Subscribe below to recieve updates direct to your inbox
- or -
It''s crucial to recognise the limite of the programme essentialy consisting on forming farmers.famers know how to increase theirs cacoa productions.the question how would th production profite to them given that the price ils always low.i think another chain should ne brought to th me.The transformation. Transforming cacoa at place will bring more to farmers than thousand of formation that only profit to professionnals...
Anyone else find it ironic that they make this appeal citing "security of supply" when the UK has just gone 55 hours without using any coal for Power Generation demonstrating that our reliance on "King Coal" is waning? I also know the location of this proposed extraction site and it would damage a beautiful part of Northumberland - so why don''t we keep the coal in the ground for when/if we really need it?
Hi Stephe8dn has 995698
While this is a step in the right direction, does this action/commitment include the lids (etc) or just the mug? Beyond this, as they seem to state, the better practice will be to remove single use takeaway cups completely from the use chain.
It is fantastic to see positive recycling stories making the national press, consumers need to know not only that they can recycle paper cups but how. Many coffee shops now have instore recycling, with Starbucks offering to recycle any brand of paper cups, and if you arrive home with your paper cups there are over 300 bringbanks around the country, many in the councils recycling centres, and for the lucky few there is even kerb side collections.
What sustainable solutions are being put in place for the management of the additional hydrocarbon and glycol run off into the wetlands the expansion of Heathrow will create. Are sustainable solutions being implemented " proactively" to reduce the creation of contamination or "reactively" to deal with the additional contamination that will be result of larger and busier facility in the future.
Do these businesses measure the failure or success through employee engagement metrics in the activity or through the measurement of the objectives / targets of the activity itself?
As Arthur Dally might have said "All nice little earners", no doubt. Any activity has its cost, and those who foot the bill. As always, the end consumer. Ah me! Richard Phillips
Education is the key to reducing this problem. Especially amongst the younger generations to make them think twice about how they dispose of their waste. Plastic per se isn''t the problem but litter is. Then we need to improve the waste management processes in poorer countries so that waste doesn''t just get dumped to end up in streams and rivers and eventually the sea. The Yellow River and the Ganges/Bhamrhaputra deposit the vast majority of plastic waste into the oceans. Stopping this tidal wave of waste at source will have a massive impact on the oceans
What a shame this firm''s products are among the least flavoured in their class! Any measures to cut energy inputs must be good, but why not put the money saved into putting more hops into the brews?
Following on about the Thermodynamic Hot Water System I mentioned. Well we took the plunge and got it installed. It''s been garbage and frankly has left me with a sour taste about the whole domestic "renewables" industry. Talk about snake oil. I''m never going to trust any sales person from any aspect of the renewables industry ever again. The biggest load of garbage, hype and baloney ever.
It''s not the water source, but the difference in durability for single use vs reusable bottles. Single use bottles degrade faster and therefore are more likely to have plastic leach into the water if reused.
I love that Pret is making so many clear actions towards sustainability, but why do they still offer only plastic teaspoons and put milk in a single-use espresso cup? It''d be more symbolic, in my opinion, for their stores to phase out the use of these items for eat-in customers at the very least before implementing a reusable bottle scheme that some customers may be priced out of.
I think the sex hormone argument may be overstated - why should refilling a bottle with tap water result in more plasticisers leaching into the water than when it is filled at source? A reused bottle is unlikely to have (tap) water in it for more than a few hours; a bottle of water bought from a convenience store may have had the water in contact with the plastic for several months.
A bit steep at 20 although it will make a difference.
Single use "plastic bottles" may release plastic into the water which can interfere with sex hormones. (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/why-not-re-use-plastic-water-danger-dirty-bacteria-bottles-sex-hormones-toilet-a7809696.html). It would be interesting to see a correlation with single use plastic bottle uptake with the reported decrease in fertility rates in the western world. How has supply in glass bottles / cans changed over to plastic bottles during this time period?
My current water bottle is --- a Pret single use carbonated water bottle, reused multiple times with tap water. I''m not sure why more people don''t do this - carbonated water bottles in particular last a long time; I sometimes use non-UK bottles to make it obvious that they are not sold. Many bottles have a "do not reuse" warning - but I have never understood why a single-use bottle should be inherently less safe trhan a multiple use bottle, such as those sold to cyclists.
The 10 in the 4th para of the comment above is, of course GBP10 but the pound sign was stripped off!
Hi Caroline, I want to pick up on one point in what is otherwise a great demonstration of commitment to sustainability... I am assuming that your claim to procure 100% Renewable Energy is achieved by buying "ordinary" energy which have REGOs attached (Renewable Energy Guarantees of Origin), rather than by paying the actual cost of the generation (ROCS/FITS/CFDs) which are borne by all electricity consumers. If this is the case, then the aspiration for the procurement of 100% renewable to "contribute to the 2 oC warming target" could be misplaced - in fact it could actually undermine action on climate change and open up Landsec to possible criticisms, for reasons I want to explain here. One way of thinking about these REGOs is as follows. It is as if my neighbour made a charity contribution of 10 to a cause and I then "bought" the rights to claim this donation exclusively for myself from the charity concerned for just a few pence and published this good deed in my annual report as if it was mine. The fact is that REGOs are not an indication that renewable electricity has been made possible by an organisation - they are merely indications that a given amount of renewable electricity has been *_delivered_* to a user. The "good deed" of creating that renewable electricity in the first place was done by all electricity consumers users who paid the "green levies" on their bills. REGOS, as you know, cost between zero and a few pence per MW - nothing like the cost of creating new renewable generation capacity. I have seen no evidence that they do anything to expand the market despite claims by proponents to the contrary. European REGOS are dominated by very low cost certificates from Scandinavian countries who have large hydro generation and this is one reason that they have been banned in Germany. Furthermore, claiming emissions reductions by acquiring REGOs is incompatible with "PAS 2050:2011 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services (2011)", and so I would urge Landsec to use the "location method" of the GHG Protocol rather than the flawed "market method" which allows organisations to claim these reductions as if they are responsible for them. This issue with the reporting standard is because the reduction in emissions in generation is recorded in a decreased average grid factor for all UK energy users (who after all paid for this) which invalidates the same emissions reductions being claimed again by individual organisations (see 22.214.171.124 of the Standard). Claiming these reductions as one''s own using the market method is quite simply double-counting and misleading (despite the Protocol allowing this). Why is this important? Another way to think of REGOS is as permits to pollute - they enable the buyers to sidestep their responsibility to reduce emission. Claims of 100% renewable electricity use have potentially a negative effect on the real objective of reducing absolute CO2 emissions - they enable organisations to give the impression that they - through their own actions - have dramatically lowered their own emissions and so it takes the pressure off concerted efforts on efficiency such as implementing ISO 50001, which takes real effort. The practical test is what effect REGOs and statements of 100% renewable energy use have on progress in addressing climate change? I would say REGOS and the whole RE100 movement represent a negative influence as they a) add nothing to new renewable energy generation (at least I have seen no peer-reviewed evidence of this) and b) give the illusion that an organisation is addressing climate change thereby reducing the pressure on them to take responsibility for their emissions. I was at a recent summit here in Manchester where Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester stated that at present rates we will "spend" our carbon budget to meet 2oC warming in just 7 years. There is a real need for urgency in our response. Clearly because of these issues, there is also a reputational risk if an organisation were ever seen to be "gaming" the system, which is why I have always advised my clients to steer well clear from "easy" renewable energy claims and instead focus on making real and deep cuts to emissions in their own operations. On a similar note, I would also urge caution on "science-based" targets (a meaningless term which implies that no other targets have science behind them). I am assuming that the 80% you quote is the goal for the UK economy as a whole - much of which will have nothing to do with Landsec, but will be a product of the wider decarbonisation of electricity generation, transport, land-use, dematerialisation of goods and services, and so forth. Indeed over half the 80% is likely to be achieved by other organisations decarbonisation of your supplies - not something that Landsec (or any other property company) can or should claim for itself (unless you wish to be open to accusations of being "free riders"). This concept of only taking credit for what you have actually influenced is called "additionality" amongst sustainability practitioners and while not in the public parlance it is nevertheless important for folks who want to establish themselves as leaders to be aware of this test of claims. A much more relevant "scientific" target is the Committee on Climate Change''s sectoral target for the UK commercial property sector. If you achieve (or, indeed, exceed) these targets then you are truly making your contribution to the overall goal of 80% across the UK economy. I appreciate the desire to take a leadership position on Climate Change, which is to be applauded. Other initiatives such as the EP100 and placing solar panels on your buildings will have a real impact on the only measure that counts - absolute CO2 emissions. My observations, made in a personal capacity, are not offered as criticisms but as a perspective on what I believe leadership in this complex area requires, borne out of some experience but without a claim to know all the answers! So that you may calibrate my comments, you may be interested to know that I have over 25 year''s experience leading large climate change teams in several major UK consultancies, I am a Fellow of the Energy Institute, a Chartered Energy Manager and am passionate about helping organisations to recognise the risks around climate change and getting them to respond effectively. I have recently written a comprehensive book "Energy and Resource Efficiency without the tears - the complete guide to delivering value and sustaining change in organisations", available free of charge as a PDF at www.sustainsuccess.co.uk. All the best with you efforts, I would be delighted to engage further with you on these topics should you wish, and to be corrected/challenged on any of the points above. Niall Enright BA, MA (Cantab), FEI, CEM
I have noticed that the plastic window in the brown paper bags that Waitrose sell bread in has disappeared. I used to rip it out before recycling. Perhaps it is just a local thing.
So-called Carbon Capture and "Storage" (and LEAK) CCS (or CCS-L as it should be called) is a fossil fuel industry scam that cannot reliably store carbon dioxide gas without it leaking sooner or later. Any "climate change plan" is doomed for which CCS-L is vital for it to work, as the Scottish government freely admits its plan is. "The Scottish Government is continuing to support the development of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a vital technology to meet our long-term emissions reductions targets." - Statement by the Scottish Government Back to reality. So because CCS-L doesn''t work, won''t ever work then we can easily deduce that the Scottish government WILL NOT EVER "meet their long-term emissions reductions targets", not with that plan that they just published. Any CCS-L dependent climate change plan is a house of cards. Luckily, if Scotland wants and needs a credible climate change plan then here is mine, which I have published under this title "Scotland Electricity Generation my plan for 2020" Scottish Scientist Independent Scientific Adviser for Scotland https://scottishscientist.wordpress.com/ * Wind, storage and back-up system designer * Double Tidal Lagoon Baseload Scheme * Off-Shore Electricity from Wind, Solar and Hydrogen Power * World''s biggest-ever pumped-storage hydro-scheme, for Scotland? * Modelling of wind and pumped-storage power * Scotland Electricity Generation my plan for 2020 * South America GREAT for Renewable Energy
Why on earth has been EMC cement been actively ignored by the European cement industry for the last 25 years. EMC cement - OPC (Ordinary Portland Cement) finely inter-ground with sand or puzzoulanes with up to 50% OPC reduction (and hence CO2 reduction). Bridges built in Norway 20 years ago, one plant operating in Texas, USA. emccement.com
May be a bold move - but the sub title could also be "Waitrose to remove disposable customers from their stores"