SprintBio Dejan Levi - Distibutors of environmentally friendly boilers, burners and heat pumps

The current Labour government is very keen on ecotowns as an ideal way of delivering a high volume of zero-carbon housing and satisfying the country’s demand for new homes. However there are some under-publicised points that rarely appear on press releases concerning the current proposals. Here are a few of them:

1. Many of the proposed ecotown sites lie partially on greenbelt land.

The Weston-on-the-Green site in Oxfordshire for example relies on such land for 12% of its total area. This means vast ancient woodlands and a nature reserve, protected for many years, would now be sacrificed to developers, as would be an even greater area of simply green (but not officially greenbelt-labelled) land. Farmland too will suffer; 2,046 acres would be lost at this site alone.

2. 12 of the 15 proposed ecotown sites are in Conservative constituencies (10 of which will be chosen for eventual development under current plans).

This is perhaps inevitable in the countryside, though it could also be argued that the measure has some degree of calculation to it - intended to minimise opposition (it has not really worked in that sense anyway, see point 9).

3. There is enough Brownfield land in the country right now to build roughly 1m new homes at medium density. In addition there are at least 600,000 empty habitable homes in England (according to Gordon Brown), plus, 9% of Commercial property currently lies empty.

In short, to build new homes in such a climate represents a lazy mismanagement of both land and resources. Granted it is more difficult to get brownfield sites converted than it is to uproot a few trees and build on already flat land - but it is also far and away the more prudent and efficient long term plan.

4. Ecotowns are supposed to be zero carbon. Except that they are in essence commuter communities which will inevitabely rely on more and more cars as their inhabitants make long journeys to work each day.

Ecotown press materials claim residents will use only public transport to commute - which must be either a shame-faced attempt at deception, or the view of a truly deluded and under-informed official. If we could instead convert existing brownfield land, most of which is in city centres, we would not only save greenbelt land - but also place workers closer to their places of work, thereby reducing car dependence.

5. After the ecotowns will come more out-of-town supermarkets and in turn more car journeys.

How else would an ecotown population (of between 5,000 and 20,000 people) get supplies? We cannot be foolish enough to think they will all be served by a local baker and butcher (the farmland has been destroyed to build the town remember). In a large ecotown we are looking at 20,000 extra car journeys per week - just for the weekly shop.

6. The architecture of the proposed ecotowns is quite frankly very uninspiring, if not plain drab.

Parkridge Holdings (involved in the Oxforshire proposals) is a fairly typical example. Visit www.parkridge.co.uk and click ‘residential’ to see for yourself.

7. In a recent excellent Guardian article Jonathan Glancey estimated that by converting current Brownfield capacity for housing the 200,000 new homes figure, which is the target of the ecotown initiative, could be not only met but exceeded.

The numbers speak for themselves - in essence we could achieve the goals of increasing housing capacity - and in a zero-carbon manner, without sacrificing any precious greenbelt or farming land. The only obstacle is cost (it is more expensive to convert land than to build on virgin land) - but surely short-term concerns such as this should not trump the long-term considerations on this issue (sustainability is sort of the point isn’t it?).

8. Ministers involved in the issue seem a little uncertain of exactly what they are doing.

Lady Andrews, Undersecretary for Housing, recently responded to a question on the matter saying ‘the five or ten ecotowns which will be built’ - suggesting somewhat of a confused reduction of scope for the plans. Similarly Caroline Flint, Minister for Housing and Development, has on occasion ignored the question of how much of the required land would be on greenbelt sites (http://tinyurl.com/5jxxqg).

9. Opposition to the plans is growing.

The Weston-on-the-Green site for example is being vehemently opposed by the Weston Front - a group led by Anthony Henman (father of tennis player Tim), while numerous other protests have also occurred in Warwickshire over the proposed Long Marston site.

10. Labour has pledged to build 3m new homes in England over the next 12 years. The current crop of ecotowns would contribute only 7% of this figure (200,000).

In terms of meeting our requirements (and Labour fulfilling their pledge), the current ecotown proposals involve sacrificing a lot, to meet only a very small fraction of our needs. We must question if this is an adequate return for what will be lost.

This is not to say that the proposals do not have any merits at all. They would of course increase housing capacity in the UK, and would increase the number of zero-carbon homes on the market (though it is hard to see how, once inhabited, these would then become zero-carbon households with the more than likely car dependence).

At the moment the only group genuinely happy with the plans are the developers set to reap large profits from the project, by being presented with the dream scenario of building on undeveloped countryside land (with no expensive clearing costs).

It is a shame that it is environmentalists who are most opposed to these ecotowns - and developers who are most keen, and also surely a clear indication that the current proposals are inadequate and misguided by quite a considerable measure.

Credit to the government for trying - but now it is time to listen to the very serious concerns of both experts and the public, and come up with another plan.

Dejan Levi

It is time to distinguish fact from fiction once and for all over the climate change issue. A recent Observer poll has shown that many Britons still doubt the causes of climate change, and question the extent of the problem. Roughly 60% of those surveyed believe that there is still disagreement among scientists over whether climate change is happening, while 40% think the extent of the climate change problem has been exaggerated. Despite this nearly two-thirds want the government to do more to tackle the issue.

How has such a degree of doubt arisen? Where is the confusion coming from?

It is certainly not due to legitimate scientific studies or reports. In the last 10 years there has not been a single scientific paper published that denies climate change is happening, man-made, and massively dangerous - excluding of course the ‘work’ of the numerous psuedo-scientists and documentary makers, and other seemingly independent media voices which have all received payments from oil companies or lobby groups.

So if science is so totally and truly clear in its findings (that climate change is an impending man-made disaster in development); how come so much doubt still pervades among the general public?

Well, in the UK there are some 14,000 people working in the PR industry. In essence people harnessing the power of the media to make private companies look better. The influence of big business in politics has never been greater, and the EU for example is recognising that certain lobby group activities need to be scrutinised. To this end the EU Commission has this week announced a forthcoming new register to monitor the activities of various lobby groups, and the involvement of big business in politics.

Such an effort is vital if we are ever to expel the doubt that still exists relating to climate change and its causes. George Monbiot has recently compared the current situation to that of the efforts of Big Tobacco in decades gone by to create doubt and confusion in the public consciousness over what is, scientifically speaking, a relatively black-and-white issue (http://tinyurl.com/42j9es). The profits that can be made from a misinformed public are colossal, and oil lobbyists (as well as motor industry lobbyists, non-renewable energy lobbysists etc etc) exist for this reason alone.

This week James Hanson, one of the world’s leading climate change scientists will call for executives of oil companies to be placed on trial for crimes against humanity and the planet, on account of the misinformation (and its serious consequences) that they have been responsible for deliberately spreading (http://tinyurl.com/4juqq3). He too has highlighted the similarities with Big Tobacco campaigns, emphasising before congress that ‘democracy is not working in the way it should’ as a result of the fact that ‘money talks in Washington’.

The thousands of PR workers, and billions of dollars that comprise their budgets represent a mighty Goliath indeed. Luckily certain mainstream media channels also wield considerable influence, and it is in this time that they have a crucial role to play in providing accurate and trustworthy information to the general public.

Here’s a little indicator of what is going on; the CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, (annual salary: £8.54bn) has publicly said: ‘a lot of climate change policy is still up for debate’. However, his company has recently cut funds to groups which ‘divert attention’ from the need to develop renewable energies due to the negative press (and subsequent financial implications) that these activities have been causing. This very action represents an open admission that such groups are used, and the cynical nature of the whole operation is plainly evident in the doublespeak of its wording.

What is needed now more than ever is a commitment from trusted media sources, and across all relevant information outlets as a whole, to a stalwart defence of facts and clarity. The doubt-casters must be thwarted and only black-and white, precise, and clear reporting can achieve this. It is not easy to remove the obstructions of the deluge of PR material that floods the internet and many public information outlets. However only a thorough and accurate practice can redress the imbalance between scientifically established fact and public misconception that currently is a testament to the success of lobby groups and big businesses campaigning on this issue.

Dejan Levi

A nearly waterless washing machine is to become available in the UK as of next year. The machine, developed by Xeros Ltd, will use small plastic chips, rather than soapy water, to remove stains and dirt from clothes. It will require only 2% of the water and energy used by current machines.

The new technology also threatens to render the tumble dryer obsolete - as clothes will be left fully dry at the end of the wash cycle.

With washing machines responsible for an average 13% of UK household water use, the Xeros machine would make a significant impact on UK water usage. The financial incentive here might be small (as water prices are both stable and relatively low), but the massive energy saving alone (98%) should provide more than enough reason to make the switch.

With the machine’s cost expected to be roughly equivalent to upper-end standard washing machines, there seems little to hold this technology back, assuming the plastic chip cleaning system is as effective as the company claims. As well as lowering bills, it could also save space in the home for those who previously used a tumble dryer (and the effort of hanging washing out for those who didn’t).

In addition there are also the more general benefits of reducing water usage to consider, such as lessening the potentially crippling impact of a water shortage, either here in the UK or abroad.

Such new technology is just one of the many ways to cumulatively bring about a drastic reduction in our consumption of resources - without changing our lives beyond all recognition. With the UN this week releasing a set of guidelines on how to effectively increase the sustainability of our lifestyles, it is a good time to look at other everyday measures also worth considering.

The UN report (released on June 5th; World Environment Day) touches on common points such as driving less and using public transport; but, perhaps more importantly, it outlines the need to ditch unnecessary electronic appliances such as electric toothbrushes and shavers. This might seem like a small, even insignificant, change but not so when considered in terms of its cumulative effect.

Take what is for many a typical pre-work morning routine: wake up, shower, brush teeth, shave, get dressed, put the kettle on for breakfast, eat etc.

Now, at almost every step in this everyday routine, there is the opportunity to reduce waste. For example, ditching the electronic toothbrush and shaver would cut electricity usage. Taking a quicker shower (and avoiding baths altogether) would save massively on both water and electricity use. Using the kettle more efficiently (one of the most energy-demanding appliances in the modern home), by boiling only how much water will be used now, would save more energy than many people realise.

Considering that such savings would be multiplied by at least a few hundred times each year, it quickly becomes apparent that small daily savings, though insignificant out of context, become hugely important when viewed as part of the bigger picture.

And here’s the real point; none of these changes would reduce quality or standards of living - they merely represent the altering of deeply entrenched habits, which here requires near minimal effort. Yet the benefits both to us personally, on a financial level, and to the greater good, from an environmental perspective, can be staggering in the long run.

Dejan Levi

With the media currently dominated by stories related to the the global credit crisis and economic recession, impacting on everything from mortgage rates to the price of basic foodstuffs, we have probably all by now had more than enough exposure to doom-ridden projections and statistics.

However, there is one interesting side effect of all this price-hiking that might not be so bad after all - from an environmental perspective that is. It is no secret that nothing quite motivates us to change our lifestyles as quickly as financial factors. In theory I’m sure there are millions of us in the UK who wish to reduce our carbon footprints. In practice though, work, families, and social lives tend to come higher in our list of priorities than changing light-bulbs, insulating the attic, or organising car-pooling to work.

This state of affairs may not be the case for much longer though if the costs of living continue to soar as they are currently doing…

It seems pretty logical that the rapidly decreasing affordability of the average Western  lifestyle will force us to implement many more ‘green’ changes in the near future, - not necessarily because we suddenly care more, but simply because we can no longer afford not to.

Let’s take the obvious starting point as an example; petrol. We are aware of the impact of our CO2 emissions on the environment, - perhaps understandably though this tends to be trumped when we consider the logistical challenge of getting to work on time, picking kids up, doing the shopping etc. The short term demands of our daily lives tend to take priority over acting on long term global issues.

The question is this: how long can we afford to consider petrol/diesel as a necessity? With diesel currently averaging £1.25 a litre, and some analysts predicting the inevitability of the $200 barrel of oil, some in the UK are already turning to alternative fuel sources, such as home-brew biodiesel. Here’s why:

Home brew bio-diesel costs 15p a litre to produce if you have free access to waste cooking oil. If you are purchasing waste oil (at the average price of 30p a litre) then the bio-diesel is still costing only 45p a litre - nearly 1/3 of the petrol forecourt price for diesel.

Not only this, but it also produces 90% fewer greenhouse emissions AND with new government legislation permitting the produce of up to 2,500 litres annually of home-made bio-diesel for personal use, it is all perfectly legal.

It is no surprise that companies such as Ecotec Resources, which sell equipment for producing the bio-diesel are reporting record demand. Ecotec for example has sold roughly 800 machines in the past year - to taxi firms, haulage companies, restaurants and chip shops.

Other companies such as Envirogroup are collecting, refining, and selling up to 7,500 litres of bio-diesel a week. Meanwhile the borough of Richmond is spending £3.5m to switch its 300 vehicles to recycled oil fuels within the next three years.

This week a new company called E-Fuel Corp unveiled its ‘Microfueller’ product - a portable unit that manufacturers ethanol for fuel purposes, resembling a petrol station pump - and allowing for direct input into a vehicle’s tank.

The unit will retail at a rather pricey $10,000, though with it depending on the price of sugar for its ethanol production, you can be pretty sure of low long term costs. The company’s estimates predict that an average US family, would begin to see a saving on fuel after only two years of using the Microfueller.

Whether this particular enterprise is successful if not really the point though. What is fairly clear is that the rapidly increasing fuel prices are leaving many of us with no option but to seek alternatives. Current prices are such that traditional fuels are no longer considered a necessity in today’s economic climate. This is going to prove massively beneficial (once the numbers of people turning to such fuels becomes really significant) in reducing CO2 emissions from road vehicles. It might be a shame that the bottom line must be the significant motivating factor - but ultimately anything which contributes to reduced CO2 levels will surely be more than welcomed.

Dejan Levi