Environmentalists have been encouraging us to take better care of our planet since Rachel Carson`s seminal work "Silent Spring" was published in 1962. She warned of the dangers of indiscriminate use of pesticides and pollution of the environment. She argued that not only was DDT harmful to the environment but that it`s indiscriminate use was actually making the insect carriers of disease stronger by encouraging DDT-resistant strains. She inspired an anti-DDT campaign resulting in the banning of DDT in the US in 1972 and a strengthening of the regulation of chemical pesticides. Her ideas were controversial; she was accused of being a "hysterical woman" and irresponsible for speaking out against pesticides which were protecting people from deadly insect-borne diseases. Even today she is criticised and the debate continues.
In the 1960s the environmental community embraced James Lovelock`s "Gaia" hypothesis which proposes that both living and non-living parts of the earth form a complex interacting system and that the biosphere, the living part, has a regulatory effect on the Earth`s environment. He has since upset many environmentalists by coming out in favour of nuclear power as the only means to halt global warming.
 
Currently the great global climate change debate rages on. The issues are hotly debated on "consensus" and "sceptic" websites and blogs. "Consensus" scientists claim that there is overwhelming evidence that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are affecting the earth`s climate by trapping heat in the atmosphere and that this will lead to sea levels rising and extreme weather; "climate change sceptics" insist that the warming is not being caused by carbon dioxide and that computer models predicting planetary disaster are way off the mark because they cannot model the effects of the greatest greenhouse gas of them all - water vapour.
 
Public confidence in the "consensus" view of climate change has suffered recently due to the "climategate" scandal in which conspiratorial emails have surfaced, apparently suggesting that climate change evidence has been interfered with to skew the results. In the face of all this uncertainty, what should we be doing to live a more eco-friendly life?
 
Our actions should include things which make sense in their own right and which will be important whether the Earth warms or cools in the future. A guiding principle is to do things that yield a cost saving or are neutral. "Cleaning up our act" in the sense that we stop polluting, makes sense and so does saving energy and water. Look at your household energy consumption. It is reasonable to have it drop one percent every two years for as long as you have been in your house just from household maintenance, appliance replacement and replacing light bulbs with fluorescents or LEDs when they burn out. Adjust the thermostat for when nobody is home. Spend less time in the shower. Grow some of your own food. Walk for your health and to save fuel. Share transport to work and compare tents or caravans here in the UK with a foreign holiday in today`s economic climate; save money and the planet!

This week in London's Trafalgar Square there will be massive exhibit of tree stumps legally logged in Ghana's rainforests. These rainforests have shrunk by 90% in 50 years and are in great danger of disappearing completely, along with all the animals that need the habitat to survive. Please lend your support in whatever way you can.
http://www.ghostforest.org/

Google Earth has recently released a set of new tools to illustrate the scale of climate change and deforestation. Along with greater detail than ever on the rainforests of Amazon, Madagascar and Borneo, they also include audio tours narrated by Al Gore. They do a great job of highlighting how breathtaking, and precious our rainforests are and how the protection of them is a crucial step in fighting climate change.
CleanTechnica has more information and of course the maps and tours can be found at Google Earth.

OK so I have a driving licence and ride a scooter to work most of the time (at up to 120 mpg it's a massively smaller footprint than a car and more fun into the bargain) but in fine weather I love riding my pedal bike. It's healthy, it's environmentally friendly, it's cheaper and I always feel better after 'blowing the cobwebs out' for half an hour.
However I seem to be one of the dwindling minority of cyclists who always wears a helmet, signals when I'm turning, keeps off the pavement, doesn't wear headphones, doesn't talk on the phone and knows that traffic lights apply to me too. I'm a responsible rider as are many good people who are just trying to improve their health and help the environment. Which is why get more than a little p***ed off when I see appalling cyclists sailing through red lights, racing down busy pavements and generally acting with complete disregard to everyone else on the road and off it. These riders are exactly the reason why motorists have such a dim view of cyclists as a whole - something which I can't really blame the motorists for, yet I still ask them to remember that some of us remain sensible road users.
Now I'm not an advocate of a mandatory cycling test as I think it would be both ineffectual and pretty much unenforceable. Equally I don't see the benefit of a minimum cycling age limit as I see at least as many adults as children failing to grasp even the basics of the highway code. I just want these people to understand that we will all be safer and happier if we share the roads responsibly. Also if more cyclists use the roads responsibly and there are less accidents as a result it will encourage more people to jump on their bikes, leave the car at home and give the climate a break.

Carbon offsetting has a mixed reputation around the world. Some view it as a wonderful thing - providing an easy way for everyone to lower their carbon footprints and push us all towards a greener future. Others however regard it at best as a counterproductive idea which draws attention away from cutting emissions and at worst a cynical method by which big businesses can pollute all they like whists still being able to tick their little 'green checkbox'. In reality it is a combination of the two - it is a genuine way to invest in renewable energies which provide great benefit to the world and help us down the road to sustainability but it is a system that can definitely be abused. The focus should still remain on cutting overall emissions - if you're producing carbon dioxide then you're still contributing to global warming, no matter what you are contributing to carbon offset schemes.
 
However the schemes that exist, if used properly, can be very very beneficial. They range from investment in renewable technologies such as wind and hydroelectric power to sustainably managed forestry to carbon capture systems to systems for the safe destruction of industrial pollutants. All of these are vital for the future sustainability of our energy needs and the survival of the planet which the arguable exception of carbon capture systems
Carbon capture relies simply on generating power with fossil fuels as normal but capturing the emissions and storing them in underground geological formations, trapping them under impermeable rocks or injecting directly into the ocean at very deep levels. Underground storage is, by it's very nature, unsustainable and unreliable and ocean storage contributes to the acidification of the oceans which is incredibly harmful to ocean life and will fairly quickly leak back into the atmosphere anyway.
 
If you really want to help the environment, first look at ways to cut down your own emissions - insulate your home, turn your heating down a degree or two, use your car less etc. Then if you want to offset the emissions you do generate look at the carbon offset companies out there and the projects they run and pick the ones with the best eco-credentials. I am a big believer in the eco-tariffs available from most energy companies - for a small subsidy the best ones guarantee that for every unit of energy you use a unit will be generated from a sustainable source. Since it's the energy companies that do the bulk of the polluting, directly helping push them away from fossil fuels and towards renewable power generation is one of the best ways to help our planet.

Freegle (formerly Freecycle in the UK - see here) is growing in popularity on a daily basis yet I'm still surprised and how few people use it. It's a fantastic example of how a simple idea implemented correctly can help individuals and the environment in a genuine win-win situation.
Basically Freegle is a free mailing list (or to be more precise, a collection of mailing lists - one for most major towns in the UK) to which people send a message if they have something they need to get rid of. This message arrives in the inbox of all subscribers and if anyone wants the item they simply reply and arrange collection. It's an unwritten rule that the receiver collects making it a very beneficial service for the giver too when they have bulky items that need shifting.
So unwanted items find homes that need them and every item that is 'freegled' is an item that doesn't end up as landfill.
 
Visit http://www.ilovefreegle.org for more information and to sign up to your local group.