Of late there has been a lot of criticism of bio-ethanol as a fuel, especially that derived from what would otherwise be used as food crops. But this article from Business Week questions a few of the criticisms, and points out that the rush, at least in the USA, to produce ethanol from corn (we still call it maize on our side of the pond), has not contributed as much to the increasing cost of corn than is assumed.
A thought provoking article that is well worth a perusal.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Friday, May 02, 2008
BA fleet goes hybrid
When I saw this headline I had this peculiar vision of rows of Boeing 747-800 Prius models lined up at Heathrow, with tons of batteries in their holds getting charged up off the mains!
But, alas, no. This story from FleetNews.co.uk reports that BA are going to equip its sales force with a fleet of Honda Civic Hybrids.
“We have set ourselves targets not only to cut emissions in the air but also on the ground and each driver will be reducing their carbon footprint by one third every year through this strategy.”
I suppose every little bit helps.
But, alas, no. This story from FleetNews.co.uk reports that BA are going to equip its sales force with a fleet of Honda Civic Hybrids.
“We have set ourselves targets not only to cut emissions in the air but also on the ground and each driver will be reducing their carbon footprint by one third every year through this strategy.”
I suppose every little bit helps.
The pen is mighty funny
Dilbert hasn't played green for a while (but has gone colour in the interim...not sure I'm keen), but now he has, he has returned in style.
Why not over here?
This from a regional Irish Newspaper, the Guardian, highlights just what a government committed to actually doing something (rather than just talking about doing it) can achieve.
"The homeowner will pre-pay €100 towards the cost of this assessment, with Sustainable Energy Ireland subsidising the balance. Approximately two thirds of the cost of this assessment, will therefore, will be covered by the Government. The assessor may advise that the house requires such work as attic insulation, interior or exterior wall insulation, low emissions double-glazing, heating control or a range of other energy efficient works. Grants will then cover up to 30% of the cost of these works, to a maximum of €2,500. On completion of the works a follow-up energy assessment on the building will be undertaken so that there is a 'before and after' test of what has been done."
Simple, assessable, checkable and measurable benefits!
So, the big question is, why have our own Gov's schemes been such a total dog's breakfast, to the point where the majority have now been passed into the hands of the big utility companies? Is it simply that, for our lot, 'talking about doing' is just that much easier then 'doing'?
"The homeowner will pre-pay €100 towards the cost of this assessment, with Sustainable Energy Ireland subsidising the balance. Approximately two thirds of the cost of this assessment, will therefore, will be covered by the Government. The assessor may advise that the house requires such work as attic insulation, interior or exterior wall insulation, low emissions double-glazing, heating control or a range of other energy efficient works. Grants will then cover up to 30% of the cost of these works, to a maximum of €2,500. On completion of the works a follow-up energy assessment on the building will be undertaken so that there is a 'before and after' test of what has been done."
Simple, assessable, checkable and measurable benefits!
So, the big question is, why have our own Gov's schemes been such a total dog's breakfast, to the point where the majority have now been passed into the hands of the big utility companies? Is it simply that, for our lot, 'talking about doing' is just that much easier then 'doing'?
Plan for greener dairy industry
An interesting article from NewsSniffer, regarding the plans to make the dairy industry 'greener'.
Lots of well intentioned plans and targets included:-
"the roadmap aimed to address the environmental consequences of producing liquid milk through the supply chain from farms to retailers."
"Producers have also pledged to improve water efficiency by up to 15% per litre, source 40% of energy from renewables by 2020 and recycle or recover 70% of non-natural waste on farms."
"Processors have committed to doing their bit by aiming to source 20% of non-transport energy from renewables or combined heat and power, and to a 30% reduction in water use."
All well and good, but I can't help commenting on this one in particular:-
"The Milk Roadmap includes measures such as sourcing half of all packaging from recycled materials by 2020."
Only half? When I was much, much younger, we all had 100% reusable and recyclable milk containers. I seem to recollect that they were made out of glass, and we called them, errrr ..... what was it, oh yes, I remember now ....... bottles!
Lots of well intentioned plans and targets included:-
"the roadmap aimed to address the environmental consequences of producing liquid milk through the supply chain from farms to retailers."
"Producers have also pledged to improve water efficiency by up to 15% per litre, source 40% of energy from renewables by 2020 and recycle or recover 70% of non-natural waste on farms."
"Processors have committed to doing their bit by aiming to source 20% of non-transport energy from renewables or combined heat and power, and to a 30% reduction in water use."
All well and good, but I can't help commenting on this one in particular:-
"The Milk Roadmap includes measures such as sourcing half of all packaging from recycled materials by 2020."
Only half? When I was much, much younger, we all had 100% reusable and recyclable milk containers. I seem to recollect that they were made out of glass, and we called them, errrr ..... what was it, oh yes, I remember now ....... bottles!
5...4...3...2...
I am not a great believer in 'days'. Especially days 'off'. Well, other than the obvious (me...not sitting here).
Most so far have either not worked, backfired, or highlighted just how addicted we are, or forced by survival to consuming, and frankly any extreme version just comes across as silly.
I'll make an exception here: shutdownday.org
It's billed as an experiment. So I'll be interested in the results. And... how they are interpreted and shared... and reported upon.
The theory is nice, and by making it a weekend they are setting a more realistic bar.
Thing is, I will not be taking part. Because I can't. Simply to much to do. And a lot happens at the weekend.
Hence while I give thumbs up to the principle, sadly it's thumbs down to the reality. But it will be interesting to return and see how it pans out.
Most so far have either not worked, backfired, or highlighted just how addicted we are, or forced by survival to consuming, and frankly any extreme version just comes across as silly.
I'll make an exception here: shutdownday.org
It's billed as an experiment. So I'll be interested in the results. And... how they are interpreted and shared... and reported upon.
The theory is nice, and by making it a weekend they are setting a more realistic bar.
Thing is, I will not be taking part. Because I can't. Simply to much to do. And a lot happens at the weekend.
Hence while I give thumbs up to the principle, sadly it's thumbs down to the reality. But it will be interesting to return and see how it pans out.
Suffer little children
Can science exhibitions help children become eco-aware?
I've noticed this journalistic trend of posing such a question in such a way quite a bit, so I guess it works, but personally find it odd. But I guess it gives you a chance to try to answer your question, along with the rest of us. So...
Of course they can.
But as you go on to describe, and as with anything, what the intentions are, to whom they are directed and how well the communication is executed will decide the success, or otherwise, of the outcome.
Simplistically, there are three basic mechanisms at play, and which are not different from sending kids to school: primarily eduction, pretty much the umbrella instilled by information and entertainment.
The trick is to have enough of the latter to create receptive minds for the former to sink in as the fun part is enjoyed.
Sounds like this particular event was pretty good. But as you note, it is very much down to the ages involved.
And that goes to what a lot of trendy types who like to meddle a lot think those 'in their care' need to think, and then work hard, with lots of lovely money to set about shaping.
Despite being in a household not bereft of opinionated discussion and pretty chock full of enviro reminders on why everything, from energy to waste to water IS important, my 11 year olds I'd put at aware, but really with other issues top of mind.
That might dismay the box-tickers, but doesn't faze me. They have plenty of time yet, and by living with good examples and reasoned explanations, I am confident they will come to form their own views, leading to actions I think will not do poorly for the future.
I just think foisting concerns on kids about climate change and hoping they will suddenly have insights that currently escape consensus in the science community is asking a bit much.
Make it fun. Salt it with information. They'll get the message. Just... who decides which one it's supposed to be? I think that's still our job as parents.
I've noticed this journalistic trend of posing such a question in such a way quite a bit, so I guess it works, but personally find it odd. But I guess it gives you a chance to try to answer your question, along with the rest of us. So...
Of course they can.
But as you go on to describe, and as with anything, what the intentions are, to whom they are directed and how well the communication is executed will decide the success, or otherwise, of the outcome.
Simplistically, there are three basic mechanisms at play, and which are not different from sending kids to school: primarily eduction, pretty much the umbrella instilled by information and entertainment.
The trick is to have enough of the latter to create receptive minds for the former to sink in as the fun part is enjoyed.
Sounds like this particular event was pretty good. But as you note, it is very much down to the ages involved.
And that goes to what a lot of trendy types who like to meddle a lot think those 'in their care' need to think, and then work hard, with lots of lovely money to set about shaping.
Despite being in a household not bereft of opinionated discussion and pretty chock full of enviro reminders on why everything, from energy to waste to water IS important, my 11 year olds I'd put at aware, but really with other issues top of mind.
That might dismay the box-tickers, but doesn't faze me. They have plenty of time yet, and by living with good examples and reasoned explanations, I am confident they will come to form their own views, leading to actions I think will not do poorly for the future.
I just think foisting concerns on kids about climate change and hoping they will suddenly have insights that currently escape consensus in the science community is asking a bit much.
Make it fun. Salt it with information. They'll get the message. Just... who decides which one it's supposed to be? I think that's still our job as parents.
CATEGORY - BOOKS
Trying to pull this category together (see labels for previous posts)
ARTICLES
Guardian - Turning over an old leaf - Good leads (must add 'em below one day)
Guardian - Get green with a book swap scheme
INFORMATION
BookMooch.com - US-based
ReadItSwapIt.co.uk
ARTICLES
Guardian - Turning over an old leaf - Good leads (must add 'em below one day)
Guardian - Get green with a book swap scheme
INFORMATION
BookMooch.com - US-based
ReadItSwapIt.co.uk
Policy is from politicians. And politicians react to voters.
The green tax revolt: Britons will not foot bill to save planet, poll shows
Whatever may be said, those in power want, first and foremost, to stay there. And you don't do that by running against the will of those who vote.
After their performance of late, I am not expecting much from the incumbents.
Of course, other than poorly thought-out and possibly plain daft enviROI- tax-or headline-grabbing tinkering that just irritates or puts folk off anything that is billed as 'green'. Like they have worked so well, so far.
Green campaigners are right to be dismayed, but many (not all) also need to look to themselves as well for way too many petty, self-serving Planet Ban-it campaigns, especially on trivial issues.
And with hard-working folk under ever more pressures on time and income, the sheer number of fund-draining initiatives... and personnel... being imposed on the tax/ratepayer or donor by government, LAs, quangos, and activist groups, is looking like a heck of a burden to carry in the face of difficult to comprehend, and still very poorly communicated (despite multi-million £ comms budgets) climatic times.
An awful lot of folk saying an awful lot of things and very little being DONE to actually derive many worthwhile, end-benefit results that folk can relate to. Or TRUST. When it comes to much that of necessity involves effort or cost in less than fun ways - like reduction or mitigation - it's not easy, but the current lot don't seem to be doing it very well... as these findings would suggest.
I do not however imagine seeing a reduction in the green-tosh/wash/scare/target/nanny/offset industries, etc and all the associated 'green hangers-on' (inc. many in the media, who often jaunt, irony free, to Bali at the drop of a conference to decry unnecessary jaunting) anytime soon.
Whatever may be said, those in power want, first and foremost, to stay there. And you don't do that by running against the will of those who vote.
After their performance of late, I am not expecting much from the incumbents.
Of course, other than poorly thought-out and possibly plain daft enviROI- tax-or headline-grabbing tinkering that just irritates or puts folk off anything that is billed as 'green'. Like they have worked so well, so far.
Green campaigners are right to be dismayed, but many (not all) also need to look to themselves as well for way too many petty, self-serving Planet Ban-it campaigns, especially on trivial issues.
And with hard-working folk under ever more pressures on time and income, the sheer number of fund-draining initiatives... and personnel... being imposed on the tax/ratepayer or donor by government, LAs, quangos, and activist groups, is looking like a heck of a burden to carry in the face of difficult to comprehend, and still very poorly communicated (despite multi-million £ comms budgets) climatic times.
An awful lot of folk saying an awful lot of things and very little being DONE to actually derive many worthwhile, end-benefit results that folk can relate to. Or TRUST. When it comes to much that of necessity involves effort or cost in less than fun ways - like reduction or mitigation - it's not easy, but the current lot don't seem to be doing it very well... as these findings would suggest.
I do not however imagine seeing a reduction in the green-tosh/wash/scare/target/nanny/offset industries, etc and all the associated 'green hangers-on' (inc. many in the media, who often jaunt, irony free, to Bali at the drop of a conference to decry unnecessary jaunting) anytime soon.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - Into the mouths of babes?
In light of all that has happened in the world of environmental issues, policies, taxes, etc of late, I can but share what has just arrived in my in-box, E&EO:
The Aldersgate Group, a coalition of businesses and environmental groups, supports the Prime Minister's vision for the green economy, which he described as the 'fourth technological revolution' of our time. In a speech today to business leaders, he outlined the need for the UK to seize the opportunities of the transition to a low carbon economy.
He stressed that Government must provide the framework to:
* Create thousands of new businesses and hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
* Export British technology and energy solutions to the rest of the world.
* Seize the opportunity of the environmental sector, estimated to grow to $3 trillion globally by 2050.
* Unlock talent, upgrade skills and stimulate innovation.
Gordon Brown was outlining the Government's response to the Commission for Environmental Markets and Economic Performance (CEMEP) that he himself set up in the wake of the Stern Review, which examined what the UK had to do to ensure that it was in the best possible position to seize the new opportunities of the transformation. This is set out in a new report, Building a low carbon economy: unlocking innovation and skills. The Commission enjoyed considerable ministerial involvement, including Alistair Darling and David Miliband, as well as advisors from outside Government, such as Aldersgate Group Chairman Peter Young. The Prime Minister responded with four key objectives:
* Establish a long-term framework with clear, credible and long-term environmental goals.
* Create the conditions for innovation.
* Develop the necessary skills needed to support sustainable growth and become a world leader.
* Building partnerships between businesses, consumers and the Government, so that all sectors play their part.
The impact of this new low carbon economy blueprint will be far reaching, and unusually very one of CEMEP's 24 recommendations have been taken forward in some respect, with none rejected. The prize is a doubling of the 400,000 high paid jobs in the environmental sector as well as the greening of our whole economy to de-risk the UK from the worst impacts of climate change.
Peter Young, a Commissioner on CEMEP and Chairman of the Aldersgate Group said: 'Gordon Brown today turned the myth that you can't be green and grow on its head. The quicker we move the UK into a low carbon economy, the more competitive we will be and the more employment we will create We must act now to seize the jobs of the future and gain an advantage in a fiercely competitive market.
It is very encouraging that Gordon Brown launched such a detailed and joined up response to CEMEP. In combination with the carbon budgets of the Climate Change Bill, this means the Government will have to work together as never before, providing a coherent partnership with business and the third sector where much of the innovation must come from to deliver this next economic revolution'.
The Prime Minister's speech should be appearing soon on the Defra website.
Closely followed by this from DEFRA (excuse any repitition):
Environmental talent key to economic growth: Ministers
Britain must remain at the forefront of the green industrial revolution, creating jobs and economic growth, ministers said today as they published plans to work with business to build a low carbon economy in Britain.
The Government has committed to working with business to make the UK one of the best places in the world to develop and introduce low carbon, resource efficient products and services, and has today published Building a Low Carbon Economy: Unlocking Environmental Innovation and Skills in response to the Commission on Environmental Markets and Economic Performance (CEMEP), which reported late last year.
The Government has identified four main prerequisites for building a low carbon economy:
* A clear, consistent long-term policy framework to provide business with the confidence to invest and to enable the timely development of innovative products and services;
* Policies that positively support innovation, to create the conditions that allow innovation to flourish;
* Developing the right skills by drawing on the talent and creativity of the British people;
* Fostering true partnerships between Government, business, trade unions, higher education bodies and others.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said:
"The UK has a history of moving early on green issues. For example, the Climate Change Bill currently before Parliament is the first of its kind in the world, and it will create certainty for businesses and investors in green industry for decades to come.
"The Government is committed to building a low carbon economy, here and around the world. That means a complete change in the way we live and an economic transformation that will put Britain at the forefront of a technological revolution in the way we use and source our energy. It is the talent of our people that will bring about that revolution."
Business Secretary John Hutton said:
"By the end of the decade, global green industries will be worth as much as the global aerospace industry - in the order of £350 billion a year - and with the potential to create thousands of new green collar jobs in Britain. So there is a clear business case for maximising the opportunities presented by climate change and making sure that Britain unlocks these business opportunities.
"That's why next month we will hold, with the Royal Bank of Scotland, a low carbon economy summit to help identify what further action both government and business need to take. At the same time, we continue to work to ensure a secure, diverse and increasingly low-carbon energy mix for the UK."
Innovation, Universities and Skills Secretary John Denham said:
"By unlocking talent, upgrading skills and backing innovation wherever we can, we will be world leaders in this sector - creating thousands of new businesses, safeguarding millions of jobs, and exporting our knowledge and expertise around the world."
The Government has already:
* announced that it will revise its Manufacturing Strategy to include a low carbon element;
* arranged to host a Low Carbon Economy summit for business on 25 and 26 June;
* committed to launching a consultation on renewable energy, leading to the Renewable Energy Strategy;
* launched a carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration competition;
* established the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which sets a carbon price for around half of European and UK emissions;
* announced the Carbon Reduction Commitment, a cap and trade scheme covering around 4000 - 5000 large organisations not covered by the EU ETS such as supermarkets, government departments, and hotel chains;
* established the Carbon Trust Business Incubator Programme;
* agreed a timetable for all new homes to be zero carbon from 2016, and an ambition for all new non-domestic buildings to be zero carbon from 2019;
* launched the Low Carbon Vehicle Innovation Platform;
* established a network of advice and support for businesses to look at their environmental impacts;
* announced its decision to allow companies to come forward with proposals for new nuclear power stations.
The City of London has become a global hub for carbon trading and the UK is also poised to become the world leader in installed capacity of offshore wind. We have a strong history of innovation and remain world leaders in scientific research.
CEMEP was established in November 2006 to examine what Britain needed to do to ensure we are in the best possible position to seize the new opportunities presented by the environmental sector, and how Government can support this. Chaired by two Cabinet ministers, the Commission's members were drawn from business, trade unions, NGOs and universities across a range of sectors.
1. The Government's response to the CEMEP report is available here
So many potential positives to embrace, so many seriously compromised by the entities and individuals that they get concocted between and emanate from, whose agendas, motivations and trustworthiness are shot. And I say this as a representative of an outfit who may stand to gain... assuming I suck up to the right folk in the right way.
The Aldersgate Group, a coalition of businesses and environmental groups, supports the Prime Minister's vision for the green economy, which he described as the 'fourth technological revolution' of our time. In a speech today to business leaders, he outlined the need for the UK to seize the opportunities of the transition to a low carbon economy.
He stressed that Government must provide the framework to:
* Create thousands of new businesses and hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
* Export British technology and energy solutions to the rest of the world.
* Seize the opportunity of the environmental sector, estimated to grow to $3 trillion globally by 2050.
* Unlock talent, upgrade skills and stimulate innovation.
Gordon Brown was outlining the Government's response to the Commission for Environmental Markets and Economic Performance (CEMEP) that he himself set up in the wake of the Stern Review, which examined what the UK had to do to ensure that it was in the best possible position to seize the new opportunities of the transformation. This is set out in a new report, Building a low carbon economy: unlocking innovation and skills. The Commission enjoyed considerable ministerial involvement, including Alistair Darling and David Miliband, as well as advisors from outside Government, such as Aldersgate Group Chairman Peter Young. The Prime Minister responded with four key objectives:
* Establish a long-term framework with clear, credible and long-term environmental goals.
* Create the conditions for innovation.
* Develop the necessary skills needed to support sustainable growth and become a world leader.
* Building partnerships between businesses, consumers and the Government, so that all sectors play their part.
The impact of this new low carbon economy blueprint will be far reaching, and unusually very one of CEMEP's 24 recommendations have been taken forward in some respect, with none rejected. The prize is a doubling of the 400,000 high paid jobs in the environmental sector as well as the greening of our whole economy to de-risk the UK from the worst impacts of climate change.
Peter Young, a Commissioner on CEMEP and Chairman of the Aldersgate Group said: 'Gordon Brown today turned the myth that you can't be green and grow on its head. The quicker we move the UK into a low carbon economy, the more competitive we will be and the more employment we will create We must act now to seize the jobs of the future and gain an advantage in a fiercely competitive market.
It is very encouraging that Gordon Brown launched such a detailed and joined up response to CEMEP. In combination with the carbon budgets of the Climate Change Bill, this means the Government will have to work together as never before, providing a coherent partnership with business and the third sector where much of the innovation must come from to deliver this next economic revolution'.
The Prime Minister's speech should be appearing soon on the Defra website.
Closely followed by this from DEFRA (excuse any repitition):
Environmental talent key to economic growth: Ministers
Britain must remain at the forefront of the green industrial revolution, creating jobs and economic growth, ministers said today as they published plans to work with business to build a low carbon economy in Britain.
The Government has committed to working with business to make the UK one of the best places in the world to develop and introduce low carbon, resource efficient products and services, and has today published Building a Low Carbon Economy: Unlocking Environmental Innovation and Skills in response to the Commission on Environmental Markets and Economic Performance (CEMEP), which reported late last year.
The Government has identified four main prerequisites for building a low carbon economy:
* A clear, consistent long-term policy framework to provide business with the confidence to invest and to enable the timely development of innovative products and services;
* Policies that positively support innovation, to create the conditions that allow innovation to flourish;
* Developing the right skills by drawing on the talent and creativity of the British people;
* Fostering true partnerships between Government, business, trade unions, higher education bodies and others.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said:
"The UK has a history of moving early on green issues. For example, the Climate Change Bill currently before Parliament is the first of its kind in the world, and it will create certainty for businesses and investors in green industry for decades to come.
"The Government is committed to building a low carbon economy, here and around the world. That means a complete change in the way we live and an economic transformation that will put Britain at the forefront of a technological revolution in the way we use and source our energy. It is the talent of our people that will bring about that revolution."
Business Secretary John Hutton said:
"By the end of the decade, global green industries will be worth as much as the global aerospace industry - in the order of £350 billion a year - and with the potential to create thousands of new green collar jobs in Britain. So there is a clear business case for maximising the opportunities presented by climate change and making sure that Britain unlocks these business opportunities.
"That's why next month we will hold, with the Royal Bank of Scotland, a low carbon economy summit to help identify what further action both government and business need to take. At the same time, we continue to work to ensure a secure, diverse and increasingly low-carbon energy mix for the UK."
Innovation, Universities and Skills Secretary John Denham said:
"By unlocking talent, upgrading skills and backing innovation wherever we can, we will be world leaders in this sector - creating thousands of new businesses, safeguarding millions of jobs, and exporting our knowledge and expertise around the world."
The Government has already:
* announced that it will revise its Manufacturing Strategy to include a low carbon element;
* arranged to host a Low Carbon Economy summit for business on 25 and 26 June;
* committed to launching a consultation on renewable energy, leading to the Renewable Energy Strategy;
* launched a carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration competition;
* established the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which sets a carbon price for around half of European and UK emissions;
* announced the Carbon Reduction Commitment, a cap and trade scheme covering around 4000 - 5000 large organisations not covered by the EU ETS such as supermarkets, government departments, and hotel chains;
* established the Carbon Trust Business Incubator Programme;
* agreed a timetable for all new homes to be zero carbon from 2016, and an ambition for all new non-domestic buildings to be zero carbon from 2019;
* launched the Low Carbon Vehicle Innovation Platform;
* established a network of advice and support for businesses to look at their environmental impacts;
* announced its decision to allow companies to come forward with proposals for new nuclear power stations.
The City of London has become a global hub for carbon trading and the UK is also poised to become the world leader in installed capacity of offshore wind. We have a strong history of innovation and remain world leaders in scientific research.
CEMEP was established in November 2006 to examine what Britain needed to do to ensure we are in the best possible position to seize the new opportunities presented by the environmental sector, and how Government can support this. Chaired by two Cabinet ministers, the Commission's members were drawn from business, trade unions, NGOs and universities across a range of sectors.
1. The Government's response to the CEMEP report is available here
So many potential positives to embrace, so many seriously compromised by the entities and individuals that they get concocted between and emanate from, whose agendas, motivations and trustworthiness are shot. And I say this as a representative of an outfit who may stand to gain... assuming I suck up to the right folk in the right way.
CATEGORY - GRANTS
See how this one evolves.
UK
General
Green Concierge Service - London only?
Green Grants Machine - NEW - 'where you can get information on all the latest funding schemes
to enable your company to become more environmentally friendly'
UK
General
Green Concierge Service - London only?
Green Grants Machine - NEW - 'where you can get information on all the latest funding schemes
to enable your company to become more environmentally friendly'
Damage limitation?
I have been banging on since this blog started about the perils of overselling the negatives of 'global warming' in case the realities turn out not to match the predictions.
In advertising we have a saying (at least between the agency and the client... not so sure about the message to the consumer): 'Promise lower.. and deliver higher'. It's a lot nicer basking in an expectation exceeded than trying to explain one disappointed.
This... is a lot more serious than that, but the principle remains. You can ride a wave of positives, but a negative is seldom just one step back. Just as a recommendation gets 3 good pass-ons, a bad critique can be four times as pervasive, and trust is very hard to build up if it is deemed to be compromised.
Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict - (Who the heck uses 'Global Warming' any more... oh, I get it. But what's this... 'may'? Well that's there because, as with all else, no one actually knows for sure).
So I sought this out having seen it on BBC Breakfast, with the bouffant and blonde 'explaining' well, spinning like tops, that it's well, very complicated and we need to think long term, you see... etc.
All bang on. Thing is, that is not what has been trotted out faithfully in most populist media up until this point. And I rather suspect that those less convinced on the trend may be getting an earful from those actively hostile to the notion. And, frankly, it's going to be tough for those of a more 'climate pessimistic' bent to weather in attempting to mitigate. As I have long predicted.
After all that has been thrown at us over the last few years, in the simplistic, populist way it has, regurgitated by often unchallenging, compliant media, I have to say to 'expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions' is not the best sell I have ever seen. Especially to get folk on board with a fairly fundamental leap of faith in the shift from global warming to climate change to.... 'things go up and down', and often in short periods geographically that seem an age in human terms (especially with News 24 and ratings to meet)'. So while the sky has not yet fallen as it should have done... it still will, honest.'
I await, with dread, how this is played out, especially by all those who consider that they 'know better'.
It's a little. I just hope it's not too late.
Telegraph - Campaign to sue Al Gore 'gains support'- Hmnn. What was that song? 'Swings like a pendulum do'? This is already silly, and getting sillier. All I am seeing is the extremes grabbing the headlines... and profiting from the chaos. I am on record as saying I have my doubts as to AG as messenger, and many of his messages are in the camp I refer to above, but he's entitled to his opinion and in fact is to be credited for bringing many things to world attention, and at an early stage. But suing....? What's all that about?
Addendum: (and so it starts. I search for, and welcome, counter-balancing views... so long as they are rational, science-based, and don't get us in a 'tis/t'isn't loop. It will be interesting to see what arrives from Real Climate... if it does)
EU Referendum (call 'em Climate Optimists) - "…several decades of global cooling" - I thought it was a one decade correction period, so already the issues are muddying.
BBC - Next decade 'may see no warming'
BBBC - Richard Black: "The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon."
To quote the response: Where does "a public" get such crazy notions? From the BBC perhaps? Quite. Maybe I should get into the prediction business.
1984, Pt1 ch4. - A share from a blog which I pass on, as it resonates: "Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones."
The thing is, the discussion has passed from where it should to very odd places by this diversion. And, I guess, this blog is part of it all. But I feel my audience is up to weighing all the issues and perhaps seeing that there is still something well worth considering, and allowing for. But I do believe the time may be upon me to go back more to where I have always been, which is a lot more DOING that really can have no effect but to help with mitigation (if in a small way), and leave the grander debates to those who seem keen to slug it out over definitions of black and white... ironically in the name of all that could be green inbetween.
I still maintain, and always will, that trying to play fast a loose with complex concepts, and their conclusions (or lack of them) can, with a busy and time poor general audience in a spin-cycle media environment, end up with a less than optimal result. So erring on caution might be advised, no matter how urgent the perceived threat, or well-intentioned the desire to deal with it by leaping over the parapets.
Lest WMD becomes 'Warming Motivates Diddly', especially when you launch an attack on it calling for public support (and sacrifice), and once you get to a certain point find what was claimed doesn't exist. Only, in this case, 'yet' is a valid qualifier lost now in the furore.
The Register - NEW - Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? - Doesn't exactly answer the question, but stirs already muddy waters.
In advertising we have a saying (at least between the agency and the client... not so sure about the message to the consumer): 'Promise lower.. and deliver higher'. It's a lot nicer basking in an expectation exceeded than trying to explain one disappointed.
This... is a lot more serious than that, but the principle remains. You can ride a wave of positives, but a negative is seldom just one step back. Just as a recommendation gets 3 good pass-ons, a bad critique can be four times as pervasive, and trust is very hard to build up if it is deemed to be compromised.
Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict - (Who the heck uses 'Global Warming' any more... oh, I get it. But what's this... 'may'? Well that's there because, as with all else, no one actually knows for sure).
So I sought this out having seen it on BBC Breakfast, with the bouffant and blonde 'explaining' well, spinning like tops, that it's well, very complicated and we need to think long term, you see... etc.
All bang on. Thing is, that is not what has been trotted out faithfully in most populist media up until this point. And I rather suspect that those less convinced on the trend may be getting an earful from those actively hostile to the notion. And, frankly, it's going to be tough for those of a more 'climate pessimistic' bent to weather in attempting to mitigate. As I have long predicted.
After all that has been thrown at us over the last few years, in the simplistic, populist way it has, regurgitated by often unchallenging, compliant media, I have to say to 'expect a "lull" for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions' is not the best sell I have ever seen. Especially to get folk on board with a fairly fundamental leap of faith in the shift from global warming to climate change to.... 'things go up and down', and often in short periods geographically that seem an age in human terms (especially with News 24 and ratings to meet)'. So while the sky has not yet fallen as it should have done... it still will, honest.'
I await, with dread, how this is played out, especially by all those who consider that they 'know better'.
It's a little. I just hope it's not too late.
Telegraph - Campaign to sue Al Gore 'gains support'- Hmnn. What was that song? 'Swings like a pendulum do'? This is already silly, and getting sillier. All I am seeing is the extremes grabbing the headlines... and profiting from the chaos. I am on record as saying I have my doubts as to AG as messenger, and many of his messages are in the camp I refer to above, but he's entitled to his opinion and in fact is to be credited for bringing many things to world attention, and at an early stage. But suing....? What's all that about?
Addendum: (and so it starts. I search for, and welcome, counter-balancing views... so long as they are rational, science-based, and don't get us in a 'tis/t'isn't loop. It will be interesting to see what arrives from Real Climate... if it does)
EU Referendum (call 'em Climate Optimists) - "…several decades of global cooling" - I thought it was a one decade correction period, so already the issues are muddying.
BBC - Next decade 'may see no warming'
BBBC - Richard Black: "The projection does not come as a surprise to climate scientists, though it may to a public that has perhaps become used to the idea that the rapid temperature rises seen through the 1990s are a permanent phenomenon."
To quote the response: Where does "a public" get such crazy notions? From the BBC perhaps? Quite. Maybe I should get into the prediction business.
1984, Pt1 ch4. - A share from a blog which I pass on, as it resonates: "Today's issue contained a statement of the actual output, from which it appeared that the forecasts were in every instance grossly wrong. Winston's job was to rectify the original figures by making them agree with the later ones."
The thing is, the discussion has passed from where it should to very odd places by this diversion. And, I guess, this blog is part of it all. But I feel my audience is up to weighing all the issues and perhaps seeing that there is still something well worth considering, and allowing for. But I do believe the time may be upon me to go back more to where I have always been, which is a lot more DOING that really can have no effect but to help with mitigation (if in a small way), and leave the grander debates to those who seem keen to slug it out over definitions of black and white... ironically in the name of all that could be green inbetween.
I still maintain, and always will, that trying to play fast a loose with complex concepts, and their conclusions (or lack of them) can, with a busy and time poor general audience in a spin-cycle media environment, end up with a less than optimal result. So erring on caution might be advised, no matter how urgent the perceived threat, or well-intentioned the desire to deal with it by leaping over the parapets.
Lest WMD becomes 'Warming Motivates Diddly', especially when you launch an attack on it calling for public support (and sacrifice), and once you get to a certain point find what was claimed doesn't exist. Only, in this case, 'yet' is a valid qualifier lost now in the furore.
The Register - NEW - Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler? - Doesn't exactly answer the question, but stirs already muddy waters.
Meridional Overturning Circulation will halt global warming. Well, temporarily.
So what on earth is the Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) you ask?
It is the 'conveyor belt' that brings warmer water up into the North Atlantic - the gulf stream that makes the UK's climate considerably warmer than it really ought to be. Full story is from The Telegraph.
The MOC "has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be over the next decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which temperatures rose again."
And scientists do not understand quite how reductions in salinity (as caused by fresh water run-off from melting ice sheets and glaciers) may additionally affect these long term ocean circulation trends.
So, although the earth will continue to warm as a whole, probably as a direct consequence of our CO2 emissions, those of us in the UK, and elsewhere around the North Atlantic, are probably going to see little or no overall temperature increase until 2015.
It is the 'conveyor belt' that brings warmer water up into the North Atlantic - the gulf stream that makes the UK's climate considerably warmer than it really ought to be. Full story is from The Telegraph.
The MOC "has a 70 to 80-year cycle and when the circulation is strong, it creates warmer temperatures in Europe. When it is weak, as it will be over the next decade, temperatures fall. Scientists think that variations of this kind could partly explain the cooling of global average temperatures between the 1940s and 1970s after which temperatures rose again."
And scientists do not understand quite how reductions in salinity (as caused by fresh water run-off from melting ice sheets and glaciers) may additionally affect these long term ocean circulation trends.
So, although the earth will continue to warm as a whole, probably as a direct consequence of our CO2 emissions, those of us in the UK, and elsewhere around the North Atlantic, are probably going to see little or no overall temperature increase until 2015.
Heads - they win; Tails - you lose!
So you thought that the budget VED increases were well thought out and even good for the environment?
Errrm, no, not in the least. This from TimesOnline highlights the way that our Gov has "quietly abolished the exemption from higher road-tax rates for cars that emit more than 225g of CO2 per km and were registered between March 2001 and March 2006."
So what's the problem you ask?
Well, there are a lot of poorer families out there with older vehicles who will now be considerably worse off. The chancellor reckoned that an average family (how I hate that stupid phrase!) on ~£28.000 p.a. would be better off by some £130 a year. But those with vehicles that fall into the back-dating trap will be paying an extra £220 in VED!
And, probably even worse, similar vehicles registered before 2001 will almost certainly now become worth a lot more than the same model registered after 2001.
“Poorer families who need a bigger car to transport children and luggage will find their car has lost up to £1,000 of its value. They face an impossible choice because many will struggle to pay the higher road tax but won’t be able to afford to buy a more fuel-efficient car with a lower road-tax rating.”
So, rather than helping the environment the back-dating is going to force a lot of poorer people to be worse off, whilst those with vehicles registered prior to 2001 will be forced to continue to run their older high emissions vehicles for as long as possible!
I reckon that this is just yet another green tax grab that was poorly disguised as a sop to the environment!
Errrm, no, not in the least. This from TimesOnline highlights the way that our Gov has "quietly abolished the exemption from higher road-tax rates for cars that emit more than 225g of CO2 per km and were registered between March 2001 and March 2006."
So what's the problem you ask?
Well, there are a lot of poorer families out there with older vehicles who will now be considerably worse off. The chancellor reckoned that an average family (how I hate that stupid phrase!) on ~£28.000 p.a. would be better off by some £130 a year. But those with vehicles that fall into the back-dating trap will be paying an extra £220 in VED!
And, probably even worse, similar vehicles registered before 2001 will almost certainly now become worth a lot more than the same model registered after 2001.
“Poorer families who need a bigger car to transport children and luggage will find their car has lost up to £1,000 of its value. They face an impossible choice because many will struggle to pay the higher road tax but won’t be able to afford to buy a more fuel-efficient car with a lower road-tax rating.”
So, rather than helping the environment the back-dating is going to force a lot of poorer people to be worse off, whilst those with vehicles registered prior to 2001 will be forced to continue to run their older high emissions vehicles for as long as possible!
I reckon that this is just yet another green tax grab that was poorly disguised as a sop to the environment!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
What first attracted to aging millionaire celebrity...
My views on polls, their methodologies and hence how and where they get used are well know.So I loved this one. How 'green' are you?!!!
Thing is, look at the results. Those saying 'very' are in the minority! Well, at posting. I may have skewed the result with my vote for us.
Darn honest those Yanks.
I'm easily excited
And I feel like ending the day on a high.Here's the latest RE:tie prototype, courtesy of the nice folk at the Jewellery Innovation Centre at BCU who are helping us with of product development.
This is not an evolution, but merely another alternative design, which we found was necessary to help our marketing following some feedback at the Caps & Closures Show, where a few nice production-type gurus suggested the flatter block orientation would work better in many hoppers and fast-moving lines. It's also less 'radical', so consumers will 'get' it as it's pretty much what they are used to... only with a hole. Hey, like I say... it didn't hurt the Polo mint.
OK, not so great as a chat up line, but we still like it lots! And as the first model is now getting noticed, and appreciated, as it does the rounds of some brands and retailers, here's hoping these new lovelies will keep the ball rolling in the right way!
There's a lot you can do from the rooftops
Another share from another group:
It looks like a cut and paste from a report, but comes unattributed:
Dirty nappies will be turned into roof tiles when a recycling plant
opens within the next year.
The recycling plant, the first of its kind
in Britain, is expected to divert thousands of tonnes of waste that
would otherwise end up in landfill sites. Nappies processed at the
facility will be turned into a range of products including roof tiles
and plastic cladding. The site will have the capacity to recycle about
30,000 tonnes of nappies and similar absorbant materials such as
incontinence pads each year. It is expected to open late this year or
early in 2009 and will be built at a cost of more than £20
million in Birmingham by the firm Knowaste in partnership with Alpha
Wastecare.It it estimated that up to 750,000 tonnes of nappies -
enough to fill Wembley Stadium eight times - are buried in landfill
sites each year in Britain as part of 29 million tonnes of the
nation's annual municipal waste. Local authorities are under
increasing pressure to reduce the quantity of waste sent to landfill.
Each year until at least 2010 tax per tonne, now standing at pounds 32
for every tonne of waste, will rise.
No sh...! Works for me.
It looks like a cut and paste from a report, but comes unattributed:
Dirty nappies will be turned into roof tiles when a recycling plant
opens within the next year.
The recycling plant, the first of its kind
in Britain, is expected to divert thousands of tonnes of waste that
would otherwise end up in landfill sites. Nappies processed at the
facility will be turned into a range of products including roof tiles
and plastic cladding. The site will have the capacity to recycle about
30,000 tonnes of nappies and similar absorbant materials such as
incontinence pads each year. It is expected to open late this year or
early in 2009 and will be built at a cost of more than £20
million in Birmingham by the firm Knowaste in partnership with Alpha
Wastecare.It it estimated that up to 750,000 tonnes of nappies -
enough to fill Wembley Stadium eight times - are buried in landfill
sites each year in Britain as part of 29 million tonnes of the
nation's annual municipal waste. Local authorities are under
increasing pressure to reduce the quantity of waste sent to landfill.
Each year until at least 2010 tax per tonne, now standing at pounds 32
for every tonne of waste, will rise.
No sh...! Works for me.
Perfect for those with £199 to spare
Which, I am sure, many in London do.
Green Homes Concierge Service
It also spawns my latest acronym: NiWiYCGI - 'Niwikki' - 'Nice Work if You Can Get It'
Not like you cannot get info for free anywhere else on saving water or what car you should buy, or even good advice on what renewable energy systems to buy.
In addition to what £199 from your pocket could go to in terms of actual energy saving measures, I do wonder how much is spent running the scheme that might be better directed, too. Like many things, one imagines the ROI and enviROI might prove elusive as time goes by.
Still, if you are so moved... here you are . There are at least grants to scope.
Green Homes Concierge Service
It also spawns my latest acronym: NiWiYCGI - 'Niwikki' - 'Nice Work if You Can Get It'
Not like you cannot get info for free anywhere else on saving water or what car you should buy, or even good advice on what renewable energy systems to buy.
In addition to what £199 from your pocket could go to in terms of actual energy saving measures, I do wonder how much is spent running the scheme that might be better directed, too. Like many things, one imagines the ROI and enviROI might prove elusive as time goes by.
Still, if you are so moved... here you are . There are at least grants to scope.
Just a thought or two
Inspired by two others (on an often well-informed blog/forum that discusses sustainability issues) key points here..
If we can adopt ways of being and ways of action that are attractive, effective, compassionate, fun and wholly satisfying to us, (and which still allow us “to be a pleasure to be with”!) then there’s a chance that our way of thinking (ie that there is catastrophic collapse imminent) will be heeded, and our ways of action, contagious. Otherwise we surely just invite others to ignore us.
I truly don’t think The Establishment, Media and most professionals have any concept of how close our infrastructure is to collapsing, and as our resources dwindle we won’t be able to pay others to maintain and extend it for us,
My concern is primarily with communications to and hence influencing the behaviour of the public/consumer.
Rather unfashionably, I am devotee of the notion of persuasion-based methods that use reward and incentive as end-benefits for more enviROI+ actions.
What I am not so keen on is (what appears at least to be) more negative methodologies, from fines to guilt to nannying to shame to scare, used to varying degrees by the authorities, media and activist groups. And often with less than clear, or downright less than noble main aims, being less the good of the future and more meeting targets, creating empires/careers, driving ratings or securing funding/donations.
And, IMHO, the public is not buying. Little wonder, bearing the sheer inconsistencies of message and often rank hypocrisy of the messengers.
I simply don't trust almost any subjective pronouncement from HMG, the national broadcaster, all the 'quality' newspapers to not have a rampant agenda attached. So I have to trawl all and then a wadge of even more overt propaganda from all 'sides' online, simply to try and get to a more accurate middle line. Equally with most factual 'information'.
There's also the simple question of credibility. From politicians to many influential editors, one day we get mammoth issues regarding our environment top of mind and then consigned to oblivion the next as more pressing local, selfish issues arrive the next day... 'Minor Royal does something naughty! Meanwhile, in other news, the planet is past tipping point...'
I took the statements and findings of such as the IPCC and UN ('single greatest threat to humanity... etc) very seriously, yet the minute attentions get redirected it all gets dropped (often pretty quickly) in favour of making political capital, money or a quick rating.
No wonder 'we', the great majority who do still rely on sensible guidance from the Establishment (which I regard as encompassing the totality of influencers, who rather worryingly see and hence set themselves up as a separate, distinct and rather 'better' alternative 'we'), have tuned out, assuming we ever tuned in. And may now be cruising blissfully to an unwelcome surprise or two.
I wish I could be more positive, but will continue advocating, and practicing as far as possible, the notions of reduction and/or mitigation in any DOING ways possible and practical... that can still be fun and inspire.
If we can adopt ways of being and ways of action that are attractive, effective, compassionate, fun and wholly satisfying to us, (and which still allow us “to be a pleasure to be with”!) then there’s a chance that our way of thinking (ie that there is catastrophic collapse imminent) will be heeded, and our ways of action, contagious. Otherwise we surely just invite others to ignore us.
I truly don’t think The Establishment, Media and most professionals have any concept of how close our infrastructure is to collapsing, and as our resources dwindle we won’t be able to pay others to maintain and extend it for us,
My concern is primarily with communications to and hence influencing the behaviour of the public/consumer.
Rather unfashionably, I am devotee of the notion of persuasion-based methods that use reward and incentive as end-benefits for more enviROI+ actions.
What I am not so keen on is (what appears at least to be) more negative methodologies, from fines to guilt to nannying to shame to scare, used to varying degrees by the authorities, media and activist groups. And often with less than clear, or downright less than noble main aims, being less the good of the future and more meeting targets, creating empires/careers, driving ratings or securing funding/donations.
And, IMHO, the public is not buying. Little wonder, bearing the sheer inconsistencies of message and often rank hypocrisy of the messengers.
I simply don't trust almost any subjective pronouncement from HMG, the national broadcaster, all the 'quality' newspapers to not have a rampant agenda attached. So I have to trawl all and then a wadge of even more overt propaganda from all 'sides' online, simply to try and get to a more accurate middle line. Equally with most factual 'information'.
There's also the simple question of credibility. From politicians to many influential editors, one day we get mammoth issues regarding our environment top of mind and then consigned to oblivion the next as more pressing local, selfish issues arrive the next day... 'Minor Royal does something naughty! Meanwhile, in other news, the planet is past tipping point...'
I took the statements and findings of such as the IPCC and UN ('single greatest threat to humanity... etc) very seriously, yet the minute attentions get redirected it all gets dropped (often pretty quickly) in favour of making political capital, money or a quick rating.
No wonder 'we', the great majority who do still rely on sensible guidance from the Establishment (which I regard as encompassing the totality of influencers, who rather worryingly see and hence set themselves up as a separate, distinct and rather 'better' alternative 'we'), have tuned out, assuming we ever tuned in. And may now be cruising blissfully to an unwelcome surprise or two.
I wish I could be more positive, but will continue advocating, and practicing as far as possible, the notions of reduction and/or mitigation in any DOING ways possible and practical... that can still be fun and inspire.
Sites unseen, heard... or accounted for
UK government websites out of control
Report...the Government is not sure exactly how many websites it has, but believes there could be as many as 2,500. Nor does it know how much these websites cost or if anyone is using them.
Does this include quangos? I'm guessing not as they don't have the suffixes indicated. Yet they, and their comms budgets, still drain the public purse, do they not?
It's certainly not easy, especially when there are those who serve more niche social areas that may well be worth supporting... way up to those that really feed a major information interest and could be nice little earners if commercial.
Hence ROIs must be hard to judge, but I think the public deserves better in being able to assess them, from what they do, for whom, with what, at what cost... and to what effect.
Otherwise many seem no more than conveniently vague and unaccountable ways to employ lots of folk at best keeping them busy... or less nobly pushing agendas.
I recently had an emailing from one eco-effort, that seems to have been set up with a massive wadge of wonga with many noisy bells and confusing whistles, staffed by all manner of nifty titled folk, claiming a monthly visitorship of '50,000 hits'. Now I know what the average Reg reader can carry in a fingernail about IT and the web, but this doesn't sound like the best way to share such info, and even if it was doesn't sound like a lot.
And let's not forget, when thinking of bigger (and possibly 'better') sites such as http://www.dft.gov.uk/ActOnCO2/ or recyclenow.com, you are also talking massive ad budgets in support to drive traffic.
It would be great to really challenge these in the same way those not so blessed by 'more benign' funding models are, yet can find themselves competed with for audience... often unfairly. I certainly have experience of going to one quango for help in an area their remit required, only to be rejected but then find what I pitched got cranked out subsequently as part of their offering.
Yet private sites often are much better in delivering public information at much better value, especially by not being constrained by the dead hand of public service agenda, committee mentality and ministerial oversight. You just have to start with some URLs to see how they have not exactly got what it takes to push the buttons of a public used to pretty exciting and entertaining fare.
I find it amazing those we do have to pay for seem to have no way currently of judging their performance and/or worth.
Report...the Government is not sure exactly how many websites it has, but believes there could be as many as 2,500. Nor does it know how much these websites cost or if anyone is using them.
Does this include quangos? I'm guessing not as they don't have the suffixes indicated. Yet they, and their comms budgets, still drain the public purse, do they not?
It's certainly not easy, especially when there are those who serve more niche social areas that may well be worth supporting... way up to those that really feed a major information interest and could be nice little earners if commercial.
Hence ROIs must be hard to judge, but I think the public deserves better in being able to assess them, from what they do, for whom, with what, at what cost... and to what effect.
Otherwise many seem no more than conveniently vague and unaccountable ways to employ lots of folk at best keeping them busy... or less nobly pushing agendas.
I recently had an emailing from one eco-effort, that seems to have been set up with a massive wadge of wonga with many noisy bells and confusing whistles, staffed by all manner of nifty titled folk, claiming a monthly visitorship of '50,000 hits'. Now I know what the average Reg reader can carry in a fingernail about IT and the web, but this doesn't sound like the best way to share such info, and even if it was doesn't sound like a lot.
And let's not forget, when thinking of bigger (and possibly 'better') sites such as http://www.dft.gov.uk/ActOnCO2/ or recyclenow.com, you are also talking massive ad budgets in support to drive traffic.
It would be great to really challenge these in the same way those not so blessed by 'more benign' funding models are, yet can find themselves competed with for audience... often unfairly. I certainly have experience of going to one quango for help in an area their remit required, only to be rejected but then find what I pitched got cranked out subsequently as part of their offering.
Yet private sites often are much better in delivering public information at much better value, especially by not being constrained by the dead hand of public service agenda, committee mentality and ministerial oversight. You just have to start with some URLs to see how they have not exactly got what it takes to push the buttons of a public used to pretty exciting and entertaining fare.
I find it amazing those we do have to pay for seem to have no way currently of judging their performance and/or worth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)