Anyone flying out to India for their holidays in the near future could be staying in hotel which are as focussed upon water conservation as they are on guest comfort according to the Bangkok Post:-

Delegates attending the inaugural session on water conservation at the annual caucus of overseas Indians here were surprised to find that the chief guest was Indian Tourism Minister Subodh Kant Sahai.

That was no mistake. Although the minister did make the perfunctory tourism promotion statements, he also stressed that India’s new policy would be equally intended to ensure that tourists do not squander the country’s precious water resources.

He urged the Indian diaspora gathered here for the annual event known as the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (PBD) to build hotels that would focus on water conservation in equal measure as guest comfort.

Under India’s 12th five-year plan, tourism has been declared a poverty-alleviating sector that can contribute significantly to the economic progress of rural areas and create jobs, especially for women. The country is targeting another five million visitors over the next few years, which it hopes will create 25 million jobs.

But tourists, and hotels, are major water-guzzlers in a country whose large population of 1.21 billion and rapid economic development is also putting huge pressure on scarce water resources.

India relies heavily on the Monsoon for its water supplies, but, as with all things weather related, the amount of rainfall and its location varies from year to year, making it more difficult to plan ahead.

Massive efforts are under way nationwide to conserve, recycle and store water through such measures as rainwater harvesting and storage.

One of the speakers at the session said hotels could even seriously consider providing buckets in the rooms for those guests who are truly serious about saving water.

He said phenemonal amounts of water gets wasted by guests leaving the water faucets on while shaving or brushing their teeth or standing for minutes on end in the shower. Giving them the option of filling up water-buckets and using only as much as they need could save millions of litres a year.

I’m not quite sure how being told to fill up a water bucket and use it as necessary and taking shorter showers will go down with certain sections of tourists who may think that part of going on holiday is to relax and take full advantage of the resources. Hopefully they will be able to come up with a message that will make people aware of the need to conserve water in a tourist friendly way.

The grant was conceived by the Labour government to help subsidise the cost of electric cars, which can cost a third more than their fossil-burning rivals. Getting more electric cars on our roads is one of the ways the government intends to reduce UK carbon levels to the agreed limit for 2020. When the Conservative/LibDem coalition took over they agreed to maintain the subsidy, which wasn’t due to start until January 2011, but only for a year, after which it was to be reviewed.

Under the scheme, anyone looking to purchase one of several pre-approved models of electric car could apply for a grant of £5,000 towards the cost of the car.

Why is the subsidy considered a failure?

The main reason that the electric car grant has been considered a failure is that the uptake of electric cars has been very small, the very thing the subsidy was meant to help boost. In quarter one of 2011 465 electric cars were registered through the scheme, with 215 in Q2, and only 106 in Q3. Those numbers are well below what was expected, but still far higher than the numbers of electric cars bought in 2010.

However, the slow uptake does not necessarily mean the grant has been a failure. Electric cars are expensive – all those on the approved list for the grant would cost more than £20,000, so even with the full grant a buyer must have at least £15,000 to purchase a car. Not many people have that amount of money to spend on a car, and in such unsure economic times they are less likely to want to pay out that much, especially on a relatively new technology that has received its fair share of bad press.

What bad press?

Many people will at first be put off by the upfront cost, but this has to be considered with the fact that electric cars are road tax free, could have cheaper car insurance, and are also cheaper to fuel.

Then there is the limited range of the electric motor when compared with a petrol or diesel engine, along with the substantially longer refuelling time – even at a rare fast-charge point a Nissan Leaf takes 30 minutes for a full charge. A hybrid engine does not suffer this problem, but they are not included in the subsidy unless they can be plugged in.

And then there is the British weather. The range of an electric motor drops when you use the electrics for other functions in the car, such as wind screen wipers, lights, air conditioning, etc. All of which could be used a lot in Britain, especially in the winter months.

Finally there is the battery (or batteries) itself: After only a few years the capacity of the battery drops considerably by such an extent that it has to be replaced, and the cost a new one is four figures at the moment. The green credentials of the cars have also been called into question because of all the chemicals and processing that has to go into building the battery. Plus, when you plug them in the
electricity is being provided by a power plant that is getting its energy from where?

Will the subsidy continue?

The government is due to review the plug-in car grant in January so we won’t officially know until then, but there are plenty of people who want it to continue, including environmental groups and those with a vested interest in the electric vehicle industry. We’ll just have to wait and see.

Is there anything else that can be done to improve the uptake of electric cars?

Addressing the negative points already listed will help. Most electric cars now look like ‘normal’ ones, and plenty handle and drive like their fossil-burning brethren as well, so those issues are, arguably,
taken care of.

All new technology is expensive when it first comes out – just think of the cost of DVD players and DVD’s now compared to when they first became available. As manufacturers get better at building the cars and start producing them in greater numbers, the cost will come down. Plus, there are more and more car makers entering the electric field (pun intended) so competition could drive the cost down too.

Providing more fast-recharge points will help, but let’s not forget that recharge stations will be needed everywhere, and that means in the middle of the countryside as well as in the middle of urban areas, otherwise the B-roads of Britain will be littered with Nissan Leafs and Peugeot iOns having run out of juice.

But perhaps the biggest issue is the battery, because it is this that dictates the power, range and recharge time of the car. Improving the battery can help but there are other ways of storing energy in a car, such as super-capacitors which store energy in an electric field rather than electrochemically.

Whatever the answer, it’s clear that electric cars are here to stay. 2011 may not have been the noisy revolution that many had expected, but that’s the thing about electric cars: they’re quiet, so you can’t hear them sneaking up on you.

Etihad staff planting trees as part of the 'Greener Together Campaign'

Staff at Etihad Airways‘  UAE headquarters planted around 200 trees as a part of the airline’s ‘Greener Together’ campaign, helping to celebrate the UAE’s 40th national day.

The campaign was in collaboration with the Abu Dhabi Municipality and also supported by the Abu Dhabi police.

Etihad staff along with Abu Dhabi Police and Hasan Saleh Al Hammadi, Etihad’s Senior Vice President Chief Executive Affairs and Corporate Security

Khaled Al Al Mehairbi, Etihad’s Senior Vice President Government Affairs said “Etihad is committed to preserving the environment and this event was a good opportunity to get our staff directly engaged in the local community and environment.”

This is just one of several events that have been held to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the unification of the seven states, WheelsofLux, a Dubai supercar spotter, captured footage of the Ferrari parade.

Commissioned by the industry body, British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association (BVRLA) and conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), the new study found that the average CO2 emissions were 12 per cent lower in rental cars than the average for the UK car fleet.

What’s more rental cars were also found to be safer, newer and better maintained than the average private owned car as well as more likely to be fitted with the latest safety technology.

Because they are used more often than the average privately-owned car, rental vehicles are also more cost efficient and can help reduce the parking congestion seen in urban areas too.

The article goes on to suggest that with the rising cost of motoring, having a business lease car or rental car may be a cheaper option than owning your own vehicle. Norman Baker, Minister for Transport also said:-

“For too long the rented car has seemed like a poor relation to its private counterpart. Yet this report from the vehicle rental industry shows that, in environmental terms, rental cars often represent the cheaper, more efficient and less carbon intensive option.

“What’s more they have real potential to encourage the take-up of new low-carbon vehicle technologies. The Government wants people to travel in more sustainable ways, choosing the low-carbon alternatives that suit them best – whether that means working from home, working more flexibly or sharing a car. As this report demonstrates, it’s high time renting a car was added to that menu of options.”

This could be good news for the mobile businessman as it gives them extra added weight to their case for an audi business package. Not only will it look impressive to a client, but is proven to be more economical and safer to boot.

Use a Refillable Packaging Solution

Your product packaging doesn’t have to get thrown away. Take it back to the milkman model with reusable packaging, like Ronnybrook Dairy. Customers return used milk bottles to the store from which they purchased and claim a reimbursement. Ronnybrook then picks up the empty bottles and refills them, reducing the total number of bottles they need to produce.

Use recycled packaging.

It’s pretty well known that you can package your products in recyclable cardboard and plastic—over 50% of corrugated cartons are recycled in the US. Many don’t know, though, that using non-recyclable adhesives on recyclable packaging can hinder their ability to be reused. Make sure you opt for 100% biodegradable tape or adhesive to close your packaging.

Use eco labels:

Eco labels are one of the easiest ways to make your product more environmentally friendly. An important practice to keep in mind when printing product labels is paper conservation. Many label suppliers offer adhesive papers comprised of up to 100% post-consumer waste. Yet, some companies have begun to cut trees out of the equation altogether by employing paper made entirely of stone. These stone papers have half the carbon footprint of recycled paper because each ton of stone paper saves 20 trees, 7,480 gallons of water, and 236 pounds of chemical emissions (californiagreensolutions.com). Stone paper is water resistant and tear-proof. Many environmentally conscious product manufacturers have used it for their eco labels.

When making product labels, you also want to keep in mind that some inks are more earth-friendly than others. Derived from soy bean oil, Soy ink has become a common alternative to petroleum-based inks because they release only 1/5^th the volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere (soya.be). Not only does soy ink spread 15% further, but because of its natural clarity, brighter colors can be derived from less pigment. This lowers not only the cost, but the amount of ink needed for each label job. Since its debut in 1987, almost 25% of commercial printers – and over 95% of daily newspapers—have moved to soy ink.

Reduce Packaging:

You can eliminate packaging altogether and print your label literally on the product. Screen printing allows you to use ink designed to adhere directly to glass. This is the type of printing you see on perfume and wine bottles. A more practical way to reduce the environmental impact of a given product, however, is to avoid excessive packaging. Ribbons, bows, and overly elaborate packaging often simply generate more waste. Although some products are packaged for aesthetic effect, learning how to incorporate a more sensible use of material does not always take away from the visual presentation of the product. Furthermore, labels should be printed to relate the most vital information about the product. They do not need to be enormous to convey this information, nor do they require harmful inks. Many colors and special label effects can be also achieved by using environmentally friendly inks.

Tablets, smartphones and mobile devices will increasingly become the primary tools used to access online banking services, and young adults are the most likely to carry their bank in their pockets — but a growing number of other age groups are likely to join them in the very near future.

Those are among the findings of Intuit Financial Services Fourth Annual Financial Management Survey, a study fielded in October 2011 involving 1,000 participants across the United States.

Where the US starts, others follow, so I guess the UK would show a similar trend if surveyed. This comes as a boost to the banks looking to increase the number of people utilising internet banking.

The article continues:-

Two out of every five participants in the study said they own a smartphone, but only one in five said they use it to check balances, transactions, make payments, etc. 17% said they plan to try it in 2012.

Gen-Y is a different story. They live — and bank — on mobile devices. 70% of Gen-Y respondents said they own a smartphone, and half use it for banking compared to only 23% of the general population. The research revealed that 18-32 year olds are three times more likely to adopt mobile banking than Gen-X, baby boomers and seniors.

More than half of Gen-Y uses more than one device per week to access their online banking information, while nearly everyone else sticks with just one. Another Intuit study encompassing more than 50,000 mobile banking customers showed that people tend to interact, on average, 45% more often with their financial institutions when using online and mobile solutions in combination, as opposed to online alone.

This trend has also led to people who are online more to have more bank accounts than people who do not use digital devices. The main reason for people not using mobile banking services, apart from not owning a device capable of utilising this technology, is that they simply prefer to use their laptop/ desktop pc.

Despite the increasing use of online banking services, 45% of people still  do not use online services at the moment, which is surprising, but the number is bound to decrease as time goes on.

The airline is also experiencing delays to its order of thirty five Boeing 787 Dreamliners. It is planning to upgrade fifteen of its fleet to Trent 700 engines, which will reduce its carbon footprint by over 10,000 tonnes per year and save more than one million gallons of fuel. Chief Operations Officer Richard Hill said in an email statement:

“This means less fuel burn which at current fuel prices should equate to fuel savings of approximately $170,000 per aircraft equivalent to $2.6m per annum for the retrofitted A330 fleet,”

Fuel costs continue to rise and airlines are also facing fines if they exceed EU carbon emissions, and this announcement by Etihad could be an indication that they are taking steps to minimise these effects on their business. They are on track to be in profit next year, despite the current financial situation.

A spokesperson for the local council suggested: “Bath and North East Somerset Council has obtained the very best expert advice on this matter and there is little to suggest that any thought has been given to the potential for damage to the deep water sources that supply the springs in Bath. Given the fact the hot springs are a crucial part of the tourist attraction that sustains thousands of jobs in the city, the Council must stand-up against these drilling proposals in the strongest possible terms”

The baths themselves have been an integral part of the town since their construction in 60-70AD. During the Roman occupation of Britain, the baths were built-up over a period of 300 years and may have originally been commissioned by the Emperor Claudius. In 1591 Queen Elizabeth I charged the town with preserving the natural hot springs; the royal charter has now been passed on to the Bath and North East Somerset Council.

The centre of the dispute revolves around a process known as ‘fracking’ – a technique used to investigate underground sources of methane gas, which involves drilling a bore hole and using either explosives or pumping water into the ground to obtain relevant data. Local planning permission must first be approved before the DECC will consent to further tests and drilling.

In recent months the UK government announced that it would go ahead and invest heavily in a new wave of nuclear power stations. As part of the coalitions’ UK energy roadmap, the government stated that it had confirmed a list of eight sites around the country which are deemed suitable for the construction of new power plants. The government and UK energy suppliers have suggested that the majority of the sites would be operational by 2025.

In a statement, RWE the corporate owner of npower, one of the UK’s leading electricty and gas suppliers, said: “As part of these ambitions, a joint venture between RWE and E.ON UK – called Horizon Nuclear Power – has secured land at Wylfa, on Anglesey, and Oldbury-on-Severn, in Gloucestershire, which was sold for nuclear development by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). Our objective through – the joint venture – is to deliver around 6GW of new nuclear build, with the first station coming online at around the end of the next decade.”

The recent events in France and Japan have caused concern over the building of new power plants, but in reality the debate over nuclear power has been waged for many years and the issue is not an easy one to untangle, as there are many ethical and political concerns involved. There are many advantages to using nuclear power, but there are also serious disadvantages to be considered. It is important to know the entire story and gather as much information as possible before making a decision, as it is a very complicated subject.

Here are the major arguments for and against nuclear power:

Advantages of Nuclear Power

Here are some the advantages of nuclear power that are argued by those who are in support of establishing nuclear power plants in the UK:

• Nuclear power produces almost no greenhouse gas emissions, making it very easy on the environment.

• The nuclear power plants can be situated almost everywhere, unlike other resources such as oil.

• The technology to build and run these plants is already available.

• A single nuclear power plant can generate a huge amount of electrical energy which can be used all throughout the UK.

• Nuclear power has the possibility for long term production because new reactors can be made when the old reactors wear down and need to be replaced. Oil reserves and other fossil fuels will not be replaceable in this way.

• An aircraft carrier running on nuclear fuel can circle the earth for 30 years without having to refuel. Compare this to a diesel fueled carrier which can only travel for 3000 miles before having to refuel.

Disadvantages of Nuclear Power

Here are some of the dangers of nuclear power that those who are opposed to the UK going nuclear state in their arguments

• Nuclear power generates a dangerous form of radiation, which can cause illness and even death in those who are infected with it.

• If a nuclear power plant experienced a spill, it would be very expensive and dangerous to clean up afterwards.

• A nuclear meltdown, such as the one recently witnessed at Fukushima Power Plant after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, could possibly release an enormous amount of radiation into the atmosphere.

• Nuclear power plants produce a waste by-product which is very toxic to humans, and nuclear waste dumps have been known to explode without warning.

• Nuclear reactors also product plutonium which can be used to create incredibly destructive nuclear weapons.

• Nuclear power uses the natural resource of Uranium, which is estimated to only last for the next 3-6 decades.

• Nuclear power stations are very expensive to build and to safely dismantle afterwards.

Now that you have heard both sides of the story, what do you think? What is your opinion on whether the UK should go nuclear or not?

Now most of you probably have social lives and things to get on with, so you may not be aware that as of September the 1st, the production and commercial distribution of 60-Watt light-bulbs throughout the EU will cease – Astonishing news, I know!

The idea of a ban was first bandied around during the early 90’s, but legislation regarding energy efficiency and the transformation to using CFL’s only became EU policy in 2007/2008. Since then a step-by-step process starting with 100-Watt bulbs and frosted bulbs has been enacted by the EU, with the final step of the plan being the removal of the common 60-Watt bulb. The idea of the scheme was to drive energy efficiency and help households reduce their annual gas and electricity bills.

However, in recent years a number of prominent scientists and environmentalists have raised concerns over whether CFL’s are actually more energy efficient compared to 60-Watt bulbs. The straightforward analysis of electricity consumption would tend to suggest yes; studies by the UK electricity and gas giant npower indicate that one CFL could end up saving the average household up to £100 over the life of a bulb, but recent studies conducted in Denmark suggest that the carbon footprint of a CFL is much, much higher than ordinary light-bulbs.

What are the real cost of CFL’s?

According to the International Association for Energy-Efficient Lighting it takes 1.8Kwh of electricity to assemble a CFL, compared to just 0.11Kwh to create a normal bulb. In addition to this CFL bulbs are heavier and more dangerous to handle, increasing costs to packaging and shipping. CFL’s also pose additional environmental hazards, as each bulb contains sources of mercury which can accumulate in water sources and food chains after the bulb’s disposal.

The environmental factors surrounding the construction of light-bulbs is even more distressing when you consider that most CFL’s and LED’s now contain precious rare-earths which can only be found in remote locations. According to trade statistics, China controls 97% of the world’s rare-earth market, many of which are used to create modern lighting. In a recent report printed by The Times, medical inspectors discovered that “in Jinzhou, in central China, 121 out of 123 employees had excessive mercury levels” and “35% of workers (in a fluorescent light-bulb factory) suffered mercury poisoning, and industrial discharge containing the toxin went straight into the water supply.”

With such a high cost in both human and environmental factors the question of whether or not CFL’s are more energy efficient, compared to alternatives, must now be asked by governments of the developing world. Thorough investigation into the full cost of CFL’s must now be conducted, otherwise we risk doing more harm to the environment than we intended. To ensure the modern world’s quest for carbon emission reductions, it now appears that we have jumped straight down the barrel of a gun, and as always, our good intentions can often create perilous and long reaching side-effects.

Certainly, there are no-go areas, such as Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. But what about Egypt, Jordan and Morocco?

Those with a vested interest, including UK tour operators, insist that Egypt is as safe as it ever was, just with fewer crowds around its treasures, and the same goes for the markets of Morocco.

And, while we shouldn’t just take their word for it, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), which issues travel safety information country by country, has no significant restrictions for tourists going to Egypt, Morocco or Jordan

Here’s a guide to where’s safe in the Middle East.

Egypt

In dramatic scenes watched across the world, mass demonstrations here saw the president, Hosni Mubarak, step down after 30 years in power. In 2009, 1.35m Brits visited Egypt; now, although there are no FO restrictions for the tourist areas, the number of visitors has fallen sharply. Classic Egypt has held up better than the beaches, in part due to the uniqueness of the Nile and the pyramids, but you’ll find shorter queues at tourist sites and some great deals for both charter packages to the Red Sea resorts and flights to Egypt’s capital Cairo.

Jordan

The 49-year-old King Abdullah II is the head of Jordan’s constitutional monarchy and is widely popular. Protests have generally been small and peaceful, but there was a death on March 25 when government loyalists attacked a weekly reform vigil. There are no FO restrictions, however, and returning holidaymakers have described the situation as normal. Tourist numbers are buoyant, thanks in part to thrice-weekly EasyJet flights and price-cutting by hoteliers. Etihad continue to operate services to Jordan with daily non-stop flights to Amman from Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Sydney with plans to increase service from other worldwide destinations.

Morocco

King Mohammed VI succeeded his father in 1999, but it seems less likely that Morocco will go the way of Tunisia, as the young king is generally popular and the country is freer than most of the Maghreb. There were demonstrations on February 20, some in the new part of Marrakesh, and again a month later when it was felt that the king had reneged on promises of constitutional reform. But Prince Charles and Camilla visited on April 4; and, despite the bombing of a cafe in Marrakesh on April 28, there are no FO restrictions for travellers flying to Morocco — the incident was attributed to an Al-Qaeda splinter group, rather than a groundswell of anti-tourist feeling.

Image via Wikipedia

Almost one in three people in the Turkana region in Kenya are malnourished (more than twice the emergency level!) and with the drought in Africa things won’t be getting better soon. East Africa including Ethiopia and Somalia are in what they’re calling the worst drought in 20 years. In Somalia where in addition to the drought – the increasing conflict, has left almost half the population on the country in need of aid. Two rainy seasons in a row have failed and its leaving the countrys in dire need of food and water. Kenya declared a national disaster on May 30th after claiming to have a surplus of grain. What food is available is all having its prices inflated dramatically, for instance the price of maise in Mandera (northern Kenya) has in under a year increased by 57%.
Problems such as the drought have the obvious effects of starving people and potentially deaths. Over archingly, even when things have returned to normal, farmers have gone without having a proper harvest to make a living from, farm animals, cattle, goats and other animals could have died, aid group Oxfam have said that 1.5 million cattle, goats and sheep have already died in countries such as Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya.

“This is the worst food crisis of the 21st century and we are seriously concerned that large numbers of lives could soon be lost,” said Jane Cocking, Oxfam’s humanitarian director

For those who want to make donations that will support Oxfam’s important work to help those affected by the east africa drought you can do so here

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said that it would publish detailed plans next year for banning wood from landfill sites. All wood will have to be separated and recycled into new products or sent to be burnt in incinerators that generate energy from waste.

Defra also pledged yesterday to review the case for a landfill ban on metals, textiles and all types of biodegradable waste, including kitchen scraps and garden waste.

The decision to consult on landfill bans for certain types of waste is a U-turn by ministers, who last year rejected similar proposals by the previous Government on the grounds that they were too onerous and were not needed to meet recycling targets.

Defra’s waste review, published yesterday, did not say how the landfill ban would be enforced. Ministers are expected to leave it up to councils to decide how to comply. Some could opt to remove the banned items from black bags but this would be far more expensive than introducing new local rules requiring households to put them in a recycling bin.