Am I mad, have I lost my mind - am I smoking something illegal?

No, this question has to be answered. What is behind the whole concept of Captain Planet? And how important is he to us in relation to a geopolitical stance in modern day society?

For those of you that don’t know what Captain Planet is, it’s a cartoon program produced in the 1990s focussing on the promotion of environmentally friendly practices. The plot based purely around the world being in turmoil, due to a number of template evil characters. After years of the not being awakened, the spirit of the earth, Gaia, chose five youths from all over the world to protect her vision of what the earth should endeavour to be: the planeteers. Gaia would send the planeteers to where the worst environmental crimes were happening to resolve the issues. Issues that they couldn’t solve themselves forced them to summon Captain Planet, who lived deep beneath the earth’s surface.

At this point you must be wondering what relation the planeteers have with Captain Planet. Each of the 5 ha their own powers: Kwame from Africa, Wheeler from North America, Linka from Soviet Union, Gi from Asia and Ma-Ti from South America. The powers given to the five youths were Earth, Wind, Fire and Water (the fifth element being Heart). No, ladies and Gentlemen they are not a tribute act (another thing to take on board is that when the five did summon him their powers were given to him and magnified just as the title song suggests).

Moving on to the villains that the show has to offer, they can only be described as ‘thugly’. There are plenty of villains for the show, but they never work as a team to destroy the planet. That would be too easy. Just like the planeteers they have names and characteristics to set them apart from each other.

The downsides of the show are, to be fair, substantial, and can destroy the socio-economical message if taken to heart. The five youths representing different social spectrums from around the world are cynically given the powers, names, lifestyles and appearances to represent themselves in somewhat of a bigoted correlation. Why can’t the popular one from North America have Heart as his power? When the planeteers summon Captain Planet to come and help them out why can’t he look like Swampy? Why does he have to be chiselled and look like an environmental god?

When looking at the pros, the show does hold strong environmental views. For the time that this show was broadcasted they were real issues and not marred by any form of sensationalism by the media, just a feeling of being humble and wanting to help. The teamwork within the group showed a unity on earth and translates into what has happened in past events and how if we worked together we can get rid of anything that can be seen as cancerous in society today.

There’s just one last thing I have to add. It’s not related to environmentalism, it’s more a comment on superpower-related cartoons in general. When watching Captain Planet, I always used to wonder why they didn’t just Captain Planet as the start so they can carry on with their daily doings? I guess the righteous answer would be because life is not that easy; the show represents us. This resonates within every human, the ability to have an impact on life, no matter how big or small. We have the power to change and inspire through our thoughts and actions. Captain Planet represents the inner us, the strength and capability we have to change the earth for us and for future generations to come. We watch movies and they have an impact on us and we see them as iconic. Think of these cartoons as iconic and the inspiration they give us to do good. Just because they’re for kids, doesn’t mean they’re not important.

A knock-on effect of the government’s recent scrappage scheme has been the rise in sales of small petrol-engined cars and a decline in market share for diesels. This has coincided with a general slow down of diesel sales and some people are now questioning whether the demand for the oil burners has peaked.

The diesel engine has come a long way over the past ten years or so with development of common-rail injection systems and turbocharging making it more efficient and acceptable. According to a report in the Daily Telegraph, diesel sales doubled during this period from 25 to 50 per cent of the European market, while in Britain they rose from 15 to 43 per cent. Meanwhile, on the race track, both Audi and Peugeot have won the prestigious Le Mans 24 Hour race with diesel engined racers.

But from January to October last year, sales of diesels in Britain fell 16 per cent and the same trend is happening in Europe as small petrol-engined cars are becoming more and more popular.

This trend has been helped by the government’s scrappage scheme, which has resulted in around 330,000 people buying small petrol cars since their diesel equivalents are more expensive. As people downsize, they are realising that the benefits of having a diesel are not so apparent on a small car, where improvements in efficiency of petrol engines has made them more economical and desirable.

Diesel fuel is also more expensive to buy in Britain than in Europe and EU emissions regulations mean diesels need more equipment to reduce pollutants. According to the Telegraph, failures in turbos, particulate filters and glow plugs are also becoming more common.

It’s always dangerous to pick up trends in motoring and extrapolate them to predict the future, but one thing does seem apparent – sales of diesels may well have reached their peak and the immediate future of the car could well lie in small, efficient, cheap to run petrol-engined vehicles.

Governments talk a lot about climate change but few put actions behind the words.

Everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done to insure that the Earth is around for the next several generations. There have been a number of different Summits designed to address the issue of climate change and how best to adjust things to slow the change or reverse the negative effects caused by industry and the human population. 

The sticking point of every meeting seems to be the same few issues. Every country wants to know what the others will do to fix climate change. There is no guaranteed way to monitor countries and insure they adhere to any agreements. And most importantly, no country wants to do anything until someone else does it first.

According to some experts, the recent Climate Change summit held in Copenhagen was a failure. The major goal of the Conference was to create a Copenhagen Protocol that would come into effect when the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012. The best thing that came out of the meeting is that there is now more talk about climate change than there was before. Many involved with the Copenhagen Conference are hoping that the new awareness will push governments to make determined steps toward change. 

The main problem that many saw with the conference was the number of participants. There were 192 countries involved. Consensus was required to pass any initiatives. One country would want concessions from another country before agreeing to point A and the other country would not be interested in passing point A and would not agree to the concessions.

A downside to climate control talks is the publicity given to the price of the conferences. The 24-hour news cycle honed in on the amount of carbon emissions that participants were incurring by traveling to the conference. Limo companies in Copenhagen ran out of cars to provide to attendees. The weather turned foul and it is estimated that around 1,200 limos were used to move attendees around the city. Many attendees flew to Copenhagen in private jets. The 140 jets overwhelmed the airport and had to be flown to other cities to await the call to pick up their passengers and fly them home. Many delegations stayed at top hotels.

Estimates put the total monetary cost of the conference at around $215 million (USD). Some critics claim that the emissions produced by the conference were as high as some African countries. 

The Copenhagen conference also drew a large number of protestors. 45,000 green activists protested the talks and added to the pollution and chaos of the gathering. Copenhagen officials had to construct a temporary prison facility just to house any trouble makers. The 5,000 reporters that trailed all of the attendees and protestors did their share to increase emissions and overall cost of the conference.

This brings back the argument that most countries are so busy pointing the finger at others that they do not see the need for personal change. The world may need countries to take notice if the Earth is going to survive, but each country has to choose to make the decision to change.

Change is never an easy path. Governments can talk continually about making changes but actions speak louder than words ever will. The only way for government climate change talks to do any good is if one country begins to follow through on the changes suggested. One country at a time is the way that climate control talks will begin to protect the Earth for future generations.

Good ol’ one-of-us HF-W.

One thing we’re sure of is that the celebrities that are used to for recycling campaigns should not just stand behind it as a pretty, corporate face. We’re talking about getting their hands dirty and showing that they play a part in recycling. Take Hayden Panettiere for instance; rather than getting made up and doing a ‘green’ photo shoot, she implemented recycling in her daily lifestyle and let the Paps snap away while she shopped with reusable bags.

Saying that, some celebs are larger than life and those like Paris Hilton just don’t ‘do’ everyday mundaneness. With these personalities is needs to be about context; catering to the fans and anticipating what they’re likely to take note of. Miley Cyrus’ eco-friendly clothes line, for instance, appeals directly to her fan base whilst getting them to listen up about important world issues. If she were to bring out a range of Hannah Montana compost bins the success of her campaign would probably be very different.

Celebrities like Irish gardener Diarmuid Gavin and British chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall are experts in the area of green living and it’s essential to have these people involved in recycling campaigns as a point of reference. They might not be as internationally recognised as Gwyneth Paltrow or America Ferrera, but the quality of information and advice they give is indispensable.

This works.

But what about the psychology behind how the public views certain celebrities? We all know how much airbrushing goes on in magazines, extreme celebrity diets and the plastic surgery some have to keep up with beauty standards, and we all know how unobtainable those things are for ‘normal’ people. Seeing staggeringly beautiful celebs like Eva Longoria, Cameron Diaz and George Clooney on recycling campaigns might make people subconsciously think it’s a goal out of reach. These celebrities can easily afford to buy recycling facilities, and the space to keep their recycled materials, but does the general public think they can do it too? Our instincts say not until a more down-to-earth celebrity is thrown into the mix, like Jamie Oliver who details in his TV programmes how he does it, what effects his efforts have and how they don’t need to be diamond encrusted to work.

This, sadly, doesn’t.

A mixture of celebrities are needed to bring attention to certain recycling campaigns. A listers get awareness internationally, while the experts are there to inform the public who get really interested in the subject. A to C list celebrities who use recycling methods in their day to day life, but aren’t afraid to flaunt it are just as important too, to keep recycling efforts ‘accessible’ to the public, and to be a subtle reminder of how this is what we should be doing. What’s causing the lag in people taking up recycling, we don’t know, but perhaps an all-out international recycling campaign led by one organization, featuring all calibre of celebrities (from Angelina Jolie to Christine Walkden) and broadcast on TV, in newspapers, on the radio and through public events, would do the job.

The Bad News about Overpopulation

Human population has been growing exponentially. In 1927, the population of the earth was only around two billion people. It has been projected that with current growth rates the human population will reach eight billion as soon as 2028.

The use of resources is often done without thought for future needs. That means that unsustainable logging and poor farming practices are depleting the soil. Overfishing reduces the resources for human consumption and for the wildlife in the region. Meeting the needs of the world population has pushed many people to deplete or misuse the natural resources found around the globe.

The amount of land in the United States that has forests growing on it is half of what existed when Europeans came to America in the 1600’s.

The number of people populating the earth means that more carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere. Many experts point to this as a factor for climate change.

The population grow of some regions has far exceeded that region’s abilities to provide. According to the UN there are over 89 nations that are currently unable to provide enough food for their inhabitants. Many of these nations cannot educate their population and as a result almost 1 billion people are illiterate in the world today.

The Good News about Overpopulation

It has been estimated that the world population occupies less than 3 percent of the total land mass of Earth. That means that you could technically fit everyone in the world into the State of Texas and still allow each person almost 1300 square feet of living space.

The rate of growth has been declining over the last few decades. Some regions are actually declining in population.

Figures have suggested that the rate of reforestation and land management has allowed for almost 100% of the world’s tree population to continue to grow.

Advancements in technology have allowed the world’s farmers to produce greater crops than ever before. Global food supplies have reached a surplus in all regions of the world, including developing areas. Only about half of the farmable land is being used at present.

The population grow is estimated at less than a 1% increase. Most experts believe that the Earth has the ability to absorb those numbers without impending disaster.

Many of the Earth’s resources still lie unused.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization the Earth has the capacity to grow food for a population that has reached over 30 billion people.

There are some threats that can be caused by overpopulation. Most of the time these threats are regional and are more focused on the government policies of a region than that region of the Earth’s ability to provide the resources to sustain the population.

No matter where you stand on the issue of overpopulation, it is important that education be provided. Understanding the struggles of the world environment is the only way to begin adjusting to fix those struggles.

The focus for many is on the population numbers. More emphasis on sound agricultural practices and use of technology can help to bring even those numbers that are climbing at the highest rate into balance with the resources that are available.

Overpopulation occurs when the numbers of a species rise higher than the resources that can sustain that population. The overpopulation of the world is many decades off as long at the current population can work together to utilize the resources that exist.

Recycling needs to be fun and positive.

These are the people who seem convinced that the majority of human beings are decadent, debauched slobs, tossing plastic cartons and newspapers into the environment like gluttonous feudal barons slinging chicken bones over their shoulders. They’re a little shrill and intolerant, to be honest. And they’re beginning to grate.

In harsh economic downturns like the one we’re struggling to come out of presently, prophecies of doom are pervasive, from newspaper commentaries to New Age pessimism. But some of the more militant Greens have been forecasting the end of the world for a very long time. This isn’t to dismiss ecological concerns. It’s just to question whether the tactic of frightening people witless and promising Armageddon is all that effective in the long run. Even in serious predicaments, we all need to lighten up once in a while. And some Green messages sound uncannily like those fundamentalist ministers braying about hellfire and brimstone at the End of Days. Eventually, people stop listening, or get inured to the prospect of catastrophe. If it’s all too late and we’re all going to Hell in a hand basket, we might as well just enjoy what’s left of the world while we can and let the devil take the consequences.

Researchers in New Zealand recently surveyed 1000 people, questioning them about their attitude to environmental responsibility. The findings were intriguing. Whilst 97% of people reported that they were doing their bit for the environment, only a tiny 3% regarded themselves as truly committed. Most people continued to use plastic shopping bags in the face of publicity discouraging the practise, and 23% confessed to deriving a mischievously defiant thrill from doing so. They also enjoyed driving gas guzzling cars, taking long, luxurious showers, and around 70% of respondents admitted to feeling resentful for having to sort out their rubbish for recycling, although a quarter also admitted feeling rather bad when they failed to do so.

Fun and positive like this!

Readers Digest had commissioned the survey, and when they shared its results with an advertising executive he responded by insisting that ‘Green’ was now a ‘damaged brand.’ Saturation media coverage of Green warnings about impending cataclysm and ecological collapse were undoubtedly resulting not in increased public concern, but in ‘Green fatigue’. And Green fatigue easily translates into recycling fatigue.

The survey found that men were generally more sceptical about Green claims than women, but one female respondent made a highly pertinent comment. She was progressively turned off by the Green message, she explained, because she disliked being made to feel guilty for trying to make her life easier.

This survey was conducted in New Zealand, but there is little reason to suppose that significantly different results would be found in the UK. And the UK’s Institute of Public Policy Research has confirmed this. They found in a study conducted earlier in 2009 that many people expressed a weariness and fatigue about the issue of climate change. More disturbingly for the Greens, many people also found those who engage in environmentally-friendly behaviours ‘smug and self-righteous.’

A message of relentless pessimism, even if delivered by earnest celebrities, tends to make people feel powerless and fatalistic, even though for the most part they begin from a position of concern and responsibility. As an advertising strategy, Green campaigning has become a bit of a disaster, producing precisely the opposite effect amongst too many people to the one it was aiming for. Blaming people for being lazy and greedy when they are working extremely hard to keep their families afloat and just want to make life as easy as possible wherever they can is a slightly sour-faced marketing strategy. It’s as if militant greens have lost (or never developed) a sense of humour, and think that getting a message across involves megaphones and finger-wagging. Schoolmarmish admonishment is, however, a distinctly unappealing form of appeal.

Can’t beat novelty-croissant marketing.

Successful messages tend to inspire, and if you can get people laughing while you’re doing the inspiring, so much the better. Politicians find it hard to resist negative campaigning, especially when major elections are afoot, but it does seem to turn a lot of potential supporters away; and if Greens are right, they can’t afford to do this.

To get us cheerfully recycling, to bring us on board more fulsomely, the more puritanical and austere Greens might begin by discarding that ecological lemon they’ve been sucking all these years. A smile is more appealing than a scowl, supporting people for their efforts more productive than scolding them for their shortcomings.

Unless the more zealous eco-warriors are willing to shift gear, or, perhaps more aptly, switch strategic climates, more and more ordinary people are likely to develop recycling fatigue in particular, and environmental fatigue more generally. Governments might also encourage hope by investing more fulsomely in cleaner, renewable fuels – a move which might say to the rest of us ‘Yes, make your lives more comfortable – we’ll keep the atmosphere clean!’ This seems to be a more optimistic strategy than braying interminably about apocalypse or sermonising about public ‘apathy’. Apathy is usually more complicated than the commentariat suggests it is; it owes more to feeling unpersuaded, unconvinced, than to bovine comfort-seeking or self-interest.

Wanted: a humorous, good-hearted, optimistic Green campaign, which engenders hope and solidarity. The days of ‘We’re all doomed!’ are spent; this message makes you want to drive to Cornwall in your 4×4 rather than take your bottles to the bottle bank.

Spend a day walking around any major city in the world. London is a good example. Visit museums, grab a bite to eat, travel on the Tube. Do nothing out of the ordinary. Except, when you get back to your house or hotel at the end of the day, take a look at your fingernails. Most likely you will see a thick collection of dirt under each nail. Now grab a tissue and blow your nose. You might see the same thing.

Sounds disgusting, right? Well, that same dirt and grime, at least in part, is making its way into your lungs as you breathe in on the Underground, or any of the main streets of London. Ditto for any heavily populated, heavily trafficked area. A breath of fresh air is a rare thing in any urbanised populace. In fact, due to the emission of particulates and various gases into the atmosphere, wind currents are making it ever harder to find somewhere with genuinely clean air.

The answer to this question is, naturally, relative. Lets begin with the very cleanest air in the world, located a few hundred metres from the South Pole. Being the bureacratic species we are, this special area has been designated the Clean Air Sector. The CAS is kept clear of almost all human activity save for a few qualified individuals who are allowed to step into the area to measure the baseline rates. Aircraft are discouraged from flying overhead and no vehicles of any kind are allowed into the area. In essence, these few men and women are giving planet Earth a breathalyzer test.

However, measuring pollution levels in air can be a tricky business. Most official measurements analyze for a cocktail of over 250 environmentally harmful substances. The problem is, the Earth is not a static ecosystem. What can look like a dreadful, smoggy haze can actually turn out to be harmless fog, while a picturesque, crisp sky can actually yield all sorts of unwelcome chemicals when studied in a lab. Changing weather conditions and even the location of the measurement stations in relation to sea level can all have an effect on accuracy.

Nevertheless, the measurements can be considered accurate enough for the holidaygoer with a lungful of clean air in mind. There are two golden rules for finding clean air: if you are looking to head to a city, find somewhere in the northern hemisphere. If you are looking for a rural location, head to the southern hemisphere.

The cleanest cities are located in areas considered most ‘civilised’ - or, in other words, areas with the best economies and most advanced urban maintenance schemes. To clean up its air, a city first has to clean up its waste. Cities with recycling policies and solid landfill schemes are more likely to have clean air. Urban transportation must be taken into account too - how does the public transport system work, how efficient is it, what rules and regulations are there on cars driving through the city? Take a look at London’s congestion and low emissions charges for examples of (cough) profitable implementations of supposedly environmentally conscious policies. Again, though, if we are being relative about things, even the cleanest city is likely to be in the top percentage of most polluted places on the planet.

So, moving on, what options are there for someone who wants fresh air without having to head to Antarctica? Below are the five best destinations that marry a degree of comfort with a sweet breeze.

5. Tahiti: oh yes, this is exactly the kind of place fresh air should be. The more remote you go in Tahiti, the better, so steer clear of populated areas like Papeete, where the decrepit, poor quality of vehicles is rapidly diminishing the quality of the air. Anywhere around a lagoon is good, which is the kind of news you get maybe once a year.

4. Cape Peninsula, South Africa: a contentious entry in the list, this is a good example of the location of a measuring station having a marked impact on the results it returns (see below for another example of this). South Africa is not world renowned for its progressive energy policies, what with all the coal burning, but the figures do not lie.

3. Iceland: most of Iceland’s electricity is generated by renewable sources, such as hydroelectric and geothermal power. It is a country which takes advantage of its climate to maintain its near untarnished air quality. Couple this with heavy rain and cloud cover surrounding Iceland, which effectively cleans the air of pollution, and you have yourself one might fine lungful.

2. Big Island, Hawaii: a bit of a cheat this. Hawaii actually receives a lot of polluted air from wind currents borne from China, but the measuring station is based at Mount Loa observatory, nearly 12,000 feet above sea level. Pollution tends to head no higher than the inversion layer, a boundary of warm air below 12,000 feet, so by the time you get to the observatory, you have, in effect, risen above the dirt.

1. Tazmania: the air in Tazmania is the most accessible clean air in the world. Located deep in the southern hemisphere, the likelihood is that wherever you come from the difference in quality of air will actually be noticeable. The difference in air pollutant levels between Tazmania and Antarctica is negligible, so this is the number one place on the planet to get a breath without freezing your unmentionables off.

It could be argued that, for most of us, a good walk in the countryside an hour and a half away from our suburban homes qualifies as a breath of fresh air, and, relatively, you would be right. There is something sad about the fact that such things even have to be measured. Hopefully in the near future, such measurements will rapidly become pointless. Maybe.

We all know that global warming is happening, although of course there are still those who want to attribute it to solar sunspots or say that the current rise in temperatures is just part of a normal cycle. However, despite the sceptics, most scientists, governments and people accept that global warming is happening and will get worse. If we do not limit our carbon emissions then the planet will warm further and sea levels will rise. No-one is quite sure by how much sea levels will rise or how quickly they will rise as it depends on the stability of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

Already some places around the world are experiencing problems due to rising sea levels. The beautiful tropical islands of the Maldives are paradise, with their beautiful white sands and gently swaying palm trees. Unfortunately the highest point on the Maldives is a mere 2.4 m above sea level. The UN has forecast that by 2100 the sea level will have risen by up to 59 cm and this means that a large part of the archipelago will be under water. Worried by this possibility, the president of the Maldives has decided to divert part of the country’s billion-dollar tourist revenue into buying a new place for the citizens to move to.

Paradise Lost?

The Maldives is not the only country to be threatened by rising sea levels. The small island of Tuvalu in the Pacific has already experienced severe flooding which has damaged the islanders’ homes and contaminated the drinking water. The people of the island have already begun to leave their ancestral home. If sea levels continue to rise the rest of the islanders will have to follow. A World Bank economist has estimated that in the developing countries as many as 56 million people could become refugees as a result of global warming. A rise of just 39 in. would see one-fourth of the heavily populated Nile Delta in Egypt under water. Coastal Vietnam, Suriname, Guyana, Tunisia, the Bahamas, Benin, the United Arab Emirates and Mauritania would also be seriously affected.

By knowing which countries or which parts of a country are going to be affected, planners can target resources better and encourage vulnerable nations to develop plans that would see people moving from the low-lying areas to higher areas. As sea levels rise, coastal areas will have to be abandoned for the interior.

Global warming and rising sea levels are going to affect some of the poorest people in the world, but that does not mean that countries in the developed world will be unaffected. A panel of experts tasked by the government with assessing the likely impact of global warming on the UK has already reported that the UK is experiencing changes caused by global warming. At the moment most of these changes affect the marine environment. Sea surface temperatures have been rising by 0.2 to 0.6% per decade in the last 30 years and this trend is set to continue, especially in the south of the country. Severe winds have become more common and the height of waves has also increased in the western and northern parts of British territorial waters. It is anticipated that sea levels will rise by 20 to 80 cm in south west England and by 0 to 60 cm in Scotland.

How long before these majestic animals disappear forever?

Many of the favourite holiday spots in the UK are under threat from climate change and coastal erosion. At Birling Gap, the start of the Seven Sisters, chalk cliffs the cliffs are eroding at up to a metre each year and rising sea levels and an increase in stormy weather will only accelerate this process. Blakeney Nature Reserve is only just above the high tide level and is already at risk from flooding. The reserve is located on a shingle spit with salt marshes lying behind it and is home to common and grey seals as well as several species of breeding birds. East Head has been designated a site of special scientific interest. This sandy spit which is just 10 hectares in size lies to the east of Chichester Harbour and is currently home to a large range of wildlife. The Farne islands are home to over 100,000 puffins and over 20 species of seabird. They share the island with a colony of grey seals. Over the next 40 years the incidence of storms is set to increase and just one major storm could destroy many of the birds’ nests. At Filey which is located on the northeast coast of England the land is disappearing at a rate of 10 in. per year. In Cornwall the National Trust is fighting a constant battle to safeguard areas of Cornwall’s coastal path which is being damaged by erosion caused by rising sea levels and freak storms. The Trust is having to increasingly fence off damaged areas which are now unsafe for hikers to use.

Of course, whilst global warming will be bad news for many locations, for others it could have positive effects. Some locations could have extended summer seasons that could lead to an increase in revenue through tourism or the growing of crops. The Canadian Prairies for example could become a major wheat growing belt whilst areas in the UK might become suitable for growing a variety of different crops such as citrus fruits.

Greenland: soon to be the Maldives.

Despite losing much of its ice cover, Greenland could also benefit from global warming. In south-western Greenland the grass-growing season has been getting longer, which is good news for sheep farmers. There are 60 sheep farms in the area and they are now producing more sheep. Diary cattle have also been reintroduced and are expected to produce around 29,058 gallons of milk each year. In the supermarkets, locally grown broccoli and potatoes are appearing alongside other vegetables never before grown in Greenland. Even commercial fishing is set to receive a boost with bumper cod catches and increased numbers of halibut. The melting ice caps have also resulted in a rush to mine for gold, diamonds and other metals. Sadly the local Inuits are unlikely to profit from these changes with their lifestyle being increasingly threatened. There is also no silver lining for much of the local wildlife.

As global warming continues, large areas of Russia, Tibet and Canada could become suitable for agriculture and settlement. In the Arctic the loss of ice will make it easier to drill for gas deposits and the opening up of the Northwest Passage will make sea journeys shorter. Of course, this is not good news for the polar bears who are already suffering as a result of global warming.

Ironically there are also those who argue that the UK could become colder as a result of global warming. This is because the UK is currently warmed by the Gulf Stream which originates in the Gulf of Mexico. If the Gulf Stream were to shut down, which some scientists believe is possible, then the UK and north-western Europe would become much colder.

So when I saw that a small field had been turned over to allotments I quickly hurried around knocking on doors to find out who I had to ingratiate myself with to put my name down for one. I quickly found the member of the Parish Council who had organised the venture and signed up for one of the only two that were left.

Some nice photos…

The site is delightful. South-west facing on a gentle slope with views on three sides. Never mind anything else, I’d be happy just to sit out there on a summer’s afternoon.

I still hadn’t got a clue what I was meant to do with it, although I’d watched Gardner’s World for many years so thought I’d pick it up quickly enough. The land, which apparently had once been used as a market garden many years before, was divided into plots, each one of the standard allotment size of ten rods, which is about 260 square metres. Now that’s an awful lot of allotment for someone who’s just starting off, and besides, there’s only me to feed.

…of lovely leafy…

Each plot was rotovated and so it was simply a matter of marking out a few beds and deciding what I wanted to grow. It was obvious that I needed to start slowly and so I only used about a quarter of the whole plot. I sowed broad beans, French beans, lettuce, cucumber, radish, sweet corn, spring onions, onions, red onions – you name it and I grabbed a packed of seed in the local garden centre, marked out a thin ‘seed drill’ (you see, I was picking up the jargon quite quickly) and set to work sowing.

Last May was glorious and so I enjoyed going down there each day, doing a bit of work and admiring my efforts. I even took a garden chair down to sit and admire my handiwork. I’d seen on neighbouring plots and in books that the beans needed some support and people had built lines or wigwams of bamboo canes, strung together. I did the same and was impressed at my achievement. What I didn’t realise at that point was that the broad beans didn’t need any support, as the plants only grow to a couple of feet in height. Consequently, by the end of the summer, it was quite obvious to anyone passing that at least one plot belonged to a complete novice since my bare canes stood out like a sore thumb. Never mind, it was all part of the learning process.

…allotments.

As the summer progressed, every evening was spent watering and weeding, and a bloody boring task that is, I can tell you. There were many times when I wished I hadn’t bothered, but slowly things began to ripen and I was able to harvest my first crops.

The radishes came up first, long before any of the other salad stuff which was a bit of a nuisance but it didn’t matter. From then on, I was picking lettuce, spinach, onions, tomatoes and relishing the taste of something grown yourself and picked fresh.

There were a few failures but mostly successes and I’m now planning how to lay out the rest of the plot over the winter in time for a full season next year.

First up, the Heathrow Pods. Officially called a Personal Rapid Transport (PRT) System, these futuristic pods are actually due to start being used at Heathrow to ferry passengers between the business car park and Terminal 5. They look like something from James Bond or some sci-fi adventure. The pods don’t require drivers. Instead they are powered by a battery pack. There are no timetables, they wait at the designated pick up point and once you get in the doors close and take you to your destination. The pods follow a guide-way using the lasers which are fitted within them. If there is no pod waiting, you can call on one and it should be with you within seconds. They only travel at 25 miles per hour but they are extremely convenient, much better than standing in the rain waiting for a shuttle bus. Most importantly, the pods have no emissions. It is likely, if these pods are successful at Terminal 5, that Heathrow will roll them out across the whole airport. The town of Daventry in Northamptonshire is also looking at using PRT as a solution to transporting its  increasing population. These pods are also extremely safe, with CCTV installed in each of them. There is no need to share a pod with a person, or people that you do not know, making for a more pleasant experience all round.

Scooters, like, rock.

Another alternative to car transport is the scooter. Now, scooters may not seem like the most convenient alternative to cars, especially as they can only accommodate a maximum of two people but they are great for getting about. However, an even greener alternative is the electric scooter which is bound to become more popular as people continue to examine their choices and the subsequent effect on the environment. These electric scooters can be charged in a standard household socket and within a few hours they will have sufficient energy to travel between 20-30 miles. These environmentally friendly scooters can cost as little as £500 for smaller models, with motors around 200W. These are powered by lead acid batteries of 36V. Top of the range electric scooters tend to cost around £1000 but for this money you will get a motor with 1500W which is powered by a 48V silicon gel battery. The smaller versions only travel at speeds of up to 15 mph and anyone over the age of 14 is permitted to ride these. However, the larger models travel at speeds of up to 30 mph and have the same classification as mopeds. You needn’t skimp on style either as all of these scooters come in a range of colours, so there is sure to be something for everybody.

Trains: underrated.

Train travel is already considered to be one of the greenest methods of transportation for the masses within the country. However, when people are jetting off from these fine shores they often find it more convenient to catch a flight. It can be difficult to keep your carbon footprint high up on your agenda when thoughts of a sunnier climate are filling your thoughts. There is another alternative, though, as trains operate over the High Speed 1 line. This does exactly as it says, introducing high speed train travel between the UK and Paris, Lille and Brussels. For example, train travel to Paris will be 20 minutes shorter, at just 2 hours and 15 minutes. Eventually there will be eight of these High Speed 1 trains travelling every hour between Britain and Europe. St Pancras station has become the home of this international train link, although another station has opened in Ebbsfleet, Kent.

Travelling by boat seems to be somewhat underrated unless you are the owner of some fabulous yacht decked out with all that your heart desires. However, this method of transport actually has many plus points. You are closer to the environment that we are all trying so hard to protect when you are on a boat. When else would you have the opportunity to face mother nature’s elements to the same degree? Another positive is the lack of traffic, beeping horns, congestion, and fumes! So, why not give it a try? A day at sea is guaranteed to lift your spirits and make you feel worthy for reducing that carbon footprint.

Maybe it would be worth getting a smaller front wheel.

Of course, when talking about transport for the future we seem to believe that it has to be some futuristic, space-age invention but often reverting back to more traditional methods of transport can be the best idea. This brings me to my final non-car method of transport for the future – the humble bicycle. That’s right, the bike that you spent so many hours enjoying as a child but then gave up as more mature methods of transport seemed more appealing… well, the bike is back. We have seen an upsurge in high profile people choosing to ride bikes due to its green credentials. The bike is the ideal method for zooming around and to top it all off, you will get fitter at the same time. Besides, what better than spending some time in the fresh air every day?

So, we guess only time will tell whether or not the majority of us ditch the convenience of our cars for greener methods or newer technologies. At least we know that there are alternatives out there and hopefully, bit by bit, we can all do something to reduce our carbon footprint.