The traditional tent cities at festivals such as Glastonbury may never be the same again. In a victory of green business that is certain to appeal to environmentally-aware music-lovers, a design student is to receive financial support to produce eco-friendly tents made of cardboard that can be recycled after the bands and the crowds have gone home.

Major festivals such as Glastonbury throw away some 10,000 abandoned tents at the end of events each year. For his final year project at the University of the West of England, James Dunlop came up with a material that can be recycled. And to cope with the British summer, the cardboard has been made waterproof.

Taking inspiration from a Japanese architect, who has used cardboard to make big buildings including churches, Mr. Dunlop used cardboard material for his tents, which he called Myhabs.

The design won an award at the annual New Designers Exhibition after Mr. Dunlop graduated from his product design degree and he decided to try to turn it into a business.

To raise money for the idea, he toured the City’s private companies which fund new businesses and found a supporter in the finance group Mint. He introduced his idea to four of Mint’s directors and won their support. Mint has committed around ￡500,000 to MyHab and taken a share of 30 per cent in Mr. Dunlop’s business. The first Myhabs should be tested at festivals this summer, before being marketed fully next year.

Mr. Dunlop said that the design, which accommodates two people, could have other uses, such as for disaster relief and housing for the London Olympics.

For music events, the cardboard houses will be ordered online and put up at the sites by the Myhab team before the festival-goers arrive and removed by the company afterwards. They can be personalized and the company will offer reductions on the expense if people agree to sell exterior(外部的) advertising space.

The biggest festivals attract tens of thousands of participants, with Glastonhury having some 150,000 each year. Altogether there are around 100 annual music festivals where people camp in the UK. The events are becoming increasingly environmentally conscious.

Each year, backed up by a growing anti-consumerist movement, people are using the holiday season to call on us all to shop less.

Driven by concerns about resource exhaustion, over recent years environmentalists have increasingly turned their sights on our “consumer culture”. Groups such as The Story of Stuff and Buy Nothing New Day are growing as a movement that increasingly blames all our ills on our desire to shop.

We clearly have a growing resource problem. The produces we make, buy, and use are often linked to the destruction of our waterways, biodiversity, climate and the land on which millions of people live. But to blame these issues on Christmas shoppers is misguided, and puts us in the old trap of blaming individuals for what is a systematic problem.

While we complain about environmental destruction over Christmas, environmentalists often forget what the holiday season actually means for many people. For most, Christmas isn’t an add-on to an already heavy shopping year. In fact, it is likely the only time of year many have the opportunity to spend on friends and family, or even just to buy the necessities needed for modern life.

This is particularly, true for Boxing Day, often the target of the strongest derision(嘲弄) by anti-consumerists. While we may laugh at the queues in front of the shops, for many, those sales provide the one chance to buy items they’ve needed all year. As Leigh Phillips argues, “this is one of the few times of the year that people can even hope to afford such ‘luxuries’, the Christmas presents their kids are asking for, or just an appliance that works.”

Indeed, the richest 7% of people are responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions. This becomes particularly harmful when you take into account that those shopping on Boxing Day are only a small part of our consumption “problem” anyway. Why are environmentalists attacking these individuals, while ignoring such people as Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, who has his own￡1.5bn yacht with a missile defence system?

Anyway, anti-consumerism has become a movement of wealthy people talking down to the working class about their life choices, while ignoring the real cause of our environmental problems. It is no wonder one is changing their behaviours—or that environmental destruction continues without any reduction in intensity.

A study shows that the more eco-conscious way to shop is going to a physical store rather than by making purchases online from companies that don't have physical stores. Researchers estimated that shopping at physical stores for frequently bought items such as toilet paper, shampoo and toothpaste, often results in less greenhouse gas emissions than ordering the products from a company that only sells through the Internet.

The main reason is because of how people shop online： Many buy items online frequently — but they only buy a few items per purchase. Frequent online purchases produce more packaging waste, and online items tend to come from different distribution centers. Both factors result in higher greenhouse gas emissions per item.

The team modeled their research on the movement of goods from the factory all the way through to the end consumer. They analyzed the carbon footprint of the "last mile delivery" for the three most popular types of shopping channels in the United Kingdom — physical stores, "brick & clicks" (when people order online and a physical store delivers the items to them) , and "pure players” (strictly online sellers). Included in the three models were greenhouse gas emissions estimates from the number of products bought, transportation, warehouse storage , delivery and packaging activities.

The analysis showed that total greenhouse gas footprints per item purchased were higher from physical stores than those from bricks & clicks purchases in 63% of the shopping events but lower than those of pure players in 81 % of shopping events in the United Kingdom. In the United States, greenhouse gas emissions from shopping at physical stores were also estimated to be higher than from the brick & click channel, and lower than the pure play channel, on average.

This pattern holds true in countries where people mostly drive. It really depends on the country and consumer behavior there.