ASDA to cut down on plastic bags via school scheme

January 30th, 2008 · 2 Comments

ASDA will be getting children and their families to cut down on plastic bags with their new voucher scheme Go Green.

The Go Green voucher scheme, now in its second year, aims to get children thinking before they throw away thus reducing the amount of unnecessary waste going to landfill in the UK.

Unlike rival schemes, green vouchers are given to customers who choose to reuse their old carriers or not use a plastic bag at all and is not linked to how much you spend on your shopping.

Last year over 15 schools in the area signed up for the 10-week scheme and this year the store is appealing for more schools to join the green crusade.

Schools will be collecting Go Green vouchers and can redeem these against educational eco-equipment ranging from grow beds to pocket microscopes, solar panels to remote camera bird tables.

Store Manager Dennis Hughes explains: “Customers don’t need to spend thousands of pounds in stores in order to help their local school and the environment. All we are asking is that you reuse your bags and use your voucher to help your local school so that they can cash them in for lots of great green prizes.”

Interested schools should contact their local store event co-ordinator for more information or log onto www.asda-gogreenforschools.co.uk

[Source: ICWales]

Tags: · asda, bags, carriers, eco, green, shopping

More of the latest environmental articles at Climate Crunch

If you liked this article, you maybe interested in the following

M&S offers £5 for clothes given to Oxfam, BUT….

British schools to join carbon trading scheme

Marks and Spencer to charge for plastic bags

How to “store the wind”, the ‘wind bags’

Energy Conservation in Schools

2 comments for this entry ↓

1 craig // Sep 5, 2008 at 2:07 pm

good idea
2 Pure Planet Recycling // Jan 20, 2010 at 9:52 pm

schemes like this need greater exposure, people need educating like this at an early age

Data Highlights on Solar Energy

[Blogs] Concerns about global warming, rising fossil fuel prices, and oil insecurity have prompted calls for a new energy economy, one that replaces fossil fuels with renewables. The sun is an enormous reservoir of energy; in fact, the sunlight reaching Earth in just one hour is enough to power the global economy for a whole year. [...] [Sustainablog]

Partisanship and Disinformation Surrounding Global Warming Taking their Toll

[News] A new Gallup poll shows that compared to three years ago, twice as many Americans believe that global warming’s consequences are exaggerated. And in just the last year, there has been an increase in skepticism from 41% to 48%. The chart above shows a number of trends. Skepticism about global warming was generally low in 1997, when the polling started, before climate change was getting regular news coverage, either fact or opinion based. In fact, the level of skepticism did not change much with the increasing coverage of climate change in the wake of An Inconvenient Truth, increasingly publicized consensus among the vast majority of climate scientists that global warming was real, human caused and potentially devastating, the Third Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001, or even the Nobel prize winning Fourth IPCC Assessment Report in 2007. So, we could assume that roughly 30% of the skeptics are not going to be persuaded by science. They have their opinion and they are sticking to it. There is a nice little spike in skepticism just after the 2004 election, a point at which the move from climate change as a scientific issue to climate change as a partisan issue began to really take hold. But then Hurricane Katrina happened in the summer of 2005 and even some of the new skeptics began to see a connection between the voracity of the hurricane and our changing climate. Skepticism fell. So what has happened more recently to increase the skepticism to such high levels? Not much to do with the science which continues to be conclusive. Just last week, the UK’s National Weather Service, the Met Office asserted that there are ‘clear fingerprints’ of human caused climate change in over 100 recent studies of sea ice, rainfall and global temperature. This concept of global temperature is key and not well understood by the lay person. Both the Colbert Report and the Daily Show ran segments spoofing people’s (and Fox News’s) inability to understand that just because it is cold and snowing in Washington, D.C. doesn’t mean that there aren’t record high temperatures in Australia or Southern Africa. In fact, despite a snowy winter in the northeast, NASA reports that, globally, 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880. And despite 2008 being the coolest year of the decade due to a strong La Nina effect in the Pacific, the last decade was the warmest on record. NASA explained it this way in a January press release: The near-record global temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures from the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while increasing its tendency to blow from north to south. The result was an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north. This left North America cooler than normal, while the Arctic was warmer than normal. "The contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the United States' temperature does not affect the global temperature much," Hansen said. But does anyone know or care about global temperatures when they’re freezing their tail off in New Jersey? When shoveling out your driveway for the umpteenth time, it’s hard to even care that Maine and Vancouver have been snowless. For many, the data being used to assess global warming is what they can see out their own window. And the Gallup polling in March 2009 and March 2010 would reflect this method of formulating an opinion about climate change; following both of those cool winters in the U.S. skepticism increased. As Stephen Colbert would say, we may be turning into a nation of peek-a-boo-ologists. There are a number of other factors that also seem to be driving the increasing skepticism about climate change; partisanship, money and so-called scandal. Observe the sharp spike in skepticism following the 2008 election when passing a greenhouse gas emissions reduction bill became a major component of the Obama administration’s agenda, making it a major target of the Republican agenda. Climate change went from being a national issue that was embraced by members of both parties to a partisan issue with one side chanting “drill, baby, drill” and defining itself in opposition to anything and everything that the other side supports. For Republicans, “the new political expediency is to be a global warming skeptic,” said Marc Morano, executive editor of the skeptic clearinghouse website ClimateDepot.com and a former aide to outspoken skeptic Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). - Los Angeles Times Then there are recent errors in research and stolen emails that are easily misunderstood. Atmospheric Sciences professor Andrew Dressler of Texas A & M University explained in an Op/Ed in the Houston Chronicle last week why relying on these ‘scandals’ to formulate an opinion about the reality of climate change is foolish. In recent months, e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom and errors in one of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports have caused a flurry of questions about the validity of climate change science. These issues have led several states, including Texas, to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's finding that heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide (also known as greenhouse gases) are a threat to human health. However, Texas' challenge to the EPA's endangerment finding on carbon dioxide contains very little science. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott admitted that the state did not consult any climate scientists, including the many here in the state, before putting together the challenge to the EPA. Instead, the footnotes in the document reveal that the state relied mainly on British newspaper articles to make its case. Contrary to what one might read in newspapers, the science of climate change is strong… - Houston Chronicle As he goes on to explain, the climate is definitely changing, human activity definitely causes heat trapping gases and those heat trapping gases are the cause of the changing climate. It should be simple, but it is not. Finally, and perhaps most impacting, there is the money being poured into creating a so-called debate over whether climate change is real, human caused and dangerous. Greenpeace reports that from 1998 – 2006,. ExxonMobil put over $2.2 million into just one denier think tank. From 1998 – 2005, the company spent $16 million with denier lobby groups and think tanks. BP spent $8 million in just 8 months in 2009 lobbying against climate legislation. The Heritage Foundation, which tried to use the 2008 La Nina cooling to cast doubts on the reality of climate change, received $50,000 from ExxonMobil that year, and another denier think tank, Atlas Economic Research, received $100,000. As the tobacco companies can attest, pour enough money into a marketing campaign and you can get people to do just about anything. Even spend their hard earned money on a product that will kill them. All of these factors have played a role in increasing the level of skepticism about climate change. What they haven’t done is changed the scientific conclusions that climate change is real, human caused and poses a great danger. And they haven’t solved the problem of what we are going to do about that. [DeSmogBlog]

Solar Surge iPod and iPhone Cases Are Now Available!

[Technology] Just in time for sunny spring days, Novothink has announced that its hotly anticipated Solar Surge iPod and iPhone cases have hit the market and are available for sale! We’ve followed these sleek solar cases all the way from their concept renderings, and we’re excited to say that the potent photovoltaic chargers look even better [...] [Inhabitat Technology]

Will the Nissan Leaf Battery Deliver All It Promises?

[Transport] The Nissan Leaf electric vehicle is set to be released in a few months, with Nissan pushing it ahead of their original 2011 release date, and even ahead of the official release of the Chevy Volt in November. Some industry insiders are wondering whether Nissan has cut a few corners in order to get [...] [Inhabitat Transport]

Democrats toughen up on finance reform. Could it work for clean energy?

[News] by Jonathan Hiskes A funny thing happened outside the twisted world of Congressional energy politics. Over at the Senate Banking Committee, Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) announced he’s going to push forward with finance reform and consumer protection bill, even if Republicans don’t want to help. This comes after weeks of negotiating between Dodd and Tennessee Republican Bob Corker, who showed more interest in protecting large banks and predatory lenders. (Payday lenders, as it happens, have a strong presence in Tennessee and have given Corker more than $31,000.) Now Dodd’s fed up and moving the bill. As a result, Congress may eventually get something done on the issue. On healthcare reform too, Harry Reid sent Mitch McConnell a letter saying he’s done playing games with Republicans who want to “start over.” Instead, he’s going to finish the job: Though we have tried to engage in a serious discussion, our efforts have been met by repeatedly debunked myths and outright lies. At the same time, Republicans have resorted to extraordinary legislative maneuvers in an effort not to improve the bill, but to delay and kill it. After watching these tactics for nearly a year, there is only one conclusion an objective observer could make: these Republican maneuvers are rooted less in substantive policy concerns and more in a partisan desire to discredit Democrats, bolster Republicans, and protect the status quo on behalf of the insurance industry. On healthcare, and possibly finance, Senate Democrats will have to pass bills through budget reconciliation to avoid Republican filibuster threats. They’ll face verbal attacks and they won’t have the comfort of Republicans voting with them. But, assuming the bills are any good, they’ll be doing the right thing. Back in energy world … Meantime, the engineers of a clean-energy bill are stuck playing the bipartisanship game. You have senators saying convoluted, nonsensical things about a hypothetical bill, as Dave Roberts notes. You have the lead trio—John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman—negotiating with fossil-fuel industry groups who are arguing in court that climate-change isn’t a threat to human welfare, as Brad Johnson notes. (“We don’t believe in the problem, but we’ve got the solution!”) Kate Sheppard asked Sen. Barbara Boxer if the new scheme is really the best method to create green jobs, promote energy independence, and curb climate pollution. Boxer didn’t even try to defend the plan on its actual merits. “I’m not going to make an argument that the [new] approach is better [than last fall’s Kerry-Boxer bill] ... Is it better than doing nothing? Absolutely,” she said. So the question is, does it have to be this way? Can’t Democratic leaders grow a pair and muscle a bill through Congress? For Senate Democratic leaders, it’s not yet a question of balls or no balls, because it’s not clear they have 50 votes to use in reconciliation (or in a future when the filibuster is fixed). Energy politics don’t line up along the familiar red-blue divide—rural Democrats, especially from coal-rich states, have historically voted with their Republican counterparts in support of the status quo. So it’s not quite the same situation as with financial reform. But for individual senators, there is a question of toughness. Any plan to make polluters pay for the heat-trapping gasses they emit will be easy to demonize. Those lawmakers will have to explain to voters why it’s in the country’s interest. They won’t have the comfort of many Republicans voting with them. They’ll have to explain why it was the right vote anyway—why bipartisanship matters less to them than addressing an urgent threat. Several threats, actually—global warming, foreign-oil dependence, unemployment, and diminishing technological leadership. That’s the issue facing hesitant Democrats like Byron Dorgan, Ben Nelson, and Jim Webb. On that issue of toughness … Finally, the veterans’ group VoteVets.org provides some perspective on why making a vote for energy independence is considerably less “tough” than facing insurgencies funded by petrodictators in the Middle East. Related Links: How the cap-and-trade controversy could lead to good clean energy policy Job Creation Begins at Home How to provide relief to rural Americans, create jobs, and lower emissions ... all at once! [Grist Climate and Energy]

Climate Crunch | the complete climate change news service

Get the latest buzz from Climate Crunch

An Inconvenient Blog | Saving the planet one blog at a time