Today, tobacco is grown in more than 100 countries. 80 of these are developing third world countries and in many the growing of tobacco is a major environmental problem.

Here are some of the reasons why:

How tobacco is damaging the health of our world:

• Many tobacco growing countries have a big problem with deforestation. Trees are cut down to make way for tobacco fields, and to produce wood for drying tobacco leaves. Together, this represents almost 2% of global deforestation

• Nearly 5% of forests are going up in smoke thanks to tobacco cultivation in developing countries

• Growing of tobacco necessitates a vast array of toxic fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides which damage the environment. A tobacco field is sprayed several times during the growing season

• Most importantly, the growing of tobacco in developing countries reduces food production. Tobacco plantations take up space that could be used to produce food for 10 to 20 million people

How tobacco is staining our nation:

• 40% of all litter removed from our streets are cigarette stubs

• Cigarettes and matches are the most common source of ignition causing deaths from fire

So that’s what we mean by the bigger picture. Yes, by giving up you are doing yourself a huge favour. You’ve already improved your own health and quality of life. But you’ve also opted out of an industry and a habit that is harming the health of the environment at home and abroad. Ultimately, cigarettes are harming the very world we all live in.

That’s quite a thought to carry with you. By staying smoke-free you’re improving life for yourself and those around you. You also have the satisfaction of knowing that you’re no longer contributing to a poorer environment – either on your own doorstep or the other side of the world.

So STOP SMOKING NOW and make a world of difference.

Labels: deforestation, environment, environmental, tobacco

Working out the environmental impact of the food we buy can be confusing. It's no longer just about food miles - there's production, processing, packaging and storage to weigh up too.

What are Food Miles?
More people are stopping to consider the impact that everyday goods - including food - have on the environment. Food miles, the distance food travels from field to plate, is a way of indicating the environmental impact of the food we eat. Half the vegetables and 95 per cent of the fruit eaten in the UK comes from beyond their shores.

Increasingly, it arrives by plane - and air travel gives off more CO2 than any other form of transport.

The term 'food miles' was coined in the 1990s by Dr Tim Lang, professor of food policy at London's City University. While the idea of food miles has become common currency, many other processes contribute to the carbon footprint of our food. Agriculture, processing, storage and the way we shop all have to be factored into the bigger carbon emissions picture.

Together these factors combine to make the food we eat responsible for a third of UK households' impact on climate change.

Air grievance
The most contentious food miles are clocked up by the fresh fruit and vegetables arriving by plane from across the globe. Reducing the carbon footprint of food is not as simple as choosing not to buy fresh fruit and vegetables flown in from Africa or South America, however.

Although air-freighted produce accounts for less than one per cent of total UK food miles, it is responsible for around 11 per cent of the total CO2 emissions from UK food transport. That's because transport by plane generates 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping does, for example, and it's the fastest-growing way of moving food around, according to latest figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

The most recent increase is affected by imports of animal feed from Brazil and the USA, but it is the green beans grown in Kenya, 70 per cent of which are destined for UK supermarkets, that draw much of the anti-air freight fire.

Because of concerns about the carbon emissions generated by air-freighting, Marks and Spencer and Tesco now label fresh produce flown in from abroad with a sticker depicting an airplane.

Miles in the Balance
Others believe that highlighting the fact that the food is air-freighted can demonise such produce and threaten the livelihoods of some of the world's poorest people, who are dependent on exporting by plane. The £200million fresh fruit and vegetable trade with the UK supports one million people living in Africa.

To support environmentally friendly food production without unnecessarily harming vulnerable developing economies, the Soil Association has decided that, in order to qualify as 'organic', all air-freighted food will have to meet ethical trade standards from 2009. Incidentally most Fairtrade fruit, such as pineapples, bananas and mangoes, is transported by sea.

Lorry loads
Food transport is responsible for 25 per cent of the kilometres clocked up by HGVs on our congested roads. Supermarkets have national distribution systems, so even food grown near a particular branch may have travelled by lorry to a central depot and back to its place of origin. Ingredients used in the food processing industry travel around the country from factory to factory before reaching the shops.

All these journeys around Britain mean that HGVs transporting food transport are responsible for a quarter of CO2 emissions.

Car Culprits
It's easy to overlook the fact that the food we eat clocks up extra miles on the drive to the supermarket and back. The last set of figures looking at the distance food travels found a seven per cent increase in city car journeys making longer and more frequent trips to the shops. Cars are responsible for 20 per cent of the UK's CO2 emissions from food transport.

Is home-grown always better?
Even locally grown and organic food can be kept chilled for months. Refrigeration requires energy; trying to cheat our climate by growing fruit and vegetables outside their natural season is also contributing to climate change.

A 2005 Defra report indicated that it can be more energy-efficient to import tomatoes from Spain by lorry than to grow them in a heated greenhouse in the UK. Lettuce grown out of season in the UK also compared unfavourably with Spanish salad when total carbon emissions were measured.

DID YOU KNOW?
A study carried out at Lincoln University in New Zealand concluded that rearing and distributing British lamb produces more CO2 emissions than importing the meat 11,000 miles by sea. New Zealand farmers use more renewable energy and less fertiliser, so agriculture is much more energy efficient than the UK's, making up for the food miles.

Carbon 'foodprint'
Different farming systems use varying amounts of energy. The reckoning of all the carbon emissions produced in the growing, processing and distribution of our food starts in the field. Measuring the environmental impact, from fork to plate, is known as the life cycle.

Organic farming uses less energy because it relies much less heavily on fertilisers and chemicals used in intensive farming, the manufacture of which creates greenhouse gases.

Meat is the most energy-intensive of all foods to produce, taking up larger amounts of water than any other food production - 2,400 litres of water to produce a 150g hamburger compared to 13 litres of water for a 70g tomato. Cows give off methane which contributes to global warming, too. Livestock rearing generates more greenhouse gases than transport does.

Processing and packaging also contribute to food's carbon footprint, as does keeping it chilled or frozen. All these carbon emissions can outweigh those produced by food miles.

Is there still mileage in food miles?
While some think the term food miles will be superseded by a life cycle carbon footprint, it is still important to keep track of the distance food travels.

Food miles have jump-started the debate about the carbon footprint of our food. Paul Steedman of the Food Ethics Council insists they're still a valuable concept, although only one component of the life cycle of food. 'It's heartening the way people are now thinking about the ethics of food, and we don't want to throw the baby out of the bathwater,' says Steedman.

He and others would argue that comparing English and New Zealand apples in July and finding that the imports score lower on carbon emissions is a red herring, because consumers shouldn't expect to eat apples out of season and that supermarkets shouldn't be selling unseasonal fresh fruit and vegetables all year round. That way, he argues, the responsibility wouldn't lie with shoppers having to weigh up which foods are better for the environment.

Carbon labelling
But a global food economy seems here to stay and consumers will doubtless continue to demand the out-of-season produce that they've grown used to. The challenge is to reduce the impact food production has on climate change.

By working out a way of measuring how much CO2 is given off at every stage of production that's partly what the Carbon Trust is helping organisations to do. Look for the pilot label showing the carbon emission in grams on Walkers cheese and onion crisps. Innocent smoothies are being measured and already the fruits' journey from India has been shown to make up less than a quarter of the carbon emission tally on its mango and passion fruit smoothie.

Following a pledge by its chief executive Sir Terry Leahy, Tesco is working with the Carbon Trust to map the carbon footprint of foods including tomatoes, potatoes and orange juice. Companies opting for the Carbon Trust scheme must commit to reducing emissions or lose the right to use the label.

Only when several similar foods have their carbon footprint measured can shoppers choose their foods accordingly. Until then, shopping locally for what's grown locally (and, preferably, organically) and in season, may be the only guarantee that the food we buy is doing the least possible damage to our environment.

Labels: carbon emissions, carbon footprint, carbon trust, co2, environment, environmental, fairtrade, food miles, greenhouse gas emissions, organic, soil association

Costa Rica will plant seven million trees in 2008 to soak up as many greenhouse gas emissions as it produces, in a bid to become the world's first carbon neutral nation, a top official said Monday.

"The stated goal is to be the first neutral country as far as greenhouse gas emissions is concerned," said Energy and Environment Minister Roberto Dobles.

"To get there, this administration is betting on halting deforestation and on the 'Plant a Tree' project," he added, referring to an ongoing government initiative to plant as many trees as possible in the country.

The project aims to "plant seven million trees this year, meaning that in our country there would be 1.5 trees for each Costa Rican.

He added that in 2007 the country managed to plant five million trees, spurred by the desire to forestall an impending environmental catastrophe.

"Climate change is the main threat facing humanity and, even so, the world still can't agree to fight this problem," Dobles said.

Every country can help in the struggle, even a small nation like his own, Dobles said.

"We all know developed countries and big developing nations like China, Brazil and India are chiefly responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that destroy the ozone layer.

"That doesn't mean a country like Costa Rica should stand by doing nothing. On the contrary, we're working on a series of initiatives on the national and global levels to lessen the impact" of climate change, the minister said.

(PICTURE: The Monteverde Costa Rica Cloud Forest is one of the most famous conservation areas in Central America. It's a tropical rain forest but because of it's altitude (1400 meters or 4.600 feet), it's called a Cloud Forest.)

Labels: carbon neutral, climate change, costa rica, energy, environment, environmental, forest, ghg, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, rainforests

Anyone who wants to help save the planet should turn vegetarian, according to Sir Paul McCartney.

The former Beatle said the world's meat industry was one of the main contributors to global warming.

Sir Paul urged people to tackle the problem by turning to a meat-free diet.

"I would urge everyone to think about taking this simple step to help our precious environment and save it for the children of the future," he said in an interview with animal rights organisation Peta.

The superstar became a vegetarian himself after watching lambs play in a field outside his home.

When asked what was the most important change someone could make to help the environment, he said: "I think the biggest change anyone could make in their own lifestyle would be to become vegetarian.

"The surprising thing is that even though many of us, including me, were brought up as traditional meat and fish eaters, it is a simple matter these days, and an exciting one, to consider changing your diet to a healthier one which not only brings benefits to the person who does it but also to the planet as a whole."

He said he found it "very surprising" that most major environmental organisations left vegetarianism off their lists of top ways to tackle global warming.

"Of course there are many powerful businesses which would wish to resist this idea but it is becoming clearer that a simple change in people's lifestyles could make a major difference to our environment," he said.

"What is interesting is that nowadays it is so easy to become vegetarian and so many people are reducing meat in their diet.

"That is a simple but extremely effective step that many people could take to help the environment and improve their own health at the same time."

Sir Paul, 65, appears along with Alicia Silverstone, Casey Affleck and Forest Whitaker in the latest Peta campaign promoting vegetarianism.

Labels: animal rights, environment, environmental, global warming, peta, save the planet, sir paul mccartney, the beatles, vegetarian