It's always the good ones that seem to fail

I tried to post this to a topical thread, that has already been raised here recently.

I think it warrants its own:

Dear Sirs,

I rather suspect that the reason for my first para is explained by the fact that no one could comment. Error message on upload attempt:

No such entry '014124'.

The rest stands:


I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.

Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.

Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.

So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.

Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.

However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.

I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.

But...

I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.

I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.

Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.

It would be a shame if this cannot be debated further, and freely.

I wish I had their awareness. One day...

Re-cycle of Life

You may also like to consider http://www.junkk.com.

It is mainly about ideas to make things out of junk, but amongst other things has a section that is similar to Freecycle (only with user-specified search radius from next door to the whole country, depending on how far you feel like going to collect. Plus a picture upload facility). As both are free, try all and see what works first.

I now know of some others who are also welcome on our site... ta!

Ever get that sinking feeling?

CO2 output from shipping twice as much as airlines

As I scattered my dried apricots on my muesli this morning, I attempted to feel noble in the hope that the ingredients need not have flown here.

Well, it seems not. So I guess that full English with a Gloucester Old Spot forming the main dish is looking pretty darn tasty... and eco... now.

Or.... is it? Dum, de dum, dum... daaaaah!

I am sailing, I am sailing, cross the sea....

10 minus 10 equals?

Home Office condemned for '10 years of mistakes'

How long has the present government been in power again?

Just wish there was an alternative I could have confidence in.

I'll need to sleep on this one

Children losing sleep over global warming

'HALF of children between the ages of seven and 11...'

Well, having eventually got my two 10 year olds out of bed after a full 12hrs, I'd have to say that my awesome statistical analysis on a base of, well, two, would suggest that 100% of Scotsman Press Reports, the surveys they are based on (Somerfield!!!) and all the rather sad folk who use this as an excuse to go Waaaaaah!' are full of it.

Junk Mail for Junkk Male

There goes the day job; I'm hooked!

Sorry... couldn't resist:)

I think Dillbert has hit the nail on the head in his first post, second para.

And is certainly true that here in the UK we have similar systems already in place which are not exactly encouraged by the postal services, who can be a powerful lobby group (a lot of posties are in Unions).

But playing Devil's Advocate, I do wonder (don't know so any answers to clarify welcome) about logistics. I often do want some DM, and could care less about others. How do I register for what I want, how do those who want me to get it send it and how does the postal system vet accordingly... and who pays? I just fear a catch all that means we cease to get a source of information that can be valid and valuable. Thanks to our own Telephone Preference System I cannot call companies on the list, who rather insanely don't want to hear about anything new from people they don't know. And with ISPs like AOL we have had the sending and receipt of email communication under consideration for similar 'vetting', though it seems those that can afford to can pay their way out of it. So one could argue this may discriminate against those less able to afford it. Thin end of a wedge?

Also (same knowledge caveat applies, and bearing in mind I run a re:duction, re:use and re:pair site, hence my concern on mass censorship on e-communication, though ours, like Grist, is opt-in), I was wondering in the great global warming scheme of things how damaging recycled paper products from managed forests are, in the same way as, say, biodiesel.

Could it (shriek-proof earmuff in place) be that encouraging relatively fast growing, protected greenhouse sinks may have a place as part of the carbon capture global repertoire?

Just asking.

Electric Blues

More in/from Grist

I found this post and the answers interesting and informative.

When their intentions are sincere I can live with the fact that some posters may not be up to speed on every aspect of what they post about, so long as questions are posed... and especially when they get answered. So thank you, EastBayBlue, you are obviously very smart and have done the research. That could come possibly across just as well without bashing others over the head?

The legislative impediment to going 4-wheel is interesting. And I agree needs further investigation and answering. I have to say as an ad-man that the thing can be as worthy as you like, but if it looks like it will fall over (amongst other stylistic shortfalls - then again the Prius isn't exactly slick to my eyes) it will suffer consumer resistance. And that needs addressing if these things are credible solutions to emissions.

Maybe you can help me here. I have taken our UK media to task with stories on these efforts before, when they stand next to one and gush that it is' 'pollution free'. By my best estimation, they are not, depending on the source of electricity to charge them. And even nuclear still produces pollution and greenhouse gasses in the form of steam, so really the exhaust pipe is just in another place.

Then there is the efficiency of energy transfer between generator to storage in vehicle at home, and then as a % of miles covered.

Maybe you could help educate me/us further?

I am glad to say, someone kindly has, at least in part, so please revisit the link above.

However, I fear in the same breath I had to share in return less than cheering news at the same time:

That's no car, it's an eco-quadricycle

You couldn't make it up, again

With our beloved supermarkets - Supermarket chain stops petrol sales - still flogging petrol how many days after the silicon story broke with the great advice that 'it should be alright' in some stations, it is a confusing time to be a motorist.

And just when you thought those in power could not screw it up any more, well... enjoy...

'Pay as you drive' schemes are in disarray

Speedy Justice?

Just watched a piece on citizen speed radar traps. With kids I totally agree with any form of traffic calming. But sorry, not by anyone but those trained and legally tasked with doing so. Not some granny with a gun.

Are these devices reliable?
Are the operators' eyes reliable?
Are they sure to be objective?
Are the records held against other traffic infractions?
What is the opportunity to appeal and have the records expunged?

Can I get a local neighbour to assess me for tax?

Nice to have a soapbox provided

BBC - On the Oscars...

I really should record BBC Breakfast.

As I watch the ineffectual Newswatch (actually a few great questions posed, but as usual not answered in any effective way) with, irony of irony, Climate Change coverage (don't forget to watch, if not mention Ch4's 'Great Global Warming Swindle' next Thursday - as a climate change believer I would hope that it will not be deemed too boring to address with balance, but also diligence to ensure we are properly informed) followed by the commitment made, both in coverage terms AND resources (points well made here already here), with the 'fluff & froth' Oscars... Amazin' Kate, gosh, gush, amazin'.

I just got my latest 'We didn't do it. It wasn't a problem. And if it was what are you going to do?' from the show on my latest complaint as I watch the Saturday guest columnist (who I normally enjoy) mouth off on 'motorists'. He started off with a good point, but ended up being allowed to make, in my view prejudicial commentary.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Fanshaw, that something fair, equitable... and national... needs to be done on road pricing.

But...

Can we presume that the rail system and connections in the South East from Brighton, to the BBC in London, and the compensation for same, may have resulted in a personal, privileged and unrepresentative view being broadcast without challenge?

Loved the dress... loved it.

Cat. Pigeons. Small room. Retire immediately.

Dominic Lawson: Here is another inconvenient truth (but this one will infuriate the Green lobby)

In light of my last few blogs, I rather suspect it might.

I take no pleasure in being right, but it is obvious the whole debate has been hijacked by polarised (no pun intended, though it is apt) extremes from either side, leaving a massive void of greater reason and compromise almost (I hope) unable to cope, and fill it for those who do not live and breathe the deepest detail of it all.

Good Lord above, this is the Indy. And here, in the spirit of balance (which is why I carry it here) that its name implies, is the only article of substance I could locate in it today, and it's not... how should we say... exactly helping the cause, hmnn?

I have to admit to being a tad te'ed off, because of course I will now have to watch this debunking, and make a comment. On the strength of this review, it warrants attention.

Who knows, I may soften my views on global warming, its causes and what needs to be done to mitigate the effects.

But I still don't think it will change me much from my mission to DO whatever I can to avoid waste and boost efficiencies whenever and wherever possible.

I'll think I'll leave the hot air thing for others to muck about with some more.

Indy - Global warming: An inconvenient truth or hot air?

Guardian - Why Channel 4 has got it wrong over climate change

I find it rather odd, and sad, that, as I arrive back after a very happy family weekend break to engage in my traditional 'surf and mirth' scope, a little late in the day, of the 'quality' major news media blogosphere, that I seem to be the only person to have found this; or at least felt moved to add a comment... so far. Out of 60M them's poor odds.

Especially if we are facing something potentially none too optimal (if the tipping point to Armageddon can be so described) in around a decade, at least by my understanding of the IPPC report.

Thing is, I find myself in an odd position. I care very much about all this, if only for my kids' sake. I am, by any measure, environmentally concerned, and arguably quite active. I may even be, by dint of taking a greater interest than many, fairly well informed. And, most importantly, I care passionately about DOING something, anything, to avoid unnecessary waste, and to find practical, inspirational ways to assist the consuming public to live more environmentally sound lifestyles by choice, and not nannying, guilt, scare or fine.

So I tend to find talking shops at best frustrating, if not actually downright obstructive, by consuming resources, and energies, that could be used more positively.

Sadly, having read and reread this a few times, I am unable to see how anything has been moved ahead much, save to offer a lifeline to the deniers by denying them the very things that they would deny those with a more precautionary bent (that's a lot of denying in one sentence, sorry, but I call 'em as I see 'em). I don't know if such as Al Gore and those others less celebrity-endowed are dead right or completely wrong, but if they're wrong they'll just look silly in a few decades. If they are right, those who are big-oiling into denial will, along with the rest of us, be looking a little red-faced, and not just from embarrassment. Though I do take the point that most will be long dead and buried, and hence not really in a position to care that their book sales have nosedived.

However, I can only see more ammunition here to enable the artillery barrages from extremes on both sides to continue ever more energetically, leaving those who thirst for information, guidance and action still sitting dazed and confused beneath the literary pyrotechnics that rage.

I may be tired from a period spent well if not wisely, but I stumbled on this in regard to the forthcoming show that has yet to be screened, but already generated such a ferocious counter-movement - 'Certainly, there many reasons to deride it. Its contents are largely untrue, for a start. That is Channel 4's problem.' Now I haven't seen it, but this is quite a thing. 'Largely untrue contents' are pretty much the smoking gun to put down this nag before it even leaves the starting blocks.

But...

I can't for the life of me seem to locate what these untrue contents are, at least from the piece written. What I do get are trash jobs on those involved, and unless I am very much mistaken, and harking to only a few blogs back, this seemed to be a tactic not considered quite cricket when applied to those who are in favour of Al Gore, IPCC , Uncle Tom Cobbly and all in the man-made corner. So which is to be. In gutter? Or stand above it? Deal in facts? Or fling some mud around and hope that what sticks may sway? It's hard to see how this is going to work both ways.

I am prepared to accept, and indeed pretty much hope to see proven, that this programme has opted for dishonest rhetoric, but so far I can only say they are not the only ones dealing in such a thing at the expense of reasoned debate.

Which is a pity, and serves the cause, IMHO, poorly. Especially when, on reaching the concluding several paras here (still none the wiser on Ch4's factual transgressions, mind) there seems to be much about the manipulations being applied by all sides, with very much more short-term, and selfish, agendas, that I can only nod in agreement with.

Sorry, my buttons got pushed. What a waste of a Friday Morning.

Especially when a picture is worth 1,827 words.





'On Junkk Male2's very very very long post: Thanks, it has its moments. But we do not need Brits telling us how to spell, especially since American "humor" and "civilize" are closer to their respectively Latin and Greek etyma than are the British bastardizations of those words, with an unnecessary "u" and an overly historicized "s." And hitting Al Gore over the head with Mahatma Gandhi is totally unfair, for the reason mentioned above.'

When talking shops go bad....

'Whilst I am not so sure some posters, especially myself, would even agree anyone is attacking anyone (it just comes off a bit like screaming racist at the drop of a hat), I am glad to see at least the effort I put into a serious issue (pseudo or not, the word ‘scandal’ was the opening post, though not one I would have chosen) has been acknowledged, especially in response to what I presumed to be an invitation to take part in a discussion – ‘Still basking in Oscar's glow, Al Gore makes headlines for using a lotta energy. An inconvenient truth or an ugly smear campaign?’

Despite Mark Twain’s fine copywriting advice, I often have a lot to say, but it is sincere and it is well meant. Hopefully this next effort will be better appreciated for its content rather than its length (oh, missus, for the Benny Hillophiles out there). I'll try and do a USA Today version, but no promises... or charts. Sometimes important issues are hard to deal with superficially lest things get taken out of context or suffer from lack of proper investigation and explanation, don't you find? Imagine a Simpson’s length version (including ad breaks) of an important issue, say, like Global Warming (I know, they did do one, and it was very good, though the real message may have passed some by).

Along with a few others who posted in reply to the invitation, I do not believe that the intention of the original post or blog was meant to solicit responses only from those who had something supportive to say to the proposition. Though I guess some in the team can believe certain balls only get played with when you support the side who owns them. But you could argue it’s like those who make and sell baby bottles getting in a snit at any publication that carries a less than flattering report on their safety to babies, and then bunker down and have a group ‘others suck’ in babybottle.com with fellow baby bottlers. Best to take the opportunity to engage in discussion, persuade and prove your product, or case, is valid. If it is. Saying those who pass comment are in the pay of non-babybottlism is just throwing... er... baby bottles out of the pram.

In all my years living and working in the States I never really saw the truth of the old adage 'Separated by a common language', but in that vast, great country, with distance amplifying demographic differences, I must say my sense of humour did meet varied responses. It is to my shame that I neglected to remember this in posting to a blog that spans not just the world but, more importantly, the Atlantic to the Pacific, centre of the known universe.

I would also never presume to tell any one anything. I often opine. I always ask questions. I may suggest another course. But I am not sufficiently convinced of my rectitude in anything to ‘tell’ anyone anything. I sometimes envy those who do, as it allows them to insert their values in places where others may hesitate, or not be welcome. Often this can be with favorable outcomes (depending on whom you ask). On occasion it can be seen as an unmitigated global disaster.

So my opening remark was merely intended as humor. Just as my American co-workers would remind me (I thought with a degree of irony of their own), 'there is no 'I' in team, I felt my light-hearted play on words would be appreciated as a suitable introduction to a piece on the value on ‘team debate’ being conducted in the spirit of levity, with humor at its core. But in being put right on the error of my ways at least I have had a lesson in both ancient linguistics and nationalistic fervour (whoops).

Sadly, you don't need to go looking too hard for offence. If you seek it, it will find you. So I am sorry for any given. It was unintentional.

What I am not sorry for is having a thoughtful opinion on a core issue that the environmental movement faces today.

It is undoubted that the single greatest task that we’re (if I may make so bold as a non-leader) facing today is the motivation of the masses. When a voter or consumer stirs, politicians and corporations pay heed. But I am not so sure about media. By my understanding they are supposed to objectively form and reflect public sentiment and opinion, but it seems all too often they set out to shape it. This may be due to the unelected nature of the senior officers at the helm (not a problem exclusive to the media, one should add). It is hard not to let personal views stray into subjective issues. Just as it is hard for an employee not to see that their next paycheque can depend on supporting those views. Ain't democracy and its defenders wonderful?

It's also desperately unfair, but the media will seldom allow any public figure to change their mind, even over a span of decades.

This is not a problem for Mr. Gore, as his commitment in the long term is undoubted, if perhaps not his effectiveness while in office and, until fairly recently, out of it (by my, non-US awareness). However, as Steven T concedes, this is just the beginning, and the media scene needs to be managed, and managed well to get the result we all are aiming for. That was my main point. What is, is. And how such as the UK press reports needs to be addressed, especially if it is indeed disturbingly unrepresentative of the true facts. We are talking a global situation here. (Tip : defences like ‘Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway’ wouldn’t fly too well here. We don’t waste because we can afford to. Especially when setting examples. So as a suggestion I’d drop that one).

Having spent my time in the States in the more affluent regions of the Coasts, Texas and Utah, I do not feel qualified to speak of the blue-collar (wo)man's views there, or how they get reflected, but I do wonder how representative the views expressed in a niche medium such as this are reflective of national commitment and belief. As we are talking the future of the planet, the number of participants outside of a relatively small clique is still disappointingly small.

Which returns us to the point at hand. The BBC, with access to a nation of 60M, and a more than sympathetic commitment to green issues, was quite happy to run the negative reporting with little context. If it's juicy, tabloids such as The Sun will deliver a print readership in the many millions. You can score positive coverage with celebrity, but it is a tenuous pact that you enter into, and the sword is double-edged, and once unsheathed can be turned very quickly and be hard to return.

Yes, Cameron Diaz will be most welcome to stand in Hyde Park and tell us why she drives a G-Wiz. But it will be asked how she got here to do it. And while Jamiroquai may say that his latest gig to get in the Guinness Book of Records (in a plane) was offset by 'his people', there are those who may suggest that not going up there in the first place may have served the planet, here and now, less well than his immediate career PR.

I mentioned Gandhi because a previous poster had, and not as an ‘attack’. I do not see anything in what I wrote accusing Mr. Gore of anything, unfairly or not. I merely felt it an suitable analogy to give pause for thought to those who expressed the view that double standards are OK so long as it is in a good cause. Especially when dealing with the media and the masses.

Because I simply beg to disagree. If you are trying to persuade the working public, and no longer have a compliant (greater good for the future vs. great headline tomorrow) press to help you shape their views, you better have a good story, with no holes, and an even better team in place to sell it, both in front and in back of camera. I for one simply cannot support ‘a rationale for putting the stress on the problem as opposed to proposing solutions’. As any life assurer will tell you, you don’t sell a policy by scaring people with death. But these boys still make sales... and have been doing so for years... how?

I just think that if you are setting yourself up as a 'leader' or spokesperson for mitigating our effects though personal behaviour, you need to set the credibility bar at a manageable level. It's one, wonderful (though I would imagine the ownership of the resulting valuable invention may result in that being covered, as simply good business) thing to put up $25M chump change as a prize to kill greenhouse gasses, but is it helped by our Mr. Branson also punting rich old folk into orbit to have their Kodak moment on top of a few Brazilian forest's worth of greenhouse gas compo? I'm erring on, at best, a mixed message for those who may see their house rates go up if they don't put insulation in, which many can't afford. I’m only sorry they are not reading this, as I doubt many are.

But it's going to be a great target for those sipping their Fairtrade Fortnight mocha latté dusted with airflown (isn’t that... no... never mind) truffles, who can afford the money, time and selective causes to support without much denting their cosy lifestyles. How many buying the products advertised here do so ‘as well as’ rather than ‘instead of’?

Green is good, but not much for the planet's chances if it is merely seen as a hobbyhorse to jump upon to further conspicuous consumption in another guise. I am not advocating hair-shirtism, but a bit of cutting back could be a good way to go. And to inspire others to embrace the lead, those at the 'top' (wherever that is any more, and I am afraid, as a tea-party sympathizer from the old oppressors’ country, I have my own views on who deserve to be called ‘leaders') could well look at the examples they set.

But in light of some defensive replies (I get one from caniscandia, who with some irony gets one from another. Even poor old Green Granny (no ageism intended) gets a serve for not toeing the line. How divide and rule is that!) I see here to a post about good humor, may I wish you the best of British luck.

If this is the best you can do in the country that has the most power to effect change, the planet is going to need it.

Me, I'm off now to do some more about it. In my shed.

(1,827 words. Sorry, caniscandida;('

I now know while I will not support those who think they know better try and bully those who simply wish to know more. At least on my site.

Grist

Meanwhile, over the pond [link] ...
Knock yourselves out.

Cool. 7 words. I hope caniscandida will be happy... er.. ier

Addendum: We've made up!

You say humor, I say humour...

... but 'the special relationship' remains so long as we maintain our sense of...!

Oo-er... outed. Yes, 'tis I. Thank you for the faint praise, so I will continue writing. Noting your comment on my lengthy predilections (and a slight case of RSI), I made my next (on the Colbert post subsequently) reply brief to the point of invisibility. I rather think it all rather proved a few of my points, mind.

Moods were fouled all round I'd hazard. I just fear the eventual victim will be rational debate and clear, persuasive communication to the general public. And mixed messages.

I actually popped a tweak in the Brit Fairtrader's blog to wonder about the food mile consequences of his actions.

Above and beyond the affordability to some of these worthy efforts by urban journalists, there is also the fact that they send out some contradictory notions that need to be weighed up. Save underpaid mango farmer? Save planet he/she stands on with the rest of us from unnecessary emissions by simply doing without? Tricky dilemma for the ethical activist.

Mine is how to visit my wife's family in Singapore as she hasn't seen them in a few years (maybe I can find a conference to attend and offset?). Green ain't easy, is it?

And so it goes on, and on, and...

They can often afford to save time and save money.

Last time I looked most have to work to earn money to pay mortgages, feed and educate kids, etc. Work means 50 weeks a year at home. A lucky few have other sources of income to fund their beliefs and, one trusts, their practices.

But you are right; I try to spend most of my money and my time at home funding and generating content for my free re:use ideas website. It actually seems to help some save money, AND time, AND the planet (a bit).

Still not too clear how I do this and fulfil family obligations.

Anyway, as we're big on boats being a cure, try this:

Maybe that freighter trip would have served civilisation better by not being taken at all. Hmmmn? I wonder what it was loaded with? Or picking up for the return? Consumer goods to save folk time and spend more money? Who's to say?

I have to say I still find being green a bit of an exercise in compromise. I envy those who are able to be so black and white about it.

It will be interesting to see who can serve the interests of the future best by motivating the masses with pragmatic and realistic solutions, as opposed to whacking out simple sound bites, no matter how dead right they may be.

And the losers are...

The truth, any semblance of journalistic skill, er...?

When broadcasting turns bad: Sky / Virgin negotiations left in bloody tatters

I have followed this spat on the various news media these last few days.

What got me was that at no point did a reporter pin either down to what was and was not said. I'm sure that both at one stage were accusing the other of mendacity (no Mr. Arsenal comments from me!).

It might have helped if one was caught in a porkie.

Other wise the only losers are the viewers as a bunch of testosterone gets redirected elsewhere.

Telegraph - Why must I be divorced from The Simpsons?

Space, the final affront?

Hawking to get brief experience of weightlessness on space flight

As an eminent scientist, one can only presume he will be taking his place to further our understanding of the planet and the changes it faces, say, in climate.

If it were just space tourism or a cheap PR gimmick it would be harder to justify as I doubt this thing is powered by rubber bands or even biodiesel.

Telling it like it is

Rail chief's overcrowding solution - don't travel

Actually, he's dead right. At least in the terms above (it gets a bit fudgier in the piece)

Bit of a tough sell though.

And the band played o...

All those scientists may still be wrong

I've just popped over today at a late stage from another debate (prompted by a possible discrepancy between what he says 'we' should do, and does himself... not a predilection exclusive to just him, mind) about Mr. Gore's role as a leader of one set of views.

And again I witness what seems more like a game of shuffleboard... to the death... on the Titanic, with the victor hopefully enjoying a last piece by the band before all go under.

All I know is I'd prefer to be around to see him (and others) proved wrong than right.

But then I guess the devil was always in the details.

It's not just me then

I actually met an advert ‘complainee’

My jaw was on the floor at the 'washing up'.

Laugh and the world laughs with you

I just got an email from a comedian. No... really. Actually that's no, I didn't (it was from his publishers), but yes, really, he's a comedian. His name is Mark Watson.

It was headed:

Letting Junkk-ers know about CATE-ers (and vice versa)

We prefer Junkketeers, but what's not to like already?

And, as promised, I am doing exactly what I said on the bin:

499 people to his cause.

Well, make that a round 500! I 'm in. All I have to do is figure out MySpace. I know we are on it musically, and I think we are on it as Junkk.com. I just don't know how to work it yet. Think dinosaur. But I know a lady who can (my lovely missus, who certainly is on it).

Mark's really keen to link up with people who are already Good At The Environment,

Ah, problem. I don't think I am. I'm p*ssing off a lot of good greens by taking them to task.

But I'm sensing there is a movement that's not so 'Prius Pious' and Mark's' is one such.

...and it would be fantastic if you'd consider featuring his campaign on your website and newsletter.

Can and Can. I shall also blog him on my, er, blog, as soon I as I put down this mouse and keyboard.

It would also be a great way of directing people to Junkk.com.

Well, there's a plus!

The idea is to create a community of people who work together to come up with creative ways to cut their carbon footprints and live more greenly

Can do. Am trying.

(in a non-expert,

Tick

...amusing,

Tick (immodestly)

...unsanctimonious way)

BIG TICK!

...through a network of online blogs (including to more seasoned campaigners who are Good At The Environment),

See above.

...comedy gigs, marathon live shows,

I'll leave that to him. But may visit. I could make a flag to wave. Out of Junkk:)

If he ever needs musical input my lovely lady sings with a band called greenhaus, who do nice mellow, angry protest stuff to chill to.

...real world challenges,

Just so long as it is not flying to the Arctic to study why the glaciers are melting because so many people are going there with film crews to study why thy are melting... etc.

...and eventually a book.

Did you know I write too? Just saying's all...

In contrast to the greener-than-thou eco-warriors who have enough time, money and dedication to devote their lives to living sustainably in the country,

That'll teach me to reply as I read. I'm guessing you are on board with my mantra above, then?

Mark is on a mission to get well-meaning but apathetic

Don't forget poorly informed, woefully motivated and disastrously incentivised...

...urban dwellers to stop being terrified about climate change, and to put their heads together to help change things.

My record, while cracked, speaks for itself.

Cunning plans so far include art installations using rubbish,

We can help. We do cunning like a fox does anti-hunt protests.

...a large-scale musical endeavour involving instruments made from trash;

Well, the band does use electronica, which is a bit of a deal breaker. But we can help with this too. We know people who make noises from Junkk.

...a peaceful campaign to get specific celebrities to give up their private jets, by asking them in ingenious way;

I blogged a while ago about how funny it would be to get a load of Land Rover workers to chain themselves to a Greenpeace flight.

...a massive cycling effort powering an entire show;

Oh... in with a chance:)

...'pimping' the allotments of a whole town in the North of England;

As opposed to knocking them down to feed the Olympic maw. We know a lot of allotment people too.

...and a lot more besides

Might even know some stuff to help here.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to check out his blog.

I did. I like. I can't... yet... work it. Patience Grasshopper.

Mark's won the 2006 Eddies Award (formerly the Perrier award) for his cult Edinburgh festival shows, is a regular on BBC2's Mock The Week, currently has two TV sitcoms in pilot, has a written a couple of literary novels, and his series 'Mark Watson makes the world a substantially better place' (are you sensing a Messiah theme yet?) is currently being aired on Radio 4. Basically, he's a very funny and talented guy,

I'm sensing that.

...it's a really important issue and it would be fantastic to let lots of people (who are not, perhaps, MySpace addicts) know about CATE.

My best is being done as we speak.*

Your website seems a really great fit.

Ta.

Anyway, let me know what you think,

Kinda have. See above. And being reaaaaallly, lazy and strapped for time, this is what will go in my blog, now, Feb's (don't ask) Newsletter er... soon and the site, somewhere appropriate in several places asap, but to do this you need to help me by filling out of free diRE:ctory pages.

Say hi to Mark and a big up on the effort.

*I just wish I had his people!

ADDENDUM - you know what's a nice start to the day? When folk write back. In this case, the man himself:

[That was] the lady in charge of promoting the whole thing from the publishers' angle.

See, you are ahead of the game. You have people. I need people. Then my people and your people could kick us into shape.

I think she'll probably be very happy that you mentioned the whole odd exchange on your blog.

Good. I was just concerned that she'd disappeared into the ether after a very nice email. But now we are in touch, too, which is a bonus.

I will mention it on my site, in turn.

Ta muchly.

Sorry you had to read a lot of propaganda about my career.

No worries. It was interesting, edifying and inspiring. Probably in that order.

Basically, it looks like we have the same aims,

Agreed.

except you were there a lot sooner.

But somewhat of a slower-burner, PR-wise. Plus you have people. I am green... with envy. Too.

So perhaps we can join forces in some way.

As so much in the world of planet-saving is downright divide and rule (sadly mostly EcoElites - vs. our EcoLites (I can muck about with acronyms and spiffy new words with the best of 'em!) - dickin' about arguing/slagging each other off as to who is greener rather than getting on and DOING) I see this as a plan, and hence am up for it.

That's probably all she was suggesting. But in publisher-talk.

Ah, Bisto. Well, the offers all stand. Maybe I need a Babel fish to convey my enthusiasm publisherspeekly back. I'll repeat it, in tangentially-prone creative speek mano-a-mano here. I will trawl your site and MySpace a bit more when I get a mo.

You can go on my site wherever you please. A diRE:ctory invite is attached below.

You will be in our February newsletter, which is now due next month (don't ask). I know the power of celebrity. If not how to meet deadlines.

I have an events page, too. And will pop your tour on... soonish (it's that people thing again)

I can offer a lot more from self and others (my people, if not my 'people') to assist yours with various efforts if required. Music, junkk bands, allotment warriors. Mention us to yours next time you are chatting and I'll put 'em in touch with mine. Then they can do all the work and we'll just turn up on the day for the good seats and glory.

And... er... that's babadababa... all folks! At least for this exciting episode.

Look forward to our many paths crossing one day.

Shooting the Messenger #101

More on Gore

There a very good, US-based, free eco-newsletter called GRIST. I like what they are doing. I like their style. Usually.

'You are bang on. The best way to handle attacks is with good nature. And the best way to promote good nature is with humour (there’s not enough ‘u’ in humour, for the benefit of some of our US friends... evidently).

However, I would suggest that on its own this is not enough. You also have to listen (not in the way our government here does, which is without hearing, so as to keep on doing what they would anyway), engage and communicate. Or at least make the effort. Which means getting inside various heads you may not wish to (which now makes me realise why my government doesn’t hear: there’s nothing to stop anything that goes in one ear go straight through and out the other!).

And that means dealing in facts. Not just the facts of the matter, but also the facts of how matters get reported these days.

Even in the old days, which I still hanker after, this held true. I recall a Rolling Stone ad campaign... Perception: Reality. There’s what is. There is what should be. There is how what is should be reported and is. And there is appreciating that fact.

We are in a hype-driven, celebrity-obsessed culture. There is a vast industry feeding off it, with a serious interest in keeping a lot of folk employed and paid very well on the incoming, ongoing and departing antics of those selected or who volunteer to be the icons. Hence you can carve some serious column inches, readership, broadcast minutes and ratings with the ‘problem’. Then you can keep it bubbling in the same way for a while with ‘awareness’, usually surrounding the icon, and then when it gets a bit tired you can feed off the decaying bits by turning the icon info a fallen idol.

Which is why I get a bit concerned by the various icons the common man, woman and child often get presented with. Here in the UK our very own PM is shaping up as a ‘Green Ambassador’, but only once a few things that are a ‘bit impractical’ to his personal social life and professional career have been established as ‘not applicable’. Mr. Gore is different. When it comes to the environment he has form, and it is long-standing and mostly good.

However, we are living in the today of the media spotlight, with all those (purely personally opinionated) factors ranged at a public figure, ready to boost and then burst at will.

Look at this very blog and posts. What has happened? What are the %ages ‘pro’ & ‘con’? And this is a specialist eco-publication! I don’t know about rearranging deckchairs, but it reads more like shuffleboard to the death before the thing sinks. What on earth is a semi-informed, give-a-hoot populist press and TV news industry going to make of it all (from my reading the ‘tabloids’ here they could have cared less, and the ‘qualities’ such as the Times. Telegraph and even greener, more liberal, papers like the Indy and Guardian went pretty much with the ‘bubble prick’ side, I’m afraid. As did the BBC)?

That is an inconvenient fact of life. No point railing against it. It’s here to stay. And will get worse. So to manage it you have to play the system with skill. Which means everything from the selection of your candidate to working with the media by their rules... and be purer than the driven snow. Circling the wagons and retreating inside a comfort zone of like-minded huggers may offer respite, but won’t deal with the real, harsh world. You need to get out and deal. But you need to be consistent. ‘Hypocrisy’ is a very sticky brush to get tarred with, and difficult to remove. Worse even than doing wrong, so long as you do not commit the heinous crime of changing your mind, as our Leader of the Opposition will find should he come down hard on drug use having been given free pass for indulging while young, silly and very rich.

Speaking of which, while no fault of the individual, and no valid reason to not have an opinion or wish to express it, rolling in it does carry certain problems when telling, or even suggesting how other folk should, or need to behave. As does celebrity, which these days does tend to equate to rich, no matter how gobsmackingly unworthy it may be.

Because there is a slight tendency for a bit of a ‘them’ and ‘us’ thing getting set up from the get-go; more than happily exploited by those who can feed off the tensions created.

To save the future, we are realistically looking at some ‘doing without’, which does not quite gel with global population expansion, economic growth, greater (ie: powered) efficiencies, etc, but there you go.

And to paraphrase another intense farm book wildly, ‘Some can do without more easily than others’. It’s all relative. For every downshifting Pious Prius Person living a posh urban lifestyle, there is a Fairly-concerned Fiesta (it’s a small Brit Ford) Family who may not mind a bit of upward mobility and find it a bit rich that, while flying private jets is OK to spread the word about not flying is necessary for some, it’s not any more for their two week bit of sun a year.

You lead... by example. And hence you need to ask whether the EnviROI (Environmental Return On Investment) is worth the ‘awareness’ of the ‘problem’ vs. the sense of discord sown.

We are starting to get more and more celeb ‘green’ stories and events, and it is striking how the media who get invited into the inner circle (I almost fell off my chair laughing at one gushing report from the backstage VIP ‘Green room’, which had to be cordoned off from the hoi polloi who wanted to see their idols scoff eco-canapés and bubbly) are quite happy to be part of this elite new ‘club’. While a few, either without an invite or with a few remnants of journalistic integrity, do wonder how a PR from a non P-on going from a Hummer to a Lexus Hybrid 4x4 a) warrants a story, b) is in any way making a sacrifice or c) helps the planet, lugging a big battery down the motorway.

So it is perhaps reasonable to expect our ‘green’ ‘leadership’, self-appointed, thrust upon us or, fingers crossed, worthy, to at least try to do what they say we should do.

I don’t really think Gandhi would have quite got where he did with his cause if he decked a few folk who got in his way and then justified it because he was carrying an important message on non-violence, so you just gosh-darn well cut him some slack... or else. Equally any of his entourage. And I do believe if he, they or indeed any supportive entity had tried to argue otherwise they would have got short shrift. Too much flailing about and saying ‘look who’s talking’ just comes across as a tad holier than thou, and not a little defensive and indoctrinated.

So, in such a case, are questions on the validity of the messenger’s effectiveness in bearing this message ‘an attack’?

Looking at the originators (speaking of tarring with broad brushes what is a right wing vs. a left wing think tank anyway?) of the piece, it is probably meant to be so. And I am grateful for a level of back story insight from this and other blogs to have a better idea of the facts. Plus a very reasonable, and unexploited (even here, beyond the original poster, though some have posed questions I hope will see answers to clarify doubt) explanation of high usage to supply a home office (as is mine, hence running the house utilities 24/7) and a staff, though I might need security at some stage for having doubts others would seem to wish to deny me on some issues.

Because some remain, and it really doesn’t matter to me who started what or said what once the debate is engaged if certain facts are established. And beyond the energy usage one that will never change is the media. Was this managed well? About as well as the UK government handled road pricing, I’d say. A sensible notion for future transportation now an electoral albatross to any who dare mention it, even in more considered terms.

I too favour personal responsibility for actions, and by my lifestyle would estimate my family will do quite well from most initiatives.

However I still have a lot of doubts as to who gets to decide (there are also a few Kalahari bushmen may wonder why they don’t get to trade a holiday to Aspen with a broker from Brooklyn flying overhead to sort out some carbon credits between those who have them to trade), as an ex-engineer who dealt in numbers and efficiencies, and a current ad man and green-lite writer who understands short-term politics, corporate activist priorities and corporate PR/CSR greenwashing only to well.

I know it won’t... can’t be 100%, but I don’t want to see any efforts in the name of green on behalf of my future generations carved up between government, NGO and financial trading empire builders’ departments, staff, pensions, comms budgets, fact-finding tours, climate change conferences in nice sunny places. Or subsidising celebs and their massive support systems and sycophantic media camp followers, to have nice parties to boost ‘awareness’ of how much they need to do this so we can’t .

Do what you do best. Live the life. Share it online. Do before you talk. And if it’s worth it, fun and inspiring, people will want to read about what you do.

They may even follow your example.'

New Consumer - Al Gore & Diaz: ‘Live Earth climate crisis gigs will reach 2 billion

Legal, decent, honest... and evasive?

I get these all the time, and have at last decided to have a scope.

As an ad man and enviro-concerned person, I found this one of interest, especially with my concerns on financial vs. enviROI.

To do it justice I will need to read it carefully, but I have to say that if I am not sure what was going on at the outset, I'd have to err on the side of caution.