Sometimes you have to make a stand

Hated to have to do it, but just had to write to the 10:10 campaign.

Dear Sirs,

Just seen the new 'awareness' promo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/30/10-10-no-pressure-film*

We used to support your mission, but as now revealed as another over-funded activist group who seems to confuse awareness with persuasion, this is now withdrawn. This had to have been approved at the top, so the rot is too high to expect any change of attitude, much less grasp of media message reality.

And we will be advising our audience of this fact.

Unlike some, we leave what they do, or not, up to them. No pressure. No judgement.

This has set the cause of sensible dialogue back a long way, just so some more bandwagon-jumping luvvies can have another 15 minutes in the limelight at the expense of hard slog, pragmatism and a belief that the public can be persuaded as to the value of effective and efficient lifestyle choices without nanny, threat, guilt or mockery.

Especially from a 'we know what's best for you' 'elite'.

Yours faithfully,

I can only hope it was meant as satire or irony, but sadly if that was the intent it was way wide of the mark. The sorriest example of messed up messaging from self-elected, pedestal claiming dumb messengers yet. It's complex issue, guys, and fine lines need to be walked. Patronising is bad enough, but failing to connect with the audience is plain unprofessional.

*Also had to chip in, a bit less formally, here:

Curtis made dive-bombers didn't they?

Certainly made a mess, but were at least designed to hit the right target.

Philip & Tracey seem more collateral damage in a totally misplaced campaign designed to make smug gits called... ahem... Jemima (really? was the Notting Hill author just going for maximum irony?) feel secure in the knowledge that their sweet teacher is actually a lying psycho who will brook nothing but fealty... or else. Even without the Scanners homage, any educator creating a 'us' vs. 'you' scenario in this manner should be transferred to the canteen to make Turkey Twizzlers.

No pressure... or we'll kill you. Sweet. Plus I love the new voting idea. Who needs a secret ballot when we can simply see who believes what... and kill you. At least the movie seems to feel that's OK so long as it is a majority view. Is that borne out, Mr. Curtis? Maybe we could ask the Science Museum? I recall they delivered a less than satisfactory result to Mr. Ed 'settled science, blank slate' Miliband in return for his multi-million £ efforts. Money perhaos better directed to, I don't know, DOING tangible stuff as opposed to getting a pat on the back in a SoHo bar.

Sadly, this latest bit of celeb indulgence will simply further set back sensible environmental dialogue, so some luvvies can all have a back-slap at an obscure awards show in Colorado that, just this once, their entourage will have to attend.

Dire, daft and damaging. Nice one. Ta very much.

I am now a lot more worried about assaults on freedom of thought and speech by unelected 'we know what's good for you' groups with waaay too much control over the media than I am by any positive messages of sensible mitigation.

The only hope is that it was a misplaced attempt at a caution on the damaging effects of dogma, but as noted, that's a target missed by a mile. 0/10. #fail

ADDENDUM

Had a few folk ''explain" to me that this is, as I alluded above, a bunch of lite greens telling dark greens to chill.

If so, I support the strategy, but still can't get behind the creative concept, which seems way too concerned with the shock value of 'awareness', which is dead fun & sexy 'n all, but sadly rarely as effective as patient, hard, slog.

Also not sure it getting yanked quite so soon seems part of the plan, unless it went a bit more viral than intended.

Addendum 2

It would appear that it was not, as I was told by ardent supporters, a complex spoof, and has, for now, been taken down. A bit late. With poor grace. Few were concerned 'it was not funny'. Most were concerned it suggested mindset that was hardly helpful to proactive persuasion.

Interestingly, if with irony, and little surprise, discussion of this seems to have either been allowed for those who toe the line per the compliant Jemima, or simply closed down. In some places (see thread end). Animal Farm advances, as certain ex-employees of certain media organisations foretold.

Addendum 3

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/01/blow-me-up-blow-me-down/

Much of what concerns was summarised to me by a late, brief comment on the Graun article (which I did take to task):

You lot need to lighten up

(I think there was something further irony free about 'we British', rather ignoring near all appalled commenters, by a factor of about 100:1, were indeed from our fair isles)

In that short sentence, this person set up a superior, false majority tribal grouping (in their own minds at least), with a god-given right to instruct others how to think and behave.

As I replied, in context of this story... 'Or... what?'

Now wishing I'd added the sweet further invitation '...no pressure' to that.

I see this term becoming rather potent in this regard, if used effectively.

As an ex-Civ Eng/ad man, I am now a passionate, if pragmatic enviro-campaigner, concerned more with proactive DOING and reward-based, end-benefit-driven inspiration by high enviROI example over £/$-squandering, predominantly negative guilt, shame, threat, fear, nag or nanny 'talk' (from endless worldwide events to vast 'awareness' campaigns) and initiatives that simply don't add up unless you are a lobby-pleasing, subsidy-addicted, box-ticking pol, quangocrat and their high paid mates in the often well-funded NGO/charity/activism sector. That these guys get bonusses based on using public money to run ads designed to drive up hits that drive up their bonusses offends me as clear examples of conflict of interest if not fraud.

But I do dip in to the odd chat to try and haul focus back to all the good that is DONE, and can be achieved by DOING, so long as it is well-assessed and targetted. For ages I have been dismayed that near all in green has been hijacked by usually self-elected, single issue messengers clearly utterly incapable of appreciating the complexities in doing the overall message (and hence topic) justice.

And they seem to be spiraling out of control, rationalising their abject professional failures to communicate and/or persuade as a) the failure of the public to grasp their 'wisdom' and, worse, b) trying to blame them for it. I know how that would have gone done in the commercial world with client and audience alike.

So as much as I am concerned about our environmental futures, I am now as concerned with the mindsets being embraced by some, with clear abuses of free speech and democracy in pursuit of narrow, dogmatic agendas that brook no counters.

And so, when next any from this extreme element get on high horses and presume to lecture broadcast only or dictate, I will be simply saying, in future... 'Or else what?... No pressure'.

Addendum 4

My 'Junkk' activity is, of necessity, a little light at present, as I visit my Mother in her home. She has enjoyed a long, good life, but we fear it is coming to a conclusion. At least the earthly chapter. A small family unit, we are determined to stay by her side as often as possible.

Hence a PC, dongle and good WiFi connection is a boon.

Just to nudge this story along, I need not share the reams of links this story has generated. Google is your friend.

But I will share an unexpectedly quick and contrite reply to my email above. Plus what I wrote back.

From 10:10:

Please accept our apologies. You are right. We made a major misjudgement with the film. Our UK director has made an official statement on the issue, which you can see at http://www.1010global.org/uk/2010/10/statement-1010-uk-director

We will be instigating a thorough review of our processes and procedures to identify how this mistake was allowed to happen.

Once again, I offer our sincere apologies. We thank you for the support that you have given to the campaign, and hope that you can accept that we recognise our mistake, and are taking steps to respond in an appropriate manner.

From me:

Dear 10:10 team,

Thank you for a prompt reply in the circumstances, and one that I appreciate that was no fun to have to make.

After the now accepted poor decisions that went into the conception, execution and initially awful 'defences' of the 'No Pressure' piece, this more savvy, considered response is welcome, if necessarily form, and we are tempted to reconsider.

However, with regret, we will need to 'mull' a while. Something perhaps too few do. Evidently.

Yes, it was 'a' mistake, and one that should not adversely impact the many other aspects 10:10 that we endorse(d) and/or support(ed).

However, we remain concerned at the mindset at 'the top', at least as highlighted in the spotlight brought by this unfortunate controversy. This, whilst clearly at last aware of what was precipitated, does rather reveal a history of dogmatic imposition at odds with the belief in actual 'no pressure' accurate, balanced information, fun education and incentive-based, end-benefit driven culture we prefer here.

Hence, whilst pleased to accept what we presume to be a sincere apology from the author below at least, overall blanket forgiveness will take some more time and assessment. Sorry.

There are too many sucking up public (and other) funds in various names, often over-duplicating, and too often with self-indulgent 'awareness' exercises over worthy doing (our interpretation of 'action' is somewhat different) projects, and it may be that this point needs to be made still. Where it will make an impact. Not just with 10:10's leadership, but also as a message to others frustrated maybe, but so self-absorbed as to feel justified in going beyond the high profile pale, and hence making the job of others, working slowly, openly and diligently, all the more difficult.

But good luck with the aspects of you initiative that are positive in enviROI terms.


I feel for those at the helm, but they are cleary not right for the task.

A new day, a new website

Waste

I'll share it, despite it still seeming to think Freecycle is the only swap site in town and Direct.gov knowing all about (and kindly promoting if not in the best section) reuse and Junkk.com's role for years. Lord knows how much will be ploughed into 'promoting' this one.

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - E&EO

WE NEED TO RETHINK THE THREE R’S – BENN LAUNCHES NEW WASTE CAMPAIGN

We are all being urged to rethink our approach to waste, in a new campaign launched by Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) today.

The new campaign, part of the Government’s Act On CO2 campaign, looks at everything from food waste to furniture recycling and encourages consumers to ‘Remember. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.’

A new website offering tips and advice to consumers on making better use of the things we all too often put straight in the bin or take to the dump, also launches today at www.direct.gov.uk/waste.

Research published recently by Defra showed that an additional 500,000 tonnes of household waste could be saved from landfill by doing more to reuse it or find another home for it. And if every household in the EU recycled one electrical or electronic item such as a mobile phone or iPod, 73,000 tonnes could be diverted from landfill – the same as 9,500 round the world flights.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said:

“I set out recently what the Government will do to help the country on its path to becoming a zero waste nation. Making better use of everything around us will really help us to tackle the impact our waste has on climate change, and save us money too. That’s why our campaign is encouraging everyone to rethink what they might think of as ‘waste’ and ‘recycling’ – we can all do things like put our old sofa on Freecycle rather than taking it to the dump, or recycle our old mobile if we get a new one.”

Don't just DO it...

Actually... DO do it. At least... as well, if not first.

B&Q chief launches tirade against government Act on CO2 ad

He's bang on. They are only talking to a narrow demographic that a very narrow-minded bunch feel comfortable with. All urban 'Prius person' vs. the vast national majority spread that is 'Fiesta family'.

And it's insulting to figure the latter don't care about their kids' futures or have an interest in the various arguments still being had (despite what this ad claims, so the ASA verdict on the VO text will be 'interesting').

Plus I could suggest a ton better places for £6m to go that would "DO" a lot more good than yet another box-ticking awareness campaign from one of scores of over-lapping climate quangos.

Starting with a boiler scrappage scheme that will keep jobs in the UK AND reduce emissions!

Compare and contrast

EU Sides with Corrupt African Governments to Block Stronger REDD Forest Protection Scheme

Saving forests five times better than carbon capture for climate action: WWF Sweden.

But some clown blows $35M (that's a lot of wells) on raising awareness atop a column of greenhouse gasses, and it's wall to wall on the media.

'Space clown' hosts show from ISS

Hmnnnn...

Ministers target climate change doubters in prime-time TV advert

This may not end well. No matter how well intentioned.

Climate change sceptics are to be targeted in a hard-hitting government advertising campaign that will be the first to state unequivocally that Man is causing global warming and endangering life on Earth.

The £6 million campaign, which begins tonight in the prime ITV1 slot during Coronation Street, is a direct response to government research showing that more than half the population think that climate change will have no effect on them.

Ministers sanctioned the campaign because of concern that scepticism about climate change was making it harder to introduce carbon-reducing policies such as higher energy bills.

My emphasis points.

That's quite a set of words, especially if from the PR.

As to the commercial... well... I'll reserve creative commentary. But there's a certain irony that I saw it preceded by a consumer-driven message that is, at the end of the da... world... 'buy more stuff'.

Addendum 1:

Just watching it being 'promoted' on BBC Breakfast News: the commercial that aims to scare us into taking climate change seriously. Yup, this 'un will do it. And scaring has worked great so far. But maybe doing it with kids might be a better line of attack.

Addendum 2:

Energy Minister Joan Ruddock on now explaining it helps people 'understand climate change' and 'makes it clearer'. In which case: #Major Fail! The woman is a classic poor messenger for this message. She has no clue. On science... or communications. And this is who we have steering our efforts to a greener Britain

Addendum 3:

Telegraph - Government's £6 million 'Bedtime Story' climate change ad: most pernicious waste of taxpayers' money ever?

Last time I was subjected to one of these 'awareness' fests (board bonuses seem to be measured on whether the box marked 'Yes I saw it' gets ticked by another quango's research team, which makes blowing money on comms budgets to drive up said bonuses a tad unethical, conflict of interest wise...IMHO) by some other eco-quango diverting money from DOING something useful (like helping poor and/or old folk with things like insulation), it was also rather directed at the audience you suggest.

Never got a reply to my question back then as to why the white, middle class family of four were off to buy their pack of four eco-bulbs in a stonking great big, black Porsche Cayenne Turbo S 4x4, when it looked like they were greening up the des res from Wandsworth B&Q to leafy Fulham. Possibly with a 'my other car is a Prius to beat the Congestion Charge' sticker in the back window, as electric cars are 'green'.... apparently, because the juice comes from... er... um...
I rather suspect that, to save a bit of dosh on house and car rental for the TVC, the producer/directors donated their pads and favoured modes of urban transport to 'help'. Nice bit of reuse, perhaps, but a smidge light on the irony front.

Still, speaking of clowns blowing money on targets, or looking good to your mates in the green elite section of the VIP lounge come the next 'concert' it could be worse... it could have been $35M blown to sit atop a column of Russian greenhouse gasses... well, well, well, well, well... not.

ps: while I think they have at last decided to look beyond reprinting press releases from agenda-comfortable sources (a bit late to be taken seriously or regain any trust, mind), I do think one 'non-solely anthro concessionary' article by one (albeit better qualified than most so far) science reporting employee is getting stretched a bit to become a "U-turn' by Aunty.

But, yes, almost Brownian in timing.

And you would think that about the bunnies, wouldn't you? Maybe they were eaten by all the alligators splashing around Gothenburg in the school project diorama Milibands D. & E. took with them to scare those easily scared types in the EU foreign ministries recently. I wonder if they got Gerry Anderson in on it all... at taxpayer's expense, natch.

green thing - NEW - Mad World - Another view. I am unsure if two wrongs justify anything. And when an ad states something as fact which is not, yet, much as some might find it helpful to be, it's not mad, it's reality, however unpalatable. And, yet again, I find myself expected to accept an analogy that is flawed. Also interesting to note the party affiliation, too.

Looking at the forces ranged around this latest icon, has it helped or merely added fuel to a distracting fire?

BBC - NEW - 'Scary' UK climate ad faces probe - a balanced piece IMHO

Treehugger - NEW - Climate Change TV Ad Under Investigation for Scaring Kids - Also balanced, though I think the responding readers took what they wanted from it. Not worth entering the lion's den by pondering the impact on sensible debate of it possibly being pulled for being factually challenged (if successful). Mr. Gore's last schoolkid outing did sooo well on that count.

Telegraph - NEW - Government TV climate ad is propaganda

Of course it is propaganda... pretty much by definition any advertising to us (ironically funded by us), by government to suit agendas, influence opinion, alter behaviours surely has to, doesn't it? By no stretch do most I see 'impartially provide information'.

And in the spirit of 'one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter' I suspect most either agree, disagree, don't care or let it wash over.

I reckon having the odd 'Boo!' can be effective and tend to tolerate 'em. And suspect most others do to. Which is why it's kinda cute this is being made about being 'scary' after the watershed.

What does get interesting is the factual basis. In my day it was called 'legal, decent, honest and truthful'. Not quite so clear what the ASA works on nowadays, but it will be interesting to see how it stands up.

Because in the PR that went with its launch there was such as this...(above):

After a similar such outing, I think involving the courts, by such as Mr. Gore's school effort, and how that worked out, if the factual basis of this effort is found wanting, I dread to think the damage done, yet again, to sensible environmental advocacy.

If these are the calibre of folk who think they are best suited to make my kids' futures better, and how they see the mission best projected, god help the planet if they end up dealing with grown-ups in Copenhagen.

Teblog - NEW - Frighten the kids, or encourage the grown-ups? Insightful

IRONY ALERT - Aunty says switch off. Not her, of course

Watching (on a PIP on my PC) Breakfast BBC News.

Just loved the way they intro'd a piece on an energy saving story about the Isles of Scilly.

'What one thing could you switch off now?'...pause... 'Er... not the TV of course'.

First image I see? A person switching off her TV.

Always a bit dubious about 'days', and this one seems no different. However, it did gain the community some PR to share notions like not running a power shower for 5 minutes before getting in it.

O....k.

Actually, all this energy awareness seems to be spinning on its own axis to me. Not that any that is shared is in any way not worth knowing, but there is a ton of money saying very few, blooming obvious things and... over and over. Good enviROI?

Just look at the latest EST ad that this would appear to be coinciding with.

If not having a bath and switching down your fridge is the best they can do after all this time, I think the money could really have been spent better elsewhere, on issues where folk may well be persuaded by pragmatic advice.

Addendum - the event site, sadly not shared by the national broadcaster. Interesting stuff, if a bit 'busy'

I only know a little about 'green', but I know what I prefer

I have nothing against 'awareness', so long as it has a decent enviROI+.

And hence much that is 'art' can and does qualify.

However, there is still a lot that can get the eyebrow cranking a tad...

Can an artist's wheatfield in Hackney switch the mood on climate change?

To boldly go where others can only dream of going. And say they can't.

Another 'message vs. messenger' rant.

And again courtesy of our national broadcaster. This time with a near irony-free series between the national and local news.

Still not quite even 'on message' by still using global warming as the rallying cry, I was treated to a positive throng of folk in Antarctica 'seeing for themselves' by 'studying' for oh, all of a day a truly stunning icy wilderness. There may well have been a serious point in there, as it was environment ministers and media 'reporters' in a huddle with some scientists, but to me the imagery was all wrong. Hundreds of folk in orange jump suits being taxied in and out on dirty great C-130s just didn't look right. Or convince me they really cared. Better, IMHO, to have not reported it at all, at least in such a fashion. And, with luck, let any serious science work its way into the collective political consciousness such that sensible, coordinated policy is developed, which can then be brought to the public objectively in concert with a well-informed, supportive but still challenging media.

As opposed to Midlands Today. Some bloke and his mates working for an energy company have done something to 'help' with making the company look a bit greener... I think. Anyway, lots of pictures of them in their office where the film crew has been dispatched. And their reward? Yup, you guessed it. They are being 'sent', somehow, to 'study the effects of global warming in the Antarctic'. It's a wonder there is room there for any scientists, what with all the competition winners and media types up there helping making us aware of how they are there and we are not.

Ch 4 email (no link) - AND FROM MORE4 NEWS WITH KEME NZEREM - You've seen those pictures of massive sheets of ice calving off the Antarctica land mass. Scary, isn't it? But what does that really tell us about the effects of man-made global warming? There's always ice falling off one bit of Antarctica and forming in another, but scientists are still trying to work out just how bad things are.

The environment minister, Hilary Benn, is on his way back from a fact-finding trip with some of his European counterparts, while the veteran environmentalist and polar explorer Robert Swan is on his way there this evening and he's told us that there's been too much climate alarmism about Antarctica in recent reports.

Observer - NEW - Antarctic cruise tourists lose out as soaring numbers alarm scientists

EARTH HOUR - Confusion time?

At the behest of a few, and as it was/is a 'why not?', I was ready to switch off tonight.

Now, I need to look at enviROI's an messages and messengers again.

Not because of this: Earth Hour is stupid and pointless. Leave the blasted lights on

Or because of this in rebuttal (which it richly deserved. It's one thing to have a contrary view on things, but just being contrary for the sake of it serves no one): Never mind me, what about them

But mainly because of this (and comments in reply): Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics

As a pragmatist, my greatest concern is this on the science: it is claimed 'this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again'.

However, the caution on the effect to the vast proportion of very lite greens to don't cares is well taken.

A dilemma indeed.

On the one had if any ask why my house is in darkness do I show it to be a tokenist but worthy piece of 'awareness', or set myself up for be more part of a problem then the solution?

As I seek to confirm the counter-engineering aruments by some posters, I am still erring on 'off'. Also I worry about an author who is linked to a site that last updated in Dec. of last year. Junkk's home page has new stuff (ideas and blogs) about 6 times a day. This is a fast moving sector!

FWIW, this PC will now be off then, having been convinced that it is better to switch in on and off daily than spin 24/7 (the energy in standby vs. energy to buy a new one as they break quicker if spun up and down all the time - but roll on solid state hard drives of 1 TB)

BBC - World cities begin big switch-off -

The Australian - Hour of no power increases emissions - No idea about the claims until they are challenged, but we now seem to be in a zone of looking like you're doing something being more important than actually doing it. My awareness is will honed, but what will be the actual effect on someone less concerned?

Telegraph - NEW - Earth Hour: Landmarks plunged into darkness in support of climate change action - I did my bit... I was in bed!

It's a tough job...

Ethical dilemmas: is walking more polluting than driving?

Not to mention flying hither and thither in the name of 'awareness', it seems.

What a dilemma! Two hours relaxing in the soft leather seats of a billionaire's private jet or 20 hours behind the wheel of a hire car

One faced by many around the world, daily, I'm sure. Along with the other daunting choices faced. Has Mr. Harrabin got back from his scuba diving trip yet? Message and messengers again spring to mind.

Choose your cause carefully...

Comic Relief climbers return home

'...after arriving at RAF Northolt in an executive jet.'

At what cost... to planet... and the reduced coffers those they were 'saving'?

Not something the BBC seems to have concerned itself with mu... er... at all.

Hell indeed.

Addendum:

Same posting: 'More bad news' on climate change - yes folks, there next batch of D-listers are revving up their agents to see how to look like they care whilst getting acres of free publicity 'in a good cause' whilst bonding in exotic locations.

Lights, camera, celebs.. hypocrisy!

The film festival that wants to save the planet

I feel more 'aware' even as I write...

There were moments where I felt that maybe a little introspection was having a salutary effect, but my irony alert meter eventually did break its needle.

But for poetry in prose, this cannot be equalled...

Here we are, 150 film-makers and journalists from all over the world, congregated in a luxurious hotel, fed succulent fruits with impossibly beautiful names – the cupuacu, caju, abacaxi, the pupunha and the jambo – and connected to intravenous drips of caipirinha, looking across the inky-black waters of the aptly named Rio Negro, the river that will take us into the Amazon. Here we are, ostensibly, to discuss the end of the world.

Of course, to some '"The best way to convince people today is through film, through the image".

To others, perhaps, a better way is by example.

Have celebrity, will travel

It has already been noted that 'environment' is creeping down the agenda.

Even on Aunty it hasn't cropped up in a while.

So I guess there is no one around to concern themselves with all these celebrities and crews off hither and thither to raise awareness on this and that. Just two today.

Message and messengers again. While the topics may be valid, when Zoe Ball tells me Mrs. Brown and hubby are with her off to sorts things out elsewhere I am not sure my reaction is the one being sought.

At least she dodn't seem to have a book/show to sell.

Another day, another 'Day'

It's more a 'why not' than a BTN, but I will still pass it on:

National Carbon Footprint Day

I will pass personally however, as I do most other such days, weeks, pledges, etc. They tend to blur into one another, and I am coming to wonder what the total enviROI adds up to vs. not having any at all, and simply applying the cash and energy to doing more enviro stuff than getting on the awareness/measuring roundabout. And I am still rather unclear what a carbon footrpint is.

But I guess some need rallying points. So here is another, neatly hyperlinked for your convenience: www.nationalcarbonfootprintday.org

Let's have a look inside that pudding, then

I have long cautioned against throwing about sky falling stats and deadlines that can prove problametic if they don't deliver, even if it is just within timeframe.

This is especially true of matters climatic, where nature seldom moves to the beat of the next soundbite.

We live in a literal world, and if your prediction fails to meet claim or expectation, that's going to be a problem.

I vaguely recall a twinge of unease in this regard when this was first outed.

Now, while such as this is littered with 'likely's' and 'could's', the confidence level was pretty high that this would 'make people more aware of the effects of climate change'.

But all I am seeing is references to this, the fact that his wish was granted and he couldn't make it, and not really always in the best way to inspire a climate cautious outlook. So, simplistically, does the fact that he was unable to get there mean "we really are no longer in deep trouble."

I don't know, but I am not sure that he proved what he set out to in the best way possible. There are positives and supporters, but in today's media age I fear I have read a lot more on the fact that the point was not made, and hence...?

'If the glove doesn't fit only works' if it doesn't... and you have a got lawyer. Of course it helps to have a team. And a PR crew. And lots more shrinking wilderness to highlight by all going there (how?) mob handed next time. Hmnn.

BBC - Kayaker's climate change trip

EU Referendum - Idiots Abroad - An unfair headline in my view, but it does rather show how these things need to be throught through.

Times - All this rain . . . obviously global warming - QED

I spent 40 years forecasting the weather, and I can tell you that this was in many ways as normal a British summer as we could expect

Michael Fish, the former BBC weatherman famed for his “no hurricane” forecast in 1987

Quote of the day - Publican service broadcasting

Let no one excuse the BBC of lack of balance.

Thing is, I do sometimes wonder if they think things through. Following weeks... months... years... of nanny state preaching (with some good reason, and value) on the ills of youth alcohol abuse, we have another Declan commercial break (I know the line between fair PR sharing as news and blatant free exposure for a brand is a fine, and hence difficult one, but really, this isn't some retail boss flogging their latest fluff under the pretext of a news item), this time at the Bushmills distillery. Something along the lines of:

"How do we/you (didn't catch it properly) improve its appeal to younger drinkers..."

...followed by a few minutes free commercial, including mixes (with cranberry juice!) for the younger palate. Nice.

This was, irony free, followed by a piece on kickboxing , introduced along the lines of 'how we improve our kids' behaviour?'.

I have one small suggestion... don't glorify and promote hard liquor cocktails in this manner on the national broadcaster, especially one that has been sanctimoniously trotting out youth binge drinking messages at the same time, when my 11-year-olds are having breakfast. Just a thought.

As with things environmental, if the media can't get consistent with their messages, there is little chance of our youth getting it. I think of AGW scare stories and consumer tut-tutting in complement, followed immediately by some celebs excesses on a far-flung beach. It is inconsistent and divisive. And not a little hypocritical. There's a surprise.

One day at a time?

Is Earth Day enough to save the planet?

As with all things, it is a question of degree. And the sad inevitability that what was once small, personal and intimate pretty quickly becomes big, corporate and a monumental overblown bore.

The first I knew about Earth Day was an email from one of the x zillion well funded ngos/charity newsletters I subscribe to to try and glean some worthwhile information on worthwhile things that get or can be DONE.

A banner ad in the middle informed me that ''we' didn't wait to act'. I am guessing it was meant for the US, because the picture was of the Normandy landings, and I am pretty sure 'they' did wait a wee while until nudged a bit by Adm. Yamamoto's frequent flyer programme.

First click got me to the donation page.

As I was unsure how much of my contribution would go on private jets for the management board, guest celebs and media hangers on, and how much would go on media comms budgets (plus sponsors - I was also treated to an Earth Day ad from a Fortune 500 company promoting its bleach) for awareness of their next concert, day/wheeze, I gave it a miss.

And got on with just another one of the 365 days each year I try and DO my best for my kids' futures.

Sins of the...?

Bless. Sam Branson joins Kiss as green ambassador

Worked sooo well for that Guardian Travel Writer's son on CiF recently, as I recall.

Gosh, me and the kids hadn't heard of global warming before now. So such awareness-building is a vital new step. Hope he doesn't have to stay in a holding pattern too long getting there, what with all the other media types en route from looking at the ice-shelf split off to check out the plastic bag situation in Midway Island, plus Zac, Leo et Al making their docos. Hardly any room left for the polar bears and penguins at this rate!

Will he be going Virgin Coconut or Galactic?

You're 'aving a larf'

My view on this From Emo to Ego from Grist about another celeb awareness... er.. effort

'What will be the fallout?', they ask.

Let's see...

'...the band will board a private jet...' as the first line in the PR seems to set it up.

Kinda compounded, if explained by '...MTV News will be with the band every step of the way..'

But it's OK, because 'This certainly outdoes last February's FOB stunt, Infinity Flight 206...'

Boggling the mind, mind, is that this is billed as '..teaming up with Greenpeace for the concert, in the hopes of raising awareness about global warming.'

Know what? I think folk may be pretty 'aware' about Probably Man Worsened Climate Change (Global warming is, so like, last year... if not plain inaccurate) by now, but celebs and eco-elites and rating-priority media swanning about in jets to do it all may well be the bigger message that gets sent around the world, and hence again give cause to ponder the value of many self-appointed messengers. And those who give them page space. Like us. Funny old word, eh?

What next? Hey, I have an idea! Leonardo, Tamsin, Madge et Al can hook up with Top Gear and fly (commecial of course) their Priuses to the Antarctic for a Celebrity Destruction Derby!

This is getting so bizarre I figure there is method to this madness, but it's so subtle I am missing it.

Just look at the blogger label below

Life as low-carbon man

I say no more.

Well, other than to add it does keep luvvies in Fleet Street and Islington occupied. Plus me:)

Shame we can't run things on 'awareness', especially of the misguided kind.