Packing 'em in

I just got back last night from a two-day trip to an intellectual property conference in Glasgow.

And it was one to which I had been invited to as a speaker. The roller-coaster ride that is RE:tie was and still is deemed to be an interesting study. And this time it was in the awesome, but imposing setting of the University's stunning Bute Hall.

Mostly pretty high-end legal stuff which was waaaay over my head, but some useful material which I'll share here for budding researchers and/or inventors. One of my points was that those who 'create' are often not that well served by the highly necessary complementary business aspects to get to sustainable models, and that is often down to not knowing about a lot that is in fact out there for free.

For instance, a speaker from the IPO shared these latest, and highly useful IP tools on their site:

Lambert Agreements - http://www.innovation.gov.uk/lambertagreements/

Gowers Review - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/licensingbooklet.pdf

Patent Licensing - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/licensingbooklet.pdf

IP Healthcheck - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/iphealthcheck - worth doing!

Meanwhile another speaker, from the British Library, shared this:

Business & IP Centre - http://www.bl.uk/bipc/

Plus the fact that they really do have an awful lot of information available that one might not realise is there to be had. For instance, I have been staring at a price of £1200 for a report on the packaging market for bottle caps, and wishing I could have a look. Seems that, via the Library, I may be able to just that! For nothing.

And then, in the course of some spirited discussion between podium and floor, I ended up with some key offers of direct help which I am hoping will prove highly valuable.

One little bit of Kismet was that the very day I spoke the news media were alive with top stories about packaging, and manufacturers and retailers were not coming out well and/or struggling to find and share solutions, and certainly few that would be deemed positive in a consumer sense.

As I was there I missed them, but have had a quick trawl to try and capture a few. They did not hurt my advocacy for Junkk.com or the cause of RE:tie, a redesign that turns grams of plastic from litter or landfill... to reuse.

Telegraph - 'Excessive' supermarket packaging is leading to higher council tax bills
Examples included Britvic saving 1,670 tons of plastic a year by redesigning Robinsons squash bottles
Telegraph - M&S bottom of packaging recycling list - Time for Plan, er... reuse?
Telegraph - There is a Plan B - with a link to a comment I made a while ago! One of ... two so far, even with the revisit.
Telegraph - Packaging 'sinks Marks & Spencer green bid' - Not a headline I fancy they will appreciate. To be fair, and the MSM seem hardly capable of this when a good headline beckons, the last para does suggest 'M&S disputed the research, which looked at 29 of their 5,500 products, and said 91 per cent of their food packaging could be recycled.' Might have been worth a follow-up to check? Or... moving on.
Telegraph - M&S worst supermarket in green report - Archive stuff, but when you end up bottom I guess that is what gets focused upon. Especially if you make some big claims that seem poorly borne out in fact.

Times - Supermarkets fail to shine in packaging study to find the greenest of them all - Interesting that they single out Waitrose instead. It is worth noting the first comment that councils, or rather the national policies, are by no means helping.

Indy - Pay packaging recycling costs, stores told - Just so's we're clear: when they pay... we pay.

Guardian - Supermarkets' excessive packaging exposed by survey - I'm surprised there was not more comment.

Packaging News - Supermarket 'excess packaging' report dismissed as "nonsense"
Packaging News - Retailers fight back as media storm erupts over 'excess packaging'
Packaging News - Soap Box: packaging's public image
Packaging News - The LGA's 'War on Waste': a response

An industry response that is, as might be expected.. 'robust'. But before we go all Mandy Rice Davis WeTWoST (Well, They Would Say That), read some of the responses. Not sure any MSM types did, especially on broadcast. Lots of emotive, and illogical, vox pops supported by often rather conveniently forgetful 'experts' with axes to grind and targets to meet. It IS all vastly more complex and serving the public ill to pretend otherwise.

'..a constructive debate about packaging in the media.'

Bless. When there are agendas to push, ratings to drive and targets to meet, I have long since given up on anything well researched and/or objective from the MSM, complicit at the hands of those who are happy to use their less than challenging reporting abilities to push press releases out as stories.

And I am a green campaigner!

My frustration lies in that all too often the cause of actual overall reductions (waste, emissions, etc... that I categorise under enviROI) is poorly served. Also there can be a highly negative, and damaging backlash if these 'messengers' have their messages shown to be poorly thought through or, worse, often more in the cause of their own self-interest.

Fool the public once, shame on you...

The ever worthwhile Almost Mrs. Average has a balanced, consumer-centric take... Recycling Blame

The public... is not daft.

At least you'll know in advance that your screwed

Two pieces on flood issues just in.

One is a full quote from an LGA PR; the other a BBC story.

LGA response to flooding report - press release - 11 June 2008

In response to the Environment Commission report into last year's flooding, the Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.

The LGA is calling for a change in the law and a new statutory framework which would compel water companies and others to co-operate with councils, share information and prepare flood prevention plans. Any organisation that failed to co-operate would be penalised.

Cllr Paul Bettison, Chairman of the LGA Environment Board, said:

“The current system is fundamentally flawed. We simply cannot continue to have a situation where it is not clear who is responsible for dealing with vitally important functions such as drainage.

“There are glaring gaps in this country’s readiness to cope with widespread and prolonged flooding. Last summer’s floods were no fluke, and we run the real risk of witnessing a repeat – or worse – unless urgent action is taken now.

“We need to get back to basics. There should be no opt-out, no excuses and clear penalties for anybody who refuses to co-operate with managing our water systems. Councils should be allowed to start banging heads together so we can be better prepared to protect people and property.”

“More extreme weather is an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Last summer’s floods exposed flaws in how prepared the country was and the effect of years of under-funding. Greater investment now will save much bigger costs in the future.”

Under the current system, it is often unclear who has responsibility for managing flood risk and maintaining drainage systems. In some parts of the country a myriad of different bodies – including the Environment Agency, councils, private landowners and water companies – have these powers but often do not share information with each other.

BBC - Laser maps flood-prone areas

Hence I am again frustrated and concerned, if not surprised to read such as this:

'The Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.'

What? You mean they are not... yet??? Such as Cllr. Bettison are bang on, and the wonder is how this is still the case, after all that has gone before and will transpire again.

And while whizz bang techno stuff is all well and good, if those theoretically 'in charge' cannot organize themselves, getting better warnings seems to be unlikely to inspire most of the population much, especially if many of the replies in the BBC HYS section are to be taken as a measure.

I welcome better data, but it has to be provided and supported with tangible actions.

I live in a low point of a town on the River Wye. I bought the house following a survey that discovered that since it was built, in the 17th century, it has never been flooded. Those old folk knew a thing or two about building, and what was meant by... flood plains. So I pay attention in advance to such wise experience.

And I am glad to say my insurers are happy to go along with that (for now), despite the Enviro Agency's current map having got my house slap bang in one. Oddly, it also has my neighbours' three houses up in it too, despite being about 40' (80x the 6” that makes all the difference) higher up the hill.

Anyway, being a believer in prevention being better than cure, I have for the last few years tried to pursue with various bodies - council, Environment Agency, Waterways Board - how I might better protect my property should things deteriorate. I think Ican do so and weather future storms rather than wailing and claiming compo, as seems the vogue. Not big on the victim culture.

Thing is, I need some advice at least (help if its available, but being practical I'd say dream on). I have a mark on the wall showing the level AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). All I need to know is what, in the next 50-100 years, are the chances of something going above that, and to what height. Then I can prepare coffer walls and entryway/hole covers to deploy on warning (very prompt system on email and mobile, though a little lacking on much beyond screaming 'prepare for the worst!!'. Wolf and crying kicks in a tad here).

Sadly, to no avail so far. Each, as suggested here, points at the other, and/or various colourful websites that are pretty of little use.

Officers are 'busy', and have been for years. But I got the offer of 'a' sandbag once.

If this is the level of support to a householder who is prepared to DIY, and pay for it all himself, I am not too inspired as to how it's going to improve very much for those in less of a position to do so.

But I am sure many reports will get prepared, boxes ticked, and sombre spokespersons from multiple, overlapping public bodies explaining how it happened this time due to ‘unexpected circumstances’.

Too good to be true?

Households correctly sort 98% of recyclates, reveals LGA

Bearing in mind my amusement at stats that seem very precise with no real basis in fact, enhanced by tricks from my ad copywriter days, this could be 'Almost all households in the UK...'

Thing is, much as I'd like it to be true and give pats on backs all round (especially we punters), unless I am missing something key in what is measured and/or how, I simply find it hard to credit.

Then again, I guess it takes a serious level of numptietude to fail to put the glass in the glass box, the cans in the...

So... maybe.

Addendum - CRR calls into question LGA's low reject figures - Or, then again, maybe not. We are not alone.

Targets, with the possibility of more targets soon

Just caught the tail end of a BBC News piece on excess packaging.

Don't know what kicked it off (will add later if any follow-up on or offline), but on the sofa was a guy from M&S and Lucy Siegel from the Observer.

He was rather copping it from her and the BBC sofa warriors, and I was wondering why. From the sound of it either a) they came bottom in 'a' survey (in which case one wonders which one, as they came top in the majority I read... ah, surveys) or b) the others didn't turn up. A few 'statements' were read out.

Other than being discomfiting for this gent, who was subject to a set of target and date demands, and agreeing that 'things need to improve', I am unsure where this piece moved us on to.

The key, certainly alluded to, is working together with those tasked to deal with the waste produced in manners such that the consumer knows what to do... and does it.

But representatives of such entities were noticeably absent. Leaving us with just another set of targets now that will be forgotten, and likely be unmet, as soon as the media turn their attention elsewhere.

ADDENDUM - That'll teach me to hang fire! it is actually a major feature. Seems that yet another survey (my fourth in a week), this time from the Local Government Association (LGA) has dumped on our major retailers for the packaging waste problem.

As to M&S, it seems they came bottom (which makes one wonder about the other surveys mentioned in these posts recently), which rather suggest that plans (even if they are 'A') are about as much cop as targets.

Actually I have no cause yet (until I read an online report in more detail) to change much else of what I wrote. I rather suspect this might stray into a bit of finger-pointing as the LAs and government (well silent so far) are not exactly innocent here.

Also, in terms of enviROI, I really hope that we won't see some knee-jerk actions away from what looks good or meets a target at the expense of common sense. I do wonder if there is more concern about what is not going into the appropriate bin and gets measured as opposed to what costs the planet. It seems disingenuous to equate what and how one buys from a street stall with the logistics of a supermarket. And a skip full of neatly sorted veg trays may be lovely to behold, but not if elsewhere there are ten full of rejected food waste.

Indy - National supermarkets criticised over failure to cut levels of packaging

Didn't take long! And yes, yet another survey. I just have to wonder... 'a market?'

This amplification doesn't change my views on reasons behind much of this, or indeed the lack of real solutions.

Indy - Customers could dump wrappers before leaving shop under new law

BBC - tried to find the story. Got as far as here. Failed as link didn't work.

One word: 'could'. Next words: Is this unfairly shunting the issue onto only one section when we need a proper, coordinated approach from all protagonists first?'

Guardian - M&S gets the lowest green rating in packaging survey - What price a £100kpa CSR guru now?

Guardian (podcast) - 'The cost is passed on to the council taxpayer' - Let the games begin.

I was on board pretty much until the end.

That came across a tad as 'Help 'us' meet targets or we'll drop the fines on 'you'.'

What if these targets are not that relevant in the overall enviROI+ scheme of things (I don't know, but would like to see how a trip to one supermarket compares in terms of 'footprint' to going to several places. Or how the consequences of packaging waste stack up vs. food waste as a consequence of rejected/disposed of foodstuffs).

When there are so many departments/quangos whose officers/directors are on bonuses based on simply getting rates up in their sectors, I am afraid my confidence is dented in the motives any comms effort, especially funded with our money, on ads and PR campaigns.

Our paying to fund the mechanism to drive up rates to improve such folks' bonuses strikes me as a conflict of interest at best.

And in a nation of 60B+ and soaring, most working 12 hrs a day just to stay on top of life's demands (and those of a growing public service in terms of salaries and pensions), I am not yet convinced just whose best interests are being served by some of these initiatives and the media efforts thrown behind them.