If you buy into some woods today, you're in for a big surprise

Let's start with some good news. It seems that to my growing list of enlightened media (with the exception of The Economist, who have just announced their updates are going paid subscription. Boo) giving at least some measure (extent and/or duration of access tba) of free access to information I can add the Guardian. At least I can now add a new political and social balance to those news feeds I have traditionally had access to (Telegraph, Times) and used (mainly by virtue of being delivering daily to my desktop, free... and with archive access), and whose news and opinions have doubtless shaped, if not influenced, some of my factual knowledge base... and possibly opinions. 

Now it kinda goes downhill from here. The Guardian is not what you call enviro-sceptic (no op-ed's from Jeremy Clarkson I'd hazard, though I'd bet a small nuclear plant he has something to say about the following within the week), so the front page I saw in the newsagents this morning stopped me dead.

Anyway, I came straight to the net to read more, and was greeted by this e-version, which was equally striking:

Global warming: blame the forests 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1684379,00.html

as it goes on to share, in what they deem a startling discovery, living plants may (let's cling on to that word for now) emit almost a third of the methane entering the Earth's atmosphere. And methane is not helpful, warming-wise.

In what I'd say was masterful understatement, they go on to opine that it will also intensify debates (ya think??! I am braced for a reaction from 'interested parties' which will make the reaction to the Beeb's landfill expose look tame) on whether targets in climate change treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol should be based entirely on carbon emissions.

In an associated very interesting fact, bearing in mind my target-based systems phobia, is that suits like these  because, surprise, surprise - they are easily measured. Taking sinks into account is less popular, even though they remove carbon from the atmosphere. But they are more difficult to measure. So.. it may be wrong, but at least it gives us an easy result. Nice career if you can get it.

Before your break out the chainsaw, the report doesn't see planting forests as a bad idea, thank heavens, though that seems at odds with the headline to me. Author Dr. Mahli at least feels that "Putting a tree where there was no tree before locks up a lot of carbon and this [new research] perhaps reduces the overall benefit of that by a fraction". Phew.

However, on balance I must to confess to a having felt a bit of smug 'toldyerzoism' momentarily, but for all the wrong reasons. I just have a major niggle about the culture of keeping on doing stuff and buying off the guilt by whacking a tree in the ground to compensate. It seemed/s the wrong way to tackle things, sending a compromised message, and looking all too easy to fall into the hands of every shyster around trying to play it for what they can get. 

But I have alwasy felt that greenery.. was good. And I'll take some convincing I need to cut down my back garden and turn it into a forecourt. But John Prescott must be thinking the rapture has come, so look out Sussex!

Anyway, this blog is more often than not a way to see Junkk.com policy getting shaped, and this is a case in point.

On balance, we'll stick with reading stuff, sharing what we think is for real and valid, and let you decide. It isn't exactly the purest journalism (we don't, yet, have the budget to maintain 'Our Man In Havant'), but then I don't think very much of what the mainstream reports is either these days. We all see an item, maybe follow up, ask a few questions (but often not), and then whack it up there and see what happens to the ratings. 

At least this report was by a team from the Max Plank Institute (supported by an expert from Oxford University), published in Nature and picked up by various news organisations, including the Guardian, and thence via me to you here. And that's not a bad provenance chain, at least for the facts. I'm not quite so sure about the interpretations and/or reactions.

However, at least we will keep on sharing such stuff with a sprinkling of eye-twitch, a hint of 'is this really the case?', and wherever possible with a counter view to put beside it. But I do think we're going to play down our focus on the information side of such issues, at least in areas such as climate change. For one, a lot of other, bigger guys are already doing it. And frankly, it's just getting us in a spin, so I can only imagine what it's doing for those with less chance to collate and review the various resources daily. First something is good, then its bad. Where the heck does that leave you to do for the best?

But mainly I think we'll focus a tad more on doing what we are desingned to do best, and I know can only help: which is try to reduce waste and promote efficiencies through end-benefit driven ideas, information in a form the general public can engage with and respond to, along with support and, where possible, associated rewards of saved time, effort and money. Sound like a plan?

Computer says Woah!

With our reporting of news kicking into a higher gear now, and our Forums getting equally active, I am especially sensitive to the fast-evolving nature of story-gathering via the internet, both active and passive, along with the opportunities and problems presented by being open to contributions from individuals and organisations alike, whose provenance we are not always in a position to fully assess.

With the ramifications of the Wikipedia affair (previous blog(s)) still fresh in my mind, I therefore read with interest an opinion piece in a recent Sunday Times entitled "Still a place for marshals on the wild web's frontiers', authored by Barry Collins:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1964662,00.html

Starting with the potential problems presented by citizen journalists who can spark serious public unrest with irresponsible, if not plain inaccurate reporting, he goes on to raise the much more (and all things considered, this really is serious) worrying fact that the BBC has begun to remove the human “moderators” who filter comments by contributors to its website forums. Of course, I am sort of proving a few points here by assuming this to be true simply because it was in the Sunday Times, but I don't think my sharing this will result in riots, so I'll press on.

Apparently, instead of such moderators, Auntie has computer software primed to weed out obscenities and libelous comments is being tested during allegedly “noncontroversial” debates, with plans to extend it further. According to Pete Clifton, head of interactive news at the BBC, “We can trust our audience.” 

I am afraid I must share Barry's doubts on this, with a bit of an 'err, no'.

Even in the relatively uncontroversial world of Junkk.com's Forum, passions can run high. You need a human to keep things on track. And it's also hard to appeal to a computer to rectify things when matters of fact or opinion stray from what is true or acceptable. 

There is by all accounts a code of conduct being drafted by the National Union of Jounalists, and we will try and aquire this and obvioulsy abide by it. 

But frankly we think common sense and a practical appreciation of sound ethics should suffice.

Transports of delight?

A few weeks ago the Sunday Times carried an article by Michael Plain, President of Transport 2000, entitled 'The world tells us to take the train' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1964924,00.html (testing it just now the link still works, which was a pleasant surprise. I thought one only had a week's grace, so big up to the Times).

Now I admire anyone who is prepared to put their head above the parapet, but do confess an inherent bias against anyone who tells me to do anything (especially when they piggy back a bunch of other folk to add further weight to their views. A a quick tangent veer, this is why it really grates getting 'I have a mandate from the people' from pols who scrape through an election with a pathetic percentage of an apathetic turnout).

So I must confess my first thought was 'then how come you and your crew spend a lot of time whizzing about in all sorts of other, perhaps less environmentally-sound, methods of travel' when you are doing your job?'. 

The answer of course is, and he does admit it, because the job demands it. I can just see some City slicker telling the accounts dept. he's off on a meeting to Hong Kong by train, which will take about 3 weeks and cost a small fortune over and above his executive time. Or, for that matter, me getting us to our next meeting in Telford without driving (at least we swing by Emma's to pick her up en route).

So I'd say it's worth a read. There are some good points he makes, whilst acknowledging that there is no short cut or no magic solution to the problems of increasing car (no mention of planes, at least here) use across the world. 

I especially appreciated the following: "Improved transport is to most people part of an improved quality of life. Mobility helps people to find better work and better living conditions. It keeps families in touch. It helps in the creation of better facilities such as schools, houses and workplaces." Though I think a lot of rich media types in London often forget that this applies to many in the UK when spouting off about what we should stop doing.

But he rightly points out, as have I, that the problem is 'we' like to travel. He doesn't go into the fact that there are too darn many of 'us', with lots more to come, and so there'll be a lot more traveling in the offing. And it's in some of the areas with mega-populations this expectation is going to involve and upgrade to internal combustion-based methods. I fear this will make any efforts on our part pale in comparison, but that's no excuse for inaction, and we need to lead by example. Just... no deckchairs on the Titanic, please.

His piece is thoughtful, and balanced, but mainly a big list of problems (a failing I will admit to sharing, as I can offer few on this topic). I'm sure it is a pity that sheep herders used to walk two days to watch a polo match, but now use trucks. Who can blame them? That's two days not earning, so they now have a way to make a crust and have some fun.

But he does go on to suggest some solutions, which does keep me on side, though I may have some questions about the practical realities of their application vs. the ideals suggested. For instance, bearing in mind the lead about trains, we in Ross can only wonder what it was like when they used to come through here. I'm afraid that all the major centre to major centre links in the world will make no difference if, once you get there, you are stuffed getting to the place you actually want to be in a decent time and for a decent price.

That may be less of a concern for the likes of Michael, who concludes by casting doubt (probably correctly) on the corrective positive effects of market forces alone, and also reassures us that he will "continue to make travel programmes, secure in the knowledge that the terrible conditions he are experiencing are doing more than any government could to persuade people to stay at home". Er, right.

Anyway, check out the full text (especially if the link goes down) on the Transport 2000 site: http://www.transport2000.org.uk/

It's all part of the debate, and I did find the reader's forum exchanges worthwhile. But I have to say I thought the Editor's blog revealed a certain bias that to me compomises the tone I liked in Michael's article.

It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it

I may have to reinstate that Newsweek sub; it has proven a rich seam. 

I hadn't noticed before, but inside the front cover there's an ad from Chevron (strapline 'Human Energy'), headlined 'The World consumes two barrels of oil for every barrel discovered', and then poses the question: 'So is this something you should be worried about?'.

I have to say my first thought was that I'm a tad more worried the world is still rushing around devoting so much effort finding more of the stuff that is causing global warming, and not leaving it where it can do no more harm. 

But while reading on (who the heck reads body copy anyway?) they do sort of acknowledge the environmental side of things, though there's also still a fair bit on finding and burning the stuff as well. It's the economy, stupid!

Ho Hum. Anyway, they have a website where you can go to join in the discussion. Maybe I will.

http://www.willyoujoinus.com

 

Meanwhile, I read something interesting about our own homegrown biofuels as worthy alternatives, under the heading 'Energy expert says crops seen inefficient as biofuel'

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=10761464&src=eDialog/GetContent

Seems Lord Oxburgh, a former Shell Chairman, reckons waste products make a better biofuel than traditional British crops such as rapeseed and grain because of the energy it takes to grow them.

He made a few other interesting points, not least that the US is using maize for their efforts, which is the least efficient bio crop of the lot. No change there then. Hummm..er.

A stitch in time saves... a heck of a lot

I'm going to miss Newsweek. It provided a valuable insight into at
least what one section of another culture thinks about world events.
Sadly, it is the latest victim of our cost cutting measures, and
subscriptions are high on the 'but do we really need them?' list.
Well I suppose I could argue yes, as it, or at least its content
inspired this blog, which in turn filled some space on Junkk.com and
maybe even gave a person who reads it a reason to return. Hmmn. Tough
call.

Anyway, the story that inspired me was the fallout, if I can call it
that, from Mr. Sharon being struck down. What got me was how
everyone, from the rabbi next door in downtown Tel Aviv to the US
sate Department, were running around like headless chickens.
Derailing the peace process and lord knows what else being bandied
about amongst the wailing and moaning, with earnest Middle East hacks
looking to camera and sharing the shock of the moment.

For crying out loud. The guy was almost 80 and more than a few kilos
above the ideal. You might also suspect that his lifestyle may on
occasion have been a tad stressful. Did no one have a contingency in
mind for when (I'm pretty sure death still ranks as a sure bet, along
with taxes) this happened?

I'm starting to wonder. There used to be a sense that folk much
smarter than we were figuring out all sorts of 'what ifs' and putting
in place all the necessary 'what we do is's', and doing it with
decades in hand to plan and prepare. Now I'm not so sure. It seems
like we're seeing 'just in time' government in much the same way as
just in tin time car assembly, with all the ability to cope when part
of the chain breaks. And it's all for the same reasons, to save a
penny now and let someone else's career deal with the consequences.

I am not encouraged.

ps: In the same edition there was a feature, not exactly critical, on
how Scooters (you know, the kind battery-powered jobs that
predominantly senior folk race around shopping centres) have evolved
from medical need to lifestyle choice are now the new walking in the
US. As Charlie Brown would say: 'Good Grief!'.

Hitting the target gets tricky when there isn't one

I have used this blog before to express a certain... frustration... with the fact that, in getting our message across to potential business partners, it's not so much a problem what the message is, or when and how it is sent, but to whom it could and should be directed.

Only last week OLOV (Our Ladies Of Vision) sat us down and asked when was the last time we actually told our potential paying clients (big eco-aware brands, at least to start) what we're up to.

On hearing that we'd kind of busied ourselves in more fun, creative areas they kicked us in the financially most sensitive part of our pants and set us a short-term focussed task directed, much as with the Xmas major media campaign (results pending... fingers crossed) directed at six of the most promising brands across various target categories (fmcg, transport, energy, etc), plus their relevant support suppliers (ad & PR agencies, etc).

It's quite a task, but we have the bit between our teeth and are on the case of the 10-15 most relevant folk we believe can see the value of Junkk.com in complementing their efforts to reach and profit from selling to the consumer.

No one said it would be easy, but by golly these brands themselves do make it hard. We've lost count of the number of times our best laid plans get an unwelcome shock to the programme.

For instance,  one high on our list was of course Honda, being just down the road and with a major commitment to the cause. We don't know the reasons behind it all, but:

http://www.brandrepublic.com/bulletins/br/article/534617/simon-thompson-set-leave-top-honda-uk-role/

Even if the link doesn't work, the end part of the URL above kinda shows our dilemma. 

Simon was the Marketing Director. So I guess we'll be putting them on the back-burner for a while.

Or... maybe I'll drop him a line. We could do with a innovative top-line MD at Junkk.com. There is the small matter of salary, but if he's reviewing his options for a while, maybe a bit of still-on-salary gardening leave saving the planet may appeal?

Anyone got his number?

Customer Care

In the course of our research, we have signed up to literally hundreds of email newsletters. Most are of continual use, even when they come in daily, and we do make the effort to scope them out for those nuggets we can use and pass on with the site. These include specialist enviro/re:sites, news, some (but not all) marketing and IT-related ones.

Many, however, a re just a whopping great yawn, and simply fill up my in-box until I send them to my 'pending box', which I then usually purge unread each month. And almost all are to do with business. Big business. Small business. Start-up business. How tos. My Guide tos. 

It's a shame, because there are a few nuggets still to be had, which Business Bricks  http://www.businessbricks.co.uk/ and a few others I do read (though in posting that link to BB I did get reminded that his going to a 'come2mysite' vs. 'postaneletter2u' model is not working at keeping me in touch with him as it used to; a lesson to learn for Junkk.com and our proposed newsletters soon) will pretty much catch. 

Anyway, the reason is that they are all starting to sound the same and rehash the same old stuff. If you don't know it by now; you never will.

Which brings me to my blog. One of the truest maxims you will read is that the customer who cares enough to complain is the most valuable of all, and should be treated as such.

We are lucky to have such folk who use Junkk.com, but think it could be better. And then take the time to write and say so. 

For now I am flattered and pleased that there are more and more of them. Because, if we agree with them, it is no major effort on our part to respond; not just with a reply, but also by making the necessary changes. And with luck, as time goes by we'll see the proportion evolve more from problems that need solving to enhancements or additions that can be made.

Keep 'em coming, guys! And thank you.

You win some; you don't win some

Usually when we don't get something there is much stamping of feet and throwing of toys out of prams; I don't take rejection well. I also don't like missing out on a no-strings forty grand, which would have got us a lot further in our mission.

As you may recall (see a previous blog), we applied for some funding via the Shell Springboard initiative.

Well, ho-hum, we didn't make the shortlist. And it's hard not to be disappointed. But they were just so gosh-darned nice about it, and on top of the fact it was free to enter, with a really easy entry form and all, I really can't do much more than shrug and put it down to experience.

And I really recommend any out there who may be eligible to give it a go next time. As they wrote to us:

"We do hope that you will continue to follow this first, pilot year of the Shell Springboard fund and perhaps respond to future requests for entries.  Your application remains confidential and will be disposed of securely after the first winners have been announced.  Therefore, should you wish to enter in the future, the independent assessors will have no record of your previous application.

Updates will be available on the Shell Springboard website where you can also subscribe to our mailing list and find links to other funding sources that may be of help to you."

I think we will. And we'll pop it on the website under funding or whatever category we have for such info.

The only frustration is that we can't find out why we made the cut, which makes it hard to do better next time. My only fear is the 'widget from Wigan' factor, where such monies ALWAYS seem to go to tangible 'things', where we are just a little too virtual for judges to get their heads around. 

They do seem to like an invention they can see getting designed, prototyped, made and sold for a tad more than it costs to make.

So, as I told them we will, we'll be monitoring those who did apply and get featured, and happily put their stuff on our site if it falls in our re:mit.

Least we can do.

Here they are so far:

http://www.shellspringboard.org/?c=4

Man and machine

The tragic deaths of the cycling group at the weekend brought into
sharp focus for me the conflicting dilemmas of being caring parents,
letting one's kids roam free, engaging with environmental desires and
plain practical issues.

When I was my boys' age, 40 years ago, I went everywhere by bike, and
on my own. Today I would not let them near the road yet, and when
(if) we do as they get older, it will be with a parent at either end
and all the various protections imaginable, from helmets to
reflective gear, etc.

Not that this would have made a whit of difference in this case.
Likewise a few weeks ago, when I dropped them off at a remote pub for
a night hike with their Cub lodge. 20-odd kids and several leaders,
all with head lamps (literally) and bright yellow jackets, walking a
few miles mostly over farm land but also on the roads. I was not
awaiting their return at ease, having driven back and seen various
folk hurtling, legally, at 60mph down single lane A & B country roads
in the pitch black, vision good to the throw of of their headlights,
which of course do not travel round corners. And reflective jackets
don't generate light forwards as do oncoming cars.

It's a similar story in more urban settings. The stories I read of
cycling in the city do not make for happy reading.

And I'm afraid to say that, no matter what the system of power (even
if only distilled water exits the pipe), without a force field around
the bike, if a vehicle has mass and exceeds walking pace, in this day
and age I don't see how the two can safely coexist in the same zone.

Which means the car rules. Unless we can find a way of bring its
speed to a safe level remotely in the presence of such other traffic.
And that of course ignores the fact that pavements can be, and
sometimes are, mounted.

Our thirst for travel in vehicles has all but crushed our right to do
the same under our own steam.

Every little bit helps

Something topical as we approach 12th night.

Last night a TV commercial from Tesco caught my eye. At first it
seemed like a 'do the right thing' ra-ra bit of greenwashing with
some stats about the environmental costs of Christmas cards and how
they (Tesco) are doing their bit for trees and stuff. So far, so...
what.

I still have my doubts as to how powerful an incentive there is for
anyone to remember to stick the cards in the bag to drop off on their
next supermarket visit. However, it is Friday, which means good
timing for the weekend shopping, and it is most certainly pushing my
BTN (better than nothing) button.

But the bit that did catch my eye was at the end. Not sure if I
caught it properly, but this was where they seemed to be saying that
the cards collected were turned into budget toilet tissue.

In addition to liking the fact that there is clear evidence of
provenance at work (just collecting cards separately to throw in a
paper skip doesn't make much sense when I can just drop them in my
kerbside recycling collection bin to do the same thing without a trip
to the shops), it also suggest a clear incentive opportunity surely?
Bring in Xkg/some number/any cards, and get a money off coupon for
the very toilet tissue you are going towards producing.

That to me is linking the environment, the manufacturer, the retailer
and the consumer together in a mutually win-win scenario that makes
no demands on the public purse.

Re:wards 4 re:use. How very... Junkk.com.

Pushing my BTNN's

A new year; a new acronym. Well, the first one of the new year more like.

Emma has forwarded me a press release that was surely destined to push all my 'Better Than Nothing. Not?' buttons and get me all in a tizz about the pros and the cons of it all.

Basically, in an edited form, I was exposed to the following:

 H J Heinz, Northern Foods, Geest Mariner Foods and International Food Partners (IFP) are among those granted UK public funds yesterday to develop less wasteful packaging.

The current tranche of about £500,000 (€728,000) in funding from government's Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) is meant to encourage food and packaging companies to invest in more environmentally friendly containers for their products.

WRAP announced grants yesterday for seven projects to reduce household packaging and food waste from an £8 million fund directed at sparking innovation by companies.

Launched in November 2004, WRAP's innovation fund aims to reduce the amount of household food and packaging waste originating from the retail sector and ends up in the household bin. The new contracts announced yesterday take the number of projects to seventeen, with a combined investment of about £2 million.

WRAP's research indicates that 40 per cent of the contents of the average household bin originates from supermarket shelves. WRAP has set targets to reduce such waste by 310,000 tonnes through the fund.

Now anything that gets us to a better environmental situation is to be applauded, but there are the small matters of the cost/benefit ratios and who gains and who actually pays. 

I'll have to admit to being a sensitive soul here, as Junkk.com has seen itself politely sidelined on grant monies more than once 'because we're commercial'. Which we are, by virtue of having an advertising model. But then we don't charge the consumer (they who stump up UK public funds) anything.

So if not commercial, what exactly are major blue-chip manufacturers and retailers to enjoy such largesse? Because I don't recall getting my beans for free. 

And if the packaging currently being used is 'wasteful', then surely it simply makes financial sense to seek an alternative. So maybe it's more a case of  what the public will swallow?

So I just have to wonder if instead of public money, these guys shouldn't be spending their own, which may inspire some real commitment to getting it all a bit more competitive, consumer-focussed and with some joined up behaviours between the techy Morlocks in the 4th basement of the factory, and the Eloi in marketing.

Because I'd like to see genuine commercial efforts being made to sell me on stuff that is good for the environment and I'll vote with my conscience and my wallet. Taking money from me to help someone charge me to buy their stuff smacks of taking from Peter to pay Paul, HJ, Marks, etc.

Yes, Junkk.com will run ads, for sure

Further to my last blog, and confusing me at least a lot further, under the headline 'Founder: No, Wikipedia Won't Run Ads... Probably' ClickZ writes to condradict last week's news report in Times Online. Apparently Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales said he was misquoted and has no plans to introduce advertising on the Wikipedia site.

 "There are no plans of any kind, no announcement, no change in stance," he told them. "What I said is something I've been saying for five years. We don't believe we need advertising in order to survive. My view currently is that we're much better off without the advertising. It's better for our mission. It's better for our fundraising."

However, they go on to point out that Mr. Wales did hedge: "The question is going to arise as to whether we could better pursue our charitable mission with the additional money" that ads would bring, he said. "We have never said there would absolutely never be ads on Wikipedia."

Er... ok, then.

Just so it's quite clear: Junkk.com will run ads. We need the money. Bring 'em on! 

New year's resolutions

Back to work. And as it is traditional, let me make some resolutions:

* Exercise more & eat less.. All work and no play makes Peter an unhealthy boy. I also note that I do not have my best ideas sitting in front of the screen or in the office. However, as I am there most of the time:

* Do the day's filing every night

* Share one or more invaluable snippets of news or information daily (36 in a year? A snip!).

* Generate at least one good new idea every week

* Start making a profit. 

In that last noble aim, I am inspired by a piece today about Wikipedia. It's fairly obvious, but I had not until now appreciated that it was non-profit, with all that implies (good.. and groan-making). 

Founder Jimmy Wales has indicated that "at some point questions are going to be raised over the amount of money we are turning down." That's an odd way of putting it, but then that's why I groan when I see the words 'non-profit making'. They carry baggage that just doesn't seem worth the chest-beating. Do a good job. Don't charge. Make money from those who can afford it to keep on doing the good job.

But, it seems likely that ads would meet with disapproval from the volunteers who create entries. We've seen this before, perhaps a bit closer to home, with such as Freecycle. Someone has a great idea, they put a lot of effort, blood, sweat, tears and money into creating it, and doubtless a ton more into getting it out there. And then, just as it's doing something really amazing in the public domain, they hit the small matter of affording to keep on doing it. And having set out as one thing, there is a messy period trying to become another.

As some even more inspirational facts, Wikipedia now receives around 2.5 billion page views per month, with traffic doubling every four months. According to Nielsen/Netratings, it was the ninth-fastest-growing website in 2005. That's a spicya meatballs! 

It's also why we have never set ourselves out to be anything more or less than a commercially-based site. But why not? It is entirely possible to provide information and entertainment in an independent and objective manner with advertising. Why do folk get so excited when a website suggests it when they don't give it a second thought when they swith of the TV or radio, or open their morning paper?

1 - TEMPLATES

COMPETITION

WHEN:
WHAT:
WHAT... MORE?:
HOW MUCH:
URL:
COMMENTS:

Wrongs of reply

I had an interesting email in my in-box last night. It was from the letters editor of the Sunday Times. He had read my letter about the death threat made to Jeremy Clarkson by an MP (previous blog) with interest, and was sorry my views had not made it to their pages. He also hoped that I had read the ones which had. 

It is now old news, at least in the news media sense, so I have no illusions that my reply to him will be published, but that's what blogs are for:

"As to the selection, yes, I did see it. Some robust defences of the fact of man's contribution to the fact of global warming (with which I have significant sympathy), and a rebuttal of sorts that was only to be expected from Mr. Challen."

Sadly, I still remain unclear as to whether he actually asked for Mr. Clarkson to be killed, though I noted there was no denial in his reply of this claim.

For an MP to do so seemed especially shocking, and the lack of attention paid to this perplexing. Maybe his boss is still coping with being investigated for being rude about the Welsh, and the police more preoccupied with women reading out casualty lists? I know which sounds like the greatest 'threat'.

But mainly I remain concerned that the interests of the future are being dominated by those whose agendas err on the extreme, and whose methodologies I believe will do more harm than good to the cause of persuading - in a civilised manner -  such folk as Jeremy to change their views and/or ways.

I do wonder if I will ever find out if an elected Member of Parliament did make a statement that I can only suppose would constitute a hate crime, or even a legally-enforceable threat, much less see him taken to task for doing so.

At least it may have served to stop our Jezza suggesting (again, I seek confirmation), if in jest, daft notions that troublesome cyclists should be rid of by being ridden over. Who knows what impressionable person may take this as an instruction from on high. 

With great power comes great responsibility, guys! Did history... or Spiderman... teach us nothing?

Richard Sandbrook

I was looking, as ya do, at one of those year-end round-ups, and came across a list of those who had passed away. So, as you do at my age, I checked to see who I had managed to outlive, if perhaps not yet out-achieve. One entry stuck me:

Richard Sandbrook , who has died of cancer aged 59, was a founding member of Friends of the Earth, UK. A former accountant with a passion for the environment, he helped define and develop the concept of sustainable development. He recognised early on that green issues should incorporate concepts such as social justice for those who depended on the natural world: that green issues and poverty should be tackled as one. He also believed that it was better to persuade global companies such as mining concerns to adopt greener codes of practice rather than ostracise them as enemies.

I didn't know him. I didn't even know of him. But what I read here reveals him to be an inspirational character to all we are trying to do with Junkk.com.

I wonder what he thought of the situation we are in now? It doesn't really matter, because at the very least he must have known that he tried, and did his best to improve things. And that is one heck of a legacy to leave.

Back to reality

Last night I watched a genial romcom called 'The American President'.  Usual stuff. Boy (widowed prez) meets girl (environmental activist/ lobbyist). They flirt. They think it's a 'bad idea'. They say 'what the hey'. It is a bad idea. His ratings plummet because he is now exposed to 'character issues' (maybe he should have taken up smoking cigars) and ends up having to do for political reasons something he promised not to to survive, which kills off her cherished vision, her job and, of course, the relationship. He has an inspirational moment about democracy and in the course of a very nice speech puts it all to rights and gets back the girl.

It was interesting to watch, because at around 10 years ago I was surprised to note that the issue at hand (well, at least as the girl's 'cause') was global warming, and a few quite strident predictions and warnings were already being made. They all got rather swallowed up in the relationship stuff, but they were there. And I think the boy was a Democrat.

Of course he ends up 'doing the right thing'. And that's where as a year-end wish you do find yourself rooting for the message. In fact the movie did try, at least initially, to address the fact that at high political levels there are all sorts of competing interests, that to buy off Peter you need to pay Paul, and that the electorate tends to vote with pretty much anything other than its brain.

So I went to bed smiling, but then awoke to open the online news to find that the UK's Green Belt is being concreted over faster and faster, for all sorts of reasons that made no sense to me. 

I guess that's what movies are for; they give you a brief respite from reality.

Amazing what folk will put in the bin... and then wish they hadn't

I'm on holiday this week, so these are going to be short and, in the spirit of the season... sweet.

I liked this one:

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=10690701&src=eDialog/GetContent

A German decorator is flogging (or trying to) the name tags of the 32 World Cup finalists used in the televised draw . He 'found' the slips of paper in a rubbish bag while cleaning up after the draw in Leipzig.

Sounds like a neat bit of reuse to me.

However, party poopers are starting to make lawyers happy already as FIFA who, having presumably thrown them away, now wants 'em back.

As you know, Junkk.com sees opportunity in what we throw away at every turn, so my sympathies lie with the little guy, to whom I will give the last, very reasonable word:

"The material was found in the rubbish bin by me and I'm the owner now".

Blistering Attack

So far; so good.

The family Christmas has proceeded well, with all concerned happy
with what they got and no major disasters to spoil the day, if you
don't count my indigestion.

Our experiment with present wrapping worked well, and if I have my wits about me I'll try and attach a picture of our tree to show the
results. Suffice to say that substituting newspaper for wrapping did
not impede the boys from their task of getting at their presents at
all. In fact I don't think they noticed. And the debris was
immediately used to create the roaring log fire that kept us warm as
we sat around the tree. I have no clue as to the e-consequences of
this, but the central heating wasn't required all day as we ran
around in new wooly jumpers.

Only one aspect of the conspicuous consumption has threatened my e-
smugness, and that is the sheer number of torn and discarded blister
packs. Those semi-rigid pieces of plastic that require welding
torches (I jest... though one that resisted a cutter blade, even when
my index finger did not, did get attacked by a gas lighter to gain
access. The smell was awful).

I'm going to do a piece on these in the new year. As they are
essentially unavoidable, and I am sure like many others I'm not quiet
clear just where they can be recycled. It must be possible. I don't
know if they have more in common with pop bottles or plastic bags,
but most are clear and surely amount to a fair potential.

In true Junkk.com spirit he boys meanwhile have found a fair number
ofreuses for some already. Many domes and whatnot from blister packs
are now adorning the battlescape we are creating for their Warhammer
army.

Now, if we can just find a use, or at worst a way to recycle all the
grey plastic (it rejoices in a lovely word something like 'sprune',
at least to the gamer community) we'll be sorted.

Damn the torpedoes

I never knew sending a Christmas card could be so stressful. Usually it's worrying who you may have missed. But this year it has been more the other way around.

As we are basically working full tilt right up to end of play tonight (though we are taking next week off) to hone the site for its 'New Year's E:volution' in January, we didn't really get around to much in the way of sending out the traditional greetings to all those we have met and been in touch with as part of Junkk.com's activities.

Sending out a bought card was not really 'us', and frankly hand-crafting re:used jobbies would have taken all year (and cost us money we don't have... plus the whole 'is it eco'-thing we thought it best to avoid), so we decided that the most appropriate way would be an 'e-card' mass mailing.

(If you are reading this and didn't get one, it's on the site... so Merry Xmas!)

We've had oodles ourselves, and many from the world of 'ENV/REC', so we thought it would be ok.

We also decided to create ours in-house. And in keeping with our style we thought that while it should be e-levant, a little humour would not go amiss for the time of year, despite the seriousness (check this out form today's Indy: We (the UK) are set to dispose of 3 million tonnes of waste this period http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article334834.ece) of what 'we' (royally) are all trying to do.

But boy, did we get our knickers in a twist. First we worried what was dreamt up as an ironic take on the 'BIG' issue - global warming - may not seem so to those who couldn't see it for what it was and decide to get offended. In the end we figured that such folk would have a problem no matter what, and having tested it on a few, admittedly friendly, contacts across the industry, decided to plough on.

Junkk.com will never cut through the mass of 'safe' stuff in this arena if it takes the 'please everyone' options. And in a separate blog I have either addressed (or if not, one day most certainly will) look at the tendency to ignore the happy majority and over-react to the lone, and often unreasonable complaints of an eternally unhappy minority in stalling or stopping a lot of well-meaning initiatives.

Having had cards which have tried to flog us stuff or bolt a rather clunky public service message into the festive greetings, we thought we'd just have a laugh, make a point and wish everyone a goodie.

I just hope that those who may not get on board with that sentiment simply hit the delete key or politely ask us to take them off our mailing list so they don't get bothered again. Which is another heart-thumper when you hit that 'send' button on the mailing programme.

Site sign-ups are pretty clear-cut. We have to presume they don't mind a little update, or in this case a festive 'e-llo.

But then there are those who we've met at events, corresponded with in some form or other and, in the case of many from the media world, been in touch with by proxy via our PR. All we legitmately believe to at least have a resonable interest in Junkk.com, and as this is the first mass mailing in a year we can't really be accused of overdoing the keeping in touch bit. Hopefully if they do not, the disclaimer and 'remove me' invitation will be adequate, though it's a shame to have to put that message at the end of a Christmas card.

There's also the small matter of duplicates, as it seems there may have been a few duplicates sneak in if more than one of us got a card from someone. We're trying to sort that out on the system now.

Anyway, what's done is done. Hopefully we'll see this harmless relationship effort be taken in the spirit of the season. So at worst it results in a thinner mailing list, and at best a few more folk from the last year get reminded of us and what we're trying to do.

Score one for the good guys

This... is how I like my activism:

Members of Greenpeace posing as wood buyers bought 30 metric tons of timber in a remote Brazilian state bordering Bolivia, used an agent to obtain permits that falsely stated the wood had been legally cut, and then parked the truckload in front of a police station in Sao Paulo. 

Nice way to make a serious point and grab the necessary headlines. 'Nuff said. 

However, bearing in mind the number of complicit official individuals, I do wonder (it was not mentioned) what kind of follow-up there will be on those involved. I merely ask because activist groups do tend to prefer the big hit and tire as easily as the rest of us with the grubby follow-up.

It is worth pondering the creation of an online 'Hall of Shame' where those caught with dodgy digits dipping where they don't belong get posted for all to enjoy (legal stuff permitting). Even a tad closer to home.

One for the new year's evolutions on Junkk.com?

The proof is in the pudding?

This from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/20rese.html

Entitled 'Global Trend: More Science, More Fraud', it's inspired mainly by the South Korean cloning scandal, but highlights this as part of a global explosion in research that is outstripping the mechanisms meant to guard against error and fraud.

The article goes on to suggest an initially reassuring triple safety net to catch dishonesty and bad research comprising peer review, which starts with experts advising governments about what research to finance [I think I could raise a cynical eyebrow on how effective that is in the real world]. Then comes the referee system, which has journals ask reviewers to judge if manuscripts merit publication. The last is replication, whereby independent scientists see if the work holds up.

Equating the rarified world of medical research with tabloid TV journalism is a leap, but I was pondering this last night as I watched a programme about what we'll be eating this Christmas. Fortunately I have never been fussed about turkey, but any vestige of desire to try was snuffed out by what I saw. 

Frankly I think I'd have been down to a spout omlette by the end, because they even had guys (you know you're getting old when Professors look like grad students) in white coats showing us our Xmas pud was a toxic wasteland. 

And that's just the organic brigade hooking up with a media industry on the hunt for a quick max yuk-rating ratings-fest. But soem of these academics were pretty cred-worthy. And post-CSI, show me a bit of whirly lab kit and I'm convinced.

So it's hard to imagine the goings-on when it comes to getting objective information of things like climate change.

As the piece ended: 'While millions of articles are never read or cited - and some are written simply to pad résumés - others enter the pressure cooker of scientific [and biomedical] promotion, becoming lucrative elements of companies' [to which I could add any interest group from governments with a target looming to pressure groups with a fighting fund to fill] business strategies.

Quite. Makes it hard to know who to trust, doesn't it?

Substance abuse

I used to believe, and indeed here have often advocated that 'something is better than nothing'. Now I wonder. 

Because my acceptance of this notion was predicated on the assumption that the something in question would be an interim measure only in place until a much better something could be developed. 

However, recently I am starting to suspect that often certain 'somethings' are actually worse than nothing, because the way such high-powered games now get played seems to have been changed by the players.

Selfless statesmanship is well and truly on the back burner. Even national interest seems quaint.

In the pursuit of a legacy that egos demand be basked in during their lifetime, and no matter how tenuous its substance and the heck with the consequences once they are gone, few politicians' or policymakers' ambitions seem to extend to actually make a real difference. Instead the new measure seems to be seen to have 'succeeded' in 'making something happen', slightly irresepctive of what that might be.

And it's pretty much across the board, from sanctions on nukes to consensus on emissions. 

The latter of course is an area I tend to track more closely in this job, and hence being the one to which this blog most refers. For instance, what was issued so triumphantly in the communiques of the majority of the mainstream attendees (from all corners, and some quite 'passionate') at the recent Montreal climate event does not seem to me to translate into very much.

So I just wonder whether a bunch of folk saying 'progress has been made' or 'views were expressed' or 'most were agreed' really gets us anywhere other than to make it all go away for a while. And that means the public shrug and keep on doing what comes naturally. 

So maybe there is a case for a full-on, 'all or nothing' deal so that it gets thrust into, and stays on top of the agenda until something is sorted out that will make a difference.

At least one consequence of global warming is that Hell may actually freeze over. 

An apple a year.. may cost us dear

In our kitchen is a fruitbowl, which tends to brim with a varied selection, usually dominated by satsumas, as supermarkets seem incapable of not selling them on two for one deals. Fortunately my family eats quite a lot of fruit, so the turnover is high. But it is often not enough to prevent something at the bottom going waaay past ripe to a sort of hirsuit Mekon phase, being green, evil and not a little fuzzy. The kids don't eat these.

Nor do they eat an apple that is anything but firm, crips and sweet. And certainly not if there is any evidence of a brown tinge that may extend beneath the surface.

I was pondering this recently when I watched a cowboy movie set in the American Civil War. In one part, a fugitive had sought refuge in a cellar, which had a a harvest's worth of apples in barrels (one of which he ate, with the discarded core being his undoing). How come a hundred years ago apples could make it though several months, but these days you'll be lucky to reach a week before they exceed their 'kids'll-eat-it' date?

Well, it seems help is (actually has been for a while) at hand:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1920079,00.html

(by now you'll need to subscribe... why can't they just be nice like the Telegraph, BBC and all sorts of other fine folk, and just leave it up?).

What it reports is that of the country’s bestselling apples are being treated with a chemical, 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP), that enables them to be stored for a year before going on sale in supermarkets and grocery stores.

Yum.

I must confess to being a bit torn. On the one hand anything that prolongs the storage life of produce seems like a good thing in the cause of preventing spoilage and hence waste, but I have to say sinking my teeth into anything coated with something ending in '-ene' is a bit of an appetite supressant.

But my main question is, what the heck did they use to achieve the same effect back in the the good 'ole days?

Better than nothing, but..

I have a certainly sympathy with politicians. They are, more often than not, 'damned if they do' and 'damned if they don't'. 

They are frequently lambasted, by folk like me, for spending all their time talking when there really is a need for a bit more doing.

Thing is, it has to be conceded that it may be worth trying to figure out if doing the wrong thing is worse than doing no thing at all.

What these chaps do have to do this quickly and well, which we do not, is resources. Oodles of them. The staff and money to check things out in trying to come to a good decision. All we have is what we can read off and online, or glean at the odd conference we we can blag our way into, and then apply to what we've learned a bit of street knowledge and common sense to what we opt to do... or support.

It may not be perfect, but it is better than nothing, and at least enables us to reflect the very real situation of harassed concern and general confusion that the average person in the street must be experiencing each day.

For instance, we are getting a proliferation of press releases and applications for directory entries from various organisations and businesses (usually the same thing - money does flow) that boil down to buying off the green guilt you may feel for being a devotee of 'Mobile ExEm' (Ok, needs work, but it represents Excess Emissions By Travelling. But you get the picture: you are one who likes to sit in a car or plane) by paying someone to whack a fir in some allotment to compensate for your... er... allotment of carbon footprint, trading, offset thingie. Or something.

Hopefully you are engaging with our dilemma, in that this has to be better than nothing... but...

I was minded to contemplate this more deeply by the latest one we've had where some chap is selling Amazonian trees to be prevent them being felled. Top Laudable so far.

And as a marketing incentive, this smart cookie with an eye to PR is auctioning off on eBay his 4x4 and contributing the proceeds to the progamme. Even more laudable.

And further, its future lifespan's emissions will be compensated for by the requisite swathe of Brazil being cordoned off. Better yet.

You can see where this is going, and indeed in the blurb the fact that a 4x4 will still be guzzling its way around has been covered by the fact that it is now 'offset'. What would be great is when it gets won it's by someone who actually needed a 4x4, in which case its impact would be lessened still further.

I guess I am still uncomfortable with the notion of buying off unnecessary, wasteful consumption and consequent emissions in this way. There just seems to be too much of a message that you keep on sailing on, doing what you do, and if you've got the bread you can make it all go away. Only it doesn't really.

But it is better than nothing. So I think it's going into the directory, so you can decide.

Do so with care, though. I'm not naming any names, but make sure whatever you choose to support is kosher. The one that piqued my interest and provoked this blog is from a company whose main industry seems little to do with planting trees, though there is a tie-in and the expertise may well exist. Hence our agreeing to carry their details.

Just... if you are buying off your guilt, make sure it's actually, effectively, efficiently... really benefitting the cause you think it is. And you are really doing your best in support by keeping on doing what you are doing in the way you are. Less can be more.

The Spirit of C..ompromise

As we bear down on the festive break (we're still debating whether or not to go X(mas)-rated), we are rushing to put together a little year-end promo piece to a select group of 'major media influencers' to introduce our site's imminent 'New Year's Evolutions'.

I doubt any of them will be reading this, at least now, so I don't think I'm giving too much away by saying it's going to be a teaser series of re:use ideas (with even the thing they are sent out on being, in Junkk-fashion, itself re:useable - I hope with such a self-imposed requirement we are not setting ourselves a rod for our own backs that will become a bar too high to achieve one future day) sent out in series, based on the theme of the TwelvE:ways of Christmas. Cheap, quick, hopefully impactful, useful, welcome... and doable in the time (fingers crossed).

Thing is, one part of the concept is to get noticed by hitting 'em 12 times with 12 sequential packs that assemble into a whole at the end, thus demo-ing the Junkk advocacy of loyalty-based ideas to reward folk as well the brands they stick with.

Our one concern is whether we're going to cop it from some of the more 'T-huggable' (potential in those first four letters in future I feel) because we're 'wasting' resources with a multiple mailing. And it's true. We are being more wasteful than we could be. But that's the problem when it all gets finger-pointy; there'll always be a reason not to do something. So to do what you need to do, you just have to do what you hope is best, and accept some compromise is inevitable.

This came to mind as I was reading the online version of one of our proposed targets; one that can get a bit finger-pointy on occasion.

They are promoting a very worthy charity-based effort involving an auction. Good on 'em, and best off luck.

It has all sorts of neat stuff those with a few spare bob can bid for to help those less well off.

The usual. Meals, sports events, etc, with the rich and famous. Tasty and tempting one and all.

But I was lured to the actual article by the following on the homepage, replete with swanky picture:

"Drive your peers wild with envy when you cruise past in a new Bentley, driven by a chauffeur with a uniform and an air of superiority. You'll have to hand the car (and driver) back at the end, but you'll be a king for a day."

I know why they did it. It was one of the more visually interesting offers and would probably elicit the best response. But you can see how those of a more literal e-disposition may see fit to wonder if driving around in a multi-litre limo for no good reason is really in keeping with saving the planet.

Hence my seeking to instill a certain acceptance that we need a spirit of compromise in the way we all view the efforts of others.

One final smile: the last (saving the best?) bid on offer is a green makeover from their very own e-lady: She'll visit your home and suggest how to make it more environmentally friendly: how to eat better, lessen electricity bills, buy pollution-gobbling plants... (Not previously offered)

I especially liked the fact that it closes with the disclaimer that it requires her 'agreement in relation to location'. 

You could always do a combo with the Bentley!

Online, Offside and Out of Order

More than a few years ago we were the beneficiaries of a generous piece of support from some fund or other that got us onto the broadbandwagon sooner rather than later via wireless. It was a really, really big help to the genesis of where we are now, for which we are eternally grateful. By what I recall it was a few forms, then a chap from our local ISP came round and stuck an ariel in the loft (which may even still be there) and we were full-on.

At some later stage Ross went broadband, and I guess we must have upgraded, as that is what's poking out the back of the PC now.

So far, so smooth.

Until yesterday. I got an email from the fine folk who bestowed the grant on us which started by telling me how, as part of the terms... yadayada... I was obliged to respond to a survey they had attached, and was required to do it pretty quick smart. 

Now as we benefitted from this grant, I have no problem giving something back, but felt the tone of this could have been better to put me in the mood to cooperate. So I guess I clicked the link to the survey URL in a less than tip-top frame of mind.

But I could not have imagined the true horror that confronted me. 

Yes, I know a bit about the internet, but frankly it is a tool that let's me do what I do, and I leave the tech side to others.

Bearing in mind we are also talking a lapse of two years, and are no longer running the wireless facility, I was confronted by page after page of highly complex questions on matters of IT which we had no clue about, on on matters of timing for which we had no records any more.

So I emailed the 'initiative body' to request some human assistance. And in short order got a call. However, having explained my predicament I was simply told it was this online form or nothing, and nothing wasn't an option.

So I tried my best to fill the thing out, despite no opportunity to select 'I don't know', automated insistences that I had to put in figures to proceed even though I didn't know them, and some of the dumbest questions I've ever read, that bore no relevance to our circumstances then or now. And to cap it all, when I hit yet one more of scores of 'next' pages, the thing was dispatched as complete, with no opportunity to review. Whatever the computer the other end gets it will be u.s.e.l.e.s.s.

I have no idea why such things are drawn up as they are a waste of time, money and effort all round, and embody a culture that values being seen to do stuff at the expense of actually getting any stuff done. Think how many more could benefit from this grant with the money wasted in this futile exercise.

Just once I had a good one. A chap called about a grant we'd had and we chatted, in-depth, for 30 minutes. I shared, he... and his service... gained useful feedback.

So I emplore the box-tickers everywhere... if you really need to justify your existence: no more automated surveys!!!!