These A-list purveyors of college punk already commented on the difficulties of being citizens of the most contentious country on the planet with their hit ‘American Idiot’, though following the handling of the BP oil spill, that song could apply to many of the nation’s higher powers.

2. Al Green

Reverend Al Green is so in love with nature he wrote a song about getting back to it. ‘Take me to the river / Drop me in the water / Take me to the river / Drop me in the water’, he sang. Quite.

3. Arctic Monkeys

Nonsense indie band name or subtle comment on the possibility of a forthcoming endless winter caused by the horror of global warming? When the gorillas are swinging from the chandeliers in the ice palace of our future oligarchs, we will surely know the answer. Other mooted band names were rumoured to be Snow Chimp and Ice-rangutan.

4. Cee-Lo Green

Clearly Cee-Lo’s recent decision to break out the surname in support of his new album is a sign to all environmentally aware lovers of music that this is a man who knows his carbon footprint inside out. As long as his carbon footprint is not as big as his actual physical footprint, he should be able to count on that support long into the future.

5. The Coral

Another indie band, another subtle reminder of nature’s delicate balance. Here is a band who can do without the grandiose statement, making do instead with highlighting the plight of one of nature’s most beautiful and delicate structures. Word is that the next album will be called ‘Great Barrier Reefer’.

6. Muddy Waters

Legend has it that blues icon Muddy Waters took his name after having a Nostradamus-esque vision of the state the world’s beaches nearly a century after his birth. While that story remains utterly fabricated, it is nice to think it was inspired by more than a dirty puddle.

7. Snow Patrol

In the not-too-distant future when the next ice age has descended on us, there will have to be ‘Snow Patrols’ hugging the perimeter of the surviving, primitive human outposts that still remain, most likely around Iceland, where they are used to this kind of weather. The patrols will most likely be equipped with tranquilizer guns in case they spot any roaming sabre-toothed tigers, plus an MP3 of Chasing Cars.

8. The Soggy Bottom Boys

This euphemistic name is actually all to do with rising sea levels, and should be taken as a warning, not as a daft name for some good-time O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtracking. It is a distinct possibility that within a few decades more than half the world’s population will be soggy-bottomed, so we should heed the warning.

9. Supergrass

Perhaps, in a distant future where there are Snow Patrols, Soggy Bottom Boys and Arctic Monkeys-aplenty, humankind will have found a way to manufacture genetically-resistant strains of grass capable of withstanding intense cold, allowing agriculture to flourish again and dispensing with our dependence on corned beef. Or maybe it will be used to grow copious amounts of naughty tobacco.

10. Them Crooked Vultures

After the Supergrass there is bound to be some further genetic engineering, leading to all sorts of odd creatures. Of course, genetic engineering is completely against everything a natural, green, recyclable existence stands for, but we are far too far into the joke to pull out now. On the other hand, this name could refer to some kind of embarrassing medical condition. Who knows?

The American public appeared to be losing patience with their president, as a May opinion poll showed 53% of the US public rated his reaction and handling of the oil spill to be “poor” or “very poor”. Predictably, former governor and the presidents arch-enemy Sarah Palin was quick to criticize his actions, highlighting donations that BP allegedly made to Obama’s presidential campaign fund, whilst James Carville labelled the president as “hands-off”. But did Obama’s handling of the crisis really deserve such harsh words? Much has been made of the president’s failure to waive the Jones act, a Marine act passed in 1920 that many believe is responsible for slowing down the cleanup process by blocking access for foreign ships to come in and help, an idea that has been perpetuated in the media, particularly through more right-wing channels looking to criticize the Obama administration. In a June press conference, it was revealed that foreign vessels were already being used, but the opinion polls had already spoken.

Perhaps this is less a case of actions taken, and more a case of the mainstream media perpetuating ideas for their own gain. In a country where 53% of people thought the president dealt badly with the oil spill and yet 52% still support offshore drilling, can opinion polls really be trusted to give an insight into the American political psyche? As for the president himself, he readily admitted that although the US government was in charge, they did rely heavily on BP to clean up the mess, lacking the necessary equipment themselves. He also announced a suspension of test drilling on 33 sites off the Gulf of Mexico, a turnaround from March, and his policy, when, wishing to reduce dependency on overseas oil production, he gave the go-ahead to more off-shore drilling. Only time will tell if this disaster will tarnish Obamas career and reputation, or if he will indeed continue to achieve things that overshadow his treatment of the Oil Spill.

Ex-Beatle Paul McCartney supports the practice of vegetarianism because he believes that by not eating animals, it calls for less factory farms and the food given to the unhappy animals could be given to the people in developing countries. Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke embarked on an ‘eco-friendly’ tour for their album ‘In Rainbows’.

Jack Johnson’s tour was entirely eco-friendly. He made sure all the tour buses ran on Bio Diesel as it is a clean burning alternative to normal fuel. He also made sure that the tour merchandise was environmentally friendly (for instance, the t-shirts were made from organic cotton and the posters/CD packaging were printed on recycled paper). Also included were reusable water bottles and tote bags made from hemp. In addition, a DVD of the tour was released and the profits went to environmental charities. His tour crew were given organic food and even the hotel rooms were provided with low-energy light bulbs, reducing their negative environmental impact.

Gomez had a tour where they used, like Jack Johnson, Bio Diesel to fuel the tour bus. They provided organic cotton merchandise options for their fans and requested organic food backstage at all their shows. As well as this, they stayed at hotels that were identified as more sustainable. Proud of their conversion to a more eco-friendly approach, they named their tour as ‘Gomez Goes Green’.

Maroon 5 founded the ‘Green Music Group’, which allows people to connect with local nonprofits at concerts. They hold contests giving prizes away such as Martin Sustainable Wood guitars and eco-friendly cars.

Peter and the Wolf tour by boat to reduce their carbon footprint. Now that is dedication. Cloud Cult package their CDs by using recycled jewel cases that are cleaned by the members themselves and all the inserts are imprinted with soy inks that are non-toxic. The Ditty Bops tour by bicycle. No matter how tired they get they are conscious of their carbon footprint. They travelled 4,700 miles for their last tour. Orbital have recorded some of their music using solar electricity. Environment-wary lyrics are included in their songs.

The Beastie Boys encouraged fans at a festival to exchange their old mobile phones (that would otherwise go into landfill) with a Beastie item. This encouraged fans to help out at their recycling booths. The Fray play with vintage guitars so that they can save the planet by not buying guitars that are made from unsustainable sources. They also use old guitar strings that can be made into jewelry. Panic at the Disco donate $1 to environmental protection from every ticket they sell. They also sell environmentally friendly merchandise at their tours.

With this in mind, he has set a target of having 1,000 electric vehicles in the Greater London Authority (GLA) fleet by 2015, rising to 100,000 by 2020.

The first, albeit small, step towards achieving this was the acquisition of four new Mitsubishi i-MiEVs, to be used by Transport for London. The i-MiEV is a fully electric city car with zero emissions at the tail-pipe. The car can seat four adults and has a top speed of 81 mph, a range of 80 miles and takes six hours to charge with a conventional charger.

By the end of this year, TfL will have up to 10 electric vehicles in its fleet which it will use to ensure that roadworks comply with its permit scheme to keep traffic moving.

Increasing the number of fleet vehicles is one element of the Mayor’s plans to boost electric vehicle numbers to 100,000 as soon as possible. Over the coming year, 1,600 charge points will be installed across the Capital with numbers rising to 7,500 by 2013 and 25,000 points will be in place by 2015. By then, with 2,500 charge points installed in publicly accessible areas, on average no Londoner will be further than a mile from any charge point.

The number of electric vehicles in mainstream use is forecast to significantly increase in the coming years as many of the leading car manufacturers are planning to launch new electric vehicle models in the UK. The increase of zero-tail pipe emitting EVs will help to improve air quality and cut climate change emissions. As the price of petrol and diesel continues to increase they will also have significantly lower running costs than conventional vehicles, including a 100% exemption from the congestion charge.

Later this year a single London-wide brand for electric vehicles will be launched so that drivers will be able to clearly identify where a charging point is located. This will be supported by a new website providing a one-stop shop of information on electric vehicles and charging points and a London-wide membership scheme will also be launched to enable drivers to access charge points across the capital - currently electric car drivers have to register in every borough they charge up in.

It is estimated that 100,000 electric vehicles could cut London’s carbon output by almost 500,000 tonnes over the next decade as well as save 100 tonnes of NOx emissions and several tonnes of PM10 emissions. This is equivalent to 300 million car trips.

London already leads the way with almost a quarter (around 1,800) of the 8,000 electric vehicles registered in the UK in the Capital.

The city is also ideally suited to becoming an electric vehicle world leader since 95% of London motorists travel less than a total of 50 miles per day, which is within the range of existing electric vehicles. At present there are over 250 charging points in the Capital, over half funded by TfL, with around 1,800 electric vehicles currently registered - far exceeding numbers anywhere else in the UK.

This year, the organisers of Glastonbury festival aimed to encourage around 40,000 people to head to the festival via public transport. Glastonbury also had ‘Green Police’ to look out for anyone littering or not using the land properly. To look after the grounds they used tractors that ran on 100% biodeisel in order to keep everything clean before and after the festival.

A lot of music festivals now offer to donate any left over tents to charity. By ordering a very stable tent that can be used for many years, you can get the most out of your tent by not having to order new ones every year and then eventually when it is not as effective as you’d like it to be you can donate it to charity or send it for recycling if it is in extremely bad condition.

You can change the impact of how recycling is carried out at music festivals. By taking your own bin bags you can arrange which types of materials and litter go into each bag and then take it for individual recycling. Going as far as recycling your ticket into a paper bin bag or recycling your cans and tins can help people the Green Police. Encouraging others to follow your example is an effective way to make friends - it can turn into a social situation.

If you are feeling extremely passionate about conserving the planet, you could even help clear up any litter that you see on the grounds that has not been left there by you or anyone you know. Although it is not your job, music festivals have the tendency to become rowdy at night with the more famous bands playing headline stages and people often returning to their tents early in the morning leaving left over plastic drink cups.

When sorting out old clothes, keep in mind certain clothes are made of different materials. Items of clothing such as Jeans have zips and Bras have metal wires inside them - these will have to be recycled separately to, say, plain t-shirts. Not all cloths have to be recycled either; if you have an old pair of jeans with a hole or two at the bottom, with a few spare minutes and patience you can transform them into a pair of shorts.

Recycling bins can be found anywhere. All clothing can be used again, whether it’s used to decorated another piece of clothing, or combined with other materials to create new clothes. Nearly 80% of all clothing is wastefully thrown away, rather than being taken to recycling plants to be used again.

Taking your unwanted clothes to charity shops. does have its problems. According to The Sunday Times, places like Oxfam are unable to sell the cloths they already have. This mean that filling charity bags to be sent to less fortunate people will be a better option, or simply take them to be recycled. With some items of clothing being made from man-made fibres, the constant build up will not decompose like many other materials.

If more materials were recycled to make new clothing, the cost and amount of importing would drop, helping not only keep the planet clean but cut the cost of clothes, and with the amount of recycling bins and charity shops around there really is no excuse to simply throw old clothes away.

If you like to recycle but people who live nearby don’t, having children ask people for any old clothes they have can help. Not only will the children understand how beneficial recycling is but they could also gain some pocket money. On hot summer days when kids have nothing to do, introduce them to simple sewing. Teach them how they can take an old item of clothing, then with some other materials and a little help create a storage container or place to hide secret things in.

There are many more opportunities for recycling when a baby arrives so collect the old clothes and take them to a recycling bin or give them to charity when they have outgrown them. This will help de-clutter your house as well as make you feel good that you have helped the planet.

The South African and Norwegian governments carried out the Feasibility Study for a Carbon Neutral 2010 Fifa World Cup. They estimated that the output from South Africa would be 896,661 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide output from the international fan travel will add an extra 1,856,589 tonnes. This feasibility study seemed to suggest that a ‘climate neutral’ event was, in fact, not feasible.

It does seem that the geography of the event is the main culprit for the huge carbon footprint as all the footballers, coaches, officials and fans will have to travel these long distances across the nine host cities. There are 64 matches in all. If you want to think about in in terms of our country, South Africa is five times larger than the UK. Therefore, consider the impact of thousands of people travelling from a match in Cape Town to a match in Johannesburg – they are 880 miles apart. The only options are air travel which, we know, is harmful to the environment.

In terms of other modes of transport, South Africa just does not have the green infrastructure. In the report published following the feasibility study, it read: ‘For inter-city transport… distances between matches in South Africa are much greater than in Germany, and the lack of high-speed rail links means that most visitors will fly multiple times between matches, leading to much higher transport emissions.’

The other issue with public transport is that there is a lack of light railway or underground alternatives on offer for the abundance of visitors to the country, so the only other options are cars, buses and planes. However, as expected it is the fans travelling to South Africa from their respective countries who will be responsible for the biggest impact on the environment with international travel representing 67.4% of the tournament’s emissions.

It is predicted that any carbon offset programme introduced for the World Cup would cost between £3.3 million and £5.4 million. Some steps have been made to offset the carbon footprint and the building of the Soccer City stadium which was partly constructed from parts of another demolished stadium. This new stadium is fitted with waterless urinals and the pitch will be watered using non-drinking water. The aim is also to reduce waste during the World Cup with the introduction of reusable cups and a limit placed on the use of food containers.

Speaking as the report was published, South African environmental affairs minister Buyelwa Sonjica stated: ‘Some progress has been conducted toward processes for offsetting the footprint. However, even the footprint on its own is huge in comparison to the 2006 Fifa World Cup footprint. At least three of the nine host cities have considered the implementation of bicycle lanes.’

The feasibility study was conducted by Econ Pöyry. Their senior advisor for carbon and energy commented: ‘For this reason, the support of FIFA and the Local Organising Committee (LOC), and their agreement that FIFA or Green Goal brand can be used for marketing by offset sponsors is probably essential for the success of this programme. In addition, marketing a credible programme to funders requires an institutional home with both credible skills in the carbon market and transparent, robust accounting and reporting procedures.’

He added: ‘The opportunity of the 2010 World Cup to raise awareness of climate change and sustainability challenges, more broadly, among a wide range of stakeholder groups and the general public must not be missed.’

Back in November 2009 the Greening 2010 framework was launched with the aim of reducing the World Cup’s carbon footprint. Part of this incentive was the Green Goal logo and participants have been asked to pledge their dedication to the Green Goal initiatives. These will be in place during and after the even and relate to energy, waste, water, transport, responsible tourism and biodiversity. The themes of the initiative are to reduce emissions and offset carbon footprint alongside job creation, communication, outreach and sustainable procurement. However, while this all sounds good on paper there have been concerns raised that some of the smaller host cities will have the resources to dedicate to the Green Goal initiatives.

Further criticisms of the Greening 2010 framework are that the initiatives will only have an impact on the stadium emissions and precinct energy use alongside the intra-city transport. This only accounts for 9% of the overall carbon footprint of the event. The report authors state: ‘So while these interventions are important for raising public awareness and entrenching best practices at a local level, they will not have a significant impact on the size of the carbon footprint.’

A recommendation has been placed on the national and local governments to play an oversight role in the programme to offset the carbon footprint of the event. There is also a recommendation that a carbon offset services provider should be employed, as should a reputable voluntary carbon market standard.

The thing that is clear is the impact on the environment of the tournament and the costs involved in offsetting the carbon footprint. One thing is for sure, lessons will be learned from this event and if the Greening 2010 framework is a success then it will be a legacy of this event, which will inform future sporting events.

• Low carbon and eco-friendly economy
• Smart grid and smart meters
• Feed-in tariff system in electricity
• Creation of a green investment bank
• Provisions for home energy improvements (to be paid for with savings from lower energy bills)
• Emissions performance standards
• Establishment of a high-speed rail network
• Change from per passenger duty to per flight duty
• Cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow
• No additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted
• Provision of a floor price for carbon
• Promotion of green spaces
• Promotion of wildlife corridors
• Move to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity
• Mandating a national recharging network for hybrid vehicles
• Reduction of central government carbon emissions by 10% within 12 months
• Increased target for renewable energy sources

Many of the measures could help consumers lower their gas and electric bills. The smart meters would provide more information to consumers on consumption. Providers will also be able to more closely regulate energy consumption and give providers the ability to encourage consumers to use some household appliances only during off-peak hours.

PAYS (Pay as You Save) would allow the average householder to refurbish homes with appliances and other measures that would serve to cut carbon emissions. The PAYS are associated with the house and not the individual so that in the event of a sale, the expense is passed on to the new home buyer.

Benefits from green spaces go beyond just the ecology. Individuals that come in contact with nature through these green spaces and wildlife corridors find that they have a reduction in physical stress (including reduced heart rate and blood pressure) and also a reduction in muscle tension. An increase in concentration and attention span can also come from regular contact with nature. The far-reaching benefits of green spaces make them valuable to the wildlife, the ecology and the people around them.

Not all of the issues that face the green movement seem resolved by the coalition. Although there was some discussion about nuclear energy as an alternative energy source, many feel that the agreement did not go far enough to help establish new nuclear plants and rework existing plants.

The change from air passenger duty to per flight duty could force airlines to work harder to fill flights. It could also hurt freight travel. It will depend largely on how the tax is set, although the amount of £3.5 billion as the estimated amount to be raised has many in the industry very concerned.

The ideas behind the coalition may be good, but they may never come to fruition. The dissent among the MEPs may mean that all of the talking and negotiating between Clegg and Cameron is just that and no more.

In the end, there are some that feel the green movements do not go far enough to protect the environment. There are others that feel the agreements go too far. There may still be a long way to go to find the balance that is necessary for real change to occur.

Many people wonder if nuclear power is a safe alternative even as they confess that alternative forms of fuel are necessary to meet the increasing demand for power. For several years, nuclear power was the up and coming way to provide inexpensive energy to populations around the world. Popularity for nuclear power received crushing blows with disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Today the world holds around 436 nuclear power plants in about 30 countries that provide around 15% of the world’s electricity. The reliability of the nuclear plants as well as their efficiency are increasing, making nuclear power one of the least expensive forms of power. The energy from just one small pellet of the enriched uranium that is used in the plants can produce the same amount of electricity as one ton of coal.

Nuclear power might be a great way to provide energy, but the dangers of the nuclear power outweigh the benefits for residents located near a plant (or a planned plant) and for many people concerned about the effects of nuclear waste on the environment.

The Downsides of Nuclear Power

Waste products - nuclear power plants produce energy from fission. That process splits the neutrons (tiny particles making up an element) of the uranium atom and leaves the plant with lots of energy and a man-made product of plutonium that is now highly radioactive.

Nuclear power plants have to find a way to store the waste plutonium so that it has time to lose its radioactivity. The average nuclear power plant produces 20 metric tons of radioactive waste. Heat and radiation from the waste corrodes any containers making transporting and storing the waste dangerous to the environment. Even the parts and equipment that come into contact with the waste become radioactive (although this is a much lower level of radioactivity). It takes tens of thousands of years for the radioactive levels to reduce to acceptable levels.

Past disasters cost more than money - Chernobyl (1986) was one of the worst disasters in the history of nuclear power. The accident cause radiation levels to rise as far away as Scotland. The cost of containing the accident was more than all the energy cost savings of all the nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union from 1954 to 1990. 

Three Mile Island (1979) was the worst disaster in the United States. Radiation contamination to surrounding areas increased cases of cancer and plant mutation.

The effects of the disasters are still being uncovered. With radioactive materials that remain lethal for thousands of years, experts may never know the true devastation caused by the accidents.

From waste to weapon - the plutonium created during the fission process can be used to create nuclear weapons. It would only take 18 pounds of weapons-grade plutonium to create a bomb that would cause the same damage as the one dropped on Nagasaki in World War II.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitors the world’s nuclear facilities to safeguard against the waste being used in weapons. Its power is limited. Some countries do not allow for regular inspections.

Measurements can have uncertainties making it impossible for the IAEA to detect all possible diversions of the nuclear waste. In one year, there is enough plutonium created around the world to create 34,000 nuclear weapons.

Environmental impact - the risk of accidents from nuclear power plants is only one of the issues that concern environmentalists. Each of the steps taken to create nuclear energy has an environmental impact. The simple mining of the uranium contaminates the groundwater and land. The plants, animals and humans in the region are affected by the process. The entire ecosystem can be damaged or destroyed.

The radioactivity of the waste plutonium has many experts concerned. It has been predicted that just half a kilogram (or about one pound) of the plutonium - if evenly distributed around the world - could be enough to cause cancer in the entire Earth’s population because of its high radioactivity.

Nuclear power is still a young energy source. There is much more that needs to be studied before the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the dangers.

Over the years people have bought many variations of the mobile phone. Some people may still have old mobiles stashed away in a cupboard or drawer.

So what happens to these unused and old mobiles?

Some people sell them to raise some money, some simply throw them in the bin. But in the past few years there have been companies like Envirofone and Mazuma who, after filling in details about your phone, will give you a price and send you a cheque.

One of the more serious issues of non-recycling of old phones is that plastic isn’t a biodegradable material, meaning that any plastic that is thrown away or simply discarded causes damage not only to the environment, but wildlife and water pollution. As the majority of mobile phones have plastic casings, a lot of damage has already been done due to the materials used to create plastic, such as Benzene and Vinyl Chloride. Most of these chemicals can cause Cancer, blood and kidney problems, immune and nervous system damage as well as other illnesses.

Every mobile phone that is recycled can become any one of a number of electronic products - everything, including the screen, buttons and chips inside an old mobile can be upgraded and placed into a newer model. Even an old beat-up mobile you find outside can be recycled. If your’re a person who enjoys charity work, collecting old mobile phones can be a great way to give a less fortunate person a chance to enjoy a piece of technology that people take for granted.

Not everyone cares enough to recycle: according to a recent survey one out of ten people simply throw their old phones in the bin, but if a family member or friend has an old phone try asking them if you could recycle the phone, or help them fill in those details online, or show them places where they can recycle. The amount of discarded phones and other products that are not properly recycled are having a massive effect on the world.

Are the benefits of recycling your old mobile phones worth the effort? Yes. Not only will you gain some extra money, you could help someone less fortunate than you and know you have helped the planet. Just make sure you wipe your phone memory clean before sending it to be recycled - don’t want people getting hold of your family and friends numbers.