This is how I like my eco-activism: subtle

I'm surprised not to have come across this before, or more often Rare herb sighting plants suspicions

It's sneaky, but you have to admire the playing of the system.

Now if I can just get this darned Dodo egg to hatch, I think I can do something about that pesky outfit next door.

Where on ether do posts go?

I just noticed one my Bermuda Trianagle posts from the other day just turned up.

Where the heck was it between sending and it being registered eventually?

I think I'd best consider not emailing them remotely in future.

Wrongs of reply

I quite like Newsnight, at least some bits, especially those when some pedestal dweller who needs a hole tearing... gets it. And of course there is their Ethical Man series, which we have followed with interest.

So it was, with interest, to note that they apparently check out all those who write about them.

Maybe it is because we have also tried writing to them on a few occasions that we have been ignored so far, but as the point to this post (and my inevitable reply - below) is rights of reply, we are in fairly meandering territory.

I guess the most important thing is to remember is that he or she who controls the medium controls what is said, or seen to be said. What you choose to include can still shape things to your purpose. Even in blogs.

My reply:

"I have a blog, and it used to have the facility for responses. But while it was often good and valuable to engage in debate with respondents, I just didn't have enough hours in the day to deal with some issues going on and on, and it seemed rude to just leave things hanging. Plus the minute you get into controversial territory (and dealing as I do with environmental issues there are many... I can only wonder what Newsnight gets itself into, and not just with Ethical Man, which has been mentioned a few times here!) it can all too often get a bit flaming silly, even when you as the initiator stay hands off from the get-go!

So I don't quite agree that you should have to accept comments, unless you want to. It's a personal web log. Obviously by making it freely available you need to accept that it will get read (why else do it?), and those who objected as stated in the post are plain daft. I treat my blog as an opportunity to publish things as would any writer/journalist (am or pro), but perhaps a bit more 'raw' and less constrained to provide an alternative to the corporate view.

My site has a Forum for those who wish to engage (though we are tough moderators on those who try to dominate agendas with aggressive tactics, as we prefer to encourage those who just wish to ask questions and seek helpful answers), and there are plenty of ways to reach me to take matters further. I'd like to think that if there were worthy points to be made to something I have posted, I'd be big enough to reprint them... along with my answer!

But as with any media, I guess I feel certain editorial control is not unfair for the reasons stated above (mine and this blog's rules).

The laws of libel still surely still apply if one is seriously agitated, and in most other cases it is perhaps best just to ignore anyone trivial just being silly, unfair, etc. If it's on your blog then you have your audience to consider. If it's on their blog, well, it's a free(ish) world.

And if you decide not to include this, fine. But it will of course be on mine!"

Energy from corn

There's nothing quite like an American heart-tugger execution to have you reaching for the barf-bag, but this is worth sharing for its positive way of getting the message across (not to mention the company in question!).

Junkk.com needs to do something similar, but perhaps a tad more... us as opposed to US.

One of our blogs is missing

Actually, more than one.

This has happened before, and doubtless will again.

I tend to write my blogs as emails and then send them in. It is just quicker and easier.

But every so often, they 'vanish' in transit. So the last few are in the ether. They may pop up; they may not. If the don't I'll have to 'go manual' and repost, so apologies for any out of sequence or duplicates.

I of course tried the help, FAQs and Forum, but nothing there (at least in the first hundred posts) , and have an auto-reply from the support team but expect little.

We'll see.

Talk is cheap. Doing costs.

Not a bad little article blog I stumbled across in the Times today, which actually had some suggestions. And, so far, some rather interesting responses:

As the planet heats up, we sit around talking and doing nothing. Explain

And as it asked for an explanation, I offered mine (sods have a character limit, so I had to actually think about what I was saying rather than letting fly a stream, which makes for a shorter than usual blog):

"Why? Talk is cheap. Doing costs... especially money. Not attractive to those more keen on making gold before green (I advocate they need not be mutually exclusive). Short-termism is rife these days, especially in boardrooms and cabinets. CEOs and ministers will be long in their gold-plate-pension-funded mausoleums before the consequences of their actions kick in. It's hard, not very fashionable, and probable career suicide, to think a few generations hence.

There are those who care, and seek to act. So as someone who has invested a lot personally in a small effort to redress the situation, please be careful with that rather broad, negative 'we'.

Controlling, restricting, scaring, banning, fining, etc may all serve certain roles. But these and even 'informing', using millions of taxpayers' money, are not really delivering a great ROI so far, planet-saving wise. So I applaud your incentive-driven advocacy.

A rallying cry of ‘Re:wards 4 Anything 'Re:'!'

Might even catch on."

Addendum:

"Whilst waiting to see if my previous post on this has been accepted, I now see a fair few have appeared. So I hope I may add another comment.

It is interesting, inevitable, ironic but a little sad that such a piece seems to have generated so much more talk surrounding the 'factual' causes of global warming and/or man's contribution. Or not. With a 2-wrongs dose or two of 'But they're doing it'.

I do care, but in the context of the piece do such issues matter?

Surely it is simply efficient in this ever more populating world to engage with every and any cost-effective reduction in waste - and maximisation of efficiency - that we can?

Or we can just keep on talking, and squandering the one resource that Status Quo fans would deny us: time."

Whichever way, the wind blows?

More double entendres in that title than an entire season of Up Pompeii!

And it is inspired by this Cameron's home improvements may be green, but he’ll end up in the red

For now I'll spare commentary on the Honourable Leader of Her Maj's Opposition being a bit of a bandwagon chaser, and restrict myself to the turbine issue, which he in part is responsible for me getting all excited about, and shows that some caution is needed before rushing to be green.

Because to this point, I was pretty convinced these things were not a bad plan, though I had been, and still am, concerned on the ability of a domestic chimney handling the load. This, however, adds another dimension: "Trevor Butler, director of sustainability at the Building Design Partnership, says the kit amounts to little more than expensive gadgetry. “I would estimate the daily output of the turbine at roughly 1 kilowatt-hour per day,” he said. “The average price of electricity in London at the moment is 10p per kilowatt-hour. As the cost of the turbine is £2,600, the payback would be 71 years. The renewables can be seen as expensive gadgets — but they do raise awareness.”

Certainly something to bear in mind.
And just to add a bit more 'to the mix', here's a littel snippet on how your average media news person has fared so far, from Newsnight's 'Ethical Man' series.

Laugh? I could have died. We still can.

I try to keep things in a lighter vein wherever possible, and certainly prefer to avoid gazing at my navel, but something happened the other night that had a profound, and disturbing, effect on me.

I was watching, of all ridiculous things, a comedy quiz show called '8 Out Of 10 Cats'. This is just one of several such shows where it is the taking part, rather than the winning, which is important. Hosted by a witty comedian, Jimmy Carr, it had two teams composed mainly of equally witty folk, most of whom will invite him to be a panelist on their show. So far, so entertaining.

But I guess what struck home was a comment at the end which the host made, and maybe more affecting was everyone's reaction to it. Mr. Carr doesn't tell jokes as such, so it was more observational humor. It was do do with 'environmental types', I guess like me. And while the specifics have dimmed, it was something like 'All these eco-warriors say it's about saving the planet for future generations. Well , I say **** 'em' (I think he meant the future generations - an audience it's hard to offend, yet, by dint of not being around as yet), for which he got a roar of approving laughter from all involved.

And he's not alone. I'm hearing and reading about this view a lot:

New Spin Tactic? Forget scientists... let's use comedians! Christian Science Monitor today employs a comedian to battle global warming science, with such insight as: "...we shouldn't worry about the distant future." I guess they figure the PR stall tactics aren't working anymore so they're going to humour us into inaction.

I have taken my family to brink of serious financial compromise by trying to be part (a small one) of a movement that is trying to secure the future by acting today. Neither I nor, I suspect my kids, are going to see any benefit for these actions (or real consequences for failing to act), and in fact are possibly going to suffer a fair bit because of them.

What do I do? I can either go down fighting the good fight, or give up and try and rejoin the very system I abandoned a fair while ago. Right now I don't see I have a choice to ensure the survival of my immediate family, immediately. 

At least Junkk.com will still exist and can go on to do some good (my own personal carbon offset). With luck it will grow and offer some form of return on the investment made to provide for my wife and my futures. 

But having been confronted by attitudes such as those listed above, and simply had enough wasting my time staying on top of hot-air generating, deck-chair-rearranging, well-meaning but ultimately fruitless talkfests such as this - Our wasteful ways will finish us off   - I really think I better re-assign my time a bit better to attending to those closer to home.

I cannot be accused like some of saying '**** you' to my great, great grandkids, but do feel the need to say sorry here and now (my wife and own kids I'll address in person when and if the need arises) for as yet not acheiving for your sake all that I'd hoped. 

At least I tried to do something, and it may yet pan out. 

And we'll have the last laugh.

Bag to the drawing board?

One of the biggest hurdles 'we' (I'm lumping us in with the whole e-advocacy movement here) face is persuading everday folk to change their ways in the cause of environmental good practice. So, while perhaps no great surprise, this was a disappointment: Bag re-use campaign fails to win over shoppers 

But to achieve this less than spectacular result, I am now more than a little interested in the cost of "A range of public relations and marketing tactics were tried during the campaign, including local media coverage, road shows, leafleting, in-store promotions, competitions and work with local schools."

And I frankly plain don't understand these two statements: "WRAP's report revealed that it had proved difficult in a pressured retail environment, to sustain all of the activities throughout the trial period of 10 weeks. At the time, WRAP said the campaign was going so well, it was extended by a few weeks."

While I made a nice little living in my career designing the things, another thing I am also not convinced about is that a logo is going to make much difference on the back of this. 

Time for a rethink?

Support your local supporter

This one is interesting. There I was in my local community centre, and what catches my eye but a leaflet advertising Freecycle. 'Ello, ello,' I says, 'where did they get the promo budget for all this, and how?'

Well, on closer inspection the answer to where is in the logos at the bottom. A few nice councils and some NGOs with tasty budgets.

How, of course, is another matter. And especially as I see merit in seeing how we can get them to engage with Junkk.com in the same way.

This, of course, will be an adventure.

The key hurdle is contained within that phrase 'voluntary
international organisation'. Which is up there in largesse attraction from funders with 'not for profit' and 'charity'. Those on nice index-
linked salaries and gold-plated pensions prefer you to either not be
making any money, or better yet a living either.

Now Freecycle is dead spiffy. It's free and serves a great re-
function. Just like our very own JunkkYard, and of course all the
other additional re-features Junkk.com brings that can prevent waste.
But sadly, even though we don't charge anyone for anything, we are
'commercial' so I see certain obstacles already, even though we by
any measure are doing a lot of good and deserve equal support.

Worth a try though. Watch this space.

Well, we knew they were trying...

Couldn't resist. An interesting approach to the whole food miles issue. It may also be worth wondering what they are not trying so hard with elsewhere...shire.

Nice work if you can get it

Sometimes, the numbers involved can be mind boggling. I remember 'when I were a lad' the biggest account move in UK ad history was the £10 million Austin Rover business. Now we have Review for £50m Carbon Trust business begins.

Now I would be the first to defend, and even advocate the value of investing in public and business awareness, and the encouragement of good e-practices. Frankly I look forward the Junkk.com being the beneficiary of some of this marketing budget largesse... sooner, hopefully, than later.

However, being in a slightly better than most position to be exposed to announcements of this nature, I am still getting to grips with the sheer number of different organisations who are out there dispensing public funds... whopping great amounts of them.

And, as I have pondered before, I do wonder about the way that this money gets doled out to be in turn doled out. Who decides? Who briefs? Who assesses the results and measures the ROI? If it were a commercial brand and I was their agency I know what would be entailed with a budget of £50 million. Are the same standards applied? It's all well and good hitting a target or moving perception some points, but at such an amount I'd blooming well hope so. What are 'we' getting for 'our' money?

I just have to hope that this is being well managed to achieve the best result(s). All I know is that, as an individual and a business, I have tripped over CT banner ads almost everywhere (good targetting or just mass targetting?) and most did not get me to go much further into the message. Likewise I have had a lot of nifty packs, brochures and flyers which have still not really pushed my buttons. And of course that (in)famous DM piece 'fan' which suggested that if I didn't like it I could mail it back 'to save the environment'.

Hmnn.

Works for me! Well, make that 'Doesn't work'.

This from today's Times: TV standby buttons will be outlawed

I'm just glad they didn't decide to tax them or fine them. And perhaps not a good precedent for all those free-marketeers driving their 4x4s, flying on holiday, heating their patios or drinking bottled water.

It all makes a kind of sense, but why am I a tad uneasy about who is in charge?

A copy of a parody of a blue pencil, er, red paperclip

This is already complicated, but stick with me.

For a start, if you're here via the Guardian, Welcome! You are one smart cookie.

If not, this is a bit of a musing on blogs, hype and stuff in general.

I'm a bit of a blog junkie I guess, fairly obviously. I write one regularly and often at length. I also read a lot. And then pitch in. But I think for my health, sanity, wealth and a lot of other important reasons I should cut back. The question is... how?

Analysing why I do it, the reasons are three, two major and one minor. Reading is simple. I find stuff out. However the benefit to effort ratio is not great. This is not a bad description of what one goes through to understand why: Mugged by the blogosphere - or how to find nuggets in a cyberswamp 

Contributing is another matter. I prefer only to do so when there is potential benefit. Maybe some of my bon mots may strike a chord and result in a positive result for me and/or my business. This really is only likely if those reading the blog post know who I am and where to link to to find out more. The Telegraph allows this. The Guardian does not. Though I am trying a small experiment, hence the comment at the top. See here:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/07/12/one_blue_pencil.html 

(In case my comment doesn't make it, it's in response to a blog about the consequences of the chap who traded his red paperclip up to a house: 

"I'd like to jump on the inevitable PR/hype bandwagon too late (darn, that's been done), by offering in exchange to mention your blog on my blog (double darn it, now that's been done too) in the hope that I can piggy back on a major medium's coverage of 'something' to get a few folk in the direction of my minor, and completely unconnected, business (shoot, that's been done, too. What are the odds?). 

But boy, is it worth the 30 seconds' effort I just expended just in case there are a few out there on a slow news day with some time to kill (try Google. Hint: I work for a company and I'm male).

Anyway, at least today's blog on my site just wrote itself."

The third reason is just to vent, and there's nothing wrong with that. Unless it affects the day job, which it's starting to do.

Pop goes the... er... pop

I do jest, but considering the current concerns about there being a bit much of the stuff, I thought this was quite funny:

 Britain's CO2 shortage not a threat to fizzy drinks

Maybe a solution to global warming is suggested, though I fear for the nations teeth and waistlines.

Eat my dust

Don't really like the Economist online stuff as much as the others, as they make you go through hoops (and possibly end up paying), but I got enough from the intro to So much hot air Jul 4th 2006  From The Economist Global Agenda

Europe’s carbon-trading scheme has started awkwardly but could be a useful model

IMAGINE a world in which the driver of a small, fuel-efficient car, or even a cyclist, can sell his quota of pollution credits to the owner of a gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicle. The seller is rewarded for doing his bit to keep the planet green, the buyer pays a bit more for the privilege of warming the earth on his way to the supermarket. 

I pop this in because it is similar to the recent aviation debate. I say similar rather than identical because I think car travel in some form or other is a simple necessity that it's hard to imagine society being able to manage without, where a lot of air travel is more of a luxury that we probably can reduce more easily (anguished cries from the travel industry).

I'm still trying to get my head around this. On balance getting rewarded for getting from A to B in the most eco manner is to be lauded, but I can't quite see giving free rein to rich petrolheads is the way to go either. But then this is pretty much what I was advocating for air travel between an eskimo and a frequent flyer, so hey-ho.

A fair point was made in the debate instigated by MEP Dr. Lucas (recent blog), where she was rather held to account for how her air travel came across as slightly more 'necessary' than others, which is a bit of pedestal posing on the part of the pols I have raised before, when the haves decide who keeps and who has not in future. 

But we do rather get to a pretty draconian level of mandatory maximums on personal travel. It reminds me a bit of a very funny piece (well, they all were) in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where visitors to a planet have to account for their bodily impact during their stay, so getting a receipt at the loo is pretty vital to avoid painful consequences in the departure lounge

I guess it's a case of two legs good. 

Sky High

I broke my rule and pitched into a forum debate in the Guardian today - The stratospheric cost of cheap flights - prompted by Green MEP Dr. Caroline Lucas.

Some interesting, and varied opinions in the mix.

Here are mine:

"Though it is obviously (oh boy, is it ever) still up for debate, I personally believe that whatever 'we' are doing as an ever-growing global population, the consequences of our existences, rich or poor, are not helping halt the negative aspects of climate change.

Closer to home, and this discussion, I also believe that air travel emissions are quite high on the list of probable causes and need addressing.

A while ago I caught the tail end of yet another academo/journalistic spat about climate warming - http://www.desmogblog.com/a-tart-counterpoint-to-ibbitsons-irrelevance - and would just like to share this:

"[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."

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'.

Asking who flies where how often is obviously fun when the 'greener than thous' get on their specific and saintly hobby horses, but really doesn't address the bigger picture. Yet, of those on board (sorry) with the notion that it's a problem requiring a solution, we still seem to be circling (sorry again:)) around what to do.

I don't really understand all these trading schemes very well, and have my suspicions that they will just create a whole new breed of very rich folk who will be able to afford to fly around discussing what they are trading. And on a personal holidaymaker basis, I am equally not sure that whacking another fir tree in the Gobi to make up for a stag trip to Rimini is going to help much either.

Both simply seem to be trying to buy off our guilt and/or the consequences of demanding our right to go where, when and as often as we please, simply because we can.

Plus these solutions all seem potentially so socially divisive on top of the eco-consequences, as it will inevitably be those with the dosh who get to make the trips if it boils down to just money.

As a small suggestion, I'd advocate some form of individual quota system, where you're allowed a certain number of airmiles per annum per person.

You want to do more, you can trade with those who don't need or want them (so all those business types on a jolly will need to get them off a some poor eskimo whose igloo has just melted).

This does of course simplistically ignore a few global societal imbalances (if every Chinese agri-worker or bushman in the Kalahari gets the right to 10k airmiles, the planet would be toast in a week), economic realities (just where exactly are all those who depend on the current - let alone proposed - levels of air travel going to be reassigned?) and remarkably optimistic hopes of planetary cooperation in the spirit of self-preservation over self-interest, but then that's what politicians are for, isn't it?

But a start (to stopping - 50 airports' worth taking off from a 'soon to be affluent enough to afford it' China is a... concern) needs to be made.

This at least is an attempt. A tad unilateral. Fraught with inequalities and impracticailties for sure, but better than doing nothing.

I am prepared to hold my breath, and just hope there's a resolution before I really have to... for good."

WrapAtak #2

I'm always up for a freebie. And it seems churlish to complain when
it's delivered, but I'm afraid I find this one a bit daft and worthy
of comment.

A wee while ago I came across an offer by a major paper company
(whose products we're happy to use) to request a recycling box (or
three). Well, we always have a use for a box, so why not? And I duly
applied.

Well, they arrived. And dead spiffy they are too.

But does it really make sense for them have come all the way from
Germany... by courier!

And would it have been beyond their ken to make the boxes their paper
gets delivered in provide the same purpose. An opportunity lost.

Full marks for the sentiment. Nil points for much else, I'm afraid.

Fault!

Time now for one of my cheeky eyebrow raises. After the flurry of eco-
articles on travel, cars, etc, I couldn't help be notice that the
media's fervour has moved on a bit, and so not much mention of the
footy WAGS using private jets like taxis.

And now I have spotted this: Me and My Motors: Maria Sharapova

"When Maria Sharapova came from nowhere to win Wimbledon aged just
17, she was still being ferried to training sessions in the family’s
ageing Honda — the only car the Sharapovas had ever owned. Fast
forward two years and the 19-year-old Russian will be chauffeur-
driven to the All England club in a £50,000 Range Rover Sport."

I'm just a bit intrigued as to why a) a 4x4 is necessary to navigate
the wilds of Wimbledon and b), perhaps more interestingly, why no one
that I can spot from the green brigade (I'm green lite so don't
count) has yet had a peep to say about it.

Then again, I wonder how many of our green elite are parked in centre
court?



Mea Culpa. And you, ah, too!

Nothing like a title that gets straight to the point: Who’s to Blame for Global Warming?

I found this one both intriguing and refreshingly different to the usual, hence worth sharing.

And as an e-WASP by accident of birth, I guess it was nice to get away from the incessant Western guilt-tripping (and bashing) for a short while.

The main point is that we are all in this together... globally. Whether this gets taken is another matter.

Now, maybe I should have mash with my curry in future?