Saturday, September 15, 2007

No trees were hurt in the making of this film...

But a weed didn't make it, sorry.
I should also mention than, other than time, not one penny was spent or any new resource used.

I wonder if that makes it one of the greenest commercials ever shot?

It's our entry to the eco-contest.

Fingers crossed!

Thanks to Geof and Stepehn at clickingo, PJ at and Kipp and Cody on voice overs.

I agree with what you say. I just hope we'll all understand how you say it

With apologies to Voltaire. Bioploymers Need Careful Introduction, Says WRAP

Can't fault this: '...most consumers are confused about the wide range of new materials emerging with ‘biodegradable’, ‘home compostable’, ‘compostable’ and ‘degradable’ all being introduced in the UK...'.

And here's the rub: '...respondents were less clear of the overall benefits, and were left feeling confused. Apart from some home compostable materials, there is currently no appropriate infrastructure for the materials to be collected and treated in the UK.'

I just hope the ‘statement’ on biopolymers to be published will actually result in Mrs Miggins having a clue as to what she's supposed to do as she hovers the chicken thigh tray and film over the bin.

The research and statement can be accessed from the WRAP website or from

What you don't get told can hurt you

Though the effort of trying to straddle the extremes pitched against each other upon it is starting to lose its appeal, I still stay with the BBCisBiased Blog as it can find a few odd facts of note.

And I came across a guy taking the BBC to task for not publishing one report whilst bigging up other, less relevant (to their eyes - I found the opinion of Bush confidant most interesting) stuff 'in favour of' climate change. The BBC, as we know, is a tad twitchy on it's remit in this regard.

I felt I had to pitch in:

Just to help me clarify.

..a book saying there is no evidence that global warming is probably natural and not all bad.

I can fathom that some more scientists on one or other 'side' (perceived, admitted or otherwise - are there any just doing their best to find out the facts?) of the whole CC debate have published yet another book.

But I have to say that, from Bjorn Lomborg to James Lovelock, the attachment of a book to sell does not inspire much confidence immediately, especially when it comes to the associated PR efforts that will be used to perk up a jaded media more interested in a quick ratings fix than any worthwhile contribution.

However, just doing so does not surely mean that it has to be covered.

So if they were ignored, what was the phone interview with John Marburger (didn't know of him before, so can't reasonably comment on his affiliations, be they purely science based or more complex) about?

I agree you can't just phone up a person to spout off for no reason, and as has been noted here (and accepted by the BBC) there needs to be some measure of balanced debate, but I just can't follow how this played out in this case.

Is there a link? All I could find was this - Bush aide says warming man-made - which is apparently from a guy ‘who advises President Bush’ and is advised as ‘the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead’. Hardly the most expected source of unthinking MMCC endorsement.

And frankly, to me, news worth knowing.

The rest is, of course, still fiddling while the Titanic accelerates. But still, whatever floats the talkers vs. doers boat... while it floats.

Sadly, I never did get an answer.