In praise of cock-ups

When I lived overseas, mosquitoes were a pain. One trick I was told of to pass an idle evening was to allow one to alight on your arm, and as it started to feed pinch the flesh either side of their probo-syringe-thingy. By all accounts this traps them in full suck mode and they can't stop, eventually blowing themselves up. This got me thinking of recent events closer to home.

The 'bad' guys nearly always seem to enjoy almost flawless precision and the seamless cooperation of mechanical and sometimes human components to their nefarious plans. They are only brought to book in a protracted period subsequent to their actions. So yesterday's attempted, and failed, rehash-up in London allows me not only to share in the collective sigh of relief we all feel, but to rejoice that even the forces of evil have to contend with the odd cock-up.

But here's the thing. These guys are not so well equipped to deal with them. And this should be capitalised upon. I do not wish to in any way ignore the deadly seriousness of all this (by all accounts one 'warrior' decided to show his 'courage' by selecting a mother and child as the best place in the carriage to stage his attack) but there seems to be an opportunity here. And I do not think it is working to have solemn pols trot out the usual crafted responses, and the media creating self-fulfilling headlines by telling us how we all feel, or reading out the most extreme opinions of selected individuals live on TV to boost their ratings.

These bombers are losers. And now they are plonkers. Yesterday they failed. And now they are on the run. It is unlikely this was part of the plan. So we have a unique opportunity to shape how they are viewed as they are pursued and, hopefully, brought to justice. They are not now 'fighting' innocent civilians. They are being hunted down by our professional defence services. Is this how they imagined it? Is this the glory they sought? Will this be the way they get celebrated by their supporters? Best yet, what if there's a bit of dissent in the ranks. A mole perhaps, who isn't so sure what they are doing is not serving anyone other than some bitter and twisted old men who somehow don't seem to feel the need for self-termination applies to them in the same way it does the youngsters they dispatch? Or maybe those merry pranksters at MI5 have been busy crimping their style, along with their fuses? Nothing better to make for a jumpy jihadi than not being awfully sure if you're going to be a damp squib with no more than a Roman Candle fizzing in you rucksack and the only thing you're going to die of is embarrassment.

We are supposed to have a skilled set of spin-meisters out there. I'd like to think they could manage things to take advantage of our national character and work with all involved to ensure that this and any future such events - and their perpetrators - get treated in a manner that starves them of the motivation to try again. Treat their actions seriously, but their intent with the distain it deserves and them as the poor, sad, bad jokes that they are.

Oo-er, responsibility beckons. Commitment looms. I have an audience at last!

I took some persuading by a few folks, but having leapt into blogdom have found it to be quite therapeutic. ‘Cross of Ross’ now has an outlet that is guaranteed to print, daily, without editing and hence leaving my words and thoughts subject to mis-interpretation by being taken out of context. And it also serves, I'm told, to keep the spiders noting Junkk.com is refreshed daily, as we still build up our editorial and info upload systems (more exciting news on that very soon!).

But now the pressure is on. I'm feeling the heat of knowing there is an audience out there, and a critical one (well, two, now) at that, though they have been of the most encouraging, positive variety... so far. But I know where there is an opinion there can be a dissenting one... and rightly so! Our PR crew seem to live in dread that I will end up bringing into my sights some organ of government or business that they are in the process of chatting up on our behalf. But I hope I am managing still to hew close to that fine line that walks between reasonable, fair, reasonably well informed corporate individual 'blogmment'... and a bit of a personal rant. This latter would on occasion be much more satisfying, but not serve Junkk.com’s stated aims of balance and objectivity wherever possible.

Even in my blog I prefer, and hence try (though not always successfully) to cock a querulous metaphorical eyebrow more than overtly state something is outright 'not on'. Rarely can one be so sure of the facts to be that black and white, though I do believe a clearly stated and adequately justified opinion is permitted some latitude in contributing to ongoing debate. If I stray, I'm sure those who care will soon let me know. There are those in my circle who will cheerfully admit to being a counterpoint to most of my views (I have a blog coming on the problems of putting people in all-encompassing boxes, and hence will try to live by my words in not assigning either them or me any narrow categories here) on life, the universe and everything. Yet somehow we work together happily and successfully through mutual respect, understanding and an acceptance that it is possible to get on when you don't always agree, so long as when you don't always agree it’s with grace, style and good humour. Something a few others could try to grasp and live by!

I am also, even at this early stage, feeling the pressure of delivering. It's my blog and I can slide if I want to, but I feel that I pretty much should try and meet my daily weekday dose (with weekends off). So far the writing side is none too onerous, and I do seem to have on file a fair number of 'back-issues', mostly non-topical in a time-critical sense at least (when there something that demands an instant blog it just adds to the reserve). But I already live in dread of 'writers block', and drying up when it comes to either content or style. Or both!

So may I ask a couple of favours. Do feel free to send me anything you think blogworthy… but first please do consider doing your own, as my opinion on something will never be the same as yours. But whatever happens, let your mates know... we need all the traffic through Junkk.com we can get!! Remember, blog it, and they may come!

For whom the wind blows. Or doesn't.

Climate change. That's changing the climate, right? And that's bad... right? Mind you, actually spending a summer holiday in the UK outdoors has been a nice novelty. It was this in mind that I was considering wind power, having just read an article in Newsweek about the decline of Germany's Green Party, where the topic came up. I'm keeping an open mind on the whole thing still (including the demise of the German Green party, the reasons for which were interesting), but there's one aspect that occurred to me that I at least have not read before in the bags of wind debate. No possibility of a ROI without subsidy, covered. Social upheavals, covered. Even the real possibility of additional environmental damage, though this usually refers more to the consequences to the natural infrastructure through construction of the turbines than the odd shredded seagull (that's not a proper scientific name, by the way, though possibly a Cantonese dish).

But what no one seems to have mentioned, perhaps because it is not an issue and you can tell me to shut up if you know better, is the consequences of sucking the power of the wind out of it at a point that has not done so before. Maybe it is infinitesimal, but everything in physics, and nature has lots of physics, has consequences. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and all that stuff. So I just wonder if by sticking these dirty great big windmill farms all around to catch the wind at the edge may not have an effect, and possibly an adverse one, further down the line? Just asking.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, and as all who cock an eyebrow at the promo-guff spouted about 'non-polluting' electric cars (it mostly just happens in another place, at least for now), free energy either.

I'm all for wind power if it doesn't just change one set of climate for another, and the only people who benefit are a bunch of German construction companies with good lobbying skills.

Conflicting Interests

One of the nice things about Junkk.com is that we are not, and will try never to be, beholden to any interest groups and their agendas. There are of course lots of other ones too, like the fact that we really don't care what gets done, so long as it's done well, efficiently, cost-effectively, for the right reasons... and ends up saving the planet.

So it may seem odd that I immediately share here something I have just read that doesn't exactly, per se, shall we say, on balance, serve our main areas of interest, namely re-use, and especially re-use of packaging, followed, quite closely, by related recycling issues.

Because it seems new research has revealed that 70% of us believe that recycling is the most important thing we can do for the environment, while just 5% think taking fewer foreign holidays makes a difference. So people's perceptions about what they can do to help the environment are out of step with their actual environmental impact.

Rationally, I cannot and would not dispute the facts at all. What comes out the back of a 747-load of delegates to a climate change conference in Bali (may as well discuss such things where the climate is nice) kinda puts the consequences of my 5 sorting bins to shame (especially when it appears they don't have a clue what to do with the raw materials when we give it to them - see yesterday's blog).

So... oops! Revise the Junkk.com business model? Nah! I don't think we need to. And for a lot of reasons.

For one, we do and will continue to focus on all such issues, and the minute we see a travel company, aircraft maker or airline doing their bit for green and good we'll report it. Heck, we may even let them broadcast the fact on our pages!

Also, to mangle one of my Mum's OWU's (old wives' utterances), a bigger right doesn't mean you divert from committing to a smaller right. So we'll keep right on doing our little acorn bit, because what doesn't really trash your day makes the planet stronger. And we figure helping you save time, save money and having a bit more fun doing so still ticks all the boxes that really matter.

And finally, there's the small matter of pragmatism vs. idealism. Just check out these spiffy stats that came along with the report:

15% of a household's annual energy consumption results from personal transport, and home heating accounts for 24%. So... "there are many simple things that we can do that would reduce our impact on the environment. For example, driving a mile less a day or turning our home heating down by two degrees, saves the energy of a whole year's worth of packaging."

But here's my personal favourite:

"21% of people acknowledge the value of taking public transport, the same proportion as recognise the value of walking or cycling, rather than driving their own car. This is has risen from 9% and 7%, respectively since 1999

I don't know about you, but when I see phrases like 'recognise the value', I feel a warm fuzzy glow inside, even if it is somewhere closer to the pit of my tummy. Knowing that some campaign has actually 'proved the value' usually means it has only proved the value of spending money in the media to raise awareness. But with no incentive attached it is more likely consumer code for 'fine for other folks, but not guys like me with jobs to go to, or two kids and a ton of shopping to collect'. But I for one shall certainly 'seriously consider' (another research goody to trot out) getting out of my car and walking the last mile of the journey. Not.

Build it and they will come

A fair old while ago, I was invited to be part of a panel discussion about the dispersal of EU media funds to improve the lot of the aspiring creative 'yoof' in our area. There was much talk of roadshows and bursaries and bestowing of equipment hither and thither, and the various officers involved were getting quite excited at the prospect of ticking all sorts of 'training/education/start-up' boxes. On the other side of the coin, more than a few of the guys from the industry side were a little dubious about setting up a bunch of inexperienced new guys to compete unfairly by being able to undercut due to massive IT subsidies.

I chipped in to suggest that perhaps the best way to serve the up and coming talents of the region was to invest the money in creating more work for the existing guys, and market dynamics would inevitably lead to them requiring more staff, thereby drawing the talent pool smoothly from bottom up to meet demand, rather than artificially punting highly-educated, but not necessarily very well (in a practical sense) trained kids into an already highly-competitive, saturated marketplace.

Naturally, I was not invited back. And the funds went into creating vast legions of Mac-savvy would-be designers, sound engineers, etc, who are either now working at Tescos or trying to explain to their hotshop’s new customers (who shifted to them for a few £ difference) why they can't do the changes in time because they hadn't allowed for those in their quote.

Which brings me to what promoted today's blog. Apparently, 190,000 tons of recycler-collected green glass has got nowhere to go, with a surplus of 550,000 anticipated by 2008.

Hence I really, really, REALLY hope that this will be borne in mind before the next round of vastly expensive ads are commissioned to tell us to... recycle. Because if the public finds out they are going to all this effort and it isn't being used productively and in an environmentally-sound manner, there may be a slight slip in trust and, hence, cooperation.

By all means encourage a recycling, but for heaven’s sake make sure you have figured out what to do with it when you get it. Before you set out to fulfil a demand, create one first.

Untruths and Lies

Considering a rather notorious (strictly professional) connection with Ms. Moore, of 'bury bad news in 9/11' fame, it is perhaps an odd coincidence that what struck me as a rather momentous bit news was lurking today in a small backwater of the online news media I was browsing, all of which are swamped still with the bomb plot latest. It was, quite simply, that a senior member of government, Stephen Byers, lied, and had to admit that he had lied. Not forgot (or did not recall). Not bent the facts. Lied. I don't know if it was the skill of the interrogator or the obvious stack of evidence as proof, but he seemed pretty well bound to say it as it was. No Clintonian or Blairite verbal convolutions here. Not even, as I can see, an attempt at raising context or attempting justification. To mix it metaphorically in the farmyard, a porky was uttered, and now it has come home to roost. Thing is, what will be the consequences? I have long instilled in my kids that they should not lie, and rely on those who set examples to live up to that. But with kids I also know that if there are no consequences to being caught out, the whole system breaks down.

Green Goes The Nappies, O!

We have a simple set of beliefs at Junkk.com. Chief amongst these is that people respond best when they WANT to do something rather than being cajoled, shamed or coerced into it. And that includes doing the 'right' thing. Not far behind is that market forces and consumer power are facts of life, so it's best to figure out how to understand and benefit from shaping them. This is seldom served well by the grant mentality, which tends to view the goal as getting, spending and then reapplying for the next grant, rather than creating an independent, viable business model based on customer demand. You survive, and thrive, by making consumers want your product.

So it was a privilege yesterday to find myself presenting some marketing, design and ad concepts to a local organisation called EnviroAbility, who I am hoping represent the new wave of thinking that is to be found in community groups. Their efforts span many relevant and worthwhile areas, from recycling to book swaps to collecting unwanted tools for reuse. We have already worked with them on creating the RE-Box doorstep collection brand, which has proven highly successful.

This time it was looking at better ways to market their Green Nappies service, which is basically an environmentally much more sound way of dealing with our little darlings' 24/7 waste consequences, and that's a fact despite anything that was broadcast in a rather unhelpful report on the matter recently. Plus these products are now not just as good as disposables, but BETTER in almost every way.

What was key is that they were treating this as a true business opportunity, with an analysis of the market, target demographics, etc. And, most importantly, had an appreciation that they were competing with major, established BRANDS here. These are guys blowing millions on making consumers opt for them. So, with huge immodesty, all credit Green Nappies for getting in a pro. With a few decades of fmcg ad experience behind me, I do know a thing or two.

My strategic analysis was made a whole lot easier by a wealth of information and research made freely available by organisations such as WRAP (who had seed-funded this effort, in what I think is a much better way for such money to be invested). And the production burdens were equally eased by a lot of resource material that was on offer.

However what was most interesting to me was how much so many of the suggested creative directions for this material were very much constrained. I don't know by what, or who, but great selling and persuading messages were buried in cold facts and figures of no interest to anyone but the target obessives, as opposed to the actual target markets. Maybe I have answered my own question there.

What’s for sure is that it was liberating to turn this material into a hard-hitting, results-driven, consumer-influencing campaign.

Best of all, with my final presentation words echoing away, it was great to see the smiles on the faces of the collection of high-calibre local business folk who form the EnviroAbility board. They got it. I think, with Junkk.com's help wherever possible, they are going to make it happen. And we're going to see a new way of doing good, AND doing well.

So watch this space. And this URL: www.greennappies.org.uk (direct link above)

Blessed are the righteous... if usually unemployed.

Definitions do matter. Somewhere in my lists of blogs printed or pending (so please accept now my apologies for any repetitions that may occur) is one about how I truly object to is having put 'none of the above' (or its nearest approximation currently, namely not ticking anything I don't fancy) on a polling form recorded and then listed as a 'spoiled vote'.

I get a similar feeling when I see the word 'whistleblower'. While there certainly have been those who have betrayed the trust of their countries or companies for less than noble reasons, the huge majority seem to have been motivated by genuine decency and sense of outrage at a deviation from ethical standards by those above and/or around them, who should simply know better.

Trouble is, despite the courage of their convictions and actions, they are usually hung out to dry. Firstly it's by those in their own organisations who should appreciate that rot, once established, will inevitably spread and corrupt all it touches, bad and good. Then it is by the guardians of society, who these days seem more obsessed with covering their own behinds than looking hard at those of others they have been tasked to monitor. And accepting the now inevitable failure of the system we pay to do so, even those traditional guardians of the public interest, the media, seem content to make a brief fuss and then drop any follow up in pursuit of fresh pickings. And then finally there is us, the public, who may get indignant, tut-tut a bit... but then allow our memories to fade as easily as all the rest.

So let me do my rather pathetic lone bit to keep a small flame burning in support of the EU official driven from her job for exposing widespread fraud at the European Commission's Eurostat data office. So far, no Eurostat official has been punished for the diversion of £3m of taxpayer funds into illegal accounts over three years ago in a scam described as a "vast enterprise of looting" by investigators. All the accused are still working for the EU or have retired with full pensions.

The heroic (that's a better word already) EU accountant who helped uncover the Eurostat abuses, Dorte Schmidt-Brown, has had to flee her home to Denmark after being subjected to a campaign of threats and harassment.

Despite Lord Kinnock, then administration commissioner, saying she had been treated "disgracefully" and sending a personal apology – though this is after him initially dismissing her claims as groundless - the European Court of First Instance refused her claim for redress and ordered her to pay her own costs.

Chris Heaton-Harris, a Tory MEP and leading anti-fraud campaigner, has said: "They're covering it up, hoping we'll all forget about it."

I have not. And every time someone reads this blog, hopefully you will not either. Not just Dorte, but all the others like her, too. Maybe there should be a website devoted to them... and also those whose actions or inactions have managed to get them listed there. Let me know if you fancy getting one going. I am already seeing what can be done with the right message and access to the internet.

Mixed signals.. means bad reception?

Recently I was watching the BBC's special coverage of Africa to coincide with the G8, and my ears pricked up when the topic of mobile phone recycling came up. At Junkk.com we seem to get a press release almost every day about some scheme to give our old ones new homes, all of which we have been happy to put on our pages (though I do question the sheer number of different schemes, whose inevitable separate administration and logistical streams must eat into the total benefits hugely. Maybe it’s time to consider consolidating?).

It was not the most in-depth piece, but quite interesting as it traced a discarded 'old' mobile from the UK to a village in Nigeria. I wish I had a better appreciation of the various factors involved, but I have to say I came away with a certain sense of unease. I'm not against anyone making a profit from waste (I live in hope), but there were an awful lot of people in the 'chain' who looked like they were doing more than well out of some people at the end of the chain who were not. And while the fragrant BBC reporter did her best to delve, a comfortably be-suited spokesperson for this industry seemed to be saying that 'they' should not have to choose between putting food on the table and, to be slightly flip (in the absence of a cable-based terrestrial network, mobiles do at last offer viable communications), downloading the latest crazy frog ringtone. Not exactly what Saint Bob had in mind, I'm sure. Sometimes we all have to make choices, and I'd frankly prefer my aid money went on genuine need-based growth projects, and not some local corporation or street guy rooking his neighbours to make a call instead of eating. Trust is a fragile commodity.

With many trade and child protection (and direct environmental consequences such as managed forests) issues abounding, there is a lot of scrutiny on what comes IN these days, and rightly so. But maybe the time has come to be a bit more concerned about where our re-useable or re-cyclable products are GOING? It's great that we are more and more concerned enough to dispose of things responsibly, and I'd hate to propose anything that puts any obstacles (even if it is a few minutes of extra time) in the way of to doing so. But especially when people's disposal choices are being influenced by charitable aims, I think in making their decision they have a right to know, and should make their choice through having a clear understanding of the path to the beneficiaries. I guess that's a project for someone like us, then, when we can afford the time and money to get all investigative. But in the interim if anyone knows of any comparisons of such schemes, we'd be happy to print it.

I'd suggest the people best placed to do this properly, from information to collection to dissemination, are the major mobile handset and service companies who sell us the things in the first place. Managing this well would be a great CSR opportunity, do good in the right places at fair prices… and cut out the dodgy middlemen. A plan?

Ready, aim... fizzzzzzz...pfft

Now here's the thing. I am not the biggest fan of targets for targets' sake, and Lord knows our little enviro-arena seems to have more than a village funfair. But to help you assess if you are aiming in the right direction, and actually hitting close to the mark, they are kinda useful. So I wasn't overly encouraged to read that the 'G8 [are] to agree [with] the need for climate action but no targets. That smacks a bit of me telling my twins that it's good to go for them to bed early, but I'm off and would they please put the lights out when they eventually decide to go.

I'm getting less and less inclined to read, listen or generally engage in any way with the myriad talking shops that exist to shunt highly paid delegates around the world, whose only function is to have meetings on where their offices will be, how many staff they'll need and how the index-linked, benefits structure is to be guaranteed. Oh, and when the next meeting should convene, 5 star exotic hotel availability permitting. This only creates an empire-building culture and navel gazing to the detirment of actually doing something.

The Spoilers

Again I write before the full story unfolds. But I know what I want to write as it's not the first time, and sadly will not be the last, in this country or any other. The perpetrators of the London bomb blasts are cowards. So if I hear or read one thing about 'tough', 'daring' or 'audacious' in the media or by any apologists I think I'll gag. In a democracy it is easy to make and plant a bomb. All 'coordination' takes is a map, a schedule and an alarm clock. And if you are so sad with your own life you want to end it by taking other, innocent ones with you, it is even easier. One has to presume this was timed to coincide with the G8. Those guys are up there; this happened at the other end of the country. An easy, soft, target.

All these terrorists are simply losers and bullies. They have no honour. They are not fighting FOR anything, and like the bitter and twisted puppetmasters who direct these sad cases, are simply out to destroy everything. Like any parasite. they can cause pain and kill, but they need to know how insignificant they are to the positive body of people on this planet. They only shame themselves further with these petty efforts.

Now is the time to focus on what is good, and in so doing starve these spoilers of the fuel that feeds their wicked flame. I have just read a online newswire posting (URL link by clicking above, or cut & pasting below) by John Mappin of www.unitednationalnewspapers.com, who advocates positive news. He has been quoted as saying: "It is extremely important that the media who report such tragedy do not fall into the trap of forwarding the terror and fear unnecessarily. For in so doing they themselves become merchants of chaos serving those who would have us hate."

Let us hope his call is heeded. But already I question the value of some coverage I am seeing, other than serving the ratings ambitions of the media. If there is nothing more to say, don't say anything. Don't fill space with pointless, silly commentator questions and morbid interviews with 'experts' or 'past victims'. Sick footage does not help my comprehension of what happened. What did was a vox pop with a bleeding girl who ended by saying her wound was insignificant, and she was more concerned for the others. She, fellow noble innocents, and the efforts of the emergency services are what will inspire.

And finally, though the perpetrators cannot be ignored if they are to be caught and brought to justice, let's never forget that the most important people in this tragic event are the victims.

John Mappin's post: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/7/prweb259529.htm

Olympic Ideals

I have written this yesterday (which is as convoluted a shared concept of time travel as I, and possibly you can cope with first thing), at breakfast time, and hence before the announcement of the result of the Olympic host city. I do so blissfully unconcerned by the result (total sporting trophies in the cupboard: one, and that for a beanbag race at age 8. But then, it may even be an Olympic sport by now). No, it's because, having had a BBC outline of the performance of the British bid, I am proud of 'them' (whoever 'they' are).

Also as a non-resident within the GLA that maybe easier for me to say on a ROI basis (and we at Junkk.com to prefer stuff to cost the public little or nothing if possible - I bet Tone will be happy to bask now and leave the tab for his successors to cope with), but I am truly impressed by the creativity shown in the bid. And while I really haven't seen all the videos and stuff to comment that objectively, by creativity I really mean what I heard of the thought processes and cost-effective ideas that have gone into the presentation. Now if/as they.. er,.. have.. blow out (you know what I mean) it will weaken my argument, but as with all things there are many other factors in the mix. However if it's all about promoting sport and inspiring kids for the future, then it's hats off to them whatever happens.

My favourite was the report that while the French filled their VIP front row with a bunch of pols on a jolly, Les Anglais had a bunch of kids in there. Calculated, yes, but sheer genius in making a point, and making it well. Also getting genuine folks to present, rather than sticking on a slick vid. You can only take so much CGI in a day.

And if I may make yet another Junkkocentric point in my blog, I anticipate all future such bids to copy this strategy in pale imitation. Nice to see some UK Go3 & marketing guys being first to be first, rather than queuing up to be second once the focus groups have had their bland way. Now, to make sure in 2012 we still have a green, clean and pleasant land around which to hold this, or any other event, what next would it make sense for business and government to support up front? Answers on an e-card to... info@junkk.com!

.. fun, supplemental

I don't know if it's 'form' to do more than one a day, but I couldn't resist this just in from Reuters in proving my point, entitled "Food axis of evil invites Chirac to dinner":

'Jacques Chirac's mouth must be watering. Finland and Britain, the French president's two gastronomic nightmares, have invited him to dine on their finest food.

Stung by Chirac's reported comments on British and Finnish cuisine, Finnish European lawmaker Alexander Stubb, married to a British woman, has asked him to dinner.

Stubb was thoughtful enough to allow Chirac to show off the glories of the French table if he takes up the offer. "We hope that, as the president of an esteemed wine-producing country, you could provide the wines," he wrote.'

Prig, pompous, humourless... nil point. Humour, balloon, prick... one-nil.

Saving the planet was never going to be easy, but it can still be fun

Last night, purely by coincidence, I chanced upon a TV programme entitled 'Big Ideas That Changed The World'. This episode was introduced as a history of environmentalism by writer Bjorn Lomborg. Now, I hope I have remembered all that I watched correctly, and I stand ready to be corrected on fact. But as a blog is meant as personal opinion, here goes...

Mr. Lomborg's claim to fame was writing a book called the 'Sceptical Environmentalist', which it seems did what it said on the jacket. And hence one could not dispute that what he was outlining should be viewed in context. His basic premise was that the green lobby relied (relies?) on faulty information, and in the show he made a valid point on the pessimism at the heart of environmentalism, and that environmental groups have a vested interest in painting it black, and keeping it there. And I must say I couldn't help but contrast the sincere aims of Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring (which got DDT off the spice rack), or the noble group of Greenpeace protesters who braved an Alaskan nuclear test, with the dogmatic, grant-dependent academics and salaried, head-officed, international conference-attending personnel, stances and actions of the activist corporations (you know, the, er, good kind) that exist today.

Mr. Lomborg did not seem to be a corporate (the, er, bad kind?) apologist. And there were countless interesting facts, theories and examples though, as is always the way, one has to be aware that this was a single, one presumes self-edited viewpoint, with no live debate from alternative views.

But I was taken with points such as Kyoto costing $150 billion a year. I have no problem with that if it is working/works in its aims, but this was contrasted with the benefits of diverting this money to world poverty (so, by no coincidence it's time to focus again on their Bob-nesses, and I deliberately note the spread from Geldof to Mugabe).

What did strike a chord were notions I had not previously heard, and hence considered, before. And these made sense, whilst freely acknowledging that it appealed to me on a rather selfish basis. A lot of global warming is from poorer countries using inefficient carbon fuels because they don't have the technology to do otherwise. Help them raise above this situation, and they can afford to avoid greenhouse gases and the mistakes of industrialising nations in the past. Now that's something I can subscribe to: end-benefit.

And to build on that shameless allusion to Junkk.com's core values, I'd like to end on one last image. There was archive footage of Mr. Lomborg's book signing, when a po-faced activist from central casting (no obvious beard, but there were very possibly sandals below shot) mouthing some 'you dare to disagree with us so we need to make you pay' polemic, smacked a Baked Alaska in the author's face.

You know what I loved? Despite his surprise, Mr. Lomborg seemed to crack a smile almost immediately, and in wiping the goo from his face with his finger even managed an appreciative lip-smacking taste. There is nothing as irresistible as a sense of humour. The way we will eventually win out over global warming is to be professional in what we do, but always chill out as we do it.

The outlook is fine, with the slight possibility of motivation in the unforeseeable future.

I have just had forwarded to me that Geoff Hoon is suggesting compulsory voting, backed... surprise... by fines if the public fails to vote in British General Elections. The Commons leader says a move towards compulsory voting is necessary to reinvigorate UK democracy. The proposals, which would also give voters a "none of the above" choice, follow the 61% general election turnout. Mr Hoon said British people could expect a "modest fine" for failing to vote, although he steered away from saying he wanted the scheme to be completely compulsory.

I rather love the notion of 'reinvigorating democracy' (which, according to my PC's dictionary is 'the right to PARTCIPATE - and this to me does not include any form of coercion in its meaning - in the system of government), is being introduced in almost its first breath as something with a fine attached.

And then there's the fact that it's not necessarily going to be 'completely compulsory'. Is this not like being 'a little bit pregnant'? Surely it either is, or is not compulsory. As with a lot of motoring-related laws these days, there seems to be an attempt at introducing ambiguity in the hope of deriving revenue from the confusion it produces.

Is it just me, or is this the mindset of every official and action of every department these days? Create a half-baked situation backed by fines first, and then figure out how it may actually work whilst generating revenue to cover the necessary ministry of minions to administer it all.

It certainly seems to be the basis of a lot of environmental stuff flying around. But most seem to be lazy or greedy options. I'd much rather people were persuaded to follow mutually beneficial paths by smart people finding ways to encourage them to do so because they want to, based on a clear understanding of the advantages. A very good place to start is in the form of incentives. This is the core basis of the Junkk.com model. Time will tell if it succeeds, but it has to be better than starting with 'or else'.

As an interim measure I'd suggest making 'none of the above' a more respected statement of dissatisfaction, and not a statistic ranked with spoiled votes.

Aggravator

Back from camp. With dignity, and possibly a couple of ribs, sorely compromised. And blogwise, the pressure's on! Not one week and I have faltered. I was going to miss today as well, but fortunately I had one up my sleeve for just such an eventuality...

Now that I have gone to the blog side, I'd like to give a big up to the chap who eventually turned the nagging of others and my consequent dormant thoughts into action. I met Lloyd Davies of Perfect Path at Internet World, where we were exhibiting, and he was speaking, surprisingly enough, about Blogs. I was inspired by his talk, we me t..yadayada.. the rest is history. Time will tell whether this was a good thing. I notice he's the first 'respondee', and I'm already being monitored on an aggregator, whatever that is. I think he said I needed one. My PR also has also sweetly advised she's keeping an eye out. So far, I'm ok, though Lloyd wants me to tilt at many windmills (and there are many that need a good tilting at). But at our stage of development there are those who you need onside more than off. So I'm already walking a fine line between. With almost no power it seems there is still great responsibility. Just ask any guy put in charge of 5 Cub Scouts for the weekend.

Hypocritical Oaths

I note that Chancellor Brown has accused his colleagues in the EU of hypocrisy, based on their postures on African debt vs. their stout defences of EU subsidies. By my understanding a sort of robbing Bob to pay Pierre. So good on Gordo. Not enough politicians vent the odd 'hypocrite' oath, and it is one that deserves to, and hence should be used a lot more often. Just.. a slight note of caution: it can have a nasty habit of making those who live in glass houses wish their boomerang-lobbing technique were a tad better. There are many in the environmental sector who would do well to remember that. Oh, and the government, too.

A shortish blog today, and none over the weekend. With G8 , Live 8 and all sorts of other fun and worthy stuff taking place, I'm decamping with my kids to another: Scout Camp. Not quite sure of the carbon consequences, but we'll certainly be closer to nature. Ging gang gooly, gooly, gooly, ging gang goo... hey, we're holding our own musical G8!

The unreadable in pursuit of the unreachable?

I hope Oscar Wilde will forgive the slight, adjusted plagiarism. And the newspaper in whose online small business mailing I just read that Government has issued a guide for all private companies to explain the benefits of voluntarily reporting their impact on the environment. It was headlined: “Green message 'goes straight to the bottom line'”. I rather fear that it may have been more appropriate to draw the line at, well, that word ‘line’. Because reading on I was not best encouraged. Elliot Morley, Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, is quoted as saying environmental reporting should not be seen as an extra burden for smaller companies, but rather that it made "good business sense", adding, "I can understand why businesses might feel it will add some extra paperwork, but these measures are not onerous." Fortunately for those not inspired to do some extra paperwork, the code is voluntary. As a spokesperson for the Forum for Private Business, which represents small and medium-sized businesses, has suggested (and, one presumes, not supportively, as claimed of Trade Bodies UK-wide for this measure),”Small retailers have enough paperwork to get through without having to read yet another code or guide”.

It seems most businesses will have to register their premises with the Environment Agency and have discussions with landfill contractors before disposing of items. Defra said some businesses would be exempt. So far, so precise.

Now, here's thing. This seemed like a NOBAD (NOT OBVIOUSLY BAD DEVELOPMENT. Future Warning: I like my acronyms). So I read this article, but came away really none the wiser on what I was and was not supposed to do, or could do if I felt so disposed. Like get this guide. So I went to the links on the piece to FPB and Defra. Now if there was anything in there to help I was damned if I could find it. So on balance, the only outcome so far has been nothing (except today's blog). But it’s is obvious that I am a bit more than most interested than most in this whole area! I can only imagine the yawning.. er.. yawn that will have overcome the rest of the business community if they mustered the slightest urge to delve.

Junkk.com fully endorses the notion of any Green message going straight to the bottom line, so long as it is end-benefit, reward based… because in so doing it stands a slim chance of being embraced. I just wonder what exactly this little effort achieved. Meetings were doubtless held. Reports were drafted. Maybe they even got printed. Possibly stored and dispatched if requested. Targets will, for sure, be met. But will there be a real result? So if anyone can locate this report online or as a PDF, let me know the URL and we'll stick it on Junkk.com. But first I'll need to read the thing, to see if I can hopefully find the stuff to introduce it on our pages in terms that might motivate some people. That way they may try and work with it because they can see why it's worth it to them, so they’ll want to. Wish me luck.

FMCG - Fantastic, Major Coverage Give

FMCG, for those who don't know, actually stands for Fast Moving Consumer Goods. Basically the stuff on the supermarket shelves that doesn't hang around there too long for various reasons, ranging from the fact that 'they're just sooo darn good' to a slight expiry-exceedance scenario (beyond use/sell/...or in the case of Innocent, who we at Junkk.com think are fabbo... 'enjoy by' date. Well, I certainly can't fault those nice folks at FMCG magazine, especially Editor Cat Deans, for living up to the F-word. 'Fast', that is. Having met only recently at a show, in their June edition they have given us a nice full page's worth of coverage. So let us hope that those brands who are their audience pick up on the message, and respond by getting their product data (and ideas for 2nd use) on Junkk.com before their competitors do!

--------------------------------
FMCG Magazine Junkk.com

Sledgehammering nuts to meet targets

A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away (well, London) I gained a Civil Engineering degree. Admittedly, it was on the strict understanding I didn't try to build anything, but some stuff from those four years (of a 3-year course.. another story) stuck. And a few bits made an impression. One was the 'unofficial' motto of the industry (possibly the ICE, Institute of Civil Engineers), and that went something like: 'an engineer does for a shilling anything any other dope can do for a pound.' I like that. Honest. No jargon, but still confident enough in one's area of expertise. The corollary of that of course is: throw enough money at anything, and you probably will get a result. Hence the secret to genuine professional success is to achieve a safe, reliable result on brief, as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. To (probably mis-) quote a character in Dickens, 'Expenditure one pound, income a pound and a shilling, result: happiness'. Inspired by a noble few.. too few.. who have gone before, Junkk.com starts by being free, and then we go on to save and/or make everyone money. So we'd like to encourage everyone involved in the planet-saving business to do the same, though there's no shame in trying to make an honest buck en route. But it is with sorrow that we must soon bid a sad farewell to Glorem.com, which has been a valued resource. And I continue to ponder just how well some initiatives flying around really stack up on a 'public cost to public benefit' basis. Just asking:)

--------------------------------------
Glorem.com Junkk.com