Econation Blog

Centre for Ecoliteracy

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:00:00 -0500

Centre for Ecoliteracy

"We do not need to invent sustainable human communities. We can learn from societies that have lived sustainably for centuries. We can also model communities after nature's ecosystems, which are sustainable communities of plants, animals, and microorganisms.

Since the outstanding characteristic of the biosphere is its inherent ability to sustain life, a sustainable human community must be designed in such a manner that its technologies and social institutions honor, support, and cooperate with nature's inherent ability to sustain life."

This quote is from Fritjof Capra, the Founder of the Centre for Ecoliteracy.

The Center for Ecoliteracy is a leader in the green schooling movement. The Center is best known for its pioneering work with school gardens, school lunches, and integrating ecological principles and sustainability into school curricula.

The Center for Ecoliteracy offers books; teaching guides; professional development seminars; a sustainability leadership academy; keynote presentations; and consulting services.

The Center's website offers hundreds of downloadable resource materials, including practical guides, essays by leading writers and experts, and inspiring stories of school communities and organizations across the country that are engaged in this vital work.

Visit it here: Centre for Ecoliteracy

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 26th July, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Environment, Education

Nice (green) roof!

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:00:00 -0500

Nice (green) roof!

School of Art, Design and Media at Nanyang Technological University

"This 5 story facility sweeps a wooded corner of the campus with an organic, vegetated form that blends landscape and structure, nature and high-tech and symbolizes the creativity it houses...The curving green roofs distinguish the building from among the other structures on campus but the line between landscape and building is blurred. The roofs serve as informal gathering spaces challenging linear ideas and stirring perception. The roofs create open space, insulate the building, cool the surrounding air and harvest rainwater for landscaping irrigation. Planted grasses mix with native greenery to colonize the building and bond it to the setting," (Inhabitat, 2008).

Green roofs have environmental, economic, social and aesthetic advantages.

To find out more green roofs view this short video introduction from greenroofs.com

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 12th July, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Design for sustainability

The bankruptcy of growth

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:00:00 -0500

The bankruptcy of growth

We are duped by the ideology of economic growth. Growth for the sake of growth is a bankrupt idea and yet people are inculcated with it at home, at school, at work, everywhere, throughout our whole lives. Relentless economic growth doesn't add meaning or happiness to peoples' lives. Studies have shown that once countries reach a certain level of economic productivity general happiness does not increase. Most western countries reached this high level of happiness about fifty years ago and yet their economies have continued to grow in that time. If the purpose of an economy is to make people happy, as the economist David Landes suggests, why do we need continued growth when we are already happy? Economic growth has numerous negative affects such as environmental degradation, social inequalities and, ironically, ‘uneconomies’

Read the full article here>>

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 11th June, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

The uses of hemp

Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:00:00 -0500

The uses of hemp

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 6th June, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

The simple solutions are usually the best!

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:00:00 -0500

The simple solutions are usually the best!

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 1st June, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Environment, General Sustainability

Is GDP Misleading?

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:00:00 -0500

Is GDP Misleading?

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most commonly used measurement of the productivity of a country. GDP is equal to the total expenditures for all final goods and services in a particular period.

GDP is often used as an indicator of a countries' standard of living because it is assumed that all citizens will benefit from higher economic activity. Politicians and other policy makers use GDP for decision-making purposes. Higher per capita productivity is a goal of most political parties – and in some cases THE goal.

There are however many limitations to the concept of GDP especially when relating it to sustainable development. One of it's limitations is that it includes many unsustainable products and services and doesn't include many sustainable products and services.

Some unsustainable products/services GDP includes are:

Armed forces – for the defence and waging of wars
Crime and the justice system (police, courts and corrections)
Remedies to preventable environmental damage
Health care for preventable accidents and illnesses

GDP also does not account for the quality and efficiency of production. Products that are made in an an inefficient and wasteful way will likely cost more than ones that don't and therefore increase GDP. Badly made products will not last as long and will need to be replaced at additional cost – and higher GDP.

Some sustainable products/services GDP does not include are:

Natural resources and services
Voluntary work
Domestic work (child-care, cooking, cleaning, growing vegetables, DIY, etc)
Non-market transactions e.g. bartering and products such as open-source software and shareware

By valuing unsustainable products (e.g. war, crime and pollution) and not valuing sustainable products (e.g. natural services, sharing/bartering, domestic work) economists, and the economy they inform, are perpetuating the notion that ANY economic activity is productive and ANY non-market productivity lacks value and importance.

There are alternatives to GDP which factor for the limitations of GDP and they succeed to various degrees. Some of these will be described in further posts on this blog.

Only when all products and services are taken into consideration and valued based on true cost will we have a measurement that actually reflects the health and sustainability of an economy.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 17th April, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Learning for many lifetimes

Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Learning for many lifetimes

We are now half way through the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. In the past five years there have been a few notable successes where Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has been implemented. In particular the new NZ Curriculum includes several principles and values which have an ESD intent. Unfortunately these successes just tend to highlight how meagre progress has been in general. We have even been backsliding on ESD since National became the government. The facts tell the story, in the 2009 budget funding for all the major ESD initiatives were cut by the Ministry of Education, namely:

The Enviroschools Foundation: which coordinates the Enviroschools Programme nationally
Education for Sustainability Advisors: a network of expert advisors employed by Universities to provide professional development support for teachers in mainstream schools.
Matauranga Taiao: Professional development support for teachers in Kura Maori
The Environmental Education Guidelines Review Project

In May 2009, the Ministry of Education sent a letter to The Enviroschools Foundation stating that they did not have funding for Enviroschools beyond 2009. The Ministry explained that, “the quality of the programmes or services are not the issue – they are just not the most important ways of achieving the Government’s goals.”

If sustainability is not a goal of the government then what is?
Presumably the Government's goals include just the 'development' without the 'sustainability'. Most countries aspire to greater economic growth and increased consumption and education systems reflect the aspirations of the culture they are part of. It is a telling fact that the countries with the highest education levels also have the highest ecological footprint. But ESD challenges these aspirations for growth and allows us to imagine a better future for all and it encourages people to reflect on how our values, beliefs and behaviour affects our collective ability to create such a future.

Education for Sustainability
Many people find the term 'sustainable development' ambiguous. The idea of development – as in growth – is seen to be at odds with notions such as 'conservation', 'protection', 'prevention', 'mitigation' and 'restoration'. A definition of 'sustainable development' can conceivably include all of these concepts and when it does it should simply be called Sustainability – a term which encompasses a lasting balance between development and protection.

Education for Sustainability (EfS) is not actually new education – it's just education with a new vision. Sustainability is an interdisciplinary approach and provides a useful framework for the teaching of existing curriculum. In the words of See Change, a 2004 report published by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, "Education for sustainability could therefore be considered as an umbrella term across the entire curriculum".

EfS is not just education about sustainability either. Many 'environmental education' programmes include education about sustainability which creates awareness and challenges current systems as well as teaching about potential solutions. Whilst including these aspects EfS goes much further and uses education as a driver to achieve sustainability. EfS is therefore transformative and empowering. It empowers students to envision better futures, to reflect and think critically, to think in terms of whole systems, to build partnerships and to assume responsibility and get involved in decision-making.

Transforming Culture
It is perhaps the idea of transformation that people find difficult to understand. Daniella Tilbury and David Wortman in their book Engaging People in Sustainability explain what it means:

"...education for sustainability seeks a transformative role for education, in which people are engaged in a new way of seeing, thinking, learning and working. People are not only able to explore the relationships between their lives, the environment, social systems and institutions, but also become active participants and decision-maker in the change process."

It is culture transforming itself through education. We live in a culture that values economic growth and this is preserved by our education system. What we aren't taught is that it is actually easier to have prosperity without growth. We aren't taught it is possible for people to lead happy and fulfilling lives without having ever-increasing levels of consumption. We aren't taught that sustainability means a good life for everyone – now and in the future.

The truth is we need to learn, not just for our lifetime, but for many lifetimes.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 13th March, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Education

Loss of Enviroschools blow to future

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Loss of Enviroschools blow to future

The following press release highlights the problems that occur when Central Government slashes funding to important national initiatives. It is left to others to fund them and they often can't for a variety of reasons.

Tuesday, 2 March 2010, 3:15 pm
Press Release: Hawkes Bay Regional Council

The demise of 'Enviroschools' in Hawkes Bay will be a blow for the thousands of youngsters and their families who have been inspired by the award winning programme, says Hawke's Bay Regional Councillor, Liz Remmerswaal.

Council voted last week to decline financial support to the programme which aims to develop a generation of innovative and motivated young people to instinctively think and act sustainably

Mrs Remmerswaal says the programme was incredibly successful, with 23 schools ensuring that the environment is cared for in a holistic way, both now and in the future.

“Council seems to have forgotton that is it expected to be proactive in sustaining a healthy environment, no matter what cutbacks central government may make,” she says.

“Now, more than ever, young people need the skills to cope as they struggle to deal with the environmental problems that we are handing down to them,” she says.

Mrs Remmerswaal hopes that council will reconsider this decision, and urges all those who support the continuation of Enviroschools to make their voices heard, both now and in submissions to council’s annual plan shortly.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 10th March, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Education

Robin Hood Tax

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Robin Hood Tax

There is growing support for the idea of a tax on financial speculation. A tax of less than a tenth of one percent on every financial transaction would have little effect on share trading or currency movements. However to those who use high powered computers to make thousands of automatic trades each second, a fraction of one percent tax will add up very quickly. It’s like a really cheap GST, but not just for goods and services AND financial instruments. In the UK the campaign is called the Robin Hood Tax, and they’ve released this humourous video to explain it:

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 7th March, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Get the net working

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Get the net working

The internet can help people be more sustainable in many ways. Apart from finding information about all sorts of things you can also connect with people in more and more ingenious ways. Social networking services live Facebook and Twitter allow people to join causes and share ideas, insights and information.

There are many other sites offering way that you can connect with people to share what you, or they, have:

I recently blogged about Hire Things a website where you can find things to hire in your locale.

Now you can now link to people who have homegrown veggies to trade. Visit http://www.mygarden.co.nz/Trade/

You can find people to share a ride with here: http://www.carpoolnz.org/

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 22nd February, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Food

Slow speed ahead!

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Slow speed ahead!

It took more than a month for the huge container ship Ebba Maersk to cruise from Germany to China — a week longer than it took two years ago. But for the owner, the Danish shipping giant Maersk, that counts as progress.

In a culture where speed is expected, from overnight package delivery to bullet trains to fast-cash withdrawals, the company has created a sales pitch that may startle some speed-addicted customers: Slow is better.

By halving its top cruising speed over the last two years, Maersk cut fuel consumption on some routes by as much as 30 percent, greatly reducing costs and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the rest of the article at The New York Times

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 22nd February, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Climate Change

How much is well-being worth?

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:00:00 -0600

How much is well-being worth?

How much is well-being worth? Not much it seems.

The Government's $13.1 million cut for Adult Community Education, announced in the 2009 Budget, has seen the number of community-based courses plummet.

Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce said that though adult education courses benefited students, it was a question of whether taxpayers should foot the bill. "We support continuing education and will continue to support courses that deliver clear economic benefits. We simply cannot justify spending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on courses that do not clearly deliver these benefits."

Firstly, why does everything have to have an economic benefit, what's happened to social and environmental benefits? We pay taxes for infrastructure, services and amenities that would otherwise not be available in a purely commercial system. Secondly all education has an economic benefit either directly and/or indirectly.

Adult education courses offer benefits far beyond short-term returns on investment. A quick look at any adult education programme will see that they offer courses that increase people's competence, confidence, self-sufficiency and general well-being. In purely economic terms this means that people are more productive because they are healthier, motivated and more competent.

Adult classes also provide an opportunity for social interaction, networking, collaboration and sharing.

Adult education is one very good way to help sustain and improve our society; it's relatively low cost can easily be justified by the multiple, varied benefits.

Read the full story at stuff.co.nz

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 12th February, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Government

The power of sharing

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:00:00 -0600

The power of sharing

Unlike many sustainable practices sharing is easy, very cheap and fun – and it just comes naturally.

The following has been adapted from an article by by Janelle Orsi, and is on great website about sharing: The Sharing Solution

The power of sharing is unique in several ways:

Sharing is naturally contagious. Sharing opens up a pattern of generosity and mutual care that breeds on itself. A lot of other things we do to change the world aren't quite so viral. One person reducing his or her waste, for example, may or may not inspire a neighbour to do so. But offering to let your neighbour use your basketball hoop or take lemons from your tree can open up the flood gates of sharing.

Sharing is self-serving. Sharing helps us meet our needs more efficiently and cheaply, and sharing our water-blaster with a neighbor might mean that she will let us use her spa pool. Sharing builds community, which makes us happier people. Cooperation has been shown to release endorphins. So there's no need to force anyone to share -- people will naturally start doing it to enjoy the benefits.

Sharing frees up time, energy, and resources. For those of us who are spread way too thin, sharing saves resources, money, time, and energy, thereby freeing us up to garden, compost, recycle, hang our laundry, ride our bicycle, volunteer, advocate for social and environmental justice, and do things to help ourselves and the planet. We'll all get a little more rest and the support of a community of sharers. In short, sharing gives the grassroots the time, energy, and resources we need to grow a better world.

Sharing connects all of our sustainable acts and multiplies them. People are making changes everywhere – planting urban food gardens, composting their food waste, and installing solar panels. But many of these we do in isolation. Sharing adds the element of community, which boosts the potential and the impact of everything we do. Neighbours can get together to jointly purchase or bargain for solar power, or they can start a neighborhood compost project. It's more efficient, and each additional person who joins the effort multiplies the benefit to the earth and to the others in the group. Much of what we do to save the world can be done better if we organise and cooperate, and it can be much more fun that way, too!

We don't need someone else to do anything. We don't have to wait until our government starts a new program or provides needed funding. We don't need to change the laws. We don't have to wait until a scientist invents a solution. We don't even need to form a charity and fundraise to get started. We just start sharing. Today.

Every single one of us can share. Sharing is something that everyone can do. Even a curmudgeon, even a poor person, even a busy person. The hardest part is getting started, ironing out the details, understanding everyone's expectations, and figuring out the logistics. The book The Sharing Solution was written to help everyone through that part. So otherwise, there's nothing stopping any of us from sharing.

Sharing is something we can do right now. Somehow we need to create a sustainable economy. There are all kinds of approaches to this -- some folks reform the system, lobbying, advocating, and making changes bit-by-bit. This is important, but it's very slow. Others propose bringing down the system. This would be messy, very messy. Fortunately, we really don't need to remove the system before we can start replacing it. We can start sharing, nourishing our local economies, going organic, and creating rewarding green-collar job opportunities.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 8th February, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Great book downloads

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Great book downloads

Sharing information is a crucial way of being sustainable. A number of writers and organisations make books available for download for free. her are a couple of really good ones about sustainability:

State of the world 2010

State of the World is an annual publication published by the Worldwatch Institute. Each issue has a different theme. State of the World 2010 looks at the consumerism, what it is, why it is perpetuated and, most importantly, how it can be turned around.

You can buy it from the Worldwatch website or you can download a pdf of each chapter for free. Older issues are also available for download.

Worldwatch Institute
The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization recognized by opinion leaders around the world for its accessible, fact-based analysis of critical global issues. The Institute's three main program areas include Climate & Energy, Food & Agriculture, and the Green Economy.

Download State of the World 2010

Plan B 4.0

Lester R. Brown

Lester R. Brown is a renowned American environmentalist, founder of the Worldwatch Institute, and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Washington, D.C. The Washington Post called Lester Brown "one of the world's most influential thinkers." The Telegraph of Calcutta refers to him as "the guru of the environmental movement."

Plan B 4.0 is Lester R. Brown's inspirational and practical plan for a sustainable world. This is the fourth 'update' of his original book and is available for download from the Earth Policy website along with several other of Brown's books. I recommend Eco-Economy as well although much of the content is replicated in Plan B.

Download Plan B 4.0

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 8th February, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Book Review

Taxing times

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Taxing times

Tax reform has been in the news recently because of the publication of the Victoria University of Wellington Tax Working Group's report. The changes that the working group recommended could be likened to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Our tax system promotes unsustainability and it will take a lot more than a few tweaks to change that.

As an example the report recommends a comprehensive capital gains tax as well as a land tax but these are then offset by lowering (or eliminating) progressive income tax rates for high income earners, businesses and trusts. They also propose an increase in GST to cover the reduction in other taxes.

The benefits of tax

Taxes are an enforced way of sharing. Even though most people complain about having to pay taxes most realise that they also share in the benefits – infrastructure, amenities and services – that taxes pay for.

Taxes also have the added benefit of redistributing wealth from where it accumulates to where it is needed.

Taxation is also a very effective way of internalising costs which are caused by economic activity but not factored into prices. These include environmental costs such as climate change and social costs such as the health system.

The problem is that our tax system perpetuates an unsustainable economy because it taxes the wrong things and not the right things.

Taxing resources

Taxing good things, like employment, to subsidise bad things, like environmental degradation, just doesn't make sense. A sustainable tax reform would shift taxes from incomes to environmentally destructive activities.

Across the board consumption taxes (GST) are often favoured by governments because they are easy to administer but they treat good consumption and bad consumption exactly the same. By using ecological taxes at the resource level the non-renewable and polluting resources will be more expensive and uncompetitive compared to recycled, renewable and clean resources.

If we taxed water use, land use, energy use, raw materials and pollution (at the same time as reducing income taxes) resource use and pollution would reduce rapidly. The problem is that labour is taxed as a resource which creates a tendency towards lower employment and higher resource use.

Tax shifting

Tax shifting has broad support by economists around the world and has been adopted in different ways by many governments in Europe and is beginning elsewhere.

In a column in Fortune Magazine, Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw succinctly sums up the idea of tax shifting: "Cutting income taxes while increasing gasoline taxes would lead to more rapid economic growth, less traffic congestion, safer roads, and reduced risk of global warming--all without jeopardizing long-term fiscal solvency. This may be the closest thing to a free lunch that economics has to offer."

Tax shifting does not decrease the total amount of revenue for the Government. However shifting income taxes to ecological taxes will create jobs, improve resource efficiency and stimulate more sustainable business and consumption practices.

As Lester R. Brown says in his book Eco-economy "If the world is to restructure the economy before environmental destruction leads to economic decline, tax restructuring almost certainly will be at the centre of the effort. No other set of policies can bring about the systemic changes needed quickly enough."

So lets stop fiddling about with those deckchairs and let's turn this Titanic around.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 8th February, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Do you really need a drill? Or just a hole?

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Do you really need a drill? Or just a hole?

There is too much stuff...

And let’s face it, we usually don’t want the stuff, we just want what the stuff does. For example, you want a hole in your wall so you buy a drill – but you didn’t really want a drill that might end up sitting unused in your toolbox for the next twenty years – you just wanted a hole. To get the hole without buying a drill, you could borrow or rent a drill.

One of our ten basic sustainability tips is to buy and use less stuff. Reducing the amount of stuff we own, saves the energy and natural resources that would have gone into manufacturing something new and the emissions that would have been generated in the process.

But how do you find someone with a drill? If you know your neighbour has a one, that’s great, you could ask to borrow it. If not, there are websites growing around the world that encourage the sharing of resources. Websites such as Hire Things (www.hirethings.co.nz) offer people a platform to share within their community. There are many things that you only use occasionally and there are many people who own those things that you could rent from. Not everyone needs to own a lawnmower, a tent or a power drill.

By sharing resources in this way can we can increase the value of the things we own, reconnect with our community, reduce our impact on the environment as well as making and saving money.

Sharing resources is a socially responsible choice that will have significant impact on the world we leave our children. Small changes by lots of people can make a big difference.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 8th February, 2010 | Comments (1) | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

'World ecological debt day' calendar

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:00:00 -0600

'World ecological debt day' calendar

"One way of illustrating our impact on the environment that brings a sense of perspective, comes from looking at the day in a typical calendar year when the world, in effect, starts overshooting its biocapacity and begins eating into its stock of natural resources.

The planet can tolerate a little give and take without environmental collapse as long as, in total, humanity lives within its overall ecological budget. The last year that humanity’s levels of resource use fell within the means of our life-supporting natural assets was 1987. As global consumption grows, the day each year when the world as a whole goes into ecological debt creeps ever earlier in the calendar year. In 1995 it was 21 November. By the turn of the millennium world ecological debt day had advanced to 1 November. In 2007, the world’s human population as a whole went into ecological debt on 6 October – two years on this has lurched forward 11 days to the 25 of September."

Source:

This calendar and explantion comes from 'The Consumption Explosion' by nef (the new economics foundation) which is an independent think-and-do tank that inspires and demonstrates real economic well-being.

This and many of their other excellent reports are available for free download from their website:

New Economics Foundation

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 28th January, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Spaceship Earth takes off

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Spaceship Earth takes off

The first education-for-sustainability course in the GreenKiwi programme, called Spaceship Earth, has been launched. GreenKiwi is an initiative created by Econation to provide resources that help teachers and students discover sustainability.

"It is called education 'for' sustainability, as opposed to education 'about' sustainability, because the focus is on inspiring positive attitudes and prompting positive action," says GreenKiwi Programme Director Michael Lockhart.

A total of four student-centred courses, designed for different curriculum levels, are planned as part of the GreenKiwi programme. Each course will be built around a framework that creates an interpretive context for a wide range of learning objectives.

"The benefit is that the content teaches existing curriculum, but in a way that connects it in the minds of the students and makes it more relevant," says Mr Lockhart.

"Spaceship Earth, which is for students in years seven and eight, is an extended thought experiment. Students are asked to decide what will be needed on a spaceship that is going on a 200 year journey around our solar system," Mr Lockhart explains.

"The spaceship will need to be a small replica of the earth with all of earth's life-sustaining services. Students will discover what those services are – things like fresh water, air, energy, food and communities – and how humans use and impact them. The idea is that students discover that earth itself is like a giant spaceship – a limited, finely-balanced, interconnected system".

Spaceship Earth is presented in a teachers' guide which can be downloaded for free by teachers in New Zealand. A mediated wiki is also planned so that teachers and students can share their discoveries as well as connecting and helping each other online.

"We want to keep the whole programme free because we want as many teachers as possible using the resources. We are currently seeking a sponsor for GreenKiwi to help us achieve this goal," said Mr Lockhart.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 26th January, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Education

Humour can heal

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:00:00 -0600

Humour can heal

By Joel Pett in USA Today
http://mediagallery.usatoday.com/Editorial-Cartoons/G373,S81137

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 21st January, 2010 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Pictures

A sustainable Christmas present

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:00:00 -0600

A sustainable Christmas present

Christmas is a time of giving and sharing but what are you going to give and share? In a last minute rush it is easy to grab presents that are beautifully-packaged, gimmicky junk – made in places and conditions you know nothing about.

Here are a few ideas for sustainable Christmas presents:

1. Give one good-quality, durable gift

Children (and sometimes adults) often get a number of presents which are mostly junk and are tossed out after a few days or less. Think about buying fewer, higher-quality presents that will last longer. Avoid disposable anythings.

2. Give a 'green' present

Give organic, natural, renewable presents; an organic cotton or hemp t-shirt; a bowl made from recycled timber; a straw hat. If you are into gimmicky presents look at a solar powered torch or battery recharger.

3. Give a tree or pot plant

Seedlings and pot plants are a great present that will endure. Potted herbs will supply culinary enjoyment and pleasant aroma for as long as they last.

4. Give a useful, practical present

I guess everyone has received (and perhaps given) one of those useless, whimsical Christmas-themed presents – perhaps you have received many – and they end up being thrown out. Useful, practical presents like food, clothes or tools are much more sustainable. Other useful options are sunblock and natural personal care products.

5. Give a locally made present

Buying locally made products not only helps the local economy it also helps the environment.

6. Give a second-hand present

A classic or antique vase, bowl or ornament. A piece of memorabilia. A hard-to-get, second-hand book.

7. Give a hand-made (or even home-made) present

The personal touch means a lot to people. The more personal the better. Make some jam, preserves, sauce or relish. Bake biscuits or cakes. Make a wooden breadboard or bowl.

Give an artwork or a piece of craftwork.

8. Give a donation

You can give a donation to a worthy charity on another person's behalf.

9. Give a book about sustainability

Spread the word, share your knowledge and your passion.

10. Think about the wrapping

At the end of Christmas day there is usually a huge pile of wrapping paper and packaging. Try to buy gifts with less packaging and instead of wrapping them put them into a nice reusable bag or wrap them in a scarf or bandanna.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 26th November, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Green fatigue or a case of the blues?

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:00:00 -0600

Green fatigue or a case of the blues?

New Zealand needs a multi-party consensus for a pathway to sustainability that will provide a clear direction and certainty for everyone.

It should be easy for people to be green but instead it’s difficult. A recent survey has found that New Zealanders are supposedly suffering "green fatigue" because of constant warnings of an environmental catastrophe. While 97 percent of those surveyed said they were doing their bit for the planet, only 3 percent claimed to be "totally committed". Readers Digest, which commissioned the survey, quoted an advertising executive who said "Green" was a "damaged brand" and media saturation had led to "green fatigue".

The survey’s findings suggest that people are getting mixed messages that are creating confusion and apathy. The fact is that there is not enough exhortation for positive change and instead there is too much catastrophising and finger-pointing which just creates a sense of guilt and powerlessness in the average person.

Much of the rhetoric – from politicians, businesspeople, NGOs and commentators – reported by the media is wide of the mark anyway. People are being misled by the bickering and by the resultant hyperbole and innuendo. Many of these arguments are quibbles over small things – it is extraordinary how much attention plastic shopping bags get – perhaps as the book says, we shouldn’t sweat the small stuff.

There is too much emphasis on efficiency when our economic systems are fundamentally unsustainable. Unsustainability can’t be solved if people simply become more efficient. It is an unfortunate fact that, whilst resource efficiency is very important, being less bad is still bad. When people struggle to 'do their bit' and it’s still not enough this understandably leads to disillusionment and 'green fatigue'.

If you are hurtling towards a precipice just slowing down isn't going to help in the long run – you need to change direction completely. We need fundamental, systemic changes that would include:

Changing from a carbon economy to a solar economy;
Changing from finite, extracted resources to unlimited, renewable resources;
Changing from perverse consumption to sustainable consumption;
Changing from subsidising polluters to taxing them;
Changing from taxing resource efficiency to subsidising it;
Changing from large-scale intensive monoculture farming to organic farming;
Changing from degradation of natural capital to restoration of natural capital.

Systemic changes only happen when people are united in change and that usually only occurs when there is inspirational and visionary leadership in government. If a change of direction is instigated it will make it easier for people to live more sustainably which will lead to more change. At the moment there is no ‘positive feedback’ for people who are trying to live sustainably.

Instead of the vacillation that our political system tends to lead to, we need a multi-party consensus for a pathway to sustainability. The consensus process must include broad consultation and policy research; not to get a popular decision but to get the best possible information. Politicians will need to leave their egos at the door and also be prepared to make decisions that are unpopular in the short term. A mult-party implementation will give all New Zealanders a clear direction and more certainty.

The best thing any individual can do is exhort their leaders and decision-makers to make these fundamental changes towards sustainability. We shouldn’t be fobbed off until a ‘better time’ and we shouldn’t stand for short-term thinking, quick fixes and fast gains. Good leaders will make difficult, and sometimes unpopular, decisions and all leaders should be accountable now for the decisions they make that affect the future.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 16th November, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Government

Yes, we can afford lower emissions

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:00:00 -0600

Yes, we can afford lower emissions

There are many reasons to be confused about climate change.

Obviously some people simply don't believe that humans are causing climate change, even when there is a mountain of evidence to support it, but even more perplexing is that there are people – the National Government for instance – who actually believe that humans are causing climate change but say we can't afford to do much about it. Excuse me?

The notion that reducing emissions will be very costly has been used to argue that we should adopt a low target in Copenhagen. This reactionary argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

The fact is it is possible for New Zealand to reduce its greenhouse emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 at low cost. In order to reach a target that is 40% below 1990 emissions levels, New Zealand must reduce emissions by 48 million tonnes (Mt) below the levels expected in 2020.

The Green Party recently researched opportunities to reduce emissions in all sectors of the economy and found 36.2 million tonnes (Mt) of reductions could be achieved in the next decade. Many of these solutions would actually save money – and others that are likely to cost much less than buying carbon credits on the international market. A further 11.8 Mt of offsets could be bought from overseas to make a total of 48 Mt.

The science shows that, to avoid dangerous climate change, developed countries need to reduce emissions collectively by the equivalent of 25%-40% below their 1990 level. Countries that start to put their economies on a low carbon track now will find it significantly easier to meet the much more stringent 2050 targets.

The following information has been adapted from the Green Parties' paper Getting There.

Electricity (Saving: 5.25 Mt)
Retire Huntly’s coal burning power station and replace with new geothermal, wind, and small-scale hydro that does not damage rivers. Implement interruptible load agreements with industry. Restrict Taranaki’s gas-fired station to running only in winter months. These steps are all part of the Electricity Commission’s Statement of Opportunities and regarded as economic and save 4.25 Mt. An aggressive programme of minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for products like appliances will save householders money and save 1Mt.

Industrial and manufacturing fuels (Saving: 1.90 Mt)
Replace coal with economic wood waste fuels and some gas and invest in all efficiency projects that pay a return over their lifetime.

Transport (Saving: 4.70 Mt)
Set average fuel economy standards for light vehicles coming into NZ and progressively raise them from 2013 to 2019. Vehicles imported in 2020 would use half the fuel per 100km compared with current imports (3.00 Mt). Pursue the rest of the transport measures in the NZ Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy to encourage mode shift to public transport, walking and cycling (1.70 Mt).

Agriculture (Saving: 2.70 Mt)
Reducing the average dairy stocking rate from 2.83 cows/ha to 2.30 cows/ha will save 2.2 Mt and farmers are likely to enjoy medium-term profitability as well. Research shows that high dairy stocking rates are only profitable at milk prices over $5.50/kg where the return pays for the input costs of urea, feed, off farm grazing and animal health. The 10 year average pay-out is $5.20.

Meanwhile, proven management tools such as diet changes and better soil drainage can reduce nitrous oxide in sheep, beef and deer farms and save 0.5 Mt. There are several other solutions that could decrease methane and NO2 emissions which haven't been counted.

New forests (Saving: 10.90 Mt)
Forests planted since 1990 will capture and store enough carbon in 2012 to cover the rise in our emissions since 1990, but this will not last. New forest planting has almost ceased in the last ten years and harvesting of those 1990 forests will cause a spike in emissions from 2016 to 2030. An aggressive planting programme, which the forest industry says will occur at a carbon price of $25/tonne and policy certainty, could smooth out that spike. There are 1.8m ha of low producing steep hill country on sheep and beef farms where this could occur profitably. Planting 10,000 ha in 2010 and 30,000 ha/yr after that would store an additional 10.90 Mt tonnes of carbon in 2020. This would be a mix of pine, exotic hardwoods and softwoods as well as some new, permanent indigenous forest.

Pest control (Saving: 8.75 Mt)
If New Zealand signs up to article 3.4 of the Kyoto protocol we have the opportunity to control possums, goats and deer on 219,000 ha of DoC land and capture an additional 8.75 Mt. It is recognised that pests eat leaves and leaves store significant amounts of carbon; a pest-free forest is therefore another way in which we can responsibly reduce our liabilities. We calculate a further 2 Mt is achievable on private land.

Offsets (Saving: 11.80 Mt)
The Kyoto Protocol allows for countries to purchase emissions reductions from overseas if it is cheaper than making reductions domestically. This flexibility buys countries time to achieve their reductions while transferring much needed technology and finance to developing countries. We can take responsibility for the balance of our 40% target by purchasing credits from overseas. This amount represents less than a quarter of our total reductions.

Total (Saving: 48.00 Mt)
This represents a 40% reduction from 1990 levels. Achieving these targets will mean changing the way things are done and spending the money where necessary to help create a sustainable future. Whatever is spent now will be much less than what will need to spent if we put this off.

There are many other opportunities that are hard to quantify but which will undoubtedly present opportunities in the future: cows producing lower methane emissions; biogas plants on farms turning waste into energy; more use of electricity in transport; tidal and wave energy. Once we turn our emissions path around and start reducing, more and more opportunities will become available to reduce further.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 12th November, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Climate Change

Livestock might be creating more greenhouse gases than previously thought

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:00:00 -0600

Livestock might be creating more greenhouse gases than previously thought

If recent reports by the Worldwatch Institute and NASA are correct it means that New Zealand's carbon footprint could be at least double what is currently estimated.

A report by the respected think-tank The Worldwatch Institute claims that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by livestock the true figure is 51 per cent.

They claim that United Nation's figures have severely underestimated the greenhouse gases caused by tens of billions of cattle, sheep, pigs, poultry and other animals in three main areas: methane, land use and respiration.

Their findings – which are likely to prompt fierce debate among academics – come amid increasing calls from climate change experts for people to eat less meat.

In the 19-page report, Robert Goodland, a former lead environmental adviser to the World Bank, and Jeff Anhang, a current adviser, suggest that domesticated animals cause 32 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), more than the combined impact of industry and energy. The accepted figure is 18 per cent, taken from a landmark UN report in 2006, Livestock's Long Shadow.

These claims are compounded by study by NASA scientists published in Science magazine recently found that methane has significantly more effect on climate change than previously thought: 33 times more than carbon dioxide, compared with a previous factor of 25.

Download the report: Livestock and Climate Change

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 11th November, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Climate Change

5 good reasons to "Buy New Zealand Made"

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:00:00 -0500

5 good reasons to "Buy New Zealand Made"

Buy New Zealand Made and you will:

Keep your money circulating here and not disappearing overseas. One way to reduce rising national debt from trade deficits is to buy local.
Support local communities. When businesses do well it benefits the whole local community.
Keep our country unique. Our one-of-a-kind businesses are important in making New Zealand distinctive. This has the added benefit of helping our tourism businesses too.
Reduce environmental impact. Our environmental standards for businesses, products and services are often better than those overseas. Also freighting goods from longer distances increases their carbon footprint.
Help create more jobs.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 30th October, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

Great Gardening Site

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Great Gardening Site

Free Gardening Resource
mygarden.co.nz

This is a great new website. You can create a unique profile (like Facebook) to showcase your home garden, a garden you have designed, your garden produce, gardening skills and gardening ideas. Upload photos of your garden, interact in forum discussions, and even add and view a list of recipes specific to home-grown produce.

A really neat idea is that if you have excess home produce you can list it for swap or sale on the Garden Trader section of the web site - it's free and easy to use.

There is plenty of useful information on the site and it will only get better as more people get on board.

Spread the word!

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 29th October, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Creative re-use of cotton

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Creative re-use of cotton

How to customise & recycle your old t-shirts
Modern cotton cultivated is far removed from the sustainable ways of old. Cotton fields are heavily fertilised (with phosphate and ammonia). Pesticides are also liberally applied, often sprayed by plane. It has been estimated that cotton cultivation accounts for a quarter of all insecticides used on earth. In many places, like the US, the cotton bolls are harvested after the plants have been defoliated by chemicals. A recent study in Pakistan reported that of 88 femal cotton pickers only one had an acceptably low level of pesticide in her blood, the rest had moderate to dangerous levels of blood poisoning.

Each year more than 20 million tons of cotton is produced globally. Much of this is made into clothing that ends up in landfills.

The following site has a large number of creative re-uses of cotton t-shirts and sweatshirts:

Hideyourarms.com: how-to-customize-recycle-t-shirts

If you do want to get rid of those old clothes please don't throw them in the rubbish, take them to a charity shop or put them into a recycling station.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 25th October, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Cool clear water

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Cool clear water

New Zealand has huge freshwater resources but growing demand is creating escalating environmental and social impacts such as lower water quality, degraded waterways, increased need for water distribution infrastructure, and increased costs.

With the growing and competing needs of water users – recreational users, urban water supplies, hydro-electricity generators, tourism operators and farmers – it is becoming increasingly important to manage the quality and sustainability of our freshwater catchments and the life that they sustain.

Water demand

With such an abundance of freshwater it's too easy for New Zealanders to be profligate with it. New Zealand's per capita water footprint is estimated (Ministry for the Environment 2007) to be two to three times the global average. (Water footprint is simply the amount of water used and is usually given as per capita figure.)

Water demand and allocation has been rapidly increasing too. The allocation of water (i.e. the water allowed to be used) in New Zealand increased by 50 per cent between 1999 and 2006.

As well as the resource itself, water use requires infrastructure which involves other resources such as land and energy. Infrastructure includes dams and reservoirs, water treatment plants, pumping stations, distribution pipes and aqueducts. Wastewater – greywater and blackwater (sewerage) – also requires a large amount of infrastructure. Increased water demand means increased infrastructure.

Urban runoff and stormwater

In natural catchments surface runoff entering waterways is a relatively rare event, occurring only a few times each year, generally after larger storm events. In these catchments most rainfall soaked into the ground and contributed to groundwater recharge or was recycled into the atmosphere by trees.

Modern drainage systems, which collect runoff from impervious surfaces in urban areas like roofs and roads, ensure that water is efficiently conveyed to waterways through pipe networks, meaning that even small storm events result in increased flows in waterways.

In addition to delivering more pollution from the urban catchment increased stormwater flow can lead to stream erosion, it encourages weed invasion and can alter natural flow regimes which affect flora and fauna.

Agricultural water use

The intensification of land use in New Zealand has led to sharp increases in the development and irrigation of high-producing exotic pastures. Demand for water is also increasing, particularly in areas already short of water. Drier parts of the country have the highest demand: Canterbury and Otago account for three quarters of all water allocated in New Zealand.

Intensification of pastoral land use has led to a noticeable increase in the use of fertilisers as well. Total fertiliser use has doubled and the use of nitrogen fertiliser has increased tenfold in New Zealand in the past two decades. This, combined with increased animal wastes from higher stocking rates, has affected the quality of our surface waterways, groundwater and coastal marine environment in many areas around New Zealand.

Intensified land use also causes increased erosion leading to the silting up of waterways.

Virtual water

Virtual water is the amount of water that is required for the production of food and other goods. The amount of virtual water varies depending on the product, for example a litre of milk requires 1,000 litres of water to produce it whereas a kilogram of tomatoes only contains 185 litres of virtual water and a hamburger contains a whopping 2,400 litres of water.

As a large exporter of meat, wool, milk and other agricultural products New Zealand is large exporter of virtual water. There is a big opportunity for New Zealand to export more virtual water especially when countries like China and Japan do not have enough water.

To minimise impacts at the same time as taking the most effective advantage of our water resources New Zealanders must better manage their water use.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 13th October, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

'Water footprint' as pressing as carbon emissions

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 15:00:00 -0500

'Water footprint' as pressing as carbon emissions

Worries over how much greenhouse gas is being created to fulfil our everyday needs are being rivaled by fears of the human race's use of what is a finite, essential resource.

People use plenty of water for drinking, cooking and washing, but even more for producing things such as food, paper, cotton clothes, and so on. The water footprint is an indicator of water use that looks at both direct and indirect water use of a consumer or producer. The water footprint of an individual, community or business is defined as the total volume of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by them.

Standards for calculating the water footprint of goods and services is being developed for disclosure to retailers and consumers.

While New Zealand's agrarian industries use a lot of water, scientists say its overall situation should place it in good stead as retailers start to consider how much water is needed to make and transport the products they sell. Retail giant Wal-Mart is among major worldwide chains currently looking at developing a common standard for environmental footprints such as water.

Read the full story at nzherald.co.nz

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 12th October, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Psst...hey bud! Do you want to buy a bottle of water?

Sun, 11 Oct 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Psst...hey bud! Do you want to buy a bottle of water?

Whenever I see bottled water I think of Lefty trying to sell Ernie a bottle of air on Sesame Street. Selling water in bottles seems like a similar sort of scam.

Consumers often buy bottled water because they believe it is safer, purer or healthier than tap water. Bottled water companies spend millions of dollars a year trying to convince us of this.

However, there is no assurance that bottled water is any safer than tap water. Virtually every independent study on bottled water shows contamination from bacteria and/or synthetic chemicals. For example all plastic bottles leach synthetic chemicals into water, some more than others. Even the popular refillable polycarbonate water bottles are known to release BPA (Bisphenol A) into the water.

Properly filtered tap water is at least as healthy as the best bottled water.

Bottled water is also extremely expensive compared to tap water. The bottled water business is very lucrative and tends to be dominated by huge drinks companies like Coca-Cola and Pepsico. The global bottled water market valuation grew by 7% in 2006 to reach a value of $US60.9 billion. The volume of bottled water sold in 2006 was 115.4 billion litres. In 2011, the market is forecast to have a value of $US86.4 billion, an increase of 41.8% in five years since 2006.

Bottled water unnecessarily creates enormous environmental impacts such as:

Every day 60 million plastic bottles are disposed of in America alone!
Huge amounts of greenhouse gases are produced from manufacturing the plastic bottles.
Millions of litres of fuel are wasted transporting filtered tap water around the country and around the world!
It requires three times as much water to make the bottle as it does to fill it.

There is no rationale for regular bottled water use – it costs more, it isn't healthier and it pollutes our planet. The healthy, economical and environmentally-friendly solution is a good-quality home water filter and refillable glass water bottles.

Guide to choosing a water filter

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 11th October, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

The town that kicked the bottle

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:00:00 -0500

The town that kicked the bottle

Plastic bottles were ceremoniously removed from shelves in the sleepy Australian town of Bundanoon on the weekend as a ban on commercially-bottled water, believed to be a world first, came into force.

The ban, which is supported by local shopkeepers, means bottled water can no longer be bought in the town in the Southern Highlands, two hours from Sydney.

Read the New Zealand Herald article

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 5th October, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

The 'poverty of satisfaction'

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:00:00 -0500

The 'poverty of satisfaction'

Bobby Kennedy's 1968 Presidential Campaign speech against the proliferation of consumption

"If we believe that we, as Americans, are bound together by a common concern for each other, then an urgent national priority is upon us. We must begin to end the disgrace of this other America. And this is one of the great tasks of leadership for us, as individuals and citizens this year. But even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all. Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

Robert F Kennedy – Presidential Campaign Speech – University of Kansas – 1968

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 30th September, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Economic growth does not measure the quality of development

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Economic growth does not measure the quality of development

National income or GDP (Gross Domestic Production) increases no matter what we spend our money on. Thus, the concept of 'quality' can be neglected (and indeed often is) when development is equated only with economic growth. This includes the quality of development, the quality of human life and the quality of the natural environment.

This idea about 'quality' is illustrated in a story about Anton and Marti, and how their changing spending habits affect the economist's ideal of development.

Posted by on 29th September, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags:

Consumption does not guarantee happiness

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Consumption does not guarantee happiness

The percentage of people in Northern countries calling themselves happy peaked in the 1950s - even though consumption has more than doubled since then. Indeed, there is no consistent correlation between income, consumption and happiness. A global comparison of measures of happiness in relation to levels of income per capita indicates that the richer the country, the smaller the correlation between income level and individual happiness.

"It is no accident workers who are earning a lot of money because they work long hours provide the market for the very goods they are producing, and never mind if they do not really need the goods in question. The consumption becomes the reward for the hard work and the long hours.

"Nevertheless, it cannot be a very satisfying reward, the conditions of dissatisfaction must be maintained, or markets for useless products would disappear under a gale of common sense. We become addicted to consumption, which provides no lasting satisfaction."

Source: Carley, M. and Spapens, P. (1998) Sharing the World: Sustainable Living and Global Equity in the 21st Century, Earthscan, London, p. 143.

This explanation of the paradox suggests that 'dissatisfaction' is central to market economies as they rely upon people becoming caught up a vicious 'cycle of work-and-spend' - just like a fast-spinning wheel in which consumption must be paid for by long hours of work - which need to be rewarded by more consumption, and so on.

A second explanation of this paradox relates to the lack of regular contact with nature in modern life:

"The consumer society required that human contact with nature, once direct, frequent, and intense, be mediated by technology and organisation. In large numbers we moved indoors, A more contrived and controlled landscape replaced one that had been far less contrived and controllable. Wild animals, once regarded as teachers and companions, wee increasingly replaced with animals bred for docility and dependence.

"Our sense of reality, once shaped by our complex sensory interplay with the seasons, sky, forest, wildlife, savanna, desert, river, sea and night sky, increasingly came to be shaped by technology and artful realities. Compulsive consumption, perhaps a form of grieving or perhaps evidence of boredom, is a response to the fact that we find ourselves exiles and strangers in a diminished world that we once called home."

Orr, D. (1999) The ecology of giving and receiving, in R. Rosenblatt (ed) Consuming Desires: Consumption, Culture, and the Pursuit of Happiness, Island Press, Washington DC, p. 141.

Read the original source at UNESCO

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 29th September, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Big is (not so) good

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Big is (not so) good

Farmers Markets directly connect producers of food with consumers. These simple, effective transactions unwind the complex system of efficiencies and 'economies' which make modern markets unsustainable.

Effectiveness versus efficiency

The smaller farms are, the greater their yield. This discovery was first made in 1962 by the Nobel economist Amartya Sen and has been confirmed by many other studies since then. In some cases, the difference is enormous. A recent study of farming in Turkey, for example, found that farms of less than one hectare are twenty times as productive as farms of over ten hectares.

Small-scale intensive farms not only produce more food they also provide more jobs with less environmental impact. So why aren't all farms small? Because small farms are less profitable. This is an example of the perverse paradoxes that our modern economy creates; by pursuing efficiency and economies of scale (and consequent profits) effectiveness is reduced. In the search for cheaper food and higher profits some farmers will maximise output and minimise internal costs. This is often achieved by increasing external costs such as water and soil degradation, job loss and climate change.

Effectiveness can be defined as 'doing the right things' and Efficiency defined as 'doing things right'. The point is that if you are doing wrong things, being more efficient is at best less bad and at worst it is much more bad. Efficiency is important but only if you are doing the right thing. Large-scale factory farms are the wrong thing.

Many people believe that the effective purpose of business is to make profits. It is argued that profits, which are ultimately fed back into the economy, benefit everybody. However profits are often spent on creating more efficiency (e.g. larger farms, more machinery, more fertiliser) and therefore more profits. This spiral of efficiency leads to ever-increasing imbalance and unsustainability.

The super-scaling of business

Farming and food production is just one example of an industry that utilises economies-of-scale but they exist in all industries.

Large mass manufacturing plants have taken over small-scale factories and craft workshops. Many New Zealand manufacturers have shut down entirely and moved overseas to take advantage of cheaper labour and overheads. This has led to a plethora of cheap products that are sold at a high profit. Also, chains of large retail outlets have proliferated as the number of small local specialist shops has declined.

Even the news media has succumbed to efficiency. A large proportion of the news in your local newspaper, radio or TV has been created by huge news agencies that tend to have too few overworked 'churnalists'. (For an excellent review of the state of modern news media industry read 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies.)

Queen Street farmers

Unlike most other countries New Zealand has always had big farms.

When New Zealand was first colonised by Europeans (as in other colonies like the USA, Australia and Canada) land was plentiful and cheap but labour was scarce and expensive. This led pioneer farmers to create huge pastoral 'runs' on native grasslands or to clear large areas of native bush for grazing. This caused massive erosion in many hill country areas as well as a general ongoing degradation of soils.

Since the Second World War this situation has been compounded by the drive for more efficiency with the centralisation and supersizing of production, distribution and retail. This has led to growth in the size of certain farms and to the rise of corporate farmers. Increasing numbers of people profiting from food production are not farmers but absent owners and middlemen.

Lifestyle farmers

In fact the average size of farms has been decreasing in New Zealand since the 1970s but this is largely due firstly from sheep and beef farms changing to dairy which tend to be smaller and secondly to an enormous increase in small 'lifestyle' farms which, in many cases, are not farmed intensively and in some cases are not farmed at all.

The renaissance of farmers markets

A farmers’ market is a food market where local growers, farmers and artisan food producers sell their produce directly to consumers. Vendors may only sell what they grow, farm, pickle, preserve, bake, smoke or catch themselves from within a defined local area. The market takes place at a public location on a regular basis.

Modern farmers markets buck the trend towards scale. The vendors are small farmers and food producers who can not produce food as cheaply as factory farmers but by selling directly to the public they can compete on price.

In most cases their goods are more eco-friendly, and human-friendly, using less inputs such as herbicides, pesticides, fertiliser and energy. The goods are local, seasonal and fresh. This also means that they are using less resources (packaging, chemicals and energy) to produce.

Farmers markets are fun too. There was a time when all food was sold in farmers markets. In the past market day was a time for socialising, networking and sharing information as well as trading. Modern farmers markets are just the same. They are also a way for you to learn more about the food you eat and to meet the people who produce it.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 16th September, 2009 | Comments (1) | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Business Sustainability

Fonterra's role in rainforest destruction exposed

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Fonterra's role in rainforest destruction exposed

Press Release: Greenpeace New Zealand

Auckland, New Zealand - 23 August 2009 – Fonterra, the world’s largest dairy exporter, must take responsibility for the part it plays in rainforest destruction and the massive greenhouse gas emissions that result from this destruction in Indonesia and Malaysia, to feed NZ dairy cows, Greenpeace stated today.

A quarter of the world’s production of Palm Kernel Expeller (PKE) animal feed, an economic product of the Indonesian and Malaysian palm industry, was imported into New Zealand last year with the majority going to feed dairy cows. Around 95 per cent of all New Zealand dairy farms are shareholders within Fonterra.

Fonterra’s half owned subsidiary RD1 has also forged a joint venture with palm oil giant Wilmar International. Wilmar is the world’s largest trader of palm oil and kernel and has a reputation as one of the world’s worst rainforest destroying palm companies. Documented cases involving rainforest destruction, illegal burning and social conflicts over community lands have been levelled at Wilmar.

“It’s a scandal that Fonterra is feeding its dairy cows a product that is directly contributing to the destruction of the world’s remaining rainforests and to increased climate change,” said Simon Boxer, Greenpeace New Zealand climate campaigner.

“This makes no sense and the New Zealand Government needs to stop Fonterra importing palm kernel expeller into New Zealand,” said Boxer.

Indonesia has one of the fastest rates of deforestation in the world. Indonesia has already lost 72% of its large intact ancient forest areas. According to recent estimates Indonesia is the third largest greenhouse gas polluter of any nation on the planet due to the destruction of its rainforest and peatlands.

Many of Indonesia’s unique forest dwelling animals are also on the brink of extinction including the orangutan and the Sumatran tiger.

"This is further evidence that Fonterra’s short-sighted drive for profit is completely unsustainable,” said Boxer.

“Fonterra’s intensification of the dairy industry is fuelling rainforest destruction, increasing greenhouse gas emissions here and abroad, putting pressure on the health of our land and threatens our clean, green reputation. That’s the cost – and I can’t imagine that there are many New Zealanders, including the farming community, what would find this situation acceptable."

The import of palm kernel expeller has increased 2,700 fold since 1999, from 400 tonnes to over 1.1million tonnes in 2008 due to the intensification of New Zealand’s dairy sector and Fonterra’s drive for ever greater milk production at lower costs. Over 1.5 million hectares of palm plantations planted on previously rainforested land in Malaysia and Indonesia would have been needed to meet the 2008 New Zealand imports of PKE.

None of the PKE imported into New Zealand meets stringent sustainability guidelines. Today’s Sunday Star Times quoted Dr Vengata Rao the secretary general of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) as saying that “certainly very little expeller cake coming into New Zealand last year would have been RSPO certified at all”. Greenpeace considers RSPO sustainability standards as not strong enough, as they don't include a complete prohibition on rainforest and peatland conversion.

In August, a Greenpeace New Zealand team journeyed to Sumatra, Indonesia accompanied by an independent journalist and an independent New Zealand farmer to document the devastation wrought by palm companies. They visited an orangutan rehabilitation centre and a formerly owned Wilmar palm concession. Whilst under Wilmar’s ownership rainforests were cleared to plant palm, destroying the habitat of the Sumatran tiger. Illegal fires were lit that destroyed carbon rich peatlands which led to prosecution by the Indonesian Government.

Suzette Jackson, Greenpeace New Zealand communications manager who led the expedition stated. “Indonesia’s rainforests are being destroyed at one of the fastest rates in the world. New Zealand should be helping to protect the climate and Indonesia’s remaining forests not be destroying them.”

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 2nd September, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Cadbury bows to consumer pressure over the use of palm oil

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Cadbury bows to consumer pressure over the use of palm oil

Cadbury started using palm oil recently as part of a cost-cutting exercise. Using the oil to replace some cocoa butter raised the ire of consumers, both over the taste and the source.

Environmentalists called for a boycott and a feedback campaign over concerns palm oil production damaged rainforests.

Cadbury New Zealand managing director Matthew Oldham said the decision to bring back the old recipe was a direct response to consumer feedback

Read the full New Zealand Herald story

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 2nd September, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Farmers Markets

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Farmers Markets

Getting food that is fresh, seasonal, local and organic

It is best to eat food that is local, fresh, seasonal and organic. Apart from growing your own there is probably no better way to get food like this than at a farmers market.

A farmers’ market is a food market where local growers, farmers and artisan food producers sell their wares directly to consumers. Vendors may only sell what they grow, farm, pickle, preserve, bake, smoke or catch themselves from within a defined local area. The market takes place at a public location on a regular basis.

The individual stalls at the markets are run by the farmers themselves and therefore provide an opportunity for you to find out more about what you are buying and how it is grown. Because there is no middle man the prices are usually good value and all the money goes directly to the farmer.

In February 2009, there were 42 registered farmer's markets throughout the country. To find details of a Farmer's market near you click here>>

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 25th August, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Make some noise!

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Make some noise!

Anything an individual does to reduce their impact is good but you can insulate your house, recycle your rubbish, grow your own vegies, use public transport and then undo all that good many times over by voting for the wrong political party. It is almost impossible for an individual to be truly sustainable because the problems are systemic. In the words of William McDonough all we can do at the moment is be "less bad".

So a very important role for individuals is to influence politicians and other decision-makers who can actually change the system. You can do this directly by writing to your local MP or to a Minister. You could also write or call your mayor or local body councilor. You could join a lobby group or another of the numerous organisations who promote sustainability on a variety of areas. And you could ask your family, friends and neighbours if they want to join too.

Read more sustainability tips

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 12th August, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

frogblog: John Key shirks responsibility

Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:00:00 -0500

frogblog: John Key shirks responsibility

Image: scoop.co.nz

Well, the news is out. A 10-20% target, with so many conditions as to be meaningless. Minister Groser even confirmed during the post-cab that the 10% was in no way unconditional. Cabinet would revisit the whole thing anyway.

So there we have it. The National Government failing to take responsibility for our share of the mess. Such a small share, but ours to bear nonetheless.

The feeble details can be found at the MfE website.

Read the complete post on frogblog

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 10th August, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Climate Change, Frogblog

Wrong thing to say, John!

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Wrong thing to say, John!

John Key is not only showing his true blue colours again but also showing disregard of the opinions of New Zealanders. He told an audience in Brisbane this week that Keisha Castle-Hughes should "stick to acting". Who does he think he is?

He made the statement in reference to the fact that Keisha Castle-Hughes is a frontperson for Greenpeace's 'Sign-on' campaign.

This is a callous and cowardly statement by someone who can't face or argue with opinions that are contrary to his own and therefore resorts to personal denigration. This is schoolyard stuff.

Read the article: PM tells Keisha: Stick to acting

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 6th August, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Government, Climate Change

Pee in the shower to save rainforest

Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Pee in the shower to save rainforest

This is a great idea – if you never tell anyone they will never know – if you know what I mean!!?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stuff recently reported:

New TV ads are encouraging Brazilians to save water – by urinating in the shower.

Brazilian environmental group SOS Mata Atlantica says the campaign, running on several television stations, uses humor to persuade people to reduce flushes.

The group says if a household avoids one flush a day, it can save up to 4,380 liters (1,157 gallons) of water annually.

SOS spokeswoman Adriana Kfouri said Tuesday that the ad is "a way to be playful about a serious subject."

The spot features cartoon drawings of people from all walks of life - a trapeze artist, a basketball player, even an alien – urinating in the shower.

Narrated by children's voices, the ad ends with: "Pee in the shower! Save the Atlantic rainforest!"

See story: Pee in the shower to save a rainforest

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 6th August, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

A biofuel future?

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:00:00 -0500

A biofuel future?

Labour's Biofuels Act was repealed by National when they came into office in December and was subsequently replaced by a scheme where the sale of biodiesel doesn't incur an excise tax. However this subsidy scheme does not include sustainability standards. As it stands we can subsidise biodiesel from unsustainable sources or from food crops.

In the past two months the Green's Sustainable Biofuel Bill was chosen in the ballot and has passed its first reading in the House with widespread support.

“The Member's Bill fixes the issues created by the Government’s present subsidy scheme.” Ms Fitzsimons, the Green Party’s Energy Spokesperson said.

The Bill would rule out fuels made from food crops, made by destroying biodiversity, or which did not significantly reduce carbon emissions, Ms Fitzsimons said.

These sustainability criteria highlight the three main issues that opponents to biofuels have:

They are made from food crops or grown on land that would otherwise be used for food crops
Using food crops and land that is better suited for growing food crops will decrease the amount of food available and increase the cost of food. This is already being seen in many countries around the world, including the United States where biofuels are subsidised.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy
They are made by destroying biodiversity and native forests
Biofuels are only sustainable and carbon neutral if the biomass they are made from is regrown. In various parts of the world, notably Brazil and Indonesia, native forests are clear-felled to use for biofuels and also to make land for growing biofuel feedstocks like sugarcane in Brazil and palm oil in Indonesia. The resultant loss of biodiversity is largely irreversable
Biofuels use energy to make them which could also mean that they are not carbon neutral
Many reports show that biofuels are an extremely high-cost means for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. It is much cheaper to grow forests to reduce atmospheric carbon. A mature biofuels industry in New Zealand would presumably create it own energy for production, which would be carbon neutral.

There are currently a wide range of biofuels used in New Zealand which are generally made from the residues and waste from other activities. Ethanol is made from the by-products of dairy food manufacture. Gas is collected in various landfills around the country. Biodiesel is made in a number of small scale operations using waste vegetable oil. Biodigesters are used to created methane from putrescible waste such as dairy cow effluent. Wood and wood residues are used for heating in many homes and for cogeneration in a number of manufacturing plants.

These biofuels are all produced in small quantities but it is possible that New Zealand could produce much more. A report by SCION (see: Bionergy Options for New Zealand) released in 2007 stated that most of New Zealand's heat and liquid fuel demand could be met by creating a purpose-grown forest estate of approximately 3.2 million hectares which they say is achievable based on the amount of marginal and lower quality grazing land available.

A New Zealand biofuels industry based on purpose grown, sustainable forests has many benefits for the environment, the economy and society as a whole, such as:

Environmental benefits: Biofuels are renewable and are effectively carbon-neutral and could therefore significantly reduce our carbon footprint. If new purpose-grown forests are established carbon credits will be created. Forests provide environmental services such as climate regulation (including drought control), flood control, soil conservation, water cycling, nutrient storage/recycling and wildlife habitat. Other biofuel technologies, such as biodigesters and algal ponds, have the important function of treating water and waste and also providing valuable fertiliser.

Economic benefits: A biofuels industry will create new jobs, decrease the cost of imports and increase the security of supply. Prices will not be affected by foreign exchange fluctuations or by uncontrollable international events and crises.

Social benefits: By creating new jobs and boosting local economies a biofuels industry will spur local communities. The recreation amenity value of forests will benefit locals as well as tourists.

The cost of biofuels
At present biofuels are generally more expensive than fossil fuels. However as the price of fossil fuel increases, due to peaking supply coupled with increasing demand, biofuels will be competitive. An emission trading scheme or carbon tax will also further level the playing field. As the manufacture and use of biofuels becomes more widespread, technologies will improve and there will be economies of scale. If you combine the enormous benefits of new purpose-grown forests outlined above with the future economic benefits an investment in biofuels now will pay enormous dividends.

The problem is that by their very nature forests take a long time to grow. If started now a massive planting programme could make New Zealand fully self sufficient and sustainable in liquid and heating fuels in 40 years time.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 4th August, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Emission Control

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Emission Control

New Zealand is due to table its 2020 emission reduction target in Bonn on August 10. This is a prelude to the world climate change negotiations that will occur in Copenhagen in December.

The Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith announced last week that a 40% reduction in emissions is not affordable. 40% is the minimum reduction called for by many, including Econation. A couple of days after Nick Smith's comments Prime Minister John Key stated that the target is likely to be about 15%, his rationale was this would be in line with Australia's reduction.

On the same day as this statement by John Key it was reported that the amount of New Zealand's fossil-fuel emissions have soared by 72 per cent since 1990, the biggest jump in the developed world. This is an embarrassment in itself but it doesn't even include the emissions from deforestation (turning forests into dairy farms) and the huge increase in methane and nitrous oxide emissions that the dairy sector has created in the same period.

We can't afford a 40% reduction but it seems we can afford to spend hundreds of millions on building news roads so that we can increase our emissions. How does Mr Smith think making overseas oil companies and car manufacturers richer and the environment poorer make ordinary New Zealaners better off? Will all those overseas shareholders coming to a 70-80%Pure New Zealand as tourists make up for the losses? I don't think so. Also, how exactly does converting forests into dairy farms help our economy in the long term? One of the biggest culprits of this land use change is the Government-owned Landcorp.

In a move that highlighted the Government's endless flip-flopping and hypocrisy John Key announced last week that the Government is seeking to expand the 100%Pure brand.

"100% Pure forms a big part of our brand marketing for New Zealand Inc," Key said in an interview with The Independent. Key went on to say "We have to make sure that we, through our actions or our goods and services, don't undermine the brand."

This bold statement comes hard on the heels of slashed funding for the Ministry for the Environment (and therefore many of the initiatives it funds) as well as cutting funds for the significant Enviroschools programme. In fact since they came into power eight months ago the Government's actions have done plenty to undermine New Zealand's 100%Pure credentials.

The claim that we can't afford a 40% reduction is short-sighted, conservative thinking. Individuals are short-term thinkers and we are a greedy lot, which is why governments must take the long-term view. We need progressive leadership and not reactionism. We have lived off the pigs’ back (read, the environment) for the past 100 years, which is unsustainable, and we are going to pay for this fact one way or another.

It doesn't have to be expensive to reduce our emissions but it will be much, much more expensive if we don't. Any cost is therefore an investment in the future. The fact is that we may not be able to afford NOT to have a higher target. Apart from reducing the sustainability of our environment (and our national brand based on it) a low target may reduce the openness of markets to our export goods. Many countries, in Europe in particular, are likely to place tarrifs on imported goods that are less 'carbon-friendly' than their own.

We can easily afford a 40% reduction if we are smart. Just one of many ways would be to initiate a massive afforestaion programme on low-quality land, the resultant biomass could be converted to transport and heating fuels. This would create a carbon sink as well as providing self-sufficiency in renewable, climate-friendly heating and transport fuels. The Government's argument is that in a time of recession we have to tighten our belts but during the Great Depression the Government of the day did the opposite. In the early 1930s the Government invested in subsidised work relief programmes which gave considerable stimulus to a massive afforestation programme thus creating many jobs and other benefits, then and for the future.

You can sign on to Greenpeace’s call for a 40% emission reduction here: http://www.signon.org.nz/

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 3rd August, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Scoop article, Climate Change

Climate Trade Offs

Mon, 03 Aug 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Climate Trade Offs

This editorial in this morning's Otago Daily Times provides a balanced overview of the issues relating to New Zealand's GHG emission target.

Read the full article: Otago Daily Times – Climate Trade Offs

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 3rd August, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Climate Change

Education for sustainability

Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Education for sustainability

In the budget the Government cut funding for the highly successful Enviroschools programme. Whether this funding can be made up from other sources remains to be seen – I hope so. It again highlights how far National are out of touch with the importance of the environment to our society, economy and well-being.

Most people spend about 95 percent of their time inside: in houses, cars, shops, cafes and offices. We are becoming an indoor species increasingly shut off from sky, land, waterways, plants and animals. Nature is becoming more and more abstract to us. We are disconnected from it and yet we are still very much part of it because everything we do affects it.

The problem is severe for our children who now spend up to eight hours each day in front of a TV or computer and less time in nature. Author Richard Louv describes what he calls "nature deficit disorder" as the loss of our sense of rootedness in place and the loss of our connection to the natural world.

It is not unusual when asking a child where food comes from to get the answer the fridge or, perhaps, the supermarket. Where does electricity come from? The wallsocket. Where does water come from? The tap.

"I like to play indoors better, 'cause that's where all the electrical outlets are." To Richard Louv, this comment from a nine year old is further evidence of our children's diminished ties to the natural world, a disconnection he believes is making them sick. Obesity and depression, he argues, are hallmarks of childhood in an increasingly plugged-in, online world.

Louv, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune and author of the book Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder, suggests that "nature-deficit disorder" be used to describe the "human costs of alienation from nature," including, in his view, various physical and mental illnesses. He cites new studies that offer hope, linking exposure to nature with improved cognitive abilities and mental health in children, and to a reduction in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) symptoms. Louv writes of his own childhood: "The woods were my Ritalin."

Louv endorses environment-based education, in which the local landscape is a curricular focal point, and he praises communities that are on the cutting edge of preserving nature and making it available for child-friendly exploration.

As Fritjof Capra says: "We need to teach our children and students the fundamental facts of life – that one species' waste is another species' food; that matter cycles continually through the web of life; that the energy driving the ecological cycles flows from the sun; that diversity assures resilience; that life, from its beginning more than three billion years ago, did not take over the planet by combat but by networking."

For our own personal well-being we must reconnect ourselves and our children with nature. And it is important for a sustainable future that all people directly see the connection between what they do and the way it impacts on the environment. Only then can people become aware of their responsibilities.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 29th July, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Education

Human sewage to power thousands of homes

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:00:00 -0500

Human sewage to power thousands of homes

Human sewage will power thousands of homes under a revolutionary projected being trialled in Manchester
By Murray Wardro, The Telegraph, 16 Jun 2009

The £4.3 million scheme will see enough methane gas extracted from human waste to provide fuel for heating and cooking for up to 5,000 homes by 2011.

The project is the first of its kind in Britain and the biomethane is being hailed as a "fuel for the future" because of its green credentials.

Read the full story: Human sewage to power thousands of homes

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 18th June, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Can't see the wood for the kwila

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:00:00 -0500

Can't see the wood for the kwila

How we can help the fight against global warming without trying
by Maire Leadbeater, New Zealand Herald, Thursday Jun 18, 2009

If New Zealand could make a contribution that would help prevent further global warming but make virtually no impact on our lifestyle, we would go for it, wouldn't we? If we could also count on this action to boost local industry there would be no stopping us - right?

Actually, not so when it comes to banning the import of illegally logged wood, almost all of it from tropical old growth forests.

The previous Labour-led Government commissioned a study in 2007 to investigate the cost to New Zealand's wood industry of the global illegal logging trade. The estimated annual cost to our sawmillers, paper and pulp producers and forest owners was $266 million.

Around 80 per cent of the illegally logged wood coming into New Zealand is kwila, (also known as merbau) favoured for decking and outdoor furniture because of its hardy qualities.

Read the full story: How we can help the fight against global warming without trying

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 18th June, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

The NZ Insulation Fund

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:00:00 -0500

The NZ Insulation Fund

The Government recently announced in the 2009 Budget that $NZ323.3 million will be made available as grants to homeowners for insulation and clean heating systems over the next four years. This funding programme plans to complete more than 180,000 homes over four years, or a fifth of the 900,000 homes estimated to have substandard insulation.

Full details have not been finalised but some information is available.

Who can get a grant?
Initial details indicate that grants will be available to anyone no matter their income and larger grants are available for Community Services Card holders. The amount available is a third of the cost of insulation to a maximum of $1,200 (more for Community Services Card holders). Some banks, councils, iwis, DHBs and electricity providers have indicated that they will offer loans to those who qualify for grants to cover the remaining amount.

Energy audits
Another possible feature of the Fund is that to qualify for a grant you will need to get an energy audit done. This audit will indicate the most cost-effective way to increase the thermal performance of your house. An audit also provides valuable information about other aspects of the efficiency of the house that can be used to inform future decisions about home improvements.

I hope as many of you as possible take advantage of these grants.

EECA will be administering the fund and whilst full details have not been released there is more information about how the scheme will operate here: EECA: New insulation and heating programme

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 9th June, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Government

Credit where credit's due

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 01:00:00 -0500

Credit where credit's due

Well done to the Government for allocating $NZ323.3 million for a home insulation and clean heating programme in the Budget. However I suspect that the Government did this somewhat grudgingly considering all the pressure that was necessary to get them to make this decision. Perhaps the credit should rightfully go to those who pressured the Government from all sides including the Green Party, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, EECA, the building industry, the health sector, NGOs and many others, like Econation.

The reason this investment is so popular is because it has so many benefits. It will help make houses warmer and drier and therefore healthier. It will stimulate the building industry and provide jobs. It will reduce the amount of energy required for home heating (and cooling) therefore reducing CO2 emissions and the need for new power generation. It will reduce the cost of energy for households and increase the value of their houses.

The current economic recession is seen by many as an opportunity for a change to sustainability. It might be a bitter pill to swallow but the reduction of consumption during a recession is good for the environment. (The corollary of this is that poor people, by consuming less than rich people, are less culpable for the environmental degradation caused by humans.) The recession won't last forever though and consumption will start to grow again but in the meantime there is an opportunity to start revamping the economy.

Many Governments around the world are using stimulus packages and budgets to invest in a more sustainable future. A number of Governments have included 'green' investments as part of these broader packages. However in most cases the amount of green investment falls short of the 20% called for by economist Nicholas Stern and the 1% of GDP provided as a guideline by the United Nations. Even in the US where Obama's plan has been applauded by local environmental groups they are only spending about 13% of their total economic recovery package on green measures when they are spending much more money flogging dead horses like the auto industry. In the EU green measures account for about 14% of recovery packages. In contrast South Korea devoted two-thirds of its $US36 billion recovery package, or about 3% of its GDP, to green investment. China allocated about a third of its $US580 billion recovery plan to green measures, concentrating on energy efficiency.

The New Zealand Insulation Fund
The $NZ323.3 million for home insulation and clean heating is only about 0.25% of GDP and only $NZ243.7 million is new funding because there was an existing $NZ79.6 million of home interest subsidies and home grants programmes. (The budget is also providing $NZ50 million for cycleways which would take the total for 'green investments' to about 0.3% of GDP).

This is certainly better than nothing though.

It also looks like the fund will be leveraged to get the maximum benefit. Recent research shows that a majority of homeowners are willing to pay off the cost of upgrading the thermal performance of their homes but they can't afford a significant one-off, up-front cost. The report, released by The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, shows that given the right package 210,000 homeowners will take up the right mix of private loans and public grants to upgrade the thermal efficiency of their homes in the next 12 months (see "Homeowners will insulate if they can pay it off).

Read more about: The New Zealand Insulation Fund

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 6th June, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Government

Ecological Intelligence

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:00:00 -0500

Ecological Intelligence

Ecological intelligence through 'radical transparency'

The psychologist Daniel Goleman is famous as the author of the books Emotional Intelligence (which has sold more than six million copies worldwide) and Social Intelligence. The books' titles allude to the idea that there are different types of intelligence. The sort of intelligence measured by IQ has no emotional or social value if you are a serial killer – apparently many psychopaths have high IQs.

Daniel Goleman recently published his book Ecological Intelligence. He defines Ecological Intelligence as "our ability to adapt to our ecological niche". However the book is less about this sort of intelligence, which makes it quite different to its predecessors, and instead it talks about another kind of intelligence altogether. Rather than intelligence as a human capacity it talks about intelligence in the sense of gathering and distributing information.

The main thrust of the book is that people can only make good decisions if they have good information to base their decisions on. Goleman talks about 'vital lies', a phrase coined by playwright Henrik Ibson, which is the comforting story we tell ourselves that hides a more painful truth. Goleman explains:

"When it comes to the full costs of ecological ignorance in the marketplace, we endorse the vital lie what we don't know or can't see doesn't matter. In fact, our indifference to the consequences of the sum total of what we buy and do, and our unexamined habits as consumers, drive a vast number of threats to the environment and to health."

Goleman talks about the need for 'radical transparency'. It is the hidden, painful truths about what we consume that must be made apparent.

The problem is that manufacturing processes are so complicated. If you see a bargain you have to ask what corners have been cut to create that bargain. What has been dumped into a river somewhere? How many emissions have been created? What toxins have been used in the manufacturing process including the materials? What was the impact on the workers in the factory?
Goleman gives the example of shampoo which can have 50 or more ingredients which have all been made in chemical processes using other ingredients. One shampoo he mentioned had trace amounts of a known human carcinogen. The carcinogen was not noted on the label because it was there unintentionally as a residue from the process of making a foaming agent.

The ideal solution would be an international system of disclosure including the publishing of full details of a life-cycle assessment of every product and service. In addition a single, consistent system of code or codes could be developed for putting on labels and packaging.

If all this information is available then people who want to make good choices can make them. There is no guarantee that people will stop buying bad products, because as Goleman clearly points out in his earlier books, people are not just driven by rational decisions – there are such things as emotion and instinct.

Nevertheless it is better that people know the vital (if painful) truth of their actions rather than a vital lie.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 3rd June, 2009 | Comments (1) | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Book Review

Paul Hawken's Unforgettable Commencement Address

Sun, 31 May 2009 01:00:00 -0500

Paul Hawken's Unforgettable Commencement Address

Paul Hawken is a renowned entrepreneur, visionary environmental activist, founder of Wiser Earth and author of many excellent books including The Ecology of Commerce, Natural Capital and most recently, Blessed Unrest a book about how disparate social movements throughout the world are redefining how we relate to our environment and to each other and are 'healing the wounds of the world with passion and determination'.

On May 3 2009, Paul Hawken was presented with an honorary doctorate of humane letters by the University of Portland, when he also delivered a brilliant commencement address to the class of 2009 which highlights many of his ideas and is summed up neatly in his statement, "Working for the earth is not a way to get rich, it is a way to be rich."

Read the full address here: Paul Hawken's Commencement Address in Portland

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 31st May, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Sign on

Thu, 28 May 2009 01:00:00 -0500

Sign on

Climate change is happening faster than anyone expected and we’re quickly running out of time to turn things around. The United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen in December may be our last chance to avoid climate chaos. World leaders have pledged to reach an agreement to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases at that meeting. To make a global deal work, developed countries like NZ need to Sign On to an emissions reduction target of 40 per cent by 2020.

This year is our window of opportunity to turn climate change around.

Let John Key and the Government know what you think by joining the Sign On petition.

Click on the image above and Sign On

...and please spread the word.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 28th May, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Government

Size matters

Tue, 26 May 2009 01:00:00 -0500

Size matters

Larger houses with fewer people means more energy use per person

Larger houses use more energy
The amount of energy required to heat a space is a function of the size of the space. Whilst newer houses in New Zealand are better insulated they are also much larger than they used to be. The average house size in the US doubled during the twentieth century and the situation is likely to be similar in New Zealand where, like the US, suburban development space hasn't been an issue. According to Infometrics the average new house size in New Zealand increased by 42% (from 140m2 to 195m2) in the 15 years from 1992 to 2007.

And New Zealand has larger houses than the US
According to market analysts Euromonitor, New Zealand has the second largest houses of all the countries they surveyed. In New Zealand 74% of houses have five rooms or more, slightly behind Canada (75%) but ahead of the US (73%), UK (72%), Australia (70%) and all the European countries. In Finland only 14% of houses have five rooms or more.

Less people per house
The amount of energy used in a house is also a function of the number of people who live in it. There are now fewer people living in New Zealand houses than ever before. The average household size in New Zealand decreased from 2.8 people in 1981 to 2.4 people in 2006. It is projected to decrease still further to 2.3 in 2021.

There are a number of reason's why average household size has decreased and continues to do so. There was a trend throughout the twentieth century towards more nuclear families and less extended families. Also people live longer now on average and there has been an increase in the number of widows and widowers living alone.

The larger the house the more embodied energy it has too. Embodied energy is the energy that was required to build the house including the manufacture of all construction materials, components, fixtures and fittings.

Fewer people living in bigger houses means that the average energy use per person goes up.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 26th May, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

What's the guts?

Fri, 22 May 2009 01:00:00 -0500

What's the guts?

Only Governments can save us from climate change

Don't get me wrong, anything an individual does to reduce their impact is good. But you can insulate your house, recycle your rubbish, grow your own vegies, use public transport and then undo all that good many times over by voting for National or for ACT or by not voting at all. It is almost impossible for an individual to be truly sustainable because the problems are systemic. In the words of William McDonough all we can do at the moment is be "less bad".

There is far more that Governments could and should do to accelerate investment in low-carbon energy, housing and transport infrastructure and help individuals to do more to tackle climate change. But they aren't. Why? Short-term electoral cycles mean that long-term strategies don't show enough, if any, immediate payback to be politically advantageous. There is limited power of single nations in respect of global markets. Vested interests combine with an ideological distaste of so-called government interference i.e. taxes, subsidies, laws and regulations. The fact that the full effects of climate change may not be evident for decades or even centuries means it is easy to ignore them now. All of these factors make a recipe for doing nothing.

Climate change and environmental protection slipped further down the political agenda in 2008, due to the chaos in the global economy (and in New Zealand by the election of a National/ACT Government). Politicians have become preoccupied with improving public confidence and economic performance in the short-term, as we feel the pinch of the credit crisis, rising prices, unemployment and the economic downturn. But there is no long-term way out of recession unless we build a low-carbon economy.

If a change towards a low-carbon world is going to happen we need to bring about a dramatic shift in the politics concerning climate change. That won't originate from within the political establishment, or from the private sector. As already mentioned won't happen purely through individual action either. It will be the result of actions by interest groups which enable people to take meaningful action together rather than in isolation. It will come from a deeply committed and broad social movement who demand action.

Don't leave it up to the environmentalists
Action on climate change is too important to just leave to the environmentalists. This movement needs to be much broader because climate change affects us all. Climate change is an issue of poverty, housing, health, employment, security, social equality and human wellbeing as well as the environment – it is the definitive social and economic issue of our time. The new movement for action must include community groups; charities; churches and religious groups; unions; transition towns; civil rights groups; students associations; artists, musicians and writers; the health sector; alternative health groups; non-profit organisations; organics groups; cultural and heritage groups; educators, schools and universities; responsible businesses and social entrepreneurs; and so on and so on. The actions of these groups can establish climate change in the public mind and they can deepen commitment and action at community, local and regional level; they can create a movement of people living low-carbon lifestyles and setting an example for others.

Paul Hawken in his book Blessed Unrest makes the case that whilst these groups are disparate in ideology and purpose and non-unified in action their combined influence from a number of fronts will effect change.

So what can you do?
An important role for individuals is to influence politicians and other decision makers who can actually change things. You can do this directly by writing to your local MP or to a Minister. Ask them "What's the guts?". You could also write or call your mayor or local body councillor.

You could join the type of group or association mentioned here and ask your family, friends and neighbours if they want to join too.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 22nd May, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Scoop article, Government

Crossing-over and doubling-back

Fri, 15 May 2009 01:00:00 -0500

Crossing-over and doubling-back

Centralised processing and logistics lead to goods moving around the country in absurd ways.

A log truck on the Rimutaka Hill road coming from the Wellington side. The drivers are always courteous.

Living in the Wairarapa means I have to drive over the Rimutaka Hill road to get to Wellington from time to time. There is no road tunnel but there is a train tunnel and I take the train whenever I can.

The Rimutaka Hill road (known locally as 'The Hill') is fifteen kilometres of steep, narrow, windy road with sheer rock walls on one side and precipitous drops on the other. It is not a great trip for the feint-hearted especially when conditions are bad. Rain, snow, sleet and frosts can make the road treacherous. Regular high winds sometimes reach gale-force and have been strong enough to blow trucks over. Consequently the road gets closed several times a year.

The Hill definitely wasn't made for the huge trucks that regularly use it. You often turn a tight bend to be confronted by an oncoming truck with its cab encroaching on your side of the road.

The cargo of most of the trucks is unknown but not log-trucks which are quite common because forestry is a big industry in the Wairarapa. Logs for export need to be hauled to Wellington, the closest port. They could be moved by rail though.

Cross-overs
The log trucks come back from Wellington empty with their trailers lifted onto their decks, presumably to save fuel. (Or is it to help them go faster?) What astounds me is that there are often fully laden trucks coming from the Wellington direction. I have witnessed two log-trucks gingerly pass each other carrying what looked to my untrained eye like very similar logs. I cynically wonder if they just take the same logs back and forth. Thinking about it for a moment I realise that this isn't cynical at all – for all intents and purposes they are the same logs.

Even if the passing logs are very different and are being moved for good reasons, better logistics would mean that the empty trucks coming back could be carrying logs – or something else for that matter. Not that it would happen, but by swapping logs at the top of the hill it could halve the fuel used by each truck and effectively halve the number of trucks on the hill.

These log-trucks are a visible example of the type of cross-over that happens everywhere, all the time. It is daft that South Auckland potatoes go to Dunedin when Canturbury potatoes go to Wellington and Manawatu potatoes go to Auckland. It happens on an international scale too. New Zealand exports over 80% of the oil we produce and then we import three times as much back.

Cross-overs often happen seasonally. There is a new variety of apple called Envy. This season 3,500 cartons of the apples, which are grown in Nelson and Otago, will be sold in the US and Asia. None will be sold here, in fact the apples will not be available in New Zealand for two to three years. Supermarkets here have insisted (because of consumer preference, presumably) that the Envy must be supplied all year round. This means that the apples will be grown under licence in the northern hemisphere and shipped back here in the off-season. All of this is mad enough but I'd like to know what happens in the transition time between seasons. Will there be apples passing in the night.

Double-backs
There was a time when you could only get one type of milk – the milk from the farm down the road. Now, no matter where you are, there are several competing brands, each with several types of milk. There's milk from all over the country (possibly including milk from the farm just down the road) that has been freighted many kilometres by road to be pasteurised, homogenised, 'trimmed', mineralised and packaged before doubling-back to where it came from.

Much of this passing-the-parcel happens because competing producers supply competing processors who supply competing supermarket chains using competing freight companies. It is argued that this makes economic sense – centralised processing is efficient and the competition means food can be sold cheaply – but this is false economy. It is an economy based on cheap energy. It is also a system that wrecks local communities and the environment.

Getting smart
When the community and environmental costs are added to escalating energy costs it is obvious that the economics of centralised processing and logistics are unfounded and perverse.

We can get much smarter about all of this.

For starters growers, processors, distributors, wholesalers and retailers could all co-operate much more. An online clearinghouse for goods could be used to co-ordinate logistics and to avoid 'cross-overs' and 'double-backs'. An electronic logistics marketplace could mimimise trucks travelling empty or partly empty. Produce should be sold and consumed locally with surpluses exported to the nearest city there is a shortage of that product. Processing could be decentralised which would invigorate local communities and help the environment.

We consumers could make better choices about what, where and how we want to buy. We could buy more local, seasonal, fresh produce. We could support local manufacturers, small shop owners and farmers markets. And we could say something when we see blatant wastefulness.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 15th May, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability, Scoop article

Homeowners will insulate if they can pay it off

Thu, 07 May 2009 02:00:00 -0500

Homeowners will insulate if they can pay it off

Recent research shows that a majority of homeowners are willing to pay off the cost of upgrading the thermal performance of their homes but they can't afford a significant one-off, up-front cost.

At the current rate of Government funding it would take 60 years to insulate the rest of New Zealand homes according to the Chair and CEO of EECA who recently appeared before a Parliamentary committee. So, it seems that if the Government worked with the market to come up with the right mix of public and private funding options they could significantly speed up the number of homes being insulated.

The research report, released by The New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, shows that given the right package 210,000 homeowners will take up private loans and public grants to upgrade the thermal efficiency of their homes in the next 12 months. This would be a major stimulus to the economy in recession.

The research also shows the right mix of public and private funding policies could result in more than 670,000 New Zealand homeowners improving the performance of their homes in the next 10 years. This scale of response will result in thousands of building sector jobs being secured as well as providing many other health, environmental and economic benefits from the improved thermal efficiency of New Zealand's housing stock.

The weighted survey of 2,610 New Zealanders, conducted by ShapeNZ in April, shows 71% of homeowners, and 61% of rental property owners, say their properties could be warmer and more comfortable. The major cause of inaction is cost: 59% say they don’t have the financial means.

The Business Council, working with the building, real estate, banking and energy sectors, homeowners and users and health groups, has proposed a range of public/private funding options.

“The key here is providing homeowners with capital up-front, then allowing them to pay it back through electricity and other savings, rate surcharges and reverse equity mortgages,” the Business Council’s Chief Executive, Peter Neilson, says.

Labour Party press release:
Sixty years more in the cold under Nat’s policy

New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development press release:
New funding packages will result in a mass home upgrade

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 7th May, 2009 | Comments (1) | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Counting the heat...

Tue, 05 May 2009 02:00:00 -0500

Counting the heat...

A warm home is more comfortable and healthy but how do you ensure that it is also dry, cheap to heat, cheap to maintain and environmentally friendly. There are three fundamental means for achieving effectiveness and efficiency in space heating: reducing heat loss, maximising solar heat gain and employing efficient heating systems.

We are often told that New Zealand's houses are cold and damp and research bears this out. Cold houses use more energy to heat which costs more. Also cold and damp houses are a significant cause of illnesses ranging from colds and flus to respiratory illnesses and allergies which leads to increased health bills and sick-days.

About one third of all energy used in the average New Zealand home is for space heating. There are three main ways to reduce this

Lose the heat loss

By far the most effective way to reduce energy costs for heating is to not let heat escape from the house. A super-insulated (see Passivhaus) may need no extra heating than from solar heat gains and internal heat gains (e.g. from cooking, appliances and body heat!

A survey by BRANZ in 2005 indicates that around 375,000 New Zealand homes have inadequate ceiling insulation and over one million have inadequate underfloor insulation (it's hard to check the walls without knocking a hole in them!).

In the late 1970s the Government required that all new homes must have a certain level of insulation and this level was increased in 2008 including the requirement for double-glazing in some areas of the country. These are are just minimum requirements and in many cases are insufficient to make the the house truly energy efficient. The PassivHaus Standard, for example, is a rigorous system that creates ultra-low-energy-use houses with super-insulation and airtightness that are able to dispense with conventional heating systems.

Heat is also lost through windows, although modern double-glazed windows can reduce this significantly.

Draughts and air leaks account for another 6-9% of heat loss on average. should be sealed including unused chimneys and gaps around doors, windows and ducts etc. Simply keeping doors closed will decrease heat loss.
Use free solar heat

The sun is a practically limitless source of heat. Houses can take advantage of the free heat supplied by the sun by using design principles that determine specifications such as house orientation, window size and placement, shading, landscaping, thermal mass and construction materials.

You may not be able to change the orientation or construction materials of your house without intolerable cost but it is still possible in increase solar heat gains by removing shading, better landscaping and changing window treatments. If you wanted to be more ambitious you could change window size and placement or add a sun space (conservatory).
Use efficient heaters

There are wide range of heating types and with new innovations they are all becoming more and more efficient.

The efficiency and effectiveness of any heater relates to the size of the space that needs to be heated. It is likely to be more efficient to heat a small room with a oil-column heater than with a heat-pump. Look for heating options that best suit your space/s.

Heat pumps (both air-source and ground-source) are the darlings of the sustainable heating market at the moment, for just reasons. They are super-efficient (1 kilowatt of electricity can produce between 2 and 5 kilowatts of heat) and they use clean(ish) energy. They use ambient free heat from the air or ground so they don't do any heating they just use electricity to 'condense' the heat and blow the warm air into your house.

Another type of eco-friendly heating system are modern, high-efficiency wood burners and wood pellet burners. They now have relatively lower carbon and particle emissions and, besides, wood is a renewable fuel and when re-grown it is effectively carbon neutral.

Avoid heaters that utilise fossil fuels which are environmentally unsustainable. Coal is particularly bad, natural gas is the cleanest but like diesel it is inefficient and costly. On option for the future might be biodiesel co-generation central heaters. Co-generation is when you burn fuel to create both heat and electricity at the same time.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 5th May, 2009 | Comments (1) | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

The ins and outs of emissions trading schemes

Mon, 04 May 2009 02:00:00 -0500

The ins and outs of emissions trading schemes

The big question is: Will we be in or will we be out?

There is plenty of opinion on both sides about the New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme but much of the criticism seems ill informed and/or off target. Many people criticise emissions trading schemes without knowing how they work or what their purpose is.

The purpose of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, with the ultimate goal of halting climate change. In spite of the die-hard sceptics, it is generally accepted that anthropogenic (human generated) climate change is occurring and that it is reducing humanities' ability to sustain itself and the environment.

However many people seem to be less concerned with this and more concerned that the ETS will result in price rises and job losses. They are worried about how the scheme will impact on businesses and the economy in general and they are concerned that taxpayers will end up carrying the costs.

The fact is that the cost of our greenhouse gas emissions is already being borne by society in the form of loss of environmental services caused by climate change. These are real, tangible costs that include water shortages, soil degradation, biodiversity loss and sea level rises. (See Ministry for the Environment: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/climate/about/impacts.html)

To halt climate change greenhouse gas emissions must be mitigated, which costs money. However this amounts to much less than the afforementioned environmental cost. To give an indication, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has projected that the financial effect of carbon trading within the Kyoto commitment period will be between 0.1-1.1% of GDP among trading countries. In comparison the Stern report placed the costs of doing nothing at five to 20 times this much.

Taxpayers are already paying the cost of greenhouse gas emissions indirectly but it would be much more sensible and fair to attribute the cost to its cause directly. An ETS is a mechanism that will equitably achieve this in the following ways:

1. It internalises the environmental cost of emissions.
This is a case of 'polluter pays'. Activities that cause a net increase in greenhouse gases, such as fossil fuel use and deforestation, have effectively been getting a free ticket to pollute. The introduction of a emissions trading system will cap (i.e. limit) the amount of greenhouse gases that a company can freely emit. If they emit more than their allowance they have to buy more ‘allowances’ (usually called credits or units). This cost, like all costs, will be passed on to the end-consumer.

2. It levels the playing field.
Fossil fuels are relatively cheap compared to renewable options (mainly for the reasons given above). However renewable energy sources are in effect already internalising the environmental cost of emissions. By being able to sell credits renewable energy providers and other mitigators are levelling the playing field. Fossil energy will become relatively dearer and renewable energy will become relatively cheaper. Of course this will ultimately lead to growth in production and consumption of renewable energy, which is the idea. Organic, small-scale and low-energy farming will become more competitive with large-scale, energy-intensive farming. Those planting new forests will compete more with those clearing them to make dairy farms.

3. It caps emissions and sets the value of emission abatement.
This is relevant when comparing a trading scheme to a carbon tax. Experts are divided as to which is the best mechanism. Both mix government and market solutions. With a tax the government sets the carbon price and the market sets the quantity of emissions; with a trading scheme the government caps the quantity of emissions and the market sets the price. The two approaches would in principle give exactly the same result. In practice the outcome could be very different though. Whilst a carbon tax has many advantages, such as being cheaper to implement and providing greater certainty in the price of carbon, the big problem is that it doesn’t actually cap the amount of emissions allowed. As mentioned, this may not make any difference in the long term but the long-term might be too late for the environment. It is this uncertainty that makes a carbon tax unacceptable. Also the actual cost of emission abatement strategies may be more or less than the tax charged which would make it unfair. Some experts think a hybrid scheme combining the benefits of both would be better than either, which could well be true.

Assuming that some version of an ETS is the best mechanism chosen for us to meet our Kyoto obligations the main issues then are:

1. Where to set the cap
If the cap is too high there will be no appreciable benefit and therefore the scheme will be an expensive waste of time and money. If the cap starts too low there might be too much of a shock to the economy. Another issue is whether other countries have the same cap as us, if any. An obvious problem occurs if we implement a lower cap than our main competitors therefore making ourselves less competitive.

2. What will happen to the Government's revenue from surplus credits
Critics of the ETS also argue that it's just a moneymaking activity for central government. It is possible that in the long-term our Government could make around 1% of GDP (or around $NZ1 billion) a year from this scheme. This revenue should go towards paying for our Kyoto commitments, the mitigation of greenhouse gases and the restoration and protection of our environment from climate change. If there is anything left over it should offset other taxes. Where the ETS revenue is spent must be transparent and accountable.

3. Buying allowances from overseas
An ETS allows businesses to buy credits from sellers here or overseas. From the point of view of the environment it doesn't matter if credits are bought domestically or not but for the benefit and sustainability of our economy it is much better if they are bought here. The issue is that businesses are likely to buy the cheapest credits they can and overseas businesses may be able to mitigate emissions more cheaply than ours.

The question still remains: Will we be in or will we be out?

The New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme (NZETS) is currently on hold while it is being reviewed. If we want to preserve our place in the global market we will end up having an ETS or a carbon tax. All of our main trading partners have signed the Kyoto Protocol and apart from the US they have all ratified it too. We would be shunned if we did nothing at all.

It seems that National favours an ETS whilst the ACT party would prefer a carbon tax. Internationally ETSs are favoured and it would be advantageous to stay in step with our trading partners and competitors for a number of reasons. So it seems likely we will have an ETS.

Which is what we already had.

Rodney Hide, and ACT, who promoted the review of the NZETS have contrived a total waste of time and money, which is exactly what they campaigned against. National are also implicated in this waste and, whilst their plan all along may have been to placate ACT, in doing so they have made New Zealand look foolish on the international stage.

People and businesses shouldn't be worried about an ETS. If done properly it will create much more upside than downside. It is an opportunity for growth in the economy – as well as making us more sustainable and self-sufficient. If we are smart and invest enough in mitigating climate change New Zealand will become a net seller of credits. If we collectively work towards this goal we will not only be environmentally responsible we will all be financially better off.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 4th May, 2009 | Comments (1) | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Scoop article, Government

Rapacious oil producers

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 02:00:00 -0500

Rapacious oil producers

The world's biggest international oil companies (IOCs) made a combined net profit of nearly $US150 billion in 2007 (Source: Congressional Research Service). This may be a paltry amount compared to the profits of the many national oil companies (NOCs), a number of which are much bigger than any of the IOCs. In fact ExxonMobil (with a 2007 profit of $US40.61 billion) is the largest IOC but only the 14th largest oil producer in the world. Profit figures are not publicly available for the NOCs.

Historically oil producers have poured most of their profits back into finding new oil reserves but the independent oil companies are spending a smaller proportion of their profits finding new oil than they used to and are instead paying bigger dividends or buying back shares. Still, according to an Ernst & Young analysis of public information of about 70 different oil and gas companies, exploration costs and development costs incurred were $US289.8 billion in 2007.

These are big numbers! The owners of oil companies have been getting fat for years by extracting natures 'free' resources which pollute the planet and the oil companies don't clean it up.

It is time they paid nature back.

They should pay for greenhouse gas mitigation? This would be as simple as investing all that money mentioned above in sustainable and renewable energy sources now. This would also be strategically good for their future, ensuring 'sustainable' profits for years to come.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 30th April, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Business Sustainability

Are plastic shopping bags a digression?

Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:00:00 -0500

Are plastic shopping bags a digression?

It concerns me that people might think that by eliminating plastic shopping bags they are doing their bit for the environment. There seems to be too much focus on shopping bags when there is too much packaging generally. You can now buy individually wrapped prunes for goodness sake!

It is commendable that the Foodstuffs chains of supermarkets will charge for plastic bags. It helps highlight the issue of unnecessary packaging. Anything and everything that people do to minimise waste is good like taking reusable bags to the supermarket. But a quick survey of the packaging in your shopping bags after a visit to the supermarket will show that plastic shopping bags are a small percentage of the total amount of packaging that is purchased.

Even if packaging is recyclable it still takes materials and energy to make it in the first place. Here are a few tips to reduce the amount of packaging you purchase:

Buy fresh, unpackaged, unprocessed. local and (ideally) organic food. Farmers markets are good for this. They are doubly good because the food is local too. In fact they are triply good because there is no middleman, you pay less but the farmer gets more.
Buy concentrates. A large proportion of liquid cleaners is water which you can easily add yourself.
Buy in bulk. One large package uses less energy and materials to make than twenty smaller ones.
Avoid products with secondary packaging. The individually wrapped prunes are an example of this.
Eat less meat and buy meat (ideally organic) from a butcher who won't package it in polystyrene trays.
Avoid any product that seems to have unnecessary or excessive packaging. If you and others don't buy it, producers won't make it. Vote with your wallet.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 26th April, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Dropped like a hot light bulb

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:00:00 -0500

Dropped like a hot light bulb

What a hot topic the incandescent light bulb ban became in the run-up to the last election. It was held up as a key exhibit in the case against the Labour government with many people complaining that Labour's intention to phase-out out incandescent bulbs typified their so-called ‘nanny state’ approach.

The Government promptly repealed the ban when they came into office. On the subject, Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee said the Government had "real concerns about telling people they have to move to energy-efficient light bulbs by decree...this Government believes it is a matter of consumer choice." What? Governments have decreed things incessantly since the beginning of time, that's what they exist for. The current Government would have no compunction about limiting choice if it suited their agenda so saying it is a matter of consumer choice is disingenuous. It also sends the signal that it’s individual choice for people to despoil the environment or not.

Many people don't like being told what to do even when it's good for them. Most of these people are teenagers! There seems to be plenty of others, though, who never grew up. Do these same people also rail against wearing seat belts, schooling their children, building safe houses and licensing firearms? Or is it just compact fluorescent light bulbs?

Consumer choice is ruining this planet.

Choice is not a right, especially if it opposes the greater good. Part of the role of any Government is to balance the sometimes-competing demands of individual rights and of the common good; thousands of regulations and laws exist to protect both. This balancing act is most difficult in cases where there are equal claims on both sides – there are plenty of cases like that but CFL use is not one.

CFLS are a 'no-brainer'. Good CFLs use one-fifth the energy of an incandescent bulb to produce the same amount of light. This means their running cost is one fifth and their CO2 emissions are one fifth. They might cost several times more to purchase but they last several times longer. CFLs are now available in a wide variety of shapes (including globes), hues and brightness. Some models can be dimmed. They do contain mercury, which is a hazard, but this can be safely recycled. They will continue to get cheaper and better.

As well as making no sense on any level the Government’s about-turn on this initiative puts us that much more out of step with the rest of the world. Australia is planning to ban sales of incandescent light bulbs from next year and the UK is to start phasing them out too. In fact, the choice to buy incandescent bulbs is going to be reduced soon because China, which produces 70% of the world’s supply, is also planning to ban their use domestically.

We don't need random leadership, we need strong leadership based on sustainability – namely looking after the needs of all of the people of today as well as the people of the future.

Posted by Michae Lockhart on 21st April, 2009 | Comments (1) | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability, Scoop article, Government

The biggest bust

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 02:00:00 -0500

The biggest bust

Unbridled greed doesn't happen in nature because it's unsustainable.

We are told that economic cycles are natural - booms are naturally followed by busts. This is bunk; growth and development occur in nature, but booms caused by greed don’t. There are certainly cycles of growth and decay but if booms occurred they would result in widespread death and destruction. They don't occur, though, because nature checks and balances itself. Through self-regulation nature tends to survive without major uphevals.

Advocates of free trade and a free-market economy often say the market is like a natural system where unrestrained competition will lead to growth, excellence, efficiency and an equitable spread of wealth. This is bunk too. A market does not operate in isolation it operates within a connected web of systems including human communities, ecosystems and natural resources. A free market where greed can run rampant will always impact and be impacted by these other systems - and will ultimately 'bust'.

The current economic downturn was caused by greed. The failure of many providers of subprime mortgages is blamed as the catalyst for the downturn. The risks inherent in subprime lending were largely ignored because of greed - property values were booming and there was plenty of money to be made from the high interest rates charged to ravenous borrowers. When the US ‘housing bubble’ burst increasing numbers of borrowers couldn't make payments or refinance and many lenders folded leading to a global credit crunch and ultimately an economic recession.

Blame can be apportioned more widely than just the lenders of subprime loans though. Some mortgage brokers can be blamed for steering borrowers to unaffordable loans, valuers and realtors for inflating house values, and investors for backing subprime mortgage securities without knowing the weakness and risk of the loans. Borrowers have also justifiably been criticised for taking out loans that they knew were risky or that they could not afford. Everyone wanted to make an easy buck. In addition, there was a lack of effective oversight by governments.

If the economic downturn was limited to just the greedy people who perpetrated it, it would be quite good. Of course the real shame is that the people who are hurt the most in an economic downturn are those who can least afford it, namely the poor, and the poor are largely innocent of the greed that induced the downturn. The irony is that rich people become relatively richer in downturns because they can afford to buy the cheaper assets.

Since the industrial revolution began growth in the economy has been trending upwards – it’s the biggest boom in history. This boom has been 'funded' by taking more from nature than is repaid. These 'free' resources - including minerals, forests, land, soil and water - are now running out or being degraded to the point that they are unusable.

Markets are a highly effective way of selling goods and services but there must be checks and balances to regulate greed. The 'wishful-thinkers' must wake up to the fact that a market cannot self-regulate because there is no such thing as free. The market must yield to the things that sustain it – specifically people and nature.

If the market economy isn't checked and balanced, like nature, the biggest boom in history will surely lead to the biggest bust.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 14th April, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability, Scoop article

New Scoop Column

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:00:00 -0500

New Scoop Column

I wrote the following article which recently appeared on the scoop website. It is the first of many regular articles. See the original here.

Government gets zero for sustainability

After just four months in office the scorecard for the new Government could hardly be worse. Forget about carbon-zero the Government is just plain zero when it comes to environmental sustainability.

Since December the Government has reversed some of New Zealand’s progress towards sustainability and self-sufficiency. Here is a shortlist:

Emissions Trading Scheme put on hold for review
The New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme, whilst controversial, was better than nothing. Now we have nothing. While the Government dilly-dallies over the best approach to meet our commitment to the Kyoto Protocol our national emissions are steadily increasing. The demise of the ETS will also mean that the $1 billion that the Green Party negotiated for investing in warmer homes will also go out the window – along with the heat.

The Biofuels Act repealed
Fossil fuels are getting more expensive, they cause climate change and they are imported. A 2007 report by SCION stated that New Zealand has enough marginal land, if planted with sustainable forests, to provide all of our transport fuel needs. Being self-sufficient in transport fuels would be a huge fillip for the economy including creating new jobs, decreasing imports and reducing the impact of currency fluctuations. The Biofuels Act was intended to stimulate investment in research and development of the fledgling industry.

Funding cuts at the Ministry for the Environment
The Ministry is set to lose up to a quarter of its staff according to the Public Service Association as an estimated 86 jobs are to be eliminated. Budget cuts at the Ministry for the Environment also reduces or ends funding for many organisations and initiatives. Important organisations like the Sustainable Business Network are likely to lose their most significant source of income.

Funding cuts for Coastal Shipping
Coastal shipping is the most energy efficient way to move freight around the country, producing only 14 grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometre compared with road at 92-123 grams. The former Government's Sea Change strategy aimed to transform coastal shipping in New Zealand and double the proportion of freight carried to 30% by 2040. This would take trucks off New Zealand's roads and make the country's freight infrastructure more sustainable. The previous Government had committed up to $179 million to develop sea and rail infrastructure through to 2019. National propose reducing this investment to between $8-13 million whilst spending several billion on roading.

Elimination of the regional fuel tax
Auckland in particular has been left high and dry again. Last year the controversial regional fuel tax was agreed to by Auckland's local government as a necessary evil because it would fund Auckland's much needed public transport infrastructure. In particular it was intended to raise the $1 billion needed to upgrade and electrify the Auckland rail system. The Government has ditched this for a lower, but national, fuel tax with no guarantee that Auckland will get the sustainable transport infrastructure it sorely needs.

Amendments to the Resource Management Act
The Resource Management Act was created to 'streamline' the sustainable management and protection of New Zealand's natural resources. It is not perfect, there is plenty of room for improvement, but not at the expense of the environment and certainly not just to benefit developers. One of the key elements of sustainable development is a robust and rigorous resource management framework. Some of the Governments proposed amendments may indeed improve the management process but others will definitely compromise the purpose of the Act.

Increased spending on roads
The Government is increasing the amount that will be spent on roading from the Land Transport Fund. This is a double blow to sustainability because the fund is a finite amount so it effectively decreases the amount spent on public transport, walkways, cycleways and coastal shipping.

Ending the government's carbon-neutral programme
Explaining why the Government decided to ditch the carbon-neutral programme Environment Minister Nick Smith said, "It's not government policy that we should move to a carbon neutral public service." This begs the question: Why not? The government must lead from the front when it comes to sustainability. Instead they are sending the message that you don't need to try to be carbon neutral.

It is generally accepted that climate change is real and that a large-scale, rapid change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is needed. Nearly every country on earth is going out of its way to address this need, we aren’t. The Government's actions are harming our international standing as a responsible nation and our brand as a clean, green country.

The Government argues that all of the cuts and changes noted above are necessary because the initiatives are inefficient and/or ineffective. This is short-term thinking. The effectiveness and efficiency in each case can only be judged in the long-term. It is easy to spend money on something, then throw it away and say that you have just wasted your money. It is wasteful to chop and change and yet our political system seems set up to do just that.

Efficiency has never been the only criteria for judging the value of something. It might be more efficient for Southlanders to help pay for Auckland's transport infrastructure but is it fair? A carbon-neutral public service programme may prove inefficient in the short-term but it does send the right message. A biofuels obligation may be difficult to manage but it will help develop a fledgling industry that will be very valuable in the future.

Industrial-age strategies will not sustain us in a world that has reached environmental limits. Notions like productivity, competition and investment in extracted and diminishing resources must give way to strategies such as sustainability, cooperation and investment in natural capital.

Any Government has the role of looking after the interests of all citizens including those of the future. Our new Government’s actions will benefit just a few, and not for long. The ultra-conservative, short-term thinking of the Government will disadvantage the majority of New Zealanders for years to come.

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 9th April, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Scoop article, Government

6. Quality

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:00:00 -0500

6. Quality

You can do more with less if you choose quality products and services.When people say that something is good quality they are referring to characteristics like durability, lack of defects, usefulness and aesthetic appeal. These characteristics means there is less waste because something that is

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 23rd March, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Doing more with less

5. Proactivity

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:00:00 -0500

5. Proactivity

Proactivity is about accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative.As a strategy for 'doing more with less' proactivity is related to concepts such as prevention, planning and care. In fact prevention and care are types of proactivity and planning, in other words 'thinking', should come

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 17th March, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Doing more with less

Global downturn hits demand for recycled materials

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Global downturn hits demand for recycled materials

Recyclers are struggling to find a profitable use for our used bottles and containers as the global downturn hits demand for recycled materials. The main buyers of New Zealand's used plastic and aluminium cans, mostly in South-east Asia are buying less. As a result some companies were having to

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 8th March, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

Misleading recycling arrows

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:00:00 -0600

Misleading recycling arrows

The triangular-arrows symbol on plastic containers that suggests they are recyclable is misleading, says Recyclers of New Zealand (RONZ). They say that in many cases such containers are not recyclable.The international plastics industry uses the universally recognised triangular recycling symbol

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 7th March, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Who should pay for recycling?

Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:00:00 -0600

Who should pay for recycling?

The Wellington City Council recently proposed to phase out the green recycling bins and replace them with black recycling bags which would cost 60¢ each. This was apparently because rubbish collectors were getting injuries from lifting the bins. It seems that this excuse may have been a red

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 7th March, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

Are you cool with CoOL

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:00:00 -0600

Are you cool with CoOL

You want to buy local because it's good for the local economy, society and environment; that's great, but... New Zealand does not have mandatory country of origin labelling. This means food products in shops do not have to have any identification on them to say where they are from. So you wouldn't

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 24th February, 2009 | Comments (1) | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Greenwashing

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:00:00 -0600

Greenwashing

Sustainable business practices are beneficial in their own right – they are responsible and provide greater efficiency. They also allow a business to offer better options to consumers and therefore providing a competitive advantage. When promoted these green 'credentials' will

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 17th February, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

Is the RMA a blessing or a curse?

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 06:00:00 -0600

Is the RMA a blessing or a curse?

It depends who you ask. Natural resources must be managed – only an 'enviropath' would deny that. In New Zealand the Resource Management Act (RMA) is the main statute that is used to manage our environment and natural resources – we need it but it has always been problematic. When

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 9th February, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Environment

Is GDP misleading?

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:00:00 -0600

Is GDP misleading?

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 5th February, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Biofuels Act repealed

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:00:00 -0600

Biofuels Act repealed

The new government, within a week of it's first sitting, repealed the Biofuels Act. The Biofuels Act was intended to jumpstart the Biofuels industry in New Zealand by making it obligatory to use a small percentage of biofuel in all petrol and diesel sold. The new government has said that instead

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 30th January, 2009 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

4. Simplicity

Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:00:00 -0600

4. Simplicity

Our modern lives, especially in the western world, are often too complicated. By keeping it simple, by doing and having less, we can often get more satisfaction.In his book 'The Paradox of Choice' author Barry Schwarz describes the way that the proliferation of choices robs us of satisfaction. In

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 31st December, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Doing more with less

Walking the talk

Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Walking the talk

If you are like me, and many others, you often talk about New Year resolutions but even with the best intentions you don't follow through with them. This year I've decided to keep it simple and have only one New Years resolution – to walk the talk – literally.Walking has many benefits

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 30th December, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

3. Sharing

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:00:00 -0600

3. Sharing

Sharing allows you to do more with less and sharing feels good because it is good – for people and for the environment. Sharing is to ' jointly use, participate in, enjoy, receive, etc.'. Whether you share a ride with your neighbour to work, share your things amongst family and friends, or

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 23rd December, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Doing more with less

Water storage trade-off

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Water storage trade-off

Federated Farmers of New Zealand is calling for more government investment in water storage infrastructure. Storing water in dams during times of high water flows means the water can be used to irrigate farmland during dry times. Federated Farmers refers to this as 'water banking'. In terms of

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 17th December, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

2. Planning

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:00:00 -0600

2. Planning

Planning will help you do more with less.Planning is simply "thinking ahead". The opposite to planning is the suck-it-and-see approach of trial and error. Trial and error is wasteful but by planning you can avoid most errors without having to do any trials. Good businesses plan systems

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 15th December, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Doing more with less

Breaking the ice on sustainability

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Breaking the ice on sustainability

Business sustainability must be transparent. Being sustainable includes sharing information about the sustainable qualities of your products and services so that customers can make informed choices. There are many ways that businesses can be transparent like labelling, publishing environmental

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 4th December, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

1. Savouring

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:00:00 -0600

1. Savouring

This is the first of a series of articles that discuss strategies to help you 'do more with less' and therefore be more sustainable. Savour to save the planet. To savour is to appreciate fully, to enjoy, to relish. By savouring life – relationships, work, recreation, food, everything &

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 2nd December, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Doing more with less

Choosing a sustainable Christmas present

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Choosing a sustainable Christmas present

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 2nd December, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Good gardening

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Good gardening

Growing your own food has many benefits including saving money, contributing to a healthy diet, recycling food and garden waste, being eco-friendly and the simple satisfaction of being self-sustaining. Here are some more benefits of growing your own vegetables and fruit:

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 24th November, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

"Capitalism as if the World Matters"

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0600

"Capitalism as if the World Matters"

In his blog Dr. Bob Calkin has provided an excellent review of "Capitalism as if the World Matters" by Jonathon Porritt.One of the issues that Porritt addresses in his book (and which I have talked about on this site) is the disconnect between those for sustainable "

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 24th November, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Small is beautiful

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Small is beautiful

Following on from my last post about the ability for the world to feed itself comes an article by George Monbiot, author of Heat, who argues that small landholdings are more productive than large intensive farms. The article, first published in The Guardian, makes the following statement: "

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 18th November, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Farming for organics productivity

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Farming for organics productivity

In an article in the New Zealand Herald on Monday 17 November, Brian Chamberlain, a former president of NZ Federated Farmers, criticises several 'green' ideas saying they will leave New Zealand in the 'red'.It is a fact that New Zealand is a more efficient primary producer than most other countries. The argument that we should therefore produce

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 17th November, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

Teleworking

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Teleworking

There are a number of ways in which teleworking can benefit employees, employers, whole communities and the environment.Teleworking (or telecommuting, e-commuting, e-work, working at home (WAH), or working from home (WFH)) is a work arrangement in which employees (or self-employed) enjoy

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 14th November, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

11 reasons why things don't get used

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0600

11 reasons why things don't get used

I recently posted an article called "10 reasons why things don't last". This post has some ideas about why things don't get used. The 80:20 principle says that you will use 80% of your things 20% of the time – and 20% of your things 80% of the time. The fact is that most of us have

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 13th November, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags:

Few businesses reporting emission liabilities to owners

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Few businesses reporting emission liabilities to owners

Media Release on behalf of New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development – 30 September 200 CEOs, boards and shareholders are not being told about risks to the business. The sectors facing the biggest bills from the price on carbon – and the opportunities to cut or

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 13th November, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Young, bright eco-minds sought for youth forum

Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0600

Young, bright eco-minds sought for youth forum

Media release issued on behalf of Bayer New Zealand – 30 October 2008 Young, bright New Zealand eco-minds sought for international youth forum 2009 High-achieving, eco-minded students are being called upon to help find innovative and sustainable solutions for a range of energy

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 13th November, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

New Zealand's footprint is increasing

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0600

New Zealand's footprint is increasing

New Zealand’s ecological footprint per capita is now ranked sixth largest in the world according WWF’s Living Planet Report released on 29 October 2008. The report, regarded as the leading statement on the planet’s health, shows that New Zealand has moved from ninth in

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 5th November, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Severn Suzuki at Earth Summit

Mon, 27 Oct 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Severn Suzuki at Earth Summit

This video clip is the speech by twelve year old Severn Suzuki made at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. She speaks for herself...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 27th October, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Environment

Prevention is always better

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Prevention is always better

Garth George wrote the following in his opinion piece in the New Zealand Herald: But these days the state tries to tailor the need to the supply. It is constantly endeavouring to alter people's habits, behaviour and activities to avoid having to supply the needs. Instead of

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 24th October, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

10 reasons why things don't last

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:00:00 -0500

10 reasons why things don't last

In our throwaway world there are many products that are made to be disposable – nappies, lighters, pens, razors, paper/plastic plates etc – however there are many other products that don't last for a number of reasons, here are ten of them: They are badly made or designed

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 23rd October, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Are you are a LOHAS?

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Are you are a LOHAS?

Marketers now have a new tool to help them understand consumers bytheir personal values, environmental commitment and lifestyle. LOHAS(Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability), a green segmentationarchitecture developed by the Natural Marketing Institute (NMI),classifies consumers based on

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 16th October, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags:

Bakery wins and wins with sustainability

Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Bakery wins and wins with sustainability

Paraoa Bakehouse judged New Zealand’s Sustainable Business of the Year 2008 Kapiti-based Paraoa Bakehouse is today celebrating after being awarded New Zealand’s Sustainable Business of the Year award at the 2008 NZI National Sustainable Business Network Awards. The awards

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 13th October, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

Biking literally beats driving

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Biking literally beats driving

A University of Canterbury transport 'challenge' showed that cycling is faster than other forms of transport when the distance is not too far. From four out of five start points cyclists arrived at the university before motorbikes, cars and buses.See the results hereOther reasons why

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 9th October, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Miracle soda

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Miracle soda

Baking Soda (sodium bicarbonate) seems to be a miracle product. There are literally hundreds of ways you can use it for cleaning surfaces (often mixed with vinegar), stain removing, deodorising, polishing and as an antacid. It is used in many foods, usually as a leavening agent, and it

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 8th October, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

How does your vote relate to sustainability

Sun, 05 Oct 2008 07:00:00 -0500

How does your vote relate to sustainability

It is important that people vote – especially those who care about the future. One of the fundamental purposes of a government is to "care for" the future. If the government doesn't care for the future who will? People need the government to take a leadership role, even when it is

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 5th October, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags:

Do you like my fur, Possum?

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Do you like my fur, Possum?

Fur is not an eco-friendly product – that is unless it is Paihamu (possum) fur from New Zealand! A number of companies are making garments and other products from the fur of this noxious animal. For example New Zealand company Snowy Peak markets Merinomink which is a luxurious fibre

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 24th September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Environment

New ecolabelling directory

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

New ecolabelling directory

What exactly does it mean when a company claims its product is "eco-friendly", "biodegradable" or "clean and green"?Are these claims to be trusted or are they just "greenwash", tapping into the consumers desire to "do the right thing" for the

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 23rd September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

A better life or

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

A better life or

In ‘The Paradox of Choice” author Barry Schwartz’s theme is that too much choice robs us of satisfaction. As the number of options you have to choose from grows the less likely you are to be happy with your choice. There are a number of factors at play here. They include

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 22nd September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags:

Road toll lowers

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Road toll lowers

The Dominion Post recently reported that the road toll in New Zealand is near the lowest it has been since records began. This reduction has been credited to the fact that there have been less cars on the road due to the increase in petrol prices. Some people cannot afford to

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 19th September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

The Vital Few

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

The Vital Few

One of the most important strategies of sustainability is ‘doing more with less’ and the best way to do more with less is to maximise your ‘vital few’. Some years ago I read a book called ‘The 80:20 Principle’ by Richard Koch. The book focuses on the idea that

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 18th September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags:

Can agriculture be sustainable?

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Can agriculture be sustainable?

Short answer: Yes it can. Agriculture is responsible for nearly 50% of all New Zealand’s greenhouse gases and yet agriculture accounts for a little more than 5% of our GDP. In addition to the emission of greenhouse gases agriculture has significant environmental impacts in terms of

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 16th September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: Business Sustainability

The economy should serve the environment

Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

The economy should serve the environment

On Newstalk ZB last Sunday (September 7, 2008) Murray Deaker interviewed poet and environmentalist, Brian Turner. In response to Deaker's question about how we preserve the environment for future generations, Turner said: "We have to stop seeing landscape and river

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 12th September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags:

Wellington recognised as 'Global Sustainability Centre'

Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Wellington recognised as 'Global Sustainability Centre'

Ethisphere, a New York-based research organisation, has recognised Wellington as one of the world's 10 Small Global Sustainability Centres. Ethisphere rated cities on the following criteria: Environmental Plan and Progress Health and Recreation Education, Arts and

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 10th September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

The Revenge of Gaia

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

The Revenge of Gaia

James Lovelock was interviewed recently on Radio New Zealand National about Emission Trading Schemes. His fatalistic opinion is that carbon trading schemes will not do anything to stop global warming. He believes that New Zealand is better off spending money to allay the effects of climate change

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 5th September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Hannover Principles

Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Hannover Principles

The Hannover Principles were developed by William McDonough Associates to “inspire an approach to design which may meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability of the planet to sustain an equally supportive future.”The City of Hannover has

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 2nd September, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability

Is sustainability boring?

Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:00:00 -0500

Is sustainability boring?

A friend suggested to me recently that sustainability is boring. Who needs enemies eh? but... In a sense sustainability is boring because sustainability is about living within limits. Plenty of people find it much more fun being irresponsible and disregarding consequences.

Read More...

Posted by Michael Lockhart on 30th August, 2008 | Comments | Trackbacks | Permalink
Tags: General Sustainability