RE:view a review

There is something I wrote to, though it is nearly impossible to access and I doubt my post made it:

I like AA Gill's writing. It's funny and usually skewers just what needs skewering. He's also rather handsome in a tall dark and well-decked sort of way. So you'd think he'd be on screen more. Interestingly, whenever I've seen him he comes across as a tongue-tied dork, so I think he's prowling the most fruitful territory for his talents.

Which is how I stumbled across this, and had to reply: AA Gill


Hands off Ray. As your mate JC has pointed out, he’s not a real ‘hero-‘hero, but he’s the non-tabloid equivalent if we can ever think of an appropriate word. I’ve told my missus that my one true dream is to spend a year with him (not, perhaps the best way of putting it to my spouse, on reflection), mooching about the world learning what to do after the revolution has come. That’s when nature revolts, by the by, which I’ve been told in all the papers for one day last week (BB got a bit more coverage as I recall) is in ten years’ time. The moment I knew he was ‘the one’ was when your paper asked him to review a new 4x4, and he didn’t like it because you could no longer replace damaged wheel hubs with baked bean tins. That’s the kind of pragmatic planet-saving mixed message I can go with (JC is cool with the whole end of days scenario in his car review, though, so that’s OK)

As to Top Gear, all I can say is they have a very big shed. And a wadge of Wonga I can only envy. My sons and I stood transfixed in Woolies this weekend as Billy Bob Colletrouge reduced a brand new Prius to the world’s biggest colander with the content’s of his Hummer’s Glock box. And I tell them off for shooting their Action Men with BB guns as it may break them and be a waste.

Which brings me, in sequence, to Holiday Watchdog. Didn’t see it, but in light of the whole 10 years to Armageddon thing, from your review I can only hope that George M might also have popped in something about those socially inept tribespersons possibly getting to the point of having better things to worry about than uninvited visitors, as a consequence of film crews, eoc-elites en route to a climate conference in Bali and then finally tourists lobbing up by air to see them suffer. Mind you, as they could probably teach Ray a thing or two, maybe they will be the ones visiting what’s left of us in a few decades.

Note the picture. Even Junkk.com gets more readers!

D2AID2AIS

Not about the environment, but a further example of a trend to very mixed messages, defended with complete and utter nonsense, most likely played up and promptly forgotten by the media:

This Government won't let you take action against criminals

I will watch tonight to see if this is as described.
Assuming it is...
This man still has a job?
This government is still in office?
This will stay in the media... and public... consciousness for how many days?

Meanwhile, I await further news on the kid who has been threatened with fines for not putting the right recycling material in the box while the minister who did the same seemed to be allowed to be confused.

BBC

You are who you eat

Meet Daisy the cow – global climate’s enemy number one.

"To the person who gets this far to read this (if it is not moderated)... good Sunday morning! It's glorious here in Ross. Let's enjoy such weather while we can.

The ICCP report came out 2 days ago. I have just conducted an interesting (well, to me), analysis of coverage since:

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/02/10-years-and-human-race-is-screwed-but.html

On the day in question, Newsnight devoted itself to the issue. There was Ms. Watts' (great name, all things considered) slot, with Mr. Milliband 'talking' about the need for 'action'. No change there, then.

And then, to round up on the day we are told we are 10 years from catastrophe, we have a slot on... cow farts (tee -hee). And the conclusion is, well, 'it's not really for me so back to the burgers.'

What next? 'Actually those low energy bulbs are expensive, don't last as long and are dimmer, so bring back the 100W pearlies!!' (Justin - Where did you get the low-energy LED halogen-effect spotlights in your kitchen, by the by?).

Anyway as we're on meat, and turkey (looks like Dan was spared a fate worse than sneezing to death) is off the menu (if not all the front pages) for a while I guess, let's get onto what apparently really matters at this juncture in our planet's survival.

A lot of folk seem to think man is at odds with nature, in the same way as a lion defending his territory to the death is ok, but my owning property 'is theft'.

Well, without getting too theological, we kinda stemmed from the same design-shop, and it's looking like we're pretty flawed.

We've done what (forgive the pun) comes naturally for a while now, and there's quite a lot of us. No more space to stand on and grow stuff, but we're still populating away, whilst merrily turning the growing bits into sources of fuel for our dear leader to gad about on the lecture circuit.

Speaking of what's not practical, Justin's reversion is not so surprising, because another aspect to the design flaw is that 'we' (even those who don't by choice) are omnivores. Not a mandatory by diet, but certainly a powerful force by programming (as is making things, trading them, boldly going... etc).

Trouble is, in addition to being told by 2500 of the world's finest (and the media, if only until yesterday), that we're screwed in 10 years if we go on as we are, I'm not seeing any great sense of cutting back on the LCD purchases, Vista upgrades, trips to study the impact of GW on whales (what used to be called a 'holiday' for the public, or a 'jolly' for the green elite).. or the filet mignon.

Which may be a bit of a problem soon, as the guys with the cows fight it out for space with the guys growing biofuels. I'm guessing bread will be history by then.

So, to this carnivore at least, as we're not doing anything yet about population, and the lobbyist power plus short-term political survival instincts (at least until the gold-plated, index-linked retirement is over) has meant that the commercial/governmental fudge on all things manufacturing and travel will continue, we better sort those dastardly bovines out right now. At least to buy some more time to fudge a bit longer.

As an ex-scientist, the numbers seem clear. If we are talking about nutritional ROI on our available land, we should all go veggie (I'm never to clear on the 'arian/egan' thing - one seems doable, the other a good way to fit into those size 0's) asap. It's just what is eventually all that will be sustainable. And even then it is just another delaying measure if other issues are not addressed. Though Avian flu may end up as a nifty, natural, Malthusian correction. Temporarily.

But as we'll doubtless conquer that (assuming it hasn't been created to sort out a few of the other problems by guys like Hugo Drax - have fun googling that. If it's true can I have the antivirus for sussing it out, please?), I have only two words for you, and as a guy who just turned 50 my hand shakes as I write them: Soylent Green."

10 years and the human race is screwed. But first, Kylie has been dumped!

OK. Here's Saturday (that I could track in terms of influential major media information and commentary):

BBC - How Green is my Auntie?
Times - New fears on climate raise heat on leaders
Times - Damning report seeks to end debate over global warming
Times - Bush takes his place on the bandwagon
BBC Newsnight (which seems to have closed already as they didn't add my comment) - How green should we be?
Telegraph - Scientists: Only man can stop climate disaster
Telegraph - The changing face of the planet
Guardian (nice to see a power co. will stick a tree in for you) - Worse than we thought
Guardian CiF - A call to arms on climate change
Guardian CiF - An unforgivable truth
Indy - Global warming: the final warning
BBC - Miliband in climate 'action' call
BBC - Humans blamed for climate change

BBC Newsnight - See if they add my comment

And here's today:

Telegraph (wonder if they'll post my comment)- Carbon omissions
Telegraph - IPCC puts it bluntly on global warming
Telegraph - The next few years are critical in the fight for the climate
Times - The greening of business
Indy (this is so sweet) - Green: They are. Are you?
Indy - Chirac leads calls for new UN body to save the environment
Indy (always worth repeating, so make that a final, final..) - Global warming: the final warning
Observer - We cannot let the Kyoto debacle happen again

No tabloids that I can see. I doubt Richard and Judy got too excited (esp. with Kylie 'n all). BBC Breakfast has moved on. Andrew Marr didn't mention it in his preamble earlier (though I have yet to watch). It certainly has moved off the front pages.

Politically, it seems saving personal skins (more immediately, missing the point that all skins could be at risk pretty soon) may be higher on most agendas, though it looks like one Minister was called upon to say something. Which he did. I believe the 'word' is 'action'. Moving quickly on...

Oh, and case you're really worried, here's Kylie.

Didn't take the few who did pay attention long to lose interest, did it?

I think I'll just get back to Junkk.com duties now.

However, looking at Supermarkets discover shoppers hate excess packaging as waste campaign gathers force whilst I still can't get a peep out of said supermarkets, relevant government bodies or much support from the media for our free, non taxpayer-funded, reuse website still rankles.

But first, the (more ratings driven?) news

We cannot let the Kyoto debacle happen again

Well... golly.

Shame it doesn't seem to warrant the same front page attention as, say, bird flu, which the nice virologist on Breakfast TV says is 'nothing to worry about' (though a global pandemic would be a fairly effective Malthusian correction by Mother Nature to what's probably the biggest issue facing us).

Errors of...?

Carbon omissions

'Well... golly.

"...the situation we face is potentially extremely serious" That would be serious planet-wide.

Yet, speaking of omissions, it doesn't seem to warrant the same front page attention as, say, bird flu, which the nice virologist on Breakfast TV says is 'nothing to worry about' (though a global pandemic would be a fairly effective Malthusian correction by Mother Nature to what's probably the biggest issue facing us).'

Navel Re:view

And so it rumbles on: How green should we be?

"I always have trouble with these blogs because there are the questions asked in the headline. Then those asked in the body. And then those answered and asked in post replies that can be arriving in a moderated scenario out of sequence, if at all (system permitting)

So on the day of the ICCP report, in answer to the headline at the top, I’d say ‘as green as you can be, realistically!’.

That last word immediately sets up a whole can of worms. What is realistically? You are a public broadcaster. How do you best serve the public. With information and facts? But whose? Offer both sides and if you err on a view then you can be accused of bias.

And then there is the sheer volume of fact AND opinion, multiplied by blogs. I have almost given up trying to cope with all just on the Newsnight one alone about this issue, much less the BBC and then on to the major media. My blog (accessed via my site above) has tried to list all the competing majors, with more to be added.

And it can all get sidelined by trivia.. if with
some validity. Jeremy makes a pretty gutsy stand, with fair points, and then we have by way of response that he may have not switched his monitor off, so who’s he to talk? Helpful?

I’d agree with the poster who is a tad surprised that you don’t feel its your job to save the planet you are standing on.

Just make sure that if you do it, you do it for the right reasons and in the right ways..

That’s an even bigger can of worms I’m debating with some sincere, smart cookies on my site now.

I hope I’ve offered enough to fulfill your needs here for now."

So little rare. So little well done.

Another reply to another featured link: Science forward, Bush backward

"I can comment little on the ICCP report, etc

Maybe tomorrow we'll avert it. Today we'll get parents heated up about kids getting heated up about heating up. If there is more debate tomorrow I shall return perhaps better informed but I doubt with some forming views much altered about the issue, and how the various protagonists (gov, med, interest/activist groups and biz) have, are and will treat it. Even in blogs. Who knows what lobbyist, PR or press officer lurks behind a "Clarkson for PM' or 'Green of Bristol moniker'.

...etc.

At least the trains will run on time. If there are any.

One climate post was this: What the world needs now is a green fascist

I had to write:

"Dear Mr. Carr,

I have been meaning to write before, most recently on a good commentary you passed on joined up government, and the media’s role in reporting it – The rising tide of generalisation.

This one has at last moved me to get finger to keyboard in good order.

I do hope what you meant was a 'good authoritarian'. While he skirted pretty close, having lived in Singapore for several years Lee Kwan Yew 'got things done' under that mantle, and got away with few applying the fascist accusation either internally of externally. Indeed the PAP seems to sail along, fairly democratically, under his watchful eye still.

Which is more than I sense happening here (as in this country): http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/02/this-is-very-likely-one-of-more.html

As you arch an eyebrow at Ms. May's suggestion, so I have, do and will ask how much will be consumed (if not wasted) throwing good money into the globally warming inferno, and to what effect.

I am currently writing to Mr. Miliband and his many other co-green ministers to ask why one of his vastly funded enviro-quangos a) never helped me when it could and should, and b) now seems to be competing with me, using my business plan and taking 'sponsorship' (ie: ad money) to do so, when they originally said they couldn't help me because I was commercial (whilst being free to all, at the same time as funding Tesco and Heinz, when the last time I looked a tin of beans wasn't).

This is one social entrepreneur who is fearing for his sanity, along with his kids' and their kids' chances."

This is very likely one of the more important posts you can read here...

..to date.

For a start, I am going to say little, because not only have I not read the ICC report yet (if ever, at least in its entirety), I have not thoroughly read all these reviews. So maybe an even more important post is yet to come.

For now... enjoy (or not, as the case may be - I'm certainly not looking forward to all I have to wade through this weekend):





BBC - Humans blamed for climate change
Guardian CiF - Science forward, Bush backward
Guardian - Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study
Indy - What the World needs now is a green fascist
Indy - Alan Johnson: Children must think differently
Indy - Ten years left to avert catastrophe
Indy - All pupils to be given lessons in climate change
Reuters - U.N. panel says global warming man-made
New Scientist - Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind
DEFRA - Debate on climate change science is over - international political agreement now urgently needed/Climate change film distributed to all secondary schools
Telegraph - Man's guilt for global warming clear

I have chosen as the visual today's Indy cover (I would have liked to have used for its awesome irony the pop-up ad I got of a Land Rover on top the world, but didn't hit page capture before it disappeared). I do so because I note no other has taken this as the lead, and indeed nor has the Indy, which is odd when we have a headline on offer that reads Ten years left to avert catastrophe

Maybe tomorrow we'll avert it. Today we'll get parents heated up about kids getting heated up about heating up.

I have to say that if I was a minister of indeed sub-editor, as a parent as well I'd be more inclined to go the route of 'We must help kids get informed and inspired in the best ways to engage with the challenges of CC/GW'. As it reads what I see smacks of nanny and big brother or, god forbid, another total waste of funds on a 'campaign' by target-hitters whose only knowledge of pushing kids' buttons is by fining 12 year olds for putting the wrong type of paper in the bin.

I'd go for fun, education and re:ward, with such as Junkk.com. What are the chances of that? Or there is support from well-known kids' reads such as broadsheets like the Indy, who still can't bring themselves to mention us (much less get in touch in reply to our outreach) in their campaign on packaging.

You get the picture and [fill in dis-organisational gov, media and biz entities here] ... you deserve.

Bon. Mais.. cinq minutes!

I wrote about public building illumination recently, so this caught my eye:

Eiffel Tower turns light off to signal climate risk

I know there's safety and all, but what is the symbolic message here? And is there a better one? Off during the week? Hour earlier? On hour later? Low energy bulbs? Make it a thing to come to see once a year?

Son mais pas d'illumiere.

Charity begins, at 17.5% of spend

At least it used to when I ran my agency, unless you did a deal and waived the media commission on top of doing the creative and production for free (which we did, but usually on the understanding we could really go for it with the concept).

Save the Children overhauls marketing

This is a story in a specialist publication about a specialised industry, but the numbers and the players (and numbers of players) makes me queasy at what actually may be going on here.

I know it should be as simple as getting money from a donor to a worthy recipient, but no longer can be. And I know 'marketing' is a legitimate part of making that match. But... how many people are feeding off the money before it even arrives?

Mad - On the plus side (not sure about the media)

Let the (blame) games begin!

I don't play much sport. I watch even less. Especially now that the whole thing has become a business on one side and I can appreciate the abilities of most sportsperson no more than the money spent on training and success at finding new, legal 'aids'.

However, I am now a (poor, in every sense) student of cause funding, and I do not like what I read here: Good causes miss out as Olympics soaks up half a billion in Lotto funds

As I bang on about specious ROIs being used, even trumpeted in the environmental world, I should not be surprised that the small matter of setting a budget and sticking to it seems to have been neglected.

A lot of Pols these days (have to) start of their interviews with 'I'm not in the business of blaming anyone'. Well, I'm afraid I think we need to get back to this a lot more. Every inefficient, egotistical and especially corrupt individual who is engaged in a project and cocks up, especially because of self-interest, should be named, shamed, fired and not compensated.

Can we now move on? Clearly.

This Man's guilt for global warming clear seems pretty, er, clear.

Though I would wish that headlines and facts tallied more closely, to avoid Achilles Heels that others can exploit:

Scientists are now overwhelmingly confident...

The exact phrasing of the report... was still being negotiated by scientists.

The best estimate is that...

This is expected to mean...

If it is as alarming as experts predicted...

'Scientists' or 'experts' are pretty catch-all terms, and I think need to be put in context much more clearly and up-front to establish credibility.

And those disclaimer terms seem to be the work of a person trying to steal a march. Wait until you know, and then state it loud... and clear

Finally, without sounding like a denier, I am not sure if Man's guilt for causing GW in totality is proven, but there seems a clear case for us making it lots worse and hence needing to do something about making it better. Again, I hope creating an opening for such semantics will not in turn lead to more pointless debate.

Some get more airtime than others...

...which, in a media-driven age, means they end up more equal.

I had to pitch in to this: No Special Treatment

'This seems a game with no winners, except maybe those who create conflict and those who feed on it.

I think all parties playing it, especially some press, needs to assess the creation, acceptance and status accorded 'community leaders'.

Are they elected? If not, who says they speak for anyone other than themselves and their own agendas? Interviews with these guys (and gals) seem at best lazy and at worst ratings-driven (to extremes) reporting. And it’s frustrating to be fed a politician or ‘leader’ claiming to speak for the majority, when the only credible evidence of any frequent contact they do have is with a news channel researcher’s speed dial.

I watched one such 'representative' yesterday given national news coverage to demand, it seemed, that he be involved in the police investigative process from the outset.

If granted, can I please sit in on meetings where speed cameras get sited in my area?'

If only because it happens so often in the environmental debate. 'The people of the UK want..' gets bandied about by both sides, when I suspect (how can I do any more without asking 60M people?) most wish they'd all shut up and go away and leave it to those who are trying to do something to just get on and help make things better.

When blogging goes bad

Blogs can be great. But the system can frustrate both poster and readers, as highlighted by this from a Newsnight post I took part in (and couldn't resist answering):

Ref: vikingar

Or... it might be the system is not working too well.

Calm down, dear, it's only a cock-up.

Usually after posting you get an immediate return to the board with an acknowledgement. These days 2 out 3 I have tried (I used to and still do make the same mistake) either result in half an hour of the spinning pizza of death (I have a Mac - maybe the cause?) and/or eventually a failure sign.

So you retry later. Well, YOU don't, but some of us do because we don't know if it has been received or not. It has and is happening all over the board.

That said...

As it is moderated one wonders why the moderator can't just lop out the duplicates?

And I agree that of all major media I appreciate most the immediacy, reassurance and openness of the Guardian system. Though I have seen a few folk complain they have been removed with no good reason (must take something pretty egregious). The Telegraph is very good - or bad, depending on your view - at moderating out stuff it doesn't fancy, which in a free press is editing that can rather make one doubt their commitment to balanced debate. Despite the BBC’s rather unique status this one is pretty good, but again I have seen folk complain they are not being heard and can only wonder why. Maybe that's why Duncan editted down to repost later?

ps: I'm a MORON - that's Middle Of the Road, Outside Nomenclature – and proud of it. I find political labels (or any mild pejorative, such as 'denier' or 'mentalist' in the enviro debate) to be often inaccurate and lead to further name-calling. A view is a view and you can span the political spectrum without slavishly adhering to one doctrine.

We're sincerely flattered #2

Dave of Solarventi has nagged, and when he nags I have to move quicksmart.
So...

"This one is a definite must ... …. for inclusion on www.junkk.com – crisp bags as CD covers!"

He is, of course, right. It's nifty.

And I have suggested he 'homage' it on our Suggest page.

And readers are welcome to peruse our Ideas pages for something to send in, as nothing with Junkk's or my name on it will get a showing.

For instance, in a similar vein that I use the liner from cereal packets as lunch bags for the boys, often sealing them with one of those pocket heater gizmos.

Time to don my Batman outfit

First Tesco Tel; now this. Who do I have to nobble to get us noticed?

Today in the mail was this book. It's a nice little selection of eco-websites in the UK, and while we know almost all of them (and a few more besides) it's a 'sure, why not?'.

Thing is, we're not in it. Not under the Re's or even packaging. And at last I am seeing how it can be hard as a journalist to remain truly objective. Rest assured, I must be:)

The next slot in the newsletter is taken, but I will review it, as that is what I presume it was sent to us for (unless it was a very expensive way to rub our noses in it). And I will also note that its publishers are Eden Project, who we drove to visit a few years ago to see how we could help each other. Sadly, they (or at least their PR folk) were too busy saving the planet to want to deal any further with us, having dragged us to Cornwall to see them.

It can all... test... you at times.

OK, tell me how to get past his genius gatekeepers

Terry Leahy: Don't blame us: we can't get rid of all packaging

"As we work to reduce our environmental impact on every level, we will continue to look for ways to cut excess packaging and offer our customers rational choices."

I'd say we are one. I've been trying for 3 years. And M&S. And Boots. And Morrisons...

I've just written to the Indy's Editor:

Dear Sir,

"As we work to reduce our environmental impact on every level, we will continue to look for ways to cut excess packaging and offer our customers rational choices."

I'd say we are one. I've been trying for 3 years to get through. And M&S. And Boots. And Morrisons...

Can you help us get past the pen-pushing, bean-counting, career and hence profit-obsessed minions inbetween initiatives like ours and Sirs Terry and Michael, etc and their new-found green commitments. Or indeed Ministers like Miliband, Bradshaw, etc, as they keep churning out more 3rd sector, we must engage with social entrepreneur guff?

Our site is free. It gets good editorial. The public likes it. It makes the environment fun. And it needn't cost anyone (biz, gov or tax/ratepayer) a penny. In fact, by finding ways to reuse packs and packaging it may even add to the marketing, PR and CSR stories of these businesses in a very non-greenwash manner.

When are people going to stop talking long enough to listen to others outside their elite circles who may have complementary solutions on offer.

If you can help I'd be grateful.

BBC - Ask Tel

Enough already.

I've had to write to Newswatch.

"Though there is an objective news aspect, I think we can agree that BBC Breakfast also serves a few agendas, some worthy and some self serving, but certainly including a social one.

On the day Jeremy Paxman publishes a critique of 'mixed messages' in the Times, I wonder how the BBC reconciles placing a slot advocating, indeed selling, space tourism (RyanTrek?) next to one with a celeb selling the latest planet saving effort.

While a why not/better than nothing, this seemed more of an ad for Toyota's Prius, inaccurately stated as the solution to all car-related eco-issues (it is not). And the fact that he was gushing next to Mr. Blair, whose record on eco-cosistency is chequered at best was laughable."

Are you Hello! or a informative news source with decent analysis?"

OH. MY. GOD!

I just watched the piece on BBC Breakfast TV with the bouffant and the blonde gushing over the latest Celeb, Josh Hartnett, who with many other celebs met Mr. Blair to discuss green issues.

Plus side. There is another website to 'make a difference': globalsomething (oddly the URL not mentioned).

Down side. What was mentioned, twice, was that you should buy a Toyota Prius to save the planet. I don't think so.

I doubt they'll publish this either: "One appreciates Josh's sincerity, but Mr. Blair as a role model? And rather than being an complete ad for Toyota Prius (twice), it may be worth pointing out that it may not be the best car to save the planet in certain non-urban circumstances."

ADDENDUM:

I have added several of these posts to Newsnight's blog. Annoyingly they have taken them selectively and /or out of sequence. Here's my latest.

After the piece selling a contest for space tourism, we now have on TV this morning Hollywood star Josh Hartnett, who with many other celebs met Mr. Blair to discuss green issues... as above.

In addition to my comment on the irony of these two items being back-to-back, on top of Jeremy's comments in the Times today, I doubt they'll publish this either: "One appreciates Josh's sincerity.. as above"

There's doing. There's seen to be doing. And there's simply doing what's right and works.

It would be good if the major media could help us decide on the basis of objective information and not ratings-driven hype.

BBC - Josh goes globally cool
Express - Concert

Oh, the irony..

No sooner do I note the piece in the last blog, inspired by a piece in the Times, look what I came across a bit further on...

Praise for bubblewrap could get you into space

I'll pass for now the issue of consistency on the Times' part (though they will argue they are only here to pass on the news), but.... bubblewrap!!! There are a lot of other much better ways to pack things that don't use plastic, guys!

Trouble in paradise?

I was once a star copywriter at an agency, responsible for the vast majority of the won pitches and work that went through. So when I felt things were not being run as well as they could, I felt secure in sharing my wisdom. Which is how I ended up founding my own agency. No one is indispensable.

Which is why I must envy someone who obviously is: You're wasteful hypocrites on being green, Paxman accuses BBC bosses

Maybe he has read my blog on some of the inconsistencies we have, are and doubtless will be seeing between what they say and what they do.

Like the Breakfast TV programme I currently watch as I write. Just saw a piece about a contest to become a space tourist (I don't think NASA has quite yet got the bio-fuel thing cracked yet). Ironically (to me at least, though I doubt they saw it themselves), this was followed immediately by a promo for a piece about a major Hollywood star who is going green, billed as 'saving the planet'.

I doubt they'll publish my comment: "I take it you have not read, taken on board (excuse the pun) or agree with, one of your colleague's views on the BBC's consistency of message as regards climate change and ways to mitigate it"

I merely observe, whilst being relieved I do not take it upon myself to impose:

From the Newsnight blog (and Indy):

"Imagine my surprise this morning opening my copy of The Times to read that my esteemed colleague Jeremy Paxman has offered a devastating critique of the BBC's failures to be Green enough, failures on recycling, failures to cut power consumption, failures to help save the planet.

Great stuff, I thought. Then imagine my surprise because in the BBC office Jeremy and I share with Kirsty and Emily, the computer and monitor (which we also share) were left switched on all night. The culprit? Hmmm. Who could it possibly be wasting all that electricity? Well, the last log-in that I could discover was "Paxmanj." Any ideas? "

Couldn't resist:

Though Mr. Esler refers it in the blog intro this afternoon, I'm guessing guessing Mr. Paxman wrote it yesterday, and this seems the only place to offer an opinion, if not answer, to his question:

The biter bit? Next thing we'll be hearing people are dropping folk in it for fines by leaving stuff with their names on in bins. Imagine if the nanny state figured that was enough to convict?

As a slight attempt to help JP in mitigation should he be 'guilty', there is the notion that some hi-tec PCs need continual updates. Another is that the hardware decay from shutting down and rebooting is actually worse eco-wise than spinning. I'm still deciding, but err on monitor and printer off, CPU on standby... for now.

It's all about being green. Not always black and white.

Still, it again proves a point I often try to make. One knocks, and the comeback is often a bigger 'two wrongs make a good knock' back. Doesn't help the planet much, though, does it?

BBC - How green is my Auntie?

Space 1999

Time for another picture. Just saw it in the carpark. It's a Honda Insight. It just made me wonder why it is that almost all cars with a future-planet-saving bent seem to look like they were designed for a 70s Gerry Anderson show? I guess some bumps are due to squeezing in eco-bits, but why the back wheel cover? If it is really a streamlining thing why has no other car I've seen got them?

RE:porting losses

Neither of these two examples are to do with the environment, but both happened today and gave me further cause for concern on standards of reporting. Which always gest me going.

The first was on rape. Unless I misheard, the problem seemed to be that only 1 in 20 reports ended in a conviction. This is of course pretty awful, unless only 1 in 20 were proven beyond all reasonable doubt to have been a rape. In which case I get a tad concerned for all single men (and a few married ones) if a target ends up needing meeting no matter what. I did gather some sloppy police procedure is at the heart of the critique and the % figure, but in the slot I watched very little was allowed for 'proven innocent until guilty'. It just seemed assumed and accepted that this figure was not high enough. What is suggested? Forget whether a crime has been committed and go straight to 75%?

The other was about the Birmingham terrorist alert. Some guys have been arrested for allegedly plotting to kidnap a soldier, and was heralded under the banner "Is terrorism taking a more sinister turn?'. What, exactly, could be more sinister than sidling up to a mum and baby in a Tube and trying to blow them up?

Better the devil...?

A political snippet passed to me by Dave of Solarventi:

MP quits to focus on climate campaign

Movements in the Westminster village are always interesting, as much as for where they have been as where they are going. Not to mention why. In this case it seems very helpful that his vacating the seat allows a Minister to pop across the boundary line... if he wins.

I'm not sure, but this may be the same guy I wrote to the PM to ask why he was not arrested for calling upon Jeremy Clarkson to be done away with (which I blogged an age ago), and came off pretty poorly for the exchange with that gentleman.

While one can admire the passion and belief, I have to wonder if this is a good thing or a bad thing in terms of having such an extreme individual running about without a clunking fist to keep him in line.

JunkkYard Blues.. and Waves

Time for a picture. And another mea culpa.

I often sigh that certain aspects of the site are not getting more contributions, as opposed to views). Ideas. Forum. Blog. JunkkYard.



Well, having just had a rummage around it for a recent post to another site, I realised that I have not exactly been doing my bit, either.

So here you are. It's a piece of cardboard I found propped up against a recycling skip. It is huge. Now I know It could be recycled. But i reckon it's too good not to reuse. So I have it here. Perfect for any am:dram with a bit of space.

You just need to be within 250 miles of HR9.

Well, he did ask #2

The Telegraph Business Club asked a question based on:

Would you give a senior management job to someone who had no experience of business management and no experience of the subject area? No. I thought not.

So maybe Patrick Barbour of the TaxPayers' Alliance (TPA) is onto something when he argues that politicians face an impossible task when they are appointed to run complex government departments.

"They generally have little or no knowledge of their subject area and no management experience," he says, "yet they are made chief executives of huge organisations like the NHS that would be beyond the best business brains in the world." As a result, he points out, the British Medical Journal ranks British healthcare as the second worst in the industrialised world.

Barbour suggests that politicians should set policy but have no direct involvement with the management of vital services like health and education. "People with genuine experience should be responsible for day-to-day management," he says.

His argument is given some added credence from an ICM poll commissioned by the TPA that shows nearly 70 percent of the population believes more than a fifth of Government expenditure is wasted. The poll also reveals majority support for taking politicians out of the management of health and education.

Barbour concludes that "we need serious structural reform of Government so politicians are no longer trying to do impossible jobs and talented people from outside politics can be brought in to run things better." Is he right? In a funny way, Gordon Brown set a precedent for such a change when he gave the Bank of England control over interest rates. There is a huge amount of business talent in the UK. Maybe it could be put to use at the highest levels of government.

Or am I being naïve in giving any credence to the views of a single-issue lobby group like the TPA. What do you think? Come to my blog and let me know by clicking here.

I answered:

"Short answer to a much bigger, and complex, piece of research and opinion: yes, why not? There couldn't be much worse mess and waste created. And logic does dictate that those educated, trained and experienced in delivering an end-result of benefit to the real stakeholders (for consumers - and a happy consumer is a successful company - read the public, tax and/or ratepayers), as opposed to ones to meet target, career or agenda-driven criteria, will make for better ROI all round.

I am currently looking a barrel-load of discrepancies between what is being broadcast, done and hyped with environmental, 3rd sector and social entrepreneurship issues, and what is actually being done and/or (mis)-managed."

Bagging a plug

What's your legacy?

Of course the witches' knickers are as much about cultural and legal ignorance, as it is illegal to litter.

But you are right. Recycling seems to be the main mantra du jour, despite being pretty low on the re:totem. Hence I am also a keen advocate of re:use and re:pair (some great little outfits around turning the bikes in canals into ones that can cycle beside them again - link - I would love to know of more to upload and share). And speaking of turning things into something useful try link , link , or, as India has been mentioned: link

Re:duction is at the pinnacle (well, if you ignore 'avoid buying/don't make it', which is an extreme, if logical one). But then it's so hard to figure what's best. In a recent blog elsewhere I was advised by a plastics expert that the foam trays are much better at protection, and are indeed more enviro-friendly than the more prevalent hard-plastic ones, but are not 'seen' as eco-friendly.

Another discussion, which sadly I do not.. yet... have the answer to (it will be posted very soon on the Prof's Poser's section of our site) is to the merits of biodegrading. If oil and energy goes into making the bag, and hence produces greenhouse gasses, which is better? Burying it for eternity, or burying it for a while and kicking out more 'geegees' as it gets consumed? So 'we' look better and safe face, if not the planet.

So thank you for a delicate wander though the dilemmas that we all are confronted with, and with none of the usual 'you should's' that I tend to feel are foisted on a willing majority by a more privileged, or geographically-eco-blessed minority.

Oh, and since you asked (and to gain another small plug to at least five more folk), my legacy is http://www.junkk.com, a free website I created to offer a small extra opportunity to help people help themselves and each other in a truly re:warding way. It's my kismetic korrection for years spent in the ad world persuading folk to desire, buy and dispose of stuff they don't need, or at least less wastefully.

You may even find, or get to suggest, nice ideas on what to do with that mousse cap. You could then write about it. And people will try it. The manufacturer will notice that (a small% of) people are also buying their product because it has a second use and take an ad out to help me survive. All of us gain. And then other manufacturers and retailers see what is happening and start to find or build in second uses to their products and packs, so much less gets wasted.

And that is a practical legacy of something done, which I will be proud to leave my kids.

Speaking of backfiring...

I was in a plane once that backfired. It was a TWA internal flight. Nastiest thing I had ever been in. Taxiing to the runway and then 'bang!'. I'm halfway to the chutes before I realise everyone else hasn't batted an eyelid.

Speaking of planes...

For a brief moment I could see part of Mr. O's case. I still can't accept retroactive anything as fair or just. So Gordon's tax on folk who had saved and paid for their trip is plain wrong to me. Anything from now on, simple supply and demand.

However, in the great scheme of coming out with one thing and being called on it: Ryanair retracts emissions claim.

Nice one, Newsnight.

Whether the original made a gain and the retraction detracted from it is another issue entirely.

You couldn't make it up.

And this would be which paper, exactly?

I wouldn't mind so much, as promos are part and parcel. But a shopping trip.. to New York?

Pop goes the.. well, everything, really

Can pop take on global warming?

Qu: Do you think this plan really could help to slow down global warming?

A: Maybe, if you mean by not very much, and be by the minute extra awareness it may create in the public's awareness, which could filter through to major corporations one day. Otherwise, a snowball’s chance in Greenland which, as pointed out on Saturday by one of said corporation's bosses on the Today programme - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/enjoy-today-tomorrow-is-looking-lot.html (well worth a scary 5 minutes of what's left of our lives), used to be roasty-toasty, so there really is no problem with global warming.

Qu: And does the involvement of stars in campaigns like this encourage you to take part in them, or does it put you off?

A: Depends on the star. And depends on the campaign. Some obviously are ordinary folk, just like the rest of us, and are entitled to be concerned about the situation and want to do something about it. This, sadly, smacks of a green-elite concoction between minders, PR folk and mates in the activist community with whom they had a Fairtrade Chardonnay last night at the Ivy. It's a nice thought, but to take on Shell, Nestle and Pepisco's carb-con trading budgets, or even their marketing might (who sponsors pop stars again?) will take an awful lot of download PRS dues. Check which way the wind is blowing before unzipping guys!

And it all can go the shape of a pear when one lobs up at a gig next year in a private chopper wearing a polar bear coat, as saving the planet was sooo last year.

If our PM can't stay on message for 10 seconds when the future career beckons, I reckon we'll see some others straying too.

And when that happens the deniers will say 'look, see, hypocrites', and the games will carry on. Ordinary folk will duck back in their bunkers and just try and manage.

But it is a nice excuse for some media luvvies to meet some yoof icons. When it gets out of this timeslot on broadcast, and the Guardian in print, for the right reasons, I’ll be less inclined to see it as more than a stunt.

ADDENDUM:

It is inevitable that, having been asked to comment, some see no irony in critiquing those who comment:
I guess you could call some responses cynical, but I’d like to think a few were in fact considered commentary. A question was asked, after all! To be more concerned with the characters of the respondents in such a situation seems a tad censorious, maybe? Perhaps there was an expectation of a series in gushing support?

It is interesting therefore, that if one took this blog’s participants as a cross-section (if not a very accurate one, statistically), the percentages would suggest that such actions, or at least the overt in-your-face PR-driven nature of them (as a personal financial transaction would not the same effect be created by simply doing it and not broadcasting hither and thither?) has not been as inspirational as desired. A bit like buying a Hybrid to attend the awards show (with tame Paparazzi and scribe to record), whilst keeping the Range Rover with the others in the climate-controlled garage for clubbing duties later on that night.

I doubt any would forget the mostly sincere effort and impact of Live Aid. However, though admittedly possibly coloured by recent reporting (the media can feed at both ends of such things) of late, there seem to have been some questions raised (many at the sharp end) as to the actual beneficial value in terms of return on investment of having a bit of a do, making squillions and squirting them elsewhere. Personally I think, at the time, it was a lot better than nothing. But times have moved on. Lessons have been learned. Cannot doubts be raised and questions asked if one feels a pre-traveled road is being trod again? I’ve lost count of the number of celebs who ‘are seeing for themselves’ things in places I can only dream of visiting, and indeed am being told I should not. Is there not a danger of a backlash from such a WIAC-YOAC ‘we’re in and can; you’re out and can’t’ culture, actively supported by the media industry who are always tagging along for the ride and the ratings?

Great that they are throwing some money at the problem, I just hope it is money they can afford and will be money well spent and not wasted (or turned for profit). Listening again to the heads of Nestle, Pepsico and Shell in that Today link above, I’d say they have their work cut out. Such guys have only one agenda, and amounts of money (not their own) to defend it.

Finally, since you ask, while I can’t speak for other respondents, by signing a lot of cheques (against home and pension) AND working very long hours I have created a free website (link in name above) that is designed to help ordinary folk find re:uses for everyday things (a few, amazingly, even found in the style sections of the glossies) - aimed at helping and inspiring Fiesta Family in Brum (whose main experience of carbon trading is the retroactive (the only aspect I have a probelm with) tax on their holiday flight) as much as Prius Person in Notting Hill, Westminster or their estate in Wiltshire.

Ultimately, I believe if this, mostly silent, struggling (mortgages, work not accessible by tube or taxi, kids to get to school en route, two weeks in summer and dying for some sun that only a few can take advantage of year-round on the verandah of their trailer... on location), but ultimately equally concerned majority can see how they too can make a difference, we can move corporations and governments to act.

Enjoy Today. Tomorrow is looking a lot iffier.

I have a last listened to the Today slot I was told about on Saturday morning (8.10am).

It is one of the scariest things I've heard.

John Humphrys in a cosy get-together with some of the world's 'leading' 'businessmen', at what sounds like a dinner table, watched by a clubby audience (there's a mental image - imagine them watched by starving kids through glass) in Davos.

I don't know if there's a download, but here's the link while it's good. Listen!

I will review it again to be sure, but I counted at least three top bods, from Shell, Pepsi and Nestle.

Two sounded Northern European and one American. I think I can hold my Brit head higher ('til they interview one of this country's hotshots and he mouth's off the same).

The questions were mild, but their answers were facile, with no excuse, no mitigation and no explanation other than if they didn't do what they did people wouldn't buy it. If your audience is dead they may not be buying much soon. And whatever priorities others may have (AIDS patients, etc) that were raised by way of putting their obligations to the future lower on the totem, it was just so much green-won't-wash.

One even tried to separate climate change (not a problem in his eyes) with what he thought was a problem: water shortage! Er... where does potable water come from? Or not, as in Australia, currently? Perrier mines?

Another tried to equate horse-traffic to car-traffic. It was like listening to a kid playing with a fun, rude fact. What on earth has horse manure in 1890 got to do with a few more billion people now driving cars and emitting greenhouse gases!!!! Yes, science and commerce made life 'better', and now it looks like it may be making things worse. It needs a correction.

And somehow what happened in Greenland 1,000 years ago naturally makes what is happening now OK? Er, no. We have 6 billion, and growing, people, trying to survive on limited resources, and making it all worse exponentially.

Another claimed his bottling was all returnable glass. Well, until corrected. Now, what is 'most'?

If they think all that they came out with is sustainable, then I fear for their reading of a balance sheet.

And my kids' future.

BBC - Climate change warning for Sydney - With a vid-link to the water (recyl) situation in Queensland

When good... goes bad

Way back in the annals of this blog is a post I made about a Greenpeace anti 4x4 campaign in our local train station, whereby the 'offending' vehicles were 'booted' with a custom piece of cardboard along with a windscreen sticker with something sanctimonious written on it and an exhortation to engage with their green energy tariff. Turned out it was part of npower.

In much the same way as one sees merit in the separation of church and state, and the almost inevitable mess when the gap gets bridged, so I must say I am seeing no winners when charities decide to hook up with commercial interests, at least in certain ways becoming ever more obvious.

Island media storm over RSPB and wind farms

I'm afraid all it does is make me look more closely at their corporate structures, the senior execs' salaries and the pension plan cut they are striving to score, and my hand stays well clear of my wallet.

Mirror, mirror, in the sky, what's that glistening in my eye?

Don't be fooled by Bush's defection: his cures are another form of denial

Sometimes I have had cause to be unswayed by the author's arguments and information. It is almost inevitable human nature to selectively edit what you acquire and pass on to suit your argument.

However, I have to say I am mostly engaged here.

When I heard of the space mirrors and other ideas I almost fell of my chair laughing... before I realised that it all may be serious.

The very notion of throwing ever more man-made spanners into the climatic cocktail beggars belief.

So I thank the author for popping in some valid new facts (I hope) to mull upon.

As to the role of the media, especially the televised variety, and their memories of being caught out on a quick ratings boost created by selective editing... hahahaha ('til the tears flow).

I have a dream...

Sometimes you do feel rotten for pricking a lovely bubble: Take to the fields

His warning is fair. His ideas noble. But I do feel it rather ignores, like so many do, some practical issues.

"I've often thought the purest form of career is to till one's own fields and be totally self-sufficient. It all goes a bit pear-shaped when the kids want power for the X-box and granny gets cholera from the well being sited downstream of the dunny, but there is a buried yearning for how it once was before money and trade.

Now, if we can just get those self-same, curiously-busy-in-even-more-curious (and some might say even trivial, in the great scheme of things) directions governments to just sort out that pesky expanding global population thing at the same time as getting back to basics on sources of food, we'd be much better off.

So I'd really rather we were a bit more cautious about substituting biofourstar for spuds quite yet."