Laugh? I could have died. We still can.

I try to keep things in a lighter vein wherever possible, and certainly prefer to avoid gazing at my navel, but something happened the other night that had a profound, and disturbing, effect on me.

I was watching, of all ridiculous things, a comedy quiz show called '8 Out Of 10 Cats'. This is just one of several such shows where it is the taking part, rather than the winning, which is important. Hosted by a witty comedian, Jimmy Carr, it had two teams composed mainly of equally witty folk, most of whom will invite him to be a panelist on their show. So far, so entertaining.

But I guess what struck home was a comment at the end which the host made, and maybe more affecting was everyone's reaction to it. Mr. Carr doesn't tell jokes as such, so it was more observational humor. It was do do with 'environmental types', I guess like me. And while the specifics have dimmed, it was something like 'All these eco-warriors say it's about saving the planet for future generations. Well , I say **** 'em' (I think he meant the future generations - an audience it's hard to offend, yet, by dint of not being around as yet), for which he got a roar of approving laughter from all involved.

And he's not alone. I'm hearing and reading about this view a lot:

New Spin Tactic? Forget scientists... let's use comedians! Christian Science Monitor today employs a comedian to battle global warming science, with such insight as: "...we shouldn't worry about the distant future." I guess they figure the PR stall tactics aren't working anymore so they're going to humour us into inaction.

I have taken my family to brink of serious financial compromise by trying to be part (a small one) of a movement that is trying to secure the future by acting today. Neither I nor, I suspect my kids, are going to see any benefit for these actions (or real consequences for failing to act), and in fact are possibly going to suffer a fair bit because of them.

What do I do? I can either go down fighting the good fight, or give up and try and rejoin the very system I abandoned a fair while ago. Right now I don't see I have a choice to ensure the survival of my immediate family, immediately. 

At least Junkk.com will still exist and can go on to do some good (my own personal carbon offset). With luck it will grow and offer some form of return on the investment made to provide for my wife and my futures. 

But having been confronted by attitudes such as those listed above, and simply had enough wasting my time staying on top of hot-air generating, deck-chair-rearranging, well-meaning but ultimately fruitless talkfests such as this - Our wasteful ways will finish us off   - I really think I better re-assign my time a bit better to attending to those closer to home.

I cannot be accused like some of saying '**** you' to my great, great grandkids, but do feel the need to say sorry here and now (my wife and own kids I'll address in person when and if the need arises) for as yet not acheiving for your sake all that I'd hoped. 

At least I tried to do something, and it may yet pan out. 

And we'll have the last laugh.

Bag to the drawing board?

One of the biggest hurdles 'we' (I'm lumping us in with the whole e-advocacy movement here) face is persuading everday folk to change their ways in the cause of environmental good practice. So, while perhaps no great surprise, this was a disappointment: Bag re-use campaign fails to win over shoppers 

But to achieve this less than spectacular result, I am now more than a little interested in the cost of "A range of public relations and marketing tactics were tried during the campaign, including local media coverage, road shows, leafleting, in-store promotions, competitions and work with local schools."

And I frankly plain don't understand these two statements: "WRAP's report revealed that it had proved difficult in a pressured retail environment, to sustain all of the activities throughout the trial period of 10 weeks. At the time, WRAP said the campaign was going so well, it was extended by a few weeks."

While I made a nice little living in my career designing the things, another thing I am also not convinced about is that a logo is going to make much difference on the back of this. 

Time for a rethink?

Support your local supporter

This one is interesting. There I was in my local community centre, and what catches my eye but a leaflet advertising Freecycle. 'Ello, ello,' I says, 'where did they get the promo budget for all this, and how?'

Well, on closer inspection the answer to where is in the logos at the bottom. A few nice councils and some NGOs with tasty budgets.

How, of course, is another matter. And especially as I see merit in seeing how we can get them to engage with Junkk.com in the same way.

This, of course, will be an adventure.

The key hurdle is contained within that phrase 'voluntary
international organisation'. Which is up there in largesse attraction from funders with 'not for profit' and 'charity'. Those on nice index-
linked salaries and gold-plated pensions prefer you to either not be
making any money, or better yet a living either.

Now Freecycle is dead spiffy. It's free and serves a great re-
function. Just like our very own JunkkYard, and of course all the
other additional re-features Junkk.com brings that can prevent waste.
But sadly, even though we don't charge anyone for anything, we are
'commercial' so I see certain obstacles already, even though we by
any measure are doing a lot of good and deserve equal support.

Worth a try though. Watch this space.

Well, we knew they were trying...

Couldn't resist. An interesting approach to the whole food miles issue. It may also be worth wondering what they are not trying so hard with elsewhere...shire.

Nice work if you can get it

Sometimes, the numbers involved can be mind boggling. I remember 'when I were a lad' the biggest account move in UK ad history was the £10 million Austin Rover business. Now we have Review for £50m Carbon Trust business begins.

Now I would be the first to defend, and even advocate the value of investing in public and business awareness, and the encouragement of good e-practices. Frankly I look forward the Junkk.com being the beneficiary of some of this marketing budget largesse... sooner, hopefully, than later.

However, being in a slightly better than most position to be exposed to announcements of this nature, I am still getting to grips with the sheer number of different organisations who are out there dispensing public funds... whopping great amounts of them.

And, as I have pondered before, I do wonder about the way that this money gets doled out to be in turn doled out. Who decides? Who briefs? Who assesses the results and measures the ROI? If it were a commercial brand and I was their agency I know what would be entailed with a budget of £50 million. Are the same standards applied? It's all well and good hitting a target or moving perception some points, but at such an amount I'd blooming well hope so. What are 'we' getting for 'our' money?

I just have to hope that this is being well managed to achieve the best result(s). All I know is that, as an individual and a business, I have tripped over CT banner ads almost everywhere (good targetting or just mass targetting?) and most did not get me to go much further into the message. Likewise I have had a lot of nifty packs, brochures and flyers which have still not really pushed my buttons. And of course that (in)famous DM piece 'fan' which suggested that if I didn't like it I could mail it back 'to save the environment'.

Hmnn.

Works for me! Well, make that 'Doesn't work'.

This from today's Times: TV standby buttons will be outlawed

I'm just glad they didn't decide to tax them or fine them. And perhaps not a good precedent for all those free-marketeers driving their 4x4s, flying on holiday, heating their patios or drinking bottled water.

It all makes a kind of sense, but why am I a tad uneasy about who is in charge?

A copy of a parody of a blue pencil, er, red paperclip

This is already complicated, but stick with me.

For a start, if you're here via the Guardian, Welcome! You are one smart cookie.

If not, this is a bit of a musing on blogs, hype and stuff in general.

I'm a bit of a blog junkie I guess, fairly obviously. I write one regularly and often at length. I also read a lot. And then pitch in. But I think for my health, sanity, wealth and a lot of other important reasons I should cut back. The question is... how?

Analysing why I do it, the reasons are three, two major and one minor. Reading is simple. I find stuff out. However the benefit to effort ratio is not great. This is not a bad description of what one goes through to understand why: Mugged by the blogosphere - or how to find nuggets in a cyberswamp 

Contributing is another matter. I prefer only to do so when there is potential benefit. Maybe some of my bon mots may strike a chord and result in a positive result for me and/or my business. This really is only likely if those reading the blog post know who I am and where to link to to find out more. The Telegraph allows this. The Guardian does not. Though I am trying a small experiment, hence the comment at the top. See here:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/07/12/one_blue_pencil.html 

(In case my comment doesn't make it, it's in response to a blog about the consequences of the chap who traded his red paperclip up to a house: 

"I'd like to jump on the inevitable PR/hype bandwagon too late (darn, that's been done), by offering in exchange to mention your blog on my blog (double darn it, now that's been done too) in the hope that I can piggy back on a major medium's coverage of 'something' to get a few folk in the direction of my minor, and completely unconnected, business (shoot, that's been done, too. What are the odds?). 

But boy, is it worth the 30 seconds' effort I just expended just in case there are a few out there on a slow news day with some time to kill (try Google. Hint: I work for a company and I'm male).

Anyway, at least today's blog on my site just wrote itself."

The third reason is just to vent, and there's nothing wrong with that. Unless it affects the day job, which it's starting to do.

Pop goes the... er... pop

I do jest, but considering the current concerns about there being a bit much of the stuff, I thought this was quite funny:

 Britain's CO2 shortage not a threat to fizzy drinks

Maybe a solution to global warming is suggested, though I fear for the nations teeth and waistlines.

Eat my dust

Don't really like the Economist online stuff as much as the others, as they make you go through hoops (and possibly end up paying), but I got enough from the intro to So much hot air Jul 4th 2006  From The Economist Global Agenda

Europe’s carbon-trading scheme has started awkwardly but could be a useful model

IMAGINE a world in which the driver of a small, fuel-efficient car, or even a cyclist, can sell his quota of pollution credits to the owner of a gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicle. The seller is rewarded for doing his bit to keep the planet green, the buyer pays a bit more for the privilege of warming the earth on his way to the supermarket. 

I pop this in because it is similar to the recent aviation debate. I say similar rather than identical because I think car travel in some form or other is a simple necessity that it's hard to imagine society being able to manage without, where a lot of air travel is more of a luxury that we probably can reduce more easily (anguished cries from the travel industry).

I'm still trying to get my head around this. On balance getting rewarded for getting from A to B in the most eco manner is to be lauded, but I can't quite see giving free rein to rich petrolheads is the way to go either. But then this is pretty much what I was advocating for air travel between an eskimo and a frequent flyer, so hey-ho.

A fair point was made in the debate instigated by MEP Dr. Lucas (recent blog), where she was rather held to account for how her air travel came across as slightly more 'necessary' than others, which is a bit of pedestal posing on the part of the pols I have raised before, when the haves decide who keeps and who has not in future. 

But we do rather get to a pretty draconian level of mandatory maximums on personal travel. It reminds me a bit of a very funny piece (well, they all were) in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where visitors to a planet have to account for their bodily impact during their stay, so getting a receipt at the loo is pretty vital to avoid painful consequences in the departure lounge

I guess it's a case of two legs good. 

Sky High

I broke my rule and pitched into a forum debate in the Guardian today - The stratospheric cost of cheap flights - prompted by Green MEP Dr. Caroline Lucas.

Some interesting, and varied opinions in the mix.

Here are mine:

"Though it is obviously (oh boy, is it ever) still up for debate, I personally believe that whatever 'we' are doing as an ever-growing global population, the consequences of our existences, rich or poor, are not helping halt the negative aspects of climate change.

Closer to home, and this discussion, I also believe that air travel emissions are quite high on the list of probable causes and need addressing.

A while ago I caught the tail end of yet another academo/journalistic spat about climate warming - http://www.desmogblog.com/a-tart-counterpoint-to-ibbitsons-irrelevance - and would just like to share this:

"[You are] flying on holiday and the plane is ½ hour out over the Atlantic. Of 150 aerospace engineers on board, 90 say that there's been a fuel leak and the plane has 40 minutes of flying time left. It's time to turn around. The other 60 say that there's no conclusive evidence of a leak and [you] should not turn around because it would inconvenience the CEOs in business class."

The conclusion is also worth sharing: '[The] debate is about risk, not certainty. [We] might choose to listen when more than half the experts are warning of a problem that threatens our entire species'.

Asking who flies where how often is obviously fun when the 'greener than thous' get on their specific and saintly hobby horses, but really doesn't address the bigger picture. Yet, of those on board (sorry) with the notion that it's a problem requiring a solution, we still seem to be circling (sorry again:)) around what to do.

I don't really understand all these trading schemes very well, and have my suspicions that they will just create a whole new breed of very rich folk who will be able to afford to fly around discussing what they are trading. And on a personal holidaymaker basis, I am equally not sure that whacking another fir tree in the Gobi to make up for a stag trip to Rimini is going to help much either.

Both simply seem to be trying to buy off our guilt and/or the consequences of demanding our right to go where, when and as often as we please, simply because we can.

Plus these solutions all seem potentially so socially divisive on top of the eco-consequences, as it will inevitably be those with the dosh who get to make the trips if it boils down to just money.

As a small suggestion, I'd advocate some form of individual quota system, where you're allowed a certain number of airmiles per annum per person.

You want to do more, you can trade with those who don't need or want them (so all those business types on a jolly will need to get them off a some poor eskimo whose igloo has just melted).

This does of course simplistically ignore a few global societal imbalances (if every Chinese agri-worker or bushman in the Kalahari gets the right to 10k airmiles, the planet would be toast in a week), economic realities (just where exactly are all those who depend on the current - let alone proposed - levels of air travel going to be reassigned?) and remarkably optimistic hopes of planetary cooperation in the spirit of self-preservation over self-interest, but then that's what politicians are for, isn't it?

But a start (to stopping - 50 airports' worth taking off from a 'soon to be affluent enough to afford it' China is a... concern) needs to be made.

This at least is an attempt. A tad unilateral. Fraught with inequalities and impracticailties for sure, but better than doing nothing.

I am prepared to hold my breath, and just hope there's a resolution before I really have to... for good."

WrapAtak #2

I'm always up for a freebie. And it seems churlish to complain when
it's delivered, but I'm afraid I find this one a bit daft and worthy
of comment.

A wee while ago I came across an offer by a major paper company
(whose products we're happy to use) to request a recycling box (or
three). Well, we always have a use for a box, so why not? And I duly
applied.

Well, they arrived. And dead spiffy they are too.

But does it really make sense for them have come all the way from
Germany... by courier!

And would it have been beyond their ken to make the boxes their paper
gets delivered in provide the same purpose. An opportunity lost.

Full marks for the sentiment. Nil points for much else, I'm afraid.

Fault!

Time now for one of my cheeky eyebrow raises. After the flurry of eco-
articles on travel, cars, etc, I couldn't help be notice that the
media's fervour has moved on a bit, and so not much mention of the
footy WAGS using private jets like taxis.

And now I have spotted this: Me and My Motors: Maria Sharapova

"When Maria Sharapova came from nowhere to win Wimbledon aged just
17, she was still being ferried to training sessions in the family’s
ageing Honda — the only car the Sharapovas had ever owned. Fast
forward two years and the 19-year-old Russian will be chauffeur-
driven to the All England club in a £50,000 Range Rover Sport."

I'm just a bit intrigued as to why a) a 4x4 is necessary to navigate
the wilds of Wimbledon and b), perhaps more interestingly, why no one
that I can spot from the green brigade (I'm green lite so don't
count) has yet had a peep to say about it.

Then again, I wonder how many of our green elite are parked in centre
court?



Mea Culpa. And you, ah, too!

Nothing like a title that gets straight to the point: Who’s to Blame for Global Warming?

I found this one both intriguing and refreshingly different to the usual, hence worth sharing.

And as an e-WASP by accident of birth, I guess it was nice to get away from the incessant Western guilt-tripping (and bashing) for a short while.

The main point is that we are all in this together... globally. Whether this gets taken is another matter.

Now, maybe I should have mash with my curry in future?

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.