Sadly not in the more common sense of the word, but rather something I feel needs sharing and passed around.
It's about a piece from the BBC site which I noticed and noted. But as I have decided to refrain from most, if not all 'tis/t'isnt (PMWN)CC/AGW arguments for some time I didn't pop up here.
At the time I remember thinking 'O....k, that's a new twist. How long before we get the usual suspects twatting about arguing over this one based on the misuse of the word 'warming' when the climate is behaving damn oddly... both up and down?'.
But at least it was a factual piece, and part of the story. Only, it seems it wasn't telling quite the story some obviously thought it should. And so it seems it was changed.
I am not sure that in so doing, they have helped the cause a lot. And in an era when all these funky archive sites exist, and have legions ready, willing, able and talented enough to trawl them, it makes one wonder just why the BBC thinks it is any different to 'Tricky Dicky' Nixon, and won't get caught.
Here's a wild notion. Tell the truth. Be objective... and let the public think for themselves in trying to decide. That way trust is mainati... oh, heck, who am I kidding? I wouldn't accept a darn word they come out with, at least on anything that involves competing agendas (which is pretty much everything, from CBeebies history lessons to Newsnight twofers'.
Just a shame I am looking at the hiked bill I have to pay to be fed it.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
MUFTA - Flaming
It's a new acronym: MUFTA (Metaphor (Unfortunate) For The Age)
And I am not starting off with an enviro one, but just feel like sharing.
I was just watching the news and thought what I saw applicable to kick off.
A minor ex-TV kids' show 'celebrity' gets top billing on Sunday TV through being targeted by a human rights protester whilst participating in a PR stunt first dreamt up by Josef Goebbels, staged by a totalitarian regime feted by a theoretically ethically-driven democratic host country with stuff to sell and its eye on the future.
Welcome to the world in 2008. Now what was/is the Olympics about again?
Addendum - Quote of the day (referring to the, um, minders/bouncers):
'What has Great Britain become when we let foreign government heavies roam our streets beating people up? Do we not have enough of our own home grown thugs in uniform to do that?'
From what I saw I think they were both well represented... and already competing. Faster! Higher! Stronger!
BBC - Newsnight
Gaurdian - This sporting fiasco
And I am not starting off with an enviro one, but just feel like sharing.
I was just watching the news and thought what I saw applicable to kick off.
A minor ex-TV kids' show 'celebrity' gets top billing on Sunday TV through being targeted by a human rights protester whilst participating in a PR stunt first dreamt up by Josef Goebbels, staged by a totalitarian regime feted by a theoretically ethically-driven democratic host country with stuff to sell and its eye on the future.
Welcome to the world in 2008. Now what was/is the Olympics about again?
Addendum - Quote of the day (referring to the, um, minders/bouncers):
'What has Great Britain become when we let foreign government heavies roam our streets beating people up? Do we not have enough of our own home grown thugs in uniform to do that?'
From what I saw I think they were both well represented... and already competing. Faster! Higher! Stronger!
BBC - Newsnight
Gaurdian - This sporting fiasco
Peas in odd pods
An oddity, which I merely share because it highlights the slight disconnect between the various protagonists in the recycling systems: consumer, manufacturer/retailer & authorities.I repeat I don't mean to pick on Morissons; they just happen to be where I shop. Also they are at least trying.
But this one has me flummoxed. Two packs of frozen veg in two plastic, branded packs. Yet one is recyclable, and one is not. Why on earth would that be the case?
Sorry, this is just soooo cool
Nothing to do with the environment, but I just had to share this: 'Jules Verne' pictured over UK
It's not for the story as much as the image at the bottom, where the satellite is tracked real time (look how fast!) over the globe. Awesome.
I'll add the site to the IT Tools page.
It's not for the story as much as the image at the bottom, where the satellite is tracked real time (look how fast!) over the globe. Awesome.
I'll add the site to the IT Tools page.
Government & Innovation
I still am unsure they should go together in the same, well, anything, really.
Telegraph - Towards innovation or inertia?
ps: After too many years in the ad game, often working with public sector sloganeering, I have to say that anything that starts with 'Towards...' is shorthand for '...with no intention of actually ever going there, but simply giving the appearance of intending to'.
It's just a pity it seems to cost (us) so darn much to have them trot out this nonsense so often.
Telegraph - Towards innovation or inertia?
ps: After too many years in the ad game, often working with public sector sloganeering, I have to say that anything that starts with 'Towards...' is shorthand for '...with no intention of actually ever going there, but simply giving the appearance of intending to'.
It's just a pity it seems to cost (us) so darn much to have them trot out this nonsense so often.
I have a simple question: why?
Labour 'killing Britain's renewables industry'
It really seems to defy logic, if nothing else.
And I don't mean the enviROI aspects, I mean what really matters: political, PR, green-spin, etc.
Why are the government in power, seemingly so keen to look green ( at least), being so utterly vague on their support for the hoem alt-eng industry?
At the very least, they have presided over the encouragement of a nascent industry that now, through a bunch of goal-post changes, looks in real danger of collapsing, taking a bunch of decent folk trying to deliver some real alternative options with it.
And with hardly any sensible commentary from anywhere on the reasons, and certainly near zero from the horse's mouth. Bizarre.
It really seems to defy logic, if nothing else.
And I don't mean the enviROI aspects, I mean what really matters: political, PR, green-spin, etc.
Why are the government in power, seemingly so keen to look green ( at least), being so utterly vague on their support for the hoem alt-eng industry?
At the very least, they have presided over the encouragement of a nascent industry that now, through a bunch of goal-post changes, looks in real danger of collapsing, taking a bunch of decent folk trying to deliver some real alternative options with it.
And with hardly any sensible commentary from anywhere on the reasons, and certainly near zero from the horse's mouth. Bizarre.
Gold in green guilt
I am doing something wrong. I am not charging enough. Well, anything would be a start.
It started so well. It's not often that something whacks you right between the eyes, and this really spoke to me, at least initially:
Green sweep
Oliver Bennett is a devoted recycler with a problem - a surfeit of plastic bags, bottles, cans and 'spare' kettles cluttering up his life. Until he calls in an expert ...
'A surfeit' hardly starts to describe the store of bit 'n bobs the Junkk.com warehouse (ie: our loft, basement, outbuildings... I keep making 'em to cope, and they are not pretty being mainly out of reused materials), so this seemed like a godsend.
Trouble is, turns out the piece doesn't really answer my problem... or the one posed above.
And the solutions all seem a bit trendy... and expensive. In fact buying even more things seems high on the list.
A few useful websites, but I think all are on Junkk.com or this blog already. And none, as far as I can see, help you deal with a surfeit of plastic bags, bottles, cans.. etc. The kettle maybe, but only if it works. I have 4 that don't.
So I head for clutterclinic.co.uk. More of the same really. Plus book, plus consultancy fees.
I think I'll stick with Junkk.com, but to help you find uses if you can't bear to throw things out, it looks like my mission to help this 'physician heal thyself' needs to keep searching for solutions. One thing I will concede, from personal experience, are the dangers of letting too much tat build up, and get on top of you.
But not at £60 an hour on top. That would just add to the stress.
It started so well. It's not often that something whacks you right between the eyes, and this really spoke to me, at least initially:
Green sweep
Oliver Bennett is a devoted recycler with a problem - a surfeit of plastic bags, bottles, cans and 'spare' kettles cluttering up his life. Until he calls in an expert ...
'A surfeit' hardly starts to describe the store of bit 'n bobs the Junkk.com warehouse (ie: our loft, basement, outbuildings... I keep making 'em to cope, and they are not pretty being mainly out of reused materials), so this seemed like a godsend.
Trouble is, turns out the piece doesn't really answer my problem... or the one posed above.
And the solutions all seem a bit trendy... and expensive. In fact buying even more things seems high on the list.
A few useful websites, but I think all are on Junkk.com or this blog already. And none, as far as I can see, help you deal with a surfeit of plastic bags, bottles, cans.. etc. The kettle maybe, but only if it works. I have 4 that don't.
So I head for clutterclinic.co.uk. More of the same really. Plus book, plus consultancy fees.
I think I'll stick with Junkk.com, but to help you find uses if you can't bear to throw things out, it looks like my mission to help this 'physician heal thyself' needs to keep searching for solutions. One thing I will concede, from personal experience, are the dangers of letting too much tat build up, and get on top of you.
But not at £60 an hour on top. That would just add to the stress.
Inside the green mind
A piece in the Guardian (where else?).
It's costly having a carbon conscience
And if one of their own can't seem to sort it sensibly, then I despair the rest of us (with a lot less money, connections, etc) doing so.
It's costly having a carbon conscience
And if one of their own can't seem to sort it sensibly, then I despair the rest of us (with a lot less money, connections, etc) doing so.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
IDEA - Solar & Reuse... what a combo!
I was having a surf around the BBC site to try and find out more on their notions on the efficacy of solar, when I happened upon this:
** Set designer creates solar home **
An inventor in Downpatrick has come up with an efficient way of using the sun to heat his water.
What's not to like? Especially as it seems to work pretty well. What I really liked was the reuse of the radiator and double glazing panel; two items in my 'what the heck, they may yet find a use' pile at the end of the garden. Ok, it's rubbish dump.
Actually, if this has worked as well as the piece indicates, I have a few notions of my own that would possible improve the efficiencies of this set up. There are actually scores on the web, from all over the globe, some a lot more sophisticated, but every bit as easy to make, and from spare 'junk', so maybe this can become a mission.
To the shed!!!!
** Set designer creates solar home **
An inventor in Downpatrick has come up with an efficient way of using the sun to heat his water.
What's not to like? Especially as it seems to work pretty well. What I really liked was the reuse of the radiator and double glazing panel; two items in my 'what the heck, they may yet find a use' pile at the end of the garden. Ok, it's rubbish dump.
Actually, if this has worked as well as the piece indicates, I have a few notions of my own that would possible improve the efficiencies of this set up. There are actually scores on the web, from all over the globe, some a lot more sophisticated, but every bit as easy to make, and from spare 'junk', so maybe this can become a mission.
To the shed!!!!
PROF's POSER - Solar, so long...?
Just watched a series of BBC Brekky slots on solar.
Here's a pretty bald statement: 'It's not going to save your bank balance so you'll just be doing it to save the planet'. That'll have them rushing to sign up at B&Q, for sure.
In fact, in a later piece with two commentators, a chap from the Green Alliance (Pro) and a Prof. James Woudhuysen (less so) the knives were pretty much out for any financial sense involved in advocating the things... at least as good ROIs. The GA guy at least was flying the flag for 'better than nothing', at least in an enviro sense.
So in mitigation the talk turned to subsidies.
It was a pity not to have a government spokesperson present (who are scarcer than hen's teeth on anything these days, as it is all pretty much falling down around them and the bunker boys seem to have decided that absence makes the voter grow forgetful) to actually discuss why the support to help such microgeneration is so woeful.
I had to disagree with the good Prof. on one point, where he said that what we do at home doesn't matter at it all takes place at the power stations. True, but if we are not drawing from the power stations then we are surely acting in some mitigation on an individual level where the big boys seem to be failing at every turn on the big stuff?
But there is still one area that still troubles me. And I can't yet get a handle on it from guys paid, a lot, to deal in this area of expertise.
That is the enviROI. What if the planet doesn't get saved either? I don't know, but before committing to what seems a poor financial choice for sure, I'd certainly like to be more certain it is helping the kids' futures if I choose to take the hit for other reasons.
The point was made that these things currently only pay back over a few decades... but that is also their lifespan. What are the consequences in pure eco terms of their being made, shipped, installed, operated, maintained and then being disposed of, when weighed against the obvious benefits of their producing 'free', clean, solar energy through their lifespans?
Is solar heating sensible on any measure in the UK?
ADDENDUM:
Following Dave's suggestion of where I should go in the comments section, OK, I should clarify, and hence have added the key word heating in the last sentence above.
Because here I am referring to the major rooftop installations that are touted, and were featured in the slot, to heat your water and/or home.
My Solarventi dehumidification system does a pretty good job and today, despite it being chilly, is whirring away in the sun, at least for the last few hours, and with luck, a few hours more. I recall we sat down and figured out beforehand the pros and cons based on the purchase costs and operational logistics in comparison, in this case, to an electric dehumidifier running essentially 24/7, 365/365.
I believe we assessed a payback period of around 3 years, which is way within the lifespan of the unit, and therefore a worthy investment simply on cost grounds. I actually think we may need to extend the time period to account for our rather dire national delivery of sun, and the simple problems of getting it on panel when it shines around trees and neighbours' houses (especially when the angle is lower in the winter months). But even so I consider it well worth it. In addition, thanks to the relative lack of moving parts (though many other solar installations are relatively free as well) the maintenance is essentially zero and the lifespan hence very long.
Hence I am pretty confident that both the ROI and enviROI are in the + column.
But this is my point. Especially with stonking great outlays required on the major efforts, the lack of government support and very vague guidance, householders need to get to these figures quickly, easily and with confidence that they are doing right, if not by their pockets but also by the future, too. Do these exist, and if so where?
If our national broadcaster, who is by no means shy when it comes to green advocacy and often none too challenging to all the considerations pro and con, can pretty much damn 'solar' in all its forms in such a piece with the faint praise of 'only being good for the planet', and tar all beneficial aspects with the near certainty of being a financial negative (probably inaccurately, even for some solar rooftop systems - the Germans seem to be doing OK), it seems clear to me that where these things are worthwhile we need clear means to find out and reply upon.
Hence as this is a Prof's Poser I'd welcome information that can be shared to counter this view.
Here's a pretty bald statement: 'It's not going to save your bank balance so you'll just be doing it to save the planet'. That'll have them rushing to sign up at B&Q, for sure.
In fact, in a later piece with two commentators, a chap from the Green Alliance (Pro) and a Prof. James Woudhuysen (less so) the knives were pretty much out for any financial sense involved in advocating the things... at least as good ROIs. The GA guy at least was flying the flag for 'better than nothing', at least in an enviro sense.
So in mitigation the talk turned to subsidies.
It was a pity not to have a government spokesperson present (who are scarcer than hen's teeth on anything these days, as it is all pretty much falling down around them and the bunker boys seem to have decided that absence makes the voter grow forgetful) to actually discuss why the support to help such microgeneration is so woeful.
I had to disagree with the good Prof. on one point, where he said that what we do at home doesn't matter at it all takes place at the power stations. True, but if we are not drawing from the power stations then we are surely acting in some mitigation on an individual level where the big boys seem to be failing at every turn on the big stuff?
But there is still one area that still troubles me. And I can't yet get a handle on it from guys paid, a lot, to deal in this area of expertise.
That is the enviROI. What if the planet doesn't get saved either? I don't know, but before committing to what seems a poor financial choice for sure, I'd certainly like to be more certain it is helping the kids' futures if I choose to take the hit for other reasons.
The point was made that these things currently only pay back over a few decades... but that is also their lifespan. What are the consequences in pure eco terms of their being made, shipped, installed, operated, maintained and then being disposed of, when weighed against the obvious benefits of their producing 'free', clean, solar energy through their lifespans?
Is solar heating sensible on any measure in the UK?
ADDENDUM:
Following Dave's suggestion of where I should go in the comments section, OK, I should clarify, and hence have added the key word heating in the last sentence above.
Because here I am referring to the major rooftop installations that are touted, and were featured in the slot, to heat your water and/or home.
My Solarventi dehumidification system does a pretty good job and today, despite it being chilly, is whirring away in the sun, at least for the last few hours, and with luck, a few hours more. I recall we sat down and figured out beforehand the pros and cons based on the purchase costs and operational logistics in comparison, in this case, to an electric dehumidifier running essentially 24/7, 365/365.
I believe we assessed a payback period of around 3 years, which is way within the lifespan of the unit, and therefore a worthy investment simply on cost grounds. I actually think we may need to extend the time period to account for our rather dire national delivery of sun, and the simple problems of getting it on panel when it shines around trees and neighbours' houses (especially when the angle is lower in the winter months). But even so I consider it well worth it. In addition, thanks to the relative lack of moving parts (though many other solar installations are relatively free as well) the maintenance is essentially zero and the lifespan hence very long.
Hence I am pretty confident that both the ROI and enviROI are in the + column.
But this is my point. Especially with stonking great outlays required on the major efforts, the lack of government support and very vague guidance, householders need to get to these figures quickly, easily and with confidence that they are doing right, if not by their pockets but also by the future, too. Do these exist, and if so where?
If our national broadcaster, who is by no means shy when it comes to green advocacy and often none too challenging to all the considerations pro and con, can pretty much damn 'solar' in all its forms in such a piece with the faint praise of 'only being good for the planet', and tar all beneficial aspects with the near certainty of being a financial negative (probably inaccurately, even for some solar rooftop systems - the Germans seem to be doing OK), it seems clear to me that where these things are worthwhile we need clear means to find out and reply upon.
Hence as this is a Prof's Poser I'd welcome information that can be shared to counter this view.
Friday, April 04, 2008
The end of the cheap takeaway?
Think it will never happen? Think again, as it looks more than likely given that the cost of rice, the staple diet of some 3 billion inhabitants of our little lump of planetary rock, has jumped from $580 per ton to $760 per ton in a matter of a few weeks. A ~30% increase in price simply cannot be absorbed by most outlets, and on top of ever increasing energy bills, huge rises in transportation costs, we should all be prepared to spend a fair bit more than we have been used to on our Saturday night 'special fried rice' and curry sauce.
But the full story, and its potential impact worldwide, from the Toronto Star, seems to have escaped most of the world's meejah. (Well, ours are far more heated up about plastic bag bans, council taxes, the credit crunch, MP's expenses, some head honcho from F1 who has supposedly been enjoying himself a little too much, and what's happening in Eastenders!)
For poverty stricken people in parts of Asia (a large proportion of that 3 billion souls), where 50% to 70% of their tiny subsistence income goes on food, the situation looks dire. And given that demand is ever increasing, with transport and energy costs doing the same, and with an extra 70 million mouths to feed on our planet each year (now that's what I call a damned scary fact!), the long term outlook appears grim.
And wheat and corn prices are still rising too. Maybe I should bring my forecast of the £5 loaf by 2015 forward a few years?
But the full story, and its potential impact worldwide, from the Toronto Star, seems to have escaped most of the world's meejah. (Well, ours are far more heated up about plastic bag bans, council taxes, the credit crunch, MP's expenses, some head honcho from F1 who has supposedly been enjoying himself a little too much, and what's happening in Eastenders!)
For poverty stricken people in parts of Asia (a large proportion of that 3 billion souls), where 50% to 70% of their tiny subsistence income goes on food, the situation looks dire. And given that demand is ever increasing, with transport and energy costs doing the same, and with an extra 70 million mouths to feed on our planet each year (now that's what I call a damned scary fact!), the long term outlook appears grim.
And wheat and corn prices are still rising too. Maybe I should bring my forecast of the £5 loaf by 2015 forward a few years?
Category - GLOBAL CLIMATE DISCUSSIONS
Yes, another category. I think it is time to bring all the various international attempts at 'doing' 'something' under one umbrella. Kyoto, Bali, etc.
I just hope I don't depress myself. The chronological list as it evolves will be interesting I guess.
Guardian - The road from Kyoto - Or... no way to run a planet (other than down)
I just hope I don't depress myself. The chronological list as it evolves will be interesting I guess.
Guardian - The road from Kyoto - Or... no way to run a planet (other than down)
CATEGORY - CSS (Carbon Capture & Sequestration)
This has cropped up enough now to warrant its own category. I am sure there will be more to come.
Guardian - Carbon ambivalent - Some facts of note. And the main piece rather highlights a major problem in that 'green' groups are arguing, which doesn't play well with public, put plays very well into the hands of those of a more statist mindset. The thread comments also pretty soon dissolve into 'tis/'tisn't CC arguments, though some 'optimists' have noticed that it's not being called 'global warming' any more. I wish I got paid more for my consults. With a cold snap this weekend advised, it would not have been a great way to phrase our funky weather patterns.
Guardian - Carbon ambivalent - Some facts of note. And the main piece rather highlights a major problem in that 'green' groups are arguing, which doesn't play well with public, put plays very well into the hands of those of a more statist mindset. The thread comments also pretty soon dissolve into 'tis/'tisn't CC arguments, though some 'optimists' have noticed that it's not being called 'global warming' any more. I wish I got paid more for my consults. With a cold snap this weekend advised, it would not have been a great way to phrase our funky weather patterns.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Solar activity not responsible for warming
That's the conclusion of research from Lancaster University reported by the Beeb today.
Now this was a key piece of evidence (based on Svensmark's theory) used in the Great Global Warming Swindle indicating that the warming of the earth was not caused by human activity.
Seems now to be pretty much debunked as a factor as to why the planet is warming. So we probably really do need to carry on trying to reduce carbon emissions, otherwise we could start to see other unwanted visitors arriving in the UK.
Maybe soon we will need to teleport to a new planet?
Now this was a key piece of evidence (based on Svensmark's theory) used in the Great Global Warming Swindle indicating that the warming of the earth was not caused by human activity.
Seems now to be pretty much debunked as a factor as to why the planet is warming. So we probably really do need to carry on trying to reduce carbon emissions, otherwise we could start to see other unwanted visitors arriving in the UK.
Maybe soon we will need to teleport to a new planet?
BAA, humbug!
Golly, I am having to tread the April Fool plank carefully today. They're everywhere!
But sorry, no, this is not another, late dig at the T5 debacle.
It's about your mates and mine: For we like sheep*
I actually posed the question a few days ago to the BBC:**
Kevin Spacey opines that the BBC is not a commercial organisation and seems to be a tad selective with who or what it 'supports' with its 'advertising'. Bless.
Tricky one I know, especially with the arts. When does getting informed turn into undue promotion?
However, having just watched some fluff slot on dating... again... might I ask if the BBC retains a commercial interest in the company of the ex-BBC employee wheeled out every week to 'comment', but also promote his dating website?
And I got an answer! You won't believe it. But I can't print it in public so please email info [at-darnspammers] junkk.com to find out what.
*I just realised how that reads. Maybe it's for the Welsh/NZ audiences.
**By the by, check out the HYS postings and see how many in agreement with KS there are... and where the one putting the BBC's POV across that was highlighted came from. Just saying's all..
Addendum - Newsnight
'Yesterday it was Kevin Spacey... today it's Ben Elton's turn to attack the BBC.'
Of course the biggest joke is the system that decides which comments to 502 er... moderate out.
What's with the martyr attempt?
The BBC is a multi-billion organisation of tens of thousands. Through personal experience I think that a lot it produces is excellent entertainment, and are there are many dedicated to, for instance, objective, informative journalism.
However some, mainly at the top, are not.
Yet when a critique, excuse me, attack, of certain aspects comes in, from any quarter, the corporate knee jerks are to close ranks and try and turn it into a polarised issue that embraces all.
It is a technique that would do your good mate Dubya proud.. 'if you are not with me, you must be against us'.
It's hard enough not to think of BBC as a single, collective group think entity at the best of times, but when those who write the editorial cannot separate out individuals and their actions from the consequences how are the rest of us meant to?
But sorry, no, this is not another, late dig at the T5 debacle.
It's about your mates and mine: For we like sheep*
I actually posed the question a few days ago to the BBC:**
Kevin Spacey opines that the BBC is not a commercial organisation and seems to be a tad selective with who or what it 'supports' with its 'advertising'. Bless.
Tricky one I know, especially with the arts. When does getting informed turn into undue promotion?
However, having just watched some fluff slot on dating... again... might I ask if the BBC retains a commercial interest in the company of the ex-BBC employee wheeled out every week to 'comment', but also promote his dating website?
And I got an answer! You won't believe it. But I can't print it in public so please email info [at-darnspammers] junkk.com to find out what.
*I just realised how that reads. Maybe it's for the Welsh/NZ audiences.
**By the by, check out the HYS postings and see how many in agreement with KS there are... and where the one putting the BBC's POV across that was highlighted came from. Just saying's all..
Addendum - Newsnight
'Yesterday it was Kevin Spacey... today it's Ben Elton's turn to attack the BBC.'
Of course the biggest joke is the system that decides which comments to 502 er... moderate out.
What's with the martyr attempt?
The BBC is a multi-billion organisation of tens of thousands. Through personal experience I think that a lot it produces is excellent entertainment, and are there are many dedicated to, for instance, objective, informative journalism.
However some, mainly at the top, are not.
Yet when a critique, excuse me, attack, of certain aspects comes in, from any quarter, the corporate knee jerks are to close ranks and try and turn it into a polarised issue that embraces all.
It is a technique that would do your good mate Dubya proud.. 'if you are not with me, you must be against us'.
It's hard enough not to think of BBC as a single, collective group think entity at the best of times, but when those who write the editorial cannot separate out individuals and their actions from the consequences how are the rest of us meant to?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
in case you missed it
April Fools penguin joke
Must be down to the unique way the BBC is funded.
I thought it was superb.
However, I am amazed at the rather odd relationships that exist with my licence-fee funded national broadcaster these days. This required an ad agency to create and a production company to execute and digital agencies to 'seed'? Was it pro bono? Or is there another funding/revenue relationship at work here?
Anyway, I was totally fooled. I really thought our Tel was flown up to the icy wastes with a full crew, and all ready to get my dander up about the carbon consequences.
So now if they can do this here, can we expect the same every time they feel the need to have a reporter with icicle boogers in a branded puffer standing on something white to tell us something beastly is happening to the icy wastes... because of folk flying all the time to exotic locations?
Must be down to the unique way the BBC is funded.
I thought it was superb.
However, I am amazed at the rather odd relationships that exist with my licence-fee funded national broadcaster these days. This required an ad agency to create and a production company to execute and digital agencies to 'seed'? Was it pro bono? Or is there another funding/revenue relationship at work here?
Anyway, I was totally fooled. I really thought our Tel was flown up to the icy wastes with a full crew, and all ready to get my dander up about the carbon consequences.
So now if they can do this here, can we expect the same every time they feel the need to have a reporter with icicle boogers in a branded puffer standing on something white to tell us something beastly is happening to the icy wastes... because of folk flying all the time to exotic locations?
Beautiful Creatures
I tend to steer clear of overt ecological stuff as it really doesn't fall under the Junkk.com remit, but here's a link from a film director chum of mine's promo of a feature with a famous Chinese actress.
Zhang Ziyi 'A Conservation Story'
He assures me that this lady is very sincere in her advocacy (and not likely to be off by Lear next week to a fur Expo), so the key is how this is impacting on local audience... not usually noted for being too worried about nature when 'to be rich is glorious' kinda comes first.
I guess celeb endorsement can be a good thing, but needs managing very carefully.
I promised I'd pop it up.. and so here you are!
Zhang Ziyi 'A Conservation Story'
He assures me that this lady is very sincere in her advocacy (and not likely to be off by Lear next week to a fur Expo), so the key is how this is impacting on local audience... not usually noted for being too worried about nature when 'to be rich is glorious' kinda comes first.
I guess celeb endorsement can be a good thing, but needs managing very carefully.
I promised I'd pop it up.. and so here you are!
It's good to share
Politicians' lack of commercial experience exposed by survey
They'd be the ones telling those of us mostly concerned with keeping the country going through commerce how to run things, right?
Mind you, we only have ourselves to blame: we're voting them in (well, 25% of 40% or whatever the 'mandate of the people' our stuffed electoral system manages).
They'd be the ones telling those of us mostly concerned with keeping the country going through commerce how to run things, right?
Mind you, we only have ourselves to blame: we're voting them in (well, 25% of 40% or whatever the 'mandate of the people' our stuffed electoral system manages).
More DEFRA initiatives
are announced on the DEFRA website today.
There is the new ActOnCo2 Advice Line which purports to provide "free, tailored, impartial advice from the Energy Saving Trust on how to reduce your carbon footprint." (Hey, stop laughing, I didn't write it!) The EST gets "more than £100 million over the next three years to deliver a broader programme for green homes."
Then there's the Green Neighbourhood Initiative which will give "a green makeover to up to 100 neighbourhoods in England with an aim to reduce their carbon footprints by more than 60 per cent." This one is also delivered by the Energy Savings Trust and is "backed by potentially more than £10 million over the next three years from the Government’s domestic Environmental Transformation Fund."
And of course the CERT scheme comes into effect today which "doubles previous obligations by energy companies to help people make their homes more energy efficient and reduce household emissions. The total investment is estimated at around £1 billion a year for three years."
Anyone else spot the rather strange disparity? The Gov spends 'potentially' £110 Million over the next three years, but the energy company's are 'obliged' to spend an estimated £3 Billion over the same period.
And the difference? Well, CERT will almost definitely achieve something, whilst the EST's new doodads are yet more 'advice lines' and 'initiatives', and we all know what happens with 'initiatives' don't we?
Addendum (Junkk Male): Green drive 'neglects old homes'
There was also an interesting set of questions raised in a post on a safe2say 'government pessimistic' site that was rather spoiled by diving off into some very un-PC territory ranting. I feature a sample of the key points:
'Benn prattles on about "zero carbon homes" and other fantasies like THREE MILLION new homes etc! Hot lines and targets and grand plans and all of this tripe and hot air left unchallenged! THREE MILLION NEW HOMES????
Just where are these fantasy houses going to be built? Just who is going to pay for these homes? How many are council houses? With waiting lists for council homes at record levels and mass third world immigration at record levels just how will services be created to service all these new homes? How many more hospital/school places are needed?
NuLiebour have been allowed to get away with blatant lies about how many houses they are going to build for years now!
I do feel the British public are getting weary of spin without hint of substance.
Addendum 2 - Concern over 'zero carbon' homes - It just gets better, or worse, depending on your view. Well worth a read (net pie chart on consumption). I am intrigued as to how a target can be met when the definition of the measure is still in doubt. It is also depressing how few deem any of these measures as very useful in comparison to a new kitchen, especially when they mostly will save money... to afford the new kitchen. That said, there is a real fear that green means expensive, and that needs addressing. A good start would be by those in power not screwing things so that's exactly what it does mean!
There is the new ActOnCo2 Advice Line which purports to provide "free, tailored, impartial advice from the Energy Saving Trust on how to reduce your carbon footprint." (Hey, stop laughing, I didn't write it!) The EST gets "more than £100 million over the next three years to deliver a broader programme for green homes."
Then there's the Green Neighbourhood Initiative which will give "a green makeover to up to 100 neighbourhoods in England with an aim to reduce their carbon footprints by more than 60 per cent." This one is also delivered by the Energy Savings Trust and is "backed by potentially more than £10 million over the next three years from the Government’s domestic Environmental Transformation Fund."
And of course the CERT scheme comes into effect today which "doubles previous obligations by energy companies to help people make their homes more energy efficient and reduce household emissions. The total investment is estimated at around £1 billion a year for three years."
Anyone else spot the rather strange disparity? The Gov spends 'potentially' £110 Million over the next three years, but the energy company's are 'obliged' to spend an estimated £3 Billion over the same period.
And the difference? Well, CERT will almost definitely achieve something, whilst the EST's new doodads are yet more 'advice lines' and 'initiatives', and we all know what happens with 'initiatives' don't we?
Addendum (Junkk Male): Green drive 'neglects old homes'
There was also an interesting set of questions raised in a post on a safe2say 'government pessimistic' site that was rather spoiled by diving off into some very un-PC territory ranting. I feature a sample of the key points:
'Benn prattles on about "zero carbon homes" and other fantasies like THREE MILLION new homes etc! Hot lines and targets and grand plans and all of this tripe and hot air left unchallenged! THREE MILLION NEW HOMES????
Just where are these fantasy houses going to be built? Just who is going to pay for these homes? How many are council houses? With waiting lists for council homes at record levels and mass third world immigration at record levels just how will services be created to service all these new homes? How many more hospital/school places are needed?
NuLiebour have been allowed to get away with blatant lies about how many houses they are going to build for years now!
I do feel the British public are getting weary of spin without hint of substance.
Addendum 2 - Concern over 'zero carbon' homes - It just gets better, or worse, depending on your view. Well worth a read (net pie chart on consumption). I am intrigued as to how a target can be met when the definition of the measure is still in doubt. It is also depressing how few deem any of these measures as very useful in comparison to a new kitchen, especially when they mostly will save money... to afford the new kitchen. That said, there is a real fear that green means expensive, and that needs addressing. A good start would be by those in power not screwing things so that's exactly what it does mean!
Tipping point?
Just watched a piece on the BBC proposed increases on Landfill Tax being imposed by the guv'mint on Local Authorities... and hence on to us.
I do hope this is an April fool, like the flying penguins (great CGI)**.
Because the other day I opened my council tax demand, and it was not small*. In fact on top of massive increases across the board in other areas, from energy costs, food, BBC licence fee, car tax, etc, I am still trying to cope with a council rise of 4.5%, with police and fire broken out on top at 4.9%.
So when is this new one going to kick in?
And, as noted in the piece, no matter how good at reusing or recycling we might be, it seems it is to be imposed on you no matter what. I thought there were 'per use' proposals in mind, or is that too close to the 'poll tax' nemesis of Mrs. T's era?
I also thought the BBC piece was a bit twee, showing a householder*** strolling out to the garden to deal with the food waste in 3 separate bins. Good on her. But what was not mentioned is the poor sods without such land area options, or the fact that no matter how diligent one is there is going to be a load more that really is very hard to deal with. I have every plastic tray stacked up in the basement in testimony!
________
*Or...apparently not (My house is perhaps the exception?):
PR as received, edited for length (ie: deleting bullsh*t obfuscation from various breeding groups of over-salaried and golden-pensioned senior public parasites, whose empires and personal nests all this is really to fund than any better services):
(CLG) Lowest increase in council tax for 14 years announced
Eleven successive years of above inflation grant increases from Government - and a continued threat of tough action against excessive increases - have led to the lowest increase in council tax for 14 years, and the second lowest ever, Local Government Minister John Healey has announced.
Figures for 2008/09 published today show that the average Band D increase in England will be 4.0%. 265 (58%) authorities will have increases below the 4.1% Retail Price Index, 69 (15%) below the 2.5% Consumer Price Index, 18 (4%) have no increase and three (0.66%) are reducing council tax bills.
Ministers have said consistently that they expect the average council tax rises to be substantially below 5% and the vast majority of local authorities have complied.
"Our commitment to take action combined with our 45% above inflation increase in Government grant for local services up to 2010-11 has helped bring down council tax rises to a fourteen year low, and most councils have contained their costs and budgeted prudently.
The Minister announced that authorities' 2008-09 budget requirements are excessive if they set a budget requirement increase of 5.0% between 2007-08 and 2008-09, and a council tax increase of more than 5.0% in the same period. Authorities must exceed both principles to be designated for action.
All of the authorities designated for action have 21 days in which to make their case. The Government will carefully consider any representations made before taking further decisions.
Information on capping principles, budget requirement and council tax increases for all authorities is available on the Communities and Local Government website.
**Brand Republic - BBC launches iPlayer campaign with flying penguin footage
Penguins
***I owe the lady in question if not an apology but at least a clarification. In her blog - 'The Rubbish Diet' - she makes very clear the case pro and con. And shows herself to be highly thoughtful on all the issues. I still have maintain that I often find the major media less diligent in what they punt out, from slavish agenda propaganda by some government supported entities, to highly superficial scare stories that ignore commercial realities or local conditions such as LAs can face from tabloid rags. The losers, inevitably, are the consumer, and in their confusion or kicking back, the environment.
ADDENDUM - STOP PRESS!!!!
But it's all OK. prices of things such as vacuum cleaners and TVs have gone down. So... let me get this straight... they are really trying to offset trying to put a roof over our heads, eat and stay warm with buying a bunch of tat once a decade?
ADDENDUM 2 -
I am grateful to reader Christine of isitfair (hope I have the correct URL link) for some nice humour, albeit gallows, on the subject!
I do hope this is an April fool, like the flying penguins (great CGI)**.
Because the other day I opened my council tax demand, and it was not small*. In fact on top of massive increases across the board in other areas, from energy costs, food, BBC licence fee, car tax, etc, I am still trying to cope with a council rise of 4.5%, with police and fire broken out on top at 4.9%.
So when is this new one going to kick in?
And, as noted in the piece, no matter how good at reusing or recycling we might be, it seems it is to be imposed on you no matter what. I thought there were 'per use' proposals in mind, or is that too close to the 'poll tax' nemesis of Mrs. T's era?
I also thought the BBC piece was a bit twee, showing a householder*** strolling out to the garden to deal with the food waste in 3 separate bins. Good on her. But what was not mentioned is the poor sods without such land area options, or the fact that no matter how diligent one is there is going to be a load more that really is very hard to deal with. I have every plastic tray stacked up in the basement in testimony!
________
*Or...apparently not (My house is perhaps the exception?):
PR as received, edited for length (ie: deleting bullsh*t obfuscation from various breeding groups of over-salaried and golden-pensioned senior public parasites, whose empires and personal nests all this is really to fund than any better services):
(CLG) Lowest increase in council tax for 14 years announced
Eleven successive years of above inflation grant increases from Government - and a continued threat of tough action against excessive increases - have led to the lowest increase in council tax for 14 years, and the second lowest ever, Local Government Minister John Healey has announced.
Figures for 2008/09 published today show that the average Band D increase in England will be 4.0%. 265 (58%) authorities will have increases below the 4.1% Retail Price Index, 69 (15%) below the 2.5% Consumer Price Index, 18 (4%) have no increase and three (0.66%) are reducing council tax bills.
Ministers have said consistently that they expect the average council tax rises to be substantially below 5% and the vast majority of local authorities have complied.
"Our commitment to take action combined with our 45% above inflation increase in Government grant for local services up to 2010-11 has helped bring down council tax rises to a fourteen year low, and most councils have contained their costs and budgeted prudently.
The Minister announced that authorities' 2008-09 budget requirements are excessive if they set a budget requirement increase of 5.0% between 2007-08 and 2008-09, and a council tax increase of more than 5.0% in the same period. Authorities must exceed both principles to be designated for action.
All of the authorities designated for action have 21 days in which to make their case. The Government will carefully consider any representations made before taking further decisions.
Information on capping principles, budget requirement and council tax increases for all authorities is available on the Communities and Local Government website.
**Brand Republic - BBC launches iPlayer campaign with flying penguin footage
Penguins
***I owe the lady in question if not an apology but at least a clarification. In her blog - 'The Rubbish Diet' - she makes very clear the case pro and con. And shows herself to be highly thoughtful on all the issues. I still have maintain that I often find the major media less diligent in what they punt out, from slavish agenda propaganda by some government supported entities, to highly superficial scare stories that ignore commercial realities or local conditions such as LAs can face from tabloid rags. The losers, inevitably, are the consumer, and in their confusion or kicking back, the environment.
ADDENDUM - STOP PRESS!!!!
But it's all OK. prices of things such as vacuum cleaners and TVs have gone down. So... let me get this straight... they are really trying to offset trying to put a roof over our heads, eat and stay warm with buying a bunch of tat once a decade?
ADDENDUM 2 -
I am grateful to reader Christine of isitfair (hope I have the correct URL link) for some nice humour, albeit gallows, on the subject!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)