the wastelands

The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, has said in the Sunday Times "Sin is not just a restricted list of moral mistakes, it is living a life turned in on itself where people ignore the consequences of their actions." He has listed flying on holiday, driving a gas guzzling car and failing to use energy saving measures in the home are a symptom of sin. A booklet on environmental matters called Treasures on Earth is to be sent to every diocese for distribution.

Sunday Times story here.

Dear Charles Clarke,

I have been taking a lot of interest recently in green issues as I guess most of us are becoming aware that we consume far too much and our limited resources are rapidly depleting. It is with concern that I have read about the Energy Review especially with regard to the emphasis on not only maintaining but increasing our nuclear power systems.
There are several reasons for my concern:
a) safety- not only the day to day safety for workers and people living in the area but also safety from a potential terrorist strike
b) environmental impact- nuclear waste is radioactive for thousands of years and needs disposal. We cannot leave this legacy for future generations to deal with as this is cavalier and thoughtless
c) limited reserves of radioactive materials- I believe that there are only enough nuclear resources to sustain the level of power stations proposed by this review for about 40 years so this solution seems so temporary to be worthless
d) impact on CO2 emissions- without taking into consideration the environmental damage already impacting the environment by using nuclear fuel, producing toxic waste that is with us for thousands of years and building power stations that have a limited shelf life, the statistics seem to say that nuclear power will have little impact on reducing CO2 emissions. Greenpeace state that nuclear power provides 20% of our electricity but it only represents 3.6% of the UK's total energy use. In order to make a lasting impact on CO2 emissions, we need to have a more realistic total energy plan including a look at a decentralised system in order to use the currently wasted heat from power stations and to have a stronger policy on using renewable resources.

I am sure you are aware of all these factors and I wanted to know what your opinion is of a decentralised energy system? It would appear that by producing and using power locally using Combined Heat and Power stations, a staggering 61.5% of the energy currently lost could be reclaimed and used. This would have a significant impact on CO2 emissions and is obviously much less wasteful. What is your opinion and what is the recommendation of the Energy Review in regards to CHP stations?

I'm sure you will agree that this is probably our most pressing issue for this and future generations and I look forward to hearing your opinions.


Yours sincerely,

Helen Bouttell

In the quest to bridge the energy gap, there is a choice between two energy systems:
centralised or decentralised.

A centralised system is what we currently have with energy produced at a huge power station which is then transported across the country.Using this system, two thirds of all energy generated in our nuclear, coal and gas fuelled power stations is lost as waste heat.Of the total energy going into a power station, a staggering 61.5% is lost as waste heat at the power station itself, for example in the cooling tower. Another 3.5% is lost along the transmission lines. Finally, 13% is lost through inefficient use, for example in the home.

A decentralised system is a system that captures that "waste" heat and distributes it to local buildings or city districts by producing electricity close to where it is used and using Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants. Renewable technologies such as wind farms, solar power and energy from greener fuels such as biomass can also be used successfully in this system. It is also possible for consumers to become producers using this system by having solar panels or wind turbines. The idea is that people take more responsibility for the energy that they use.
The good news is that these decentralised systems are already in place and working well. The entire city of Rotterdam runs on decentralised energy, as does over 50% of Denmark. Across Europe major cities such as Malmö, Copenhagen and Helsinki have all adopted decentralised energy on a large scale. In fact, worldwide, decentralised energy systems are generating more energy than nuclear power stations.

Nuclear Power technically produces less CO2 emissions but it provides 20% of our electricity but this only represents 3.6% of the UK's energy use. A a new generation of power stations would only cut our CO2 emissions by 4%. This doesn't even take into account the cost, dnager and impact that the extremely toxic waste products have.

For those of you that want to take action click here to make your feelings known. There is also Write to Them.com. But please do express how you feel about it...

It's official! People can lead long happy lives without consuming large amounts of the Earth's resources. The south Pacific island of Vanuatu as the happiest nation on the planet according to the "Happy Planet Index" which lists 178 nations and is based on consumption levels, life expectancy and happiness. The study was compiled by think-tank the New Economics Foundation (Nef).
Germany is ranked 81st
Japan is ranked 95th
UK is ranked 108th
US is ranked 150th
Richard Layard at the London School of Economics said the index "reminds us that it is not good enough to be happy today if we are impoverishing future generations through global warming.Over the last 50 years, living standards in the West have improved enormously but we have become no happier."

Nef is calling for the adoption of a "global manifesto for a happier planet" that will list ways nations can live within their environmental limits and increase people's quality of life. The recommendations include:

* Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger
* Recognising the contribution of individuals and unpaid work
* Ensuring economic policies stay within environmental limits

BBC story here

... can be recycled in a 6 month trial scheme at Norwich, Thetford, King's Lynn, Caister and Wells Recycling Centres.

Norfolk Waste Partnership and EDP24 have teamed up to produce this site. Looks good...

• 360 million plastic bottles were recycled in 2002
• 3% of household plastic bottles are currently recycled
• 9.1 billion plastic bottles were disposed of in 2002
• plastic bottle recycling schemes currently operate in 238 local authority areas
• 1 tonne = 20,000 plastic bottles
• 18,000 tonnes of bottles recycled in the UK in 2002 saved approximately 18 million kWh of energy
• there are approx 500 bottles in a typical bale
• the majority of plastic bottles are made from PET or HDPE
• recycling a single plastic bottle can conserve enough energy to light a 60W lightbulb for up to 6 hours
• the average sales value of sorted baled bottles (PET & HDPE) over the last 5 year period has been £123/tonne
• 330,608 tonnes of plastics packaging waste were recycled in 2002 (DEFRA)
• 11% of household waste is plastic, 40% of which if plastic bottles
• during 2002 plastic bottles worth around £27 million were disposed of at a cost of £45 million
• reprocessor demand for plastics outstrips supply 3 times over
• high performing kerbside collection schemes typically generate 5-10kg plastic bottles per household per year
• 25 recycled PET bottles can be used to make an adult's fleece jacket
• up to 40% less fuel is used to transport drinks in plastic bottles compared to glass bottles
• plastic packaging uses only around 2% of all crude oil produced

Well this situation really makes me think. With the research that I've done, I know that there are plastic bottle recycling facilities in this country but I don't doubt for a minute that Norfolk bottles have been going to Hong Kong to get recycled. If this is the case, what is the principle here? Do we recycle the bottles (which in itself uses energy for transportation and processing, wherever it is done)? Or do we allow landfills to overflow because it is energy inefficient to send them across the globe? Should we be insisting that we have a local plant that can cope with the demand or is it that we should be looking at our buying habits a little more closely and only purchase glass bottles?

Although the volume of the bottles must be huge, this must be reduced by crushing and the weight will be relatively small. I don't think this method is either green or cost effective but seems to be the only option we have at the moment and I would rather the bottles were recycled and maybe even at a cost until a more permanent solution is found.

With solutions, there always arises a new set of problems. For example, if we switch all our bottles to glass, what environmental cost will there be in the rise of fuel expenditure due to the extra weight? *sigh!*

Our plastic bottles sent to Hong Kong

Lewis Hannam

29 June 2006 08:50

Plastic bottles handed over for recycling in Norwich are being shipped 8,000 miles to Hong Kong - making a mockery of the supposedly eco-friendly practice.

City Hall's waste boss says bottle collections are so expensive and long-winded he does not think the authority should even be offering them.

Brian Morrey, the city council's executive member for development and sustainability, said: “All the plastic bottles that are put out for recycling in Norwich are currently going to Hong Kong. There are simply not the facilities in this country at the moment to be able to do this type of recycling.”

Plastic bottles collected in the city are taken to Norfolk Environmental Waste Services in Costessey.

All the bottles are then sent to RECOUP in Peterborough, where the quantity is split in half, with 50 per cent going to Magic Bright in Hong Kong, and 50 per cent going to Chinamerge Technology Ltd, also in Hong Kong.

Chinese firms are offering UK waste companies about £120 a tonne for plastic bottles, the materials are used to make things such as furnishings, clothes and even plastic bags - which are then sold back to the UK.

Greenpeace has criticised the practice of plastics being shipped to the Far East as environmentally damaging reprocessing, rather than the helpful recycling families taking their bottles to banks hope for.

Mr Morrey, who took up his post after Labour's largest party victory at the May local elections, said: “As it stands I would not even offer these plastic bottle collection services.

“Plastic recycling is not cost-effective until we get some of the correct procedures in this country.”

The city council pays £358 for every tonne of plastic bottles it has recycled. Since October last year the authority has spent more than £5,000 on this process.

Adrian Ramsay, leader of the city council's Green Party, said: “All recyclable materials should be reprocessed as locally as possible to minimise the pollution caused through their transportation.

“In the longer term we would like to see reprocessing plants established in Norfolk to create local jobs and ensure that Norfolk's recyclable waste is reprocessed in Norfolk.”

Article found here

I saw that ad again and the website was http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/.
It's a shame that after showing such an accessible advert, the website appears on first glance to be fairly dry. Although I read with interest on this page that there is funding available to promote climate change to groups. That may be worth thinking about...