RE:Idol!

This weekend I again found myself wrting in to the media, and with little prospect of my thoughts being covered it is nice to be able to at least commit my thought to print, albeit online, via my trusty blog.

It was prompted by the following question/opinion in a waste industry magazine:

Every day in the news there are more and more stories about the impact global of climate change. As businesses we are constantly reminded that we need to embrace new environmental legislation - but the information is confusing and difficult to access - even for those of us in the waste management and recycling industry! 

Why isn't the UK government taking the lead and offering conferences and events free of charge to encourage businesses to act now on measures that can help? Because - if we do manage to retard climate change it will be the best investment in the future that the government has made in a long time!

To which I replied:

"Although I could not agree with [this] more,  and to be fair there are some worthy freebies about, the answer I fear may be that the money such support would require is unlikely to appear, possibly by not easily being put against a ticked tonnage box. And as a lot of other chaps seem to have it all in hand, why get in the way?

It would be great if such backing came to pass. Recently I was flattered to be approached, I thought, to be a speaker at a major event in an area we are involved in. But somehow it moved pretty quickly to me not speaking so much as attending...  to the tune of a grand. Most of which was the fee. Even our editorial function was deemed insufficient for us to attend as a medium and share it with our public... unless we paid.

I'll spare the time. I'll sleep on a mate's floor. I'll try and get an advance super-saver train ticket. But my little organisation just can't afford several hundred quid for such an affair, no matter how much we'd benefit from being there, and others may possibly also gain by our opinions being shared.

Maybe that's why a lot of these events end up being dominated by the views and actions of major corporates, government departments, councils and all others who can afford to 'invest' their shareholders' and tax/ratepayers' money to keep meeting only with those who can afford to interact with or lobby them. And such financially-secured exclusivity does keep things in the peer group comfort zone.

Being even more fair, there is no doubt these things do cost a lot to put on (but one imagines the number of them springing up also indicate that they are a nice little earner, and it would be interesting to see just how cheap they could be brought if it was all at cost -  which is a lot different to not-for-profit), and the question still remains as to who should foot the bill. And if it is subsidised such that it is free, then with the consequent upsurge in those now able to attend, who conducts the vetting process? There will be space limits, so who gets to come? Money at least avoids any hint of agenda bias in the selection process. So it does get argued that a charge ensures only those most committed attend, but that has certain... flaws in the world of the jolly.

I would have suggested sponsorship as a route, but many conferences do seem to have a fair amount already, and having also been 'invited' to have a stand in reception, those shell scheme/goody bag packages do add up to a lot. Which makes you wonder just how much the cost of the hall, A/V, coffee and speakers' expenses (and a lot don't get any) is not actually covered, and how affordable these things could be made to encourage/allow attendance by those who care enough to spare the time, but may not have the cash.

I'm dreaming up a way to do this. And here's a draft (daft?) notion: RE:idol!

All interested potential attendees could submit a paragraph with their application about who they are, what they'd like to learn, who they'd like to meet, why, and... most importantly, what they feel they could contribute. 

Then once we've all signed up to attend, we get to tick those we think would be worth listening to and/or meeting. Those with the most ticks get invited to speak. Or better yet moderate at topic tables (I usually find sitting and listening to a speech, or worse pitch, the least useful, most time consuming part of such events). Networking and idea-sharing is where the real value of getting together lies, so maximise this aspect. The rest of the list get to come, with a cut-off based on the hall space limit. 

How democratic would that be? The people coming decide who they'd like most to listen to and interact with. And maybe some poor guy with two bob to their name is the one deemed most worth meeting, and the bankrolled lobbyist or consultant deemed not worth it. Less movers and shakers and more doers vs. talkers. 

Maybe then our elected representatives would see merit in funding the hopefully modest costs of staging? 

I'm holding my breath."

You know, having slept on it that's not such a daft idea at all. In fact it would be a good model for conferences for all industries (and public service departments) that seem to place protective layers between themselves and the those, including the genral public, who do deserve access to and a voice in the discussions that get held supposedly in our interest.

Maybe I'll have a stab! It's not like I have got much on at the moment.

Shell Game

Well, we're at it again. Friday night (at about 11.30pm for a
midnight cut-off - let no one say we do not plan well ahead for
comfort) I fired off our application to the Shell Springboard fund.
At up to £40k, it was worth going for, and hopefully will prove worth
the effort.

I've said it before, and been disappointed just as often, but we're
hopeful this may stand a good chance.

For a start, the stated objectives include innovative ideas to reduce
greenhouses gasses, and pretty much every aspect of Junkk.com is
dedicated to that aim, embracing reuse, repair and, of course,
recycling, which still seems to be grabbing the lion's share of
attention and funding of late.

But we are rather hoping our efforts to make merit out of the less
'target-measureable' of the 're's' may stand us in good stead in
innovation terms, with of course our 'reduction contribution'
including information and support for alternative fuels, etc, which
may score some brownie points for relevance to the sponsors!

Unlike many other such efforts, there was also an encouraging
acknowledgment that worthwhile contributions need not come form a
'thing', and we've seen so many previous efforts fall in favour of
the latest gizmo that tech-head judges can play with. So again we are
hoping our online initiative will get a good hearing in this framework.

Finally, it was quite a surprise (a pleasant one I might add) to see
that not-for-profits, charities, universities, etc were not eligible.
The competition was looking for stand alone ideas which had a
rational business footing, and did not see trying to make money in
this manner as a bad thing. This again was a refreshing change, which
we do hope will further work to our advantage.

Last (bonfire) night as I watched a bunch of stuff go up in smoke and/
or disappear into thin air or a black hole, I overheard two guys in
the crowd talking about a certain waste quango's 'not for profit'
status. Looking at their funding, one couldn't figure out how they
managed to avoid making money, to which the other replied 'I know
their Finance Director; if he's any measure, with the wedge he's on,
the building they've bought and the size of the department he's
building, they have NO problem ensuring the money gets spent.'

Once awarded, the Shell get applied directly to the task at hand.
More our style. Fingers crossed we'll find we get picked!

Jobs for the boys

I'm not a big tabloid fan. When they try to play with real news I believe their self-serving agenda does way more harm than good to society.

If they just stuck to celebrity issues it would be fine. A blond soap star 'forgets' her knickers as she exits a car bum first and gets 'outraged' by the consequences being splashed across the front page (well, suitably bepixelled... fiull story inside). A whole industry has in short order been created to serve the careers of talentless singers, actors and... er... people (silicon balloon transporters, etc), and the broadcast and print media who get paid to exist in their expensive worlds and 'report' upon them. And they all work together to keep themselves in business. No harm done, apart from the odd  bit of fodder that falls off the rails and finds this is one industry whose health plan only kicks in if they get the exclusive on the Priory stay.

Which leads me to CSR, about which I was reading just now. It was a an opinion piece in the Telegraph Online by the/a Director of Policy Studies. So it was I suppose not too surprising that she was less than positive on the burden a bunch of of moral duties were being dumped on businesses by a range of folks, from the press through interest groups right on (up?) to Government.

And her main point was a good one. In many cases, why on earth should they? More precisely, why should their shareholders be obliged to pay for all this?

My views on the motivations and hence effectiveness of most not-for-profit and in many cases charities are already outlined in my blogs, so I have a certain sympathy for anyone who is striving to make a profit.  And to quote part of her conclusion: 'business's most socially responsible act is to continue making [this contribution - goods & services, jobs, taxes, etc] by being profitable and successful. The irony of much of the corporate responsibility agenda is that it can undermine business's vital contribution to society by imposing costs and burdens for frequently ill-defined social and moral objectives.'

With which it is hard not agree, though in some cases what goods are being made is one that I may wish to keep an eye on. I'll also plug Junkk.com here by saying we have a pretty neat model that enables one to do good AND turn an extra profit if done in the right way.

But you know what really stuck me? It was in the Google Adwords column on the left of this piece. 

All manner of folks advertising CSR consultancies, conferences or jobs in CSR.  I just have to wonder how many of these guys will ever actually do anything to make a real difference. We've approached more than a few to pitch our tale, and never been given the time of day so far. Probably because they are at a CSR conference in Bali, meeting with the very folks from the media, interest groups and government who have managed to create an industry to keep them all in the business of... what? I which way they exit taxis?

Statistics, damn statistics... and reports.

As a bit if Sunday fun, I was reading a report on the United Nations' Official Day of Disaster Preparedness, the title of which attracted me more to find out what happened on the other 360-odd days of the year: unofficial preparedness?
 
Actually it was some cerebral get-together, and the piece involved an interview with a senior environment-type dude, Janos Bogardi.
 
The top line was/is that if nothing is done to cushion the blow of natural disasters, by 2010 50 million could be driven from their homes annually.
 
Though by no means definitive, there are apparently compelling statistics to show natural disasters are getting worse. Don't know if the dinosaurs, ancient Pompeians or anyone with a turn-of the century condo on Krakatoa would agree, but we are 'experiencing 2.5 to 3 times as many extreme events of climatic em4rgncy as we did in the 1970s’.
 
Now that kinda of knocks one of my notions on the head, because in the 1970s we certainly had a pretty fair global communication network. I was there. Admittedly not 'as it happens' satellite uplink images from a mobile, but you could get a concerned reporter with a radio to kick some food and water off a rescue chopper and on the scene then just as easily as you can now. So bang goes my theory that a lot of this is just perception because we get told about it immediately. Though I still think there is a difference between hearing about it on the radio a few days later and watching it live.
 
Now as my title may indicate, I'm not a big fan of reports. For one they seem to consume a lot of effort and introduce a lot of delays to actually doing something, and also can be pretty much made to say anything anyone with an agenda likes. Which is a shame, because it's hard to have a balanced opinion if you have ceased to trust a major avenue of information. A sad consequence of our byte-sized society, I guess.
 
For instance, one thing that was not mentioned in the piece, though it may have been in the report (if not high on the PR agenda), was that it may be that natural disasters are having more impact simply because there are lot more of us, with a lot more stuff, upon which it can impact. I don't think there were too many Swedish sunbathers on Thai beaches back in the 70’s.
 
At least the fact that there being a lot more of us was acknowledged as maybe taking its toll on the land upon which we are living. But there was no mention of what to do about that rather significant fact, concentrating instead on efforts to preserve them. Different department, I guess.
 
The piece was titled 'Preparing for the worst', which may have been the publication's title rather than the aims of the report, but it did seem to focus more on solutions to these disasters, rather than prevention of them, or at least their scale.
 
There was a nice quote, 'we are always arming for the last battle', which is all too true, but it seems to me they are equally guilty of cherry-picking with the same convenience they are trying to label short-sighted politicos.
 
Of course we need to do all we can to prepare and protect, but perhaps now is the time to concentrate every bit as much effort on tackling, with all the complex 'ical' nightmares it would entail, on one of the major the causes of such disasters and the costs they create, and that is overpopulation. Before nature does it for us.

Saving what, exactly?

At Junkk.com, we tend to pretty much wear our heart on our sleeves.
We're trying to do the right thing 'for the future', but at the same
time we're like most normal folk and have various pressures of life,
career and the pursuit of happiness that can cause us to either
transgress enviro-nirvana practice through ignorance, or even suffer
the odd twang of guilt when we do it knowingly. Hence we have tried
to avoid setting ourselves up for any egg on face scenarios by not
seeking to set ourselves up as paragons of the 'only way'.

However, we do want to represent, as much as is possible, accurate
information. So I'm trying to figure a way to create aspects of the
site that are 'as good as we can figure... unless you know
different', that will encourage those who know better to share their
wisdom.

This, then, allows me to at least pose some pretty daft questions and
pop off on some pretty odd tangents, all in the genuine hope of
finding 'a better way' (environmentally, that is) , but which I have
to accept may turn out not to be so. I just think we all have to
accept that some issues are so complex a definitive answer is not
possible, so on balance doing something that 'feels right' may be
better than doing nothing because it might not.

This train of thought has been inspired by an article I was reading
about GPS systems for cars. Now, being a man and not afraid to stop
and ask directions, I have always thought these things to be pretty
way out on the wrong side of the 'making more stuff' vs. 'making
stuff better' debates I am engaged upon with various experts in
various fields (and usually losing, because they spend all day on
their stuff, when I kinda have a passing interest and can't match
their killer facts). And that doesn't include the jam-avoiding bits.

But for the first time I came across a bit of blurb that pointed out
that by making sure you don't get lost, these things actually offer a
genuine environmental benefit. I really don't know the e-consequences
of making the things and selling them to us, but I am prepared to be
persuaded that throughout their lifespans, they may actually result
in less gunk in the atmosphere than if they didn't exist.

So... great! Another possible advertiser for Junkk.com. Unless you
know different.

A token thought.

Like HRH the Prince of Wales, I have more than a passing interest in the environment. Unlike him (apparently), I do not have a Toyota Prius, nor do I intend to wear mine with pride.

The reasons are varied. For one, I have a perfectly good car (two in fact, for altogether justifiable reasons I won't go into here), though I do confess they squeak out a few more atmospheric nasties as they do their bit, despite my best efforts on regular servicing, etc. And as my wallet is a potent force in my decision processes, I am looking at converting them to LPG, though there are certain issues yet to resolve before that happens. Like money. Which brings me to reason number two. In fact that is reason number two: I can't afford one, much as I may like to. I say may, and will stop the whole 'reason trail' here and now, by also still needing to get to grips with a few facts that keep cropping up in the, possibly, more cynical zones of the motoring press. Like the fact that it may actually not be any better on the kind of run we do from our country retreat. But as the first two make the whole thing academic, we'll leave me out of it. For now, and the foreseeable future, we are not getting one. 

But a lot of fine folk are. And telling us. Like HRH. And half of Hollywood. Which is all tickedy-boo. Now, as we at Junkk.com hate to wag a finger, and anything is better than nothing, I'd just like to let that eyebrow twitch again and wonder why these much-trumpeted purchases seem to be in addition to the Astons, Range Rovers, Humvees, etc. And even if these fine fellows do no more than sit in the air-conditioned garage block, they did consume a fair old few resources and generate a few gases in the making, no? New stuff does. Even Priusess (what is the plural?).

Hence I remain a little concerned about the messages going out, which remain, at best, mixed. I've got a bee in my bonnet about this whole issue, which I just know is going to sting me on the rear when our TV needs replacing with a digital thingie and (if I can afford it) I get a wall-mounted LCD/plasma (though I believe there are enviro reason for one vs. the other we're looking at soon, so maybe my e-conscience may end up clear) effort. But we tend not to trumpet our, limited, efforts. We just do what we can, want, and afford to.

It all started with a letter I wrote to a Sunday Times architectural journalist in response to a small debate stirrer he'd lobbed out into the public domain, which was something about getting rid of planners and building wherever we fancy. At the risk of coming over all Nimby, I'd erred in favour of some kind of 'protection' (though whether our planners and their political masters provide this function is open to another debate), if only because of one, simple, inescapable set of... colliding... facts: there is finite space on this planet (especially that devoted to sustaining us), and an ever-increasing number of us trying to occupy and live off it. 

So my bee is/was that we should pretty quick-smart devote a fair amount of our creative energies to making the most of what we have and not encroaching any further on nature. Stuff needs making to be sure to keep economies afloat and innovation alive, but I'd simply advocate focussing more on making more of things than making more things.

For sure a Prius is better, environmentally at least, instead of an Aston when you're going from A to B. But I do question whether the required example is being made when it is as well as. 

You can call me 'Al

I just 'invested' half an hour answering a question posed by The
Times Online. Based on an article regarding the woeful response to a
BA initiative (basically voluntarily buying off your eco-guilt for
flying - check it out here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1833936,00.html )

they asked if airplane fuel should be taxed

(see here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,564-1834561.00.html )

, to which I replied as follows:

"Probably, yes. This despite working for a 'change through incentive
rather than penalty-based methods’ planet-saving organisation. AND
being married to a Singaporean, and hence having 50% of annual family
obligations 12,000 miles away. IF (it's a biggie) climate change is
due to greenhouse gasses out of exhaust pipes, then no Prius purchase
will match the consequences of annual jaunts to Klosters or Barbados.
And of course those who do probably still will carry on doing so no
matter what (don’t see too many Notting Hillbilly, chattering class
eco-champions opting to camp in Kent or having their conferences in
Cardiff), and hence punts us straight into ‘them and us’ territory.
As does any fuel tax. Now, who is the politician – especially one who
is seeking re-election in a few summer holidays’ time - to tell us we
can’t fly unless we pay? Or stand up to the airline lobby and its
global employee base that faces serving only a minority elite. Fuel-
cell powered Jumbos anyone?"

It's why I like blogs. Even if they don't include me, or worse they
do and I miss it when they do (got a few better things to do than
live on every online forum in case I get featured), or much worse,
flamed by those who do have such time, at least I can get my point
'out there' on my own terms.

What's interesting is that in the short time between starting this
and looking back, the posts are up there and on balance agreeing with
my point(s).

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Talking with Emma we
were projecting to a point where she would not be able to afford to
drive to work here (there is no alternative method) or I could not
visit my UK relatives in Scotland, simply because driving was priced
out of our reach and into the province of an elite.

So can taxing or levies on travel be the answer? It would seem to be
political suicide to try.

Then we debated a non-means-based method. How about we are allotted
so much leisure miles a year by road, sea, train and air? Madonna
gets the same as us. Her call on how she uses it. But then, how about
she really, really wants to go somewhere nice and hence gets to buy
our allotment off us? Woooo. Carbon-trading anyone? I am feeling a
headache coming on just trying to grasp with the social,
environmental and all other 'al' consequences. Good job a bunch of
selfish, self-interested empire builders are doing the thinking on
this for us.

Interesting notion. Soon we'll all be stuck in our villages and can
only communicate virtually unless permitted to travel by those who
know better. Glad we have swans outside our window. At least until
John Prescott concretes them over.

Energy Deficiency

I'm depressed. And I don't even read the Daily Mail (at least not
unless it has a classic DVD I must have, but will never watch). It
certainly doesn't help that the nature of our work here at Junkk.com
involves trawling through masses of information and opinion from
every worldwide media source imaginable. Thanks to these it becomes a
toss up if we'll get to the end of the day before being consumed by a
climatic catastrophe, bird flu, Iranian nukes or pillaging and raping
footballers.

But my more immediate concerns surround mathematics, and if you end
up agreeing with me by the conclusion of this piece, you can at least
be reassured that I wasn't too terrific at it and hence may be wrong.

I have already broached the inescapable fact that, while the earth's
surface area is finite, there has to be a collision point in the
future between this and the expansion of our population and the
demands of each individual's needs throughout their lifespan.

And it is the individual which again concerns me in playing with my
sums again.

Because there are fewer and fewer people 'making' (I have to put that
in quotes as it's a broad definition) anything useful.

Yet the numbers of people 'feeding' (ditto) off them, and in fact
dependent on them for their existence, is growing exponentially.

So I'm afraid I just can't make the numbers add up.

As an example, some very nice working colleagues in the charitable
sector have just found that money they were promised (and spent) on a
worthy project has basically been sucked into a black hole as a
result of the quango that was to disseminate the money creating a sub-
quango, with the net result (I'm guessing) that a bunch of money was
consumed in the creation of this new entity. Now each quango is
pointing at the other as the reason for the shortfall, with the
result of course of the amount not being honoured.

Where is it going to end? We have legions of folk meeting,
researching, administering, assessing, reviewing, legislating,
policing, fining, taxing, building offices, creating empires, going
to courses, giving time off, ticking boxes, meeting targets, paying
salaries and guaranteeing pensions... but who the heck is going to
pay for this? In the short term I just mean financially, but in the
longer term simply by creating useable resources that these ever-
multiplying drains consume every second?

It doesn't really matter if our various future challenges are natural
or man-made, but we're the only race currently in much of a position
to do anything about them.

So by my assessment of the numbers, the most urgent efficiency we
need to address is in how we deploy our own energies. Make something,
or at least make it better.

The Curse of the Council Bugbear

The continuing saga of the missing recycling bags continues. This week, we were actually left with bags. Two white ones, and three black bags. To share between FOUR FLATS.

A couple of weeks ago, I decided to start a thread on the Environment Site Forum, to share my fustrations, and to find out if other people had similar problems. It is becoming quite a popular thread, which you may find of interest. Click on the link below:

http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=3351

Happy reading.

No Waste Like Home, No More

Last night was the last in the series of No Waste Like Home. The family featured used a lot of electricity. Everything from lights, televisions, and hair straightners, to the spa was left on 24/7. They consumed enough electricity in two weeks to power a football stadium for an entire football match. To help reduce consumption, light bulbs were changed to energy saving ones, and the spa was put on a timer. Cleaning products were replaced with old favourites such as vinegar and lemon juice. A wood burner was also installed, but again, who paid for that? Did the family themselves stump up, or was it the BBC?

Overall the programme has given us an insight into some attitudes of the general public. People are becoming more and more aware of the environment they live in, and the damage that is being caused. As this show has demonstrated, people do need to be shown what to do to reduce, (repair) reuse and recycle. Many people are aware that it is a good thing to do; they just don’t know how to do it. Hopefully No Waste Like Home has inspired a few more people to think their impact on the environment.

We look forward to seeing a second series.

The Council bugbear

This is just an extra quick one today. My partner and I had a bet on at the weekend about the recycling bags. He thought that I wouldn't get my bags delivered to me on Monday, even though the Council did promise in an email. I had a little more faith (suprisingly) and thought that I would get my bags. He has gone away on a business trip, so will hopefully forget by the time he gets back - because he was right. :(

BugBears - the Prequel

Peter is out and about in London fighting traffic wardens and talking to students. Another bug bear blog I'm afraid. This time it is about my local council. A few months ago I moved into a new flat down the road from where I use to live. At my old flat, I would recieve my one black bin liner and my one recycling bag each Monday. Throughout the week I would dutifully fill my recycling bag (and not so much in the black bin liner), pop it out on a Sunday, and hey presto, it was taken away on Monday morning, and I would recieve new bags.

Now I didn't expect this to change when moving only 200 yards down the road. But it has. For the worse. For starters, I am now rudely awaken at about 6am by the road cleaner. Now, I know they like to clean when there is little traffic round, but at 6am? I'm grumpy in the morning anyway, and this just makes it worse. Sometimes they don't take all the rubbish. Secondly, they don't leave any bin bags. At all. Not even one. My flat (and it is only one bedroom) is looking like a landfill site. I refuse to throw out anything that can be recycled, so my flat is rapidly filling up. 'Contact the council!' I hear you say, well I have. About severn times now. The first time I was sent bags in an envelope through the post, and was promised they would make sure I would recieve bin bags in the future. And I'm still waiting. The last email I had from the council was the beginining of September, promising a bulk delivery to me of 26 black bin liners, 26 recycling bags. Still waiting for that delivery.

Now, I thought councils had recycling targets that they wanted to increase? Okay, so I'm sure my contribution doesn't make a huge dent, but how many other people have complained to the council, and not had a response? Many people know how to recycling, and know what to do, but its no good if the council doesn't provide the bins/bags for people. Councils tend to have poor reputations with their local tax payers. I certainly don't think too highly of my local council at the moment. Wouldn't it be great if I was proved wrong by a council?

Bugbears, the sequel

It's kind of Emma to 'pick up the slack' for me. I had thought I could maintain a dignified 'one a weekday' blog, but circumstances are just getting out of my control.

I was away at the Factory pretty much 48/2 over the weekend making stuff for our fREsher's fayRE stands, then had a nightmare journey to, around and back from London on the Monday delivering it all. That meant all of the previous 3 days' work backed up and Tuesday was a loooooong day.

And I did try to do a blog, honest. It was about the nightmare journey, and when I get a moment I will try and repeat it. But the creation system here did something odd when I tried to add a picture, then swallowed it all when I saved it as a draft and I still can't find it. So it was exit, stage left, followed by a bugbear. Or several.

One day I'll do a blog about these, too. One day.

For now I think Emma and I will just pop up a blog when we are in the mood, have something to say and can spare a moment.

Thinking about it, that is a blog. What I was doing was writing a daily column. Now, where can I find the time to do that I wonder?

Bug Bears

There isn't enough hours in the day, there really isn't. Hence why I am writing Peter's blog for him today. He's a busy man you know. Now before I start, I need to make something clear - Peter is King of Blog (or blag in some cases!) and I am Queen of Forums. So please excuse my ramblings today. I'm a bit of a blog virgin, but I will give it my best shot. Here it goes...

I have been working on Junkk.com for almost two years now. I have done a lot of reseach during this time, particularly reviewing other websites. During this time, I have developed a few bug bears about website design/layout/navigation/content etc. Here is my list:

1) Pink on a white background just does not work. Barely readable, and my eyes start going fuzzy after a few seconds. White on a black background looks scary too. I know it is personal preference, but these colours really don't do it for me.

2) Broken Links. I'm searching a website, come across some really interesting information, want further details, so click on the link to find...error page... blah...access denied... blah blah...that just really annoys me! Website links should be checked regularly.

3) Slow loading pages. Broadband has done wonders for the internet. Some websites forget that although many people have broadband, many others are still on dial-up. Sitting at the computer for half and hour while waiting for the homepage to appear is time wasting, and your website can lose traffic because of it.

4) Online forms. I much prefer to have an email address to write to, so I have a sense that someone will actually read my email, and reply. Many times I have sent an email using an online form, and haven't recieved a reply.

5) This is by far, my biggest bug bear. (Peter will smile when he reads this). Out of date information! Agghhhh! There are a few websites I visit regularly. Under the 'latest news' section there are the 'latest' articles from April 2004! If someone keeps going to your website, and its not updated regularly, your going to lose them. I'm proud to say that something new pops up on Junkk.com almost daily.

I'm not saying that Junkk.com is perfect in comparison, but I like to think we have most things covered, and what we don't have covered, we are working on :)

No Waste Like Students

I sat down next to the cat to watch the sixth instalment of No Waste Like Home last night. I was particularly interested in watching this episode as being a graduate (well two years ago) I was intrigued to see how well the six students would do. We are also promoting Junkk.com at some fresher fayres over the coming weeks, so I wanted to see if students had changed much since I was a student!

They were accurately portrayed – a typical student house share with lots of mess, music, televisions, computers left on all day, along with the heating, topped off with up to 17 bags of rubbish each week. I found it amusing that the one lad would go down the street and drop off the bags of rubbish to his neighbour’s bins.

I feel strongly that people respond more to visual representation of what they are doing to the planet, and this was justified when Penney took the students to a local landfill site to follow their rubbish. They were shocked by the amount of rubbish dumped there, and it really hit home.

One of the tasks of the students was to convert another friend/business/family to be greener. They opted for a local restaurant. Encouraging the restaurant to recycle their food waste seemed an easy task for the students – and the restaurant still recycles over 80% of its kitchen waste today. It could be argued that the restaurant only did it to look good on TV, but I think that they were inspired by the students. Students are big influences in society, and to get them on board with Junkk.com will be fantastic. At the end of the day, they have loans and other debts. The students on the programme were more than happy to try out money saving ideas with Penney. By also going to Junkk.com they can save some money too. Oh and help save the planet.

Score one for us!

Junkk.com is nothing if not a roller-coaster ride of ups and downs, with the consequent highs and lows such events can impose on our morale.

So it's nice to have a pretty big 'up' to report. Yesterday I gingerly opened an envelope from Michael Nuttley, the Editor of NMA (New Media Age). It contained a copy of their latest weekly edition, which he had kindly forwarded.

Those who read my blog from last week will recall that, as a consequence of meeting him at a 'do' in Cardiff, we found he'd subsequently asked a reporter to do a review of Junkk.com, which caught us on the hop as it is still being perfected.

Hence we were VERY nervous. This is a magazine that deals with the cutting edge of online media and marketing, and is read by all the folks we need to reach... positively.

So it was with some relief that we found that not only was it a pretty good review, but we had actually been awarded the accolade of 'Website of the Week' by them!

The review did raise a few issues that we can and will (in fact are, hence the fact we have not yet made a major PR noise about it being live yet) address, and one we can do little about, namely the potential confusion with junk.com.

But, on the whole, not too shabby.

Paranoia is KNOWING they are out to get you!

Two unrelated items inspire today's blog.

Well, they are now related by the reasons for this blog, but you'll see what I mean soon.

First up, a nice bunch of folk we have had dealings with - http://www.grownupgreen.co.uk - had recently sent us some feedback thingy that I had logged away to send back when I had a mo' on a 'why not if it helps?' basis.

Now I've just found that they have had (well, felt the need) to issue
a 'statement' having been tackled by some respondents on the whole
'is it eco to print out forms?' issue. And then they have delved into
a lot of counter-pointing computer time stuff that I rather fear will
get them in further knots with the very guys they were trying to
placate.

On balance, I think the little bit of shared info about cutting and
pasting .docs and emailing back, which they subsequently shared but
earlier either didn't know about... or forgot... would have cleared
the whole thing up nicely.

The other, in which the protagonists will remain nameless as both so
far seem to us ok folk, but perhaps shaping up to have a bit of a
spat, involved a make of eco-stuff being 'outed' for a relationship
with something nothing to do with the eco-world, but not what most of
us may like to deal with, if I can be so obscure. The inference being
that one could/should affect one's intentions, purchase-wise, because
of the link to the other.

Wooooooooooh.

I just know that before long, it's going to be us. We won't mean to.
Wemay not even know until it happens. But from now on, I'm wearing
clean undies, just in case. Washed in the 'right' brand of washing
powder, of course. Any suggestions?

Busy as a beaver

Of course, Junkk.com wouldn't have existed but for one. In fact two. Beavers, that is. Without my young sons losing their neckerchief woggles, I wouldn't have started working on a concept to locate items for reuse from things that would otherwise get thrown away.

So it's all their fault. Sorry boys. 

Because we are currently living in exciting times, which is one above (or is it below?) the rather dark 'interesting'.

And it is stretching Daddy and his merry crew to the limit, both those within Junkk Towers and those working on our behalves.

As I am on a metaphorical roll, the beaver lodge we are building is starting to take shape, but I do concern myself that the swift, but careful pace of construction is getting tested by the number, and indeed size of logs that seem to be coming downstream at the moment. And looking at the next few months these babies are going to be like tree trunks with outboards.

With our various PR and marketing efforts starting to bear fruit, we are finding ourselves required to be in two, perhaps more, places at once, yet until the income stream kicks in we do not have the funds to expand our resources to cover the demand. I am erring on the side of cloning as an option.

But in one area we have so far been positively woeful, and no amount of cloning will make a whit of difference. And that is selling ourselves to the right kind of innovative sponsors. It has become clear that have built it, they may come (and indeed are coming, even before our launch roll-out), but they won't until we can prove a lot of them have. 

So in the spirit of focus we're shifting all our efforts and resources to simply making the site so gosh-darn useful that a whole lot of folk will find it hard to resist... daily.  Then, and slightly more tricky, we get to share this notion with them. Bet ya never saw a full PR campaign strategy knocked off quite that blithely!

But it would be a silly set of sausages who didn't accept that one happy day we will need to sell ourselves so we can keep on doing what we like to do. Or for that matter, know what to do if someone calls up and wants to buy in. 

Which is why we found ourselves up in sunny Telford yesterday talking with some very serious chaps about funding and sales and stuff. I think it went well, though they seemed to be in some state of shock at the way were doing things, though I'm happy to say there also seemed to be a lot of support for what we are trying to do. Not every day you get to be part of saving the planet whilst having some fun.

They may well be able to help. But in case not, if anyone out there happens to know someone who'd like to take a small punt to make a pretty good living by adding some hard-nosed, bulging-Blackberry, top level contacts-driven, S2S (suit to suit) smarts to making our idea for Junkk.com actually work as a business, please point them our way... tomorrow if poss;)

One in the eye for sensible debate

For this blog at least, it was too delicious, though on reflection there are some ramifications that make it less so.

I opened my Sunday paper to find that a person of green persuasion had decided to seek out  a right wing celebrity commentator and register disapproval of his less than 'mentlaist-friendly opinions in the time-honoured, some would say almost obligatory, fashion: a custard pie to the face.

But good lord above, if Jeremy Clarkson didn't exist, they’d have to invent him. Come to that, if the less chilled side of the environmentalist movement didn't exist, he'd have to invent them. I have a conspiracy theory revolving around this very notion if you'll bear with me.

In this particular case it all went to plan. She was suitably messianic in her conviction that she represented all good folks, and got in a few fun facts about where he was going wrong, it being a democracy, with free speech and all, custard pie excepted. He was as gracious as anyone can be when they have to fork out a few quid for dry cleaning secure in the knowledge that they've been delivered a few more years' worth of free publicity and boosted readership. 

I could be convinced that in fact Jeremy is in fact in total cahoots with them, such is the regularity with which he delivers ammunition to inspire their baking squad, and to which they allow their soufflés to inevitably rise. And it's here that it, or rather I, get serious. 

As is to be hoped with the bizarre family in the first episode of 'No waste like home', he is often so grotesque in his views, those of a more fence-straddling bent may actually fall over to the other side in response. And if that were the case I'd say it was a work of genius on someone’s part. Publicity (and there's no such thing as bad..) for the green movement, ratings for Jezza (and there's nothing like a big bad rating.. or is that bad big rating) and maybe the great ‘getting on with our lives’ brigade register enough to be a little more eco. 

Trouble is, he often goes and spoils it by being a pretty insightful journalist at the same time, making a whole lot of sense about a whole lot on waffle and garbage that gets inflicted upon us. I’m afraid to say that in winning hearts and minds I think I know who is gaining some covert nods. Neither side make me feel they speak for me, but getting nanny’d and scolded and guilt tripped about trying to get through the day is not putting me very onside.

It is sad, because Junkk.com is trying to succeed by walking a middle ground. But it is proving so difficult. And one reason is glaringly obvious, and that is to engage any form of media coverage one has to be a bit extreme. I guess I could work with that. But I worry that in doing so I join a very exclusive club, with as its priority an agenda that is highly self-serving. And in so doing we cease to possess the right, or indeed chance, to make an impression with the vast majority who are trying to do their best for the planet by just living their lives in the most optimal manner given the circumstances.

No fuel like an old fuel

Nothing like a bit of a do to get the camps staked out. And now we're
getting slightly over our fit of the vapours it's interesting to see
who said what when the pipe was kinked.

In the greed corner, we had the likes of our Gordo saying it's OPEC's
duty to pump up the volume. There's a good 50 years' worth more (is
that all??) and he'll be cosy on the beach with his full index linked
by then, so some other pol can pick up the tab.

In the better dead than fed corner, we have some enviro lobbies
saying that actually it's it's a good thing as we stop using our
beastly motor cars. Forget the airplanes and all the rest (though a
very sparky young guy speaking from some group/magazine - The
Ecologist? - on the BBC the other morning did seem to be making a
lot of more practical sense and points, with tax-free air fuel thing
included, than the business spokesperson who was stuck in the 'it's
very difficult to change ' groove), let's just score a point here to
keep us in conferences, because we're not for profit and there'll
always be a pension.

Actually I couldn't agree more about it being a wake-up call. Though
it possibly could have been planned out a bit better so that those of
us without access to public transport to do our jobs, etc, or the
limitless funds to absorb the costs of conducting our careers, had a
wee bit more of a chance to sort something out.

In a matter of weeks I have seen the cost of filling up my tank go a
wee bit past inflation. And it's not like I can pass the cost on to
my customers, and hence the general public. Well, not yet.

So I guess I could stop going to things like the MRW conference the
other day. But then how would I meet anyone who might want to take an
ad out on Junkk.com?

Which means... stop?

I don't drive because I like sitting on motorways. I drive because I
have to. And as the public transport system cannot meet my needs, the
best I can do is hang on to my car until I can afford a replacement
that has an acceptable an environmental consequence.

Until then, whatever happens the government will need to maintain its
addiction to revenue, so it looks like using fossil fuels will be
treated as a luxury item. This may drive a further wedge in the
country/urban divide, as the latter tend to be better paid, and need
their 4x4s more for style than substance. It will also be a fun one
to explain to the less affluent in the electorate.