We had our first peek at the Olympic logo today. First impressions don't seem to feel it was worth all the money, and effort, expended.
LONDON 2012 REBRAND. OH DEAR.
No, don't hold back... say what you think.
Nice to see the money diverted from the arts to cover all sorts of derrieres is still be used wisely.
I wonder how many times they had to send it back and forth to get it 5 x over budget.
New:
Sorry, I am addicted to this...
To be fair....
Having been part of the process more than once, I feel a tad (but £400k buys a lot of pain relief) sorry for the actual designers who will get fingered by the tabloids.
There will have been a brief, and there will have been a presentation. And I am prepared to bet there will have been mid-level numpties in the client marketing side who dicked about trying to put their stamp on it and justify their 30k non-jobs.
But, WO-is-you, you can always walk away.
What's the name of the mythical director on movies no one wants to own up to?
Guardian - London's new brand of bother
Cif - Go Logo
Logo design - .007p (actually, that's what they owe each of us)
The most up its own derriere marketing-speek explanation/justification from the creators - £400,000
The saddest piece of quango self-immolation in history by every sad sod involved, but especially the senior guys in the committee and government - Priceless!
Houston, we have a camel.
Let the blame games begin!
Telegraph - A new Olympic record?
This typifies the state of government today.
They farm out everything (my daily exasperation is the environment, with billions being p*ssed away hourly to zero effect) to equally inept, but vastly overpaid third parties who it seems, can be blamed but not held accountable.
Meanwhile nothing actually gets done that's worth a damn, but there's a lot of money sunk into looking like it's getting done, which is all that matters in our target, hype and spin-obsessed political and business cultures. With the a*se-cover the main point of any initiative.
The tragic part is... even what they try and look like they are doing is so woeful. But at least the derriere protection systems always seem golden.
Will one single person, or committee (I presume this numpty effort was briefed and approved by some worthy set of individuals on fat salaries) responsible for this farce pay any price? Our reputation as... well... good at anything really, from organising a p*ss-up to designing world-class creative ideas, is already well and truly shot.
Pathetic.
Telegraph - 'Green' Olympics are a joke
And now they have produced a logo to match the rest of it.
Over priced. Over hyped. Over budget. Over here.
And nothing like what they are trying to bully us into accepting they say it is.
I'd laugh with you, but my face is still in a rictus of horror.
Over and out.
BBC - What it could have been. Sigh.
Creative Match
Indy - No-go logos: The story of unpopular branding
Times - Olympic logo firm chosen ‘blind'
UPDATED - BBC - 2012 Olympics budget 'on track' - Just in a different ballpark?
Showing posts with label R+R. Show all posts
Showing posts with label R+R. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2007
Friday, September 14, 2007
Meanwhile, back in the local industrial estate
An interesting arctile on enviro regs and SME engaement - A long way to go - that prompted me to write.
With some glorious exceptions, I think that if most small businesses are thinking about their impact on the environment, it’s currently mainly because of the law.
And that’s a pity, because environmental good practices, especially where they create a relationship with the consumer, should be viewed much more as an opportunity than a problem to deal with it.
But as the fine is both first and fierce in this regard, it’s not surprising this is the case... nor very fair. One problem is communications, and the other the mindset behind them. It’s amazing the guff that I get that seems to presume I have a [Unameit] director on staff, whose entire day is spent staying on top of all the regs that are out here.
I once went to a NetRegs presentation and found myself next to a Brummie chippie owner. He was colourful as he was concise. ‘What do they mean get my *****ing IT head on this... I”M our *****ing head of IT. On my ****ing Amstrad! There was also, beyond him negotiating a labyrinthine entity designed for technocrats by technocrats, the small matter of trust. He didn’t feel they were there to help him with how to get rid of several hundred gallons of oil, and was therefore not going to give them any chance at fining him for not disposing of it properly.
Ignorance is, temporarily, bliss?
And while I just love research without access to the full methodology, it’s great to note that nearly half of SMEs are starting to improve their green credentials, usually by recycling. I guess it’s all in how you define ‘improve’.
As to the claim that SME’s can’t afford to do this purely as a marketing exercise, beyond savings, how about thinking harder how to make green marketing pay?
There are some examples on Junkk.com – try here - though these are more aimed at brands. More relevantly, let me relate one at a more local, small sME level. On the site is an idea for using bike inner tubes as door draft excluding curtains. Some folk liked that. So I popped into the local bike shop and asked if he had any. Turns out he has a bucket a week... which the council charges to turn away! What about creating a relationship such that such reusable waste can be provide for those who can use it...FOC? At minimum great goodwill. At most, they’re in the shop where you sell stuff...
It’s then down to communication. That is of course an art as well as a science. I’m just not so sure most involved in environmental issues have quite what it takes in this regard though.
Great that NetRegs wants to try and fill the knowledge gap by offering SMEs an online tool that will compile a free environmental policy for them. I just hope that those who are not in the business of such things daily will be able to engage with it all.
With some glorious exceptions, I think that if most small businesses are thinking about their impact on the environment, it’s currently mainly because of the law.
And that’s a pity, because environmental good practices, especially where they create a relationship with the consumer, should be viewed much more as an opportunity than a problem to deal with it.
But as the fine is both first and fierce in this regard, it’s not surprising this is the case... nor very fair. One problem is communications, and the other the mindset behind them. It’s amazing the guff that I get that seems to presume I have a [Unameit] director on staff, whose entire day is spent staying on top of all the regs that are out here.
I once went to a NetRegs presentation and found myself next to a Brummie chippie owner. He was colourful as he was concise. ‘What do they mean get my *****ing IT head on this... I”M our *****ing head of IT. On my ****ing Amstrad! There was also, beyond him negotiating a labyrinthine entity designed for technocrats by technocrats, the small matter of trust. He didn’t feel they were there to help him with how to get rid of several hundred gallons of oil, and was therefore not going to give them any chance at fining him for not disposing of it properly.
Ignorance is, temporarily, bliss?
And while I just love research without access to the full methodology, it’s great to note that nearly half of SMEs are starting to improve their green credentials, usually by recycling. I guess it’s all in how you define ‘improve’.
As to the claim that SME’s can’t afford to do this purely as a marketing exercise, beyond savings, how about thinking harder how to make green marketing pay?
There are some examples on Junkk.com – try here - though these are more aimed at brands. More relevantly, let me relate one at a more local, small sME level. On the site is an idea for using bike inner tubes as door draft excluding curtains. Some folk liked that. So I popped into the local bike shop and asked if he had any. Turns out he has a bucket a week... which the council charges to turn away! What about creating a relationship such that such reusable waste can be provide for those who can use it...FOC? At minimum great goodwill. At most, they’re in the shop where you sell stuff...
It’s then down to communication. That is of course an art as well as a science. I’m just not so sure most involved in environmental issues have quite what it takes in this regard though.
Great that NetRegs wants to try and fill the knowledge gap by offering SMEs an online tool that will compile a free environmental policy for them. I just hope that those who are not in the business of such things daily will be able to engage with it all.
Trust me. I'm a green ad man.
Do green and ethical claims need to be monitored? You know I like such questions.
Looking first at the headline, my immediate thought was 'isn't every claim monitored?'. I know the ASA site is alive with greenwash complaints, mostly upheld, which may explain the consumer reaction. Fool me once, shame on me... etc.
To the question in the body... er... which logo?
I made a joke a while ago that may yet turn out to be true, that soon my Smartie pack will have a CDR attached with all it is deemed I must know to 'assist' my purchase choice and disposal obligations contained therein. With of course, a CDR on that to 'assist' with its disposal in turn.
I believe we have already two health systems in place, no? And these are embraced - either legislatively or voluntarily - by some of the manufacturers and retailers but not all. In the wings we have Carbon Footprints and or food miles. Morrisons has already launched theirs (noted here, I believe), while WRAP is talking up another. And now this.
Am I going to have a clue what this is all about as I walk the aisles or watch an 8pt para scroll along the base of an ad? So... will it give advertisers credence? I don't think it will, no.
Nice use of funds though.
I also note that this initiative has been awarded an UnLtd grant. These guys are the ones who did not deem Junkk.com or RE:tie to have any social contribution or commercial application.
Brand Republic - Public distrustful of green claims in advertising
I'll repeat a bit from my answer to your other post question elsewhere.
How does this scheme fit into all the above? Extra, or instead of? And while costs need to be covered, there has to be an immediate concern on anything that is paid for by those it endorses, surely? No reason why I should I guess, but no word I can recall in the various trades of the industries involved either. Just how new is this? And how extensive?
The principle is fine, but I am unclear how it fits into the current industry and legislative frameworks already in place.
Looking first at the headline, my immediate thought was 'isn't every claim monitored?'. I know the ASA site is alive with greenwash complaints, mostly upheld, which may explain the consumer reaction. Fool me once, shame on me... etc.
To the question in the body... er... which logo?
I made a joke a while ago that may yet turn out to be true, that soon my Smartie pack will have a CDR attached with all it is deemed I must know to 'assist' my purchase choice and disposal obligations contained therein. With of course, a CDR on that to 'assist' with its disposal in turn.
I believe we have already two health systems in place, no? And these are embraced - either legislatively or voluntarily - by some of the manufacturers and retailers but not all. In the wings we have Carbon Footprints and or food miles. Morrisons has already launched theirs (noted here, I believe), while WRAP is talking up another. And now this.
Am I going to have a clue what this is all about as I walk the aisles or watch an 8pt para scroll along the base of an ad? So... will it give advertisers credence? I don't think it will, no.
Nice use of funds though.
I also note that this initiative has been awarded an UnLtd grant. These guys are the ones who did not deem Junkk.com or RE:tie to have any social contribution or commercial application.
Brand Republic - Public distrustful of green claims in advertising
I'll repeat a bit from my answer to your other post question elsewhere.
How does this scheme fit into all the above? Extra, or instead of? And while costs need to be covered, there has to be an immediate concern on anything that is paid for by those it endorses, surely? No reason why I should I guess, but no word I can recall in the various trades of the industries involved either. Just how new is this? And how extensive?
The principle is fine, but I am unclear how it fits into the current industry and legislative frameworks already in place.
Seeing the light
Illuminating ideas
And a chance for a plug:
Valuable post and comments.
I'm staring at a row of GU10 halogens and deciding what's best to get the light I need for my work vs. the costs vs. the enviROI.
The low energy bayonet/screw fitting elsewhere were a no-brainer.
However, in the Grush (green rush), one factor has arisen that I think is worthy of more attention: reliability.
There are some I have been suckered into buying that have lasted but a few months. The key is low-energy, long-life. But not only that, write the date of installation on the base and keep the receipts. Simple maths usually means the shop will refund you for a dud. And if enough of us do it, they will only stock the goodies.
And a chance for a plug:
Valuable post and comments.
I'm staring at a row of GU10 halogens and deciding what's best to get the light I need for my work vs. the costs vs. the enviROI.
The low energy bayonet/screw fitting elsewhere were a no-brainer.
However, in the Grush (green rush), one factor has arisen that I think is worthy of more attention: reliability.
There are some I have been suckered into buying that have lasted but a few months. The key is low-energy, long-life. But not only that, write the date of installation on the base and keep the receipts. Simple maths usually means the shop will refund you for a dud. And if enough of us do it, they will only stock the goodies.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Money=?
Google Founders' Ultimate Perk: A NASA Runway
I think I'm boring most when I point out that it's hard to have a ton of cash and not spend it on stuff like toys and going places (or how all media, no matter how eco-sensitive, can resist reporting such excess in the awed terms accorded celeb lifestyles). I guess they just managed a neat combo.
Here's hoping we don't end up being lectured on going green from this quarter too overtly.
But I'm sure they offset like billy-o.
Guardian - Is black the new green? - Gotta love 'em though. Nice reply. IT feedback also noted.
I think I'm boring most when I point out that it's hard to have a ton of cash and not spend it on stuff like toys and going places (or how all media, no matter how eco-sensitive, can resist reporting such excess in the awed terms accorded celeb lifestyles). I guess they just managed a neat combo.
Here's hoping we don't end up being lectured on going green from this quarter too overtly.
But I'm sure they offset like billy-o.
Guardian - Is black the new green? - Gotta love 'em though. Nice reply. IT feedback also noted.
Big Mac
I referred to it before but, as is the way, almost forgot due to events, dear boys and guys... events. The Conservative report is now out, and warrants another outing, starting here: Tory report backs increased taxes on flights and cars
Interestingly, listening to the Jeremy Vine show 'tother day, I would say the BBC is seemingly in pendulum mode balance wise, because this didn't half cop it!
I'm sure there'll be more. And I just hope I can find the time to read it all (but at 549 pages that may not happen - which may be a metaphor for the disconnect between those telling us stuff and us listening/doing) and add my t'pennyworth without relying on others, and their biases, to creep in first.
To kick off: A quality report
I'd love to read it (ta, Guardian) to form my own view, but at 549 pages that may not happen.
Which, in a climate where there is a seeming disconnect between those who are telling us what to do, and what 'we' actually pay attention to and act upon, may explain some things.
I guess I'll do what I always do and just let the various 'wings' slug it out and bumble along in my own sweet way if it makes sense, seems fair and has a decent enviROI.
Guardian - MPs: government should help citizens 'do their bit' on climate change - Well, D'uh. As opposed to what?
Interestingly, listening to the Jeremy Vine show 'tother day, I would say the BBC is seemingly in pendulum mode balance wise, because this didn't half cop it!
I'm sure there'll be more. And I just hope I can find the time to read it all (but at 549 pages that may not happen - which may be a metaphor for the disconnect between those telling us stuff and us listening/doing) and add my t'pennyworth without relying on others, and their biases, to creep in first.
To kick off: A quality report
I'd love to read it (ta, Guardian) to form my own view, but at 549 pages that may not happen.
Which, in a climate where there is a seeming disconnect between those who are telling us what to do, and what 'we' actually pay attention to and act upon, may explain some things.
I guess I'll do what I always do and just let the various 'wings' slug it out and bumble along in my own sweet way if it makes sense, seems fair and has a decent enviROI.
Guardian - MPs: government should help citizens 'do their bit' on climate change - Well, D'uh. As opposed to what?
Well, he asked... in the Guardian
Can this really save the planet? Is the question posed, surrounding by more ads with the word green than you could shake a self-powered torch at.
And, for fun (if not irony), right next to this: Aston Martin tops cool brands list (Junkk.com oddly, not yet there).
I have of course been banging on about big vs. small picture for a while. But as he sets them out initially it's in a different area. All the small tips cited are 'why nots?', easy to effect and usually save money. The ones that get me going are diversions, and often divisive ones, such as bottled water witch hunts, which over-shadow campaigns (are they any?) to coordinate 'ground to grounded' life cycle systems that involve all in the waste chain and don't just throw a bunch of targets and jargon at the poor consumer to sort out. Plus insulation (we'll, in all senses of the word, come back to that).
Of course if you 'take these simple steps today... they really do "make a difference". Do 'em!
Only later do we get to easier agreement. With some facts I can only assume are correct. There will be others incoming as I write, I'm sure.
A long time ago in a publication I asked those who know (I think it was either a plastics or recycling trade mag), just how much 'plastic', the 100-300 (estimates vary) carriers 'we' use (and 'I' reuse; a fact often not factored in by those who still purchase bin liners) represents? Sadly, to date, no answer. I just wondered if it would equate to the number of Fairy Liquid bottles not reused at the BBC, insert sleeves/DVDs at the Indy or water fountain bottles at the LibDem HQ... each week.
I have to disagree on the standby thing. While I rail against those who get over eco-puritan about where their definitions of 'what's necessary' stops (usually at what they deem is required for a comfy, green-glow lifestyle), these things simply are not. And the figures I have seen suggest that they gobble a lot that is pure waste. So... bad call.
And these things are cumulative y'know. So I am very happy, both financially and economically, with my Ecokettle.
Which is a pity, because it all set a tone that coloured what I do agree with way down the piece: that there is any equivalence between these lifestyle preferences and the serious decisions that really reduce emissions - stopping flying, living close to work and living in a well-insulated house. (I critique as I read, so OK it's here... at last. No apologies for leaving mine up there.
And I have to agree , a tad, about the wallpaper. The latest blonde celeb to get wheeled out to promote her film/TV/book on the back of some green effort she was the face of, managed recycling, having a shower and... er... that was it. Meanwhile, she was off to Bali for a shoot next week.
Which brings one to the role of media in all this, as discussed on these posts many times before. They really can't have both, and both ways. Either stick with the line on climate or not, but don't try the first whilst promoting celebrity and consumer excess at every turn via editorial and ads. Or getting snitty because some green commentators (if I may make so bold as to include myself) and, more importantly, most public (and, eventually, the BBC), don't see such as Live Earth and/or Planet Relief as the best way forward.
But as one more than critical of blowing money that could be better spent elsewhere than on quango board members' bonus-boosting comms budgets, I am more than interested (assuming it's true - so pending attribution/confirmation) that 'making the solutions easy is no guarantee that anyone will carry them out.' And that, ' The government spent £22m on the Do Your Bit campaign and has subsequently admitted that it produced no measurable change in personal behaviour.' How much so far on telling us to recycle, for instance? And what does ActOnCo2 do exactly for the money? And what was the ROI, much less the enviROI of these efforts?
Especially if, with such as recycling, Mori (assuming... yada.. I need an acronym for these points. Subject To Unequivocal Follow-Up Proof - STUFUP) 'concluded that it was becoming an act of "totem behaviour" and that "individuals use recycling as a means of discharging their responsibility to undertake wider changes in lifestyle".
And I really can't fault this: 'Governments and businesses are, if anything, even more prone to tokenistic behaviour than individuals. Encouraging small voluntary actions by the public, customers or staff looks good and is much safer than passing restrictive legislation or rethinking your entire business model.'
So, in conclusion...
... what we need is a sense of proportion. No question.
We also need to rethink the way we talk about climate change. Ditto. Plus those who have taken it upon themselves to be considered leaders of the charge, whilst often charging (or earning) so lucratively in the process, as I can't say the job most are doing amounts to much that helps my kids' futures.
And let's be clear that voluntary action will never be enough - we will need radical political, economic and social change. I hear you, brother!
So let's start by doing away with that wretched phrase "you can save the planet". Well, it doesn't bother me, but I usually bolt 'and save money, too' on the end, at least with Junkk.com (I popped in a hyperlink and forget that the full point makes a big difference. D'Oh!) . Seems to work.
But I will add one more, teensie bit: 'And your positive suggestions would be...?" They may be around, but here would be a good place to share too.
Read Bibi van der Zee's response to this article: What's wrong with turning lights off?
Again interesting, but again the order of priority had me thrown. At least Fiesta family gets a mention. And again the notion that 'awareness' is worth it if it translates into action, but with little regard that some efforts may actually have a reverse effect. As has, say , the city-centric but nationwide anti 4x4 campaigns out in the country.
And, for fun (if not irony), right next to this: Aston Martin tops cool brands list (Junkk.com oddly, not yet there).
I have of course been banging on about big vs. small picture for a while. But as he sets them out initially it's in a different area. All the small tips cited are 'why nots?', easy to effect and usually save money. The ones that get me going are diversions, and often divisive ones, such as bottled water witch hunts, which over-shadow campaigns (are they any?) to coordinate 'ground to grounded' life cycle systems that involve all in the waste chain and don't just throw a bunch of targets and jargon at the poor consumer to sort out. Plus insulation (we'll, in all senses of the word, come back to that).
Of course if you 'take these simple steps today... they really do "make a difference". Do 'em!
Only later do we get to easier agreement. With some facts I can only assume are correct. There will be others incoming as I write, I'm sure.
A long time ago in a publication I asked those who know (I think it was either a plastics or recycling trade mag), just how much 'plastic', the 100-300 (estimates vary) carriers 'we' use (and 'I' reuse; a fact often not factored in by those who still purchase bin liners) represents? Sadly, to date, no answer. I just wondered if it would equate to the number of Fairy Liquid bottles not reused at the BBC, insert sleeves/DVDs at the Indy or water fountain bottles at the LibDem HQ... each week.
I have to disagree on the standby thing. While I rail against those who get over eco-puritan about where their definitions of 'what's necessary' stops (usually at what they deem is required for a comfy, green-glow lifestyle), these things simply are not. And the figures I have seen suggest that they gobble a lot that is pure waste. So... bad call.
And these things are cumulative y'know. So I am very happy, both financially and economically, with my Ecokettle.
Which is a pity, because it all set a tone that coloured what I do agree with way down the piece: that there is any equivalence between these lifestyle preferences and the serious decisions that really reduce emissions - stopping flying, living close to work and living in a well-insulated house. (I critique as I read, so OK it's here... at last. No apologies for leaving mine up there.
And I have to agree , a tad, about the wallpaper. The latest blonde celeb to get wheeled out to promote her film/TV/book on the back of some green effort she was the face of, managed recycling, having a shower and... er... that was it. Meanwhile, she was off to Bali for a shoot next week.
Which brings one to the role of media in all this, as discussed on these posts many times before. They really can't have both, and both ways. Either stick with the line on climate or not, but don't try the first whilst promoting celebrity and consumer excess at every turn via editorial and ads. Or getting snitty because some green commentators (if I may make so bold as to include myself) and, more importantly, most public (and, eventually, the BBC), don't see such as Live Earth and/or Planet Relief as the best way forward.
But as one more than critical of blowing money that could be better spent elsewhere than on quango board members' bonus-boosting comms budgets, I am more than interested (assuming it's true - so pending attribution/confirmation) that 'making the solutions easy is no guarantee that anyone will carry them out.' And that, ' The government spent £22m on the Do Your Bit campaign and has subsequently admitted that it produced no measurable change in personal behaviour.' How much so far on telling us to recycle, for instance? And what does ActOnCo2 do exactly for the money? And what was the ROI, much less the enviROI of these efforts?
Especially if, with such as recycling, Mori (assuming... yada.. I need an acronym for these points. Subject To Unequivocal Follow-Up Proof - STUFUP) 'concluded that it was becoming an act of "totem behaviour" and that "individuals use recycling as a means of discharging their responsibility to undertake wider changes in lifestyle".
And I really can't fault this: 'Governments and businesses are, if anything, even more prone to tokenistic behaviour than individuals. Encouraging small voluntary actions by the public, customers or staff looks good and is much safer than passing restrictive legislation or rethinking your entire business model.'
So, in conclusion...
... what we need is a sense of proportion. No question.
We also need to rethink the way we talk about climate change. Ditto. Plus those who have taken it upon themselves to be considered leaders of the charge, whilst often charging (or earning) so lucratively in the process, as I can't say the job most are doing amounts to much that helps my kids' futures.
And let's be clear that voluntary action will never be enough - we will need radical political, economic and social change. I hear you, brother!
So let's start by doing away with that wretched phrase "you can save the planet". Well, it doesn't bother me, but I usually bolt 'and save money, too' on the end, at least with Junkk.com (I popped in a hyperlink and forget that the full point makes a big difference. D'Oh!) . Seems to work.
But I will add one more, teensie bit: 'And your positive suggestions would be...?" They may be around, but here would be a good place to share too.
Read Bibi van der Zee's response to this article: What's wrong with turning lights off?
Again interesting, but again the order of priority had me thrown. At least Fiesta family gets a mention. And again the notion that 'awareness' is worth it if it translates into action, but with little regard that some efforts may actually have a reverse effect. As has, say , the city-centric but nationwide anti 4x4 campaigns out in the country.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Commy time once more
I almost skipped over this - NOWADAYS, IT SEEMS, YOU ARE WHAT YOU DON'T EAT. But then, I didn't.
Hardly the most representative sample, but for my discussions with others on motivating eco-friendly notions of lifestyle reductions, at the very least in terms of waste, still a nifty selection of thoughts.
I have been banging on for a while that, if everyone is so cash rich because they are so time poor, getting 'em to consume less, move less far... and slower... is going to be quite a task. No point having all that money if you can't blow it, hmnn?
Did someone mention Marx?
Hardly the most representative sample, but for my discussions with others on motivating eco-friendly notions of lifestyle reductions, at the very least in terms of waste, still a nifty selection of thoughts.
I have been banging on for a while that, if everyone is so cash rich because they are so time poor, getting 'em to consume less, move less far... and slower... is going to be quite a task. No point having all that money if you can't blow it, hmnn?
Did someone mention Marx?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Celeb pity
I thought this - Celebrity Eco-Hypocritique - was going to be another media industry sulk about how their green parties are being spoiled by grumpy old commoners not being supportive enough of whatever jolly they deem we need.
But it is actually more thoughtful than that.
And, as always, some good comments pro and con to follow.
For some reason, I was moved to pitch in:
An interesting analysis, with equally interesting posts in response.
There is a slight sense of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't..' that makes it hard not to sympathise with the motives and probable frustrations of a passionate, committed 'activist' celeb.
I really felt sorry that someone such as Bono was copping so much flak because of who he was and what he earned, whilst being a man with a view almost being required to shut up and sing.
But then ego comes into play. What if by what they are doing they are not serving the greater enviROI or indeed the most effective message? They may well be genuine and have opinions and want to speak out or even do, but there are, sorry guys, bigger factors than what they want, and especially if that somehow needs to translate into column inches or airtime.
Sadly the good of intention will get tarred by the less so, especially when the PR machine/media support systems see opportunity. I have lost count of the number of slots where some blonde or buff gets wheeled on to give us 10 seconds of cause before we move on to 'so how's the new movie?'.
We are in an era when the messenger is more important than the message, so that messenger has to be pretty squeaky clean and on message. As pointed out, with the best will in the world that's hard to do when you are making squillions and few outlets exist to spent it on are that environmentally sound. Again the 'machine' has demands. Walking to the shops, buying domestic and holidaying in the back yard are hardly the stuff of glamour magazine front pages. There's the dilemma. If that's the job, then fine, but don't ask those who not enjoying such a lifestyle not to note that and only empathise with selected aspects of what is being shared by way of example.
Bob Geldof had a rather colourful view on how much more 'awareness of the problem' that we all needed when Live Earth was in the news. I would value an objective analysis of how it did indeed serve the actual aims. Were the collective greenhouse emissions of all involved (protagonists and audience) reduced as a consequence? Was the awareness raised (of?) positively and, more importantly, call to actions embraced?
Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK it was not the greatest example of motivation and publicity that one could have hoped for. Especially for any plugging the causes of green.
Hence the next effort in this mould, Planet Relief, as mooted by the BBC, didn't get off the ground, to the surprise of many in the media world just waiting for all the opportunities they would have had to feed off it. And some, with spectacular sour grapes, took to blaming all but their own inability to read the public mood for its downfall.
There was even an attempt to portray this as a victory for politically-motivated, climate denier-funded campaigning. Not so. But there were many from very committed environmental standpoints who simply didn't feel that such things were very effective, and may even set the cause back. Frankly the most damage I see to the whole cause of promoting a 'greener' lifestyle are those unelected, self-appointed spokespersons who for too long have enjoyed an un-earned position to tell 'us' what's good for us and, worse, brook no critique whatsoever. These days any doubts on the efficacy of some green scheme that may not be all it is claimed, especially when vindicated, are usually met with accusations in the same way the cry of '-ist' was thrown around in earlier times.
Interestingly, the BBC has cited the main reason for pulling Planet Relief was fact that their audience - the nation's Joe & Jill Average - had fed back that rather than another green elite party they'd really prefer balanced information on what's going on, and ways to cope within already pressurised calls on time and budget.
Why does a celeb NEED a private jet? They are cash rich and time poor. But if that's necessary to manage the demands of their chosen lifestyle, when it comes to how that example plays out then maybe they need to reassess, with their managers, their personal values of what is 'enough'. Make a few less movies, go on fewer tours... and don't earn as many millions as last year. Stay at home more. Travel slower. Buy better stuff and not only the latest and glitziest just because you can.
You'll set a better example and maybe even enjoy life more. And rather than issuing press release about it via your people, let it be simply found out about and appreciated by getting 'out there' organically rather than stuffing it down other folk's throats as part of a rounded CV.
Living a more eco lifestyle is, for now, a mostly more expensive choice and/or in complement a less income-acquisitive one. Many don't have the luxury of limitless funds to match up to what some can afford to do with chump change. Do it, fine. Let it be shared, well, ok. Preach from a shaky pedestal... fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
A guy took exception, and unfortunately in a rather selective manner that also embraced the 'brook no criticism' stance that I find very tiresome. I had to reply:
Who is tearing who down? This seems a rather grotesque - and all too common - knee-jerk dismissal to the notion of simply asking any questions on the efficacy of certain aspects of promoting environmental good practice. Plus having an opinion.
As it happens, I think that Leo seems to be one of the more substantial 'celebrities' trying to make their mark under the difficult, but realistic spotlight that has been acknowledged.
Then again, to those who don't fly so much, and usually if we do once a year in cattle class, taking 'A' trip to Europe by commercial air came across as a tad... unfortunate as a comeback. Though the question, in the spirit of things at the time, was not very nice. But that... is the reality of the system. So understand it to play it to best advantage.
I guess I am keen on making a change, but I do wonder who else with green intentions is simultaneously trying to 'destroy' whose.... own leaders? I think I missed that election.
As to real points, I did sit in a [demographically sensitive location definition deleted] with 20 of my [demographically sensitive group definition deleted] chums who tolerate what I bang on about all the time. The result was that the concert set back my efforts. They didn't buy it and thought the way it was set up was silly. It seemed to give 'em a good excuse to revert to more profligate ways as 'those that are telling [them] how to behave' seemed to be doing so from a 'not us, of course, that wouldn't be practical to do our jobs' camp'. Some business persons not in the ents/media world do need to travel to stay employed, too. So who is left? It's a tough sell to some poor family looking at a guilt-tripped (there's an idea for a travel agent) 2 weeks a year in the sun to be fed 'Here's XX in her designer T an entourage at such and such a camp in 'Exotic place 101', especially when combo'd with their latest kid-buying sleepover in a 5* resort a world away down the road.
You may have a different experience. That was mine and it influenced my view on this as a mechanism of change.
As to only supporting uncritically those who do pollute and depend on us to use them to do so, I'm afraid I will need to remain in favour of phased reduction.
I can recommend Leo Hickman's book, Final Call, which does a good job of looking at the issues surrounding 'our' need and/or desire to travel, but also as quickly as possible. More efficient engines are indeed a worthy instrument of mitigation and delay, and I am sure will allow more of a movement to commercial craft that can offer the necessary facilities to lure some from 'going private'.
But it is actually more thoughtful than that.
And, as always, some good comments pro and con to follow.
For some reason, I was moved to pitch in:
An interesting analysis, with equally interesting posts in response.
There is a slight sense of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't..' that makes it hard not to sympathise with the motives and probable frustrations of a passionate, committed 'activist' celeb.
I really felt sorry that someone such as Bono was copping so much flak because of who he was and what he earned, whilst being a man with a view almost being required to shut up and sing.
But then ego comes into play. What if by what they are doing they are not serving the greater enviROI or indeed the most effective message? They may well be genuine and have opinions and want to speak out or even do, but there are, sorry guys, bigger factors than what they want, and especially if that somehow needs to translate into column inches or airtime.
Sadly the good of intention will get tarred by the less so, especially when the PR machine/media support systems see opportunity. I have lost count of the number of slots where some blonde or buff gets wheeled on to give us 10 seconds of cause before we move on to 'so how's the new movie?'.
We are in an era when the messenger is more important than the message, so that messenger has to be pretty squeaky clean and on message. As pointed out, with the best will in the world that's hard to do when you are making squillions and few outlets exist to spent it on are that environmentally sound. Again the 'machine' has demands. Walking to the shops, buying domestic and holidaying in the back yard are hardly the stuff of glamour magazine front pages. There's the dilemma. If that's the job, then fine, but don't ask those who not enjoying such a lifestyle not to note that and only empathise with selected aspects of what is being shared by way of example.
Bob Geldof had a rather colourful view on how much more 'awareness of the problem' that we all needed when Live Earth was in the news. I would value an objective analysis of how it did indeed serve the actual aims. Were the collective greenhouse emissions of all involved (protagonists and audience) reduced as a consequence? Was the awareness raised (of?) positively and, more importantly, call to actions embraced?
Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK it was not the greatest example of motivation and publicity that one could have hoped for. Especially for any plugging the causes of green.
Hence the next effort in this mould, Planet Relief, as mooted by the BBC, didn't get off the ground, to the surprise of many in the media world just waiting for all the opportunities they would have had to feed off it. And some, with spectacular sour grapes, took to blaming all but their own inability to read the public mood for its downfall.
There was even an attempt to portray this as a victory for politically-motivated, climate denier-funded campaigning. Not so. But there were many from very committed environmental standpoints who simply didn't feel that such things were very effective, and may even set the cause back. Frankly the most damage I see to the whole cause of promoting a 'greener' lifestyle are those unelected, self-appointed spokespersons who for too long have enjoyed an un-earned position to tell 'us' what's good for us and, worse, brook no critique whatsoever. These days any doubts on the efficacy of some green scheme that may not be all it is claimed, especially when vindicated, are usually met with accusations in the same way the cry of '-ist' was thrown around in earlier times.
Interestingly, the BBC has cited the main reason for pulling Planet Relief was fact that their audience - the nation's Joe & Jill Average - had fed back that rather than another green elite party they'd really prefer balanced information on what's going on, and ways to cope within already pressurised calls on time and budget.
Why does a celeb NEED a private jet? They are cash rich and time poor. But if that's necessary to manage the demands of their chosen lifestyle, when it comes to how that example plays out then maybe they need to reassess, with their managers, their personal values of what is 'enough'. Make a few less movies, go on fewer tours... and don't earn as many millions as last year. Stay at home more. Travel slower. Buy better stuff and not only the latest and glitziest just because you can.
You'll set a better example and maybe even enjoy life more. And rather than issuing press release about it via your people, let it be simply found out about and appreciated by getting 'out there' organically rather than stuffing it down other folk's throats as part of a rounded CV.
Living a more eco lifestyle is, for now, a mostly more expensive choice and/or in complement a less income-acquisitive one. Many don't have the luxury of limitless funds to match up to what some can afford to do with chump change. Do it, fine. Let it be shared, well, ok. Preach from a shaky pedestal... fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
A guy took exception, and unfortunately in a rather selective manner that also embraced the 'brook no criticism' stance that I find very tiresome. I had to reply:
Who is tearing who down? This seems a rather grotesque - and all too common - knee-jerk dismissal to the notion of simply asking any questions on the efficacy of certain aspects of promoting environmental good practice. Plus having an opinion.
As it happens, I think that Leo seems to be one of the more substantial 'celebrities' trying to make their mark under the difficult, but realistic spotlight that has been acknowledged.
Then again, to those who don't fly so much, and usually if we do once a year in cattle class, taking 'A' trip to Europe by commercial air came across as a tad... unfortunate as a comeback. Though the question, in the spirit of things at the time, was not very nice. But that... is the reality of the system. So understand it to play it to best advantage.
I guess I am keen on making a change, but I do wonder who else with green intentions is simultaneously trying to 'destroy' whose.... own leaders? I think I missed that election.
As to real points, I did sit in a [demographically sensitive location definition deleted] with 20 of my [demographically sensitive group definition deleted] chums who tolerate what I bang on about all the time. The result was that the concert set back my efforts. They didn't buy it and thought the way it was set up was silly. It seemed to give 'em a good excuse to revert to more profligate ways as 'those that are telling [them] how to behave' seemed to be doing so from a 'not us, of course, that wouldn't be practical to do our jobs' camp'. Some business persons not in the ents/media world do need to travel to stay employed, too. So who is left? It's a tough sell to some poor family looking at a guilt-tripped (there's an idea for a travel agent) 2 weeks a year in the sun to be fed 'Here's XX in her designer T an entourage at such and such a camp in 'Exotic place 101', especially when combo'd with their latest kid-buying sleepover in a 5* resort a world away down the road.
You may have a different experience. That was mine and it influenced my view on this as a mechanism of change.
As to only supporting uncritically those who do pollute and depend on us to use them to do so, I'm afraid I will need to remain in favour of phased reduction.
I can recommend Leo Hickman's book, Final Call, which does a good job of looking at the issues surrounding 'our' need and/or desire to travel, but also as quickly as possible. More efficient engines are indeed a worthy instrument of mitigation and delay, and I am sure will allow more of a movement to commercial craft that can offer the necessary facilities to lure some from 'going private'.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
What a waste?
This - Poor communication plagues waste industry - from Recycling and Waste World looks a promising start to helping the public.... if it gets heeded.
It's good to read some in the waste management industry feel the issue of communications with the consumer needs addressing, but I'd suggest that shouldering it as indicated is bearing too much of the burden alone.
Every aspect of waste, from the moment it gets dug out the ground as raw materials to the moment it is returned to it as landfill (or not) at point of disposal, needs to be properly coordinated at national level. Beyond simple improvements in enviROI, only then can the consumer be properly expect to play their - highly necessary - part.
There surely have to be coherent, complementary, KISS explanations at point of sale (and associated advertising) agreed and shared by all involved in the chain that leads to purchase and beyond - government, LA, quangos, manufacturers, retailers - as well as those tasked to deal with it all.
The current system(s) regarding healthy food show how different information may tick some boxes but not best serve the optimum desired result. Once we have food miles and/or carbon footprints in the several competing ways already embraced and/or mooted, plus a litter of marketing logos (Future Friendly looking like the latest player), I half expect to have a CDR attached to my Smarties just to explain all it’s deemed necessary I know!
And while online resources can do a lot, and recognizing the first quoted case is more industry based, simply pointing at a website cannot be the solution. Especially as one holds a bottle in one’s hand over the bin. So Hampshire CC is to be commended and I look forward to seeing how they address this issue.
Currently, as I look at a pack with at least three types of plastic on it, and up a slot on the skip that says such as 'HDPE 1 only' on it, I remain unsure as to what to do for the best and don't feel much has been made easy to help me... to help.
So, for now, I'll just find a reuse for it.
It's good to read some in the waste management industry feel the issue of communications with the consumer needs addressing, but I'd suggest that shouldering it as indicated is bearing too much of the burden alone.
Every aspect of waste, from the moment it gets dug out the ground as raw materials to the moment it is returned to it as landfill (or not) at point of disposal, needs to be properly coordinated at national level. Beyond simple improvements in enviROI, only then can the consumer be properly expect to play their - highly necessary - part.
There surely have to be coherent, complementary, KISS explanations at point of sale (and associated advertising) agreed and shared by all involved in the chain that leads to purchase and beyond - government, LA, quangos, manufacturers, retailers - as well as those tasked to deal with it all.
The current system(s) regarding healthy food show how different information may tick some boxes but not best serve the optimum desired result. Once we have food miles and/or carbon footprints in the several competing ways already embraced and/or mooted, plus a litter of marketing logos (Future Friendly looking like the latest player), I half expect to have a CDR attached to my Smarties just to explain all it’s deemed necessary I know!
And while online resources can do a lot, and recognizing the first quoted case is more industry based, simply pointing at a website cannot be the solution. Especially as one holds a bottle in one’s hand over the bin. So Hampshire CC is to be commended and I look forward to seeing how they address this issue.
Currently, as I look at a pack with at least three types of plastic on it, and up a slot on the skip that says such as 'HDPE 1 only' on it, I remain unsure as to what to do for the best and don't feel much has been made easy to help me... to help.
So, for now, I'll just find a reuse for it.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Sleeping Partners?
Or strange bedfellows? Ok, enough of the bed metaphors. Well, one more. I don't really care who hooks up with whom and will sleep easier so long as the intent is genuine and the results tangible.
Much has been made of Johan Eliasch's move (note: I'm pretty sure they mean 'donate' and not denote in the write-up) from Tory to Labour camp, and as is they way with the navel-gazing, feral beasties of the Westminster Village the environmental issues have taken second billing to the 'defection'.
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay), I am hopeful.
BBC - Ex-Tory donor to be Brown adviser
BBC - A welcome hand - to which i added this above, with a couple of additions:
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear (rather obvious point about talking in opposition vs. doing in government taken) then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out. The whole jet/offset thing is a pity, as the concept of buying off excess shouldn't be allowed to fly, but I guess I can live with it so long as Mr. Eliasch doesn't end up on air at every stage telling us what to do even though 'it would not be, like, you know, practical for him not to'.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay) after the Newsnight piece, I am hopeful.
Much has been made of Johan Eliasch's move (note: I'm pretty sure they mean 'donate' and not denote in the write-up) from Tory to Labour camp, and as is they way with the navel-gazing, feral beasties of the Westminster Village the environmental issues have taken second billing to the 'defection'.
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay), I am hopeful.
BBC - Ex-Tory donor to be Brown adviser
BBC - A welcome hand - to which i added this above, with a couple of additions:
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear (rather obvious point about talking in opposition vs. doing in government taken) then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out. The whole jet/offset thing is a pity, as the concept of buying off excess shouldn't be allowed to fly, but I guess I can live with it so long as Mr. Eliasch doesn't end up on air at every stage telling us what to do even though 'it would not be, like, you know, practical for him not to'.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay) after the Newsnight piece, I am hopeful.
Biting both ways
I am still engaging, perhaps more than is good for my RSI, with Biased BBC. They do seem to catch some howlers worth noting. As a check and balance they can be useful in highlighting errant reporting.
However, I can also see how a small drop of ink can stain a large bowl. Hence a comment of global warming, and its reporting (or, in this case, as I felt it, not), required a reply:
I also came up with some more bon mots I like:
PPCC - Person-produced climate change
MWCC or PPPCC - man-worsened/Personal-pollution promoting climate change
A virus comes to Europe and it's all the fault of global warming.
I am still on a steep learning curve (which I suspect will soon be near vertical), so forgive my remaining unsure on certain factual aspects of this issue.
There's climate change (which I believe most accept is happening. And, probably, for the worse (definitions vary, and indeed death tolls can be skewed in historical comparisons by virtue of there being more people on the ground to cop a natural disaster. Equally perceptions, as there are A LOT MORE reporters on the ground to capture every terrible moment).
Then there's global warming. Which to me is not the best term because while most 'stuff' is getting laid at its door, and it seems a convenient if broad way to refer to an overall trend, on a local and day-to-day basis there's an awful lot that is cold and wet. So I wish it were not used so much, or as it usually is. Especially by BBC reporters, if it was used in such as the Scottish radio report (and I must confess I did not see it in the mosquito piece).
So let's move to man-made (sorry to be un-PC (Person-produced?) climate change. This seems to 'accept' that the activities of man are pretty much responsible, exclusively, for the whole deal. In astronomical and geographical terms, especially considering the forces involved, I find such an absolute unlikely. And I don't think it has yet been proven. So to use it would seem... premature.
Which brings me to my own, favoured, definition: man-worsened (Personal-pollution promoting?) climate change. This is the area where the fun seems to be, if you enjoy mutually dependent extremes such big oil funded 'deniers' and 'activists' en route to endless conferences in Bali knocking spots off each other with single statistics and lone hyperlinks.... fun.
To nail my colours to the mast, I'm still floating in the middle, erring on the more 'green' corner, if only because rationally I can't see that bazillions (and counting) of folk polluting (emissions always seems so coy) away on finite ground and into finite air space cannot but have an unhappy end point. So, speaking of points, I figure maybe it's best to consider the tipping one a tad more proactively before it's too late. In this case 'I told you so' to the do-nothing brigade will be of little comfort to me or my kids. Conversely, they may not feel being wrong to be a huge problem in the great scheme of things, so it’s a lose-lose.
But it's all very complicated made more so with, in the modern world, democratic institutions populated by those more interested in process than product, and now near paralysed by the power and extent of media (new and old) and its ability to sway the masses. There is not a statesperson amongst them and, probably, even if there were, the moment they tried to do anything radical based on sincere beliefs, the ratings whores would ensure they were hounded out before you could say 'ist', ‘inger’, ‘zi’.... or 'tomorrow's headlines'.
So we're down to information, education, and, where possible (yawning chasm in there), persuasion. And as I like winnable wars, I’m a big woos by sticking more to doing something about reducing waste and leaving the waaaaay bigger issues to braver folk. I just ask that they don’t get tempted to cut corners doing what they think is best for me as my experience is that, even if it is (which it may not be) getting caught out negates and often pushes things further back.
I have to say that in this case, having read the piece, I was more simply educated and informed about a fact of biology that by my own extrapolation is likely to attributable to climate change.
No more. No less. But the additional info is appreciated, thanks.
Equally the subsequent fact (forgive me for now having to let it remain as un attributed and unconfirmed, though it sounds convincing) from Archduke on sea levels.
However, I can also see how a small drop of ink can stain a large bowl. Hence a comment of global warming, and its reporting (or, in this case, as I felt it, not), required a reply:
I also came up with some more bon mots I like:
PPCC - Person-produced climate change
MWCC or PPPCC - man-worsened/Personal-pollution promoting climate change
A virus comes to Europe and it's all the fault of global warming.
I am still on a steep learning curve (which I suspect will soon be near vertical), so forgive my remaining unsure on certain factual aspects of this issue.
There's climate change (which I believe most accept is happening. And, probably, for the worse (definitions vary, and indeed death tolls can be skewed in historical comparisons by virtue of there being more people on the ground to cop a natural disaster. Equally perceptions, as there are A LOT MORE reporters on the ground to capture every terrible moment).
Then there's global warming. Which to me is not the best term because while most 'stuff' is getting laid at its door, and it seems a convenient if broad way to refer to an overall trend, on a local and day-to-day basis there's an awful lot that is cold and wet. So I wish it were not used so much, or as it usually is. Especially by BBC reporters, if it was used in such as the Scottish radio report (and I must confess I did not see it in the mosquito piece).
So let's move to man-made (sorry to be un-PC (Person-produced?) climate change. This seems to 'accept' that the activities of man are pretty much responsible, exclusively, for the whole deal. In astronomical and geographical terms, especially considering the forces involved, I find such an absolute unlikely. And I don't think it has yet been proven. So to use it would seem... premature.
Which brings me to my own, favoured, definition: man-worsened (Personal-pollution promoting?) climate change. This is the area where the fun seems to be, if you enjoy mutually dependent extremes such big oil funded 'deniers' and 'activists' en route to endless conferences in Bali knocking spots off each other with single statistics and lone hyperlinks.... fun.
To nail my colours to the mast, I'm still floating in the middle, erring on the more 'green' corner, if only because rationally I can't see that bazillions (and counting) of folk polluting (emissions always seems so coy) away on finite ground and into finite air space cannot but have an unhappy end point. So, speaking of points, I figure maybe it's best to consider the tipping one a tad more proactively before it's too late. In this case 'I told you so' to the do-nothing brigade will be of little comfort to me or my kids. Conversely, they may not feel being wrong to be a huge problem in the great scheme of things, so it’s a lose-lose.
But it's all very complicated made more so with, in the modern world, democratic institutions populated by those more interested in process than product, and now near paralysed by the power and extent of media (new and old) and its ability to sway the masses. There is not a statesperson amongst them and, probably, even if there were, the moment they tried to do anything radical based on sincere beliefs, the ratings whores would ensure they were hounded out before you could say 'ist', ‘inger’, ‘zi’.... or 'tomorrow's headlines'.
So we're down to information, education, and, where possible (yawning chasm in there), persuasion. And as I like winnable wars, I’m a big woos by sticking more to doing something about reducing waste and leaving the waaaaay bigger issues to braver folk. I just ask that they don’t get tempted to cut corners doing what they think is best for me as my experience is that, even if it is (which it may not be) getting caught out negates and often pushes things further back.
I have to say that in this case, having read the piece, I was more simply educated and informed about a fact of biology that by my own extrapolation is likely to attributable to climate change.
No more. No less. But the additional info is appreciated, thanks.
Equally the subsequent fact (forgive me for now having to let it remain as un attributed and unconfirmed, though it sounds convincing) from Archduke on sea levels.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
What a relief?
I was never too convinced about it, so I welcome the BBC climate special decision.
What I don't like is how it now plays out.
I don't think I'm any 'wing'. In fact I have the notion that the best way to soar higher is to have both, and evenly balanced.
But by virtue of trying to do a bunch of stuff to help my kids' futures, I guess I could be thought of as an 'Environmental campaigner' of sorts. My thoughts on the decision were however not solicited. Who activist and writer Mark Lynas is and what qualifies him to speak on behalf of those who 'do care more than others' (I would not presume, hoping we all do equally) about our planet and its direction is not clear.
And while I may be vociferous, and small, I am not a climate 'sceptic' lobbying against taking action.
I just thought this effort sounded like another, misconceived green elite luvvie jolly like the last one. And like that it sucked big time whilst not helping me at all in my mission to inspire the public to see environmentally good practice not as a chore, or a guilt-trip or a nanny-duty, but as a bit of collective (we're in this together) fun and often a way to save some money. If I can sneak in a bit of reduction (ie: self-sacrifice), I will try though. Sneaky like that.
Hence to the point that 'poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change', it was hard to see how the new effort was going to improve matters. From the moment I switched on Live Earth the choice of Mr. Ross as presenter, and his musings, along with those 'guests' wheeled in to do the 'I recycle and offset' mantra whilst 'not quite finding it practical to cut back personally, as such' on the trappings only immense wealth and celebrity can bring, I felt most of the messengers were ill serving the message. That a Spice took but one week to go from 'doing it for her baby' to getting a personal private jet (as reported) kinda sealed the notion thereafter. And handed papers (tab and broad of all hues) a blinder that eclipsed most else.
Hence I think we might value again such as one Mr. Geldof's views on just how much more 'awareness' and 'consciousness-raising' of this nature we can cope with. Or the planet afford.
I happen to share the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance may well be raising temperatures around the world, and believe that clear, honest education, balanced information, example and incentive are the ways to sway public opinion and behaviour to help mitigate it. It is all urgent, so the temptation to cut corners 'for our own good' exists, but in this new media age whatever temporary gain you may get from 'enhanced truth', it will be set back tenfold when it gets caught out. As it does and will.
A ratings fest with a 'green elite only' green room that most outside the jetset and its reporting chums won't be invited to, on top of the last, was not my top choice for the money and logistical expertise that could be brought to bear, sorry.
So to try and plonk me in some group just because I have other, 'not ours' views certainly ain't helping the cause. Argue with me for sure, but only as you also get on and 'do' something real to mitigate or reduce the production of unnecessary green house gasses that doesn't owe more to massive self/career interest. Falling back on invoking a collection of 'ing's', 'ist's' and 'zi's' as the toys don't get put back in the pram won't get me on side one jot.
If, that is, your primary concern really is helping make a better future.
ADDENDUM:
I'd missed this before - No line - the comments are telling. The usual 'tis/t'isn't selective hyperlink quoting BOFDI/GAAC exchanges to be sure, but an awful lot who just don't like to be patronised. I'd have loved to have been here - How green is TV?. The synopsis end line sums it up.
ADDENDUM 2:
This... sucks: Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - I can live with the line they are taking; that's their prerogative and how I accord value to the paper's place in the debate. But that most of this front page piece was either lifted from the same PR as the BBC version, or lifted from that if it was the originator, is just plain shoddy journalism and editorial. And proves some claims that this is a mantra to be chanted and not an issue to be considered.
My respect for the Indy, and trust that it's MMGW reporting can be viewed in any way as objective, is shot.
It's so depressing. This issue is tearing folk apart, but I have to say that the main culprits are those who thing they know better, will brook no critique, and savage any in the most childish terms if they don't get their way. I would have hoped those genuine in a desire to help save this planet would not so easily find themselves amongst them.
Guardian - Getting the balance wrong - Funny the word 'balance' is used
I had to reply, and hence evolved a prvious post:
At least I can rely on CiF, between the post and a mix of subsequent comments, to try and suss out a bit of balance.
Not so sure about elsewhere.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
The text seems to be almost interchangeable with the BBC Online piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Where did this originate (I'm presuming the BBC piece) that it is shared so (pretty lazy journalism by the Indy, in which case) between these separate media entities?
I remain less than impressed that any criticism of this particular jolly gets such dismissal as a 'right wing conspiracy', and to try and paint it that way is serving the environmental cause poorly.
There were many, like me, who just didn't feel this was the best way to do it. From the moment I read Ross was top billing, after his and his mates' efforts before, I knew whatever it was about, helping my kids' future was not top of the agenda. And, as noted... it bombed. Badly. I was dubious before, took no pleasure in seeing the fall out, but made a reasoned call on this effort to consider the likely outcome of the next in its planned form, as outlined by those proposing it (who now are throwing a load of toys around with near zero self-analysis of what has taken place, is happening and how they could evolve their strategy to better assist their aims in future).
I have a really vain hope this will not simply turn into an excuse for yet another fruitless slanging match between those who have massive agendas pro and con the notion of MMGW, with selective facts and cited hyperlinks that 'prove' whatever you fancy, and ways to mitigate adverse effects, at the expense of reasoned ways to discuss, move on and DO something that can have an impact that can still work within the current climate of debate... or debate of climate.
Telling me what I am, when I am not, especially in knee-jerk frustration, is not the best way to do it. I'd like to think the BBC made an editorial call on certain pertinent facts of science, life and the media world.... not in response to 'pressure' from boogey men.
I personally think the climate IS changing.
And whatever man is doing, we are not likely to be helping (6 billion and counting folk with improving economies will need to live on something, eat something else and doubtless travel a lot socially and/or professionally to do it all. There has to be a tipping point logically as the area of land and volume of air is finite to cope with such hyperbolic growth and consequent poll... emissions).
Hence, I figure a bit of mitigation, if not reduction is not a bad thing to get on board with now.
However, we live on a mostly free planet with a bunch of connected folk with their own opinions.
So they need to be persuaded. democratically and with balanced argument. Not by telling them they are deluded. And certainly not by patronising them or cherry-picking what they get to decide with, 'for their own good'.
And certainly not by dishing up an already discredited notion to serve a bunch of less than credible messengers to parrot a message that many seem unable to live by example personally, as, 'well, it's not really practical, y'know'.
Then sulking for England when a green room/elite jolly doesn't get the rapturous support expected, and often demanded without question in the name of gr..atings. It may play well with Prius Person, but I didn't see it sway Fiesta Family much. And they need to be invited on board as they are still the majority, don't all have 4x4s, don't live next a tube or all night bus and usually only buy bottled water when they are flooded.
But stuff, for sure, does (I believe) need doing.
So where in all this are the political establishment? Or is the Nu-, and so far highly successful, strategy of saying nothing and being nowhere (save non-controversial or feel-good events), paralysing those voted in to lead, and handle the course of our futures?
Guardian - Impartiality is a turn-off
'...audiences sit up and take notice. If that means more work for Jonathan Ross, then sign the cheque.'
If this is referring to Planet Relief R.I.P, one would rather question the wisdom of pitching it in the first place on the back of the actual results derived in 'making audiences sit up and take notice' (much less acting) that was Live Earth. Anchored, as I recall, by one less than inspiring (by way of example) cheque-cashing celeb.
I rather think the way most of the general public viewed this new green jolly, punted for the exclusive benefit of the luvvies in entertainment-related PR and their media hangers-on, was the reason it died. Not any lack of desire to do right by our kids' futures.
Missing that point puts most crying into their Fairtrade lattes at the loss of yet another 'awareness opportunity' right out of step with the reality most folk face... but are prepared to act upon sensibly to rectify.
I believe the BBC feedback was that most people simply wanted to be better informed. Not told what some feel is good for them.
BBC -
"(Only fair to say that the Independent was critical of the BBCs decision to drop Planet Relief - they must have felt very let down.)"
Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
Well, yes. But they did have some things in common:
The BBC climate special decision - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Replete with such choice shared comments as this:
"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action.'
Nothing to do with Live Earth being a total bomb, and the new version being pitched imaginatively as a total duplicate, replete with the 'line-up' of celebrity presenters to really get the common folk to empathise with their glowing examples of restraint. So I would suggest there were other reasons, and some of the loudest voices came from those truly concerned with getting consensus on positive, practical actions to mitigate possible catastrophic climate change before any tipping point may be reached. I can live with 'told you so' if I'm wrong for erring on the side of caution. But 'living with' anything may be tricky if such as I get entitled to say it instead.
Finally, if I am right this 'toys out of pram' reaction ignores either feedback or maybe even a poll of viewers to the effect that they'd like to get the facts, ta very much, and not another luvvie green-in to further boost the 'awareness'.
BBC - Relief relief
ADDENDUM - NEW - Planet Relief redux
What I don't like is how it now plays out.
I don't think I'm any 'wing'. In fact I have the notion that the best way to soar higher is to have both, and evenly balanced.
But by virtue of trying to do a bunch of stuff to help my kids' futures, I guess I could be thought of as an 'Environmental campaigner' of sorts. My thoughts on the decision were however not solicited. Who activist and writer Mark Lynas is and what qualifies him to speak on behalf of those who 'do care more than others' (I would not presume, hoping we all do equally) about our planet and its direction is not clear.
And while I may be vociferous, and small, I am not a climate 'sceptic' lobbying against taking action.
I just thought this effort sounded like another, misconceived green elite luvvie jolly like the last one. And like that it sucked big time whilst not helping me at all in my mission to inspire the public to see environmentally good practice not as a chore, or a guilt-trip or a nanny-duty, but as a bit of collective (we're in this together) fun and often a way to save some money. If I can sneak in a bit of reduction (ie: self-sacrifice), I will try though. Sneaky like that.
Hence to the point that 'poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change', it was hard to see how the new effort was going to improve matters. From the moment I switched on Live Earth the choice of Mr. Ross as presenter, and his musings, along with those 'guests' wheeled in to do the 'I recycle and offset' mantra whilst 'not quite finding it practical to cut back personally, as such' on the trappings only immense wealth and celebrity can bring, I felt most of the messengers were ill serving the message. That a Spice took but one week to go from 'doing it for her baby' to getting a personal private jet (as reported) kinda sealed the notion thereafter. And handed papers (tab and broad of all hues) a blinder that eclipsed most else.
Hence I think we might value again such as one Mr. Geldof's views on just how much more 'awareness' and 'consciousness-raising' of this nature we can cope with. Or the planet afford.
I happen to share the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance may well be raising temperatures around the world, and believe that clear, honest education, balanced information, example and incentive are the ways to sway public opinion and behaviour to help mitigate it. It is all urgent, so the temptation to cut corners 'for our own good' exists, but in this new media age whatever temporary gain you may get from 'enhanced truth', it will be set back tenfold when it gets caught out. As it does and will.
A ratings fest with a 'green elite only' green room that most outside the jetset and its reporting chums won't be invited to, on top of the last, was not my top choice for the money and logistical expertise that could be brought to bear, sorry.
So to try and plonk me in some group just because I have other, 'not ours' views certainly ain't helping the cause. Argue with me for sure, but only as you also get on and 'do' something real to mitigate or reduce the production of unnecessary green house gasses that doesn't owe more to massive self/career interest. Falling back on invoking a collection of 'ing's', 'ist's' and 'zi's' as the toys don't get put back in the pram won't get me on side one jot.
If, that is, your primary concern really is helping make a better future.
ADDENDUM:
I'd missed this before - No line - the comments are telling. The usual 'tis/t'isn't selective hyperlink quoting BOFDI/GAAC exchanges to be sure, but an awful lot who just don't like to be patronised. I'd have loved to have been here - How green is TV?. The synopsis end line sums it up.
ADDENDUM 2:
This... sucks: Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - I can live with the line they are taking; that's their prerogative and how I accord value to the paper's place in the debate. But that most of this front page piece was either lifted from the same PR as the BBC version, or lifted from that if it was the originator, is just plain shoddy journalism and editorial. And proves some claims that this is a mantra to be chanted and not an issue to be considered.
My respect for the Indy, and trust that it's MMGW reporting can be viewed in any way as objective, is shot.
It's so depressing. This issue is tearing folk apart, but I have to say that the main culprits are those who thing they know better, will brook no critique, and savage any in the most childish terms if they don't get their way. I would have hoped those genuine in a desire to help save this planet would not so easily find themselves amongst them.
Guardian - Getting the balance wrong - Funny the word 'balance' is used
I had to reply, and hence evolved a prvious post:
At least I can rely on CiF, between the post and a mix of subsequent comments, to try and suss out a bit of balance.
Not so sure about elsewhere.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
The text seems to be almost interchangeable with the BBC Online piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Where did this originate (I'm presuming the BBC piece) that it is shared so (pretty lazy journalism by the Indy, in which case) between these separate media entities?
I remain less than impressed that any criticism of this particular jolly gets such dismissal as a 'right wing conspiracy', and to try and paint it that way is serving the environmental cause poorly.
There were many, like me, who just didn't feel this was the best way to do it. From the moment I read Ross was top billing, after his and his mates' efforts before, I knew whatever it was about, helping my kids' future was not top of the agenda. And, as noted... it bombed. Badly. I was dubious before, took no pleasure in seeing the fall out, but made a reasoned call on this effort to consider the likely outcome of the next in its planned form, as outlined by those proposing it (who now are throwing a load of toys around with near zero self-analysis of what has taken place, is happening and how they could evolve their strategy to better assist their aims in future).
I have a really vain hope this will not simply turn into an excuse for yet another fruitless slanging match between those who have massive agendas pro and con the notion of MMGW, with selective facts and cited hyperlinks that 'prove' whatever you fancy, and ways to mitigate adverse effects, at the expense of reasoned ways to discuss, move on and DO something that can have an impact that can still work within the current climate of debate... or debate of climate.
Telling me what I am, when I am not, especially in knee-jerk frustration, is not the best way to do it. I'd like to think the BBC made an editorial call on certain pertinent facts of science, life and the media world.... not in response to 'pressure' from boogey men.
I personally think the climate IS changing.
And whatever man is doing, we are not likely to be helping (6 billion and counting folk with improving economies will need to live on something, eat something else and doubtless travel a lot socially and/or professionally to do it all. There has to be a tipping point logically as the area of land and volume of air is finite to cope with such hyperbolic growth and consequent poll... emissions).
Hence, I figure a bit of mitigation, if not reduction is not a bad thing to get on board with now.
However, we live on a mostly free planet with a bunch of connected folk with their own opinions.
So they need to be persuaded. democratically and with balanced argument. Not by telling them they are deluded. And certainly not by patronising them or cherry-picking what they get to decide with, 'for their own good'.
And certainly not by dishing up an already discredited notion to serve a bunch of less than credible messengers to parrot a message that many seem unable to live by example personally, as, 'well, it's not really practical, y'know'.
Then sulking for England when a green room/elite jolly doesn't get the rapturous support expected, and often demanded without question in the name of gr..atings. It may play well with Prius Person, but I didn't see it sway Fiesta Family much. And they need to be invited on board as they are still the majority, don't all have 4x4s, don't live next a tube or all night bus and usually only buy bottled water when they are flooded.
But stuff, for sure, does (I believe) need doing.
So where in all this are the political establishment? Or is the Nu-, and so far highly successful, strategy of saying nothing and being nowhere (save non-controversial or feel-good events), paralysing those voted in to lead, and handle the course of our futures?
Guardian - Impartiality is a turn-off
'...audiences sit up and take notice. If that means more work for Jonathan Ross, then sign the cheque.'
If this is referring to Planet Relief R.I.P, one would rather question the wisdom of pitching it in the first place on the back of the actual results derived in 'making audiences sit up and take notice' (much less acting) that was Live Earth. Anchored, as I recall, by one less than inspiring (by way of example) cheque-cashing celeb.
I rather think the way most of the general public viewed this new green jolly, punted for the exclusive benefit of the luvvies in entertainment-related PR and their media hangers-on, was the reason it died. Not any lack of desire to do right by our kids' futures.
Missing that point puts most crying into their Fairtrade lattes at the loss of yet another 'awareness opportunity' right out of step with the reality most folk face... but are prepared to act upon sensibly to rectify.
I believe the BBC feedback was that most people simply wanted to be better informed. Not told what some feel is good for them.
BBC -
"(Only fair to say that the Independent was critical of the BBCs decision to drop Planet Relief - they must have felt very let down.)"
Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
Well, yes. But they did have some things in common:
The BBC climate special decision - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Replete with such choice shared comments as this:
"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action.'
Nothing to do with Live Earth being a total bomb, and the new version being pitched imaginatively as a total duplicate, replete with the 'line-up' of celebrity presenters to really get the common folk to empathise with their glowing examples of restraint. So I would suggest there were other reasons, and some of the loudest voices came from those truly concerned with getting consensus on positive, practical actions to mitigate possible catastrophic climate change before any tipping point may be reached. I can live with 'told you so' if I'm wrong for erring on the side of caution. But 'living with' anything may be tricky if such as I get entitled to say it instead.
Finally, if I am right this 'toys out of pram' reaction ignores either feedback or maybe even a poll of viewers to the effect that they'd like to get the facts, ta very much, and not another luvvie green-in to further boost the 'awareness'.
BBC - Relief relief
ADDENDUM - NEW - Planet Relief redux
And the question goes 'Pop' to a resounding sleince again
I make my point by this time being silent (ish): Stop procreating, or the baby gets it
I had finger poised over computer to weigh in when I read this: 'I don't have any bright ideas, either. So, what would you do?'
Stumped. At least in a PC-age where such discussions don't just get you no where, there are 'ist' laws against a lot and 'zi' fingers for the rest to make it 'there be dragon's' territory. Which is why, I suspect, those who might, even some tasked to do so by an electorate expecting leadership, don't fancy 'going there'.
So... aren't plastic carrier bags sooo last year?
I had finger poised over computer to weigh in when I read this: 'I don't have any bright ideas, either. So, what would you do?'
Stumped. At least in a PC-age where such discussions don't just get you no where, there are 'ist' laws against a lot and 'zi' fingers for the rest to make it 'there be dragon's' territory. Which is why, I suspect, those who might, even some tasked to do so by an electorate expecting leadership, don't fancy 'going there'.
So... aren't plastic carrier bags sooo last year?
Well, they asked... about Aunty
Relaunching bbc.co.uk
The BBC is looking for digital agencies to help it redesign BBC Online to encourage user -generated content and give it a more web 2.0 feel (a.... what!!!?). What should it overhaul?
Well there's the trust thing, see.
Will what content I generate as a user get even acknowledged, much less used? And if it does will it be 'moderated' or edited?
Otherwise, for this content creator, the duck is dead.
And why I tend to reply on places like this rather more than on the BBC (Newsnight blog excepted, so far).
The BBC is looking for digital agencies to help it redesign BBC Online to encourage user -generated content and give it a more web 2.0 feel (a.... what!!!?). What should it overhaul?
Well there's the trust thing, see.
Will what content I generate as a user get even acknowledged, much less used? And if it does will it be 'moderated' or edited?
Otherwise, for this content creator, the duck is dead.
And why I tend to reply on places like this rather more than on the BBC (Newsnight blog excepted, so far).
Monday, September 03, 2007
Pipe Dreams
This seems a potentially worthwhile example of eco-cooperation: Toyota and EDF launch recharge points for electric cars
On the matter of semantics, they may be (are they in all uses, or just urban?) 'more' friendly, but no matter how wizzo cannot be deemed to actually help the environment by being made and/or driven.
On the matter of semantics, they may be (are they in all uses, or just urban?) 'more' friendly, but no matter how wizzo cannot be deemed to actually help the environment by being made and/or driven.
Offsetting journalistic integrity
This will make me popular. I've tried to answer a Telegraph travel writer's (how do they get to afford 2nd homes?) question: Corporate guilt breeds corporate jargon
At least you care enough to ask the question. I'm not sure the two answers derived so far are going to help much, though. Or indeed most others you may get (from the carbon 'industry') that may seem to be more factual.
Personally I can think of worse things than a second home, so long as you don't leave the heat/aircon (preferbaly it's fan-cooled anyway) running (depending on location) when you're not there. And if it's rented out then the person there is not 'emitting' elsewhere. Other than travel... which is just the start of how complex all this is.
On balance offsetting seems to me at least marginally better than not doing anything at all in mitigation, though certainly not as good as not adding more C02 than you otherwise might (again, a tricky call. I'd prefer you in a villa in France accessed by EuroStar than flying business to report on a property fair in Dubai, staying in a 6* emissions column - read Leo Hickman's Final Call ).
So you're right that we have become a nation obsessed with our footprints, fed in no small measure by 'awareness' campaigns such as the latest, ActonC02, that really do little else than make us worry a lot with little real information. And that opens the doors for the unscrupulous to pounce, seemingly with little regulation.
Because, like you (and with the dubious advantage of being exposed to perhaps a bit more info in my line of work) I have no real idea what 'it' actually involves in all its manifestations. And until I am, preferably with help from those who profess to care about my kids' future (from activist to government - didn't Davids Miliband (when Enivro dude) and Cameron both 'float' offsets trading as part of their respective proposals?), I'll have to suspect those not being clearer about their Green intentions, and hiding behind faceless jargon, are doing so with good reason: serving their interests. I doubt corporate guilt has much to do with it, as they only have that if and when caught out.
And those seem to have naught to do with my kids' futures if it's to create a decent enviROI, which may (another debate, but I'm sold on man's negative contribution) be derived from reduced CO2. You're right that whacking a fir in the firmament hardly seems the best way (better, to me, if you are in the need to 'make up', is to reduce deforestation - I could argue the science from my own limited background, but an existing carbon sink being lost that's in excess the USA's total annual emissions annually seems like a quick fix worth not losing). Though not all offsetters, to be fair, are just in to trees as the 'solution' .
Wouldn't it be nice to have more clarity from all involved in the 'carbon' industry, including preachy media, and rather than ratings-producing 'tis/tisn't facts and debates that get us nowhere, we have tangibles that let us assess the situation and act on it sensibly and in good conscience?
I have tried to be fair and balanced. But I hope my frustration with a media more keen on stirring the pot (look at the replies she got) than getting to a useful solution does not come through too negatively that my point does not get made.
At least you care enough to ask the question. I'm not sure the two answers derived so far are going to help much, though. Or indeed most others you may get (from the carbon 'industry') that may seem to be more factual.
Personally I can think of worse things than a second home, so long as you don't leave the heat/aircon (preferbaly it's fan-cooled anyway) running (depending on location) when you're not there. And if it's rented out then the person there is not 'emitting' elsewhere. Other than travel... which is just the start of how complex all this is.
On balance offsetting seems to me at least marginally better than not doing anything at all in mitigation, though certainly not as good as not adding more C02 than you otherwise might (again, a tricky call. I'd prefer you in a villa in France accessed by EuroStar than flying business to report on a property fair in Dubai, staying in a 6* emissions column - read Leo Hickman's Final Call ).
So you're right that we have become a nation obsessed with our footprints, fed in no small measure by 'awareness' campaigns such as the latest, ActonC02, that really do little else than make us worry a lot with little real information. And that opens the doors for the unscrupulous to pounce, seemingly with little regulation.
Because, like you (and with the dubious advantage of being exposed to perhaps a bit more info in my line of work) I have no real idea what 'it' actually involves in all its manifestations. And until I am, preferably with help from those who profess to care about my kids' future (from activist to government - didn't Davids Miliband (when Enivro dude) and Cameron both 'float' offsets trading as part of their respective proposals?), I'll have to suspect those not being clearer about their Green intentions, and hiding behind faceless jargon, are doing so with good reason: serving their interests. I doubt corporate guilt has much to do with it, as they only have that if and when caught out.
And those seem to have naught to do with my kids' futures if it's to create a decent enviROI, which may (another debate, but I'm sold on man's negative contribution) be derived from reduced CO2. You're right that whacking a fir in the firmament hardly seems the best way (better, to me, if you are in the need to 'make up', is to reduce deforestation - I could argue the science from my own limited background, but an existing carbon sink being lost that's in excess the USA's total annual emissions annually seems like a quick fix worth not losing). Though not all offsetters, to be fair, are just in to trees as the 'solution' .
Wouldn't it be nice to have more clarity from all involved in the 'carbon' industry, including preachy media, and rather than ratings-producing 'tis/tisn't facts and debates that get us nowhere, we have tangibles that let us assess the situation and act on it sensibly and in good conscience?
I have tried to be fair and balanced. But I hope my frustration with a media more keen on stirring the pot (look at the replies she got) than getting to a useful solution does not come through too negatively that my point does not get made.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
What's in Vogue?
Commy time! The disconnect between those who would talk about saving the palnet and what gets done around them continues: Rich pickings
Wasn't Vogue one of those that for a wee while had a 'green' phase and/or issue? Bless.
While no real excuse, but as a reason I think there may be a problem with all this climate change activity now being in the hands of celebrity and the media that serves and feeds off them to create vehicles to flog stuff to the wealthy.
And that is what on earth such folk would do with all the money they have worked so hard to accrue (or... not) if they did/could not spent it with obscene purchase sprees or jaunts to ever more exotic places.
And what, exactly, does it say that there is such a thing as a 'luxury goods specialist'?
With a bevvy of the necessary number of journalistic chroniclers in tow, of course.
Guardian - What can you do with a brick-sized Vogue?- Sounds like a question for Junkk.com!
Wasn't Vogue one of those that for a wee while had a 'green' phase and/or issue? Bless.
While no real excuse, but as a reason I think there may be a problem with all this climate change activity now being in the hands of celebrity and the media that serves and feeds off them to create vehicles to flog stuff to the wealthy.
And that is what on earth such folk would do with all the money they have worked so hard to accrue (or... not) if they did/could not spent it with obscene purchase sprees or jaunts to ever more exotic places.
And what, exactly, does it say that there is such a thing as a 'luxury goods specialist'?
With a bevvy of the necessary number of journalistic chroniclers in tow, of course.
Guardian - What can you do with a brick-sized Vogue?- Sounds like a question for Junkk.com!
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Multiple choice justifications
A chap has posed the question: Why pick on us?
Well, for one reason they can. And for another, in many ways they should. But from that point on I'm mostly on board.
It's not so much for what's being done, but the hamfisted way it is being done and, worse, sold.
Just in this piece alone look at the justifications for these actions that are given, starting with 'a new pollution tax that has nothing to do with congestion'. Which is it (though I recognise that more congestion equals greater pollution. Which rather begs the question as to why the roads are permanently made to create jams). And I can't quite get my head around the sense of imposing on a car that will be stopped most of the day just because four of the wheels are powered, vs. being fine with another one buzzing about all day emitting away because it has a slightly better mileage.
And then it becomes about killing innocent pedestrians. That makes some sense, but then the guilty designs should simply be banned, full stop. Along with other slab-fronted entities, such as vans and buses. The "Also, I wouldn’t encounter so many jams on my drive to the civic centre” quote is a true peach, thank you for sharing (I hope that it is accurate).
So I really don't have much of a clue what the basis for this ban is, though most logic dictates the environment is not as high on the list as is claimed.
But to solve it, whilst admitting to no longer being an inhabitant of the 'Smoke, I would say that the best move, and one which maybe be a tad more democratic, would still be to decide it at the voting booth.
Well, for one reason they can. And for another, in many ways they should. But from that point on I'm mostly on board.
It's not so much for what's being done, but the hamfisted way it is being done and, worse, sold.
Just in this piece alone look at the justifications for these actions that are given, starting with 'a new pollution tax that has nothing to do with congestion'. Which is it (though I recognise that more congestion equals greater pollution. Which rather begs the question as to why the roads are permanently made to create jams). And I can't quite get my head around the sense of imposing on a car that will be stopped most of the day just because four of the wheels are powered, vs. being fine with another one buzzing about all day emitting away because it has a slightly better mileage.
And then it becomes about killing innocent pedestrians. That makes some sense, but then the guilty designs should simply be banned, full stop. Along with other slab-fronted entities, such as vans and buses. The "Also, I wouldn’t encounter so many jams on my drive to the civic centre” quote is a true peach, thank you for sharing (I hope that it is accurate).
So I really don't have much of a clue what the basis for this ban is, though most logic dictates the environment is not as high on the list as is claimed.
But to solve it, whilst admitting to no longer being an inhabitant of the 'Smoke, I would say that the best move, and one which maybe be a tad more democratic, would still be to decide it at the voting booth.
Another punt
The great recycler...
Crediting his efficiency in eking out the maximum from the resources to hand, Hunter Davies (Mean with Money, 26 Aug.) is not recycling very much if it remains in the back of his wardrobe, but on balance I'd still call him ' a good reuser'. But he and Lord Clarke have now suggested a new use for magazine sleeves that I had not thought of before, and would welcome being added to Junkk.com to share with others beyond these pages.
Hey, it may get printed.
ADDENDUM: It didn't, but this just in is very polite:
Thank you for your interesting letter. We would like to have been able to publish it, but there is space in our correspondence columns for only a fraction of the letters received each week. A copy of your letter has, of course, been passed on for the information of Hunter Davies and the Money Editor.
Crediting his efficiency in eking out the maximum from the resources to hand, Hunter Davies (Mean with Money, 26 Aug.) is not recycling very much if it remains in the back of his wardrobe, but on balance I'd still call him ' a good reuser'. But he and Lord Clarke have now suggested a new use for magazine sleeves that I had not thought of before, and would welcome being added to Junkk.com to share with others beyond these pages.
Hey, it may get printed.
ADDENDUM: It didn't, but this just in is very polite:
Thank you for your interesting letter. We would like to have been able to publish it, but there is space in our correspondence columns for only a fraction of the letters received each week. A copy of your letter has, of course, been passed on for the information of Hunter Davies and the Money Editor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)