Irish rocker Bono is mostly known for going on the occasional world tour with his band U2 to entertain his disciples. But Bono is also a savvy investor in media, entertainment and technology entities, which is now elevating him to new heights.

Back in 2000 Bono co-founded Elevation Partners, a private equity group, which later went on to invest $270 million in the world's biggest social network over three instalments between 2009 and 2010, when Facebook was valued at $16 billion. Fast-forward a couple of years, Facebook is reportedly preparing to float for an expected $100bn (£64.4bn) in a couple of months and Bono and his fellow investors are set to reap an estimated $1.4 billion from their investment.

Bono has become one on the world's best-known philanthropic performers and is actively involved in social and political causes. He also runs eco-fashion label, EDUN, with his wife Ali Hewson.

So our question today, since he has clearly made enough money of official band merchandise sales and as an occasional hotelier (he owns Dublin's Clarence Hotel with The Edge), should Bono use his Facebook profits to save the world?

What could $1 billion do?

A 'meagre' $1bn will not even make a dent into the global debt crisis, but it could help provide debt relief to some of the poorest countries in the world.

Bono could invest the money into his sustainable fashion label EDUN, which strives to stimulate trade with poverty stricken countries.

Every year over 700,000 children die needlessly from malaria in Africa. Bono could buy enough malaria nets, for only $5 a piece, to prevent these unnecessary deaths and still have money left to stock up on sunglasses.

He could invest in green energy solutions to create a more sustainable future.

And what about Facebook in all of this? With its around 850 million monthly active users, Facebook now has nearly as many 'inhabitants' as there are malnourished people in the world (925 million). If Facebook was a real country it would be the 3rd most populated in the world.

Should the social network give some of its impending profits to environmental and humanitarian causes to ensure a more sustainable future for the real world?

I am not a vegetarian... yet. But more and more I am moving towards a pescaterian diet. Hey I'm from Scandinavia and will never be able to give up seafood. But an article in today's Independent about the thick pink paste American food producers add to many popular products is enough to make any normal person's stomach turn.

In the land where pizza is classified as a 'vegetable' (someone needs to educate them) scientists have found a way to turn the scraps from the abattoir floor into a substance called 'pink slime'. They clearly didn't have a PR involved in the naming of the stuff. This pink slime is then added, unknown to consumers, to things like hamburgers, tacos and other beef-based junk foods. Why? To make the mince go further.

The process goes something like this: add the cow scraps into a heated centrifuge to separate the fat from the putty. Then treat the substance with a chemical used in household cleaners to kill off salmonella and e-coli (how kind) and mix with regular beef.

Now it is a while since I stopped eating McDonald and Burger King burgers (remember that photo of the McD burgers one year on... That was why I stopped). These companies have now stopped adding the slime to their burgers, but I am staying far away from them either way.

The pink slime has been legal to sell in the US since 2001, and today more than half of the ground beef sold in America contains the stuff. A sneaky legislation also doesn't make it necessary to mention it on the ingredients lists. Luckily this pink slime is banned in Europe.

Now I am all for finding solutions to make food go longer, such as growing meat in a laboratory, if it means a more sustainable food future for the world. But adding something clearly unhealthy to spend less on actual produce, in this case beef, is disgusting.

Ever since we heard the news earlier this week that meat is now being grown in labs, with scientists using stem cells to create strips of beef, the debate has been quite lively here at Hippyshopper HQ: Would you eat test-tube meat?

According to this article on BBC.co.uk, Dutch scientists are now working towards creating a more efficient alternative to rearing animals and have so far successfully grown small pieces of beef muscle in a laboratory. The beef strips are then to be mixed with blood and artificially grown fat to produce a hamburger by the autumn.

The cells initially used to grow the beef strips come from by-products of slaughtered animals, but could potentially be taken from a living animal in the future.

Besides the discussion of would you eat it or not, I suppose there is the question of if vegetarians could, and would, eat this lab-grown meat? According to the Vegetarian Society, a vegetarian does not eat 'any meat, poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacean, or the by-products of slaughter'. So as it currently stands, these synthetic hamburgers would be a no-go for vegetarians.

However, leaving the idea that a meat-free diet is healthier aside, in the future, if no animals have been killed or hurt in the process of making this type of meat, vegetarians could potentially eat this meat if they (as most vegetarians I know) are doing it on grounds of animal welfare. In the end, I suppose it comes down to individual choice. But with the first lab-grown burgers estimated to cost around £200,000 to produce, there is still a long way to go before we would see it in our local supermarket.

But going back to the original question: Would you eat test-tube meat? For the devoted vegetarians in the office the answer was simple: no, they wouldn't. For me, a carnivore with a conscience - I'd never have an animal killed for the sake of ending up on my plate and I do care about animal rights - I would definitely try it. And if it means an end to unnecessary slaughtering of animals and a more fair distribution of food worldwide, the future is looking brighter when seen from the lab lights.

I came across an article in the New York Times last weekend about a rising trend stateside: the personal environmental concierge. These are people that will "run your errands by bicycle, recommend a spa for vegan manicures or buy organic clothes for you and your dog".

Speaking to the NY Times Letitia Burrell, president of Eco-Concierge NYC, said: "The problem with going green is that people think it takes so much work, so much effort, so much conscious decision-making. So to help people out Burrell set up Eco-Concierge NYC one year ago to try to make it easier for people to "rid their homes of toxins, hire sustainable-cuisine chefs and find organic dry cleaners". Depending on the level of service you want, memberships will set you back from $175 a month to $3,500 a year (that's approximately £110 per month or £2,200 per year).

Definitely a niche business idea, I haven't heard of anyone offering the service over here in the UK but I'm sure someone will soon adapt the idea (after reading it here of course!) to the English market. While it is great that people want to adopt a greener lifestyle, I am just wondering if this, paying someone else to be greener on your behalf, isn't just a bit like cheating. For people to become more eco minded - and to benefit the environment in the long run - we all need to educate first and foremost ourselves, then our friends and family and then our communities. In an ideal world, if each and every one took responsibility for their carbon footprint, waste reduction and general lifestyle changes needed to become 'greener' the world would eventually become just that. Unfortunately we all know this is never going to happen - not in the nearest future at least, the governments around the world will continue in their quest to cut back on CO2 emissions and reduce the negative impact on the planet we call home.

I suppose, for now, if professionals that are "too busy to research" how to be greener opt to pay to have an eco-concierge do these things for them is better that not doing something at all...

What do you think? Leave us a comment below or join the eco-nversation on Facebook.

I counted the bins outside my house this morning as I left for work: three. One small box for plastic bottles, cans and newspapers; one green for cardboard and garden waste; and one grey for general waste.

Now I won't get into how different London Boroughs have different recycling plans, but let me tell you, after almost two years in the same house I still struggle to figure out what goes where. Apparently I`m not able to recycle envelopes with plastic windows as one and have to mindfully separate the plastic from the paper before disposing...

Coming from Norway, considered as the 5th most environmentally friendly country in the world, I remember also having a tiny red box for things like batteries and broken glass, as well as bottle banks around town for unrecyclable bottles. Oh yeah, in Norway we have a great recycling scheme for bottles - not sure which other countries use it now; when you buy the bottle you pay a small 'fee' that you get back when you bring the bottle back for reuse. You can even count how many times each bottle has been reused by looking at the number of marks on the bottom - usually one bottle can be reused 10-15 times before it goes on to new adventures in the recycling world. Anyway, I do digress. The question was: how many recycling bins do Brits really need?

According to research by The TaxPayers' Alliance some councils are asking householders to sort their rubbish into as many as nine bins, bags and boxes, with the average being four. Is this too many?

Personally, I think as long as you have clear and universal guidelines - UK councils and London Boroughs take note - it doesn't matter if you have to separate your rubbish into three, four or nine sections. And increased recycling will only improve the impact we humans have on the world, but only if the waste is duly kept separate at the other end. It doesn't help if it all ends up in the same landfill after collection...

What is the recycling scheme like where you live, are you happy with it or not?

Image from Forskning.no

This morning, en route to work, I overheard my first little old lady saying 'it's time to put on the thermals!' And people found this rather funny. But she wasn't wrong; it's getting pretty nippy out there.

But it occurred to me that it only ever is little old ladies that make this very obvious adjustment to their wardrobe each winter, while the rest of us freeze in our 'sexy' all-year-round lingerie. Why? Is there any reason that thermal underwear can't be designed to look attractive too? It would certainly cut down on our use of heating if we had an extra layer of padding under our clothes.

And happily, it seems at least one label has had this idea. Enamore, makers of scrummy ethical lingerie have brought a touch of glamour to cozy underwear, including their fabulous Juliet nightie (and, of course, there's always the self-heating bra). But I reckon there's a lot of scope for truly stylish warming underwear this winter.

Before I became Hippyshopper editor, I could say with some confidence what people meant when they described themselves as 'green'. But now I'm not so sure...if anything I'm more confused than ever!

Tell someone you're green, and it's likely they'll soon harbour some pretty funny ideas about you and your beliefs. They will almost always assume you are vegetarian (which in my case is true) or vegan, but I know plenty of omnivorous people who are doing more than their bit for the environment. They will assume that you have no interest in anything remotely mainstream, be it fashion, popular culture or anything that could be loosely described as 'fun'. And they'll probably take it as read that you're into alternative medicine, are a staunch believer in homeopathy, angels and UFOs and are probably, to put it bluntly, a bit touched.

All this tells me that the meaning of the word 'green' is changing. I know very few people who fit the traditional 'green' stereotype, and wonder how long it will stick around. But if the definitions used by people outside the green community are confusing enough, they're nothing compared with those within it...

In today's Guardian, George Monbiot expressed a view that I've heard countless times since I've been editing Hippyshopper; that nowadays 'going green' is mainly another way for the middle classes to make themselves feel virtuous, while continuing to pollute the planet with long-held habits. And it caused me exactly the same internal conflict as it invariably does...

Largely because a lot of the article is depressingly familiar. How many comfortably-off people do you know who congratulate themselves for their eco-warrior credentials whilst continuing to fly, drive their kids around in people-carriers and buying as many questionable items as before? (Stand up Mr Chris Martin)

An article in the Times today was a heartening reminder that amidst all the talk of neo-conservatism and religious fundamentalism rearing its ugly head, most of us are really a load of hippies at heart. And we may have our parents to thank for this...

That's my Mum, back in 1967, year of the 'summer of love' which took place an astonishing 40 years ago. To many, it seemed as though the hippy ideals of the sixties were lost as the former flower children cut their hair, took out mortgages and generally went to seed. But now it seems we have our parents to thank for a generation that values of peace, love and concern for the planet. I'm sure it's no coincidence that it also favours flowing maxi-dresses (in organic cotton) and has a big fondness for festivals...

First we went to Wal-Mart to buy zebra fish, since it was more convenient than PetSmart, where the employees snubbed us and sold our fish to other customers. Then we went to refill our 4-litre jugs of water. It was closer than the Co-op. Then we went to Wal-Mart for the antihistamines and calcium supplements, since it was cheaper than either of the grocery stores. But we steered clear of the grocery section. Now even that. Too late. I felt exceedingly uneasy. Concerned about the relative quality of the products - but the same goods were in our cart as would be in our cart at some other chain store. Newman's Own organic salad, which generates donations to charity. Local Italian bread. Organic tomato sauce and cereal. All of it significantly cheaper than at either of the chain grocery stores, and all of it appearing to be in equivalently good condition.