All appeared to be OK, there are notes on the back of the packet about their work with farmers and nature-friendly methods.  However, when I opened the box I was hugely disappointed to see that there was a bag inside the cardboard (unlike my usual brand) – do porridge oats really need to havetwo layers of packaging – they are not very likely to go off?  What was even more disappointing though was that they did not respond to my email asking why they felt the need to add in the extraneous bag.  This is not to say that I will not buy their product again, because now I have done some digging I have discovered that unlike Jordans, my usual brand does not state the origin of their oats.  (I have therefore sent an email asking for their oaty origin, but usually, if they are not shouting about it they are not sourcing from the UK.)

My search for packaging information has also resulted in the discovery of a symbol on the cereal box that I had never noticed before – the orange and white arrows in the bottom right corner of the box shown in the picture above.  Whilst this is obviously not a recycling symbol, it does look as though it is related – one could maybe assume that the packaging was made from recycled materials.  Unfortunately this is not the case as a quick search around the Jordans website revealed.  The intertwined arrows merely show that the Company is complying with European regulations.  Companies over a certain size (turnover) or who buy above a threshold of packaging must ‘recover’ that packaging.  In practice this means that the Company pays a certain amount into a scheme which then recovers / recycles a certain proportion of packaging material.  So, in reality the intertwined arrows just mean that Jordans are not breaking the law on packaging waste regulations – not that they are doing anything special to help the environment.

Whilst Jordans are not the only company to put this symbol on their cartons I think that it is certainly misleading – I didn’t know what the symbol meant and I am responsible for ensuring that our company pays a sufficient amount into one of these schemes!

This raised a number of questions in my mind.  Firstly, who holds the key to the use of packaging?  Is it government – I don’t think so.  It is consumers, and, as we only buy what is available, then, surely retailers hold the trump card – reduce the packaging or we won’t stock your product.  Waitrose have recently moved to biodegradeable and recycled packaging, Amazon publicly stated it was going to reduce its packaging, so, surely there is good publicity to be had if these retailers move to reduce packaging rather than asking the government to make it happen.

Secondly, where do the Government’s priorities lie?  They have recently announced a review of the UK waste policy, details of the remit are yet to be announced, but they are concentrating on increasing recycling rates – because they look good, and have scrapped ideas about a pay as you throw tax, because that would be unpopular.  After all, who benefits economically from reducing waste – no one makes anything in this country, but recycling, well, that creates good headlines and, jobs in this country.  Or am I getting more cynical in my old age?

The obvious answer is to reduce packaging as it uses precious resources, including water, but the initiative should come from retailers and consumers, not from government.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing litter – a huge bugbear of mine which I think we need to tackle, not just ignore.

So, for starters, these are both flat fish, and, as such, live along the sea bed.  This means that they are usually caught by beam trawling.  This is a particularly destructive form of fishing for numerous reasons.  Beam trawling involves dragging a large beam across the ocean floor behind which is pulled a large net.  Typically trawlers pull one net on each side of the boat.  Some also have ‘tickler chains’ in front which stir up the ocean floor so more creatures are caught up in the following net.  As you can imagine this is a pretty indiscriminate form of fishing and the bycatch including immature fish, crabs, coral etc is huge (up to 70% by weight).

However, there is an alternative, Danish Seine fishing, which is less damaging to the ocean floor and uses less fuel than beam trawling (hurrah).  This uses a conical shaped net to catch the fish; although there is some ocean floor damage and some bycatch it is much less than the alternatives.  Gillnets are also a better option, these catch the fish in the mesh of the net, obviously, the mesh has to be of the correct size so that small fish can swim through.

So, onto the sustainability of the fish themselves.  Plaice – current advice is to avoid fish from south west Ireland, west of Ireland, western channel and Celtic sea fisheries, whereas those of the  Irish sea are thought to be sustainable.  However, there is conflicting advice on North Sea stocks, Greenpeace stating that beam trawling in this area has caught too many small fish and stocks are unsustainable whereas the Marine Conservation Society currently states that North Sea stocks are ‘healthy and fished sustainably’ – no wonder eating fish causes such a moral dilemma!

Sole – advice at the moment is that, again, beam trawling has had a massive impact on stocks, and the North Sea and Irish Sea stocks are depleted, so best avoided.  Choose fish caught with more sustainable methods, avoid small fish and avoid fresh fish caught between April and June.  Both Greenpeace and the MCS claim that Celtic sea stocks are sustainable (if, like myself you are not wise in the ways of seas, the Celtic Sea is that part of the Atlantic Ocean off the south coast of Ireland and the south-west coast of England and Wales).

So, where to buy the holy fish grail?  At the moment I cannot fully answer that but hope to have a more in-depth review of all of the supermarkets in the coming months.  Having looked at the websites of the ‘better’ supermarkets, Waitrose and M&S, it appears that Waitrose use only Danish Seine methods and are no longer using smaller fish, although M&S are ‘leading the drive to reduce the use of … beam trawls’ (does that mean they do use them or not?) – it would appear that Waitrose are ahead of them there.

Waitrose fish is from the North East Atlantic, and M&S is from the North Sea, English Channel and around Iceland.  Are these sustainable fisheries – the packaging claims that they are, and the North East Atlantic and Iceland are not mentioned in good or bad terms on the MCS or Greenpeace websites, the English Channel and North Sea being more questionable.   A quick Google search reveals the North Atlantic area to include parts of the Atlantic west of Ireland, areas north east of Iceland and a pocket in the Norwegian Sea.

So, my conclusion, plaice and sole are in trouble, mainly due to unsustainable fishing methods, and, those caught around the British shoreline seem particularly at risk.  The information about flatfish from other areas is not so clear, but this may be because they are of less immediate concern.  As ever, it appears the fishing methods are crucial and any fish caught by beam trawling, and, I would go so far as to say any fishmonger who sells fish caught using beam trawlers, should be avoided.  I feel a little more at ease buying my lemon sole or plaice from Waitrose, but I will probably be doing so less often than previously (perhaps once a month), M&S still don’t get my vote as they seem to be behind Waitrose both on fishing methods and sustainable fisheries.

Let’s deal with the easy bit first – unless you know where you local chippy is sourcing its fish from then, I am afraid, that the answer is a definite no.  I believe that there are fish and chip shops that do advertise the origin of their fish – but none of these are in Daventry.  If you can’t live without your take away, then I would suggest that haddock is a better choice than cod, but your conscience will still find you.

And so to the sustainability of cod and haddock.  Stocks of both have been overfished and in many areas continue to be so.  According to Greenpeace, most cod fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic are in poor condition, except for Iceland and the Barents Sea where there is better management.  All stocks are however, ‘overfished or at risk of being unsustainably harvested’.  Haddock has had a similar history, but there is a little more hope.  Northwest Atlantic stocks were overfished in US waters until the middle of the 1990s, but since then there has been some recovery.  Scientists now believe that some North Sea stocks can be fished sustainably, whilst West of Ireland and Icelandic fisheries need better management.  They are also recommending the closure of the fisheries of the West of Scotland.  A further complication arises from the fact that cod are also caught when fishing for haddock.

So, it would seem that maybe you can eat an occasional piece of cod or haddock with a clear conscience, but, as ever, it comes with a caveat.  It also matters how your fish is caught.  In common with lots of fish that live near the sea bed, a lot of cod and haddock is caught by bottom trawling.  Not only does trawling result in a large bycatch (typically 30% of the catch by weight is thrown back dead or dying – these are mammals, juvenile fish, turtles and sharks) but it also damages the sea bed.  Instead Greenpeace are recommending buying only line-caught fish – this is a more selective fishing method without the associated bycatch and the degradation of the seabed.

According to Greenpeace Atlantic cod and haddock should both be avoided unless the cod is from Waitrose or Marks and Spencer or is line caught or the haddock is Icelandic line caught.  But wait a minute, didn’t the scientists say that the Icelandic haddock fisheries need better management – they certainly did, and that all stocks are at risk from overfishing?  Does this help – I am not sure.  What makes Waitrose and M&S fish so special?  A look at Waitrose’s website and my local branch’s fish counter shows that the haddock and cod is indeed Icelandic and line caught, and this includes their prepacked breaded range.  M&S’s website leaves me with more questions than answers though.  Although M&S now source their cod and haddock from Iceland, their website states that the fish is air-freighted in – how is that sustainable?  Their cod is line caught, but, apparently the haddock is trawled or line-caught, and smaller haddock are caught from the west coast of Scotland.  This seems to go against the Greenpeace guidelines – maybe they just need to update their website?  I hope so – as it makes me start to question the validity of Greenpeace’s advice.

My take on cod and haddock?  Both are under pressure, fishing methods need to be changed to reduce the amount taken from the sea, and, we have to pay a little more, eat and waste a lot less and hopefully fish stocks may recover.   Will I eat cod and haddock again?  Probably, in the future, eventually, but I don’t need to eat fish more than every other month and I will insist on it being line caught.  In the meantime I will stick to my pole and line caught, Waitrose own brand, tinned tuna.

The fuel mix is published for the main UK suppliers on electricityinfo.org, and it also tells you the amount of carbon dioxide emitted when generating each unit of electricity in kilograms of carbon dioxide per kiloWatt-hour (kgCO₂/kWh).

We were supplied by Powergen (E.ON), who at 0.575 kgCO₂/kWh have slid to the bottom of the table since I started looking at my options. I notice that the proportion of renewable energy used has dwindled to almost nothing in the latest figures.

My baseline was originally 0.377 kgCO₂/kWh, and the goal of this exercise was to reduce this further. There are significantly better performing suppliers out there and we decided that a modest increase in the bill was acceptable.

My guiding principles.

There seem to be three main approaches used by suppliers when trying to provide a greener tariff.

1. Buying carbon offsetting and environmental investment funds.
2. Mixing traditional and renewable power generation to dilute the overall impact.
3. Using power entirely from renewable sources: principally wind, hydro and solar.

Now the first option seems pointless to me. I’m perfectly capable of offsetting my own carbon emissions, I decided to do just that this year, and that way I can choose exactly how my offset money is spent.

The point of this exercise is to avoid offsetting and channel my money into fostering the development of renewable energy. Either of the last two options would help to achieve this goal, but clearly the latter is the most effective by excluding fossil fuels entirely.

Finally, I’m a big fan of a diverse approach to just about everything. In my experience these solutions tend to be far more robust: it might be that one type of renewable technology becomes dominant in the future, but at this point there isn’t enough operational experience to tell which one.

Assessing my options.

Most of the mainstream suppliers offer green energy tariffs, but these appear to heavily depend upon the carbon offsetting route to gain these green credentials: failed at the first hurdle.

One company taking the middle route is Ecotricity who still use a diverse range of power generation methods, including renewable and more traditional sources. As you now know, I like diversity, but unfortunately Ecotricity are entirely focused on investment in wind turbines for their renewable power.

Wind power is the focus of renewable attention in the UK, but it’s not the only game in town. I’m not convinced that I want to help fund wind power technology to the deficit of all other renewable sources. I don’t believe wind power is the answer many seem to think it is.

What remains are the top performing green alternatives, both relatively small companies: Good Energy and Green Energy. Both support a range of renewable generation technologies, both have price plans that are entirely based on renewable sources, both are committed to supporting smaller power producers, and both cost about the same.

So why did I settle on Good Energy? Two reasons really: I’d read favourable reviews of the switching process, and more importantly, their close involvement with the supply of grid attached domestic solar systems and the purchase of the subsequent excess electricity.

I suspect that this use of British roof-tops may have valuable contributions to make to meeting our power demand and energy security needs in the future, and it’s something I’m considering for another day.

So, what are the different types of tuna and which ones do we commonly eat (fortunately Greenpeace has a helpful guide).  There are 23 types of tuna, and, according to Greenpeace, 22 of them are vulnerable.  The main market for the aforementioned Bluefin is Japan which takes 90% of the catch.  In the UK we consume some Yellowfin Tuna (sold as steaks at the fresh fish counters and in some tins – to be avoided if it is not caught by sustainable methods) along with Albercore and Skipjack (also in tins).  By far the most common is Skipjack which is also the tuna most likely to be found in ready meals and pre-prepared sandwiches.  The UK is the second biggest consumer of tinned tuna (after the US) and so I will concentrate on this source.

Following on from the publicity, there have been declarations of never eating tuna again, no more tuna sandwiches, but is this entirely necessary.  According to the Ecologist, it probably is, according to Greenpeace, on whose survey the Ecologist article was largely based, tinned tuna need not disappear from our collective menu.

So, just what is the problem with tinned tuna from a sustainability point of view (ignoring the potential problem of mercury in fish)?  A lot of tuna is caught in large nets or by lines up to 100km long.  We all remember the adverse publicity that came from pictures of dolphins caught in the net and the advent of ‘dolphin-friendly’ labels on tins of tuna.  However, dolphins are not the only bycatch of the tuna industry, other marine species that are caught include several species of turtle, sharks, rays and young tuna.  These together constitute about 10% of the catch with some fishing methods, which is where most of the problem with eating Skipjack tuna lies.  Much of the tuna fish destined for the tinned market is caught using large nets (purse seines) with floats on to encourage the fish to gather together which is where this bycatch is at its worst.

What can we, as consumers, do about this?  There are more sustainable methods of fishing, such as pole and line, which target the adult fish and therefore avoid much of the bycatch.  These also tend to be smaller outfits that are more likely to support local projects and which will look after local fish stocks, being unable to move to other areas once a resource has been used up.  Therefore, always look at the label to see what kind of tuna it is – if it is yellowfin, is there a skipjack alternative (these are more numerous than yellowfin)?

Next look at the method of fishing.  Waitrose, have recently introduced an own label tinned tuna which is clearly marked as being caught by pole and line methods.  If they don’t state on the tin, assume the worst – with the recent publicity it is in their interests to tell you if it is a sustainable method.  John West and Princes are the two largest brands in the UK, they were bottom in the recent Greenpeace survey and do not seem too interested in changing their ways. I checked John West, in most cases they do not state either the type of tuna or the method of catching it.  On the contrary, Sainsbury’s who came top in the original survey have gone 100% own brand  pole and line and introduced a branded pole and line range.  M&S are also moving to 100% pole and line for their own brands and are extending it to the tuna used in their sandwiches, salads and ready meals.  The other supermarkets seem a little less responsive, maybe they will catch up.

I have recently written to Waitrose, my supermarket of choice (as I only have Tesco and Aldi as local alternatives) asking them to stop stocking other brands which do not conform to their own standards (ie John West), I doubt that they will do this, but, if sales of this brand were to drop relative to their own, more ethically produced brand, then maybe they will think again.

So, I don’t have to stop buying my tinned tuna, I just have to be a little discerning and boycott the larger brands in the hope that declining public opinion and sales will give them a reason to look at their social responsibility.

Today is Blog Action Day, the theme this year is Climate Change, influenced no doubt by the upcoming Copenhagen summit.  These days it is hard to go through an entire day without finding a reference to Climate Change or Energy Saving, the Energy Saving Trust even has an annoying advert on the television.  I am not sure how much all of the reminders and the small snippets that appear on the news will make a difference.  I think there are two major problems; firstly people get bored with hearing about how we are all doomed, there is often the feeling that there are enough things to think about in life as it is, why worry about climate change when there is nothing we can do about it anyway?  It is everyone else that is causing the problem, besides, the worst will happen elsewhere in the world, and probably not in my lifetime.

Then we come to the second problem: what can you do about it that will make a difference?  There is so much information out there, some of it conflicting, that it can be difficult to know where to start and who to believe, no matter which level you are at in terms of ‘green-ness’ it can be confusing.  It is probably easier to not bother yet, better wait until more information is out there, until the ‘experts’ make their minds up.

The problem is, time is ticking and we all have a responsibility, why waste resources when it is just as easy not to, why waste money just because it is too much effort to turn a light out when leaving a room?  If you can make the changes at home then take these good and virtuous habits to work – your example can make a difference, I have seen it happen.

So what practical changes can you make?  How long have you got?  Everything you use, whether it is energy, water, fuel, food, resources such as paper, they are all, to some extent, finite, we can’t replace them all at the same rate that we are using them, and the planet cannot absorb all of our activities as they currently stand.

Firstly, energy.  Turn lights off, don’t leave things on standby, only leave your mobile etc plugged in for as long as it takes to charge (you’d be amazed at how many people leave them in overnight – they don’t stop drawing power because the battery is fully charged), turn your computer and monitor off when you leave work.  One of the best things you can do is to buy an energy monitor – they will help you find where energy is being wasted.  Want to think bigger – try switching energy supplier to one that uses renewables – they may not be the complete answer to our problem at the moment, but the more that is invested the bigger the improvements that will be made in the technology.

Water – old fact, but, 9 litres of water for every flush if you don’t have a dual flush toilet, put a bottle of water in the cistern to reduce the level down, save water and money at the same time.  Fit a water butt to your drainpipe to use for garden watering – they may look a bit unsightly, but, lets face it, so do satellite dishes, but most of us find somewhere to put one.  Don’t leave a sprinkler on your garden for hours – grass is hardy stuff, that’s why it is used for lawns, it doesn’t need constant watering and nobody else notices how green your lawn is!

Fuel – School run- why are there so many people dropping their children off?  Can’t they walk, I worry more about people being run over by someone on the school run than about other dangers facing children today.  How about just walking to work once a week for a change.  I would suggest public transport, but in Daventry, unless you are willing to set off 24 hours in advance it is a little pointless.  Planes – I love planes, I think they are a fantastic feat of engineering – but they are used too much and deliver their pollution to just the wrong place.  I can’t go on one again, maybe you can, but just one return transatlantic trip would double our household carbon footprint for the year (in terms of gas, electricity and transport) – I don’t think it is worth it.

Food – one of my major worries.  Why buy food only to throw it away?  There is a lot of talk in the press about food security and can Britain feed itself.  We probably can’t, we probably shouldn’t, our national income increased when we started trading with the world; there are some things that can be done better elsewhere.  But there are things we are good at growing, and, if we stopped throwing so much away we could grow all the staples that we need.  After all, the Romans didn’t invade us all those years ago because they were fed up of living somewhere dry and sunny!

Resources – whether it is paper in the office, packaging on our food, why is there so much that we are throwing away?  Admittedly the levels of recycling have grown massively, and Daventry District Council should be applauded for its household recycling (although, if you are a business, tough, you have to sort that out yourself), but wouldn’t it be better to just use less.  Does your broccoli really need a bag to make sure it gets home safely, does your Easter Egg need so much cardboard and plastic that your child could live in it?  I don’t think so.

So, what has this to do with Baby Steps?  If we all make a small change, one step at a time it will make a difference.  Then, if we make the next step, and the next step who knows what kind of change we can make?  There are so many resources out there if you need help.  If, as recently reported, the onset of power shortages has been put back by 3 -5 years because of the recession, an unintentional change in our habits, what can we do if we really try?

I long considered tactics such as carbon offsetting and buying my electricity from a supplier that uses renewable sources, whilst piping it through the same old wires, to be cheating: you’re not really reducing anything.

A recent review of our Carbon Account, and the fact that 30% of our carbon emission is due to electricity, prompted me to re-examine my gut rejection.

In the end we all have to realise that zero environmental impact is a fantasy, nothing is without side-effects. Eventually we reach a point where we can’t reduce anymore, and I’m at that point with our electricity demand.

It occurred to me that just as carefully choosing the manner of carbon offsetting can still yield environmentally helpful results, the same is true for greening your electricity tariff.

Markets respond to the demands of users, and the higher the demand for renewables (wind, solar, hydro and biomass) based electricity, the more incentive generators have to invest in these technologies. Switching to a green tariff isn’t about making my emissions profile look better, it’s about using my influence on the energy market.

Being comfortable with the principle is one thing, but which of the many suppliers to choose? That’ll have to wait for next time…

• Electricity.
• Natural gas.
• Transport.
• Water.

I’ve been tracking three of these for sometime, as previously discussed using the Carbon Account, but as a starting point, I’ve had to extract water data from our bills.

I’m hoping to personally read the water meter weekly in the future, as I do the other utilities, but it’s dependent on being able to see my submerged meter… Anglian Water, I’m looking at you.

Energy not CO₂.

I prefer to work with energy units (kWh), rather than the now popular kgCO₂. Energy is more definitive whilst the mixture of energy supply sources is shifting; some energy is ‘green’, and some is not, but it’s not something I can control.

To make this review process meaningful, I’m going to need an idea of my current energy profile: where I’m spending the energy I consume. That way I can make sound decisions about were to cut back.

Converting meter readings into energy.

Converting from meter units to energy requires a little maths in the case of natural gas, transport, and water. Here’s a brief explanation of how I went about it armed with a little technical data and the information from my bills.

Natural Gas.

The conversion for the gas supply was provided on my bill:

Energy consumed (kWh) = (2.83 x 39.5679 x 1.02264) / (3.6 x 100) x volume of gas used (ft³)

Most of these numbers are volume and energy conversion constants, but the 39.5679 figure is the calorific value of the natural gas: its energy content.

Transport.

In our case, transport can be defined almost exclusively as a 35 mpg car, so the job here is to convert mileage into a mass of fuel burned, and then into the chemical energy released.

I’ve take data from the seventh edition of Technical Data on Fuel, which given a density of 0.75 kg/litre, and a calorific value of 44000 kJ/kg for petrol:

Fuel consumed (kg) = ( miles / mpg ) x 4.54609 x 0.75

Energy consumed (kWh) = ( fuel consumed x 44000 ) / 3600

If you work this out for our car, each mile travelled uses 1.191 kWh of energy.

Water.

I’ve used data from issue 4 of the BRE Water Centre newsletter:

• Energy used in supply = 0.468 kWh/m³
• Energy used in treatment = 0.437 kWh/m³

It states that about 90% of all mains water supply is returned for treatment, which allowed me to estimate a total energy consumption associated with water supply of 0.861 kWh/m³.

These data are from 1998/99, and as such a little old, but I’ve check the results against more recent Government information, and it appears to be accurate enough.

The results.

The data collected over the last year result in the following average energy mix profile.

The only thing that surprised me was the insignificance of the energy contribution from our water supply. It would appear that the environmental impact is almost entirely related to the availability of water in a changing climate.

As for reductions… we use Gas for central heating, water heating and some of the cooking, and it looks like the best target for improvement.

One of my next jobs is painting the woodwork, and that means oil based paints; I’ve tried the water based alternative, and both finish and durability were very poor.

These brushes need solvents to clean them, and the resulting waste is very hard to dispose of properly. It should never go down the drain, so I tried contacting the Council, and after some discussion, I now bottle the liquid waste up, label it, and leave it near the oil recycling tank at the local recycle centre. After that…

I started wondering whether it would cause less impact to buy new brushes each time, but they’d still need manufacturing, transport, and disposal: the waste would still be there.

I wonder if I can convince Clare that we should stop decorating on environmental grounds? Probably not, so may be I should start to look for alternatives.