How does it work? [2] & [3]

• The drinks manufacturer adds a 10p deposit to the price of every bottle or can with a maximum capacity of 500ml and 30p for bottles or cans with a larger capacity sold to the retailer.
• The retailer then adds the 10p to the price to the consumer.
• The consumer (or if someone picks up the bottle or can from the street) collects the 10p deposit when he/she returns the bottle or can to the retailer or supermarket
• The retailer reclaims the 10p deposits when they return the container to the manufacturer/distributor
• The manufacturer/distributor then gets the money from selling the containers for recycling.

Impacts of a bottle deposit scheme

A reduction of litter

Through introducing a bottle deposit scheme by legislation, the amount of litter could decrease dramatically.  Container deposits are neutral for consumers who recycle, penalise people who litter and provide an incentive for people to pick up litter.  A deposit scheme would achieve a change in consumer awareness, particularly in tackling rural and roadside litter, as fines do not have big impacts.

In Denmark it has become a custom for students at parties and social gatherings to leave behind their bottles or cans brought with them.  This allows the host to recover the deposit paid by his/her guests and is often an alternative to charging people an entry fee.

Table 1 illustrates how the amount of litter has been reduced in selected states across the USA after the introduction of a bottle deposit scheme.  It should be noted the time period over which the reduction was achieved is not published [4].

Potential to increase the U.K’s low recycling rates

The U.K currently only recycles 48% of its aluminium drinks cans.  Compared to countries that operate deposit schemes, namely, Denmark [a], Finland, Germany, Norway and Sweden, this rate of recycling is small.  These countries achieve recycling rates of 85-91%.  It has been estimated that the U.K could achieve similar recycling rates [5].

With regards to bottles recycled, the citizens of the U.K use 13 billion plastic bottles each year.  Of these only 35% are recycled, which is less than half the recycling rate of other European countries that have bottle recycling rates of 75% [6]. Having the right equipment to aid recycling in the home and the workplace is important, such as a designated recycling bin

Savings in cleaning costs

In terms of savings in cleaning costs, a report commissioned by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) claims that the cost of running the scheme would be funded by unclaimed deposits and the public sector would save £160 million per year in cleaning costs [7].

Jobs

Additional research by the CPRE shows that over 4,000 full time equivalent green jobs could be created by a U.K deposit refund scheme for drinks containers.  The new CPRE report entitled From waste to work: the potential of a deposit refund scheme to create jobs in the U.K, also found that in addition to generating thousands of green jobs similar to current waste collection and processing occupations, the deposit scheme would generate between 353-393 higher-paid maintenance and engineering jobs and a further 100 office-based administration positions needed to run the scheme.  This central office should be situated somewhere in the U.K and could be targeted towards an area with high unemployment.

In March, 2011 research from IPSOS-MORI, a leading political social and business research company, showed how a deposit scheme could raise £432 million in voluntary donations for local charities and Big Society organisations [8].

Conclusion

For the younger generation of Britain it is not a well-known fact that the U.K actually did have a bottle deposit scheme some 20 years ago.  Although this did not last for long, it is important that we recognise that times have changed and we find ourselves in an age where environmental consciousness is rapidly growing.  It may, therefore, be time to re-use the old plan just like we re-use old bottles and cans.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/17/in-praise-of-bottle-deposits

[2] http://litterheroes.co.uk/bottlebill.htm

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/16/bottle-tin-deposit-scheme-cpre

[4] See [2]

[5] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11322567

[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3795997/Bottle-deposit-scheme-could-reduce- litter-and-boost-recycling.html

[7] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/17/in-praise-of-bottle-deposits

[8] http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/energy-and-waste/litter-and-fly-tipping/update/item/2370-research-shows-a-bottle-deposit-scheme-would-create-over-4000-jobs.  This website contains a link to the report.

[a] For an overview of the Danish deposit scheme please see http://www.dansk-retursystem.dk/composite-166.htm.

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-bottle-deposit-scheme/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-environmental-effects-of-fireworks/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-environmental-effects-of-fireworks/#comments Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:36:21 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=383 Continue reading →]]> As people start to wake up from their hangovers and get ready to commence the new year there is no doubt that most of us entered 2012 with a big bang, full of fireworks explosions.  In London, alone, over 250,000 people watched a 10 minute fireworks display [1].  Although these colourful explosives are beautiful and entertaining, they also have the potential to pose serious danger to the environment and human health, something that most of us are not aware of.  The Energy Saving Warehouse looks at the environmental effects associated with fireworks.

Chemicals and Heavy Metals in Fireworks

The basic ingredient of fireworks seem fairly simple: gunpowder and a fuse will make a loud bang, the same way a gun or a cannon would.  However, the more serious concern is the cocktail of chemicals and heavy metals used to give the fascinating effects that make fireworks so popular.  Depending on the effects sought, fireworks produce smoke and dust that contain various heavy metals, sulphur-coal compounds and other noxious chemicals.

Barium, for example, is used to produce brilliant green colours in fireworks displays, despite being poisonous and radioactive.  Copper compounds are used to produce blue colours, even though they contain dioxine, which has been linked to cancer.  Cadmium, lithium, antimony, rubidium, strontium, lead and potassium nitrate are also commonly used to produce different effects, even though they can cause a host of respiratory and other health problems [2].  The table below gives an overview of some of the toxic elements of fireworks and their associated effects [3].

Toxic Components of Fireworks

Case Study

Respiratory links in London

A three week study in London recorded two major festivals celebrated with pyrotechnic events and found that they were marked by increased gas phase pollutant levels of Nitric Oxide (NO_x) and Sulphur dioxide (SO₂), elevated Particulate Matter (PM) mass concentrations, as well as trace metal concentrations, specifically Strontium, Magnesium, Potassium, Barium and Lead.  Based on the elevated PM concentrations caused by firework activity and the increased oxidative activity of the PM source, researchers believe that exposures to firework derived PM may be related to acute respiratory outcomes [4].

Water pollution in Oklahoma Lake, United States

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a study into the effects of fireworks on water bodies and in turn the effects on human health and wildlife.  Many firework displays are often held over lakes and rivers which can result in chemical pollution of the water body, in particular, pollution of perchlorate.  Perchlorate is often associated with ammonium, potassium and other fertilizer usage and can contaminate ground and surface waters and cause thyroid problems in humans & animals.

By analysing water in Oklahoma Lake before and after fireworks displays in 2004, 2005 and 2006, an EPA research group identified firework displays in the area as a source of perchlorate contamination.  Within 14 hours after the fireworks, perchlorate levels rose 24 to 1,028 times above background levels.  Levels peaks about 24 hours after the display, and then decreased to the pre-fireworks background within 20-80 days.  That means that for up to 3 months, in some cases, water quality levels will have been very toxic and well above the acceptable levels that the law prescribes [5].

Although beautiful and very popular, firework displays, nevertheless come with a number of associated negative effects that can be harmful to the environment, human health and wild-life.  Fireworks alternatives can instead be used to ring in the New Year.  These may include,   laser light shows, indoor fireworks projectors or electronic pyrotechnics.  In fact, the latter can form a canopy up to 25 feet in the air that rain down glitter, confetti, rose petals or even sweets.

If this is has got you thinking about how your every day activities affect the environment why not have a look at our tool or read more information about environmental issues in our learning portal?

Sources:

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/dec/29/london-new-years-eve-party

[2] http://environment.about.com/od/healthenvironment/a/toxicfireworks.htm

[3] http://www.backcountryattitude.com/toxic_fireworks.html

[4] Godri KJ, Green DC. “Particulate Oxidative Burden Associated with Firework Activity.” Environmental Science & Technology, October 1, 2010.

[5] http://www.physorg.com/news99672229.html

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-environmental-effects-of-fireworks/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/environmentally-friendly-photography/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/environmentally-friendly-photography/#comments Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:16:18 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=373 Continue reading →]]> The nature of photography, it may be argued, is to preserve a scene, an emotion, or a point in time by capturing what is seen in time and space using the tool of the camera.  Photographers, however, also have an obligation to preserve something more important, which is the object of nature photography, namely the environment itself.

Nature photographers have for a long time been at the forefront of environmental conservation.  Ansel Adams, a well-known American photographer, not only had a love for wildlife photography, but was also active in pushing for environmental conservation and the establishment of American National Parks in the West of the United States.  Nature photographers, in addition to everyone else, have a responsible for preserving the environment that others may wish to capture.

If you, as a photographer, have not yet made the transition from manual or disposable photography to digital photography, now is the time to switch.  Digital photography is easier on landfills as it involves less packaging and does not generate used films.  Furthermore, the development process involves toxic chemicals and uses a tremendous amount of water and electricity.  Digital equipment may be more expensive in the short run, but will save money on film and processing in the long run, as well as reducing your ecological footprint [1].  If you are printing your own photos why not consider recycled photo paper to do this on? This article provides an overview over some of the environmentally friendly cameras and brands that exist.

Canon

A good example of a green Camera is the Canon EOS Rebel T2i digital camera which does not contain lead parts.  Lead has been known to be harmful, so Canon decided to launch a camera that would differ from other types.  The T2i camera manufacturing process has also been established as being more environmentally friendly than other camera manufacturing processes [2].

Nikon

Nikon is also another brand that has become more active in helping the environment and has significantly reduced its use of hazardous chemicals in its products.  The manufacturer also offers free recycling of batteries and other electronic devices in an attempt to reduce waste.  One of its energy-efficient and economical items is the CoolPix S80 camera, which also has a longer battery life span, saving on the electrical costs associated with multiple charges.

Olympus

Olympus, is one of the companies known to be dynamic in the fight against anthropogenic induced climate change and are actively reducing the use of harmful chemicals.  The company usually displays a green leaf on its products that signifies the item’s recyclability, reduced harmful substances, and effective energy saving features.  For example, the Olympus FE-47 camera is one of the company’s environmentally friendly cameras, as it has no PVC, cadmium and lead.

Sony

Sony, has taken the more creative side of things, by launching its 2006 “odo” design concept group whose devices are powered by kinetic energy.  The series of photography products look like simple toys and the products are made of recycled parts or Bioplastic.  Furthermore, the parts are connected by sturdy natural rubber bands, which means that the series of products use a minimum of screws which greatly simplifies assembly and disassembly [3].

Sony’s Twirl N’ Take digital camera is a hand-powered still camera that uses a built-in generator that can charge up to take one picture as you push its roller back and forth for about 15 seconds.

Similarly, the Crank N’ Capture digital video camera is powered by turning the crank on the side for shooting and playback.  Unlike a regular digital video camera, images are not smooth but intentionally choppy, as if animated by flipping pages.  The designers invite users to enjoy this novel and charming effect.

In addition, the Spin N’ Snap, digital still camera, is powered by sticking one’s fingers through two holes and spinning the camera end over end.  Because there is no LCD screen, the holes also serve as a viewfinder [4].

Another way of viewing images is with the Push Power photo viewer.  Push Power is powered by pushing the viewer to rotate its bottom-mounted wheels as the unit is held with both hands.  The viewer displays the digital photos stored on Bitty memory cards. The viewer can also be recharged while in use, as it continues to display images.  Sony has also created the “Juice Box”, a solar battery, which collects sunlight.  Once charging is done, it can be folded up as a portable battery for all “odo” series products [5].

[1] http://content.photojojo.com/tips/eco-friendly-photography-tips/

[2] http://us-ecotoners.blogspot.com/2011/01/eco-friendly-cameras-for-greener-photo.html

[3] http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/activity/sustainable/odo.html

[4] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/digitalcameras/sonys-eco-friendly-hand-powered-digital-camera-in-action/201

[5] http://www.sony.net/Fun/design/activity/sustainable/odo_eco2008.html

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/environmentally-friendly-photography/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/money-doesnt-grow-on-trees/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/money-doesnt-grow-on-trees/#comments Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:49:59 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=368 Continue reading →]]> As most of the world has witnessed over the last couple of years, money makes the world go around.  When we place our money in a bank it does not sit still in a vault somewhere.  Instead, it goes out to play on the stock market, in loans and mortgages in all manner of deals and agreements.  Banks have historically used their customer’s money and expected their customers to ask no question as long as the bank delivered the interest at the end of the quarter.

As customers we, however, should have the power to demand more from our money.  Money represents the power to invest and what we invest in shapes the future.  Ethical banking has the power to do this.  By taking money out of banks that invest in oil companies, arms trades and airline companies and putting them into banks that invest into ethical environmental matters, such as renewable energy resources, it is possible to use our money to shape a better future, while still getting our promised interest.  The Energy Saving Warehouse looks at which banks in the United Kingdom that invest their money in environmental matters.

The Co-operative Bank

It may be argued that there is only one high street bank in the U.K. that has a strict history of ethical policy, and that is the Co-operative.  Having its roots in the co-operative movement that started in the 19^th Century as a ways of creating a fairer model of capitalism through shared ownership, the bank still remains committed to those ideals.  The bank’s strict ethical policy means no investment goes into companies that are involved in the arms trade, fossil fuels industry, and corporations that do environmental damage and breach human rights.  Customers vote every year on how their money is used and concerns such as climate change are regularly included.  Because the Co-operative is not on the stock market, it is much more stable than other banks and has actually grown during the economic crisis [1] & [2].

In November, 2007, the Co-operative Bank launched a new credit card called “think”, which offers a lower rate of interest for designated ethical purchases via a link-up with partners including Ikea, green electricity company Ecotricity, bikes giant Raleigh and the fair trade organisation Traidcraft.  The first time the card is used, the bank will arrange for half an acre of Brazilian rainforest to be bought and protected in the customer’s name.  Also, for every £100 spent on the card, 25p will be donated to the charity Cool Earth, which protects rainforests [3].

The Co-operative Bank’s ethical policy has been extended to include over £1 billion of investments.  Since the Ethical Policy of the Co-operative was introduced in 1992, the Bank has stated that they will extend their commercial lending in the area of energy efficiency and renewable from £400 million to £1 billion [4].

Triodos

Another bank to note for its ethics is Triodos.  Not only is Triodos Bank a specialist savings bank with a strong ethical policy, but they also declare that every loan they make is done in a unique transparent measure.  Triodos sets out to use money for good and will only finance businesses that “add cultural value and benefit people and the environment.”  They are best known for investing in wind power in the 1980s, long before this became a mainstream strategy.  Currently, Triodos does not offer personal bank accounts, but they do have services targeted for charity accounts, personal savings and businesses.  Loans for the latter, however, are only offered to organisations involved in sustainable development projects.  Customers using personal savings services can target their money even further by choosing a partnership account where their money is used to finance a particular sector e.g. organic farming, nature conservation  or solar and wind energy development.  Triodos Bank was originally set up in the Netherlands in 1980 but also has branches in the U.K. [5].

Triodos Bank has recently launched a public share issue which is aimed at raising £15 million to invest in renewable energy projects.  It is now possible to become shareholders in Triodos Renewables, an independent U.K. energy company managed by the Bristol branch of Triodos Bank.  This is the Bank’s fourth public share offer with the last one being in 2008.

The issue price has been set at   £1.80 per share, and the minimum investment at £540, with the aim of bringing in retail investors to join the 4,000 existing shareholders.  The firm says that “proceeds will be invested directly into building new wind power assets to expand the company’s portfolio.”.  There is thus potential for a decent return and the group’s long-term objective is to grow its portfolio of renewable energy operating project and to deliver between 9-10% annual returns on investments for shareholders.  Triodos Renewables now owns and operates seven sites around the UK that can generate enough renewable power for up to 24,500 homes [6].

HSBC

HSBC has been attempting to green itself over the last couple of year.  The bank’s environmental policy covers the key areas of climate change, energy efficiency and water management.  The policy contains a commitment to continued improvement in performance and HSBC’s business operations went carbon neutral in 2005.  HSBC was one of the banks that have signed up to the Climate Principles in December 2009.  The Climate Principles is a group of major international financial institutions, such as Credit Agricole, Standard Chartered, Swiss Re, F&C Asset Management and BNP Paribas, which actively manage climate change across the full range of financial products and services, including: research activities, asset management, retail banking, insurance and re-insurance, corporate banking, investment banking and markets and project finance [7] & [8].

Conclusion

By putting your money with a bank that runs an ethical and environmental policy it is possible to help shape a future where renewable energy is given the investment and attention which is otherwise much needed.  At the same time, banks that have an ethical policy, and are often not traded on the stock market, have been more stable and have even grown during the current financial crisis the world is facing.  Not only will you be doing the environmental sector a favour, but you will also be securing a more reliable return on your investments and eliminate the risk of going bankrupt.  By investing in Green Banks it is possible for money to grow on trees.

[1] http://makewealthhistory.org/2009/01/06/which-is-the-most-ethical-bank/

[2 ]http://www.ethicalinvestment.co.uk/Ethical_banking.htm]

[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/nov/03/savings.ethicalmoney?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

[4] http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ethical-banking/

[5] See [2]

[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jul/08/triodos-shares-renewables

[7] http://www.theclimategroup.org/programs/the-climate-principles/

[8] http://crakerbusinesssolutions.co.uk/business-banking-%E2%80%93-ethically-and-environmentally-sound-supplier-needed%E2%80%A6

Cineworld, which operates over 75 cinemas across the United Kingdom, has admitted that the success of 3D has led to a problem of disposal of the amount of glasses.  Odeon cinemas have instated plans to give customers who re-use their glasses a type of discount.  Meanwhile, Vue Cinemas, has introduced large recycling bins in its Cinemas, where glasses are taken to be cleaned and repackaged, while damaged ones are recycled.  Imax, the Canadian high-definition cinema corporation has claimed that their glasses can be washed up to 500 times.  While it should be seen as a positive step that cinemas across provide recycling facilities for their glasses, further investigation shows that glasses are in fact only used three to four times.  The majority of the glasses are damaged and sent off to be turned into plastic pellets [2].

Traditionally, 3D glasses are made from fossil fuel-based plastics and are non biodegradable, which means that if sent to landfill it will take 450-500 years before they degrade [3].  Furthermore, CO₂ emissions for the production of the 10 million plastic glasses associated with films like Alice in Wonderland is equivalent to emissions generated by burning 50,000 gallons of gasoline or 917 barrels of oil [4].

There is no reason why the 3D experience should not and could not be more eco-friendly.  One company named Cereplast has found an answer to keeping waste low by creating the world’s first biodegradable and compostable 3D glasses.  The glasses are made with plant-based plastics and Ingeo® Poly-lactic acid, also known as PLA plastic.  If discarded at a compost site they will degrade fully in the span of 6 months, leaving no chemical residues or toxicity in the soil.  In fact it has been estimated that 10 million pairs of glasses made from Ceresplast would be the equivalent of reducing CO₂ emissions associated with the production of 3D glasses by 728 metric tonnes of CO₂ [5]. 

In the creation of the product, Ceresplast has teamed up with a company called Oculus3D which makes 3D film projection technology.  Marty Shindler, co-founder and CEO of Las Vegas-based Oculus3 has said in a statement that: “By using Cereplast’s resins in our 3D biodegradable and compostable glasses we can now help the entertainment industry reduce its carbon footprint and provide movie theatres with smarter choices for both affordable 3D systems and compatible 3D eyewear.” [6].  There is therefore little excuse for cinemas not to invest in these glasses as both Hollywood and the 3D projection technology industries have started collaborating in making the film industry more green.

In conclusion, issues around 3D glasses have shown that the glasses are dirty in production, the effects and efficiency of recycling programmes at cinemas are deceiving to the consumer and cinemas, however, naturally degradable glasses now do exist.  Enjoy the film.

[1] http://www.enviro-live.com/news/science-technology/how-environmentally-friendly-are-3d-glasses-.html

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/10/3d-glasses

[3] http://indiefilm3d.com/stereoscopic-3d-glasses-can-and-should-be-eco-friendly

[4] http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/03/25/biodegradablecompostable-3d-glasses-to-hit-theaters-this-summer/

[5] http://www.oculus3d.com/Eco%20Friendly%20Eyewear.pdf

[6] http://www.greenrightnow.com/weareaustin/2010/03/16/eco-friendly-3d-glasses-headed-for-a-theater-near-you/

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-3ds-of-glasses-dirty-deceiving-degradable/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/ways-to-make-your-website-more-green/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/ways-to-make-your-website-more-green/#comments Thu, 01 Dec 2011 08:07:27 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=360 Continue reading →]]> There is no contesting that the internet has become a part of our everyday life.  Some would argue that reading something online is greener than buying a book or magazine which contains the same information.  In addition, reading your newspaper or academic journals online helps you save paper, ink and the physical shipping of the material.  However, as has previously been highlighted, the internet uses a lot of energy in itself, and would surprisingly rank as the fifth largest carbon emitter in the world if it were a country [1].

Even if we were able to make websites completely carbon neutral there is still one element of the carbon equation that is very hard for the webmaster to control, and that is the amount of energy your visitors use by simply accessing your site and having their computers on.  However, a number of non-profit organisations do exist whose aim is to offset your website’s carbon emissions by recording the number of visitors you receive each month and then offsetting the carbon emissions these visits cause through the purchase of carbon offsetting and renewable energy certificates. Typically, Green web-hosting involves several of the following elements: 1. Servers directly powered by renewable energy, 2. Energy use offset using a carbon credit 3. Energy use offset using a Renewable Energy Credit (REC), 4. Hosting servers optimized for energy efficiency 5. The company subscribes to environmentally friendly practices.

This article will provide an overview of some of the many organisations/organisations that exist for off-setting carbon and give additional tips on how to make your website green.

Carbon-Offsetting Tools

GreenScroll

GreenScroll is a Canadian non-profit organisation whose mission is to power the internet by green renewable energy.  They do so by not only offsetting the non-renewable energy that your website host uses, but also the energy consumed by visitors who view your site.  GreenScroll invests pledges from individuals and web-companies that have a web presence and invest them into green renewable energy.  By July, 2011 GreenScroll reported that it had offset carbon emissions from over 800,000 websites.  Furthermore, GreenScroll also aims to neutralise the energy used in sending and receiving e-mails, by offering individuals, who may not necessarily be website owners, to sign-up for an e-mail off-setting service [2].

CO2 Stats

Similar to the existence of a large range of “trust logos”, such as the Better Business Bureau icon, that verify that website you shop on are safe, reliable and free from viruses, CO2Stats adopts a comparable badge system that users can put on their website as a proof that their websites are carbon neutral.  CO2Stats is the first-ever tool that allows bloggers and webmasters all over the world to monitor the carbon footprint of individual websites internationally, with the vision of making the internet carbon neutral [3].  Once you sign your site up to the CO2Stats site, the CO2Stats tool looks at where visitors are from, where servers are located and then cross-references the information with a database where it checks the power sources used.  CO2Stats also examines how long visitors stay on your website and their screen size, allowing CO2Stats to measure the greenhouse gas emissions being created.  Next, CO2Stats work with sites to reduce their energy usage, in part by making sites more efficient.  More efficient sites also load more quickly, which provides the added benefit of helping to retain site visitors longer, which on some sites may also generate more money.

For the emissions that cannot be reduced, CO2Stats purchases Green-E Certified renewable energy credits (RECs) from organisations such as NativeEnergy.  Another benefit to clients is that CO2Stats also allows them to post their carbon footprint live.  Often the nature of going green is left vague and non-quantified, which leads to distrust and uncertainty about actual claims of carbon reductions and total neutrality.  The badge, which you get when signing up, is a universally-recognised logo, which signals that your website is truly carbon neutral.  The badge works with all types of sites [4] [5].

Brighter Planet

BrighterPlanet has launched a programme called the “350 lbs. Challenge” which is targeted at bloggers.  Any blogger can sign up by placing a badge on their website.  Once the blogger has notified the Brighter Planet Project about the intention of joining the Challenge, they will off-set 350 lbs. of CO₂ on your behalf.  The programme originally started off with aiming to get 350 blogs subscribed to them, but this goal was shattered within a month, and today over 1,600 blogs, have signed up which is equivalent to 12,500 lbs. of carbon that has been removed from the atmosphere [6].

Additional web-hosting tips

Load Time

The quicker your website loads, the less energy will be used up performing requests.  Therefore, designing websites that are low on images and have reasonably simple layouts will typically load faster, thus saving energy and time for the end user.

A tool for the purpose of minimizing the amount of energy needed for loading images are “image crunching” services such as Yahoo’s SmushIt.  These services reduce the overall the quality of an image so it looks just the same to your website but has a small file size, and hence loads more quickly.    Those running blogs on WordPress can employ the free Wp ShushIt plugin, which will automatically run all the images on your site through the ShushIt service and then reinstall them on your site in their more compact faster-loading form.

Navigation made easier

Every time a page loads on your website, it uses energy.  Therefore, the fewer clicks that are needed in order to find the information your visitors are looking for, the more eco-friendly it will be.  Providing clear navigation such as a sitemap, an index or a search box will help your visitors access the information they desire more quickly, thus saving energy.

Promote Environmental Causes

You can place adverts on your website supporting green charities and organizations to help them spread the word and recruit donors.  This can also be done by promoting organizations that promote green website hosting.  Many charities offer banner adverts that you can place on your website.

Conclusion

The above-mentioned organizations and web-hosting tips are only a fraction of of all the possibilities out there to help off-set the carbon that your website generates.  Whatever approach webmasters choose, their effort should be highly appreciated by visitors.  The internet contributes to 2% of the total global carbon emissions.  Signing-up to an online off-setting scheme is an easy way to help reduce this carbon footprint, while simultaneously promoting the importance of eco-friendly webhosting.

References

[1] http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/342/20/How-Green-is-the-Internet.html

[2] http://www.greenscroll.org/

[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3314491/Students-try-to-make-internet-carbon-neutral.html

[4] http://www.co2stats.com/

[5] http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/glenn-croston/starting-and-growing-green-businesses/how-make-your-website-carbon-neutral

[6] http://350.brighterplanet.com/

It has been estimated that watching one second of video on the internet generates 0.2 grams of carbon dioxide.  Youtube has reported that it gets around 2 billion views a day.  With a conservative average estimate of each video being watched for 10 seconds we find that Youtube videos alone produce 4,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per day [3].
Internet entertainment and social media such as Youtube and Facebook rely on internet servers to process the data required to provide us with these services.  Globally, there are over 44 million internet servers located in the data centres that annually consume over 130 billion kWh.  These data centres contribute to 2% of the earth’s global carbon dioxide emissions, which is equivalent to that of the aviation industry.  Other comparisons that have been made estimate that if the Internet was a country, it would globally rank fifth in the amount of energy consumed, just behind Japan and Russia [4].

A recent report published by Greenpeace, entitled “How Dirty is Your Data” [5] concluded that the tech industry’s brownest companies are Apple and Facebook.  These centres rely on coal-based electricity more so than their rivals.  The report highlights that over 53% of Facebook’s facilities rely on coal to power the cloud.  The companies that were found to be the greenest were Yahoo and Google.  Google and Facebook each take up 10% of the global server space and as such contribute significantly to data centre carbon emissions.

Facebook’s data centre, however, is slowly mixing in wind and solar into its reliance on coal.  By doing so, it has been estimated that Facebook should be able to conserve 2.5 million kWh per year, saving 1,065 tonnes of carbon.  Progress has also been reported by Google, whose goal is to become carbon neutral in the future.  Google have in fact created Google Energy, a company that invests in renewable energy start-ups and are pumping more than US$100 million into windfarms, US$350 million into solar power, and US$20 million into Makani Power.  The latter is a company that generates electricity by flying kites that can tap into altitudes that wind-turbines cannot reach.

Currently, only 24% of the world’s population is online, but this number is set to increase dramatically in the future.  Similarly, projections estimate that our internet usage will quadruple by 2014.  The big question is whether any progress made in greening our date centres today will ultimately be swallowed up by our hunger for all things digital.

[1] http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/climate/2011/Cool%20IT/dirty-data-report-greenpeace.pdf
[2] http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/news/285/20/Can-Clouds-Save-Energy.html
[3] http://sustainabilityforthepartiallymotivated.wordpress.com/2011/06/23/is-the-internet-environmentally-friendly/
[4] http://articles.cnn.com/2011-04-22/tech/greenpeace.apple.dirtiest_1_greenpeace-coal-and-nuclear-energy-wind-and-solar-power?_s=PM:TECH
[5] See [1]

The first thing you need to consider is storage.  Sturdy and washable containers are essential to replace plastic bags and the ever so popular aluminium foil.  Containers can be useful to store leftovers from previous night’s dinner, and many models can easily be put in the microwave.  That way you can heat up your food and have a nice warm meal.  Before buying any new containers, do have a look around your house to see whether you may already have any containers that you can use.  Generally, the more you can re-use, the greener you can consider your lunch box to be.  If you do not want to invest in new containers, one option is to simply re-use ice cream tubs [2].  If you, however, do feel the need to buy new containers, several options in brands exist.  We are all familiar with the traditional Tupperware containers, but there are also cheaper and simpler alternatives like GladWare or RubberMaid TakeAlongs.  It is important that you look for products that are BPA-free.  BPA or Bisphenol is a plastic additive that has been used for decades but has recently been deemed to have potential serious health risks [3] & [4].

The next step to a green lunch box is packaging.  Here, the most essential thing is to ditch the cling-film and aluminium foil.  Sandwiches can easily be wrapped in paper bags or grease proof paper.  These should be the biodegradable types which can be recycled or composted at the end of use.  Another option is to invest in re-sealable plastics sandwich bags.  Alternatively, the inner bags from breakfast cereals, vegetable bags and sugar and flour packaging make excellent packaging for your lunch box.

When it comes to utensils you’ll want to replace disposable plastic forks and spoons with reusable, washable utensils.  The easiest option is it to take some from home if you can spare them. If that is not a possibility then buy some cheap stainless steel utensils from a second hand shop or a flea market.  Your office may have a kitchen equipped with dish washer or a sink.  If the kitchen is not already fitted with the essential utensils encourage your colleagues to bring in extra mugs, plates and metal utensils for the office lunchroom.  That way, even if you do decide to buy a pizza or salad for lunch, you will not have to take paper plates and utensils from the restaurant.  Also, resist the temptation to bring paper napkins and instead get a napkin made of cloth.

No matter your preference of beverage it is time to dispose of plastic drinks with straws, cans and water bottles.  Instead, invest some money in a (water) canteen, which not only will keep your drink cool, but can be used multiple times throughout the day.  The more expensive types can also be used for hot tea or coffee after you have consumed your green lunch.

In addition to bringing leftovers from the day before, you may want to buy large bags of crisps in bulk.  Pack a small portion of crisps into one of your washable containers.  With regards to yoghurt, buy a large tub and spoon a single serving into another washable container instead of taking individual pre-packed yoghurts.  Additionally, loose granola in a container can replace pre-packaged granola bars.

If you have followed the above-mentioned guidelines the content of your lunch should shift from that of a typical British Lunch (A) to that of the Green Lunch Box (B).

Finally, it should be noted that changing to a green lunch box will also save you money.  Pre-packaged biscuits and cookies can use twice as much per ounce when bought in individual snack packs as opposed to larger bags.  According to Waste-Free Lunches [5] as green lunch box will cost 40% less to make than a lunch filled with pre-packaged food.  Over the course of a typical 180-day school year or a 24-day work year, there is a potential of saving $250 per child or 330$ per working adult (Note: These figures are based on an American study, and figures for the United Kingdom may differ).

There are probably a hundred other ways to improve your Green Lunch Box and this guide should be considered a very basic introduction.  The only limit to how green your lunch box can become is your imagination.

[1] http://www.easylunchboxes.co.uk/Waste_less.html

[2] http://www.carbonrally.com/challenges/24

[3] http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/bpa-more-dangerous-predicted

[4] http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/bpa-danger-from-cans.php

[5] http://www.wastefreelunches.org/what-is-a-waste-free-lunch-program.html#waste-free-lunch-cost

]]> http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/the-green-lunch-box/feed/ 0 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/climate-proofing-the-sea-directive/ http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/climate-proofing-the-sea-directive/#comments Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:21:35 +0000 http://www.energysavingwarehouse.co.uk/learning-portal/?p=339 Continue reading →]]> Rationale

Directive 2001/42/EC, the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive (SEA Directive) aims to provide for a high level of environmental protection by integration of environmental consideration into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes (P&P), by ensuring that an environmental assessment is carried out at the strategic level for certain P&P which have been deemed to have likely significant effects on the environment.  The Directive has nearly been in effect for ten years, and with the ongoing review of its sister directive the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive, it is highly possible that the SEA Directive will be up for review soon.  Below are some of the identified short-comings of the SEA Directive that need to be addressed.

The definition of Plans and Programmes (P&P)

The precise definition and meaning of P&P under the SEA Directive have been considered by a number of European Union Member States to be unclear and ambiguous.  This has the effect that policies and legislation are often not subject to a strategic environmental assessment under the current Directive, as they do not qualify under the vague definition of P&P.  Member States may risk calling something a “policy” when it could equally qualify as a P&P, thus exempting it from compulsory environmental risk assessment.  The distinction between “P&P” and “policy and legislation” and their overlap urgently need to be addressed.   A 2009 study revealed that in Denmark, the Ministries of Climate and Energy and Transport Infrastructures in the central government P&P to which no SEA procedure is undertaken [1].  They have defended these decisions from a position where they have stated that that their decisions have been adopted under a legislative approach, and as such the P&P automatically qualified as pieces of legislation.  As such, the most far reaching infrastructure decisions in Denmark have not been assessed with regard to their impact on the environment at the strategic level, which from an environmental point of view should be considered unacceptable state behaviour.  The transport sector in Denmark is the second largest contributor of CO₂ emissions in Denmark (22% in 2008 and increasing [2]).  The effects that transport and infrastructure decisions have on the climate are thus completely omitted at the strategic level in Denmark.  In addition, a questionnaire by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) revealed in 2005 that Member States had a hard time distinguishing between “P&P” and “policies and legislation” and often had not subjected a P&P to a strategic assessment because they had deemed it to qualify as a policy.  EEB found additional cases in over 10 countries where national energy and transport plans had not been subject to an SEA, because they were presented as policies [3].  These are clear cases of misapplication of the SEA Directive that need to be addressed.  One option may be to extend the scope of the SEA Directive to include policies and legislation, in addition to P&P, as is done under the more recently adopted UNECE Strategic Environment Assessment Protocol.

Scoping

When determining whether a P&P is likely to have a significant environmental effect and whether it must be subject to an environmental assessment, Member States are to specifically consider a set of relevant factors set out in Annex-II.  A common problem, known as salami-slicing, appears here.  Member States have a tendency to choose only one or two factors found in Annex II for consideration, thus often missing out important effects that a particular P&P may have on the environment.  As a result Member States can easily argue that they have given substantial consideration to the effects a particular P&P may have on the environment, but without having given proper attention to a wider range of factors.  Article (2) of Annex-II, for example, requires Member States to take cumulative effects of a P&P into account.  It is well known that anthropogenic-induced climate change is caused by the accumulation of a wider range of factors.  As such, P&P that enhance anthropogenic climate change may be exempted from a strategic assessment.  Amendments to the SEA Directive should require that all Annex-II factors are taken into consideration and Member States cannot pick and choose which ones to consider.

The Environmental Report

Where the scoping procedure in Article 3 (1) has determined that a P&P must be subject to an environmental assessment, an environmental report shall be prepared, containing information on ten paragraphs referred to in Annex I.  Of particular interest regarding climate change is paragraph (f) of Annex-I which directly requires that the environmental report must include information on impacts of a particular P&P on the climate.  A footnote in paragraph (f) requires that the significant effects should include “secondary, cumulative, synergistic, short, medium and long-term, permanent, and temporary positive and negative effects”.

As climate change is a product of a majority of the effects referred to in the footnote of Annex-I, emphasis on the footnote should be made stronger.  Currently, it remains a weak provision and the footnote needs to be independently included in the relevant article in order to strengthen climate change consideration in the SEA Directive.  The reference to short, medium and long-term effects allows for the inclusion of gases with short atmospheric life-time but high Global Warming Potential (GWP) such as hydro-fluorocarbons (HFCs) and as such has the potential to extend the scope of the environmental assessment beyond the traditional “Kyoto Basket 6” greenhouse gases.  The reference to synergistic effects means that the way in which gases combine and interact to create negative effects must also be recognised.

The environmental report is also to take into account “reasonable alternatives”.  A report from 2009 [4], however, states that most national legislation does not provide a specific definition of “reasonable alternatives” and that they are defined on a case-by-case assessment.  An amendment to the Directive must ensure that “reasonable alternatives” are defined more clearly.  In addition, a provision that requires all viable alternatives to be considered and a comparison of alternatives clearly showing the least environmentally damaging option should be set out.  The decision to authorise a plan or programme which is more environmentally damaging than identified alternatives then needs to be publicly justified and the decision must be open to debate and questioning.

The above-mentioned issues have all been highlighted in European Union Case-law and as such there is an emerging recognition amongst the judicial commentators that the time has come to address these problems and that there is scope for giving special attention to the impacts of P&P on anthropogenic-induced climate change.

[1] European Commission’s Study Concerning the Report on the Application and Effectiveness of the SEA Directive (2001/42/EC), April, 2009.

[2] http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/countries/dk/soertopic_view?topic=climate%20change

[3] “Biodiversity in Strategic Environmental Assessment: Quality of National Transposition and Application of the SEA Directive”, 2005, The European Environmental Bureau (EEB).

[4] See [1].

While these statistics mainly relate to people in the developing world, there have also been cases in the developed world where hundreds of people have lacked access to safe drinking water for days. One well-known event was Post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans in 2005. With thousands of people’s homes having been destroyed, the Louisiana Superdome was turned into a camp, hosting over 26,000 people. These people had no access to any source of safe drinking water as the risk of contamination was high due to recent floods. What most people are not aware of is that it took five days for the people in the SuperDome to get fresh drinking water delivered. More recently, all drinking water in downtown Copenhagen became contaminated, which left residents rushing to their local supermarkets to stock up on bottled water. Some supermarkets owners reported that the equivalent of 3 lorries full of water bottles were bought in one afternoon.

One tool, which can aid in tackling the problem of access to safe drinking water, comes in the form of purification bottles and straws. The Vestergaard-Frandsen “LifeStraw” provides the much needed disease control and clean water solution to communities living in areas that are prone to having contaminated water that is unsuitable for drinking.

In very basic terms, the LifeStraw, is a straw that allows individuals to place the filter end of the straw in any water source and suck up water through it. The first filter is a mesh of 100 micrometer spaces, followed by a second mesh of 15 micrometer spaces. In order to put the sizes into perspective, one micrometer is equivalent to 1/1,000,000 of a metre, or put in another way, smaller than the width of a human hair. The water then passes through a chamber of iodine-coated beads where it subsequently travels through a chamber which contains active carbon.

The LifeStraw can filter up to 1600 litres [3] and filters at least 99.9999% of all bacteria, 99.99% of all viruses and 99.9% of all parasites, as well as working in turbid water. The LifeStraw protects, amongst others, against waterborne diseases such as typhoid, cholera, E. coli, salmonella, dysentery and diarrhoea.

Vestergaard-Frandsen recently produced the “LifeStraw Family” purifier, which can filter up to 18,000 litres of water. This amount is estimated to be enough to supply a family of five with clean drinking water for three years, thus removing the need for early replacement of the product. The “LifeStraw Family” purification system requires no electrical power batteries, running water or piped-in water supply.

A relatively small amount of “LifeStraw Family” systems would be needed in order to provide clean drinking water to people whose safe water supplies have recently been contaminated by natural disasters, such as flooding or leaking septic tanks. The “LifeStraw”, therefore, provides people in the developed world with a temporary access to safe drinking water and further eliminates the need to buy bottled water in bulk, and as a result lowers individuals’ carbon footprint. In addition, the raw materials used for manufacturing the “LifeStraw” products are US Food and Drug Administration compliant [4].

In January, 2010, Haiti was struck by a magnitude 7 earthquake and subsequently “Innovative Water Technologies” launched a portable solar powered water purification system. While this water purification system is able to generate 5,000 gallons of clean water a day at a price of $0,0013/gallon [5], the “LifeStraw”, unlike the portable solar powered water purification system, “does not need a source of electricity, as it relies on suction power by the user, and as such is more simple to use and to distribute to individuals or households. In addition, the “Innovative Water Technologies’” portable solar powered water purifier may need regular maintenance and have parts replaced, neither of which are needed with the “LifeStraw” products. Finally, the “LifeStraw” has an indicator which shows how much remaining filtration capacity it has and once this threshold has been reached, the product will automatically block any possibility of sucking up water.

One problem yet to be solved is how to dispose of the “LifeStraw”. The outer shell of the straw is made of “high impact polyesterene”, a commonly used thermoplastic that can be recycled. However, polyesterene is not biodegradable and is often found in the form of cups and plastic bags, lying on the streets in developed and developing countries alike. As the individual small LifeStraws currently only have a life-span of about a year, this is a serious short-coming of the product that Vestergaard-Frandsen must overcome. The straw does not have individual components that can be replaced, but a whole new straw must be provided to the user. The technology that Vestergaard-Frandsen provide should not deem the product to have failed, but there is obviously room for improvement. The straw needs to be made biodegradable or the company must ensure that the product can be returned to the manufacture at the end of its life-time to be replaced with a new one. Finally, a better solution would be to generate a market that allows vendors to sell replacement components, while ensuring that the old components are properly disposed off.

The LifeStraw has the potential to gives millions of people access to safe drinking water in developing countries and dramatically decrease the number of people that die from water-borne diseases. More consideration, however, must be given to proper disposal of the product at the end of its life-time, in order to avoid mass dumping of polyesterene bottles.

[1]http://www.gizmag.com/go/4418/

[2]http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract/8109/report/F

[3]http://www.vestergaard-frandsen.com/lifestraw/lifestraw/longevity-and-efficacy

[4]http://www.vestergaard-frandsen.com/lifestraw/lifestraw-family/features

[5]http://www.innovativeh2o.com/_assets/_pdf/IWT_Healthymagination_Press-Release_FINAL-3.pdf