Meanwhile, look what's just flown into my in-box

Bearing in mind one tends to read these 'newest first', I do often ask for a little backflip for context, as in this case.

Because, just as I was helping put the boot into airport expansion (and an increase in our flying culture in general), look what cropped up (an emailed press release, and while I'm sure there is a URL I can't be fagged in this heat to go and find it, sorry):

From the office of the South-East England’s Green MEP Caroline Lucas

 

July 4th,

2006                                                                        

                        

AIRLINES REELING AFTER EU CLIMATE CHANGE VOTE

MEPs ADOPT GREEN PROPOSALS TO CUT FLYING’S IMPACT ON CLIMATE 

AIRLINES have been left reeling after a vote in the European Parliament

called for a raft of measures to tackle their growing contribution to

climate change.

Euro-MPs in Strasbourg voted by 439 to 74 to adopt proposals drafted by

Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas to introduce a range of measures including an

airlines-only CO2 Emissions Trading Scheme and emissions charges to tackle

their non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions. There were 102 abstentions.

Dr Lucas told fellow MEPs the EU must take action to curb airlines’

greenhouse gas emissions if we are to stand any chance of avoiding

devastating climate change: “Doing nothing just isn’t an option”.

"The aviation sector is growing fast – aircraft movements are predicted to

double by 2020 and triple by 2030 - and technological efficiency gains just

aren't enough to counteract the massive increases in emissions that this

will generate.

“We simply have no choice but to clip the airlines' wings and force them to

reduce their impact on the climate, if we are to stand any chance of cutting

our emissions by the level that’s needed to halt the deadly march of climate

change. 

"Airlines currently enjoy a complex array of tax breaks and hidden subsidies

- worth more than £9 billion in the UK alone - which are long outdated and

totally incompatible with global climate goals. International progress on

removing these and getting the industry to pay its way has been pitifully

slow, which is why we must ensure the EU really paves the way for global

action by introducing the most effective legislation possible.

 “Emissions trading has the potential to play a role in reducing the climate

change impact of aviation - but only if it is accompanied by other measures

to tackle the fact that aircraft emissions are two to four times more potent

than those from other industries (because of the altitude at which they are

emitted, and the effects of non-CO2 emissions like condensation trails and

nitrogen oxides) – and, crucially, only if it doesn’t allow airlines to

carry on business as usual by gobbling up the emission rights of other

sectors.”

MEPs have been intensively lobbied by the airlines in recent weeks – with

most calling for air travel to be included in the EU’s existing Emissions

Trading Scheme: a measure which will do little to deter airlines’ future

emissions growth. Even Andrew Sentance, BA’s head of environmental affairs,

openly admitted as much last week.

Dr Lucas’s report will now form the Parliament’s submission to the EU

Commission’s forthcoming legislative proposals – which could be on the EU

statute book by 2008.

“At a time when few now deny the urgency of addressing climate change, the

rapid growth in flying threatens to throw all efforts to reduce dangerous

emissions off course,” added Dr Lucas, who is also an MEP for South-East

England and Green Party Principal Speaker.

“We must work together to find ways of making the aviation industry reduce

its social and environmental impact, rather than draining tax payers’ cash

as it continues to generate pollution, noise, congestion – and climate

change.”

Moves are afoot, one suspects.

Plane and (not so) simple.

Gollygosh. Two in one day. Another I can't really fault in message and tone, and am happy to endorse. Interesting however to note this one requires your address to be valid, whilst the previous one did not. I wonder who was right?

Aviation is the fastest-growing contributor to climate change. As part of Airportwatch, Friends of the Earth is calling on the Government to rethink its aviation policy - you can make a difference by emailing the Secretary of State for Transport at http://www.rethink.airportwatch.org.uk/ You can also lessen your environmental impact by holidaying in the UK or finding alternative ways to travel at http://www.seat61.com (includes destinations in the UK, Europe and beyond).

And of course, I did have a few tweaks of my own. It is hardly credible that 'we' do all this and end up at the mercy of economies not so moved:

To: Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for Transport

Dear Mr Alexander,

 

Re: 2006 Aviation White Paper Review

 

As you will gather, I am using the template provided by airportwatch, to which I was directed by Friends of the Earth.

 

I have to take as fact their assertion that The Government’s 2003 Aviation White Paper was widely condemned as unsustainable, even by its own environment and sustainability advisers. And aspects of its methodology have been repeatedly questioned but never addressed. I note the problems with current aviation policy, which include:

 

Climate Change

It allows a huge increase in CO2 emissions from aviation, making it all but impossible for the Government to meet its long-term climate change targets.

 

Noise

It means worsening noise levels, day and night, for more people because the increase in the number of planes will more than offset any improvements in the noise of individual aircraft.

 

Countryside and Heritage Under Threat

It will threaten the character, diversity and tranquility of the countryside and sacrifices an unacceptable number of historic listed buildings

 

Impact of Oil Prices on long-term passenger forecasts

Current forecasts underpinning the White Paper do not take sufficient account of rising oil prices.

 

Economy

The programme of airport expansion was justified by a flawed assessment of the economic benefits of aviation, funded by your Department and the industry working in tandem. It failed to address the tax breaks the aviation industry enjoys through tax-free fuel and exemption from VAT, which cost the economy at least £9 billion a year in lost revenue.

 

In 2006 the Government has a unique opportunity to review its policy. Yet so far it has talked of producing only a ‘progress report’. Given the problems outlined above, nothing less than a fundamental policy rethink will do. Please write to assure me that you will:

 

1.  Rein back expansion so it is consistent with your target of a 60% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

 

2.  Recognise the limits rising oil prices will put on demand for air travel as we head towards $100 per barrel

 

3.  Remove the tax-breaks the aviation industry enjoys*

 

4.  Reassess air freight which currently pays no tax whatsoever *

 

5.  Reduce both the day and night time noise suffered by local communities, as well as the numbers of people affected

 

6.  Respect the country’s biodiversity and heritage including ancient woodlands and listed buildings

 

7.  Revisit (with all that word entails) rail as an alternative to short-haul flights

 

8.  Revise the economic assessment of the aviation industry

 

9.  Review your unsustainable expansion plans for the UK air transport industry by taking immediate urgent action on all the points above

 

10. Rethink the "predict & provide" approach put forward in the White Paper.

 

*I am encouraged that this template does try and offer workable solutions without being impossibly idealistic. However I do also recognise that there are economic imperatives nationally, within the EU and amongst the major economies that do make unilateral actions problematic. However these cannot be used as excuses for inaction or procrastination.

 

Personally, all I need to do is look up at the sky over Ross on Wye to see how much the current level of air travel must be leaving its mark on the climate. Any more planes in the air can only be a very serious retrograde step, and adding more airports is like adding more bars to the high street whilst talking about the consequences of our drinking culture.

 

I look forward to your reply.

P-EU

I don't always agree with everything e-activist organisations get up to, but the FoE scores more often than most, as with this, which I was happy to support and would encourage readers of this blog to do so, too:

 

Almost all changes in waste policy in the UK rely on European Union laws. The EU is currently discussing a revision of waste laws, with both EU Member States and the European Parliament voting to decide what changes. Friends of the Earth wants to persuade the UK Government to push for improvements. Email Ian Pearson MP, the UK Minister for the Environment, to push for more waste prevention and maximum recycling - visit http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/waste/press_for_change/eu/

Of course I could not resist a slight tweak, but as you'll gather should you compare, I think they got the content and tone pretty much right on:

To: Ian Pearson MP, UK Minister for the Environment ( a new one!)

Dear Mr. Pearson,

Using the FoE template as its basis, I am writing to you regarding the new EU Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling and the draft revision to the Waste Framework Directive.

 

I fully endorse the suggestion that the revised EU waste policy should be focussed firstly on the prevention or reduction of waste, and secondly on ensuring that as much waste as possible is reused, recycled and/or composted. I'd also like to encourage the notion of repair as a complementary option.

 

I amazed to learn that they are not already so enshrined, as they really are no-brainers, but the key changes I agree need to be in the proposed waste laws are:

 

1) A clear description of the waste hierarchy, ie that prevention/reduction is the best option, followed by reuse, then recycling and composting, then energy recovery, and finally landfill.

 

2) Creation of an effective process to ensure that waste is prevented, for example by ensuring that companies design their products to produce less waste. My own company, Junkk.com, is highly active in this area, and we are constantly amazed how much effort and expenditure goes into such as recycling which, while certainly highly important, need not be the only solution.

 

3) A phase out of the disposal (by incineration or landfill) of any waste that can be reused, recycled or composted.

 

I am pleased to note that the wording of this template provided by the FoE acknowledges certain practical situations that authorities often face, and seeks more to rearrange the order of priorities rather than dealing in idealistic absolutes.

 

This all makes very good sense for every party.

Think like an Egyptian

I have been filling out some grant and award forms lately and, having come over all MBA, for one created a little graphic to make a point, which I think is worth sharing. I call it E-ramid.

Basically I was trying to distill, into the most basic form possible, the inter-relationships between the core parties who are (or should be) involved in getting our environment back on track.

The orientation is key. The Environmental Community has long been highly active and vocal, but now the Authorities and Business are on board, if a ways behind. These guys are at least all talking, or perhaps arguing would be more accurate.

Thing is, they are mostly doing it in their own cosy little agenda-dominated, jargon-driven, green-elite ways. And that is too often leaving the individual they should be most interested in serving out the equation. In fact the only time the public/consumer are involved is more in the form of being fed scraps, getting scolded... and very seldom rewarded. In this model they would be placed below the triumvirate.

But I think this group needs to be the focus, and to whom all the rest should look up to, much in the same way as an organisational hierarchy works, being given management summaries with issues and consequences that can be easily digested and understood, and with scenarios painted that allow for proactive decisions to be made. By taking those decisions the performance-related bonuses can follow.

And they need to be able to assess performances, so that those initiatives that do work and deliver value for money are encouraged, while those whose returns on investment (though it does need to be accepted that there is a very complex and highly charged interaction, often mutually-exclusive, between 'benefits' that are financial, social and environmental) are not delivering the most good.

WrapAtak!

I'm not that keen on the 'name and shame' approach to steering environmentally-friendly practices, but in cases 'Where good packaging goes bad' I feel we need to have a few brickbats to put alongside the bouquets.

So I am thinking of creating a site page called 'WrapAtak' (thanks to Martin for that suggestion) where one can post examples that really go beyond the call of sensible wrapping.

For now I'll simply pop them on here, starting with this fine example.

Part of squeezing the '5 a day' down the twins, the irony of its 'no
junk promises' icon was not lost on me.

I can sort of live with the necessity of having a bag to contain the
several cardboard packs, but why oh why was there any need for the
additional plastic tray as well?

Nil points.

Shopping in the right direction

Separated by just a few days, these two stories are linked.

The ugly fruit with a beautiful future & Cut excess packaging, WI urging

The Waitrose initiative is to be welcomed, and the price is a real incentive. I really hope it works.

The problem of course is idealism vs. reality. Possibly our own fault (the it is not by example), but our kids will simply not go near fruit or veg that is not 'perfect', and there really is only so much discarded debris I can and wish to scavenge. Hence we do tend to err on the nicer looking and/or better protected options simply to get their 5 a day down their gullets and/or avoid waste.

4 heavens' sake!

Cripes, no sooner than I put one blog-bear to bed than another falls in my lap 4x4 debate: Enemy of the people.

Am I sensing a campaign here? First the Beeb, and now the Indy.

I have no need of a 4x4, and hence I do not have one. And, frankly, I think anyone who does have one when it's not going to be used for purpose is a tad silly, and even selfish on environmental and safety grounds. But hey, it's a consumerist world, and they are free and legally on sale like plane tickets, berries from South Africa and flowers from Holland, as are non-4x4 high litre saloons and slab-fronted vans, so... what?

Making people feel guilty is of course a good route to go, like the anti-fur efforts (oh, now where are we on that again?) and good luck to those doing it in an appropriate manner (though I think the Greenpeace 'clamp's are a series of mixed messages too much). Those facts at the end are quite telling.

But... I can think of a lot more important stuff that would count as 'enemies of the people'.

I'm well past may teens, but stuff like this almost makes me want to go out and get one just to be 'anti', and I'm on the side of the planet, for heaven's sake!

If a driver breaks the law, bust them (were these mobile gabbing, non-seatbelt wearing types charged?). But it is not against the law to own a type of car. With such media reporting we're in real danger here of creating conflicting and aggressive camps, which will serve none of us well.

Park & Drive

OK, so it's technically nothing to do with 're' or 'e'-anything, but I was moved to comment on this: Driven to anger, as follows:

"It’s hard to vote someone out when you have no clue as to who is responsible, (in this case I certainly have no idea locally), but as I travel the UK and have suffered the inequities of the parking systems throughout our green and pleasant land, I have tended to assign my fury to a government that seems to simply heap more and more petty rules with massive fines on those least likely to challenge them. Perhaps they have seen the writing on the roadside at last.

 

I have in my driving career been issued with two penalty notices, both of which I fought, and both of which were eventually dropped.

 

Notwithstanding the issues surrounding where and why these were imposed, the single thing that outraged my sense of natural justice was that at every stage I appealed, the penalty was jacked up another notch, first financially (I suspect initially by no more than an automated system ) and then with threats of court proceedings (in a cities hundreds of miles away). Upon vindication, all that happened was the original fine was waived. There was/is simply no inceptive for them not to take things as far as they would go, regardless.

 

From my reading of the new proposal(s)  I am not clear if this aspect is to be addressed. But my suggestion then, as now, is that in such cases the consequences of taking matters to ‘the next level’ at the very least apply equally to those issuing these notices as those who are defending themselves against them."

I do think it is related, as I have a foreboding about a 'them & us' culture building up surrounding the car and its use, and it is not being fought very well by those who see a sensible reduction in all that's bad about the things (and there is a lot) as something to encourage. By not acting fairly or sensibly with those who could so be onside, they are in danger of losing support or indeed converts. 

Que sera, sera. Que?

Night before last I watched part a reality TV show whereby some rich
types (Public At Large Class) get to be taken around by some other
rich type (Celeb Class) to assess the best way to blow their wad.

This episode was about their future car purchases, and as money
seemed no object the choice seemed to be between a Range Rover and a
Merc estate.

As money was not an object, the majority of the the programme was a
bit stuck when it came to the running costs angle, but hit more
promising ground on environmental (via a rather charming, if
centrally-cast munchkin from Greenpeace seen advertising npower for
free with a nice shot of their sponsored 'clamp' - who says there is
not always another agenda at work?) and then safety (trouble was it
applied more to those being hit than those in the SUV).

Despite this assault, they (much to the relief of the daughters, to
whom 'cool' was a major factor) 'decided' on the 4x4. Much grinning
all round. Wonder what the celeb and crew dove off in (Ms. Greenpeace
was on her bike, of course)?

Then next morning we had a piece on flowers, with a grower, a
distributor, a seller and a celeb. arranger (nice job, mate). Mid-way
into all the jollity, it cropped up ('scuse the pun) that a large
majority of our posy-culture is fed by blooms flown in from all over
the planet. So the question was asked; 'couldn't we just live, if at
great aesthetic (and career) costs, with the seasonal offerings from
our own shores to avoid the obvious massive eco-consequences?

The answer was of course... 'Que?'.

Vindication!

My Mum is not easy to impress. Certainly she has been more than a
little dubious about her son's career path of late.

So it was nice to leave her gobsmacked with how smart I am (her
words), and especially that it was all thanks to Junkk.com.

Yesterday she called me over to her cottage to ask me to arrange a
plumber to fix her sink tap.

"No need," I cried, "for Junkk.com comes to the rescue!"

And so it was. The solution was found on our pages, and the fix made
within minutes.

Now if that has happened to two B&Q sinks, how many more may there
be? Time to get in touch with them.

Whale meat again?

Not too sure what is going on here. And it doesn't sound promising. First it's bad, then it's good (if you a whale-hugger)  and now its, er... not over: Japan seizes control of whaling group after historic vote. At least it's in the news.

Yay! Score one for the good guys (And Whales)!

Anti-whaling nations win 'great victory' against Japan proposals

Save the Whale

The other day I was queuing at the checkout when a young girl was trying to buy some cigarettes. The cashier felt she was underage, but a colleague called across and vouched for her. My deadpan expression was obviously enough to promote her to make an explanation about the legal situation, to which I replied: 'Oh, it's not that which worries me. It's the fact that a youth with her whole life ahead of her, and with the benefit of all the information she has available on the consequences, still wants to damage her health, bank balance and looks'. Pity it was her Mum.

Which brings me to whales. At Junkk.com we often admit that we're not here to save them, as it really is a tad beyond our remit and there are a bunch of folk much better qualified and bale to do it without us.

It would seem not: Whaling meeting set for key shift

This, forgive the pun, blows... big chunks.

There is no excuse, knowing what we know. These are sentient beings and there is no possible justification on any grounds, research, nutrition, dietary or religious practice to kill them. End of story. The Japanese don't even like the taste any more.

What is worrying to other areas is the precedent of 'buying' votes can and will set. Any individual and/or country who allows their democratic responsibilities and ethics to be turned in this way should be named and shamed.

Anyway, that's just whales. There are much bigger fish to fry.

The Big Question: But all the Answers?

Coo; that didn't take long. Well, I guess the story was bound to spread across a few media. So now we have this one from the Indy

The Big Question: Are speed cameras really the best way to improve road safety?. All fair enough. But I think it does actually miss a few pretty key questions about the legal consequences to the truly undeserving motorist who does get penalised for a minor, unintentional transgression, and the fact that such reliance does not seem to address the necessary commitment of resources to those examples of dnangerous driving that a robot is not interested in catching.

Which is more dangerous? Speed, or bad driving?

Good job I'm still debating opening up the reply facility to this blog. I suspect the following article, and my reply (if they publish it, in which case feel free to weigh in on their site) will... 'arouse passions'. 

Oh, the joy of tootling along at a respectably dull 20mph

My reply: 'I could not agree more. Or be more than slightly concerned about (some of) the consequences. 

As I look out of my window over the residential road a sleepy market down, the first of the morning G-reg 205s (with more money spent on the exhaust note than servicing) and, to be fair, the odd brand new V8 Range Rover, 3 series Beemer or Yummy-Mummy-in-a-hurry Megane, is trying to hit 60+mph as I get my sons ready to walk to school.

For my kids' sake, such a thing could not happen sooner, though I doubt this technology will be able to affordably or even practically be applied to the several hundred meter stretch of hill that so inspires our boy (and girl) racers, or indeed to the one way system circuit that draws them from near and far every Friday night.

So while this initiative is possibly better than nothing as it will undoubtedly curtail some speeding, I do wonder whether it will end up being further relied upon by the authorities  as a substitute to plain, old-fashioned (by which I mean present outdoors and addressing the spirit rather then the letter of the law) human policing, with the added advantage of a nifty bit of income generation on top.

Robots are not able to assess context. At least with this new system the odd slip over a 10% margin (what %age of dial arc is 2mph anyway, and how dangerous is remaining glued to it rather than the road?) will not need to result in a totally unwarranted penalty and all the consequences, as with a Gatso... or temporary speed trap with a quota to meet.

But they still surely will not be able to differentiate between 'speeding' (an average 23mph over the measured stretch, one presumes) and dangerous driving, which surely can still mean hitting 60mph, screeching to a halt for some fags at the offy and then hitting 60 again.

I welcome the notion of increased safety. But I await with dread the lies, counter-lies and statistics that will abound surrounding the fallout.

The authorities, especially those involved in law enforcement, are these days too in love with targets, technology and money, when they should be committed more to enforcing the law, and the spirit of justice, in the cause of public safety.

I have, so far, no points in 35 years of driving. So far. Yet I must confess to savouring the moment that the inevitable 'the law's the law no matter what' zealot cops a fine, three points and bumped insurance for too much looking at the road and not enough at the speedo whilst travelling one direction of a dual carriageway, maybe because they are trying to catch the reg. of a driver who knows the system, and its robot locations, whacking past at an insane speed in the other direction."

[ ? ] is the last refuge of [ ? ]

This Sunday's Times had a full magazine article on a topic dear to my.. our, dear reader... heart(s), entitled:  The last refuge , to which I could not resist a reply:

[ ? ] is the last refuge of [ ? ] Re:  The last refuge [I'll let you fill in the blanks - my suggestion is 'Procrastination is the last refuge of the last person to apply for the job of Titanic deckchair mover'

"Thank you, Bryan Appleyard, for a clear, if chilling (no pun intended) outline of the issues that confront us, though in an otherwise excellent summary I would say a bit more than a tilt to Prof Lovelock's thoughts on the issue of population could have been worth factoring into those Sandalesque restorative or Nukist techno-solutions. People are consumers. Consumers cause pollution. Pollution causes climate change (or at least doesn't help much). Climate change reduces still further the ability of the planet to sustain life. Ergo..? 

So 'we' need to change. But one additional problem I might suggest is the fact that there is a rather large, and still somewhat disenfranchised collection of folk (to which we happily claim membership, and have deemed our light green PALs, for 'public at large'). We see ourselves caught in an uncomfortable no man's land watching the mighty artillery exchanges of Green Elite Nukes and Sandals (plus a few from the 'not-us, too-late, I'd like to stay elected or next-generation-to-miners' getting thrown in) sailing overhead, and are pretty much stuck where we are while all this rages around us.

But let us not forget that there are many small things we can do, are in many cases doing and which cumulatively do make a difference. But as inhabitants of a consumerist society, it is odd that so few target the powerful motivations that lie behind tangible, if selfish, reward-based end benefit."

I would like to have delved deeper and discussed more, but this would have made it even less likely to be published than its already slim hope.

It was a good article, though. I learned a lot. 

The bit on biodiesel has added to my misgivings. The little known facts about the consequences our dietary preferences (carnivore - well established. Lettuce - I didn't appreciate that 'til now!) highlight the main issue of what we are prepared, or will need to be forced to give up. And by whom. 

There's the rub. I rather like being in the country. Can I stay here if I don't eat salads on EasyJet?

Where there's blame there's a flame

Saw this Reid blames everyone except himself in the Telegraph, and couldn't resist a reply:

"I have lost my job a lot. Seldom for not being very good at it.

So I’d be interested to know when, lately, anyone... anywhere... has actually been identified, much less fired (and in anything other than highly favourable financial, or at least secured ongoing career circumstances) in government (ok, big business too) service, other than a few recent ministers whose failings were so grotesque and monumental as to be a serious threat to those working alongside them (their party, fellow MPs and ministers), as opposed to those who paid/pay them to serve (the people).

Everyone makes mistakes. The notion that you should be allowed to keep on making them ad infinitum is a joke.

The pendulum has swung. It was once unacceptable in how cavalier a manner a good worker could be treated by superior whim, but now it is equally unacceptable that those who are not up to the job get to stay in it, much less rewarded during and after for fouling up.

Trouble is, now that so many ‘protections’ are enshrined in law and/or supported old boy’s network practices, I don’t see how we can ever get back to a fair and sensible system where the right person for the job is hired, supported in doing it, rewarded for doing well (and I include here the undoubted majority of talanated, hard-working civil servants) ... and dealt with appropriately if they are not. It’s like snakes and ladders, with two snakes colludingto take each other up (and stay there), as ladders are now too unsafe to use. No mechanism for redress of course.

I’ll use my vote all right. But its consequences cannot and hence will not be tied to Mr. Reid’s recent nonsense or the backside covering result of some mid-level servant using my money to dig a colleague out of a hole, which in real life should land both at the job centre.

And as they all know they are immune from the consequences of their actions (other than a bit of embarrassment), they will keep on making a pig’s ear of it all.

At least Mr. Reid has floated the possibility of taking responsibility for authority so greedily grabbed and imposed. But as you point out, he does not seem to believe that it could actually apply to him, so why should any below think any different?"

A Corny Tale

More (mis)adventures from this 'greenifIcan' novice. Having
successfully bought a lovely slab of Gloucester Old Spot at the
butchers, I decided to give the veg section of the supermarket a miss
in favour of the local greengrocers.

In the aforementioned supermarket, the ears of corn are trimmed, on
display in their very own tray with plastic wrapping, and usually
originate in the USA. Not optimal environmentally, but what you see
is what you eat.

Not sure where the local stuff came from, but it was in its own
wrapper. So far, so super.

What was not was the potential (I ended up dealing with it) 50%
wastage with none in the family too keen on the one that had Mother
Nature's very own genetic modifications.

Dilemma.

D'oh!

Last night there was an episode of the Simpsons which addressed
recycling. It's not the first time they have turned their attention
to the environment (there was an excellent one where Homer became
garbage commissioner and blew the annual budget in a day), and will
not be the last I'm sure.

It was, of necessity, cliched, with ethical (and sanctimonious) Lisa
fighting a losing battle against apathy (the rest of the family and
town), greed (Mr. Burns and nonsense (Principal Skinner getting less
for a few tons of collected paper than it costs for the petrol to
take it to the recycling centre - at least they paid!).

But there was also reuse. Mr. Burns, 'inspired' by a six-pack plastic
holder killing fish, collects them to turn into nets. Just what we'd
advocated for a football goal. There is hope for us yet.

A very expensive crutch

I am so looking forward to the World Cup. As someone who could care less about the whole thing, and rather more about the cost of the drag of all those flags fluttering away on cars, I'm looking forward to having  no reason not to be out and about enjoying the great weather.

So why on earth has this caught my attention: Rooney jets back to World Cup but United say forget about group stage?

Well, for one it was in the Indy, and that's important because they do care about the environment, when the red-tops have columns by Jeremy Clarkson rather than columns and blogs about him.

And so far the Indy, nor any like them (that I've seen) has not managed even a quiver of an eyebrow at this whole jet thing.

If the whole effort was time-critical, I could see some justification, but the guy is sitting on the subs bench. Why can't he take the train? Or at least a plane shunting around a few hundred at a go? Especially as there seems to be a 12 person entourage involved.

Just asking.

Fiendly Skies

Nice to see a bit of honesty in advertising, though I doubt it was intentional. Even the art direction complements the apocalyptic inference.

Who will rid us of this troublesome person... with a brain and an opinion

Another week, another eco-fatwa. At least in the world according to Clarkson: Pot-Porritt wants me eliminated.

If nothing else it proves again what I maintain, that without him the enviro-brigade would be at a loss (and me, for blog material at least), and him without them.

Anyway it seems that major e-lite (that's short for eco-elite, but does throw up an interesting alternative) guru Jonathan Porritt has said anyone who 'shuts up' JC should be given a knighthood.

In this odd world where Morrissey can stay singing when he says a lot worse about meat-eaters, and some dusky-hued folk (and I mean ladies at the Cenotaph) can get banged up for saying a lot less, this seems quite mild.

But having done my 'O' level in Brit history, I seem to recall what happed to Thomas a Beckett, and it was on equally dodgy 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink.. I didn't actually say that' basis.

I must say it's a pity if he did say it, and in this day and age getting that fact confirmed will be a fun effort. Not. 

Because I saw Mr. P interviewed the other day, and it was more than reasonable and made a lot of sense. Saying silly stuff about JC does not. It simply gives him all the material required to write a very funny piece and make the whole environmental thing look a tad dull, boring and silly. And while you're nodding and laughing you miss out on the few howlers that JC has stuck in there  that just don't add up.

And much as I appreciate his contributions to all this, these I wish he's tone down. But it is a free world. For now.

To your credit

I like free. I like knowing stuff. I especially like knowing stuff about me. So I like this. Check out your credit rating for free this weekend 

It's not strictly Junkk.com material (though it is all about avoiding waste), and it has not been 'tested' yet by me, so I'll restrict it to here, but having followed the links to annualcreditreport.co.uk I don't see a problem and it's a major 'why not?'.

Navel Gazing

I just had to share this, courtesy of the FoE (who have a lot more hits than misses I'm finding): INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ADMITS HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 

Joking aside, it is symptomatic of a worrying trend, namely the fact that those who think they know best, but often do not, are seldom inclined any more to let us know what they are up to in case, god forbid, we may have another view.

The first casualty in war is the truth. It's getting more and more like the ongoing casualties of life today are bluster and obfuscation.

And without such as the FoE, they seem to be getting away with it. 

RE: cycling

I love cycling, if in a Dutch, flat-earth kind of way. Ross-on-Wye is basically built on the side of a valley, so you are either going up a steep slope and have to get off and push, or are burning brake blocks to avoid a headlong rush into the river (My family are the only one who go the wrong way round a gorgeous Forest of Dean trail because an investment pushing up a 1/2 mile hill means half a day coasting down a slight incline).

I also don't do major roads (a brush with an EU lorry wing mirror on the A40 highlighting the value of a helmet) or cities (a brush every 10 seconds with every car who would go from 30 to 50mph just to get past and then turn left 10' in front of me showing the value of all those TV ads about courteous driving. Not).

So you would think it clear which side I'd fall on when it comes to this article: How Nigel Havers incurred wrath of bicycling readers

But I'm afraid I pretty much agree with him (except the 'all' and 'bastards' bit, as that is straying into Clarkson silly shock-jock territory). At least based on what I read here.

Bearing in mind the media only quote that which generates more quotes (rather than a balanced view), we have such as "I have no objection whatever to occasional pavement cycling and have every sympathy with cyclists.", which justifies this on eco-grounds and health. The key here is 'occasional', where I would say 'common sense' and 'courtesy'. With my kids we do sometimes end up off road and in the vicinity of pedestrians, in which case they get the priority. If necessary by dismounting.

So I have little sympathy with those who have not done their cycling proficiency test or abide by its spririt. I walk my kids to school and with my Mum to the shops. Hardly a trip is completed without some cyclist who is so healthy they can't resist a short cut jumping a light, riding on the pavement or coming the wrong way down a one-way, at speed and with no consideration for others. And one day that is going to mean the health service does have an extra burden. Either from some two-wheel cretin finding out that they can't win in a head-to-head with an SUV, or some poor kid or senior who have come off second best when 40 kilos of muscle and bone atop a few kilos of metal and spokes hits them at 10kph.

It's illegal, guys. And dangerous. And if you're all growed up and want to assert your rights then obey the law.

Just because you feel aggrieved at the treatment meted out by idiot motorists, there is no excuse in simply doing the same to the next down the rung.

Remember, making a bike still causes emissions. Walking has no impact at all.

The most pointless blog I ever wrote...

... though, it must be said, there are some other good contenders.

But this one is to a machine. The stupid, relentless spam bot that is
ceaselessly attaching random names to @junkk.com and then using our
URL to fire off the tripe they are selling.

It's bad enough that some people think we have anything to do with
this (have had a few rather unpleasant 'replies', that really could
not be answered as anyone who is so thick as to believe we have
anything to do with this or uses such language is unlikely to be open
to a reasoned response) and through sheer volume and persistence on
this thing's part our name may get compromised.

God forbid it may get blacklisted, though one hopes that those who
control such things know how these things work. After all, who in
their right mind would send spams from a name like 'Junkk'!!!! Much
less have any interest in dodgy stock, enhancing manhood or whatever
else rubbish you are peddling.

But also, selfishly, I get all the bounces. And 'I'm not at the
office right now'. Or the extraordinarily polite ' I think you may be
spam'.

Please, you totally wasteful bit of nonsense, stop.

There, I feel better now.

Make Sun While The Hay Shines

That title is nothing much to do with this blog, but I couldn't resist.

Nor could I avoid a small titter at the progress of a blog from Guardian, whilst attending the Hay festival (hence the slight link to the title, plus the fcat it is all about saving the planet in lots of e-ways).

Comment is free at Hay

It was just rather fun to note the number of folk who were more than a little distracted by a MacDonalds ad that graced the same pages.

I must say that I rather feel Mr. Kern would owe me the money, though.

Interesting to note the explanation that 'site editors do not control ad policy'. Is that so?

The rest jsut shows why I'm not big on having my blog be configured for replies.

You say Payola, we say 'legitimate (and legal) consumer conning extortion'

At one stage in our musical career I seriously considered trying to get a number 1. Not by actually making a good (they all were/are, I rush to add) record mind, as that would be silly. But by the simple act of giving away or buying enough singles to get into various charts such that the public thought it must be good because it was in a chart.

Another way would be to hire someone who had lunch with someone on a playlist committee I couldn't even have a hope of reaching, even if they were part of a public broadcaster.

But that was music. So it's nice to see that all's fair in, well, pretty much anything that can con the public into buying something on merits that don't really exist:£50,000 to get a book on recommended list . 

I love the fact that publishers think it is getting out of hand, presumably as it is getting to the point when even they can't afford to rig it in their direction any more. And, as pointed out, it also happens on supermarket shelves, of course.

I wonder how much I would need to fork out to get Junkk.com a mention in the various monthly shopper mags, even when they have pieces on 'greening your home'.

Having an opinion can be hazardous to your career

With Junkk.com, I no longer have much to lose, so you may have noticed that I'm pretty much saying what I think. 

There was a time when I was more circumspect, if only because there were people we could benefit from working with, or for. Both, usually, involving money (see: He who pays the piper from long ago). And money to Junkk.com is money to the family coffers, so there really was a vested interest in not rocking the boat.

And it seems that to exist, much less thrive, in a career these days, you better no do anything that comes close to not agreeing with anyone below, besides or, good forbid, above you, or even have much by way of an opinion.

This Protect us from Billy the Offender is about the Home Office. It applies pretty much throughout every walk of life.

The mediocre have at last found a way to ensure they stay at the top of the asylum. At least the targets are being met.

Writes of Reply

The Sunday Times' essayist Simon Jenkins is the latest to weigh in on a now the issue de jour in his column Global warming might not be so bad, if we keep our cool . Of course I felt the urge to reply, not because I feel I have much more to add in these pages to the whole thing (like these commentaries, there is not much more that can be said), but in the slim hope of gaining a broader audience for our efforts by getting noticed in the more major media:

"Like you, I try to stay abreast of it all. And like you I am reeling from the sheer volume.... of it all. By which I mean that great catch-all that is global warming.

My response has been to give up worrying, at least about what is causing it, and devote myself where possible to doing as much as I can to mitigate it in my own small way, both personally and a few other outward, inclusive ones as well. 

Less ‘doom and gloom’. More ‘do and bloom’.

I must say I tend to agree with Prof. Lovelock on the issue of population growth, and have written about this a lot before. There is a finite amount of planet to live on, and off. The global population is expanding. This suggest an end-point. Most are also getting richer, and hence more land-hungry, material-acquisitive and wanderlusty, which inevitably means consumption and pollution. Which can only hurt the planet's ability to cope still further, and suggests the end-point is being brought forward exponentially.  

Where I tend to diverge is in deciding that it is worth trying to do something, no matter what. And if it is unclear what that may be, then we must plug on (or rather take the thing out) and do our best while those that know better get their collective acts together.

David Attenborough’s first programme was a disappointment. I was awaiting something new and got more of the same. But I unfairly raised an eyebrow that he offered no solutions. These are to come this week. Whether they will extend beyond not driving (but, we presume, keep flying, so long as you are a naturalist or environmental journalist whose career depends on looking at bugs or talking about their demise at conferences in far-flung places) and sharing a bath remains to be seen. If the medicine doesn’t taste nice, it does not matter how eminent the advice of health professional holding the spoon, unless they have added a nice dose of sugar to it in complement.

And as with the Malthusian implications of population growth, the issue of the Asian economies is one that makes anything we do here pale into insignificance, yet warrant scant mention for all sorts of reasons. I only had to watch last night’s 'Tank Man' to grasp just we are facing, and how hard it will be to attempt to check the glory of having a turn at being rich after all they have been through. And seen us enjoy.

You rightly note we face the potent issues of trust and comprehension even on our doorstep. Just to cite to examples from your own paper, we have pretty relevant questions on the independence of our government, and a letter (chosen from how many, and for what reason? A ratings maintaining rebuke from the wind lobby perhaps?) showing that there are widely diverse views on some pretty heady issues. 

But I'm afraid I can't accept the notion that mankind’s' polluting efforts are possibly a balance for global dimming, and do feel that perhaps your warmer Northern hemisphere comment may err on the flip. Though I do tend to agree, as it does suggest we may enjoy our camping holiday in the near vicinity more than some richer,  adventurous souls who brave a storm-lashed tropical paradise, seduced by the articles and ads in the very newspaper sections that are now sanctimoniously offsetting the consequences of their correspondents traveling there.

Though they must address such global socio-economic issues such as travel, I concern myself about the international governing community cooperating on anything. Political will can only be moved by individual desire.

So I'm not sure becoming Dutch and creating more land to generate more people and their waste products is quite the answer. But certainly a bit more effort in mirroring that nation's public efforts to reduce waste certainly is. There is a lot more we can do. We are just not doing it yet. I wonder why?"

Travelin' Lite

As I am now in earnest pursuit of the day job, it looks like the Saturday Guardian will now be an addition to my weekly hard copy newspaper purchase. Actually it's not too bad, and in addition to the Media/Creative appointments pages there are a few sections that are worth the scope.

One such is Travel, which I noted from last week had gone all offset. And now at last I have had a chance to delve into soem of the more in-depth artciles. A few (well, most, it seemed) were by Leo Hickman - How could planes be less damaging? & Is it OK to fly? & Is the future green?  - and actually all seemed well balanced. One interesting fact in there was that the C02 per passenger in one return flight to Sydney is equal to half that generated by one person in the UK per year (I wonder if that includes the holiday to Oz?). Stick that offset in your exhaust pipe and justify it, globetrotters! 

Because even in this 'special', there were a few voices saying thyat the one thing they would not be doing is not travelling. Which I am sure comes as a huge relief to all those tourist desinations whose economies depend on us coming to see them before they are destroyed by us coming to see them.

What I am not quite sure is how well all this sits with this week's version. Now coyly branded in a discreet earpiece, they are of course now offsetting the trips. Just the journalists , mind. Who after last week's eco-edition are back to advocating that the readership barrels off as far as possible to buy stuff. I leave you with exhibit 'A': Designer China.

Aiiiiiiiyaa!, as they say in Hong Kong.

Test match

I watched a BBC 'special' called "Test The nation", which had as its theme 'How well do you know your planet'.

What was quite fun was seeing one of the 'green elite' gurus squirm a bit when challenged by the host on her flying habits, including a trip to Nigeria for a green conference. I guess that's how you get to be guru; by going to such things and being privy to stuff the rest of us are not. But then, I'm sure a lot of folk would reasonably claim that flying around is what they have to do to stay at the top of their game. Tricky dilemma. Must have been fun in the green room afterwards.

On the whole a light-hearted event, and possibly effective in its populist delivery. I'm big on entertainment and accessibility, but I have to say the whole thing came across as a bit trivial and ever-so slightly naff. Too much celebrity, too much vox-pop and not enough proactive, solution-based 'meat'.

But my kids loved it, and I gave me a chance to talk about the issues with them, so a lot better than nothing.

In the spirit of balance

The question mark at the end is key, and indicative of a slightly worrying trend in journalism these days: Climate change: Tearing the Earth apart? 

However, when a publication such as the New Scientist uses a phrase like  "the idea that climate change is linked to extreme geological events is not as far-fetched as it might sound." one needs to take notice.

I for one was quick to flick an eyebrow at those who chose to relate tectonic shifts to Humvee purchases, so it looks like I need to be more circumspect.

But really it does not matter to my... our missions, which is simply to reduce waste. I just hope we don't end up doing yet more gassing at the expnse of doing in debating this new information.

Block off the old chip

Nothing like a bank holiday to recharge the batteries. And ensure the
in-box is overflowing when it gets ignored for an extra day.

But at least I managed to grab some quality time to attack the
garden, and have it attack me, inbetween the erratic weather. Plus of
course catch up on the weekend papers.

To start, I refer to one from the Sunday Timers I cannot hyperlink
to, but as it is short it probably no consequence.

It seems Toyota Prius owners in the US (where else?) are improving
the mpg of their cars by reprogramming (chipping). And now it is
catching on here (at £1/litre, I wonder why?).

Thing is, why wouldn't the car be already tuned by the manufacturer
this way? I can only assume there must be a consequence, either in
the effect it has on the reliability or durability of the components,
or the thing now has the overtaking ability of a milk float.

But I guess 100mpg does covey a certain smugness and eco-cred when
you turn up (eventually) at parties.

Addendum: Well, if you wait long enough (in this case a few days), and answer may be forthcoming, this time courtesy of Forbes: The Frankenstein Hybrid

This, I like - money in the bank. Staying there.

I'm not big on banks. They tend in my mind, and experience, to err on the far, bad end of 'necessary evil'. we're still smarting over being told there would be no start-up charges when we set-up our first Junkk.com, then finding there were, and that they had been taken without our being told to push us into unauthorised O/D, which then incurred a penalty! Plus I have yet to have any bank marketing dept. respond positively to our suggestion that while going 'carbon neutral' is dead spiffy and all, it is hardly PR we feel like covering, but would be interested if they launched something like a loan to help promote good e-practice (like a reduced rate on solar), like the car insurers have for hybrids.

Anyway, I must say that, although it has little to do with the environment (though a lot to do with waste), as a personal customer I do like the look of this Barclays banks on anti-virus deal, especially as, amazingly...  it's free! For once a win-win.

"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade"

It would be hard not to smile at that call to arms aginst minor adversity. And be inspired by its simple, homely truth.

I have just had the following, from the MAD* show:

The Mad* Show

It is with great regret that we have to announce that the conference and exhibition scheduled to be held at Earls Court has now been cancelled.

Whilst considerable expenditure has been made in marketing the event, the take up of tickets and sponsorship has rendered the event totally unviable. Accordingly we have taken professional advice and have been advised that we should take steps to liquidate the company.

The company does not have sufficient funds to place the company into creditors’ voluntary liquidation and therefore we, as directors, have placed Field Seymour Parkes (Solicitors) in funds, to issue a petition to wind up the company. We would expect the petition to be heard in 6-8 weeks and clearly it will not be opposed.

The directors repeat their sadness at having to take this action as substantial funds have been invested into the company. Thank you to everybody who has supported us throughout the project and we hope that the little we have done could one day *make a difference.

The Directors of The Mad* Group Ltd

It is no longer postponed; it is gone, with the hopes (but, hopefully, nothing else) of many who were seeking to take part with it. The organisers have put a lot in, and lost a great deal. So, sadly, have we. After the disappointment that was the Ideal Home Show's 'Green' themed - Not - event, this was one we were looking forward to to bring our message to a wider, and more empathetic audience. Plus of course the media. I was to be a speaker, and in heavyweight company, so there was a chance to have our reuse message noted and reported.

Again, it was not to be. But Junkk.com exists, and has been designed to evolve no matter what. Its core structures are easily maintained and the skeletons on which the data, ideas and information can be added by the public, business and authorities firmly in place an awaiting any and all contributions.

Time to make lemonade, people! Or, as it turns out, kill weeds (though it's looking like vinegar is better).

Re:quiem for Re:pair

I love my deck shoes. For decades they have conferred sockless casual
style to my feet on demand. And despite several serious bouts of
maintenance, they just got more and more comfortable. But now I fear
they have reached the end of the long road we had been walking together.

I had hoped against hope that a repair would be possible, but even if
it had (and most artisans simply shook their heads and did the Dead
Parrot sketch from Monty Python) the price to restore an already
shaky superstructure was going to be prohibitive - costs started at
£45. And just a few doors down there was a gleaming new pair for £40.
Not as nice, but.... affordable. And so it is. All I know is that I
will be carefully picking them apart as that tough weathered leather
will have a use... someday.

Meanwhile in my garage the dead decade-old dryer rests ready for a
weekend disassembly job. £50 call-out plus unknown parts and labour
to put it right, when a new one at £150 plus 3 years' warranty means
it is simply not worth it. And now, especially with summer upon us,
my airing cupboard conversion is already churning out nice, if
crispy, dry towels and saving a big electricity bill in the process.
So it will not be replaced.

I hope to soon report a positive story in the form of an actual
repair that was still worth it. Watch the ideas page!

Lots Choice

When I wrote that headline it was just a play on words based on a faintly remembered saying. It was only when I Googled it to find out the origins that I discovered - without meaning or wishing to get all theological on this - another relevant complement to the modern environmental/commercial relationship.

There is no doubt that there are out there a lot of good people, with lots of good intentions, trying to do a lot of good. A lot.

Warming to my notion that a lot of our problems are down to the fact that there are lots of us, as a consumer who has either asked for or simply gets exposed to green-group messages I have to say I'm feeling a little overwhelmed these days, 'cos there are lots! And there I'll draw the 'lots' bit to a close.

But sadly, despite the overwhelming volunteer, not-for-profit, charitable nature of all this activity and most of the practitioners, I can't help but have a small concern about the motivations behind it all; whether there is a slight shift of concern more to paying the mortgage and locking down the pension plan at Central Office Towers.

Hence I was more than interested, and impressed, by this commentary from Grist - How I Didn't Spend My Summer Vacation - a critical examination of how the youth are used by environmental organisations.

The author poses this valid question (and provides an answer I must say seems accurate, if not attrative): "But what if a listener got so riled up by the canvasser's description of climate change, deforestation, or urban sprawl that he or she wanted to get active -- lobby! demonstrate! organize! -- rather than give money? This person might be a great public speaker, a natural organizer, or a talented artist who could contribute more value to the movement with a week of volunteering than with annual membership dues. The hastily trained canvassers would probably suggest checking out a group's website and signing up for emails, but they're not really sure -- all they've been taught to do is ask for money."

It's a good article. Worth reading. I just wish there was more of a clearer solution to take away.