Wind in the willows - not great for energy generation, though

It is hard not to be more than a little perturbed by this (and the feelings expressed in the attached, if hilarious, ad): Wind farm cash-in for renewable energy companies

When trust is in such short supply, with issues of climate change seemingly so critical, we really need to get to what positive enviROI solutions there are and throw our weight behind them.

This kind of thing doesn't help much. All I can point to is the caveat '...it has been claimed', which merely makes me point to the media's role in all this.

'Experts said claims of wind farm potential were being overestimated...' Who, where, what... how? And this pointing at the BBC, who are not usually known for their green-critiques, if 'BBC is biased' current debates are to be cited.

I have to say, the figures do not look good. I just hope that I may one day get a proper analysis and something approaching the truth.

I must try and locate this Radio 4 Costing the Earth source.

The nuts of 'may'

Central targets MAY hinder long term waste objectives according to a report funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

...because reuse activities did not contribute to recycling targets.

A, blooming, men.

Tackling the right issues head on

There seems to be a perhaps not so odd trend to try and ignore potent, but not so convenient facts when trying to push a cause and/or steer public behaviour. But in the very odd hope that people do not have eyes of their own, and brains to figure out what is affecting them the most.

Hence I fully understand why it is a good eco thing to holiday in Britain but, as I have mentioned before, beyond the weather (maybe self-correcting), the sheer cost is a massive factor in our family decisions. Beyond sitting in a tent on the Wye and eating home-cooked sausages (very nice but after four years a bit of a chore... and bore), the money one blows is prohibitive vs. a bit of sun, sea and sand overseas.

And then there's cycling. I really have not one thing to say against it on almost any basis, though the realities of a 5 mile ride up and down hills in a winter rainstorm to and from work seems to make some advocacy 'optimistic'.

However, there is one thing I'm afraid a few public service campaigns will not sway me on, and that's safety. And when it comes to my kids, that is a problem, no matter how many BBC slots on kids cycling get aired.

Yesterday I decided to take my boys on the road for the first time, them having passed their cycling proficiency. Before it was a 10 minute drive to their chum's house. This time it was 30 minutes. Nice weather. Glorious. And in having to go to a fro twice I got a work out.

Thing is, as we returned and pedalled slowly but surely in convoy up a long hill to town, I was almost knocked off by a clown who just had to get past to then immediately turn left across my bow and then, worse, a psycho decided the car he was following as it approached us at a legal 30mph needing overtaking. He only just got back into his lane as he reached my boys and I.

Short of cars being banned, which ain't gonna happen, and dangerous driving being enforced by police and not revenue robots, which has long since passed into the stuff of bad humour, and actual criminals being prosecuted rather than soft money targets, I don't think I am going to be letting my kids loose on this country's roads alone.

No matter how many boxes may get ticked trying to persuade me.

And if we can get cows to burp into a mask...

First up, I am grateful for what I see as a genuinely positive example of sponsorship, namely Carbon Trust letting one have free access to the Econmist's editorial on the environment.

Which is how I came across this: The great submarine burp

Interesting stuff. Of course one has to be a tad concerned that the main thrust is in finding more sources and hence more ways to burn stuff, no matter how much better.

A shame there can't be a way to economically (and with decent enviROI) capture the raw gas (at its 25x climate damaging multiplier to our exhalations) capture the raw gas from such as Daisy or, more practically, the peat-bog, permafrost domes that I have rad may soon be issuing forth.

At least that way it is intercepting a problem to supply an extension on our energy addictions.

BBC - UK peatlands face future stress - QED

"They ain't making any more of it!"

Is the self-supplied justification of, I believe, Mark Twain to his suggestion that one should 'invest in land'. And when you read such as this - Food demand and climate straining soils - you have to see merit.

Not just as a financial motive, but simple survival.

Of course, there are a few bits and bobs such as Hong Kong and Singapore that show a tad more may be added, but not much, soglobally it's not looking too great.

Though meant as a caution, I stumbled a bit on these words: "With a rising world population and biofuels, more land is needed".

Maybe it may be better to get it into the mindset that no 'more' land should needed, as that can only mean being 'converted' into anything other than what it is doing now. Which in turn surely means figuring out - quick - how to cap demand... on housing, fuel, etc, so we can dedicate what we have to supporting who we have with what it can.

You can see where I am going, but like so many, I guess I am skirting the big issue because it's not too pop...ular. But I guess obsessing on plastic bags rather than deforestation does secure a more convenient gig for the pols, media and activist brigades.

With a head well and truly done in trying to simply cope with the datafest and slanging matches of the BOFDIs and their opposing, equally well-funded talkers, I think I need to tune back a bit and concentrate on doing my little bit to reduce waste.

Newsnight - Food production

Gamekeeper turned gamekeeper?

I note that WRAP has a new guy in charge of what gets shared with us: WRAP Appoints New Director of Communications

His predecessor has been advised as leaving to join the BBC, though in what capacity I am not sure.

Nick Gammage brings broad communications experience from the public and private sectors to the WRAP Executive team. Having begun his career as a newspaper journalist, he held several senior communications posts in Whitehall before becoming Director of Communications at the telecoms regulator OFTEL.

In recent years, Nick has served as Director of Communications for the Consumers’ Association, the London Stock Exchange, and most recently in the City for Lloyd’s insurance market, where he set up a communications operation in the United States and helped steer the market through the aftermath of the worst hurricane season on record which led to record claims.

All of which I am sure will be of fantastic help in conveying messages to and creating engagement with consumers and the general public more attuned to the efforts of branded fmcg advertisers, as been so successfully achieved to date. Expenditures of multi-millions on campaigns to tell us, for instance, 'to recycle', have generated increased rates that have easily met the targets that warrant significant bonuses.

Here's hoping the WRAP output may now return a decent enviROI, or even just ROI on the ad spend.

Many happy returns of the day, er, 6 months, er...

RE:tie burbles along, and I'm getting to a point soon where we try and sell it. So I was amused by this: Dragons’ Den reject eyes riches abroad

And especially this: Reflecting on news of Gordon’s success, Ms Elnaugh (she'd be 'the founder of Red Letter Days, which collapsed later that year, said it was the “most ridiculous” she had ever heard of) reportedly said she is pleased he has done well, but said investors want to see a return in six months, rather than the three-year window he envisages.

I'd say I'd always like to see a return within a decent period, but so long as you make more than you spend and cover costs and time it's going to be ok. And if in being so determined to get it in 6 months rather than 3 years one ends up going bust, I think you get all you didn't deserve.

I believe there are a few Dragon's Den successes out there, but mainly I'd say all involved (with the exception of the inspired guys who gave it a go and pitched despite the obvious desire of the makers not to support or motivate the true entrepreneurial spirits, but solely to seek car-crash TV) should hang their egotistical (judges), ratings-driven (production and BBC) heads in shame.

Bin Money

I was listening to the radio yesterday on the way to a meeting, when Martin Lewis' moneysavingexpert slot came on the Jeremy Vine Show.

I'm attuned even more to this as I've noticed some sign-ups on Junkk.com that cite this as the source.

He certainly gets a lot of tips and tricks to share, which probably explains his success. Though I remain at little confused as to the way his business model works, falling as it does between a few I'm aware of. It's free of course, but also makes play of being ad free. However there's a lot of promotion for various offers flying about, plus his own products, such as books, via our very own public broadcast system. I must see how to get in on that act.

Anyway, they had a bit where folk phoned in with their tips, and I was aching to call in with my own, as several were eco in nature. Frankly most were a bit naff, if not daft (like some on our ideas pages!).

But they really liked one guy's list which, amongst others, involved swiping cans out of people's recycling boxes and selling them to recyclers.

Now I am not sure about the legality of that (mini-totting?), but it is telling that what 'we' are asked/required to do for free is recognised to provide a significant income from those who collect from us.

I wonder how much more people would recycle if the profit motive was payed up.. and upon?

What's in Vogue?

Commy time! The disconnect between those who would talk about saving the palnet and what gets done around them continues: Rich pickings

Wasn't Vogue one of those that for a wee while had a 'green' phase and/or issue? Bless.

While no real excuse, but as a reason I think there may be a problem with all this climate change activity now being in the hands of celebrity and the media that serves and feeds off them to create vehicles to flog stuff to the wealthy.

And that is what on earth such folk would do with all the money they have worked so hard to accrue (or... not) if they did/could not spent it with obscene purchase sprees or jaunts to ever more exotic places.

And what, exactly, does it say that there is such a thing as a 'luxury goods specialist'?

With a bevvy of the necessary number of journalistic chroniclers in tow, of course.

Guardian - What can you do with a brick-sized Vogue?- Sounds like a question for Junkk.com!

News, views and whose who's?

I had better watch myself!

I was just having my breakfast when Newswatch came on with a 'special' from Edinburgh based on the recent TV Fest (was it so recent? It feels an age ago. So I had more than a splutter when they read out a quote from 'regular'.... me! It was my comment that they should stop asking for opinions and then not pay a blind bit of notice to them. So I guess I can't fault them paying attention... and sharing... though still stick by that opinion. I'm of course feeling awkward, because I think I went on to say that I'd given up commenting on Newswatch because I had no sense that it went beyond the featured edit-sneer (not Mr. Snoddy, who is in the unenviable role of posing some nasty questions to colleagues and does do so... though I too often feel that he asks, they answer and... nothing more happens) basically saying it wasn't a problem and if it was they didn't really care.

But if they are taking note maybe I will plug away a bit more.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to Biased BBC.

By virtue of a thing that pops up to advise me of a new comment (some RSS doo-dad I should get to figure out on here, probably), I do get seduced back a fair bit.

But it is proving a bit of a trial. I fear most of the diamonds are getting well and truly swamped by the rough, and there is a lot of rough.

I'm learning some lessons about forum and blog management for here, but one thing I certainly believe I'll keep is my moderator approval facility. It's pretty anti-democratic I guess, especially when I complain about it on several other sites, but while I am actually not so concerned about the more PC-concerns that most retain this facility to censure, I feel I need a check for (if it ever happens - so far I have found debate here to be refreshingly civilised and based on fact more than opinion) the selective cut and paste 'tis/tisn't' epic exchanges that I am seeing on the site, usually between two totally entrenched protagonists.

As I mentioned in my appeal (I guess that was what you'd call it) on their blog, cherry-picking something, and that includes a link, really doesn't serve the story or an observer's ability to track it well enough to make a judgment. And I fear that where there may be valuable debate some, like me, simply switch off and leave them to fill ether-space with usually increasing name-calling as they spiral to nowhere.

While I'm not a fan of the Newsnight 'twofer' style, I do see merit in inviting, or welcoming, diverse opinions, and then having a central, hopefully objective but informed moderator, ready to intervene to request claims are properly substantiated before moving on. Too often I see things, even in the major online media, simply popped in, and possibly countered, but not to my satisfaction, or at least enough to know what the actual facts are.

I think I will revise my participation with BBC is Biased to more of an observer role, and use it to act as a valuable potential counterpoint to some sloppy reporting I know does occur. They do catch some howlers!

One thing to note (and to be fair to the site), is that it does pin its colours to its blog title, so it's a tad silly to expect it to be that balanced in itself. It's there to find out what is perceived to be bias in the BBC. Fair enough. They can hardly be expected to fall over themselves to 'put the other side', but it looks like there are enough to provide such context (or call out the more rabid extremes) to make it a reasonable resource to use still.

STOP PRESS! Lord Haw Haw to avoid noddies to ensure more balance!

A bit of a thing about trust in Newsnight, leading to some hairy debates on the blog about climate change, with a few equally hairy links to even more hairy debates elsewhere. As always the argument seems still to be revolving more around whether MMCC is happening or not, at the expense of DOING anything. And the media sits back and laps it all up.

I learn new things, and make decisions on information provided by the media. My trust on getting either, accurately, honestly and without agenda (skewed professional or personal/ideological) to the point that truth is 'enhanced’ to no longer be the truth, has been sorely tried of late. And not much restored by most efforts in damage control. Not least by the almost inevitable knee-jerk of broadcasters and their defiant, defensive representatives, which goes usually something like; 'It didn't happen. If it did, we didn't do it. If we did it didn't matter. If does matter, it wasn't our fault (it was a mystical 'them' of outside companies, ill-trained and, one presumes, unsupervised trainees, budgets cuts, current precedent, etc) - and if it was who cares as no one is going to be held to account at all, or if so long enough for things not to wash over. Or if it is looking like dragging on we'll have a bit of a review until it does blow out'.

So of all that could be on the agenda, the pressing issues of "noddies" and "staged questions" are not really high on mine. Which makes me wonder why it is so high, in fact to the exclusion of almost all else, from Ch5 to here. I could not be more under whelmed, though I do note that you can nod with a smile or a frown to seriously redirect the viewer’s perception of what has just transpired. And a reverse question, which I hadn't appreciated until now, seems a great way to get a seemingly horse’s mouth answer to whatever horse’s rear question you fancy asking. Artifice is all. So maybe this is, as the CH 5 editor admitted, at least a start. Just... go further. Even if it may mean changing entrenched views and practices.

All I ask is that, in future, we get told what happened, as it happened. And if we have to be subjected to commentary or analysis by vox pops from the first punter strolling by the studio to 'experts' waiting on call in the wine bar next door, there is not a sneaking suspicion that they have been preselected for what they will say, and/or post-edited to ensure that what they do say fits into place.

Meanwhile, back to saving the planet.

Let me nail my colours to the mast. I think the climate is changing, and for the worse. I think personkind and its consumerist activities may be a possible cause, and certainly cannot be helping (more people buying ever more stuff and rushing around more and more on a finite space with finite atmosphere suggest some kind of tipping point when it comes to the results of inevitable competition and pollution - or, to be polite, 'emissions' - such activity causes)

So I think some things need to be understood, and while we're at it a few other things need to be instigated. Quick. Sadly doing nothing while we argue is an option that, while seeming to be balanced, tends to favour the status quo, and of that I am not in favour.

Hence I tend to err on simply showing folk, and hopefully persuading them, that consuming more than we need, or can use, is perhaps not the best thing to do. Or better yet share the amazing number and scope of things that can be done to avoid pollution and save waste that exist already, and which can go a long way to saving the planet along with a bunch of money.

Another celeb fest ain't it.

To paraphrase Mr. Geldof a wee while ago about another mighty waste of [insert a load of nouns here], I don't need my 'consciousness' raised any more than it is already, ta very much. And I certainly don't need the kind of awareness boost that happened as a result of Live Earth.

My enduring memories are mainly of the negative coverage before, during and after, inspired, with some validity, by such as a Spice holding her child and 'doing it for her', and a week later getting a personal jet with each of her power sisters in case they have too much shopping or get into a hissy fit as they tour the world. Or, on the day, Mr. Ross and such mates who could be bothered to come for a bit of profile and cheap weekend entertainment, basically playing the fool and pretty much saying that all this cutting back really wasn't for them... but they do wee-cycle, like that's all it takes.

If you are a high-profile mega-star, with squillions to burn, with few exceptions ( I think there are some), you are going to have trouble resisting that wadge of wonga and not buy stuff and/or going lots of places to show it off. And a vast media industry depends on you doing so to get the shots they need.

It's just lazy, celeb-obsessed programming to get a few execs and D-list interviewers to play all day in the Green-elite VIP room, and fill a long slot on the cheap in the cause of 'awareness’.

Stick with what's going to make a difference please. I was convinced by your piece on deforestation. It may not be sexy, but not cutting down a tree seems to make more sense than planting a sapling to make up for Puff Diddly's hairdresser's dog's helicopter trip. Or, for that matter, the one to show us what a potentially infectious virus-infected barn may look like if you blow enough wind around it. Or the iceberg in the Far North the entire crew has flown up to look at with a totally white background in shot, to impress upon us the damage of unnecessary trips.

And if we are sincere in moving public behaviour in a real sense that has a decent enviROI, what about such issues as reducing domestic energy consumption and preventing unnecessary waste through loss. Get creative and educate and convince with these first... in major way. Not some 2 second ‘turn the thermostat down’ piety to a bunch of waste-junkies sent to a hair-shirt camp for 24 hrs. Real life, and people, don’t live like that, or face the issues in that way. And, I believe, turn off when confronted with such nonsense.

And don't jump on bandwagons. I don't know, so I simply ask. Are carrier bags and plastic bottles and 4x4s the things that are top of the list in dragging us to oblivion? If energy production and consumption is the single greatest home (and hence viewer) influenced protagonist in all this, can we devote serious journalistic energy and investigation and balanced debate to what is being spent and what the actual benefits (or not) are of alternatives? If an offshore wind farm is not making as much sense as it might, I’d like to know, and why (I actually thought Justin's piece on home turbines went a long way to rasing some key issues and questions on this aspect).

I am appalled that thanks to almost total superficiality devoted to such topics by our major media, I am in the position of being swayed by other sources who are questioning what government is doing (with the support of media capable of little more than rehashing press releases) to help my kids' futures, and simply seem more concerned with meeting a target, boosting a political career or a quango exec's bonus cheque.

I simply can't understand why the facts of these huge issues cannot be found, or made clearer, to help us figure out for ourselves what's best for our futures.

Or we not to be trusted with such decisions?

Divide and rule, guys. Divide and rule.

ClimateChangeCorp - Buying green energy: A corporate power play, with unintended consequences

BBC is Biased - A few points on the wind power issue. I still await answers to my questions, on Newsnight, sadly. Maybe better luck here.

"Windmills get a big thumbs up from the BBC" - er... like this BBC Costing The Earth programme

Is there a link to something online about this?

I have one major concern with climate issues, and that is the enviROI of proposed solutions. I don't mind, and can even applaud doing something 'for the planet' though it may not make great sense financially (on a personal level... blowing public funds is another story if there are better uses environmentally), but for my kids' sake I get very unhappy if whatever it is may not even make sense on a carbon reduction basis from instigation through operation to 'retirement'.

Hence if, for instance, the massive weight of support in the media for such as offshore wind farms may be less than balanced, I'm keen to know more. With facts and true expert opinion. Not PR from subsidised-body/contractor/operator spokespersons.

BBC Newsnight - Noddy's not dead - Nice title!

'The first thing to say is that the issue of editing shots is in a different league from the incidents of deception and dishonesty which have caused turmoil in the TV industry in recent months.'

And well said. Plus, it is to be hoped, to also be well acted upon.

Credit too, at least, for listening.

Noddies - well, ok, but please ensure that there is no hint of anything in the interviewer's manner other than being to accept the narrative flow.

Reverse questions - Hmn. Still sounds to me like an opportunity to alter perception, if only by changing the tonality of the question. I can't quite figure out why the actual question and actual answer can't sit together. In this day and age the lack of another digicam locked off on a tripod as an excuse seems poor.

Walking shots - Yaaay! Along with those awful 'door open/first time we've met... not' efforts, I hope. A view, I suspect, shared by many interviewees, who just look silly. Big up to your cameraman. I just wonder how easy it is to get a truly 'natural' shout with a crew, boom mike, lights and whatnot.

Note: This rejected, again, by what I suspect to be another technological glitch. This time to prevent 'abuse' though multiple posts. Thing is, this is my first attempt at this thread. At least the message is polite. Patience, Peter, patience.

ADDENDUM - Spinwatch on Newsnight - a link I gleaned from BBC is Biased, so it does indeed still have values making it worth scoping. It's a long piece and covers a lot but as a thorough blow by blow it's hard to fault. The analysis could be argued to set out to prove an agenda, but again some of the facts, skillfully presented to be sure, are again hard to fault. They go further than have I, but for sure this is a shared frustration of the 'twofer' interviewee technique I don't feel contributes much beyond stirring things up, both through the selection of who speaks, and what they are steered to say. Transcript - don't know how they do it (well, I guess I do. I often record and jot stuff down and capture images, so what am I talking about. ) but it's very handy!

Guardian - The camera sometimes lies - Who cares, wins

World Bank & HSBC Investing In Deforestation?

Having put themselves forward as the world's leading 'green' bank, the HSBC, in compliance with the World Bank no less, and the Royal Bank of Scotland, amongst others; and having put themselves up on a 'green' pedestal to be shot at; seem to be taking every opportunity to provide people with ammunition.

This article, from Greenpeace, provides what appears to be fairly substantial evidence that the World Bank have heavily invested in, and HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland provide financial services, to a business, 'Olam International', who are accused of illegal logging activities. These activities are directly contradictory to HSBC's much vaunted and publicly stated policy on forestry.

As the article states:- "If financial institutions put their money quite literally where their mouth is, they can force companies to adopt more responsible practices - without investment, companies like Olam can't continue to make vast profits from environmental destruction. "

Sorry, but if you want to crow about being green, then you cannot possibly be seen to be supporting or providing services to a business involved in illegal logging operations.
Nuff said!

ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) - Climate change and the environment: UK business turns a paler shade of green

No excuse, but a reason may be the simple inevitability of massive organisation's structures. A cock-up is inevitable. That said, how the ethos has not been expressed and hence pervaded every pore by now, especially after £25M external comms in the UK alone, begs the question as to whether what they say is the same as what they feel... and hence do.

Trading post

Eco-innovation again. This time on carbon trades/offsets.

I played a part, but one post realy nails it well, I feel.

I hope it's OK to share it here:

Changing people's habits is a very complicated task. We can all speak
for ourselves in this point.

Certainly, saving money or making money is one of the most effective
arguments to get people moving towards a goal. Sometimes, even more
effective than necessity, logic, or intelligence.

In that sense, putting individuals into the Carbon Market is a very
interesting and creative concept. But what's the gain in these
cell-phone products besides the yearly
30-dollars-discount-in-your-cell-phone-bill?

Nothing against making profit. Sustainable, green businesses are the solution!

But let's see how this business really works: Each individual gets
US$30 a year, some peace of mind, and an argument to talk about the
environment. The cell phone companies will have a new product, a few
millions, and a green marketing campaign. And the carbon market system
will just be less, and less effective. So what's up for the
environment?

And what is this premise that people would be "on the road in a car
putting loads of CO2"? If I walk 2 blocks for groceries I'll be
entitled for carbon credits??? Is it so much more natural to choose
the car than the bike?

What we're seeing in these products is that it's easier to make profit
with global warming than to actually deal with it.

And that's precisely the problem with the carbon market itself. Is it
a palliative, or is it just a new, interesting business opportunity?
Obviousely, alone, it is not a solution. And certainly, it needs more
regulation before carbon ends up as another highly over-rated
commodity in some emerging country's stock market bubble.

Symbolic, Shambolic

A poster on the Eco-innovation blog asked what some IKEA box symbols meant. I may not have been much help:

They're a sure sign that with waste and almost all to do with saving the planet, the process is too often usually more important than the result, symbolized by things going round and round in circles. It doesn't matter if the consumer doesn't have a clue what these things mean or what they can do to help mitigate their inevitable participation in the waste generation process, so long as the manufacturer and/or retailer meet some standards, rules or regs and at least look like they are trying to make things better. Actually it’s the same for most government/LA/quango efforts too, where bazzillions are blown telling us to recycle but few coordinated systems are provided to allow the public to do so sensibly or indeed share what can (or jar or bottle...) go where. All inspired mainly by bonus-driven targets of questionable enviROI, and way too often enforced by threats. I often stop to help folk standing in front of a skip with ‘PEP & HDPE (1-??) only’ written on the side to tell 'em the first is usually a fizzy pop bottle and the second is, or maybe isn't, the other stuff. Probably with a surveillance squad in the house opposite in case Fifi, aged 6, puts the wrong box in the slot. Jargon is all. And just what we need to save the planet is another set of complex initiatives. I’m half expecting a CDR attached to my next pack of Smarties to explain the various carbon footprint and air mile labeling schemes on top of the various supermarket opted-in charts, roundels and traffic lights on health. With a CDR on that to explain the best options for dealing with it too. Which I will not have time to get my head around as I cruise the aisles, and hence ignore. But at least it makes for a good CSR story to run an ad campaign on and wave at the legislators. I'd suggest the time may be ripe for actually getting the disposal systems in order from the moment anything comes out the ground to the point we try and avoid it going back in, with well-spaced process plants, sensible logistical systems, segregation points clearly placed and even more clearly marked and really, really clearly explained and.... a proper incentive programme in place to encourage people to believe it all goes to the right place and makes a big difference. Or, if it doesn't, or can't, be honest enough to explain that too, so folk don't drive their XC90s to the carpark to then find it's off to a Chinese landfill and get disillusioned. Treat the environment and its proactive initiatives as branded items or services to ‘sell’ like any other product, and not some complicated dirty chore with secret stuff only those ‘in the know’ can be allowed to deal with, and there may be a better level of engagement. And if a recycling option isn't ready yet, try reuse (Plug: http://www.Junkk.com is ready to share or take your suggestions on what to do with just about anything destined for the bin, which may enjoy another life). I've dallied with this arena a while, and didn't really even know what the first two meant other than 'something to do with recycling’. Or care too much anyway if no one can be bothered to help me understand easily. I just figure if it's a primary packaging material it should be and can be recyclable by now (and, while interesting and nifty, doubt I have ever bought anything or not because its pack is made from recycled materials, though it seems worthy to do and hence advise), so stick cardboard, glass, metal and probably even the odd wrong plastic in whatever doorstep box or supermarket container that comes my way. I think the 3rd symbol means you can turn the thing into a BBQ pit, and the last a Step Reebok stand, but I may be wrong:)

While we revert to doing nothing ......

.... others at least try to address the problem properly.

We have commented on the recent downgrading of the UK parliamentary committee on climate change several times recently; see final paragraph in Met Office Prediction - Heatwaves and Here's the weather summary posts as examples.

So whilst our own parliamentary committee has been turned into a toothless and clawless tiger by Ol' Golden Brown, why is it that other countries are setting up special committees with power to start to address the climate change problem? In Ireland, for example, as reported in the Belfast Telegraph.

Does Gordon simply hate the topic of climate change? Is he hoping that the problem will just go away if he ignores it? Or has the prospect of spending £20 billion plus [as mentioned in the second of the two posts above] on protecting London (as the seat of power) from future flooding scared him into silence?

The two things he does seem to be good at are saying nothing and being invisible!

'America's going to have to change'

A very brave, or perhaps, prophetic, comment from Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards; as reported today in Guardian Unlimited.

Edwards, currently running third in the nomination polls behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, seems to be pinning his chances on pricking the consciences of the American masses; even to the extent of suggesting that they have to give up their SUV's!!

He also moots "a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions that is lowered each year".

He's either, a very brave man with clear and eco-friendly ideas and visions, or, desperately trying to get himself some improved poll ratings!

LA stories

I subscribe to a (by invitation to comment I think, but hopefully free to access) website called the 'eco-innovation network, which shares interesting e-snippets and of course subsequent forum feedback.

It just occurred to me that what I write I should share here.

One of the latest struck a chord, whereby a post about grants for alt- energy projects elicited an interesting response from an obviously cluey local Authority officer and prompted me to ask a few questions of my own. It is ongoing and will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Below is what I wrote by way of some questions, which I really hope to get answers to because if there is no such collation of resource there blooming well should be. To much in this country is about fractured empires, and not enough about coherent national policy. Especially when it comes to saving our kids' futures. These guys have a wealth of experience and it should be shared if it is not, and shared better than now if it is.

I was wondering:

a) Is there a single, trustworthy, accurate, easy-to-comprehend analysis anywhere of the relative merits of various alt. energy systems the UK consumer can consider (allowing that there will of course be variations based on local conditions (wind speed/duration, sun exposure, etc))?

b) Is there any listing comparison of the experiences and considerations behind, plus support for (in the form of grants as you have listed) initiatives by local authorities countrywide.

As a simple consumer making decisions based on the enviROI (cost to planet) as much as the ROI (to self) of all such options, I find what you have written of great interest and find it odd that I cannot find (at least easily) such invaluable collected wisdom on what works and may not be so great, with associated cost/benefit analyses.

I'd very much like to see this collated and indeed would consider offering to try and do so on behalf of consumers via my site (your council, as have others, is already always welcome to its own free page to share such information, and anything else of an enviro+ nature already, but this issue could benefit from being tabulated for easy access and comprehension). It's possible the information may exist, but either in fragmented form or in specialist areas. Or simply not in a public-friendly form. Or... I have missed it!

If not, it would seem a very worthy thing to do to try and pull it all together.

Frankly I see such initiatives, and the support behind them by authorities such as yours, as much more valuable to my kids' futures than the bazillions being blown on a few high-profile communications exercises floating about of late.

By my understanding, on a personal/domestic basis the reduction of waste and reduced dependence on energy from fossil fuels will offer the best and most immediate chances for carbon reduction, and I can't quite figure why more is not being done to coordinate and support this nationally.

ADDENDUM - he has kindly replied, if slightly in the way I'd expect from an LA officer:

Every District/Borough/Unitary Council in England has a statutory duty to promote, educate, inform and advise on energy conservation and many have taken this a step further to include renewable, sustainable energy, carbon reduction and climate change.

There are national agencies such as the Energy Saving Trust (EST) and the Carbon Trust that will offer the same advice to householders and businesses respectively.

The EST fund a nationwide chain of 52 energy efficiency advice centres that are designed to advise householders. These are situated in most Counties if not Regions.

If you are fortunate enough to live in the East of England there is a regional agency, Renewables East, set up to promote renewable energy in this region.

I belong to an organisation called the Association of Environmentally Conscious Builders, AECB, have a look at their website it will help plus they have a discussion board.

The British Wind Energy Association, BWEA, the National Energy Foundation, NEF, are both good sources.

If you do searches on any of these organisations you will find their websites, most have further links to others.

As have I in return:

That answers my questions, but also, I'd say, still suggests some opportunities if any agree with my notion that such localised expertise and data could be usefully pooled and shared nationally in a consumer-friendly, and persuasive manner.

All would benefit from knowing what works and would be best to improve one's domestic enviROI (with possible/probable healthy actual ROI, too), from the consumer to the LA to the planet, if we know what can be done, how easy it is to do it ... and what cost savings can be made.

I think this deserves a lot more effort than some others that are getting way too much attention, as reducing energy usage and insulating against waste has to be one of the more sensible areas to tackle first to see some big wins.

I'm sorry, but as a householder with a greater than average interest in, and engagement with such issues, those entities you point me at just don't seem to be reaching me. I wonder if they are others. But I will look at the sites you suggest, ta.

Edie - Councils leading the way with green technology - bearing in mind Dave's comment, that may be 'a' view, certainly.

Maybe the first, but it won't be the last!

Greenwashing and greencloaking seem to be all the rage at the moment, but businesses need to beware just what they claim; tell porkies and you WILL be outed.

This from PRWatch details one such case from the Australian Woolworths business, outed by an anonymous blogger, and creating a glorious own-goal. They even went so far as to invent an organisation! They have now had to withdraw the entire product range involved!

That's the first goal to the consumers that I've seen documented so far.

Greenwash Corporates 0 - Consumers United 1.

And we're only in the first minutes of the game yet!
_______________________

And now this from today's Indy - not greenwashing, but a case of deliberate corporate obfuscation (charge-cloaking?) from the HSBC where charges are, according to them, well, not charges!

Telly addicts

We need a change of climate at the BBC - An interesting commentary from a writer at the Indy.

While the caveat in mitigation seems almost obligatory, but as a fellow 'unbeliever' in the value of 'these great on-air festivals of niceness', I'd prefer to think of reasoned lack of enthusiasm not as being 'grumpy', but rational.

Live Earth, the last great punt of its type, was pants.

This analysis is interesting: '...while they may be good for the Corporation's image and even for ratings, these orgies of public conscience are not raising awareness at all. They are raising emotion. Mass expressions of analysis-free caring, they are essentially mass expressions of faith.'

Especially as it leads to this: 'When faith replaces thought and T-shirt slogans take the place of discussion, then people quite soon are only prepared to hear the message in which they already believe. Any talk of the more difficult issues is regarded as a disguise for apathy, yet another game that cynical politicians like to play.'

At the end of the tunnel.... vision...

EU urged to scrap light bulb duties

Makes sense.

Though I personally think there is some merit in looking at the reliability aspects of some low cots, low energy options that claim multiple hours but don't actually deliver them.

I bemused my local supermarket by showing them the felt-tip date I'd scrawled on one such blown beauty and asking how it came anyway near its claimed lifespan.

Got a newbie out of it.