Every little bit helps..
Fuel efficiency sees airlines trash cutlery, mags, glasses
Too much to hope they might give thought to the shunting of litres and kilos of duty free hither and thither, especially when we all prefer to buy in a mad panic once we get through Passport Control? Singapore Airlines had a neat scheme (I recall when.. ain't flown much of late) where you pre-ordered and picked up t'other end on the ground before customs -seemed a plan.
I once had an airline client and even pre-enviro-junkie days kept coming up with what I thought were awesome wheezes. One was a suggestion that the classifieds and TV sections got taken out of the complimentary papers, as they could be of no use where they were going and would be out of date upon return.
I got my head patted, and my tush kicked a lot back then. It was 15 years ago, mind. Ahead of my time, I guess..
It just all seems very little... very late. Isn't this an industry that prides itself on being cutting edge? Heck, any small car now is costcut to the penny and lighweighted to the gram these days. Yet still they thought a steel elbow-shattering battering ram of a trolley was the best way to convey lunch up and down.... until now???
Next you'll be telling me some airlines reckon having gold fixtures would be a neat idea!
At least they cottoned early onto saving the planet by recirculating the TB and Bird Flu-soaked air around the passenger cabins, those little eco-tinkers.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Should have engaged brain before opening mouth.........
..... or, just maybe, a prescient view of what might happen to humanity over the coming decades?
Ted Turner (the 'mouth of the south') has had a habit of saying controversial things throughout his life, but some of his comments on what might happen if mankind does not address climate change are, quite frankly, frightening. He thinks overpopulation is the key factor, and thus raises the policy that dare not speak it's name, yet again.
The comments are reported in Information Liberation (not a publication I've come across before).
I'll leave you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions on this one. (Looks like it could be a tough future for vegetarians though. [Tongue very much in cheek])
Ted Turner (the 'mouth of the south') has had a habit of saying controversial things throughout his life, but some of his comments on what might happen if mankind does not address climate change are, quite frankly, frightening. He thinks overpopulation is the key factor, and thus raises the policy that dare not speak it's name, yet again.
The comments are reported in Information Liberation (not a publication I've come across before).
I'll leave you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions on this one. (Looks like it could be a tough future for vegetarians though. [Tongue very much in cheek])
Image problem
Just watching a piece on BBC Brekky about people paving over their drives causing flooding.
In a sedate suburban avenue the reporter posed before a very extensively covered front lawn, upon which was perched a dirty great Merc 4x4.
'Hmnn', I thought. "Why would a drive/vehicle combo like that have been chosen? Ho-hum. Subtle. But there is a fair question to be asked as to why one needs such a thing in such a location. Another story'.
But no, the piece was then introduced as being an alliterative choice (I forget the precise words) between 'Your flora and your four by four'.
So far, so... obvious. It was a front lawn, there must have been a trowel handy to lay it on with.
But then a few moments later, it was email read-out time. Now I don't know if they were shy on things to share, had a rare desire for objective critique sharing, or thought it was a chance to make a bitchy, snarky point that they know best how to 'do' 'reporting', but the bouffant and blonde read out the suggestion from a viewer that 'Perhaps such driveways also play host to more modest vehicles, too'. I have to say it was calmly, fairly, and rather pertinetly put, too.
So, to much curling of lip, we get the 'witty' suggestion that it perhaps should have been 'Peugeots instead of Petunias'.
Another less than fine hour in the great 'we have no subjective agenda' that is the output of our public broadcaster. I am not sure if these front persons write their own stuff, but it's not coming across very well.
Yesterday I took the bouffant to task on a piece on ageism. To a studio guest who had just shared she had lost her job through turning 70 his flip first (I can alliterate too) comment was 'But you don't look it'. My question as to whether her dismissal would have been OK if she had looked it (physical comeliness not being a factor in BBC presenter selection, natch) was not replied to, oddly.
There are points to be made, but if this is the best way they can think to make them I doubt they will create many converts.
ADDENDUM:
Just watched a follow up. And on a more serious, and in one case helpful note this raised a few more tangible issues.
First up, and of relevance, was that many householders were opting for this because the council was introducing paid parking in the street. Well, D'Uh. Why paid? No option for residents permits? No wonder the residents are thinking of solutions closer to home.
Next, there is the very sensible consideration that if you do opt this way, go porous! This option needed much positive promotion.
I'll also bolt on some commentary about a related issue (as brought up)... flooding.
I fully accept that this trend will not help with run off. But the point was raised as to how this stacks up against paving over vast tracts of virgin countryside with new towns, however eco.
And it was also shared that people who had been flooded last year were not doing much to protect themselves against future floods. Well, speaking personally, I still await any sensible response beyond 'look at the website' or 'do you want a sandbag' from my council or the Environment Agency as to what options I might engage.
So I am none too surprised that the proactive measures being taken by householders are not that great, especially whilst wondering if the authorities might get around to addressing the bigger picture (clear drains, etc) first.
In a sedate suburban avenue the reporter posed before a very extensively covered front lawn, upon which was perched a dirty great Merc 4x4.
'Hmnn', I thought. "Why would a drive/vehicle combo like that have been chosen? Ho-hum. Subtle. But there is a fair question to be asked as to why one needs such a thing in such a location. Another story'.
But no, the piece was then introduced as being an alliterative choice (I forget the precise words) between 'Your flora and your four by four'.
So far, so... obvious. It was a front lawn, there must have been a trowel handy to lay it on with.
But then a few moments later, it was email read-out time. Now I don't know if they were shy on things to share, had a rare desire for objective critique sharing, or thought it was a chance to make a bitchy, snarky point that they know best how to 'do' 'reporting', but the bouffant and blonde read out the suggestion from a viewer that 'Perhaps such driveways also play host to more modest vehicles, too'. I have to say it was calmly, fairly, and rather pertinetly put, too.
So, to much curling of lip, we get the 'witty' suggestion that it perhaps should have been 'Peugeots instead of Petunias'.
Another less than fine hour in the great 'we have no subjective agenda' that is the output of our public broadcaster. I am not sure if these front persons write their own stuff, but it's not coming across very well.
Yesterday I took the bouffant to task on a piece on ageism. To a studio guest who had just shared she had lost her job through turning 70 his flip first (I can alliterate too) comment was 'But you don't look it'. My question as to whether her dismissal would have been OK if she had looked it (physical comeliness not being a factor in BBC presenter selection, natch) was not replied to, oddly.
There are points to be made, but if this is the best way they can think to make them I doubt they will create many converts.
ADDENDUM:
Just watched a follow up. And on a more serious, and in one case helpful note this raised a few more tangible issues.
First up, and of relevance, was that many householders were opting for this because the council was introducing paid parking in the street. Well, D'Uh. Why paid? No option for residents permits? No wonder the residents are thinking of solutions closer to home.
Next, there is the very sensible consideration that if you do opt this way, go porous! This option needed much positive promotion.
I'll also bolt on some commentary about a related issue (as brought up)... flooding.
I fully accept that this trend will not help with run off. But the point was raised as to how this stacks up against paving over vast tracts of virgin countryside with new towns, however eco.
And it was also shared that people who had been flooded last year were not doing much to protect themselves against future floods. Well, speaking personally, I still await any sensible response beyond 'look at the website' or 'do you want a sandbag' from my council or the Environment Agency as to what options I might engage.
So I am none too surprised that the proactive measures being taken by householders are not that great, especially whilst wondering if the authorities might get around to addressing the bigger picture (clear drains, etc) first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)