This is inspired by a PR piece I read (online) about saving the planet with some eco-books: Dorling Kindersley turns back on gloss for green book range
These go under 'Better than nothing... but...'
Nice little bit of CSR PR , but 'a' range of 'a number of titles'.
Hmnn.
Any numbers on what % of total this is?
And, in devil's advocacy mode, what in the great scheme of things is the actual enviROI- impact of the usual non-ultra 'green' stock/ink, etc vs. the other stuff still involved, namely shipping, etc.
One presumes even non-recycled stock is from managed forests, etc. I have often wondered if these might not be argued as having a carbon sink value that in some way might equate to the processes involved in recycling.
My 'poser' is the last part. Though I am keen to find out more about the totality of the paper industry impact, and what's doing the most in terms of enviROI-, and what can be done to pump up the enviROI+.
I personally love reading paper bound in a form I can look at in my hands. I'd just liek to be sure that waht I do enage with is really that bad... or good.. as is bing made out.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Answers on a postcard*...
Cavalier on climate
'...but is Gordon Brown about to make the same mistakes as his predecessor in Number 10? Saying some of the right things on the international stage, but pressing ahead with policy making as though nothing has changed?'
*Maybe from Bali, Kyoto...
Fascinating ongoing debate in the threads on the difference and/or connections between local, national and international issues. But it is getting hard to sift those with purely political points to score (and may even be paid to trawl and comment in doing so) and those with sincere views, left right or centre.
'...but is Gordon Brown about to make the same mistakes as his predecessor in Number 10? Saying some of the right things on the international stage, but pressing ahead with policy making as though nothing has changed?'
*Maybe from Bali, Kyoto...
Fascinating ongoing debate in the threads on the difference and/or connections between local, national and international issues. But it is getting hard to sift those with purely political points to score (and may even be paid to trawl and comment in doing so) and those with sincere views, left right or centre.
Mirror, mirror, here in the gutter, what's the truth behind what I utter?
Nothing more edifying or informative than a medium talking about media by trying to slag off another medium.
Press panic
Bet he's glad he asked now.
Press panic
Bet he's glad he asked now.
Speaking, I repeat.. speaking is not necessarily saying anything
Hot on the heels of a more trivial example in our PC-obsessed culture of not saying anything (or often doing anything either) we have this: Australian PM please explain? In Mandarin ..
There is also not being pinned down on anything, not matter what. Hence we get this on climate from Australian PM Rudd:
"There has to be a greater synergy between, let's call it our policy leadership in this, which has been focused so much, legitimately, on targets and global architecture, almost reverse-engineered back to the means by which you can quickly deliver outcomes,"
Leadership on the big issues at the best. I await our Dear Leader following suit as it works so well. or maybe we just insist it all happens in Mandarin so we can get an idea of what they actually believe and are up to.
There is also not being pinned down on anything, not matter what. Hence we get this on climate from Australian PM Rudd:
"There has to be a greater synergy between, let's call it our policy leadership in this, which has been focused so much, legitimately, on targets and global architecture, almost reverse-engineered back to the means by which you can quickly deliver outcomes,"
Leadership on the big issues at the best. I await our Dear Leader following suit as it works so well. or maybe we just insist it all happens in Mandarin so we can get an idea of what they actually believe and are up to.
Sticks stones and weasel words
I have missed out on a few grants in my time, not so much of what I do, but because I often can't.. won't say things happen in ways the clipboard jockeys demand.
And I don't sign forms that are not accurate. Despite 'encouragement' to do so to 'help'.
So I was intrigued not only by the story of a couple denied fostering accreditation because they wouldn't say they didn't resort to the odd smack, but by how it got reported and who got plonked onto the BBC sofa to 'discuss'.
Just love the endless troupes of PC 'experts' that get wheeled on, all so happy that if people tell them something they want to hear then it must be true. Which they then trot out on air so we must believe it is fact, too.
Boxes are ticked. Surveys collated. Idealistic worlds and dreamy headlines created. Only 10% approve of smacking? Very likely, along with the 110% who recycle daily. What else are you going to say these days?
Are we really keen on a world where not only do folk lie in a heartbeat to achieve a result, but the authorities and media choose to ignore and accept this inevitable result of their policies and coverage, just to ensure they get the results they want?
And speaking of talking a lot but without much clarity on the doing, I am now watching a piece on the amount of rubbish washing up on the beaches. It is awful... and a disgrace... and I agree that the only possible solution is international action (so all credit to those who have given their free time to doing a tidy and get coverage to make this point).
But as to what actions we are left a little wondering by the statement that 'it's got worse'. Well, D'uh. And as more and more people come online to make, buy, use and dispose of ever more stuff it's likely to get even worse still. All I do, and for now know I can do, is put my rubbish in the designated containers provided.
I don't think it is that productive to use PR and media to tell the public to stop consuming in this simplistic way, as I don't see folk giving up on fish to prevent fishing nets strangling seals.
Perhaps it would be better to focus for public support on the currently woeful actions of some individuals (not sure how effective telling a person who litters not to actually is, mind) and mechanisms of disposal that mean too many of these now sadly inevitable by-products of human activity are ending up in the drink?
Addendum - Welsh beaches plagued by plastic - 'Beaches in Wales have more plastic litter than any other country in the UK, an annual beach survey finds'.
And I don't sign forms that are not accurate. Despite 'encouragement' to do so to 'help'.
So I was intrigued not only by the story of a couple denied fostering accreditation because they wouldn't say they didn't resort to the odd smack, but by how it got reported and who got plonked onto the BBC sofa to 'discuss'.
Just love the endless troupes of PC 'experts' that get wheeled on, all so happy that if people tell them something they want to hear then it must be true. Which they then trot out on air so we must believe it is fact, too.
Boxes are ticked. Surveys collated. Idealistic worlds and dreamy headlines created. Only 10% approve of smacking? Very likely, along with the 110% who recycle daily. What else are you going to say these days?
Are we really keen on a world where not only do folk lie in a heartbeat to achieve a result, but the authorities and media choose to ignore and accept this inevitable result of their policies and coverage, just to ensure they get the results they want?
And speaking of talking a lot but without much clarity on the doing, I am now watching a piece on the amount of rubbish washing up on the beaches. It is awful... and a disgrace... and I agree that the only possible solution is international action (so all credit to those who have given their free time to doing a tidy and get coverage to make this point).
But as to what actions we are left a little wondering by the statement that 'it's got worse'. Well, D'uh. And as more and more people come online to make, buy, use and dispose of ever more stuff it's likely to get even worse still. All I do, and for now know I can do, is put my rubbish in the designated containers provided.
I don't think it is that productive to use PR and media to tell the public to stop consuming in this simplistic way, as I don't see folk giving up on fish to prevent fishing nets strangling seals.
Perhaps it would be better to focus for public support on the currently woeful actions of some individuals (not sure how effective telling a person who litters not to actually is, mind) and mechanisms of disposal that mean too many of these now sadly inevitable by-products of human activity are ending up in the drink?
Addendum - Welsh beaches plagued by plastic - 'Beaches in Wales have more plastic litter than any other country in the UK, an annual beach survey finds'.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Out, damn olive!
Every little bit helps..
Fuel efficiency sees airlines trash cutlery, mags, glasses
Too much to hope they might give thought to the shunting of litres and kilos of duty free hither and thither, especially when we all prefer to buy in a mad panic once we get through Passport Control? Singapore Airlines had a neat scheme (I recall when.. ain't flown much of late) where you pre-ordered and picked up t'other end on the ground before customs -seemed a plan.
I once had an airline client and even pre-enviro-junkie days kept coming up with what I thought were awesome wheezes. One was a suggestion that the classifieds and TV sections got taken out of the complimentary papers, as they could be of no use where they were going and would be out of date upon return.
I got my head patted, and my tush kicked a lot back then. It was 15 years ago, mind. Ahead of my time, I guess..
It just all seems very little... very late. Isn't this an industry that prides itself on being cutting edge? Heck, any small car now is costcut to the penny and lighweighted to the gram these days. Yet still they thought a steel elbow-shattering battering ram of a trolley was the best way to convey lunch up and down.... until now???
Next you'll be telling me some airlines reckon having gold fixtures would be a neat idea!
At least they cottoned early onto saving the planet by recirculating the TB and Bird Flu-soaked air around the passenger cabins, those little eco-tinkers.
Fuel efficiency sees airlines trash cutlery, mags, glasses
Too much to hope they might give thought to the shunting of litres and kilos of duty free hither and thither, especially when we all prefer to buy in a mad panic once we get through Passport Control? Singapore Airlines had a neat scheme (I recall when.. ain't flown much of late) where you pre-ordered and picked up t'other end on the ground before customs -seemed a plan.
I once had an airline client and even pre-enviro-junkie days kept coming up with what I thought were awesome wheezes. One was a suggestion that the classifieds and TV sections got taken out of the complimentary papers, as they could be of no use where they were going and would be out of date upon return.
I got my head patted, and my tush kicked a lot back then. It was 15 years ago, mind. Ahead of my time, I guess..
It just all seems very little... very late. Isn't this an industry that prides itself on being cutting edge? Heck, any small car now is costcut to the penny and lighweighted to the gram these days. Yet still they thought a steel elbow-shattering battering ram of a trolley was the best way to convey lunch up and down.... until now???
Next you'll be telling me some airlines reckon having gold fixtures would be a neat idea!
At least they cottoned early onto saving the planet by recirculating the TB and Bird Flu-soaked air around the passenger cabins, those little eco-tinkers.
Should have engaged brain before opening mouth.........
..... or, just maybe, a prescient view of what might happen to humanity over the coming decades?
Ted Turner (the 'mouth of the south') has had a habit of saying controversial things throughout his life, but some of his comments on what might happen if mankind does not address climate change are, quite frankly, frightening. He thinks overpopulation is the key factor, and thus raises the policy that dare not speak it's name, yet again.
The comments are reported in Information Liberation (not a publication I've come across before).
I'll leave you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions on this one. (Looks like it could be a tough future for vegetarians though. [Tongue very much in cheek])
Ted Turner (the 'mouth of the south') has had a habit of saying controversial things throughout his life, but some of his comments on what might happen if mankind does not address climate change are, quite frankly, frightening. He thinks overpopulation is the key factor, and thus raises the policy that dare not speak it's name, yet again.
The comments are reported in Information Liberation (not a publication I've come across before).
I'll leave you, the reader, to draw your own conclusions on this one. (Looks like it could be a tough future for vegetarians though. [Tongue very much in cheek])
Image problem
Just watching a piece on BBC Brekky about people paving over their drives causing flooding.
In a sedate suburban avenue the reporter posed before a very extensively covered front lawn, upon which was perched a dirty great Merc 4x4.
'Hmnn', I thought. "Why would a drive/vehicle combo like that have been chosen? Ho-hum. Subtle. But there is a fair question to be asked as to why one needs such a thing in such a location. Another story'.
But no, the piece was then introduced as being an alliterative choice (I forget the precise words) between 'Your flora and your four by four'.
So far, so... obvious. It was a front lawn, there must have been a trowel handy to lay it on with.
But then a few moments later, it was email read-out time. Now I don't know if they were shy on things to share, had a rare desire for objective critique sharing, or thought it was a chance to make a bitchy, snarky point that they know best how to 'do' 'reporting', but the bouffant and blonde read out the suggestion from a viewer that 'Perhaps such driveways also play host to more modest vehicles, too'. I have to say it was calmly, fairly, and rather pertinetly put, too.
So, to much curling of lip, we get the 'witty' suggestion that it perhaps should have been 'Peugeots instead of Petunias'.
Another less than fine hour in the great 'we have no subjective agenda' that is the output of our public broadcaster. I am not sure if these front persons write their own stuff, but it's not coming across very well.
Yesterday I took the bouffant to task on a piece on ageism. To a studio guest who had just shared she had lost her job through turning 70 his flip first (I can alliterate too) comment was 'But you don't look it'. My question as to whether her dismissal would have been OK if she had looked it (physical comeliness not being a factor in BBC presenter selection, natch) was not replied to, oddly.
There are points to be made, but if this is the best way they can think to make them I doubt they will create many converts.
ADDENDUM:
Just watched a follow up. And on a more serious, and in one case helpful note this raised a few more tangible issues.
First up, and of relevance, was that many householders were opting for this because the council was introducing paid parking in the street. Well, D'Uh. Why paid? No option for residents permits? No wonder the residents are thinking of solutions closer to home.
Next, there is the very sensible consideration that if you do opt this way, go porous! This option needed much positive promotion.
I'll also bolt on some commentary about a related issue (as brought up)... flooding.
I fully accept that this trend will not help with run off. But the point was raised as to how this stacks up against paving over vast tracts of virgin countryside with new towns, however eco.
And it was also shared that people who had been flooded last year were not doing much to protect themselves against future floods. Well, speaking personally, I still await any sensible response beyond 'look at the website' or 'do you want a sandbag' from my council or the Environment Agency as to what options I might engage.
So I am none too surprised that the proactive measures being taken by householders are not that great, especially whilst wondering if the authorities might get around to addressing the bigger picture (clear drains, etc) first.
In a sedate suburban avenue the reporter posed before a very extensively covered front lawn, upon which was perched a dirty great Merc 4x4.
'Hmnn', I thought. "Why would a drive/vehicle combo like that have been chosen? Ho-hum. Subtle. But there is a fair question to be asked as to why one needs such a thing in such a location. Another story'.
But no, the piece was then introduced as being an alliterative choice (I forget the precise words) between 'Your flora and your four by four'.
So far, so... obvious. It was a front lawn, there must have been a trowel handy to lay it on with.
But then a few moments later, it was email read-out time. Now I don't know if they were shy on things to share, had a rare desire for objective critique sharing, or thought it was a chance to make a bitchy, snarky point that they know best how to 'do' 'reporting', but the bouffant and blonde read out the suggestion from a viewer that 'Perhaps such driveways also play host to more modest vehicles, too'. I have to say it was calmly, fairly, and rather pertinetly put, too.
So, to much curling of lip, we get the 'witty' suggestion that it perhaps should have been 'Peugeots instead of Petunias'.
Another less than fine hour in the great 'we have no subjective agenda' that is the output of our public broadcaster. I am not sure if these front persons write their own stuff, but it's not coming across very well.
Yesterday I took the bouffant to task on a piece on ageism. To a studio guest who had just shared she had lost her job through turning 70 his flip first (I can alliterate too) comment was 'But you don't look it'. My question as to whether her dismissal would have been OK if she had looked it (physical comeliness not being a factor in BBC presenter selection, natch) was not replied to, oddly.
There are points to be made, but if this is the best way they can think to make them I doubt they will create many converts.
ADDENDUM:
Just watched a follow up. And on a more serious, and in one case helpful note this raised a few more tangible issues.
First up, and of relevance, was that many householders were opting for this because the council was introducing paid parking in the street. Well, D'Uh. Why paid? No option for residents permits? No wonder the residents are thinking of solutions closer to home.
Next, there is the very sensible consideration that if you do opt this way, go porous! This option needed much positive promotion.
I'll also bolt on some commentary about a related issue (as brought up)... flooding.
I fully accept that this trend will not help with run off. But the point was raised as to how this stacks up against paving over vast tracts of virgin countryside with new towns, however eco.
And it was also shared that people who had been flooded last year were not doing much to protect themselves against future floods. Well, speaking personally, I still await any sensible response beyond 'look at the website' or 'do you want a sandbag' from my council or the Environment Agency as to what options I might engage.
So I am none too surprised that the proactive measures being taken by householders are not that great, especially whilst wondering if the authorities might get around to addressing the bigger picture (clear drains, etc) first.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Just for a wee moment......
.... I thought our PM had emerged from his bunker (reported in Luton Today), but it seems it was just another anti-aviation protester donning a mask.
Ol' Golden seems to have disappeared off the face of the planet. So just where is our PM?
Anyone have a clue?
Ol' Golden seems to have disappeared off the face of the planet. So just where is our PM?
Anyone have a clue?
It takes two to tango?
That's a dance of passion with a lot of to'ing and fro'ing right? At least it looks great and entertains. Unlike most serious climate-related discussion.
Newsnight - Monday, 7 April, 2007
Well, there's a big climate surprise.
Another Newsnight twofer with only protagonists from opposing poles ('scuse pun - I wonder if they bumped there into any reporters/advisers/analysts/gurus left who are not en route to Beijing, doing a slot about melting ice due to folk flying up there to do slots on melting ice).
One saying there's nothing to worry about so let's do nothing much (ps: there's a book to plug and he used to be 'something famous..ish'), and the other saying there's heaps to worry about, so let's do lots less (but keep the funds coming).
I meanwhile, remain none the wiser. Still.
Is there anyone who might get on screen who is not in the pay of someone or servant of a rigid agenda in this regard?
Newsnight - Monday, 7 April, 2007
Well, there's a big climate surprise.
Another Newsnight twofer with only protagonists from opposing poles ('scuse pun - I wonder if they bumped there into any reporters/advisers/analysts/gurus left who are not en route to Beijing, doing a slot about melting ice due to folk flying up there to do slots on melting ice).
One saying there's nothing to worry about so let's do nothing much (ps: there's a book to plug and he used to be 'something famous..ish'), and the other saying there's heaps to worry about, so let's do lots less (but keep the funds coming).
I meanwhile, remain none the wiser. Still.
Is there anyone who might get on screen who is not in the pay of someone or servant of a rigid agenda in this regard?
Now things are getting really serious!
As reported in the Inquirer.
Australian and New Zealand Pubs are going to run out of lager beer as the shortage of malting barley hits!
This is an effect of GW that is going to cause real panic!
Addendum(Junkk Male): I'd been looking for aplace for this: Challenges ahead for brewers' 'green' beer drive
Australian and New Zealand Pubs are going to run out of lager beer as the shortage of malting barley hits!
This is an effect of GW that is going to cause real panic!
Addendum(Junkk Male): I'd been looking for aplace for this: Challenges ahead for brewers' 'green' beer drive
NEWS/Commercial PR - Educational Tool for School
PR as supplied, with edits for space.NEW RESOURCES TO HELP TEACHERS ‘THINK CANS IN THE CLASSROOM’
Novelis Recycling has launched free site ‘Think Cans in the Classroom’ as part of its ongoing programme to link aluminium recycling to core curriculum subjects. The web-based resources provide a range of interactive activities for teachers in primary and secondary schools, plus supplementary information for parents and pupils.
Novelis Recycling has developed the resources in close consultation with teachers and education professionals; including experts from Catalyst Science Discovery Museum
and Thinktank, Birmingham Science Museum. In addition to updating the site’s existing resources for primary schools, new features have been added, including lesson plans for Key Stage 4 (14-16 years) Enterprise and GCSE science.
Think Cans in the Classroom also includes updated resources for primary schools, with activities that can be used across the curriculum in subjects ranging from Science to Design Technology. There is also information for parents to help them reinforce children’s learning at home.
It's not just me, then
CARBON OFFSET - IS THIS A MARKETING PLOY RIPE FOR DISCREDIT?
'..got me thinking...'
You and us, all, mate!
For a start, I first of all defy anyone to come up with a clear, coherent notion of what these 'carbon' prefixed notions (offset, neutral, footprint..) actually mean, much less as tangible, trustworthy measures of positive enviROI when put into 'practice'.
It's such a pity. I am no great fan of targets, but in the great scheme of things some measures of what is happening are needed to get a handle on what is going on... at the very least to figure out what may or may not be helping.
But it has all become such cowboy territory, pretty much the whole lot has become totally tarnished, especially in the key area of consumer awareness. And in so doing has dragged some potentially worthy areas down with it all.
I try and stay objective, and informed. But thanks to all that has gone down so far I find it hard to find greet any initiative/message that has 'carbon' in it, and especially when in marketing materials, with anything but an already well-cranked eyebrow.
It simply conjures up visions of those silly bankers in some Andalusian retreat trying to brainstorm up the next superficial spin, to cover up rather than actually addressing the real issue.
The environment can be a great opportunity to see gold in green, but only if the mindset goes from trying to address it as a 'problem' to be 'dealt' with. Or purely exploit short term.
It can indeed be a great opportunity, but only as part of an overall ethical whole, and not just to score a quick bit of PR or slogan.
There is a crying need for some measure, including gold-standard, peer-reviewed provenance chains, that the individual can trust, to help them arrive at an informed decision (and not just a sop) in their purchasing patterns.
But on past and present evidence, from international governance to national commerce or even media involvement, I am not holding my breath (well, we all might have to soon, but that's another story).
'..got me thinking...'
You and us, all, mate!
For a start, I first of all defy anyone to come up with a clear, coherent notion of what these 'carbon' prefixed notions (offset, neutral, footprint..) actually mean, much less as tangible, trustworthy measures of positive enviROI when put into 'practice'.
It's such a pity. I am no great fan of targets, but in the great scheme of things some measures of what is happening are needed to get a handle on what is going on... at the very least to figure out what may or may not be helping.
But it has all become such cowboy territory, pretty much the whole lot has become totally tarnished, especially in the key area of consumer awareness. And in so doing has dragged some potentially worthy areas down with it all.
I try and stay objective, and informed. But thanks to all that has gone down so far I find it hard to find greet any initiative/message that has 'carbon' in it, and especially when in marketing materials, with anything but an already well-cranked eyebrow.
It simply conjures up visions of those silly bankers in some Andalusian retreat trying to brainstorm up the next superficial spin, to cover up rather than actually addressing the real issue.
The environment can be a great opportunity to see gold in green, but only if the mindset goes from trying to address it as a 'problem' to be 'dealt' with. Or purely exploit short term.
It can indeed be a great opportunity, but only as part of an overall ethical whole, and not just to score a quick bit of PR or slogan.
There is a crying need for some measure, including gold-standard, peer-reviewed provenance chains, that the individual can trust, to help them arrive at an informed decision (and not just a sop) in their purchasing patterns.
But on past and present evidence, from international governance to national commerce or even media involvement, I am not holding my breath (well, we all might have to soon, but that's another story).
What a hummer!
This from WhatCar had me smiling somewhat.
Seems that Hummer have made huge inroads into improving the efficiency of their engine for the Hummer H2 (Yours for only £48,995!!).
The new engine has reduced CO2 emissions 20%, some 100g/km. Sounds great, doesn't it? But the new engine still emits a stonking 412g/km!! Oh, and its fuel economy has improved from 13.2 mpg to 16.2 mpg.
Still, I reckon it demonstrates that even the really 'dirty' players in the auto market are starting to take note that humanity needs to do something about reducing carbon emissions.
Seems that Hummer have made huge inroads into improving the efficiency of their engine for the Hummer H2 (Yours for only £48,995!!).
The new engine has reduced CO2 emissions 20%, some 100g/km. Sounds great, doesn't it? But the new engine still emits a stonking 412g/km!! Oh, and its fuel economy has improved from 13.2 mpg to 16.2 mpg.
Still, I reckon it demonstrates that even the really 'dirty' players in the auto market are starting to take note that humanity needs to do something about reducing carbon emissions.
NEWS/Commercial PR - And the next logical step is... reuse!
What's not to like about Lush? Even the name gives you a warm fuzzy glow. Well, now their packaging can make that feeling radiate from within even more... by becoming made from recycled plastics.PR as received, with the usual edits for space:
LUSH COSMETICS SWITCH TO 100% RECYCLED BOTTLES AND POTS
Brand Lush have launched 100% post-consumer recycled bottles and pots. They know that the best kind of packaging is no packaging at all, but recognise that some packaging is necessary, for liquid products such as shower gels and moisturisers, for example. This initiative means that they save about 115 tonnes of CO2, and are also saving nearly 90 tonnes of virgin plastic or 900 barrels of oil each year. The plastic in the bottles and pots can also be recycled again, and customers are encouraged to reuse* or recycle themselves, or to bring clean pots back (to encourage customers to do this Lush are offering a free fresh face mask for every 5 empty pots brought back to the store).
*Top start. But another reason we're running this feature is that we're hoping to persuade them to also upload their range details, as have the likes of those nice folks at ecover, onto the Junkk.com site to see what can be made of them afterwards as well! Which kind of works for all in the mix... consumer, brand... and planet:)
A voice in the wilderness?
Like I can get this lot to change their minds: Striking a balance on climate warnings
Navel-gazing is, one has to concede, hard to resist. And for some it can be profitable. While there's no doubt that some self-analysis can be worthwhile, if not downright necessary.
This piece raises some key points about the mindset of what, I rather suspect, is a vocal minority, and generally from the extremes of the (Probably man-worsened, negative impact - my preferred prefix) climate change 'debate'. And it is a fair complement to another, raised recently on these pages, which sadly was closed for comment before any could be made:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/04/ears-of-babes.html
(now I have.. a cheeky fix, sorry)
I prefer not to get into these endless 'tis/t'isn't happening' matches as they seem, frankly, unwinnable exercises in going nowhere... if loudly and painfully.
And with the vast pressures of environmental issues having to be weighed against the equally potent influences of economic factors on a finite living space with increasing population, I have nothing but sympathy with those in power sincerely (important distinction) trying to understand where 'we' are, where 'we' are going, need to go and hence make some well tricky decisions whilst keeping their jobs.
But as a matter of principle, in motivating more than those who just like to tick a box or score a debating point, I'd simply like to advocate that those who truly do care about the future, and would like to try and influence our progress into it (I was going to add 'for the better', but that opens new cans of worms) spend a wee bit more time on encouraging the positives. And certainly a lot less blowing up, and blowing up over the all too frequent nags, nannies, bans, woes, fines, guilt trips and other less than inspiring or motivating methods that are mostly being used to such 'great' effect (not) in getting the majority of the public as individuals to try a bit harder to change their collective lifestyles.
Seek end-benefit-driven, reward/incentive-based actions, make them work and share their successes. And people may well get on board. Seems to work with most advertising in our consumer-driven systems.
Endless doom and gloom is not the best motivator. Which is why life assurers don't sell policies based on 'You're gonna die!' as the primary message, no matter how accurate and to the point it may be.
But sadly, 'Good News' is accepted as a tough sell in the media world. Maybe time to rise to the challenge of making it work... and profitably?
Yes, the title does say 'striking a balance', which seems to accept that the near total commitment to 'we're all doooomed' is not working, but I fear the advocacy to seeking a new way of persuasion is too little... hopefully not too late.
I just want to achieve a result. Don't care too much how it's done, so long as it is done well, for the right reasons... and quick.
Navel-gazing is, one has to concede, hard to resist. And for some it can be profitable. While there's no doubt that some self-analysis can be worthwhile, if not downright necessary.
This piece raises some key points about the mindset of what, I rather suspect, is a vocal minority, and generally from the extremes of the (Probably man-worsened, negative impact - my preferred prefix) climate change 'debate'. And it is a fair complement to another, raised recently on these pages, which sadly was closed for comment before any could be made:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/04/ears-of-babes.html
(now I have.. a cheeky fix, sorry)
I prefer not to get into these endless 'tis/t'isn't happening' matches as they seem, frankly, unwinnable exercises in going nowhere... if loudly and painfully.
And with the vast pressures of environmental issues having to be weighed against the equally potent influences of economic factors on a finite living space with increasing population, I have nothing but sympathy with those in power sincerely (important distinction) trying to understand where 'we' are, where 'we' are going, need to go and hence make some well tricky decisions whilst keeping their jobs.
But as a matter of principle, in motivating more than those who just like to tick a box or score a debating point, I'd simply like to advocate that those who truly do care about the future, and would like to try and influence our progress into it (I was going to add 'for the better', but that opens new cans of worms) spend a wee bit more time on encouraging the positives. And certainly a lot less blowing up, and blowing up over the all too frequent nags, nannies, bans, woes, fines, guilt trips and other less than inspiring or motivating methods that are mostly being used to such 'great' effect (not) in getting the majority of the public as individuals to try a bit harder to change their collective lifestyles.
Seek end-benefit-driven, reward/incentive-based actions, make them work and share their successes. And people may well get on board. Seems to work with most advertising in our consumer-driven systems.
Endless doom and gloom is not the best motivator. Which is why life assurers don't sell policies based on 'You're gonna die!' as the primary message, no matter how accurate and to the point it may be.
But sadly, 'Good News' is accepted as a tough sell in the media world. Maybe time to rise to the challenge of making it work... and profitably?
Yes, the title does say 'striking a balance', which seems to accept that the near total commitment to 'we're all doooomed' is not working, but I fear the advocacy to seeking a new way of persuasion is too little... hopefully not too late.
I just want to achieve a result. Don't care too much how it's done, so long as it is done well, for the right reasons... and quick.
CATEGORY - COMPETITION - Post-it/Win a Smart Car
Now, these are without doubt 'commercial', but as they are enviro-related (with, usually, a 'green' prize) I figure they are a 'worth-sharing, 'why not?'. As advised:
WHEN: Now.. 'til the 29th of April
WHAT: Buy it. Plant it. Win it.
WHAT... MORE?: Via the URL
HOW MUCH: Well, you do need to buy some Post-its
URL: http://www.3m.com/intl/uk/GetSmart/index.html?WT.mc_id=www.post-it.co.uk/getsmart
COMMENTS: I have some views on whacking a fir in the firmament at the first offsetting opportunity, so make sure you think it's kosher..
AND NOW, AN APOLOGY...
I just got this:
'Unfortunately the survey was posted on several promotional websites without our permission, resulting in a very high number of unwanted survey responses which we are unable to separate from valid responses received from our selected addressees.
We have therefore had to abort the last survey and discard the information but we are still keen to receive your views and kindly ask you to complete the survey again.'
Well, guys, good luck with that. I get a bazillion emails a day, and this one struck a chord as a not bad freebie. I'm sorry if I passed on what I got as a mass email 'without permission', but frankly didn't think I needed any, and didn't see any advice on restrictions to entry or broadcast. However, my apology is to all I shared this with who it seems, like me, pretty much wasted their time on a bit of marketing that was not exactly well thought through, or at least explained. I wonder if it will pop up in the ASA adjudications.
WHEN: Now.. 'til the 29th of April
WHAT: Buy it. Plant it. Win it.
WHAT... MORE?: Via the URL
HOW MUCH: Well, you do need to buy some Post-its
URL: http://www.3m.com/intl/uk/GetSmart/index.html?WT.mc_id=www.post-it.co.uk/getsmart
COMMENTS: I have some views on whacking a fir in the firmament at the first offsetting opportunity, so make sure you think it's kosher..
AND NOW, AN APOLOGY...
I just got this:
'Unfortunately the survey was posted on several promotional websites without our permission, resulting in a very high number of unwanted survey responses which we are unable to separate from valid responses received from our selected addressees.
We have therefore had to abort the last survey and discard the information but we are still keen to receive your views and kindly ask you to complete the survey again.'
Well, guys, good luck with that. I get a bazillion emails a day, and this one struck a chord as a not bad freebie. I'm sorry if I passed on what I got as a mass email 'without permission', but frankly didn't think I needed any, and didn't see any advice on restrictions to entry or broadcast. However, my apology is to all I shared this with who it seems, like me, pretty much wasted their time on a bit of marketing that was not exactly well thought through, or at least explained. I wonder if it will pop up in the ASA adjudications.
Monday, April 07, 2008
CATEGORY - BOX-TICKING
Had to be kicked off, for all the good it will do...
Guardian - Ticking the boxes
I think we need funding to do a study into all the funding for studies into the sheer waste of time, money and space that is represented by the exponentially-growing box-ticking industry and those who gravitate into it with agendas above and beyond simply making sure what is happening is happening for good reasons and a decent ROI to those paying. It might go a long way to explaining how and why a pot of money is a) denuded on self-serving empires before any is allocated and b) what's left usually gets to go to some very odd places indeed.
Guardian - Ticking the boxes
I think we need funding to do a study into all the funding for studies into the sheer waste of time, money and space that is represented by the exponentially-growing box-ticking industry and those who gravitate into it with agendas above and beyond simply making sure what is happening is happening for good reasons and a decent ROI to those paying. It might go a long way to explaining how and why a pot of money is a) denuded on self-serving empires before any is allocated and b) what's left usually gets to go to some very odd places indeed.
Ears of babes
It's one of those odd 'cock-up... or something more significant?' moments when dealing with our 'major' media and their 'free' blogs.
How do you tell your children about climate change?
A thoughtful piece, which I thought deserved a thoughtful answer.
However, for some reason, comments were/are 'closed' almost as soon as it went up. I don't really pretend to understand the technical reasons, but as a policy it's hard to think why. By my way of thinking, once up stuff should stay up, and can be added to ad infinitum thereafter. This message, on such an innocuous piece, seems downright weird.
Anyway, as the question was posed I felt an answer was/is appropriate, if for no other audience than myself... or you if you are still reading.
The word honesty is used in the piece, and I think that is core. I am luckier than the author in that I do not 'know' as much as she obviously does, so when it comes to consequences I might be less prone to kick off by trying to terrify them.
Thing is, they are getting bombarded from all quarters, and as one of their life guides, along with the missus I do see the need to be there to help wherever possible; a bit of context here, an amplification there... and even the odd 'well, do you believe everything everyone says no matter what?'.
I'm not too sure what they are getting served up as part of the curriculum at school, but thought being shown 'The Inconvenient Truth', even with a side order booklet of 'what it should mean is..' was not the best I'd have hoped for. Especially as many teachers might not be at the cutting edge of knowledge on the issue which, as one who is middling at best is, if we're honest... 'we don't know, but best to get our heads around it now as it might well be very important, though not as important as getting re-elected, generating funds or boosting ratings'.
I certainly was not giving 'em green books at age six, especially any that try to justify their cover price and (often very worthy) contents with a bit of preamble as to why all this stuff might be best to get on board with... NOW!!!!!
There's also a slight danger they might buy too much into the token Twee-Green notions of 'more and more cars on the roads. Maybe too many planes too. Maybe trains as well, but only a little bit' but, as noted, that does allow one to segue into the notion that maybe it's more '...because we had too many lights on too'. After 11 years I am still switching off after them mind.
Thing is, reading such as the Guardian and books like this made/makes me feel really worried, too. And yes, I still feel miserable thinking about it now. Maybe I should, but it's no way to live life to the max. Trust me. I am often in a blue funk bunker mode just trying to figure out what to do, because doing causes stuff, and stuff causes...
So I sure as hell will be doing all I can to ensure my kids learn to live theirs fully whilst also having as good a grounding as I can give them to use only what they need, and to waste as little as possible. In as positive, rewarding and entertaining a way as I can concoct.
Too late for me, but I don't think worry and misery are the best motivators around.
How do you tell your children about climate change?
A thoughtful piece, which I thought deserved a thoughtful answer.
However, for some reason, comments were/are 'closed' almost as soon as it went up. I don't really pretend to understand the technical reasons, but as a policy it's hard to think why. By my way of thinking, once up stuff should stay up, and can be added to ad infinitum thereafter. This message, on such an innocuous piece, seems downright weird.
Anyway, as the question was posed I felt an answer was/is appropriate, if for no other audience than myself... or you if you are still reading.
The word honesty is used in the piece, and I think that is core. I am luckier than the author in that I do not 'know' as much as she obviously does, so when it comes to consequences I might be less prone to kick off by trying to terrify them.
Thing is, they are getting bombarded from all quarters, and as one of their life guides, along with the missus I do see the need to be there to help wherever possible; a bit of context here, an amplification there... and even the odd 'well, do you believe everything everyone says no matter what?'.
I'm not too sure what they are getting served up as part of the curriculum at school, but thought being shown 'The Inconvenient Truth', even with a side order booklet of 'what it should mean is..' was not the best I'd have hoped for. Especially as many teachers might not be at the cutting edge of knowledge on the issue which, as one who is middling at best is, if we're honest... 'we don't know, but best to get our heads around it now as it might well be very important, though not as important as getting re-elected, generating funds or boosting ratings'.
I certainly was not giving 'em green books at age six, especially any that try to justify their cover price and (often very worthy) contents with a bit of preamble as to why all this stuff might be best to get on board with... NOW!!!!!
There's also a slight danger they might buy too much into the token Twee-Green notions of 'more and more cars on the roads. Maybe too many planes too. Maybe trains as well, but only a little bit' but, as noted, that does allow one to segue into the notion that maybe it's more '...because we had too many lights on too'. After 11 years I am still switching off after them mind.
Thing is, reading such as the Guardian and books like this made/makes me feel really worried, too. And yes, I still feel miserable thinking about it now. Maybe I should, but it's no way to live life to the max. Trust me. I am often in a blue funk bunker mode just trying to figure out what to do, because doing causes stuff, and stuff causes...
So I sure as hell will be doing all I can to ensure my kids learn to live theirs fully whilst also having as good a grounding as I can give them to use only what they need, and to waste as little as possible. In as positive, rewarding and entertaining a way as I can concoct.
Too late for me, but I don't think worry and misery are the best motivators around.
The single greatest threat...
A piece (front page admittedly), by a scientist (not an insignificant one, mind) in a paper (well, speaking of 'significance'... Climate target is not radical enough - study
Meanwhile, the rest of the media and government are a bit busy elsewhere today, tomorrow... next week...
I know I don't usually 'go here', but no wonder this is proving tricky for the public/consumer to get their heads around in terms of truth, priority, best actions...
Meanwhile, the rest of the media and government are a bit busy elsewhere today, tomorrow... next week...
I know I don't usually 'go here', but no wonder this is proving tricky for the public/consumer to get their heads around in terms of truth, priority, best actions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)