UK 'needs carbon neutral target' Yup. Like we haven't had one of them before.
Guardian - Who deserves your vote? - So long as he's just asking:)
When Johan Eliasch 'defected' from the Tory to Labour camp, in sifting through the usual Westminster Village gossip and bluster I did note an interesting comment, to the effect that if you want to do something NOW it's better to be in government than outside talking about stuff all the time. And a lot easier to be out just talking than in doing.
Hence one wonders whether Labour's less than green deeds vs. words might not illustrate rather clearly the dilemma of political pragmatism. I just hope that in staying in power so resolutely on the back of, yet also despite the climatic evidence they purport to endorse, they simply enjoy a moment in time but leave a poor legacy.
And with the level of trust in almost any institution, government business or indeed media to do any more then serve selfish, short-term interests so low, I don't think any of the current talkers would be any different even if their words did somehow get them in instead.
Meanwhile, from the Green corner (emailed, so no link - thus cut 'n pasted):
GREEN PARTY CONFERENCE SEES LAUNCH OF 'NEXT GENERATION' OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
The second day of the Green Party's Conference in Liverpool sees Principal
Speaker Sian Berry give her keynote speech, followed by the launch of
"Climate Change - the next generation of policy", a report challenging the
other parties to adopt the Greens’ 10-point policy strategy on climate
change.
FRIDAY HIGLIGHTS
Sian Berry, who is also the Green’s London Mayoral Candidate, will discuss
the need for action, not hot air, on climate change, and introduce the
Green's target candidates for the next general election.
Sian will say: "You can depend on the other parties to back up their warm
words on climate change with a total lack of delivery.
"Gordon Brown thinks you should solve climate change by changing your
lightbulbs. We think you should solve climate change by changing your
government."
Greens' conference Climate Challenge 10 point policy plan
Caroline Lucas MEP and Sian Berry challenge the other parties to show
they’re serious about climate change by adopting the Greens’ 10-point policy
strategy, which calls for an end to all road and runway building, scrapping
bio-fuel production targets, ruling out new nuclear power stations – and
renationalising the railways, as the basis for their own positions.
Motions include proposals to:
* Adopt an annual emissions reduction target of 9 per cent.
* Condemn ‘adaptation’ as a primary response to climate change
* Urgently replace the Kyoto protocol with a framework that includes
measures to protect carbon sinks
* initiate an immediate moratorium on agrofuels from large scale
monocultures
Indy - Liberal Democrats to outlaw petrol-driven cars by 2040 -- How old will Jeremy Clarkson be by then?
I do note: '...should state clearly that no car can be sold in the EU if it still belches carbon by 2040," he added. "It can be electric. It can be fuelled by a hydrogen cell..' and trust that making these means of getting energy to wheels will need to be non-carbon-belching too.
Which brings me to, and without making any comment on the wisdom of the point that '... the party should drop its opposition to building nuclear power plants.'
I'm not sure I see the timeline working on this basis.
Indy - Still leaders in the quest for green solutions - Questing is, of course, good. And setting targets is also fun. I'm not sure that setting ever higher targets is going to get us very far, though. I vote 110%! Do I win?
It's one thing to say stuff. But you have to do it to be credible. And, perhaps, stay credible to do it.
Amongst other things, there is the simple question of leaderships we face. Not just across the board, but especially green. Mr. Brown says either nothing or lets others speak and take the fall. Mr. Cameron says too much and has to change too often. Mr. Campbell is having to say too much on himself. And the Greens, who can say quite a lot you can believe they might stick to, don't say enough on other issues that make them overly credible as even a balanced opposition force... yet. Plus they still seem to be sitting on the whole leader fence which, while noble, makes it hard to know who is saying what and 'speaks' for the party.
GUG - Friends of the Earth: First Reaction to Conservatives 'Green' Policy Report. Two thoughts for the price of one.
GUG - Lib Dem Conference: The Environment - Or three
GUG - Labour Party Conference: Climate Change - Or what the guys in charge are doing.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Well, there's a surprise!
"HIPs show shortcomings in home energy efficiency" from EDIE.
The average energy rating for properties assessed under HIPS ranks an 'E' on a scale from 'A' to 'G'. Now why would anybody expect any different?
Despite all of the various 'grants' and supposed funding available (Have you ever tried to obtain an insulation grant? It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack! 'Sorry sir, you are outside our designated area'; 'Sorry you don't qualify as you earn over £22K'; 'we only provide grants for the over 65's'; oh, sorry, you're an NPower customer, you might have qualified for a grant if you were with Scottish Power'), the majority of homeowners simply do not have the wherewithal, financially, to invest in cavity wall insulation and the like.
It's all well and good banging on about it ('insulation, insulation, insulation!') but when it means that the man in the street has to cough up from his own pocket, yes, even when it will save him money long term, if he doesn't have the readies then it simply won't get done.
It surely must be time for a simple, sensible scheme to be put in place to ensure that any and every property qualifies for insulation grants or at least a low cost loan scheme. It's not too much to ask, is it?
The average energy rating for properties assessed under HIPS ranks an 'E' on a scale from 'A' to 'G'. Now why would anybody expect any different?
Despite all of the various 'grants' and supposed funding available (Have you ever tried to obtain an insulation grant? It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack! 'Sorry sir, you are outside our designated area'; 'Sorry you don't qualify as you earn over £22K'; 'we only provide grants for the over 65's'; oh, sorry, you're an NPower customer, you might have qualified for a grant if you were with Scottish Power'), the majority of homeowners simply do not have the wherewithal, financially, to invest in cavity wall insulation and the like.
It's all well and good banging on about it ('insulation, insulation, insulation!') but when it means that the man in the street has to cough up from his own pocket, yes, even when it will save him money long term, if he doesn't have the readies then it simply won't get done.
It surely must be time for a simple, sensible scheme to be put in place to ensure that any and every property qualifies for insulation grants or at least a low cost loan scheme. It's not too much to ask, is it?
Rock and woe
It's hard to justify the last few days' excitements in the world of finance with an enviro blog, but why let that stop me?
Because I see a lot of aspects that just as easily could extend to the stewardship of our eco-futures as how those who would claim (and are paid massively) to manage our finances.
First up, I heard that the boss of Northern Rock 'blaming' the unexpected run in the US financial markets. That's a bit like the recent floods being blamed on worse weather. It's why you plan, mitigate and put in place contingencies. The simply fact is, it seems, that he oversaw - for quick profit no doubt - a system that was taking big risks, writing cheques that could not be easily covered... and got caught out.
Then there are the politicians. I actually heard one try and invoke Mrs Thatcher! If they need to reach back that far for a diversion then they really are a lot sorrier than I thought. Especially the one (not the same one who said it) who was Chancellor for most of this last decade.
It is all short term gain, mainly for personal advancement (in terms of money or power) and keep fingers crossed nothing happens on your watch at the top. If it does, bluster and distract. Or once you've moved on pass the buck, and who cares anyway because your wedge is golden (unlike those you have been tasked to look after).
And the media serves no other purpose to get excited about whatever will make a rating or a headline today... now! And will move on to the next issue in ten minutes if it suits.
No wonder people totally ignored the exhortations of every senior or 'expert' member of our financial institutions, our government and even national media. They are no longer trusted to tell us what is going on without spin, hype or cover-up at the core.
So how anyone is expected to engage with what any of them might come out with on the future of the planet, which is a lot more complex (and prone to even greater levels of manipulation by the unscrupulous), lord alone knows.
What a way to run a country.
There's no real problem with getting rewarded for taking big risks. Trouble is, these days those who do are too isolated from the consequences of taking them for the wrong reasons, or simply being bad at it.
Indy - Run on bank was 'Brown's fault' - then I read on. Odd paper to carry it like that, though.
Indy - Darling sets terrible bail-out precedent - I must say I also wondered about previous, not too dissimilar situations where the people left in the lurch were not so well protected by government.
Because I see a lot of aspects that just as easily could extend to the stewardship of our eco-futures as how those who would claim (and are paid massively) to manage our finances.
First up, I heard that the boss of Northern Rock 'blaming' the unexpected run in the US financial markets. That's a bit like the recent floods being blamed on worse weather. It's why you plan, mitigate and put in place contingencies. The simply fact is, it seems, that he oversaw - for quick profit no doubt - a system that was taking big risks, writing cheques that could not be easily covered... and got caught out.
Then there are the politicians. I actually heard one try and invoke Mrs Thatcher! If they need to reach back that far for a diversion then they really are a lot sorrier than I thought. Especially the one (not the same one who said it) who was Chancellor for most of this last decade.
It is all short term gain, mainly for personal advancement (in terms of money or power) and keep fingers crossed nothing happens on your watch at the top. If it does, bluster and distract. Or once you've moved on pass the buck, and who cares anyway because your wedge is golden (unlike those you have been tasked to look after).
And the media serves no other purpose to get excited about whatever will make a rating or a headline today... now! And will move on to the next issue in ten minutes if it suits.
No wonder people totally ignored the exhortations of every senior or 'expert' member of our financial institutions, our government and even national media. They are no longer trusted to tell us what is going on without spin, hype or cover-up at the core.
So how anyone is expected to engage with what any of them might come out with on the future of the planet, which is a lot more complex (and prone to even greater levels of manipulation by the unscrupulous), lord alone knows.
What a way to run a country.
There's no real problem with getting rewarded for taking big risks. Trouble is, these days those who do are too isolated from the consequences of taking them for the wrong reasons, or simply being bad at it.
Indy - Run on bank was 'Brown's fault' - then I read on. Odd paper to carry it like that, though.
Indy - Darling sets terrible bail-out precedent - I must say I also wondered about previous, not too dissimilar situations where the people left in the lurch were not so well protected by government.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
No trees were hurt in the making of this film...
But a weed didn't make it, sorry.
I should also mention than, other than time, not one penny was spent or any new resource used.
I wonder if that makes it one of the greenest commercials ever shot?
It's our entry to the current.tv eco-contest.
Fingers crossed!
Thanks to Geof and Stepehn at clickingo, PJ at Firebird.com and Kipp and Cody on voice overs.
I agree with what you say. I just hope we'll all understand how you say it
With apologies to Voltaire. Bioploymers Need Careful Introduction, Says WRAP
Can't fault this: '...most consumers are confused about the wide range of new materials emerging with ‘biodegradable’, ‘home compostable’, ‘compostable’ and ‘degradable’ all being introduced in the UK...'.
And here's the rub: '...respondents were less clear of the overall benefits, and were left feeling confused. Apart from some home compostable materials, there is currently no appropriate infrastructure for the materials to be collected and treated in the UK.'
I just hope the ‘statement’ on biopolymers to be published will actually result in Mrs Miggins having a clue as to what she's supposed to do as she hovers the chicken thigh tray and film over the bin.
The research and statement can be accessed from the WRAP website or from retail@wrap.org.uk
Can't fault this: '...most consumers are confused about the wide range of new materials emerging with ‘biodegradable’, ‘home compostable’, ‘compostable’ and ‘degradable’ all being introduced in the UK...'.
And here's the rub: '...respondents were less clear of the overall benefits, and were left feeling confused. Apart from some home compostable materials, there is currently no appropriate infrastructure for the materials to be collected and treated in the UK.'
I just hope the ‘statement’ on biopolymers to be published will actually result in Mrs Miggins having a clue as to what she's supposed to do as she hovers the chicken thigh tray and film over the bin.
The research and statement can be accessed from the WRAP website or from retail@wrap.org.uk
What you don't get told can hurt you
Though the effort of trying to straddle the extremes pitched against each other upon it is starting to lose its appeal, I still stay with the BBCisBiased Blog as it can find a few odd facts of note.
And I came across a guy taking the BBC to task for not publishing one report whilst bigging up other, less relevant (to their eyes - I found the opinion of Bush confidant most interesting) stuff 'in favour of' climate change. The BBC, as we know, is a tad twitchy on it's remit in this regard.
I felt I had to pitch in:
Just to help me clarify.
..a book saying there is no evidence that global warming is probably natural and not all bad.
I can fathom that some more scientists on one or other 'side' (perceived, admitted or otherwise - are there any just doing their best to find out the facts?) of the whole CC debate have published yet another book.
But I have to say that, from Bjorn Lomborg to James Lovelock, the attachment of a book to sell does not inspire much confidence immediately, especially when it comes to the associated PR efforts that will be used to perk up a jaded media more interested in a quick ratings fix than any worthwhile contribution.
However, just doing so does not surely mean that it has to be covered.
So if they were ignored, what was the phone interview with John Marburger (didn't know of him before, so can't reasonably comment on his affiliations, be they purely science based or more complex) about?
I agree you can't just phone up a person to spout off for no reason, and as has been noted here (and accepted by the BBC) there needs to be some measure of balanced debate, but I just can't follow how this played out in this case.
Is there a link? All I could find was this - Bush aide says warming man-made - which is apparently from a guy ‘who advises President Bush’ and is advised as ‘the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead’. Hardly the most expected source of unthinking MMCC endorsement.
And frankly, to me, news worth knowing.
The rest is, of course, still fiddling while the Titanic accelerates. But still, whatever floats the talkers vs. doers boat... while it floats.
Sadly, I never did get an answer.
And I came across a guy taking the BBC to task for not publishing one report whilst bigging up other, less relevant (to their eyes - I found the opinion of Bush confidant most interesting) stuff 'in favour of' climate change. The BBC, as we know, is a tad twitchy on it's remit in this regard.
I felt I had to pitch in:
Just to help me clarify.
..a book saying there is no evidence that global warming is probably natural and not all bad.
I can fathom that some more scientists on one or other 'side' (perceived, admitted or otherwise - are there any just doing their best to find out the facts?) of the whole CC debate have published yet another book.
But I have to say that, from Bjorn Lomborg to James Lovelock, the attachment of a book to sell does not inspire much confidence immediately, especially when it comes to the associated PR efforts that will be used to perk up a jaded media more interested in a quick ratings fix than any worthwhile contribution.
However, just doing so does not surely mean that it has to be covered.
So if they were ignored, what was the phone interview with John Marburger (didn't know of him before, so can't reasonably comment on his affiliations, be they purely science based or more complex) about?
I agree you can't just phone up a person to spout off for no reason, and as has been noted here (and accepted by the BBC) there needs to be some measure of balanced debate, but I just can't follow how this played out in this case.
Is there a link? All I could find was this - Bush aide says warming man-made - which is apparently from a guy ‘who advises President Bush’ and is advised as ‘the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead’. Hardly the most expected source of unthinking MMCC endorsement.
And frankly, to me, news worth knowing.
The rest is, of course, still fiddling while the Titanic accelerates. But still, whatever floats the talkers vs. doers boat... while it floats.
Sadly, I never did get an answer.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Bin & Gone - Freebie Alert!
I'm rubbish at PR (quite good at rubbish).I can write the release and all, but all the other stuff, the stuff that really counts, such as calling and cajoling, etc... nah. I send it off and, if I call at all it will be but once. No more. Which is not what it takes.
What it takes is persistence (and staff/time/budget I don't have), plus a polite manner.
So eventually, I, very busy media overlord, have succumbed to the charms of a very nice young lady.
After her 3rd call on when I was going to put up what I said I might when I had a 'mo, here it is.
It's a bucket.
A wee while ago a nice courier turned up with a nice box in a big plastic bag, and this was what was inside. Along with a helpful 5-page set of instructions.
It's from Cedo (leader, so the blurb says, in a wide range of household disposable - hold that thought - products), and Sainsburys.
And between them they are giving away 150,000 of these little chaps, from now 'til the end of the month.
So if you fancy a bucket, free, I'd scoot along.
Thanks to being in the right conferences at the right time, I already have a few, and they are very nice. As a means of getting stuff from the house to the compost bin they do serve a very helpful function. Many other buckets can do the same of course, but as this is free it's a 'why not'? If you fancy being even more eco of course, Junkk.com awaits any and all suggestions for second use packaging that can do the same and not use extra resources.
There is the lid of course, which is vital at this time of year to avoid fruity flies buzzing about in between empties down the garden end. I speak from current experience, the lid having popped off the paint can I was using.
I do also note that CeDo have available compost caddy liners, which will provide years of useful convenience. They should be, by all accounts, changed a minimum of 2-3 days. I'd say that could be stretched a tad.
Then again, you may prefer the option, as I do, of lining the bottom with an egg box, sides with newspaper and slotting small cereal packs inside to offer the right organic/fibre mix to make for a nice brew.
Gosh, I feel like I've come all over moneysavingexpert.com. Just call me Martin.
'tis Autumn. So naturally a young man's thoughts turn to.. stuffing
Chimneys, that is, should you have them. With a hat tip to FoE, I was impressed by the savings that could be enjoyed by - WHEN NOT ALIGHT - blocking the chimney up temporarily to deny yet another source of heat loss.
There was also a lead to this merry band, or, if you are of a more DIY Junkkly bent, I'm on the case. The old Reebok medicine ball is looking favorite. With a nice warning dangly-doobry to remind one to remove prior to a stoke or two.
There was also a lead to this merry band, or, if you are of a more DIY Junkkly bent, I'm on the case. The old Reebok medicine ball is looking favorite. With a nice warning dangly-doobry to remind one to remove prior to a stoke or two.
Meanwhile, back in the local industrial estate
An interesting arctile on enviro regs and SME engaement - A long way to go - that prompted me to write.
With some glorious exceptions, I think that if most small businesses are thinking about their impact on the environment, it’s currently mainly because of the law.
And that’s a pity, because environmental good practices, especially where they create a relationship with the consumer, should be viewed much more as an opportunity than a problem to deal with it.
But as the fine is both first and fierce in this regard, it’s not surprising this is the case... nor very fair. One problem is communications, and the other the mindset behind them. It’s amazing the guff that I get that seems to presume I have a [Unameit] director on staff, whose entire day is spent staying on top of all the regs that are out here.
I once went to a NetRegs presentation and found myself next to a Brummie chippie owner. He was colourful as he was concise. ‘What do they mean get my *****ing IT head on this... I”M our *****ing head of IT. On my ****ing Amstrad! There was also, beyond him negotiating a labyrinthine entity designed for technocrats by technocrats, the small matter of trust. He didn’t feel they were there to help him with how to get rid of several hundred gallons of oil, and was therefore not going to give them any chance at fining him for not disposing of it properly.
Ignorance is, temporarily, bliss?
And while I just love research without access to the full methodology, it’s great to note that nearly half of SMEs are starting to improve their green credentials, usually by recycling. I guess it’s all in how you define ‘improve’.
As to the claim that SME’s can’t afford to do this purely as a marketing exercise, beyond savings, how about thinking harder how to make green marketing pay?
There are some examples on Junkk.com – try here - though these are more aimed at brands. More relevantly, let me relate one at a more local, small sME level. On the site is an idea for using bike inner tubes as door draft excluding curtains. Some folk liked that. So I popped into the local bike shop and asked if he had any. Turns out he has a bucket a week... which the council charges to turn away! What about creating a relationship such that such reusable waste can be provide for those who can use it...FOC? At minimum great goodwill. At most, they’re in the shop where you sell stuff...
It’s then down to communication. That is of course an art as well as a science. I’m just not so sure most involved in environmental issues have quite what it takes in this regard though.
Great that NetRegs wants to try and fill the knowledge gap by offering SMEs an online tool that will compile a free environmental policy for them. I just hope that those who are not in the business of such things daily will be able to engage with it all.
With some glorious exceptions, I think that if most small businesses are thinking about their impact on the environment, it’s currently mainly because of the law.
And that’s a pity, because environmental good practices, especially where they create a relationship with the consumer, should be viewed much more as an opportunity than a problem to deal with it.
But as the fine is both first and fierce in this regard, it’s not surprising this is the case... nor very fair. One problem is communications, and the other the mindset behind them. It’s amazing the guff that I get that seems to presume I have a [Unameit] director on staff, whose entire day is spent staying on top of all the regs that are out here.
I once went to a NetRegs presentation and found myself next to a Brummie chippie owner. He was colourful as he was concise. ‘What do they mean get my *****ing IT head on this... I”M our *****ing head of IT. On my ****ing Amstrad! There was also, beyond him negotiating a labyrinthine entity designed for technocrats by technocrats, the small matter of trust. He didn’t feel they were there to help him with how to get rid of several hundred gallons of oil, and was therefore not going to give them any chance at fining him for not disposing of it properly.
Ignorance is, temporarily, bliss?
And while I just love research without access to the full methodology, it’s great to note that nearly half of SMEs are starting to improve their green credentials, usually by recycling. I guess it’s all in how you define ‘improve’.
As to the claim that SME’s can’t afford to do this purely as a marketing exercise, beyond savings, how about thinking harder how to make green marketing pay?
There are some examples on Junkk.com – try here - though these are more aimed at brands. More relevantly, let me relate one at a more local, small sME level. On the site is an idea for using bike inner tubes as door draft excluding curtains. Some folk liked that. So I popped into the local bike shop and asked if he had any. Turns out he has a bucket a week... which the council charges to turn away! What about creating a relationship such that such reusable waste can be provide for those who can use it...FOC? At minimum great goodwill. At most, they’re in the shop where you sell stuff...
It’s then down to communication. That is of course an art as well as a science. I’m just not so sure most involved in environmental issues have quite what it takes in this regard though.
Great that NetRegs wants to try and fill the knowledge gap by offering SMEs an online tool that will compile a free environmental policy for them. I just hope that those who are not in the business of such things daily will be able to engage with it all.
Growing broccoli in Greenland
As reported in Guardian CIF today.
The article contains some very interesting and some very worrying snippets.
"The IPCC predicted an ice-free Arctic by the end of the century; some scientists now predict it for 2020. Ten years ago, it was thought that the Greenland ice cap - 11,000 feet high in some places - would take centuries to melt. Now, the pace of melting of the ice cap, and the unpredictable interaction of the feedback loops such melting may trigger, makes any firm prediction hazardous. In Greenland they know human civilisation is already entering unknown territory."
"But as the ice melts, the dark seas and the bare rock surface absorb heat, further accelerating melting and triggering sea level rises that will inundate, among other places, the Nile Delta, much of San Francisco and 40% of Bangladesh."
"'For the last 10,000 years,' Corell says, 'we have been living in a remarkably stable climate that has allowed the whole of human development to take place. In all that time, through the mediaeval warming and the Little Ice Age, there was only a variation of 1C. Now we see the potential for sudden changes of between 2C and 6C. We just don't know what the world is like at those temperatures. We are climbing rapidly out of mankind's safe zone into new territory, and we have no idea if we can live in it."
As the Arctic ice cap itself is disappearing (see Arctic Ice Update), the Greenland ice sheet appears to be starting to follow suit too. The potential for sea level rises that may have massive effects on mankind is well understood. The worrying thing is that the evidence suggests that it is already starting to happen at an accelerating pace.
The article contains some very interesting and some very worrying snippets.
"The IPCC predicted an ice-free Arctic by the end of the century; some scientists now predict it for 2020. Ten years ago, it was thought that the Greenland ice cap - 11,000 feet high in some places - would take centuries to melt. Now, the pace of melting of the ice cap, and the unpredictable interaction of the feedback loops such melting may trigger, makes any firm prediction hazardous. In Greenland they know human civilisation is already entering unknown territory."
"But as the ice melts, the dark seas and the bare rock surface absorb heat, further accelerating melting and triggering sea level rises that will inundate, among other places, the Nile Delta, much of San Francisco and 40% of Bangladesh."
"'For the last 10,000 years,' Corell says, 'we have been living in a remarkably stable climate that has allowed the whole of human development to take place. In all that time, through the mediaeval warming and the Little Ice Age, there was only a variation of 1C. Now we see the potential for sudden changes of between 2C and 6C. We just don't know what the world is like at those temperatures. We are climbing rapidly out of mankind's safe zone into new territory, and we have no idea if we can live in it."
As the Arctic ice cap itself is disappearing (see Arctic Ice Update), the Greenland ice sheet appears to be starting to follow suit too. The potential for sea level rises that may have massive effects on mankind is well understood. The worrying thing is that the evidence suggests that it is already starting to happen at an accelerating pace.
Trust me. I'm a green ad man.
Do green and ethical claims need to be monitored? You know I like such questions.
Looking first at the headline, my immediate thought was 'isn't every claim monitored?'. I know the ASA site is alive with greenwash complaints, mostly upheld, which may explain the consumer reaction. Fool me once, shame on me... etc.
To the question in the body... er... which logo?
I made a joke a while ago that may yet turn out to be true, that soon my Smartie pack will have a CDR attached with all it is deemed I must know to 'assist' my purchase choice and disposal obligations contained therein. With of course, a CDR on that to 'assist' with its disposal in turn.
I believe we have already two health systems in place, no? And these are embraced - either legislatively or voluntarily - by some of the manufacturers and retailers but not all. In the wings we have Carbon Footprints and or food miles. Morrisons has already launched theirs (noted here, I believe), while WRAP is talking up another. And now this.
Am I going to have a clue what this is all about as I walk the aisles or watch an 8pt para scroll along the base of an ad? So... will it give advertisers credence? I don't think it will, no.
Nice use of funds though.
I also note that this initiative has been awarded an UnLtd grant. These guys are the ones who did not deem Junkk.com or RE:tie to have any social contribution or commercial application.
Brand Republic - Public distrustful of green claims in advertising
I'll repeat a bit from my answer to your other post question elsewhere.
How does this scheme fit into all the above? Extra, or instead of? And while costs need to be covered, there has to be an immediate concern on anything that is paid for by those it endorses, surely? No reason why I should I guess, but no word I can recall in the various trades of the industries involved either. Just how new is this? And how extensive?
The principle is fine, but I am unclear how it fits into the current industry and legislative frameworks already in place.
Looking first at the headline, my immediate thought was 'isn't every claim monitored?'. I know the ASA site is alive with greenwash complaints, mostly upheld, which may explain the consumer reaction. Fool me once, shame on me... etc.
To the question in the body... er... which logo?
I made a joke a while ago that may yet turn out to be true, that soon my Smartie pack will have a CDR attached with all it is deemed I must know to 'assist' my purchase choice and disposal obligations contained therein. With of course, a CDR on that to 'assist' with its disposal in turn.
I believe we have already two health systems in place, no? And these are embraced - either legislatively or voluntarily - by some of the manufacturers and retailers but not all. In the wings we have Carbon Footprints and or food miles. Morrisons has already launched theirs (noted here, I believe), while WRAP is talking up another. And now this.
Am I going to have a clue what this is all about as I walk the aisles or watch an 8pt para scroll along the base of an ad? So... will it give advertisers credence? I don't think it will, no.
Nice use of funds though.
I also note that this initiative has been awarded an UnLtd grant. These guys are the ones who did not deem Junkk.com or RE:tie to have any social contribution or commercial application.
Brand Republic - Public distrustful of green claims in advertising
I'll repeat a bit from my answer to your other post question elsewhere.
How does this scheme fit into all the above? Extra, or instead of? And while costs need to be covered, there has to be an immediate concern on anything that is paid for by those it endorses, surely? No reason why I should I guess, but no word I can recall in the various trades of the industries involved either. Just how new is this? And how extensive?
The principle is fine, but I am unclear how it fits into the current industry and legislative frameworks already in place.
Seeing the light
Illuminating ideas
And a chance for a plug:
Valuable post and comments.
I'm staring at a row of GU10 halogens and deciding what's best to get the light I need for my work vs. the costs vs. the enviROI.
The low energy bayonet/screw fitting elsewhere were a no-brainer.
However, in the Grush (green rush), one factor has arisen that I think is worthy of more attention: reliability.
There are some I have been suckered into buying that have lasted but a few months. The key is low-energy, long-life. But not only that, write the date of installation on the base and keep the receipts. Simple maths usually means the shop will refund you for a dud. And if enough of us do it, they will only stock the goodies.
And a chance for a plug:
Valuable post and comments.
I'm staring at a row of GU10 halogens and deciding what's best to get the light I need for my work vs. the costs vs. the enviROI.
The low energy bayonet/screw fitting elsewhere were a no-brainer.
However, in the Grush (green rush), one factor has arisen that I think is worthy of more attention: reliability.
There are some I have been suckered into buying that have lasted but a few months. The key is low-energy, long-life. But not only that, write the date of installation on the base and keep the receipts. Simple maths usually means the shop will refund you for a dud. And if enough of us do it, they will only stock the goodies.
Friday morning chews
We need a good story that covers all the bases. I hope this will be one such: Non-stick gum could slash £150m street cleaning costs
Who fancies the licence for Singapore?
Who fancies the licence for Singapore?
Me, too
When it hits the business section more than the environment one, you know things are afoot: I don't believe that going green should cost more, says Asda chief
So I think, with others, we can all be happy to see the guys earning the big bucks and able to make the big differences starting to catch up.
The discrepancy between what the chiefs of our two most significant retail entities say (much less do) is striking.
Who is right, I wonder?
Guardian - Mr High Street - There is a bit about M&S' enviro moves too, if you look hard.
So I think, with others, we can all be happy to see the guys earning the big bucks and able to make the big differences starting to catch up.
The discrepancy between what the chiefs of our two most significant retail entities say (much less do) is striking.
Who is right, I wonder?
Guardian - Mr High Street - There is a bit about M&S' enviro moves too, if you look hard.
Further to the previous post ....
..... here is the Guardian's take on the Tory proposals. I think that this provides a more concise and clear summary than most of the rest of the media.
This is the article reproduced in full.
_________________________________________
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male):
I guess it's part of the political fabric, but it sill seems a shame that whatever one lot does the other lot(s) will trash it all. Anyhoo, as those with perhaps more claim to being green than most, here's what I got sent (maybe there'll be more detail on what was in the report to come):
Greens dismiss Tory environmental claims
Speaking in advance of this week's publication of the Conservative
Party's 'Quality of Life' review, Green Party Principal Speakers Siân
Berry and Derek Wall today dismissed suggestions that the Tories had
gone Green.
Green Party Principal Speaker Siân Berry said:
"It seems clear that Cameron is trying to slide out of his previous
promise that the Tories would support a new round of nuclear power
stations only as a last resort.
"Backing nuclear power makes a mockery of their green pretensions.
"Dirty, dangerous, unnecessary and expensive - support for this
ailing industry comes at a cost of funding for the cutting edge
renewables technology.
Principal Speaker Derek Wall said:
"If they were serious about tackling climate change, the Tories would
call for an immediate moratorium on any more road building or
aviation growth.
"As it is, their belief that a bigger economy is a better economy
undermines any hope they have of adopting the right policies for
tackling climate change."
"The Conservatives privatisation of public transport under Thatcher
is one of the reasons why 80 per cent of journeys are by car. They
need to support the renationalisation of rail as well as reregulation
of bus travel."
Not the greatest in consumer-helpful, specfics-heavy retorts I might have hoped for, especially when reaching back to the Thatcher era at one point.
This is the article reproduced in full.
_________________________________________
Under proposals published yesterday the Tories have promised to redefine the measure of the UK's success away from simply measuring GDP and towards a group of indicators taking in economic wellbeing, societal wellbeing and environmental wellbeing.
Now there's a can of worms waiting to be opened!!Climate change
· Set a target for carbon dioxide emissions focused on ensuring global temperatures rise no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels. This means the UK must plan for an 80% cut in global emissions by 2050, higher than current government targets.
Now that is ambitious - and, unfortunately, probably unachievable.
· Reform the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) so that all permits to the utility sector and aviation are subject to auction, a means of raising the cost.
· "Clean development mechanisms" (such as carbon trading) should not be used as a way of avoiding domestic reductions in C02 emissons.
It will be interesting to see how they could enforce that.
Flying
· Moratorium on airport expansion, VAT on aviation fuel in domestic flights, and inclusion of aviation in ETS. Reform air passenger duty so it is linked to the flight and not the passenger.
· Publish comparative details of carbon dioxide emissions on tickets and set up a global trust for all climate change communication.
Motoring
· A new purchase tax on cars of up to 10% depending on CO2 output, as well as a sliding VAT scale between 5% and 17.5%. Vehicle excise duty set at maximum of £500, more than double the present £215 top rate.
Interesting!
· Introduce car efficiency targets of 120g of CO2 emitted per kilometre by 2012 and 80-100g by 2020 throughout the EU.
European vehicle manufacturers are struggling to meet the EU's current target of 140g, the UK trying to enforce even more stringent cuts is rather pointless.
· Place cigarette-style warnings, of a mandated size, on all car adverts.
This will be an utter waste of time if you ask me!
· Introduce a new employer parking spaces tax set at market rate.
Could cause a few problems, especially for bigger businesses.
· Reduce volume of car trips by 10%-17% by designing neighbourhoods where people can walk between amenities.
Errrmm, like, how? My nearest bank/cinema/post office etc. is over 6 miles away.
· Review cost-benefit analysis of road building.
Surely they do this already? If not, why the hell not?
Countryside
· Trespassers and burglars should no longer have the right to sue for damage done to them on other people's property.
That just might win them a few votes!
· Improve the needs test to control out of town shopping.
· Abolish regional government tier in planning.
Meaning what, exactly?
· Double council tax on a home that remains empty for more than a year.
· Relax planning controls on all estates with four or more houses built since 1945.
Also, meaning what, exactly?
· Review the spread of buy to let.
· Local councils, by referendum, able to rule that only people living in a countryside home for 200 days a year or more are allowed to buy the property.
That could prove extremely difficult to implement!
Energy efficiency
· Abolish home information packs, the government's controversial attempt to streamline the house buying process.
· A mandatory code for new sustainable homes, plus energy performance certificates requiring improvements by landlords and homeowners when major changes are made to a house.
About time too - we should have been doing this 30 years ago!
· Financial incentives (such as council tax rebates) plus low-cost capital to help homeowners improve energy efficiency, and reduced stamp duty for energy- efficient homes.
Bring it on!! The most sensible idea so far!
· All public companies to make annual statement on energy use by setting out their energy consumption per square metre.
Hmmmm, I thought that they are already supposed to do this? (Not necessarily by per M2)
· Smart meters introduced over a period of 10 years to aid energy saving.
Again, we should have been doing this years ago!
· Standby switches to be abandoned subject to EU agreement.
Not sure that this is achievable - I'd prefer to ban products that consume anything more than say, 1 watt, whilst on standby mode. Imagine having to reset the clock on your DVD/VCR every single time you switch it on!
Energy
· No new coal power stations after 2020 without carbon capture and storage. Existing stations will have until 2025 to introduce the technology.
Hoo - bloody -ray! Again, we should have been doing this for years now!
· No taxpayer/government funding for nuclear fission, risks and costs of nuclear borne by the private sector. But new carbon price in ETS will make nuclear more competitive.
So does that mean that fusion technology research is still funded?
· Withdraw subsidy for onshore wind farms.
If they are in poor, wind inefficient locations, then yes, it makes sense, otherwise I'm not too certain.
Food and waste
· Bans on the landfilling of recyclable and compostable materials.
Errrrm, wasn't this already supposed to be in place? Or is that just some local councils own initiative?
· 20p deposit on returnable bottles.
Back to the good old days when I was a kid! Bottle collecting for pocket money!
· Incinerators would capture and generate heat.
And put out lots of CO2 and toxins unless mandatorily fitted with CO2 and noxious gas scrubbers.
· A strengthened, legally binding code of practice on supermarkets and a ban on selling below cost price.
Hmmmm, a code of practice or legislation? Loss leading is a way of life for the big supermarket chains, it's one of the only tools they have for gaining market share!
· Reform Common Agricultural Policy but do not cut the amount of money spent on CAP in the UK.
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male):
I guess it's part of the political fabric, but it sill seems a shame that whatever one lot does the other lot(s) will trash it all. Anyhoo, as those with perhaps more claim to being green than most, here's what I got sent (maybe there'll be more detail on what was in the report to come):
Greens dismiss Tory environmental claims
Speaking in advance of this week's publication of the Conservative
Party's 'Quality of Life' review, Green Party Principal Speakers Siân
Berry and Derek Wall today dismissed suggestions that the Tories had
gone Green.
Green Party Principal Speaker Siân Berry said:
"It seems clear that Cameron is trying to slide out of his previous
promise that the Tories would support a new round of nuclear power
stations only as a last resort.
"Backing nuclear power makes a mockery of their green pretensions.
"Dirty, dangerous, unnecessary and expensive - support for this
ailing industry comes at a cost of funding for the cutting edge
renewables technology.
Principal Speaker Derek Wall said:
"If they were serious about tackling climate change, the Tories would
call for an immediate moratorium on any more road building or
aviation growth.
"As it is, their belief that a bigger economy is a better economy
undermines any hope they have of adopting the right policies for
tackling climate change."
"The Conservatives privatisation of public transport under Thatcher
is one of the reasons why 80 per cent of journeys are by car. They
need to support the renationalisation of rail as well as reregulation
of bus travel."
Not the greatest in consumer-helpful, specfics-heavy retorts I might have hoped for, especially when reaching back to the Thatcher era at one point.
And when they were up they were up, and when they were green they came down
There used to be a phase, now very un-PC and hence used no more: Indian Giver. Basically it meant (I think) offering something and then retracting it. It doesn't take much to see how this process is often worse than doing nothing at all.
So we come to Cameron 'drops controversial green pledges'
No sooner than I was getting my head around the 549 (lost two here) page report's summary (the full thing I'll leave to the 'RILEwings' (hey... and acronym: RIght/LEft wings) to cherry pick and gnaw to death, or hope some halfway objective journo may do so) than it looks like it really isn't worth the bother.
A shame, because that's not really how it was meant, but in this instant gratification/immediate reaction world, it was hard to separate a 'study' from policy. So while you can admire looking at an issue, warts and all, there seems to be a need to package it such that this clear distinction gets made in the minds of those for whom it is intended.
As it stands, I have no clue what is in or out, and hence really can have no opinion save for what seems a good idea, what might not be and, as they are different, what may/may not be good ideas to have if you want to win an election to get to do rather than just talk.
Carrots are good in this regard, but they better be pretty clear and trusted to salve the likely reaction to some less than lifestyle friendly hits.
There is also my enviROI bugbear: big vs. populist hits. At least as to what gets reported, which may be beyond the party's control.
The Quality of Life report analysis in the Indy does, I hope at least with the Recommendation ( I am unsure about the Expert View), conform to my desire for objectivity. I can't disagree with them, though I would want a lot more. For instance developing sustainable timber into stopping deforestation. I share its key points here:
Greenhouse gases
Recommendation: To combat climate change, the Tories should plan for an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, not the current 60 per cent target.
Expert view: This will hardly be among today's headlines about restricting flying and making gas guzzling cars more expensive, but to green campaigners it will stand out as an absolutely key commitment. It is increasingly clear to scientists that a 60 per cent cut in Co2 will not nearly be enough to halt the progress of global warming. In its draft Climate Change bill, however, the Labour government is sticking with the 60 per cent target.
Nuclear energy
Recommendation: The final decision on whether or not to build a new generation of nuclear power stations should be left to the private sector, and primarily based on economics.
Expert view: This nuclear fence-sitting is very different from the historic Conservative line on nuclear power, which (especially under Margaret Thatcher) was to give it unquestioning and rock-solid support. It also sharply differentiates the Tories from Labour, who are firmly backing nuclear power, and the Lib Dems, who would ban it. Probably a compromise that the Tory leadership, and the party, will go along with; the greens are pleased.
Biofuels
Recommendation: A Tory government should press ahead with biofuels to cut down Co2 emissions, but be very careful of the pitfalls associated with them.
Expert view: Transport fuels made from crops produce no net Co2 (because they absorb it as they grow) and therefore are increasingly seen as a quick fix to cut missions. But they also present potentially enormous environmental and social problems, including rainforest destruction and large-scale use of agricultural land, driving up food prices. Biofuels, says the report, should play an increasing role but be chosen for quality not quantity, with origin verified by the Government.
Sustainable timber
Recommendation: A Tory government should make the importation of timber from questionable sources illegal.
Expert view: Legislation should be brought in to ensure that only legal and sustainable timber products are sold in the UK. Many green campaigners and others concerned about the continuing destruction of the rainforests will welcome this proposal heartily. According to the World Wide Fund forNature, in 2005 the UK was the biggest importer of illegal timber in Europe, with the total making up 26 per cent of our imported wood.
Indy - Should we believe politicians when they promise to save the earth? I don't think so - my point about the messenger vs. the message writ clear. I must try and track Zac's Telegraph piece.
Telegraph - 'We can't carry on soaking up resources'
So we come to Cameron 'drops controversial green pledges'
No sooner than I was getting my head around the 549 (lost two here) page report's summary (the full thing I'll leave to the 'RILEwings' (hey... and acronym: RIght/LEft wings) to cherry pick and gnaw to death, or hope some halfway objective journo may do so) than it looks like it really isn't worth the bother.
A shame, because that's not really how it was meant, but in this instant gratification/immediate reaction world, it was hard to separate a 'study' from policy. So while you can admire looking at an issue, warts and all, there seems to be a need to package it such that this clear distinction gets made in the minds of those for whom it is intended.
As it stands, I have no clue what is in or out, and hence really can have no opinion save for what seems a good idea, what might not be and, as they are different, what may/may not be good ideas to have if you want to win an election to get to do rather than just talk.
Carrots are good in this regard, but they better be pretty clear and trusted to salve the likely reaction to some less than lifestyle friendly hits.
There is also my enviROI bugbear: big vs. populist hits. At least as to what gets reported, which may be beyond the party's control.
The Quality of Life report analysis in the Indy does, I hope at least with the Recommendation ( I am unsure about the Expert View), conform to my desire for objectivity. I can't disagree with them, though I would want a lot more. For instance developing sustainable timber into stopping deforestation. I share its key points here:
Greenhouse gases
Recommendation: To combat climate change, the Tories should plan for an 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, not the current 60 per cent target.
Expert view: This will hardly be among today's headlines about restricting flying and making gas guzzling cars more expensive, but to green campaigners it will stand out as an absolutely key commitment. It is increasingly clear to scientists that a 60 per cent cut in Co2 will not nearly be enough to halt the progress of global warming. In its draft Climate Change bill, however, the Labour government is sticking with the 60 per cent target.
Nuclear energy
Recommendation: The final decision on whether or not to build a new generation of nuclear power stations should be left to the private sector, and primarily based on economics.
Expert view: This nuclear fence-sitting is very different from the historic Conservative line on nuclear power, which (especially under Margaret Thatcher) was to give it unquestioning and rock-solid support. It also sharply differentiates the Tories from Labour, who are firmly backing nuclear power, and the Lib Dems, who would ban it. Probably a compromise that the Tory leadership, and the party, will go along with; the greens are pleased.
Biofuels
Recommendation: A Tory government should press ahead with biofuels to cut down Co2 emissions, but be very careful of the pitfalls associated with them.
Expert view: Transport fuels made from crops produce no net Co2 (because they absorb it as they grow) and therefore are increasingly seen as a quick fix to cut missions. But they also present potentially enormous environmental and social problems, including rainforest destruction and large-scale use of agricultural land, driving up food prices. Biofuels, says the report, should play an increasing role but be chosen for quality not quantity, with origin verified by the Government.
Sustainable timber
Recommendation: A Tory government should make the importation of timber from questionable sources illegal.
Expert view: Legislation should be brought in to ensure that only legal and sustainable timber products are sold in the UK. Many green campaigners and others concerned about the continuing destruction of the rainforests will welcome this proposal heartily. According to the World Wide Fund forNature, in 2005 the UK was the biggest importer of illegal timber in Europe, with the total making up 26 per cent of our imported wood.
Indy - Should we believe politicians when they promise to save the earth? I don't think so - my point about the messenger vs. the message writ clear. I must try and track Zac's Telegraph piece.
Telegraph - 'We can't carry on soaking up resources'
Thursday, September 13, 2007
First it was cars, then planes, now shipping.
There has been one major form of transportation which seems, at least until now, to have largely escaped any media attention; I suspect they have simply kept quiet themselves whilst watching the flak aimed at others. But no secret remains so forever, and finally, a mainstream media source, Reuters, has pointed the finger at shipping, which some analysts claim emits almost as much CO2 as the airline industry.
"In Los Angeles alone, the ships in port spew more pollution than the metro area's six million cars combined"
"the trillion-dollar industry, which carries around 90 percent of world trade by volume on about 50,000 merchant ships, also accounts for about 10 percent of global sulphur dioxide emissions, a cause of acid rain, as well as large amounts of toxic nitrous oxide and particulate emissions."
I wonder how long it will be before the tabloids and the ragtops pick this one up and start advising their readers to take the chunnel, rather than the ferry, to France? Or perhaps the embattled aviation industry will use this as a stick with which to point blame at others?
"In Los Angeles alone, the ships in port spew more pollution than the metro area's six million cars combined"
"the trillion-dollar industry, which carries around 90 percent of world trade by volume on about 50,000 merchant ships, also accounts for about 10 percent of global sulphur dioxide emissions, a cause of acid rain, as well as large amounts of toxic nitrous oxide and particulate emissions."
I wonder how long it will be before the tabloids and the ragtops pick this one up and start advising their readers to take the chunnel, rather than the ferry, to France? Or perhaps the embattled aviation industry will use this as a stick with which to point blame at others?
Made me smile. Then frown.
This from the ever-useful MRW: Councils' decisions questioned by Repic letter
At first blush it looks like little in our consumer sphere to get involved with, but then I decided to have a nosey.
Considering the amounts involved, how such decisions are arrived at should be of massive public interest, and especially when they affect how we set up the planet of the future. For our kids? Or targets and/or bonuses?
Councils may 'have expressed concern about this letter'. I'd like to know why. And what the answers are.
This - “Local authorities may deem the information requested as commercially sensitive and decide not to give it out.” is one hell of a get out (of jail free?)!
At first blush it looks like little in our consumer sphere to get involved with, but then I decided to have a nosey.
Considering the amounts involved, how such decisions are arrived at should be of massive public interest, and especially when they affect how we set up the planet of the future. For our kids? Or targets and/or bonuses?
Councils may 'have expressed concern about this letter'. I'd like to know why. And what the answers are.
This - “Local authorities may deem the information requested as commercially sensitive and decide not to give it out.” is one hell of a get out (of jail free?)!
Slate, thatch, or crossply?
This is the kind of thing I think WRAP (or, more accurately, its support systems) does well: Recycling Tyres Into Roof Tiles
So long as the numbers add up (inc. enviROI), this looks a winner.
I wish all involved well.
So long as the numbers add up (inc. enviROI), this looks a winner.
I wish all involved well.
Money=?
Google Founders' Ultimate Perk: A NASA Runway
I think I'm boring most when I point out that it's hard to have a ton of cash and not spend it on stuff like toys and going places (or how all media, no matter how eco-sensitive, can resist reporting such excess in the awed terms accorded celeb lifestyles). I guess they just managed a neat combo.
Here's hoping we don't end up being lectured on going green from this quarter too overtly.
But I'm sure they offset like billy-o.
Guardian - Is black the new green? - Gotta love 'em though. Nice reply. IT feedback also noted.
I think I'm boring most when I point out that it's hard to have a ton of cash and not spend it on stuff like toys and going places (or how all media, no matter how eco-sensitive, can resist reporting such excess in the awed terms accorded celeb lifestyles). I guess they just managed a neat combo.
Here's hoping we don't end up being lectured on going green from this quarter too overtly.
But I'm sure they offset like billy-o.
Guardian - Is black the new green? - Gotta love 'em though. Nice reply. IT feedback also noted.
Big Mac
I referred to it before but, as is the way, almost forgot due to events, dear boys and guys... events. The Conservative report is now out, and warrants another outing, starting here: Tory report backs increased taxes on flights and cars
Interestingly, listening to the Jeremy Vine show 'tother day, I would say the BBC is seemingly in pendulum mode balance wise, because this didn't half cop it!
I'm sure there'll be more. And I just hope I can find the time to read it all (but at 549 pages that may not happen - which may be a metaphor for the disconnect between those telling us stuff and us listening/doing) and add my t'pennyworth without relying on others, and their biases, to creep in first.
To kick off: A quality report
I'd love to read it (ta, Guardian) to form my own view, but at 549 pages that may not happen.
Which, in a climate where there is a seeming disconnect between those who are telling us what to do, and what 'we' actually pay attention to and act upon, may explain some things.
I guess I'll do what I always do and just let the various 'wings' slug it out and bumble along in my own sweet way if it makes sense, seems fair and has a decent enviROI.
Guardian - MPs: government should help citizens 'do their bit' on climate change - Well, D'uh. As opposed to what?
Interestingly, listening to the Jeremy Vine show 'tother day, I would say the BBC is seemingly in pendulum mode balance wise, because this didn't half cop it!
I'm sure there'll be more. And I just hope I can find the time to read it all (but at 549 pages that may not happen - which may be a metaphor for the disconnect between those telling us stuff and us listening/doing) and add my t'pennyworth without relying on others, and their biases, to creep in first.
To kick off: A quality report
I'd love to read it (ta, Guardian) to form my own view, but at 549 pages that may not happen.
Which, in a climate where there is a seeming disconnect between those who are telling us what to do, and what 'we' actually pay attention to and act upon, may explain some things.
I guess I'll do what I always do and just let the various 'wings' slug it out and bumble along in my own sweet way if it makes sense, seems fair and has a decent enviROI.
Guardian - MPs: government should help citizens 'do their bit' on climate change - Well, D'uh. As opposed to what?
Now That's Radical !!
But by my reckoning, has about as much chance as the the proverbial snowball's in hell.
This little snippet from NewCarNet suggests that the only way that the Greater London Authority could achieve its intended aim of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025, is to ban all private cars from the city!
This little snippet from NewCarNet suggests that the only way that the Greater London Authority could achieve its intended aim of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2025, is to ban all private cars from the city!
When, well, IF in London
It's how I like my conferences. So long as they end up as billed, that is: Relevant, topical, hopefully balanced (you have to look at provenance - COMPASS has a 'leaning') informative... and free.
The title looks fair. Wish I could go. Hope it moves things on.
Can a consumer society stop climate change?
Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge we face, however can it be stopped in an increasingly consumer society? Some have suggested if we continue to consume at the present rate we'd need 4 planets to sustain our current consumption levels.
With the main parties facing growing pressure to live up to their rhetoric on climate change and in the run-up to the climate change bill, Compass has convened a special debate to discuss these issues at: 6pm on Thursday 4 October in Central London (exact venue tbc).
Our high-profile international speaker Clive Hamilton is the executive director of The Australia Institute, Australia’s leading progressive think tank. He's best known for his work on climate change policy, consumerism and the problems of economic growth. In 2004 the Australia Institute teamed up with the IPPR in London and the Center for American Progress in Washington to form the International Climate Change Taskforce. Clive has published extensively, including the best-selling books Growth Fetish and Affluenza (co-authored with Richard Denniss) and What's Left: The death of social democracy. His most recent book is Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.
At the debate he'll be joined by Compass chair Neal Lawson who's currently writing a book called All Consuming (www.allconsuming.org.uk) for publication in Spring 2008. More speakers are to be announced and the event will be chaired by Green Alliance Director Stephen Hale.
The event is free to attend, but early registration is essential to guarantee your place. Please email gavin@compassonline.org.uk to register.
The title looks fair. Wish I could go. Hope it moves things on.
Can a consumer society stop climate change?
Climate change is arguably the biggest challenge we face, however can it be stopped in an increasingly consumer society? Some have suggested if we continue to consume at the present rate we'd need 4 planets to sustain our current consumption levels.
With the main parties facing growing pressure to live up to their rhetoric on climate change and in the run-up to the climate change bill, Compass has convened a special debate to discuss these issues at: 6pm on Thursday 4 October in Central London (exact venue tbc).
Our high-profile international speaker Clive Hamilton is the executive director of The Australia Institute, Australia’s leading progressive think tank. He's best known for his work on climate change policy, consumerism and the problems of economic growth. In 2004 the Australia Institute teamed up with the IPPR in London and the Center for American Progress in Washington to form the International Climate Change Taskforce. Clive has published extensively, including the best-selling books Growth Fetish and Affluenza (co-authored with Richard Denniss) and What's Left: The death of social democracy. His most recent book is Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.
At the debate he'll be joined by Compass chair Neal Lawson who's currently writing a book called All Consuming (www.allconsuming.org.uk) for publication in Spring 2008. More speakers are to be announced and the event will be chaired by Green Alliance Director Stephen Hale.
The event is free to attend, but early registration is essential to guarantee your place. Please email gavin@compassonline.org.uk to register.
The mouth says no. The dress says yes.
I'd hate to be on any jury. But especially a rape one. Despite too many CSI episodes it would be impossible to convict, especially when it's down to the word of the two sole witnesses.
This, is just slightly to do with that. It's about the dilemma one faces as a medium with a model based on ad revenue, and allied influences, as discussed in other blogs today (sponsorship, funding, etc). You have to be careful that what you say is not countered too much (if at all), but what's happening around you, and hence associated with you.
On Junkk.com I fully intend (and need) to have ads to help me pay my way. And logic dictates the ads on certain sections are relevant to them.
I'd like to think that I can mange to make sure that they are just ads, that they conform to all necessary ethical and ASA-required standards (if you look at their weekly hit-list, that's a big 'if'), and the reader treats them and the messages as such.
I was pondering this as I was reading a green-related piece in the Guardian today.
I was alse attracted to the button (above right), which got me to the page (above left), which in turn led me further down a pretty exclusive trail on the green and wonderful world of British Gas.
Now I don't know, but I am unsure as to their relative merits in the great green firmament, especially of energy production/supply (our biggest national CO2 emitter, no?), but I just felt the way all this was set up gave rather to much credence to what is in fact a naked corporate pitch.
I have no problem with sponsorship, but I do think it is incumbent upon the medium to ensure that the advertiser does not end up so dominating the screen that any chance of objectivity in message or editorial is tainted.
Well, he asked... in the Guardian
Can this really save the planet? Is the question posed, surrounding by more ads with the word green than you could shake a self-powered torch at.
And, for fun (if not irony), right next to this: Aston Martin tops cool brands list (Junkk.com oddly, not yet there).
I have of course been banging on about big vs. small picture for a while. But as he sets them out initially it's in a different area. All the small tips cited are 'why nots?', easy to effect and usually save money. The ones that get me going are diversions, and often divisive ones, such as bottled water witch hunts, which over-shadow campaigns (are they any?) to coordinate 'ground to grounded' life cycle systems that involve all in the waste chain and don't just throw a bunch of targets and jargon at the poor consumer to sort out. Plus insulation (we'll, in all senses of the word, come back to that).
Of course if you 'take these simple steps today... they really do "make a difference". Do 'em!
Only later do we get to easier agreement. With some facts I can only assume are correct. There will be others incoming as I write, I'm sure.
A long time ago in a publication I asked those who know (I think it was either a plastics or recycling trade mag), just how much 'plastic', the 100-300 (estimates vary) carriers 'we' use (and 'I' reuse; a fact often not factored in by those who still purchase bin liners) represents? Sadly, to date, no answer. I just wondered if it would equate to the number of Fairy Liquid bottles not reused at the BBC, insert sleeves/DVDs at the Indy or water fountain bottles at the LibDem HQ... each week.
I have to disagree on the standby thing. While I rail against those who get over eco-puritan about where their definitions of 'what's necessary' stops (usually at what they deem is required for a comfy, green-glow lifestyle), these things simply are not. And the figures I have seen suggest that they gobble a lot that is pure waste. So... bad call.
And these things are cumulative y'know. So I am very happy, both financially and economically, with my Ecokettle.
Which is a pity, because it all set a tone that coloured what I do agree with way down the piece: that there is any equivalence between these lifestyle preferences and the serious decisions that really reduce emissions - stopping flying, living close to work and living in a well-insulated house. (I critique as I read, so OK it's here... at last. No apologies for leaving mine up there.
And I have to agree , a tad, about the wallpaper. The latest blonde celeb to get wheeled out to promote her film/TV/book on the back of some green effort she was the face of, managed recycling, having a shower and... er... that was it. Meanwhile, she was off to Bali for a shoot next week.
Which brings one to the role of media in all this, as discussed on these posts many times before. They really can't have both, and both ways. Either stick with the line on climate or not, but don't try the first whilst promoting celebrity and consumer excess at every turn via editorial and ads. Or getting snitty because some green commentators (if I may make so bold as to include myself) and, more importantly, most public (and, eventually, the BBC), don't see such as Live Earth and/or Planet Relief as the best way forward.
But as one more than critical of blowing money that could be better spent elsewhere than on quango board members' bonus-boosting comms budgets, I am more than interested (assuming it's true - so pending attribution/confirmation) that 'making the solutions easy is no guarantee that anyone will carry them out.' And that, ' The government spent £22m on the Do Your Bit campaign and has subsequently admitted that it produced no measurable change in personal behaviour.' How much so far on telling us to recycle, for instance? And what does ActOnCo2 do exactly for the money? And what was the ROI, much less the enviROI of these efforts?
Especially if, with such as recycling, Mori (assuming... yada.. I need an acronym for these points. Subject To Unequivocal Follow-Up Proof - STUFUP) 'concluded that it was becoming an act of "totem behaviour" and that "individuals use recycling as a means of discharging their responsibility to undertake wider changes in lifestyle".
And I really can't fault this: 'Governments and businesses are, if anything, even more prone to tokenistic behaviour than individuals. Encouraging small voluntary actions by the public, customers or staff looks good and is much safer than passing restrictive legislation or rethinking your entire business model.'
So, in conclusion...
... what we need is a sense of proportion. No question.
We also need to rethink the way we talk about climate change. Ditto. Plus those who have taken it upon themselves to be considered leaders of the charge, whilst often charging (or earning) so lucratively in the process, as I can't say the job most are doing amounts to much that helps my kids' futures.
And let's be clear that voluntary action will never be enough - we will need radical political, economic and social change. I hear you, brother!
So let's start by doing away with that wretched phrase "you can save the planet". Well, it doesn't bother me, but I usually bolt 'and save money, too' on the end, at least with Junkk.com (I popped in a hyperlink and forget that the full point makes a big difference. D'Oh!) . Seems to work.
But I will add one more, teensie bit: 'And your positive suggestions would be...?" They may be around, but here would be a good place to share too.
Read Bibi van der Zee's response to this article: What's wrong with turning lights off?
Again interesting, but again the order of priority had me thrown. At least Fiesta family gets a mention. And again the notion that 'awareness' is worth it if it translates into action, but with little regard that some efforts may actually have a reverse effect. As has, say , the city-centric but nationwide anti 4x4 campaigns out in the country.
And, for fun (if not irony), right next to this: Aston Martin tops cool brands list (Junkk.com oddly, not yet there).
I have of course been banging on about big vs. small picture for a while. But as he sets them out initially it's in a different area. All the small tips cited are 'why nots?', easy to effect and usually save money. The ones that get me going are diversions, and often divisive ones, such as bottled water witch hunts, which over-shadow campaigns (are they any?) to coordinate 'ground to grounded' life cycle systems that involve all in the waste chain and don't just throw a bunch of targets and jargon at the poor consumer to sort out. Plus insulation (we'll, in all senses of the word, come back to that).
Of course if you 'take these simple steps today... they really do "make a difference". Do 'em!
Only later do we get to easier agreement. With some facts I can only assume are correct. There will be others incoming as I write, I'm sure.
A long time ago in a publication I asked those who know (I think it was either a plastics or recycling trade mag), just how much 'plastic', the 100-300 (estimates vary) carriers 'we' use (and 'I' reuse; a fact often not factored in by those who still purchase bin liners) represents? Sadly, to date, no answer. I just wondered if it would equate to the number of Fairy Liquid bottles not reused at the BBC, insert sleeves/DVDs at the Indy or water fountain bottles at the LibDem HQ... each week.
I have to disagree on the standby thing. While I rail against those who get over eco-puritan about where their definitions of 'what's necessary' stops (usually at what they deem is required for a comfy, green-glow lifestyle), these things simply are not. And the figures I have seen suggest that they gobble a lot that is pure waste. So... bad call.
And these things are cumulative y'know. So I am very happy, both financially and economically, with my Ecokettle.
Which is a pity, because it all set a tone that coloured what I do agree with way down the piece: that there is any equivalence between these lifestyle preferences and the serious decisions that really reduce emissions - stopping flying, living close to work and living in a well-insulated house. (I critique as I read, so OK it's here... at last. No apologies for leaving mine up there.
And I have to agree , a tad, about the wallpaper. The latest blonde celeb to get wheeled out to promote her film/TV/book on the back of some green effort she was the face of, managed recycling, having a shower and... er... that was it. Meanwhile, she was off to Bali for a shoot next week.
Which brings one to the role of media in all this, as discussed on these posts many times before. They really can't have both, and both ways. Either stick with the line on climate or not, but don't try the first whilst promoting celebrity and consumer excess at every turn via editorial and ads. Or getting snitty because some green commentators (if I may make so bold as to include myself) and, more importantly, most public (and, eventually, the BBC), don't see such as Live Earth and/or Planet Relief as the best way forward.
But as one more than critical of blowing money that could be better spent elsewhere than on quango board members' bonus-boosting comms budgets, I am more than interested (assuming it's true - so pending attribution/confirmation) that 'making the solutions easy is no guarantee that anyone will carry them out.' And that, ' The government spent £22m on the Do Your Bit campaign and has subsequently admitted that it produced no measurable change in personal behaviour.' How much so far on telling us to recycle, for instance? And what does ActOnCo2 do exactly for the money? And what was the ROI, much less the enviROI of these efforts?
Especially if, with such as recycling, Mori (assuming... yada.. I need an acronym for these points. Subject To Unequivocal Follow-Up Proof - STUFUP) 'concluded that it was becoming an act of "totem behaviour" and that "individuals use recycling as a means of discharging their responsibility to undertake wider changes in lifestyle".
And I really can't fault this: 'Governments and businesses are, if anything, even more prone to tokenistic behaviour than individuals. Encouraging small voluntary actions by the public, customers or staff looks good and is much safer than passing restrictive legislation or rethinking your entire business model.'
So, in conclusion...
... what we need is a sense of proportion. No question.
We also need to rethink the way we talk about climate change. Ditto. Plus those who have taken it upon themselves to be considered leaders of the charge, whilst often charging (or earning) so lucratively in the process, as I can't say the job most are doing amounts to much that helps my kids' futures.
And let's be clear that voluntary action will never be enough - we will need radical political, economic and social change. I hear you, brother!
So let's start by doing away with that wretched phrase "you can save the planet". Well, it doesn't bother me, but I usually bolt 'and save money, too' on the end, at least with Junkk.com (I popped in a hyperlink and forget that the full point makes a big difference. D'Oh!) . Seems to work.
But I will add one more, teensie bit: 'And your positive suggestions would be...?" They may be around, but here would be a good place to share too.
Read Bibi van der Zee's response to this article: What's wrong with turning lights off?
Again interesting, but again the order of priority had me thrown. At least Fiesta family gets a mention. And again the notion that 'awareness' is worth it if it translates into action, but with little regard that some efforts may actually have a reverse effect. As has, say , the city-centric but nationwide anti 4x4 campaigns out in the country.
Fishing for evidence?
Sometimes you just don't have to - the evidence comes to you!
Every now and again we hear reports of unusual species turning up off the coast of the UK. The Basking Sharks that are now commonly observed off Cornwall on an almost daily basis were very rarely sighted 30 years ago. But it seems that bigger is better as far as reporting is concerned - species such as a Loggerheads Turtle generate a local influx of umpteen television crews turning up to record the event. Scary species are good too - just look at the hours of recent coverage on the TV and in the press about the Great White Shark - which turned out to be, well, not a member of that particular family.
Now many marine species are highly sensitive to even minuscule changes in temperature, salinity and interruptions to the food chain, whether they are large and/or scary (and hence worthy of major news coverage) or small.
But when something that has only been recorded 42 times in the last 150 years starts arriving off our coast in noticeable numbers you would think that it just might get some serious news coverage. The trouble is, this particular chap, a warm, temperate marine species, only grows to a couple of pounds or so, so it just doesn't have the newsworthiness clout that a large turtle or a big shark has.
This from local website thisiscornwall, highlights the arrival of the Amberjack in British coastal waters. Now 42 sightings in 150 years doesn't sound too important, but when you consider that 12 of those sightings have been over the last three months, and 4 of those were over the last weekend alone, then it just has to be significant.
Now the Amberjack isn't exactly a handsome little fish, nor is it big or scary, but what it does present is genuine and almost incontrovertible evidence of just what is happening to the seas off our coast as climate change slowly increases water temperatures.
Little fish may be sweet, but unfortunately they don't increase the media ratings, despite the importance of what they might portend.
____________________________
n.b.1 I have since found out that there are several species of Amberjack, one of which can grow to a whopping 170 lb in weight. The ones currently appearing are all of the smaller species.
n.b.2 Wasn't the guy in the photo in 'Village People' years ago?
Every now and again we hear reports of unusual species turning up off the coast of the UK. The Basking Sharks that are now commonly observed off Cornwall on an almost daily basis were very rarely sighted 30 years ago. But it seems that bigger is better as far as reporting is concerned - species such as a Loggerheads Turtle generate a local influx of umpteen television crews turning up to record the event. Scary species are good too - just look at the hours of recent coverage on the TV and in the press about the Great White Shark - which turned out to be, well, not a member of that particular family.
Now many marine species are highly sensitive to even minuscule changes in temperature, salinity and interruptions to the food chain, whether they are large and/or scary (and hence worthy of major news coverage) or small.
But when something that has only been recorded 42 times in the last 150 years starts arriving off our coast in noticeable numbers you would think that it just might get some serious news coverage. The trouble is, this particular chap, a warm, temperate marine species, only grows to a couple of pounds or so, so it just doesn't have the newsworthiness clout that a large turtle or a big shark has.
This from local website thisiscornwall, highlights the arrival of the Amberjack in British coastal waters. Now 42 sightings in 150 years doesn't sound too important, but when you consider that 12 of those sightings have been over the last three months, and 4 of those were over the last weekend alone, then it just has to be significant.
Now the Amberjack isn't exactly a handsome little fish, nor is it big or scary, but what it does present is genuine and almost incontrovertible evidence of just what is happening to the seas off our coast as climate change slowly increases water temperatures.
Little fish may be sweet, but unfortunately they don't increase the media ratings, despite the importance of what they might portend.
____________________________
n.b.1 I have since found out that there are several species of Amberjack, one of which can grow to a whopping 170 lb in weight. The ones currently appearing are all of the smaller species.
n.b.2 Wasn't the guy in the photo in 'Village People' years ago?
It's not. But if it was. Oh it is. And it's ok. Or...
As a fearless parapet head-sticker-over of a contrary but good nature, I usually have some time for 'sceptical environmentalist' Bjorn Lomborg. So I decided this may be worth a gander: Global Warming, the Great Lifesaver
However, I have a rule of thumb, and that is 'if they're promoting a book to you, careful how you look, too'. Sure enough, there's a new tome in tow (Junkk.com, by the way is available now, price: free).
I stand ready to be corrected, but the main premise seems a stretch, for two reasons alone (what, Peter pithy?):
1 - If it's a trend, I'm guessing we may go through balmy and hit roasty toasty pretty quick. Not all of us can survive by sunbathing for a living. Or under water. Or...
2 - This all seems a bit centric on those parts of the world which do, admittedly, get cold. What about those that are already hot all the time? I know he's blond and blue-eyed and all, but don't they count? Maybe that's covered elsewhere in the book.
But, at least, Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, believes that “global - that's global - warming is real and man-made.”
Indy - Stark warning of extinction list: 'Life on Earth is disappearing' - The thing about ignoring lists is that you might one day find yourself on them. Ask Pastor Neimoller.
Guardian - Heeding the right global warnings - By the man himself. Hard to equate to the other one I read. Ho hum. Selective editing is all. Very good links in the posts.
However, I have a rule of thumb, and that is 'if they're promoting a book to you, careful how you look, too'. Sure enough, there's a new tome in tow (Junkk.com, by the way is available now, price: free).
I stand ready to be corrected, but the main premise seems a stretch, for two reasons alone (what, Peter pithy?):
1 - If it's a trend, I'm guessing we may go through balmy and hit roasty toasty pretty quick. Not all of us can survive by sunbathing for a living. Or under water. Or...
2 - This all seems a bit centric on those parts of the world which do, admittedly, get cold. What about those that are already hot all the time? I know he's blond and blue-eyed and all, but don't they count? Maybe that's covered elsewhere in the book.
But, at least, Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, believes that “global - that's global - warming is real and man-made.”
Indy - Stark warning of extinction list: 'Life on Earth is disappearing' - The thing about ignoring lists is that you might one day find yourself on them. Ask Pastor Neimoller.
Guardian - Heeding the right global warnings - By the man himself. Hard to equate to the other one I read. Ho hum. Selective editing is all. Very good links in the posts.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Doom, Gloom and more Doom
Climate change already seems to be hitting parts of the Mediterranean very hard. Having spoken to several friends who have recently returned from holiday in various Mediterranean locations such as Greece, Sicily and Malta (lucky lot!), and having listened to all of them moaning that at 40C+ in the shade (48C in one instance!), it was just too damned hot to go out during the early afternoon, I wasn't too surprised to come across this from the International Herald Tribune which reports that the Mediterranean Sea itself may be at risk.
"temperature rises could wipe out 'up to 50 percent of the species,' the study said. The decline in the algae population measured last winter also reduced by 30 percent the sea's ability to absorb carbon dioxide"
Now that's getting scary.
And on the same day we get a story from Reuters Africa suggesting that the impact of global warming could be as devastating as nuclear war!
"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war"
That's very worrying!
Meanwhile, as reported in the Guardian yesterday, our own MOD has commissioned a study "to identify countries where battles could break out over increasingly scarce supplies of food and water, as well as predict the likely conditions in which British troops may have to fight in future". The study is attempting to identify just what the consequences of an over-populated planet undergoing significant climatic change might be, but it sounds more like significant pre-preparation for some nasty worst case future scenarios.
Now that's really filled me full of doom and gloom!
"temperature rises could wipe out 'up to 50 percent of the species,' the study said. The decline in the algae population measured last winter also reduced by 30 percent the sea's ability to absorb carbon dioxide"
Now that's getting scary.
And on the same day we get a story from Reuters Africa suggesting that the impact of global warming could be as devastating as nuclear war!
"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war"
That's very worrying!
Meanwhile, as reported in the Guardian yesterday, our own MOD has commissioned a study "to identify countries where battles could break out over increasingly scarce supplies of food and water, as well as predict the likely conditions in which British troops may have to fight in future". The study is attempting to identify just what the consequences of an over-populated planet undergoing significant climatic change might be, but it sounds more like significant pre-preparation for some nasty worst case future scenarios.
Now that's really filled me full of doom and gloom!
Arctic Ice Watch - Update
A little while back, we commented on the new record for a minimum of ice coverage across the Arctic ocean. See Arctic Ice Hits New Record Low.
Well, only a few weeks later, as reported by the National Snow & Ice Data Centre, the disappearance of the ice coverage has continued at an astonishing and unprecedented rate. As of the 9th September, the Arctic sea ice extent has dropped "to 4.24 million square kilometers (1.63 million square miles), falling yet further below the previous record absolute minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) that occurred on September 20–21, 2005".
With still perhaps two more weeks of melt, we may actually see the mythical North-East passage open at this rate. (The North-West passage has already been fully navigable for several weeks.)
And, dear readers, what colour will you be?
Kelly - extra £1.2million to turn white van man green - I'm going for a red (burst blood vessel) or maybe blue (ceased to breathe).
I do declare this comes on the same day I saw a BBC report on doing the limit to save the planet as well. Do I feel a campaign coming on?
As it exists I feel obligated to share, and as the link doesn't work in full. I feel unable to comment (which I may have done when this was last trumpeted) too much, save to say that, as an ex-whit van man (misspent Univeristy days), I can't help but feel an extra £1.2M might be better spent than on this black hole.
Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, today announced an extra £1.2million to train van drivers in greener, safer driving techniques.
The Safe and Fuel Efficient Drivers (SAFED) scheme aims to encourage driving techniques that save fuel, thereby cutting costs and CO2 emissions. Since its launch, the Department for Transport has invested nearly £2.2million in the scheme.
The training has been immensely popular and so far the programme has trained nearly 7,800 drivers. Drivers who completed the training found they achieved an average 16% improvement in miles per gallon, giving a potential annual fuel saving of £3.3million and CO2 emissions reduction of 9,350 tonnes, equivalent to an average of £425 for each van driver and a reduction for CO2 emissions of around 1.2 tonnes.
Ruth Kelly said:
"White van man is turning green. By learning safe, fuel efficient driving techniques, van drivers are playing a vital role in cutting CO2 emissions. They're helping tackle climate change, saving money and improving safety without impacting on customer delivery times
The new money will part fund training for new instructors, new assessors and up to 6,500 drivers over the next three years.
SAFED is a one-day training course involving a mix of classroom and on-the-road tuition. It teaches drivers how techniques such as better use of gears and brakes (avoiding over-revving and unnecessary gear changes), keeping correct braking distances (not braking hard) and better road awareness (seeing junctions in good time) can improve both fuel efficiency and safety.
Fleet managers and van drivers interested in finding out how SAFED for Vans could benefit their business should visit http://www.safed.org.uk and navigate to the 'find a trainer' page, or call 0870 190 8440.
It's a question to me of enviROI. I can't fault the facts, but are they really the best wins for the money? We are talking £3.4M for 10k tonnes of CO2, assuming the figures are right (are we talking employed as well as owner drivers?), along with my maths.
SAFED was originally launched in 2006. It followed a successful pilot project that found significant financial and environmental gains could be made by using advanced driving techniques without any noticeable impact on delivery times.
A series of case studies and guides have also been published by the DfT funded Freight Best Practice programme
I do declare this comes on the same day I saw a BBC report on doing the limit to save the planet as well. Do I feel a campaign coming on?
As it exists I feel obligated to share, and as the link doesn't work in full. I feel unable to comment (which I may have done when this was last trumpeted) too much, save to say that, as an ex-whit van man (misspent Univeristy days), I can't help but feel an extra £1.2M might be better spent than on this black hole.
Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, today announced an extra £1.2million to train van drivers in greener, safer driving techniques.
The Safe and Fuel Efficient Drivers (SAFED) scheme aims to encourage driving techniques that save fuel, thereby cutting costs and CO2 emissions. Since its launch, the Department for Transport has invested nearly £2.2million in the scheme.
The training has been immensely popular and so far the programme has trained nearly 7,800 drivers. Drivers who completed the training found they achieved an average 16% improvement in miles per gallon, giving a potential annual fuel saving of £3.3million and CO2 emissions reduction of 9,350 tonnes, equivalent to an average of £425 for each van driver and a reduction for CO2 emissions of around 1.2 tonnes.
Ruth Kelly said:
"White van man is turning green. By learning safe, fuel efficient driving techniques, van drivers are playing a vital role in cutting CO2 emissions. They're helping tackle climate change, saving money and improving safety without impacting on customer delivery times
The new money will part fund training for new instructors, new assessors and up to 6,500 drivers over the next three years.
SAFED is a one-day training course involving a mix of classroom and on-the-road tuition. It teaches drivers how techniques such as better use of gears and brakes (avoiding over-revving and unnecessary gear changes), keeping correct braking distances (not braking hard) and better road awareness (seeing junctions in good time) can improve both fuel efficiency and safety.
Fleet managers and van drivers interested in finding out how SAFED for Vans could benefit their business should visit http://www.safed.org.uk and navigate to the 'find a trainer' page, or call 0870 190 8440.
It's a question to me of enviROI. I can't fault the facts, but are they really the best wins for the money? We are talking £3.4M for 10k tonnes of CO2, assuming the figures are right (are we talking employed as well as owner drivers?), along with my maths.
SAFED was originally launched in 2006. It followed a successful pilot project that found significant financial and environmental gains could be made by using advanced driving techniques without any noticeable impact on delivery times.
A series of case studies and guides have also been published by the DfT funded Freight Best Practice programme
Commy time once more
I almost skipped over this - NOWADAYS, IT SEEMS, YOU ARE WHAT YOU DON'T EAT. But then, I didn't.
Hardly the most representative sample, but for my discussions with others on motivating eco-friendly notions of lifestyle reductions, at the very least in terms of waste, still a nifty selection of thoughts.
I have been banging on for a while that, if everyone is so cash rich because they are so time poor, getting 'em to consume less, move less far... and slower... is going to be quite a task. No point having all that money if you can't blow it, hmnn?
Did someone mention Marx?
Hardly the most representative sample, but for my discussions with others on motivating eco-friendly notions of lifestyle reductions, at the very least in terms of waste, still a nifty selection of thoughts.
I have been banging on for a while that, if everyone is so cash rich because they are so time poor, getting 'em to consume less, move less far... and slower... is going to be quite a task. No point having all that money if you can't blow it, hmnn?
Did someone mention Marx?
Every little helps .......
.... or so it would seem.
This from Interactive Investor reports on Tesco's £25 Million investment, in conjunction with the University of Manchester, in setting up the 'Sustainable Consumption Institute' (SCI).
The SCI has a nice aim - to "help both customers and retailers create a sustainable, greener future".
But I can't help raising an eyebrow over some of the 'projects'. E.g. "making paper from chicken feathers and fuelling delivery vans with plastic milk bottles." What???***!!!
"Tesco's chief executive Sir Terry Leahy said the Institute - one of the key elements of its climate change strategy announced in January - was further proof the company's long-term commitment to making a positive contribution to tackling environmental issues."
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. I can't help suspecting that there's more than a little of 'keeping up with the Jones's' (or perhaps I should say Rose's?), along with a large dollop of greenwash, going on here. And I'm certain that there must be more realistic, and more genuinely planet sustainable ideas, that could be concentrated on with such a huge budget, rather than faffing about trying to make paper from chicken feathers!
ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male
Indy - Tesco funds 'green consumption' studies - Nice press release cut and paste job, guys. In light of what follows, I do share this: 'This is independent research. The industry partner has a right to talk to us about what problems it wants to have addressed, but it cannot manipulate the findings."
But I thought I'd seldom find myself agreeing with (most here from) this lady:
Janet Street-Porter: Spare me these supermarket saints
It's not making our job easier, is it? And what could we do (that's 'DO') with £25M? Note the action verb there. It's important in the context of her conclusion:
None of the parties are prepared to admit that accepting money from retailers to fund education and research just compromises the results.
It also goes to the defensive reaction to such critiques... If they are valid. Are such 'initiatives' helping the overall cause, when this is what can be levelled by major media commentators almost by return. Plugging sprung leaks as you still tilt full speed into icebergs is not good prioritising.
Guardian - Sustainable living, sponsored by Tesco - With soem more views. But, thanks to Dave, you heard it here fi.. er , earlier. I'm erring on the BTN end of the debate. It is a lot of dough. Just wish it went to a better cause.
This from Interactive Investor reports on Tesco's £25 Million investment, in conjunction with the University of Manchester, in setting up the 'Sustainable Consumption Institute' (SCI).
The SCI has a nice aim - to "help both customers and retailers create a sustainable, greener future".
But I can't help raising an eyebrow over some of the 'projects'. E.g. "making paper from chicken feathers and fuelling delivery vans with plastic milk bottles." What???***!!!
"Tesco's chief executive Sir Terry Leahy said the Institute - one of the key elements of its climate change strategy announced in January - was further proof the company's long-term commitment to making a positive contribution to tackling environmental issues."
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. I can't help suspecting that there's more than a little of 'keeping up with the Jones's' (or perhaps I should say Rose's?), along with a large dollop of greenwash, going on here. And I'm certain that there must be more realistic, and more genuinely planet sustainable ideas, that could be concentrated on with such a huge budget, rather than faffing about trying to make paper from chicken feathers!
ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male
Indy - Tesco funds 'green consumption' studies - Nice press release cut and paste job, guys. In light of what follows, I do share this: 'This is independent research. The industry partner has a right to talk to us about what problems it wants to have addressed, but it cannot manipulate the findings."
But I thought I'd seldom find myself agreeing with (most here from) this lady:
Janet Street-Porter: Spare me these supermarket saints
It's not making our job easier, is it? And what could we do (that's 'DO') with £25M? Note the action verb there. It's important in the context of her conclusion:
None of the parties are prepared to admit that accepting money from retailers to fund education and research just compromises the results.
It also goes to the defensive reaction to such critiques... If they are valid. Are such 'initiatives' helping the overall cause, when this is what can be levelled by major media commentators almost by return. Plugging sprung leaks as you still tilt full speed into icebergs is not good prioritising.
Guardian - Sustainable living, sponsored by Tesco - With soem more views. But, thanks to Dave, you heard it here fi.. er , earlier. I'm erring on the BTN end of the debate. It is a lot of dough. Just wish it went to a better cause.
And in the green corner - Bin Laden!
I missed this from The TimesOnline yesterday, reporting on Osama Bin Laden's latest video appearance on the anniversary of 9/11. A date which still makes me shudder, especially as I should have been in the World Trade Centre on the day of the attack; luckily (for me) my meeting was cancelled a few days beforehand.
Anyway, it would seem that the new Grecian 2000 enhanced version of the leader of Al-Qaeda is standing fair and square in the 'green lobby'.
"The life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations. Yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord".
I suppose that there's a first time for everything - I have to confess that I don't think I can recall ever agreeing with anything in a statement from an international terrorist before!
ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male
Guardian - Can we fight terrorism by reducing CO2 emissions?
Anyway, it would seem that the new Grecian 2000 enhanced version of the leader of Al-Qaeda is standing fair and square in the 'green lobby'.
"The life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations. Yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord".
I suppose that there's a first time for everything - I have to confess that I don't think I can recall ever agreeing with anything in a statement from an international terrorist before!
ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male
Guardian - Can we fight terrorism by reducing CO2 emissions?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
So good, he posted it twice!
Pop back a few posts and see one about our being on a long/shortlist for the EAST Awards. It just got a tad better....
Congratulations! Your entry from your organisation to the 2007 EAST Awards has been shortlisted by the Judging Panel for an Environmental and Sustainable Technology (EAST) Award. Once again congratulations on being shortlisted for a 2007 EAST Award from a very competitive entry list.
Paul McBride
Managing Editor
The EAST Journal
...which was nice.
Congratulations! Your entry from your organisation to the 2007 EAST Awards has been shortlisted by the Judging Panel for an Environmental and Sustainable Technology (EAST) Award. Once again congratulations on being shortlisted for a 2007 EAST Award from a very competitive entry list.
Paul McBride
Managing Editor
The EAST Journal
...which was nice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)