Nice jugs... or a big boob?

When I was an avid ad-man I was involved (at the very end) of many a new product launch.

By my point all was sorted, save the bit that told the consumer what the thing was, how it worked and why they could not now live without it.

All this was in the creative brief, which had the key points, but also usually came supported by telephone directories of other guff such as customer research and consumer trial data.

You don't make a massive investment in a brand new product, requiring all sorts of new kit, and then advertise it, requiring all sorts of munny, without first making sure it works.

Or... possibly... not.

Wal-Mart’s New Milk Jug Cuts Costs, Customers Cry Over Spilt Milk

Interesting to see how this new 'eco-inovation' is shaping up.

New ‘Green’ Milk Jugs Not Cutting it with Consumers

Looking out for your neighbours?

Or going beyond the limits of acceptability? This is not enviro related but is one of those stories that makes you think "what if it had happened here?".

The full report is from ABCNews, and concerns a certain Joe Horn, who shot and killed two burglars attempting to break into his neighbour's house.

Now here in the UK, Joe Horn would already be serving a long sentence for manslaughter; over the other side of the pond, a grand jury actually declined to indict him, so he will not even be facing trial.

Here you can be 'done' for putting the wrong recyclables into the incorrect recycling bin. It rather makes you think, doesn't it?

Red flag!

Petrolheads take to life in the slow lane

Just noticing a few comments in the main piece and thread that seem to suggest that the solution to getting back up to speed is just to go 'alternative', such as electric/hybrid.

How are these 'free' sources of non-polluting, carbon-neutral energy generated again?

I do believe it's what it takes to get the wheels turning that matters for pocket and planet; not what goes in the tank.

C... ohhhh... too?

This deserves its own little slot. Hey, what's £100B amongst chums?

How the government fluffed its renewables numbers

Frankly it should be front page.

'Apparently somebody got carbon and CO2 mixed up, said an official.'

'But the subsequent point tells a more interesting and worrying story: reductions in 2020 are interesting, but surely the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions the UK buys with its £100bn is even more important. The government, it seems, is worried about ticking boxes in Brussels, but has lost sight of the big picture.'

Oh.... scrapstore

Computer autocorrects surname "gay" to.. no, you guess

On my little enviro site we often have occasion to use the word 'scrapstore'.

Sadly we have a cheap and cheerful, but rather unsophisticated 'naughty word' filter that means this very useful resource is very hard to refer to;(

I'm guessing there may well be others, too.

Battery recycling coming to the UK

Well, the collection of used batteries is - the actual recycling will be undertaken in Le Havre, France.

Odd that we don't seem to have the means or intentions to recycle them on our side of the channel. I wonder if they are going to ship back over the outputs which "can then be used in smelting works, cement factories and also as road building materials"?

Full story from Letsrecycle.com.

Worried about Peak Oil?

And wondering what plans our Gov has to account for the forthcoming oil supply crunch?

Well, rather surprisingly, our Gov seems to think that oil supplies will not be a problem and that our economy will continue to sustain and grow as the UK's demand for oil continues to grow too.

Most experts within the oil business itself believe that peak oil will create a major economic headache for the western world and most western governments are actually making contingency plans - well, except ours.

Not compulsory, of course, but if you would like to lobby our Gov to actually DO something please feel free to sign up to the following Downing Street petition.

JUNKK - Festivals

ARTICLES

Guardian - Heading for the green fields

For what it's worth, 'The Big Green Gathering' (located not too far from Glastonbury in Somerset) seemed to have its heart in the right place and has a nice vibe. My wife was asked to perform with her band so we decided to make it a family camping break. I was just keen to scope what might be out there in the world of enviro stuff. A few fun stalls but I'd have to say a few DIY/Home shows at the NEC I've been to probably covered more, more thoroughly.

As the piece indicates, I did also have slight trouble reconciling a bunch of folk traveling from all over the place basically to consume (no matter how 'greenly'), especially as most of us were getting there in cars (reason, if not excuse: ours was packed to the gunnels with camping and muso kit). And looking at the number of belching old campers and/or brand new pristine 4x4s in the car park I'd say the rest of the new age/new green brigade had decided to live with the irony.

Frankly I am rather feeling most festivals/concerts should just get on with doing what they were mainly designed to do, and as best they can meet some common sense, practical and reasonable CSR obligations (minimal impact, leave it as you found it (or better), the various 'R's). Mitigation is of course great, and to an extent worth sharing, but I'd also try and avoid too much sanctimonious planet-pushing if the enviROI of having it is higher than not.

Especially if the excuse for the shortfall is 'awareness'. A few too many folk are make a wee bit too much money pumping out extra CO2 in the name of reducing it, and that does not add up to me.

INFO

agreenerfestival.com
Biggreengathering
sunrisecelebration.com

New NASA Climate Change Website

NASA has launched a new climate change website - see NASA Website.

The site provides a plethora of data, including some quite scary time series flash animations (click on the Climate Time Machine tag), plus loads of very considered but reasonably concise documentation.

Well worth a visit.

Gordon the green engine .......

OK, Gordon the 'green' PM. As he today announced a 'green revolution' of measures including the development of thousands more wind turbines and a push for much more energy from other types of renewables as part of a £100bn plan to boost renewable energy across the UK. Full story from the Beeb.

£100 Billion - now that's a serious wad of cash - how is the Gov going to fund it? Oh, "Household bills are expected to increase as a result of the measures". Ahhh, I see, we are all going to pay for it.

And who will manage the 'plan'? Well, I've just read it again and it is not really a plan, it's more of a 'vision' or even a 'strategy'.

So it all looks yet again like another vapour-ware initiative - all sound bites and no actual 'doing'. Not so much a 'green engine', more of a wisp of 'green hot air'.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt; anyone else getting that old 'Deja Vu' feeling?

The image of rubbish

As an ad man I think I am pretty much aware of most 'techniques' used, and also what might and might not work.

It often depends on context, and the interplay of words and image, but I am not a big fan of negatives.

Look at this ad.

It's actually about a very good, positive thing: a consultation (here - if your are in HR and interested) on the provision of waste collection services in our fair county .

But really, given what you see here, would you want to be part?

Why of why is the comms aspect of our green agendas so expensive (that a full-page, full colour ad), yet so woeful?

All the unfounded opinion that's unfit to broadcast

To the BBC:

I today on BBC Breakfast News watched a possibly sincere but lightweight attempt at dealing with a serious issue: fuel costs and mitigating actions.

In the course of my morning viewing I saw two of the slots devoted to this.

In one a 'reader's tip' was read out to suggest I ran my car with a half-empty tank on the possibly rational explanation that one is lugging less weight.

Later on, another read out flatly contradicted this, saying the void left encouraged evaporation.

To be fair, the hapless reporter and studio reporters did rather lose it and suggest that 'maybe they need to find out'.

Much as I know the BBC is addicted to viewers' input, may I suggest that on matters of subjective fact, as a supposed news programme you blooming well find out what is the correct information FIRST before broadcasting it?

Or at least have informed, educated moderators to hand to put things in context?

Any commuter who left without seeing any clarification at the end of the programme (if there was I missed it) will now be either ill-informed or totally confused.

Which is about right for the state of green-related reporting and editorial on the BBC these days.

It's serious. Treat it so. And hire guys who know what they are on about.

CATEGORY - CYCLING

Issues

BBC - Parents 'stop children cycling' - Heart says yes; had says 'nice try, gov/media combo'. Took the boys out for a jaunt and almost got mown down. They will not cycle without me (not that I would have afforded much beyond a source of blood) until much older.

BBC - The bicycle backlash unfolds - The law of unintended consequences? Or just rubbish planning?

Guardian - The wheel of generosity - As interesting for where it is printed as what it is saying. And, if true, the numbers quoted in the post and subsequent comments do give cause to cock an enviROI eyebrow.

Times - Try cycling the wheelbarrow to work - an option, if you have the money and surroundings

Indy - NEW - Back in the saddle: Why the Government wants more children cycling to school

Sites

UK

bikeability.org.uk
bikeit -
cyclingengland.co.uk

Media

BBC Green - Biking for beginners
Sunday Times - Bike Clinic & Backpedaller
Sunday Times - Webwise: everything you wanted to know about cycling - Well, a fair bit maybe, but not all.
Sunday Telegraph - Maybe Cameron should take a taxi? - I include this less as something to add to any info on the joys and options of cycling, but more to show how, like Climate Change, it has become polarised (if not politicised) beyond any rational discourse.

Know your [insert relevant noun here]

Prey? Enemy? Target? In most forms, not my favourite group.

Can the lobbyists be stopped?

And to know 'em, is to, well, know 'em.

Some interesting replies already. Mine:

A register. That'll do it.

Just like not requiring a DoB on a CV will prevent ageism-related employment practices.

Gotta love the notion that if it's on paper it can't be circumvented in a millisecond in other ways.

Guardian - Confusing politics with science - I was looking for a place to stick this. As the word is used, I guess here'll do. As well as noting the public interest possibly not being served by most 'sides' arguing over our futures. At least a few in the thread see that being 'right' doesn't mean diddly if the public doesn't get on board.

Interesting, but...

I stumbled across this en route to another piece.

Long hours and obsession with minutiae. No 10's private man

It could so easily have been passed over as yet another in the endless series of chatterati-calls drones we get subjected to these days, but my eye alighted on the first 'example' cited - 'whether the government should impose a deposit on bottles of soft drinks and beer, to encourage people to return them.'

Sadly, I for now remain none the wiser. It is to be hoped that, at some stage, an answer, and a good decision, may ensue. But maybe a newer process will take precedence over actually delivering any result. Another POOR - Show (Process Over Obvious Result, mainly for show). It seems to be a trend.

This is going to hurt!

And that applies to all of us. It will be of little surprise to everyone that energy bills are going to rise again later this year; but it may come as a surprise to anyone already struggling with household bills that the level of increase may be in the region of 30% to 40%! Full story is from the Telegraph.

Strewth! A rise of that ilk is going to push a hell of a lot more people into 'fuel poverty' (the Gov's rather quirky term for those that cannot afford to pay to keep themselves warm).

And while oil prices do not seem to be showing any indication of coming down, despite some key analysts claiming the current price is 'spiked' due to speculators, the value of your house looks set to plummet!

Everything is beginning to look like complete doom and gloom! Yet I keep hearing people from our Gov scoffing every time anyone mentions the 'Recession' word!

EVENT - Bristol Design Festival/Eco-Design Show

UPDATED INFO

WHEN: From the now 'til at least July 6, if not a bit longer, like the 18th (tbc - now confirmed!)
WHAT: Bristol Design Festival - Eco Design Show
WHAT... MORE?: The Bristol Design Festival is an annual celebration of creativity, design and innovation in Bristol and the South West. Presented by a group of volunteers who believe passionately about design and the city of Bristol. They believe it is about time Bristol and the South West got the recognition it deserves as a region of design excellence and a hub of creativity. The Eco-design show is pretty much a 'does what it says on the tin' 'off-broadway' event around this. And offers a nice RE-use complement to the predominantly RE-cycle theme of the venue.
HOW MUCH: Free
URL: http://www.bristoldesignfestival.com/
COMMENTS:

As part of this, Junkk.com is proud to have been invited to have a presence at the 'Eco-design' show.

This runs from now to Friday 18 July, 9-18.00. Best to call first. 0117 925 0505

It is located at The CREATE Centre, Smeaton Road, Bristol BS1, 6XN

As you'll see, ours more of a small demo stand, but there are bits and bobs, and some other nifty stuff. Frankly, not worth a city to city jaunt for the show alone, but as the pictures will show, the centre itself is in a heck of a nice setting, easy to access and has (I know, tsk) good parking. Well worth a call if you are a Bristol resident to see you tax dollars and LA-greenophilia at work.

Prof's Poser - Strike a light?

BBC News is doing a report on the National Trust replacing all its light bulbs... 'which has an immediate environmental benefit'. Does it?

I have written, simply to ask;

I have just watched your piece on the National Trust replacing 40,000 lights in their properties with low energy variants. Obviously much better for energy consumption and financial savings (after the initial costs, unless sponsors Philips - nice ad - are covering that. Shame the public does not get this advantage).

I'd just like to ask whether this also represents an immediate environmental saving whilst the report indicates the old bulbs 'will be recycled'. That would suggest perfectly good, if inefficient bulbs are to be discarded.

It would be interesting to know what the break-even points - environmentally, if not financially - there are used to help judge the most effective courses.

Is the BBC stating categorically, on advice, that it is better environmentally (allowing for 'costs' of manufacture, etc), to swap to low energy bulbs right away, rather than let them expire naturally and replace at this point?

If so, this is well worth promoting further.

My point (if not by me) has been made, with the blonde and bouffant saying it is a good one. Why do I suspect that this will be as far as an important issue of enviROI is passed over... again?

I'd simply like to know what to do that is best. Not to make a cute piece of PR puff.

Telegraph - About time National Trust moved to energy -saving lightbulbs

Common sense?

Or politically correct madness? I'll leave that up to you, the reader, to decide.

This from the Telegraph highlights a study undertaken by a group of scientists on what may happen if the EU follows through with proposals to ban a number of commonly used herbicides, insecticides and fungicides.

I actually worked on a project directly related to biocides and the amount of time and effort taken up in chemical risk and hazard assessment was simply extraordinary. Plus, as far as I was aware, ALL chemicals used in biocides known to pose ANY sort of toxicity threat were withdrawn from use during the 1970's & 1980's.

"A ban on chemical products used to control disease, pests and weeds would create food shortages, lead to soaring prices and increase Britain's dependence on imports."

"The yields of staples foods such wheat, potatoes and green vegetables would all be severely hit if the majority of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, all of which have been certified as safe and which are commonly used by farmers - are banned."

OK, so reducing the number and amount of chemicals used in agriculture does seem, at first glance, to be a pretty sensible idea. But, and this is the big question, at a time when basic food prices are going through the roof, and we probably need to actually increase yields, a blanket ban that might actually reduce crop yields by between 25% to 50% seems to me to be rather questionable.

Having some friends who have just come back from holiday in Spain and who have pointed out that over there, individual bar owners can decide whether their premises are smoking or no smoking, what's the betting that the UK would be yet again the only member of the EU to take any notice of a ban on the use of biocides anyway?

Words & Deeds

It's a survey, so we grab that pinch of salt now. But, considering it's in the Observer, one does tend to take note:

Poll: most Britons doubt cause of climate change

Especially as it does rather serve what I bang on about. Which as an aside shows how polls, and consequent editorialising, can easily be selective.

I don't propose to argue one way or t'other about CC, or even the ProbablyManWorsenedNegative variant I subscribe to, but this does beg the question as to the credibility and effectiveness of all those who have taken to 'educate'/influence the public in this matter. And ask why 'they' (well, to an extent, 'we') are proving so poor in getting their messages across. Which leads me to their qualifications to be allowed to carry on, not in freedom of speech terms, but when vast amounts of public money are consumed to fund these efforts.

On my other blog I have expressed some concern at the ongoing attempts by a few in the political and chatterati firmament to blame everybody but themselves in polls that did not go the 'right' way, often taking it to the extreme of suggesting 'other' views should be suppressed and/or that the general public is not qualified to judge. Hence I crank an eyebrow at this: 'Some environmentalists blame the public's doubts on last year's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, and on recent books, including one by Lord Lawson, the former Chancellor, that question the consensus on climate change.' That's 'a' programme and 'a' book, both widely dissected by those of a more climate pessimistic nature with frankly vast resources. And the notion is the people are being seduced by such as these? There is a worrying similarity with the recent and ongoing Irish EU situation, where by having a contrary opinion there seem a really rather ugly group think being engaged upon against those who do not conform with the 'consensus'. Faced with such as this my nature is almost to kick back just for the naked obnoxiousness of the stance being taken and the uncritical homage demanded.

I have to say I have sympathy with this form Bjorn Lomborg, who '..said politicians and campaigners were to blame for over-simplifying the problem by only publicising evidence to support the case.' Of course this is a critique that can apply to (and I hate such generalist terms) other 'sides'.

Hence I find this from the Department for the Environment to be making a key point: 'The IPCC... concluded the scientific evidence for climate change is clear and it is down to human activities.' Unless there's a bit left out, is it that clear, definitive... and certain? It's all due to human activity? I remain unsure, don't recall it be proven, and hence such claims do rather cause me to crank an eyebrow at anything else such entities may come up with.

Meanwhile such as this does not help either: '...six out of 10 agreed that 'many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change'.

It all seems so all or nothing, 'if you are not for us, you are against us'. And history has shown how well those stances have served.

So here is a worrying, but frankly unsurprising finding: 'More than half of those polled did not have confidence in international or British political leaders to tackle climate change'.

Whatever the message is or should be, I remain firm in my belief the current crop of messengers need to be reviewed.