Better than nothing, but..

I have a certainly sympathy with politicians. They are, more often than not, 'damned if they do' and 'damned if they don't'. 

They are frequently lambasted, by folk like me, for spending all their time talking when there really is a need for a bit more doing.

Thing is, it has to be conceded that it may be worth trying to figure out if doing the wrong thing is worse than doing no thing at all.

What these chaps do have to do this quickly and well, which we do not, is resources. Oodles of them. The staff and money to check things out in trying to come to a good decision. All we have is what we can read off and online, or glean at the odd conference we we can blag our way into, and then apply to what we've learned a bit of street knowledge and common sense to what we opt to do... or support.

It may not be perfect, but it is better than nothing, and at least enables us to reflect the very real situation of harassed concern and general confusion that the average person in the street must be experiencing each day.

For instance, we are getting a proliferation of press releases and applications for directory entries from various organisations and businesses (usually the same thing - money does flow) that boil down to buying off the green guilt you may feel for being a devotee of 'Mobile ExEm' (Ok, needs work, but it represents Excess Emissions By Travelling. But you get the picture: you are one who likes to sit in a car or plane) by paying someone to whack a fir in some allotment to compensate for your... er... allotment of carbon footprint, trading, offset thingie. Or something.

Hopefully you are engaging with our dilemma, in that this has to be better than nothing... but...

I was minded to contemplate this more deeply by the latest one we've had where some chap is selling Amazonian trees to be prevent them being felled. Top Laudable so far.

And as a marketing incentive, this smart cookie with an eye to PR is auctioning off on eBay his 4x4 and contributing the proceeds to the progamme. Even more laudable.

And further, its future lifespan's emissions will be compensated for by the requisite swathe of Brazil being cordoned off. Better yet.

You can see where this is going, and indeed in the blurb the fact that a 4x4 will still be guzzling its way around has been covered by the fact that it is now 'offset'. What would be great is when it gets won it's by someone who actually needed a 4x4, in which case its impact would be lessened still further.

I guess I am still uncomfortable with the notion of buying off unnecessary, wasteful consumption and consequent emissions in this way. There just seems to be too much of a message that you keep on sailing on, doing what you do, and if you've got the bread you can make it all go away. Only it doesn't really.

But it is better than nothing. So I think it's going into the directory, so you can decide.

Do so with care, though. I'm not naming any names, but make sure whatever you choose to support is kosher. The one that piqued my interest and provoked this blog is from a company whose main industry seems little to do with planting trees, though there is a tie-in and the expertise may well exist. Hence our agreeing to carry their details.

Just... if you are buying off your guilt, make sure it's actually, effectively, efficiently... really benefitting the cause you think it is. And you are really doing your best in support by keeping on doing what you are doing in the way you are. Less can be more.

The Spirit of C..ompromise

As we bear down on the festive break (we're still debating whether or not to go X(mas)-rated), we are rushing to put together a little year-end promo piece to a select group of 'major media influencers' to introduce our site's imminent 'New Year's Evolutions'.

I doubt any of them will be reading this, at least now, so I don't think I'm giving too much away by saying it's going to be a teaser series of re:use ideas (with even the thing they are sent out on being, in Junkk-fashion, itself re:useable - I hope with such a self-imposed requirement we are not setting ourselves a rod for our own backs that will become a bar too high to achieve one future day) sent out in series, based on the theme of the TwelvE:ways of Christmas. Cheap, quick, hopefully impactful, useful, welcome... and doable in the time (fingers crossed).

Thing is, one part of the concept is to get noticed by hitting 'em 12 times with 12 sequential packs that assemble into a whole at the end, thus demo-ing the Junkk advocacy of loyalty-based ideas to reward folk as well the brands they stick with.

Our one concern is whether we're going to cop it from some of the more 'T-huggable' (potential in those first four letters in future I feel) because we're 'wasting' resources with a multiple mailing. And it's true. We are being more wasteful than we could be. But that's the problem when it all gets finger-pointy; there'll always be a reason not to do something. So to do what you need to do, you just have to do what you hope is best, and accept some compromise is inevitable.

This came to mind as I was reading the online version of one of our proposed targets; one that can get a bit finger-pointy on occasion.

They are promoting a very worthy charity-based effort involving an auction. Good on 'em, and best off luck.

It has all sorts of neat stuff those with a few spare bob can bid for to help those less well off.

The usual. Meals, sports events, etc, with the rich and famous. Tasty and tempting one and all.

But I was lured to the actual article by the following on the homepage, replete with swanky picture:

"Drive your peers wild with envy when you cruise past in a new Bentley, driven by a chauffeur with a uniform and an air of superiority. You'll have to hand the car (and driver) back at the end, but you'll be a king for a day."

I know why they did it. It was one of the more visually interesting offers and would probably elicit the best response. But you can see how those of a more literal e-disposition may see fit to wonder if driving around in a multi-litre limo for no good reason is really in keeping with saving the planet.

Hence my seeking to instill a certain acceptance that we need a spirit of compromise in the way we all view the efforts of others.

One final smile: the last (saving the best?) bid on offer is a green makeover from their very own e-lady: She'll visit your home and suggest how to make it more environmentally friendly: how to eat better, lessen electricity bills, buy pollution-gobbling plants... (Not previously offered)

I especially liked the fact that it closes with the disclaimer that it requires her 'agreement in relation to location'. 

You could always do a combo with the Bentley!

Online, Offside and Out of Order

More than a few years ago we were the beneficiaries of a generous piece of support from some fund or other that got us onto the broadbandwagon sooner rather than later via wireless. It was a really, really big help to the genesis of where we are now, for which we are eternally grateful. By what I recall it was a few forms, then a chap from our local ISP came round and stuck an ariel in the loft (which may even still be there) and we were full-on.

At some later stage Ross went broadband, and I guess we must have upgraded, as that is what's poking out the back of the PC now.

So far, so smooth.

Until yesterday. I got an email from the fine folk who bestowed the grant on us which started by telling me how, as part of the terms... yadayada... I was obliged to respond to a survey they had attached, and was required to do it pretty quick smart. 

Now as we benefitted from this grant, I have no problem giving something back, but felt the tone of this could have been better to put me in the mood to cooperate. So I guess I clicked the link to the survey URL in a less than tip-top frame of mind.

But I could not have imagined the true horror that confronted me. 

Yes, I know a bit about the internet, but frankly it is a tool that let's me do what I do, and I leave the tech side to others.

Bearing in mind we are also talking a lapse of two years, and are no longer running the wireless facility, I was confronted by page after page of highly complex questions on matters of IT which we had no clue about, on on matters of timing for which we had no records any more.

So I emailed the 'initiative body' to request some human assistance. And in short order got a call. However, having explained my predicament I was simply told it was this online form or nothing, and nothing wasn't an option.

So I tried my best to fill the thing out, despite no opportunity to select 'I don't know', automated insistences that I had to put in figures to proceed even though I didn't know them, and some of the dumbest questions I've ever read, that bore no relevance to our circumstances then or now. And to cap it all, when I hit yet one more of scores of 'next' pages, the thing was dispatched as complete, with no opportunity to review. Whatever the computer the other end gets it will be u.s.e.l.e.s.s.

I have no idea why such things are drawn up as they are a waste of time, money and effort all round, and embody a culture that values being seen to do stuff at the expense of actually getting any stuff done. Think how many more could benefit from this grant with the money wasted in this futile exercise.

Just once I had a good one. A chap called about a grant we'd had and we chatted, in-depth, for 30 minutes. I shared, he... and his service... gained useful feedback.

So I emplore the box-tickers everywhere... if you really need to justify your existence: no more automated surveys!!!!

I say... do as I say, ok?

Let me get Jeremy Clarkson out of the way right now (and I don't mean
in the Colin Challen sense - see previous blog).

In a piece in the same paper, that was nothing to do with anything
ENV/Rec, I had a bit of an eye opener. Seems about 20-odd years ago,
just outside Cannes, the man-boy himself had an adventure in his
Dad's 6-berth gin palace. The era and the location and the hardware
therefore leads me to suspect that Jezza's origins are not quite like
other folk. As they say, the rich are different to you and me: they
have more money.

And not worrying too much about many day-to-day concerns can often
shape the way 'one' views life, and how it gets lived.

But at least he's not telling me from on high how to live mine, and
good job too; as I suspect if he did he'd have little appreciation of
what I am juggling at the mo', just trying to keep things real.

It did set off a notion, though. And casting my twitching eyebrow
about several other, more 'e-focussed' samples from the media, I get
the feeling that there some writing on our behalves who do move in
more 'elevated' circles than the norm. What I once assumed to be the
empoverished writing arm of the urban glitterati's chattering classes
seems to have been hijacked: by those who operate on a slightly more
upwardly mobile fiscal basis in plotting the courses set by their new
ethical compasses.

So we have ladies who take taxis to visit their eco-coordinators.
Stories about the new breed of e-yuppies who are eschewing big cars
in favour of Priusses (though usually by buying one as well as the
fast one and the off-roader) and cutting back to one or two overseas
flights a year only (I read a great piece by some double-barrelled
lovely who 'could have gone anywhere for the weekend' but plumped for
Lisbon. Nice. We were torn between a walk in the local park, doing
the garden or an Xbox evening in... and even for those options we are
indeed luckier than most). Or the odd poacher-turned-gamekeeper
(more estate owner turned, well, still estate owner, but not driving
about it as much, one presumes) feature writer who used to
hunt'nshoot'nfish dad's estate, but now finds reading about 4x4's
selfish as he visits the planet's other side.

Now, you are who you are and you've got what you've got. But by golly
I'd love a bit more input and advice that I can identify with as I
try to marry good e-practice with the fiscal realities of balancing a
normal household lifestyle and budget. And no, not from the other
extreme of some cave-dweller skinning their own vole to toast in the
solar oven.

Something that helps me make a difference that I can actually afford,
fit in with my work, kid and other obligations, reasonably get on
board with without starving, dying of boredom or killing myself, and
then share with the rest of you as doable. OK... yah?

It ain't WHAT you know, it's also who YOU know (who can share lots more what's)

Fairly soon now, you'll be seeing a bit of a change in Junkk.com. Hopefully improvements all round that will get you to what you want to know even more easily and quickly.

Of course, much of what we can share depends on what we're told, and we're still having fun getting some public servants to help us, help them... help you. I guess we still have a bit of work to do to get them on the side of the public, communication-wise.

So we still find ourselves happily relaying the words to the wise from those with much bigger budgets, more staff and resources. 

But we'd like to think we can add our own little contribution. As with the following, to which I have added a few Junkkly extras that may or may not help, but at least show that at Junkk.com we are trying our best to identify with you as much as possible:

* Over six million trees were bought last Christmas in the UK, most of which were thrown out after December, creating over 9000 tonnes of additional rubbish -  buy a tree with roots so it can grow again.

Hmn, how does one heft one of those into the lounge? And nothing like watering through to the shag pile to make for a good brown stained-start to the year. We still use the plastic tree we bought 20 years ago. Practicalities aside, I don't know which is the better environmental option. Certainly I don't have to go out each year to get one, which in turn has to be brought to the shop to buy. We're honing in on a much rumoured Xmas tree made out of wine bottles we hope to feature!

As regards disposal, I was listening to Radio 2 the other day and a gardening chap said councils are obliged to take them in. These guys have the shredders, so at least it's worth taking them to the municipal dump so they are disposed of as carbon zeroally and compostally as possible.

* Buy electrical goods that run off mains electricity rather than batteries. More than 680 million batteries are bought in the UK each year, but just 5% of those are rechargeable - the rest are land filled.

Or.... here's a notion. Don't buy a gift that uses any electricity at all! Especially daft ones. Check this out from an article headed "A gift list that would get Santa sacked":

A consumer magazine surveyed 12,000 people to issue a "useless" presents list to warn shoppers what not to buy, which was topped with an electric ice shaver, second an ice cream maker and third a foot spa. Also on the 40-plus list of what not to buy were: electric can openers, vertical grills, aromatherapy diffusers, epilators or hair removal appliances, heated rollers, hair curling wands and deli-slicers.Toasters, kettles and hand-held mixers are deemed more useful.

As to the battery issue. Well, of the non-recharge variety, the rest we use in this house don't get landfilled, they go to the self-same municipal dump where the tree would go, as there's a bin there just ready for 'em.

* Over Christmas as much as 83 square km of wrapping paper and 125,000 tonnes of plastic packaging will end up in UK rubbish bins. Use string to tie up your parcels so that the paper can be reused.

But what about the eco-consequences of making string? Just kidding. But have you ever tried wrapping a non-rectangular gift with string, though? I think we'll be sticking (pun intended) with sticky-back plastic (for the older Blue Peter watchers). Our contribution is to use newspaper for wrapping with holly from the garden on top, but that's mainly because we're tight, and the kids don't give a hoot.

* We use an extra 750 million bottles and glass containers and 500 million aluminium and steel drink cans over Christmas - what better way to relieve seasonal stress than smashing your bottles at the bottle bank and recycling your cans.

And.... better yet... visit Junkk.com to see how they can be turned into soemthing else... especially those more exotic shapes you get for the parties. And I do include the cans! There was a Japanese ale I had that came in a alumimiium can shaped like a beerglass. Whipped off the top and it made a wonderful vase!

* Up to 1 billion Christmas cards (17 for every man, woman and child) could end up in bins across the UK. Send recycled cards if you can, and remember not to throw them away when Christmas is over as they can be recycled!

Or... create something snazzy from last years' cards (ok, now you know. Save the bits from this year for next). Or... send a witty e-card you have created, and see if it gets past the AOL filter. But whatever you do, don't just write 'from [your name] and the family' and nothing else. At the very least drop a few lines on what's happened. Otherwise they become what I call POLAR (proof of life annually revisited) cards, and simply are way to let the recipient know you are not dead yet. Which is sad, at best.

* Remember - the main sources of extra rubbish are packaging and cards, glass bottles, drinks cans and Christmas trees, all of which can be recycled! Check your Christmas recycling and rubbish collection times.

Which you can do on Junkk.com when the councils start telling us what they are. Otherwise, we're as [3] wise [persons] as you are. Unless you tell us, of course. We're planning on putting this tool of the people even more in the hands of the people:)

Going underground

Don't know how long the URL will last, but this is as good a time as any to have a ponder on the 'next big thing', planet-saving-wise.

 http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,69711,00.html

And in case the URL drops here's the salient bit:

The energy industry has found a new way to dispose of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide: pump it back into the underground oil reservoirs from whence much of it came.

Now I'm all for innovative solutions, but I have watched Total Recall. So there's something about vast reservoirs of a totally different gas in solid state lying latent in the earth, ready to swap itself with the current atmosphere, which makes me a tad anxious. 

However, there is some reassurance that some mighty minds are aware of that:

However, not all oil fields can be used for CO2 injection and storage, so there is a need for other gas-storage sites. CO2 storage has been tried only in sedimentary rock, but the Northwestern and Southeastern United States are made mainly of basalt rock

And a bit of pragmatic caution as well:

However, the technology is no "silver bullet" in the fight to dramatically reduce greenhouse gases, says Matthew Bramley of The Pembina Institute, a Canadian environmental organization: "Energy conservation and efficiency and investments in renewable energy should come before expensive carbon-capture and storage technologies," Bramley said.

So for now I'm still favouring using a lot less of the stuff on top of producing none at all when we do. So solar, waves and a few other get my vote for now. 

This is more the way to do it... sort of

It has all been a bit unseasonably heavy on matters of protest lately, so here's one on a more appropriately lighter note:

http://go.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=10544330&src=eDialog/GetContent

Basically environmentalists handed out 150 plastic ducks at international climate conference in Montreal on Friday in a joking stab at U.S. opposition to new U.N.-led talks on global warming.

Beats death threats. But guys... plastic ducks? I guess it was reuse if the recipients had a sense of humour and/or kids, and/or still take baths (a whole other direction we shower-takers could take). If not, I wonder how they got disposed of? Are ducks a PET (#1)... ok, ok, I'll leave it there.

  

Sticks, stones, pies and eco-fatwas

It may seem like I have something of an obsession with J. Clarkson, Esq. He certainly crops up in this blog a lot.

But there are some reasons for this, if not excuses. For a start he writes in the Sunday Times, which is a paper I read. And currently that exerience is then topped off with Top Gear in the evening.

Plus it's a pretty safe bet that some aspect of one or other of these will involve his relationship with the 'mentalists'. Them with kickers in twist; him mocking. And as I noted a while ago, if the other did not exist, each would have to invent him/them.

I also just plain find our Jezza an entertaining read/presenter, with a fine and funny turn of phrase, complemented by some pretty good journlaism if you strip away the ratings-required bull-baiting.

So it was with a meaure of sympathy I read his article this week:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1919845,00.html

(remember the link is only good for a week)

It started with a bit of joshing about his recent pie-inspired escapades. So far, so silly. He flames; they flambe.

But then, as he pointed out, things took a more sinister turn. To quote the piece: "a Labour MP called Colin Challen made a speech in which he said he wanted me to be killed. No more pies. No more early days motions. Executed. Maybe he was joking, maybe he wasn’t."

Um. No. Not even. If this is true (and I see no reason to suspect otherwise, despite JC's many flights of hyperbole) not from anyone is this valid. Especially from an elected member of parliament. With all the PC stuff we have flying about that is nonsense, this is... deadly... serious. 

JC goes on: "I believe in freedom of speech. Plainly the honourable member for Morley & Rothwell does not. And nor does Tom Brake from the Liberal Democrats, and nor does that girl with the big bum who pushed a pie in my face. In fact no one from the environmental bandwagon has even half an inkling about the concept of debate."

Which by the evidence of my eyes and ears is sadly all too true. A large proportion of the self-appointed guardians of the planet seem to view persuasion as not really worth bothering about in favour of coercion. And they seem to be tacitly supported by a bunch of folk who I'm sure would be horrified if they really got their heads around where this can lead... or indeed has arrived. And by not remaining silent, but tacitly condoning such excesses of expression, they are allowing things only to get worse.

I agree with much of JC's opinions, but on matters environmental disagree on many more. I still don't know if man is or isn't responsible for global warming, but I figure whatever we're doing sure isn't helping. And on balance I feel his hedonistic extremes, whilst great fun, should be tempered with some sort of caution (easier to require than define, of course) for the more impressionable to grasp the consequences and shape their lifestyles accordingly. But it's a free world, he's just doing his job and can say and do what he likes. 

For instance, as he says: "I believe that western governments are in the process of spending billions of pounds trying to stem something over which we have no control. I believe that this money could be used to make the world a fairer, more peaceful place. I would much rather bring clean drinking water to an impoverished village in Sudan than bring a wind farm to the shores of Scotland. You might not agree, but surely you can see it is a reasonable argument."

Yes, I can. But I do have other options I'd like to look at and raise. Only it's difficult when the side I'm pitching from seems to be dominated by  the Colin Challens of this world.

Which makes getting Junkk.com's brand of positive, proactive, choice-based, fun, money and time-saving persuasion all the more important to get out there.... and working.

Them and us

At Junkk.com we are still groping towards the best way to deliver a free service that all can enjoy contributing to as easily and enjoyably as anyone can in deriving worthy information or entertainment value.

I don't know if we were ahead of our time, had less faith in human nature or were just a little more eager to ensure our corporate sponsors felt secure, but from day one we have asked for a registration.

And it has caused us some negative feedback.

Well, we're not alone.. sadly:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8425

In case the link above drops soon, it's about  popular reference site Wikipedia, which lets anyone create and edit entries. They have tightened the editorial rules in an effort to stamp out vandalism and the posting of deliberate misinformation. The site will now require visitors to register before creating new entries.

We feel for them in this as a lot of our site depends on allowing access to contributors to add to our base and keep it updated.

Two obstacles do not make a righteous consumer-friendly website policy, but there's really nothing we can do. 

And it's nice to know we're at lest in good company. And with Junkk.com, at least when you register we can tell you stuff about your area. With luck, we'll also be able to stay on top of those little tinkers who seem to want to spoil things for the majority.

The Mazda Kevorkian?

This one caught my eye:

Mazda Recommends Employees Walk to Office 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/12/02/financial/f070416S28.DTL

 

In a nutshell, Mazda is recommending its employees walk to the office, rather than commute by car, as part of an effort to improve their health and protect the environment.

I have to say I admire the intention and courage of conviction being shown here.

Now, all we need to do is get everyone driver who was thinking of buying a Mazda to follow the same practice and we're tickedy-boo.

But as I doubt that was the reason for a consumer PR I'm flummoxed. But in a nice way. Hey, what ever floats their boat.

Self-inflicted damage?

As you know, I sometimes stray from the more obvious env-path here, but in most cases issues can in some way be linked if you try hard enough.

I was reading an interesting article prompted by the proposal that health treatment be predicated on lifestyle:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/12/10/do1004.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_10122005

It was a thoughtful discussion about the thinking behind this, and likelihood of its fair application, and if it is fair at all. Like so many things, for instance so many debates about issues on the environment (see, I knew I could get it in!), I couldn't argue with much of it, if at all, but really didn't see where to go from questioning such practices, which is easy and populist, but ultimately a route that avoids responsibility for dealing with some cold, hard facts.

I also thought of a small new wrinkle that could be fun (in a spanner to the works kind of way) to throw in the mix: what about workaholics?

If the smoker and the drinker are to be spleens-tested, with stress such an avowed killer then surely such souls who push themselves for family and country in pursuit of productivity (whether in terms of hours spent, of effectiveness per hour I would not care to debate here) should equally be penalised?

Yet another way to favour those who are able to work 9-5, take paid time off when they feel 'stressed' and retire at 60?

And another way of easing the pensions problem.

How the British plotted to defame all Americans?

In the wake of the accusations of misleading, 'selective' editing leveled, possibly with some justification, at the BBC over their recent 'Real Story' feature, I thought I'd tweak an eyebrow at this headline from a major national daily recently, that seems to me to fall into the 'stir it up for ratings no matter what' category:

How America plotted to stop Kyoto deal

It had the following intro: "A detailed and disturbing strategy document has revealed an extraordinary American plan to destroy Europe's support for the Kyoto treaty on climate change."

It seems the basis for this story is a 'plan'... "put together by a lobbyist who is a senior official at a group partly funded by ExxonMobil.."

Smoking gun-wise, we also have that "..one of his colleagues who describes himself as an adviser to President George Bush ­ was the subject of a censure motion by the Commons last year after he attacked the Government's chief scientist."

So what have we got here (allowing for selective editing on my part)? A draft plan, put together by an individual American, possibly on behalf of an American company, and his link to the American government is a colleague who 'describes himself' as an adviser to Dubya. Hmn.

I don't doubt the facts. And though I may not approve of this chap's actions, as the article conceded he's doing nothing that is illegal or really to be unexpected when the stakes are so high all round.

But as my subject title seeks to show (with a cowardly ? at the end to show it may or may not be accurate; another trick favoured by those with an eye to a lazy rating), the actions of a UK editor for a UK paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the rest of the UK media, its government or people.

Some of my best friends are Americans. And knowing their environmental views, I am pretty sure most, and a lot more like them,  do not really deserve to be tarred with such a broad brush in this way. I know in the democratic process the government and those it governs - from corporates to the average Joe - often are, and should be, seen as one. 

But in this case I don't think that headline did anyone any favours, especially those seeking balanced debate based on objective information.

Which is a pity, because this is a rare medium which seems to have grasped that something needs to change, along with our climate, and is throwing some worthy effort at doing something about it.

Tiger in a turkey hut, more like

Well, that didn't take long! And I think my 'Cat. Pigeons' allusion was a tad tame with regard to the recycling 'expose' earlier this week.

First up, we have the PR from the chief protagonist, who obviously should have right of reply, which I guess this is as good as it gets: 

http://www.grosvenorwaste.co.uk/pr.asp

But I do recall the report saying they had been at the time invited to reply more fully, and claiming to have documents proving their role to be more innocent, which were then not forthcoming? Who knows?

It will be interesting to see how this pans out (if it ever does... 'out of sight, out of mind..'), but a few observations based on what I saw:

 

"...categorically deny the allegations that recyclable material was or has been exported for disposal to landfill. We do not deal with ‘mixed household waste’ which the programme repeatedly confused with ‘recyclable material."

Containers with their name on the shipping docket full of what looked like household binbag contents, sitting in Amsterdam, destined for a dead letter address in Jakarta?

 

“No prosecution has been brought against the company by the regulatory authority"

Not sure, but the programme seemed to be showing the regulatory body was not exactly a paragon of effectiveness in such affairs, putting their lack of action in a less than defensible (or defence-worthy) light in this case.

 

“.. one would have expected the BBC to have at least considered what possible motive [we] would have to export material half way across the world for landfill?  Commercially, it is absurd to suggest that material would be exported for landfill”

Fair point. One I asked.

 

In considering the two sets of containers filmed at Rotterdam and Jakarta, Grosvenor noted:

 

“..containers of recyclable mixed papers filmed in Jakarta were not owned by Grosvenor, but originated from a German recycling company which could contain papers from throughout Europe, and we have evidence to support the fact that it was recycled.."

Woooo. Conspiracy. Odd that recycled paper from the UK originated from Germany and gets mixed with some household goo and then shipped to Indonesia. What we need is to follow the paper trail (groan)!! 

  

“We noted the programme deliberately omitted statements and input from other organisations and representatives who provided positive testimony to Grosvenor’s recycling.”

As media are wont to do, sadly. And it can really suck. Not quite sure how such character references counter the facts in this case though. And how did they know the BBC omitted these statements if they weren't shown the programme?

  

Next we have this from a concerned recycling group:

http://www.lcrn.org.uk/media/press_releases/2005_press_releases/audit_trails/

This was not really meant for the consumer, and boy does it read that way. They make a good point that the public needs to be reassured by audit trails. I just wonder how that will get into the average householder's mindset to grasp well enough and hence demand. Smoke. Mirrors. 

Meanwhile, Materials Recycling week reports:

 

"Green Party members of the London Assembly will be asking the London Mayor to take action over the allegations that Grosvenor Waste Management sent the rubbish to be landfilled in Indonesia. 

Green Party member of the London Assembly Darren Johnson said: “It is completely unacceptable to export household recycling halfway around the world. This scandal highlights the urgent need to get waste recycling plants up and running in London which would create jobs and help the environment.” 

Which is one way of reacting. No sense of self-interest here at all. I have my tar and feathers waiting.

And this from WRAP's CEO:

 “Recycling is one simple way in which we can all make a difference, and more and more people are doing it regularly. Local councils and the Environment Agency (EA) need to play their part by making sure that what is put out for recycling genuinely gets recycled. In this way, we can all use the growing number of recycling services available to us with confidence.” 

Which is a wonderful endorsement for saying... recycling is a good thing to do.

The Community Recycling Network (CRN) UK has apparently slammed (how very red-top... bet they just offered an opinion) private sector waste companies and suggesting that co-mingled wheelie bins are the “lazy way” to recycle. 

It also seems householders are able to ask for full audit trails to find out where their recyclables are going. No mention of how. Anyone know?

Apparently Grosvenor is now considering what legal action to take against the BBC for a "singular, unsubstantiated attack on the company.” 

We await the outcome of such considerations with interest. I'm taking bets now. Who's up for it being in the 'old news' bin before Christmas, and quietly shelved by all parties who have got what they needed out of it. Mainly their jobs' worth.

I think I'll revisit a few of them to check every so often. If I forget too... remind me.

No such thing as bad publicity?

With the rather less than spectacular results of my recent 'pitch' still smarting, I was pleased to read this very interesting article by Martin Webb in the Telegraph Online (of whom all hail for making it free and unlimited to access... I hope. If the link drops ask me and I can send a copy).

http://www.money.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/12/06/cbview06.xml&DCMP=EMC-msb_07122005

And as I cannot always presume to elicit a reply at all from such busy folk, let alone in print, I can at least turn to the trusty blog to preserve what I wrote just now here:

"I truly hope to have the good fortune of meeting Mr. Webb one day.

When some of such pitching concepts were first touted around, seeking participants, we applied and often got as far as a telephone interview.

I remember chatting with a BBC researcher, and amongst a few other concerns broached the subject of it not being intended as yet more car crash TV designed only to boost the channel's ratings at the expense of those featured. I was assured not; it being the BBC and hosted by a major money editor getting cited in reassurance.

Thank god we didn't get chosen! 

As non-business-trained folk with a creative idea based on a well-considered but still sincere and ethical plan, I can only imagine how we would have got savaged to the delight of the nation's viewers. 

Or if our main aim (nothing but publicity - who in their right mind gives over a massive %age of their precious baby just for an injection of cash that can be blown in a fortnight without highly structured mentoring? Not to mention taking time to ensure well scrutinised partner relationships in any deal) was too easily identified, we may have been just get edited out. We have talked to and met some actual 'victims' to know what really takes place. (see below for more).

I'd love to think that out there is a genuine effort on the part of all relevant parties (entrepreneurship grants/funds/mentoring, business chambers and other such groups (CBI, FSB, FPB, etc) and, yes, media companies) to try and put together what Martin describes. 

I for one am fed up with the spectacle of the coliseum being served up to appeal only to the masses, and would delight in getting a true sense of what it takes (warts and all) to innovate and build a business on a good idea, but with a genuine desire to make things work - from all parties involved - at the core of such a program/me."

Frankly, I'd really wish that we could score as slot with Mr. Webb. Santa... are you listening!???

More than coincidentally, this very topic was at the same time being discussed in the more than fine 'bricks' newsletter we subscribe to http://www.businessbricks.co.uk/writing (scroll down), which adds some real personal stories to the pot.

The fine art of telling someone they're wrong (and how to get right)

The other night I was watching Top of the Pops.

I think it was current because they mostly had a bunch of perfomers
I'd never heard of, introduced by gushing street cred presenters I
also didn't recognise, along with their with accents.

And then, all hail, they introduced Robbie Williams.

I have to say, whether the hype made the man or the man made the
hype, he had presence.

And not a little talent. I'm pretty sure that this was a song he (at
least co-) wrote, and was actually delivering it live.

It has been on the radio before, so I knew it slightly.

The studio audience knew it a lot. But unfortunately not enough to
avoid clapping along to a song other than the one actually being sung.

Which is when I observed another of Mr. William's remarkable skills.

Somehow, and I'm still not sure quite how he did it, without actually
stopping singing (and complemented by some hand gestures), he managed
to convey to the star-stuck eager-beavers - who were more interested
in him than his music - that they were in fact compeletely out of
time. This was done with skill, grace and humour enough that no one
missed the point... but neither were they offended by the critique.

And then - this being the important bit - he also managed, quickly
and easily, to get them in time.

That is something to be admired. And copied. Especially when it comes
to shaping consumer behaviour to get us back on track.

I don't think many of us have yet, but I sure intend for Junkk.com to
try.

Unaccustomed as I am...

When we first arrived several years ago, and hot on the heels of a top 40 album success in Asia, we were looking to establish the career of my very talented partner-in-oh-so-many-ways (check for yourself: http://www.phoenixj.com).

Obviously getting her heard by those who would be able to help was a pretty good way to start, so we embarked on a series of gigs around London at various venues who promised exposure in return for free performance. It didn't take us too long to figure out that we were pretty much taking it in turns between being on the stage and being in the audience with a merry bunch of guys in a similar situation. Great fun, but hard to see how it was going to get us anywhere.

So when I arrived at my Cardiff pitch, I felt a certain familiar dread. A quick calculation based on the composition and number of entrants, plus their retinues and those involved (judges, organisers, staff, etc) made it pretty clear I'd blown it before I started.

There were not that many. And those that were there all knew each other. And most were inevitably there to cheerlead the guy they had come with, or the guy they knew.

Which meant that my grand plan was not going to work. Because I'd pretty much decided to use this as an opportunity to share the vision of Junkk.com with the public in the audience.  Only there were none. Everyone was pretty much there to hear an investment pitch, even though it was not for real as there were no investors. And that was what the judges were tasked to do, not unreasonably. In fact not playing the game might have put them a bit offside, on reflection.

Memo to self: amongst the many other pitches Junkk.com needs to and will do, don't let Peter EVER again do one on finances.

Let's just say I didn't blow them away with our business model. Everything to do it is in the plan, but it wasn't 'out there'.

Yet, despite really having better things to look forward to on my birthday than a bit of humiliation followed by a long, cold dark drive back up from Cardiff to wallow in my shame, I think it was worth it.

We (Junkk.com) may one day end up in a lift with someone who will be able to help. With money. With a story on us. By simply signing up. And yet still, if presented with such an opportunity, 'we' would be hard-pressed to convince anyone in that iconic 30 second space and time.

I actually had 6 times that, and still didn't. Worse still, despite having rehearsed several times I was pretty much glued to my prompt notes (a big no-no... who has them in an elevator? And I know all this stuff backwards) and actually ran out of the alloted time well before my scheduled close.

But at least if you're going to die in front of an audience, do it in front of a small, friendly one. 

And if you make mistakes, learn from them... quick.

Thank the lord we didn't get intro Dragon's Den when we applied!

Cat. Pigeons... let the games begin!

I was going to write a headline similar to the one above, only using Fan, Hit and... well, maybe Blogger may find my son's choice of excrement-based pre-teen nouns unacceptable as well. So caution wins.

Anyway, check this baby out:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/default.stm

I'm going to assume you have broadband (in which case you'll be as gob-smacked at how totally awesome it, the BBC and the whole IT revolution is...  a 30 minute programme whenever you want it!!!) and/or saw it. Otherwise I'm not sure what to suggest, other than this quick precis:

BBC reporter tipped off to container loads of our rubbish intercepted en route to a landfill in Indonesia, only it was full of carefully homeowner-sorted goodies, all assumed to be destined for recycling. Er, not.

I predict fireworks. There will be many knickers in a twist. Certainly a few po-faced 'they must have gone to Specsavers' 30-something, going on 60 (weeeee, retirement) types will not have enjoyed their moment in the the full glare of the reporter's Q &... well, no A's, but a lot of 'will be looked intos'.

Note to BBC and doubtless well-smug editorial team: will anyone actually follow up, or will this be another in a long line of 'I've started, so I'll... er... move on to the next headline grabber'? I believe the phrase 'isolated incident' was used a bit, and will doubtless get trotted out a bit more. But it is odd that an isolated batch of 16 containers just happened to swing via Amsterdam on its way Jakarta and get nicked in favour of all those drugs and rogue nukes. 

Anyway, to the one possible prosecution for such breaches in the UK thus far, the man from the Environment Agency has told us to 'watch this space'. So that's all right then.

So what has happened, courtesy of the protagonists, the BBC and the various agencies interviewed?

Well, it seems the public's trust may have been dented a tad. That is, if we sympathise and/or agree with the ladies who got re-presented with their bin liner contents from last year were anything to go by. Or we engage fully with those empathetic Gov, Local Gov and NGO reps. So far, so down to performances of the players and the subsequent editing.

It's a tricky one. Don't do a story and abuses carry on. Do a story to its full ratings-garnerning potential, and you undo a ton (make that metric tonnes... in fact enough to fill the Albert Hall each day... don't they have a newer stat than that to trot out?) of no good to the vast majority of good stuff that is happening.

Public trust is a delicate and flighty thing. Like I say, watch for fireworks. But then, all the hoo-haa may well bring the debate and opportunities to the fore, so possibly there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I can't blame not having a review copy this time, but am just too plain lazy and time strapped to go over it again, at least for now. But a few niggles linger...

If the consumer 'victims' were faithfully separating things out, how did it all get remixed up again? Surely to heavens there is enough value to 'pure' paper to not even think of mixing it back with all the tat to then export? It's like paying extra to get caught!

Is the UK landfill tax the cheapest in the EU? I guess so. And that makes it uneconomic to export stuff? Er... is it? The bad guys.. that's Grosvenor Recycling (who had a lot of answers and proof that did not materialise, at least not in this country. Maybe it's in a container in Jakarta?)... came out with a lot that did not really get pursued. I'm sorry, catching them out in a whopper or two is not enough for laurels to be rested upon, any more than letting a grey suit stick with they will 'look into it'.

Meanwhile, a big up to Islington and Barnet for not doing the dirty (mind you, fining someone a grand for not recycling and then have this pop out would be enough to have you promoted sideways at the very least) and being held up up as shining examples of what can be done.

Final thoughts; having earlier today just fallen off our stools watching the investment of a helicopter to track David Cameron cycle to work (ok, ok, it's all about the entertainment value), in a much more overtly eco-aware piece such as this was it really necessary to have a flight for the top shot of a landfill? 

Maybe unnecessary consumptions of fuel in just trying doing your job is another topic? 

Or maybe... a BBC crew is as we speak doing an expose of a BBC crew... 

Just asking:)

Hot air and a mighty wind

Today is my Birthday, so I was woken up at 5.30am by my sons to be be given the Star Wars XBox game I've apparently always wanted. As it also seems my desire extended only to looking at the sleeve, and for about 30 seconds at that,  it got whisked away for testing on my behalf, so I thought I'd steal a march on preparing my 3 minute pitch for tonight.

A local(ish) networking initiative called @Wales, who has run a few interesting seminars I have attended in the past, has been running something like the [name your actual fierce and/or mythical creature here]'s Den TV programmes for several years now.

http://www.networksatwales.com/events/dec-05-elevator-pitch.htm

I had meant to enter, despite my proven misgivings about the broadcast efforts' true intentions, but actually didn't get around to it. But it seems Emma did,  slapped in a quick paragraph application... and 'we' won. Maybe it's a sign of how things should be. Others do the real work and I just turn up and mouth off.

But with 12 hours to go, it's all rather bearing down. (Probably mis-)quoting mark Twain, writing (or in this case saying) little takes a lot of work.

What do I share? The judges and audience are not really 'investors', so it's not that kind of pitch. So I have decided to play it more as a way to assess how well people 'get' what Junkk.com is trying to do.

Sure I can throw in a few facts and figures about the potential of the Green £ and making saving the planet a consequence of what we're doing but not the stated aim, but I mostly want folk to grasp that we are trying to offer a reliable, trustworthy and always entertaining path in what is becoming an increasingly more confusing and pressured life... on the ENV/RE: front at least (if not others). And in so doing doing get those precious visitor numbers followed, one trusts, by advertisers.

For instance, I just read a rather strident critique in the Telegraph to an equally 'we're all doomed' one in the Independent on Sunday. The former made some interesting points (a few factual), and did of course attempt to raise the often-ignored issue of economic practicalities. 

But like those in the other camp, there was little in the way of what can be done to try and maintain our lifestyles whilst simply cutting out the blatantly real waste and emission consequences of our consumerist global, growing population. 

It all seems a bit 'stop'... 'carry on', at each extreme, with most of us in the middle just muddling along.

With Junkk.com trying to help in doing just that.

So here is some good news, guys:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1903311,00.html (be quick, it's only good 'til Saturday). Highlights:

War on climate change targets flatulent cows

There are 1.4 billion cows worldwide, each producing 500 litres of methane a day and accounting for 14% of all emissions of the gas. 

In Scotland, where there is a greater concentration of agriculture than in other countries, cows produce 46% of all methane emissions. 

Now scientists at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen say they have developed a diet that has done the most to reduce the amount of methane produced by cows.... by 70%

I think I'll enjoy that birthday steak a bit more now. 

But.... how do I get to specify if it is of the low-emission variety? No, really, how? 

If a system is in place for me to do that I can surely effect some change whilst still enjoying my hugely eco-inefficient but genetically pre-conditioned omnivore diet. The business that responds to that desire will surely triumph. And will place an ad with us to reach those who we attract with our messages and style.

That's what Junkk.com about. Now, how can I fit that into my 3 minutes?

A Helping Hand

A few weeks ago, a very interesting email arrived via the Junkk.com site. It was from a charitable 'business' in India that have a simple proposition: essentially they turn discarded carrier bags into rather stylish bags of a rather more permanent variety, essentially by weaving them.

Much as with our relationship with local social enterprise EnviroAbility http://www.enviroability.org.uk/ , the premise looks sound. They have a workforce on tap who needs work, has the appropriate skillset and in conducting their business essentially take 'waste' materials and turn them into something that can be reused. How Junkk.com is that!

Their problem seems to be getting access to the raw materials (carrier bags) out from the UK to India, and of course getting the finished product (fashion bags) back for sale here.

It has so far proven an enlightening and enjoyable experience, and I am determined to do all I can to help make this work if at all possible. I see it as what Junkk.com was set up to do.

However the level of commitment required in doing the necessary level of research and making the possible connections is not something we can afford to commit at present, despite my belief that a success in making this happen will be a worthy vindication of our intentions and abilities.

Unfortunately this has all coincided with our site redesign and a bunch of other tasks we have been set by OLOV (Our Ladies of Vision) to basically focus our efforts to income generation as a matter of priority. It makes sense. No money means we can't help oursleves, much less anyone else.

So I have, with regret, had to tell them that while we will do our best as a little 'as 'n when' side project, they really shouldn't rely on us to be their only source of UK assistance. It wouldn't be fair to do this project less than the justice it deserves.

As we have no axe to grind other than helping, I here share a summary of what I have suggested to them to date. I'm thinking of making our ongoing efforts a sort of 'Project in Progress' that those who are interested can follow as we try our best, so that you can share in our successes and learn from our mistakes. I can also extend their exposure beyond this blog to the diRE:ctory, category pages (we have one on carrier bags!), editorial, etc.

They approached us for our possible connections to councils, and we do have some that we can and will for sure pursue.

However, it was my feeling that councils may not be the primary route, if only becuase I am not to sure if they actually collect carrier bags in any volume.

Obviously those who do are such supermarkets as operate a collection facility. Thing is, I don't know what happens to them, and hence am hoping to find out when I get time (or get told). My personal view is that the supermarkets who seem to have rated most highly in ENV/RE: initiatives we've read about lately would be most receptive. So I'm thinking Marks and Sparks, Waitrose and possibly Boots. We'll certainly give 'em a go. Wonder if they'll take our call?

Another avenue to consider is recyclers, but here I suspect we may run into that age old problem of targets. Anything we come up with that takes reuse chunks out of recycling volumes may not be greeted too well. But the %ages will not be significant, and the PR value of a charity aspect may serve to outweigh the downsides.

Speaking of charity, that is another route. I have often seen signs in charity shops seeking 'old' carriers for their re-use. That would suggest low volumes, but it is worth a thought if made part of a campaign. I fear a certain amount of turf-guarding may negate this route, as we have found some charity initiatives to have fallen foul of this reason before. A pity, as they would surely have the logistics of getting a container out and back to such areas sorted, surely?

And we have also started to be aware of certain cautions that various public and private organisations will apply to such ventures, perhaps highlighted by this email that arrived the other day:

We would like to draw your attention to an investigative documentary being screened by the BBC on Monday 5th of December. It concerns allegations that materials separated for recycling by facilities receiving waste from a number of local authorities, including London Boroughs, are being illegally dumped on third world countries. The programme is called Real Stories and is on BBC 1 at 7.30 pm.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcone/listings/index.shtml?service_id=4223&day=monday

Worth a gander, I'd say. But such issues don't make life easy, do they? Especially such as this one, where we are bascially just trying to see if we can make what seems like a great idea (our unwanted carrier bags get made into something that we take back and in so doing help empower poorer workers in another country, with everyone looking a bit better and making a little bit in the process - I guess that excludes us, but if we do make it happen it may serve to bring our efforts under some useful radars in big business, the media and even the public) come to pass.

It also shows how nothing is ever quite as simple as it may first seem.

We know no more about this venture than they have told us, and we can glean from their site. But it seems worthy.

Here's the URL:http://www.badlani.com



And if I'm up to the task I've attached a picture they sent of the process and the result. I'd buy 'em!

If you do have an idea or can offer a helping hand to move this along, with or without our input, get in touch: info@junkk.com. We do have some more info we'll try and post on site soon... when we have time.

Or I'm sure they would be happy to hear from you direct. Just tell them where you heard about it!

Ok, I've tried to be good. Now it's payback time!

This follows on from the last blog, which I maintain is about positives despite my also having a bit of a 'vent'.

This... is pure... eyebrow twitching.

On more than one occasion, we have been told that because we're 'commercial' (we take ads to fund our merry ways) we cannot be featured (we report, but we also like to be reported on) in various 'non-commercial' (which does seem to cover a multitude of si...tes) media outlets. 

The definitions can get a bit hard to grasp. In my 'Cross of Ross' guise I once took to task a major publically-funded - and highly precious of its responsibilities editorially - broadcaster. It was for a news item that seemed to consist of 15 minutes on the joys of plastic surgery vacations, devoted solely to one exotic 'venue', their pricelist & gushing testimonials included (plus some gory T&A), with no analysis of the competition or any pros and cons. I suspect they did not reply because I opined this was more a blatant funded jolly for the production team and ratings grabbing filler for the editorial, than any attempt at objective news.

And elsewhere we have already found ourselves denied coverage on more than one occasion despite being free to use, yet seen others gain coverage when their - admittedly ENV/RE: - products or services do actually involve the audience in costs.

Anyway, who said life was fair? 

So I could not help but be tickled by a piece, nutritionist-endorsed even, complete with price details, by a major online feed (slooow news day guys? Or a relative starting the business?) about a portable, temperature-controlled butter dish, called...[no way do I share this !!!], which keeps butter at... 'the optimal spreadable temperature of 18.5 C'.

Let me get this straight. A thing you plug in, 24/7, to keep the butter spreadable, when all you need do is take it out the fridge 5 minutes, and it gets national media coverage? Wish I could show the grab it took to you. But then that would be promoting this thing, now wouldn't it?

But you know the best bit? The banner ads around this were all for renewable energy, carbon footprints and such.  

Delicious. The irony, that is.