LittleYellowFrog

I had read about this a while ago but had forgotten that I’d seen it until I came across it again this week and was dismayed by it once more.

Came across what? Why, the story of the ongoing – destruction of the Appalachian mountains of course.

Destruction? Why? Why, to mine coal of course. These folks are literally blowing up mountains to get at the coal. The debris that remains fills up the valleys.

Watch the video at the above site. That such beautiful landscapes are being destroyed for their coal alone is a crying shame.

EcoStreet spotted that the Environment Agency have put out some new figures telling us how UK business is doing on the environmental front.

One that caught my eye was the mention that ethical shopping spending was up by 15% in 2005 – to £26Bn. That sounds like a lot of money. Where are people spending it ethically? Supermarkets?

I was indirectly tipped off by CittyHippy’s site that Sainsbury’s are planning to offer their customers an organic box. Priced at under £15 and containing locally-sourced food (where possible – they might source nationally on occassion), this is another interesting development from a supermarket with appears to have some clear ideas on the ethical/organic front.

Haynes Fire Station in West London have installed a wind turbine to supply about 8% of their electricity needs.

The BBC are reporting on a study by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) and The Open University which claims that we in the UK are living beyond our means in ecological terms. Needless to say there are those who disagree with the conclusions of the report (or at least with some of its reasoning).

Nevertheless, it does make you wonder whether the counter-assertion stated in the article – that the free market laws of supply and demand will determine where resources are best utilised – stands closer scrutiny. What if the free market works well for individuals but is less suited to ensure the conservation of the world’s resources?

The Guardian reports on the resurrection of the pro/anti-nuclear debate in light of Tony Blair’s recent comments that the UK may consider building new nuclear reactors.

There’s a lot in the article including a number of facts and figures which I’d like to see more background on. For example, Tony Juniper of Friends of the Earth is attributed with saying – in support of coal-powered IGCC power stations – that the UK has 200 years of coal left. 200 years sounds good but it would be interesting to know things like :-

• How recoverable is this coal? It is no use if we can’t get at it or we can only get at a small proportion.
• What rate of energy use (and growth) in the UK does this 200 year figure assume? I hope it does not assume flat energy use since – nice as that would be – history shows us that we are terrible at reducing our energy requirements (notwithstanding the fact that we need to do so).

Don’t get me wrong – I am not arguing with the pro-nuclear lobby here but I would like to see some more of the assumptions behind the figures so that we can come to our own conclusions.

The UK government’s chief scientific advisor has admitted that the planned 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010 may be a bit optimistic. Although this sounds like a precursor to some back-pedalling, Sir David King says that this is not the case and the targets will remain in force – even if they struggle to meet them.

Whilst some are worrying about how to address global warming, others are considering the investment opportunities.

It seems that some of the places in the UK which were affected by acid rain are now beginning to recover. This is good news although it would have been better if we hadn’t experienced the acid rain in the first place. The recovery is attributed to improved emissions controls as well as a general shift from coal to gas – in power stations and in people’s homes.

The associated UCL article also mentions that, although the acidity of lochs, lakes and rivers is reducing, it is by no means certain that their biological content will return to what they were many years ago – in some cases this is true but in others the waterways are being re-colonised by new species.

Don’t get too cheery though – the BBC is just reporting that – according to the UN Food and Argiculture Organisation – the rate of global deforestation appears to be slowing somewhat.

However, scientists are still describing the situation as “alarming” so there is no room for complacency or a let-up in attempts to halt the trend.

Next Page »