New mercury convention adopted by 94 governments

Michael T. Bender, Co-Coordinator of the Zero Mercury Working Group, a global coalition of over 90 public interest non-governmental organisations, blogs on the dangers of mercury, outlining what is being done to reduce its use and exposure.

A new global legally binding agreement, the Minamata Convention on Mercury, was signed by 94 countries last October in Japan after more than a decade of study and debate.

In January 2014, the World Health Organization’s Executive Board adopted a resolution in support of the new Convention.

During that meeting and on behalf of Consumers International, I presented a supporting statement.

However, the resolution won’t be finalised until it’s adopted by the World Assembly in May.

Mercury presents a health hazard because of its global dissemination, persistence, toxicity, and bioaccumulative nature.

Exposure is ubiquitous and can occur through a variety of pathways, but most prominently through ingestion of contaminated fish and inhalation of mercury vapours from artisanal and small scale gold mining (ASGM).

The evidence now available suggests that methylmercury has adverse effects at doses below those declared acceptable 10 to 15 years ago.  Yet it may take several years until exposure guidelines can be updated to reflect the changing body of epidemiological evidence.

Therefore, an extra degree of caution about prenatal methylmercury exposure seems warranted, and adds urgency to the Convention’s objective of reducing emissions.

The Convention’s objective is to protect human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds.

Over time, the Convention bans primary mining for mercury, curtails trade, phases out mercury uses in products and processes, and regulates releases from coal-fired power plants and metals production facilities.

The Convention is designed to be pragmatic and flexible, and attempts to strike a balance with control measures tailored to particular issues, some legally binding and others voluntary.

It recognises issues such as ASGM cannot be solved by regulations alone, but require broader attention within a sustainable development context, allowing time for societal and industry transformation.

However, the treaty has been rendered less effective by long delays before important mercury reduction mandates for larger sources enter into force.

To the extent politically and technologically feasible, reducing human exposure to mercury through the Convention and related activities is projected to save billions of dollars of avoided human exposure costs worldwide for generations to come.

A recent study estimates that up to €9 billion per year in avoided damages could be saved in Europe alone by reducing the exposure risk from methlymercury to children's brains.

Now that the Convention has been adopted, all governments should be urged to quickly ratify the Convention and enact policies to reduce mercury use, trade and pollution and exposure to mercury. Once 50 countries ratify the Convention, it enters into force. 

While there are alternatives to most mercury products and processes, and cost-effective technologies available for controlling most major sources, there are no alternatives to global cooperation to reduce human exposure to mercury. 

Michael T. Bender is Co-Coordinator of the Zero Mercury Working Group, a global coalition of over 90 public interest nongovernmental organisations from more than 50 countries, see:  http://www.zeromercury.org/. Parts of this blog appeared in an article by Michael Bender, Ned Groth and Elena Lymberidi, published in the Journal of Public Health Policy in October 2013.

For more information on the new Convention, visit: http://www.mercuryconvention.org/.

Trust, not green marketing, is key to driving sustainable consumption

CI's Head of Communications Luke Upchurch asks 'As consumers increasingly turn to one another for information, could green marketing campaigns be a thing of the past?'

One of the reasons mainstream consumers do not go weak at the knees for sustainable consumption is the perception of an elephant-sized contradiction at its heart. To most people, consumption means buying more stuff; buying more stuff means making more things; and making more things means unsustainable consumption.

This is not about an inability to grasp the idea: you can explain proven, high-impact sustainable consumption to people on the street and they will understand the benefits put before them. This is about instinct – a feeling that sustainable consumption is just not possible. It's an oxymoron. It's a big marketing fib.

It appears that businesses can do little to shift this current intransigence, with consumer mistrust of corporate sustainability claims the norm. Little wonder, then, that sustainability struggles to move beyond a niche of conscientious consumers and committed companies.

The situation is made more complex by the digital explosion of user-generated content and many-to-many communications. We've all heard how Twitter, Facebook and the like can sink a product range, skew a brand image or defile a corporation in a matter of minutes. It can take just one disreputable supplier, one perceived piece of hypocrisy, or one unintended consequence, and millions of dollars worth of marketing spend goes up in the air. Consumers feed on this background noise when framing opinions about the green and ethical claims made by large companies.

So it is perhaps no wonder that marketing professionals and communications experts bemoan the consumers' lack of enduring interest in sustainable consumption. Perhaps this is simply a behavioural nudge too far. Or, perhaps, the catalyst for change lies elsewhere.

Consumers are increasingly turning to each other for trusted information on a whole range of issues. This, however, is happening outside the influence of corporate communications. It is happening between individuals and the people they trust: friends, family, other users, and consumer organisations. This is creating a heady mixture of influencing agents that range from anecdotal evidence to personal experiences to third-party assurance; and it appears corporations have little direct say in the matter.

Tripadvisor, Disqus and Reevoo are all offering consumers the opportunity to share opinion and weigh up the trustworthiness of corporate claims. As Consumer Focus (now Consumer Futures) indicated in its excellent report, In my honest opinion: Consumers and the power of online feedback, 88% of UK consumers consult user reviews before making a purchase.

Of course, such a shift in consumer decision-making is not confined to perceptions of sustainability claims – but sustainable consumption arguably has the biggest hill to climb. The tightening of disposable incomes, the mainstream media's general scepticism about climate change and the mistrust of corporate claims all contribute to an unfavourable environment for changing behaviour  in this area.

Of all these challenges, the issue of trust is the one most open to change in the short term. Companies can alter the public perception about green claims, but it takes coherent, consistent efforts across the business and the supply chain. Third-party certification schemes, and rigorous CSR and sustainability standards such as ISO 26000 or the ISEAL codes are also important foundations that can begin to change the background noise and chip away at the scepticism.

Corporations should stop worrying about the message and focus on mainstreaming sustainability through their business and suppliers, while being totally open about the progress, successes and failures. In a world that increasingly demands instant communications, open data and total transparency, this is the closest one can get to guaranteeing a positive foundation for convincing consumers that sustainable consumption is not one big fib.

What a wonderfully simple irony: companies need to be geared up and running sustainable businesses before they can expect consumers to believe that they are sustainable. Which is exactly as it should be.

This blog first appeared on The Guardian website.

How should we regulate GMOs?

CI’s Satya Sharma looks at regulations on modern biotechnologies and how they address consumers’ concerns.

Many countries are apprehensive about the impact of agricultural biotechnology on the environment and on consumers’ health.

In addition to concerns about biosafety, issues around plant diversity, the moral and social dilemma of tampering with nature, legal issues regarding ownership of genetic materials, and religious concerns have also arisen.

Some would prefer to ban genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) entirely, others have proposed labelling schemes, either voluntary (eg, ‘GMO free’) or mandatory (eg, ‘contains genetically modified soy’ or ‘contains soy genetically modified to increase herbicide resistance’) to identify the products of modern biotechnology to consumers.

To address these concerns, governments are enacting a wide range of regulatory proposals on production, processing and distribution mechanisms of biotechnology.

Appropriate regulatory responses depend on the nature of GMOs and consumer interest in the development and diffusion of modern biotechnology.

At the recent conference, Modern Biotechnologies: Sustainable Innovation and Regulatory Needs,  in Penang, Malaysia, I had the opportunity to learn how current regulations address consumers’ concerns about existing and emerging biotechnologies, specifically on the regulations relating to technologies which alter the genetic structure of an organism.

Globally, opinions are divided about the best form of regulation to address consumer concerns about GMO.
It was generally agreed at the conference that regulatory agencies should consider adopting rules or policy statements regarding the criteria they will include in their risk assessments.

For example, rules pertaining to access to information (labelling) should be made clear so that consumers can make informed choices about modern biotechnology.

GMO regulations

When adopting policy statements, it was recommended that agencies give notice to the public with an invitation to submit comments concerning the outcome.

Public participation in the decision making process can provide policy makers with valuable information that they may not have access to through any other channels.

Interestingly, countries that have passed GMO regulations allow consumer participation and access to information.

Consumers in developed countries are better informed compared to those in developing countries, which need to strive to increase consumer participation in the decision-making process.

Other common areas of interest that emerged from the conference were:

• Supporting countries in implementing the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which acknowledges the need to establish comprehensive criteria for GMO risk assessment
•  Developing improved methodologies, techniques and protocols for greater understanding of the risks
•  Risk assessments based on scientific procedures

The conference brought together major players from the fields of biotechnology, science, experts from intergovernmental organisations, scientific institutions, consumer and environmental interest groups, industry, government regulators, policy makers, and the media.

Hopefully, this conference will help countries begin to develop a comprehensive and specific legal and institutional framework to govern modern biotechnologies.

Developments in Costa Rica spell sweet news for pineapple growers and consumers

CI’s Catherine Nicholson on the lasting impact of Consumers International’s pineapple trade investigation.

A year ago CI were busy finalising the documentary Pineapples: Luxury fruit at what price? with the help of Banana Link and The Guardian. The film, is part of our ongoing work on the social responsibility polices of supermarkets, illustrates some of the harsh working conditions and environmental degradation resulting from large scale pineapple production in Costa Rica.

The reaction to the film – in Costa Rica and elsewhere – ranging from support to suspicion and denial reflected the intransigence of the situation. At the time, CI supported the call by trade unions in Costa Rica for a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the issues – a move that seemed to be the only possible constructive way forward.

The recent launch of the National Platform for Responsible Pineapple Production and Trade seems like a very positive step in the right direction – it brings together all players including government, growers, exporters, the retail giant Walmart and crucially, trade unions, round the table – a first for the industry in Costa Rica.

It is too early to say what this initiative will deliver for those who work in the industry now and for Costa Rica in the future. The initial focus on environmental issues is perhaps a reasonable (and less controversial?) first step but key social issues that featured in our research – freedom of association, wage trends, and the treatment of migrant workers have yet to be firmly defined on the agenda.

Proof of the commitment by all members of the platform to a truly responsible industry will be in the tangible results that we hope to see in terms of improvements in the lives of workers, their families and communities as well as the environment in which they live. Then pineapples really will taste sweeter...

Pineapple workers: dignity in the face of oppression

Anna Cooper of Banana Link talks about her experiences meeting workers in Costa Rica.

I arrived in Siquirres in the South Atlantic coast of Costa Rica, with my Banana Link colleague Iain Farquhar, after a long and slow journey of multiple planes, taxis and buses. We were welcomed by the friendly and familiar faces at the SITRAP office – our base during the Consumers International case study research.

Tom, Felicity, Anna, Jenny, Carlos

Despite working for Banana Link for a number of years on issues along banana and pineapple supply chains, I arrived with what seemed like a daunting number of questions about the realities on the ground in the Costa Rican pineapple industry. It was exciting to think of what lay ahead in the next two weeks, after which these questions would all be answered - hopefully!

The first week was spent travelling round the plantations and communities in the Atlantic coast, visiting workers and community activists in their homes, at plantation accommodation or at the local trade union offices. Carlos Arguedas, the SITRAP Health and Safety Officer, was our devoted and dependable guide.

Many of the workers lived with their families in very basic housing made out of wood and corrugated iron with mud floors. Some did have concrete houses but generally only when the wives were working too, bringing in two incomes into the household. Some of the bachelor workers – mainly Nicaraguans who had left their families to come and work in Costa Rica – lived in accommodation provided by the company.

The interviews with workers were very open – they all had their own story to tell and different information about the working conditions on the plantations depending on their role, how long they’d been there, whether or not they were union members etc.

It was quite difficult to find women workers that were prepared to talk to us; there was a lot of fear amongst workers who were worried that if they spoke to us and the company found out, then they may lose their jobs. However, we luckily managed to find a number of workers who were glad of the opportunity to speak out and share their experiences of working on the plantations, in the knowledge that this information would get back to the consumers in Europe who are buying the pineapples they produce.

On return to the UK I then had the mammoth task of writing up the case study research into a full technical report - I won’t bore you with the details of this bit! The report was then used to inform Consumers International and the Guardian filmmakers in preparation for the filming trip to Costa Rica in June.

I returned to Costa Rica with the Guardian journalist, Felicity Lawrence, and the film director, Tom Pearson (both pictured) – all of us with worries of torrential rain in the middle of the Costa Rican monsoon season! I was really looking forward to seeing everyone again back in Costa Rica, this time with the very different role of assisting the filming trip on the ground and doing the translation for the journalist and director.

We had ten days to make the film and luckily this time, due to the previous research done in March, we had a pretty good idea of the people we needed to visit and the questions we needed to ask to get the right footage for the film.

This time the experience in Costa Rica was very different – rather than sitting down with workers and community activists for a few hours to talk about their story in their own time, everything had to be much more precise and well planned. The task of language translation therefore seemed to also be one of cultural translation too; mediating the laid back and relaxed tempo of Costa Rican life with the fast and exact demands of UK film production! Thanks to the unwavering support from our local guide, Carlos (pictured), the filming trip was a real success and an amazing experience to be a part of.

Looking back, the most inspiring part of the research and filming process for me has got to be the people I met in Costa Rica – the workers, their families, trade unionists, community activists – all with their own story to tell. Many of them had suffered life times of poverty and repression but their dignity, morality and generosity in the face of these struggles was a powerful reminder of the strength of the human spirit, and one I will never forget.

Costa Rica will pay the price for cheap fruit

The Guardian's Felicity Lawrence on making Pineapples: Luxury fruit at what price for Consumers International.



While making our film about the pineapple industry in Costa Rica, I interviewed the buyer of one of the major European supermarket chains, who wanted to remain anonymous(they usually do).
He was worried that the most intense production of pineapples is based in Costa Rica's flat Atlantic region where the humidity is highest and pests on the monoculture plantations are the most troublesome. They need more pesticides there than the farms in the hilly, more windy area further west, but without the same economies of scale and with the extra distance from the port, it's more expensive to produce where the environmental cost is lower.
When it came to growing bananas, he wasn't sure Costa Rica was even the right country from an environmental point of view. The humidity of the region meant that 54 agrochemical treatments are typically needed in a cycle compared to only 14 or 15 in parts of Ecuador where the climate is less favourable to the sigatoka fungus that is ravaging the crop around the world.
Agrochemicals are an issue for pineapples too. Clearing old pineapple plants after harvest so that you can replant the next crop again is done fastest and mostly cheaply with very high doses of paraquat. Paraquat is banned in Europe because it is so acutely toxic. Some Costa Rican plantations avoid it – notably those with Rainforest Alliance or Fairtrade certifications, but they then have to plough in the old stalks and wait for the plant matter to decompose. Time is money and if no one will pay a premium for your efforts, it's harder to justify.
Other environmentally beneficial techniques don't come cheap either: buffer zones between the edge of plantations and water ways, protection of rainforest areas, making sure workers who spray agrochemicals only do so for a couple of hours at a time so that they are not out sweating in the heat and therefore more exposed to toxic effects – all these things cost money.
One of the greatest problems is that the transnational traders' and retailers' power outstrips the government's ability to regulate. Costa Rica is more stable, democratic and ecologically minded than many developing countries, which is precisely why it is so attractive to foreign investors, yet its environmental laws remain weak and have barely kept up with an industry that has seen explosive growth.
And, of course, the situation isn't helped by price wars that are driving producers towards the kind of industrial agriculture that takes a heavy toll both on the environment and on the lives of those who live and work in the plantations' shadow.

This blog first appeared on the Guardian's Green Living blog. Find out more about the CI's work on Corporate Social Responsibility.

Rio Earth Summit 2012: Anything less than visionary action from our world leaders is greenwashing

Luke Upchurch of Consumers International on the aims of the Green Economy Coalition

Let's get one thing straight: the “Green Economy” is not a buzz word, nor a sound bite, nor the nom du jour. It is not a distraction to the discussions on sustainable development – it fundamentally underpins sustainable development.

While some may rightly argue that the UN's focus on the Green Economy here at the UNCSD Rio 2012 preparations meeting does not mean government delegates necessarily understand or support the concept, we have seen some genuine attempts by some countries and UN bodies to engage with the issue. The issue now needs to be advanced in a way that recognises the fundamental flaws in our economic system that have led to the crises we are experiencing today. As the NGO statement to the negotiations put it today “anything less is just greenwash”.

So what does Green Economy mean? And what can it achieve? One group that is trying to put workable ideas and tangible solutions on the table is the Green Economy Coalition (GEC).

The GEC brings together environment, development, trade union, consumer and business sectors, North and South committed to a common cause: accelerating a transition to a new green inclusive economy. Leading members of the GEC are here in New York to launch Green, fair and productive: How the 2012 Rio Conference can move the world towards sustainability. It provides an explanation of the practical actions needed to tackle these shared concerns.

The GEC argues that in the current global economic framework, perverse incentives, weak legislation and poor labour standards have not only neutralised many potential benefits of globalisation, but have accelerated negative impacts on the environment, workers, consumers and economic stability. While global poverty has become entrenched, unsustainable consumption has increased.

These problems are complex and widespread, but the GEC believes real solutions exist and that Rio 2012 offers a precious opportunity for world leaders to turn around the failed approaches of the recent past.

By focusing on accountability, national dialogue, the transformation of current governing systems, and a collective effort to learn from what actually works, the GEC believes Rio 2012 can put us on a path towards the new economic paradigm needed to finally achieve the goals of Rio 1992.

At the 18 May launch of Green, fair and productive at the UN in New York, Tom Bigg of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED, the secretariat of the GEC) laid out the shared vision of the Coalition: “ A resilient economy that provides a better quality of life for all within the ecological limits of one planet.” A clear goal, made only more compelling by the range of partners in the coalition; represented on the panel by leaders from the Global South, the consumer movement and trade unions.

Shrashtant Patara of Development Alternatives in India explained how the GEC principles were set to become practice through the Coalition's focus on national dialogue as a catalyst for transformation. Patara stressed the importance of this aspect, as without national policy change the objectives of the GEC would remain above the political and legislative arenas in which they needed to work. These include national awareness raising activities and a focus on 'roadmapping' the changes needed. Embedded in this process is a condition to share these experiences with other countries, a key part of the GEC national dialogue vision.

Consumers International's Bjarne Pedersen outlined the coalition's specific asks, emphasising the importance of addressing the demand-side of the problems we face. This included a 'sharper focus' on corporate accountability and using Rio 2012 as a platform for further formalising standards for sustainable corporate behaviour. Pedersen also highlighted some of the critical steps: bold political leadership, regulating industry to better protect and serve consumer protection and labour rights, an end to GDP as the main benchmark measurement of progress, and an internalisation of the real costs of goods and services so sustainable lifestyle choices become the mainstream.

And Anabella Rosemberg of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) explained how green and decent jobs are a real opportunity in the transition towards a more sustainable society, but that simply developing new sectors will not be enough: we need to speed up our efforts to green all our economic sectors. The GEC stresses that a "just transition" needs investments, education and training, social protection and dialogue and local diversification strategies.

The Green Economy Coalition has managed to fuse a myriad of approaches into a coherent set of shared concerns. The focus on increasing action and accountability stands in marked contrast to the difficulty in achieving change through current negotiating frameworks – a point recognised by several participants at the event. Respondents from the Danish and Brazilian governments, the ILO, UNEP and UNDP also welcomed the creation of the Coalition and its plans over the next two years.

The GEC is providing bold and specific details for change. Wholesale transformation of financial regulation, an end to short-term incentives, and a phasing out of fossil fuelled, consumption-based growth are approaches that can put us on a path towards the new green economic paradigm that the vast majority of the world knows we need. This is not token tinkering around the edges, not another set of conditions forced on the Global South, and not greenwash. Governments would do well to take note.

Consumers still distrust business on climate change

How can I dispose of my computer in an environmentally friendly and socially responsible way?

CI’s guest blogger Anja ffrench, the Director of Marketing and Communications at Computer Aid International, writes how:

'The environmental cost of using computers
In 2007 in the UK alone, 11 million new PCs were purchased and it is predicted that in 2008 this will be 12.5 million. The number of PCs being discarded in the UK on a yearly basis is in the millions.

At every step of the PC's product life-cycle carbon footprints are left behind during the...

• initial extraction of minerals from the environment
• processing of raw materials
• production of sub-components
• PC assembly and manufacture
• global distribution
• power consumption in usage.

The production of every PC requires 10 times its own weight in fossil fuels. According to empirical research published by Williams and Kerr from the UN University in Tokyo, the average PC requires:

• 240kg of fossil fuels
• 22kg of chemicals, and
• 1,500kg of water.

That’s over 1.7 metric tonnes of materials consumed to produce each and every PC. PCs require so much energy and materials because of the complex internal structure of microchips.

Why it is better to ‘reuse’ rather than ‘recycle’?
Empirical research proves beyond doubt that reuse of computers is far better for the environment than recycling.

Reusing a computer is 20 times more effective at saving life cycle energy use than recycling. Given the substantial environmental cost of production it is important that we recover the full productive value of every PC through reuse before eventually recycling it to recover parts and materials at its true end-of-life.

A refurbished computer can provide at least another three years productive life.

How does the WEEE Directive affect me as an individual?
Since 2007 the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive has been in force. The WEEE Directive is an EU initiative which aims to minimise the impact of electrical and electronic goods on the environment, by increasing re-use and recycling and reducing the amount of WEEE going to landfill.

The WEEE Directive does not require by law that consumers dispose of electrical and electronic equipment in a certain way. However, the Government strongly advises households to dispose of WEEE separately from household waste, by sending it to a charity such as Computer Aid International for re-use, or by recycling it.

Local Authority Civic Amenity sites should have drop off points for computers and other electronic equipment.

Do I need to worry about data security?
Under the Data Protection Act 1998 it is your responsibility to destroy any personal data that may be stored on the machines. Just hitting the delete button is not enough to wipe the data.

To ensure you are protected make sure any organisation you use to dispose of your IT equipment uses a professional data wiping solution that has been approved by CESG or similar.

An environmentally friendly and socially responsible solution to your unwanted IT equipment
Donating your unwanted IT equipment to the UK charity Computer Aid International is both environmentally friendly and socially responsible.

You will also benefit from a professional PC decommissioning service, which includes free CESG approved Blancco data wiping.

Computer Aid is the world's largest provider of professionally refurbished PCs to the not-for-profit sector in the developing world. It has been in the business of IT refurbishing for over 10 years.

The charity’s aim is to reduce poverty through practical ICT solutions. To date Computer Aid has supplied over 130,000 fully refurbished PCs - donated by UK businesses and individuals - to where they are most needed in schools, hospitals and not-for-profit organisations in over 100 developing countries.

In order for Computer Aid to continue with its work it relies on donations of computers. Schools and universities in the developing world using a PC professionally refurbished by Computer Aid will enjoy at least three or four years productive PC use. This effectively doubles the life of a PC halving its environmental footprint whilst enabling some of the poorest and most marginalised people in the world to have access to computers.

For more information about donating computers to Computer Aid International please visit www.computeraid.org/donate'

Every drop counts

DECO (Associaçáo Portugesa para a Defesa do Consumidor) recently focused on water consumption in their monthly magazine.

The feature included useful tips on how to reduce household water consumption by as much as 300,000 litres a year!

They have also put together a handy interactive presentation to illustrate the point.

DECO are calling for legislation on new buildings in Portugal to include more stringent standards for water efficiency.

Bottled vs tap

British consumers have long had a taste for bottled water, spending £1.68 billion (US$3.23 billion) on the stuff in 2006 alone. However, a 9% decrease in sales the following year may be indicative of a change in atitude.

Costing on average 141 times less than bottled, tap water should be an attractive alternative for consumers. So say Which?, the UK consumers assocation, who recently undertook some research on the topic.

Included in the findings:

• UK tap water is among the safest in the world

• 50% of participants in a blind taste test could not tell the difference between bottled and tap water.
  
  


• Enough plastic bottles are sent to landfill in the UK every year to fill the entire national football stadium...twice!
  
  


• Nearly 25% of those surveyed said they were consuming less bottled water than a year ago.
  

Don’t blame the fridge! Will the real energy guzzlers please step forward...

A new study by CHOICE, CI’s member organisation in Australia, found that videogame consoles, such as the X-box and Sony's Playstation 3, and plasma flat-screen TVs are major electricity guzzlers, even when left on stand-by.

They can use up to five times more energy than a medium-sized refrigerator.

CHOICE found that a Sony PS3, switched on but not in use, could cost almost $250 a year in electricity bills, whereas a fridge would cost less than $50 a year.

According to the study Sony Corp's Playstation 3, closely followed by Microsoft's Xbox 360 and plasma television sets, consumed the most power out of a list of 16 electronic devices tested, including laptops, stereo systems and DVD players.

The power hungry plasma TV set was found to consume over four times more power than a traditional analogue set. The average desktop computer was third on the list.

CHOICE spokesman, Christopher Zinn said he hoped the results of the study would be eye-opening for the public.

"While we hope no one actually leaves their games console on for a whole year 24/7, the figures are indicative of just how much electricity these small devices can chew their way through," Mr Zinn said.

The report advised consumers to switch off their electronic devices at the source, rather than just from the remote control, which puts them on power-consuming stand-by mode. "This saves on money, not to mention carbon emissions," it added.

Have a read.

DECO launches new sustainable consumption campaign with carbon brigades

Save power, DECO’s (Portuguese Association for Consumer Protection) new sustainable consumption campaign, was launched at the Museum of Electricity in Lisbon on 7 May 2008.
The campaign deploys carbon brigades to encourage consumers to protect the environment through tips on how to save energy at home and at work.

‘Change is easy and costs nothing!’ is the motto of the carbon brigades – teams of young people trained on environmental issues with the clear campaign mission to undertake 650 actions of education and awareness raising throughout the country.
The youth brigades will distribute teaching materials, such as:

• CDs with interactive games and cards to school children
• posters with practical advice
• guides with energy saving tips.

DECO aims to demonstrate that consumers can save electricity and reduce their emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, without giving up the good life.