I always try to buy food with the environment in mind. Our household is full of organic milk and cheese, tofu and lentil-based vegetarian foods - although my meat-eating husband tolerates this quite begrudgingly! I always wonder if everybody ate like I do, would it actually make for a more sustainable society? Or would it just shift the ecological pressure over to grains and crop agriculture?
An article on The Ecologist website has stuck with me over the weekend and so I wanted to share it. It focuses on greenhouse gas emissions (from the fertilisers used to produce the food down to the production of the final product) and the biggest culprits. Unsurprisngly on the list were animal products such as beef and lamb, due to their high production of methane whilst being raised, fed, sometimes bred and finally slaughtered. I was astonished, however, that lamb produced 50% more emissions than beef, as the general public view is that it is beef and pork that are high methane producers, and as the animals are also larger in size, I always presumed more waste would be produced and more energy put into their upkeeping, resulting in higher emissions. But, turning the tables, lamb produces less meat in relation to live weight. Cheese was another eco-devil (the process to make it is lengthy and utilises a lot of milk), along with salmon.
'Green' foods were found to be lentils, rice and tomatoes, but I was rather disappointed with the lack of recommendations on how to change our eating habits based on the research. Research should not only be done to criticise, but to recommend and bring rise to positive change.
The full story can be found here: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/986252/lamb_beef_and_cheese_have_largest_food_footprint.html
Monday, 1 August 2011
Monday, 25 July 2011
Google + (and a little food for thought)
I was invited to Google + today. It seems to be great for networking and I would be very interesting in meeting like-minded people, considering it is so hard to find anyone with similar interests to me in Stoke.
You can find me by simply typing Katy Malkin in google, or google +.
You will also find links to my Facebook and Twitter there.
I shall probably update again after this Saturday, when I have been to a skill sharing meeting with Friends of the Earth in Birmingham. I am piloting their Gamechagers programme and have only been to the first meeting and regional gathering so far, but it proved to be extremely interesting. At the moment they are gearing up for a big energy campaign, and it got me thinking. Are we trying to treat the syptoms or causes of climate change? There is so much talk at the moment about geoengineering but what about treating the problem of overpopulation? There are barely even talks on how to combat this, let alone actions.
You can find me by simply typing Katy Malkin in google, or google +.
You will also find links to my Facebook and Twitter there.
I shall probably update again after this Saturday, when I have been to a skill sharing meeting with Friends of the Earth in Birmingham. I am piloting their Gamechagers programme and have only been to the first meeting and regional gathering so far, but it proved to be extremely interesting. At the moment they are gearing up for a big energy campaign, and it got me thinking. Are we trying to treat the syptoms or causes of climate change? There is so much talk at the moment about geoengineering but what about treating the problem of overpopulation? There are barely even talks on how to combat this, let alone actions.
Monday, 13 June 2011
Survival of Seagrass
I saw interesting article from The Ecologist today that I wanted to share. It was actually the beginning of this piece that shocked me most: "Every hour, an area of seagrass meadows the size of two football pitches is lost." Wow. The rate of biodiversity loss never fails to amaze me (although I do sometimes wonder how they work out these statistics having done studies myself).
The other point being made here was the lack of attention seagrass receives. We have keystone species and habitats such as the amazon which are heavily focused on when raising money and awareness about environmental issues, but I'm sure the average person on the street couldn't tell you what seagrass was, let alone give details on its status. And yet approximately 1 BILLION people live within 50km of a seagrass meadow.
Seagrass may not be charasmatic or glamorous like other marine environments such as coral reefs, but it is still an important habitat in its own right for many species of fish, turtles and many others.
Personally, I believe another issue here is that people don't really see the ocean as threatened, or in need of environmental protection. They think that because we don't primarily exist in water we can't possibly be doing it much harm. They are much more inclined to take responsibility for woodland loss, or air pollution.
However, we should remember the importance the ocean has in transportation, ecotourism and its aesthetic value. It is shrouded in biodiversity and unlike land, it has masses of unexplored territory. Species are being lost that we are not even aware exist.
Should we accept defeat and explore these parts before they are lost forever? Or fight for their survival?
The other point being made here was the lack of attention seagrass receives. We have keystone species and habitats such as the amazon which are heavily focused on when raising money and awareness about environmental issues, but I'm sure the average person on the street couldn't tell you what seagrass was, let alone give details on its status. And yet approximately 1 BILLION people live within 50km of a seagrass meadow.
Seagrass may not be charasmatic or glamorous like other marine environments such as coral reefs, but it is still an important habitat in its own right for many species of fish, turtles and many others.
Personally, I believe another issue here is that people don't really see the ocean as threatened, or in need of environmental protection. They think that because we don't primarily exist in water we can't possibly be doing it much harm. They are much more inclined to take responsibility for woodland loss, or air pollution.
However, we should remember the importance the ocean has in transportation, ecotourism and its aesthetic value. It is shrouded in biodiversity and unlike land, it has masses of unexplored territory. Species are being lost that we are not even aware exist.
Should we accept defeat and explore these parts before they are lost forever? Or fight for their survival?
Monday, 6 June 2011
A Small Summary
I apologise for the lack of attention to my blog recently. Due to finishing university, weddings and other things in life, time got away from me. I have however, been keeping up with the news...
There have been the obvious big news stories - legislation changes and disease outbreaks, but I have also noticed a focus on the effects of climate change and other human activities more recently.
One study from the University of Miama has demonstrated how ocean acidification and the increasing ocean temperatures will reduce ecosystem biodiversity, especially in coral reefs - and not in hundreds of years, SOON. Another described how arctic ice is becoming so thin certain animals will not be able to reside on it for much longer, causing mass extinction.
There was also an interesting piece on possible POSITIVE effects of climate change - see here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110527080151.htm
Most of the news stories I have read are extremely negative and accepting. Shouldn't these types of articles aim to create physical change and give people such insight they perhaps change their daily routines to be more eco-friendly? I think there have been enough studies now to show that global warming and the like, is in fact happening, and instead of speculation about it or plain ignorance, people may need to be forced to be more environmentally friendly. Nevermind, O2 emission targets by the government, laws need to be adapted. There needs to be harsher punishments for people who can't do the simplest of tasks, such as recycle. Huge taxes for people who drive 4 x 4s when it isn't required. Even the work place should be made to encourage carpooling or walking to work. It sounds harsh but nobody is willing to change voluntarily.
Otherwise, we will still be drowning in speculation and vague targets when the world comes crashing down.
There have been the obvious big news stories - legislation changes and disease outbreaks, but I have also noticed a focus on the effects of climate change and other human activities more recently.
One study from the University of Miama has demonstrated how ocean acidification and the increasing ocean temperatures will reduce ecosystem biodiversity, especially in coral reefs - and not in hundreds of years, SOON. Another described how arctic ice is becoming so thin certain animals will not be able to reside on it for much longer, causing mass extinction.
There was also an interesting piece on possible POSITIVE effects of climate change - see here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110527080151.htm
Most of the news stories I have read are extremely negative and accepting. Shouldn't these types of articles aim to create physical change and give people such insight they perhaps change their daily routines to be more eco-friendly? I think there have been enough studies now to show that global warming and the like, is in fact happening, and instead of speculation about it or plain ignorance, people may need to be forced to be more environmentally friendly. Nevermind, O2 emission targets by the government, laws need to be adapted. There needs to be harsher punishments for people who can't do the simplest of tasks, such as recycle. Huge taxes for people who drive 4 x 4s when it isn't required. Even the work place should be made to encourage carpooling or walking to work. It sounds harsh but nobody is willing to change voluntarily.
Otherwise, we will still be drowning in speculation and vague targets when the world comes crashing down.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Every Little Helps
I woke up to a nice email today - Tristram Hunt (Labour MP for Stoke on Trent) has signed EDM 1601. This is obviously not down to myself, but I did feel a little triumphant, being one of (hopefully) many lobbying MPs to support this.
For those not in the know, in May, the Natural Environment White Paper will be finalised and
released, and I, among others, am sceptical about if this will actually be enforced or not. NEWP outlines how the government intends to protect wildlife and prevent biodiversity loss. It is ambitious, and can assist in meeting targets for renewable energy, sustainable farming, planning and nature investment. To succeed, the paper requires MP support. The related Early Day Motion (1601) aims to send a message to ministers - to NOT water the paper down. Currently, the EDM is tabled by Martin Horwood MP and
sponsored by MPs from the main political parties.
As I'm sure many agree, it is time for the government to make a clear commitment to haltbiodiversity loss, restore our natural environment and encourage people's connection with nature - 29% of priority species are already lost, to throw in basic statistics. We also need to start committing to the EU to begin restoration
by 2020. This white paper can only be effective if the objec tives set out in it are not weakened by other departments when it is sent for approval by DEFRA. Hence, the need for MP support.
As an unrelated afterthought, after reading all the hype about the London marathon this year, I was considering applying to run next year. I wouldn't exactly call myself unfit, but I have never ran that distance before. Then there is the big decision to make: which charity would I run for? For me, it would be a toss up between Marine Conservation Society and Friends of the Earth, although Greenpeace may come into it...
For those not in the know, in May, the Natural Environment White Paper will be finalised and
released, and I, among others, am sceptical about if this will actually be enforced or not. NEWP outlines how the government intends to protect wildlife and prevent biodiversity loss. It is ambitious, and can assist in meeting targets for renewable energy, sustainable farming, planning and nature investment. To succeed, the paper requires MP support. The related Early Day Motion (1601) aims to send a message to ministers - to NOT water the paper down. Currently, the EDM is tabled by Martin Horwood MP and
sponsored by MPs from the main political parties.
As I'm sure many agree, it is time for the government to make a clear commitment to haltbiodiversity loss, restore our natural environment and encourage people's connection with nature - 29% of priority species are already lost, to throw in basic statistics. We also need to start committing to the EU to begin restoration
by 2020. This white paper can only be effective if the objec tives set out in it are not weakened by other departments when it is sent for approval by DEFRA. Hence, the need for MP support.
As an unrelated afterthought, after reading all the hype about the London marathon this year, I was considering applying to run next year. I wouldn't exactly call myself unfit, but I have never ran that distance before. Then there is the big decision to make: which charity would I run for? For me, it would be a toss up between Marine Conservation Society and Friends of the Earth, although Greenpeace may come into it...
Sunday, 6 March 2011
19 year old rubber ducks
I saw a story yesterday about a shipping container that was lost at sea in 1992, carrying 28,000 toy rubber ducks. The ducks are still being washed ashore now, identified by unique batch numbers.
The main point of the article was that this accident has taught us great amounts about ocean currents, as well as demonstrate the seriousness of plastic pollution. The toys have been found in Hawaii, Alaska, South America, and Australia to name but a few, and thousands circulate in an ocean vortex known as the North Pacific Gyre (along with other rubbish). Before the incident, scientists didn't know how long it took to complete a circuit of the Gyre.
But I wasn't sure if everyone was missing the point here. Yes, we need to use alot less plastic, and it is great we can learn something from the accident, but another crucial point? These things wouldn't happen if we made our goods in our own country (obviously there are exceptions) with our own resources. Not only would it help local businesses and our own economy, but think of the cost of shipping, staff, fuel...? The list goes on.
I forget, the world's being run by a bunch of, ahem, quacks.
The main point of the article was that this accident has taught us great amounts about ocean currents, as well as demonstrate the seriousness of plastic pollution. The toys have been found in Hawaii, Alaska, South America, and Australia to name but a few, and thousands circulate in an ocean vortex known as the North Pacific Gyre (along with other rubbish). Before the incident, scientists didn't know how long it took to complete a circuit of the Gyre.
But I wasn't sure if everyone was missing the point here. Yes, we need to use alot less plastic, and it is great we can learn something from the accident, but another crucial point? These things wouldn't happen if we made our goods in our own country (obviously there are exceptions) with our own resources. Not only would it help local businesses and our own economy, but think of the cost of shipping, staff, fuel...? The list goes on.
I forget, the world's being run by a bunch of, ahem, quacks.
Friday, 4 March 2011
New design for offshore wind farms
Despite some organisations opposition to them, it is obvious that wind farms are the future for energy production. The UK has renewable energy targets to meet, and now new designs are being drawn up for 'supersize' wind farms that maximise on energy production.
Thanet wind farm was opened last year as the world's biggest offshore wind farm, but even at 300 megawatts it is nowhere near enough for our country. It is hoped that Thanet alone can generate 1/3 of UK electricity by 2020, but this is a big ask.
Now there is a rush to draw up plans for even bigger offshore wind farms - not only designs, but fixing problems that current offshore wind farms have. Due to the strong wind and wave power at sea, the turbines break down often and are difficult to fix. At what point do they become cost-effective?
Watch this space...
Thanet wind farm was opened last year as the world's biggest offshore wind farm, but even at 300 megawatts it is nowhere near enough for our country. It is hoped that Thanet alone can generate 1/3 of UK electricity by 2020, but this is a big ask.
Now there is a rush to draw up plans for even bigger offshore wind farms - not only designs, but fixing problems that current offshore wind farms have. Due to the strong wind and wave power at sea, the turbines break down often and are difficult to fix. At what point do they become cost-effective?
Watch this space...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)