It's not easy being green. Especially a lite one. You want to do what's best, but just when you think you're doing the right thing by doing what you're told, along comes advice that can often be completely at odds.
Hence, while not strictly green, I look at this from today's Mail, which is about energy, so it is pertinent:
The Government has urged energy customers to switch suppliers after British Gas announced further price hikes. It is the fourth price rise in less than two years and follows a 22 per cent increase in March.
Woo. The Government. And in the Daily Mail what's more. So it must be a good idea, right? On balance it seems to make sense.
But then.... you find something like this trots along from another direction, this time Martin Lewis' Money-Saving Expert (go to his site to get the full skinny):
British Gas Major Price Rise Don't listen to anyone saying 'switch supplier now!' - British Gas has just announced a 12.4% gas price rise and 9.4% electricity price rise effective 4 September. You'll read comments telling you 'switch, switch, switch', yet that message is pumped by companies with a vested interest in churning the market. Actually the sensible thing to do is sit tight!
I respect this guy, his sources and his advice a lot. So I think I'll stick with this.
But what about all the other 'official' 'You shoulds...' we get, especially in the e-area?
Friday, July 28, 2006
I don't want to be a Groucho, but...
... to quote Mr. Marx the eldest, I often feel 'I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member'.
I have been meaning to write about the whole 'free eBay'/swap arena for a while, and may soon do a formal review, but this - freecycle: TM, and R.I.P. - in today's Grist (an e-letter well worthy of subscribing to... for free) has moved me to put digit to keyboard now.
It’s always sad when something so fundamentally ‘good’, such as anything that’s not just talking about trying to save the planet but actually doing something (I’m big on tangibles) gets compromised – to any degree – by... talking. But I guess we all can't resist having opinions. So I simply advocate the notion of ‘whatever works!’, which does not exclude constructive criticism.
Freecycle is a true phenomenon, and certainly already has a firm foothold here in the UK. It is also about the only serious such initiative around that I'm aware of - not counting our little JunkkYard.
I'm pretty sure all the corporate, legalistic shenanigans would and possibly could not occur here, but we'll see. Academic anyway, as it hardly affects anything.
The issue seems to be cultural. Personally I had trouble (hey, ours is not perfect and we're always working on it... funds permitting) coping with the system Freecycle used/s and have given up with it. But a lot do. So if asked we will happily advocate trying JunkkYard AND Freecycle (and now a few others this post has made me aware of, if they are over here). Why not? They're both free, not exclusive and achieve the same result. And we gain from being helpful all round, so with luck will get revisited. So what is being defended here?
As a consumer you go where you feel comfortable. In the UK I sensed the same 'clique' tensions creeping in. When I could be bothered to read the vast numbers of daily emails, there'd often be sniping going on. Why so heavy? Who needs it?
For sure we're keen to create a community, and there is a Forum for people to engage, but mostly it's just a tool. Like some others mentioned, our model is much more Google or eBay. Donor/Beneficiary. Post/Surf. Offer/Collect. Beyond providing the matchmaking mechanism (and enjoying passive exposure to the traffic created) what other involvement is required?
We opened from day one with our hearts on our sleeves... well, our business model up there on our banners.
Much like Anita Roddick's sale of Body Shop, if you start as one thing, you can probably expect to cop some flak when you try and change the fundamentals. Especially having established with a super-ethical ‘no money involved’ stance, to trying to turn a buck, even if it’s just to keep funding the whole shebang. And moving from voluntary to sponsored will put a few supporters' noses out. Sadly the whole e-movement can be quite ‘purist’ in approach when it comes to making green, and beyond grubby money, standards of hotly advocated 'best practice' (who decides?) can also often alienate those who are a lighter shade and lives to get on with.
Frankly I can't quite see what’s the problem (being commercial that is). However, being uber-precious and especially getting the shark suits involved does not seem productive. I wonder who funds this aspect? And why? Does this suggest a another, possibly more financially-aspirational agenda?
If it is, consumer preferences and market forces will decide. Welcome to the club.
I have been meaning to write about the whole 'free eBay'/swap arena for a while, and may soon do a formal review, but this - freecycle: TM, and R.I.P. - in today's Grist (an e-letter well worthy of subscribing to... for free) has moved me to put digit to keyboard now.
It’s always sad when something so fundamentally ‘good’, such as anything that’s not just talking about trying to save the planet but actually doing something (I’m big on tangibles) gets compromised – to any degree – by... talking. But I guess we all can't resist having opinions. So I simply advocate the notion of ‘whatever works!’, which does not exclude constructive criticism.
Freecycle is a true phenomenon, and certainly already has a firm foothold here in the UK. It is also about the only serious such initiative around that I'm aware of - not counting our little JunkkYard.
I'm pretty sure all the corporate, legalistic shenanigans would and possibly could not occur here, but we'll see. Academic anyway, as it hardly affects anything.
The issue seems to be cultural. Personally I had trouble (hey, ours is not perfect and we're always working on it... funds permitting) coping with the system Freecycle used/s and have given up with it. But a lot do. So if asked we will happily advocate trying JunkkYard AND Freecycle (and now a few others this post has made me aware of, if they are over here). Why not? They're both free, not exclusive and achieve the same result. And we gain from being helpful all round, so with luck will get revisited. So what is being defended here?
As a consumer you go where you feel comfortable. In the UK I sensed the same 'clique' tensions creeping in. When I could be bothered to read the vast numbers of daily emails, there'd often be sniping going on. Why so heavy? Who needs it?
For sure we're keen to create a community, and there is a Forum for people to engage, but mostly it's just a tool. Like some others mentioned, our model is much more Google or eBay. Donor/Beneficiary. Post/Surf. Offer/Collect. Beyond providing the matchmaking mechanism (and enjoying passive exposure to the traffic created) what other involvement is required?
We opened from day one with our hearts on our sleeves... well, our business model up there on our banners.
Much like Anita Roddick's sale of Body Shop, if you start as one thing, you can probably expect to cop some flak when you try and change the fundamentals. Especially having established with a super-ethical ‘no money involved’ stance, to trying to turn a buck, even if it’s just to keep funding the whole shebang. And moving from voluntary to sponsored will put a few supporters' noses out. Sadly the whole e-movement can be quite ‘purist’ in approach when it comes to making green, and beyond grubby money, standards of hotly advocated 'best practice' (who decides?) can also often alienate those who are a lighter shade and lives to get on with.
Frankly I can't quite see what’s the problem (being commercial that is). However, being uber-precious and especially getting the shark suits involved does not seem productive. I wonder who funds this aspect? And why? Does this suggest a another, possibly more financially-aspirational agenda?
If it is, consumer preferences and market forces will decide. Welcome to the club.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
What you say may not be what you've done (or said)
Having posted on a forum/blog (see last post) this morning, I have come back to find a very active series of exchanges (mine's in there somewhere). It was interesting to note (and worthy of separate comment), that when I posted the board was still a blank canvas, though obviously many had been posting well before me, which can lead to unfortunate disconnects, especially if referring to another post.
I have tended to prefer such the Telegraph version to some other major media, because there is point in contributing beyond venting, as you do have the chance of a credit, and this can be of value. We have had sign-ups to the site as a consequence of my posting to these things in the past.
Now I am thinking of pulling back from these arenas, as explained by this subsequent post I have been moved to add (and may or may not get 'approved' at all, much less 'as is', despite the following: 'telegraph.co.uk does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over information posted by users'. Which I had taken to mean what one wrote, so long as it followed guidelines, was what went up. But apparently not):
"It hadn't occurred to me until now that, despite having a few issues to cover and working within a stated limit, what one has contributed even to a Blog/Forum can be edited before sharing. And this of course can seriously affect context. Not to mention shape the direction of the piece in the direction of the media controller's agenda. It can enhance the pros or cons of an issue, or simply keep things bubbling ratings-wise by emphasising the best 'bites'.
This has added to my doubts about the value of such things, but in mitigation here at least I offer a 'big up' (or maybe it should be 'God bless') to the power of the blogging system and its participants. Thanks to some today, I realise I should have been much more concerned with discovering further substance on what the good Bishop may or may not have said, and done or not have done, before so enthusiastically endorsing a piece that was quite harsh on his words and deeds, at least as reported. As we're on a theological roll, to paraphrase Pastor Niemoller , 'First they selectively quoted the Bishops, and I did not speak, yadayada... and now they have selectively quoted me and no one had the time (or inclination) to delve any deeper to find out what I'd really said'.
Otherwise I think most of what I anticipated earlier has been almost all been illustrated in many posts."
Maybe what ended up on board was pithier, and hence my effort benefitedtted from the editorial input, but it was not what I had written. And I think it omitted some key aspects I thought important.
For that, at least I still have my own blog.
I have tended to prefer such the Telegraph version to some other major media, because there is point in contributing beyond venting, as you do have the chance of a credit, and this can be of value. We have had sign-ups to the site as a consequence of my posting to these things in the past.
Now I am thinking of pulling back from these arenas, as explained by this subsequent post I have been moved to add (and may or may not get 'approved' at all, much less 'as is', despite the following: 'telegraph.co.uk does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over information posted by users'. Which I had taken to mean what one wrote, so long as it followed guidelines, was what went up. But apparently not):
"It hadn't occurred to me until now that, despite having a few issues to cover and working within a stated limit, what one has contributed even to a Blog/Forum can be edited before sharing. And this of course can seriously affect context. Not to mention shape the direction of the piece in the direction of the media controller's agenda. It can enhance the pros or cons of an issue, or simply keep things bubbling ratings-wise by emphasising the best 'bites'.
This has added to my doubts about the value of such things, but in mitigation here at least I offer a 'big up' (or maybe it should be 'God bless') to the power of the blogging system and its participants. Thanks to some today, I realise I should have been much more concerned with discovering further substance on what the good Bishop may or may not have said, and done or not have done, before so enthusiastically endorsing a piece that was quite harsh on his words and deeds, at least as reported. As we're on a theological roll, to paraphrase Pastor Niemoller , 'First they selectively quoted the Bishops, and I did not speak, yadayada... and now they have selectively quoted me and no one had the time (or inclination) to delve any deeper to find out what I'd really said'.
Otherwise I think most of what I anticipated earlier has been almost all been illustrated in many posts."
Maybe what ended up on board was pithier, and hence my effort benefitedtted from the editorial input, but it was not what I had written. And I think it omitted some key aspects I thought important.
For that, at least I still have my own blog.
A point well made is a point well taken
A good blog in today's Telegraph - Ignore the bishop: enjoy your holiday - on a subject (actually a couple) about which I have commented before, have here (below) and doubtless will again. It will be interesting to see what replies she gets. Here's mine ( a bit fuller than online, as they 'only' allow 4000 characters, which to a windbag like me is a cruel constraint:
"Very good. Ignore the bishop. Enjoy the holiday. But please don't dismiss the message.
This is an excellent post, so long as one reads all of it.
I agree totally that one of the greatest impediments to promoting the benefits of responsible (the definition and scope of which is obviously still wide open) environmental practices by the individual, is the notion that everything green must be black and white. Nuances abound, and too often those that seek to effect positive (in a global warming sense) changes, for whatever reason (career to enhance, book to sell, viral to promote, consultancy to secure, pension fund to stock up... or possibly even genuine concern), have to think very carefully before taking a moral high ground and aggressively tackling a narrow topic, especially one that may be dear to their hearts. Especially from a position of relative privilege. And more so by the excessive use of comparative negativity. Because it can all too easily backfire, and while debate is great, I fear for effecting change when everyone is too busy pointing fingers at each other when they should be encouraged to just get on and do what they can. How much of the introduction to this post was strenuous rebuttal before the positive suggestions kicked in?
Things have to be debated, and I use the blog on my site (which tries to offer solutions, ideas and things to do to hopefully improve matters 'enviro') to do this a lot, and sometimes end up in some 'healthy discussions', which unlike here I prefer to conduct one-to-one offline, as things can get a bit flaming daft as the entrenched camps weigh in. Not long ago I tried to convince a respected media commentator that calling fellow petrolhead scribes 'selfish' (that word again) for their obsession with high speed exotica could have set in motion a confrontational situation that did not serve his point as well as adopting a less personal and reasoned approach might have, especially as he introduced his article as written on a plane to Australia.
My other concern was that he seemed to also be tipping the wink to groups who were engaging in 'more robust' commentary on the rights or wrongs of others to buy and use a legally and freely available consumer good. This cannot be a productive route, no matter what the frustrations. Now it seems it's a plan to spit in my farmer (they do wear suits and often visit the big city) neighbour's coffee, if a new anti 4x4 viral ad is to be emulated. I'm sure the making of this latter was carbon offset to the nth degree, but having been on a few shoots I very much doubt every aspect was totally 'environmentally sound' with no compromises to getting the job done on time and within budget. Cast and crew drinking water from a tap and not an spring water bottle in sight?
We have to accept the compromises of living in an overpopulated (and 'ing') world, with an infinite desire and ability to make new things and (at least in affluent countries) the means and desire to embrace them. People no longer stay in their village their whole lives, and the desire to travel is almost ingrained.
Hence better ways must be found to change behaviours, some of which look like being painful. And must be massive in scale. I only have to glance up at the contrails in the sky each day (or revisit BBC Horizon's Global Dimming documentary) to feel that air travel has to be to be a hefty influence in unnatural weather patterns. But reversing a global industry that employs millions, provides pleasure (accepting this is one instance when the journey is not part of the holiday) to hundreds of millions and brings in revenue to billions more is not going to happen easily. Especially when one looks at the rate of new airport construction in developing countries.
A start has to be made, somewhere, and as we cannot be unaware any more it may as well be at home. One can't really ask a neighbour to put their house in order when you have historically been trashing yours and enjoying the party up until now (and still want to). Examples must be set. Alternatives sought and offered. As suggested, subsidies to pollute need to be restricted, but incentives with rewards introduced wherever possible (the points on fuel tax and rail costs are well made). And such notions need to be (excuse the pun) aired. But by whom?
Hence pedestals should be mounted very circumspectly. And those who take it upon themselves - priest, politician, celeb, commentators... blog participants - to pronounce from them to others on what not to do should think very carefully on what qualifies them to do so. And before being too smug, ponder also what circumstances have allowed them to pontificate. I have read a lot lately on the 'Green Elite', and it is not a club, like many, I could easily afford - in money, time or opportunity - to join. So practice what you preach, and if you do preach what you practice please make it inspirational rather than critical. Nothing can compromise a message more than being accused of hypocrisy, which usually ends up distracting away from simply getting on and doing.
"Very good. Ignore the bishop. Enjoy the holiday. But please don't dismiss the message.
This is an excellent post, so long as one reads all of it.
I agree totally that one of the greatest impediments to promoting the benefits of responsible (the definition and scope of which is obviously still wide open) environmental practices by the individual, is the notion that everything green must be black and white. Nuances abound, and too often those that seek to effect positive (in a global warming sense) changes, for whatever reason (career to enhance, book to sell, viral to promote, consultancy to secure, pension fund to stock up... or possibly even genuine concern), have to think very carefully before taking a moral high ground and aggressively tackling a narrow topic, especially one that may be dear to their hearts. Especially from a position of relative privilege. And more so by the excessive use of comparative negativity. Because it can all too easily backfire, and while debate is great, I fear for effecting change when everyone is too busy pointing fingers at each other when they should be encouraged to just get on and do what they can. How much of the introduction to this post was strenuous rebuttal before the positive suggestions kicked in?
Things have to be debated, and I use the blog on my site (which tries to offer solutions, ideas and things to do to hopefully improve matters 'enviro') to do this a lot, and sometimes end up in some 'healthy discussions', which unlike here I prefer to conduct one-to-one offline, as things can get a bit flaming daft as the entrenched camps weigh in. Not long ago I tried to convince a respected media commentator that calling fellow petrolhead scribes 'selfish' (that word again) for their obsession with high speed exotica could have set in motion a confrontational situation that did not serve his point as well as adopting a less personal and reasoned approach might have, especially as he introduced his article as written on a plane to Australia.
My other concern was that he seemed to also be tipping the wink to groups who were engaging in 'more robust' commentary on the rights or wrongs of others to buy and use a legally and freely available consumer good. This cannot be a productive route, no matter what the frustrations. Now it seems it's a plan to spit in my farmer (they do wear suits and often visit the big city) neighbour's coffee, if a new anti 4x4 viral ad is to be emulated. I'm sure the making of this latter was carbon offset to the nth degree, but having been on a few shoots I very much doubt every aspect was totally 'environmentally sound' with no compromises to getting the job done on time and within budget. Cast and crew drinking water from a tap and not an spring water bottle in sight?
We have to accept the compromises of living in an overpopulated (and 'ing') world, with an infinite desire and ability to make new things and (at least in affluent countries) the means and desire to embrace them. People no longer stay in their village their whole lives, and the desire to travel is almost ingrained.
Hence better ways must be found to change behaviours, some of which look like being painful. And must be massive in scale. I only have to glance up at the contrails in the sky each day (or revisit BBC Horizon's Global Dimming documentary) to feel that air travel has to be to be a hefty influence in unnatural weather patterns. But reversing a global industry that employs millions, provides pleasure (accepting this is one instance when the journey is not part of the holiday) to hundreds of millions and brings in revenue to billions more is not going to happen easily. Especially when one looks at the rate of new airport construction in developing countries.
A start has to be made, somewhere, and as we cannot be unaware any more it may as well be at home. One can't really ask a neighbour to put their house in order when you have historically been trashing yours and enjoying the party up until now (and still want to). Examples must be set. Alternatives sought and offered. As suggested, subsidies to pollute need to be restricted, but incentives with rewards introduced wherever possible (the points on fuel tax and rail costs are well made). And such notions need to be (excuse the pun) aired. But by whom?
Hence pedestals should be mounted very circumspectly. And those who take it upon themselves - priest, politician, celeb, commentators... blog participants - to pronounce from them to others on what not to do should think very carefully on what qualifies them to do so. And before being too smug, ponder also what circumstances have allowed them to pontificate. I have read a lot lately on the 'Green Elite', and it is not a club, like many, I could easily afford - in money, time or opportunity - to join. So practice what you preach, and if you do preach what you practice please make it inspirational rather than critical. Nothing can compromise a message more than being accused of hypocrisy, which usually ends up distracting away from simply getting on and doing.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Say what?
A quick test of the blogging system to see if the emails are working again. The BBC has asked: Has the internet changed your life?
And I have replied:
"Email is invaluable. The net has given me affordable two-way access to the world, via my web-business/blog. And, via such as this Forum, an opportunity to voice an opinion in public elsewhere.
But...
...it's all now so vast it's but a babel of opinion, hard to substantiate (hence believe) fact, subjectivity and 'noise' - to which I have just contributed - that's almost impossible to absorb, much less cut through meaningfully to make any real positive impact.
Between just getting the invitation and writing my post, the entry pages jumped from 8 to 10. I don't have the time or inclination to read it all ( I will sneak a peak to see if I'm there) to assess context. What value is that?"
I must say I do wonder what the purpose of it all was to them. Will they have names they can use? Will it be for research? Will they glean some comments of use to further their knowledge base?
Or is it juts a major waste of time all round?
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Well, they asked
There's a rather nice little website called Planet Science, targetted a younger audience, but does cover a fair mix of subjects in a user-friendly way.
Reminding me slightly of when my Civil Engineering degree progress hit my doing a Maths A level in 3 months (I once drew a cartoon of a climber hanging onto a cliff edge, entitled 'Another Failed Attempt At Scaling The Eigen Values' instead of answering a question about something I had no clue about), I would like to share their share by way of a a lighter break.
Not sure what the marking system at bottom right is, but surely the respondent did answer the question?
The wrongs of doing right
One night not so long ago there was a power cut, and I was deafened by the silence as hard drives and fans spun down around me. And plunged into the near pitch black as scores or red, green a blue lights faded along with monitor screen.
So it was I blogged a short while ago with approval on the proposal to 'ban' standbys. But I may have been hasty, at least in such total endorsement of it in the form proposed: Recipe for sofa rage if standby gets the heave-ho
As measure to force couch potatoes to move from sofa to set at night's end it is a no-brainer, but there are obviously some pretty massive technological issues at stake here. Many, to be sure, stem from our addiction to technology, but that boat has long since sailed. You don't read this without both having a PC and doubtless a 24/7 router in the loft.
There is some room for optimism. From the absolutes that are at the start of the piece, I started to read between the lines and sense that there were avenues that could be explored... if there was consumer will. If a set top box does not have an off switch then it surely could acquire one, surely. And if people don't like 'inconvenience', then tough.
And the article helpfully ends with a helpful link that I in turn pass on to make the best of things for now:
PC Pro magazine offers realistic estimates of cost savings and more techniques you can apply today — without the need for government tinkering. Visit tinyurl.com/o4glo.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Help Wanted!
This is the fourth (of 4, at least recently) missing posts.
Apologies for any subsequent duplications.
Every morning, I awake with the larks and spend a fair few hours sifting through the overnight email collection of newsletters from near and far, and often get sucked off on some tangent that can deliver the sweet fruit of more knowledge.
I also derive a pretty hefty collection of folk I'd like to get in touch with, and hope to get on board with Junkk.com (and us with them) in the cause of synergy and mutual benefit.
And more often than not I'll stumble across an award, competition, grant or somesuch that needs investigating and, possibly, applying for.
This is all good stuff, but really makes only a small difference to helping Junkk.com be the entity it was intended to be.
Especially because little, if any of this info is currently making it to our pages.
I'm just so busy accumulating, I simply do not have the time to turn this into something that can be of interest and use on the site. Which is plainly ridiculous.
Plus there are now countless very fine online publications, blogs & Forums producing excellent news and views, with healthy and growing readerships... with enviably tasty ad support to match. And it's frustrating, because I can honestly say that I have read few that have anything I have not already come across already and, if such things really mattered, noted a lot earlier as relevant. And while a small minority do make an analysis or pass comment (almost all US-based), most are simply reprints of PR releases. We are guilty of this too, but mainly with 'info' stuff that can just be passed on. In mitigation there is this blog and such as our new PPProR section.
But Junkk.com is mostly about 'doing', and though all is in place to freely allow that to happen by any who choose to do so (person or company), the process requires constant nudging along. Specifications, ideas... and then sharing this near and far to inspire and encourage and attract more.
And that crucial aspect is falling behind.
So we need help. Bodies on the ground. Money to pay for them. We are applying for support from NGOs, government, initiatives, etc, but they are seldom keen on funding people's time. They like widgets. And targets.
There is promise in certain awards we've submitted to, and our premise is the establishment of Junkk.com 'representation' around the country. Perhaps ten 'regions' to start with. A bit like the Freecycle coordinators, only perhaps a little less rigid, clubby and cliquey, a little lighter green... and a bit more commercial, which means we aim to reward efforts and time.
When, as we hope, the money comes in, would you like to be part of this? It will inevitably be a slow start as we're on a learning curve, and I can't guarantee big bucks, and maybe not much at all initially. We'd certainly not expect you to be out of pocket, even from the outset! The kind of thing we envisage is as follows for 'Local Heroes', as we've named this project :
* Liaison with recycling/reuse organizations and media.
* Attending local events/fetes.
* Highlighting local re-problems and success stories.
* Initiating and moderating Forums/FAQ's on local e-topics.
Carried out by:
* Talking to local people/word of mouth.
* Surfing & contributing to local media sites and Forums.
* Contacting local organizations/councils/shops via the Internet, telephone/meetings etc.
* Show/Exhibition presence (we're planning roadtrip exhibition support)
If you think you like the sound of that, get in touch: info@junkk.com
Apologies for any subsequent duplications.
Every morning, I awake with the larks and spend a fair few hours sifting through the overnight email collection of newsletters from near and far, and often get sucked off on some tangent that can deliver the sweet fruit of more knowledge.
I also derive a pretty hefty collection of folk I'd like to get in touch with, and hope to get on board with Junkk.com (and us with them) in the cause of synergy and mutual benefit.
And more often than not I'll stumble across an award, competition, grant or somesuch that needs investigating and, possibly, applying for.
This is all good stuff, but really makes only a small difference to helping Junkk.com be the entity it was intended to be.
Especially because little, if any of this info is currently making it to our pages.
I'm just so busy accumulating, I simply do not have the time to turn this into something that can be of interest and use on the site. Which is plainly ridiculous.
Plus there are now countless very fine online publications, blogs & Forums producing excellent news and views, with healthy and growing readerships... with enviably tasty ad support to match. And it's frustrating, because I can honestly say that I have read few that have anything I have not already come across already and, if such things really mattered, noted a lot earlier as relevant. And while a small minority do make an analysis or pass comment (almost all US-based), most are simply reprints of PR releases. We are guilty of this too, but mainly with 'info' stuff that can just be passed on. In mitigation there is this blog and such as our new PPProR section.
But Junkk.com is mostly about 'doing', and though all is in place to freely allow that to happen by any who choose to do so (person or company), the process requires constant nudging along. Specifications, ideas... and then sharing this near and far to inspire and encourage and attract more.
And that crucial aspect is falling behind.
So we need help. Bodies on the ground. Money to pay for them. We are applying for support from NGOs, government, initiatives, etc, but they are seldom keen on funding people's time. They like widgets. And targets.
There is promise in certain awards we've submitted to, and our premise is the establishment of Junkk.com 'representation' around the country. Perhaps ten 'regions' to start with. A bit like the Freecycle coordinators, only perhaps a little less rigid, clubby and cliquey, a little lighter green... and a bit more commercial, which means we aim to reward efforts and time.
When, as we hope, the money comes in, would you like to be part of this? It will inevitably be a slow start as we're on a learning curve, and I can't guarantee big bucks, and maybe not much at all initially. We'd certainly not expect you to be out of pocket, even from the outset! The kind of thing we envisage is as follows for 'Local Heroes', as we've named this project :
* Liaison with recycling/reuse organizations and media.
* Attending local events/fetes.
* Highlighting local re-problems and success stories.
* Initiating and moderating Forums/FAQ's on local e-topics.
Carried out by:
* Talking to local people/word of mouth.
* Surfing & contributing to local media sites and Forums.
* Contacting local organizations/councils/shops via the Internet, telephone/meetings etc.
* Show/Exhibition presence (we're planning roadtrip exhibition support)
If you think you like the sound of that, get in touch: info@junkk.com
I think I've caught a viral...
This is 3 of 4 of recent missing posts. If the duplicate turns up, apologies.
...Or, at the very least, I'm on a list. No sooner does the Greenpeace 'viral' get sent to me, but now I have been sent another. At least the former was well targeted by the PR agency, but I'm damned if I know what some credit card has to do with my day.
I like(d) the idea of virals, at least as I understood them. But maybe I have missed the point. I thought it just like discovering new and edgy music used to be. An often vicarious pleasure, or through tuning into pirate stations, following anarchic DJs and haunting dodgy pubs, you stayed at the cutting edge. Now what's 'out here' is manufactured very much 'in here', and then served up under the guise of being raw. There are now archives, lists and awards. 'In people', who make sure we see what we're meant to, and nothing outside their control or ability to make some money from. There are probably already viral agencies (which I guess are like ad agencies only without the need to submit scripts or partner up with media buyers, though I guess they do now need PR agencies as a substitute).
When I was an aspiring creative, you begged, stole or borrowed to get a bit of time in an edit suite to cut a few frames together you'd knocked out on the HandyCam for the porty. Now it's full blown productions purporting to be without any corporate sanction or funding, when the dead hand of a trendy exec's brief is clear to all: 'use bad language, sex or violence (or all three) in some way that creates a hoo haa, and we'll get media coverage for free from the media gatekeepers who will be happy for the column inches/footage, and probably to lead to exposure more than the value of paid ads. Message is secondary. Action on the part of the consumer a surprise bonus.'
Meanwhile, I'm dusting off my HandyCam.... watch this space. No, really, watch this space...
...Or, at the very least, I'm on a list. No sooner does the Greenpeace 'viral' get sent to me, but now I have been sent another. At least the former was well targeted by the PR agency, but I'm damned if I know what some credit card has to do with my day.
I like(d) the idea of virals, at least as I understood them. But maybe I have missed the point. I thought it just like discovering new and edgy music used to be. An often vicarious pleasure, or through tuning into pirate stations, following anarchic DJs and haunting dodgy pubs, you stayed at the cutting edge. Now what's 'out here' is manufactured very much 'in here', and then served up under the guise of being raw. There are now archives, lists and awards. 'In people', who make sure we see what we're meant to, and nothing outside their control or ability to make some money from. There are probably already viral agencies (which I guess are like ad agencies only without the need to submit scripts or partner up with media buyers, though I guess they do now need PR agencies as a substitute).
When I was an aspiring creative, you begged, stole or borrowed to get a bit of time in an edit suite to cut a few frames together you'd knocked out on the HandyCam for the porty. Now it's full blown productions purporting to be without any corporate sanction or funding, when the dead hand of a trendy exec's brief is clear to all: 'use bad language, sex or violence (or all three) in some way that creates a hoo haa, and we'll get media coverage for free from the media gatekeepers who will be happy for the column inches/footage, and probably to lead to exposure more than the value of paid ads. Message is secondary. Action on the part of the consumer a surprise bonus.'
Meanwhile, I'm dusting off my HandyCam.... watch this space. No, really, watch this space...
What does your marketing say about you?
This is 2 of 4 of recent missing posts. If it turns up, apologies for the duplication.
My views on the whole 4x4 thing are well known (and if you don't know them, then there are around 400-odd posts to work back through to see that I don't own one, don't see the need for most to have one, but feel there are much bigger fish to fry, less divisively, than the current obsession some activists have with the stupid things. Any road up (geddit?), I was sent the latest Greenpeace 'viral' (not, as I thought was meant to be the way, by a chum, but rather the PR guys) and presume I am meant to pass it on. So here you are.
www.viralchart.com/media/clips/gasguzzler.mov Quicktime
http://www.viralchart.com/media/clips/gasguzzler.wmv Windows media
http://www.viralchart.com/media/clips/gasguzzler.swf Flash
As an ad person, I have seldom seen such an overlong, indulgent bit of tosh in my life, delivered with so little wit. You can affect change with satire and lampooning (I have some footage in mind that could be cut to mock Chelsea Tractor drivers with their own words), but not like this. I almost felt like buying one if only to stick it to the whole backstabbing, besuited, Specsaver-wearing, sneering bunch of them. While I didn't quite agree with the message, I was impressed with the anti-nuke version not so long ago, at least as an execution.
I presume that it was all shot to the highest ethical standards and carbon whatsits, and no member of the production team, cast or crew arrived on anything but a bike and drank only from taps.
But I just live for the moment that anyone involved who thinks its hip or smart to gob in someone's cup for making a currently free consumer choice gets hoist with their own petard. For instance when my mate the farmer's daughter gets out of Uni, and when she's asked for a decaf decides to get her own back for missing the train scraping Greenpeace posters (more concerned with advertising their sponsor's energy tariff) off her Dad's Land Rover.
This was a lot of money, too (unless it was all a porty job by some daft agency with more hype than sense in its sights). So I hope the extra subs they may get pay of the office, director's bonuses and pensions, with enough left over for the awards ceremony dash to Cannes and, oh, maybe some decent planet saving as well.
Because I very much doubt this will stop any potential purchaser (should they ever see it, which I doubt, unless Jeremy Clarkson has a go at it, which he might - see conspiracy theory in earlier posts), and simply set those with a grudge on a path from which no one will benefit.
Nil points.
My views on the whole 4x4 thing are well known (and if you don't know them, then there are around 400-odd posts to work back through to see that I don't own one, don't see the need for most to have one, but feel there are much bigger fish to fry, less divisively, than the current obsession some activists have with the stupid things. Any road up (geddit?), I was sent the latest Greenpeace 'viral' (not, as I thought was meant to be the way, by a chum, but rather the PR guys) and presume I am meant to pass it on. So here you are.
www.viralchart.com/media/clips/gasguzzler.mov Quicktime
http://www.viralchart.com/media/clips/gasguzzler.wmv Windows media
http://www.viralchart.com/media/clips/gasguzzler.swf Flash
As an ad person, I have seldom seen such an overlong, indulgent bit of tosh in my life, delivered with so little wit. You can affect change with satire and lampooning (I have some footage in mind that could be cut to mock Chelsea Tractor drivers with their own words), but not like this. I almost felt like buying one if only to stick it to the whole backstabbing, besuited, Specsaver-wearing, sneering bunch of them. While I didn't quite agree with the message, I was impressed with the anti-nuke version not so long ago, at least as an execution.
I presume that it was all shot to the highest ethical standards and carbon whatsits, and no member of the production team, cast or crew arrived on anything but a bike and drank only from taps.
But I just live for the moment that anyone involved who thinks its hip or smart to gob in someone's cup for making a currently free consumer choice gets hoist with their own petard. For instance when my mate the farmer's daughter gets out of Uni, and when she's asked for a decaf decides to get her own back for missing the train scraping Greenpeace posters (more concerned with advertising their sponsor's energy tariff) off her Dad's Land Rover.
This was a lot of money, too (unless it was all a porty job by some daft agency with more hype than sense in its sights). So I hope the extra subs they may get pay of the office, director's bonuses and pensions, with enough left over for the awards ceremony dash to Cannes and, oh, maybe some decent planet saving as well.
Because I very much doubt this will stop any potential purchaser (should they ever see it, which I doubt, unless Jeremy Clarkson has a go at it, which he might - see conspiracy theory in earlier posts), and simply set those with a grudge on a path from which no one will benefit.
Nil points.
Winding up inventors
This is 1 of 4 of some recent missing posts (if it turns up, sorry for the duplication)
I actually can't better this title, at least in the context of this blog topic, so I'll simply nick it - Winding up inventors. That's a blog in the Observer today, and their own link (lovingly cut & pasted, so it isn't me... honest) doesn't work, so I'll include a wee bitty of what it was all about here:
"Trevor Baylis is enthused. He's been asked to judge a competition to find an energy-saving invention and he's looking forward to seeing what people come up with."
I am of course grateful at yet another such an opportunity to stay indoors slaving over another application (hence my sticking with that title), but of course had my own thoughts (which you will not see as the blog link seems to be dead):
"Great initiative. I shall certainly be applying. Why not? It's free!
But such efforts do take time to enter. And having quickly scanned the competition site I just hope that it won't restrict itself (or at least favour) only to 'things', which is where the second page of the entry form seemed to be heading.
I once coined the phrase 'Widgets from Wigan Syndrome' (not in a happy way) after a UKTI (an NGO-type entity mightily staffed, and funded, to encourage export of the British 'wares') event. It became rather apparent that there is a lot more understanding of, and hence sympathy and support for designing a thing/widget.
Service or internet-based (ironically the section of the site about 'great energy ideas' is currently offline due to a fatal script error) ideas seem less easy to get folks' heads around. Something you can touch is often sexier and easier to 'get'.
However, while I truly believe and accept that 'inventions' need to be sustainable and substantial, there are so many things in the world of saving the world that can be more complex and subtle, and need not necessarily be a 'thing' whose value can be weighed between the cost to make and market vs. projected unit sales.
As a veteran of many an oil-company (eg: Shell), consumer good (eg: Rolex) and media (Guardian!) initiated and/or sponsored event of this nature, I'm crossing fingers that to stand a chance I don't necessarily need to break out the lathe.
And while the money is significant, and most certainly can go a long way to 'making something', it's worth noting that it will pale into insignificance with the true costs of bringing anything to market, especially the promotion side.
At least with media support this has a built-in 'step up' already, and hence has to be worth a go."
I actually can't better this title, at least in the context of this blog topic, so I'll simply nick it - Winding up inventors. That's a blog in the Observer today, and their own link (lovingly cut & pasted, so it isn't me... honest) doesn't work, so I'll include a wee bitty of what it was all about here:
"Trevor Baylis is enthused. He's been asked to judge a competition to find an energy-saving invention and he's looking forward to seeing what people come up with."
I am of course grateful at yet another such an opportunity to stay indoors slaving over another application (hence my sticking with that title), but of course had my own thoughts (which you will not see as the blog link seems to be dead):
"Great initiative. I shall certainly be applying. Why not? It's free!
But such efforts do take time to enter. And having quickly scanned the competition site I just hope that it won't restrict itself (or at least favour) only to 'things', which is where the second page of the entry form seemed to be heading.
I once coined the phrase 'Widgets from Wigan Syndrome' (not in a happy way) after a UKTI (an NGO-type entity mightily staffed, and funded, to encourage export of the British 'wares') event. It became rather apparent that there is a lot more understanding of, and hence sympathy and support for designing a thing/widget.
Service or internet-based (ironically the section of the site about 'great energy ideas' is currently offline due to a fatal script error) ideas seem less easy to get folks' heads around. Something you can touch is often sexier and easier to 'get'.
However, while I truly believe and accept that 'inventions' need to be sustainable and substantial, there are so many things in the world of saving the world that can be more complex and subtle, and need not necessarily be a 'thing' whose value can be weighed between the cost to make and market vs. projected unit sales.
As a veteran of many an oil-company (eg: Shell), consumer good (eg: Rolex) and media (Guardian!) initiated and/or sponsored event of this nature, I'm crossing fingers that to stand a chance I don't necessarily need to break out the lathe.
And while the money is significant, and most certainly can go a long way to 'making something', it's worth noting that it will pale into insignificance with the true costs of bringing anything to market, especially the promotion side.
At least with media support this has a built-in 'step up' already, and hence has to be worth a go."
The define miss blog
I just have to share this. Now I'm blogging on the blogger site, there's a lot more functionality to play with, such as a Spellchecker, which I just used on the last piece. The words it didn't recognise were 'blog' and 'blogging'.
So in future, I guess I'm writing a bloc.
I blog, therefore I am...
... a [fill space to taste].
There's a lot of blogging about blogging these days, and in writing this I feel a bit like one of those illusions using a mirror to reflect its own image in a mirror.... endless.
I think it best to draw a line, at least by the end of this.
I like blogging. Even if it's just for me, I can get stuff off my chest, leave a record (a chap on the BBC Newsnight blog I mentioned a few posts ago made a point - not necessarily the right way - about how those that ask our opinions very often don't print them (why should they?) but also often don't acknowledge them (which is plain rude. BBC's Working Lunch is a prime example mentioned, and it is not unique. Hence copying one's hard-crafted efforts onto one's own blog at least means they are published... somewhere) ) and remind myself of stuff. I also like to think they may have a broader appeal with value as entertainment, thought-provocation and plain information. I
If it gets a few folk back to my site, why not?
There's a lot of blogging about blogging these days, and in writing this I feel a bit like one of those illusions using a mirror to reflect its own image in a mirror.... endless.
I think it best to draw a line, at least by the end of this.
I like blogging. Even if it's just for me, I can get stuff off my chest, leave a record (a chap on the BBC Newsnight blog I mentioned a few posts ago made a point - not necessarily the right way - about how those that ask our opinions very often don't print them (why should they?) but also often don't acknowledge them (which is plain rude. BBC's Working Lunch is a prime example mentioned, and it is not unique. Hence copying one's hard-crafted efforts onto one's own blog at least means they are published... somewhere) ) and remind myself of stuff. I also like to think they may have a broader appeal with value as entertainment, thought-provocation and plain information. I
If it gets a few folk back to my site, why not?
Friday, July 21, 2006
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Talk is cheap. Doing costs.
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."
Monday, July 17, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)