At least the Indy has followed up on its story/campaign: Have Your Say: A ban on plastic bags?
Adds a bit. Though 'Have Your Says' from the BBC to the Indy, are getting a bad press (well, if they were not about the press. A bad blog, let's say) for trying to pass off what the editors liek the look of as 'representative'.
Q - Can you clear up the definitions of degradable and biodegradable? My understanding is that degradable is not compostable – ie, those bags break down into tiny pieces of plastic that will remain in the environment whereas biodegradable (as in BioBags) can compost and break down completely with no harmful effects to the environment.
A- Absolutely right; the only advantage of degradable bags is they pose less of a litter nuisance once they break down. Biodegradable plastic bags are only better for the environment if they are properly composted – something that isn't widely happening at the moment. As a rule, I take cotton bags on my shopping trips rather than accept free plastic bags. Every couple of months I leave the cotton bags at home and take the plastic bags, which I then use as free bin bags.
My Q - (in light of those raised here previously): So... no harmful effects to the environment. Hmmn. So does that mean there is no greenhouse gas consequence? Why do I sense a cherry pick here? And what about the total lack of official coordination and comms on what goes where? If I put my Somerfield's in with my Morrisons to recycle I do belive that's not helping.
Q - Is it better to use the plastic bags as bin bags, or is there a more environmentally sound way of dealing with rubbish?
A- Reusing bags over and over is of course the most environmentally friendly option and the fact that you do that most of the time is the most important thing. You also need to contain your residual waste somehow and I really don't think it makes a lot of difference if you reuse carrier bags or buy suitable bin liners. But do look out for those with recycled content and don't use bigger or thicker bin liners than you reasonably need.
My Q/Opinion: How can it not make a lot of difference reusing something vs. buying new ones that need to be made? That doesn't make sense!
Q - Where can I buy small black bin bags? I throw out so little that three-quarters of a standard bin bag is waste plastic, but I can't store what little waste I do throw out until the bag is full, because of smells.
A - Maybe smaller pedal-bin liners are what you need? However, some local councils now collect food waste separately which might be an answer to the odour problem. Alternatively, if you can compost your biodegradable waste like vegetable peelings, tea bags and egg shells, you can deal with most of the materials that cause smells in way that's very good for the environment.
My Opinion - Bless
Q - I work for a small children's clothes company. We use good quality polythene bags costing 4p each. I would like to change these to biodegradable bags or paper carrier bags. Can you suggest a source for them at a reasonable cost? Also, which of these is actually least harmful, bearing in mind the use of wood for paper versus land clearance for vast fields of corn for cornstarch?
A - With regard to which bags are least harmful, you need to think about what happens to the bag after you give it to the customer as well as how it's sourced. See my earlier comments regarding biodegradable bags, but also paper bags need to be recycled in order to avoid causing potentially more damage than the plastic alternatives. For information about suppliers you could try www.wrap.org.uk.
My A - And don't forget WRAP is a not-for-profit company!
Q - I was completely fed up with the number of plastic bags foisted on me, particularly as an internet shopper. So, together with a friend, I decided to take action. That was when we found it – a really clever type of shopping bag. The bags clip inside supermarket trolleys, helping to organise shopping and speed up checkout time. And so Geccobags.co.uk was born: a company specialising in utilitarian bags designed specifically for the supermarket.
A - There is a huge range of alternatives to disposable carrier bags, from organic fair trade cotton to supermarket's own Bags for Life.
My A - Nice ads! I wonder who has an 'in with who' between the Indy and the local PR agency.
Q- Thank you for your timely piece on the curse of the plastic bag. I am old enough to remember when supermarkets charged for carrier bags. I cannot believe they are so reluctant to reintroduce the charge.
A- I can also (just) remember those days! The truth is there's no such thing as a free carrier bag; nowadays we just pay for them in the cost of the goods. That is really unfair to consumers trying to reduce carrier bag use – they are subsidising others who are more wasteful.
My A/Opinion - As mentioned on the BBC 'story' this morning, one has to wonder how so much is ending up with the retailers and customers to resolve. I'm fascinated how all these good folk think it's great to be charged. Hope they feel the same as everything ends up with an overt green charge that may or may not help the enviROI and may or may not actually go where one would hope to effect the best changes.
If you want to see green living, go to 'old' Europe
Let's start with the small things. As many cross-Channel shoppers will know, plastic bags are simply not supplied at many Continental hypermarkets any more. You either buy big biodegradable bags from the check-out or bring your own bag or trolley.
I really am keen to get an answer to whether biodegradable bags do or do not create greenhouse gasses. It just seems... pertinent.
Nothing to lose but your plastic bags
Interesting Ms. JSP has opened by highlighting one oft ignored fact: it seems the bags are all that's important; not the fact that most spend all their times wanting to get stuff to stick in 'em. Which I would imagine has a footprint all of its own. A bigger one. Seems it's not the content that matters, but the presentation. And apt metaphor for this 'image is all' era.
A slight whiff of balance... But again : 'Biodegradable plastic is one option, recycled paper another.'
And is only me who sees a slight irony in this: '... picked up at the Ravello Festival in Italy, a market in Faversham, from the launch of Architecture week in London last summer, and at the British pavilion during the Venice Biennale. Much as I rate Ms. JSP, I can't help but wonder how her jaunting (unless it is in a VW Bluemotion at 3000cb/m) equates to the few thousand bags she'll rack up at Tescos.
Guardian - Throwing away a throwaway culture
I have a technical question to which I hope there is a simple answer that some expert(s) can provide me with.
I have just read a factual explanation of the issues (from one of the many, and well-funded, quangos that exist to help us in these matters), and both biodegradable and compostable options were mentioned. However this seemed to be restricted to the processes of composting as it relates to the soil only.
Are there no greenhouse gas consequences to these processes? And if so are they so negligible as to be irrelevant? I see that plastic photodegrades to some nasties. Do these include greenhouse gasses? And does this happen out of sunlight?
I simply ask as I have been working on the assumption that atmospheric CO2/methane is the main priority to reduce, and I'm trying to get my head around how some of the options proposed are actually any better on this, more immediate, basis.
I know it is much more complex, and while reuse must obviously be better in the long run (and seems to work in other countries), I am also aware that the provision of facilities here to enable effective recycling (especially without contamination) is less than it could be. With a suspicion that shunting the issue away from where it could be into a public/retailer responsibility might suit some very well.
Reduction of the things that go in the bags is of course not ... yet ... high on the agenda in the run-up to Xmas and with economies to support and grow, but one rather wonders where next those with zeal and passion for the key things to ban may turn next. Pets? Skiing trips (before the snow runs out)? Ads in newspapers for same? Plastic wrappers for newspapers that run ads for same? Cosmetics? (Now there's a totally unnecessary item - (though my wife may disagree). Or fashion items (at least the ones in the 51 other weeks to the token 'recycle' issue). Beer? How many litres of tap water to make a pint? At least it comes in glasses at the pub and not in plastic bottles.... hey.... there's a thought!
I saw a chap on the TV this morning who was positively salivating at all he could ban, or at least levy and/or fine. Not quite the sort I fancy getting their heads around saving the planet for my kids, especially when I had a sense that he rather saw the money primarily being used to fund more schemes like his, and clones of him to 'run' them.
I do see merit in proper reduction and 'paying for wasting' generating funds to be directed in genuine, effective enviROI+ directions, but this all has a rather worrying scent, at least as dished out by a media that loves an 'issue', and wins with ratings no matter how it plays out.
And while I agree a contact lens is another awful symbol of our disposable society, I rather wish the energies that might yet get devoted to eradicating these might first be directed at slightly bigger tasks of a more immediate concern.
Guardian - Q&A: Plastic bags
Telegraph - Bin those plastic bags - Interesting responses, covering paper, better priorities, etc
ADDENDUM - I made a request via the Institute of Packaging to ask for feedback to help my understanding. I have already had answers that are prompt, helpful, varied and/or interesting. And now have some work on my plate to prepare my next blog!!!! Watch this space.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
One paper. One day. One nation. One wonders...
These were from the Indy yesterday:
The best defence against claims of spin - the process of government
Mark Steel: You can't go round telling people you've been sacked - what happens to those within who try and change it
The cost of cheap food – and hot air - and what happens to the planet when those left in charge a left free to continue with their tasks
I congratulate the Indy and its writers fro highlighting this, but wonder how many days (hours) after passing from our tables and screens these further insanities will be recalled.
The best defence against claims of spin - the process of government
Mark Steel: You can't go round telling people you've been sacked - what happens to those within who try and change it
The cost of cheap food – and hot air - and what happens to the planet when those left in charge a left free to continue with their tasks
I congratulate the Indy and its writers fro highlighting this, but wonder how many days (hours) after passing from our tables and screens these further insanities will be recalled.
They don't make it any easier
See those two packs on the left?Both choccy drinks, but made by what I had thought were major competitors, Mars and Cadbury Schweppes.
I wonder why they feel the need to look so like each other, in shape terms at least? Is that what choccy drinks are 'meant' to look like?
I so miss the old Maltesers version, which presented so many useful possibilities.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mankind, the virus on our planet?
Another mention of the 'policy that dare not speak its name', this time from outspoken MEP Chris Davies, as reported in the Cumbrian News & Star, who reckons that "young couples should have no more than one child in a bid to stop global warming."
"While every individual should be cherished, mankind’s reproduction is akin to the replication of a virus. We are swamping the planet and devouring its resources."
In a sense it's difficult to disagree with that last statement, but who is ever going to propose 'population growth control' as a mainstream policy? Perhaps, if H5N1 (the virulent strain of avian flu) ever mutates to a human to human transferable virus, such a policy may not even be necessary?
"While every individual should be cherished, mankind’s reproduction is akin to the replication of a virus. We are swamping the planet and devouring its resources."
In a sense it's difficult to disagree with that last statement, but who is ever going to propose 'population growth control' as a mainstream policy? Perhaps, if H5N1 (the virulent strain of avian flu) ever mutates to a human to human transferable virus, such a policy may not even be necessary?
Like a beer? Get ready for £3 a pint!
Those of you that enjoy a decent pint or two every now and again, get ready to pay more for your favourite tipple. This from Harpers reports on the increasing costs of basic raw materials that has already hit the UK's breweries, with Barley increasing in price by 40% and Hops by 100% this year.
The piece, perhaps rather too pointedly, firmly lays the blame directly at the door of climate change. It seems that you can blame anything on climate change nowadays, but with the cost of diesel also going up by 12p/litre over the last 12 months too, I reckon we could be paying £3 a pint for a decent beer by the start of next year!
The piece, perhaps rather too pointedly, firmly lays the blame directly at the door of climate change. It seems that you can blame anything on climate change nowadays, but with the cost of diesel also going up by 12p/litre over the last 12 months too, I reckon we could be paying £3 a pint for a decent beer by the start of next year!
Are we there yet?
Does one give into pester power? It's a question I have pondered for a while on a few areas, such as this: London joins national campaign to banish the curse of the plastic bag
It's not quite on a par with 'giving in to terrorists or kidnappers', so I am tempted to go along and swallow the possible consequences of 'giving in to..'.
And it's not like I don't get the point. Plastic bags, if there are better alternatives (the enviROI of plastic vs. alternatives not having been clearly explained to me at all yet, much less convincingly. For example, I can't see a ship-load of hessian sacks getting shipped from India to be sold for a £1 and then forgotten about in the back of a drawer come the next outing - who can carry a bunch of these around all day in case they pop in the shops? - is going to help much either. But hey-ho) and are not being reused or recycled effectively (seems not), are certainly a landfill-destined waste of resource. I don't use 'em if I can help it, though have to admit that when I don't happen to have 4 hemp bags on my person would find it a bit of a pain not to have them, or wonder where the money I have to hand over is going to. Plus a small tilt towards those who have lost their jobs as a consequence of such a ban (and wonder who is next, until the truly worthy contributors to society who inhabit Islington and Westminster decide to feed on each other's productive career contributions).
But I am erring on just getting it over with, if only to get it out of the way and move on to hopefully more important things. Though the trivial obsessions of most involved in such campaigns don't encourage me too much. They'll need another outlet. And I doubt banning pets, skiing holidays or leg waxing products as 'unnecessary' will top their lists.
Especially as major proponents are such as newspapers and LAs, who don't seem so shy on sending out their own hordes of mailings in plastic wrappers.
Yesterday Modbury, today London, tomorrow the Isle of Wight... and then... ze verld!
Thing is, as an ad man, I wonder what will happen when attentions drift elsewhere.
The shop which has already set out its stall to get rid of packaging
Because if everyone is doing it, then there is no value in being different. You get in the Indy if you have 'a' shop that is eco-twee and all the luvvies get their free-range Priuses for the weekend there, but how about the real world of a 8pm Friday rainy-night dash to the Tesco on the way home down a Midlands motorway?
One wonders if you might see the genesis of ad campaigns with 'free plastic bags' like 'no VAT' to entice people in by way of being an exception.
And who is to define when a plastic carrying device is 'legal' or 'illegal'? Maybe we will get bag-leggers smuggling in dangerous loads of plastic over the Mexican border.
At least I get blogs and blogs out of it. Just not sure it's moving my kids' futures on as much as some other efforts deserving such energies.
It's not quite on a par with 'giving in to terrorists or kidnappers', so I am tempted to go along and swallow the possible consequences of 'giving in to..'.
And it's not like I don't get the point. Plastic bags, if there are better alternatives (the enviROI of plastic vs. alternatives not having been clearly explained to me at all yet, much less convincingly. For example, I can't see a ship-load of hessian sacks getting shipped from India to be sold for a £1 and then forgotten about in the back of a drawer come the next outing - who can carry a bunch of these around all day in case they pop in the shops? - is going to help much either. But hey-ho) and are not being reused or recycled effectively (seems not), are certainly a landfill-destined waste of resource. I don't use 'em if I can help it, though have to admit that when I don't happen to have 4 hemp bags on my person would find it a bit of a pain not to have them, or wonder where the money I have to hand over is going to. Plus a small tilt towards those who have lost their jobs as a consequence of such a ban (and wonder who is next, until the truly worthy contributors to society who inhabit Islington and Westminster decide to feed on each other's productive career contributions).
But I am erring on just getting it over with, if only to get it out of the way and move on to hopefully more important things. Though the trivial obsessions of most involved in such campaigns don't encourage me too much. They'll need another outlet. And I doubt banning pets, skiing holidays or leg waxing products as 'unnecessary' will top their lists.
Especially as major proponents are such as newspapers and LAs, who don't seem so shy on sending out their own hordes of mailings in plastic wrappers.
Yesterday Modbury, today London, tomorrow the Isle of Wight... and then... ze verld!
Thing is, as an ad man, I wonder what will happen when attentions drift elsewhere.
The shop which has already set out its stall to get rid of packaging
Because if everyone is doing it, then there is no value in being different. You get in the Indy if you have 'a' shop that is eco-twee and all the luvvies get their free-range Priuses for the weekend there, but how about the real world of a 8pm Friday rainy-night dash to the Tesco on the way home down a Midlands motorway?
One wonders if you might see the genesis of ad campaigns with 'free plastic bags' like 'no VAT' to entice people in by way of being an exception.
And who is to define when a plastic carrying device is 'legal' or 'illegal'? Maybe we will get bag-leggers smuggling in dangerous loads of plastic over the Mexican border.
At least I get blogs and blogs out of it. Just not sure it's moving my kids' futures on as much as some other efforts deserving such energies.
THE CAMPAIGN COLUMN
The journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step.
It hasn't even hit my daily trawl yet, but I've just seen on the BBC Breakfast News yet another campaign being announced, with yet another minor celeb attached. Just for fun, when they pop up I will put 'em here.
What may be interesting is to subsequently try and assess whether they lasted more than the day of the launch, a week or actually got anywhere. And what it all cost.
[name] - something to do with 'schools sustainability' - feat. Sophie Ellis Bextor - haven't seen the detail yet, but what aspect of the Government's relationship with schools it runs needs a 'campaign'. And if it is to move the students, how will this complement the raft of other stuff out there directed at the public.
It hasn't even hit my daily trawl yet, but I've just seen on the BBC Breakfast News yet another campaign being announced, with yet another minor celeb attached. Just for fun, when they pop up I will put 'em here.
What may be interesting is to subsequently try and assess whether they lasted more than the day of the launch, a week or actually got anywhere. And what it all cost.
[name] - something to do with 'schools sustainability' - feat. Sophie Ellis Bextor - haven't seen the detail yet, but what aspect of the Government's relationship with schools it runs needs a 'campaign'. And if it is to move the students, how will this complement the raft of other stuff out there directed at the public.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
AWARDS COMPILATION - Green related
Inspired by a recent post regarding awards for greenwashing, I have decided to kick off a list of my own as the mood takes me:
Advertising
Green Awards (not worth the paper...IMHO)
Business/Entrepreneurship
21st Century Challenge - we didn't make it. See who did.
Greenwashing
FoE (need to track it down)
Greenpeace (ditto)
PR watch Falsies
Spinwatch
Worstlobby
Invention
Marketing
And don't forget, even though one may have passed... there's always next year!
Advertising
Green Awards (not worth the paper...IMHO)
Business/Entrepreneurship
21st Century Challenge - we didn't make it. See who did.
Greenwashing
FoE (need to track it down)
Greenpeace (ditto)
PR watch Falsies
Spinwatch
Worstlobby
Invention
Marketing
And don't forget, even though one may have passed... there's always next year!
Just sharing
BBC - No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance
Though there is a counter-view linked, it seems odd that the BBC would give lead to 'a' person, no matter how qualified.
It will be fun... no... sad seeing how this plays out. I'm guessing he'll be accused of god knows what. The sceptics will take all sorts of stuff out of context and blow it up. The usual.
BBC - The IPCC: As good as it gets
BBC - Unravelling the sceptics
BBC - Climate scepticism: The top 10
Now... any the wiser? Going to change your ways?
Real Climate - BBC contrarian top 10 - Kind of a summary of summary of summarys, with at least more than a hint that scientists are involved. Still suffers from various main protagonists being labelled/outed as poster kids for an entrenched view (seems by various finger-pointings even IPCC contributors and the Real Science top brass are stuck in various 'camps').
The main thing to me is still how all these guys are so much happier engaged in this theoretical debate than actually thinking too much on what can be done now.
Though there is a counter-view linked, it seems odd that the BBC would give lead to 'a' person, no matter how qualified.
It will be fun... no... sad seeing how this plays out. I'm guessing he'll be accused of god knows what. The sceptics will take all sorts of stuff out of context and blow it up. The usual.
BBC - The IPCC: As good as it gets
BBC - Unravelling the sceptics
BBC - Climate scepticism: The top 10
Now... any the wiser? Going to change your ways?
Real Climate - BBC contrarian top 10 - Kind of a summary of summary of summarys, with at least more than a hint that scientists are involved. Still suffers from various main protagonists being labelled/outed as poster kids for an entrenched view (seems by various finger-pointings even IPCC contributors and the Real Science top brass are stuck in various 'camps').
The main thing to me is still how all these guys are so much happier engaged in this theoretical debate than actually thinking too much on what can be done now.
The sky is falling... I mean it!
Emergency talk costs lives?
Some people think the rhetoric of climate change is too emotive. While others, like me, would wish some could just stick to the facts and stop trying to gild various lollies, equally shrilly, for 'our' own good.
No doubt it's serious. And needs addressing.
I just can't help but notice that the current level of rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. So maybe we need a change in that approach, plus of those who see themselves as the messengers of 'the word'.
Maybe there's a lesson from the ad world (ok, it's a first when it comes to man-worsened climate change), which I have worked in most of my life, and especially life assurers. It has long been appreciated that shrieking 'we're all going to die!' doesn't sell policies as well as more subtle, end-benefit, persuasion-based approaches.
Oh, and rushing out the next half-considered survey to offer a ready target for those of a more cynical disposition to illuminate, tends to knock calmer efforts back even more.
It looks like we are playing chicken with the future, but I'm not to sure the nicely funded Green-Elite Chicken Littles who think they have grasped the wheel are best suited to turn it.
Some people think the rhetoric of climate change is too emotive. While others, like me, would wish some could just stick to the facts and stop trying to gild various lollies, equally shrilly, for 'our' own good.
No doubt it's serious. And needs addressing.
I just can't help but notice that the current level of rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. So maybe we need a change in that approach, plus of those who see themselves as the messengers of 'the word'.
Maybe there's a lesson from the ad world (ok, it's a first when it comes to man-worsened climate change), which I have worked in most of my life, and especially life assurers. It has long been appreciated that shrieking 'we're all going to die!' doesn't sell policies as well as more subtle, end-benefit, persuasion-based approaches.
Oh, and rushing out the next half-considered survey to offer a ready target for those of a more cynical disposition to illuminate, tends to knock calmer efforts back even more.
It looks like we are playing chicken with the future, but I'm not to sure the nicely funded Green-Elite Chicken Littles who think they have grasped the wheel are best suited to turn it.
Electrohydrogenesis
OK, yet another super 'techy' word that means nothing to almost all of us as reported in the Telegraph today. This one, however, just may be a word that comes into common parlance over the coming years and decades.
So what is it? Electrohydrogenesis is a process from which "efficient and sustainable hydrogen production is possible from any type of biodegradable organic matter".
Scientists have "devised a method of hydrogen production that relies on combining electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a "microbial electrolysis cell" to belch out hydrogen gas."
The scientists' "reactor generated hydrogen gas at efficiencies up to 99% of the theoretical maximum yield. 'This process produces 288 per cent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added to the process'."
Now that is some claim. If validated, this just may represent a realistic way forward for the generation of hyrodgen as a genuine fuel source. Maybe they have even located the holy grail of the 'hydrogen as a fuel' research arena?
________________
Addendum:
Much as I like the concept of Hydrogen powered vehicles, providing, of course, that the Hydrogen itself can be produced in an environmentally acceptable and safe manner, I have to seriously question the enviROI of this from Reuters, reporting on an order for 10 hydrogen powered buses for London.
Sorry, but at a million pounds each [What the **!!!!!] I'm sure that there must be far more important and urgent things, with far more viable enviROI's for this sort of dosh to be spent on!
So what is it? Electrohydrogenesis is a process from which "efficient and sustainable hydrogen production is possible from any type of biodegradable organic matter".
Scientists have "devised a method of hydrogen production that relies on combining electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a "microbial electrolysis cell" to belch out hydrogen gas."
The scientists' "reactor generated hydrogen gas at efficiencies up to 99% of the theoretical maximum yield. 'This process produces 288 per cent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added to the process'."
Now that is some claim. If validated, this just may represent a realistic way forward for the generation of hyrodgen as a genuine fuel source. Maybe they have even located the holy grail of the 'hydrogen as a fuel' research arena?
________________
Addendum:
Much as I like the concept of Hydrogen powered vehicles, providing, of course, that the Hydrogen itself can be produced in an environmentally acceptable and safe manner, I have to seriously question the enviROI of this from Reuters, reporting on an order for 10 hydrogen powered buses for London.
Sorry, but at a million pounds each [What the **!!!!!] I'm sure that there must be far more important and urgent things, with far more viable enviROI's for this sort of dosh to be spent on!
Where there's a will, there's a way out
This is what I clicked: China 'will agree to cut its carbon emissions'
'China, now the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, will eventually agree to cut its soaring carbon dioxide emissions, one of the country's leading environmentalists forecast yesterday – but only on the basis of a deal with the United States and the rest of the developed world.'
Talk about a let-down.
'China, now the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, will eventually agree to cut its soaring carbon dioxide emissions, one of the country's leading environmentalists forecast yesterday – but only on the basis of a deal with the United States and the rest of the developed world.'
Talk about a let-down.
Another 48 hrs, and another, and...
I don't know, but I really can't equate this button link (on an eco-page) with front pages on the evils of plastic bags - 48 hrs in Fez
I know such things are what fund them, but how many 48 hour multiples can 'we' afford before 'they' see such as this as being more part of the problem...
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
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
Monday, November 12, 2007
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?
"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.
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!
"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?
"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)
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.
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.
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
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..'
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..'
Sunday, November 11, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, November 09, 2007
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,
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
Thursday, November 08, 2007
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!
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)