Big Brother 2006

It has arrived: This electric radicalism marries green politics with social justice

One from you; one for me... and we'll ignore the rest:

'In my experience the only people who end up benefitting from trading are the traders, and it is in their interests to ensure as much trading happens as possible. So even though they don't actually make anything, they'll have to buzz around a lot finding folk to get carbon credits from, and buyers to sell it too, plus commission.

Hence, on this basis we surely will be unlikely to see a reduction in this 'commodity' as the market will equally surely drive it up to make profits.

And as we are a global economy, breathing the same air, and polluting it unequally with our SUVs, EasyJet skiing flights and second homes, I will be interested who gets to decide how we swap credits with a Kalahari bushman inefficiently burning logs to cook, or a Bangkok klong taxi driver running a 50's V8 with no exhaust, let alone a catalytic converter.

So basically we're giving the right to several billion folk to 'trade' what: 1 long haul, 2 short hauls, 10 train trips, 50 bus rides and 5000 miles in a Prius? If all of us get to use that allotment I'd say we're stuffed by next Xmas.

Or are Polly and the pols suggesting those who don't need cars so much (ie: those in Westminster, Fleet Street and Notting Hill) trade only with those of us who do (those not urban-based to live or work), for the right to fly to their ski villas? And we'll, er, forget about the rest of the poor sods around the planet, who we don’t need worry about, because they're too poor to do either.

Not convinced. But something has to be done to reduce the CO2 globally. I just don't see this as the way to do it. Me, I'll stay at home , travel as little as I can unless I have to.

And also try to DO something NOW by sharing ways to reuse and repair (and reduce and recycle) via http://www. junkk.com, that are free (I'll one day, with luck, make a matchmaking living), add no more to the eco-pot and may even save some money, time and a few cc's of CO2 all round. Certainly can't hurt. Merry Christmas.'

All (most of) our Xmases have arrived at once?

Our friend Andrew has sent this. Take advantage of it as your conscience dictates (those poor loves do need the money to survive and make their meagre profits):

'It is illegal for any lender to charge more than the actual admin cost of penalties levied: estimated at £4.50 maximum for a bounced cheque, £2.50 maximum for a DD etc. Lenders no longer use the word 'penalty' in the hope of getting round the law. They now call it a 'service fee'. The Office of Fair Trading has now refused to countenance out-of-court settlements where lenders offer partial repayments as 'goodwill'. You are entitled to full repayment of the previous six years of penalties with interest. No lender has ever contested a repayment of penalties case in court.'

Are penalty charges bank robbery?

How to claim back penalties

The Money Programme's own Bank Commission

Questions for the lenders

Hear no query, see no query, speak no query.

My reply to a Guardian piece: We shouldn't sneer at the goodwill of ethical shoppers

"An interesting commentary, based on interesting articles with equally interesting posts in response.

I have not read the Economist piece, but will try and do so now.

I did read Mr. Hastings', and have to say I think the choice of the word sneer here was unfortunate. It risks the rebuttal being viewed as more emotional and knee-jerk than factual and persuasive. Especially if, as noted, there was a marked lack of substance in support. And, despite having my own website, I'm afraid saying 'check the URL’ doesn't quite cut it, especially when it comes to fmcg brands. The competition for a consumer’s attention (and to sway them) is vast. FairTrade obviously know this, and rather than blow funds on ad campaigns, they have harnessed a very effective PR machine in support, with the willing cooperation of the media. And why not? But ways to go, by all accounts.

I have a great belief in the 'better than nothing' approach, but would stop short of '...so don’t ask questions'.

Trust is a delicate thing. And we can ill afford to lose the first waves of those embracing ethical and environmental issues if (big I, big F) they prove to have been rushed into actions not just that prove financially dubious but also ethic/environmentally. You just end up looking dumb and are less likely to risk being burned again.

Far better to establish the credentials clearly and try to (I know it is hard) share the end-benefits understandably to enable reasoned decisions to be made.

I am currently weighing the whole home wind turbine thing having been a keen convert but lacking the funds to plunge straight away. Now I am seeing a lot that makes me wonder if I dodged a bullet. It's one thing to pay double for my juice; that's my choice. But if it's not going to have a worthy enviROI then... hmmmn.

And I wouldn't be addressing this dilemma as I am now but for those who simply asked 'is this the best way?'

My site gets many press releases, and if appropriate I am happy to share a 'better than nothing' as I come across them (your URL awaits FairTrade - your name is mentioned a lot already by others, positively, so it would great to have your pitch in support ) so please if you have such feel free to send them in. But I do now, with limited resources to check, concern myself with provenance chains before committing to an unequivocal endorsement by Junkk.com.

That, ultimately, is still up to the individual to discover what they need. But any smart outfit will make it easy for them to do so, and trust in the result."

Interestingly, in several other places I am seeing the trend to 'stop asking questions because [we're worthy, you're just being difficult... etc]'. The best form defence is attck I suppose, but in mnay ways a rational reply that answers can stop the 'fight' right away.

You show me yours...

Green credentials are all the rage. Mr. Brown has shown us his by popping a few quid on a flight and a few p on a litre, so he is now covered.

So I was interested to note two stories from two extremes of the political spectrum. One, in the Mail on Sunday, was about the closure of Post Offices. Won't this tend to make people need to travel more to do their Royal Mail thing? The other, which I actually was surprised had not made it anywhere else (at least that I noticed), was that a pre-budgetary tax raid has ruined an airline carbon reduction scheme.

Telegraph: Stop Jim
BBC

Prudent and green, Gordon, prudent and green.

Taking it to the Max

This was interesting: We may yearn to be green, but we can't afford to be gullible

Not so much for the content, which is really nothing new, but that we still find oursleves spinning around the same old 'tis/tisn't cliches. Even those subsequent to my plea:

'I started reading from the top with such hope. I refer of course to the comments posted so far in reply to this article. While buried amongst them there is essentially a potentially valid rebuttal to some of the 'facts' Mr. Hastings has researched and passed on, which would make for an interesting further debate, I end up seeing the same old camps staked out, issuing left-right, urban-country hissyfit swipes.

This is all surely way beyond political inclination or socio-economic aspiration?

Why are we still at a point where someone like myself still feels unable to arrive at some sort of objective conclusion based on factual information and substantive evidence?

Ignoring the aesthetic aspects (I actually find that one outside Reading a wondrous image, though I would concede having scores whirring in my backyard would not be that fun) and financial ROIs (I could live with, or least be prepared to make the sacrifice of extra expense of the energy generation if it takes CO2 out of the air... soon), but the jury still seems out on the overall environmental ROI anyway, which is surety the main point?

I despair of the hot air still being expended by all talk and no action, but Mr. Hastings does have a point that such massive investments have to be proven to be practical solutions. I can't believe the numbers are not now pretty clear, and can be explained in ways for layperson to judge before they support this initiative or that eco-tariff.

I am already backing off a home turbine because it doesn’t look like the numbers do work on any basis. Solar panels are also under question. Even sending a goat for Christmas now seems likened to lobbing in a cluster bomb.

May be such dissent is being sown and fostered by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Divide and rule? I don’t know. But this makes it all the more critical for those with the passion and belief to not rush those of a lighter-green hue into directions that can backfire and create future resistance to more positive solutions.'

Planet Earth

The above... is a famous BBC show. Quite excellent.

Were it that some of its employees were on the same one as the rest of us.

Back in November, I had occasion to ask a question of the Working Lunch team, and this resulted in a rather odd reply, the consequences of which rumble on to this day.

I recently had a reply from their complaints department:

Thank you for your emails about previous correspondence you've had with
Deputy Editor for Working Lunch. Please accept my sincere
apologies for the delay in responding.

I contacted her and discussed your correspondence to date. Lynne
explained that the reason she posed the question - "May I ask do you use
"see us on the BBC" on all your promotional literature?" was simply because
of the text in the auto signature of your original email to the show. She
was genuinely interested in this and assures me there was nothing sinister
behind this question.

She did not hear back directly from you (please note that if you sent
further correspondence to the Working Lunch team she may not always receive
this due to the sheer volume of email traffic to this inbox).

Reading her initial response to the question posed about the
competition I trust that this answered your concerns on this subject. Lynne
informed me that all the information about the competition should also have
been on the auto-response email you received.

In conclusion, I trust that this explains why Lynne posed this question to
you. If you have any further concerns about this please contact Lynne
directly on the following number: [I'll spare her this].

Thank you, once again, for contacting the BBC and for your patience in
waiting for a response.

Yours sincerely

Divisional Advisor
BBC Information

As the reply seemed to be 'it's between you and the original person you couldn't get a reply from anyway, and nothing to do with us as we have no power or opinion' (shades of Newswatch?), I decided that it wasn't going to end quite yet:


Thank you for your email.

Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding.

No problem. I know you must be busy. And it's not time critical.

I'm still not too satisfied with this I'm afraid. And don't really see any value in going to the trouble of talking to [her] any more. Her interest was... interesting... though obviously fleeting and soon forgotten. But I am glad there was no sinister intent. I just wonder why the question was posed. I've removed it now just in case, and as it is quite old news.

Appreciating how busy you all must be (I too have a good few hundred emails to address daily, many of which I am not paid a salary to address), may I suggest that if such a question is posed, it may be worth having systems in place to accommodate the answers, if only as common courtesy.

Hence I would like to get another view on this as I appreciate you are only in the position of passing on those of the protagonists. So who do I get in touch with now who is outside of the BBC? OFCOM? Board of Governors?

Yours patiently,

Rather deliciously, this is what came back... again:

We are sorry but our email system will not receive your email unless you use one of our pre-formatted webforms. We realise the inconvenience but hope you will understand that this helps us handle the many emails we receive every day more efficiently and makes best use of your licence fee.


I have now readdressed it to the 'black hole' that is our licence fee consumer. Watch this space.

Too PC. No Comment.

BBC - Birth rate 'harms poverty goals'

Twisting the story

You kind of expect it in a Kansas trailer park, but not so much 'North of the River' (that'll teach those cabbies): How could a tornado hit London?

And because it was not expected, I rather leapt to the conclusion that here, if it were needed, was evidence that things are deteriorating, climatically. And frankly I was poised to make this comment when I started reading more.

Thing is, it is not unheard of. And while 'worst in 25 years' makes for a pithy phrase, that kinda means it was worse 25 years ago.

Not to detract from the climate change argument, which I support by advocating we stop wasting stuff and cut down where we can, but it was refreshing not to have seen more 'See, we're all doomed' bandwagon jumpers come out.

If you don't have enough lemons... borrow them.

This may be cheeky, but if it works it shows that a little ignorance can be a useful thing.

Our hugely complex, vastly expense website currently only allows one picture per article, at least when I upload. And I don't dare ask the IT guys to get out of bed to even quote for making it possible for me to do more.

Thing is, I'd like to add a few more to illustrate stories.

So I have a plan. I'm going to try breaking out the pictures from the blog references, hopefully in sequence. That way blog readers can view above or below (and mayeb the nasty word breask will no longer happen, which is a plus), and I can pop in a URL to site articles to more info visuals. Not elegant, or optimal, but in the spirit of bodge, let's see what happens...

I'm Dreaming of a Green Christmas - Photo Archive

L2R: The stand. JunkkMale in demo mode. A lot of questions. The panel.

Little Victories

[Lesson 1 - last post of the day at the top, but not necessarily with pictures in the right order]

Just one day away again, and I am struggling to keep up with the backlog.

But this one was worth it. Because, dear reader, last night's jaunt to London was a) fun and b) ended with a bit of a result.

We were there for 'Dreaming of a Green Christmas' at the Science Museum's Dana Centre.

A hundred were invited, and I'd say sixty or so turned up, and it was a pretty packed affair at that.

I'll let the link take you to who was there, but it was an eclectic mix and I learned a fair bit.

Met some nice folk, from co-panellists/exhibitors, to audience members. My personal favourite comment was from one who, on being asked why she voted for Junkk.com, said 'Well, reuse is the best eco-option there is' (taking reduction as a given). Nice to see, live, that people 'get' what we're trying to do. The stand was popular, and I have a few new items I made for the event that went down well and must post.

I also got speak, and pitch for Junkk.com on a few award category criteria, including 'best for' recycling, reuse, energy effciency and sustainability.

Well, with much chuffingness, I can advise we managed to score top slot in 3 of the 4.

And with a couple we did it by quite a margin. See that big bar in the picture.... us!

A bit of a boost, and another notch on the way.

Mind the gap

Business warned of 'creativity gap'

"There’s currently a coffee commercial, rather a lush one in fact, whose main message seems dedicated to a rather contrived joke, instead of the product benefits. The wise and benign plantation owner asks his hapless charge what he is doing there, and on being told it is the youth’s gap year, comments: ‘Gap between the ears, more like!’ Oh, how we laugh when that comes on.

However, it seems a worthy metaphor for the sate of British advertising, and now business, and I rather suspect our performance internationally is already registering blows as a consequence.

The 4% statistic is shocking, but not surprising. Though how the question was posed may offer some insights. I wouldn’t want Tracey Emin pitching for me either.

In fact the word creativity rather suffers from a broad range of interpretation. What, exactly does it mean? As suggested, it probably means an awful lot of things to different people, ranging from pure artist, to creative/media industries to... ‘them’.

Personally, I choose to interpret it, at least in the business sense, as seeking innovation; ways of doing things that have not been done before - to get a better result, to stand our more, etc. But there is one small problem with that: risk.

We seem to have arrived in the most risk averse era yet. And we can’t just blame the bean-counters (who may soon figure that if you don’t make any more beans, there’s no job counting). Even those MBA-toting, metric-spouting, blue-sky-thinking communicators and marketers in business and government seem so worried about losing their jobs, they all rush to be first to be second. But usually that means they end up last.

At least in the marketing world they soon end up ‘pursuing other options’. "

Not one for the main site!*

Partly becuase it is not reuse (please, let it not be recycling), but mainly becuase it's got to be the most gross-out bizarre thing I have ever been sent.

But, in a strange way, I felt compelled to appreciate the imagination shown.

Tampon Crafts

* Though most 10year olds will find it a hoot.

Empty (or in this case full) gestures

Eco warriors get a lift in Golden Square office

Staff arriving at M&C Saatchi’s offices in Golden Square were surprised to be forced to take the stairs yesterday.

To publicise a new green initiative, the advertising agency filled its lift up with balled up pieces of paper with the slogan: "If we recycle this much paper in an hour, we can save three trees a day".

My reply to the City Editor:

Let’s just hope they remember to recycle the paper in the lift.

But they did get the PR! Though what green initiative was/is that? If my experience of agencies is anything to go by, they'll have sent a junior in a taxi to buy 5 reams of virgin recycled paper stock to scrunch up.

WRAPPERS - 50cent... or free

Of course, we could mention another alternative for that over-stretched budget: newspaper!

Getting my goat (or not)

Confusing times.

Here I am, trying to figure out what's best for the family, budget and planet, and so I turn to the Sunday papers for inspiration.

And what do I find? Ads for buying goats for the 3rd World, neatly indispersed between articles (quoting charities) saying it's a bad idea!

Which is it!!!?

This is a serious issue. Twerps like me have little time to get into the minute details of this, and once we suspect it's going pear-shaped we turn off.

And when that happnes, what goes first, the head office pension fund or what the poor sods in the field need?

Just one last, wafer-thin mint

Gotta love the chattering classes. They can chatter all right: Global warming? I'll bring you some back from Macy's

"Remember Mr. Creosote? It was a fairly gross, but effective, satire on the notion of testing one's ability to sustain excess by the expedient of blowing up when you reach the point of no return. And now we have the latest commentator for this fine organ pitching in with another 'we really must stop... soon' piece. And that's about it. Bless. I guess it was just delicious irony I'd popped over from Mr. Juniper's article about how we are no longer the dirty man of Europe. If it's shopping, maybe it's now 'The dirty man and woman not in the UK but Macy's?'. Even better, there's this ad at the top offering me the prize of a holiday to the Caribbean. And, puh-lese, can someone explain to me this trading thing? Is it only between those in Notting Hill and Luton, or can the rest of us join in, including the entire population of sub-Saharan Africa?: link - “We can trade, but that doesn't stop emissions. And what of those who share the air we breathe, as opposed to flying through it?"

You have to love this post:

Um, these wouldn't be the shopping trips to New York thoroughly covered in Saturday's Guardian, would they?

Just saying.

Thanks Ian!

Big in the City.

I'm seeing a trend here, and it is a worrying one. Half thought-out notions being floated, seemingly with reasonable concerns, but by folk who live and work in places most set to benefit (or at least suffer least) from them: Admit it, we’re travel addicted. Let the taxman put the brakes on

My reply:

Dear Mr. Jenkins,

I admit it; 'we' are. But while I have to agree with all you have identified (and applaud that you have, at least, unlike most commentators, researched broadly and attempted a fair assessment of the situation along with most possible options), on present evidence have to raise a question mark as to the best person to apply the brakes.

I have some experience of all this. Well over a decade ago, when living and working in Singapore, the road pricing system had already well and truly 'popped up'. I also happened to meet a local lady, who is now my wife. Subsequently we moved back here to the UK; not to where my source of work was most conveniently located (London), but to be close to my dying father, and now dependent mother. There are compensations, such a massive boost in quality of life, and even the work issues are now mitigated by such as broadband, but there's no escaping our social and business communications - in person - are not optimal. For a start, one half of the family is 11,000 miles away.

Hence we not so much crave mobility, but by any reasonable measure need it through circumstance. No one sane seeks to spend 12hrs in a plane or 2hrs on a motorway. But yes, to an extent that has been our choice. So you are right that we have worked within an existing framework in planning where we are and will need to be, along with the associated costs of time and effort.

These of course are now changing. Radically.

I suspect you are right that the easiest and quickest way to restrict me... us.. is price. It has worked already. I cannot afford to fly, so come a family affair I am not sure what we will do when the need arises.

And when you say 'Rationing is by congestion or it is by price', why not also develop on the component of rationing itself?

Of course, for a start it would be a logistical nightmare. And while congestion is a vote loser it's not really accountable, whereas price is more easy to apply to the author, and hence erring on political suicide. Especially when there is the very real accusation to be made that it favours those in cities (when we are being told to become home workers, and many do not live in a city) with reasonable transport systems and is, in a related way, favouring the rich over those less able to fund their addiction, necessary or not.

Rationing could (if agreed and applied fairly, which it won't be. If the reduced eco-tax on a ODPM new build plonked on a flood plain in Kent is equated to the penalty on my 17th century cottage - insulated as best it can be - is anything to go on) be fairer and attempt to take into account the infinitely complicated impact we are all having on the environment. And yes, if it's gas into the atmosphere, stopping it has to be the priority.

But when it comes to fair, we are forgetting the global element. While I might reasonably be awarded a trip to the rellys once a year, what is poor Madonna to do to conduct her job, and to acquire more children (at least she is addressing - though I doubt for the reasons I allude to - the greatest actual problem the planet faces, namely population expansion, which puts travel in the shade whilst adding to its necessity. If you can't survive where you are, you need to move), in comparison to my more modest needs? Well, we could trade, and I get richer (along, I suspect with much-traveling City types trading in it all) as a she travels more, but that doesn't stop the emissions.And what of those who share the air we breathe, as opposed to flying through it? If we 'assign' one long haul, two short haul air trips and 10,000 miles in a car and 20,000 in a train to a every Kalahari bushman and Mekong boatlady, the potential for planetary disaster is magnified as they gain new items of value to trade with the addicted.

It's also a matter a of priority. As you rightly point out. How can we tax travel when the reasons to need it (more distant hospitals - I will soon blog on two signs in our City - not local, as I was require to take my Mum 20 miles away - hospital; one advocating the use of friends or relatives to help with transport, the other saying appointment priority would be give to those who use an ambulance. So I help and am penalised?!) are multiplying. It's the result of a political and administrative culture where success is measured in isolated targets, and the process is more important, and career-rewarding, than the final result.

It should be, but is less travel really the intention? Because fewer cars and travel means less revenue. And while a reduction in congestion may be nice in central London, if the same amount of fuel is going up in the sky at the periphery, then the planet is not gaining, while the policy wonks fly to Bali for a conference on global warming, funded by the money made on the charges. As you say, heaven help us if these guys stay in charge.

On Wednesday I am bringing the family to London for a show Junkk.com has been invited to appear in. There is no alterative for reasons of practicality and sheer cost (£40 petrol (at least Science Museum is giving parking to me- like the event, free) vs. £200 train fares) or time (last reliable train home 6pm; show ends 8.30pm). I have no choice, socially or for my work. Penalise me by taxes alone, set by and supported by those who live in a city earning a lot more, and the urban/country divide over something as petty as fox hunting will extend to a massive gulf.

Rgds,

ps: I doubt this will fit in the blog reply section, and so will attempt an edit. So forgive my sending direct first. But as you will have gathered, this is not something that can be dealt with in a pithy phrase or sound bite piece of legislation.

ADDENDUM:

Call me a suck-up (and, let's face it, few do), but I am pleased to say I have had a reply from the author, and when it is one of the few commentators I truly respect I take total pleasure in sharing it:

Many thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate your predicament, but am not sure what your proposed solution is, unless we simply learn to live with global warming. As for choice, everyone thinks their own is a necessity.

With best wishes,

Simon Jenkins

He has stung me with that comment on a lack of a solution, which I feel moved to address. Watch this space (or maybe one above)

BBC: Youth Poll

Drawn, hung and quartered

Actually, they all seem to have an episode on it (Simpsons, etc), you really have to hand it to the cartoon industry to put the ire in satire.

If you can, catch this: Futurama.

I think, therefore I am. I do, therefore...

Before I forget, a quote I just saw from author Terry Pratchett:

"Igenuity can get you through times of no money. But money cannot get you through times of no ingeuity."

Were it true.

He obviously has had little dealings with politicians, the media or big business.