From Glastonbury's Michael Eavis:
'...if you switched off everything that created carbon, we'd be bored to tears.'
Enough, indeed, for me to add the label below of 'The Two E's'.
But something I wish a few who would impose their rather utopian, and indeed often selective, view on matters green would pause to consider.
The tricky part, of course, is at what point we switch from acceptably not being bored and unacceptably consuming to excess. And who sets, or thinks they should set that tipping point, and to what degree of consistency and fairness.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Why such stupidity?
That was my initial and pretty much only thought on reading this from The Telegraph yesterday. But the story sort of stayed stuck in the back of my mind, and I feel moved to comment on it.
The strange thing about the arson attack is that it appears it was carried out by ELF [Earth Liberation Front], an ultra extreme green faction that seems to regard destruction and arson as reasonable political weapons, yet the target was a set of 'environmentally friendly' new buildings.
Now I could sort of vaguely get my head around it, but still never condone it, if they were targeting things like petrol stations or oil refineries and the like; but to burn down new houses built to a quite high eco standard is just insanity! It's eco-terrorism of the worst and most stupid kind. Sorry, but groups like ELF are a major millstone to the vast majority of people with 'green' leanings and I, like many others I am sure, can never countenance wanton destruction in the name of green politics.
So, to any groups like ELF; please go away and leave the stage to people with brains, common sense and some scrap of human decency. Displays of such stupid, wanton and unnecessary destruction means you are basically unfit to call yourself human beings.
Addendum (from Junkk Male) - Worth adding this post, and the responses it got (the notion seems to be that something needs to be done, but when it comes to doing it is seldom creating positives that get first priority, in favour of primarily non-action-related negatives) , as it is related: Enough Pious Eco-Snobbery - But What Next?
The strange thing about the arson attack is that it appears it was carried out by ELF [Earth Liberation Front], an ultra extreme green faction that seems to regard destruction and arson as reasonable political weapons, yet the target was a set of 'environmentally friendly' new buildings.
Now I could sort of vaguely get my head around it, but still never condone it, if they were targeting things like petrol stations or oil refineries and the like; but to burn down new houses built to a quite high eco standard is just insanity! It's eco-terrorism of the worst and most stupid kind. Sorry, but groups like ELF are a major millstone to the vast majority of people with 'green' leanings and I, like many others I am sure, can never countenance wanton destruction in the name of green politics.
So, to any groups like ELF; please go away and leave the stage to people with brains, common sense and some scrap of human decency. Displays of such stupid, wanton and unnecessary destruction means you are basically unfit to call yourself human beings.
Addendum (from Junkk Male) - Worth adding this post, and the responses it got (the notion seems to be that something needs to be done, but when it comes to doing it is seldom creating positives that get first priority, in favour of primarily non-action-related negatives) , as it is related: Enough Pious Eco-Snobbery - But What Next?
Glimmers of sense, if not hope
Crunch time for social enterprises
A great piece, with some excellent links. Thank you.
A few years back I was invited as a guest at one of these shindigs. Usual suspects. Different minister. Same platitudes.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/08/asking-for-thirds.html
I wasn't there (see below), but one thing that I do sense has not moved on is the acknowledgement of those in high office of the sheer breadth and scope that can be brought under this vast umbrella that is 'social enterprise', or even if anyone has yet managed to come up with a decent definition of what one actually is. Maybe that is the problem, there cannot be 'one'. Especially as we all, inevitably, end up competing to survive.
Because I for one find it very hard to lump together those doing invaluable work with, say, drug addicted street kids - which by any measure hardly seems a consumer group likely to lead to a self-sustaining business model any time soon - and compare it with what I'm up to. And that can have an effect. It does often rather feel that the truly vocational are also placed side by side with those who have a for-profit model when it comes to awards and funding, but with unspoken agendas at play which can lead to vast commitments of time and funds which often stand no chance of success from the off.
I had a rummage and some might find this - a purely personal view from one at the sharp (and, it seems, usually wrong) end interesti... well, another view, at least:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/beam-me-up.html
There is a lot of good to be done, and businesses to be run, successfully, doing it, but I do fear that at the moment the thrust of support and guidance given is not from the best qualified or able, and even if with the best intentions, perhaps not with the best results. Especially in terms of value for money/ROI to those doing the investing or those in theory intended to benefit.
Addendum:
SEC - Response to BERR's enterprise strategy
A great piece, with some excellent links. Thank you.
A few years back I was invited as a guest at one of these shindigs. Usual suspects. Different minister. Same platitudes.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/08/asking-for-thirds.html
I wasn't there (see below), but one thing that I do sense has not moved on is the acknowledgement of those in high office of the sheer breadth and scope that can be brought under this vast umbrella that is 'social enterprise', or even if anyone has yet managed to come up with a decent definition of what one actually is. Maybe that is the problem, there cannot be 'one'. Especially as we all, inevitably, end up competing to survive.
Because I for one find it very hard to lump together those doing invaluable work with, say, drug addicted street kids - which by any measure hardly seems a consumer group likely to lead to a self-sustaining business model any time soon - and compare it with what I'm up to. And that can have an effect. It does often rather feel that the truly vocational are also placed side by side with those who have a for-profit model when it comes to awards and funding, but with unspoken agendas at play which can lead to vast commitments of time and funds which often stand no chance of success from the off.
I had a rummage and some might find this - a purely personal view from one at the sharp (and, it seems, usually wrong) end interesti... well, another view, at least:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/beam-me-up.html
There is a lot of good to be done, and businesses to be run, successfully, doing it, but I do fear that at the moment the thrust of support and guidance given is not from the best qualified or able, and even if with the best intentions, perhaps not with the best results. Especially in terms of value for money/ROI to those doing the investing or those in theory intended to benefit.
Addendum:
SEC - Response to BERR's enterprise strategy
Paranoia, and KNOWING there's sod all you can do
It's a bit of a rant, but with a glimmer of a sensible point inside.
I just had a gander at a major social enterprise award I entered yonks ago.
It is heading for the finals, so the publicity machine is well and truly out.
So I was checking the semi-finalists in the several categories to try and see what's 'in' and what's 'no-win' when it comes to judges and/or funders.
Now there were the usual highly local magazines and groups, which are fine, but often seem a stretch when it comes to the expandability and sustainability criteria that mostly, and sensibly (if more in theory than practice) get imposed.
But what brought me up short were two entries, which were pretty much exactly what I had put in as developments of Junkk.com in need, and worthy of support. Not brand new by any means, but with unique twists that really made them seem different. One in the area of reuse matchmaking and the other in car sharing.
Now it's all pretty academic, and of course any good idea can be matched and/or pipped by the same one.
But it did get me to wondering about the actual levels of protection and degrees of confidentiality one might need vs. get in such cases. You only go in for such things because you need help, but how often does one apply the same level of non-disclosure as one would to, say, an investor?
Tricky, as in most cases one is not talking a 'thing' that you can patent or trademark or copyright, and a good idea is only as good as you getting it to market first.
I just had a gander at a major social enterprise award I entered yonks ago.
It is heading for the finals, so the publicity machine is well and truly out.
So I was checking the semi-finalists in the several categories to try and see what's 'in' and what's 'no-win' when it comes to judges and/or funders.
Now there were the usual highly local magazines and groups, which are fine, but often seem a stretch when it comes to the expandability and sustainability criteria that mostly, and sensibly (if more in theory than practice) get imposed.
But what brought me up short were two entries, which were pretty much exactly what I had put in as developments of Junkk.com in need, and worthy of support. Not brand new by any means, but with unique twists that really made them seem different. One in the area of reuse matchmaking and the other in car sharing.
Now it's all pretty academic, and of course any good idea can be matched and/or pipped by the same one.
But it did get me to wondering about the actual levels of protection and degrees of confidentiality one might need vs. get in such cases. You only go in for such things because you need help, but how often does one apply the same level of non-disclosure as one would to, say, an investor?
Tricky, as in most cases one is not talking a 'thing' that you can patent or trademark or copyright, and a good idea is only as good as you getting it to market first.
Nuclear power!
That's the only realistic way forward according to this most surprising of sources, The Guardian.
The piece is quite well argued and I find it difficult to disagree with the author. But, I'm staggered to see that it's in The Guardian, a bastion of the anti-nuclear lobby! It's a good job that it is not on CIF, there would be the most horrendous set of ranting posts building up already!
Perhaps, in Bob Dylan's words, 'the times, they are a-changing'?
The piece is quite well argued and I find it difficult to disagree with the author. But, I'm staggered to see that it's in The Guardian, a bastion of the anti-nuclear lobby! It's a good job that it is not on CIF, there would be the most horrendous set of ranting posts building up already!
Perhaps, in Bob Dylan's words, 'the times, they are a-changing'?
Meanwhile, much more importantly...
There's a little slot at the end of the BBC morning news.
It's reserved for Yummy Mummies (and, it seems, dozy, slobby, homeworking Dads) having a wee moment having kicked the kids off to school, the spouse to real work and just finshed sorting the debris all this has left.
It's usually celeb-lite time.
But, in keeping with Auntie's new civic awareness, the PR's pushing their clients forward usually need a bit more to sweetn the deal than they act in some soap. And a cause is always a good one. I just wish all concerned were not so naked in what the real reasons for appearing are, and scoot so superficially over the theoretical actual reason for them being on.
So today we had one Tamsin Outhwaite on matters 'green'. I seem to recall her being on in this regard before*, so she has a bit of form. But for a moment it looked promising. Something about green heroes and awards, and a woman in Wandsworth who has created a site called Nappy Valley to help with reuse (Good luck. I rather think that, as with JunkkYard, FreeCycle has kind of been there and done it).
But before I could jot anything down it was on to her new TV series, a gritty drama based....
Which is, I'm betting, what the site will be on about (actually, it's on ITV, so maybe not), rather than sharing her insights on not leaving the TV on standby, not having a bath, etc.
*Addendum - found it. To be fair, the same cause. Different, though brand new, career event though.
It's reserved for Yummy Mummies (and, it seems, dozy, slobby, homeworking Dads) having a wee moment having kicked the kids off to school, the spouse to real work and just finshed sorting the debris all this has left.
It's usually celeb-lite time.
But, in keeping with Auntie's new civic awareness, the PR's pushing their clients forward usually need a bit more to sweetn the deal than they act in some soap. And a cause is always a good one. I just wish all concerned were not so naked in what the real reasons for appearing are, and scoot so superficially over the theoretical actual reason for them being on.
So today we had one Tamsin Outhwaite on matters 'green'. I seem to recall her being on in this regard before*, so she has a bit of form. But for a moment it looked promising. Something about green heroes and awards, and a woman in Wandsworth who has created a site called Nappy Valley to help with reuse (Good luck. I rather think that, as with JunkkYard, FreeCycle has kind of been there and done it).
But before I could jot anything down it was on to her new TV series, a gritty drama based....
Which is, I'm betting, what the site will be on about (actually, it's on ITV, so maybe not), rather than sharing her insights on not leaving the TV on standby, not having a bath, etc.
*Addendum - found it. To be fair, the same cause. Different, though brand new, career event though.
'Green gold' or problems untold?
Neat headline from a decent and objective analysis of biofuels from CNN International, that clearly and concisely provides a great deal of useful information without the hysterics that our British media tend to add in.
If you take natural habitat and convert it to growing crops for biofuel, it's all about carbon debt that ensues. Some are obviously unacceptable.
"The worst land to convert is tropical peatland rainforest (creating a carbon debt of 840 years) or Amazonian rainforest (320 years) with the lowest carbon debt of 17 years created by converting the wetter woodland-savannahs of Brazil's Cerrado."
Well worth a perusal.
If you take natural habitat and convert it to growing crops for biofuel, it's all about carbon debt that ensues. Some are obviously unacceptable.
"The worst land to convert is tropical peatland rainforest (creating a carbon debt of 840 years) or Amazonian rainforest (320 years) with the lowest carbon debt of 17 years created by converting the wetter woodland-savannahs of Brazil's Cerrado."
Well worth a perusal.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Volt face?
How to earn money from your roof
Sadly, I am finding anything originating with our government, even if it arrives having passed through multiple eminent media organs, to be immediately suspect - especially if it is transmitted as '...under proposals to be announced'.
When it's '...commitments that have now been honoured and initiated' I'll take note and cheer.
A while ago the majors and then even the local media told me that secondary schools (like ours) would be offering our kids Mandarin. Then... nothing. So I checked to see what progress there was, only to be told that they were having trouble finding enough teachers to handle French, let alone another, more complex language. In fact I was made to feel silly for not realising that such guff is put out with no intention of delivery, and is mostly copied from a press release and left unchallenged by most media with pages to fill, as all assume it just gets forgotten about anyway.
I also concern myself that if 'Householders will be able to make money by fitting solar panels or mini wind turbines to their roofs, under proposals to be announced in the Budget next week', I do trust the various pros and cons will be clearly shared to ensure the 'long-term financial security to homeowners who instal the expensive electricity generation equipment.' promises are deliverable.
No way to run a country. Or a coherent renewable energy policy. Or, too often, the odd medium.
Sadly, I am finding anything originating with our government, even if it arrives having passed through multiple eminent media organs, to be immediately suspect - especially if it is transmitted as '...under proposals to be announced'.
When it's '...commitments that have now been honoured and initiated' I'll take note and cheer.
A while ago the majors and then even the local media told me that secondary schools (like ours) would be offering our kids Mandarin. Then... nothing. So I checked to see what progress there was, only to be told that they were having trouble finding enough teachers to handle French, let alone another, more complex language. In fact I was made to feel silly for not realising that such guff is put out with no intention of delivery, and is mostly copied from a press release and left unchallenged by most media with pages to fill, as all assume it just gets forgotten about anyway.
I also concern myself that if 'Householders will be able to make money by fitting solar panels or mini wind turbines to their roofs, under proposals to be announced in the Budget next week', I do trust the various pros and cons will be clearly shared to ensure the 'long-term financial security to homeowners who instal the expensive electricity generation equipment.' promises are deliverable.
No way to run a country. Or a coherent renewable energy policy. Or, too often, the odd medium.
Return to sender
Dilemma time again.The mail has just arrived, and it was telling that the majority of it was from those, in theory, on the side of green. And unsolicited.
So a few things did stand out more.
First up, it seemed necessary to send us stuff by mail. Maybe they didn't have our emails, but this was erring on the excessive, especially as both were essentially pitching for money, either to 'the cause' by filling out and sending back a survey (FoE) or via a free magazine copy to try and get us to sign up for a sub.
Which brings me to the importance of list management. Not always easy, but both did come 'a deux', which is what rather made my eyebrow raise.
Insane?
Every now and again you find something that attempts justification which is very difficult to comprehend, occasionally you come across something where such attempted justification appears insane. This from Reuters is one such. It attempts to justify whaling because the CO2 emissions associated with whaling are less than those associated with rearing beef!
What's next? Someone suggesting cannibalism as a low CO2 emission activity? Mind you, (tongue firmly in cheek), the planet is rather overpopulated isn't it?
Whale meat again,..... don't know where,.... don't know when..........
What's next? Someone suggesting cannibalism as a low CO2 emission activity? Mind you, (tongue firmly in cheek), the planet is rather overpopulated isn't it?
Whale meat again,..... don't know where,.... don't know when..........
The friend of my enemy is no longer my friend?
The green betrayal
It needed commentary.
Sorry to be flip, but I did wonder to what extent our media report on government based on stances taken in other media.
Because I do suspect that while he may have scored a hit with a greater readership (if not votership), our Dear Leader's grasping the nettle of the massive environmental issue that is plastic bags may have not gone down quite as well elsewhere as it did in the Daily Mail.
Rightly so. And though the audience base in papers such as the Indy does not compare, their front pages do get a lot of on-air profile.
And that headline doesn't mince words.
What is worrying is what follows - Green lobby turns on Government over failure to curb air and road travel - as that smacks of something divisive, which often means divide and, well, if not rule, fail to persuade.
However, the facts are clear, and don't make impressive reading, especially for a spin-obsessed government.
Trying to balance environmental imperatives and economic drivers is not an enviable task, but may trying to appear (whilst cynically not even attempting to 'be') all things to all people, such substance-lite, spin-over-decision fudge (what I think you get trying to mix Brown and green) is proving to be nothing to anyone.
Indy - Brown bowls a no-ball - Read and weep. This is what our national followership has brought us to.
Indy - Darling has the chance to practise what he preaches - Note the last section.
Indy - Rural dwellers are the victims of betrayal - And no one said it would be easy. Most eco-initiatives, especially regarding making us pay to travel (which we are either forced by circumstance, or addicted to) will hit hardest where?
It needed commentary.
Sorry to be flip, but I did wonder to what extent our media report on government based on stances taken in other media.
Because I do suspect that while he may have scored a hit with a greater readership (if not votership), our Dear Leader's grasping the nettle of the massive environmental issue that is plastic bags may have not gone down quite as well elsewhere as it did in the Daily Mail.
Rightly so. And though the audience base in papers such as the Indy does not compare, their front pages do get a lot of on-air profile.
And that headline doesn't mince words.
What is worrying is what follows - Green lobby turns on Government over failure to curb air and road travel - as that smacks of something divisive, which often means divide and, well, if not rule, fail to persuade.
However, the facts are clear, and don't make impressive reading, especially for a spin-obsessed government.
Trying to balance environmental imperatives and economic drivers is not an enviable task, but may trying to appear (whilst cynically not even attempting to 'be') all things to all people, such substance-lite, spin-over-decision fudge (what I think you get trying to mix Brown and green) is proving to be nothing to anyone.
Indy - Brown bowls a no-ball - Read and weep. This is what our national followership has brought us to.
Indy - Darling has the chance to practise what he preaches - Note the last section.
Indy - Rural dwellers are the victims of betrayal - And no one said it would be easy. Most eco-initiatives, especially regarding making us pay to travel (which we are either forced by circumstance, or addicted to) will hit hardest where?
GREENSTRETCHING
I thought I'd float it.
It's another 'green'-prefixed descriptor that might be applied to behaviour (often of the celeb kind) when 'greenwashing' or 'greencloaking' as applied to products/services and their pr/marketing messages really doesn't apply.
I can actually see it as part of a sequence, starting with 'greenspinning' and maybe ending with 'greensnapping'?
What has inspired this?
Well, it was just watching the BBC News with HRH Prince Charles, missus and entourage on their latest visit (I am sure there is a better word for its function) to somewhere a long way away, hot and sunny.
Anyway, it seems the big news is that to make the effort more eco, and PR it in that way, they are going to tour the area in a yacht.
So... let's get this straight. In the unlikely event I win the lottery (or RE:tie inspires a big cheque next week) and fulfill my dream of a Greek Island-hopping holiday (several years either in a wet tent or visiting relatives beginning to pall), I can actually claim I've gone eco because a bit of it is swanning about on a boat with sails?
It's another 'green'-prefixed descriptor that might be applied to behaviour (often of the celeb kind) when 'greenwashing' or 'greencloaking' as applied to products/services and their pr/marketing messages really doesn't apply.
I can actually see it as part of a sequence, starting with 'greenspinning' and maybe ending with 'greensnapping'?
What has inspired this?
Well, it was just watching the BBC News with HRH Prince Charles, missus and entourage on their latest visit (I am sure there is a better word for its function) to somewhere a long way away, hot and sunny.
Anyway, it seems the big news is that to make the effort more eco, and PR it in that way, they are going to tour the area in a yacht.
So... let's get this straight. In the unlikely event I win the lottery (or RE:tie inspires a big cheque next week) and fulfill my dream of a Greek Island-hopping holiday (several years either in a wet tent or visiting relatives beginning to pall), I can actually claim I've gone eco because a bit of it is swanning about on a boat with sails?
A name only a mother (of 4) could love
EU directive to ban BOGOF promotions
This... is a dilemma.
As any who read this will know, I am not exactly pro-ban, especially when it comes to peripheral tinkering, but here's a case where market forces seem to be at odds with genuine enviROI common sense. Leaving what... as an alternative?
We have a normal (well..) family of four. And we do like our fruit and veg. So on my big weekly shop and the odd mid-weekers I am always on the hunt for a bargain. And, by any measure, BOGOF might be tempting.
Thing is, we have noticed that two nets of satsumas usually does not get consumed before the last few have gone West.
What to do...what to do?
It really seems there are no winners here. Well, save the supermarketers, who must do it because it works. But if it was possible, I'd vote for half price on smaller portions guys.
All that said, reading the thrust of the piece, the main issue seems to be the use, or not, of the word 'free'. With the only outcome being the end of an unlovely acronym.
This... is a dilemma.
As any who read this will know, I am not exactly pro-ban, especially when it comes to peripheral tinkering, but here's a case where market forces seem to be at odds with genuine enviROI common sense. Leaving what... as an alternative?
We have a normal (well..) family of four. And we do like our fruit and veg. So on my big weekly shop and the odd mid-weekers I am always on the hunt for a bargain. And, by any measure, BOGOF might be tempting.
Thing is, we have noticed that two nets of satsumas usually does not get consumed before the last few have gone West.
What to do...what to do?
It really seems there are no winners here. Well, save the supermarketers, who must do it because it works. But if it was possible, I'd vote for half price on smaller portions guys.
All that said, reading the thrust of the piece, the main issue seems to be the use, or not, of the word 'free'. With the only outcome being the end of an unlovely acronym.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
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?
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?
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?
Monday, March 03, 2008
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
"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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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
Sunday, March 02, 2008
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
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!
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!
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.
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.
Friday, February 29, 2008
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?
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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
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.
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.
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!'
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:)
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
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.
Monday, February 25, 2008
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
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
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?
"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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)