Whale meat again?

Not too sure what is going on here. And it doesn't sound promising. First it's bad, then it's good (if you a whale-hugger)  and now its, er... not over: Japan seizes control of whaling group after historic vote. At least it's in the news.

Yay! Score one for the good guys (And Whales)!

Anti-whaling nations win 'great victory' against Japan proposals

Save the Whale

The other day I was queuing at the checkout when a young girl was trying to buy some cigarettes. The cashier felt she was underage, but a colleague called across and vouched for her. My deadpan expression was obviously enough to promote her to make an explanation about the legal situation, to which I replied: 'Oh, it's not that which worries me. It's the fact that a youth with her whole life ahead of her, and with the benefit of all the information she has available on the consequences, still wants to damage her health, bank balance and looks'. Pity it was her Mum.

Which brings me to whales. At Junkk.com we often admit that we're not here to save them, as it really is a tad beyond our remit and there are a bunch of folk much better qualified and bale to do it without us.

It would seem not: Whaling meeting set for key shift

This, forgive the pun, blows... big chunks.

There is no excuse, knowing what we know. These are sentient beings and there is no possible justification on any grounds, research, nutrition, dietary or religious practice to kill them. End of story. The Japanese don't even like the taste any more.

What is worrying to other areas is the precedent of 'buying' votes can and will set. Any individual and/or country who allows their democratic responsibilities and ethics to be turned in this way should be named and shamed.

Anyway, that's just whales. There are much bigger fish to fry.

The Big Question: But all the Answers?

Coo; that didn't take long. Well, I guess the story was bound to spread across a few media. So now we have this one from the Indy

The Big Question: Are speed cameras really the best way to improve road safety?. All fair enough. But I think it does actually miss a few pretty key questions about the legal consequences to the truly undeserving motorist who does get penalised for a minor, unintentional transgression, and the fact that such reliance does not seem to address the necessary commitment of resources to those examples of dnangerous driving that a robot is not interested in catching.

Which is more dangerous? Speed, or bad driving?

Good job I'm still debating opening up the reply facility to this blog. I suspect the following article, and my reply (if they publish it, in which case feel free to weigh in on their site) will... 'arouse passions'. 

Oh, the joy of tootling along at a respectably dull 20mph

My reply: 'I could not agree more. Or be more than slightly concerned about (some of) the consequences. 

As I look out of my window over the residential road a sleepy market down, the first of the morning G-reg 205s (with more money spent on the exhaust note than servicing) and, to be fair, the odd brand new V8 Range Rover, 3 series Beemer or Yummy-Mummy-in-a-hurry Megane, is trying to hit 60+mph as I get my sons ready to walk to school.

For my kids' sake, such a thing could not happen sooner, though I doubt this technology will be able to affordably or even practically be applied to the several hundred meter stretch of hill that so inspires our boy (and girl) racers, or indeed to the one way system circuit that draws them from near and far every Friday night.

So while this initiative is possibly better than nothing as it will undoubtedly curtail some speeding, I do wonder whether it will end up being further relied upon by the authorities  as a substitute to plain, old-fashioned (by which I mean present outdoors and addressing the spirit rather then the letter of the law) human policing, with the added advantage of a nifty bit of income generation on top.

Robots are not able to assess context. At least with this new system the odd slip over a 10% margin (what %age of dial arc is 2mph anyway, and how dangerous is remaining glued to it rather than the road?) will not need to result in a totally unwarranted penalty and all the consequences, as with a Gatso... or temporary speed trap with a quota to meet.

But they still surely will not be able to differentiate between 'speeding' (an average 23mph over the measured stretch, one presumes) and dangerous driving, which surely can still mean hitting 60mph, screeching to a halt for some fags at the offy and then hitting 60 again.

I welcome the notion of increased safety. But I await with dread the lies, counter-lies and statistics that will abound surrounding the fallout.

The authorities, especially those involved in law enforcement, are these days too in love with targets, technology and money, when they should be committed more to enforcing the law, and the spirit of justice, in the cause of public safety.

I have, so far, no points in 35 years of driving. So far. Yet I must confess to savouring the moment that the inevitable 'the law's the law no matter what' zealot cops a fine, three points and bumped insurance for too much looking at the road and not enough at the speedo whilst travelling one direction of a dual carriageway, maybe because they are trying to catch the reg. of a driver who knows the system, and its robot locations, whacking past at an insane speed in the other direction."

[ ? ] is the last refuge of [ ? ]

This Sunday's Times had a full magazine article on a topic dear to my.. our, dear reader... heart(s), entitled:  The last refuge , to which I could not resist a reply:

[ ? ] is the last refuge of [ ? ] Re:  The last refuge [I'll let you fill in the blanks - my suggestion is 'Procrastination is the last refuge of the last person to apply for the job of Titanic deckchair mover'

"Thank you, Bryan Appleyard, for a clear, if chilling (no pun intended) outline of the issues that confront us, though in an otherwise excellent summary I would say a bit more than a tilt to Prof Lovelock's thoughts on the issue of population could have been worth factoring into those Sandalesque restorative or Nukist techno-solutions. People are consumers. Consumers cause pollution. Pollution causes climate change (or at least doesn't help much). Climate change reduces still further the ability of the planet to sustain life. Ergo..? 

So 'we' need to change. But one additional problem I might suggest is the fact that there is a rather large, and still somewhat disenfranchised collection of folk (to which we happily claim membership, and have deemed our light green PALs, for 'public at large'). We see ourselves caught in an uncomfortable no man's land watching the mighty artillery exchanges of Green Elite Nukes and Sandals (plus a few from the 'not-us, too-late, I'd like to stay elected or next-generation-to-miners' getting thrown in) sailing overhead, and are pretty much stuck where we are while all this rages around us.

But let us not forget that there are many small things we can do, are in many cases doing and which cumulatively do make a difference. But as inhabitants of a consumerist society, it is odd that so few target the powerful motivations that lie behind tangible, if selfish, reward-based end benefit."

I would like to have delved deeper and discussed more, but this would have made it even less likely to be published than its already slim hope.

It was a good article, though. I learned a lot. 

The bit on biodiesel has added to my misgivings. The little known facts about the consequences our dietary preferences (carnivore - well established. Lettuce - I didn't appreciate that 'til now!) highlight the main issue of what we are prepared, or will need to be forced to give up. And by whom. 

There's the rub. I rather like being in the country. Can I stay here if I don't eat salads on EasyJet?

Where there's blame there's a flame

Saw this Reid blames everyone except himself in the Telegraph, and couldn't resist a reply:

"I have lost my job a lot. Seldom for not being very good at it.

So I’d be interested to know when, lately, anyone... anywhere... has actually been identified, much less fired (and in anything other than highly favourable financial, or at least secured ongoing career circumstances) in government (ok, big business too) service, other than a few recent ministers whose failings were so grotesque and monumental as to be a serious threat to those working alongside them (their party, fellow MPs and ministers), as opposed to those who paid/pay them to serve (the people).

Everyone makes mistakes. The notion that you should be allowed to keep on making them ad infinitum is a joke.

The pendulum has swung. It was once unacceptable in how cavalier a manner a good worker could be treated by superior whim, but now it is equally unacceptable that those who are not up to the job get to stay in it, much less rewarded during and after for fouling up.

Trouble is, now that so many ‘protections’ are enshrined in law and/or supported old boy’s network practices, I don’t see how we can ever get back to a fair and sensible system where the right person for the job is hired, supported in doing it, rewarded for doing well (and I include here the undoubted majority of talanated, hard-working civil servants) ... and dealt with appropriately if they are not. It’s like snakes and ladders, with two snakes colludingto take each other up (and stay there), as ladders are now too unsafe to use. No mechanism for redress of course.

I’ll use my vote all right. But its consequences cannot and hence will not be tied to Mr. Reid’s recent nonsense or the backside covering result of some mid-level servant using my money to dig a colleague out of a hole, which in real life should land both at the job centre.

And as they all know they are immune from the consequences of their actions (other than a bit of embarrassment), they will keep on making a pig’s ear of it all.

At least Mr. Reid has floated the possibility of taking responsibility for authority so greedily grabbed and imposed. But as you point out, he does not seem to believe that it could actually apply to him, so why should any below think any different?"

A Corny Tale

More (mis)adventures from this 'greenifIcan' novice. Having
successfully bought a lovely slab of Gloucester Old Spot at the
butchers, I decided to give the veg section of the supermarket a miss
in favour of the local greengrocers.

In the aforementioned supermarket, the ears of corn are trimmed, on
display in their very own tray with plastic wrapping, and usually
originate in the USA. Not optimal environmentally, but what you see
is what you eat.

Not sure where the local stuff came from, but it was in its own
wrapper. So far, so super.

What was not was the potential (I ended up dealing with it) 50%
wastage with none in the family too keen on the one that had Mother
Nature's very own genetic modifications.

Dilemma.

D'oh!

Last night there was an episode of the Simpsons which addressed
recycling. It's not the first time they have turned their attention
to the environment (there was an excellent one where Homer became
garbage commissioner and blew the annual budget in a day), and will
not be the last I'm sure.

It was, of necessity, cliched, with ethical (and sanctimonious) Lisa
fighting a losing battle against apathy (the rest of the family and
town), greed (Mr. Burns and nonsense (Principal Skinner getting less
for a few tons of collected paper than it costs for the petrol to
take it to the recycling centre - at least they paid!).

But there was also reuse. Mr. Burns, 'inspired' by a six-pack plastic
holder killing fish, collects them to turn into nets. Just what we'd
advocated for a football goal. There is hope for us yet.

A very expensive crutch

I am so looking forward to the World Cup. As someone who could care less about the whole thing, and rather more about the cost of the drag of all those flags fluttering away on cars, I'm looking forward to having  no reason not to be out and about enjoying the great weather.

So why on earth has this caught my attention: Rooney jets back to World Cup but United say forget about group stage?

Well, for one it was in the Indy, and that's important because they do care about the environment, when the red-tops have columns by Jeremy Clarkson rather than columns and blogs about him.

And so far the Indy, nor any like them (that I've seen) has not managed even a quiver of an eyebrow at this whole jet thing.

If the whole effort was time-critical, I could see some justification, but the guy is sitting on the subs bench. Why can't he take the train? Or at least a plane shunting around a few hundred at a go? Especially as there seems to be a 12 person entourage involved.

Just asking.

Fiendly Skies

Nice to see a bit of honesty in advertising, though I doubt it was intentional. Even the art direction complements the apocalyptic inference.

Who will rid us of this troublesome person... with a brain and an opinion

Another week, another eco-fatwa. At least in the world according to Clarkson: Pot-Porritt wants me eliminated.

If nothing else it proves again what I maintain, that without him the enviro-brigade would be at a loss (and me, for blog material at least), and him without them.

Anyway it seems that major e-lite (that's short for eco-elite, but does throw up an interesting alternative) guru Jonathan Porritt has said anyone who 'shuts up' JC should be given a knighthood.

In this odd world where Morrissey can stay singing when he says a lot worse about meat-eaters, and some dusky-hued folk (and I mean ladies at the Cenotaph) can get banged up for saying a lot less, this seems quite mild.

But having done my 'O' level in Brit history, I seem to recall what happed to Thomas a Beckett, and it was on equally dodgy 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink.. I didn't actually say that' basis.

I must say it's a pity if he did say it, and in this day and age getting that fact confirmed will be a fun effort. Not. 

Because I saw Mr. P interviewed the other day, and it was more than reasonable and made a lot of sense. Saying silly stuff about JC does not. It simply gives him all the material required to write a very funny piece and make the whole environmental thing look a tad dull, boring and silly. And while you're nodding and laughing you miss out on the few howlers that JC has stuck in there  that just don't add up.

And much as I appreciate his contributions to all this, these I wish he's tone down. But it is a free world. For now.

To your credit

I like free. I like knowing stuff. I especially like knowing stuff about me. So I like this. Check out your credit rating for free this weekend 

It's not strictly Junkk.com material (though it is all about avoiding waste), and it has not been 'tested' yet by me, so I'll restrict it to here, but having followed the links to annualcreditreport.co.uk I don't see a problem and it's a major 'why not?'.

Navel Gazing

I just had to share this, courtesy of the FoE (who have a lot more hits than misses I'm finding): INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ADMITS HE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 

Joking aside, it is symptomatic of a worrying trend, namely the fact that those who think they know best, but often do not, are seldom inclined any more to let us know what they are up to in case, god forbid, we may have another view.

The first casualty in war is the truth. It's getting more and more like the ongoing casualties of life today are bluster and obfuscation.

And without such as the FoE, they seem to be getting away with it. 

RE: cycling

I love cycling, if in a Dutch, flat-earth kind of way. Ross-on-Wye is basically built on the side of a valley, so you are either going up a steep slope and have to get off and push, or are burning brake blocks to avoid a headlong rush into the river (My family are the only one who go the wrong way round a gorgeous Forest of Dean trail because an investment pushing up a 1/2 mile hill means half a day coasting down a slight incline).

I also don't do major roads (a brush with an EU lorry wing mirror on the A40 highlighting the value of a helmet) or cities (a brush every 10 seconds with every car who would go from 30 to 50mph just to get past and then turn left 10' in front of me showing the value of all those TV ads about courteous driving. Not).

So you would think it clear which side I'd fall on when it comes to this article: How Nigel Havers incurred wrath of bicycling readers

But I'm afraid I pretty much agree with him (except the 'all' and 'bastards' bit, as that is straying into Clarkson silly shock-jock territory). At least based on what I read here.

Bearing in mind the media only quote that which generates more quotes (rather than a balanced view), we have such as "I have no objection whatever to occasional pavement cycling and have every sympathy with cyclists.", which justifies this on eco-grounds and health. The key here is 'occasional', where I would say 'common sense' and 'courtesy'. With my kids we do sometimes end up off road and in the vicinity of pedestrians, in which case they get the priority. If necessary by dismounting.

So I have little sympathy with those who have not done their cycling proficiency test or abide by its spririt. I walk my kids to school and with my Mum to the shops. Hardly a trip is completed without some cyclist who is so healthy they can't resist a short cut jumping a light, riding on the pavement or coming the wrong way down a one-way, at speed and with no consideration for others. And one day that is going to mean the health service does have an extra burden. Either from some two-wheel cretin finding out that they can't win in a head-to-head with an SUV, or some poor kid or senior who have come off second best when 40 kilos of muscle and bone atop a few kilos of metal and spokes hits them at 10kph.

It's illegal, guys. And dangerous. And if you're all growed up and want to assert your rights then obey the law.

Just because you feel aggrieved at the treatment meted out by idiot motorists, there is no excuse in simply doing the same to the next down the rung.

Remember, making a bike still causes emissions. Walking has no impact at all.

The most pointless blog I ever wrote...

... though, it must be said, there are some other good contenders.

But this one is to a machine. The stupid, relentless spam bot that is
ceaselessly attaching random names to @junkk.com and then using our
URL to fire off the tripe they are selling.

It's bad enough that some people think we have anything to do with
this (have had a few rather unpleasant 'replies', that really could
not be answered as anyone who is so thick as to believe we have
anything to do with this or uses such language is unlikely to be open
to a reasoned response) and through sheer volume and persistence on
this thing's part our name may get compromised.

God forbid it may get blacklisted, though one hopes that those who
control such things know how these things work. After all, who in
their right mind would send spams from a name like 'Junkk'!!!! Much
less have any interest in dodgy stock, enhancing manhood or whatever
else rubbish you are peddling.

But also, selfishly, I get all the bounces. And 'I'm not at the
office right now'. Or the extraordinarily polite ' I think you may be
spam'.

Please, you totally wasteful bit of nonsense, stop.

There, I feel better now.

Make Sun While The Hay Shines

That title is nothing much to do with this blog, but I couldn't resist.

Nor could I avoid a small titter at the progress of a blog from Guardian, whilst attending the Hay festival (hence the slight link to the title, plus the fcat it is all about saving the planet in lots of e-ways).

Comment is free at Hay

It was just rather fun to note the number of folk who were more than a little distracted by a MacDonalds ad that graced the same pages.

I must say that I rather feel Mr. Kern would owe me the money, though.

Interesting to note the explanation that 'site editors do not control ad policy'. Is that so?

The rest jsut shows why I'm not big on having my blog be configured for replies.

You say Payola, we say 'legitimate (and legal) consumer conning extortion'

At one stage in our musical career I seriously considered trying to get a number 1. Not by actually making a good (they all were/are, I rush to add) record mind, as that would be silly. But by the simple act of giving away or buying enough singles to get into various charts such that the public thought it must be good because it was in a chart.

Another way would be to hire someone who had lunch with someone on a playlist committee I couldn't even have a hope of reaching, even if they were part of a public broadcaster.

But that was music. So it's nice to see that all's fair in, well, pretty much anything that can con the public into buying something on merits that don't really exist:£50,000 to get a book on recommended list . 

I love the fact that publishers think it is getting out of hand, presumably as it is getting to the point when even they can't afford to rig it in their direction any more. And, as pointed out, it also happens on supermarket shelves, of course.

I wonder how much I would need to fork out to get Junkk.com a mention in the various monthly shopper mags, even when they have pieces on 'greening your home'.

Having an opinion can be hazardous to your career

With Junkk.com, I no longer have much to lose, so you may have noticed that I'm pretty much saying what I think. 

There was a time when I was more circumspect, if only because there were people we could benefit from working with, or for. Both, usually, involving money (see: He who pays the piper from long ago). And money to Junkk.com is money to the family coffers, so there really was a vested interest in not rocking the boat.

And it seems that to exist, much less thrive, in a career these days, you better no do anything that comes close to not agreeing with anyone below, besides or, good forbid, above you, or even have much by way of an opinion.

This Protect us from Billy the Offender is about the Home Office. It applies pretty much throughout every walk of life.

The mediocre have at last found a way to ensure they stay at the top of the asylum. At least the targets are being met.

Writes of Reply

The Sunday Times' essayist Simon Jenkins is the latest to weigh in on a now the issue de jour in his column Global warming might not be so bad, if we keep our cool . Of course I felt the urge to reply, not because I feel I have much more to add in these pages to the whole thing (like these commentaries, there is not much more that can be said), but in the slim hope of gaining a broader audience for our efforts by getting noticed in the more major media:

"Like you, I try to stay abreast of it all. And like you I am reeling from the sheer volume.... of it all. By which I mean that great catch-all that is global warming.

My response has been to give up worrying, at least about what is causing it, and devote myself where possible to doing as much as I can to mitigate it in my own small way, both personally and a few other outward, inclusive ones as well. 

Less ‘doom and gloom’. More ‘do and bloom’.

I must say I tend to agree with Prof. Lovelock on the issue of population growth, and have written about this a lot before. There is a finite amount of planet to live on, and off. The global population is expanding. This suggest an end-point. Most are also getting richer, and hence more land-hungry, material-acquisitive and wanderlusty, which inevitably means consumption and pollution. Which can only hurt the planet's ability to cope still further, and suggests the end-point is being brought forward exponentially.  

Where I tend to diverge is in deciding that it is worth trying to do something, no matter what. And if it is unclear what that may be, then we must plug on (or rather take the thing out) and do our best while those that know better get their collective acts together.

David Attenborough’s first programme was a disappointment. I was awaiting something new and got more of the same. But I unfairly raised an eyebrow that he offered no solutions. These are to come this week. Whether they will extend beyond not driving (but, we presume, keep flying, so long as you are a naturalist or environmental journalist whose career depends on looking at bugs or talking about their demise at conferences in far-flung places) and sharing a bath remains to be seen. If the medicine doesn’t taste nice, it does not matter how eminent the advice of health professional holding the spoon, unless they have added a nice dose of sugar to it in complement.

And as with the Malthusian implications of population growth, the issue of the Asian economies is one that makes anything we do here pale into insignificance, yet warrant scant mention for all sorts of reasons. I only had to watch last night’s 'Tank Man' to grasp just we are facing, and how hard it will be to attempt to check the glory of having a turn at being rich after all they have been through. And seen us enjoy.

You rightly note we face the potent issues of trust and comprehension even on our doorstep. Just to cite to examples from your own paper, we have pretty relevant questions on the independence of our government, and a letter (chosen from how many, and for what reason? A ratings maintaining rebuke from the wind lobby perhaps?) showing that there are widely diverse views on some pretty heady issues. 

But I'm afraid I can't accept the notion that mankind’s' polluting efforts are possibly a balance for global dimming, and do feel that perhaps your warmer Northern hemisphere comment may err on the flip. Though I do tend to agree, as it does suggest we may enjoy our camping holiday in the near vicinity more than some richer,  adventurous souls who brave a storm-lashed tropical paradise, seduced by the articles and ads in the very newspaper sections that are now sanctimoniously offsetting the consequences of their correspondents traveling there.

Though they must address such global socio-economic issues such as travel, I concern myself about the international governing community cooperating on anything. Political will can only be moved by individual desire.

So I'm not sure becoming Dutch and creating more land to generate more people and their waste products is quite the answer. But certainly a bit more effort in mirroring that nation's public efforts to reduce waste certainly is. There is a lot more we can do. We are just not doing it yet. I wonder why?"