GM food is an emotive issue, but is too emotive? It seems to me that many people are automatically against modifying crops but don’t really know why.

Indeed, it seems unnatural to mess with our food, but is it worth considering GM’s potential? And what about claims that GM could help developing world countries feed their populations?

In his new Horizon documentary for BBC2, celebrity sustainable farmer Jimmy Doherty looks at this burning issue. He travels to the USA, Argentina and Uganda to find out how genetically modified food is regarded abroad.

Jimmy discovers how the UK has become virtually a GM-free zone because of the strength of protests against the technology. He also visits research labs to see GM purple tomatoes, designed to be rich in the antioxidants traditionally found in berries.

Argentina and the US are clearly embracing the GM revolution; in America, pro-GM voices claim that people have been eating GM corn and soya for years, with no adverse health effects. And, in Argentina, Jimmy witnesses the GM soya boom (used for animal feed), which has led to a huge rise in country’s agricultural output and made it the capital of the GM world.

In large parts of the developing world, millions of people are permanently malnourished. Jimmy travels to Uganda, one of the wealthier countries in Africa, to hear how whole crops of bananas are being devastated by black Sigatoka disease. Is there a strong argument here for GM bananas to save the fruit from destruction?

I liked Jimmy’s GM Food Fight. He presented a balanced, open-minded and reliable guide to GM, which is often hard to find. For every positive argument put forward, the negative sides – and in particular, serious environmental concerns – are equally highlighted.

So where does it leave us? The debate over GM food has been raging for more than a decade and, whether we like it or not, genetically modified crops are not going away.

So are they a good thing, or should they be banned? Where do you stand in today’s GM debate?

The link below is a letter from hedge fund manager Andrew Lahde shutting down his fund. It got quite a lot of attention on the internet and in blogs for his candid assessment of the state of US banking. You may well wonder what the hell this has to do with Green issues.
In his final paragraph he rather interestingly calls for the legalisation of Hemp and calls for us all to start thinking about how we can be self sufficient.
It’s a little hard to take given that this chap resigns with more money than most of us could dream of but it’s a good read nevertheless. Perhaps the worm is finally turning…

The whole make/craft scene is in incredibly rude health right now. I’m all for the DIY culture revival, although I’m completely cack-handed and would probably nail my hand to a toilet roll if I tried any of this stuff. Still, it makes for inspiring viewing.

Here’s a project from Make magazine that caught my eye: how to build a bird feeder with a built in webcam. It’s a great way to help the UK’s struggling bird population and you could have your own ‘Winter watch’ live from your garden.

It does get a bit technical so, if you want to help out the birds without getting your geek on, here are some great bird feeder do’s and don’ts from Auntie Beeb and a whole host of wildlife gardening projects from the lovely folk at Gardeners’ World.

And now for the video:

Alternatively, you could just build a little birdhouse in your soul.

How susceptible are you to spin? Earlier this year, the New York Times reported on a book called Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.

The authors argue that some new creative thinking on the part of marketers is increasingly affecting the way we behave. Salespeople - or “choice architects” as the New Yorkers like to call them - increasingly believe that the best way to get us to make choices is to trick us into thinking we’re making them all by ourselves. This is called a “nudge”.

One example could be the rows of chocolate bars in the queuing area around a supermarket checkout. It isn’t a cut-price promotion screaming for your attention – this isn’t about being pushed into a purchase. Instead, it’s a simple, albeit carefully orchestrated, presentation where you retain the freedom to buy or not. And the tactic appears to work.

When it comes to the environment, there are some interesting parallels in the way we discuss the big issues. Certainly, there are indications that shocking people with alarming statistics and reports about climate change is not always very effective.

Equally, telling people what to do – often in form of “top 10 things you can do to be green” – can be counterproductive. Many people are understandably turned off by these demands because they want the control over their decisions. The Nudge authors would argue that we shouldn’t tell people to make their homes more energy efficient, but get them to think it (or think they’ve thought it) first.

That’s a big challenge for the green media and policy makers. One way to meet it could lie in their choice of language. One trend, which I’ve heard from several people in the last few months, is a move away from mentioning “carbon emissions”. It seems that cold, scientific and often hard-to-conceive terms (can you picture a tonne of carbon?) actually turn us off.  And that this affects our behaviour.

The increasingly popular alternative for carbon emissions is “environmental pollution”. These two words are easy to understand, highly emotive and very visual. The idea is that people will react much more positively to stopping a kind of pollution than an emission.

As a side note, I’ve often wondered if the scale of global warming puts many people off the whole subject. When the media talks about “saving the planet” (BBC Green may have to hold its hands up here), what is it really asking people to do?

The media’s choice of language here challenges people to do something that seems impossible - surely it would be better to focus on something that we can actually conceive. Besides, these cries of “saving the planet” are not strictly accurate - the planet will be fine; it’s us humans that won’t be.

Perhaps if environmentalists use more realistic and manageable language to communicate their messages, people might begin feel as though they can make the right decisions. Then maybe we could really kick-start a green revolution.

The latest issue of Ethical Consumer magazine has a good piece on Premiership football clubs. Sarah Irving’s article acknowledges that supporting a club is hardly a matter of choice on the same level as, say, washing powder but she explores some thought-provoking points.

Ethical Consumer rates all the clubs by the corporate ethics of their owners, kit suppliers and shirt sponsors. Initially there aren’t too many surprises: all the teams are broadly as bad or good as each other.

For the curious, Blackburn Rovers sit at the bottom of the main table thanks, in part, to the Walker Trust’s reported involvement in animal testing. But most individuals or companies rich enough to invest in a Premiership club are likely to be involved in the types of large corporations (e.g: overseas clothing manufacture, oil, and banking). And it is these types of large corporations which tend to score badly with Ethical Consumer.

Perhaps if Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand’s controversial former prime minister, still owned Manchester City then the table would have looked a bit different. Another interesting ‘personality’ owner is the man behind Fulham Football Club, Harrods impresario Mohamed Al Fayed, who routinely gets criticism for selling fur products.

Outside of the Premiership there are clubs such as Stockport, Notts County and, famously, AFC Wimbledon who are owned by Supporters Trusts. I wonder if this would ever work for a top-flight club these days. Such democratic structures may be unwieldy for a top-flight club, but it would certainly be interesting to see.

Many of the team kit manufacturers have black marks against them for international workers’ rights. Once again we have to acknowledge that, for the committed supporter, choosing not to buy your team’s shirt for ethical reasons is a step too far.

Likewise, fans can’t do a lot about their team’s shirt sponsor but there have been some interesting developments in that area. Following the example of Barcelona and their UNICEF sponsorship, Aston Villa score points with Ethical Consumer for advertising a charity, Acorn Children’s Hospice, on their shirts.

The best score in the report, rather cheekily, goes to Newcastle United since: “Given Northern Rock’s financial troubles in the past year, it’s been suggested that its continued sponsorship makes Newcastle Britain’s state-funded football team.”

But the most interesting part of the article tackles that most controversial part of top-flight football, something that gets even non-football fans hot under the collar: Premiership wages. The average income of a Premiership footballer in the 2005-6 season was £676,000. That average may be skewed dramatically by the top earners on more than £80,000 a week but it’s still staggering and it’s a good bet that the average is even higher this season.

Conversely, a 2007 poll that found that the British public thought that the average salary of Premiership footballer should be around £62,000. So there is a huge discrepancy between what players are paid and their perceived worth by the population.

What makes these amounts seem even more outrageous is that many clubs are known to pay minimum wage to their cleaners and catering staff. A Deloitte Survey found players wages account for a whopping 60% of a top club’s turnover. Will Hodson asks in the article whether we should not celebrate this as a victory for the workers. But if it is only the elite players that are doing well, I’m afraid I don’t agree.

The wider model of how clubs are financed just seems wrong and I wonder how long it can continue. The clubs are in debt years or decades into the future, whilst trying to compete by getting the top players on the highest wages.

But what’s the answer? I, for one, would support an annual salary cap for an individual player and even a whole team. The money saved could be used in any number of ways - what about cheaper tickets and a better wage for the entire club’s staff. Or how about more support of the lower leagues or football in developing countries?

Some teams such as Manchester City, Arsenal, Middlesbrough and non-league Dartford have made investments in becoming greener by improving facilities, power supply and transport links. And more clubs could do the same. Or how about each club owning and broadcasting their own home games live online on a pay per view basis? That way, we wouldn’t have to put up with the scheduling shenanigans of the major TV channels and the money would go to the clubs.

What would make football more ethical in your opinion?

Forget the sex and drugs, these days it’s all offsets, biodegradable mugs n’ rock ‘n’ roll. Surely a good thing, but why does it seem such a turn off?

My idea of an eco rock star conjures up dreadful images of ice cream eating hippies and smug poseurs like Sting, who ironically was branded an eco-hypocrite for the Police reunion tour.

Last year, the good people at Grist compiled a list of green bands, which went some way to dispelling this myth (Green Day? How perfect!). The list reminded us of the likes of Willie Nelson, surely one of the coolest people in music who lives, breathes and smokes green.

The mythos of rock ‘n’ roll is inherently wasteful. Self destruction almost guaranteed icon status for the likes of Jim Morrison and Kurt Cobain. Likewise, some of the defining moments in rock involved wanton abuse of instruments, think of Pete Townsend, Jimmy Hendrix or even Jerry Lee Lewis, who himself is seemingly indestructible.

However, replacing a broken Fender Stratocaster is small fry compared to the larger impacts of bands. Now your favourite act can load up on recycled guitars (despite them being really quite ugly) and power their buses with biodiesel. But that world tour is always going to incur a massive carbon footprint, even if they offset flights with the best companies.

Does the average fan care though? I believe that even the greenest individual is prepared to cut their favourite bands some slack in this area, just as they would with football teams and international athletes. After all, what real fan wants to see a webcast of a live show rather than have the band visit their country?

Radiohead have garnered a great deal of praise for their touring methods, not least from support act Liars, whose tour diary included this nugget:

At the outset we were all given tour water flasks. Plastic anything is, like, contraband. Every bus and truck runs on biofuel. There is no idling, rather some new-fangled way to deliver electricity cleanly. They don’t do air freight either. The list goes on… Everything is supremely managed to reduce the ‘footprint’ and it’s inspiring, in that its ‘real’ and should set the standard for other big productions.

I can’t help but smile at the thought that on a Radiohead tour you’re more likely to get in trouble for carrying plastic rather than whiskey or groupies backstage. But more power to Radiohead and those who can afford to make similar efforts.

So if the tour must go on, what else can bands do to be green?

Famously Radiohead also released their In Rainbows album as a download - surely this is the next step for bands seeking to be eco-friendly? That album did eventually come out on CD and vinyl, and Radiohead’s intention was really about countering illegal file sharing. But it is not uncommon now for bands to make digital-only releases.

For the purist it’s just not the same, but on the format debate I’m down with the kids. CDs are ugly and wasteful. More than one billion jewel cases are produced each year in North America alone, out of materials that are difficult to recycle. Perhaps keep a limited quantity of vinyl for the product fetishists (with a voucher to download the MP3 files) and charge a premium for it. But let’s say goodbye and good riddance to the CD.

Gaia gave rock ‘n’ roll to you.

Thank you to Sarah Murphy in BBC Music for the Radiohead image.

A 19-year-old gamekeeper, at the Kempton estate in south Shropshire, received a six-month suspended prison sentence last month for killing legally protected species, including badgers and buzzards.

Kyle Burden’s actions came to light when two other gamekeepers witnessed him clubbing badgers that were still caught in a snare and shooting buzzards with a shotgun. They reported him to the RSPB.

The police later found Burden’s coded diary, which allegedly related to a tally of the animals he had illegally killed, which suggested he shot 102 buzzards, 40 ravens and 37 badgers. The legal deaths of more than 300 rabbits were also apparently noted alongside the coded entries.

The paradox in this case came when the magistrate was told that Burden killed these buzzards and badgers to protect his pheasants, which are farmed for organised shoots. He was partially responsible for preparing these events, which reportedly cost £1650 per participant.

The case has been emotive and has aroused a lot of public interest. After all, public attitudes to wildlife, such as badgers and buzzards, have changed considerably in the past century.

Some commentators have noted that, a few decades ago, magistrates would have commended Burden’s efforts as a dedicated countryman protecting his pheasants. Alasdair Mitchell, spokesman for the National Gamekeepers Organisation argues that the media doesn’t distinguish between protected and endangered species, even though some populations have increased 400% since the 1950s.

So where do we draw the line? I feel there is no excuse for the illegal killing of animals, especially in the brutal and systematic way shown in this case. But what happens when an animal becomes a conservation icon for one section of society and a pest to another?

This is the second jail sentence (although suspended) issued for the killing of protected birds of prey, but it is unlikely to be the last.

I went to my first swapping party recently, Swap ‘Til You Drop. The idea is you bring along all your unwanted clothes, accessories, CDs, DVDs, games and books, and swap them with things you really do want. What with all this talk of beating the credit crunch, this sounded right on the money.

Swap ‘Til You Drop is four months old and has spread by word of mouth and lively promotion via their website We Like Swaps and blog. It comes hot on the heels of a growing trend called “swishing”, where fashion lovers swap unwanted clothes at parties.

Hoping to come away with some hot nearly-new clothes, I arrived early at Star of Bethnal Green in east London, which was hosting the event. I added my items to the stash on show and grabbed a drink - things were just getting started.

All of the clothes were hung on a rail, and people then had the chance to rifle through the goodies and try clothes on if they liked. They also had sewing machines available and a sewing assistant on hand to help, so people could alter or customise clothes if they wanted.

I had visions of it turning into a brawl, full of competitive and crazed, fashion-obsessed women pulling at each other’s hair to get that top. In reality, it was pretty easy-going and relaxed – friendly chatter ensued as we browsed and tried on clothes.

Swishing rules state that you can look but not claim items while browsing, but this was a laid-back Sunday afternoon affair and we could grab anything we wanted.

So, what was it like? I was really impressed - this was a brilliantly organised swap with some really good quality offerings. I got to try out new outfits and came away with some great clothes. And, it was great to see my cast-offs become someone else’s treasure. Any clothing left unswapped at the end of the event is donated to charity.

And don’t forget that this is great for the environment, too – swishing and swapping is just a fancy way of recycling, so more events like these will mean fewer clothes being thrown away.
The next Swap ‘Til You Drop is on the 15th November. If you can’t wait until then, pop along to Swapaholics in conjunction with Swap Til You Drop on 23rd October 2008.

The animal world is becoming worryingly out of sync. In recent weeks we’ve had reports on disappearing honeybees, starving guillemots killing chicks in neighbouring nests, and the decline of the common toad. Sadly, all these situations seem to be linked to man-made problems, such as climate change, the threat of overfishing and habitat destruction.

But one of the strangest nature stories of the year happened this month, when hundreds of penguins emerged from the surf on the coast of Brazil. The beach coastguards immediately swapped Baywatch-like posing for penguin-saving action. Although this mainly involved protecting the penguins from an over-enthusiastic public, whose initial reaction was to place the birds in ice coolers.

After they were rescued, hundreds were flown down to the southern tip of Brazil, to be released into the ocean, while some were returned on a navy vessel. Other penguins that were exhausted by their long journey stayed for a while longer to make the most of the Brazilian weather and its beaches.

The story might seem laughable, but there’s a serious side to it too. Of the 1000-plus penguins that were recovered on land, about a fifth died of starvation, exhaustion and other illnesses, plus many are expected to have perished out at sea.

The penguins are thought to have travelled further than normal to find fish, which has led experts to believe that something may have gone wrong with their regular supply. This theory is supported by evidence of penguins eating fish that are not part of their normal diet.

Other speculated causes for the penguins’ wayward journey include changes in water temperatures causing confusion on the migratory routes. Other theories include changes in ocean currents and man-made pollution.

All in all, many experts are worried that the penguins’ strange behaviour could be a symptom of a much wider problem.

Whether or not people choose to wear leather often depends on how they feel about the ethics of the meat industry. But it’s not uncommon for strict veggies to be ok with wearing it – considering it as a by-product of meat farming.

Some argue that it is a form of recycling, after all if the animal is going to be killed, surely a “waste not, want not” attitude is the best idea? Especially when it provides such a durable material that can be used for years to come.

Or maybe not. The answer really lies in how comfortable you are with feeding money back into the meat industry. Leather is a multi-billion dollar industry, where the skin of a cow is actually worth about 10% of the animal’s total value.

Leather can be a very profitable trade, which isn’t always the case with meat. In other words, the leather trade isn’t totally dependent on our appetite for meat.

Those who buy strictly free-range or organic meat might also find they are facing an ethical problem. Most of the leather used in the US and Europe comes from China, India and countries where there are little or no animal legislation laws. In fact, when it comes to quality leather the softest, most expensive, variety comes from the skin of newborn or even unborn calves.

Vegetarian shoes and bags might have a reputation for being less than cutting-edge fashion, but that’s not to say there aren’t good options out there. It seems strange that, at a time when so many designers are jumping on the ethical bandwagon, a leather jacket is still one of this year’s ‘must-have’ items.