M&S to spend £200m on green strategy

The Coles Myer and Woolworths giants have been looking for something that distinguishes themselves for the other. Being Australian companies they also are unable to pioneer anything for themselves. NOW Marks and Spencer in Great Britain have presented the answer to them - go as green as possible. Hopefully they'll take note. I'm sure US people could say the same about their giants (mmm, I think read somewhere that Walmart is going super-green also - excellent, more of a reason for Coles Myer / Woolworths to do so also.

I also need to add that I write this blog entry with the realisation that what Marks & Spencer are doing will most likely not be the solution, though it will be a step in the right direction that will encourage change in the shopping industry (just like Dell are doing in the electronics industry). Things do have to happen in small steps (unfortunately if George Monbiot is correct then these small steps had better come quickly and successively after one-another if we are to achieve 90% reduction in Greenhouse Gases by 2030. A other hope it that what M & S (and the others are doing) isn't just Greenwashing which will get us nowhere at any time.

---

by Sarah Butler

Marks & Spencer plans to spend £200 million over the next five years on going green as the battle to become the most environmentally friendly retailer steps up.

The high street giant, which launches its strategy with an advertising campaign in March, has set some challenging targets, including a pledge to stop sending all waste to landfill and to reduce CO2 emissions by 80 per cent.

However, the aspirations will be closely scrutinised by non-governmental organisations, which will want to see if M&S will be able to maintain its commitment to them in future years as the deadline to meet its targets near. Stuart Rose, the chief executive, said that he hoped that the cost of the programme would be offset by increased sales.

Last year the retailer launched a Behind the Label campaign, which highlighted Marks & Spencer’s environmental and ethical business practices and was one of the retailer’s most successful advertising schemes.

Mr Rose said: “We think this is the right thing to do because our customers, employees and, increasingly, shareholders are asking us to. We believe those people will embrace a responsible business.”

M&S has worked on the project for six months, taking advice from Jonathon Porritt, the former director of Friends of the Earth, who said: “This plan raises the bar for everyone else — not just retailers but businesses in every sector.”

M&S’s detailed 100-point plan covers climate change, waste, raw materials, fair trade and healthy living.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Businesses dump 60% of all waste

Rob Edwards, Environment Editor

TWO-THIRDS OF the waste produced by Scottish businesses is still being dumped in landfill sites, swamping householders' efforts to recycle more of their rubbish.

Although ministers have invested heavily in schemes to increase domestic recycling, they have been accused of failing to tackle the mountains of waste generated by factories, shops, hotels and restaurants.

A survey for the government's green watchdog, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (Sepa), reveals that nine million tonnes of rubbish a year is produced by commercial and industrial premises. Only 2.35 million tonnes of this is recycled, with six million tonnes ending up as landfill. As this rots it emits methane, a powerful greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.
continued...

The amount of business waste dwarfs that of ordinary households. In the year to March 2006, local councils collected 3.4 million tonnes of municipal waste, 2.5 million tonnes of which was landfilled and 0.83 million tonnes recycled.

Sepa waste manager John Ferguson said more should be done to tackle the environmental effects of business waste.

He said: "It is of concern that we remain so dependent on landfill in Scotland for the management of our commercial and industrial wastes.

"Given the impact on climate change of methane from the breakdown of biodegradable waste in landfill, we will be focusing more attention on alternatives to landfill disposal for wastes from commercial and industrial sources."

He suggested a framework for business waste being developed with the Scottish Executive would begin to address the problem. Some waste could be used to generate energy in biomass plants, he said, and increased recycling would improve business competitiveness.

Read the article.

Read More......

10 things you should know about tree 'offsets'

I recently blogged about Dell going Carbon Neutral.

My point was that a major electronics company is taking this seriously, where-as another (Apple) isn't, atleast to the extent required (I discussed this in How green is my Apple). This post was not an endorsment to carbon offsets as a solution to climate change. Climate Action Brisbane, Friends of the Earth and many other groups do not support them. Carbon offsets is the first step to world-wide agreement. Carbon Quota / Rationing is the next. This is discussed in length in George Monbiot's book "Heat".

The reasons we don't support carbon offsets as a solution to climate change is discussed in this New International article. The key points are below:

Active Carbon Pool

Carbon moves between forests, atmosphere and oceans in a complex natural rhythm of daily/seasonal/annual and multi-annual cycles. The overall amount in all three carbon stores together rarely increases in nature. This is ‘active’ carbon.

Fossil Carbon Pool

Some carbon is locked away and rarely comes into contact with the atmosphere naturally. This ‘fossil carbon’ is stored permanently in coal, oil and gas deposits and therefore is not part of the active carbon pool. When humans mine and extract these reserves this inactive fossil carbon does not go back in the ground, but is added into the active carbon pool, disrupting a delicate balance.

This is one of the reasons that the concept of ‘offsets’ is flawed. Offsets allow extraction of oil, coal and gas to continue, which in turn increases the amount of fossil carbon that is released into the active carbon pool disrupting the cycle. That is why campaigners argue that genuine solutions to climate change require us to keep fossil carbon (oil, coal and gas) in the ground.

The ten reasons are:

1. Carbon in trees is temporary (Trees can easily release carbon into the atmosphere through fire, disease, climatic changes, natural decay and timber harvesting);
   
2. One-way road (the carbon in fossil fuels is safely locked away until mined);
   
3. Fake credit (carbon offsets is a false economy);
   
4. Big foot (the ecological footprint, or space to plant trees of offset the amount of carbon we currently release is too great - we need space for food crops and even for crops for bio-fuels (which take away from space from food crops so they too are not a solution);
   
5. Subsidies for mega-plantations (carbon offsets will support and subsidise plantations, and these are not desired for other reasons aswell as the above));
   
6. Communities suffer twice (indigenous and forest dependant communities not only suffer from climate change but from their land which will be taken over by plantations);
   
7. Ticking time bomb (drastic actions are required - carbon offsets just allow business to continue as usual and does not address the real changes that need to be made);
   
8. Forest fraud (we should be leaving the forest in areas such as the Amazon and South East Asia - some of the most heavily logged areas in the world - not knocking them down and starting monoculture plantations);
   
9. Blind guess (it is an unreliable science in carbon offsets - it is truly difficult to measure what is saved with what was released);
   
10. The tenth reason is a sumarisation of the above - Carbon credits from tree planting are a phony climate fix.
    

The lead article to the above is at If you go down to the woods today....

From it I extract another reason:

• That carbon offsets have become a business which values money over the true intention of reducing the carbon in our atmosphere. It's just capitalism in another guise.
  

From the story:

A report in the Sunday Telegraph stated that, of the 10,000 trees that were supposedly distributed to small farmers in this largely dry Indian state, only a few hundred were found to be still alive. The rest perished through lack of water and inadequate financial and infrastructure support from the Carbon Neutral Company and its partners.

One of the project participants, Anandi Sharan Mieli of Women for Sustainable Development, accused the Carbon Neutral Company of having a ‘condescending’ attitude. ‘They do it for their interests, not really for reducing emissions. They do it because it’s good money,’ she was quoted as saying. The Carbon Neutral Company, however, blames Mieli’s group for not meeting its ‘contractual obligations’ to provide the necessary irrigation and support.


Also see:

• Uganda - funny place to store carbon - story that supports this;
  
• blog: weekly green planet " The Truthiness Of Carbon Neutrality".
  

The lust for money over everything else is responsible for 100% of the human caused reasons why we are in this mess today. In my own opinion, we will not be able to solve the climate crisis, along with the social injustice that perpetuates it, whilst capitalism is at the helm steering planet people.

Read More......

Dell moves towards carbon neutrality

Yesterday I blogged about how Apple should accept the damage their industry does and stand up to the challenge of being a Green Apple. Greenpeace said they could do this with the aim to become the leader in the field to match their attitude of themselves in the Information Technology and Communcations arena.

Come forward one day and it seems Dell has stood up and appear to be taking serious strides in improving the impact they have on the Environment. More than just the initial purchase but looking at the life of the products they build and sell.

It appears that green credentials and minimising impacts on the environment have become an area of competition in our capitalist marketplace. Bring forth the games!

---

Dell chairman Michael Dell has announced plans to make all his company's PCs carbon-neutral by planting trees to offset the power used to run the computers.

The vendor is working with The Conservation Fund and Carbonfund.org, both of which are non-profit organisations that plant trees in sustainable managed forests.

Dell also urged other technology companies to take similar steps to protect the environment.

"The customer experience starts with receiving the best value and continues with the knowledge that we are working with our customers to protect the environment throughout the life of their system," said Dell.

"Programmes like Plant a Tree for Me and our global recycling efforts empower our customers to participate with us in making a difference. It is our hope that other companies in our industry will join us to improve the environment that we all share."

Customers will be invited to pay $2 for a notebook and $6 for a desktop to offset the likely power use over a three-year period. The scheme will be started in the US next month and worldwide in April.

"Dell has focused on eliminating toxics from their computers, and has improved this by encouraging others to join schemes," said a Greenpeace spokesperson.

The vendor has also launched a Dell Earth scheme in which customers can track the company's green programmes online.

Dell has also finished a review of its recycling system and will recycle any Dell computer free of charge.

Read the article.

---

Other references

Climate Action Brisbane blog: 10 things you should know about tree 'offsets'
CES 2007: Dell launches 'Plant a Tree for Me’ initative for PC buyers

Read More......

New report: GM crops remain unsustainable and unviable

Commenting on a Friends of the Earth report out today on GM crops, Greens have reiterated their call for a robust and effective GM strategy in Scotland, and have criticised the repeated delays to the consultation that should precede that strategy.

According to the report out today:

• GM crops commercialised have on the whole increased rather than decreased pesticide use
  
• GM crops do not yield more than conventional varieties
  
• the environment has not benefited, and GM crops will become increasingly unsustainable over the medium to long term.
  

Mark Ruskell MSP, Green speaker on environment, has proposed a bill at Holyrood to make GM companies strictly liable for any economic damage as a result of contamination caused by GM crop trials and commercialisation.


Mr Ruskell said, "This report proves that GM crops are bad news for the environment and for farmers around the world. The lack of consumer demand sends a strong message to biotech companies that their attempts to foist GM onto an unwilling public have so far been fruitless.

"The Executive needs to recognise how crucial this issue is to the future of Scottish agriculture, and ensure a robust strategy is developed to protect our farmers from the financial ruin faced by their counterparts in Canada and the US who have suffered GM contamination of their crops. So far Labour and LibDem ministers have shirked from the tackling this problem but they urgently need to address this for the sake of our farmers, consumers and the environment."

The Executive has repeatedly delayed a crucial consultation on the threat of GM crops and in November 2006 announced that it will not take place until this summer, after the next election. Ministers were due to issue proposals on the "co-existence" of GM crops in summer 2005, and Greens argue that the delays indicates Labour and LibDems' fear of drawing attention to their support for GM crops.

Read the article.

Story also at EU Business .com.

Read More......

New EU energy package dissapoints greens

Eco-groups look to Germany to strengthen EU energy package

Green groups say they are disappointed with the new EU energy package and want the German EU presidency to upgrade the proposals.

Environmental NGOs slammed Wednesday’s long-awaited proposals as “feeble” and “vague” and accused Brussels of contradicting its own findings.

“[The commission is] ignoring its own scientific and economic analysis, the commission proposes to stick to a business-as-usual energy policy, instead of making a paradigm shift to renewable energies and energy efficiency,” said Friends of the Earth.

“This energy package is another major step on the commission’s road to becoming the world leader in pure announcements and lip-service,” said EREC, the European renewable energy council.

Green groups were disappointed with a proposed target to reduce greenhouse gasses across the EU by 20 per cent by 2020, arguing that a 30 per cent cut would have been more effective.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Chrysler questions climate change

My god number two! The big motor companies in the US are continueing to deny Global Warming. I guess this is the expected behaviour of companies who stand to lose the most. They could have forseen this years ago, like Toyota did with the Prius, but no, they will continue to deny it and hope it goes away. Stuupid gringos. They will loose out even more as people are forced not to buy their big gas guzzlers. They are maintaining their profits now but will loose the lot in only a couple years time. My prediction is that you will see big motor company execs resigning with nice big golden handshakes. I don't think that violence helps anything, though I don't mind releasing some anger to suggest that those execs should be stoned if this comes true.

---

Chrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint has launched a fierce attack on "quasi-hysterical Europeans" and their "Chicken Little" attitudes to global warming.

His attack is in sharp contrast to the green image that the US car companies have been trying to promote at this year's Detroit motor show.

Mr Jolissaint was speaking at a private breakfast where the chief economists of the "Big Three" US car firms presented their forecasts for auto industry sales this year.

Most of the audience - which was mainly made up of parts suppliers - seemed to nod in agreement with Mr Jolissaint.

Neither Ford's chief economist Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, nor General Motors' chief economist Mustafa Mohatarem, who were on the panel with Mr Jolissaint, questioned his assertion.

Uncertain magnitude

Mr Jolissant, a Chrysler veteran who was recently appointed the chief economist for the German-US DaimlerChrysler Group, said that since he started spending more time at the company's corporate headquarters in Stuttgart he had been shocked by the absurdity of European attitudes towards global warming.

In response to a question from the floor, he said that global warming was a far-off risk whose magnitude was uncertain.

He said that from an economic point of view, it would be more rational to spend lots of money on today's other big problems, and only make small and limited changes in policies relating to global warming, such as a slight increase in gasoline or carbon taxes.

Read the article.

Read More......

Exxon Mobil reportedly admits PR problem on global warming

My god, when I saw this headline I thought myself "well about time Exxon Mobil came to their senses. I'm sure this means they will pump lots of money into helping the world solve this problem". Then I saw the words "[they] would just try and explain it [their position against global warming] better".

---

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) has promised investors it will soften its public image in an attempt to rid itself of a reputation as the green campaigners' public enemy number one, the Guardian reports Tuesday.

However, Chairman and Chief Executive Rex Tillerson made clear to a select group of Wall Street fund managers and analysts that the oil company wouldn't be changing its position on global warming, it would just try and explain it better, the newspaper says.

Read article.

Read More......

Global Warming could spur "evolution explosion"

What a laugh it would be if evolution could be proved outright through the changes we are seeing. I wonder what the Intelligent Design (ID) and Creationists would say then!

---

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fast-growing weeds have evolved over a few generations to adapt to climate change, which could signal the start of an "evolution explosion" in response to global warming, scientists reported on Monday.

This means that the weeds will likely keep up with any attempts to develop crops that can adapt to global warming, said Arthur Weis, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of California, Irvine.

But some long-lived species -- like the venerated California redwood tree, with a life-span of hundreds of years -- will not have the capacity to adapt so quickly, because their life cycles are so long, Weis said in a telephone interview.

The quick-growing weedy plant known as field mustard showed the ability to change reproductive patterns over a period of just seven years, Weis said.

"If you take a climate shift, such as we've had here in southern California, in a very few number of generations you can get a change in ecologically important traits that can allow these fast-growing weedy species to hang on and actually do well despite the change in environments," he said.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Alaska natives left out in the cold

While the rest of the world argues about the best way to curb future climate change, says Patricia Cochran in this week's Green Room, native communities within the Arctic Circle are having to draw on their own ancestral strengths to adapt to a rapidly changing world.

A day after Christmas, the Anchorage Daily News ran an article about flooding and erosion in small native villages on the west coast of Alaska with names familiar to no one else except Alaskans.

But this is a very familiar story to us. With thinner sea ice arriving later and leaving earlier in the year, coastal communities are experiencing more intensified storms with larger waves than they have ever experienced.

This threat is being compounded by the loss of permafrost which has kept river banks from eroding too quickly.

The waves are larger because there is no sea ice to diminish their intensity, slamming against the west and northern shores of Alaska, causing severe storm driven coastal erosion.

Read the article.

Read More......