Newsnight addresses CARBON LABELS
I address Newsnight:
Good report. I got some facts (50% of ‘impact’ at agricultural stage alone) and a few important questions were raised.
At the outset Mr. Mason added ‘Do ‘we’ care’? I guess that will become apparent in Mr. Lunz’s poll as mentioned at the end, though I am always dubious on what people say vs. what they think or do in such cases. You tend not to be that honest if it’s about personal efforts to ‘save the planet’, especially if you’ll look bad.
Then we got into the meat (well, one veg) of the slot. I may have missed it but if every stage was covered, it seemed to screech to a halt at disposal. The whole impact of packaging and where it goes didn’t feature*.
So immediately I felt this to be incomplete. What this country, indeed the world, needs, is a grounded set of polices that cover what we consume from when it is taken from the ground to stuck back in it (or pumped skywards). With any leftovers reused, of course (see link via my name:)
Anyway, back to what was discussed. Yes, I may look at this label and say ‘there’s too much carbon’. Actually I don’t think I would say that because I don’t know what is too much for a crisp even compared even to another crisp, much less other foodstuffs. And I doubt I’m having that internal debate as I stand there at each aisle.
There’s also mention that this is the 1st manufacturer of several to get on board with this, I note voluntary, initiative. How many are there? How is all this coordinated? In addition to the health versions that vary depending on brand and retailer, I am aware of a few others either already up or being pitched on carbon footprints and/or food miles already. I have joked, and hope it does not come to haunt me, that soon a pack of Smarties will have a CDR of all it is deemed I should know before and after purchase. And that will have a mini-DVD on it, too, to cover its disposal. I am also afraid to say that, as a middle-aged slob I for one also have no clue whether 181 kcalorie per pack is good or bad for me. They are crisps. They don’t seem like they’d be good. As to 75g of carbon, ditto. Hard to put in context. And not a factor in my purchase efforts.
I note that those who embrace this scheme have ‘2 years to get it right' or lose the rights to this label/logo. Is this the only one? Or one of several? Are they competing? Are they paid for? Who monitors the monitors? Are there any official bodies who can add to the discussion?
I thought Prof. Jackson put it all in much clearer terms. And was also refreshingly pragmatic about the issues. Dairy. Beef. Or by Air: if you care about carbon don’t buy ‘em. Going to happen? A whole new dietary regime for the human race (cue vegetarians, with reason. Of course that is just a time-buying measure as the population increases. And if we are designed as omnivores Mother Nature is playing a cruel last card in her design)? I doubt it. So we get... crisps. And even then I doubt a symbol (of how many?) will do much when the chips are down.
The boss of Walkers has done all this... and doesn’t know if it’s a lot or a little. Well, I’d really wish our government, commercial, activist and even media ‘leaders’ would try and figure such things out a bit quicker before taking all sorts of PR punts to see what sticks. And then prioritize the CO2 reduction which will make the big differences first. As reduction is off the menu, I’d suggest addressing deforestation (remember your show on that?). or, closer to home, insulation for all. But that’s just me.
What also gets me very concerned is when I hear the words ‘government’ and ‘carbon market’ coming together. Money can cure a lot, but it can also sway headings when there’s a ton to be made. So if this is just a measure to get some numbers to apply to targets... oh, boy.... my kids will need to hold their breath.
I can, sort of, accept such things are better than nothing, and possibly are a hint at welcome commitments to reduce. The mention of the pricing policy that lead to such wasteful practices being dropped to the benefit of all was salutatory. But it’s only if they are done in the right ways for the right reasons. I await the TV ads with dread.
So, despite the now inevitable flip BBC climate mea culpa on what ‘just doing your job’ consumed, the question posed at the end was well made, and taken.
I await more.
* http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/strategy/
As coordination is key, I have written to DEFRA:
Thank you for this. I hope it will result in positive actions.
I often quote information from such releases, but in this case did so on the Junkk.com blog immediately as it was pertinent and topical to another issue, namely carbon labeling.
You may see merit in coordinating efforts at inter-departmental level to bring all these stands even more closely in sync to maximise the enviROI of the whole consumer supply chain.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Climate change good for some?
For some people a warming planet may bring benefits, for example, this as reported by Reuters, which explains how the melting permafrost of the northern Siberian plains is exposing mammoth and other fossil bones.
"Private collectors and scientific institutes will pay huge sums for the right specimen, and bone-prospectors like Vatagin have turned this region, eight time zones from Moscow, into a paleontological Klondyke."
It sounds like a major money making opportunity for the tiny "Yukagir ethnic group, whose numbers have dwindled to about 800 people". I have to confess that I'd never heard of them before, but bone hunting sounds much more interesting than reindeer herding.
"Private collectors and scientific institutes will pay huge sums for the right specimen, and bone-prospectors like Vatagin have turned this region, eight time zones from Moscow, into a paleontological Klondyke."
It sounds like a major money making opportunity for the tiny "Yukagir ethnic group, whose numbers have dwindled to about 800 people". I have to confess that I'd never heard of them before, but bone hunting sounds much more interesting than reindeer herding.
It isn't just the wheels. It's what turns them.
Inspired by the Lib Dems' 'only carbon-free cars by 2050', and the notion that this would be via electric or hydrogen without being too clear on where these fuels came from, I dug out my Sunday clippings.
Listen up, there’s an electric buzz in the air
Great. I look forward to it all coming to pass.
But please, while the localised pollution advantages are clear, let no one pretend that there are no carbon emissions. The exhaust pipe is just in another place. OK, there's nuclear or renewables, but I don't think we are there yet.
And I'm not sure we will be even by the Lib Dem's 2050 cut-off for fossils in the tank.
It takes energy to get energy in a usable form into a car and to the wheels. You can't cheat nature.
Power cut — the stop-start history of the battery car
And just to be un-PC, let me pop in the lastest JC - The sausage dog with rottweiler bite
While I can't get with the shock-jock ratings digs now he is richer than Croesus and doesn't need the extra, I still believe him to be a good journo. So when he says such as this 'Another thing that’s beyond doubt is that you won’t be driving round in a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius. These use just as much fuel as normal cars...' I take note, while I read this '.. and are designed only to assuage the guilt of people whose opinions come from a man so hopeless he couldn’t even beat George Bush to the White House' and think message vs. messenger. Whilst giggling a tad despite myself.
He's also not a big fan of electric. It's like he knew the other stories were coming out.
Forbes - Least Fuel-Efficient Hybrids - For balance. What worries me is the trend down as buyers find they don't live up to the hype. You wash with bad quality green, you get a stain.
Marketing Week - Car industry in uproar over cigarette-style ad controls - And it's all worked so well with fags. Should be interesting to see how this falls out.
Listen up, there’s an electric buzz in the air
Great. I look forward to it all coming to pass.
But please, while the localised pollution advantages are clear, let no one pretend that there are no carbon emissions. The exhaust pipe is just in another place. OK, there's nuclear or renewables, but I don't think we are there yet.
And I'm not sure we will be even by the Lib Dem's 2050 cut-off for fossils in the tank.
It takes energy to get energy in a usable form into a car and to the wheels. You can't cheat nature.
Power cut — the stop-start history of the battery car
And just to be un-PC, let me pop in the lastest JC - The sausage dog with rottweiler bite
While I can't get with the shock-jock ratings digs now he is richer than Croesus and doesn't need the extra, I still believe him to be a good journo. So when he says such as this 'Another thing that’s beyond doubt is that you won’t be driving round in a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius. These use just as much fuel as normal cars...' I take note, while I read this '.. and are designed only to assuage the guilt of people whose opinions come from a man so hopeless he couldn’t even beat George Bush to the White House' and think message vs. messenger. Whilst giggling a tad despite myself.
He's also not a big fan of electric. It's like he knew the other stories were coming out.
Forbes - Least Fuel-Efficient Hybrids - For balance. What worries me is the trend down as buyers find they don't live up to the hype. You wash with bad quality green, you get a stain.
Marketing Week - Car industry in uproar over cigarette-style ad controls - And it's all worked so well with fags. Should be interesting to see how this falls out.
We now have a choice between a future with a damaged world or a severely damaged world
So why the media silence?
During the early hours of this morning, almost certainly as a consequence of one too many beverages at my local, I was forced to make a visit to the small room. Bladder pressure duly relieved, I then decided, I don't know why, to proceed to the kitchen to make myself a brew, and sat down with the radio on a volume setting almost as low as possible. (Waking she who must be obeyed at that sort of hour could attract a death sentence!)
There was a report about a report that was predicting horrendous consequences for mankind as a direct result of climate change - you know the sort of stuff - millions dying from famine, water, food and oil wars, coastal cities inundated and permanently flooded, increasing typhoons & hurricanes, the extinction of some country states, and, up to [I think they said] 30% of all native species.
Well, I thought to myself, this is absolutely going to be wall to wall in the newspapers and on-line media tomorrow; it was the first time I had heard anything realistic on the Beeb reporting on the potential consequences of climate change, and it was really radical, hair raising stuff.
Yet, apart from this one article in today's Guardian, there is hardly a peep about it, and even this takes a very 'watered down' approach. I can't even find a mention on the BBC website.
"Mitigation has got all the attention but we cannot mitigate out of this problem. We now have a choice between a future with a damaged world or a severely damaged world." OK OK, I agree, that particular bit doesn't sound excessively watered down.
Now the report appears to be the next part (the fourth?) of the next bit of a series from the IPCC. Previous reports have taken up inordinate amounts of media space and coverage.
I'm a curious person, I can't help it. Does anybody out there have any ideas why the deafening media silence on this? Does the media think we can't take the scary scenario stories?
______________
Addendum [Wed 19/9]:
Today has seen at least some reporting of the IPCC's latest report.
Here's the Telegraph's take on the report:
"Stopping global warming in its tracks is no longer feasible because about 1.1ºC of warming is already in the climate system"
"Ten years ago we were all talking about our children and grandchildren. Now when you look at these impacts they will be in the lifetimes of people in [this] room."
And the Indy's interpretation:
"substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding."
"the effects of this rise are being felt sooner than anticipated with the poorest countries and the poorest people set to suffer the worst of shifts in rainfall patterns, temperature rises and the viability of agriculture across much of the developing world."
This from The Times:
"Action to limit the impact can only make the difference between moderate and severe damage rather than preventing it altogether."
"Failure to keep rises below 2C, the target of European governments, would leave up to two billion people facing water shortages and condemn at least 10 per cent of animal and plant species to extinction."
The BBC:
They did have something on their news site yesterday - I missed it. And it is very considered and un-emotive (and, I personally think, quite selective) in comparison to what was in the radio report early yesterday.
"And it's evident from the work of the IPCC that even with a maximum of 2C we're not going to avoid some major impacts at the regional level."
"estimate was that the rise could be constrained to between 2C and 3C."
"millions, if not tens of millions, would be at increased risk to their lives from a rise above 2C"
The report actually says millions will probably die as a result of a 2C rise which is now inevitable!
Nothing.
The Express:
Nothing.
The Mirror:
Nothing.
The Financial Times:
Nothing that I can spot yet.
And this is a link to the actual report for anyone with the time to read the entire thing in full.
The clear thing is, the report implies that it is already too late even to mitigate against a 2C temperature rise, and efforts need to be made extremely urgently to prevent any additional temperature rise. It is clearly telling us that millions are probably going to die, and millions more will suffer major food and water deprivation and/or face migration elsewhere to survive.
It's a major wake up call to humanity, yet half of our media seem oblivious to reporting on it!
There was extensive reporting on the publication which came down on the 'climate change IS man made' side. Why so little on the first report that details the impacts that such climate change may have on mankind?
During the early hours of this morning, almost certainly as a consequence of one too many beverages at my local, I was forced to make a visit to the small room. Bladder pressure duly relieved, I then decided, I don't know why, to proceed to the kitchen to make myself a brew, and sat down with the radio on a volume setting almost as low as possible. (Waking she who must be obeyed at that sort of hour could attract a death sentence!)
There was a report about a report that was predicting horrendous consequences for mankind as a direct result of climate change - you know the sort of stuff - millions dying from famine, water, food and oil wars, coastal cities inundated and permanently flooded, increasing typhoons & hurricanes, the extinction of some country states, and, up to [I think they said] 30% of all native species.
Well, I thought to myself, this is absolutely going to be wall to wall in the newspapers and on-line media tomorrow; it was the first time I had heard anything realistic on the Beeb reporting on the potential consequences of climate change, and it was really radical, hair raising stuff.
Yet, apart from this one article in today's Guardian, there is hardly a peep about it, and even this takes a very 'watered down' approach. I can't even find a mention on the BBC website.
"Mitigation has got all the attention but we cannot mitigate out of this problem. We now have a choice between a future with a damaged world or a severely damaged world." OK OK, I agree, that particular bit doesn't sound excessively watered down.
Now the report appears to be the next part (the fourth?) of the next bit of a series from the IPCC. Previous reports have taken up inordinate amounts of media space and coverage.
I'm a curious person, I can't help it. Does anybody out there have any ideas why the deafening media silence on this? Does the media think we can't take the scary scenario stories?
______________
Addendum [Wed 19/9]:
Today has seen at least some reporting of the IPCC's latest report.
Here's the Telegraph's take on the report:
"Stopping global warming in its tracks is no longer feasible because about 1.1ºC of warming is already in the climate system"
"Ten years ago we were all talking about our children and grandchildren. Now when you look at these impacts they will be in the lifetimes of people in [this] room."
And the Indy's interpretation:
"substantial global impacts will occur, such as species extinctions, and millions of people at risk from drought, hunger, flooding."
"the effects of this rise are being felt sooner than anticipated with the poorest countries and the poorest people set to suffer the worst of shifts in rainfall patterns, temperature rises and the viability of agriculture across much of the developing world."
This from The Times:
"Action to limit the impact can only make the difference between moderate and severe damage rather than preventing it altogether."
"Failure to keep rises below 2C, the target of European governments, would leave up to two billion people facing water shortages and condemn at least 10 per cent of animal and plant species to extinction."
The BBC:
They did have something on their news site yesterday - I missed it. And it is very considered and un-emotive (and, I personally think, quite selective) in comparison to what was in the radio report early yesterday.
"And it's evident from the work of the IPCC that even with a maximum of 2C we're not going to avoid some major impacts at the regional level."
"estimate was that the rise could be constrained to between 2C and 3C."
"millions, if not tens of millions, would be at increased risk to their lives from a rise above 2C"
The report actually says millions will probably die as a result of a 2C rise which is now inevitable!
The Daily Mail:
Nothing.
The Express:
Nothing.
The Mirror:
Nothing.
The Financial Times:
Nothing that I can spot yet.
And this is a link to the actual report for anyone with the time to read the entire thing in full.
The clear thing is, the report implies that it is already too late even to mitigate against a 2C temperature rise, and efforts need to be made extremely urgently to prevent any additional temperature rise. It is clearly telling us that millions are probably going to die, and millions more will suffer major food and water deprivation and/or face migration elsewhere to survive.
It's a major wake up call to humanity, yet half of our media seem oblivious to reporting on it!
There was extensive reporting on the publication which came down on the 'climate change IS man made' side. Why so little on the first report that details the impacts that such climate change may have on mankind?
What goes up
This from via Brand Strategy's trends and news for September : DESIGN SPACE
The final frontier is getting closer for Virgin Galactic which unveiled its design for the world’s first spaceport this month. The design is the product of a partnership between global engineering design firm URS Corporation and London architects Foster + Partners and has ‘green’ credentials.
Please, please, could someone explain the association of 'green credentials' in a story about a spaceport to help punt a half dozen zillionaires into low orbit atop a cloud of [what? Last time I heard it wasn't nice stuff] just to have a Kodak moment.
The final frontier is getting closer for Virgin Galactic which unveiled its design for the world’s first spaceport this month. The design is the product of a partnership between global engineering design firm URS Corporation and London architects Foster + Partners and has ‘green’ credentials.
Please, please, could someone explain the association of 'green credentials' in a story about a spaceport to help punt a half dozen zillionaires into low orbit atop a cloud of [what? Last time I heard it wasn't nice stuff] just to have a Kodak moment.
8 out of 10 cats
I think the numbers cited here speak for themselves : What's Behind the Green Consumer Research?
Plus:
'...a more robust labeling effort would make a difference.'
Fair, well-considered posts all. Thank you.
I am interested in labelling as this is becoming something of a cause du jour here in the UK, with all our usual national clarity of purpose.
I have joked (I hope) that a pack of kids' candies will soon need a CDR attached to carry all the various (and competing - we have several systems already up... and coming) decision-making background info we are deemed to need to act.
And I do question with that is ever going to happen, no matter how well, or consistently, it's shared at Point of Purchase.
Taking Care of Business - I asked if we could join. Which would make two. Little acorns...
Plus:
'...a more robust labeling effort would make a difference.'
Fair, well-considered posts all. Thank you.
I am interested in labelling as this is becoming something of a cause du jour here in the UK, with all our usual national clarity of purpose.
I have joked (I hope) that a pack of kids' candies will soon need a CDR attached to carry all the various (and competing - we have several systems already up... and coming) decision-making background info we are deemed to need to act.
And I do question with that is ever going to happen, no matter how well, or consistently, it's shared at Point of Purchase.
Taking Care of Business - I asked if we could join. Which would make two. Little acorns...
The six sins of Greenwashing
I am grateful to a poster on Brand Republic who shares this, as he says, on of all things, a US Government procurement site (though it does look like he wrote it) - Beware of Greenwashing: Not All Environmental Claims are Meaningful
Can't fault it much.
Can't fault it much.
Words and needs
This is a comment as much about reporting/editorial techniques as the actual content: Modified crops a must if India to feed itself: official
I don't know about you, but I first read that as meaning 'it' was 'official', which seemed quite significant. If it's some bod (no matter how senior) who said it, then that's a little less so.
That said, it raises an interesting set of dilemmas, and again pits two distinct groups more used to being the liberal darlings against each other. On the one hand there are the organic brigade, to whom any mention of GM is anathema, but then there is the 'simply feeding folk' brigade, who may not be quite so worried about the source of the mocha blend.
Whilst having empathy with the practical motivations of the latter, yet still acknowledging the 'mess with nature' cautions of the former, I simply note that no matter how much you tune a bean to squirt out its maximum nutritional resources, if there are more and more of 'us' still coming, a limit will surely get reached one day, whatever science can do.
I don't know about you, but I first read that as meaning 'it' was 'official', which seemed quite significant. If it's some bod (no matter how senior) who said it, then that's a little less so.
That said, it raises an interesting set of dilemmas, and again pits two distinct groups more used to being the liberal darlings against each other. On the one hand there are the organic brigade, to whom any mention of GM is anathema, but then there is the 'simply feeding folk' brigade, who may not be quite so worried about the source of the mocha blend.
Whilst having empathy with the practical motivations of the latter, yet still acknowledging the 'mess with nature' cautions of the former, I simply note that no matter how much you tune a bean to squirt out its maximum nutritional resources, if there are more and more of 'us' still coming, a limit will surely get reached one day, whatever science can do.
Monday, September 17, 2007
In defence of opinion
An odd little effort almost passed me by thanks to changing the spelling of the word 'truth': The troof is out there
There seems to be a notion, and to me a worrying one, amongst those who seem to believe they know better (mostly by being employed by an organisation whose brand name might yet still carry some weight) that the facts as they seem them should not be subject to too much challenge by those they consider beneath them. And, looking at the blog roll already, there are quite a few. But not all are necessarily 'fiskers', which is a pejorative that seems to be favoured by those who are over-bothered by counter-arguments in the form of facts. A concern to the duration of the day job, perhaps, but an odd one to use to dismiss stuff that should not be.
So I am afraid I can't agree.
While the net, and what ever is on it, can be manipulated, at the end of the day that headline still holds true.
Indy - It is the death of history
There seems to be a notion, and to me a worrying one, amongst those who seem to believe they know better (mostly by being employed by an organisation whose brand name might yet still carry some weight) that the facts as they seem them should not be subject to too much challenge by those they consider beneath them. And, looking at the blog roll already, there are quite a few. But not all are necessarily 'fiskers', which is a pejorative that seems to be favoured by those who are over-bothered by counter-arguments in the form of facts. A concern to the duration of the day job, perhaps, but an odd one to use to dismiss stuff that should not be.
So I am afraid I can't agree.
While the net, and what ever is on it, can be manipulated, at the end of the day that headline still holds true.
Indy - It is the death of history
Stop, you're killing me... us
No sooner do I crawl back to my desk after Dave's gorgeous bit of optimism as to our 'leadership's' intentions and/or competence rendered me incapable, I now read this: Can shopping save the planet?
Er, no, Mark, and I know you're just asking a rhetorical question. It's reduce, reuse/repair... recycle. Not consume, waste and consume something new - (I wrote that first off, and then weighed into the meat of his piece to critique it indetail. So apologies, it is there... at the end. I just think it needs to be up front).
But the rest of the piece is fair enough. Shame most media are trying to promote two mutually exclusive sets of practice. And that they have a vested interest in one... now... a lot more than the other. Let me sample a lot of good stuff from a long piece:
However, you don't have to dig very deeply to start coming across some glaring contradictions in this new corporate crusade to save the world. If News Corporation really wants to inspire low-carbon behaviour among its audience, will it stop running car adverts and other enticements to carbon profligacy? The Sky Travel section of the company's website is stuffed with low-cost holiday and city-break offers, featuring destinations as far afield as the Dominican Republic and Egypt, with nary a mention of global warming.
Indeed, the deeper you look, the more absurd this all gets. If O2 wants us to keep the same mobile phone handset for longer, why do they sell phones that have such an incredibly short lifetime? With new designs and handset functionality appearing all the time - and being heavily marketed by companies such as Nokia and Motorola - ask any kid in the playground how they feel about having an out-of-date phone, even to help the environment. Or take DIY energy-efficiency superstore B&Q. Is B&Q really helping us all to save carbon when the company still sells patio heaters in virtually all of its stores? On the high street, Marks & Sparks may be leading the pack in flogging T-shirts made from organic, fairtrade cotton, but isn't the whole idea of fashion the antithesis of a sustainable approach?
Perhaps the best example of the knots that companies are tying themselves into on climate comes from the supermarket sector. Here Tesco has been a pioneer to develop a system for putting carbon labels on all its products. But the move has been complicated, to say the least.
Moreover, some purportedly "green" products may be even worse than those they are intended to replace. Tesco is positioning itself as the UK market leader in selling biofuels. However, evidence suggests that biodiesel made from palm oil feedstock may be many times more carbon intensive than even fossil fuels.
Another controversial attempt to try to resolve the contradiction between consumption and sustainability is carbon offsetting. Most of the big firms that trumpet their green credentials use offsetting to some extent. But offsetting has come under fire as being little more than a conscience-salve, somewhat akin to the purchasing of papal indulgences in the middle ages.
At least we each got a blog out of it.
Er, no, Mark, and I know you're just asking a rhetorical question. It's reduce, reuse/repair... recycle. Not consume, waste and consume something new - (I wrote that first off, and then weighed into the meat of his piece to critique it indetail. So apologies, it is there... at the end. I just think it needs to be up front).
But the rest of the piece is fair enough. Shame most media are trying to promote two mutually exclusive sets of practice. And that they have a vested interest in one... now... a lot more than the other. Let me sample a lot of good stuff from a long piece:
However, you don't have to dig very deeply to start coming across some glaring contradictions in this new corporate crusade to save the world. If News Corporation really wants to inspire low-carbon behaviour among its audience, will it stop running car adverts and other enticements to carbon profligacy? The Sky Travel section of the company's website is stuffed with low-cost holiday and city-break offers, featuring destinations as far afield as the Dominican Republic and Egypt, with nary a mention of global warming.
Indeed, the deeper you look, the more absurd this all gets. If O2 wants us to keep the same mobile phone handset for longer, why do they sell phones that have such an incredibly short lifetime? With new designs and handset functionality appearing all the time - and being heavily marketed by companies such as Nokia and Motorola - ask any kid in the playground how they feel about having an out-of-date phone, even to help the environment. Or take DIY energy-efficiency superstore B&Q. Is B&Q really helping us all to save carbon when the company still sells patio heaters in virtually all of its stores? On the high street, Marks & Sparks may be leading the pack in flogging T-shirts made from organic, fairtrade cotton, but isn't the whole idea of fashion the antithesis of a sustainable approach?
Perhaps the best example of the knots that companies are tying themselves into on climate comes from the supermarket sector. Here Tesco has been a pioneer to develop a system for putting carbon labels on all its products. But the move has been complicated, to say the least.
Moreover, some purportedly "green" products may be even worse than those they are intended to replace. Tesco is positioning itself as the UK market leader in selling biofuels. However, evidence suggests that biodiesel made from palm oil feedstock may be many times more carbon intensive than even fossil fuels.
Another controversial attempt to try to resolve the contradiction between consumption and sustainability is carbon offsetting. Most of the big firms that trumpet their green credentials use offsetting to some extent. But offsetting has come under fire as being little more than a conscience-salve, somewhat akin to the purchasing of papal indulgences in the middle ages.
At least we each got a blog out of it.
Needs must?
UK 'needs carbon neutral target' Yup. Like we haven't had one of them before.
Guardian - Who deserves your vote? - So long as he's just asking:)
When Johan Eliasch 'defected' from the Tory to Labour camp, in sifting through the usual Westminster Village gossip and bluster I did note an interesting comment, to the effect that if you want to do something NOW it's better to be in government than outside talking about stuff all the time. And a lot easier to be out just talking than in doing.
Hence one wonders whether Labour's less than green deeds vs. words might not illustrate rather clearly the dilemma of political pragmatism. I just hope that in staying in power so resolutely on the back of, yet also despite the climatic evidence they purport to endorse, they simply enjoy a moment in time but leave a poor legacy.
And with the level of trust in almost any institution, government business or indeed media to do any more then serve selfish, short-term interests so low, I don't think any of the current talkers would be any different even if their words did somehow get them in instead.
Meanwhile, from the Green corner (emailed, so no link - thus cut 'n pasted):
GREEN PARTY CONFERENCE SEES LAUNCH OF 'NEXT GENERATION' OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
The second day of the Green Party's Conference in Liverpool sees Principal
Speaker Sian Berry give her keynote speech, followed by the launch of
"Climate Change - the next generation of policy", a report challenging the
other parties to adopt the Greens’ 10-point policy strategy on climate
change.
FRIDAY HIGLIGHTS
Sian Berry, who is also the Green’s London Mayoral Candidate, will discuss
the need for action, not hot air, on climate change, and introduce the
Green's target candidates for the next general election.
Sian will say: "You can depend on the other parties to back up their warm
words on climate change with a total lack of delivery.
"Gordon Brown thinks you should solve climate change by changing your
lightbulbs. We think you should solve climate change by changing your
government."
Greens' conference Climate Challenge 10 point policy plan
Caroline Lucas MEP and Sian Berry challenge the other parties to show
they’re serious about climate change by adopting the Greens’ 10-point policy
strategy, which calls for an end to all road and runway building, scrapping
bio-fuel production targets, ruling out new nuclear power stations – and
renationalising the railways, as the basis for their own positions.
Motions include proposals to:
* Adopt an annual emissions reduction target of 9 per cent.
* Condemn ‘adaptation’ as a primary response to climate change
* Urgently replace the Kyoto protocol with a framework that includes
measures to protect carbon sinks
* initiate an immediate moratorium on agrofuels from large scale
monocultures
Indy - Liberal Democrats to outlaw petrol-driven cars by 2040 -- How old will Jeremy Clarkson be by then?
I do note: '...should state clearly that no car can be sold in the EU if it still belches carbon by 2040," he added. "It can be electric. It can be fuelled by a hydrogen cell..' and trust that making these means of getting energy to wheels will need to be non-carbon-belching too.
Which brings me to, and without making any comment on the wisdom of the point that '... the party should drop its opposition to building nuclear power plants.'
I'm not sure I see the timeline working on this basis.
Indy - Still leaders in the quest for green solutions - Questing is, of course, good. And setting targets is also fun. I'm not sure that setting ever higher targets is going to get us very far, though. I vote 110%! Do I win?
It's one thing to say stuff. But you have to do it to be credible. And, perhaps, stay credible to do it.
Amongst other things, there is the simple question of leaderships we face. Not just across the board, but especially green. Mr. Brown says either nothing or lets others speak and take the fall. Mr. Cameron says too much and has to change too often. Mr. Campbell is having to say too much on himself. And the Greens, who can say quite a lot you can believe they might stick to, don't say enough on other issues that make them overly credible as even a balanced opposition force... yet. Plus they still seem to be sitting on the whole leader fence which, while noble, makes it hard to know who is saying what and 'speaks' for the party.
GUG - Friends of the Earth: First Reaction to Conservatives 'Green' Policy Report. Two thoughts for the price of one.
GUG - Lib Dem Conference: The Environment - Or three
GUG - Labour Party Conference: Climate Change - Or what the guys in charge are doing.
Guardian - Who deserves your vote? - So long as he's just asking:)
When Johan Eliasch 'defected' from the Tory to Labour camp, in sifting through the usual Westminster Village gossip and bluster I did note an interesting comment, to the effect that if you want to do something NOW it's better to be in government than outside talking about stuff all the time. And a lot easier to be out just talking than in doing.
Hence one wonders whether Labour's less than green deeds vs. words might not illustrate rather clearly the dilemma of political pragmatism. I just hope that in staying in power so resolutely on the back of, yet also despite the climatic evidence they purport to endorse, they simply enjoy a moment in time but leave a poor legacy.
And with the level of trust in almost any institution, government business or indeed media to do any more then serve selfish, short-term interests so low, I don't think any of the current talkers would be any different even if their words did somehow get them in instead.
Meanwhile, from the Green corner (emailed, so no link - thus cut 'n pasted):
GREEN PARTY CONFERENCE SEES LAUNCH OF 'NEXT GENERATION' OF CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
The second day of the Green Party's Conference in Liverpool sees Principal
Speaker Sian Berry give her keynote speech, followed by the launch of
"Climate Change - the next generation of policy", a report challenging the
other parties to adopt the Greens’ 10-point policy strategy on climate
change.
FRIDAY HIGLIGHTS
Sian Berry, who is also the Green’s London Mayoral Candidate, will discuss
the need for action, not hot air, on climate change, and introduce the
Green's target candidates for the next general election.
Sian will say: "You can depend on the other parties to back up their warm
words on climate change with a total lack of delivery.
"Gordon Brown thinks you should solve climate change by changing your
lightbulbs. We think you should solve climate change by changing your
government."
Greens' conference Climate Challenge 10 point policy plan
Caroline Lucas MEP and Sian Berry challenge the other parties to show
they’re serious about climate change by adopting the Greens’ 10-point policy
strategy, which calls for an end to all road and runway building, scrapping
bio-fuel production targets, ruling out new nuclear power stations – and
renationalising the railways, as the basis for their own positions.
Motions include proposals to:
* Adopt an annual emissions reduction target of 9 per cent.
* Condemn ‘adaptation’ as a primary response to climate change
* Urgently replace the Kyoto protocol with a framework that includes
measures to protect carbon sinks
* initiate an immediate moratorium on agrofuels from large scale
monocultures
Indy - Liberal Democrats to outlaw petrol-driven cars by 2040 -- How old will Jeremy Clarkson be by then?
I do note: '...should state clearly that no car can be sold in the EU if it still belches carbon by 2040," he added. "It can be electric. It can be fuelled by a hydrogen cell..' and trust that making these means of getting energy to wheels will need to be non-carbon-belching too.
Which brings me to, and without making any comment on the wisdom of the point that '... the party should drop its opposition to building nuclear power plants.'
I'm not sure I see the timeline working on this basis.
Indy - Still leaders in the quest for green solutions - Questing is, of course, good. And setting targets is also fun. I'm not sure that setting ever higher targets is going to get us very far, though. I vote 110%! Do I win?
It's one thing to say stuff. But you have to do it to be credible. And, perhaps, stay credible to do it.
Amongst other things, there is the simple question of leaderships we face. Not just across the board, but especially green. Mr. Brown says either nothing or lets others speak and take the fall. Mr. Cameron says too much and has to change too often. Mr. Campbell is having to say too much on himself. And the Greens, who can say quite a lot you can believe they might stick to, don't say enough on other issues that make them overly credible as even a balanced opposition force... yet. Plus they still seem to be sitting on the whole leader fence which, while noble, makes it hard to know who is saying what and 'speaks' for the party.
GUG - Friends of the Earth: First Reaction to Conservatives 'Green' Policy Report. Two thoughts for the price of one.
GUG - Lib Dem Conference: The Environment - Or three
GUG - Labour Party Conference: Climate Change - Or what the guys in charge are doing.
Well, there's a surprise!
"HIPs show shortcomings in home energy efficiency" from EDIE.
The average energy rating for properties assessed under HIPS ranks an 'E' on a scale from 'A' to 'G'. Now why would anybody expect any different?
Despite all of the various 'grants' and supposed funding available (Have you ever tried to obtain an insulation grant? It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack! 'Sorry sir, you are outside our designated area'; 'Sorry you don't qualify as you earn over £22K'; 'we only provide grants for the over 65's'; oh, sorry, you're an NPower customer, you might have qualified for a grant if you were with Scottish Power'), the majority of homeowners simply do not have the wherewithal, financially, to invest in cavity wall insulation and the like.
It's all well and good banging on about it ('insulation, insulation, insulation!') but when it means that the man in the street has to cough up from his own pocket, yes, even when it will save him money long term, if he doesn't have the readies then it simply won't get done.
It surely must be time for a simple, sensible scheme to be put in place to ensure that any and every property qualifies for insulation grants or at least a low cost loan scheme. It's not too much to ask, is it?
The average energy rating for properties assessed under HIPS ranks an 'E' on a scale from 'A' to 'G'. Now why would anybody expect any different?
Despite all of the various 'grants' and supposed funding available (Have you ever tried to obtain an insulation grant? It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack! 'Sorry sir, you are outside our designated area'; 'Sorry you don't qualify as you earn over £22K'; 'we only provide grants for the over 65's'; oh, sorry, you're an NPower customer, you might have qualified for a grant if you were with Scottish Power'), the majority of homeowners simply do not have the wherewithal, financially, to invest in cavity wall insulation and the like.
It's all well and good banging on about it ('insulation, insulation, insulation!') but when it means that the man in the street has to cough up from his own pocket, yes, even when it will save him money long term, if he doesn't have the readies then it simply won't get done.
It surely must be time for a simple, sensible scheme to be put in place to ensure that any and every property qualifies for insulation grants or at least a low cost loan scheme. It's not too much to ask, is it?
Rock and woe
It's hard to justify the last few days' excitements in the world of finance with an enviro blog, but why let that stop me?
Because I see a lot of aspects that just as easily could extend to the stewardship of our eco-futures as how those who would claim (and are paid massively) to manage our finances.
First up, I heard that the boss of Northern Rock 'blaming' the unexpected run in the US financial markets. That's a bit like the recent floods being blamed on worse weather. It's why you plan, mitigate and put in place contingencies. The simply fact is, it seems, that he oversaw - for quick profit no doubt - a system that was taking big risks, writing cheques that could not be easily covered... and got caught out.
Then there are the politicians. I actually heard one try and invoke Mrs Thatcher! If they need to reach back that far for a diversion then they really are a lot sorrier than I thought. Especially the one (not the same one who said it) who was Chancellor for most of this last decade.
It is all short term gain, mainly for personal advancement (in terms of money or power) and keep fingers crossed nothing happens on your watch at the top. If it does, bluster and distract. Or once you've moved on pass the buck, and who cares anyway because your wedge is golden (unlike those you have been tasked to look after).
And the media serves no other purpose to get excited about whatever will make a rating or a headline today... now! And will move on to the next issue in ten minutes if it suits.
No wonder people totally ignored the exhortations of every senior or 'expert' member of our financial institutions, our government and even national media. They are no longer trusted to tell us what is going on without spin, hype or cover-up at the core.
So how anyone is expected to engage with what any of them might come out with on the future of the planet, which is a lot more complex (and prone to even greater levels of manipulation by the unscrupulous), lord alone knows.
What a way to run a country.
There's no real problem with getting rewarded for taking big risks. Trouble is, these days those who do are too isolated from the consequences of taking them for the wrong reasons, or simply being bad at it.
Indy - Run on bank was 'Brown's fault' - then I read on. Odd paper to carry it like that, though.
Indy - Darling sets terrible bail-out precedent - I must say I also wondered about previous, not too dissimilar situations where the people left in the lurch were not so well protected by government.
Because I see a lot of aspects that just as easily could extend to the stewardship of our eco-futures as how those who would claim (and are paid massively) to manage our finances.
First up, I heard that the boss of Northern Rock 'blaming' the unexpected run in the US financial markets. That's a bit like the recent floods being blamed on worse weather. It's why you plan, mitigate and put in place contingencies. The simply fact is, it seems, that he oversaw - for quick profit no doubt - a system that was taking big risks, writing cheques that could not be easily covered... and got caught out.
Then there are the politicians. I actually heard one try and invoke Mrs Thatcher! If they need to reach back that far for a diversion then they really are a lot sorrier than I thought. Especially the one (not the same one who said it) who was Chancellor for most of this last decade.
It is all short term gain, mainly for personal advancement (in terms of money or power) and keep fingers crossed nothing happens on your watch at the top. If it does, bluster and distract. Or once you've moved on pass the buck, and who cares anyway because your wedge is golden (unlike those you have been tasked to look after).
And the media serves no other purpose to get excited about whatever will make a rating or a headline today... now! And will move on to the next issue in ten minutes if it suits.
No wonder people totally ignored the exhortations of every senior or 'expert' member of our financial institutions, our government and even national media. They are no longer trusted to tell us what is going on without spin, hype or cover-up at the core.
So how anyone is expected to engage with what any of them might come out with on the future of the planet, which is a lot more complex (and prone to even greater levels of manipulation by the unscrupulous), lord alone knows.
What a way to run a country.
There's no real problem with getting rewarded for taking big risks. Trouble is, these days those who do are too isolated from the consequences of taking them for the wrong reasons, or simply being bad at it.
Indy - Run on bank was 'Brown's fault' - then I read on. Odd paper to carry it like that, though.
Indy - Darling sets terrible bail-out precedent - I must say I also wondered about previous, not too dissimilar situations where the people left in the lurch were not so well protected by government.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
No trees were hurt in the making of this film...
But a weed didn't make it, sorry.
I should also mention than, other than time, not one penny was spent or any new resource used.
I wonder if that makes it one of the greenest commercials ever shot?
It's our entry to the current.tv eco-contest.
Fingers crossed!
Thanks to Geof and Stepehn at clickingo, PJ at Firebird.com and Kipp and Cody on voice overs.
I agree with what you say. I just hope we'll all understand how you say it
With apologies to Voltaire. Bioploymers Need Careful Introduction, Says WRAP
Can't fault this: '...most consumers are confused about the wide range of new materials emerging with ‘biodegradable’, ‘home compostable’, ‘compostable’ and ‘degradable’ all being introduced in the UK...'.
And here's the rub: '...respondents were less clear of the overall benefits, and were left feeling confused. Apart from some home compostable materials, there is currently no appropriate infrastructure for the materials to be collected and treated in the UK.'
I just hope the ‘statement’ on biopolymers to be published will actually result in Mrs Miggins having a clue as to what she's supposed to do as she hovers the chicken thigh tray and film over the bin.
The research and statement can be accessed from the WRAP website or from retail@wrap.org.uk
Can't fault this: '...most consumers are confused about the wide range of new materials emerging with ‘biodegradable’, ‘home compostable’, ‘compostable’ and ‘degradable’ all being introduced in the UK...'.
And here's the rub: '...respondents were less clear of the overall benefits, and were left feeling confused. Apart from some home compostable materials, there is currently no appropriate infrastructure for the materials to be collected and treated in the UK.'
I just hope the ‘statement’ on biopolymers to be published will actually result in Mrs Miggins having a clue as to what she's supposed to do as she hovers the chicken thigh tray and film over the bin.
The research and statement can be accessed from the WRAP website or from retail@wrap.org.uk
What you don't get told can hurt you
Though the effort of trying to straddle the extremes pitched against each other upon it is starting to lose its appeal, I still stay with the BBCisBiased Blog as it can find a few odd facts of note.
And I came across a guy taking the BBC to task for not publishing one report whilst bigging up other, less relevant (to their eyes - I found the opinion of Bush confidant most interesting) stuff 'in favour of' climate change. The BBC, as we know, is a tad twitchy on it's remit in this regard.
I felt I had to pitch in:
Just to help me clarify.
..a book saying there is no evidence that global warming is probably natural and not all bad.
I can fathom that some more scientists on one or other 'side' (perceived, admitted or otherwise - are there any just doing their best to find out the facts?) of the whole CC debate have published yet another book.
But I have to say that, from Bjorn Lomborg to James Lovelock, the attachment of a book to sell does not inspire much confidence immediately, especially when it comes to the associated PR efforts that will be used to perk up a jaded media more interested in a quick ratings fix than any worthwhile contribution.
However, just doing so does not surely mean that it has to be covered.
So if they were ignored, what was the phone interview with John Marburger (didn't know of him before, so can't reasonably comment on his affiliations, be they purely science based or more complex) about?
I agree you can't just phone up a person to spout off for no reason, and as has been noted here (and accepted by the BBC) there needs to be some measure of balanced debate, but I just can't follow how this played out in this case.
Is there a link? All I could find was this - Bush aide says warming man-made - which is apparently from a guy ‘who advises President Bush’ and is advised as ‘the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead’. Hardly the most expected source of unthinking MMCC endorsement.
And frankly, to me, news worth knowing.
The rest is, of course, still fiddling while the Titanic accelerates. But still, whatever floats the talkers vs. doers boat... while it floats.
Sadly, I never did get an answer.
And I came across a guy taking the BBC to task for not publishing one report whilst bigging up other, less relevant (to their eyes - I found the opinion of Bush confidant most interesting) stuff 'in favour of' climate change. The BBC, as we know, is a tad twitchy on it's remit in this regard.
I felt I had to pitch in:
Just to help me clarify.
..a book saying there is no evidence that global warming is probably natural and not all bad.
I can fathom that some more scientists on one or other 'side' (perceived, admitted or otherwise - are there any just doing their best to find out the facts?) of the whole CC debate have published yet another book.
But I have to say that, from Bjorn Lomborg to James Lovelock, the attachment of a book to sell does not inspire much confidence immediately, especially when it comes to the associated PR efforts that will be used to perk up a jaded media more interested in a quick ratings fix than any worthwhile contribution.
However, just doing so does not surely mean that it has to be covered.
So if they were ignored, what was the phone interview with John Marburger (didn't know of him before, so can't reasonably comment on his affiliations, be they purely science based or more complex) about?
I agree you can't just phone up a person to spout off for no reason, and as has been noted here (and accepted by the BBC) there needs to be some measure of balanced debate, but I just can't follow how this played out in this case.
Is there a link? All I could find was this - Bush aide says warming man-made - which is apparently from a guy ‘who advises President Bush’ and is advised as ‘the starkest warning from the White House so far about the dangers ahead’. Hardly the most expected source of unthinking MMCC endorsement.
And frankly, to me, news worth knowing.
The rest is, of course, still fiddling while the Titanic accelerates. But still, whatever floats the talkers vs. doers boat... while it floats.
Sadly, I never did get an answer.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Bin & Gone - Freebie Alert!
I'm rubbish at PR (quite good at rubbish).I can write the release and all, but all the other stuff, the stuff that really counts, such as calling and cajoling, etc... nah. I send it off and, if I call at all it will be but once. No more. Which is not what it takes.
What it takes is persistence (and staff/time/budget I don't have), plus a polite manner.
So eventually, I, very busy media overlord, have succumbed to the charms of a very nice young lady.
After her 3rd call on when I was going to put up what I said I might when I had a 'mo, here it is.
It's a bucket.
A wee while ago a nice courier turned up with a nice box in a big plastic bag, and this was what was inside. Along with a helpful 5-page set of instructions.
It's from Cedo (leader, so the blurb says, in a wide range of household disposable - hold that thought - products), and Sainsburys.
And between them they are giving away 150,000 of these little chaps, from now 'til the end of the month.
So if you fancy a bucket, free, I'd scoot along.
Thanks to being in the right conferences at the right time, I already have a few, and they are very nice. As a means of getting stuff from the house to the compost bin they do serve a very helpful function. Many other buckets can do the same of course, but as this is free it's a 'why not'? If you fancy being even more eco of course, Junkk.com awaits any and all suggestions for second use packaging that can do the same and not use extra resources.
There is the lid of course, which is vital at this time of year to avoid fruity flies buzzing about in between empties down the garden end. I speak from current experience, the lid having popped off the paint can I was using.
I do also note that CeDo have available compost caddy liners, which will provide years of useful convenience. They should be, by all accounts, changed a minimum of 2-3 days. I'd say that could be stretched a tad.
Then again, you may prefer the option, as I do, of lining the bottom with an egg box, sides with newspaper and slotting small cereal packs inside to offer the right organic/fibre mix to make for a nice brew.
Gosh, I feel like I've come all over moneysavingexpert.com. Just call me Martin.
'tis Autumn. So naturally a young man's thoughts turn to.. stuffing
Chimneys, that is, should you have them. With a hat tip to FoE, I was impressed by the savings that could be enjoyed by - WHEN NOT ALIGHT - blocking the chimney up temporarily to deny yet another source of heat loss.
There was also a lead to this merry band, or, if you are of a more DIY Junkkly bent, I'm on the case. The old Reebok medicine ball is looking favorite. With a nice warning dangly-doobry to remind one to remove prior to a stoke or two.
There was also a lead to this merry band, or, if you are of a more DIY Junkkly bent, I'm on the case. The old Reebok medicine ball is looking favorite. With a nice warning dangly-doobry to remind one to remove prior to a stoke or two.
Meanwhile, back in the local industrial estate
An interesting arctile on enviro regs and SME engaement - A long way to go - that prompted me to write.
With some glorious exceptions, I think that if most small businesses are thinking about their impact on the environment, it’s currently mainly because of the law.
And that’s a pity, because environmental good practices, especially where they create a relationship with the consumer, should be viewed much more as an opportunity than a problem to deal with it.
But as the fine is both first and fierce in this regard, it’s not surprising this is the case... nor very fair. One problem is communications, and the other the mindset behind them. It’s amazing the guff that I get that seems to presume I have a [Unameit] director on staff, whose entire day is spent staying on top of all the regs that are out here.
I once went to a NetRegs presentation and found myself next to a Brummie chippie owner. He was colourful as he was concise. ‘What do they mean get my *****ing IT head on this... I”M our *****ing head of IT. On my ****ing Amstrad! There was also, beyond him negotiating a labyrinthine entity designed for technocrats by technocrats, the small matter of trust. He didn’t feel they were there to help him with how to get rid of several hundred gallons of oil, and was therefore not going to give them any chance at fining him for not disposing of it properly.
Ignorance is, temporarily, bliss?
And while I just love research without access to the full methodology, it’s great to note that nearly half of SMEs are starting to improve their green credentials, usually by recycling. I guess it’s all in how you define ‘improve’.
As to the claim that SME’s can’t afford to do this purely as a marketing exercise, beyond savings, how about thinking harder how to make green marketing pay?
There are some examples on Junkk.com – try here - though these are more aimed at brands. More relevantly, let me relate one at a more local, small sME level. On the site is an idea for using bike inner tubes as door draft excluding curtains. Some folk liked that. So I popped into the local bike shop and asked if he had any. Turns out he has a bucket a week... which the council charges to turn away! What about creating a relationship such that such reusable waste can be provide for those who can use it...FOC? At minimum great goodwill. At most, they’re in the shop where you sell stuff...
It’s then down to communication. That is of course an art as well as a science. I’m just not so sure most involved in environmental issues have quite what it takes in this regard though.
Great that NetRegs wants to try and fill the knowledge gap by offering SMEs an online tool that will compile a free environmental policy for them. I just hope that those who are not in the business of such things daily will be able to engage with it all.
With some glorious exceptions, I think that if most small businesses are thinking about their impact on the environment, it’s currently mainly because of the law.
And that’s a pity, because environmental good practices, especially where they create a relationship with the consumer, should be viewed much more as an opportunity than a problem to deal with it.
But as the fine is both first and fierce in this regard, it’s not surprising this is the case... nor very fair. One problem is communications, and the other the mindset behind them. It’s amazing the guff that I get that seems to presume I have a [Unameit] director on staff, whose entire day is spent staying on top of all the regs that are out here.
I once went to a NetRegs presentation and found myself next to a Brummie chippie owner. He was colourful as he was concise. ‘What do they mean get my *****ing IT head on this... I”M our *****ing head of IT. On my ****ing Amstrad! There was also, beyond him negotiating a labyrinthine entity designed for technocrats by technocrats, the small matter of trust. He didn’t feel they were there to help him with how to get rid of several hundred gallons of oil, and was therefore not going to give them any chance at fining him for not disposing of it properly.
Ignorance is, temporarily, bliss?
And while I just love research without access to the full methodology, it’s great to note that nearly half of SMEs are starting to improve their green credentials, usually by recycling. I guess it’s all in how you define ‘improve’.
As to the claim that SME’s can’t afford to do this purely as a marketing exercise, beyond savings, how about thinking harder how to make green marketing pay?
There are some examples on Junkk.com – try here - though these are more aimed at brands. More relevantly, let me relate one at a more local, small sME level. On the site is an idea for using bike inner tubes as door draft excluding curtains. Some folk liked that. So I popped into the local bike shop and asked if he had any. Turns out he has a bucket a week... which the council charges to turn away! What about creating a relationship such that such reusable waste can be provide for those who can use it...FOC? At minimum great goodwill. At most, they’re in the shop where you sell stuff...
It’s then down to communication. That is of course an art as well as a science. I’m just not so sure most involved in environmental issues have quite what it takes in this regard though.
Great that NetRegs wants to try and fill the knowledge gap by offering SMEs an online tool that will compile a free environmental policy for them. I just hope that those who are not in the business of such things daily will be able to engage with it all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)