Return to London

Friday was an adventure. I scraped off the snow from the car and gingerly drove to Gloucester, to find the train arriving bang on time, the London tube lines working smoothly and getting pretty much to the ExCel Centre in the East End for the business start up show http://www.bstartup.com exactly when I had planned to. 

Was it worth it? Hhmmn. I think for the chapter in 'Your free ticket to the Titanic' (actually going off that title for my 'How not to' guide... working on an alternative) on Going to Shows (as opposed to 'Exhibiting at' the darn things), I would put a few flags up against anything that is free, especially if it is to the public, which promptly goes against my egalitarian grain and a few past blogs about pricing the common person out of reasonable access. It was frankly, a bit of a zoo, and all the potentially decent seminars required queuing for about an hour beforehand, and even then you might not get in. 

At least I found out that their version of Dragon's Den, called Lion's Den, was another one we'd done well to miss out on, despite applying. I couldn't actually get close enough to hear whether the 'Lions' were as evil as in the TV series, but it just didn't seem worth it for the quality of exposure.

And 99% of the exhibitors were pretty much what you'd expect. Banks, accountants, website designers. No one we needed to buy from and nobody we could sell to. But....

I did get to meet Trevor Baylis of wind-up radio fame, and it was kind of fun to chat with a guy for whom I have great respect as an inventor, champion of practical eco-products (though it seems he got poorly served with his iconic wind-up radio invention) and defender of inventor's rights http://www.baylisbrands.com.

I also had an interesting chat at the Brother stand with a very nice techincal guy. They were there to flog their products, but when I started asking about their environmental stance he got quite animated and we had a very worthwhile exchange. He liked the sound of Junkk.com and said he pass us on to 'those who know', while I liked the sound of their commitment and see a feature in the offing.

Maybe it was worth going after all. Especially when, as I left, I was stopped for the umpteenth time and asked about my laptop sling and having explained its origins ended up with a few more converts to the Junkk.com cause. They even suggested I patent the idea, so maybe it was even more worthwhile meeting Trevor earlier! Nah, that one I'll offer for free on the site. What goes around comes around.

It's easy to forget what good there is around you

We got back from London at about 4am this morning. And my brain is still pretty much fried.

It was, obviously, a very long day. And most of it was not much fun.

But one thing has started to sink in. The number of good friends we have. 

Nothing much to do with Junkk.com, but I just felt like commiting it to print. 

But then again, thinking about it, maybe it is everything to with Junkk.com. 

Give 'peace a chance

My parents were, for their day, quite adventurous travelers. So I have vague, and fond, memories barelling down to the South of Spain in a state of the art Morris 1300 (something Dad had read about hydroelastic suspension being the pero's cojones in dealing with Iberian tracks), overnighting in exotic paradores and having my (then) blond (then) hair ruffled by cooing black-clad matrons with moustaches.

And it was on this trip that we ended up at a wondrous spot that is now in the news:

Greenpeace activists have seized a vast hotel under construction on a protected shoreline near Almeria in southern Spain, saying the project was illegal and should be demolished.

The skeleton of the hotel reaches down bare volcanic rock to a beach of spectacular beauty in the protected area of Cabo de Gata. 

So without knowing all, or indeed needing to go into the detail of this (such as feeling it a pity that the preventative occupation has taken place once a heck of a lot desecration must have already occurred), I have to say this is the kind of thing I remember, and applaud the likes of Greenpeace for.

Our Ladies Of Vision

Interesting dilemma. I should no longer be writing this.

One of my daily tasks is, was, or at least should be, blogging off. 

But yesterday that may have all changed. We left at crack of dawn (and set off back at dusk, and ended up arriving in the wee small hours thanks to a certain number of logs on the line turning the M54 into a 2-hr carpark - blogs on drivers of lorries keeping their licences and/or features on the correct time to switch off your engine to follow) to pick up Emma and head to Telford to meet up with the newest members of our merry crew.

Pat Freshwater and Amanda Brooke of The Business Advisor Partnership - http://www.thebusinessadvisor.org are now consulting with us on many business and marketing-related issues, rejoicing in their joint Junkk-titles of 'Our Ladies of Vision'. They are also tasked with getting us from 'here' to 'there' without, or at least a lot less of those creative 'ohh, this looks worth a detour'... er... detours. We have kind of figured out we do get distracted a lot, much to the detriment of our business model.

Thanks to their input you should see some major changes soon. More obviously to do with honing all we are up to with the site, but also in the way we do business.

Until we can hit that Nirvana moment of creating the visitor numbers to get under the radar of those major advertisers of a more ruthless, ROI-oriented disposition (even though we are still happy to look at a 'checkB4Ucheque' deal, so it really should be a 'why not; let's give it a whirl' to even the less charitably inclined seeking to up their exposure on to the Green£), they are helping us focus on paying the rent by doing more of what we do best and less of what tickles our fancy.

And that, for me, means going back to my roots: copywriting. Which is not quite the same as blogging, which of course doesn't involve getting paid. 

Hence the dilemma. Will this mean no more blogs for a while? We'll see. 

You are what you eat. Interesting what it takes to get to you.

The Sunday Times magazine had a photo feature this week called the
World on a Plate taken form a book: What the World Eats, by Peter
Menzel and Faith D'Aluisio. It compared the shopping of 'average'
families from around the world, including UK, Chad, China, Egypt,
Philippines, Australia, India, Turkey, USA and Germany.

The main thrust of the piece was the cost rather than the dietary
side (in fact the weekly shopping was broken down into similar
categories, such as grains, dairy, beverages, etc). And while the
West/Others divide was not unexpected, I couldn't help but notice
that the UK family spent half that of the German one, though the
national weekly income figures included seemed to show they were not
necessarily applying like with like.

But the thing that struck me most in these photos was the amount of
packaging the 'Western' families' foodstuffs involved: bottles,
Tetrapaks, cardboard boxes, etc. Especially... the Germans. But I
guess they do at least recycle all this stuff. In Chad of course,
they shop local and practice 'reduce' above all.

Oh, The Disappointment

So in the very blue.. er.. green corner we have the eco-activists, and in the red.. er.. black (hearted? 'in-the-black-at-any-cost' profiteers? 'Black day for my political career?) corner we have those traditionally ranged against them, or at least subject to their (often justified) scrutiny. 

As various folk square off, historically (that from which we should learn to avoid repeating...) a very bad place to be is in the middle. But that is where we proudly stand. Yet our best defence is that we have always stood there, and are firm in our resolve to stay there (blimey, I sound like a a cut price Churchill).

Yet there are a few other folk, who really cop it having strayed from total commitment to their cause, and find themselves in 'if you are not with us you are against us' territory, and I have a particular sympathy with these poor guys. Like the Gaia chappy who went from being the father of the Green movement to Jeremy Clarkson's patio heater mechanic (the way he got vilified). Or David Bellamy. Changed their minds. Had another opinion... whatever. Desertion gets you shot by your own side, and it is not a nice feeling, I'm sure. The reactions and comments made were very personal.

But there there are those who wanted to straddle all camps and, when the dust settles, clap the victor on the back and say 'I was always behind you chaps'. The problem is, you can get hung out to dry a tad when circumstances move quicker than anticipated or not quite as planned. And as you were never quite with anyone, then it's hard to be welcomed by anyone when you need a parapet to re-duck under.

 (Reuters) - Environmental activists accused British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Monday of failing to tackle global warming despite many pledges of tough action. As Greenpeace dumped five tonnes of coal outside Blair's London residence in protest at what they said was his backsliding, the World Wide Fund for Nature accused him of saying one thing but doing the opposite on climate change. "Blair has gone from being the great hope to being the great threat,"

Ooops.

But in the spirit of trying to be balanced, a hint to possible reasons behind the backslide from 'threat', if not justifying the move to that point from 'hope', can be seen later on in the piece here: 

A report last week by a European think tank, the International Council for Capital Formation, said hitting the Kyoto targets could wipe out at least 200,000 jobs each in Italy, Germany and Britain and more than 600,000 in Spain.

Who... would be a politician these days? Can't please all of the people...

However, there is one good thing to come of this:  I think I may have sorted our heating bills for winter. Now all I have to do is figure out how to disappoint Greenpeace. At least a tonne's worth. 

But knowing my luck they may figure 'we who would salute them' (I'll leave out the 'about to die' as that is too depressing) would perhaps have been more sympathetic if it had been a lorryload of white feathers. At least once tidied up they make good insulation.

Fly me to the moon... one way (the Earth is pretty much sc@££$ed)

Hot on the heels....

This from the Sunday Times quoting Michael O'Leary, Chief Executive
of Ryanair, 'rejecting claims that his low-fare model is increasing
emissions':

"If preserving the environment means stopping poor people flying so
only the rich can fly, then screw it".

I don't think he's actually rejecting the claim. He's saying he
doesn't care. Which is almost a bigger worry.

Because he's in a corner, and in defending 'his' business he's kinda
showing what I have been banging on about for a while is coming to
pass, where we're seeing trying to deal with this getting swallowed
by a 'them and us' war.

And I can see a good few folks squaring up against each other here.
With only one set of losers. Us.

Crud.

Steaming!

Considering their father's bad example, it is but a matter of time before my boys start to swear like little troopers.

But for now, thanks to a saintly mother, a certain amount of hypocritical (don't do as I do...) guidance by me and their own sense of what gets you brownie points in polite company, they do not. At least, not bad words. I wish I could resist as they do. Yet having read the following I am moved to coin a few choice phrases:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4419880.stm

Sample : Although rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxides and other gases are almost certainly driving the global rise in temperature observed in recent decades, the natural greenhouse effect - without which the world would be considerably colder - is largely down to atmospheric water vapour.

I'm sorry, but isn't just about everything we're looking at transport-wise to mitigate this is of 'the and all you get out the pipe is water' variety? Of everything I have been reading, hydrogen was the one that made sense to me, even if we ended up in a Blade-Runner permanent rainstorm. I guess a fair bit drips onto the tarmac, but won't an awful lot go up in... er... steam?

Solar powered 747's anyone?

So until I can get my head around this I would like for now to borrow from one of my son's very worst: Oh... crud. 

Memo to self: don't write memos

I was the other day reading about a memo from senior Wal-Mart exec.
that was advocating something pretty scummy get done (probably
legally, if not ethically) to the workforce to make a tad more
profit. And just now about the public-schools price fixing fall-out
(which involved compromising e-mails hacked by subsequently expelled
students). These of course come hot on the heels of Ms. Let's-
use-9-11-to-lose-the-bad-news-on-our-trivial-little political-
careers, whoever thought HMS Sheffield didn't need expensive
fireproof conduiting and, of course, the daddy (hey, at least with
the new ones the ladies are breaking through the glass ceiling when
it comes to being corporate weasels) of them all, the some bright
spark (no pun intended) at Ford who figured it was better to let the
Pinto blow up and pay the compo than actually redesign it.

What really beggars belief is that they:

a) Can think such things
b) Write such things
c) Send such things
d) Think they won't get caught out
e) Don't get censured by superiors on the spot
f) Don't lose everything soon thereafter

The answer of course, probably kicks in at 'e'. They do it because
there is a culture at their place of work that will reward
'results' (usually, but not always, profit. Protecting reputations or
defending policy can rate highly, too), to paraphrase and mangle
Ralph Nader, 'at any cost'. The risk is usually, at most, 'looking
bad', which is unlikely to trouble those who can come up with the
notions that pop them, fleetingly (what is Jo Moore doing now?), in
the glare of negative pubilicity.

What also beggars belief is that the organisations who employ such folk:

a) Are so cynical to think they can get away with it, and dumb as to
think that such a culture does anyone any good, especially their own.
b) Survive despite the consequences, along with the individuals at
the heart of it all.

So, ultimately, the fault can only be laid at our own doors. We let
them get away with it.

Life is too short (sadly, our attention spans are even shorter, along
with our thirsts for justice). The world is too small. Genuine (and I
know that can be a tricky one to assess) whistleblowers should keep
their jobs rather than losing them, and weasels should lose their
jobs, including benefits, rather than getting promoted sideways.

Idealistic... moi?

FOC's

This started off as a diatribe aginst offshore, telephone based customer service/tech support lines, but Anita, our lovely Chief of Prose and Comms, has told me to make a nice a bit more, and as I struggled to think of something (being a grumpy old blogger is so much easier), it fell into my lap.

One of our printers just went in the direction of a pear, mangling stuff. We tried the help menu, and it told us only that we should be using paper hand rolled on the thighs of Columbian virgins. Or call tech support.

We now entered the world of 0870. And for about 10 minutes we paid god knows what to god knows who to listen to an American lady tell us we were important to them. Then we were in the domain of Trevor, who did not sound like a Trevor.

Sadly the conversation did not go well. We thought we pretty much knew the problem (a roller at one end was obviously not doing its job any more and was skewing the draw down), but this did not seem to get us anywhere near the advice we were seeking, which was how to fix it.

And at the end of a fairly frustrating circular discussion we were told it was not fixable, and to ditch the thing. 

It was a month beyond warranty. So ditch it.

Now, I am not only part Scot, which makes £87.50 a lot of money, but this was not in the spirit of Junkk.com.

So I picked up the phone to our local PC-repairers and told them the problem, and they said pop it round. So I walked it up the hill. By the time I got back, there was a call to come and pick it up.

With much joshing about the worth in terms of expertise and cost of a new printer, I was shown the culprit: a Christmas tree bulb that somehow got in there and was blocking the feed. They'd turned it upside down and fixed it.

So,  as what goes around comes around, if you are in the Monmouth/Ross area, I am happy to give them a big up right here and now: 

http://www.theitcentre.co.uk (you may also one day find them in the Junkk.com HR/NP area diRE:ctory when the dozy sods get around to putting themselves on there).

But the most important bit was that they knew what it was. Apparently it happens a lot. So that makes it a tip that could save a thousand WEEEEeeee..kerplunk IT landfill contributions that need not be. Plus saved customer money, etc, etc.

So I'm figuring out how to get such things on the relevant category pages on Junkk.com, but not in a way that overwhelms the reader, and archived to be searchable. Not just for IT issues, but from a core of gurus that must have similar such experience to share, and don't mind sharing it to get a big up and a logo link - we're mutual re-ward-based, see:)

I think we'll call it FOC's, which is kind of an homage to FAQ's and until something better pops into my head, stands for Frequently Observed Cock-ups. And when you think about it, also can stand for Free Of Charge, which in this case it was. Thanks Ian. 

Hew close to the line, let the chips fall where they may

There was an interesting post the other day by the editor of Materials Recycling World, Paul Sanderson, regarding editorial integrity, from which I quote a small section:

"Over the last few years there has been a lot of debate in the media industry about editorial integrity. It used to be the case, and indeed it was how I was taught, that you should never admit to any mistakes you made.

But increasingly, many media organisations, with The Guardian at the forefront, are attempting to always put right any genuine mistakes that have been made through talking to those who have been affected and coming up with an agreement on how to do this. "

He sought some feedback, which I provided, and he has kindly published:

"It got me to thinking about a similar situation we found ourselves in. At some mysterious point  it struck me that Junkk.com was a medium, with all THAT entailed. We are sent information, or we go off and find it ourselves, and then we put up there for folks to access.

I guess I'd somehow not thought of us as a 'media' organisation in the classic sense, and in any case we were free, plus a few other notions that all seem rather quaint now. But we do have an audience who trust us, and hence many obligations to them, many of which carry professional if not legal consequences. So I am very glad we created the site with the advice of the very best media/copyright lawyers you can get.

[Here I'd like to give a 'big up' to Alex & Alex at BRIFFA http://www.briffa.com, who helped us create the site to protect our public, our clients and ourselves in this over litigious world, and still keep us on the straight and narrow]

So even though we perhaps did not set out to be a 'news medium' or 'journalists' in the same way as did the publishers of MRW or yourself, there is not much difference in responsibility and accountability. Even in what we imagined (at first.... boy, were we wrong!) to be the fairly uncontroversial world we both inhabit. 

Not everyone (and certainly not us) has your level of experience of hands-on editorial training. There may even be rules we don't know about (and ignorance of these may be no excuse... yadayada... but the murky world of online at least presents us with certain precedents to carry on). But there are certain things that just seem worth adhering to in my very simplistic t'pennyworth feedback.  These would be:

1) Tell the truth 

2) If necessary, and it probably almost always is, put it in the context you learned it and now share it 

3) Be prepared to accept it may turn out to be inaccurate and have in place procedures to prevent, and continually check for this happening; and cope quickly if it does

4) Better yet, make sure everyone knows that you are so prepared (which forms part of 2)

5) If you are party to something incorrect, put it right, preferably with a 'weight' in excess of the initial story that needs to be rectified (I consider BBC's Newswatch to be a poor example of this latter, with a Sat morning mea culpa slot to deal with primetime howlers).

For us, other than the odd opinion piece where I may make someone grumpy with a twitching eyebrow, I don't think we're going to venture too far into controversial territory. But by placing or acting as a conduit for 3rd party materials we're given, we are of course in danger, if in good faith, in sharing information that may not be correct.

I hope it is enough, but somewhere we cheerfully try and explain this in our own way by saying 'If we know, we'll tell you. If we don't we'll say so, and then try to find someone who does.' But what if that person is wrong? I guess we have to fall back on number 5, and our metaphorical swords, too. We certainly are putting more opportunities to provide corrections at source all around the site.

So as a 'reader' of 'news' for a few decades, I am appalled to only now learn that it was taught in journalism never to admit to mistakes, and only recently that any effort was being given to actually putting things right should you do so. So good on you guys for having that as policy.

I wouldn't expect it any other way. Honestly."

I should stress, if it is not clear enough by my reply, that Paul and MRW are obviously very committed to a policy that I, and I would hope all right thinking folk (notice I didn't pop an 'other in there), would applaud.

But who'd have thunk? I'm still coping with his revelations about mainstream media, who really do have the power to influence our way of lives seriously. But it is also an eye-opener that such considerations are troubling editorial departments in the more niche media areas such as recycling. But then, this is all getting pretty serious. Not just the millions of pounds being 'used' in our (tax and ratepayers') names, with little or no real appreciation of how or why by the general public, but also the very real consequences such decisions and expenditures are going to have on our futures.

One final thought. Errors of inaccuracy are one thing. Errors of omission can be equally, if not more troubling. That is where trust in your medium really comes to into play. Will you be told something that may not fit the publisher's own personal agenda or commercial interests? Wooooo. Scareeeee.

Filter Tips

In this time-poor age, gatekeepers are inevitable. But still frustrating. I have used this blog before, am now and doubtless will again to 'note' (ok, whinge a bit) about the less than helpful aspect of relationship-building which they represent to anyone trying to launch a new service, yet is confronted by everyone from Tracy on Reception ('Hooshlisayscallin'?) though Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric ('Does He/she - I'm being PC here, not inferring any Ladyboy tendencies - know you?'') to a middle management minion with the power to say no but not yes.

These folk are facts of life. And you have to learn to deal with them, and the system.

But when it gets automated the problems can really kick in. How do you negotiate with a machine?

I recently was talking with Paul Sanderson of Materials Recycling Week (quick plug for them: www.mrw.co.uk - not a magazine perhaps for most of Junkk.com's audience, but if you want to stay on top of the 'business' of re-everything, well worth the sub), who had kindly got in touch because he was concerned something we'd sent had not got through.

So our discussions turned to servers, firewalls, spam filters, etc, and indeed it transpired that thanks to a new IT-thingie their end, we were now being consigned to the junk folder, which would be flattering to have thought as our own little outpost in their office, but for the lack of that extra special k. 

We are also still desperately trying to sort out how we get through without interception and deletion to the majority of our own opt-in users who have a hotmail, aol, g-mail, etc, address, and are tracking down a rumoured 'white list' that will deem us non-pornographers or member-extenders.

But it seems we must also face the possibility that legitimate B2B communications may also find themselves headed off at the pass. It certainly doesn't help having @junkk.com as an address, but there's not much we can do about that. And it takes a certain leap of the imagination at ISP-central to imagine a spammer would  name their product so imaginatively.

But sadly I think I will soon have also to consign our nifty 12k logographic signature to the... er... junk bin. And forget about ever sending an attachment.

It's just another of the growing-pain joys and tribulations of the online world. It was in many ways meant to speed communication and make it more accessible. But in protecting ourselves from something that may be harmful, we've almost gone full circle and created a situation that we actually don't get exposed to much of anything that is not pre-filtered.

So if you would like to hear from us in future, I think I will need to engage a nice fellow with a cleft stick to pop it around. Ain't technology wonderful?

But we know a lady who does...

Junkk.com will succeed, not just as a business, but as a public resource, by connecting people. A guy with an idea with a gal who needs a solution.  A kid with a broken toy with a DIY-guru who can fix it (online or in person). A local business with, well, a local. Every time we put such folks in touch, a little bit of the environment ends up just a smidgen better off. And our traffic figures mount.

Often it may not be quite so tangible a result, but we feel our role is justified even if we just send folks off on a worthy path.

So I am pleased to report that as a result of her partcipation on the theenvironmentsite.org's Forum, and the knowledge base she is acquiring, Emma has set in motion a series of events that have resulted (culmination sure to follow) in 'No Waste Like Home' celebrity e-guru Penney Poyzer taking part in an online interview with them, much as we did a while ago, on Wednesday 23rd November.  

See the thread below, and add any questions if you have any. We'll be there too with a few!

 

http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=3673

Throwing bricks in (recycled) glass houses

Anita, our lovely Chief of Prose & Comms, is going to be grumpy. But sometimes it's necessary to address things at length. This is key to our philosophy at Junkk.com.

I have just replied to a chap called Sir John Whitmore, writing in the motoring section of the Telegraph.

The links/URLs will take you to the full text (I admire  the Telegraph for allowing such access and keeping it 'live'), but include a few 'samples', so do not take the flow out of context as this would be unfair:

http://motoring.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/11/05/emrwhit05.xml

Complex problems require innovative solutions, writes John Whitmore

Since I last wrote about global warming, to the irritation of proud owners of 4x4 Silly Ugly Vehicles and other ego-mobiles, we have had a tsunami, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma and a huge earthquake.

We have also broken a number of planetary heat records and the icecaps are melting, yet some still bury their heads in the sand.

I recently read about the New Puritans, young people who are against all the unhealthy stuff: fashion, consumerism, brands, smoking, Esso fuel, binge drinking, pollution, junk food etc. 

Of course all movements have rogue or radical arms that we deplore, at least in public. In Paris, Les Dégonflés (The Deflated) are a band of guerrillas, or terrorists if you disapprove, who each night let the air out of the tyres of some 40 SUVs in the city. England's eco-terrorist is Sian Berry, who hands out fake parking tickets informing SUV owners of the error of their ways. If we can't save the world with common sense, let us do what we can with humour; if we are lucky, we might die laughing.

He referred to and linked to another, earlier, piece:

http://motoring.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml?xml=/motoring/2005/03/05/mfwhit05.xml

John Whitmore argues that we must change our motoring ways

I was going to write a light-hearted piece this month but the motoring magazine shelf at Heathrow airport persuaded me to tackle something more controversial.

I equipped myself for the first leg of a flight to Australia with three leading motoring titles, 

Such assets become uncomfortable or illegal at a brush of the accelerator, so why should they be of interest or relevance to ordinary motorists? Are the magazine journalists boy racers? Are their readers? Do ordinary motorists read such stuff?

When are we going to wake up to the full implications of environmental degradation? Will we continue to buy and drive greedy status symbols while waiting for the apocalypse? Will we continue to offer the pathetic platitude that "anything I do won't make a difference, so why bother?" 

That is why I support Ken Livingstone, fuel tax, road tolls, lower speed limits, enforcement cameras and traffic calming. I would even be happy to see a ban on cars of more than, say, 100bhp.

Here's my reply (sorry Anita):

"I recall a recent spat in the world of rock god luvvies, where I believe one didn't want to attend another's 'save the whatever' concert because the other hadn't attended his. It seemed to be a case of two rights making a wrong.

Hence I always feel a little circumspect when reading, much more commenting on, passionate views held regarding the behaviour of others, especially in an area of interest we obviously share.

But you have kindly invited a reply in the spirit of good-natured debate, so I thought I'd commit digit to keypad.

Whatever the cause(s), there is no doubt that something very nasty is brewing with our climate, and it's very unlikely that what 'we' are doing with 'our' many and varied manifestations of conspicuous consumption are doing much to help. Though I have to here express doubts that anything 'we' have or have not done, Hummer-wise, would have greatly influenced the Asian tsunami or Kashmir earthquake.

And much as I am concerned for my kids' future about what's going on, I also worry how easy it can be for certain views can take us in ‘unproductive’ directions; especially when these are often from those with greater access to the media, and hence end up predominating.

I wasn't quite sure, but there did seem to be a tacit admiration, and even passive support, on your part regarding certain censorious actions in support of various beliefs. It's easy to be against things. True skill lies in being for things, and promoting them in a positive way.

I live in the country, and I don't own an SUV. My lifestyle does not require it and my wallet would not sustain one. But I do know a few folk who do, with some justification.  If I were one of them, should I decide on a trip to some merry eco-prankster’s urban 'hood, I could easily laugh off a witty fake parking ticket. Perhaps I’d be less impressed by a deflated tyre or, not that it could ever happen, a key down the side.

So I just wonder if it possible to stray a tad into 'my cause is better than your cause' territory, especially when we throw around emotive words like 'selfish' to embolden those more single (simple?)-minded in their means of expression and desire to express.

It's just possible a planeload of these born-again enviro-types leaving behind a Prius-laden carpark may not be so impressed if Greenpeace chained themselves to the 747 about to whisk the family off to a week's skiing in the Rockies.

So I simply caution against any route that involves the pointing of fingers, as this inevitably ends up with fingers being pointed back. Hence valuable emotional resources are consumed defending turf, and egos, when we could better apply our efforts to working together in discovering proactive solutions.

I couldn't agree more that we need to effect change with good humour. But I would like to complement this less with accusations, and more in a constant search for incentive-based solutions designed to inspire folk to move in a 'better' (oh dear, who's to judge?) direction because they WANT to, by seeing the BENEFIT. 

I am not above what I call the odd 'eyebrow twitch' in my personal comment section of our own small attempt at making the difference. But it is usually directed at those in authority who have set themselves up to steer us on path of righteousness with fingers wagging. As a poor slob myself, I have a certain empathy with other poor slobs trying to do their best with what they have got to go on.

So I do try promote wherever possible avoiding the accusatory, guilt or, heaven forbid, 'fabbo fines first, sensible solutions second' paths. It tends to all get a bit ‘them 'n us’ for the humour route to be sustained for long.

I agree with so much of what you advocate, but simply offer the thought that that we do try to do it in ways that don't create competing camps, much as these do create healthy ratings. A plea I often make to the likes of Jeremy Clarkson (who has written some truly insightful, entertaining pieces of journalism on environmental issues and then spoiled them by ladling on the shock-jock bile to bait the pie-wielders). For all the good it does me."

Maybe he'll reply. Possibly he'll agree. At least once he and JC (can you imagine the 'mentalist baiter-in-chief resisting a comeback? have finished duking it out from their respective media bunkers. For the sake of the planet I do hope they may see some of the wisdom of my words.

Ups and Downs

Junkk.com is nothing if not a roller-coaster ride. And just when you
least expect it, a little boost comes in that makes things look that
littel bit more rosy. A while ago we'd been invited by BusinessLink
to apply for a Business Growth Grant, basically a 'keep up the good
work' cash boost. As we had already enjoyed fair support we were not
to sure whether we'd be in line when this was doled out, but it would
have been silly not to apply.

Well, we got it!

The project that it will fund is where we feel we need the most
urgent 3rd party help (sadly grants seldom can go to 'us'), which is
to get the siet from a B2B entity to a truly consumer-friendly
portal. Not before time, as we are now actually 'live and out there'.
And we are aware that there are issues of design and navigation
within the site that need to improved to tell people what is going on
fast, and give them what they want faster.

So tomorrow we're meeting our It gurus sound-i (www.sound-i.co.uk) to
initiate it all. We had planned for it, but the money simply was not
there before, and now it is. We feel it will be a critical upgrade.

But also we are further encouraged by the endorsement this implies.
This is an investment in a business that sees the environment as
something worth making as accessible as possible to the general
public, and in so doing becoming self-sustaining as a consequence.

And another one bites the dust...

What is it with the world of big business? Just when you think you are zeroing in on someone useful who may actually have the brains to grasp a new idea, the power to make a decision about it, and the spine to stand behind the consequences (or, in Junkk.com's case, the good grace to enjoy the benefits)... they get moved on.

LONDON - Chris White, Nestle Rowntree's outspoken UK managing director, has left the confectionery giant after less than two years in the job.

White's exit is the second high-profile departure from Nestle Rowntree this year. In July, marketing director Neil Ducray quit after a year in the job. He has since been replaced by Procter & Gamble marketer David Rennie.

We've also seen the same with Heinz and Sainsbury's. No wonder the big brands are in crisis! Maybe they are too concerned with not losing their jobs to consider doing anything about making more money out of treating the environment as a marketing opportunity.

What have the 'mentalists ever done for us?

It's all a bit of a jumble this, but better late than never.

I'm looking at the front page of the Independent from Nov. 1, which is entitled '10 ways to save the world', on which I have added: Number 11: engage better with the public, which all of this will impact.

And if any of of you watched Monthy Python's Life of Brian, it explains today's title - ten is but the start of how we can go about saving ourselves, and I just keep thinking of more and more.

But lists need starts and finishes, and this all makes for an interesting one, as much for what isn't there as what is.

Let's have a gander:

1: SET LEGALLY BINDING ANNUAL CO2 REDUCTION TARGETS

New law to commit the Government to reducing CO2 every year by a fixed amount - say, 3 per cent - audited by an independent body. A radical programme would then have to be implemented to meet the target.

As a consumer this means nothing to me. Hard to comment. But I don't like targets. That smacks of more people using money talking and not doing. Or doing what meets targets, which often means the opposite of what's best to achieve the result we really are after.

2: DECENTRALISE THE ENERGY SUPPLY SYSTEM

Do away with the vast power stations serving the national grid: think microgeneration. Give every city, every town, every village, its own power station, fitted with a combined heat and power (CHP) system, which cuts CO2

This... I like. So long as the funding to make it work is sensible and not for everyone's benefit except the consumers.

3: ALL NEW BUILDINGS TO BE CO2-FREE

Put a power station in every basement: change building regulations to make all new buildings provide their own power, with solar panels, mini-wind turbines and CHP systems to soak up wasted heat.

Sure, why not? The future starts now.

4: INSIST ON USE OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS

Ban standard light bulbs all over Britain and force us to use energy-saving bulbs instead, which soak up less than a quarter of the electricity. Hugely symbolic gesture which would save enormous quantities of CO2.

How did this get here? I don't like the word ban. And has anyone figured out how most of us afford to restock our existing fittings to take the new bulbs? Better to figure out ways to make the new bulbs fit our fittings and then price them attractively enough to make their use within our budgets.

5: BOOST NEGLECTED RENEWABLES; SOLAR, WAVE, TIDE POWER

Start giving proper funding and backing to renewable energy other than wind: solar power, and power from the waves and tides. These have vast potential to supply CO2-free electricity, yet are underdeveloped.

Yes!!!! I am not a big fan of wind yet. The numbers don't add up, unless you're a German contractor with an MEP meeting you for lunch.

6: FOCUS AGAIN ON OFFSHORE WIND POWER

Renew the impetus behind wind farms based in the sea with 1bn of subsidy: after a good start, development is slowing, because of technical and financial difficulties, yet we have unparalleled offshore wind resources.

OK, offshore. But still, so long as the ROI makes sense to more than a turbine guy's pension plan.

7: GET RADICAL WITH ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Make sure every house in Britain that can be properly insulated is insulated; bring in much more rigorous labelling that can enable any consumer to see how much energy is used by a product.

Ooooook. Insulation is no-brainer. Labelling... hmmn. If our expereince is any guide, labelling is not likely to make a big difference. Looked at a fag packet lately? More money being wafted away on 'campaigns'.

8: TACKLE THE GAS GUZZLERS

Raise vehicle excise duty (VED) on cars such as 4x4s; make it more than ?1,000 per vehicle and set it to rise further. If you want to be radical, insist on a health warning on the side: This Vehicle Damages The Environment.

Why 4x4's? This smacks of city folk (who tend to write for newspapers) applying their urban experiences and prejudices without thinking it through. We're also now in social engineering territory again. Be careful, guys.

9: CURB THE GROWTH IN CHEAP FLIGHTS

Raise air passenger duty to end the cheap flight bonanza, as CO2 emissions from aircraft are the most rapidly rising in Britain and also the most damaging: they go straight into the stratosphere. A vote loser and a tough choice.

Got the last bit right. Same problem as the car fuel one above. Price use down and you're an elitist. By why just cheap flights? Does rather smack of one still wanting one's skiing and safari trips around the globe, but just don't feel the plebs should get to go to visit Granny in Glasgow at half the price the train costs.

10: HAVE A LATE-NIGHT TALK WITH GEORGE BUSH

Do anything you can to get George Bush to change his mind about climate change. The world needs America, the biggest CO2 emitter, to lead the fight against global warming. The President is denying the evidence.

Sure. But when do we talk to the Chinese? I guess it's rude to mention until after the Olympics at least. And who'll be popping over there, I wonder?

It's easy to snipe. And all these are really no-brainers. But the probelm is that everyone who is making the most noise seem blind to the fact that they are usually applying their own limited agendas. And I'm convinced the vast majority of the population are feeling a little bit less than enaged by these rather highbrow notions.

As an example, the paper's Green Goddess column was featured in a link to the article above. I'm afraid that I only got as far as her taking a taxi from her London pied-a-terre to visit her bike-riding eco-consultant or somesuch, before I had to return to my world.

Ask, and you shall receive... ratings at least.

Another one of my 'media missives' that I'll copy here so at least it
is in the public domain if they choose to ignore it.

Although it is specifically about speed cameras and those tasked with
enforcing them, it could equally apply to a lot of environmental
issues that get covered.

My greater concern is the fact that many of our news journalists (not
all) these days are so factually unprepared on topics that all they
can do is invite public submissions which they then dish out to the
interviewees, and then seem unable to challenge the replies sensibly.
They are not always so fawning as the example I cite from today, but
still it seems enough to ask and not be too worried about how
accurate the response is before moving on.

In fact they often ask the most stupidly provocative questions sent
in just to stir things up rather than with any intention of having
an informed debate - " Whoopsie, that's all we have time for
regarding the end of the world. Thanks Osama from Way East of
Norwich). But now a puff piece on our very own [insert bouffant or
vanilla code here], who has been tripping the light fantastic with..
Robbie Williams!"

Anyway, this was to the BBC watchdog programme, Newswatch (crack of
dawn at the weekend for anyone interested. Always a good moment to
air any linen you soiled at peak evening time.) by way of feedback:

"What is the point of inviting questions during Breakfast TV?

Indeed, now that journalism has given way to presenting across almost
any news programme, why bother with any challenging items at all?

Certainly getting an answer, clarification or the truth does not seem
to be the intention any more. It's enough simply to pose (in more
ways than one).

Today the new senior police officer in charge of speeding issues was
given an opportunity to trot out a bunch of old, obvious, official
statements unchallenged, and pretty much allowed to ignore the myriad
real discrepancies that are driving a massive divide between
motorists and the police over this issue. And at the end we get
admonished by the presenters 'if you don't want to get a fine, don't
speed'. It wasn't an interview; it was more like a pre-vetted feed
and stock answer session.

The one real question* I did hear, from a viewer (a magistrate, who I
presume would know about their profession, and whose validity in
doing so was checked by the BBC to be allowed to pose the question),
was why a magistrate would be asked to step down from their position
if they had a similar number of points for speeding as did this
officer. The officer said this was not accurate.

Is it? I remain none the wiser. There was no comment from the
presenters (maybe one was still smarting from being asked about his
record - or possibly worried he'd be targeted). That was simply it.
Question posed. Answer given. No matter that it may or may not have
been correct.

Not what I need and expect from my news."

But certainly what I fear we're going to get more and more of from
the BBC. No wonder it is hard to decide on major climate issues when
officials, lobbyists and the like can pretty much make up whatever
they feel like and get away with it.

*[Mine were: Should he gain a few more points and lose his licence,
would he be able to simply carry on doing his job by being provided
with a driver? Why do the actual cameras not have the limits on them?
If it is only about safety how does he answer those who point out
that where there are these things there are higher accident rates,
and where they are not they are lower?]

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!