I made a mistake last night, albeit with the best of intentions.
Though I co-designed pretty much every aspect of the site, the reality is I did it with pen and paper and briefed in 'making it so' to guys who knew/know a lot better how to make it all happen. And as it did get handed over from the first set to the current one in not the best of circumstances, there is frankly a vast amount that is somewhat of a mystery in the details.
Don't worry; nothing too awful, but just some operational functions in the admin area seem to have a slight mind of their own.
Anyway, in anticipation of our next newsletter I was looking through the system and stumbled across what seemed to be a bunch of people who had signed up but seemed to have been left in some kind of limbo. We're talking names, passwords, nicknames, where they read/heard about us, etc. Hard to see how it was not genuine. It appears they had been denied final confirmation by some discrepancy between our registration system and their personal ISP, firewalls, etc.
So I thought it would be nice to try and sort this out, and clicked on something that I hoped would allow me.. us to write and ask them if they would like to stay with us. Well, somewhere... somehow... that act simply fired off a confirmation.
Now I'm hoping that most will be cool and either be happy their confirmation has at last come through or, if for some reason it was not them (who signs up another person with such details?) will simply ask to be removed, which is easy enough to do.
Or, if I'm unlucky, someone (who will not be reading this having been, on firm demand, promptly actively removed from the system) will make rather more of it all than perhaps the situation demanded. Fingers crossed!
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Telling you so.
Today was another bumper crop of eco on BBC Breakfast news.
First up was part of an ongoing series on 'Future Schools', which on the whole can only be a very good thing. So much so, I might make this something to assist with.
My only slight concern was the mantra nature of the information being dished out and played back by some of the kids, but that might have been a consequence of the terrible addiction to silly short timeslots and 'that's all we have time for' that is today's TV. I loved the science and the way the kids were getting on board, but there was a slight eyebrow twitch at what seemed to me was a trip to Japan to study what they are doing over there. It's an impossible task trying to balance our need for/addiction to travel - especially in the name of education and promoting good eco-behaviour - but I have to wonder at the symbolism of a child cranking that out without being aware of the irony. And I couldn't resist a slight guffaw at the wind turbine 'providing power for 3 homes' - except, one presumes, at the dead stop it was shown with. I fear I hear the slight sound of boxes being ticked, with targets and agendas being met too much at the expense at decent, objective, questioning education.
I want my kids to be aware, concerned and proactive about their future, but I don't want them trotting out stuff they are fed as a done deal, that may not be quite so clear cut in reality.
What I did feel was telling was that out of a £50M pot to green-up public buildings, only £1M has so far been used. Er... why? Don't tell me, £49M is required to staff the system to administer it. Oo... oo... sir, I know. Let's run an ad campaign!
Then, there was almost VERY GOOD piece about recycling, based on a Which? report. The intro inferred, to my approbation, that the big problem with all this is that consumers don't know what can and can't be recycled, and often have little help to do so correctly.
I have to say I groaned a bit that to address this we were treated to the thoughts of Neil & Christine Hamilton, though there was also a rather charming and erudite Michael Warhurst from the FoE. Sadly he was unable or not provided enough opportunity to do too much to develop on his expertise, such that we were treated to a load more 'will need looking ats' than much that moved anything on.
Funnily enough Neil, who was there as the spoiler (well, more so than Christine), posed quite a few sensible questions and legitimate concerns, and they really did not get answered very well. At least to allow the viewer to feel theirs 'as consumers' had been addressed.
As I wrote to the BBC (in the slim hope of a plug, if they have short memories):
RE:hashing
It is good to hear some thoughts on the actual enviROI (benefit to the planet) of some more target-based systems such as recycling, which can often be very uncritically served up by those with a vested interest in meeting them. Let us not forget that re:duction, re:use and re:pair all stand higher on the re:hierarchy.
ADDENDUM:
If you look in the comment section you will see there is one with a very useful lead to the Which? report via an equally great find, a website called newscounter
This is obviously an issue to follow very carefully, and I will.
It's so odd, because I was just talking this morning with the editor of Recycling and Waste World (another worthy read to stay on top of things) about this, and trying to get my head around how this story tallied with their front page that 92% of local authorities now offer plastic bottle recycling.
First up was part of an ongoing series on 'Future Schools', which on the whole can only be a very good thing. So much so, I might make this something to assist with.
My only slight concern was the mantra nature of the information being dished out and played back by some of the kids, but that might have been a consequence of the terrible addiction to silly short timeslots and 'that's all we have time for' that is today's TV. I loved the science and the way the kids were getting on board, but there was a slight eyebrow twitch at what seemed to me was a trip to Japan to study what they are doing over there. It's an impossible task trying to balance our need for/addiction to travel - especially in the name of education and promoting good eco-behaviour - but I have to wonder at the symbolism of a child cranking that out without being aware of the irony. And I couldn't resist a slight guffaw at the wind turbine 'providing power for 3 homes' - except, one presumes, at the dead stop it was shown with. I fear I hear the slight sound of boxes being ticked, with targets and agendas being met too much at the expense at decent, objective, questioning education.
I want my kids to be aware, concerned and proactive about their future, but I don't want them trotting out stuff they are fed as a done deal, that may not be quite so clear cut in reality.
What I did feel was telling was that out of a £50M pot to green-up public buildings, only £1M has so far been used. Er... why? Don't tell me, £49M is required to staff the system to administer it. Oo... oo... sir, I know. Let's run an ad campaign!
Then, there was almost VERY GOOD piece about recycling, based on a Which? report. The intro inferred, to my approbation, that the big problem with all this is that consumers don't know what can and can't be recycled, and often have little help to do so correctly.
I have to say I groaned a bit that to address this we were treated to the thoughts of Neil & Christine Hamilton, though there was also a rather charming and erudite Michael Warhurst from the FoE. Sadly he was unable or not provided enough opportunity to do too much to develop on his expertise, such that we were treated to a load more 'will need looking ats' than much that moved anything on.
Funnily enough Neil, who was there as the spoiler (well, more so than Christine), posed quite a few sensible questions and legitimate concerns, and they really did not get answered very well. At least to allow the viewer to feel theirs 'as consumers' had been addressed.
As I wrote to the BBC (in the slim hope of a plug, if they have short memories):
RE:hashing
It is good to hear some thoughts on the actual enviROI (benefit to the planet) of some more target-based systems such as recycling, which can often be very uncritically served up by those with a vested interest in meeting them. Let us not forget that re:duction, re:use and re:pair all stand higher on the re:hierarchy.
ADDENDUM:
If you look in the comment section you will see there is one with a very useful lead to the Which? report via an equally great find, a website called newscounter
This is obviously an issue to follow very carefully, and I will.
It's so odd, because I was just talking this morning with the editor of Recycling and Waste World (another worthy read to stay on top of things) about this, and trying to get my head around how this story tallied with their front page that 92% of local authorities now offer plastic bottle recycling.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Gee, eight guys talking. And some.
Warm words won't save us
I am interested, and hence would value any others' views, on the relative merits of what gets hyped, talked about... and actually addressed, for anything other than political, activist or ratings-driven agendas.
For instance, the other day I stumbled across what seemed to me an extraordinary discrepancy in positive climate word vs. deed, or effort vs. result, in the form of the launch of Cool Earth
Now, I stand ready to be persuaded otherwise, but if a years' worth of deforestation is responsible for a greater CO2 consequence (in terms of absorption) than the entire pollution (a mate of mine has pointed out that word seems to have been dropped in favour of 'emissions', with consequentially rosier allusions) created by the USA, then surely this warrants a serious mention at least? Or at least decent debate?
Or are we going to keep on with all this faffing about, arguing about who says what, with the big stuff locked in inertia and eco-chancers making capital out of sideshows?
I truly wish for clear leadership, and non-agenda-skewed information, based on genuine enviROIs, such that I can make decisions and act to improve my kids' future chances.
BBC - How Gr8 is G8?
I am interested, and hence would value any others' views, on the relative merits of what gets hyped, talked about... and actually addressed, for anything other than political, activist or ratings-driven agendas.
For instance, the other day I stumbled across what seemed to me an extraordinary discrepancy in positive climate word vs. deed, or effort vs. result, in the form of the launch of Cool Earth
Now, I stand ready to be persuaded otherwise, but if a years' worth of deforestation is responsible for a greater CO2 consequence (in terms of absorption) than the entire pollution (a mate of mine has pointed out that word seems to have been dropped in favour of 'emissions', with consequentially rosier allusions) created by the USA, then surely this warrants a serious mention at least? Or at least decent debate?
Or are we going to keep on with all this faffing about, arguing about who says what, with the big stuff locked in inertia and eco-chancers making capital out of sideshows?
I truly wish for clear leadership, and non-agenda-skewed information, based on genuine enviROIs, such that I can make decisions and act to improve my kids' future chances.
BBC - How Gr8 is G8?
Interesting word, Wind. It can mean so many things.
There is the cool breeze. The less welcome result of combining beer, beans and a teenager. Or, of course, when pronounced and applied differently it can be a verb, as in 'to wind up'.
Change is in the wind as business climate turns green
Next week, courtesy of one of the speakers (David North of Tesco - to whom I am most grateful for the invitation), I have a rare opportunity to be present as a guest at one of these rarefied events: the Guardian Climate Change Summit.
Sadly, I missed the one referred to above. It will be interesting to see how they compare, or at least how my views tally with those of the correspondent responsible for this piece.
It's an interesting one, because it seems to be trying to be a few things at once, at least beyond the facts. In part supportive, and justifiably positive about genuine initiatives, but also in part pretty cautious, lest the promises fall short in the cold, hard light of subsequent days.
Frankly I am not sure what to expect next week, and will look forward to what I hope is a good opportunity to network, learn and contribute. I will of course be sharing it all here.
This Guardian piece is, at least, a fair preparation. It seems unlikely that those attending the same conference as I am will be much different to the other one, though on current evidence there are a heck of a lot of conferences with a heck of a lot of folk tasked to attend them, with titles to match. How "Junkk Male/Big 'Ed" will fit with "head of climate change" or "head of environmental management" or "climate change leader" remains to be seen. I think I will have to bite my lip and resist the temptation, at least with the climate change variety, and not ask them to confirm that they are least tasked with 'heading', or 'leading' it in a positive direction. Or just how far from the boardroom table where the money decisions get made they actually are.
There is no doubting it has indeed become a big issue for such as consumer brands, but I do note and also understand the scepticism created, after all that has been expended to date, of just 14% admitting to having a clear strategy for tackling the issue, while many fund managers saw companies primarily motivated by a desire to get "the green fraternity off their backs". Ouch.
And then there is the vast industry that exists to feed of this... concern... which I'm still trying to identify (ie: sincerely tackling the issue, or getting folk off various backs?). Just one 'consultancy' has a staff of 3,000! Doing what? I feel my ROI eyebrow raising to match the enviROI one here. If it is all about opportunity, I would dearly love to know how that is defined in terms of what gets spent to make my kids' future better. And I'd like to ask such as Jonathan Porritt, but he has yet to return my calls. Too busy? No money in it? Who can tell? Shame, as they are but a few miles away and I'd love to swap notes.
I was surprised at the research that indicated almost three in four British families would boycott firms that do not take real steps to cut their environmental impact. Really? I care a lot, but a boycott against a failure to act with 'real' steps, whatever they are. What is the measure? And, practically, if your local is Morrisons, are you going to go to the Tesco in the next town over just because 'a step' is not so good in comparison? I don't get it. And hence I don't trust it... or like it. Smacks of more no-people scoring fees to stir already very murky waters.
And, yet again, packaging seems the thrust when, as noted in recent blogs, I really have my doubts as to what significance it, or several other much-hyped 'issues' have vs. such as deforestation.
Maybe someone I'll bump into will be able to tell me, and in a way that makes me believe them. I hope so.
Change is in the wind as business climate turns green
Next week, courtesy of one of the speakers (David North of Tesco - to whom I am most grateful for the invitation), I have a rare opportunity to be present as a guest at one of these rarefied events: the Guardian Climate Change Summit.
Sadly, I missed the one referred to above. It will be interesting to see how they compare, or at least how my views tally with those of the correspondent responsible for this piece.
It's an interesting one, because it seems to be trying to be a few things at once, at least beyond the facts. In part supportive, and justifiably positive about genuine initiatives, but also in part pretty cautious, lest the promises fall short in the cold, hard light of subsequent days.
Frankly I am not sure what to expect next week, and will look forward to what I hope is a good opportunity to network, learn and contribute. I will of course be sharing it all here.
This Guardian piece is, at least, a fair preparation. It seems unlikely that those attending the same conference as I am will be much different to the other one, though on current evidence there are a heck of a lot of conferences with a heck of a lot of folk tasked to attend them, with titles to match. How "Junkk Male/Big 'Ed" will fit with "head of climate change" or "head of environmental management" or "climate change leader" remains to be seen. I think I will have to bite my lip and resist the temptation, at least with the climate change variety, and not ask them to confirm that they are least tasked with 'heading', or 'leading' it in a positive direction. Or just how far from the boardroom table where the money decisions get made they actually are.
There is no doubting it has indeed become a big issue for such as consumer brands, but I do note and also understand the scepticism created, after all that has been expended to date, of just 14% admitting to having a clear strategy for tackling the issue, while many fund managers saw companies primarily motivated by a desire to get "the green fraternity off their backs". Ouch.
And then there is the vast industry that exists to feed of this... concern... which I'm still trying to identify (ie: sincerely tackling the issue, or getting folk off various backs?). Just one 'consultancy' has a staff of 3,000! Doing what? I feel my ROI eyebrow raising to match the enviROI one here. If it is all about opportunity, I would dearly love to know how that is defined in terms of what gets spent to make my kids' future better. And I'd like to ask such as Jonathan Porritt, but he has yet to return my calls. Too busy? No money in it? Who can tell? Shame, as they are but a few miles away and I'd love to swap notes.
I was surprised at the research that indicated almost three in four British families would boycott firms that do not take real steps to cut their environmental impact. Really? I care a lot, but a boycott against a failure to act with 'real' steps, whatever they are. What is the measure? And, practically, if your local is Morrisons, are you going to go to the Tesco in the next town over just because 'a step' is not so good in comparison? I don't get it. And hence I don't trust it... or like it. Smacks of more no-people scoring fees to stir already very murky waters.
And, yet again, packaging seems the thrust when, as noted in recent blogs, I really have my doubts as to what significance it, or several other much-hyped 'issues' have vs. such as deforestation.
Maybe someone I'll bump into will be able to tell me, and in a way that makes me believe them. I hope so.
Musings from a mall
Time for a picture I feel. And as the new Olympic logo seems to need a health warning to view, let's go with one I made before the blog.I just felt like pondering a few bits of advertising and promotion, starting with the Toyota Prius ad: Toyota ordered to drop TV commercial for hybrid vehicle
Why do 'they' do this? It's a perfectly reasonable car, with a pretty fair story to support its USP (hybrid), but they just have to go and blow the trust factor by trying to squeeze a silly set of stats out to look like it will solve climate change just by driving around all day, emitting away.
Then there's the new Tesco ad. I like it (shock horror). Makes the point, which I hope is a good one. I refer to their new local milk initiative. Now, there are some questions I'd like reassuring on (please let it be that there is a genuine enviROI to the food miles story, and it's not just a bit of natty marketing smoke and mirrors), but in addition to a nice bit of comedy theatre I now know (well, to the best of my knowledge), that I can buy milk in a local store that is produced locally. I just hope the consumer is not going to get stung too badly for going greener, and the farmers get a fair price, too. On balance a step in the right direction, with win-wins all round if done with genuine intent. With an ad like this I can't see the consumers not responding.
And finally, I come to the example pictured above. One of my local clothing outlets has some kind of a thing where you support trees by buying stuff. I haven't looked at it too carefully and perhaps should not comment without doing so. But to this consumer, I can't see it as being that big an incentive, and the fact the place was festooned with flyers and posters and cards blathering on about it all, seemed a tad contradictory at best. Actually, I have a certain view that the whole waste paper thing is not as chronic as made out, but symbolically this came across as more of a bit of excess CSR promo window-dressing (geddit?) than a serious attempt to go green.
Guardian - Easyjet attack on green Virgin Train ads fails - kinda speaks for itself
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
I don't think that they're betters. And I'm pretty sure they're not even my olders.
This, from Newsnight, really got the old blog-juices a-flowing (like they knew it would): The Cult of the Amateur, or, How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy
Way-hey! The gauntlet is down. And like a petulant, ego-maniacal latter Robin, what blogging, web two-pointer worth his or her salt could resist drawing up their bow and, in fine homage style, ‘aim close to the target’s centre, letting the splinters of the previous champion’s split shaft fall where they may’.
So... “If we are all amateurs, there are no experts.”
Or... looking at it another way: “Leave it to the experts, because they have done such a good job so far. Not.” Discuss.
First, though, I have a few, I guess amateur, questions....
What, exactly, is ‘informed political commentary, seemly home video, proudly professional music and readable poems, reviews, essays, and novels”?
Or, perhaps I should rather ask; who is to say? Those unelected, self-serving ‘club’ members who have been doing so until now? I think... hope... not.
If blogs are “collectively corrupting and confusing popular opinion about everything from politics, to commerce, to arts and culture”, what can be cited from the mythical, godly mainstream that has, is and will not?
How about a liberal-left quick-hit on the TV about the Middle East, or a paper campaign on plastic bags or 4x4s, when only today I found out, and blogged on, a real and massive effort to tackle the real big issues facing the climate (link in my signature... I’d appreciate the reader numbers. You see we amateur types fancy getting paid for what we create, too, but by owing allegiance to no one what we often have to say is less prone to... influence).?
If Wikipedia perpetuates a cycle of misinformation and ignorance, then more fool those who read it without a well-cocked eyebrow. If YouTube is inane and absurd, then, er.... don’t watch it.
And if old media is facing extinction, who is more to blame?
I for one am quite happy to bid farewell to all experts (who qualify as such how, again, exactly?) and cultural gatekeepers (ditto... plus who put them in charge anyway?), if these are those who have decided what I get to see and hear based on very human motivations, ranging from self-interested to greed, and agendas that are much less edifying if not down right sinister.
That you ask what, in any case, can be done, is too facile and hilarious to really try and answer. Go Canute... go, man, go! The tide is coming, and you might squeeze a few more ratings out yet before you end up being, as well as looking, very wet.
ps: Some great replies, fellow posters. Ta for a good mid-pm read and a mind-expanding giggle or two. Peace out.
Way-hey! The gauntlet is down. And like a petulant, ego-maniacal latter Robin, what blogging, web two-pointer worth his or her salt could resist drawing up their bow and, in fine homage style, ‘aim close to the target’s centre, letting the splinters of the previous champion’s split shaft fall where they may’.
So... “If we are all amateurs, there are no experts.”
Or... looking at it another way: “Leave it to the experts, because they have done such a good job so far. Not.” Discuss.
First, though, I have a few, I guess amateur, questions....
What, exactly, is ‘informed political commentary, seemly home video, proudly professional music and readable poems, reviews, essays, and novels”?
Or, perhaps I should rather ask; who is to say? Those unelected, self-serving ‘club’ members who have been doing so until now? I think... hope... not.
If blogs are “collectively corrupting and confusing popular opinion about everything from politics, to commerce, to arts and culture”, what can be cited from the mythical, godly mainstream that has, is and will not?
How about a liberal-left quick-hit on the TV about the Middle East, or a paper campaign on plastic bags or 4x4s, when only today I found out, and blogged on, a real and massive effort to tackle the real big issues facing the climate (link in my signature... I’d appreciate the reader numbers. You see we amateur types fancy getting paid for what we create, too, but by owing allegiance to no one what we often have to say is less prone to... influence).?
If Wikipedia perpetuates a cycle of misinformation and ignorance, then more fool those who read it without a well-cocked eyebrow. If YouTube is inane and absurd, then, er.... don’t watch it.
And if old media is facing extinction, who is more to blame?
I for one am quite happy to bid farewell to all experts (who qualify as such how, again, exactly?) and cultural gatekeepers (ditto... plus who put them in charge anyway?), if these are those who have decided what I get to see and hear based on very human motivations, ranging from self-interested to greed, and agendas that are much less edifying if not down right sinister.
That you ask what, in any case, can be done, is too facile and hilarious to really try and answer. Go Canute... go, man, go! The tide is coming, and you might squeeze a few more ratings out yet before you end up being, as well as looking, very wet.
ps: Some great replies, fellow posters. Ta for a good mid-pm read and a mind-expanding giggle or two. Peace out.
COOL EARTH
This is a first for Junkk.com: a page dedicated to supporting a cause we truly feel is going to make a real difference: Cool Earth
No snappy headline, because this page will get revisited a lot so we can ensure it gets pushed to the front page of Junkk.com whenever we add something new. I think it is that important.
I became aware of it yesterday, when it launched, thanks to a short piece in Newsnight, which I blogged on earlier.
Frankly I cannot understand, with all the claimed media support for climate change initiatives, why this was not front page news, but maybe the return of the cold war of Big Brother is more pressing to some (or sells more papers and/or get more ratings).
One thing sold me. The entire annual carbon output produced by the USA is exceeded by the carbon sink LOST by deforestation. This puts d*cking about obsessing about carrier bags and 4x4s in stark focus. This planet will only be saved for our kids when we sweat the big stuff, and stop pandering to petty, negative issues (Junkk.com is a very small, but positive issue, so please keep on supporting us!).
I have already managed to contact those involved, who are very approachable.
And I will be checking out the site more thoroughly, and will revisit (I intend to score a few acres of our own to oversee) regularly with updates.
My main concern was the trading aspect, which set off some alarm bells and red flags.
I have been reassured that when you buy an acre, it is yours and will remain so, though there seems some variation on duration which I need to verify. It is also not for trading, as I very much would not want anything I had invested in being used to buy off bad behaviour elsewhere.
So, with great optimism, and the best will in the world, I am happy to say: Watch this space!
No snappy headline, because this page will get revisited a lot so we can ensure it gets pushed to the front page of Junkk.com whenever we add something new. I think it is that important.
I became aware of it yesterday, when it launched, thanks to a short piece in Newsnight, which I blogged on earlier.
Frankly I cannot understand, with all the claimed media support for climate change initiatives, why this was not front page news, but maybe the return of the cold war of Big Brother is more pressing to some (or sells more papers and/or get more ratings).
One thing sold me. The entire annual carbon output produced by the USA is exceeded by the carbon sink LOST by deforestation. This puts d*cking about obsessing about carrier bags and 4x4s in stark focus. This planet will only be saved for our kids when we sweat the big stuff, and stop pandering to petty, negative issues (Junkk.com is a very small, but positive issue, so please keep on supporting us!).
I have already managed to contact those involved, who are very approachable.
And I will be checking out the site more thoroughly, and will revisit (I intend to score a few acres of our own to oversee) regularly with updates.
My main concern was the trading aspect, which set off some alarm bells and red flags.
I have been reassured that when you buy an acre, it is yours and will remain so, though there seems some variation on duration which I need to verify. It is also not for trading, as I very much would not want anything I had invested in being used to buy off bad behaviour elsewhere.
So, with great optimism, and the best will in the world, I am happy to say: Watch this space!
I can see the forest... and the trees!
If there is one thing to check out, I'd say it is this. To my initial way of assessing enviROI, it does add up, and could be the most exciting thing for a while in actually DOING something to help the planet: Cool Earth
Well, assuming we don't go up in a nice, quick nuclear ball of flame thanks to the new generation of small-willy testostocrats, if we are to avoid a slightly slower cook to oblivion maybe Mr. Eliasch has a more attractive long term plan to consider.
As I can't figure and/or trust most carbon sink enterprises, whose PRs get sent to my enviro site almost daily, I am prepared to give this one serious consideration.
Buy a bunch of suits' daft notions to skim off a major wadge of wonga claiming they go and plant something that will take decades to grow (assuming it works)... vs. paying a suit to help ensure an existing chunk of Earth's lungs - that's doing a nifty job already - doesn't get chopped down to make way for bio-fuel crops. The chart of the US carbon emissions vs. the consequence of deforestation says it all.
Well, D'uh.
I just hope that he's doing it for the right reason and not to make a vast killing, but even if he is it seems waaaaay better (though I shudder to hear Carbon Credits mentioned) than most alternatives.
Assuming Messrs Bush, Putin and Blair don't get us first, I'd say it seems a pretty decent idea to pursue.
I haven't seen it advertised anywhere as yet, and look forward to being pointed at it (if your PR agency is reading this, Mr. Eliasch, I'm at info [at] http://www.junkk.com, willing and happy to help - or I'm sure Google will get me there. I really like the idea of a live feed of my acre to help with the monitoring).
How it is the new colonialism is an interesting, if odd question in the circumstances, and just seems a tad of a PC stretch the way I saw it billed.
Well, assuming we don't go up in a nice, quick nuclear ball of flame thanks to the new generation of small-willy testostocrats, if we are to avoid a slightly slower cook to oblivion maybe Mr. Eliasch has a more attractive long term plan to consider.
As I can't figure and/or trust most carbon sink enterprises, whose PRs get sent to my enviro site almost daily, I am prepared to give this one serious consideration.
Buy a bunch of suits' daft notions to skim off a major wadge of wonga claiming they go and plant something that will take decades to grow (assuming it works)... vs. paying a suit to help ensure an existing chunk of Earth's lungs - that's doing a nifty job already - doesn't get chopped down to make way for bio-fuel crops. The chart of the US carbon emissions vs. the consequence of deforestation says it all.
Well, D'uh.
I just hope that he's doing it for the right reason and not to make a vast killing, but even if he is it seems waaaaay better (though I shudder to hear Carbon Credits mentioned) than most alternatives.
Assuming Messrs Bush, Putin and Blair don't get us first, I'd say it seems a pretty decent idea to pursue.
I haven't seen it advertised anywhere as yet, and look forward to being pointed at it (if your PR agency is reading this, Mr. Eliasch, I'm at info [at] http://www.junkk.com, willing and happy to help - or I'm sure Google will get me there. I really like the idea of a live feed of my acre to help with the monitoring).
How it is the new colonialism is an interesting, if odd question in the circumstances, and just seems a tad of a PC stretch the way I saw it billed.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Well, they asked. But still don't care about the replies.
Telegraph - Can you and the free market save the planet?
There are plenty of ways to genuinely 'help' 'save' this planet.
Sadly, there are a lot more, and more profitable (though I'd like to try and convince a few folk that it's not a problem to be 'dealt' with, rather an opportunity to embrace) ways to simply look like you are.
And as these are good to stay elected, make more profits, keep the funding rolling in and sell more papers, the sorry cabal of politicians, corporates, activists and media that are currently handling it all to such great effect will keep on with the various dog & pony shows in the name of green that we are being subjected to from all quarters.
But to answer your question*, yes, I can, once I hook up with the vast majority of folk who care and want to DO something for their future generations, rather than make a quick buck now waffling, meeting targets and filling petty agendas.
We'll see them at the wall when the real green revolution comes. I will be the one holding a big barrel of payback to my shoulder.
*Actually, I really just wanted to go hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...
There are plenty of ways to genuinely 'help' 'save' this planet.
Sadly, there are a lot more, and more profitable (though I'd like to try and convince a few folk that it's not a problem to be 'dealt' with, rather an opportunity to embrace) ways to simply look like you are.
And as these are good to stay elected, make more profits, keep the funding rolling in and sell more papers, the sorry cabal of politicians, corporates, activists and media that are currently handling it all to such great effect will keep on with the various dog & pony shows in the name of green that we are being subjected to from all quarters.
But to answer your question*, yes, I can, once I hook up with the vast majority of folk who care and want to DO something for their future generations, rather than make a quick buck now waffling, meeting targets and filling petty agendas.
We'll see them at the wall when the real green revolution comes. I will be the one holding a big barrel of payback to my shoulder.
*Actually, I really just wanted to go hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...
Nothing like a good conference
I've never heard of PSFK until this: Green Marketing: Mind the Gap
Sorry I missed it. Sounds interesting, what with all the insights.
I'd have to say that aviation probably is the most unfriendly brand right now, and is unlikely to improve much with people like Richard Branson of Virgin talking about new planes and fuels and trying to look "less bad"... whilst announcing all Business Class services (see my earlier post - why won't the Times print mine?).
The rest reads like a list (Google did throw up a link to Ariel's effort, which didn't work too well on my streaming. Looks a hoot). Maybe you had to be there.
FUTURE POST 4/July:
Here I am pondering how posts to old blog topics get archived and notified, and someone has helpfully added to the archive.
I think it best I repost to give it the best chance of being shared properly.
The post in question was Nothing like a good conference , and I am happy to share it again here.
Indeed, having read the link (sadly, finding the time for a 50 minute show is beyond me at the moment, much though it looks well worth the time over lunch or an evening surf) I am even happier, as it also introduces the PSFK site too.
As blogger replies can't, or complicate posting HTML links, let me repost it here.
As an ex(ish) ad-man, it is interesting to see the next generation struggling to get to grips with the dilemma of promoting rampant capitalism and one's personal duty as a green-aware individual to practice and preach the 'RE's'.
Sorry I missed it. Sounds interesting, what with all the insights.
I'd have to say that aviation probably is the most unfriendly brand right now, and is unlikely to improve much with people like Richard Branson of Virgin talking about new planes and fuels and trying to look "less bad"... whilst announcing all Business Class services (see my earlier post - why won't the Times print mine?).
The rest reads like a list (Google did throw up a link to Ariel's effort, which didn't work too well on my streaming. Looks a hoot). Maybe you had to be there.
FUTURE POST 4/July:
Here I am pondering how posts to old blog topics get archived and notified, and someone has helpfully added to the archive.
I think it best I repost to give it the best chance of being shared properly.
The post in question was Nothing like a good conference , and I am happy to share it again here.
Indeed, having read the link (sadly, finding the time for a 50 minute show is beyond me at the moment, much though it looks well worth the time over lunch or an evening surf) I am even happier, as it also introduces the PSFK site too.
As blogger replies can't, or complicate posting HTML links, let me repost it here.
As an ex(ish) ad-man, it is interesting to see the next generation struggling to get to grips with the dilemma of promoting rampant capitalism and one's personal duty as a green-aware individual to practice and preach the 'RE's'.
Other than the Hindenburg, what did hydrogen ever do for us?
I like the idea of hydrogen. It's just the practice of turning into a viable energy resource without equal or worse consequences to where we are now that has me concerned.
Still, every so often, into a worrier's life a little sun may shine, and in so doing prove the solar solution to my point at the end... possibly.
So I share this via Dave at Solarventi: Another somewhat slightly reassuring fact on hydrogen and the water vapour output when burnt.
Now, by way of balance, I'd have to say that anyone who hails from an outfit called the 'Campaign for a Hydrogen Economy' might be expected to up it big-time, but I'll allow the facts as likely valid unless disproven.
My main point at issue though, now and into the future, is the energy used to make the stuff. How is that going to be produced?
We can't all siphon it from Stuart Rose's Beemer.
Still, every so often, into a worrier's life a little sun may shine, and in so doing prove the solar solution to my point at the end... possibly.
So I share this via Dave at Solarventi: Another somewhat slightly reassuring fact on hydrogen and the water vapour output when burnt.
Now, by way of balance, I'd have to say that anyone who hails from an outfit called the 'Campaign for a Hydrogen Economy' might be expected to up it big-time, but I'll allow the facts as likely valid unless disproven.
My main point at issue though, now and into the future, is the energy used to make the stuff. How is that going to be produced?
We can't all siphon it from Stuart Rose's Beemer.
Bumper (crop of) Stickers
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!
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!
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)