So, is ‘Plan A’ a load of pants, Mr Rose?

Marks and Sparks is having a sale. Whoopie…

Well no, actually. I don’t think this is a ‘good thing’.

“Plan A is our five-year, 100-point 'eco' plan to tackle some of the biggest challenges facing our business and our world. It will see us working with our customers and our suppliers to combat climate change, reduce waste, safeguard natural resources, trade ethically and build a healthier nation.” (M&S Plan A website)

For a while I was willing to go along with their eco-hype. I agree with a lot of things that they’re doing. But the announcement today that they’re having a 20% off everything sale has undone all the good PR, as far as I’m concerned.

I know that we have to consume stuff; and choosing recyclable packaging is a good thing; and that trade (fair trade, that is) is a good thing for the developing world and for us here too. But the most pernicious problem (in the West) is that we all over-consume. Especially at Christmas. It makes me want to vomit.

Wouldn’t it be better for all of us, in the long run, if they sold fewer items of a higher quality at a slightly higher price?

I can’t help noticing that, since Plan A was introduced, the quality of M&S pants has gone right down. (I know Jeremy Paxman would agree with me! ) Sad to say, I’ve been buying the same old basic style for the past 20 years… And of course, these basics do wear out. I just wish they wouldn’t wear out so quickly these days. The fabric may be fair trade organic, but it’s not as thick (and strong) as it used to be, and the quality of the elastic would make Nora Batty turn in her grave (is she in her grave yet? Ah, Wikipedia suggests not… sorry)

[I see M&S has ‘relaunched’ its Plan A website too (old site vs new site; and why doesn’t the site URL appear in the title bar of Firefox? Strange.)]

What I really can’t bear is the vast quantity of totally unnecessary items (and their associated transportation, and packaging, and the transportation of the packaging…) that will be hauled from the shops today just because there’s 20% off. In my new local M&S yesterday (yes, I do go there – for mid-week fruit and veg shopping, because the big T killed off the local greengrocers years ago) they were ‘offering’ low-priced boxes of chocolates at the till. Over packaged; over priced; unnecessary*.

Minutes after I’d listened to two retail giants debate the ‘'Irrational' downturn in high street spending’ on Today this morning, the programme finished early to launch an emergency appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee to raise funds to help displaced and distressed people in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Yet again, at Christmas time, I'm frustrated and fed up with it all. I don’t need any more unpleasantly perfumed and over-packaged hand creams, jumpers that don’t fit and have to be returned to the shops, or kitchen gizmos that gather dust.

Instead of feeding Mr Rose’s bank account today, I’m going to give my Christmas-present-fund to the appeal, and hope that my family will be happy with my home-baked cakes instead.

Bah humbug
Rant over!

-----
* Mr Ms_well and I do enjoy choccies now and again. We once bought a fancy heart-shaped box from Thorntons, ate the contents and kept the packet. Now for anniversaries and whatnot, we buy lower priced bags of Fair Trade chocs and put them in the recycled fancy box. Stingy, but kinder to the environment (and our pockets).

Is DECC good news for us greenies?

Aha! Today I have a new acronym to add to my editor's checklist: DECC, the Department for Energy and Climate Change. Announced yesterday as part of the cabinet reshuffle, this new department will be led by Ed Miliband and has been welcomed by Greenpeace. Indeed, they’re so pleased about it that they’ve sent me a letter* (well, they issued a round robin to all their members, but I flatter myself they wanted to let me know personally!)

What a shame, though, that Gordon Brown didn’t bother to mention it in his round robin to Labour Party members – he was too busy justifying the resurrection of Peter Mandelson. What does that say about his underlying concerns? Is DECC a token effort? Oh boy, I hope not.

I am a tad suspicious of the motives behind this new department, though. The person who told me about the announcement mentioned the n-word (nuclear) in the very same breath…

I’m a definite fence-sitter when it comes to nuclear power.

It’s not a ‘sustainable’ option in any sense of the word, and in any case leaves us with the same problem as on-going oil usage – namely that we can easily be held to ransom by hostile countries who are sitting on the fuel sources. Wind, wave and solar we have aplenty, so let’s hunker down and develop these cleaner, safer and home-grown technologies.

On the other hand, from the politicians’ viewpoint, telling people to cut energy usage is not a vote-winner (as we’ve already begun to see with the low-cost insulation announcement); the prospect of power cuts, or worse, rationing, is even less enticing. But if people don’t get a grip on their energy usage the politicians have to come up with something, and nuclear is a low-carbon-emissions alternative.

So I’ll give two cheers to Ed Miliband and his new department; and with my editor’s hat on, let’s hope to goodness that Mr M lets his civil servants give it a proper logo and sensible acronym – unlike the powers that be who insisted on dropping the ‘department’ from Communities and Local Government.

Talking of which, I’d like to add three cheers for the appointment of Margaret Beckett as minister for Housing. Only yesterday I was reading of the woeful lack of heavyweights in government [Tribal gatherings by Decca Aitkenhead], and Mrs Beckett (I am told that’s her moniker of preference!) brings a wealth of experience to this portfolio, which is set to be one of the highest profile issues for many months to come. If the house builders cause her any trouble, she can always call in the caravan manufacturers!

* Send Mr M a letter via Greenpeace’s campaign to encourage ‘green collar’ jobs and stop the development of the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station. See also an informative take on the news on the Greenpeace blog.

It's not Frankenstein we should fear, but big pharma

Last week Prince Charles spoke out against genetically modified crops (aka "Frankenstein foods", if you read the tabloids).

It's about time people stopped focusing on the science (which may or may not be an issue) and thought long and hard about the economics of GM. What a pity Phil Woolas (Defra minister) continues to miss this key point. So I decided to set him straight:

Dear Mr Woolas

In the wake of Prince Charles's interview about genetically modified crops, you have been setting out the Government's policy towards GM. As a Labour Party member (who hasn't yet completely chucked in the towel), I'm writing to draw your attention to my concerns about GM, and to explain why I would like the Labour Party to re-think its attitude to GM.

For me, the issue is not about the science - it's the economic/political risks that concern me, principally the need to ensure "sustainability" of food supplies.

Do you really think it's a good idea to let the future of world food supplies lie in the hands of a small number of international chemicals companies? Letting the "market" control life's essentials is already leading us into trouble:

* We are already suffering the consequences of energy being controlled by hostile regimes and/or greedy international businesses. (Hence I'm all in favour of increasing home-grown energy from wind farms, wave power, PV, and micro-renewables.)
* Meanwhile, thousands die every day in developing countries because they can't afford to buy medicines from the pharmaceuticals giants; and back home in the UK some drugs have to be "rationed" because they are too expensive (i.e. shareholders in Glaxo et al don't want to see their profits shrink).

I don't object in principle to on-going scientific trials of GM crops, but they should be conducted by government scientists, and the results should be widely published. Any patents that result should be made "open source" so that farmers around the world can benefit from technological developments - instead of the technology being controlled by a handful of extremely powerful and secretive organisations (Monsanto, inevitably, springs to mind).

Of course, Mr Woolas is far too busy to reply in person, but the Labour Party's communications department assures me they'll pass on my comments to the appropriate department. Yeh, right. Well, I won't hold my breath…

Holidaying with a clear conscience

Tom Robbins, writing in last Sunday's Observer (6 July 2008), uncovers the complex chain of custody that lies behind many so-called "eco-holidays".

So many companies are jumping on the green bandwagon that a spokesperson from Tourism Concern told Robbins: "Already the word 'eco' has lost all power and meaning".

Holidays aren't the only commodity to suffer from greenwash, though, and it's bound to be a recurring theme of this blog... (just wait 'til I get started on the "make your own humus" eco-food fanatics!)

Robbins's article highlighted the difficulty of choosing an eco-holiday. A great example was when he tried to book a skiing holiday through a tour operator whose name suggests a high standard of environmental monitoring.

To find out what happen, see "Are you being green washed?", Observer, Sunday 6 July 2008.

For a rather different analysis of the holiday scene, try Green Futures, the house magazine of Forum for the Future: "2020 Postcard" by Imogen Martineau, March 2006.