Based in east London and using recycled Italian steels, Racer Rosa Bicycles are more than 90% manufactured in Europe
A new small British bike maker claims to craft ethical and environmentally friendly bicycles. But what's wrong with the rest of the manufacturers?
"Just because you're green on one side of your life, that doesn't justify just ignoring another part. You should be as green as you can be," says Diego Lombardi, co-owner of new start-up cycle maker Racer Rosa Bicycles. While bicycles are undeniably a green and pleasant form of transport, their production is largely tainted.
If you've bought a high-end bike from a big name manufacturer recently, then it may well have been air-freighted and its production certainly involved planet-damaging chemicals – particularly so if it was made from carbon fibre. For most cyclists, there is little ethical and environmental consideration of the manufacture of the bike itself – something Lombardi is keen to counter: "Multinational bike companies are like McDonalds. They produce disposable products for maximum profit."
While an estimated 95% of bikes sold are produced in Taiwan or China, Racer Rosa prides itself on riding in the opposite direction. Lombardi assembles bikes in his Walthamstow, east London, workshop. The frames are made-to-measure from recycled Italian steel, by Italian craftsmen. Then they're shipped by sea to the UK. The entire process, from measuring you to the arrival of the assembled bike, takes six weeks.
Of course, several other British bike makers build their frames in the UK. "We would love to do everything here," says Lombardi. "But we cannot find British-sourced steel or reliable frame makers." Britain's big bike tube maker, Reynolds, sources some steel from America, according to Lombardi.
"The quality of the silver fillet brazing we get is also very rare." These are the joins between the steel tubes that form the frame – and certainly the bright blue, minimalist bikes dotting Racer Rosa's workshop are a study in clean lines and retro chic, with none of the lumps associated with modern welding techniques.
Racer Rosa's ethos doesn't just extend to frames though. Lombardi encourages buyers to use secondhand parts – taken off their old bikes and refurbished by Lombardi, or from vintage sources of quality "warehouse leftovers" that Racer Rosa sources. New parts, where used, are picked for quality and environmental credentials – using companies who manufacture entirely in the EU.
The end result is that the average Racer Rosa bike is more than 90% manufactured in Europe. "Tyres all seem to be outsourced to Taiwan, but we're trying to find alternatives," says Lombardi.
The next step for the company, only running since February (Lombardi has been repairing friends' bikes for years), is sourcing greener bike consumables – chain oil, cleaning products etc. Even the office and workshop equipment is all secondhand. Racer Rosa employs freelance bike mechanics, but also an ethical researcher to further improve its credentials.
Based in east London, Racer Rosa is keen to expand by "riding the wave" of the cycling fashion explosion in the area: "We want to colour east London blue," says Lombardi, referring to Racer Rosa's paint colour of choice.
There is, of course, a downside to such niche, environmentally and artisan-friendly bike buying: the cost. Racer Rosa refurbishments of existing bikes start from £500, new bikes start from £1,000. To which Lombardi points out that you can pay much the same for "a custom-made bike from a niche brand and the frame would be made in Taiwan or China".
"I'd rather shop at my local market, than a big supermarket," says Lombardi. "My soul is at peace when I ride a bike made by a small, family business. It's a return to an arts and crafts approach."
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Reverse VAT introduced on carbon trading
Taxman withdraws zero rate and introduces reverse payments of VAT on carbon emission trading
Written by Rachael Singh
Accountancy Age, 23 Aug 2010
HM Revenue & Customs has unveiled its proposals on reverse VAT charges in relation to carbon trading.
Due to escalating VAT fraud around carbon trading HMRC introduced a zero rate of VAT in July 2009 - while it awaited an EU-wide directive.
Advertisement
The taxman has now unveiled its proposed implementation of a reverse charge on VAT payments on carbon trading. At the same time the zero rate of VAT will be withdrawn.
From 1 November, subject to parliamentary process, it will be the responsiblity of the customer rather than supplier to inform HMRC of VAT payments on carbon emissions, purchased through the EU emissions trading scheme.
The EU-wide directive to provide a reverse option for all member states was adopted in March.
Read more: http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2268562/reverse-vat-introduced-carbon#ixzz0xWGHdLoX
Accountancy Age - Finance, business and accountancy news, features and resources. Claim your free subscription today.
Written by Rachael Singh
Accountancy Age, 23 Aug 2010
HM Revenue & Customs has unveiled its proposals on reverse VAT charges in relation to carbon trading.
Due to escalating VAT fraud around carbon trading HMRC introduced a zero rate of VAT in July 2009 - while it awaited an EU-wide directive.
Advertisement
The taxman has now unveiled its proposed implementation of a reverse charge on VAT payments on carbon trading. At the same time the zero rate of VAT will be withdrawn.
From 1 November, subject to parliamentary process, it will be the responsiblity of the customer rather than supplier to inform HMRC of VAT payments on carbon emissions, purchased through the EU emissions trading scheme.
The EU-wide directive to provide a reverse option for all member states was adopted in March.
Read more: http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2268562/reverse-vat-introduced-carbon#ixzz0xWGHdLoX
Accountancy Age - Finance, business and accountancy news, features and resources. Claim your free subscription today.
For deniers, politics beats the science. Handouts beat both
From Australia to the US, the rightwingers who claim climate change is a leftwing conspiracy will grab green subsidies
George Monbiot guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 August 2010 20.20 BST
It was Australia's second climate change election. Climate change deposed the former leaders of both main parties: Kevin Rudd (Labor) because his position was too weak, Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal) because his was too strong. When Julia Gillard, the new Labor leader, also flunked the issue, many of her supporters defected to the Greens.
Labor's collapse began when the senate rejected Rudd's emissions trading scheme. Faced with a choice of dissolving parliament and calling an election or dropping the scheme, he chickened out and lost the confidence of the party. Gillard's support began to slide when she proposed to defer climate change policy to a citizen's assembly. Nearly 70% of the votes she lost went to the Greens.
Turnbull, like Rudd, was ousted over the emissions scheme, but six months earlier. His support for it split the Liberal party, and just before the first senate vote last December he was overthrown by Tony Abbott, who had told his supporters that climate change "is absolute crap". If Abbott manages to form a government, he will reverse the result of the 2007 election, in which the Liberal party was defeated partly because it wouldn't act on climate change.
It's not difficult to see why this is a hot issue in Australia. The country has been hammered by drought and bushfires. It has the highest carbon dioxide emissions per person of any major economy outside the Arabian peninsula. Australians pollute more than Americans, twice as much as people in the UK and four times more than the Chinese. Most Australians want to change this, but the coal industry keeps their politicians on a short leash. Like New Labour here, Rudd and Gillard's administration was a government of flinchers. It has been punished for appeasing industrial lobbyists and the rightwing press.
Australia provides yet more evidence that climate science divides people on political lines. Abbott is no longer an outright denier, though he still insists, in the teeth of the facts, that the world has cooled since 1997. Some members of his party go further: Senator Nick Minchin maintains that "the whole climate change issue is a leftwing conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world". (He has also insisted that cigarettes are not addictive and the link between passive smoking and illness can't be demonstrated). A recent poll suggests that 38% of politicians in Abbott's coalition believe man-made global warming is taking place, in comparison with 89% of Labor's people.
It's the same story everywhere. At a senatorial hustings in New Hampshire last week, all six Republican candidates denied that man-made climate change is taking place. Judging by its antics in the Senate and primary campaigns all over the US, the party appears to be heading for a unanimous rejection of the science. Václav Klaus, the ultra-neoliberal Czech president, asserts that "global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so". The hard-right UK Independence party may soon be led by Lord Monckton, the craziest man in British politics, who claims that action on climate change is a conspiracy to create a communist world government. The further to the right you travel, the more likely you are to insist that man-made climate change isn't happening. Denial has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
In the Telegraph, the Conservative Daniel Hannan tried to explain this association. "When presented with a new discovery, we automatically try to press it into our existing belief-system; if it doesn't fit, we question the discovery before the belief-system." He's right, we all do this. It is also true that in some respects an antagonism to climate science is consistent with rightwing – especially neoliberal – politics. The philosophy of the new right is summarised by this chilling statement from Václav Klaus. "Human wants are unlimited and should stay so."
But rightwing denial leads to perverse outcomes. In a desperate attempt to appease deniers in his party, Turnbull proposed handing £70bn to industry to soften the impacts of acting on climate change. Rudd's scheme, by contrast, was more or less self-financing. Abbott intends to lavish subsidies on polluting companies without demanding any corresponding obligations. State handouts? Rights without responsibilities? When did these become conservative policies?
Since way back. In the US Republicans also favour green incentives for industry, without caps or regulation. Worldwide, subsidies for fossil fuels are 12 times greater than subsidies for renewable energy. Many of the most generous handouts are awarded by rightwing governments (think of the money lavished on the oil industry under George Bush).
Yes, climate change denial is about politics, but it's more pragmatic than ideological. The politics have been shaped around the demands of industrial lobby groups – which in many cases fund those who articulate them. Rightwingers are making monkeys of themselves not just because their beliefs take precedence over the evidence, but also because their interests often take precedence over their beliefs.
A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot's website
George Monbiot guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 August 2010 20.20 BST
It was Australia's second climate change election. Climate change deposed the former leaders of both main parties: Kevin Rudd (Labor) because his position was too weak, Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal) because his was too strong. When Julia Gillard, the new Labor leader, also flunked the issue, many of her supporters defected to the Greens.
Labor's collapse began when the senate rejected Rudd's emissions trading scheme. Faced with a choice of dissolving parliament and calling an election or dropping the scheme, he chickened out and lost the confidence of the party. Gillard's support began to slide when she proposed to defer climate change policy to a citizen's assembly. Nearly 70% of the votes she lost went to the Greens.
Turnbull, like Rudd, was ousted over the emissions scheme, but six months earlier. His support for it split the Liberal party, and just before the first senate vote last December he was overthrown by Tony Abbott, who had told his supporters that climate change "is absolute crap". If Abbott manages to form a government, he will reverse the result of the 2007 election, in which the Liberal party was defeated partly because it wouldn't act on climate change.
It's not difficult to see why this is a hot issue in Australia. The country has been hammered by drought and bushfires. It has the highest carbon dioxide emissions per person of any major economy outside the Arabian peninsula. Australians pollute more than Americans, twice as much as people in the UK and four times more than the Chinese. Most Australians want to change this, but the coal industry keeps their politicians on a short leash. Like New Labour here, Rudd and Gillard's administration was a government of flinchers. It has been punished for appeasing industrial lobbyists and the rightwing press.
Australia provides yet more evidence that climate science divides people on political lines. Abbott is no longer an outright denier, though he still insists, in the teeth of the facts, that the world has cooled since 1997. Some members of his party go further: Senator Nick Minchin maintains that "the whole climate change issue is a leftwing conspiracy to deindustrialise the western world". (He has also insisted that cigarettes are not addictive and the link between passive smoking and illness can't be demonstrated). A recent poll suggests that 38% of politicians in Abbott's coalition believe man-made global warming is taking place, in comparison with 89% of Labor's people.
It's the same story everywhere. At a senatorial hustings in New Hampshire last week, all six Republican candidates denied that man-made climate change is taking place. Judging by its antics in the Senate and primary campaigns all over the US, the party appears to be heading for a unanimous rejection of the science. Václav Klaus, the ultra-neoliberal Czech president, asserts that "global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so". The hard-right UK Independence party may soon be led by Lord Monckton, the craziest man in British politics, who claims that action on climate change is a conspiracy to create a communist world government. The further to the right you travel, the more likely you are to insist that man-made climate change isn't happening. Denial has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.
In the Telegraph, the Conservative Daniel Hannan tried to explain this association. "When presented with a new discovery, we automatically try to press it into our existing belief-system; if it doesn't fit, we question the discovery before the belief-system." He's right, we all do this. It is also true that in some respects an antagonism to climate science is consistent with rightwing – especially neoliberal – politics. The philosophy of the new right is summarised by this chilling statement from Václav Klaus. "Human wants are unlimited and should stay so."
But rightwing denial leads to perverse outcomes. In a desperate attempt to appease deniers in his party, Turnbull proposed handing £70bn to industry to soften the impacts of acting on climate change. Rudd's scheme, by contrast, was more or less self-financing. Abbott intends to lavish subsidies on polluting companies without demanding any corresponding obligations. State handouts? Rights without responsibilities? When did these become conservative policies?
Since way back. In the US Republicans also favour green incentives for industry, without caps or regulation. Worldwide, subsidies for fossil fuels are 12 times greater than subsidies for renewable energy. Many of the most generous handouts are awarded by rightwing governments (think of the money lavished on the oil industry under George Bush).
Yes, climate change denial is about politics, but it's more pragmatic than ideological. The politics have been shaped around the demands of industrial lobby groups – which in many cases fund those who articulate them. Rightwingers are making monkeys of themselves not just because their beliefs take precedence over the evidence, but also because their interests often take precedence over their beliefs.
A fully referenced version of this article can be found on George Monbiot's website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
