Green Britain - Some concerns.......

Only 4 days to go to 'Green Britain Day'!

As you will know by now, I am a fan of being green.
To me, being green means living in such a way as to minimise my impact on my environment, to use minimal natural resources, and to try and benefit my environment wherever possible.

This may seem to some like a pretentious grandiose notion - but it isn't really - I'm doing it in my own small way because I believe it is right to do so.

However, I do have serious concerns about the motivations of businesses and organisations when they try to convince us of their green credentials. In most of the press and TV pieces I've seen, their 'green' statistics have been, at best incomplete, and at worst, downright misleading.

Businesses jump onto bandwagons for one reason only - not for altruistic motives, but to make as much money as possible.

Now, I don't have a problem with that, as long as they ARE being green - but how many are?

The so-called green credentials of big businesses and organisations remind me of the on-going food-labelling saga;

There was a time when food companies didn't have to worry about mentioning how much fat or salt their products contained. Then it became an issue and they were forced by government legislation backed by health organisations into stating the full nutritional breakdown in their products, in the hope that this would force them into reducing this or that ingredient, to make the product healthier and to help the public make informed choices about the foods they were eating.
Did the foods become healthier?
No.
Did the food companies properly comply with the legislation?
Yes - not to do so would have hit their profits and reputations.
Did they find ways of making the self-same products seem healthier?
Yes - marketing people, like Government spin doctors, are masters at manipulating the information to produce the response they want.

The same thing is happening with green issues - Nothing much has changed, except the way the information is presented to the public.

Here's a case in point; Wind Farms.....
Each giant windmill in a wind farm has it's own 'carbon footprint', which was created when it was manufactured. The Wind Farm's overall carbon footprint depends on how many of these windmills it has.
Now, the companies that operate these wind farms are very quick to point out the benefits of them, but are less forthcoming when it comes to the ecological cost of manufacturing them. ( These companies make so much money, they're not going to do anything to jeopardise their profits - are they? )
If the overall carbon footprint of making them, is bigger than the carbon footprint they save during their operational life, then they are not ecologically cost-effective.

Let me put it another way; You are told that company 'X' made £100 million in sales last year - Sounds like a good investment? Maybe, maybe not. If their costs were £101 million then suddenly your perception of the company changes. If company 'X' wanted you to invest in them, do you think they'd be open about their costs, unless you forced the issue with them, by doing your own research?

Exactly.

Be careful what you accept as fact.