Inconvenient truths: Don't believe the greenwash
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
More pictures
So you drive a Prius, eat organic and boycott anything made in China – but will that help to fight climate change? Simon Usborne faces the facts many ecologists would rather ignore
Click the image to the right to launch "Inconvenient truths: Don't believe the greenwash"
Additional reporting by Helen Brown
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
la Rance the tidal barrage in Brittany, France. Since its construction in 1966 it has generated approx 600 million kWh per year and the lagoon behind it has flourished for birdlife and fishing. The tide still comes in and out (that's how you generate the power!) just not so fast giving clearer water and better living conditions for nearly all lifeforms in the estuary. All that happens is the floor of the sea is no longer sandblasted clean four times a day by a 6knot current instead being filled/emptied by a steadier flow.
The mudflats remain and Electricite de France who manage the barrage control the water levels to keep
the wildlife happy as well as maximise power output. I visited it 30 years ago and it is still as full of wildlife today as it was then with some French ecologists saying it has improved the estuary.
However, it is still the case that the food we eat makes a major contribution to our carbon footprint. I suggest that if we start by choosing local food, that's in season and preferably organic it will make a significant difference. (And a vegetarian diet, or at least a reduction in meat consumption, would make even more of a positive contribution).
Simon Usborne lists a few exceptions (and I don't argue with those) but it's very poor reasoning to use these exceptions to write off the whole idea of food miles. And as for quoting Gareth Thomas: what's that supposed to tell us? It's OK to drive 6.5 miles to buy our shopping AND buy food that's flown half-way round the world! If you do have to drive to shop, then surely it would be best not to add even more to the carbon footprint.
A tree that emits more carbon than it absorbs is not living, it is rotting down. If the timber is instead used in say, a cathedral, it will fix that carbon for thousands of years. Hard to trust anything else Simon Usbourne says in this poorly researched piece.
Another place trees don't emit their C02 is in the landfill.
I heave all my old newspapers in the landfill.
"Cute animals will have to die"
Cute animals (and others) do not have to die, if the power plant constructors looked at all alternatives. Also, by moving and establishing new wetlands where possible, the ecology can adapt, given the chance.
"We need nuclear power"
A very unfortunate quote from the politician at the end, since her grand-children may be the ones stuck with dealing with the waste, while reaping no reward from the cheap, plentiful energy.
"Counting food miles will get you nowhere"
Again, conjuring up an absolute truth where none exist. Why not suggest effective, practical labeling of products, as in "greenhouse cultivated" (usually bad) or "CO2-less shipping" (good), to give consumers the right type of signals to put into their real-world equations, rather than juggling numbers from made-up scenarios?
"An old banger beats a hybrid"
Section semi-disqualified by not recognising the fundamental difference in fuel consumtion between petrol engines (Toyota Prius) and diesel engines (BMW 520 diesel), but happily comparing them side by side anyway.
"Coal is not a dirty word"
It is perhaps as practical as storing nuclear waste deep underground and hoping for stability in the next millennia. Probably safe, but who knows.
"Organic farming doesn't add up"
Excellent argument for going vegan! However, the open and fractured landscape of small farms are important to the biological diversity and the stability of the ecosystems. Compared to massive, industrial fields of mono-crops, though perhaps more efficient, organic farms seem like the future. Also, according to methane measures, 1 cow equals to 8 sheep, which may be an argument for switching protein source. (Hens are even better.)
"Ancient forests must be axed"
Another false choice. Luckily, most of us are not "utterly rational".
"Nature needs GM crops"
Nature has no opinion, but will take what we give and duplicate it. For example, genetic material that has been assembled in labs, will now make its way into wild varieties of crops, with unknown consequences. Closed systems are preferable to guineapiggin' the whole planet. Furthermore, we already have enough food to feed the whole planet, but we lack the political will and democratic maturity to secure and disperse it.
"Carbon offsetting doesn't pay"
Agree, actually. But why not demand that politicians lower the cap to a sustainable level? By letting the market adjust to the "facts on the ground", instead of just demanding credits for what they have been outputting (and then some), we could finally begin to favor energy conservation, carbon-less production and smart technology.
"China might be the solution"
China excels in making stuff cheap, including cheap solar, wind and rechargeable products. I have not seen a single calculation that shows that China does this using exceptionally low carbon manufacturing or otherwise save raw materials. What China traditionally also has been good at, is covering up scandals, oppressing protests regarding environmental catastrophes and lending money to further unsustainable lifestyles. This "low-carbon dragon economy" may very well be just the latest flavor of "business as usual", where demands from the West to cover up our problems ("salve our consciences") provokes a rapid response from the supplier-side.
Regards,
Andrew
Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa.
The preface notes:
The evidence presented in this study supports the argument that organic agriculture can be more
conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is
more likely to be sustainable in the long term.
The article in the Independent recycles tired old arguments against organic that we have heard too many times. Let's have something with a bit more analysis.
How STUPID is this? Man can find a way. We are also responsible for protecting our planet for future generations - otherwise there is no purpose to all of this.
Enough.
However, there is no scenario in which the pictured jeep is a greener choice than a hybrid. The article's intent seems to be to instill confusion and therefore complacency. Keep thinking green folks. Your efforts are not wasted, as this article implies.
I would not normally describe humans as "cute little animals" but the world population is the biggest problem of all & that is the one that has to be addressed..........
If we don't then frankly the future is bleak, even if it is bleak & green!
Rather than turning off the lights for an hour one day a yaer, let's have a week in which nobody gets pregnant.
Sonja Craythorne
This nonsense spoils the article, which contains much sense elsewhere.
Ancient woodland in the GB is a term used by conservationists for woodland, which has never been cleared, resulting in a huge variety of rare species of flowers, creatures, etc. In nature conservation terms, a huge treasure! It was, however, always harvested, a traditional method being coppice with standards, with large trees such as oak spaced well apart for timber and coppice trees such as hazel in between harvested every, say, 10 years. This supported a large greenwood industry while preserving the nature. Such woods are today mostly just growing wild through disinterest, which brings little benefit compared to the traditional management.
If, as you say, old trees do not suck up carbon as well as young ones, please take into account that old trees suport a large range of species. If coppicing was to be restarted by people, who need wood for heating, under the supervision of nature conservation organisations, the overall environmental and nature conservational benefits could be huge.
Other than permaculture and powerdown, it's all greenwash.
The window of opportunity for humans 'fixing' the environment (including the massive population and energy problems) came and went in the 1980s. Instead of heeding the perfectly valid limits to growth warnings of the 60s and 70s, politiicans and business leaders promoted a free for all, based on the worst aspects of greed and stupidity imaginable.
Nature will deal with that greed and stupidity over the coming decades in ways most people are not going to like. It is already starting for poor people in remote places, and will work through to so-called advanced nations, whether we like it or not.
I'd suggest anyone interested reads Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry, then re-reads the advertisement above. Clear, unadulterated PR.