For those who have not had the opportunity to hear about the « 5 minutes to save the planet » operation (and who could not grasp my subtle wordplay), here is a summary. The first of February, the French association “Alliance pour la planète” launched an operation called “5 minutes of respite to save the planet”. The purpose of this campaign was to ask all the citizens to shut down their electrical equipments between 7:55 pm and 8:00 pm. Here is what the NGOs have to say about the purpose of their operation (translated from French): “The goal is not to save up 5 minutes of electricity only on this precise day but to bring up the attention of citizens, media and political elites on the wasting of energy and the emergency of acting!”

Results: the consumption of electricity fell down to 1% at 7.55 which corresponds to roughly 800MW or the consumption of the whole city of Marseille.  Many cities have heard the call of the NGOs, including Paris which shut down the Eiffel Tower as well as other public buildings. Other cities, especially in Belgium, also took part in the operation. This campaign was certainly a huge success for the French association.

You may wonder where the problem is… Fact is, most of the French electricity is produced by nuclear plants (which do not pollute). The French organization in charge of carrying the electricity (RTE) had to lower the production of nuclear plants in order to compensate the quick fall down of the consumption. Obviously, when the consumption rose up 5 minutes later, it was necessary to increase again the production of the plants.

              Happy? Polluter!

But here is the problem… you cannot change the rate of production of a nuclear plant as quickly as this. So, what do you do to compensate the quick raise up of the electrical consumption? Well, you use thermal plants… which, contrary to nuclear plants, do pollute. So yes, the “5 minutes to save the plant” operation, as claimed by NGOs, was symbolic. It was a true symbol of inefficiency and of counter-productive discourses…

The intergovernmental Group of the experts on Climate Change (IPCC) has just here in Paris given its conclusions on the Climate.  These conclusions will help the world powers to better focus their policy on sustainable development, on energy saving, on consumption behavior. A part of the GIEC report/ratio highlights the rising of the sea level from 7 to 18 inches by now to 2100. Because of the global warming, the French have often said "the house is still burning", while the pacific islands say "The islands are drowning". Indeed hundreds of islands of the pacific (such as the Gilbert islands, the atolls of Tahiti and of Bora Bora...) will eventually be underwater.

In French Polynesia, the last two presidents of government Gaston Flosse and Oscar Temaru did not undertake a clear strategy concerning this sustainable development issue. The current president, Gaston Tong Sang has not yet given a statement on his sustainable development policy relating particularly to the consequences of the rising of the sea level.  In the coming weeks, the Atoll of Makemo in French Polynesia will be equipped with 2 windmills. Certainly, their plans will anticipate the sea level issue by raising the foundations a few inches. But then, what will remain on this atoll to benefit from the energy when the atoll will be covered by sea water? Ocean life such as turtles, fish and lobsters will certainly be the future privileged inhabitants of the atoll.

Recently organized, the stable environment Federation (SEF), based in Rouillé (Vienna) denounces the sole use of the wind industry instead of composing with other renewable energies, definitely more effective (which are solar and biocarburant for the Pacific islands). The SEF finds an additional case to analyze and to highlight by taking actions within the legal framework. A STERN Report for the “pacific Ocean” would be a good way to quantify the cost of the lack of actions undertaken. While waiting, the Forum for the Pacific Ocean islands will most probably receive its invitation to take part in the newly created (here in Paris) circle of the United Nations for environment  "friends" (UNOE).

Va'a

I found some interesting data in a recent study published by the European Federation for Transport and Environnement. This study, “How clean is your car brand?”, presents the efforts made by manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions. But that’s not the most interesting way to present that kind of data. Actually, their raking is based on the comparison between a target level of emissions in g/km and a reached level. That shows the efforts. But that does not show which brand is the most polluting one.

That’s why I decided to sort the data by level of emissions in 2005 in order to get a “best polluter’s” ranking. And then we’ll compare this with the “green communication” of the top 3 (if they have one) in order to identify greenwash cases. Here’s the result !

Bronze medal : Mercedes-Benz! Even with the best efforts made among the ranked manufacturers to reduce emissions, the brand didn’t manage to avoid the podium. With an average emission of 185g of CO2 per km, they maintain themselves within the best polluters. But the manufacturer has no “green communication”. It seems like they’re working seriously. No greenwash case!

Silver medal : BMW! Another German brand on the podium. The Munich based company sells less cars than Mercedes-Benz but pollutes a bit more! It allows them to get the second place.
But heir communication on emissions is transparent. You can download data concerning CO2 emissions for each car on their institutional website. No greenwash case!

And the winner is... Volvo! With 195g/km, the competition has been fierce with BMW but they finally grabbed the top place.
On their website, you can check the “environment” page (there). This is pretty interesting... On the french version, the first thing you read is : RESPIREZ A FOND! (BREATHE DEEPLY!), with butterflies and flowers... Greenwash case! Obviously, they try to make customers think they’re buying clean cars that do not pollute... The website presents things in a oriented way that lets the reader think that results of researches are already applied in manufactured cars. But that’s not true!

They all say they’re working on “clean” propulsion solutions, but they still produce and sell polluting cars. And this sector is one of the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. It has a huge responsibility in global warming. Beyond these lines, there is a big problem : in which world do we want to live in coming years? If we want to avoid catastrophic consequences of our irresponsible activities on Earth, we have to act. It supposes we're aware of what we're talking about. And we're talking about polluting transport means. We're still polluting, and the only way out is to develop "clean" means of propulsion. Reducing emissions is the wrong answer to our future.

Now, thanks to Sustainable Illusion, you’re AWARE of what you’re buying!

Source : How clean is your car brand?

Friday, the prince Charles, Camilla and twelve of their staff members went to the East cost for some visit and will be going to New York where the « never king » will be sacred with the « Global Environmental Citizen Award ».

Why him?

When English environmental organizations asked him to receive the price through a videoconference, he answered that since he already had to cancel his vacations in Switzerland, they shouldn’t ask for...

Why him?

This little trip has cost the planet more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide; you say it is the price for an enthronisation?

Oneworld.net