Two yay or nays in one week? We really are bucking trends here this week at Hippyshopper (what with the new design and all, which I hope you like), but this story was one I felt I couldn't let go without hearing your opinions first.
Innocent drinks, famed for their pure and natural smoothies, ethical business principles and refreshingly sunny corporate disposition have gone to the dark side with a decision to trial their kids' drinks in McDonalds. The decision has predictably prompted a gnashing of teeth on the company's website, with some enraged readers citing the hypocrisy of teaming up with a company that has wrecked havoc in the Amazon while claiming to support the Rainforest Alliance, while others accused the company of helping provide more 'greenwash' for McDonalds.
Continue reading >>
Well I would say yay… I think. It’s nice looking, no emissions, eco, green, hippy, all that stuff. For most people the big deal is how cheap it is. A full charge costs approximately 20 pence and that gets you 70 miles. So covering 200 miles per week at average speeds of 35 to 50mph costs a quid, £1, that’s nothing, well in fact it’s 90 per cent less than petrol. Plus it’s also exempt from road tax and qualifies for a 50 per cent saving on insurance premiums.
Related stories: Toni Electroni scooter | Bikes and scooters go mainstream
Continue reading >>
The sheer amount of green baby products around would suggest that today's parents are an eco-conscious bunch, but there are those who say having children at all is a menace to the environment. In last week's Guardian, Will Duguid asked the question 'is it ethical to offset your children?' His suggestion of waiting for a stranger to pop off before you pop one out seems ludicrous, but plenty of people seem to take this argument seriously. '
There are more than enough people polluting the planet as it is', they'll say, 'and bringing in more of them is plain selfish'. In my experience, these tend to be the same child-free brigade who like to berate anyone for stooping so low as to breed, but now they have an environmental argument to add to their arsenal, and it can be a tricky one to argue against. More people equals more pollution - fact.
But to me, this seems a reductio ad absurdium, which defeats the very purpose of being green in the first place: if there are to be no people to enjoy life on the planet, then what's the point in protecting it? To exist as a flourishing yet unappreciated green rock hurtling through space? We might as well start culling people to reduce the amount of C02 breathed into the atmosphere for the good of the planet, or maybe commit the ultimate act of sacrifice by ending our own lives to gain a saintly 'negative' carbon footprint.
Most people I speak to are divided one way or the other about buying organic. There're those who think it's a no-brainer: cutting down on chemicals we don't necessarily know enough about can only be a good thing, both for the environment and our bodies. And then there are those who argue that the chemicals have been in the food chain for long enough without doing any serious damage and don't want to pay extra for what they see as needless caution.
Finally, there's the smaller group that takes a slightly more paranoid attitude, fearing scams and highlighting the relative ease of passing off non-organic food as organic and charging the earth for it (ocasionally with reason). But could the trend towards organics actually be harming the planet? That was a new one on me until I read the Times article today that claims locally grown, organic food may not be as environmentally kosher as it claims to be. (read on after the jump for a synopsis)
The claims have provoked an angry reaction from the Soil Association, and will no doubt re-open the debate once again. So how seriously do you take findings of this sort? Whose authority on organics do you feel you can trust?
Continue reading >>
We seem to be featuring bags almost daily just now, and having spotted some of the fashionistas queueing up for Christopher Kane's catwalk show with their 'eco bags' yesterday, I think this may be the start of something big...
So today we bring you this stylish clutch bag, courtesy of Love Eco. It's made using leather remnants from the furniture industry, which would otherwise go to waste. There's no doubt in my mind that it's a fab design, and I particularly like the cerise lining and oversized vintage buckle. But how do you guys feel about leather accessories? To those of you who don't wear leather as a rule, do you feel differently about items like this?
E Magazine reports that indoor smoking bans have unexpected negative environmental consequences. Smokers are sent out without any new provision for what they're going to do with their litter, and smokers (as someone who's chewed a pack or two in her time, I admit, I'm no better) tend to be flick-happy with their butts in the first place. Result, according to anecdote (which I've also observed myself) is a lot more litter which takes between one and ten years to biodegrade. Worsted Witch notes a disturbing statistic indicating this is no small amount of trash: it is estimated that cigarette butts account for 50 percent of all litter in the world. Also, animals eat the butts and suffer various ill effects, from indigestion to suffocation. The Witch proposes a heavy fine for those who toss their butts in the street. Yay, Nay or other? [GT]
COMMENTARY: Indoor Smoking Bans [via Indoor Smoking Ban: Smoke’s on the Environment? at Worsted Witch]
More Yay or Nay
[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]
Exhibiting at the London Science Museum right now is a driverless hybrid bus that you hail with your mobile. It seats up to 24 people and follows its route based on magnets embedded in the pathway. It uses considerably less energy than normal cars and buses, and costs half as much as a normal bus does to operate, since it has no driver - making it theoretically possible to double the number of buses available, especially in remote areas. However, since it has no driver, there have been glitches: an unmanned bus in France ran over a sleeping dog and killed it. Commenters have also expressed concern about vandalism, thuggery and other unsavory behaviour taking over the buses. Can these logistical problems be solved easily enough to reap the benefits of expanded public transport at reduced environmental impact? Vote yay or nay! [GT]
The driverless bus you hail with your mobile [via BornRich]
[Don't forget to vote at Trashionista, Bridalwave, Corrie Blog, Kiss and Makeup, The Bag Lady, Shoewawa and Shiny Shiny too!]
digg this | del.icio.us this
| 
Stumble It!
