Steaming!

Considering their father's bad example, it is but a matter of time before my boys start to swear like little troopers.

But for now, thanks to a saintly mother, a certain amount of hypocritical (don't do as I do...) guidance by me and their own sense of what gets you brownie points in polite company, they do not. At least, not bad words. I wish I could resist as they do. Yet having read the following I am moved to coin a few choice phrases:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4419880.stm

Sample : Although rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and other gases are almost certainly driving the global rise in temperature observed in recent decades, the natural greenhouse effect - without which the world would be considerably colder - is largely down to atmospheric water vapour.

I'm sorry, but isn't just about everything we're looking at transport-wise to mitigate this is of 'the and all you get out the pipe is water' variety? Of everything I have been reading, hydrogen was the one that made sense to me, even if we ended up in a Blade-Runner permanent rainstorm. I guess a fair bit drips onto the tarmac, but won't an awful lot go up in... er... steam?

Solar powered 747's anyone?

So until I can get my head around this I would like for now to borrow from one of my son's very worst: Oh... crud. 

Memo to self: don't write memos

I was the other day reading about a memo from senior Wal-Mart exec.
that was advocating something pretty scummy get done (probably
legally, if not ethically) to the workforce to make a tad more
profit. And just now about the public-schools price fixing fall-out
(which involved compromising e-mails hacked by subsequently expelled
students). These of course come hot on the heels of Ms. Let's-
use-9-11-to-lose-the-bad-news-on-our-trivial-little political-
careers, whoever thought HMS Sheffield didn't need expensive
fireproof conduiting and, of course, the daddy (hey, at least with
the new ones the ladies are breaking through the glass ceiling when
it comes to being corporate weasels) of them all, the some bright
spark (no pun intended) at Ford who figured it was better to let the
Pinto blow up and pay the compo than actually redesign it.

What really beggars belief is that they:

a) Can think such things
b) Write such things
c) Send such things
d) Think they won't get caught out
e) Don't get censured by superiors on the spot
f) Don't lose everything soon thereafter

The answer of course, probably kicks in at 'e'. They do it because
there is a culture at their place of work that will reward
'results' (usually, but not always, profit. Protecting reputations or
defending policy can rate highly, too), to paraphrase and mangle
Ralph Nader, 'at any cost'. The risk is usually, at most, 'looking
bad', which is unlikely to trouble those who can come up with the
notions that pop them, fleetingly (what is Jo Moore doing now?), in
the glare of negative pubilicity.

What also beggars belief is that the organisations who employ such folk:

a) Are so cynical to think they can get away with it, and dumb as to
think that such a culture does anyone any good, especially their own.
b) Survive despite the consequences, along with the individuals at
the heart of it all.

So, ultimately, the fault can only be laid at our own doors. We let
them get away with it.

Life is too short (sadly, our attention spans are even shorter, along
with our thirsts for justice). The world is too small. Genuine (and I
know that can be a tricky one to assess) whistleblowers should keep
their jobs rather than losing them, and weasels should lose their
jobs, including benefits, rather than getting promoted sideways.

Idealistic... moi?

FOC's

This started off as a diatribe aginst offshore, telephone based customer service/tech support lines, but Anita, our lovely Chief of Prose and Comms, has told me to make a nice a bit more, and as I struggled to think of something (being a grumpy old blogger is so much easier), it fell into my lap.

One of our printers just went in the direction of a pear, mangling stuff. We tried the help menu, and it told us only that we should be using paper hand rolled on the thighs of Columbian virgins. Or call tech support.

We now entered the world of 0870. And for about 10 minutes we paid god knows what to god knows who to listen to an American lady tell us we were important to them. Then we were in the domain of Trevor, who did not sound like a Trevor.

Sadly the conversation did not go well. We thought we pretty much knew the problem (a roller at one end was obviously not doing its job any more and was skewing the draw down), but this did not seem to get us anywhere near the advice we were seeking, which was how to fix it.

And at the end of a fairly frustrating circular discussion we were told it was not fixable, and to ditch the thing. 

It was a month beyond warranty. So ditch it.

Now, I am not only part Scot, which makes £87.50 a lot of money, but this was not in the spirit of Junkk.com.

So I picked up the phone to our local PC-repairers and told them the problem, and they said pop it round. So I walked it up the hill. By the time I got back, there was a call to come and pick it up.

With much joshing about the worth in terms of expertise and cost of a new printer, I was shown the culprit: a Christmas tree bulb that somehow got in there and was blocking the feed. They'd turned it upside down and fixed it.

So,  as what goes around comes around, if you are in the Monmouth/Ross area, I am happy to give them a big up right here and now: 

http://www.theitcentre.co.uk (you may also one day find them in the Junkk.com HR/NP area diRE:ctory when the dozy sods get around to putting themselves on there).

But the most important bit was that they knew what it was. Apparently it happens a lot. So that makes it a tip that could save a thousand WEEEEeeee..kerplunk IT landfill contributions that need not be. Plus saved customer money, etc, etc.

So I'm figuring out how to get such things on the relevant category pages on Junkk.com, but not in a way that overwhelms the reader, and archived to be searchable. Not just for IT issues, but from a core of gurus that must have similar such experience to share, and don't mind sharing it to get a big up and a logo link - we're mutual re-ward-based, see:)

I think we'll call it FOC's, which is kind of an homage to FAQ's and until something better pops into my head, stands for Frequently Observed Cock-ups. And when you think about it, also can stand for Free Of Charge, which in this case it was. Thanks Ian. 

Hew close to the line, let the chips fall where they may

There was an interesting post the other day by the editor of Materials Recycling World, Paul Sanderson, regarding editorial integrity, from which I quote a small section:

"Over the last few years there has been a lot of debate in the media industry about editorial integrity. It used to be the case, and indeed it was how I was taught, that you should never admit to any mistakes you made.

But increasingly, many media organisations, with The Guardian at the forefront, are attempting to always put right any genuine mistakes that have been made through talking to those who have been affected and coming up with an agreement on how to do this. "

He sought some feedback, which I provided, and he has kindly published:

"It got me to thinking about a similar situation we found ourselves in. At some mysterious point  it struck me that Junkk.com was a medium, with all THAT entailed. We are sent information, or we go off and find it ourselves, and then we put up there for folks to access.

I guess I'd somehow not thought of us as a 'media' organisation in the classic sense, and in any case we were free, plus a few other notions that all seem rather quaint now. But we do have an audience who trust us, and hence many obligations to them, many of which carry professional if not legal consequences. So I am very glad we created the site with the advice of the very best media/copyright lawyers you can get.

[Here I'd like to give a 'big up' to Alex & Alex at BRIFFA http://www.briffa.com, who helped us create the site to protect our public, our clients and ourselves in this over litigious world, and still keep us on the straight and narrow]

So even though we perhaps did not set out to be a 'news medium' or 'journalists' in the same way as did the publishers of MRW or yourself, there is not much difference in responsibility and accountability. Even in what we imagined (at first.... boy, were we wrong!) to be the fairly uncontroversial world we both inhabit. 

Not everyone (and certainly not us) has your level of experience of hands-on editorial training. There may even be rules we don't know about (and ignorance of these may be no excuse... yadayada... but the murky world of online at least presents us with certain precedents to carry on). But there are certain things that just seem worth adhering to in my very simplistic t'pennyworth feedback.  These would be:

1) Tell the truth 

2) If necessary, and it probably almost always is, put it in the context you learned it and now share it 

3) Be prepared to accept it may turn out to be inaccurate and have in place procedures to prevent, and continually check for this happening; and cope quickly if it does

4) Better yet, make sure everyone knows that you are so prepared (which forms part of 2)

5) If you are party to something incorrect, put it right, preferably with a 'weight' in excess of the initial story that needs to be rectified (I consider BBC's Newswatch to be a poor example of this latter, with a Sat morning mea culpa slot to deal with primetime howlers).

For us, other than the odd opinion piece where I may make someone grumpy with a twitching eyebrow, I don't think we're going to venture too far into controversial territory. But by placing or acting as a conduit for 3rd party materials we're given, we are of course in danger, if in good faith, in sharing information that may not be correct.

I hope it is enough, but somewhere we cheerfully try and explain this in our own way by saying 'If we know, we'll tell you. If we don't we'll say so, and then try to find someone who does.' But what if that person is wrong? I guess we have to fall back on number 5, and our metaphorical swords, too. We certainly are putting more opportunities to provide corrections at source all around the site.

So as a 'reader' of 'news' for a few decades, I am appalled to only now learn that it was taught in journalism never to admit to mistakes, and only recently that any effort was being given to actually putting things right should you do so. So good on you guys for having that as policy.

I wouldn't expect it any other way. Honestly."

I should stress, if it is not clear enough by my reply, that Paul and MRW are obviously very committed to a policy that I, and I would hope all right thinking folk (notice I didn't pop an 'other in there), would applaud.

But who'd have thunk? I'm still coping with his revelations about mainstream media, who really do have the power to influence our way of lives seriously. But it is also an eye-opener that such considerations are troubling editorial departments in the more niche media areas such as recycling. But then, this is all getting pretty serious. Not just the millions of pounds being 'used' in our (tax and ratepayers') names, with little or no real appreciation of how or why by the general public, but also the very real consequences such decisions and expenditures are going to have on our futures.

One final thought. Errors of inaccuracy are one thing. Errors of omission can be equally, if not more troubling. That is where trust in your medium really comes to into play. Will you be told something that may not fit the publisher's own personal agenda or commercial interests? Wooooo. Scareeeee.

Filter Tips

In this time-poor age, gatekeepers are inevitable. But still frustrating. I have used this blog before, am now and doubtless will again to 'note' (ok, whinge a bit) about the less than helpful aspect of relationship-building which they represent to anyone trying to launch a new service, yet is confronted by everyone from Tracy on Reception ('Hooshlisayscallin'?) though Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric ('Does He/she - I'm being PC here, not inferring any Ladyboy tendencies - know you?'') to a middle management minion with the power to say no but not yes.

These folk are facts of life. And you have to learn to deal with them, and the system.

But when it gets automated the problems can really kick in. How do you negotiate with a machine?

I recently was talking with Paul Sanderson of Materials Recycling Week (quick plug for them: www.mrw.co.uk - not a magazine perhaps for most of Junkk.com's audience, but if you want to stay on top of the 'business' of re-everything, well worth the sub), who had kindly got in touch because he was concerned something we'd sent had not got through.

So our discussions turned to servers, firewalls, spam filters, etc, and indeed it transpired that thanks to a new IT-thingie their end, we were now being consigned to the junk folder, which would be flattering to have thought as our own little outpost in their office, but for the lack of that extra special k. 

We are also still desperately trying to sort out how we get through without interception and deletion to the majority of our own opt-in users who have a hotmail, aol, g-mail, etc, address, and are tracking down a rumoured 'white list' that will deem us non-pornographers or member-extenders.

But it seems we must also face the possibility that legitimate B2B communications may also find themselves headed off at the pass. It certainly doesn't help having @junkk.com as an address, but there's not much we can do about that. And it takes a certain leap of the imagination at ISP-central to imagine a spammer would  name their product so imaginatively.

But sadly I think I will soon have also to consign our nifty 12k logographic signature to the... er... junk bin. And forget about ever sending an attachment.

It's just another of the growing-pain joys and tribulations of the online world. It was in many ways meant to speed communication and make it more accessible. But in protecting ourselves from something that may be harmful, we've almost gone full circle and created a situation that we actually don't get exposed to much of anything that is not pre-filtered.

So if you would like to hear from us in future, I think I will need to engage a nice fellow with a cleft stick to pop it around. Ain't technology wonderful?

But we know a lady who does...

Junkk.com will succeed, not just as a business, but as a public resource, by connecting people. A guy with an idea with a gal who needs a solution.  A kid with a broken toy with a DIY-guru who can fix it (online or in person). A local business with, well, a local. Every time we put such folks in touch, a little bit of the environment ends up just a smidgen better off. And our traffic figures mount.

Often it may not be quite so tangible a result, but we feel our role is justified even if we just send folks off on a worthy path.

So I am pleased to report that as a result of her partcipation on the theenvironmentsite.org's Forum, and the knowledge base she is acquiring, Emma has set in motion a series of events that have resulted (culmination sure to follow) in 'No Waste Like Home' celebrity e-guru Penney Poyzer taking part in an online interview with them, much as we did a while ago, on Wednesday 23rd November.  

See the thread below, and add any questions if you have any. We'll be there too with a few!

 

http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=3673

Throwing bricks in (recycled) glass houses

Anita, our lovely Chief of Prose & Comms, is going to be grumpy. But sometimes it's necessary to address things at length. This is key to our philosophy at Junkk.com.

I have just replied to a chap called Sir John Whitmore, writing in the motoring section of the Telegraph.

The links/URLs will take you to the full text (I admire  the Telegraph for allowing such access and keeping it 'live'), but include a few 'samples', so do not take the flow out of context as this would be unfair:

http://motoring.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/11/05/emrwhit05.xml

Complex problems require innovative solutions, writes John Whitmore

Since I last wrote about global warming, to the irritation of proud owners of 4x4 Silly Ugly Vehicles and other ego-mobiles, we have had a tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and a huge earthquake.

We have also broken a number of planetary heat records and the icecaps are melting, yet some still bury their heads in the sand.

I recently read about the New Puritans, young people who are against all the unhealthy stuff: fashion, consumerism, brands, smoking, Esso fuel, binge drinking, pollution, junk food etc. 

Of course all movements have rogue or radical arms that we deplore, at least in public. In Paris, Les Dégonflés (The Deflated) are a band of guerrillas, or terrorists if you disapprove, who each night let the air out of the tyres of some 40 SUVs in the city. England's eco-terrorist is Sian Berry, who hands out fake parking tickets informing SUV owners of the error of their ways. If we can't save the world with common sense, let us do what we can with humour; if we are lucky, we might die laughing.

He referred to and linked to another, earlier, piece:

http://motoring.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/03/05/mfwhit05.xml

John Whitmore argues that we must change our motoring ways

I was going to write a light-hearted piece this month but the motoring magazine shelf at Heathrow airport persuaded me to tackle something more controversial.

I equipped myself for the first leg of a flight to Australia with three leading motoring titles, 

Such assets become uncomfortable or illegal at a brush of the accelerator, so why should they be of interest or relevance to ordinary motorists? Are the magazine journalists boy racers? Are their readers? Do ordinary motorists read such stuff?

When are we going to wake up to the full implications of environmental degradation? Will we continue to buy and drive greedy status symbols while waiting for the apocalypse? Will we continue to offer the pathetic platitude that "anything I do won't make a difference, so why bother?" 

That is why I support Ken Livingstone, fuel tax, road tolls, lower speed limits, enforcement cameras and traffic calming. I would even be happy to see a ban on cars of more than, say, 100bhp.

Here's my reply (sorry Anita):

"I recall a recent spat in the world of rock god luvvies, where I believe one didn't want to attend another's 'save the whatever' concert because the other hadn't attended his. It seemed to be a case of two rights making a wrong.

Hence I always feel a little circumspect when reading, much more commenting on, passionate views held regarding the behaviour of others, especially in an area of interest we obviously share.

But you have kindly invited a reply in the spirit of good-natured debate, so I thought I'd commit digit to keypad.

Whatever the cause(s), there is no doubt that something very nasty is brewing with our climate, and it's very unlikely that what 'we' are doing with 'our' many and varied manifestations of conspicuous consumption are doing much to help. Though I have to here express doubts that anything 'we' have or have not done, Hummer-wise, would have greatly influenced the Asian tsunami or Kashmir earthquake.

And much as I am concerned for my kids' future about what's going on, I also worry how easy it can be for certain views can take us in ‘unproductive’ directions; especially when these are often from those with greater access to the media, and hence end up predominating.

I wasn't quite sure, but there did seem to be a tacit admiration, and even passive support, on your part regarding certain censorious actions in support of various beliefs. It's easy to be against things. True skill lies in being for things, and promoting them in a positive way.

I live in the country, and I don't own an SUV. My lifestyle does not require it and my wallet would not sustain one. But I do know a few folk who do, with some justification.  If I were one of them, should I decide on a trip to some merry eco-prankster’s urban 'hood, I could easily laugh off a witty fake parking ticket. Perhaps I’d be less impressed by a deflated tyre or, not that it could ever happen, a key down the side.

So I just wonder if it possible to stray a tad into 'my cause is better than your cause' territory, especially when we throw around emotive words like 'selfish' to embolden those more single (simple?)-minded in their means of expression and desire to express.

It's just possible a planeload of these born-again enviro-types leaving behind a Prius-laden carpark may not be so impressed if Greenpeace chained themselves to the 747 about to whisk the family off to a week's skiing in the Rockies.

So I simply caution against any route that involves the pointing of fingers, as this inevitably ends up with fingers being pointed back. Hence valuable emotional resources are consumed defending turf, and egos, when we could better apply our efforts to working together in discovering proactive solutions.

I couldn't agree more that we need to effect change with good humour. But I would like to complement this less with accusations, and more in a constant search for incentive-based solutions designed to inspire folk to move in a 'better' (oh dear, who's to judge?) direction because they WANT to, by seeing the BENEFIT. 

I am not above what I call the odd 'eyebrow twitch' in my personal comment section of our own small attempt at making the difference. But it is usually directed at those in authority who have set themselves up to steer us on path of righteousness with fingers wagging. As a poor slob myself, I have a certain empathy with other poor slobs trying to do their best with what they have got to go on.

So I do try promote wherever possible avoiding the accusatory, guilt or, heaven forbid, 'fabbo fines first, sensible solutions second' paths. It tends to all get a bit ‘them 'n us’ for the humour route to be sustained for long.

I agree with so much of what you advocate, but simply offer the thought that that we do try to do it in ways that don't create competing camps, much as these do create healthy ratings. A plea I often make to the likes of Jeremy Clarkson (who has written some truly insightful, entertaining pieces of journalism on environmental issues and then spoiled them by ladling on the shock-jock bile to bait the pie-wielders). For all the good it does me."

Maybe he'll reply. Possibly he'll agree. At least once he and JC (can you imagine the 'mentalist baiter-in-chief resisting a comeback? have finished duking it out from their respective media bunkers. For the sake of the planet I do hope they may see some of the wisdom of my words.

Ups and Downs

Junkk.com is nothing if not a roller-coaster ride. And just when you
least expect it, a little boost comes in that makes things look that
littel bit more rosy. A while ago we'd been invited by BusinessLink
to apply for a Business Growth Grant, basically a 'keep up the good
work' cash boost. As we had already enjoyed fair support we were not
to sure whether we'd be in line when this was doled out, but it would
have been silly not to apply.

Well, we got it!

The project that it will fund is where we feel we need the most
urgent 3rd party help (sadly grants seldom can go to 'us'), which is
to get the siet from a B2B entity to a truly consumer-friendly
portal. Not before time, as we are now actually 'live and out there'.
And we are aware that there are issues of design and navigation
within the site that need to improved to tell people what is going on
fast, and give them what they want faster.

So tomorrow we're meeting our It gurus sound-i (www.sound-i.co.uk) to
initiate it all. We had planned for it, but the money simply was not
there before, and now it is. We feel it will be a critical upgrade.

But also we are further encouraged by the endorsement this implies.
This is an investment in a business that sees the environment as
something worth making as accessible as possible to the general
public, and in so doing becoming self-sustaining as a consequence.

And another one bites the dust...

What is it with the world of big business? Just when you think you are zeroing in on someone useful who may actually have the brains to grasp a new idea, the power to make a decision about it, and the spine to stand behind the consequences (or, in Junkk.com's case, the good grace to enjoy the benefits)... they get moved on.

LONDON - Chris White, Nestle Rowntree's outspoken UK managing director, has left the confectionery giant after less than two years in the job.

White's exit is the second high-profile departure from Nestle Rowntree this year. In July, marketing director Neil Ducray quit after a year in the job. He has since been replaced by Procter & Gamble marketer David Rennie.

We've also seen the same with Heinz and Sainsbury's. No wonder the big brands are in crisis! Maybe they are too concerned with not losing their jobs to consider doing anything about making more money out of treating the environment as a marketing opportunity.

What have the 'mentalists ever done for us?

It's all a bit of a jumble this, but better late than never.

I'm looking at the front page of the Independent from Nov. 1, which is entitled '10 ways to save the world', on which I have added: Number 11: engage better with the public, which all of this will impact.

And if any of of you watched Monthy Python's Life of Brian, it explains today's title - ten is but the start of how we can go about saving ourselves, and I just keep thinking of more and more.

But lists need starts and finishes, and this all makes for an interesting one, as much for what isn't there as what is.

Let's have a gander:

1: SET LEGALLY BINDING ANNUAL CO2 REDUCTION TARGETS

New law to commit the Government to reducing CO2 every year by a fixed amount - say, 3 per cent - audited by an independent body. A radical programme would then have to be implemented to meet the target.

As a consumer this means nothing to me. Hard to comment. But I don't like targets. That smacks of more people using money talking and not doing. Or doing what meets targets, which often means the opposite of what's best to achieve the result we really are after.

2: DECENTRALISE THE ENERGY SUPPLY SYSTEM

Do away with the vast power stations serving the national grid: think microgeneration. Give every city, every town, every village, its own power station, fitted with a combined heat and power (CHP) system, which cuts CO2

This... I like. So long as the funding to make it work is sensible and not for everyone's benefit except the consumers.

3: ALL NEW BUILDINGS TO BE CO2-FREE

Put a power station in every basement: change building regulations to make all new buildings provide their own power, with solar panels, mini-wind turbines and CHP systems to soak up wasted heat.

Sure, why not? The future starts now.

4: INSIST ON USE OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS

Ban standard light bulbs all over Britain and force us to use energy-saving bulbs instead, which soak up less than a quarter of the electricity. Hugely symbolic gesture which would save enormous quantities of CO2.

How did this get here? I don't like the word ban. And has anyone figured out how most of us afford to restock our existing fittings to take the new bulbs? Better to figure out ways to make the new bulbs fit our fittings and then price them attractively enough to make their use within our budgets.

5: BOOST NEGLECTED RENEWABLES; SOLAR, WAVE, TIDE POWER

Start giving proper funding and backing to renewable energy other than wind: solar power, and power from the waves and tides. These have vast potential to supply CO2-free electricity, yet are underdeveloped.

Yes!!!! I am not a big fan of wind yet. The numbers don't add up, unless you're a German contractor with an MEP meeting you for lunch.

6: FOCUS AGAIN ON OFFSHORE WIND POWER

Renew the impetus behind wind farms based in the sea with 1bn of subsidy: after a good start, development is slowing, because of technical and financial difficulties, yet we have unparalleled offshore wind resources.

OK, offshore. But still, so long as the ROI makes sense to more than a turbine guy's pension plan.

7: GET RADICAL WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Make sure every house in Britain that can be properly insulated is insulated; bring in much more rigorous labelling that can enable any consumer to see how much energy is used by a product.

Ooooook. Insulation is no-brainer. Labelling... hmmn. If our expereince is any guide, labelling is not likely to make a big difference. Looked at a fag packet lately? More money being wafted away on 'campaigns'.

8: TACKLE THE GAS GUZZLERS

Raise vehicle excise duty (VED) on cars such as 4x4s; make it more than ?1,000 per vehicle and set it to rise further. If you want to be radical, insist on a health warning on the side: This Vehicle Damages The Environment.

Why 4x4's? This smacks of city folk (who tend to write for newspapers) applying their urban experiences and prejudices without thinking it through. We're also now in social engineering territory again. Be careful, guys.

9: CURB THE GROWTH IN CHEAP FLIGHTS

Raise air passenger duty to end the cheap flight bonanza, as CO2 emissions from aircraft are the most rapidly rising in Britain and also the most damaging: they go straight into the stratosphere. A vote loser and a tough choice.

Got the last bit right. Same problem as the car fuel one above. Price use down and you're an elitist. By why just cheap flights? Does rather smack of one still wanting one's skiing and safari trips around the globe, but just don't feel the plebs should get to go to visit Granny in Glasgow at half the price the train costs.

10: HAVE A LATE-NIGHT TALK WITH GEORGE BUSH

Do anything you can to get George Bush to change his mind about climate change. The world needs America, the biggest CO2 emitter, to lead the fight against global warming. The President is denying the evidence.

Sure. But when do we talk to the Chinese? I guess it's rude to mention until after the Olympics at least. And who'll be popping over there, I wonder?

It's easy to snipe. And all these are really no-brainers. But the probelm is that everyone who is making the most noise seem blind to the fact that they are usually applying their own limited agendas. And I'm convinced the vast majority of the population are feeling a little bit less than enaged by these rather highbrow notions.

As an example, the paper's Green Goddess column was featured in a link to the article above. I'm afraid that I only got as far as her taking a taxi from her London pied-a-terre to visit her bike-riding eco-consultant or somesuch, before I had to return to my world.

Ask, and you shall receive... ratings at least.

Another one of my 'media missives' that I'll copy here so at least it
is in the public domain if they choose to ignore it.

Although it is specifically about speed cameras and those tasked with
enforcing them, it could equally apply to a lot of environmental
issues that get covered.

My greater concern is the fact that many of our news journalists (not
all) these days are so factually unprepared on topics that all they
can do is invite public submissions which they then dish out to the
interviewees, and then seem unable to challenge the replies sensibly.
They are not always so fawning as the example I cite from today, but
still it seems enough to ask and not be too worried about how
accurate the response is before moving on.

In fact they often ask the most stupidly provocative questions sent
in just to stir things up rather than with any intention of having
an informed debate - " Whoopsie, that's all we have time for
regarding the end of the world. Thanks Osama from Way East of
Norwich). But now a puff piece on our very own [insert bouffant or
vanilla code here], who has been tripping the light fantastic with..
Robbie Williams!"

Anyway, this was to the BBC watchdog programme, Newswatch (crack of
dawn at the weekend for anyone interested. Always a good moment to
air any linen you soiled at peak evening time.) by way of feedback:

"What is the point of inviting questions during Breakfast TV?

Indeed, now that journalism has given way to presenting across almost
any news programme, why bother with any challenging items at all?

Certainly getting an answer, clarification or the truth does not seem
to be the intention any more. It's enough simply to pose (in more
ways than one).

Today the new senior police officer in charge of speeding issues was
given an opportunity to trot out a bunch of old, obvious, official
statements unchallenged, and pretty much allowed to ignore the myriad
real discrepancies that are driving a massive divide between
motorists and the police over this issue. And at the end we get
admonished by the presenters 'if you don't want to get a fine, don't
speed'. It wasn't an interview; it was more like a pre-vetted feed
and stock answer session.

The one real question* I did hear, from a viewer (a magistrate, who I
presume would know about their profession, and whose validity in
doing so was checked by the BBC to be allowed to pose the question),
was why a magistrate would be asked to step down from their position
if they had a similar number of points for speeding as did this
officer. The officer said this was not accurate.

Is it? I remain none the wiser. There was no comment from the
presenters (maybe one was still smarting from being asked about his
record - or possibly worried he'd be targeted). That was simply it.
Question posed. Answer given. No matter that it may or may not have
been correct.

Not what I need and expect from my news."

But certainly what I fear we're going to get more and more of from
the BBC. No wonder it is hard to decide on major climate issues when
officials, lobbyists and the like can pretty much make up whatever
they feel like and get away with it.

*[Mine were: Should he gain a few more points and lose his licence,
would he be able to simply carry on doing his job by being provided
with a driver? Why do the actual cameras not have the limits on them?
If it is only about safety how does he answer those who point out
that where there are these things there are higher accident rates,
and where they are not they are lower?]

RE:Idol!

This weekend I again found myself wrting in to the media, and with little prospect of my thoughts being covered it is nice to be able to at least commit my thought to print, albeit online, via my trusty blog.

It was prompted by the following question/opinion in a waste industry magazine:

Every day in the news there are more and more stories about the impact global of climate change. As businesses we are constantly reminded that we need to embrace new environmental legislation - but the information is confusing and difficult to access - even for those of us in the waste management and recycling industry! 

Why isn't the UK government taking the lead and offering conferences and events free of charge to encourage businesses to act now on measures that can help? Because - if we do manage to retard climate change it will be the best investment in the future that the government has made in a long time!

To which I replied:

"Although I could not agree with [this] more,  and to be fair there are some worthy freebies about, the answer I fear may be that the money such support would require is unlikely to appear, possibly by not easily being put against a ticked tonnage box. And as a lot of other chaps seem to have it all in hand, why get in the way?

It would be great if such backing came to pass. Recently I was flattered to be approached, I thought, to be a speaker at a major event in an area we are involved in. But somehow it moved pretty quickly to me not speaking so much as attending...  to the tune of a grand. Most of which was the fee. Even our editorial function was deemed insufficient for us to attend as a medium and share it with our public... unless we paid.

I'll spare the time. I'll sleep on a mate's floor. I'll try and get an advance super-saver train ticket. But my little organisation just can't afford several hundred quid for such an affair, no matter how much we'd benefit from being there, and others may possibly also gain by our opinions being shared.

Maybe that's why a lot of these events end up being dominated by the views and actions of major corporates, government departments, councils and all others who can afford to 'invest' their shareholders' and tax/ratepayers' money to keep meeting only with those who can afford to interact with or lobby them. And such financially-secured exclusivity does keep things in the peer group comfort zone.

Being even more fair, there is no doubt these things do cost a lot to put on (but one imagines the number of them springing up also indicate that they are a nice little earner, and it would be interesting to see just how cheap they could be brought if it was all at cost -  which is a lot different to not-for-profit), and the question still remains as to who should foot the bill. And if it is subsidised such that it is free, then with the consequent upsurge in those now able to attend, who conducts the vetting process? There will be space limits, so who gets to come? Money at least avoids any hint of agenda bias in the selection process. So it does get argued that a charge ensures only those most committed attend, but that has certain... flaws in the world of the jolly.

I would have suggested sponsorship as a route, but many conferences do seem to have a fair amount already, and having also been 'invited' to have a stand in reception, those shell scheme/goody bag packages do add up to a lot. Which makes you wonder just how much the cost of the hall, A/V, coffee and speakers' expenses (and a lot don't get any) is not actually covered, and how affordable these things could be made to encourage/allow attendance by those who care enough to spare the time, but may not have the cash.

I'm dreaming up a way to do this. And here's a draft (daft?) notion: RE:idol!

All interested potential attendees could submit a paragraph with their application about who they are, what they'd like to learn, who they'd like to meet, why, and... most importantly, what they feel they could contribute. 

Then once we've all signed up to attend, we get to tick those we think would be worth listening to and/or meeting. Those with the most ticks get invited to speak. Or better yet moderate at topic tables (I usually find sitting and listening to a speech, or worse pitch, the least useful, most time consuming part of such events). Networking and idea-sharing is where the real value of getting together lies, so maximise this aspect. The rest of the list get to come, with a cut-off based on the hall space limit. 

How democratic would that be? The people coming decide who they'd like most to listen to and interact with. And maybe some poor guy with two bob to their name is the one deemed most worth meeting, and the bankrolled lobbyist or consultant deemed not worth it. Less movers and shakers and more doers vs. talkers. 

Maybe then our elected representatives would see merit in funding the hopefully modest costs of staging? 

I'm holding my breath."

You know, having slept on it that's not such a daft idea at all. In fact it would be a good model for conferences for all industries (and public service departments) that seem to place protective layers between themselves and the those, including the genral public, who do deserve access to and a voice in the discussions that get held supposedly in our interest.

Maybe I'll have a stab! It's not like I have got much on at the moment.

Shell Game

Well, we're at it again. Friday night (at about 11.30pm for a
midnight cut-off - let no one say we do not plan well ahead for
comfort) I fired off our application to the Shell Springboard fund.
At up to £40k, it was worth going for, and hopefully will prove worth
the effort.

I've said it before, and been disappointed just as often, but we're
hopeful this may stand a good chance.

For a start, the stated objectives include innovative ideas to reduce
greenhouses gasses, and pretty much every aspect of Junkk.com is
dedicated to that aim, embracing reuse, repair and, of course,
recycling, which still seems to be grabbing the lion's share of
attention and funding of late.

But we are rather hoping our efforts to make merit out of the less
'target-measureable' of the 're's' may stand us in good stead in
innovation terms, with of course our 'reduction contribution'
including information and support for alternative fuels, etc, which
may score some brownie points for relevance to the sponsors!

Unlike many other such efforts, there was also an encouraging
acknowledgment that worthwhile contributions need not come form a
'thing', and we've seen so many previous efforts fall in favour of
the latest gizmo that tech-head judges can play with. So again we are
hoping our online initiative will get a good hearing in this framework.

Finally, it was quite a surprise (a pleasant one I might add) to see
that not-for-profits, charities, universities, etc were not eligible.
The competition was looking for stand alone ideas which had a
rational business footing, and did not see trying to make money in
this manner as a bad thing. This again was a refreshing change, which
we do hope will further work to our advantage.

Last (bonfire) night as I watched a bunch of stuff go up in smoke and/
or disappear into thin air or a black hole, I overheard two guys in
the crowd talking about a certain waste quango's 'not for profit'
status. Looking at their funding, one couldn't figure out how they
managed to avoid making money, to which the other replied 'I know
their Finance Director; if he's any measure, with the wedge he's on,
the building they've bought and the size of the department he's
building, they have NO problem ensuring the money gets spent.'

Once awarded, the Shell get applied directly to the task at hand.
More our style. Fingers crossed we'll find we get picked!

Jobs for the boys

I'm not a big tabloid fan. When they try to play with real news I believe their self-serving agenda does way more harm than good to society.

If they just stuck to celebrity issues it would be fine. A blond soap star 'forgets' her knickers as she exits a car bum first and gets 'outraged' by the consequences being splashed across the front page (well, suitably bepixelled... fiull story inside). A whole industry has in short order been created to serve the careers of talentless singers, actors and... er... people (silicon balloon transporters, etc), and the broadcast and print media who get paid to exist in their expensive worlds and 'report' upon them. And they all work together to keep themselves in business. No harm done, apart from the odd  bit of fodder that falls off the rails and finds this is one industry whose health plan only kicks in if they get the exclusive on the Priory stay.

Which leads me to CSR, about which I was reading just now. It was a an opinion piece in the Telegraph Online by the/a Director of Policy Studies. So it was I suppose not too surprising that she was less than positive on the burden a bunch of of moral duties were being dumped on businesses by a range of folks, from the press through interest groups right on (up?) to Government.

And her main point was a good one. In many cases, why on earth should they? More precisely, why should their shareholders be obliged to pay for all this?

My views on the motivations and hence effectiveness of most not-for-profit and in many cases charities are already outlined in my blogs, so I have a certain sympathy for anyone who is striving to make a profit.  And to quote part of her conclusion: 'business's most socially responsible act is to continue making [this contribution - goods & services, jobs, taxes, etc] by being profitable and successful. The irony of much of the corporate responsibility agenda is that it can undermine business's vital contribution to society by imposing costs and burdens for frequently ill-defined social and moral objectives.'

With which it is hard not agree, though in some cases what goods are being made is one that I may wish to keep an eye on. I'll also plug Junkk.com here by saying we have a pretty neat model that enables one to do good AND turn an extra profit if done in the right way.

But you know what really stuck me? It was in the Google Adwords column on the left of this piece. 

All manner of folks advertising CSR consultancies, conferences or jobs in CSR.  I just have to wonder how many of these guys will ever actually do anything to make a real difference. We've approached more than a few to pitch our tale, and never been given the time of day so far. Probably because they are at a CSR conference in Bali, meeting with the very folks from the media, interest groups and government who have managed to create an industry to keep them all in the business of... what? I which way they exit taxis?

Statistics, damn statistics... and reports.

As a bit if Sunday fun, I was reading a report on the United Nations' Official Day of Disaster Preparedness, the title of which attracted me more to find out what happened on the other 360-odd days of the year: unofficial preparedness?
 
Actually it was some cerebral get-together, and the piece involved an interview with a senior environment-type dude, Janos Bogardi.
 
The top line was/is that if nothing is done to cushion the blow of natural disasters, by 2010 50 million could be driven from their homes annually.
 
Though by no means definitive, there are apparently compelling statistics to show natural disasters are getting worse. Don't know if the dinosaurs, ancient Pompeians or anyone with a turn-of the century condo on Krakatoa would agree, but we are 'experiencing 2.5 to 3 times as many extreme events of climatic em4rgncy as we did in the 1970s’.
 
Now that kinda of knocks one of my notions on the head, because in the 1970s we certainly had a pretty fair global communication network. I was there. Admittedly not 'as it happens' satellite uplink images from a mobile, but you could get a concerned reporter with a radio to kick some food and water off a rescue chopper and on the scene then just as easily as you can now. So bang goes my theory that a lot of this is just perception because we get told about it immediately. Though I still think there is a difference between hearing about it on the radio a few days later and watching it live.
 
Now as my title may indicate, I'm not a big fan of reports. For one they seem to consume a lot of effort and introduce a lot of delays to actually doing something, and also can be pretty much made to say anything anyone with an agenda likes. Which is a shame, because it's hard to have a balanced opinion if you have ceased to trust a major avenue of information. A sad consequence of our byte-sized society, I guess.
 
For instance, one thing that was not mentioned in the piece, though it may have been in the report (if not high on the PR agenda), was that it may be that natural disasters are having more impact simply because there are lot more of us, with a lot more stuff, upon which it can impact. I don't think there were too many Swedish sunbathers on Thai beaches back in the 70’s.
 
At least the fact that there being a lot more of us was acknowledged as maybe taking its toll on the land upon which we are living. But there was no mention of what to do about that rather significant fact, concentrating instead on efforts to preserve them. Different department, I guess.
 
The piece was titled 'Preparing for the worst', which may have been the publication's title rather than the aims of the report, but it did seem to focus more on solutions to these disasters, rather than prevention of them, or at least their scale.
 
There was a nice quote, 'we are always arming for the last battle', which is all too true, but it seems to me they are equally guilty of cherry-picking with the same convenience they are trying to label short-sighted politicos.
 
Of course we need to do all we can to prepare and protect, but perhaps now is the time to concentrate every bit as much effort on tackling, with all the complex 'ical' nightmares it would entail, on one of the major the causes of such disasters and the costs they create, and that is overpopulation. Before nature does it for us.

Saving what, exactly?

At Junkk.com, we tend to pretty much wear our heart on our sleeves.
We're trying to do the right thing 'for the future', but at the same
time we're like most normal folk and have various pressures of life,
career and the pursuit of happiness that can cause us to either
transgress enviro-nirvana practice through ignorance, or even suffer
the odd twang of guilt when we do it knowingly. Hence we have tried
to avoid setting ourselves up for any egg on face scenarios by not
seeking to set ourselves up as paragons of the 'only way'.

However, we do want to represent, as much as is possible, accurate
information. So I'm trying to figure a way to create aspects of the
site that are 'as good as we can figure... unless you know
different', that will encourage those who know better to share their
wisdom.

This, then, allows me to at least pose some pretty daft questions and
pop off on some pretty odd tangents, all in the genuine hope of
finding 'a better way' (environmentally, that is) , but which I have
to accept may turn out not to be so. I just think we all have to
accept that some issues are so complex a definitive answer is not
possible, so on balance doing something that 'feels right' may be
better than doing nothing because it might not.

This train of thought has been inspired by an article I was reading
about GPS systems for cars. Now, being a man and not afraid to stop
and ask directions, I have always thought these things to be pretty
way out on the wrong side of the 'making more stuff' vs. 'making
stuff better' debates I am engaged upon with various experts in
various fields (and usually losing, because they spend all day on
their stuff, when I kinda have a passing interest and can't match
their killer facts). And that doesn't include the jam-avoiding bits.

But for the first time I came across a bit of blurb that pointed out
that by making sure you don't get lost, these things actually offer a
genuine environmental benefit. I really don't know the e-consequences
of making the things and selling them to us, but I am prepared to be
persuaded that throughout their lifespans, they may actually result
in less gunk in the atmosphere than if they didn't exist.

So... great! Another possible advertiser for Junkk.com. Unless you
know different.

A token thought.

Like HRH the Prince of Wales, I have more than a passing interest in the environment. Unlike him (apparently), I do not have a Toyota Prius, nor do I intend to wear mine with pride.

The reasons are varied. For one, I have a perfectly good car (two in fact, for altogether justifiable reasons I won't go into here), though I do confess they squeak out a few more atmospheric nasties as they do their bit, despite my best efforts on regular servicing, etc. And as my wallet is a potent force in my decision processes, I am looking at converting them to LPG, though there are certain issues yet to resolve before that happens. Like money. Which brings me to reason number two. In fact that is reason number two: I can't afford one, much as I may like to. I say may, and will stop the whole 'reason trail' here and now, by also still needing to get to grips with a few facts that keep cropping up in the, possibly, more cynical zones of the motoring press. Like the fact that it may actually not be any better on the kind of run we do from our country retreat. But as the first two make the whole thing academic, we'll leave me out of it. For now, and the foreseeable future, we are not getting one. 

But a lot of fine folk are. And telling us. Like HRH. And half of Hollywood. Which is all tickedy-boo. Now, as we at Junkk.com hate to wag a finger, and anything is better than nothing, I'd just like to let that eyebrow twitch again and wonder why these much-trumpeted purchases seem to be in addition to the Astons, Range Rovers, Humvees, etc. And even if these fine fellows do no more than sit in the air-conditioned garage block, they did consume a fair old few resources and generate a few gases in the making, no? New stuff does. Even Priusess (what is the plural?).

Hence I remain a little concerned about the messages going out, which remain, at best, mixed. I've got a bee in my bonnet about this whole issue, which I just know is going to sting me on the rear when our TV needs replacing with a digital thingie and (if I can afford it) I get a wall-mounted LCD/plasma (though I believe there are enviro reason for one vs. the other we're looking at soon, so maybe my e-conscience may end up clear) effort. But we tend not to trumpet our, limited, efforts. We just do what we can, want, and afford to.

It all started with a letter I wrote to a Sunday Times architectural journalist in response to a small debate stirrer he'd lobbed out into the public domain, which was something about getting rid of planners and building wherever we fancy. At the risk of coming over all Nimby, I'd erred in favour of some kind of 'protection' (though whether our planners and their political masters provide this function is open to another debate), if only because of one, simple, inescapable set of... colliding... facts: there is finite space on this planet (especially that devoted to sustaining us), and an ever-increasing number of us trying to occupy and live off it. 

So my bee is/was that we should pretty quick-smart devote a fair amount of our creative energies to making the most of what we have and not encroaching any further on nature. Stuff needs making to be sure to keep economies afloat and innovation alive, but I'd simply advocate focussing more on making more of things than making more things.

For sure a Prius is better, environmentally at least, instead of an Aston when you're going from A to B. But I do question whether the required example is being made when it is as well as. 

You can call me 'Al

I just 'invested' half an hour answering a question posed by The
Times Online. Based on an article regarding the woeful response to a
BA initiative (basically voluntarily buying off your eco-guilt for
flying - check it out here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1833936,00.html )

they asked if airplane fuel should be taxed

(see here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1834561.00.html )

, to which I replied as follows:

"Probably, yes. This despite working for a 'change through incentive
rather than penalty-based methods’ planet-saving organisation. AND
being married to a Singaporean, and hence having 50% of annual family
obligations 12,000 miles away. IF (it's a biggie) climate change is
due to greenhouse gasses out of exhaust pipes, then no Prius purchase
will match the consequences of annual jaunts to Klosters or Barbados.
And of course those who do probably still will carry on doing so no
matter what (don’t see too many Notting Hillbilly, chattering class
eco-champions opting to camp in Kent or having their conferences in
Cardiff), and hence punts us straight into ‘them and us’ territory.
As does any fuel tax. Now, who is the politician – especially one who
is seeking re-election in a few summer holidays’ time - to tell us we
can’t fly unless we pay? Or stand up to the airline lobby and its
global employee base that faces serving only a minority elite. Fuel-
cell powered Jumbos anyone?"

It's why I like blogs. Even if they don't include me, or worse they
do and I miss it when they do (got a few better things to do than
live on every online forum in case I get featured), or much worse,
flamed by those who do have such time, at least I can get my point
'out there' on my own terms.

What's interesting is that in the short time between starting this
and looking back, the posts are up there and on balance agreeing with
my point(s).

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Talking with Emma we
were projecting to a point where she would not be able to afford to
drive to work here (there is no alternative method) or I could not
visit my UK relatives in Scotland, simply because driving was priced
out of our reach and into the province of an elite.

So can taxing or levies on travel be the answer? It would seem to be
political suicide to try.

Then we debated a non-means-based method. How about we are allotted
so much leisure miles a year by road, sea, train and air? Madonna
gets the same as us. Her call on how she uses it. But then, how about
she really, really wants to go somewhere nice and hence gets to buy
our allotment off us? Woooo. Carbon-trading anyone? I am feeling a
headache coming on just trying to grasp with the social,
environmental and all other 'al' consequences. Good job a bunch of
selfish, self-interested empire builders are doing the thinking on
this for us.

Interesting notion. Soon we'll all be stuck in our villages and can
only communicate virtually unless permitted to travel by those who
know better. Glad we have swans outside our window. At least until
John Prescott concretes them over.

Energy Deficiency

I'm depressed. And I don't even read the Daily Mail (at least not
unless it has a classic DVD I must have, but will never watch). It
certainly doesn't help that the nature of our work here at Junkk.com
involves trawling through masses of information and opinion from
every worldwide media source imaginable. Thanks to these it becomes a
toss up if we'll get to the end of the day before being consumed by a
climatic catastrophe, bird flu, Iranian nukes or pillaging and raping
footballers.

But my more immediate concerns surround mathematics, and if you end
up agreeing with me by the conclusion of this piece, you can at least
be reassured that I wasn't too terrific at it and hence may be wrong.

I have already broached the inescapable fact that, while the earth's
surface area is finite, there has to be a collision point in the
future between this and the expansion of our population and the
demands of each individual's needs throughout their lifespan.

And it is the individual which again concerns me in playing with my
sums again.

Because there are fewer and fewer people 'making' (I have to put that
in quotes as it's a broad definition) anything useful.

Yet the numbers of people 'feeding' (ditto) off them, and in fact
dependent on them for their existence, is growing exponentially.

So I'm afraid I just can't make the numbers add up.

As an example, some very nice working colleagues in the charitable
sector have just found that money they were promised (and spent) on a
worthy project has basically been sucked into a black hole as a
result of the quango that was to disseminate the money creating a sub-
quango, with the net result (I'm guessing) that a bunch of money was
consumed in the creation of this new entity. Now each quango is
pointing at the other as the reason for the shortfall, with the
result of course of the amount not being honoured.

Where is it going to end? We have legions of folk meeting,
researching, administering, assessing, reviewing, legislating,
policing, fining, taxing, building offices, creating empires, going
to courses, giving time off, ticking boxes, meeting targets, paying
salaries and guaranteeing pensions... but who the heck is going to
pay for this? In the short term I just mean financially, but in the
longer term simply by creating useable resources that these ever-
multiplying drains consume every second?

It doesn't really matter if our various future challenges are natural
or man-made, but we're the only race currently in much of a position
to do anything about them.

So by my assessment of the numbers, the most urgent efficiency we
need to address is in how we deploy our own energies. Make something,
or at least make it better.

The Curse of the Council Bugbear

The continuing saga of the missing recycling bags continues. This week, we were actually left with bags. Two white ones, and three black bags. To share between FOUR FLATS.

A couple of weeks ago, I decided to start a thread on the Environment Site Forum, to share my fustrations, and to find out if other people had similar problems. It is becoming quite a popular thread, which you may find of interest. Click on the link below:

http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=3351

Happy reading.

No Waste Like Home, No More

Last night was the last in the series of No Waste Like Home. The family featured used a lot of electricity. Everything from lights, televisions, and hair straightners, to the spa was left on 24/7. They consumed enough electricity in two weeks to power a football stadium for an entire football match. To help reduce consumption, light bulbs were changed to energy saving ones, and the spa was put on a timer. Cleaning products were replaced with old favourites such as vinegar and lemon juice. A wood burner was also installed, but again, who paid for that? Did the family themselves stump up, or was it the BBC?

Overall the programme has given us an insight into some attitudes of the general public. People are becoming more and more aware of the environment they live in, and the damage that is being caused. As this show has demonstrated, people do need to be shown what to do to reduce, (repair) reuse and recycle. Many people are aware that it is a good thing to do; they just don’t know how to do it. Hopefully No Waste Like Home has inspired a few more people to think their impact on the environment.

We look forward to seeing a second series.

The Council bugbear

This is just an extra quick one today. My partner and I had a bet on at the weekend about the recycling bags. He thought that I wouldn't get my bags delivered to me on Monday, even though the Council did promise in an email. I had a little more faith (suprisingly) and thought that I would get my bags. He has gone away on a business trip, so will hopefully forget by the time he gets back - because he was right. :(

BugBears - the Prequel

Peter is out and about in London fighting traffic wardens and talking to students. Another bug bear blog I'm afraid. This time it is about my local council. A few months ago I moved into a new flat down the road from where I use to live. At my old flat, I would recieve my one black bin liner and my one recycling bag each Monday. Throughout the week I would dutifully fill my recycling bag (and not so much in the black bin liner), pop it out on a Sunday, and hey presto, it was taken away on Monday morning, and I would recieve new bags.

Now I didn't expect this to change when moving only 200 yards down the road. But it has. For the worse. For starters, I am now rudely awaken at about 6am by the road cleaner. Now, I know they like to clean when there is little traffic round, but at 6am? I'm grumpy in the morning anyway, and this just makes it worse. Sometimes they don't take all the rubbish. Secondly, they don't leave any bin bags. At all. Not even one. My flat (and it is only one bedroom) is looking like a landfill site. I refuse to throw out anything that can be recycled, so my flat is rapidly filling up. 'Contact the council!' I hear you say, well I have. About severn times now. The first time I was sent bags in an envelope through the post, and was promised they would make sure I would recieve bin bags in the future. And I'm still waiting. The last email I had from the council was the beginining of September, promising a bulk delivery to me of 26 black bin liners, 26 recycling bags. Still waiting for that delivery.

Now, I thought councils had recycling targets that they wanted to increase? Okay, so I'm sure my contribution doesn't make a huge dent, but how many other people have complained to the council, and not had a response? Many people know how to recycling, and know what to do, but its no good if the council doesn't provide the bins/bags for people. Councils tend to have poor reputations with their local tax payers. I certainly don't think too highly of my local council at the moment. Wouldn't it be great if I was proved wrong by a council?

Bugbears, the sequel

It's kind of Emma to 'pick up the slack' for me. I had thought I could maintain a dignified 'one a weekday' blog, but circumstances are just getting out of my control.

I was away at the Factory pretty much 48/2 over the weekend making stuff for our fREsher's fayRE stands, then had a nightmare journey to, around and back from London on the Monday delivering it all. That meant all of the previous 3 days' work backed up and Tuesday was a loooooong day.

And I did try to do a blog, honest. It was about the nightmare journey, and when I get a moment I will try and repeat it. But the creation system here did something odd when I tried to add a picture, then swallowed it all when I saved it as a draft and I still can't find it. So it was exit, stage left, followed by a bugbear. Or several.

One day I'll do a blog about these, too. One day.

For now I think Emma and I will just pop up a blog when we are in the mood, have something to say and can spare a moment.

Thinking about it, that is a blog. What I was doing was writing a daily column. Now, where can I find the time to do that I wonder?

Bug Bears

There isn't enough hours in the day, there really isn't. Hence why I am writing Peter's blog for him today. He's a busy man you know. Now before I start, I need to make something clear - Peter is King of Blog (or blag in some cases!) and I am Queen of Forums. So please excuse my ramblings today. I'm a bit of a blog virgin, but I will give it my best shot. Here it goes...

I have been working on Junkk.com for almost two years now. I have done a lot of reseach during this time, particularly reviewing other websites. During this time, I have developed a few bug bears about website design/layout/navigation/content etc. Here is my list:

1) Pink on a white background just does not work. Barely readable, and my eyes start going fuzzy after a few seconds. White on a black background looks scary too. I know it is personal preference, but these colours really don't do it for me.

2) Broken Links. I'm searching a website, come across some really interesting information, want further details, so click on the link to find...error page... blah...access denied... blah blah...that just really annoys me! Website links should be checked regularly.

3) Slow loading pages. Broadband has done wonders for the internet. Some websites forget that although many people have broadband, many others are still on dial-up. Sitting at the computer for half and hour while waiting for the homepage to appear is time wasting, and your website can lose traffic because of it.

4) Online forms. I much prefer to have an email address to write to, so I have a sense that someone will actually read my email, and reply. Many times I have sent an email using an online form, and haven't recieved a reply.

5) This is by far, my biggest bug bear. (Peter will smile when he reads this). Out of date information! Agghhhh! There are a few websites I visit regularly. Under the 'latest news' section there are the 'latest' articles from April 2004! If someone keeps going to your website, and its not updated regularly, your going to lose them. I'm proud to say that something new pops up on Junkk.com almost daily.

I'm not saying that Junkk.com is perfect in comparison, but I like to think we have most things covered, and what we don't have covered, we are working on :)

No Waste Like Students

I sat down next to the cat to watch the sixth instalment of No Waste Like Home last night. I was particularly interested in watching this episode as being a graduate (well two years ago) I was intrigued to see how well the six students would do. We are also promoting Junkk.com at some fresher fayres over the coming weeks, so I wanted to see if students had changed much since I was a student!

They were accurately portrayed – a typical student house share with lots of mess, music, televisions, computers left on all day, along with the heating, topped off with up to 17 bags of rubbish each week. I found it amusing that the one lad would go down the street and drop off the bags of rubbish to his neighbour’s bins.

I feel strongly that people respond more to visual representation of what they are doing to the planet, and this was justified when Penney took the students to a local landfill site to follow their rubbish. They were shocked by the amount of rubbish dumped there, and it really hit home.

One of the tasks of the students was to convert another friend/business/family to be greener. They opted for a local restaurant. Encouraging the restaurant to recycle their food waste seemed an easy task for the students – and the restaurant still recycles over 80% of its kitchen waste today. It could be argued that the restaurant only did it to look good on TV, but I think that they were inspired by the students. Students are big influences in society, and to get them on board with Junkk.com will be fantastic. At the end of the day, they have loans and other debts. The students on the programme were more than happy to try out money saving ideas with Penney. By also going to Junkk.com they can save some money too. Oh and help save the planet.

Score one for us!

Junkk.com is nothing if not a roller-coaster ride of ups and downs, with the consequent highs and lows such events can impose on our morale.

So it's nice to have a pretty big 'up' to report. Yesterday I gingerly opened an envelope from Michael Nuttley, the Editor of NMA (New Media Age). It contained a copy of their latest weekly edition, which he had kindly forwarded.

Those who read my blog from last week will recall that, as a consequence of meeting him at a 'do' in Cardiff, we found he'd subsequently asked a reporter to do a review of Junkk.com, which caught us on the hop as it is still being perfected.

Hence we were VERY nervous. This is a magazine that deals with the cutting edge of online media and marketing, and is read by all the folks we need to reach... positively.

So it was with some relief that we found that not only was it a pretty good review, but we had actually been awarded the accolade of 'Website of the Week' by them!

The review did raise a few issues that we can and will (in fact are, hence the fact we have not yet made a major PR noise about it being live yet) address, and one we can do little about, namely the potential confusion with junk.com.

But, on the whole, not too shabby.