EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Whack on the Greenwash

    What do you care?

    You purchase an environmentally friendly product to avoid damaging the environment: This primarily means conserving resources. The recipe is to buy well-made products using simple components that can be repaired, re-used and, as a last resort, recycled. We aim to minimise:

    • Packaging (which is a complete waste of resources and is polluting as well)

    • The use of resources (in manufacture, maintenance and use)

    • The energy consumption (in manufacture, use and transport)

    • Pollution (in manufacture, use and disposal)

    As well as expecting a “green” product to consume a minimum of resources while it is being used, we need to measure the consumption of resources over the entire life cycle of the product. The side bar, How green is that light globe examines the complete lifecycle of that well known climate saviour, the compact fluorescent light globe.

    Do you really need that?

    Some products claim to exist to enhance the environment in some way but this is generally false. In general, not buying a product offers the greatest benefit of all, so the first rule is that a product must be necessary. By this rule,

    • A timer that switches off lights and claims to be “green” because it saves electricity is a waste.

    • A bread maker that mixes the dough for us consumes electricity, to save us a small amount of physical effort.

    • A dishwasher is a labour saving device that costs energy to manufacture and run, despite the manufacturer’s claims that it is uses less hot water than hand washing.

    Each of us has to decide how important those environmental concerns are. That is an entirely personal decision.

    • I remember to turn off lights because my wife kindly follows me around the house reminding me.

    • I make more bread with a breadmaker than I do when I have to do it by hand. This saves me money, but has a negative impact on the environment.

    • I consider the dishwashing machine a useless and annoying household appliance: Most of my friends swear by them.

    How do they cheat? Let me count the ways

    Canadian environmental consultant, Terrachoice, surveyed 1018 products that made 1,753 environmental claims, to test whether those claims were justified. They concluded that 99 per cent of the products made a claim that did not withstand scrutiny.

    Terrachoice decided that the problems fell into six categories which they call the six sins of greenwashing.

    1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: We give you energy efficiency, but a short product life, highly toxic waste or some other problem. More than half of claims commit this sin.

    2. Sin of No Proof: It is very common for products to claim certification but not provide any evidence, such as a certifying authority. ‘Environmentally friendly,’ ‘Completely organic’ etc.

    3. Sin of Vagueness: Many products, simply make a vague claim, such as ‘completely natural’ which may or may not be a good thing, and may or may not mean anything.

    4. Sin of Irrelevance: The ‘So what?’ factor. CFC-free products: Aren’t CFCs banned? Fat-free orange juice: Isn’t that normal? Occurs only rarely.

    5. Sin of Fibbing: A few products pretend to be something they are not. Cotton fabrics that claim to contain seaweed, for example. Far more common are false claims to certification.

    6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: A small number of products are designed to cash in on some fad or craze, but do not make a balanced effort. E.g organically grown fruit, transported across the world.

    These six sins have been very useful in examining some of the products outlined below.

    The Oricom Eco series cordless phone

    http://www.oricom.com.au/product.asp?prod=173#

    The phone’s claim to environmental fame is that it is 40% more energy efficient than previous models by the same manufacturer. The marketing also boasted that the packaging was recycled and minimal but it did not impress Rosy Whelan on The Generator. She said that the packaging was mostly plastic, and the charger was “typical”.

    Deeming it a case of the Sin of Irrelevance, Rosy put it back in the box to return to the shop.

    Even the more reputable Nokia 3110 Evolve suffers from overstating the benefits. In that case, the cover is made of 50% plant-based plastics, it uses 60% less packaging and boasts a charger that uses only 6% of the electricity specified in the Energy Star requirements. The use of plant based plastics is to be commended, but given the amount of rare minerals and toxic components in a mobile phone, it is really lip service.

    The GE Eco Mastercard

    General Electric is the world’s seventh largest corporation, one of the two largest manufacturers of nuclear power plants, jet engines and other military hardware.

    This product claims to help the environment by putting one percent of what you pay on your purchases into carbon offsets. It publicly claimed that spending $7,200 per annum with the credit card can offset the average person’s carbon dioxide emissions. Even using the company’s own calculations there is no way this could account for more than someone’s emissions through electricity consumption.

    http://www.gemoney.com.au/en/credit_cards/eco_mastercard/

    Despite detailed information about how the calculations are performed, the company does not say anything about where the money will be spent. The eco card is part of an overall plan by GE Ecomagination and partner GreenOrder to green the company. The other projects include desalination plants, cleaner and more efficient aircraft jet engines and diesel locomotives, wind turbines, cleaner coal and solar technology, and compact fluorescent light bulbs. In other words, credit customers may be forking out dollars to help fund General Electric’s expansion and internal emission reduction program. It could even be getting paid twice for those emission reductions as well as claiming them as environmental benefits on its triple bottom line – we simply don’t know.

    Certainly the sin of vagueness has been committed, possibly fibbing as well.

    We don’t know a lot of things about this product, but we do know that the company follows the well oiled and despicable practice of many credit card vendors and lures customers with the offer of balance transfers, which transfer real cash payments to GE Money well before the poor sucker gets any relief from their credit card debt. Read that story in full .

    Woolworths Green Stores

    In 2007, Woolworth’s announced its GreenStore concept for smaller stores across the country. The stores feature energy efficient lighting, refrigeration and air conditioning. They will also discourage the use of disposable plastic bags.

    This is a classic case of the sin of the hidden trade off. The real problem with supermarkets is that they rely on economies of scale to squeeze every possible cent of profit out of the entire value chain. That directly encourages large scale industrial farming, centralised storage and distribution and energy intensive packaging and preservation. These are the retail sector’s major contributors to global warming. Those contributions far outweigh any saving that in store electrical efficiency may make.

    The company has a serious PR problem on its hands as small communities band together to fight the incursion of this corporate retailer and its predatory pricing and purchasing practices into their communities.

    World’s worst practice.

    Sick of Greenwash, the German people voted the nation’s nuclear power industry as the world’s worst example of greenwashing in December 2007. The German Atomic Forum had run a series of advertisements featuring farm animals in idyllic settings with ‘clean, green’ nuclear power stations in the background. In the offending advertisements, the nuclear industry claimed to be ‘Germany’s unloved climate protectionists’.

    Of course, nuclear power stations produce very little carbon dioxide to produce the steam that turns the turbines, but they do leave behind toxic waste that lasts tens of thousands of years. Worse still, the mining and processing of uranium ore consumes vast quantities of energy and water, releases alpha particles into the atmosphere and leaves behinds poisonous heavy metals.

    Go with Grandma

    While the detailed analysis of any product may be too laborious for every shopper on every shopping trip, the rules that governed our grandparents approach to purchasing provide a good rule of thumb.

    If you can grow it, do. It costs you practically nothing, you will get the health benefits of fresh food and no energy is wasted on processing, packaging or transport. You may need to spend some energy preserving it, but certainly no more than a factory would spend.

    Make it don’t buy it. Why pay for a factory on the other side of the city, nation, world to make something you can make your self. Again, you know what’s in it, it has no packaging, or transport. If it’s food it’s good for you, if it’s an appliance you know how it works.

    Buy quality that lasts. The throw-away culture we live in squanders resources that we will not have in a decade or two. I still have the kettle my parents got as a wedding present, but every kettle I’ve bought in the last two decades has lasted less than three years. This is rubbish. Literally.

    Only buy what you can afford. The debt crisis comes because we want more than we need. Personal credit cards did not exist fifty years ago. I bet your Pop never said, “Don’t worry, I’ll pop it on the plastic.”

    They are hardly a scientific analysis of greenwash, but they are not a bad way to avoid the sins it attempts to hide.

    — ENDS —

    Giovanni Ebono is the founder of The Generator. Ongoing analysis of Greenwash is available at www.thegenerator.com.au. Just look for the Greenwash button in the left hand menu.

  • Climate Talks Hinge on New US Government

    "The nature of the U.S.’ commitment … is unclear, and I suspect we’re not going to get a clear signal from the U.S. until after the next election," said Ian Fry, a representative for the island nation of Tuvalu, which faces danger from rising sea-levels caused by global warming.

    "The uncertainty is troubling, particularly for highly vulnerable countries, like small island states," he added.

    The world’s nations agreed in a massive conference in Bali late last year to conclude a pact by December 2009. The agreement would succeed the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol warming agreement, which expires in 2012.

    President Bush has rejected the 1997 Kyoto global warming pact, arguing it would hurt the economy and was unfair because developing countries weren’t required to cut emissions. The agreement committed 37 wealthy nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions an average of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

    Harlan Watson, the head of the U.S. delegation in Bangkok, insisted the administration was fully involved in the negotiations for the new pact.

    Congress and leading U.S. presidential candidates have shown a willingness to cap emissions. But Watson said the U.S. still wants commitments from major developing nations as well, no matter who is in the White House.

    So far at Bangkok, however, he has limited his public statements to procedural issues.

    "At this point in the process, there’s no enthusiasm for talking" about specific targets, he said. Later he added: "We don’t want to do anything that’s going to cut off the next administration’s options."

    U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer acknowledged that one of the toughest parts of the haggling ahead — on how much industrialized countries will cut their gas emissions — would best be discussed with a new U.S. administration.

    The final goal of the talks will be a complex document to include emissions reduction commitments by industrialized countries, measures by developing countries, and financing and technology transfer to help them control emissions and adapt to the effects of rising temperatures.

    The United States, as the world’s largest economy and one of two leading emitters with China, is a major player. Negotiators agree any new pact is doomed unless Washington joins.

  • Toot joins Nats in call for inland rail

    See Barnaby Joyce’s view

    Study for Inland Rail Corridor to Proceed – Next Step, Putting the Casino-Murwillumbah Line Back on Canberra’s Map

    The Federal Government has announced that it will now fund the study for an inland rail corridor between Melbourne and Brisbane.

    If this project were to proceed, it would have the potential to significantly reduce the growth in trucks carrying freight through our region as well as reduce the need to create new B-double corridors through our communities

    TOOT welcomes the decision to proceed to the next stage in the development of the proposed rail corridor, however further effort is required to address the rail needs within the commuter and tourist markets, especially in high growth corridors on the fringes of major urban areas such as South East Queensland and Northern New South Wales.

    We hope the omission of the Casino-Murwillumbah line on the rail map included with the government’s press release is a reflection of the planning under the previous government and not an indication of their approach to addressing the urgent unmet travel needs within our region.
    For an actual map of the NSW rail network see:

    Operational lines are coloured green, disused lines red.

     

  • Nationals and Toot see eye to eye

    See Toot’s view  
    Nationals’ Senator Barnaby Joyce says, for the sake of balance, there is an issue the government does deserve credit for and this is its support for the development of the inland rail link.

    "It stands to reason that the straightest line between Melbourne and Brisbane (but preferably Gladstone) is not along the coast but through the inland," Senator Joyce says.

    "A locomotive with two drivers which pulls approximately 1400 tonnes is far more efficient than a truck with one driver pulling about 50 tonnes.

    “If you are standing at the traffic lights in Moree, NSW, or the roundabout at Goondiwindi, Qld, it becomes a clear fact the north – south transport of produce in the eastern states has to get off the road and onto rail.

    “I commend the allocation of $15 million of taxpayer funds towards the feasibility study of the standard gauge rail link.

    "I hope, if the government is truly interested in productivity, it goes a lot further than that and soon.

    “It will also be essential to make sure that in the development of the inland rail access is not monopolised.

    "Otherwise some of the potential benefits will be quickly lost.

    "The association of the movement of bulk produce, such as coal and grain, has a bad habit of playing into the hands of those who hold the commodity receiver infrastructure.

    “This has become glaringly apparent in the latest Senate Committee inquiry into the draft Wheat Export Marketing Bill 2008.

    "When the sole mover of the produce in a region is also the sole purchaser, then the multiple sellers are in a bad position indeed, without transparency and equivalency of terms.

    “The government has become hesitant to deal with the regional monopolisations which have become established at the regional loading terminals of bulk commodities.

    "This must be changed so the inland rail is a great asset for all Australians, not just a couple.”

    SOURCE: Queensland Country Life

  • Bureau Helps Farmers Prepare for Climate Chaos

    Farmers wanting to know more about rainfall and climate will find it much easier, thanks to two new tools released today as part of a Bureau of Meteorology upgrade.

    The first tool shows a range of rainfall scenarios for most rainfall recording stations in Australia.

    Farmers can also use a new online product to find out what factors are influencing the climate in their region by clicking on an interactive map.

    These products are the first in a series of new climate products being developed by the Bureau and the Managing Climate Variability program in response to a study on farmers’ seasonal forecasting needs.

    They aim to make seasonal forecasts more reliable, more useful and more accessible to farmers.

    The Rainfall Ranges product uses graphs to compare the current rainfall with historical values for every bureau weather station that has at least 20 years of records.

    It also shows a range of potential rainfall scenarios based on past climate information recorded at each site.

    “It is important to note that the scenarios are not forecasts," says Dr Andrew Watkins, senior climatologist from the Bureau’s National Climate Centre.

    "Rather, they provide a range of rainfall potential based on historical data.

    "Farmers can see, at a glance, what rainfall occurred in the past for a specific location.

    “This graph will be especially useful to farmers during autumn when seasonal forecast models offer less guidance.”

    Managing Climate Variability and the Bureau are also responding to the farmers’ requests for increased understanding of what drives regional climate.

    For the first time, the ‘Australian Climate Influences’ web page brings together simple information on all the things that drive our climate, including El Niño, La Niña, and the Indian Ocean dipole.

    Farmers can see what influences their part of the world by simply clicking on the map or the menu and looking up detailed descriptions.

    “The descriptions will include a where-and-when for each driver so farmers know what to look for when they hear a climate outlook or see a weather map or satellite image,” Dr Watkins says.

    “We’ve also included past examples of each climate influence upon Australia, and added related Bureau web pages for finding real time forecast information.”

    The new products are based on a survey of almost 500 farmers and their advisers who described what they wanted from a climate service.

    More products, including better seasonal forecast maps and further information products will be launched later in the year.

    Managing Climate Variability and the Bureau are interested in farmer feedback about these two new products.

    “Log on, have a look around, and let us know your thoughts,” says Dr Watkins.

    Both products are available on the Bureau’s Water and the Land (WATL) website: http://www.bom.gov.au/watl/.

    SOURCE: Rural Press national news bureau, Canberra

  • Irrigators tell government to butt out

    The Murray Darling Basin’s biggest irrigation company, Murray Irrigation Ltd, has been called on to halt sales of water to governments until a satisfactory policy outcome has been reached with the Federal Water Minister, Penny Wong.

    The chairman of the Murray Valley Community Action Group (MVCAG) Lester Wheatley says if governments continue to take water from sellers who are under duress, in the middle of the worst drought in a century, there will be a major collapse of agriculture in the Basin.

    Concerned members of local government, peak industry groups and community water crisis members met in Deniliquin endrosed this view.

    They agreed they wanted Federal Water Minister Penny Wong to urgently visit the region to discuss the targeting of the Murray Valley in the water buy-up, and the social and economic consequences of this action.

    Mr Wheatley says there is an urgent need to investigate how much water is being targeted from this region in the current water buy-up.

    There’s an urgent need to understand the consequential economic and social impact, which will result from this large-scale transfer of irrigation water from productive use.

    “We will not stand by and watch water entitlements eroded from so called ‘willing sellers’ when we don’t know what quantities of water these government departments have already purchased and may purchase from our area,” Mr Wheatley says.

    “This region has had a zero allocation for the last two years and had its carry-over water suspended until recently.

    "The bucket is dry – there really is no water for us or the environment.

    "These are just paper transactions at a time when irrigators are financially under the hammer and in no position to make balanced judgments.

    “Many farmers are parting with their most valuable asset as a last resort just to stay afloat.

    "The tragedy is that the current closed tender process is not transparent,

    "We are seeing farmers playing Russian roulette – hoping they are accepting the best offer for their water entitlements.

    "There is a total lack of price transparency.

    "And four of the buyer’s in the market are tax payer funded entities.

    “The water in this valley is not only a resource for the farming community.

    "It is a resource for the productivity and sustainability of the towns of the Murray Valley as well.

    "So I seek urgent discussions with the Minister.

    "Until then the MVCAG requests Murray Irrigation and all other irrigation water authorities to immediately block all water sale transfers to government,” Mr Wheatley said.