8 August

Journal 8 August.

I sometimes wonder if Jeremy Clarkson is the most loathsome man in the UK. In his column in The Sun (yes, serves me right), Clarkson observes that the crew of the space shuttle held a three minute silence this week to remember their colleagues who died in the Colombia disaster two years ago. Commander Eileen Coillins then went on to make a speech stating that deforestation and erosion on earth are clearly visible from space and that "we don't have much air. We need to protect what we have. (referring of course to "us as earthlings, rather than the crew of the shuttle). Clarkson, in his typically anti-green way, comments that he wished the three minute silence had gone on for longer.

At first these remarks made me spit, as usual. However I admire Clarkson's honestly and despair at Collin's hypocrisy. Both make a living from polluting the atmosphere ' at least Clarkson has the balls not to pretend to care. This morning while we are waiting to see if the shuttle and its seven crew will land safely at Cape Canaveral, thousands are suffering the effects of adverse weather, drought and flood worldwide. Tens of thousands could benefit from the obscene amount of money spent by NASA on these little boys' dreams of space exploration. Who benefits? I have yet to be convinced.

Double standards seem to be the theme of the day. I spent a day with my sister in law (or Vinegar Tits as she is known in these here parts) at the weekend. Vinnie reminds everyone on an hourly basis what a deeply "spiritual person she is. She spent the day lounging in the sunshine reading a book on Crystal healing to prove this, while Damian and I ran around after her squealing baby.

I have no issue with "deeply spiritual people; in fact I generally quite like them. However Vinegar Tit's money is not quite where her mouth is. Her six month old is still wearing Pampers disposable nappies because her mother believes that washable nappies are just as harmful to the environment (this is rubbish, quite literally, every single disposable nappy ever used since their invention in the 1950's is still sitting in landfill and will take over 200 years to biodegrade). The child has a designer wardrobe full of colourful items from outlets with extremely dubious ethical practice and toys regularly purchased at Toys R Us, a disgrace of an organisation if ever there was one. That aside, however, my biggest issue with Lily's Auntie Vinnie concerns food.

Vinegar Tits and my brother in law are vegan, as they have concerns about the ways that animals are reared and slaughtered in this country. They worry about pesticides in their food, as many of us do. I wonder why then, they are happy to eat only organic veggies themselves and yet feed their child sugary gloop from a (Heinz) tin? Surely wanting the best for your child comes far higher up the scale than this? When I tackled her about it I was told she was too busy to make baby food. Too busy doing what, I wonder, reading books that make her look like a "deeply spiritual person? It's Top Shop spirituality and no mistake.

Next weekend this "deeply spiritual pair are holding a "naming ceremony for their little one. It will take place in the Spiritualist church and will involve a medium contacting the spirit world. Daisy joked that he would attend wearing a black cloak but I don't find it quite so funny. While I am slightly fascinated by the whole practise, I really don't want Lily to be a part of anything like this and will be removing her from the church before this happens. It may seem extreme and slightly over the top, and maybe so, I believe that parties for little girls (and boys) should involve balloons and cake not ghosts and ghoullies. I will report back next week.

Before I paint myself as whiter than white, having a baby makes it extremely difficult to be "green. You use vast amounts of hot water and the washing machine fights with "The Laughing Policeman ' songs from childhood for airplay. But you can at least off-set this by not using disposable nappies (or wipes), whatever the latest government research says.

A government report, sponsored by Pampers, said that re-usable nappies were less environmentally friendly than disposable, because of the amounts of detergent and the high temperatures needed to wash them. They also said that only 5% of parents recommended them. Could this be because of the people surveyed 3000 people used disposables and only 55 re-usable. In this house we have a nappy service that collects used napkins and washes them in an industrial tub taking 2400 nappies at a time. This seems far more green than any other method and costs less than a packet of Pampers a week. Surely it's time the government put its money where its mouth is and offers these schemes nationwide?