A few thank you's

The ECOPACK '08 show at which Junkk.com exhibited and I was a speaker ended yesterday afternoon.

I intend to do a re:view, but frankly I am still struggling to get my head around where to start and on what since getting back in the wee small hours of last night.

I am just grabbing a breather between catching up on the 1000 emails in my in box in just 3 days (not a single spam, but mostly newsletters and press releases, and hence postponable, if not ignorable, but still requiring a lot of sifting for actual gold). Plus all the follow-up from the show, plus getting the stand out the car and stowed neatly for the next.

Oh, and a bunch of stuff on Junkk.com.

I really don't know where to start. But RE:tie must take priority, as this looks like our best shot at income, and if we can get a stream then we can look at getting in a few more bodies to help run this show, which is in danger of drowning in its own success by failing to serve the needs of all those who are interested in being a part, as either a user or business.

So before dashing back to all the priorities above and beyond this blog, I need to make a few thank-you's.

To Peter, a vastly expereinced F&B/FMCG marketing and sales guru who is keen to help me make RE:tie and Junkk.com realise their commercial potential, and who came to help me man the stand on both days even though he is is still just trying to understand the business enough to see if he can add value as our commercial front man. I truly hope that your belief will be more than rewarded. If the comments we had during the last two days are anything to go on, I trust you feel it will be.

To Frank and his team at BCU, who delivered the protoptypes (pictured - including a large demo version) in the nick of time, and without which we'd have been struggling to get the concept of the RE:tie across to the passing audiences. If a picture is worth a 1000 words, being able to take a cap off a bottle, peel a RE:tie off a cap, and then tie-up a bin-liner with it was about as clear a demo of the concept as one could have hoped.

And then there's all the nice folk who couldn't come to the show but wished us well, and especially those who did come to the stand and my seminar talks, and said such nice things about what we're trying to do and... more importantly... encouraged us that we look set to succeed in doing well with our site and the invention we're trying to market, that is the first real commercial embodiment of the Junkk.com philosophy of reuse in packaging, and preferably designed-in!

Oh, and Dave of Solarventi, who has kept this blog, and hence the Junkk.com front page, ticking over while I have been AWOL. And, as it transpires, may well be for a while yet as I look into the in-tray!

Let them eat cake

In a world where grain prices are rising rapidly due to shortages and the agricultural move towards growing crops for bio-fuels, and where the threat of climate change seems likely to make crop growing even more of a risk, the last thing mankind needs is a new disease strain to threaten one of our basic foodstuffs.

Unfortunately, as this from The Telegraph reports, that is exactly what we have. UG99 is a strain of stem rust that can reduce wheat yields by 40% to 70% and has already spread far faster than scientists expected.

The only saving grace for us in Europe is that it is believed that Europe is too cold for UG99 to survive. But with the onset of climate change?

The £5 gallon (£1.10/litre) of fuel is here already. How long before the £5 loaf of bread?

Just like a rubber ball....

.... he keeps bouncing back into the picture. Who, you ask? The one and only Tony Blair, until recently our PM for some 10 years, during which he did absolutely sweet fanny adams about climate change.

So what's he up to now? He's morphed into a bright green eco friendly Environmental Flash Gordon and he's going to save the planet. Yes it's true, it's reported in Reuters and in The Guardian.

"The fact of the matter is that if we do not take substantial action over the next two years, then by 2020 we will thinking seriously about adaptation rather than prevention."

This from the man who achieved nothing (well, OK, you're right, there was lots of spin, hot air, empty promises, commitments [not met], targets set [and neatly avoided] etc. etc.) to alleviate climate change whilst in power. I despair.

Tax hikes behind a green smokescreen

Having read reams of analysis since the budget on Wednesday, I have to say that I was left with a feeling that we had just had a talk by the Chief Steward on the Titanic about re-arranging the deck chairs, yet again.

This article by the British Retail Consortium from TheRetailBulletin is just about the most concise and informative summary I have come across. The term 'green smokescreen' just about sums it up perfectly, don't you think?

On Budget Day....

.... the genius that is Matt of The Telegraph yet again manages to say it all in a simple cartoon!



It will probably be irrelevant in the chancellor's overall scheme of things but I include a link to an article from back in January that highlights the parlous state of the British Beer industry.

Those of you that do enjoy a pint or two, and even, perhaps, those that don't, probably don't realise that pubs are closing at the rate of 55+ per month; and no, not the big town centre outlets associated with weekend drunk and disorderly behaviour, but the local village pubs, that are often the only local centre of the community, are the ones that are disappearing. And you certainly won't be aware that "Beer sales for pubs are now at their lowest since the Great Depression of the 1930s." and that "In the UK, beer is already the most expensive form of alcohol that money can buy."

"Unlike wine, brewing is a homegrown industry, employing 20,000 people with an annual turnover of £19 billion. Britain’s pubs employ 600,000 people. Current tax policy is encouraging the move to stronger, and often foreign produced, drinks such as wine - and from pubs to supermarkets."

As it would seem that our Gov's intention is to close down all village pubs, my guess is that the chancellor will take not a blind bit of notice.

Addendum:
Post budget: Another 4p a pint!! That will be 6p by the time it reaches the handpulls. And on top of the brewery rises last month, for most averaging 10p per pint. Our chancellor has probably just ordered the boarding up of another 1000+ village pubs!
Cheers! (Extremely sarcastically!)

DEFRA .....

..... seems to have been running up some quite extraordinary travel bills over the last few years, as reported in the Western Daily Press.

"The Government agency responsible for leading Britain's campaign against climate change has been slammed by a West MP for spending £2.3 million on exotic trips abroad."

So just why would DEFRA send staff to exotic locations such as the Caribbean, the Cayman Islands, Barbados, the Seychelles, Mozambique, Brazil and Ghana? Beats me.

Oh, but they've been offsetting all the carbon costs involved. "All emissions from Defra ministerial and official flights have been offset since 2005 and from road and rail travel since 2006."

Bless.

Addendum: (12/3/08)
But they ARE going to help local authorities to fight climate change according to DEFRA's own website, by providing monies to "spread existing best practice on climate change among local authorities, and provide training and mentoring to help them reduce emissions and adapt to the already unavoidable effects of climate change." (Sorry, but I'm struggling not to laugh out loud here.)

The programme will "be tailored to local needs and priorities, with delivery being co-ordinated at a regional level." Hahahahahahaha!!! Sorry, I couldn't help it.

Sounds to me like more 'jobs for the boys' and an additional waste of £4 Million!

Coming on top of the DBERR 'committed' proclamation (see post below), I have to say that if it wasn't so ridiculously sad, I'd reckon they've employed a comedy script writer.

Oh, look, eGov Monitor explains it all.
"From April, councils' success in cutting carbon dioxide emissions will be measured as part of a new performance framework. They will also be assessed on their efforts to adapt to the effects of climate change, and to tackle fuel poverty. Many councils are expected to set specific targets to lead the drive to cut back on carbon emissions in their areas."

So, it's all about setting targets, and then measuring performance against them. Yet again! What do you call it when you experience the same 'deja vu' repeatedly? Surely it ceases to become deja vu?

Even renewables may have their environmental downsides

As this article from the Washington Post highlights.

Polysilicon is a core component in any photovoltaic cell, and its manufacture is quite a toxic process, with one of the major by-products being silicon tetrachloride, an extremely noxious and poisonous chemical that is difficult to handle, and even more difficult to recycle back into the manufacturing process. The capital equipment costs simply to handle this one chemical is one of the main reasons why the production of polysilicon is so expensive in the Western world.

Now many manufacturers source their polysilicon from China. I hope, if they read this, they may think again.

See, by trying to manufacture as cheaply as possible, even something as green as a photovoltaic cell can be highly toxic to the environment.

We are committed to tackling climate change

Oh, really? You could have fooled me.

That post heading is the response by a spokesman from the DBERR (it used to be the DTI), to an accusation that the government itself places hurdles in the way of simple, and relatively cheap, energy saving domestic solar hot water installations, as reported in the Telegraph.

A few years back, you could easily get a grant of £400 towards the installation of solar water heating, providing the chosen kit was on the approved list (tested and checked out for free) and you used an approved installer (simple capabilities assessment). The grant is still available, but nowadays you have to be equivalently as lucky as to have won the national lottery jackpot to have a chance of getting it. Contrast that with Northern Ireland, where under the control of the assembly, the grant is £1100, and is very easily available.

"we have been disappointed, indeed astonished, to find that we face a host of obstacles from government, despite the rhetoric on combating climate change and the commitment to renewable energy". That's a comment from Hugh Synge, founder of a solar water heating business. And he's quite correct, the grant system is now an utter shambles; now the installers have to pay £1800 to be registered as approved (a lot for any small business); and now to get any solar water heating model approved by the BRE costs some £6000+ (a hurdle my own business simply cannot afford to get over as yet). And we haven't even mentioned the dog's breakfast of obstacles that planning permission puts in the way of any installation, despite multiple promises that planning permission requirements will be waived for renewable energy installations.

This would be so simple to sort out, and the savings for the consumer, and the planet, would be extremely significant. But, of course, that would require some real action, not just 'commitment', and a load of sickly green bullsh*t. Let's face it, there is so much more mileage, kudos and good publicity in jumping on easy things like the banning plastic bags bandwagon, isn't there? And all this at a time when we see headlines like 'Climate change could spark war' from Metro, and 'Millions of climate change migrants will overwhelm Europe', from the Mail on Sunday.

Committed? If you ask me, the whole lot of them ought to be!

Recycle or go to hell!

A sign of the times perhaps? Or a bit of oddball religious CSR? The headline is taken from the Telegraph reporting on the Vatican's modern reassessment of the seven deadly sins.

Gone are sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride; these are said to have a "rather individualistic dimension". (Strange, I always thought they were supposed to apply to the individual?) The new list includes "genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs".

You have been warned - reuse or recycle your plastic bags - if not be prepared for eternal damnation!

In case you can't afford to go Galactic

Branson Helps You Hire a Private Jet - Virgin Charter

Maybe one engine flies on bio-fuel?

I am road-testing a new acronym: HI-AW (Pronounced 'Hee-aw', like a donkey braying).

It means 'Having It All Ways'.

CATEGORY - ROAD PRICING

Should have started this before now.

To kick off:

Indy Letters - It's time to adopt national road pricing

let the debate begi... hit gridlock!

Science vs. Media. And the losers are...

Us! (Planet will do fine)

Reporters feel the heat over climate change

No.. really?

Travellers ignore pleas to curb air travel amid growing stampede for long-haul mini-breaks

It's worth mentioning to remind 'us' that 'we' are pretty selective about what major enviro-issues will get 'us' excited, but I had to laugh at this po-faced first sentence:

'Holidaymakers are ignoring environmentalists' calls to limit their air travel and are taking more "indulgent" long-haul mini-breaks than ever before.'

Closely followed by this:

'Despite recommendations that they holiday closer to home...'

I'd have to say a lot of folk, from 'evironmentalists' (whoever they may be) to the media (when they choose to be green for a few column inches) are a little up 'emselves if this is the best they can do.

The critiques just comes across as plain silly and petty. And that is going to persuade no one.

More CIF Peak Oil Argument

As ever, any article on Peak Oil in The Guardian's CIF section attracts a huge barrage of proponents from the extremes at both ends, and this is no exception.

Now I cannot understand why the concept of Peak Oil can be regarded as a 'doomsday cult' as the author implies. Likewise, in response to "And there is a grain of truth to peak oil theory. Oil is a finite reserve, so the more we extract, the closer we come to exhausting the resource."; A 'grain of truth'! It's an inescapable fact! Look, crude oil is a finite resource that human beings risk exhausting to their own detriment, as our modern industrial civilization is based almost entirely upon it!

No-one, other than a handful of real doom-mongerers, is suggesting that Peak Oil implies a sudden and disastrous disappearance of petroleum as a resource. However, it is entirely clear that over the coming decades the amount of easily available and recoverable sweet (i.e. easily usable) crude is without doubt going to decline. It may decline slowly over several decades, or it may start to decline at an accelerating rate some time in the future, but decline it inevitably will.

As for Peak Oil's proponents being "a rag-bag of geologists, green activists, Malthusians, and people who yearn for a return to some pre-industrial idyll", well, the only one of those monikers I can hold my hand up to is that I am (well, was) a trained Geologist (Geo-Chemist actually).

And comparing the cost of a barrel of oil with a barrel of Coca-Cola - well, that has to be one of the most spurious comparisons I have ever seen!

Perhaps, as one of the CIF posters suggests, we should term the problem that is now starting to confront us as Cheap Oil, rather than Peak Oil. Maybe more people will be able to understand that description.

Whatever side of the argument that you sit on, it is abundantly clear that: in conjunction with [Likely] Man Worsened Climate Change (with its associated loss of water supplies and harsher crop growing conditions); an already rapid increase in the prices of staple foodstuffs; the ever increasing population of our little lump of planetary rock; our continuing destruction of native environments in the pursuit of earning a few bucks; our rape of the oceans already highly depleted resources; Peak (OK then, Cheap) Oil, is simply one problem in a long list of issues that humanity needs to address urgently.

Now if that makes me subject to being termed a 'Malthusian' then so be it. Sorry, but to me, it seems little more than basic common sense. Remember what happened to the population of Easter Island?

Oxymoron of the month?

Eco-Bentley. Now there's a term I'll bet you never expected to see! But, according to this from ThisIsCheshire, Bentley are indeed trying to implement a "far-reaching environmental strategy to reduce CO2 emissions and improve fuel economy."

"A new powertrain will be introduced by 2012, delivering a 40% reduction in fuel consumption, while maintaining current levels of performance. And all engines across the range will become compatible with the use of renewable fuels by 2012, with the initial rollout beginning by next year."

OK, maybe I've been a little sarcastic, and perhaps I even owe them an apology; but I do find it quite hard to equate luxury, extremely expensive vehicles, that only the top 1 or 2 percent of the wealthiest amongst us can even contemplate buying, with the word Eco.

Green stretched limo anyone?

Addendum:
Bentley maybe going to do Eco-Cars, but Rolls-Royce do it up in the stratosphere with their updated Trent 'Eco-Engine'! No, I'm being unfair, I made that up, but how long before we see RR marketing claiming the updated engine actually is eco-friendly because it consumes 30% less fuel? I'll give it three months tops.

The pending food crisis.....

..... is much more of an immediate problem than climate change, according to the government's new chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, as reported in The Guardian.

"price rises in staples such as rice, maize and wheat would continue because of increased demand caused by population growth and increasing wealth in developing nations. He also said that climate change would lead to pressure on food supplies because of decreased rainfall in many areas and crop failures related to climate."

"Some of the biofuels are hopeless. The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid." Quite!

"Global grain stores are currently at the lowest levels ever, just 40 days from running out."

Rapidly rising prices, all those extra mouths to feed and insufficient land and water. Things aren't looking too promising. Maybe it really is time to start tackling the issue that dare not speak its name?

NEWS/Commercial PR - Michelin Energy Saver Tyres

This is passed on as per PR supplied, so I cannot vouch for the claims, but as a major brand one has to assume they are sincere and sound (mind you, the ASA site is a weekly jaw-dropper).

I just find things like this so much more significant in the great scheme of things, not just for major e-benefits, but also possible (there is a pay-back period to consider, which has been suggested) pocket-related ones, too.

But what's the betting they don't make a low-profile set for my Volvo!

New Michelin Energy Saver tyres

The new Michelin Energy Saver is the Company’s fourth generation of “green” car tyres that replaces the existing Energy range.

The technology deployed in the Michelin Energy Saver range improves rolling resistance by nearly 20%* thereby reducing the amount of energy needed to propel the vehicle. By generating fuel savings of nearly 0.2 litres per 100 km* it reduces CO2 emissions by 4g per km and the cost of a full tank of fuel by almost €2. As a result, if you fit four Energy Saver tyres to your car the fuel savings will be enough to pay for one of the tyres after just 45,000km**.

In wet-road tests conducted by TÜV SÜD Automotive, a car equipped with the Michelin Energy Saver has a braking distance three metres shorter than the same vehicle fitted with the previous-generation tyres. The same study showed that, in identical wet-road conditions, the Michelin Energy Saver also has a shorter braking distance than the average of the major competitor tyre brands***.

In addition to enhanced fuel efficiency and exceptional safety performance the Energy Saver also offers very long tread life. According to a study by TÜV SÜD, the Michelin Energy Saver delivers on average 40% more mileage than other leading brand-name tyres in the three most widely used sizes*. Where a competitor’s tyre may reach its limit, for example, at 30,000 km, the Michelin Energy Saver – in identical conditions of use – could cover more than 40,000 km. Based on average annual driving distances in Europe, this means nearly an additional year of driving.

By combining lower fuel consumption, shorter braking distances and greater longevity the Michelin Energy Saver provides users with a host of benefits. The tyres really do enable motorists to drive further, safely, while spending less.

The Michelin Energy Saver has been designed to equip as many cars in the market as possible – including small city cars, saloons, coupes and MPVs. The tyre will initially be available in 29 sizes and that will increase to 42 by mid-2008. By the end of the year, the range will cover 90% of existing sizes with a T-speed rating, 82% with an H-rating, and 80% with a V-rating.

*ISO test conducted by TÜV SÜD Automotive in 2007 on store-bought 175/65 R14, 195/65 R15 and 205/55 R16 tyres produced by five major-brand manufacturers.

**Based on a diesel-powered vehicle that consumes around 6 litres per 100 km with fuel priced at an average of €1.20 a litre.

IDEA - Jacob's Twiglet's game

A timely reminder to me to get my act together and add more ideas to the main site.

I am grateful to Junkketeer Valerie of Wyenet, our super ISP provider (happy to reccomend and link to them... see how easy this 'share the idea, share the love' can be?), who just handed this to me.

It's frankly more an 'A' for effort on the part of maker Jacob's, but I am simply encouraged that they are thinking not only in reuse terms, but also helping customers with the process by suggesting ideas.

It's true that many items, such as this, are hard to really get too inspired by, but you never know who may coem up with what that is simply awesomely neat... which is all part of the fun.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - A little bit of honest pragmatism

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.

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?

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

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.

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'?

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.

'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.

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.

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..........

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?

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?

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.

So just what is the point?

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

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

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

Just why do we bother?

So is the congestion charge working?

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

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

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

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

Lovelock - all gloom and doom

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Global Warming Denier's Conference

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

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

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

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

Addendum:
More on this conference from Daily Kos.

I don't get it...

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

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

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

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

Doesn't Add Up

Taxpayer hit again

Re; Please tell me there was a misprint

Sadly, I'm guessing not.

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

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

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

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

The world has gone mad.

Impudently, if prudently, yours...

N.B

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

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

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

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

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

CATEGORY - ECO-HOMES & TOWNS

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

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

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

ECO-TOWNS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times - Ecotowns: for and against

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

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

Telegraph - Time to talk about eco-towns

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaurdian - Green and unpleasant - Still not feeling the love

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

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

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

Gaurdian - Red faces over green towns

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

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

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

Driven to distraction?

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

Fair enough.

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

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

Or even explaining exactly what these costs are.

Green Pop

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

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

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

Or afford to.

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

Do you feel harassed by eco-snobs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, I'm easily excited

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

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

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

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

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

Well I never

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

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

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

Speaking of priorities

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

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

Or not.

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

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

Fickle folk, the public

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

I wonder why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now I am worried

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

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

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

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

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

Right result? Right reasons?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Careful what you wish for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking from Peter to fine, well, Peter again

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

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

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

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

But...

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

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

Reuters - Network Rail fined over engineering delays

Rose-tinted reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*ps: I'm trying to find out.

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

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

It probably isn't as simple as made out.

ADDENDUM:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on re-labelling

Recycling concerns beat health on shoppers' agenda

Good on shoppers. But...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSV Action Earth environmental volunteering campaign

From March 1 2008 - July 31 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reading between the lines

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

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

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

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


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

Bless.

There's also whether they add up

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

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

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