CARBON LEGACY

Death... taxes. If you want a good read on a Sunday, trust the Sunday papers.

The Express has a campaign to scrap IHT. Better than nothing, but if I know the Treasury and politicians of any hue with a pension to support, that is a tad black and white. And has a snowballs chance of doing not much more than adding to the readership.

So I have fired off an e-petition to No. 10. I doubt it will get the support a major tabloid can swing, but it seems a more reasonable compromise with a certain amount of imminent planet-saving attached, as opposed to a left-wing Govt./right-wing paper bunfight. If nothing else, what's not to like as a voter. Your dosh goes to funding a pol's golden sideways transfer when they cock up, or to making things that help save the planet for our kids.

Here's the text:

We petition the prime minster to enable the creation of a ‘Carbon Legacy’, as a direct, future generation-benefiting substitute for Inheritance Tax

IHT debate boils down into 2 main areas. Individuals get frustrated seeing a major % of savings go not to securing descendant’s futures, but to fund much that is... wasteful. To Govt IHT is an historical plum to good to be denied, justified by wealth being redistributed ‘for the common good’. Climate change is accepted by all as the most serious issue we face, Carbon Legacy is a fruitful compromise between entrenched positions, which remain deadlocked. A no middleman bequest, down to the IHT limit, donated to any initiative that is proven to be tangibly DOING something to improve matters on a measurable e-ROI, free from all but the most crucial instruments of management/oversight. No ‘redirection’! Funds straight to where most needed, to do the most good for the future. Some devils in the detail, but doable with consensus. In so doing it must surely satisfy both the needs and aspirations of all sides.

I'll let you know if an when it's approved. Oh, and here's the longer version:

The problem with IHT is complex, but boils down into two main areas.

As far as the individual is concerned, having worked and been taxed all one’s life, there is a certain frustration with seeing a major % of one’s hard-earned go not to the future generations that will bear your name, but to fund quite a lot that might be deemed... wasteful.

As far as the government is concerned, this is too good an historical plum to be denied, and the claim is usually that such wealth should be redistributed ‘for the common good’.

With climate change accepted as the most important issue facing future generations, might I suggest a fruitful compromise: Carbon Legacy.

A no frills, no middleman, bequest of whatever amount one wishes, but certainly down (from whatever excess there may be) to the IHT limit; donated to any project or initiative that is proven to be tangibly doing something to improve matters, and is free from ministers, activists, City-types, lobbyists, targets, assessors, licensees and all other instruments of jobsworth cut-carving. Money straight where it is needed, to do the most good for the future. A few devils in the detail, but surely doable with relatively easy consensus.

And in so doing it must surely satisfy both the needs and aspirations of both sides. Unless people and governments are really that greedy or think they can take it with them.

I’ll suggest my own website Junkk.com as an initial beneficiary [you can delete that if it’s too commercial a plug, though we are free and really doing something tangible to help save this planet].

And it’s surely 1000% better than anything potential future deputy prime ministers can come up with by way of equitable, and practical, redistribution of wealth.

Who knows? Maybe it will strike a chord. If so, I hope it will not go the way of the road pricing one: democracy inaction:)

Guardian - The 'death trap' menacing middle Britain is a myth

Just popped over from another thread where we're discussing the economics of climate change, and the small fact there soon may not be much to leave, let alone tax.

So, Yoda-like, may I suggest that there is 'another way': CARBON LEGACY

I even thought it good enough to start a petition on the No.10 site.

If you think so too, please join in.

Let's have schools to match London's wealth

Following Mr. Hain's not-very subtle and totally pie-in-the sky notions of wealth distribution, and certain newspapers' equally Air Old Spot attempt at IHT removal, I decided (sadly about a minute before it all went ballistic on road-pricing and my submission seems to have been lost in the greenwash) to instigate a petition to create a 'Carbon Legacy'.

It was... is... an attempt to introduce a spirit of pragmatic compromise between the various rocks and hard places trying to score points off each other with no chance, and no intention, of actually getting anything done, but looking great and scoring profile for not doing so.

It's designed to provide an option for City high-flyers, Premiership footballers, Media darlings, and anyone with more than a semi in Surbiton to bequeath their excess squillions to tangible future-saving projects and not some Treasury dam-plugging black-hole.

It's on the basis that if you can't take it with you, you won't mind leaving it at least to your own next generation's future, if not actually to them.

Fancy joining in? Or, assuming it's legal and/or ethical, have you something better in mind for you money once you're gone?

To: Breakingviews.com

Attn: Hugo Dixon

Re: Carbon Legacy

Following Boris Johnson's reference to your influnence in such matters, might I commend to you the following IHT suggestion, that may appeal to those with an interest in a genuine legacy for their hard-won money.

Those who can, and should... won't, and don't

I have just finished my Sunday Times conservatory hard-copy read (plus a Sunday Express extra, on account of the Climate Aid concert front page and the free Dusty CD).

And I have come to a conclusion.

Most people in public life are now 100% concerned with keeping their jobs by spending all their times saying nothing, and doing about the same, especially their jobs

Representing all that makes media so mediocre

I just watched some chattering class in a few minutes lay bare all that is wrong with our major media's unelected, self-appointed mouthpieces of what we should think, merely because they are privileged to have a job that gets them invited:

I was fascinated to watch the piece on Blogging.

Did the Independent Columnist really believe that what she has to say is important and interesting for any other reason than she is paid by an (inevitably) agenda-driven newspaper, as opposed to those who write with - mostly - unpaid, if often subjective passion.

The arrogance of our chattering class, media-elite is getting more and more hard to stomach.

This woman is only engaged with because she is employed by a medium that offers access to others. For her to think she is relevant or significant for any other reason is delusional.

Same boat

Why should individuals fight climate change?

Why indeed? You'd have thought there would be a lot of traffic following such a question. While I can empathise with one the country's most significant eco-media resources, I am a tad worried for the future:

Dear Sir/madam,

This post was last changed at 09:04 AM, October 29 2006, at a time when the top headline on Guardian Unlimited was Figures reveal Europe falling far short of climate targets, and the top headline from the BBC was Corfu hotel faces death charges,

Considering the ongoing, and ever more pressing nature of the issue, it seems a pity that this piece generated so few replies, some links have lapsed and the thread seems closed, especially as the blog trail still links off the home. I'd have been happy to offer some tangible things to do.

D2AID2AIS

For those new to this blog, that's my 'Don't do as I do..' shorthand.

And this is what I feel to be a rather sad attempt at explanation/justification from a major medium selling papers based on its concern for the environment: The readers' editor on...
the true cost of flying and climate change

Some masterpieces of polspeak include: 'Our travel editor had acknowledged this from the start..' (so that's ok then). '...but while those of us fortunate enough to be able to afford the luxury of foreign travel agonise over our carbon footprints,' (we feel her pain).

The whole thing smacked of an episode of Newswatch, BBCs dawn fake mea culpa slot where editors come on to say they don't think they were wrong and even if they were so what.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the respondents so nasty to to haul the paper up. If only I could think of a way to help make the point better. Oo, look what I found at the top.

Nil points.

Meanwhile, the next salvo sails over...

It was only a matter of time, but I must confess to surprise how quickly the first past the post-IPCC counter theory pops out: Cosmic rays blamed for global warming

What's a boy to think? Other than noting we are looking at a ratio of around 100 to 1 on boffins pro/con, I leave this latest to you.

Times - ‘Blame cosmic rays not CO2 for warming up the planet’

Interesting notion

As I breezed through this morning's media, this little nugget struck me:

Give City's bonuses to the poor, urges Hain

Now, I have been, am and will be the first to wonder what exactly most of those fine productive folk in the City do, much less do to 'earn' their money.

However, for a gold-plated, index-linked member of a similar bunch of folk in Westminster to come up with such a suggestion is... interesting.

Everything is relative I suppose, but having devoted 10 years and almost all my resources to making Junkk.com effective, should my later years be less than comfortable as a consequence, I do hope I can rely on him to stump up a decent % of the ministerial pension, directors' compo and speaking fees to help me out.

Oooo look, a flying pig!

Indy - Peter Hain and the politics of envy

A lingering whiff of Davosness still in the air

Turning tides

'The message, it seems, has finally gotten through: global warming represents a serious threat to our planet. At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, world leaders saw climate change, for the first time, topping the list of global concerns.'

Topping? While it may have made it above whether or not to have the rose with the airflown strawberries, I'm not sure I read anywhere that it topped very much of anything, other than deciding it's time for one and all (pols, NGOs, biz, media) to move beyond mere rhetoric and act... as in how many acts are there in this farce?

I listened to John Humphrys' interview for Today with 3 of the 'top business leaders' - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/enjoy-today-tomorrow-is-looking-lot.html - and came away aghast. If that is what passes for leadership, Davos-styly now, we are toast.

... on the ridiculous

Branson Offers $25 Million to Remove Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Taking the point about counter-productivity, it is however worth considering that examples are good things to be set.

While Richard Branson is simply one of many airfleet owners (and got a lot of PR from his towing them to the runway and claims about bio-kerosene... which seem to have passed into history) at least accepting 'things need to be done' (and, at least, putting some money where his mouth is), I would point out that he is also something to do with sticking half a dozen rich tourists in a rocket to look down on the planet they just pushed a smidge further to oblivion. I write this on the presumption that the intended propellant will be greenhouse gas-creating in its consumption.

If it's by catapult I'll apologise.

Speaking as one a tad put off by such antics, I do wonder if the creation of a green elite ('You may call me Nobel' Al, Tony 'it's not really practical not to when I'm hitting the lecture circuit' ' Blair, 'My other car is a Prius' Anycleb, etc) who 'need' to fly the world to spread their message 'as it's their job', may not be having the level of inspiration that is intended on those not so blessed with the fame/money luxuries of choice?

Having watched Total Recall, I'm a tad dubious about stuffing big blocks of goo under the ground, in case they leak back.

For now I think I'll go for the tree thing. Sounds promising. Unless some carb-con credit traders decide to horn in on the deal. Whoops, I think they already have...

Leaving a bad taste

Are you really buying British?

All good stuff.

But what is the poor consumer to make of it all?

Elsewhere in the blogosphere today we have that actually your Valentine's posy from Kenya is better than the one from Holland because it wasn't raised using artificial heat. So food miles are not enough, if your concern is more enviro that nationalistic.

The people have spoken - so what?

A million motorists embarrass road price ministers

Embarrass a minister? How does one do that? They are gold-plated, index-linked, unfireably (actually in Mr. Blunkett's case that's no true, but he did turn it into a nice earner) immune from the consequences of their actions... or inactions.

"...he said that many of the claims made by those promoting the petition were “falsehoods”. He promised that there would be safeguards to protect motorists’ privacy and that the system would not be used to catch drivers speeding."

Speaking of falseho... errors of omission... this is followed by..

"Mr Alexander did not offer assurances that the scheme would not raise the overall tax burden on motorists."

With a slight silence on the main point, which is most motorists don't trust the money raised to go towards improving transport infrastructure.

Trust is wearing thin, guys, and no amount of smoke and mirrors will avoid that.

And as we are juggling numbers, a million is probably about the number of legal (we'll ignore all the untaxed, insured guys they can seem to catch) drivers who were entitled to vote, did so, and gave this government their 'mandate'.

Telegraph - Downing St to email road pricing protesters
BBC - More road-charging debate pledged - There is an interestingA/V snippet off this that is worth listening to. from the headline I thought it was going to be about methodology. I after all have about 20 email addresses, so I guess I could boost any petition without thorough checks by simply using these. That said, the old paper one was equally subject to problems of checking. You could argue that it used to be more difficult, but in an e-age, why should that prevent feelings being expressed and supported.

Actually, the main thrust by an 'expert' (actually a guy from an industry in danger of being put out of business by such people power) was that it was only becuase it was from a well-organised lobby. Was it? I thought it was a guy who started a ball rolling. It is also insulting to say there are more important issues people care about. For me it was not so much road pricing, but ill-considered, inequitable legalisation being pushed through by self-serving pols. And that I do care about very high on my list.

Telegraph - One million people can't be wrong

'...going on to suggest that the signers were misinformed.'

How? I have also seen that notion floated that the level of response is as a result of 'coordinated action'. A guy posts on a petition and the people respond. What would they prefer.. a public funded campaign to tell us what to think?

Such crass attempts at dismissing genuine people power shows how out of touch these guys are.

I do believe we will need some sort of controls to manage traffic and emissions, but not the ill-considered, unfair and self-serving ones these bright young advisers and their political dinosaur masters have tried to stuff through.

I signed because I would want to see where my money went in helping transport, not to fill a hole in their index-linked pension plans.

Telegraph - Capital paid heavy price for congestion charge
Telegraph - Road tolls could be Labour's poll tax
Independent - The road to nowhere: Government urged to stick with plans for road pricing

This is typical sloppy reporting. I was interested to see who was doing the urging and on what basis. There's also a list of pros and cons. One I note missing is that there is no clear information on where the money will go.

Speaking of complete wastes..

Fake bloggers soon to be ‘named and shamed’

Any significance that this is posted by the political correspondent?

ps: My Mum thinks my free reuse ideas website Junkk.com is fab.

Mirror, mirror

As you know I can't resist being a writer writing about writers writing about writers: Press Gazette's journalism blogroll

Subscribe to mine and you'll know lots of stuff about the environment, and especially bits that many mainstream journalists just seem to pop in from rehashed press releases.
Perhaps because they are all writing about each other.
But thank you; it was interesting to roam.
I'm feeling a lot of love here.

Icarus would be proud

A Tory pledge to show they care

I looked at the picture of DPM and at first thought it must be a caption contest: "Think it will fly?" "Look Mum, No Hands".. etc.

But then I see it is a new trend in all-party (and indeed extending to activist groups and NGOs) pointlessness, designed more to boost databases and waste more paper at the eco-printers.

Isn't Pledge something that smells funny and adds a temporary gloss to something tatty and decaying below?

I think my buttons got pushed

Is the rubbish tax a rubbish tax?

Pay for what you use... or in this case.. refuse... no problem (unless you are a politician. Ask Mrs. T about the Poll Tax).

Pay on top of what you are paying already.... big problem. That is not an economic incentive. That is a very uneconomic disincentive. And smacks of yet another not very stealthy tax grab under the guise of green to try and prop up runaway public spending on failed or inefficient systems, policies and campaigns (how many waste quangos dispensing how much to ad agencies do we now have?), imposed on those few making something (plus the poor, pensioners, etc) to support those who advise, empire-build (how many compost-awareness officers do we need?) assess, monitor, target-meet and beancount's gold-plated pensions and index-linked salaries.

While I can accept and admire the wisdom of such an approach and the obvious success elsewhere, I no longer have any faith in the self-interested, dis-jointed central and local authority systems and knee-jerk policy-addicted wonks who will try and fail make it all happen fairly, sensibly and efficiently, without mainly lining the pockets of those most able and least deserving.

I have a big house. I can stack as many RE-Boxes as the council issues in my cellar. My mum has a combo kitchen/lounge/dining area. So she needs to get stuff out as simply and quickly as possible. How do we make that work? It has to, but I doubt the fine-first brigade cares so long as they can whack a chip in a bin or give a dust-person the power to impose charges and fines on a par with a court of law.

I write this as one who produces almost no waste beyond that recycled and composted because I make things out of it using sites such as Junkk.com, which truly believes that you incentivise with genuine re:wards. A lesson those in power seem to have completely overlooked.

I have written to the editor:

Dear Sir,

We need to get a handle on waste.

But what amazes me is the massive gap between those who are being asked to address it (the public), those staked to help them (gov, local gov and NGOs such as WRAP, etc).

I have blogged on this further on your pages and my own site, and offer this cut-down for hard copy:

Pay for what you use... or in this case.. refuse... no problem.

Pay on top of what you are paying already.... big problem. That is not an economic incentive. That is a very uneconomic disincentive. And smacks of yet another not very stealthy tax grab under the guise of green to try and prop up runaway public spending on failed or inefficient systems, policies and campaigns to support those who advise, empire-build assess, monitor, target-meet and beancount.

While I can accept and admire the wisdom of such an approach and the obvious success elsewhere, I no longer have any faith in the systems and knee-jerk policy-addicted attempts to make it all happen fairly, sensibly and efficiently, without mainly lining the pockets of those most able and least deserving.

It has to be made to work, but I doubt the fine-first brigade cares so long as they can whack a chip in a bin or give a dust-person the power to impose charges and fines on a par with a court of law.

If you'd like to discuss any further on how the war on waste is being fought more between us than on it, I'd be happy to share.

Telegraph - Common sense: a virtue Labour lacks

It's the thought that counts

How green is your (Valentine's Day) bouquet?

Your very own conflict diamond - £5000?
A box of non-Fairtrade choccies - £5?
Some slinky knickers from a sweatshop in Indonesia - £20?

A bouquet from our new 'green-awash' retail industry - Priceless!

Times - Why roses from Kenya are greener than the flowers from Amsterdam

Well, he did ask#3

Almost completely clueless

The latter. Or rather, just now over a cuppa, on my PC.

I truly appreciate the next-day re:view facility, and would only wish that this could be extended to all programmes and archived for permanent access at any future point.

I already view most news programmes with some caution as to the agenda being served by the selection of guests, editing and overall content. This would be further compounded by any cut down sample.

Already I dismiss any snippet of an interviewee's comments without having access to the full exchange an context.

I just tried the Breakfast Takeway link above on my Mac to see how much of Scotland wind power will supply by next Tuesday, but sadly it supplied my Mac/Firefox combo with no more than a vast screed of error data.

I think I'll keep it live as much as I can. These days there may be fact.. or was it Memorex?

A Mighty Wind

In light of recent discussions, I have decided to re-post to Newsnight:

Are domestic wind turbines an eco-con?

I very much appreciate these blog posts because, between the inevitable extremes of opinion, there are some smart cookies who do seem to know what they are talking about and can share some worthwhile facts.

Hence I have revisited after quite a while, as a consequence of a BBC news report this morning, the content accuracy (or at least diligence to put PR in context) of which rang a few bells in my mind.

My main concern was that the claim was made that a new windfarm would supply half of Scotland.

I raised some doubts on my blog - http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/02/talking-heads.html - and it seems they MAY be founded, but so far those involved in the discussion would be the first to admit we don't know.

Should anyone who does revisit these pages some answers would be appreciated.

I fear that my faith in objective reporting, even my our premier national news channel, is being seriously eroded as it becomes more and more of a PR-patsy for government and other organisations who wish to be seen to be doing 'good' in pushing their agendas.

My only concern is delivering genuine enviro-ROI from initiatives that will improve my kids' futures, and not some pol's career, activist's pension plan fund or commercial interest's lobby pot.

Or, for that matter, some unconcerned journalist/editor/producer's desire just to fill a slot under the name of 'news'.

And just for fun, I have written to the editor:

More Ethical Man territory (I've posted on his piece on the matter as well), but this does extend to other issues you have raised, such as the programme's and indeed BBC's role in sharing objective information. My main area of concern is how we are being driven in the area of environmental good practice, and what I perceive as a poor level of context and objectivity on many issues that surely demand as much as reasonably possible before people commit their money, votes and kids' futures, based on what is often little more than agenda-driven, target-based, career/empire-enhancing or profit-generating PR.

From pieces on electric cars that 'don't pollute' (they do, it's just the exhaust pipe is in a different place) to a slot on wind-farm generation today that frankly didn't add up, I'd be much more inclined to enthusiastically embrace all these planet-saving initiatives if I didn't feel I was being conned, and not very well, by all those with the most to gain... in the short term. It's as shame that I feel the media I should trust most are complicit in taking me along for the ride.

You gotta larf#2 - At least this is funny

I am indebted to Dave at Solarventi for sending me a genuine funny item (to credit the author, he is Matt from the Telegraph) in an otherwise humour-bereft day.

Much as I love my kids, because our school's staff can't cope with the snow they are now at home. I am lucky enough to be here. How many have lost a day's pay or had to pay for childminders whilst others enjoy a day off on our taxes?

Back to the funny, it does raise one issue. If you look below I file all such things under 'CLIM' for climate change. Global Warming doesn't quite sit with this image, really.

And yes, I know there are complex meteorological explanations.

Telegraph
BBC
Telegraph - Why does snow close down schools but not shops?

You gotta larf

Moderate motorists must speak out

I'm seeing this as further evidence of a two-tier country: those who get paid to write nonsense and those dumb enough to do it for nothing.

I, of course, am happy to admit I don't get paid. Not sure if it is nonsense, though.

As they (er... him.. young him?) are trying to kill people to defend their (his... etc) freedoms, at least Ken will make London a safe haven for them. I'm so glad I don't live there any more.

So Doddy, did this piece of yours work out for the best in bridging racial, cultural, urban/country media elite/rest of us divides, ya think?

Looks like someone has been reading my blog!

'Do as we say, not as we do' attitude fuels consumers

Good article. Good last questions. I look forward to answers.

Actually, I'd say this attitude fuels no one.

If an example cannot be set, then one needs to be made...
at the voting booth.

ps: Can anyone help me? Not that I can afford one, and worry about
the impact of buying a new car (eco-impact through manufacture
5-25% (depending who tells you) of total through lifespan), as I live in
the country and have to (yes, have to) drive pretty much everywhere,
and almost all on motorways, is a hybrid the best solution (and I don't
mean the dirty great 4x4 the commissioners will opt for to look good if
not do much better)?

I just wonder how spending the majority of my journey using a small
engine to lug a big battery can be more efficient.

You see, I am more keen on saving the planet for my kids than
looking good at the AGM, the climate conference in Bali, or 'who
hit the best target' awards.

Well, you know, it's just not practical.. for some of us.. not to

'Blair ready to cut out Bush in quest for a green legacy'

Well, everything is relative. With Bush as a bar, TB is in with a chance
of looking better in comparison.

Tick 'dem boxes, meet 'dem targets!

Test to steer learners on a greener route

This is, of course, all good eco-stuff and any sensible embracing
of such advice and practice is to be encouraged. However, I do have a few
points/questions bearing in mind drivers are '...examined on their
knowledge of “eco-driving” techniques for reducing fuel consumption
and harmful emissions...'

2 - I am unclear on the point here. The faster you go the more fuel
you use, obviously. Are we to drive on motorways at 50mph to save fuel?

4 - Interesting. And this improves eco-driving how?

5 - Supertrams or LRTs are [more] environmentally friendly [than ?]
because electric power has [a greater eco-efficiency?]

It does make one wonder what the rest of the facts/questions are.

This is when to put your foot down

So, who is correct?

If it is JC, then surely people face the prospect of failing by giving
the correct answer?

Where and when do we see this proof?

And if proven, what happens next?

An eco-shredding of all the literature?

ps: I'm pretty sure driving at 150mph will get you somewhere quicker,
but possibly not home.

Telegraph Blog - Test, Tyres and Cat Litter

Talking Heads

I really question the value of our 'news' these days.

Hot on the heel of my last blog on the plastics recycling, here I sit with BBC Breakfast on, and up pops a presenter to tell us that the UK has hit a major milestone in alternative energy production - the establishment of a wind farm that 'produces 2GW.

And then we cut to the sole interviewee, the MD of something to do with wind ra-ra.

Apparently this is awesome, because it's enough to supply 2M people, or half of Scotland.

The line of questioning then dives off to shredding seagulls via a brief mention of too slow/too fast efficiencies, which are put to bed by the claim that they run at 70-80% of the time. At 2GW? Actually what is that figure? Per what?

I should be over the moon, but such is my level of trust in all parties, the government, the industry and the media that deals wit them, I am merely overcome with a deep unease that I am being fed a line.

It would have been so much better to have had at least some expert, independent (though where one finds anyone who is not in the pay of an agenda group is anyone's guess) balance to put these figures in context.

My letter:

The Power of Wind

This milestone is encouraging news. Is it possible to have more context on the figures quoted in layperson's terms?

What actual delivery does 2GW apply to? Is it an average? Over what period?

Times: Green light for energy station

In this day and age, I am intrigued by the way eco-initiatives are shared.
Hence, may we be told what '...the POTENTIAL to produce UP TO
200MW of electricity' translates to in reality?

If you are investing £280M surely one should know to a fair degree of
accuracy what WILL be produced?

If it means that half of Scotland gets supplied with wind energy 70-80% of the time that's fantastic.

Is this really the case?

Forbes - Green is the new black

BBC - UK wind power reaches milestone
Times - Wind farm ‘marks step towards cleaner energy’

Doers or Shakers?

I read a lot of wild and wonderful things in my day. And so my eye is attuned to a potential nugget. Bearing in mind Junkk.com gets scores of questions about plastics recycling this one caught my eye as a potential plastic fantastic:

Plans on the table for food-grade PET recycling plant

So far, so rehashed press release. With a bit of that much loved, and now noted hype, spin and lack of substance we are seeing from all quarters these days, especially the environment. And too often faithfully trotted out by a rather compliant fourth estate. These days, I read 'could have' as 'here's a complete punt' when issued by official sources, especially when hand in hand with 'by the end of the year'. I'll be impressed if anything that cannot be confirmed now is up and operating in 10 months. It takes that long to get planning permission for a conservatory!

So my interest was piqued by the rather contrary comment at the end, from a well-established recycler such as Linpac.

I sense dissent amongst the vast silent, suffering majority of fellow doers in the environmental world, when vast, bloated, over-funded and totally inefficient, seemingly unaccountable quangos like WARP... sorry, WRAP, get gazillions of public money. And proceed to p*ss it all away on nothing that actually does anything other than expand and support their empires and nice lunches with COI ad agencies in SoHo. I am now building up a fair dossier of hard-working organisations who have been blown out by this old-boy outfit in favour of such needy causes as Tesco and Heinz.

What was that I wrote earlier about 'First against the wall..'.

When will the major media, and hence public, get to wake up to the sheer waste of money that is not going to secure a better future for our kids, at the expense of endless officers, boards, salaries, pensions and trips to Bali to discuss the consequences trips to Bali?

Enough!

letsrecycle

And a sooooper time was had by all... most... some... well, a few.

Dear Ms. Armistead,

Blair hots up Global Cool

I'm guessing this would be the same “individuals should take responsibility for their actions” Blair that reckons not flying for business or pleasure is not really practical, at least for those who can, now that the new career on the global lecture circuit beckons. I'm afraid I have a rather different view of what he's hotting up.

Global Cool itself looks like another fine effort. In fact I await their next outing. When will it be?

I'm just hoping that getting the billions to sign up won't prove tricky when the eco-elites live by lists, and while they do carry some baggage of his own, it would appear there is now an even more gre-elite above the ones inhabited by Mssrs. Goldsmith & 'My 747's get towed to the runway, but fancy-a-ride-in-my-spaceship' Branson, which has to smack of irony.

That's the problem with being exclusive; those on the outside don't feel very included or inclined to engage, but I am sure we are more than reassured to know that carbon reduction is a “battle for government and business”.

The media can of course play its part, depending on whether it's there for the celebrity or to do something rather than sidle up to the latest 'in message. I recall Mr. Hartnett on BBC Breakfast being allowed to run a commercial for the Toytoa Prius which, while admirable as a car in many ways, may not be the only solution that he claimed, at least for those who live outside of London and would just be lugging around a big battery with a small petrol engine.

He, and Aunty, also seemed to forget to tell us where to find this initiative, a common oversight it seems. Don't forget the reason you're all toasting and plugging whatever it is.

As to the managers from Shell, I wonder if they were in agreement with their bosses views at Davos, as reported on Today recently.

But at least you all have low energy light bulbs, and will remember to f******* switch them off when you leave, I'm sure.

Bless.

Yours, planet-savingly,
Peter Martin
Junkk Male

Sunday Express: concerts to save planet

Worth a try

A case of power corrupting absolutely

"JC, you are a fine journalist, a superb writer, a very funny person and a great entertainer. But I really can't believe you need the rating£ any more to come out with such mentalist-baiting guff as this (and I'll sacrifice 300-odd characters to cut'npaste):

'... if every nation meets its obligations under the Kyoto agreement, the Earth won’t be saved. In fact, the heat expected in 2020 would arrive in 2026. So we ruin our lives to buy just six more years.

... Global warming’s coming, so you can don your King Canute hat and stand on the beach waving your Toyota Prius at the advancing heatwave, but it won’t make a ha’p’orth of difference."

Is that what you will be reading your kids each night?

Apply your skills to make sure we do what can, sensibly, to mitigate and/or prevent the possibility. And especially ensure the chancers from all sides of the eco-exchange debate don't screw up the environment with daft, short-term, impractical and plain bad ROI (eco, £, social..) nonsense."

Ah.. am de lore!

Europe draws up criminal code to save environment

While this seems simple common sense, with a less than impressive
history to look back upon so far, it is to be hoped that the enforcement
and penalties are matched by a preceding and equally coherent level
of information, guidance and indeed reasonable opportunities to enable
willing and easy compliance.

Altogether now.. WEEEeeeeeeeeeeee!

BBC - EU to get tough on 'green crimes'

Ratings Whores

Talk about Newsnight

'Just watched on PC. A bumper crop.

Motorists - What struck me most was how superficially this issue was treated, and how what was shared could shape the way it was viewed, even down to the choice of debaters with JP's 'moderation'. One inarticulate 'pro'-motorist 'representative' and one smug, though equally inarticulate 'anti'. Were they chosen just to make JP look good? Why just two? Why from such extremes (as if I'd didn't ratings-well know)? This was not a worthwhile discussion or debate on an emotive and highly topical issue. I have more interesting things to sift through in the few posts above. Nothing to do with breaking the law of not. It's whether the law is being applied fairly or accurately. Where all the money goes, if not to improving transport to offer non-driving options. Urban-centric vs. country chasms of perception, especially between policy-makers, activists and a lot of the chattering classes in Islington, Westminster and Fleet Street. The complete collapse of trust in officialdom.

Peerages - I should do more, but I could really care less. Again, a couple of extreme bookends - one duffer and one shrill harpie - to make things spicy but not exactly informative.

Balls - Golly, what you can read when the lines have such great pauses to look between: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/01/better-devil.html
At least the car-less lady had the grace to stumble on what constituted reasonable protest. Speaking of one law for one set...

Text Mess - So the school is going to cut the dodgy pages out and all is tickedy-boo? That's it? I rather hope a follow-up is planned.

Iraq widow exclusive - http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2007881,00.html
Why is the BBC so obsessed with 'exclusives'. It matters little to me whether they are or not, so long as they are covered accurately, objectively, with integrity and in a timey manner. Maybe it explains the 'twofers' we get for 'debates': Ratings. And that is more about boosting individuals' media careers than anything else.

Shame.'

Quality of Debate

It's not just what you say, or how you say it. It's also between whom: Talk about Newsnight

I just watched the piece on my PC, and sit amazed at the docile and polite Mr. Paxman I saw.

What troubles me slightly is that I am still not clear as to whether what was written was as presented in English as stated. Mr. P said it was; and the headteacher said it was not, albeit in a less than coherent or convincing manner. Mind you, that seems to have served our current crop of politicians pretty well lately. Deny, deny deny. And eventually they'll give up asking and move on.
'
If it is the case that this text was/is as claimed, I can only wonder if such things remain permitted by selective access to and teaching from 'certain chapters' to be acceptable, as, grudgingly, claimed. I can see our more liberal leadership finding that one may be a slight dilemma. Imagine George G or our Ken popping over a copy of 'John & Jim Go Down On The Farm' from our primary kids' sexual equality indoctrination courses, to the British Councils in the Middle East.

I'm also curious as to the choice of 'balancing guest' to such an issue. Sure she seems to be some kind of Govt. foot-in-mouthpiece, but might I suspect her faith may have made her attractive to spice things up?

Surely a less contentious representative could have been located, especially to answer key


Times

I'm angry all right

Are you an angry motorist?

I this an attempt to help, or capitalise? My mind is clear:

'Oh, lor, is this what it's coming to?

Ignoring all the pros and cons of car-related issues, and the feelings they may or may not inspire, the sheer illogicality of 'expressing' anything relevant to those who make policy via the suffering of a poor sod just getting through their day a million floors below beggars belief.

Such an outrage can only backfire on any efforts to question some of these issues, so as all you conspiracy theorists and media vultures circle and feed, have a play with the notion that everything can be manipulated these days to suit the agenda.

I hope we can see calm, dedicated policing being done, allowed to be done and seen to be done in getting the culprit.

So I simply now await the truth no one can know, no matter how good for ratings is the discussion.

And once it is discovered, justice being done.'

ADDENDUM:

Well, I should have know my point would be missed/ignored. And what will this media do with all this feedback?

I tried this, too:

I don't know whether they are motorists who are angry, or just people pushed too far, too fast by too many rules that are not well thought out and seem to have other agnendas than those stated, but I just went to that link above and it looks like it's gone past the 3/4 million mark. Now what?

No Answers.

One thing is for sure, there is very little trust or patience left around.

Chip & Pain

New e-passport may not travel well

Devilish detail, indeed. I watched this on TV this morning.
And I think I have identified the latest fudge word du jour: 'likely'.
Or in this case, 'not likely', as in the non-answer to the question as to
whether these things will last more than two years, what the US
immigration will do by way of a knock-back if it gets bust en route with
the friendly skies (if not destination), and if not who pays for the fix.
Now, when I buy something, it's good for a year. 3-5 on extended
warranty (surely this is not what they're planni... no, couldn't be). This
is because actuaries have assessed the viable lifespan of the product.
So... for this item I am forced to get, why the 8 year discrepancy? And
why the fudge? Trust is in short supply guys. If you really want to be
sure of that index-linked, gold-plated pension, I'd suggest you make
things work, and have real answers ready if not. Otherwise, what are
you for?

But will it fly?

Sharkride

This is indeed an interesting concept, and good luck to them.
It certainly addresses the 'charge time' negative that applies to such vehicle options. And, standing ready for electrical engineers to correct me, there may also be some benefits with the energy loss in charging by not requiring a myriad, not-so-efficient domestic points both for charging and transfer of electrical energy. However....
I wish people would not label electric cars as no-polluting, as the exhaust pipe is just in another place, unless we are talking nuclear, which has its on set of issues.
Plus, on the day the EU fudge on vehicle emissions due to 'lobbying' (what is that? We know where your kids go to school, or what?) by major manufacturers, I'd have to say we'd need to wait a while before they can be made to agree, with the cooperation of governments and utility/station providers, on what battery, where it goes, how it comes in and out in a standard way, how safe, who pays.....
But we can dream:)

It's a con

This http://www.breathingearth.net/ from Dave at Solarventi.

With my recently reminded nudge on attribution I would point out he was sent it, and sent it to me. I don't know when I'll get the time to discover its attribution (other than Dave tends to know about such stuff, and cares about science) and hence accuracy, so view it in this light.

All I can say is, for now, in the great climatic prof and con scheme of things, it's a striking example of a very bad con. And I don't mean that in a good way. See how words can be played with?

Mixed Messages?

In light of the BBC's avowed commitment to the need for solutions to mitigate and/or address climate change, what do you think?:

South African Tourism teams up with BBC World for marketing drive


Meanwhile, on a piece in the same slot about passports, the commentator excused his travelling by air constantly, because 'that's my job'. A notion, I suspect, all business travellers could apply.

Business is business, I guess.

I'll grant you. But not you.

This is one of my broad brushstrokes. Take as such.

At Uni, I was broke. The problem was I had middle-class, middle-income parents. So when it came to largess, their generosity went pretty much on the fees and stuff. Hall bar tabs didn't make the cut. That was what van driving was for.

However, I did notice that there were those who seemed to be first in and last out, 12 pints of subsidised Red Barrel later, without recourse to alternative sources of income. Oddly, they were from two extremes. There were the rich, connected kids who just didn't need to worry about much as it was all sorted. And there were those from lower income families who were on full grants, including 'living expenses'.

I've noticed funding is a bit like that, with the extra quirk that the rich guys also get money they don't need simply by being connected, and the poor guys get helped to find anything that can get thrown at them by rich guys paid a nifty cut from the pot to do so.

Meanwhile, Malcolm in the middle struggles on.

Every little bit helps..

... but it doesn't half make it hard when the big bits keep on hindering.

This morning was cold and crisp. As I left the house with the boys, I glanced back and felt a small surge of pride that the roof slates were still thick with frost, despite the central heating cranking up for the last few hours. All that investment in insulation was paying off.

However...

As I strolled back through town, I could only wonder how much energy was going out of a few stores' open doors. All I think, from chains, whose marketers will have paid a consultant to go to a conference that says this will bring in more customers. I believe all the local shops had, either through self-interest on the thermal or financial front, or simply common sense, closed theirs.

In this era of joined-up government, kids getting fined for putting thew wrong piece of paper in the bin, etc, I wonder what 20% who is doing, and how they think this is keeping it real.

Helping others... do what, exactly?

I'd like to think, mainly because I asked and paid folk who said/say they know and know how, that our site is a good as it gets for being legal and looking after people's rights and protections, etc. We certainly try, not just for derriere-covering self-interest, but simple good marketing reasons. Trust us and you will use and stay with us.

So, although we don't yet, if you opt in you may get told of various things by 'suitably vetted partners' of offers that may be of interest to you'. Click or delete at will. We are a commercial, ad-based medium after all. Free, mind you... don't forget, all for free.

Now I don't wish to become all Charity-bashing here, but I just got this:

**** supporters revealed

****, the international **** project, is offering its list of more than 15,000 supporters for rental through ****. The organisation is a charity dedicated to providing ****. Their programmes have helped rebuild lives. The list comprises people who have made a donation to the charity. They majority are aged 50 and above and have donated via a mailshot.

Now I'm not sure how these things work, and maybe the folk on the list have opted in, but does this mean I could decide that **** supporters are just my kind of folk and buy in? Not quite the way I'd like to think it is.

Charity begins at... where... now?

I am not against charity. I am not even against the obvious fact that to get goodwill (in whatever form) from donor's pocket to beneficiary takes an inevitable amount of wheel greasing and admin.

But I am starting to think things have gone too far and, typically, 'management' (today's buzzword) has decided on the obvious solution: throw money at a campaign. In my various ad and marketing e-wsletters there were several accounts changing hands in the sector just today.

Trouble is, while some brilliantly conceived and executed award-winner will sail over my head, the following will resonate in my mind for much longer: I should never have offered farm aid to Africa Along with my own experiences offering free resources at the time of the tsunami to a shower of yahoos more keen to get to the free pop concert being held 'to help' than actually work on the problem.

I just wonder who will suffer first.. the executive salaries, bonuses and pensions, or the poor they exist to help?

Read it and weep

Further to my post on middle management doing little except exist in paralysis to maintain the status quo, which at best means not going down, career-wise, maybe it's simply how it is at every level: Miliband is charming, clever and ill-informed.

I'd take issue with one thing, and that's the headline. He may be charming, but he's not ill-informed. Just clever enough to know that having a clear view is not what gets you ahead personally. Process, not product. And the media are complicit in this destructive game.

And here I am about to post a letter to him asking him let me know what he can do about something.

I don't know how you can stand for office when you are unable to take a stand on anything.

My note:

Dear Mr. Carr,

Clever enough to be well informed yet opt not to say anything helpful

On a day when we have a report on middle management in paralysis and costing this country dear, I now have clear evidence it extends far further.

I'd thank you, but this is the man to whom I am writing to at least ask for the answers to some questions, and maybe even the chance of coherent, high-ROI action.

God help my kids' futures. They can't live on charm alone.

What we need is more reasearch, obviously, to avoid making any decision on this

Pushed a few buttons: David Brents 'are costing us £220bn'


Just think what such management is preventing us from making.
At my company have another view of these folk, which is not meant to be that complementary: gatekeepers.
If carried out correctly, it is a very necessary process of assessment and filtering, but all too often can mean barriers of self-interest, concern for being wrong and plain desire to maintain comfortable status quo that prevents innovation and competitive development: paralysis.
In my own area, the environment, I’ve lost count of the instances we’ve experienced or have been told of, where innovation has hit brick walls within public and private organizations more interested in process than product.
I’m obviously happy with the report’s finding in support of this, but have to say doubt the solution is in the engagement of more blame-shifting and/or shoring trainers or consultants to further muddy the decision-making process.

Why not Jade Goody?

All that lies behind this is just too depressing to do any more to than share the piece: Is anyone a natural to replace Attenborough?

Troubel is nobody's looking like fixin' it. Quick or otherwise.

One from Dave of Solarventi: Warning on quick fix for climate change

While I'm the first to endorse not doing something that makes things worse - my enviROI principle - what I do concern myself more with is guff like this:

'The commission sets seven stiff tests for policymakers drawing up proposals, including ensuring climate policy is consistent with a healthy economy and does not involve a piecemeal approach. "Knee-jerk regulatory responses to the climate change challenge and announcements of measures in a piecemeal fashion should be avoided. ''New initiatives should be evidence-based, add value to the existing climate programme and make clear which market imperfections they are seeking to resolve."

What I don't see is a clear statement that the most important aspect is these things should save the planet first, and quickly, before we start worrying about anything else, such as healthy... short-term national advantage and associated political, NGO & carbcon-trading careers.

Pick a number.

Sport is usually pretty clear on numbers, at least between 1 & 3.

So the gold for today's 'Ok it's not enviro, but it's how joined up government isn't working in other areas as well, and explains a lot that doesn't happen to save the planet' award is: Olympics funding 'not worked out yet'

What was the pitch we won then? When I did them for ad work they gave us a budget and we said 'for this, you will get this idea, with this great media deal'. Bingo. One second late or a penny over on dleivery and we were toast.

What was to stop us going in with 'every country's athlete will be personally carried in a diamond-studded litter by Ken, Seb, Tessa and Tony, and showered with champagne as they run about - we'll figure out how we'll do it and pay for it later.'

Glad I'm not a London ratepayer. Or play the lottery. Thing is, Junkk.com may be a good cause it's supposed to help.

Nil points.

Driving Monsieur Crazy

Sorry. Rotten picture. Hard to read.

The headline says something like 'Dirty great 4x4. but it's a hybrid. So no one will complain. Eevn if you don't need it.' Or something.


It's inspired by this: EU chief causes stir by choosing hybrid Toyota

Other than 'causing a stir' by getting another sort of dirty great big new car, I really liked this bit: It is the refusal by the Commission to practise what it preaches that is causing most amusement.

A not so funny thing happened on the way between forums

Hilary does Davos.

I may ruffle some liberal feathers here, but this came across to me waaaaay too 'I'm in and can. You're out and can't'.: What I found at the forum

'Not to detract from the many fine things that doubtless get discussed and maybe even achieved by you and your colleagues (and media camp followers) as you move on from Davos and the (WSF), but to me these were just dates in the political calendar, and some very long and boring periods spent online reviewing posts.

Speaking for this part the UK’s less well funded, as I get invited almost daily to conferences about similar issues of great concern, I could do with receiving immediate and unstoppable support as I rally at the registration pages demanding to be let in for free. But it seems endless staff and budget-bloated NGOs are making it a pretty good industry for the conference organisers, airlines and hotels, especially accommodating organizations who can run to co-coordinators of trade programmes. I just wonder who gets to go, who pays, why and the ROI’s being derived.

Frankly there DOES seem to be something like a World Social Forum every day, and they are all having a real impact as vast hordes shuttle between them.

Just... maybe not the one intended?'

I'm all for talking if things get done that offer a return of value, but the massive grant support for these talking shops does not seem worth it if this is what we get.

Shame the example had to be the FoE, but really, how much gets spent where it's needed, and how much on... other stuff?

An Inconvenient Blog

I picked up on this for obvious reasons: GORE - A Nobel warrior

The blurb was suitably 'Uh-huh', but it was only when I got to the posts that I realised the value of reading blogs. Yes there are some extreme positions taken, and entrenched views, but you do get offered some great little facts you never knew.

Take it or leave it

As I still fight with the Times Online's rubbish new system, I have prised one key link out following my Sunday read in the conservatory (there is a certain pleasure in turning a page and not have the thing go slow, crash or whatever).

It was from their IT webwatch section: First steps in saving the planet

Now it does say 'First steps', so I'm hoping there may be more and, unlike the Indy, they may seem some value in mentioning us, as I mention them here. What used to be Doors, their IT section, is well aware that we exist, after all.

As with all lists, it is a collection of valuable information, and a certain amount of commentary you can take or leave if you agree or not.

But one has to wonder, if this odd collection are the first steps, what on earth will be the last?

I really must return soon to 'plug' us under a nom de plume, as it looks like the one promising thing this new system allows is per topic comment. Not that anyone there actually reads 'em. But we may yet score a mention.

ADD:

At last I got one in:

'Thank you for some more than worthy and interesting websites to check out.

However, if Katherine Hammnett is at the forefront of the fight (First steps in saving the planet) I rather fear for what is lower on the list.'

A right.. wrong 4th estate of affairs

I've often wondered about journalistic qualifications. What exactly do they teach you for a few years, and then demand to get a professional qualification and membership of some guild or club or whatever? The right way to hold a notepad when asking how a bereaved parent felt when told of their kid's demise?

It seems I should know, because Junkk and, as its principal scribe, me are heading more and more from am to pro-am status as journos.

And in some masochistic manner, the more I do, the more I am getting to truly loathe pretty much all about it as a profession and its 'professional' protagonists and their employers. With very few exceptions.

And reading this it is small wonder: A law unto themselves

What is still necessary, but has passed as a noble calling, has pretty much ceased to have any moral authority or value anymore.

No one trusts what they see, hear or read any more, so why would anyone bother to try and ensure what gets fed to the media is in any way accurate if it is not convenient to be so? Allegedly.

Priority Systems

Ok, you can ask why I was looking, and why I wrote, but this is depressing:

I Hate Macs

I made a point in there about priorities with the world going down the toilet (how many reply to an eco-post vs. this?), but no one could be bothered.

When in doo-doo, does it matter that others are deeper?

Our site is held together by spit and sawdust by today's standards. And it cost a fortune 3 years ago to get it to such a fine state. So I know how it felt to be the record producer offering us a deal on his (5 years' before) state of the art £1/2M suite when I looked around and said 'we can do all this on our £3k Mac and some plug-ins'.

Speaking of Macs and websites, do I tear my hair out or smile smugly that the Times has relaunched its site and I can't even surf it much less access or blog post any more.

This is a problem as it is one of the majors I use to check out stuff.

Maybe they want me to buy the paper again?

Guardian
Mad - Still theirs did only cost £10 million!!!
Times -



"New and improved, your lime-green on-screen Times"

New. Yes. Lime... yes.
Improved.... getting there.


I was one who rather unfairly (it is free entertainment after all) rushed to critique, having spent a very bad day at launch trying to do anything at all, let alone at snail's pace.

With fingers crossed it is now kicking in.

I'm getting used to finding stuff in different places, and liking finding new bits. This feedback opportunity is one.

Wish I'd had £10M to develop my site.