A flight of fancy, or fancy cutting your flights...? : Time to get tough
I saw this as one of those 'Great idea but..' notions along with carbon trading, which all seem to presume an instantaneous, and frankly miraculous level of engagement and cooperation between every competitive country and company on the globe to result in a fair and equitable system to be initiated down through corporate to an individual level.
Then I saw this: '...assessed their figures under internationally-accepted methodology'. Which suggests things are further ahead than I thought. What is this and have you a link to it?
If everyone has already accepted the methodology of assessment, then we are a long way to the rest already. But then some seem not to have embraced it yet. If so, why not?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
When the going gets tough, the tough start labelling
Now I know the uneladed pump is green, but now which shade...? Time To Ecolabel Biofuels?
WEEE, I'm doing my bit to help the 3rd world!
Or not. Second hand mobile phones causing waste problems in Kenya
It doesn't matter where it goes or what it does when it gets there, but so long as 'we' recycle and are seen to do it, I am sure spending like there's no tomorrow (don't get me started) on new toys will seem just spiffy.
It doesn't matter where it goes or what it does when it gets there, but so long as 'we' recycle and are seen to do it, I am sure spending like there's no tomorrow (don't get me started) on new toys will seem just spiffy.
Fund, fund fund, 'til Daddy took the T-bird away
And if your business is into ELV's, or any other 're-initiative', this may be for you: WRAP launches new funding scheme
I'm betting Junkk.com or RE:tie won't qualify. But I gladly 'share the lurv'.
I'm betting Junkk.com or RE:tie won't qualify. But I gladly 'share the lurv'.
Here's one I saw earlier that might not make the programme...
... or the front page of the Indy, either: Reducing food packaging will not solve waste problem
A bit of pragmatism at last from our left mouth:right mouth government/quango/media organs? Well, 'an official' at least, though Defra’s 'head of sustainable development' Ms. Bronwen Jones sounds pretty high up the tree to me!
However I must say that, again, the headline is a tad misleading. Of course reducing some food packaging can, will and should reduce unnecessary waste and lead to an even better enviROI+.
A timely reminder in light of the Love Food:Hate Waste initiative now under way?
Now who has being banging on, for how long, in precisely these terms: 'The complexity is on who really has the power here? Retailers are key influencers but they claim that they are just driven by what consumers want. Consumers often claim that their behaviour is unduly influenced by retailers and they are reluctant to act without Government taking the first step and taking the lead. Government wants to be responsive to people but does not want to be accused of being a nanny state. There is a real tension between the three way relationship; the reality is that all these actors have some type of leadership role to play.”?
Guess that's why I get the big bucks... er...
MRW - Food and drink manufacturers pledge to cut packaging and food waste - just hope it's in the right places and for the right reasons
A bit of pragmatism at last from our left mouth:right mouth government/quango/media organs? Well, 'an official' at least, though Defra’s 'head of sustainable development' Ms. Bronwen Jones sounds pretty high up the tree to me!
However I must say that, again, the headline is a tad misleading. Of course reducing some food packaging can, will and should reduce unnecessary waste and lead to an even better enviROI+.
A timely reminder in light of the Love Food:Hate Waste initiative now under way?
Now who has being banging on, for how long, in precisely these terms: 'The complexity is on who really has the power here? Retailers are key influencers but they claim that they are just driven by what consumers want. Consumers often claim that their behaviour is unduly influenced by retailers and they are reluctant to act without Government taking the first step and taking the lead. Government wants to be responsive to people but does not want to be accused of being a nanny state. There is a real tension between the three way relationship; the reality is that all these actors have some type of leadership role to play.”?
Guess that's why I get the big bucks... er...
MRW - Food and drink manufacturers pledge to cut packaging and food waste - just hope it's in the right places and for the right reasons
Strawberries, ripe strawberries!
Wow! After the broccoli growing in Greenland story, strawberry plants still producing ripening fruit in the UK during November!
And I've got to somehow find time to cut my lawns again this weekend, they're still going strong! A few years ago the last cut used to be around the first week of October!
Nuff said!
And I've got to somehow find time to cut my lawns again this weekend, they're still going strong! A few years ago the last cut used to be around the first week of October!
Nuff said!
The public may have a right to know...
...but why do TV companies have a right to say one thing whilst doing another? TV matters: Long Way Down
This more about trust in what you see. But I think it is a telling indictment of what you are often told. Just how many folk are there behind the camera to bring us that guy speaking earnestly to mic about the state of our planet... from a rather nice location but a 4X4 trip, 5* overnighter and return flight away?
This more about trust in what you see. But I think it is a telling indictment of what you are often told. Just how many folk are there behind the camera to bring us that guy speaking earnestly to mic about the state of our planet... from a rather nice location but a 4X4 trip, 5* overnighter and return flight away?
Wood and trees
This from the Indy Letters page about the role of trees in the carbon cycle bears a thought:
How forests store greenhouse gas
Steve Connor's article "Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon" (1 November) illustrates one of the most common misconceptions surrounding absorption of atmospheric carbon by trees: the misapprehension that forests are net absorbers of CO2.
A mature forest is incredibly useful to us as a store of carbon since any carbon that is fixed within the mass of a living tree is carbon that is not contributing to global warming. However, an existing forest can never help us in our plight unless it is spreading to cover more land. A mature forest (like a mature individual tree) is essentially "carbon neutral": it is absorbing only as much as it is releasing.
Unfortunately, there is not one significant area of mature forest on our planet that is increasing in size. We only get a net benefit when we plant new trees and thereby create new forest. We are in desperate need of more trees and the really sad thing is that this article will lead to fewer new trees being planted.
So... my banging on about not knocking down forests is valid, but not enough. Equally, I retain some significant doubts on many (not all) 'offset schemes' which, as I glibly put it, 'whack a fir in t' firmament - hey, an missed acronym: 'WAFIF'.
In fact, this kind of connects to my notion that using FSC-certified products might actually help over recycling by encouraging replanting. Or does it, as the net area does not expand... oh, my spinning head!
Indy - How timber can store carbon
How forests store greenhouse gas
Steve Connor's article "Forests losing the ability to absorb man-made carbon" (1 November) illustrates one of the most common misconceptions surrounding absorption of atmospheric carbon by trees: the misapprehension that forests are net absorbers of CO2.
A mature forest is incredibly useful to us as a store of carbon since any carbon that is fixed within the mass of a living tree is carbon that is not contributing to global warming. However, an existing forest can never help us in our plight unless it is spreading to cover more land. A mature forest (like a mature individual tree) is essentially "carbon neutral": it is absorbing only as much as it is releasing.
Unfortunately, there is not one significant area of mature forest on our planet that is increasing in size. We only get a net benefit when we plant new trees and thereby create new forest. We are in desperate need of more trees and the really sad thing is that this article will lead to fewer new trees being planted.
So... my banging on about not knocking down forests is valid, but not enough. Equally, I retain some significant doubts on many (not all) 'offset schemes' which, as I glibly put it, 'whack a fir in t' firmament - hey, an missed acronym: 'WAFIF'.
In fact, this kind of connects to my notion that using FSC-certified products might actually help over recycling by encouraging replanting. Or does it, as the net area does not expand... oh, my spinning head!
Indy - How timber can store carbon
Fundamentals? Or financial flows?
As oil approaches the $100 per barrel marker, decide for yourself. As reported in the FT.
Not that long ago $80 a barrel was considered damaging for the world economy, yet here we are seeing the $100 barrel around the corner.
And yet some of the big boys are already profiteering. On my journey across the south coast last Sunday I spotted diesel offered at a lowest price of 98.9p/litre, more commonly something like 101.9 to 102.9p/litre, but some Texaco garages had it priced at a staggering 108.9p/litre. I hope the greedy bastards go bust! (Fat chance!)
The sad thing is that it will ALL be at that level before long. And guess who benefits the most? All that extra tax goes straight into the government's coffers. More cash for additional quangos, targets and surveys then?
Not that long ago $80 a barrel was considered damaging for the world economy, yet here we are seeing the $100 barrel around the corner.
And yet some of the big boys are already profiteering. On my journey across the south coast last Sunday I spotted diesel offered at a lowest price of 98.9p/litre, more commonly something like 101.9 to 102.9p/litre, but some Texaco garages had it priced at a staggering 108.9p/litre. I hope the greedy bastards go bust! (Fat chance!)
The sad thing is that it will ALL be at that level before long. And guess who benefits the most? All that extra tax goes straight into the government's coffers. More cash for additional quangos, targets and surveys then?
Palm oil hits troubled waters?
Now we have all read about how palm oil production is increasing rapidly across suitable areas of the planet, especially now that it can also be utilised as a source of bio-diesel.
This from Greenpeace, names some leading British brands which appear to be highly complicit in the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamp forests which are being replaced with palm oil plantations.
The report explains "how peatlands in the Indonesian province of Riau (an area the size of Switzerland) store a massive 14.6 billion tons of carbon (2) - equivalent to one year's global greenhouse gas emissions. Further expansion for the production of palm oil for food and biofuels threatens to release this enormous store of carbon into the atmosphere."
If it is true that "palm oil from companies engaged in forest and peatland destruction is then ‘laundered' through the entire supply chain, ending up with well known" British brands, then I suspect there are going to be some very red faces in forthcoming board meetings.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Big food companies accused of risking climate catastrophe - 'Risking'...bless. Funny, I was just reading about P&G's eco-efforts, along with Shell's green ad being pulled by the ASA, and...
This from Greenpeace, names some leading British brands which appear to be highly complicit in the destruction of Indonesia's peat swamp forests which are being replaced with palm oil plantations.
The report explains "how peatlands in the Indonesian province of Riau (an area the size of Switzerland) store a massive 14.6 billion tons of carbon (2) - equivalent to one year's global greenhouse gas emissions. Further expansion for the production of palm oil for food and biofuels threatens to release this enormous store of carbon into the atmosphere."
If it is true that "palm oil from companies engaged in forest and peatland destruction is then ‘laundered' through the entire supply chain, ending up with well known" British brands, then I suspect there are going to be some very red faces in forthcoming board meetings.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Big food companies accused of risking climate catastrophe - 'Risking'...bless. Funny, I was just reading about P&G's eco-efforts, along with Shell's green ad being pulled by the ASA, and...
Bad news may actually be good news!
Sounds rather daft doesn't it, but this from The Business reports on a survey (yes, yet another one!) of British companies that looked at how many businesses, across various sectors, were actually measuring their carbon footprint, may just actually be good news from what are apparently bad results.
"The education, hospitality and manufacturing sectors were among the worst offenders, with just 10%-15% saying they measured their carbon footprints, compared with 78% in the leading sector, aerospace. About 40% of companies cited the cost and limited range of environmentally-friendly equipment as the most significant obstacles to going green, while around a third said there was no competitive advantage."
Yet, as commented by the UK Social Investment Forum, "A few years ago, the percentage would have been vanishingly small. To me, this report contains much good news.”
So there you have it, bad news can actually be good news.
_____________
Hmmmmm, "The research follows a report in September by UHY Hacker Young, the accountants, that indicated green taxes were reaping the government 50 times what it handed back in tax breaks for environmental initiatives." I'll have to see if I can find any references to that particular report! But I have to admit that it doesn't surprise me.
Important Addendum:
Just checked back and Peter did actually post a piece about a concurrent report back in September - see "it must be true; its on the BBC".
The strange thing is that the report the Beeb referred to was by the Taxpayers Alliance, which seems, at least to me, to seriously underestimate the scale of the problem. Take a look at this from politics.co.uk. Scary stuff!!
"The UHY research claims official Treasury figures reveal the government accumulates £29.3 billion in green levies, of which only £549 million – or 2 per cent – is handed back to the taxpayer to encourage environmentally conscious activity."
Now if that's accurate, it is not just unethical, it is downright heinous, almost bordering on the bloody fraudulent!
“The concern is that revenue raised from green taxes is being used to fund other government pet projects such as the Olympics.”
Now given the absolute shambles that the grants systems for renewables and insulation etc. are in, then who's conning who?
"The education, hospitality and manufacturing sectors were among the worst offenders, with just 10%-15% saying they measured their carbon footprints, compared with 78% in the leading sector, aerospace. About 40% of companies cited the cost and limited range of environmentally-friendly equipment as the most significant obstacles to going green, while around a third said there was no competitive advantage."
Yet, as commented by the UK Social Investment Forum, "A few years ago, the percentage would have been vanishingly small. To me, this report contains much good news.”
So there you have it, bad news can actually be good news.
_____________
Hmmmmm, "The research follows a report in September by UHY Hacker Young, the accountants, that indicated green taxes were reaping the government 50 times what it handed back in tax breaks for environmental initiatives." I'll have to see if I can find any references to that particular report! But I have to admit that it doesn't surprise me.
Important Addendum:
Just checked back and Peter did actually post a piece about a concurrent report back in September - see "it must be true; its on the BBC".
The strange thing is that the report the Beeb referred to was by the Taxpayers Alliance, which seems, at least to me, to seriously underestimate the scale of the problem. Take a look at this from politics.co.uk. Scary stuff!!
"The UHY research claims official Treasury figures reveal the government accumulates £29.3 billion in green levies, of which only £549 million – or 2 per cent – is handed back to the taxpayer to encourage environmentally conscious activity."
Now if that's accurate, it is not just unethical, it is downright heinous, almost bordering on the bloody fraudulent!
“The concern is that revenue raised from green taxes is being used to fund other government pet projects such as the Olympics.”
Now given the absolute shambles that the grants systems for renewables and insulation etc. are in, then who's conning who?
Trivial TV
I think I can see a reason (though, sadly, no solution) to why the message of MWGW is washing over the majority of the population.
In just a one hour period on our national broadcaster's breakfast slot I was cheerfully informed that it's now OK to be fat, fasting is good for you, vitamin D from sunlight helps prevent ageing but you can get cancer sunbathing. Oh, and if you blow $25k on a dessert you get in the news. And tomorrow it will probably be the exact reverse.
Too many people with too much airspace to fill... and not enough to fill it with.
Trivial TV (from news down), conveying the half-thought, half-a*sed and half-cocked, is killing any chance of anything being taken seriously any more.
So we don't.
Indy - Now doctors say it's good to be fat - Make that print, too. At least they seem equally incredulous. One slightly off-topic, but related point of consideration, especially in an era when overpopulation is looking to be an issue, is the implication of simply 'living longer'. It is surely as vital how one lives that life that is the key.
Indy - This research may bring sanity to the weight debate - what I actually found/find interesting, is the presumption of a 'correct' level. Who set/s that? It seems more designed to suit prevailing dogma, and all this counter-evidence just further erodes faith in the systems that create these notions 'for our own good'.
Gaurdian - Ageing process may be slowed by vitamin D, say scientists - Ah, the nuts of 'may'
In just a one hour period on our national broadcaster's breakfast slot I was cheerfully informed that it's now OK to be fat, fasting is good for you, vitamin D from sunlight helps prevent ageing but you can get cancer sunbathing. Oh, and if you blow $25k on a dessert you get in the news. And tomorrow it will probably be the exact reverse.
Too many people with too much airspace to fill... and not enough to fill it with.
Trivial TV (from news down), conveying the half-thought, half-a*sed and half-cocked, is killing any chance of anything being taken seriously any more.
So we don't.
Indy - Now doctors say it's good to be fat - Make that print, too. At least they seem equally incredulous. One slightly off-topic, but related point of consideration, especially in an era when overpopulation is looking to be an issue, is the implication of simply 'living longer'. It is surely as vital how one lives that life that is the key.
Indy - This research may bring sanity to the weight debate - what I actually found/find interesting, is the presumption of a 'correct' level. Who set/s that? It seems more designed to suit prevailing dogma, and all this counter-evidence just further erodes faith in the systems that create these notions 'for our own good'.
Gaurdian - Ageing process may be slowed by vitamin D, say scientists - Ah, the nuts of 'may'
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
First, sharpen your pencil. Next, knives.
Last night I had an interesting insight into the workings of Government service, and while it was the Education Department, it does not bode well for my dealings with others pertinent to Junkk.com and our future enviro-adventures.A wee while ago, amongst the sea of photocopied notices that my sons convey to and from school (rather selectively, as they can read, and know when me doing the same might not be for the best), I happened across something about an evening event 'to help your child settle in' to their new (secondary) school year (7), and in particular help with their homework.
Being a good parent... actually, make that knowing I could certainly be a better one, especially as regards their academic progress both in and out of school, I signed me & the missus up.
Let me get the good bit upfront right away. Someone, somewhere, saw/sees this as potentially necessary and worthwhile to address what one might term... shortfalls.
Remember that it was me and the missus. Well, that at least brought the total attendance to about a dozen. Out of a year that has some 200+ students. So the first thing I noted was that whatever this was, we represented about 6%. And of those, me and 'er indoors were the only ones who did not seem to have a mighty good appreciation of where their kids needed to be now and in a future already mapped out. This did not seem of great concern to the various organisers, of which there were three, though one was more in a coordinating role and scooted off. The other was some LA edu-guru, who ran/will run the series, and a teacher in support. Now I don't know who is funding this, but if they were unpaid then big up to 'em. If not...
Speaking of funding... See that picture? That is the paperwork we all had dumped on us. Actually, minus a sheaf of paperwork we had to fill out and sign in quintuplicate 'for the funders'. At this point I was wondering what I had got myself into, as I thought this was just a quick chat about homework.
Oh no, we had to put down everything from our race (Jedi.. natch) to educational qualifications, plus a bunch of other psychobabble and gibberish that ran for pages which, I noted, had been formatted and then stapled to include an extra one for each without anything on it. I am not sure that my comment about the funders not being too concerned about waste edicts was very appreciated. We then had to fill out boxes to say where we 'wanted' to be by the end, which seemed to involve copying things down from the flip chart and/or one of these sheets... and then signing them. My wife had to stab me in the thigh to keep me there.
Then we got on to the 'ground rules'. Ok, fine, no speaking out of turn, being rude to teacher or dissing the others. Now they are immortalised in flip chart glory and pinned on a wall. Are all government meetings run this way?
Eventually, we got cracking, and it all pretty much revolves around a wee tome I was vaguely aware of, called the homework diary. Anyway.... WAIT....!
Seems one parent does not have a copy as they were new to the area. Cue massive debate between LA guru and teacher, where it transpires that there was a finite number and they had run out and printing costs a lot and...
Again, my next suggestion was equally unappreciated, namely that as it was... a diary... and all the extra bits were just a few charts and pictures, as 2007 diaries were probably going cheap by the 11th month, and there is this thing called a photocopier, maybe as an interim measure one could be bought and the requisite pages stuck in to get all to an equal level of stationery nirvana.
Meanwhile, back to the homework diary. Seems this is a key piece of the school/pupil/teacher/parent communication system. After this I have my doubts as to whether it is just them, but I have to say that I immediately saw a slight problem in as much as a bunch of adults were relying on 10/11-year-olds to act as reliable go-betweens in spoken word, written word and in deed. In fact, throughout a lot of the evening’s more promising discussions, things seemed to screech to a halt when I piped up to ask, with eyebrow-cocked, how it all worked (bearing in mind we were there to help our little darlings do better despite themselves) if they didn't as such, per se, do what they were supposed to. Waaay too often the LA guru arched her eyebrow and suggested that this was not their problem if people didn't cooperate. If anything epitomised the ‘this is the way it has been done, is being done and always will be done’ box-tick culture I was sensing, this was it. Only I have to play ball to get my kids’ educated as well as possible despite a system that seems to care less (save for having this event).
By this time my thigh was like a pin cushion.
But there were some positives that have already come out of this.
It has been accepted that when the kids have their induction and are told of the vital use of all this stuff on day one, it might be an idea to brief the parents on it all too, especially if they are expected to get involved. And do it at the beginning, too.
It was also appreciated that if there are areas of confusion, fear or laziness, perhaps putting the communications of vital bits of info between school and parent about the person concerned into the self-same person's hands is not the best idea. There also followed a mind-boggling debate about what could/should be done with various communications vis a vis post and the internet. Just one posted mailing from this school of 2,000+ must cost about £1k! Why IT (somehow it ended up at the door of the guy who teaches ICT... don't the UK's schools have IT admin support departments?) was not up to defaulting to all parents who opt in via a database/mail merge system was quite beyond me.
By the end I was both exhausted and livid. I had the impression the poor teacher was sympathetic and would try her best (we squeezed an email address out of her that she promises will get checked and queries answered... poor girl) but LA Lady was not going to be distracted from her schedule.
And so, under threat of death, or an EU fine, or something equally awful, we are committed to more of the same for the next several weeks.
I just hope the boys appreciate it. While the other 188 students, and their parents, who still remain in total ignorance, revel in their bliss.
ADDENDUM 2 - Just went to the second session. Much better. I sensed great relief that we had all turned up again. And much less defensiveness. Apparently some of what had been shared from parents had been fed back into the system, and indeed I know my own kids had engaged more and been asked about it all. Nothing better than a sense that a difference is being made.
Still waaaaay too much psychobabble that consumed the majority of the 2 hr session, but I had a personal breakthrough where I could at last see the connection through what the syllabus set out, what homework was set weekly, what the homework diary was supposed to contain, what I was supposed to relate it to and how that was to be overseen by the teachers.
And, most importantly, a significant willingness to be contacted by the teaching staff... which I will take up with enthusiasm, and appreciation. Not how I do it, but at last worth doing (I hope).
'MAKING & MENDING STUFF' SITES
Online craft, repair, etc sources of inspiration:
Craft - 'Site unseen' - not reviewed
instructables.com - Not exactly a RE:view of the site, but just to say my kids love this costume.
Junkk.com - Well, I would, wouldn't I?
repairclinic.com - not yet reviewed. US-based
It's an 'e-volver' thread, so I'll be adding from me... and you... if you tell me.
Craft - 'Site unseen' - not reviewed
instructables.com - Not exactly a RE:view of the site, but just to say my kids love this costume.
Junkk.com - Well, I would, wouldn't I?
repairclinic.com - not yet reviewed. US-based
It's an 'e-volver' thread, so I'll be adding from me... and you... if you tell me.
Going the distance
Those getting excited by Food Miles may find this, via TreeHugger, of interest: Wine Carbon Study Says East Coasters Should Drink French
Green Van Man?
(DFT) Multi-million fund for low carbon vans
And you know I can't resist the odd highlight...
Setting the tone:
Cleaner, greener van fleets could be a reality on our roads...
Actually, it's more a case of 'why not before?'. However, I do concern myself at the potential for a box getting ticked without the enviROI being properly sussed out.
And you know I can't resist the odd highlight...
Setting the tone:
Cleaner, greener van fleets could be a reality on our roads...
Actually, it's more a case of 'why not before?'. However, I do concern myself at the potential for a box getting ticked without the enviROI being properly sussed out.
As they say she said he said they think we should...
I'm not big on speeches.
They are either long, or boring, or both. They rarely tell you anything worth knowing, or can do much with or about on the spot, and invariably are either preceded or followed up with the content online, so it rather makes being there to be bored to death a major lowpoint of one's day. Unless there's a chance to drag folk from the PowerPoint screen, they stay around afterwards for a chat or the speaker can really inspire.
Speaking of which, we have the Queen reading out the Prime Minister's list.
I may (or likely may not) get interested enough in trawling more and hence posting from elsewhere, but for now here is a press release from the Greens, or at least one of their Principal Speakers (which has me a tad contused as to who speaks for whom).
A few points of note (well, that I noted), with which I am in pretty much agreement:
The 60 per cent by 2050 targets cited in the revised Climate Change Bill
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies
in the face of science, but also undermines the UK's commitment to
making a fair contribution ..."
"...low level targets that we are not
likely to meet do not constitute radical action on climate change."
On the Planning Reform Bill
"The current proposals for a separate planning system for major
infrastructure projects mean undermining democracy in favour of an
increasingly centralised and authoritarian government."
"Consulting with local people for disruptive, polluting projects like
airports is essential, and any attempt to 'streamline' these
processes to save money, or to hand them over to appointed yes-men is
a scandalous affront to the rights of ordinary people in the UK."
On the Housing and Regeneration Bill:
"...give priority to the maintenance and
improvement of existing properties before building 3 million new homes."
They are either long, or boring, or both. They rarely tell you anything worth knowing, or can do much with or about on the spot, and invariably are either preceded or followed up with the content online, so it rather makes being there to be bored to death a major lowpoint of one's day. Unless there's a chance to drag folk from the PowerPoint screen, they stay around afterwards for a chat or the speaker can really inspire.
Speaking of which, we have the Queen reading out the Prime Minister's list.
I may (or likely may not) get interested enough in trawling more and hence posting from elsewhere, but for now here is a press release from the Greens, or at least one of their Principal Speakers (which has me a tad contused as to who speaks for whom).
A few points of note (well, that I noted), with which I am in pretty much agreement:
The 60 per cent by 2050 targets cited in the revised Climate Change Bill
"It's criminally irresponsible to adopt a target that not only flies
in the face of science, but also undermines the UK's commitment to
making a fair contribution ..."
"...low level targets that we are not
likely to meet do not constitute radical action on climate change."
On the Planning Reform Bill
"The current proposals for a separate planning system for major
infrastructure projects mean undermining democracy in favour of an
increasingly centralised and authoritarian government."
"Consulting with local people for disruptive, polluting projects like
airports is essential, and any attempt to 'streamline' these
processes to save money, or to hand them over to appointed yes-men is
a scandalous affront to the rights of ordinary people in the UK."
On the Housing and Regeneration Bill:
"...give priority to the maintenance and
improvement of existing properties before building 3 million new homes."
What a week that was!
Hardly a day goes by without it being some kind of 'week'.
Apparently, or at least according to an email I have just had, it is 'Waste Not Week.
Now, as oft noted, my enthusiasm for raising awareness knows no bounds but I have a few small niggles.
The main one is that if there is a 'week' for such things, is there not rather a danger that, by definition, the other 51 are not, how to say, as strong. So I rather prefer to think of not wasting to be more of a 24/7, 365 kinda deal.
Then there's the cost. Who pays for all the effort that goes into such efforts? The DM packs, the PR, etc, etc? And hence the enviROI generated.
And who, exactly, are the beneficiaries? I can see it keeps some folk occupied. And makes money for a goodly proportion. Plus the media can fill a slow news day.
As to the rest of us...?
Apparently, or at least according to an email I have just had, it is 'Waste Not Week.
Now, as oft noted, my enthusiasm for raising awareness knows no bounds but I have a few small niggles.
The main one is that if there is a 'week' for such things, is there not rather a danger that, by definition, the other 51 are not, how to say, as strong. So I rather prefer to think of not wasting to be more of a 24/7, 365 kinda deal.
Then there's the cost. Who pays for all the effort that goes into such efforts? The DM packs, the PR, etc, etc? And hence the enviROI generated.
And who, exactly, are the beneficiaries? I can see it keeps some folk occupied. And makes money for a goodly proportion. Plus the media can fill a slow news day.
As to the rest of us...?
Recipes for the day
I was/am/will be intrigued how the latest anti-food waste 'initiative' will pan out after its massive 'launch'. Here's the latest salvo... serving... Things to do with soggy veg ...
Yum. You can almost here the boxes ticking: PR coverage in the Guardian, check.
Yum. You can almost here the boxes ticking: PR coverage in the Guardian, check.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Fancy a floating house?
The Dutch are renowned for planning ahead, its probably something to do with the fact that 20% of Holland actually lies below sea level and history has taught them many lessons in flood defence. This from the Indy reports on how they are now designing houses that are safe from flooding, they are designed to rise on anchored concrete poles to keep them safe and watertight.
There are probably quite a few lessons we could learn from them about building on flood plains and other areas prone to flooding, but I suspect that our own planning authorities will consider that they know better.
There are probably quite a few lessons we could learn from them about building on flood plains and other areas prone to flooding, but I suspect that our own planning authorities will consider that they know better.
Elf 'n safety - the next targets?
Sometimes, I wonder if we are slowly heading towards a completely totalitarian state whereby you cannot do, see, say, read, eat, drink, think or discuss anything that the state has not first approved. Every day it seems that something else is going to get banned or prohibited, or is brought under some new legislation that requires permission from a set of faceless bureaucrats before you can start, or do it.
This from the Times suggests the next ten things that elf 'n safety might look at banning - planet ban-it.
Now some of these appear to be fairly sensible, but others, at least to me, seem so bloody ludicrous they are hardly worthy of comment.
_____________________
Hmmmmm, also interesting to note that this article contains yet another reference to some discredited and never published 'scientific' [not] study claiming that heart attack rates in Scotland have fallen by 20% in the first ten months of the smoking ban, which they definitively have not. A classic case of 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' (after this, therefore because of this) that is demonstrably false, yet still quoted as fact without reference.
This from the Times suggests the next ten things that elf 'n safety might look at banning - planet ban-it.
Now some of these appear to be fairly sensible, but others, at least to me, seem so bloody ludicrous they are hardly worthy of comment.
_____________________
Hmmmmm, also interesting to note that this article contains yet another reference to some discredited and never published 'scientific' [not] study claiming that heart attack rates in Scotland have fallen by 20% in the first ten months of the smoking ban, which they definitively have not. A classic case of 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' (after this, therefore because of this) that is demonstrably false, yet still quoted as fact without reference.
Getting off the ground
Some eco-initiatives often raise concerns on viability. I'm crossing fingers this at least offers some sense of hope for genuine application: The sun kings out to conquer the world
A smaller glass for your wine, Mr. Falstaff?
Going green in a Hummer?
Glad to see that question mark. Because we go from '..to get..' to '..is proving..' to '..currently working on...' to '...he predicts...' in short order.
Sadly this kind of proves a point. If he had being doing his mileage job on a Civic how many in the media firmament would care? Or write about it?
Which kind of glosses over acknowledging that if we do need personal transport, then maybe instead of using technology to make the bloated behemoths some have 'better', it might be more productive to first cut down to more reasonable sizes and then play with them.
Which is why hydrogen powered Hummers for Arnie and 7 series for rose (or rather green)-tinted 'Captains of Eco-mmerce' kinda wash over me. Seems they can't quite do modest in all their efforts to show the rest of us the way to go.
ADDENDUM - Speaking of Hyrdogen - ST Letters - Can't vouch for the science (which makes these 'replies' objects of caution as the media seldom clarify at ll, much less later), but it is worth bearing in mind.
ADDENDUM 2 - ST Letters - I was watching out for this, which shows as much about the way debates can get streeeecthed out so they lose coherence, as much as the 'facts' being debated, when they are. Don't know about you, but I am none the wiser now.
ADDENDUM 3 - ST Letters
Glad to see that question mark. Because we go from '..to get..' to '..is proving..' to '..currently working on...' to '...he predicts...' in short order.
Sadly this kind of proves a point. If he had being doing his mileage job on a Civic how many in the media firmament would care? Or write about it?
Which kind of glosses over acknowledging that if we do need personal transport, then maybe instead of using technology to make the bloated behemoths some have 'better', it might be more productive to first cut down to more reasonable sizes and then play with them.
Which is why hydrogen powered Hummers for Arnie and 7 series for rose (or rather green)-tinted 'Captains of Eco-mmerce' kinda wash over me. Seems they can't quite do modest in all their efforts to show the rest of us the way to go.
ADDENDUM - Speaking of Hyrdogen - ST Letters - Can't vouch for the science (which makes these 'replies' objects of caution as the media seldom clarify at ll, much less later), but it is worth bearing in mind.
ADDENDUM 2 - ST Letters - I was watching out for this, which shows as much about the way debates can get streeeecthed out so they lose coherence, as much as the 'facts' being debated, when they are. Don't know about you, but I am none the wiser now.
ADDENDUM 3 - ST Letters
Love me now. When I'm gone, who cares?
The other day I had cause to offer an analogy to someone who celebrated all the benefits that growing numbers bring.
Basically it was that a pint of beer being filled brought greater and greater benefits until the limit was reached. And then all you get is a mess. Oh, and immigartion and poulation are not the same, if related :)
I feel like offering the same to this guy: A retort to the population control freaks
I also note the interesting selection of new terminology in the headline from 'ists, ingers and zi's - the bible of the dodgy and/or losing cause counter argument brigade'.
He doesn't accept the assumption that this country is unbearably overcrowded – or would be at 71m. So... when would he accept it would... might be? Or is that a problem for a future person to try and have the guts to ponder before it is too late? Gosh, it must be lovely only to think liberal thoughts all the time where no realities creep in to spoil the view. And get paid to 'defend' them without fear of any consequence in your lifetime.
Sadly, thanks to the knees of such jerks (see, I can do double-e's, too), sensible discussion is seldom to be discovered, and so we are served the ponderings of those perhaps less sensitive to the human condition who, in complement, are not so worried about folk think of them. And are, hence, not the best advocates for rational views. But certainly gibe writers such as this enough to earn a crust.
Might explain the absence of statespersonship these days, I guess.
Indy - Letters - Dave gets his wish:)
Basically it was that a pint of beer being filled brought greater and greater benefits until the limit was reached. And then all you get is a mess. Oh, and immigartion and poulation are not the same, if related :)
I feel like offering the same to this guy: A retort to the population control freaks
I also note the interesting selection of new terminology in the headline from 'ists, ingers and zi's - the bible of the dodgy and/or losing cause counter argument brigade'.
He doesn't accept the assumption that this country is unbearably overcrowded – or would be at 71m. So... when would he accept it would... might be? Or is that a problem for a future person to try and have the guts to ponder before it is too late? Gosh, it must be lovely only to think liberal thoughts all the time where no realities creep in to spoil the view. And get paid to 'defend' them without fear of any consequence in your lifetime.
Sadly, thanks to the knees of such jerks (see, I can do double-e's, too), sensible discussion is seldom to be discovered, and so we are served the ponderings of those perhaps less sensitive to the human condition who, in complement, are not so worried about folk think of them. And are, hence, not the best advocates for rational views. But certainly gibe writers such as this enough to earn a crust.
Might explain the absence of statespersonship these days, I guess.
Indy - Letters - Dave gets his wish:)
What's in a name?
A lot, depending on who thinks it belongs to: Early birds hit back
"On behalf of all early risers, may I say how much we are enjoying the lighter mornings now that we are back in "real" time. I agree with Peter Martin (letter, 31 October) that changing the clocks is nothing but a nuisance...'
It would seem having the PM moniker confers much gobbiness on the owner. So now I can add another to the vocal crew...
Wasn't me guv! This time...
"On behalf of all early risers, may I say how much we are enjoying the lighter mornings now that we are back in "real" time. I agree with Peter Martin (letter, 31 October) that changing the clocks is nothing but a nuisance...'
It would seem having the PM moniker confers much gobbiness on the owner. So now I can add another to the vocal crew...
Wasn't me guv! This time...
A good one for the LHRH files
That's left hand:right hand for those who don't know: A waste of energy
This also serves to make my point about the 'quality' papers having a darn funny idea of how to engage with the majority. Not all of us can spend on buying our houses what this guy spends on eco-upgrades. Good on him for enviROI+ (Or is it? Could the money have been better directed to save the planet for our kids?), but the ROI is beyond most of us.
But the rest applies to us all. HIP, HIP... Hoo...ey
This also serves to make my point about the 'quality' papers having a darn funny idea of how to engage with the majority. Not all of us can spend on buying our houses what this guy spends on eco-upgrades. Good on him for enviROI+ (Or is it? Could the money have been better directed to save the planet for our kids?), but the ROI is beyond most of us.
But the rest applies to us all. HIP, HIP... Hoo...ey
While you're out luv, could you get me a pack of cars?
In the same edition that looked at causes of MWCC: Here comes the £1,200 car
But I'm betting they have 'Bags for Life' when the do their shopping at the mall.
Closing the garage door after the main issues has accelerated away?
But I'm betting they have 'Bags for Life' when the do their shopping at the mall.
Closing the garage door after the main issues has accelerated away?
Just a p*ss in the ocean?
Remember the idea of dumping tons of iron filings in the oceans to encourage phytoplankton blooms? See 'iron filings to remove CO2'.
Well, now an Australian company is planning a similar exercise, as reported in the Telegraph today, using hundreds of tons of Urea, a substance found in some quantity in urine. Urea contains a high proportion of Nitrogen, an element critical to the development of phytoplankton.
The thing is, none of these geo-engineering solutions to climate change is proven, and nobody knows just what problems, or even dangers, might result.
Perhaps it will work, or perhaps it literally will be nothing more than a p*ss in the ocean!
Well, now an Australian company is planning a similar exercise, as reported in the Telegraph today, using hundreds of tons of Urea, a substance found in some quantity in urine. Urea contains a high proportion of Nitrogen, an element critical to the development of phytoplankton.
The thing is, none of these geo-engineering solutions to climate change is proven, and nobody knows just what problems, or even dangers, might result.
Perhaps it will work, or perhaps it literally will be nothing more than a p*ss in the ocean!
Quills sharpened, and dipped in...?
An interesting choice for the Sunday Times' review of the Bjorn Lomborg book: Cool It
Richard Girling is eminently qualified and actually I have a lot of time for him, but in view of his environmental advocacy I do wonder whether he could be seen to be approaching it from a balanced viewpoint.
But rely on it I must, as I have not the money nor the time to invest in reading it myself. At least not for a while.
Lomborg’s view is certainly a view. And though it's coming from a different place and leading to different conclusion to mine on best moves, he at least seems to have the spirit of enviROI at heart, where few others do.
But logic certainly does not seem to be his strong point, as this amply nails: ' If we really can’t stand the heat, then he looks forward to “increased access to air-conditioning”. How these powerful appliances can be run without further consumption of fossil fuel is another nice teaser for the technology boys.'
Does this review serve the cause any more than Mr. Lomborg's book? For me, not really. As a poster has indicated: 'I would also suggest that characterizing skeptics as 'nutters' and 'right-wing pressure groups' is evidence of a rather unscientific attitude. And I speak as a left-winger. ' Quite.
And speaking of crass and callous, on the subject that dare not be discussed, I merely note a slight disconnect between corrective mechanisms that nature may already being employing and the advocacy for where more money goes if not to address climate change. I must carefully avoid any opinion one way or the other, but there seems to be some logical (but not moral or ethical or compassionate) issues to consider here.
ADDENDUM - A question was posed, so I replied... and had a wee dig:
'...if one does not already exist. If one is available, please help direct me. Henry Markant'
You can try RealClimate.org.
As with everything in the heated (warmed?) debate cum industry, you have to read what is being said and who/where it's coming from, but as an attempt at looking at the facts and science objectively it's better than most.
Though as it gets more popular the pejoratives from either side are starting to creep in before you ever get to proper analysis, as they have here.
ADDENDUM - The western appetite for biofuels is causing starvation in the poor world
- meanwhile, back at the coalface (I mix metaphors a bit). On the one hand biofuels look like a techno-solution. On the other...
Richard Girling is eminently qualified and actually I have a lot of time for him, but in view of his environmental advocacy I do wonder whether he could be seen to be approaching it from a balanced viewpoint.
But rely on it I must, as I have not the money nor the time to invest in reading it myself. At least not for a while.
Lomborg’s view is certainly a view. And though it's coming from a different place and leading to different conclusion to mine on best moves, he at least seems to have the spirit of enviROI at heart, where few others do.
But logic certainly does not seem to be his strong point, as this amply nails: ' If we really can’t stand the heat, then he looks forward to “increased access to air-conditioning”. How these powerful appliances can be run without further consumption of fossil fuel is another nice teaser for the technology boys.'
Does this review serve the cause any more than Mr. Lomborg's book? For me, not really. As a poster has indicated: 'I would also suggest that characterizing skeptics as 'nutters' and 'right-wing pressure groups' is evidence of a rather unscientific attitude. And I speak as a left-winger. ' Quite.
And speaking of crass and callous, on the subject that dare not be discussed, I merely note a slight disconnect between corrective mechanisms that nature may already being employing and the advocacy for where more money goes if not to address climate change. I must carefully avoid any opinion one way or the other, but there seems to be some logical (but not moral or ethical or compassionate) issues to consider here.
ADDENDUM - A question was posed, so I replied... and had a wee dig:
'...if one does not already exist. If one is available, please help direct me. Henry Markant'
You can try RealClimate.org.
As with everything in the heated (warmed?) debate cum industry, you have to read what is being said and who/where it's coming from, but as an attempt at looking at the facts and science objectively it's better than most.
Though as it gets more popular the pejoratives from either side are starting to creep in before you ever get to proper analysis, as they have here.
ADDENDUM - The western appetite for biofuels is causing starvation in the poor world
- meanwhile, back at the coalface (I mix metaphors a bit). On the one hand biofuels look like a techno-solution. On the other...
BOGOF
It's a tricky balance, but I have noticed the BBC often seems to have become an additional commercial arm of the retail trade.
You kind of expect and allow that some author or film star (who are simply business persons in another industry) get to flog their wares to a rapt presenter, but watching the morning news 'business' section it's really getting beyond a joke.
I just watched M&S's Sir Stuart Rose breeze over a few possibly reasonable areas of business interest (giving folk recyclable bags is 'popular'. Well, D'Uh. What the enviROI of all that is I don't know. Plus where the 5p charge for the new plastic bags you'll need, if and when you forget to bring the other version subsequently, goes where?) to get to the real point: a screed of PR speak on how the new stores will be lovely with great stuff, etc, etc. He even grabbed a pair of knickers of the rail to squeeze in a 'shop now for Xmas, plea'.
Really Aunty. I have just one word for you: BOGOF - Bringing On Gents Obviously Flogging
ADDENDUM - A few days on, and I am treated to an extended commercial for Tesco. This time it is its attempts at cracking the US market with Fresh 'n Easy. I guess I can just about see how this can happen in a 'business' section.
However, there was a certain irony with it being in sequence with a slot on a restaurant who has got into the Guinness Book of Records by offering up (for all who visit and pay) the world's most expensive dessert. This is by the simple expedient of serving it in a gaudy ton of precious metals on the outside, and pouring more of the same into it.
Obviously a good way to get any media who are tired of moderation or reduced consumerism slots to aid the cause of MWCC I guess.
You kind of expect and allow that some author or film star (who are simply business persons in another industry) get to flog their wares to a rapt presenter, but watching the morning news 'business' section it's really getting beyond a joke.
I just watched M&S's Sir Stuart Rose breeze over a few possibly reasonable areas of business interest (giving folk recyclable bags is 'popular'. Well, D'Uh. What the enviROI of all that is I don't know. Plus where the 5p charge for the new plastic bags you'll need, if and when you forget to bring the other version subsequently, goes where?) to get to the real point: a screed of PR speak on how the new stores will be lovely with great stuff, etc, etc. He even grabbed a pair of knickers of the rail to squeeze in a 'shop now for Xmas, plea'.
Really Aunty. I have just one word for you: BOGOF - Bringing On Gents Obviously Flogging
ADDENDUM - A few days on, and I am treated to an extended commercial for Tesco. This time it is its attempts at cracking the US market with Fresh 'n Easy. I guess I can just about see how this can happen in a 'business' section.
However, there was a certain irony with it being in sequence with a slot on a restaurant who has got into the Guinness Book of Records by offering up (for all who visit and pay) the world's most expensive dessert. This is by the simple expedient of serving it in a gaudy ton of precious metals on the outside, and pouring more of the same into it.
Obviously a good way to get any media who are tired of moderation or reduced consumerism slots to aid the cause of MWCC I guess.
Blowing (budgets) in the wind
Hot on the heels of the piece on targets, I have to share this: Ministry of the flaming obvious
That's MOTFO. Of course I have long had my own acronym, STABO (Statin' The Absolute Bleedin' Obvious) for such institutional , fiscally squandering insanity, and feel it needs to be 'evolved with an additional prefix, GE, for 'Generating Empires'.
Seems appropriate, somehow. What was the forte of the guy in charge of a similarly-named, well-staffed, thought-control outfit a while ago?
Sample - In a total of 32 pages it rams home the astonishing message that winter can be a little on the chilly side.
Or... 'There is no social problem so pressing that it cannot be solved by a statement of the bleeding obvious delivered in a patronising tone.' Which requires a lot of money for people to come up with it, and even more to disseminate it. And who pays?
Now, I can send and invitation to the author to join our club, because he's arrived at this: 'What this suggests to me is that modern government is no longer interested in getting things done. What is much more important is giving the impression of activity.'
That's MOTFO. Of course I have long had my own acronym, STABO (Statin' The Absolute Bleedin' Obvious) for such institutional , fiscally squandering insanity, and feel it needs to be 'evolved with an additional prefix, GE, for 'Generating Empires'.
Seems appropriate, somehow. What was the forte of the guy in charge of a similarly-named, well-staffed, thought-control outfit a while ago?
Sample - In a total of 32 pages it rams home the astonishing message that winter can be a little on the chilly side.
Or... 'There is no social problem so pressing that it cannot be solved by a statement of the bleeding obvious delivered in a patronising tone.' Which requires a lot of money for people to come up with it, and even more to disseminate it. And who pays?
Now, I can send and invitation to the author to join our club, because he's arrived at this: 'What this suggests to me is that modern government is no longer interested in getting things done. What is much more important is giving the impression of activity.'
I wonder how they'll be getting there?
Coming soon to your home: a personal adviser on how to get to work by bus
Unless they are in Ross, the only option is bus. In which case, I might first ask how much the trip cost the taxpayer... and I don't mean just the fare.
So I would be keen to know a lot more about this was/is arrived at: '...trials showed huge decreases in car travel for only a few million pounds of public spending. '
Unless they are in Ross, the only option is bus. In which case, I might first ask how much the trip cost the taxpayer... and I don't mean just the fare.
So I would be keen to know a lot more about this was/is arrived at: '...trials showed huge decreases in car travel for only a few million pounds of public spending. '
2k & counting!
Just noticed that we have slid past 2,000 posts.
Some kind of milestone I guess:)
Thanks to all who have contributed... and read.
Some kind of milestone I guess:)
Thanks to all who have contributed... and read.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Online Green Hue (Or Cry)
Here's an interesting online Gizmo: BadBuster
Frankly their strapline line itself is enough to make me like 'em: Because good planets are hard to find.
How it works (from their 'About'): 'We collect environmental ratings of brands and companies into our BadBuster database. We don't rate brands or companies ourselves. By installing BadBuster, all brand names and company names (in our ever-growing database) in web text will be tagged with a color and an environmental score. The color and the score tells you how environmentally responsible the brand or the company is.'
Looks like it's only for IE, so I have not tried it out on my Mac/Safari combo, and the PC is on Firefox.
There is a download involved, but make sure you're happy they're kosher 1st - not all who save the planet are as nice at you'd hope (which is kinda what this site seems to be about).
I'd say worth a go!
Ideas (often enviro) -sharing sites
From time to time I get told of or stumble across (and on occasion post to) something where you can share an idea. And so I (will) in turn share:
eco-i-net
fellowforce.com
globalideasbank.org
CAUTION - As with any idea, only share what you are happy to have taken (if it's good, it will be), and/or have first IP-protected up the waazooo!
eco-i-net
fellowforce.com
globalideasbank.org
CAUTION - As with any idea, only share what you are happy to have taken (if it's good, it will be), and/or have first IP-protected up the waazooo!
Saying ain't believing, much less doing
Survey time again! - Most ready for 'green sacrifices'
Again, I have to cock an eyebrow at what exactly was behind this poll, and hence its methodology and conclusions. And who paid for it?
While on the surface it's encouraging, who was going to say 'Sod the planet, it's all me, me, me!', especially with no consequence to saying it.
And from line one on there seems to be a weasel... 'The poll suggests ...' If any politician has a whiff that the public might go for something they'll have thought of the idea before you can say 'attribution'. So why are they not?
There's a link to the report. I guess I'll have to get around to reading yet another mighty tome... again.
I wonder what I'll find?
ENN - Poll shows people will pay more to help climate change - Funny how it can get reported, isn't it?
By way of another view - from the wonderfully-named Monkey-Tennis Centre. A sterling exercise in links gathering at the very least.
Again, I have to cock an eyebrow at what exactly was behind this poll, and hence its methodology and conclusions. And who paid for it?
While on the surface it's encouraging, who was going to say 'Sod the planet, it's all me, me, me!', especially with no consequence to saying it.
And from line one on there seems to be a weasel... 'The poll suggests ...' If any politician has a whiff that the public might go for something they'll have thought of the idea before you can say 'attribution'. So why are they not?
There's a link to the report. I guess I'll have to get around to reading yet another mighty tome... again.
I wonder what I'll find?
ENN - Poll shows people will pay more to help climate change - Funny how it can get reported, isn't it?
By way of another view - from the wonderfully-named Monkey-Tennis Centre. A sterling exercise in links gathering at the very least.
Don't like the answers? Get rid of it!
This little article reports on some Canadian scientists who are involved with the IPCC reports. It seems that their government has withdrawn the funding for further research into some aspects of climate change. It "it has shut down a federal climate change research network and blocked new studies on the impact of rising greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere."
I guess in many ways, it is the prerogative of the funder to decide whether or not to continue funding. Yet this is another in a long line of climate change research projects which have been terminated by governments who appear to be in thrall to the companionship of the big oil brigade.
Meanwhile, others seem to have little or no problem in obtaining research funding
Talking of big oil, Exxon has lost its status as the planet's most valued business to Petrochina whose valuation exceeds $1 Trillion! (That's larger than Russia's entire stock market value!)
I guess in many ways, it is the prerogative of the funder to decide whether or not to continue funding. Yet this is another in a long line of climate change research projects which have been terminated by governments who appear to be in thrall to the companionship of the big oil brigade.
Meanwhile, others seem to have little or no problem in obtaining research funding
Talking of big oil, Exxon has lost its status as the planet's most valued business to Petrochina whose valuation exceeds $1 Trillion! (That's larger than Russia's entire stock market value!)
How?
A simple question in response to what I see as a rather over optimistic comment - "UK can meet an 80 per cent CO2 target".
We are already miles away from missing the 20% from renewables by 2012. An 80% reduction in total emissions by 2050? Well, that's going to require some catastrophic events to occur in order to catalyse the political will to really push for genuine reductions.
But, I suppose, its just another target, so it doesn't really matter, does it?
We are already miles away from missing the 20% from renewables by 2012. An 80% reduction in total emissions by 2050? Well, that's going to require some catastrophic events to occur in order to catalyse the political will to really push for genuine reductions.
But, I suppose, its just another target, so it doesn't really matter, does it?
The elephants on the sofa
I was not going to feature this or comment on the BBC RyanAir story this morning as neither, in isolation, seemed quite worth it.Together they just seemed 'worthy'.
What I found interesting was the premise Declan Curry seemed to be working from, and Mr. O'Leary could give a stuff about, was all the nasty 'extras' that he loads on. Now I have little patience with sneaky marketing, but I'm pretty sure that you can see what the costs are before you hit 'commit'.
So at the end of the day, his airline is popular because people are prepared to pay what they ask. No one is being forced to fly with them.
What it's all costing... is another issue.
Mixed Messages
The other day I expressed interest in the Sunday Times theme of the week - climate change.Well, it arrived, and very comprehensive it seems too.
In fact, so comprehensive I have barely scratched the surface of all it contained, from the DVD (not so sure this will be that informative, as it simply seems to be 'Nature's Greatest Hits' - at least in terms of natural disasters, packaged as evidence of climate change) to the poster (more to come in following weeks), to several articles to freebies (GOFBON! - get one free, buy others now (plus p&p)!. I'll be buying a few as they are on offer and look like they may be good sources of info... but am betting few mention Junkk.com (sweet letter follows if not... for the reprint. I'll re:view 'em anyway).
One thing is for sure, that's a lot of 'stuff'. It's going to take me a while to digest it all.
I also couldn't help but notice the ads that were littered about... literally... as most were either useless (mainly big corporates saying they are thinking a lot and 'care', without too much on what they are doing that will actually make one's day much better, but will play great at the CSR section of the AGM. Plus a few more hundred thous blown by various quangos who need to ditch their comms budgets) or... interesting.
There was one for Range Rover, headed 'Go Responsibly', with the line 'All new Land Rovers are fully Co2 offset for 45,000 miles. Not quite sure what the basis of that is, or means. Including manufacture, or a few trees to cover 20mpg?
Strangely, few 'greener' products seemed to match the marketing/media opportunism on display, so we had the usual consumerist wet dreams, especially in terms of places to go and people to pollute en route.
Sadly, the Volks guys seemed to decide a Bluemotion 'carrier bag' ad was not so relevant as one for a Touareg which, at £419 a month, the only thing that it won't plough through is your money. Well, that and a load of hydrocarbons to do its 20mpg:)
Anyone get the feeling that we are being served two very different sets of messages on the same platter?
Climate change: well oiled - Roughly half the oil we account for individually is burnt up on our behalf by the industries that feed consumerism or provide public services
Climate change: the visionaries creating a greener future
Top energy-saving tips - Not mine, even by definition, but hey
Climate change: we have the power
Climate change: a home to make you green with envy
Climate change: city salvation
Sauce: ecofriendly wine - that'll sort it all!
And last, my horoscope: Your stars for 2007
2007 is all about healing the planet and it starts with balancing your own personal ecosystem. No mention of the financial turnaround my fortune cookie predicted, but here's hoping!
Ban-er Headlines and Ban-wagons
I caught up on some lifestyle publications over the weekend.
Unsurprisingly, most had one, or more, pieces on matters green. And often, as is the way, they were focusing on individuals. Fair enough. The efforts of people are what interests us most (though the activities of rich, part-time yummie mates of yummie Islington journos are wearing a tad thin... for me at least).
However, while a few were about those who were making or doing something positive and/or proactive, the huge majority were pretty negative.
Not in terms of criticism of the person. Far from it. But almost without exception these were folk who had coordinated a protest or ban.
Now in itself this is also not always a bad thing. There are certainly things that need considering. and bringing them to broader attention can be lauded.
But in too many cases I felt the person was getting a lot more credit 'for saving the planet' than they deserved, because there was a) little or no consideration of the enviROI consequences, which too me were often potentially negative, or b) a total lack of positive alternatives put forward, at least in terms of things that seemed any 'better'.
I'd really like to see our media spend a little more time looking at the issues more broadly and deeply before jumping on a' ban-wagon', and for sure focusing much more on clearly positive issues and those involved with them.
Unsurprisingly, most had one, or more, pieces on matters green. And often, as is the way, they were focusing on individuals. Fair enough. The efforts of people are what interests us most (though the activities of rich, part-time yummie mates of yummie Islington journos are wearing a tad thin... for me at least).
However, while a few were about those who were making or doing something positive and/or proactive, the huge majority were pretty negative.
Not in terms of criticism of the person. Far from it. But almost without exception these were folk who had coordinated a protest or ban.
Now in itself this is also not always a bad thing. There are certainly things that need considering. and bringing them to broader attention can be lauded.
But in too many cases I felt the person was getting a lot more credit 'for saving the planet' than they deserved, because there was a) little or no consideration of the enviROI consequences, which too me were often potentially negative, or b) a total lack of positive alternatives put forward, at least in terms of things that seemed any 'better'.
I'd really like to see our media spend a little more time looking at the issues more broadly and deeply before jumping on a' ban-wagon', and for sure focusing much more on clearly positive issues and those involved with them.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
As 'could' reusable clay pigeons
Some stories just make you blink: Biodegradable car could 'clean up' Formula One
Well, yes, I suppose it - my favourite word - 'could'.
But will it? If it happens?
I'm no so sure. And hence what these pieces are for. At least without the green blinkers on.
How a machine that biodegrades into a pool of goo and cloud of (what, I wonder?) on lap 12 clean up the rest of the consequences of F1 is unclear to me. Darn right Jeremy Clarkson is unlikely to approve... he's too smart to see this for anything other than it is.
What I do give it credit for is an investigation into alternative technologies. And that is how it should be described.
Well, yes, I suppose it - my favourite word - 'could'.
But will it? If it happens?
I'm no so sure. And hence what these pieces are for. At least without the green blinkers on.
How a machine that biodegrades into a pool of goo and cloud of (what, I wonder?) on lap 12 clean up the rest of the consequences of F1 is unclear to me. Darn right Jeremy Clarkson is unlikely to approve... he's too smart to see this for anything other than it is.
What I do give it credit for is an investigation into alternative technologies. And that is how it should be described.
Paying Green to get Green?
I cite this mainly because I like the headline: Ethical investments on a different planet
It's also a good summary of the current situation, I think.
Though I concern myself when those in suits start according labels according to hues of green. Most, I suspect, will not grasp what lies behind these definitions that will as surely be used in tomorrow's ads as night follows day.
It's also a good summary of the current situation, I think.
Though I concern myself when those in suits start according labels according to hues of green. Most, I suspect, will not grasp what lies behind these definitions that will as surely be used in tomorrow's ads as night follows day.
Bullseye!
Targets can seriously damage your health - Simon Caulkin in the Obsever
My views on targets are well known. So I am pleased to share this. It covers a variety of sectors, and sadly no mention of environment, but I think the picture it paints is clear.
I love this quote: 'The only problems that have simple solutions are simple problems. The only managers with simple problems are those with simple minds. Problems that arise in organisations are almost always the product of interactions of parts, never the action of a simple part.'
And this: 'What do "targets" accomplish? Nothing. Wrong: their accomplishment is negative.'
This, too, both quote and comment: 'Management by numerical goal is an attempt to manage without knowledge of what to do'. This is what makes it so attractive to bad managers. Unfortunately, in absolving them from the effort of thought, it is also junk management, which has the same effect on the consumer as junk food: obesity, flatulence, discontent and demoralisation. - [As Junkk Male of Junkk.com, I am proud of the attitude demanded by that extra 'k'].
Gosh, I must just go on quoting: Lack of method explains why the public sector absorbs so much resource for so little return. It also explains the stop-go, curiously disembodied experience of engaging with it: it's not reacting directly to you, the individual citizen, but to management's abstraction of you, as embodied in the target. Hence the obsession with 'choice', which simply transfers the question of method to you.
Sound like most enviro 'initiatives' and they vast comms budgets to get 'us' to compensate for institutional failings? Think ActONCo2 or the latest food waste weeping tomato ad assault. All, I am sure, with a nice bonus for the guys at the top if the money spent (from whom?) gets enough of us to say we are more 'aware' to tick a box in some self-justifying research.
Where could this money have been better spent on actual things that can be DONE and which can make a tangible difference NOW?
I hope this guy turns his sights on other areas soon. This situation must be outed, understood... and changed.
ADDENDUM - I have been moved to write to encourage him to do so:
Thank you for writing this. I hope it resonates.
I am simply appalled at what the culture of targets, especially in complement with the proliferation of what seems to be unaccountable quangos with mysterious ROIs (financial and enviROI), is reducing this country to. Seeing to do is now much more important than doing. And this has not escaped the attention of all protagonists when it comes to forging careers and generating income.
ADDENDUM 2 - I have noticed it is guys like this who are polite enough to reply (mind you, I am usually agreeing with them!):
'Many thanks for your generosity! Much appreciated — and very encouraging.'
My views on targets are well known. So I am pleased to share this. It covers a variety of sectors, and sadly no mention of environment, but I think the picture it paints is clear.
I love this quote: 'The only problems that have simple solutions are simple problems. The only managers with simple problems are those with simple minds. Problems that arise in organisations are almost always the product of interactions of parts, never the action of a simple part.'
And this: 'What do "targets" accomplish? Nothing. Wrong: their accomplishment is negative.'
This, too, both quote and comment: 'Management by numerical goal is an attempt to manage without knowledge of what to do'. This is what makes it so attractive to bad managers. Unfortunately, in absolving them from the effort of thought, it is also junk management, which has the same effect on the consumer as junk food: obesity, flatulence, discontent and demoralisation. - [As Junkk Male of Junkk.com, I am proud of the attitude demanded by that extra 'k'].
Gosh, I must just go on quoting: Lack of method explains why the public sector absorbs so much resource for so little return. It also explains the stop-go, curiously disembodied experience of engaging with it: it's not reacting directly to you, the individual citizen, but to management's abstraction of you, as embodied in the target. Hence the obsession with 'choice', which simply transfers the question of method to you.
Sound like most enviro 'initiatives' and they vast comms budgets to get 'us' to compensate for institutional failings? Think ActONCo2 or the latest food waste weeping tomato ad assault. All, I am sure, with a nice bonus for the guys at the top if the money spent (from whom?) gets enough of us to say we are more 'aware' to tick a box in some self-justifying research.
Where could this money have been better spent on actual things that can be DONE and which can make a tangible difference NOW?
I hope this guy turns his sights on other areas soon. This situation must be outed, understood... and changed.
ADDENDUM - I have been moved to write to encourage him to do so:
Thank you for writing this. I hope it resonates.
I am simply appalled at what the culture of targets, especially in complement with the proliferation of what seems to be unaccountable quangos with mysterious ROIs (financial and enviROI), is reducing this country to. Seeing to do is now much more important than doing. And this has not escaped the attention of all protagonists when it comes to forging careers and generating income.
ADDENDUM 2 - I have noticed it is guys like this who are polite enough to reply (mind you, I am usually agreeing with them!):
'Many thanks for your generosity! Much appreciated — and very encouraging.'
Sex sells. But Green sex even more....
From the first posting from a new feed: Virgin Media engineers get on their bikes and rideNot April, so it can't be a wind up. Plus that picture had to come from somewhere (probably going on my boys' walls).
I just note the beginning and end of the piece: '...customers might find service...' and '...the could be rolled out...'
So, maybe it's just a bit of bandwagon PR jumping? I note companies with the Virgin prefix do seem to crop up a lot here. And not always for actually helping the planet as much as they and their PR chaps are hyp.. hoping we'll think.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Opportunity knocks!
This weekend I am drafting proposals for my grant-assisted IP/marketing gurus in preparation for a bunch of stuff for RE:tie, including the Caps & Closures event in Brussels at the end of the month.
Time to start selling this puppy.
And I am currently stumped . I don't do proposals. At least not very well. My life was selling stuff with ads. So most of me, when staring at a bank sheet, wants to put something in a box with an 8-word or less headline.
Market opportunities and demographics are not really... 'me' Help!
However, a karmic symbol shone down upon me just now as I opened the fridge door, like a light from above (bear in mind this is the month my fortunes turn, though Dave as no time for fortune cookie predictions and pricked that bubble a whiel ago).
Last night the boys and I were walking back from Warhammer, and I remembered we needed milk. At that time the supers were counting their money and planning world dominating land grabs, so I popped into the local shop.
Now as it looked like the usual I paid it no mind. But on opening it... bingo. A tamper-proof security closure strip peeled away.
And if it can happen there... it can happen anwhere.
Thank you Barntonsham Farm! (link is down)
And look what googling that lead to:
Advertising on Milk Bottles
MILK VESSELS. (Rose Flower Head design) (Overprinted in Blue on to an embossed ex Co-op bottle) ..... BARTONSHAM FARM, HEREFORD. ...
Would sir like the food, or the famine and fuel special?
Every now and again you come across something that really depresses you. This is one such. A comprehensive article on the global pressures on basic food stuffs by the Guardian's environment editor John Vidal.
"Wheat has doubled in price, maize is nearly 50% higher than a year ago and rice is 20% more expensive"
"shortages of beef, chicken and milk in Venezuela and other countries as governments try to keep a lid on food price inflation".
"India, Yemen, Mexico, Burkina Faso and several other countries have had, or been close to, food riots in the last year"
"There are 854 million hungry people in the world and 4 million more join their ranks every year. We are facing the tightest food supplies in recent history. For the world's most vulnerable, food is simply being priced out of their reach."
"The food crisis is being compounded by growing populations, extreme weather and ecological stress, according to a number of recent reports. This week the UN Environment Programme said the planet's water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks were all in "inexorable decline"."
Now this is the consequence of multiple factors; climate, drought, weather patterns, over population, but the article firmly points the finger of significant blame at the rush to turn arable land over to the growth of crops for biofuels.
Much as I like the idea of biofuels, providing it can be proven that they are environmentally sound and carbon neutral, both of which some, of late, have been seriously questioned, I simply cannot understand that some can view fuel as more important than food. At the end of the day a human being can survive on a couple of sacks of maize, but will starve, even with a tank full of ethanol, if no food is available.
Maybe its time to start thinking about building the underground bunker again?
"Wheat has doubled in price, maize is nearly 50% higher than a year ago and rice is 20% more expensive"
"shortages of beef, chicken and milk in Venezuela and other countries as governments try to keep a lid on food price inflation".
"India, Yemen, Mexico, Burkina Faso and several other countries have had, or been close to, food riots in the last year"
"There are 854 million hungry people in the world and 4 million more join their ranks every year. We are facing the tightest food supplies in recent history. For the world's most vulnerable, food is simply being priced out of their reach."
"The food crisis is being compounded by growing populations, extreme weather and ecological stress, according to a number of recent reports. This week the UN Environment Programme said the planet's water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks were all in "inexorable decline"."
Now this is the consequence of multiple factors; climate, drought, weather patterns, over population, but the article firmly points the finger of significant blame at the rush to turn arable land over to the growth of crops for biofuels.
Much as I like the idea of biofuels, providing it can be proven that they are environmentally sound and carbon neutral, both of which some, of late, have been seriously questioned, I simply cannot understand that some can view fuel as more important than food. At the end of the day a human being can survive on a couple of sacks of maize, but will starve, even with a tank full of ethanol, if no food is available.
Maybe its time to start thinking about building the underground bunker again?
It's often how you tell it
Battling for recycling -
A long time ago I had a very good client. Respected him a lot. Once, in the course of a discussion I had cause to say 'you are misunderstanding me'. He replied: 'No, you just haven't be clear enough to make your case enough to persuade me'.
So this miffed me. Whether it was the sanctimony, the lack of acceptance of other views or the arrogance that having a major medium sounding board to spout from confers, but I was not a happy bunny. Or, maybe, it was just that, instead of trying harder to convince a tricky audience, she retreated to a comfort zone to wallow in a whinge with those who share her values. Not that it worked. You can't always blame those you bring your message to for not responding.
I wasn't at the debate, so I can only go on what you choose to share. A perk of those who control the medium. Noting also that debates can often serve an agenda by how the panel is structured. Who set this one up? Anyway kudos at least to the nay-sayer (though he sounds by your account a bit bonkers, which is another good technique in panel composition to help the cause), as a 3-to-one set-up on a chattering class 'issue' is worthy of a BBC 'debate'. Mind you, I could find little to empathise with in his stance. Though he is welcome not to believe in climate change (or at least man-made climate change, which IS different), because, as yet, neither am I. I am sold on the possibility of man-worsened climate change as reason enough to act now on reduction and saving wherever we can as sensible precautions, if handled sensibly. Hence saving anything, including water, can only be good.
So to the point that '... just because the logistics of recycling were currently flawed, this didn’t make the task pointless.' it rather depends, doesn't it, on what the point is?
I have little sympathy with any who can't see value in a bit of minor effort to save all sorts of [choose nouns here: money, planet, etc] but then also get a tad worried about some rallying cries to counter this from the 'anything green must be good and all naysayers are 'deniers'' brigade, especially in full flounce mode.
Quite a lot of recycling can be pointless if one views taking part in some initiatives in light if the imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions as a matter of priority. Because the interests of many protagonists involved are not often clear or explicable or as 'green' as they might be, from bonus-driven quango directors to supermarket-opening eco luvvies with a book deal, to London-centric, cherry-cause-picking journos (Prius - good, Air travel - bad, unless it's to review an eco-resort in the Rockies 'cos the snow is so poor in Verbier this year) to target-rewarded LAs and EU-fine-phobic ministers.
So I for one, get a bit offside when I see bazillions wasted on recycling initiatives and comms budgets that generate hardly any value that I can see in terms of enviROI+.
Maybe the - harrumphing like a rhinoceros (no agenda stereotype there) - enviro manager knew some things you didn't? Or choose/chose to avoid considering?
Or is it just much easier to be yet another yummie green goddess, go with the eco-flow and not on occasion challenge the vast eco-industry that exists, simply to make sure all the vast number of things that can and should be done are done for the right reasons, in the right way and with the aim of making things better for all of us, especially future generations?
Our local kerbside system is great, but still doesn't take plastic. And like all else collected if it did I'd want to know how the 2l volumes of 99% fresh air are disposed of to ensure it's to help my kids' futures and not just to tick a box before I started sanctimoniously doing down all who may be thinking about it more deeply.
Others may simply be confused or antagonised by ill-conceived, poorly-communicated schemes that are too often shown to be designed less for the reasons they thought and were on board with, and more as a bodge or patch job to make some quick money or dig a pol out of a landfill hole. We need coordinated systems that are proven to work and shared in a way that all see benefit because they GET benefit.
The odd thing here is that I may agree with what you say - of course well considered recycling is not a waste of anything - but by heavens I don't have to agree that the way you choose to say it... or that it is all right.
And in a democracy you might wonder why the audience in front of you seemed to be less than enthused with your (three of you) viewpoint. How did this group come to be in the room, and were they or were they not representative? (audience choices are another good way to set the tone as desired). Or maybe it was the way it was expressed? I am getting a little tired of being lectured by a self-appointed media elite whose lifestyles don't quite equate to the majority. Most of us don't get a VIP invite to the green room of the latest green love-in event, or the opportunity to pop off (as I recently read in another broadsheet column) on Eurostar (like, totally offset, yah) to commune for a week with their eco-guru in the South of France.
But at least you can go some way to correcting things to how they 'should' be, after the event, here in your piece. But I for one would have preferred to have been there to stand a chance of getting close to something approaching what happened... and the facts.
A long time ago I had a very good client. Respected him a lot. Once, in the course of a discussion I had cause to say 'you are misunderstanding me'. He replied: 'No, you just haven't be clear enough to make your case enough to persuade me'.
So this miffed me. Whether it was the sanctimony, the lack of acceptance of other views or the arrogance that having a major medium sounding board to spout from confers, but I was not a happy bunny. Or, maybe, it was just that, instead of trying harder to convince a tricky audience, she retreated to a comfort zone to wallow in a whinge with those who share her values. Not that it worked. You can't always blame those you bring your message to for not responding.
I wasn't at the debate, so I can only go on what you choose to share. A perk of those who control the medium. Noting also that debates can often serve an agenda by how the panel is structured. Who set this one up? Anyway kudos at least to the nay-sayer (though he sounds by your account a bit bonkers, which is another good technique in panel composition to help the cause), as a 3-to-one set-up on a chattering class 'issue' is worthy of a BBC 'debate'. Mind you, I could find little to empathise with in his stance. Though he is welcome not to believe in climate change (or at least man-made climate change, which IS different), because, as yet, neither am I. I am sold on the possibility of man-worsened climate change as reason enough to act now on reduction and saving wherever we can as sensible precautions, if handled sensibly. Hence saving anything, including water, can only be good.
So to the point that '... just because the logistics of recycling were currently flawed, this didn’t make the task pointless.' it rather depends, doesn't it, on what the point is?
I have little sympathy with any who can't see value in a bit of minor effort to save all sorts of [choose nouns here: money, planet, etc] but then also get a tad worried about some rallying cries to counter this from the 'anything green must be good and all naysayers are 'deniers'' brigade, especially in full flounce mode.
Quite a lot of recycling can be pointless if one views taking part in some initiatives in light if the imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions as a matter of priority. Because the interests of many protagonists involved are not often clear or explicable or as 'green' as they might be, from bonus-driven quango directors to supermarket-opening eco luvvies with a book deal, to London-centric, cherry-cause-picking journos (Prius - good, Air travel - bad, unless it's to review an eco-resort in the Rockies 'cos the snow is so poor in Verbier this year) to target-rewarded LAs and EU-fine-phobic ministers.
So I for one, get a bit offside when I see bazillions wasted on recycling initiatives and comms budgets that generate hardly any value that I can see in terms of enviROI+.
Maybe the - harrumphing like a rhinoceros (no agenda stereotype there) - enviro manager knew some things you didn't? Or choose/chose to avoid considering?
Or is it just much easier to be yet another yummie green goddess, go with the eco-flow and not on occasion challenge the vast eco-industry that exists, simply to make sure all the vast number of things that can and should be done are done for the right reasons, in the right way and with the aim of making things better for all of us, especially future generations?
Our local kerbside system is great, but still doesn't take plastic. And like all else collected if it did I'd want to know how the 2l volumes of 99% fresh air are disposed of to ensure it's to help my kids' futures and not just to tick a box before I started sanctimoniously doing down all who may be thinking about it more deeply.
Others may simply be confused or antagonised by ill-conceived, poorly-communicated schemes that are too often shown to be designed less for the reasons they thought and were on board with, and more as a bodge or patch job to make some quick money or dig a pol out of a landfill hole. We need coordinated systems that are proven to work and shared in a way that all see benefit because they GET benefit.
The odd thing here is that I may agree with what you say - of course well considered recycling is not a waste of anything - but by heavens I don't have to agree that the way you choose to say it... or that it is all right.
And in a democracy you might wonder why the audience in front of you seemed to be less than enthused with your (three of you) viewpoint. How did this group come to be in the room, and were they or were they not representative? (audience choices are another good way to set the tone as desired). Or maybe it was the way it was expressed? I am getting a little tired of being lectured by a self-appointed media elite whose lifestyles don't quite equate to the majority. Most of us don't get a VIP invite to the green room of the latest green love-in event, or the opportunity to pop off (as I recently read in another broadsheet column) on Eurostar (like, totally offset, yah) to commune for a week with their eco-guru in the South of France.
But at least you can go some way to correcting things to how they 'should' be, after the event, here in your piece. But I for one would have preferred to have been there to stand a chance of getting close to something approaching what happened... and the facts.
Taking the Pulse
I just stumbled across a thing in the Telegraph called Earth Pulse.
To early to say how good it is, but it looks useful and fun at least.
It does quite a lot, but you need to roll over things and click away to get them.
A neat addition to the info armoury I'd say.
G-Wiz! Electric car goes up in smoke
I rarely paste the headline/title piece I am commenting on for a variety of reasons, but here I am making a point.
Those who come to the Junkk.com website homepage will initially only see the Title and first line (above). And on that basis may, or may not, decide to learn more. So, what popped into your head when you saw this (prefaced by 'Carbon Neutral?'):
G-Wiz! Electric car goes up in smoke
To me it is a good example of how there is the chance of undue steering of public thought (maybe just in the cause of a nifty headline, but often one wonders. I too often hear the cry 'but it was explained in para 5' on Newswatch) by what happens between headline, subhead, copy and, often, links.
Because, though still literal, I have to say I thought it was something else at first, especially glancing at the first part of this opener sentence: 'The electric car's potential for saving the planet by reducing our dependence on oil and lowering carbon emissions has been dealt a blow with the news that a best-selling model may suddenly burst into flames."
That said, I do have a real problem with this: 'Its British retailer, GoinGreen, offsets the car's manufacture and use, allowing it to claim that the vehicle is completely "carbon neutral".'
Maybe it is being unfairly singled out by "a few petrolhead motoring journalists" (though safety issues are surely pertinent - how does a SMART stack up?), but I think its green cred was poorly served by a medium one might have thought to be more supportive.
Box clever... or not
Green gadgets and our expectations
Interesting.
I write this as my Mac Mini whirs away in a box the size of an airport novel. I had thought the reason was cooling, but I guess this and laptops give lie to such a misconception. And as with mobile phones, I at least have always thought small meant 'more sophisticated'. Maybe that is a notion to encourage more modest housings?
And as with all packaging, I often wonder why the maker would incur more cost unnecessarily. Now I know. Interesting there is a cut-off. What about a walk-in model... why not? Why is 40x50x20cm the limit?
In terms of changing attitudes one is in the arena of creating or reflecting consumer choice. I bought a Mini because it does the job and occupies the smallest footprint. By that I mean in area - Mac's are not that green. So.... how do we change my purchase decisions (and a lifetime with the O/S) on this basis? So which one of these manufacture/purchase/operation/disposal considerations is more important? Dilemma!
ps: There are some other, complementary, sites to Freecycle that can improve your options.
Interesting.
I write this as my Mac Mini whirs away in a box the size of an airport novel. I had thought the reason was cooling, but I guess this and laptops give lie to such a misconception. And as with mobile phones, I at least have always thought small meant 'more sophisticated'. Maybe that is a notion to encourage more modest housings?
And as with all packaging, I often wonder why the maker would incur more cost unnecessarily. Now I know. Interesting there is a cut-off. What about a walk-in model... why not? Why is 40x50x20cm the limit?
In terms of changing attitudes one is in the arena of creating or reflecting consumer choice. I bought a Mini because it does the job and occupies the smallest footprint. By that I mean in area - Mac's are not that green. So.... how do we change my purchase decisions (and a lifetime with the O/S) on this basis? So which one of these manufacture/purchase/operation/disposal considerations is more important? Dilemma!
ps: There are some other, complementary, sites to Freecycle that can improve your options.
To stir, with love
Welcome aboard Air Ashcroft, the Tories' favourite airline (just make sure you offset)
And while others may do their weekly commute surrounded by fellow peons, I do note they also do it by air.
This is of course a cost/time issue, and fair enough for that for those aware of the purse of those they serve and time poor (though a lot can be done on a train that cannot on a plane). Like many of us.
I am just unsure who you need to be and when it's OK to choose you transport option on that basis, and when it is not.
And while others may do their weekly commute surrounded by fellow peons, I do note they also do it by air.
This is of course a cost/time issue, and fair enough for that for those aware of the purse of those they serve and time poor (though a lot can be done on a train that cannot on a plane). Like many of us.
I am just unsure who you need to be and when it's OK to choose you transport option on that basis, and when it is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)