The Search Race; part of AltSearchEngines whose motto is 'The most wonderful search engines you’ve never seen' compiles a list of the TOP Alternative/Niche Search Engines on the WWW.

As part of our mission to be recognised as the Environmental Alternative to Traditional Search Engines we need your vote. To find us please register on the SearchRace and browse the 'Green Search' category.

And don't forget to spread the word!

For up to date news, views and facts on everything environmentally related don't forget to visit and subscribe to Click4Carbon.

Click4Carbon would like to offer their support and vote to Matthias Gelber who is in the top 5 of the Greenest Person on the Planet competition which is managed by 3rdWhale.

We hope to publish an interview with Matthias soon. In the meantime please watch one of Matthias's videos and don't forget to vote.



For up to date news, views and facts on everything environmentally related don't forget to visit and subscribe to Click4Carbon.

Africa has a "golden opportunity" in U.N. climate talks to ensure that the world's poorest continent gets help to cope with global warming, the head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat said on Tuesday.

Yvo de Boer said Africa was still lagging in attracting investments in green technology to help slow rising greenhouse gases and in getting help to adapt to the effects of droughts, floods, rising seas and less predictable rains.

Speaking during 160-nation Aug. 21-27 climate talks in Accra, de Boer urged African nations to insist on their interests regarding a new U.N. climate treaty due to be agreed by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen.

"I really tried to emphasise here that this process up to Copenhagen is a golden opporutnity for African countries to make sure that the next regime does meet their needs in a much better way," he said.

"They need to formulate what is essential to them to act, both to limit emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change," he said.

"Africa has to know what's to the liking of Africa."

African nations are among those that have done least to stoke climate change, blamed mainly on emissions of gases from burning fossil fuels since the Industrial Revolution, and yet is among the continents most vulnerable to a changing climate.

A U.N. Climate Panel report last year, for instance, projected that up to 250 million people in Africa would be living in areas of stress on water supplies by 2020.

LAGGING

And China, India and Brazil have attracted far more investments than Africa under a U.N. project that lets rich nations invest in developing world projects to cut greenhouse gases -- such as wind farms or destruction of industrial gases -- and claim credits back home.

"Africa is still not profiting from the instruments we have," de Boer said.

But a separate U.N. report on Tuesday said things may be changing -- clean energy projects were emerging in nations including Mali, Mozambique and Madagascar. In Kenya, for instance, one project involved a geothermal scheme.

De Boer said the Accra meeting had made progress in defining how to help slow tropical deforestation -- a source of up to almost 20 percent of greenhouse gases from human activities.

"Countries have developed a better understanding here of how they want to deal with deforestation, how they want to reward people for forest conservation," he said.

And there was a feeling that sectoral targets, such as goals for maximum emissions from producing a tonne of aluminium, steel or cement, were useful within nations but not as part of a binding international system.

"I think there's a strong sentiment in the room, especially among developing countries, that a decision to address a sector is something you decide at the national level," he said.

"It's not something that you could or should try to impose at the international level," he said. Many poor nations fear that sectoral targets are a prelude for trade barriers on less efficient industries.

(Thanks to Reuters for this news item)

For up to date news, views and facts on everything environmentally related don't forget to visit and subscribe to Click4Carbon.

Before you set foot in your car always ask yourself:

A) Do I need to drive to get to where I am going. Could I walk, cycle or even use public transport.

and

B) Do I actually need to go there in the first place.

Even if it is a business meeting can all or some of you take part by video or telephone conference.

If you have to drive here are some excellent driving tips:

* Limit the amount of time your car engine is running (idling) when you're not driving - turn it off if you stop for more than 10 seconds (except in traffic). Idling also prevents the catalytic convertor from working properly.

* Avoid rapid acceleration and heavy braking - accelerate smoothly, even in a traffic jam. Smoother driving can use 30% less fuel. Also, obey the speed limit. Doing 50mph can use 25% less fuel than 70mph.

* Service your car regularly (usually every 12 months or 10,000 miles).

* Make sure your tyres are properly inflated. (For every 6psi a tyre is under-inflated, fuel consumption can rise by 1%)

* Make sure your garage throws in an emissions test with the service. This can save you money as well as helping to prevent breakdowns by identifying problems with the engine.

* Wide-open windows, roof racks, heavy clutter in the boot and air conditioning can all add to your fuel bill.

* On cold days, limit warm-up idling to 30 seconds or less (the best way to warm up your vehicle is to drive it).

For up to date news, views and facts on everything environmentally related don't forget to visit and subscribe to Click4Carbon.

Fur flies as Gwyneth Paltrow offends her animal-rights friends. The actress courts controversy in an ad campaign and puts her relationship with Stella McCartney on the line.

She is almost as famous for her green, holistic lifestyle as she is for her film roles, but Gwyneth Paltrow has become the focus of angry animal rights campaigners.

The actress is fronting the autumn collection of fur-lined boots and bags from the Italian company Tod's – which also uses ostrich and snakeskin in its products.

Photographs of the Hollywood star draped in fox fur feature in the company's latest advertising campaign. Activists have branded the 35-year-old – who is married to the Coldplay singer and prominent vegetarian Chris Martin – as stupid and say that she should be ashamed of herself.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) went as far as to criticise her parenting, saying: "Gwyneth Paltrow won't be the apple of her daughter's eye if she continues to flaunt fur.

"It's a terrible example to set for a young child, promoting an industry that electrocutes animals, snaps their necks and skins them alive."

Tony Wardle, associate director of the vegetarian charity Viva!, said: "There is nothing feminine about inserting an electrode into the anus of a terrified and struggling fox and then electrocuting it. Ms Paltrow is an actress – and seemingly a particularly stupid one at that."

Mark Glover, director of Respect for Animals, said: "Gwyneth Paltrow should be ashamed to promote something so steeped in animal suffering. I can only assume that Paltrow either is ignorant of the facts or lacks human decency and compassion."

The row is ironic, as Ms Paltrow enjoys a close friendship with the designer Stella McCartney. Following in the footsteps of her staunchly vegetarian mother, Linda, Ms McCartney refuses to use fur – in direct contrast to the views of her friend, who has in the past described it as being "feminine and very elegant".

Ms McCartney, smarting from a recent run-in with the furrier Hockley for showing one of her bras under a mink coat it was advertising in Vogue, is said to be furious with the actress. This is unlikely to persuade Ms Paltrow to forsake fur, however.

Peta said yesterday that repeated overtures to the actress have been rebuffed. "We've written to her many times, and sent her videos showing how animals suffer for fur, but have never received a response.

"Apparently her beauty really is only skin deep," said a spokesman.

The British Fur Trade Association said: "Animal rights groups are entitled to their opinion but many people do not share this opinion and it is certainly not reflected in the rising global demand for fur.

"Regrettably, not everyone understands the difference between animal welfare, which has the full commitment of our sector, and animal rights, which seeks to ban every animal use by man, whether for food, medical or scientific research, clothing or companionship."

No comment was available from Ms Paltrow or Mr Martin last night.

(Thank you to The Independent Newspaper UK for this news item)

For up to date news, views and facts on everything environmentally related don't forget to visit and subscribe to Click4Carbon.

Switching from beef to kangaroo burgers could significantly help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, says an Australian scientist.

The methane gas produced by sheep and cows through belching and flatulence is more potent than carbon dioxide in the damage it can cause to the environment.

But kangaroos produce virtually no methane because their digestive systems are different.

Dr George Wilson, of the Australian Wildlife Services, urges farming them.

He says they have a different set of micro-organisms in their guts to cows and sheep.

Sheep and cattle account for 11% of Australia's carbon footprint and over the years, there have been various proposals to deal with the problem.

Now Dr Wilson believes kangaroos might hold the answer.

He said: "It tastes excellent, not unlike venison - only a different flavour."

The country already produces 30 million kangaroos farmed by landholders in the outback.

But Dr Wilson is keen to see that population dramatically increased to produce the same amount of kangaroo meat as that currently produced by conventional livestock.

(Thanks to the BBC for this news item)

For up to date news, views and facts on everything environmentally related don't forget to visit and subscribe to Click4Carbon.

Watch this amazing footage of thick smog cloud that covers Beijing before the Olympic Games are set to commence.

As Beijing's polluted air came close to exceeding levels even the Chinese consider dangerous yesterday, one of the International Olympic Committee's most senior figures dismissed the yellow-grey haze that periodically hangs over the city as mist, and blamed the media for overstating pollution problems.

Air quality in Beijing remains a big cause for concern three days before the start of the games. Members of the US athletics team arrived in the city wearing face masks yesterday and organisers are preparing to postpone or relocate endurance events including the marathon and road cycling if smog levels reach dangerous limits.

But yesterday Arne Ljungqvist, chairman of the IOC's medical commission, said he was confident that pollution would not harm athletes or visitors, and suggested media coverage had created a false impression of pollution levels.

"The mist in the air that we see in those places, including here, is not a feature of pollution primarily but a feature of evaporation and humidity," he told the IOC's annual session. "We do have a communication problem here. Once the misconception has become sort of established in the minds of people, it's not that easy to get the right message through.

"I would not discourage athletes from wearing protection devices if they are concerned, but I do not think it is necessary. I would not wear one whether I was an athlete or not." Two days of haze gave way to sunshine yesterday afternoon, but the official measure of air quality remained close to dangerous levels.

Official readings collated by Beijing's municipal environmental protection bureau yesterday gave an air pollution index (API) of 91 for Beijing as a whole, and 87 at the Olympic stadium. The World Health Organisation regards an API of more than 50 as high, and a reading of 100 or more is considered unsafe. The authorities monitor air quality hourly, including levels of particulates, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, and take limited readings for ozone.

Ljungqvist said the readings were in line with the WHO's interim targets for developing countries, and that the pollution did not pose a threat to the health of athletes visiting for the Olympics.

He met with the WHO's local representative three days ago, and characterised his concerns as being primarily with the "exaggeration of the problem that has been seen in the media".

"Those [WHO] standards are fairly tough to meet, but in many respects the Beijing area does so. I'm sure, I'm confident the air quality will not prove to pose major problems to the athletes and to the visitors in Beijing," he said.

"We have had some readings that were above the interim target data, but since then they have gone down and been below that level. We will evaluate those [pollution levels] and, should problems arise, we may have to take some action."

Ljungqvist said the WHO's standards were relevant only to the long-term health of local residents rather than Olympic athletes and visitors. "To come to a city even though the air quality [might be] inferior, the long-term effects should no longer be feared by temporary visitors," he said.

Beijing authorities have taken measures to control pollution including banning half of the city's 3.3m cars from the roads on any given day.

For up to date news, views and facts on everything environmentally related don't forget to visit and subscribe to Click4Carbon.

Barack Obama has laid out an ambitious energy plan under which US dependence on foreign oil would end within 10 years.

The Democrat contender's policy is seen as an attempt to blunt the apparent progress his Republican opponent John McCain is making with US voters who are struggling with high energy costs.

During a speech in Lansing, Michigan, Mr Obama performed a U-turn by calling for the release of 70 million barrels of crude oil held in federal stockpiles as a short-term means of lowering gasoline prices.

Last week, the Illinois senator also changed his position on his opposition to ending a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil along America's coast. He said he could accept limited and environmentally sound offshore exploration as part of a larger energy compromise that was being formulated in Congress.

The struggling US economy and rocketing energy costs are top of voter concerns, and Mr McCain has made headway in the White House contest by calling for an end to the drilling ban.

Mr McCain's campaign team described Mr Obama's policy switch yesterday as a "flip-flop".

For up to date news, views and facts on everything environmentally related don't forget to visit and subscribe to Click4Carbon.

Click4Carbon sets you a challenge to see how long you can survive without using anything plastic.

By this we mean not buying or accepting anything which contains plastic or is packaged in plastic.

So, no take-away coffees, bottles of water or pre-packed sandwiches.

Can you forsake punnets of strawberries and packs of chicken, supermarket milk and bottled cleaning products, and switching to reusable nappies for my toddler.

Are you able to not slump in front of the telly of an evening with the latest DVD, a takeaway curry and a bottle of wine (the cork could be plastic).

You can however keep using the plastic you already own. But even so, it's going to be very difficult.

Durable, versatile, lightweight, hygienic, cheap and strong: synthetic plastic is arguably one of the most useful inventions of the last century.

It is essential in medical equipment, technology and thousands of devices which have increased our standard of living.

But those very same attributes of durability and cheapness make plastic one of the most pervasive forms of waste on the planet.

Plastic soup

Evidence of our failure to deal with plastic rubbish is everywhere, from bulging landfill sites and countryside litter in the UK to a toxic plastic "soup" swilling around the middle of the North Pacific, thousands of miles from continental land.

Island groups such as Hawaii and Midway which, by their location in the Pacific should be pristine, instead are awash with plastic, killing seabirds, turtles and other marine life.

The UN Environment Programme estimates that there are 46,000 pieces of plastic litter floating in every square mile of ocean on Earth.

Some marine scientists believe that microscopic plastic fragments in the ocean can soak up pollutants which may then get passed up the food chain into fish and, ultimately, humans.

Plastic audit

We're as guilty as anyone of treating this useful resource as utterly disposable.

Do try to remember to take reusable bags to the shops and drop my bottles into the recycling bag which the council collects every week.

And try not to junk the vast majority of plastic which comes into your home.

We've kept a month's worth of plastic waste, to use as a barometer for our month of abstinence. It isn't pretty - 603 items, including:

• 36 carrier bags


• 67 food packaging bags and films such as bread bags, cheese wrappers (and a jumbo pack of Maltesers!)


• 23 polystyrene tea cups with lids and 24 coffee cup lids


• 15 fruit punnets and vegetable trays


• 13 yoghurt pots


• 16 water bottles, 10 milk bottles, 7 juice bottles


• Two toothbrushes


• Probably the least pretty aspect to my household's waste at the moment comes in the form of disposable nappies.

Inevitably, however, packaging forms the greatest part of my plastic haul.

In the UK they throw away 58 billion items - 1.5 million tonnes - of household plastic packaging a year, according to the government-funded Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap) and it's growing annually by 2-5%.

Considering that most plastics are lightweight, that's a mind-boggling volume of rubbish, especially as it does not include non-packaging plastic waste (as government figures do not exist for this).

In theory, most household plastics can be recycled but in practice, most local authorities only offer the facility to collect and recycle plastic bottles. A handful do collect all plastics but they are few and far between.

These make up a third of household plastic packaging waste so even if every single bottle was recycled (currently 35% are), the majority of our plastic rubbish would still be destined for landfill or incineration.

It's something that annoys consumers admits Paul Davidson, plastics sector manager at Wrap.

"Plastics packaging waste in particular is a very visible part of the waste stream and it's also growing.

"Ironically as we become more successful at recycling generally, what's left in the bin tends to be just the plastic. So more and more people are looking in their bins and saying there's just bits of plastic here why can't I recycle them?"

The situation will improve in the next three to five years, he adds, as UK recycling plants are developed which can handle trays, tubs, pots and punnets as well as bottles.

Under-packaging - worse?

Everyone has their favourite over-packaging bugbear be it the infamous shrink-wrapped coconut or bananas packaged singly on polystyrene trays.

But the other extreme leads to food waste, which has a far greater environmental impact than excess plastic according to Dick Searle, chief executive of the UK Packaging Federation.

"A lot of packaging is designed to lengthen the shelf-life of the products that are being sold so if you take it out of the packaging there's a good chance that it will actually not last as long.

"And unless you're very, very disciplined - and most of us frankly aren't - then you're quite likely to end up by throwing more [food] away."

Meat is a prime example, he says, with so-called "modified atmosphere packaging" - gas-filled supermarket packs which delay deterioration - meaning that packaged cuts last as much as two weeks longer than the same product bought from a butcher.

Plastic-free wagon

And yet we used to manage without all this plastic. In the 1950s, less than five million tonnes of plastic was produced worldwide, today it is close to 100 million tonnes.

The clink of glass milk bottles on the doorstep has been replaced by the purchase of two-litre plastic bottles at the supermarket. Chocolate bars were once packaged in foil and paper; packed lunches used to consist of a homemade sarnie in some greaseproof and an apple.

But our lifestyles have changed too - we no longer shop for groceries every day, many more women go out to work and fewer meals are eaten or prepared at home.

If plastic in general, and plastic packaging in particular, is all about facilitating our current way of living, will we have to return to the labour-intensive shopping patterns of previous decades to complete our non-plastic mission? we're about to find out.

We will be keeping a record of our progress - and any falls from the plastic-free wagon - in a blog which you can find here.

(NOTE: This article was was originally posted on the BBC News Website and written by Christine Jeavans)

For up to date news, views and facts on everything environmentally related don't forget to visit and subscribe to Click4Carbon.