[News] from [guardian.co.uk]
[Environment > Forests]
Sainsbury's pulls plug on plastic corks to protect endangered species
All of Sainsbury's own-brand wines will be sealed with corks certified by the Forest Stewardship Council by the end of 2010
Rebecca Smithers
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 31 December 2009 00.05 GMT Article history
The corks popping from bottles of bubbly tonight will release more than a toast to the new year: a safer home for Europe's last big cat, the Iberian lynx, and other endangered animals.
To help the celebrations be more environmentally friendly in future, Sainsbury's has pledged that from 2010 all the corks used in its own-label drinks will be from guaranteed sustainable sources.
Its first champagnes and sparkling wines sealed with the cork – certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and sourced from the most sustainably farmed forests in the world – will be bottled next month. A full-scale switchover for the rest of the supermarket's 6m bottles of own-brand wine, champagne, and sparkling wines using the FSC-certified corks will be completed by the end of 2010.
The move is the largest yet by a single UK retailer. A spokesman for the Co-operative Group said it planned to introduce
FSC-certified corks in 2010 on about a third of its own-brand wines.
The use of FSC corks could reduce the threat of extinction of a number of endangered species living in forests such as the Mediterranean Cork Oak forests. These include the Iberian lynx, of which there are fewer than 100 remaining, and the Iberian imperial eagle, of which only 150 breeding pairs remain.
Cork oak trees are unique in their ability to regenerate after their bark has been harvested. This means that cork forests undergo fewer disturbances than conventional commercial forests, creating a unique and valuable eco-system. FSC certification is considered the best way to protect this environment for the long-term benefit of communities living and working in these regions, as well as the indigenous wildlife. In order to gain certification, cork producers have to ensure that they have minimal impact on biodiversity in the area, while also ensuring that harvesting practice is fully sustainable.
But while Sainsbury's move was welcomed by conservationists as a step in the right direction, it is a small step. Natural corks are used for about 80% of the 20bn bottles produced globally each year.
The growing popularity of plastic corks and screw caps has raised fears about the long-term future of cork oak forests. Sainsbury's wine maker, Barry Dick, said the type of closure used to seal bottles was based on quality, style and appellation laws which stipulate the type of closure that best suits each individual wine. Natural corks are important for certain types of wine – particularly for bold reds – because they allow oxygen to interact with wine for proper ageing, for example.
Dick commented: "Where we use cork, it is important to us to make sure that the harvesting of that cork makes a positive contribution to the wildlife in the area, while at the same time managing traceability, consistency and quality to ensure our wines taste their best."
Julia Young, Manager of WWF's Global Forest and Trade Network in the UK said: "The fragile cork oak forests are part of the unique natural heritage of the Mediterranean; a valuable and threatened forest region right on our doorstep. Leadership like this sets the bar for UK retailers as Sainsbury's achieve a first going into the New Year, and an iconic forest habitat faces a more secure future."
Charles Thwaites, executive director of FSC UK, added: "We tend to associate trees with everyday goods such as timber, paper and tissues. But supporting the cork industry so that cork-oak forests continue to thrive is vital to the local ecology, especially in the Iberian peninsular. We hope Sainsbury's example will tempt other companies to make similar commitments and together we will preserve these precious landscapes and habitats."
[Environment > Coal]
Investing in coal is dysfunctional
Power companies, investment bankers and pension fund managers are fuelling an unlivable future – with our money
Jeremy Leggett
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 December 2009 14.23 GMT Article history
The acid test of the Copenhagen climate change summit was always going to be coal. Had governments managed to come up with a meaningful agreement, those who seek to continue burning coal would have faced significant risk that they would be spending their money on what investors call "strandable" assets – assets that become obsolete and therefore worthless. And for their part, financial institutions would have had to think twice whether they should keep pouring billions of dollars into new coal-fired electricity generation, seeking short-term returns while knowingly fuelling future climate ruin that is not costed in today's books.
But there was no meaningful agreement. And so we see the first in the queue to foist coal horrors upon us already knocking at the door. Since Copenhagen, E.ON has announced that any further emissions cuts by the company will depend on governments making progress in 2010 in the climate negotiations. E.ON and Centrica have both said they are less likely to build coal plants attempting carbon capture and storage. We can expect to see similar sentiments from most of the other big energy companies. Enlightened business leadership ahead of legislation is not their bag. More plans for unsequestered coal, without trapping and burying the carbon dioxide, will be the best we can expect.
To be fair to the power companies, the fault is wider. Most investors expect this behaviour of them. Most banks, insurance companies and pension funds are happy, as things stand, to continue investing in coal.
When it comes to the London Stock Exchange, they will have their first major chance soon. The largest Russian steam coal producer is eyeing an initial public offering in London during the first half of 2010. Suek, owned by two oligarchs, is worth $8-9bn (£5-6bn), and will be floating as many as a quarter of its shares. As one anonymous banker put it to Reuters: "There haven't been any good opportunities in this sector for a long time, and the sector is on its way up, so therefore this will be a positive story."
Of course, at the same time, those buying shares will be fuelling long-term wealth destruction – let me not be so base as to mention killing people to boot, let's stick to the money – by stoking climate change. This is the bottom line with the dysfunctional form of capitalism we have allowed to evolve. And the most galling thing is this: the bonus cultists are doing it, in large part, with our money.
A pension fund manager invests billions built up from tiny parcels of the peoples' pension contributions. He is rewarded, like everyone else in the temples of finance, on the basis of short-term returns. That the pension holder might retire into a world that is increasingly unliveable because of the actions of his fund manager features nowhere in any bonus calculation.
Hugo Chávez gloatingly told the Copenhagen summit that capitalism is to blame for climate change. He has more than half a point. After this failure of a summit many leaders had cast as a last-chance saloon, surely now we have to think hard about capitalism in the form we have allowed it to evolve.
The fact is that as things stand – to use the parlance of the investment bankers who will scrabble to win the Russian coal business and the pension fund managers who will line up to invest in the listing – there is no place on the global balance sheet for the assets most relevant to the survival of economies: ecosystems and civilisation. There is plenty of space for spectres they label as assets while shovelling the attendant megarisks off the books. That is the real bottom line.
Unless, that is, we can mobilise enough people-power, on enough fronts, for the citizenry to turn around the course of a war in which our leaders are currently displaying toothless impotence. The listing by Suek, and the role of our money it, might be a good place to start.
Any company investing in that IPO is a company that I will no longer bank or insure with. And any pension fund investing in it is one that I will encourage all my friends to switch their pension out of.
Jeremy Leggett, jeremyleggett.net, set up his company, Solarcentury, to fight climate change.
[Environment > Forests]
Sainsbury's pulls plug on plastic corks to protect endangered species
All of Sainsbury's own-brand wines will be sealed with corks certified by the Forest Stewardship Council by the end of 2010
Rebecca Smithers
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 31 December 2009 00.05 GMT Article history
The corks popping from bottles of bubbly tonight will release more than a toast to the new year: a safer home for Europe's last big cat, the Iberian lynx, and other endangered animals.
To help the celebrations be more environmentally friendly in future, Sainsbury's has pledged that from 2010 all the corks used in its own-label drinks will be from guaranteed sustainable sources.
Its first champagnes and sparkling wines sealed with the cork – certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and sourced from the most sustainably farmed forests in the world – will be bottled next month. A full-scale switchover for the rest of the supermarket's 6m bottles of own-brand wine, champagne, and sparkling wines using the FSC-certified corks will be completed by the end of 2010.
The move is the largest yet by a single UK retailer. A spokesman for the Co-operative Group said it planned to introduce
FSC-certified corks in 2010 on about a third of its own-brand wines.
The use of FSC corks could reduce the threat of extinction of a number of endangered species living in forests such as the Mediterranean Cork Oak forests. These include the Iberian lynx, of which there are fewer than 100 remaining, and the Iberian imperial eagle, of which only 150 breeding pairs remain.
Cork oak trees are unique in their ability to regenerate after their bark has been harvested. This means that cork forests undergo fewer disturbances than conventional commercial forests, creating a unique and valuable eco-system. FSC certification is considered the best way to protect this environment for the long-term benefit of communities living and working in these regions, as well as the indigenous wildlife. In order to gain certification, cork producers have to ensure that they have minimal impact on biodiversity in the area, while also ensuring that harvesting practice is fully sustainable.
But while Sainsbury's move was welcomed by conservationists as a step in the right direction, it is a small step. Natural corks are used for about 80% of the 20bn bottles produced globally each year.
The growing popularity of plastic corks and screw caps has raised fears about the long-term future of cork oak forests. Sainsbury's wine maker, Barry Dick, said the type of closure used to seal bottles was based on quality, style and appellation laws which stipulate the type of closure that best suits each individual wine. Natural corks are important for certain types of wine – particularly for bold reds – because they allow oxygen to interact with wine for proper ageing, for example.
Dick commented: "Where we use cork, it is important to us to make sure that the harvesting of that cork makes a positive contribution to the wildlife in the area, while at the same time managing traceability, consistency and quality to ensure our wines taste their best."
Julia Young, Manager of WWF's Global Forest and Trade Network in the UK said: "The fragile cork oak forests are part of the unique natural heritage of the Mediterranean; a valuable and threatened forest region right on our doorstep. Leadership like this sets the bar for UK retailers as Sainsbury's achieve a first going into the New Year, and an iconic forest habitat faces a more secure future."
Charles Thwaites, executive director of FSC UK, added: "We tend to associate trees with everyday goods such as timber, paper and tissues. But supporting the cork industry so that cork-oak forests continue to thrive is vital to the local ecology, especially in the Iberian peninsular. We hope Sainsbury's example will tempt other companies to make similar commitments and together we will preserve these precious landscapes and habitats."
[Environment > Coal]
Investing in coal is dysfunctional
Power companies, investment bankers and pension fund managers are fuelling an unlivable future – with our money
Jeremy Leggett
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 30 December 2009 14.23 GMT Article history
The acid test of the Copenhagen climate change summit was always going to be coal. Had governments managed to come up with a meaningful agreement, those who seek to continue burning coal would have faced significant risk that they would be spending their money on what investors call "strandable" assets – assets that become obsolete and therefore worthless. And for their part, financial institutions would have had to think twice whether they should keep pouring billions of dollars into new coal-fired electricity generation, seeking short-term returns while knowingly fuelling future climate ruin that is not costed in today's books.
But there was no meaningful agreement. And so we see the first in the queue to foist coal horrors upon us already knocking at the door. Since Copenhagen, E.ON has announced that any further emissions cuts by the company will depend on governments making progress in 2010 in the climate negotiations. E.ON and Centrica have both said they are less likely to build coal plants attempting carbon capture and storage. We can expect to see similar sentiments from most of the other big energy companies. Enlightened business leadership ahead of legislation is not their bag. More plans for unsequestered coal, without trapping and burying the carbon dioxide, will be the best we can expect.
To be fair to the power companies, the fault is wider. Most investors expect this behaviour of them. Most banks, insurance companies and pension funds are happy, as things stand, to continue investing in coal.
When it comes to the London Stock Exchange, they will have their first major chance soon. The largest Russian steam coal producer is eyeing an initial public offering in London during the first half of 2010. Suek, owned by two oligarchs, is worth $8-9bn (£5-6bn), and will be floating as many as a quarter of its shares. As one anonymous banker put it to Reuters: "There haven't been any good opportunities in this sector for a long time, and the sector is on its way up, so therefore this will be a positive story."
Of course, at the same time, those buying shares will be fuelling long-term wealth destruction – let me not be so base as to mention killing people to boot, let's stick to the money – by stoking climate change. This is the bottom line with the dysfunctional form of capitalism we have allowed to evolve. And the most galling thing is this: the bonus cultists are doing it, in large part, with our money.
A pension fund manager invests billions built up from tiny parcels of the peoples' pension contributions. He is rewarded, like everyone else in the temples of finance, on the basis of short-term returns. That the pension holder might retire into a world that is increasingly unliveable because of the actions of his fund manager features nowhere in any bonus calculation.
Hugo Chávez gloatingly told the Copenhagen summit that capitalism is to blame for climate change. He has more than half a point. After this failure of a summit many leaders had cast as a last-chance saloon, surely now we have to think hard about capitalism in the form we have allowed it to evolve.
The fact is that as things stand – to use the parlance of the investment bankers who will scrabble to win the Russian coal business and the pension fund managers who will line up to invest in the listing – there is no place on the global balance sheet for the assets most relevant to the survival of economies: ecosystems and civilisation. There is plenty of space for spectres they label as assets while shovelling the attendant megarisks off the books. That is the real bottom line.
Unless, that is, we can mobilise enough people-power, on enough fronts, for the citizenry to turn around the course of a war in which our leaders are currently displaying toothless impotence. The listing by Suek, and the role of our money it, might be a good place to start.
Any company investing in that IPO is a company that I will no longer bank or insure with. And any pension fund investing in it is one that I will encourage all my friends to switch their pension out of.
Jeremy Leggett, jeremyleggett.net, set up his company, Solarcentury, to fight climate change.
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます