I've been up and watching the BBC news for about 45 minutes now as I deal with the overnight emails.
So far a potentially interesting story about the methods and motivations behind trying to effect better public behaviour in domestic recycling. And it seems that, surprise, surprise, the predominantly threat-based mechanisms touted are not quite working out, or into the systems as extensively or smoothly as they might.
Good. Well... good... ish. Something still needs to be done, and my experience that hasty, ill-conceived compromises are it. Or, as the MP select commitee has called it, 'a messy compromise'. (Where have I heard that applied to almost all in our current level of governance lately?).
Addendum 1: Just got the latest from LA on the Oscars. Seems half the BBC is now flying in to, um, 'help'. Bless.
Addendum 2: At least they are trying to offset it all, I presume, by acting as a commercial station. At least BBC Midlands. Seems someone is flogging their business, a newsagents, on eBay. Hope we licence payers get a cut of the ad revenue that has been devoted to this sale. I wonder if Aunty will help me shift my motor?
Which brings me to persuasion, preferably via inspiration and reward, which I favour.
And, by association, example.
And in this, accepting we live in a highly celebrity-influenced culture, we are surely very dependent on what our media serve us up with this as the majority of their fare, from who they talk about, how they talk about them... and, even, who we have talking at us about them.
So to help me get in the right frame of mind to cut back a tad, I have just endured a 5 minute gush about the Oscar party excesses. The dresses, the booze, the outrageous demands and incredible requirements for a one-off that will all get disposed of the next day.
I just threw that in, in-passing, as this blog was actually initiated by something else earlier.
And that was an exchange between the main presenter and the weather girl about their drives to work this morning.
Now at this time of the morning it's doubtful they have much choice and even they did, to use Tony Blair's words, 'it would be highly impractical [for them]' (though I doubt in the BBC's terms the same applies to some poor shift worker waiting for a night bus), but I just wondered where the cut off might be for such as the BBC (and others) before individual behaviour that is deemed climatically unfavourable becomes a matter for media approbrium with no sense of double standards, 'doing what we say, and not...' and all round wanting it all ways?
I can see it is tricky, but as one who sees the need for a change in behaviour yet makes big compromises on various lifestyle, cost, convenience bases almost daily, at least I don't preach what I am unable or unwilling to practice.
The medium as the messenger. But sadly, when it comes to example, too often rare in consistency and seldom well done.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Ocean 'dead zones' increasing
That's what scientists studying the so called 'dead zones' have concluded according to this article from the San Fransisco Chronicle.
"the seafloor revealed a boneyard of crab skeletons, dead fish and other marine life smothered under a white mat of bacteria." It doesn't sound too good, does it?
The dead zones are created by local conditions of low oxygen, and are doubling in number around the planet every decade. Whilst there are several causes for the development of the dead zones. the scientists are now firmly pointing the finger of blame at global warming as a key exacerbating factor.
Meanwhile, some palaeontologists are suggesting that the planet is already well into a sixth mass species extinction. They suggest that as many as 70% of species (similar to that which marked the disappearance of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago) will disappear from our biosphere if we do nothing to halt climate change. The report in the Anchorage Daily News makes for very depressing reading.
Time for less talk and more doing?
"the seafloor revealed a boneyard of crab skeletons, dead fish and other marine life smothered under a white mat of bacteria." It doesn't sound too good, does it?
The dead zones are created by local conditions of low oxygen, and are doubling in number around the planet every decade. Whilst there are several causes for the development of the dead zones. the scientists are now firmly pointing the finger of blame at global warming as a key exacerbating factor.
Meanwhile, some palaeontologists are suggesting that the planet is already well into a sixth mass species extinction. They suggest that as many as 70% of species (similar to that which marked the disappearance of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago) will disappear from our biosphere if we do nothing to halt climate change. The report in the Anchorage Daily News makes for very depressing reading.
Time for less talk and more doing?
Is Ol' Golden losing it?
That's the question posed by The Spectator in an article that suggests that our PM is incapable of undertaking the task he has been handed.
"His behaviour is erratic and bizarre; he phones colleagues at all hours with imperious demands while dithering over every decision he has to take."
"He tries to big-foot every minister and meddle in every department for all the world as if he has an uncontrollable tic; he is the Touretter of public administration. Yet the more he meddles, the more everything falls to pieces underneath him."
Ouch!
Some of the comments posted are quite amusing ..... this from Jan Maciag had me smiling.
"the country’s leadership now consists of people whose sole skill is the ability to talk. They have had absolutely no experience of running anything as complex as a whelk store before they are catapulted from some dubious think tank into ‘running’ huge government ministries"
Now who can argue with that?
"His behaviour is erratic and bizarre; he phones colleagues at all hours with imperious demands while dithering over every decision he has to take."
"He tries to big-foot every minister and meddle in every department for all the world as if he has an uncontrollable tic; he is the Touretter of public administration. Yet the more he meddles, the more everything falls to pieces underneath him."
Ouch!
Some of the comments posted are quite amusing ..... this from Jan Maciag had me smiling.
"the country’s leadership now consists of people whose sole skill is the ability to talk. They have had absolutely no experience of running anything as complex as a whelk store before they are catapulted from some dubious think tank into ‘running’ huge government ministries"
Now who can argue with that?
From water mills to free standing turbines
Water power has been used for centuries in form of the old humble water mill, but free standing turbines may well turn out to be one of the developing technologies that we will hear a lot about over the coming years, as this from The Economist explains.
The image is an example of a Gorlov Helical Turbine, being developed by Lucid Energy Technologies, one of a number of free standing turbines that are currently in development and undergoing trials.
The great thing about this method of power generation is that it doesn't necessitate the construction of huge dams or tidal barrages as the need for a large head of water is obviated. And the three major problems of poor efficiency, costly maintenance and protecting the key electricity generating components appear to be on the verge of being fully overcome.
Definitely a technology to keep an eye on. Perhaps the Severn tidal barrage may not be necessary in its proposed form after all?
The start of a major slanging match?
That would appear to be what this article from TravelMole is indicating.
It is probably the first major salvo fired by the aviation industry at the shipping industry, which is now recognised as being a major CO2 emitter in its own right.
The thing is, all finger pointing and cross industry sniping will achieve, at the most, is nothing. But I'm sure that this is not the last time it will happen.
It is probably the first major salvo fired by the aviation industry at the shipping industry, which is now recognised as being a major CO2 emitter in its own right.
The thing is, all finger pointing and cross industry sniping will achieve, at the most, is nothing. But I'm sure that this is not the last time it will happen.
You can't push cream.
It rises to the top.
I was reminded of this as I processed a series of disconnected segments of BBC Breakfast news this morning.
And I also harked back to when I was an agency head in Singapore and the government there decided something needed to be done to 'create' more 'creativity' in a country noted for lots of right brain graft and diliegnt application, but perhaps not so much left brain inspiration.
So they convened a bunch of types like me from perceived 'creative' professions to outline their vision. This seemed to revolve around establishing a centre of creative excellence in Jurong, which is in the industrial heartland of the city state, filling it full of nifty stuff and state glee clubbers, and...voila!
Most round the table smiled and said 'great!'. Why not? It wasn't going to cost us anything. Then a hand popped up. Mine. I simply offered the view that, in my experience, around the world most original, innovative creativity mostly evolved from a less structured environment. Not a hothouse, especially one on a flatted factory in an estate. SoHo, Covent Garden. Left Bank.
I was not invited back.
Now I see that £800M has been 'invested', to little effect, to keep kids in University as 25% are dropping out. Seems the new education systems may be getting a lot more eligible to enter, but not so much to cope. The aim seems more to support the aims of targets than any actual educational benefits, to state or student. A bunch of kids into a system they may not be suited for and out without much they can apply. Worryingly, the new plan is erring more in throwing more money to adjust things some more so they still go in no matter what, to maximsie the 'benefits' their tuition fee debts confer.
I counterpoint this with a story about a South London state school that is cranking out some of greater new art talents. The difference? The principal is quoted as being interested in only developing their skills to fulfill the pontetial they wish to pursue. Not, X-factor-like, to shape a predetermined plan of what a minority think should be.
And it seems to work. With the public. QED.
What's this got to do with the environment? Well, apply it all, just to this industry. The waste. The misguided faith in meddling. The money blown on a system vs. letting what works evolve with support, but a more benign, results rather process-oriented aim.
I was reminded of this as I processed a series of disconnected segments of BBC Breakfast news this morning.
And I also harked back to when I was an agency head in Singapore and the government there decided something needed to be done to 'create' more 'creativity' in a country noted for lots of right brain graft and diliegnt application, but perhaps not so much left brain inspiration.
So they convened a bunch of types like me from perceived 'creative' professions to outline their vision. This seemed to revolve around establishing a centre of creative excellence in Jurong, which is in the industrial heartland of the city state, filling it full of nifty stuff and state glee clubbers, and...voila!
Most round the table smiled and said 'great!'. Why not? It wasn't going to cost us anything. Then a hand popped up. Mine. I simply offered the view that, in my experience, around the world most original, innovative creativity mostly evolved from a less structured environment. Not a hothouse, especially one on a flatted factory in an estate. SoHo, Covent Garden. Left Bank.
I was not invited back.
Now I see that £800M has been 'invested', to little effect, to keep kids in University as 25% are dropping out. Seems the new education systems may be getting a lot more eligible to enter, but not so much to cope. The aim seems more to support the aims of targets than any actual educational benefits, to state or student. A bunch of kids into a system they may not be suited for and out without much they can apply. Worryingly, the new plan is erring more in throwing more money to adjust things some more so they still go in no matter what, to maximsie the 'benefits' their tuition fee debts confer.
I counterpoint this with a story about a South London state school that is cranking out some of greater new art talents. The difference? The principal is quoted as being interested in only developing their skills to fulfill the pontetial they wish to pursue. Not, X-factor-like, to shape a predetermined plan of what a minority think should be.
And it seems to work. With the public. QED.
What's this got to do with the environment? Well, apply it all, just to this industry. The waste. The misguided faith in meddling. The money blown on a system vs. letting what works evolve with support, but a more benign, results rather process-oriented aim.
I thought it was funny
Brown becomes an unlikely pin-up for Fijian tourism
He is, one presumes, not holding a bottle of local mineral water.
He is, one presumes, not holding a bottle of local mineral water.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Dubbya on global warming
Well, OK, it's not actually dubbya, but it is a brilliantly funny spoof video - see ArchNews.
Take this as a no
Watching over the offsetters - Will a voluntary code of conduct make us any more confident when choosing a carbon offset scheme?
Good original post, and some very worthwhile subsequent ones in reply. Hard to add much more of value.
Speaking personally, in answer to your question at the top, even with a voluntary code the answer will still be a resounding 'no'. And such is my faith in officialdom, frankly a mandatory, gov... er... quango (they'll farm it out to create a whole new set of beholden gravy-boaters, plus extra layer of deniability) - endorsed effort wouldn't exactly reassure me much better.
I can't see how they work or even IF they work. There are too many (I'm talking Coffsetters here, not quangos, but similar duplication, cost/benefit concerns apply) and I have no the time to weigh them up. Plus I have no reason to trust most of them, often with good reason, sadly tarring the possible worthy ones with the negative brush.
But as night follows day, I await the next half dozen to soon be announced by either a compliant media, rudderless government or 'buy-off-a-blip' business to help us 'deal' with the consequences of a growing number of us doing stuff and then wanting to do even more.
That is, IF we can afford it.
DEFRA - Benn announces Government offsetting code
Addenda (as promised to reply posters):
These are a couple of press releases that have come in to Junkk.com from the industry by way of response to the above. Hence read them in that light. They are merely what has been supplied and only from those who seem to have us on their mailing lists. As mentioned on the comments section, I don't know enough to offer much beyond how I feel as a consumer:
Carbon Clear response to DEFRA’s draft carbon offset code:
Carbon Clear has always championed transparency & measurable standards within the carbon offset industry. However, even after 12 months of consultation and deliberation we believe the Draft Code of Best Practice for Carbon Offset Providers issued by DEFRA raises as many questions as it answers.
One area of concern is the lack of definition over what a consumer is; the original draft code (Jan 2007) aimed to protect individuals and remove confusion in a fledgling industry, a move which we applaud. The code has now been extended to businesses in a way that we feel is completely inappropriate. We use an array of emissions factors to calculate and reduce a company’s carbon footprint prior to offsetting unavoidable emissions. Under the draft code we would have to pay an additional £2,000 every time we need to use a new emission factor not included in DEFRA’s current list. This cost could discourage many smaller businesses from participating in the carbon market and taking responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, our experience is that bigger businesses and corporates want a mix of compliance-market CERs and beyond-compliance VERs and prefer to perform their own quality checks to find projects that meet their requirements. CER schemes can be slow, bureaucratic, expensive to administer and limited in variety. Existing quality standards like the highly respected Voluntary Gold Standard and Voluntary Carbon Standard address the need for verified reductions and allow more of the money to go towards projects that help poor communities around the world make the transition to a low carbon future. Thus, while we welcome the Government’s embrace of the quality principles we have long supported, we feel there is still a lot of work to be done before this draft code is fit for purpose.
Carbon Clear is the first full-service carbon management firm with ISO 14001 certification to be listed in the United Kingdom Register of Quality Assessed Companies, which includes entries for over 100,000 organisations. The ISO 14001 is a global environmental management standard. The Register includes companies both within and outside the UK.
Carbon Clear is a carbon management company that works with businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. In addition to advising on emission reductions Carbon Clear also invests in projects to cancel out the pollution that is generated by everyday activities such as driving, home and business energy usage, flying and even nappy use. Corporate customers include Eurostar, Innocent Drinks, and 3M.
All of the projects Carbon Clear invests in are selected based on both carbon reduction and a wider social benefit for the communities implementing them. A great deal of care is taken to ensure money is directed to activities that genuinely improve the environment and the lives of real people and all projects must meet the following criteria:
Our projects must make verifiable pollution reductions over and above their normal level. We follow the guidelines developed by the Clean Development Mechanism and Voluntary Carbon Standard.
Projects must provide additional, long-term benefits to the communities that undertake them; these range from better health and improved incomes to job creation and the protection of endangered plants and animals.
Projects must be efficient; funds should support the projects, and not be diverted to unnecessary bureaucratic overheads, waste or middlemen.
Carbon Clear is supporting a wide variety of emissions reduction projects that produce clear development benefits. These range from improved cookstoves in Sudan, to wind farms in India and energy efficient brick kilns in Nicaragua.
Carbon Capital Markets Welcomes Defra's Offset Code of Conduct
Commenting on today's launch of Defra's Code of Conduct for Carbon Offsetting, Lionel Fretz, CEO of Carbon Capital Markets®, a leading trader and fund manager in carbon and clean energy markets, said:
"We welcome this strict code from Defra for the carbon offset markets. We have always taken the position that offsetting should only use credits from the regulated market as it is only these that have been through such a strict process of auditing and verification to guarantee their worth.
I would urge anyone purchasing offsets to make sure they are buying regulated credits only, using an FSA authorised and regulated supplier to ensure that both the offset supplier and the offsets they provide, are subject to the highest standards of regulation."
Carbon Capital Markets is involved in all aspects of the regulated, Kyoto-compliant carbon markets. It was recently cited by Point Carbon, a leading provider of news and analysis, as an industry leader for its management of the Carbon Assets Fund, which invests in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Projects.
DEFRA Government Offsetting Code to remain open to quality VERs (Verified Emission Reductions).
Eight leading international carbon offset companies, together supplying both CERs and VERs to the beyond-compliance market, have today welcomed the UK Government’s Offsetting Code and its recognition of the important role played by Verified Emissions Reductions (VERs).
When Defra in the UK published its draft version of the Code (Jan 2007) ‘Kyoto-compliant’ carbon credits only were included. However, following a twelve month consultation that saw support for VERs from experts as varied as NGOs and academics through to Parliament’s own Environmental Audit Committee, Hilary Benn stated yesterday that “we recognise that credits from the unregulated market may be innovative and of a very high standard”.
As a group of eight leading carbon offsetting companies, representing most of the leading suppliers by volume in the beyond-compliance carbon (voluntary) market, we welcome the government’s adoption of the key principles already used by the market for selection of VER and CER emission reduction programmes – from additionality and leakage through to permanence and verification. It’s appropriate and welcome that Defra has listened to the market and is taking a lead from it.
The beyond-compliance carbon market, which kick-started carbon trading in the mid-nineties, is global, cross-sectoral and growing extremely fast. The industry has professionalised over the last 5 years, and has seen in the launch of new quality standards for VERs including the Gold Standard (GS VER) and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), with registries for the VCS and GS in development along with a planned project database linking the two. (see Notes below)
We firmly believe that there is increased interest from people and business in acting beyond compliance, i.e. reducing emissions because they want to not because they have to. This is the carbon market coming of age, and we look forward to working with the UK Government to keep them informed participants in the global development of this innovative and fast-paced emergent market – one that is already generating important investments and innovative solutions towards tackling climate change.
Jonathan Shopley, Executive Director,The CarbonNeutral Company
Jamal Gore, Managing Director, Carbon Clear
Edward Hanrahan, Chief Operating Officer, ClimateCare
Steve Green, Carbon Strategy and Partnerships Manager, Climate Friendly
Mike Rigby, Director,co2balance
Tom Stoddard, Vice President, NativeEnergy
Kerryn Schrank, Programme Director, targetneutral
Adam Stern, Vice President of Policy and Strategy, Terrapass
Good original post, and some very worthwhile subsequent ones in reply. Hard to add much more of value.
Speaking personally, in answer to your question at the top, even with a voluntary code the answer will still be a resounding 'no'. And such is my faith in officialdom, frankly a mandatory, gov... er... quango (they'll farm it out to create a whole new set of beholden gravy-boaters, plus extra layer of deniability) - endorsed effort wouldn't exactly reassure me much better.
I can't see how they work or even IF they work. There are too many (I'm talking Coffsetters here, not quangos, but similar duplication, cost/benefit concerns apply) and I have no the time to weigh them up. Plus I have no reason to trust most of them, often with good reason, sadly tarring the possible worthy ones with the negative brush.
But as night follows day, I await the next half dozen to soon be announced by either a compliant media, rudderless government or 'buy-off-a-blip' business to help us 'deal' with the consequences of a growing number of us doing stuff and then wanting to do even more.
That is, IF we can afford it.
DEFRA - Benn announces Government offsetting code
Addenda (as promised to reply posters):
These are a couple of press releases that have come in to Junkk.com from the industry by way of response to the above. Hence read them in that light. They are merely what has been supplied and only from those who seem to have us on their mailing lists. As mentioned on the comments section, I don't know enough to offer much beyond how I feel as a consumer:
Carbon Clear response to DEFRA’s draft carbon offset code:
Carbon Clear has always championed transparency & measurable standards within the carbon offset industry. However, even after 12 months of consultation and deliberation we believe the Draft Code of Best Practice for Carbon Offset Providers issued by DEFRA raises as many questions as it answers.
One area of concern is the lack of definition over what a consumer is; the original draft code (Jan 2007) aimed to protect individuals and remove confusion in a fledgling industry, a move which we applaud. The code has now been extended to businesses in a way that we feel is completely inappropriate. We use an array of emissions factors to calculate and reduce a company’s carbon footprint prior to offsetting unavoidable emissions. Under the draft code we would have to pay an additional £2,000 every time we need to use a new emission factor not included in DEFRA’s current list. This cost could discourage many smaller businesses from participating in the carbon market and taking responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, our experience is that bigger businesses and corporates want a mix of compliance-market CERs and beyond-compliance VERs and prefer to perform their own quality checks to find projects that meet their requirements. CER schemes can be slow, bureaucratic, expensive to administer and limited in variety. Existing quality standards like the highly respected Voluntary Gold Standard and Voluntary Carbon Standard address the need for verified reductions and allow more of the money to go towards projects that help poor communities around the world make the transition to a low carbon future. Thus, while we welcome the Government’s embrace of the quality principles we have long supported, we feel there is still a lot of work to be done before this draft code is fit for purpose.
Carbon Clear is the first full-service carbon management firm with ISO 14001 certification to be listed in the United Kingdom Register of Quality Assessed Companies, which includes entries for over 100,000 organisations. The ISO 14001 is a global environmental management standard. The Register includes companies both within and outside the UK.
Carbon Clear is a carbon management company that works with businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. In addition to advising on emission reductions Carbon Clear also invests in projects to cancel out the pollution that is generated by everyday activities such as driving, home and business energy usage, flying and even nappy use. Corporate customers include Eurostar, Innocent Drinks, and 3M.
All of the projects Carbon Clear invests in are selected based on both carbon reduction and a wider social benefit for the communities implementing them. A great deal of care is taken to ensure money is directed to activities that genuinely improve the environment and the lives of real people and all projects must meet the following criteria:
Our projects must make verifiable pollution reductions over and above their normal level. We follow the guidelines developed by the Clean Development Mechanism and Voluntary Carbon Standard.
Projects must provide additional, long-term benefits to the communities that undertake them; these range from better health and improved incomes to job creation and the protection of endangered plants and animals.
Projects must be efficient; funds should support the projects, and not be diverted to unnecessary bureaucratic overheads, waste or middlemen.
Carbon Clear is supporting a wide variety of emissions reduction projects that produce clear development benefits. These range from improved cookstoves in Sudan, to wind farms in India and energy efficient brick kilns in Nicaragua.
Carbon Capital Markets Welcomes Defra's Offset Code of Conduct
Commenting on today's launch of Defra's Code of Conduct for Carbon Offsetting, Lionel Fretz, CEO of Carbon Capital Markets®, a leading trader and fund manager in carbon and clean energy markets, said:
"We welcome this strict code from Defra for the carbon offset markets. We have always taken the position that offsetting should only use credits from the regulated market as it is only these that have been through such a strict process of auditing and verification to guarantee their worth.
I would urge anyone purchasing offsets to make sure they are buying regulated credits only, using an FSA authorised and regulated supplier to ensure that both the offset supplier and the offsets they provide, are subject to the highest standards of regulation."
Carbon Capital Markets is involved in all aspects of the regulated, Kyoto-compliant carbon markets. It was recently cited by Point Carbon, a leading provider of news and analysis, as an industry leader for its management of the Carbon Assets Fund, which invests in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Projects.
DEFRA Government Offsetting Code to remain open to quality VERs (Verified Emission Reductions).
Eight leading international carbon offset companies, together supplying both CERs and VERs to the beyond-compliance market, have today welcomed the UK Government’s Offsetting Code and its recognition of the important role played by Verified Emissions Reductions (VERs).
When Defra in the UK published its draft version of the Code (Jan 2007) ‘Kyoto-compliant’ carbon credits only were included. However, following a twelve month consultation that saw support for VERs from experts as varied as NGOs and academics through to Parliament’s own Environmental Audit Committee, Hilary Benn stated yesterday that “we recognise that credits from the unregulated market may be innovative and of a very high standard”.
As a group of eight leading carbon offsetting companies, representing most of the leading suppliers by volume in the beyond-compliance carbon (voluntary) market, we welcome the government’s adoption of the key principles already used by the market for selection of VER and CER emission reduction programmes – from additionality and leakage through to permanence and verification. It’s appropriate and welcome that Defra has listened to the market and is taking a lead from it.
The beyond-compliance carbon market, which kick-started carbon trading in the mid-nineties, is global, cross-sectoral and growing extremely fast. The industry has professionalised over the last 5 years, and has seen in the launch of new quality standards for VERs including the Gold Standard (GS VER) and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), with registries for the VCS and GS in development along with a planned project database linking the two. (see Notes below)
We firmly believe that there is increased interest from people and business in acting beyond compliance, i.e. reducing emissions because they want to not because they have to. This is the carbon market coming of age, and we look forward to working with the UK Government to keep them informed participants in the global development of this innovative and fast-paced emergent market – one that is already generating important investments and innovative solutions towards tackling climate change.
Jonathan Shopley, Executive Director,The CarbonNeutral Company
Jamal Gore, Managing Director, Carbon Clear
Edward Hanrahan, Chief Operating Officer, ClimateCare
Steve Green, Carbon Strategy and Partnerships Manager, Climate Friendly
Mike Rigby, Director,co2balance
Tom Stoddard, Vice President, NativeEnergy
Kerryn Schrank, Programme Director, targetneutral
Adam Stern, Vice President of Policy and Strategy, Terrapass
Ethical Problems
10 tips for ethical living
Let's get this clear right away. I have no problem at all with being, eating, flying (snuck that in, eh?) , sleeping.... or doing, buying , etc pretty much anything that may be deemed more 'ethical'.
Why would I? Why would anyone? It's pretty much in the (well, the MS Word dictionary) definition: 'consistent with agreed principles of correct moral conduct'. Though of course one might argue (no, really, one might) over who is 'agreeing' what is 'correct'.
And there does to me seem to be some blurring of what it does mean, should mean, could mean and has come to be used, interpreted, etc.
(Is it just me, or is every sentence a mass of commas to infinity with all the possible, and often competing, options?).
Anyway, every so often , for those who need such things as a guide, along comes a list from 'someone' to give 'you' a 'how to'.
So here, via the Indy, and thanks to the organisers of the One Life Live event at Olympia (which I might have heard of, but obviously missed. Darn not living in that great city) who have found nearly 73 per cent of us (that's more than 72% I'm guessing. But then I always find such precise figures fun) believe that a more sustainable lifestyle is essential to the future of the planet. Not sure if sustainable (exploiting natural resources without destroying the ecological balance of a particular area) is quite the same as ethical, but that debate has been, is and will be raging on for ever.
And I don't know if they are in order, but the first is a no-brainer:
1. The appliance of science - though, oddly, to date I have so far seen no guidance on the various consequences of dumping a working, but less efficient model now vs. allowing it to die of natural causes. Beyond the money, it must surely matter, enviROI-wise.
2. Fuelling change - no argument. Mind you, looking at the M4 from London end when you have 3hrs drive ahead, at 2am, and when you have 200bhp on tap...
3. Sounds fishy - OK... fish.
6. Be cool! - Yup. Mind you, unless you are paying the bills (like me), with two kids in t-shirts and a wife in a puffer jacket, local conditions can make this tricky.
4. Fashion conscious - don't get me started.
5. Growth industry - of course, there's lots we could do without. And as I recall, the total carbon footprint of flowers from Africa may be less than those grown locally. As I have a brown thumb, we have no flowers, cut or in pots. The garden however is blooming. With weeds.
7. Shower power - logically, yes. I notice no mention of having fewer showers. Wife, daily. Me, every 3 days. The boys? What month is it?
8. Running flush - well, me and the boys operate a 'let it mellow' policy until the missus gets wind of it... literally. As to buying a piece of plastic to do the job of what several pieces of plastic you lob out weekly, well....
9. A sparkling success - see fashion. Grrrrr.
10. Off to a tea - tea. Well, yes. That will do it, I guess.
All.... well, most fairly good stuff. But year on year, this is what is served up? Sheesh. And while some may live in a world of ethically deciding on one's jewellery purchases, it's not a planet I'm sure I'm on (or would get saved that quick anyway).
Let's get this clear right away. I have no problem at all with being, eating, flying (snuck that in, eh?) , sleeping.... or doing, buying , etc pretty much anything that may be deemed more 'ethical'.
Why would I? Why would anyone? It's pretty much in the (well, the MS Word dictionary) definition: 'consistent with agreed principles of correct moral conduct'. Though of course one might argue (no, really, one might) over who is 'agreeing' what is 'correct'.
And there does to me seem to be some blurring of what it does mean, should mean, could mean and has come to be used, interpreted, etc.
(Is it just me, or is every sentence a mass of commas to infinity with all the possible, and often competing, options?).
Anyway, every so often , for those who need such things as a guide, along comes a list from 'someone' to give 'you' a 'how to'.
So here, via the Indy, and thanks to the organisers of the One Life Live event at Olympia (which I might have heard of, but obviously missed. Darn not living in that great city) who have found nearly 73 per cent of us (that's more than 72% I'm guessing. But then I always find such precise figures fun) believe that a more sustainable lifestyle is essential to the future of the planet. Not sure if sustainable (exploiting natural resources without destroying the ecological balance of a particular area) is quite the same as ethical, but that debate has been, is and will be raging on for ever.
And I don't know if they are in order, but the first is a no-brainer:
1. The appliance of science - though, oddly, to date I have so far seen no guidance on the various consequences of dumping a working, but less efficient model now vs. allowing it to die of natural causes. Beyond the money, it must surely matter, enviROI-wise.
2. Fuelling change - no argument. Mind you, looking at the M4 from London end when you have 3hrs drive ahead, at 2am, and when you have 200bhp on tap...
3. Sounds fishy - OK... fish.
6. Be cool! - Yup. Mind you, unless you are paying the bills (like me), with two kids in t-shirts and a wife in a puffer jacket, local conditions can make this tricky.
4. Fashion conscious - don't get me started.
5. Growth industry - of course, there's lots we could do without. And as I recall, the total carbon footprint of flowers from Africa may be less than those grown locally. As I have a brown thumb, we have no flowers, cut or in pots. The garden however is blooming. With weeds.
7. Shower power - logically, yes. I notice no mention of having fewer showers. Wife, daily. Me, every 3 days. The boys? What month is it?
8. Running flush - well, me and the boys operate a 'let it mellow' policy until the missus gets wind of it... literally. As to buying a piece of plastic to do the job of what several pieces of plastic you lob out weekly, well....
9. A sparkling success - see fashion. Grrrrr.
10. Off to a tea - tea. Well, yes. That will do it, I guess.
All.... well, most fairly good stuff. But year on year, this is what is served up? Sheesh. And while some may live in a world of ethically deciding on one's jewellery purchases, it's not a planet I'm sure I'm on (or would get saved that quick anyway).
Monday, February 18, 2008
A worthy answer. Odd how there are so few questions.
Or anything. Not one comment at time of posting. Why environmental treaties don't work
Thank you for sharing this.
I am a little amazed, and not a little depressed, to find so few taking an interest in what I'd have thought was a very key, major aspect of the whole PMWCC (Probably man-worsened climate change) issue and our global attempts to address it.
But I guess we need to fret the big stuff first, like bottled water.
Thank you for sharing this.
I am a little amazed, and not a little depressed, to find so few taking an interest in what I'd have thought was a very key, major aspect of the whole PMWCC (Probably man-worsened climate change) issue and our global attempts to address it.
But I guess we need to fret the big stuff first, like bottled water.
Government Incompetence?
Or deliberate policy?
The second question is mine, the first is from an interesting article in today's Guardian.
I've questioned the ridiculous state of government grants for renewables before, but somehow it seems to have got even worse than it was!
Whilst the DBERR is set to under spend the £18m low carbon buildings programme by £10m over the three years to March 2009, we get this!
"Last May BERR simply slashed the grants and made them more difficult to get. The result, entirely predictably, was a collapse. ............ Throughout much of 2006, for example, it was making 30-40 grants a month for ground source heat pumps. In the last three months of 2007, no such grants were made. There is a similar decline for solar thermal (hot water) and micro wind turbines. Not a single grant was allocated for a domestic solar PV system last month while the Germans installed about 12,000 systems."
And the DBERR is making no energy contingency plans for the eventuality of peak oil in case it causes panic! This no longer sounds like a bit of a shambles - it IS a bloody shambles!
The second question is mine, the first is from an interesting article in today's Guardian.
I've questioned the ridiculous state of government grants for renewables before, but somehow it seems to have got even worse than it was!
Whilst the DBERR is set to under spend the £18m low carbon buildings programme by £10m over the three years to March 2009, we get this!
"Last May BERR simply slashed the grants and made them more difficult to get. The result, entirely predictably, was a collapse. ............ Throughout much of 2006, for example, it was making 30-40 grants a month for ground source heat pumps. In the last three months of 2007, no such grants were made. There is a similar decline for solar thermal (hot water) and micro wind turbines. Not a single grant was allocated for a domestic solar PV system last month while the Germans installed about 12,000 systems."
And the DBERR is making no energy contingency plans for the eventuality of peak oil in case it causes panic! This no longer sounds like a bit of a shambles - it IS a bloody shambles!
Had to be done
Richard Branson ‘has a lot of making up to do’
But he does give the media lots to gush.. er.. write about. Which is really all that matters.
How are all those nifty ideas going, actually?
There's also the small matter of that mighty column of something probably less than climatically benign that pops out of Virgin Galactic, to enable a few mega-rich punters have their Kodak moment before availing themselves of the wee bag in the seat back.
But then if we don't have stuff like this we can't explore new worlds, and boldy go and propagate and pollute where no ma... er.. person has before.
Beam me up, Scotty! (I believe his ashes are on the tour).
But he does give the media lots to gush.. er.. write about. Which is really all that matters.
How are all those nifty ideas going, actually?
There's also the small matter of that mighty column of something probably less than climatically benign that pops out of Virgin Galactic, to enable a few mega-rich punters have their Kodak moment before availing themselves of the wee bag in the seat back.
But then if we don't have stuff like this we can't explore new worlds, and boldy go and propagate and pollute where no ma... er.. person has before.
Beam me up, Scotty! (I believe his ashes are on the tour).
Serving interests
Grinch time.
I have no real problem with a lot in the business that is charity, but all too often I stumble on 'efficiencies'... perhaps it could be termed 'chaROI', namely what is involved in getting a pound from the public to 'how much?' and in what useful form to the most worthy beneficiaries.
Without naming names, and without knowing the back-story, this was prompted by a fairly hefty news item about a not small group who went to South America to paraglide off a mountain, and raised... £3k. About the cost of the flight of one, plus gear, I'd hazard.
Now if they paid for all and this was just a nice little donation via sponsorship on top, then fine. But having been asked more than a few times to chip in on such things these can often be 'after expenses', meaning the charity goes a long way to paying for a lot of other stuff that doesn't really help those most in need.
So before I donate, or put these up on the site to encourage others, forgive me if I tend delve a bit more into the the provenance chain a bit more.
I have no real problem with a lot in the business that is charity, but all too often I stumble on 'efficiencies'... perhaps it could be termed 'chaROI', namely what is involved in getting a pound from the public to 'how much?' and in what useful form to the most worthy beneficiaries.
Without naming names, and without knowing the back-story, this was prompted by a fairly hefty news item about a not small group who went to South America to paraglide off a mountain, and raised... £3k. About the cost of the flight of one, plus gear, I'd hazard.
Now if they paid for all and this was just a nice little donation via sponsorship on top, then fine. But having been asked more than a few times to chip in on such things these can often be 'after expenses', meaning the charity goes a long way to paying for a lot of other stuff that doesn't really help those most in need.
So before I donate, or put these up on the site to encourage others, forgive me if I tend delve a bit more into the the provenance chain a bit more.
Doing the Necessary, Priority-wise
It's a rare situation when I can put hand on heart and comment on something from the remote position that not being too fussed about it all confers.
And so I listen to the BBC breakfast news, with an interesting series, and sequence of items.
So we have them quoting a government minister (I think one of our 'several' enviro grade ones) pondering the morality of bottled water. Yup, pretty bonkers flying stuff in from Fiji, and now shipping water over water to a place with water is also... odd.
Thing is, I then ponder the messengers. The BBC obviously fessed up to their internal complicity* (I think to the tune of £300k. No mention of what they'll do about it). I also need to check if the Panorama programme in question really did need to fly* round the planet to make their case (though doubtless offset; lord knows where and to what effect). And beyond what gets served up in the Commons Bar. I do also have to crank an eye at how this stands, enviROI-wise vs. blowing £110 billion propping up a dodgy financial business using our money.
Then we skip to a piece about the new trend of having baby showers, with gifts of £1000 exchanged.
It all rather goes into what is... necessary. And in what priority.
I also crank an eyebrow at how long this will be flavour of the month between the government/media cabal that seems to exist to focus the public's attention on one set of things, often at the expense of, how to say, 'bigger' issues.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There are of course those who will suffer any reduction/ban rather more tangibly and immediately, namely all involved in the industry. I have to concern myself whether those with worthy, mitigating aspects, such as Belu or Frank, will weather this. I guess it's possible they may even do better out of it.
As, of course, will all fizzy pops (if I do ever opt for bottled water I like it sparkling to feel liek it is 'special', so maybe I'll still get Perrier for artist Jason B to turn into lamps) and booze.
Funny old world.
Addendum 1 - You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. I just watched a live feed from a helicopter of Mr. Al Fayed's car trip to the Diana inquest. The world has gone mad.
Addendum 2 - Bottled water industry faces growing eco pressures - I quote this because I have to question the adequacy of the industry response, at least as reported and, I presume, as intended.
For a start, when I read upfront “simplistic comments such as ‘oil from the Middle East is turned into plastic and ‘many of the bottles that are thrown away end up in our rivers and canals.’” I have to cock an eyebrow. The first needs amplification (where do the raw materials come from?) and the second, well, seems pretty clearly right.
The thing is, why, what, how... etc? In this cases reasons can serve in place of excuses.
Good luck with the campaign they intend, but it's all coming across, to this consumer at least, as a little bit 'from on high' and unnecessarily defensive.
It's not fair and they have been singled out in flagrant diregard to other, possibly equally worse 'culprits' of our conucmer choice society, but I'm not sure what I read here is going to cut it.
And so I listen to the BBC breakfast news, with an interesting series, and sequence of items.
So we have them quoting a government minister (I think one of our 'several' enviro grade ones) pondering the morality of bottled water. Yup, pretty bonkers flying stuff in from Fiji, and now shipping water over water to a place with water is also... odd.
Thing is, I then ponder the messengers. The BBC obviously fessed up to their internal complicity* (I think to the tune of £300k. No mention of what they'll do about it). I also need to check if the Panorama programme in question really did need to fly* round the planet to make their case (though doubtless offset; lord knows where and to what effect). And beyond what gets served up in the Commons Bar. I do also have to crank an eye at how this stands, enviROI-wise vs. blowing £110 billion propping up a dodgy financial business using our money.
Then we skip to a piece about the new trend of having baby showers, with gifts of £1000 exchanged.
It all rather goes into what is... necessary. And in what priority.
I also crank an eyebrow at how long this will be flavour of the month between the government/media cabal that seems to exist to focus the public's attention on one set of things, often at the expense of, how to say, 'bigger' issues.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There are of course those who will suffer any reduction/ban rather more tangibly and immediately, namely all involved in the industry. I have to concern myself whether those with worthy, mitigating aspects, such as Belu or Frank, will weather this. I guess it's possible they may even do better out of it.
As, of course, will all fizzy pops (if I do ever opt for bottled water I like it sparkling to feel liek it is 'special', so maybe I'll still get Perrier for artist Jason B to turn into lamps) and booze.
Funny old world.
Addendum 1 - You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. I just watched a live feed from a helicopter of Mr. Al Fayed's car trip to the Diana inquest. The world has gone mad.
Addendum 2 - Bottled water industry faces growing eco pressures - I quote this because I have to question the adequacy of the industry response, at least as reported and, I presume, as intended.
For a start, when I read upfront “simplistic comments such as ‘oil from the Middle East is turned into plastic and ‘many of the bottles that are thrown away end up in our rivers and canals.’” I have to cock an eyebrow. The first needs amplification (where do the raw materials come from?) and the second, well, seems pretty clearly right.
The thing is, why, what, how... etc? In this cases reasons can serve in place of excuses.
Good luck with the campaign they intend, but it's all coming across, to this consumer at least, as a little bit 'from on high' and unnecessarily defensive.
It's not fair and they have been singled out in flagrant diregard to other, possibly equally worse 'culprits' of our conucmer choice society, but I'm not sure what I read here is going to cut it.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Doom-mongering, or extremely prescient?
I came across this article in RIA Novosti considering the Kyoto protocol, and its potential outcomes, by chance, and it makes for quite interesting reading. The author is one Viktor Danilov-Danilyan, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Now some of you will undoubtedly dismiss his considerations as outright doom-mongery, others may regard them as quite plausible forecasts of just what could happen in the decades to come.
I'll leave you to make up your own mind. Me? I just hope his prescience does not turn out to be overtly accurate!
Now some of you will undoubtedly dismiss his considerations as outright doom-mongery, others may regard them as quite plausible forecasts of just what could happen in the decades to come.
I'll leave you to make up your own mind. Me? I just hope his prescience does not turn out to be overtly accurate!
The alternative fuel of the future?
I mentioned the possible use of ammonia as a fuel the other day in a post about peak oil (see lower down) and having 5 minutes free this afternoon thought I'd have a quick look.
It seems that the technology is already just about in place. In fact nH3ydrofuel of Canada is literally on the verge of marketing a conversion kit allowing petrol engined vehicles to run on ammonia ($6000). Now at first sight that might seem a hefty price, but with petrol at $1+ per litre ammonia is comparatively cheap at ~50 cents per litre. The technology will also allow you to fill the special tank with LPG so you car effectively becomes a tri-fuel hybrid.
OK, so what are the environmental impacts of running an internal combustion engine on ammonia? The good news is that CO2 emissions are minuscule (you have to start the vehicle on petrol for 15 seconds in order to purge the equipment, but that's negligible) and once the ammonia feed kicks in it produces virtually no CO2. My immediate concern was that NOX emissions might be a problem, but they claim that they are only 25% of the NOX emissions from burning petrol. So this would appear to be an extremely environmentally friendly fuel.
They have filed some 20 patents covering all types of engines (including diesel) and several very interesting ones around power plants running ammonia for developing local electricity supplies. These also include patents for taking domestic, commercial and human waste and converting it to ammonia; the idea being that local authorities could generate their own electricity from waste that would otherwise go to landfill.
Despite the action of the Canadian government 25 years ago (Greg Vezina demonstrated a vehicle running on ammonia back in the 1980's but promised developmental assistance was withdrawn in preference to oil subsidies), ammonia energy technology definitely seems like one to watch for the future.
Remember, you heard about it first here on Junkk.
Addendum:
Just for the sake of providing balance, the potential downside to the use of ammonia as a fuel is that the only cheap way of producing it is from a natural gas feedstock, which is, of course, a finite and non-renewable source.
Addendum2 (via Junkk Male):
A welcome (if contrary) new contribution from, I believe, a new poster in the comments section. As this is an interesting and important issue I have updated the whole post, and it also gives me a chance to pop in his link hyperwhizzbang attached.
I think we need to figure a way of adding Dave's tip on how to do that on comments in the main body somehow. Maybe we should suggest it to Blogger?
Addendum 3 (Dave):
Geoff, thanks for the contribution. If you read through all of the posts in the forum discussion from the link you provided ( direct link above), it actually concludes that Ammonia could well be a viable alternative fuel, at least from a theoretical scientific viewpoint. "It takes 46 kj/mol to turn the ammonia into N2 and H2, then releases 363 kj/mol when you burn the H2. So you get a net energy output of about 317 kj/mol of NH3."
Addendum 4 (JunkkMale):
Greenbang - NEW - Chilled ammonia: the new carbon capture star - Would you like an olive with that? Not quite the right place, but the stuff is getting about!
It seems that the technology is already just about in place. In fact nH3ydrofuel of Canada is literally on the verge of marketing a conversion kit allowing petrol engined vehicles to run on ammonia ($6000). Now at first sight that might seem a hefty price, but with petrol at $1+ per litre ammonia is comparatively cheap at ~50 cents per litre. The technology will also allow you to fill the special tank with LPG so you car effectively becomes a tri-fuel hybrid.
OK, so what are the environmental impacts of running an internal combustion engine on ammonia? The good news is that CO2 emissions are minuscule (you have to start the vehicle on petrol for 15 seconds in order to purge the equipment, but that's negligible) and once the ammonia feed kicks in it produces virtually no CO2. My immediate concern was that NOX emissions might be a problem, but they claim that they are only 25% of the NOX emissions from burning petrol. So this would appear to be an extremely environmentally friendly fuel.
They have filed some 20 patents covering all types of engines (including diesel) and several very interesting ones around power plants running ammonia for developing local electricity supplies. These also include patents for taking domestic, commercial and human waste and converting it to ammonia; the idea being that local authorities could generate their own electricity from waste that would otherwise go to landfill.
Despite the action of the Canadian government 25 years ago (Greg Vezina demonstrated a vehicle running on ammonia back in the 1980's but promised developmental assistance was withdrawn in preference to oil subsidies), ammonia energy technology definitely seems like one to watch for the future.
Remember, you heard about it first here on Junkk.
Addendum:
Just for the sake of providing balance, the potential downside to the use of ammonia as a fuel is that the only cheap way of producing it is from a natural gas feedstock, which is, of course, a finite and non-renewable source.
Addendum2 (via Junkk Male):
A welcome (if contrary) new contribution from, I believe, a new poster in the comments section. As this is an interesting and important issue I have updated the whole post, and it also gives me a chance to pop in his link hyperwhizzbang attached.
I think we need to figure a way of adding Dave's tip on how to do that on comments in the main body somehow. Maybe we should suggest it to Blogger?
Addendum 3 (Dave):
Geoff, thanks for the contribution. If you read through all of the posts in the forum discussion from the link you provided ( direct link above), it actually concludes that Ammonia could well be a viable alternative fuel, at least from a theoretical scientific viewpoint. "It takes 46 kj/mol to turn the ammonia into N2 and H2, then releases 363 kj/mol when you burn the H2. So you get a net energy output of about 317 kj/mol of NH3."
Addendum 4 (JunkkMale):
Greenbang - NEW - Chilled ammonia: the new carbon capture star - Would you like an olive with that? Not quite the right place, but the stuff is getting about!
Friday, February 15, 2008
The carbon capturing car?
Here's yet another twist on hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles as reported by Channel4.
"The Georgia Tech car can run on conventional petrol or diesel, but has an on-board processor to separate out the hydrogen in the fuel. The hydrogen is used to run the car, as in a fuel cell vehicle, giving zero-emissions operation (the only waste product is water) and the carbon is stored in a liquid solution."
The idea is that the remaining hydrocarbon liquid contains all the carbon, which is then reprocessed to create yet more fuel. Sounds like an interesting concept. Let's see how it develops.
"The Georgia Tech car can run on conventional petrol or diesel, but has an on-board processor to separate out the hydrogen in the fuel. The hydrogen is used to run the car, as in a fuel cell vehicle, giving zero-emissions operation (the only waste product is water) and the carbon is stored in a liquid solution."
The idea is that the remaining hydrocarbon liquid contains all the carbon, which is then reprocessed to create yet more fuel. Sounds like an interesting concept. Let's see how it develops.
3 degrees of separation
I just missed the opportunity to get all kultur'd up thanks to Homie Brown and his boys 'n girls from da Westminster hood's new plan, so I think I'm mixing a few literary icons.
I know there's something about 6 degrees of separation and how we're all just a few links off being Royal, but that'll teach me for giving up at O level.
Anyhoo, it's a snappy title, which I have hijacked to describe the fine art of talking about something, mainly to stir it up a bit, but in ways that isolate me from the consequences. A bit like when a reporter says 'some say...', and you just wish the interviewee won't budge 'til they 'fess up that it's actually them and no one else has said a thing.
But here I quote a blog that quotes others, so I'm pretty golden. Well, other than now, when I say that these two pieces make pretty clear that my concerns on enviROI of so-called 'green' initiatives and the associated (lack of) joined up thinking around them. Plus some 'solutions' not actaully, as such, doing much more than make a few folk rich and a few others feel better about themselves. Oh, and a few media keeping occupied talking things up and then down, which is a win-win. I just need one win: what works.
Greenbang.com - The £50 million wave fund that no one wants - whack up a windmill (with a few issues pending), no problem. Daily, regular, reliable tides.... hmnnn.
Greenbang.com - Hybrid cars: a misinformed craze? OK, it has a question mark. Good question mind.
I have an acronym coming... O, DTTTI.. Only delaying tactics 'til the inevitable?
I know there's something about 6 degrees of separation and how we're all just a few links off being Royal, but that'll teach me for giving up at O level.
Anyhoo, it's a snappy title, which I have hijacked to describe the fine art of talking about something, mainly to stir it up a bit, but in ways that isolate me from the consequences. A bit like when a reporter says 'some say...', and you just wish the interviewee won't budge 'til they 'fess up that it's actually them and no one else has said a thing.
But here I quote a blog that quotes others, so I'm pretty golden. Well, other than now, when I say that these two pieces make pretty clear that my concerns on enviROI of so-called 'green' initiatives and the associated (lack of) joined up thinking around them. Plus some 'solutions' not actaully, as such, doing much more than make a few folk rich and a few others feel better about themselves. Oh, and a few media keeping occupied talking things up and then down, which is a win-win. I just need one win: what works.
Greenbang.com - The £50 million wave fund that no one wants - whack up a windmill (with a few issues pending), no problem. Daily, regular, reliable tides.... hmnnn.
Greenbang.com - Hybrid cars: a misinformed craze? OK, it has a question mark. Good question mind.
I have an acronym coming... O, DTTTI.. Only delaying tactics 'til the inevitable?
They're out there
For my forthcoming speeches at ECOPACK '08, I put out a call via the IoM website to ask for examples of second use design.Here's the first to come in.
From Clifford Packaging.
My car currently has three purpose built efforts from Morrisons, whilst my desktop filing systems uses 6xwine boxes I collect separately to support the cereal box dividers within.
So I'd say this was a pretty good plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)