Trains, Planes, and me

Upon hearing that this month’s challenge was to reduce our carbon footprints and eschew flying in favour of greener modes of transport, I jumped for joy. My friends and I joke that our social lives are sponsored by Virgin Pendolino trains. Travelling to visit friends in Birmingham or Manchester is usually where the fun begins: armed with Grazia magazine, packets of jelly babies and a few cans of pre-mixed Pimms and lemonade, we’re possibly the perfect advert for fun-time carbon-footprint-reducing (someone get Branson on the blower!). Of course, that’s when we arrive in time to get a seat, and don’t accidentally sit in the quiet zone and spend two hours being thrown “simmer down” looks by long-distance commuters trying to play Solitaire on their laptops. Obviously the return journey is usually rather less hearty, and spent nursing headaches, eating sandwiches, and throwing “simmer down” looks to gangsta types blasting Lil’ John out of their mobile phones.

So, that’s my long weekends covered – but I suppose anyone whose experience of the M6 on a Friday evening has scarred them for life can claim a similarly angelic carbon footprint. So what about my summer holidays track record?

My last summer holiday – if it can be called that – was three years ago. I went to Milan with my younger sister and, alongside visiting the Duomo, a Barbie museum and Lake Como, we got mosquito bites the size of golf balls, accidentally spent half our budget on the first night’s meal and almost missed the flight home. A mixed bag, but the flying experience was by far the worst part of the holiday.

Airports are the only places that can be hectic and boring at the same time – but they’re necessary. Or is that just something we say to excuse our laziness? Wouldn’t it make more sense to make the journey a part of the holiday, as opposed to a preliminary nightmare? Short-haul flights are the most carbon-intensive mode of transport: research says that flying from London to Glasgow produces 6 times more CO2 than taking the train, and there’s often a long connecting journey from airport to destination as well. As I said at the start of the challenge, I’m looking for ways to make green changes without too much effort, and I doubt that anything could be more taxing than 2 hours on a budget airline flight. Apart from the ensuing wait at baggage reclaim.

Re: Let's Go To The Movies

Vanessa – thank you for commenting! A fine example of the spirit we need if going green’s going to make any difference: as long as you’re doing something positive to help the environment it doesn’t matter if you don’t live in a house made from recycled milk cartons or eat only vegetables grown in your own allotment. Whatever eco-warriors say, offsetting is better than nothing at all. Even if we don’t reap the benefits instantly, ideas like this will make a real long-term difference to the environment - good things come to those who wait. Even I realise this, and I’m the kind of gal who expects her Asos dress to arrive as soon as she’s clicked ‘Proceed to Checkout’'...

Let's Go To The Movies...

Thank you for your comment, Anonymous. You make a really good point – how much are we really doing for the environment when we recycle our tin cans and let our hair dry naturally instead of using the hairdryer? Are we being hypocrites, or is there only so much we can do for the environment without totally disrupting our day-to-day lives?

But we’re not alone – it’s a question that plagues even Hollywood’s big cheeses. Apparently, films’ resources aren’t spent entirely on furnishing trailers with mini-gyms and bowls of red M&Ms, or on ensuring that Demi Moore’s plastic surgery stays in place, but on the sets themselves. Now, a lot of films are shot on location, but for sci-fi flicks and the like an alternate universe obviously has to be created. Film and television sets are created from scratch and at the end of filming they’re often just burnt or thrown away – but that isn’t the only problem. Sets require a lot of energy, and not just of the creative ilk. Lighting, air conditioning, special effects: they all contribute to making the industry second only to petrol manufacturing in terms of air pollution contributions, according to a study by the University of California. It even tops hotels and clothes manufacturers.

Industry bods responded to the report (carried out in 2006), and gave examples of what production companies are doing to reduce their impact on the environment. The makers of the Matrix films recycled 97.5% of their sets and even donated some of the material to help house low-income families in Mexico, and the makers of The Day After Tomorrow – a film with lavish special effects – planted trees to offset its production emissions. I know that offsetting isn’t the best way to help the environment, as my last blog mentioned – but the point is, what else can the production companies do? They are an industry, after all, and my guess is that most people would prefer to keep their big-budget, effects-tastic films than breathe cleaner air. This middle way, with its set recycling and tree planting, is really the only option for them until movie-goers realise that saving the planet is more important than another film about the end of the world/aliens/supernatural occurrences etc. And although our eco-predicaments aren’t exactly on the same scale as Hollywood’s, it’s encouraging to know that they’re taking green concerns on board. Perhaps it would be a good idea to inform viewers of what their favourite TV shows or films are doing to counterbalance their emissions, either in the form of script running across the screen at the start of the piece or an actor telling us what the producers are doing – I’m sure we’d all listen if Clive Owen was speaking about recycling timber and reducing air conditioning on set…

Questions about offsetting...

Tuesday this week was Earth Day. No, I didn’t realise either. Apart from Google adding a turtle and some trees to its logo, Earth Day made about as much of an impact on me as handwriting lessons at school. However, a bit of digging about led to the discovery that we should all have been urging our government to take action against global warming and going to the Green Apple Festival, whilst serving our canapés on biodegradable plates made from leaves (available from Ganesha, if you were wondering). Apparently half a million people in 170 countries celebrate the day, but living in England you wouldn’t know it.

This observation ties in rather nicely with my last blog about green electricity advertising being rather lacking in…well, everything - but especially information. For example, when we buy into a carbon offsetting tariff how do we know someone’s planted a tree for us? Should we ask for a photo and a certificate, like when you adopt a donkey? When I read a few articles about carbon offsetting, I found that it’s a bit of a hazy area. How much CO2 does a specific tree absorb, for example? Vaguely-recalled biology lessons reminded me that during photosynthesis trees remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it away; but not all trees are created equal (apparently hawthorns are the best at soaking up CO2). Perhaps suppliers could provide a bit of information about the type of tree they’re going to plant for you and how it will help the environment – for most of us the details of offsetting are unclear, so harnessing the power that comes with knowledge could be a fine idea. Perhaps they could provide bi-annual updates on how the tree’s doing; “Spends most of his time with the birds, but seems to absorb rather a lot when he puts his mind to it,” etc.

Much has been made of carbon offsetting schemes as being a way to silence environmental protestors while keeping the status quo. You know how the Sunday after a rather self-indulgent weekend you drink water and eat salads, blissfully unaware that your efforts are useless because the damage has already been done? Well, that’s how some people – Friends of The Earth included – see carbon offsetting. Their website describes it as a smokescreen to ward off legislation, and says it encourages people to continue polluting: “It’s ok for me to fly from Birmingham to London, because I offset last week. While I’m at it, I think I’ll leave the laptop and TV on standby as well…” I can see their point. Offsetting doesn’t actually reverse anything, just tries to redress a balance. But isn’t it something, at least?

A quick thought

After logging in this morning and seeing that I’ve had 2 comments (2 comments! Count ‘em!), one issue arising from said comments has been stuck in my head. Rob and Andrea have both picked up on the question of advertising for green electricity.

Basically, we need rather more and it needs to be tailored for different age groups. It’s unlikely that youthful Hoxton types are going to be persuaded by a short film showing a middle-aged home counties couple switching tariffs with surprising ease, and it’s equally improbable that older couples with larger houses and more people to provide power for will be swayed by photos of Agyness Deyn perched next to her wind turbine.

I'm with Andrea – green electricity tariffs were a vague notion in the back of my mind before I took on this challenge (it ranked somewhere between council tax and sub-prime mortgages). Adverts for electricity tend to focus on the money-saving aspects, and they’re also quite boring (the flame family in the British Gas adverts are ok, but they’re not a patch on the Haribo kid or the Cadbury’s gorilla).

I suspect that most of us think green electricity is all wave power and space-age solar panels, and Rob’s point that it needs to be made to seem more accessible is a good one. Who owned an eco-shopper before magazines started giving them away instead of rubbish flip-flops, or before M&S sold them, or before the hoo-hah surrounding the Anya Hindmarch bag? I’d wager not very many of us.

As I said in my last blog, switching to a green tariff is remarkably easy - though perhaps not so easy on the bank account - and the companies need to let the public know this. Granted, I think my dad would ride to work on a penny farthing if he could and contact people only by telegram (well perceived, Rob), but if he would sit down in front of a computer and see how easy it was it’d be a step in the right direction. The same goes for younger people too: we just need better advertising to project green tariffs as a viable option.

Green Electricity

As my profile states, my mission is to find green changes that suit my lifestyle. Our first assignment is to buy green electricity - obviously, electricity is something I need. A previous family trip to Bradwell Power Station - fuelled by my younger sister's frankly odd love of the place - did little to enhance my knowledge of electricity (my sole recollection is the Bakewell slice I had in the café). What I do know is that because my Dad worked for British Gas for most of my childhood, the Adams family is a loyal BG purchaser. Asking my parents to switch supplier garnered a reaction a bit like I had asked if I could replace their record collection with my iPod: disbelief followed by a staunch 'No'. I suspect this isn't down to the higher price but the rigmarole of switching; previous experiences with changing mobile phone tariffs have obviously made their mark, although I doubt screeches of 'Can I stick diamantes on the handset?' will crop up here.
After a bit of research, I found that British Gas have a green tariff option, so switching wouldn't be that hard. As the desire to avoid hassle is probably what puts people off changing suppliers - I know that my initial response was 'I can't be bothered' - it was surprising to see how easy it would be. The British Gas Zero Carbon plan basically buys carbon emissions for you and offsets everything you consume - so it's 100% green. It also contributes to a green energy fund for schools to reduce their CO2 emissions, all for a bargain extra £7 a month. However, I've never actually paid an electricity bill - at university I was always assigned more mundane tasks like emptying bins - so I was unsure if going Zero Carbon was good or bad.
So I came into work this morning clutching photocopies of our electricity bills with warnings against changing our tariff at my peril ringing in my ears. In a nutshell, changing tariffs would mean a fee for leaving the Price Protection 2010 deal we're currently on, and an average 40% increase in our annual bills. The chap on the phone explained this - as our current deal is the best, changing to any tariff would mean an increase.
On the plus side, it would have been as easy as saying 'I would like to change to Zero Carbon, please.' The only stipulation is that you have to switch your gas tariffs as well: you may as well go the whole hog. Although I doubt that argument will convince my parents to buy green power…maybe I should suggest harnessing Danbury's solar rays - you can get the tiles to match your roof.