Writing about two sets of wrong

A top-sliced licence fee will trigger the BBC's destruction

'...the BBC, which is more loved and trusted than any government can hope to be.'

Everything is relative, I suppose. So an interesting defence position.

But I really wish those who enjoy our attention by virtue of where they are rather than who, and often seek/claim to speak for us (by claiming they 'know' what 'we' are thinking but usually are content to simply hector at instead) would stop this habit of making sweeping statements of fact that lack any valid substantiation.

For a start I rather doubt the whole country feels the same way about anything.

And now moving onto percentages, I reject the notion that a pol on a fact-finding tour surrounded by minders has any hope in hell of finding out what most average, working, licence-fee paying without option under threat of prison folk feel about Aunty than those they have on speed dial to pop into the studios from their North London boudoirs.

Parts of the BBC are great. Some of the BBC staff are great. A whole bunch else is/are not. And needs to change... or be changed.

Add a jummy you Yummy Mummies!

A bit of a big up as I read this: Patio heaters axed

In light of the eco(nomic) vs. eco(logical) dilemma faced, well done Ian Cheshire, B&Q’s chief executive and Wyevale Garden Centres.

They really are a tad hard to justify.

ADDENDUM - Patio Heaters, not DIY/Gardening Centre bosses:)

Indy - A waste of energy - Couldn't have said it better, or earlier, myself

NEWS/GO3 PR - Do you have a local hero?

Way hey! This journalism lark is a doddle when you just cut 'n paste press releases.

I can't keep saying the same thing about caveats and cautions every post, so in time we'll juts have to take 'em as read. ok?

Even if, as here, this time we are talking what, in theory, should be a more trusted, trustworthy and/or objective source.... HMG.

In fact I have created a new category for news from guys with such provenance, titled GO3, which is actually one of my acronyms from way back and stands for GOGOGO, from GOV, Local GOv and nGO. The last by the way, does include some with more obvious and less objective agendas, so should be viewed accordingly.

Anyhooo... here we go:

Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling on communities across the country to identify the local heroes who they believe should be honoured by the nation.

Gordon Brown said:

"All of us know someone in our street or someone in our community who spends all their spare time helping others. They are always raising money for charity, running errands for elderly neighbours, coaching kids, or doing something to bring the town together.Carers, helpers, or just good neighbours, nothing is ever too much trouble or too much effort: they are the people who inspire us all, make our lives happier or easier, and make our neighbourhoods safer and stronger. And how many times do we say to each other: 'That person deserves a medal'. Well I think it is time they got what they deserved. And that is why I want us to see more of our local heroes presented with an MBE or an OBE by Her Majesty The Queen."

DETAILS

In this year's New Year's Honours List, more than 4 in 5 of all the OBEs and MBEs awarded went to people who have carried out valuable charitable or voluntary work, either as a career or in their own spare time.

The honours presented by HM The Queen are highly-valued. There are only around 2,000 awarded each year and only the most worthy candidates succeed.

Anyone is allowed to make a nomination - you do not need to be an official of any organisation. To find out how, go to http://www.honours.gov.uk, call 020 7276 2777, send an e-mail to ceremonial@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk or write to the Ceremonial Secretariat, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ.

Nominations are considered by the independent Honours Committees, and their recommendations on who should be honoured are announced twice a year in the New Year's Honours and HM The Queen's Birthday Honours.

The nomination process is very rigorous and can take some time. And unfortunately, because receiving an honour is rare, not everyone can succeed in achieving this special recognition, but that should not stop them being considered, and your local hero has the same chance as everyone else.

Now my distaste for the term 'hero' in such a context is well known, and documented here, so moving swiftly on... still seems worth passing on.

NEWS/Commercial PR - BAG A RECYCLED AD BANNER AT BANNERBAGS.CO.UK

Ok, part of the new 'sreamling'. And having slagged off major news media long enough for sticking up any old bit of PR they get sent as news, here I am doing the same.

Thing is, some are often worth a mention as a decent attempt at 're' or 'eco' something, and sticking 'em in a folder 'til I get round to it just isn't happening (literally). So I'll have to forgo the in-depth provenance check and hope it's all kosher. Not like soem better funded news outlets do much more. Eh, Auntie?

So here you go, with due caveats and cautions of enviROI advised, a cut and paste (maybe with a small edit or comment here and there) job:

Bannerbags.co.uk, the only UK manufacture of fashion bags crafted from recycled advertising banners, is launching a new range based on banners from Liverpool, European Capital of Culture events.

Including totes, handbags, sports bags, courier bags, weekend and laptop bags – all bearing the Liverpool European Capital of Culture Official Logo, the high quality accessories are made from wholly recycled street banners, and each item is an individual product that no-one else owns.

Paul Gilbraith, managing director, comments: “Thousands of advertising banners are produced for festivals, concerts and advertising campaigns using PVC and polypropylene, which do not biodegrade. Instead of disposing of unwanted banners in landfill sites, we turn seemingly valueless items into eco-friendly fashion. The result is a reasonably priced bag that most discerning fashion conscious people would like to carry.”

Gilbraith continues: “We’ve already approached five major supermarkets with our product samples and are keen to work with companies that manufacture or commission banners to reduce their carbon footprint and improve their green profile and profits”.

Seems a 'why not?' to me. Good luck to 'em. And knowing what's it's like approaching supermarkets myself... they'll need it!

But if the idea is good and all concerned make money... plus save the planet a bit better... why not?

One day, the machine will stop

That's a quote taken from John Gray's piece in Sunday's Guardian CIF.

I found the article quite interesting, mainly for the plethora of viewpoints that the usual gamut of posters on CIF bring, but also for Gray's analogy of our planet being an obese patient hooked up to a life support system.

"To some extent, technology may be able to replace the biosphere that has been destroyed, but, like an obese patient hooked up to an artificial life-support system, we will be living on borrowed time. One day, the machine will stop."

He also manages to hint at the policy that dare not speak its name.

"Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now."

Oh, by the way, you'll need a good 20 minutes spare if you want to read all the comments posted.

And, just for balance, as I found the article interesting reading, one poster terms Gray "a flip-flopper who has perfected an incredibly irritating style of writing which is best characterised as 'smugism' : statement of large philosophical beliefs expressed with loads of magisterial certainty, without any argument."

Ouch!

First, find your venue... pref: tropical

A long time ago I think I read about Paradise or Bust / Tribewanted.com, and may even have applied. Or asked to find out more.

Never heard back.

So, without reading up on it in detail and with little intention of watching (life is too short) I learn of the latest eco-initiative that seems to involve going somewhere (I presume by air) sunny, cutting down the foliage and setting fire to stuff . I guess saving the planet in Manchester lacks visual appeal (though there was that one in a rubbish tip recently, which was another massive hit. Not).

As it is essentially a reality TV show I guess it will get a certain media following, but I simply am getting fed up with unrepresentative efforts that are almost totally for ratings rather enlightenment or worthwhile information reasons.

Having lived on the equator for a while, minor matters like heating can be ignored. And if you are not working then travel and cooling are easily addressed. So it's down to eating, sleeping and finding a way to get rid of your waste with causing an epidemic. But then I'm presuming the population density isn't too serious either.

I'm sure it will pass a few weeks. But as any sensible mirror of how we live now and sustainably in the future....?

Easy to critique I guess, so maybe I should watch. But it is telling that when I hear of such things where once I was on board I now face the prospect with dread. I guess getting such coverage will help them no end and we'll soon see the terminals at Heathrow packed with other keen planet-savers.

Apparently, according to the BBC News, today is officially (though they also claim not to know who in officialdom made it thus, so one wonders how this slot arose) the 'lowest' day. We even had a chap they wheeled on who was promoting his several week programme to charge you to avoid it all.

Maybe the best solution to most ills would be to stop watching the idiot box.

ADDENDUM;

Times : It’s all tribal and strife in paradise - Having read this, I have softened to their intentions, but remain unsure as to the outcome or its value. It still seems to me more an idealistic activist and cynical reality TV producer's wet dreams coming togther, that will suck up and spit out the players, with little positive result to the planet, as claimed.

On yer bike

Watching Minister Ruth Kelly (one who I really have trouble taking seriously on anything) as we speak advocating cycling (ok) and justifying a vast amount of money to make us do so (not so ok). Ruth Kelly launches £140million cycling fund

Rather interestingly, the reporter banged on constantly that she does not cycle to work, which really was not too fair, but inevitable. Her answer was not the best, namely that she needs to take the car to do work (so that's ok) and she has an eco-friendly one!

Like recycling, I see so much wrong with the practice of such initiatives, if not the principle.

Quite rightly, the issue of safety was raised as the most serious issue. I am sorry, but a bit of training is not going to make me feel my kids are any safer against the numpties on the roads these days. So on that basis it is a non-starter for this parent until they are a lot older and the lanes are protected (how I have no idea).

Also there is the issue of weather. In this country it rains a lot. Unless there are amazing levels of new facilities being created (in addition to safe storage... so how much is all this going to really cost, or is it just going on another awareness comms effort - like most recycling - that has no chance of being engaged because the advanced practicalities have been ignored and are not in place) such as changing rooms and showers, what is proposed or when they set off and get soaked?

Sorry, all mouth and no trousers. Again. But cute seeing a couple of munchkins wheeled on to trot out the memorised slogans, which for me made it even less credible.

Non news is ? news?

This 24/7 news culture and its thirst for any bit of PR to fill its column inches and/or airwaves is getting beyond a joke.

As the father of two, whose on-smoking wife was/is teetotal but not averse to a cup of coffee or two, one has to wonder what next half-a*ed bit of maybe research will get trotted out, with varying experts saying it's anything from a disaster to no problem.

How we can have the threat of miscarriage on two cups go out in the same slot as a Doctor saying 'a moderate amount is ok' beats me. Is coffee (plus chocolate and colas) a baby killer or not? Trying to pin it down seems simply daft science and serves no one.

The net result is that the media spews out everything and ends up saying nothing. Which means we (well, I) just get unnecessarily disconcerted... and then do sod all about it.

As with most eco-pronouncements, it is a vain hope that the media could resist waiting until there is a definitive peer-reviewed conclusion, with coherent advice attached.

Fat chance. Oh, but speaking of fat...

Today is the first Sunday of the rest of my blogging life

More pondering, sorry.

I've just completed the Sunday Times. I say 'completed' but it would be very inaccurate to say I read it all. I have certainly seen each page (except the Sports section, which is now ready to light the fire, along with several ad inserts), and indeed many have been torn out and lie ready to prompt me to hit the online page of the forthcoming week to capture links and maybe make a comment or two.

Thing is, it all took a good couple of hours. And while there were more than a few eco bits in there it has all become a chore, and frankly I question how relevant it is whether some sqillionaire has warmed his outdoor pool with ground heat or Audi has made a 27 litre diesel supercar. Not my zone really. Nor is it likely to be that of most reading here or surfing Junkk.com for a nice idea on what to do with their TV dinner packaging tray.

So I have decided to give the rest a miss. No Observer. No Indy. No Telegraph. So I guess I might miss out on how to offset my ski holiday by doing a Husky-swap with a Finnish family who are over to stock up on organic cheddar in one's farmhouse weekend retreat.

I think I still may keep up with some of the e-mailed dailies to stay abreast of a few things (frankly I can see most of the press releases I get at Junkk.com here reprinted in most, and pretty much verbatim), and when something truly relevant to moving the enviROI crops up add it to the pot.

SO I can then spend the time on perking up the bits that may help sell the site a bit more to the audience I really want to reach a bit better.

Mind you, once I can afford to get a bit of help I probably won't resist getting back in the sniping set again. It is, after all, quite fun seeing a pompous green balloon self-inflating at 1000 metres... and then trying to pop it.

Babel

Just watched the Andrew Marr show. There's a new BBC service that let's you re-view (I think for a week) it here.

Now in line with my new notion of getting all philosophical, what struck me was just how much of what was trotted out, covering a wealth of rather depressing areas, could surely be put down to simple overcrowding and, possibly, by extension population.

That said, having lived in cities like Hong Kong, where population density makes London look like the moors, it is certainly true that there have to be cultural failings as well that lead to societal breakdown of the scale we are seeing.

But what really worried me was the ongoing total lack of quality when it comes to our public service leadership and those in the media they deal with, to actually say anything meaningful, let alone, true, or factually correct, such that one can get anywhere near forming an informed opinion on what is happening, what the people in charge think about it or what they plan to do. If I heard 'looking at' once I must have heard it a hundred times! I do not pay folk to look at things. They have had 10 years to gaze. And if it is broke it needs fixing. Not looking at any more.

So we had the likes of the Home Secretary and the leader of the Lib Dems wittering on about generalities and saying nothing. Or if they did it didn't compute or get caught up by the interviewer.

For instance, and it is telling that I cannot now recall whether it was the Labour lady or Lib Dem man who said it after just an hour, there was the claim that in an area of the country a young person would die 14 years earlier if poor than their richer counterparts.

Well... d'uh. Thing is, this was in relation to a conversation to the NHS. How the heck can a figure like that be trotted out on the specific area of health care whilst ignoring all other societal factors?

In combo none is a great reflection, but a poorer person is more likely surely to eat a poorer diet, perhaps smoke and drink more due to less guidance on the perils, have more exposure to dangerous drugs or be in the wrong pub at the wrong time or drive a car without ABS and an airbag.

It was a silly soundbite that spoke volumes... of mush. And it came from a national leader and stayed unchallenged in its simplicity and, I'd maintain inaccuracy, by a national broadcaster's supposedly top interviewer.

Nuts.

ADDENDUM :

Times - Jacqui Smith admits 'I won't walk down a street alone at night'

My main concern is that in an interview on a major BBC show (Andrew Marr), this was mentioned and she said it was not true that she'd said it [like this]. And I'm pretty sure the question was raised because of this article.

Maybe this might explaina bit: '...but the words are unquotable – the kind of robot-speak perfected by Labour ministers who never deviate from the script.'

But to the quote. Well here is the relevant section:

Would she feel safe walking alone at night in, say, Hackney, east London? She looks alarmed: “No. Why would I do that?”

Perhaps deprived Hackney is an unfair example – what about well-heeled Kensington and Chelsea? “No. But I would never have done, at any point in my life. I just don’t think it’s a thing that people do. I wouldn’t walk around at midnight. I’m fortunate that I don’t have to do so.”

Later an aide calls me fretting about these comments.

I can see why. The robot-speak actually had a short-circuit and a glimmer of truth came out. Allowing for editorial licence (and not very much in this case) it seems a fair version if that is how the interview went.

So how then was she allowed to fudge like she did? Either the Sunday Times was wrong or she was. And now it has all dribbled away. Not feeling very well served by my government... or media these days, sadly.

Less is, well, less, but with luck as good as it should be

There is a major spring clean stuttering along at Junkk Towers.

Mostly it is because, between the site evolution and the blog demands, there is simply too much going on for little old me to handle properly. And as I feel I am doing all poorly, until I can find, and fund, a way to do all well, the only real option is to cut back and do as much as I can better.

And that includes the blog.

I've claimed this before mind, and the addiction is hard to resist. And even as the backlog of simple articles and links worth having on the site extends to the hundreds, so almost all also are hard to resit commenting upon in some way. which currently is not simply possible.

So... what to do?

Well, on this blog you will, when I get a moment, be soon discovering some new, and I hope exciting interim plans for the site, many of which will also involve the blog, as I have mentioned before the interface here is now so superior to my site's management system it is easier to create here and import over. Not that I have been much... like a year. And having hit 3,000 for the opt in newsltter, I think a new one might be... overdue.

And all this does have a bearing on the blog.

I am hence planning to try and restrict myself to two main areas: the factual and the philosophical. By factual I refer to pure information, probably under category headings that you will have seen cropping up of late. Not much more than a link, attribution and maybe a line or two of top line opinion or a caveat or somesuch.

Then there is the more philosophical. This is musing on the overall scheme of things rather than much specific, though there will almost always be a story and/or link that has inspired.

Anyway, between with these two bookends from me and Dave's more than useful and welcome additions to any I might find it hard to resist to add inbetween I hope the blog will remain of use and stimulating.

If not, please let me knwo and tell me what I can do btter. Given time.

Taking from Peter to pay Pa... Choo Feng?

I have never really understood the concept of 'aid'.

The nearest I came was during the Live Aid stuff when it seemed all a bit dodgy. Rich folk gave money to poor folk to buy stuff from the rich folk. Seemed sort of OK, but somehow the poor folk seemed to still owe the money so ended up worse off.

So you can see my grasp of such things.

And I'm still grappling with it all.

Take today (link(s) to follow I'm sure).

Just watched a slot where our Dear Leader got away from the important issues of reporting on plane crashes (a classic bit of 24/7 media non-news scrabble where, after a few days, we have got no further than the startling notion that it hit the ground early by virtue of not flying any more) seemed to be saying that broke Britain is giving aid to the biggest and fastest growing economies in the world. Don't get it at all.

Now, somewhere in there is the worthy notion of our exporting (and getting paid for... but with our won money) 'expertise' in clean technology, but it all seemed a bit drop in the ocean and tenuous at best.

Meanwhile there are oodles of dirty great and just plain dirty coal fired stations still going up, and the 3 Gorges seems to be an eco disaster already.

I wonder what the Chinese for enviROI is?

All the 'news' that's fit to be... minted?

Newsnight last night seemed to have an odd set of priorities, if you look at some blog comments. I tended to agree.

We all seek the holy grail of a slot on national TV, but what chance do we have if those with deeper pockets seem to have magic ways to not only gain better access, but a pretty blank canvas handed them as well.

There has always been a fine, and difficult to navigate line between 'news' and 'current affairs'.

News is pretty simple. Stuff happens and your report it... who, what, why, where, etc.

Current affairs drifts into other territories, and much muddier waters (to mix my metaphors) once a product or service that is there to be sold (and hence can benefit from being seen and/or talked about) is involved.

While 'the arts' have always had a pretty easy ride (they are still flogging their wares after all), most still seems fair enough in the name of public information and/or entertainment.

But lately it does seem that a lot of PRs have a pretty direct line to the BBC's producers.

Especially those from the, much grubbier, corporate world. I was watching BBC Breakfast's 'business' section this morning, and there was some CEO so desperate to score just one more sale that whatever topic was being discussed he might as well have run a sales video. Even the presenter was embarrassed, if too late to intercede.

I even recall a while ago Sir Michael Rose was allowed on with a rack of garments and given public broadcast time to flog 'em for Xmas like some market trader.

Yes, there is a balance to be struck, and in return for a story about their stuff you do give an opportunity for profile. But really guys, are they slipping bungs out now or what? Or is it just sooo much easier (and in these cost-cutting days cheaper) to let your mates from the lobby firms pitch an idea, set up the meet and provide the script?

Maybe we need a story on payola rearing its profitable, if ethically-questionable head again. And even if no money exchanges hands, who knows what mutual back-scratching deals get done over a nice lunch in SoHo? On 'ex's, natch.

Share and share... not alike?

Still smarting a bit from being told that I wasn't going to get any NGO-assistance to move to a revenue-generating model because... I didn't yet have enough revenues.

That's up there with the one a few years ago that rejected my application because it was 'too left filed and nothing like it had be doen before'. It's name? The Creative Innovation Fund.

I was pondering this as I watched today's BBC Breakfast local/Midlands section, with a report on a Birmingham Council carshare initiative (no link I can find, thanks to the woeful BBC online search - subject to confirmation, it might be referring to this).

Any road up, seems that this initiative has been in place a while now (and I'm betting with a few more folk and a few more involved than any that has come my solo, mostly self-funded way), and has netted... 60 sign-ups. This puts me in mind of a press release for a national green online effort recently that was trumpeting 50,000 monthly hits . That's... not great, bearing in mind I'm gunning for 500,000 unique visitors, which is a lot different (and tougher) measure.

The platitude offered was that such things are 'slow-burners'. Well yes, that's what I have been saying about us, but this slow burner seems to be doing a lot better than many, yet can't get arrested, yet bazillions get poured down green holes to a very questionable enviROI+ degree at the drop of an inter-departmental hat... er.. memo.

The even more annoying thing is that I have in the wings tripsplitters, which is a whole new take on car sharing that I really think could work and make some serious money, and acts in complement to the Junkk.com local postcode facility.

To get this off the ground I would need help, mainly in time (but that is, at the end of the day, still money). But considering the effort to reward ratio of applying for help from these bodies, and where their heads are at as to what you get and how they connect you with the right folk to help the ideas person turn it into a business, I am not so keen any more.

If ever there was a system designed to drain the creative soul out of an innovator, these seem to be perfectly crafted for the task.

For every snake... a ladder

I think I'm losing my touch with funders. Another bites the dust:(

This one also looked promising, as it was a local (well, regional) award designed to offer creative/media enterprises a chance to run a feasibility study on what they could do to improve revenues.

Now if ever there was something Junkk.com could do with, that was just what the doctor ordered! We've awards up the whazoo, tripping over nice PR at every turn... but... no major advertisers... yet. And there's no doubt the site needs a spring clean.

And again with the funding types the sticking point seemed to be I didn't already have what I was applying for the funding to put in place to get. Frankly if I was well on the way to having my media sales act together I really wouldn't need to bother with such funding. It's always welcome and gratefully-received, but is one heck of a lot of effort often for not that much to warrant what goes in.

And in this case a lot did. Not just from me, but the consultancy I'd selected to help me knock the site media structure into shape and kick-start some sensible ad sales efforts on top.

So I was feeling pretty glum when I had to share with them the sad news that I was getting anything and couldn't afford to do it on my own.

So imagine how it perked me up to find they hadn't just shrugged their shoulders and moved on, but decided to do a bit more on Junkk.com's behalf spreading a few nice words around, simply because they saw/still see merit in what we're up to. Plus a few more than useful poniters on what might be doen to move things along.

Naturally, with such belief in place they will be the first I call when I do have the money for such expertise.

So, if you are ever in need of some new media specialists, I'd be happy to not only recommend the skills sets and professionalism on offer, but also the commitment of Generator.

Tell 'em Peter sent you. But please, make sure you have a budget first!

Who's in charge of the who should be in charge brigade?

Here's an interesting post: Bypassing the blockage of nations

As much for what is written as the answers it has already acquired.

As one who has long maintained that who we have in charge don't seem to be 'fit for purpose', the notion of of a change seems attractive. However this seems to err more on hiring yet more.... as well as. Not a course I'd honestly favour.

Nice that such issues are being pondered, mind.

Bluebirds over?

We are getting a few climate-related stories at the mo'. Some credible and worrying. Some... less credible and even more worrying because of what fall might follow the set up: 'Big climate impact' on UK coasts

I don't know, so I merely ask, but this - The coasts of Britain, especially England, are being eroded - seems hard to relate to this - Climate change is having a major impact on Britain's coast, the seas around the coast, and the life in those seas, a government-sponsored report concludes.

At least, from what I read here. I would have thought that erosion was a simple fact of geological life, be it by wind or water. Hence my being one of those dubious by folk gunning for compo when they bought their property on the edge without pondering (or getting a survey) what might happen as time passes.

The key is the extent.

That has not come across to me as well as it should. And hence allows some to mock as alarmist what is in fact an ongoing process.

I read on to find out more on how and where seas 'are becoming more violent', but though there was a lot else could not find anything much to back up this claim.

Surely if that is the main issue, it would help to substantiate it better? I roesume such data exists.

ps: I also didn't know until recently that the wartime song was penned by an American, and there are in fact no bluebirds in the UK.

Reporting news, or influencing... making policy?

It's a fine line. I have long considered Newsnight to be one of the few credible broadcast news shows left, but of late there's a lot that really makes me think another media plot is being lost.

First up is a rather odd notion of balance when it comes to their reporting of various members of various political parties not, as such, following various rules. A quick look at the show blog will see how this is going down. I, for one, was not ' glued to my seat ' on the rather minor distraction of the opposition party's possible admin/reporting failures, but a tad more interested in the role of a government Minister in setting up a shell company to conceal massive loans to come almost last in a key, if internal, election.

But as I was pondering the ever more defiant and desperate bunker-bulletins coming out of Auntie to try and prop up their editorial and journalistic standards, I happened across this, by way of a bit of news: Newsnight report leads to cotton ban

It struck a chord, because a wee while ago I cut out an ad about cotton, which bearing in mind the client was unsurprisingly upbeat.

Now, I don't know much about it, but I have this notion that it's not that great a crop eco-wise. For one, I believe (subject to confirmation) that it is water intensives. Hence a mission is embarked upon.

And this piece will form part.

Thing is, while I can appreciate the information, the whole ethical thing comes across just a tad to smugly as another luvvie ban-fest. Which in my book cannot be good unless the complexities are are all ironed out, as to assuage Western guilt in one small area can often have major negative influences in all sorts of others.

Ethanol from household waste and old tyres?

Seems like a good day for interesting developments so far. This one from motortorque.com reports how general motors and Coskata have signed an agreement to utilise Coskata's technology to "derive cellulosic ethanol from household waste, wood, plastic bottles and old tyres using bacteria."

They "believe the process is cleaner than using crops - with one study claiming that study cellulosic ethanol up to 90% less greenhouse gas than petrol and 30% cheaper to produce." "The company says it can turn four tyres into seven gallons of ethanol and two bales of hay into five gallons for under $1 per gallon."

Sounds a lot better than turning corn into ethanol to me. There are an awful lot of used tyres lying around our planet and anything that can turn household waste into a potentially useful fuel has surely got to be better than dumping it into landfill?

Another new technology ......

.... that just might be a major breakthrough. Introducing the LETG (Light Electric & Thermal Generator), which appears to be a combined hybrid PV (Photovoltaic cell) and thermal energy capture (much like Solar Water Heating arrays) device. See Global Warming Solutions.

"The LETG captures and stores sunlight using a hybrid module design that differs from previous combination module devices, making possible the year-round production of thermal and electric energy. Its spectral-selective thermal liquid circulates on the reception surface of a photoelectric circuit, which makes it possible to increase the quantity and to change the quality of incident solar radiation spectral distribution as well as carry out the thermal energy recovery with minimum loss. To put its potential power in perspective, the LETG can increase electric power 250% and thermal output by 170%."

Their press release (via Fox Business News) claims - "Global Warming Solutions, Inc. ....... today announced successful testing of novel, hybrid (heat and electricity generation) solar modules created for the LETG (Light Electric Thermal Generator) project. The combined energy efficiency of the modules reached values of 85%, even exceeding energy harvesting efficiency of green plants."

Considering that most current photovoltaics are considered to be outstanding when achieving anything approaching 20% efficiency, that's one hell of a set of claims. I will await with interest to see what commercialisation of this technology brings.