To win battles, use those who know how to fight... with the right weapons

Prodded, I suspect, by a post from a new 'green agency' selling their wares (I certainly had a look, but could find no portfolio of work, which was a worry - lots on the boxes they had ticked, though), the moderator on eco-innovation network asked for some thoughts on green marketing:

Having been through the 2nd green consumer wave in the late 80's and
90s - when i did my 1st greener marketing book - i am keen not to see
the re-emergence of the Friends of the Earth 'Green Con of the Year'
award in the 3rd 'green' consumer wave we are now in (certainly in the
uk)

My observation is there are many marketing services companies, ad
agencies, etc - suddenly claiming to be 'green' - my concern is that
advise may not be up to standard e.g. the green comms part of
the 'mix' is much more information-based and is not copywriting based -
failure to pick-up complexities and nuances can be disasterous

What needs to be done in terms of developing a 'code of conduct'? - is
there need? and what should be done?

Struck a chord:

As with the many carbon offsetters, traders, footprinters, soakers and all others popping up to feed off the need/desire to be ‘greener’, between the various disciplines in the marketing, advertising, promotions and media firmament there now seem to be almost as many official bodies as there are practitioners. Along with a burgeoning collection of monitoring schemes and labelers (of questionable use, having just read recently five e-performance ‘surveys’ in a week that managed shuffle Tesco and M&S from top to bottom), such that a pack of Smarties will soon need to have a CDR attached just to accommodate the various competing info charts and bars.

And most seem to have a code of practice, all about as much use as they are compulsory.

Overseeing industry there are various well-staffed quangos with, it seems, few if any teeth to effect more than a nasty wrist slap usually once the horse has well and truly bolted, run the 3.15 at Chepstow, been put out to stud and is now the principal ingredient in your tube of Thixofix.

I also assume above these guys are government, who make laws and enforce them, but that any such effective entity exists beyond hype, spin, self-interest and covering up the next Panorama exposé is really the stuff of legend.

Sadly, I rather fear the FoE will have plenty of material already for its next edition. In fact I believe Greenpeace and others have also jumped on the name and shame bandwagon too. So soon we can will be having competing hit lists to contend with: ‘When Greens Go Bad’, or, ‘Now that’s what I call a dodgy offset #66!’ (I have to confess I have been toying with my own, but for now have contented myself with a growing collection of ads that have ‘...but won’t cost the Earth’ in the headline.)

At least thanks to the efficiency of PR dissemination these days, whatever the ASA publishes each week will, if suitably entertaining or compromising, hit the major media within hours. I do believe ‘green-minded’ (or at least aspiring) brands from Innocent Drinks to Lexus to - most recently - Shell, have all found out this to their cost. Sadly sticking a flower in an exhaust pipe isn’t quite making the cut for the authorities, if not some consumers, if not backed up with some substantive justifications. Trouble is the job is usually done by the time they get pulled.

As a creative practitioner over a few decades I still keep my hand in, though I do now focus more on the karmic correction of trying to use the dark arts of persuasion to steer folk to a greener direction. I do so in the hope of offsetting the consequences of my being a tad too good at getting them to buy stuff they didn't really need and/or go places they didn't really need to travel to.

But frankly it has amazed me not that there are so many jumping on this bandwagon to 'sell' expertise in this arena, but that there are still so few. How long before Ego, Driven and Entitled (and yes, my agency boasted my name in its partner string) can boast a 'Head of Green Marketing' (please don't tell me they do already!) which will doubtless be a big box-ticker to some quango numpty looking for a 'green' agency, and with all sorts of ethical requirements to clear with the Minister and triple-bottom-line committee before s/he gets taken out to the bars of SoHo.

In a capitalist/consumerist society, ‘marketing’ in all its forms will in most cases struggle to be truly green. With a few exceptions of real mitigation/reduction, the aim is usually to compete and dominate by selling more ‘stuff’. And, to be fair, I'd go further and try to separate the agency side from the marketing a bit more, though accepting that most agencies have a philosophy of know the clients' business as well as they do themselves. It’s just a sensible practice to stay ahead of the curve (and competition) by being just so darn useful and proactive the client really wouldn't dare risk succumbing to another's entreaties... or fee reductions.

At the end of the day ad guys may well be trusted advisors, but are also mercenaries, if highly professional ones. And business is business. The brief is all, and the signature on the contact report more so. Given a task one comes up with a campaign, from creative ideas to media plans, that delivers the best ROI for the budget. It’s all about getting the most persuasive message in front of the highest number of relevant audience members, for the least money.

My agency had a simple philosophy that the client got presented with: Quick. Cheap. Good.... Pick any two (and one must always be Good).

It was up to the client to choose those that would take that fight out into the marketplace, and win it on their behalf through hard work and skill. All we asked was that they knew what they were doing. And because they choose us that meant they usually did.

We had specializations, and that allowed us to excel with various niches. It's not mandatory, but to create a message an audience will empathize with it certainly helps to have those on board who know the subject backwards (not something I see in many major media environment reporters/editors these days, who serve up some rampant dross to feed the MWCC cynics, like electric cars ‘that don’t pollute’) to find the USPs and opportunities... but also what will tickle the fancy of the person on the receiving end.

But one cannot hope to have quite the same level of insight into, or product knowledge of the person whose every waking moment is (or should be) devoted to their industry and developing their brand/product service (mind you, long-termism in these careers is not prevalent, and hence rarely reflected in strategy, resulting in quick wins that can often be damaging after the commissioner is long gone).

So I do cock an eye at who is failing whom, and the motivations of those who seem prepared to risk the bad PR of an ASA carpeting and Daily Mail inside spread, all for a few grams of carbon more or less in their claims.

The facts are indeed the facts. But unless it has moved on a bit, they still need to be legal, decent, honest and truthful (sadly ‘relevant and ‘beneficial’ are not always included in complement, often along with ethical or moral). I don't see the need for a code of conduct much beyond that. And even if there was how it would be any more enforceable than it is already under current legislation. Just ask Mr. O'Leary. We don’t need more bodies feeding off the system, just more effective ones.

At the end of the day it's down to all those within the process to ask themselves why they are doing what they do. And if they cannot come up with an honest answer, if they are still proud to stand behind their actions then that’s between them and their future generations.

I fully agree with you that it is a major worry just how much venal rubbish is being issued currently in the name of green, with more being shoveled in constantly. I had felt the only saving grace was that all of it was so creatively dire (I am hard-pressed to think of a single green marketing effort that has appealed, much less persuaded me) that at least no one was paying a blind bit of notice. But that is not the case. Thanks to less than innocently-motivated tabloids and others, some egregious examples of greenwashing are going out, being outed and getting noticed, but for all the wrong reasons. And about the only consequence I can see is that it makes the efforts of those with good, genuine products/services and messages, and those working to help promote them properly (ie: with persuasion and argument and end-benefit, not fear, guilt, nanny-nag, etc. Or all too prevalent green-tinted distractions of little actual enviROI+ value) that more difficult.

But until pros who have more in mind than profits, targets or ratings come together from all sides of the mix to make sure that the best enviROI is delivered to the consumer at the same time as ROI in the marketing process, we will see what we are seeing daily now: chancers buying bamboo couches and claiming to be a green agency because they recycle their coffee cups, and marketing commissioners with budgets in the millions and sustainability forms more designed to meet CSR objectives, getting seduced by this aspect of the process at the expense of the thing they are actually meant to be achieving: a clear objective with a good brief to develop a well-targeted execution.

I think only the market will decide what will prevail. Which, with luck, it still can. You can only sell so many cars that don’t prove to do the mileage or emit the claimed green benefits (even if the exhaust pipe is on a power station) before something catches up with you. And overtakes.

But, to be sure, what would be a real help is a single, trusted measure of what is accurate, ruthlessly enforced by a body with teeth, such the consumer can believe what they see or hear is at least accurate enough to make an informed decision upon.

However, even if all could agree on what makes for a fair ‘green’ claim, between carbon footprints, food miles, organic impacts, etc, etc, so that any such thing does become meaningful to a bewildered consumer base (and not just the jargonistic target-setters at their Bali conferences), on current evidence I don’t see most believing that the International, EU or national governments of the day are doing it for the right reasons, and not just to get out of a landfill hole, a missed target fine or to pump some subsidy dosh into an offshore engineering company with a really good lobbying consultant.

PR Watch - Falsies Awards

What comes after the Prius?

According to this from today's Times, Toyota is planning a seriously greener future. As one of the few vehicle manufacturers actually making any real money, they have a substantial pot to invest, and a good chunk of that pot is going into a greener future.

"Toyota will spend its fortune developing single-seat hybrid vehicles, fuel cells, next-generation batteries, bio-fuels and the commercialisation of humanoid helper robots."

Ooooh. I wonder if they're planning to let the robot drive for you?

O, how 'tis the end for words to compare thee to

In light of my predilection for acronyms, I thought it was funny: Today's Britain: dipso, fatso, bingo, asbo, Tesco

Actually it also reminds me of Snow White.

Which Lighbulb?

Having been attacked just now by my local Mrs. SME from the 'leccy shop, brandishing here copy, I just signed up (Lord help me - I dread the avalanche of DM that I know will ensue, plus the equally no fun procedures to get out of my sub if it's no longer of interest) fro a Which? trial sub.

Because they have done a big number on bulbs, rendering my ongoing and as yet unpublished efforts pretty meagre, I am sure.

However, it's all good extra grist t'mill, so I look forward to having a scope and reporting back any insights.

I do have many concerns, especially when it comes to reliability issues. Low energy does not always mean long life.

She was a bit more concerned with the Mercury issue, which apparently has all sorts of WEEE & H&S consequences currently lurking under various carpets in some quarters.

Wathc this space.

Incentives for renewables?

Not according to eGov Monitor, who reckon that rather than reward businesses for going green, Ol' Golden's policies imply that businesses who reduce their energy bills by installing solar panels, wind turbines and the like, are going to be hit with bigger tax bills!

"The Valuation Office Agency, an arm of Inland Revenue, is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation technology with higher business rates and council tax bills."

"a solar panel 'will never achieve a payback, but would be a continual financial drain on the company'. A typical wind turbine for commercial premises will increase the business rates bill by £1,350 a year, while a solar (photovoltaic) installation will mean an extra £2,700 a year in rates."

What the hell is going on? This is turning into an utter shambles! I despair at the inept capabilities and crass stupidity of our esteemed government. We are supposed to be encouraging the uptake of renewables, not bloody well penalising them!

And this on the day when a top UN official states that it would be criminally irresponsible not to tackle global warming!

'Peak Oil' plus 'Climate change' equals what?

Well, some quite frightening trends, and some scary scenarios, according to this piece from Saturday's Irish Times.

"Energy and climate change are now directly affecting the world's peace and prosperity. We have only a short time to cut oil dependence and slash carbon emissions."

Time for mankind to get its act together? Or too late to do so?

Could do better?

Despite recent improvements in the amount of waste that we recycle and compost here in the UK, and an actual reduction in what goes to landfill, we are still the dustbin of Europe.

The UK is still "throwing more waste into landfill than any other country in the EU."

It reminds me of the sort of comments you got in old school reports......... 'U.K. is making progress but needs to work harder to master the subject'.

BBC - You can never have enough dustbin headlines (Junkk Male addendum)

A Going Overboard Government

Yes, it's an acronym. AGOG. I think it is deserved: Motorists risk £60 fines for smoking behind the wheel

I don't smoke. But I do drive. And I do like to know what I can and can't do, so I can avoid doing the latter. This simply seems designed to create confusion enough to ensure a steady stream of revenue.

Because I am trying to grasp how these sentences, I presume provided by this country’s legislators and law enforcers, can sit together in a viable manner:

‘... inclusion of smoking ... as a potential hazard.’
“... the smoking reference in the code was an advisory one and it was down to the discretion of police forces...’
‘Transgressors could face criminal charges “if someone was deemed ...’

Is it or is it not LEGAL to smoke whilst driving? If it still is, then this seems to be a fundamental assault (and not the first) on the chances of any law-abiding person being able to understand the law enough to obey it, much less those in theory tasked to enforce it.

How can you face criminal charges on something that is advisory????

This is clear institutional anarchy.

Hot air. Spinning. Big bores.

Handed it to me a bit on a plate. Shame about the cliches.... mine), though: Wind turbine and tidal power in £20m green plan for Westminster

All I ask is that this is for real and not just for show. I am unsure if a 35m high wind turbine will work that well in Central London, no matter how bold a statement it may be, though along the river it just might. Tidal seems a lot more promising.

"It's a plant' - Or, how not to serve the cause of enviro-persuasion

Planted question damages Clinton in key primary state

It's not so much that it was done (I'd guess it is almost standard practice, at least between No 10 and the BBC) but, like Nixon, the getting caught. And being so clunky. And for such a god-awful question... but mostly for such a sad answer if it was 'prepared'.

Gaurdian - I'm glad you asked

All these messages. And where to stick them.

I was watching the Breakfast News this morning, and in an hour counted about three 'campaigns' for awareness.

One that struck home was something to do with disability, but mainly because it involves Aardman and its awesome animations. But mainly I sat there thinking just how much money had already been consumed rather than actually going where it might help. Especially as I listened to the dapper Director of Communications articulating his 'vision', doubtless outside a several storey Belgravia Office.

Beyond the amount of money going into sticking these in front of us at every turn, as a copywriter I frankly despair at the creative strategies and executions I witness.

See that pear ad? It was in the Sunday Times magazine today (guess how much that costs). It now has copy. Guess what it says: 'Sadder still, it could still be eaten'. Then a bunch of waffle about what food waste costs and a 'tip' (at last) about how to prolong its life: stick it in the fridge. Well, D'uh. Unless it's a banana, as that doesn't seem to work. Or bread. Which seems to go mouldy quicker.

I'm sure these exceptions are on the site, which I will of course share. Through gritted lack of funding.

The next was from the Grauniad. Some eco-energy effort that they have hooked up with. Ignoring the actuality of what they may be selling in competition to others, which seems not to trouble the 'supporting' (er, getting paid) medium, does that line have you, Mr/s. business person, rushing to sign up? Me, either.

And finally, a poster from my supermarket carpark. Inspired? Was I... heck. How much could this spend be better applied where it can DO some GOOD!

A week is a long time in plastic bags

It's a matter of almost biblical proportion. And so I read this: Sunday Times - Stores face ban on free carrier bags*

Last week, of course, was one 'in focus', so it was wall to wall. And, to be fair, tucked away in my magazine was a wall chart. Interestingly it highlighted a quote that stated the rather obvious point that was happening at present was more to do with making money before worrying about planet.

But we're all still at it. Government. Newspapers. Me.

See that first picture? That's today's mail. Half a dozen plastic bags containing stuff I subscribe to. (I also realised there are duplicates and am on the cancellation trail... assuming they will let me - often targets mean they are not keen on reduced numbers).

See the second picture? That yesterday's shopping and the week's plastic from mailings. Depending on whether I remember or not to bring my climate summit hessian tote, I now acquire about 3-4 carriers a week. Which get used as bin liners.

Against that there is a BINFUL of publication wrappers. All useless (though I have an idea on how to make them useful). Now I don't pretend to know the details of why they may or may not be needed, enviROI vs. ROI, but that looks to me like an awful lot of plastic bags I have seen not one squawk about from government or liberal media, with all their campaigning and protest and names and shames.

And just for fun, I have been sent a screed of stuff on a major consultation (it's in here somewhere) on it all by the London Assembly. How many people spending how much time on something of how much relevance at the expense of what else?

Shopping bag levy or ban in London?

Should there be a London-wide ban on the use of shopping bags? Or are Londoners prepared to pay for the bags they get with their shopping? What action are Londoners taking to reduce the number of plastic bags they use? And how can retailers minimise the impact their bags have on the environment?

These and other questions will be considered at a meeting of the London Assembly’s Environment Committee on Thursday 15 November 2007 at City Hall.

Committee Members will question representatives from the following organisations on how to reduce the number of shopping bags issued in London in light of proposals from London Councils to impose a ban or levy on all single use shopping bags in the capital:

· Friends of the Earth
· London Councils
· British Retail Consortium
· Carrier Bag Consortium
· Marks and Spencer
· Sainsbury’s

I know it's An issue, but is it really as big a one as this lot would make out?

* ps - small note on surveys. When I read this 'The move follows a six-week public consultation in which 60% of the 1,752 people who took part supported a ban', my eyebrow goes into orbit. What on earth does 'took part' mean? If it is 'could be bothered to reply', well, what did they think they'd say?

Stale Cream

I have a saying: 'Cream rises to the top; you can't push it'. I may have to rethink that: Quango fat cats reap the price

Recently our local prospective parliamentary candidate wrote in our local paper about DEFRA. He reveals it has spent £1.1 billion on consultants. And yet has managed to acheive almost sod all.

I still mind forking out, but wouldn't so much if the result(s) were any damn good!!! And there seems to be no effective way to get rid of them, leaving them clear to squander more and more, again and again.

Fat cat row over public sector pay

Some great, telling comments in feedback.

Slim down the fat cats

Peers help themselves to £300 a day tax-free

Indy - Pay for public sector bosses rises by 12.8 per cent

Indy - Gordon Brown's efforts to enlarge Blair's 'big tent' are beginning to backfire spectacularly - As much a Friend of..' as those he critiques, by enough smoke to indicate the presence of fire... only with no bright sparks. Just smouldering members.

Reader's Digest - November - Feeding Time in Quango Land - Sadly no link. I will write to them and post here.

Apparently, these things are set up 'to be the most effective and efficient method of conducting government business, and are closed down when no longer required'. Really? How many have been pensioned off? I use that word on purpose, because from the jobs ads I see in the papers, an awful lot look to be in it for a very long haul, golden parachutes included. Once folk are in public service jobs, they seem to be impossible to dislodge, no matter how unproductive or inept.

I also note 'Ministers are accountable'. Well, great. But how does one get a hold of the accounts to see how good they are at overseeing all this? How does one measure the ROIs on the bazzillions these guys spend? Especially when the order of priority seems to be self, bonuses, staff, offices and empires, before we get to comms budgets to drive up 'rates' that in turn are tied to bonuses, which just has to be a major conflict of interest at best. And that's before any money actually gets to doing something where it is meant to go.

My area of interest, the environment, is riven with such waste and squandering. And with no sign of a let-up. In just the last few weeks I have seen at least two 'new' campaigns doing roughly the same thing as each other, with different target-rewarded quangos at their hearts. They just seem to exist as highly expensive, rewarding (for those in them) game-playing entities with no sensible measures of value. And I can't see for the life of me see why, other than to create yet more layers of fat beholden to political masters come voting time, and perhaps a nifty unelected layer of protection for when the sh*t hits the fan and some compliant sacrificial goats are required to fall on swords for a huge payoff.

Only even this doesn't seem to apply as they all are hanging on for extremely dear life.

Pathetic!

BBC - Quango pays director's firm £2m - 'Nice work if you can get, if you can get it..'

Satisfying Sunday... so far

Though it serves to remind me to get in my shed more often and find new ones, this is still worth a share.

A long time ago our sink tap broke. And I managed to fix it, Junkk-style.

Since then I have also done the same for my Mum's, which had the same problem. Well, now the other 'side' of mine has gone. It took me about 5 minutes to repair. No longer do I have the MacD bottle, but I soon found another that had the same component.

RE:sult!

Enough's enough?

As one who has had two, I was attracted to this piece: Three's a crowd

I have to say we didn't stop at the twins through any great enviro commitment; in fact it was only their arrival that got me to embark on this journey. But even so, it was so wonderfully typical to see how an Observer chatterer could get one to being a 'modern Malthusian'. I am thinking of swapping Jedi for this on the next census or 18-page grant application 'we need to know ALL about you' section.

Actually I rather liked the simple mathematical logic described in the intro.

And, within the rest there is the odd interesting fact, such as this (if true): 'On your acre, can you grow all your food, absorb all the waste your lifestyle creates, have space for your home, recreational space, travelling space, provide the other resources you need and leave space for public services? Obviously not.' As I look at our half acre (mostly uncultivatable), that doesn't look too good when there's five (granny inc.) of us to sustain when the revolution comes or the bomb drops. I wonder what one does require? There's an attraction in having that land area (suitably stocked - including surrounding Claymores to discourage 'visitors') to hand as a fall-back.

In fact the whole piece is a fairly elegant roam around 'the issue', but really dips in, and then out, as do many of those who seem pretty active in stirring furiously in other, related e-areas the rest of the time, especially when it comes to the 'don't do that' invocations.

It all rather makes me think there are those who like flying about getting parachuted into high-profile local conflicts and winning medals for battles, but have no interest in winning a world war.

The future's bright, the future will be subject to change

I found this interesting on several levels - And you thought that the age of spin was no more

There's the fact that the media can be easily seduced, with checking, into publishing a story on something before it happens.

There's the fact that few, if any, seem worried it didn't happen after all.

There's the fact that those in senior PR at government level know this. Including the 'boss'.

The fact they don't really care what this all means.

And there's the fact that I only found it tucked away as a comment piece based on what seems an already forgotten opposition MP's campaign.

We're get what we deserve, I guess.

Look... no exhaust pipe. So it doesn't pollute!

I saw this today in the newsagent rack and headed straight here to blog: Green tax puts extra £1,000 on family cars

At the same time, manufacturers will be given incentives to accelerate... those that run entirely on electricity.

I have been beaten to it. Though only one has so far mildy enquired as to where and how the 'leccy gets made. If this is the quality of official thought and media reporting we have today... god help our future.

Gooey mess in aisle 3!

What's your environmental "eureka" moment?

Well, he asked:

Looking down at a hospital crib at two innocents who I had had a hand in bringing into a world that to that point I had had a hand in being a little less than I'd wish it to be, as handed down to me by my parents.

If I can raise my children comfortably whilst still passing on to them a planet better than I inherited (or at least headed in a better direction), I will deem that a fair legacy for my time on Earth.

It's not what you know. It's how you choose to share it.

The climate change 'debate' rumbles on, not always productively. I think this is a worthwhile exchange to share in this regard: Find the error

Journalistic errors, no matter how minor, need to be corrected. But I must say that as I read this, I found myself wondering what the heck was going on (whilst admitting that the error, and its explanations, really stretched this science graduate. Well we are talking over 30 years ago). What the residents of Ely made of it gawd knows.

However, I did note the conclusion, which seemed an epitome of civilised behaviour on all sides.

To me there is a lesson, and that is in addressing the issue of CC it is best to maintain a calm, dignified and factual approach, free of smug 'we know stuff' and relentless, complex links.

Help those seeking knowledge to understand and they will appreciate it. They may even err on acting more proactively on what you have shared.

Guardian - Free energy? It doesn't measure up - By coincidence.

I found this a good reply: "science is fun when you're making people look stupid"
Oh dear. No - science is fun when you're making people - including yourself - less stupid.

I will add it to another I use to inspire my own actions and, where I can those around me: 'A great man (it was a pre-PC era) makes others feel small. A truly great man makes others feel great'

Guardian - A balanced contribution - It's related.. sort of.

Guardian - Cry wolf, but gently - Now who else has been saying something like that (I think I may have phrased it differently though - Don't cry wolf, just persuade via honesty and reason!) Interesting to see the author that inspired my original post coming into the frame. I have used this to add a new search label that is a growing cause for concern - Climate Fatigue. I fear it will crop up again.

It's Friday. It's 5 o'clock. And he's gone crackers, Jack!

Had to happen. I agree with the media: Eat, drink and be merry – you can ignore this unhealthy obsession with obesity

Dear Mr. Lawson,

I agree with all you say... with one small, wafer thin revision to suggest:

It is the uncritical reporting of scare stories as fact which does little service to almost anything that gets covered these days, I fear.

Yours sincerely,

First leak of the final IPPC report

This comes from canada.com and makes for very depressing reading. Essentially, the message is prepare to adapt to a hotter climate because it is too late to stop accelerating global warming.

"Many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed by mitigation, but adaptation is also necessary."

And the report misses some key new evidence, which came to late for inclusion.

"The report is said to understate the danger since alarming new evidence missed the deadline for inclusion. It does not, for example, include data showing global emissions are now climbing faster than ever as China and India power their economic booms with fossil fuels. And there is no mention of this summer's Arctic ice retreat, described as 'astounding' by scientists and government officials who fear the Arctic may be hitting a 'tipping point.'"

Coming on a day when most of the east and south east of England has just about survived a combined tidal and storm surge by a matter of centimetres, all I can say is, have a happy weekend.

Addendum:
Of course, there are always some who cannot accept that what scientists say is correct, as exemplified in this from Fox News. Note his figures are based on 54 survey responses out of 345 IPCC scientists. (There were 2500+ overall involved.) Note the last two questions. As I've said before, ask the right question and you can get the answer you want.

Booking the Cooks

Sorry, couldn't resist that headline - Household brands accused of "cooking the climate" as British government prepares for climate summit

This is what Greenpeace does well, but they do of course have a pretty strict agenda so read it all with eyebrow ready. That said, some uncomfortable reading in the CSR departments and boardrooms of some major brands.

Gaurdian - Does it pay to get into bed with business?

Power is only positive if well directed.

I just got around to reading this: Climate change: we have the power

Not a bad summary of where we are, with a refreshing look at where we could be, by design as much as accident. However, as I found myself muttering away, I thought I'd share some of these mutterings here, along with a few key quotes that provoked them.

In October 2007, I can now reveal the net outcome of all this science. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. CO2 emissions, now approaching 30 billion tonnes a year, have continued to rise inexorably. Good start, eh?

Green Europe is actually doing worse than the sceptical United States. European emissions continue to rise while, last year, American emissions fell by 1.6%. News, and unwelcome, but not perhaps surprising, for an entity that seems totally dominated by appearance of action over action itself.

How we [address] this is the issue. Technologically it’s a problem. Politically it’s a nightmare, requiring unprecedented levels of global co-operation from a species whose second and third favourite pastimes are tribalism and war. Now, whodaathunk?

“We are kind of poised, says Rapley, “to see if technology really is the cavalry coming over the horizon or not.” The good news is that we can definitely hear hoof beats and a bugle. Not from what I saw crest the hill, I fear, at least in this piece.

First, air-scrubbing. I'm sorry, I just can't see any merit with messing with nature on an industrial scale as a solution to the mess we might have made of nature by messing with it on an industrial scale. So almost all these 'solutions' seem scary at best.

So then we come to capture/sinks: The big advantage is that, once installed, this system consumes no energy. Ignoring the vast commitment of resources under that 'once installed', so many of these proposals seem to ignore operation, maintenance and disposal. These things are almost all in hostile environments. I love the idea of 'free energy' by harnessing the elements, but nature can bend a girder or smash a concrete block in a heartbeat. Are these things credible in any sensible enviROI+ terms?

The problem, as Sir Nicholas Stern said in the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, is that climate change is the result of the greatest market failure in history: the abject failure to put a price on growth. Yes. But look at the rhetoric of every pol, business 'leader' or media editorial: it's all about growth. And how you divorce any growth from the greatest driver of all, population, lord alone knows.

Carbon trading schemes – whereby we buy and sell carbon credits that allow us to emit – look like a solution, but their record so far has been abysmal. No, they are not that good. To see why, look at who is running them.

“We have met the enemy,” says Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York, “and he is us. He’s not the Saudi oil minister or George Bush. He is us.” Fair quote. Not exactly a motivator, or very specific, but worth bearing in mind.

Painting everything white might also be a good idea. 'Might' I don't like. Is it? Surely we know by now. I blogged on the impact of bright yellow rape fields vs. darker hued crops an age ago. How does their reflective area compare to a ribbon of tarmac?

...and though fully electric cars are on the way, it is not yet clear whether they will be good enough and cheap enough to lure consumers away from petrol. Or, for that matter, how their energy supply produces any less Co2.

...there are hundreds of schemes for offsetting your carbon when you fly, but less than 1% of passengers use them. A ratio worthy of Gov/Quango overlapping awareness schemes. Why do they even exist, let alone fund the majority of venal/misguided parasites who run them?

And nuclear plants, once built, are more or less emission-free. There are also ZEPPs – zero-emission power plants that use new ways of handling coal and oil. Again, we know how to do this. We just have to find the will. Hmn.

All these divisions point to a fundamental problem for the green movement that has dogged all its campaigning and drained its political credibility. They squabble among themselves, and, beneath the surface, it’s always about the same thing: what are we trying to achieve? Quite. But they don't half consume a lot of time and generate a lot of hot air in doing so.

'There are three things nobody need argue about. First, global warning is a reality; secondly, it is largely caused by humans; thirdly, we know how to slow or reverse it.' For me it is yes, probably/silly not to assume it and... do we, really? That last seems to contradict a lot else written in this piece. The problem seems to be all the factions who think they know better and are still fighting for a piece of a stale pie. It's an almost intractable problem, because who (myself included) can resist an opinion? And, more importantly, if a vast 'fix' is to be committed to, the whole population needs to be sure it will, in fact, work. Few things I've learned of, save many reduction-based notions, have such certainty.

I will use this blog to share, discuss, critique and debate, but I will use Junkk.com and ideas such as RE:tie to try and chip away with solutions I truly believe will help do something tangible.

Telling you where to go

I am thinking of reviving a debate I once had with myself into a Prof's Poser, on the subject of Sat Nav's.

Are they enviROI+ or negative?

When it comes to toys I am your man. But we don't have one. I am fine with maps. But 'er indoors is not, and no gender commentary intended. And last weekend I had a call from her in London having circled fruitlessly for an age trying to locate her destination. Would this electronic box have saved her frustration... and a load of emissions as well? At least enough to offset its creation shipping, use and disposal? I'm erring on yes.

However, having watched today's Breakfast TV one could have doubts. Seems they are the instrument of the devil, sending container lorries through small villages and dropping coaches in the river.

Thing is, while these make for powerful, negative images, I can only wonder if the right things are being addressed here.

I am afraid I would have to ask serious questions of a coach driver who can get into the middle of a field at the behest of a 2" square screen vs. the evidence of his own eyes. And taking the example of our own fair town, there are big signs at each end to advise that large vehicles are not suitable. Mind you, they have the stupid disclaimer 'except for access', so basically a tank transporter could decide it needs to come through, and hence it is all ignorable and equally unenforceable.

Made for a silly story though. And a blog post. Which is about all. Oh, and another metaphor for trivial TV and the triumph of everything over common sense.

Muddying the global warming waters

Now as the debate/argument/bun-fight continues to rage over whether or not global warming is man made, man worsened or an entirely natural occurrence, aficionados from both sides have been involved in some very shady dealings. From big oil funding renowned scientists to produce articles ridiculing the consensus science outputs of the IPCC, through to documentaries broadcast as fact when half of the 'facts' had been massaged and even falsified. Plus we have Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth', now also regarded as containing flawed arguments and containing some overt exaggeration. Both sides have been equally responsible for creating supposed 'facts' out of little more than conjecture.

During all this, I have not come across anything quite as stupid and irresponsible as this, as reported by NineMSN, which details how someone created a fake journal (The Journal of Geoclimatic Studies) and a completely false article, which purported to prove that marine bacteria emit 300 times more CO2 than mankind does.

So what happened? Well a British scientist spotted it, and emailed it to 2000 colleagues worldwide, which cascaded it rapidly around the planet's scientific community. Of course it caused raptures of delight within the MMGW skeptic community, as it supposedly provided the absolute evidence that global warming is definitively not man made. Well, it did for a little while, until the very same scientist realised that it was a completely spurious spoof.

Where we are dealing with entrenched viewpoints, especially around an area as important to mankind as global warming, the last thing that is required is the action of some irresponsible idiot(s) creating completely false science in order to muddy the waters even further.

What we all want to know, where possible, are the facts: clear, concise and unexpurgated. We do not want to be told lies, artificially invented 'facts' or even to be presented with massaged evidence. For scientists to blur things around the edges is to some degree understandable, but whoever was behind this is totally irresponsible, stupid and asinine.

The only saving grace is that it was recognised as a spoof before any of the major media picked up on the story.

____________
Addendum: 12/11/07
Finally, an admission from one of the guilty partners in Guardian CIF. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to even side with, let alone agree with, either his motive or his intentions.

Nice job (if not weather) if you can get it

As they do have an agenda all of their own I don't usually pay too much heed to most anti-MWCC blogs, but this one has some interesting links: UN Climate Panel to Discuss Global Warming at Tropical Resort

The main issue here is perception. And I do not perceive this very well.

Bearing in mind I used to use 'some conference in Bali' as a joke for the trend to 'not do as said' and it has come horribly true, there are some serious questions I do share in the mocking.

One accepts, sort of, that conferences have to be held to achieve consensus internationally, but why on earth here? Surely the majority of those relevant to this are located in greater proximity to somewhere less airmiles deficient? Like where the UN is? It's why I accept most things I have to attend are in London and not nearer to Ross. The costs are also something one needs to get one's head around, but again I suspect these will be high anywhere... so long as it's viewed as a great big jolly as much as an attempt to address the issue.

And as for the media... if ANY of the usual suspects are flying a cabal of 'reporters' (especially science/enviro editors who have little appreciation of the complexity of the issues, from publications who care for little other than a headline or punting out an agenda), I will treat them with the contempt they deserve. Unless of course they can manage to report objectively and with some positives and proactivity to balance the rampant irony of them being where they are, doing what they do, when doubtless one big 'idea' will be curtailing the flying for pleasure or business of those whose needs and aspirations are less 'essential' than theirs.

When this effort was planned, was no thought given to how it would play, and the damage this would do to any reasonable efforts being made by delegates?

Just words

As Dave is allowed a non-enviro post, then so am I. It has been a bad day (got blown out on another chance at some dosh - these things really drain the time and money bank), so I need to lash out.

This is one of those doofus 'polls' that litter our media these days. OK, rarely much harm, expect when the idle clicks of bored surfers get catapulted into a 'survey shows..' headline.

Thing is, I just couldn't get past how everything these days is so darn sloppy, especially when it comes to filling in stuff and at its most hair-rending when it is human-free online and automated.

Artist or vandal? On what basis? If it's on a canvas then it may well be art. If it's on a public surface I'd say the law is clear.

And then, if you want 'the answers to...' No ! These are not answers. These are the collated responses to a question that offered two options. All you are getting is what some people thought of the options offered.

Rant over. Back to work.

Feed me money or I go bang!

Not really enviro in any way, but very amusing for a dank and dismal Thursday afternoon. From Reuters, reporting on a Japanese piggy bank that explodes if you don't top it up regularly!

Well, it tickled my admittedly strange sense of humour!

Doing what it says on the tin

Just got this in: (DEFRA) Offsetting projects to create jobs and cut emissions

Don't know why, but the first thing that popped into my head was an expression from the military: DEFRACon 3.

Because I rather leapt to the notion that whatever else might or might happen, jobs would for sure be created. It's just a matter of where, and doing what, that concerns me, especially when I read on to this:

Government Carbon Offsetting Fund Members

Central Government (including participating agencies)

Cabinet Office
The Prime Minister's Office
Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
Department for Children, Schools and Families
Department for Local Government and Planning
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Department of Health
Department for International Development
Department for Transport
Government Car and Despatch Agency
Department for Work and Pensions
The Rent Service
Export Credits Guarantee Department
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Valuation Office Agency
Her Majesty's Treasury
Home Office
Identity and Passport Service
Criminal Records Bureau
Forensic Science Service
Law Officers' Department
Crown Prosecution Service
Serious Fraud Office
Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers
Attorney General's Office
Treasury Solicitors
HM CPS Inspectorate
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Sustainable Development Commission

Other partners

Parliament
(including both Houses and the British American Parliamentary Group)
The Greater London Authority
Metropolitan Police Service
Transport for London
London Development Agency
The Royal Household

That seems an awful lot here (I'm guessing there is a, or a department off offset munchkins in each to play with all this) for not so many there.

I also still need to get my head around the whole carbcon deal to appreciate how it truly saves my kids' futures, as paying towards the projects 'would ensure that the carbon footprint of Government air travel was neutralised by ensuring emissions were avoided elsewhere. This will help to cut emissions and ensure developing countries are not impoverished by carbon-cutting measures.'

Maybe it needs to be explained to me in ways I can grasp, but that doesn't seem to me to be, as per the title, cutting emissions, but moving them around a bit, globally, which is not quite the same thing... is it?

At least it's acknowledged in the small print that "Offsetting emissions from transport isn't the answer to climate change ".

Apparently, 'the GCOF is being managed by EEA Fund Management Ltd, who won the contract to source and deliver 255,000 Certified Emission Reduction Credits, with a provision for a further 50,000 credits, over three years from a range of Kyoto-registered projects. Credits will be supplied from the project portfolio of Trading Emissions PLC, to whom EEA is the Investment Advisor.' Whatever that means.

Defra's aim is sustainable development. Nice.

One couldn't also help but wonder if, as it is taxpayers money being used here, the offsets might not be more [insert non-judgemental phase here]-lly targeted first more locally, perhaps on insulation for non-golden pensioners, and other folk who have paid all their lives to fund civil service salaries and pensions.

Just one, wafer-thin fact...

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?

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.

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'.

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

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!

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?

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

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?

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...

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?

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'

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.

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.

Lies, damn lies... and who we should be talking to

The UK family: in statistics

I found it interesting anyway.

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."

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...?

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.