What lies beneath the barrel bottom?

As she thought I could not resist a blog, Emma just sent me this: 

Public find the government more credible than the media

I'd hate to disappoint.....

All things are of course relative, so let me just add that in light of the esteem our government is currently held, one can only imagine what we all really think of the media.

I was however deeply wounded by this later on:  "People found it difficult to decide what they can believe when it comes to internet blogs."

However, as they are dead right, it only shows how smart the public actually is, and hence the validity of the main headline (in the Daily Mail. Bless).

If you can believe me, that is.

Semantics

More of a general musing for the Bank Holiday (which, defying the
forecasters, has been gorgeous, making it very hard to be stuck in
front of a PC writing a seminar), but I did grab a few moments to go
through the Sunday papers, which were naturally enough dominated by
the series of small problems besetting our elected leadership at the
moment.

I'm still trying to get to grips with the logic of how the guy at the
top of a failing organisation (in this case the UK Home Office) seems
to think (and, amazingly, gets supported in doing so by a wide spread
of folk) that the best way to resolve what he couldn't before is to
be left in charge.

But I'm afraid John 'Family Guy' Prescott, 2nd in charge of the
country, has really lost me on why he is till around.

I guess they all figure if Bill 'Cuban' Clinton pretty much got away
with it, then they can give it a whirl and see who salutes. I'm
afraid I trace a lot of the downward spiral in the collective moral/
ethical compass from that point on.

Yeh, there's private vs. public life. Yada-yada.

But at the end of the day if anyone in high office does anything they
know they shouldn't, especially if they know the damage that result
should anyone find out about it, then all bets are off.

I'd just like to ask his wife this question: 'If you can't trust him
with your marriage, please tell me why I should trust him with my
country?'.

Not to mention, while I think about it, the fate of this planet for
future generations.

Who says there's too much 'street furniture'?

....Surely not here in sunny Ross on Wye!

Because we are proud to be told how fast we can accelerate from 30 to
derestricted, though, along with the guys who put the signs up,
perhaps a tad confused what to do as we come in.

Maybe there's a revenue generation device (oops, safety camera)
around the corner for those who trying to obey countless confusing
signs rather than looking at the road and using common sense:)

An Englishman's home is.. a government cash cow

I almost passed over this one - Council tax bills 'to rise by over 40pc' - as being irrelevant to an environmental blog (though I have strayed into Cross of Ross territory before, and doubtless will again), but if the amount in question doesn't have me reaching for an AK-47, then the principle will.

When we moved into our current home, it was a big, rambling wreck, and having assessed our ability to maintain it (by looking at the rateable value and making reasonable projections over our lifespan) we have injected a small fortune renovating it, using contractors initially to do the big stuff, and our own DIY efforts subsequently, when we had the skills, time and, frankly, no more money spare. There has been a lot done, with lots more to do.

Amongst other things, I am seriously looking at all the various eco-things we can do,. Now these are major capital expenses, with the benefits kicking in only after a period of many years. So it is only worth doing them if we are going to stay here... and reap the rewards.

This proposal of tying the tax to the house value in this way is therefore a double whammy environmentally. For a start I now fear for our ability to afford to live here, and certainly question any additional investment which simply raises the value and hence our ability to afford to stay here.

Is everything in this cursed country now designed to supress saving, effort and forward thinking? And all to fund the money-pit that is their parasitic, unproductive administrative systems, put in place to keep 'them' in power and clover, and rest of us under their thumbs while they concoct further ways of funding them.

Bloody, barking madness.

A sober view on oil and its alternatives

It's by an academic, so I guess it will end up simply being yet one more of millions of talking points to be endlessly debated, but I took the time to read the following and found it it an interesting analysis of the current situation and, more importantly, potential future solutions to our need for personal transport: Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense: the myths about high oil prices

The first section is a bit dry (ooh, the drink related hints  in complement to my headline abound), but then it does arrive at matters environmental.

And the author makes the very same point that I have being banging on about (if in a slightly different way), that high oil prices are not a 'good thing' for carbon emission reduction, because all that's going to happen (and already is) is the oil companies look around for other places and ways to hoik the stuff out of the ground.

His solution is ethanol, hence my title.

I have always maintained an idealist view of the whole thing, and would love to see hydrogen being 'the one', with no more than water dropping out the exhausts, so long as the small matter of making it envirofectively can be sorted out, plus the small niggle caused by my reading once that water vapour was also a greenhouse 'gas'.

But as it is a looooong way off, I'm coming round to this way of thinking.  Read this and maybe you will, too. It's not a cure, but it seems a practical way to reduce emissions, though I still wonder about swathes of country being mown down to 'grow' petrol, which as a matter of scale seems likely to put in the shade the whole valid vegetarian point about the amount of land required to grow crops vs. a cow in terms of feeding a person. How many acres of the Amazon to the gallon do you get?

Now, what do we do about it? For a start there's a bit to note about tariffs to bring ethanol up to a parity cost with four star and/or protect our local farmers. 

So we have to get the pols weaned off the notion of pleasing pressure groups and making dosh. Not an encouraging thought to start on present evidence.

A nice analogy is a joy to read... and share

I'm not usually one for jumping into the fray of escalating email exchanges, but I caught the tail end of yet another academo/journalistic spat about climate warming - A Tart Counterpoint To Ibbitson's Irrelevance - and without comment on who said what to whom, why and who has had the latest laugh, would just like to share what has been called a parable, but I'd say is simply a neat analogy for the whole 'who do we believe?' brigade who use the ongoing confusion as an excuse for inaction:

[You are] flying on holiday and the plane is ½ hour out over the Atlantic. Of 150 aerospace engineers on board, 90 say that there's been a fuel leak and the plane has 40 minutes of flying time left. It's time to turn around. The other 60 say that there's no conclusive evidence of a leak and [you] should not turn around because it would inconvenience the CEOs in business class. Who [do you] listen to? The answer seems clear: You listen to the journalist who tells [you that you] should really do something about the in-flight service.

The conclusion is also worth sharing: '[The] debate is about risk, not certainty. [We] might choose to listen when more than half the experts are warning of a problem that threatens our entire species'.

Indeed.

PC = Petrified of Consequences?

I had a call from one of the organisers of the MAD show yesterday. It was rather flattering, and encouraging for Junkk.com, that they sought my advice and a few useful leads on something. Though considering the topic maybe I am not so sure!

Seems that, as part of the show, they are setting up a debate on a theme of something like 'can we spend our way out of the environmental mess we're in?', I believe meaning Fairtrady, Ethical shopping, to which my immediate reply was 'of course not, as just about any consumerist activity we partake in can only add to the environmental consequence if what we are really trying to sort out is global warming as a priority'. Which would have put me on track for what they were looking for, which was someone to argue against the motion... except they needed someone famous.

But we did go on to have a great discussion on who may be suitable, and it proved very tricky, if not impossible, to think of anyone. Because, like me, those up for a bit of 'head above the parapet' debate don't really live lifestyles that would sustain the position, unless it was accepted by fellow debaters it was more from a philosophical standpoint -  guys like Bjorn Lomborg and David Bellamy. Best I could come up with is that guy (Ethical Man) from Newsnight's wife , but she turns out to be on a par with our household commitment-wise, or Swampy of road protest fame, though he's probably a local councillor by now, en route to a seminar on global warming in Bali. 

What was equally interesting was the number, and composition, of those lining up in support of the motion, to which I had to add myself, selfishly, because Junkk.com is in the business of advocating buying environmentally... if we must trade and buy at all, which in any consumer society on a planet of ever-expanding population we are fated to do.

But there were a few surprises in there, and in discussion with MAD it did strike us how few, even from the more activist end, are seeing merit in being confrontational any more, or at least taking a high contrast stance. In a way it's sad. The fear of being ridiculed or lambasted has already bleached the colour from most debate, but PC-considerations, now backed by draconian powers of legislative muscle in support, have rendered it all pretty much blank. 

 

Maybe that's why we're drowning in so much talk with so little do. Because unless the talk gives clear direction its hard to take action, so everyone just keeps on waffling.

 

Learn from history

I just learned about something from history that I though was inspiring, by stumbling across the fact that the other day was 'Arbour Day' in the US.

No biggie, but it does serve to remind us that our forbears were aware of environmental issues and prepared to do as much as they could to improve things through concerted public engagement and action.

Nanny State. Nanny Do.

Yesterday I was walking the boys to school (no eco-upmanship meant
here. It was lovely morning, we don't live too far away and I like
the exercise), with part of the trip taking me past the local council
offices. And I noticed one the 'officers' waiting at the bus stop
outside, I presumed to go to 'head office' at Hereford.

How laudable is that? By contrast, the same day my Mum's Health
Visitor dropped by... in her car.

Contradictions abound. On the one hand, are we prepared to accept
someone we pay essentially spending half a day traveling for work on
our behalf by taking public transport, or would we prefer them to
make the most of the day and their services to us by rushing around
in the most efficient (if not eco) mode of transport?

Sadly, the environment is usually something 'we' advocate as far as
we can, but often without wishing the requirements of actually making
a difference to our lifestyles impede the most efficient and/or
effective (will I be taken to task for these words?) ways of working.
In all the critiques of government policy, this is something to bear
in mind.

The biggest obstacle to making much difference environmentally is the
human condition, dominated by the need to compete. This, combined
with now instantaneous global communication and access, means that
you can't do much in your local sphere that sets you at a
disadvantage for fear of someone else not too far (or very far away)
gaining the upper hand and putting you out of business - be you a one
person band, a multinational or a country.

I could tell every ad client I am hoping to acquire that to meet with
them will take all day (and who pays for my time traveling?), but I
don't think I'll get many, or make much. Equally it is obviously
necessary to do something about air travel. But it can't be
unilateral. And the UK can do all it wants with emissions, but if
China doesn't...

I have not set myself up to say how this can be tackled at a macro
level (because I can’t see how other than by advocating some drastic
solutions which would be career suicide even to ponder out loud in
this PC-age), choosing instead to hide behind commentary and, to be
immodest and a tad more noble, a certain amount of small tangible
doing via Junkk.com.

But there are those who do claim to be up to the task, and I don't
envy them. Especially as, so far, they seem to be making a pig’s ear
of it. I can accept the failings if they are honest, but just too
many are down to greed, self-interest, ego, vanity... (and a lot of
other less than complimentary words).

I really live for the big picture, blue sky statesperson who means
what they say, says what they mean, and can actually get the ball
rolling with something tangible.

Stand and deliver

It's all getting a bit hectic here, with the dust still not yet settled from the Ideal Home show, we are looking at Internet World early next month, and the MAD show at the start of the next.

And while our stands are considerably smaller and the display 'dressing' now well established and safely ready to be wheeled out, the amount of work still seems to pile on.

One is pretty much my own doing, because for Internet World I asked for a speaking slot as a condition of commitment, and now the consequences have come home to roost. Not just doing the thing, and hence preparing for it, but also having to get it all ready - about now - for inclusion in the various programme packs.

And while I have it all pretty much sorted out, getting into PowerPoint now as I hope it will be on the day is proving a bit of a challenge. For a start , things are moving so fast there are things i included originally that are already redundant, and new stuff that really begs to be included. Plus my Mac doesn't seem to want to cooperate too well with Emma's PC on this, and as she is the one who knows who the programme works, she's going to need to transcribe my notes into pretty, clickable screen shots. And she's away 'til Tuesday on well-earned leave.

Equally the commitment to MAD is accelerating a bit beyond turning up and looking pretty for a few days. For a start we have decided to take the opportunity to recoup a bit of the investment by selling some stuff on behalf of a few Junkk.com partners, and the logistics of that is a whole new ball game. 

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Having penned my initial feelings about Tesco's announcement of a £100 million fund to cut carbon emissions and increase energy efficiency, it has been interesting to see how it has been received. And on balance, so far it has panned out quite predictably.

The general mood across the 'green lobby' (the composition of which I am a little unsure, but seems, unsurprisingly, to be mainly those activist organisations with well-developed access to the media. It is important, as ‘they’ do seem to be allowed to speak for ‘us’) seems to have been cool, though in many ways not as cool as I'd imagined.

But some pols are happy. With, for instance Liberal Democrat spokesman on the environment, Chris Huhne MP, making a fair point that the amount committed by the supermarket was double the £50 million the Government had allocated to micro generation in its budget. 

I am currently ambivalent. For sure, 'every little bit helps', and £100m out of profits of £2billion is not that much when you look at what else gets 'invested’ in.

There is also the small matter of the balance between what helps them out (wind turbines do, eventually, reduce power consumption... and costs) and what is of any tangible end benefit to me as a shopper (though as a person living in the same county as several, reducing environmental impact is always a plus).

 

I just wonder how much impact we are going to see on what we get presented on the shelves, and spend our one in eight pounds on with every visit to the supermarket.

Ask not what you can do for your country, but help your country do more for the planet

There's little not to like about a charity gig. If you are a music lover you end up getting a load of great entertainment, often at a fraction of the cost. If you are a performer, you get a load of publicity, often at a fraction of the cost. And if you are the beneficiary, you get a load of coverage and money (assuming it does not all get consumed in expenses, no matter how generous the contributors' time).

So I cheerfully endorse all behind 'The Big Ask' gig.

After Thom's little spat courtesy of the Times a while ago, when his last tour's carbon costs were lobbed back at him, I'm sure this one will be a truly no-waste, no eco-cost deal at all. All turning up in Priuses and drinking tap water rather than bottled, and only snorting coke grown in Penge rather than flown in from Columbia. And definitely every effort to maximise the public access and financial contribution without tons of freeloading media luvvies and celebs hogging backstage going for a ratings/career-boosting soundbite about how they make sure their tour jets use biodiesel.

It reminded me of a 'green' (there's that word) event we attended, and at which First Lady PJ was to sing, where I read in the blurb that the sound system was to be powered by solar. As it was a night gig that was going to be a feat, and when I arrived sure enough about 3 40' artics had disgorged a lot of very big black boxes that had dirty great big cables running off diesel transformers. It would have been a very quiet gig without them, so I think one can get a bit carried away when you start worrying too much about 'cons e-quences'.

Not so sure about the 3% 'target' it's all about, as you know what I feel about targets by now, and it all still seems a bit vague to me, but as awareness building it's a BTN (better than nothing). I guess I'd just like to see more energy and effort going into motivating and educating folk with realistic tangibles.

Me, I'll keep on with looking for more end-benefits for the individual consumer with our gig: 'the small, but often, DO'.

Any colour you like, so long as it's....?

I feel sorry for the Green party. They bagged the colour (oddly left lying around by those who got first dibs on the others - though I do recall that in marketing focus groups it's not a good one for branding purposes), and have been banging on faithfully for years on pretty much the exact thing all the others have woken up to in about the last... er... week... it seems.

So now we have 'Vote Blue. Go Green' from the Tories! What's next? 'Let's not go into the Red' (as in 'consumed by ball of flame', though with Labour the more traditional fiscal allusion may not see this being taken up currently), and 'The Future's Bright, The Future's Green' (with due deference to the jumble of the Lib Dems and Orange in terms of colours, slogans, etc). What ever happened to Go Green. Vote... er... Green?

Frankly, I am worried that the trusty colour, and indeed term, may be losing its appeal and hence power. 

We certainly vetoed it for the Junkk.com website and branding, along with any swirly re-arrows, as we felt it was all too associated with actions and views that were not reflective of where we wanted to be (how ad-speak is that?) and what we thought the public we seek to attract and serve were thinking any more.

But with green being the new black in all but name, what the heck can we use as a colourful rallying call?

Piper Paying, part deux

I recently quoted 'He who pays the piper calls the tune' with an example of the exception that proves the saying, namely a lot of senior folk 'investing' money, which we pay them to improve our lot, a bit too much and too often in areas designed primarily to improve theirs.

Anyway, karmic balance of sorts is sort of re-established when one reads Asda suppliers rail at demands for marketing payments , though it does seem pretty extreme.

It seems the store's suppliers are not too thrilled at being asked to fund its marketing activities. I'm presuming this does not mean co-op ventures involving their products in the store, but a sort of generic tithe just to keep the store competitive overall against its rivals. 

I've blogged on this before, and it seems a lot of other retailers are jumping on the bandwagon. But it all does seem rather quaint. But also surprising, as one can only presume the stance being taken implies that the suppliers need the stores rather than vice versa, though one does have to accept who is paying whom. I guess this holds true if all the stores gang up, becuase if you can't see it you can't buy it. Which would be naughty, wouldn't it?

But I have to say that for my favorite brands I do go where they are available, and these days do tend to shop across a spread of big stores, especially as I am trying to 'buy local' and this gets me to a few more locations each week. And if that means I can only get my Ginger Ale at the Spar, so be it.

The future's bright, the future's... being squandered

We're not big on waste here. Of anything, and that includes money. 

So when I read something like this - Orange ditches £10m Animals work after a month - I have to shudder, plus the ad man in me thinking of the sheer amount of blood, sweat and tears that this would have represented as well.

I'm well aware of the importance of brand consistency 'n all, but I really hope the shareholders are happy at what the seemingly rather disjointed processes that were behind this lead to. And please god it was not just the vanity of some newly hired individual making his or her mark. Mind you, it may explain why each day I do see that another Marketing Director is 'pursuing other options'.

I can only imagine what could be done with £10 million, especially in the area of, say, reusing and recycling phones.

The enemy of my enemy... will stab me in the back as soon as they can

I am one of the few people in the world that doesn't use eBay (more than compensated for by my wife,  so the household is still pretty well covered). Odd, really, as I can only admire them across every level that has inspired its success. These include the consequential, and ever more significant environmental benefits, which I doubt were highest on the agenda from the outset, but are nonetheless very welcome now (except perhaps, by charity shops, who are seeing the really good stuff that brought customers in now drying up by being diverted for pocket money).

It is part laziness, as I can't really be bothered with all the negotiating and payment hassles followed by all that wrapping and sending. And I must confess to living up to my role as Junkk.com's LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) screener by simply giving up in horror whenever I dip in to see what may be available or how I might try to participate. To me, it is simply a bewildering zoo, and when we were debating our own site's shortcomings a while ago, it was so frustrating when I tried to cite eBay's failings vs. our own when all, quite correctly, pointed out that it didn't matter because they were an established, successful brand and people worked with it despite the... challenges. 

So I read with interest that 'eBay [is] rumoured to be starting 'anyone but Google' alliance (note well the word rumoured as I pass on this xth hand piece of ether-based gossip).

I must declare an interest as I really like, and use, Google. I also can see how their site/navigation works, and presume that it looked pretty much like this from the beginning, when they were not a major, successful brand. Ho hum.

The piece does point out that this (if it is true) is/would be a defence against Google's inroads into what eBay does, which I guess makes most things fair enough.

But I just don't like the negativity associated with that headline, whose provenance of course may not rest with eBay.

All I know is that when you make alliances on such a basis, it may be wise to look over your shoulder a lot. Which must be such a fun way to spend your day.

Cars

I read an online column by a motoring correspondent/agony uncle who rejoices under the moniker 'Honest John'. He makes for a worthwhile read, especially as, like me, he delights in the odd punning headline and a rather light-hearted if barbed and eyebrow-twitchy style of commentary. ButI'm not sure if I have quite forgiven him yet for accusing me of being tiddly once when i wrote to him (at least he wrote back).

Here's a typical exchange that I do trust shows why I include him in my weekly reads for this blog and Junkk.com's growing store of objective viewpoints:

Two drags Prescot

Six months ago, I paid £2,000 to convert my Land Rover Discovery V8 to liquefied petroleum gas, which then cost about 30p per litre. Since then, two things have happened to make me despair. First, LPG has shot up to 44p per litre. Second, Tesco has taken over two of my local forecourts and withdrawn LPG. I tackled Tesco about this, but it dismissed my concerns and waffled on about its green, bio-fuel credentials. It will soon be impossible to purchase LPG in some towns.

D.K., Prescot 

The price has gone up because, due to favourable tax treatment, the base fuel represents a higher proportion of the cost. Whenever LPG becomes popular, the price seems to go up. Funny, that. 

'Let me tell you a story 'bout a guy called Said...

... who stuck to his guns, and without meaning to be rude, said '!@$£ off' to pumping out crude. Oil, that is, black gold...

(with apologies to the Beverly Hillbillies).

I always wondered what I do, taking pot shots down from the bedroom window with the BB gun, if up bubbled the UK's only inland oil field.

Would I stick a cork in it and keep Mum? Or would I take the money and run (or become a hedge fund manager and screw everyone over. Why do these guys exist again?).

Anyway, it was inspiring to read in the following: Eco-friendly Belize wary of oil fever, that PM Said Musa has said: "We have to make sure not to skew the whole economy of the country by becoming dependent on oil," adding, "In everything we do, environmental conservation and protection is a central concern. We can't sacrifice that for short-term gain," 

But there are reasons for less optimism, if you listen to the head of the Belize Alliance of Conservation NGOs, who has said: "The country will close its eyes to environmental degradation when the dollar is flashed." 

Here's hoping he's wrong and Mr. Said sticks to his guns.

Black holes generate ‘green’ energy

No sooner do I/we get a bit of a boost about the quality of our blogging than I find myself caught with my 'blog pro' knickers round my ankles.

Because I've come across something I feel worth blogging about, but have no clue how best to credit it for alll sorts of 'ethico-legaloid-copyrighty-'it's the right thing tado-ist' reasons.

I first read about it in a nifty science summary newsletter called 'Science in the News', but the link was a tiny thingy that got me to an MSN site, but they in turn seem to have lifted it off a site called Space.com (which I do also subscribe to and read... usually, but missed this effort) who they link to but I can't see it anywhere.

Anways, as the only URL is from the mighty Bill & Co, here it is so you can figure out who to credit http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12465712/

Me, I just blog here.

And all I know is that I caught the headline Black holes generate ‘green’ energy. Apparently new study reckons these jobbies are the most fuel-efficient engines in the universe, and if you could make a car engine that was as efficient as one of these black holes, you could get about a billion miles out of a gallon.

There is also the small matter of getting to the filling station. Is it just me, but is the word 'green' being bandied about an awful lot lately? I don't mind reading such fun stuff, but let's not forget that energy, in any form, is only of value if you can acquire it for less (and that covers many parameters) than it generates. Which is a yardstick to apply to some closer to home.

I'm doing my bit!

Vindication! If from a slightly odd quarter.

Boys' toys are all very well, but a second-hand Volvo is better

'Producing a car accounts for more than 10 per cent of its environmental impact, so second-hand is better. By chance, I own the perfect second-hand blue Volvo if they want to buy it, but that wouldn't be as much fun as showing off their new high-tech gadgets.'

Me, I own a perfect-ish R-reg Volvo. What's more, it's as green as grass. I'm thinking of having a sign made up: 'The green, mean Junkk machine', and if anyone asks how its' green simply pint at the colour. The mpg is woeful, but I can't afford to swap.... yet.

It's funny, but most of the useful commentary (not to mention compelling environmentally beneficial information) seems to be from those in the media not directly associated with the environment. Which is, perhaps, why they better reflect what most of us are feeling.