Reduce Your CO2

Following their excellent piece of guerrilla advertising, conference calling company Powwownow have kept up their competitive campaign, this time targeting British Airways.

They have launched a ’spoof’ airline called Fly Powwownow, and as their first ’special offer’, are offering 5,000 free conference calls to small businesses. This is in reponse to a B.A. promotion earlier this year, where they offered 5,000 business class flights to businesses.

Again, the message is good: special offers on flights encourage people to fly more and maybe unnnecessarily, thus generating additional emissions. More importantly, however, Powwownow’s use of the word ‘free’ is important here, as B.A.’s offer isn’t really free at all, once you take into account travel to the airport plus unavoidable airport taxes.

So hats off to Powwownow for keeping up the fight, for giving us new ways to save money and CO2 emissions oh, and thanks for the free conference calls - I’m certainly taking them up on the offer.

I was reading Metro this morning and came upon an excellent piece of ‘guerilla’ advertising from conference call company Powwownow, in response to a recent advertising campaign from airline flybe (the image below shows the original ad and the response):

There has been a recent ‘push’ by airlines, targeting businesses with the message that face to face meetings are better, and that it’s always worth flying to meetings. Boris Johnson even flew to New York FOR ONE DAY to back up this message… hmmm a great use of CO2 then by London’s generally green mayor. This one, however, hit a nerve with Powwownow, specifically with the blatant (in red), and I reckon difficult to defend message: ‘Conference Calls DON’T win business’.

I love their response: a defaced version of the flybe ad that clearly highlights the benefits of conference calls: much much cheaper, and no CO2. Ok, if we want to be pernickety, there are some CO2 emissions involved in a conference call, but in comparison with travelling to the airport, taking the plane, travelling to the meeting, travelling back from the meeting, taking the plane back, and travelling home… well, there’s no comparison is there?

In fact, the contrast is so absurd, they’ve also launched a new ‘airline’ - www.flypowwownow.co.uk highlighting the cost differences!

I’m the first one to admit that there are still reasons to take the plane, but as a business person it really winds me up when the airlines in their desperation try to use flawed business messages to justify their existence and encourage more people to fly. Conference calls do win business, and there are many more occasions where it would be just as efficient, cheaper, and better for the planet to have a conference call rather than getting on a plane. Instead, they need to focus on the real task ahead: how to reduce emissions from air travel, and dramatically, rather than trying to hoodwink a more and more well-informed audience.

So good on you Powwownow for fighting back in your own little way - let’s set up a call to discuss next steps!

Hello all, and welcome to the 199th edition of the Carnival of the Green, a weekly round-up of eco-news on the web, co-ordinated by Treehugger.com.

Things have been a little interrupted lately with the Carnival, so my thanks go to not last week’s poster, but last month’s poster, Victoria Klein, all the way back on 29th September (and what’s more she stepped in last minute!). Let’s hope to get things back on the rails again, and do check out next week’s Carnival to be hosted on October 26th by Greenstockscentral.

Anyway, on with this week’s show:

Allyn presents How to Grow Huge Pumpkins posted on E-how. Very seasonal methinks, though something for next year’s plans!

‘How would it feel if you found out that you were wasting 80% of your time doing things that weren’t getting you any closer to your goals?’ This is the question that Tyler asks in her excellent article Quit Worrying About 80% of Your Life posted on Frugally Green. As someone who is easily distracted, I think these tips are excellent, and totally in tune with the whole ’simplify your life’ green message too.

Have you heard of Solar Cookers? I have to admit I hadn’t until I read this excellent article from Solarshack: Why Solar Cookers Are Important for the Environment, Human Health and Safety posted on Applied Solar Technology. This looks like a solution to follow - simple, cheap, and above all green!

Elena the Ecodiva takes on a different subject - how to keep your mouth clean having eaten food of course cooked on a solar cooker, with her article on How to make your own green mouthwash, posted on Bargaineering.com. It actually sounds quite tasty to me, though no good if you happen to be teetotal…

Case Ernsting presents a fascinating take on the thrifiness for which the Shakers have always been famous in Going Green: How To Recycle and Reuse Like the Shakers | Home and Decor posted on The Amish furniture design and decor blog. Some great recycling ideas here!

Guffly is a one product per day online store and community featuring eco friendly products and fair trade lifestyle goods like home, pet, clothing, office and personal accessories. Here they present Fashion + Eco-Friendly = Fierce | Guffly posted at Guffly - a review of Green stuff at the Spring 2010 fashion week.

Powwownow do conference calling (I wonder is that greener than smoke signals?) - any way to avoid having to travel to a meeting. In The Little Guy versus the Big Problem they ask the question: is it better to wait for the big solutions, or to continue working on every little solution? Posted on their Life Behind Blog. This is one of our favourite subjects here on Reduce your CO2, and we believe that every action counts.

The Digerati Life used Blog Action day 2009 to talk about Climate Change, and to ask whether or not we are really listening to Mother Nature: Reflecting On Climate Change on Blog Action Day posted on The Digerati Life. Their message applies to all of us, however concerned we are about the future of our planet: in the end it doesn’t matter how disasters are caused. The important thing is to be prepared for them, and right now this is often not the case.

Finally, Annette Berlin of Craft Stew presents 20 Crafty Ways To Reuse Plastic Bottles. I’m off to try them out tonight, especially as someone has hidden our offical bag for recycled plastics, which means the bin men probably won’t pick up our plastic tomorrow morning!

That’s it for this week. Thanks for all your submissions, it’s been a pleasure to have you round!

Tags: Carnival of the Green

Over the time I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve often picked up on and suggested original ways to reduce your CO2 emissions - some strange but true, some merely fanciful. Today, however, I think I’ve heard one of the most original and bizarre, and what’s more it makes sense, even if it makes a teeny difference.

According to an article I read in the Daily Mail, Japanese Airline ANA is asking all passengers to relieve themselves before boarding their flights, in order to reduce their body weight and thus reduce CO2 emissions. A quick calculation suggests that on a plane of 150 people, this could constitute an average weight saving of…… 63.7 kg. Hmm, that’s one small person, or just over two maximum weight suitcases. Not exactly a huge saving then.

Here’s the point where we move on to the classic debate: do we wait until the big solutions arrive, or do we take every chance we’ve got to make things better, however small the difference? Well for me, if it costs nothing, then it’s worth it, and I for one will happily try to empty my tank before boarding any flight in the future.

Tags: Air travel

One of my favourite and most despairing rants over the last couple of years has been about how little attention we pay in the UK to the official days set up to raise awareness about environmental issues. Maybe it’s a reaction to the fact that many such past ‘events’ have just gone ‘phutttt’ and not had the desired or expected effect (in this country at any rate), but whatever the reason, the media pretty much never seems to support these events, which in itself means that they never have the effect they could have.

Today is World Environment day. I put this in my diary a year ago so that I wouldn’t forget to see if anything had changed over the last 12 months. Last year I commented that in the UK little or no noise had been made or was being made on the day - in fact it was hardly possible to find a mention in the newspapers. I even contacted the guys at UNEP to ask them whether they felt there was a good reaction to it here in the UK. They replied that there had been unprecedented interest at a ground roots level, but I was still surprised by the lack of mention in the media.

This morning, every hopeful, I therefore did a tour of the websites of our beloved newspapers. This is what I found:

• The Times: no mention on the home page, no mention on the Environment home page
• The Guardian: ditto
• The Telegraph: Nothing that I could find
• The Independent: same again
• The Daily Mail: ha ha….
• The Sun: wait a minute, I’ve found something! Of all the papers to actually take notice, the good old ‘currant bun’ has picked up on it with a link from the home page, and even an image, leading to this article. Ok, so it’s typically tongue in cheek, but at least they’ve atually sat up and taken notice!

But that’s it… A sorry state of affairs as far as I’m concerned, because I truly believe that we need to shout about the environment whenever possible, and that every time we do shout, we pick up a few more people willing to do their bit and work on reducing our CO2 emissions. Without the support of the media, the task of shouting becomes that much more difficult.

So I will once more put World Environment Day in my diary for next year, but this time I’m going to put in a warning one week before, and I’m going to shout about it. In fact I’m going to shout about it to all of the newspapers, and maybe, just maybe, even my little voice will have an effect. Here’s hoping.

I read today in the Guardian that Lunen, a town north of Dortmund in Germany is to become the first town to be powered by animal waste when it launches a 6.8 mw power plant later this year - enough to power and heat 26,000 houses.

This is great news, but the first thought that came to my mind was ‘about time!’. We’ve known for a very long time that animal and human manure has potential for power generation, but it seems to have remained a cottage industry rather than going mainstream. I’m not the first person to bring them up, but the reasons are obvious:

• A never-ending supply of manure. As long as we and our animals continue to eat, we will produce…
• Reducing the need for waste disposal or treatment
• By products in the form of highly effective, organic, fertiliser
• Power generated by natural resources

I’m guessing that the reasons that more hasn’t been done here and sooner are the same as for many such potential CO2 reduction solutions: ‘the investment required doesn’t make it financially viable in the short or even medium term. We just can’t justify it.’ But surely the same people saying this are the governments and official bodies who have finally (apparently) recognised that we need to do as much as we can as soon as possible, and the same people who have just spent billions on bailing out our banks?

There are many different potential solutions for reducing our CO2 emissions, some easier than others, some cheaper than others. The most important are undoubtedly related to power generation: solar, wind, hydro, waves -all based on natural, never-ending energy sources. I think we need to add manure - or more simply, poo to this list. As long as we’re around, there will be poo, so let’s use it, rather than letting it go to waste.

It’s very rare that I am impressed by a UK MP’s ideas or statements on Climate Change, but for once, someone has raised their voice and come up with something sensible. MP Colin Challen, chair of the all-party climate change group has come up with the idea of government health warnings on all car adverts, pointing out that they are damaging to our health and to our climate, and that consumers are being misled by the ‘green’ message now being given out in many ads, suggesting to some extent that they are now good for the environment.

Ok, maybe this is a bit far, but I’m still happy to see someone pointing out - if in a bit more extreme manner - that car manufacturers are getting away with selling cars without highlighting the negative effect they do have on the environment. I’m especially happy as it’s a subject I have brought up before, although my suggestion is slightly less extreme - that all car ads in all formats should display as clearly as possible the CO2 emissions generated by the car in question.

It has got better - most posters and magazine ads do now include CO2 emissions figures (in very small print), but TV ads still blatantly avoid the subject. In fact, I’d love to do a test with a panel of consumers to get them to estimate the actual CO2 emissions of a series of cars based on the message from their ads.

And that’s the point. It’s not clear, and something needs to be done to ensure that we make educated decisions. I don’t think we need great big ‘CARS CAN KILL THE PLANET’ health warnings - this is the ‘THE END IS NIGH’ approach to getting people to reduce CO2 emissions, and it puts out more backs than it encourages people. However, the fact that someone influential is pointing out the absence of any clear message on CO2 emissions in many car ads is a step in the right direction.

With trumpeting and fanfares from the government, some of the press and even green groups, Ed Milliband the UK’s ‘Climate Change’ Secretary announced the construction of up to four new coal-fired power stations, but with the proviso that each must capture a ’substantial’ amount of the CO2 generated (estimated at around 25%) and store it underground. He also made it clear that no coal-fired power stations will be built in the future without carbon capture.

This obviously does represent a step, if not a leap forwards, and puts the UK in a leadership position in this area, but I can’t help questioning how much it will contribute to actually reducing the UK’s CO2 emissions, especially in the short term? The issue is with the phrase ’substantial’, which I would normally have expected to mean at least over 50%, but actually means between 20% and 25%. Apparently it is just not possible to capture 100% of emissions from the get-go as the technology has not yet been proven. According to Mr Milliband, ‘2025 is a practical’.

I am supposing that these new power stations will be replacing older, less-efficient ones, so that even without CCS each one would not represent a 100% additional weight on the UK’s CO2 emissions. However, I am struggling to understand how, even with the predicted 25% of CO2 collected, these plans can constitute anything but an increase in emissions between now and 2025, when we hope that 100% can be collected. If the glummest of doomsayers are right, this is not a good thing, as we need to be focusing everything we do on reducing emissions every year, and can’t allow for any further increases.

Conclusion? It’s a huge step forward to see the government insisting on and investing in new, CO2 reduction solutions, but the question has to be asked: could the estimated £4 billion of investment (not including further increases in fuel bills) be better spent on zero-emissions energy solutions? To me it’s a step-forward in thinking, but we are no nearer the desired results.

Ok, so I’ve bastardised a line from Hamlet, but the acting I’m referring to does not involve a stage in a theatre, or cameras. I’m talking about whether or not we should act, that is take action on Climate Change.

Every day I read 5 or more online articles on Climate Change / Global Warming plus the comments from readers, and every time I witness yet another ‘road to nowhere’ argument:

“AGW is real and we must do something about it now”.
“It’s all a plot by government and big business to make money and tax us even more”.
“The facts prove that man-made emissions are destroying the planet. Look at all the scientific proof, and all the experts who back it up”.
“The facts prove that Global warming is totally natural and that the planet can deal with it. Look at all the scientific proof, and all the experts who back it up”.
“We need to act now, for our children!”
“I’m not compromising one ounce of my comfortable life for a non-reason. There’s no danger anyway”.

And so it goes on, and will do until we get some solid proof either way. By which time it may be too late anyway…. if there really is a problem. Personally, I am inclined to believe the “AGW is real and we need to act now” argument, but any doubts I may have are anyway backed up by a much stronger belief that working to reduce our CO2 emissions will not compromise our lives but rather improve them, that it will certainly improve the way we treat our planet, and it will also save us money.

That’s my reasoning, but I’m always looking for other relevant arguments, and today, thanks to an article in the Guardian, I found one that I particularly like. It’s neither official, nor totally serious, and what’s more it’s relatively old news, but as I’ve just found it, I thought I would upload it for anyone else who hasn’t yet seen it. I don’t totally agree with what will happen if we act and then discover that Climate change doesn’t exist - I believe there will always be major benefits, but I will certainly try this approach out on a few doubters over the next few days:

Amongst the myriad of different opinions voiced every day regarding the best solutions for reducing world CO2 emissions, there is at least one consensus: we can’t achieve anything without a major push from and the support of governments AND big business. When talking of big business, there’s nothing much bigger than the oil producers, with their huge annual profits, credit crunch or no credit crunch, and amongst the oil producers, few come bigger than Shell.

Until recently, the energy companies seemed to be doing all they could to demonstrate their green credentials. BP has changed their logo and become an ‘Energy Company’. Total talks about ’sustainable development’. Esso talks about ‘provide energy, protect the environment’. All of them have been actively investing in other energy sources and making a lot of noise about it, showing a ‘green side’, and also in a sort of admission about the peak oil situation. Of course they are still producing and selling as much oil as possible, but at least they are helping to take the world forwards in the crucial search for the energy solutions of the future.

But now, all of a sudden, Shell has announced that they are stopping all investment in wind, solar and hydro power as they are not ‘economic. Instead they are re-focusing on biofuels. Linda Cook, Shell’s executive director of gas and power, said: “If there aren’t investment opportunities which compete with other projects we won’t put money into it. We are businessmen and women. If there were renewables [which made money] we would put money into it.”

Wow…. hold the front page! Renewables aren’t money-making today, and Shell has been kind enough to tell us! Thank you so much. Amazingly enough, we all know this, or at least that renewables don’t offer the profit-making potential of oil, but we also know that this is early days. The first nuclear power stations took years to become profitable, but we persevered, and technology improved. Similarly, solar power has come on in leaps and bounds over the last few years, as have wind and hydro, but the only way for them to reach the nirvana of genuine profit is via serious investment in research and development, the kind of investment only available to the oil companies with their billions in annual profits.

But apparently Shell does not want to lead the way in this area. They don’t want to set an example, and their excuse is because it’s a waste of money.

I can’t say I’ve ever been a fan of the oil companies (I can’t think why), but what seems a better investment to you: (allegedly) spending millions on paying people not to prove that oil is a major contributor to CO2 emissions and global warming, or spending millions on future, cleaner energy sources - basically to ensure that these very companies have a future?

They have the infrastructure, they have the scientists, they have the money, but unfortunately, Shell don’t seem to have the will to help us improve the way we all live. Sadly, we will have to look elsewhere for the example-setters at this crucial time.