Earlier this week the BBC reported that a planned recycling plant in Lincolnshire will more than double the UK's ability to re-use PET bottles. A partnership between ECO Plastics and drinks giant Coca-Cola Enterprises Ltd (CCE) will allow the isles to process 75,000 tonnes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) each year, which is almost double the current volume processed in the UK.

Considering we live on an island with over 60 million people where each person on average goes through 90 drink cans, 70 food cans, 107 bottles and jars and 45kg of plastic each year, perhaps a large scale programme of re-using plastic bottles should have been brought into action years ago?

We've previously written that in other countries, like Norway, recycling schemes for plastic bottles have been around for years. What happens is you pay a small 'fee' for each bottle, which will be returned to you once you bring it back to be recycled. Each bottle will usually be re-used 10-15 times before getting another purpose. If other countries can make it work, then why hasn't Britain done something about it before? If having paid for the bottle - not just its contents - perhaps people would think twice before just throwing it away for others to deal with or worse at the side of the road so that it becomes an unsightly blemish on Mother Nature's green roads...

While it is good that a company like Coca-Cola - whose livelihood (mostly) depends on the use of plastic bottles - is doing something to help the growing plastic bottle issue in the UK, we can't help to think that recycling PET bottles to be "re-used in packaging" doesn't help the cause much unless the 'packacing' in question is actually new bottles. If the recycled bottles are reused in other food packaging, it may just end up on a landfill somewhere to decompose for hundreds of years or join the ever increasing 'plastic island' that is said to be floating around in the Pacific Ocean.

Besides, could this just be another tick on Coca-Cola's check-list to boost its environmental credentials in the run up to the London 2010 Olympics, which the company is sponsoring?

What do you think dear readers? Is it a genuine attempt to address Britain's plastic bottle recycling issue or just another way for a global multi-billion dollar company to gain eco creds?

Image: greencrawler.com

The government will this week signal if it could support a proposed strategy to move the clocks forward by an hour, taking it to mainland Europe time.

Campaign group Lighter Later, which is lobbying for the move, claim that darker mornings and lighter evenings will cut energy consumption and save almost 500,000 tonnes of CO2 every winter. Apparently moving 60 minutes ahead will cut carbon emissions and boost UK economy, as the number of visitors to the British Isles could increase. Longer evenings would also increase the opportunity for post-work outdoor pursuits.

Now more overseas visitors would surely mean a surge in air traffic and more cars on UK roads, unless people swim across the channel to reach the British shores? And darker, longer mornings would only make us reach for heaters and indoor lamps to 'lighten up' our day a bit more?

I grew up in an area where summers equals perpetual daylight. Needless to say, we rarely use artificial light during the warmer months as the sky never darkens. But winters are long, cold and dark. What do people do? Reach for artificial light sources of course to ensure it doesn't get too gloomy.

I know it's only talk about one hour, but some voices have raised concern about what it would say for UK farmers. Unlike humans, it's not that easy (I imagine) to re-programme cows to be milked one hour later or for hens to lay eggs later to fit in with the new time.

Perhaps Britain and the rest of the countries adhering to summer- and wintertime should just agree to shift the clocks to permanent summertime?

As recently as a decade ago, saying you were 'pro nuclear' was on a par with admitting to a fondness for killing kittens. But attitudes towards the controversial fuel have recently changed dramatically in the green world, with some high profile activists and scientists 'coming out' as being in favour of nuclear power, viewing it as the only way to fulfil the world's energy needs within advised C02 emissions targets. In the meantime, green protesters have turned their attention to opposing and exposing the evils of coal.

Does the fact that these experts have changed their minds so starkly affect your view on its use as a fuel, or do the dangers posed by nuclear; the problems with waste storage and the potential for catastrope outweight its undeniable use as a 'clean' fuel for you?

Poll after the jump.

Emma Thompson has become the most vocal celeb-campaigner against the proposed and approved expansion of Heathrow, supporting Greenpeace in their Airplot scheme, which encouraged opponents of the plans to buy plots of land near the development site.

Thompson has spoken out against the plans, making the very reasonable point that any government claiming to have the planet's best interests at heart is somewhat hypocritical to allow such a polluting scheme to go ahead. But it's not Thompson herself who's being branded a hypocrite; not only by Geoff Hoon who one might expect to have a problem with the actress's position, but by fellow environmentalists as well...

One of the best things you can do for the planet is ensure that your home is heated as efficiently as possible. Central heating accounts for a massive proportion of your carbon footprint, so the more you do to reduce it, the bigger an impact you'll make.

The simplest way to do this is to cut down on how much heating you actually use. But that isn't always easy as the winter weather sets in. And this is where renewable energy packages start to look seriously attractive. But what about the cost?

One of the interesting things about the credit crunch is not the ways it changes people's behaviour, but the ways it doesn't. Let's look back to a year ago, when we were all rolling in money. If you can remember that far back, you'll recall that it was considered far more 'normal' to buy expensive coffee on the way in to work than it is now - and that's no real surprise. Expensive coffee is something we can all live without.

But there are some things that haven't changed: expenses that we still justify, whether we can really 'afford' them or not. And according to a source of mine at a major UK supermarket chain, the one are that customers are still prepared to shell out is 'welfare food'; free range meat, poultry and dairy products in particular.

Related: Enjoy an alternative Christmas dinner | Would you buy battery again?

An eco-friendly tumble dryer sounds like my idea of a dream gadget, ever since I found out the horrible truth of how much energy a standard dryer guzzles up. I did know about spin dryers, which rely on gravity to work their drying magic, but having mangled one garment too many using a spin dryer at college, was not convinced by them. So what could possibly power an eco-friendly tumble dryer?

The answer, apparently, is gas...

Take part in more Yay or Nays

Last year we did the whole real vs. artificial trees debate to death, and I'm sure it'll soon be raging once again. But I've recently heard about a third option that could throw open the argument once again, or possibly even solve it: it's the idea of renting a Christmas tree.

So far, I'm only aware of one, solitary farm offering such a scheme: Heeley City Farm in Sheffield. The scheme allows you to collect a tree at the beginning of the festive season, then when twelfth night rolls around, instead of planting it in the garden or gifting it to the bin men, you return it to the farm where it'll be well looked after for another year, ready to do its Christmassy service for another family next December.

Related: Grow your own Christmas tree | Hippyshopper guide to Christmas trees | Alternative green Christmas tree

Whether it's the state of the planet or your wallet that's concerning you more, heating your home with electricity or gas accounts for a hefty amount of fuel usage, and depending on your lifestyle, may well be the largest single contributor to your carbon footprint. So it's no wonder that many are looking to alternative heating strategies for what may be a hard and frugal winter. But just how green are those alternatives, really?

Take part in more yay or nays

'I'm sure they only send it abroad' is a common refrain I've heard when talking about council recycling schemes, and it's starting to look like this belief may be true in many cases. Some councils are happy to admit they send waste abroad, while others keeps schtum. But it's definitely going on, which raises the question is it better to recyle abroad than not recycle at all? I found that it's not nearly as straightforward a question as you might think...

It was reported today that sales of organic food are in decline for the first time in years, and consumers are complaining that many foods sold as 'eco-friendly' - particularly those sold in premium food 'emporiums' like Whole Foods Market - are simply too expensive.

This got me to thinking on how else the current economic climate could affect our shopping habits, and whether we'll see a return to buying cheaper, less healthy and less ethically-produced food. But my hunch is that it need not: there are ways to eat organic all year round without visiting any posh delis: growing your own, for example, or ordering in a veggie box to make a week's worth of nutritious organic meals. And for non-food products, buying green is often a big money saver: greener gadgets invariably result in lower energy use, for example. But are we prepared to put in the effort when you can buy intensively-farmed chickent for a couple of quid? Yay or nay.

Related: Hippyshopper guide to saving money the green way | Supermarkets forced to electronically tag organic chicken

Amid soaring petrol prices, the government has today 'postponed' a green fuel tax that would have added an extra 2p on the cost of every litre.

Some have pointed out that the cost of fuel is already so high that an additional levy would be pointless; those who cannot afford the prices are already being forced to leave their cars behind, so the charges would make little difference from an environmental perspective. Others believe that the government is removing the tax only through credit crunch-fuelled fear of sinking further in the public's estimation.

Related: Top 5 weirdest alternative fuel sources | Fuel efficiency: nice it you can get it | Electric cars given the green light in UK shopping centres

If the Olympic torch has shed light on anything, it's the case against the Chinese regime that's now shining brightest in many people's minds.

Laying aside for one moment the country's actions in Tibet, there have been concerns raised over its appalling human rights record (including 'starvationa wages' and poor working conditions), jailing of anyone who dares speak out against the regime and animal rights violations to name but a few objections.

No, those aren't particularly girly-looking ties, but washable sanitary towels from Rachael Hertogs' online store, with everything a new-age woman could possibly want on hand for her 'moon time'.

Laugh all you like at the bunnies, moons and stars (you can buy a plain set too, but where's the fun in that?) but there's a serious message here, too; the average woman uses around 17,000 items of sanitary protection in her lifetime, which is an awful lot of stuff filling our landfill or being flushed into our sewerage system or even out on to our beautiful beaches. By re-using your pads you'll be making a pretty major contribution towards lessening this impact. So, ladies; what do you say to using the same set of towels for, oh, at least the next solstace? [Via Little Green Blog]

Ken Livingstone has declared war on so-called Chelsea Tractors by slapping a £25 charge on anyone who drives one into London's existing congestion zone.

This is quite a jump up from the standard charge of £8 per vehicle, but Ken isn't stopping there: vehicles deemed to be the 'least polluting' will now be exempt from any charge. Ken was quoted as saying that “the CO2 charge will encourage people to switch to cleaner vehicles or public transport and ensure that those who choose to carry on driving the most polluting vehicles help pay for the environmental damage they cause."

Do you drive a car in London? Do you think the increase will act as enough of a preventative to the capital's most well-off drivers to improve the air quality?

Related: Would you let a 4x4 destroy a friendship?