I'm sorry, what? - You care more about the planet then you do about people.

Yes, yes I do!

People say this to me all the time, in an accusational way, as if the planet and humans are mutually exclusive. As if you can exclude the planet when you're thinking about what's best for humans. Its a completely bizarre idea and really not true.  We are completely dependent of the planet for our food, clothes, health and even just the air we breath, and, therefore, we need to put the planet first if we are to survive as a species.  And there's more at stake too, because it would not only be us that disappeared as the planet was destroyed, but almost all the other groups of living things that evolved on this planet with us.  More life can be saved by putting the planet first than can be saved by putting us first.

I can see how it might seem strange to other humans that, when I have to make a choice, I choose the planet over those of my species.  It might seem strange that I choose to give any spare cash I have to environmental charities rather than human based ones.  That, for me, activities that help prevent climate change must come before activities that help other people, no matter how needy they may be.  But, who do you think are going to be the first affect by climate change when it happens?  It'll be those who live in poor conditions, those who live in countries already affected my drought and famine, and those who can't afford to buy the products that they would need to survive.  In short, the money that you hand out every month is going to be totally pointless if you don't also help with protecting the planet and preventing climate change.  If you want to help them you must also help in protecting the planet.

I find it especially strange when people with children tell me that they're children are their number one priority and that they don't think about the planet and climate change at all.  But if you're children are so important to you, how can you not think about how their future is going to be.  If we don't stop the changes we see happening now than they will be faced with extreme and dangerous weather conditions, issues with food production and violence between many countries over resources.  Out of all the things you would not want your children to face, than surely it is that.

Putting the planet first comes down to one very basic idea.  If we disappeared the planet would carry on just fine, but if the planet disappeared we'd be screwed.

Of course, I'm not the only person who feels this way.  For many, the planet is just as important, but enough 'accuse' me of this charge to make me worry that the importance of this planet we live in just hasn't gotten through. 

Re-useable bags.

If you're anything like me you'll have a number of re-useable bags sitting in your home, all brought with good intentions, but never actually being used.  Here are just some of my plastic long-life ones (I managed to get rid of a number at Christmas time when I used them to help protect some of the presents I posted), but I also have a number of material ones too.

Of course, there are a number of good reasons for using re-useable bags instead of the thin plastic ones we get each time we go to the stores.  Firstly, plastic is made from the by products that come out of processing oil and natural gases.  So, while it won't have any extra affect on that front, these are finite supplies meaning that the supply of plastic will not be around forever.  On my part, I would rather the plastic was used only for storing things like medical supplies and items that need to be kept sterile, rather than used to make the bags I get everytime I buy something.  That way the supply will last a lot longer.

Like all plastics, there is an issue with recycling plastic  One the whole, most plastics can be recycled by heating the products (of the same plastic family) until they melt and can be formed into different product.  The problem is that, unlike glass and metal, the product degrades each time it is recycled and in most cases it can only be recycled once.  Once you no longer have use for this 'new' item the only place for it is into the landfill.  It also requires a lot more energy then glass and metal to transform, as well as releasing CO2 in the process.

There's also the well known problem that occurs when the plastic is thrown into landfill.  How long plastic bags actually last in the ground is still up for debate, afterall they've only been around for around 50 years so we have no first-hand experience in this.  Revolve states that it takes 100 years, but other estimates include 500 years and 1000 years....lets just read 'a really long time' here.  While they're in the ground they don't actually biodegrade, despite what the bags might say on it no plastic bag biodegrades, they photograde.  What this means is that they break down into smaller and smaller pieces.  Some get eaten by passing wildlife that mistake the pieces for food, but there is also the issue of what is released in this process.  Pure plastic have very low toxicity, but many plastic bags contain additives, such as adipates and phthalates as well as some metals like lead and cadmium, which are toxic.  These compounds that leach from the plastic have been connected to cancer, fertility problems, and hormone function interference.

For me, the biggest issue is probably the most visual.  This is the death of the animals that mistakenly eat the plastic we leave.  According to the Marine Conservation Society 60% of litter found on UK beaches are plastic and most of this ends up being washed into the sea.  Birds and mammals regularly mistake this floating debris as food, but eating this leads to starvation and dehydration as the belly becomes filled with this plastic and is unable to take in anything else. When a sperm whale died on the coast of Spain, scientists took a look at what was in its stomache and found it full of plastic, specifically plastic greenhouse covers.  Not only did this cause starvation but it was believed that the cause of death was due to the stomache rupturing after the digestive tract was blocked with all the debris it had swollen. Parents even mistakenly feed their young with these plastic pieces, usually leading to the death of their offspring.  The consequence of this is that it can lead to repeatedly bad breeding years, and the possible loss of a species.  Even the Pacific now has the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an area which is covered in rubbish mainly made of plastic.......nice.

But if none of that is of any importance to you and all you care about is the money. How do you thiink they pay for the plastic bags?  Certainly not out of their own pocket!

While I do re-use the plastic bags that I get (and it is re-use, not recycle as some websites are stating) by using the bags as my bin bags, I am certainly not using the same number of bags for rubbish as I am collecting while I'm shopping.  Definitely time to reduce the number of bags that I pick up and maybe start using bags that do actually biodegrade for rubbish rather than photograde.  So here's the plan. I've taken two of my plastic re-useable bags (it makes sense to use those to death first) and put them into my everyday handbag so that they're there when I need them.  Now, the next time I go shopping I have bags I can use, and that I will remember to use as they're sitting in my bag staring at me.  The biggest thing will be remembering to put them back into the bag onced I've emptied the products out once I'm home.  A habit I definitely need to get into.

I'm sorry, what? 10 things or less.

I have this article by Red Magazine that is pinned up in my sitting room called 'Your life in 10 items.'  The articles writes around the idea that owning less stuff not only makes us more efficient in the activities we do, but also calmer, mentally, and more intuned with ourselves.  Less distractions means we have less things stopping us from working on what is most important.  It, of course, brings up Gandhi, who could count the number of possessions he had on his two hands, and also highlights a number of bloggers and book writers who have taken up the challenge of reducing the number of items they own, either to 10 or 100.  Though not with out a few cheats I've noticed.  One individual reduced their possesions down to 10 items, but didn't include essential clothing or household items, a slightly open ended idea  There's quite a few things that you could easily tell yourself was 'essential' for a number of reasons.  The other reduced items by storing a number of things digitally instead of physically.  But, to me, that still the same as before. You're still having to make the same decisions, you've just moved it to another space.  You could do the same by sticking everything in a box and counting that as one.

But, despite these little anomalies, I do agree with the main theme of the article.  With the downturn in the economy and many of us earning less and needing to save more, removing the need to be buying, buying, buying all the time can only be a good thing.  Do we really need all the things we purchase, do they really make us happy?  In most cases, after the initial 'Yay, look what I got!', we're no happier than we were before we brought the item, we just have less money. And I have to admit, I feel uneasy with being told by the Government that I should be spending, because the past has shown that me spending is good for the economy.  But with two crashes in this country's economy in the last 20 twenty years, you have to wonder if carrying on with the status quo is really a good idea.  And if the loss of money wasn't enough to make you think again before you buy, Organise My House has a great blog on the cost that clutter has on a number of areas in our lives, from money to time and happiness.

I'm lucky in the fact that I'm not a big spender, and I very rarely see something and have to have it.  But, I do wonder if I could ever get everything I own down to just 10 things.  For starters, there's all the clothes I have to own to deal with the weather here in Scotland.  Even just a single of each item runs as hat, gloves, scarf, waterproof top, waterproof bottoms, coat, fleece, sunglasses (weird I know when added to the others, but the sun gets really low here)..... that's eight items already and I'm no where near underwear.  So, living with only 10 items is probably a little bit unrealistic in this case, but I could definitely live with less. There's so many things that I keep but never reach for, whether its games or cds or even books, which I have loved but know I will never read again. So, while my attitude to buying new things is healthy in a sense, my attitude to holding onto things is not.  There really isn't any reason to keep them sitting there collecting dust, and a very good reason to get rid of them..... I'm allergic to dust.  Its time I started going through my stuff and getting rid of the items that have just been sitting there un-used and unloved for many years. And maybe someone else can get use and enjoyment out of them instead.

The need to own stuff is an odd one.  I think in our heads, if we can afford to buy something we don't really have any use for we must be in a good place.  We must be happy.  But this really can't be the case, as why would we then need to keep buying over and over again, and many people can't even afford the things they keep buying.  Its highly unlikely that I will ever be able to get everything I own down to just 10 items, in fact even 100 might be a push.  But I would like my home to fit what William Morris says and 'Have nothing in (my) house that (I) do not know to be useful,, or believe to be beautiful.'

If you're looking around and are a little sure what things you could actually get rid of you might want to look here.

52 Small Changes - Water

My water bottle collection.

This week was all about drinking water. 2.4l a day to be precise.  You would think that it would be relatively easy, but it turns out  that remembering to drink water during the day is a lot harder then first thought.  To begin with, I thought using my 1l bottle would be the best way to do it....my large, blue, metal bottle reminding me to drink, drink, drink.....and then I would only need to drink two of those and a glass at dinner to get my days worth.  But it actually had the opposite affect, sitting there as a daunting reminder of how much I actually had to drink.  So I tried some other reuseable bottles that I have and ended up using a smaller, more user friendly size (500ml).  It was a lot less daunting and had the added bonus of providing more of a positive feedback everytime I finished the bottle and had to refill it.  Using reuseable bottles for this is definitely the way to go, just remember to wash them on a regular basis.  The only downside is the number of times you have to visit the loo, I'm beginning to feel that my work colleagues might think I'm not very well, but on the plus side there are probably a lot less toxins running around my body and my skin is beginning to feel a lot less dry.  Definitely be keeping this one up.

Next week: sleep!

CAPs anyone?

Thought we'd keep with the farming theme this week.  So.....

CAP is the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union (EU) which is followed by a number of countries in Europe, including Great Britain.  It has two objectives; to ensure that farmers get a fair standard of living, and to ensure that there is a stable safe supply of food for consumers that is at an affordable price.  The priorities of CAP has changed over the years, but since 2012 the priorities are viable food production, sustainable management of natural resources and the balanced development of rural areas in the EU.  70% of the budget available to CAP is put towards supporting farmers.  However, this is only available to them if they follow the strict standards for food safety, environmental protection, and animal wellbeing and health.

Why is this Policy important to the environment? With 44% of Europe (and around 70% of United Kingdom) given over to agriculture, how this land is managed will have a significant affect on a number of environmental issues, such as biodiversity collpase and stopping (or adapting to, though hopefully we won't get to that) climate change.  There are also more human and immediate issues to worry about, such as ensuring the continue supply of clean water resources and maintaining healthy populations of pollinating insects.

This year, the Members of the European Parliament will be voting on the new framework which will start in 2014, and this year there's meant to be a 'radical' reform of the CAP.  The prelimanry voting took place in the middle of March, where initial decisions on how CAP is going to carry on the future has already occurred.  But these discussions will carry on until the end of June 2013, which does seem an pretty long time, but does still give us time to push for the direction we feel is important to us.

So, what's happened so far?
Let's start with the couple of good point (and yes I'm afraid I only have two good point here).  This is that the MEPs have voted to stop the double fundung of farmers for doing the same activities.  This may seem like a strange thing to be doing, but if a specific act is required in different criteria for funding, and there is no cross compliance, this can occur.  They also voted that any farmers who brake the law, such as the use of hormones and issues with poolution, will loss their subsidies.  This should reduce the number of farmers who still behave in this way.

And now for the not so good stuff.  While the MEPs voted to give Member States more flexibility on their agriculture policies, they didn't vote for the agri-environmental-climate measures and certification scheme that was meant to go along with this flexibility.  The MEPs did vote for farmers having to operate in a wildlife friendly manner to get 30% of their payments, but, in true style, have watered down the requirements and delayed when these changes are to occur.  Environmental groups where hoping that the subsidies would require that 10% of farmland would be put aside for wildlife, but here again the MEPs have voted for a watered down version.  They have voted for only 3% of land to be put aside, which will side gradually, but only to possibly 7% as the final figure.  There was also a chance for them to vote for connecting the Water Framework Directive and Birds and Habitats Directive to the subsidies, which would mean that farmers would have to follow these instead of it being a voluntary action.  Unfortunately, the MEPs did not vote for this.  The problem here is not only an issue with protecting our water sources for us, but would also mean that we would be protecting some of the most important land in the fight against climate change......our carbon rich bogs and peat lands.

The outcome could have been distinctly worse!  There were a lot of proposals that would have undermined the CAP becoming green but there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that the most important industry in our world has a positive affect on our world. 

On a side note, in my research on this I find out something very disturbing.  Some of the subsidies that our taxes pay for goes to tobacco farmers! I'm sorry what?  That is wrong on so many levels, especially as there is a huge effort being made to stop people smoking.  You can't tell me they couldn't grow something a little less killing on that land.

I'm sorry, what? - Eating horses.

Ok, this scandal is an old one.  But I've finally had time to read through my pile of New Scientist magazines and came across an article on DNA testing to help identify what animal is actually in the food we're eating.  And then, of course, the news came out this week that the fish we think we're eating, due to the labelling, isn't actually the fish we're eating. So it got me thinking, again, about false advertising and cheap food......really cheap food!

Now, there's not actually any health risk with eating horse instead of cow (as long as they don't contain any of the compounds not usually allowed to be given to animals intended for consumption) or pollock instead of cod. And there's definitely nothing wrong with us opening up the number of animals we're prepared to eat for environmental reasons. (I also find it a little odd that, as a nation, we're happy to eat cows and pigs, but are horrified by the idea of eating a horse. An animal most of us will spend no actual time with, and certainly no more than we would with the other animals we've marked for the pot.)  But, as consumers, we should be able to trust the information given to us on the label so that we can then make an informed decision about the food that we eat.  How can you choose the most environmentally friendly and health friendly product if you don't actually know what in the product actually is?

But the big question is, can we really completely blame the supermarkets and only supermarkets?  Yes, we should be able to trust the information they give us.  Yes, we should be able to trust that the people we're giving our hard earned money to are providing us with what we're expecting to get.  But can we really be so suprised that the people we have trusted implicity, without double checking, have behaved in the same manner with their suppliers, who they give their money too.  We expect our superarkets to check everything that they supply to us so that we don't have to, but they expect their suppliers to do exactly the same.

For me, the people who are really to blame is us, the consumer, and our want of cheap food.  I say want and not need as, for many of us, we can afford to spend more on our food.  Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that in 2012 16.1% of families in the UK were living in poverty.  This is a terrible number for a developed country with the wealth that we have, and we need to ensure that this is dealt with.  But it also means that 83.9% of us can afford to pay the price that food actually costs, we just choose not to.  Afterall the truth still holds 'You get what you pay for', and when you pay only £1.50 for an entire meal you can't be too suprised that the quality isn't great, the product not as nutrious as it should be, and the meat isn't exactly what you thought it.

Of course, we never used to be like this. Information collected the Office of National Statistics on household spending over the last sixty odd years has shown that in 1957 33% of the household expenditure was spent on food.  In 2011 it was down to 11%. But our spending on other items, such as electrical equipment, and travelling has doubled. As consumers we are choosing to spend money on TVs and CDs over good quality food, and then we're suprised that this has turned out to be a bit of disaster. We don't even know, or really care, where the food we're getting comes from or how the animals who provide this substance are treated.  To us it's of no importance, as long as its cheap.

I could go on, but there is a blog that says it much better: 'Horse meat - the hardest thing to digest is that it's your fault.' My favourite part is one of the comments that states that it entirely the supermarkets fault, and only their fault, because they 'persuaded' the public to buy cheap food.  Yes, because we were so against it, really didn't want the cheapest we could get, were dubious about this cheap food, said no repeated........but slowly and surely the supermarkets worked at us until we gave in to the cheapness.  Did they f**k. We've always gone for the cheapest, complained that even that was too expensive, and shopped somewhere else if we thought we could get in cheaper.  As consumers we control the products and the prices.  Its time we did so more responsibly.