I just had to share this as the wording struck me as funny (even if the message isn't): Green Party Speaker to appear opposite man-made climate change denier Johnny Ball.
Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall will this Sunday appear
opposite man-made climate change denier Johnny Ball, of children's TV
fame, on Sky News at 11.20 AM.
Anthropomorphic Man!
Sorry, it's the weekend, it's early and I needed a laugh.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
I am not a plastic bag.
Or... just another over-hyped, negative enviROI, truly insane way to make even more useless rubbish on the back of a bunch of faddish green sheep and their trendy magazine cheerleaders. Or this, the real thing: Make Plastic Bag Yarn
Then you can make it into fleeces to offer customers who need to keep warm outside the pub instead of using patio heaters!
Then you can make it into fleeces to offer customers who need to keep warm outside the pub instead of using patio heaters!
Bears thinking about
And that's not all they do in the woods. Along with many other furry friends of a more domestic nature: The Pet Economy
You know those Clarks shoes we had when we were kids. The ones with the footprints?
I wonder what the carbon version of a Tibby or Rover is?
See how that one plays with the HuggyLuvvies.
BBC
You know those Clarks shoes we had when we were kids. The ones with the footprints?
I wonder what the carbon version of a Tibby or Rover is?
See how that one plays with the HuggyLuvvies.
BBC
Friday, July 27, 2007
How hungry are you?
Last night I was watching, shock-horror... Dragon's Den!
Now some may know that I have not been a fan. I watched the first series and really didn't take to the set up. Then I was invited to take part and managed to get myself bounced pre-heats (I suspect by letting on too much of my 'no such thing as bad PR' agenda) so sulked a bit. Then I met several lovely people who had taken part and really didn't like it for hwo they had been treated. Then I took part in SKY's Big Idea and saw just what I could have got into, and so liked the whole thing even less.
But this was a 'where are they now?' compilation.
Now, as we all know, many things can be conjured in the edit suite, so it's odd that I hung in for the first 50 minutes because it conformed to all my worst imaginings. Mostly this was a bunch of poor sods being set up for a nasty fall. And the sheer arrogance of the judges was simply breathtaking. All my previous misgivings about how poorly this represented the inventor/entrepreneur/VC process was reinforced in spades. Why does it have to be like that... well, good TV of course! At least a few who were ill-served by the finance process were still doing OK riding the wave of the BBC audience base.
Then we got to the final one. And this was a true success. So its position was not surprising assuming the BBC has a modicum of ethics and desire to at least tilt to the notion that it's trying to promote a public service, and not just muck about boosting ratings. How that Evan guy has any cred elsewhere as a consequence is a mystery.
Ignoring for now that the BBC machine is putting a scag load of wonga in other people's pockets by playing along (and if I could do it, I would, so no harm, no foul), this was an interesting set-piece in how it could/should be done.
Shame the product was vile, being some kind of TellyTubby Teddybear (I would have thought the IP would have been interesting) so your kid can truly do without any parental input at all (which the usually less than my favourite Duncan noted and bailed from the off), and bust it within a day.
But the process was more than interesting. The pitcher, a bright young lad, had really got his plan together, and it pushed the moneymens' buttons big time. Plus he sucked up to them in all the right ways, which got them on board. But he also seemed to listen and respond... quickly, which really got them proactive. To the extent that, instead of almost all else I have seen pumped out on the BBC news by way of a commercial for whatever they are trying to push to success to justify the show, the principals actually seemed to be taking part beyond dropping chump change... along with the poor sods they toy with.
Of course, the lure of personal profile with a running camera (oddly Argos got a mention, plus a corporate shot... nothing to do with their being a partner) and the chance of turning a buck may have helped.
I still think the whole thing is pretty despicable, but at least with this one, small exception, I saw a glimmer how all the parties could pull together to make something work.
Something to bear in mind as today I have just posted the package for the IP competition to throw some serious weight behind RE:tie. I just hope that when I hit the VC trail, they are nothing like most of what I saw on display last night.
If I am putting money in another's pockets, I not only want to do so knowing it's justified, but they deserve it too. Plus I'd prefer to like 'em and know they at least have some soul.
Now some may know that I have not been a fan. I watched the first series and really didn't take to the set up. Then I was invited to take part and managed to get myself bounced pre-heats (I suspect by letting on too much of my 'no such thing as bad PR' agenda) so sulked a bit. Then I met several lovely people who had taken part and really didn't like it for hwo they had been treated. Then I took part in SKY's Big Idea and saw just what I could have got into, and so liked the whole thing even less.
But this was a 'where are they now?' compilation.
Now, as we all know, many things can be conjured in the edit suite, so it's odd that I hung in for the first 50 minutes because it conformed to all my worst imaginings. Mostly this was a bunch of poor sods being set up for a nasty fall. And the sheer arrogance of the judges was simply breathtaking. All my previous misgivings about how poorly this represented the inventor/entrepreneur/VC process was reinforced in spades. Why does it have to be like that... well, good TV of course! At least a few who were ill-served by the finance process were still doing OK riding the wave of the BBC audience base.
Then we got to the final one. And this was a true success. So its position was not surprising assuming the BBC has a modicum of ethics and desire to at least tilt to the notion that it's trying to promote a public service, and not just muck about boosting ratings. How that Evan guy has any cred elsewhere as a consequence is a mystery.
Ignoring for now that the BBC machine is putting a scag load of wonga in other people's pockets by playing along (and if I could do it, I would, so no harm, no foul), this was an interesting set-piece in how it could/should be done.
Shame the product was vile, being some kind of TellyTubby Teddybear (I would have thought the IP would have been interesting) so your kid can truly do without any parental input at all (which the usually less than my favourite Duncan noted and bailed from the off), and bust it within a day.
But the process was more than interesting. The pitcher, a bright young lad, had really got his plan together, and it pushed the moneymens' buttons big time. Plus he sucked up to them in all the right ways, which got them on board. But he also seemed to listen and respond... quickly, which really got them proactive. To the extent that, instead of almost all else I have seen pumped out on the BBC news by way of a commercial for whatever they are trying to push to success to justify the show, the principals actually seemed to be taking part beyond dropping chump change... along with the poor sods they toy with.
Of course, the lure of personal profile with a running camera (oddly Argos got a mention, plus a corporate shot... nothing to do with their being a partner) and the chance of turning a buck may have helped.
I still think the whole thing is pretty despicable, but at least with this one, small exception, I saw a glimmer how all the parties could pull together to make something work.
Something to bear in mind as today I have just posted the package for the IP competition to throw some serious weight behind RE:tie. I just hope that when I hit the VC trail, they are nothing like most of what I saw on display last night.
If I am putting money in another's pockets, I not only want to do so knowing it's justified, but they deserve it too. Plus I'd prefer to like 'em and know they at least have some soul.
The Big Green Gathering
It's on the site, but I really should mention it here as well: http://www.big-green-gathering.com
Because, amongst many other fine things, our very own First Lady and her band greenhaus will be appearing there!
I'll be the one with the bright pink Vac:Sac on his pack taking pictures.
ps: Yes, we're driving down (4-up plus tents... what to do?). No we're not likely to pledge much that we need to do more than we are. And until I can trust one, my offsetting choice is blowing yet more on Junkk.com and RE:tie.
Because, amongst many other fine things, our very own First Lady and her band greenhaus will be appearing there!
I'll be the one with the bright pink Vac:Sac on his pack taking pictures.
ps: Yes, we're driving down (4-up plus tents... what to do?). No we're not likely to pledge much that we need to do more than we are. And until I can trust one, my offsetting choice is blowing yet more on Junkk.com and RE:tie.
Funny Ha...ah?
Last night I was watching the very derivative, but still hugely funny 'Mock the Week', where the usual comic suspects gather to show how witty they are... after some editing to 'enhance truth'.
In this case it is a stretch I can cope with, as it is in the name of entertainment.
Anyway, something did strike me, and that was/is the power of humour... for good or ill.
Because one topic was the re-designation of cannabis. And, as good, upstanding folk who get up at midday and work all night in dark clubs, the 'panels' were not in favour. So we were treated to a series of one-liners around the notions that weed is much less this and that than just about anything. Comics being on the cutting edge of such things 'n all.
Cannabis 'raises psychosis risk' would suggest that it is not really that benign.
Whoa... dudes.
BBC - Cannabis harm worse than tobacco - another channel I guess
In this case it is a stretch I can cope with, as it is in the name of entertainment.
Anyway, something did strike me, and that was/is the power of humour... for good or ill.
Because one topic was the re-designation of cannabis. And, as good, upstanding folk who get up at midday and work all night in dark clubs, the 'panels' were not in favour. So we were treated to a series of one-liners around the notions that weed is much less this and that than just about anything. Comics being on the cutting edge of such things 'n all.
Cannabis 'raises psychosis risk' would suggest that it is not really that benign.
Whoa... dudes.
BBC - Cannabis harm worse than tobacco - another channel I guess
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Ozone back in the equation?
I understood that the ozone layer being destroyed by CFCs problem had been sorted out, and that the holes were now contracting. But it now seems that ozone has yet another trick up its sleeve, this time to do with accelerating global temperatures. Full article is on the RSC - Chemistry World.
"Ozone was already known to have a significant direct greenhouse gas (GHG) action. But the new effect is an indirect one, resulting from the toxic effect of high ozone levels on land plants."
Apparently, ozone in the lower atmosphere directly affects the way that plants absorb CO2, reducing the land carbon sink capability.
"Land plants absorb CO2 through pores in their leaves called stomata. When atmospheric ozone levels reach about 40ppm - already reached in many parts of the world - these stomata contract, reducing the plants' CO2 uptake. Moreover, ozone levels are expected to reach 70ppm in many parts of the world by the year 2100. This will suppress the land carbon sink, push up the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2, and boost the greenhouse effect"
This "could boost average world temperatures by a further 0.5-1.25°C - compared with the 2-5°C that will result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2."
This appears to suggest that things could get even worse than predicted; but no doubt there will be some counter argument that suggests that this is all a load of guff too!
Is it just one more straw on the camel's back to worry about?
ADDENDUM 1 (from Junkk Male):
Real Climate: Ozone impacts on climate change
The Ecologist: Rising ozone levels could stunt plant growth
"Ozone was already known to have a significant direct greenhouse gas (GHG) action. But the new effect is an indirect one, resulting from the toxic effect of high ozone levels on land plants."
Apparently, ozone in the lower atmosphere directly affects the way that plants absorb CO2, reducing the land carbon sink capability.
"Land plants absorb CO2 through pores in their leaves called stomata. When atmospheric ozone levels reach about 40ppm - already reached in many parts of the world - these stomata contract, reducing the plants' CO2 uptake. Moreover, ozone levels are expected to reach 70ppm in many parts of the world by the year 2100. This will suppress the land carbon sink, push up the equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2, and boost the greenhouse effect"
This "could boost average world temperatures by a further 0.5-1.25°C - compared with the 2-5°C that will result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2."
This appears to suggest that things could get even worse than predicted; but no doubt there will be some counter argument that suggests that this is all a load of guff too!
Is it just one more straw on the camel's back to worry about?
ADDENDUM 1 (from Junkk Male):
Real Climate: Ozone impacts on climate change
The Ecologist: Rising ozone levels could stunt plant growth
Claiming neutrality
I happened across this bit of ad-world navel gazing: Green meanz beanz and couldn't resist a few thoughts...
Well the water cooler vote should be interesting!
Hijacked??? The green agenda seems to have been kidnapped, the hostages killed immediately and then a never ending series of ever more outrageous videos pumped out to substantiate even more outrageous ransom demands.
Ok. Make that a qualified yes.
You are right to be suspicious. And Mr. Whitehouse has every reason to be outraged.
However, I would advocate some caution in how the discomfort 'we' are feeling gets manifested, especially as the core key to making a difference in the fight to mitigate man (PC-alert! Person...) made factors in creating negative climate change (For what it's worth I'm one of those who is not sure, but I simply hate waste and, in any case, for my kids' sake I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. So if the majority of climate experts say it's big and needs addressing now, I figure saying 'Are you sure?' will be a poor legacy. Make a great headstone, though: 'Yup. I guess they were right about global warming after all!. Sorry')
And almost everyone is playing silly b*ggers with the agenda for various selfish, self-promoting reasons, and not just most politicians. Though they are pretty top of a stinking pile. As with the recent floods. A bunch of Chicken Little's pointing at the sky and blaming climate change (which for sure may not have helped much) for creating an 'unprecedented situation that could not be predicted', when it wasn't and it was, respectively.
Which all gets the average Joe's trust factor on the first train straight back to Clarksonville.
You are so right that almost everything is twiddling about at the wrong end of the supply chain, throwing the onus on poorly informed, woefully supported and ill-equipped consumers to deal with all manner of things that is really nothing to do with them. If it's legal to manufacture and sell, why on earth does it end up with the punter to deal with the consequences of a 4x4 purchase, a bottle of Evian (those seeking to ban those two not living in a flood zone I'd hazard) or the packaging of a box of chox?
And I'm afraid that you have rather hit the nail with 'employ lots of people'. How many bazillions are being spent on government departments and unaccountable quangos to assess, research, monitor, and otherwise fiddle about with all this? And with comms budgets squandering amounts that could fund soooo many actual, tangible, plants, initiatives and programmes to really DO something and make a real difference. How many more TVCs pointing at Flash-enabled sites to 'raise' awareness of things people patently can't engage with even if they can be bothered. Forget my favourite measure of all things 'eco', the enviROI... what about simple ROIs? I've seen public websites getting excited at monthly hits in the tens of thousands. My granny's blog gets more than that! And if my agency had ever toddled along to a client and tried to make out 'improved awareness' that hadn't even made double digits was a success having blown several millions (and ignoring massive complementary PR), I'd be shown the door. Who accounts for all this waste of resource?
I'm sure hordes of boxes are being ticked as we speak, but are my kids' futures being protected here? Or a bunch of folks' pensions' plans and bonus structures?
I applaud any corporate who is getting on board and actually doing something here and now that's real and going to make a difference. But I dread the total horse manure that we will also end up being fed in A&P as a consequence. One more car ad with a leaf sticking out of its exhaust and I'm buying a Hummer. And as for going carbon neutral... great. Do it. Just don't shove it down my throat in such a crass way. The definition hasn't even been properly established yet. What's it mean? Are they reducing output? Simply being more efficient? Or trading a carbon credit to make more stuff elsewhere? Is it simply going to help the books internally, or will it a) help the consumer and b) the planet in any way? How many 'green ads' are getting booted out by the ASA at the moment to a tabloid fanfare? Think of the damage to consumer trust and the credibility of brands... and the genuine message.
As co-inhabitants of this planet of course 'we' should take responsibility for green becoming more about wealth generation than the planet.
But I'll leave you with a thought. Maybe, just maybe, with a bit of creativity, a dash of honesty and a smidge of ethics, some things can be done that not only help the planet, but also could lead to genuine marketing opportunities too. And if you'll allow a plug I'll mention in closing one that's dear to my heart that's doing all it can in this regard: Junkk.com
ps: Not all that's green can be viewed in black and white. That avocado? It may well be it's mostly marketing. But food waste accounts for waaaay more than packaging, so which would your prefer? A pile of bruised veg in the dumpster, or a bit of protection to help it through the distribution chain to Mr & Mrs Fussy-Yuppy? And in any case, do they even grow here? Yowser! Food miles! Carbon labels! Another debate for another time....
Well the water cooler vote should be interesting!
Hijacked??? The green agenda seems to have been kidnapped, the hostages killed immediately and then a never ending series of ever more outrageous videos pumped out to substantiate even more outrageous ransom demands.
Ok. Make that a qualified yes.
You are right to be suspicious. And Mr. Whitehouse has every reason to be outraged.
However, I would advocate some caution in how the discomfort 'we' are feeling gets manifested, especially as the core key to making a difference in the fight to mitigate man (PC-alert! Person...) made factors in creating negative climate change (For what it's worth I'm one of those who is not sure, but I simply hate waste and, in any case, for my kids' sake I figure it's better to be safe than sorry. So if the majority of climate experts say it's big and needs addressing now, I figure saying 'Are you sure?' will be a poor legacy. Make a great headstone, though: 'Yup. I guess they were right about global warming after all!. Sorry')
And almost everyone is playing silly b*ggers with the agenda for various selfish, self-promoting reasons, and not just most politicians. Though they are pretty top of a stinking pile. As with the recent floods. A bunch of Chicken Little's pointing at the sky and blaming climate change (which for sure may not have helped much) for creating an 'unprecedented situation that could not be predicted', when it wasn't and it was, respectively.
Which all gets the average Joe's trust factor on the first train straight back to Clarksonville.
You are so right that almost everything is twiddling about at the wrong end of the supply chain, throwing the onus on poorly informed, woefully supported and ill-equipped consumers to deal with all manner of things that is really nothing to do with them. If it's legal to manufacture and sell, why on earth does it end up with the punter to deal with the consequences of a 4x4 purchase, a bottle of Evian (those seeking to ban those two not living in a flood zone I'd hazard) or the packaging of a box of chox?
And I'm afraid that you have rather hit the nail with 'employ lots of people'. How many bazillions are being spent on government departments and unaccountable quangos to assess, research, monitor, and otherwise fiddle about with all this? And with comms budgets squandering amounts that could fund soooo many actual, tangible, plants, initiatives and programmes to really DO something and make a real difference. How many more TVCs pointing at Flash-enabled sites to 'raise' awareness of things people patently can't engage with even if they can be bothered. Forget my favourite measure of all things 'eco', the enviROI... what about simple ROIs? I've seen public websites getting excited at monthly hits in the tens of thousands. My granny's blog gets more than that! And if my agency had ever toddled along to a client and tried to make out 'improved awareness' that hadn't even made double digits was a success having blown several millions (and ignoring massive complementary PR), I'd be shown the door. Who accounts for all this waste of resource?
I'm sure hordes of boxes are being ticked as we speak, but are my kids' futures being protected here? Or a bunch of folks' pensions' plans and bonus structures?
I applaud any corporate who is getting on board and actually doing something here and now that's real and going to make a difference. But I dread the total horse manure that we will also end up being fed in A&P as a consequence. One more car ad with a leaf sticking out of its exhaust and I'm buying a Hummer. And as for going carbon neutral... great. Do it. Just don't shove it down my throat in such a crass way. The definition hasn't even been properly established yet. What's it mean? Are they reducing output? Simply being more efficient? Or trading a carbon credit to make more stuff elsewhere? Is it simply going to help the books internally, or will it a) help the consumer and b) the planet in any way? How many 'green ads' are getting booted out by the ASA at the moment to a tabloid fanfare? Think of the damage to consumer trust and the credibility of brands... and the genuine message.
As co-inhabitants of this planet of course 'we' should take responsibility for green becoming more about wealth generation than the planet.
But I'll leave you with a thought. Maybe, just maybe, with a bit of creativity, a dash of honesty and a smidge of ethics, some things can be done that not only help the planet, but also could lead to genuine marketing opportunities too. And if you'll allow a plug I'll mention in closing one that's dear to my heart that's doing all it can in this regard: Junkk.com
ps: Not all that's green can be viewed in black and white. That avocado? It may well be it's mostly marketing. But food waste accounts for waaaay more than packaging, so which would your prefer? A pile of bruised veg in the dumpster, or a bit of protection to help it through the distribution chain to Mr & Mrs Fussy-Yuppy? And in any case, do they even grow here? Yowser! Food miles! Carbon labels! Another debate for another time....
MPs to investigate if biofuels are truly sustainable
Why do I dread finding items like this from EnvironmentTimes?
Because of that first little acronym - 'MP'.
After months of investigation no doubt they'll come up with some half cocked conclusions that miss out most of the salient points and ignore loads of the key information and evidence.
"Concerns have also been raised about food security, as a large agricultural shift to fuel production might dramatically increase food prices"
'Concerns'? Its already happening - the evidence is out there for all to see! (See the post on 'Agflation' below).
At least they're asking for input - let's just hope that they accept it, review it, consider it and take it into account! Unfortunately, many parliamentary committees seem to have a tendency to do none of the above very well.
Oh well ...... at least they are actually looking at biofuels now; after all, it's something that just might turn out to be very important in the future of this planet.
Let's hope they include in their deliberations things like ethanol production from a dairy by-product as reported via AutoBlogGreen today.
Because of that first little acronym - 'MP'.
After months of investigation no doubt they'll come up with some half cocked conclusions that miss out most of the salient points and ignore loads of the key information and evidence.
"Concerns have also been raised about food security, as a large agricultural shift to fuel production might dramatically increase food prices"
'Concerns'? Its already happening - the evidence is out there for all to see! (See the post on 'Agflation' below).
At least they're asking for input - let's just hope that they accept it, review it, consider it and take it into account! Unfortunately, many parliamentary committees seem to have a tendency to do none of the above very well.
Oh well ...... at least they are actually looking at biofuels now; after all, it's something that just might turn out to be very important in the future of this planet.
Let's hope they include in their deliberations things like ethanol production from a dairy by-product as reported via AutoBlogGreen today.
Agflation!
You've already got it, it's already affecting you and you just don't know it! But just what is agflation then?
Well, you've actually heard it described on this very blog on several posts from Peter over the last few months - he just didn't know, like me, that there was a term for it.
"Global corn stocks have fallen to their lowest levels since modern records began as ethanol plants consume an ever-growing share of output".
"The price of wheat has flown up by 53% since March last year to £130 a tonne"
And this is all before the impacts that our rather wet summer will have on local food prices here in the UK.
Crop and foodstuff prices may start to track the price of crude oil? Ridiculous? Well, read this from The Business and figure it for yourself!
I think I'll pop along and put my name down for an allotment tonight!
Well, you've actually heard it described on this very blog on several posts from Peter over the last few months - he just didn't know, like me, that there was a term for it.
"Global corn stocks have fallen to their lowest levels since modern records began as ethanol plants consume an ever-growing share of output".
"The price of wheat has flown up by 53% since March last year to £130 a tonne"
And this is all before the impacts that our rather wet summer will have on local food prices here in the UK.
Crop and foodstuff prices may start to track the price of crude oil? Ridiculous? Well, read this from The Business and figure it for yourself!
I think I'll pop along and put my name down for an allotment tonight!
Nuclear waste not a problem?
I always find this sort of article fascinating. From The Guardian Comment, the writer suggests that the development of additional nuclear power capability is crucial in the fight against global warming. OK ........ I think I can follow the basic logic of that argument.
But, and its a BIG but, we get the same old argument about how to dispose of, store, throw away the inevitable nasty stuff that's left over.
"When we need to deal with the leftovers, we'll have the technology."
Errrrm, go on, prove it to me then. And while you're at it, just what is the EnviROI of storing stuff for decades while scientists play around with ideas on how to dispose of it properly, pray?
Although I still believe that nuclear will inevitably have to be part of the mix in terms of future power generation, I'm sorry, but that sort of argument about disposal of the horrendous waste that spent nuclear fuel represents is just not acceptable.
The article suggests several disposal methods that are in the research stage including some that actually make the waste safe (or, at least, a lot safer), but most of these ideas have been around for some 40+ years now, and yet there is still no safe way of dealing with the spent fuel.
The article is entitled: -
"Nuclear waste is hardly a worry when the climate change threat is so urgent"
Sorry, but even measured against the worry that climate change induces in many of us, it IS a major worry to anyone concerned about the environment of this little lump of planetary rock.
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male to CiF site
I must share the compliment offered to what has mostly been a civilised and highly informative series of exchanges.
Just one thing.
If we are to squirt the stuff elsewhere rather than doing without or dealing with it (a human trait), can we wait until the tehcnological solutions that have so far resulted in our current extra-orbital attempts scrape to a slighly more reassuring succcess rate.
Oh, and please make it over someone else's head, not in a jet-stream, etc.
Ta very much.
But, and its a BIG but, we get the same old argument about how to dispose of, store, throw away the inevitable nasty stuff that's left over.
"When we need to deal with the leftovers, we'll have the technology."
Errrrm, go on, prove it to me then. And while you're at it, just what is the EnviROI of storing stuff for decades while scientists play around with ideas on how to dispose of it properly, pray?
Although I still believe that nuclear will inevitably have to be part of the mix in terms of future power generation, I'm sorry, but that sort of argument about disposal of the horrendous waste that spent nuclear fuel represents is just not acceptable.
The article suggests several disposal methods that are in the research stage including some that actually make the waste safe (or, at least, a lot safer), but most of these ideas have been around for some 40+ years now, and yet there is still no safe way of dealing with the spent fuel.
The article is entitled: -
"Nuclear waste is hardly a worry when the climate change threat is so urgent"
Sorry, but even measured against the worry that climate change induces in many of us, it IS a major worry to anyone concerned about the environment of this little lump of planetary rock.
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male to CiF site
I must share the compliment offered to what has mostly been a civilised and highly informative series of exchanges.
Just one thing.
If we are to squirt the stuff elsewhere rather than doing without or dealing with it (a human trait), can we wait until the tehcnological solutions that have so far resulted in our current extra-orbital attempts scrape to a slighly more reassuring succcess rate.
Oh, and please make it over someone else's head, not in a jet-stream, etc.
Ta very much.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Any Old Plastic
Let's end the day with a picture.I was passing a local coffee shop t'other day, which happened to be bin collections.
And there, on the pile, were these crates. I asked them if I could have them, and as they get charged for disposal they were more than happy.
And I now have a supply of nice plastic stacable trays for my growing Junkk collection.
Now, if only there was a way to connect such opportunities around the place. Oo, oo, I know.... JunkkYard!
Looks green. May be green. By by golly...
Some of the world’s leading technology brands are failing to convince consumers of their green credentials - Freelance UK
Seems they are sceptical about the ethical statements made by sellers.
So, in response to this issue, some of the biggest names in the technology sector are actively engaged in 'eco-proofing' their business operations, which does seem to have at its heart a bit more than puff, but the name hardly inspires one to think they are thinking that positively. It smacks, as always, of defensive measures.
Report author Added Value is holding a next Branding for Good Summit called “Green:2.0 - Avoid the Greenwash” in November. Oooo, another summit! Ok, so I'd like to go, too. I think though, just to be different, I'm going to call mine a 'get-together', or 'bit of a chat'.
More information is available at: www.added-value.com
Seems they are sceptical about the ethical statements made by sellers.
So, in response to this issue, some of the biggest names in the technology sector are actively engaged in 'eco-proofing' their business operations, which does seem to have at its heart a bit more than puff, but the name hardly inspires one to think they are thinking that positively. It smacks, as always, of defensive measures.
Report author Added Value is holding a next Branding for Good Summit called “Green:2.0 - Avoid the Greenwash” in November. Oooo, another summit! Ok, so I'd like to go, too. I think though, just to be different, I'm going to call mine a 'get-together', or 'bit of a chat'.
More information is available at: www.added-value.com
I could do with some of that, couldn't I?
I was catching up on some tearsheets and came across A Life in the Day of the UK Wikipedia 'run-person', reading it with oddly mixed feelings.
Of course I'm jealous, because to have such passion and commitment 'as an unpaid volunteer' would certainly ease the burden a tad. Of course I do have a few (and growing) loyal folk who chip in, and it is much appreciated. But her level of input is... beyond the call.
If a little scary.
'Two years ago we had almost no income; this year our budget will hit $6m. We receive donations but we need more money to pay for servers, among other things – we have 500 servers now. Advertising is out of the question: it’s a moral issue for us. So we’re seeking sponsorship from private companies, who could give us shares, and we’re going to ask the EU for subsidies.'
So advertising is immoral, but sponsorship from private companies isn't. Hmnn. Plus if I got a grant from the EU it would need to be without strings, but I certainly won't say no if they are up for that.
As for: "It’s possible one day I’ll be more proud of Wikipedia than of the kids", I'll always be proud of Junkk.com and the legacy it may leave my kids, but it will never come close to them in my heart; as they are flesh and blood and already showing me what the future can be.
I guess that's the difference between us. That, and when I find the money, I'll gladly share it with anyone who helps make the site better.
Sadly, I find too many charities, not-for-profits and volunteer groups to be stocked with people waaaay to scary to deal with.
Of course I'm jealous, because to have such passion and commitment 'as an unpaid volunteer' would certainly ease the burden a tad. Of course I do have a few (and growing) loyal folk who chip in, and it is much appreciated. But her level of input is... beyond the call.
If a little scary.
'Two years ago we had almost no income; this year our budget will hit $6m. We receive donations but we need more money to pay for servers, among other things – we have 500 servers now. Advertising is out of the question: it’s a moral issue for us. So we’re seeking sponsorship from private companies, who could give us shares, and we’re going to ask the EU for subsidies.'
So advertising is immoral, but sponsorship from private companies isn't. Hmnn. Plus if I got a grant from the EU it would need to be without strings, but I certainly won't say no if they are up for that.
As for: "It’s possible one day I’ll be more proud of Wikipedia than of the kids", I'll always be proud of Junkk.com and the legacy it may leave my kids, but it will never come close to them in my heart; as they are flesh and blood and already showing me what the future can be.
I guess that's the difference between us. That, and when I find the money, I'll gladly share it with anyone who helps make the site better.
Sadly, I find too many charities, not-for-profits and volunteer groups to be stocked with people waaaay to scary to deal with.
The 'R' Word
It's waaay up there with 'population', only seems to get bandied about a lot more: Polluting minds
I think I can just about see what you are trying to say. But sadly, it's hard to agree with much of the reasoning.
For a start, I await an adequate definition of 'racism' in any of the contexts it gets so wilfully misused all the time. I actually celebrate many of the differences that exist between races, cultures, etc, but as it is only ever levelled in the negative, I just wonder at what point one is to be censored (where free speech is allowed, natch) from identifying, much less commenting upon, a culture difference. Especially if it is bent on mutually assured self-destruction.
You surely cannot be trying to say that, having arrived at a point where climate change is accepted as most likely being accelerated by the vast amounts of gunk that ever more affluent consumers pour in the air through having the cash to buy ever more 'stuff', no one can question whether one sixth of the world's population may need to get on board with the notion of restraint a tad.
Ok, so the 'rest' of us are pretty darn woeful, especially a certain continent to the left, but at least there are existing and ever-developing mechanisms of restraint that are enshrined in their governance, and which the people can use the power of the vote to enact. Along with the freedom to mention some nasty facts to those whose careers extend to the end of a political term as opposed to when they shuffle off to join their ancestors.
Meanwhile, the guy behind you telling you to stump up for the bullet is...?
I think I can just about see what you are trying to say. But sadly, it's hard to agree with much of the reasoning.
For a start, I await an adequate definition of 'racism' in any of the contexts it gets so wilfully misused all the time. I actually celebrate many of the differences that exist between races, cultures, etc, but as it is only ever levelled in the negative, I just wonder at what point one is to be censored (where free speech is allowed, natch) from identifying, much less commenting upon, a culture difference. Especially if it is bent on mutually assured self-destruction.
You surely cannot be trying to say that, having arrived at a point where climate change is accepted as most likely being accelerated by the vast amounts of gunk that ever more affluent consumers pour in the air through having the cash to buy ever more 'stuff', no one can question whether one sixth of the world's population may need to get on board with the notion of restraint a tad.
Ok, so the 'rest' of us are pretty darn woeful, especially a certain continent to the left, but at least there are existing and ever-developing mechanisms of restraint that are enshrined in their governance, and which the people can use the power of the vote to enact. Along with the freedom to mention some nasty facts to those whose careers extend to the end of a political term as opposed to when they shuffle off to join their ancestors.
Meanwhile, the guy behind you telling you to stump up for the bullet is...?
The Know People
This looks like a good thing for bad times: Turn to Google Maps for flood updates
As does this.
What does not, is this: '... a useful point to wonder whether information on flooding that is already collated by various arms of government should be made more freely available to members of the public. After all, it was only a couple of weeks ago that property site OnOneMap, which uses Google Maps as its engine, got into a battle over the flood data it was offering browsers. Because the mapping data showing flood risk is owned by the Environment Agency, they were forced to remove it.'
Just so's I get this straight...
There is public information, paid for by the public, that can be of help (or made to be) to the public, and it's ring-fenced 'not for the public's benefit' by quango turf defences?
As does this.
What does not, is this: '... a useful point to wonder whether information on flooding that is already collated by various arms of government should be made more freely available to members of the public. After all, it was only a couple of weeks ago that property site OnOneMap, which uses Google Maps as its engine, got into a battle over the flood data it was offering browsers. Because the mapping data showing flood risk is owned by the Environment Agency, they were forced to remove it.'
Just so's I get this straight...
There is public information, paid for by the public, that can be of help (or made to be) to the public, and it's ring-fenced 'not for the public's benefit' by quango turf defences?
Well, at least they were honest:(
We get a lot of surveys. And there is usually a disconnect between what folk say, what they really think, and actually do. So this is... interesting: Consumers reject "green" taxes
When it comes to social behaviour, we are a little less prone to the truth, if the discrepancy between those who say they recycle and those who actually do is to be reconciled.
But when it comes to cold, hard cash, well, the people have spoken.... at least to a guy flogging insurance policies.
I just wonder how many resent paying more tax (well, D'uh), but in terms of green don't see how paying it actually ends up helping the planet with the gold-plated shower we have in charge of things these days.
Meanwhile...
BBC - Teenagers support 'green' schools - as opposed to...?
When it comes to social behaviour, we are a little less prone to the truth, if the discrepancy between those who say they recycle and those who actually do is to be reconciled.
But when it comes to cold, hard cash, well, the people have spoken.... at least to a guy flogging insurance policies.
I just wonder how many resent paying more tax (well, D'uh), but in terms of green don't see how paying it actually ends up helping the planet with the gold-plated shower we have in charge of things these days.
Meanwhile...
BBC - Teenagers support 'green' schools - as opposed to...?
First they came for the 4x4s, and I did...
With all due deference to the seriousness of Pastor Neimoller's words, it looks like next in line for a bit of high priority trendy liberal media angst is... patio heaters!
And for once I am quiet happy to be on the side of good... er... green. At least, so long as it's basically letting all and sundry who think they're nifty that, on balance, they are not perhaps the greatest contribution to global warmin... er... climate change. In fact I was livid when the Ideal Home stuck my stand during their 'Environmental Theme' next to one selling the blooming things.
So we have the usual perky BBC blonde bouncing around post flood duty asking some outdoorsy types 'what they think'.
My favourite was the girl who said they were required because 'we need to experience the outdoors'. Sweet. Then there was the pub landlord who reckoned they stopped people flying to Spain. And the pub chain CEO who was dead against them and had commissioned much PR to get the BBC to advertise him.. er... them... er the good works they are doing. Plus fresh prawns at £6.99 and a bottle of Chilean red thrown in...:)
Seems this is the unintended consequence of the new anti-smoking laws; all the smokers don't like to be chilly when they are outside, so need the exterior brought up to speed temperature wise, along with the rest of the planet, it seems. Actually I never found out what the carbon cost of a fag was. Must check.
It has coincided with a minor debate I was/am having on an eco-blog (members only, don'tchaknow) following a post asking what was the best way to heat outdoors. Sadly my idea of either buying woolly jumpers from the local charity shop, or commissioning the knitting circle to whip up branded shawls (think of the PR!) was not favoured.
I am currently having an exchange with a guy who is telling me underfloor heating is radiant and only heats the person and not the air, which I'm having trouble grasping.
So to a long and growing list we can now add patio heaters. I just hope Dave's Humveee terrorists don't get wind of it or they'll be flying over to blow them up.
Meanwhile, the forests get cut down, the oil shale is being strip mined, etc, etc. Oh, and the floods were soooo yesterday.
BBC - 'Dump patio heater wear a jumper' - I'm sure they don't mean dump it. Just don't use it anymore. JunkkYard - hatstand?
Indy - Hot Air - How do you 'secretly own' one? And 'environment hypocrisy is a new concept?
Indy - Enemy of the planet: The ethics of consumption
Guardian - Not in my back yard
I think there are few that can disagree that the things are hard to justify on any count, but especially in an era when unnecessary man, er, person made emissions are figured to be accelerating climate change.
I, for one, was livid that my (eco) stand (of about 6 out of 700) at the supposed Enviro-themed Ideal Home Show a few years ago was positioned next to one flogging the things by the score.
But...
In the great scheme of things, I would dearly love to have some kind of understandable comparative table that shows where the areas of greatest enviROIs are. There will of course be those of a communal nature (governmental, local authority and corporate), and then individual.
Such as patio heaters, 4x4s, budget airlines and Evian bottles will fall under the latter (noting that two of those might have been missed somewhat in certain areas lately had they been fully banned as advocated by some).
Whilst recognising every little thing adds up, matters and makes a difference, I am more than interested in where these iconic examples of activist and selective action chattering class ire actually rate against, say, home insulation.
With such information to hand perhaps we can more effectively prioritise the big hits that will make a real difference first, and sweat the small stuff later.
Especially as the shrill nanny nature of most efforts I am seeing so far seem almost inevitably destined to create a backlash from those who are less likely to chain themselves to the local pub's heater whilst sipping a nice chilled Chilean Chablis. And are the ones who really need to be brought onside.
But I guess it sells a few more papers and fills a slot at the end of the news stirring the pot.
And for once I am quiet happy to be on the side of good... er... green. At least, so long as it's basically letting all and sundry who think they're nifty that, on balance, they are not perhaps the greatest contribution to global warmin... er... climate change. In fact I was livid when the Ideal Home stuck my stand during their 'Environmental Theme' next to one selling the blooming things.
So we have the usual perky BBC blonde bouncing around post flood duty asking some outdoorsy types 'what they think'.
My favourite was the girl who said they were required because 'we need to experience the outdoors'. Sweet. Then there was the pub landlord who reckoned they stopped people flying to Spain. And the pub chain CEO who was dead against them and had commissioned much PR to get the BBC to advertise him.. er... them... er the good works they are doing. Plus fresh prawns at £6.99 and a bottle of Chilean red thrown in...:)
Seems this is the unintended consequence of the new anti-smoking laws; all the smokers don't like to be chilly when they are outside, so need the exterior brought up to speed temperature wise, along with the rest of the planet, it seems. Actually I never found out what the carbon cost of a fag was. Must check.
It has coincided with a minor debate I was/am having on an eco-blog (members only, don'tchaknow) following a post asking what was the best way to heat outdoors. Sadly my idea of either buying woolly jumpers from the local charity shop, or commissioning the knitting circle to whip up branded shawls (think of the PR!) was not favoured.
I am currently having an exchange with a guy who is telling me underfloor heating is radiant and only heats the person and not the air, which I'm having trouble grasping.
So to a long and growing list we can now add patio heaters. I just hope Dave's Humveee terrorists don't get wind of it or they'll be flying over to blow them up.
Meanwhile, the forests get cut down, the oil shale is being strip mined, etc, etc. Oh, and the floods were soooo yesterday.
BBC - 'Dump patio heater wear a jumper' - I'm sure they don't mean dump it. Just don't use it anymore. JunkkYard - hatstand?
Indy - Hot Air - How do you 'secretly own' one? And 'environment hypocrisy is a new concept?
Indy - Enemy of the planet: The ethics of consumption
Guardian - Not in my back yard
I think there are few that can disagree that the things are hard to justify on any count, but especially in an era when unnecessary man, er, person made emissions are figured to be accelerating climate change.
I, for one, was livid that my (eco) stand (of about 6 out of 700) at the supposed Enviro-themed Ideal Home Show a few years ago was positioned next to one flogging the things by the score.
But...
In the great scheme of things, I would dearly love to have some kind of understandable comparative table that shows where the areas of greatest enviROIs are. There will of course be those of a communal nature (governmental, local authority and corporate), and then individual.
Such as patio heaters, 4x4s, budget airlines and Evian bottles will fall under the latter (noting that two of those might have been missed somewhat in certain areas lately had they been fully banned as advocated by some).
Whilst recognising every little thing adds up, matters and makes a difference, I am more than interested in where these iconic examples of activist and selective action chattering class ire actually rate against, say, home insulation.
With such information to hand perhaps we can more effectively prioritise the big hits that will make a real difference first, and sweat the small stuff later.
Especially as the shrill nanny nature of most efforts I am seeing so far seem almost inevitably destined to create a backlash from those who are less likely to chain themselves to the local pub's heater whilst sipping a nice chilled Chilean Chablis. And are the ones who really need to be brought onside.
But I guess it sells a few more papers and fills a slot at the end of the news stirring the pot.
Ask, and you will... er... um...
A bit more water-borne fun & games with Newsnight
I prefer to 'watch' the PC feed the next day, but as seems to happen every so often it is pointing elsewhere. So it is hard to comment in detail.
And as I am also getting a pop-up when I do (on my PC, requiring me to log on from another) which says rather baldly, and unhelpfully, 'you are not allowed to comment' (er, why?) it gets even trickier.
So may I express a frustration with such posting efforts that when very pertinent questions do get asked, they almost inevitably do not get answered.
How about an on-air follow-up when it is obviously warranted and you have some nifty one-liners to pose?
I am still trying to understand how these floods are described by all levels of government from Dear Leader down as 'without precedent' and 'unable to predict', when I keep hearing that they have happened before (on Newsnight) and were predicted (Guardian Front Page).
Who doesn't know their facts, or is simply enhancing the truth?
I prefer to 'watch' the PC feed the next day, but as seems to happen every so often it is pointing elsewhere. So it is hard to comment in detail.
And as I am also getting a pop-up when I do (on my PC, requiring me to log on from another) which says rather baldly, and unhelpfully, 'you are not allowed to comment' (er, why?) it gets even trickier.
So may I express a frustration with such posting efforts that when very pertinent questions do get asked, they almost inevitably do not get answered.
How about an on-air follow-up when it is obviously warranted and you have some nifty one-liners to pose?
I am still trying to understand how these floods are described by all levels of government from Dear Leader down as 'without precedent' and 'unable to predict', when I keep hearing that they have happened before (on Newsnight) and were predicted (Guardian Front Page).
Who doesn't know their facts, or is simply enhancing the truth?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
32.78m AOD
That is the height, in metres, that the lowest corner of my house at damp course level is 'Above Ordnance Datum'.
I know this because a few years ago some chappies were at the end of the road doing hard hat/high-vis jackety-type things with levels, and I asked them to give me that measurement.
I figured it would come in handy one day.
Hopefully it still will. I am a great believer in prevention being better than cure, so rather than mopping out the utility room and having a fight with the loss adjuster, I would like to try and make my house as flood proof as possible, against the chance that this 'one in a hundred year event' might happen again next month.
Thing is, I am not off to the best of starts.
The best the Environment Agency floodline could come up with was the offer of a sandbag. Now I am sure they are better than nothing, but I have a few grander plans in mind. Slotted posts with neoprene sleeves to accommodate tapered slats, for one. Quick to erect. Easy to store. With luck, using the best of Junkk.com. Already I have sealed the (now defunct) dryer outlet with a nifty sweet can lid that slid over a treat.
But to figure out what's for the best I need to know what height to make them. And this is proving an effort. I can't seem to get any sense out of anyone so far on what 'might' happen. Which makes planning tricky.
All I have managed so far is to get on a list that sends an email to tell me I'm about to be flooded if I'm in. And a text if I'm out. And as to the brook alongside that is copping the run-off from the new housing estate on the hillside farmland, that's not included as it is another department.
Spiffy.
ADDENDUM - You want some fun? Try getting a definition for Ordnance Datum, much less what it is in your vicinity.
The best I have, so far, is:
chart datum Set reference point on charts for water depth in relation to tides. On metric charts for which the UK Hydrographic Office is the charting authority, chart datum is a level as close as possible to Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), the lowest predictable tide under average meteorological conditions (from Ministry of Defence, 1987). This is not the same as Ordnance Datum, the fixed reference point for heights and contours shown on Ordnance Survey maps, which is based on mean sea level (MSL) as recorded at Newlyn (Cornwall) over a seven-year period from 1915 to 1921.
ADDENDUM 2 -
Having signed up to them, I just had an automated mobile call and email to tell me to 'stand down'. So that seemed to work, at least.
Sadly this is not going to help me with the fact that the continued high levels seem to have opened a breech between the brook and my cellar such that the pumps are now working 24/7. I fear I need to get tanking. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££:(
Telegraph - Bogged down with bureaucracy
I know this because a few years ago some chappies were at the end of the road doing hard hat/high-vis jackety-type things with levels, and I asked them to give me that measurement.
I figured it would come in handy one day.
Hopefully it still will. I am a great believer in prevention being better than cure, so rather than mopping out the utility room and having a fight with the loss adjuster, I would like to try and make my house as flood proof as possible, against the chance that this 'one in a hundred year event' might happen again next month.
Thing is, I am not off to the best of starts.
The best the Environment Agency floodline could come up with was the offer of a sandbag. Now I am sure they are better than nothing, but I have a few grander plans in mind. Slotted posts with neoprene sleeves to accommodate tapered slats, for one. Quick to erect. Easy to store. With luck, using the best of Junkk.com. Already I have sealed the (now defunct) dryer outlet with a nifty sweet can lid that slid over a treat.
But to figure out what's for the best I need to know what height to make them. And this is proving an effort. I can't seem to get any sense out of anyone so far on what 'might' happen. Which makes planning tricky.
All I have managed so far is to get on a list that sends an email to tell me I'm about to be flooded if I'm in. And a text if I'm out. And as to the brook alongside that is copping the run-off from the new housing estate on the hillside farmland, that's not included as it is another department.
Spiffy.
ADDENDUM - You want some fun? Try getting a definition for Ordnance Datum, much less what it is in your vicinity.
The best I have, so far, is:
chart datum Set reference point on charts for water depth in relation to tides. On metric charts for which the UK Hydrographic Office is the charting authority, chart datum is a level as close as possible to Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT), the lowest predictable tide under average meteorological conditions (from Ministry of Defence, 1987). This is not the same as Ordnance Datum, the fixed reference point for heights and contours shown on Ordnance Survey maps, which is based on mean sea level (MSL) as recorded at Newlyn (Cornwall) over a seven-year period from 1915 to 1921.
ADDENDUM 2 -
Having signed up to them, I just had an automated mobile call and email to tell me to 'stand down'. So that seemed to work, at least.
Sadly this is not going to help me with the fact that the continued high levels seem to have opened a breech between the brook and my cellar such that the pumps are now working 24/7. I fear I need to get tanking. ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££:(
Telegraph - Bogged down with bureaucracy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)