Newsnight's Ethical Man is really pleased with this one.
Test driving an electric car in Motor City
Not being a journalist I am not sure what his personal views on how good it is has to do with much, but it is the blog complement so OK.
I fear that, as one of not very many to devote a fair whack of time to reviewing as requested, I still cannot find it easy to agree that the series is really beginning to get to grips with the issues.
For the investment (ROI or enviROI), I found it again factually sparse and lacking in persuasive content. The Volt is an embarrassment (Post 3 is very pertinent) ,though I do wonder why many posters seem more concerned as to whether it was first.
Well, let's see if this week we can discover what the US can teach us (other than how to use 2 x more energy, which I'd rather we didn't), as this might well yet validate the pleasure of finding what was promised for the series gets delivered.
Sadly, the thoughts of a few of a few in a near empty hall - or bartend...er... Mayor Steve (a real people-s champion if he can be swayed to sign up to a commitment on no more than being told to on camera by a UK reporter) - have to be viewed as potentially interesting, but hardly representative. And speaking of context, as well as a matter of interest, if 911 mayors (may now be 935 - http://www.usmayors.org/ )in the US have signed up to cuts, what might the total number be? And what?s the breakdown? I just ask because if Boris signed up London he'd probably be OK. As to a pol with a constituency in the boonies with one bus a day to work... not so sure.
I am also not clear what is meant by 'low carbon travel'. The distance alluded to when this was first raised is surely irrelevant in the context it was mentioned. Yes, the size of the country and population has meant more inevitably is used just shunting a few hundred million folk hundreds of miles when we deal in scores here. The more important issue is efficiency. I see no need for a 6 litre car there to get from A 2 B in comfort and safety any more than I do here. Hence I was as unimpressed with Gov. Arnie's Hummer as Sir Stuart Rose's 7 Series Hydrogen effort, as they made potentially good points in a totally compromised way.
As to whether democratic societies are capable of making short term sacrifices, I would certainly like to think so. But as been pointed out by such as President Obama and PM Brown, we are now in the era of world economies. I guess we should be grateful then that India is a democracy, but there is a small concern as to what the Chinese government may decide for its people when the Shanghai Nano is rolled out. That one will be crossed when arrived at.. all very Prisoner's Dilemma. But if North Korea can be persuaded to stop the whole nuke thing by us getting rid of ours, then anything is possible. And in any case this is, should be, about the technologies and policies of reduction and efficiency domestically.
I also get a bit eyebrow cranky on anything with the word 'carbon' and any term meaning money or trading being bolted together. So nice in theory, so hard to grasp in practice without thinking that such as business class travel will soon only be for politicians, City traders... and journalists that get invited aboard to take us for a ride.
Getting all global, with a touch of egalitarianism thrown in, in our new world order I wonder if there might not end up being some 'them' and 'us' still to avoid further 'issues' cropping up.
Because if I am to be bestowed with an allowance of one log to heat the home, a trip to Tescos to feed the family and an annual short haul to Majorca on Ryan Air, which I can trade with Madonna on weekly kid shopping expeditions, or BBC eco-reporters for visits to Antarctica to see the damage caused by folk going to Antarctica, it seems only fair that every soul on the planet gets the same, from Kalahari bushpersons to Mekong fisherfolk.
And while the latter might not be able to afford the trips or goodies, they would be theirs to trade. Which rather leads me to wonder if the whole thing might not get a lot worse as a consequence of a bunch of rich, or expenses-driven individuals and/or businesses simply buying what they want, only now with a guilt-free sticker. And there are a lot of rich folk and ratings-thirsty journos with places to go and people to see, who I am sure our poorer cousins will be happy to trade with for cash to buy Chinese Nanos. Expectation of better things is part of the economy-growing cycle.
Nothing less than saving the world for climate change? If all $1B gets ?us? is the Chevy Volt as featured, I?d say that the US might be stretched to show us anything worth a darn for now. But nice that it all comes to complement the coincidental PR assault on the airwaves and columns over here, right now, from the likes of trusted pols such as Mandelson, Brown and now Hoon (see Richard Black?s latest post). Sadly not getting as easy a ride from many quarters (even... especially eco ones) that seem inconveniently now able to raise some concerns, from where the battery raw materials are to come from to how the 'leccy gets generated and then delivered. I merely wonder if trying to get our cross-pond cousins into 2 litre diesels delivering 60mpg might not be a more productive effort for now, whilst other, cleaner, higher enviROI options are honed before leaping to a green crowd pleaser. Hence I doubt that Mr. Clarkson, and his audience, are too concerned yet. But at least they might know that you use a lot more fuel at 100mph vs. 60mph, and how much it costs planet and licence fee to replace a piece of kit not fixed down properly in seeking to get a bit of nifty TV footage more than any other consideration.
So, again, to paraphrase what the nice lady said at one point, 'what's all this supposed to prove??'
Guardian - NEW - Tesla's Elon Musk: the democratisation of electric cars is speeding up - 'The automotive industry has reached a clear consensus that the future is electric and is offering consumers more affordable and effective vehicles' - has it, indeed.
I would love one of these cars. It certainly was raised in comparison, very positively, if not by the investigative reporter, after a paean to the joys of the $1B (and counting) Chevy Volt, by Newsnight's Ethical Man.
But just as I worry what Gordon & Alistair might do to spoil my growing affection for my £3500 (meeting my definition of affordable, if not some others better placed, perhaps), '02 LPG Volvo, there is a rather worrying question mark on the future of the 'fuel', especially its cost.
But , it's nice to know the automotive industry has reached a clear consensus that the future is electric and is offering consumers more affordable and effective vehicles... at least for the auto industry, I guess.
And while advertorials are not unheard of in the media - today the BBC was helping a lady sell tacky flog spy stuff for about 5 minutes - I tend to respond better to the message, and the medium carrying it, if the information is objective, allowing me to make up my own mind. A bit like the DamGreen 'affair', this is not proving easy, as most 'official' info is carried by a rather suspect establishment, from Hoonian press releases on the BBC website to, well, many from the rest of a certain section of the MSM that knows what's good for us.
Leaving the much bogey-personed blogosphere to offer alternative views, from such rampant oil-pocket entities as Uni Engineering Professors and the Green Party.
So while I am grateful to affluent early adopters, I am also hoping they got their dosh by being challenging of what they are told too, and are making their decisions based on the future of all our kids, and not just what some in the right circles tell them will look good.
ps: I think most credible boffins have stopped using the warming thing, opting for the more accurate, as far as it goes, climate change, with even this now evolving, as planetary things tend to do.
pps: 'a fleet of electric Smart microcars for zero-emission urban commuting' - now, how does that 'zero' get arrived at?
The Ecologist - NEW - Can electric vehicles overtake competing green car technologies? -
The Gaurdian - NEW - The flaws in the electric car scheme
The Gaurdian - NEW - Where's the chemistry in electric cars? - I thought it was going to be about science!
The Gaurdian - NEW - Watt an idea
Friday, April 17, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Band of botherers
I was away and hence missed the piece (more nanny nonsense), but here are the replies:
Rubber band harvest
For the rest, there is always... Junkk.com, and RE:tie.
Addendum:
Had to write to the BBC..
Regarding today's recycled 'news' item with, we are sure, a well-paid professional busy-body given airtime on a minor non-issue (rubber bands) at the expense of a bigger one (litter).
Regarding the bands, may we suggest folk just pick 'em up and reuse them.
As to sending them in piecemeal by post, while this may make for a nice story (and help a beleaguered Royal Mail's profits), it might not be the best use of planetary resources, so we'd be hard-pressed to see an eco-value at all.
Rubber band harvest
For the rest, there is always... Junkk.com, and RE:tie.
Addendum:
Had to write to the BBC..
Regarding today's recycled 'news' item with, we are sure, a well-paid professional busy-body given airtime on a minor non-issue (rubber bands) at the expense of a bigger one (litter).
Regarding the bands, may we suggest folk just pick 'em up and reuse them.
As to sending them in piecemeal by post, while this may make for a nice story (and help a beleaguered Royal Mail's profits), it might not be the best use of planetary resources, so we'd be hard-pressed to see an eco-value at all.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A quick, if not easy fix we can all agree on?
Spam 'uses as much power as 2.1m homes'
That's, ahem... US homes. Maybe Al Gore sized ones?
Or... 'More than 80% of the world's email traffic is now spam and the transmission and receipt of unwanted email gobbles up 33bn kilowatt-hours of electricity a year'
Seems to me that might be worth addressing over some other issues that trouble campaigners seeking a cause.
That's, ahem... US homes. Maybe Al Gore sized ones?
Or... 'More than 80% of the world's email traffic is now spam and the transmission and receipt of unwanted email gobbles up 33bn kilowatt-hours of electricity a year'
Seems to me that might be worth addressing over some other issues that trouble campaigners seeking a cause.
Good products need better messages
I bang on a lot about the message vs. the messengers.
Usually with an eyebrow cranked at the authors being the ideal choice to champion something green by being a tad less than solid once you scratch the surface.
Not in this case:
Good products need better messages
Gordon Brown (interview, 8 April) is right that we need a "green revolution", based on renewables, energy efficiency and clean coal, if we are to meet our carbon reduction targets by 2020. Capitalising on the UK's research base in renewable energy, low-carbon energy and demand reduction will lead to an economy that is more energy secure and fosters an industry with worldwide export potential.
Other European countries are already well ahead of the UK in implementing green energy industries, building what will surely be a major economic sector within decades.
To achieve this for the UK, we will need a stable and clearly defined policy environment as well as incentives to encourage investment. We will need a large increase in support for R&D and early-stage technological development of low-carbon sources of energy. And we will need to invest in the infrastructure technology which will enable our electricity system to make the most efficient use of new-generation technologies.
The UK engineering community is working together to signpost the pathway to a more resilient future economy for the UK. Key to this is a more joined-up government engineering strategy that drives towards a new, sustainable low-carbon economy while creating successful industries, skills and jobs.
David Brown, CEO, Institution of Chemical Engineers; Tom Foulkes, Director-General, Institution of Civil Engineers; Paul Jackson, CEO, The Engineering Technology Board; Robin McGill, IET Chief Executive; Stephen Tetlow, CEO, Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Keith Read, Chief Executive, Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology; Philip Greenish, CEO The Royal Academy of Engineering, London SW1
No matter how much I might applaud the sincerity and value of what is being penned here, I will be intrigued to see who, from Gordon Brown to the voting public, gets motivated by the words here.
Usually with an eyebrow cranked at the authors being the ideal choice to champion something green by being a tad less than solid once you scratch the surface.
Not in this case:
Good products need better messages
Gordon Brown (interview, 8 April) is right that we need a "green revolution", based on renewables, energy efficiency and clean coal, if we are to meet our carbon reduction targets by 2020. Capitalising on the UK's research base in renewable energy, low-carbon energy and demand reduction will lead to an economy that is more energy secure and fosters an industry with worldwide export potential.
Other European countries are already well ahead of the UK in implementing green energy industries, building what will surely be a major economic sector within decades.
To achieve this for the UK, we will need a stable and clearly defined policy environment as well as incentives to encourage investment. We will need a large increase in support for R&D and early-stage technological development of low-carbon sources of energy. And we will need to invest in the infrastructure technology which will enable our electricity system to make the most efficient use of new-generation technologies.
The UK engineering community is working together to signpost the pathway to a more resilient future economy for the UK. Key to this is a more joined-up government engineering strategy that drives towards a new, sustainable low-carbon economy while creating successful industries, skills and jobs.
David Brown, CEO, Institution of Chemical Engineers; Tom Foulkes, Director-General, Institution of Civil Engineers; Paul Jackson, CEO, The Engineering Technology Board; Robin McGill, IET Chief Executive; Stephen Tetlow, CEO, Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Keith Read, Chief Executive, Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology; Philip Greenish, CEO The Royal Academy of Engineering, London SW1
No matter how much I might applaud the sincerity and value of what is being penned here, I will be intrigued to see who, from Gordon Brown to the voting public, gets motivated by the words here.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Hmnnnn...
The environment is too important to be left to the green movement
I think I'll just keep on the rest of the day doing stuff to avoid waste.
I think I'll just keep on the rest of the day doing stuff to avoid waste.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Meanwhile, on a banana boat near you...
Let's talk context:
Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated'
One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds..
...just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
Ok, it's just a study, but...
Health risks of shipping pollution have been 'underestimated'
One giant container ship can emit almost the same amount of cancer and asthma-causing chemicals as 50m cars, study finds..
...just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
Ok, it's just a study, but...
Well, he did ask.
I don't like excessively negative criticism, but in this case it was hard to find much to be positive about.
The previous effort, while flawed by a massive agenda overload and some rampant breaches of the principles of practicing what one preaches (or, in the case of the BBC, finger-wags), at least did have some information worth having.
This one, on the evidence of this piece... not so much.
The first Ethical Man film
And I felt the urge to explain why.
OK, I have given you my 17 minutes. Now for the 2 cents.
It's a mixture of questions and thoughts, the latter as requested.
First up, this is the first of how many? What for? To whom? Where and when? Here on the blog to show all the guys back in the USA who you met? What's the anticipated audience for all that has been consumed... with what intended message?
Top of line while fresh in mind, there seemed near zero by way of any information worth much. It was also hardly cutting edge documentary. How many of these have we seen before, and will get again? At what cost... to licence fee and planet? Lugging star and entourage and kit does not come cheap.
The original EM had some value; I learned a lot and got some nifty links. And why on earth would a (genuine) experiment in ways and results of trying to reduce GHG's on a personal level be bizarre?
Odd to mention the giving up flying, and then fly to the USA next. And then make a point about not flying whilst there (except back here when it was necessary).
This was billed as what America could teach us. I am struggling to think of one thing in this first piece that taught anyone anything, though there was a Brit telling some Americans how their lives are measured in Hershey bars. Looking at the audience I think that may have sunk in.
Whilst engagingly acknowledged, the whole asking folk what they thought of 'Global Warming' at every turn, during a blizzard, was... quaint. I thought it was now 'climate change', and in The Guardian even this is being deemed so last year before records stopped. And the BBC has a spotty record on reporting science at best.
Whilst obviously a very nice family, I fear the time with the Howards is time I will not get back. But I must say Dad's powered driveway shovel looked waaay cool. I'll get rid of the spade right away. Did it run on coal?
Because I think I did get the message that this is bad stuff, and the USA has lots more bad stuff than anyone. So President O's efforts in ditching their primary energy sources in favour of others will be an interesting one to watch. Environment vs. economy can be a tricky one. A bit like PM Brown's latest wheeze (frankly he spins so much on green issues each month we could run the National Grid on him) on making us all buy as many electric cars as we can is novel, without seeing certain ironies in steel mills cranking out more cars to run on a fuel produced, currently, how? And later on, how? And how distributed?
It was great to see that even in the snow you got a nice audience at the show, but let's get real. If Fox advertised an event with cameras in our town hall, half the town would turn up to get on the telly. Hope they thought it was worth it.
Without knowing where this is going, I can only hope that if I am to invest more time in these pieces, there will be something in there of more value to help me with making tough choices on climate-related issues, and better yet with proactive solutions for the future. Flying to the USA to make a telly show on high consumption Americans isn't really spinning my turbine. But I hope it was fun.
It's personal, and subjective, but I hope still polite and fair. And I really hope that it might make such as the BBC think a bit before concocting a trite TV show, with all that entails, and tries not only to sell it as something a lot more than it is, and in content serve the cause they claim to espouse so poorly. How, in any way, did this show 'save the world from climate change'?
There was also some response in the main blog, but I sense even linked from here a few did not actually watch the piece being promoted, which does rather beg the question as to who it was being made for. The ROI as a broadcaster would be as interesting as the enviROI.
The previous effort, while flawed by a massive agenda overload and some rampant breaches of the principles of practicing what one preaches (or, in the case of the BBC, finger-wags), at least did have some information worth having.
This one, on the evidence of this piece... not so much.
The first Ethical Man film
And I felt the urge to explain why.
OK, I have given you my 17 minutes. Now for the 2 cents.
It's a mixture of questions and thoughts, the latter as requested.
First up, this is the first of how many? What for? To whom? Where and when? Here on the blog to show all the guys back in the USA who you met? What's the anticipated audience for all that has been consumed... with what intended message?
Top of line while fresh in mind, there seemed near zero by way of any information worth much. It was also hardly cutting edge documentary. How many of these have we seen before, and will get again? At what cost... to licence fee and planet? Lugging star and entourage and kit does not come cheap.
The original EM had some value; I learned a lot and got some nifty links. And why on earth would a (genuine) experiment in ways and results of trying to reduce GHG's on a personal level be bizarre?
Odd to mention the giving up flying, and then fly to the USA next. And then make a point about not flying whilst there (except back here when it was necessary).
This was billed as what America could teach us. I am struggling to think of one thing in this first piece that taught anyone anything, though there was a Brit telling some Americans how their lives are measured in Hershey bars. Looking at the audience I think that may have sunk in.
Whilst engagingly acknowledged, the whole asking folk what they thought of 'Global Warming' at every turn, during a blizzard, was... quaint. I thought it was now 'climate change', and in The Guardian even this is being deemed so last year before records stopped. And the BBC has a spotty record on reporting science at best.
Whilst obviously a very nice family, I fear the time with the Howards is time I will not get back. But I must say Dad's powered driveway shovel looked waaay cool. I'll get rid of the spade right away. Did it run on coal?
Because I think I did get the message that this is bad stuff, and the USA has lots more bad stuff than anyone. So President O's efforts in ditching their primary energy sources in favour of others will be an interesting one to watch. Environment vs. economy can be a tricky one. A bit like PM Brown's latest wheeze (frankly he spins so much on green issues each month we could run the National Grid on him) on making us all buy as many electric cars as we can is novel, without seeing certain ironies in steel mills cranking out more cars to run on a fuel produced, currently, how? And later on, how? And how distributed?
It was great to see that even in the snow you got a nice audience at the show, but let's get real. If Fox advertised an event with cameras in our town hall, half the town would turn up to get on the telly. Hope they thought it was worth it.
Without knowing where this is going, I can only hope that if I am to invest more time in these pieces, there will be something in there of more value to help me with making tough choices on climate-related issues, and better yet with proactive solutions for the future. Flying to the USA to make a telly show on high consumption Americans isn't really spinning my turbine. But I hope it was fun.
It's personal, and subjective, but I hope still polite and fair. And I really hope that it might make such as the BBC think a bit before concocting a trite TV show, with all that entails, and tries not only to sell it as something a lot more than it is, and in content serve the cause they claim to espouse so poorly. How, in any way, did this show 'save the world from climate change'?
There was also some response in the main blog, but I sense even linked from here a few did not actually watch the piece being promoted, which does rather beg the question as to who it was being made for. The ROI as a broadcaster would be as interesting as the enviROI.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Home out of the price range?
Greener homes are a no go
'..just anti-being forced into spending up to £40,000 to meet the 2016 standards and not getting a penny back for the effort.'
One presumes that there might be some if the money has added value in terms of operating costs, surely?
Maybe no one is yet very good at explaining what you pay now pays back over the years.
'..just anti-being forced into spending up to £40,000 to meet the 2016 standards and not getting a penny back for the effort.'
One presumes that there might be some if the money has added value in terms of operating costs, surely?
Maybe no one is yet very good at explaining what you pay now pays back over the years.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Funny Old World
Just watching SKY news.
In a piece about vast cash injections to save the car industry, I just heard the reporter quote what I presume to be an attempt at mitigation, that some £600 M is to be provided... but will be ring-fenced for 'green initiatives'....
O....k. Already eyebrow-twitching, I am afraid they are now stuck to the ceiling with what came next: '... such as trying to make Range Rovers more fuel efficient.'
Let me get this straight; our money gets used to buy some bloc votes in the manufacturing heartlands, in the name of green, so some folk can swan about in a 2-ton 4x4 and feel a bit better about themselves?????!
Telegraph - NEW - Throwing the car industry a lifeline - And don't get me on scrappage..
Instead of me buying an '02 LPG when my clunker died, I should have held out for £2k to buy a brand new Beemer 735i? How's that help country or planet?
Guardian - NEW - Car industry budget boost: pros and cons
Guardian - NEW - Should Britain introduce a car scrappage scheme?
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Junkk washes greener?
I've shared them, and the story, before, but in the spirit of positivity and 'as one door closes...' I think it's worth doing so again.
You're looking at the Junkk.com 'brochure'.
Roughly lifesize, this little... very little... piece of printing was the result of an encounter with a passionate environmentalist, and has turned into one of our more successful promotional tools, especially in combo with the Vac:Sac (I get stopped and asked what it's all about... and produce a card. And, if I am lucky, the recipient does turn it into a passport-sized picture frame - mine is in its 4th year protecting the boys' images - that is also a wallet-borne promo for Junkk.com in everyone's pocket... especially when presenting said picture of loved ones and then, hopefully, asked about the frame).
Anyhoo, the first flyer outing was not so successful, an A5 card, and I paid the price. I was at some show and this bloke barrelled up waving it and demanded... 'Is this made from recycled paper!!!!?' Erk. I didn't know. I doubted it. As I had to get it done fast, and cheap. Not the ideal environment for the, um, ideal environment to be specified, waited for... or afforded. Especially when trying to share a whole stand of lovely reuse ideas to a bunch of folk now much more interested in this piece of paper being waved about.
So I determined to resolve this to avoid such confrontations. Hence the pocket picture frame came to be. And, months later, the guy did re-appear, and did again raise his voice, and ire, in challenge.
Only this time, mid-flow I quietly and politely (well, as you can) interrupted and said 'It's better than recyclable... it's reusable, which is even higher on the 're-hierarchy', and better for the planet'. The appreciation of the audience for this solution felt good. Oddly, the man in question seemed even angrier, but left, muttering. Can't please everyone, all of the time.
I was minded of the opportunities of aspects of this when reading a fellow eco-blogger's post the other day...
Ecover packaging - is it really recyclable? (where facilities exist, perhaps)
The key here is in the bracket, as a brand or retailer, while still a major part of the process, is still very much at the hands of our fragmented recycling collection and processing systems around the UK.
You can do all you can (as such as ecover and Innocent I truly believe are trying to do), but at the end of the day... not all that is green can be black or white. Or, in this case, make recyclable as easily in one county, or even town, as another (witness ours, where a great home kerbside/public space skip, segregated waste collection combo is being scrapped in favour of a single green wheelie that sends all your waste in a black plastic bag to a remote MRF to, one fears, produce box-ticking but possibly less than industry-desired recyclate. Hardly great for my kids' futures, and hence a real enviROI eyebrow-cranking target for me).
Far be it from me to 'defend' a brand that uses plastic, or indeed any other packaging, but I do tend to accept more than others that, in a modern, consumerist, growing population, time-poor, work-from-home separated, etc, etc, society, that some has to be inevitable, for logistics alone, and for the environment even, especially with protection issues. Hence I am more interested in and devote my time to uses, or rather resues, more than bans, though reductions in unnecessary areas are of course desirable.
And ecover, bless 'em, could hardly do more, though much of what they do get up to can get shared in a way that does bring them under perhaps more scrutiny than others. A higher standard and all that. But in a world where making things green often does add a cost penalty, and a cost penalty can lead to poorer competitiveness, especially on the shelves, so much of their CSR, from green-roofed factories to the actual contents of their products, does suggest going as an extra a mile (well, kilometer... they are based in Belgium I think) as is possible in a credit-crunchy era. Especially when I suspect all most now want, or are having to weigh up between pocket and planet, is whiter whites for the least money, rather than just the greenest ones.
But these things do need discussing, and debating, so I felt the urge to try at least to point out one area that was eyebrow cranked by one (the author), not answered by another (the ecover PR lady) but actually was in part addressed already(ecover and Junkk.com).
I won't repeat my reply (actually two now) as it's in the thread on the link, but I hope it shows a real attempt to see the merits of what can often two very polarised views - that of manufacturer and campaigner - and try to navigate to a positive compromise that can satisfy some (if not all), and lead to dialogues that can make for better future solutions.
Now, where is Tesco's number?
Friday, April 03, 2009
Every confusing bit helps a little bit?
Tesco trials packaging returns scheme
Of course, if more packaging was also designed for reuse, it wouldn't need to be left behind at the store, but might find new life elsewhere.
Dumped at the store, or dumped in the kitchen bin still means dumped, though with luck the store might have more idea on getting segregated waste back in a useful form to recyclers. Nice of them to do that work.
6 weeks is short, and it would be interesting to learn what in-store or local promo there is to advise and drive shoppers to work with it. And the two (area) stores question is valid.
And is it just cardboard? My area is already well served for that on both kerbside and local skips. What about plastics?
Of course, if more packaging was also designed for reuse, it wouldn't need to be left behind at the store, but might find new life elsewhere.
Dumped at the store, or dumped in the kitchen bin still means dumped, though with luck the store might have more idea on getting segregated waste back in a useful form to recyclers. Nice of them to do that work.
6 weeks is short, and it would be interesting to learn what in-store or local promo there is to advise and drive shoppers to work with it. And the two (area) stores question is valid.
And is it just cardboard? My area is already well served for that on both kerbside and local skips. What about plastics?
THE TWO E's... and a big 'O'
Just having my lunch watching Pres. Obama speaking live.
He is, no doubt about it, a class act.
And I write this as he still speaks. While I will soon need to get back to work.
Now, there's a thing. Why am I working? What on? With what consequence... short, middle and long term?
The bit I caught was about fellow workers, Indians, being helped out of poverty, such that they could all have... refrigerators.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but I must say that, even though he skirted the issue in passing, I am a little unclear how this noble aim can be rationalised with much that is advocated in the realms of climate change mitigation.
Seems to me the West is going to have pretty much not just slam on the brakes with its economies, but hit reverse, whilst this acceleration takes place elsewhere. Fridges do not get bought without consequences environmentally. They need to be made, and then new energy is then required to run them.
I'm not sure the population (hold that word in mind) of the USA using less a/c in their cars is quite going to do it.... even if the economic sell is made to that voting bloc... which I doubt.
The oratory is awesome, but so far the logic is escaping me. And while fine words are better than no words (I have no solution to offer, well, that can be printed here, but then I don't get the personal 747 and limo), but I really hope the guys with the smarts have thought this one through, especially if certain areas are deemed 'no-go' or 'exceptions'.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM spins this. I think he's possibly the best we've got, but that does not make him infallible.
Telegraph - Greener energy policies don't have to cost the earth - if only for that line. I've missed it.
Mail - O'Barmy meets completely barmy
Washington Times - Military strained by Obama trip
NY Times - The Words Have Changed, but Have the Policies?
He is, no doubt about it, a class act.
And I write this as he still speaks. While I will soon need to get back to work.
Now, there's a thing. Why am I working? What on? With what consequence... short, middle and long term?
The bit I caught was about fellow workers, Indians, being helped out of poverty, such that they could all have... refrigerators.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but I must say that, even though he skirted the issue in passing, I am a little unclear how this noble aim can be rationalised with much that is advocated in the realms of climate change mitigation.
Seems to me the West is going to have pretty much not just slam on the brakes with its economies, but hit reverse, whilst this acceleration takes place elsewhere. Fridges do not get bought without consequences environmentally. They need to be made, and then new energy is then required to run them.
I'm not sure the population (hold that word in mind) of the USA using less a/c in their cars is quite going to do it.... even if the economic sell is made to that voting bloc... which I doubt.
The oratory is awesome, but so far the logic is escaping me. And while fine words are better than no words (I have no solution to offer, well, that can be printed here, but then I don't get the personal 747 and limo), but I really hope the guys with the smarts have thought this one through, especially if certain areas are deemed 'no-go' or 'exceptions'.
It will be interesting to see how the MSM spins this. I think he's possibly the best we've got, but that does not make him infallible.
Telegraph - Greener energy policies don't have to cost the earth - if only for that line. I've missed it.
Mail - O'Barmy meets completely barmy
Washington Times - Military strained by Obama trip
NY Times - The Words Have Changed, but Have the Policies?
Do gooders. No bad thing these days.
I usually keep ad commentary over on my other blog, Bordello Ivory Tales.
However this does seem worthy of note more here:
Honda block books 'green' ad space on Saturday Guardian
Not to sure the Guardian's rivals will be plugging it quite as much, but there scale of the event is worthy of note. If not the ridiculous ad speek straight out of the press release.
My main interest is in the 'Do good' theme; one we at Junkk.com plug long, hard... and often. And endorse.
Not so sure 'An Inconvenient Truth' is quite the best bit of science documentary for Ch4 to associate itself with, as things have moved on a fair bit since then. Maybe they see it as 'balance' to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. I fear I view both more as 'Two wrongs make more ratings' . I am sure there are now later, better, ways to entertain and inform and persuade. Though, I still doubt any that don't fall down on one 'side' or other. And while saving the planet is a laudable aim, folk need to make money, so the new stuff needs to do the cinemas and DVDs for a few years, which is why we get the old stuff on TV now.
Let's see what the comments throw up. That's a lot of money, in one place, for, let's not forget, a car brand.
However this does seem worthy of note more here:
Honda block books 'green' ad space on Saturday Guardian
Not to sure the Guardian's rivals will be plugging it quite as much, but there scale of the event is worthy of note. If not the ridiculous ad speek straight out of the press release.
My main interest is in the 'Do good' theme; one we at Junkk.com plug long, hard... and often. And endorse.
Not so sure 'An Inconvenient Truth' is quite the best bit of science documentary for Ch4 to associate itself with, as things have moved on a fair bit since then. Maybe they see it as 'balance' to 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. I fear I view both more as 'Two wrongs make more ratings' . I am sure there are now later, better, ways to entertain and inform and persuade. Though, I still doubt any that don't fall down on one 'side' or other. And while saving the planet is a laudable aim, folk need to make money, so the new stuff needs to do the cinemas and DVDs for a few years, which is why we get the old stuff on TV now.
Let's see what the comments throw up. That's a lot of money, in one place, for, let's not forget, a car brand.
A matter of degree
I love blogging... evidently.
It can be, and mostly is, a great experience, and usually a learning one.
However, just as Peter Parker found, with great power comes great responsibility.
And, often, sadly, challenges.
One is moderation, which is a very difficult line to walk. One which, if you are not careful, can lead to censorship, which is the gateway to objectivity going out the window, and bias and control coming in.
G20, Bonn and the climate of opinion
Not from the author, but I do find such suggestions creeping in these days, and feel the need to at the very least challenge the thinking. I worry about those who think they 'know' 'right' more than others can hold more sway than they deserve, simply by being vocal:
(I don't know if the technology allows it, but it would be good to impose a limit on the length and number of posts)
It exists, and has since time immemorial. The problem tends to come with the humans behind it who set and police the 'rules', and where their skill sets, influences and/or sympathies lie. So I am unsure how 'good' that would be.
While I agree that the blogosphere can get prone to 'distractions', trying to explain or debate science via Twitter-feeds is indeed a worthy discipline to encourage, and may be great for those seeking sound-bites, but may lead to incomplete and hence inaccurate posts. I think most blogs do have a limit anyway, and seem to work as a consequence.
As to number of posts, what if I agree? And suggest this should be the last on this issue? Shame you might not get to have any further opinion on that, at least in the same thread:) I also find that when the mods call a halt often leads to suspicions that an over-arching agenda is at play, and when things are not going in a favoured direction impositions can get applied. Not great for free and open debate.
I agree it can be frustrating, but on balance simply skipping over those that seem to be going in a poor direction still works best for me.
It can be, and mostly is, a great experience, and usually a learning one.
However, just as Peter Parker found, with great power comes great responsibility.
And, often, sadly, challenges.
One is moderation, which is a very difficult line to walk. One which, if you are not careful, can lead to censorship, which is the gateway to objectivity going out the window, and bias and control coming in.
G20, Bonn and the climate of opinion
Not from the author, but I do find such suggestions creeping in these days, and feel the need to at the very least challenge the thinking. I worry about those who think they 'know' 'right' more than others can hold more sway than they deserve, simply by being vocal:
(I don't know if the technology allows it, but it would be good to impose a limit on the length and number of posts)
It exists, and has since time immemorial. The problem tends to come with the humans behind it who set and police the 'rules', and where their skill sets, influences and/or sympathies lie. So I am unsure how 'good' that would be.
While I agree that the blogosphere can get prone to 'distractions', trying to explain or debate science via Twitter-feeds is indeed a worthy discipline to encourage, and may be great for those seeking sound-bites, but may lead to incomplete and hence inaccurate posts. I think most blogs do have a limit anyway, and seem to work as a consequence.
As to number of posts, what if I agree? And suggest this should be the last on this issue? Shame you might not get to have any further opinion on that, at least in the same thread:) I also find that when the mods call a halt often leads to suspicions that an over-arching agenda is at play, and when things are not going in a favoured direction impositions can get applied. Not great for free and open debate.
I agree it can be frustrating, but on balance simply skipping over those that seem to be going in a poor direction still works best for me.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
COMPETITION - I think my workload just went up:)
Big news!
And, to some who follow this blog, possibly something you, or your clients, might be interested in, keen on helping with and/or taking part in.
Junkk.com has been approached to take part in/and help with a forthcoming insert regarding plastics and packaging, in a major national quality daily.
Sponsorship/advertising is not my forte, but it really seems a good, low cost, high value opportunity to reach a decent sized audience in a good, if you'll forgive the double entendre, 'environment'. And considering the prestige of the paper and its association with green initiatives, a great way to get the brand out there in an ethically positive way. Possibly a great chance to help cover any investment with increased sales, beyond any CSR, PR benefits alone.
We are also really reaching out to a broad cross section with our PR efforts, especially in the educational arena, from Blue Peter to the Scouts.
Here's a few bits more blurb from the insert creators, Lysonsdown, as sold to me, to hopefully help explain my role and or sweeten the prospects to any who see merit in taking part!
Information about World of Plastics
It’s coinciding with an education supplement day, and as polymers are now part of the National Curriculum, as Prof MacDonald goes round schools with lectures called Plastic Fantastic and the Science Museum has an exhibit running called Plasticity, it would be great to do a reused plastics competition with Junkk.com
It may either be judged by me, or photos could be posted online to attract people to the website to vote for their favourites.
There could be three categories to separate the wacky, aesthetic or futuristic ones from the practical ones. Or maybe its simpler to have one competition with 2 runners up. It would be fantastic to get Blue Peter to let the winner demonstrate how to make their winning prize on TV as it’s totally fitting with ‘Here’s one I made earlier’.
It would be fabulous for this competition to grow into an annual event. It would come with its own trophy ready designed! {I have offered}
An example of this is on a publication carried out called Teleprescence in January.
If any company is in any way keen to develop a reuse role more in advance of or on the back of this, I'd be happy to make the necessary introduction. Let's not forget that such as ecover have uploaded their entire range to the site, plus ideas, and are finding that the additional values of this quirky 'extra' are going down well with green-minded consumers. More so in these credit-crunchy times. Also Poundland have seen value in being associated with Junkk.com in this way.
I looking forward to that chance that something positive, and mutually-rewarding for all, may result. I cannot speak for the overall content (there may be critiques of the role of plastic of course), but I am simply keen to be proactive of the possibilities of what there is the public can engage with now, and maybe inspire more for the future to help all involved.
As we are also now much further advanced with our RE:tie re:evolutionary cap/closure design, if there may be renewed interest that could be drummed up internally in any organisations we've chatted to so far that would be great, especially as we might well see this featured as a designed-in re:use suggestion to help mitigate plastic packaging impacts, whilst offering a win-win-win... to all involved.
Consumers get a freebie (we'd suggest) and a sense of 'green goodness, the planet suffers a little less in the bin/landfill, Govt., LAs & quangos like WRAP smile more on everything from reduced plastic use (through redesignation more than lightweighting) to less litter, and brands not only get CSR and PR opps, but a component that can have many sales and marketing applications.
For me.... I now need to get back in my shed designing... and on my Mac creating! A clone or 36 hr days would help (though I see I might not meet new EU rules there).
Addendum 1 - Things gather pace. It looks like we may now have the 'sweetener' of a prize which, IMHO, always helps things along. Not to mention being in line with our end-benefit, rewards-based mantra. Onward & upward!
And, to some who follow this blog, possibly something you, or your clients, might be interested in, keen on helping with and/or taking part in.
Junkk.com has been approached to take part in/and help with a forthcoming insert regarding plastics and packaging, in a major national quality daily.
Sponsorship/advertising is not my forte, but it really seems a good, low cost, high value opportunity to reach a decent sized audience in a good, if you'll forgive the double entendre, 'environment'. And considering the prestige of the paper and its association with green initiatives, a great way to get the brand out there in an ethically positive way. Possibly a great chance to help cover any investment with increased sales, beyond any CSR, PR benefits alone.
We are also really reaching out to a broad cross section with our PR efforts, especially in the educational arena, from Blue Peter to the Scouts.
Here's a few bits more blurb from the insert creators, Lysonsdown, as sold to me, to hopefully help explain my role and or sweeten the prospects to any who see merit in taking part!
Information about World of Plastics
It’s coinciding with an education supplement day, and as polymers are now part of the National Curriculum, as Prof MacDonald goes round schools with lectures called Plastic Fantastic and the Science Museum has an exhibit running called Plasticity, it would be great to do a reused plastics competition with Junkk.com
It may either be judged by me, or photos could be posted online to attract people to the website to vote for their favourites.
There could be three categories to separate the wacky, aesthetic or futuristic ones from the practical ones. Or maybe its simpler to have one competition with 2 runners up. It would be fantastic to get Blue Peter to let the winner demonstrate how to make their winning prize on TV as it’s totally fitting with ‘Here’s one I made earlier’.
It would be fabulous for this competition to grow into an annual event. It would come with its own trophy ready designed! {I have offered}
An example of this is on a publication carried out called Teleprescence in January.
If any company is in any way keen to develop a reuse role more in advance of or on the back of this, I'd be happy to make the necessary introduction. Let's not forget that such as ecover have uploaded their entire range to the site, plus ideas, and are finding that the additional values of this quirky 'extra' are going down well with green-minded consumers. More so in these credit-crunchy times. Also Poundland have seen value in being associated with Junkk.com in this way.
I looking forward to that chance that something positive, and mutually-rewarding for all, may result. I cannot speak for the overall content (there may be critiques of the role of plastic of course), but I am simply keen to be proactive of the possibilities of what there is the public can engage with now, and maybe inspire more for the future to help all involved.
As we are also now much further advanced with our RE:tie re:evolutionary cap/closure design, if there may be renewed interest that could be drummed up internally in any organisations we've chatted to so far that would be great, especially as we might well see this featured as a designed-in re:use suggestion to help mitigate plastic packaging impacts, whilst offering a win-win-win... to all involved.
Consumers get a freebie (we'd suggest) and a sense of 'green goodness, the planet suffers a little less in the bin/landfill, Govt., LAs & quangos like WRAP smile more on everything from reduced plastic use (through redesignation more than lightweighting) to less litter, and brands not only get CSR and PR opps, but a component that can have many sales and marketing applications.
For me.... I now need to get back in my shed designing... and on my Mac creating! A clone or 36 hr days would help (though I see I might not meet new EU rules there).
Addendum 1 - Things gather pace. It looks like we may now have the 'sweetener' of a prize which, IMHO, always helps things along. Not to mention being in line with our end-benefit, rewards-based mantra. Onward & upward!
And for everything else there's RE:use..
Tesco tells shoppers: too much packaging? Leave it with us
oooh - 01 Apr 09, 9:06am
Erm, why can't Tesco just sell goods with less packaging in the first place?
Very good point. Maybe... lots of lovely boxes... to be ticked, and bonuses to be made, from the EU to quangos down, when the recycling rates go up?
I have always wondered why supermarkets go to all the extra expense of the excess packaging when... if it is not necessary. I am aware of some reasons, and a few make sense. Food waste from damage being one... and significant. Also life without an element of design would be a bit boring. And there are bigger enviROI-minus targets to fry first, frankly.
But, for the rest...there's always reuse (more so if designed-in)! Try http://www.Junkk.com
oooh - 01 Apr 09, 9:06am
Erm, why can't Tesco just sell goods with less packaging in the first place?
Very good point. Maybe... lots of lovely boxes... to be ticked, and bonuses to be made, from the EU to quangos down, when the recycling rates go up?
I have always wondered why supermarkets go to all the extra expense of the excess packaging when... if it is not necessary. I am aware of some reasons, and a few make sense. Food waste from damage being one... and significant. Also life without an element of design would be a bit boring. And there are bigger enviROI-minus targets to fry first, frankly.
But, for the rest...there's always reuse (more so if designed-in)! Try http://www.Junkk.com
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
I like enviROI:)
Though, I suspect some may not like my use of it.
Boris Johnson to slash London environmental team in half
'...a major shake-up that calls into question the commitment to the environment of the mayor'
By whom? Until we see the enviROI of what gets DONE with the money that makes a difference, rather than talked about endlessly between vast overlapping quango empires with vast comms budgets, I will hold any critique or allusions to 'others' making them until they do.
I am a champion for green initiatives leading the charge, but they need to be tangibles that make my kids' futures better, not box-ticking, target-meeting, non-job-creating, multi-million £ 'awareness'-raising, bonus-feeding, lobbyist-pleasing, lipsmacking, ace-tasting... er.. you get my drift:)
But if any lost are making a real contribution, then questions need to be asked, and answered.
ps: I'm guessing that leaked docos are OK, at least for today? (A Guardian journo was on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday saying it wasn't on, and was allowed to allude to the 'whisleblower' being a Tory mole. Which does kinda smack of those plethora of standards that crank my eyebrow.)
Addendum 1:
What's the saying? 'Careful what you wish for... predict... create?
Interesting, but sad, is how this has progressed.
First thing to note is that, other than a few possible observers, beyond the author (and who knows who they post as?) it is a singles' game.
No matter.
I think, on balance, I was at fault. I was rather sweeping in my critique. But then in mitigation I was irritated by a political/media agenda which, in my view, was already producing some slopping reporting.
But in being flip, I may well have conjured up a vision of a red rag to a public-sectorphilic person with a sore head.
That's where my mea culpa ends.
This person was/is on a very high horse and, despite my attempts, decided to stay upon it. Maybe even rear up more. I was in no mood for too much by way of conciliation.
However, as this was swerving into nasty places I have decided to leave, exit stage...right (wing?), followed, I hope not too far, by the bear.
I obviously think this person to be wrong, unfair and aggressive.
Mainly it's the journalist's fault. Dripping with agenda, they came out with a half story and I objected, maybe swinging too far the other way to show how some others may view matters. But I clearly stated that it was this lack of clarity that prevented objective conclusions so far.
Hence it could be a purging pol looking to save a quick buck on a weak voter sector (currently), or it could be some trimming of fat in crunchier times. Having a degree does not guarantee pay and indeed a job for life for a lot of us.
I am satisfied I did my best, fought the corner for enviROI and, coincidentally managed to work in my concerns of the medium and the messengers.
The Guardian can be a fine reporting organ. But it is read by a small minority, and one which seems too often to think 'others' are beneath them, and contempt.
That is a poor way to bring the majority of the UK population onside, especially as articulated by this representative. I think they have given environmental debate a worse name as a consequence.
Addendum 2 -
Hard to leave such things alone, but I think best to move the debate of the pages of the Guardian, noting that they seem to have about two more readers to me.
There has been a reply, which is more friendly at least, and even more balanced, but perhaps as dangerous. Where the previous poster was 'how dare you have another view', this was more 'Why can't we all be friends... and leave the original post as it was'.
Any reader of this blog will know I am an advocate of doing over talking, but sorry, these two options still leave a result that won't wash... at least with me: doing nothing.
Unlike the latest poster, when I look at my two lovely sons, I feel happy, happy happy, and then angry, and then all the more determined to fight for making their futures as good as they can be.
And that means being pragmatic. Divorcing budgets from actions is the naive mantra of the hopeless idealist. Even foot-stamping, cross ones.
I have never said do nothing. I DO things all the time. I simply advocate that what gets done, with all the money that can and will be allocated to do it, goes to tangibles that make a difference.
Take insulation. I have lost count of the number of bodies - with offices and staff and comms budgets and conference passes - that there are to get it into my dear old Mum's cottage. She doesn't need it, because I did it an age ago. But has she... or I... heard from any one of these overlapping numpties, at least in terms that make sense and create engagement. For every £20, subsidised roll, there is a horde of officers and forms and checks and assessments. All overlapping.
I have been wrong, I am often wrong and I will be wrong. And I am more than willing to be told I am, set things straight and work on the positives of correction and promotion.
But I will not be bullied to silence by those who have a nice little number, or seduced by those who think 'green is always good, no matter what the cost'. Especially when it is with my family's money, more often than not to fund them for what they want, rather than what is actually needed.
End of.
Boris Johnson to slash London environmental team in half
'...a major shake-up that calls into question the commitment to the environment of the mayor'
By whom? Until we see the enviROI of what gets DONE with the money that makes a difference, rather than talked about endlessly between vast overlapping quango empires with vast comms budgets, I will hold any critique or allusions to 'others' making them until they do.
I am a champion for green initiatives leading the charge, but they need to be tangibles that make my kids' futures better, not box-ticking, target-meeting, non-job-creating, multi-million £ 'awareness'-raising, bonus-feeding, lobbyist-pleasing, lipsmacking, ace-tasting... er.. you get my drift:)
But if any lost are making a real contribution, then questions need to be asked, and answered.
ps: I'm guessing that leaked docos are OK, at least for today? (A Guardian journo was on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday saying it wasn't on, and was allowed to allude to the 'whisleblower' being a Tory mole. Which does kinda smack of those plethora of standards that crank my eyebrow.)
Addendum 1:
What's the saying? 'Careful what you wish for... predict... create?
Interesting, but sad, is how this has progressed.
First thing to note is that, other than a few possible observers, beyond the author (and who knows who they post as?) it is a singles' game.
No matter.
I think, on balance, I was at fault. I was rather sweeping in my critique. But then in mitigation I was irritated by a political/media agenda which, in my view, was already producing some slopping reporting.
But in being flip, I may well have conjured up a vision of a red rag to a public-sectorphilic person with a sore head.
That's where my mea culpa ends.
This person was/is on a very high horse and, despite my attempts, decided to stay upon it. Maybe even rear up more. I was in no mood for too much by way of conciliation.
However, as this was swerving into nasty places I have decided to leave, exit stage...right (wing?), followed, I hope not too far, by the bear.
I obviously think this person to be wrong, unfair and aggressive.
Mainly it's the journalist's fault. Dripping with agenda, they came out with a half story and I objected, maybe swinging too far the other way to show how some others may view matters. But I clearly stated that it was this lack of clarity that prevented objective conclusions so far.
Hence it could be a purging pol looking to save a quick buck on a weak voter sector (currently), or it could be some trimming of fat in crunchier times. Having a degree does not guarantee pay and indeed a job for life for a lot of us.
I am satisfied I did my best, fought the corner for enviROI and, coincidentally managed to work in my concerns of the medium and the messengers.
The Guardian can be a fine reporting organ. But it is read by a small minority, and one which seems too often to think 'others' are beneath them, and contempt.
That is a poor way to bring the majority of the UK population onside, especially as articulated by this representative. I think they have given environmental debate a worse name as a consequence.
Addendum 2 -
Hard to leave such things alone, but I think best to move the debate of the pages of the Guardian, noting that they seem to have about two more readers to me.
There has been a reply, which is more friendly at least, and even more balanced, but perhaps as dangerous. Where the previous poster was 'how dare you have another view', this was more 'Why can't we all be friends... and leave the original post as it was'.
Any reader of this blog will know I am an advocate of doing over talking, but sorry, these two options still leave a result that won't wash... at least with me: doing nothing.
Unlike the latest poster, when I look at my two lovely sons, I feel happy, happy happy, and then angry, and then all the more determined to fight for making their futures as good as they can be.
And that means being pragmatic. Divorcing budgets from actions is the naive mantra of the hopeless idealist. Even foot-stamping, cross ones.
I have never said do nothing. I DO things all the time. I simply advocate that what gets done, with all the money that can and will be allocated to do it, goes to tangibles that make a difference.
Take insulation. I have lost count of the number of bodies - with offices and staff and comms budgets and conference passes - that there are to get it into my dear old Mum's cottage. She doesn't need it, because I did it an age ago. But has she... or I... heard from any one of these overlapping numpties, at least in terms that make sense and create engagement. For every £20, subsidised roll, there is a horde of officers and forms and checks and assessments. All overlapping.
I have been wrong, I am often wrong and I will be wrong. And I am more than willing to be told I am, set things straight and work on the positives of correction and promotion.
But I will not be bullied to silence by those who have a nice little number, or seduced by those who think 'green is always good, no matter what the cost'. Especially when it is with my family's money, more often than not to fund them for what they want, rather than what is actually needed.
End of.
Monday, March 30, 2009
I decide to reply to a BBC blooger...
On the one hand, I love useful info. On the other, I don't like being 'fed'.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
There were a few elements of 'medium vs. messenger' here, and also some 'politically correct' BBC lines being taken.
Are we all doomed?
Other than death, taxes and licence fees, No. But I'm guessing you mean the humin race, and more specifically through 'probably man-worsened climate change'. In which case no, not for a while, and 'I am not sure anyone knows, yet, but it might be worth sussing out the skinny to prepare'.
Well, we came to America to do nothing less than save the world.
And here was me thinking it was another 'don't do as we do, don't do what we say don't do' jolly to get a programme out and crank up some ratings in the niche end of the schedule, and some hits on a blog. But it is great you had a good time, and guys like our Darryl liked the reach the BBC has so much she caught up with you again.
If a few things might assist in certain endeavours, I'd pop in 'realism' and 'pragmatism' for two.
I have a colleague who lives in fear of their blog because of the aggressive and rude comments people post.
That is neither welcome nor, to use one of our Dear Leader's most fatuous phrases, 'acceptable'. Aggression and rudeness are poor ways to move opinion, IMHO. Especially if the pieces that have provoked such reactions are factual, objective, and free from 'enhanced narratives' and 'interpreted events'. That's what effective, honest moderation is for.
However, as your colleague Susan and her 'superior' might appreciate, it is not unlikely there will be a robust expression of disagreement if liberties are taken. Folk were not keen that President Obama's speech was turned in the edit suite into an 'emerging truth'.
That said...
'...if readers or viewers disagreed their only way to respond was a letter to the editor that, almost always, would go unpublished, if not unread.'
You are aware of the BBC 'House Rules', I take it? They can be, and often are used to delete just about anything that some do not fancy. Still.
A fact that seems to be causing some rumblings in the blogosphere. You can't control what you don't own.
But I'll look forward to the report. So long as it is guided by 'hewing close to the line, and letting the chips fall where they may', and not dogma or agenda. And by heavens the science stays sensible and the enviROI top of mind.
If not, I'm sure a few will be on hand to give you the heads up.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
A man to like, on several counts...
Miliband's new green helper
I shall follow now follow another so described: 'impeccable "green" credentials. He is also outspoken and not afraid to criticise the Government. With interest.
I shall follow now follow another so described: 'impeccable "green" credentials. He is also outspoken and not afraid to criticise the Government. With interest.
EARTH HOUR - Confusion time?
At the behest of a few, and as it was/is a 'why not?', I was ready to switch off tonight.
Now, I need to look at enviROI's an messages and messengers again.
Not because of this: Earth Hour is stupid and pointless. Leave the blasted lights on
Or because of this in rebuttal (which it richly deserved. It's one thing to have a contrary view on things, but just being contrary for the sake of it serves no one): Never mind me, what about them
But mainly because of this (and comments in reply): Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
As a pragmatist, my greatest concern is this on the science: it is claimed 'this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again'.
However, the caution on the effect to the vast proportion of very lite greens to don't cares is well taken.
A dilemma indeed.
On the one had if any ask why my house is in darkness do I show it to be a tokenist but worthy piece of 'awareness', or set myself up for be more part of a problem then the solution?
As I seek to confirm the counter-engineering aruments by some posters, I am still erring on 'off'. Also I worry about an author who is linked to a site that last updated in Dec. of last year. Junkk's home page has new stuff (ideas and blogs) about 6 times a day. This is a fast moving sector!
FWIW, this PC will now be off then, having been convinced that it is better to switch in on and off daily than spin 24/7 (the energy in standby vs. energy to buy a new one as they break quicker if spun up and down all the time - but roll on solid state hard drives of 1 TB)
BBC - World cities begin big switch-off -
The Australian - Hour of no power increases emissions - No idea about the claims until they are challenged, but we now seem to be in a zone of looking like you're doing something being more important than actually doing it. My awareness is will honed, but what will be the actual effect on someone less concerned?
Telegraph - NEW - Earth Hour: Landmarks plunged into darkness in support of climate change action - I did my bit... I was in bed!
Now, I need to look at enviROI's an messages and messengers again.
Not because of this: Earth Hour is stupid and pointless. Leave the blasted lights on
Or because of this in rebuttal (which it richly deserved. It's one thing to have a contrary view on things, but just being contrary for the sake of it serves no one): Never mind me, what about them
But mainly because of this (and comments in reply): Earth Hour: Turning out the lights plays into the hands of our critics
As a pragmatist, my greatest concern is this on the science: it is claimed 'this will not actually reduce any emissions. Power companies always keep spare capacity and will keep their turbines spinning through this unpredictable fall in demand in preparation for when people turn their lights back on again'.
However, the caution on the effect to the vast proportion of very lite greens to don't cares is well taken.
A dilemma indeed.
On the one had if any ask why my house is in darkness do I show it to be a tokenist but worthy piece of 'awareness', or set myself up for be more part of a problem then the solution?
As I seek to confirm the counter-engineering aruments by some posters, I am still erring on 'off'. Also I worry about an author who is linked to a site that last updated in Dec. of last year. Junkk's home page has new stuff (ideas and blogs) about 6 times a day. This is a fast moving sector!
FWIW, this PC will now be off then, having been convinced that it is better to switch in on and off daily than spin 24/7 (the energy in standby vs. energy to buy a new one as they break quicker if spun up and down all the time - but roll on solid state hard drives of 1 TB)
BBC - World cities begin big switch-off -
The Australian - Hour of no power increases emissions - No idea about the claims until they are challenged, but we now seem to be in a zone of looking like you're doing something being more important than actually doing it. My awareness is will honed, but what will be the actual effect on someone less concerned?
Telegraph - NEW - Earth Hour: Landmarks plunged into darkness in support of climate change action - I did my bit... I was in bed!
Some that is green can be black or white?
Black car ban hysteria misses the point
And here was me thinking it made sense!
Mind you, imagining how eco-guys like the Prez and his motorcade of Suburban's and the limos of most green advocates with better business models than some would fare was proving fun.
And here was me thinking it made sense!
Mind you, imagining how eco-guys like the Prez and his motorcade of Suburban's and the limos of most green advocates with better business models than some would fare was proving fun.
Friday, March 27, 2009
RE:view - SATS tests
I succumbed.Motivated by a recent 1/2 hour drivearound seeking a venue, and promoted by a deal, I have bought a Sat Nav. So far, so blinking amazing.
I'd have to say the enviro aspects were not uppermost in my mind, but already I can safely say that it was the best £150 I have spent in a while, even if it is on a 'toy'.
I have already completed a few trips, and while the fuel cost savings may never cover the purchase investment, I am happy that enviROI is well and truly satisfied. There's also the intangibles (I hope) of safety, etc.
The Good
My model is a Tom Tom, and very easy to use and effective I have found it. Nice clear screen, simple, comprehensible audio warnings and instructions. Simple to program. WYSIWYG. Can't fault it yet. A few odd routes close to home when I know a quicker way, but it seemed to 'learn' when I ignored those.
The Better?
Of course, I now am more 'aware', and just clicked on a banner at for a competitor, and arrived at this. Too late for me! Though I am a little unclear as to what it does that others cannot. But maybe the eco. vs. fastest route is genuine. That said, 56mph on a motorway is probably the most fuel efficient way to go rather than 70mph, or stop start and winding the B-roads. Possibly a bit of a gimmick. Without buying one it's hard to say. But I may revisit this RE:view as I would a category as news is published from elsewhere.
The Ugly
And now the downside. This from last night's Ch 4 Snowmail sums it up: And seen any 40-tonne artics stuck up single-track country lanes recently? Well, the joys of Sat Nav Stupidity are becoming so well known now that there's a kind of unofficial hit parade emerging as the nation's tried and tested favorites grind to a frustrated halt in great clouds of diesel with ever increasing regularity. And the extraordinary thing is that the system never seems to learn and amend. The Lib Dems are demanding urgent government action. Don't hold your breath.
Enter 'Sat Nav HGV Hot Spots' here
Personally, I still keep a road map and the relevant pages of Google Maps to hand... just in case.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
CATEGORY - RE:tie support info
Sorry, just using a bit of back-up space to start filing useful info to help the RE:tie efforts.
However, as most pertains to consumer attitudes to environment in their purchasing, especially with packaging, some may find it interesting too.
Daily Express -
Times - Hard-up shoppers abandon organic and fair trade goods
COMPANIES -
Times - New lease of life for the Co-op
However, as most pertains to consumer attitudes to environment in their purchasing, especially with packaging, some may find it interesting too.
Daily Express -
Times - Hard-up shoppers abandon organic and fair trade goods
COMPANIES -
Times - New lease of life for the Co-op
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Meanwhile, on the perpetual motion front...
Water-fuel car unveiled in Japan
I can see that the car can be powered by energy from burning hydrogen generated by splitting water. Nifty.
What is not so clear from any text or video is what powers the 'energy generator' that produces the hydrogen to run the car.
It suspect that still may require some 'external input'.
Not that the reporter seemed concerned. Soon to be all round the MSM, equally uncritically, no doubt.
I can see that the car can be powered by energy from burning hydrogen generated by splitting water. Nifty.
What is not so clear from any text or video is what powers the 'energy generator' that produces the hydrogen to run the car.
It suspect that still may require some 'external input'.
Not that the reporter seemed concerned. Soon to be all round the MSM, equally uncritically, no doubt.
CATEGORY - GM
New topic.
This first post covers many other, related, issues...
Articles
BBC - Is the green movement part of the problem?
This first post covers many other, related, issues...
Articles
BBC - Is the green movement part of the problem?
THE TWO E"s - On your wagon
Turning on to Nano-man
'Regularly these days we hear appeals from politicians... It's urgent, they say, and - this is the key message - it can be done, if everyone and every country does his/her/its bit.'
A very key comment. And one I find hard to rationalise with what issues forth from many politicians, and the media that carry their press releases.
The only appeals I have heard of late are to support the car industry, and often ones that would be hard-pressed to be called 'green'. In crowded urban centres as described above, I agree mass transit initiatives would seem a much 'better' commitment.
But here the latest wheeze I heard of was paying the likes of me £2k to ditch my old car and buy a new Jag (who makes those?). Or maybe an LDV van? Sadly (financially, if not environmentally, from manufacturing impact to running) , I opted for a second hand LPG.
I'd just love to square the whole reduced eco-impact vs. growing economy thing, but just can't. I don't think it can be, at least in the ways being currently attempted, and with such blatant fudging if not dishonesty from the establishment.
Guardian - India launches 'world's cheapest car' - Enjoy the other threads and comments. George Monbiot's is 'lively'. I liked one of his supporters' claims against a few eyebrow-crankers that he has a car 'because he needs one'. Ahhhh... that's where I have been going wrong with my finger-wa... oh... I don't do that.
'Regularly these days we hear appeals from politicians... It's urgent, they say, and - this is the key message - it can be done, if everyone and every country does his/her/its bit.'
A very key comment. And one I find hard to rationalise with what issues forth from many politicians, and the media that carry their press releases.
The only appeals I have heard of late are to support the car industry, and often ones that would be hard-pressed to be called 'green'. In crowded urban centres as described above, I agree mass transit initiatives would seem a much 'better' commitment.
But here the latest wheeze I heard of was paying the likes of me £2k to ditch my old car and buy a new Jag (who makes those?). Or maybe an LDV van? Sadly (financially, if not environmentally, from manufacturing impact to running) , I opted for a second hand LPG.
I'd just love to square the whole reduced eco-impact vs. growing economy thing, but just can't. I don't think it can be, at least in the ways being currently attempted, and with such blatant fudging if not dishonesty from the establishment.
Guardian - India launches 'world's cheapest car' - Enjoy the other threads and comments. George Monbiot's is 'lively'. I liked one of his supporters' claims against a few eyebrow-crankers that he has a car 'because he needs one'. Ahhhh... that's where I have been going wrong with my finger-wa... oh... I don't do that.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
PROF'S POSER - Dial 'S' for 'Sun'
Nothing like tapping into the best brains out there.Sp sorry if this is another question without an answer, as yet.
This weekend I bought a solar security lamp combo.
Where it was needed rather determined where it went and, despite a 5m cable, my choices were limited.
However, I did manage, a great risk to life and limb, to get it pretty high up, to make the most of the daytime sunlight. And, despite the picture, the panel is pretty much clear exposure all day.
However, I faced it due South. And near vertical. Now I have noticed, on a nice day like today, it is missing out on any solar impact until mid-morning, though if the sun stays out it will keep it pretty much until dusk.
My question is whether this is the most sensible orientation? Two real issues. When is the sun mostly 'out', and when is it at its most solarific?
I know that data will exist, and can determine the optimum year-round setting, as I don't want to go up there again. Scaaaaareee!
In passing, I will advise that I am working on a self powered device to help panels auto-track the heat of the sun, which I'll share when complete.
RE:tie - Uses
A few business folk have dismissed the RE:tie as they can't think why anyone would use them.
How do I love thee, RE:tie, let me (and I rather suspect, nay hope, others' imaginations may add to the list) count the ways ....
Bag tie - (if you are being charged per bag, you'll want to fill it to the top. So you'll need a tie)
Bean canes -
Cable Tidy - no pix yet
Connector -
Sign-posting -
Supermarket baskets -
Wheel hubs -
ADDENDUM -
By happy coincidence, I already have come across the next batch, from nifty reuse site repurposeful (featured in links..RHS)
Bogey persons
Opposing wind farms should be socially taboo, says Ed Miliband
This should, technically, be under the ALT. ENERGY category, but I think I'll give it its own splash.
What the heck does that headline, and by association the words of a government minister, mean?
'Should be socially taboo'? Is he simple? Or just playing to the crowd at the premiere of the Age of Stupid which, a few blogs earlier I have stated I wish to watch, but am more than unimpressed that will not allow any dissenting commentary to enter their realms.
Opposing wind farms should be subject to reasoned debate, facts, objectivity and (what is left of it) democratic process. Plus...enviROI. Just because there's a big whirl thing that meets an EU target and a lobbyist's entreaties doesn't make it right.
Next thing you'll find is Ministers will go on air claiming that the court of public opinion should take precedence over the law....oh.
I think these things can and should be embraced, wherever and whenever practically and cost/eco-effectively possible. But then I don't live near any. I like the look of them. But I accept there are negatives, from noise (close up) to property prices being reduced. Such things cannot be dismissed in such a manner by breaking out of one's pod like something from 'Invasion of the Body Snatcher's and hissing 'Nimby' at folk who have other views, any more than one should throw around pejoratives like 'denier' or 'Treehugger'. Especially if thy are there and you are just passing by.
I'm with Voltaire here, and I while I may agree with much that Mr. M is trying to do, I think he has a darned doltish way of saying it.
This should, technically, be under the ALT. ENERGY category, but I think I'll give it its own splash.
What the heck does that headline, and by association the words of a government minister, mean?
'Should be socially taboo'? Is he simple? Or just playing to the crowd at the premiere of the Age of Stupid which, a few blogs earlier I have stated I wish to watch, but am more than unimpressed that will not allow any dissenting commentary to enter their realms.
Opposing wind farms should be subject to reasoned debate, facts, objectivity and (what is left of it) democratic process. Plus...enviROI. Just because there's a big whirl thing that meets an EU target and a lobbyist's entreaties doesn't make it right.
Next thing you'll find is Ministers will go on air claiming that the court of public opinion should take precedence over the law....oh.
I think these things can and should be embraced, wherever and whenever practically and cost/eco-effectively possible. But then I don't live near any. I like the look of them. But I accept there are negatives, from noise (close up) to property prices being reduced. Such things cannot be dismissed in such a manner by breaking out of one's pod like something from 'Invasion of the Body Snatcher's and hissing 'Nimby' at folk who have other views, any more than one should throw around pejoratives like 'denier' or 'Treehugger'. Especially if thy are there and you are just passing by.
I'm with Voltaire here, and I while I may agree with much that Mr. M is trying to do, I think he has a darned doltish way of saying it.
Worried about CO2 and Methane?
Well, apart from these two well known greenhouse gases, there are now a couple more to worry about too, as this from SciScoop reports.
Apparently, concentrations of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) are rapidly increasing in our atmosphere and both are known to be powerful greenhouse gases.
Just how many more straws can we (mankind) load onto the camel's back?
Apparently, concentrations of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and sulfuryl fluoride (SO2F2) are rapidly increasing in our atmosphere and both are known to be powerful greenhouse gases.
Just how many more straws can we (mankind) load onto the camel's back?
Monday, March 23, 2009
POOH CORNER - Wee Directive?
NASA delays test of space station urine recycler
And here's me thinking it was in the Carling 'brewery'.
And here's me thinking it was in the Carling 'brewery'.
CAMPAIGN - Action Earth
I'm often not big on campaigns, but this one looks OK:
actionearth.org.uk
A bit of sponsorship in there, but that's fine. Plus some nice funding for nifty local activities.
actionearth.org.uk
A bit of sponsorship in there, but that's fine. Plus some nice funding for nifty local activities.
PR COVERAGE - And it's Rubbish... thankfully
They do say it's the awards from your peers that mean the most.
rubbish-diet-awards-2009
I'll go along with that:)
rubbish-diet-awards-2009
I'll go along with that:)
Stupid is as Stupid does
I am going to see the Age of Stupid.
I am going to do so because I have heard about it, it sounds interesting, it may be worth a gander and I'll learn something.
The producers must be thrilled.
However, they might not be so pleased that I am going with an eyebrow now cranked, and not in a good way. And it's their fault.
The rage of stupid
This bit, especially, did not help: the site's managers are taking no chances. Their comment box carries a legend that somewhat undermines this apparently glowing feedback. It reads: "Any comments from climate deniers/sceptics will be deleted."..the site's managers are taking no chances. "
That smacks of a slight lack of confidence from the off, and also suggests that balance may not be uppermost. Which means the science I see may not be the science there is.
You know, I may wait for a few more reviews where all 'sides' are allowed to comment free of censorship/agenda/narrative enhancing, etc, and then decide whether I'll go.
Now, was/is that the intention?
I am going to do so because I have heard about it, it sounds interesting, it may be worth a gander and I'll learn something.
The producers must be thrilled.
However, they might not be so pleased that I am going with an eyebrow now cranked, and not in a good way. And it's their fault.
The rage of stupid
This bit, especially, did not help: the site's managers are taking no chances. Their comment box carries a legend that somewhat undermines this apparently glowing feedback. It reads: "Any comments from climate deniers/sceptics will be deleted."..the site's managers are taking no chances. "
That smacks of a slight lack of confidence from the off, and also suggests that balance may not be uppermost. Which means the science I see may not be the science there is.
You know, I may wait for a few more reviews where all 'sides' are allowed to comment free of censorship/agenda/narrative enhancing, etc, and then decide whether I'll go.
Now, was/is that the intention?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Big issues. No #36G.
Can cosmetic surgery ever be green?
Nice to see the Londonistas getting to the 'meat' (sorry) of the big eco-issues.
I can see this really bothering my missus of an evening. Population control (major s**t-fight on the BBC this morning. And an interesting way of spinning it in The Observer), MMGW, etc... and getting perky in a way that will impress the gels at the next eco-gathering. Mind you, we do often get excited about plastics, so maybe it's 'in the zone'.
Sadly no option to respond.
My answer to the headline is.. 'Of course. A rusty blade. Limited access to medical care, a bit of gangrene and Bob's your uncle (or boobs the colour of pus-flecked corruption).
Probably just as well I didn't get the chance.
Next up... 'Is your fresh Tofu flown in AND offset?'
Addendum
No, I think this one is better... and for real. Sadly:
The Aga saga: George Monbiot v William McGrath
Nice to see the Londonistas getting to the 'meat' (sorry) of the big eco-issues.
I can see this really bothering my missus of an evening. Population control (major s**t-fight on the BBC this morning. And an interesting way of spinning it in The Observer), MMGW, etc... and getting perky in a way that will impress the gels at the next eco-gathering. Mind you, we do often get excited about plastics, so maybe it's 'in the zone'.
Sadly no option to respond.
My answer to the headline is.. 'Of course. A rusty blade. Limited access to medical care, a bit of gangrene and Bob's your uncle (or boobs the colour of pus-flecked corruption).
Probably just as well I didn't get the chance.
Next up... 'Is your fresh Tofu flown in AND offset?'
Addendum
No, I think this one is better... and for real. Sadly:
The Aga saga: George Monbiot v William McGrath
PROF'S POSER - Up in smoke?
This is firmly in the 'Two wrong's do not...' camp, but I would like to know*:
Do you think the BBC environment correspondent will tell us how much CO2 and sulfur compounds has been released by the Tongan volcano in the last two days, and what % this represents of the sum of similar gases released by annual human industrial activity?
This may bring up an 'inconvenient' fact or two.
It becomes pertinent as one discusses the relative man-worsened aspects of anthropomorphic climate change. I wonder if we will get any discussion, much less answers, from some usual suspects quitekeen on rushing to print and screen with other data when it suits?
Times - Underwater volcano sends huge columns of ash into Pacific sky
Indy - Volcano shatters Pacific calm around Tonga
ADDENDUM
*I asked; I may have an answer (if from another source, and an unvetted one for now. And I await, with dread, the publishing of equally valid-looking data that claims the exact opposite) in another blog...
48. At 8:58pm on 21 Mar 2009, manysummits
We have injected a trillion (1 x 10 EEX 12) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1751, half of that in the last twenty five years, and we are increasing that by some two to three percent per year. Background volcanic emmisions from all volcanoes, including the 60,000 kilometer mid-ocean ridge system, are on the order of 0.2 to at most 1 billion (1 x 10 EEX 9) tons per year, two orders of magnitude less than we, anthropogens all, are emitting per year.
CO2 is up 38 percent over preindustrial levels (280 to 387 ppmv), and has never been above 300 ppmv for at least 450,000 years (four glacial intergalcial cycles).
The search continues.
ADDENDUM 23/03/09 - Alaskan volcano Mount Redoubt erupts -
Do you think the BBC environment correspondent will tell us how much CO2 and sulfur compounds has been released by the Tongan volcano in the last two days, and what % this represents of the sum of similar gases released by annual human industrial activity?
This may bring up an 'inconvenient' fact or two.
It becomes pertinent as one discusses the relative man-worsened aspects of anthropomorphic climate change. I wonder if we will get any discussion, much less answers, from some usual suspects quitekeen on rushing to print and screen with other data when it suits?
Times - Underwater volcano sends huge columns of ash into Pacific sky
Indy - Volcano shatters Pacific calm around Tonga
ADDENDUM
*I asked; I may have an answer (if from another source, and an unvetted one for now. And I await, with dread, the publishing of equally valid-looking data that claims the exact opposite) in another blog...
48. At 8:58pm on 21 Mar 2009, manysummits
We have injected a trillion (1 x 10 EEX 12) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since 1751, half of that in the last twenty five years, and we are increasing that by some two to three percent per year. Background volcanic emmisions from all volcanoes, including the 60,000 kilometer mid-ocean ridge system, are on the order of 0.2 to at most 1 billion (1 x 10 EEX 9) tons per year, two orders of magnitude less than we, anthropogens all, are emitting per year.
CO2 is up 38 percent over preindustrial levels (280 to 387 ppmv), and has never been above 300 ppmv for at least 450,000 years (four glacial intergalcial cycles).
The search continues.
ADDENDUM 23/03/09 - Alaskan volcano Mount Redoubt erupts -
But... do we get a big answer?
The Big Question: Does an impending shortage of vital resources threaten catastrophe?
Well, I am all for balance, but we end up with six.... 3 each way:
Will we be living in a dystopian nightmare world within 20 years?
Yes...
* By 2030 we may lack about 50 per cent of the food and energy we need to sustain everyone on the planet
* Millions of people may have been displaced from their homes and nations by water shortages
* It is more than conceivable that critical shortages of resources will lead to global instability and war
No...
* Don't take scientists' scare tactics too seriously. By overstating their concerns, they receive more funding
* A raft of technological advances and efficiency savings will ensure that the worst aspects of climate change are ameliorated
* We will certainly not become extinct – nature always finds a way
I merely note, especially as this is a climate pessimistic, action proactive paper, that the qualifiers 'may' seem to crop up in one section more, and not the one I'd imagined.
Well, I am all for balance, but we end up with six.... 3 each way:
Will we be living in a dystopian nightmare world within 20 years?
Yes...
* By 2030 we may lack about 50 per cent of the food and energy we need to sustain everyone on the planet
* Millions of people may have been displaced from their homes and nations by water shortages
* It is more than conceivable that critical shortages of resources will lead to global instability and war
No...
* Don't take scientists' scare tactics too seriously. By overstating their concerns, they receive more funding
* A raft of technological advances and efficiency savings will ensure that the worst aspects of climate change are ameliorated
* We will certainly not become extinct – nature always finds a way
I merely note, especially as this is a climate pessimistic, action proactive paper, that the qualifiers 'may' seem to crop up in one section more, and not the one I'd imagined.
Friday, March 20, 2009
One man's meat...
Bag a polar bear for $35,000: the new threat to the species
Hard to figure the challenge of standing off an popping a high-powered round from a distance at an unarmed creature, but heigh-ho. Last time I heard the word respect used in the context above I think it was in Grand Theft Auto/San Andreas, and the protagonist had an UZI. The other guy ended up pretty much like the polar bear, mind.
And what are they THINKING???? Don't they realise that these creatures are being wiped out by man in other ways and are to only be used for promotional purposes on melting icebergs.
Seems some folk just haven't got the whole 'Save the...' gig joined up and sorted. Darned indigenous community types.
Hard to figure the challenge of standing off an popping a high-powered round from a distance at an unarmed creature, but heigh-ho. Last time I heard the word respect used in the context above I think it was in Grand Theft Auto/San Andreas, and the protagonist had an UZI. The other guy ended up pretty much like the polar bear, mind.
And what are they THINKING???? Don't they realise that these creatures are being wiped out by man in other ways and are to only be used for promotional purposes on melting icebergs.
Seems some folk just haven't got the whole 'Save the...' gig joined up and sorted. Darned indigenous community types.
XXX-rated
I mean my comment, not the um, ad, or product, in question:)
Why bottled Bling H2O is an eco low
Looking at the bright side, and back at the main image (a lot), there does at least seem to be more than a small hint at the benefits of packaging reuse here, at least if my memory of an accidental click on a a spam email about a young lady called Cindy's love for her pet Rabbit was any guide.
Why bottled Bling H2O is an eco low
Looking at the bright side, and back at the main image (a lot), there does at least seem to be more than a small hint at the benefits of packaging reuse here, at least if my memory of an accidental click on a a spam email about a young lady called Cindy's love for her pet Rabbit was any guide.
The media, me, and the planet
I have mixed feelings about the media. Complex ones.
Made all the more so because, in some ways, Junkk.com and this blog have become one, of sorts, and I their reporter/editor, with all the opportunities and responsibilities that represents.
As an 'amateur', and an online blogger rather than a 'real' MSM representative, I do feel there is a difference, which can be good and bad. Mostly good, IMHO.
One thing is that I feel more credible as one of the great unwashed that is the public/consumer classes (not that anyone, from BBC editor to Guardian commentator isn't one too, or at least should have some empathy with. But often don't), and hence crank more the the odd eyebrow at some of the pronouncements for our 4th estate, especially in matters green.
I am especially sensitive to those that are sloppy on science, more for ratings and/or worst of all, straight out of 'DDAIDDAIS' camp.
There are way to many who do little more than talk, often talk tosh, and then go on to become poor examples of 'MEDIUM vs. MESSENGER', often undoing much that they pontificate on by either treating it as a one-off story or frankly seeing themselves as above the very things they finger wave at others for... often only briefly.
But there are honourable exceptions. Rare ones. And when they crop up I am going to take note, stay with them, and share. They seem to understand the concept of doing and, perhaps more importantly, sharing and leading by example.
One such is John-Paul Flintoff of the Times. His column is now linked on the blog roll at right.
I also wonder if it is no coincidence that, where I get studiously ignored or even blanked by many 'green VIPs' (I often write to suggest things to such folk), these guys also seem a heck of a lot nicer and more polite. He didn't have to, but Mr. Flintoff sought me out and wrote a very nice few words about what I'm trying to do. Which, in my lowly media position, was a heck of a thing and a real boost.
Made all the more so because, in some ways, Junkk.com and this blog have become one, of sorts, and I their reporter/editor, with all the opportunities and responsibilities that represents.
As an 'amateur', and an online blogger rather than a 'real' MSM representative, I do feel there is a difference, which can be good and bad. Mostly good, IMHO.
One thing is that I feel more credible as one of the great unwashed that is the public/consumer classes (not that anyone, from BBC editor to Guardian commentator isn't one too, or at least should have some empathy with. But often don't), and hence crank more the the odd eyebrow at some of the pronouncements for our 4th estate, especially in matters green.
I am especially sensitive to those that are sloppy on science, more for ratings and/or worst of all, straight out of 'DDAIDDAIS' camp.
There are way to many who do little more than talk, often talk tosh, and then go on to become poor examples of 'MEDIUM vs. MESSENGER', often undoing much that they pontificate on by either treating it as a one-off story or frankly seeing themselves as above the very things they finger wave at others for... often only briefly.
But there are honourable exceptions. Rare ones. And when they crop up I am going to take note, stay with them, and share. They seem to understand the concept of doing and, perhaps more importantly, sharing and leading by example.
One such is John-Paul Flintoff of the Times. His column is now linked on the blog roll at right.
I also wonder if it is no coincidence that, where I get studiously ignored or even blanked by many 'green VIPs' (I often write to suggest things to such folk), these guys also seem a heck of a lot nicer and more polite. He didn't have to, but Mr. Flintoff sought me out and wrote a very nice few words about what I'm trying to do. Which, in my lowly media position, was a heck of a thing and a real boost.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
I love the smell of box-ticking in the afternoon!
Major UK retailers and brands agreed to introduce on-pack recycling labelling system
Once you read that, best make add at the front 'Some...'
I love the smell of box-ticking in the afternoon!
It will be interesting to see how national brands end up coordinating with local authority variations. Especially as this 'non compulsory' scheme is 'encouraged' hither and thither.
I, for one, look forward to yet more info crammed on my pack side, but do wonder if the missus and kids will be too inspired as they stand, binside, getting to grips with bits that are 'widely recycled', and doubt rather whether they will be scooting off on a case by case basis to 'check local recycling'. Actually our local bods do at least take plastics, at least in the swimming pool carpark skip, and we just heave it all in there, from PEP to HDPE to lord knows what.
Well, at least the bits we don't reuse on Junkk.com or pop in our RE:box weekly kerbside boxes- soon to be ditched in favour of a big green wheelie taking everything in a big black plastic bag two counties across to be turned into recyclate tonnages that most recyclers won't take due to quality compromises, but still 'count' for EU targets - will now be better directed.
I cannot wait for the multi-million campaign to create 'awareness' for all this, driving up rates and helping with the bonuses of all (well, most: the consumer is still out of this loop) involved.
Just hope the planet and our kids' futures will benefit as much as the box tickers.
Ain't green grand?
Once you read that, best make add at the front 'Some...'
I love the smell of box-ticking in the afternoon!
It will be interesting to see how national brands end up coordinating with local authority variations. Especially as this 'non compulsory' scheme is 'encouraged' hither and thither.
I, for one, look forward to yet more info crammed on my pack side, but do wonder if the missus and kids will be too inspired as they stand, binside, getting to grips with bits that are 'widely recycled', and doubt rather whether they will be scooting off on a case by case basis to 'check local recycling'. Actually our local bods do at least take plastics, at least in the swimming pool carpark skip, and we just heave it all in there, from PEP to HDPE to lord knows what.
Well, at least the bits we don't reuse on Junkk.com or pop in our RE:box weekly kerbside boxes- soon to be ditched in favour of a big green wheelie taking everything in a big black plastic bag two counties across to be turned into recyclate tonnages that most recyclers won't take due to quality compromises, but still 'count' for EU targets - will now be better directed.
I cannot wait for the multi-million campaign to create 'awareness' for all this, driving up rates and helping with the bonuses of all (well, most: the consumer is still out of this loop) involved.
Just hope the planet and our kids' futures will benefit as much as the box tickers.
Ain't green grand?
Whodathunkit?
No, minister: mandarins frustrate Miliband's green revolution
I liked this bit::
'One high-profile political colleague was surprised to find the Climate Change Secretary holding a meeting in a small side room with plastic chairs, rather than in the more suitable surroundings of a ministerial office.
"After holding court in the plush ministerial office of [former Environment secretary] Hilary Benn, it was a bit of a change to find Ed in a small room with plastic chairs, a table and a white board," said an official present at the meeting. "It looked like a classroom."'
Well, yes, I can see how not having nice offices would be seen as below the plush levels one expected of a person looking to balance the needs of economy and demands of environmental issues. 'Like a classroom'... indeed. The very idea. Good enough for our kids, though, I guess.
Telegraph - NEW - Where’s the investment needed to green the economy?
I liked this bit::
'One high-profile political colleague was surprised to find the Climate Change Secretary holding a meeting in a small side room with plastic chairs, rather than in the more suitable surroundings of a ministerial office.
"After holding court in the plush ministerial office of [former Environment secretary] Hilary Benn, it was a bit of a change to find Ed in a small room with plastic chairs, a table and a white board," said an official present at the meeting. "It looked like a classroom."'
Well, yes, I can see how not having nice offices would be seen as below the plush levels one expected of a person looking to balance the needs of economy and demands of environmental issues. 'Like a classroom'... indeed. The very idea. Good enough for our kids, though, I guess.
Telegraph - NEW - Where’s the investment needed to green the economy?
SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES - Crusty wisdom
It's a new 'theme'. I make little or no comment, but simply share.
Saving the planet the Vivienne Westwood way
In this case I found it of interest for the topic, protagonist and author.
Saving the planet the Vivienne Westwood way
In this case I found it of interest for the topic, protagonist and author.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
It's a tough job...
Ethical dilemmas: is walking more polluting than driving?
Not to mention flying hither and thither in the name of 'awareness', it seems.
What a dilemma! Two hours relaxing in the soft leather seats of a billionaire's private jet or 20 hours behind the wheel of a hire car
One faced by many around the world, daily, I'm sure. Along with the other daunting choices faced. Has Mr. Harrabin got back from his scuba diving trip yet? Message and messengers again spring to mind.
Not to mention flying hither and thither in the name of 'awareness', it seems.
What a dilemma! Two hours relaxing in the soft leather seats of a billionaire's private jet or 20 hours behind the wheel of a hire car
One faced by many around the world, daily, I'm sure. Along with the other daunting choices faced. Has Mr. Harrabin got back from his scuba diving trip yet? Message and messengers again spring to mind.
Worth a read
An interesting view on the recent Copenhagen Climate conference..
What message, and whose, from Copenhagen?
Though it might be noted that even the author of this, in my view more nuanced and balanced view to almost all partisan reports I have been exposed/subjected to so far, falls a tad short on DOING, too.
What message, and whose, from Copenhagen?
Though it might be noted that even the author of this, in my view more nuanced and balanced view to almost all partisan reports I have been exposed/subjected to so far, falls a tad short on DOING, too.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Oh, the grand old Duke of York...
And when it was up it was up, and when it was down it was down...
Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'
'Coral lab' offers acidity insight
There seems to be one constant, and that's the ability of environmental reporters to fly nice places and lounge around posting whatever latest wheeze is in the wind.
Not sure it's doing much for my understanding of climate, or my desire to cut back whilst they carry on their vital works.
Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'
'Coral lab' offers acidity insight
There seems to be one constant, and that's the ability of environmental reporters to fly nice places and lounge around posting whatever latest wheeze is in the wind.
Not sure it's doing much for my understanding of climate, or my desire to cut back whilst they carry on their vital works.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
You want lies with that?
Is there a bug in your bin?
Yet another example of the box-ticking, target-meeting, bonus-generating process over real result culture we are spiraling down through daily. And I am an ardent environmental campaigner (though more in the areas of reuse and repair, which don't seem to 'inspire' some LAs and massively funded/rewarded quangos and their hands-length (when necessary) masters in Whitehall.... 'who cares if it's making things worse, we have an EU limit and will a) get fined if we miss and b) get lots of goodies if we exceed it! Result!
If it is about what we throw away, which may represent a modicum of opportunity, how in the name of anything is a microchip going to help unless it actually reads something like an RFID on every discarded item, and then traces it accurately to how sold it, bought it and then disposed of it.
As noted, all this might do is weigh the thing, regardless of any other aspects. As Al Hamilton suggests, it is ridiculously easy to skew, though by his suggestion, at best the LAs get their bonuses early, or at worst the householder gets slapped with a massive bill. Whichever way, my kids' futures on this planet are not served by trucks lugging more weight to make a flunky look good to his/her legions of equally unproductive bosses.
'Tonnage, tonnage. My kingdom for more tonnage!'
Addendum
There can, of course, be positives..
But in the spirit of enviROI I'd be fascinated to find out more about the realities surrounding such figures, especially the VAST comms budgets used to drive such figures, and how that money could have been used on tangibles (like coordinating a national system, as opposed to the woeful , contradictory, motley collection we have now) rather than 'awareness' leading to compliance on the part of the public doing work to drive the bonuses of the ever-duplicated boards approving these expenditures to get the public working to boost their salaries.
Almost a conflict of interest, IMHO. That said, in a culture where public servants get bonuses for doing their jobs, well or (insert headline on almost any topic from last decade here] I guess anything is possible.
Times - NEW - Knock, knock: it’s the council bin snoops
Yet another example of the box-ticking, target-meeting, bonus-generating process over real result culture we are spiraling down through daily. And I am an ardent environmental campaigner (though more in the areas of reuse and repair, which don't seem to 'inspire' some LAs and massively funded/rewarded quangos and their hands-length (when necessary) masters in Whitehall.... 'who cares if it's making things worse, we have an EU limit and will a) get fined if we miss and b) get lots of goodies if we exceed it! Result!
If it is about what we throw away, which may represent a modicum of opportunity, how in the name of anything is a microchip going to help unless it actually reads something like an RFID on every discarded item, and then traces it accurately to how sold it, bought it and then disposed of it.
As noted, all this might do is weigh the thing, regardless of any other aspects. As Al Hamilton suggests, it is ridiculously easy to skew, though by his suggestion, at best the LAs get their bonuses early, or at worst the householder gets slapped with a massive bill. Whichever way, my kids' futures on this planet are not served by trucks lugging more weight to make a flunky look good to his/her legions of equally unproductive bosses.
'Tonnage, tonnage. My kingdom for more tonnage!'
Addendum
There can, of course, be positives..
But in the spirit of enviROI I'd be fascinated to find out more about the realities surrounding such figures, especially the VAST comms budgets used to drive such figures, and how that money could have been used on tangibles (like coordinating a national system, as opposed to the woeful , contradictory, motley collection we have now) rather than 'awareness' leading to compliance on the part of the public doing work to drive the bonuses of the ever-duplicated boards approving these expenditures to get the public working to boost their salaries.
Almost a conflict of interest, IMHO. That said, in a culture where public servants get bonuses for doing their jobs, well or (insert headline on almost any topic from last decade here] I guess anything is possible.
Times - NEW - Knock, knock: it’s the council bin snoops
Share and share alike
I have a few things I keep to myself. For the rest, there's Junkk.com, and now...
creativecommons.org
creativecommons.org
Friday, March 13, 2009
Poles apart
That seems appropriate.
As the two 'sides' I am referring to seem to be mostly at each one, either proving or disproving glacier melts or ice thicknesses as the rest of us sit in the middle and either freeze, fry or drown as they dick about arguing.
Speaking of which, something has just sunk in, which I will pose as a question (as I don't know...yet).
It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone interested (and selected groups possibly not, demanding on their choice of media) that there have been two major climate conferences recently: one in Copenhagen (the bigger, and more reported.. in places), and one in New York (the less big, and hence (?) much less well reported). I think it is safe to say each were essentially pushing diverse views within the climate change debate, if billed in the name of 'discussing' problems and solutions.
Thing is, what the heck was going on if the most vocal and, one presumes qualified 'experts' in the field doing in two separate places, essentially agreeing with those who agree with them? Was this through choice, lack of invitation, rejection, selection... what?
Doesn't all this really rather defeat the object of scientific debate? Not to mention the cause of a better future for our kids.
As the two 'sides' I am referring to seem to be mostly at each one, either proving or disproving glacier melts or ice thicknesses as the rest of us sit in the middle and either freeze, fry or drown as they dick about arguing.
Speaking of which, something has just sunk in, which I will pose as a question (as I don't know...yet).
It cannot have escaped the notice of anyone interested (and selected groups possibly not, demanding on their choice of media) that there have been two major climate conferences recently: one in Copenhagen (the bigger, and more reported.. in places), and one in New York (the less big, and hence (?) much less well reported). I think it is safe to say each were essentially pushing diverse views within the climate change debate, if billed in the name of 'discussing' problems and solutions.
Thing is, what the heck was going on if the most vocal and, one presumes qualified 'experts' in the field doing in two separate places, essentially agreeing with those who agree with them? Was this through choice, lack of invitation, rejection, selection... what?
Doesn't all this really rather defeat the object of scientific debate? Not to mention the cause of a better future for our kids.
Coulda, shoulda, woulda...
There are many, complex matters of climatic concern worth taking seriously...
Time to change 'climate change'
My point has, is and will be that such as this is not, IMHO, exactly helping that to happen.
I think I gave up after the nth 'could' or 'might'. Whilst at least honest qualifiers, they were usually qualifying an extreme end.
A point rather picked up upon. And it wasn't until almost the end of the first page (not really worth wading through t'other 6...so far) that the first 'supportive' comment was made, rather ironically ignoring the author and referring to the 'deniers' being out in force. Hardly the most original, or cogent rebuttal that could be made.
I await with interest, and a bit of a sigh, 'climate breakdowners' being deemed the next pejorative stick to bash others with in the ongoing war of words. FWIW, as a communications professional, I'd say it's a move away from the evident main aim. In all this the anthropomorphic aspect seems to have been dropped, which is pretty key, plus of course the possible contribution of nature to man's pollutants as well. Maybe 'nature firsters'?
A bit like when I see Dear Leader 'representing' the UK, much as I believe in my cause, with such as this I sometimes have this guilty desire to be on another side. At least the arguments are often articulated a lot better, and with more humour.
Time to change 'climate change'
My point has, is and will be that such as this is not, IMHO, exactly helping that to happen.
I think I gave up after the nth 'could' or 'might'. Whilst at least honest qualifiers, they were usually qualifying an extreme end.
A point rather picked up upon. And it wasn't until almost the end of the first page (not really worth wading through t'other 6...so far) that the first 'supportive' comment was made, rather ironically ignoring the author and referring to the 'deniers' being out in force. Hardly the most original, or cogent rebuttal that could be made.
I await with interest, and a bit of a sigh, 'climate breakdowners' being deemed the next pejorative stick to bash others with in the ongoing war of words. FWIW, as a communications professional, I'd say it's a move away from the evident main aim. In all this the anthropomorphic aspect seems to have been dropped, which is pretty key, plus of course the possible contribution of nature to man's pollutants as well. Maybe 'nature firsters'?
A bit like when I see Dear Leader 'representing' the UK, much as I believe in my cause, with such as this I sometimes have this guilty desire to be on another side. At least the arguments are often articulated a lot better, and with more humour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)