Thursday, February 08, 2007

Doers or Shakers?

I read a lot of wild and wonderful things in my day. And so my eye is attuned to a potential nugget. Bearing in mind gets scores of questions about plastics recycling this one caught my eye as a potential plastic fantastic:

Plans on the table for food-grade PET recycling plant

So far, so rehashed press release. With a bit of that much loved, and now noted hype, spin and lack of substance we are seeing from all quarters these days, especially the environment. And too often faithfully trotted out by a rather compliant fourth estate. These days, I read 'could have' as 'here's a complete punt' when issued by official sources, especially when hand in hand with 'by the end of the year'. I'll be impressed if anything that cannot be confirmed now is up and operating in 10 months. It takes that long to get planning permission for a conservatory!

So my interest was piqued by the rather contrary comment at the end, from a well-established recycler such as Linpac.

I sense dissent amongst the vast silent, suffering majority of fellow doers in the environmental world, when vast, bloated, over-funded and totally inefficient, seemingly unaccountable quangos like WARP... sorry, WRAP, get gazillions of public money. And proceed to p*ss it all away on nothing that actually does anything other than expand and support their empires and nice lunches with COI ad agencies in SoHo. I am now building up a fair dossier of hard-working organisations who have been blown out by this old-boy outfit in favour of such needy causes as Tesco and Heinz.

What was that I wrote earlier about 'First against the wall..'.

When will the major media, and hence public, get to wake up to the sheer waste of money that is not going to secure a better future for our kids, at the expense of endless officers, boards, salaries, pensions and trips to Bali to discuss the consequences trips to Bali?



And a sooooper time was had by all... most... some... well, a few.

Dear Ms. Armistead,

Blair hots up Global Cool

I'm guessing this would be the same “individuals should take responsibility for their actions” Blair that reckons not flying for business or pleasure is not really practical, at least for those who can, now that the new career on the global lecture circuit beckons. I'm afraid I have a rather different view of what he's hotting up.

Global Cool itself looks like another fine effort. In fact I await their next outing. When will it be?

I'm just hoping that getting the billions to sign up won't prove tricky when the eco-elites live by lists, and while they do carry some baggage of his own, it would appear there is now an even more gre-elite above the ones inhabited by Mssrs. Goldsmith & 'My 747's get towed to the runway, but fancy-a-ride-in-my-spaceship' Branson, which has to smack of irony.

That's the problem with being exclusive; those on the outside don't feel very included or inclined to engage, but I am sure we are more than reassured to know that carbon reduction is a “battle for government and business”.

The media can of course play its part, depending on whether it's there for the celebrity or to do something rather than sidle up to the latest 'in message. I recall Mr. Hartnett on BBC Breakfast being allowed to run a commercial for the Toytoa Prius which, while admirable as a car in many ways, may not be the only solution that he claimed, at least for those who live outside of London and would just be lugging around a big battery with a small petrol engine.

He, and Aunty, also seemed to forget to tell us where to find this initiative, a common oversight it seems. Don't forget the reason you're all toasting and plugging whatever it is.

As to the managers from Shell, I wonder if they were in agreement with their bosses views at Davos, as reported on Today recently.

But at least you all have low energy light bulbs, and will remember to f******* switch them off when you leave, I'm sure.


Yours, planet-savingly,
Peter Martin
Junkk Male

Sunday Express: concerts to save planet

Worth a try

A case of power corrupting absolutely

"JC, you are a fine journalist, a superb writer, a very funny person and a great entertainer. But I really can't believe you need the rating£ any more to come out with such mentalist-baiting guff as this (and I'll sacrifice 300-odd characters to cut'npaste):

'... if every nation meets its obligations under the Kyoto agreement, the Earth won’t be saved. In fact, the heat expected in 2020 would arrive in 2026. So we ruin our lives to buy just six more years.

... Global warming’s coming, so you can don your King Canute hat and stand on the beach waving your Toyota Prius at the advancing heatwave, but it won’t make a ha’p’orth of difference."

Is that what you will be reading your kids each night?

Apply your skills to make sure we do what can, sensibly, to mitigate and/or prevent the possibility. And especially ensure the chancers from all sides of the eco-exchange debate don't screw up the environment with daft, short-term, impractical and plain bad ROI (eco, £, social..) nonsense."

Ah.. am de lore!

Europe draws up criminal code to save environment

While this seems simple common sense, with a less than impressive
history to look back upon so far, it is to be hoped that the enforcement
and penalties are matched by a preceding and equally coherent level
of information, guidance and indeed reasonable opportunities to enable
willing and easy compliance.

Altogether now.. WEEEeeeeeeeeeeee!

BBC - EU to get tough on 'green crimes'

Ratings Whores

Talk about Newsnight

'Just watched on PC. A bumper crop.

Motorists - What struck me most was how superficially this issue was treated, and how what was shared could shape the way it was viewed, even down to the choice of debaters with JP's 'moderation'. One inarticulate 'pro'-motorist 'representative' and one smug, though equally inarticulate 'anti'. Were they chosen just to make JP look good? Why just two? Why from such extremes (as if I'd didn't ratings-well know)? This was not a worthwhile discussion or debate on an emotive and highly topical issue. I have more interesting things to sift through in the few posts above. Nothing to do with breaking the law of not. It's whether the law is being applied fairly or accurately. Where all the money goes, if not to improving transport to offer non-driving options. Urban-centric vs. country chasms of perception, especially between policy-makers, activists and a lot of the chattering classes in Islington, Westminster and Fleet Street. The complete collapse of trust in officialdom.

Peerages - I should do more, but I could really care less. Again, a couple of extreme bookends - one duffer and one shrill harpie - to make things spicy but not exactly informative.

Balls - Golly, what you can read when the lines have such great pauses to look between:
At least the car-less lady had the grace to stumble on what constituted reasonable protest. Speaking of one law for one set...

Text Mess - So the school is going to cut the dodgy pages out and all is tickedy-boo? That's it? I rather hope a follow-up is planned.

Iraq widow exclusive -,,2007881,00.html
Why is the BBC so obsessed with 'exclusives'. It matters little to me whether they are or not, so long as they are covered accurately, objectively, with integrity and in a timey manner. Maybe it explains the 'twofers' we get for 'debates': Ratings. And that is more about boosting individuals' media careers than anything else.