Time and Place

A long time ago, a very good (but not so good I can recall the actual name) newspaper ad on TV (go figure) involved a series of versions of the same incident from a different perspective. A yoof is running to an old lady. Is it to rob her? Or, as it turned out, to push her out of the way of a falling object.

I was pondering this as I uploaded the next bit of citizen journalism in so many days.

Depending on where you are in the world, it has been a bit blowy here today. And here I have captured the aftermath of a lovely silver birch suffering the consequences in the Church Yard as I walked to get the boys from school.

'Bloomin' Global Warming', I thought, as I reflected on the 2 (out of 4) similarly sized and aged trees that have fallen in our garden since we moved in. Assuming we are not as a family fatal to large trees, it had to be the only explanation.

But, need it? The clue to my thinking (unproven, I grant you) is the age comment above. Trees do not live for ever. Maybe it was just their time, and the high winds tipped the balance, along with the tree itself.

Just a thought. At least we're OK for firewood, not that we dare burn it. At least until the Russians cut our gas off. Time to look at high-efficiency wood stoves, I think.

ps: One irony is that, I believe (and this does need confirming), a wind turbine would need to be locked down to avoid self-damage. As I write this the next day, it would be hard-pressed to light an LED.

Telegraph
Indy

What goes up... should have a good reason

Like most folk, I bought Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'. One chapter tops, and it was on the shelf. And it didn't get me any extra girlfriends by being there.

But he's smart cookie, and so it's worth paying attention when he adds his t'pennyworth: Hawking warns: We must recognise the catastrophic dangers of climate change

Amen. However, much as I agree with him, I really hope that he will see this laudable view as less than compatible with the report I read, if true, of him hitching a ride on a tourist space rocket.

They don't use bio-diesel.

BBC

Carb-con

For the first time in a long time, I read a piece that seemed to pretty much say what I've been eyebrow-twitching, if not saying, for a while, and in quite calm, lucid and pragmatic terms: Planting trees won't offset jetting to the sun

I had to write:

'There's a certain irony to this headline as I watch my garden head to Oz (and I don't mean Botany Bay - great cartoon by Matt in The Telegraph on just this point, by the way).

Just wanted to say I agree with you. Which for a pretty committed 'green' may sound surprising. I see this issue as too much 'Carb-con jobs for the boys', and not enough doing what's necessary, right and fair.

I also like to see the issue(s) put as factually as possible, and in terms most if not all average folk can appreciate. Well done.

The rest of what you say is less easy to applaud, by simply being so true and unpalatable.

We do need leadership. Strong leadership. And by example (I'm almost afraid to point you at this). Plus we need sensible media support. This is the first I've seen in a while.

Thank you.'

Now, I wonder, will the 'Anon' dogs of PR and lobbyists appear from to savage this debate into further deadlock and inertia?

Indy: Carbon offsetting 'can be harmful'
BBC

Interest Groups

Davos 07: what everyone's talking about

Love the post YouCant. This thread is running at about 4 (as I type) to how many on the other, 'BB blog' channel on this site (sorry, I had to contribute there too)?

And, really, to all you other guys, good points all as well.

But careful what you wish for (I posted elsewhere the notion of a show called BIG BOMBER... as a joke... to make a point), whatreallyhappened. I suspect the forces of PCs know (or can find out) where we live and may feel it's easier to make a target-ticking point with us than try and find anyone doing anything actually illegal.

Moderate Views?

The topic of media moderation has been raised: Pulling Blogs Is Bad Policy

"As with all things, the devil is in the details.

I commend the Guardian (and my own, immodestly - on Junkk.com since you didn't ask, but hey, why not try for a plug?) for its immediate upload which, looking at the talk policy in the box above as I write 'will remove posts that contain racist, sexist or offensive/threatening language, personal attacks on the writer or other posters, posts that exceed the maximum length, and posts that are off topic.'

Trouble is, in a few of those cases the definition is a bit vague, and the media controller becomes all powerful in setting an AGENDA by the way they EDIT (a point I have noted in another blog on this site about, of all things, the Big Brother farce).

But obviously something is better than nothing, and I guess we work on trust and faith in those we engage with.

I love the seemingly sound connotations behind words like 'managing' or 'moderated'. But, playing Devil's advocate, and shooting myself in the foot a tad, I could see why a blog may need to be pulled, if I'm unsure why for "legal reasons", when the comments became too ferocious.

I was recently in one such where I was praying for the site owner to intervene as an 'Anon' poster, who knew exactly who I was, drifted into very dark territory.

I agree that the debate can emerge somewhere else, but it's not that easy to track where unless you are determined or don't have a life.

The range of different voices may usually balance the debate, but I have my doubts how well it produces a well-rounded discussion. In my area of interest, the environment, when it comes to major media (though I often wonder how many actual readers there are outside the chattering classes who probably meet in the Ivy for lunch every day anyway) I often sense the dark arts of media professionals and lobbyists keeping things to extremes. Yes, that may on average seem like balance, but not useful debate, to me at least, especially when blogged ‘information’ can be less than verifiable.

And that is where a moderator you trust can be quite useful. I've moderated out very little on my site, but always attempted to put things that are more contentious or open to subjective interpretation at least in some context based on my experience and knowledge. Then at least the reader can assess context.'

Guardian: The world is watching them

Hell in a handbasket

The other day a reader asked me to mention the perverse travesty of the situation in Burma being ignored whilst so much of less import gets coverage and debate and public outrage in support. I replied that I would love to (and now have - it is an issue I have felt strongly about since I lived in Asia. Indeed one of the songs I wrote with my wife for her highly-acclaimed debut album was called 'Shadow of a Hero', about Aung Sung Ki ('scuse spelling)), but really I didn't feel it possible or right for the Junkk 'brand' to err too far, too often from our core area of interest.

Well, sod that.

I have just woken up to the farce that is Big Brother, our political establishment, and the sorry state of this country's chattering classes, the media they serve and read and, sorry to say, a large chunk of my fellow (wo)man.

As I watch the River Wye come up the highstreet, my dustbin head to Aberdeen, my breakfast juice (please let it be squeezed in situ and shipped over) freeze-dried in Orange County, I'd say there were a few other things a tad more important.

Animal Farm

"I normally wouldn't give this a microsecond's thought, let alone commit to keyboard, but as our nation's finest pols, NGOs and media have decided it is more important than anything else (unless a tornado whisks the BB house to Oz), why not me as well?

I have two words to offer: AGENDA and EDIT.

From the media company that sets this up, to the media that feed on the controversy so set up (as if they didn't know), how anyone with a brain can assign any significance to the words and actions of a vetted and selected and manipulated group of human extremes is beyond me. It's like watching a show called BIG BOMBER and getting in a lather because all the guys with (I'll avoid any potentially un-PC or pejorative descriptions here) huddle around in one corner discussing hair bleach and exotic dinner ingredients whilst looking ominously across the room at the lone US Marine popped in to see what happens.

And should things not quite work to the full requirements of the AGENDA, there is always the EDIT. You can leave in, or out, what serves your needs best. Leave to simmer, and serve.

Pathetic. The whole sorry lot of you."

Telegraph
Indy
Indy - a good analysis of several issues
Mad - good to kick a ball rolling!


Guardian, subsequently. I was going to add... 'Especially those making hay out of being 'offended'. Reminds me of when I was in Hong Kong, and all white non-Chinese were dubbed 'Queilos', which wasn't meant as a compliment. Or response? Well, we didn't run around wailing and trying to get a slot on tlak shows. We just figured, 'Hey, why not?', and started calling ourselves that. Kinda took the sting out of it. A lot of maturity is missing here. And commom sense. The day differences between people are not noticed, and commented upon, is when we are all the same clone. And then I'm sure ways will be found to set us apart even then. Learn to swim before you try and tell the tide to stop.

Telegraph, subsequently, for crying out loud. More than you ever will want, or need to know.
Telegraph, ditto
BBC - Jade to donate her TV fee to charity - The classic 'get out of jail free' response to such things if you get caught these days. I wonder what her fee to the News of the World was, and where it went?
GuardianCiF - A very good comment by a guy called Waltz
Indy - India grits its teeth as Jade prepares to jet in - As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Up in smoke?

This is one for the dilemma file (or ITanic Vs.).

Cremation or burial?

Despite most in the eco-sphere on this topic surrounding casket design (Cardboard, bamboo, etc), I must confess to having treated it as a bit of a niche thing, despite death, along with taxes, being a bit of a growth industry, along with the global population.

And that is a key consideration. Because if there's more and more of us standing on top of the earth, there's an ever more limited series of places to stick folk under it. And once we start fighting with the guys planting bio-fuel crops, it could get ugly.

Of course it already has to an extent. When I lived in Singapore over a decade ago, large numbers of ancestors were quietly, if rather unceremoniously JCB'd from their eternal slumbers and popped in an urn in a wall if they were lucky.

So pretty much my whole experience, including personally with my Dad, has been cremation.

But in the whole dental filling (mercury) pollution and simple combustion products (heat, gas) scheme of things, is it a good idea?

I'll have to go find out.

Following In Jeremy Clarkson's Footsteps!

Well, apart from the height. And the money. And the cars.
And less-than-eco attitude. And, for that matter, the job.

Because I was going to say that like him, I today became a local newspaper journalist.

Thing is, he was hired and asked and paid, and I wasn't but offered and wasn't. However I see it as a milestone of sorts. And a good sign (except the STILL doing things for free bit - I need an agent). I have of course written op-eds before, but this seemed like my first real bit of citizen journalism.

The occasion was a council meeting to discuss getting hydro-power in Herefordshire.

The rest you can read here.

What is also worthy of note is that in that spread above, there were at least 3, maybe 4 other stories about the environment. It sis getting BIG! I hope we can play a part.

ps: The lights are mentioned in the article. It was good to see huge chandeliers with low-energy bulbs. At least someone is walking as they talk

A dish best served cold

If you go back in these blogs a fair way, you'll find I was less than impressed with the way SKY's Big Idea competition was handled.

I took part in the online Forum for a while with similarly unhappy contestants, but when it got a bit nasty (either a resident psycho or, more likely, production house minion, PR or lawyer) decided to move to more fruitful areas.

Today the OFCOM paperwork arrived. I'm going to enjoy this. We may even yet profit.

Especially when I read this the same day: ITV Play rapped over 'unfair' quiz

It's a bit broad, but 'rule 2.11 of the broadcasting code, which states that "competitions should be conducted fairly".' And if they can be nabbed on this, then I'd say we're looking even better.

The right behind the write

As readers will appreciate (as in 'know', not 'you're a bonzer dude, mate', sadly ) I trawl a lot and get sent a lot each day. Some of which I share. So it's always nice to see others finding what I have found interesting equally so.

My interests are eclectic, but obviously take in the eco, design, invention, ads, media, etc. One I have just surveyed (I will leave it nameless), which I do open as it is useful, had a monthly round-up. However I was moved to write to them (and those they quoted):

"I am enjoying and valuing the summaries that pop into my in-box from you guys. Such as:

A BURGER AND A CUP OF ETHICS, PLEASE
McDonalds tries to surf the ethical tide and up its green credentials with a rainforest connection. As of January 9th all of its 1,200 outlets in Britain will sell only coffee from growers certified by global non-profit organisation the Rainforest Alliance.

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2007/gb20070109_958716.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe_companies
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/news.cfm?id=mcdonalds

......................................................................................................................

MARKS OFFSETS ITS SPARKS
UK retail giant Marks and Spencer launches its £200m, 100-point eco-plan to inject environmental responsibility into every layer of its business and make it carbon neutral by 2012.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/01/15/ap3328593.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6261939.stm

While it has to be welcome that organisations are moving in a better direction, it is also sad that often the hype is not matched by the subsequent realities. The jury is still out on the above, but even after a few days caution is advised.

I, too read about the McDonalds story and was impressed. However, a qualification and Fairtrade reply I saw tucked away in the Business letters page of the Sunday Times has made me more circumspect.

Equally, after its first flush, the M&S story bears further scrutiny. According to the Telegraph today they have put no numbers to it which, if true is very noble for a such a marketing-led company."

I'd like to think that I here, and we at Junkk.com do try our best to not just take what we're served and pass it on, but cock an eyebrow at least at everything, and where the situation demands add our own take and, if necessary, doubts.

There really is a tad too much these days being served up and taken as given, when a few questions may not hurt before passing on.

All that's Green... need not be?

I was interested in a new travel initiative called Greenbee, from John Lewis Partnership, for whom I have a high regard on several counts.

Sadly, it was not what I thought it would be. Tap in environment to the search, and this is the closest you get.

Interesting name, though. I wonder what lies behind it?

Well, he did ask.

So where are the new ideas?

'...Here, for one.

And if the party's environmental record so far, and even the tangibles behind the 'bold new thinking' is anything to go on, it's a shame the current system/regime is incapable, or unwilling, to genuinely try and find them in new places, and support them if they have merit.'

For once, a short answer (though it need a lot more) to a short question.

ADDENDUNM:

The author has kindly replied, thanking me for my input and suggesting it needs reflecting upon. To which I have followed up (you never know):

'As will many of us, I'm sure. I just hope we have the time to do so before inactions reap unfortunate consequences.

I am of course politically and even corporately (if not commercially) naive, but having embarked upon a one-person effort to DO something about our environmental future, using the skills at my disposal, it can be frustrating to find those that who one thought were claiming and indeed tasked to help were in fact dedicated, either through ignorance, inefficiency or ambition, to thwarting one's efforts at almost every turn. I am currently looking at a govt.-funded quango - to whom I took my business plan for support 3 years ago - now moving into an area of direct competition with me! And this after they claimed no interest in what I was doing 'because it was commercial'. They now have 'sponsors' logos on their site, which is an ad where I come from.

In my 'job' I read a lot, and have done so daily for several years, and the number of times what is said ever gets done at all, much less as claimed originally, makes for a sorry state of affairs. But even most major media are complicit in allowing such short-termism to succeed and flourish.

The system is not working, yet it is still growing and hence becoming ever more complex, which only makes the chances of restitution and repair more difficult. But we must try, if only as individuals, though it would be so much better to do so in concert. An empire of minions between the top and reality can be very comforting for a while, but when there are no more beans to count, or manage, because the bean-makers have been depleted and worn out then even those with index-linking and gold-plating may yet starve. Trouble is, perhaps not in their (career) lifetime.

So it can be hard. I was at a '3rd sector' gathering last year, which claimed to be about improving creative thinking, innovation and pushing social entrepreneurship with private types like me. In my view it failed on all counts, and was almost designed to maintain the status quo behind a facade of hype by the composition of invitees and structure. Pity.

I will keep trying to engage, indeed in some ways for selfish reasons (if there's money I will try and bag some), but really it is not often worth the effort. So we end up with 'us' and 'them'... again.'

Selling beans. No longer counting them. Apparently.

A few days ago I noted the coverage of the M&S green announcement, and felt this was one that needed time to settle.

Happily, others are still paying attention: No figure on M&S's green payback

To whom I felt moved to write (plus a ps on EDF snitching on pot growers):

"Thank you for your piece today, which will make a nice counterpiece in my blog to the mostly uncritical gush that has been accorded this announcement in other quarters.

It has not been my experience that anyone in marketing, especially retail, has not put a price, first, and as high as possible, on anything they do. This has to be a new one.

However, with this new found hue, maybe my little organisation, which does no more than offer free (with paid ads if they want to push something genuinely, planet-savingly, consumer-benefittingly green they sell or do - only not going 'carbon neutral' because, as you say, they should have done ages ago and it really only helps their own bottom line, PR and CSR at AGM time) opportunities for them to upload their product data for reuse and recycling info purposes (which one would have assumed a savvy marketer would see as a possible ADDITIONAL sales opportunity), as has such as ecover, maybe they may feel like getting back to us after 3 years trying to get through the minions, using such e-dm as our Folda-Holda.

We cost them nothing and could make them money, after all. But maybe looking good is more important and needs more attention than actually doing good.

Rgds, Peter Martin

ps: Shining a light on EDF's true role in joint supply-side issues

I was recently at a seminar at the Science Museum where one of my co-presenters was extolling the virtues of hemp as source of textiles, etc. In eco-terms it is even way ahead of bamboo for instance. However all our enthusiasm for the potential (myself included) was dampened slightly when the speaker was asked how we grew it at home... you know the rest.

Still if EDF does feel like making a contribution to global warming in synergistic areas, it may be worth looking at!"

Suits who, Aunty?

In my time I have had occasion to doubt, and take issue with the BBC's ability to remain objective. Or, more and more, the provision of free ads to those who may or may not deserve it. While one presume no money changes hands, one can only wonder what happens 'in kind' (I challenged a piece a while ago that devoted 30 minutes to cosmetic tourism, where a full crew had a week at one resort in South Africa showing little more than slappers having their t&a jobs to great acclaim, and doubtless ratings. No mention of any other options, or indeed the risks).

As it does cross into areas of enviro-concern (suit-miles, local trade, etc), I took issue (in the form of some questions) on its complaints/Newswatch site (which seems to have melded):

"I realise there is a continual fine line being walked in sharing items of consumer interest, but what is it, who sets it and who polices it?

Take this morning's Breakfast TV item on cheap suits.

While it could have been a legitimate piece on outsourcing, global trade, consumer demand and ethical practices, I felt it was little more than an ad for a one week store promo, for which the BBC happily provided free air time. I got the price, how long, where, and that they were machine washable. Even vox pops of impressed shoppers. At no stage were any of the other issues, or indeed alternatives mentioned more than in passing.

Some poor UK craftsperson's venue was used (at least in the slot I saw) to make the commercial, but at no stage was he offered an opinion on quality, etc.

Is my licence funding major supermarkets’ marketing now?

No wonder our retail industry is heading to out of town megamalls with such assistance."

Green and bear it?

This just in from the Green party: Rip up your Npower contracts!
No guys, don't hang back; say how you feel.
Actually, it's nice to see a line that isn't honed to PC-perfection for once.

As there's no link, the full Monty is below.

Wasn't Juice once available via Greenpeace?

Guess it isn't any more.

------------

Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall today urged consumers to rip up their RWE Npower contracts, in light of the companies continued attempts to dump toxic fuel ash from Didcot power station, in Radley Lakes near Oxford.

Massive local opposition to the destruction of the last two remaining lakes at Radley has been ignored by power company RWE npower, and the decision to fill these lakes with toxic ash, despite opposition from Green Cllrs, has been rail-roaded through by Tory dominated Oxfordshire County Council, and subsequently backed by Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Local Government. (1)

In July, The Save Radley Lakes group handed in their own 11,500-name petition to npower at Didcot, and currently squatters are occupying an empty house at Thrupp Lake, as part of the protesters campaign.

Dr Derek Wall, Green Party Principal Speaker today said: "Despite concerns about pollution and flooding issues, and effects on the Lake's ecological and recreational value, Npower are determined to do irreparable damage to the environment and go ahead with their toxic waste plans.

"RWE npower Chief Executive Andy Duff claims to recognise the impact his companies activities have on the communities in which they work, and says he is 'committed to carrying out our business with a sense of responsibility.' (2)

"But Npower is behaving in a gravely irresponsible manner, ignoring the concerns of local people and experts. Clearly Npower's belief in corporate responsibility and environmental sensitivity go out the window when it comes to the crunch.

"Anyone concerned about the environment should not believe the hype surrounding Npower's so called green strand 'Juice', rather they should look to source their electricity from suppliers who put their money where their mouth is."

(1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/5168232.stm

(2) http://www.npower.com/About_npower/Our_responsibility.html

Air Head

Lest I be accused of party bias in my coverage of the government and its officer's rather parallel perception of policy vs. actions (or, hypocrisy) in matters airborne, this may do something to redress the balance, if not one's faith in what exist beneath their skins: Planes, trains and the conscience of Tim Yeo

And though nothing to to with it specifically, and referring to another branch of government (reminder: those we pay for to lead us) I'll just add this one in for good measure as it is still pertinent: Rebuilding trust in civil servants

The person has spoken

I may be erring on a Mea Culpa here: Residents back 'gas guzzlers' bid

Whe it broke, I was not keen, and didn't like what was behind it. In mitigation, the background the survey is a little vague. Without being a research expert, or knowing how it was conducted, if one spent an hour in a council estate and asked all you met 'Do you think all those rich sods should flaunt their 4x4s?', maybe the results would be skwed a tad. Who knows? It wasn't asked. I guess BBC reporters live in North London.

I do note that 'a majority thought the extra charges for second car permits were "too punitive".' So having a 4x4 is bad, but driving two cars is good? Hmmn.

What is encouraging, and where I will go along, is where the poll suggests two out of three residents would consider changing to a cleaner car to avoid the higher charges.

Especially as these proposals differ from Chancellor Gordon Brown's transport taxes, which the BBC says (suprisingly up front I feel) have made money for the Exchequer without reducing emissions. These mean less revenue for the council, but lower levels of greenhouse gases.

Good news from the East?

It may not be Kyoto (maybe that's a good thing), but I'll deem it a plus: Asian states sign key energy deal

Not just spin... this is M&Spin

And so the game of who is greener, quicker continues between the nation's retailers. I think I will reserve personal comment a wee while until I have had a chance to digest fully the slew of 'stuff' being issued, beyond saying that something is probably better than nothing. I just hope it is all sincere. Certainly it will be interesting to see what happens to the missive I will soon be sending - again - to senior management in these organisations. Maybe some gatekeeper minion will not pop it in the 'oo-er, too tricky' basket this time.

Here's a small round up of the last 24 hrs:

AP via Forbes: M&S Aims to Become Carbon-Neutral by '12
BBC - M&S Rose goes green in pursuit of profit
Indy - Take a close look at the produce on offer
Indy - slight fly in the ointment, though I thought they were in earlier with 'something' - Tesco follows M&S with climate change move
BBC Newsnight - Ethical Man

I merely note for now that aims are always good, if vague. As is 'much of'. And while there is some cautious welcome from commentators across business and eco-disciplines, there is also a fair bit of... warranted... eye brow twitch ready and waiting. A lot of this, like Tesco a while ago (and again, here) is merely housekeeping to boost internal profits. Not much of real value to the consumer. I also take the point about lumping ethical and eco together to get some rather murky mix of what is 'good'. The question is for whom?

It's just not hockey

A little archive update courtesy of Dave from Solarventi, regarding the ‘hockey stick’ graph so loved by both pro and anti global warming protagonists a while back.

Keeping the pot bubbling was debate surrounding the apparent lack of a dip that should have been there to reflect the ‘little ice age’. He has forwarded a New Scientist article from November last year that effectively mirrors the same conclusions.

And so we fiddle on.