I don't recollect anybody actually saying this, other than on the ultra green, vegan fringes, but it seems to be exercising the mind of one of Sainsbury's directors as reported by First4Farming.
"Managing needs versus demand seems like a form of communism, he said. It's something the world we are living in isn't ready for."
The thing is, if climate change does tick past any of the theoretical tipping points some time in the future, we all may have no option but to eat only what is available locally (if amongst the lucky ones). However, in the meantime, the idea of a 'meat tax' might just have our erstwhile chancellor licking his lips in anticipation of yet another way to fill the coffers!
Monday, February 04, 2008
PROF'S POSER - Burning questions
As a result of this blog post, and subsequent comments, I was wondering if anyone knew what the rules on burning domestic waste actually were?
More grist to the mill?
I've always been fascinated with water mills and have never really understood why so many disappeared during my younger days. I guess that cheap electricity made them largely uneconomic to run.
But, water mills themselves can, and do, in a few instances, generate electricity in their own right. However, the DBERR's (it used to be the simple to understand DTI) rules on awarding double ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) on all micro-generation projects appear to be pushing many water mills out of the equation as reported in CarbonFree.
"For example at Tellisford, with Declared Net Capacity (DNC) of 55kW, the site will generate about 280,000 kWh per year, on which the income including its single ROC will be about £26,600. Yet a slightly smaller site with DNC of 50kW would generate about 231,000 kWh per year, on which including double ROCs it would earn about £33,500. Thus a mill generating 17% less electricity would receive 26% more money."
Now that is simply insane. Yet another example of rules being ill thought out, poorly implemented and actually forcing the opposite of what they were intended to do in the first place.
Well done (extremely sarcastically, of course) DBERR.
Addendum:
I meant to include this too. It rather reminds me of the retired engineer who rebuilt a derelict old water mill into a highly desirable property somewhere in Derbyshire some 15 to 20 years ago. He didn't want the mill wheel working and doing nothing, so he adapted it to generate enough power for his own benefit. All was going well until Severn Trent Water Authority decided that it would charge him thousands of pounds a year for using their water to generate electricity!
Of course, he simply shut down the mill wheel.
But, water mills themselves can, and do, in a few instances, generate electricity in their own right. However, the DBERR's (it used to be the simple to understand DTI) rules on awarding double ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) on all micro-generation projects appear to be pushing many water mills out of the equation as reported in CarbonFree.
"For example at Tellisford, with Declared Net Capacity (DNC) of 55kW, the site will generate about 280,000 kWh per year, on which the income including its single ROC will be about £26,600. Yet a slightly smaller site with DNC of 50kW would generate about 231,000 kWh per year, on which including double ROCs it would earn about £33,500. Thus a mill generating 17% less electricity would receive 26% more money."
Now that is simply insane. Yet another example of rules being ill thought out, poorly implemented and actually forcing the opposite of what they were intended to do in the first place.
Well done (extremely sarcastically, of course) DBERR.
Addendum:
I meant to include this too. It rather reminds me of the retired engineer who rebuilt a derelict old water mill into a highly desirable property somewhere in Derbyshire some 15 to 20 years ago. He didn't want the mill wheel working and doing nothing, so he adapted it to generate enough power for his own benefit. All was going well until Severn Trent Water Authority decided that it would charge him thousands of pounds a year for using their water to generate electricity!
Of course, he simply shut down the mill wheel.
Understatement of the Year
Pickles voices concern over possible ‘bin bailiffs’
Claims that councils will be able to employ bailiffs to collect unpaid bills from save-as-you-throw pilots have not been denied by Defra and the Local Government Association (LGA)
The latest 'Nu-speak' is it? 'Does not deny’ means what, exactly? Is that a yes, or a no? Or is it the latest fudge in a whole candy store of sickly treats to see what can be got away with, obfuscated or plausibly denied later. At least it used to be 'Yes, Minister'. Now it's 'That is clearly not acceptable, and does need looking at...maybe' Minister'.
Bearing in mind that politicians of all hues, and from every area that requires a vote to stay in power seek public support, I am amazed that such things get floated at all in this way, and then when they do to such muted responses from the opposition. Are such sources of revenue really so attractive as to blind these people to how this is playing out in the real world?
No wants to see unnecessary waste or litter, and hence the punitive options may well still need to be considered. But not as a first resort. And not in such a blanket manner. And not in the hands of the folk who currently seem to be being given the keys to the baton cupboard.
I the other day watched a YouTube video of an bailiff assaulting an old boy trying to gain access to his home to 'enforce' the BBC license fee. And these are the kind of thoroughly discredited individuals that it is proposed to let loose as agents of a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ culture that is developing today, by increasingly over-staffed, overpaid, yet responsibility and accountability-shy public servants who like to hide behind quangos, consultants and other 3rd parties to try and distance themselves from the possible (!) negative consequences of their decisions and/or actions.
Before addressing all ways to impose and profit from public compliance, I'd suggest a lot more effort goes first into ensuring every possible way had been established to ensure they can, and preferably WANT to comply. So there’s a lot of joined up thinking needed... and waaaay before one demands anything of the public!
As to using one's vote I could not agree more. But it is also a rather disingenuous argument. How many can really claim to be able to pinpoint the individual numpties messing our lives up at local or national level with sufficient accuracy any more (they all change so much it's hard to even keep up with who carries what responsibility) to target one's electoral protest?
I'm sorry, as with the road pricing, this is one environmental campaigner who will be fighting a potentially highly enviROI+ measure simply because in its current form I have zero trust in the reasons behind and competencies of those trying to instigate it.
Claims that councils will be able to employ bailiffs to collect unpaid bills from save-as-you-throw pilots have not been denied by Defra and the Local Government Association (LGA)
The latest 'Nu-speak' is it? 'Does not deny’ means what, exactly? Is that a yes, or a no? Or is it the latest fudge in a whole candy store of sickly treats to see what can be got away with, obfuscated or plausibly denied later. At least it used to be 'Yes, Minister'. Now it's 'That is clearly not acceptable, and does need looking at...maybe' Minister'.
Bearing in mind that politicians of all hues, and from every area that requires a vote to stay in power seek public support, I am amazed that such things get floated at all in this way, and then when they do to such muted responses from the opposition. Are such sources of revenue really so attractive as to blind these people to how this is playing out in the real world?
No wants to see unnecessary waste or litter, and hence the punitive options may well still need to be considered. But not as a first resort. And not in such a blanket manner. And not in the hands of the folk who currently seem to be being given the keys to the baton cupboard.
I the other day watched a YouTube video of an bailiff assaulting an old boy trying to gain access to his home to 'enforce' the BBC license fee. And these are the kind of thoroughly discredited individuals that it is proposed to let loose as agents of a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ culture that is developing today, by increasingly over-staffed, overpaid, yet responsibility and accountability-shy public servants who like to hide behind quangos, consultants and other 3rd parties to try and distance themselves from the possible (!) negative consequences of their decisions and/or actions.
Before addressing all ways to impose and profit from public compliance, I'd suggest a lot more effort goes first into ensuring every possible way had been established to ensure they can, and preferably WANT to comply. So there’s a lot of joined up thinking needed... and waaaay before one demands anything of the public!
As to using one's vote I could not agree more. But it is also a rather disingenuous argument. How many can really claim to be able to pinpoint the individual numpties messing our lives up at local or national level with sufficient accuracy any more (they all change so much it's hard to even keep up with who carries what responsibility) to target one's electoral protest?
I'm sorry, as with the road pricing, this is one environmental campaigner who will be fighting a potentially highly enviROI+ measure simply because in its current form I have zero trust in the reasons behind and competencies of those trying to instigate it.
Animal welfare more important than climate change
That's one of the quite surprising (well, at least to me) outcomes of a poll conducted by the Co-op of 100,000 members as reported in Money Observer.
Now I don't normally like surveys, but 100,000 completed questionnaires has got to represent a reasonable statistical sample, even if only of Co-op members and customers.
"Only 4% rate climate change as their top ethical priority, compared with 21% who think animal welfare is the most important issue and 14% who rate fair trade as their key concern."
"Shoppers' worries about the environment are focused on issues other than climate change. Twice as many are concerned about the amount of packaging on their food as think global warming is the most important issue."
So there you have it. Climate change is a minor issue amongst consumers. Packaging, animal welfare and ethical trading are far more important.
What does this tell us? Well, I reckon that this result is clearly an indication of just how consumers have switched off from the debate on climate change as a result of the constant tis/tisn't arguments, the obfuscation coming from our own gov (and its appointed quangos etc.), the general feeling that our gov sees it as a way of sanctioning various additional taxes and the generally media led opinion that there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
Now all that is simply going to make moving forward on tackling climate change even more difficult. We are going to need some very strong leadership. Anybody see any sign of that about at the moment?
Now I don't normally like surveys, but 100,000 completed questionnaires has got to represent a reasonable statistical sample, even if only of Co-op members and customers.
"Only 4% rate climate change as their top ethical priority, compared with 21% who think animal welfare is the most important issue and 14% who rate fair trade as their key concern."
"Shoppers' worries about the environment are focused on issues other than climate change. Twice as many are concerned about the amount of packaging on their food as think global warming is the most important issue."
So there you have it. Climate change is a minor issue amongst consumers. Packaging, animal welfare and ethical trading are far more important.
What does this tell us? Well, I reckon that this result is clearly an indication of just how consumers have switched off from the debate on climate change as a result of the constant tis/tisn't arguments, the obfuscation coming from our own gov (and its appointed quangos etc.), the general feeling that our gov sees it as a way of sanctioning various additional taxes and the generally media led opinion that there's nothing we can do about it anyway.
Now all that is simply going to make moving forward on tackling climate change even more difficult. We are going to need some very strong leadership. Anybody see any sign of that about at the moment?
Saturday, February 02, 2008
The Hot Topic
I was wondering just what David King had been up to of late - things had gone very quiet. Well, it seems he has been co-authoring a new book 'The Hot Topic', which is not written "by eco-warriors, but by pragmatists, who care about understanding the science, examining the problems, and looking for technological and political solutions."
This is the first review (from The Telegraph) of the book that I've spotted. And I just might have to put my hand in my pocket to get hold of a copy.
An interesting conclusion is drawn by the reviewer - "when it comes to the question of who you should believe, Al Gore's rhetoric is much closer to the truth than Channel 4's fairy tales."
I think I'd worked that one out for myself, but it's interesting to see such a conclusion in one of the broadsheets.
This is the first review (from The Telegraph) of the book that I've spotted. And I just might have to put my hand in my pocket to get hold of a copy.
An interesting conclusion is drawn by the reviewer - "when it comes to the question of who you should believe, Al Gore's rhetoric is much closer to the truth than Channel 4's fairy tales."
I think I'd worked that one out for myself, but it's interesting to see such a conclusion in one of the broadsheets.
Friday, February 01, 2008
HSBC Bank is carbon neutral!
Add.. er (Pre?)endum/Prefix (by Junkk Male): I have reloaded this post, from its original origination date of 6/07/07 (why do Americans insist of flipping the dd/mm? It took some finding), for a few reasons:
1) It has to be the most commented/followed up upon (interestingly). Sorry HSBC.
2) I am impressed it is still being commented upon after all this time, but worry many might miss it in archive (I get a notification; I'm not sure if others do).
3) It has attracted a lot of very thoughtful, considered feedback, which is just how I like things here to proceed. The most recent is typical and most welcome. Check 'em out.
I think not! That's a claim waaaaaaay too far!
Further to the post earlier about 'green banking' (below the Live Earth post), HSBC now claims to be carbon neutral! From Carbon Free news.
1) It has to be the most commented/followed up upon (interestingly). Sorry HSBC.
2) I am impressed it is still being commented upon after all this time, but worry many might miss it in archive (I get a notification; I'm not sure if others do).
3) It has attracted a lot of very thoughtful, considered feedback, which is just how I like things here to proceed. The most recent is typical and most welcome. Check 'em out.
I think not! That's a claim waaaaaaay too far!
Further to the post earlier about 'green banking' (below the Live Earth post), HSBC now claims to be carbon neutral! From Carbon Free news.
"HSBC says it is the world's first major bank to become carbon neutral and has committed a further US$90 million over five years to reduce the bank's impact on the environment through a series of initiatives ...."
That's a hell of a claim, and seeing as there is no clearly agreed definition of carbon neutral - I'd love to see just how they attempt to justify it! Is every branch and office now generating its own renewable energy? Or does every branch and office now only use electricity from renewable sources? Does no-one travel? Are all new branches and offices built to be super energy efficient? Are all existing branches and offices being updated to be super energy efficient? Are all consumables and replacement equipment items that they purchase manufactured to zero carbon emission standards?
I'll bet they can't answer yes to any of them!
The only possible way they can justify this claim is by using considerable carbon offsetting, by paying someone else to recompense for their carbon emissions; which, as we have already pointed out on several occasion on this blog, is akin to ordering a diet coke alongside your double burger and claiming it to be part of your dieting program!
Greenwash, green-bullsh*t, green-veneer, green-smoke and green-mirrors. A veritable green smorgasbord of false, sickly green tosh. What's the betting that they are claiming to be carbon negative within a few years time?
ADDENDUM (via JunkkMale):
HSBC gives key marketer ‘golden handcuff’ offer - may explain something (or not), about the state of ads (especially 'green' ones) these days, if bankers are running the marketing.
ADDENDUM 2 (JunkkMale):
To add a hyperlinked URL to the comment posts
ADDENDUM 3
HSBC on climate change and Stern - well, they are devoting a lot of people and stuff to talking about it!
This sounds sooooo far fetched .........
... that it might just be crazy enough to be another 'free energy' breakthrough.
For the days when the sun simply won't shine and the cats and dogs are falling from the overcast sky in bucket-loads, how about a mechanism for generating electricity from raindrops? As reported in PhysOrg.com, scientists from CEA/Leti-Minatec, Grenoble, France, have "recently developed a system that recovers the vibration energy from a piezoelectric structure impacted by a falling raindrop. The system works with raindrops ranging in diameter from 1 to 5 mm, and simulations show that it’s possible to recover up to 12 milliwatts from one of the larger 'downpour' drops."
What they have to do now is work out a way to store the recovered electrical power in order to provide a steady current for day to day use.
Altogether now - 'I'm generating in the rain, just generating in the rain, what a beautiful feeling ........'
For the days when the sun simply won't shine and the cats and dogs are falling from the overcast sky in bucket-loads, how about a mechanism for generating electricity from raindrops? As reported in PhysOrg.com, scientists from CEA/Leti-Minatec, Grenoble, France, have "recently developed a system that recovers the vibration energy from a piezoelectric structure impacted by a falling raindrop. The system works with raindrops ranging in diameter from 1 to 5 mm, and simulations show that it’s possible to recover up to 12 milliwatts from one of the larger 'downpour' drops."
What they have to do now is work out a way to store the recovered electrical power in order to provide a steady current for day to day use.
Altogether now - 'I'm generating in the rain, just generating in the rain, what a beautiful feeling ........'
Spreading the word (and the Junkk lurve)
Someone thinks we publish news on hoovers…
Looking for a product story that doesn't suck? Well, not any more.
As it's Friday and you all are feeling gracious, here's a notion about Hoovers that IS about Eco-tech (and business, if any green minded outfit sees the potential of their audiences finding ways to reuse their products and second use their packaging):
http://www.junkk.com/junkkdetail.asp?slevel=0z622z709&parent_id=709&renleewtsapf=1730
That's the beauty of thinking in rubbish terms. Pretty much anything can be made (and/or) to fit if you try hard enough:)
Have a good weekend!
Looking for a product story that doesn't suck? Well, not any more.
As it's Friday and you all are feeling gracious, here's a notion about Hoovers that IS about Eco-tech (and business, if any green minded outfit sees the potential of their audiences finding ways to reuse their products and second use their packaging):
http://www.junkk.com/junkkdetail.asp?slevel=0z622z709&parent_id=709&renleewtsapf=1730
That's the beauty of thinking in rubbish terms. Pretty much anything can be made (and/or) to fit if you try hard enough:)
Have a good weekend!
Friday Fun - Smoking gun
Green Gordon?
Nice one Newsnight (And, may I say, Greenpeace. I don't always endorse what they do or say, but in this they are back to what they do best).
I tried mixing Brown and Green, and it came out a kind of fudge. Seems apt, especially having watched the performance of the only government spokesperson landed with weaseling this one.
Still, as I recall our Dear Leader did throw his full weight behind that other massive eco-concern, and likely mitigation for something as trivial as how we produce our energy.... plastic bags.
When, oh when are we going to get folk in charge who can prioritise and concern themselves with initiatives that may actually help make this planet a bit better for future generations, rather than fussing with hype, spin, targets and cosy agendas.
While I see the constant dilemma of eco(nomic growth) vs. eco(logical harmony) creating headaches, it's not like there are not some targets looming here that this odd hesitancy will certainly not help assuage.
Nice one Newsnight (And, may I say, Greenpeace. I don't always endorse what they do or say, but in this they are back to what they do best).
I tried mixing Brown and Green, and it came out a kind of fudge. Seems apt, especially having watched the performance of the only government spokesperson landed with weaseling this one.
Still, as I recall our Dear Leader did throw his full weight behind that other massive eco-concern, and likely mitigation for something as trivial as how we produce our energy.... plastic bags.
When, oh when are we going to get folk in charge who can prioritise and concern themselves with initiatives that may actually help make this planet a bit better for future generations, rather than fussing with hype, spin, targets and cosy agendas.
While I see the constant dilemma of eco(nomic growth) vs. eco(logical harmony) creating headaches, it's not like there are not some targets looming here that this odd hesitancy will certainly not help assuage.
Sticks and stones may break my bones...
...but words may well end up seeing us off.
I have long given up trying to engage the whole MWCC 'debate', on any 'side', especially in a ratings driven media frenzy environment where only the next big extreme gets highlighted, so merely point you (with little comment) at this latest - Just the standard climatic imbalance... - for two reasons.
1) Yes, the media, including most in our national broadcaster, are totally complicit in the past, current and liklely future state of our understanding of, and reaction to climate change, by totally woeful reporting and hysterical, agenda-following editorialising.
2) Just like investments 'can go up as well as down', climate can change to hot and cold. The funky thing is when it does it to a serious degree, not where you'd expect, more often than it should... etc. So pointing at a cold day in summer is silly.
I don't know for certain, but I'm just seeing enough weird sh*t around to think that it is not behaving rationally.
Now, as to whether mankind is causing it, making it worse, or simply about to be a powerless casualty of Nature's whimsy is another matter. For another set of blogs.
Me? For now I am just trying my best to stop making things worse if I can help it. Unlike a lot... for all sides.
ps: 'Course, if you still fancy chatting and have a spare grand, you can always try here.
I have long given up trying to engage the whole MWCC 'debate', on any 'side', especially in a ratings driven media frenzy environment where only the next big extreme gets highlighted, so merely point you (with little comment) at this latest - Just the standard climatic imbalance... - for two reasons.
1) Yes, the media, including most in our national broadcaster, are totally complicit in the past, current and liklely future state of our understanding of, and reaction to climate change, by totally woeful reporting and hysterical, agenda-following editorialising.
2) Just like investments 'can go up as well as down', climate can change to hot and cold. The funky thing is when it does it to a serious degree, not where you'd expect, more often than it should... etc. So pointing at a cold day in summer is silly.
I don't know for certain, but I'm just seeing enough weird sh*t around to think that it is not behaving rationally.
Now, as to whether mankind is causing it, making it worse, or simply about to be a powerless casualty of Nature's whimsy is another matter. For another set of blogs.
Me? For now I am just trying my best to stop making things worse if I can help it. Unlike a lot... for all sides.
ps: 'Course, if you still fancy chatting and have a spare grand, you can always try here.
Talks ..... for the sake of talk?
It looks very much as if the next round of climate change talks has resulted in ......... well, nothing.
As reported by Channel 4, the much hyped Hawaiian negotiations have agreed no deal on targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Lots of hot air, and again no progress. What a waste of time!
Addendum:
But, as ever, it does rather depend on just who is doing the reporting, as this from CNN.com exemplifies - "participants praised what they saw as a new willingness by the United States to discuss possible solutions", and, "Delegates said the U.S. showed a new flexibility since earlier climate change meetings, and that they were able to talk frankly about their differences."
Perhaps our friends over the pond ARE slowly starting to make a slight shift in their stance?
As reported by Channel 4, the much hyped Hawaiian negotiations have agreed no deal on targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Lots of hot air, and again no progress. What a waste of time!
Addendum:
But, as ever, it does rather depend on just who is doing the reporting, as this from CNN.com exemplifies - "participants praised what they saw as a new willingness by the United States to discuss possible solutions", and, "Delegates said the U.S. showed a new flexibility since earlier climate change meetings, and that they were able to talk frankly about their differences."
Perhaps our friends over the pond ARE slowly starting to make a slight shift in their stance?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wasting money deliberately? Or just plain incompetence?
Those were the two questions that popped into my head when I spotted this in The Times earlier today.
The Olympic aquatics centre (the posh name for the swimming pool complex) was originally estimated (and budgeted) at some £70 million. The current costing (errrm, no, still not actually fixed) now stands at some £214 million.
Now an additional £144 million might not seem an obscene increase in the overall governmental scheme of Olympics expenditure, but, to me, it smacks of utter incompetence in the initial estimating process. What the hell did they do? Sit around a table and pull random numbers out of a tombola?
Ah, OK, they blame the increase on VAT and inflation. "much of the disparity is explained by VAT and inflation. While venue costs estimated during the bidding process were in 2004 prices, they must be stated in 2012 prices."
So, with VAT fixed at 17.5% (or, just maybe, our gov knows that VAT will be set at a rate of 100% by 2012?), and inflation at the official government figures of just over 2.3% (not that any single one of us believes that anyway), we get a tripling in cost between 2004 and 2012? Come on, we are NOT that stupid!
And, what a surprise, the bidding contract was won and assigned to ..... deep intake of breath ..... a sole bidder! "The Olympic Delivery Authority is set to sign a construction contract with Balfour Beatty, the sole bidder."
As well as incompetence and profligacy, this smacks to me of profiteering, greed and may even be tinged with a hint of fraud. And all that money is coming out of your own back pocket one way or another to be trousered elsewhere!
Whatever happened to accountability? LOL!
Addendum: (1/2/08)
The Daily Mail appears to have identified a few 'fat cats' which just might partly explain why costs are overrunning so much.
The Olympic aquatics centre (the posh name for the swimming pool complex) was originally estimated (and budgeted) at some £70 million. The current costing (errrm, no, still not actually fixed) now stands at some £214 million.
Now an additional £144 million might not seem an obscene increase in the overall governmental scheme of Olympics expenditure, but, to me, it smacks of utter incompetence in the initial estimating process. What the hell did they do? Sit around a table and pull random numbers out of a tombola?
Ah, OK, they blame the increase on VAT and inflation. "much of the disparity is explained by VAT and inflation. While venue costs estimated during the bidding process were in 2004 prices, they must be stated in 2012 prices."
So, with VAT fixed at 17.5% (or, just maybe, our gov knows that VAT will be set at a rate of 100% by 2012?), and inflation at the official government figures of just over 2.3% (not that any single one of us believes that anyway), we get a tripling in cost between 2004 and 2012? Come on, we are NOT that stupid!
And, what a surprise, the bidding contract was won and assigned to ..... deep intake of breath ..... a sole bidder! "The Olympic Delivery Authority is set to sign a construction contract with Balfour Beatty, the sole bidder."
As well as incompetence and profligacy, this smacks to me of profiteering, greed and may even be tinged with a hint of fraud. And all that money is coming out of your own back pocket one way or another to be trousered elsewhere!
Whatever happened to accountability? LOL!
Addendum: (1/2/08)
The Daily Mail appears to have identified a few 'fat cats' which just might partly explain why costs are overrunning so much.
Build it and they will come. And go. And..
Local news is, by definition, going to be focussed on local issues. But often a story can make me ponder much weighter national issues. One such was in today's Midlands Today.
Addendum - extra info attached, see below.
The BBC site has again let me down on finding more info or a link (though I have asked - LATEST - I am doing well at the moment with helpful replies for follow-up information. It's always well worth trying to locate the author and ask. In this case, the correspondent himself has kindly provided this: Report is there under the TOP STORIES link on the right hand side (I suspect this will have a finite time it's up though. The one to look at is the next under 'Possible commuter problems', though all are worthy of noting)). There's also a specific page for reports from this week's transport features), but there was a report by correspendent Robert Punt that really struck a chord.
Today, in 2008, with all else we have swirling around us, it seems national government is requiring local government to plonk several thousand new homes on some rolling green belt land.
That's bad enough. I just wonder what they plan for when the last blade of grass has been concreted over to provide 'affordable housing' to buy off 'lower-income ratepay... er.. voters' property-owning aspirations.
Thing is, if I heard right, there is also no money, and hence no alowance for any support infrastructure. Bad enough for the plight of the community that this probably includes schools, hospitals, flood systems, etc, but one thing for sure ain't there is transport.
And it's next to a motorway. So, as this valauble piece pointed out, this not so little additional collection of working stiffs will be jumping in their Fiestas each day to earn a crust.
Barking. I look forward to the bin fines to offset the carbon. Not.
Addendum 2 - 1/02
As he was nice enough to show an interest and asked, I have sent the link to this to Mr. Punt. Of course I couldn't avoid a bit of context... which sort of turned into more a rant. But it was a good one and worth sharing here:
There just seems to be no joined up thinking when it comes to environmental matters between government, LAs and, often, business. But always the consumer cops it in the end.
I get livid when I hear the latest anti-car edict issued from Westminster, slavishly (and uncritically) printed by Fleet Street (though often also broadcast by the national BBC) and endorsed by Islingonistas. Very few out here have a tube line at the end of the road. So the car is often the only option. I choose to write for Fiesta family rather than 'My other car is a Prius' Person, the former of whom have lower incomes, mortgages, kids to get to distant schools, 2 weeks tops to spend, with luck, somewhere sunny, and the chance to do one weekly shop of a Friday evening at Tescos.
There's so much more I could highlight where the onus is thrown on those least able to cope, from plastic bags to, like I infer, the latest recycling wheezes. Just how much is spent of massive ad campaigns and how much effort put into punitive legislation, when there are still no credible, coherent systems put in place for the willing consumer to actually do what is best, easily, affordably and to a decent enviROI?
Sorry, rant over. Back to trying to DO something rather than just box-ticking, narrow-agenda-serving exercises in guilt, fear, threat or nanny that so far seem to have achieved little (OK, a teensie bit more of a rant). I sincerely believe the public DO understand the issues, and DO want to help. But they need to have their situations understood better and see things shared that are designed from the ground up to help them help.
And, speaking as an ad man, all lead by end benefit and incentive bolted on to logical, persuasive communications, which seems a much more productive route to consider.
Addendum - extra info attached, see below.
The BBC site has again let me down on finding more info or a link (though I have asked - LATEST - I am doing well at the moment with helpful replies for follow-up information. It's always well worth trying to locate the author and ask. In this case, the correspondent himself has kindly provided this: Report is there under the TOP STORIES link on the right hand side (I suspect this will have a finite time it's up though. The one to look at is the next under 'Possible commuter problems', though all are worthy of noting)). There's also a specific page for reports from this week's transport features), but there was a report by correspendent Robert Punt that really struck a chord.
Today, in 2008, with all else we have swirling around us, it seems national government is requiring local government to plonk several thousand new homes on some rolling green belt land.
That's bad enough. I just wonder what they plan for when the last blade of grass has been concreted over to provide 'affordable housing' to buy off 'lower-income ratepay... er.. voters' property-owning aspirations.
Thing is, if I heard right, there is also no money, and hence no alowance for any support infrastructure. Bad enough for the plight of the community that this probably includes schools, hospitals, flood systems, etc, but one thing for sure ain't there is transport.
And it's next to a motorway. So, as this valauble piece pointed out, this not so little additional collection of working stiffs will be jumping in their Fiestas each day to earn a crust.
Barking. I look forward to the bin fines to offset the carbon. Not.
Addendum 2 - 1/02
As he was nice enough to show an interest and asked, I have sent the link to this to Mr. Punt. Of course I couldn't avoid a bit of context... which sort of turned into more a rant. But it was a good one and worth sharing here:
There just seems to be no joined up thinking when it comes to environmental matters between government, LAs and, often, business. But always the consumer cops it in the end.
I get livid when I hear the latest anti-car edict issued from Westminster, slavishly (and uncritically) printed by Fleet Street (though often also broadcast by the national BBC) and endorsed by Islingonistas. Very few out here have a tube line at the end of the road. So the car is often the only option. I choose to write for Fiesta family rather than 'My other car is a Prius' Person, the former of whom have lower incomes, mortgages, kids to get to distant schools, 2 weeks tops to spend, with luck, somewhere sunny, and the chance to do one weekly shop of a Friday evening at Tescos.
There's so much more I could highlight where the onus is thrown on those least able to cope, from plastic bags to, like I infer, the latest recycling wheezes. Just how much is spent of massive ad campaigns and how much effort put into punitive legislation, when there are still no credible, coherent systems put in place for the willing consumer to actually do what is best, easily, affordably and to a decent enviROI?
Sorry, rant over. Back to trying to DO something rather than just box-ticking, narrow-agenda-serving exercises in guilt, fear, threat or nanny that so far seem to have achieved little (OK, a teensie bit more of a rant). I sincerely believe the public DO understand the issues, and DO want to help. But they need to have their situations understood better and see things shared that are designed from the ground up to help them help.
And, speaking as an ad man, all lead by end benefit and incentive bolted on to logical, persuasive communications, which seems a much more productive route to consider.
Their starter for...
I make no apology for printing this in full: Join the debate on a low-carbon economy
Note: Post event Addendum added below.
It looks like they could do with a bit of a kick-start is all.
Huge Issue. Top quality paper. One of the most significant blogs. Multimillion, if not billion NGO.
So far, no input as far as I can see. Maybe most emailed direct, as that seems to be what was asked. I am not so shy. Also, it's a shame not to see the questions posed in open forum. Leads one to suspect that those chosen might be edited for suitability first.
Post your questions for the Observer's science editor and the Carbon Trust
January 29, 2008 11:00 AM
On Thursday January 31 at 11am, guardian.co.uk will be hosting the first of three web chats exploring how Britain can create a low-carbon economy.
The Observer's science editor, Robin McKie, will be joined by the Carbon Trust's director of innovations, Mark Williamson, to discuss what is in store for low-carbon technologies in 2008 and the innovations we can expect over the coming year.
Topics for discussion include:
What technologies are being developed (photovoltaic solar cells, micro-CHP, wave and wind powers) and how are companies/scientists/engineers improving on existing technologies?
Can these technologies help the UK meet its targets?
Who needs to take the lead in implementing new technologies?
What are the most exciting developments happening in low-carbon technology?
Is 2008 the year for these technologies to really start to hit mainstream, or are we still a few years away?
You can find out more about the Carbon Trust here, and more details about the chat here.
Email your questions for Robin and Mark to carbontrustinnovation@guardianunlimited.co.uk and log on at 11am on Thursday to follow the debate
'Last night I was honoured to be a co-speaker and panellist at The Centre for Sustainable Design - http://www.cfsd.org.uk/ - in a session entitled 'Resourceful Innovators', where the main topic for discussion coincidentally revolved around the level and quality of support for ideas and entrepreneurs developing low carbon solutions.
Without speaking for the College or those present, it seemed agreed that almost all focus of support was on big-ticket, high profile, hi-tech, but not necessarily that great ROI or often even enviROI+ initiatives.
Also that vast sums seem to be going into logistics, administration and comms budgets of those tasked with doling out funding, but a possibly less than healthy percentage was getting from taxpayers' pockets to those doing the most good (especially seeking to become self-sustaining without ongoing subsidy as a business model), in the most cost-effective and planetary beneficial ways.
So a couple of top-of-mind questions to pose are:
Why are there so many bodies tasked with forking out the money to help such private, and possibly highly worthy initiatives, why do so many overlap, why are they so 'big system driven' and what are the actual breakdowns involved in getting say, £100M from UK taxpayers to amounts tangibly provided to money in hand for things that might actually help their families' futures?
Just in round figures.
It's also a pity not to see more of the possible questions that may be posed in open forum here on the site as there is that option.'
However, there is is opportunity here, and you need to work with what is on offer. hence I hope this may push the right kind of buttons and may stand a better chance of being embraced:
'On a more proactive and pragmatic front, what more can be done to matchmake those with good ideas with the necessary business skills to bring these to self-sustaining, and soon profitable market. This country abounds with innovators, and by all accounts we are also well served with the service sector and business brains that know how to make money. In few cases are these two skill sets complementary within one person (save, perhaps, a Dyson or Baylis). And possibly in the area of the environment it may be further complicated by the driving forces being often at odds. Great inventions can often be driven by a desire to make money, yet more often than not they are more idealistically inspired. But one thing I have learned early on is that to have any chance of success in pushing the business case, the priority you outline is much more 'IT WILL MAKE OODLES OF DOUGH..' first, with '... and will also serve the future of this planet and those on it well' very quietly, and last, at the end. It is almost as though a desire to do right by next generations is seen as a negative in the macho universe of the Masters of the Business of Administration. A curse of denigration by Dragon. Which is a pity.
We are in a much more complex world, with many realities that need to be faced. And high amongst them is that most successes need teams of complementary talents to shape a concept, especially a new, left field one, and bring it to market. So in management, especially financial, one would have hoped for more forward thinking and indeed a desire to recognise and pleasure in seeing potential, and then building the necessary structures around it to make it happen. Not expect... or demand... a fully fledged done-deal from the off. Were it only as easy as ploughing in dosh and lighting the blue touch paper. There are people to meet, deals to be struck.... consumers to convince. Few can do that and make magic in their shed, too.
With the wealth of contacts across the board, and indeed in boards, could not more be done at official level to bridge the gap that I believe exists between those business minded creative souls that do have the talent and belief to think in terms of the next generations of products and services that can serve the environment, and the hopefully creative minded folk in business who can see potential in such ideas, and are looking for a legacy that is not just measured in pounds, pennies, Lears and Flaming Ferraris. Readers of this paper who do appreciate the environmental lead, but are not so interested in spending their money any longer on an advertised weekend trip to an Eco-lodge in the Maldives, and more on being part of a method to help mitigate the chances of the azure waters lapping higher than desirable.
So, of course, we are now in a world driven by bean counters, and hence we need them to work, and to work with them. But if more and more are counting beans and fewer and fewer making them, soon there will be no beans for anyone to live off.
Can we do more to free those who this country's unique systems and institutions still inspire to create great and unique ideas, from the all too crushing constraints of being things and personalities that they may not be best suited to deliver? Can we not seek ways to identify those areas that do have potential at an early stage, and then marry them and their creators with the now necessary skill sets to produce the business plans, P&Ls, forecasts and other instruments (though often, it seems that are mainly backside covering, and hence highly speculative 'best guesses'. It is my experience that an innovator, whilst passionate, may tend to be honest enough to say I haven't a clue' when asked to provide market forecasts for the next decade, which often does not tick the right boxes in more 'correct financial procedures concerned' cultures. Mind you. ... Dome? Wembley? Olympics? Nulclear? Some Alt. Energy schemes?) that are indeed necessary and essential to bring solid business concepts to fruition and profitable, socially serving reality?'
ADDENDUM:
Well, I think it's over. Actually was a bit hard to say. Probably me being an IT-numptie, but I did not find the 'process' that easy. From the original site link (at the top/start) it was a bit of a kerfuffle getting 'registered', and then I was none too sure where I was once 'live'....
Here... or here.
So, how was it for me... you?
I'd say, at best, an 'interesting' experiment in communication at best. Though I dipped in and out that was 1 and a half hours of time, and really what Q&A result was there? Especially as to pressing enviro issues involving the lives millions of folk and billions of £.
At least some my question sets did get posed, and by the editorial taboot. Not sure I got many answers, mind. It was all very... general. And this from a chap whose title is Director of Innovation, and if you click on the link to his bio he sits amongst a bunch of other 'Directors of..' who I doubt very much are on expenses only. So still no clue as to how a £100M in funding get carved up before the public sees any money going to 'doing' vs. 'talking' or 'doling'. And I do have to note one medium that is the beneficiary of a lot of this comms largesse. But at least they allowed me to pose my question, so big up there.
Not sure how the other questioners felt, either. As I indicated, we are talking via one of the more significant online news entities, with a definite interest in things green, involving senior editors with a high official in a hugely-significant green quango... and between the options I attempted, would be hard pressed to see much more than, what, twenty involved?
Not sure what it says exactly, but it doesn't seem that encouraging, really.
I doubt I'll be investing such time or effort again on this basis in a hurry. Which considering the importance of, and sums involved in such an issue, is a worry.
Note: Post event Addendum added below.
It looks like they could do with a bit of a kick-start is all.
Huge Issue. Top quality paper. One of the most significant blogs. Multimillion, if not billion NGO.
So far, no input as far as I can see. Maybe most emailed direct, as that seems to be what was asked. I am not so shy. Also, it's a shame not to see the questions posed in open forum. Leads one to suspect that those chosen might be edited for suitability first.
Post your questions for the Observer's science editor and the Carbon Trust
January 29, 2008 11:00 AM
On Thursday January 31 at 11am, guardian.co.uk will be hosting the first of three web chats exploring how Britain can create a low-carbon economy.
The Observer's science editor, Robin McKie, will be joined by the Carbon Trust's director of innovations, Mark Williamson, to discuss what is in store for low-carbon technologies in 2008 and the innovations we can expect over the coming year.
Topics for discussion include:
What technologies are being developed (photovoltaic solar cells, micro-CHP, wave and wind powers) and how are companies/scientists/engineers improving on existing technologies?
Can these technologies help the UK meet its targets?
Who needs to take the lead in implementing new technologies?
What are the most exciting developments happening in low-carbon technology?
Is 2008 the year for these technologies to really start to hit mainstream, or are we still a few years away?
You can find out more about the Carbon Trust here, and more details about the chat here.
Email your questions for Robin and Mark to carbontrustinnovation@guardianunlimited.co.uk and log on at 11am on Thursday to follow the debate
'Last night I was honoured to be a co-speaker and panellist at The Centre for Sustainable Design - http://www.cfsd.org.uk/ - in a session entitled 'Resourceful Innovators', where the main topic for discussion coincidentally revolved around the level and quality of support for ideas and entrepreneurs developing low carbon solutions.
Without speaking for the College or those present, it seemed agreed that almost all focus of support was on big-ticket, high profile, hi-tech, but not necessarily that great ROI or often even enviROI+ initiatives.
Also that vast sums seem to be going into logistics, administration and comms budgets of those tasked with doling out funding, but a possibly less than healthy percentage was getting from taxpayers' pockets to those doing the most good (especially seeking to become self-sustaining without ongoing subsidy as a business model), in the most cost-effective and planetary beneficial ways.
So a couple of top-of-mind questions to pose are:
Why are there so many bodies tasked with forking out the money to help such private, and possibly highly worthy initiatives, why do so many overlap, why are they so 'big system driven' and what are the actual breakdowns involved in getting say, £100M from UK taxpayers to amounts tangibly provided to money in hand for things that might actually help their families' futures?
Just in round figures.
It's also a pity not to see more of the possible questions that may be posed in open forum here on the site as there is that option.'
However, there is is opportunity here, and you need to work with what is on offer. hence I hope this may push the right kind of buttons and may stand a better chance of being embraced:
'On a more proactive and pragmatic front, what more can be done to matchmake those with good ideas with the necessary business skills to bring these to self-sustaining, and soon profitable market. This country abounds with innovators, and by all accounts we are also well served with the service sector and business brains that know how to make money. In few cases are these two skill sets complementary within one person (save, perhaps, a Dyson or Baylis). And possibly in the area of the environment it may be further complicated by the driving forces being often at odds. Great inventions can often be driven by a desire to make money, yet more often than not they are more idealistically inspired. But one thing I have learned early on is that to have any chance of success in pushing the business case, the priority you outline is much more 'IT WILL MAKE OODLES OF DOUGH..' first, with '... and will also serve the future of this planet and those on it well' very quietly, and last, at the end. It is almost as though a desire to do right by next generations is seen as a negative in the macho universe of the Masters of the Business of Administration. A curse of denigration by Dragon. Which is a pity.
We are in a much more complex world, with many realities that need to be faced. And high amongst them is that most successes need teams of complementary talents to shape a concept, especially a new, left field one, and bring it to market. So in management, especially financial, one would have hoped for more forward thinking and indeed a desire to recognise and pleasure in seeing potential, and then building the necessary structures around it to make it happen. Not expect... or demand... a fully fledged done-deal from the off. Were it only as easy as ploughing in dosh and lighting the blue touch paper. There are people to meet, deals to be struck.... consumers to convince. Few can do that and make magic in their shed, too.
With the wealth of contacts across the board, and indeed in boards, could not more be done at official level to bridge the gap that I believe exists between those business minded creative souls that do have the talent and belief to think in terms of the next generations of products and services that can serve the environment, and the hopefully creative minded folk in business who can see potential in such ideas, and are looking for a legacy that is not just measured in pounds, pennies, Lears and Flaming Ferraris. Readers of this paper who do appreciate the environmental lead, but are not so interested in spending their money any longer on an advertised weekend trip to an Eco-lodge in the Maldives, and more on being part of a method to help mitigate the chances of the azure waters lapping higher than desirable.
So, of course, we are now in a world driven by bean counters, and hence we need them to work, and to work with them. But if more and more are counting beans and fewer and fewer making them, soon there will be no beans for anyone to live off.
Can we do more to free those who this country's unique systems and institutions still inspire to create great and unique ideas, from the all too crushing constraints of being things and personalities that they may not be best suited to deliver? Can we not seek ways to identify those areas that do have potential at an early stage, and then marry them and their creators with the now necessary skill sets to produce the business plans, P&Ls, forecasts and other instruments (though often, it seems that are mainly backside covering, and hence highly speculative 'best guesses'. It is my experience that an innovator, whilst passionate, may tend to be honest enough to say I haven't a clue' when asked to provide market forecasts for the next decade, which often does not tick the right boxes in more 'correct financial procedures concerned' cultures. Mind you. ... Dome? Wembley? Olympics? Nulclear? Some Alt. Energy schemes?) that are indeed necessary and essential to bring solid business concepts to fruition and profitable, socially serving reality?'
ADDENDUM:
Well, I think it's over. Actually was a bit hard to say. Probably me being an IT-numptie, but I did not find the 'process' that easy. From the original site link (at the top/start) it was a bit of a kerfuffle getting 'registered', and then I was none too sure where I was once 'live'....
Here... or here.
So, how was it for me... you?
I'd say, at best, an 'interesting' experiment in communication at best. Though I dipped in and out that was 1 and a half hours of time, and really what Q&A result was there? Especially as to pressing enviro issues involving the lives millions of folk and billions of £.
At least some my question sets did get posed, and by the editorial taboot. Not sure I got many answers, mind. It was all very... general. And this from a chap whose title is Director of Innovation, and if you click on the link to his bio he sits amongst a bunch of other 'Directors of..' who I doubt very much are on expenses only. So still no clue as to how a £100M in funding get carved up before the public sees any money going to 'doing' vs. 'talking' or 'doling'. And I do have to note one medium that is the beneficiary of a lot of this comms largesse. But at least they allowed me to pose my question, so big up there.
Not sure how the other questioners felt, either. As I indicated, we are talking via one of the more significant online news entities, with a definite interest in things green, involving senior editors with a high official in a hugely-significant green quango... and between the options I attempted, would be hard pressed to see much more than, what, twenty involved?
Not sure what it says exactly, but it doesn't seem that encouraging, really.
I doubt I'll be investing such time or effort again on this basis in a hurry. Which considering the importance of, and sums involved in such an issue, is a worry.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
There are facts, numbers and then statistics .....
..... the big question, as always, is whose numbers and statistics do you trust?
This article from Sustainable Development International (seemingly taken from The Guardian) highlights a typical example of just such a possible distortion of figures and statistics. Vegans have long claimed that 18% of CO2 emissions are a direct consequence of meat production (that's more, supposedly, than some calculate is the total output of the entire transport sector) - this report appears to debunk that statistic as incorrect.
"a Food Climate Research Network report concluded that UK meat and dairy consumption was responsible for 8% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions. This is still a worrying amount, but considerably less than the 18% claimed by the green and vegan movement. It is also far less than the UK's transport emissions, which, according to the Department for Transport, represent around 33% of all our greenhouse emissions, if aviation is included."
As ever, statistics appear to be getting massaged/manipulated/falsified (delete whichever you feel relevant) to suit one particular side of the argument. I'm finding it all totally confusing. Just who do you believe?
This article from Sustainable Development International (seemingly taken from The Guardian) highlights a typical example of just such a possible distortion of figures and statistics. Vegans have long claimed that 18% of CO2 emissions are a direct consequence of meat production (that's more, supposedly, than some calculate is the total output of the entire transport sector) - this report appears to debunk that statistic as incorrect.
"a Food Climate Research Network report concluded that UK meat and dairy consumption was responsible for 8% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions. This is still a worrying amount, but considerably less than the 18% claimed by the green and vegan movement. It is also far less than the UK's transport emissions, which, according to the Department for Transport, represent around 33% of all our greenhouse emissions, if aviation is included."
As ever, statistics appear to be getting massaged/manipulated/falsified (delete whichever you feel relevant) to suit one particular side of the argument. I'm finding it all totally confusing. Just who do you believe?
A game of two halves
I nick, and probably mis-requote the original, but it kind of sums up my day.
Mostly, I was in Birmingham, and using some mental athletics I soon hope to turn to the common good with a program addition to Junkk.com and/or tripsplitters, managed to combine two meetings.
The latter, from which I have just returned, was my first tentative step into the hairy world of Venture Capitalists and Business Angels. As I say... a step. It was not with anyone with whom I might end up working or is going to introduce me to all the right FMCG folk or wads of wonga, but rather a broker. Very nice chap, who gave me a fair and considered hearing. Thing is, I really had no idea how it went. I may never hear again (which I doubt, but it won't be the first time), or I may find myself on another roller-coaster. Quite disconcerting. There was so much I wanted to share and to ask, but it was just the pertinent facts, little reaction or feedback... and then wait for the call.
In contrast, my first appointment was a very different affair. I was meeting the Technical Manager and crew of the Jewellery Innovation Centre, part of Birmingham City University.
The purpose was to see what they could do for me to help with selling RE:tie, by way of prototyping.
I was there for a few hours, and had a ball. We toured every nook and cranny of the facility, and they have toys and skills you would not believe, to make just about anything out of just about anything. And they are keen to help if you qualify and the idea seems fun.
There were big boxes that housed lasers that burned away. And little boxes with inkjet layered powders that built up. The one that really blew me away was a hi-tech version of an ancient Chinese ivory carving craft whereby a lattice ball is created within another lattice ball. Only this fellow was a ball within a ball... times 6! They had things in metal, things in aluminium and things in plastic. From 40cm cubed down to the size of a pinhead, with angels dancing upon it... and a logo stencilled on their tushies.
What was quite funny, and I guess interesting, was when they showed me a tray of stunning creations (try a sailing ship with full rigging... the size of a fingernail), and the one I zeroed in on was a gorgeous structure composed of rows of rods, which I thought would make a stunning piece of stationery ware. Turns out it was a waste mould and was to be thrown out! I think they understood where my reuse mind was at once this happened.
Of course we went off topic and roamed all manner of other things they could do for the inventive mind, and I was keen to repay the commitment with anything I could offer in return.
Links all round and features at the show stand to start!
Because it's all looking good. They don't see any problem making not just a prototype but a fairly large number of demo pieces of the RE:tie for the March show. A few design challenges to sort out, but from the patent drawings through CAD-CAM to an on bottle-top mock-up or score.... to not just claim what RE:tie can do, but show it doing it to those who will hopefully be an audience with an imagination and chequebook to match.
Here's hoping.
It's just interesting that when it comes to these aspects I was in my element, but when it came to the related, necessary and highly complementary issues of taking business I go from being a Orca doing flips above the ocean to a beached whale gasping on the shore. So now, more than ever, I need that all too missing piece to my commercial structure. With luck, if this finance guy sees merit I may be en route, but I honestly have no reading.
But here's hoping.
Mostly, I was in Birmingham, and using some mental athletics I soon hope to turn to the common good with a program addition to Junkk.com and/or tripsplitters, managed to combine two meetings.
The latter, from which I have just returned, was my first tentative step into the hairy world of Venture Capitalists and Business Angels. As I say... a step. It was not with anyone with whom I might end up working or is going to introduce me to all the right FMCG folk or wads of wonga, but rather a broker. Very nice chap, who gave me a fair and considered hearing. Thing is, I really had no idea how it went. I may never hear again (which I doubt, but it won't be the first time), or I may find myself on another roller-coaster. Quite disconcerting. There was so much I wanted to share and to ask, but it was just the pertinent facts, little reaction or feedback... and then wait for the call.
In contrast, my first appointment was a very different affair. I was meeting the Technical Manager and crew of the Jewellery Innovation Centre, part of Birmingham City University.
The purpose was to see what they could do for me to help with selling RE:tie, by way of prototyping.
I was there for a few hours, and had a ball. We toured every nook and cranny of the facility, and they have toys and skills you would not believe, to make just about anything out of just about anything. And they are keen to help if you qualify and the idea seems fun.
There were big boxes that housed lasers that burned away. And little boxes with inkjet layered powders that built up. The one that really blew me away was a hi-tech version of an ancient Chinese ivory carving craft whereby a lattice ball is created within another lattice ball. Only this fellow was a ball within a ball... times 6! They had things in metal, things in aluminium and things in plastic. From 40cm cubed down to the size of a pinhead, with angels dancing upon it... and a logo stencilled on their tushies.
What was quite funny, and I guess interesting, was when they showed me a tray of stunning creations (try a sailing ship with full rigging... the size of a fingernail), and the one I zeroed in on was a gorgeous structure composed of rows of rods, which I thought would make a stunning piece of stationery ware. Turns out it was a waste mould and was to be thrown out! I think they understood where my reuse mind was at once this happened.
Of course we went off topic and roamed all manner of other things they could do for the inventive mind, and I was keen to repay the commitment with anything I could offer in return.
Links all round and features at the show stand to start!
Because it's all looking good. They don't see any problem making not just a prototype but a fairly large number of demo pieces of the RE:tie for the March show. A few design challenges to sort out, but from the patent drawings through CAD-CAM to an on bottle-top mock-up or score.... to not just claim what RE:tie can do, but show it doing it to those who will hopefully be an audience with an imagination and chequebook to match.
Here's hoping.
It's just interesting that when it comes to these aspects I was in my element, but when it came to the related, necessary and highly complementary issues of taking business I go from being a Orca doing flips above the ocean to a beached whale gasping on the shore. So now, more than ever, I need that all too missing piece to my commercial structure. With luck, if this finance guy sees merit I may be en route, but I honestly have no reading.
But here's hoping.
So why, oh why, can't our lot do it?
Yet another example of a country's sensible government issuing tax incentives for the adoption of energy saving measures as reported by EDIE. Well done Ireland!
Our lot seem so stuck with their heads in the sand (or should that be Northern Rock?), talking 'til they're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, achieving, and incentivising, absolutely nothing.
Plus ca change.
Our lot seem so stuck with their heads in the sand (or should that be Northern Rock?), talking 'til they're blue in the face, but at the end of the day, achieving, and incentivising, absolutely nothing.
Plus ca change.
GOOD PACK, BAD PACK - What do you make of it all?
ADDENDUM at end - we're not the only ones on the case (geddit?)Ok, we admit it. We bought grapes in a box... but they were Fairtrade!!! You can see by the label.
Speaking of which, what has inspired this blog is what was on the other side, namely the packaging recyclability advice.
It's a bit hard to see here, so let me retype for you:
________
This packaging is partly recyclable
Punnet/PET - [tick]
Label - [x]
[tick] - Not recyclable everywhere yet.
To find out about recycling in your area visit www.recyclenow.com
_________
Sooooo.... let me get this staright.
The packaging is partly recyclable, but might not be so first go on an online hunting trip to find out.
More than this, the [tick] goes from being a yes, to a maybe.
And just for good measure, the [x] is for the label, which is glued to the plastic which might be recyclable. Or not.
Now, is it just me, or is this not just the most confusing thing you ever saw/read? And also shows that there's a whole lot of effort being p*ssed away by a whole lot of folk to make it look like we are addressing waste, without first tackling the main ways that need to be put in place first so the poor consumer can actually DO something about reducing it or disposing of it correctly?
Me, I think I'll try finding a reuse first.
Gaurdian - Listing the green labels
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)