Empties #4

Its been almost two months now and I have a load of empties.  As there's such a large number I'm going to go through them pretty quickly.  Its  mainly made up of my smaller travel size or tester products that had been sitting around. (Sorry this was meant to be posted on Saturday, but I wasn't able to get this finished in time).

The first item is one that I haven't actually been able to use up completely, but which has got too gluppy to actually be able to use anmore.  This is the Avon Nails Experts Tough Enough nail care product and I've had it a very long time, at least 4 years, so its no suprise that its no longer useable.  Its no longer available to buy and the bottle itself has no information about what is actually in this product (it was probably on the box that the threw away ages ago).  I didn't notice any toughening up of my nails and it did funny things to any nail varnish I put ontop of it, even if I left it to dry first for a few hours.  Not that it really matter as I have no choice in buying it again, but even if I could I think I'm going to go for something more natural.

The next item I used up completely, and that's the Blistex Intensive Moisturiser for lips.  I got this as my lips got really dry and cracked this winter, and its was the only intensive moisturiser for lips I could find at the time.  It felt really nice to put on, though did leave my lips very white, and after did leave my lips feeling very soft.  The only information on the tube is that its made in the UK, go Blistex, so I'm guessing the rest of the information was on the box.  I know that the blurb says that it contains Shea Butter, Allantoin, and Camphor, but the long list of ingredients you get on the box also shows bee wax, petroleum jelly,and lanolin alcohol (which is known to bring some people out in spots).  Despite some of the natural products, the product list isn't great so I think I'm going to try and find a lip product with fewer, more natural ingredients.  Blistex also test their products on animals, so that's a no for me.

I got the Halo Eye Make-up Remover Pads because I caught in the rain one day and most of my mascara was down my face.  I don't normally like products like this but didn't feel too bad as some of the profits were going to support Cancer Research UK.  That said, I didn't really like the product itself.  While I was happy using it to remove the product running down my face, the pads were too rough for me to be happy using them on my eyes.  I also didn't feel that there was enough moisture in the pads to allow me to hold the product against my eye, to break up the make-up, before wiping it off.  It definitely didn't remove waterproof mascara either, like it said, without me really scrubbing.  This with the fact that it contans alcohol (not something I want around my eyes) and parabens means that I won't buy this item again, and they test on animals.

The travel sized Batiste dry shampoo was also a product that I brought in a rush because my hair was looking really greasy at a point where I needed to look presentable.  The scent, Blush, is lovely and it did work, but its really not a product  want to get into the habit of using as I really don't like using aerosols and I didn't really like the way it made my hair feel.  I really like my hair to feel more 'natural'.  Usually I know when my hair's going to be greasy etc and I think I'll just have to deal with a greasy day when it comes in a different way (that said I still have another can of dry shampoo to get through), so this isn't going to be a re-buy.  On the animal testing front, as far as I know they don't test on animals, but its been difficult to find information about this.

I brought the Boots Sun, Swim & Gym Leave-in Conditioner (it now has new packaging) when I was going to the gym to save time in the shower as I went to the gym before work.  Its good that it has UV filters in it, but I didn't notice it doing a lot when it came to detangling my hair.  It was definitely better than using no conditioner at all, but definitely not as good as the conditioner I now use in the shower.  As I no longer use the gym to get my exercise I really don't need this and really just used it as an extra step in my hair care to use it up.  However, even if I did still need this type of conditioner I wouldn't use this product again as a quick look at the ingredients shows a number of parabens and alcholols, along with sodum hydroxide (I'm sorry, what!) a known skin and eye irritant.  I'm not sure if the new formula still has this, but I'll just stick to normal conditioning from now on.  On a plus, non of the Boots own range are tested on animals.

The Simple Moisturing Facial Wash is also something I brought because I needed a face wash and only had time to quickly pop into a supermarket to grab one.  The plus is that it down't contain any animal ingredients nor does Simple test its products on animals.  However, it is owned by Unilever who, while they are developing alternatives to animal testing, they still do animal testing.  The negative side is that, despite their claims and awards, I find that this face wash does dry my skin, especially around the nose area where I feel a tighteningof the skin.  I think its because it contains sulphates (which you find in many shampoos to help with the lathering) and parabens.  My skin doesn't like either of these products so I won't be buying this again.

My next product is Natures Aid Distilled Witch Hazel.  I love witch hazel as a toner and it soothes any problems I'm having with my skin, especially redness.  Natures Aid do not test their products on animals and this product is vegetarian and vegan friendly, so thumbs up all round.  The only problem I have with this is the alcohol, which can be quite drying on the skin, but I do use a very deep moisturising night cream so its not such a problem.  At the moment I'm working my way through a massive 1l bottle of witch hazel, but I would buy this again.

The Boots Natural Collection Wild Strawberry Face Mask is a product I got in my stocking last Christmas.  As I said before, all Boots products are non-animal tested.  This product does smell lovely (it even has 'This is not a food' written in big letters on the back), it did make my skin feel soft afterwards, and I managed to get three uses out of this one pack.  However, my skin feels no softer than when I use the Soap and Glory mask I wrote about before in my Empties #3 post, and does contain a number of parabens which I think is why a felt a slightly uncomfortable tingling feeling when I had it on.  I won't buy this again, but if you're not bothered about parabens this is a nce face mask.  You just have to be aware that strawberry masks are known to be irritants to a number of people, so just be careful.

Bio-oil is a weirdly controversial product due to the fact that it contains mineral oil.  While I don't believe the hype about the mineral oils getting into your system and causing cancer, I do think that getting used to using something that could be running out isn't necessarily a good idea.  The reason I got it is because I have a number of scars and colour variation on my face and was hoping that this would help reduce them.  I didn't really notice a huge difference in the scars, but my skin was definitely softer than usual and the skin tone was more even.  Bio-oil doesn't test on animals and a quick look through the ingredients doesn't fill me with dread either.  Despite that, I'm not going to rebuy this.  Firstly, as I said before, I'm trying to reduce the number of products that I use with mineral oils in it.  Secondly, I'm wanting to use simplier products on my face from now on and will be looking for very basic plant oil products to replace it.

I've decided to put these two together as I got them together as a gift set and used them up at the same time.  They are the Sanctury Spar Body Scrub and Sanctury Spar Body Wash.  These smell gorgeous and felt really nice to use.  They are also not tested on animals and paraben free, which should mean that these products were something I would want to use all the time.  The only problem with these is that they do contain sulphate and I noticed that my skin dried quickly when I used these than when I used my sulphate free products.  Its a shame, because I love these in every other way.

The Softening Coconut Body Butter is by from Nature, a company I can find no information about on the world wide web, so I can't say anything about whether or not these products are tested on animals. As I said in m Empties #3 about the body washes, this seems to smell more of banana to me (yuck!) than coconut soI really didn't enjoy using it.  I really didn't feel that it was a great moisturiser and, though it felt alright straight after I used it, I found that my skin got dry quicker than when I've used other moisturiser (possibly due to the fact that it contains sodium hydroxide.

I somehow managed to loose the cap to this deodorant, the Sure Woman Cotton Ultra Dry, so this dried up a lot quicker than it normally would.  I've never found that this product has kept me dry, despite its name, but it does keep me smelling fresh, which is what I actually want from my deodorants.  However, like most deodorants, it contains aluminum (contected to cancer and Alzheimer's) and a number of different alcohols (which is probably why my underarms get very dry and soar).  Sure is also owned by Unilever and so there's the issues of animal testing talked about above.  I am looking for alternative, but I can never find more 'natural' products that work.

I've finally got onto the make-up that I'm trying to use up (still a lot I need to go through though :-( ).  First is the Revlon ColorBurst Lipstick in Crimson.  I love this colour and I have to admit that Revlon lipsticks are my favourite lipsticks.  The colours are gorgeous, the pigmentation is great, and the colour stay on for a really long time (which is great if you love reds).  Of course, there's now an issue with Revlon on whether or not is tests on animals.  While it states that it keeps to the EU legislation of not testing its products on animals, it has started selling in China where animal testing is required for most of its cosmetics.  Because of this, and despite the fact that I love it for its lipsticks, I will stop buying Revlon products until they can show that no animals testing is happening.  This means that I won't buy this product again and am working my way through my other Revlon products at the moment.

My last item is another Revlon product (as I said, I'm using these up) and is the Revlon ColorStay Lipliner in Red.  As the lipstick above, I love the colour and the staying power of this product, but due to the animals testing issue I won't be buying it again.

So that's it (this was really long!).  I should really do these more often so I have less to get through, but its done for now and I've gotten through most of my smaller items now so there should be a longer time between items.

I'm sorry, what? - You're a vegetarian!?!

I get this a lot when people finally find out that I'm a vegetarian.  I'm not entirely sure what people are expecting when they meet a vegetarian, possibly pale, emaciated, and wearing flowing clothes, non of which is me, but they are always suprised that I'm a non-meat eater.  I don't tend to shout about being a vegetarian, after all, its a personal choice and I don't want to force it on anyone else, but I thought I'd write a quick blog about why I decided to make this choice and how I've been finding it.

My main reason for becoming a vegetarian is environmental.  The production of meat produces a higher larger amount of greenhouse gases than the production of vegeables, in fact getting your protein from lamb, beef, pork and farmed salmon produces 13 times as much greenhouse gases as sourcing your protein from plants.  In fact, Worldwatch Institute has calculated that around 15 ot 20% of all methane emissions (a particularly bad greenhouse gas, far worse that carbon dioxide when it comes to heating up the planet) comes from livestock.  Partly due to the fact that many of the animals we eat are ruminents.  You also have to take into account the carbon dioxide produced from transporting feed to our domestic animals, heating the shelters some livestock are kept in, and transportation of livestock from farm to slaughter house and then from slaughter house to store.  There's also the small factor that all animal products have to be stored in a fridge (or freezer) where as most plant based products can just be kept in a cool place.   A lot more energy efficient.

Deforestation is also another environmental issue connected to the production of meats, which, of course, means we have less trees to absorb carbon dioxide and help prevent issues like flash floods etc.  Obviously deforestation isn't quite a hugh issue in Britain seeing as we've already chopped down most of our trees for agriculture already (doh!), but in other countries forests are still being lost to make way for livestock.  In fact, 70% of the Amazon rainforest loss is attributed to livestock production, and when you think about how important that forest is to the survival of the planet and in the fight against climate change it is a bit of a worry.

And now we come to water.  We tend to forget, living in a very wet, very rainy country, how important water actually is.  But, we're already having issues with droughts in Britain and the hose bans in the south are just a start of what could be happening our way if things carry on.  If you want to help save water than reducing meat consumption is definitely a way forward, especially as its been calculated that 70% of all the freshwater removed from our lakes and waterways are for farming.  When looking at how much water is consumed for each product agriculture produces we can see that it takes around 15,000 l of water to produce just 1 kg of beef, but only 1,300 l of water to produce the same amout of wheat.  That's 10 times as much water, and the values are pretty much the same for most plant based products.  This water could be put to much better use, especially when we look at the loss of some of our most important ecosystems, such as bogs and wetlands, which are hugh greenhouse gas sinks.  There's also the problem with water pollution.  Agriculture as a whole can be seriously damaging for our water ways, but by removing meat from your diet you are removing the need to grow feed crop and are, therefore, reducing the amount of tanneries, pesticides and fertilizers leeching into the water.  Other compounds that enter the water ways from the livestock themselves are manure, antibiotics, and hormones which are regularly given to many of the animals being cared for.  Algae blooms, which suck the rivers dry of all oxygen, are just only of the many problems that these run offs produce, and, as recent events have shown, a constant 'wash' of antibiotics leads to resistance...something we should never take lightly.

My final environmental issue is that amount of land used to livestock farming, and I'm not just talking about the land in which the livestock live on, I'm talking about the land used to grow their feed.  A report published by United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization showed that 30% of earth's entire surface is used to produce livestock, with 33% of arable land being used to produce the feed.  Just think of what that land could be used for instead, the number of important habitats (to us as well as wildlife) that could be allowed to return to that area of land.  And, just think about what that extra food could be used for instead... 925 million hungry people anyone (worldhunger.org)?!?

Animal welfare is also something that's very important to me.  I don't like killing anything! hen it comes to things in my home I'm more of a capture and release type of person, or I just let them stay....after all, more spiders less flies, and if I do kill something I feel unbelieveabl guilty.  I really don't feel we have the right to just use other living things the whatever way we want. Nor do I believe that we are, somehow, 'better' than them.  We all had to come on the say evolutionary path and, with so many extinctions along the way, its amazing that any of the species around today are here.  The only difference is that our evolutionary path led to us having bigger brains and to their's to them being able to get a large amount of nutrience out of plants we'd find difficult to digest, let alone live on completely. And, while there are a number of farmers who take very good care of their livestock, the treatment of many animals destined for our plate is just not acceptable.  The crammed, in-door living conditions that all animals in intensive farming are kept can not only have serious consequence to the mental health of the animals, but also increase the chance of the animals suffering from disease and injury.  The reduction in the number of slaughter houses in the UK means that many of the animals now have to travel larger distances in containers not designed to allow them to lye down and rest.  And then you have the slaughter itself.  Britain has some of the most strigent regulations in the world when it comes to how we kill our animals, but we can't guarentee that the smell of blood and raw flesh doesn't put fear into the animals being led into the abattoir (if we can smell it they definitely can) nor can we guarentee that it is completely painless.  for me, its just not worth it.

My final reason for becoming a vegetarian is my health.  Personally, I suffer from PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) which, unfortunately, increases my changes of having issues with cholestrol and type 2 diabetes, and all the research shows that vegetarians are less likely to suffer from these issues than meat eaters.  Obviously, vegetarians find it very easy to get their 5 a day and the variety of different foods you are more likely to consume as a vegetarian (don't get me wrong, you can be a very unhealthy vegetarian if you wanted to be) is exactly what is recommended by the medical profession.  In fact, here's a list of just some of the things you are less likely to suffer from as a veggie:

• obesity
• coronary heart disease
• high blood pressure
• some diet related disease (due to the high fibre)
• diverticular disease (where 'pouches' occur along the colon and become inflamed)
• appendicitis
• gallstones

And I haven't been able to find anything you're more likely to suffer from as a vegetarian, apart from increased acid erosion on teeth from the extra veg.

So, that's why I'm a vegetarian (I actually wasn't expecting this to be quite so long), and I found it a very easy choice to make and a lifestyle to move into.  I really haven't missed meat at all and I was never a fan of bacon.  Its not a choice I would expect everyone to make, but even slight changes in the amount of meat you eat, the types of meat you eat, and where the meat has come from can have a positive impact on the environment, animal welfare and your own health......and it really isn't that difficult.

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.