Abre en Maó Ses Illes Markets, la primera cadena menorquina de supermercados de bajo coste (De :Diario Menorca)

 

La primera cadena menorquina de supermercados de bajo coste abre sus puertas este lunes en el número 39 de la calle Borja Moll de Maó.

Menorca cuenta desde esta semana con una nueva oferta en el sector de los supermercados. Ses Illes Markets, la primera cadena menorquina de supermercados de bajo coste, abre sus puertas este lunes en el número 39 de la calle Borja Moll de Maó. Su objetivo es posicionarse como un referente entre los supermercados de bajo coste de la isla aportando un elemento diferencial: el producto local de Menorca.

Ofrecer los precios más bajos del mercado sin que se resienta la calidad es la premisa bajo la que opera esta nueva cadena de supermercados. Desde los costes de energía, pasando por los alquileres, la productividad de sus trabajadores o nuevos formatos publicitarios, todos los procesos que intervienen en la distribución y logística de la empresa se analizan de manera exhaustiva para poder ajustar los precios al máximo sin descuidar la calidad del producto. En su apuesta por los bajos precios, Ses Illes Market ofrece al consumidor hasta el doble de la diferencia de cualquier artículo que encuentre más barato en otros supermercados de la isla, siempre que no se trate de una oferta puntual.

Ses Illes Market se adapta a las nuevas necesidades de los consumidores ofreciendo un modelo de tienda basado en el autoservicio y con un horario ininterrumpido de lunes a domingo (de lunes a sábado, de 8.30 a 21 horas, y los domingos de 9 a 14 horas). El supermercado dispone de un aparcamiento exclusivo y gratuito para los clientes.

El cliente podrá elegir entre más de 3.000 referencias de alimentación, limpieza, higiene y todo aquello que necesite para llenar la cesta de la compra al mejor precio, desde pan recién horneado hasta productos cárnicos listos para llevar y, por supuesto, producto fresco de Menorca.

Que bueno, por fin. Vamos a ver cuando llega uno a Ciutadella! Me voy!!!!!! 

El cancion de hoy esta: " Mariposa" de Maná

TTFN

 

 

                                                

Plastic Treaty Now! Sign the petition at Greenpeace

 

 

go here to add your name: Copy and paste into the search bar:

https://act.greenpeace.org/page/98946/petition/1?utm_campaign=plastic&utm_source=plastic-treaty-full-list-22.02.09&utm_medium=email&utm_medium=email&utm_source=engagingnetworks&utm_campaign=email&utm_content=Plastic+Treaty,+Full+List,+Image+22.02.10+A

Plastic Treaty Now!

From beaches in Southeast Asia to the remote Antarctic, plastic pollution is everywhere. It starts polluting the moment it's created, impacting our oceans, climate and the health of our communities.  Scientists have even found microplastics in the air we breathe and the food we eat. We need a solution that matches the scale of the problem.

A global treaty on plastic is that solution.

A strong global plastic treaty means ensuring a holistic approach to ending the plastic pollution crisis:

• creating a legally binding instrument to ensure compliance from governments and industry;
• keeping oil and gas in the ground, and protecting our climate;
• big brands switching to refill and reuse systems and reducing single use plastic pollution;
• holding countries accountable for managing their own waste and ending waste colonialism; and
• governments working to ensure a just transition for workers and the health of the most affected communities.

Already millions of people like you have come together to reject single use plastic and ask for change. Now Greenpeace and our allies call on governments and world leaders to start negotiating a strong plastic treaty that addresses the whole life cycle of plastic - from the moment oil is extracted to the moment plastic is discarded, there is no time for empty promises.

Help us make this a reality. Ask world leaders to support a global plastic treaty! 

The blog song for today is: "Dancing Days" by Led Zeppelin

TTFN

PVC: Another Problematic Plastic- A report from Earth911

 

PVC: Another Problematic Plastic

ByGemma Alexander

Jan 31, 2022 building materials, Red List

At the turn of the century, everybody was up in arms about the hazards of vinyl. More properly known as polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, the substance inspired slogans – “No vinyl, that’s final” and “No PVC for me” – as well as a documentary film, “Blue Vinyl” that explored the environmental and health risks throughout the life cycle of the ubiquitous material. Today, vinyl is no less ubiquitous and no less harmful. Although fewer people are paying attention to vinyl these days, PVC and other chlorinated polymers have made the Living Building Challenge Red List of worst-in-class building materials to avoid.

Polyvinyl Chloride

PVC is the most commonly used plastic in building products, and the third most used plastic in the world, thanks to its extreme versatility, unique technical properties, recyclability, and affordability. Unfortunately, the chloride monomer in PVC is a known human carcinogen. PVC can also contain other Red List materials including heavy metals and phthalates, which can off-gas from vinyl products like shower curtains. Also, PVC’s most harmful component, vinyl chloride, can off-gas from PVC products, but only when they are new. (Think of the scent of a new plastic shower curtain or that new-car smell.) PVC is a persistent organic pollutant source material because the manufacture and disposal of chlorinated polymers can result in the production of extremely toxic dioxins.

However, you are unlikely to find the highest levels of vinyl chloride in your home. Instead, PVC presents a classic case of environmental injustice; vinyl chloride primarily impacts the workers and nearby residents of the factories where PVC is manufactured, rather than the consumers who drive demand for the products. The air around factories that produce vinyl products contains the highest levels of vinyl chloride. Vinyl chloride can also enter household air from contaminated water. Contaminated water is more likely to be found near factories, but can result from PVC pipes under certain circumstances. Vinyl chloride can also be released if PVC is burned. Despite that hazard, communities that incinerate waste routinely accept PVC in the garbage.

Chlorinated Polymers

PVC is the most common chlorinated polymer, but it’s not the only one. Others to look out for include polyvinylidene dichloride (PVDC), chloroprene (a monomer used to make Neoprene), and chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC). Like vinyl chloride, the chemical building blocks used to make these plastics (chloroprene, chlorinated polyethylene [CPE], and chlorosulfonated polyethylene [CSPE]), are persistent organic pollutant source materials. Although they are not always interchangeable in consumer products, all of these plastics share similar benefits and hazards.

PVC is used to make everything from doors, window frames, 

and flooring to shower curtains, children’s toys, 

and food packaging.

PVC at Home

Every home in America contains PVC, both in building materials and in household items. PVC building materials include pipes, cables, window frames and blinds, building siding, floor tiles, roofing membranes, and more. For some building materials, nonvinyl alternatives may not be available. Where there are alternatives, they are usually more expensive than vinyl. Labeled #3 plastic in household items, PVC makes shower curtains, toys, imitation leather, crib bumpers, and even plastic wrap and other food packaging.

Disposing of PVC

Although PVC is technically recyclable, PVC is the least recycled plastic, with less than one-quarter of 1% of post-consumer PVC recovered for recycling. Most curbside recycling programs and recycling centers do not accept vinyl (although it is worth checking your local options). If your local recycling program does not accept PVC, finding a recycling option can be a challenge. There is a fee-based option for recycling shower curtains, but PVC garden hoses cannot be recycled because of their shape. If you have generated PVC waste as part of a home renovation or construction project, there may be more PVC recycling options available to your contractor through construction and demolition recycling centers, at least in some parts of the country.

Avoiding PVC

Completely avoiding PVC may be impossible. Despite the material’s environmental and health impacts, there may be times when it is the best choice. In some cases, there may not be alternative materials available. Except for those privileged with an unlimited budget, the available alternatives can be prohibitively expensive. Despite the problems with PVC, it is still a better option for plumbing than lead if you cannot afford copper pipes. Most people can probably swing the extra cost for a fabric shower curtain or rubber garden hose. But the cost for more sustainable siding options can be prohibitive for many homeowners. Convincing your children they don’t want the plastic toys their friends have may be an even bigger challenge than money.

Even if “no vinyl” is unrealistic, it’s worth taking on the challenge to avoid PVC when you can. Despite the challenges, plastic-free is a worthwhile goal.

So all we can do is reduce what we can reduce, starting with cling film, food packaging and certain toys, the rest it is a catch 22 situation. In the example of PVC on windows, balancing the time the product lasts against having to renew ordinary windows is the challenge. As with everything good maintenance does help in the long run, but it is not always possible.  

The blog song for today is:"Sweet emotion" by Aerosmith

TTFN

Will more tree species help the climate fight? A report from Adam Vaughan at New Scientist

 

Hi, welcome back to Fix the Planet. A bit of joy this week, thanks to research showing there are far more tree species on Earth than we thought. The new estimate says there are more than 73,000 species globally, with about 9200 of those yet to be discovered by scientists. 

As co-author Peter Reich at the University of Minnesota told me, on the one hand, this is a simple “celebration of life”. On the other, we can’t save what we don’t know about, he says.

But with tree planting and halting deforestation both seen as crucial tools for putting the brakes on global warming, this new finding means it’s also worth asking what greater tree diversity means for tackling climate change. Will preserving more species help us lock up more carbon?

 

A rainforest in Uganda: greater diversity of trees should make forests more resilient and less likely to give up the carbon they store. Photo: Dylan Garcia Photography / Alamy Stock Photo

How might a greater richness of species help store more carbon?
First, it’s worth remembering that if drawing down carbon is your primary concern, the main thing is having more trees and ensuring that they last. One high-profile analysis found there is space left on the planet to accommodate enough trees to lock up more than 200 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, or about five years of humanity’s emissions (it’s worth noting that this research received a lot of criticism). But greater diversity could be part of the answer too, by making forests better at using resources and more resilient to threats. 

Why are more diverse forests more effective?
Differences between tree species cause them to utilise available resources more effectively, says Martin Sullivan at Manchester Metropolitan University, UK. Varied canopy structures mean some intercept light better, while differences in root architecture influence how they draw resources from the soil. “This would mean that more diverse stands [groups of trees] grow faster, and thus take in carbon more rapidly, because they can access more resources,” says Sullivan. Experimental studies have shown this mechanism in grasslands, and it could plausibly occur in forests too, he adds. Another factor is that tree species differ in their ability to absorb and store carbon, so by chance alone, a more diverse forest is more likely to have species that are very good at drawing down and sequestering carbon.

And why are they more resilient?
In addition to humans chopping them down and natural disasters damaging them, forests face threats from pests and pathogens, plus droughts and fires wrought by climate change itself. Research points to species-rich forests being less susceptible to bugs, disease and extreme climate events, says Florian Schnabel at the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). “Diversity is an insurance,” he says.

“In a diverse forest, each species will have a slightly different niche it occupies, and there is a wide variety of survival strategies,” says Charlotte Wheeler at the Center for International Forestry Research. “If some species die due to a particular disease, then other species will be able to fill the gap they leave behind.” One example is ash trees being removed across the UK because of a fungal disease , with sycamores among the species proposed to replace them. 
 
Tree diversity’s most important role in storing carbon could be the way it prevents forests flipping to other ecosystem types that hold less carbon, such as savannah, says Christian Wirth, also at iDiv. For example, different types of trees have different tolerances to drought, allowing for a turnover of tree species that keeps the forest intact.
 
As temperatures rise, from a global average of 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels now to at least 1.5°C in the next 20 years, that ability to survive and keep carbon locked up will be key. “Resilience is very important for forest and will be an important mechanism to allow forest to adapt to climate change, and inevitably there will be some winners and losers in the face of climate change,” says Wheeler.

How sure are we that diversity means more carbon absorbed and stored?
“There is still no definitive answer to say that more diverse forests will necessarily sequester carbon more quickly,” says Wheeler. Part of the problem is that it’s hard to conduct experiments to measure what impact diversity has, so most research to date has been observational. That makes attributing causality a challenge, says Sullivan.

Nonetheless, he says there is reasonable evidence that diverse temperate forests produce woody growth more rapidly than less diverse ones, drawing down and locking away more carbon. “But it is less clear whether these effects extend to diverse tropical forests,” he says.

What is clear is that newly planted forests with a mix of species usually sequester more carbon than monocultures, such as solely planting eucalyptus, as some tree-planting schemes have done. But again, whether that link holds true for natural forests is less understood, says Wheeler.

What difference will it make to climate efforts if the world has 9200 more tree species?
Not a lot in itself. Most of the predicted but undiscovered species are probably very rare. “What effect are these additional species likely to have on carbon sequestration?  Probably very little, as they're mostly rare, so not making a major contribution,” says David Coomes at the University of Cambridge, a co-author of the paper.

Hang on, tackling climate change is far from the only thing forests offer us, right?
“Ecologists and land managers should not just have a singular focus on one ecosystem service but a balance of many: carbon, biodiversity, human well-being, hydrological regulation, economically useful plants,” says Justin Moat at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, in the UK.

“There are already compelling reasons to protect the biodiverse tropics: we know that species-rich forests are more resilient to pests, pathogens and a changing climate,” says Coomes. “The news that forests are even more diverse than previously supposed adds further weight to arguments that rainforests should be protected.”

 As usual, a very interesting and informative report! I suppose it all comes down to us all being prepared to make a little bit more effort,which at the moment seems to be almost impossible, being left to those who do, again.  With the click culture firmly becoming embedded and the impacience that goes with it,once again we need to change our tactics to try and get more young people on board.  I'm going to say it again,but our generation (born between 1960 and 1970) are the first ones to realise that we are those who need to make changes, the older ones seem to be in denial that it had anything to do with them,and the younger ones are still too young. I have had conversations with some elderly people who seem to think that all this has nothing to do with them and why should they recycle?  The problem is that some of them have passed this attitude through the family and they all carry on the same!

The blog song for today is: "Save me" by Queen

TTFN

The race to replace meat - A report from Adam Vaughan (Fix the Planet at New Scientist)

 

Hi.  Many people don’t eat meat anymore, but they used to rely on it as my main source of protein. Many other people still do. But meat is also responsible for roughly twice the global greenhouse gas emissions as plant-based food and more nitrogen pollution than Earth can handle, as well as being a leading driver of illegal deforestation. 

So where else can we get our protein, without livestock’s environmental hangover? A host of alternative proteins are competing, from plant-based ones (currently mostly wheat, soy or pea-based options) and “lab-grown” meat to insects and microbes that make animal proteins. 

A food strategy commissioned by the UK government said last year that the country should develop alternative proteins. Today, alternative meat is worth just 1 per cent of the global meat industry, but some experts think it could reach 10 per cent by 2029.

This week’s Fix the Planet takes a closer look at some of the options and the potential pitfalls in the transition to alternative proteins. 

Lab-grown 'chicken' nuggest on sale in Singapore. Photo: Nicholas Yeo/AFP via Getty Images

Do we really need to shift to alternative proteins?
It’s worth saying that, in the UK at least, most people eat more protein than they need, about 50 per cent more on average than guidelines recommend. So we don’t need a completely like-for-like replacement for protein from meat. But looking beyond today to a world of 9 billion people in 2050 , Wendy Russell at University of Aberdeen, UK, says the status quo would require 465 billion kilograms of meat. That isn’t feasible in terms of land and water use, she says, let alone carbon emissions. “We really do need to change our diet,” says Russell.

Which alternatives are ready then? 
“There is no shortage of ideas around how we can get alternatives to meat,” says Guy Poppy at the University of Southampton, UK. You may have seen that lab-grown meat is on sale in Singapore. However, it’s the only place in the world where it’s been approved for sale so far, the nuggets cost about $23 for four and the bulk of them is made from plant protein. The UK regulator, the Food Standards Agency (FSA), says it has no applications lodged to sell lab-grown meat. Scaling up production of lab-grown meat remains hard.

By comparison, food with plant-based protein has proliferated, from the soy and wheat-based “facon” and other products now sold in supermarkets to the soy-based “bleeding” burgers of Impossible Foods. Insects are also on the agenda, with two applications placed with the FSA in the UK and the EU recently green-lighting yellow mealworms. Then there are companies pursuing other routes, such as UK-Dutch company Deep Branch, which plans to use carbon dioxide, microbes and fermentation to make animal feed that is lower carbon and uses less water than conventional feed. The firm is finishing a new facility, based in the Netherlands, in the next few weeks.

What about more far-out stuff?
One prospect is using gorse, a plant that is widespread in parts of the UK, especially Scotland. “Gorse is a really interesting plant because it’s actively being removed; people are using large amounts of herbicide and burning it back,” says Russell. “We know it was fed to cattle in the past. We do think protein from gorse could be used as animal food.” If protein isolates from gorse were shown to be safe, they could be considered for human food in the future too, she says. “It’s not off the cards.” Hemp also holds future promise as protein for humans, says Russell, who notes that several Scottish farmers have recently replaced cattle with growing hemp instead.

In the UK, no edible insects are currently approved for consumption, apart from a German cheese mite. However, there are two applications being reviewed by the FSA. Responding to criticism that UK regulations are holding back progress, Robin May at the FSA says: “We are really keen to do everything we can to get industry to get those products moving forward. The key point is they have to be safe and they have to approved.” I’ve also written before about stuff further down the line, such as the idea of a “Quorn of mussels” turning bivalves into more attractive food, such as a burger (you can read more on that idea in a recent peer-reviewed paper).

What are the potential downsides?
Arguably, the biggest one is that environmental gains from alternative proteins will be at the cost of people’s health, if processed alternative products add too much fat, salt and sugar. “In the rush forward, will plant-based proteins be the junk food of the future?” says Poppy. Ian Givens at the University of Reading, UK, says environmental benefits might be better considered in the context of the nutrition that meat alternatives offer. “I do wonder whether the way environmental impacts of food are currently judged should be more aligned to the nutritional contributions food makes," he says. For example, with milk, perhaps environmental cost could be measured per milligram of calcium, he says.

OK, how do we label products so people can choose alternatives that are good for the environment and their health?
“It’s extremely complicated,” says May. But he adds: “There is a real place for eco labelling.” The trickiness is in the science behind the labels – measuring emissions, how land for food production might alternatively be used, how products are shipped and so on. The difficulty also lies in how people use the labels: May says the average person spends just 6 to 7 seconds looking at a product when they’re shopping. For that reason, he thinks a traffic light scheme, akin to nutrition labelling, might work best. While the idea is a “a very active topic of discussion” between the FSA, food firms and government departments, May says there are no eco label plans “with a hard date” yet.

I totally agree with the last point, I am one of those people who tends to scrutinise the label of the product I want to buy but it is time consuming. A traffic light scheme is a great idea. As we all know we cannot totally trust some of the food firms to be completely open with the ingredients of the product. However, this is a small part of the overall plan and I think it is fantastic that there will be more to choose from.  I was pleasantly surprised the other day when I went to Lidl and saw the new range of vegan products on the shelves. Before there was a small section of vegetarian bits and bobs, but now there is almost a full refrigerated section for it.  

 

With regards to eating insects, well mm I dunno, that's a bit out there for me! The German cheese mite, see below! Let me know your thoughts!

 

 

 

I think I'll take a pass on that one.  The mind boggles!

The blog song for today is: "Club Foot" by Kasabian.

TTFN 

7 Signs That the Mainstream Has a Beef With Beef - a report from the Sierra Club

 

 

 

 

 

 

 7 Signs That the Mainstream Has a Beef With Beef

As the climate crisis intensifies, the plant-based lifestyle becomes increasingly conventional

By Katie O'Reilly | Jan 25 2022

Chances are you’ve heard the word “veganuary” bandied around lately. The 31-day pledge, in its third year running in the United States, calls on people to shirk dairy and meat this month; 95,000 Americans have signed on to date, a double digit increase from 2021. The campaign has been popular in part for its convincing marketing to the climate-aware set, such as Veganuary’s “Cut Your Carbon BigFootPrint,” which follows a sweet-faced Big Foot character, voiced by Babe farmer James Cromwell, as he bikes around and asks his adorable gnome and unicorn pals to taste-test vegan recipes 

The campaign’s popularity is just the latest sign that consumers are tuning in to the trade-offs that come with eating beef. According to Nielsen, almost 40 percent of Americans are making an effort to eat more plant-based foods. Meanwhile, a recent YouGov poll indicated 32 percent of Americans have resolved eat more plant-based foods in 2022. Science shows clear health benefits to eating a plant-based diet, including reducing inflammation, warding off infections, and maintaining a healthy weight.

Eating more plants and fewer animals is not only good for your health, it’s good for the planet. Animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, the United Nations IPCC reported that the feed production required to raise cattle and other livestock, coupled with the poor animals’ massive release of methane, harms the climate and threatens biodiversity more than the combined emissions from every plane, train, car, bus, and boat in the world. 

While as many as six percent of US consumers say they’re vegan—a six-fold increase compared to one percent in 2014—a plant-based lifestyle doesn’t necessarily require the “zero to hero” approach. In the US, 98 percent of people who buy plant-based meat also purchase conventional meat. Still, plant-based alternatives are becoming more accessible thanks to expanded distribution—according to the Good Food Institute, plant-based foods are a $7 billion market (a 27 percent jump from the prior year). And a Bloomberg Intelligence report predicts that sales of these alternative protein sources will increase fivefold by 2030.

One clear signal that this multi-billion dollar economy is gaining steam? Major corporations, like fast food giants and snack conglomerates, are clamoring for their slice of the pie. Burger King made waves in summer 2019 when it debuted the Impossible Whopper and Dunkin’ Donuts rolled out the Beyond Sausage Breakfast Sandwich (made possible by food scientists at several start-ups who’ve engineered juicy, plant-based burger products specially to look, taste, and "bleed" like real beef or mimic chicken, fish, eggs, and other animal products). While some sustainable-food advocates argue that “imitation meat” products perpetuate the problems of industrial agriculture—they're highly processed and often contain genetically modified ingredients—the fast food industry’s embrace of imitation meat makes it easier for vegetarians and flexitarians to find plant-based alternatives at highly accessible eateries. Earlier this month, KFC introduced limited-edition plant-based Beyond Fried Chicken nationwide, and Chipotle added plant-based chorizo to menus across the country. Not to be outdone, McDonald’s just announced its Valentine’s Day 2022 unveiling of the McPlant Burger. 

One clear signal that this multi-billion dollar economy is gaining steam? Major corporations, like fast food giants and snack conglomerates, are clamoring for their slice of the pie.

Don’t be fooled by any edenic menu language, though—these items are all highly processed and loaded with the usual barrage of toxins and sugar found in most products peddled by this industry. Even Cadbury recently came out with the Cadbury Plant Bar (it substitutes almond paste for the “glass and a half of milk” said to go into every Dairy Milk bar). Indeed, these corporations will waste no opportunity to co-opt a good thing. But at the same time, plant-based junk food presents ever-mounting evidence that the movement is real—and swiftly challenging traditional business models.

Here are seven more surefire signs that more consumers are opting out of Big Beef.

Food media is eating around the beef. As the clarion call for plant-based fare grows louder, the food world is responding—loudly. On April 26, 2021, Epicurious, Conde Nast’s powerhouse food digital brand, announced that beef would no longer appear in new Epicurious recipes, articles, newsletters, or even Instagram posts. “We think of this decision as not anti-beef but rather pro-planet,” wrote Epicurious editors. “Our shift is solely about sustainability, about not giving airtime to one of the world’s worst climate offenders.” On August 12 of last year, The New York Times released “The Veggie” newsletter and announced that it would be devoting more space in the digital “Cooking” section for plant-based recipes, reviews, and tips. (This following a 46 percent increase in vegetarian recipe page views in 2020.) Each week, the Veggie opens with an anecdote from the Times’ California-based restaurant critic and food columnist Tejal Rao on plant-based technique, cuisine, ingredients, and tips for readers interested in eating more plant-based.

Medical pros are on board. In a letter dated August 14, 2020, the American Medical Association asked the FDA to recommend that “dietary guidelines for Americans make meat and dairy optional.” (This was early on in the COVID-19 pandemic, and physicians were seeing worrying comorbidities in many patients, largely due to unhealthy diets.)

Restaurants are making plant-based fare way more accessible. Most of us are old enough to remember the days when vegetarians were lucky to find a token garden burger on a restaurant menu. Today, both modest and fancy sit-down restaurants are getting on board with plant-based fare. A few months ago, Michelin-Starred chef Marco Pierre added whole-cut vegan lamb and beef to the menus of his 22 steakhouses, spread across the UK. And then there’s the legendary Eleven Madison Park eatery, which shook up New York City’s food scene last June by reopening post-pandemic with a 100 percent plant-based menu.

Grocery stores are stocking their meat and dairy departments with plant-based provisions. Mainstream outlets like Publix, Harris Teeter, Kroger, and Trader Joe’s are increasingly carrying plant-based options like Beyond and Impossible “meat,” Miyoko’s vegan butter, JUST “eggs,” Good Catch “fish,” and Siggi’s coconut yogurt. Accordingly, ingredient suppliers for the alternative meat industry are seeing massive upticks in inquiries and demand—and in innovation. Take The Better Meat Co., which uses a microbial process to create protein-rich mycelium—fungi that mimics meat in texture and taste—and sells ingredients to major food companies like Hormel Foods and Purdue Farms (the latter uses it to make a half plant-based nugget product called Purdue Chicken Plus). Better Meat founder Paul Shapiro says his startup, since launching in 2018, can no longer keep up with demand. “Just like there are thousands of species of plants, there are thousands of species of fungi, and a group of startups are creating new ways of meat production that don’t rely on isolating plant proteins, but instead cultivating microbes,” Shapiro says. “Fungi have the power to solve so many of our problems, and this is one of them.”

Carbon labeling is on the rise. Move over, calorie counts. Plant-based companies like Quorn, makers of the first fungi-based meat alternative, and oat milk mavens Oatly, are leading the way in embracing carbon emission calculations. These brands self-disclose their emissions, but one day, we may see standardized labels on all food products—Carbon Trust research has found that two thirds of consumers support the idea of a recognizable way to demonstrate that products have been made with a commitment to measuring and reducing carbon output.

Celebrities are normalizing the plant-based lifestyle. The Rolodex of vegan celebrities is getting long—and in some cases, surprising. Big names like Beyonce, Lizzo, Bill Clinton, Stevie Wonder, and Zac Efron recently joined the ranks of vocal vegans like Natalie Portman, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Alicia Silverstone to sing the praises of a plant-based lifestyle’s health and planetary benefits. Sports celeb Tom Brady follows the “TB12” food regimen, which consists of 80 percent plant-based proteins. In late 2021, The Great British Bake Off producers had to answer to complaints about the fanfare of eggs, butter, and cream when its first vegan contestant, Freya Cox, joined in on the high-profile challenges.

A movement is underway to ditch dairy-free surcharges at cafes. Familiar with the internal refrain, “To make it an oat milk latte, or to not pay a buck more?” Same. It’s tough, because while the conventional dairy industry is responsible for four percent of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions (mostly in the form of the especially noxious gas methane), plant-based milks are among products whose higher prices have traditionally posed an entry to the plant-based lifestyle. Not that they, like plant-based meat products, are beyond scrutiny—the data on the ecological integrity of alternative milk varietals is not robust (soy milk typically contains GMOs, for instance, and almond milk requires a lot of water to produce). However, plant-based options remain more eco-friendly with dairy, and many new alternative milk products are sourced with sustainability in mind. So it was notable last August when the coffee chain Blue Bottle announced that it was experimenting with making dairy-free milk its default go-to for cappuccinos, mochas, and other cafe treats, to “help consumers make for environmentally friendly choices.” And on January 5 of this year, following years’ worth of petitions to drop the vegan milk upcharge, Starbucks announced that it would finally remove the added charges for vegan milk substitutes—including oat, soy, coconut, almond, and the proprietary Starbucks Original Nut Blend—at locations across the UK. Considering the plant-based dairy industry is predicted to reach $32 billion by 2031, Starbucks, Blue Bottle, and other chains will likely benefit from making plant-based milk options more accessible to a rapidly growing plant-based consumer base. (Hopefully your neighborhood cafe follows suit, stat!)

Well that all sounds wonderful!. I must admit that I do prefer veggies to meat, but understand that not everyone is the same! We are fortunate here in Menorca to be able to source meat at 0km. It is important for me and my family to be able to support the local economy as well and to know that the animal has had a good and happy life means a lot. I do avoid certain meats and tend to eat more veggie based meals, but I do not expect the rest of my family to do the same.  On balance I would say that we do eat less meat than we used to and we do feel better for it.

The blog song for today is : "Prince Charming" by Adam and the Ants

TTFN

 

 

Where it's forbidden to serve meat- an article from BBC Travel

 

Long known as one of the world's holiest cities, India's spiritual capital is now luring culinary pilgrims as it transforms into a vegetarian paradise.

Inhabited since at least 1800 BC, Varanasi is well known for being among the oldest living cities on Earth, and one of the holiest for the world's estimated 1.2 billion Hindus. Every day, as the sound of ringing temple bells echo overhead, tens of thousands of devotees descend the city's 88 stone ghat steps and dip themselves into the Ganges river to wash away their sins. Bereaved relatives flock to Varanasi's two cremation grounds where funeral pyres burn around the clock, believing that Shiva himself whispers the Tarak mantra (chant of liberation) into the ears of all those cremated here, granting them instant moksha or salvation.

However, my reasons for travelling to Varanasi were quite different. I didn't come to confront death or cleanse my soul; I came to experience the city's unique vegetarian food.

I didn't come to confront death or cleanse my soul; I came to experience the city's unique vegetarian food

Driving through the city's busy streets, Rakesh Giri, chauffeur and raconteur par excellence, told me how Shiva, the destroyer of the universe, had founded Varanasi in the days of yore, according to Hindu belief. Like most Varanasi residents, Giri is a fervent Shaivite (Shiva worshipper). And since followers of Shiva believe he is a vegetarian God, he and most other Varanasi residents follow a strict sattvic ("pure vegetarian") diet.

"My family and I have been pure vegetarians for generations. We refuse to even drink water in a home where eggs are consumed," Giri said as he dropped me off.

Varanasi is one of the world's oldest continuously inhabited cities – and the holiest for Hindus (Credit: Hitesh Makwana/EyeEm/Getty Images)

Varanasi may be India's spiritual capital, but it isn't exactly known for luring culinary pilgrims. Most food travellers will likely flock to the country's famous epicurean hubs of Delhi, Kolkata or Chennai before making their way to Varanasi. Yet, chefs from around the world are starting to draw inspiration from its culinary heritage, recreating its flavours in their restaurants.

Chef Vikas Khanna, who received a Michelin star each year from 2011 to 2016 when he ran Junoon in Manhattan, said he was bowled over by the vrat ke kuttu buckwheat-flour pancakes served in a single Varanasi temple. "I've tried my best to recreate it in my kitchen at Manhattan. It tastes heavenly," Khanna told Lonely Planet in 2020. 

Two-time Michelin-starred chef Atul Kochhar named his modern Indian restaurant in London Benares (the name of Varanasi during British rule). In his eponymous cookbook, the chef showcases vegetarian fusion recipes, such as chickpea pancakes and heritage tomato salad, that highlight the sweet-and-tart flavour combinations commonly found in the city. Even Indian celebrity chef Sanjeev Kapoor has written about his fondness for Varanasi food, highlighting its excellent vegetarian offerings. 

Of course, in a country that is 80% Hindu and 20% vegetarian, meatless options are ubiquitous in India. But what makes Varanasi's vegetarian cuisine so interesting is how its sattvic and vegetarian specialties are directly influenced by its strong sense of spirituality. A sattvic menu is based on Ayurvedic principles and adheres to the strictest standards of vegetarianism prescribed by the Sanatana dharma, an absolute form of Hinduism. As such, it forbids the use of onion and garlic in cooking, which are believed to increase anger, aggression and anxiety, among other things.

In recent years, chefs around the world have started drawing inspiration from Varanasi's culinary heritage (Credit: Richard I'Anson/Getty Images)

"Almost every Hindu household in Varanasi has an altar dedicated to Shiva in the house. Eating meat at home is unthinkable," explained Abhishek Shukla, a shastri (priest) at Varanasi's famous Kashi Vishwanath temple. "Staying sattvic is a priority for those who wish to attain salvation because we believe that our souls would suffer like those we killed for food otherwise. Meat, onions and garlic exacerbate tamasic (the opposite of sattvic) tendencies, making it difficult for people to concentrate and exercise good judgement." 

Traditionally, many Varanasi restaurants have served meat to cater to Western tourists and non-vegetarian Hindu pilgrims, and local sattvic cuisine was primarily eaten at home. But in 2019, the Hindu-nationalist BJP government banned the sale and consumption of meat within a 250m radius of all Varanasi temples and heritage sites. This encouraged restaurants to start featuring local vegetarian and sattvic recipes that have been passed down for generations within Varanasi homes but were previously unavailable to visitors.

You may also be interested in:
• India's brilliant Bombay duck
• An Indian meal with more than 60 dishes
• The world's oldest vegetarian restaurant 

Inside the luxury hotel BrijRama Palace, an imposing sandstone structure on the Ganges at Munshi Ghat, executive chef Manoj Verma applies his encyclopaedic knowledge of traditional textbook vegetarian Varanasi cooking. "When I first took over the kitchen, I immediately included dishes like khatta meetha kaddu (sweet and sour pumpkin) and nimona (spiced mashed peas) on our menu," Verma said. "These are humble dishes that our guests would have never had the opportunity to taste otherwise," he added.

 Verma demonstrated how he prepares nimona, reducing a green pea purée in a pan, adding boiled potatoes and pouring over a mixture of fragrant spices such as whole cumin seeds, asafoetida and green chillies tempered in hot oil. Served with a dollop of ghee over steamed basmati rice, the creamy sweetness of the peas and the contrasting bite from the potatoes is essentially Varanasi's answer to Italy's cucina povera, in which local "peasant" foods are being elevated by innovative chefs.

Chef Manoj Verma’s nimona is served with rice and raita at BrijRama Palace (Credit: Amrita Sarkar)

Verma indicated that the 2019 meat ban has fostered creativity among a new generation of chefs in Varanasi. Although he had fed his share of celebrity Indian and international guests, his greatest honour came when chef Khanna came to taste his food. In what is considered to be the ultimate mark of respect in Indian culture, the Michelin-starred chef bent down and touched Verma's feet. "It was in the midst of other diners at my restaurant. I will never forget it, " Verma said. 

Across town, Shree Shivay is one of a growing number of restaurants serving local sattvic recipes. Today, locals estimate are anywhere from 40 to 200 sattvic restaurants in Varanasi, a huge jump since the 2019 meat ban. The restaurant's menu, which changes twice a day based on what is available at the local market that morning, features thalis, or set offerings, with at least 12 different dishes. After months of careful experimentation, the restaurant's three chefs came up with a formula where they could mimic the taste of any sauce or gravy using five key ingredients: cashews, poppy seeds, melon seeds, tomatoes and chironji (a nutty seed endemic to northern India).

My thalifeatured items like kadhi pakora (fried chickpea flour dumplings in yoghurt sauce), rajma (red kidney beans in tomato gravy) and paneer (Indian cottage cheese). The flavour of roasted chickpea flour in the kadhi, the viscosity of the rajmasauce and the freshness of the paneer were unlike anything I had experienced across northern India. 

Beyond its restaurants, Varanasi's street food scene is as vibrant and electric as that of Bangkok or Istanbul but enjoys none of the media hype. Although many of the sattvic foods sold are unique or inventive variations of snacks found elsewhere in India, they do not benefit from the hype of Delhi's chaat (savoury snack combining several textures and flavours) or Mumbai's vada pav (potato burger).

Shree Shivay is one of a growing number of Varanasi restaurants serving local sattvic dishes (Credit: Amrita Sarkar)

One such example is the tomato chaat, sold at the Kashi Chaat Bhandar stall. "When the daughter of billionaire industrialist Lakshmi Mittal got married in France, they chose us as one of the caterers," said third-generation owner Yash Khetri. Made with a tangy and spicy base of mashed tomatoes bathed in a cumin-spiked sugar syrup and topped with crunchy sev (deep-fried chickpea flour noodles), the original recipe was developed in 1968 by Khetri's grandfather. Today, you won't find it anywhere else outside of Varanasi. 

Another example is the frothy sweetened milk tea served at the Lakshmi Chai Wale stall in terracotta cups with a side of malai toast. This delectable accompaniment consists of two slices of bread grilled over hot coals, then slathered with fresh cream and sprinkled with granulated sugar.

Across town, the chief attraction at Varanasi's Baati Chokha restaurant is baati,a hard, unleavened wheat bread and a typical food in the surrounding state of Uttar Pradesh that's baked on dried cow dung cakes. In fact, as diners enter, they are greeted by the sight of dried cow dung cakes stacked up to the ceiling in an outdoor shed. The restaurant does everything in-house, from pounding their spices in stone mills to grinding the flour for the baati. The vegetables for the accompanying chokha made with eggplant, potatoes and tomatoes, are also roasted on top of the same dung cakes, before simmering in a spice mix in clay pots.

Local guide, Manjeet Sahani, who frequently takes visitors to the restaurant, said, "Initially, I thought that the sight of cow dung cakes might put people off. Honestly, most people I bring here tell me that this is the best food they have ever eaten in India."

Baati Chokha serves traditional unleavened bread baked on dried cow dung cakes (Credit: Majeet Sahani)

Most Indians know that Varanasi is the capital of paan (betel leaf), and I was not going to leave Varanasi without having tried one. Paan is usually enjoyed at the end of a meal as it aids in digestion and functions as a breath freshener. At the Netaji Paan Bhandar stall, the original founder's grandson and the current owner, Pavan Chaurasiya, layered rose petal jam, areca nuts and slaked lime on the fresh betel leaf before folding it with origami-like precision and presenting it to me on a silver tray. On the countertop lay a laminated newspaper clipping showing when India's former prime minister, Indira Gandhi, visited their shop in 1976. I could not have asked for a more fitting end to my vegetarian Varanasi pilgrimage than the lingering sweetness of this long-beloved paan. 

Millions of visitors come to Varanasi every year during non-pandemic times, and the Indian government recently announced that it will start issuing visas to international travellers starting this November. While most may come looking for spiritual salvation, this culinary pilgrim came away enlightened by this vegetarian heaven.

 It all looks really delicious!  

The blog song for today is:"Travellin' in style" by Free

TTFN

Why Is the Biden White House Refusing to Confront the Oil and Gas Industry? A report from :https://www.sierraclub.org

 

Why Is the Biden White House Refusing to Confront the Oil and Gas Industry?

Environmental and Indigenous groups are increasingly frustrated with inaction

By Nick Cunningham | Jan 10 2022

Last November, the Biden administration announced that it would protect the Greater Chaco Canyon landscape in New Mexico from future oil and gas leasing. The area is culturally significant for Pueblo peoples in the Southwest, and the decision was seen as both a victory for Indigenous nations and a setback for the fossil fuel industry.  

“No group of Americans has created and cared more about preserving what we inherited than the tribal nations,” Biden said when making the announcement. “We have to continue to stand up for the dignity of sovereignty of tribal nations.” He billed the move as a win for Indigenous communities and for the fight against climate change. The New York Times described the executive order as an element of the administration’s “ambitious climate agenda.”

Just two days later, however, the Biden administration held a large auction for new oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico. The lease sale had been ordered by a federal judge, who earlier in 2021 had ruled that the administration hadn’t followed the law in pausing oil and gas sales. Nevertheless, environmentalists were dismayed. Earthjustice called the lease sale a “huge climate bomb.” 

The contradictory moves—blocking oil and gas development in one area but greenlighting an expansion in another, even if under judicial duress—exemplify President Biden’s approach to climate change in his first year in office. While he has made some important steps to cut US greenhouse gas emissions, his administration's reluctance to directly confront the oil and gas industry is becoming increasingly apparent, according to environmental and Indigenous groups.  

“They can't have it both ways. They can't talk about climate and then commit massive amounts of new fossil fuels in the face of a climate crisis,” Taylor McKinnon, senior public lands campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Sierra. “They're plagued by a lack of climate ambition at the highest levels of the administration.”

During his first days in office, Biden canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline and directed the Department of the Interior to pause oil and gas leasing on federal lands while it undertook a comprehensive review of the programs. Those moves signaled that climate change would be a central theme to the Biden era.  

In April, Biden held an international summit with global leaders, during which he announced a new emissions target—the United States would aim to cut emissions by 50 to 52 percent by 2030. The announcement also nudged other countries to ratchet up their ambition.  

During the summer, the Department of Treasury pushed multilateral development banks to end overseas financing for most fossil fuel projects, and this past fall, the EPA announced new regulations on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. Right before Christmas, the EPA unveiled tough new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks—an especially important move, given that transportation is the largest source of US greenhouse gas emissions. 

Despite these moves, Biden’s climate record to date has been more piecemeal than transformational. The White House is not yet employing all of the levers available to the executive branch to tackle the climate crisis. So far, the Biden administration appears to be prioritizing the easy actions while avoiding moves that could antagonize political enemies—like the powerful oil and gas industry. 

For example, Biden has remained silent on a long list of projects that environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and other local grassroots movements have pressed him on. Biden took no position on the Line 3 Pipeline, even as Indigenous water protectors and allies disrupted construction of the tar-sands-related project and faced arrest by Minnesota state police. Biden has said nothing about the Line 5 Pipeline, despite the fact that a dozen Indigenous nations in Michigan, along with a coalition of environmental justice organizations and the Democratic governor of Michigan, seek the pipeline’s closure. 

In spring, a federal judge gave the Army Corps of Engineers, which is under the administration’s control, multiple chances to request the shutdown of the Dakota Access Pipeline in light of the fact that the pipeline is operating without a valid easement. Instead, in April, the corps stuck with the Trump administration’s policy and allowed the contested pipeline to continue to operate.  

Last summer, the Interior Department suspended leases in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. But at the same time, the Department of Justice defended the Willow project in Alaska, a massive oil development led by ConocoPhillips (a federal court later shot down permits for the project). 

There does not seem to be an overarching philosophy that explains why the administration takes action in one area and not another, other than what appears to be a desire to avoid serious confrontation with the oil industry. “They pick and choose the things that are going to be the easiest,” Joye Braun, the national pipelines campaign organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, told Sierra. 

She pointed to the recent protections for Chaco Canyon. “While that is extraordinarily important and a decades-long fight for the tribes down there, it doesn't do anything for the tar sands that are moving through Line 3. And it doesn't do anything for the replacement of Line 5 or the building out of Mountain Valley [Pipeline]” in Appalachia, she said.  

Braun praised the Biden administration’s cancellation of Keystone XL and his appointment of Deb Haaland, a member of the Laguna Pueblo, to lead the Interior Department. Braun also said the White House has listened, at times, to Indigenous voices, which was a departure from the previous administration. 

But beneath a lot of the rhetoric, there is plenty of continuity with the business-as-usual approach of past administrations. “Trump was just very overt: ‘We're going to do all this extraction, and we're going to do all this damage, and there's nothing you can do about it.’” Braun said, summing up Trump’s approach. “Biden is being sneaky.” 

While Biden has made some important steps to cut US greenhouse gas emissions, his administration's reluctance to directly confront the oil and gas industry is becoming increasingly apparent.

When asked how Braun would describe the Biden administration’s approach to Indigenous peoples, she responded, “paternalistic.” In communications with the White House, Braun said that Biden officials point to their accomplishments on climate change and question why Indigenous communities and other activists are still criticizing them. “I'm not going to sit there and play the good little Indian,” she added. 

“There is a story in the Lakota tradition called Double Faced Woman. I liken [Biden] to her,” Braun said with a chuckle. “She’s not a good character.”

For some environmental advocates, a clear example of the administration’s allergy to tough decisions came in late November when the Interior Department released its highly anticipated review of the federal oil and gas leasing program. Instead of ending new oil and gas leases on public lands and waters—as many environmental groups had hoped and Biden himself promised on the campaign trail—the report merely called for higher royalty rates and recommended not leasing in sensitive areas. In other words, there would be no meaningful change to the fossil fuel bonanza on public lands. 

The report barely mentioned climate change, and the fact that it was released on the Friday after Thanksgiving struck many as an admission on the part of the administration that it was retreating from its promises and was hoping to avoid a negative news cycle. The Center for Biological Diversity called it “flimsy.” Earthjustice said, “We expected much more, especially given the Biden administration’s deeply disappointing and legally avoidable Gulf lease sale.”

The reluctance to phase out oil and gas drilling on public lands is especially problematic since it resides in a legal area where the president has strong executive authority to act and doesn’t need Congress, according to Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center. 

“I think what's concerning to me, especially relative to fossil fuel production, is the unwillingness of the administration to deal with that supply side,” he told Sierra. “You can't avoid taking a position on this. They seem to be avoiding taking a position on it, and they're just pissing everybody off.” 

“If you take a look at all the peer-reviewed science out there about how we align our country's greenhouse gas emissions trajectory ... you need to have a decline in oil and gas production,” Schlenker-Goodrich said. The oil and gas industry “is probably laughing internally” at the call for higher royalty rates, he added, which would have very little financial impact on the industry and would do little to slow the pace of leasing and drilling.  

“It just suggested that the administration's ambition and capacity to run the gauntlet with the oil and gas industry is not there. That they seem unwilling to actually confront the power of the oil and gas industry,” Schlenker-Goodrich added. “They're approving drilling permits at a rate faster than the Trump administration.”

The Biden administration is staking much of its climate legacy on the $550 billion in funding for renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other climate programs in the Senate-stalled Build Back Better Act. Experts say that the shift to renewable energy will accelerate substantially if Democrats succeed in passing that legislation into law. By any measure, it would be a major achievement—if only it can get beyond the stalemate in the Senate. 

But heavy investments in renewable energy are not enough on their own, especially with the oil and gas industry still eyeing growth.  

"Tackling the climate crisis requires both major investments in clean energy and an immediate halt to the expansion of fossil fuels—not one or the other,” said Athan Manual, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program. “President Biden has made it clear that he understands the need for this all-hands-on-deck effort, but that understanding still needs to be matched with ambition to make it a reality."

And perhaps this is how they all start to twist and turn away from the agreements made at COP26? It didn't take long did it? It is really difficult to believe anything that these people say.

The blog song for today is: "LA Woman" by the Doors

TTFN

Bad Advertising: The evidence and the problem from https://www.badverts.org/the-problem Part two -Airlines and Fossil fuel Companies

Airline advertising

We all want to be able to travel and go on holiday, but we don’t need to fly to do this. For people to be able to enjoy seeing the world without harming it, we need progressive policies including affordable rail travel and good holiday leave to allow us to travel more slowly. We also need measures such as a frequent flyer levy, which place higher taxes on the frequent flyers who take the majority of flights and cause the most pollution. 

Having refused to take meaningful action on climate change for 30 years, airlines are still encouraging dangerous growth in sales using advertising. This video from Easyjet below is a good example of highly emotive content being used to override any concerns we might have about climate breakdown.

 Airline bosses’ behaviour during the pandemic has shown that they can’t be trusted to act responsibly. They’ve demanded huge public bailouts, pushed to start flying again regardless of the health impacts, and are firing thousands of workers so they can re-employ them with worse conditions. It’s clear that airlines need greater regulation to stop them causing harm, and their advertising is part of the problem.

 

Fossil fuel company advertising

Oil and gas companies such as Shell, BP, Total and Exxon use advertising to promote themselves as environmentally responsible. Looking at their adverts you could be forgiven for thinking they are mostly renewable energy companies. But the reality is that their businesses remain almost entirely focused on digging up polluting fossil fuels. In the UK, the body that regulates advertising, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), recently ruled that Shell made misleading environmental claims in its adverts - so-called ‘greenwash.’

Like Shell, BP have been criticised for heavily promoting their renewable energy projects, when they only account for around 4% of their investments. This allows them to appeal to climate-conscious consumers and maintain a facade of good corporate citizenship. They won’t draw attention to the other 96% of their investments in fossil fuels.

But people are now sceptical about their green rhetoric. As recently as 2018, major oil companies spent $50 billion on fossil fuel projects in direct contradiction of the Paris climate goals according to research group Carbon Tracker, and an estimated $200 million was spent lobbying against climate action. The public sees these companies talking green but acting brown, sticking with business and investment models that plan to extract and burn far more fossil fuels than the climate can safely withstand. Revelations that companies like Exxon knew that their products were driving dangerous climate change decades ago, but kept these findings secret, has further damaged trust in oil companies’ sincerity.

Advertising and PR campaigns are a means by which these companies present an image of themselves, greenwashing, which is different to the reality. 

What we’re calling for:

• Energy company adverts must come with Climate Health Warnings explaining the climate impact of their company’s core business.   

• Additionally, media outlets and advertising companies should not run adverts from fossil fuel companies. We define fossil fuel companies as firms that have over 80% of their investments in coal, oil and gas. Carbon Underground 200 provide a useful methodology for this definition. We call on all media outlets to follow the example of The Guardian in the UK and Dagens ETC in Sweden and not accept fossil fuel advertising. 

  Find out if you're invested in 200 of the largest owners of carbon reserves

  The Carbon Underground 200™, compiled and maintained by FFI Solutions (formerly Fossil Free Indexes℠), identifies the top 100 coal and the top 100 oil and gas publicly-traded reserve holders globally, ranked by the potential carbon emissions content of their reported reserves.

  Rankings are constructed using a reserves-based methodology with the underlying core data based on “reported” reserves. Coal reserves are the sum of proven and probable reserves based on the last reported reserves amount by mine. Reserves are allocated to listed companies based on percentage ownership of individual mines. Oil and gas companies are ranked on proven reserves (1P) net of royalty payments.

  The Carbon Underground 200™ relies on the IPCC Revised 1996 Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories as a methodological framework. The calculation of CO2 emission potential requires several conversions to the raw reserves figure.

  Use this link to find out more:

  https://www.ffisolutions.com/research-analytics-index-solutions/research-screening/the-carbon-underground-200/  

  In a future blog I will be looking into the differences between, flying, Cruise ships, ferries and Cars to see exactly how much each one is doing to the environment and to see which one is the worst!

  The blog song for today is: "seven seas of Rye" by Queen

  TTFN 

   

 

Bad Advertising: The evidence and the problem from https://www.badverts.org/the-problem Part One -Cars

 

---

Where do we see advertising?

We are so surrounded by advertising that it can become oddly invisible. As a result advertisers shout louder and louder for our attention, using ever more clever techniques and digital media. Advertising is the cultural water in which we swim. It shapes our choices and wants, our priorities and what we consider to be ‘normal’ and part of the good life. More worryingly, research shows that we soak-up the messages and manipulations of marketing whether we are consciously aware of them or not.

Figure 1: Data adapted from Advertising Association, WARC (2018)

This table shows for one country - the United Kingdom - the different types of advertising people encounter. It’s fairly typical for a relatively wealthy nation. Online advertising, including social media platforms like Facebook, has become (measured by spend) the biggest advertising medium. Governments around the world are struggling to keep pace with new technologies. Regulation is running behind how our data is harvested, re-sold and used to target adverts at us. TV advertising continues to be key for big companies with sufficiently large advertising budgets. 

Outdoor advertising such as giant billboards, digital screens, and panels placed at bus stops and other places for public transport, are particularly problematic because unlike other mediums, we have no choice over whether we view them or not. Unlike when you buy a magazine that you choose to read, adverts in the public domain are non-consensual intrusions. As the outdoor advertising industry likes to brag: “Outdoor advertising is a medium which cannot be turned off, closed, missed or minimised.”  Digital advertising screens are also extremely energy intensive, with one large ad screen using the same electricity as 11 average UK households.

 Digital advertising screens are also extremely energy intensive, with one large ad screen using the same electricity as 11 average UK households. 

Throughout this toolkit we will outline policy measures for different levels of government and regulatory bodies to limit our exposure to high carbon adverts.

 

What is ‘high carbon advertising’?

This toolkit focuses on the climate damage done by advertising high carbon goods and activities (such as SUVs and air travel). But the ad industry has a track record of criticism for its negative impacts on health and well being, for portraying people in discriminatory ways, and promoting out-of-date attitudes.  Health campaigners have been fighting for decades to strengthen regulations on tobacco, alcohol, gambling and junk food advertising. Feminist and equality movements critique the role of marketing in idealising certain body shapes or skin tones - and confront the industry’s attacks on self esteem and mental health.  

Similarly, experts on wellbeing argue that the constant pressure to purchase and consume ‘must-have’ brands undermines mental health and promotes attitudes and values that make us feel worse (For more on this see Tim Kasser’s book The High Price of Materialism . Sometimes impacts can be quietly profound. Communities living next to large, new digital screens, for example, say that advertising billboards can create a subtle reduction in our sense of belonging and place, and intensify the commercialisation of our public spaces. It is important to keep these broader concerns in mind when discussing necessary checks and balances on advertising.

This toolkit looks at the ecological and climate impacts of advertising from these high carbon industries:

• petrol and diesel car advertising, particularly for the largest and most polluting cars such as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUVs)

• airline advertising for flights

• fossil fuel companies (such as Shell and BP) 

While some may claim to be cleaning up their operations and going green, their track records on climate change are those of delay and spreading confusion. Car manufacturers and oil companies lobby to weaken climate action, and airlines are failing to take meaningful action to reduce their overall pollution whilst aggressively pushing to increase the number of  flights.  

From March 2020 onwards, both international air travel and urban transport around the world have been seriously constrained by the coronavirus pandemic and related social distancing measures. Now there is a real danger that, as people are warned to avoid public transport, even more polluting cars will clog up our streets and create soaring levels of lethal air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. When we urgently need cleaner air for our health, and more space on our streets for people, it makes no sense to have multi-million pound ad campaigns encouraging us to buy over-sized new SUVs.

Car advertising

Transport is Europe’s biggest source of carbon emissions, contributing a massive 27% to the EU’s total CO2 emissions in 2018, with cars and vans representing more than two thirds of these. In recent times, the auto industry has been mired in scandals relating to ‘cheat devices’ built into vehicles to get around laws and targets governing fuel efficiency.

Car adverts often display images of exotic, wild or rural locations surrounded by plenty of space. They promise adventure, escape and the open road; but the reality in many world cities is gridlocked traffic jams and soaring, illegal levels of air pollution. The car has become culturally dominant and car advertising has played a key role in positioning car ownership as the ultimate status symbol. Many urban centres are struggling to provide to transit systems based on majority public transport or active travel because cars are culturally locked into both our infrastructure (with space for roads and parking prioritised over cycle lanes and green spaces) and our travel behaviours.

The rise of SUVs

Read the full report

Over the past ten years, car manufacturers have shifted away from selling family cars towards ever bigger, more polluting - but much more profitable - ‘sports utility vehicles’ (SUVs). The industry’s drive to persuade us to buy these larger, dirtier vehicles has been so effective that it now threatens to trash our climate change targets.

Now, with the coronavirus pandemic, we also need as much space on our streets as possible for pedestrians and cyclists to get around and commute to work safely. But as well as being dirtier, oversized SUVs take up far more precious urban space than conventional cars. Why are we allowing marketers to push cars onto our streets that are so big they do not fit in a standard UK parking space?

Recent years have seen vehicle manufacturers move the bulk of their advertising spend to promoting their SUV ranges rather than traditional cars. In 2018, car maker Ford reportedly spent 85% of its advertising budget promoting SUVs and light trucks in the USA. As a result, more and more people are buying SUVs, when we could instead be investing in a cleaner future. If we want to encourage sustainable transport and travel, it’s time to end advertisements promoting big, polluting SUVs.

Key SUV facts

• In 2019, over 150,000 new cars were sold in the UK that are too large to fit in a standard parking space (according to European Environment Agency vehicle sales figures). 

• For every one fully electric vehicle sold in the UK in the last four years, 37 SUVs were sold.

• These unnecessarily large, energy hungry vehicles produce around 25% more CO2 emissions than a medium sized car.

• Globally, rising sales of SUVs are the second biggest cause of increasing CO2 emissions (after power generation, but ahead of aviation and heavy industry)

• Air pollution, largely from motor traffic, kills between 28,000 and 36,000 people a year in the UK.

• The government’s statutory advisors the Committee on Climate Change have recommended a total phase out of sales of new internal combustion engine cars by 2030 to ensure the UK can meet its net zero commitments. Clearly advertising fossil fuelled cars should be phased out in advance of this date.

What are the limits on CO2 emissions from cars in Europe? 

Since 2020, all new cars sold in Europe - including the UK - must not emit more than 95grams of CO2 per km. Carmakers breaching these standards will be required to pay a fine of €95 euros (the equivalent of £83) for every gram over the imposed limit, multiplied by the number of vehicles sold. According to a recent study, the 13 biggest car manufacturers are all set to largely miss the new CO2 emissions targets and will be required to pay billions of euros in compensation.  In the UK alone, average CO2 emissions from cars were 127g/km, 35% above the 95g/km target. This is largely due to an increase in the sales of SUVs and other large vehicles. 

Car manufacturers need to urgently switch away from the production of these vehicles - and stop promoting their dirty vehicles to consumers through multi-billion pound advertising campaigns. In France, the car industry spends €2.5 billion (£2.2 billion) on advertising making it the sector with the second largest ad budget (behind retail). Only 5% of the spending for these media ads was allocated for the promotion of electric vehicles.

Campaigners from Resistance A’Laggression Publicitaire and other networks have proposed in the Climate Citizens Assembly to the French government that curbs on advertising for the most polluting cars must be introduced soon. 

Car advertising - industry pressure waters down European Directives 

Car adverts in the EU are already required to feature the kilograms of CO2 per mile each car emits (under Directive 1999/94/EC, known as "the car labeling Directive").  However, a 2016 review found the directive has so far had limited impact. Motor industry lobbying pushed the information into the small print of adverts, and presents them without context, making it difficult for consumers to know what they mean.

What we’re calling for:

In the UK, we propose that publishing adverts for new cars with emissions exceeding 160g CO2/ per km or with an overall length exceeding 4.8m (that’s longer than your average crocodile) should no longer be permitted in the UK in any form. These thresholds would equate to an advertising ban on the dirtiest third of the UK car market in terms of carbon emissions; and on all cars which are too big to fit in a standard UK parking space. 

The same does apply here on Menorca, there has been a steady rise of people driving around Ciutadella in these great big cars, which take up two spaces or stick out a mile, for what reason I don't know. There's not an awful lot of off-roading to be done here. The roads are quite narrow and mostly one way. We even had a Hummer once, however, there was an incident, in Mahon (a place of many hills) , I think,where the driver parked it up and forgot to put on the handbrake.

We do have problems here with elderly people driving when they really should have stopped years ago. I really don't know how they are still permitted on the road.  The parking is awful, they either drive at breakneck speed or like a snail, either way it is so dangerous. One elderly lady, didn't see the roundabout with the horse on it (by the BP garage) and just drove straight onto it. It even made the daily paper here!

On that note I will leave you with the blog song for today:" pol;;;;;;klo (sorry that was one of the cats walking across the keyboard) "Telephone" by Lady Gaga.

 TTFN