I missed this yesterday (well, I don't often trawl through stock exchange regulatory announcements), but feel that it is still worthy of comment.
It's about Exxon-Mobil, with partners, developing a new unique technology that "reduces carbon emissions and offers advantages over other Hydrogen delivery systems".
So I read on, with interest, the biggest of the big-oil boys looking at Hydrogen generation systems was definitely an eyebrow twitcher. Oh, the technology will use "liquid fuels ... gasoline, diesel, ethanol or biodiesel and convert them into hydrogen onboard the vehicle where it will be used in a fuel cell power train."
They claim that "it has the potential to be up to 80% more fuel efficient than today's internal combustion engine technologies and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 45%."
Now that's some claim and I'd like to see and understand more of the potential of this technology, but, and perhaps I'm being a little picky here, its fuel source is still petroleum, ethanol or bio-diesel based, so doesn't this sort of technology simply perpetuate big-oil's existing storage and distribution infrastructures.
And one other thing. Though I've forgotten an awful lot of my chemistry over the years, surely if you remove all (or most) of the Hydrogen from a bunch of complex hydrocarbon molecules as a fuel source, aren't you going to be left with an awful lot of Carbon, CO2 and other nasties to dispose of?
Friday, November 16, 2007
Well, d'uh!
Sometimes you come across pointless research that just makes you think 'what on earth is going on'!. This is one such - 'Hurricanes kill trees, fuel global warming'. Well, of course hurricanes kill trees, they destroy pretty much everything in their path. And we all know that trees are valuable carbon sinks whose destruction can take decades to recover.
Apart from some interesting numbers they've extrapolated, this seems a complete waste of research time and money!
Apart from some interesting numbers they've extrapolated, this seems a complete waste of research time and money!
Ouch!
This might be very painful for commercial enterprises and consumers right across the planet - Oil price could hit $150 a barrel.
On the other hand it could go down by $30 a barrel.
Isn't 'could' a great word.
____________________
Call for curb on speculators - The Guardian.
On the other hand it could go down by $30 a barrel.
Isn't 'could' a great word.
____________________
Call for curb on speculators - The Guardian.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Greenhouse gas levels rising faster than predicted
This from the WBCSD reports that "Greenhouse emissions are rising faster than the worst-case IPCC scenarios".
"This paper suggests that there exists evidence that the IPCC process may have led to an underestimation of the risk of greater warming and that the impacts of climate change are occurring more rapidly than previously projected"
The report is from an independent Australian research group, who I've not come across before, but it's made me quite depressed.
Addendum:
A slightly more comprehensive report from News.com.au.
"This paper suggests that there exists evidence that the IPCC process may have led to an underestimation of the risk of greater warming and that the impacts of climate change are occurring more rapidly than previously projected"
The report is from an independent Australian research group, who I've not come across before, but it's made me quite depressed.
Addendum:
A slightly more comprehensive report from News.com.au.
Dishing the dirt
GREENWASH AWARDS
Re: One contended for next year must be poor old BOSCH - claiming its dishwashers use less water than hand washing.
Just a question really, though it does lead to often competing aspects of 'green'. I can kind of see the water argument, though with a missus like mine to do the glasses, then the plates and then the pots we're talking at least 3 bowls' worth. I wonder how many litres a cycle actually takes?
Though this was not a factor and BOSCH and its agency can live with their choices of claim accordingly, does anyone know what the received opinion is on energy use? It was my understanding that in many circumstances a machine could be better in terms of overall enviROI.
In our climate I would trade water 'use' for energy in order of priority, at least in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
These are the kind of choices we the consumer are going to be faced with, and it would be good to know that those who would tell us, commercial or public service, for sale or for information, are talking from a common hymn book... which itself can be relied upon.
Re: One contended for next year must be poor old BOSCH - claiming its dishwashers use less water than hand washing.
Just a question really, though it does lead to often competing aspects of 'green'. I can kind of see the water argument, though with a missus like mine to do the glasses, then the plates and then the pots we're talking at least 3 bowls' worth. I wonder how many litres a cycle actually takes?
Though this was not a factor and BOSCH and its agency can live with their choices of claim accordingly, does anyone know what the received opinion is on energy use? It was my understanding that in many circumstances a machine could be better in terms of overall enviROI.
In our climate I would trade water 'use' for energy in order of priority, at least in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
These are the kind of choices we the consumer are going to be faced with, and it would be good to know that those who would tell us, commercial or public service, for sale or for information, are talking from a common hymn book... which itself can be relied upon.
Facts, darn facts and... oh, fact!
In light of, well, everything really: The facts in the way of a good story
Blondin would be proud!
Thing is, some can be so good at balancing, and arguing about how well they are doing it, they can forget to move along - BBC's unnecessary balancing act?
And while it can be fun engaging in witty banter with the hecklers, there is a slight danger the main audience gets bored and looks elsewhere for their 'entertainment'.
Ignoring the glorious irony of so many worthy sorts whizzing about the globe to bring to us the perils of, amongst other things, whizzing about the globe (I know, it's your job, but there do seem to be some a lot more equal than oth... whose jobs require it more than those they take to task. Two? In this period? Why Bali and Valencia? Are not the majority of movers and shakers not more concentrated in, say, New York? And can combine the two more effectively? How many of 'you' will be there?), this does of course require some serious consideration, as the opinions and actions of the UK public can be markedly influenced by what the national broadcaster chooses to share. And be held to account for sharing. There are other media outlets and blogs to this, which others do read.
This is the CiF, so one knows where many are coming from, and often how they choose to view debate, especially when it comes to those less blessed with the rectitude of thought their sources of information provide.
Many do not come from the same place. And I'd love to run this sentence by the readers of the News of the World, whose ABC readership also is exposed to Aunty but might be seen to be at the other end of a scale to this mighty organ: 'We must also be smarter in the way we interpret the often vociferous views expressed by the public on climate change in our vibrant inter-active space. While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self-selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion.' Um, ok.
Many might not know much (or care) about Voltaire, but could still feel uneasy with 'I might not agree with what you have to say, but as it's silly you are obviously a [enter ist/inger/zi or other pejorative here] or just woefully misinformed, and hence unworthy of being heard 'cos we know what's right and good for you.
I'd suggest there is an argument therefore for letting all sides prevail (appreciating this is about extent), and allow the people to decide based on the merits (or not) of what they have to say (speaking personally, a classic Newsnight 'twofer' with each corner served by a grotesque extreme serves no one well). Looking here there is an uneasy sense that there are those who feel any questioning of anything with a green tag comes under the category of 'heretic' and must be excised.
Meanwhile, I really prefer things moved on a bit from getting proved right or wrong on the basis of absolutes, and some stopped worrying so much about vindication and shared more positive actions (all a bit 'ban the...' at the mo') that can be engaged with here and now, with consensus.
If, as I believe, man-worsened climate change ('man-made' being a tag I see a lot and puts me off as it has yet been shown to be true - and every sunspot, Mars-warming story chips away at such a stance. Cue the scientists: 'but you are ignorant!!!' As are most of us... that's the point. You win an audience over by understanding, not despising them) is a distinct possibility, I am much more keen on sensible, pragmatic, high enviROI + things (so I do ask more of an offshore wind farm than 'it's got to be done to save the polar bears') that can be shown to work that will engage and persuade all around to get on board.
Popping out endless apocalyptic scenarios that often give the 'deniers' plenty of comeback ammo seems counterproductive (especially when shown to be factually tenuous or in support of other lobbies), as are endless jollies that seem more about ratings and green 'in-crowd' exclusion zones rather than anything with much hope of touching the lives, hopes and aspirations of the vast working majority.
Even if it is not actually meant (and I really don't think... hope... it is. Any more than I can get my head around some Texas oil baron having no concern for their grandkids if they KNOW they are wrong), here can lie the seeds of a sense of swindle, where agenda, target and dogmatism can conflate (weeee...) with feeling the buzz of being in a driving seat, and put one out of touch with your audience. Ignore the needs, and desires, of the masses at your peril.
Inform us. Educate us and, if it can be done properly and well, persuade us. But please do not be tempted to talk down to us or, worse, select what we need to know 'for our own good'. Tricky in a sound-bite driven culture, but that's the balance you need to find.
BBC - Climate sceptics
And while it can be fun engaging in witty banter with the hecklers, there is a slight danger the main audience gets bored and looks elsewhere for their 'entertainment'.
Ignoring the glorious irony of so many worthy sorts whizzing about the globe to bring to us the perils of, amongst other things, whizzing about the globe (I know, it's your job, but there do seem to be some a lot more equal than oth... whose jobs require it more than those they take to task. Two? In this period? Why Bali and Valencia? Are not the majority of movers and shakers not more concentrated in, say, New York? And can combine the two more effectively? How many of 'you' will be there?), this does of course require some serious consideration, as the opinions and actions of the UK public can be markedly influenced by what the national broadcaster chooses to share. And be held to account for sharing. There are other media outlets and blogs to this, which others do read.
This is the CiF, so one knows where many are coming from, and often how they choose to view debate, especially when it comes to those less blessed with the rectitude of thought their sources of information provide.
Many do not come from the same place. And I'd love to run this sentence by the readers of the News of the World, whose ABC readership also is exposed to Aunty but might be seen to be at the other end of a scale to this mighty organ: 'We must also be smarter in the way we interpret the often vociferous views expressed by the public on climate change in our vibrant inter-active space. While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self-selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion.' Um, ok.
Many might not know much (or care) about Voltaire, but could still feel uneasy with 'I might not agree with what you have to say, but as it's silly you are obviously a [enter ist/inger/zi or other pejorative here] or just woefully misinformed, and hence unworthy of being heard 'cos we know what's right and good for you.
I'd suggest there is an argument therefore for letting all sides prevail (appreciating this is about extent), and allow the people to decide based on the merits (or not) of what they have to say (speaking personally, a classic Newsnight 'twofer' with each corner served by a grotesque extreme serves no one well). Looking here there is an uneasy sense that there are those who feel any questioning of anything with a green tag comes under the category of 'heretic' and must be excised.
Meanwhile, I really prefer things moved on a bit from getting proved right or wrong on the basis of absolutes, and some stopped worrying so much about vindication and shared more positive actions (all a bit 'ban the...' at the mo') that can be engaged with here and now, with consensus.
If, as I believe, man-worsened climate change ('man-made' being a tag I see a lot and puts me off as it has yet been shown to be true - and every sunspot, Mars-warming story chips away at such a stance. Cue the scientists: 'but you are ignorant!!!' As are most of us... that's the point. You win an audience over by understanding, not despising them) is a distinct possibility, I am much more keen on sensible, pragmatic, high enviROI + things (so I do ask more of an offshore wind farm than 'it's got to be done to save the polar bears') that can be shown to work that will engage and persuade all around to get on board.
Popping out endless apocalyptic scenarios that often give the 'deniers' plenty of comeback ammo seems counterproductive (especially when shown to be factually tenuous or in support of other lobbies), as are endless jollies that seem more about ratings and green 'in-crowd' exclusion zones rather than anything with much hope of touching the lives, hopes and aspirations of the vast working majority.
Even if it is not actually meant (and I really don't think... hope... it is. Any more than I can get my head around some Texas oil baron having no concern for their grandkids if they KNOW they are wrong), here can lie the seeds of a sense of swindle, where agenda, target and dogmatism can conflate (weeee...) with feeling the buzz of being in a driving seat, and put one out of touch with your audience. Ignore the needs, and desires, of the masses at your peril.
Inform us. Educate us and, if it can be done properly and well, persuade us. But please do not be tempted to talk down to us or, worse, select what we need to know 'for our own good'. Tricky in a sound-bite driven culture, but that's the balance you need to find.
BBC - Climate sceptics
Alas, poor world, what treasure hast thou lost!
William Shakespeare (Venus and Adonis)
That's a quote from the end of an interesting article from 2004 by Paul Thompson which suggests that we are approaching, as he sees it, a society facing oil depletion that will be unable to cope, and ultimately the twilight of the modern world. (And he doesn't even mention climate change!)
He breaks down the way he sees humanity (or at least, its remnants) surviving in an oil depleted world into four key successive phases, which he describes as 'Awareness', 'Transition' (from ordered to anarchic), 'Scavengery' and 'Self-Sufficiency', and details what he sees as the way societies change across this entire time period.
It made my eyebrows twitch in quite a few places but has certainly provided me with a lot of food for thought. Well worth a read if you can find the time.
Now whether this is the sort of thing that simply creates more noise, or is genuinely worthy of further consideration is left up to you, the reader. Does it provide interesting insights and information; or does it simply create more confusing noise? (Which is what happens when humans are presented with a surfeit of information.) Because, at a certain point, an overload of information does indeed become noise.
How do you tell the difference? Don't ask me, my head's spinning, but, to paraphrase one of the philosophers, (I forget which), wisdom is the ability to tell the difference between information and noise, and to know when you know enough to act. (It was something like that)
So you tell me. Is the guy a mentally deranged nutter, describing a set of ridiculous fantasy scenarios; or is he an extremely prescient forecaster of what may happen come the end of the fossil fuel driven industrial and technological revolution?
That's a quote from the end of an interesting article from 2004 by Paul Thompson which suggests that we are approaching, as he sees it, a society facing oil depletion that will be unable to cope, and ultimately the twilight of the modern world. (And he doesn't even mention climate change!)
He breaks down the way he sees humanity (or at least, its remnants) surviving in an oil depleted world into four key successive phases, which he describes as 'Awareness', 'Transition' (from ordered to anarchic), 'Scavengery' and 'Self-Sufficiency', and details what he sees as the way societies change across this entire time period.
It made my eyebrows twitch in quite a few places but has certainly provided me with a lot of food for thought. Well worth a read if you can find the time.
Now whether this is the sort of thing that simply creates more noise, or is genuinely worthy of further consideration is left up to you, the reader. Does it provide interesting insights and information; or does it simply create more confusing noise? (Which is what happens when humans are presented with a surfeit of information.) Because, at a certain point, an overload of information does indeed become noise.
How do you tell the difference? Don't ask me, my head's spinning, but, to paraphrase one of the philosophers, (I forget which), wisdom is the ability to tell the difference between information and noise, and to know when you know enough to act. (It was something like that)
So you tell me. Is the guy a mentally deranged nutter, describing a set of ridiculous fantasy scenarios; or is he an extremely prescient forecaster of what may happen come the end of the fossil fuel driven industrial and technological revolution?
A few more 'facts' on plastic bags
At least the Indy has followed up on its story/campaign: Have Your Say: A ban on plastic bags?
Adds a bit. Though 'Have Your Says' from the BBC to the Indy, are getting a bad press (well, if they were not about the press. A bad blog, let's say) for trying to pass off what the editors liek the look of as 'representative'.
Q - Can you clear up the definitions of degradable and biodegradable? My understanding is that degradable is not compostable – ie, those bags break down into tiny pieces of plastic that will remain in the environment whereas biodegradable (as in BioBags) can compost and break down completely with no harmful effects to the environment.
A- Absolutely right; the only advantage of degradable bags is they pose less of a litter nuisance once they break down. Biodegradable plastic bags are only better for the environment if they are properly composted – something that isn't widely happening at the moment. As a rule, I take cotton bags on my shopping trips rather than accept free plastic bags. Every couple of months I leave the cotton bags at home and take the plastic bags, which I then use as free bin bags.
My Q - (in light of those raised here previously): So... no harmful effects to the environment. Hmmn. So does that mean there is no greenhouse gas consequence? Why do I sense a cherry pick here? And what about the total lack of official coordination and comms on what goes where? If I put my Somerfield's in with my Morrisons to recycle I do belive that's not helping.
Q - Is it better to use the plastic bags as bin bags, or is there a more environmentally sound way of dealing with rubbish?
A- Reusing bags over and over is of course the most environmentally friendly option and the fact that you do that most of the time is the most important thing. You also need to contain your residual waste somehow and I really don't think it makes a lot of difference if you reuse carrier bags or buy suitable bin liners. But do look out for those with recycled content and don't use bigger or thicker bin liners than you reasonably need.
My Q/Opinion: How can it not make a lot of difference reusing something vs. buying new ones that need to be made? That doesn't make sense!
Q - Where can I buy small black bin bags? I throw out so little that three-quarters of a standard bin bag is waste plastic, but I can't store what little waste I do throw out until the bag is full, because of smells.
A - Maybe smaller pedal-bin liners are what you need? However, some local councils now collect food waste separately which might be an answer to the odour problem. Alternatively, if you can compost your biodegradable waste like vegetable peelings, tea bags and egg shells, you can deal with most of the materials that cause smells in way that's very good for the environment.
My Opinion - Bless
Q - I work for a small children's clothes company. We use good quality polythene bags costing 4p each. I would like to change these to biodegradable bags or paper carrier bags. Can you suggest a source for them at a reasonable cost? Also, which of these is actually least harmful, bearing in mind the use of wood for paper versus land clearance for vast fields of corn for cornstarch?
A - With regard to which bags are least harmful, you need to think about what happens to the bag after you give it to the customer as well as how it's sourced. See my earlier comments regarding biodegradable bags, but also paper bags need to be recycled in order to avoid causing potentially more damage than the plastic alternatives. For information about suppliers you could try www.wrap.org.uk.
My A - And don't forget WRAP is a not-for-profit company!
Q - I was completely fed up with the number of plastic bags foisted on me, particularly as an internet shopper. So, together with a friend, I decided to take action. That was when we found it – a really clever type of shopping bag. The bags clip inside supermarket trolleys, helping to organise shopping and speed up checkout time. And so Geccobags.co.uk was born: a company specialising in utilitarian bags designed specifically for the supermarket.
A - There is a huge range of alternatives to disposable carrier bags, from organic fair trade cotton to supermarket's own Bags for Life.
My A - Nice ads! I wonder who has an 'in with who' between the Indy and the local PR agency.
Q- Thank you for your timely piece on the curse of the plastic bag. I am old enough to remember when supermarkets charged for carrier bags. I cannot believe they are so reluctant to reintroduce the charge.
A- I can also (just) remember those days! The truth is there's no such thing as a free carrier bag; nowadays we just pay for them in the cost of the goods. That is really unfair to consumers trying to reduce carrier bag use – they are subsidising others who are more wasteful.
My A/Opinion - As mentioned on the BBC 'story' this morning, one has to wonder how so much is ending up with the retailers and customers to resolve. I'm fascinated how all these good folk think it's great to be charged. Hope they feel the same as everything ends up with an overt green charge that may or may not help the enviROI and may or may not actually go where one would hope to effect the best changes.
If you want to see green living, go to 'old' Europe
Let's start with the small things. As many cross-Channel shoppers will know, plastic bags are simply not supplied at many Continental hypermarkets any more. You either buy big biodegradable bags from the check-out or bring your own bag or trolley.
I really am keen to get an answer to whether biodegradable bags do or do not create greenhouse gasses. It just seems... pertinent.
Nothing to lose but your plastic bags
Interesting Ms. JSP has opened by highlighting one oft ignored fact: it seems the bags are all that's important; not the fact that most spend all their times wanting to get stuff to stick in 'em. Which I would imagine has a footprint all of its own. A bigger one. Seems it's not the content that matters, but the presentation. And apt metaphor for this 'image is all' era.
A slight whiff of balance... But again : 'Biodegradable plastic is one option, recycled paper another.'
And is only me who sees a slight irony in this: '... picked up at the Ravello Festival in Italy, a market in Faversham, from the launch of Architecture week in London last summer, and at the British pavilion during the Venice Biennale. Much as I rate Ms. JSP, I can't help but wonder how her jaunting (unless it is in a VW Bluemotion at 3000cb/m) equates to the few thousand bags she'll rack up at Tescos.
Guardian - Throwing away a throwaway culture
I have a technical question to which I hope there is a simple answer that some expert(s) can provide me with.
I have just read a factual explanation of the issues (from one of the many, and well-funded, quangos that exist to help us in these matters), and both biodegradable and compostable options were mentioned. However this seemed to be restricted to the processes of composting as it relates to the soil only.
Are there no greenhouse gas consequences to these processes? And if so are they so negligible as to be irrelevant? I see that plastic photodegrades to some nasties. Do these include greenhouse gasses? And does this happen out of sunlight?
I simply ask as I have been working on the assumption that atmospheric CO2/methane is the main priority to reduce, and I'm trying to get my head around how some of the options proposed are actually any better on this, more immediate, basis.
I know it is much more complex, and while reuse must obviously be better in the long run (and seems to work in other countries), I am also aware that the provision of facilities here to enable effective recycling (especially without contamination) is less than it could be. With a suspicion that shunting the issue away from where it could be into a public/retailer responsibility might suit some very well.
Reduction of the things that go in the bags is of course not ... yet ... high on the agenda in the run-up to Xmas and with economies to support and grow, but one rather wonders where next those with zeal and passion for the key things to ban may turn next. Pets? Skiing trips (before the snow runs out)? Ads in newspapers for same? Plastic wrappers for newspapers that run ads for same? Cosmetics? (Now there's a totally unnecessary item - (though my wife may disagree). Or fashion items (at least the ones in the 51 other weeks to the token 'recycle' issue). Beer? How many litres of tap water to make a pint? At least it comes in glasses at the pub and not in plastic bottles.... hey.... there's a thought!
I saw a chap on the TV this morning who was positively salivating at all he could ban, or at least levy and/or fine. Not quite the sort I fancy getting their heads around saving the planet for my kids, especially when I had a sense that he rather saw the money primarily being used to fund more schemes like his, and clones of him to 'run' them.
I do see merit in proper reduction and 'paying for wasting' generating funds to be directed in genuine, effective enviROI+ directions, but this all has a rather worrying scent, at least as dished out by a media that loves an 'issue', and wins with ratings no matter how it plays out.
And while I agree a contact lens is another awful symbol of our disposable society, I rather wish the energies that might yet get devoted to eradicating these might first be directed at slightly bigger tasks of a more immediate concern.
Guardian - Q&A: Plastic bags
Telegraph - Bin those plastic bags - Interesting responses, covering paper, better priorities, etc
ADDENDUM - I made a request via the Institute of Packaging to ask for feedback to help my understanding. I have already had answers that are prompt, helpful, varied and/or interesting. And now have some work on my plate to prepare my next blog!!!! Watch this space.
Adds a bit. Though 'Have Your Says' from the BBC to the Indy, are getting a bad press (well, if they were not about the press. A bad blog, let's say) for trying to pass off what the editors liek the look of as 'representative'.
Q - Can you clear up the definitions of degradable and biodegradable? My understanding is that degradable is not compostable – ie, those bags break down into tiny pieces of plastic that will remain in the environment whereas biodegradable (as in BioBags) can compost and break down completely with no harmful effects to the environment.
A- Absolutely right; the only advantage of degradable bags is they pose less of a litter nuisance once they break down. Biodegradable plastic bags are only better for the environment if they are properly composted – something that isn't widely happening at the moment. As a rule, I take cotton bags on my shopping trips rather than accept free plastic bags. Every couple of months I leave the cotton bags at home and take the plastic bags, which I then use as free bin bags.
My Q - (in light of those raised here previously): So... no harmful effects to the environment. Hmmn. So does that mean there is no greenhouse gas consequence? Why do I sense a cherry pick here? And what about the total lack of official coordination and comms on what goes where? If I put my Somerfield's in with my Morrisons to recycle I do belive that's not helping.
Q - Is it better to use the plastic bags as bin bags, or is there a more environmentally sound way of dealing with rubbish?
A- Reusing bags over and over is of course the most environmentally friendly option and the fact that you do that most of the time is the most important thing. You also need to contain your residual waste somehow and I really don't think it makes a lot of difference if you reuse carrier bags or buy suitable bin liners. But do look out for those with recycled content and don't use bigger or thicker bin liners than you reasonably need.
My Q/Opinion: How can it not make a lot of difference reusing something vs. buying new ones that need to be made? That doesn't make sense!
Q - Where can I buy small black bin bags? I throw out so little that three-quarters of a standard bin bag is waste plastic, but I can't store what little waste I do throw out until the bag is full, because of smells.
A - Maybe smaller pedal-bin liners are what you need? However, some local councils now collect food waste separately which might be an answer to the odour problem. Alternatively, if you can compost your biodegradable waste like vegetable peelings, tea bags and egg shells, you can deal with most of the materials that cause smells in way that's very good for the environment.
My Opinion - Bless
Q - I work for a small children's clothes company. We use good quality polythene bags costing 4p each. I would like to change these to biodegradable bags or paper carrier bags. Can you suggest a source for them at a reasonable cost? Also, which of these is actually least harmful, bearing in mind the use of wood for paper versus land clearance for vast fields of corn for cornstarch?
A - With regard to which bags are least harmful, you need to think about what happens to the bag after you give it to the customer as well as how it's sourced. See my earlier comments regarding biodegradable bags, but also paper bags need to be recycled in order to avoid causing potentially more damage than the plastic alternatives. For information about suppliers you could try www.wrap.org.uk.
My A - And don't forget WRAP is a not-for-profit company!
Q - I was completely fed up with the number of plastic bags foisted on me, particularly as an internet shopper. So, together with a friend, I decided to take action. That was when we found it – a really clever type of shopping bag. The bags clip inside supermarket trolleys, helping to organise shopping and speed up checkout time. And so Geccobags.co.uk was born: a company specialising in utilitarian bags designed specifically for the supermarket.
A - There is a huge range of alternatives to disposable carrier bags, from organic fair trade cotton to supermarket's own Bags for Life.
My A - Nice ads! I wonder who has an 'in with who' between the Indy and the local PR agency.
Q- Thank you for your timely piece on the curse of the plastic bag. I am old enough to remember when supermarkets charged for carrier bags. I cannot believe they are so reluctant to reintroduce the charge.
A- I can also (just) remember those days! The truth is there's no such thing as a free carrier bag; nowadays we just pay for them in the cost of the goods. That is really unfair to consumers trying to reduce carrier bag use – they are subsidising others who are more wasteful.
My A/Opinion - As mentioned on the BBC 'story' this morning, one has to wonder how so much is ending up with the retailers and customers to resolve. I'm fascinated how all these good folk think it's great to be charged. Hope they feel the same as everything ends up with an overt green charge that may or may not help the enviROI and may or may not actually go where one would hope to effect the best changes.
If you want to see green living, go to 'old' Europe
Let's start with the small things. As many cross-Channel shoppers will know, plastic bags are simply not supplied at many Continental hypermarkets any more. You either buy big biodegradable bags from the check-out or bring your own bag or trolley.
I really am keen to get an answer to whether biodegradable bags do or do not create greenhouse gasses. It just seems... pertinent.
Nothing to lose but your plastic bags
Interesting Ms. JSP has opened by highlighting one oft ignored fact: it seems the bags are all that's important; not the fact that most spend all their times wanting to get stuff to stick in 'em. Which I would imagine has a footprint all of its own. A bigger one. Seems it's not the content that matters, but the presentation. And apt metaphor for this 'image is all' era.
A slight whiff of balance... But again : 'Biodegradable plastic is one option, recycled paper another.'
And is only me who sees a slight irony in this: '... picked up at the Ravello Festival in Italy, a market in Faversham, from the launch of Architecture week in London last summer, and at the British pavilion during the Venice Biennale. Much as I rate Ms. JSP, I can't help but wonder how her jaunting (unless it is in a VW Bluemotion at 3000cb/m) equates to the few thousand bags she'll rack up at Tescos.
Guardian - Throwing away a throwaway culture
I have a technical question to which I hope there is a simple answer that some expert(s) can provide me with.
I have just read a factual explanation of the issues (from one of the many, and well-funded, quangos that exist to help us in these matters), and both biodegradable and compostable options were mentioned. However this seemed to be restricted to the processes of composting as it relates to the soil only.
Are there no greenhouse gas consequences to these processes? And if so are they so negligible as to be irrelevant? I see that plastic photodegrades to some nasties. Do these include greenhouse gasses? And does this happen out of sunlight?
I simply ask as I have been working on the assumption that atmospheric CO2/methane is the main priority to reduce, and I'm trying to get my head around how some of the options proposed are actually any better on this, more immediate, basis.
I know it is much more complex, and while reuse must obviously be better in the long run (and seems to work in other countries), I am also aware that the provision of facilities here to enable effective recycling (especially without contamination) is less than it could be. With a suspicion that shunting the issue away from where it could be into a public/retailer responsibility might suit some very well.
Reduction of the things that go in the bags is of course not ... yet ... high on the agenda in the run-up to Xmas and with economies to support and grow, but one rather wonders where next those with zeal and passion for the key things to ban may turn next. Pets? Skiing trips (before the snow runs out)? Ads in newspapers for same? Plastic wrappers for newspapers that run ads for same? Cosmetics? (Now there's a totally unnecessary item - (though my wife may disagree). Or fashion items (at least the ones in the 51 other weeks to the token 'recycle' issue). Beer? How many litres of tap water to make a pint? At least it comes in glasses at the pub and not in plastic bottles.... hey.... there's a thought!
I saw a chap on the TV this morning who was positively salivating at all he could ban, or at least levy and/or fine. Not quite the sort I fancy getting their heads around saving the planet for my kids, especially when I had a sense that he rather saw the money primarily being used to fund more schemes like his, and clones of him to 'run' them.
I do see merit in proper reduction and 'paying for wasting' generating funds to be directed in genuine, effective enviROI+ directions, but this all has a rather worrying scent, at least as dished out by a media that loves an 'issue', and wins with ratings no matter how it plays out.
And while I agree a contact lens is another awful symbol of our disposable society, I rather wish the energies that might yet get devoted to eradicating these might first be directed at slightly bigger tasks of a more immediate concern.
Guardian - Q&A: Plastic bags
Telegraph - Bin those plastic bags - Interesting responses, covering paper, better priorities, etc
ADDENDUM - I made a request via the Institute of Packaging to ask for feedback to help my understanding. I have already had answers that are prompt, helpful, varied and/or interesting. And now have some work on my plate to prepare my next blog!!!! Watch this space.
One paper. One day. One nation. One wonders...
These were from the Indy yesterday:
The best defence against claims of spin - the process of government
Mark Steel: You can't go round telling people you've been sacked - what happens to those within who try and change it
The cost of cheap food – and hot air - and what happens to the planet when those left in charge a left free to continue with their tasks
I congratulate the Indy and its writers fro highlighting this, but wonder how many days (hours) after passing from our tables and screens these further insanities will be recalled.
The best defence against claims of spin - the process of government
Mark Steel: You can't go round telling people you've been sacked - what happens to those within who try and change it
The cost of cheap food – and hot air - and what happens to the planet when those left in charge a left free to continue with their tasks
I congratulate the Indy and its writers fro highlighting this, but wonder how many days (hours) after passing from our tables and screens these further insanities will be recalled.
They don't make it any easier
See those two packs on the left?Both choccy drinks, but made by what I had thought were major competitors, Mars and Cadbury Schweppes.
I wonder why they feel the need to look so like each other, in shape terms at least? Is that what choccy drinks are 'meant' to look like?
I so miss the old Maltesers version, which presented so many useful possibilities.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Mankind, the virus on our planet?
Another mention of the 'policy that dare not speak its name', this time from outspoken MEP Chris Davies, as reported in the Cumbrian News & Star, who reckons that "young couples should have no more than one child in a bid to stop global warming."
"While every individual should be cherished, mankind’s reproduction is akin to the replication of a virus. We are swamping the planet and devouring its resources."
In a sense it's difficult to disagree with that last statement, but who is ever going to propose 'population growth control' as a mainstream policy? Perhaps, if H5N1 (the virulent strain of avian flu) ever mutates to a human to human transferable virus, such a policy may not even be necessary?
"While every individual should be cherished, mankind’s reproduction is akin to the replication of a virus. We are swamping the planet and devouring its resources."
In a sense it's difficult to disagree with that last statement, but who is ever going to propose 'population growth control' as a mainstream policy? Perhaps, if H5N1 (the virulent strain of avian flu) ever mutates to a human to human transferable virus, such a policy may not even be necessary?
Like a beer? Get ready for £3 a pint!
Those of you that enjoy a decent pint or two every now and again, get ready to pay more for your favourite tipple. This from Harpers reports on the increasing costs of basic raw materials that has already hit the UK's breweries, with Barley increasing in price by 40% and Hops by 100% this year.
The piece, perhaps rather too pointedly, firmly lays the blame directly at the door of climate change. It seems that you can blame anything on climate change nowadays, but with the cost of diesel also going up by 12p/litre over the last 12 months too, I reckon we could be paying £3 a pint for a decent beer by the start of next year!
The piece, perhaps rather too pointedly, firmly lays the blame directly at the door of climate change. It seems that you can blame anything on climate change nowadays, but with the cost of diesel also going up by 12p/litre over the last 12 months too, I reckon we could be paying £3 a pint for a decent beer by the start of next year!
Are we there yet?
Does one give into pester power? It's a question I have pondered for a while on a few areas, such as this: London joins national campaign to banish the curse of the plastic bag
It's not quite on a par with 'giving in to terrorists or kidnappers', so I am tempted to go along and swallow the possible consequences of 'giving in to..'.
And it's not like I don't get the point. Plastic bags, if there are better alternatives (the enviROI of plastic vs. alternatives not having been clearly explained to me at all yet, much less convincingly. For example, I can't see a ship-load of hessian sacks getting shipped from India to be sold for a £1 and then forgotten about in the back of a drawer come the next outing - who can carry a bunch of these around all day in case they pop in the shops? - is going to help much either. But hey-ho) and are not being reused or recycled effectively (seems not), are certainly a landfill-destined waste of resource. I don't use 'em if I can help it, though have to admit that when I don't happen to have 4 hemp bags on my person would find it a bit of a pain not to have them, or wonder where the money I have to hand over is going to. Plus a small tilt towards those who have lost their jobs as a consequence of such a ban (and wonder who is next, until the truly worthy contributors to society who inhabit Islington and Westminster decide to feed on each other's productive career contributions).
But I am erring on just getting it over with, if only to get it out of the way and move on to hopefully more important things. Though the trivial obsessions of most involved in such campaigns don't encourage me too much. They'll need another outlet. And I doubt banning pets, skiing holidays or leg waxing products as 'unnecessary' will top their lists.
Especially as major proponents are such as newspapers and LAs, who don't seem so shy on sending out their own hordes of mailings in plastic wrappers.
Yesterday Modbury, today London, tomorrow the Isle of Wight... and then... ze verld!
Thing is, as an ad man, I wonder what will happen when attentions drift elsewhere.
The shop which has already set out its stall to get rid of packaging
Because if everyone is doing it, then there is no value in being different. You get in the Indy if you have 'a' shop that is eco-twee and all the luvvies get their free-range Priuses for the weekend there, but how about the real world of a 8pm Friday rainy-night dash to the Tesco on the way home down a Midlands motorway?
One wonders if you might see the genesis of ad campaigns with 'free plastic bags' like 'no VAT' to entice people in by way of being an exception.
And who is to define when a plastic carrying device is 'legal' or 'illegal'? Maybe we will get bag-leggers smuggling in dangerous loads of plastic over the Mexican border.
At least I get blogs and blogs out of it. Just not sure it's moving my kids' futures on as much as some other efforts deserving such energies.
It's not quite on a par with 'giving in to terrorists or kidnappers', so I am tempted to go along and swallow the possible consequences of 'giving in to..'.
And it's not like I don't get the point. Plastic bags, if there are better alternatives (the enviROI of plastic vs. alternatives not having been clearly explained to me at all yet, much less convincingly. For example, I can't see a ship-load of hessian sacks getting shipped from India to be sold for a £1 and then forgotten about in the back of a drawer come the next outing - who can carry a bunch of these around all day in case they pop in the shops? - is going to help much either. But hey-ho) and are not being reused or recycled effectively (seems not), are certainly a landfill-destined waste of resource. I don't use 'em if I can help it, though have to admit that when I don't happen to have 4 hemp bags on my person would find it a bit of a pain not to have them, or wonder where the money I have to hand over is going to. Plus a small tilt towards those who have lost their jobs as a consequence of such a ban (and wonder who is next, until the truly worthy contributors to society who inhabit Islington and Westminster decide to feed on each other's productive career contributions).
But I am erring on just getting it over with, if only to get it out of the way and move on to hopefully more important things. Though the trivial obsessions of most involved in such campaigns don't encourage me too much. They'll need another outlet. And I doubt banning pets, skiing holidays or leg waxing products as 'unnecessary' will top their lists.
Especially as major proponents are such as newspapers and LAs, who don't seem so shy on sending out their own hordes of mailings in plastic wrappers.
Yesterday Modbury, today London, tomorrow the Isle of Wight... and then... ze verld!
Thing is, as an ad man, I wonder what will happen when attentions drift elsewhere.
The shop which has already set out its stall to get rid of packaging
Because if everyone is doing it, then there is no value in being different. You get in the Indy if you have 'a' shop that is eco-twee and all the luvvies get their free-range Priuses for the weekend there, but how about the real world of a 8pm Friday rainy-night dash to the Tesco on the way home down a Midlands motorway?
One wonders if you might see the genesis of ad campaigns with 'free plastic bags' like 'no VAT' to entice people in by way of being an exception.
And who is to define when a plastic carrying device is 'legal' or 'illegal'? Maybe we will get bag-leggers smuggling in dangerous loads of plastic over the Mexican border.
At least I get blogs and blogs out of it. Just not sure it's moving my kids' futures on as much as some other efforts deserving such energies.
THE CAMPAIGN COLUMN
The journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step.
It hasn't even hit my daily trawl yet, but I've just seen on the BBC Breakfast News yet another campaign being announced, with yet another minor celeb attached. Just for fun, when they pop up I will put 'em here.
What may be interesting is to subsequently try and assess whether they lasted more than the day of the launch, a week or actually got anywhere. And what it all cost.
[name] - something to do with 'schools sustainability' - feat. Sophie Ellis Bextor - haven't seen the detail yet, but what aspect of the Government's relationship with schools it runs needs a 'campaign'. And if it is to move the students, how will this complement the raft of other stuff out there directed at the public.
It hasn't even hit my daily trawl yet, but I've just seen on the BBC Breakfast News yet another campaign being announced, with yet another minor celeb attached. Just for fun, when they pop up I will put 'em here.
What may be interesting is to subsequently try and assess whether they lasted more than the day of the launch, a week or actually got anywhere. And what it all cost.
[name] - something to do with 'schools sustainability' - feat. Sophie Ellis Bextor - haven't seen the detail yet, but what aspect of the Government's relationship with schools it runs needs a 'campaign'. And if it is to move the students, how will this complement the raft of other stuff out there directed at the public.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
AWARDS COMPILATION - Green related
Inspired by a recent post regarding awards for greenwashing, I have decided to kick off a list of my own as the mood takes me:
Advertising
Green Awards (not worth the paper...IMHO)
Business/Entrepreneurship
21st Century Challenge - we didn't make it. See who did.
Greenwashing
FoE (need to track it down)
Greenpeace (ditto)
PR watch Falsies
Spinwatch
Worstlobby
Invention
Marketing
And don't forget, even though one may have passed... there's always next year!
Advertising
Green Awards (not worth the paper...IMHO)
Business/Entrepreneurship
21st Century Challenge - we didn't make it. See who did.
Greenwashing
FoE (need to track it down)
Greenpeace (ditto)
PR watch Falsies
Spinwatch
Worstlobby
Invention
Marketing
And don't forget, even though one may have passed... there's always next year!
Just sharing
BBC - No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance
Though there is a counter-view linked, it seems odd that the BBC would give lead to 'a' person, no matter how qualified.
It will be fun... no... sad seeing how this plays out. I'm guessing he'll be accused of god knows what. The sceptics will take all sorts of stuff out of context and blow it up. The usual.
BBC - The IPCC: As good as it gets
BBC - Unravelling the sceptics
BBC - Climate scepticism: The top 10
Now... any the wiser? Going to change your ways?
Real Climate - BBC contrarian top 10 - Kind of a summary of summary of summarys, with at least more than a hint that scientists are involved. Still suffers from various main protagonists being labelled/outed as poster kids for an entrenched view (seems by various finger-pointings even IPCC contributors and the Real Science top brass are stuck in various 'camps').
The main thing to me is still how all these guys are so much happier engaged in this theoretical debate than actually thinking too much on what can be done now.
Though there is a counter-view linked, it seems odd that the BBC would give lead to 'a' person, no matter how qualified.
It will be fun... no... sad seeing how this plays out. I'm guessing he'll be accused of god knows what. The sceptics will take all sorts of stuff out of context and blow it up. The usual.
BBC - The IPCC: As good as it gets
BBC - Unravelling the sceptics
BBC - Climate scepticism: The top 10
Now... any the wiser? Going to change your ways?
Real Climate - BBC contrarian top 10 - Kind of a summary of summary of summarys, with at least more than a hint that scientists are involved. Still suffers from various main protagonists being labelled/outed as poster kids for an entrenched view (seems by various finger-pointings even IPCC contributors and the Real Science top brass are stuck in various 'camps').
The main thing to me is still how all these guys are so much happier engaged in this theoretical debate than actually thinking too much on what can be done now.
The sky is falling... I mean it!
Emergency talk costs lives?
Some people think the rhetoric of climate change is too emotive. While others, like me, would wish some could just stick to the facts and stop trying to gild various lollies, equally shrilly, for 'our' own good.
No doubt it's serious. And needs addressing.
I just can't help but notice that the current level of rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. So maybe we need a change in that approach, plus of those who see themselves as the messengers of 'the word'.
Maybe there's a lesson from the ad world (ok, it's a first when it comes to man-worsened climate change), which I have worked in most of my life, and especially life assurers. It has long been appreciated that shrieking 'we're all going to die!' doesn't sell policies as well as more subtle, end-benefit, persuasion-based approaches.
Oh, and rushing out the next half-considered survey to offer a ready target for those of a more cynical disposition to illuminate, tends to knock calmer efforts back even more.
It looks like we are playing chicken with the future, but I'm not to sure the nicely funded Green-Elite Chicken Littles who think they have grasped the wheel are best suited to turn it.
Some people think the rhetoric of climate change is too emotive. While others, like me, would wish some could just stick to the facts and stop trying to gild various lollies, equally shrilly, for 'our' own good.
No doubt it's serious. And needs addressing.
I just can't help but notice that the current level of rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. So maybe we need a change in that approach, plus of those who see themselves as the messengers of 'the word'.
Maybe there's a lesson from the ad world (ok, it's a first when it comes to man-worsened climate change), which I have worked in most of my life, and especially life assurers. It has long been appreciated that shrieking 'we're all going to die!' doesn't sell policies as well as more subtle, end-benefit, persuasion-based approaches.
Oh, and rushing out the next half-considered survey to offer a ready target for those of a more cynical disposition to illuminate, tends to knock calmer efforts back even more.
It looks like we are playing chicken with the future, but I'm not to sure the nicely funded Green-Elite Chicken Littles who think they have grasped the wheel are best suited to turn it.
Electrohydrogenesis
OK, yet another super 'techy' word that means nothing to almost all of us as reported in the Telegraph today. This one, however, just may be a word that comes into common parlance over the coming years and decades.
So what is it? Electrohydrogenesis is a process from which "efficient and sustainable hydrogen production is possible from any type of biodegradable organic matter".
Scientists have "devised a method of hydrogen production that relies on combining electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a "microbial electrolysis cell" to belch out hydrogen gas."
The scientists' "reactor generated hydrogen gas at efficiencies up to 99% of the theoretical maximum yield. 'This process produces 288 per cent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added to the process'."
Now that is some claim. If validated, this just may represent a realistic way forward for the generation of hyrodgen as a genuine fuel source. Maybe they have even located the holy grail of the 'hydrogen as a fuel' research arena?
________________
Addendum:
Much as I like the concept of Hydrogen powered vehicles, providing, of course, that the Hydrogen itself can be produced in an environmentally acceptable and safe manner, I have to seriously question the enviROI of this from Reuters, reporting on an order for 10 hydrogen powered buses for London.
Sorry, but at a million pounds each [What the **!!!!!] I'm sure that there must be far more important and urgent things, with far more viable enviROI's for this sort of dosh to be spent on!
So what is it? Electrohydrogenesis is a process from which "efficient and sustainable hydrogen production is possible from any type of biodegradable organic matter".
Scientists have "devised a method of hydrogen production that relies on combining electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a "microbial electrolysis cell" to belch out hydrogen gas."
The scientists' "reactor generated hydrogen gas at efficiencies up to 99% of the theoretical maximum yield. 'This process produces 288 per cent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added to the process'."
Now that is some claim. If validated, this just may represent a realistic way forward for the generation of hyrodgen as a genuine fuel source. Maybe they have even located the holy grail of the 'hydrogen as a fuel' research arena?
________________
Addendum:
Much as I like the concept of Hydrogen powered vehicles, providing, of course, that the Hydrogen itself can be produced in an environmentally acceptable and safe manner, I have to seriously question the enviROI of this from Reuters, reporting on an order for 10 hydrogen powered buses for London.
Sorry, but at a million pounds each [What the **!!!!!] I'm sure that there must be far more important and urgent things, with far more viable enviROI's for this sort of dosh to be spent on!
Where there's a will, there's a way out
This is what I clicked: China 'will agree to cut its carbon emissions'
'China, now the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, will eventually agree to cut its soaring carbon dioxide emissions, one of the country's leading environmentalists forecast yesterday – but only on the basis of a deal with the United States and the rest of the developed world.'
Talk about a let-down.
'China, now the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, will eventually agree to cut its soaring carbon dioxide emissions, one of the country's leading environmentalists forecast yesterday – but only on the basis of a deal with the United States and the rest of the developed world.'
Talk about a let-down.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)