I have figured out that it is pretty pointless (other than a bit of venting, which can be therapeutic) writing in to most media forums (though the Telegraph blogs do seem a notable exception), as the anonymity imposed makes the value of such effort altruistic at best. And the sheer volume of these things, and numbers contributing to them, has fast diluted any value I can assess in moving a view or cause forward. It simply serves to add to the media owners archive of nifty facts and quotes.
But I still can't resist writing to someone who at least has the grace to put a contact address on their work (mine is info@junkk.com), even though there is scant chance of them replying.
At least, thanks to this blog, the words need not be lost, and can be preserved in a relevant environment.
So here's a little something I just sent to Sunday Times Columnist Rod Liddle:
Re: 'Brown's African squanderlust' & 'Bin the rubbish bag police'
I have not long returned (if not recovered) from a month exhibiting at the Ideal Home Show (supposed theme: Recycling & Sustainable Living. Not.) to catch up on a few back issues of the Sunday Times and, naturally, your columns. It gave me the chance to read two in sequence, and though you may wonder how (or why), link them together.
A real frustration, to this householder/consumer-as-source-of-funds at least, is the sheer amount of money being wasted in the name of cutting back on... er... waste. We are seeing millions of pounds poured into meeting targets at the expense of real environmental benefits, with quangos, and even commercial businesses being funded to duplicate each other and set up massive administrative systems, ad campaigns, etc, before much money actually goes where it could do some good.
I'd prefer investment to be made in making it impossible for people not to be able to behave responsibly, and better yet see the value in doing so. Sadly this seems an less favoured approach, with predictable consequences - News story.
Before we start forcing anything or finding countless ways to fine, we must get the mechanisms, infrastructures and incentives in place first... and efficiently. The trouble is there is little being done to hold anyone accountable, much less take those responsible to task for so woefully failing to do so.
The problem is that we now live in a culture that values being seen to do something more than actually doing anything. And which rewards success but fails to penalise failure. It happens because 'they' know they can get away with it. Just like Mr. Brown.
Sure it makes a lovely photo. And for that, and not following up, relentlessly, is where most of the media must share in some of the blame. And while any copy highlighting an abuse may score a temporary rating point, then letting it pass simply makes one part of the problem.
You say in your piece Mr. Brown flew some hacks for this photo op. You mean the taxpayer paid (on top of the planet, unless they planted over Belgium to compensate carbonally - another story) for this???!
There seems to be an addiction to squandering cash on hype over substance, unsurprisingly with those who do not bear the consequences of the commitments made to boost their status. ROI is often used in business as a fair measure of a project's value. And, simplistically, the checks and balances of someone paying for it and seeking to be paid back are fairly effective. When the return is not viewed as a financial gain against a financial commitment, the waters muddy. And it must be accepted that there is undoubted value in many worthwhile social enterprises. But what we are seeing more and more is the return being much more in favor of the commissioning individuals, or at least their empires (which is pretty much the same thing).
And it doesn't really matter much whether we're talking rich western waste or third world poverty, one thing above all matters most, and that's overpopulation. Stick several thousand more homes on a flood plain in Surrey, and where their extra rubbish ends up (in a hole or up in smoke) is not going to be counterbalanced by savings elsewhere, no matter how many Priuses get made for them to drive. Equally, pumping money at any group that have little else to do other than that which comes naturally is unlikely to reduce their impact on the immediate environment's ability to sustain them.
Like you, I am no mathematician, but it doesn't seem too hard to imagine the closing gap between finite resources and an ever-expanding global consuming society. Especially as we now have a new component to the equation, in the form of the negative impact our consumption is having on the resource-production side, which serves only to speed the process up.
Malthus had a point. And it's looking like Mother Nature may be gearing up a few tricks to rectify the imbalance.
We can't stop it, but we can reduce it. But not when it's being guided by politicians who view their legacy no further than the day they retire on gold-plated pensions, idealists who would prefer to be loved now than share in hard decisions (the benefits of which will only kick in when they're long gone), and populations who are easily seduced by a media that seeks the instant gratification of big ratings hits rather than the ongoing, campaigning effort that goes into shaping futures.
