The following report convinces me that we are celebrating Christmas the wrong way... :)
Christmas is damaging the environment - report
SYDNEY (Reuters) - Christmas is damaging the environment, says a new report by the Australian Conservation Foundation.
The report titled "The Hidden Cost of Christmas" calculated the environmental impact of spending on books, clothes, alcohol, electrical appliances and lollies during the festive season.
Every dollar Australians spend on new clothes as gifts consumes 20 litres (four gallons) of water and requires 3.4 square metres (37 sq feet) of land in the manufacturing process, it said.
Last Christmas, Australians spent A$1.5 billion (US$1.1 billion) on clothes, which required more than half a million hectares (1.2 million acres) of land to produce, it said.
Water that would approximately fill 42,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools was used in the production of Christmas drinks last December -- most was used to grow barley for beer and grapes for wine.
"If your bank account is straining under the pressure of Christmas shopping, spare a thought for our environment," Don Henry, the foundation's executive director, said in a statement.
"It's paying for our Christmas presents with water, land, air and resources. These costs are hidden in the products we buy."
The report said that gifts like DVD players and coffee makers generated 780,000 tonnes of greenhouse pollution, even before they were unwrapped and used. A third was due to fuel consumption during production.
Even a box of A$30 chocolates or lollies this Christmas, will consume 20kg (44 pounds) of natural materials and 940 litres (207 gallons) of water.
"We can all tread more lightly on the earth this Christmas by eating, drinking and giving gifts in moderation, and by giving gifts with a low environmental cost, such as vouchers for services, tickets to entertainment, memberships to gyms, museums or sports clubs, and donations to charities," said Henry.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Were You Present Mr Glazer?
The passing of Britain's best footballing talent has cast a new light on Manchester United - the people's club. The poignant manner in which Best's life was celebrated and the wonderful displays of soccer, tribute and sense of history cannot have come at a better time for this glorious institution of the beautiful game. Too much has been thrown in and out of the once hallowed corridors of Old Trafford, with little or no sense of the past and putting footballing rivalries aside, no one has emerged the wiser, nor in this case nobler...
To the Glazers, now is the time to embrace the colossus that you have so shamelessly "purchased." For you may hold the purse strings and power over the body corporate, but until you live and embrace it, you will never be a part, don't even mention own, the spirit that is Manchester United. In his time on the field, George Best, this genius from Belfast threw caution into the wind, and the gusts that swept lifted the club to heights it never knew before. He became a part of us, a part of our dreams and now, a part of our past. Now is the time for Malcolm Glazer and Sons to throw caution to their ill winds, embrace the club and lift United to the heavenly heights we yearn to see!
The press speak about our nameless jersey as if it were a tarnished cloth, but we know better... Mr Glazer, were you present at George Best's tribute? If you were, were you listening?
To the Glazers, now is the time to embrace the colossus that you have so shamelessly "purchased." For you may hold the purse strings and power over the body corporate, but until you live and embrace it, you will never be a part, don't even mention own, the spirit that is Manchester United. In his time on the field, George Best, this genius from Belfast threw caution into the wind, and the gusts that swept lifted the club to heights it never knew before. He became a part of us, a part of our dreams and now, a part of our past. Now is the time for Malcolm Glazer and Sons to throw caution to their ill winds, embrace the club and lift United to the heavenly heights we yearn to see!
The press speak about our nameless jersey as if it were a tarnished cloth, but we know better... Mr Glazer, were you present at George Best's tribute? If you were, were you listening?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
SC Attempts to clean-up MESS-DAQ?
The Star online reports read:SC tightens rules for Mesdaq listing candidates. The rumbling among investors at the underperformance of Mesdaq listings is not new, nor has it increased in decibels. Merchant bankers point to the recent spate of rejections by listing candidates and claim this is an active sign from Mesdaq that the SC is beginning to focus on quality rather than quantity.
While prudence remains pertinent, it is important to consider the role Mesdaq could have played and the mess it now finds itself in.
I believe the idea for Mesdaq was to be an avenue for high-er risk technology companies to seek funding from financial markets. The reason for the less stringent requirements was the fact that new technology is, well... new! It was a solution whereby people could have a slice of the action - and RISK, with a very good returns is things worked out.
However, as with most good ideas, it became embroiled in self interests. Listen, if there is anyone to blame, start with the merchant bankers! Let's be realistic, there was never a situation where SC was expected to vet each proposal. It was the merchant bankers afterall who presented each case, and they afterall who first took their share of the proceeds when a listing was successful.
Now that new rules are put in place, how much in truth is Mesdaq different from the 2nd Board? So where does this leave genuine technology companies?
While prudence remains pertinent, it is important to consider the role Mesdaq could have played and the mess it now finds itself in.
I believe the idea for Mesdaq was to be an avenue for high-er risk technology companies to seek funding from financial markets. The reason for the less stringent requirements was the fact that new technology is, well... new! It was a solution whereby people could have a slice of the action - and RISK, with a very good returns is things worked out.
However, as with most good ideas, it became embroiled in self interests. Listen, if there is anyone to blame, start with the merchant bankers! Let's be realistic, there was never a situation where SC was expected to vet each proposal. It was the merchant bankers afterall who presented each case, and they afterall who first took their share of the proceeds when a listing was successful.
Now that new rules are put in place, how much in truth is Mesdaq different from the 2nd Board? So where does this leave genuine technology companies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)