A small piece on BBC Breakfast which typifies why I feel the whole sorry news, and especially science & tech.. er... environment* aspects are now less than worthless.
It was on.. corks.
In the (lightly nutty with a hint of spice) red corner we have a luvvie oenophile, for whom no bottle should cost less than £100 and be 'tainted'.
In the green corner, we have some bloke on about some bit of fauna being eradicated if the cork tree orchards are converted to other uses.
Now, I will leave out the majority of the 'debate', and my feelings on the matter, because my concern was with the conduct of the moderators.
Even when the two 'experts' were accusing each other of being plain wrong and/or being strangers to the truth, the response was 'oh, well, we're running out of time, you two sort it out later'.
No.... I was trying to arrive at a view and was left with an unresolved petty spat. This is supposed to be a news programme; not Jerry Springer.
* (there's been a name change, apparently. Why? While there are cross-overs they are distinct topics)
Showing posts with label BBC BREAKFAST NEWS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BBC BREAKFAST NEWS. Show all posts
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Have press card, will travel (to save planet)
BERG BENCHLESS
Now I have just about got used to endless celebs and their camp following 'journalistic' mates raising 'awareness' of climate change in their sweetly ironic way by helicoptering up to a snow-covered place at the first crack of a calving glacier or to see if saying 'boo' to a polar bear will stress it out... a bit more.
Or getting in a boat which, one presumes, uses some form of internal combustion power ('No dear, you can't put your settee on the funnel as that's where the poisonous gasses belch from when Capt'n Fishstocks yells 'Hypocrisy Ho!'). They have gathered that kayaks don't work too well, especially when trying to make a point.
But I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor as I watch my BBC Breakfast News about a couple who used their Tesco ClubCard Miles to buy Business Class flights.
Hey, whatever keeps the ratings up in Sevenoaks, I guess.
However, what got me, immediately, (and, to be fair a few readers, who whose comments were jokily referred to mid-way) was that what made this advertisement for the 'buy more stuff' scheme by a major private retailer a 'good thing' to share was, apparently, the fact that the couple accrued these points by collecting recycling waste.
Now, I really endorse the notion of reward-based eco-schemes (so long as they make sense.. and work) as opposed to the usual fine or hairshirt stuff, but for the love of Gaia could they not have found someone... anyone... who did not negate the whole effect, and hence point in such a crass manner?
Apparently it was offset. Now, I am no expert, but I am pretty sure the carbon gain of recycling some plastic bottles for 12 weeks is probably going to struggle to cope with what pops out the exhaust of a 747.
I wonder if it was the same one that ferried the bouffant and crew to New York for a quick slot on how the news in America is made. Don't they have guys over there to do that?
And now, as I type, It seems that shrimps in some bay up North are vanishing on account of... the salt water being diluted by all the rain.
There was a time when I would have swallowed that hook, line and mayonnaise, but now, without a serious scientist or two elsewhere agreeing, as far as I am concerned this is more likely due to over-fishing due to ever-increasing demands for prawn-cocktails as such the BBC canteen expands with more staff to address the news 'needs' of a growing population.
Times - Honeymoon takes off with recycled Air Miles -
True eco-champions. Where did they honeymoon? Antarctica? Probably not as it's packed with celeb luvvies and media camp followers raising 'awareness'. Besides the 'irony', anyone calculated 60,000 items recycled vs. 2 on Biz Class in Jumbo, Co2-wise? Or doesn't that matter?
BBC - Recycling litter funds honeymoon
ADDENDUM:
Funny who things turn out. I used the above as a mild example of how perceptions matter on a thread about 'International conferences....' (not by me, I might add) which started a long time ago on a, how to say, 'serious' 'list'. Look how it went:
Me:
I have followed the discussions on this thus far with interest.
It is obvious the balance is never going to be easy.
Take today.
A couple is lauded (rightly) in the media for taking advantage of a
pro-active, positive, incentive-driven supermarket scheme (and well
done them) to reduce waste and encourage recycling.
Their reward is 'points', which they choose to redeem for... two
Business Class seats to an exotic location.
Which aspect did my more 'climate optimistic' readers pick up upon?
As the topic did come up, do any experts present have a ballpark of
how 60,000 pieces of mixed recyclate would stack up, carbon-wise,
versus the consequences of their flight?
The issue of offsetting did come up and, though I fear the principle
is more important here, facts on mitigation would still be helpful.
To which I got an 'off list' reply (funny how the list encourages debate) from a person how might actually know:
Gr8 stuff (privately – as i hesitate to make an ‘expert’ pronouncement here!
My guesstimate though – between you and me – is that the 60,000 pieces will be a few 100kg of CO2e
The exotic flight – perhaps as much as 10 tonnes CO2e
So yes – 100 to one against!
To which I replied (off list - I know a lost cause when it presents):
Ta for the guesstimate. Mine was a fair bit higher, but I figured the balance was not that optimal.
I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet on those talking a lot actually doing very little, and racking up a lot of bad enviROI whilst engaging in little more than that which they seek to scold others for doing: earning a living. I don't deny them the opportunity, but do question the multiplicity of standards.
And if those don't play well with my 'hood, then my kids' futures on this planet are not being served well. IMHO:)
I then made a mistake. I added:
At least I didn't get the usual flood of 'How dare you use this list for such things!!!'
Well, yet.
'Yet'... soon came:
All a bit of a no-brainer, I would have though - but obviously not.
Recycling materials is not an excuse for profligate energy use elsewhere. The simple message is that we avoid all energy waste or the game is lost. Flying to exotic locations is, sadly perhaps, a luxury that we can no longer afford. There are a lot of interesting places in Europe, accessible by train at a lower energy cost than a flight to NY and back.
Its not about balance, its about doing things differently. One saving does not justify another case of waste; that's plainly absurd. Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I didn't comment on xx's original email as xx is a colleague and a friend but the plethora of comments deserve a reply. Much of what is achieved at conferences lies in the social interaction that happens between sessions. That's where contacts are made and useful networks established. Video conferencing certainly has a role but it does not replace every aspect of human contact - except amongst the socially challenged. Of course there are unnecessary jollies, conducted every day, but there are also events that require human contact where the nuances of the other delegates can be seen. That is how human communication evolved and it's not going to change any time soon. Events that deal with issues such as climate change, where networks develop that can begin to make more effective change, are sensible uses of travel - and xx did point out that he's not flying. Flying off to exotic locations is, I would have thought, an example of senseless and selfish use of travel.
This is more what I expected.
Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I wonder if he meant mine, ad hominem, or the fact that the BBC shared this story as OK because one offset the other. In which cases maybe the government, its national broadcaster and others who would claim to 'know better' are doing a p*ss poor job, I agree.
And I guess Bali is out in future? Then again, getting UK delegates to the US and vice versa will require a nifty train, too.
However, as these guys want 'my sort' out of the club, it is best not to ask in open forum... er... list.
I do fear I touched a raw nerve.
Plus recalling a few past attempts of mine - to point out that when some folk use 'us' as a separate entity to a 'them', the latter might find themselves less sympathetic to the spirit of 'Don't do as I say...' based solely on a bit of perceived 'green cred' - generating more than a couple of old boys muttering about who should be in the club.
Shame then that they are not open to other views, then. Might explain the results generated at a few conferences (very few; I go on my own dime) I have been at where the public and their daily concerns and perceptions are poorly represented.
Sadly, he was also unable to help with my substantive question either. Funny how one willing and able to do so did... off list.
I now have another acronym: IYANWUYAU 'If you are not with us...'
And sadly, I cam mostly apply it to those who should be courting such as me, not driving us away by being incestuous, arrogant, know-all numpties.
Now I have just about got used to endless celebs and their camp following 'journalistic' mates raising 'awareness' of climate change in their sweetly ironic way by helicoptering up to a snow-covered place at the first crack of a calving glacier or to see if saying 'boo' to a polar bear will stress it out... a bit more.
Or getting in a boat which, one presumes, uses some form of internal combustion power ('No dear, you can't put your settee on the funnel as that's where the poisonous gasses belch from when Capt'n Fishstocks yells 'Hypocrisy Ho!'). They have gathered that kayaks don't work too well, especially when trying to make a point.
But I am still trying to get my jaw off the floor as I watch my BBC Breakfast News about a couple who used their Tesco ClubCard Miles to buy Business Class flights.
Hey, whatever keeps the ratings up in Sevenoaks, I guess.
However, what got me, immediately, (and, to be fair a few readers, who whose comments were jokily referred to mid-way) was that what made this advertisement for the 'buy more stuff' scheme by a major private retailer a 'good thing' to share was, apparently, the fact that the couple accrued these points by collecting recycling waste.
Now, I really endorse the notion of reward-based eco-schemes (so long as they make sense.. and work) as opposed to the usual fine or hairshirt stuff, but for the love of Gaia could they not have found someone... anyone... who did not negate the whole effect, and hence point in such a crass manner?
Apparently it was offset. Now, I am no expert, but I am pretty sure the carbon gain of recycling some plastic bottles for 12 weeks is probably going to struggle to cope with what pops out the exhaust of a 747.
I wonder if it was the same one that ferried the bouffant and crew to New York for a quick slot on how the news in America is made. Don't they have guys over there to do that?
And now, as I type, It seems that shrimps in some bay up North are vanishing on account of... the salt water being diluted by all the rain.
There was a time when I would have swallowed that hook, line and mayonnaise, but now, without a serious scientist or two elsewhere agreeing, as far as I am concerned this is more likely due to over-fishing due to ever-increasing demands for prawn-cocktails as such the BBC canteen expands with more staff to address the news 'needs' of a growing population.
Times - Honeymoon takes off with recycled Air Miles -
True eco-champions. Where did they honeymoon? Antarctica? Probably not as it's packed with celeb luvvies and media camp followers raising 'awareness'. Besides the 'irony', anyone calculated 60,000 items recycled vs. 2 on Biz Class in Jumbo, Co2-wise? Or doesn't that matter?
BBC - Recycling litter funds honeymoon
ADDENDUM:
Funny who things turn out. I used the above as a mild example of how perceptions matter on a thread about 'International conferences....' (not by me, I might add) which started a long time ago on a, how to say, 'serious' 'list'. Look how it went:
Me:
I have followed the discussions on this thus far with interest.
It is obvious the balance is never going to be easy.
Take today.
A couple is lauded (rightly) in the media for taking advantage of a
pro-active, positive, incentive-driven supermarket scheme (and well
done them) to reduce waste and encourage recycling.
Their reward is 'points', which they choose to redeem for... two
Business Class seats to an exotic location.
Which aspect did my more 'climate optimistic' readers pick up upon?
As the topic did come up, do any experts present have a ballpark of
how 60,000 pieces of mixed recyclate would stack up, carbon-wise,
versus the consequences of their flight?
The issue of offsetting did come up and, though I fear the principle
is more important here, facts on mitigation would still be helpful.
To which I got an 'off list' reply (funny how the list encourages debate) from a person how might actually know:
Gr8 stuff (privately – as i hesitate to make an ‘expert’ pronouncement here!
My guesstimate though – between you and me – is that the 60,000 pieces will be a few 100kg of CO2e
The exotic flight – perhaps as much as 10 tonnes CO2e
So yes – 100 to one against!
To which I replied (off list - I know a lost cause when it presents):
Ta for the guesstimate. Mine was a fair bit higher, but I figured the balance was not that optimal.
I do have a bit of a bee in my bonnet on those talking a lot actually doing very little, and racking up a lot of bad enviROI whilst engaging in little more than that which they seek to scold others for doing: earning a living. I don't deny them the opportunity, but do question the multiplicity of standards.
And if those don't play well with my 'hood, then my kids' futures on this planet are not being served well. IMHO:)
I then made a mistake. I added:
At least I didn't get the usual flood of 'How dare you use this list for such things!!!'
Well, yet.
'Yet'... soon came:
All a bit of a no-brainer, I would have though - but obviously not.
Recycling materials is not an excuse for profligate energy use elsewhere. The simple message is that we avoid all energy waste or the game is lost. Flying to exotic locations is, sadly perhaps, a luxury that we can no longer afford. There are a lot of interesting places in Europe, accessible by train at a lower energy cost than a flight to NY and back.
Its not about balance, its about doing things differently. One saving does not justify another case of waste; that's plainly absurd. Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I didn't comment on xx's original email as xx is a colleague and a friend but the plethora of comments deserve a reply. Much of what is achieved at conferences lies in the social interaction that happens between sessions. That's where contacts are made and useful networks established. Video conferencing certainly has a role but it does not replace every aspect of human contact - except amongst the socially challenged. Of course there are unnecessary jollies, conducted every day, but there are also events that require human contact where the nuances of the other delegates can be seen. That is how human communication evolved and it's not going to change any time soon. Events that deal with issues such as climate change, where networks develop that can begin to make more effective change, are sensible uses of travel - and xx did point out that he's not flying. Flying off to exotic locations is, I would have thought, an example of senseless and selfish use of travel.
This is more what I expected.
Clearly the Government have done a poor job in communicating the problem if such inane comments are still made.
I wonder if he meant mine, ad hominem, or the fact that the BBC shared this story as OK because one offset the other. In which cases maybe the government, its national broadcaster and others who would claim to 'know better' are doing a p*ss poor job, I agree.
And I guess Bali is out in future? Then again, getting UK delegates to the US and vice versa will require a nifty train, too.
However, as these guys want 'my sort' out of the club, it is best not to ask in open forum... er... list.
I do fear I touched a raw nerve.
Plus recalling a few past attempts of mine - to point out that when some folk use 'us' as a separate entity to a 'them', the latter might find themselves less sympathetic to the spirit of 'Don't do as I say...' based solely on a bit of perceived 'green cred' - generating more than a couple of old boys muttering about who should be in the club.
Shame then that they are not open to other views, then. Might explain the results generated at a few conferences (very few; I go on my own dime) I have been at where the public and their daily concerns and perceptions are poorly represented.
Sadly, he was also unable to help with my substantive question either. Funny how one willing and able to do so did... off list.
I now have another acronym: IYANWUYAU 'If you are not with us...'
And sadly, I cam mostly apply it to those who should be courting such as me, not driving us away by being incestuous, arrogant, know-all numpties.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Caan Do
Just watching James Caan, Dragon's Den entrepreneur, on the BBC News.
I do note that he has a book to sell, but he comes across as a rather charming bloke.
However, I do note major reference to a product he backed, called the 'Rapstrap', by another nice, lucky chap, Andrew Harsley. It is a cable tie variant. Using existing polyprop grade plastic and part-selling on eco-savings.
I think I need look into this. It's not like there is not a precedent.
I do note that he has a book to sell, but he comes across as a rather charming bloke.
However, I do note major reference to a product he backed, called the 'Rapstrap', by another nice, lucky chap, Andrew Harsley. It is a cable tie variant. Using existing polyprop grade plastic and part-selling on eco-savings.
I think I need look into this. It's not like there is not a precedent.
Sunday, August 03, 2008
Debateable
One thing so often missing in matters of debate is effective, balanced moderation.
I have just written to the BBC:
I have just watched the 'debate' between the climate activist and the industry representative.
At one point both 'sides' clearly stated totally stated a report stated diametrically opposite things.
Is there any chance of the moderators/interviewers letting us know who was/is right?
I am already fed up with the classic 'twofer' technique serving ratings more, butbeing allowed to mouth off without being checked adds zero value and the media just gives any old tossed off claim credence in this manner.
I have just written to the BBC:
I have just watched the 'debate' between the climate activist and the industry representative.
At one point both 'sides' clearly stated totally stated a report stated diametrically opposite things.
Is there any chance of the moderators/interviewers letting us know who was/is right?
I am already fed up with the classic 'twofer' technique serving ratings more, butbeing allowed to mouth off without being checked adds zero value and the media just gives any old tossed off claim credence in this manner.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Flash mob
I am watching a segment on our passionately eco-aware national broadcaster.
Seems yet another turtle has lobbed up on our shores on account of global warming.
Sadly this wee fellow, Flash, is not feeling too well.
So, to help him, at half-hourly intervals he gets yanked out of his tank and stuck under the lights. Way to go, Aunty.
Oh, and when he gets better, it seems he, plus handler and TV crew will scoot off to Gran Canaria to release him back into the wild.
At least plastic bags may not get him any more, but I do wonder a tad at the consequences of all those folk flying. Must be another department at the BBC who handles rampant irony, if not total hypocrisy.
Seems yet another turtle has lobbed up on our shores on account of global warming.
Sadly this wee fellow, Flash, is not feeling too well.
So, to help him, at half-hourly intervals he gets yanked out of his tank and stuck under the lights. Way to go, Aunty.
Oh, and when he gets better, it seems he, plus handler and TV crew will scoot off to Gran Canaria to release him back into the wild.
At least plastic bags may not get him any more, but I do wonder a tad at the consequences of all those folk flying. Must be another department at the BBC who handles rampant irony, if not total hypocrisy.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
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
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
Monday, June 16, 2008
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.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
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
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Culture of calamity
Bad news sells. Sad, but true.
But it's really getting too much in the media's desperation to fill 24/7 content hungry spaces, and boost ratings. And context seems to go out of the window. Along with any attempt at seeking a satisfactory resolution. The event is all, and the worse, the better. Now... moving on....
So I look at two back-to-back pieces on BBC News.
First up, we have the 'fact' that few parents allow their kids to walk to school. O.....k. So, er, what? Nope, that was it. A few vox pops with a couple of the legions of 'BBC average families' to say they wouldn't do it, and that's about it. What... was... is the point? If they wanted to depress us, they sure succeeded.
Next, waste. WRAP has cranked out another survey, and 'we' waste scag loads. But other than a few minor (if sensible) suggestions such as not over-buying, and a few daft ones (much as I like and respect Janey Lee Grace, she is now a media elite for whom having her fresh produce delivered is not perhaps a real financial hardship... and frankly the manner of its delivery does not seem to suggest much difference in our propensity to reject that which we over-buy), it was simply a case of 'isn't it all just awful'.
Actually, I would be interested in how these food waste figures play out across all sorts of comparisons. The BBC of course famously weighed in on the packaging debate, and without much of that which they took to task, food waste would be a lot worse. They really love it all ways.
There's even the totality of the figures. The numbers seem horrendous, but are they really that bad? Some waste is inevitable, and any reduction and hence savings in money and emissions is to be striven after. But this unremitting negative 'you're all sooooo bad and the country is sooo awful' is just getting a pain.
BBC - Food waste on 'staggering' scale - 3.6m tonnes
Guardian - Britons wasting £10bn worth of food a year, research says - guess we all got the same PR, then.
Indy - What a waste: Britain throws away £10bn of food every year - or, to put it another way...
This last post (Martin O'Brien) is more than interesting. As was the one tucked away earlier noting that the media-frenzy Planet Ban-it of the month is not, if temporarily, packaging. Good job too, as if used correctly, it actually goes a long way to preventing food waste.
But for all the shock and awe expressed, especially by the ladies who launch campaigns at the drop of a budget, as a consumer I remain a little uncertain what all this froth and both makes suggest one DOES.
I rather suspect all here (myself included) throw out zippy. So what do we have for those less incentivised so far to save (money, waste...etc)?:
'Wrap suggested households seeking to balance their finances could save money by following basic tips to prevent food waste, such as planning shopping trips better and keeping a closer check on use-by dates. It also pointed out that many people do not know the difference between a "best before date", which has no implications for food safety, and use-by data, which must be followed.'
Good advice. Not exactly startling in its own right, and nor have I seen it expressed very loud, clear or often. In fact I have seen one, I am sure award-winning, 'Love Food: Hate Waste' ad (at how much media spend???) in a Sunday Supp. It had a crying tomato. Showed it to my wife, kids and Mum. Not a clue what it was on about. You know, I think the money on that, and those who spun it up, could have been better spent elsewhere.
Like most 'awareness' in the name of green that is being served up so far. We need actions and incentives, not platitudes and winger-waving.
Dizzy Thinks - food-for-thought - a mostly fair, and funny complement
But it's really getting too much in the media's desperation to fill 24/7 content hungry spaces, and boost ratings. And context seems to go out of the window. Along with any attempt at seeking a satisfactory resolution. The event is all, and the worse, the better. Now... moving on....
So I look at two back-to-back pieces on BBC News.
First up, we have the 'fact' that few parents allow their kids to walk to school. O.....k. So, er, what? Nope, that was it. A few vox pops with a couple of the legions of 'BBC average families' to say they wouldn't do it, and that's about it. What... was... is the point? If they wanted to depress us, they sure succeeded.
Next, waste. WRAP has cranked out another survey, and 'we' waste scag loads. But other than a few minor (if sensible) suggestions such as not over-buying, and a few daft ones (much as I like and respect Janey Lee Grace, she is now a media elite for whom having her fresh produce delivered is not perhaps a real financial hardship... and frankly the manner of its delivery does not seem to suggest much difference in our propensity to reject that which we over-buy), it was simply a case of 'isn't it all just awful'.
Actually, I would be interested in how these food waste figures play out across all sorts of comparisons. The BBC of course famously weighed in on the packaging debate, and without much of that which they took to task, food waste would be a lot worse. They really love it all ways.
There's even the totality of the figures. The numbers seem horrendous, but are they really that bad? Some waste is inevitable, and any reduction and hence savings in money and emissions is to be striven after. But this unremitting negative 'you're all sooooo bad and the country is sooo awful' is just getting a pain.
BBC - Food waste on 'staggering' scale - 3.6m tonnes
Guardian - Britons wasting £10bn worth of food a year, research says - guess we all got the same PR, then.
Indy - What a waste: Britain throws away £10bn of food every year - or, to put it another way...
This last post (Martin O'Brien) is more than interesting. As was the one tucked away earlier noting that the media-frenzy Planet Ban-it of the month is not, if temporarily, packaging. Good job too, as if used correctly, it actually goes a long way to preventing food waste.
But for all the shock and awe expressed, especially by the ladies who launch campaigns at the drop of a budget, as a consumer I remain a little uncertain what all this froth and both makes suggest one DOES.
I rather suspect all here (myself included) throw out zippy. So what do we have for those less incentivised so far to save (money, waste...etc)?:
'Wrap suggested households seeking to balance their finances could save money by following basic tips to prevent food waste, such as planning shopping trips better and keeping a closer check on use-by dates. It also pointed out that many people do not know the difference between a "best before date", which has no implications for food safety, and use-by data, which must be followed.'
Good advice. Not exactly startling in its own right, and nor have I seen it expressed very loud, clear or often. In fact I have seen one, I am sure award-winning, 'Love Food: Hate Waste' ad (at how much media spend???) in a Sunday Supp. It had a crying tomato. Showed it to my wife, kids and Mum. Not a clue what it was on about. You know, I think the money on that, and those who spun it up, could have been better spent elsewhere.
Like most 'awareness' in the name of green that is being served up so far. We need actions and incentives, not platitudes and winger-waving.
Dizzy Thinks - food-for-thought - a mostly fair, and funny complement
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
QUOTE OF THE DAY - Mouths of Babes
Just watching the tail end of a few hours of BBC Breakfast News, and one thread throughout has been a segment on escalating kids' party expenses.
I had to laugh that they were at one West London yummie-mummy, luvvie event (the Beeb's only source of what is happening in the UK, it seems) that was 'tackling this issue'... with a 'kids party coordinator'. Save £5 a head on the party bag, but blow the saving on someone who will charge to advise you on how to be a parent? Hmmn.
Anyway, all morning the wee moppets have been shown making Arts & Crafts quietly and diligently, which impressed me no end.
Then things kind of went the shape of a pear.
Having served up this picture of back-to-basics idyll, the reporter made the boo-boo of setting us up for some propaganda.
'So, Fifi Moonshine, which do you now prefer.... making all this lovely stuff or being driven around in a big, nasty stretch limo?'.
Cue cute , shy little smile... 'The limo!"
'Not the answer I was looking for,' our rueful reporter suggests.
Quite. But an interesting insight into what we are fed. Guys, I am all for helping shape a return to a more 'eco-in all its forms' way of life, but not when served up by a rich set of hypsters like our national broadcaster and their speed-dial rent a mob of compliant 'average' folk from Fulham. Thank heavens for that lovely kid. At least she was honest.
Now the big thing is to figure out a way to persuade kids like her that there is something as fun as a limo ride. And then share that.
I had to laugh that they were at one West London yummie-mummy, luvvie event (the Beeb's only source of what is happening in the UK, it seems) that was 'tackling this issue'... with a 'kids party coordinator'. Save £5 a head on the party bag, but blow the saving on someone who will charge to advise you on how to be a parent? Hmmn.
Anyway, all morning the wee moppets have been shown making Arts & Crafts quietly and diligently, which impressed me no end.
Then things kind of went the shape of a pear.
Having served up this picture of back-to-basics idyll, the reporter made the boo-boo of setting us up for some propaganda.
'So, Fifi Moonshine, which do you now prefer.... making all this lovely stuff or being driven around in a big, nasty stretch limo?'.
Cue cute , shy little smile... 'The limo!"
'Not the answer I was looking for,' our rueful reporter suggests.
Quite. But an interesting insight into what we are fed. Guys, I am all for helping shape a return to a more 'eco-in all its forms' way of life, but not when served up by a rich set of hypsters like our national broadcaster and their speed-dial rent a mob of compliant 'average' folk from Fulham. Thank heavens for that lovely kid. At least she was honest.
Now the big thing is to figure out a way to persuade kids like her that there is something as fun as a limo ride. And then share that.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Semantic Antics
Again the plastic bag issue rears its head on the BBC, but in so doing rather highlights another 'Two 'E's' issue, this time Ecology vs. Environment.
I was moved to request that this dilemma at least be better addressed:
I see the BBC again plugging the notion that celebs buying designer reuseables at 'only ' £5 a pop is the best 'awareness' way to be greener.
Having done the free commercial for the luvvie brigade's profits, on a more pragmatic level we have the reporter standing in Oxford Street. But then we get into semantics. He is bang on when he says that retailers are responding to 'solve' the 'ecological' problem with... paper bags. No choking a turtle there.
However, I'd be keen for the national news broadcaster to inform me as to the 'environmental' impact of this switch...
I believe the greenhouse gas consequences of this option might be of relevance in the mix.
I was moved to request that this dilemma at least be better addressed:
I see the BBC again plugging the notion that celebs buying designer reuseables at 'only ' £5 a pop is the best 'awareness' way to be greener.
Having done the free commercial for the luvvie brigade's profits, on a more pragmatic level we have the reporter standing in Oxford Street. But then we get into semantics. He is bang on when he says that retailers are responding to 'solve' the 'ecological' problem with... paper bags. No choking a turtle there.
However, I'd be keen for the national news broadcaster to inform me as to the 'environmental' impact of this switch...
I believe the greenhouse gas consequences of this option might be of relevance in the mix.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Meanwhile, much more importantly...
There's a little slot at the end of the BBC morning news.
It's reserved for Yummy Mummies (and, it seems, dozy, slobby, homeworking Dads) having a wee moment having kicked the kids off to school, the spouse to real work and just finshed sorting the debris all this has left.
It's usually celeb-lite time.
But, in keeping with Auntie's new civic awareness, the PR's pushing their clients forward usually need a bit more to sweetn the deal than they act in some soap. And a cause is always a good one. I just wish all concerned were not so naked in what the real reasons for appearing are, and scoot so superficially over the theoretical actual reason for them being on.
So today we had one Tamsin Outhwaite on matters 'green'. I seem to recall her being on in this regard before*, so she has a bit of form. But for a moment it looked promising. Something about green heroes and awards, and a woman in Wandsworth who has created a site called Nappy Valley to help with reuse (Good luck. I rather think that, as with JunkkYard, FreeCycle has kind of been there and done it).
But before I could jot anything down it was on to her new TV series, a gritty drama based....
Which is, I'm betting, what the site will be on about (actually, it's on ITV, so maybe not), rather than sharing her insights on not leaving the TV on standby, not having a bath, etc.
*Addendum - found it. To be fair, the same cause. Different, though brand new, career event though.
It's reserved for Yummy Mummies (and, it seems, dozy, slobby, homeworking Dads) having a wee moment having kicked the kids off to school, the spouse to real work and just finshed sorting the debris all this has left.
It's usually celeb-lite time.
But, in keeping with Auntie's new civic awareness, the PR's pushing their clients forward usually need a bit more to sweetn the deal than they act in some soap. And a cause is always a good one. I just wish all concerned were not so naked in what the real reasons for appearing are, and scoot so superficially over the theoretical actual reason for them being on.
So today we had one Tamsin Outhwaite on matters 'green'. I seem to recall her being on in this regard before*, so she has a bit of form. But for a moment it looked promising. Something about green heroes and awards, and a woman in Wandsworth who has created a site called Nappy Valley to help with reuse (Good luck. I rather think that, as with JunkkYard, FreeCycle has kind of been there and done it).
But before I could jot anything down it was on to her new TV series, a gritty drama based....
Which is, I'm betting, what the site will be on about (actually, it's on ITV, so maybe not), rather than sharing her insights on not leaving the TV on standby, not having a bath, etc.
*Addendum - found it. To be fair, the same cause. Different, though brand new, career event though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)