Following some recent reports on the internet I feel the need to air a few views on the “bamboo – good or bad” issue.  Bamboo products – floors, furniture, clothing, textiles – have certainly grown in popularity over the last few years, largely on the back of their perceived environmental/green image.  But do the products actually live up to this reputation?  I decided that I would look into this issue a bit further, looking first at bamboo as a flooring method.

Obviously when compared to hardwood options bamboo scores highly as a sustainable resource.  Maturity occurs in the order of 5 years in comparison to the 20+ years taken for hardwood.  This results in a much higher yield per hectare. The physical properties of bamboo – strength, flexibility, versatility – make it a very viable alternative to timber and metal.

Bamboo also plays a very important role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere and at a higher rate than alternative trees.  This is done through the process of sequestration (storage in a physical form) of carbon dioxide.  It also is grown largely without the need for fertilisers. 

Well all positive so far.  It does perhaps get complicated when we start to look at the manufacturing/processing side and more specifically the glue used in the process.  I do accept that this may not be the most ecologically responsible method and this is certainly one of the main concerns often cited.  However I would argue that when compared to the environmental impacts of alternative wood based products these concerns pale into insignificance.

One of the other issues is the transportation problems due to the fact that the vast majority of bamboo is produced in China and the requirement to ship it all around the world to the US and Europe especially.

However, all this aside we may need to accept that all resources have some negative impacts, it is just the degree of impact that we need to be concerned with.  Personally I am happy with my choice of bamboo for the floor in the living room – it looks great too!

Any views on this?

We have just received a nice freebie from our energy company (SSE).  Not often you can say that!! The gift in question was two energy saving lightbulbs (CFLs).  They will come in useful when the time comes to replace the existing bulbs at home.

I’m sure since you are reading my blog you are well aware of energy saving lightbulbs and their benefits.  It really is false economy not to be using these bulbs and I do welcome the UK government’s desire to phase out traditional inefficient bulbs.

I was having a discussion with a friend on these energy saving bulbs just the other day and as I was stressing to them some of the stock answers for not adopting don’t stack up. 

Number 1 - they do not give off poor light!  Early versions may have done but the technology has moved on a significant amount since then; and

Number 2 - yes they do contain mercury but over the lifetime of the bulb more energy would have been emitted from the power station as a result of using the traditional energy sapping bulbs.

It is estimated that using a energy saving CFL bulb will save you in the region of £6-7 - less than the cost of the bulb itself!  While over the lifetime of a bulb will reduce CO2 emissions by about half a tonne (although this depends on how the energy to supply it is generated! Hopefully this figure will keep coming down!)

I must say that I welcome the news of Obama’s success yesterday.  During his campaign his policies suggested that he is taking environmental sustainability seriously.  And it is needed!  The USA has the highest level of CO2 emissions in the world and has not signed up to the Kyoto agreement.

His targets point towards him looking in the right direction:

·         10% of power from renewable energy by 2012 and a quarter by 2025

·         No more new drilling in US waters

·         No more coal-fired plants

·         Increased fuel efficiency standards on cars

And best of all he aims to stimulate the sector in order to create 5 million new jobs, striving for the American people to see the environmental push as an opportunity and not a cost.

His work as an environmental activist back in his university days suggests he means what he says, and lets face it he cannot be any worse than George Bush!  But as with all things the proof will be in the eating.