Big Brother 2006

It has arrived: This electric radicalism marries green politics with social justice

One from you; one for me... and we'll ignore the rest:

'In my experience the only people who end up benefitting from trading are the traders, and it is in their interests to ensure as much trading happens as possible. So even though they don't actually make anything, they'll have to buzz around a lot finding folk to get carbon credits from, and buyers to sell it too, plus commission.

Hence, on this basis we surely will be unlikely to see a reduction in this 'commodity' as the market will equally surely drive it up to make profits.

And as we are a global economy, breathing the same air, and polluting it unequally with our SUVs, EasyJet skiing flights and second homes, I will be interested who gets to decide how we swap credits with a Kalahari bushman inefficiently burning logs to cook, or a Bangkok klong taxi driver running a 50's V8 with no exhaust, let alone a catalytic converter.

So basically we're giving the right to several billion folk to 'trade' what: 1 long haul, 2 short hauls, 10 train trips, 50 bus rides and 5000 miles in a Prius? If all of us get to use that allotment I'd say we're stuffed by next Xmas.

Or are Polly and the pols suggesting those who don't need cars so much (ie: those in Westminster, Fleet Street and Notting Hill) trade only with those of us who do (those not urban-based to live or work), for the right to fly to their ski villas? And we'll, er, forget about the rest of the poor sods around the planet, who we don’t need worry about, because they're too poor to do either.

Not convinced. But something has to be done to reduce the CO2 globally. I just don't see this as the way to do it. Me, I'll stay at home , travel as little as I can unless I have to.

And also try to DO something NOW by sharing ways to reuse and repair (and reduce and recycle) via http://www. junkk.com, that are free (I'll one day, with luck, make a matchmaking living), add no more to the eco-pot and may even save some money, time and a few cc's of CO2 all round. Certainly can't hurt. Merry Christmas.'

All (most of) our Xmases have arrived at once?

Our friend Andrew has sent this. Take advantage of it as your conscience dictates (those poor loves do need the money to survive and make their meagre profits):

'It is illegal for any lender to charge more than the actual admin cost of penalties levied: estimated at £4.50 maximum for a bounced cheque, £2.50 maximum for a DD etc. Lenders no longer use the word 'penalty' in the hope of getting round the law. They now call it a 'service fee'. The Office of Fair Trading has now refused to countenance out-of-court settlements where lenders offer partial repayments as 'goodwill'. You are entitled to full repayment of the previous six years of penalties with interest. No lender has ever contested a repayment of penalties case in court.'

Are penalty charges bank robbery?

How to claim back penalties

The Money Programme's own Bank Commission

Questions for the lenders

Hear no query, see no query, speak no query.

My reply to a Guardian piece: We shouldn't sneer at the goodwill of ethical shoppers

"An interesting commentary, based on interesting articles with equally interesting posts in response.

I have not read the Economist piece, but will try and do so now.

I did read Mr. Hastings', and have to say I think the choice of the word sneer here was unfortunate. It risks the rebuttal being viewed as more emotional and knee-jerk than factual and persuasive. Especially if, as noted, there was a marked lack of substance in support. And, despite having my own website, I'm afraid saying 'check the URL’ doesn't quite cut it, especially when it comes to fmcg brands. The competition for a consumer’s attention (and to sway them) is vast. FairTrade obviously know this, and rather than blow funds on ad campaigns, they have harnessed a very effective PR machine in support, with the willing cooperation of the media. And why not? But ways to go, by all accounts.

I have a great belief in the 'better than nothing' approach, but would stop short of '...so don’t ask questions'.

Trust is a delicate thing. And we can ill afford to lose the first waves of those embracing ethical and environmental issues if (big I, big F) they prove to have been rushed into actions not just that prove financially dubious but also ethic/environmentally. You just end up looking dumb and are less likely to risk being burned again.

Far better to establish the credentials clearly and try to (I know it is hard) share the end-benefits understandably to enable reasoned decisions to be made.

I am currently weighing the whole home wind turbine thing having been a keen convert but lacking the funds to plunge straight away. Now I am seeing a lot that makes me wonder if I dodged a bullet. It's one thing to pay double for my juice; that's my choice. But if it's not going to have a worthy enviROI then... hmmmn.

And I wouldn't be addressing this dilemma as I am now but for those who simply asked 'is this the best way?'

My site gets many press releases, and if appropriate I am happy to share a 'better than nothing' as I come across them (your URL awaits FairTrade - your name is mentioned a lot already by others, positively, so it would great to have your pitch in support ) so please if you have such feel free to send them in. But I do now, with limited resources to check, concern myself with provenance chains before committing to an unequivocal endorsement by Junkk.com.

That, ultimately, is still up to the individual to discover what they need. But any smart outfit will make it easy for them to do so, and trust in the result."

Interestingly, in several other places I am seeing the trend to 'stop asking questions because [we're worthy, you're just being difficult... etc]'. The best form defence is attck I suppose, but in mnay ways a rational reply that answers can stop the 'fight' right away.

You show me yours...

Green credentials are all the rage. Mr. Brown has shown us his by popping a few quid on a flight and a few p on a litre, so he is now covered.

So I was interested to note two stories from two extremes of the political spectrum. One, in the Mail on Sunday, was about the closure of Post Offices. Won't this tend to make people need to travel more to do their Royal Mail thing? The other, which I actually was surprised had not made it anywhere else (at least that I noticed), was that a pre-budgetary tax raid has ruined an airline carbon reduction scheme.

Telegraph: Stop Jim
BBC

Prudent and green, Gordon, prudent and green.

Taking it to the Max

This was interesting: We may yearn to be green, but we can't afford to be gullible

Not so much for the content, which is really nothing new, but that we still find oursleves spinning around the same old 'tis/tisn't cliches. Even those subsequent to my plea:

'I started reading from the top with such hope. I refer of course to the comments posted so far in reply to this article. While buried amongst them there is essentially a potentially valid rebuttal to some of the 'facts' Mr. Hastings has researched and passed on, which would make for an interesting further debate, I end up seeing the same old camps staked out, issuing left-right, urban-country hissyfit swipes.

This is all surely way beyond political inclination or socio-economic aspiration?

Why are we still at a point where someone like myself still feels unable to arrive at some sort of objective conclusion based on factual information and substantive evidence?

Ignoring the aesthetic aspects (I actually find that one outside Reading a wondrous image, though I would concede having scores whirring in my backyard would not be that fun) and financial ROIs (I could live with, or least be prepared to make the sacrifice of extra expense of the energy generation if it takes CO2 out of the air... soon), but the jury still seems out on the overall environmental ROI anyway, which is surety the main point?

I despair of the hot air still being expended by all talk and no action, but Mr. Hastings does have a point that such massive investments have to be proven to be practical solutions. I can't believe the numbers are not now pretty clear, and can be explained in ways for layperson to judge before they support this initiative or that eco-tariff.

I am already backing off a home turbine because it doesn’t look like the numbers do work on any basis. Solar panels are also under question. Even sending a goat for Christmas now seems likened to lobbing in a cluster bomb.

May be such dissent is being sown and fostered by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Divide and rule? I don’t know. But this makes it all the more critical for those with the passion and belief to not rush those of a lighter-green hue into directions that can backfire and create future resistance to more positive solutions.'

Planet Earth

The above... is a famous BBC show. Quite excellent.

Were it that some of its employees were on the same one as the rest of us.

Back in November, I had occasion to ask a question of the Working Lunch team, and this resulted in a rather odd reply, the consequences of which rumble on to this day.

I recently had a reply from their complaints department:

Thank you for your emails about previous correspondence you've had with
Deputy Editor for Working Lunch. Please accept my sincere
apologies for the delay in responding.

I contacted her and discussed your correspondence to date. Lynne
explained that the reason she posed the question - "May I ask do you use
"see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature?" was simply because
of the text in the auto signature of your original email to the show. She
was genuinely interested in this and assures me there was nothing sinister
behind this question.

She did not hear back directly from you (please note that if you sent
further correspondence to the Working Lunch team she may not always receive
this due to the sheer volume of email traffic to this inbox).

Reading her initial response to the question posed about the
competition I trust that this answered your concerns on this subject. Lynne
informed me that all the information about the competition should also have
been on the auto-response email you received.

In conclusion, I trust that this explains why Lynne posed this question to
you. If you have any further concerns about this please contact Lynne
directly on the following number: [I'll spare her this].

Thank you, once again, for contacting the BBC and for your patience in
waiting for a response.

Yours sincerely

Divisional Advisor
BBC Information

As the reply seemed to be 'it's between you and the original person you couldn't get a reply from anyway, and nothing to do with us as we have no power or opinion' (shades of Newswatch?), I decided that it wasn't going to end quite yet:


Thank you for your email.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding.

No problem. I know you must be busy. And it's not time critical.

I'm still not too satisfied with this I'm afraid. And don't really see any value in going to the trouble of talking to [her] any more. Her interest was... interesting... though obviously fleeting and soon forgotten. But I am glad there was no sinister intent. I just wonder why the question was posed. I've removed it now just in case, and as it is quite old news.

Appreciating how busy you all must be (I too have a good few hundred emails to address daily, many of which I am not paid a salary to address), may I suggest that if such a question is posed, it may be worth having systems in place to accommodate the answers, if only as common courtesy.

Hence I would like to get another view on this as I appreciate you are only in the position of passing on those of the protagonists. So who do I get in touch with now who is outside of the BBC? OFCOM? Board of Governors?

Yours patiently,

Rather deliciously, this is what came back... again:

We are sorry but our email system will not receive your email unless you use one of our pre-formatted webforms. We realise the inconvenience but hope you will understand that this helps us handle the many emails we receive every day more efficiently and makes best use of your licence fee.


I have now readdressed it to the 'black hole' that is our licence fee consumer. Watch this space.

Too PC. No Comment.

BBC - Birth rate 'harms poverty goals'

Twisting the story

You kind of expect it in a Kansas trailer park, but not so much 'North of the River' (that'll teach those cabbies): How could a tornado hit London?

And because it was not expected, I rather leapt to the conclusion that here, if it were needed, was evidence that things are deteriorating, climatically. And frankly I was poised to make this comment when I started reading more.

Thing is, it is not unheard of. And while 'worst in 25 years' makes for a pithy phrase, that kinda means it was worse 25 years ago.

Not to detract from the climate change argument, which I support by advocating we stop wasting stuff and cut down where we can, but it was refreshing not to have seen more 'See, we're all doomed' bandwagon jumpers come out.

If you don't have enough lemons... borrow them.

This may be cheeky, but if it works it shows that a little ignorance can be a useful thing.

Our hugely complex, vastly expense website currently only allows one picture per article, at least when I upload. And I don't dare ask the IT guys to get out of bed to even quote for making it possible for me to do more.

Thing is, I'd like to add a few more to illustrate stories.

So I have a plan. I'm going to try breaking out the pictures from the blog references, hopefully in sequence. That way blog readers can view above or below (and mayeb the nasty word breask will no longer happen, which is a plus), and I can pop in a URL to site articles to more info visuals. Not elegant, or optimal, but in the spirit of bodge, let's see what happens...

I'm Dreaming of a Green Christmas - Photo Archive

L2R: The stand. JunkkMale in demo mode. A lot of questions. The panel.

Little Victories

[Lesson 1 - last post of the day at the top, but not necessarily with pictures in the right order]

Just one day away again, and I am struggling to keep up with the backlog.

But this one was worth it. Because, dear reader, last night's jaunt to London was a) fun and b) ended with a bit of a result.

We were there for 'Dreaming of a Green Christmas' at the Science Museum's Dana Centre.

A hundred were invited, and I'd say sixty or so turned up, and it was a pretty packed affair at that.

I'll let the link take you to who was there, but it was an eclectic mix and I learned a fair bit.

Met some nice folk, from co-panellists/exhibitors, to audience members. My personal favourite comment was from one who, on being asked why she voted for Junkk.com, said 'Well, reuse is the best eco-option there is' (taking reduction as a given). Nice to see, live, that people 'get' what we're trying to do. The stand was popular, and I have a few new items I made for the event that went down well and must post.

I also got speak, and pitch for Junkk.com on a few award category criteria, including 'best for' recycling, reuse, energy effciency and sustainability.

Well, with much chuffingness, I can advise we managed to score top slot in 3 of the 4.

And with a couple we did it by quite a margin. See that big bar in the picture.... us!

A bit of a boost, and another notch on the way.

Mind the gap

Business warned of 'creativity gap'

"There’s currently a coffee commercial, rather a lush one in fact, whose main message seems dedicated to a rather contrived joke, instead of the product benefits. The wise and benign plantation owner asks his hapless charge what he is doing there, and on being told it is the youth’s gap year, comments: ‘Gap between the ears, more like!’ Oh, how we laugh when that comes on.

However, it seems a worthy metaphor for the sate of British advertising, and now business, and I rather suspect our performance internationally is already registering blows as a consequence.

The 4% statistic is shocking, but not surprising. Though how the question was posed may offer some insights. I wouldn’t want Tracey Emin pitching for me either.

In fact the word creativity rather suffers from a broad range of interpretation. What, exactly does it mean? As suggested, it probably means an awful lot of things to different people, ranging from pure artist, to creative/media industries to... ‘them’.

Personally, I choose to interpret it, at least in the business sense, as seeking innovation; ways of doing things that have not been done before - to get a better result, to stand our more, etc. But there is one small problem with that: risk.

We seem to have arrived in the most risk averse era yet. And we can’t just blame the bean-counters (who may soon figure that if you don’t make any more beans, there’s no job counting). Even those MBA-toting, metric-spouting, blue-sky-thinking communicators and marketers in business and government seem so worried about losing their jobs, they all rush to be first to be second. But usually that means they end up last.

At least in the marketing world they soon end up ‘pursuing other options’. "

Not one for the main site!*

Partly becuase it is not reuse (please, let it not be recycling), but mainly becuase it's got to be the most gross-out bizarre thing I have ever been sent.

But, in a strange way, I felt compelled to appreciate the imagination shown.

Tampon Crafts

* Though most 10year olds will find it a hoot.

Empty (or in this case full) gestures

Eco warriors get a lift in Golden Square office

Staff arriving at M&C Saatchi’s offices in Golden Square were surprised to be forced to take the stairs yesterday.

To publicise a new green initiative, the advertising agency filled its lift up with balled up pieces of paper with the slogan: "If we recycle this much paper in an hour, we can save three trees a day".

My reply to the City Editor:

Let’s just hope they remember to recycle the paper in the lift.

But they did get the PR! Though what green initiative was/is that? If my experience of agencies is anything to go by, they'll have sent a junior in a taxi to buy 5 reams of virgin recycled paper stock to scrunch up.

WRAPPERS - 50cent... or free

Of course, we could mention another alternative for that over-stretched budget: newspaper!

Getting my goat (or not)

Confusing times.

Here I am, trying to figure out what's best for the family, budget and planet, and so I turn to the Sunday papers for inspiration.

And what do I find? Ads for buying goats for the 3rd World, neatly indispersed between articles (quoting charities) saying it's a bad idea!

Which is it!!!?

This is a serious issue. Twerps like me have little time to get into the minute details of this, and once we suspect it's going pear-shaped we turn off.

And when that happnes, what goes first, the head office pension fund or what the poor sods in the field need?

Just one last, wafer-thin mint

Gotta love the chattering classes. They can chatter all right: Global warming? I'll bring you some back from Macy's

"Remember Mr. Creosote? It was a fairly gross, but effective, satire on the notion of testing one's ability to sustain excess by the expedient of blowing up when you reach the point of no return. And now we have the latest commentator for this fine organ pitching in with another 'we really must stop... soon' piece. And that's about it. Bless. I guess it was just delicious irony I'd popped over from Mr. Juniper's article about how we are no longer the dirty man of Europe. If it's shopping, maybe it's now 'The dirty man and woman not in the UK but Macy's?'. Even better, there's this ad at the top offering me the prize of a holiday to the Caribbean. And, puh-lese, can someone explain to me this trading thing? Is it only between those in Notting Hill and Luton, or can the rest of us join in, including the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa?: link - “We can trade, but that doesn't stop emissions. And what of those who share the air we breathe, as opposed to flying through it?"

You have to love this post:

Um, these wouldn't be the shopping trips to New York thoroughly covered in Saturday's Guardian, would they?

Just saying.

Thanks Ian!

Big in the City.

I'm seeing a trend here, and it is a worrying one. Half thought-out notions being floated, seemingly with reasonable concerns, but by folk who live and work in places most set to benefit (or at least suffer least) from them: Admit it, we’re travel addicted. Let the taxman put the brakes on

My reply:

Dear Mr. Jenkins,

I admit it; 'we' are. But while I have to agree with all you have identified (and applaud that you have, at least, unlike most commentators, researched broadly and attempted a fair assessment of the situation along with most possible options), on present evidence have to raise a question mark as to the best person to apply the brakes.

I have some experience of all this. Well over a decade ago, when living and working in Singapore, the road pricing system had already well and truly 'popped up'. I also happened to meet a local lady, who is now my wife. Subsequently we moved back here to the UK; not to where my source of work was most conveniently located (London), but to be close to my dying father, and now dependent mother. There are compensations, such a massive boost in quality of life, and even the work issues are now mitigated by such as broadband, but there's no escaping our social and business communications - in person - are not optimal. For a start, one half of the family is 11,000 miles away.

Hence we not so much crave mobility, but by any reasonable measure need it through circumstance. No one sane seeks to spend 12hrs in a plane or 2hrs on a motorway. But yes, to an extent that has been our choice. So you are right that we have worked within an existing framework in planning where we are and will need to be, along with the associated costs of time and effort.

These of course are now changing. Radically.

I suspect you are right that the easiest and quickest way to restrict me... us.. is price. It has worked already. I cannot afford to fly, so come a family affair I am not sure what we will do when the need arises.

And when you say 'Rationing is by congestion or it is by price', why not also develop on the component of rationing itself?

Of course, for a start it would be a logistical nightmare. And while congestion is a vote loser it's not really accountable, whereas price is more easy to apply to the author, and hence erring on political suicide. Especially when there is the very real accusation to be made that it favours those in cities (when we are being told to become home workers, and many do not live in a city) with reasonable transport systems and is, in a related way, favouring the rich over those less able to fund their addiction, necessary or not.

Rationing could (if agreed and applied fairly, which it won't be. If the reduced eco-tax on a ODPM new build plonked on a flood plain in Kent is equated to the penalty on my 17th century cottage - insulated as best it can be - is anything to go on) be fairer and attempt to take into account the infinitely complicated impact we are all having on the environment. And yes, if it's gas into the atmosphere, stopping it has to be the priority.

But when it comes to fair, we are forgetting the global element. While I might reasonably be awarded a trip to the rellys once a year, what is poor Madonna to do to conduct her job, and to acquire more children (at least she is addressing - though I doubt for the reasons I allude to - the greatest actual problem the planet faces, namely population expansion, which puts travel in the shade whilst adding to its necessity. If you can't survive where you are, you need to move), in comparison to my more modest needs? Well, we could trade, and I get richer (along, I suspect with much-traveling City types trading in it all) as a she travels more, but that doesn't stop the emissions.And what of those who share the air we breathe, as opposed to flying through it? If we 'assign' one long haul, two short haul air trips and 10,000 miles in a car and 20,000 in a train to a every Kalahari bushman and Mekong boatlady, the potential for planetary disaster is magnified as they gain new items of value to trade with the addicted.

It's also a matter a of priority. As you rightly point out. How can we tax travel when the reasons to need it (more distant hospitals - I will soon blog on two signs in our City - not local, as I was require to take my Mum 20 miles away - hospital; one advocating the use of friends or relatives to help with transport, the other saying appointment priority would be give to those who use an ambulance. So I help and am penalised?!) are multiplying. It's the result of a political and administrative culture where success is measured in isolated targets, and the process is more important, and career-rewarding, than the final result.

It should be, but is less travel really the intention? Because fewer cars and travel means less revenue. And while a reduction in congestion may be nice in central London, if the same amount of fuel is going up in the sky at the periphery, then the planet is not gaining, while the policy wonks fly to Bali for a conference on global warming, funded by the money made on the charges. As you say, heaven help us if these guys stay in charge.

On Wednesday I am bringing the family to London for a show Junkk.com has been invited to appear in. There is no alterative for reasons of practicality and sheer cost (£40 petrol (at least Science Museum is giving parking to me- like the event, free) vs. £200 train fares) or time (last reliable train home 6pm; show ends 8.30pm). I have no choice, socially or for my work. Penalise me by taxes alone, set by and supported by those who live in a city earning a lot more, and the urban/country divide over something as petty as fox hunting will extend to a massive gulf.

Rgds,

ps: I doubt this will fit in the blog reply section, and so will attempt an edit. So forgive my sending direct first. But as you will have gathered, this is not something that can be dealt with in a pithy phrase or sound bite piece of legislation.

ADDENDUM:

Call me a suck-up (and, let's face it, few do), but I am pleased to say I have had a reply from the author, and when it is one of the few commentators I truly respect I take total pleasure in sharing it:

Many thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate your predicament, but am not sure what your proposed solution is, unless we simply learn to live with global warming. As for choice, everyone thinks their own is a necessity.

With best wishes,

Simon Jenkins

He has stung me with that comment on a lack of a solution, which I feel moved to address. Watch this space (or maybe one above)

BBC: Youth Poll

Drawn, hung and quartered

Actually, they all seem to have an episode on it (Simpsons, etc), you really have to hand it to the cartoon industry to put the ire in satire.

If you can, catch this: Futurama.

I think, therefore I am. I do, therefore...

Before I forget, a quote I just saw from author Terry Pratchett:

"Igenuity can get you through times of no money. But money cannot get you through times of no ingeuity."

Were it true.

He obviously has had little dealings with politicians, the media or big business.

Laugh? I could have died!

I think I may have written about Bad Science before, but it is worth the reminder.

Basically a Blog by a very well informed chap called Ben, who either has more time on his hands than me, or doesn't sleep. I was going to say you may not agree with all that he says (a lot don't), but as he takes the time to sift the facts from the 'bad science', it's hard to argue with him.

He's also very funny.

I cite this one The Natural Home of Silliness simply becuase he moved me to write in.

"Thanks for that.

The world is going to heck in a handbasket and now I have a further insight into the mentality and priorities of those who would lead us out.

At least we'll die laughing."

Sane is as sane does

There are certain publications who ask for your opinion, and then don't print them. This is one. Recycling no longer domain of ‘loonies’. Quite rude really. Not to mention a tad behind the curve. Why do I bother? Well they do give me grist for my mill:

'Nicely put. Of course, one could argue that if what we live through is sane, then maybe the loonies have a point.
Nice to read that one of the more significantly sized, and daily high-profile brand’s marketing directors has his finger on the pulse of consumer expectation.
There are many ways to save money, boost sales... not to mention gain some good PR, perk up the CSR from Greenwashing to something less cynical, and... oh, I don’t know... make some more money?
Actually I think most companies do recycle their paper, if for no better reason than they can suffer financially (fines if they don’t; refunds if they do). Bit of a no-brainer. So I can only assume those bags you see are not In Barnet, or the council prefers fining individuals and not business ratepayers, or in fact they are there to be picked up by recyclers.
Consumers are getting to grips with green issues, and are desperate to do so. Not that it is made very easy for them. But look at the amount spent on recycling communications, backed by high-profile fines, etc, which make me wonder who can afford to be not bothered, much less unaware.
Off for my bath now. But maybe it should in fact be a shower... with a friend?"

It's AIDS day

I read somewhere that there are not enough days for all the 'Days' we now have, and if we reduce it to a Day then this actually detracts from the rest of the time. I have to say, by my own reaction (oh, fine, now what?), I tend to agree.

What I did find an interesting commentary on the state of media and who reads/watches what, is that I only picked up on it thanks to Google.

Those who write for (recycled) glass eco-nanny media, shouldn't fly to conferences

Sorry. Couldn't resist (only read this becuase of his name, which I thought was an eco-topic): Off to New Zealand to discuss the future

"I was going to cock an eyebrow at the headline and wonder... ‘the future of what?’, but then saw it qualified in the first line of text.

To this the irony of traveling and meeting corporeally has been mentioned, but one does have to wonder at the location as well. All’s fair in geographically sharing around, so I guess next year it will be Blackpool. Though the weather isn’t so nice this time of year (but I guess you guys are doing your bit to correct that.). Those Kiwis are pretty up on eco-stuff so I guess they’ll have lots of tips.

Who’s paying for the trip? And the carbon whotsists? I know it was/gets done for travel writers. But Is it everyone? I guess it’s not up to the paper for this one. If so, is there anywhere left to whack in a fir tree to compensate for all the journos going to conferences all the time. i belive there is actually one on global warming coming up in Bali.

ps: Actually my family uses newspaper for wrapping paper, as it sets off the presents inside. And we use the money saved to buy stocking fillers. The kids love the boxes to play with, but the paper just goes to stoke the fire in 10 seconds.

Thanks for inspiring great reuse idea for our second use website : actually print the news on the pages in such a way as it can be folded so the colourful ads and maybe some key visuals end up on the outside and look like Xmas wrapping. Now wouldn’t that be neat instead of an extra printing... reuse built in!"

The latter is a good idea, though.

ps: I mislabelled the file 'GiftWarp'. Seemed appropriate.

Don't Try, Don't Get

Hey, you never know: Christmas Gifts: best of the bizarre (Or is that bazaar?) Spend! Manufacture! Retail! Advertise! Spend some more!


'Nice to see a few there that may conceivably be deemed to have the environmental Xtra Factor, too.

There really seems little point 'buying' something for he/she who has everything, so for that truly personal gift may I suggest making it instead:)

We have a few idea to share.

And some will be on show at 'Dreaming of a Green Christmas?' next week at the Science Museum.'

Respec'

I have always shared Jeremy Clarkson's view on what makes a hero, so I read this Who is the greenest of them all? carefully. Some here are, by his (and my) definition worthy: lives were put on the line, and in a few cases lost. Others are simply too facile to worry about.

Anyway, here's what I added:

'Ah, top 100 lists; what would life be without them? You know, despite being introduced each time as the result of a ‘massive poll’, I have always missed my chance to vote either as a member of the general public or member of a niche industry. I guess I’m not on the right PR/researchers speed-dial. Or they don’t fancy going outside of London to ask.

As pointed out, in the absence of any apples vs. apples, or indeed any real stated criteria, it’s all a bit of a laugh really. Though it was nice to pick on some thoughtful suggestions I wouldn’t have considered, but now will.

Personally, I would vote for all those who DID/DO something over those who whitter away a lot (with a few exceptions, whose manner of saying made a difference - and as opposed to those simply booked a seat as an employer's (usually a medium) rep at the next Bali climate conference, or as an ‘expert’ or commentator).

Speaking of Santa, especially a Green one, you may be interested in the Science Museum’s ‘I’m Dreaming of a Green Christmas’ show next week:
http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=286'

In Inconvenient Blog?

Here's another organ of the media that seems to have a problem accepting my contributions: Coca-Cola in early stages of green tea variant launch

Anyways, bearing mind the names Coca-Cola Green and Green by Coca-Cola I thought this was worthy of posing:

"Those clever tinkers. Just wondering whether, in due deference to the tea's colour, and with the exception of being one presumes healthier (ie: less sugar packed), there is any aspect of this product or packaging that has an environmental or ethical angle?"

With friends like these...

BBC Newsnight Ethical Man's been at it again - Save thousands and live longer with ethical living, and so have I:

What I do with these posts is copy and paste what’s been written, with the comments below, and then work through jotting away to come up with my contribution. Here you go:

The first thing I thought was “Oh, wow. He’s managed to persuade someone else to give up their car.” But then I find that what looks like a fairly OK piece of kit has been crushed and sent off to the recycler (how much energy in the air from all that... right now), and replaced by the Saab. Now at least that’s not a new car (at 5-25% bad eco-stuff, depending on who you believe, in the making), but really...

So basically you still get to use the car almost as much as you would (ie: when you only need it) and Gid gets to drive around the rest of the time, emitting away. It’s not the car that pollutes (figure above notwithstanding), it’s the driving it around that does, isn’t it?

So basically more traveling is going to happen, and you save on capital and most running costs, and Gid covers the rest. Neat.

You can afford a lot more than most obviously, but then you shunt the cost elsewhere anyway.

I wish I could be so ethical. Or have such friends. I have a bit of swamp in Florida should you wish to get in touch.

For those (Justin, you’re welcome – it’s in London. But I’m afraid I’m driving in as it’s all the demo gear and the family!) wishing to find a few more fun and practical things to do whilst staying at home, pop along and visit us and a few other sat ‘I’m Dreaming Of A Green Christmas at the Science Museum

If only the trains ran... at all

If you're going to p*ss people off, you may as well make it all sides.

So I decided to reply* to this: If only the trains ran on time . . .

Let me begin, as I always do to articles penned by the great and good of British journalism, in London, to note that for some of us the option of a tube is not always open, with children or without, outside your fair city. There is, of course, the bus, and here we start to meet on matters of... 'delivery'. I am sure we will have many a merry tale of those raped and pillaged catching the last bus home on one side, and various photo ops of HRH, Ken and whoever is the eco-pol of the day on the other (won't say anything about a possible mix of the two livening things up). Moving on, we then become as one: defunct routes. I look out on the Ivy-covered arches of Mr. Beeching's brainwave. And hence to make any kind of trip I need a car to even start with the train , and once I get there, I may as well keep going, not just for convenience (last back to catch the connection , if it comes, is around 6pm), but also the price. With those darn kids in tow, we're looking at £200 vs. about £7 a head. And to some in the country, that is a saving still worth making, planet or no planet. And I say this as one doing all I can to help save it in other ways.

*It won't get printed as they seem to 'moderate' (see pic) me every time. Ah, Freedom of the Press.

Sticks and stones

Will never hurt me, but poor ratings will with luck sink in with the producers and sponsors, where what a few brave souls were trying to point out from the outset once we saw what was going on (and saw ourselves being vilified by the few acolytes - one suspects mainly staff of the production (the website numbers tell their own sorry tale) and, worse, the vindictive twists of the edit suite :

Media Guardian: On Saturday night, another of Sky One's big hopes for the autumn, The Big Idea, a business reality show featuring The Apprentice's Ruth Badger as a judge, ended its seven-week run with a whimper. The final installment of The Big Idea attracted just 24,000 viewers on Sky One between 9pm and 10pm.

Am I in 'told you so' mode/mood? A bit. But I take no pleasure in the failure, as we invested a lot in getting seen.... by a rapidly diminishing audience, with almost no media coverage in complement.

One can only wonder what may have been had they not tried to engineer the heats to suit whatever bizarre notion they had of the kind of audience they were trying to reach.

My personal view is that this could have been a BIG idea, but a slow burner. People of passion getting involved, pitching genuine ideas with substance that could go on to make a difference, and creating a groundswell of support from those fed up with Dragon's Den egos and similar editorial manipulations.

Sad.

Well, at least they are consistent.

Or should I say symmetrical?

It all started so well. We didn't go into the SKY Big Idea expecting it to be Shakespeare, but it was a good chance to get some exposure and win some seriously useful money.

What I didn't anticipate was just what lengths the organisers would go to to steer the show the way they wanted. And the more I became aware of this, the more I asked questions, as did others - the website is worth a read, especially the Forum, to see the disconnect between what was promoted to both contestants and audience (25p a go texters).

And the more I asked questions, the more such coverage as Junkk.com got went down the pan. At the beginning we were those kooky guys with the neat idea. By the finale, they had edited us with a very nasty voice over and judges all saying it was the worst thing ever. Which of course they did not. Fear the man in the edit suite!

Well, fear too the man with a hard disc recorder.

I just had a scope through the footage, and another thing about the final has been raised:

From the sequence above, in addition to getting first pitch of the night (and hence the most chance for people to vote), who had their glee club right in shot at the back, and with a convenient, perfectly positioned placard throughout the entire show and all other contestant's pitches?

I'll give you a few hints: he won. He is the only one not there (there were seven, so I decided on symmetry, too). And even at this pathetic size and resolution, do you notice that curiously well contrasted yet back illuminated bluish panel at top right, often right next to the guy's heads. That's his product... in everyone else's pitch!

For what it's worth I doubt he knew, but I am prepared to bet the production guys did. No camerman or producer would let that by more than once. Even the guy holding it looks like a stagehand (I've been called paranoid once, but at full res in digital... it would be fun to find out who he is)!

Thing is, on balance it was about the only truly innovative idea in the final, but having micro-structured the set-up over the last several weeks, with all sorts of odd things befalling those who thought they had a chance by the originally stated criteria, it seems they couldn't take a chance even on that.

Who says you can't trade in Carbon?

I don't know if they were here (that is, compared to saving the planet) first, but for a bunch of folk with sod all to do with anything to do with it, these guys are certainly making the most of that name.

This should be a no-brainer.

I'm not really in the business of pushing new cars, but I'm a red-blooded male and I've seen hyrids overtaken by milkfloats and Smarts as the custard filling between two Euro-lorries, so when the trusty R-reg gives up the ghost I will need another. Unless, of course, they sort out the transport syst... well, it was worth half-mentioning.

So I really got excited by this.

SAAB 9-5 2.3t BIOPOWER

Price £23,270-£29,015 (not so excited by this)

Performance 0-62mph: 7.9sec (yup, that worked)

Top speed: 147mph (when using E85 fuel) (well, if you are an off-duty copper or judge maybe)

Power/Torque 210bhp / 228 lb ft (when using E85) (that's more when it's eco!)

It's cleaner faster, gruntier and greener. So then this just plain doesn make sense:

Only 13 places in the UK sell E85 and they’re all Morrisons supermarkets, mainly in Norfolk and Somerset. Until cars are taxed on net carbon dioxide emissions, there is no cash advantage to buying.

Boogger.

What's 'It's a Shame To Waste' In A Dozen Languages?

Make sure you are abreast as many of the facts first, but this looks like a well worthwhile campaign to support.

The link to find your local MEPs is a very nice tool, and useful in its own right, too!

The European Union (EU)'s main waste law is currently being reviewed, which forms the basis for waste policy in every EU country.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are about to vote on a revision of this law, and environmental groups across Europe are calling on MEPs to improve waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting around Europe - without encouraging more incineration.

Please join our campaign to Stop the Waste - email your MEPs at http://www.stopthewaste.eu

If at first you don't succeed..

As I prepare to take on yet another brick wall, I can at least find consolation and inspiration in stories of others who have tried, and succeeded, against major obstacles (often put) in their way by those tasked to help them. Better yet, an example of actually winning award from the very system that in some cases was there to thwart them: Tradecraft wins over the judges

However, I have to groan and applaud this from another section:

Chris Manze, a partner in Nottingham's The Stone Soup Project, which teaches teenagers rejected by the school system about music and film production, welcomed the initiatives. He said the Government needed to improve delivery. "If they could do anything to support social enterprises it would be to fund teams of bid writers to support the new social enterprises, because you don't have the resources to do it," he said.

Amen.

You couldn't make it up. Well, you can.. and get it on air, probably!

I've been a grumpy bunny of late, so a littel levity is in order.

This rather excellent clip on the notion of UGC (user generated content. Or, as lampooned here, 'You do the work, don't get piad (or vetted for accuracy too much) and we rake it in still) via Newsnight.

When the spinning has to stop

I almost passed this one by, but having sat with my Mum in the (not local, oh, no, we had to go to the big city) hospital for 2 hrs beyond appointment time (staring at two posters, attached. Is it just me who sees a slight disiencentive to trying to help out?) because there was only one doctor (served, it seemed, by about a dozen gossiping, tea-making, paper-shuffling staff, all of whom left bang on clock-off), I have more than an interest in what is claimed to be delivered and what is.

Hence I did read this; Sack Hewitt (and not just for her voice)

Now the Torygraph has obviously decided that Cross of Ross is persona non grata, so it won't get published (big up to the Guardian for at least embracing some measure of free speech), but here's what I wrote:

'And today's target is...

Substitute (in the case of my area of interest) the environment for health, the suits can pretty much stay as is for all the difference their expertise can add (though salaries to match, and trips to Bali to discuss climate change inc.), and add appropriate talking head plus meaningless, open-ended, non-accountable (for all the targets) platitude ('this IS a problem and needs looking into...'), and we have another day of this nation’s governance in the media.

Yet it all seems to work out. Because will careers or salaries or perks be affected? No. A flurry of fuss and then the system moves on to the next issue, with detail lost in the whole.

So things will change how? Thank heavens for the vote. Now all I need is someone (as opposed to an amorphous entity like a constantly morphing party collection of ministers) to vote for.'

Matters of fact

This will take some careful phrasing: I was recently taken to task on my blog for expressing doubts (actually I was just being cautious about what was expressed there as fact) about some advice, and in doing so cited some other facts that had lead me to do so.

If nothing else, it confirmed my oft stated view that we are in a world of extremes, where black and whit are the only shades of green, and whatever makes the best headline or pushes the most vocal agenda is what will be served up.

So, despite being the one who freely admitted to still being confused, I was required to fall into a camp. Which I won't do.

All I know is that at present, my request to the authors of the two polar opposite views, respected experts in their fields as may be, have not replied to my request for clarification of their methods and how they arrived at their results.

So for now, I think I'll follow the advice of my mate Dave, who wrote to me in a private email. He is a definite 'man who can' and Junkk.com guru, who says ' in such cases about all you can do is split the difference between the two extremes'.

No way to save a planet, but probably the best we have. And that's the fact of the matter.

Bottom of the class

Anyone who knows us, what we do, how long we've been going, and who we have done (or tried to do) business with may find this interesting.

Nice to see public money supporting another 'non-profit' organisation with some ad branding, as opposed to little old free us, with our terrible 'commercial' stigma

We're getting noticed... and published!

Just put down the phone to a Daily Express reporter (Very nice. I hope she stays that way about me/us in print) following my 'Bin Loading' blog.





And the mail has just arrived with a very nice Green Guide for Christmas, which I'll hopefully be reviewing very soon.

Great. More money where it's really needed.

Another one to which it will be interesting to see if my reply gets posted: London launches recycling push in supermarkets

"Cool. Encouragement is to be applauded over the recent high-profile spate of threats and (mostly?) failed attempts at convictions.

The film (which I had never heard of until now - so thanks for that) sounds like a true heir to the Wombles and Clangers.

I would point out that this is more about reuse, and there are many worthy complements to recycling in this and the related sphere or repair, which deserve equal support, though their target-meeting, box-ticking potential is less attractive to some funders.

Learn more via a nifty exhibition on having fun with environmental initiatives, by visiting ‘Dreaming of a Green Christmas' at the Science Museum on Dec. 6: http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=286

We look forward to greeting such as Mr. Barlow there, and sharing how doing their bit for the environment can also benefit local taxpayers in their own homes.

And considering the online resource I'm posting this in, we are also keen to show a few marketers how they can turn green into gold, and their primary producer responsibilities into great enviro-pportunities, too."

Bin Loading - the new terrorism?

This made my blood boil: £100 fine if you dump food in the wrong bin

So I wrote:

"Bin there, done that, got the ASBO

Have you been a victim of Britain’s bin bureaucracy? If you have contact us on
0871 520 2982 or email news.desk@express.co.uk

Forgive me writing slightly off question, but as the "Have your say' section didn't seem to have a topic for this yet I hope you'll understand.

As a committed believer in not wasting anything (one look at the site signature will show you by how much), I am totally in support of anything to encourage recycling (though it’s a shame that householders not being acknowledged better for their unpaid labour role as daily sorters). Reuse & repair is even better, but the box-tickers don't seem to like that as much as it can't be measured as easily to claim a met target).

Such extreme methods of enforcement can only lead to a total backlash, and result in an even worse environmental situation... and possibly civic disobedience.

We are talking fines, and possible criminal records, for 'offences' that are pretty minor anyway, but for which people might not have committed. Where is the burden of proof going to be? Who is paying for all these new officials (and their qualifications are...?), not to mention the lawyers and court time for the inevitable appeal and case dismissal. So far they forces of Bin Loading have scored how many convictions? At least the courts still have some sense of justice, sometimes.

We need to get people to want to do the right thing: being their mates, helping and advising. Not by nannying, not by threatening... but by incentivising and rewarding. Show the ones that do will that they are appreciated and others will follow. Ignore the small minority and concentrate on the majority. This country is getting obsessed by fines first, workable procedures (to actually avoid the fines) second. Our authorities are almost running a protection racket: "Shame if this Tesco carrier ended up in your paper wheelie squire... whoops.. look at that. That'll be a pony or you're nicked"

Come to the Science Museum next month to see how much fun we can have... whilst saving."

Sorry (again, all round), the guy's a genius

Dodging a bullet

This story in the Telegraph caught my eye: Cheap bullets put lives of paratroopers at risk

I've pretty much given up on not being 'moderated' by their blog pages, so I wrote a letter:

Should the story about the low-cost, defective ammo supplied to our troops prove as shocking as reported, may I suggest as a way of establishing who is responsible and punishing them via a modern-day version of an ancient practice: a witch hunt. We release all involved into the woods and let our fine armed forces pursue them, armed with the ammunition in question. If there is no problem, then their innocence (post mortem) will be established. If however they survive, guilt will be clear and they can be suitably promoted sideways with full pension and benefits. Why is we reward officials only for saving money as opposed to getting best value to do a job right? I'm still waiting to find out who thought not making Navy warships (Sheffield/Falklands) fireproof was a good idea.

Actually, and having sent it, there seem to be two extremes. Penny-pinching to an unsafe degree. Or spending waaaay over the odds (in the case of anything environmental - consultants, research, contractors, etc). Something to do with villas being free for compliant signatories perhaps? Whichever way, those who have the power seem to see careers and benefits develop nicely no matter what.

It's (Not All) A Gas, Gas, Gas

Good news, in that it is 25 times more, er, bad a greenhouse gas: Global methane rise slowing down

Green Corner. Black Corner.

Being one of the Top Gear Triumverate, and adapt as all heck with a cunning phrase, James May is a power that be with a broad demographic (Sun Readers, and those who just look at he pictures when their jacuzzi installer is on her break). So this is worth a read: As seen on TV: phoney environmentalists are taking us for a ride

Though a LED torch against a searchlight, I reckon so's this (if they publish, the Telegraph have a JunkkMale filter lately):

"For a start, like some, I’m not quite sure what an environmentalist is, phony or not. Like usual, we seem to have to fall into a Bush-esque ‘You’re either for us or against us’ camp. It’s hard to be truly green if you’re only black or white.
I had a look at a few definitions and didn’t much fancy any of them. All I know is I have a crumbling pile, live nowhere near any useful commuter transportation, have 2.2 kids, in-laws in Singapore, spend more than I make and have demands on my money and time the like of which civil wars used to be fought over (Now, being self-employed, it’s just quietly sorted by civil servants from me... to them). So between that and whatever it is that counts as hating waste and being more than a little concerned about how what we do now impacts later on, I fall into a middle ground: neither ‘mentalist nor climate denier (which is what I see bandied about a lot by folk who tend to oppose notions like, well, some of yours).
I know some right wing folk who do care about all sorts of green stuff, and live the life. I know a lot of left-leaners who hate 4x4s but don’t think Evian and skiing in Klosters is the same thing. I certainly know a few who are, I think still within your definition, sacrificing for the future’s sake. One can only applaud them now, while history will be the judge of those who didn’t feel so disposed.
Can’t fault the population comment: Finite space to stand on. Reducing areas on which to stand and grow stuff. End point = the political dilemma that dare not speak its un-PC name. I certainly ain’t going there. So we turn to ‘bailing with a leaky bucket’ approach.
Good on you for the recycling thing. It’s really a no-brainer, if done right, ignoring we are turned into unpaid (though fined for poor workpersonship) sorters for target setters and high paid meeters of same.
Reuse is a tad different, and sadly low on the ‘grand scheme’ scale, especially to the box tickers, but actually that’s where a lot of good can come inspiring people at home. Especially kids. Check out our site (link in name) to see what is being planned at the Science Museum next month. Not a spam tin in site. Though, now you mention it...
Reduction is big and pretty relevant. So why, on God’s little Earth, would it still seem sensible to leave a TV on standby all night, using energy and creating pollution, if it wasn’t necessary? I can see how lifting one’s finger all the way over the barn conversion is a drag, and when you have multi-media income streams to fund the consequences £-wise, why bother? But really... c’mon.
With you on the nuclear thing (along with Prof. Lovelock, so that’s Gaia on board too), except for the ‘if.. make it safe’ bit. Remember Space 1999? But at least we’ll get to meet all sorts of alien mutants. Just hope they don't turn out to be from Sellafield. As you say, don’t see a credible option yet, so fingers (currently five per hand) crossed!

Big up on the Hydrogen ra-ra, too, but I just hope we’re are spared pols and celebs (and motoring journos) extolling its benefits, with a diesel truck of refills trailing out of shot behind, when the rest of us can’t get a shot of water vapour (it is a greenhouse 'gas', too I believe) out the pipe for decades. Maybe I’ll keep the R-reg (ta for the OK) and ride out the LPG, Hybrid and biodiesel waves until the next big thing arrives.

Finally, discussing is of course fine, but a little bit of doing at some stage can’t hurt either. Especially when some options can save a lot of whatever it is (time, money, planet) we each hold dear."

A folly of Olympic proportions

Well, here's a surprise - Cost of London Olympics UP £900M.

When I owned my agency (I think this is my equivalent of 'When I were a lad..' and has been used before, so bear with me), we were held to our estimates (we tried, valiantly, to point out that a quotation was not possible on something not yet finished) to within the penny, and second. But 40% in a year?

Actually with Junkk.com, it has not been not too different. Funding well thought through applications that do not have every unpredictable 't' crossed and 'i' dotted fail, while those that are masterpieces of fiction, which fit into the system's expectations and aspirations, sail through.

What ever happened to 'promise low and delight by delivering high?' The beancounters have bankrupted the asylum.

Look at Wembley. Now the Olympics.

You pay peanuts; you get monkeys. You quott low, you get the job... you then come out with the most astounding tripe to describe a businesss plan I have ever heard.

Now as I don't play the lottery and don't live in London it really shouldn't matter much to me one way or 'tother, but should I find one penny of my money is going to supp

Indy
Guardian

You know what sucks?

He does: Dyson in call for ‘truth in advertising’ law

Thouigh to this - "Dyson also denied widespread claims that he is “anti-advertising and anti-ad agencies”. But he did say that too many marketing, PR and advertising campaigns are "misinformed or oversell" - I have to say that as the person tasked with the job of conveying the message, the information or oversell was not really down to me to provide or approve.

Bumpy ride

The airlines must be desperate, if this is the best they can do: Stop this fear of flying; it's one of the greenest ways to travel. I must find out what you need to do to get to post such drivel as a piece and not a blog:

"Waaaay-hay!. When I saw this mother of a headline I knew we were in for a bumpy ride!

A few score land or sea-based wrongs do not make an airborne right. Whatever % it is or isn’t, if we concede that global warming is not helped by emissions, anything that contributes to the current rate, much less the increase in it... cannot be a good thing.

What people want to do is one thing. What they can is another. And what they should another still. And what they will be able to, one day...

So I may be able to live with the supermarket looking a lot different without fresh fruit or flowers (local points taken and showing this to be a red herring). In any case, my muesli goes great with dried apricots (please tell me they can be shipped!)

Great that ailrines are doing everything from making spoons lighter, to optimising the amount of water in toilets. Not so sure about the kilos of Sunday classifieds or duty frees, but OK. And Virgin turning the A380 into a gin palace doesn’t sound the best passener/Co2 emission ratio way of travelling either. Remind me, how much more space did they taunt BA with for their front/upper deck folks floor area? At least the Asian airlines are talking cramming 800 in. Then again, there is probably a weight/volume optimum too. Best to use a private jet, doubtless as advertised or via a press junket press-release op-ed rehash in many a quality Sunday.

And careful of the 'solar panel is the solution' thing. I’m still trying to assess who, and what, is right right: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/11/numb3rs.html

I’d say the only pretty safe course is that advocated by Richie Remote, ‘til they prove that offshore wind farms cost more environmentally to build and run and distribute the juice than they save."

Numb3rs

It's a cop show on SKY (my mates). Quite fun, and has made my kids a bit more interested in the power of maths, as opposed to statistics, which is anything you want it to be.

And what I have read here - Solar panels won't save the planet - seem to be matters of mathematical fact, and hence environmental (beyond the financial option) value:

"... a rather more general question-mark has been raised over their value by one of the country's genuine experts, Abu Bakr Bahaj, a senior lecturer in civil engineering, who based his figures on the experience of a large panel installation at his university in Southampton.

Since solar panels in Britain generate, on average, only 20 per cent of their potential maximum output (at a cost of £4,500 per kilowatt of installed capacity), he reported in the journal of the Institute of Civil Engineers that the average pay-back time of solar panels is more than 45 years (although 70 years, he wrote, "is a more realistic figure"). Yet the average life of a photovoltaic cell is only 25 years."

I have written to the quoted sources to see if this can be confirmed and turned into something that the public can use to assess actual £ & e-values to help their decision processes.

I'll let you know if they come back.

It's funny, 'cos it's true

Bah, humbug! It's the annual Christmas card debate...*

* For our part, there will be the usual scrambel to make something reused, then figure the impact of ther posting, and decide, too late, to do a nifty original e-mailing.

So figure on a copied snowball about the 24th!

Reality (Sound) Bites.

This today from our Shadow Chancellor: Where Stelzer's wrong on Tory policy

Seemed a bit low on substance to me. My reply (if it gets published, I seem to be 'moderated' a lot on the Telegraph a lot):

"Nothing that is green is ever going to be black or white, so while it is snappy and a good starting point, I hope we are going to see something more sophisticated built, and adequately explained, around ‘pay as you burn’. And on an individual, non-corporate level, I’d certainly like to sense there is a recognition that not everyone lives in inner London.

No one said it would be easy, but a way has to be found to navigate solutions which achieve the desired effect: reduced emissions and waste. The latter is just common, and economic good sense, and it amazes us at our reuse website that much more is not being done simply out of self-interest. But in the case of the former it will not be acceptable to just shift things around financially (so most initiatives involving the word ‘trading’ make me shudder) whilst achieving no net reductions. Nor will it if we simply end up penalizing those left with few choices to make, or who cannot not benefit from trying to reduce their environmental impacts.

A person who drives pollutes. You don’t need a car in (most) cities. But what about those in the country? I can’t believe that those clogging the motorways daily actually opt to do so.

Equally we seem to have plans (the government’s, in this case, so it is an example only), to rate houses according to their eco-efficiency. Great for a ODPM new build on a South Eastern flood plain; not so good for a cottage built (many years ago, and whose carbon cost is now well passed) in the country. Who votes most, benefits most?

Usage-based penalties, fees, rates, price hikes and taxes are certainly part of the package, but I am not so sure whether a lot of us will see the compensation (in taxes, etc) elsewhere, if we register them at all. To gain support, the transparency of such actions is therefore paramount. If I pay more for fuel, I want to see transport infrastructure (not road-based) improve - fancy popping back the train line though Ross on Wye? – so I don’t have to use the car.

And if we are going to incentivise beneficial initiatives, please let them actually have an environmental benefit - after initial enthusiasm and support, these pages of late make me more than unsure that a hybrid or wind turbine is either financially OR environmentally a good choice, no matter where I live."

Auto - What's the other one?

Scoop two unique test-drives of environmentally friendly vehicles

"Remind me. Is this the one that I read about recently that all the green-pols and celebs are queuing up to ‘endorse’ (way cooler than a Prius); the one that will need a truck to follow it to fill up?
I love Hydrogen. All that comes out the pipe is water ‘n all (though I gather that water vapour is a greenhouse ‘gas’).
And anything that investigates this potential is a great thing (and how this piece was written). But.....
I implore any and all, from gushing ‘It’s electric... there’s no pollution. The electronic juice is made by magic’ TV anchors, ‘Look at me, I care’ rock stars and ‘I’m serious about this Green thing’ pols to not let us think that it is ANYWHERE NEAR an alternative for the common, driving person, yet. And let’s not forget the enviro cost of making a new car, too.
I am still trying to figure out whether buying a wind turbine is a daft financially and will only hasten my grandkids’ suntans.

Nice bike, though."

What we say. What we do.

Don't want to steal their thunder, but this from reuters (if you can find it) is interesting.

I did it. And so have a fair few others, around the world.

What stuck me was how consistent the results were. High 80's yes. Pretty much around the globe.

Now I've told you what I think, what can we do, Mr. Media?

Rubbish - How to save the planet - your starter for 1

It - It's a rubbish tax – and it won't work allowed comments!:

"Who, for instance, is going to tell whether all the rubbish in your bin is in fact yours, or has been dumped in your bin by your tax-avoiding neighbour?"

Good question. But I believe that this has already been answered - detection to fine and criminal conviction, though I'm not aware if there was any trial, burden of proof or anything. Until the appeal. It's done by 'officers', though I'm also not too terribly sure what their training, qualifications or levels of oversight are either. Bet they’re on a bonus, too, which means lobbing a nasty in the local beat bins will be a nice little earner for the cousin-in-law.

The law seems to have the same view, so thus far we have a ton more civil servants (salary, pension, redundancy or sidelining costs and stress-compo inc.), a few squillion more the legal profession (on whose tab?) and the net benefit to the global environment is.... please tell me.

And how many times does it have to be pointed out that it is the bigger picture that is vital at all times. Tokenistic target-meeting in a city (Ken, please note) isn't much good if it is shunted off to China, where they'll probably burn it and the CO2 will waft globally anyway.

Reduction is getting some major attention but is usually in heavy duty areas (ie: energy production) over the heads of most consumers. Well, me at least. I’m still trying to figure out whether buying a Prius or home wind turbine will bankrupt me and/or actually speed my grandkids’ demise.

Re:use and re:pair are much more re:warding to the individual, but most of the effort relevant to the re:areas as far as the public is concerned is causing grief. And with the best will in the world, recycling, while great, is not that tangibly rewarding in the home situation.

Make an Xmas trip to the Science Museum to see what else we can do to motivate folk by being on their side for a change, not shrill shrews, scolds or nannies:

http://www.danacentre.org.uk/events/2006/12/06/206

Air - What goes up.. probably has a down side

'Nightmare' expansion of British airports predicted

And I quote: "It is now time for those politicians who claim to have so-called green credentials to either put up or shut up.

"We accept that the UK economy and its people have much to gain from a successful aviation industry. But there is universal recognition that the aviation industry is one of the fastest growing contributors to global warming."

Booker Prizes - Recycling & Solar

Thre's an interesting commentator I have missed until now, which is a pity. He's called Christopher Booker (and chums), and he/they write(s) in the Sunday Telegraph. From his archive he's a bit of a scourge of 'Less than sensible' e-initiatives.

It's a rubbish tax – and it won't work

How does 'recycling' end up here?

Solar panels won't save the planet

A rich seam. I look forward to engaging with him/them.

Will It, er, work?

ITER - NUCLEAR FUSION PROJECT - The answer is... I hope so!

Telegraph.
Indy.

CARB(ON/OFF) - Carbon

I'm creating a new category soon on our internal filing and, soon, the site.

It's labeled, simply 'Carbon'. There's one other, equally simply labeled 'Climate'.

The titles are about all that's simple about them. As these two fill very soon get filled with a swathe of stuff.

Scheme to cut 'carbon footprint'.

In theory it looks good, but I sense it being hijacked by agendas. Look at home wind turbines.

And I love the quotes, look at what they are saying, and check what we have being banging on about for years (and other before us). Only they are on £250kpa, sit in the City and have a lot gain from flying to Bali to discuss all this.

Well, that's one way to deal with it - Energy

UK 'facing power cuts in decade’

Not much more to say, really. So I'll mention why that 'Energy' is bolted on the back there in the title.

The reason is I'm mucking about with e-filing, both internally and externally. I'm not sure if it will help readers, but it's there to assist search functions locating similar topics.

The Lengths Some Will Go To... [Airlines]

Left hand. Right hand.

The airlines have been coming in for a bit of stick lately with, some might say, good reason, at least global warming-wise.

And in response they have been 're:sponding' with initiatives, such as 'investing in bio-fuels' as claimed by Virgin.

So I was interested in this: Virgin in Mile High confusion Â… , and not for the rather puerile 'in humour' masquerading as business communication.

One area not so commented on much (other than by me), is the amount of space being devoted per passenger - majorsociooeconomicc stuff that is subject for another debate.

But I can't see lobbing a dirty great plane up in the sky with two people and a tennis court is quite the way to be heading.

Green Is The Colour. Misinformation Is The Game.

On balance, I think this Enviro Mental deserves it's own post link about the great Ken enviro scam.

Mind you, the author has pretty much has lifted it all from my previous notions, but there are a few extra kinks I neglected to share. Such as:

"As an issue, that's between him and anybody who voted for him, but don't for a moment believe the claims that there's any genuine environmental justification for the charge.
How so? Well you need look no further than the back of the nearest fume-belching black cab for your answer. These supposed paragons of environmental virtue actually produce 233 g/km of CO2 when fitted with the five-speed automatic gearbox that every taxi driver worth his salt opts for. Which is - ta da! - 7 g/km inside the 226 g/km and upwards band "G" that Ken is declaring open season on. Yet, unbelievably, taxis are exempt from paying any congestion charge at all, despite covering more miles in central London than anything else and spending approximately half their time running empty.
And that's just taxis. A recent study that suggested the vast majority of low-level air pollution in British cities is caused by buses, trucks and delivery vans."

At least the lunch bit is accurate:)

OK, I'm in a snit.

Every week they have something like this:

RACHEL HORNE WRITES…

It's 10.45 on Friday morning - I'm sitting in an edit suite with editor Dave putting together this week’s Lunch Lesson on running a business ethically. I've been talking to the Institute of Business Ethics - they say the key goals are tolerance, fairness, openness and responsibility – which maybe sounds more like a lifestyle choice than a business plan. But as people become more aware of their environment, both geographically and in terms of the people around them, I think it's inevitable that our attitudes as consumers will start to reflect our feelings as individuals, taking responsibility for the kind of world we want to live in.


Your emails and letters really do help set our agenda, so please keep them coming in.

WORKING LUNCH NEEDS YOU!

To get in touch on any of the following subjects, please click here…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/5042148.stm

We are planning to send Rob to Lancashire and Northamptonshire sometime soon. Do you know of an interesting business he could visit?

And send us your mobile phone questions for our expert in Consuming Issues on Friday’s programme.

And I used to pitch. But never even get a reply.

I make one small tart comment and the boys get emailed round. Sheesh.

I'm saying nothing*

*Other than I hope Scott A will forgive me posting this. Please sign up for his daily series. It will make your day better.

Nice type, shame about the face.

Ok, that title needs work. I just wanted to share this ad, which had what I thought was a nifty headline pun (at least I haven't seen it before), but was let down a tad by the visual.

If I were selling the notion of saving this green and pleasant land, I'm not sure I'd use a red/yellow/orange sunblasted methane hellhole (I know it's a lot further away and is probably colder, but you get my drift) to illustrate it.