In the UK the Centre for Alternative Technology has provided a blue print to enable the United Kingdom to become “zero carbon” by 2030. I have not studied the report but its substance has been reported and I can comment on the Zero Carbon route that the Centre points out for us.

The Centre suggests that we switch all vehicles to electric power, replace domestic flights with road and rail services and reduce log haul flights. The problem with electric cars is that they switch the pollution caused from travel from the road side to the power station. There may be enough wind, wave and photovoltaic electricity generated by 2030 to power all electric cars but I cannot see that there will be enough facilities to store electricity generated in an environmentally friendly way for the foreseeable future.

The Centre’s concept requires a leap in technology in the storage of electricity, one which humanity has yet to make. All forms of clean renewable energy generation provide electricity at times convenient to the environment, not necessarily at times convenient to the consumer’s demand.

Electricity storage is really only possible if you mechanically store it with dams into which water is pumped when there are surpluses and then run through turbines when you need it or with batteries. Neither is environmentally friendly and both have their own greenhouse gas emissions.

Air travel accounts for slightly more than 2% of the carbon dioxide emissions, but the effect of these emissions is thought to be relatively more harmful because they are expelled at high level, where they do the most damage. If rationing of air travel is what is being considered by the Centre, then we need to understand that and its consequences. I remain unconvinced that train travel is necessarily less emitting than car or air travel. Studies are not conclusive on this point and so much depends on the circumstances of the individual journeys.

The Centre suggests, according to the report, that by insulating all lofts and walls and using natural construction materials, we would reduce building emissions for heat demand by 50%. I do not quite understand how this is calculated. About 47% of carbon dioxide emissions in British homes is emitted by space heating. I think that the gains from insulation are over stated somewhat, although there are energy and emission savings to be made if we were all legally obliged to insulate our homes.

The Centre also suggests that we grow most of our own food, which would certainly save emissions. They also suggest we grow our own biofuels and biomass for burning but I think that they have failed to take account of the various studies which tend to show that those fuels are not carbon neutral and in some cases (such as corn grown for ethanol) present a more emissions than petrol or heating oil.

Those, I understand, are the key recommendations and we could argue the detail at length. However the principle of going zero carbon is what concerns me. The planet sequestrates about half of the carbon dioxide we humans emit each year, quite naturally. The problem with climate change is the 50% that takes a hundred or so years to sequestrate naturally.

Going zero carbon ignores three points:-

1. Carbon dioxide is quite a useful building block for life, because it contains carbon. We need it to remain in the atmosphere at reasonable levels – say 300 parts per million. We do not want to eradicate it entirely.
2. Aiming to climb to a summit that is impossible to reach makes sensible people give up in the quest. Instead let us pick off easy measures – insulation, thermal solar systems for all buildings (I declare my interest) and cutting down on waste.
3. The Centre has also failed to distinguish between clean renewables (like solar thermal) and dirty renewables like biomass.

Zero carbon is not a principle; it is not even a scientific possibility, unless you stopped all life respiring. We need to concentrate on measures and the Centre for Alternative Technology does this to some extent, but I think they have lost the plot a little by paying homage to the false god of Zero Carbon.

The award-winning Australian scientist Frank Fenner, who helped eradicate small pox in 1980, is professor emeritus at Australian National University. He claims the human race’s “unbridled consumption” and population expansion makes our existence unsustainable. From The Times of India:

“Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years,” Fenner said. “A lot of other animals will, too. … It’s an irreversible situation. I think it’s too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.”

He said that since humans have entered an unofficial scientific period known as the Anthropocene—the time since industrialisation—we have had an effect on the planet that rivals any ice age or comet impact, the Daily Mail reported.

I guess you have to applaud him for trying to spare the feelings of those procrastinating environmentalists. In addition to over consumption and population growth, Fenner says climate change will play a significant role in the demise of our species, though in his mind that’s just the beginning of our environmental problems. Notably absent from his vision of the apocalypse: the violent takeover by the machines.

via: good.is

The bizarre underwear features pots instead of cups, and a plastic water hose with seedlings acting as a belt.

It even comes with a pair of detachable farming gloves.

Triumph Japan has a reputation for making “gimmick” undies that convey political messages.

The grow-your-own bra was created to raise awareness of food self-sufficiency, allowing the wearer to cultivate rice any time, any where.

Yoshiko Masuda, of Triumph, said: “Over the last year, young Japanese women have taken a tremendous interest in agriculture.

“We wanted other women to experience farming as well. That’s what inspired this bra.”

Last year, Triumph made a bra that featured food bowls around the cups, allowing busy women to eat on the go.

Unsurprisingly, the rice-growing bra will NOT be available in the shops.

via: The Sun

A perfect example of that is the genius, innovative  company namely, thredUP.  threUp is a new online kids clothing exchange which allows America’s busiest and greenest families to conveniently exchange kids clothing online.

The service aims to bring a new level of affordability, convenience and eco-consciousness to a highly fragmented, billion-dollar market for second-hand children’s clothing. thredUP kids is designed to help parents easily swap clothes their kids have outgrown for great new items that fit. thredUP’s best-in-class interface allows parents to exchange with their closest friends or with a national network of parents — all from the convenience of home.

thredUP kids combines the best features of some of the most popular sites on the web: similar to eBay, members build virtual boxes of clothing to exchange. The marketplace facilitates exact matches, ensures quality and remedies the lack of coordination that plagues offline clothing swaps.

“Children grow out of clothes every 3-6 months, having worn outfits only a couple of times,” said James Reinhart, Chief Knitwit of thredUP.  “Currently parents are spending upwards of $20,000 on kids clothing by the time their child is 17. And they’re retiring some 1,400 items!  We’ve found that many ’swap, buy, sell’ sites are not that enticing to busy parents. They are just too much work. thredUP is all about convenience.”

“The initial feedback has been tremendous,” said Oliver Lubin, Chief Design Knitwit. “In the first two weeks of a private beta launch we have over 1,500 excited parents signed-up to start swapping. Members seem to love the intuitive interface and overall thredUP experience.”

With the recessionary / budgetary pressures that we are all  currenlty facing I think an Irish thredUP would provide us with a fun, eco-friendly and money friendly alternative that could become a real succes story in our new green economy.

Get them to grow them!

A successful new school gardening programme may hold the key to one of modern life’s great dilemma for parents: how to get children to eat vegetables.

A programme to encourage schoolchildren to grow their own fruit and vegetables can change the dietary habits of the next generation. Speaking at the the recent Agri-Aware’s Incredible Edible’s growing challenge in the RDS, Minister Trevor Sargent said early learning on food would last a lifetime.

Minister Sargent said: “Most of today’s schoolchildren have not had the opportunity to experience growing food at home or on an allotment. Previous generations would have grown up with vegetable patches in the back garden, but much of that has been lost.

“By introducing a new food growing challenge into schools, we’ve taught children how to grow food and to consider wider issues such as nutrition and healthy eating, food security, air miles, the agriculture industry and food costs Experience shows that kids are more likely to eat food that they’ve been involved with growing, particularly in the home. This programme has encouraged children to involve their parents and continue the food growing experience at home.”

Two thirds of all primary schools in Ireland took part in the Incredible Edibles programme, which was introduced last Autumn by Minster Sargent and Agri-Aware following the success of the Grow your Spuds campaign. It is estimated that 100,000 schoolchildren grew potatoes, lettuces, cabbages, scallions and strawberries in their classroom this year.

“As obesity levels continue to soar, I hope that the experience of growing fresh healthy food, will stay with these children and encourage them to eat healthily and choose home-grown nutritious foods over processed convenience foods,” said Minister Sargent.

The Green Party’s www.getgrowing.ie campaign, launched last March also aims to get people growing food at home, on an allotment or in a community garden. “This is not about gardening,” said Minister Sargent. “This is about getting to a place where we are capable and have the resources to supply our island-nation with our own food.”

Related Articles

Can you dig GreenMe’s gardening tips

Summer veg from your garden

Organic gardening with Klaus Laitenberger

Environmental issues have slithered down the greasy pole of public anxiety.  They won’t get much of a mention on the imminent reshuffle: no fresh commitments, no crucial pledges.  In one sense, the heat may by rising; in another, the heat is off.  And that, of course, is cause for very significant concern.  Democracies move in particular ways. Voters have to clamber on board when sacrifices are required.  They have to see the need for pain, to sense the danger of doing nothing.  They have to lead their leaders as well as follow – once they switch off, nothing good happens easily, if at all.  An Obama stalled on healthcare reform in the Senate isn’t going to be able to deliver sweeping global warming policies.   He may not be George Bush, but he already seems to know when he’s on a loser. And, without him, you can write the Chinese or Indian scripts. You can tell that the follow-ups to Copenhagen will be feebler, not stronger: true cause for despair. Kick away any mass impetus for tackling climate change as schedules of imminent necessity fade and review panels plod across the wastelands of borrowed time.  What’s to be done (except wait for a natural disaster that ends all argument – and much else besides)?  First, through gritted teeth, say what won’t work, what’s been tried already and failed.  More jaw and Gore from politicians can’t cut it. T hey have come to seem secondhand sources, merely parroting a frail scientific thesis.  That goes, alas, for journalists, too – and for pressure groups issuing lurid warnings or staging angry demos.  Those of us who are convinced, who believe in the necessity of action, haven’t changed our minds. But we’re not the point.  The audience that matters is out there, sleeping or drifting. And rousing it will demand something different, not more of the same. Yet more of the same is exactly what we seem to be getting. More re-examinations of existing evidence, monitored by the people who failed to monitor it last time.  More supposedly transparent attempts to say precisely when Himalayan glaciers will melt. More United Nations panels, flying lugubriously hither and yon in the cause of consensus. More declarations signed by hundreds of scientists on behalf of a notional “scientific community” (rather like letters to editors from umpteen economists urging cuts or no cuts).  None of it has a ring of renewed confidence. And the plain fact is that we surely need a prophet, not yet another committee.  We need one passionate, persuasive scientist who can connect and convince – not because he preaches apocalypse in gory detail, but in simple, overwhelming terms.  We need to be taught to believe by a true believer in a world where belief is the fatal, missing ingredient.

via: guardian.co.uk

Article written by Peter Preston

So it is possible, but not completely proved, that flying gives us the worst of all possible worlds – heating the air and dimming the surface.   In the UK  Business Secretary, Mr Peter Mandelson, has announced that £45 million of taxpayer’s money will be spent on funding a “partnership” (as these things are fashionably bit inaccurately called) between nine Universities and Rolls-Royce, who produce aircraft engines, in a quest to discover ways of making aircraft engines more efficient. If the research finds a more efficient engine, there is no guarantee that the world’s airlines and military will adopt it. The nine Universities concerned would be better to focus research on projects less grand but with better environmental effect.It is an interesting contrast to the way that the Government has treated water heating, where for £45 million, there are existing ways to reduce emission. The aircraft industry has over the years received many hand outs form the taxpayer.  Justification of this is that “The knowledge, skills and high-end production … give us huge opportunities to benefit as global demand for low carbon products grows.” Yes, the opportunities are so huge that Rolls-Royce needs a hand out in order to take advantage of them. By all means invest in low carbon research which is important, but when the ship is sinking it is not the time for the crew to start re-arranging the deckchairs.

The last time global negotiations collapsed like this was in Doha in 2001.  After the trade talks fell apart, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) assured the delegates that there was nothing to fear: they would move to Mexico, where a deal would be done. The negotiations ran into the sand of the Mexican resort of Cancun, never to re-emerge. After eight years of dithering, nothing has been agreed.

When the climate talks in Copenhagen ended in failure just last December, Yvo de Boer, the man in charge of the process, urged us not to worry: everything will be sorted out “in Mexico one year from now.”(1) Is Mexico the diplomatic equivalent of the Pacific garbage patch: the place where failed negotiations go to die?

De Boer might pretend that this is just a temporary hitch, but he knows what happens when talks lose momentum. A year ago I asked him what he feared most. This is what he said. “The worst-case scenario for me is that climate becomes a second WTO. … Copenhagen, for me, is a very clear deadline that I think we need to meet, and I am afraid that if we don’t, then the process will begin to slip, and like in the trade negotiations, one deadline after the other will not be met, and we sort of become the little orchestra on the Titanic.”(2)

We can live without a new trade agreement; we can’t live without a new climate agreement. One of the failings of the people who have tried to mobilise support for a climate treaty is that we have made the issue too complicated. So here is the simplest summary I can produce of why this matters.

Human beings can live in a wider range of conditions than almost any other species. But the climate of the past few thousand years has been amazingly kind to us. It has enabled us to spread into almost all regions of the world and to grow into the favourable ecological circumstances it has created. We currently enjoy the optimum conditions for supporting seven billion people.

A shift in global temperature reduces the range of places than can sustain human life. During the last ice age, humans were confined to low latitudes. The difference in the average global temperature between now and then was four degrees centigrade. Global warming will have the opposite effect, driving people into higher latitudes, principally as water supplies diminish.

Food production at high latitudes must rise as quickly as it falls elsewhere, but this is unlikely to happen. According to the body that summarises the findings of climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the potential for global food production “is very likely to decrease above about 3C”(3). The panel uses the phrase “very likely” to mean a probability of above 90%(4). Unless a strong climate deal is struck very soon, the probable outcome is a rise of three or more degrees by the end of the century.

Even in higher latitudes the habitable land area will decrease as the sea level rises. The likely rise this century – probably less than a metre – is threatening only to some populations, but the process does not stop in 2100. During the previous interglacial period, about 125,000 years ago, the average global temperature was around 1.3 degrees higher than it is today, as a result of changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun. A new paper in the scientific journal Nature shows that sea levels during that period were between 6.6 and 9.4 metres higher than today’s(5). Once the temperature had risen, the expansion of sea water and the melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica was unstoppable. I wonder whether the government of Denmark, whose atrocious management of the conference contributed to its failure, would have tried harder if its people knew that in a few hundred years they won’t have a country any more.

As people are displaced from their homes by drought and sea level rise, and as food production declines, the planet will be unable to support the current population. The collapse in human numbers is unlikely to be either smooth or painless: while the average global temperature will rise gradually, the events associated with it will come in fits and starts: sudden droughts and storm surges.

This is why the least developed countries, which will be hit hardest, made the strongest demands in Copenhagen. One hundred and two poor nations called for the maximum global temperature rise to be limited not to two degrees but to 1.5. The chief negotiator for the G77 bloc complained that Africa was being asked “to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”(6).

The immediate reason for the failure of the talks can be summarised in two words: Barack Obama. The man elected to put aside childish things proved to be as susceptible to immediate self-interest as any other politician. Just as George Bush did in the approach to the Iraq war, Obama went behind the backs of the UN and most of its member states and assembled a coalition of the willing to strike a deal which outraged the rest of the world. This was then presented to poorer nations without negotiation; either they signed it or they lost the adaptation funds required to help them survive the first few decades of climate breakdown.

The British and American governments have blamed the Chinese government for the failure of the talks. It’s true that the Chinese worked hard to mess them up, but Obama also put Beijing in an impossible position. He demanded concessions while offering nothing. He must have known the importance of not losing face in Chinese politics: his unilateral diplomacy amounted to a demand for self-abasement. My guess is that this was a calculated manoeuvre guaranteed to produce instransigence, whereupon China could be blamed for the outcome he wanted.

Why would Obama do this? You have only to see the relief in Democratic circles to get your answer. Pushing a strong climate programme through the Senate, many of whose members are wholly owned subsidiaries of the energy industry, would have been the political battle of his life. Yet again, the absence of effective campaign finance reform in the US makes global progress almost impossible.

So what happens now? That depends on the other non-player at Copenhagen: you. For the past few years good, liberal, compassionate people – the kind who read the Guardian every day – have shaken their heads and tutted and wondered why someone doesn’t do something. Yet the number taking action has been pathetic. Demonstrations which should have brought millions onto the streets have struggled to mobilise a few thousand. As a result the political cost of the failure at Copenhagen is zero.

Is this music not to your taste sir, or madam? Perhaps you would like our little orchestra to play something louder, to drown out that horrible grinding noise.

www.monbiot.com

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 21st December 2009

References:

1. Yvo de Boer, 19th December 2009. http://unfccc.int/2860.php

2. From transcript of video interview for the Guardian’s “Monbiot Meets” series. You can watch the edited discussion here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/dec/08/monbiot-yvo-de-boer-climate

3. IPCC, 2007. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. Table 19.1. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter19.pdf

4. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

5. Robert E. Kopp et al, 17th December 2009. Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the last interglacial stage. Nature Vol 462, pp863-868. doi:10.1038/nature08686

” If you asked my mum raising a family in the Seventies if she was ‘environmentally friendly’ she wouldn’t have been able to answer the question, simply because the term would have meant nothing to her,” says Lancaster.

But in the Seventies, her mother opted for reusable terry-towelling nappies, walked everywhere, purchased from a local farm and greengrocers and didn’t go abroad for holidays.

” We were a one-car family until 1980,” says Lancaster, and all of these practices combined would be considered green choices nowadays.

” Parents are more environmentally aware now, but I would suggest less environmentally friendly. Buying organic and recycled/recyclable alternatives makes a difference, but if you use disposable nappies, drive two cars and get on a jet plane once or twice a year, your alternative product purchases pale into insignificance on balancing your carbon footprint when compared to the 1970’s household!”

The eco parent

Green parenting is a conscious lifestyle choice, but in 2010 practices such as recycling are almost regarded, or at least should be, as a lifestyle given, refl ects Lancaster.

” If you’re throwing it away, bin it appropriately, it’s not hard and there is no reason for anyone not to be doing it,” she adds.

“Awareness about environmentally friendly practices has been inherent amongst children from the Noughties onwards – my two and a half year old knows what can and can’t be recycled and what goes where.”

Bringing up your children in as environmentally friendly a manner as possible involves considerably more choices than simply binning your recyclables. There are the areas of nutrition, holistic treatments and therapies, as well as pregnancy and childbirth to consider, but the best place to start is at the source, if you will.

The biggest cause for environmental concern amongst green parents is the disposable nappy. In 2007 there were 70,620 births in Ireland. If each one of these bundles of joy wore several nappies per day, this would mean well over 300 million disposable nappies in landfi ll sites around the country, not to mention all the pre-potty trained babies born in the previous year.

Like all other products containing plastic, these take hundreds and hundreds of years to decompose, so the fi rst choice for the green parent should be to invest in cloth nappies that can be washed and reused or disposable, biodegradable nappies made from natural, plant-based materials.

A selection of these nappies can be found on www. mumandme. ie and www. ecobaby. ie.

Positive lifestyle changes

All aspects of your life are impacted by having a family and you might not think that things such as fuel consumption are related to green parenting, but carefully choosing your nursery, holidaying locally with your family and going for a green family car can make all the difference.

” We have cut our fuel consumption by two thirds by doing our shopping online and having our main shopping delivered. For fresh fruit I’ve gone with a local farm that I walk to and we decided to change my son’s nursery to one within walking distance of home, thus eradicating six 30-minute drives per week.

As for our carbon footprint, we opted to holiday in Cornwall for the past three years and have had great ’staycations’,” says Lancaster.

If you’re concerned about carbon emissions you are not necessarily limited to the stereotypically compact electric car because as these cars become increasingly mainstream they

are beginning to cater for families and not just green-minded individuals.

One such car, the Toyota Prius 1.5 T3, is a full hybrid electric car that gets a remarkable 66 miles per gallon and has the lowest CO2 emissions on the market at 104g/ km. However, the best thing about it is that it is a large family car ( although boot space is, admittedly, a bit limited).

Eating well

One of the first pit stops for the environmentally friendly mother and father is to re-evaluate the foods they feed their baby and toddler and not only to make an effort to buy organic, but also to ensure that a green diet is a nutritionally balanced one.

An episode of US medical drama House aptly portrayed concerns that parents have when switching over to ethical lifestyle choices such as veganism. While this particular episode overly dramatised and suggested that vegan parents run the risk of starving their children, there are two sides to this.

Responsible parents will be aware that an adult vegan diet is vastly differently to that of a baby or toddler, but this advice goes for all parents – vegan, vegetarian or meat eating.

” I do buy and feed the children organic milk and foods and if we’re out and about I feed them ready-made organic baby food,” says Lancaster.

The right remedy

What about natural remedies for pain relief or baby illnesses?

When in doubt, always consult a doctor, she advises. However, from pregnancy through to childbirth and from your baby’s first day onwards there are many treatments and alternatives for common ailments.

” I used homeopathy throughout both my pregnancies and labours and also used hypnotherapy recordings from www.tums2mums. com with my second child.

” Both my children received Bowen Technique ( a form of hands-on healing therapy) treatments on the day they were born and regularly had Bowen treatments and osteopathy [ this strengthens the musculoskeletal system] during their first year.”

Lancaster also recommends Teetha homeopathy sachets for teething and arnica cream for bruising.

” Babies are born so pure I believe if I can minimise the manufactured chemicals input to their systems the stronger and more robust their immune systems will be.”

For parents looking to expand their ‘ green’ skills the Organic Centre ( www.theorganiccentre. ie) runs courses throughout the year on everything from using herbs medicinally and preserving your own fruit and vegetables to saving energy in your home and dyeing with natural colours. WHEN it comes to adopting green parenting practices, being environmentally aware is not the same thing as being environmentally friendly, says green parent and ‘ mumpreneur’ Claire Lancaster, founder of Dandelion Lounge, a personalised stationery service with a focus on families.

” If you asked my mum raising a family in the Seventies if she was ‘environmentally friendly’ she wouldn’t have been able to answer the question, simply because the term would have meant nothing to her,” says Lancaster.

But in the Seventies, her mother opted for reusable terry-towelling nappies, walked everywhere, purchased from a local farm and greengrocers and didn’t go abroad for holidays.

” We were a one-car family until 1980,” says Lancaster, and all of these practices combined would be considered green choices nowadays.

” Parents are more environmentally aware now, but I would suggest less environmentally friendly. Buying organic and recycled/recyclable alternatives makes a difference, but if you use disposable nappies, drive two cars and get on a jet plane once or twice a year, your alternative product purchases pale into insignificance on balancing your carbon footprint when compared to the 1970’s household!”

The eco parent

Green parenting is a conscious lifestyle choice, but in 2010 practices such as recycling are almost regarded, or at least should be, as a lifestyle given, refl ects Lancaster.

” If you’re throwing it away, bin it appropriately, it’s not hard and there is no reason for anyone not to be doing it,” she adds.

“Awareness about environmentally friendly practices has been inherent amongst children from the Noughties onwards – my two and a half year old knows what can and can’t be recycled and what goes where.”

Bringing up your children in as environmentally friendly a manner as possible involves considerably more choices than simply binning your recyclables. There are the areas of nutrition, holistic treatments and therapies, as well as pregnancy and childbirth to consider, but the best place to start is at the source, if you will.

The biggest cause for environmental concern amongst green parents is the disposable nappy. In 2007 there were 70,620 births in Ireland. If each one of these bundles of joy wore several nappies per day, this would mean well over 300 million disposable nappies in landfi ll sites around the country, not to mention all the pre-potty trained babies born in the previous year.

Like all other products containing plastic, these take hundreds and hundreds of years to decompose, so the fi rst choice for the green parent should be to invest in cloth nappies that can be washed and reused or disposable, biodegradable nappies made from natural, plant-based materials.

A selection of these nappies can be found on www. mumandme. ie and www. ecobaby. ie.

Positive lifestyle changes

All aspects of your life are impacted by having a family and you might not think that things such as fuel consumption are related to green parenting, but carefully choosing your nursery, holidaying locally with your family and going for a green family car can make all the difference.

” We have cut our fuel consumption by two thirds by doing our shopping online and having our main shopping delivered. For fresh fruit I’ve gone with a local farm that I walk to and we decided to change my son’s nursery to one within walking distance of home, thus eradicating six 30-minute drives per week.

As for our carbon footprint, we opted to holiday in Cornwall for the past three years and have had great ’staycations’,” says Lancaster.

If you’re concerned about carbon emissions you are not necessarily limited to the stereotypically compact electric car because as these cars become increasingly mainstream they

are beginning to cater for families and not just green-minded individuals.

One such car, the Toyota Prius 1.5 T3, is a full hybrid electric car that gets a remarkable 66 miles per gallon and has the lowest CO2 emissions on the market at 104g/ km. However, the best thing about it is that it is a large family car ( although boot space is, admittedly, a bit limited).

Eating well

One of the first pit stops for the environmentally friendly mother and father is to re-evaluate the foods they feed their baby and toddler and not only to make an effort to buy organic, but also to ensure that a green diet is a nutritionally balanced one.

An episode of US medical drama House aptly portrayed concerns that parents have when switching over to ethical lifestyle choices such as veganism. While this particular episode overly dramatised and suggested that vegan parents run the risk of starving their children, there are two sides to this.

Responsible parents will be aware that an adult vegan diet is vastly differently to that of a baby or toddler, but this advice goes for all parents – vegan, vegetarian or meat eating.

” I do buy and feed the children organic milk and foods and if we’re out and about I feed them ready-made organic baby food,” says Lancaster.

The right remedy

What about natural remedies for pain relief or baby illnesses?

When in doubt, always consult a doctor, she advises. However, from pregnancy through to childbirth and from your baby’s first day onwards there are many treatments and alternatives for common ailments.

” I used homeopathy throughout both my pregnancies and labours and also used hypnotherapy recordings from www.tums2mums. com with my second child.

” Both my children received Bowen Technique ( a form of hands-on healing therapy) treatments on the day they were born and regularly had Bowen treatments and osteopathy [ this strengthens the musculoskeletal system] during their first year.”

Lancaster also recommends Teetha homeopathy sachets for teething and arnica cream for bruising.

” Babies are born so pure I believe if I can minimise the manufactured chemicals input to their systems the stronger and more robust their immune systems will be.”

For parents looking to expand their ‘ green’ skills the Organic Centre ( www.theorganiccentre. ie) runs courses throughout the year on everything from using herbs medicinally and preserving your own fruit and vegetables to saving energy in your home and dyeing with natural colours.

via: independent.ie

Thi article orginally appeared in Mothers and Babies

So now all the leading emitters of greenhouse gases are trying to reassure the world (and their own populations) that they will do something about climate change. China promises to reduce its “carbon intensity” by 40 to 50% by 2020. Carbon intensity is a measure of emissions per joule of energy, so assuming the population of China continues to grow and that China continues to develop its economy rapidly with close to double digit growth there will be little or no reduction of greenhouse gases from China. India’s promise to reduce carbon intensity by 20% probably will mean in practice a rise in emissions.

The United States has an aim to cut emissions by 17% from 2005 levels. In real language the “aim” requires a less than 10% cut from today’s emissions. No evidence of climate change leadership there, Mr Obama.

The European Union promises 20% cuts in emissions from 1990 figures– rising to 30% if everyone else cuts their emissions. Japan promises 25% on the same basis.  Brazil, curiously, promises to cut from levels that they now project. That is an odd way of doing things.

Frankly, fixing rapid climate change it is not about promising anything, but it is about carrying out measures. Measures will require strictly enforced laws about emissions and carbon dioxide intensity of energy and a whole host of other related matters. The nations of the world may not be climate change deniers but they are all certainly in denial.