Here's yet another twist on hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles as reported by Channel4.
"The Georgia Tech car can run on conventional petrol or diesel, but has an on-board processor to separate out the hydrogen in the fuel. The hydrogen is used to run the car, as in a fuel cell vehicle, giving zero-emissions operation (the only waste product is water) and the carbon is stored in a liquid solution."
The idea is that the remaining hydrocarbon liquid contains all the carbon, which is then reprocessed to create yet more fuel. Sounds like an interesting concept. Let's see how it develops.
Friday, February 15, 2008
3 degrees of separation
I just missed the opportunity to get all kultur'd up thanks to Homie Brown and his boys 'n girls from da Westminster hood's new plan, so I think I'm mixing a few literary icons.
I know there's something about 6 degrees of separation and how we're all just a few links off being Royal, but that'll teach me for giving up at O level.
Anyhoo, it's a snappy title, which I have hijacked to describe the fine art of talking about something, mainly to stir it up a bit, but in ways that isolate me from the consequences. A bit like when a reporter says 'some say...', and you just wish the interviewee won't budge 'til they 'fess up that it's actually them and no one else has said a thing.
But here I quote a blog that quotes others, so I'm pretty golden. Well, other than now, when I say that these two pieces make pretty clear that my concerns on enviROI of so-called 'green' initiatives and the associated (lack of) joined up thinking around them. Plus some 'solutions' not actaully, as such, doing much more than make a few folk rich and a few others feel better about themselves. Oh, and a few media keeping occupied talking things up and then down, which is a win-win. I just need one win: what works.
Greenbang.com - The £50 million wave fund that no one wants - whack up a windmill (with a few issues pending), no problem. Daily, regular, reliable tides.... hmnnn.
Greenbang.com - Hybrid cars: a misinformed craze? OK, it has a question mark. Good question mind.
I have an acronym coming... O, DTTTI.. Only delaying tactics 'til the inevitable?
I know there's something about 6 degrees of separation and how we're all just a few links off being Royal, but that'll teach me for giving up at O level.
Anyhoo, it's a snappy title, which I have hijacked to describe the fine art of talking about something, mainly to stir it up a bit, but in ways that isolate me from the consequences. A bit like when a reporter says 'some say...', and you just wish the interviewee won't budge 'til they 'fess up that it's actually them and no one else has said a thing.
But here I quote a blog that quotes others, so I'm pretty golden. Well, other than now, when I say that these two pieces make pretty clear that my concerns on enviROI of so-called 'green' initiatives and the associated (lack of) joined up thinking around them. Plus some 'solutions' not actaully, as such, doing much more than make a few folk rich and a few others feel better about themselves. Oh, and a few media keeping occupied talking things up and then down, which is a win-win. I just need one win: what works.
Greenbang.com - The £50 million wave fund that no one wants - whack up a windmill (with a few issues pending), no problem. Daily, regular, reliable tides.... hmnnn.
Greenbang.com - Hybrid cars: a misinformed craze? OK, it has a question mark. Good question mind.
I have an acronym coming... O, DTTTI.. Only delaying tactics 'til the inevitable?
They're out there
For my forthcoming speeches at ECOPACK '08, I put out a call via the IoM website to ask for examples of second use design.Here's the first to come in.
From Clifford Packaging.
My car currently has three purpose built efforts from Morrisons, whilst my desktop filing systems uses 6xwine boxes I collect separately to support the cereal box dividers within.
So I'd say this was a pretty good plan.
It's academic... apparently. Still
Close the loop on plastic, says leading academic
Couldn't agree more with Dr. Thompson. Though why it is an academic issue... still... now... rather defeats me.
But then, I'm only a consumer.
And that, 'scuse the pun, seems to make me just... fine.
Couldn't agree more with Dr. Thompson. Though why it is an academic issue... still... now... rather defeats me.
But then, I'm only a consumer.
And that, 'scuse the pun, seems to make me just... fine.
Taking the wrap
I just wanted to share this morning's mail delivery. And (left/top) the week's so far.In it were three magazines, two of an eco bent.
Now I understand all the issues faced in safe delivery, so I am not going there.
What is more of interest to me is the disconnect between all those who should be dealing with this, from the suppliers to publishers to consumers to waste disposal entities, commercial and public, for profit and legislative.
Two of my haul claim to be safely disposable in landfill. Rather confusingly (well, to this consumer) one is oxy-degradable and the other biodegradable. Same thing?
The other is 'recyclable'.
Now I know enough to wonder whether the landfill-friendly efforts are only going to work if processed properly. And that by being mixed with the other the whole thing is probably a mess anyway.
I doubt many would be even so troubled. And in the absence of any information to the contrary, or mechanisms to deal with it properly anyway, it's all going in the same basket, and I'll then let the supermarket decide this weekend when I stick it in the bag box, or the swimming pool carpark skip's plastic bag binliner.
Not, I imagine, the best enviROI, really.
Tilting Windmills
My ad agency had a motto: Quick. Cheap. Good: pick any two (and whatever happens one will always have to be good)
It came to mind as I read this: Backlogs threaten Government targets for renewable energy
So we have a target or two. That means the timing is not negotiable. So... I'm guessing the price will be going up even more than antcipated, which makes my enviROI concerns even more presssing.
Or, of course, quality might suffer. Hope not. But in meeting a target today there is a dubious history already of leaving the mess of tomorrow for others to clear up.
It came to mind as I read this: Backlogs threaten Government targets for renewable energy
So we have a target or two. That means the timing is not negotiable. So... I'm guessing the price will be going up even more than antcipated, which makes my enviROI concerns even more presssing.
Or, of course, quality might suffer. Hope not. But in meeting a target today there is a dubious history already of leaving the mess of tomorrow for others to clear up.
News, Views and what you lose
I share this for a variety of reasons: Boris's manifesto? He'll teach Ken how to ride a bike
It's actually about the debates between London's mayoral candidates. I almost didn't click on as that's not what the headline link seemed to indicate. Interesting choice from a paper accusing others of not taking issues, such as Darfur/Olympics, seriously enough.
And having read on, unless it was the reporting, I have to say just how thin the whole 'enviro' claims came across, especially when set against the demands of running and funding a city of several millions.
I'm not sure that, and this is as quoted in the Indy remember, 'Vote Liberal Democrat for lower fuel bills –and feeling cold', is the way to win hearts, minds... or votes.
Addendum;
Gaurdian - Green talk - It's cheap, too
It's actually about the debates between London's mayoral candidates. I almost didn't click on as that's not what the headline link seemed to indicate. Interesting choice from a paper accusing others of not taking issues, such as Darfur/Olympics, seriously enough.
And having read on, unless it was the reporting, I have to say just how thin the whole 'enviro' claims came across, especially when set against the demands of running and funding a city of several millions.
I'm not sure that, and this is as quoted in the Indy remember, 'Vote Liberal Democrat for lower fuel bills –and feeling cold', is the way to win hearts, minds... or votes.
Addendum;
Gaurdian - Green talk - It's cheap, too
All nature's creatures
I was tempted recently to get a biosphere.
It's one of those do-dads that is a sealed globe that mimics the earth's eco-system. Though I suspect without a few complicating factors, such as animals... and especially the human variety.
It set me to thinking a bit about some of the ideals put about, especially by those who see nature as the best architect and homo sapiens as the fly in the ointment, rather forgetting that we are merely part of Gaia's grand design.
So I just pondered an arbitrary, isolated area sustaining 'life'. Ignoring more global factors, the sun shines, it rains, the seasons change. The plants grow. Herbivores graze, and the availability of food and water regulates their numbers. And, just for good measure, predator carnivores do that job too, with a bit of Darwinian culling going on to on the herbivores and between themselves. On balance, that seems to work. In times of plenty, numbers go up. And in times of hardship they go down. And whatever happens there is an upper limit the land can, and hence will sustain.
Then along comes man. Well, the first to go will be the predators. For a start they are dangerous, and then for another they are competition. Next to go will be the herbivores, at least if they need the land man requires to live upon and grow crops (though we may keep some for burger purposes). And then we do what we do best. And as our numbers grow we occupy this finite space more and more, and cleverly squeeze more and more out of whatever remains to sustain ourselves.
But... and here's the rub... there still has to be a limit. It seems odd that so few seem to have admitted, much less addressed this notion.
Anything else, from plastic bag bans to renewable energy subsidies, seem more tinkering (albeit profitable, at least short term and just to some) simply to buy some more time.
It's one of those do-dads that is a sealed globe that mimics the earth's eco-system. Though I suspect without a few complicating factors, such as animals... and especially the human variety.
It set me to thinking a bit about some of the ideals put about, especially by those who see nature as the best architect and homo sapiens as the fly in the ointment, rather forgetting that we are merely part of Gaia's grand design.
So I just pondered an arbitrary, isolated area sustaining 'life'. Ignoring more global factors, the sun shines, it rains, the seasons change. The plants grow. Herbivores graze, and the availability of food and water regulates their numbers. And, just for good measure, predator carnivores do that job too, with a bit of Darwinian culling going on to on the herbivores and between themselves. On balance, that seems to work. In times of plenty, numbers go up. And in times of hardship they go down. And whatever happens there is an upper limit the land can, and hence will sustain.
Then along comes man. Well, the first to go will be the predators. For a start they are dangerous, and then for another they are competition. Next to go will be the herbivores, at least if they need the land man requires to live upon and grow crops (though we may keep some for burger purposes). And then we do what we do best. And as our numbers grow we occupy this finite space more and more, and cleverly squeeze more and more out of whatever remains to sustain ourselves.
But... and here's the rub... there still has to be a limit. It seems odd that so few seem to have admitted, much less addressed this notion.
Anything else, from plastic bag bans to renewable energy subsidies, seem more tinkering (albeit profitable, at least short term and just to some) simply to buy some more time.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
ONLINE E-INFO SITES
Yup, another 'e-volver'
UK
Ad/Greenwash
climatedenial.org - mainly for it's pick-up on daft car ads
Food Waste
lovefoodhatewaste.com
General
carboncommentary.com
repak - NEW - for Eire
The Green Guide - UK based - via Junkk RE:view
Transport
Auto
cleangreencars.co.uk
There'll be more ('specially if you tell me!)
UK
Ad/Greenwash
climatedenial.org - mainly for it's pick-up on daft car ads
Food Waste
lovefoodhatewaste.com
General
carboncommentary.com
repak - NEW - for Eire
The Green Guide - UK based - via Junkk RE:view
Transport
Auto
cleangreencars.co.uk
There'll be more ('specially if you tell me!)
The new London gaz guzzler charges.....
..... that we commented upon the other day may not have quite the effect that TFL actually wants. This article from AutoWired argues that the "new emission-based London congestion charge rules are likely to increase CO2 emissions, increase pollution and increase congestion."
Given that the new charging system will target individual vehicle emissions, they suggest that "While encouraging the sales of low emission models is to be applauded, the framing of the new rules is likely to encourage greater use of cars within the capital". The consequences may be "significant numbers of charge-exempt models on the roads, potentially leading to higher carbon dioxide emissions, and more congestion"
Looks like repositioning a scaled congestion charge against individual vehicle emissions may not be quite as well thought out as TFL intended.
Given that the new charging system will target individual vehicle emissions, they suggest that "While encouraging the sales of low emission models is to be applauded, the framing of the new rules is likely to encourage greater use of cars within the capital". The consequences may be "significant numbers of charge-exempt models on the roads, potentially leading to higher carbon dioxide emissions, and more congestion"
Looks like repositioning a scaled congestion charge against individual vehicle emissions may not be quite as well thought out as TFL intended.
REVIEW - The Green Guide
greenguide.co.uk
Bit of a quickie, and a shortie, to make a bit of a point about how those in the business of green can help each other, and the cause, by doing very little that can make such a big difference.
The other day I got a call from a nice lady checking my details for Junkk.com. Well, one thing lead to another, and The Green Guide has kindly put a link up on their site.
And so, just for the purposes of mutual back massage, I have returned the compliment. Happy to.
Thing is, I can only do it, and then write about it here, and add it in the next newsletter (don't ask), because they took the 5 minutes to upload their stuff.
Odd how few do, even after I have invited them, and especially if they have mentioned us!
Anyway, back to the 'review'.
It's hard to do a better summary than their own:
There are currently more than 12,400 entries in the Green Guide Directory which makes it probably the largest and most comprehensive resource of green, sustainable and planet-friendly goods, services and organisations in the UK.
It's a very simple, clean design, mainly aiming to 'do what it says on the tin', with about a dozen main headings in a taskbar that lead you where you might wish to go.
No obvious search, but probably not needed. And maybe just as well, as Junkk.com's can often be a tad too 'inspired' to be of use!
But they are a more than welcome addition to the growing sources of info out there to help us all... and benefit without the dead hand of offcial agenda. Oh, and are, of course, free, to both use and add your buiness to.
Bit of a quickie, and a shortie, to make a bit of a point about how those in the business of green can help each other, and the cause, by doing very little that can make such a big difference.
The other day I got a call from a nice lady checking my details for Junkk.com. Well, one thing lead to another, and The Green Guide has kindly put a link up on their site.
And so, just for the purposes of mutual back massage, I have returned the compliment. Happy to.
Thing is, I can only do it, and then write about it here, and add it in the next newsletter (don't ask), because they took the 5 minutes to upload their stuff.
Odd how few do, even after I have invited them, and especially if they have mentioned us!
Anyway, back to the 'review'.
It's hard to do a better summary than their own:
There are currently more than 12,400 entries in the Green Guide Directory which makes it probably the largest and most comprehensive resource of green, sustainable and planet-friendly goods, services and organisations in the UK.
It's a very simple, clean design, mainly aiming to 'do what it says on the tin', with about a dozen main headings in a taskbar that lead you where you might wish to go.
No obvious search, but probably not needed. And maybe just as well, as Junkk.com's can often be a tad too 'inspired' to be of use!
But they are a more than welcome addition to the growing sources of info out there to help us all... and benefit without the dead hand of offcial agenda. Oh, and are, of course, free, to both use and add your buiness to.
Ask not what gets done for the planet, but what the planet gets from our meeting targets.
Addendum: Top and bottom. I just thought I'd post this grab of the chat page. When it says 'let yourself go', bearing in mind the topic and context, I wonder if this is what Expedia and the Gaurdian had in mind?
Gaurdian - Join our web chat on renewable energy
'...how we are going to reach that 15% target and whether 2008 will be a key year for the renewables market.'
Is there not a danger in all this that, as this sentence suggests, the the aim becomes more the meeting of a target and/or the creation of lucrative business models, at the expense of actually achieving a result? Too often I see the product delivery hijacked by the process and those with careers involved in it.
If, to put things simplistically, it is believed that it is the carbon dioxide and other 'pollutant' greenhouse gasses going into the atmosphere that are responsible for PMWCC (Probably man-worsened climate change), should not the reduction of these be viewed more in totality?
Once we break things out into convenient, isolated chunks it for sure makes things awfully easy to measure, tick boxes and/or reward, but perhaps does not adequately challenge the overall worth to our kids' futures on this planet.
I can live with a poor ROI in many cases. And hence have a concept of enviROI that allows for not 'making' money as an option for doing something if it has an environmental benefit.
But it does have a lower limit, as it can be argued that ploughing funds into something when they may be used more productively elsewhere might be equally flawed.
Hence my concern at having a set number of 'renewables' laid out in this manner, with still no clear idea as to how they get there, what they do, how well they do it and what their relative contributions to mitigation of our energy demands are.
The last such webchat - in the country's top online forum, and arguably most 'green', too - attracted a few dozen. Let's see how this pans out.
Addendum:
Wow. I was first up. And got an answer, too:
This raises some interesting issues. I’d say that having attractive business models is actually essential to achieving the targets, rather than a distraction. Even though governments play an essential role in the move to a low carbon economy, most of the required investment needs to come from the private sector. Fortunately, there are already very strong commercial opportunities in renewable and other low carbon technologies, and these are growing rapidly. As for breaking down the target into ‘chunks’, I agree there’s some sense in this and actually, it’s a necessary next step for the UK. Currently under debate is how much of the 15% should come from electricity, heat and transport, with one scenario being around 45%, 10% and 10% of the total usage of each. Since renewable electricity currently supplies about 4.5% and heat and transport around 1% each, this represents a tenfold increase on all fronts.
Was it was the one I was seeking? Not really. One has to question the value of these efforts as they inevitably (have to) deal in generalities, but I really din't quiet get to where I wanted on enviROI's, especially with thinsg getting stonkking subsidies just to exist and tick a box, without worrying too much on what they might do to help.
So who do you believe?
Our chancellor, yesterday on the radio - "It will be a difficult year right across the world, but the fundamentals of the British economy are strong because of what we have done over the last 10 years. They will remain strong."
The Governor of the Bank of England - "The higher level of energy and food prices is a genuine reduction in our standard of living relative to where it would otherwise have been. ..... This is because of the higher prices that all of us are having to pay." And "Looking several years ahead, there’s no reason to expect house prices to be markedly above where they are now. It’s conceivable there might be falls in house prices."
Full story from The Telegraph.
So there you have it. Everything's fine, the economy is robust and will remain strong. That's the message from our Gov. But the boss of the Bank of England issues a strong warning that all is not well and we had all better tighten our belts.
Also interesting to note that whilst inflation reaches an official 2.2% (I think that was what they said yesterday) the real cost of living increase is some 6-7%, and that excludes any forthcoming council tax increases.
I guess who you believe the most rather depends on how thin you wallet is feeling. I know mine is beginning to feel that it's been put on rations. And my dilemma? All this is happening just when I was considering what I could spare in terms of putting in extra insulation in order to mitigate the ever increasing heating bills somewhat.
Ho hum! Spend now to Save later, or, Save now to Spend later? Now that's a predicament under these circumstances. What do you recommend?
The Governor of the Bank of England - "The higher level of energy and food prices is a genuine reduction in our standard of living relative to where it would otherwise have been. ..... This is because of the higher prices that all of us are having to pay." And "Looking several years ahead, there’s no reason to expect house prices to be markedly above where they are now. It’s conceivable there might be falls in house prices."
Full story from The Telegraph.
So there you have it. Everything's fine, the economy is robust and will remain strong. That's the message from our Gov. But the boss of the Bank of England issues a strong warning that all is not well and we had all better tighten our belts.
Also interesting to note that whilst inflation reaches an official 2.2% (I think that was what they said yesterday) the real cost of living increase is some 6-7%, and that excludes any forthcoming council tax increases.
I guess who you believe the most rather depends on how thin you wallet is feeling. I know mine is beginning to feel that it's been put on rations. And my dilemma? All this is happening just when I was considering what I could spare in terms of putting in extra insulation in order to mitigate the ever increasing heating bills somewhat.
Ho hum! Spend now to Save later, or, Save now to Spend later? Now that's a predicament under these circumstances. What do you recommend?
CATEGORY - SHIPPING
I think this deserves a category of its own.
For previous posts just search the 'Shipping' label below. One day I'll find time to archive 'em here.
This is shaping up to be a major issue, especially to one, such as me, who professes to be most concerned about enviROI. I have in the past given a pass to various activities that took place by boat (such as Dave's kite-towed post recently) on the notion that it must be oodles 'better'. Maybe we need to rethink. As with so much that involves an emission, maybe it's just the fact that we want something that is more the issue, rather than how it gets to us.
It's worth considering, and talking about, but let us not forget there is other stuff going on too. Some worse, and/or more pressing maybe.
Gaurdian - True scale of C02 emissions from shipping revealed
Guardian - NEW - No more plain sailing - A view from a side. Some interesting comments in reply.
For previous posts just search the 'Shipping' label below. One day I'll find time to archive 'em here.
This is shaping up to be a major issue, especially to one, such as me, who professes to be most concerned about enviROI. I have in the past given a pass to various activities that took place by boat (such as Dave's kite-towed post recently) on the notion that it must be oodles 'better'. Maybe we need to rethink. As with so much that involves an emission, maybe it's just the fact that we want something that is more the issue, rather than how it gets to us.
It's worth considering, and talking about, but let us not forget there is other stuff going on too. Some worse, and/or more pressing maybe.
Gaurdian - True scale of C02 emissions from shipping revealed
Guardian - NEW - No more plain sailing - A view from a side. Some interesting comments in reply.
CATEGORY - VALENTINE'S DAY
Ok, so others have been/are banging on about this for an age. Best I can do at short notice!
I now they (the packaging) are the antichrist, but maybe as they exist we can share the love in some small effort at mitigation.
Left/top. Right/bottom.
About.com - quick, cheap ideas
Guardian - Keep Valentine's day green - some are not exchaging cards, apparently
Reuters - Valentine's Day - it's not so much about love - no, it should be about re:love and presents from the heart!
I'll add more if I find 'em or get told.
Who knows, Cupid may approve?
I belive I recall posting once that green-friendly folk now appeal more to the opposite sex:)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
One for the plot
In a month I stand in a lonely box at the NEC trying to persuade FMCG brands and retailers to buy into RE:tie. So this pigued my interest: Tesco back Dragons' Den-style show to reward unknown brands
Sadly, while there are clues to pursue, at the moment it remains more tantalising than tangible.
Especially as it is probably shot and in the can already. Anyway, nothing ventured...
Sadly, while there are clues to pursue, at the moment it remains more tantalising than tangible.
Especially as it is probably shot and in the can already. Anyway, nothing ventured...
Well, they did ask.
Green bling - Can luxury mean more than excess consumption?
It's all a matter of what your definitions are, and where you set the bars (and the link to the article didn't work for me so I can't reflect the detail).
That said, it is hard to reconcile the words with consequent actions, especially 'environmental and ethical messages' followed, almost inevitably, with 'excess consumption' in the next sentence.
It's why I find a Sunday supp special on 'recycled fashion' hilarious when by the following Friday it's all 'so early this week' and they've all scooted off in the Lear to Tokyo to gush on making barstool covers out of Willy's, er... well...
Take that as a no. And all trying to jump on board the bandwagon should feel deep shame. Well, if they had any shame. Or the ability to feel.
It's all a matter of what your definitions are, and where you set the bars (and the link to the article didn't work for me so I can't reflect the detail).
That said, it is hard to reconcile the words with consequent actions, especially 'environmental and ethical messages' followed, almost inevitably, with 'excess consumption' in the next sentence.
It's why I find a Sunday supp special on 'recycled fashion' hilarious when by the following Friday it's all 'so early this week' and they've all scooted off in the Lear to Tokyo to gush on making barstool covers out of Willy's, er... well...
Take that as a no. And all trying to jump on board the bandwagon should feel deep shame. Well, if they had any shame. Or the ability to feel.
Smiling because you don't drive a chelsea tractor?
Well, you may have to drive that smile off your face if you have cause to stray into the London congestion zone on occasion, as Ken's new £25 'gas-guzzler' charge is going to catch an awful lot of ordinary family cars out too.
This from BBC News reports that non 4x4's, but still categorised as members of the chelsea tractor club, such as the Peugeot 407 SW and several models of the Vauxhall Zafira range will also fall into the £25 bracket because their emissions exceed the 225g/km emissions limit.
As they say, if you don't catch enough fish, spread the net further.
This from BBC News reports that non 4x4's, but still categorised as members of the chelsea tractor club, such as the Peugeot 407 SW and several models of the Vauxhall Zafira range will also fall into the £25 bracket because their emissions exceed the 225g/km emissions limit.
As they say, if you don't catch enough fish, spread the net further.
Darfur - is the deafening silence broken at last?
The genocide in Darfur has been going on for what seems years now. Ostensibly, at least according to the current Sudanese government, this dispute between local farmers started over water (the shortage thereof), has caused the deaths of over 200,000 people and created the displacement of an even greater number to refugee camps within Sudan and in its neighbours. The fighting has even spread over the border into Chad and supposedly into Ethiopia too.
Yet the world's major media seems to have generally ignored the entire issue, until now. So what appears to have made the media realise that there is actually an important story behind Darfur?
Ahhhhh, I see, an internationally renowned member of the big screen fraternity, Stephen Spielberg, no less, has made the media luvvies sit up and take notice by stepping down from his role as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics opening and closing ceremonies. Now that's something really worth getting worked up about.
Isn't it amazing how a bit of celebrity can raise the media image of an issue whilst the deaths of hundreds of thousands can't?
Yet still not a peep about the fact that Darfur lies right across what is probably the largest potential oilfield in Sudan. Is it me?
Yet the world's major media seems to have generally ignored the entire issue, until now. So what appears to have made the media realise that there is actually an important story behind Darfur?
Ahhhhh, I see, an internationally renowned member of the big screen fraternity, Stephen Spielberg, no less, has made the media luvvies sit up and take notice by stepping down from his role as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics opening and closing ceremonies. Now that's something really worth getting worked up about.
Isn't it amazing how a bit of celebrity can raise the media image of an issue whilst the deaths of hundreds of thousands can't?
Yet still not a peep about the fact that Darfur lies right across what is probably the largest potential oilfield in Sudan. Is it me?
Sticks and.. well just sticks may warm my bones
Of late, and with some justification, anything involving 'bio' and 'fuel' seesm enough to get the Council excorcists out. So it's nice to stumble on something that seems a bit more enviROI+ in this regard.
FT.com - Green shoots from dead wood
At least, I'm hoping it is from the 'dead wood' aspect. But just looking at the money flying about... it's eye-watering!
FT.com - Green shoots from dead wood
At least, I'm hoping it is from the 'dead wood' aspect. But just looking at the money flying about... it's eye-watering!
REVIEW - Moneysavingexpert.com
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
If you don't know about it, it's well worth a look... and signing up.
Hey, it's free. What's to lose? Actually, what's to save, or gain, more like!
And I say this still smarting from a few attempts to get in touch with more than the inevitable 'whoshudIsayzcallin'?' gatekeeperette and hence being ignored. Shame, as I like what Martin Lewis has done, is doing and can do. And I think he'd appreciate Junkk.com.
The reminders are weekly and usually contain well worthy nuggets of gold.
Such as this, which prompts my review here and now: Time to switch energy supplier. He even has my outfit, Swalec, sussed as pitching today but bumping up soon.
My only niggle is the email, like the site, is a navigation nightmare. But then Junkk.com is not exactly the London Tube map.
If you don't know about it, it's well worth a look... and signing up.
Hey, it's free. What's to lose? Actually, what's to save, or gain, more like!
And I say this still smarting from a few attempts to get in touch with more than the inevitable 'whoshudIsayzcallin'?' gatekeeperette and hence being ignored. Shame, as I like what Martin Lewis has done, is doing and can do. And I think he'd appreciate Junkk.com.
The reminders are weekly and usually contain well worthy nuggets of gold.
Such as this, which prompts my review here and now: Time to switch energy supplier. He even has my outfit, Swalec, sussed as pitching today but bumping up soon.
My only niggle is the email, like the site, is a navigation nightmare. But then Junkk.com is not exactly the London Tube map.
Must fly
It has been a good day so far for not only finding 'interesting' stories or opinion, but also being pleasantly surprised where I find them.
Indy - Revealed: the £1.2m spent by select committees on travels around the globe
I wonder how many were on trips to assess the impact of air travel?
Indy - Revealed: the £1.2m spent by select committees on travels around the globe
I wonder how many were on trips to assess the impact of air travel?
Peak soil as well as peak oil?
That's just a little snippet from a well reasoned article by George Monbiot, on biofuels. Monbiot argues that many of the crops (and even crop wastes) grown for biofuels actually create a net carbon debt of decades (and even centuries in some cases), and lead to soil exhaustion, not to mention competing with land for food production.
"Removing crop wastes means replacing the nutrients they contain with fertiliser, which causes further greenhouse gas emissions. A recent paper by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggests that emissions of nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful than CO2) from nitrogen fertilisers wipe out all the carbon savings biofuels produce, even before you take the changes in land use into account. Growing special second generation crops, such as trees or switchgrass, doesn’t solve the problem either: like other energy crops, they displace both food production and carbon emissions."
So just when we were beginning to think that some selected biofuels were the way forward, the counter arguments appear to become more convincing.
"All these convoluted solutions are designed to avoid a simpler one: reducing the consumption of transport fuel. But that requires the use of a different commodity. Global supplies of political courage appear, unfortunately, to have peaked some time ago."
Political courage? Come on George, we haven't see any of that for decades!
"Removing crop wastes means replacing the nutrients they contain with fertiliser, which causes further greenhouse gas emissions. A recent paper by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggests that emissions of nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful than CO2) from nitrogen fertilisers wipe out all the carbon savings biofuels produce, even before you take the changes in land use into account. Growing special second generation crops, such as trees or switchgrass, doesn’t solve the problem either: like other energy crops, they displace both food production and carbon emissions."
So just when we were beginning to think that some selected biofuels were the way forward, the counter arguments appear to become more convincing.
"All these convoluted solutions are designed to avoid a simpler one: reducing the consumption of transport fuel. But that requires the use of a different commodity. Global supplies of political courage appear, unfortunately, to have peaked some time ago."
Political courage? Come on George, we haven't see any of that for decades!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thousands of deaths by 2012
That could be the scenario here in the UK as a direct consequence of climate change, according to this from The Guardian.
Heatwaves, Malaria, skin cancer, Lyme's disease, plus huge increases in food poisoning cases from nasties like Salmonella, as well as increased rates of air pollution health problems, could account for thousands of additional deaths. It reads a bit like the proverbial pestilence stories from the bible - all that seems to be missing are the plagues of locusts!
It's all going to be OK though, because our Gov is on the case - "health minister Dawn Primarolo said the national health service would have to adapt to deal with the problems posed by climate change. ......... Measures would include: ensuring that hospitals were equipped to deal with the effects of heat, gales, and floods; developing local plans for heatwaves, gales and flooding; disaster preparation; and advising people how to adapt to climate change."
Errrr ..... wouldn't it be better to put more effort into mitigating climate change rather than adapting to it?
But, and again, it's all down to one little word - the report uses that word 'could' again - which seems to be the main culprit for most of this alarming reporting.
Heatwaves, Malaria, skin cancer, Lyme's disease, plus huge increases in food poisoning cases from nasties like Salmonella, as well as increased rates of air pollution health problems, could account for thousands of additional deaths. It reads a bit like the proverbial pestilence stories from the bible - all that seems to be missing are the plagues of locusts!
It's all going to be OK though, because our Gov is on the case - "health minister Dawn Primarolo said the national health service would have to adapt to deal with the problems posed by climate change. ......... Measures would include: ensuring that hospitals were equipped to deal with the effects of heat, gales, and floods; developing local plans for heatwaves, gales and flooding; disaster preparation; and advising people how to adapt to climate change."
Errrr ..... wouldn't it be better to put more effort into mitigating climate change rather than adapting to it?
But, and again, it's all down to one little word - the report uses that word 'could' again - which seems to be the main culprit for most of this alarming reporting.
Leagues of their own
I have blogged before on the pre-selective, exclusive nature of a lot that takes place in the world of 're'.
Conferences and events that you need to pony up thousands for just to sit in an audience. No wonder those that are 'in' often don't relate as well as they might to those who are not.
Of course, all things that take time and money to create and need paying for (even Junkk.com, one day), so market forces will dictate.
But I must say I just had an eye-opner as to where I am vs. where others can afford to be in the wonderful world of being informed about your market.
Amongst many others, I subscribe to a (free) online news feed called PackWire. And I often get the odd useful tidbit through.
So when I saw this in my subject line, with all that I am in the thick of with RE:tie, I really perked up:
Consumer Attitudes Towards Packaging: New Insights and Future Perspectives
Today, it is widely acknowledged that packaging decisions can have a significant impact on sales. This report explores the changing nature of consumer attitudes and behaviors towards packaging in consumer packaged goods. It examines all the key trends shaping packaging led choices and ultimately offers actionable recommendations for industry players going forward.
Reasons to purchase...
• Access a blend of quantitative and qualitative data aggregating the most compelling and recent research in this increasingly important topic
• Gain a detailed insight into consumer views towards packaging and understand the implications for design
• Improve your marketing by following best-practice guidelines enabling more effective targeting with on-trend products and relevant communications
• Download Brochure
Sadly, a short-lived moment of excitement at further valuable market intel, for it was follwed by this:
• $5695
Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wing it some more! But one does have to wonder hwo those who can afford access to such things seem to pretty much get it wrong so often still!
Conferences and events that you need to pony up thousands for just to sit in an audience. No wonder those that are 'in' often don't relate as well as they might to those who are not.
Of course, all things that take time and money to create and need paying for (even Junkk.com, one day), so market forces will dictate.
But I must say I just had an eye-opner as to where I am vs. where others can afford to be in the wonderful world of being informed about your market.
Amongst many others, I subscribe to a (free) online news feed called PackWire. And I often get the odd useful tidbit through.
So when I saw this in my subject line, with all that I am in the thick of with RE:tie, I really perked up:
Consumer Attitudes Towards Packaging: New Insights and Future Perspectives
Today, it is widely acknowledged that packaging decisions can have a significant impact on sales. This report explores the changing nature of consumer attitudes and behaviors towards packaging in consumer packaged goods. It examines all the key trends shaping packaging led choices and ultimately offers actionable recommendations for industry players going forward.
Reasons to purchase...
• Access a blend of quantitative and qualitative data aggregating the most compelling and recent research in this increasingly important topic
• Gain a detailed insight into consumer views towards packaging and understand the implications for design
• Improve your marketing by following best-practice guidelines enabling more effective targeting with on-trend products and relevant communications
• Download Brochure
Sadly, a short-lived moment of excitement at further valuable market intel, for it was follwed by this:
• $5695
Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wing it some more! But one does have to wonder hwo those who can afford access to such things seem to pretty much get it wrong so often still!
Hardly a flying start!
Back in December 2006, Ol' Golden, then our chancellor, trumpeted a major tax relief policy that would see all new homes deemed to be zero carbon (in terms of emissions) free of stamp duty. Despite the apparently vague definition of what zero carbon meant exactly, this created quite a bit of excitement at the time, and many pundits were forecasting that the savings involved for buyers would entirely offset the additional construction costs.
OK, so a year and a bit on, just how many thousands of new homes have been constructed to qualify for this major tax relief?
Go on, have a guess. Any idea? No? Well, the answer is six. No, not six thousand, but the single digit only - i.e. six new homes have qualified for stamp duty exemption. Report is from This Is London.
"Clearly this does fall into the camp of green-tax con. The Government is not putting forward serious policies to tackle climate change and this is a classic example. ........ It is all talk and no action. If the Government were serious about benefiting the environment, they would offer everyone a rebate if their houses were properly insulated."
Quite! Despite the government spokesman's claim that numbers will rapidly rise this year, for once I agree with the Green Party's economic spokesman wholeheartedly.
OK, so a year and a bit on, just how many thousands of new homes have been constructed to qualify for this major tax relief?
Go on, have a guess. Any idea? No? Well, the answer is six. No, not six thousand, but the single digit only - i.e. six new homes have qualified for stamp duty exemption. Report is from This Is London.
"Clearly this does fall into the camp of green-tax con. The Government is not putting forward serious policies to tackle climate change and this is a classic example. ........ It is all talk and no action. If the Government were serious about benefiting the environment, they would offer everyone a rebate if their houses were properly insulated."
Quite! Despite the government spokesman's claim that numbers will rapidly rise this year, for once I agree with the Green Party's economic spokesman wholeheartedly.
On yer bike!
That seems to be the message from Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, as reported by NaturalChoices today.
Can't argue with any of the ideas at all; it all looks very sensible and would be for any major urban conurbation. But just look at that cost, £1 Billion! That seems an awful lot of bucks for a few cycle ways!
And I'll be interested to see what any 'out of city' local equivalents might be. An express cycleway from Shrewsbury to Ludlow? I can't quite see it happening somehow.
Can't argue with any of the ideas at all; it all looks very sensible and would be for any major urban conurbation. But just look at that cost, £1 Billion! That seems an awful lot of bucks for a few cycle ways!
And I'll be interested to see what any 'out of city' local equivalents might be. An express cycleway from Shrewsbury to Ludlow? I can't quite see it happening somehow.
A very cheap shot
And I am making it. Sorry.
Just watching the BBC morning news about a wind farm proposal in Scotland, with those involved making the case for and agin'.
Mainly it surrounds the energy needs vs. other factors such as, ironically, 'environmental damage'.
Thing is, from the start to the finish of the piece, live and to camera, the reporter was in front of a mighty windmill that wasn't actually turning, with a couple behind also acting as nifty perches for seagulls.
At least I am now joined in this less than helpful, and rather superficial, observation by the anchor. Tricky. Becuase of course if they had opted for the library shots the BBC could have been accused of potraying an overly favourable scenario.
It's just as shame that, given the choice to do it live, it wasn't considered helpful to also address the enviROI of the operational facts to round out the case. All I know is that I went away with a vision of a great, big... still turbine.
Just watching the BBC morning news about a wind farm proposal in Scotland, with those involved making the case for and agin'.
Mainly it surrounds the energy needs vs. other factors such as, ironically, 'environmental damage'.
Thing is, from the start to the finish of the piece, live and to camera, the reporter was in front of a mighty windmill that wasn't actually turning, with a couple behind also acting as nifty perches for seagulls.
At least I am now joined in this less than helpful, and rather superficial, observation by the anchor. Tricky. Becuase of course if they had opted for the library shots the BBC could have been accused of potraying an overly favourable scenario.
It's just as shame that, given the choice to do it live, it wasn't considered helpful to also address the enviROI of the operational facts to round out the case. All I know is that I went away with a vision of a great, big... still turbine.
NEWS/GO3 PR - Pocket battles
A PR last night from the Green (Party) Machine (London) has strirred a musing in me. Let me share it here as supplied, but I do propose to comment:
ABOLISH ROAD TAX AND CHARGE THE POLLUTERS, DARLING
The Green Party's Principal Speaker, Caroline Lucas MEP has today
urged the government to reward responsible motorists by abolishing
the Road Tax, and shifting the responsibility onto gas-guzzlers
through the fuel duty. The call comes as road lobbyists meet with the
Chancellor to plead for a smaller increase in fuel tax.
Dr Lucas said:
"The flat road tax on vehicle ownership takes no account of road
usage, and provides no incentive or reward for making less polluting
travel choices. A far fairer alternative would be to scrap it and move
the responsibility onto fuel tax.
"But today we see the road lobby arguing against this fairer measure.
The AA has consistently argued for more roadbuilding, more traffic,
more pollution. They have attempted to block every effort to reduce
our dependency on petrol. Now the price has inevitably risen, and
they want the rest of us to pay for it through our taxes, or in cuts
to services.
"Most car owners would like to take more public transport, but some
lobbyists seem determined to make it as hard for them as possible.
Does Alasdair Darling have the guts to stand up to them?"
At first blush, what is not to agree with? Polluter pays. Simple.
Thing is, this is issued by a self-evidently London-centric source (not suprisingly, as their candidate is gunning for mayor. Which, by the way, I was totally unaware of, for which the major media might be asked why. It's the Boris & Ken show, with Hugh coming in on occasion. No one else gets a peep). But to the best of my interpretation, this call refers to a national issue.
And there be the rub. And it's our old chum again. The politics of the pocket. Or Eco(nomics) vs. Eco(logy).
In London, you don't really need a car, especially to do your job. Distances are shorter. Cycling is an option. Tubes and trains and busses abound. So the Prius is really just to get the luvs to cello practice without paying the congestion charge.
But elsewhere you might need to drop a few hundred miles a week in your Fiesta just to earn a crust.
So what seems so simple need not necessarily be so... or certainly fair. It's a tricky balance, but whoever starts trying to do it properly will get my vote. Make that whenever...
ABOLISH ROAD TAX AND CHARGE THE POLLUTERS, DARLING
The Green Party's Principal Speaker, Caroline Lucas MEP has today
urged the government to reward responsible motorists by abolishing
the Road Tax, and shifting the responsibility onto gas-guzzlers
through the fuel duty. The call comes as road lobbyists meet with the
Chancellor to plead for a smaller increase in fuel tax.
Dr Lucas said:
"The flat road tax on vehicle ownership takes no account of road
usage, and provides no incentive or reward for making less polluting
travel choices. A far fairer alternative would be to scrap it and move
the responsibility onto fuel tax.
"But today we see the road lobby arguing against this fairer measure.
The AA has consistently argued for more roadbuilding, more traffic,
more pollution. They have attempted to block every effort to reduce
our dependency on petrol. Now the price has inevitably risen, and
they want the rest of us to pay for it through our taxes, or in cuts
to services.
"Most car owners would like to take more public transport, but some
lobbyists seem determined to make it as hard for them as possible.
Does Alasdair Darling have the guts to stand up to them?"
At first blush, what is not to agree with? Polluter pays. Simple.
Thing is, this is issued by a self-evidently London-centric source (not suprisingly, as their candidate is gunning for mayor. Which, by the way, I was totally unaware of, for which the major media might be asked why. It's the Boris & Ken show, with Hugh coming in on occasion. No one else gets a peep). But to the best of my interpretation, this call refers to a national issue.
And there be the rub. And it's our old chum again. The politics of the pocket. Or Eco(nomics) vs. Eco(logy).
In London, you don't really need a car, especially to do your job. Distances are shorter. Cycling is an option. Tubes and trains and busses abound. So the Prius is really just to get the luvs to cello practice without paying the congestion charge.
But elsewhere you might need to drop a few hundred miles a week in your Fiesta just to earn a crust.
So what seems so simple need not necessarily be so... or certainly fair. It's a tricky balance, but whoever starts trying to do it properly will get my vote. Make that whenever...
Monday, February 11, 2008
There are ethical funds and there are ............errrr .... ethical funds
This from the Guardian highlights a few little nuances that may surprise you if you are lucky enough to have a few spare quid and choose to invest in one of the so called 'ethical funds'.
Reading it made me smile. There are obviously rather varying shades of ethical just as there are varying shades of green.
So, if you thought that your ethical fund investment was directly helping to tackle climate change, you just may have to reconsider having read this.
It's just not easy being green, or ethical, is it?
Reading it made me smile. There are obviously rather varying shades of ethical just as there are varying shades of green.
So, if you thought that your ethical fund investment was directly helping to tackle climate change, you just may have to reconsider having read this.
It's just not easy being green, or ethical, is it?
Bureaucrats - 200. Rainforests - Nil
And my brain into minus figures, if not near meltdown.What I should be doing is getting cracking on filling this lot out. But all I can think of doing is taking a picture and blogging (yes, I need help. In more ways than one).
You are looking of stacks of up to a dozen pages, from A to O, though with a few letters rating subsets from (i) to (iv), so probably around 30 stacks in all.
It all started so well. I stumbled across some nice folk who liked what I was doing and offered to help with the prototypes of the RE:tie for the show next month. So I went up to Brum to see what they could do and explain what was needed; we communed, and lo... it was good.
And it's all ready to kick off. With precisely a month to go. But... just... a bit of paperwork.
I didn't pay much attention as it was just one Excel document, but when it came time to address it (OK, deadline) it just kept on printing... and printing. No first born required, nor pint of blood, but amounts and levels of data required that go back in the past and project into the future that I can barely grasp the relevance of for this task, yet alone imagine how I will aquire... or complete.... ever.
Even the lovely lady who sent it to me was sympathetic, for she is but an intermediary working for the University and hired just to handle their responsibilities with such paperwork, as demanded from 'above' by... now who is that? A blue square with a circle of golden stars at the bottom of each page (only part-funded by, mind. Lord help me if I get another set from another bunch later!). Layer upon layer of 'EU-what!' to 'help' them 'help' me get a prototype ready.
And I must do it as I have no choice now but to. I am committed.
But sadly, I do not seem to have the luxury of a lovely lady hired for the sole purpose of filling such forms out.
Nope, despite writing that, the monkey is still very much resting full square on my shoulders.
And so, with a heavy everything I must now turn to Form A (i).....
You gotta larf
Sorry, but this just appealed to my sense of irony.On the page devoted to a piece on climate science (well, the apparent supression of a scientist in the field - Climate scientist they could not silence), I could not help but note what rather dominated the rest of the page. Not quite the same on the online version.
There's the medium. There's the message. There's mixed. And there's just, plain 'off'.
The media really does just love it all ways.
Just in case they don't 'moderate' it in:
Meanwhile, in the print edition, the majority of the page with this piece seems to be dominated for a Tesco ad for cheap petrol - 'Every litre helps'.
Not quite clear as to what, in the circumstances.
Delicious irony?'
Bet they're in with a chance at the Sunday Times "Best Green Companies" slot, mind.
To the winners, whoever they are, the spoils.
Zadie Smith sinks teeth into book awards - it is about the world of literature, but applies pretty much everywhere.
I've won a few. Lost more than I care to think on. But it's certainly hard these days to think of many that are judged purely on merit, without soem agenda creeping in.
Awards are, like most things these days, are merely products of an industry whose prime motivation is its own survival and the interests of those who work within it or feed off it to survive.
Winning is nice (and useful) if you are a winner. Not so great if you don't. But those nominated andhence competing are essentially irrelevant. It is the process, more than anything, that drives the system, rather than the product (though to some remoras, sorry, reporters, controversy can extend the period they can suck the life out of the topic).
So it is refreshing to say the least, if necessary to avoid accusations of sour grapes, to find a winner rather plainly stating it like it is.
Which, with luck, may briefly make for uncomfortabel reading for those who are paid way too much and have much more influence than they deserve, simply for being in the industry rtaher than contributing anything worthwhiel to it.
But though flawed, I see no hope for improvemnt, and hence the real winners will continue to be those nowhere near the podium.
I've won a few. Lost more than I care to think on. But it's certainly hard these days to think of many that are judged purely on merit, without soem agenda creeping in.
Awards are, like most things these days, are merely products of an industry whose prime motivation is its own survival and the interests of those who work within it or feed off it to survive.
Winning is nice (and useful) if you are a winner. Not so great if you don't. But those nominated andhence competing are essentially irrelevant. It is the process, more than anything, that drives the system, rather than the product (though to some remoras, sorry, reporters, controversy can extend the period they can suck the life out of the topic).
So it is refreshing to say the least, if necessary to avoid accusations of sour grapes, to find a winner rather plainly stating it like it is.
Which, with luck, may briefly make for uncomfortabel reading for those who are paid way too much and have much more influence than they deserve, simply for being in the industry rtaher than contributing anything worthwhiel to it.
But though flawed, I see no hope for improvemnt, and hence the real winners will continue to be those nowhere near the podium.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Led by donkeys; reported on by jackals
Watching the Andrew Marr show and decided to make a commment.
I simply could not let pass a continued notion coming across that I, as a member of the public, am apparently very happy with our Dear Leader's performance so far, or indeed upon the reporting on it.
I simply could not believe a News 24 report the other night, which was the first in as long as I could recall that involved our PM having an opinion, when the reporter seemed to be parroting a press relase, and casting an amazingly glow on the man's character based on the subjective belief of the reporter. I do not think it is an objective newsperson's' job to say how calm and confident a politcal indivdual is, or how genuine and honest his beliefs. This was a character endorsement too far in my view.
However, the main reason for my post is a comment made by the host regarding the fact we are enjoying some unseasonably warm weather that is described as showing Global Warming in action.
Just watched the slot with Peter Mandelson, where the competencies of our PM were raised. With all the huge issues swirling about us I can of late recall no peep from him, bar a glowing mention the other day by a BBC reporter who positively misted up at Mr. Brown's common person empathy via his deep interest in... football.
ps: Andrew, when the weather is unseasonably nice, if you have to come up with a reason it might be better to refer to the possible explanation as climate change rather than global warming. Otherwise you may hand yet another piece of ammo to 'climate optimists' who often cite often rather loose science and editorial, especially when comparisons are made with historical records, or when it ends up very cold somewhere.
I simply could not let pass a continued notion coming across that I, as a member of the public, am apparently very happy with our Dear Leader's performance so far, or indeed upon the reporting on it.
I simply could not believe a News 24 report the other night, which was the first in as long as I could recall that involved our PM having an opinion, when the reporter seemed to be parroting a press relase, and casting an amazingly glow on the man's character based on the subjective belief of the reporter. I do not think it is an objective newsperson's' job to say how calm and confident a politcal indivdual is, or how genuine and honest his beliefs. This was a character endorsement too far in my view.
However, the main reason for my post is a comment made by the host regarding the fact we are enjoying some unseasonably warm weather that is described as showing Global Warming in action.
Just watched the slot with Peter Mandelson, where the competencies of our PM were raised. With all the huge issues swirling about us I can of late recall no peep from him, bar a glowing mention the other day by a BBC reporter who positively misted up at Mr. Brown's common person empathy via his deep interest in... football.
ps: Andrew, when the weather is unseasonably nice, if you have to come up with a reason it might be better to refer to the possible explanation as climate change rather than global warming. Otherwise you may hand yet another piece of ammo to 'climate optimists' who often cite often rather loose science and editorial, especially when comparisons are made with historical records, or when it ends up very cold somewhere.
Voyages of discovery
Amazing what leads to what.
I was scoping one of my many sources of stuff, and came across this from SHARKRIDE: A retail experience with negative externalities minimized and reflected in the labeling and pricing.
Now I can't say the headline did a lot for me, or indeed the cause of bringing the e-word to the near-indifferent masses, but it was worth persevering.
And I did pop in a plug, as it seems there may be guys, like Bob, who 'know people'.
I have to say I rather stumbled on the, er, ‘negative ex-thingies’. But a nice share, ta.
For any, like Bob, interested in mitigating efforts via design, may I point you at http://www.junkk.com, which tries to matchmake those with ideas for second uses with those keen not to throw stuff away if not necessary.
But I have to agree that the more potent notion is building this in from the off. If any are in the UK in March there is a show at the NEC called Innovative Packaging, with a sub-section called EcoPack, at which I am exhibiting (a bottle/jar cap re:evolutionary design called RE:tie) and also speaking on the joys of re:use!
However there was, in the words of Yoda, 'one more'. And that was the little gizmo called Snapshot, which looks a well nifty effort to, as the name suggests, give folk a thumbnail of your site.
I was scoping one of my many sources of stuff, and came across this from SHARKRIDE: A retail experience with negative externalities minimized and reflected in the labeling and pricing.
Now I can't say the headline did a lot for me, or indeed the cause of bringing the e-word to the near-indifferent masses, but it was worth persevering.
And I did pop in a plug, as it seems there may be guys, like Bob, who 'know people'.
I have to say I rather stumbled on the, er, ‘negative ex-thingies’. But a nice share, ta.
For any, like Bob, interested in mitigating efforts via design, may I point you at http://www.junkk.com, which tries to matchmake those with ideas for second uses with those keen not to throw stuff away if not necessary.
But I have to agree that the more potent notion is building this in from the off. If any are in the UK in March there is a show at the NEC called Innovative Packaging, with a sub-section called EcoPack, at which I am exhibiting (a bottle/jar cap re:evolutionary design called RE:tie) and also speaking on the joys of re:use!
However there was, in the words of Yoda, 'one more'. And that was the little gizmo called Snapshot, which looks a well nifty effort to, as the name suggests, give folk a thumbnail of your site.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Edit, dit, it... it isn't what you thought it was
For reasons that will soon become clear, I am highly sensitive to the accuracy of what gets served up to us by our publishers and broadcasters.
Especially when it comes to matters of 'fact', but also when subjective agendas and techniques get introduced that can at best steer the way they are viewed with subjective enhancements, or at worst plain be fiddled to fit.
And all to often it seems to get explained away airily by all sorts of excuses that simply are not good enough, with a total lack of tangible accountability or consequence to at least have some incentive not to play fast and loose again.... and again.
Worse, there seem now to be justifications based on what would once be inexcusable, simply because 'everyone does it', or the need to enhance reality to make things more 'entertaining'.
Just now I was one of the few in the nation up early enough to watch the BBC's weekly, meekly 'mea culpa' programme, Newswatch. The one where they atone in 5 minutes in a dead air slot for things that have gone out in prime time. With a successive or arrogant, defensive journalists and/or editors who are wheeled on to say they don't really see what the fuss is about.
And today my jaw was on the floor. And it was thanks to the actual footage shown, so credit to the Newswatch Editors. Basically there was a BBC TV news slot involving an ex-army chap making a comment about some issue, but whose words were then lifted and dumped elsewhere as some kind of response to a totally different story on a BBC Radio item.
Whilst grudgingly accepting the error, the morning's flak absorber airily dismissed it based on a variety of reasons that were certainly not excuses, and which we are hearing waaaay to often of late, and will doubtless continue to do for ever more unless addressed PDQ. Lack of time. Lack of money. Lack of trained staff. Ooops. This from what is meant to be a premier news organization with tens of thousands of trained bodies, funded by £3.5B of licence fee payers' money. Not blooming good enough!
There is now an all too prevalent notion that chunks of content can be used and abused to strip down and reassemble in the edit suite whatever you fancy for whatever your reasons, with truth, context and/or accuracy going out of the window so long as it makes for a 'good' story!
And they don't seem very interested in dealing with it at all, much less putting anything right, preferring to work on the (probably accurate) basis that if you leave it long enough it will all blow over.
Take this from the other day, where a possible ill-advised comment by a reporter was raised on the Newsnight blog. All I wanted, and at time of writing still want to know, is what she actually said:
1. At 08:33 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - Ms Kay made a clear statement in which she said 'thank god the Democrats have won Arkansas', she then tried to backtrack on her comment but the damage was done.
3. At 10:29 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - I didn't notice that last night and I have just re-watched it and didn't notice it then
9. At 05:34 PM on 07 Feb 2008, - May we have the 'purple box' official facts of what this reporter Ms. Kay did or did not say soon, please?
Any time you are ready. For the benefit of those who still like to weigh issues based on objective information.
There seem to be a bunch of 4th formers now in senior editorial positions more than happy to make snitty, silly rebuttals elsewhere, but on issues of cold, hard, key matters of fact they seem to suddenly scoot off elsewhere to throw their toys out of other prams.
Especially when it comes to matters of 'fact', but also when subjective agendas and techniques get introduced that can at best steer the way they are viewed with subjective enhancements, or at worst plain be fiddled to fit.
And all to often it seems to get explained away airily by all sorts of excuses that simply are not good enough, with a total lack of tangible accountability or consequence to at least have some incentive not to play fast and loose again.... and again.
Worse, there seem now to be justifications based on what would once be inexcusable, simply because 'everyone does it', or the need to enhance reality to make things more 'entertaining'.
Just now I was one of the few in the nation up early enough to watch the BBC's weekly, meekly 'mea culpa' programme, Newswatch. The one where they atone in 5 minutes in a dead air slot for things that have gone out in prime time. With a successive or arrogant, defensive journalists and/or editors who are wheeled on to say they don't really see what the fuss is about.
And today my jaw was on the floor. And it was thanks to the actual footage shown, so credit to the Newswatch Editors. Basically there was a BBC TV news slot involving an ex-army chap making a comment about some issue, but whose words were then lifted and dumped elsewhere as some kind of response to a totally different story on a BBC Radio item.
Whilst grudgingly accepting the error, the morning's flak absorber airily dismissed it based on a variety of reasons that were certainly not excuses, and which we are hearing waaaay to often of late, and will doubtless continue to do for ever more unless addressed PDQ. Lack of time. Lack of money. Lack of trained staff. Ooops. This from what is meant to be a premier news organization with tens of thousands of trained bodies, funded by £3.5B of licence fee payers' money. Not blooming good enough!
There is now an all too prevalent notion that chunks of content can be used and abused to strip down and reassemble in the edit suite whatever you fancy for whatever your reasons, with truth, context and/or accuracy going out of the window so long as it makes for a 'good' story!
And they don't seem very interested in dealing with it at all, much less putting anything right, preferring to work on the (probably accurate) basis that if you leave it long enough it will all blow over.
Take this from the other day, where a possible ill-advised comment by a reporter was raised on the Newsnight blog. All I wanted, and at time of writing still want to know, is what she actually said:
1. At 08:33 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - Ms Kay made a clear statement in which she said 'thank god the Democrats have won Arkansas', she then tried to backtrack on her comment but the damage was done.
3. At 10:29 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - I didn't notice that last night and I have just re-watched it and didn't notice it then
9. At 05:34 PM on 07 Feb 2008, - May we have the 'purple box' official facts of what this reporter Ms. Kay did or did not say soon, please?
Any time you are ready. For the benefit of those who still like to weigh issues based on objective information.
There seem to be a bunch of 4th formers now in senior editorial positions more than happy to make snitty, silly rebuttals elsewhere, but on issues of cold, hard, key matters of fact they seem to suddenly scoot off elsewhere to throw their toys out of other prams.
Friday, February 08, 2008
'I got wet 'cos it was raining' shock!
I'm probably setting myself up for a fall here, but this made me giggle (and at this time on a Friday you need to): Yell Group blames reduced advertiser budgets for revenue drop
Thing is, like the mighty Junkk.com publishing empire (and indeed many commercial entities), their main product seems (to me at least) to be, well, dependent on clients buying their stuff.
So if the clients buy less, then one presumes revenue will follow.
I know it could be a bunch of other stuff, like the CFO running off with the Xmas petty cash, but it just seemed an odd way to put it. Maybe saying such stuff in this way is why they get the big bucks.
Thing is, like the mighty Junkk.com publishing empire (and indeed many commercial entities), their main product seems (to me at least) to be, well, dependent on clients buying their stuff.
So if the clients buy less, then one presumes revenue will follow.
I know it could be a bunch of other stuff, like the CFO running off with the Xmas petty cash, but it just seemed an odd way to put it. Maybe saying such stuff in this way is why they get the big bucks.
More facts, figures and statistics!
Yet another set of facts and figures that may be open to question.
Addendum below. Post redated from 02/02/08 accordingly.
I spotted the gov's official CO2 emission figures the other day and thought that as the supposed reduction was so small, it was hardly worth commenting on. However, as reported by Channel 4, some green campaigners claim the figures are 'misleading', especially as they "ignore emissions from international flights, which are increasing."
In fact, they reckon that if you add in the international flights factor, the gov's figure would show a 5.5% year on year INCREASE in CO2 emissions.
Errrm ....... just who the hell are we supposed to believe?
We are simply left in an unknowing dilemma when facts, figures and statistics are massaged to suit a particular argument, as we have already commented on before.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Now here's a useful thing. A little effort of C4's I subscribed to only recently, called Fact Check. And looky here: FactCheck: have UK emissions really gone down? Neither hyped up nor spun down? I think they're being generous.
ps; And as the typo king I'm one to talk, but have to love their spelling of 'largerly'
Addendum below. Post redated from 02/02/08 accordingly.
I spotted the gov's official CO2 emission figures the other day and thought that as the supposed reduction was so small, it was hardly worth commenting on. However, as reported by Channel 4, some green campaigners claim the figures are 'misleading', especially as they "ignore emissions from international flights, which are increasing."
In fact, they reckon that if you add in the international flights factor, the gov's figure would show a 5.5% year on year INCREASE in CO2 emissions.
Errrm ....... just who the hell are we supposed to believe?
We are simply left in an unknowing dilemma when facts, figures and statistics are massaged to suit a particular argument, as we have already commented on before.
ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Now here's a useful thing. A little effort of C4's I subscribed to only recently, called Fact Check. And looky here: FactCheck: have UK emissions really gone down? Neither hyped up nor spun down? I think they're being generous.
ps; And as the typo king I'm one to talk, but have to love their spelling of 'largerly'
Tears in me eyes
From Greenbang - Gordon Brown’s nightmare
Maybe there is a chance that people might get interested in politics again!
What amazed me was the smiles I saw and laughs I heard from t'other side!
On a totally... well almost related topic, I have often found in environmental legislation, and reporting of same, that green and Brown keep trying to be brought together.
But the result seems to be a rather unappealing fudge.
Maybe there is a chance that people might get interested in politics again!
What amazed me was the smiles I saw and laughs I heard from t'other side!
On a totally... well almost related topic, I have often found in environmental legislation, and reporting of same, that green and Brown keep trying to be brought together.
But the result seems to be a rather unappealing fudge.
How does he do it?
Now I know he is reading my blog!After all the fun and games I have been moaning about these last few days, dealing with funders and VCs and the like, and not being very good at making up 'projections' that are in fact wild guesses, but po-faced stating them as done deals... this is who gets the money.
Well, there's a thing
Marketers warned against making false eco-claims
From Mad - Companies trying to ‘out-green’ each other in the battle for consumers’ hearts and minds are creating a potentially dangerous minefield for marketers, warns a new study from Getty Images.
Getty, which specialises in the creation and distribution of visual images, has launched its latest MAP (What Makes ...
Want to read more? If you do, you can, and it's free. But it's a trial. Here.
I think I've seen enough to get the message. Think is, have the... 'companies'.
ADDENDUM - polar-bears-fail-to-give-right-message - the full-er, story. So see, it pays to know folk who know folk
From Mad - Companies trying to ‘out-green’ each other in the battle for consumers’ hearts and minds are creating a potentially dangerous minefield for marketers, warns a new study from Getty Images.
Getty, which specialises in the creation and distribution of visual images, has launched its latest MAP (What Makes ...
Want to read more? If you do, you can, and it's free. But it's a trial. Here.
I think I've seen enough to get the message. Think is, have the... 'companies'.
ADDENDUM - polar-bears-fail-to-give-right-message - the full-er, story. So see, it pays to know folk who know folk
Just look at the blogger label below
Life as low-carbon man
I say no more.
Well, other than to add it does keep luvvies in Fleet Street and Islington occupied. Plus me:)
Shame we can't run things on 'awareness', especially of the misguided kind.
I say no more.
Well, other than to add it does keep luvvies in Fleet Street and Islington occupied. Plus me:)
Shame we can't run things on 'awareness', especially of the misguided kind.
Plugging away!
When it comes to doing good by Gaia, glory is good, but I'm always keen to up the ante to actaul, tangibel re:wards: The glory of glass recycling
In the spirit of ‘every little helps’, and acknowledging the minute (though still relevant) extra it may contribute, let's not also forget re:use, too!
Not so great for helping meet targets, but often a lower energy option... and a highly self-rewarding one!
Take this for example, a stunning lamp design made from Perrier bottles:
http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97
Inspired by Jason, I have a few more modest projects underway. One is a shaving mirror surround that is awaiting the dozen Fahrenheit after shave bottles I have almost accrued in the last several years (I knew I'd find a use one day! However you may find your local Boots may be able to speed things up with discarded testers), a transparent wall section from 1l Lambs Navy Rum hexagonal bottles, and a solar-powered driveway buried lawn edge night landing system covered with wine bottles.
Still trying to figure what to do with the several thousand other varieties now spilling into the living room which the missus is none to happy about.
Any ideas?
Actually, I forgot to mention I am also looking for some on pledge caps (the cans are a no-no, being pressurised).
In the spirit of ‘every little helps’, and acknowledging the minute (though still relevant) extra it may contribute, let's not also forget re:use, too!
Not so great for helping meet targets, but often a lower energy option... and a highly self-rewarding one!
Take this for example, a stunning lamp design made from Perrier bottles:
http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97
Inspired by Jason, I have a few more modest projects underway. One is a shaving mirror surround that is awaiting the dozen Fahrenheit after shave bottles I have almost accrued in the last several years (I knew I'd find a use one day! However you may find your local Boots may be able to speed things up with discarded testers), a transparent wall section from 1l Lambs Navy Rum hexagonal bottles, and a solar-powered driveway buried lawn edge night landing system covered with wine bottles.
Still trying to figure what to do with the several thousand other varieties now spilling into the living room which the missus is none to happy about.
Any ideas?
Actually, I forgot to mention I am also looking for some on pledge caps (the cans are a no-no, being pressurised).
Could ya? Would ya?.... Should ya?
Thanks to being told by the missus to get back to the day job, I have of late been attending a welter of networking events.
More abbreviations than you could throw a spellcheck at (still busted, eh, Blogger?), there are only so many 'Full Englishes' or personal coaches and aloe vera sales ladies I can afford, both financially and psychologically.
But I have noticed something.
At three recent events, the near obligatory mortgage broker/IFA has stood up and said ''What if I said I could wipe out your mortgage obligation? Would you be interested?'.
It would appear that there is the potential for some bit of legal jiggery-pokery to do just that.
I don't know the full details, because those making the pitch suddenly got all vague, but this is not compo for mis-selling, more a bit of 'no-win, no-fee' financial ambulance chasing based on no actual wrong-doing, but simply poor contract wording.
So the issue is not so much 'could', which it may well be possible to, or 'would', which it seems many might. But what about 'should'? This does rather strike me as a short-term pyramid at best, which will profit some but damage the majority, from the rates of those paying now, to the chances of those to come in getting a good deal.
So I said so. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the room agreed with me. Now it may be this is not being explained very well, but as it stands it's looking like the next 'dodge' from an already bizarre sector that I hope will get sorted... quick.
What's this to do with matters eco? Not a lot. But I am minded of the time a very big multi-national got a few £M from a very big quango to help them cut the size, and hence costs of making their commercial product.
If it's there for the taking, why not grab it? But really, and ignoring the more pressing question of the responbility to the public of those doling out the dough, should they have done?
More abbreviations than you could throw a spellcheck at (still busted, eh, Blogger?), there are only so many 'Full Englishes' or personal coaches and aloe vera sales ladies I can afford, both financially and psychologically.
But I have noticed something.
At three recent events, the near obligatory mortgage broker/IFA has stood up and said ''What if I said I could wipe out your mortgage obligation? Would you be interested?'.
It would appear that there is the potential for some bit of legal jiggery-pokery to do just that.
I don't know the full details, because those making the pitch suddenly got all vague, but this is not compo for mis-selling, more a bit of 'no-win, no-fee' financial ambulance chasing based on no actual wrong-doing, but simply poor contract wording.
So the issue is not so much 'could', which it may well be possible to, or 'would', which it seems many might. But what about 'should'? This does rather strike me as a short-term pyramid at best, which will profit some but damage the majority, from the rates of those paying now, to the chances of those to come in getting a good deal.
So I said so. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the room agreed with me. Now it may be this is not being explained very well, but as it stands it's looking like the next 'dodge' from an already bizarre sector that I hope will get sorted... quick.
What's this to do with matters eco? Not a lot. But I am minded of the time a very big multi-national got a few £M from a very big quango to help them cut the size, and hence costs of making their commercial product.
If it's there for the taking, why not grab it? But really, and ignoring the more pressing question of the responbility to the public of those doling out the dough, should they have done?
Sticking your oar in
I've cut back a lot on stuff that flies around the e-ther via other media, and am especially dubious about sharing the welter of stories that involve research or scientists, but this is worth popping up: Biofuels make climate change worse, scientific study concludes
No 'may' or 'suggests' here. We have a 'make' and a 'concludes'. So I take more notice. And, though noting it is 'just' in a UK quality national, according to The Independent this is the '...first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.'
And the words used subsequently are not minced: 'damning evidence' ... 'biggest environmental con-tricks' ... 'actually make global warming worse'.
Hold that last thought. enviROI anyone? I take no pleasure in this, but here we have a very telling example of what headlong rushes into 'anything green that must be good' can possibly lead to.
It is to be hoped that we can expect this salutory lesson be applied to ensure the real e-value of all manner of other green initiatives, from wind turbines... to simply banning plastic bags with no thought for the consequences of the alternatives (or lack of).
So I would wish government, activists... and media... would all learn to give pause before the leap on the green band, and/or banwagon as they too often do.
Indy - Michael McCarthy: 'Free lunch' that could cost the earth
Gaurdian - Biofuel farms make CO2 emissions worse
No 'may' or 'suggests' here. We have a 'make' and a 'concludes'. So I take more notice. And, though noting it is 'just' in a UK quality national, according to The Independent this is the '...first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.'
And the words used subsequently are not minced: 'damning evidence' ... 'biggest environmental con-tricks' ... 'actually make global warming worse'.
Hold that last thought. enviROI anyone? I take no pleasure in this, but here we have a very telling example of what headlong rushes into 'anything green that must be good' can possibly lead to.
It is to be hoped that we can expect this salutory lesson be applied to ensure the real e-value of all manner of other green initiatives, from wind turbines... to simply banning plastic bags with no thought for the consequences of the alternatives (or lack of).
So I would wish government, activists... and media... would all learn to give pause before the leap on the green band, and/or banwagon as they too often do.
Indy - Michael McCarthy: 'Free lunch' that could cost the earth
Gaurdian - Biofuel farms make CO2 emissions worse
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Go Figure
As all will, well... should know, I have set up Junkk.com (and this associated blog) to not only do good, but make good, too.
As yet, while I think the first can warrant a tick, I'm still kinda working on the second. Getting there, but... a ways to go.
I think I blogged a short while ago about an educational foray back into the world of online media, and the help and insights I gained, though to date can't do much about becuase they need major dosh. Hence my scoping out the weird and wondeful laternate universe of VCs Business Angels.
But one thing has rung in my memory since, which is the advised target of 500k unique visitors to get taken serioulsy as an ad medium.
I think I can do it. I just have to focus on what will make the offering unique, attract an audience and keep them loyal... and telling others.
Which is all quite an ambition. Especially as, at the 'mo, there is one of me trying to do this.
So I was quite interested in this piece about an outfit called Shiny Media. All very inspirational, and a big up to them. Thing is, for their 3.5M unique visistors they have a staff of 20+! That's one person per 150,000, which is what I have managed. So, at the end of the day, it remains a numbers game.
No wonder it's taking me a while. I must get in touch.
As yet, while I think the first can warrant a tick, I'm still kinda working on the second. Getting there, but... a ways to go.
I think I blogged a short while ago about an educational foray back into the world of online media, and the help and insights I gained, though to date can't do much about becuase they need major dosh. Hence my scoping out the weird and wondeful laternate universe of VCs Business Angels.
But one thing has rung in my memory since, which is the advised target of 500k unique visitors to get taken serioulsy as an ad medium.
I think I can do it. I just have to focus on what will make the offering unique, attract an audience and keep them loyal... and telling others.
Which is all quite an ambition. Especially as, at the 'mo, there is one of me trying to do this.
So I was quite interested in this piece about an outfit called Shiny Media. All very inspirational, and a big up to them. Thing is, for their 3.5M unique visistors they have a staff of 20+! That's one person per 150,000, which is what I have managed. So, at the end of the day, it remains a numbers game.
No wonder it's taking me a while. I must get in touch.
The world's larget rubbish dump
Reported in the Independent this morning, this is absolutely amazing!
"A 'plastic soup' of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said."
Known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", it is estimated to contain some 100 million tons of flotsam!
"The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world's largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting 'soup' stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan."
"Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic."
And some people still insist that rubbish thrown out to sea doesn't constitute a problem!
Addendum (Junkk Male) - Well, someone seems to think there's an angle.
"A 'plastic soup' of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said."
Known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", it is estimated to contain some 100 million tons of flotsam!
"The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world's largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting 'soup' stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan."
"Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic."
And some people still insist that rubbish thrown out to sea doesn't constitute a problem!
Addendum (Junkk Male) - Well, someone seems to think there's an angle.
Kite ship makes significant fuel savings
I saw a piece on the MS Beluga Skysail on TV a few weeks back and wondered just how much energy the giant kite might save in terms of fuel costs.
Well, Reuters are now reporting that the vessel saved some 15 to 20% of its daily fuel needs by deploying the giant kite, cutting fuel consumption by some 4 tonnes per day. Now that's not an insignificant saving. I wonder if they're thinking about fitting giant kites onto many more cargo vessels now. Strange how things go full circle - from Sail, to Steam, to Oil & Diesel, and back to Sail.
Well, Reuters are now reporting that the vessel saved some 15 to 20% of its daily fuel needs by deploying the giant kite, cutting fuel consumption by some 4 tonnes per day. Now that's not an insignificant saving. I wonder if they're thinking about fitting giant kites onto many more cargo vessels now. Strange how things go full circle - from Sail, to Steam, to Oil & Diesel, and back to Sail.
I wonder what Firebird.com might be worth?
Sadly, not for sale.
But what I did find rather suprising, in a nice way, is to see what something do do with 're' was up for. Though quite how they funded that cocks an eyebrow.
So, maybe that bodes well for Junkk.com?
Also, and again sadly, not for sale though.
Creativematch - The million dollar 's' bought for UK domain name
But what I did find rather suprising, in a nice way, is to see what something do do with 're' was up for. Though quite how they funded that cocks an eyebrow.
So, maybe that bodes well for Junkk.com?
Also, and again sadly, not for sale though.
Creativematch - The million dollar 's' bought for UK domain name
NEWS/GO3 PR - Reading below the lines
I normally have a fair bit of time for what comes out of the Green Party Press Office, and am usually happy to print it with little, if any comment 'as is'.
I fear that this must be an exception; not so much for the content (which you, as big boys and girls, can make judgements upon for yourselves), but as an example of what I personally don't like seeing, and as much as I do, in matters of headline grabbing.
Here's what I got:
CANCER ‘CAUSED BY POLLUTION’, MEP LUCAS TO TELL BRIGHTON WOMEN
Event: MEP Caroline Lucas speaks at ‘C’s the Day’ cancer prevention event
Place: Friends’ Meeting House, Ship St, Brighton
Time: Saturday, February 9th, 10am-4pm. Dr Lucas to speak at 2.15pm
CANCER is often caused by environmental factors including toxic chemicals added to household goods, pesticides and poor air quality, local Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas will tell a Brighton cancer-prevention day.
Dr Lucas said: “Levels of breast cancer are rising across the EU – especially in eastern Europe and the UK, where one woman in nine will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives.
“An increasing number of scientists are pointing to the link between toxic chemicals – especially so-called gender-bending hormone-disruptors – and breast cancer, which kills more than 10,000 people each year in the UK alone.
“Similarly links are being found between pesticide use and cancers. Yet these technologies are all growing apace – the Government and EU simply must exercise caution, and put human health above the profits of their friends in the companies that manufacture them.”
I am in no doubt that amongst many consequences of modern life, 'pollution' (however that may be defined) is high on the probable causes of cancer.
However, I do not believe that headline to be an accurate representation of the situation, and while the more qualifying statements below do express it better I fear that, to me at least, this did not come across at all well, no matter how worthy the thinking (and, one presumes, call to action) of that last para.
I fear that this must be an exception; not so much for the content (which you, as big boys and girls, can make judgements upon for yourselves), but as an example of what I personally don't like seeing, and as much as I do, in matters of headline grabbing.
Here's what I got:
CANCER ‘CAUSED BY POLLUTION’, MEP LUCAS TO TELL BRIGHTON WOMEN
Event: MEP Caroline Lucas speaks at ‘C’s the Day’ cancer prevention event
Place: Friends’ Meeting House, Ship St, Brighton
Time: Saturday, February 9th, 10am-4pm. Dr Lucas to speak at 2.15pm
CANCER is often caused by environmental factors including toxic chemicals added to household goods, pesticides and poor air quality, local Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas will tell a Brighton cancer-prevention day.
Dr Lucas said: “Levels of breast cancer are rising across the EU – especially in eastern Europe and the UK, where one woman in nine will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives.
“An increasing number of scientists are pointing to the link between toxic chemicals – especially so-called gender-bending hormone-disruptors – and breast cancer, which kills more than 10,000 people each year in the UK alone.
“Similarly links are being found between pesticide use and cancers. Yet these technologies are all growing apace – the Government and EU simply must exercise caution, and put human health above the profits of their friends in the companies that manufacture them.”
I am in no doubt that amongst many consequences of modern life, 'pollution' (however that may be defined) is high on the probable causes of cancer.
However, I do not believe that headline to be an accurate representation of the situation, and while the more qualifying statements below do express it better I fear that, to me at least, this did not come across at all well, no matter how worthy the thinking (and, one presumes, call to action) of that last para.
Desperately seeking Susan. Or Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice
Last night I attended an investment funding event at (and, I think, co-sponsored by) the University of Worcester School of Business.
There were others involved, with the lead being a brokerage called Beer & Partners, but also Advantage West Midlands as well.
Initially billed as a 'Dragon's Den', I almost didn't go because of the connotations of that sick show, but in the form of a 'Business Angel' Panel, which it was, I am glad I did.
A well-attended event, there was a good 100 folk there, so interest was high. And I recognized a few faces.
The panel comprised some experienced investors, though the names meant little to me: Mike Weaver (head of Beer in this neck 'o the woods), Kerry Jones, and Jim Walker.
The latter came out with the quote of the evening, which at least made it for me: 'Any product which addresses environmental issues is now really important, and top of any investor's list'.
And the pitches were all from 'green' businesses, which was a complete, if pleasant, surprise. There was an automotive fuel efficiency device and two energy monitoring devices/systems, which is an area I know quite a lot about of course.
At about 10mins, with feedback from panel and Q&A, it all scooted through in a very interesting hour.
I was mainly there as all that I am up to has hit the next hurdle of actually getting what I am doing to market, and into profit, and for that I know I need people with me. So, interestingly, earlier that day I had been engaged in just such an effort. And pretty encouraging it was, too. One was an interview, whereby a very talented and savvy post grad was seeing why she would want to spend a month here. I hope she got the answers she sought, and hence will. The other was with a marketing guy who for once was not looking for an upfront fee before doing anything. And he is both local, experienced and connected.
But as I do think investors may well still be part of the mix, I was keen to see how one might package the proposition.
Three interesting products. Three personable chaps pitching. But I was encouraged, because I had been thinking what I was up to and capable of would not be up to the task. Yet I felt my pitch, when it comes, would stack up very well in comparison. And the judges, though I suspect being very nice about it all, seemed interested and keen to develop things with these guys, though I actually had some reservations from my knowledge of market conditions, in several areas, for at least a couple of them.
Also interesting was the pitches. All were cut off. And all were cut off by spending too much time on what it was at the expense of how it would make money, and where, with who, etc. An easy mistake to make, and one I have done a lot by being the creator and not so focused on the profit motive aspects.
Also of note was the amounts requested, especially with some fairly hefty capital-requiring proposals, and/or also with significant staffing levels of senior folk for as yet unproven market concepts. Numbers of £150k were being mentioned, which can get gobbled up in a flash! Heck, I could do that with Junkk just on a sales director for a year.
Speaking of which, one the angels mentioned something I did not know, which is that supermarkets expect associated marketing budgets to be attached to any 'product' they engage. Worth bearing in mind for RE:tie.
There were also several other panel questions that seldom were addressed in the pitches, but were good to know as being important for inclusion and also as points of priority in such pitches.
IP was seldom highlighted, but is obviously key.
But the one thing that stood out above all that these guys were looking for is the management team. In place... and on the case.
And that is what I don't yet have, and must soon get.
Thing is, this event got me no further, just as have any conversations I have had with in theory 'innovator-supportive' Gov//NGO organizations, as to how I find such folk.
But I'm clawing closer... I think.
There were others involved, with the lead being a brokerage called Beer & Partners, but also Advantage West Midlands as well.
Initially billed as a 'Dragon's Den', I almost didn't go because of the connotations of that sick show, but in the form of a 'Business Angel' Panel, which it was, I am glad I did.
A well-attended event, there was a good 100 folk there, so interest was high. And I recognized a few faces.
The panel comprised some experienced investors, though the names meant little to me: Mike Weaver (head of Beer in this neck 'o the woods), Kerry Jones, and Jim Walker.
The latter came out with the quote of the evening, which at least made it for me: 'Any product which addresses environmental issues is now really important, and top of any investor's list'.
And the pitches were all from 'green' businesses, which was a complete, if pleasant, surprise. There was an automotive fuel efficiency device and two energy monitoring devices/systems, which is an area I know quite a lot about of course.
At about 10mins, with feedback from panel and Q&A, it all scooted through in a very interesting hour.
I was mainly there as all that I am up to has hit the next hurdle of actually getting what I am doing to market, and into profit, and for that I know I need people with me. So, interestingly, earlier that day I had been engaged in just such an effort. And pretty encouraging it was, too. One was an interview, whereby a very talented and savvy post grad was seeing why she would want to spend a month here. I hope she got the answers she sought, and hence will. The other was with a marketing guy who for once was not looking for an upfront fee before doing anything. And he is both local, experienced and connected.
But as I do think investors may well still be part of the mix, I was keen to see how one might package the proposition.
Three interesting products. Three personable chaps pitching. But I was encouraged, because I had been thinking what I was up to and capable of would not be up to the task. Yet I felt my pitch, when it comes, would stack up very well in comparison. And the judges, though I suspect being very nice about it all, seemed interested and keen to develop things with these guys, though I actually had some reservations from my knowledge of market conditions, in several areas, for at least a couple of them.
Also interesting was the pitches. All were cut off. And all were cut off by spending too much time on what it was at the expense of how it would make money, and where, with who, etc. An easy mistake to make, and one I have done a lot by being the creator and not so focused on the profit motive aspects.
Also of note was the amounts requested, especially with some fairly hefty capital-requiring proposals, and/or also with significant staffing levels of senior folk for as yet unproven market concepts. Numbers of £150k were being mentioned, which can get gobbled up in a flash! Heck, I could do that with Junkk just on a sales director for a year.
Speaking of which, one the angels mentioned something I did not know, which is that supermarkets expect associated marketing budgets to be attached to any 'product' they engage. Worth bearing in mind for RE:tie.
There were also several other panel questions that seldom were addressed in the pitches, but were good to know as being important for inclusion and also as points of priority in such pitches.
IP was seldom highlighted, but is obviously key.
But the one thing that stood out above all that these guys were looking for is the management team. In place... and on the case.
And that is what I don't yet have, and must soon get.
Thing is, this event got me no further, just as have any conversations I have had with in theory 'innovator-supportive' Gov//NGO organizations, as to how I find such folk.
But I'm clawing closer... I think.
Water, water, everywhere......
..... and but few drops of common sense in sight!
Today, our esteemed gov. (through DEFRA) launched its strategy for the future of securing water supplies in England. See this report from Government Network News.
The strategy's proposals include:-
- "The aim to reduce water usage to 120 litres per person per day by 2030 from the current level of roughly 150 litres per person per day, through a combination of efficient technology, metering and tariffs."
i.e. We'll all pay more through new tariffs. Sounds like all stick and no carrot to me!
- Possible mandatory metering
Shouldn't this have been done years ago? At least for any new developments?
- New proposals to tackle surface water drainage.
"proposals include introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity, clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, and reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically into the public sewer."
'introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity' - Meaning what exactly? Make it up as you go along?
'Clarifying responsibilities' - like, admitting that now one has any that they are accountable for now?
'connect surface water automatically into the public sewer' - errrrm, no! Surface water runs off into the public storm drain system. And the ideal thing would be to make such surface water run-off much slower in order to inhibit flooding.
And wouldn't it have made really good sense to make it mandatory for all new development to incorporate rain water harvesting systems for grey water usage? That would achieve a much bigger consumption reduction target very easily.
And, of course, lots of proposals for consultations on things like flooding and erosion.
But not a single comment about better enforcement to make the various water authorities fix and repair the zillions of leaks that our current potable water distribution system has.
All in all, it looks like another complete waste of taxpayers money, designed to provide jobs for government sponsored quangos and agencies who talk, talk, talk and talk, and do, well, very bloody little! Sorry, there is one outcome that is inevitable; it will hit every one of us in the pocket, as usual, as it will certainly make us pay more for the water that we do use.
Today, our esteemed gov. (through DEFRA) launched its strategy for the future of securing water supplies in England. See this report from Government Network News.
The strategy's proposals include:-
- "The aim to reduce water usage to 120 litres per person per day by 2030 from the current level of roughly 150 litres per person per day, through a combination of efficient technology, metering and tariffs."
i.e. We'll all pay more through new tariffs. Sounds like all stick and no carrot to me!
- Possible mandatory metering
Shouldn't this have been done years ago? At least for any new developments?
- New proposals to tackle surface water drainage.
"proposals include introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity, clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, and reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically into the public sewer."
'introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity' - Meaning what exactly? Make it up as you go along?
'Clarifying responsibilities' - like, admitting that now one has any that they are accountable for now?
'connect surface water automatically into the public sewer' - errrrm, no! Surface water runs off into the public storm drain system. And the ideal thing would be to make such surface water run-off much slower in order to inhibit flooding.
And wouldn't it have made really good sense to make it mandatory for all new development to incorporate rain water harvesting systems for grey water usage? That would achieve a much bigger consumption reduction target very easily.
And, of course, lots of proposals for consultations on things like flooding and erosion.
But not a single comment about better enforcement to make the various water authorities fix and repair the zillions of leaks that our current potable water distribution system has.
All in all, it looks like another complete waste of taxpayers money, designed to provide jobs for government sponsored quangos and agencies who talk, talk, talk and talk, and do, well, very bloody little! Sorry, there is one outcome that is inevitable; it will hit every one of us in the pocket, as usual, as it will certainly make us pay more for the water that we do use.
EVENT - ECOPACK '08
I can't believe it has taken me this long to post this up.Probably one of the biggest events we're taking part in so far, with hopefully major benefits for the cuases of both the RE:tie and Junkk.com message of second use design.
MONTH - Next
FIELD: Enviro-related
WHEN: 12-13 March
WHAT: ECOPACK '08 (and Packaging Innovations)
WHAT... MORE?: Does what it says on the... er... pack. The premier UK trade event for what can, and should, come in the world of packaging. Note that in addition to 'Innovation' they also are talking 'ECO'. Of course, some can honestly, if immodestly, make the claim to be both.
WHERE: NEC, Brum
WHO: Me!!!!!! I have just been asked to be a speaker on both days, which is a genuine honour and real endorsement of the concept. Now all I have to do is figure out what to say!!!
HOW: As far as I'm aware, it's free if you register.
URL: http://www.easyfairs.com/shows/detail.aspx?ShowID=464
COMMENTS: It's a trade event, so you'd need to be pretty keen on your packaging to go just for general public interest. But the Junkk.com stand is ready and waiting to tickle your fancy!!!!
This is posted as a new blog feature.
The little things
With a Mum next door I need to keep an eye on all day, I am quite sympathetic to those in a similar position, and appreciative of any efforts to help.
Hence I was more than interested in a BBC piece, fronted by Tony Robinson, pointing at a booklet by the Alzheimers Society, called 'Putting Care Right'.
However, in downloading this PDF, I am minded of some design principles I'd really like to advocate, especially when it comes to web publishing (and a few hard cover books taboot).
It can be done, and may even be an option here, but as it is not obvious that is in fact a good first point:
1 - clearly point upfront to a/the eco-print option!
Then there are a couple of others:
2 - Don't use reverse text. It gobbles ink!
3 - Make the most of the page. If you have to have a super-cool design, fine, but for printing just get the info across in as economical a way possible. Small pictures and fill the page.
Yes I know, I should leave it on screen. But at often a few Meg I actually deem printing and deleting the file possibly more eco (see a previous Prof's Poser), and in any case defy most to say this is not something they'd prefer printed out to refer to and carry about, for instance when visiting a home.
Hence I was more than interested in a BBC piece, fronted by Tony Robinson, pointing at a booklet by the Alzheimers Society, called 'Putting Care Right'.
However, in downloading this PDF, I am minded of some design principles I'd really like to advocate, especially when it comes to web publishing (and a few hard cover books taboot).
It can be done, and may even be an option here, but as it is not obvious that is in fact a good first point:
1 - clearly point upfront to a/the eco-print option!
Then there are a couple of others:
2 - Don't use reverse text. It gobbles ink!
3 - Make the most of the page. If you have to have a super-cool design, fine, but for printing just get the info across in as economical a way possible. Small pictures and fill the page.
Yes I know, I should leave it on screen. But at often a few Meg I actually deem printing and deleting the file possibly more eco (see a previous Prof's Poser), and in any case defy most to say this is not something they'd prefer printed out to refer to and carry about, for instance when visiting a home.
What is it bears do in the woods again?
I fear I am getting oversensitive to anything that smacks of overkill on the MWCC front, so must tread cautiously here.
I merely pose a question, having watched a BBC news slot about bears not hibernating in a UK zoo on account of the warm weather.... caused by.... you guessed it.
Do they usually do this? I'd have thought things were tad different as they are in an less than typical enviornment, namely a zoo pen in the more temperate UK.
So are our ursine chums usually tucked up over the winter months?
Sadly these days my trust factor in the science I am fed is so low that lack of such context simply makes me even more dubious.
And for some, if shown to be 'a stretch', it simply provides ammo to discredit other stuff that certainly should be making us take note at unusual weather/climate (whatever, I just gave up on a blog with two scientists knocking spots off each other on the correct usage of these. Who cares!!) anomalies.
No sh*t!
I merely pose a question, having watched a BBC news slot about bears not hibernating in a UK zoo on account of the warm weather.... caused by.... you guessed it.
Do they usually do this? I'd have thought things were tad different as they are in an less than typical enviornment, namely a zoo pen in the more temperate UK.
So are our ursine chums usually tucked up over the winter months?
Sadly these days my trust factor in the science I am fed is so low that lack of such context simply makes me even more dubious.
And for some, if shown to be 'a stretch', it simply provides ammo to discredit other stuff that certainly should be making us take note at unusual weather/climate (whatever, I just gave up on a blog with two scientists knocking spots off each other on the correct usage of these. Who cares!!) anomalies.
No sh*t!
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
NEWS/Commercial PR - NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH
Normally I am a bit dubious about research, especially on things green... and even more so when part of a press release on behalf of an energy company.
But I thought this was worth sharing, as provided, but suitably editted to share the insights with a little less of the sales pitch. But I will pop in a few links for you to find out more on their offering if so inspired. But would also always advise doing a bunch of research before committing to anything. I rather fancy I have had a few other PRs of late suggesting they are also the only odd ones rewarding you for cutting back. Indeed. But to be encouraged by both suppliers and consumers to be sure!
NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH Despite increasing pressure to go ‘green’, new research released today (5 February 2008) by Southern Electric shows many Britons remain unconvinced that they can afford to live greener lives. The Southern Electric survey reveals that over half of Britons think the environment is of vital importance and 85% are willing to consider lifestyle changes to save energy within the next 10 years. The majority also believes that making greener choices as a consumer usually involves spending more money; and lack of money is cited as the main reason for not making changes to save energy at home. Independent financial expert and TV money man, Alvin Hall, says: “The Southern Electric research suggests that, while people ‘talk the talk’ on green issues, few ‘walk the walk’ and many use money as an excuse. Some green products do cost a premium but helping to save the planet doesn’t have to break the bank or be a chore. In fact, the average home can actually save around £300 a year by simply being more energy efficient. “Home insulation, energy saving appliances and cutting down on energy consumption all help and will lead to cheaper energy bills in the long run as well as benefiting the environment.” Southern Electric is the first energy company to actively encourage customers to cut back on energy use through ‘better plan’, its unique green energy product. ‘better plan’ is a home energy service that pays customers to cut their bills – giving bonuses, discounts and cash credits for using less energy . The cash credits are then applied as a reduction to the customers’ energy bills.
But I thought this was worth sharing, as provided, but suitably editted to share the insights with a little less of the sales pitch. But I will pop in a few links for you to find out more on their offering if so inspired. But would also always advise doing a bunch of research before committing to anything. I rather fancy I have had a few other PRs of late suggesting they are also the only odd ones rewarding you for cutting back. Indeed. But to be encouraged by both suppliers and consumers to be sure!
NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH Despite increasing pressure to go ‘green’, new research released today (5 February 2008) by Southern Electric shows many Britons remain unconvinced that they can afford to live greener lives. The Southern Electric survey reveals that over half of Britons think the environment is of vital importance and 85% are willing to consider lifestyle changes to save energy within the next 10 years. The majority also believes that making greener choices as a consumer usually involves spending more money; and lack of money is cited as the main reason for not making changes to save energy at home. Independent financial expert and TV money man, Alvin Hall, says: “The Southern Electric research suggests that, while people ‘talk the talk’ on green issues, few ‘walk the walk’ and many use money as an excuse. Some green products do cost a premium but helping to save the planet doesn’t have to break the bank or be a chore. In fact, the average home can actually save around £300 a year by simply being more energy efficient. “Home insulation, energy saving appliances and cutting down on energy consumption all help and will lead to cheaper energy bills in the long run as well as benefiting the environment.” Southern Electric is the first energy company to actively encourage customers to cut back on energy use through ‘better plan’, its unique green energy product. ‘better plan’ is a home energy service that pays customers to cut their bills – giving bonuses, discounts and cash credits for using less energy . The cash credits are then applied as a reduction to the customers’ energy bills.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
NEWS/Commercial PR - All that glitters?
I've often maintained that where there is green there can be gold.
Nothing wrong with that at all. Where it is not so great is when those who are trying to do their ethical best for the planet and our kids' futures end up thinking they are doing stuff, often for considerable investments of time and money, that may not be as green as they seem.
Hence I reproduce an editted down, but as provided PR, with all due caveats as always, which nonetheless should give you pause for thought.
And as they have been nice enough to share information, I am happy to add the links, but do of course advise that you go into any dealings with anyone with eyes wide open.
Ethical does not mean Environmental, New Report Finds
A study of ethical and SRI funds' Top 10 holdings available in the UK - which purport to be socially responsible and ethical - has shown that very few actually invest in companies which are directly tackling climate change.
The report, 'A Guide to Climate Change Investment' available via the authors' website, by independent financial adviser Holden & Partners, examined the Top 10 holdings of all SRI, ethical and environmental funds available to UK private investors.
It found that most SRI and Ethical funds' top ten holdings are surprisingly mainstream, with names like Vodafone and Royal Bank of Scotland occurring time and again. However, many also have holdings in large mining corporations as well as BP, Shell, Total and other oil majors.
As a result, investors in SRI and ethical funds, who were hoping to support the low-carbon economy, may find that they are buying into multinationals more associated with being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Of the SRI funds that gave full information about their holdings, Henderson's Industries of the Future scored most highly with 51.1% of its fund in environmental solutions providers. In contrast, environmental stocks make up less than one per cent of L&G Ethical Funds portfolio.
The new generation of environmental and climate change funds is far more focused on companies developing global solutions to environmental problems. However, some of these also throw up some curious holdings, including Porsche, Renault, Nestlé and Danone.
The report highlights that there are a number of 'pure-play' environmental investment vehicles available with 100% exposure to environmental solutions providers. These include listed funds investing in worldwide listed stocks.
About the Guide to Climate Change Investment
The Green Guide shows investors how to participate in and benefit from investment flows into environmental markets. There is a huge range of funds available but not all of them are tackling climate change in their investment approach. The Guide helps shed light on this dynamic and complex sector.
The information was gathered directly from investment managers. It was as complete as possible at time of going to publication. Where no data was supplied, this was after several attempts at contacting the fund managers to ask for the data.
Mark Hoskin, partner at Holden & Partners is quoted as saying: "The world is changing very fast. As an investor in twenty years will you look back and wonder why you did not read the signals. The global market for environmental goods and services is incredibly exciting and we believe there is a good chance that within the Climate Change Funds you may find the Microsoft of the future."
Now, wouldn't it be nice if Junkk.com were one?
Nothing wrong with that at all. Where it is not so great is when those who are trying to do their ethical best for the planet and our kids' futures end up thinking they are doing stuff, often for considerable investments of time and money, that may not be as green as they seem.
Hence I reproduce an editted down, but as provided PR, with all due caveats as always, which nonetheless should give you pause for thought.
And as they have been nice enough to share information, I am happy to add the links, but do of course advise that you go into any dealings with anyone with eyes wide open.
Ethical does not mean Environmental, New Report Finds
A study of ethical and SRI funds' Top 10 holdings available in the UK - which purport to be socially responsible and ethical - has shown that very few actually invest in companies which are directly tackling climate change.
The report, 'A Guide to Climate Change Investment' available via the authors' website, by independent financial adviser Holden & Partners, examined the Top 10 holdings of all SRI, ethical and environmental funds available to UK private investors.
It found that most SRI and Ethical funds' top ten holdings are surprisingly mainstream, with names like Vodafone and Royal Bank of Scotland occurring time and again. However, many also have holdings in large mining corporations as well as BP, Shell, Total and other oil majors.
As a result, investors in SRI and ethical funds, who were hoping to support the low-carbon economy, may find that they are buying into multinationals more associated with being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Of the SRI funds that gave full information about their holdings, Henderson's Industries of the Future scored most highly with 51.1% of its fund in environmental solutions providers. In contrast, environmental stocks make up less than one per cent of L&G Ethical Funds portfolio.
The new generation of environmental and climate change funds is far more focused on companies developing global solutions to environmental problems. However, some of these also throw up some curious holdings, including Porsche, Renault, Nestlé and Danone.
The report highlights that there are a number of 'pure-play' environmental investment vehicles available with 100% exposure to environmental solutions providers. These include listed funds investing in worldwide listed stocks.
About the Guide to Climate Change Investment
The Green Guide shows investors how to participate in and benefit from investment flows into environmental markets. There is a huge range of funds available but not all of them are tackling climate change in their investment approach. The Guide helps shed light on this dynamic and complex sector.
The information was gathered directly from investment managers. It was as complete as possible at time of going to publication. Where no data was supplied, this was after several attempts at contacting the fund managers to ask for the data.
Mark Hoskin, partner at Holden & Partners is quoted as saying: "The world is changing very fast. As an investor in twenty years will you look back and wonder why you did not read the signals. The global market for environmental goods and services is incredibly exciting and we believe there is a good chance that within the Climate Change Funds you may find the Microsoft of the future."
Now, wouldn't it be nice if Junkk.com were one?
What a difference a year makes!
Back in January 2007, Peter posted an interesting piece on an interview with three big cheeses at Davos. Having heard the piece, and commented accordingly, about the facile answers given, I remembered a quote from Shell's big cheese, Jeroen van der Veer, who, responding to a pertinent question from John Humphrys about the possibility of peak oil, said, “In 20 years time we’ll use more oil and gas than we do today”.
Well, according to this report from ThisIsScotland, van der Veer appears to have changed his mind somewhat.
"In an e-letter to staff that must surely be splattered right across the Big Oil community by now, and be doing the rounds of NOCs (national oil corporations), Shell's CEO basically says that conventional oil output will peak in seven years - oh, and gas shortages are on the way, too."
Now that's what I call an about face! And if the CEO of Shell is now admitting that the planet is going to have an energy problem (due to the lack of petroleum resources and natural gas) sooner rather than later, then it looks as if the human race's need to get into renewable technologies is going to be even more urgent than any of us ever realised.
Well, according to this report from ThisIsScotland, van der Veer appears to have changed his mind somewhat.
"In an e-letter to staff that must surely be splattered right across the Big Oil community by now, and be doing the rounds of NOCs (national oil corporations), Shell's CEO basically says that conventional oil output will peak in seven years - oh, and gas shortages are on the way, too."
Now that's what I call an about face! And if the CEO of Shell is now admitting that the planet is going to have an energy problem (due to the lack of petroleum resources and natural gas) sooner rather than later, then it looks as if the human race's need to get into renewable technologies is going to be even more urgent than any of us ever realised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)