And you may eventually end up with a... very expensive... hut.
This from a blog:
The Environment Agency - Science Report - The economic and environmental benefits of resource efficiency in construction
Resource efficiency could save construction industry millions
Ten million tonnes of new construction products are wasted every year, at a cost of over £1.5 billion. This is the result of a study by the Environment Agency to evaluate the potential economic and environmental benefits of the UK construction sector improving resource efficiency. This is equivalent to about two per cent of the overall construction sector output. Reducing the amount of waste by one per cent would mean annual savings of £15 million and 104,000 tonnes of product.
The report estimates that 6.1 million tonnes of construction waste, mainly paints and finishes, floor coverings and light fittings, are sent to land fill every year, at a cost of £917 million. It also estimates that 3.9 million tonnes of construction waste such as ceramics, concrete and cement, worth £583 million are recycled.
The construction sector is hugely resource intensive, using an estimated 400 million tonnes of resources each year. This makes it the single biggest user in the UK economy, accounting for about nine per cent of gross domestic product. In addition, the sector also produces over 30 per cent of England's total waste along with 32 per cent of its hazardous waste.
As Site Waste Management Plans become mandatory for larger projects from April 2008, it is becoming increasingly important that the sector efficiently manages the resources and waste products from all processes during construction projects.
During this project the EA developed scorecards that can be used as a quick and easy tool for identifying opportunities and improvements for site waste management. Separate scorecards have been developed for new build, refurbishment and demolition projects. They are designed to be used by clients, contractors, waste management companies and the Environment Agency to benchmark the performance of on-site waste management.
The report recommends that the construction sector works together with a common goal of resource efficiency*. For this to happen, each part of the sector needs to understand its role in terms of the resources it buys that are subsequently wasted and apply appropriate solutions. Better data is required at a product level for this to happen effectively.
I haven't read the report, nor do I have time to, but from the summary it surprises me that we are still today seeing such as this, and the stark warnings on waste being issued, when the likes of WRAP, NISP , Knowledge Transfer Network and I am sure many other well-funded and often overlapping bodies/quangos (who must have been mentioned) have surely been on this case* for a long time now? Heck, I am on so many lists now I am sure this may be from one of them!
Is national coordination so fragmented/poor and, possibly answering my own question before, is progress really this slow?
*'The report recommends that the construction sector works together with a common goal of resource efficiency.' - So... are they saying that they currently are not then? I really am flummoxed. There is tons going on with this aim/target already!
Friday, April 25, 2008
I am still not sure I can believe this**
Darvaz: The Door to Hell
I've always wondered/worried about the waste/consequences of the burn-off flares on oil rigs and refineries, but this seems grotesque.
Equate it to a few seemingly much more pressing AGW issues in the media.
I wonder if it counts to their Kyoto commitment? And which is better (relatively), the pure gas or the consequences of its combustion?
Surely it is not beyond the whit of man to pop a lid on and harvest this as a resource?
*via a link from a very surf-savvy Singapore Aunty. I had never heard of it until now.
**One slight concern is neither this entity, nor its location (Darvas) is picked up by Wikipedia
I've always wondered/worried about the waste/consequences of the burn-off flares on oil rigs and refineries, but this seems grotesque.
Equate it to a few seemingly much more pressing AGW issues in the media.
I wonder if it counts to their Kyoto commitment? And which is better (relatively), the pure gas or the consequences of its combustion?
Surely it is not beyond the whit of man to pop a lid on and harvest this as a resource?
*via a link from a very surf-savvy Singapore Aunty. I had never heard of it until now.
**One slight concern is neither this entity, nor its location (Darvas) is picked up by Wikipedia
Quote of the day - Publican service broadcasting
Let no one excuse the BBC of lack of balance.
Thing is, I do sometimes wonder if they think things through. Following weeks... months... years... of nanny state preaching (with some good reason, and value) on the ills of youth alcohol abuse, we have another Declan commercial break (I know the line between fair PR sharing as news and blatant free exposure for a brand is a fine, and hence difficult one, but really, this isn't some retail boss flogging their latest fluff under the pretext of a news item), this time at the Bushmills distillery. Something along the lines of:
"How do we/you (didn't catch it properly) improve its appeal to younger drinkers..."
...followed by a few minutes free commercial, including mixes (with cranberry juice!) for the younger palate. Nice.
This was, irony free, followed by a piece on kickboxing , introduced along the lines of 'how we improve our kids' behaviour?'.
I have one small suggestion... don't glorify and promote hard liquor cocktails in this manner on the national broadcaster, especially one that has been sanctimoniously trotting out youth binge drinking messages at the same time, when my 11-year-olds are having breakfast. Just a thought.
As with things environmental, if the media can't get consistent with their messages, there is little chance of our youth getting it. I think of AGW scare stories and consumer tut-tutting in complement, followed immediately by some celebs excesses on a far-flung beach. It is inconsistent and divisive. And not a little hypocritical. There's a surprise.
Thing is, I do sometimes wonder if they think things through. Following weeks... months... years... of nanny state preaching (with some good reason, and value) on the ills of youth alcohol abuse, we have another Declan commercial break (I know the line between fair PR sharing as news and blatant free exposure for a brand is a fine, and hence difficult one, but really, this isn't some retail boss flogging their latest fluff under the pretext of a news item), this time at the Bushmills distillery. Something along the lines of:
"How do we/you (didn't catch it properly) improve its appeal to younger drinkers..."
...followed by a few minutes free commercial, including mixes (with cranberry juice!) for the younger palate. Nice.
This was, irony free, followed by a piece on kickboxing , introduced along the lines of 'how we improve our kids' behaviour?'.
I have one small suggestion... don't glorify and promote hard liquor cocktails in this manner on the national broadcaster, especially one that has been sanctimoniously trotting out youth binge drinking messages at the same time, when my 11-year-olds are having breakfast. Just a thought.
As with things environmental, if the media can't get consistent with their messages, there is little chance of our youth getting it. I think of AGW scare stories and consumer tut-tutting in complement, followed immediately by some celebs excesses on a far-flung beach. It is inconsistent and divisive. And not a little hypocritical. There's a surprise.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
More on plastic bottles ......
... from an answer provided in 'Ask Umbra' from Grist.
Further to our earlier post, they also highlight the potential problems that Bisphenol A (BPA) may cause, but they also point out that Styrene and PVC also carry some pretty nasty environmental consequences too.
Time to dig out my old stainless steel water canteen perhaps?
Further to our earlier post, they also highlight the potential problems that Bisphenol A (BPA) may cause, but they also point out that Styrene and PVC also carry some pretty nasty environmental consequences too.
Time to dig out my old stainless steel water canteen perhaps?
Houston, we have Peak Oil
I didn't pick up on this a few days ago, but it appears to signal a major change of tactics by our planet's largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia. According to EV World, King Abdullah has ordered some newly discovered, smaller oilfields to be left untapped for future Saudi generations, and he has also effectively put a cap on oil exports at 12.5 Million barrels per day.
"This is likely to result in an earlier occurrence of global peak oil output than many consumers yet recognize."
"the geologic oil supply constraints that we are feeling in many other parts of the world are going to close in on us earlier and more severely than we previously thought."
Genuine 'Peak Oil' may, or may not, have already been reached, depending upon whose data you consider, but it looks as if 'tactical' Peak Oil is definitely already here. With fuel prices currently at record highs, and some oil futures already trading at above $130, expect a rough ride ahead.
So, the big question is, what will come first - the £5 loaf of bread or the £10 gallon of fuel?
"This is likely to result in an earlier occurrence of global peak oil output than many consumers yet recognize."
"the geologic oil supply constraints that we are feeling in many other parts of the world are going to close in on us earlier and more severely than we previously thought."
Genuine 'Peak Oil' may, or may not, have already been reached, depending upon whose data you consider, but it looks as if 'tactical' Peak Oil is definitely already here. With fuel prices currently at record highs, and some oil futures already trading at above $130, expect a rough ride ahead.
So, the big question is, what will come first - the £5 loaf of bread or the £10 gallon of fuel?
When I were a lad .......
.... I was definitively told that 'it' was dirty and nasty, and 'it' would even make you go blind. But, according to this from PlanetOut.com, it would appear that 'it' actually has quite an impact on reducing the chances of prostrate cancer in the males of our species!
I wonder how the NHS will tackle this information? I rather suspect that NICE may well have some interesting 'prescription guidelines' to work on here. Hmmmm .... Fiesta magazine on prescription for all widowers?
I wonder how the NHS will tackle this information? I rather suspect that NICE may well have some interesting 'prescription guidelines' to work on here. Hmmmm .... Fiesta magazine on prescription for all widowers?
Ask a question...
Is humanity's restlessness a threat to the planet?
'Is this restless addiction to travel - and our desperate demand for more fuel to feed it - our fatal flaw as a species?'
Don't know about fatal (in comparison to say, staying in one place and cooking dinner on a fire the size of Krakatoa, or heating the home with the Siberian tundra.. if you happen to live there of course, and not on a 'must-see' trip courtesy of the Guardian travel pages) but if (yawning gap for the black/green corner to slug it out) one accepts the premise being touted by some/many in government/media/evidence-of-our-own-eyes that carbon is causing a problem, and if we (next yawning gap) as a species are responsible for the consequences of more than is ideal getting out and up then, on balance, I'd have to say it sure can't be helping. Now what?
Then again, having watched Star Trek, maybe our hunger to travel is our only saviour as we seek whole new worlds to breed across and pollute. So it could be Mr. Branson has a point with Virgin 'Have a greenhouse gas Kodak moment' Galactic.
Guardian - I'm trying hard to be eco-friendly. But please don't ask me to give up flying to visit my family - The perfect complement. So much one could say, so much one knows one should not. Bless.
'Is this restless addiction to travel - and our desperate demand for more fuel to feed it - our fatal flaw as a species?'
Don't know about fatal (in comparison to say, staying in one place and cooking dinner on a fire the size of Krakatoa, or heating the home with the Siberian tundra.. if you happen to live there of course, and not on a 'must-see' trip courtesy of the Guardian travel pages) but if (yawning gap for the black/green corner to slug it out) one accepts the premise being touted by some/many in government/media/evidence-of-our-own-eyes that carbon is causing a problem, and if we (next yawning gap) as a species are responsible for the consequences of more than is ideal getting out and up then, on balance, I'd have to say it sure can't be helping. Now what?
Then again, having watched Star Trek, maybe our hunger to travel is our only saviour as we seek whole new worlds to breed across and pollute. So it could be Mr. Branson has a point with Virgin 'Have a greenhouse gas Kodak moment' Galactic.
Guardian - I'm trying hard to be eco-friendly. But please don't ask me to give up flying to visit my family - The perfect complement. So much one could say, so much one knows one should not. Bless.
Brain strain
Fares fair?
I'm up for doing my bit for Queen and Planet, so this initially cheered me up as to positive influences on my potential options from Gloucester to London.
However, I don't get the impression I'm better off if I do get a last minute call, or seek to travel outside the now very restricted 9.30ish am to 3.30ish pm or post 7sih pm (fat chance of a connection - my missus has put on more miles driving to Swindon to pick me up to then get may car than if I'd driven round trip) off peak windows.
And as to a discount for a family of four...? Actually, why not a business group discount to get ;'em out the Mondeo?
This looking like you're being all in what you're doing,when in fact you're doing b-all.
It's almost as if money was really all anyone really cared about. Especially HMG.
I'm up for doing my bit for Queen and Planet, so this initially cheered me up as to positive influences on my potential options from Gloucester to London.
However, I don't get the impression I'm better off if I do get a last minute call, or seek to travel outside the now very restricted 9.30ish am to 3.30ish pm or post 7sih pm (fat chance of a connection - my missus has put on more miles driving to Swindon to pick me up to then get may car than if I'd driven round trip) off peak windows.
And as to a discount for a family of four...? Actually, why not a business group discount to get ;'em out the Mondeo?
This looking like you're being all in what you're doing,when in fact you're doing b-all.
It's almost as if money was really all anyone really cared about. Especially HMG.
Just wanted to say.. you are all jus'... Marvellous, darlings!
:)
Praise seen as good as cash to brain
It does, of course, having a bearing on what we (inc. and via Junkk.com) are trying to do.
Praise seen as good as cash to brain
It does, of course, having a bearing on what we (inc. and via Junkk.com) are trying to do.
I really must start the day job
From a blog that I have no idea how to link to:
BBC - Begging for more than small change
This is quite a thought provoking article which focuses on the need
for intrinsic change in behaviour rather than focussing on small
scale changes in the hope it will lead to bigger ones. The main
arguments are:
"Having embraced one simple change, some people then tend to rest on
their laurels and be less likely to engage in other more significant
changes"
"Environmental problems can often be traced to our appetite
for "stuff", items that demand resources and energy in their
manufacture, sale, use and disposal"
"unless I am careful about how I spend the money that I've saved. As
long as campaigns to encourage us to change our behaviour are based
on appeals to self-interest or financial incentive, they will be
fraught with difficulties"
Hence marketing green products could be counterproductive.
Whilst I agree with this, somewhat more worrying is the belief that
Businesses will be interested in this philosophy, it continues:
"The Environmental organisations should also work with leading
businesses....to think beyond the opportunities offered by green
consumerism; preparing for a world where we will inevitably need to
consume not just differently, but less"
But why should they? Private Businesses and the political doctrine
that underpins them are driven by the desire for growth and profit.
To expect them to think otherwise is as irrational as expecting an
Abrahamic religion to stop believing in God. Even if some did change
how could they survive in a commercial market? Perhaps the only
solution is a control type economy, not traditional socialism, but
one that is focussed on quality of life rather than material
production? I can't see this happening anytime soon.
If ever this was one for The Two E's, this was it. Hence I have been moved to reply/add (to the blog, not the BBC site, which is a poor effort/reward one, as I often try and point out to them):
Good share. And thoughts on it. I saw this as well, and not in the most positive of ways, in another blog which, charitably, could be deemed 'climate optimistic'.
I passed on, but then it came back to the top of my mind as I surfed through some debates on Earth Day, again not very complimentary to the cause of green (at least in its rather unfortunate, and over-simplistically used and abused sense).
I am not so sure it's the changes, large or small, that deserve the attention and debate, but many of the messengers bearing a welter of them that are not always easy to get behind, and for all sorts of reasons (including, now, the fact that the pain of paying is biting at more fundamental levels than just buying off guilt).
On top of the negatives of greenwashing/toshing/cloaking by some rather cynical bandwagon jumpers in the corporate world, there seem to be vast armies of well-paid and pensioned folk from governments to LAs to NGOs to charities all doing very nicely just talking up a storm, and thrusting many plump fists out for funds to keep the conversations bubbling along.
I, for one, would be keen to see a lot more from the public purse going into DOING stuff.
I totally agree that the principles of marketing in the capitalist, consumer-driven world mean it's unlikely that reduction is high on the agenda, but at least one can often see some efforts that may still work, a bit, in mitigation. So bashing them for not doing more to do less seems optimistic, at best. And, without more coherent strategies for dealing with a global population of 6B+ and growing, mostly with the vote and tightrope-walking 'lead...er... followership' who know it, a tad in the 'idealistic' corner.
Meanwhile I am struggling to see much enviROI in the bazillions going to an awful lot that is not going anywhere (Executive salaries in quangos or activist groups to come up with such stuff, for one) much that is actually making positive differences.
Addendum: To some responses, I have amplified thus:
I'm not sure but suspect (rather proving my following point) we're all agreeing with each other as to what is most desirable, but might see different routes to this common end point.
The situation reminds me of a very down-to-earth client I had in my advertising days in Asia.
I was doing my best pitching to him and made the mistake at one point of saying 'I think you're not understanding me', which really meant I had yet to see him come round to seeing the obvious brilliance of my concept.
"No,' he said, 'I don't think you are making your case clearly enough to persuade me yet'.
I think we all agree that green cannot be viewed in black and white, so immediately we are into that scary no man's land of greys between what is and should be, can be and will.
And bearing in mind my town of a few thousand has, well, a few thousand opinions, with all sorts of influences (money, ego, selfish-interest, concern, money...) shaping them, it's a miracle any consensus happens at national much less international levels.
However, sadly, if what a lot of us are swayed by is to be believed, we don't have much time to get to some sort of global consensus.
Now there's an ideal, but just like the Prisoner's Dilemma the fly in the ointment is human nature.
Thus it only seems sensible to accept certain realities rather than rail against them.
The trick therefore is to push as far as you can before those you need to persuade push back.
Hence my advocacy is one of end-benefit and persuasion via incentive and reward. Unsurprising perhaps, considering my background.
That said, I do have to concede a certain amount of stick might be needed to ease the effect of the carrot. Not an easy balance I'll admit, but that's why there are some gunning for the big bucks running the show.
Sorry, but most, as far as I am concerned, so far do not warrant them. And/or the soapboxes they enjoy.
They are spinning in one place very nicely with some core converts for sure providing enough to suck in a fair amount each day to keep the thing whirling, and self-sustaining quite healthily for those within. Especially at the top.
What I am not seeing is the necessary outreach and successful conversion of those, in the vast majority, who need to opt to flag down a ride that may be bumpy, but which they have come to accept is a heck of a lot better than staying where they are.
If the bandwagon's message is not proving attractive or comprehensible enough for the audiences to stick their hands out and up, that's not their fault. Maybe it's just that the message is just not being pitched right yet.
I for one am a little less than inspired now by 'awareness' and such like, yet still seem bombarded by vast numbers of meesages citing this alone, supported by immense comms budgets I'd prefer directed more more tangibly.
This started with a piece on marketing green products. Some may well be getting pitched 'as well as', which is a shame. As a mitigation of lifestyle 'instead of' seems more acceptable if genuine. But the Holy Grail is not to buy, which is a hard sell to guys whose rent gets paid on profits.
So yes, let's recognise good works that are about doing and add to these indeed.
Addendum :
Somehow I fear I have stumbled into an arena where, possibly by my replies, I have become a minority of one who is 'them', vs. a mightier 'us'. Whilst more than polite, my point (which maybe I still could not make myself, to all the ironies) seems lost that telling someone something is so does not make it thus. However, we now are in culture where process dominates over product, and you get paid by the word and not the result. In fact, it seems you get a bonus by spinning extra words to explain why even the few targets you do accept you were aiming for, and missed, were not the actual ones those who bought into the initial argument thought they were.
Not sure how I ended up as (or deserve the honour of - I did not initiate this thread) a prefix to an &Co or et al (Gore?), but you find me this sunny morn still fresh, if jaded from being told by my government, national broadcaster and some media that their inability to explain how night becomes day is actually my fault for not being able to decipher the wisdom of their actions and reporting of same.
And it extends as far as it does wide. Take the recent issue of that wind farm being denied planning in Scotland.
In the black (Big Oil? Birdwatchers? Strange bedfellows) corner we have those quite passionately 'anti'. They would seem, for now, to have prevailed, for good or ill, as inertia will.
While in the green corner, an overwhelming tide of analysts, senior researchers, lobbyists, quangos, carbon traders and whatnot (whom I am sure can all easily afford the time and costs of limitless courses as much as they can conferences in Bali) telling the other side how wrong they are.
Me, I am stuck in the middle, still bereft of clear, concise, persuasive (if often subjective, which is still cool) argument, backed by well-considered objective facts that I can grasp and engage with.
Hence, if I were not through interest fairly well informed on some aspects of what my future family faces, there is a powerful incentive to sit back, accept the status quo and pay the mortgage.
If those who would claim to speak for the future - so many (and growing into empires so vast) and so well funded - seem unable to get things across persuasively enough as yet to those still in the majority paid for more traditional labours, I simply question whether they are of much value, and hence simply represent a vast green hole redirecting funds that could be used to make real differences.
I love to debate, but it can be time consuming and though talk is cheap it still imposes a cost. I sense my notions are not favoured by the majority in reply. So be it. But to do justice to maintaining the exchanges I would need to devote a lot more resources than I currently have access to or can afford. Equally, the vast swathes of material often (not just here) that get lobbed around, often by those paid to stay abreast of the issues in minute detail, still seem not to be changing my core views either.
And here we are, I think, in agreement on the objectives, if not methodologies. Fundamental changes to governance are for governments, and/or oppositions to pitch to me as a voter. I am feeling a little overwhelmed by many, too many, whose responsibilities, accountabilities and allegiances are none too clear. And while often their hearts may be in the right places, speaking personally (and it is amazing how many challenge me on what my own mind thinks, or should be allowed to) I feel that by staking too radical and/or extreme a claim on redirecting a global supertanker of hundreds of nations, there is the chance that the opposite of what is intended, and necessary, may be achieved.
I deal in the world of selling by changing how people feel about things. And it is so comforting when you work with a USP or a receptive target and can spin away to positive responses and accolades. It is much tricker when you are dealing with minds already filled with white noise to start, and competing pitches on top. Just saying 'but my view is clearly correct and you are foolish to not see that' is certainly a way to advocate. Equally you can rarely sell life assurance successfully by telling folk they are going to die, no matter what the truth of it may be.
So, with regret, and meaning no disrespect by ducking out, I fear I must get back to doing something I think will help in mitigation, whilst also advocating by word and deed reduction. And hope it continues to bring a few like-minded souls along for the ride after their day jobs, school and/or commitments, until those we place in power grasp the bigger picture and sell the necessary solutions to us all.
But I do very much enjoy and value the exchanges here, and especially the links provided, but will simply from now be content to simply lurk.
You know, one day I'd dearly love to know just how many folk their are now on the public purse (GO3, GOv, Local GOv & NGO), plus charity funded and essentially corporate parasitic (Carbon trading sprigs to mind) as a % of the working population. Not to say some don't have value, but to mix twenty metaphors, most seem to be making hay out of green like moss on a well-wedged rock.
I know what I am DOING as I write and debate. My patience with and respect for those who make no real tangible contributions, especially from high, salaried pedestals simply saying 'we're doomed... unless (usually preceded by 'fund us first')', is wearing quite thin. And I do have a day job.
Addendum - NEW: Oh, the irony. I am now spending the next hour fielding off-bog replies direct from those who agreed/agree with (some of/all of) my views, but didn't want to stick their heads over the parapet lest the green snipers picked 'em off (our emails hence employers are open fro all to see). At least there is that 'off-blog' feature. But when you fear your 'own' 'side' more, then that is a time for concern.
BBC Green (it's different, and odd to see ads on Aunty!) - Save money and the planet?
BBC - Begging for more than small change
This is quite a thought provoking article which focuses on the need
for intrinsic change in behaviour rather than focussing on small
scale changes in the hope it will lead to bigger ones. The main
arguments are:
"Having embraced one simple change, some people then tend to rest on
their laurels and be less likely to engage in other more significant
changes"
"Environmental problems can often be traced to our appetite
for "stuff", items that demand resources and energy in their
manufacture, sale, use and disposal"
"unless I am careful about how I spend the money that I've saved. As
long as campaigns to encourage us to change our behaviour are based
on appeals to self-interest or financial incentive, they will be
fraught with difficulties"
Hence marketing green products could be counterproductive.
Whilst I agree with this, somewhat more worrying is the belief that
Businesses will be interested in this philosophy, it continues:
"The Environmental organisations should also work with leading
businesses....to think beyond the opportunities offered by green
consumerism; preparing for a world where we will inevitably need to
consume not just differently, but less"
But why should they? Private Businesses and the political doctrine
that underpins them are driven by the desire for growth and profit.
To expect them to think otherwise is as irrational as expecting an
Abrahamic religion to stop believing in God. Even if some did change
how could they survive in a commercial market? Perhaps the only
solution is a control type economy, not traditional socialism, but
one that is focussed on quality of life rather than material
production? I can't see this happening anytime soon.
If ever this was one for The Two E's, this was it. Hence I have been moved to reply/add (to the blog, not the BBC site, which is a poor effort/reward one, as I often try and point out to them):
Good share. And thoughts on it. I saw this as well, and not in the most positive of ways, in another blog which, charitably, could be deemed 'climate optimistic'.
I passed on, but then it came back to the top of my mind as I surfed through some debates on Earth Day, again not very complimentary to the cause of green (at least in its rather unfortunate, and over-simplistically used and abused sense).
I am not so sure it's the changes, large or small, that deserve the attention and debate, but many of the messengers bearing a welter of them that are not always easy to get behind, and for all sorts of reasons (including, now, the fact that the pain of paying is biting at more fundamental levels than just buying off guilt).
On top of the negatives of greenwashing/toshing/cloaking by some rather cynical bandwagon jumpers in the corporate world, there seem to be vast armies of well-paid and pensioned folk from governments to LAs to NGOs to charities all doing very nicely just talking up a storm, and thrusting many plump fists out for funds to keep the conversations bubbling along.
I, for one, would be keen to see a lot more from the public purse going into DOING stuff.
I totally agree that the principles of marketing in the capitalist, consumer-driven world mean it's unlikely that reduction is high on the agenda, but at least one can often see some efforts that may still work, a bit, in mitigation. So bashing them for not doing more to do less seems optimistic, at best. And, without more coherent strategies for dealing with a global population of 6B+ and growing, mostly with the vote and tightrope-walking 'lead...er... followership' who know it, a tad in the 'idealistic' corner.
Meanwhile I am struggling to see much enviROI in the bazillions going to an awful lot that is not going anywhere (Executive salaries in quangos or activist groups to come up with such stuff, for one) much that is actually making positive differences.
Addendum: To some responses, I have amplified thus:
I'm not sure but suspect (rather proving my following point) we're all agreeing with each other as to what is most desirable, but might see different routes to this common end point.
The situation reminds me of a very down-to-earth client I had in my advertising days in Asia.
I was doing my best pitching to him and made the mistake at one point of saying 'I think you're not understanding me', which really meant I had yet to see him come round to seeing the obvious brilliance of my concept.
"No,' he said, 'I don't think you are making your case clearly enough to persuade me yet'.
I think we all agree that green cannot be viewed in black and white, so immediately we are into that scary no man's land of greys between what is and should be, can be and will.
And bearing in mind my town of a few thousand has, well, a few thousand opinions, with all sorts of influences (money, ego, selfish-interest, concern, money...) shaping them, it's a miracle any consensus happens at national much less international levels.
However, sadly, if what a lot of us are swayed by is to be believed, we don't have much time to get to some sort of global consensus.
Now there's an ideal, but just like the Prisoner's Dilemma the fly in the ointment is human nature.
Thus it only seems sensible to accept certain realities rather than rail against them.
The trick therefore is to push as far as you can before those you need to persuade push back.
Hence my advocacy is one of end-benefit and persuasion via incentive and reward. Unsurprising perhaps, considering my background.
That said, I do have to concede a certain amount of stick might be needed to ease the effect of the carrot. Not an easy balance I'll admit, but that's why there are some gunning for the big bucks running the show.
Sorry, but most, as far as I am concerned, so far do not warrant them. And/or the soapboxes they enjoy.
They are spinning in one place very nicely with some core converts for sure providing enough to suck in a fair amount each day to keep the thing whirling, and self-sustaining quite healthily for those within. Especially at the top.
What I am not seeing is the necessary outreach and successful conversion of those, in the vast majority, who need to opt to flag down a ride that may be bumpy, but which they have come to accept is a heck of a lot better than staying where they are.
If the bandwagon's message is not proving attractive or comprehensible enough for the audiences to stick their hands out and up, that's not their fault. Maybe it's just that the message is just not being pitched right yet.
I for one am a little less than inspired now by 'awareness' and such like, yet still seem bombarded by vast numbers of meesages citing this alone, supported by immense comms budgets I'd prefer directed more more tangibly.
This started with a piece on marketing green products. Some may well be getting pitched 'as well as', which is a shame. As a mitigation of lifestyle 'instead of' seems more acceptable if genuine. But the Holy Grail is not to buy, which is a hard sell to guys whose rent gets paid on profits.
So yes, let's recognise good works that are about doing and add to these indeed.
Addendum :
Somehow I fear I have stumbled into an arena where, possibly by my replies, I have become a minority of one who is 'them', vs. a mightier 'us'. Whilst more than polite, my point (which maybe I still could not make myself, to all the ironies) seems lost that telling someone something is so does not make it thus. However, we now are in culture where process dominates over product, and you get paid by the word and not the result. In fact, it seems you get a bonus by spinning extra words to explain why even the few targets you do accept you were aiming for, and missed, were not the actual ones those who bought into the initial argument thought they were.
Not sure how I ended up as (or deserve the honour of - I did not initiate this thread) a prefix to an &Co or et al (Gore?), but you find me this sunny morn still fresh, if jaded from being told by my government, national broadcaster and some media that their inability to explain how night becomes day is actually my fault for not being able to decipher the wisdom of their actions and reporting of same.
And it extends as far as it does wide. Take the recent issue of that wind farm being denied planning in Scotland.
In the black (Big Oil? Birdwatchers? Strange bedfellows) corner we have those quite passionately 'anti'. They would seem, for now, to have prevailed, for good or ill, as inertia will.
While in the green corner, an overwhelming tide of analysts, senior researchers, lobbyists, quangos, carbon traders and whatnot (whom I am sure can all easily afford the time and costs of limitless courses as much as they can conferences in Bali) telling the other side how wrong they are.
Me, I am stuck in the middle, still bereft of clear, concise, persuasive (if often subjective, which is still cool) argument, backed by well-considered objective facts that I can grasp and engage with.
Hence, if I were not through interest fairly well informed on some aspects of what my future family faces, there is a powerful incentive to sit back, accept the status quo and pay the mortgage.
If those who would claim to speak for the future - so many (and growing into empires so vast) and so well funded - seem unable to get things across persuasively enough as yet to those still in the majority paid for more traditional labours, I simply question whether they are of much value, and hence simply represent a vast green hole redirecting funds that could be used to make real differences.
I love to debate, but it can be time consuming and though talk is cheap it still imposes a cost. I sense my notions are not favoured by the majority in reply. So be it. But to do justice to maintaining the exchanges I would need to devote a lot more resources than I currently have access to or can afford. Equally, the vast swathes of material often (not just here) that get lobbed around, often by those paid to stay abreast of the issues in minute detail, still seem not to be changing my core views either.
And here we are, I think, in agreement on the objectives, if not methodologies. Fundamental changes to governance are for governments, and/or oppositions to pitch to me as a voter. I am feeling a little overwhelmed by many, too many, whose responsibilities, accountabilities and allegiances are none too clear. And while often their hearts may be in the right places, speaking personally (and it is amazing how many challenge me on what my own mind thinks, or should be allowed to) I feel that by staking too radical and/or extreme a claim on redirecting a global supertanker of hundreds of nations, there is the chance that the opposite of what is intended, and necessary, may be achieved.
I deal in the world of selling by changing how people feel about things. And it is so comforting when you work with a USP or a receptive target and can spin away to positive responses and accolades. It is much tricker when you are dealing with minds already filled with white noise to start, and competing pitches on top. Just saying 'but my view is clearly correct and you are foolish to not see that' is certainly a way to advocate. Equally you can rarely sell life assurance successfully by telling folk they are going to die, no matter what the truth of it may be.
So, with regret, and meaning no disrespect by ducking out, I fear I must get back to doing something I think will help in mitigation, whilst also advocating by word and deed reduction. And hope it continues to bring a few like-minded souls along for the ride after their day jobs, school and/or commitments, until those we place in power grasp the bigger picture and sell the necessary solutions to us all.
But I do very much enjoy and value the exchanges here, and especially the links provided, but will simply from now be content to simply lurk.
You know, one day I'd dearly love to know just how many folk their are now on the public purse (GO3, GOv, Local GOv & NGO), plus charity funded and essentially corporate parasitic (Carbon trading sprigs to mind) as a % of the working population. Not to say some don't have value, but to mix twenty metaphors, most seem to be making hay out of green like moss on a well-wedged rock.
I know what I am DOING as I write and debate. My patience with and respect for those who make no real tangible contributions, especially from high, salaried pedestals simply saying 'we're doomed... unless (usually preceded by 'fund us first')', is wearing quite thin. And I do have a day job.
Addendum - NEW: Oh, the irony. I am now spending the next hour fielding off-bog replies direct from those who agreed/agree with (some of/all of) my views, but didn't want to stick their heads over the parapet lest the green snipers picked 'em off (our emails hence employers are open fro all to see). At least there is that 'off-blog' feature. But when you fear your 'own' 'side' more, then that is a time for concern.
BBC Green (it's different, and odd to see ads on Aunty!) - Save money and the planet?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Lawn Ranger
Peter will not be happy.
Keep off the grass
One can indeed get on dodgy turf weighing the economically-driven (though when it's with the truth it becomes quicksand) and the environmental.
You're (on the side of) right, they don't have a blade worth standing upon in word or deed in trying to make money from green this way.
Now, time to pop back to the travel section of this paper where, apparently, 'Angel Falls' is a must see:)
Peter is the lovely chap who pops in once a week to kick me from being creative eco-luvvie into self-sustaining business person. He thinks the two are compatible, but some compromises can and need to be made.
And as the belt tightens, I am seeing his point. Better fed than dead. And if you are fed, you can keep doing what you do... to support the family ... and, with luck, make an enviROI+ difference.
I don't think such as the Guardian is doing any damage, and in fact has a long history of keeping the green flag flying, often persuasively.
But it's just that, well, sometimes the rather overt Planet Ban-it in one corner tends to jar with the corporate money making going on a few pages over. Often it can, and is used by those who might disagree to highlight if not flaws in their advocacy, but certainly selective campaigning. I am sure many in Islington will gladly return their back lot to natures' best, but also that it will be well up on the priority list of green guilt compared to giving Angel Falls a miss.
For what it is worth, I have to say puring gunk onto weeds is not the best eco-option, but I do confess to zapping a few dandelions with something last summer, as excavating them made my lawn look the Somme.
Keep off the grass
One can indeed get on dodgy turf weighing the economically-driven (though when it's with the truth it becomes quicksand) and the environmental.
You're (on the side of) right, they don't have a blade worth standing upon in word or deed in trying to make money from green this way.
Now, time to pop back to the travel section of this paper where, apparently, 'Angel Falls' is a must see:)
Peter is the lovely chap who pops in once a week to kick me from being creative eco-luvvie into self-sustaining business person. He thinks the two are compatible, but some compromises can and need to be made.
And as the belt tightens, I am seeing his point. Better fed than dead. And if you are fed, you can keep doing what you do... to support the family ... and, with luck, make an enviROI+ difference.
I don't think such as the Guardian is doing any damage, and in fact has a long history of keeping the green flag flying, often persuasively.
But it's just that, well, sometimes the rather overt Planet Ban-it in one corner tends to jar with the corporate money making going on a few pages over. Often it can, and is used by those who might disagree to highlight if not flaws in their advocacy, but certainly selective campaigning. I am sure many in Islington will gladly return their back lot to natures' best, but also that it will be well up on the priority list of green guilt compared to giving Angel Falls a miss.
For what it is worth, I have to say puring gunk onto weeds is not the best eco-option, but I do confess to zapping a few dandelions with something last summer, as excavating them made my lawn look the Somme.
One day at a time?
Is Earth Day enough to save the planet?
As with all things, it is a question of degree. And the sad inevitability that what was once small, personal and intimate pretty quickly becomes big, corporate and a monumental overblown bore.
The first I knew about Earth Day was an email from one of the x zillion well funded ngos/charity newsletters I subscribe to to try and glean some worthwhile information on worthwhile things that get or can be DONE.
A banner ad in the middle informed me that ''we' didn't wait to act'. I am guessing it was meant for the US, because the picture was of the Normandy landings, and I am pretty sure 'they' did wait a wee while until nudged a bit by Adm. Yamamoto's frequent flyer programme.
First click got me to the donation page.
As I was unsure how much of my contribution would go on private jets for the management board, guest celebs and media hangers on, and how much would go on media comms budgets (plus sponsors - I was also treated to an Earth Day ad from a Fortune 500 company promoting its bleach) for awareness of their next concert, day/wheeze, I gave it a miss.
And got on with just another one of the 365 days each year I try and DO my best for my kids' futures.
As with all things, it is a question of degree. And the sad inevitability that what was once small, personal and intimate pretty quickly becomes big, corporate and a monumental overblown bore.
The first I knew about Earth Day was an email from one of the x zillion well funded ngos/charity newsletters I subscribe to to try and glean some worthwhile information on worthwhile things that get or can be DONE.
A banner ad in the middle informed me that ''we' didn't wait to act'. I am guessing it was meant for the US, because the picture was of the Normandy landings, and I am pretty sure 'they' did wait a wee while until nudged a bit by Adm. Yamamoto's frequent flyer programme.
First click got me to the donation page.
As I was unsure how much of my contribution would go on private jets for the management board, guest celebs and media hangers on, and how much would go on media comms budgets (plus sponsors - I was also treated to an Earth Day ad from a Fortune 500 company promoting its bleach) for awareness of their next concert, day/wheeze, I gave it a miss.
And got on with just another one of the 365 days each year I try and DO my best for my kids' futures.
Comments are now closed... no wonder!
Becuase I doubt I was the first poised to hit the keyboard!
Should you 'green' your CV?
What pure, unadulterated tripe dressed up under a question about an issue, even if mocking. Good job it's not April 1. But I still think the author has tongue well in cheek.
Shame the moderators did not see fit to let the thread even start, let alone run.
At least fish4PR got what it needed out of a 'survey'.
Should you 'green' your CV?
What pure, unadulterated tripe dressed up under a question about an issue, even if mocking. Good job it's not April 1. But I still think the author has tongue well in cheek.
Shame the moderators did not see fit to let the thread even start, let alone run.
At least fish4PR got what it needed out of a 'survey'.
Too much spin; not enough substance
Again, on the subject of wind farms I read a lot on subjective passion; very littel that allows me to add anything up.
Tutting at wind farms
Somehow this has all seemed to be devolved into some kind spat between ramblers, shredded seagulls and.. the END OF THE WORLD!!!!
Whilst all aspects - social, tourist, etc - are certainly of consideration, a few priorities are in order. Especially if we are to remain addicted to unlimited procreation and hence energy addiction in support of demand... and man-worsened negative climate change via greenhouse gas emissions goes from possible to probable to... worth doing something about.
However, in all such pieces, I would dearly love to see also included some clear ROI and enviROI figures for the relative values of the various alternative energy solutions being proposed and, it seems often championed and/or funded without question by simply not being something else.
I have to presume these numbers have been produced and show clear advantages to our futures on this planet. And if so, would be quite potent to me when being required to weigh against more local ecological or lifestyle issues.
I can see by its location and ambient weather conditions how a facility like this one does look more likely to be able to generate electricity in a 'greener' manner than some alternatives, but do all that are proposed? What about downtimes? Maintenance? Transmission logistics?
Sorry, I still feel there is a wee bit too much spin going on (from the inevitable extremes of such 'debates'), and not enough substance.
Addendum:
This is becoming the talk of the blogosphere.
BBC - Proposals to build one of Europe's biggest onshore wind farms are turned down by the Scottish Government.
As have added to the above to one:
This has stirred things up a tad, but I do wonder if in the right way, and amongst the right folk.
Some things are very hard to quantify, so I have total sympathy for those trying to place a value on something as subjective as a view.
However, as a mere MoP (member of the public) trying to wade through a morass of advocacies that may require my cross in a box one day, the whole thing seems to be maintained at a very simplistic, and emotional level.
And I for one, would REALLY like some confirmed, hard numbers on this.
Without them it all comes across as a battle of interest groups, and as belts get tightened, what (possibly incorrectly, but it's a better attitude than being against anything at all) may seem affordable indulgences for many might drop off the options list in favour of what may seem (often incorrectly) essentials.
BBC Green - Blow to wind power
Guardian - Endangered birds come first: Scottish ministers say no to huge wind farm on Lewis peatland - some numbers, but how good are they?
Tutting at wind farms
Somehow this has all seemed to be devolved into some kind spat between ramblers, shredded seagulls and.. the END OF THE WORLD!!!!
Whilst all aspects - social, tourist, etc - are certainly of consideration, a few priorities are in order. Especially if we are to remain addicted to unlimited procreation and hence energy addiction in support of demand... and man-worsened negative climate change via greenhouse gas emissions goes from possible to probable to... worth doing something about.
However, in all such pieces, I would dearly love to see also included some clear ROI and enviROI figures for the relative values of the various alternative energy solutions being proposed and, it seems often championed and/or funded without question by simply not being something else.
I have to presume these numbers have been produced and show clear advantages to our futures on this planet. And if so, would be quite potent to me when being required to weigh against more local ecological or lifestyle issues.
I can see by its location and ambient weather conditions how a facility like this one does look more likely to be able to generate electricity in a 'greener' manner than some alternatives, but do all that are proposed? What about downtimes? Maintenance? Transmission logistics?
Sorry, I still feel there is a wee bit too much spin going on (from the inevitable extremes of such 'debates'), and not enough substance.
Addendum:
This is becoming the talk of the blogosphere.
BBC - Proposals to build one of Europe's biggest onshore wind farms are turned down by the Scottish Government.
As have added to the above to one:
This has stirred things up a tad, but I do wonder if in the right way, and amongst the right folk.
Some things are very hard to quantify, so I have total sympathy for those trying to place a value on something as subjective as a view.
However, as a mere MoP (member of the public) trying to wade through a morass of advocacies that may require my cross in a box one day, the whole thing seems to be maintained at a very simplistic, and emotional level.
And I for one, would REALLY like some confirmed, hard numbers on this.
Without them it all comes across as a battle of interest groups, and as belts get tightened, what (possibly incorrectly, but it's a better attitude than being against anything at all) may seem affordable indulgences for many might drop off the options list in favour of what may seem (often incorrectly) essentials.
BBC Green - Blow to wind power
Guardian - Endangered birds come first: Scottish ministers say no to huge wind farm on Lewis peatland - some numbers, but how good are they?
Earth to America .....
.... can you hear? An amusing little video clip from EcoAudit.org. Love the 'please take a minute to note the emergency exits ..... there aren't any' bit.
A simple message but quite funny.
A simple message but quite funny.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Saved!
Just, not sure by whom, or if in the right way.
Earth Day Roundup: Cool Things You Can Do
Rather unfortunate ad currently on this page from 'we can solve it', to this Brit at least (footage of the Normandy landings with the line 'we didn't wait'. Well, not until Pearl Harbor, anyway).
But if tactlessly put, perhaps a better message than the one from SJ Johnson at top (also currently), a family company who are working on making better the health of our family and the environment with... Windex, Pledge & Shout?
I kinda feel 'working on' and anything suffixed '-er' might best be kept in the 'Jobs in progress' file before splashing on the media spend, especially for Earth Day. Lest one be accused, however unfairly, of allowing Corporate America to co-opt and monetize it.
Your tax £ being subsidised
Father fined for overfilling bin
The law is, of course, the law.
But there is a certain lack of PR savvy in the choice of person to make an example of, and the way it has been done so far.
In one, more tabloid, account, the authoritarian protagonists seemed to be quite hung up on the fact that it was claimed to be gaping 4" when in fact they had measured it at 7".
At least it was in the silly bin, you silly billies!
There are a few areas of outstanding natural despoiling in our area where the stab-proof sporters from even the local plod don't fancy tackling the visiting inhabitants for a few weeks of each year.
They also seem to have not yet had adequate advice on the problem with too much waste, and hence seen fit to look at what can be recycled.
One question. If you do end up with an excess, even after all the recycling options have been exhausted, what are you supposed to do? Flytip?
I also wonder as to which aspect of LA funding the proceeds go? Better services? Or payroll and pensions?
Acronym-spinning time: WASTCAN (Wielding A Sledgehammer To Crack A Nut). I like that one!
The law is, of course, the law.
But there is a certain lack of PR savvy in the choice of person to make an example of, and the way it has been done so far.
In one, more tabloid, account, the authoritarian protagonists seemed to be quite hung up on the fact that it was claimed to be gaping 4" when in fact they had measured it at 7".
At least it was in the silly bin, you silly billies!
There are a few areas of outstanding natural despoiling in our area where the stab-proof sporters from even the local plod don't fancy tackling the visiting inhabitants for a few weeks of each year.
They also seem to have not yet had adequate advice on the problem with too much waste, and hence seen fit to look at what can be recycled.
One question. If you do end up with an excess, even after all the recycling options have been exhausted, what are you supposed to do? Flytip?
I also wonder as to which aspect of LA funding the proceeds go? Better services? Or payroll and pensions?
Acronym-spinning time: WASTCAN (Wielding A Sledgehammer To Crack A Nut). I like that one!
The devastating virus 0157 .......
..... otherwise known as eco-smugness.
Never let it be said that we don't comment on both sides of the enviro argument. This from The Times is actually quite an amusing rant against the environmental movement.
"What is becoming so fascinating about the new puritanism is not just that we are all being brainwashed to accept the inevitability of hair shirts, but also their unquestioned moral worth. That somehow or other, this life of sackcloth and bicycles is going to benefit our souls and make us all better people."
"My real problem with the eco-alarmists is the pleasure they take in austerity; their evident desire to strip away pleasure. Deep down, they disapprove of skiing, even on a Scottish scale. They dislike colour, excess and fun. They really do want to see us imprisoned in a narrow, grey, scratchy world of recycled car tyres and hemp lingerie (and no, I didn't make that up)."
Ooooo-errrrr! Something has definitely gotten up this lady's nose!
"we will chant a litany of carbon offset, recycling and composting, the buttresses of a new religion that makes radical Islam resemble Methodism."
"the thought of life in this smug, dull, joyless, labour-intensive, recycled, fair trade, waste-free world makes a woman yearn to be already dead and buried in her eco-friendly coffin, fertilising some field for methane-free cows."
Methinks she is taking something of a micro-view of the whole issue? Or maybe her hemp lingerie is itching?
Never let it be said that we don't comment on both sides of the enviro argument. This from The Times is actually quite an amusing rant against the environmental movement.
"What is becoming so fascinating about the new puritanism is not just that we are all being brainwashed to accept the inevitability of hair shirts, but also their unquestioned moral worth. That somehow or other, this life of sackcloth and bicycles is going to benefit our souls and make us all better people."
"My real problem with the eco-alarmists is the pleasure they take in austerity; their evident desire to strip away pleasure. Deep down, they disapprove of skiing, even on a Scottish scale. They dislike colour, excess and fun. They really do want to see us imprisoned in a narrow, grey, scratchy world of recycled car tyres and hemp lingerie (and no, I didn't make that up)."
Ooooo-errrrr! Something has definitely gotten up this lady's nose!
"we will chant a litany of carbon offset, recycling and composting, the buttresses of a new religion that makes radical Islam resemble Methodism."
"the thought of life in this smug, dull, joyless, labour-intensive, recycled, fair trade, waste-free world makes a woman yearn to be already dead and buried in her eco-friendly coffin, fertilising some field for methane-free cows."
Methinks she is taking something of a micro-view of the whole issue? Or maybe her hemp lingerie is itching?
Of Greentosh and Earth Day
THE EARTH DAY BLOG
We have had the hour, which worked so well. I guess some, better funded than most, have seen fit to expand with another 23. Keeps the roof over their heads I guess.
Greentosh... LOL.
I like it, especially in its less sinister incarnation. Other than this blog I would not have know it was Earth Day save for a press release advocating I ditch something I have and replace it with the new, eco version they are offering.... for the planet. Bless.
So long as they don't fib, good luck to 'em, but with one small caveat on the overall effect all this if having on the credibility and patience of the consumer.
I recall at copyriter skool the story of a Canadian canned salmon brand that was suffering because the flesh was white. The solution, which worked gangbusters, was the line 'guaranteed not to go pink'. Sex may sell, but perceived negatives can shift loyalties. Just ask the Democratic Party candidate machines.
The sad fact is that there is, very probably, a fair bit out there now that I would like to know about and act upon because it is, genuinely, better for the future of our kids. And may not even cost a premium. Sadly all but swamped by the dross.
Thanks for sharing. Cheered me up a bit.
I have to question one stat though: 'The average dustbin contains enough unrealised energy for 500 baths, 3500 showers or 5,000 hours of television.'
If it's true, then 'Back to the Future's' Doc Whassiname's Radio Shack fission plant must be closer than I thought.
As to the Howie's scheme being a lot less fun, I'd say it rather depends on who you ask. I guess if it's the agency, client, models and production crew left at T5 I guess you are right. As to getting the job done with least eco-impact and zero carbon-hypocrisy... top marks.
Speaking of which, make sure you catch the latest BBC green effort tonight. Something about kids' fashion. I got a DM piece the size of a LiLo on it last week. And it was on the Breakfast News this morning.
First point of business in boosting our awareness: flying a bunch of folk to India for what seemed like 'The Sulky Six Go 'Whatevah' in Mumbai'. You can't get irony that good any more.
Happy Earth Day.
We have had the hour, which worked so well. I guess some, better funded than most, have seen fit to expand with another 23. Keeps the roof over their heads I guess.
Greentosh... LOL.
I like it, especially in its less sinister incarnation. Other than this blog I would not have know it was Earth Day save for a press release advocating I ditch something I have and replace it with the new, eco version they are offering.... for the planet. Bless.
So long as they don't fib, good luck to 'em, but with one small caveat on the overall effect all this if having on the credibility and patience of the consumer.
I recall at copyriter skool the story of a Canadian canned salmon brand that was suffering because the flesh was white. The solution, which worked gangbusters, was the line 'guaranteed not to go pink'. Sex may sell, but perceived negatives can shift loyalties. Just ask the Democratic Party candidate machines.
The sad fact is that there is, very probably, a fair bit out there now that I would like to know about and act upon because it is, genuinely, better for the future of our kids. And may not even cost a premium. Sadly all but swamped by the dross.
Thanks for sharing. Cheered me up a bit.
I have to question one stat though: 'The average dustbin contains enough unrealised energy for 500 baths, 3500 showers or 5,000 hours of television.'
If it's true, then 'Back to the Future's' Doc Whassiname's Radio Shack fission plant must be closer than I thought.
As to the Howie's scheme being a lot less fun, I'd say it rather depends on who you ask. I guess if it's the agency, client, models and production crew left at T5 I guess you are right. As to getting the job done with least eco-impact and zero carbon-hypocrisy... top marks.
Speaking of which, make sure you catch the latest BBC green effort tonight. Something about kids' fashion. I got a DM piece the size of a LiLo on it last week. And it was on the Breakfast News this morning.
First point of business in boosting our awareness: flying a bunch of folk to India for what seemed like 'The Sulky Six Go 'Whatevah' in Mumbai'. You can't get irony that good any more.
Happy Earth Day.
Cache as cache can
And another acronym: CACA.
An interesting take on global politics and reporting of same, courtesy of a chap evidently with no life, a worrying grasp of IT and too much time on his hands (but thank heavens for such folk):
BBC - Capitalism harms planet - Morales
Seems to have become (as no trace of the former can be found):
BBC - Leaders warn on biofuels and food
Thing is... why so coy? It's a debate worth having. I'll need to look up the definitions and hence difference between capitalism and consumerism, but it's pretty clear that economic growth almost inevitable equates to wanting, making, using and disposing of ever more stuff, and a limit might well be nigh. Then what?
Not a debate I'd fancy being within collateral damage range of, mind. I can see why they bottled... er... robustly handled it.
An interesting take on global politics and reporting of same, courtesy of a chap evidently with no life, a worrying grasp of IT and too much time on his hands (but thank heavens for such folk):
BBC - Capitalism harms planet - Morales
Seems to have become (as no trace of the former can be found):
BBC - Leaders warn on biofuels and food
Thing is... why so coy? It's a debate worth having. I'll need to look up the definitions and hence difference between capitalism and consumerism, but it's pretty clear that economic growth almost inevitable equates to wanting, making, using and disposing of ever more stuff, and a limit might well be nigh. Then what?
Not a debate I'd fancy being within collateral damage range of, mind. I can see why they bottled... er... robustly handled it.
Olympics costs - to infinity and beyond!
Back in February, the DCMS admitted that the cost of staging the London Olympics 'could' (yes, that horrid little word again) quadruple to the staggering sum of some £9 Billion.
We mentioned on this very blog the lack of accountability and the astounding cost estimate spiral for the Olympics swimming pool complex which had been awarded to a sole bidder.
And earlier this morning I heard Tessa Jowell on Radio 5 attempting to defend the fact that the overall estimate has now reached £9.3 Billion! Not that she actually answered any of the questions directly, it was an absolute masterclass in prevarication and the avoidance of real answers.
Well, here's a piece from Sky News reporting on the fact that the Commons Public Accounts Committee is taking the view that "the British public have been "grossly misled" and the original estimate for the Olympic Games was "totally unrealistic","
Difficult to argue with that conclusion, isn't it?
"There was no initial contingency fund set aside. In other words, no allowance was made for the possibility of overspending."
An original estimate without any contingency built-in, a failure to account for VAT, and a minimal security and policing allowance (Hell's teeth! The torch relay through London cost almost £750,000 alone!).
Anybody in the real business world responsible for putting forward such an original estimate would have been sacked long ago by now. But this is our Gov, and accountability, at least at that particular level, doesn't really seem to matter anymore, does it?
We mentioned on this very blog the lack of accountability and the astounding cost estimate spiral for the Olympics swimming pool complex which had been awarded to a sole bidder.
And earlier this morning I heard Tessa Jowell on Radio 5 attempting to defend the fact that the overall estimate has now reached £9.3 Billion! Not that she actually answered any of the questions directly, it was an absolute masterclass in prevarication and the avoidance of real answers.
Well, here's a piece from Sky News reporting on the fact that the Commons Public Accounts Committee is taking the view that "the British public have been "grossly misled" and the original estimate for the Olympic Games was "totally unrealistic","
Difficult to argue with that conclusion, isn't it?
"There was no initial contingency fund set aside. In other words, no allowance was made for the possibility of overspending."
An original estimate without any contingency built-in, a failure to account for VAT, and a minimal security and policing allowance (Hell's teeth! The torch relay through London cost almost £750,000 alone!).
Anybody in the real business world responsible for putting forward such an original estimate would have been sacked long ago by now. But this is our Gov, and accountability, at least at that particular level, doesn't really seem to matter anymore, does it?
More on Greenwashing
A very 'across the pond' perspective, from PRWatch, but with very common parallels over here in the UK.
Plus a link to SourceWatch, which provides examples of Greenwashing from all around the planet.
Plus a link to SourceWatch, which provides examples of Greenwashing from all around the planet.
Quote of the day - You say tomatoes, others might say rampant porkies
In the Indy - Head of E.ON UK, the British arm of Europe's biggest supplier of wind power, Paul Golby:
"The politicians have not been entirely honest about the cost of our renewables commitment, and so the public don't really know what's coming their way."
"The politicians have not been entirely honest about the cost of our renewables commitment, and so the public don't really know what's coming their way."
Something has got up the nose of the Newsnight editor
Some may say I might not be the only one. At least, so far, no one can excuse them of overt censorship, yet...
Further to an earlier post... Blogging - a new era
6. At 09:01 am on 19 Apr 2008, PeterBarron wrote: Oh come on Junkkmale (4), give it a chance. It's only been going for a day.
Oh... I am sorry that you appear frustrated at my lack of enthusiasm and support... well, for the additional 'improvements' to the blogging experience made in addition/complement to the infamous error codes. Now sorted, if I may repeat my congrats on that at least.
How much of a chance do you need? The same the BBC gave BA and the T5 planners for things that had a fair old while and a healthy wadge of wonga to get right, and yet...
It's just that when asked/invited to give an opinion I naturally assumed that one is going to be expected... even if aspects might be unfavourable. Maybe specifying a minimum time window to allow for settling in would have been helpful? Oh, but then there's that 'comments closed' situation. Hence an upper limit too. So a window of posting opportunity maybe? Dilemmas abound.
Might I be allowed to ask what IS the rationale for closing a comment thread? Looking back a few it seems not to be based on a simple time period.
I also like to know if I can about who I am chatting with, so I clicked the link to check and find out more on your name. Sadly, just this, as far as I could locate: Blog Network Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers. User Profile Listed below are comments made by between and across all BBC Blogs. « NewerOlder »
My pointing out that live links was an unfortunate deletion was a feedback suggestion by the way, though if it was causing problems maybe there was good reason for deleting this option. I am sure that might have been noticed and discussed when this was planned...right? It just all seems to have been coming as a bit of a surprise to you.
And there do now seem a lot fewer folk than there used to be, along with the off-page redirections to further sources I appreciated.
Anyway, I am glad to see this thread is still allowed to remain active. But I'll have to remember the latest bit of nuSpeek to add to all the others of our age: '...as I understand it the new features are there in order to manage the huge workload robustly, not to stifle debate.'
Rather Clintonian. 'As you understand it'? Don't you KNOW? It is your programme's site blog is it not?
I concede that I may be in a minority, though I take some comfort in the experiences and opinions shared by some others.... in a total of 16 comments (so far - 1 from me and 4 from you guys, so at least we're now in double digits) on fundamental changes to the blog thread page of one of the last serious news programmes of the broadcaster to a nation of 60 million.
In my line, advertising, a critique from a customer who cares enough to write is the most valuable thing you can get, and should be cherished. And embraced. But I'm afraid by deed and tone you and and your organisation often make me feel that is not high on the agenda where you work, managing huge workloads, um, 'robustly'.
That's for whom... again?
ADDENDUM 1
Talk about Newsnight: Comment guidelines
Talk about Newsnight is a blog which aims to bring the programme team closer to its audience by providing an insight into our production process and offering a platform for review, analysis and debate of the subjects we are covering.
When joining in debates and responding to blog entries we are happy for you to criticise the programme and to ask serious questions about our coverage. Where we can we will respond.
...etc...
ADDENDUM 2
Can't fault him for not replying, and in fact quite graciously (though perhaps with tongue in cheek:):
I wasn't intending to be rude or defensive - of course I embrace and cherish your comments, and I'm pleased at the very least that 2-way communication is working better than before.
The "give it a chance" referred to your comment that user numbers were smaller than before - it will take a while to get the numbers up, but I hope that the ease of commenting will help.
I agree entirely on the live links, which I hope will be available soon.
The reason for my Clintonian defence is that the blog fix has been done across the BBC by a team not under Newsnight's direct control.
So we are finding our way with it too.
I remain concerned that so many aspects of this revamp involved deletions of things that, to me, encouraged open debate. I still have no answer as the the rationale behind having a 'comments closed' shutter. And also that the editorial aspects of the blog fix seem to have been carried out with little or no input from the Newsnight editor.
Peter (19) - thank you for your considered reply.
And with the welcome addition of Cloe-F at least we're up to a 22-way conversation now:)
I am sure this may well steadily rise as existing posters get to grips with the new system (I ended up with a 'name' I'd forgotten about thanks to some registration/cookie combo when I signed on to the BBC site ages ago), and possibly new friends now the infamous 502 is consigned to history.
However, Cloe_F's tech feedback might prove enough to dissuade many in this 'data-available' concerned age. Another aspect one might have hoped had been raised at pre-planning stage?
But I am sure that now it is shared it will be addressed. You do indeed have access to some very well informed folk, with valuable experiences to share, especially in some pertinent areas of expertise. Which is what I would be sorry to lose.
It is a shame that your team had no, or little input on the mechanisms for feedback on the work you do. As journalists and editors I am sure you are usually more than interested in every aspect of how news and opinion is gleaned and disseminated. And blanket impositions, even with good intentions, can often end up pleasing none of the people, none of the time.
Moderation is a tricky path. It's not just what gets said, but whether something is allowed in ... or out... and why. Or for how long. As those involved elsewhere with such as 'Have Your Say' for instance might have found. I don't bother with these efforts because, beyond anonymous venting in the wind, there is little incentive or reward for investing the thought and time. And the result is all too often a highlighted 'soundbite' chosen to suit.
Clearly, this thread is looking quite healthy for open debate in this regard so far and, with luck, will improve even more.
But what did prompt my original concerns back last week (16/17 April) was the 'comment closed' time out, the rationale for which (if it is to stay as an option) still remains unclear. I've noticed it elsewhere, in such as Guardian CiF, and can't see a good reason for it, considering the internet/web's ability to allow information to expand with the interest and demand it stimulates.
With this 'new', robust system, and the clearly re-energised moderating team it has empowered, I am sure leaving things open to accommodate the odd subsequent follow-up commentary is technically and administratively possible if the will is there.
24/04
It's the little things.
Some days have passed. I already have a sense that a few things might be addressed. But others might be quietly ignored. Like links to poster's URLs.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I noticed that the advisory on the nature of moderation (pre/post - oddly not a field that one change applies throughout) was a tad erratic and informed them.
It has now been changed.
You're welcome, BBC. Oddly no acknowledgement, so to subsequent posters I might appear to be to be incorrect in my advice. Just rude, or spiteful taboot? Thank heavens for the cache. Like I say, it's the little things, and they do mount up.
Further to an earlier post... Blogging - a new era
6. At 09:01 am on 19 Apr 2008, PeterBarron wrote: Oh come on Junkkmale (4), give it a chance. It's only been going for a day.
Oh... I am sorry that you appear frustrated at my lack of enthusiasm and support... well, for the additional 'improvements' to the blogging experience made in addition/complement to the infamous error codes. Now sorted, if I may repeat my congrats on that at least.
How much of a chance do you need? The same the BBC gave BA and the T5 planners for things that had a fair old while and a healthy wadge of wonga to get right, and yet...
It's just that when asked/invited to give an opinion I naturally assumed that one is going to be expected... even if aspects might be unfavourable. Maybe specifying a minimum time window to allow for settling in would have been helpful? Oh, but then there's that 'comments closed' situation. Hence an upper limit too. So a window of posting opportunity maybe? Dilemmas abound.
Might I be allowed to ask what IS the rationale for closing a comment thread? Looking back a few it seems not to be based on a simple time period.
I also like to know if I can about who I am chatting with, so I clicked the link to check and find out more on your name. Sadly, just this, as far as I could locate: Blog Network Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers. User Profile Listed below are comments made by between and across all BBC Blogs. « NewerOlder »
My pointing out that live links was an unfortunate deletion was a feedback suggestion by the way, though if it was causing problems maybe there was good reason for deleting this option. I am sure that might have been noticed and discussed when this was planned...right? It just all seems to have been coming as a bit of a surprise to you.
And there do now seem a lot fewer folk than there used to be, along with the off-page redirections to further sources I appreciated.
Anyway, I am glad to see this thread is still allowed to remain active. But I'll have to remember the latest bit of nuSpeek to add to all the others of our age: '...as I understand it the new features are there in order to manage the huge workload robustly, not to stifle debate.'
Rather Clintonian. 'As you understand it'? Don't you KNOW? It is your programme's site blog is it not?
I concede that I may be in a minority, though I take some comfort in the experiences and opinions shared by some others.... in a total of 16 comments (so far - 1 from me and 4 from you guys, so at least we're now in double digits) on fundamental changes to the blog thread page of one of the last serious news programmes of the broadcaster to a nation of 60 million.
In my line, advertising, a critique from a customer who cares enough to write is the most valuable thing you can get, and should be cherished. And embraced. But I'm afraid by deed and tone you and and your organisation often make me feel that is not high on the agenda where you work, managing huge workloads, um, 'robustly'.
That's for whom... again?
ADDENDUM 1
Talk about Newsnight: Comment guidelines
Talk about Newsnight is a blog which aims to bring the programme team closer to its audience by providing an insight into our production process and offering a platform for review, analysis and debate of the subjects we are covering.
When joining in debates and responding to blog entries we are happy for you to criticise the programme and to ask serious questions about our coverage. Where we can we will respond.
...etc...
ADDENDUM 2
Can't fault him for not replying, and in fact quite graciously (though perhaps with tongue in cheek:):
I wasn't intending to be rude or defensive - of course I embrace and cherish your comments, and I'm pleased at the very least that 2-way communication is working better than before.
The "give it a chance" referred to your comment that user numbers were smaller than before - it will take a while to get the numbers up, but I hope that the ease of commenting will help.
I agree entirely on the live links, which I hope will be available soon.
The reason for my Clintonian defence is that the blog fix has been done across the BBC by a team not under Newsnight's direct control.
So we are finding our way with it too.
I remain concerned that so many aspects of this revamp involved deletions of things that, to me, encouraged open debate. I still have no answer as the the rationale behind having a 'comments closed' shutter. And also that the editorial aspects of the blog fix seem to have been carried out with little or no input from the Newsnight editor.
Peter (19) - thank you for your considered reply.
And with the welcome addition of Cloe-F at least we're up to a 22-way conversation now:)
I am sure this may well steadily rise as existing posters get to grips with the new system (I ended up with a 'name' I'd forgotten about thanks to some registration/cookie combo when I signed on to the BBC site ages ago), and possibly new friends now the infamous 502 is consigned to history.
However, Cloe_F's tech feedback might prove enough to dissuade many in this 'data-available' concerned age. Another aspect one might have hoped had been raised at pre-planning stage?
But I am sure that now it is shared it will be addressed. You do indeed have access to some very well informed folk, with valuable experiences to share, especially in some pertinent areas of expertise. Which is what I would be sorry to lose.
It is a shame that your team had no, or little input on the mechanisms for feedback on the work you do. As journalists and editors I am sure you are usually more than interested in every aspect of how news and opinion is gleaned and disseminated. And blanket impositions, even with good intentions, can often end up pleasing none of the people, none of the time.
Moderation is a tricky path. It's not just what gets said, but whether something is allowed in ... or out... and why. Or for how long. As those involved elsewhere with such as 'Have Your Say' for instance might have found. I don't bother with these efforts because, beyond anonymous venting in the wind, there is little incentive or reward for investing the thought and time. And the result is all too often a highlighted 'soundbite' chosen to suit.
Clearly, this thread is looking quite healthy for open debate in this regard so far and, with luck, will improve even more.
But what did prompt my original concerns back last week (16/17 April) was the 'comment closed' time out, the rationale for which (if it is to stay as an option) still remains unclear. I've noticed it elsewhere, in such as Guardian CiF, and can't see a good reason for it, considering the internet/web's ability to allow information to expand with the interest and demand it stimulates.
With this 'new', robust system, and the clearly re-energised moderating team it has empowered, I am sure leaving things open to accommodate the odd subsequent follow-up commentary is technically and administratively possible if the will is there.
24/04
It's the little things.
Some days have passed. I already have a sense that a few things might be addressed. But others might be quietly ignored. Like links to poster's URLs.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I noticed that the advisory on the nature of moderation (pre/post - oddly not a field that one change applies throughout) was a tad erratic and informed them.
It has now been changed.
You're welcome, BBC. Oddly no acknowledgement, so to subsequent posters I might appear to be to be incorrect in my advice. Just rude, or spiteful taboot? Thank heavens for the cache. Like I say, it's the little things, and they do mount up.
NEWS/GO3 PR - bare?
Introducing Thread.I need another designation. This came from the PR on behalf of the BBC, so it's not commercial, but it doesn't quite seem to sit right under the section for gov, local gov and ngos/charities either.
I think it must be because I am not that big on fashion as, almost by definition, it seems to suggest moving on (and hence spending) quite quickly from one thing to the next for no clear reason except to be different. And speaking as one whose wardrobe evolves at a glacial pace, I find it hard to reconcile anything planet-saving with stick thin models and their caravans of hangers on scooting round the world selling ever more bizarre stuff at silly money... even if on (very rare, and hence fashionable) occasion it might be a tad greener than some.
It didn't start well. Actually, it almost didn't start at all. A dirty great envelope arrived with some anorexic yoof model (the strapline is 'Fashion Without Victim, but this is a different 'cause du jour' and hence I guess OK by not being that department) on the front wearing a T-shirt shouting 'Save the Future'. And out of this fell an equally vast magazine, publicised using 100% this and that, with more of the same. Three words and one picture a page with various moody teens wearing stuff I thought just looked like jeans and t-shirts but I suspect have pricer labels on account of not coming from a charity shop or Primark.
So I nearly passed, as helping the BBC flog trendy new publications, especially rather 'inefficient' one's of dodgy enviROI, in the name of green really ain't my... Katherine Hamnett... bag.
Anyhooo...
It's not a magazine and it's not for sale. I am just not sure who it benefits and who and what the cost was/is.
Here's the blurb, as provided, E&EO (new acronym: Edited (for space and/or often rampant, redundant client-laden unnecessary verbiage)) & Eyebrow-cranked (if I think some claims may be a tad over-egged:) Often:
BBC LAUNCHES ONLINE ETHICAL FASHION MAGAZINE ‘THREAD’
AS ONE IN THREE YOUNG PEOPLE TURNS ECO-GLAM
As ethical fashion promises to be the next big thing, the BBC has launched ‘Thread’: a new online magazine for fashion conscious people who care about where their clothes come from.
New research conducted for Thread among 16-30 year olds has shown that ethical fashion is no longer a fringe movement; almost one in three (31%) intends to buy more [in addition to... or instead of... the next big things?] ethical fashion in the future. Young shoppers believe ethical fashion is a worthwhile cause, yet do not know where to turn for information on how to be sustainable and stylish [Hmnn... not sure I think that is true, or fair. But maybe it's that they haven't had a greenish guilt-assuaging article in the glossies for a few weeks and it's time to get another bandwagon-jumping box-ticking, profit centre-creating going? Sorry, that's just cynical. There are many with, good intentions, such as TRAID, gracing the pages of... Junkk.com!]
The Thread research highlighted that young people are actively seeking information on ethical fashion and are keen to put pressure on fashion retailers to provide information on eco-credentials of the clothing they sell.
Half (50%) want information on the working conditions of people manufacturing the items
43% would like to see organic labelling on clothes
41% are concerned about the use of pesticides and toxic chemicals which are currently not disclosed
36% want advice on how to dispose of used clothing and its packaging
31% would like ‘fashion miles’ declared by retailers disclosing the distance and form of transport used to get the item to the shop floor
30% want information on the energy usage involved in production
Katherine Hamnett, designer and supporter of Thread says:
“Thread is great because ethical fashion promises to be the next big thing and not just a passing fad. Young people are really interested in these issues.” [Bless. I wrote the bit above before getting to this. Sorry, what I wrote stands. How much was her effort again? Verus just using a few bog standard reuseable bags and investing money in high enviROI eco-efforts]
Thread will cut to the heart of what ‘ethical fashion’ means, covering a range of issues from the environmental footprint of clothing manufacture, to the impact of the fashion industry on human and animal rights and why the choices we make as clothes shoppers make a real difference. [OK, and why this is even being published here, I will support anything that shares information, but I really have my eyebrow cranked as to how much is about making informed choices and how much is using a niche notion to get a lot of sheep-like luvvies new avenues to gush over, and those with more money than sense or sincerity a 'get out of guilt free' pass for simply wanting money and fame or the next best thing to occupy their lives and minds].
First and foremost Thread is dedicated to showcasing the latest in eco-fabulous style. The magazine shows you how to get the look you want in an eco-glam way through a unique mix of affordable fashion, exclusive celebrity videos and interviews, photo galleries and thought-provoking features. [I am afraid that if this is the first and foremost way to help save the future, I will need to remain on the floor until the stomach cramps pass as I can't seem to stop... the darn.. hysterical... laughing... I await with sick certainty that there will be, inevitably, much overseas travel involved ' in the cause'*]
It will also offer ideas and information on how to give your wardrobe an ethical makeover through a mix of shopping for new or vintage clothes, to swapping clothes with friends and customising existing clothes. Thread is proof that there are ethical options to suit your style, your budget and your views. [Phew... Mitigation!]
BBC Radio 1 DJ, Nihal, a reporter for Thread magazine said:
“Organic cotton, fair trade, restyling, vintage wear… ethical fashion is this year’s carbon footprint in eco terms but it’s still a new concept that we’re all trying to get to grips with. The perception of ethical fashion as being ugly, expensive clothes for hippies is changing, it’s so much more than that – I can’t see myself in a hemp poncho any time soon! Ethical fashion is about affordable style, with substance.
“There are now loads of places, both online and on the high street, where you can find clothes that are produced in a way that looks after people and the environment as well as giving you the edge in the style stakes. Thread is the place to find them. It is a place where fashion conscious people can tap into the latest trends and get the low-down on how to adopt ethical fashion into their lives in a fun and stylish way. ”
Thread magazine launches in conjunction with ‘Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts’, a new four-part series on BBC Three starting on 22nd April in which six young fashion lovers will swap shopping for the factories and back streets of India [*bingo!]** to make clothes for the British High Street, offering a unique insight into how our clothes are made. Over the next six months Thread will also be at the heart of further fashion events and programming across BBC TV, radio and online.
Notes:
Thread has been produced by BBC Learning which delivers campaigns that aim to inspire and empower individuals to take action - action that changes their lives, benefits communities and helps to transform society. BBC Learning sits within BBC Knowledge and provides specialist learning content, formal and informal, for children and adults.
Thread aims to make ethical fashion the next big thing [until the next big thing, presumably], change consumer attitudes and behavior and demonstrate that being ethical is easy as well as affordable and desirable.
The BBC commissioned research using representative samples of 550 people (Research conducted by Voodoo research)
Thread magazine will be supported across BBC Channels: BBC Three, Radio 1, 1 Xtra, Asian Network, 6 music and BBC Blast.
And it's out in the nation's closet and up and running... tomorrow! Your licence fee at work:) Let's see what it manages to do.
**ADDENDUM - Missed the programme (or maybe it is tonight), which was last night, so I must be careful with my comments, but I just watched the sofa surfer set at BBC Breakfast with two of the girls. Sorry, this was Famous Six Go Moody in Mumbai meets Big Brother. The quote that set the scene was from one girl that She 'thought it was just going to be a big holiday'. Sorry, this has done little to convince me that it is much more than a a way to get some footage that has a greenish association more coverage than it might. As to creating changes in behaviour that come close to offsetting what was consumed creating all this... But at least they got awareness.
Indy - High fashion, low budget: Why hard times needn’t mean a fashion crisis - Ooo, poor people, how totally radical. Shut up!!! This all seems less about the environment, and more about managing expectations (well, post-rationalisations) of an economic downturn. 'I'm not doing this 'cos I is broke, I am making a statement about the ethical state of the planet.... well, 'til I can afford not to again'.
Monday, April 21, 2008
It must have been something in my drinking water
A wee while ago I made suggestion/posed a question to BBC Newswatch about the handling of a piece of reporting/editorial that had a acquired a bit of notoriety in the blogosphere:
COMMENTS: I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin. In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage. Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?
They have been gracious enough to now reply:
'It's an interesting point, but my view in writing that introduction was that we shouldn't take at face value something that appears on the internet. It was a private conversation published by one side and could have been altered. That's why the first question to Roger Harrabin was to ascertain if the published version was actually true...'
As followers of this blog will recall, I was quite keen that the facts were first established before passions were stirred. Hopefully they will grant me that. I must confess that, after the Clintonian reply from Newsnight's Peter Barron a few blogs previously, I still am slightly unclear on the actual facts, which I had sought from the protagonists:
It's a view I fully accept. Which is why, when the silage hit the windmill I participated in several blog exchanges that had long since passed the point of being concerned about verification, simply to ask if, at all, there was any confirmation that the more 'damaging' phrasing had actually been by him, in these words. I am still struggling to get to this in a form I can take as accurate, but from what you write may I take it that it was/is? Sadly in this day and age, conversations, and especially written ones fired over the ether to unknown correspondents, are seldom as private as we might wish. Maybe Ms. Abbess was a trusted source to this point? But it is good to know that the BBC at least has reporting and editorial standards still that would mean such confidences would never be breached, even without clearly stated guidelines, caveats and immediate flagging as to whether potentially controversial asides should be on or off record before being broadcast.
Now, I wonder, is what I wrote to them 'between us'. No mention made. Equally, what I got back. I hope it is therefore OK to share.
LAST WORD?:
At least one fact is now confirmed, if not from the actual horse's mouth, at least his jockey/trainer/stable owner (you know what I mean). Quick, too:
I think yes, the exchange was accurate (though perhaps not all that took place) but I thought it sensible to hear it confirmed from the horse's mouth...
COMMENTS: I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin. In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage. Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?
They have been gracious enough to now reply:
'It's an interesting point, but my view in writing that introduction was that we shouldn't take at face value something that appears on the internet. It was a private conversation published by one side and could have been altered. That's why the first question to Roger Harrabin was to ascertain if the published version was actually true...'
As followers of this blog will recall, I was quite keen that the facts were first established before passions were stirred. Hopefully they will grant me that. I must confess that, after the Clintonian reply from Newsnight's Peter Barron a few blogs previously, I still am slightly unclear on the actual facts, which I had sought from the protagonists:
It's a view I fully accept. Which is why, when the silage hit the windmill I participated in several blog exchanges that had long since passed the point of being concerned about verification, simply to ask if, at all, there was any confirmation that the more 'damaging' phrasing had actually been by him, in these words. I am still struggling to get to this in a form I can take as accurate, but from what you write may I take it that it was/is? Sadly in this day and age, conversations, and especially written ones fired over the ether to unknown correspondents, are seldom as private as we might wish. Maybe Ms. Abbess was a trusted source to this point? But it is good to know that the BBC at least has reporting and editorial standards still that would mean such confidences would never be breached, even without clearly stated guidelines, caveats and immediate flagging as to whether potentially controversial asides should be on or off record before being broadcast.
Now, I wonder, is what I wrote to them 'between us'. No mention made. Equally, what I got back. I hope it is therefore OK to share.
LAST WORD?:
At least one fact is now confirmed, if not from the actual horse's mouth, at least his jockey/trainer/stable owner (you know what I mean). Quick, too:
I think yes, the exchange was accurate (though perhaps not all that took place) but I thought it sensible to hear it confirmed from the horse's mouth...
Quote of the day - Maybe the BBC will believe me
I tried it on my wife (the beer belly has rather spread). No luck.
From a commenter with perhaps a less sympathetic view of this awful condition, in a blog with a perhaps less than doe-eyed view of this government and how much it does, and doesn't do gets reported (or not) by our noble, objective news media:
'Is Bulimia a disease of auto suggestion and as such contagious? I only ask, because for the past couple of days, each time I hear or see [ex DPM] Prescott ['s reference's] about some non-existent 'condition' in order to gain public sympathy and sell a book, I have an overwhelming desire to throw up all over the carpet.
Almost lost my lunch, mind, so who knows?
From a commenter with perhaps a less sympathetic view of this awful condition, in a blog with a perhaps less than doe-eyed view of this government and how much it does, and doesn't do gets reported (or not) by our noble, objective news media:
'Is Bulimia a disease of auto suggestion and as such contagious? I only ask, because for the past couple of days, each time I hear or see [ex DPM] Prescott ['s reference's] about some non-existent 'condition' in order to gain public sympathy and sell a book, I have an overwhelming desire to throw up all over the carpet.
Almost lost my lunch, mind, so who knows?
Of Food Prices, Population Growth, Climate Change, Biofuels and even Malthus!
A very interesting article from FinFacts covering, well, just about everything you could care to mention! And some fascinating facts........
"we now consume about fifty thousand times as much energy as our ancestors once did" Wow!
And have you heard of Norman Borlaug? They reckon that he has "saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived." Gosh! And I've never even heard of him before!
"US stocks of wheat are at a 60-year low and world rice stocks are at a 25-year low."
"The rise in the price of oil has resulted in the US diverting 20% of its maize/corn production for biofuels and the European Union 68% of its vegetable oil production."
Meanwhile, looking at the world's population figures:-
AD 0001 ~300 Million
AD 1000 ~310 Million (Yes, that's a 10 million increase in 1000 years!)
AD 1500 ~450 Million
AD 1804 ~1 Billion
AD 1927 ~2 Billion
AD 1960 ~3 Billion
AD 1975 ~4 Billion
AD 1989 ~5 Billion
AD 2000 ~6 Billion (Yes, that's a 1 Billion increase in 11 years!)
Today ~6,662,731,966 (At midday today - probably several 100 thousand more in a few hours!)
AD 2010? ~7 Billion?
AD 2050? ~9.2 Billion+?
From a 10 Million increase in a thousand years, to a 10 Million increase over a matter of days! Maybe Malthus wasn't so crazy after all, simply a little ahead of his time. It doesn't look too good really, does it?
Addendum:
At least it looks as if the EU is going to revue the biofuels targets - from the Guardian.
"we now consume about fifty thousand times as much energy as our ancestors once did" Wow!
And have you heard of Norman Borlaug? They reckon that he has "saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived." Gosh! And I've never even heard of him before!
"US stocks of wheat are at a 60-year low and world rice stocks are at a 25-year low."
"The rise in the price of oil has resulted in the US diverting 20% of its maize/corn production for biofuels and the European Union 68% of its vegetable oil production."
Meanwhile, looking at the world's population figures:-
AD 0001 ~300 Million
AD 1000 ~310 Million (Yes, that's a 10 million increase in 1000 years!)
AD 1500 ~450 Million
AD 1804 ~1 Billion
AD 1927 ~2 Billion
AD 1960 ~3 Billion
AD 1975 ~4 Billion
AD 1989 ~5 Billion
AD 2000 ~6 Billion (Yes, that's a 1 Billion increase in 11 years!)
Today ~6,662,731,966 (At midday today - probably several 100 thousand more in a few hours!)
AD 2010? ~7 Billion?
AD 2050? ~9.2 Billion+?
From a 10 Million increase in a thousand years, to a 10 Million increase over a matter of days! Maybe Malthus wasn't so crazy after all, simply a little ahead of his time. It doesn't look too good really, does it?
Addendum:
At least it looks as if the EU is going to revue the biofuels targets - from the Guardian.
The Fat Bush Theory
Is described in the International Herald Tribune. It is an hysterically funny analogy to explain Dubya's stance on reducing the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions.
I wish I'd thought of it first!
I wish I'd thought of it first!
Wet measures
Forget carbon: you should be checking your water footprint
There is actually something to this.
However, as it comes out at the same time as a few other labelling proposals I can only imagine what the poor consumer might face trying to make an informed judgement as they look at the pack of cakes on aisle 4.
waterfootprint.org - I must check to see how a bottle of water stacks up to the favoured tipple, one suspects, of those most vocal in luvvieland most vocal in advocating its banning. I am pretty sure their tables often sport a currently guilt-free glass of vino, which up to now seems...'different'.
There is actually something to this.
However, as it comes out at the same time as a few other labelling proposals I can only imagine what the poor consumer might face trying to make an informed judgement as they look at the pack of cakes on aisle 4.
waterfootprint.org - I must check to see how a bottle of water stacks up to the favoured tipple, one suspects, of those most vocal in luvvieland most vocal in advocating its banning. I am pretty sure their tables often sport a currently guilt-free glass of vino, which up to now seems...'different'.
NEWS/Commercial PR - Basking in glory
You know how much I like polls. Well, here's one I have decided to share, because it makes where I hang out look spiffy (and we use the commissioner's stuff, 'cos it's oodles cheaper as well as eco).
PR as received, with edits for length:
WE WON’T PAY THROUGH THE NOSE TO SAVE THE PLANET!
A study* has revealed that more than nine out of 10 of us are actively looking for environmentally-friendly products! But, when it comes to our everyday shopping, 45 per cent of us are not prepared to pay a premium to prevent global warming. An ICM poll conducted on behalf of Cartridge World, revealed that a quarter of us will automatically choose the ‘greenest’ option. Only six per cent admit to deliberately avoiding the environmentally-friendly choice. [Which is why I am not a big fan of polls... it's actually astounding that a person would actively deny any care for the planet, so pinches of salt all round on those who see no problem when they claim to. Deeds vs. words!]
For 67 per cent of us, there are other factors which we take into consideration. As well as nearly half of us checking the price tag to ensure we’re paying the same or only a little more, 22 per cent need to be confident that choosing the environmentally-friendly alternative does not require a compromise on quality. [Fair dos, and smart. I'd add one more... does it actually help the environment???].
The survey provided an insight into regional and demographic variations in shopping habits. Though 27 per cent of females immediately choose the green option (compared to 23 per cent of males), 47 per cent of males will go green once they’ve checked they’re paying the same, or only a little extra to do so (compared to 43 per cent of females) [Hey, my sex is looking uncharacteristically thoughtful in this, too. For once].
In each age range, fewer than one in 10 respondents said they would never go green. The least green age group were 18 to 24 year olds, followed closely by the over 65s. The greenest age group are those between 25 and 34 with only four per cent responding that they never choose the green alternative. Wales and the South West are home to the greenest shoppers with 30 per cent always choosing the most environmentally-friendly products, while Scotland is home to the highest number of cynics. There nine per cent admit to actively avoiding greener alternatives. Nearly three in 10 (29 per cent) in the south-east state that quality is as important as being green, while more than half of northerners (51 per cent) will check the price tag to ensure they’re not paying extra for the privilege of saving the planet.
*conducted by ICM over three days in April 2008, questioning 1006 people; a fair sample.
PR as received, with edits for length:
WE WON’T PAY THROUGH THE NOSE TO SAVE THE PLANET!
A study* has revealed that more than nine out of 10 of us are actively looking for environmentally-friendly products! But, when it comes to our everyday shopping, 45 per cent of us are not prepared to pay a premium to prevent global warming. An ICM poll conducted on behalf of Cartridge World, revealed that a quarter of us will automatically choose the ‘greenest’ option. Only six per cent admit to deliberately avoiding the environmentally-friendly choice. [Which is why I am not a big fan of polls... it's actually astounding that a person would actively deny any care for the planet, so pinches of salt all round on those who see no problem when they claim to. Deeds vs. words!]
For 67 per cent of us, there are other factors which we take into consideration. As well as nearly half of us checking the price tag to ensure we’re paying the same or only a little more, 22 per cent need to be confident that choosing the environmentally-friendly alternative does not require a compromise on quality. [Fair dos, and smart. I'd add one more... does it actually help the environment???].
The survey provided an insight into regional and demographic variations in shopping habits. Though 27 per cent of females immediately choose the green option (compared to 23 per cent of males), 47 per cent of males will go green once they’ve checked they’re paying the same, or only a little extra to do so (compared to 43 per cent of females) [Hey, my sex is looking uncharacteristically thoughtful in this, too. For once].
In each age range, fewer than one in 10 respondents said they would never go green. The least green age group were 18 to 24 year olds, followed closely by the over 65s. The greenest age group are those between 25 and 34 with only four per cent responding that they never choose the green alternative. Wales and the South West are home to the greenest shoppers with 30 per cent always choosing the most environmentally-friendly products, while Scotland is home to the highest number of cynics. There nine per cent admit to actively avoiding greener alternatives. Nearly three in 10 (29 per cent) in the south-east state that quality is as important as being green, while more than half of northerners (51 per cent) will check the price tag to ensure they’re not paying extra for the privilege of saving the planet.
*conducted by ICM over three days in April 2008, questioning 1006 people; a fair sample.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)