Tuesday, February 26, 2008

2nd Use in Action!

Just had in the latest consumer-inspiring creative from those jolly recycling chaps.

Fortunately, it has arrived just as I am preparing my speech for the forthcoming ECOPACK conference on the topic of, well, amongst other things: 'Giving your plastic bottles the chance of becoming something else.

Only... perhaps with a bit more Junkk.com end-benefit and a little RE:tie twist to top it off.

Nice to see the big bucks comm budgets cranking out those award-winners.

RE:VIEW - BOOK - 21st Century Stallholder

OK, I am buying time here.

This is not a review... yet.

The good news is that I intend to do one.

The bad news is that there is a bit of a backlog on the reading and writing front. My bad.

This is a stopgap that hopefully serves to say (mainly to those nice enough to send it) I have it, it looks neat and I look forward to one day soon getting the time to go through it.

At which point this gets revisited and upgraded to an actual review and goes on the site, in the newsletter, etc.

Best I can do!

Better than nothing?

Just watching Sir Richard Branson on Breakfast TV.

Not so keen on reporting what will be said (a new, and rather pointless trend) but one key point we will learn come the press conference later is how his Virgin Atlantic fleet will run a biofuel that will not affect the food chain. This was a major concern of mine.

The FoE has already labelled it a 'gimmick' (mot du jour in politics at the moment, too), but Sir. Richard may have had a pop at them talking on flying to international conferences all the time in 'conventional' planes.

It's a dilemma. On the one hand there is the undoubted contributed of air travel to PMWCC, but then there are the practicalities and realities of commercial air travel.

It will be interesting to see just how real this initiative might be as a mitigation.

I remain unclear as to the contribution made by Virgin Galactic, though.

First posted 24/02 - Addenda:

Telegraph - Algae are fuelling Branson's maiden flight - seems they know something the BBC doesn't.

Also just saw a twofer on the morning show again. The FoE guy did not impress; very dogmatic. There was a travel journalist who did; objective and thoughtful. I see this as an interesting one. All agreed it will make no difference to passnger decision, which is based on price. Plus such as this is a drop in the fuel tank compared with flights only one third full vs. full, 1st & Biz vs. cattle for fuel per passenger mile.

Telegraph - Branson: City to suffer without third runway

BBC - Airline in first biofuel flight

Indy - First biofuel flight dismissed as Virgin stunt - Possibly a new PR agency in the offing? But then, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Guardian - Branson's coconut airways - but jet is on a flight to nowhere, say critics

Gaurdian - Forests cleared for takeoff? - I might have to change the title above. And nice to see Virgin Galactic getting a mention.

Why do you ask? Wanna make something of it???!

I was moved to write to the author by the following: Why are we obsessed with taking offence?

I either made it up, or paraphrase another poorly, but it seems to me that 'if you go looking to be offended, spare you energies; it will soon oblige by coming to find you'.

Sadly, and as a member of the media you must surely acknowledge this, there is now an actual value beyond the emotional 'rewards' that make the search actively promoted as much by the reporting of it.

Seems fair

US to set 'binding' climate goals

Having just slammed what seemed a pretty dubious headline, I thought it only fair that I give praise where due.

And not just to the writer. Without going through the details (yet), the first para indicates the US might have a good point,too.

The US is ready to accept "binding international obligations" on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, officials say, if other nations do the same.

Now, of course, we await the cry of: 'Unleash the weasels!'

Free directory enquiries

0800 100100

Gets my vote.

I like the business model too; it reminds me of another free to user experience near here:)

The headlines don't work*

Which is more accurate in conveying the notion that a bit of research may have a contrary (though possibly worthwhile) view from a team (no matter how 'offical') on the value (or not) of depression medication?:

Effectiveness of antidepressant drugs questioned

Antidepressant drugs don't work – official study

Anti-depressants 'of little use'

Prozac, used by 40m people, does not work say scientists

New anti-depressants 'little effect'

What is wrong with our news media? I have 'contributed' to the BBC, who at least allow the possibility:

'IF' what I read is borne out, this is indeed of serious concern, but is the headline and how this news has been portrayed fair and accurate in conveying the notion that 'a' bit of research may have 'a' contrary (though possibly worthwhile) view from 'a' team (no matter how 'offical') on the value (or not) of depression medication?

Are the entire prescribing medical profession fools or charlatans then? If so, I want my £100kpa back.

So whatever you do read, on anything substantive remember: read long, read broad and don't read anything into anything until you think you might have gained all the relevant facts, and as good a cross-section of opinion as you can to arrive at a well-informed one of your own.

Live by the headlines, links and summaries served up to 'help' us in this time-poor infromation age we live in, and you may get what you deserve.

*With apologies to The Verve

Here to help

I don't mean to single out Morrsions in this, but it just so happens they are where we mostly shop, and they have a (doubtless well-intentioned) pack-recycling labelling policy.

It's just that I, as a consumer, all too often either don't have a clue what they are talking about, find what they are talking about to be daft, or... can DO precious little about what they TALK about. The latter is part of a bigger picture, but then we all need to see this for what it is to address it properly.

These two packs were from last night's meal. The plastic wrappers from a frozen veg and a fresh veg.

One, quite clearly, IS recyclable, though 'facilities may be limited'. In the bin or in the the... er... what again? They carrier bag slot? The binliner hanging off the plastics skip? I don't know.

The other is 'partly' recyclable with all due caveats as above. Being that this initially appeared to be a printed clear plastic bag this was odd. Other than the contents and the bag, what else was there?

Well, irony of ironies, on closer looking there was an extra clear sticker in the mix. A bonded-on effort (why? The rest is custom to contents) whose principle function was to tell me it country of origin. Holland, since you ask.

ps: I went to the recyclenow.com site to find out what to do and where. Maybe it was just me, but when it came to sorting out these babies... nothing leapt out. In the bin liner then.

Public - one for trying.
Business - zero for being anything other than a useless gesture.
Authorities - minus points for wasting so much money on ineffective systems and pointless comms efforts.