UN Green Peacekeepers. Good or bad idea?

In recent months the UN security council has been discussing the controversial introduction of so called ‘Green Peacekeepers”. According to the Huffington Post the UN committee considered forming a new wave of peacekeepers as a security force to help de-escalate environmental conflicts. The special meeting of the UN was part of a request by small island states, whom are most at risk should sea levels rise in the future. The question of whether or not climate change is a ‘security issue’ has also yet to be resolved.

The true cost of CFL’s

Say Goodbye to the 60-Watt Bulb

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.

Safe destinations in the Middle East

The Arab world is in turmoil: uprisings have politicised the sleepiest streets and protests are met with gunfire, bloody crackdowns and outrage. At least, that’s how it feels after the events of the past five months. Yet to lump all the Arab countries together as being in a region no longer safe to visit is inaccurate.

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.

The worst food crisis of the 21st century

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

Households face tough recycling rules or fines

Families and businesses could face penalties for placing food, clothing, metals and wood in the wrong bin under a government plan to ban councils from burying high-value waste in landfill sites.

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.