Energy Saving Advice | Energy Saving Information | Energy Saving Tips » James Martin

Job-Hunting in a Green Economy

James Martin — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 11:08:14 +0000

Politicians, charities and protesters fill our televisions, newspapers and blogs with endearing and impassioned pleas for greener investments, greener societies and – overall – a greener future. So with government investment either directly in, or to attract, greener industries, this surely results in a wealth of wonderfully high paying and rewarding jobs for us environmentalists seeking employment in the green economy, correct?

Well, I will neither tell you that jobs are aplenty, nor that you will find the elusive million pound contract, however here are a few potential websites devoted to advertising jobs in environmental sectors. Good luck!

1) http://www.greenjobs.co.uk/

Greenjobs is a vast database of vacancies in over 20 sectors; ranging from “Alternative Energy Jobs” to “Wind jobs” which are searchable via pay scale, region, level of authority or date added. In addition, Greenjobs offers the opportunity to upload your own CV for potential employers to peruse. Or, alternatively, you can sign up to have green jobs emailed to you tailored to your own individual preferences – so, the job hunting is done for you!

2) http://www.greenjobsonline.co.uk/

Greenjobsonline is a second high volume database with jobs spanning 20 sectors. Again, the site offers an option to search the jobs via region, keyword or salary range. Membership (free) allows emails to be sent with updates of new jobs posted, thus simplifying the entire job hunting experience.

3) http://www.environmentjob.co.uk/

Another “big hitter” in the green recruitment sector, Environmentjob offers email lists with constantly updated vacancies. The site has a slightly lower number of sectors through which to search, however still holds a vast number of jobs. It is simpler to use than the previous search engine and also provides information on courses, volunteer work and the employers themselves. You can also use environmentjob to upload your CV to allow a potential employer to find you!

4) http://www.greenjobs.com/Default.aspx

Note the difference between this “greenjobs” and the previously discussed “greenjobs” – “.com”. This greenjobs is an internationally focussed database and as such the vast majority of vacancies are held in America and Asia. The site allows you to upload CV’s, search jobs and sectors and to explore – or research – employers. In addition, it provides regularly updated “green news feeds” showing where new investments and vacancies are arising.

5) http://acre-resources.com/

Acre generally advertises senior level vacancies, however occasional graduate roles can be found on the site. With jobs spanning the globe and jobs advertised throughout 20 sectors, the database isn’t as large as the other sites previously mentioned. However Acre provides a wealth of additional support such as guides on entering the green job market, a wide range of courses and applicant CV advice. The site is a superb starting point for anyone to truly strengthen your application in the tough job market.

Finally, it is worth looking at additional websites such as newspapers for further sources of jobs. Each of the following also offers advice on CV writing and guidance on how to further your success in job hunting in the green economy. They are certainly worth a look. A few which are updated on a constant basis are:

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-jobs
The Times: http://jobs.thetimes.co.uk/jobs
The Daily Mail: http://jobs.dailymail.co.uk/

This article is a short guide to some of the popular sources of green jobs out there. It is by no means exhaustive but should provide a wide range of jobs available in the green market. It is also worth looking upon the websites of specific companies; Greenpeace, Shell, etc. So, with that in mind, all the very best of luck!

If you are seeking employment within the green sector then it is highly likely you have an interest in a sustainable lifestyle, see how our range of products can help you along your way.

The “Manipulated” or the “In Control”; Which are you?

James Martin — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 11:42:41 +0000

Think of a recent change to a policy in your area, or council, or even your country. A small change; like a new recycling bin? Or a larger change, like new Tax rules? Now how involved were you in making that decision? Were you in control of it or were you simply informed of it and soothed?

Governments and public bodies – like your council, local health bodies, national Government etc – all aspire toward empowering and involving service users in their decision making models. Perhaps you have been asked to participate in anything from focus groups to an evaluation survey. To explore the varying levels of participation we shall introduce the ground-breaking work of Sherry Arnstein. In 1969 Sherry Arnstein created what is known as “Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation”. Arnstein’s ladder presents 8 different degrees of empowerment, from dismissive manipulation to full citizen control. The ladder forms the basis of many, if not the majority, of efforts to involve people within decision making. Of course other issues also affect the influence of participation practices; the genuine intent, commitment, facilities and scope to influence decision making varies between each situation. This article shall introduce the 8 “rungs” to Arnstein’s ladder.

Manipulation

The lowest rung of the ladder. This is the least empowering form of participation. It involves power holders simply leading participants to assume they have been involved and engineering their support. It is an elaborate illusion to effectively educate and alter an individual into dropping protest. The flow of communication is likely to be very one way; top-down with power-holders setting the agenda, controlling the stage and being the heaviest of talkers within the “dialogue”. An example may be public presentations where speakers discuss an issue or proposal but allow little if any feedback or interaction for the audience to voice concerns.

Therapy

Described bluntly by Arnstein as “dishonest and arrogant”, such collaborations between power holders and participants are described as “therapeutic” when the former acts solely with the intention of soothing or “curing” concerns or protests via discussion and not action; in short, it is the “sweet-talking” and charm approach. Participants can be involved in a wide range of intensive activities under the illusion that they are participating in the power structure, when in reality, they are simply being involved in group therapy to alter their feeling and judgements of the issue, and not tackling the cause of the protest itself.

Informing

Sharing information with participants is a critical cornerstone of true and honest participation. The fault – and manipulation by power holders – occurs when this dialogue of information is one way; from power holders who are informing and dictating to the participants with, as Arnstein shows, no channel for feedback, evaluation or contribution. In this respect, information can easily be manipulated, altered or chosen selectively to sway and appease participants. Examples in current day include leaflets, household guides, articles and televised information – where changes are being presented to society, but there is little if any scope to respond, contribute or influence the final outcome. This echoes the aspect of manipulation in that power holders are attempting to win over participants. However in this situation they do so by informing residents; to talk residents around to what is on offer, not – as is the case in manipulation – to directly target issues of contention and talk the residents out of their protests.

Consultation

The fourth level of participation in Arnstein’s ladder. This is where individuals are indeed involved, but only upon a façade, or empty basis. For examples; Arnstein suggests that people involved within this rung are deduced as being nothing more than statistics for effect i.e; surveys encapsulate this thinking wherein time is spent answering questions however it is then unknown to what extent the results influence the outcome. Was the survey just a “ticked box” for power-holders to state they did involve participants or does it truly influence the outcome?

Placation

The fifth rung. This is where power holders grant the participants a low level of controlled influence. Placation can, for example, involve a focus group leading to discussions, however the extent to which comments and suggestions are taken onboard are still subject to the decisions of power-holders. Citizens may feel, at this stage, they have participated extensively…but not profited from the exchanges. Whilst, on the other side, power holders can argue they have engaged with participants and heard the concerns. How power holders then respond to these concerns is the real measurement of influence.

Partnership

Agreed roles and responsibilities with power is the critical defining aspect of partnership. Having negotiated responsibilities and powers, power holders and participants hold definitive and clear powers. Each are each able to dictate and direct the direction of policies, employ or dismiss specialists or experts and finally, obtain control of finances to operate effectively. For example; independent schools, local libraries, some Doctors practices etc.

Delegated Power

Through negotiations, participants adopt control of a wider range of responsibilities. This requires power-holders to acknowledge and accept the fairness, rights and perhaps even specialist knowledge, skills or experiences of participants to enable a successful and fruitful transition of power for the sake of the overall outcome. Overall, it is a model of partnership. Whilst perhaps not of equal influence, each group must work collaboratively with the other to ensure the success of the overall project.

Citizen Control

Finally, the top tier of Arnstein’s ladder. Full governance of projects or issues grants citizens the opportunity to arrange projects and operate in a manner befitting to their needs without external influence. This illustrates absolute control wherein citizens have full power over initiatives. They can dictate and direct the course of the project, employ or dismiss desired specialists and strive towards agreed goals out with any external influence.

Arnstein’s ladder remains, to this day, a pillar for any academic or political intent seeking to promote wider participation. Whilst various authors strive to build upon its work or evolve the ideas into a more modern society [1] and [2], the structure and fabric remains. Having looked at each stage, perhaps examples have emerged in your mind or when you may have been manipulated? Informed? Or perhaps held full control of an initiative? It is important to now be aware of each degree of involvement and to critique efforts of authorities who preach of sufficient participation…just how involved were their “participants” really?

Sherry R. Arnstein (1969): A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944366908977225

[1] http://www.engage.hscni.net/library/The%20Snakes%20and%20Ladders%20of%20User%20Involvement.pdf

[2] http://oro.open.ac.uk/8589/1/Path_paper_Collins_Ison.pdf

Flying Green: Where are the green airliners?

James Martin — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:39:34 +0000

For those of us fleeing to warmer climes to escape the upcoming winter, spare a thought for our environment. Yes, as environmentalists (or, as seems to be the norm; environ-mentalists. Oh dear) we do always give thought to the greener possibilities in our lives. When we do fly around, perhaps many of us peruse carbon calculators in an attempt to give an idea of just how many species or planets our lovely trip to the Maldives have cost the Earth (guilt trip?). You can look here for a few example carbon calculators;

1) http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/

2) http://carboncalculator.com/

3) http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx

4) http://www.carboncalculator.co.uk/

The sheer variety of carbon calculators – most from reputable sources – is overwhelming. However instead of utilising a calculator, why not compare how the airlines themselves are performing regarding their carbon emissions. This article shall present a summary of the Brighter Planet report into aviation to compare the carbon emissions and efficiency levels of some of our most common airlines companies.

Airlines consume an astonishing 75 billion gallons of fuel per year [1] and add 3 trillion pounds of carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. As a result, airline carriers are persistently facing the brunt of blame over environmental deterioration or carbon emissions. However, the efficiency of an airline is dependant upon a range of factors for example; aircraft used, the routes taken and the payloads within and, as such, there are mass variations between the carbon emissions of each airline. To explore and compare airlines, Brighter Planet assessed aspects such as the fuel economy of the fleet, seating density, freight share in the cargo-hold and, finally, of course, the distance of the flights. The key findings were:

The Most Efficient…

To achieve this analysis Brighter Planet looked at the average sum of fuel required to transport one pound of cargo or passenger in the average airline. In an international market, Cathay Pacific, United Airlines, Ryanair, Singapore Airlines and Delta proved most efficient among the world’s 20 largest carriers, whilst American Eagle were rated the worst with almost double the required fuel to transport passengers compared to Cathay Pacific.

Seating Density…

Like clowns in a mini, airliners try to cram as many passengers as possible within the aircraft to maximise passenger rate, return on fuel and economic return. It is worth noting that two airlines can have the same plane and engine, but with a different customised interior, thus affecting the capacity of passengers. Brighter Planet adopted a simple but stringent measurement by focussing upon a specific model (Airbus A320) which is in mass use throughout the industry. Taking the average number of seats across the industry within this plane, Brighter Planet then looked at the number of seats in the same plane in each company before dividing it by the average seat number for the industry to provide a coefficient. From this, the most efficient in terms of seating density are Easyjet, Ryanair and Cathay Pacific. The least efficient are British Airways, Lufthansa and Air France. British Airways, on average, had only a third of the number of seats as EasyJet. However this can be explained by Easyjets “no frills” approach compared to British Airways more spacious first class cabins, clearly taking up greater room and affectively costing “seating space”.

Passenger Load Factor…

Simply put; this is the number of filled seats on an average flight. Clearly having 100 seats with only 10 passengers within cannot be considered efficient. On this respect Brighter Planet has found Ryanair, Easyjet, Continental Airlines and Northwest Airlines to be most efficient with each having upwards of 75% of seats occupied. In contrast Southwest Airlines, Cathay Pacific and Lufthansa reported the least average occupancy rates, below the 75% load.

Freight Share…

This is the amount of space in a plane given over to commercial loads such as carrying mail etc. The higher the percentage, the greater the impact upon the average passenger’s carbon emission. In this respect, “no frills” airlines carried little – if any – additional cargo. Ryan-air, Easyjet Skywest Airlines, American Eagle and Expressjet Airlines reported carrying little if any additional cargo. Whilst Cathay Pacific and British Airways carried almost 30% and 20% respectively, thus leading to higher carbon emissions per passenger.

Distance…

Distance is, of course, a fundamental factor affecting the carbon emissions of a flight. With flight distances increasing steadily since 2003, Brighter Planet has looked at the average distance done by airlines. Short-haul flights are considered disastrous for carbon emissions, therefore longer flights equate to greener emission levels. In respect to the average distance Cathay Pacific, Air France and British Airways had the highest average length flights, whilst American Eagle, Skywest and ExpressJet Airways had the lowest leading to higher carbon emissions.

In Conclusion…

In a nutshell, overall Brighter Planet found that with all factors considered, the most efficient five airlines are:

1) Ryanair

2) Cathay Pacific

3) Easyjet

4) Continental Airlines

5) United Airlines.

And, at the other end of the spectrum, the worst five are:

1) American Eagle (emitting more than double the sum of carbon dioxide than Ryanair!)

2) Skywest Airlines

3) ExpressJet Airlines

4) Southwest Airlines

5) Lufthansa

It should be noted however that whilst airline companies consistently improve and renew their planes (with no Easyjet plane older than 3 ½ years) so too do carriers adopt alternative means to offset carbon. Easyjet, as an example, offer customers an option to offset their carbon by paying a small surcharge which goes towards UN approved carbon offsetting initiatives. This article hopes to have given a brief introduction to the Brighter Planet report and hopes to help you to understand just how carbon efficient your regular or preferred airline company truly is.

The Brighter Planet report can be found here:

[1] http://brighterplanet.com/

A Christmas Clearout: A Gift to Many

James Martin — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 23:03:34 +0000

Yes, that is right; it is indeed that time of the year again. Bah. And Humbug.

However, I promise it really isn’t any reason to despair. Indeed, this article is here to help de-clutter your life and all for a good cause.

Many of the enthusiastic among you will be preparing to clear out the house for Christmas. Many of the less enthused may be preparing to undertake the delayed spring clean…in time for Christmas. But whilst we trudge our under-bed hauls to the bins (or skip?), take a second; is there anything in there that others can use?

In every room of our homes there are a range of products we would happily throw out; they are no use or not wanted by us, therefore they are of no use to anyone else, right? Wrong. Many items we discard – like clothes, books and toys – are in good condition and can mean everything from a valued gift to one person, to a treasured possession of another. Whilst we happily throw out perfectly good products, here are three alternative options that ensure you can really, truly, make a difference to someone’s life…whilst tidying out the house before Christmas rolls around.

1. Charity Shops

We all know of the charity shops; perhaps we all love to meander around the charity shops. Charity shops are the number one stop for many of us who bypass our bins when clearing out the house. For Oxfam, shop donations raised £23million to support those living in poverty last year alone [1]. Charity shops gratefully accept everything from those summer clothes you bitterly swore you would fit into, to the inherited furniture that matches nothing else in the house. The things you think are worth the bin can be worth a lot for individuals or families elsewhere. You can find your local charity shop right here:

http://www.charityshops.org.uk/locator.php

2. Support Our Troops

Here’s an opportunity that is a little bit different. We all see the news, the television reports, the newspapers and perhaps even know of some friends and relatives out on the frontline. For Britain’s troops out “on the field” over Christmas, it can be a harrowing, lonely and heartbreaking time. Support Our Soldiers is one of few organisations officially recognised to provide donations and support from home. Whether you donate loose items from home – such as magazines or toiletry sets – all of these items can bring a touch of home and a sign of support for those facing dangerous situations at a difficult time. The range of accepted products is varied and shown below:

So here’s how it works. There are two options. Firstly you can gather up loose belongings and take them to a collection point – found here:

http://www.supportoursoldiers.co.uk/

Or, you can pop your goods into a shoebox and have the Royal Air Force deliver it to a soldier out on the fields. If opting for the shoebox option, you are welcome – indeed encouraged – to include a letter to the troop giving a bit of feedback from home. The gender of the recipient is also your choice. It is a simple and rewarding way of helping others by passing on the products you would otherwise discard.

3. Samaritans Purse

The Samaritans purse allows you to gift items to children in some of the World’s most challenging communities. From those ravaged by floods to those torn apart by civil wars.

Just like supportoursoldiers (above), you can either donate and shop online or pack up a shoebox and deliver it to one of many local collection points – which can be found through the website below. Samaritans Purse accepts a range of products including magazines, colouring books, sweets, toys and hygiene products. If making a shoebox with your child’s belongings, you can ensure that box goes to a child within a particular gender and age group. A unique feature of sending a shoebox with Samaritans Purse is the ability to track your box allowing you to see where your box ends up in the world!

For more information: http://www.operationchristmaschild.org.uk/about

Finally…

As you rummage through the wardrobes and cupboards – on your ruthless mission to clear space – it is truly worth taking a moment to consider if those belongings can make an enormous difference to anyone else before popping them in the bin. Making a Christmas box for either a soldier or child can be a highly educational and rewarding activity for young ones and helps significantly extend the lifespan of your goods. When you do start making those all important purchases for loved ones presents, why not consider an eco-friendly present such as our lovely range of soaps?

See, Christmas clearouts aren’t so bad after all, are they?

References

[1] https://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/shops/index.html

and

http://www.supportoursoldiers.co.uk/

http://www.operationchristmaschild.org.uk/about

Ten Ways in Which You Can Influence the Government

James Martin — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:57:49 +0000

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being poor and 10 being good…how would you rate your council? Your national Government? Wider bodies – such as the EU?

I imagine that not many of you will be giving top marks to all. So, how do you make a government better? How do you tell them what they are doing wrong? To tell them what you need? Well, here is a list of ten ways that you can influence our local or national governments without the need to stage a coup. Some methods you can even do without getting out of your bed in the morning!

1. Newspapers

Newspapers are a politician’s equivalent of Marmite. One day they love the praise, the next day they despise the criticism. And, as such, newspapers are very much an enormously strong weapon in your arsenal. Thousands of stories are taken to newspapers by members of the public – of hardship, of injustice or of discontent with representatives or policies. Those stories, dispatched nationwide (and beyond thanks to online news) create hordes of unwanted negativity for the government. Pressure from negative headlines and public backlashes can, and have, spurned policy U-turns and introductions of new laws (“Sarah’s Law”, for example, was the result of intense media pressure led by the rallying of the nation). Contacting newspapers with a story requires only a phone-call or an email to discuss the situation or to arrange a call-back.

2. Party membership/conferences

Almost every political party has an army of members, many numbering the tens of thousands. Membership is generally “free” however donations are gratefully received. Party membership is worthwhile; it allows you direct communication with those making policy and gives an unparalleled opportunity to contribute to, or vote upon, the policies that party sets out to achieve. Party conferences are the driving forces behind any party; for politicians it allows an opportunity to test or review policies and to measure the support they can rely on, as well as to understand the concerns or issues that need attention. For party members, conferences allow you the chance to question politicians, to raise suggestions or concern about policies and to seek further help – it truly is a chance to make or change policies for your favour.

Political parties need your contribution; is imperative to their very survival. Joining a party can be done over the phone or online. All parties represented in Westminster are shown here, with links to their personal websites where you can join a party today:

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/useful/politicalparties/

3. Petitions / Campaigns

Petitions are growing in strength every day. From being nothing more than a sign of grievance, petitions are now powerful orders direct to politicians; to listen to signatories and to act. In Westminster, petitions with 100,000 signatures are required – by law – to be debated within the chamber.

Current petitions and information on how to start your own petition are available here:

UK Government: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/
Scottish Government: http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
National Assembly for Wales: http://www.assemblywales.org/gethome/e-petitions.htm

4. Comment on policies at consultation stage

Governments are obliged to seek insight from the public through consultation in the stages of policy design and to review opinions once instigated. On occasion, the government may assign facilities and resources to allow public meetings to occur, or they may allow for electronic or hardcopy submissions to be sent to the appropriate body. In addition, many councils conduct door-to-door surveys which allow a direct say upon local or national policies. These comments must be logged and reported throughout the construction and review of a policy and these reports must then be available to the public (subject to national security concerns etc). Information on governmental consultations at national, devolved and local levels is available here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/PublicConsultations/DG_170463

5. MSP/MP’s

One sure-fire way of being heard is to take your cause straight to politicians, either local councillors or your national representatives. Politicians hold regular “clinics” in their constituencies to meet the public and to discuss their concerns. Local councils, libraries, schools or community centres will be able to tell you more about when and where your politician will make an appearance. To find your local council representative, national representative or even international representative – complete with email, telephone and address contact details – have a look here:

http://www.writetothem.com/

6. Community meetings

Local community groups may have the power and funds to make decisions for your community, allowing a direct opportunity to: contribute ideas, raise concerns or, finally, be involved in decision making for your community. In addition, community groups are acknowledged as being a representative voice of the area and those within. Community groups are respected by politicians both at local and national level who will work on your behalf and may escalate the situation to a national chamber if required. Your local council, libraries, schools or community centres will be able to tell you more about what groups work for your area as well as contact details and information of future meetings (and, in some instances, copies of the minutes from previous meetings)

7. Focus groups

Focus groups are an amalgamation of consultation groups and local community meetings, each discussed in earlier points. Focus groups can be used in national and local parameters. National focus groups are used by governments to garner a sample of the population; to find a fairly representative group upon which to “test” proposals or seek feedback and/or advice on the best way to progress forward. National focus groups generally represent society; socio-economic issues such as age, income, education etc are all considered to ensure a well balanced group to provide reliable contributions for policy makers to base decisions on. Local focus groups are set up with a specific mission in mind – for example, to reduce litter or traffic. Local focus groups may seek input from the wider neighbourhood to capture views on an issue or seek feedback on proposed solutions. Dependant upon the level of power held by the focus group, the proposals may then be initiated into action or escalated to community groups or local/national government for consideration. Local councils, libraries, schools or community centres are a key source of information on such groups within your area and may be able to tell you more about what groups are working for your area, what objective they are working for as well as contact details.

8. Public question-times – televised programmes

Televised debates and open question-times make a good politician sweat and a poor politician crash. Politicians taking questions – either on a national stage (such as the leader’s debates 2010, Question-Time etc) or smaller scale at public hustings in your area – have no idea of what questions may come their way. They therefore have to be at their best to provide the right answers at the right time. Bringing your concerns directly to a politician on television or another public forum can allow you an opportunity for a direct response.

9. Elections – local/national

Perhaps the simplest method of them all! If a government isn’t serving your needs; get them out! Elections give the loudest judgement of our satisfaction with current and potential leaders. You can vote in person, via mail or permit another individual to vote on your behalf. Ensure you are registered to vote by updating your details here:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/voter-registration

10. Stand in your council or parliament

If you can’t beat them, join them! If you want a more direct influence within political decision making and to improve your area then become a politician! Local or national elections at community, council, region and national levels are held periodically – or via a by-election when a candidate needs replacing. What better way to lead efforts to improve your community than by standing for your area and leading from the front? To stand in your area as a candidate you must stand either as a party representative (see the links previously on how to join a party) or you can stand as an independent.

To stand for parliament you must not be either a police officer, civil servant or bankrupt. Those with criminal convictions, having served more than 12 months in a jail, are also not eligible to stand. A deposit of £500 is required to be paid should you wish to stand in your area as a potential candidate, however if standing for a party, that party should cover this cost. This cost must be paid to your returning officer by a designated deadline. In addition, the returning officer requires ten signatures upon your nomination papers from residents within your chosen constituency. Those signing the nomination papers must be eligible to vote. And then, with that done and dusted…you are free to run as a candidate; go on, you know you want to…good luck!!!

Waste Policy For England: When New Governments Inherit “Old” Policies?

James Martin — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:25:41 +0000

Does a new government develop upon the progress of the departed party? Or is everything thrown out and a fresh approach taken? This article shall briefly present two key documents dictating waste policy in England; Labours “Waste Strategy for England 2007” (WSE) and the Coalitions “Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011” (RWP).

Recycling rates in England have “nearly quadrupled” to 27% by 2005-06 whilst land-filling of waste fell 9% between 2000-01 and 2004-05 [1] due, according to the WSE to the Landfill tax escalator and Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS, is to be withdrawn after the 2012/2013 year with increasing landfill tax encouraging cleaner, greener waste management practices).

Labours WSE set 5 key objectives:

Decouple waste growth from economic growth and put more emphasis on prevention and reuse.
Meet and exceed landfill directive diversion targets for biodegradable municipal waste in 2010, 2013 and 2020.
Increase diversion from landfill of non-municipal waste and secure better integration of treatment for municipal and non-municipal waste.
Secure investment in infrastructure needed to divert waste from landfill and for the management of hazardous waste.
To get the most environmental benefit from that investment through increased recycling of resources and recovery of energy from residual waste using a mix of technologies.

The delivery of this strategy relies upon core proposals which bear heavy attention within the WSE as well as the RWP and shall be compared to explore how government attitudes, ambitions and objectives to each have evolved:

Incentivise efforts to: reduce, reuse, recycle and recover energy from waste.
Reform regulation to drive the reduction of waste and divert resources from landfill.
Develop markets for recovered materials that will maximise the value of materials and energy recovered.

Like the WSE, the RWP cements its ambitions and commitments in adhering with the Waste Hierarchy; aiming to first reduce waste, before reusing, recycling, recovering and finally, disposing of materials. Throughout the review, early contrasts are clear. The current coalition government promote and maintain that “innovation” will boost recycling and success within the markets. It is difficult however, to understand quite what is meant by this “innovation” as scant development of the idea is given – new technology? New thinking? New opportunities? Secondly, the RWP explores the economics of waste (the costs of waste, savings of future policies and the economic privileges to be reaped from newer practices) in greater attention absent from the WSE. It is perhaps a sign of the times – of stringent economic restraint – that a change of focus is now apparent; from the socio-environmental comfortable collaboration of the WSE, to the brutally economically minded foci of the RWP. The article shall take the three intentions for the WSE and contrast the interpretations and visions of the previous Labour government and new Conservative-Liberal coalition.

1 – “Incentivise efforts to: reduce, reuse, recycle and recover energy from waste.”

Waste Strategy: The WSE promotes a strong sense of stakeholder involvement; of conversation and partnership. The government aims to seek common ground in a bid to understand concerns behind the creation of the WSE. Labours commitment to stakeholder involvement has led to provisions of resources to enable stakeholder engagement – adhering with demands set within the EU Waste Framework Directive, Rio Declaration and Aarhus Convention. Plaudits are due on this success and the party committed to furthering the ability of stakeholders to contribute to policy creation. Secondly, challenges are acknowledged early; packaging waste is seen as the key concern to be tackled via: agreements with relevant industries, establishment of a products and materials unit within DEFRA and, finally, the development of schemes to promote producer responsibility. In short, the WSE appears to promote a sociological “knitting” together of societal comradery and light business responsibility, led by central government towards greener practices and behaviours.

Review of Waste Policy: The review applauds the acceptance of recycling as an everyday “social norm” but emphasises the need for waste reduction. Prevention of waste – to save businesses, consumers and local authorities financial hardship – is deeply embedded throughout the review. The review suggests a radical “production line overhaul” to remove hazardous materials and improve greener efficiency where possible. In addition, the paper places confidence in the claim that awareness changes to purchasing patterns would help drive innovation in the production sectors. The government plans to improve production methods and awareness through; a small waste prevention fund allowing businesses to undertake waste prevention schemes, developing a suite of waste prevention toolkits, promoting sustainable procurement and, finally, to redesign business models to wean firms from high resource dependency. The coalitions review centres deeply upon the economical aspect of sustainable development in delivering a focussed and deeply committed outline to detach responsibility from central government. With a determined eye to implement producer responsibility, the coalition shows unwavering commitment to tighten court proceedings and fines for firms who commit malpractice. Despite a national “tightening of the belts”, current fines for householder misuse of recycling resources are to be scrapped, being replaced by civil penalties. Whilst the coalition seem deeply economically entrenched in their approach, so too do they intend to explore the potential to financially reward high performing households – a very warmly welcomed policy which, it is expected, shall increase recycling significantly. The great emphasis upon the economics of current waste – and future waste management – is open to interpretation and opinion. Many may see it as self-serving moneymaking forsaking the environment, whereas others may applaud the deep attention and realism adopted here in tough economic times.

2 – Reform regulation to drive reduction of waste and divert resources from landfill

Waste Strategy: Labour acknowledge that businesses should take responsibility for the environmental impacts of products they place on the market. In response, the government plans to work with the industry to amend the producer responsibility regulations to minimise packaging, whilst “keeping in mind businesses commercial objectives”. Whilst E.U objectives to recover 60% of packaging and recycle 55% are expected to be met, the Labour government is committed to bringing forth legislative measures to enforce cleaner, greener action from business whilst committing to work in partnership to support and advise when necessary. As discussed previously, the tact of labour appears one of companionship and a progressive partnership, the commitment to enhancing the accountability of producers is a key aspect, however this is given far greater attention within the RWP

Review of Waste Policy: The policy review believes that “better environmental outcomes can, in many circumstances, be delivered in the least burdensome way through a voluntary approach rather than legislation”. Instead the government intends to develop “voluntary business deals” to encourage agreed changes with businesses. It is not stated whether this will be a business-by-business approach or an industry-wide approach, however it clearly presents a detachment from central government with responsibility placed upon business and society; a pre-emptive, preventative approach as opposed to a reactive “tidying up” approach. However, with this in mind, it does show a short contradiction of earlier authoritative guarantees to enhance court proceedings and punishments. Is the vision to work with co-operative businesses but crack down on those who do not comply? Does that short-change the notion of “voluntary”?

3 – Stimulate investment in collection, recycling and recovery infrastructure and develop markets for recovered materials that will maximise the value of materials and energy recovered.

Waste Strategy: Energy recovery from waste is an exceptionally strong theme in both papers and so rightly merits attention. The WSE states that reusing waste for energy production is “essential”, an argument supported by rising energy costs and instability of supplies. However the strategy also acknowledges – or purports – that the public fears over alleged health effects remain a core hindrance to such energy production methods. The need for suitable markets for waste produce and/or energy production is of paramount importance to drive sustainable progress. WRAP – created by the Labour administration – increased prospects by developing profitable applications for recycled materials, investing in the recycling sector and providing analysis for businesses and will undertake consultation with arena stakeholders with further support from the government. Whilst providing greater attention to the issue than the RWP, the WSE seems void of any great detail, vision or substantiated plans which could cause concern, scepticism and a wavering of confidence amongst business leaders and society.

Review of Waste Policy: A green economy is essential to energy security, resource efficiency and resilience to climate change. With an admirable and ambitious vision for a “zero waste economy”, a long term market in waste materials is essential. The recycling market is worth “£11billion and forecast to grow by approximately 3-4% a year for at least the next few years”, offering immense wealth with the industry expected to grow by 37% by 2020. In this respect, we can see where the commitment to “innovation” could find a footing to develop effective, efficient and sustainable energy recovery markets. The coalition government make a commitment to invest in, and communicate, the range of technologies available to seek commercially viable business plans and markets whilst working collaboratively with authorities and businesses to overcome barriers or promote the aspirations of the Anaerobic Digestion Strategy (a policy aiming to overcome barriers and maximise the potential of energy recovery initiatives). The RWP provide brief – but credibly detailed – discussion on both the current and potential future for energy production, providing a mix of realistic – and fascinating – visions and solutions to existing and potential problems.

Conclusion

This article has sought to provide a brief comparison between the vision and strategy of a previous labour government, with that of the current conservative-liberal coalition. There is indeed common ground beyond these points above, for example, both are deeply committed to public awareness campaigns with each acknowledging the importance of a well informed public. However as suggested here, there is variation in the interpretation, vision and strategy each paper adopts. Regardless of the direction in which each seeks to travel, or when or how it shall come about, one thing is clear; Both are committed to the same outcome; A cleaner, greener Britain that can benefit from a new “Green Economy”.

References:

Waste Strategy for England 2007: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/strategy07/documents/waste07-strategy.pdf

Government Review of Waste Policy in England 2011: http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13540-waste-policy-review110614.pdf

Recycling With Wales

James Martin — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 19:10:01 +0000

It’s not too often that you may consider your government over-ambitious. Perhaps even less often you expect they shall live up to your expectations. It is exemplary then, that the Welsh Assembly can lay claim to being both ambitious in its objectives and commendable in exceeding expectations.

Ten years ago, in 2002, waste within Wales was a contentious issue. The Welsh Assembly openly admitted that waste was a problem [1]. In 2000-2001, recycling of municipal waste stood at just 6.4%, by 2002 over 4 millions tonnes of materials were sent to landfill [2]. The newly-formed “Waste in Wales” national strategy sought to remedy the situation and determined that, by just 2009/2010, recycling should increase six-fold to 40% [1]; an extraordinarily bold ambition. Furthermore, the 2002 national strategy also aspired to:

Establish 3-4 exemplar local authorities to develop good practice models
Set-up the first permit system to restrict the bio-degradable municipal waste going to landfill, from local authorities
Design and disperse effective environmental education materials for all the community

Here, this article shall briefly present the gradual annual progress made by a nation towards its targets.

In 2000-2001, Wales recycled just 6.4% of household waste [2]. The newly formed “Wise About Waste” plan, in 2002, granted newfound focus and attention to both the problems and opportunities of adequate waste management. This was the starting block of a change. The plan explores – in great detail – an array of waste minimisation and treatment targets, objectives and strategies.

In the immediate shadow of the Wise About Waste plan, Wales acted with speed and determination. In 2002-2003 – just a year after the introduction of the new plan – recycling increased from 154,000 tonnes to 212,000 tonnes whilst land-filled waste dropped from 1,547,000 tonnes to 1,497,000 tonnes [3].

Whilst an early commendable success, the overall amount of municipal waste created crawled upwards to 1,820,000 tonnes in 2003-2004 [3]. Indeed the Assembly found itself battling a continuous increase in waste generation – reaching a height of 1,928,000 tonnes in 2004-2005 despite recycling also hitting a new high of 280,000 tonnes in 2004-2005 [3]. It was becoming apparent that services and strategies were not sufficient on their own, instead the very attitudes and behaviours of Welsh citizens had to change; a new environmental paradigm needed to be communicated and embedded throughout welsh society. Awareness materials, campaign messages and the implanting of both sustainable development and interdisciplinary cross-bordering thinking amongst policies embedded the idea and vision of a cleaner, greener Wales throughout Government and Society.

In 2005/2006, waste accumulation took a significant drop, down to 1,898,000 tonnes of municipal waste [3]. With a new recycling high of 347,000 tonnes – 21.5% compared to 6.4 just five years earlier. This stage, this year, was a significant signal to Wales. As the “halfway” point toward the 2010 40% target, it was clear that indeed, successes were evident, but more needed doing; more opportunity needed to be exploited, more energy required to enhance current participation rates and more efforts to commit to objectives.

In a bid to expose opportunities and threats, the government undertook a national survey to ascertain behaviours and attitudes. The “Living in Wales” survey of 2007 disclosed that 96% of respondents reported having participated in at least one environmental activity (A narrow increase from 95% in 2005) [4]. The range of activities considered “environmental” are broad and include common everyday issues such as using public transport to recycling waste, despite this, a positive response rate of 96% would perhaps have made the Assembly both ecstatic at the achievement, but perhaps distressed in wondering what more could now be done to ensure the achievement of the looming 2010 target.

Closer inspection of the results provides clear answers to the Assembly’s concerns; Improvements could, perhaps, still be made. It was found that those living in (i) older households (ii) households with higher incomes (iii) detached/semi detached homes, were found to participate noticeably more than those in younger households, those with lower incomes and those living within flatted accommodation. Two of those points were worth consideration. Older households significantly outperformed younger households in stating that they participated in all of the environmental activities offered within the 2007 survey. Secondly, those in flatted accommodation recycled significantly less in comparison to those within detached, semi-detached and terraced homes. These two aspects alone, allow for significantly large opportunities to reach out to householders and further the recycling agenda.

Renewed and re-energised efforts provided rich rewards. In 2009-2010, Wales topped the 40% recycling target in achieving a 40.5% success rate [3]. Such an extraordinary achievement illustrated the efforts and commitments to the residents of Wales towards a cleaner and greener nation, illustrating a collective ambition and drive toward the common goal. Whilst a laudable achievement, it must be pointed out that landfill at this stage still remained the main method of waste management, however, for the first time, landfill waste volumes dropped below 1,000,000 tonnes threshold to 931,000 tonnes [3].

Having merited such successes and credibility, the Welsh Assembly set new targets for recycling; to commit to 70% of municipal waste being recycled by 2025 – and matching an equal target to their Scottish counterparts in Holyrood. In early 2011, a snapshot shows us recycling in Wales has risen again, up to 43%. Whilst municipal waste increased from 367,000 tonnes to 378,000 tonnes between the January – March period of 2010 to January – March 2011 [5], the Assembly states this to be an anomaly caused by weather-induced disruption to collection services. In addition, the Assembly released new data showing the estimated waste accumulated by each resident of Wales, showing an estimated drop from 95kg each in Jan-March 2007 to 65kg in January – March 2011; a drop of almost a third per individual! [5]

As always though, there is space for improvement to further push Wales onto the road of reaching their new targets. In the regional dissection of data, Bridgend increased recycling between 2010 and 2011 by 11%, reaching 34% and Ceredigion outperformed all others with 41% of waste recycled [5]. In contrast however – and offering scope for potential – Flintshire recycling rates dropped 8% in the 2010-2011 year to 24% whilst Gwynedd remains the community with the greatest challenge, currently recycling 23% of waste in 2011, followed closely by Flintshire and Cardiff on 24% [5].

This brief snapshot at recycling in Wales shows a country grasping its full potential and making drastic improvements to its recycling efforts. Having exceeded previous targets, Wales is a country with determination and commitment. Indeed – and perhaps in its favour – there are communities and aspects which offer scope for improvement. Hopefully these communities are not facing cumbersome problems and can offer Wales, overall, a chance to further enhance their recycling achievements.

[1] http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/waste_recycling /publication/wiseaboutwaste/

[2] http://wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/headlines/environment2010/0121/?lang=en

[3] http://wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/headlines/environment2010/101116/?lang=en

[4] http://wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/headlines/social2008/hdw20081212/?lang=en

[5] http://wales.gov.uk/topics/statistics/headlines/environment2011/110628/?lang=en

Of interest:

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/waste_recycling/ publication/wiseaboutwaste

Aarhus Convention

James Martin — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:19:14 +0000

The Aarhus Convention – known in long form as the “Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters” was held in Aarhus, Denmark on 25^th June 1998 and has since been ratified – into law – by 41 countries, including the U.K [1].

Described by Kofi Annan as “the most ambitious venture in the area of environmental democracy so far taken under the auspices of the United Nations” [2], the convention sought to install and promote “three pillars” amongst member-states:

1) Access to information

2) Public participation in decision making

3) Access to justice in environmental matters

This article is a brief introduction to the purpose of the Aarhus convention. It shall then explore each of the three pillars, illustrating the progress of the U.K Government to implement each within governmental decision making models.

The Purpose of Aarhus

Aarhus was instigated to elaborate upon principle 10 of the Rio Declaration 1992. That Rio declaration also sought to encourage public participation within environmental decision making – in local and national government. The Aarhus convention sought to “go one further” in designing and enforcing the three pillars within the mandatory legislative practices of member states, committing the government to the principles or face legal actions. Legal instruments are considered an unequivocally successful method to instil public participation within the governmental policy making process.

Many – including the UK government itself – acknowledge the critical role played by Aarhus in providing remedy toward a “lack of trust between people and their governments especially where environmental matters were concerned” [2]. It is hoped, therefore, that Aarhus could provide the dialogue between governments and society.

1) Access to Information

“The parties to this convention [recognise] that…improved access to information and public participation in decision-making enhance the quality and the implementation of decisions, contribute to public awareness of environmental issues, give the public the opportunity to express its concerns and enable public authorities to take due account of such concerns” – The Aarhus Convention, page 1 [3].

Member states are required to provide clear and easy access to all environmental information relevant to public interests to ensure accountability and transparency. Aarhus calls upon member states to acknowledge the value of providing public access to information in strengthening the quality and implementation of decisions.

In the United Kingdom, such powers are ensconced within regulation 03/4/EC granting public access to information held by all public bodies – either via electronic means or upon request. The UK has, on this element, won support from Friends of the Earth for promoting such efforts in an efficient and timely manner – as well as public access to wide ranging information via electronic databases and websites. However, further progress could also be made; Yemen, for example, has won wide praise for the creation of “Aarhus centres” – information points set up across the country to facilitate information sharing, disseminate public notices and provide advice to citizens. This is something the U.K acknowledges could be done in the future to enhance public access to governmental information.

2) Public Participation in Decision Making

“The parties to this convention…consider that…citizens must…be entitled to participate in decision making” and “public needs to be aware of the procedures for participation in environmental decision-making” – Aarhus convention, page 1[3].

Timely and early access to information is a mandatory objective within the Aarhus convention. Governments must allow scope for the public – or NGOs – to provide submissions for consideration. In doing so, governments must ensure the public are given early notice of intentions and to provide all relevant information for the public to access before being informed of the means and methods for providing contributions.

Despite being a signatory, the UK has shown only lukewarm motivation and enthusiasm in adopting this objective. In a DEFRA letter of 15^th October 2010 – seeking public input into an Aarhus progress report – consultees were offered the opportunity to “comment” upon the efforts undertaken to date by the UK. It is worth noting that whilst the letter requests comment, it provides no clear indication that such feedback would influence the report. The letter explicitly states no guarantee to protect the confidentiality of participants; a clear violation of the values and ambitions of the Aarhus convention and could be a deterrence to those wishing to contribute (see [4]).

3) Access to Environmental Justice

“The parties to this convention…consider that citizens…must have access to justice in environmental matters, and acknowledging in this regard that citizens may need assistance in order to exercise their rights” – Aarhus convention, page 1[3].

It is a mandatory requirement that member states provide legislative scope for the public to raise court actions when affected, or endangered, by environmental decisions. Member states must ensure – as illustrated previously – that information on how to bring about such actions are visibly available to members of the public.

Such actions demand financial commitments from those raising judicial actions and this has been acknowledged as the main deterrent for citizens in bringing forward valid complaints. To overcome this barrier, The Aarhus convention demands that member states enable such procedures to be free of charge for users, granting unparalleled opportunity to those seeking to raise such actions [3].

In the 2010 meeting of delegates, in Moldova, the UK was lambasted on its failure to implement free court proceedings for such situations. The UK has argued that current provisions in offering legal-aid to low income individuals should suffice to meet this demand. However at Moldova, the UK was forced to concede that current provisions were not adequate and was granted 3 years to remedy this situation and report back to the U.N [5].

Conclusion

This brief article has presented – indeed, simplified – the main aims of the Aarhus convention. The convention in itself was extraordinary in demanding that participation (access to information, participation in decision making and, finally, access to environmental justice) be embedded within legislature among member states. Whilst some states continue to translate Aarhus as a political – as opposed to legal – consideration, those governments are quickly held to account. Aarhus is unique in giving power to the public whilst holding governments to account in a wholly new transparent manner and provides both protection for the individual as well as the environment.

[1] http://www.inece.org/conference/7/vol1/22_Kremlis.pdf (accessed September 2011)

[2] http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn256.pdf (accessed September 2011)

[3] http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/documents/cep43e.pdf (accessed September 2011)

[4] http://archive.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/aarhus/101015-aarhus-letter.pdf (accessed September 2011)

[5] http://www.iisd.ca/ymb/aarhus/mop4 (accessed September 2011)

Introduction to the Waste Framework Directive

James Martin — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:03:05 +0000

The Waste Framework Directive (WFD) is an integral piece of legislation reinvigorating current policies and inspiring new practices to protect the health of society and of our environment. But what is this directive and what is it about?

What is the directive?

Well, it is the newer, shinier and all better directive to replace the old version – Directive 2006/12/EC. This new directive repeals out-dated commitments and provides the foundation for localised waste minimisation strategies. In its immediacy, the WFD offers greater clarity on broad terminology, determining a consistent definition of what “waste” is; what its place is in the European Community and, finally, what future is envisioned for waste and waste management.

What is the directive about?

Put simply; the directive commits member states to work towards the objective of becoming a “recycling society” for the protection of the environment and human health. The WFD commits member-states to vigorously assess their current efforts and to grasp potential options for further progress.

This guide shall present an overview of the WFD looking at (i) the key terminology (ii) the role of the WFD in promoting the waste hierarchy within member states via Waste Plans and finally (iii) enforcement options to encourage success.

Key terminology

The WFD sets clear definitions of key waste terms (see article 3):

Waste: “any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard.”
Hazardous waste: “waste which displays one or more of the hazardous properties listed in annex II”
Waste Producer: “anyone whose activities produce waste (original waste producer) or anyone who carries out pre-processing, mixing, or other operations resulting in a change in the nature or composition of this waste.”
Waste Management: “the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste, including the supervision of such operations and the after-care of disposal sites including actions taken as a dealer or broker”
Recycling: “any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations.”

Waste Hierarchy

The WFD seeks to re-invigorate efforts within member-states to understand and adopt the waste hierarchy (shown below). The waste hierarchy illustrates the hierarchy of processes that should be sought before waste is ultimately disposed (via landfill or other means).

As shown above, the first aspiration of any producer or member-state should be to reduce waste at the source; that is to eliminate waste through careful planning and strategic selection of materials and processes. Article 9 requests member states to produce action plans on how to implement waste reduction strategies with a set deadline of 2014.
Beyond reduction, waste should be reused as a resource – an example in the household could be to re-use jam jars for other means. The WFD requires member states to implement strategic “instruments and policies” to allow such networks to emerge and grow – such as deterring disposal or promoting greener efforts.
Thirdly; if waste cannot be reduced or reused, it should then be recycled to allow value to be recaptured in the re-use of the materials. The Directive dictates that member states should initiate separate waste collection schemes to collect at least 50% of recyclable waste through the introduction of segregated waste collections for at least paper, metal, plastic and glass materials by 2020.
Fourthly; recovery. We aim to find energy or material value from the waste through the use of “necessary measures”. In this aspect, the directive seems vague and broad; little information is given regarding expectations, targets or limitations. However what is meant here is the treatment of waste to recover energy such as through incineration or biomass treatment facilities.
The final option – and least favoured – is disposal, such as land-filling. Land-filling is a final resort when no value or alternative solution is possible. When disposing of waste, member states are required to ensure the safe treatment and disposal of waste by allocating permits to authorised and competent agents (permits are highlighted at a later stage).

Waste Plans

Member states are obliged to devise Waste Plans to tackle waste throughout the entirety of their geographical boundaries. These plans analyse the current waste management policies and strategies in their jurisdictions with measurable and comparable assessments. Member states must clearly demonstrate current efforts and propose commitments to reduce, reuse and recycle waste to deliver upon WFD ambitions demonstrating what new materials or facilities are necessary to meet targets. Should new facilities be required, detailed Environmental Impact Assessments and Strategic Environmental Assessments are must be provided to the European Union Parliament.

To enhance the potential for the success of waste plans, member-states must also illustrate the organisational structure responsible for dealing with waste to illustrate where responsibilities lie. An important aspect of Waste Plans worth attention is the encouragement of initiatives to support positive action; member states are encouraged to devise economic instruments to encourage positive action and deter counterproductive behaviours or attitudes. Similarly, sufficient awareness campaigns are a core requirement to educate and encourage the public to participate in such recycling schemes (under section 31).

Enforcement

To enforce local Waste Plans to achieve the requirements of the WFD, member-states are permitted to instigate all necessary economic and legislative measures to achieve the aims of the directive (see section 36). In doing so, states are encouraged to instil effective punishment criteria – befitting crime – upon those impeding progress or posing harm to the environment or to human health. In a bid to avert such outcomes however, member states are encouraged to promote the polluter pays principle (PPP) and to instigate and disperse authoritative permits as preventative measures;

Polluter Pays Principle (PPP)

The Polluter Pays Principle seeks to encourage member states to seek damages and remediation costs from polluters (article 14). Member states are encouraged to provide adequate economic and legislative conditions that (i) recoup costs from polluters and (ii) allow producers to explore and instil environmentally conscious practices and materials into their business streams. Further information on the PPP can be found here:

http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/314/20/A-Quick-Guide-The-Polluter-Pays-Principle.html

Tradable Permits

Tradable permits allow member-states to disperse “licenses” to agents responsible for undertaking waste management, waste transportation or waste disposal activities. The WFD reiterates the importance that member states record comprehensive and contemporary information on permit-holders. This information must include, without exception:

Specific types of waste permitted
Specific quantities of waste permitted
Safety and precautionary measures to be taken
Methods of operations
Monitoring and control operations as required
Closure and after-care plans if applicable.

This guide had provided a brief overview of the Waste Framework Directive. The Directive was instigated to replace the out-dated Directive 2006/12/EC and provide clarity and detail on terminology and direction. The directive is ambitious in committing member-states to undertake comprehensive and detailed assessments of current initiatives before then committing to targeted waste plans toward ambitious objectives.

For further information, the directive can be found here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0098:EN:NOT

The Beginners Guide…to the Beginners Guides

James Martin — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:21:19 +0000

OK, so you want to go green(er)? But where to start? Should you improve your know how on why we need to change – so as to justify to the neighbours why a goat is eating their bushes? Or…should you jump right in and start reducing your impact by, say, making the kids push the car rather than ride in it or by shredding the bills to insulate the walls?. It is tricky to know where to begin. So you google up a “beginners guide to going green” and get “about 2,240,000” results. Fantastic.

To ensure you are getting useful and reliable information from any source you use, here is a few quick pointers on what to look for in an online article or guide;

1. Is the source trustworthy:

Have a look at that site you are on. Is it a trustworthy or reliable source – for example is it a governmental or environmentally oriented source – like the energy saving trust? Or is it a blog? Whilst blogs can – and do – offer good advice, reliable and trustworthy sources offer concrete advice worth your confidence. Another indicator of website reliability are accreditation awards. Many sites are from companies who are accredited for their works and showing a recognised accolade for quality helps support the reliability of their advice.

2. Is information referenced or supported?

Claims and statements should be backed up by substantiated information. Information not supported by statistics or other sources could be exaggerated, misconstrued or completely false. Check for evidence of the statements or claims made before making a decision based upon the information from the site!

3. Is information consistent?

Check that advice and facts do not change or contradict each other throughout the article. This is a sure-fire way to spot incorrect or misinterpreted information on the part of the author and could save you making costly decisions on inaccurate information!

4. Is information up-to-date?

If you are looking for advice or support you need to know the information is up-to-date. The reference list is useful here. Check the references or the time periods that information is taken from to ensure you are not basing a decision on outdated information

5. Fact vs Assumption vs Opinion

It is easy to read something online, take it as granted and then act upon it. However many writers can diverge from providing a factual guide, onto offering an opinion or assumption or suggestions from their experiences. Whilst experience is a laudable source of valued advice, such information has value only in limited contexts; for example: product reviews.

Conclusion

These are just a few select assessments to make of any information upon an online source. If you are keen to alter your lifestyle, brush up on an issue or two, or you are simply curious about a particular issue, then it is important that information is suitable to your cause before you invest your time – and perhaps – your money.