<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Green Bill of Health</title>
      <link>http://www.greenbillofhealth.co.uk/</link>
      <description>Bill Swan is managing director of Paper Round
and  Carbon Smart .  He has had a diverse career in the waste management industry, in both the public and private sectors. He is a devoted environmentalist and ardent promoter of &apos;real recycling&apos; – recycling that maximises the economic, environmental and social benefits of recycling for everyone.
Bill&apos;s ethical and environmental credentials have seen many governmental and private sector organisations rely on him for advice on sustainable business and sustainable living policy.
</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2007</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:11:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>Bio-diesel: a clean-burning diesel alternative?</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The European Union recently published a report proposing to supply 20% of Europe’s transport with bio-fuels by 2020, thereby reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. In the same week, Indonesia’s Sinar Mas Agro Resources and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) signed a deal worth $5.5bn to clear 1 million hectares of virgin rainforest for bio-fuel projects. This is not the first project of its kind and most likely will not be the last to occur in countries where impoverished populations seek greater economic opportunities. Projects like these highlight the darker side to this so-called ‘clean burning’ fuel industry.  By attempting to meet poorly thought out targets rather than reduce demand, Europe has created a strong market for fuel that is more destructive and carbon-intensive than fossil fuels.
	
Europe simply cannot grow bio-fuels to be self-sustainable, and has thereby committed itself to a foreign market.  UK road transport alone uses 37.6 million tonnes of petroleum products per year.  To grow enough rapeseed to supply this demand would require 25.9 million hectares of cropland; 5 times the UK’s entire cropland! Growing crops in tropical countries is also more profitable because palm oil yields up to four times the amount per acre than rapeseed and labour there is far cheaper. The problem is that this ‘available’ land is virgin rainforest and plantation owners are receiving large grants to destroy them.

Rainforests are major carbon sinks. Turning them into plantations requires deforestation through logging, forest fires and the drying of peat.  The vast amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by these activities, counteracts any benefits biodiesel may have as a low-emission fuel. These mono-crops also require large quantities of fertiliser, often made from nitrous oxide (N20) derivatives.  N20 remains in the atmosphere for 110-120 years and is 310 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. Furthermore emissions are created during the processing of bio-diesel, before it is shipped halfway around the world and marketed as a ‘green’ fuel. 

This intensive agriculture is having major effects on water supplies, soil quality and biodiversity.  Orang-utans and Sumatran tigers are among the many species facing extinction.  It is also exacerbating social unrest and displacing indigenous communities.

While this irresponsible proliferation of the bio-fuel industry continues, the EU has conveniently avoided any legislation to ban bio-fuels from unsustainable sources.   This allows them to have cheaper fuel, out-source its emissions and even claim credit from the Kyoto agreement for meeting its targets. 

In global terms, lowering Europe’s emissions at the expense of developing countries is an ultimately pointless pursuit, as the environmental and humanitarian disaster it is causing will affect Europe regardless. Marketing bio-diesel as an environmentally sound fuel is misleading unless strict regulations for sustainability are enforced

You can comment on this article or send me an <a href="mailto:bill@paper-round.co.uk">email directly</a>.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.greenbillofhealth.co.uk/2007/03/low_emission_vehicles_are_not.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.greenbillofhealth.co.uk/2007/03/low_emission_vehicles_are_not.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Environment</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Is it time environmentalists reconsider the nuclear debate?</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The reality of Climate Change is a huge challenge and environmentalists are right to be pushing Governments, Corporates and individuals alike to change fundamentally many aspects of society, long established business models and lifestyles. Huge changes that require brave and farsighted decisions by politicians and business leaders.

One group however has so far ducked the brave decisions and refused to change long cherished beliefs. I am referring to the environmental movement and nuclear power. On the one hand environmentalists rightly point out the huge dangers and costs of not rapidly moving to a low carbon economy and on the other hand are sticking by their 30 year old opposition to nuclear power.

Climate change fundamentally alters the equation on whether nuclear is a good or bad way to generate electricity. It is our only proven, well-established technology that could very quickly start to replace fossil fuel electricity production. 

It is a false choice to say it is nuclear or renewables. It is renewables and nuclear or fossil fuels. Any Government has to give an overwhelming priority to energy security. How are environmentalists proposing that we keep the electricity flowing on a cold still February morning? Nuclear power is the only low carbon technology we currently have that can do this. Obviously if we can phase it out again in 50 years when better options are available that will be fantastic, but we need to act now.

Climate Change requires tough brave decisions and changes to the way that we have been doing things for centuries. Environmentalists should not be ducking those brave decisions themselves whilst they ask them of everybody else. We need to stop pretending that Climate Change has not fundamentally altered the nuclear power debate and that arguments developed 20 years ago are still valid. Nuclear power is the least worst option for secure, reliable, economic bulk electricity generation.

Environmentalists rightly place much emphasis on reducing electricity consumption. This is of course sensible and the best long term option. But again you have to ask yourself the question, what is going to be easier and quicker – persuading 20 million consumers to turn their TV’s off at the wall and all the other myriad lifestyle changes, or simply making the UK’s electricity supply low carbon?

A key part of Environmentalists’ anti-nuclear argument has been to not bequeath nuclear waste to future generations to deal with. But you have to ask yourself, would future generations rather deal with a few hundred m3 of highly radioactive waste in carefully engineered and monitored facilities or millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide loose in the atmosphere forcing dramatic climate change?

The UK Government will soon be announcing a new nuclear power program. Environmentalists have to ask themselves carefully, are they going to be part of the (imperfect) solution or be part of the problem? Opposing nuclear power is simply going to delay plants. What will happen during that time? Electricity will continue to be produced by burning coal and gas and millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide will have been released into the atmosphere. It is not nuclear or renewables, it is nuclear or fossil.
It’s time for us all to make some tough and unpleasant decisions and environmentalists are no exception.

You can comment on this article or send me an <a href="mailto:bill@paper-round.co.uk">email directly</a>.


]]></description>
         <link>http://www.greenbillofhealth.co.uk/2007/04/is_it_time_environmentalists_r.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.greenbillofhealth.co.uk/2007/04/is_it_time_environmentalists_r.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Climate Change</category>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Public Policy</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Business Waste Recycling – The next great idea?</title>
         <description>Recycling from businesses is being heralded as the next big idea for Local Authorities. Widening the recycling focus from households to encompass the wider municipal waste stream seems like a great idea – but is it?

Like most things it all depends on how it is implemented. If Local Authorities subsidise collections or mix relatively clean business waste with lower grade or co-mingled household recycling, this new policy initiative will actually take us backwards.

Businesses are already recycling large quantities of waste with hundreds of private sector and community based recycling organisations around the country. They pay for this service, like they do for any of their other expenses. Subsidised or marginally costed Local Authority collections will simply result in businesses changing from their existing recycling providers. Recycling will not increase at a national level and the existing private sector recycling industry will be badly damaged by this unfair public sector competition, funded by Council Tax payers.

Collecting business recycling using the same vehicles used for households seems like a great idea. But take paper. Offices will produce predominantly white paper that can easily be turned back into high grade copier paper. Shops will produce lots of clean cardboard. Mix all this with either household paper, which is principally newspapers, or even worse with a co-mingled stream and much of the environmental value of the paper and cardboard will be lost.

In my own experience in the paper recycling industry over the past 15 years I have seen numerous publicly funded recycling schemes come and go. Offering in many cases free collections they have undermined existing private sector firms and upset businesses’ price expectations of what they need to pay to receive a recycling service. 

Central and Local Government are best placed to stimulate demand for business recycling, encouraging businesses to recycle as part of their normal life. Government should leave the private sector to meet that demand. It may be with the best intentions, but business waste recycling by local authorities is not a good idea.

</description>
         <link>http://www.greenbillofhealth.co.uk/2007/09/business_waste_recycling_the_n.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.greenbillofhealth.co.uk/2007/09/business_waste_recycling_the_n.html</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Recycling</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:11:45 +0000</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
