October 20th, 2009
Friends of the Earth have recently secured commitment from Harrogate Council to reduce their carbon emissions by 40% by 2020 and an 80% cut by 2050. This is undoubtedly a huge victory and in-line with FOE’s ‘Get Serious about CO2’ campaign.
The council’s plans are detailed in a 12 page ‘Climate Change Strategy’ document, which explains the lengths they are prepared to go to, to achieve their aim. Their proposals to reduce emissions include looking not only at the councils own use, but that of the community as a whole. Areas of concern are as follows; domestic/workplace energy consumption, use of fuel, public transport issues, sustainable procurement principles, energy conscious building development and environmental awareness education, to name but a few.
If Harrogate Council are prepared to adopt these strategies, shouldn’t other councils now follow suit?
Tags: carbon emissions, Climate Change Strategy, Friends of the Earth, Get Serious Abou CO2 Campaign, Harrogate Council | Posted in Climate Change, Life Change, Local Councils, carbon emissions
Comments: No Comments yet!
June 29th, 2009
Set 35 yrs into the future, time is the predominant theme. From the minute the opening credits start to roll there’s no escaping it, or more specifically, the lack of it. The impressive opening sets an ominous tone, but the cut to supposedly ‘special’ effects representing the impact of climate change on society, although believable as concepts, sadly are not believable as effects.
Things only get worse once the Archive is introduced; a computer generated ‘Matrix’ like structure so foreboding it has to be accompanied by the mandatory clap of thunder every time it’s in shot – it’s more evil villain’s lair than last vestige of civilization. Unfortunately the Archivist Pete Postlethwaite goes on to utterly ruin this film and I can’t stress this strongly enough. The whole idea of the archivist is an appallingly week structure on which to hang such an important narrative, turning a series of fascinating documentaries, into nothing more than Government Warning Footage for schools. It’s not Pete Postlethwaite’s fault, but this character belittles the audience to such a degree you cringe every time he comes onto screen.
Of course there is a seriously powerful message; the film is engineered to make you want to pass the word around. In a perfect world everybody must watch this film and act upon it immediately before it’s too late. Naturally, nobody will really enjoy it, but everyone should see it – seriously.
Together with the educational message there is a liberal dishing out of shame and guilt along side healthy measures of blame, particularly if you live in the developed world. Quite rightly so – the depth and scale of unashamed and revolting corporate corruption is truly shocking. Facts and statistics are brilliantly illustrated, e.g. the immoral and irresponsible actions of Shell Oil in Nigeria and the utter and indiscriminate rape of Africa throughout the ages. The price other people are having to pay for the west’s extravagance and thoughtlessness is really driven home.
All of the above are forgivable, in fact pretty much unavoidable in a film with this subject matter. However, there is very little hope and I think that is a failing. The futility of mankind’s situation corrodes any faith in humanity you may previously have held. Designed to rally people into positive action before it’s too late, it succeeds in casting serious doubt as to whether humanity can even be saved from itself or whether reducing, halting or reversing our carbon emissions is just beyond us.
… Still want to see it? Well you should.
Starring: Pete Postlethwaite. Director: Franny Armstrong
IMPORTANT Please support NOT STUPID by clicking here.
Tags: Age of Stupid, carbon emissions, Climate Change, Film, Global Warming, Review | Posted in Airport Protests, Climate Change, New Road Protests, Transport
Comments: Only 1 comment so far. Add to the discussion!
June 1st, 2009
Rather naively I simply assumed that wind generated energy was a great idea: no burning of coal or oil or dangerous nuclear technology, just wind – that has to be a good thing surely!? I have to admit that now I am not so sure.
DART: Dorset Against Rural Turbines has a great website and it has turned my initial preconception regarding wind turbines on its head. DARTs prime concern is the proposal to erect four wind turbines at East Stoke, clearly visible from the historic town of Wareham.
Personally I struggle with the aesthetic argument, not because it not a very valid point, but because it has never stopped anyone before. Power stations are not exactly easy on the eye, neither are electricity pylons, but governments do not refuse their construction because they are ugly blots on the landscape. Wind Turbines are not pretty either, but will that really stand in the way of our energy needs?
DART’s money over common sense argument is particularly interesting. If the science does not stack up, then why is the government continuing with the scheme? The simple answer appears to be £’s. Surely we have wasted enough time and money on destructive forms of energy generation than to go down another dead-end with this one?
Apparently British Gas sending out 52 million energy saving light bulbs across the UK, will slash carbon emissions by nine million tonnes whereas the most optimistic estimate of a wind farm’s carbon saving is only 20,000 tonnes. Meaning we would need to build 450 wind farms to achieve the same carbon saving as changing our light bulbs! As well as these and other frightening statistics on the DART site there are also some shocking pictures of birds cleanly cut in half … again something I had never considered.
I admit it – I’m confused. Is wind energy really a bad thing? Should we be concentrating on wave generating power or will that electrify our fishes? I genuinely want to know. Any comments very welcome…
Tags: alternative energy, British Gas, carbon emissions, energy saving, light bulbs, Wind Turbines | Posted in Climate Change, Local Councils
Comments: 3 comments already but you can still join in!
April 21st, 2009
At the end of the day, the best way to get about for our bodies and our environment is always going to be under our own steam. Left to our own devises, who wouldn’t want to travel this way? After all in many cases the journey is as much an experience as the destination. Unfortunately for us, despite all of our time saving devises, time is always critical. We can seldom afford the luxury of walking, cycling and smelling the flowers on route . Time is very often money; we need to get to where we are going quickly, efficiently and hopefully with as little impact on the environment as we can possible get away with.
Driving in a relatively fuel-efficient car (25-30 miles per gallon) usually generates fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than flying. According to the environmental website Grist.org, a trip of around 300 miles, would generate about 104 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2) in a typical medium-sized car, regardless of the number of passengers. Flying that same distance on a commercial jet would produce some 184 kilograms of CO2 per passenger.
From an economical standpoint however, the high price of fuel means that it would be far more cost efficient to hop on a cheap internal flight than to drive a long distance. Of course, you would also have to factor in the time spent in restaurants and hotels along the way and of course the extra time it would take to get there.
Perhaps before over analyzing the best way to get somewhere, we should first spend some time considering exactly where we are going and why….
Tags: carbon emissions, ethical transport, fuel efficiency | Posted in New Road Protests
Comments: No Comments yet!