Jack Green Energy Goes into Receivership..

POWER generators owed $5 million by the failed energy retailer Jackgreen are unlikely to redeem a cent from the collapsed group, the company's administrators say.

Jackgreen, which was Australia's largest specialist renewable retailer, toppled into voluntary administration the week before Christmas after failing to pay a $500,000 bill to the NSW government-owned Integral Energy.

Apart from Integral, other power companies seeking $5 million in unpaid debts from Jackgreen are Origin Energy, AGL Energy, NSW's government-owned Country Energy and a Queensland supplier, Energex.

An administrator from PKF, Atle Crowe-Maxwell, said these unsecured creditors faced an uphill battle in reclaiming funds from Jackgreen, as they were lower in the queue than secured financiers and employees.

Three quarters of Jackgreen's staff of nearly 100 have been sacked, and Jackgreen shares, which last traded at 3.8c before the collapse, are, in effect, worthless.

''I don't think there's going to be anything left for unsecured creditors at this point in time, let alone shareholders,'' said Mr Crowe-Maxwell, who was appointed by Jackgreen's board.

Jackgreen creditors will hold their first meeting today, before the company's future is decided towards the end of this month. Mr Crowe-Maxwell said liquidation appeared the most likely outcome.

Since Jackgreen's retail licence was revoked on December 18 receivers have also been appointed by the group's major secured creditor, which is owed about $11 million.

A receiver with Jirsch Sutherland Partners, Sule Arnautovic, said Jackgreen's accounts showed it was owed about $25 million in unpaid bills from customers, but without its licence the group has few other assets.

Jackgreen's 75,000 customers were transferred to other suppliers when it lost its licence, and Mr Arnautovic said he was expecting a large number of disputes over its attempts to reclaim the money.

Jackgreen did not generate power, but specialised in selling renewable electricity from cheap methods such as hydro generation, rather than more expensive options such as solar or wind.

Its collapse comes despite growing public interest in green power generation. The company's troubles appear to have been caused by gaps in its cash flow rather than low customer numbers.

Ben Freund, the chief executive of the power price comparison website GoSwitch.com.au, said the cheaper forms of renewable power sold by Jackgreen remained the most popular environmentally friendly option with consumers.

''In theory everybody wants to go green, but in reality most consumers are not prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets.''

(SMH ARTICLE)

Tim Tams Banned in most countries....

Well, this is an interesting one. We know from being in the 'eco' industry that the Australian government has an appalling record in informing & protecting it's citizens from bad chemicals, additives, and other nasties banned in the rest of the world, but this is a new one to us that a customer brought to our attention.

(Our favourite quote found while researching: Food and the Australian federal election International Registry of Food Additive Reactions (IRFAR) Research: "UK study confirms harmful effects of additives: Network astonished by lack of response from Australian/New Zealand regulators".

Being curious little demons we did a little further digging, and what do you know, most other countries have actively banned Timtam's because of dangerous food additives.

In fact , FIVE additives banned in most countries outside Australia!

At least three of them: E102, E110, E120 have seriously bad side effects and long-term health effects. Not going to harp on here about these, go and look up the effects yourself and you will see why they have been banned from import in most countries.

Any of your kids have unexplained rashes, hyperactivity, constant illnesses, asthma etc...? Could well be due to these additives.

(While we are on the subject, all insect sprays in your house - again, banned in most countries as HIGHLY HARMFUL TO HUMANS - could also be responsible for the above symptoms - check out: http://www.ecopestproducts.com.au/).

There is also a 5% loophole in Australian law, which allows manufacturers to get away with not listing 5% of the additives in their product. This is regardless of how toxic the chemical is to human health including pregnant and breast feeding women, babies and school children. Even though the labelling can state that there are no added artificial flavouring or colouring agents used, this information can be very misleading. It's all about the money of course.

We won't be eating Timtam's again (yes we know they taste nice, but we would prefer a healthy life)...and suggest you don't either. In fact, if a product has numbers in it's ingredients you should probably avoid them altogether, whatever the product.

Timtams just seem a little scarier than the others as they are so widely eaten...

Some further reading:

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/kids-at-risk-from-harmful-food/story-e6freuzi-1111116369332

http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/newsletters/contents.htm

http://www.ecohealthguru.com/?p=94

Grape power at Tokyo eco show

The Eco show in Tokyo presents soem great new concepts for the future:

http://media.smh.com.au/national/breaking-news/grape-power-at-tokyo-ecoshow-962505.html?&exc_from=strap

Climate Sceptics.....

If the evidence is overwhelming that man-made climate change is already upon us and set to wreak planetary havoc, why do so many people refuse to believe it?

The UN's panel of climate scientists, in a landmark report, described the proof of global warming as "unequivocal".

That was two years ago, and since then hundreds of other studies have pointed to an ever-bleaker future, with a potential loss of life numbering in the tens of millions, if not more.

Yet survey after survey from around world reveals deep-seated doubt among the public.

A poll published in Britain on November 14, to cite but one example, found that only 41 per cent of respondents accepted as an established fact that human activity was largely responsible for current global warming.

The majority said the link was not proven, that green propaganda was to blame or the world was not heating up at all.

Last week, a private exchange of emails among climate scientists stoked a firestorm of scepticism after it was hacked and posted on the web.

The memos expressed frustration at the scientists' inability to explain what they described as a temporary slowdown in warming, and discussed ways to counter the campaigns of climate naysayers.

Experts see several explanations for the eagerness with which so many dismiss climate change as overblown or a hoax.

"There is the individual reluctance to give up our comfortable lifestyles - to travel less, consume less," said Anthony Grayling, a philosophy professor at the University of London and a bestselling author in Britain.

While deeply anchored in the West, this resistance also extends to emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil where a burgeoning middle class is only today tasting the fruits of a lifestyle they have waited so long and worked so hard to obtain.

For Tim Kasser, a professor of psychology at Knox University in Galesburg, Illinois, the reality of climate change impinges on core aspects of our identity.

"We are told a thousand times a day, notably through advertising, that the way to a happy, successful and meaningful life is through consumption," he said.

"But now scientists and environmentalists come along and say part of the problem is that we are consuming too much or in the wrong way."

Yet there may also be a darker explanation. It is the human instinct to shut out or modify a terrifying truth: that the world as we know it is heading for a smash.

"It's a paradox: when it comes to disasters, people do not allow themselves to believe what they know," explained Jean-Pierre Dupuy, a professor of social philosophy at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris.

"Because everybody is in denial - or would like to be in denial - and would prefer to not shoulder too much of the responsibility for dealing with the problem, you have a kind of disconnect here," Grayling said.

Even scientists reluctantly pushed by their growing sense of alarm into launching public appeals for action have trouble coping.

When Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Australian National University, attended a September climate conference at Oxford tasked with imagining a world warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, he was struck by how researchers spoke among themselves.

"It was very revealing. As they relaxed somewhat, they began to speak about their fears, about losing sleep, not wanting to think about the implications of what they do," he recalled.

Under such circumstances, people are resourceful in finding ways to reassure themselves or turn their backs on the threat posed by climate change.

Some applaud their own environmental virtue: "Changing to compact fluorescent bulbs makes people feel good - 'I've done my bit for today,'" said Kasser, describing a common attitude in the United States.

"Blaming China and India is another great psychological defence mechanism."

A more sophisticated variant is to conclude, with a sigh of resignation. that individual action isn't enough.

"Even if all of us were at our most maximally green, it probably wouldn't make much more than about a 0.5 per cent difference," said Grayling in characterising this mentality.

At some point, however, reality may bite.

Hamilton, who is running for Parliament in Australia, said more and more people he meets are having what he calls an "Oh shit!" moment.

"It's that moment when you really get it, when you understand not just intellectually but emotionally that climate change is really happening. I think we will see a rush of that over the next couple of years," he said.

It may take one or more terrible shocks - national bankruptcies, a major environmental disaster in a vulnerable country like Bangladesh - for that to happen, said Grayling.

Once it does, "it will be impossible to look back over your shoulder and think, 'it's not true,' or 'there will be a scientific fix, it will all go away'."

Prius wins People’s Choice award

A petrol-electric hybrid car has been voted the most popular in Drive’s People’s Choice award for Car of the Year.

In an indication of the increased focus on environmentally friendly motoring, the world’s best selling hybrid car has taken out the 2009 Drive Car of the Year People’s Choice award.

The Prius beat 45 Car of the Year finalists – including a twin-turbocharged supercar, highly sought after luxury cars and a V8-powered Holden ute - to take the crown of public favourite.

More than 18,000 people voted for the 2009 People’s Choice awards, which recorded some of the closest voting in the award’s history. All but seven of the 46 cars scored more than 100 votes.

The winning Toyota Prius, which is officially Australia’s greenest car – emitting less than 100 grams of carbon dioxide every kilometre - secured 1584 votes.

Again demonstrating the popularity of locally-made large cars, the Prius beat the second placed Ford Falcon (1187) and the pocket-rocket Volkswagen GTI (1034), and the Mazda 3 (823), consistently the best selling car among private car buyers.

The Toyota Prius’s unexpected victory is taken as a sign of the times for the automotive industry, which is rushing to market more environmentally friendly vehicles as buying tastes change in light of increasing environmental pressures and concerns about global warming.

The Toyota Prius is the world’s highest selling hybrid-electric car, with the Japanese manufacturer selling more than 1 million units since its introduction in 1997.

The third generation Prius has a more powerful 1.8-litre engine matched to an electric motor. Together they make 100kW of power, allowing the Prius to sprint from 0-100km/h in 10.4 seconds.

According to the Government supplied fuel figure it uses a claimed average 3.9 litres of fuel per 100km.
In light of tightening regulations on new vehicles, most car makers are now working on hybrid vehicles as a way to reduce fuel consumption by up to 50 per cent.
Even Porsche will next year begin selling a hybrid version of its Cayenne off-roader, while Ferrari is developing a hybrid supercar.

Pestrol Eco Pest Control

We have just received our first shipment of the Pestrol series of pest control products.

These eco-friendly devices don't use chemicals to kill insects and rodents - they keep them out in the first place.

The indoor domestic and commercial units work by using your ring main and sending micro-pulses at 50hz which insects and rodents don't like. Existing pests will leave, and new ones will stay out!

The outdoor version works by producing small amounts of carbon dioxide (what we breath out that attracts the insects that bite us) which draws the bugs into a chamber they can't get out of and quickly dehydrate and die.

Both methods rely on 'natural occurrences' and do not add unnatural and manufactured chemicals into the air, are harmless and undetectable to pets and humans.

Have a look at:

Domestic: http://www.greendemon.com.au/pestrolplugin-p-484.html

Outdoor: http://www.greendemon.com.au/pestroloutdoorexterminator-p-486.html

The car that uses urine to save the planet

Mazda’s new CX-7 four-wheel-drive uses a urine-like solution to cut its tailpipe emissions. By RICHARD BLACKBURN and BRUCE NEWTON.

Mazda’s latest four-wheel-drive likes a wee drink.

The Mazda CX-7 uses a special man-made liquid similar to human urine to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The compound, called AdBlue, is a mixture of roughly one-third pure urea and two-thirds demineralised water.

It is already widely used in the trucking industry in Europe and Australia and is common in diesel cars in Europe, but Mazda is the first to use the technology on a passenger vehicle in Australia.

The technology, called selective catalyst reduction, involves injecting the urea-based liquid into the car’s exhaust system to turn NOx emissions into harmless nitrogen and water.

The car also has a particulate filter to reduce the amount of soot emitted by the vehicle. Diesel vehicles are a double-edged sword when it comes to environmental impact.

They are more efficient than petrol engines, which means they emit less carbon dioxide, but they also pollute more.

Particulate matter and NOx from diesel vehicles has been linked to a variety of health problems, including respiratory ailments and cancer.

For that reason, diesels don’t rank highly on the Government’s Green Vehicle Guide for environmentally-friendly vehicles.

Regulatory authorities in Europe and the United States are planning to introduce strict new limits on diesel emissions in the future, which will eventually make the urea-based systems mandatory equipment on all cars.

The systems aren't mandatory in Australia, but Mazda is ensuring drivers toe the line with the environmentally-friendly technology.

To guard against forgetful drivers not filling its AdBlue tank, the Mazda CX-7 diesel will cut its maximum speed if the level of AdBlue falls below a certain level.

The car will not start if the AdBlue tank is empty. The 15.5-litre tank is mounted under the rear-floor of the CX-7 and Mazda recommends the task is undertaken by an authorised dealer as part of scheduled servicing.

A gauge and warning lamp warn the driver as the level drops. The AdBlue tank requires refilling every 20,000km and costs about $140 a refill, which works out to roughly $7 per 1000km.

The CX-7 diesel also carries a sticker price premium of almost $5000 over the Sports petrol model (although it also gets a leather interior, satellite navigation and a better stereo), which adds to its comparative running costs.

The new diesel Mazda continues a trend by car makers to reduce CO2 emissions by introducing smaller, less powerful petrol engines and diesel powerplants.

Mazda, which has traded on its sporty image through its “zoom-zoom” advertising tag line, has forgone power for less thirst with the new CX-7.

The car was previously available only as a fuel-sucking, turbocharged petrol model, but the company has introduced a cheaper four-cylinder petrol version that uses almost 20 per cent less fuel.

The diesel variant is even more frugal, using a third less fuel than the turbo. Mazda isn’t the first car maker to turn to less powerful, more fuel-efficient engines in the past months.

Australia’s top-selling car, the Holden Commodore, now comes with a smaller 3.0-litre V6, the smallest engine the car has used in 20 years.

Mazda Australia marketing manager Alastair Doak said customers were beginning to better understand the benefits of driving a diesel car in Australia.

“We have done a lot of market research on why people buy diesel and one of the things that attract people to it is technology, but also people understand that they are using less fuel and that environmental message is strong for those buyers,” he said.