|
| Archived blog - November 2005 | ||
Wednesday 30 November 2005 New Car Dilemmas I need to buy a new car, well not a new new car, but new to me. My car has travelled about 117,000 miles and there's no way round it it's coming to the end of it's natural life. Now before you all get on to the email I do try to use alternative forms of transport wherever possible. But I'm afraid it's fact of life if you don't live in a city, which I don't, sometimes you need to use a car. I have to admit that I have almost zero interest in cars so the whole thing for me is a bit of chore. First you have to decide what to buy? Do I get Petrol or Diesel? I'd love one of those hybrids which I understand are currently only made by Toyota or Honda but I'm afraid they're a bit out of my price range. (and by the way the Honda website is rubbish I'm sure they spent a lot of money on it, it has a very fancy world clock, but someone ought to get it so it STOPS LOCKING UP!) I think the Honda is called a civic and according to the Green Consumer Guide it's Britain's greenest car, but to honest I spent so long trying to get sense out of their website I gave up! If you look at the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA), car fuel data website they give all the emissions and fuel consumption data for, I understand, every car for sale in the UK. The US equivalent is www.fueleconomy.gov. They give bucket loads of information but no actual advice. For example, a priority for me is the car will last a long time. Apparently a large percentage of the CO2 a car will produce during it's lifetime will be used during the manufacture so it would seem like a good idea to keep it for a long time. So if I buy a diesel I understand the CO2 emissions are less than a petrol car, but the other emissions (particulates) are greater so which is best? and don't diesel engines last longer? So is it better to have more particulates but the car lasts longer, so there's less CO2? You see with bikes it's so easy. In answer to the question 'If I need to buy a new car, should I buy one that runs on petrol or diesel?' Friends of the Earth say 'if you spend a lot of time driving in cities - a petrol car combined with a catalytic converter, fuel efficient engine and reformulated fuel is the best option'. Well around town I tend to walk or use my bike so almost all my driving is for longer journeys where it's too far to cycle or I can't get the train. But it doesn't actually say what you should do if the majority of your driving is on the motorway. I assume by implication they're saying get a diesel, but it's not clear. FOE also have a PDF document you can download titled 'Cleaner Cars and Fuels', I have yet to plough through that one. Now if you look at the Channel 4 - Guide to Green Motoring they say 'If you're not likely to spend much of your driving time in nose-to-tail traffic around town, then you could be better off with a diesel - especially if it's a relatively new diesel incorporating the latest technology.' OK well that seems to agree with FOE. I could be on to something here.
|
||
Friday 25 November 2005 CO2 Levels are Highest for 650,000 Years 
Fascinating results have come from the research being undertaken by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA). Having drilled over 3 Km in to the Antarctic ice, a project which took five years, they are now analyzing the results with amazing conclusions. Their research has shown that current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the last 650,000 years. The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C). Where scientists have drilled 3,270m into the ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time. Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature. 'One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context,' said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland. 'We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.'
Apparently according to Friends of the Earth (FOE) there is a danger that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) may outlaw energy efficiency labelling on domestic products following calls from countries including Korea, the United States and China that it is anti-competitive. This would also include labels such as used on plastic bottles or paper to show whether they have recycled content. The UK Government have stated that we're not in danger of losing this environmental regulation, but if that's the case it seems strange that it's on the WTO agenda. This is the sort of WTO nonsense that if it were enacted would fly in the face of even the most basic common sense. FOE are trying to encourage people to write or email to Tony Blair to use
his influence with Peter Mandelson to ensure the EU opposes these changes.
This has got to be worth the couple of minutes it takes to send the email
from the FOE website here. Wrap up warm - Wildberry |
||
Thursday 24 November 2005 The Rich get Richer In a very interesting article in yesterdays Guardian Jonathan Freedland confirmed what many of us have suspected for sometime; that the earnings gap between the top 1% of earners in the UK and the very lowest has got even bigger. When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, just under 6% of national income went to the top 1%. That figure stood at 9% a decade later, but under Tony Blair it has risen to at least 13%. In the article Freedland discusses whether this matters. Does it matter to the very poor if the very rich actually do have more money than they know what to do with? If you're earning the minimum wage, maybe working two jobs and still struggling to feed your children does it matter to you if the top earners have 5% of the nations wealth or 10% of it? I suppose on an everyday basis it doesn't. But what it does do is reflect very poorly on our society. It shows that this society that doesn't care if the poorest are struggling to survive; as long as it doesn't stop the wealthiest from earning all they want. We all know that many of the highest earners pay little or no tax because they pay highly paid accountants to squirrel it way for them. Why is it so unthinkable to have a redistributing tax policy? Is it such a crime for the very rich to contribute to relieve the burden on the very poorest? Is it just that those that influence our governments, of whatever colour, have perpetuated the myth that little bit of extra tax is going to so de-motivate them that they're not going to bother working anymore and will all rush of to invest their millions elsewhere. Yeh right! - I think it's a risk worth taking! Keep safe out there - Wildberry |
||
Monday 21 November 2005 Call for Health Warnings on 4x4s Researchers at Trinity College Dublin have said 4x4s should carry a health warning because of increased risk of injury to pedestrians. See the BBC report here. Ciaran Simms, a lecturer in mechanical engineering and Desmond O'Neill, associate professor of medical care for the elderly, said that the increased risk from SUVs is caused by the design of the front end of the vehicles. Pedestrian injuries from ordinary cars are mainly leg fractures and knee injuries from the initial impact with the bumper, and head injuries from the secondary impact with the bonnet or windscreen. But researchers say that, because SUV bonnets are higher than those of cars, there is a more severe initial impact on the upper leg and pelvis, and a doubling of injuries to vulnerable regions such as the head, thorax, and abdomen. There is a lot more information about SUV safety on the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s website here. Including the following: In the USA, where big 4x4s are even more common than in Chelsea, the safety record of 4x4s is appalling:
|
||
Friday 19 November 2005 Climate Change update I suppose it's natural but when you build any site like this there are areas that get focused on more than others. I've just been looking through the directory, one area that stands out as needing attention and updating is the Climate Change section. It's commonly accepted that climate change is probably the greatest threat to life on the planet and I'd like to give it additional focus on Wildberry's in the coming months. To that end I'd appreciate it if you would send me any links or articles that you think appropriate, any sources of information, guides to reduce your own environmental footprint, any writing that's inspired you or even if you think the whole thing's a load of eco-hype, I'm interested to hear what you have to say.
A great start for information on climate change is the
BBC's Planet Under Pressure website. They have a very good six part series on
the main environmental challenges facing the planet and links to all the
latest environmental news stories. |
||
Monday 14 November 2005 McLibel enters the Dictionary The MacMillan English Dictionary has recognised the word McLibel and is in fact its word of the week for this week. For the full background follow the link above. Congratulations to our friends at McLibel surely at Knighthood beckons! McLibel:
noun [U] /mklabl/ Fancy a burger? - Wildberry |
||
Friday 11 November 2005 Jumpstart Ford Today the good people over at the Alliance Against Urban 4x4s are protesting outside Ford’s creative design centre in London to demand that Ford lives up to its voluntary EU targets on carbon dioxide emissions. The action they're carrying out is in support
of the Jumpstart Ford campaign,
based in the USA, which is co-ordinating several days of international action
beginning today. Mr J Mays Vice President and Chief Creative Officer Ford Motor Company Broadwick House 15/17 Broadwick Street Soho London W1 Dear Mr Mays, I am writing to you out of concern that Ford is set to fail to meet its voluntary European targets for new car emissions. I was shocked to find out that, in 2005, the fleet of Ford cars - including Ford, Jaguar, Mazda, Volvo, Land Rover and Aston Martin - emit an average of 206 g/km of carbon dioxide: far above the EU industry target of 140 g/km by 2008. This is not what I expect from a company that prides itself on innovation. Moving Ford’ design operations to the creative atmosphere of Soho was supposed to produce cars for the future. Your designers should be reaching for new solutions to show Ford can still be a real leader in the automotive industry. Average emissions of 120 g/km could be achieved today using existing technology and we could all be driving zero-emission cars by 2020, so why is Ford so far behind? Today I am adding my voice to an international effort to get Ford back on target. I urge you to lead the way to cleaner cars and press Chairman Bill Ford to stop making and promoting gas-guzzling urban 4x4s, reduce the carbon footprint of all Ford’ cars immediately and support legally binding targets for carbon dioxide reductions in Europe and the rest of the world. Yours sincerely, Wildberry The AAU4x4s are going to have pictures and a report
of today's protest on their website later today. Have a great weekend - Wildberry
|
||
Wednesday 9 November 2005 Charity Christmas Cards As the festive season seems to be arriving earlier every year our mind turns to Christmas cards. So I read with interest an article in the Guardian on Saturday comparing the amount of money given by the purchase of charity Christmas Cards. As I'm sure all Wildberry's readers only buy charity cards I thought it might be of interest. The are the bear details showing the highest and lowest
amounts given to charity by each shop. If you want the Guardian article look here. |
||
| Store | Highest | Lowest |
| Boots | 10% | 10% |
| Clinton Cards | 25% | 25% |
| Fenwick | 8.5% | 0.3% ! |
| John Lewis | 10.8% | 3.7% |
| Marks & Spencer | 10% | 10% |
| Next | 12.5% | 6.2% |
| Paperchase | 20% | 12.5% |
| Sainsbury's | 10% | 10% |
| Tesco | 7.5% | 7.5% |
| Waterstone's | 10% | 10% |
| WH Smith | 100% | 5% (100% for Children in Need cards) |
| Woolworths | 7.05% | 7.02% |
The Guardian give their Best Buy to Clinton Cards that gives 25% across the board to a wide range of charities. If you're a supporter of Children in Need then you can't do any better than go to WH Smith who are giving 100% of the £4.99 cover price. If you support a particular charity then you probably do better to buy direct from them and many charities have on-line web shops selling cards. Also have a look at www.cardaid.co.uk and www.cardsforcharity.co.uk. Doesn't thinking about Christmas make you feel cold? |
||
Monday 7 November 2005 Long Distance Vegetables - Revisited Back on the 28 October I wrote to Sainsbury's about their policy of shipping vegetables, specifically in this case spinach, half-way around the world when the exact same vegetable is available just down the road. Well we have a response! I didn't really expect detailed justification of their policy, which was just as well as I didn't get one! But it does serve to show them that their customers do care about these things and hopefully they do some sort of analysis on the numbers of letters they get on a particular subject. Unless of course I'm the only writer on this subject .. Mmm .. I hadn't thought of that. Anyway this is what they said .... 'I'm sorry that you are not happy with the
origins of the vegetables in our Pepper Hill store. I can appreciate this
must be disappointing for you.' Sorry I have
to butt-in at this point, do you think he's taking the piss? Anyway back to
the letter .. If our buyers feel that there will be any shortfall in the amount of UK produce available, they will try to source food from other parts of the world. This may also be done if the quality of UK produce has been affected in any way such as by bad weather. We are committed to trying to provide as much of our food from UK suppliers as possible across the range, not just with Organic. We will buy from farms in Great Britain and Northern Ireland before we look further a field. Thank you for taking the time to write to us. I hope I have been able to reassure you of our commitment to stock British produce wherever possible.' I think the trouble is that they haven't really understood the thrust of my letter. Which explained that bring produce over thousands of miles isn't sustainable, period, therefore if they cannot source from the UK or the near continent they should just sell something else! Sorry for me telling you this I'm preaching to the converted. The question is, is it worth me writing back? ........... I'll think about that one. Keep Safe - Wildberry |
||
Tuesday 1 November 2005 Good News for the Little Guy The Office of Fair Trading in the UK has pulled out of a legal battle with Association of Convenience Stores (ACS) over the ACS call for a further investigation into the impact of the big supermarkets on their businesses. BBC website report here. The OFT has agreed to reconsider an inquiry into the trading practices of the supermarkets. This is all very well, but the fact that the ACS has had to threaten to take the Office of Fair Trading to court just to get them to take this matter seriously does not bode well for their impartiality on this subject. I think the majority of small shop holders would accept the reality of the supermarkets and the fact that they're not going to just go away. But what is really hurting them is the supermarkets particularly Tesco buying the smaller chains and moving back into the high streets and petrol stations. I know I've said this before but we all need to remember that if we don't shop in supermarkets they won't stay open for long! Then maybe we can encourage the small shop keepers to return. The power is in your hands! Isn't it warm for October! - Wildberry |
||
