A robot submarine was sent under the ice shelf at the end of the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica to create a 3D map of the ocean underneath the ice. Scientists analysed the data collected and realised that the ice was no longer sitting on a subsea ridge that had slowed the glacier’s slide since the 1970s.

The results means that the glaciers increasing melt rate may not be down to climate change at all – it could be because of the flow of warmer sea water underneath it. Another possibility is that the water properties may have changed over time leading to grinding for the shelf beneath.

The reason for the scrutiny of Antarctica’s glaciers is that Antarctica is thought to be the key to predicting rising sea levels – if the whole of Antarctica melted, sea levels are predicted to rise a massive 187 feet.

Related posts:

1. Antarctic Snowmelt increasing
2. UN report saying Himalayan glaciers would melt within 25 years is exposed as nonsense
3. Another climate change blunder

In theory, a single cow creates enough waste every day to power the televisions in three households. A fairly large dairy farm will have around 10,000 cows and HP believes that this many cows would be able to power one of their data centres.

If HP could find a way to power homes and businesses from cow waste, it would mean helping to reduce two problems in one swoop. The first issue is that cow manure is a threat to the environment because of the methane they produce. Methane is said to be 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide to the environment and with meat and dairy consumption due to grow significantly over the next decade, there are big concerns in this area.

Meanhile, the amount of data we store online is increasing. And with this, technology firms are increasing the size of their data centres, increasing the amount of power required.

HP scientists have pointed out that their ideas are not new. In fact, manure is used in remote villages to generate heat for cooking. HP are just hoping to produce a larger scale, more high-tech version of this.

HP have said that they believe a farmer who signed up to the scheme could earn as much as $2m a year by selling waste-derived power to a data centre.

Related posts:

1. Using cow manure to produce energy?
2. Sewage Used to Power Homes
3. Walking does more damage than driving

By changing the packaging of their 25cl wine range, M&S are hoping to save around 525 tonnes of packaging a year. Plastic not only uses less energy in the manufacturing process but it is also lighter than glass and this means that carbon emissions from the transportation of the bottles should be lower.

The new greener wine bottles will be made from two layers of Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) with a barrier material in between to ensure that the bottles of wine are preserved for up to a year.

In a statement M&S said, “Traditionally, PET has been used for sporting events or in-flight catering where there is a very fast turnover, but with the new oxygen barrier technology, it is now possible to achieve a significantly longer shelf life.”

At present, there appears to be no plans to roll out the new plastic packaging to the larger 75cl wine range.

Related posts:

1. Clothes Made From 100% Recycled Bottles
2. Bottled Water Hazardous to Human Health?
3. Green CDs

It is believed that more people are now starting to burn their rubbish in their back gardens, along with an increase in fly-tipping incidents. This is in part thanks to the fortnightly rubbish collections, compulsory recycling schemes, and restrictive wheelie bin rules that now dog much of the country. Many householders are now burning some of their rubbish as it is a simple, easy option.

Dioxins and other similar chemicals are bad because they are thought to cause cancers, lower sperm country, and pose a risk to pregnant women and their unborn children. There is also some evidence linking dioxins to an increase in diabetes incidence and behavioural problems. Dioxins are also thought to remain in the ground for decades and there are now high enough levels to hurt local wildlife and be able to enter the food chain.

The latest inquiry was completed for DEFRA by consultants AEA last year, but the report was never published. Ministers have now put a copy in the House of Commons library.

The report reveals that, “The backyard burning of municipal solid waste is the single largest source of dioxins from open waste burning, likely due to plastic concentrations within the material burned.

“It is unclear what impact improved recycling levels and understanding within the general public will have on plastic concentration in waste burned.

“While controlled sources have reduced emissions significantly, uncontrolled combustion sources have become far more important.”

The report says that the level of dioxins in the ground in Britain due to burning in 2006 at 179.5 grams on the scale of international toxic equivalence, the most common measure. In comparison, domestic rubbish sent to landfill contributed only 114 grams on the scale. In total, dioxins spilled from all sources amounted to 913.6 grams in 2006.

Related posts:

1. Rubbish dump twice the size of the US in the Pacific Ocean
2. Building an Organic Waste System
3. China’s new plastic bag initiative

It is understood that concrete used to fix some wind turbines to their steel foundations can wear away. This erosion then causes te turbines to drop by a few inches. This fault was discovered at a wind farm in the Netherlands. Wind turbines with single cylinder foundations are the ones which are affected by this flaw.

Energy companies are now looking into the issue to discover how many wind turbines are affected and how badly. Should repairs need to be made to any of the turbines, they will need to be shut down whilst they are being fixed. However it is understood that the flaw is not dangerous and will not affect operational or safety issues.

The bill for fixing the affected wind turbines is unknown – partly because no-one knows yet which turbines are affected.

Related posts:

1. Largest Offshore Wind Farm Given the Green Light
2. Domestic wind turbines not viable for all locations
3. Wind turbines act as giant scarecrows

Infra-red light from modern fluorescent bulbs can be ‘mistaken’ by electrical equipment as commands from a remote and therefore items such as TVs may change channels.

Traditional light bulbs also produce infra-red however they do not flicker like energy-saving light bulbs therefore they tend not to interfere with electrical equipment.

Naturally, the easiest solution is to move either the electrical item or offending light-bulb. However moving equipment isn’t always practical and if you are deliberately trying to minimise your energy usage or up your environmental credentials, moving away from energy-saving lightbulbs is not ideal.

Related posts:

1. Energy saving light bulbs leave you red faced
2. Energy Saving Light Bulb Headache?
3. Getting rid of energy-saving bulbs

Dogs: Great companions but also meat eaters. Their waste also tends to go into plastic bags which take thousands of years in landfill before they decompose.

Cats: One of the most popular pets to have but they are meat eaters. They also tend to catch a lot of local wildlife which isn’t brilliant for the environment!

Horses: Those exercised in heathland are going to have a lower carbon footprint that those in fields. However they tend to eat a lot, raising their carbon footprint, and many require transport (e.g. to and from shows) which again ups their carbon footprint. On the plus side, their waste makes for excellent garden compost.

Budgies, Exotic Fish & Snakes: Be careful where these have been sourced from. If they have come from overseas, they may have a large carbon footprint associated with them. If they have been illegally caught or traded from rainforests or coral reefs, this is also tends to be bad for their home environment.

Rabbits, Guinea Pigs, Gerbils, Hamsters, Rats: Tend to be bred and sold in their home country therefore small transport carbon footprint. Don’t eat large quantities of food nor do they need much in the way of toys or amusements. The waste they produce can often be used as a fantastic garden fertiliser.

So, the answer is that smaller pets tend that don’t require huge amounts of attention are likely to be the greenest pets to have. However, the way that you look after your pet (e.g. how you dispose of your dog’s waste or how many shows you take your horse to) will have a massive effect on how ‘green’ your pet is. The best bet is to pick an animal that you personally want to keep and then adapt the way you look after them to fit in with your green lifestyle credentials.

Related posts:

1. Carbon Paw-Prints: Eco-Friendly Pets
2. The Great Green Con
3. British government releases carbon footprint calculator

Much of the litter appears to be from tourists and visitors to the beach with just 15 percent attributed to fishing boats and smaller amounts from sewage, fly tipping and shipping. A lot of the litter found includes plastic bags, plastic bottles, food wrappers and rope. Plastic, from small shards through to plastic bags, made up around two thirds of the litter found, a much higher figure than in previous years.

Plastic is terrible for the marine environment. Bags can be eaten by whales and turtles which eventually die of starvation because their stomachs are so full of plastic. Animals such as seals and birds can be killed if they get caught up in netting, bags or ropes. Fragments of plastic eaten by marine animals may also be providing a path for toxins up the food chain.

The problem is so bad that a recent survey found that more than a third of stranded leatherback turtles had plastic in their stomachs; And in some areas of the ocean, there is estimated to be six times as many fragments of plastic as there are plankton, the tiny organisms that are at the bottom of the food chain.

This year’s litter pickers found:

• 16,243 drinks bottles
• 7,393 plastic bags
• 7,025 pieces of plastic cutlery
• Numerous other pieces of plastic including straws, cups and trays

Related posts:

1. Plastic Bags and the Environment
2. British Supermarkets Slash Plastic Bag Use
3. Online Supermarkets Use Too Many Plastic Bags

Phenology shows that non-tropical plants have three major factors which decide when they will start blooming: the degree of winter chilling, the photoperiod – the length of the day relative to the night – and the temperature. These three factors are usually looked at in sequence, that is the plant will usually look to see that the winter chilling period has ended before looking at the photoperiod, and then the temperature.

This means that even if the climate does get warmer, plants that rely heavily on these three sequential factors will likely not be blooming any earlier thanks to the photoperiod.

Any photoperiod-insensitive plants, however, will probably bloom earlier as they will just be looking for the end of the winter chills and the warmer temperatures.

This means that whole ecosystems could change dramatically if climate change actually happens. However it is important to note that it is not just the climate which affects plants – things such as the mineralization of the soil will have a large role to play in plant prosperity too.

Even so, this research is an important reminder that it is almost impossible to fully predict the responses of plants and ecosystems in a changing climate.

Related posts:

1. Old DNA – evidence of climate change
2. Climate Change and the Spread of Disease
3. Butterflies used to monitor climate change

The theory behind compensatory ethics is that people have a limited stock of goodwill to draw upon. By being virtuous in one area of their lives, this internal stock of goodwill is depleted meaning that there is less goodwill to be ‘used’ in other aspects of life.

Psychologists from the University of Toronto designed a study to discover the traits of green product shoppers and discovered that compensatory ethics appeared to be in play – Shoppers were more likely to cheat and steal after buying green products than conventional products.

Two groups were used for the experiment with 45 people in each group. Everyone was given $5 – one group was told to buy goods from an ordinary online store whilst the other were told to buy goods from an online store selling environmentally friendly products.

The ‘green’ group were then found to be more likely to cheat at a simple game than the ‘conventional’ group. Each person was then invited to take a certain amount of money from an envelope as a reward. The ‘green’ group had a tendency to take more money than they were entitled to.

However the issue is not totally clear-cut. Other experiments have shown that volunteers behaved more honestly when shown green products – but not when they had to buy them.

Related posts:

1. Consumers happy to pay a ‘green’ premium
2. Online Supermarkets Use Too Many Plastic Bags
3. Mobile networks could slash carbon emissions by up to 42 percent