One dress, 365 days

What does sustainable fashion really look like? If pushed, most of us will admit that reducing the carbon impact of our wardrobes is going to mean more than buying the odd organic t-shirt here and there. True sustainable fashion equals buying less stuff and keeping what we do have for longer. For fashion addicts, it’s not an easy message to swallow.

The Uniform Project is a one woman campaign to marry style with sustainability. Sheena Matheiken has pledged the wear the same dress for a whole year. The only thing that changes each day is the way she accessories the dress with second hand or handmade items, which supporters can donate. You can follow her progress and see what she’s conjured up on a daily basis (pictured is today’s ensemble - Day 53 of the project). Being a New York hipster with access to lots of funky accessories (and a dress that was especially made for the campaign by a designer chum), she’s not scrubbing up too badly at all.

The project is also a fundraiser the Akanksha Foundation, a grassroots education movement in India. At the end of the year, all contributions from supporters will go toward Akanksha’s School Project to fund uniforms and other educational expenses for slum children in India.

Hygiene freaks, fear not, there are seven identical copies of the dress to be worn in rotation…

Are small changes really going to reduce the number?

Today Deutsche bank launched Know The Number a live carbon calculator that measures the total amount of greenhouse gasses in the Earth's atmosphere. It’s big and it’s going up pretty damn quickly - ek.

I also happened to be sent the EU’s carbon calculator. It’s a new take, going straight to making pledges to reduce your footprint rather than calculating it. However the impact that some of the pledges have is laughable. I know every little helps but seriously, 3 kg of CO2 for turning the tap off when brushing your teeth every day for a year? 8kg for remembering reusable bags for every shopping trip? At this rate we’re a long way from making any significant reduction to our 11 tonnes figure never mind the 3,642,051,347,339 that, at last count, Deutsche claims is in the atmosphere.

This point isn't a new one – it reminded me of a piece in the Guardian from 2007 that’s worth a read. But hopefully with giants like Deutsche throwing investment at this area we won’t just be relying on just individual behaviour change to turn this number around. Bring on Copenhagen, it’s time for our political leaders to get on board.

Oh and in the mean time, remember to wash at 30.

Monopoly: It's not just a game...

On holiday with a group of friends last week, we decided to play a big game of Monopoly to pass the evening. Fantastic, I thought, I used to love Monopoly as a kid – such a wholesome, family-friendly game.

Wrong. It’s brutal. After the misfortune of not landing on a single street during the first three trips round the board, I found myself with no property and had to spend the next three hours watching my funds ebb away slowly as I paid the everybody else increasingly exorbitant rent with my every move. (Actually, I wasn’t completely property-less – I did manage to get hold of one of those brown streets. You know, the ones that yield £1 rent for each visit). It might be a game designed to celebrate the ‘fun’ of capitalism – the chance to buy property, accrue wealth and beat one’s rivals - but, with my unlucky start in life, I found myself with quite the opposite perspective. I was downtrodden and despairing of ever improving my lot, not to mention feeling abused by tycoons who didn’t seem inclined to show much social responsibility as they built their empires and ruthlessly swallowed up the smaller landlords (see, it’s not an entirely irrelevant post…)

So I’ve changed my mind about Monopoly – less a fun childhood game, more a stark reminder that for every big winner there have to be other unlucky losers, and that those losers will struggle to ever become winners after a bad start. I don’t think I’ll be playing again any time soon. Of course, had the Monopoly boot been on the other foot, maybe I’d have a different view.

Just in time for BBQ season!

As mentioned by David in his last post, the latest celebrity endorsed environmental campaign to be launched is ‘Meat Free Mondays’. The campaign encourages every household to give up meat for at least one day each week and help slow global warming. Until not so long ago environmental campaigns have focused on reducing things like travel, energy use and waste and this has frequently been met with hostility. It will be interesting to see how people react to being told to make changes to something more personal like their diet. Will the die-hard ‘no meat, no meal’ ever choose pulses over steak, or will it propel them in the opposite direction to join the ‘global warming is baloney’ camp? Unfortunately, even the message that the livestock industry is responsible for 18% of man's global greenhouse emissions does not seem to concern everybody.

Of course, having high profile celebrity supporters helps, although if it was as simple as Paul McCartney and family telling us to change what we eat would we not already be a nation of trim, healthy and probably a lot older individuals??

Just gone fishing

It seems that if we carry on as we are, the phrase "just gone finishing" may be one of the past as there will be nothing to catch. A new documentary, The End of the Line, has predicted that by 2048 we could have hunted the world's fish popluation to extinction.

What really struck me about the situation are the numbers...

• Global fishing industry is subsidised to the tune of about $14bn a year
• 90% of Europe's fish stocks are over-fished
• 40-60% of fish caught a year are thrown over the side (to keep within EU quotas)
• The mouth of the largest commercial net is big enough to swollow 12 jumbo jets
• 70% of the worlds fish stocks are now fully exploited

The difficulty is that not only are governments trying to protect their interests (i.e. the country's fishing industry) which often leads them to ignore scientific advice, but we are also being advised to eat more fish (the Foods Standards Agency is still pushing its "eat two [fish] a week" campaign). Worldwide we are now eating five times as much fish as we did in 1950 and, in the UK, sales of fresh fish outstripped fresh poultry for the first time last year.

So what is the solution? Should we stop eating fish? Just yesterday Paul McCartney suggested we should have Meat Free Mondays. Should we add to that Fish Free Fridays?

The situation is complex and, although there is some hope from sustainable fishing policies in countries such as New Zealand, there needs to be co-ordinated bold moves from governments around the world. After all if we don't act now we'll be dealing with the collapse of an entire industry and not just the fact that there's no fish to go with our chips.

Dynamic Demand - coming soon?

How do we feel about electricity companies controlling when our fridge compressor kicks in, or our dishwasher does its stuff? Gordon thinks it' s good idea and you have to say he has a point. At the moment UK electricity consumption fluctuates wildly from 30 to 60 gigawatts through the day and the only tool that engineers at National Grid have to cope with the spikes in demand is the "spinning reserve" . This simply means that additional power stations are kept running, but their electricity output is not used, just to be ready for any increase in demand. Estimates suggest that we produce over 2 million tonnes of unnecessary CO2 each year, just in case we all decide to have a cup of tea at the same time.

Dynamic demand attempts to divert attention from the supply side and refocus on managing demand, in order to smooth out the profile. In practical terms this means re engineering domestic appliances like fridges, dishwashers and immersion heaters to "listen" to the grid and operate when demand is low, not high. This seems like a good idea but I'm sure we'll see resistance from those (probably climate change protesters!) who feel their privacy is being invaded.

The role out of smart meters next year will pave the way for this sort of intelligent grid and it seems like it's only a matter of time before you'll be able to blame the utility company for forgetting to turn the dishwasher on.

On yer bike!

Assuming that London Underground don't reach an agreement with the RMT in the next couple of hours, I'll be joining the throngs of commuters cycling into work tomorrow. Actually, I do try and cycle when possible, but as the rest of the team will tell you, I'm very much a fair weather cyclist - however, it doesn't look like I'll have much of a choice tomorrow if the BBC forecast is to be believed.

Interesting to see that TfL are organising extra cycle parking and escorted cycle routes for the influx of new cyclists turning out onto the roads tomorrow. Perhaps this is the start of a cycling revolution. Who knows? But look out for me tomorrow as I dodge the rain showers and the strikers. 

Ahem, I’ll just dig out my Manolos…

I’ve always been a bit scared of shopping in charity shops – it just seems a bit of a hassle! I don’t think I’m alone in thinking this, although the recession has seen a change with more people beginning to turn to charity shops and their second hand bargains. Mary Portas is leading the way with her charity shop revival campaign showcased on BBC2’s Mary Queen of Charity Shops and featured in today’s G2.

Great idea, updating the frumpy charity shop image, encouraging us to adopt a more sustainable approach to fashion and even creating a way for charities to forge links with businesses - but is it really going to work? I’m sceptical, especially as her successful ‘flagship’ store in Westfield Shopping Centre was filled with designer items donated by ‘fashion pals’ and Grazia readers…

Beautiful - but vacuous?

Today is World Environment Day – but being an eco-aware sort of a person you knew that already, right?

It also sees the release of Home, a documentary made by Yann Arthus-Bertrand (famous for his Earth from the Air photography) about the earth's fragile eco-system and the impact of human excesses. If you have an hour and a half to spare, you can watch the whole thing on a dedicated YouTube channel.

French luxury brand owner PPR has backed the film to the tune of 12 million Euros, allowing it to be given away for free to distributors. It’s an interesting (some would say risky) move for the owners of Gucci, Balenciaga, Yves Saint Laurent and Puma - not well known for their environmental credentials.

Narrated by Glenn Close (and Salma Hayek in the Spanish version) it has that polished, glossy feel that you’d expect from a company like PPR. And it’s undoubtedly beautifully shot. But as with all these kind of films, their value depends on their ability to engage with individuals who aren't already signed up to the green agenda. Am I really going to invest time in watching this if I'm not someone who is already pretty interested in the environment and committed to doing my bit? Or are these grand scale cinematic projects aimed at creating an emotional response exactly what we need to change the way people think about climate change?

Let us know what you think...

Can we blame the fatties?

Jonathan Porritt’s claim that fat people are causing climate change got a lot of discussion going in our office. As someone who has been called ‘fattist’ in the past and who assumes that most fat people are lazy and unmotivated, I was the first to put my hand up and agree.

But is it really that simple? Yes they eat more meat and processed foods and get out on their bikes less but does that mean they have a bigger carbon footprint? There is a strong correlation between obesity and lower social-economic class and although they eat more, they probably fly less and live in smaller houses. If we ever moved to a carbon quota system I reckon it may be the thin affluent people who end up buying credits from the poor fat people, not the other way around.

Putting customers first

The recession is a tough time for lots of people and it is pretty difficult to see any silver linings. However, one that I have noticed recently is the fact that it is forcing many companies to put their customers back at the top of their priority list.

Suddenly we are seeing companies discounting their rates, offering new packages, and generally pulling out all of the stops to keep hold of their customers. Even if we are unemployed, companies want to keep us as customers. Check out this recent article in the FT.

It may be self-interested, but it certainly helps some companies get back to basics.