I'm confused. Just a few days ago I blogged (not very flatteringly) on the latest proposals on pack-side eco-labelling that 'may' be brought in, and here we have, wham-bang, it's happened: Morrisons unveils on-pack recycling scheme
Thing is, this looks a bit like it yet another one-off by one outfit, and again we are treated to the same choice we were faced with food-health, namely a version of traffic lights.
Is it just me, or is this all unravelling already?
ADDENDUM: Just had a nice chat (poor girl, she got a full-force hobby-horse rant first) with Nathalie, the author of this piece. I'd called simply to make sure of my facts, and that I hadn't missed something in the last announcement and this wasn't simply a spin-off from it.
No, it seems this is pretty much another version that's been rushed out.
And, more encouragingly, journalists like her are well aware that this is all not adding up to much that makes much sense.
Brand Republic - Morrisons flags recyclable levels
How will this integrate with the proposed industry-wide initiative I read about the other day? Is this an 'as well as', an 'instead of' or an 'until it arrives'? And, if so, what is the consumer going to make of it all, especially if, one presumes, it is sharing what must be getting a pretty crowded space with the health labelling which, if I recall, will already be one of the competing traffic light/bar standards issued more to look like something is being done rather than having any hope of actually achieving anything.
If i am in the market for Tarte au Citron and Morrison's version doesn't do it for me greenly, I shall certainly put it back on the shelf to go past its sell-by date and drive across town to by the ASDA one. Oh, hold on... that wouldn't help the planet at all!
Monday, June 04, 2007
Stuck on a rut
As readers of the last few blogs will gather, there seems to be a new form of thinking to solve all our problems: stick a label on it and it will go away. Or at least become someone else's to deal with. I have my doubts.
Labels will tell passengers the damage their flights do
OK, this is possibly an effective piece of guilt-tripping, but effective in any other way? Hmnn.
And in light of the report on the effectiveness of offsetting schemes, this airline-endorsed (and why not?) solution seems a very dodgy form of compensation. But I bet Mr. Blair will trumpet all the ways he's working with his big City mates to deal with the 700-ton consequence of his ('not really practical not to, well, you know, for guys like ME') latest jolly.
Labels will tell passengers the damage their flights do
OK, this is possibly an effective piece of guilt-tripping, but effective in any other way? Hmnn.
And in light of the report on the effectiveness of offsetting schemes, this airline-endorsed (and why not?) solution seems a very dodgy form of compensation. But I bet Mr. Blair will trumpet all the ways he's working with his big City mates to deal with the 700-ton consequence of his ('not really practical not to, well, you know, for guys like ME') latest jolly.
It probably makes more sense in Chinese
At least I hope it does: China says climate policy must make room for growth
To boldly reprint a press release...
I know it's just business, but...
Virgin planning elite fleet with business-only flights to the US
Is Richard Branson still part of Virgin? That's the Richard Branson
who is doing all he can to address climate change, with his good mate
Al and others. The Richard Branson who is listed in the top ten of a
recent survey as an environmental champion?
I don't know too much about the fine details of aeronautical
engineering, so there may be some mitigation in the reduced weight,
but on a passenger miles/fuel basis, might this not suggest a pretty
darn retrograde step on the old emissions side of things? But I'm sure
we can plough over what's left of Brazil to compensate with magic
hydrogen plants.
If one concedes there is a problem, the only real solution is doing
less that causes exhaust fumes. But if we have to, I'd suggest cramming
the most folk in to one flight is better than having a crew, four
passengers and a mile high bowling alley.
Personally whoever thought up such a scheme should be given a
rocket. Oh... what am is saying... they have.
Virgin planning elite fleet with business-only flights to the US
Is Richard Branson still part of Virgin? That's the Richard Branson
who is doing all he can to address climate change, with his good mate
Al and others. The Richard Branson who is listed in the top ten of a
recent survey as an environmental champion?
I don't know too much about the fine details of aeronautical
engineering, so there may be some mitigation in the reduced weight,
but on a passenger miles/fuel basis, might this not suggest a pretty
darn retrograde step on the old emissions side of things? But I'm sure
we can plough over what's left of Brazil to compensate with magic
hydrogen plants.
If one concedes there is a problem, the only real solution is doing
less that causes exhaust fumes. But if we have to, I'd suggest cramming
the most folk in to one flight is better than having a crew, four
passengers and a mile high bowling alley.
Personally whoever thought up such a scheme should be given a
rocket. Oh... what am is saying... they have.
Target for tonight
I only buy the Sunday Times. I surf all else, but for a lazy am read in the garden that is my organ of choice, mainly Becca's of the TV guide, In Gear and sheer habit.
So it was with certain wry amusement, and a sinking sense of Petunia-like 'Oh, no, not again' (you have to read the Hitchhiker's Guide to understand. Do. It's worth it just to figure out once on for all why the universe is at it is, and there is no alternative to laughing about it as trying to make sense of it all will drive you bananas) that I saw, on the front page, this:
‘Recycled’ waste dumped in landfill
So I'm guessing that, no matter what the facts, when a 'quality' such as the Times weighs in where the likes of the Daily Mail and Express have already gone, the perception in media, and hence consumer land is less than positive about where we are, and who is leading us there in this regard.
"...while residents face tough action for not separating recyclables from general rubbish, many councils are operating seriously flawed schemes. Many cannot even provide basic information on where or how the raw materials they are collecting are being recycled.'
I wonder why? Oh...
“The councils are operating under legislation which is geared to stop landfill and use weight-based targets. They often don’t want to know what happens to material but just want to get it off their hands.” Where, it is claimed (why don't we KNOW?) '...these depots are routinely run at overcapacity because of the pressure to hit government targets..'
Apparently, 'Industry leaders have been reluctant to speak out about the country’s flawed recycling infrastructure for fear of undermining householders’ confidence in collection schemes, but say the situation is now so serious that action must be taken.' Don't worry chaps, our confidence, or lack of, is irrelevant. We'll simply get another multi-million £ campaign to work for free and the chance of avoiding a fine, to serve up stuff that can't be handled but at least meets a target.
Here's a key point: “It’s a misunderstanding as to what can be recycled in this country. Lots of local authorities want us to recycle all the plastics – your yoghurt pot, your butter dish and sandwich wrapping – and we can’t use those.” Before anything else we need proper systems in place that addresses what goes to waste from point of manufacture, through to disposal, but almost everything seems to have been dumped on the poor consumer in the middle to work out for themselves, and/or work for free under threat to resolve the mess those who have had decades to sort it all out have made, or hiring legions of consultants to act as a highly-paid buffer for their incompetence.
But fear not, 'The Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap), which works with councils and businesses to increase recycling... accepts there is a problem in some depots with contamination and said there was work to resolve this.' Er, what 'work'? More like first topic on the agenda is 'how about those tonnage-based bonuses, chaps?'
Sad.
So it was with certain wry amusement, and a sinking sense of Petunia-like 'Oh, no, not again' (you have to read the Hitchhiker's Guide to understand. Do. It's worth it just to figure out once on for all why the universe is at it is, and there is no alternative to laughing about it as trying to make sense of it all will drive you bananas) that I saw, on the front page, this:
‘Recycled’ waste dumped in landfill
So I'm guessing that, no matter what the facts, when a 'quality' such as the Times weighs in where the likes of the Daily Mail and Express have already gone, the perception in media, and hence consumer land is less than positive about where we are, and who is leading us there in this regard.
"...while residents face tough action for not separating recyclables from general rubbish, many councils are operating seriously flawed schemes. Many cannot even provide basic information on where or how the raw materials they are collecting are being recycled.'
I wonder why? Oh...
“The councils are operating under legislation which is geared to stop landfill and use weight-based targets. They often don’t want to know what happens to material but just want to get it off their hands.” Where, it is claimed (why don't we KNOW?) '...these depots are routinely run at overcapacity because of the pressure to hit government targets..'
Apparently, 'Industry leaders have been reluctant to speak out about the country’s flawed recycling infrastructure for fear of undermining householders’ confidence in collection schemes, but say the situation is now so serious that action must be taken.' Don't worry chaps, our confidence, or lack of, is irrelevant. We'll simply get another multi-million £ campaign to work for free and the chance of avoiding a fine, to serve up stuff that can't be handled but at least meets a target.
Here's a key point: “It’s a misunderstanding as to what can be recycled in this country. Lots of local authorities want us to recycle all the plastics – your yoghurt pot, your butter dish and sandwich wrapping – and we can’t use those.” Before anything else we need proper systems in place that addresses what goes to waste from point of manufacture, through to disposal, but almost everything seems to have been dumped on the poor consumer in the middle to work out for themselves, and/or work for free under threat to resolve the mess those who have had decades to sort it all out have made, or hiring legions of consultants to act as a highly-paid buffer for their incompetence.
But fear not, 'The Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap), which works with councils and businesses to increase recycling... accepts there is a problem in some depots with contamination and said there was work to resolve this.' Er, what 'work'? More like first topic on the agenda is 'how about those tonnage-based bonuses, chaps?'
Sad.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Green? Probably in the Black. With a red face.
The furore with packaging rumbles on, and this snippet from Marketing Week to me throws up a few issues: Green & Black's defends packaging
In the green corner, if you are selling yourself in part on being 'green' literally as well as in name, I'd guess you may end up a tad defensive following 'consumer complaints about wasteful packaging.'
But then we go into Marketing Operational Reasons Obfuscation Nonsense (yeay.. a new acronym!) MORON-speak: it does use excessive packaging for its ice cream sticks because "it adds to the Green & Black's experience".
Closely followed by Simply Own-up? Why? Have A Timewaster (another one: SO WHAT?): it says that it has always tried to source packaging that will "protect the product, reflect the premium and luxury status of the brand, but at the same time take into account the environment."
And I love this one, which is now a staple: it is "currently conducting an audit of all packaging". It says that its packaging has to "strike a balance between protecting the product, and maintaining our ethical credentials." (Read: Bluster Unmercifully - Generally Goes Away: BUGGA)
Thing is, in light of my previous blog (following Norman Baker's 'raid' on Ferrero Rocher with the Indy) that food packaging is a minute aspect of a much bigger problem and, let's face it, you are no more likely to want a premium brand of chocolate on a paper bag than a Ferrari in a Reliant Robin shell, I can't help but feel a little bit of grownup commercial reality needs to pervade around here, or there will soon be no advertising, design, marketing and we'll all be living in a monochrome box eating gruel.
Meantime the climate will change as we get distracted from big issues by those with agendas getting a bunch of folk who should know better to sweat the small stuff.
In the green corner, if you are selling yourself in part on being 'green' literally as well as in name, I'd guess you may end up a tad defensive following 'consumer complaints about wasteful packaging.'
But then we go into Marketing Operational Reasons Obfuscation Nonsense (yeay.. a new acronym!) MORON-speak: it does use excessive packaging for its ice cream sticks because "it adds to the Green & Black's experience".
Closely followed by Simply Own-up? Why? Have A Timewaster (another one: SO WHAT?): it says that it has always tried to source packaging that will "protect the product, reflect the premium and luxury status of the brand, but at the same time take into account the environment."
And I love this one, which is now a staple: it is "currently conducting an audit of all packaging". It says that its packaging has to "strike a balance between protecting the product, and maintaining our ethical credentials." (Read: Bluster Unmercifully - Generally Goes Away: BUGGA)
Thing is, in light of my previous blog (following Norman Baker's 'raid' on Ferrero Rocher with the Indy) that food packaging is a minute aspect of a much bigger problem and, let's face it, you are no more likely to want a premium brand of chocolate on a paper bag than a Ferrari in a Reliant Robin shell, I can't help but feel a little bit of grownup commercial reality needs to pervade around here, or there will soon be no advertising, design, marketing and we'll all be living in a monochrome box eating gruel.
Meantime the climate will change as we get distracted from big issues by those with agendas getting a bunch of folk who should know better to sweat the small stuff.
Carbcon trading?
On Friday, an email from the BBC Politics Show offered this: Trading in question
If only carbon trading was as easy as apples...
On the international scene, there is really only one game in town for tackling climate change - and that's something called emissions trading.
Put very simply, the idea is that countries get an allowance of carbon, which they can then sell if they don't use all the carbon to which they're entitled.
The theory is that by putting a price on carbon, the market will make it cost effective to reduce pollution.
But is this big idea the best idea?
Paola Buonadonna will be asking if it's the only option, or simply a load of hot air.
I'd suggest they take a gander at this, that I noted that same day: Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved
Sorry kids, it 's going to take a wee bit more than I'd hoped.
If only carbon trading was as easy as apples...
On the international scene, there is really only one game in town for tackling climate change - and that's something called emissions trading.
Put very simply, the idea is that countries get an allowance of carbon, which they can then sell if they don't use all the carbon to which they're entitled.
The theory is that by putting a price on carbon, the market will make it cost effective to reduce pollution.
But is this big idea the best idea?
Paola Buonadonna will be asking if it's the only option, or simply a load of hot air.
I'd suggest they take a gander at this, that I noted that same day: Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved
Sorry kids, it 's going to take a wee bit more than I'd hoped.
If it's worth saying, say it again
Green is certainly the next big thing... for now, in the world of marketing.
The greening of CSR
I have on occasion tried to reply to the comment section online, but either it doesn't like my Mac/Safari set-up, or my over-40ness has rendered the technology beyond me.
It seems that green is no longer just good, but big. And what you have written here is encouraging and all makes very good sense, though I'd like to offer a few extra thoughts on the environmental side of CSR from a position of some experience as a consumer.
The issue of greenwashing remains significant, and it is, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, in danger of staining a lot of good with some that is less so being carried out for reasons that range from the misguided to the downright venal. Trouble is, when they happen they get noticed (usually in the tabloids), and the consumer is not that sympathetic to unsubtle manipulations, especially when the intentions are murky. And mud sticks.
One of the biggest issues 'we' (those trying to navigate green issues ourselves, and also help others along the way by sharing our journey) face is that so little that is green can be viewed simply in black and white. But all too often that is what we are served up, and called upon to do.
Though itself erring on being an absolute, I have tended to apply a measure of my own to any and all that comes my way by way of green claim, from government initiative to eco-advertising: the enviROI. So long as it is clearly explained as such, I have no problem with making a purchase or commitment that actually makes little financial sense... if it still genuinely makes the planet a better place for my kids. And I am finding a lot of stuff that fails in this regard. The latest proposals for food miles labelling being the latest example.
Because I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
I note Andy Bond of ASDA is soon facing the WI. That should be interesting. I saw one of his subordinates face a formidable lady from that estimable organisation a wee while ago, and frankly neither came out of the encounter very well as far as I was concerned:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/banana-metaphor.html
But at least there is now dialogue, and that can only be a good thing so long as it is not used as a delaying tactic instead of action. And with luck both sides will be better briefed and hence engage in more useful debate.
The odd thing to me is how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so many in marketing still seem to have a mindset that the environment is a problem to be 'dealt with' rather than an opportunity to be embraced... with genuine intent... with win-wins all round. And there are plenty of ways that brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green.
You just need to look a little bit into the (green) left fields to find them out there. And if you are interested I'd be happy to point some out to you.
The greening of CSR
I have on occasion tried to reply to the comment section online, but either it doesn't like my Mac/Safari set-up, or my over-40ness has rendered the technology beyond me.
It seems that green is no longer just good, but big. And what you have written here is encouraging and all makes very good sense, though I'd like to offer a few extra thoughts on the environmental side of CSR from a position of some experience as a consumer.
The issue of greenwashing remains significant, and it is, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, in danger of staining a lot of good with some that is less so being carried out for reasons that range from the misguided to the downright venal. Trouble is, when they happen they get noticed (usually in the tabloids), and the consumer is not that sympathetic to unsubtle manipulations, especially when the intentions are murky. And mud sticks.
One of the biggest issues 'we' (those trying to navigate green issues ourselves, and also help others along the way by sharing our journey) face is that so little that is green can be viewed simply in black and white. But all too often that is what we are served up, and called upon to do.
Though itself erring on being an absolute, I have tended to apply a measure of my own to any and all that comes my way by way of green claim, from government initiative to eco-advertising: the enviROI. So long as it is clearly explained as such, I have no problem with making a purchase or commitment that actually makes little financial sense... if it still genuinely makes the planet a better place for my kids. And I am finding a lot of stuff that fails in this regard. The latest proposals for food miles labelling being the latest example.
Because I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
I note Andy Bond of ASDA is soon facing the WI. That should be interesting. I saw one of his subordinates face a formidable lady from that estimable organisation a wee while ago, and frankly neither came out of the encounter very well as far as I was concerned:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/banana-metaphor.html
But at least there is now dialogue, and that can only be a good thing so long as it is not used as a delaying tactic instead of action. And with luck both sides will be better briefed and hence engage in more useful debate.
The odd thing to me is how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so many in marketing still seem to have a mindset that the environment is a problem to be 'dealt with' rather than an opportunity to be embraced... with genuine intent... with win-wins all round. And there are plenty of ways that brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green.
You just need to look a little bit into the (green) left fields to find them out there. And if you are interested I'd be happy to point some out to you.
Lunch. Working?
A while ago my frustrations with BBC's Working Lunch bubbled up and I fired off an overly aggressive, cause-affecting complaint, to which they fired back a very defensive licence-fee-negotiation-damaging reply. Neither side came out of this well.
Sadly, I still need media. And they, in theory, seem to be soliciting stories. Look what was in my in-box today:
Over the coming week on Working Lunch you will see me sitting on two hundred thousand bushels of corn, sheltering under a solar powered tent and revving up an aircraft engine powered by a fuel cell. We've been on the hunt for renewable technologies again, but this time in the USA. All the companies have a special feature: they prefer to list their shares and raise money on London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM).
The quest took us up the Oregon Trail to Wyoming, down through the cornbelt to Iowa and back to Massachusetts and its quaint woods and villages. It's a fascinating story. On the one hand you'll see the world's technological powerhouse feeling its way towards a low carbon future. On the other, you'll hear the pioneers of these frontier technologies saying that they need our help to realise their dreams.
On Monday I'll be looking at ethanol as a replacement for petrol and, later in the week, at flexible solar panels and those fuel cells. There will also be a feature on electric vehicles being made in the UK. Please send in your questions on the technologies we show and on AIM - we plan to answer as many as we can on Friday.
But why, oh why, do they keep posting this, when I and many others have responded to not even get the courtesy of a reply?:
WORKING LUNCH NEEDS YOU!
To get in touch on any of the following subjects, please click here…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/6034907.stm
Sadly, I still need media. And they, in theory, seem to be soliciting stories. Look what was in my in-box today:
Over the coming week on Working Lunch you will see me sitting on two hundred thousand bushels of corn, sheltering under a solar powered tent and revving up an aircraft engine powered by a fuel cell. We've been on the hunt for renewable technologies again, but this time in the USA. All the companies have a special feature: they prefer to list their shares and raise money on London's Alternative Investment Market (AIM).
The quest took us up the Oregon Trail to Wyoming, down through the cornbelt to Iowa and back to Massachusetts and its quaint woods and villages. It's a fascinating story. On the one hand you'll see the world's technological powerhouse feeling its way towards a low carbon future. On the other, you'll hear the pioneers of these frontier technologies saying that they need our help to realise their dreams.
On Monday I'll be looking at ethanol as a replacement for petrol and, later in the week, at flexible solar panels and those fuel cells. There will also be a feature on electric vehicles being made in the UK. Please send in your questions on the technologies we show and on AIM - we plan to answer as many as we can on Friday.
But why, oh why, do they keep posting this, when I and many others have responded to not even get the courtesy of a reply?:
WORKING LUNCH NEEDS YOU!
To get in touch on any of the following subjects, please click here…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/working_lunch/6034907.stm
The... seemingly invisible... Elephant in the room.
With all the various initiatives to solve our energy, waste, etc problems, and the less than measured way most media have reported it all, I found this form last week's Sunday Times most interesting: Making a pile out of rubbish
Significantly, it was in the Business section.
There was also a small panel that is worth repeating here in the spirit of enviROI:
DOMESTIC WASTE IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL
The materials that have been the historical favourites for recyclers make up a surprisingly small proportion – glass accounts for 7% and tin cans only 3%.
Last week’s government paper focused on household waste. But in terms of the total waste generated by the UK as a whole, domestic rubbish accounts for less than 10%. Commerce produces slightly more (11%) and industry produces 14% of the national total.
By sheer weight, more than 60% of waste comes from mining, quarrying, demolition and construction. So why not worry about these really big waste producers?
Quite, though a new strategy to tackle this will apparently be outlined later this year.
However, I remain concerned where the priorities lie here.
Significantly, it was in the Business section.
There was also a small panel that is worth repeating here in the spirit of enviROI:
DOMESTIC WASTE IS LESS THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL
The materials that have been the historical favourites for recyclers make up a surprisingly small proportion – glass accounts for 7% and tin cans only 3%.
Last week’s government paper focused on household waste. But in terms of the total waste generated by the UK as a whole, domestic rubbish accounts for less than 10%. Commerce produces slightly more (11%) and industry produces 14% of the national total.
By sheer weight, more than 60% of waste comes from mining, quarrying, demolition and construction. So why not worry about these really big waste producers?
Quite, though a new strategy to tackle this will apparently be outlined later this year.
However, I remain concerned where the priorities lie here.
Round peg. Square hole.
With our efforts to sell RE:tie grinding on, I found this piece on selling invention in BusinessWeek to be interesting, and was moved to comment: Think Like an Inventor
Appreciating the second subhead says 'The Essential Ingredients for Technological Innovation', I am also looking at the one preceding it: 'Making innovation happen'.
Having just won a gold medal for an invention - most definitely bringing two diverse products together - at a international competition, in this regard I'd have to suggest the first needs to be split, and '..aided by collaboration' placed at the top.
With few exceptions, having a great idea is the easy part; selling it into 'the system' is the tricky bit. And, I would venture, few innovators have the skill sets or personalities to both come up with the idea and then negotiate the suit mentality-driven waters to bring it to market.
Yet, oddly, almost every aspect subsequently seems to expect round pegs to become square in pushing things through.
Of course one has to work harder to get luckier and meet half way, but I believe there is huge opportunity, especially at public-funding level, in looking to bridge the skill sets between the creators and those who can market them to create effective sales complements.
Appreciating the second subhead says 'The Essential Ingredients for Technological Innovation', I am also looking at the one preceding it: 'Making innovation happen'.
Having just won a gold medal for an invention - most definitely bringing two diverse products together - at a international competition, in this regard I'd have to suggest the first needs to be split, and '..aided by collaboration' placed at the top.
With few exceptions, having a great idea is the easy part; selling it into 'the system' is the tricky bit. And, I would venture, few innovators have the skill sets or personalities to both come up with the idea and then negotiate the suit mentality-driven waters to bring it to market.
Yet, oddly, almost every aspect subsequently seems to expect round pegs to become square in pushing things through.
Of course one has to work harder to get luckier and meet half way, but I believe there is huge opportunity, especially at public-funding level, in looking to bridge the skill sets between the creators and those who can market them to create effective sales complements.
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Space. At a mall near you.
Ok, so you need to get to the USA first.
Into space - on a shuttle simulator
Love it. I hope this may be required reading for all billionaires
considering Virgin Galactic, whose contributions to atmospheric
emissions doesn't seem likely to be very positive to global warming.
ps: Is that the guy from Life on Mars? Appropriate if it is, considering
the topic
Into space - on a shuttle simulator
Love it. I hope this may be required reading for all billionaires
considering Virgin Galactic, whose contributions to atmospheric
emissions doesn't seem likely to be very positive to global warming.
ps: Is that the guy from Life on Mars? Appropriate if it is, considering
the topic
Hydrogen, hydrogen, the magic fuel...
...comes from nowhere, and goes back there too!
Or not.
As often mentioned, I like the idea of hydrogen, but not until its creation's enviROI makes sense, and that includes not viewing it, along with many other alternative fuels, as a substitute to just keep on doing more and more of what we fancy anyway.
Hydro boat turns sea green
And the sky, er, blue?
I'd like to find out more about how this eradicates its carbon footprint.
I can certainly see how hydrogen as a fuel will be kinder in terms of
exhaust emitted into the water, but how will this fuel be created in the
necessary volumes without some consequence to the atmosphere?
Or not.
As often mentioned, I like the idea of hydrogen, but not until its creation's enviROI makes sense, and that includes not viewing it, along with many other alternative fuels, as a substitute to just keep on doing more and more of what we fancy anyway.
Hydro boat turns sea green
And the sky, er, blue?
I'd like to find out more about how this eradicates its carbon footprint.
I can certainly see how hydrogen as a fuel will be kinder in terms of
exhaust emitted into the water, but how will this fuel be created in the
necessary volumes without some consequence to the atmosphere?
I wonder if they'll fly into collect the award?
Thanks to my latest issue of recycle now's newsletter (snappily entitled RCN Newsletter, showing they really know who to avoid the spam filter and delete key), I now know who are the country's green, er, 'heroes':
Revealed: the nation’s green heroes
A new survey for Recycle Now has revealed the nation’s favourite environmental heroes. We asked over 1400 UK adults which celebrities they felt were the greenest.
Here are the results:
1. Prince Charles
2. Bob Geldof
3. Sting
4. Chris Martin
5. David Cameron
6. Bono
7. Richard Branson
8. Madonna
9. Cameron Diaz
10. George Clooney
Who would you have picked?
I was sooo tempted to reply. But, like this fine example of journalism, will remain mute. Speechless even.
Revealed: the nation’s green heroes
A new survey for Recycle Now has revealed the nation’s favourite environmental heroes. We asked over 1400 UK adults which celebrities they felt were the greenest.
Here are the results:
1. Prince Charles
2. Bob Geldof
3. Sting
4. Chris Martin
5. David Cameron
6. Bono
7. Richard Branson
8. Madonna
9. Cameron Diaz
10. George Clooney
Who would you have picked?
I was sooo tempted to reply. But, like this fine example of journalism, will remain mute. Speechless even.
Your tax money at work
Politeness 'missing from society'
Britain needs to do more to promote good manners, Tony Blair's "respect czar" Louise Casey has said.
She gets paid for this?
Britain needs to do more to promote good manners, Tony Blair's "respect czar" Louise Casey has said.
She gets paid for this?
Book 'em, R2D2: Mistaken segregation, 3 counts!.
It's about cars, but it could just as easily soon be about our waste system.
Call for car number plate revamp
"...horrendous. You are guilty until you can prove you're not. It's the first time that I've thought that English law is on its head."
Amazingly, it seems by taking the human element out of the monitoring, proof and prosecution...'the problem has grown because of the amount of camera-based enforcement... which relies on computer records on who [is responsible for what]'.
No mention of not going straight to fine with burden of proof being for the innocent to provide.
Welcome to the New Britain. You are... welcome to it.
Call for car number plate revamp
"...horrendous. You are guilty until you can prove you're not. It's the first time that I've thought that English law is on its head."
Amazingly, it seems by taking the human element out of the monitoring, proof and prosecution...'the problem has grown because of the amount of camera-based enforcement... which relies on computer records on who [is responsible for what]'.
No mention of not going straight to fine with burden of proof being for the innocent to provide.
Welcome to the New Britain. You are... welcome to it.
The media and the message
Brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green
Thank you for an interesting and inspiring piece in Media Week (though if the comments about Eastbourne in MediaBitch are anything to go by, we are facing a tough crowd with the message), and for introducing me to John Grant, who seems a like-minded soul, and hence to buylesscrap... ditto. I've written to ask them if RED has replied to their letter.
You rightly raise the issue of greenwashing which, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, is in danger of staining a lot of good with some that is less so being carried out for reasons that range from the misguided to the downright venal. Trouble is, when they happen they get noticed (usually in the tabloids), and the consumer is not that sympathetic to unsubtle manipulations, especially when the intentions are murky. And mud sticks.
One of the biggest issues 'we' (those trying to navigate green issues ourselves, and also help others along the way by sharing our journey) is that so little that is green can be viewed simply in black and white. But all too often that is what we are served up, and called upon to do.
Though itself erring on being an absolute, I have tended to apply a measure of my own to any and all that comes my way by way of green claim, from government initiative to eco-advertising: the enviROI. So long as it is clearly explained as such, I have no problem with making a purchase or commitment that actually makes little financial sense... if it still genuinely makes the planet a better place for my kids. And I am finding a lot of stuff that fails in this regard.
But I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
You mention Andy Bond facing the WI. That should be interesting. I saw one of his subordinates face a formidable lady from that estimable organisation a wee while ago, and frankly neither came out of the encounter very well as far as I was concerned:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/banana-metaphor.html
But at least there is now dialogue, and that can only be a good thing so long as it is not used as a delaying tactic instead of action. And with luck both sides will be better briefed and hence engage in more useful debate.
The odd thing to me is how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so many in marketing still seem to have a mindset that the environment is a problem to be 'dealt with' rather than an opportunity to be embraced... with genuine intent... with win-wins all round. And there are plenty of ways that brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green. As an example, I would point at the RE:tie design that we just did rather well with: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/04/whos-clever-boy-then.html &
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/couldnt-express-it-better.html
You just need to look a little bit into the (green) left fields to find them out there. And if you are interested I'd be happy to point some out to you.
Rgds,
Peter Martin
JunkkMale/Big 'Ed
ps: I look forward very much to next week's issue on the big corporates' green cred. Having lived with what they say, but often do differently, (with good and bad experiences on both counts to share - in many cases I think the media is unfair in its reporting of some measures) I will be interested to see how it pans out.
Thank you for an interesting and inspiring piece in Media Week (though if the comments about Eastbourne in MediaBitch are anything to go by, we are facing a tough crowd with the message), and for introducing me to John Grant, who seems a like-minded soul, and hence to buylesscrap... ditto. I've written to ask them if RED has replied to their letter.
You rightly raise the issue of greenwashing which, if you'll forgive projecting the metaphor, is in danger of staining a lot of good with some that is less so being carried out for reasons that range from the misguided to the downright venal. Trouble is, when they happen they get noticed (usually in the tabloids), and the consumer is not that sympathetic to unsubtle manipulations, especially when the intentions are murky. And mud sticks.
One of the biggest issues 'we' (those trying to navigate green issues ourselves, and also help others along the way by sharing our journey) is that so little that is green can be viewed simply in black and white. But all too often that is what we are served up, and called upon to do.
Though itself erring on being an absolute, I have tended to apply a measure of my own to any and all that comes my way by way of green claim, from government initiative to eco-advertising: the enviROI. So long as it is clearly explained as such, I have no problem with making a purchase or commitment that actually makes little financial sense... if it still genuinely makes the planet a better place for my kids. And I am finding a lot of stuff that fails in this regard.
But I'm also finding a lot of information that is clouding our abilities to make such fair judgements.
You mention Andy Bond facing the WI. That should be interesting. I saw one of his subordinates face a formidable lady from that estimable organisation a wee while ago, and frankly neither came out of the encounter very well as far as I was concerned:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/banana-metaphor.html
But at least there is now dialogue, and that can only be a good thing so long as it is not used as a delaying tactic instead of action. And with luck both sides will be better briefed and hence engage in more useful debate.
The odd thing to me is how, despite all the evidence to the contrary, so many in marketing still seem to have a mindset that the environment is a problem to be 'dealt with' rather than an opportunity to be embraced... with genuine intent... with win-wins all round. And there are plenty of ways that brands (and the planet) can benefit from going green. As an example, I would point at the RE:tie design that we just did rather well with: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/04/whos-clever-boy-then.html &
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/05/couldnt-express-it-better.html
You just need to look a little bit into the (green) left fields to find them out there. And if you are interested I'd be happy to point some out to you.
Rgds,
Peter Martin
JunkkMale/Big 'Ed
ps: I look forward very much to next week's issue on the big corporates' green cred. Having lived with what they say, but often do differently, (with good and bad experiences on both counts to share - in many cases I think the media is unfair in its reporting of some measures) I will be interested to see how it pans out.
Friday, June 01, 2007
Gotta ask. Gotta tell.
I recall, a few years ago when the latest disability legalisation came out, getting a bunch of what amounted to extortion emails from 'consultants', who had 'noted' that our site was not as compliant as it could be and would, for a fee, not report us.
I got rid of them all by pointing out that it had been briefed from the outset to be as all-embracing as possible (with a Bobby rating taboot), and if there were areas we could improve would appreciate being told where they were so we might address them. Why would I not? Reaching out in any way practicable - note that - simply improves our audience base. Never heard back.
So I must say that at the time, and still, the way it all got inspired, imposed and handed over to such folk with legislative backing really p*ssed me off. I even recall a poster on the topic, with a wheelchair-bound individual in a judge's wig, waving a gavel, saying 'We're out to get you!'. Not, I felt, the most engaging way to inspire cooperation.
And with a website, especially one that is user-driven, there are many factors afoot, from design considerations to how editorial may or may not get perceived by the majority of the audience, who can take a number-penalising hike if one panders to some demands.
Hence this struck a chord: eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays
Now I could care less what you orientation is, and our site is not configured to exclude anyone, save for the consequences of some disabilities that we really are in no position to address.
So, in many ways, should anyone choose to ignore the possible reaction of other users by failing to be all-inclusive, this simply seems a matter of 'why not?', closely followed by 'more fool them,' topped off by 'ignore the silly so and so's'.
eHarmony can obviously afford the changes required, but for a site of our size a failure to offer certain additional options can be financially punitive, especially when we are free to kick off. So demanding we add stuff at our expense would seem... unfair.
But it's more the principle of the thing, and now a gay bar in Australia has won the right to exclude heterosexuals it looks like there may be a slight unravelling taking place.
I'm all for protection from abuse, but this all simply smacks of a bunch of chancers trying to make a fast buck in the name of what should have been something noble, by abusing a poorly-considered bit of PC legislation (which seems to be most of them).
I fear there will be few winners bar the lawyers. As always.
I got rid of them all by pointing out that it had been briefed from the outset to be as all-embracing as possible (with a Bobby rating taboot), and if there were areas we could improve would appreciate being told where they were so we might address them. Why would I not? Reaching out in any way practicable - note that - simply improves our audience base. Never heard back.
So I must say that at the time, and still, the way it all got inspired, imposed and handed over to such folk with legislative backing really p*ssed me off. I even recall a poster on the topic, with a wheelchair-bound individual in a judge's wig, waving a gavel, saying 'We're out to get you!'. Not, I felt, the most engaging way to inspire cooperation.
And with a website, especially one that is user-driven, there are many factors afoot, from design considerations to how editorial may or may not get perceived by the majority of the audience, who can take a number-penalising hike if one panders to some demands.
Hence this struck a chord: eHarmony sued in California for excluding gays
Now I could care less what you orientation is, and our site is not configured to exclude anyone, save for the consequences of some disabilities that we really are in no position to address.
So, in many ways, should anyone choose to ignore the possible reaction of other users by failing to be all-inclusive, this simply seems a matter of 'why not?', closely followed by 'more fool them,' topped off by 'ignore the silly so and so's'.
eHarmony can obviously afford the changes required, but for a site of our size a failure to offer certain additional options can be financially punitive, especially when we are free to kick off. So demanding we add stuff at our expense would seem... unfair.
But it's more the principle of the thing, and now a gay bar in Australia has won the right to exclude heterosexuals it looks like there may be a slight unravelling taking place.
I'm all for protection from abuse, but this all simply smacks of a bunch of chancers trying to make a fast buck in the name of what should have been something noble, by abusing a poorly-considered bit of PC legislation (which seems to be most of them).
I fear there will be few winners bar the lawyers. As always.
Letters from the front, and at the back
A guy gave me his card the other day, and it really needed to be about a foot wide to get in all the letters after his name, some of which were.. a stretch. I afraid it all rather left me feeling that one last set was rather in order: Pl. Onker.
This ran though my mind today as I read my welcome letter from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. I feel like I have joined a Post-it note!
Anyway, it was addressed to [me], A Inst Pkg. How cool is that?
Now, at first blush it looks like I, as an aspiring planet-saver, have gone over to the Dark Side, lured by Darth Shrinkwrap, but I deem it a very worthy attempt on my part to try and engage with, understand and hence report on what is after all a very significant part of all Junkk.com is involved with.
All things considered, it's a pretty affordable membership I'm surprised a few other media who see fit to critique this industry would do well to embrace.
This ran though my mind today as I read my welcome letter from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. I feel like I have joined a Post-it note!
Anyway, it was addressed to [me], A Inst Pkg. How cool is that?
Now, at first blush it looks like I, as an aspiring planet-saver, have gone over to the Dark Side, lured by Darth Shrinkwrap, but I deem it a very worthy attempt on my part to try and engage with, understand and hence report on what is after all a very significant part of all Junkk.com is involved with.
All things considered, it's a pretty affordable membership I'm surprised a few other media who see fit to critique this industry would do well to embrace.
You are what you read?
I was having my morning trawl through the onlines, when this caught my eye.I simply note that, with all that is going on in the world, a cross-section of Guardian Unlimited readers gave the top four slots to footy, and the fifth to a fashion show.
At least it was ethical.
Bless.
May is so over
I just read a short, but interesting piece in the Indy.
And without apology, but due accreditation, print it fullishly here, with a few highlights of my own:
All goods may be labelled with 'carbon footprint'
A new eco label may show the environmental damage done goods and services in shops. The Government has begun a "carbon footprint" project to work out how to count emissions from everything from crisps to flights [Let us pray the enviROI derived is genuine, and that we, the public, are able to get to grips with it such that it is not just another vast, money-sucking box-ticking exercise].
The scheme, which could be the first step towards an international standard [like all previous efforts at local - we seem to have two health standards already, so the packs are going to get pretty crowed with this guff - and global cooperation have been successful so far. No reason not to try, but I do trust the basis is not so much to line consultants' pockets in the effort as to actually move policies] for measuring the greenhouse effect, will [well, that's more positive] be used on packaging to allow consumers to weigh up [so it's back to us doing the tricky stuff again, is it? And doubtless fined if we don't do it right. What about a bit more effort on what goes into the system at the front end????!] the climate change impact [please.... make it an effective measure!] of different products [I... we... are going to stand there, assessing - if we are able - every item going into our baskets. This is asking us to weigh apples vs. oranges, literally]
The Carbon Trust, a government body briefed to create a low carbon economy [with how much money to be blown on salaries and comms, with almost no ROI and/or enviROI that is publicly accountable to an effective degree?] is developing the scheme with companies such as [why these guys? Are they enough? Are they being funded or helping out for free...if so big up to them. If not... hmnnn.] Tesco, Boots, B&Q, Marks & Spencer and BT. A panel of technical experts will take around 18 months [Dome. Olympics. NHS. Air traffic. Need I infer more?] to finalise the measurement of stages such as production and transport.
Announcing the plan yesterday, the Environment Minister, Ian Pearson, said: "Businesses are looking for ways [Looking's good. Finding is better. Committing the best] to reduce their impact on the environment. To help them achieve that we need a consistent way [Just like the health standards, eh?] to measure these impacts that businesses recognise, trust and understand." [Let's not forget the consumer recognising, trusting, understanding... and being able to engage with in a meaningful way, as well]
That's an awful lot of doubts I have raised from just a few paras. I wonder why? Maybe it is because this consumer doesn't recognise much so far in this area that has made sense, trusts little these protagonists do to actually have my kids' future enviROI at heart, or ever get shared in a way that is understandable of capable of rational engagement.
But we can hope this time it will be different. Here's hoping the mainstream media stay on their case (packaging pun intended).
Guardian - Carbon labels to help shoppers save planet
Treehugger - Carbon Footprint Labels for UK Produce
In the piece I read, in the Independent, the announcement was littered with words like 'may' and 'could', which usually presages a lot of money getting spent on a bunch of consultants, and then sod all of any use happening once the requisite boxes have been ticked.
There is also the small matter of what happened with the health composition labelling. In some places we get a traffic light system, and in others a row of figures that look like the periodic table.
It's going to get pretty crowded on the side of each pack, and I have my doubts anyone will have the slightest clue what they are looking at, much less be able to make a coherent decision based on it. I for one have not bothered to scrutinise each item I select. For start, what am I comparing? Apples and oranges? Well, of course a Spanish orange may be better than a South African apple, but who on earth is going to get into that????!
If there is any serious intent to make a difference here, it needs to be at the in-point, not throwing it on the poor blooming consumer to try and sort out the fudge government and industry are trying to shuffle around.
So do I feel my kids' future is being protected by this? Well, may... be... not.
And without apology, but due accreditation, print it fullishly here, with a few highlights of my own:
All goods may be labelled with 'carbon footprint'
A new eco label may show the environmental damage done goods and services in shops. The Government has begun a "carbon footprint" project to work out how to count emissions from everything from crisps to flights [Let us pray the enviROI derived is genuine, and that we, the public, are able to get to grips with it such that it is not just another vast, money-sucking box-ticking exercise].
The scheme, which could be the first step towards an international standard [like all previous efforts at local - we seem to have two health standards already, so the packs are going to get pretty crowed with this guff - and global cooperation have been successful so far. No reason not to try, but I do trust the basis is not so much to line consultants' pockets in the effort as to actually move policies] for measuring the greenhouse effect, will [well, that's more positive] be used on packaging to allow consumers to weigh up [so it's back to us doing the tricky stuff again, is it? And doubtless fined if we don't do it right. What about a bit more effort on what goes into the system at the front end????!] the climate change impact [please.... make it an effective measure!] of different products [I... we... are going to stand there, assessing - if we are able - every item going into our baskets. This is asking us to weigh apples vs. oranges, literally]
The Carbon Trust, a government body briefed to create a low carbon economy [with how much money to be blown on salaries and comms, with almost no ROI and/or enviROI that is publicly accountable to an effective degree?] is developing the scheme with companies such as [why these guys? Are they enough? Are they being funded or helping out for free...if so big up to them. If not... hmnnn.] Tesco, Boots, B&Q, Marks & Spencer and BT. A panel of technical experts will take around 18 months [Dome. Olympics. NHS. Air traffic. Need I infer more?] to finalise the measurement of stages such as production and transport.
Announcing the plan yesterday, the Environment Minister, Ian Pearson, said: "Businesses are looking for ways [Looking's good. Finding is better. Committing the best] to reduce their impact on the environment. To help them achieve that we need a consistent way [Just like the health standards, eh?] to measure these impacts that businesses recognise, trust and understand." [Let's not forget the consumer recognising, trusting, understanding... and being able to engage with in a meaningful way, as well]
That's an awful lot of doubts I have raised from just a few paras. I wonder why? Maybe it is because this consumer doesn't recognise much so far in this area that has made sense, trusts little these protagonists do to actually have my kids' future enviROI at heart, or ever get shared in a way that is understandable of capable of rational engagement.
But we can hope this time it will be different. Here's hoping the mainstream media stay on their case (packaging pun intended).
Guardian - Carbon labels to help shoppers save planet
Treehugger - Carbon Footprint Labels for UK Produce
In the piece I read, in the Independent, the announcement was littered with words like 'may' and 'could', which usually presages a lot of money getting spent on a bunch of consultants, and then sod all of any use happening once the requisite boxes have been ticked.
There is also the small matter of what happened with the health composition labelling. In some places we get a traffic light system, and in others a row of figures that look like the periodic table.
It's going to get pretty crowded on the side of each pack, and I have my doubts anyone will have the slightest clue what they are looking at, much less be able to make a coherent decision based on it. I for one have not bothered to scrutinise each item I select. For start, what am I comparing? Apples and oranges? Well, of course a Spanish orange may be better than a South African apple, but who on earth is going to get into that????!
If there is any serious intent to make a difference here, it needs to be at the in-point, not throwing it on the poor blooming consumer to try and sort out the fudge government and industry are trying to shuffle around.
So do I feel my kids' future is being protected by this? Well, may... be... not.
Our children. Their planet.
I was going to leave well enough alone, but I do feel there are lessons to be learned from the plight of a little blonde girl and the fate of the entity which will, with luck, serve to sustain her grandchildren. If this is the best the best of our media can, or seeks to be, heaven (in its most faith-embracing form) help us all.
The McCanns' plight
I just watched last night's 'debate' (the inevitable Newsnight book-end extreme twofer), and frankly even such as the BBC needs to look in the mirror.
Yes, there was a picture of the child posted at the beginning, but once that obligatory 'of course it's all about her' platitudes were out of the way the rest was anything but.
Other than a tad more 'awareness', which seems to be justification for anything the media sees a rating in, and for which the cunning or the desperate will willingly serve up the source material, I learned nothing more about what has been, is being or could be done to get this kid back. To actually DO something of value that will have a positive result.
Not that I believe there is such a thing as an expert (at least one who would subject themselves, their profession or their expertise to the trivial nature and possibly deleterious glare of any forum our media can create these days), I would have liked to know from some experienced sources if these tactics were effective, and how and where the media and public can be motivated to help effectively. Or, if considered more beneficial, belt up and back off.
Sadly, all I took away from this was, as pointed out here in this thread and, to be fair, somewhere in that odious, self-serving broadcast exchange, little to do with next steps to finding her and those like her, and a lot to do with the agendas of a bunch of folk I could really care less about and/or should know a lot better.
Meanwhile, as Mr. Paxman is inevitably prompted to say, time is running out, so moving on....
The McCanns' plight
I just watched last night's 'debate' (the inevitable Newsnight book-end extreme twofer), and frankly even such as the BBC needs to look in the mirror.
Yes, there was a picture of the child posted at the beginning, but once that obligatory 'of course it's all about her' platitudes were out of the way the rest was anything but.
Other than a tad more 'awareness', which seems to be justification for anything the media sees a rating in, and for which the cunning or the desperate will willingly serve up the source material, I learned nothing more about what has been, is being or could be done to get this kid back. To actually DO something of value that will have a positive result.
Not that I believe there is such a thing as an expert (at least one who would subject themselves, their profession or their expertise to the trivial nature and possibly deleterious glare of any forum our media can create these days), I would have liked to know from some experienced sources if these tactics were effective, and how and where the media and public can be motivated to help effectively. Or, if considered more beneficial, belt up and back off.
Sadly, all I took away from this was, as pointed out here in this thread and, to be fair, somewhere in that odious, self-serving broadcast exchange, little to do with next steps to finding her and those like her, and a lot to do with the agendas of a bunch of folk I could really care less about and/or should know a lot better.
Meanwhile, as Mr. Paxman is inevitably prompted to say, time is running out, so moving on....
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Dell Hell, Redux
They may make reasonable kit at a decent price, but by heavens their customer service system is enough to make one want to hit the blog wires and pen some bile just to vent off the steam.
A wee while ago, I had a message on my answering machine in a lilting Irish brogue, to the effect that I had a new customer service manager, and it was she. No number, no email in complement... no idea how this would end up.
Yesterday the replacement warranty offer on one of our older PCs expired. I had a letter saying it could only be handled by phone, so a few days ago I dialled that fateful number and ended up in a very dark place.
Endless robots who spoke a kind of English listened to what I was trying to say, ignored it and told me what they had been told to tell me. Twice I was cut off. A few score times I was transferred around the world to be asked the same damn question about my inside leg measurement I'd given previously.
And all the while I kept asking... pleading... that they got a message to my account manager that I'd like to talk about this with her. All said they would do so, and now what about this warranty?
I even emailed.
The result? Well, no call back, it has expired, and you know what? I think I'll use the PC 'til it dies and then not bother replacing it. Or buy one from someone who understands customer service. Oh, and the importance of doing what it takes to ...sell.
Dell, you really need to figure out where you are trying to be, and how you are not helping yourselves get there.
Phew... now I feel better.
BBC - PC maker Dell to cut 7,000 jobs
A wee while ago, I had a message on my answering machine in a lilting Irish brogue, to the effect that I had a new customer service manager, and it was she. No number, no email in complement... no idea how this would end up.
Yesterday the replacement warranty offer on one of our older PCs expired. I had a letter saying it could only be handled by phone, so a few days ago I dialled that fateful number and ended up in a very dark place.
Endless robots who spoke a kind of English listened to what I was trying to say, ignored it and told me what they had been told to tell me. Twice I was cut off. A few score times I was transferred around the world to be asked the same damn question about my inside leg measurement I'd given previously.
And all the while I kept asking... pleading... that they got a message to my account manager that I'd like to talk about this with her. All said they would do so, and now what about this warranty?
I even emailed.
The result? Well, no call back, it has expired, and you know what? I think I'll use the PC 'til it dies and then not bother replacing it. Or buy one from someone who understands customer service. Oh, and the importance of doing what it takes to ...sell.
Dell, you really need to figure out where you are trying to be, and how you are not helping yourselves get there.
Phew... now I feel better.
BBC - PC maker Dell to cut 7,000 jobs
And a side order of soap with your shampoo, sir?
Only organic for me darling
I have no problem with folk blowing their hard-earned any way they like, especially saving the planet in the process, even if it doesn't make much sense financially.
Where I do draw the line is if the enviROI doesn't add up. This is the cost to my kids by a fad actually suckering the totality of the system for a short term marketing gain.
Sadly, it is almost impossible to assess fairly, or in a way consumers will be able to grasp, especially with packaging having to accommodate about a page of A4 with all the pointless, contradictory, a**s-covering, target-meeting, box-ticking guides we already have and are going to find joining them.
And then all we get is those brands we thought we could trust to guide us, like Fairtrade and the Soil Association (plus a few pro-Bono charities), having a spat on which ethical aspect is more important, and it all dissolves into farce.
Still, while there are those who are sincere, some will simply make more quick green-dosh as the planet bleeds.
Yours, with an airflown cherry on top...
I have no problem with folk blowing their hard-earned any way they like, especially saving the planet in the process, even if it doesn't make much sense financially.
Where I do draw the line is if the enviROI doesn't add up. This is the cost to my kids by a fad actually suckering the totality of the system for a short term marketing gain.
Sadly, it is almost impossible to assess fairly, or in a way consumers will be able to grasp, especially with packaging having to accommodate about a page of A4 with all the pointless, contradictory, a**s-covering, target-meeting, box-ticking guides we already have and are going to find joining them.
And then all we get is those brands we thought we could trust to guide us, like Fairtrade and the Soil Association (plus a few pro-Bono charities), having a spat on which ethical aspect is more important, and it all dissolves into farce.
Still, while there are those who are sincere, some will simply make more quick green-dosh as the planet bleeds.
Yours, with an airflown cherry on top...
Many publicities can these days be stirred up with bad publicity.
Nice to drift over to the world of ads once in a while.
Dr Martens sticks boot in
This commentator (never been called that before, so I'm climbing aboard the bandwagon) could care less about the ad (though asking the relatives might have been polite), but is fascinated by the process surrounding the apparent 'furore'. Was that the term in the original release used to kick-start it?
When I first read about this it seemed to be some kind of student competition that got taken too far, and without the knowledge of senior agency or client. So far, so tee-hee...whoopsie: 'They didn't die with our boots on?"
Now it seems it is/was a commissioned piece, using a high-profile photographer, for a one-off 'authorised' insertion in some medium I've never heard of, like that would render it in better taste than being seen anywhere else. As most awards hounds will tell you, it's quite easy to get a dodgy bit of 'edginess' mainstream with a complicit agency/client/minor-medium cabal, a little bit of MySpace or YouTube to 'find' it has been spread around, with a nudge from the PR division to kickstart the Daily Mail, and...ta-daa: a bit more than was 'intended'.
So... what next? It was all actually a big hoot to get a bunch more PR value than the original, rather average concept warranted. Surely not?
Bless.
Crap ads don't hurt people. Being complicit in helping sell them for a few cheap ratings points does.
BRAND REPUBLIC
Dr Martens sticks boot in
This commentator (never been called that before, so I'm climbing aboard the bandwagon) could care less about the ad (though asking the relatives might have been polite), but is fascinated by the process surrounding the apparent 'furore'. Was that the term in the original release used to kick-start it?
When I first read about this it seemed to be some kind of student competition that got taken too far, and without the knowledge of senior agency or client. So far, so tee-hee...whoopsie: 'They didn't die with our boots on?"
Now it seems it is/was a commissioned piece, using a high-profile photographer, for a one-off 'authorised' insertion in some medium I've never heard of, like that would render it in better taste than being seen anywhere else. As most awards hounds will tell you, it's quite easy to get a dodgy bit of 'edginess' mainstream with a complicit agency/client/minor-medium cabal, a little bit of MySpace or YouTube to 'find' it has been spread around, with a nudge from the PR division to kickstart the Daily Mail, and...ta-daa: a bit more than was 'intended'.
So... what next? It was all actually a big hoot to get a bunch more PR value than the original, rather average concept warranted. Surely not?
Bless.
Crap ads don't hurt people. Being complicit in helping sell them for a few cheap ratings points does.
BRAND REPUBLIC
Witches' Knickers
I have pretty much given up on BBC Breakfast News now (and they on me, so not much to lose), as they have pretty much given up on news, or at least reporting, in favour of creating visuals of press releases.
However, around the cornflakes it can still often be lurking on in the corner, and I just caught the tail-end of the latest worthy initiative surrounding plastic bags.
Now as I missed the beginning I am not quite sure what it was all about, but here's a link to today's programme, and as this will soon disappear to the initiative in question: mosbags, guerilla bagging.
Sounds fun. No harm. Good luck to them.
But, now, enviROI.
I learned something. 'We' apparently demand/use/dispose of 290 bags a year, and the reporter was seen under a pile of them. Yuk. Thing is, how much plastic is that? No, really, how much? I don't know, but ignoring litter (which IS an issue) and killing wildlife (ditto, though I wonder how much other rubbish in the sea and fields does more), in terms of plastic weight (not volume), how much are we actually talking here? As the aspiring beneficiary of the RE:tie's contribution (though that is turning something that has no use, save disposal currently, into an actual second useful item) I am the first to wish to say every little bit helps, but context is important. If compressed into a block, how many Albert Halls are we talking here or, more personally, how many bottles of fabric softener for example, with one in our kitchen now destined for the bin because I don't know if I can pop it in with the PEP fizzies in the local plastics skip - which to me is a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE!???!
As it is a critique sometimes levelled at much that Junkk.com and I come up with, I also wonder about consumer uptake.
With a family of four and time pressures, my trips to the supermarket are few, far and frantic. What I have done is kept several cardboard bottle carriers in the boots of both cars, which I take with me and pop in the trolley. These make a big difference to the bagging, and with bottles double bagging, that used to be done. I also have a few score hemp jobbies from council shows and eco-expo giveaways, which it now occurs to throw into the mix, too. So this piece has done its job with a slight awareness boost, and credit to them.
But I have to say I need about 10 to handle it all. I noted that this piece was again a bunch of young, single, urban trendies, on foot picking up a sarny and a bottle of Evian (how many bags' worth?), and again wonder how that equates to a harassed parent trying to get the week's shopping in and done.
Personally, if one were organised, I always thought the crate system was better, though the sheer amount of plastic making them seemed huge and possibly poor enviROI from the get go. But the word there is organised. For spontaneity, we are back to remembering to take these no so little bags with us. For a 5 item dash to the corner shop, why not, but for a bigger effort, by foot or even car, how many are going to go there (though logically why not if you are to struggle back with several laden bags) with all these efforts hanging out of your pockets? There is a supposition one is just carrying out that task, from your home base. Is that practical? Is it going to be done?
But, as noted, other countries seem to do fine, and waste is waste, so it must be addressed. I just wish we could be a bit more joined up, recognise some practical realities, and sell it in ways that might appeal beyond a twenty-something BBC researcher's local street community and PR mates, authority box tickers, real-issue, greenwash-distracting, knee-jerk marketers, etc.
Finally, and on a practical note, I was also a little intrigued by the reporter's choice of recycling bin for his 290 bags at the end of the piece: what looked like a street skip. Now unless there are industrial sized collection facilities in his neck of the woods, I'd hazard that all that ends up in there ends up in a landfill, and so to ensure they stand a better chance of actually being recycled would probably advocate popping them in the bin at the supermarket that says 'plastic bag recycling'.
However, around the cornflakes it can still often be lurking on in the corner, and I just caught the tail-end of the latest worthy initiative surrounding plastic bags.
Now as I missed the beginning I am not quite sure what it was all about, but here's a link to today's programme, and as this will soon disappear to the initiative in question: mosbags, guerilla bagging.
Sounds fun. No harm. Good luck to them.
But, now, enviROI.
I learned something. 'We' apparently demand/use/dispose of 290 bags a year, and the reporter was seen under a pile of them. Yuk. Thing is, how much plastic is that? No, really, how much? I don't know, but ignoring litter (which IS an issue) and killing wildlife (ditto, though I wonder how much other rubbish in the sea and fields does more), in terms of plastic weight (not volume), how much are we actually talking here? As the aspiring beneficiary of the RE:tie's contribution (though that is turning something that has no use, save disposal currently, into an actual second useful item) I am the first to wish to say every little bit helps, but context is important. If compressed into a block, how many Albert Halls are we talking here or, more personally, how many bottles of fabric softener for example, with one in our kitchen now destined for the bin because I don't know if I can pop it in with the PEP fizzies in the local plastics skip - which to me is a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE!???!
As it is a critique sometimes levelled at much that Junkk.com and I come up with, I also wonder about consumer uptake.
With a family of four and time pressures, my trips to the supermarket are few, far and frantic. What I have done is kept several cardboard bottle carriers in the boots of both cars, which I take with me and pop in the trolley. These make a big difference to the bagging, and with bottles double bagging, that used to be done. I also have a few score hemp jobbies from council shows and eco-expo giveaways, which it now occurs to throw into the mix, too. So this piece has done its job with a slight awareness boost, and credit to them.
But I have to say I need about 10 to handle it all. I noted that this piece was again a bunch of young, single, urban trendies, on foot picking up a sarny and a bottle of Evian (how many bags' worth?), and again wonder how that equates to a harassed parent trying to get the week's shopping in and done.
Personally, if one were organised, I always thought the crate system was better, though the sheer amount of plastic making them seemed huge and possibly poor enviROI from the get go. But the word there is organised. For spontaneity, we are back to remembering to take these no so little bags with us. For a 5 item dash to the corner shop, why not, but for a bigger effort, by foot or even car, how many are going to go there (though logically why not if you are to struggle back with several laden bags) with all these efforts hanging out of your pockets? There is a supposition one is just carrying out that task, from your home base. Is that practical? Is it going to be done?
But, as noted, other countries seem to do fine, and waste is waste, so it must be addressed. I just wish we could be a bit more joined up, recognise some practical realities, and sell it in ways that might appeal beyond a twenty-something BBC researcher's local street community and PR mates, authority box tickers, real-issue, greenwash-distracting, knee-jerk marketers, etc.
Finally, and on a practical note, I was also a little intrigued by the reporter's choice of recycling bin for his 290 bags at the end of the piece: what looked like a street skip. Now unless there are industrial sized collection facilities in his neck of the woods, I'd hazard that all that ends up in there ends up in a landfill, and so to ensure they stand a better chance of actually being recycled would probably advocate popping them in the bin at the supermarket that says 'plastic bag recycling'.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
'Ah'll be barck'
It's spooky when a reader reads what you are reading at the same time, so I'll give Dave of Solarventi a credit, and as writer as well (saves me some RSI!):
A claimed method of direct CO2 extraction from the atmosphere using sorbents – don’t know if it could work on a massive scale but it certainly sounds interesting - http://www.gizmag.com/go/7341/
But when I thought about it for a few minutes, I became rather less enamored of the idea – I can’t help thinking that this sort of solution is perhaps akin to curing a consequential symptom rather than the underlying root cause?
I can see the headlines in a few years now – “Every house should have one! Erect your own CO2 absorbing tower in your garden and continue to fly, drive and burn carbon as much as you like!”
Couldn't agree more and, harking back to a blog on this subject many moons ago, I do recall the movie Total, er, Recall, starring one Arnie. S. Though in that flick it was for good, there is a powerful image at the end of solidified blocks of gas being released and changing the atmosphere in a moment. The towers in the pic even remind me of the movie.
Imagine a bunch of freeze-dried climate gunk suddenly deciding to erupt! I'm sure it couldn't happen, but....
A claimed method of direct CO2 extraction from the atmosphere using sorbents – don’t know if it could work on a massive scale but it certainly sounds interesting - http://www.gizmag.com/go/7341/
But when I thought about it for a few minutes, I became rather less enamored of the idea – I can’t help thinking that this sort of solution is perhaps akin to curing a consequential symptom rather than the underlying root cause?
I can see the headlines in a few years now – “Every house should have one! Erect your own CO2 absorbing tower in your garden and continue to fly, drive and burn carbon as much as you like!”
Couldn't agree more and, harking back to a blog on this subject many moons ago, I do recall the movie Total, er, Recall, starring one Arnie. S. Though in that flick it was for good, there is a powerful image at the end of solidified blocks of gas being released and changing the atmosphere in a moment. The towers in the pic even remind me of the movie.
Imagine a bunch of freeze-dried climate gunk suddenly deciding to erupt! I'm sure it couldn't happen, but....
Critical Acclaim
In a few minutes I'm am looking forward to be visited by representatives of Gloucester University, with a view to seeing how they may help me (and, with luck, and in the spirit of barter, me them).
Frankly, the one thing I am desperate for more than anything is manpower, so while it would be silly to divorce this from money, my dream assistance is simply the gift of time.
Lack of it defines our lives, and so much these days that is poor can be firmly laid at its door as a reason, if not excuse.
I know I am in danger of failing what Junkk.com sets out to be, which is in part a positive resource, and in the form of this blog a constructively critical eyebrow check on what's being spewed out in the name of green, much of which actually isn't very, at all.
One thing that keeps the site perky is new information, and a major source of this is from press releases sent. Actually I have not uploaded one in months, simply because 'I haven't had the time' (rubbish... I have, so long as I didn't eat, see my kids or watch a bit of TV at night). Which is a shame, as there is soem great stuff to share.
Another reason is that I am uncomfortable just cutting and pasting a bit of PR simply to bang something out, as often there is the need for a bit of critical analysis as to who or what is being served by failing to do so.
There's just one of me, for now, and so I hope I can be cut a bit of slack in this regard. Others, with more funding, resource and, one would hope, journalistic experience if not integrity, have less excuse.
This, from Dave at Solarventi: Even the big banks...
...are jumping on the bandwagon now! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6703679.stm
Seems to be a BIG announcement but with almost no substance on just how and what they’re going to do.
Quite.
BBC - Banking on green gesture?
Frankly, the one thing I am desperate for more than anything is manpower, so while it would be silly to divorce this from money, my dream assistance is simply the gift of time.
Lack of it defines our lives, and so much these days that is poor can be firmly laid at its door as a reason, if not excuse.
I know I am in danger of failing what Junkk.com sets out to be, which is in part a positive resource, and in the form of this blog a constructively critical eyebrow check on what's being spewed out in the name of green, much of which actually isn't very, at all.
One thing that keeps the site perky is new information, and a major source of this is from press releases sent. Actually I have not uploaded one in months, simply because 'I haven't had the time' (rubbish... I have, so long as I didn't eat, see my kids or watch a bit of TV at night). Which is a shame, as there is soem great stuff to share.
Another reason is that I am uncomfortable just cutting and pasting a bit of PR simply to bang something out, as often there is the need for a bit of critical analysis as to who or what is being served by failing to do so.
There's just one of me, for now, and so I hope I can be cut a bit of slack in this regard. Others, with more funding, resource and, one would hope, journalistic experience if not integrity, have less excuse.
This, from Dave at Solarventi: Even the big banks...
...are jumping on the bandwagon now! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6703679.stm
Seems to be a BIG announcement but with almost no substance on just how and what they’re going to do.
Quite.
BBC - Banking on green gesture?
We open with a helicopter shot of the Maldives...
In the spirit of boundless optimism, all my TV scripts started that way. Sadly, never once did it come to pass. I doubt it was much to do with nascent eco-concern on my clients' parts.
So I was interested in this:
Agencies risk axe from COI roster over eco credentials
What counts as a 'valid environmental policy'?
Is it ticking some boxes to keep yet another overstaffed quango in business, or actually engaging in tangible practices across the board that lead to a genuine enviROI?
So I was interested in this:
Agencies risk axe from COI roster over eco credentials
What counts as a 'valid environmental policy'?
Is it ticking some boxes to keep yet another overstaffed quango in business, or actually engaging in tangible practices across the board that lead to a genuine enviROI?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Nice guys don't get printed
Hey, it has been a long day...
Working from Home May Produce More CO2 than Going to Office
pfft. I like that.
These days there are too many studies that seem intended to achieve little more than stirring the pot and getting the issuer some PR. Job done, I'd say.
It's all been pretty much said already, but as I'm in my home office in the UK let's offer 2 cents. Yes, in winter the heating is still on during the day, but there are these odd little fellas over here we call radiator thermostats, that allow you to tune the room. And, frankly, with a wife and two kids the rooms being heated the rest of the time don't go too low either as they would howl spousal/parental abuse if they are not erring on the toasty on arrival. And there is the notion (upon which I stand ready to be educated), that it may be better to maintain a well-insulated trickle constant rather than allowing to cool and boost heat up too often.
As to a/c... not yet! With global warming... give it a few years. All I know is when I lived in Singapore, with a daily 32 degrees C and 98% humidity, I did just fine with a fan to keep the air moving.
And for the kettle, well, we have a nifty number here called the ecokettle. Does one cup on demand in 30 environmentally-friendly seconds. And I don't have to make one for a bunch of folk that no one quite knows what they produce or even do anyways. Wit titles like 'Director of...' well, you can think of one.
Plus I get to walk with my kids to and from school and work whilst watching the swans on the River Wye.
It's all a tad moot, as I ain't about to budge, and I doubt many others are either.
Interesting headline though. Bet it did wonders for the ratings, despite that 'may' get out clause. Movin' on...
Working from Home May Produce More CO2 than Going to Office
pfft. I like that.
These days there are too many studies that seem intended to achieve little more than stirring the pot and getting the issuer some PR. Job done, I'd say.
It's all been pretty much said already, but as I'm in my home office in the UK let's offer 2 cents. Yes, in winter the heating is still on during the day, but there are these odd little fellas over here we call radiator thermostats, that allow you to tune the room. And, frankly, with a wife and two kids the rooms being heated the rest of the time don't go too low either as they would howl spousal/parental abuse if they are not erring on the toasty on arrival. And there is the notion (upon which I stand ready to be educated), that it may be better to maintain a well-insulated trickle constant rather than allowing to cool and boost heat up too often.
As to a/c... not yet! With global warming... give it a few years. All I know is when I lived in Singapore, with a daily 32 degrees C and 98% humidity, I did just fine with a fan to keep the air moving.
And for the kettle, well, we have a nifty number here called the ecokettle. Does one cup on demand in 30 environmentally-friendly seconds. And I don't have to make one for a bunch of folk that no one quite knows what they produce or even do anyways. Wit titles like 'Director of...' well, you can think of one.
Plus I get to walk with my kids to and from school and work whilst watching the swans on the River Wye.
It's all a tad moot, as I ain't about to budge, and I doubt many others are either.
Interesting headline though. Bet it did wonders for the ratings, despite that 'may' get out clause. Movin' on...
In the no... idea
Miliband a bit green
As it is just up the road I guess I should have gone, but thank you for this review as substitute. Sadly it merely confirms everything I am coming to believe about this government's commitment to things environmental, and its competence in doing anything fair, practical and effective addressing them even if it had any notion beyond meeting targets and making various peripheral, questionably useful folk very rich
After all that has been shared, THIS is the best that they could come up with?
ps: Nice one, Mr. Hood; Nice one.
Guardian - Is political leadership renewable? - How does one get to write these efforts?
I'm a bit more concerned with whether it has the brains, remnants of public-service commitment and honesty to assess the local, national and global enviROI (return on investment that goes beyond the financial and addresses tangible environmental gains and not just target-meeting for bonus-burghers and short-term political points-scoring) of such initiatives and, assuming these to be real and worthwhile, have the ability and small vestiges of trust that are left necessary to explain it to the population in terms they can understand, appreciate and respond to positively.
What are the odds? The last few eco-outings (road pricing, chip 'n bin, etc) have not gone too well, really. Unsurprising, as most seem to have been based on trying to impose on the public penalties to compensate for a decade of listening and fudging, when a bit of early-adoption hearing and acting might have spared a few behinds from the exposure they are trying to shunt over to a less than willing electorate.
It's a pity, because so much of these efforts are needed and do make sense in an ever-more crowed world, but knee-jerks to meet targets, and issuing bonuses to departments and quangos who exceed them with more hype than substance is not the best way, IMHO, to get the public to buy into anything.
As it is just up the road I guess I should have gone, but thank you for this review as substitute. Sadly it merely confirms everything I am coming to believe about this government's commitment to things environmental, and its competence in doing anything fair, practical and effective addressing them even if it had any notion beyond meeting targets and making various peripheral, questionably useful folk very rich
After all that has been shared, THIS is the best that they could come up with?
ps: Nice one, Mr. Hood; Nice one.
Guardian - Is political leadership renewable? - How does one get to write these efforts?
I'm a bit more concerned with whether it has the brains, remnants of public-service commitment and honesty to assess the local, national and global enviROI (return on investment that goes beyond the financial and addresses tangible environmental gains and not just target-meeting for bonus-burghers and short-term political points-scoring) of such initiatives and, assuming these to be real and worthwhile, have the ability and small vestiges of trust that are left necessary to explain it to the population in terms they can understand, appreciate and respond to positively.
What are the odds? The last few eco-outings (road pricing, chip 'n bin, etc) have not gone too well, really. Unsurprising, as most seem to have been based on trying to impose on the public penalties to compensate for a decade of listening and fudging, when a bit of early-adoption hearing and acting might have spared a few behinds from the exposure they are trying to shunt over to a less than willing electorate.
It's a pity, because so much of these efforts are needed and do make sense in an ever-more crowed world, but knee-jerks to meet targets, and issuing bonuses to departments and quangos who exceed them with more hype than substance is not the best way, IMHO, to get the public to buy into anything.
More from the Brown mouth.
I just got an invite to another talkfest, again in London. This time from COMPASS, the of the democratic left. I won't be going. Not for any political reasons, but I did a cost/benefit analysis and, even at a reasonable £22, it's too far for what's on offer.
But I did reply to the invite, from the Chair:
Thank you for the invitation; I am afraid I will not be able to attend.
I wish you luck with many of your stated aims.
'in less than a month Gordon Brown will be Prime Minister. Gordon has said he’ll listen and he needs to. '
If this is the best Mr. Brown can manage you are going to need it. I have lost count of the number of occasions where I have heard in person or seen reported that he, or a member of this government 'will listen'. This has fast become code for 'delay as long as possible until it goes away, doesn't matter any more or happens on someone else's watch, preferably after my fellow ministers and I have long gone following a long and comfortable gold-plate funded retirement.' Good for them; not so hot for the rest of us, the country... or planet.
Me, I'd like to see a little more 'doing' all round, and soon. And not the meeting targets kind, the actually doing something good kind.
Maybe you guys can prod them in that novel direction of what public service is supposed to be about again.
But I did reply to the invite, from the Chair:
Thank you for the invitation; I am afraid I will not be able to attend.
I wish you luck with many of your stated aims.
'in less than a month Gordon Brown will be Prime Minister. Gordon has said he’ll listen and he needs to. '
If this is the best Mr. Brown can manage you are going to need it. I have lost count of the number of occasions where I have heard in person or seen reported that he, or a member of this government 'will listen'. This has fast become code for 'delay as long as possible until it goes away, doesn't matter any more or happens on someone else's watch, preferably after my fellow ministers and I have long gone following a long and comfortable gold-plate funded retirement.' Good for them; not so hot for the rest of us, the country... or planet.
Me, I'd like to see a little more 'doing' all round, and soon. And not the meeting targets kind, the actually doing something good kind.
Maybe you guys can prod them in that novel direction of what public service is supposed to be about again.
Being a Goddess is not easy
I just have to share this from the person the Indy has hired, one presumes at great expense, to discover, share and inspire with us all the travails of going green:
The Green Goddess
Who cannot but empathise with the dilemma being faced, with a free week looming, such that one could not face using it to fly somewhere.
But at least we can all fall back on a Health Spa in deepest Surrey, where the sun shines all week and there is a great new outdoor pool. I'm sure it's not heated, so imagine the further pain being suffered.
I, for one, cannot wait to learn what else she has to share.
The Green Goddess
Who cannot but empathise with the dilemma being faced, with a free week looming, such that one could not face using it to fly somewhere.
But at least we can all fall back on a Health Spa in deepest Surrey, where the sun shines all week and there is a great new outdoor pool. I'm sure it's not heated, so imagine the further pain being suffered.
I, for one, cannot wait to learn what else she has to share.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Plastic Tracks
I think I can be credited by wanting to know, and hence seeking the most objective explanations wherever possible, but I have to say I just came across a couple of bits of packaging technology and application that have left me stumped for a reasonable raison d'etre.
At some stage the relative merits of in-person vs. online shopping will be clear (well, vs. no shopping at all, I guess), but as a family we do tend to prefer the latter.
Hence the men from TNT, Royal Mail and DHL are often at our door.
And they are always bearing boxes. Now, I'm the first to accept that a damaged item is not helping the planet in terms of waste of material, manufacture and journeys made, but lately the relative sizes of the boxes to the item have got waaaay out of proportion.
And, to compensate, the packing filler has expanded to match... or cope. So I now have miles of this stuff, and am struggling to find a location, suspecting that I might be only one of few who might be so minded.
I am also intrigued by the little 'eco' label on each air-sac. Better than nothing, maybe, but surely to heavens there has to be a better, equally affordable alternative?
I'm seeing a new 'Re': reaction
I don't mind doing my bit. What I do mind is being threatened with god knows what if I don't, to mainly dig out of a hole (pun intended) a bunch of pols who chose not to see this coming until now, or line the pockets of their quango and private contractor chums sorting it out (pun intended).
What a rubbish way to run a country
Looks like I'm not the only one.
The logical, fair way, is to reduce what goes into the system, facilitate the means to dispose of what cannot be so reduced (as opposed to fine first and figure out last), and incentivise rather the demonise to inspire public cooperation.
Costly rubbish technology
The logic of the letters written here is so inescapable I can do more
than add my support... and wonder why we have the systems we have,
backed by punitive legislative proposals and/or mammoth and
unworkable systems and ever more 'initiatives' to be managed
by ever more vast armies of assessors, with a thin veneer of publicly-
funded encouragement to cooperate, designed mainly to meet
bonus targets achieved by using our money persuade us to do the work...
and further reward those who couldn't get it right in the first place.
With luck and by being sufficiently upwind of the odious emanations
from these pseudo-green mandarins, if we are by the time still allowed one,
the verdict on all this can be made at the polling booth.
EcoLogical
I don't know about ready for Ozzy as it's saviour, but this inhabitant of the planet is getting a little less than inspired by those who advocate its saving as a career booster (or creative inspiration, to be generous) whilst not as, such, per se, seeing it applying to them as being practical or indeed necessary. I simply can't wait for how Live Earth pans out as a consequence.
As to pols copping the consequences of their actions, the same 'it doesn't apply to me, of course' seems to pervade every corner of Westminster, so no matter what they put in place, they will either not get to experience it or, if in failing to do so as required, pay for it.
Get the feeling we're all just a tad low on inspiration for all we're being fed? Wonder why?
What a rubbish way to run a country
Looks like I'm not the only one.
The logical, fair way, is to reduce what goes into the system, facilitate the means to dispose of what cannot be so reduced (as opposed to fine first and figure out last), and incentivise rather the demonise to inspire public cooperation.
Costly rubbish technology
The logic of the letters written here is so inescapable I can do more
than add my support... and wonder why we have the systems we have,
backed by punitive legislative proposals and/or mammoth and
unworkable systems and ever more 'initiatives' to be managed
by ever more vast armies of assessors, with a thin veneer of publicly-
funded encouragement to cooperate, designed mainly to meet
bonus targets achieved by using our money persuade us to do the work...
and further reward those who couldn't get it right in the first place.
With luck and by being sufficiently upwind of the odious emanations
from these pseudo-green mandarins, if we are by the time still allowed one,
the verdict on all this can be made at the polling booth.
EcoLogical
I don't know about ready for Ozzy as it's saviour, but this inhabitant of the planet is getting a little less than inspired by those who advocate its saving as a career booster (or creative inspiration, to be generous) whilst not as, such, per se, seeing it applying to them as being practical or indeed necessary. I simply can't wait for how Live Earth pans out as a consequence.
As to pols copping the consequences of their actions, the same 'it doesn't apply to me, of course' seems to pervade every corner of Westminster, so no matter what they put in place, they will either not get to experience it or, if in failing to do so as required, pay for it.
Get the feeling we're all just a tad low on inspiration for all we're being fed? Wonder why?
You can let the green elite out of London, but...
"If you are coming to Hay this year then leave the Hummer in the garage and plug in the Prius."
The joys of going green
Some interesting comments here, with valid views on both financial (you can obviously make the choice to lose money but conduct a more eco lifestyle, and more power to your elbow... IF you can afford it) and enviROI (benefit to the planet, which often seems to be worryingly vague with some initiatives I've seen espoused, with a suspicion too much is touted, too enthusiastically and uncritically, as simply looking green without actually being it).
It all boils down to accurate information, delivered without agenda or spin, so one can make purchase and lifestyle decisions in the best interests of the future whilst trying to support a family (as a few have pointed out, it's easier being green with a wadge in the bank and/or the promise of a career funded talking about it).
Bearing that in mind, I'd say the Hummer is not only best left in the garage, but also probably also best left unpurchased. And while the Prius may be the auto-du-jour of the affluent urban eco-warrior, it may not necessarily be best to make the trip from London to Hay in if one has a stable of options in the garage. You'd surely mainly be mainly lugging a battery along for the ride.
Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure it's self charging - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius - 'it uses a gasoline/electric hybrid powertrain, incorporating large batteries that are charged by the gas (petrol) engine directly or by regenerative braking (cannot be plugged in as built)' - so if you do try plugging it in, you may get a bit of a shock.
Me, I think I'll keep my 10-year-old Volvo well-maintained, tyre pressures optimal, and continue to try and figure out whether Mr. Brown's successor will decide that the Treasury is losing too much money encouraging us all to go green, and whacks a load more duty on LPG, bio-whatever or 'it's not just hydrogen, it's Stuart Rose's 6 litre hydrogen-powered Beemer'.
The joys of going green
Some interesting comments here, with valid views on both financial (you can obviously make the choice to lose money but conduct a more eco lifestyle, and more power to your elbow... IF you can afford it) and enviROI (benefit to the planet, which often seems to be worryingly vague with some initiatives I've seen espoused, with a suspicion too much is touted, too enthusiastically and uncritically, as simply looking green without actually being it).
It all boils down to accurate information, delivered without agenda or spin, so one can make purchase and lifestyle decisions in the best interests of the future whilst trying to support a family (as a few have pointed out, it's easier being green with a wadge in the bank and/or the promise of a career funded talking about it).
Bearing that in mind, I'd say the Hummer is not only best left in the garage, but also probably also best left unpurchased. And while the Prius may be the auto-du-jour of the affluent urban eco-warrior, it may not necessarily be best to make the trip from London to Hay in if one has a stable of options in the garage. You'd surely mainly be mainly lugging a battery along for the ride.
Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure it's self charging - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius - 'it uses a gasoline/electric hybrid powertrain, incorporating large batteries that are charged by the gas (petrol) engine directly or by regenerative braking (cannot be plugged in as built)' - so if you do try plugging it in, you may get a bit of a shock.
Me, I think I'll keep my 10-year-old Volvo well-maintained, tyre pressures optimal, and continue to try and figure out whether Mr. Brown's successor will decide that the Treasury is losing too much money encouraging us all to go green, and whacks a load more duty on LPG, bio-whatever or 'it's not just hydrogen, it's Stuart Rose's 6 litre hydrogen-powered Beemer'.
Spinning is tops
A report on something I was present at, and had a rather different take upon.
WI flexes muscles over excess packaging
I was there when this speech was made, and examples of 'gratuitous packaging' were paraded, which lead to the now infamous 'Banana Metaphor'.
Because, in the spirit of my own education and informing the public, I asked why a cited pack of bananas was indeed so wastefully wrapped in plastic. It seemed odd to go to the expense of doing so if it was not necessary.
Considering that meetings had been held with everyone from Gordon Brown to Terry Leahy by the WI, I was a little perturbed that despite the leap to high-profile criticism, no one seemed to have tried to find out why, or derived a satisfactory answer.
Those my question generated from the floor ranged from protection from organic rotting gases to preventing food waste from singletons dropping from hands and being deemed consumer unacceptable. Both potentially environmentally sound, if true, I’d hazard, but I am still unsure as the very industry that handles this seemed to have differing explanations in justification.
One statistic, also needing confirmation, that did strike me was that food waste represents 95% of total vs. 5% from packaging, and hence one wonders why more effort should not be devoted to reducing this first?
WI flexes muscles over excess packaging
I was there when this speech was made, and examples of 'gratuitous packaging' were paraded, which lead to the now infamous 'Banana Metaphor'.
Because, in the spirit of my own education and informing the public, I asked why a cited pack of bananas was indeed so wastefully wrapped in plastic. It seemed odd to go to the expense of doing so if it was not necessary.
Considering that meetings had been held with everyone from Gordon Brown to Terry Leahy by the WI, I was a little perturbed that despite the leap to high-profile criticism, no one seemed to have tried to find out why, or derived a satisfactory answer.
Those my question generated from the floor ranged from protection from organic rotting gases to preventing food waste from singletons dropping from hands and being deemed consumer unacceptable. Both potentially environmentally sound, if true, I’d hazard, but I am still unsure as the very industry that handles this seemed to have differing explanations in justification.
One statistic, also needing confirmation, that did strike me was that food waste represents 95% of total vs. 5% from packaging, and hence one wonders why more effort should not be devoted to reducing this first?
Death, Taxes, Bank Holiday Weather...
... and 4x4 protests.
All are inevitable.
Yesterday I picked up my - very bedraggled - sons from a Scouting camp.
It took a bit of doing. They were in a glorious piece of the country, and one reason it is like that is because it is a tad inaccessible.
Now, while it was a very uncomfortable and awkward hump to get all their personal stuff from the camp to the nearest point I could get my car, the mess tents, cooking stuff, etc were... are (still - we go back if we can gain access later this week) another matter.
It got me to wondering what will happen if 4x4s are rendered uneconomically viable or, as could happen, get banned. One could argue that this would return large tracts of the countryside to a kinder, gentler, motorised-free age.
Or... that farming would cease to be practical, and we'll simply entertain our kids by grabbing a plane to where the weather is nice(r).
I just think that before things get too hasty, and to symbolic, we should be careful what we wish for.
All are inevitable.
Yesterday I picked up my - very bedraggled - sons from a Scouting camp.
It took a bit of doing. They were in a glorious piece of the country, and one reason it is like that is because it is a tad inaccessible.
Now, while it was a very uncomfortable and awkward hump to get all their personal stuff from the camp to the nearest point I could get my car, the mess tents, cooking stuff, etc were... are (still - we go back if we can gain access later this week) another matter.
It got me to wondering what will happen if 4x4s are rendered uneconomically viable or, as could happen, get banned. One could argue that this would return large tracts of the countryside to a kinder, gentler, motorised-free age.
Or... that farming would cease to be practical, and we'll simply entertain our kids by grabbing a plane to where the weather is nice(r).
I just think that before things get too hasty, and to symbolic, we should be careful what we wish for.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
More Cats. More bags. But is anyone listening to the chorus?
This one almost slipped by me: SCANDAL OF WASTED MILLIONS AS BRITAIN'S RUBBISH PILES UP
It's very short, and very tabloid. But worth reading.
Thing is, will anyone pay any attention, much less do anything about it all?
ADDENDUM - A tad more:
THE GREAT DUSTBIN GRAVY TRAIN
I rather fear that this will be dropped and disposed of like yesterday's news. But considering the amounts involved, the public does deserve accountability.
Without wanting to get party political, as Shadow Environment Minister Greg Barker says: “We are entitled to ask what we are getting in return. WRAP has done some valuable work but it is not enough. We need an organisation that is more accountable and has more teeth, rather than just having more consultants, more bureaucracy and more short-term initiatives.”
I'm afraid that if this is the best that can be offered in justification, it is simply not good enough: 'WRAP spokesman Gareth Lloyd last night claimed the quango produced value for money and had met its targets to increase recycling and cut waste going to landfill. He said the salary bill had soared to pay for extra staff to cope with the increase in WRAP’s remit since it was set up seven years ago. '
This time I simply want to know what has been the ROI as a taxpayer, and enviROI as a co-dweller on this planet. I know what they have had to spend, and getting vast sums to create empires doesn't do diddly for either, and when it comes to the comms budget they have had to drive up the rates they get bonusses for improving, I'm sorry, but as an ad man the numbers simply are pathetic.
This offers an interesting complement: Recycling's green contribution questioned
Environment Agency (EA) chief executive Barbara Young has said: “recycling does not really contribute much to tackling climate change.” The comments contradict findings of a 2006 Waste & Resources Action Programme report.
I was moved to reply:
I’m sorry, but as a very confused, and hence hard to engage member of the public (what you don’t understand, or believe, makes persuasion a lot harder. And two funded quangos knocking spots off each other is unlikely to unmuddy these waters) all I need is some simple guidance on what represents good enviROI (benefit to my kids’ future) with, preferably at the same time, a decent financial ROI as a taxpayer.
I’d have to say that, as an alternative to doing nothing, recycling seems a no-brainer. What it’s costing is a much bigger issue. So it may be legitimately asked whether a slavish devotion to meeting targets is the best way other than, as this weekend’s Sunday Express seems to have raised, generating massive financial rewards for those who benefit by spending public money to boost their bonuses. Considering the PR climate and sums committed on advertising, one would blooming well expect rates to go up, so using my money to make me work for free to drive up fat cat incentive schemes seems... quaint, at best.
It’s not a matter of the EA claim saying recycling does not help mitigate climate change – as it patently can do - but simply how much of a positive it represents as a total of our consumer behaviours. And what its relative value therefore is. Especially when it comes to huge public comms budgets. It therefore seems possible that these vast sums may not have been best directed to achieve a worthwhile envROI.
And I, for one, find questioning THAT more than helpful.
Silence is Golden... balls
We seem to be drifting into some kind of a phony war across every aspect of our lives. And I mean it is being 'fought' by phonys from left and right, politically
As I catch up on the past week's emails I have had the TV on and find myself shaking my head.
From civil liberties to the environment, a succession of folk have paraded across the screen and said... absolutely nothing, either through ignorance or choice, about some vastly important issues. Gordon Brown, our next leader, is a truly dire practitioner of this technique, to his immense discredit.
Peter Hain, the aspiring DPM, and member of the Cabinet, seems to have not been in the loop of plans for some swingeing proposals to 'help' counter terrorism. Yet he infers we should give the thumbs up as an electorate.
Ditto the chroming Gallic boss of EDF energy. While I credit Andrew Marr for asking him, I can't help but not the critique levelled recently against the BBC and its celeb interviewers that they give big business leaders an easy ride. As to what we do with all the glowing gunk his proposed nukes will leave behind long after he has retired to his sunny villa, his allowed reply was that 'we should instead focus on the big picture'. Er, no. What are these actual proposals, monsieur? A promised talking shop won't do at this stage.
All these replies are based on trust. But there simply is none, with very good reason.
If the media are incapable of marshaling and reflecting our feelings on this, I can only hope the democratic process may yet to be roused to do so. Soon.
As I catch up on the past week's emails I have had the TV on and find myself shaking my head.
From civil liberties to the environment, a succession of folk have paraded across the screen and said... absolutely nothing, either through ignorance or choice, about some vastly important issues. Gordon Brown, our next leader, is a truly dire practitioner of this technique, to his immense discredit.
Peter Hain, the aspiring DPM, and member of the Cabinet, seems to have not been in the loop of plans for some swingeing proposals to 'help' counter terrorism. Yet he infers we should give the thumbs up as an electorate.
Ditto the chroming Gallic boss of EDF energy. While I credit Andrew Marr for asking him, I can't help but not the critique levelled recently against the BBC and its celeb interviewers that they give big business leaders an easy ride. As to what we do with all the glowing gunk his proposed nukes will leave behind long after he has retired to his sunny villa, his allowed reply was that 'we should instead focus on the big picture'. Er, no. What are these actual proposals, monsieur? A promised talking shop won't do at this stage.
All these replies are based on trust. But there simply is none, with very good reason.
If the media are incapable of marshaling and reflecting our feelings on this, I can only hope the democratic process may yet to be roused to do so. Soon.
Philips washes greener?
Philips launches green tick logo
I may be missing something by not being privy to more than is outlined in this piece, but I’m afraid it really only raises more questions in my mind.
While any commitment to the environment - by anyone - is better than nothing, I am looking at the enviROI (return on investment to the environment) of this initiative and having trouble tracing it through.
To kick off, this consumer at least has plenty of logos enough already to wade through already, most of which I already have little clue what they mean. And I am presuming this is unique to this brand, which is quaint, but essentially meaningless. I’m sure it will be accompanied by a huge campaign to tout it around, but it’s a wonder how much that will serve to influence my purchase behaviour in a competitive market (especially when other manufacturers will doubtless be designing a leaf out of their own book), versus simply ticking a box on the CSR list at AGM time.
Whilst refreshingly honest, it also seems to make the point that they have a lot that is not that eco, and one has to wonder why? So for me the claim at the end, and the effort behind it, has about as much value as the marketing speak waffle used to explain it. I’m afraid the only green I’m sensing won’t wash.
I may be missing something by not being privy to more than is outlined in this piece, but I’m afraid it really only raises more questions in my mind.
While any commitment to the environment - by anyone - is better than nothing, I am looking at the enviROI (return on investment to the environment) of this initiative and having trouble tracing it through.
To kick off, this consumer at least has plenty of logos enough already to wade through already, most of which I already have little clue what they mean. And I am presuming this is unique to this brand, which is quaint, but essentially meaningless. I’m sure it will be accompanied by a huge campaign to tout it around, but it’s a wonder how much that will serve to influence my purchase behaviour in a competitive market (especially when other manufacturers will doubtless be designing a leaf out of their own book), versus simply ticking a box on the CSR list at AGM time.
Whilst refreshingly honest, it also seems to make the point that they have a lot that is not that eco, and one has to wonder why? So for me the claim at the end, and the effort behind it, has about as much value as the marketing speak waffle used to explain it. I’m afraid the only green I’m sensing won’t wash.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Space, the final...solution?
I'd already posted on this baby, but in reviewing the posts (a lot, but some good ones, so I broke my 'no more than 100' rule) I found I might have been hasty in my critique of our reaching for the stars efforts. Well, at least the punting rich geezers up there bit , anyway.
As there are some here who seem to know, I would like to tap into the collective intellectual resource being brought to bear to help me with a question.
For a while I have been perhaps a tad less than fair to one Mr. R Branson in having doubts on his claimed green campaigns - towing planes to take-off (did that ever happen?), biofuel-powered planes (could that ever happen?) and £25M eco-prizes (does that include waiving the rights to profit sharing?) - especially when one of his highest profile current extravaganzas seems to be sending rich tourists into space atop what I had thought to be a massive column of greenhouse gasses.
Now it seems that I may have been unjust, and it's all 'just' (I have to presume there's a smidge of energy in the production, and possibly a tad of pollution still involved in the combustion) oxygen and hydrogen, though I also do recall steam to be considered a greenhouse gas.
We have a most helpful earlier offering as regards Ariane, but can anyone enlighten me as to what other space borne efforts, including Virgin Galactic, actually do consume and exhaust?
ADDENDUM:
One of the (many) frustrations of a moderated system is that Qs can cross with As, and debates can get a tad jumbled. A classic of the former has just happened here, and I pretty much got my answer in an overlap. Fortunately, it seems my usual admittance of bozoness, combined with a quest for answers, was not far off the right track. Unless this latest guy is wrong, I guess. He doesn't sound like he would be, though.
As there are some here who seem to know, I would like to tap into the collective intellectual resource being brought to bear to help me with a question.
For a while I have been perhaps a tad less than fair to one Mr. R Branson in having doubts on his claimed green campaigns - towing planes to take-off (did that ever happen?), biofuel-powered planes (could that ever happen?) and £25M eco-prizes (does that include waiving the rights to profit sharing?) - especially when one of his highest profile current extravaganzas seems to be sending rich tourists into space atop what I had thought to be a massive column of greenhouse gasses.
Now it seems that I may have been unjust, and it's all 'just' (I have to presume there's a smidge of energy in the production, and possibly a tad of pollution still involved in the combustion) oxygen and hydrogen, though I also do recall steam to be considered a greenhouse gas.
We have a most helpful earlier offering as regards Ariane, but can anyone enlighten me as to what other space borne efforts, including Virgin Galactic, actually do consume and exhaust?
ADDENDUM:
One of the (many) frustrations of a moderated system is that Qs can cross with As, and debates can get a tad jumbled. A classic of the former has just happened here, and I pretty much got my answer in an overlap. Fortunately, it seems my usual admittance of bozoness, combined with a quest for answers, was not far off the right track. Unless this latest guy is wrong, I guess. He doesn't sound like he would be, though.
Gentlemen... unfurl your sails.
Not convinced: Powerboat plan to go round world in 65 ecofriendly days
'Course, not using any combustible fuel at all and sailing using
no-emission wind power is perhaps a tad more eco-friendlier still -
if you are sincere in trying to make some point about saving the
planet, and not just scoring a few greenwash points and column inches
whilst having a hell of a jolly.
'Course, not using any combustible fuel at all and sailing using
no-emission wind power is perhaps a tad more eco-friendlier still -
if you are sincere in trying to make some point about saving the
planet, and not just scoring a few greenwash points and column inches
whilst having a hell of a jolly.
Meanwhile, our elected representatives continue to lead by example...
Noting the source, but the facts still seen clear: Prescott stretches 'junket' into family holiday
Ditto: Blair’s farewell tour stains his green legacy with carbon
Sunday Telegraph - Things we won't miss: Two Jags, 19.8 staff, a £2.4m bill
Ditto: Blair’s farewell tour stains his green legacy with carbon
Sunday Telegraph - Things we won't miss: Two Jags, 19.8 staff, a £2.4m bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)