

[2] http://www.baotou.com/pro/pro.htm#Neodymium

[3] http://www.whatareneodymiummagnets.com/uses.html

This article is going to look at the environmental impact of importing so many flowers at this time of year and also some of the social costs attached to them. It will examine a few of the ways we can be a little more energy efficient and ethically efficient when it comes to giving flowers.

The environmental impact

Often-cited concerns over the environmental impact of cut flowers are the carbon emissions resulting from transport and storage. A large proportion of the flowers we buy in the UK are grown in either Africa or South America. To transport these flowers entails large amounts of energy, not only to power the plane or ship, but also for the cold storage these flowers require to stay in good condition. The other option is buying flowers grown in Europe where these transport related emissions are much lower.

Unfortunately, the trouble with European flowers is that they require vast amounts of energy to power the hothouses in which the flowers are grown. In hotter climates such as Africa, however, there is no need for hothouses as the flowers are grown ‘naturally’. A 2007 study by Cranfield University [1] found that roses grown in Kenya used 53,000 megajoules (MJ) of primary energy and emitted 6000kg of CO₂ while roses grown in Holland used 520,000 MJ and caused 35,000kg of carbon to be released. That’s almost 10 times the energy required and 6 times the carbon emissions to grow the same number of flowers in Europe.

This study was for 12,000 roses and covers all aspects of the process from growth to transport. If we consider the massive amount of flowers that are given over this period, the carbon emissions from this purely luxury commodity soon add up. If we then include birthdays, anniversaries and times when us men have come home far too late from the pub, we are looking at huge quantities of energy and carbon.

So going by these results, it would seem prudent for environmentally aware people such as ourselves to make sure we buy flowers that are grown in hot counties. However, it’s not only the environment that should be considered when buying flowers.

Other considerations

Flowers grown in European countries tend to be governed by much stricter rules with regard to pesticide use and workers’ rights. In developing countries within Africa and South America, however, the picture is often very different.

A report by Food and Water Watch and The Council of Canadians [2] highlighted the problems with the massive flower-growing agribusiness at Lake Naivasha, Kenya. There are more than 30 flower farms around the lake and they have drastically drained and polluted the water, destroying the local ecosystem. There are also very poor labour standards and the pesticides being used are having a major effect on the local population, flora and fauna. All in all, it’s a pretty poor outlook for the environment and the people, plants and animals that live within it.

While this may be an extreme example, these types of problems are occurring all over the developing world in flower growing regions and the governance is not in place to stop it. The most powerful tool here is consumer power.

What other options are there?

There are currently steps being taken to improve the ethics behind the flower industry, but a lot more can still be done. By being a little savvy and more aware of the issue, we can hopefully send a message and speed up the process of fixing the problem.

Organisations such as Fair Flowers, Fair Plants [3] run both environmental and social certification programmes. These ensure that their associate growers adhere to high standards with regards to matters such as environmental stewardship, pesticide use and working conditions. Also look out for flowers that bear the Fairtrade logo. With this in mind you can buy flowers that are not only better for the planet, but also the people who grow them as well. There are also companies that sell bouquets of British grown flowers, so have a look out for these too.

Some other options at these special times of year are:

• Buy a plant that will grow, just like your love (euugh, sorry about that). Seriously though, it may not be as romantic as a bunch of flowers, but a quality rose plant will last many years and provide hundreds of blooms. You could perhaps also buy one of those bulbs that grow into a beautiful flower; but I would draw the line at a packet of seeds, though.
• Buy chocolates or some other romantic gift – perhaps an eco kettle or an energy saving light bulb.
• Start a campaign to move Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day to the middle of summer so we can all grow our own flowers to give as gifts.

In summary then…

Before you buy that special person a bunch of flowers, have a little think about what goes into them and where they are from. There are ethically grown flowers available and they are very easy to find. Bear in mind that just because flowers come from close to home they may not necessarily be more eco-friendly, but also reflect on the ethics behind the industry.

It would appear that the most environmentally friendly flowers in terms of carbon emissions are those from countries where they can be grown without the need for massive inputs of energy; but then there are the transport emissions to consider. Conversely, if flowers do come from these areas then we need to think about the other problems such as destroying the local environment and other social concerns.

I admit it’s a bit of a minefield, but if you can find a supplier you trust to deliver you ethical, environmentally friendly flowers, then tell your friends. Together we can all make a difference,

Now. I’m off to buy something for my wife for Valentine’s Day, or my environment will be suffering some catastrophic impacts. Feel the love.

References

[1] http://www.world-flowers.co.uk/12news/Comparative%20Study%20of%20Cut%20Roses%20Final%20Report%20Precis%2012%20Febv4.pdf

[2] http://www.canadians.org/water/documents/NaivashaReport08.pdf

[3] http://www.fairflowersfairplants.com/home-en.aspx