As this article from the Washington Post highlights.
Polysilicon is a core component in any photovoltaic cell, and its manufacture is quite a toxic process, with one of the major by-products being silicon tetrachloride, an extremely noxious and poisonous chemical that is difficult to handle, and even more difficult to recycle back into the manufacturing process. The capital equipment costs simply to handle this one chemical is one of the main reasons why the production of polysilicon is so expensive in the Western world.
Now many manufacturers source their polysilicon from China. I hope, if they read this, they may think again.
See, by trying to manufacture as cheaply as possible, even something as green as a photovoltaic cell can be highly toxic to the environment.
Monday, March 10, 2008
We are committed to tackling climate change
Oh, really? You could have fooled me.
That post heading is the response by a spokesman from the DBERR (it used to be the DTI), to an accusation that the government itself places hurdles in the way of simple, and relatively cheap, energy saving domestic solar hot water installations, as reported in the Telegraph.
A few years back, you could easily get a grant of £400 towards the installation of solar water heating, providing the chosen kit was on the approved list (tested and checked out for free) and you used an approved installer (simple capabilities assessment). The grant is still available, but nowadays you have to be equivalently as lucky as to have won the national lottery jackpot to have a chance of getting it. Contrast that with Northern Ireland, where under the control of the assembly, the grant is £1100, and is very easily available.
"we have been disappointed, indeed astonished, to find that we face a host of obstacles from government, despite the rhetoric on combating climate change and the commitment to renewable energy". That's a comment from Hugh Synge, founder of a solar water heating business. And he's quite correct, the grant system is now an utter shambles; now the installers have to pay £1800 to be registered as approved (a lot for any small business); and now to get any solar water heating model approved by the BRE costs some £6000+ (a hurdle my own business simply cannot afford to get over as yet). And we haven't even mentioned the dog's breakfast of obstacles that planning permission puts in the way of any installation, despite multiple promises that planning permission requirements will be waived for renewable energy installations.
This would be so simple to sort out, and the savings for the consumer, and the planet, would be extremely significant. But, of course, that would require some real action, not just 'commitment', and a load of sickly green bullsh*t. Let's face it, there is so much more mileage, kudos and good publicity in jumping on easy things like the banning plastic bags bandwagon, isn't there? And all this at a time when we see headlines like 'Climate change could spark war' from Metro, and 'Millions of climate change migrants will overwhelm Europe', from the Mail on Sunday.
Committed? If you ask me, the whole lot of them ought to be!
That post heading is the response by a spokesman from the DBERR (it used to be the DTI), to an accusation that the government itself places hurdles in the way of simple, and relatively cheap, energy saving domestic solar hot water installations, as reported in the Telegraph.
A few years back, you could easily get a grant of £400 towards the installation of solar water heating, providing the chosen kit was on the approved list (tested and checked out for free) and you used an approved installer (simple capabilities assessment). The grant is still available, but nowadays you have to be equivalently as lucky as to have won the national lottery jackpot to have a chance of getting it. Contrast that with Northern Ireland, where under the control of the assembly, the grant is £1100, and is very easily available.
"we have been disappointed, indeed astonished, to find that we face a host of obstacles from government, despite the rhetoric on combating climate change and the commitment to renewable energy". That's a comment from Hugh Synge, founder of a solar water heating business. And he's quite correct, the grant system is now an utter shambles; now the installers have to pay £1800 to be registered as approved (a lot for any small business); and now to get any solar water heating model approved by the BRE costs some £6000+ (a hurdle my own business simply cannot afford to get over as yet). And we haven't even mentioned the dog's breakfast of obstacles that planning permission puts in the way of any installation, despite multiple promises that planning permission requirements will be waived for renewable energy installations.
This would be so simple to sort out, and the savings for the consumer, and the planet, would be extremely significant. But, of course, that would require some real action, not just 'commitment', and a load of sickly green bullsh*t. Let's face it, there is so much more mileage, kudos and good publicity in jumping on easy things like the banning plastic bags bandwagon, isn't there? And all this at a time when we see headlines like 'Climate change could spark war' from Metro, and 'Millions of climate change migrants will overwhelm Europe', from the Mail on Sunday.
Committed? If you ask me, the whole lot of them ought to be!
Recycle or go to hell!
A sign of the times perhaps? Or a bit of oddball religious CSR? The headline is taken from the Telegraph reporting on the Vatican's modern reassessment of the seven deadly sins.
Gone are sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride; these are said to have a "rather individualistic dimension". (Strange, I always thought they were supposed to apply to the individual?) The new list includes "genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs".
You have been warned - reuse or recycle your plastic bags - if not be prepared for eternal damnation!
Gone are sloth, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and pride; these are said to have a "rather individualistic dimension". (Strange, I always thought they were supposed to apply to the individual?) The new list includes "genetic modification, carrying out experiments on humans, polluting the environment, causing social injustice, causing poverty, becoming obscenely wealthy and taking drugs".
You have been warned - reuse or recycle your plastic bags - if not be prepared for eternal damnation!
In case you can't afford to go Galactic
Branson Helps You Hire a Private Jet - Virgin Charter
Maybe one engine flies on bio-fuel?
I am road-testing a new acronym: HI-AW (Pronounced 'Hee-aw', like a donkey braying).
It means 'Having It All Ways'.
Maybe one engine flies on bio-fuel?
I am road-testing a new acronym: HI-AW (Pronounced 'Hee-aw', like a donkey braying).
It means 'Having It All Ways'.
CATEGORY - ROAD PRICING
Should have started this before now.
To kick off:
Indy Letters - It's time to adopt national road pricing
let the debate begi... hit gridlock!
To kick off:
Indy Letters - It's time to adopt national road pricing
let the debate begi... hit gridlock!
No.. really?
Travellers ignore pleas to curb air travel amid growing stampede for long-haul mini-breaks
It's worth mentioning to remind 'us' that 'we' are pretty selective about what major enviro-issues will get 'us' excited, but I had to laugh at this po-faced first sentence:
'Holidaymakers are ignoring environmentalists' calls to limit their air travel and are taking more "indulgent" long-haul mini-breaks than ever before.'
Closely followed by this:
'Despite recommendations that they holiday closer to home...'
I'd have to say a lot of folk, from 'evironmentalists' (whoever they may be) to the media (when they choose to be green for a few column inches) are a little up 'emselves if this is the best they can do.
The critiques just comes across as plain silly and petty. And that is going to persuade no one.
It's worth mentioning to remind 'us' that 'we' are pretty selective about what major enviro-issues will get 'us' excited, but I had to laugh at this po-faced first sentence:
'Holidaymakers are ignoring environmentalists' calls to limit their air travel and are taking more "indulgent" long-haul mini-breaks than ever before.'
Closely followed by this:
'Despite recommendations that they holiday closer to home...'
I'd have to say a lot of folk, from 'evironmentalists' (whoever they may be) to the media (when they choose to be green for a few column inches) are a little up 'emselves if this is the best they can do.
The critiques just comes across as plain silly and petty. And that is going to persuade no one.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
More CIF Peak Oil Argument
As ever, any article on Peak Oil in The Guardian's CIF section attracts a huge barrage of proponents from the extremes at both ends, and this is no exception.
Now I cannot understand why the concept of Peak Oil can be regarded as a 'doomsday cult' as the author implies. Likewise, in response to "And there is a grain of truth to peak oil theory. Oil is a finite reserve, so the more we extract, the closer we come to exhausting the resource."; A 'grain of truth'! It's an inescapable fact! Look, crude oil is a finite resource that human beings risk exhausting to their own detriment, as our modern industrial civilization is based almost entirely upon it!
No-one, other than a handful of real doom-mongerers, is suggesting that Peak Oil implies a sudden and disastrous disappearance of petroleum as a resource. However, it is entirely clear that over the coming decades the amount of easily available and recoverable sweet (i.e. easily usable) crude is without doubt going to decline. It may decline slowly over several decades, or it may start to decline at an accelerating rate some time in the future, but decline it inevitably will.
As for Peak Oil's proponents being "a rag-bag of geologists, green activists, Malthusians, and people who yearn for a return to some pre-industrial idyll", well, the only one of those monikers I can hold my hand up to is that I am (well, was) a trained Geologist (Geo-Chemist actually).
And comparing the cost of a barrel of oil with a barrel of Coca-Cola - well, that has to be one of the most spurious comparisons I have ever seen!
Perhaps, as one of the CIF posters suggests, we should term the problem that is now starting to confront us as Cheap Oil, rather than Peak Oil. Maybe more people will be able to understand that description.
Whatever side of the argument that you sit on, it is abundantly clear that: in conjunction with [Likely] Man Worsened Climate Change (with its associated loss of water supplies and harsher crop growing conditions); an already rapid increase in the prices of staple foodstuffs; the ever increasing population of our little lump of planetary rock; our continuing destruction of native environments in the pursuit of earning a few bucks; our rape of the oceans already highly depleted resources; Peak (OK then, Cheap) Oil, is simply one problem in a long list of issues that humanity needs to address urgently.
Now if that makes me subject to being termed a 'Malthusian' then so be it. Sorry, but to me, it seems little more than basic common sense. Remember what happened to the population of Easter Island?
Friday, March 07, 2008
Oxymoron of the month?
Eco-Bentley. Now there's a term I'll bet you never expected to see! But, according to this from ThisIsCheshire, Bentley are indeed trying to implement a "far-reaching environmental strategy to reduce CO2 emissions and improve fuel economy."
"A new powertrain will be introduced by 2012, delivering a 40% reduction in fuel consumption, while maintaining current levels of performance. And all engines across the range will become compatible with the use of renewable fuels by 2012, with the initial rollout beginning by next year."
OK, maybe I've been a little sarcastic, and perhaps I even owe them an apology; but I do find it quite hard to equate luxury, extremely expensive vehicles, that only the top 1 or 2 percent of the wealthiest amongst us can even contemplate buying, with the word Eco.
Green stretched limo anyone?
Addendum:
Bentley maybe going to do Eco-Cars, but Rolls-Royce do it up in the stratosphere with their updated Trent 'Eco-Engine'! No, I'm being unfair, I made that up, but how long before we see RR marketing claiming the updated engine actually is eco-friendly because it consumes 30% less fuel? I'll give it three months tops.
"A new powertrain will be introduced by 2012, delivering a 40% reduction in fuel consumption, while maintaining current levels of performance. And all engines across the range will become compatible with the use of renewable fuels by 2012, with the initial rollout beginning by next year."
OK, maybe I've been a little sarcastic, and perhaps I even owe them an apology; but I do find it quite hard to equate luxury, extremely expensive vehicles, that only the top 1 or 2 percent of the wealthiest amongst us can even contemplate buying, with the word Eco.
Green stretched limo anyone?
Addendum:
Bentley maybe going to do Eco-Cars, but Rolls-Royce do it up in the stratosphere with their updated Trent 'Eco-Engine'! No, I'm being unfair, I made that up, but how long before we see RR marketing claiming the updated engine actually is eco-friendly because it consumes 30% less fuel? I'll give it three months tops.
The pending food crisis.....
..... is much more of an immediate problem than climate change, according to the government's new chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, as reported in The Guardian.
"price rises in staples such as rice, maize and wheat would continue because of increased demand caused by population growth and increasing wealth in developing nations. He also said that climate change would lead to pressure on food supplies because of decreased rainfall in many areas and crop failures related to climate."
"Some of the biofuels are hopeless. The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid." Quite!
"Global grain stores are currently at the lowest levels ever, just 40 days from running out."
Rapidly rising prices, all those extra mouths to feed and insufficient land and water. Things aren't looking too promising. Maybe it really is time to start tackling the issue that dare not speak its name?
"price rises in staples such as rice, maize and wheat would continue because of increased demand caused by population growth and increasing wealth in developing nations. He also said that climate change would lead to pressure on food supplies because of decreased rainfall in many areas and crop failures related to climate."
"Some of the biofuels are hopeless. The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid." Quite!
"Global grain stores are currently at the lowest levels ever, just 40 days from running out."
Rapidly rising prices, all those extra mouths to feed and insufficient land and water. Things aren't looking too promising. Maybe it really is time to start tackling the issue that dare not speak its name?
NEWS/Commercial PR - Michelin Energy Saver Tyres
This is passed on as per PR supplied, so I cannot vouch for the claims, but as a major brand one has to assume they are sincere and sound (mind you, the ASA site is a weekly jaw-dropper).
I just find things like this so much more significant in the great scheme of things, not just for major e-benefits, but also possible (there is a pay-back period to consider, which has been suggested) pocket-related ones, too.
But what's the betting they don't make a low-profile set for my Volvo!
New Michelin Energy Saver tyres
The new Michelin Energy Saver is the Company’s fourth generation of “green” car tyres that replaces the existing Energy range.
The technology deployed in the Michelin Energy Saver range improves rolling resistance by nearly 20%* thereby reducing the amount of energy needed to propel the vehicle. By generating fuel savings of nearly 0.2 litres per 100 km* it reduces CO2 emissions by 4g per km and the cost of a full tank of fuel by almost €2. As a result, if you fit four Energy Saver tyres to your car the fuel savings will be enough to pay for one of the tyres after just 45,000km**.
In wet-road tests conducted by TÜV SÜD Automotive, a car equipped with the Michelin Energy Saver has a braking distance three metres shorter than the same vehicle fitted with the previous-generation tyres. The same study showed that, in identical wet-road conditions, the Michelin Energy Saver also has a shorter braking distance than the average of the major competitor tyre brands***.
In addition to enhanced fuel efficiency and exceptional safety performance the Energy Saver also offers very long tread life. According to a study by TÜV SÜD, the Michelin Energy Saver delivers on average 40% more mileage than other leading brand-name tyres in the three most widely used sizes*. Where a competitor’s tyre may reach its limit, for example, at 30,000 km, the Michelin Energy Saver – in identical conditions of use – could cover more than 40,000 km. Based on average annual driving distances in Europe, this means nearly an additional year of driving.
By combining lower fuel consumption, shorter braking distances and greater longevity the Michelin Energy Saver provides users with a host of benefits. The tyres really do enable motorists to drive further, safely, while spending less.
The Michelin Energy Saver has been designed to equip as many cars in the market as possible – including small city cars, saloons, coupes and MPVs. The tyre will initially be available in 29 sizes and that will increase to 42 by mid-2008. By the end of the year, the range will cover 90% of existing sizes with a T-speed rating, 82% with an H-rating, and 80% with a V-rating.
*ISO test conducted by TÜV SÜD Automotive in 2007 on store-bought 175/65 R14, 195/65 R15 and 205/55 R16 tyres produced by five major-brand manufacturers.
**Based on a diesel-powered vehicle that consumes around 6 litres per 100 km with fuel priced at an average of €1.20 a litre.
IDEA - Jacob's Twiglet's game
A timely reminder to me to get my act together and add more ideas to the main site.I am grateful to Junkketeer Valerie of Wyenet, our super ISP provider (happy to reccomend and link to them... see how easy this 'share the idea, share the love' can be?), who just handed this to me.
It's frankly more an 'A' for effort on the part of maker Jacob's, but I am simply encouraged that they are thinking not only in reuse terms, but also helping customers with the process by suggesting ideas.
It's true that many items, such as this, are hard to really get too inspired by, but you never know who may coem up with what that is simply awesomely neat... which is all part of the fun.
QUOTE OF THE DAY - A little bit of honest pragmatism
From Glastonbury's Michael Eavis:
'...if you switched off everything that created carbon, we'd be bored to tears.'
Enough, indeed, for me to add the label below of 'The Two E's'.
But something I wish a few who would impose their rather utopian, and indeed often selective, view on matters green would pause to consider.
The tricky part, of course, is at what point we switch from acceptably not being bored and unacceptably consuming to excess. And who sets, or thinks they should set that tipping point, and to what degree of consistency and fairness.
'...if you switched off everything that created carbon, we'd be bored to tears.'
Enough, indeed, for me to add the label below of 'The Two E's'.
But something I wish a few who would impose their rather utopian, and indeed often selective, view on matters green would pause to consider.
The tricky part, of course, is at what point we switch from acceptably not being bored and unacceptably consuming to excess. And who sets, or thinks they should set that tipping point, and to what degree of consistency and fairness.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Why such stupidity?
That was my initial and pretty much only thought on reading this from The Telegraph yesterday. But the story sort of stayed stuck in the back of my mind, and I feel moved to comment on it.
The strange thing about the arson attack is that it appears it was carried out by ELF [Earth Liberation Front], an ultra extreme green faction that seems to regard destruction and arson as reasonable political weapons, yet the target was a set of 'environmentally friendly' new buildings.
Now I could sort of vaguely get my head around it, but still never condone it, if they were targeting things like petrol stations or oil refineries and the like; but to burn down new houses built to a quite high eco standard is just insanity! It's eco-terrorism of the worst and most stupid kind. Sorry, but groups like ELF are a major millstone to the vast majority of people with 'green' leanings and I, like many others I am sure, can never countenance wanton destruction in the name of green politics.
So, to any groups like ELF; please go away and leave the stage to people with brains, common sense and some scrap of human decency. Displays of such stupid, wanton and unnecessary destruction means you are basically unfit to call yourself human beings.
Addendum (from Junkk Male) - Worth adding this post, and the responses it got (the notion seems to be that something needs to be done, but when it comes to doing it is seldom creating positives that get first priority, in favour of primarily non-action-related negatives) , as it is related: Enough Pious Eco-Snobbery - But What Next?
The strange thing about the arson attack is that it appears it was carried out by ELF [Earth Liberation Front], an ultra extreme green faction that seems to regard destruction and arson as reasonable political weapons, yet the target was a set of 'environmentally friendly' new buildings.
Now I could sort of vaguely get my head around it, but still never condone it, if they were targeting things like petrol stations or oil refineries and the like; but to burn down new houses built to a quite high eco standard is just insanity! It's eco-terrorism of the worst and most stupid kind. Sorry, but groups like ELF are a major millstone to the vast majority of people with 'green' leanings and I, like many others I am sure, can never countenance wanton destruction in the name of green politics.
So, to any groups like ELF; please go away and leave the stage to people with brains, common sense and some scrap of human decency. Displays of such stupid, wanton and unnecessary destruction means you are basically unfit to call yourself human beings.
Addendum (from Junkk Male) - Worth adding this post, and the responses it got (the notion seems to be that something needs to be done, but when it comes to doing it is seldom creating positives that get first priority, in favour of primarily non-action-related negatives) , as it is related: Enough Pious Eco-Snobbery - But What Next?
Glimmers of sense, if not hope
Crunch time for social enterprises
A great piece, with some excellent links. Thank you.
A few years back I was invited as a guest at one of these shindigs. Usual suspects. Different minister. Same platitudes.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/08/asking-for-thirds.html
I wasn't there (see below), but one thing that I do sense has not moved on is the acknowledgement of those in high office of the sheer breadth and scope that can be brought under this vast umbrella that is 'social enterprise', or even if anyone has yet managed to come up with a decent definition of what one actually is. Maybe that is the problem, there cannot be 'one'. Especially as we all, inevitably, end up competing to survive.
Because I for one find it very hard to lump together those doing invaluable work with, say, drug addicted street kids - which by any measure hardly seems a consumer group likely to lead to a self-sustaining business model any time soon - and compare it with what I'm up to. And that can have an effect. It does often rather feel that the truly vocational are also placed side by side with those who have a for-profit model when it comes to awards and funding, but with unspoken agendas at play which can lead to vast commitments of time and funds which often stand no chance of success from the off.
I had a rummage and some might find this - a purely personal view from one at the sharp (and, it seems, usually wrong) end interesti... well, another view, at least:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/beam-me-up.html
There is a lot of good to be done, and businesses to be run, successfully, doing it, but I do fear that at the moment the thrust of support and guidance given is not from the best qualified or able, and even if with the best intentions, perhaps not with the best results. Especially in terms of value for money/ROI to those doing the investing or those in theory intended to benefit.
Addendum:
SEC - Response to BERR's enterprise strategy
A great piece, with some excellent links. Thank you.
A few years back I was invited as a guest at one of these shindigs. Usual suspects. Different minister. Same platitudes.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2006/08/asking-for-thirds.html
I wasn't there (see below), but one thing that I do sense has not moved on is the acknowledgement of those in high office of the sheer breadth and scope that can be brought under this vast umbrella that is 'social enterprise', or even if anyone has yet managed to come up with a decent definition of what one actually is. Maybe that is the problem, there cannot be 'one'. Especially as we all, inevitably, end up competing to survive.
Because I for one find it very hard to lump together those doing invaluable work with, say, drug addicted street kids - which by any measure hardly seems a consumer group likely to lead to a self-sustaining business model any time soon - and compare it with what I'm up to. And that can have an effect. It does often rather feel that the truly vocational are also placed side by side with those who have a for-profit model when it comes to awards and funding, but with unspoken agendas at play which can lead to vast commitments of time and funds which often stand no chance of success from the off.
I had a rummage and some might find this - a purely personal view from one at the sharp (and, it seems, usually wrong) end interesti... well, another view, at least:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/beam-me-up.html
There is a lot of good to be done, and businesses to be run, successfully, doing it, but I do fear that at the moment the thrust of support and guidance given is not from the best qualified or able, and even if with the best intentions, perhaps not with the best results. Especially in terms of value for money/ROI to those doing the investing or those in theory intended to benefit.
Addendum:
SEC - Response to BERR's enterprise strategy
Paranoia, and KNOWING there's sod all you can do
It's a bit of a rant, but with a glimmer of a sensible point inside.
I just had a gander at a major social enterprise award I entered yonks ago.
It is heading for the finals, so the publicity machine is well and truly out.
So I was checking the semi-finalists in the several categories to try and see what's 'in' and what's 'no-win' when it comes to judges and/or funders.
Now there were the usual highly local magazines and groups, which are fine, but often seem a stretch when it comes to the expandability and sustainability criteria that mostly, and sensibly (if more in theory than practice) get imposed.
But what brought me up short were two entries, which were pretty much exactly what I had put in as developments of Junkk.com in need, and worthy of support. Not brand new by any means, but with unique twists that really made them seem different. One in the area of reuse matchmaking and the other in car sharing.
Now it's all pretty academic, and of course any good idea can be matched and/or pipped by the same one.
But it did get me to wondering about the actual levels of protection and degrees of confidentiality one might need vs. get in such cases. You only go in for such things because you need help, but how often does one apply the same level of non-disclosure as one would to, say, an investor?
Tricky, as in most cases one is not talking a 'thing' that you can patent or trademark or copyright, and a good idea is only as good as you getting it to market first.
I just had a gander at a major social enterprise award I entered yonks ago.
It is heading for the finals, so the publicity machine is well and truly out.
So I was checking the semi-finalists in the several categories to try and see what's 'in' and what's 'no-win' when it comes to judges and/or funders.
Now there were the usual highly local magazines and groups, which are fine, but often seem a stretch when it comes to the expandability and sustainability criteria that mostly, and sensibly (if more in theory than practice) get imposed.
But what brought me up short were two entries, which were pretty much exactly what I had put in as developments of Junkk.com in need, and worthy of support. Not brand new by any means, but with unique twists that really made them seem different. One in the area of reuse matchmaking and the other in car sharing.
Now it's all pretty academic, and of course any good idea can be matched and/or pipped by the same one.
But it did get me to wondering about the actual levels of protection and degrees of confidentiality one might need vs. get in such cases. You only go in for such things because you need help, but how often does one apply the same level of non-disclosure as one would to, say, an investor?
Tricky, as in most cases one is not talking a 'thing' that you can patent or trademark or copyright, and a good idea is only as good as you getting it to market first.
Nuclear power!
That's the only realistic way forward according to this most surprising of sources, The Guardian.
The piece is quite well argued and I find it difficult to disagree with the author. But, I'm staggered to see that it's in The Guardian, a bastion of the anti-nuclear lobby! It's a good job that it is not on CIF, there would be the most horrendous set of ranting posts building up already!
Perhaps, in Bob Dylan's words, 'the times, they are a-changing'?
The piece is quite well argued and I find it difficult to disagree with the author. But, I'm staggered to see that it's in The Guardian, a bastion of the anti-nuclear lobby! It's a good job that it is not on CIF, there would be the most horrendous set of ranting posts building up already!
Perhaps, in Bob Dylan's words, 'the times, they are a-changing'?
Meanwhile, much more importantly...
There's a little slot at the end of the BBC morning news.
It's reserved for Yummy Mummies (and, it seems, dozy, slobby, homeworking Dads) having a wee moment having kicked the kids off to school, the spouse to real work and just finshed sorting the debris all this has left.
It's usually celeb-lite time.
But, in keeping with Auntie's new civic awareness, the PR's pushing their clients forward usually need a bit more to sweetn the deal than they act in some soap. And a cause is always a good one. I just wish all concerned were not so naked in what the real reasons for appearing are, and scoot so superficially over the theoretical actual reason for them being on.
So today we had one Tamsin Outhwaite on matters 'green'. I seem to recall her being on in this regard before*, so she has a bit of form. But for a moment it looked promising. Something about green heroes and awards, and a woman in Wandsworth who has created a site called Nappy Valley to help with reuse (Good luck. I rather think that, as with JunkkYard, FreeCycle has kind of been there and done it).
But before I could jot anything down it was on to her new TV series, a gritty drama based....
Which is, I'm betting, what the site will be on about (actually, it's on ITV, so maybe not), rather than sharing her insights on not leaving the TV on standby, not having a bath, etc.
*Addendum - found it. To be fair, the same cause. Different, though brand new, career event though.
It's reserved for Yummy Mummies (and, it seems, dozy, slobby, homeworking Dads) having a wee moment having kicked the kids off to school, the spouse to real work and just finshed sorting the debris all this has left.
It's usually celeb-lite time.
But, in keeping with Auntie's new civic awareness, the PR's pushing their clients forward usually need a bit more to sweetn the deal than they act in some soap. And a cause is always a good one. I just wish all concerned were not so naked in what the real reasons for appearing are, and scoot so superficially over the theoretical actual reason for them being on.
So today we had one Tamsin Outhwaite on matters 'green'. I seem to recall her being on in this regard before*, so she has a bit of form. But for a moment it looked promising. Something about green heroes and awards, and a woman in Wandsworth who has created a site called Nappy Valley to help with reuse (Good luck. I rather think that, as with JunkkYard, FreeCycle has kind of been there and done it).
But before I could jot anything down it was on to her new TV series, a gritty drama based....
Which is, I'm betting, what the site will be on about (actually, it's on ITV, so maybe not), rather than sharing her insights on not leaving the TV on standby, not having a bath, etc.
*Addendum - found it. To be fair, the same cause. Different, though brand new, career event though.
'Green gold' or problems untold?
Neat headline from a decent and objective analysis of biofuels from CNN International, that clearly and concisely provides a great deal of useful information without the hysterics that our British media tend to add in.
If you take natural habitat and convert it to growing crops for biofuel, it's all about carbon debt that ensues. Some are obviously unacceptable.
"The worst land to convert is tropical peatland rainforest (creating a carbon debt of 840 years) or Amazonian rainforest (320 years) with the lowest carbon debt of 17 years created by converting the wetter woodland-savannahs of Brazil's Cerrado."
Well worth a perusal.
If you take natural habitat and convert it to growing crops for biofuel, it's all about carbon debt that ensues. Some are obviously unacceptable.
"The worst land to convert is tropical peatland rainforest (creating a carbon debt of 840 years) or Amazonian rainforest (320 years) with the lowest carbon debt of 17 years created by converting the wetter woodland-savannahs of Brazil's Cerrado."
Well worth a perusal.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Volt face?
How to earn money from your roof
Sadly, I am finding anything originating with our government, even if it arrives having passed through multiple eminent media organs, to be immediately suspect - especially if it is transmitted as '...under proposals to be announced'.
When it's '...commitments that have now been honoured and initiated' I'll take note and cheer.
A while ago the majors and then even the local media told me that secondary schools (like ours) would be offering our kids Mandarin. Then... nothing. So I checked to see what progress there was, only to be told that they were having trouble finding enough teachers to handle French, let alone another, more complex language. In fact I was made to feel silly for not realising that such guff is put out with no intention of delivery, and is mostly copied from a press release and left unchallenged by most media with pages to fill, as all assume it just gets forgotten about anyway.
I also concern myself that if 'Householders will be able to make money by fitting solar panels or mini wind turbines to their roofs, under proposals to be announced in the Budget next week', I do trust the various pros and cons will be clearly shared to ensure the 'long-term financial security to homeowners who instal the expensive electricity generation equipment.' promises are deliverable.
No way to run a country. Or a coherent renewable energy policy. Or, too often, the odd medium.
Sadly, I am finding anything originating with our government, even if it arrives having passed through multiple eminent media organs, to be immediately suspect - especially if it is transmitted as '...under proposals to be announced'.
When it's '...commitments that have now been honoured and initiated' I'll take note and cheer.
A while ago the majors and then even the local media told me that secondary schools (like ours) would be offering our kids Mandarin. Then... nothing. So I checked to see what progress there was, only to be told that they were having trouble finding enough teachers to handle French, let alone another, more complex language. In fact I was made to feel silly for not realising that such guff is put out with no intention of delivery, and is mostly copied from a press release and left unchallenged by most media with pages to fill, as all assume it just gets forgotten about anyway.
I also concern myself that if 'Householders will be able to make money by fitting solar panels or mini wind turbines to their roofs, under proposals to be announced in the Budget next week', I do trust the various pros and cons will be clearly shared to ensure the 'long-term financial security to homeowners who instal the expensive electricity generation equipment.' promises are deliverable.
No way to run a country. Or a coherent renewable energy policy. Or, too often, the odd medium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)