NESTA will launch its latest research report ‘The 7Cs, Why we need positive messages to sell low carbon living.’
Catchy.
And selling via positives is a definite step in the right direction.
But just wondering what the 7Cs might be? I guess they are part of 'low carbon living', but couldn't seem to find any more.
Shame I can't make it all that way, but I hope the report will be shared online.
Plus that it will recognise actual realities and practicalities, rather than idealistic or self-fulfilling notions, especially at official level.
I'm still getting research that tells me that 98% of people, when asked, think doing our best to save the planet is worth considering (making me wonder about the mindset of the 2% not in favour) as some kind of awareness box tick. Yet often it is associated with poor actual deliverables. No point asking a question in a way that gives a desired answer.
Often these things, and the results they derive, are works of beauty only report writers and niche industry insiders could love.
If this really tries to get under the skin of what the public/consumer audience thinks and how it responds to various campaigns it will indeed be worth reading. And acting upon. Too many messages, and waaay too much in comms budgets, is blown on ticking a box and making a committee headed by a Minister happy than actually reaching out and effecting change.
Process has often supplanted result.
It also helps if the consumer has mechanisms put in place that they can easily respond to once motivated. I have followed today's news reports on new co-mingled collections getting in the tonnages but not delivering useful recyclate with interest.
Addendum - Thanks to a fellow poster on another forum, I now have a link to the report. At first glance it looks like a bit of a trawl will be required to suss out much of use (maybe I will get to find out what the 7 C's are at last. Hope it's worth it. Fingers crossed there may have been some real communicators involved and not just a bunch of academics, researchers and civ. servs., otherwise it's valeu will be rather suspect), whilst agreeing with the basic premise, as I did when first I got wind of it.
Plus I am concerned at a trend I notice that is epitomised by their featuring a device in their study 'The Disrupters'. Whilst this is a worthy and stylish piece (there are many, more basic and cheaper versions for those who may feel energy monitoring to be a useful aspect of reducing their footprints - I have to say I stopped checking mine ages ago as it really told me little I felt I could do much about), it is also well beyond the budgets of most normal folk outside a Gaurdianesque lifestyle bubble.
Communication on matters environmental does need to be many things, and especially positive and proactive, but it should not be driven by the interests and ambitions of an affluent elite and/or paid/interested niche sector, or it will at best stay remote from the general public and hence remain practically irrelevant, but at worst risks creating an 'it's alright for them' kickback from those less able to indulge in such trendy aspects of carbon mitigation. Frankly not a major issue by the media buying trends I have noticed in complement to most creative executions so far. Colour ads in quality Sunday supps and 90' high budget (and 'brow' concept) TV indulgences placed in low rating (and hence niche) shows designed more for the awards ceremony than communication to any audience other than the advertiser's mates at the wine bar. We need to reach and motivate Fiesta family... not just amuse and get nods of approval from Prius person.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Nods all round
(well, except for the obit on my theoretical day job)
Advertising is Dead, Long Live Packaging
Works for me!
May I suggest a slight addition?
It's in light of the perceived negatives of packaging environmentally. There is now a fair old desire, if not demand, by consumers for brands to up their game in this regard, pushed by media and legislative bodies as well.
Hence... think reuse! Trust me, be it 'accidental' but most certainly when designed in (Junkk.com is getting more and more great examples daily), there are opportunities aplenty for fun and profit all round. Plus the planet doesn't do too badly either:) Win, win... win...
Advertising is Dead, Long Live Packaging
Works for me!
May I suggest a slight addition?
It's in light of the perceived negatives of packaging environmentally. There is now a fair old desire, if not demand, by consumers for brands to up their game in this regard, pushed by media and legislative bodies as well.
Hence... think reuse! Trust me, be it 'accidental' but most certainly when designed in (Junkk.com is getting more and more great examples daily), there are opportunities aplenty for fun and profit all round. Plus the planet doesn't do too badly either:) Win, win... win...
Glass act
Just watched a BBC News item on recycling.
Very interesting. Basically the trend is now away from collecting via skips (and, one presumes, kerbsides, which I know is the case in my area*) and on to what they call 'co-mingled waste', which is basically all in one and let a central station sort it all out.
Trouble is, this system means that while lost of stuff is collected, most of the resultant recyclate is useless, especially when it comes to such as glass.
And as a sign off, the reporter says that when it comes to recycling, 'we' are no longer any good.
Now I know some aspects of these collection systems will encourage greater numbers, but what use if the stuff you collect is of less value.
I have written..
You're talking at and pointing to the wrong folk with the 'we' when referring to how this is not very good environmentally.
Consumers are much less to blame than incoherent, uncoordinated national policy, and an obsession with meeting targets that rewards process more than sensible result.
*Addendum: I have written to my local paper:
The issue of waste collection and, with luck, sensible recycling as a consequence is a hugely worthwhile, but still very complex one.
There are EU fines looming, consequent national pressures and of course regional and local variations 'in the mix'.
There can be no doubt of course that Ross' RE-Box scheme has been ahead of its time, and shining example across the board, not just as a recycling initiative, but also as a social enterprise and, perhaps more than anything, as a catalyst for individual and community cooperation and participation in the cause of environmental good practice.
But there are other issues at play, and these need to be understood and appreciated in assessing what is proposed for the future as part of bigger pictures.
With this in mind, I have noted a very interesting story on the national news this week. Mirroring our local experience the trend is apparently now away from collecting via skips, bottle/can banks (and, evidently, kerbsides) and on to what they call 'co-mingled waste' collections, which is basically all in one bag from our bins, and then on to let a central station sort it all out.
Trouble is, it seems that while this system means that perhaps more 'stuff' is collected, most of the resultant recyclate is of much less use than before, especially when it comes to such as glass.
Now I can see the advantages of these collection systems working with perhaps 'less co-operative' human nature (but certainly not around here, evidenced by the RE-Box success) will encourage greater numbers, but what use is this to the 'bigger picture' of carbon footprints/CO2 release if the stuff you collect is of less or no value?
RE-Box has shown that when engaged with in a sensible way, consumers are much less to blame than incoherent, uncoordinated national policy, and I just hope what we are not seeing is more an obsession with meeting targets that rewards process more than sensible result.
Oh, and just saw an amplified BBC report. Seems it stays as 'we' who are no longer as green as we shoudl be.
Very interesting. Basically the trend is now away from collecting via skips (and, one presumes, kerbsides, which I know is the case in my area*) and on to what they call 'co-mingled waste', which is basically all in one and let a central station sort it all out.
Trouble is, this system means that while lost of stuff is collected, most of the resultant recyclate is useless, especially when it comes to such as glass.
And as a sign off, the reporter says that when it comes to recycling, 'we' are no longer any good.
Now I know some aspects of these collection systems will encourage greater numbers, but what use if the stuff you collect is of less value.
I have written..
You're talking at and pointing to the wrong folk with the 'we' when referring to how this is not very good environmentally.
Consumers are much less to blame than incoherent, uncoordinated national policy, and an obsession with meeting targets that rewards process more than sensible result.
*Addendum: I have written to my local paper:
The issue of waste collection and, with luck, sensible recycling as a consequence is a hugely worthwhile, but still very complex one.
There are EU fines looming, consequent national pressures and of course regional and local variations 'in the mix'.
There can be no doubt of course that Ross' RE-Box scheme has been ahead of its time, and shining example across the board, not just as a recycling initiative, but also as a social enterprise and, perhaps more than anything, as a catalyst for individual and community cooperation and participation in the cause of environmental good practice.
But there are other issues at play, and these need to be understood and appreciated in assessing what is proposed for the future as part of bigger pictures.
With this in mind, I have noted a very interesting story on the national news this week. Mirroring our local experience the trend is apparently now away from collecting via skips, bottle/can banks (and, evidently, kerbsides) and on to what they call 'co-mingled waste' collections, which is basically all in one bag from our bins, and then on to let a central station sort it all out.
Trouble is, it seems that while this system means that perhaps more 'stuff' is collected, most of the resultant recyclate is of much less use than before, especially when it comes to such as glass.
Now I can see the advantages of these collection systems working with perhaps 'less co-operative' human nature (but certainly not around here, evidenced by the RE-Box success) will encourage greater numbers, but what use is this to the 'bigger picture' of carbon footprints/CO2 release if the stuff you collect is of less or no value?
RE-Box has shown that when engaged with in a sensible way, consumers are much less to blame than incoherent, uncoordinated national policy, and I just hope what we are not seeing is more an obsession with meeting targets that rewards process more than sensible result.
Oh, and just saw an amplified BBC report. Seems it stays as 'we' who are no longer as green as we shoudl be.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
QUOTE OF THE DAY - The TERRA PHILES
Not a quote but a 'mis-hearing' I quite liked.
The commentariat seem to be quite excited, and negative about all that involves 'terror files' and their slippery retention in the right/wrong hands.
I just first mis-heard and happily put myself, positively, in the camp of those who find being a terraphile a good thing.
The commentariat seem to be quite excited, and negative about all that involves 'terror files' and their slippery retention in the right/wrong hands.
I just first mis-heard and happily put myself, positively, in the camp of those who find being a terraphile a good thing.
Left Hand. Right Hand. Clunking Hand.
Giant coal-fired power plant gets green subsidies
Oh, b.....less.
How long ago was the excellent ST Magazine expose of this government's oversight of our nation's green talk at home vs. our murky walking overseas?
Oh, b.....less.
How long ago was the excellent ST Magazine expose of this government's oversight of our nation's green talk at home vs. our murky walking overseas?
CATEGORY - QUANGO'S JOLLY GOOD FELLOWS
Got to be done:
BBC - Questions raised over quango fees
BBC - FSA fesses up on Rock - I don't know if they are a quango or not. Or care. We are country 'run' by over-compensated, irresponsible fools who oversee other highly-paid, unaccountable fools to not protect us from totally immune charlatans.
epolitix.com - Carbon Trust
Guardian - Remploy bosses opt for top-end company cars - I'd love to see this one explained away... but it will be.
Guardian - Is that all, Mr Pocklington? - Priceless
Guardian - Satirists once had real bite. Not any more - from an odd direction. But telling.
Greenbang - Carbon Trust gets government slap down over targets - plus direct link to report. Yes that's a report. Now, what the heck gets done?????!
Indy - Ministers allowed officials to 'hit the jackpot' in MoD privatisation
Indy - Quangos' spending kept secret - A pretty well kept secret in itself
Times - English Heritage
Times - DEFRA - Going to pot
Times - Government spending on quangos soars
Times - Consultants cash in on state works - I really don't know why we put up with paying numpties to outsource paying other numpties to do their jobs. And how that manages “to do something for the good of the community”
Times - - Waste mounts as £100 billion web of quangos duplicates work - Not funny; not funny at all. And they don't mention the half of it
Times - It could be you – if you’re a lottery quango
Sunday Tel - How much do you think the head of Transport for London is paid? - Worth it for a useful link at the end, plus the comment on what these highly paid folk spend their money on, which often doesn't square with a reducing or mitigating lifestyle.
WRAP - there are a few. Just use the label search for others under 'WRAP' or Quango
Telegraph - WASTE WATCH - NEW
There will be more, trust me... because I, sadly, do not trust 'them' any more.
BBC - Questions raised over quango fees
BBC - FSA fesses up on Rock - I don't know if they are a quango or not. Or care. We are country 'run' by over-compensated, irresponsible fools who oversee other highly-paid, unaccountable fools to not protect us from totally immune charlatans.
epolitix.com - Carbon Trust
Guardian - Remploy bosses opt for top-end company cars - I'd love to see this one explained away... but it will be.
Guardian - Is that all, Mr Pocklington? - Priceless
Guardian - Satirists once had real bite. Not any more - from an odd direction. But telling.
Greenbang - Carbon Trust gets government slap down over targets - plus direct link to report. Yes that's a report. Now, what the heck gets done?????!
Indy - Ministers allowed officials to 'hit the jackpot' in MoD privatisation
Indy - Quangos' spending kept secret - A pretty well kept secret in itself
Times - English Heritage
Times - DEFRA - Going to pot
Times - Government spending on quangos soars
Times - Consultants cash in on state works - I really don't know why we put up with paying numpties to outsource paying other numpties to do their jobs. And how that manages “to do something for the good of the community”
Times - - Waste mounts as £100 billion web of quangos duplicates work - Not funny; not funny at all. And they don't mention the half of it
Times - It could be you – if you’re a lottery quango
Sunday Tel - How much do you think the head of Transport for London is paid? - Worth it for a useful link at the end, plus the comment on what these highly paid folk spend their money on, which often doesn't square with a reducing or mitigating lifestyle.
WRAP - there are a few. Just use the label search for others under 'WRAP' or Quango
Telegraph - WASTE WATCH - NEW
There will be more, trust me... because I, sadly, do not trust 'them' any more.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Can the can?
To Save Fuel, Airlines Find No Speck Too Small
I wonder if they are still lugging litre upon litre and kilo upon kilo of duty frees and cuddly toys to and fro in hope of a sale?
Or putting out newspapers with such crucial sections as today’s classifieds or appointments?
But I guess the public gets what the public…can.
I wonder if they are still lugging litre upon litre and kilo upon kilo of duty frees and cuddly toys to and fro in hope of a sale?
Or putting out newspapers with such crucial sections as today’s classifieds or appointments?
But I guess the public gets what the public…can.
Would the gent glowing at the back like to speak
(DEFRA) Government invites communities for 'no commitment' discussions on hosting geological disposal facility* for radioactive waste
I'd love to be a 6' fly sitting cross-legged on a chair, taking notes and multi-tasking on his non-mutated Blackberry at that one!
If only to see who lobs up.
*dump
I'd love to be a 6' fly sitting cross-legged on a chair, taking notes and multi-tasking on his non-mutated Blackberry at that one!
If only to see who lobs up.
*dump
42 Days is a long time ......
.... to be held without charge.The genius that is Matt of the Telegraph strikes again!
The thing is, there was a heated debate about the 42 days for suspect terrorists yesterday evening in my local. Now I didn't read or hear this, but two people were absolutely adamant that the way that the Bill was worded, it effectively gave the police the powers to hold anybody for 42 days whatever the offense! I've had a quick browse and cannot confirm this one way or another. Can anyone out there cast any light on this?
So, if it is true, whether you are a potential terrorist, or naughty enough to have put the wrong plastic in the wrong recycling bin, beware!
COMPETITION - Our first...
Well, the genesis of one at least. Its working title is... 'Whizz. No Bang'.
Because it's funny how things pan out.
I subscribe to many feeds and forums and lists to not only gain knowledge but also debate with knowledgeable others on various issues, often with a view to getting a... well, view... that might go beyond these pages and on to the site and newsletter. At least in a form that in being shared objectively may help others.
I am in the middle of one currently about the state (and it is sorry) of our nation's flood systems, warning and public comms. Interestingly, I had to go 'off grid' because one of those who know, or think they know better bemoaned having to put up with the input of mere mortals who often cop the sharp end of their highly-resourced conferences, consultations, research and trips all over the shop. And I can find their pronouncements from on high a crock of 'potential energy-from-biomass material'.
However, having gone off grid a while (sadly, you can't get profile and the good stuff without being noticed above parapet), I have found myself in highly productive discussions with some on an other area, namely wind farms.
The reason I am posting here, and hence also in the next newsletter, is that as a result of one conservation I am pondering a competition.
This is to see if there is/can be a low tech, low cost way of preventing bird strikes on wind farm turbine blades that simply make Jonathan Livingstone Eagle avoid the things, and hence at least get this 'yes highly important, yet pretty minor and distracting' issue (in the great scheme) off the cons list for a lot of folk, especially all major media with an eye to what sells papers and generates ratings, if not actually addressing pressing issues.
Thing is... first... we need a prize.
Suggestions?
Offers?
If juicy enough we will then ged our heads round the competition structure and on to as much PR as we can crank up. You never know... it may get spun (geddit?) to greater prominence by those with the media muscle to do so.
Because it's funny how things pan out.
I subscribe to many feeds and forums and lists to not only gain knowledge but also debate with knowledgeable others on various issues, often with a view to getting a... well, view... that might go beyond these pages and on to the site and newsletter. At least in a form that in being shared objectively may help others.
I am in the middle of one currently about the state (and it is sorry) of our nation's flood systems, warning and public comms. Interestingly, I had to go 'off grid' because one of those who know, or think they know better bemoaned having to put up with the input of mere mortals who often cop the sharp end of their highly-resourced conferences, consultations, research and trips all over the shop. And I can find their pronouncements from on high a crock of 'potential energy-from-biomass material'.
However, having gone off grid a while (sadly, you can't get profile and the good stuff without being noticed above parapet), I have found myself in highly productive discussions with some on an other area, namely wind farms.
The reason I am posting here, and hence also in the next newsletter, is that as a result of one conservation I am pondering a competition.
This is to see if there is/can be a low tech, low cost way of preventing bird strikes on wind farm turbine blades that simply make Jonathan Livingstone Eagle avoid the things, and hence at least get this 'yes highly important, yet pretty minor and distracting' issue (in the great scheme) off the cons list for a lot of folk, especially all major media with an eye to what sells papers and generates ratings, if not actually addressing pressing issues.
Thing is... first... we need a prize.
Suggestions?
Offers?
If juicy enough we will then ged our heads round the competition structure and on to as much PR as we can crank up. You never know... it may get spun (geddit?) to greater prominence by those with the media muscle to do so.
Tides of Opinion
I am aware on various issues regrading the controversial Severn Barrage tidal proposal; too much to hope our national news will help clarify matters sensibly.
I have written:
I have just watched the BBC Breakfast News 'report' on the Severn Barrage. Being already aware of the ecological objections I was keen to learn more objective information on the claim that it makes no economic sense, but this only amounted to a member of the RSPB saying so (if based on a 'report'). Hardly in depth. Or objective. 'Balance' was provided by an 'expert' who was quoted more on what the alternatives, specifically wind, would involve... to wildlife. What about the economic arguments we were promised? Or any hint as to this scheme's potential in reducing greenhouse emissions effectively?
I am also intrigued at the comment passed that governments should not be involved in huge energy projects. Er... do what?
Is the BBC just a mechanism to read out press releases, or can we ever hope to get news and analysis in forms these days that allow sensible understanding of the issues?
BBC - Concern over tidal barrage cost
I have written:
I have just watched the BBC Breakfast News 'report' on the Severn Barrage. Being already aware of the ecological objections I was keen to learn more objective information on the claim that it makes no economic sense, but this only amounted to a member of the RSPB saying so (if based on a 'report'). Hardly in depth. Or objective. 'Balance' was provided by an 'expert' who was quoted more on what the alternatives, specifically wind, would involve... to wildlife. What about the economic arguments we were promised? Or any hint as to this scheme's potential in reducing greenhouse emissions effectively?
I am also intrigued at the comment passed that governments should not be involved in huge energy projects. Er... do what?
Is the BBC just a mechanism to read out press releases, or can we ever hope to get news and analysis in forms these days that allow sensible understanding of the issues?
BBC - Concern over tidal barrage cost
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Style will save us!
Just felt like sticking an oar in...
Green Branding: Why Originality Matters
Well, it seems we can save the planet, and without it costing the earth:)
I tend to agree with much here, and picking up on the design/copy aspects if I see one more ad, mainly tinged green, with a flower poking out of an exhaust pipe, I think I'll choke on my Fairtrade tap water.
However, my only caution is to ensure that in seeking to be 'creative' and 'different' one does not end up serving the cause of a good [insert acceptable environmentally beneficial product/service/call to action word phrase here] communication less well, especially as it gets presented to an audience who may not obsess quite so much about the innermost emotional resonances of Bodoni Extra Clio Capturing and some obscure art shot nicked from last year's design annual.
I have found on occasion that the odd cliche still seems to work with the majority That's how they end up as cliches), so in seeking to be new and trendy let not all that might still work well go to waste.
Green Branding: Why Originality Matters
Well, it seems we can save the planet, and without it costing the earth:)
I tend to agree with much here, and picking up on the design/copy aspects if I see one more ad, mainly tinged green, with a flower poking out of an exhaust pipe, I think I'll choke on my Fairtrade tap water.
However, my only caution is to ensure that in seeking to be 'creative' and 'different' one does not end up serving the cause of a good [insert acceptable environmentally beneficial product/service/call to action word phrase here] communication less well, especially as it gets presented to an audience who may not obsess quite so much about the innermost emotional resonances of Bodoni Extra Clio Capturing and some obscure art shot nicked from last year's design annual.
I have found on occasion that the odd cliche still seems to work with the majority That's how they end up as cliches), so in seeking to be new and trendy let not all that might still work well go to waste.
At least you'll know in advance that your screwed
Two pieces on flood issues just in.
One is a full quote from an LGA PR; the other a BBC story.
LGA response to flooding report - press release - 11 June 2008
In response to the Environment Commission report into last year's flooding, the Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.
The LGA is calling for a change in the law and a new statutory framework which would compel water companies and others to co-operate with councils, share information and prepare flood prevention plans. Any organisation that failed to co-operate would be penalised.
Cllr Paul Bettison, Chairman of the LGA Environment Board, said:
“The current system is fundamentally flawed. We simply cannot continue to have a situation where it is not clear who is responsible for dealing with vitally important functions such as drainage.
“There are glaring gaps in this country’s readiness to cope with widespread and prolonged flooding. Last summer’s floods were no fluke, and we run the real risk of witnessing a repeat – or worse – unless urgent action is taken now.
“We need to get back to basics. There should be no opt-out, no excuses and clear penalties for anybody who refuses to co-operate with managing our water systems. Councils should be allowed to start banging heads together so we can be better prepared to protect people and property.”
“More extreme weather is an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Last summer’s floods exposed flaws in how prepared the country was and the effect of years of under-funding. Greater investment now will save much bigger costs in the future.”
Under the current system, it is often unclear who has responsibility for managing flood risk and maintaining drainage systems. In some parts of the country a myriad of different bodies – including the Environment Agency, councils, private landowners and water companies – have these powers but often do not share information with each other.
BBC - Laser maps flood-prone areas
Hence I am again frustrated and concerned, if not surprised to read such as this:
'The Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.'
What? You mean they are not... yet??? Such as Cllr. Bettison are bang on, and the wonder is how this is still the case, after all that has gone before and will transpire again.
And while whizz bang techno stuff is all well and good, if those theoretically 'in charge' cannot organize themselves, getting better warnings seems to be unlikely to inspire most of the population much, especially if many of the replies in the BBC HYS section are to be taken as a measure.
I welcome better data, but it has to be provided and supported with tangible actions.
I live in a low point of a town on the River Wye. I bought the house following a survey that discovered that since it was built, in the 17th century, it has never been flooded. Those old folk knew a thing or two about building, and what was meant by... flood plains. So I pay attention in advance to such wise experience.
And I am glad to say my insurers are happy to go along with that (for now), despite the Enviro Agency's current map having got my house slap bang in one. Oddly, it also has my neighbours' three houses up in it too, despite being about 40' (80x the 6” that makes all the difference) higher up the hill.
Anyway, being a believer in prevention being better than cure, I have for the last few years tried to pursue with various bodies - council, Environment Agency, Waterways Board - how I might better protect my property should things deteriorate. I think Ican do so and weather future storms rather than wailing and claiming compo, as seems the vogue. Not big on the victim culture.
Thing is, I need some advice at least (help if its available, but being practical I'd say dream on). I have a mark on the wall showing the level AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). All I need to know is what, in the next 50-100 years, are the chances of something going above that, and to what height. Then I can prepare coffer walls and entryway/hole covers to deploy on warning (very prompt system on email and mobile, though a little lacking on much beyond screaming 'prepare for the worst!!'. Wolf and crying kicks in a tad here).
Sadly, to no avail so far. Each, as suggested here, points at the other, and/or various colourful websites that are pretty of little use.
Officers are 'busy', and have been for years. But I got the offer of 'a' sandbag once.
If this is the level of support to a householder who is prepared to DIY, and pay for it all himself, I am not too inspired as to how it's going to improve very much for those in less of a position to do so.
But I am sure many reports will get prepared, boxes ticked, and sombre spokespersons from multiple, overlapping public bodies explaining how it happened this time due to ‘unexpected circumstances’.
One is a full quote from an LGA PR; the other a BBC story.
LGA response to flooding report - press release - 11 June 2008
In response to the Environment Commission report into last year's flooding, the Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.
The LGA is calling for a change in the law and a new statutory framework which would compel water companies and others to co-operate with councils, share information and prepare flood prevention plans. Any organisation that failed to co-operate would be penalised.
Cllr Paul Bettison, Chairman of the LGA Environment Board, said:
“The current system is fundamentally flawed. We simply cannot continue to have a situation where it is not clear who is responsible for dealing with vitally important functions such as drainage.
“There are glaring gaps in this country’s readiness to cope with widespread and prolonged flooding. Last summer’s floods were no fluke, and we run the real risk of witnessing a repeat – or worse – unless urgent action is taken now.
“We need to get back to basics. There should be no opt-out, no excuses and clear penalties for anybody who refuses to co-operate with managing our water systems. Councils should be allowed to start banging heads together so we can be better prepared to protect people and property.”
“More extreme weather is an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Last summer’s floods exposed flaws in how prepared the country was and the effect of years of under-funding. Greater investment now will save much bigger costs in the future.”
Under the current system, it is often unclear who has responsibility for managing flood risk and maintaining drainage systems. In some parts of the country a myriad of different bodies – including the Environment Agency, councils, private landowners and water companies – have these powers but often do not share information with each other.
BBC - Laser maps flood-prone areas
Hence I am again frustrated and concerned, if not surprised to read such as this:
'The Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.'
What? You mean they are not... yet??? Such as Cllr. Bettison are bang on, and the wonder is how this is still the case, after all that has gone before and will transpire again.
And while whizz bang techno stuff is all well and good, if those theoretically 'in charge' cannot organize themselves, getting better warnings seems to be unlikely to inspire most of the population much, especially if many of the replies in the BBC HYS section are to be taken as a measure.
I welcome better data, but it has to be provided and supported with tangible actions.
I live in a low point of a town on the River Wye. I bought the house following a survey that discovered that since it was built, in the 17th century, it has never been flooded. Those old folk knew a thing or two about building, and what was meant by... flood plains. So I pay attention in advance to such wise experience.
And I am glad to say my insurers are happy to go along with that (for now), despite the Enviro Agency's current map having got my house slap bang in one. Oddly, it also has my neighbours' three houses up in it too, despite being about 40' (80x the 6” that makes all the difference) higher up the hill.
Anyway, being a believer in prevention being better than cure, I have for the last few years tried to pursue with various bodies - council, Environment Agency, Waterways Board - how I might better protect my property should things deteriorate. I think Ican do so and weather future storms rather than wailing and claiming compo, as seems the vogue. Not big on the victim culture.
Thing is, I need some advice at least (help if its available, but being practical I'd say dream on). I have a mark on the wall showing the level AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). All I need to know is what, in the next 50-100 years, are the chances of something going above that, and to what height. Then I can prepare coffer walls and entryway/hole covers to deploy on warning (very prompt system on email and mobile, though a little lacking on much beyond screaming 'prepare for the worst!!'. Wolf and crying kicks in a tad here).
Sadly, to no avail so far. Each, as suggested here, points at the other, and/or various colourful websites that are pretty of little use.
Officers are 'busy', and have been for years. But I got the offer of 'a' sandbag once.
If this is the level of support to a householder who is prepared to DIY, and pay for it all himself, I am not too inspired as to how it's going to improve very much for those in less of a position to do so.
But I am sure many reports will get prepared, boxes ticked, and sombre spokespersons from multiple, overlapping public bodies explaining how it happened this time due to ‘unexpected circumstances’.
You pay me to not buy my product, OK?
Sorrell advises agencies to help people consume less
Hey, works for me (well, Junkk.com...RE:tie...)
'...keep the wheels of the industry turning in the coming tough times by investigating communications strategies that will persuade consumers to change their behaviours or even to consume less, which led to mutterings...'
Interesting. Was anything shared on how this would work in practice?
I'm keen to learn how and hence share it. Sadly, to date, economy seldom goes hand in hand with environment... at least, when it comes to using, and hence consuming less. Salaries to pay; budgets to fund.
Making things that still get bought and impact less... now that I can see as quelling the mutterings a tad. I have a few ideas on this... if anyone is interested.
Hey, works for me (well, Junkk.com...RE:tie...)
'...keep the wheels of the industry turning in the coming tough times by investigating communications strategies that will persuade consumers to change their behaviours or even to consume less, which led to mutterings...'
Interesting. Was anything shared on how this would work in practice?
I'm keen to learn how and hence share it. Sadly, to date, economy seldom goes hand in hand with environment... at least, when it comes to using, and hence consuming less. Salaries to pay; budgets to fund.
Making things that still get bought and impact less... now that I can see as quelling the mutterings a tad. I have a few ideas on this... if anyone is interested.
Well, they asked
The UK’s top-30 cleantech startups
Consider this a cautious loud whisper:
The RE:tie -
New - not to mention unique (as, well, it's often the same thing)
Exciting to us for any reason - dunno, how do you feel about an idea that turns 2 billion bits of plastic a day from pure waste to totally second useful?
Promising future - depends on whether those who claim to be keen on green are more into talking about it or doing something tangible. And I mean making more profit, though there is that whole CSR malarky, too.
Solid potential earnings - see above. How many consumers out there ready for an end-benefit with their latest green initiative as opposed to a fee, fine, nag, nanny, fright or guilt-trip?
Ecologically sound - one less piece in the bin, one less in the landfill, one less new item needing to be made and shipped.
Business model or technology that has clear environmental benefits - See above.
Obvious targets for investment or already invested in - See above. But did you have to mention 'targets'. P-EU. No one we've showed it too so far has said it stinks.
Has good news stories to tell - an eco-initiative with a win for consumers, a win for manufacturers, a win for supermarkets, a win for LAs, a win for a government looking to promote eco-innovation... and the planet doesn't do too shabby either. Call that a yes.
Did I miss anything?
Having a good idea is the easy part. Making it a great business is much trickier, which is why exposure for small outfits to bigger guys with reach and expertise is invaluable. Ta for the opportunity.
We're just looking for the right partners without the UK malaises of being mainly interested in process over result ,and only ever risking enough to be first to be second.
It would be a shame to see this go overseas.
Consider this a cautious loud whisper:
The RE:tie -
New - not to mention unique (as, well, it's often the same thing)
Exciting to us for any reason - dunno, how do you feel about an idea that turns 2 billion bits of plastic a day from pure waste to totally second useful?
Promising future - depends on whether those who claim to be keen on green are more into talking about it or doing something tangible. And I mean making more profit, though there is that whole CSR malarky, too.
Solid potential earnings - see above. How many consumers out there ready for an end-benefit with their latest green initiative as opposed to a fee, fine, nag, nanny, fright or guilt-trip?
Ecologically sound - one less piece in the bin, one less in the landfill, one less new item needing to be made and shipped.
Business model or technology that has clear environmental benefits - See above.
Obvious targets for investment or already invested in - See above. But did you have to mention 'targets'. P-EU. No one we've showed it too so far has said it stinks.
Has good news stories to tell - an eco-initiative with a win for consumers, a win for manufacturers, a win for supermarkets, a win for LAs, a win for a government looking to promote eco-innovation... and the planet doesn't do too shabby either. Call that a yes.
Did I miss anything?
Having a good idea is the easy part. Making it a great business is much trickier, which is why exposure for small outfits to bigger guys with reach and expertise is invaluable. Ta for the opportunity.
We're just looking for the right partners without the UK malaises of being mainly interested in process over result ,and only ever risking enough to be first to be second.
It would be a shame to see this go overseas.
Transport of delights - Turkish 3rd class, mainly
Sometimes it is refreshing to find others not so easily swayed by green-tinted press releases or 'it's eco so it must be 100% fine' blinkers.
So I'll leave this little review on our transport structure to Greenbang.com - Public transport failing - (shocking latest news)
So I'll leave this little review on our transport structure to Greenbang.com - Public transport failing - (shocking latest news)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Winning ways
Time to muse on awards... again.
And my feelings are no less mixed than they were the last time.
I just feel the urge, and the timing is optimal as we have not just won any... or lost any either, recently.
That said, a few are bubbling, hence prompting the ponder.
At the end of the day, why the heck enter? I guess it boils down basically to three main areas: ego, money... and PR (which really means serving the first two).
And what does it cost? Basically, time (always) and money (usually). But then there are a few other factors in the mix, and which should not be forgotten, namely reputation and... waaaay too often, blood pressure. These things can't half wind you up, especially if you have invested a lot in entering.
For fairly simple reasons, we seldom enter anything that costs. As an ex-ad man I have also got a lot fussier about the brief (or criteria) than I used to, and now, thanks to a few major 'Huh???'s' have got a lot more picky based on the organisers and especially the judges.
Money is a great excluder, especially when it comes to talent. You can have no talent and lots of money, and enter almost anything you fancy. You can have oodles of talent and no money and find your options are much more restricted.
And let's not forget awards are big business, from entries to galas, so those who organise are always going to be conscious of where the money comes from. And will be keen to keep it coming.
A lot is therefore down to the guidance to, and integrity of judges.
But these days there is even more, and that is their qualifications. In many 'people's choice' awards there can be no more egalitarian choice of judge than the people, but once celebrity laypersons get in there odd things can happen.
It's not so important in something that is still about, say creativity and how it plays to the public, but of late I have had to wonder what BB reject or supermodel has by way of insight into an invention. It's all become a bit too cosy, and clubby, especially when money is in the mix.
As a few Junkk and RE:tie advisers have pointed out, awards are nice, but you can't eat them, so prioritising which will lead to the next meal is probably a good idea. So from now on I'll try and leap more with my head than my heart.
And my feelings are no less mixed than they were the last time.
I just feel the urge, and the timing is optimal as we have not just won any... or lost any either, recently.
That said, a few are bubbling, hence prompting the ponder.
At the end of the day, why the heck enter? I guess it boils down basically to three main areas: ego, money... and PR (which really means serving the first two).
And what does it cost? Basically, time (always) and money (usually). But then there are a few other factors in the mix, and which should not be forgotten, namely reputation and... waaaay too often, blood pressure. These things can't half wind you up, especially if you have invested a lot in entering.
For fairly simple reasons, we seldom enter anything that costs. As an ex-ad man I have also got a lot fussier about the brief (or criteria) than I used to, and now, thanks to a few major 'Huh???'s' have got a lot more picky based on the organisers and especially the judges.
Money is a great excluder, especially when it comes to talent. You can have no talent and lots of money, and enter almost anything you fancy. You can have oodles of talent and no money and find your options are much more restricted.
And let's not forget awards are big business, from entries to galas, so those who organise are always going to be conscious of where the money comes from. And will be keen to keep it coming.
A lot is therefore down to the guidance to, and integrity of judges.
But these days there is even more, and that is their qualifications. In many 'people's choice' awards there can be no more egalitarian choice of judge than the people, but once celebrity laypersons get in there odd things can happen.
It's not so important in something that is still about, say creativity and how it plays to the public, but of late I have had to wonder what BB reject or supermodel has by way of insight into an invention. It's all become a bit too cosy, and clubby, especially when money is in the mix.
As a few Junkk and RE:tie advisers have pointed out, awards are nice, but you can't eat them, so prioritising which will lead to the next meal is probably a good idea. So from now on I'll try and leap more with my head than my heart.
AWARD - Green Awards 2008
WHEN: 10 Sept 2008
WHAT: Green Awards for Creativity in Sustainability
WHAT... MORE?: Green Awards were set up to recognise and reward creative work that communicates the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility, sustainable development and ethical best practice in any sector and across any marketing discipline.
HOW MUCH: £75 + VAT if you are wee, £250 if you could care less on the fee
URL: http://www.greenawards.co.uk/about/background
COMMENTS: You pays yer money and you take your chances. No doubt winning something is good for PR. We will not be entering. The fee, even for a small sME, is a lot. We also have our doubts on the set-up having entered (and paid) in the first year in the sub-budget sector and found our entry 'amalgamated at the discretion of the jury' with mega-bucks projects. And, sadly, awards outfits know where the big fees come from. Seeing highly creative eco-marketing sidelined in favour of blu-chip and LA greentosh campaigns, especially multi-piece DM packs, was more than we could stomach.
WHAT: Green Awards for Creativity in Sustainability
WHAT... MORE?: Green Awards were set up to recognise and reward creative work that communicates the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility, sustainable development and ethical best practice in any sector and across any marketing discipline.
HOW MUCH: £75 + VAT if you are wee, £250 if you could care less on the fee
URL: http://www.greenawards.co.uk/about/background
COMMENTS: You pays yer money and you take your chances. No doubt winning something is good for PR. We will not be entering. The fee, even for a small sME, is a lot. We also have our doubts on the set-up having entered (and paid) in the first year in the sub-budget sector and found our entry 'amalgamated at the discretion of the jury' with mega-bucks projects. And, sadly, awards outfits know where the big fees come from. Seeing highly creative eco-marketing sidelined in favour of blu-chip and LA greentosh campaigns, especially multi-piece DM packs, was more than we could stomach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)