Online Green Hue (Or Cry)

Here's an interesting online Gizmo: BadBuster

Frankly their strapline line itself is enough to make me like 'em: Because good planets are hard to find.

How it works (from their 'About'): 'We collect environmental ratings of brands and companies into our BadBuster database. We don't rate brands or companies ourselves. By installing BadBuster, all brand names and company names (in our ever-growing database) in web text will be tagged with a color and an environmental score. The color and the score tells you how environmentally responsible the brand or the company is.'

Looks like it's only for IE, so I have not tried it out on my Mac/Safari combo, and the PC is on Firefox.

There is a download involved, but make sure you're happy they're kosher 1st - not all who save the planet are as nice at you'd hope (which is kinda what this site seems to be about).

I'd say worth a go!

Ideas (often enviro) -sharing sites

From time to time I get told of or stumble across (and on occasion post to) something where you can share an idea. And so I (will) in turn share:

eco-i-net

fellowforce.com

globalideasbank.org

CAUTION - As with any idea, only share what you are happy to have taken (if it's good, it will be), and/or have first IP-protected up the waazooo!

Saying ain't believing, much less doing

Survey time again! - Most ready for 'green sacrifices'

Again, I have to cock an eyebrow at what exactly was behind this poll, and hence its methodology and conclusions. And who paid for it?

While on the surface it's encouraging, who was going to say 'Sod the planet, it's all me, me, me!', especially with no consequence to saying it.

And from line one on there seems to be a weasel... 'The poll suggests ...' If any politician has a whiff that the public might go for something they'll have thought of the idea before you can say 'attribution'. So why are they not?

There's a link to the report. I guess I'll have to get around to reading yet another mighty tome... again.

I wonder what I'll find?

ENN - Poll shows people will pay more to help climate change - Funny how it can get reported, isn't it?

By way of another view - from the wonderfully-named Monkey-Tennis Centre. A sterling exercise in links gathering at the very least.

Don't like the answers? Get rid of it!

This little article reports on some Canadian scientists who are involved with the IPCC reports. It seems that their government has withdrawn the funding for further research into some aspects of climate change. It "it has shut down a federal climate change research network and blocked new studies on the impact of rising greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere."

I guess in many ways, it is the prerogative of the funder to decide whether or not to continue funding. Yet this is another in a long line of climate change research projects which have been terminated by governments who appear to be in thrall to the companionship of the big oil brigade.

Meanwhile, others seem to have little or no problem in obtaining research funding

Talking of big oil, Exxon has lost its status as the planet's most valued business to Petrochina whose valuation exceeds $1 Trillion! (That's larger than Russia's entire stock market value!)

How?

A simple question in response to what I see as a rather over optimistic comment - "UK can meet an 80 per cent CO2 target".

We are already miles away from missing the 20% from renewables by 2012. An 80% reduction in total emissions by 2050? Well, that's going to require some catastrophic events to occur in order to catalyse the political will to really push for genuine reductions.

But, I suppose, its just another target, so it doesn't really matter, does it?

The elephants on the sofa

I was not going to feature this or comment on the BBC RyanAir story this morning as neither, in isolation, seemed quite worth it.

Together they just seemed 'worthy'.

What I found interesting was the premise Declan Curry seemed to be working from, and Mr. O'Leary could give a stuff about, was all the nasty 'extras' that he loads on. Now I have little patience with sneaky marketing, but I'm pretty sure that you can see what the costs are before you hit 'commit'.

So at the end of the day, his airline is popular because people are prepared to pay what they ask. No one is being forced to fly with them.

What it's all costing... is another issue.

Mixed Messages

The other day I expressed interest in the Sunday Times theme of the week - climate change.

Well, it arrived, and very comprehensive it seems too.

In fact, so comprehensive I have barely scratched the surface of all it contained, from the DVD (not so sure this will be that informative, as it simply seems to be 'Nature's Greatest Hits' - at least in terms of natural disasters, packaged as evidence of climate change) to the poster (more to come in following weeks), to several articles to freebies (GOFBON! - get one free, buy others now (plus p&p)!. I'll be buying a few as they are on offer and look like they may be good sources of info... but am betting few mention Junkk.com (sweet letter follows if not... for the reprint. I'll re:view 'em anyway).

One thing is for sure, that's a lot of 'stuff'. It's going to take me a while to digest it all.

I also couldn't help but notice the ads that were littered about... literally... as most were either useless (mainly big corporates saying they are thinking a lot and 'care', without too much on what they are doing that will actually make one's day much better, but will play great at the CSR section of the AGM. Plus a few more hundred thous blown by various quangos who need to ditch their comms budgets) or... interesting.

There was one for Range Rover, headed 'Go Responsibly', with the line 'All new Land Rovers are fully Co2 offset for 45,000 miles. Not quite sure what the basis of that is, or means. Including manufacture, or a few trees to cover 20mpg?

Strangely, few 'greener' products seemed to match the marketing/media opportunism on display, so we had the usual consumerist wet dreams, especially in terms of places to go and people to pollute en route.

Sadly, the Volks guys seemed to decide a Bluemotion 'carrier bag' ad was not so relevant as one for a Touareg which, at £419 a month, the only thing that it won't plough through is your money. Well, that and a load of hydrocarbons to do its 20mpg:)

Anyone get the feeling that we are being served two very different sets of messages on the same platter?

Climate change: well oiled - Roughly half the oil we account for individually is burnt up on our behalf by the industries that feed consumerism or provide public services

Climate change: the visionaries creating a greener future

Top energy-saving tips - Not mine, even by definition, but hey

Climate change: we have the power

Climate change: a home to make you green with envy

Climate change: city salvation

Sauce: ecofriendly wine - that'll sort it all!

And last, my horoscope: Your stars for 2007
2007 is all about healing the planet and it starts with balancing your own personal ecosystem. No mention of the financial turnaround my fortune cookie predicted, but here's hoping!

Ban-er Headlines and Ban-wagons

I caught up on some lifestyle publications over the weekend.

Unsurprisingly, most had one, or more, pieces on matters green. And often, as is the way, they were focusing on individuals. Fair enough. The efforts of people are what interests us most (though the activities of rich, part-time yummie mates of yummie Islington journos are wearing a tad thin... for me at least).

However, while a few were about those who were making or doing something positive and/or proactive, the huge majority were pretty negative.

Not in terms of criticism of the person. Far from it. But almost without exception these were folk who had coordinated a protest or ban.

Now in itself this is also not always a bad thing. There are certainly things that need considering. and bringing them to broader attention can be lauded.

But in too many cases I felt the person was getting a lot more credit 'for saving the planet' than they deserved, because there was a) little or no consideration of the enviROI consequences, which too me were often potentially negative, or b) a total lack of positive alternatives put forward, at least in terms of things that seemed any 'better'.

I'd really like to see our media spend a little more time looking at the issues more broadly and deeply before jumping on a' ban-wagon', and for sure focusing much more on clearly positive issues and those involved with them.

As 'could' reusable clay pigeons

Some stories just make you blink: Biodegradable car could 'clean up' Formula One

Well, yes, I suppose it - my favourite word - 'could'.

But will it? If it happens?

I'm no so sure. And hence what these pieces are for. At least without the green blinkers on.

How a machine that biodegrades into a pool of goo and cloud of (what, I wonder?) on lap 12 clean up the rest of the consequences of F1 is unclear to me. Darn right Jeremy Clarkson is unlikely to approve... he's too smart to see this for anything other than it is.

What I do give it credit for is an investigation into alternative technologies. And that is how it should be described.

Paying Green to get Green?

I cite this mainly because I like the headline: Ethical investments on a different planet

It's also a good summary of the current situation, I think.

Though I concern myself when those in suits start according labels according to hues of green. Most, I suspect, will not grasp what lies behind these definitions that will as surely be used in tomorrow's ads as night follows day.

Bullseye!

Targets can seriously damage your health - Simon Caulkin in the Obsever

My views on targets are well known. So I am pleased to share this. It covers a variety of sectors, and sadly no mention of environment, but I think the picture it paints is clear.

I love this quote: 'The only problems that have simple solutions are simple problems. The only managers with simple problems are those with simple minds. Problems that arise in organisations are almost always the product of interactions of parts, never the action of a simple part.'

And this: 'What do "targets" accomplish? Nothing. Wrong: their accomplishment is negative.'

This, too, both quote and comment: 'Management by numerical goal is an attempt to manage without knowledge of what to do'. This is what makes it so attractive to bad managers. Unfortunately, in absolving them from the effort of thought, it is also junk management, which has the same effect on the consumer as junk food: obesity, flatulence, discontent and demoralisation. - [As Junkk Male of Junkk.com, I am proud of the attitude demanded by that extra 'k'].

Gosh, I must just go on quoting: Lack of method explains why the public sector absorbs so much resource for so little return. It also explains the stop-go, curiously disembodied experience of engaging with it: it's not reacting directly to you, the individual citizen, but to management's abstraction of you, as embodied in the target. Hence the obsession with 'choice', which simply transfers the question of method to you.

Sound like most enviro 'initiatives' and they vast comms budgets to get 'us' to compensate for institutional failings? Think ActONCo2 or the latest food waste weeping tomato ad assault. All, I am sure, with a nice bonus for the guys at the top if the money spent (from whom?) gets enough of us to say we are more 'aware' to tick a box in some self-justifying research.

Where could this money have been better spent on actual things that can be DONE and which can make a tangible difference NOW?

I hope this guy turns his sights on other areas soon. This situation must be outed, understood... and changed.

ADDENDUM - I have been moved to write to encourage him to do so:

Thank you for writing this. I hope it resonates.

I am simply appalled at what the culture of targets, especially in complement with the proliferation of what seems to be unaccountable quangos with mysterious ROIs (financial and enviROI), is reducing this country to. Seeing to do is now much more important than doing. And this has not escaped the attention of all protagonists when it comes to forging careers and generating income.

ADDENDUM 2 - I have noticed it is guys like this who are polite enough to reply (mind you, I am usually agreeing with them!):

'Many thanks for your generosity! Much appreciated — and very encouraging.'

Sex sells. But Green sex even more....

From the first posting from a new feed: Virgin Media engineers get on their bikes and ride

Not April, so it can't be a wind up. Plus that picture had to come from somewhere (probably going on my boys' walls).

I just note the beginning and end of the piece: '...customers might find service...' and '...the could be rolled out...'

So, maybe it's just a bit of bandwagon PR jumping? I note companies with the Virgin prefix do seem to crop up a lot here. And not always for actually helping the planet as much as they and their PR chaps are hyp.. hoping we'll think.

Opportunity knocks!

This weekend I am drafting proposals for my grant-assisted IP/marketing gurus in preparation for a bunch of stuff for RE:tie, including the Caps & Closures event in Brussels at the end of the month.

Time to start selling this puppy.

And I am currently stumped . I don't do proposals. At least not very well. My life was selling stuff with ads. So most of me, when staring at a bank sheet, wants to put something in a box with an 8-word or less headline.

Market opportunities and demographics are not really... 'me' Help!

However, a karmic symbol shone down upon me just now as I opened the fridge door, like a light from above (bear in mind this is the month my fortunes turn, though Dave as no time for fortune cookie predictions and pricked that bubble a whiel ago).

Last night the boys and I were walking back from Warhammer, and I remembered we needed milk. At that time the supers were counting their money and planning world dominating land grabs, so I popped into the local shop.

Now as it looked like the usual I paid it no mind. But on opening it... bingo. A tamper-proof security closure strip peeled away.

And if it can happen there... it can happen anwhere.

Thank you Barntonsham Farm! (link is down)

And look what googling that lead to:

Advertising on Milk Bottles
MILK VESSELS. (Rose Flower Head design) (Overprinted in Blue on to an embossed ex Co-op bottle) ..... BARTONSHAM FARM, HEREFORD. ...

Would sir like the food, or the famine and fuel special?

Every now and again you come across something that really depresses you. This is one such. A comprehensive article on the global pressures on basic food stuffs by the Guardian's environment editor John Vidal.

"Wheat has doubled in price, maize is nearly 50% higher than a year ago and rice is 20% more expensive"

"shortages of beef, chicken and milk in Venezuela and other countries as governments try to keep a lid on food price inflation".

"India, Yemen, Mexico, Burkina Faso and several other countries have had, or been close to, food riots in the last year"

"There are 854 million hungry people in the world and 4 million more join their ranks every year. We are facing the tightest food supplies in recent history. For the world's most vulnerable, food is simply being priced out of their reach."

"The food crisis is being compounded by growing populations, extreme weather and ecological stress, according to a number of recent reports. This week the UN Environment Programme said the planet's water, land, air, plants, animals and fish stocks were all in "inexorable decline"."

Now this is the consequence of multiple factors; climate, drought, weather patterns, over population, but the article firmly points the finger of significant blame at the rush to turn arable land over to the growth of crops for biofuels.

Much as I like the idea of biofuels, providing it can be proven that they are environmentally sound and carbon neutral, both of which some, of late, have been seriously questioned, I simply cannot understand that some can view fuel as more important than food. At the end of the day a human being can survive on a couple of sacks of maize, but will starve, even with a tank full of ethanol, if no food is available.

Maybe its time to start thinking about building the underground bunker again?

It's often how you tell it

Battling for recycling -

A long time ago I had a very good client. Respected him a lot. Once, in the course of a discussion I had cause to say 'you are misunderstanding me'. He replied: 'No, you just haven't be clear enough to make your case enough to persuade me'.

So this miffed me. Whether it was the sanctimony, the lack of acceptance of other views or the arrogance that having a major medium sounding board to spout from confers, but I was not a happy bunny. Or, maybe, it was just that, instead of trying harder to convince a tricky audience, she retreated to a comfort zone to wallow in a whinge with those who share her values. Not that it worked. You can't always blame those you bring your message to for not responding.

I wasn't at the debate, so I can only go on what you choose to share. A perk of those who control the medium. Noting also that debates can often serve an agenda by how the panel is structured. Who set this one up? Anyway kudos at least to the nay-sayer (though he sounds by your account a bit bonkers, which is another good technique in panel composition to help the cause), as a 3-to-one set-up on a chattering class 'issue' is worthy of a BBC 'debate'. Mind you, I could find little to empathise with in his stance. Though he is welcome not to believe in climate change (or at least man-made climate change, which IS different), because, as yet, neither am I. I am sold on the possibility of man-worsened climate change as reason enough to act now on reduction and saving wherever we can as sensible precautions, if handled sensibly. Hence saving anything, including water, can only be good.

So to the point that '... just because the logistics of recycling were currently flawed, this didn’t make the task pointless.' it rather depends, doesn't it, on what the point is?

I have little sympathy with any who can't see value in a bit of minor effort to save all sorts of [choose nouns here: money, planet, etc] but then also get a tad worried about some rallying cries to counter this from the 'anything green must be good and all naysayers are 'deniers'' brigade, especially in full flounce mode.

Quite a lot of recycling can be pointless if one views taking part in some initiatives in light if the imperative to reduce greenhouse emissions as a matter of priority. Because the interests of many protagonists involved are not often clear or explicable or as 'green' as they might be, from bonus-driven quango directors to supermarket-opening eco luvvies with a book deal, to London-centric, cherry-cause-picking journos (Prius - good, Air travel - bad, unless it's to review an eco-resort in the Rockies 'cos the snow is so poor in Verbier this year) to target-rewarded LAs and EU-fine-phobic ministers.

So I for one, get a bit offside when I see bazillions wasted on recycling initiatives and comms budgets that generate hardly any value that I can see in terms of enviROI+.

Maybe the - harrumphing like a rhinoceros (no agenda stereotype there) - enviro manager knew some things you didn't? Or choose/chose to avoid considering?

Or is it just much easier to be yet another yummie green goddess, go with the eco-flow and not on occasion challenge the vast eco-industry that exists, simply to make sure all the vast number of things that can and should be done are done for the right reasons, in the right way and with the aim of making things better for all of us, especially future generations?

Our local kerbside system is great, but still doesn't take plastic. And like all else collected if it did I'd want to know how the 2l volumes of 99% fresh air are disposed of to ensure it's to help my kids' futures and not just to tick a box before I started sanctimoniously doing down all who may be thinking about it more deeply.

Others may simply be confused or antagonised by ill-conceived, poorly-communicated schemes that are too often shown to be designed less for the reasons they thought and were on board with, and more as a bodge or patch job to make some quick money or dig a pol out of a landfill hole. We need coordinated systems that are proven to work and shared in a way that all see benefit because they GET benefit.

The odd thing here is that I may agree with what you say - of course well considered recycling is not a waste of anything - but by heavens I don't have to agree that the way you choose to say it... or that it is all right.

And in a democracy you might wonder why the audience in front of you seemed to be less than enthused with your (three of you) viewpoint. How did this group come to be in the room, and were they or were they not representative? (audience choices are another good way to set the tone as desired). Or maybe it was the way it was expressed? I am getting a little tired of being lectured by a self-appointed media elite whose lifestyles don't quite equate to the majority. Most of us don't get a VIP invite to the green room of the latest green love-in event, or the opportunity to pop off (as I recently read in another broadsheet column) on Eurostar (like, totally offset, yah) to commune for a week with their eco-guru in the South of France.

But at least you can go some way to correcting things to how they 'should' be, after the event, here in your piece. But I for one would have preferred to have been there to stand a chance of getting close to something approaching what happened... and the facts.

Taking the Pulse

I just stumbled across a thing in the Telegraph called Earth Pulse.

To early to say how good it is, but it looks useful and fun at least.

It does quite a lot, but you need to roll over things and click away to get them.

A neat addition to the info armoury I'd say.

G-Wiz! Electric car goes up in smoke

I rarely paste the headline/title piece I am commenting on for a variety of reasons, but here I am making a point.

Those who come to the Junkk.com website homepage will initially only see the Title and first line (above). And on that basis may, or may not, decide to learn more. So, what popped into your head when you saw this (prefaced by 'Carbon Neutral?'):

G-Wiz! Electric car goes up in smoke

To me it is a good example of how there is the chance of undue steering of public thought (maybe just in the cause of a nifty headline, but often one wonders. I too often hear the cry 'but it was explained in para 5' on Newswatch) by what happens between headline, subhead, copy and, often, links.

Because, though still literal, I have to say I thought it was something else at first, especially glancing at the first part of this opener sentence: 'The electric car's potential for saving the planet by reducing our dependence on oil and lowering carbon emissions has been dealt a blow with the news that a best-selling model may suddenly burst into flames."

That said, I do have a real problem with this: 'Its British retailer, GoinGreen, offsets the car's manufacture and use, allowing it to claim that the vehicle is completely "carbon neutral".'

Maybe it is being unfairly singled out by "a few petrolhead motoring journalists" (though safety issues are surely pertinent - how does a SMART stack up?), but I think its green cred was poorly served by a medium one might have thought to be more supportive.

Box clever... or not

Green gadgets and our expectations

Interesting.

I write this as my Mac Mini whirs away in a box the size of an airport novel. I had thought the reason was cooling, but I guess this and laptops give lie to such a misconception. And as with mobile phones, I at least have always thought small meant 'more sophisticated'. Maybe that is a notion to encourage more modest housings?

And as with all packaging, I often wonder why the maker would incur more cost unnecessarily. Now I know. Interesting there is a cut-off. What about a walk-in model... why not? Why is 40x50x20cm the limit?

In terms of changing attitudes one is in the arena of creating or reflecting consumer choice. I bought a Mini because it does the job and occupies the smallest footprint. By that I mean in area - Mac's are not that green. So.... how do we change my purchase decisions (and a lifetime with the O/S) on this basis? So which one of these manufacture/purchase/operation/disposal considerations is more important? Dilemma!

ps: There are some other, complementary, sites to Freecycle that can improve your options.

To stir, with love

Welcome aboard Air Ashcroft, the Tories' favourite airline (just make sure you offset)

And while others may do their weekly commute surrounded by fellow peons, I do note they also do it by air.

This is of course a cost/time issue, and fair enough for that for those aware of the purse of those they serve and time poor (though a lot can be done on a train that cannot on a plane). Like many of us.

I am just unsure who you need to be and when it's OK to choose you transport option on that basis, and when it is not.

Its enough to make you itch!

It looks as if ticks and fleas are making a big comeback in the UK, and the blame is being laid firmly at the door of climate change. See this from Environment Times.

Now why does simply reading about fleas and their ilk make you itch? I'm off for a good scratch!