Finding the Right Face Wash

I've spent a while trying to find the right face wash that is not only as natural and ethical as possible, but also suited the needs of my dry skin.  I've tried a few and I thought I would write about some of them here.

I'll start with the most well known, the Liz Earle Cleanse and Polish (the one in the picture is travel size).  This product is cruelty free, vegan, made in Great Britain, and I do love it as a product.  It works very well at cleansing your skin, removing all makeup and grim (as someone who volunteers outside my face can get very grimmy) without drying out your skin.  At no point have I had any problems with tightness around my nose when using this and the smell is nice, but not overpowering.  The biggest issue I have with products that you are meant to be able to use on your eyes to remove makeup is that I usually end up with puffy eyes the next day, but I didn't find this with the Cleanse and Polish.  This is a product I would recommend and I will probably still use it when I go travelling, but the reason I don't still use it is because I've been looking for something more natural.

The next product is the Superdrugs' B Revealed Glycolic Cleansing Peel.  I brought this when I was having a particularly bad time with dry skin, especially around my nose and mouth.  It contains alpha hydroxy acid (AHA) and is designed to be used as a mask 2 to 3 times a week, but can be used as a cleanser on a daily basis.  This product is also cruelty free, vegan, and made in the UK, and I had learnt about it through the YouTuber Rhian HY (WifeLife).  This is another great product and was very effective in removing the dead skin on my face without overly drying my face.  It was also very good at making sure I had removed all my makeup.  The main issue I had with this product was that I couldn't use it to remove my eye makeup.  So, while it was very effective at helping my get soft skin again, the fact that I couldn't use it on my eyes and the fact its not very natural it is not a product I would carry on using.

The last of the more conventional cleanser is the Burt's Bees Soap Bark and Chamomile Deep Cleansing Cream.  While the packaging says that it is 100% natural and they have the cruelty free bunny, their own website says that it is 99.9% natural and they have not been given cruelty free status by Logical Harmony.  However, this product is free of parabens, phthalates and petrolatum.  Not surprisingly, Burt's Bees isn't normally vegan, but I believe this is as it doesn't contain any animal products.  I did feel it helped clean my face very well, removing the last of the makeup, and you definitely feel like it's done a deep clean (I didn't get any spots while I was using it).  However, while it is meant to make your skin feel soft, I did feel tightness around my nose after a few days.  I think this would be a great product if you have oily skin and need to deep clean your face without stripping it, but it was a bit too drying for my skin.  This, coupled with the fact that you can't use it to cleanse your eyes and the question mark about it's cruelty status means that I won't use it again.

After hearing so much about the wonders Dr Bronner's Magic Soap (this one is Hemp Green Tea) I thought I would give it a go, not just as a face wash but also as a shampoo and body wash.  This product is certified organic and fair trade, cruelty free, made from vegetable oils and contains no synthetic detergents.  The package is also made from 100% post-consumer recycled plastic.  A little of this goes a very long way and it was great being able to use this for everything.  It was great as a body wash, but it did feel like it dried out my skin a little bit after a few uses and I wasn't able to use it to remove makeup from my eyes (though it was good at removing makeup from my face).  It also felt like it left a film on my hair when I used it as a shampoo.  I have heard that you can use apple cider vinegar to remove this so if I choose to use this in the future I will give this a go.  As a face wash, the dryness made me decide to try other products and I prefer to use soap instead of a body wash.  However, this is a good product to use when travelling.

Naturally Thinking is a company that I haven't heard too many people talking about and which I only found by a google search.  I am surprised by this though as, ethically, this is a great brand.  They are vegan and cruelty free, palm oil free, paraben and SLS free, handmade in Britain and a number of the products are grown here too.  They also pay their employees the living wage and act proactively on a number of environmental issues.  While they have a number of face cleansers I decided to get the simple Clay Facial Cleanser as it was the simplest cleanser and a non-irritant.  I also liked that you could tailor this by adding your own essential oils.  The bottle is small but you only need a pea size amount per application. This is a very nice product and felt great on the skin.  However, I didn't feel that it completely removed my makeup and I started using this after I had done an initial cleanse with coconut oil.  Once I started doing that doing that my face felt very clean, but still moisturised.  

I decided to try some balms so see if they would be more effective at removing makeup as well as not drying out my skin, so I ordered some samples from Naturisimo.  The first one is the Pink Boutique Hydrating Deep Cleansing Melt.  This product is cruelty free, vegan, 100% natural, 87% certified organic, made in England, and paraffinum, paraben, and SLS free.  This melt is designed for those of us with sensitive skin and can also be used on your eyes.  While it is difficult to get a complete idea with such a small sample, I did really enjoy using this product.  The texture felt really nice on my face and did a very good job of removing my makeup effectively, including my eye makeup, and didn't leave that much of a residue.  It also left my face feeling moisturised without any issue of dryness.  It is quite a pricey product, £40 a tub, but I would think about buying it as I think a little goes a very long way.

The next product is Balmology Neroli and Sweet Basil Cleansing Balm.  This is another British brand which is made with 99% organic ingredients, hand made in small batches, the raw ingredients are brought from growers who are fairtrade and ethical, and cruelty free, but not vegan.  Cheaper at £27, this felt great on the skin and was also very good at removing makeup easily.  It did leave a slight residue on the skin, but nothing unpleasant, and the smell was also nice but mild.  The main issue I had with this balm was that I couldn't use it on my eyes to remove makeup and I am looking for a product that I can use all over my face.

The next product I tried was the Herbfarmacy Wash Off Cleansing Mousse (now known as the Refining Cleanser).  I thought it would be interesting to try a product that was more like a mousse than a balm and I had heard good things about Herbfarmacy.  Made in Britain, the ingredients are also ground in Herefordshire.  This product is paraben and SLS free, 80% organic, and cruelty free (but not vegan).  The good thing about this product is that you don't need a muslin cloth or face towel to wash this off, unless you feel you need to remove the excess.  At £16 it is quite tempting to buy a fall amount, but I think you would need to use more of this then the other balms.  This felt great on my skin, was really easy to work in, smelt great, and I liked the fact that I could use it to remove my eye makeup as well.  The only problem I had as that it didn't remove my makeup as well as I first thought and I was still able to remove more makeup afterwards.

The last item is the Suti Facial Cleansing Balm.  Suti is another British company which makes products containing organic ingredients, of which this product is 84% organic.  It is cruelty free but not vegan as they use beeswax.   This balm also melted well onto the skin and was good at removing my face makeup, only leaving a small film on your face.  However, out of all the balms I tried this cleansing balm was my least favourite as the smell was a little overpowering and I also wasn't able to use this to remove my eye makeup so didn't do the multi-tasking I was hoping for. 

So, what am I using as a cleansing and makeup remover.  

Well, funnily enough it's the very simple, quite cheap Organic Coconut Oil (this time I'm using the brand ).  Not only is this easy to get, it works really well at removing my makeup and any other grim on my face.  It's safe to use on your eyes and I've never had any issues with it causing puffiness the next day or any irritation.  It does leave a slight film on your face and can cause spots on some people (though this has never been an issue for me).  Either I would leave it like that and then use oil to moisturise afterwards or I wash my face with the Friendly Soap Cocoa Butter Facial Cleansing Bar.

I got this from one of The Vegan Kind subscription boxes and, worked with the coconut oil, works well as a double cleanse without drying out my skin.  I have used this soap on its own when I didn't actually need to oil cleanse.  It has a nice texture and I like that it doesn't have too many ingredients in it, but it is a little drying on my skin and wouldn't be something I could use on a daily basis without the oil cleanse. I believe this is only because I have dry skin though, and this would work well on normal to oily skin.

Mini Film Review: Before the Flood

It seems appropriate that the next blog I do after fracking would be on the movie 'Before the Flood'.  In case you haven't seen all the adverts for it this movie is presented by National Geographic and features Leonardo DiCaprio as he journeys around the world in his role as a United Nations Messenger of Peace and sees for himself the effects of climate change.  They talk to some of the scientists studying the effects of climate change and pro-climate politicians, look at the effects climate change is happening right now and the disinformation campaign being funded by the oil companies, and discuss some of the things we can do now to prevent it from going any further.

There is a slight naive feeling to this film, especially when they seem genuinely surprised that there are still politicians that deny that climate change is happening (predominantly for financial gain) and by just how destructive a number of our activities, such as the extraction of oil from tar sands and the growing of palm oil, are.  This seems particularly strange seeing as DiCaprio is meant to have been an advocate for climate change for many years.  It is also US-centric and I didn't feel that it necessarily provide me with any information I didn't know already (but I am a complete climate geek).  However, I did still feel that I still got some things out it.  

Firstly, it was a good reminder as to why I'm trying to live a more sustainable lifestyle - which is always good to have when you're surrounded by things telling you to buy stuff, buy!  Secondly, it reminded me of just how far behind Britain is, especially when compared to the rest of the Europe, in sorting out the sources of our energy consumption.  While many of the other European countries, predominantly Scandinavian countries, are forging ahead to meeting their 2020 targets, we are still at the bottom of the leaguer board with only 9% of the energy we consume coming from renewable or waste sources.  And, while Sweden has committed itself to 100% renewable energy production by 2040, we've promised 15% by 2020 which it is looking like we are going to miss.  Not only is this not enough, but as a nation of engineers and scientists with one of the world's highest GDPs it's embarrassingly low.  We definitely need to make our Government do better. 

But the main take for me were the actions of individuals working to make a difference and protect the planet we live on, despite the consequence to themselves (Dr. Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist, facing death threats comes to mind) and despite the fact that it doesn't seemed to have gotten any better.  For me, the person to most admire from this movie is Piers Sellers, ex-Astronaut and Direct at NASA/ GSFC Earth Science Division.  At the beginning of this year he found out he had stage 4 pancreatic cancer and, while the rest of us would probably decide to spend our last few months doing things for ourselves, he's chosen to spend his time making a difference by helping us understand the effects of climate change. 

If you don't know a lot about climate change this is definitely a film to watch, but even if you know a lot about climate change already it is still worth watching this if only to help boost your resolve.  You can also have a look at their website, which also gives advise on action you can take now. 

Fracking in the UK

I had meant to write this blog at the beginning of October when the Government's decision on fracking in Lancashire came through, but as I've been behind in my blogs I'm afraid this is coming now.  I still wanted to post it though, especially after the Scottish Government's report brought out yesterday, and the time has given me the opportunity to read even more information on this.

So, to begin - what it fracking?

There has been so much information about fracking recently it is very likely that you already know this, but just in case you don't.......  Fracking is the slang for hydraulic fracturing and is the method of extracting gas or oil trapped below impermeable, shale rock that cannot be collected through conventional drilling alone.

It involves drilling vertically for about 2km (this part we've been doing since the 1940's for conventional oil extraction) and then drilling at a 90 degree angle for around 3km (a relatively recent discovery).  The gap between the borehole and the rock is then sealed with concrete and around 10 million litres containing sand, lubricating fluids and other additives are pumped into the borehole under extremely high pressure.  This opens up the cracks found throughout the shale and these cracks are kept open by the sand particles allowing the gas to escape.  A well head is then installed on the surface to capture the released gas.  Once all the gas and/or oil has been removed from that area the well head is then removed and the shale rock returns back to its original position.

Problems associated with fracking.

Most of the information we have on the issues associated with fracking comes from America, where fracking has been used as a method for extracting fossil fuels for many years.  Despite the claims of clean and safe methods by the fuel companies there have been many reports of health issues and environmental contaminations in connection to the fracking industry.  Research by Duke University (later published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2011) testing the drinking water at 60 sites across Pennsylvania and New York and found that the drinking water near fracking sites had levels of methane which were in the range designated dangers by the US Department of Interiors.  

While there is not a legal requirement in America for companies to make public information regarding the chemicals used in their fracking process, compounds like benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and n-hexane have been found to be released into the air in fracking areas.  Long term exposure to these chemicals are linked to birth defects, neurological issues, blood disorders and cancer.  

There has also been a connection between the industry and earthquakes with previous non-earthquake prone states, such as Ohio and Oklahoma, experiencing strong seismic activities.  The UK itself has experienced this when in April 2011 Cuadrilla Resources first well in Weeton, Lancashire, caused two small earthquakes and dozens of aftershocks.  Tremors were felt in Blackpool and the company had to halt works for an investigation to occur.  However, they did carry on drilling in other wells. 

Fracking in the UK.

While we do have a relative large fracking industry off shore in the UK, onshore fracking is still only at the exploration phase at the moment.  A report by the British Geological Survey, published in 2012, estimated that could be as much as 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas in the North of England alone, stretching from Lancashire to Yorkshire, which could supply Britain with electricity for decades. Other areas have been ear-marked throughout the UK.  However, it is still not certain how much oil or gas is actually commercially recoverable with more exploratory drilling needed to give us a clearer picture.  Companies such as Cuadrilla, Becconsall, Celtique Energies, and Coastal Oil and Gas have all requested licenses to drill exploratory wells onshore in the UK, with many of the sites receiving the go ahead from the UK Government.  These are still few in number, for now, but the United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group (UKOOG) is expecting the number of these exploratory well sites to increase to 100 over the next 10 years.  However, a license from the Government does not allow the company to start fracking straight away as they also have to receive planning permission from the local councils.  Unfortunately, it seems that a council's ability to determine if fracking occurs in their local area or not has now been taken away from them as the British Government last month overturned the Lancashire County Council's decision in June 2015 to prevent fracking at Little Plumpton (as yet there has been no decision on Roseacre Wood). 

To support fracking Downing Street has promised to fast track shale gas planning applications to 'crack down' on councils trying to delay any decisions on this and has offered tax breaks to fracking companies.  In December last year MPs voted to allow fracking to occur at 1,200m below our National Parks, Areas of Outstanding National Beauty and World Heritage Sites despite pledging on outright ban on National Park earlier in the year. 

It is expected that fracking will be different in the UK to the USA due to difference in the geology (which will theoretically lead to a smaller footprint), the stricter standards for well quality with regular inspections and the more stringent regulations, such as requiring the companies to monitor the water quality throughout the fracking process and disclose of which chemicals they are using.  Also the British Government already has restrictions on a number of the chemicals used in the US and will have higher standards for dealing with the very large amount of radioactive and toxic wastewater that is produced from fracking.  Rather than being burnt, as it does in USA, excess gas produced by this process will be captured on the surface and fed into the national gas supply.  However, despite these promises of higher standards Cuadrilla Resources has already been warned by ministers for failing to recognize the damage done to it's well by the 2011 earthquake and for failing to report this for 6 months. 

Tuesday's report from the Scottish Government has shown that, while there was sufficient evidence to suggest that there would be a number of air and waterborne environmental hazards in connection with the process which could put at risk those living near to fracking sites and those working on site (breathing in crystalline silica), there was inadequate data to determine if the developing of fracking would pose an overall risk to public health.  Some have argued, though, that this report hasn't taken into account that a number of the potential fracking sites are located in densely populated areas.

Why the Government says it's necessary and what might be wrong with this statement?

The UK Government has been pushing for onshore fracking stating that it would reduce our reliance on imported energy, generate economic benefits, especially for local councils, and create tens of thousands of jobs.  They have used the US as an example of how it reduces the cost of electricity and heating, and have argued that fracking will be in keeping with the UK's moves towards low carbon energy systems. With all these we have been told that it would be 'irresponsible' to not carry out tracking wherever we can.

However, fracking will only help the UK transition to low carbon energy systems if it is replacing a higher carbon energy sources, such as coal power.  At the moment the carbon benefits of shale gas is actually still unclear (shale oil even more so) and new evidence from the USA has shown that while fracking has reduced coal consumption, it has not significantly reduced the emission of greenhouse gases.  So, even if it is classified as a low carbon energy system it is unlikely to greatly reduce our carbon emissions over the coming years.  

The cost saving may also not be as high as the Government has been stating either as the UK isn't as sparsely populated as the US but also the higher regulatory standards found in the UK will, perhaps ironically, mean that companies will have to invest more into their infrastructure, significantly reducing the cost savings actually seen by us customers.  Economic and job improvements to local areas will also be temporary as fracking is not a permanent process and wells that run dry are then closed down and the infrastructure then moved.  As companies will likely want to move skilled staff with them rather than go through the cost of retraining, it's debatable whether the increase in employment potential is likely to be as high as originally promised.

The uncertainty around the safety aspects is still the main worry for many people and the Government's own Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) themselves have highlighting the uncertainties associated with the impacts of shale gas.  The impact of shale oil is even more uncertain and these are not adequately covered by the safety measures put in place for shale gas.  There are also other environmental factors specific to the UK that need to be taken into account, like the water shortages in the South East which would make fracking in that area unsustainable and the fact that we are a much more densely populated area so any breach in the safety standards could have quite severe consequences.  The recent issues with oil leaks in our oceans has made many question how prepared our oil companies are to deal with a major contamination event, such as waste entering our water supplies, and whether they even have adequately insurance.  

Perhaps the biggest issue with fracking is how it is taking us further away from the actions we need to take to prevent climate change.  Scientists have already calculated that, if we are to avoid two degrees of global warming, we must leave four-fifths of the already known fuels in the ground and yet our Government is now setting us on a path to find and extract more fossil fuels then we know of already.  Based on the evidence coming out of the US this is unlikely to help us meet our targets or help us set in motions the work needed to take us off fossil fuels and move us into more renewable energies.

One thing I think is important to note here is the differences between our Government's behaviour towards onshore fracking and onshore windfarms.  Both would generate an income for local councils and Britain as a whole.  Both would reduce our reliance on imported energy and, it could be argued, windfarms would reduce this reliance for longer.  Both would create tens of thousands of jobs, with jobs remain in local areas for longer at windfarm sites due to their maintenance needs, while fracking moves away once all the fuel has been removed.  And an increase in windfarms will also reduce our electricity and heating costs in the long run.  Yet, while the Government have stated, unequivocally, that they will push forward fracking even if local councils rule against it occurring in their county, local opposition to windfarms have been given the power to block applications.  While fracking companies will be getting tax breaks, they are planning to remove subsidies that windfarm companies receive.  The Government has also promised to provide cash handouts to local people in fracking areas and yet the same incentive is not offered to those living in areas of onshore windfarms.  This is despite onshore windfarms being proven to be a low-cost, low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels.  Of course, I couldn't possible comment on why they may have made this decision.

There are a number of sites you can go to to get more information.  Not surprisingly Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have information and Frack Off allows you to see all the locations in the UK connected to fracking.  But, to get the Government's point of view it's worth looking at their own publications, like their guidance to fracking and their FAQ page.

Project Pan Update #10 and Other Products

Despite it only being a few weeks since my last project pan post I've actually done quite well (and don't worry there are other blog posts in the pipeline - slight hint there).

So, let's start, as always, with the palette.  The pan is much bigger in the white eyeshadow and I'm actually thinking that I'll be able to finish this by the end of the year.  I'm quite glad about this as it is quite a stark colour to be using as a highlighter for me. I've also almost completely cleared the top of the brown eyeshadow and will probably completely clear this in the next couple of days.  After that I'm just going to keep working down from there. I have a good pan on the silver and the one thing I now know is that silver is definitely not a good shade for my eye colour and complexion and won't get this colour again.  As the pan is so large on the silver I'm now going to just concentrate on the pinky/ purple shade and if I can get a pan on that by the end of the year I'll be happy. I've also put back in the dark grey to see if I can get more use out of it in these last 2 months.  None of these products are from cruelty free companies so I'll be happy to be getting rid of them on the new year.

I'm working through the elf purple eyeliner very quickly and I'm aiming to have this finished by the end of November.  It's definitely not a good quality eyeliner and I have to repeatedly go over the same area to get any real colour.  It also doesn't go through the water line very well and the repeated application at each use means that I usually have to sharpen the pencil every two days.  I have usually found elf eyeliners to be quite good so I think this might just be an age thing.  If I do this finish this liner before the end of November I'll start working through my Soap and Glory Smoulder Kohl which is one of my favourite eyeliners, but which I've had for a long time now and should probably use up. Both these companies are cruelty free.

The Lily Lolo eye primer is going along nicely.  I have managed to make quite a large pan which includes the left side of the pan.  I'll be working on the bottom section of the pan over November, but there is still a large amount of product to use and I'm not sure this will be completely finished by the end of December.  Though Lily Lolo is a cruelty free company and I have seen good reviews from people of other products from this company I won't be buying this particular product again - it just doesn't really work with my skin type.

The last product in this project pan is one which I wasn't expecting to make as much progress on as I did and that's my Mac lipstick in Creme Cup. I've been wearing this practically every day and, to make this more wearable for my skin colour, I've been wearing it with my Natural Collection lip liner in Mulberry.  This not only makes it a beautiful tea rose colour, but is also helping me use up the lip liners I have.  Now that I've found the clear, waxing lip liners you can get I'm wanting to use up all my liners that are of a specific colour.  The texture of the Mac lipstick is a nice one, but there are other lipsticks with the same texture and as they are not cruelty free I won't buy their lipsticks again.

The last two products are not part of my project pan but are part of my general attempt to reduce the products I own.  The first is the Harajuku Lovers perfume in Gwen which was part of a Christmas box set a couple of years ago (excuse my reflection in this picture).  This is a lovely coconut scent and I did enjoy using it on a daily basis, but as I'm wanting to go more natural with my perfumes (and I'm not actually sure of their cruelty status) I won't get this specific perfume again.  I'm working through another perfume at the moment, which is the last perfume I actually own, and then I will start buying perfumes that are more naturally based.  I don't think I'll be finished by the end of the year, but I think I'll be close.

The last product is a The Body Shop lotion in Cocoa Butter.  If I'm buying a body moisturizer from The Body Shop I would normally go for a body butter, but I wanted to try this lotion to see if it would work over the summer periods.  It didn't.  Even though my skin is less dry during the summer this still wasn't enough to keep me soft and dry free. You also can't get all the products out of the container without cutting it open.  I did cave at one point and brought a couple more The Body Shop body butters in my favourite, discontinued scent of Smoky Poppy when they were on sale.  I absolutely love this scent and it works well on my skin, but once these are gone I will go back to my very effective plain, old shea butter.

So that's it for this month.  I'll just keep plodding along and hopefully have more to show it the next update.  I did have a moment (a couple of months ago) when I felt a little uninspired as nothing seemed to be moving very quickly, but now that things seem to be moving along again I feel like I have more interest in using these products on a daily basis.

To see my previous project pan updates click below:

• Introduction
• Project Pan Update #1
• Project Pan Update #2
• Project Pan Update #3
• Project Pan Update #4
• Project Pan Update #5
• Project Pan Update #6
• Project Pan Update #7
• Project Pan Update #8
• Project Pan Update #9