So just what is the point?

You do your bit by carefully separating out the glass, the newspaper (no polythene mind!), and the recyclable plastics (if you are lucky enough to live in one of the few areas that collect it). You put it it the provided bins and bags and along comes the collection wagon to take it all away for a second use.

It has become something of a weekly ritual for a great many of us, and it does make you feel as if you are contributing in your own small way. But, and it is a big but, you take it on trust that your local council/authority is doing the right thing. Well, according to this from the weekend's Telegraph, something like one in eight of the items that you've carefully sorted and put out for recycling collection, actually end up in landfill anyway!

"Around 240,000 tons of paper, glass and plastic is either dumped or burned after being collected in green bins and bags by local council staff"

Just why do we bother?

So is the congestion charge working?

Not according to this research from Direct Line, reported in Money Extra.

Research "reveals that 1.2 million (16%) motorists who intend buying a car over the course of the next year will purchase either a people carrier or 4X4 'Chelsea tractor'. In fact, motorists are four times more likely to buy a less fuel efficient vehicle than the more environmentally friendly hybrid or 'eco' cars this year."

"The research also reveals that despite the London congestion charge, 27% of Londoners are planning on buying a car in the next year, compared to just 20% of those living in the Midlands and 21% of Northerners."

Looks to me like the congestion charge makes absolutely zero difference to the purchasing habits of the Islingtonistas. But then again, banning plastic carrier bags is far more important for the future of the environment, isn't it?

Lovelock - all gloom and doom

Now I have a lot of respect for James Lovelock, maverick or not; he has always made a lot of sense to me. (OK, so I'm a nutter then!). This from Saturday's Guardian contains a few gems of gloomy prediction which seem to even surpass what he's said before.

"Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive."

And I wholeheartedly agree with him on Carbon Offsetting and plastic bag bans too!

Me? I'm finishing work before 7pm for once and I'm off to the pub whilst decent beer is still an available (albeit less and less affordable) commodity! [Work has always been the curse of the drinking class!]

Addendum:
Some interesting letters in response in Tuesday's Guardian.

Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male): Lighten up, Lovelock

A Global Warming Denier's Conference

I had a sneaking suspicion that something like this might eventually happen, and it has, and is, as reported by The Raw Story.

Now I have no problem with opposing sides of any argument being put, but the acid test comes in the figures provided, and in the large majority acceptance of the underlying science. Fox and friends argue that "We just did a report looking at how the network news shows have covered climate change. ... 13 to one, the people they put on are on one side saying it's not a debate. ... On CBS it's 38 to one."

Sorry guys, but those sort of numbers simply reflect the numbers of scientists who genuinely believe in (Probably and/or Likely) Man Worsened Climate Change, versus those who don't.

And, interestingly, how would you like to take a guess at just who some of the friends of Fox News are funded by? Seems that Big Oil has some very long tendrils of influence.

Addendum:
More on this conference from Daily Kos.

I don't get it...

Roll up! Roll up! for London's used newspaper house

The other title I toyed with was... 'But is it art?'.

At £15,000 for 5 days, it certainly makes some kind of statement.

I'm just not sure that we need any more awareness on waste, but maybe a tad more spent on dealing with it.

Doesn't Add Up

Taxpayer hit again

Re; Please tell me there was a misprint

Sadly, I'm guessing not.

And what is amazing to me is how little noticed or commented upon this has been.

It's almost as though certain folk have been compensated for buying certain other folk more time to further waste more of our money... with our money.

When I ran my ad agency there was once a notion of 'pitching fees' to prevent flippant clients getting all and sundry to contribute, but it never happened.

This was... what... two or three bidders? Bidding to make bazillions. And they take even less risk just having a go and getting rafts of PR and paid work... on our money.

The world has gone mad.

Impudently, if prudently, yours...

N.B

The Prime Minister's green credentials are not in the bag

As interesting for the comments. But still all pretty depressing.

Guardian - Tesco versus Daily Mail: which will Gordon choose? - Well, he made 'a' decision, at least.

Daily Mail - Now eco-friendly Prince Charles teams up with supermarket chain to wage war on the bags

Great. First M&S. Then Gordon. Now Charles. And, er, Booths. The Daily Mail really is rallying a crack team here. All glowing examples to follow. And boy have they inspired everyone, if the comments here are anything to go on.

CATEGORY - ECO-HOMES & TOWNS

Indy - Buying an eco-home: Finally something's clicked

Indy - Better than new: Give you home an eco facelift

As I have created the category already, but now need to add a complement (though creating a more eco house is very different to an entire new custom town, there are obvious similarities):

ECO-TOWNS

Guardian - Eco-towns are the greatest try-on in the history of property speculation

Indy - Protesters' fury as ecotown shortlist targets 'unsustainable' locations

Guardian - Now that's my kinda town - good point on the tokenism of the ten.

Times - Just the spot for a new Milton Keynes - I still take some persuading a town is better than no town in purely enviro terms.

Times - Government must clarify its eco town policy - As do these guys

Indy - We're ready to rise up against eco-towns - I'm guessing 'not keen'

Times - Whitehall to force through eco-towns - May the force be..?

Times - Ecotowns: for and against

Indy - What are eco-towns, and how green are they in reality? - Looking at the 'Yes' and 'No' summary above, and comparing them with the main body text, it seems more that 'where there is a 'will there's a 'may'', and even that downward spiral of confidence in the enviROI can be soon extrapolated downwards as those with boxes to tick adjust their targets.

The Register - Tories pledge to flush away eco slums - Safe to say they are not keen.

Telegraph - Time to talk about eco-towns

BBC - Eco-towns plan 'may be unlawful' - From driving to knives, and now this, it rather worries me, as a law-abiding citizen, when those who might be expected to know better about what consitutes breaking 'em use words like 'may'.

BBC - Newsnight - tip off from poster. Missed it and may not get time to catch up, but the blog might point places.

COI - Eco-towns set to face toughest ever green standards

Gaurdian - Put away your prejudices - ecohomes are not ugly - Must be today (5 Aug 08) but all the Guardian Greens are knocking spots off each other for being not green enough or too rich to care about what it costs... odd).

Telegraph - Government paid charity to produce eco-town 'fact' leaflets - Now I have pretty much put anything on a leaflet on the high-irony side of eco-awareness already, but such as this does rather expand the list of those I wouldn't trust even further.

Indy - Eco-town's green benefit exaggerated, ASA rules - The ASA weekly list is a good, if depressing source of Grenwash. I almost passed on this, but as the Indy did not...
No mention of how 'eco' it might really be, mind.

Gaurdian - Green and unpleasant - Still not feeling the love

Gaurdian - We are not nosy parkers - we simply need to measure success - '...we simply need to measure success' . I merely ask, but is that how the way studies work is phrased?

I know bonuses depend on meeting targets, and meeting targets mean pointing at 'success', but wouldn't it be better to set out to discover what the overall enviROI of these things is, good... or.... not so much?

FT - Only one eco-town site classed as suitable - Bearing in mind what has already been consumed to get to this point, is this ratio... acceptable as a measure of the ongoing competencies of those who would claim to lead in these areas?

Gaurdian - Red faces over green towns

Guardian - Eco-towns' death throes - The headline invites a Twainian response, but.... oops! I wonder how many well-meaning folk and how much money was suckered into this one?

Telegraph - Eco-towns bill soars to more than £3m before a house is built - but think of the boxes that got ticked!

Telegraph - NEW - Country diary: the folly of eco towns

Driven to distraction?

A lot of folk from the government and media have taken it upon themsleves to lecture us on the sins of our travelling habits.

Fair enough.

Oddly, however, when it comes to the evils of using cars, the alternatives they tend to opt for seem a bit different to those advocated for most of us. And even when they do subsitute a taxi for a car, they don't seem to be any more keen on bearing the costs of such convenience.

BBC under fire again for spending £20,000 of licence payers' money on Wimbledon junket

Or even explaining exactly what these costs are.

Green Pop

Just saw the Andrew Marr show, which featured singer/songwriter KT Tunstall.

A great talent, and a clearly passionate environmentalist, I however could not but feel that rich pops stars, whose job does require certain sacrifices, talking to comfy BBC interviewers, may not be the best way to 'sell' green to the masses, or even get across the most enviROi+ way of setting about things. I am afraid I felt moved to write, a tad tongue in cheek, to question a few points she made that cranked my eyebrow:

I am immediately going to set about ripping out all in my home to replace with all the insulations and gizmos she has done. And if there is any money left over I will certainly no longer buy the kids £5 jeans when it’s clear they need to cost £30 or more. I wish I was a pop star and could share such great green examples with everyone.

Or afford to.

The higher you look down from, the poorer your view. Or chance of being heard.

Do you feel harassed by eco-snobs?

There’s rather a lot going on in here it’s hard to answer all at once, or simply.

For a start, there the definition of a ‘snob’, which is telling: ‘somebody who looks down on people considered to have inferior knowledge or tastes’.

This places knowledge WITH taste. But in matters environmental, they can often be exclusive.

I certainly feel frustrated by ill-informed, cynically media-stirred e-fashion victims leaping on distracting, minor carbon priority Planet Ban-it banwagons to the delight of those who should be taken task right now and more often for much worse.

That said, effecting social change though trying to influence behaviour for the better IS legitimate, and a bit of PR-influenced social pressure can often be of value... so long as it is valid, accurate and correctly targeted.

The problem is that so much is not, being simply knee-jerk, activist-agenda or politically-motivated public manipulation, ably supported by any media addicted to getting ratings building up an icon... and then getting more smashing it down if proven to be on a shaky pedestal.

Hence making the task of those working more diligently on more coherent, practical and probably more cost and enviROI effective measures, which the public can and might be persuaded to engage with, that more difficult.

So yes, I do have a concern on a backlash, thanks to the cack-handed simplistic messages being pumped out, and the dubious qualifications and motivations of the green-elite messengers so often associated with them.

Hence I think there is the social dimension inferred by the word ‘snob’, and a divide is being driven by the ‘My third car is a Prius’ persons who rather selectively cherry-pick their eco-target du jour at the expense of the broader challenges faced by more climatically significant (in total population) but less financially-insulated Fiesta Family.

That’s not to say we do not need to seek to effect necessary reductions and/or mitigations wherever possible. But by heavens I’d like to see it all done in a less divisive and patronising way than currently. And hence would make a plea for less TELLING each other what not to do and more incentive-driven PERSUADING each other what profit and fun-driven ways there can be to work together on this.

As a minor example, in your picture caption you lampoon Tesco, one presumes being shown up by the M&S/Daily Mail ‘campaign.’.

By my understanding they have long had a policy of giving card points for bringing old bags back, which seems to be a reward-based method for taking the things out of the loop, or at least away from the landfill.

I remain unclear as to the attraction in comparison of paying 5p, and how once used this bag ceases to have the potential to choke a turtle.

Equally, I am still trying to fully understand all the other options, with Charles Clover elsewhere suggesting not all ‘solutions’ bandied about might be as great as claimed.

But looking forward to getting my Eco-bag posted back from you guys. I’ll carry it with pride and endure the joshing with good nature, whilst hoping the cheery example I set might sway a few. Seems to work better than shouting or sneering.

Ok, I'm easily excited

Just got back from the Saturday Mother's Day shopping, and look what the boys and I spied in the recycling section of the carpark: a new skip for cartons (Tetrapaks).

This is great! No more moaning about the one and only facility in Fife or wherever, or daft notions of posting them off to be dealt with.

Two things, though. One is that it's a real shame that there is no way to help punters squash them first, as this is a hefty bit of steel to carry 99% fresh air in a 1litre skin.

The other is that I had no clue these were coming or are now here. And I tend to be a tad more aware on such matters. Wouldn't such a facility warrant a bit of PR ra-ra?

Of course the one thing I have not raised is the enviROI. Maybe I don't want to know.

Well I never

Meanwhile, where the Daily Mail may have a point: Dimwits: EU's edict to keep car lights on ALL day will cost drivers £160 a year in wasted fuel

My Volvo is ten years old. The headlamps have burned bright since I bought it. Never really thought about it, but enregy has to coem from somewhere.

Now another e-lemma: 'safety' vs. 'eco'. And the dosh, too!

Speaking of priorities

Have Your Say: Revolution in the skies... disaster for the planet

I do of course look forward to dark threats from our Dear Leader, plus an open letter to your paper from family in support, replete with dentally-enhanced 2+2 snapshot.

Or not.

Our national followship, especially the PM, rather tends to go with the 'flow of now', as opposed to actually leading with priorities, consistency or what might be right.

Mind you, our media are little better. Nick the Thinker... spot on!

Fickle folk, the public

Just as one campaign (plastic bags) seems to have struck a chord, it would seem another has not: Energy Saving Day flopped, say organisers

I wonder why?

On the face of it, the impostions were/are lower and the enviROI benefits surely higher.

So I wonder what a 1% increase in daily energy use accounts for in carbon consequences vs., say, fewer plastic bags? Brings us back to priorities.

An organiser is quoted as claiming they did not get enough publicity. But looking at the list of backers one has to wonder just what more resource one could have hoped for. I did get a few press releases, but ironically mostly from commercial interests that smacked a bit of opportunism and I am afraid I rather ignored them. And how much does one get to set up such a site and PR it? I wish I could score such support.

The comment about the temperature, at the end of February, is plain daft, and rather suggests a mindset that to me is not all that is optimal in 'green issue promotion'. And the public, self-evidently, felt so too.

BBC - No impact from Energy Saving Day - Ohhhh. It's a version of Planet Relief. Like that worked so well. Why do these guys get so much backing to shovel down green holes? Well, at least there seems there will be a 'next time'. Not a great track record too far, mind.

BBC - E-Day: A good use of energy? - I wonder who you have to goose in the BBC to get coverage for something folk actually like? This Matt Prescott guy must have a lot of mates at Aunty.

Now I am worried

Gordon Brown gives supermarkets one year to start charging for plastic bags ... or else

I wondered how long it would take for our Dear Leader to decide he was on safe enough ground to emerge from his bunker and take charge of this truly critical issue.

Not too sure if any of the other stuff, including a few other matters of pressing environmental concern, might register with his spinometer for a while now.

Thanks Daily Mail, for showing leadership to our leadership, and getting our priorities truly in the right order.

Gaurdian - How the Daily Mail seized the moment to go into battle - yes, but which one?

Right result? Right reasons?

Yesterday, at the height of the Daily Mail/M&S 5p bag frenzy, I popped into a LIDL, a store proudly pointing out it was tackling the scourge of the bag by charging for them.

And, in a telling example of personal shopping choice I made a purchase: this cutter set.

Now how much was my decision based on the fact that I could see all the blades I would use? Hence the box in which they were contained was splayed open, and then popped in a blister pack.

Totally, and I don't fling this word about lightly, unnecessary. But certainly it, and my actions in being seduced (would a poster or image on the lid have worked to attract me as well?), are pretty much key to the whole issue.

While some small 'victories' may be scored in trying to cut down on waste and our addiction to buying more and more 'stuff', this little war on plastic bags rather conceals the fact that the last thing these noble manufacturers and retailers, and the media industry who serves them, want us to do is buy any less.

Hence we get bought off (ironically by paying more) with a bag levy, and perhaps get distracted from pondering any more about what we are buying in the first place.

Here's the latest press release that has popped into my in-box, which I re-print verbatim:

IKEA SAVES 100 MILLION PLASTIC BAGS SINCE 2006 In support of the Daily Mail's campaign to ban the use of all single-use disposable plastic bags, IKEA UK today announced that a total of 100 million plastic bags have been saved since first launching a 10p charge in June 2006 and then a complete phasing out of plastic bags in July 2007. In 2005 IKEA UK gave away 32 million bags. Laid out, they would stretch 19,200 kilometres, or the equivalent of a return journey from London to Tokyo. After a successful two year trial in its Edinburgh store, on World Environment Day in June 2006, IKEA UK announced it was to stop offering free plastic carrier bags to customers introducing a 10p charge for them.� All money raised by the charge of plastic bags was to be donated to the organisation �Community Forests�.� It was part of a three step initiative that included changing the material of standard plastic bags to a biodegradable material and encouraging customers to use reusable bags by reducing the cost of the iconic �big blue bag�. It was estimated that this would reduce plastic bag consumption in IKEA UK stores by 20 million to 12 million bags a year. However, pricing plastic bags at 10p saw a 95% reduction in use to just 1.6 million a year � much higher than ever expected. As a result IKEA UK took the decision that plastic bags were no longer needed and completely removed plastic bags from all stores throughout the UK in July 2007. Charlie Brown, IKEA UK Environment Manager, said: �'It�s fantastic to see other retailers taking such positive steps to minimise plastic bag usage. Our role as retailers is to help customers make small changes that will reduce their environmental impact. Together we have a huge opportunity to make a real difference.'� The phase out of single-use plastic bags follows far-reaching steps already taken by IKEA to reduce energy consumption, cut emissions and to source products from sustainable suppliers.

I must say I stumbled over 'today announcing' something they have been doing for a while, which just shows what the impact of the weight of the Daily Mail readership and M&S PR machine is; all sorts of guys are tripping overthemselves to be first to be second to tell people they were first. Hardly edifying.

And I still don't see how a 10p bag doesn't choke a turtle any more than a 5p one.

The only bit of sensible insight is buried away at the end (highlighted), and at least shows the potential value of this campaign, even though I think it has been orchestrated by the wrong folk in the wrong way for mostly all the wrong reasons. But maybe the end (still unsure on the impact of the alternatives being scattered about) result could yet be worth it. Maybe a few eggs need to be broken for this omelette.

But let's now see who they turn their sights on next, and in what way the mob is directed. Just so long as the enviROI ends up positive, and it's all not just for show and ratings and a short term feel-good for the chattering classes, at the expense of those less able to cope with impositions and costs.... or even the planet.

I just wonder how long the likes of the Daily Mail or M& S will stay true to the overall cause, though both look like riding a hell of a decent wave for now.

But I rather suspect that even if Al Gore invented a $100 wind turbine, if GM offered a free Humvee to every reader or BA a free flight to Hawaii, the paper's front page would look a tad different. And even if editorial did move on to the 'necessity' of cut flowers and New Zealand lamb (ignoring the debate that the carbon consequence of their rearing cancels out the food miles in the shipping vs. buying local), the ad department may have a few words to offer via their client feedback.

Interesting times. What we really need is more positives that serve the consumer process AND the environment. Now, where on earth might we find such a concept? Oh... say... a nice little website that advocates reuse, both from existing packs and, in future, designed-in?

Sadly, I could only open that pack above by destroying it. So no reuse ideas there. I will walk it round the plastics skip, but have litte faith that it will be recycled effectively. Which, at about the equivalent of 50 plastic bags in one shot, is the real concern I have.

Careful what you wish for

I do believe the whole plastic bag thing is now a done deal. Just like any attempt at discussing climate change. At least for reasoned debate. You are either for the ban, or you are an enemy of Gaia. No matter whether it, other in the most simplistic, absolutist terms, might or might not be effective on a few key environmental levels, at least without some other more pressing and vital areas (such as sorting out our woeful waste collection and disposal systems) being addressed first.

Some noisy people have spoken, the media mob has seen a soft target, decided, and it's all over bar the P45s... and possible worse planetary enviROI from the as yet not very clearly explained alternatives (Paper? Much worse for carbon. Biodegradables/compostables? Not really ready to be dealt with properly as yet. Bags for life? Well, yes, but these do seem to be getting rushed out a bit).

No issue that these things are not optimal on about any level, but I'd love such as the Daily Mail to please explain how 'M&S banishing the FREE bag' (today's headline) stops 5p plastic bags getting into the waste stream and choking a turtle. Or at least becoming part of a toxic soup solution. It's mankind's consumerism, and the fact there are an awful lot of us (and growing) consuming ever more, that is pumping ever more crud into the air, land and sea, mostly thoughtlessly or carelessly, that is doing for these precious icons of nature.

And it is driven by a much broader set of entities all complicit in this, including those placing the ads such as those on p24 of the Mail, for M&S, suggesting we dash out and buy Mum a nice bunch of posies (from where?) and chocolates (wrapped in what?). Ditto Tesco on P30. Plus booze. Pampers at Sainsbury’s p18, if you fancy the next cause, guys. I personally support Green Nappies, but not sure what their ad budget is.

But I guess fewer bags might help... maybe along with those in papers that hold the inserts and FREE CDs, etc. And I do notice that on top of the efforts of the Indy and Guardian, the Telegraph today has a FREE 'eco-friendly bag' for each reader... which you need to send off for. Oh, just noticed; the Daily Mail too. What are they giving away next week to persuade us to buy their papers that gets posted back? The container ships (shipping is an issue, too, I imagine, for anything in the sea) from the East must be bulging! Bless.

And in the spirit of jumping bandwagons, as I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show today, there was the delicious irony of one caller in favour of an immediate Planet Ban-it (all anti's selected by being rabid 'who cares about nature' nutters), who had just 'flown in' from her dive business on the Red Sea... and these things were spoiling her UK clients' weekend getaways. Bless. Hope they cycle there and don't use sunscreen (apparently it kills coral).

Yes, things that are harmful to the environment do need to be identified and phased out where alternatives can be found (and maybe even if they cannot). But when the barely informed (I'm still on a steep learning curve ) mob rules, careful what you wish for. Who knows what... or who... may be next in line?

Mail - Marks & Spencer joins The Mail's campaign to Banish the Bags by charging for them

Taking from Peter to fine, well, Peter again

Two interesting examples of modern governance on BBC News this morning, especially with regards to the inevitable fiscal complements.

First up we learn that there is an 'issue' with Doctor's pay. Fewer hours; oodles more dosh. Like... 60% pay rises.

I have no real comment save to chuckle at that made by a BMA rep: 'It's merely the consequence of a contract signed off by the then Chancellor.' Maybe not so prudent then?

But what has inspired this was the news that a railway company is being fined a record amount for failing to deliver a proper service. Fair enough. Hit 'em where it hurts, right? At least the bonusses might take a hit and, who knows, a few numpties may get promoted sideways.

But...

It seems that the money to pay the fine will actually come from the taxpayers, as we are funding the useless load of sods already. And I also wonder where this money actually goes? Better services? Or to pay for ever more parastic entities staffed to the gunnels and tasked to simply look for more ways to keep public money in the system by any means.

And the perfect environment for this trend? You guessed it...

Reuters - Network Rail fined over engineering delays

Rose-tinted reporting

I am awaiting the BBC Breakfast News to wheel out Sir Michael Rose of M&S to share with us the exclusive news that his dealing with the plastic bags issue.

Now, one could wonder why him, again, when many others are already doing so. But hey.

There are a few other matters I wrote to ask in hope we get get reporting rather than propagandising, especially as a few questions were posed by earlier consumers:

Re: Why not biodegradable plastic bags? Why not paper?

Good questions all. Maybe as a retail expert Sir. Stuart Rose can answer?

Or explain how charging 5p prevents a bag getting into the ecosphere and choking a turtle?

I don't know, which is why I'd like answers.

Are you going to feature other industry experts to cover the whole issue?

*ps: I'm trying to find out.

My information so far is biodegradables/compostables require levels of waste system complement that may not make them as effective as they can be.

Paper may actually be worse for the environment, but not for wildlife.

It probably isn't as simple as made out.

ADDENDUM:

Just watched the man himself on the sofa. Interesting. I thought the plastic bag (well, no one quite seems to know what they are banning or bringing in by way of substitute) must be a dead duck by now, at least with the current level of (mostly pretty mis-informed) negative PR.

But, despite being there to plug Plan A, Sir Stuart fought a pretty good corner. Mind you, he was hijacked at the end by the reporters trying to get him to make the simplistic pledge to 'ban' them outright.

His main focus of defence was the customer is king (the issue of packaging waste vs. food waste as a consequence of cuctomer rejection came up), which is well focussed as a sales spiel, but one wonders how it went down with the PR dept. or Sustainability Manager.

What did impress is that he addressed those two questions above. In detail.

He dragged the authorities back into the recycling issue, which I am sure they are trying to duck in this big time. Also he.... at last.... raised the enviROI aspects. Sadly, of course, this is one where the environment may be split between ECO(logical) and Environmental, at least if one still accepts there are ECO(nomic) drivers that are inevitable.

And he also clarified the actual limitations of many bio/compost options, though it's a shame he had no time to explain the difference betwen a landfill, an in-vessel composter and your back yard effort in dealing with them. Pretty key.

As to turtles, I'm guessing biodegradables may well be better as they must fall apart pretty quick, but as to the effect of what they break down into solution on the ecosphere (plastic soup, anyone?) I am not so sure.

All I know is that clear, balanced information on this is noticeable by its absence. You can expect, and dismiss it from the Daily Mail (though I think they have pretty much nailed the coffin of this aspect of the plastics industry with their reach and influence). I expect better from the BBC.

NEWS/Commercial PR - Drinks Co. in charity tree planting partnership!

Another commercial/NGO (well, charity) combo today!

We're not always that keen on the 'whack a fir in the firmament' notion, mainly as most press releases allude to some offsetting... off somewhere.

This one is a bit closer to home... and our hearts.

PR mainly as received, with edits. Check websites for details:

Tree Cheers – Feel Good Drinks in UK charity tree planting partnership!

Feel Good Drinks has teamed up with independent charity, Trees for Cities, for a national year long tree planting partnership. This initiative will see Feel Good Drinks and the charity holding ‘Feel Good Carnival Planting Days’, throughout the year.

Trees for Cities is an independent charity that works to transform urban wasteland into green spaces, by getting the local community involved in the tree planting and educating them on how to sustain the transformed green areas.

As well as tree planting, each carnival planting day will include face painting, live music, football games and loads of arts and crafts, including bird box making! On top of planting 1000 trees, Feel Good Drinks will be supporting the partnership with sampling, digital and PR activity.

The first of the five ‘Feel Good Carnival Planting Days’ kicks off on Saturday 1st March at Braithwaite Park in East London.

More on re-labelling

Recycling concerns beat health on shoppers' agenda

Good on shoppers. But...

Do they have a clue that what they are being told works, or is even accurate...?

'Recyclable' on its own, and without a bunch of other stuff in the loop, is essentially meaningless.

Also while WRAP and some industry brands may be in discussion, there are a ton of others doing their own funky thing and that may be tricky to undo.
So as Mr. Bird says, like the traffic lights/roundel/charts for health, it all becomes a bit of a mess really. But boxes will be ticked!

NEWS/Commercial & NGO PR - CSV Action Earth environmental volunteering campaign

Here's one that has 'thrown' the system!

It's both Commercial and from the Social Enterprise sector, so I have listed it under both.

Another that looks worth rushing out, so it's PR 'as supplied' with only some editing, so all due caveats as always. Though it's pretty clear what is being advocated and you can check through the various weblinks yourselves.

Let's just say Junkk.com will be applying... IF we qualify! Worth a go to us all!!!

CSV Action Earth environmental volunteering campaign

From March 1 2008 - July 31 2008

Supermarket giant Morrisons is giving away cash grants to help the local environment as part of the CSV Action Earth volunteering campaign. Morrisons have agreed to provide £50 grants to 900 voluntary groups across the country to help kick start community environmental projects.

Gillian Hall, Customer Services Director at Morrisons says: "We are pleased that the sponsorship we have given CSV is going to help kick-start many excellent community environmental projects.

Mike Williams, Director of CSV Environment says: "Helping the environment can seem like a monumental task, but volunteering in your local community, whether collecting dumped plastic for recycling, planting trees or clearing up a grotty area is something we can all do. We believe that local people themselves are best placed to decide what needs doing in their area and thanks to Morrisons' grants they can now do something about it."

To register a project and apply for a grant or get more information on CSV Action Earth, call CSV on Tel: 0121 328 7455 or visit www.csv.org.uk/actionearth.

Note: To receive a £50 grant, which covers expenses including materials, projects must:

* improve the local environment,
* involve volunteers,
*or meet a local community need.

Examples of projects completed by volunteers last year include: Planting up a wildlife area in a local school, erecting bird/bat/hedgehog boxes in a nearby wood, cleaning up a local beach and clearing and signing local footpaths.

Reading between the lines

Follwing quickly on from the previous note on targets vs. actual results: Charities criticise npower’s ability to effect green tariff

I must say I stumbled a bit on the headline use of the word, but read on to see what is meant is 'environmental charities', who these days seem mainly around to 'slam' things.

What was of more note is that 'Npower says that it has the facility to supply just 2% of customers with renewable energy.' Hmn.

Which does rather make oen wonder why 'the company is planning to launch a major TV campaign to push its green tariff, Juice'. Is that the one which works/ed with Greenpeace?


But, at least, 'Npower will be spending £100m this year on the Government’s Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT)'.

Bless.

There's also whether they add up

It was about, I believe, drug programmes, but as easily can apply to every aspect of current government policy.

In a rather matter of fact BBC news piece there was the choice insight that 'all that matters is the numbers who sign up, rather than whether anything effective gets done [with them].'

This target-based, box-ticking culture is spiralling us ever downwards.

2nd Use in Action!

Just had in the latest consumer-inspiring creative from those jolly recycling chaps.

Fortunately, it has arrived just as I am preparing my speech for the forthcoming ECOPACK conference on the topic of, well, amongst other things: 'Giving your plastic bottles the chance of becoming something else.

Only... perhaps with a bit more Junkk.com end-benefit and a little RE:tie twist to top it off.

Nice to see the big bucks comm budgets cranking out those award-winners.

RE:VIEW - BOOK - 21st Century Stallholder

OK, I am buying time here.

This is not a review... yet.

The good news is that I intend to do one.

The bad news is that there is a bit of a backlog on the reading and writing front. My bad.

This is a stopgap that hopefully serves to say (mainly to those nice enough to send it) I have it, it looks neat and I look forward to one day soon getting the time to go through it.

At which point this gets revisited and upgraded to an actual review and goes on the site, in the newsletter, etc.

Best I can do!

Better than nothing?

Just watching Sir Richard Branson on Breakfast TV.

Not so keen on reporting what will be said (a new, and rather pointless trend) but one key point we will learn come the press conference later is how his Virgin Atlantic fleet will run a biofuel that will not affect the food chain. This was a major concern of mine.

The FoE has already labelled it a 'gimmick' (mot du jour in politics at the moment, too), but Sir. Richard may have had a pop at them talking on flying to international conferences all the time in 'conventional' planes.

It's a dilemma. On the one hand there is the undoubted contributed of air travel to PMWCC, but then there are the practicalities and realities of commercial air travel.

It will be interesting to see just how real this initiative might be as a mitigation.

I remain unclear as to the contribution made by Virgin Galactic, though.

First posted 24/02 - Addenda:

Telegraph - Algae are fuelling Branson's maiden flight - seems they know something the BBC doesn't.

Also just saw a twofer on the morning show again. The FoE guy did not impress; very dogmatic. There was a travel journalist who did; objective and thoughtful. I see this as an interesting one. All agreed it will make no difference to passnger decision, which is based on price. Plus such as this is a drop in the fuel tank compared with flights only one third full vs. full, 1st & Biz vs. cattle for fuel per passenger mile.

Telegraph - Branson: City to suffer without third runway

BBC - Airline in first biofuel flight

Indy - First biofuel flight dismissed as Virgin stunt - Possibly a new PR agency in the offing? But then, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Guardian - Branson's coconut airways - but jet is on a flight to nowhere, say critics

Gaurdian - Forests cleared for takeoff? - I might have to change the title above. And nice to see Virgin Galactic getting a mention.

Why do you ask? Wanna make something of it???!

I was moved to write to the author by the following: Why are we obsessed with taking offence?

I either made it up, or paraphrase another poorly, but it seems to me that 'if you go looking to be offended, spare you energies; it will soon oblige by coming to find you'.

Sadly, and as a member of the media you must surely acknowledge this, there is now an actual value beyond the emotional 'rewards' that make the search actively promoted as much by the reporting of it.

Seems fair

US to set 'binding' climate goals

Having just slammed what seemed a pretty dubious headline, I thought it only fair that I give praise where due.

And not just to the writer. Without going through the details (yet), the first para indicates the US might have a good point,too.

The US is ready to accept "binding international obligations" on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, officials say, if other nations do the same.

Now, of course, we await the cry of: 'Unleash the weasels!'

Free directory enquiries

0800 100100

Gets my vote.

I like the business model too; it reminds me of another free to user experience near here:)

The headlines don't work*

Which is more accurate in conveying the notion that a bit of research may have a contrary (though possibly worthwhile) view from a team (no matter how 'offical') on the value (or not) of depression medication?:

Effectiveness of antidepressant drugs questioned

Antidepressant drugs don't work – official study

Anti-depressants 'of little use'

Prozac, used by 40m people, does not work say scientists

New anti-depressants 'little effect'

What is wrong with our news media? I have 'contributed' to the BBC, who at least allow the possibility:

'IF' what I read is borne out, this is indeed of serious concern, but is the headline and how this news has been portrayed fair and accurate in conveying the notion that 'a' bit of research may have 'a' contrary (though possibly worthwhile) view from 'a' team (no matter how 'offical') on the value (or not) of depression medication?

Are the entire prescribing medical profession fools or charlatans then? If so, I want my £100kpa back.

So whatever you do read, on anything substantive remember: read long, read broad and don't read anything into anything until you think you might have gained all the relevant facts, and as good a cross-section of opinion as you can to arrive at a well-informed one of your own.

Live by the headlines, links and summaries served up to 'help' us in this time-poor infromation age we live in, and you may get what you deserve.

*With apologies to The Verve

Here to help

I don't mean to single out Morrsions in this, but it just so happens they are where we mostly shop, and they have a (doubtless well-intentioned) pack-recycling labelling policy.

It's just that I, as a consumer, all too often either don't have a clue what they are talking about, find what they are talking about to be daft, or... can DO precious little about what they TALK about. The latter is part of a bigger picture, but then we all need to see this for what it is to address it properly.

These two packs were from last night's meal. The plastic wrappers from a frozen veg and a fresh veg.

One, quite clearly, IS recyclable, though 'facilities may be limited'. In the bin or in the the... er... what again? They carrier bag slot? The binliner hanging off the plastics skip? I don't know.

The other is 'partly' recyclable with all due caveats as above. Being that this initially appeared to be a printed clear plastic bag this was odd. Other than the contents and the bag, what else was there?

Well, irony of ironies, on closer looking there was an extra clear sticker in the mix. A bonded-on effort (why? The rest is custom to contents) whose principle function was to tell me it country of origin. Holland, since you ask.

ps: I went to the recyclenow.com site to find out what to do and where. Maybe it was just me, but when it came to sorting out these babies... nothing leapt out. In the bin liner then.

Public - one for trying.
Business - zero for being anything other than a useless gesture.
Authorities - minus points for wasting so much money on ineffective systems and pointless comms efforts.

Talk about an incentive!

Which, as you know, floats my eco-boat! Try this: Cycling assessed at 20p a mile by IR.

And it's a tad better on the running costs, too. Like £1.08 a litre better, last time I looked.

NEWS/MEDIA PR - The Woman Who Stops Traffic

A new category for when I get a potentially worthy bit of PR about a media event (eg: TV programme) that may be worth a gander.

All the usual caveats as to possible green bandwagon vs. enviROI value apply, I for now simply cut & paste editted highlights as provided.

The Woman Who Stops Traffic

Get On Your Bike to Pledge Regional C02 Emissions Cuts

To coincide with the start of a compelling new three part series – The Woman Who Stops Traffic – Channel 4.com/green is launching an interactive map of the UK to track which region can come out on top for CO2 emission savings.

The online interactive UK map highlights the amount of CO2 emissions people can prevent in their region if they walked, cycled or used public transport to do any daily journey. Users can pledge how many times they will do a journey without the use of the car (based on the output of an average family car) and their CO2 prevention will be added to the map for their region.

The site will go live on the 26 February.

The heroine is one Kris Murrin, who says: “I’m not anti-car. I’ve got three kids. I’m a family of five. I’m not exactly going to be able to do a huge weekly shop on my bike. But the thing that bugs me is that a lot of people get into their car without even thinking ‘Is there another way I could do this journey?’”

May be worth a gander.

CATEGORY - THE GREELEETS

New category. Stands for 'Green Elites', and isn't meant in a good way.

Don't mind anyone with money, power, privilege or media connections caring about the planet.

Do mind, awfully, when it comes across as just more than a little insincere, disconnected from reality, exclusive, up-a-pedestal, self-indulgent, etc...

And more about filling some column inches with one's life to impress one's mates, than any real effort at making a difference. Ok, yah?

Times - A green battle at home

Just wondering... does one know any eco-hapless couples who live in a Midlands flat, but whose weekend options might not have included hunting the lesser-spotted Bruni on the estate?

Nothing like a bit of balance...

...but you can just end up coming down on neither side: Tories ditch green taxes

See, this blog is balanced; we think they are all useless. However, it would be nice to see one of the sorry crew in Westminster (Greens excepted) take a principled stand and stick to it, whilst finding ways to balance the two 'E's (see labels).

Killing two birds with one turtle?

I think I a mixing a saying with the death of a famous Greek, but hey.

Our national broadcaster's commitment to news.. and global warming: Slow news day

Slow.... Tell me about it!

I tuned into BBC Breakfast about 10 times this morning over 90 minutes, and every single time all I ended up with was some BBC brunette airflown in to flounce around the post-Oscar bashes.

It was obviously getting desperate as they they couldn't find any frocks on anyone remotely relevant to talk about, so they decided on talking about hers.... again... and again.

Licence fee issues, what licence fee issues? Climate change? What climate change?

I'm surprised they didn't do the turtle thing (missing irony is pretty common with the BBC when it comes to 'global warming'), but given their commitment to serious journalism I am sure they could have got one on a skateboard eventually.

More talk, and more targets

An interesting article from The Indy, highlighting the fact that the new housing minister, Caroline Flint, will announce later this week that ALL new 'non-domestic' buildings must be zero carbon by 2020. On top of the existing commitment to ensure that all new domestic properties are zero carbon by 2016 (strange, I was convinced that they said 2012 when that was first announced), that's an extremely ambitious target.

Let's see. Targets set by pols tend not to be overtly fixed and have a common habit of changing over time. And I find it rather odd that this sort of announcement comes when the grants system for renewables seems to have been deliberately halted.

By the way, this article suggests that we were wrong about how many new builds had qualified for Ol' Golden's much lauded stamp duty exemption, they reckon it is only three!
_________________________________________
n.b. I will be exhibiting SolarVenti in the Green Shoots Pavilion at the EcoBuild show for most of this week. Peter, I am sure, will continue to dig up interesting items for your perusal whilst I am away.

CATEGORY - Fairtrade

It's seems a tad fraught, at best.

I frankly don't know.

But it seems worth having a new a category to see what's out there and try and get to a view.

Ch4 - Fairtrade: always a better deal?

Telegraph - Is Fairtrade fair?

Telegraph - Fairtrade fails to tackle poverty, report says

Indy - NEW - Fairtrade sales double to £500m as supermarkets join trend

AD - Energy Trust & Direct Gov

As some may know, I spent much of my life as an ad man.

So I know what it takes to get an ad in front of the right audience in the right way.

Beyond the vast amount of (expensive) person hours involved in creation and execution, there is also the huge media spend. Colour pages in Sunday papers do not come cheap.

So in the great enviROI scheme of things, I was just wondering what these two beauties were intended to do, and whether they even came close to doing whatever it was that was actually intended. And whether they were worth the money for a single inseration now decorating the bottom of a parrot cage, when that money could have been better invested, well, anywhere.

I defy anyone to tell me what the Energy Savings Trust one is about and what you are meant to do. The Direct Gov's message is clearer, but I remain unconvinced that this really will have motivated many to, well, do whatever they are on about.

This kind of advertising, at least in this form, is vanity stuff, pure and simple. At best it is serving to add a bit of profile to the various departments in some kind of comms budget p*ssing contest.

But with such executions there are no winners, and by diverting funds from where they could do much more good, there are a load of losers. Us.

Games people play

Just for fun, I popped a comment, somewhat tongue in cheek, into the Andrew Marr show comments section, after a rather, how to say, 'less than challenging' interview with Ken Livingstone. Just to see if they could tell when someone is being utterly ironic, and highlight the value (at least here), of such moderated comments when all you need to attribute is a name and location.

Don't know why they bother with any pretence, when they could pretty much write 'em themselves.

Anyway, it's good to know the London Mayoral leadership will be guided by the likes of the BBC, based not on celebrity or gesture politics or personality attacks, but with the actual records, words and deeds of the candidates and those they have surrounding them investigated thoroughly.

Or, as I neglected to add in my initial post, should I perhaps influence the moderators on its inclusion... not.

Bless.

'Awesome show today. Andrew really took to task and nailed Mr. Livingstone on all his claims, whilst teasing out the substantive issues that truly matter in helping voters make informed political decisions.
Peter, UK'

Mind you, you can never have enough 'support': What's at stake An interesting insight into the value of agenda-driven media (both right and left)

PROF'S POSER - Pixel reviver

I have been told of this rather clever notion which, if it works, seems a worthy mention in Junkk.com's more fromal REPAIR advisories: killdeadpixel

Bascially a means to restimulate dead pixels on a screen.

Before I give it a full blown big-up (which it may deserve), I was wondering if any IT whizzes had a view on possible pros and cons and value.

It's not like this life is working out so well

As my wife is an addict of online community 'Second Life' so this caught my interest: Searching for a new virtual life

I watched the programme, and what really piqued my interest was the notion that some are using such communities for virtual conferences. We're talking teh capacity for hundreds to 'attend', and then break out into groups.

This I find very exciting, especially bearing in mind my oft-cited lack of faith in the plethora of big-ticket mega-conferences, especially enviro-related, that seem to actively promote exclusivity and positively encouarges carbon excess.

I am now pondering this big-time with my notion of a genuine 'People's Gathering' where those that may really have worthy contributions can attend, be heard and contribute.

Cure or kill?

We are very lucky on this blog that, so far, there have been no extremes of posting requiring even a reaction, much less intervention.

As moderator, I am well aware of the responsibility. But also the various threast that exist.

Hence I was interested in this:

Why online communities attract trolls

I have allowed 'Anons' to comment before, mainly because they almost all have had a reasonable contribution. So I am erring on reserving the right to delete (whilst posting I have) without much compunction if someone uses 'anon' to hide behind a more extreme response.

But it seems idealistic to ignore that an adequate definition of what is trolling is hard to arrive at, and 'ignoring' them may be easier to advocate than do.

As I have written:

I must say I am intrigued that there seems to be general consensus that there is a mechanism by which a 'troll' can be identified... and dealt with on either an individual poster and/or moderator basis.

I fear I seem unable to do so, and hence often have to trawl though a load of dross, and counter-dross, to try and arrive at an objective view on what is being discussed.

I envy those who can short-cut the process.

CATEGORY - IDEAS SITES

Just had a few nice folk sign up on Junkk.com (despite our money-strapped, UK-centric registration) as a result of a nice post in a nice blog/site.

What better excuse to start a new category by listing it, (and, in time, all others I come across/get told about). Least I can do:

craftser - US-based. Broad spread of craft-based ideas. Nice search facility.
make - NEW

More depressing predictions ........

..... this time from a report allegedly leaked from the Pentagon and obtained by The Observer.

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world."

"'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life'."

The odd thing is that the Pentagon officials appear to be trying very hard to move Dubbya from his head in the sand (or should that be head up the *****'s of big oil?) standpoint on climate change and its potential influences on the population of our little lump of planetary rock.

"You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars"

I find many of these predictive reports a little scary, although I guess most of them really do attempt to forecast the worst possible scenario. But if this report genuinely originates from the Pentagon, then I find this one very worrying.

The other odd thing is the the report predicts that Britain will be gripped in a rising sea level problem whilst being gripped in a 'Siberian' climate. That suggests that scientists at the Pentagon are predicting that the Gulf Stream will cease.

While the planet warms, we will fall into ever warmer and drier summers, but with bitterly cold, freezing winters. It doesn't sound too good does it?

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Friggin' in the riggin'

Another from today's Newswatch...

Some snitty editor trying to weasel out of an enquiry as to why the nation's broadcaster managed to fail to cover the Chancellor's press conference at The Treasury (you'd have thunk they might have thought getting the BBC there might have been a plan. They certainly seem good at getting them on site with much less pressing issues of public concern, such as PM pontifications on football managers) on Northern Rock:

"It's hard to rig a press conference".

Oh, I don't know. They seem to do pretty well most of the time.

An insight into how we get our news

Just watched the BBC's high-profile (Not) mea-culpa progamme, Newswatch.

Moderated by 'Uncle Ray' Snoddy, there was a lady viewer/scientist on with one of the customary cabal of defensive News editors.

Boy, was she focussed. And boy, was he inadequate.

The issue was the reporting of a Govt. report on dealing with the health consequences of a warmer climate (different to 'global warming'). Bascially the BBC had managed to get this as two completely differing takes, depending on when and where one looked.

Ignoring the actual ramifications of basic premise this lady had, that it would be nice to hear some good news as we all know the bad stuff, I was frankly appalled at this editor's explanations and excuses.

For a start he seemed pretty clear that the BBC will mess with facts in any way it feels necessary, and somehow it's all OK as the viewer needs to flit between headlines and subsequent text, but also what's on broadcast screen and online, to try and arrive at what the actual situation is/might be.

Frinakly I am getting to the point that news has about as much value as fiction, let alone reasonable debate. As a public service they are totally compromised.

Has fish had its chips?

Well, it looks increasingly likely over the coming decades, according to this from Reuters.

Whilst we mentioned both the increasing numbers of dead zones and the proportion of the oceans affected by man on this blog only recently, this report suggests that "Climate change has compounded previous problems such as over-fishing, as rising temperatures kill coral reefs, threaten tuna spawning grounds, and shift ocean currents and with them the plankton and small fish which underpin ocean food chains."

"A deadly combination of climate change, over-fishing and pollution could cause the collapse of commercial fish stocks worldwide within decades"

Given that some 2.6 Billion of our planet's population pretty much depend on fish protein, things don't look too promising, do they?

I suppose they could always eat corn and wheat etc instead. Oh, I forgot, where such crops do continue to grow, they'll be using all spare output to make stuff to run cars on. I think I feel a bit of a dilemma coming on somewhere down the road.

Everything is relative

Just ask the Ancient Pharoahs where it got 'em!

Not quite how to categorise this: Porsche launches second attack on congestion charge rise

Having a dirty great 4x4 Cayenne Turbo in Islington is not perhaps the most eco-laundable thing in the world. So no great sympathy there.

Nor is thrashing around looking for another mode of transport to drag into the mire with you, as airlines are trying on with shipping now. But oh, the irony... 'The German car marque claims the amount of emissions saved in a year as a result of the charge will be equal to the emissions produced at Heathrow Airport in less than four hours.'

However, my greater concern is priorities. And that stat, if proven, speaks volumes about where our leaders' brains are at in seriously dealing with things rather than dicking around with showboat Planet Ban-Its.

LONDON - First business kerbside collection service for WEEE and batteries

This is a new category to tie-in with Junkk.com's postcode localisation facilities.

It's a pretty much posted 'as is/maybe a bit edited' press release, but as it's so what I want to see and share I can see no reason to get it up and out asap:

First business kerbside collection service in the UK for WEEE and batteries

The Enhance business support programme has helped instigate First Mile’s unique successful business kerbside waste collection service for waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and batteries.

First Mile is recruiting about ten new clients a day, since it launched the service in December 2007. It now has about 200 businesses using its new service.

Bruce Bratley, managing director, First Mile, said: “We want to get every SME in London recycling by 2010. That may sound a tall order, but it’s easy with First Mile’s services. ”

First Mile’s popular collection service provides London businesses with a package of storage sacks: a box of five WEEE sacks – £25 each – and one for dry cell batteries – £20 each. The sacks have been specially designed for heavy, rigid materials and can hold up to 25kg. Bulky WEEE is also collected; businesses simply slap a sticker (£25 each) on the item and call First Mile to collect the items outside their premises.

First Mile provides customers with consignment notes for hazardous waste and duty of care for all waste collected. Staff at First Mile are also undergoing training to separate the collected WEEE into equipment that can be reused or recycled.

EC Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE Directive) aims to minimise the impact of electrical and electronic goods on the environment, by increasing re-use and recycling and reducing the amount of WEEE going to landfill. It seeks to achieve this by making producers responsible for financing the collection, treatment, and recovery of waste electrical equipment, and by obliging distributors to allow consumers to return their waste equipment free of charge.
The WEEE Directive entered into force in the UK on 2 January 2007 with full producer responsibility from 1 July 2007.
www.berr.gov.uk/sectors/sustainability/weee/page30269.html

The Batteries Directive

The Batteries Directive was published in the Official Journal on 26 September 2006. The UK and all other Member States now have a deadline of 26 September 2008 to transpose the provisions into national law.
The Directive seeks to improve the environmental performance of batteries and accumulators and of the activities of all economic operators involved in the life cycle of batteries and accumulators, eg producers, distributors and end users and, in particular, those operators directly involved in the treatment and recycling of waste batteries and accumulators.
When the Directive is transposed in the UK, the Directive will reduce the quantity of hazardous and non hazardous waste batteries going to landfill and increase the recovery of the materials they contain.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/topics/batteries/index.htm

Links:

First Mile
First Mile provides easy recycling sacks for mixed waste, IT & electronics, batteries and confidential destruction. It also provides low cost, no hassle rubbish collections.
All prices include sacks, delivery, collection, disposal, recycling and compliance.

Enhance
Enhance is the support service for green enterprises in London. It helps develop businesses and social enterprises that reduce London’s waste, reuse resources or work with recycled materials.

London Development Agency (LDA)
The London Development Agency (LDA) works to improve the quality of life for all Londoners and drive sustainable economic growth.

London Remade
London Remade is in the business of recycling, creating environmental solutions for a sustainable capital.

London Community Recycling Network (LCRN)
LCRN is dedicated to supporting and promoting community-based sustainable waste management activities, and make them the preferred solution – financially, socially and environmentally .

A Cautionary IT tale

Spam is a pain. A royal nuisance.

And there's a lot that can be done to deal with it.

Some useful. Some... less so.

Despite the vast amount I get, my personal preference is still to deal with it myself. Select a sender or topic column at the end of the day, highlight and hit delete. Usually catches a good 90% in one big net. And the few one-offs you can scope and zap in a blink.

Trouble is, some get their knickers in a twist at just one errant email. And because they scream like neutered cats, a load of folk, from government dow... up, a ton of folk like to meddle on our behalf.

Which means beyond my personal setting on my PC, there are additional intercepts prior to anything arriving at Junkk Towers, at the ISP.

Now it seems there are levels of severity that incoming emails can be challenged upon, with all sorts of clever gizmos to spot a Viagra sale or organ extension a mile, or at least 9" away.

Thing is, these keep getting 'upped', I presume because the spammers are getting cleverer at dodging 'em.

And becuase of this, you might find that something you wouldn't have minded seeing, or even expected, gets whacked before arrival... and you won't know it. Serious if it is a person to person email, but eqaully a pain - all round - if it is a newsletter you have signed up for (like the forthcoming Junkk.com effort..... don't ask).

I only became aware of this because I realised I was no longer getting the BBC daily... after several weeks!!! No comment on its value, becuase it is of great value... at least to stimulate a line of enquiry.

So I checked, and yes, it was now dormant becuase it was bouncing. So I asked my ISP and no, I couldn't see what was being bounced (and had been without me being asked or even told), but I could request a white list exemption. BBC now back in the fold.

Not very satisfactory, and a bit of a worry. And now I am trying to figure out what else I might not be getting (it's a bit like proving a negative) to get them approved, too.

So.. bear it in mind. And any who have signed up for the Junkk.com newsletter... when it comes... soon... please ensure every mechanism to deafult stop it has been forwarned not to!

If this wasn't so funny.....

....... it would actually be rather sad. And I know it's not really enviro, but this just has to be seen to be believed.

I am talking about this from the Labour Party, extolling what they believe are their top 50 achievements since coming to power in 1997.

But, not a single mention of the removal of horrendous regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, nor any mention of the fantastic humanitarian relief efforts undertaken in places like Kossovo, Sierra Leone, plus many locations affected by the tsunami etc. And peace in N. Ireland? Relegated to a comment about devolved power (No. 26). Successfully bidding for the olympics? Not mentioned!

If you want to blow your own trumpet, then feel free to do so, but please include things that are genuinely worthy and please tell the truth. E.g. No 25, 'on course to exceed our kyoto target'!! Get real!!

Nos 1,2,5,6,7 for a start - surely you are taking the proverbial with these?

And absolutely no mention of Northern Wreck, Sleaze, Back-handers, Peerages for donations, dodgy donations, record levels of taxation, record amounts of red tape and numbers of bureaucrats etc. etc., anywhere to be seen! And stealthily getting the UK into the new EU constitution without a referendum? Now that really has been an achievement!

Sorry, but this list appears to me not to be a list of successful achievements at all, it's a list of successful box ticking and bean counting exercises where theoretical 'targets' have been 'met'.

I despair!


1. Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 60s.
Ha Ha Ha! Only by taking mortgage and fuel costs out of the calculation!
2. Low mortgage rates.
Ha Ha Ha!
3. Introduced the National Minimum Wage and raised it to £5.52.

4. Over 14,000 more police in England and Wales.
So where are they all then?
5. Cut overall crime by 32 per cent.
Ha Ha Ha!
6. Record levels of literacy and numeracy in schools.
Ha Ha Ha!
7. Young people achieving some of the best ever results at 14, 16, and 18.
Ha Ha Ha!
8. Funding for every pupil in England has doubled.

9. Employment is at its highest level ever.
By massaging the figures!
10. Written off up to 100 per cent of debt owed by poorest countries.

11. 85,000 more nurses.
So, just why is there still a shortage of nurses? Where have they all gone?
12. 32,000 more doctors.

13. Brought back matrons to hospital wards.
Anybody spotted one yet?
14. Devolved power to the Scottish Parliament.

15. Devolved power to the Welsh Assembly.

16. Dads now get paternity leave of 2 weeks for the first time.

17. NHS Direct offering free convenient patient advice.

18. Gift aid was worth £828 million to charities last year.

19. Restored city-wide government to London.

20. Record number of students in higher education.
And a record number leaving in the first year! Not to mention thousands leaving with huge debts that will take them decades to pay off because of the 'successful' student loan scheme!
21. Child benefit up 26 per cent since 1997.

22. Delivered 2,200 Sure Start Children’s Centres.

23. Introduced the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

24. £200 winter fuel payment to pensioners & up to £300 for over-80s.

25. On course to exceed our Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Now you are really taking the pi**!!
26. Restored devolved government to Northern Ireland.
What about achieving peace over there? That really is worth shouting about!
27. Over 36,000 more teachers in England and 274,000 more support staff and teaching assistants.

28. All full time workers now have a right to 24 days paid holiday.

29. A million pensioners lifted out of poverty.
?
30. 600,000 children lifted out of relative poverty.
?
31. Introduced child tax credit giving more money to parents.
Which is so complex, most people don't even claim it!
32. Scrapped Section 28 and introduced Civil Partnerships.

33. Brought over 1 million social homes up to standard.
Errrr, where exactly?
34. Inpatient waiting lists down by over half a million since 1997.
!!
35. Banned fox hunting.
Which continues anyway.
36. Cleanest rivers, beaches, drinking water and air since before the industrial revolution.
With labour contributing what over the last 10 years?
37. Free TV licences for over-75s.

38. Banned fur farming and the testing of cosmetics on animals.

39. Free breast cancer screening for all women aged between 50-70.

40. Free off peak local bus travel for over-60s.

41. New Deal - helped over 1.8 million people into work.

42. Over 3 million child trust funds have been started.

43. Free eye test for over 60s.
Errr, hasn't this always has been so?
44. More than doubled the number of apprenticeships.

45. Free entry to national museums and galleries.

46. Overseas aid budget more than doubled.

47. Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 and cancer deaths down by 50,000.

48. Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75 per cent.

49. Free nursery places for every three and four-year-olds.

50. Free fruit for most four to six-year-olds at school.

Addendum

Telegraph - They forgot about the smoking ban! - Are these Labour's top achievements? (see 50 Comments) - Well, it wan't going to be in the Gaurdian I guess.