GREENSTRETCHING

I thought I'd float it.

It's another 'green'-prefixed descriptor that might be applied to behaviour (often of the celeb kind) when 'greenwashing' or 'greencloaking' as applied to products/services and their pr/marketing messages really doesn't apply.

I can actually see it as part of a sequence, starting with 'greenspinning' and maybe ending with 'greensnapping'?

What has inspired this?

Well, it was just watching the BBC News with HRH Prince Charles, missus and entourage on their latest visit (I am sure there is a better word for its function) to somewhere a long way away, hot and sunny.

Anyway, it seems the big news is that to make the effort more eco, and PR it in that way, they are going to tour the area in a yacht.

So... let's get this straight. In the unlikely event I win the lottery (or RE:tie inspires a big cheque next week) and fulfill my dream of a Greek Island-hopping holiday (several years either in a wet tent or visiting relatives beginning to pall), I can actually claim I've gone eco because a bit of it is swanning about on a boat with sails?

A name only a mother (of 4) could love

EU directive to ban BOGOF promotions

This... is a dilemma.

As any who read this will know, I am not exactly pro-ban, especially when it comes to peripheral tinkering, but here's a case where market forces seem to be at odds with genuine enviROI common sense. Leaving what... as an alternative?

We have a normal (well..) family of four. And we do like our fruit and veg. So on my big weekly shop and the odd mid-weekers I am always on the hunt for a bargain. And, by any measure, BOGOF might be tempting.

Thing is, we have noticed that two nets of satsumas usually does not get consumed before the last few have gone West.

What to do...what to do?

It really seems there are no winners here. Well, save the supermarketers, who must do it because it works. But if it was possible, I'd vote for half price on smaller portions guys.

All that said, reading the thrust of the piece, the main issue seems to be the use, or not, of the word 'free'. With the only outcome being the end of an unlovely acronym.

So just what is the point?

You do your bit by carefully separating out the glass, the newspaper (no polythene mind!), and the recyclable plastics (if you are lucky enough to live in one of the few areas that collect it). You put it it the provided bins and bags and along comes the collection wagon to take it all away for a second use.

It has become something of a weekly ritual for a great many of us, and it does make you feel as if you are contributing in your own small way. But, and it is a big but, you take it on trust that your local council/authority is doing the right thing. Well, according to this from the weekend's Telegraph, something like one in eight of the items that you've carefully sorted and put out for recycling collection, actually end up in landfill anyway!

"Around 240,000 tons of paper, glass and plastic is either dumped or burned after being collected in green bins and bags by local council staff"

Just why do we bother?

So is the congestion charge working?

Not according to this research from Direct Line, reported in Money Extra.

Research "reveals that 1.2 million (16%) motorists who intend buying a car over the course of the next year will purchase either a people carrier or 4X4 'Chelsea tractor'. In fact, motorists are four times more likely to buy a less fuel efficient vehicle than the more environmentally friendly hybrid or 'eco' cars this year."

"The research also reveals that despite the London congestion charge, 27% of Londoners are planning on buying a car in the next year, compared to just 20% of those living in the Midlands and 21% of Northerners."

Looks to me like the congestion charge makes absolutely zero difference to the purchasing habits of the Islingtonistas. But then again, banning plastic carrier bags is far more important for the future of the environment, isn't it?

Lovelock - all gloom and doom

Now I have a lot of respect for James Lovelock, maverick or not; he has always made a lot of sense to me. (OK, so I'm a nutter then!). This from Saturday's Guardian contains a few gems of gloomy prediction which seem to even surpass what he's said before.

"Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. Britain is going to become a lifeboat for refugees from mainland Europe, so instead of wasting our time on wind turbines we need to start planning how to survive."

And I wholeheartedly agree with him on Carbon Offsetting and plastic bag bans too!

Me? I'm finishing work before 7pm for once and I'm off to the pub whilst decent beer is still an available (albeit less and less affordable) commodity! [Work has always been the curse of the drinking class!]

Addendum:
Some interesting letters in response in Tuesday's Guardian.

Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male): Lighten up, Lovelock

A Global Warming Denier's Conference

I had a sneaking suspicion that something like this might eventually happen, and it has, and is, as reported by The Raw Story.

Now I have no problem with opposing sides of any argument being put, but the acid test comes in the figures provided, and in the large majority acceptance of the underlying science. Fox and friends argue that "We just did a report looking at how the network news shows have covered climate change. ... 13 to one, the people they put on are on one side saying it's not a debate. ... On CBS it's 38 to one."

Sorry guys, but those sort of numbers simply reflect the numbers of scientists who genuinely believe in (Probably and/or Likely) Man Worsened Climate Change, versus those who don't.

And, interestingly, how would you like to take a guess at just who some of the friends of Fox News are funded by? Seems that Big Oil has some very long tendrils of influence.

Addendum:
More on this conference from Daily Kos.

I don't get it...

Roll up! Roll up! for London's used newspaper house

The other title I toyed with was... 'But is it art?'.

At £15,000 for 5 days, it certainly makes some kind of statement.

I'm just not sure that we need any more awareness on waste, but maybe a tad more spent on dealing with it.

Doesn't Add Up

Taxpayer hit again

Re; Please tell me there was a misprint

Sadly, I'm guessing not.

And what is amazing to me is how little noticed or commented upon this has been.

It's almost as though certain folk have been compensated for buying certain other folk more time to further waste more of our money... with our money.

When I ran my ad agency there was once a notion of 'pitching fees' to prevent flippant clients getting all and sundry to contribute, but it never happened.

This was... what... two or three bidders? Bidding to make bazillions. And they take even less risk just having a go and getting rafts of PR and paid work... on our money.

The world has gone mad.

Impudently, if prudently, yours...

N.B

The Prime Minister's green credentials are not in the bag

As interesting for the comments. But still all pretty depressing.

Guardian - Tesco versus Daily Mail: which will Gordon choose? - Well, he made 'a' decision, at least.

Daily Mail - Now eco-friendly Prince Charles teams up with supermarket chain to wage war on the bags

Great. First M&S. Then Gordon. Now Charles. And, er, Booths. The Daily Mail really is rallying a crack team here. All glowing examples to follow. And boy have they inspired everyone, if the comments here are anything to go on.

CATEGORY - ECO-HOMES & TOWNS

Indy - Buying an eco-home: Finally something's clicked

Indy - Better than new: Give you home an eco facelift

As I have created the category already, but now need to add a complement (though creating a more eco house is very different to an entire new custom town, there are obvious similarities):

ECO-TOWNS

Guardian - Eco-towns are the greatest try-on in the history of property speculation

Indy - Protesters' fury as ecotown shortlist targets 'unsustainable' locations

Guardian - Now that's my kinda town - good point on the tokenism of the ten.

Times - Just the spot for a new Milton Keynes - I still take some persuading a town is better than no town in purely enviro terms.

Times - Government must clarify its eco town policy - As do these guys

Indy - We're ready to rise up against eco-towns - I'm guessing 'not keen'

Times - Whitehall to force through eco-towns - May the force be..?

Times - Ecotowns: for and against

Indy - What are eco-towns, and how green are they in reality? - Looking at the 'Yes' and 'No' summary above, and comparing them with the main body text, it seems more that 'where there is a 'will there's a 'may'', and even that downward spiral of confidence in the enviROI can be soon extrapolated downwards as those with boxes to tick adjust their targets.

The Register - Tories pledge to flush away eco slums - Safe to say they are not keen.

Telegraph - Time to talk about eco-towns

BBC - Eco-towns plan 'may be unlawful' - From driving to knives, and now this, it rather worries me, as a law-abiding citizen, when those who might be expected to know better about what consitutes breaking 'em use words like 'may'.

BBC - Newsnight - tip off from poster. Missed it and may not get time to catch up, but the blog might point places.

COI - Eco-towns set to face toughest ever green standards

Gaurdian - Put away your prejudices - ecohomes are not ugly - Must be today (5 Aug 08) but all the Guardian Greens are knocking spots off each other for being not green enough or too rich to care about what it costs... odd).

Telegraph - Government paid charity to produce eco-town 'fact' leaflets - Now I have pretty much put anything on a leaflet on the high-irony side of eco-awareness already, but such as this does rather expand the list of those I wouldn't trust even further.

Indy - Eco-town's green benefit exaggerated, ASA rules - The ASA weekly list is a good, if depressing source of Grenwash. I almost passed on this, but as the Indy did not...
No mention of how 'eco' it might really be, mind.

Gaurdian - Green and unpleasant - Still not feeling the love

Gaurdian - We are not nosy parkers - we simply need to measure success - '...we simply need to measure success' . I merely ask, but is that how the way studies work is phrased?

I know bonuses depend on meeting targets, and meeting targets mean pointing at 'success', but wouldn't it be better to set out to discover what the overall enviROI of these things is, good... or.... not so much?

FT - Only one eco-town site classed as suitable - Bearing in mind what has already been consumed to get to this point, is this ratio... acceptable as a measure of the ongoing competencies of those who would claim to lead in these areas?

Gaurdian - Red faces over green towns

Guardian - Eco-towns' death throes - The headline invites a Twainian response, but.... oops! I wonder how many well-meaning folk and how much money was suckered into this one?

Telegraph - Eco-towns bill soars to more than £3m before a house is built - but think of the boxes that got ticked!

Telegraph - NEW - Country diary: the folly of eco towns

Driven to distraction?

A lot of folk from the government and media have taken it upon themsleves to lecture us on the sins of our travelling habits.

Fair enough.

Oddly, however, when it comes to the evils of using cars, the alternatives they tend to opt for seem a bit different to those advocated for most of us. And even when they do subsitute a taxi for a car, they don't seem to be any more keen on bearing the costs of such convenience.

BBC under fire again for spending £20,000 of licence payers' money on Wimbledon junket

Or even explaining exactly what these costs are.

Green Pop

Just saw the Andrew Marr show, which featured singer/songwriter KT Tunstall.

A great talent, and a clearly passionate environmentalist, I however could not but feel that rich pops stars, whose job does require certain sacrifices, talking to comfy BBC interviewers, may not be the best way to 'sell' green to the masses, or even get across the most enviROi+ way of setting about things. I am afraid I felt moved to write, a tad tongue in cheek, to question a few points she made that cranked my eyebrow:

I am immediately going to set about ripping out all in my home to replace with all the insulations and gizmos she has done. And if there is any money left over I will certainly no longer buy the kids £5 jeans when it’s clear they need to cost £30 or more. I wish I was a pop star and could share such great green examples with everyone.

Or afford to.

The higher you look down from, the poorer your view. Or chance of being heard.

Do you feel harassed by eco-snobs?

There’s rather a lot going on in here it’s hard to answer all at once, or simply.

For a start, there the definition of a ‘snob’, which is telling: ‘somebody who looks down on people considered to have inferior knowledge or tastes’.

This places knowledge WITH taste. But in matters environmental, they can often be exclusive.

I certainly feel frustrated by ill-informed, cynically media-stirred e-fashion victims leaping on distracting, minor carbon priority Planet Ban-it banwagons to the delight of those who should be taken task right now and more often for much worse.

That said, effecting social change though trying to influence behaviour for the better IS legitimate, and a bit of PR-influenced social pressure can often be of value... so long as it is valid, accurate and correctly targeted.

The problem is that so much is not, being simply knee-jerk, activist-agenda or politically-motivated public manipulation, ably supported by any media addicted to getting ratings building up an icon... and then getting more smashing it down if proven to be on a shaky pedestal.

Hence making the task of those working more diligently on more coherent, practical and probably more cost and enviROI effective measures, which the public can and might be persuaded to engage with, that more difficult.

So yes, I do have a concern on a backlash, thanks to the cack-handed simplistic messages being pumped out, and the dubious qualifications and motivations of the green-elite messengers so often associated with them.

Hence I think there is the social dimension inferred by the word ‘snob’, and a divide is being driven by the ‘My third car is a Prius’ persons who rather selectively cherry-pick their eco-target du jour at the expense of the broader challenges faced by more climatically significant (in total population) but less financially-insulated Fiesta Family.

That’s not to say we do not need to seek to effect necessary reductions and/or mitigations wherever possible. But by heavens I’d like to see it all done in a less divisive and patronising way than currently. And hence would make a plea for less TELLING each other what not to do and more incentive-driven PERSUADING each other what profit and fun-driven ways there can be to work together on this.

As a minor example, in your picture caption you lampoon Tesco, one presumes being shown up by the M&S/Daily Mail ‘campaign.’.

By my understanding they have long had a policy of giving card points for bringing old bags back, which seems to be a reward-based method for taking the things out of the loop, or at least away from the landfill.

I remain unclear as to the attraction in comparison of paying 5p, and how once used this bag ceases to have the potential to choke a turtle.

Equally, I am still trying to fully understand all the other options, with Charles Clover elsewhere suggesting not all ‘solutions’ bandied about might be as great as claimed.

But looking forward to getting my Eco-bag posted back from you guys. I’ll carry it with pride and endure the joshing with good nature, whilst hoping the cheery example I set might sway a few. Seems to work better than shouting or sneering.

Ok, I'm easily excited

Just got back from the Saturday Mother's Day shopping, and look what the boys and I spied in the recycling section of the carpark: a new skip for cartons (Tetrapaks).

This is great! No more moaning about the one and only facility in Fife or wherever, or daft notions of posting them off to be dealt with.

Two things, though. One is that it's a real shame that there is no way to help punters squash them first, as this is a hefty bit of steel to carry 99% fresh air in a 1litre skin.

The other is that I had no clue these were coming or are now here. And I tend to be a tad more aware on such matters. Wouldn't such a facility warrant a bit of PR ra-ra?

Of course the one thing I have not raised is the enviROI. Maybe I don't want to know.

Well I never

Meanwhile, where the Daily Mail may have a point: Dimwits: EU's edict to keep car lights on ALL day will cost drivers £160 a year in wasted fuel

My Volvo is ten years old. The headlamps have burned bright since I bought it. Never really thought about it, but enregy has to coem from somewhere.

Now another e-lemma: 'safety' vs. 'eco'. And the dosh, too!

Speaking of priorities

Have Your Say: Revolution in the skies... disaster for the planet

I do of course look forward to dark threats from our Dear Leader, plus an open letter to your paper from family in support, replete with dentally-enhanced 2+2 snapshot.

Or not.

Our national followship, especially the PM, rather tends to go with the 'flow of now', as opposed to actually leading with priorities, consistency or what might be right.

Mind you, our media are little better. Nick the Thinker... spot on!

Fickle folk, the public

Just as one campaign (plastic bags) seems to have struck a chord, it would seem another has not: Energy Saving Day flopped, say organisers

I wonder why?

On the face of it, the impostions were/are lower and the enviROI benefits surely higher.

So I wonder what a 1% increase in daily energy use accounts for in carbon consequences vs., say, fewer plastic bags? Brings us back to priorities.

An organiser is quoted as claiming they did not get enough publicity. But looking at the list of backers one has to wonder just what more resource one could have hoped for. I did get a few press releases, but ironically mostly from commercial interests that smacked a bit of opportunism and I am afraid I rather ignored them. And how much does one get to set up such a site and PR it? I wish I could score such support.

The comment about the temperature, at the end of February, is plain daft, and rather suggests a mindset that to me is not all that is optimal in 'green issue promotion'. And the public, self-evidently, felt so too.

BBC - No impact from Energy Saving Day - Ohhhh. It's a version of Planet Relief. Like that worked so well. Why do these guys get so much backing to shovel down green holes? Well, at least there seems there will be a 'next time'. Not a great track record too far, mind.

BBC - E-Day: A good use of energy? - I wonder who you have to goose in the BBC to get coverage for something folk actually like? This Matt Prescott guy must have a lot of mates at Aunty.

Now I am worried

Gordon Brown gives supermarkets one year to start charging for plastic bags ... or else

I wondered how long it would take for our Dear Leader to decide he was on safe enough ground to emerge from his bunker and take charge of this truly critical issue.

Not too sure if any of the other stuff, including a few other matters of pressing environmental concern, might register with his spinometer for a while now.

Thanks Daily Mail, for showing leadership to our leadership, and getting our priorities truly in the right order.

Gaurdian - How the Daily Mail seized the moment to go into battle - yes, but which one?

Right result? Right reasons?

Yesterday, at the height of the Daily Mail/M&S 5p bag frenzy, I popped into a LIDL, a store proudly pointing out it was tackling the scourge of the bag by charging for them.

And, in a telling example of personal shopping choice I made a purchase: this cutter set.

Now how much was my decision based on the fact that I could see all the blades I would use? Hence the box in which they were contained was splayed open, and then popped in a blister pack.

Totally, and I don't fling this word about lightly, unnecessary. But certainly it, and my actions in being seduced (would a poster or image on the lid have worked to attract me as well?), are pretty much key to the whole issue.

While some small 'victories' may be scored in trying to cut down on waste and our addiction to buying more and more 'stuff', this little war on plastic bags rather conceals the fact that the last thing these noble manufacturers and retailers, and the media industry who serves them, want us to do is buy any less.

Hence we get bought off (ironically by paying more) with a bag levy, and perhaps get distracted from pondering any more about what we are buying in the first place.

Here's the latest press release that has popped into my in-box, which I re-print verbatim:

IKEA SAVES 100 MILLION PLASTIC BAGS SINCE 2006 In support of the Daily Mail's campaign to ban the use of all single-use disposable plastic bags, IKEA UK today announced that a total of 100 million plastic bags have been saved since first launching a 10p charge in June 2006 and then a complete phasing out of plastic bags in July 2007. In 2005 IKEA UK gave away 32 million bags. Laid out, they would stretch 19,200 kilometres, or the equivalent of a return journey from London to Tokyo. After a successful two year trial in its Edinburgh store, on World Environment Day in June 2006, IKEA UK announced it was to stop offering free plastic carrier bags to customers introducing a 10p charge for them.� All money raised by the charge of plastic bags was to be donated to the organisation �Community Forests�.� It was part of a three step initiative that included changing the material of standard plastic bags to a biodegradable material and encouraging customers to use reusable bags by reducing the cost of the iconic �big blue bag�. It was estimated that this would reduce plastic bag consumption in IKEA UK stores by 20 million to 12 million bags a year. However, pricing plastic bags at 10p saw a 95% reduction in use to just 1.6 million a year � much higher than ever expected. As a result IKEA UK took the decision that plastic bags were no longer needed and completely removed plastic bags from all stores throughout the UK in July 2007. Charlie Brown, IKEA UK Environment Manager, said: �'It�s fantastic to see other retailers taking such positive steps to minimise plastic bag usage. Our role as retailers is to help customers make small changes that will reduce their environmental impact. Together we have a huge opportunity to make a real difference.'� The phase out of single-use plastic bags follows far-reaching steps already taken by IKEA to reduce energy consumption, cut emissions and to source products from sustainable suppliers.

I must say I stumbled over 'today announcing' something they have been doing for a while, which just shows what the impact of the weight of the Daily Mail readership and M&S PR machine is; all sorts of guys are tripping overthemselves to be first to be second to tell people they were first. Hardly edifying.

And I still don't see how a 10p bag doesn't choke a turtle any more than a 5p one.

The only bit of sensible insight is buried away at the end (highlighted), and at least shows the potential value of this campaign, even though I think it has been orchestrated by the wrong folk in the wrong way for mostly all the wrong reasons. But maybe the end (still unsure on the impact of the alternatives being scattered about) result could yet be worth it. Maybe a few eggs need to be broken for this omelette.

But let's now see who they turn their sights on next, and in what way the mob is directed. Just so long as the enviROI ends up positive, and it's all not just for show and ratings and a short term feel-good for the chattering classes, at the expense of those less able to cope with impositions and costs.... or even the planet.

I just wonder how long the likes of the Daily Mail or M& S will stay true to the overall cause, though both look like riding a hell of a decent wave for now.

But I rather suspect that even if Al Gore invented a $100 wind turbine, if GM offered a free Humvee to every reader or BA a free flight to Hawaii, the paper's front page would look a tad different. And even if editorial did move on to the 'necessity' of cut flowers and New Zealand lamb (ignoring the debate that the carbon consequence of their rearing cancels out the food miles in the shipping vs. buying local), the ad department may have a few words to offer via their client feedback.

Interesting times. What we really need is more positives that serve the consumer process AND the environment. Now, where on earth might we find such a concept? Oh... say... a nice little website that advocates reuse, both from existing packs and, in future, designed-in?

Sadly, I could only open that pack above by destroying it. So no reuse ideas there. I will walk it round the plastics skip, but have litte faith that it will be recycled effectively. Which, at about the equivalent of 50 plastic bags in one shot, is the real concern I have.

Careful what you wish for

I do believe the whole plastic bag thing is now a done deal. Just like any attempt at discussing climate change. At least for reasoned debate. You are either for the ban, or you are an enemy of Gaia. No matter whether it, other in the most simplistic, absolutist terms, might or might not be effective on a few key environmental levels, at least without some other more pressing and vital areas (such as sorting out our woeful waste collection and disposal systems) being addressed first.

Some noisy people have spoken, the media mob has seen a soft target, decided, and it's all over bar the P45s... and possible worse planetary enviROI from the as yet not very clearly explained alternatives (Paper? Much worse for carbon. Biodegradables/compostables? Not really ready to be dealt with properly as yet. Bags for life? Well, yes, but these do seem to be getting rushed out a bit).

No issue that these things are not optimal on about any level, but I'd love such as the Daily Mail to please explain how 'M&S banishing the FREE bag' (today's headline) stops 5p plastic bags getting into the waste stream and choking a turtle. Or at least becoming part of a toxic soup solution. It's mankind's consumerism, and the fact there are an awful lot of us (and growing) consuming ever more, that is pumping ever more crud into the air, land and sea, mostly thoughtlessly or carelessly, that is doing for these precious icons of nature.

And it is driven by a much broader set of entities all complicit in this, including those placing the ads such as those on p24 of the Mail, for M&S, suggesting we dash out and buy Mum a nice bunch of posies (from where?) and chocolates (wrapped in what?). Ditto Tesco on P30. Plus booze. Pampers at Sainsbury’s p18, if you fancy the next cause, guys. I personally support Green Nappies, but not sure what their ad budget is.

But I guess fewer bags might help... maybe along with those in papers that hold the inserts and FREE CDs, etc. And I do notice that on top of the efforts of the Indy and Guardian, the Telegraph today has a FREE 'eco-friendly bag' for each reader... which you need to send off for. Oh, just noticed; the Daily Mail too. What are they giving away next week to persuade us to buy their papers that gets posted back? The container ships (shipping is an issue, too, I imagine, for anything in the sea) from the East must be bulging! Bless.

And in the spirit of jumping bandwagons, as I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show today, there was the delicious irony of one caller in favour of an immediate Planet Ban-it (all anti's selected by being rabid 'who cares about nature' nutters), who had just 'flown in' from her dive business on the Red Sea... and these things were spoiling her UK clients' weekend getaways. Bless. Hope they cycle there and don't use sunscreen (apparently it kills coral).

Yes, things that are harmful to the environment do need to be identified and phased out where alternatives can be found (and maybe even if they cannot). But when the barely informed (I'm still on a steep learning curve ) mob rules, careful what you wish for. Who knows what... or who... may be next in line?

Mail - Marks & Spencer joins The Mail's campaign to Banish the Bags by charging for them