Sometimes the sustainable living ideology gets taken too far - the idea of eating roadkill isn't likely to persuade many people to live in a more sustainable way. I think that the push for locally produced food is a good idea, not only in terms of the environment but in terms of taste. I remember the first time I tasted a watermelon immediately after picking it in Australia. I couldn't beleive that the delicious thing I was eating was the same as the tasteless pap that passes for watermelon in supermarkets in the UK. Still, sometimes things just aren't available locally; I like coconuts and they just aren't going to grow well here in East Yorkshire and I guess that the coconut is just about the only export product from many small tropical countries.

Locally produced food, though, has the advantage of reducing carbon emissions through a decrease in transport and often in terms of the amount of energy used in processing and packaging, as locally bought foods often come straight from the farm to the market.

One particular farmers' market in Canterbury, Kent, provides not just locally produced food, but locally hit roadkill! Fergus Drennon has been a forager and scavenger of food since the age of 6 or 7 apparently, and only eats meat when he finds it dead on the road, regularly selling foraged food at the market in Canterbury. In a way I quite like this idea - I don't like seeing things wasted and I'm sure that many freshly killed animals are quite tasty. However, maybe it's the sort of thing best kept to oneself? Whilst people like Fergus may pride themselves at the sustainability of their lives, this type of environmental fanaticism may well discourage many people from making sustainability part of their lives.

Fergus, though, does share my distaste for supermarkets (maybe he worked in one too), saying that it is unlikely that supermarkets will stock the unexpected treat of unlaid eggs within a roadkilled bird!!!! Still, he says that he is very happy with his lifestyle, and that is what matters, and I would assume is something that many supermarket shoppers could not honestly say. At least this is what it seems to me by the miserable expressions on the faces of most of the customers where I work.

I've just found out that the sun is directly responsible for global warming!

Apparently solar energy originating from the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere where it warms the planet to just the right level for it to sustain life. However, it doesn't warm the earth equally across it surface, some areas receive more solar energy than others, meaning that they are warmer. To confuse this further, planet earth orbits the sun and rotates on its own axis, meaning that solar energy levels affecting various points on the globe vary periodically throughout time. Add to this that the earth's orbit is slightly elliptical and it varies in its degree of ellipticality with time and the solar energy reaching any one point on earth is extremely variable. This results in weather patterns that are different on different places on earth and ones that interact with each other in a stable but fluctuating fashion. This is known as climate.

The climate is changing.

Before humans had become very numerous the climate could change and no one very much cared about it. Climate change probably happened fairly slowly giving species a chance to migrate to more suitable areas, this wasn't really a problem as there were large areas of suitable habitat for these species to move to. Some species did become extinct as we know from fossil records, but others evolved to fill the niches left by the extinct ones. Throughout all of this the Sun did its job properly.

However, now the Sun doesn't seem to have caught on, it's not moving with the times. It hasn't adapted to humans pumping large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere where they trap heat. The Sun hasn't moved further away or colled down so that the natural speed of climate change can prevail, instead it has stubbornly remained in the same place as it has been for at least 5 billion years collaborating with greenhouse gases to speed up the rate of climate change to a level at which species (other than humans) are unable to adapt. At the same time the Sun has refused to supply enough solar energy for vegetation to grow faster than humans can clear it, so that now insufficient habitat remains for species to migrate into as the climate changes. Instead, suitable habitat is much reduced and fragmented so that many species are unable to make the migration to safer regions, particularly now the Sun has increased the rate of climate change. Because of this irresponsible behaviour of the Sun, the process of evolution is unable to operate properly to fill the ecological niches vacated by unusually high rates of extinction, because in many cases these niches only exist in small isolated pockets.

However, there is some hope.

Humans are coming to the rescue by inventing ways to combat the refusal of the Sun to either cool down or move further away. Plans are afoot to make machines that sequester carbon, to reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere (an important greenhouse gas), these will in effect be robotic trees. Other heros have come up with the idea of artificially creating cloud layers to reflect the sun's rays before it can be trapped and my contacts at NASA have hinted that there is a project underway to build a "solar tug" which will be able to tow the sun further away or drag it closer as required.

Until this miracle is realised by humankind we can all do our bit. We can all shave our heads and paint them silver to reflect more solar energy back into space. Alternatively we could walk around with silver umbrellas for the same effect. Another idea is to get rid of the leaves that rot and release CO2, drain the oceans from which eminates huge amounts of CO2 or kill all those disgusting wild animals to prevent them from emitting methane (another greenhouse gas) as animal flatulence is a major contributor to global warming - the millions of domestic animals kept for the benefit of humans would be exempt from this cull as they are "tame" and polite beasts with far better manners than their wild cousins.

Alternatively we could stop being such dirty, wasteful bastards and reduce the amount muck we pump into the atmosphere. Some people could become slightly less rich from this though.

Damn you Sun!

Okay, so I'm not setting any records for exclusivity here, this is last weeks news, but the EU have pledged to phase out the use of traditional incandescent lightbulbs, to be replaced by the energy efficient type.

Apparently this follows similar decisions by the Australian government and the State of California in the US.

The switch to the new lightbulbs is estimated to mean a reduction in carbon emissions by about 20 million tonnes per year. Not only is this good news for the environment, but it makes good economic sense to make this switch. Indeed, a number of developing countries made this decision years ago, purely based on economic factors.

As I have written before, energy efficient lightbulbs make real monetary savings - this quite surprised me in fact. Each bulb saves about £7 per year on an average usage. Multiply this by the number of bulbs in your home (5 in my small apartment) and you have a noticeable saving (at least its noticeable if you are a student like me).

The construction of power stations, wind farms, hydro-electric dams etc is very costly, and even in a country where utilities have been privatised, the construction of these costs the tax payer a lot of money in grants. By reducing our energy demand this tax revenue can be spent on other things. Essentially carbon emissions represent inefficiency, which costs money and these costs are passed onto consumers, hopefully some of the economic benefits of the lightbulb switch should be passed onto the consumer as well. Hmmm?

Finally, by becoming the market leaders in this sort of energy efficient tchnology our economy can be strengthened. When other countries follow suit where will they buy their stocks from? Where will they get the expertise to develop energy efficient bulbs? From companies that have invested in developing and marketing these bulbs. German and Japanese industry has benefited from this philosophy for many years now.

There will be problems with this change over, the cost of switching manufacture over to the lightbulbs is likely to cancel out the benefit of lower electricity bills. However, with more investment and increased demand, the price of these bulbs should come down quickly. In fact some supermarkets already sell these bulbs for as little as 49p. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, pointed out that many energy efficient lightbulbs are somewhat dimmer than incandescent ones. This is true, but now that companies will be forced to invest in these bulbs this problem should be ironed out soon. In fact, some bulbs are already as bright as the old ones.

Hopefully this is a decision that both environmentalists and capitalists can harness effectively.

I'm off to build a lightbulb factory (an eco-factory of course, built entirely from recycled garbage).

The latest advertisement on UK television for a KFC "meal" (how anyone can describe rubber chicken, batter and a spoonfull of coleslaw as a meal I'm not sure) not only encourages people to eat a meal of dubious nutrition, but patronisingly tells us that by throwing all the packaging - boxes, large plastic bucket, plastic wrappers, cutlery and napkins - in the bin we can contribute to a "mum's night off"!

What about encouraging the use of regular plates and cutlery and the kids giving mum a night of by doing the washing up? Not only more sustainable but contributing to a society where youngsters are encouraged to be helpful people instead of lazy morons, contributing to a rubbish mountain.

It seems I'm not the only one fed up with this advert, J at Future's Green has also written on the subject: KFC advert.

Whilst this is not crime of the century it is annoying to hear the government constantly proffering the idea of more taxes on the individual to encourage environmental responsibility whilst allowing retailers such as KFC to run an advertising campaign which actively encourages an irresponsible lifestyle. As the largest proportion of our "carbon footprint" is indirect (created in the production of items before we purchase them) it is quite irritating that the government puts the onus on policies that restrict the freedom of individuals instead of forcing companies to make changes such as not providing frivolous amounts of disposable tableware.

If you should wish to be a busy body and complain to the buffoons at KFC here is their UK office number : 08457 532532 or, as J suggests, you could complain to the advertising standards agency : www.asa.org.uk

Easter eggs are in the shops already; the supermarket I work in has a whole aisle devoted to them and I'm sure that extra packaging has been used just to annoy me.

This is quite a tricky issue, no-one wants to suggest that children shouldn't enjoy receiving their easter eggs, I for one used to get quite excitied about it, but this shouldn't be an excuse to ignore the fact that unacceptable levels of packaging are used for many chocolate eggs.

What can we do?

There are options for "greens" to minimise their impact at easter time and still give easter eggs to friends. One suggestion is to buy chocolate bunnies etc. that are just wrapped in foil, even this foil can be recycled and it creates far less waste then the egg covered in foil, inside a plastic mould, inside four layers of cardboard.

Some eggs, however, don't have as much packaging as many others. I've noticed that there are a number of cadbury's eggs that don't use too much packaging - just a simple box and foil. I've also noticed that many eggs that use a plastic mould don't now use foil as well, so it seems that manufacturers are paying some attention to this issue. In fact, I read that overpackaging of easter eggs is the largest cause for complaint about any product in most supermarkets.

Sainsbury's have made announcements the last three years in a row that the packaging on their own brand of eggs has been dramatically reduced each year, so it would be worth checking these out. However, I have noticed that the eggs that are presumably branded as "high class" continue to use a ridiculous amount of packaging with massive boxes that hardly fit on the shelf but less chocolate in them than a regular large bar of chocolate.

For chocoholics that like to be environmentally friendly the good news is that a huge bar of chocolate is better value for money, has more chocolate and has far less packaging than an easter egg - so no need to get involved with wasteful eggs to get a chocolate "fix".

Inevitably, people will buy easter eggs, particularly if they have children; one of the best things you can do if you are buying an egg is to make your opinion known to the store manager about the level of packaging used and request that they reduce this next year. If enough people voice their opinion in this way, large retailers will make changes.

Of course, having eaten the egg, please recycle the packaging. The plastic mould and the foil is recycleable for most local authorities and if you are in an area where cardboard is not collected for recycling take it back to the store you bought it in and ask them to put it in their baler. The contents of which are sent for recycling.

Remember, not only is all that packaging bad for the environment, but the shop is probably making more money selling you the box, plastic and foil than they are from selling the chocolate.

Maybe I'll set up a shop that sells useless peices of plastic and cardboard next easter, there seems to be plenty of people who want to buy them!

Previously I wrote about the supermarket effect on food miles, and how users of supermarkets might reduce their food miles and consequently reduce their carbon footprint. Fortunately, for those of us that break out in a rash at the very mention of a supermarket there are options. One of my favourites, although not neccessarily the best, is to go for wild food.

Wild food that can be obtained within walking distance of the house is an excellent way of reducing food miles to zero. If you don't live in the countryside then a short drive to a wild food area is no worse than driving to the supermarket and the food you obtain will not have been driven around, flown about or carried by ship. Not only are the food miles of wild food zero, or close to zero, they are not packaged - fantastic news for "green nerds" like me.

For those that turn up their noses at the idea of wild food let me tempt you with blackberries, chestnut stuffing, puffball fried in wild garlic, damson jam and even grilled fish with wood sorrel and mint salad.

The fact is that we use a tiny percentage of the planet's species as food when most of them are edible in some form or after some preparation.

Most people think of acorns as being poisonous, but with a little treatment they can be made into a tasty snack or even become part of the staple diet. Take a look at how to use acorns for a snack or to make acorn flour.

It may seem tricky to use wild food in order to reduce our detrimental effect upon the environment, but by using some imaginative recipes it is possible to make wild food a significant part of the diet and make a reduction in our food miles tally.

Recipes for Dandelions for salad, jelly and "coffee" could be useful.
For those that like salad the options are plentiful.
Cooking with weeds gives an idea of the number of options there are for using plants that we normally regard as a pest.

For those with a fishing rod virtually any fish can be eaten, not just the ones that they sell in the shops and if you have a gun woodpigeon is quite tasty! However, shooting and overfishing can be damaging to the environment too, so don't overdo it.

When I was young, my parents bought me a book with wild food recipes in. It was great!



There are loads of ideas in here and I've tried most of them. Some are good and once tried you won't want to go back to the supermarket, but some are pretty bad - chestnut soup is a complete waste of a delicious food. Birch sap wine, Rosehip syrup and Penny Bun stuffed with garlic sound good, but my favourite is nettle beer! A perfect drink for conservationists - cultivate a nettle patch in your garden (good for butterflies) and follow the recipe in this book (which is nicely illustrated with photos) and brew your own nettle beer in a couple of weeks.

You can even taste the sting!

The concept of food miles (or kilometres if you prefer) is one that is gradually growing in public awareness and some supermarkets (at least those in the UK) are attempting to cut down on the number of products that are supplied by plane. Of course, the country of origin has been displayed on virtually all products for many years and by selecting home produced products over those produced in far off countries we can do a little to cut down on our own food miles tally.

You are a bit stuck if you live in northern latitudes and want to buy locally produced bananas though.

However, buying food from supermarkets will never allow "eco-loonies" like me to significantly cut down on my food miles due to the supply system that is used in packaged foods. For many products a single supplier is used for all stores, no matter where they are. Just this morning I saw a program on TV where a supermarket chain was using a singler grower of lettuce to supply all their stores! So, even if you buy lettuce from your own country, the chances are that if you buy it in a supermarket it will have already travelled up and down the country a couple of times to be washed, packaged, taken to the depot and then to the store.

Why not just buy lettuce from the guy who grows it just down the road? Better still, if you have a garden, just grow your own.

Furthermore, supermarkets put great pressure on farmers by selling their produce at super cheap prices.

Super cheap - hoorah!

This means that to make a profit, farmers are forced to put more and more pesticides and fertilizers on their land, and to cultivate land that would normally be left for wildlife, in order to produce more and make enough money to live on.

More pesticide and fertilizer - hooroo!

So, buying your produce in a supermarket has the double ill effect on the environment of massive food miles and the degradation of farmland habitat. Still, for many people there is little choice other than to shop in the supermarket. My grandparents were bemoaning the fact that where they live all the small shops have gone. This is true, when I was a child there used to be fishmongers, greengrocers and butchers where they live and now: ASDA and Tesco - boo! If you live in an area like this and want to cut down on food miles then you'll have to shop carefully, but there are things you can do.

1. Spend time looking at the labels to see where products come from. Buy the ones that come from as near to your locale as possible.

2. Cut down on packaging; don't forget that packaging has to be transported around too and adds to food miles.

3. Ask to speak to the manager and request that he stocks local produce, particularly if you live in an agricultural region. If the manager makes boring excuses, just say that you'll have to buy the locally produced version that the competing supermarket down the road sells. Managers hate that. Don't say it to other staff though because they don't care.

4. Change your diet. Do you really need to eat strawberries in the middle of winter? These little devils will have most certainly been flown in from somewhere far away leaving not so much as a carbon footprint as a carbon crater. Wait until summer for your strawberries etc. They taste much better when you haven't had them since last year.

5. Write to your local MP, Senator, Councillor, Govenor asking what they are doing to make sure that supermarkets are changing their policies regarding this issue. I'm sure they won't have a clue, so keep writing until they are compelled to actually learn something about the issue.

So, there are five things that everyone can do to cut down on food miles. However, if you live in a military dictatorship point five is a bit tricky for you, unless you stage a military coup of your own.

Power to the people! Down with supermarkets!

The reluctance of UK government and industry to invest in "green" technology is rapidly becoming a major annoyance to me. Al Gore wrote as early as 1991 that Japan was leading the way in the development of energy efficient appliances that are rapidly taking over as leading sellers from competing products from the US and Europe. It seems to me that there are large profits to be made from creating energy efficient products, and that the marketting of such products would be greatly enhanced by their environmentally friendly credentials.

A list of the top 12 greenest cars (US market) on egm CarTech.com reveals that all are made by Asian companies, either Japanese or Korean. This rating includes emissions created in the manufacture of the vehicle as well as the fuel efficiency, and the much talked about Toyota Prius comes second to the Honda Civic GX which runs on natural gas.

Why does European and US industry not see that they can become world leaders in green technology if only they would invest in it.

Many economists argue against change for the good of the environment on the grounds of cost, what I cannot understand is why they don't see it as a new opportunity to do business.

Maybe that is why I'm not an economist?