Telegraph - The Tories have listened to James Dyson's advice – now they must act on it
Possibly a few fewer ‘Heads of’ at entities might also help.
I was inspired by county councillor over at another post who bet ‘a pound to a penny’ on the matter of quangos, and it seems apposite here, too..
It is my experience that in this era of spin over substance, £1 of funding usually does end at about a penny delivered to the intended beneficiary once every entity in the process has built its empire, stuffed its board, created the pension pot, established regional outposts and hired consultants to assess and dispense.
Why most bother wasting their time applying and simply leave this lot to bask in their own bubbles is beyond me.
Let us see if what is talked gets walked.
Which reminds me, I downloaded the report, but at 57pp have yet to get around to reading it. Which I must.
Showing posts with label BLOG POST. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BLOG POST. Show all posts
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
Innovation - the word vs. the deed
I have stumbled across an interesting discussion on 'innovation'.
With all surrounding RE:tie especially, it is an area of interest.
These guys are obviously operating at a different plane, but this piece does have some useful links and mayeb thhey might not be too offended by a view from the trenches.
What is Innovation?
As a creator of ideas (‘entrepreneur’ being one who has actually made money from them, hence my following such discussions living in hope of the business lightbulb moment that allows me to claim that title) I have found these threads very interesting, if a tad depressing.
It is clearly accepted that ‘innovation’ is all things to all people, from academics to business leaders to politicians to… the public, and hence loses any real value as a well defined descriptive term.
But exist it does, with entire government departments, corporate divisions and huge funding structures devoted to ‘it’, so it is pretty important to grasp if one is to take advantage of all the opportunities swirling around the rallying cry. In particular if one wishes to bring an idea to fruition as a business.
I am minded of a major pitch I made once for a grant that rejoiced under the title ‘Creative Innovations Fund’. Sadly unsuccessful. But in the spirit of ‘if at first you don’t succeed, find out why and don’t repeat unnecessary errors’ I badgered to find out why.
The answer was long in coming and short in everything, including value, as well as logic: ‘It was too left field and hasn’t been proven’.
My follow-up request for what, precisely was understood for ‘creativity’ and/or ‘innovation’ that was so at odds with mine, remains unanswered.
Suffice to say that I fully appreciate that any fool (mea culpa) can have a great idea, but turning it into an attractive, saleable product/service takes a lot more, with an awful lot more folk getting involved. And if one is lucky enough to manage the rocky waters the gatekeeper community represents, then you might end up with an ‘innovation’ which, in time, simply becomes a branded entity.
My background is advertising, if from the creative side. But the disciplines that career imposes are quite solid. And the basics are pretty clear. Getting a USP is a rare, happy event. Combining it well into an end-benefit proposition pretty much the perfect combo… so long as there is a need.
Sorry to be trite, but I do tend to agree with some notions suggested above that the term has been elevated (or is it debased?) to a meaningless buzz-phrase.
I have had the misfortune to be involved with too many business support entities that are attracted to my companies’ activities but have certainly not understood innovation (or innovators) as I do. And also businesses that talk the talk but really have stopped at that point and allowed rhetoric to take over instead of keeping on and walking.
I was at a packaging event recently to promote a patented, awarded design. The show’s title even had the word ‘innovation’ in it. But I was hard pressed to see any evidence of it anywhere, from the inbound mindset of those on the stands to the products on their shelves and the way they were being promoted… save for the use of the word ‘innovation’. I now have a montage of scores of poster titles using it in all manner of incarnations.
So I hope guys like you can pin an definition of innovation down better than it is currently, such that those who claim to wish to embrace it have better idea themselves of what they seek and how best to find (or be open to it) and, more selfishly, guys like me can grasp what they are looking for and how they like it served up.
For now, a CEO mouthing off stuff in the media when a bunch of middle managers clearly didn’t get the memo on long term seed nurturing over short term bean counting can be… frustrating.
With all surrounding RE:tie especially, it is an area of interest.
These guys are obviously operating at a different plane, but this piece does have some useful links and mayeb thhey might not be too offended by a view from the trenches.
What is Innovation?
As a creator of ideas (‘entrepreneur’ being one who has actually made money from them, hence my following such discussions living in hope of the business lightbulb moment that allows me to claim that title) I have found these threads very interesting, if a tad depressing.
It is clearly accepted that ‘innovation’ is all things to all people, from academics to business leaders to politicians to… the public, and hence loses any real value as a well defined descriptive term.
But exist it does, with entire government departments, corporate divisions and huge funding structures devoted to ‘it’, so it is pretty important to grasp if one is to take advantage of all the opportunities swirling around the rallying cry. In particular if one wishes to bring an idea to fruition as a business.
I am minded of a major pitch I made once for a grant that rejoiced under the title ‘Creative Innovations Fund’. Sadly unsuccessful. But in the spirit of ‘if at first you don’t succeed, find out why and don’t repeat unnecessary errors’ I badgered to find out why.
The answer was long in coming and short in everything, including value, as well as logic: ‘It was too left field and hasn’t been proven’.
My follow-up request for what, precisely was understood for ‘creativity’ and/or ‘innovation’ that was so at odds with mine, remains unanswered.
Suffice to say that I fully appreciate that any fool (mea culpa) can have a great idea, but turning it into an attractive, saleable product/service takes a lot more, with an awful lot more folk getting involved. And if one is lucky enough to manage the rocky waters the gatekeeper community represents, then you might end up with an ‘innovation’ which, in time, simply becomes a branded entity.
My background is advertising, if from the creative side. But the disciplines that career imposes are quite solid. And the basics are pretty clear. Getting a USP is a rare, happy event. Combining it well into an end-benefit proposition pretty much the perfect combo… so long as there is a need.
Sorry to be trite, but I do tend to agree with some notions suggested above that the term has been elevated (or is it debased?) to a meaningless buzz-phrase.
I have had the misfortune to be involved with too many business support entities that are attracted to my companies’ activities but have certainly not understood innovation (or innovators) as I do. And also businesses that talk the talk but really have stopped at that point and allowed rhetoric to take over instead of keeping on and walking.
I was at a packaging event recently to promote a patented, awarded design. The show’s title even had the word ‘innovation’ in it. But I was hard pressed to see any evidence of it anywhere, from the inbound mindset of those on the stands to the products on their shelves and the way they were being promoted… save for the use of the word ‘innovation’. I now have a montage of scores of poster titles using it in all manner of incarnations.
So I hope guys like you can pin an definition of innovation down better than it is currently, such that those who claim to wish to embrace it have better idea themselves of what they seek and how best to find (or be open to it) and, more selfishly, guys like me can grasp what they are looking for and how they like it served up.
For now, a CEO mouthing off stuff in the media when a bunch of middle managers clearly didn’t get the memo on long term seed nurturing over short term bean counting can be… frustrating.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Entering the Lion's Den
As I think this may be important, I have entered a PMWNCC debate..
Sober exit from the ozone party
Just when I was getting worried about climate change we now learn that the climate may even fail.
So they are no more qualified to comment on climate than Kevin from Rotherham.
Careful, there may be a pre-eminent Professor of climate stuff out there, first name Kevin, who is from Rotherham. Then by the law of association and 'wot u sed', that means others will then become 'qualified'.
Honestly, I am unsure what 'qualifications' one needs to be 'qualified' to comment on climate change, especially with the anthro kicker that is sometimes added.
I wish there was, because a lot of servers worldwide might get less heated (along with what they shuffle through), if things were/could be a bit more definitive. But, sadly, as we are dealing with the future, short of hiring Dr. Who to the Met Office, things seem unlikely to be ever much improved on the guarantee front, prediction wise. And so much, like flying a B2, seems to be in the realms of super-computers that can defy the more linear logic of the human brain, even a trained science or engineering one. Which can prove an issue of trust, relying on what some (possibly) fallible folk have put in a whizzy box to chew on, and it, GIGOesquely, pops out for those same folk to 'interpret'. Often, it seems, depending on what they want to see.
Which brings me to your other point, which I have indeed seen raised elsewhere.
At risk of being labelled an 'ist' of some tribal extreme, when I merely admit to not knowing for sure yet, but am still keen to find out more, may I pose what I hope (perhaps in vain) a question that more informed... perhaps better 'qualified' minds can explain. Links can help, but just saying 'this chap reckons it's so and she's got a few letters after her name so it must be' is not often the best deal sealer, these days, at least for me.
Anyway....
Key to many 'measures' being discussed, is that 'man' is still doing his darndest to heat the place up and up, and that is the only issue. Hence it seems a bit odd to concede (is it? Or is that just some, and their findings are being pounced upon out of context?... though as Mr. Mandelson has shown of late, that spin is a dodgy one to try for painting black as white)* that all these efforts are being outweighed by another, cooling effect, albeit deemed a 'pause'.
As our race is not, yet, mitigating our efforts in any meaningful way, what then is powerful enough to go from complementing to now reversing our damaging efforts, and how can some be so precise in identifying when that effect will flip again?
For the absence of doubt, I am just asking. Shrieking denier without explanation might not help me understand, though I do concede that this direction might not help the anthro-pessimistic advocacy argument. Unless there is a good reason, which I am more than happy to have explained.
There are some fine minds out there, if from different... um, directions... so I hope what I think is a fair, if possibly naive question (if so, please say so, but just saying 'it's too complicated for you to understand' is Jana Bennett territory) might be contributed to in an informative and persuasive manner.
It will be interesting to see how what I hope is a measured contribution gets handled but what I fear, from experience, two tribes only interested in going to war over words.
In which case I will go back to just not wasting, seeking better efficiencies, and checking the enviROI before leaping to any 'green has to be good' conclusions.
*Addendum - BBC Today - Global temperatures 'could cool'
Just love the journalistic, ratings-hungry conceit of lobbing a 'could', extreme headline up front (or simply say 'is' out loud), with a more cautious 'so says' qualifier in the tail. Helpful?
By way of a possible answer to my question, there was a mention/discussion (if between two folk of possibly less science-based heft than the leading climate modeler quoted) to 'cyclical changes in the Atlantic', which was more tantalising than overwhelming.
What was less than inspiring was the other 70% of the exchange, which seemed more concerned about how it 'might look' from such as Jon 'I just interpret events' Humphrys, ending with a word from his oppo that I usually crank an eyebrow at: narrative. As in 'enhancing' it?
Yes, truths can be inconvenient, but as another noted BBC global warming (are we headed back to this? I gather man-made is off the menu, but from hearing these two chaps chat even climate change is optional) reporter found a while ago, being too willing to allow them to emerge without much journalistic rigour can erode trust in ability and objectivity.
Addendum - I have been... am enjoying the discussion, but wonder where it is going (especially as I see the whole 'tis/'t'isn't big picture and hence personal stuff creeping in, which means it may be time for me to retire gracefully and leave it to those who see profit in such exchanges).
Yes, I pen.. key... 'lots', but I fear I do not have the time to write shorter pieces.
Especially as, ironically, in many ways, it looks as if things are coming full circle. As we now seem at a point where it has swung to matters of degree of the MM in MMGW (I have always favoured the less snappy, though in the circumstances possibly more helpful term: 'Probably man-worsened negative climate change').
Because now we need to glance at other, tricky waters, namely who said (claimed) what, and when. And especially with what deadlines. It may well be that we are in a phase of geo-climatic trending, where graphs can indeed peak and trough over decades. However, the contribution of man is what is being talked about (with a lot riding on it), and data cited in support of this, and that seems hard to marry with many claims made to date, and requiring faith to ignore when they prove exaggerated. Especially when we have an awful lot being pinned on some goalposts that are already moving, yet some who see themselves at the vanguard still cannot resist deadlines that may again disappoint, in matters of months (albeit 100, or 8 years). This, in light of the topic of discussion, seems foolhardy.
And this again leads me to wonder about the abilities and competencies of the messengers who think they are doing a bang up job in bringing the message in a comprehensive and persuasive form to the people. And I am not sure having hissy fits, stamping feet and muttering darkly about 'impositions' as some 'know better' is quite going to cut it, at least in free press democracies, and may well end in tears.
Not looking great, as it is fairly clear these 'chosen ones' are not about to step down, much less shut up (or at least get sensible). Too much ego, and money at stake. Ironically, something that has been and is lobbed around at those (foolishly in my view) addicted to the finite, last legs resource that is oil. And speaking of goalposts, it seems to me that the more extreme advocates from that end of the 'climate change' debate are being handed open ones too often by those who in theory are seeking to promote convincing solutions to real problems, but are spending a tad too much on ensuring their way is followed no matter what.
So no, I am not convinced, yet, that global warming is man made. Totally. Or even to the level that seems to get you labelled a 'denier', albeit illogically and without foundation, for not being fully with 'the team'. Or that, in the absence of dealing with bigger ticket items (such as deforestation or population), beyond sensible preventions of waste and improvements in efficiency, we might not be better advised to direct our efforts more to coping as opposed to totally trying to avoid, as all eggs in that basket is currently a leap of faith I find hard to justify on the 'evidence' so far.
I have called it 'Survival of the Selfish', and it seems to be being practiced a fair bit already. Even closer to home, especially by those in the steering house of our analogous ship, who seem to feel their use of the helicopter to whizz about (I am sure it is hard to resist an invitation to stand on an ice floe if you are a pol or a reporter, but when you are on TV, how it looks goes beyond the screen) is OK, unaware that those in the decks below can't quite see the distinction between the impositions of and on their jobs and lifestyles, and those of the ones usually funding them but told to stay put and deal with less.
I may well be wrong. But as an old client once, crushingly, advised me during a presentation: 'No, I have not failed to understand. The problem is that you have so far failed to persuade me'.
Thank heavens for our relationship, and the future of that account, we were both big enough to understand and hence work further on all that was inherent in that 'so far'.
Addendum - This is an interesting, ongoing series, so i won't put my added comments in to waste space. Best part is, with a few minor exceptions, it is being conducted in a civilised manner. So far. I do however have my suspicions that some contributing might not be as free of agenda, or indeed informed experience, as they might claim or their nicknames suggest.
FT - Emissions fall in 2008: and not entirely because of the recession
Guardian - Will the UN climate change summit lead to a deal? - A good comment early on about population and deforestation needing to be in and/or higher. Plus the value of certain polls.
Sober exit from the ozone party
Just when I was getting worried about climate change we now learn that the climate may even fail.
So they are no more qualified to comment on climate than Kevin from Rotherham.
Careful, there may be a pre-eminent Professor of climate stuff out there, first name Kevin, who is from Rotherham. Then by the law of association and 'wot u sed', that means others will then become 'qualified'.
Honestly, I am unsure what 'qualifications' one needs to be 'qualified' to comment on climate change, especially with the anthro kicker that is sometimes added.
I wish there was, because a lot of servers worldwide might get less heated (along with what they shuffle through), if things were/could be a bit more definitive. But, sadly, as we are dealing with the future, short of hiring Dr. Who to the Met Office, things seem unlikely to be ever much improved on the guarantee front, prediction wise. And so much, like flying a B2, seems to be in the realms of super-computers that can defy the more linear logic of the human brain, even a trained science or engineering one. Which can prove an issue of trust, relying on what some (possibly) fallible folk have put in a whizzy box to chew on, and it, GIGOesquely, pops out for those same folk to 'interpret'. Often, it seems, depending on what they want to see.
Which brings me to your other point, which I have indeed seen raised elsewhere.
At risk of being labelled an 'ist' of some tribal extreme, when I merely admit to not knowing for sure yet, but am still keen to find out more, may I pose what I hope (perhaps in vain) a question that more informed... perhaps better 'qualified' minds can explain. Links can help, but just saying 'this chap reckons it's so and she's got a few letters after her name so it must be' is not often the best deal sealer, these days, at least for me.
Anyway....
Key to many 'measures' being discussed, is that 'man' is still doing his darndest to heat the place up and up, and that is the only issue. Hence it seems a bit odd to concede (is it? Or is that just some, and their findings are being pounced upon out of context?... though as Mr. Mandelson has shown of late, that spin is a dodgy one to try for painting black as white)* that all these efforts are being outweighed by another, cooling effect, albeit deemed a 'pause'.
As our race is not, yet, mitigating our efforts in any meaningful way, what then is powerful enough to go from complementing to now reversing our damaging efforts, and how can some be so precise in identifying when that effect will flip again?
For the absence of doubt, I am just asking. Shrieking denier without explanation might not help me understand, though I do concede that this direction might not help the anthro-pessimistic advocacy argument. Unless there is a good reason, which I am more than happy to have explained.
There are some fine minds out there, if from different... um, directions... so I hope what I think is a fair, if possibly naive question (if so, please say so, but just saying 'it's too complicated for you to understand' is Jana Bennett territory) might be contributed to in an informative and persuasive manner.
It will be interesting to see how what I hope is a measured contribution gets handled but what I fear, from experience, two tribes only interested in going to war over words.
In which case I will go back to just not wasting, seeking better efficiencies, and checking the enviROI before leaping to any 'green has to be good' conclusions.
*Addendum - BBC Today - Global temperatures 'could cool'
Just love the journalistic, ratings-hungry conceit of lobbing a 'could', extreme headline up front (or simply say 'is' out loud), with a more cautious 'so says' qualifier in the tail. Helpful?
By way of a possible answer to my question, there was a mention/discussion (if between two folk of possibly less science-based heft than the leading climate modeler quoted) to 'cyclical changes in the Atlantic', which was more tantalising than overwhelming.
What was less than inspiring was the other 70% of the exchange, which seemed more concerned about how it 'might look' from such as Jon 'I just interpret events' Humphrys, ending with a word from his oppo that I usually crank an eyebrow at: narrative. As in 'enhancing' it?
Yes, truths can be inconvenient, but as another noted BBC global warming (are we headed back to this? I gather man-made is off the menu, but from hearing these two chaps chat even climate change is optional) reporter found a while ago, being too willing to allow them to emerge without much journalistic rigour can erode trust in ability and objectivity.
Addendum - I have been... am enjoying the discussion, but wonder where it is going (especially as I see the whole 'tis/'t'isn't big picture and hence personal stuff creeping in, which means it may be time for me to retire gracefully and leave it to those who see profit in such exchanges).
Yes, I pen.. key... 'lots', but I fear I do not have the time to write shorter pieces.
Especially as, ironically, in many ways, it looks as if things are coming full circle. As we now seem at a point where it has swung to matters of degree of the MM in MMGW (I have always favoured the less snappy, though in the circumstances possibly more helpful term: 'Probably man-worsened negative climate change').
Because now we need to glance at other, tricky waters, namely who said (claimed) what, and when. And especially with what deadlines. It may well be that we are in a phase of geo-climatic trending, where graphs can indeed peak and trough over decades. However, the contribution of man is what is being talked about (with a lot riding on it), and data cited in support of this, and that seems hard to marry with many claims made to date, and requiring faith to ignore when they prove exaggerated. Especially when we have an awful lot being pinned on some goalposts that are already moving, yet some who see themselves at the vanguard still cannot resist deadlines that may again disappoint, in matters of months (albeit 100, or 8 years). This, in light of the topic of discussion, seems foolhardy.
And this again leads me to wonder about the abilities and competencies of the messengers who think they are doing a bang up job in bringing the message in a comprehensive and persuasive form to the people. And I am not sure having hissy fits, stamping feet and muttering darkly about 'impositions' as some 'know better' is quite going to cut it, at least in free press democracies, and may well end in tears.
Not looking great, as it is fairly clear these 'chosen ones' are not about to step down, much less shut up (or at least get sensible). Too much ego, and money at stake. Ironically, something that has been and is lobbed around at those (foolishly in my view) addicted to the finite, last legs resource that is oil. And speaking of goalposts, it seems to me that the more extreme advocates from that end of the 'climate change' debate are being handed open ones too often by those who in theory are seeking to promote convincing solutions to real problems, but are spending a tad too much on ensuring their way is followed no matter what.
So no, I am not convinced, yet, that global warming is man made. Totally. Or even to the level that seems to get you labelled a 'denier', albeit illogically and without foundation, for not being fully with 'the team'. Or that, in the absence of dealing with bigger ticket items (such as deforestation or population), beyond sensible preventions of waste and improvements in efficiency, we might not be better advised to direct our efforts more to coping as opposed to totally trying to avoid, as all eggs in that basket is currently a leap of faith I find hard to justify on the 'evidence' so far.
I have called it 'Survival of the Selfish', and it seems to be being practiced a fair bit already. Even closer to home, especially by those in the steering house of our analogous ship, who seem to feel their use of the helicopter to whizz about (I am sure it is hard to resist an invitation to stand on an ice floe if you are a pol or a reporter, but when you are on TV, how it looks goes beyond the screen) is OK, unaware that those in the decks below can't quite see the distinction between the impositions of and on their jobs and lifestyles, and those of the ones usually funding them but told to stay put and deal with less.
I may well be wrong. But as an old client once, crushingly, advised me during a presentation: 'No, I have not failed to understand. The problem is that you have so far failed to persuade me'.
Thank heavens for our relationship, and the future of that account, we were both big enough to understand and hence work further on all that was inherent in that 'so far'.
Addendum - This is an interesting, ongoing series, so i won't put my added comments in to waste space. Best part is, with a few minor exceptions, it is being conducted in a civilised manner. So far. I do however have my suspicions that some contributing might not be as free of agenda, or indeed informed experience, as they might claim or their nicknames suggest.
FT - Emissions fall in 2008: and not entirely because of the recession
Guardian - Will the UN climate change summit lead to a deal? - A good comment early on about population and deforestation needing to be in and/or higher. Plus the value of certain polls.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
I love civilised debate
And, sometimes, you can be a small part of something rare.
Leaders in step on climate
Yes, it's on the BBC. Even more unique, it's about climate change (though I did note a 'quirk'*). And yet, I took part. To date, it has been worth it.
3. At 7:52pm on 14 Sep 2009:
I am usually hugely underwhelmed by the published results of any poll, from any quarter, especially when a media who depend and thrive on attention and ratings sink their teeth into them.
However, based purely on how reported here, a few things occur...
The British public has become more sceptical about climate change over the last five years, according to a survey.
Twice as many people now agree that "claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated".
Not, exactly, a glowing endorsement of the abilities or trust held in most high-profile politico-media messengers, irrespective of the validity of their message. And, speaking as the parent of teens, not the best basis to go on to effect further change (correction?) in behaviour, be it perceived as 'wrong' or just 'apathy'. But I am guessing, from 'But it does show, I think, that the publics' and their leaders' perceptions of climate change, in the UK and elsewhere, are not significantly out of step." that a change of tack is unlikely any time soon, so carry on. It's worked/working gangbusters so far.
'What we have to get across is that residual uncertainty in science is normal'. And such as this Mondeo Man-engaging phrase is just what's needed to do it.
But, 'A third said there was too much conflicting evidence to know what is actually happening,' which suggests to me that there is still hope, as there are some as smart as they are honest.
Which is why both these sentences are a bit of a worry: "We need to make it clear to people what is due to climate change and what is not. "It is time we made it real to people." This would be 'clarity' according to whom? Made real by whom, and how? Bearing in mind 'Twice as many people now agree that "claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated'. Rather requires a sea change in thinking on the persuasion front from now on, which seems unlikely if the same folk are still dishing it out. And the same public are seeing the next effort coming from those they didn't buy it from before. Trust is tricky to regain.
On current form, I rather worry that 'there is still some way to go before the public's perception matches that of their elected leaders' comes across as less of an observation and more of a challenge to overcome, and not necessarily in a good way, bearing in mind the public's faith in the competence or honesty of those at the helm to date. Especially when a few other 'for your own good' efforts of late have gone down like the proverbial lead balloon, undoing decades of hard fought, sincere and positive efforts.
36. At 09:34am on 15 Sep 2009:
Some great input here. Especially on matters of communication and perception (which I believe can be changed and worth discussing) beyond the 'science' (which seems to have been bogged down between two dogmatic extremes, often charmingly encapsulated by the words 'deniers' and 'warmists', and pretty much dead in the water as regards rational debate). Just a pity one depends on the other to a significant degree (or two).
25. At 01:47am on 15 Sep 2009, Sceptic_Kev wrote:
If you cry wolf and work hard to kill the wolf, then people still assume your a liar.
I am struggling to recall Y2K, but one thing I do is that on that night I was not in a bunker with my tin foil hat on, so somewhere along the line I either ceased to be bothered or chilled out. And a possibly significant aspect is that I do not recall much, or at least the same level of 'official' headless chicken running then. This seemed mainly a media construct and, as pointed out, perhaps inspired or at least accelerated the public's faith failing with 24/7, over-staffed, under-qualified, excessively narrative enhanced, any-pundit-in-a-storm events interpretation.
Suddenly it wasn't just a few banking systems that were going to fail, it was the end of the world.
And when the likes of me realised that reporters seemed to be flying hither and thither to report on 'the end of the world' from nicer venues untroubled that their planes' clocks might be a bit fast, we tended to err more on the side of those who cautioned it was just a few banking systems. QED.
Not a scientific parallel at all here, in fact dangerously so (potentially), but in terms of our faith in media-driven warning systems based on science....
26. At 02:03am on 15 Sep 2009, mhfisher
Another great, telling post. The media love pigeon holes. And adversarial stances. So you are either old, smart and cynical or young, inexperienced and idealistic. Er... how about 'none of the above?', which I rather suspect the average of the silent majority are.
And it also is pretty critical how the questions are put. From surveys to the way they get reported, the *anthropomorphic qualifier pops in and out like a Labour senior minister (it will be the same for Conservative ones if they gain power) from the bunker depending on whether they need to explain a howler or be photographed beside David Beckham.
It may be shorthand, and may be implicit to some, and even be properly applied in the professional research, but that word does not appear, for instance, in the first para of this blog post. I know the climate is changing, and it seems not in a good way. I also think ever more humans are not helping anything much by releasing ever more consequences of their daily business. Just... not so sure yet about the the link, and scale of influence being claimed, and used as excuses for pretty scary stuff by some. Especially those who see cutting back as what others do and some need not (oddly, one set being those they think they 'rule', and another those who treat them with distain but might still fund the odd pension if sucked up to correctly).
I feel like the media coverage needs to change but continue. In what capacity I am not sure. It’s unfortunate that the media has the power to take something serious and turn people off from it.
Bingo, if for different reasons and possibly from different ends of the quaint demographic divide (if by age at least) suggested.
But one last thing to bear in mind. Just because I am proving a harder sell does not mean I don't care, or want to understand. Don't know how many of our passionate youth are parents, but when you are middle aged with kids, with almost none of the suggested consequences in one's lifetime to worry about, the suggestions of some that the likes of me don't have the best interests of my children at heart is at best scientifically silly, and at worst foolishly insulting. That is, if reaching consensus for sensible, practical, action on the part of the total population is really what those more vocal in their 'concerns' really want.
Keetsa - TRUSTING THE GREEN BLOGS TODAY
Leaders in step on climate
Yes, it's on the BBC. Even more unique, it's about climate change (though I did note a 'quirk'*). And yet, I took part. To date, it has been worth it.
3. At 7:52pm on 14 Sep 2009:
I am usually hugely underwhelmed by the published results of any poll, from any quarter, especially when a media who depend and thrive on attention and ratings sink their teeth into them.
However, based purely on how reported here, a few things occur...
The British public has become more sceptical about climate change over the last five years, according to a survey.
Twice as many people now agree that "claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated".
Not, exactly, a glowing endorsement of the abilities or trust held in most high-profile politico-media messengers, irrespective of the validity of their message. And, speaking as the parent of teens, not the best basis to go on to effect further change (correction?) in behaviour, be it perceived as 'wrong' or just 'apathy'. But I am guessing, from 'But it does show, I think, that the publics' and their leaders' perceptions of climate change, in the UK and elsewhere, are not significantly out of step." that a change of tack is unlikely any time soon, so carry on. It's worked/working gangbusters so far.
'What we have to get across is that residual uncertainty in science is normal'. And such as this Mondeo Man-engaging phrase is just what's needed to do it.
But, 'A third said there was too much conflicting evidence to know what is actually happening,' which suggests to me that there is still hope, as there are some as smart as they are honest.
Which is why both these sentences are a bit of a worry: "We need to make it clear to people what is due to climate change and what is not. "It is time we made it real to people." This would be 'clarity' according to whom? Made real by whom, and how? Bearing in mind 'Twice as many people now agree that "claims that human activities are changing the climate are exaggerated'. Rather requires a sea change in thinking on the persuasion front from now on, which seems unlikely if the same folk are still dishing it out. And the same public are seeing the next effort coming from those they didn't buy it from before. Trust is tricky to regain.
On current form, I rather worry that 'there is still some way to go before the public's perception matches that of their elected leaders' comes across as less of an observation and more of a challenge to overcome, and not necessarily in a good way, bearing in mind the public's faith in the competence or honesty of those at the helm to date. Especially when a few other 'for your own good' efforts of late have gone down like the proverbial lead balloon, undoing decades of hard fought, sincere and positive efforts.
36. At 09:34am on 15 Sep 2009:
Some great input here. Especially on matters of communication and perception (which I believe can be changed and worth discussing) beyond the 'science' (which seems to have been bogged down between two dogmatic extremes, often charmingly encapsulated by the words 'deniers' and 'warmists', and pretty much dead in the water as regards rational debate). Just a pity one depends on the other to a significant degree (or two).
25. At 01:47am on 15 Sep 2009, Sceptic_Kev wrote:
If you cry wolf and work hard to kill the wolf, then people still assume your a liar.
I am struggling to recall Y2K, but one thing I do is that on that night I was not in a bunker with my tin foil hat on, so somewhere along the line I either ceased to be bothered or chilled out. And a possibly significant aspect is that I do not recall much, or at least the same level of 'official' headless chicken running then. This seemed mainly a media construct and, as pointed out, perhaps inspired or at least accelerated the public's faith failing with 24/7, over-staffed, under-qualified, excessively narrative enhanced, any-pundit-in-a-storm events interpretation.
Suddenly it wasn't just a few banking systems that were going to fail, it was the end of the world.
And when the likes of me realised that reporters seemed to be flying hither and thither to report on 'the end of the world' from nicer venues untroubled that their planes' clocks might be a bit fast, we tended to err more on the side of those who cautioned it was just a few banking systems. QED.
Not a scientific parallel at all here, in fact dangerously so (potentially), but in terms of our faith in media-driven warning systems based on science....
26. At 02:03am on 15 Sep 2009, mhfisher
Another great, telling post. The media love pigeon holes. And adversarial stances. So you are either old, smart and cynical or young, inexperienced and idealistic. Er... how about 'none of the above?', which I rather suspect the average of the silent majority are.
And it also is pretty critical how the questions are put. From surveys to the way they get reported, the *anthropomorphic qualifier pops in and out like a Labour senior minister (it will be the same for Conservative ones if they gain power) from the bunker depending on whether they need to explain a howler or be photographed beside David Beckham.
It may be shorthand, and may be implicit to some, and even be properly applied in the professional research, but that word does not appear, for instance, in the first para of this blog post. I know the climate is changing, and it seems not in a good way. I also think ever more humans are not helping anything much by releasing ever more consequences of their daily business. Just... not so sure yet about the the link, and scale of influence being claimed, and used as excuses for pretty scary stuff by some. Especially those who see cutting back as what others do and some need not (oddly, one set being those they think they 'rule', and another those who treat them with distain but might still fund the odd pension if sucked up to correctly).
I feel like the media coverage needs to change but continue. In what capacity I am not sure. It’s unfortunate that the media has the power to take something serious and turn people off from it.
Bingo, if for different reasons and possibly from different ends of the quaint demographic divide (if by age at least) suggested.
But one last thing to bear in mind. Just because I am proving a harder sell does not mean I don't care, or want to understand. Don't know how many of our passionate youth are parents, but when you are middle aged with kids, with almost none of the suggested consequences in one's lifetime to worry about, the suggestions of some that the likes of me don't have the best interests of my children at heart is at best scientifically silly, and at worst foolishly insulting. That is, if reaching consensus for sensible, practical, action on the part of the total population is really what those more vocal in their 'concerns' really want.
Keetsa - TRUSTING THE GREEN BLOGS TODAY
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Sticks, stones, words...
I got a compliment just now from a fellow blogger I respect.
On a blog that is important, but I am always conscious how often I take the author to task.
Newsnight - Can climate spending save money?
In thanking her, I ended up writing a fair bit (which might see the snipers cocking their rifles..., so sod 'em), but I am proud of what I wrote and the sentiments that inspired it.
Sadly I find my contributions on a few blogs to err a tad too often at eyebrow crankings when I honestly prefer the rewards of positivity and incentivisation, but I am cursed by an odd mix of an education and early career in the sciences and engineering, followed by an even longer one, to date, in the dubious world of persuading the masses, that is advertising and design. So I tend to detect BS masquerading as fact, especially when gilded with some unsubtle smoke and mirrors swirling around to make it palatable.
Combine all that with a passion for environmental common sense in making this planet better for my kids than I inherited (not looking great so far), and I often slam into problems of detail when it comes to what I have coined the enviROI of various 'eco initiatives' (namely, even if the £/$ financial return still sucks, it can still be OK, unless it so out of kilter money is being simply poured down a green hole and away from better projects). Plus I do find that some self-appointed messengers bearing certain messages they deem vital (often with cause), either don't seem to have noticed (or are bothered) that the vast majority who DO matter either don't care for their pitches, or are a tad offside on the often multiplicity of standards between what they say (others should do) and what they might actually inspire by way of example (exemption by believing one is acting in the public interest is a fair conceit, and epic delusion, at best). I think many do register this discrepancy (often aided by those pushing other agendas I find equally discomfiting) and at best ignore, or at worst kick back. Which, IMHO, is not helping much.
Hence I like to crank the odd eyebrow, and often suggest the odd sharp object may be directed at overinflated sacks of hot air, in the hope that a more measured, moderate dialogue based on fact, objectivity and compromise might see us drift to truly productive shores than just trying to win often unwinnable debates.
There is so much that can be DONE, but talk is still vital to coordinate valuable efforts. I like them civilised and intelligent, and by way of a 'backatcha' have enjoyed reading your posts not just for the content, but the manner of their delivery. It is possible to disagree with style, and maybe in so doing change a view that a knee jerk will only make worse. And humour is well, harder to resist. Funny (not ha-ha) how some keep failing to appreciate that.
Green is good, but only if you really think about it, and in debate it is also worth recalling that green can rarely be viewed just in black and white, as some often seem to forget. Or don't seem to care.
I think the human race will work this whole thing through, but possibly not to the satisfaction of the many who see life as a series of absolutes, be they through dogma, idealism or a bunch of other rather restricting standpoints.
And as I learn or am persuaded by new information, links or just great arguments from the likes of your goodself, and many others here (who you seem to tease the best from), I often find my views can and do evolve and even change. I hope for the better. For my... our kids' sake.
On a blog that is important, but I am always conscious how often I take the author to task.
Newsnight - Can climate spending save money?
In thanking her, I ended up writing a fair bit (which might see the snipers cocking their rifles..., so sod 'em), but I am proud of what I wrote and the sentiments that inspired it.
Sadly I find my contributions on a few blogs to err a tad too often at eyebrow crankings when I honestly prefer the rewards of positivity and incentivisation, but I am cursed by an odd mix of an education and early career in the sciences and engineering, followed by an even longer one, to date, in the dubious world of persuading the masses, that is advertising and design. So I tend to detect BS masquerading as fact, especially when gilded with some unsubtle smoke and mirrors swirling around to make it palatable.
Combine all that with a passion for environmental common sense in making this planet better for my kids than I inherited (not looking great so far), and I often slam into problems of detail when it comes to what I have coined the enviROI of various 'eco initiatives' (namely, even if the £/$ financial return still sucks, it can still be OK, unless it so out of kilter money is being simply poured down a green hole and away from better projects). Plus I do find that some self-appointed messengers bearing certain messages they deem vital (often with cause), either don't seem to have noticed (or are bothered) that the vast majority who DO matter either don't care for their pitches, or are a tad offside on the often multiplicity of standards between what they say (others should do) and what they might actually inspire by way of example (exemption by believing one is acting in the public interest is a fair conceit, and epic delusion, at best). I think many do register this discrepancy (often aided by those pushing other agendas I find equally discomfiting) and at best ignore, or at worst kick back. Which, IMHO, is not helping much.
Hence I like to crank the odd eyebrow, and often suggest the odd sharp object may be directed at overinflated sacks of hot air, in the hope that a more measured, moderate dialogue based on fact, objectivity and compromise might see us drift to truly productive shores than just trying to win often unwinnable debates.
There is so much that can be DONE, but talk is still vital to coordinate valuable efforts. I like them civilised and intelligent, and by way of a 'backatcha' have enjoyed reading your posts not just for the content, but the manner of their delivery. It is possible to disagree with style, and maybe in so doing change a view that a knee jerk will only make worse. And humour is well, harder to resist. Funny (not ha-ha) how some keep failing to appreciate that.
Green is good, but only if you really think about it, and in debate it is also worth recalling that green can rarely be viewed just in black and white, as some often seem to forget. Or don't seem to care.
I think the human race will work this whole thing through, but possibly not to the satisfaction of the many who see life as a series of absolutes, be they through dogma, idealism or a bunch of other rather restricting standpoints.
And as I learn or am persuaded by new information, links or just great arguments from the likes of your goodself, and many others here (who you seem to tease the best from), I often find my views can and do evolve and even change. I hope for the better. For my... our kids' sake.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Words and deeds
India's middle class must cut its hot air emissions
30-plus degree heat, 74 per cent humidity
Inside, their air-conditioners run 24/7
India's middle class must cut its hot air emissions
Just juggled those 3 sentences around a bit, whilst reflecting on how lucky we are here to have the ability to use almost no energy on adjusting our surrounding room temperatures for more than half the year.
And then considering how, if means and money are available, being told one must not use them will go down.
So the notion of our Ministers flying hither and thither in the attempt seems, at best, quaint.
In writing the above and posting it on the blog, I was of course pondering my own experiences in Singapore (32 degrees, 99% humidity, 24/7), and the odds of me not using a/c whenever possible (actually, we did only use fans in our home). And on our recent camping trip round Southern Europe (40 degrees, if low humidity) I was the first to concede that, without it, we'd have died in the car (plus reducing the mpg by having the windows open, he hopes, guilt-stricken).
But I have been moved to coin another descriptive phrase; that of the the Monotonous Meddlers. These guys seem not only to have an addiction to sticking their oars in everywhere and all the time, but also do it with little appreciation for actual realities, consequences or, most tellingingly, the rampant hypocrisies of their often selective and too often arrogantly stated positions.
And if they are p*ssing me off, when I agree with the basic premise they are promoting if not the manner, then lord knows how their pronouncements go down with their targets and/or those not quite so enamoured with the rightness of their causes as they are.
30-plus degree heat, 74 per cent humidity
Inside, their air-conditioners run 24/7
India's middle class must cut its hot air emissions
Just juggled those 3 sentences around a bit, whilst reflecting on how lucky we are here to have the ability to use almost no energy on adjusting our surrounding room temperatures for more than half the year.
And then considering how, if means and money are available, being told one must not use them will go down.
So the notion of our Ministers flying hither and thither in the attempt seems, at best, quaint.
In writing the above and posting it on the blog, I was of course pondering my own experiences in Singapore (32 degrees, 99% humidity, 24/7), and the odds of me not using a/c whenever possible (actually, we did only use fans in our home). And on our recent camping trip round Southern Europe (40 degrees, if low humidity) I was the first to concede that, without it, we'd have died in the car (plus reducing the mpg by having the windows open, he hopes, guilt-stricken).
But I have been moved to coin another descriptive phrase; that of the the Monotonous Meddlers. These guys seem not only to have an addiction to sticking their oars in everywhere and all the time, but also do it with little appreciation for actual realities, consequences or, most tellingingly, the rampant hypocrisies of their often selective and too often arrogantly stated positions.
And if they are p*ssing me off, when I agree with the basic premise they are promoting if not the manner, then lord knows how their pronouncements go down with their targets and/or those not quite so enamoured with the rightness of their causes as they are.
Wanted: One Napoleonic general.
Is successful innovation just dumb luck?
I am not sure who to credit this with, but I'll accord it to my old business partner who used it in my hearing first: 'Too many are content to be the first to be second. It's safer. The real excitement, and potential rewards, come from those who are determined only to be the first'.
Throw enough money, or people, at something, and it just might stick.
The real skill, and fun... and profit... is to come up with a great idea on a shoestring, and then get it to market on not much more.
I'm still working on the latter.
So I guess I'll accept whatever might help next. Even luck:)
But I'd also settle for a few less gatekeepers whose main function is to secure their positions by taking no risks, but also ensuring no one else around them might succeed where they dare not tread.
'No one got fired...' phoey. Think of what may have been if that attitude was stuck in a big blue hole.
I am not sure who to credit this with, but I'll accord it to my old business partner who used it in my hearing first: 'Too many are content to be the first to be second. It's safer. The real excitement, and potential rewards, come from those who are determined only to be the first'.
Throw enough money, or people, at something, and it just might stick.
The real skill, and fun... and profit... is to come up with a great idea on a shoestring, and then get it to market on not much more.
I'm still working on the latter.
So I guess I'll accept whatever might help next. Even luck:)
But I'd also settle for a few less gatekeepers whose main function is to secure their positions by taking no risks, but also ensuring no one else around them might succeed where they dare not tread.
'No one got fired...' phoey. Think of what may have been if that attitude was stuck in a big blue hole.
Well, it's nice to know we were, are and will be in good hands
Prescott: cutting emissions by 80% will not be enough
Sadly, it would seem that some do not feel this messenger to be the best for such a message.
For my part, I seem to recall a person who engineered a trip, with full entourage, mainly to get a suntan, when in a position of real power and responsibility.
Which rather shapes my views on him, his government, and the media who still accord them any shred of credibility.
Sadly, it would seem that some do not feel this messenger to be the best for such a message.
For my part, I seem to recall a person who engineered a trip, with full entourage, mainly to get a suntan, when in a position of real power and responsibility.
Which rather shapes my views on him, his government, and the media who still accord them any shred of credibility.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
BAN - Rise of the quangos
A wee while ago my door knocked and a young lady stood there with a leaflet.
'Did I know about the energy savings grants?,' she asked. I had to say I knew of some, but not this one.
And hence I was seduced into a process, culminating in a visit from a surveyor, which resulted in... zippy. Because the house was old, and complex...and.. and, I did not qualify.
Despite this, I was still fairly onside, as it seemed a commitment of funds in areas I can endorse, namely proactive doing.
But now, thanks to a twitter link, I am looking at this (read the comments for a reality check the Brain-strains behind this one will never have):
Ban sales of poorly insulated homes, says Energy Saving Trust
And hence I am thinking not so much of a bonfire of the quangos, as promised, but a Hydra of them. Limitless numbers of offices, people, boards, pay, pensions, perks, comms budgets consuming bazillions all just stopping things. What a lovely metaphor for the age.
And hence I propose the next, and ultimate of them all: BAN - Ban All Now!
'Did I know about the energy savings grants?,' she asked. I had to say I knew of some, but not this one.
And hence I was seduced into a process, culminating in a visit from a surveyor, which resulted in... zippy. Because the house was old, and complex...and.. and, I did not qualify.
Despite this, I was still fairly onside, as it seemed a commitment of funds in areas I can endorse, namely proactive doing.
But now, thanks to a twitter link, I am looking at this (read the comments for a reality check the Brain-strains behind this one will never have):
Ban sales of poorly insulated homes, says Energy Saving Trust
And hence I am thinking not so much of a bonfire of the quangos, as promised, but a Hydra of them. Limitless numbers of offices, people, boards, pay, pensions, perks, comms budgets consuming bazillions all just stopping things. What a lovely metaphor for the age.
And hence I propose the next, and ultimate of them all: BAN - Ban All Now!
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
PING, and, with luck, no pong
Taking e-life into hands here. 3rd (and last) test of social posting networking service http://ping.fm. Now my blog, having tried character limited outlets such as twitter and LinkedIn. Let's also see what it does with a long URL:
http://ping.fm/03qUd
If this all works, I am impressed!
Currently, twitter has worked; LinkedIN MIA, though I may be looking in the wrong places.
There is also a danger of overlaps, so sorry for any duplicates until I suss out the default settings.
ADDENDUM
Looks promising, and a definite time saver.
I do not that, of course, you do not get a Title added ( I have now done so, manually), or any Labels (ditto). Easy to follow up.
I think I'll let it simmer awhile on the few tests (Blog, twitter & LinkedIn) to see what happens over the net 24hrs by way of duplicates as the automated aggregators do their thing.
Newsnight - Send your questions for the Twitter CEO -
How on earth do I manage all the deluge of tweets I get now I am, often as a courtesy, following those who follow me in addition to he just plain worthwhile? I see Yoko Ono manages. Do she have a horde of 'people', cloning tech, a time machine... or is just a very polite, awesomely multitasking lady who needs no sleep?
At the very least how can you go through and zap all the 'Good morning's, just brushed my teeth..' to retain in archive just he nifty ones with useful info/links?
Those latter I am finding very useful.
http://ping.fm/03qUd
If this all works, I am impressed!
Currently, twitter has worked; LinkedIN MIA, though I may be looking in the wrong places.
There is also a danger of overlaps, so sorry for any duplicates until I suss out the default settings.
ADDENDUM
Looks promising, and a definite time saver.
I do not that, of course, you do not get a Title added ( I have now done so, manually), or any Labels (ditto). Easy to follow up.
I think I'll let it simmer awhile on the few tests (Blog, twitter & LinkedIn) to see what happens over the net 24hrs by way of duplicates as the automated aggregators do their thing.
Newsnight - Send your questions for the Twitter CEO -
How on earth do I manage all the deluge of tweets I get now I am, often as a courtesy, following those who follow me in addition to he just plain worthwhile? I see Yoko Ono manages. Do she have a horde of 'people', cloning tech, a time machine... or is just a very polite, awesomely multitasking lady who needs no sleep?
At the very least how can you go through and zap all the 'Good morning's, just brushed my teeth..' to retain in archive just he nifty ones with useful info/links?
Those latter I am finding very useful.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
QUOTE OF THE DAY - Keep taking the blue pills
Worth sharing: Human activity is driving Earth's 'sixth great extinction event'
If only for this quote post which at the time I thought was curiously sympathetic to the 'baddies' in the Matrix:
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure".
Agent Smith
(worth also checking out Titan AE to feel the Drej might have had a point):
If only for this quote post which at the time I thought was curiously sympathetic to the 'baddies' in the Matrix:
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure".
Agent Smith
(worth also checking out Titan AE to feel the Drej might have had a point):
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
GULP!
Bear in mind... you are reading this on a blog.
Blogs are big business…just not here
Not sure if I am in the wrong business... or country.
Blogs are big business…just not here
Not sure if I am in the wrong business... or country.
Nudge, nudge...
Well, she asked:
Can sandals ever be fun?
And it seemed/s a good opportunity for a plug:)
I'd have hoped... thought that it is entirely possible to introduce a variety of functions into anything, if you use a bit of imagination.
Heavens, how many times to we hear the old chestnut that kids prefer to play with the box than the present?
Hence anything that adds value, and especially second use, to any packaging design should be desired, attempted... and applauded.
I have to say my two have rather outgrown the brief distraction of some packside imagery, but are still not above reusing all manner of boxes, tubes, etc in all sorts of creative ways.
ps: Speaking of sandals and fun, if you have a decent idea to add to the free online plastics reuse competition currently on Junkk.com, the runner-up prizes are... recycled plastic sandals!
Can sandals ever be fun?
And it seemed/s a good opportunity for a plug:)
I'd have hoped... thought that it is entirely possible to introduce a variety of functions into anything, if you use a bit of imagination.
Heavens, how many times to we hear the old chestnut that kids prefer to play with the box than the present?
Hence anything that adds value, and especially second use, to any packaging design should be desired, attempted... and applauded.
I have to say my two have rather outgrown the brief distraction of some packside imagery, but are still not above reusing all manner of boxes, tubes, etc in all sorts of creative ways.
ps: Speaking of sandals and fun, if you have a decent idea to add to the free online plastics reuse competition currently on Junkk.com, the runner-up prizes are... recycled plastic sandals!
Joining up thinking?
Conservative think tank urges recycling reform
I fear I find almost anything from any political party (or the odd new breed of separation stages, be it think tanks or quangos) suspect, but this report smacks of common sense. At least, as summarised here. I'll get around to reading it (57pp) one day.
As, with renewables, there is much good, honest engineering thinking - 'Our waste system has developed piecemeal over the past 150 years without ever being reformed properly" - to assess the enviROI from instigation to operation that will be into many administrations hence, I just hope the number crunchers are up to the task and are allowed to do a proper job without 'influences' based on short-termism or lobbying from subsidy junkies.
I really hope it can be reformed, as the current piecemeal efforts are serving neither planet nor public understanding of what can be one to help it at all. But let's hope there is a political will to be honest about consequences without trying to please all, and right away, with fudges.
It will take an upfront hit to see benefits later on. But... have we the money now? There will always be...consequences.
Addendum
Telegraph Letters - Fine way to collect rubbish
SIR – At last saner voices seem to be prevailing in the debate over the best way to collect and recycle rubbish from the nation’s doorsteps (“Household waste bills warning”, report, July 20).
Policy Exchange is correct in suggesting that fortnightly collections encourage recycling as long as they are accompanied by a weekly collection for food waste. That is the system run in our part of north London, and we are now the second-best recycler in the capital, with an overall recycling rate of 44 per cent.
It is also right to highlight the punitive role of government fines for the extra rubbish we send to landfill. This is why councils put three wheelie bins on your doorstep. It is not because council managers like to torment residents with a baffling variety of bins, but because recycling at the earliest stage possible (on the doorstep) helps us to fend off government fines further down the line.
I fear I find almost anything from any political party (or the odd new breed of separation stages, be it think tanks or quangos) suspect, but this report smacks of common sense. At least, as summarised here. I'll get around to reading it (57pp) one day.
As, with renewables, there is much good, honest engineering thinking - 'Our waste system has developed piecemeal over the past 150 years without ever being reformed properly" - to assess the enviROI from instigation to operation that will be into many administrations hence, I just hope the number crunchers are up to the task and are allowed to do a proper job without 'influences' based on short-termism or lobbying from subsidy junkies.
I really hope it can be reformed, as the current piecemeal efforts are serving neither planet nor public understanding of what can be one to help it at all. But let's hope there is a political will to be honest about consequences without trying to please all, and right away, with fudges.
It will take an upfront hit to see benefits later on. But... have we the money now? There will always be...consequences.
Addendum
Telegraph Letters - Fine way to collect rubbish
SIR – At last saner voices seem to be prevailing in the debate over the best way to collect and recycle rubbish from the nation’s doorsteps (“Household waste bills warning”, report, July 20).
Policy Exchange is correct in suggesting that fortnightly collections encourage recycling as long as they are accompanied by a weekly collection for food waste. That is the system run in our part of north London, and we are now the second-best recycler in the capital, with an overall recycling rate of 44 per cent.
It is also right to highlight the punitive role of government fines for the extra rubbish we send to landfill. This is why councils put three wheelie bins on your doorstep. It is not because council managers like to torment residents with a baffling variety of bins, but because recycling at the earliest stage possible (on the doorstep) helps us to fend off government fines further down the line.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
And no Kelly McGillis in sight
I fear my knowledge of the Amish is based mainly on 'Witness'
The modern world intrudes on the Amish
And the closest in this piece to a young woman was a teen in some Nike trainers who was in fact a Born-Again Christian.
Ethical Man and his travels is on my review list, so when he posts I read, and often feel the need to comment:
It was an interesting travel/social piece, but I am unsure if there is much one can take by way of dealing with future world/climate related issues. Even these fine folk seem unable to resist the shiny cameras and boom mikes (where did the crew sleep?) that squirt electrons around; shame they will never get to see this piece about them.
True, these guys are living a relatively self-sustaining agrarian-based lifestyle, but with six brothers it seems little wonder the moppet and her siblings are finding things are constraining. That is kind of what happens as populations expand. Then you end up with millions in cities with high-intensity farming to feed 'em.
And it is hard to resist the human urge to roam (and all its consequences), which is why these fine folk were first to be found in a train. I'd be intrigued to learn (though I'm sure 'No, you're wrong. Period. So stop having opinions' will explain, and within 2mins of posting - is it on shifts?) how the motive power of this vehicle differs from that of a car to render it more acceptable. Is diesel OK but petrol not? Do the Amish carry out a per head Co2 analysis before trips? On the basis of the explanation I think I heard, a chauffeured Hummer seems to be the next option from a pony and trap.
Or cradle to grave on systems or products? Does that plastic bucket in the barn actually impose fewer emissions being made, used and eventually recycled than one made from wood and turned, or from clay and fired?
So I think this piece has served to highlight the dilemmas faced, though in many ways a more interesting aspect is how the 'resistance' to 'temptation' is being eroded by succumbing to desire rather than necessity. The interpretations on the acceptability of transport options seemed 'flexible' at best, much like a person in an eco-town deciding a car is OK because they work in another place (maybe a factory that makes foot-treadle sewing machines for folk who like labour-saving devices without thinking too hard on how they happen to exist) or, as Justin noted, battery packs but not the electricity that is required to charge them.
ps: When you muck out a stable, is it best to do it in a suit that will need dry cleaning, or on clothes that can be simply washed and hung out to dry? I think the Amish may have some things yet to share.
Hence I am still unsure as to what this series is trying to do. Is it a travel series (that is trying to hint that travel is bad?). An anti-technology advocacy (that uses technology and depends on others watching it?). Or an 'entertainment' , where green practices get dropped for the sake of a prop to help ratings? What?
Even with the Amish, I had to feel the varied actions of the messengers seemed to raise more questions about their messages than any solutions offered. I felt this was less the modern world intruding and more the Amish reaching out. And that, is human nature.
The modern world intrudes on the Amish
And the closest in this piece to a young woman was a teen in some Nike trainers who was in fact a Born-Again Christian.
Ethical Man and his travels is on my review list, so when he posts I read, and often feel the need to comment:
It was an interesting travel/social piece, but I am unsure if there is much one can take by way of dealing with future world/climate related issues. Even these fine folk seem unable to resist the shiny cameras and boom mikes (where did the crew sleep?) that squirt electrons around; shame they will never get to see this piece about them.
True, these guys are living a relatively self-sustaining agrarian-based lifestyle, but with six brothers it seems little wonder the moppet and her siblings are finding things are constraining. That is kind of what happens as populations expand. Then you end up with millions in cities with high-intensity farming to feed 'em.
And it is hard to resist the human urge to roam (and all its consequences), which is why these fine folk were first to be found in a train. I'd be intrigued to learn (though I'm sure 'No, you're wrong. Period. So stop having opinions' will explain, and within 2mins of posting - is it on shifts?) how the motive power of this vehicle differs from that of a car to render it more acceptable. Is diesel OK but petrol not? Do the Amish carry out a per head Co2 analysis before trips? On the basis of the explanation I think I heard, a chauffeured Hummer seems to be the next option from a pony and trap.
Or cradle to grave on systems or products? Does that plastic bucket in the barn actually impose fewer emissions being made, used and eventually recycled than one made from wood and turned, or from clay and fired?
So I think this piece has served to highlight the dilemmas faced, though in many ways a more interesting aspect is how the 'resistance' to 'temptation' is being eroded by succumbing to desire rather than necessity. The interpretations on the acceptability of transport options seemed 'flexible' at best, much like a person in an eco-town deciding a car is OK because they work in another place (maybe a factory that makes foot-treadle sewing machines for folk who like labour-saving devices without thinking too hard on how they happen to exist) or, as Justin noted, battery packs but not the electricity that is required to charge them.
ps: When you muck out a stable, is it best to do it in a suit that will need dry cleaning, or on clothes that can be simply washed and hung out to dry? I think the Amish may have some things yet to share.
Hence I am still unsure as to what this series is trying to do. Is it a travel series (that is trying to hint that travel is bad?). An anti-technology advocacy (that uses technology and depends on others watching it?). Or an 'entertainment' , where green practices get dropped for the sake of a prop to help ratings? What?
Even with the Amish, I had to feel the varied actions of the messengers seemed to raise more questions about their messages than any solutions offered. I felt this was less the modern world intruding and more the Amish reaching out. And that, is human nature.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Voltaire Revolution Power - VRP
A new 'bon mot' & Acronym.
Voltaire rather famously coined (or, depending on your source, is mostly attributed as having done so - no time to dig deeper for now; frankly it seems odd such a famous quote is not better documented) the phrase that best describes the core root of a civilised democratic society: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I therefore find it interesting, if a little sad, when some, and often the noisily libertarian-claiming entities, kind of miss the irony of a stance that really would generate a lot of power if M. Voltaire was connected up in his grave to a generator:
England's pork barrel politics is paying for airlines to burn the planet
Any readers new to this process will note that this thread has some interesting characteristics:
a. very few of the responses deal with the substance of the article.
b. a large number of them concern the class or other characteristics of the author, rather than anything he has to say.
c. many of them concentrate on seeking to dismiss an issue which was not the central theme of the article but nevertheless informs it: climate change.
You might wonder what on earth is going on. You are not the only one.
Is it really too much to ask that we might have an informed debate about the issues raised here, none of which are trivial: namely the absence of democracy in England, the role of the RDAs and the revelation that taxpayers' money has been used to subsidise damaging activities that the government claims to have left to the free market?
Or are we going to allow these threads to be dominated by astroturfers?
OK, he's miffed. And has some right to be. There are clearly trolls simply there to wind him, and those who agree with him, up. But I fear in reacting as he has, and writing in this way, he has also undermined much of the authority he would seek to claim.
07 Jul 09, 8:36am
I am always intrigued by the use of the words 'we' and 'you' in an open blog, especially when the former is combined with 'allow'.
I'd suggest letting folks' arguments succeed or fail on their merits, or lack of.
Some are still able to make up their own minds without being 'assisted'.
That said, I tend to agree with the rest of the sentiments.
Readers of this blog will know that I have a real issue with 'them' and us' at the best of times, and especially when I find myself rolled up into someone's claim to speak or act for me when they clearly might not.
And, logically, other than venting, on an open blog I would love to hear how Mr. Monbiot proposes that 'he/they' do not 'allow' comment 'they' do not happen to like from some vagauely ill-defined 'others' in future.
'First came the trolls, and I moderated.
Then came for the astroturfers, and I moderated.
Then came those who simply disagreed with me, and I moderated.
Finally, when I had moderated all bar myself, there was no one left to read my blog.'
Paraphrased in honour of another key quote - unarguably attributed - regarding freedoms of speech.
At best pointless. At worst, a slippery path.
Voltaire rather famously coined (or, depending on your source, is mostly attributed as having done so - no time to dig deeper for now; frankly it seems odd such a famous quote is not better documented) the phrase that best describes the core root of a civilised democratic society: "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I therefore find it interesting, if a little sad, when some, and often the noisily libertarian-claiming entities, kind of miss the irony of a stance that really would generate a lot of power if M. Voltaire was connected up in his grave to a generator:
England's pork barrel politics is paying for airlines to burn the planet
Any readers new to this process will note that this thread has some interesting characteristics:
a. very few of the responses deal with the substance of the article.
b. a large number of them concern the class or other characteristics of the author, rather than anything he has to say.
c. many of them concentrate on seeking to dismiss an issue which was not the central theme of the article but nevertheless informs it: climate change.
You might wonder what on earth is going on. You are not the only one.
Is it really too much to ask that we might have an informed debate about the issues raised here, none of which are trivial: namely the absence of democracy in England, the role of the RDAs and the revelation that taxpayers' money has been used to subsidise damaging activities that the government claims to have left to the free market?
Or are we going to allow these threads to be dominated by astroturfers?
OK, he's miffed. And has some right to be. There are clearly trolls simply there to wind him, and those who agree with him, up. But I fear in reacting as he has, and writing in this way, he has also undermined much of the authority he would seek to claim.
07 Jul 09, 8:36am
I am always intrigued by the use of the words 'we' and 'you' in an open blog, especially when the former is combined with 'allow'.
I'd suggest letting folks' arguments succeed or fail on their merits, or lack of.
Some are still able to make up their own minds without being 'assisted'.
That said, I tend to agree with the rest of the sentiments.
Readers of this blog will know that I have a real issue with 'them' and us' at the best of times, and especially when I find myself rolled up into someone's claim to speak or act for me when they clearly might not.
And, logically, other than venting, on an open blog I would love to hear how Mr. Monbiot proposes that 'he/they' do not 'allow' comment 'they' do not happen to like from some vagauely ill-defined 'others' in future.
'First came the trolls, and I moderated.
Then came for the astroturfers, and I moderated.
Then came those who simply disagreed with me, and I moderated.
Finally, when I had moderated all bar myself, there was no one left to read my blog.'
Paraphrased in honour of another key quote - unarguably attributed - regarding freedoms of speech.
At best pointless. At worst, a slippery path.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Going too far. Literally as well as figuratively.
Sometimes, I think the 'green' media rather lose the plot.
What's the carbon cost of the online reaction to Michael Jackson's death?
When they are not being, possibly, total hypocrites (and a tad insensitive).
Maybe the BBC could get on the case?
I think Newsnight's Ethical Man has a colleague well placed...
Next time, Jacko, try to die in London*
Bless.
I know it was just a question. But the irony of online eco-breast beating about the online costs of 'stuff' being reported was rather rich.
And yes, I see the irony of me adding to this still further. But I think there are areas that, just possibly, set back the notion of sensible environmental progress.
*The further irony of which publicaion has penned this is also not lost on me.
What's the carbon cost of the online reaction to Michael Jackson's death?
When they are not being, possibly, total hypocrites (and a tad insensitive).
Maybe the BBC could get on the case?
I think Newsnight's Ethical Man has a colleague well placed...
Next time, Jacko, try to die in London*
Bless.
I know it was just a question. But the irony of online eco-breast beating about the online costs of 'stuff' being reported was rather rich.
And yes, I see the irony of me adding to this still further. But I think there are areas that, just possibly, set back the notion of sensible environmental progress.
*The further irony of which publicaion has penned this is also not lost on me.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Something to bear in mind when targets get mentioned in certain quarters
And at certain odd, rare, times....
Why did the government dump its green building regulations plan?
I often disagree with Mr. Monbiot*, but he does raise a worthy question here.
Maybe one for Ed Miliband, who was out and about recently.
*Especially on matters of 'tis/t'isn't climate change. When he comes up with stuff like this, it steer well clear as it really can only end up in tears... and no winners.
Why did the government dump its green building regulations plan?
I often disagree with Mr. Monbiot*, but he does raise a worthy question here.
Maybe one for Ed Miliband, who was out and about recently.
*Especially on matters of 'tis/t'isn't climate change. When he comes up with stuff like this, it steer well clear as it really can only end up in tears... and no winners.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Head 2 head with Mr. Ed
Post your questions for the energy and climate change minister Ed Miliband
They have their flaws these efforts (esp. what gets chosen to be answered...Michael Jackson's passing???!), but can still be enlightening. I did note this:
Q - Have you read David MacKay's book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air? How will you ensure arithmetic is at the heart of energy policy given it doesn't seem to have been up to now?
Ed Miliband: MacKay's a smart guy. His book is by my bedside and my permanent secretary keeps telling me I have to finish it!
Actual answer seems to be.. 'No, I haven't read it and I just do what other folk tell me'
Explains a lot.
They have their flaws these efforts (esp. what gets chosen to be answered...Michael Jackson's passing???!), but can still be enlightening. I did note this:
Q - Have you read David MacKay's book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air? How will you ensure arithmetic is at the heart of energy policy given it doesn't seem to have been up to now?
Ed Miliband: MacKay's a smart guy. His book is by my bedside and my permanent secretary keeps telling me I have to finish it!
Actual answer seems to be.. 'No, I haven't read it and I just do what other folk tell me'
Explains a lot.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Gadget Inspector
Here's one that caught my eye:
Green gadgets can do more harm than good
This young lady seems a tad more than the usual 'punt out a press release and call it reporting', so I wonder if I might get an answer* to my questions.
Failing which, I wonder how I might get to be paid for writing such stories and/or get funded to go find out.
I'm still trying to verify what the engineer told me the last visit to fix my washing machine, namely that all these cold temperature washes are not that great at keeping the seals and pipes clean and are causing premature failures through build-ups of deposits hotter washes could keep clear.
Any links to the truth of this, and if so what the gain in eco from lower temps might be vs. the losses of having to fix or buy a new one?
I really despair the lack of balanced science and engineering reporting in the 'green arena', such that a device or initiative can be assessed not just for its 'hue & cred' but actual enviROI.
I can sort of accept an eco-option that might 'cost' more in £ terms; that's a clear choice.
But one that also makes things 'worse' seems a bad deal all round.
*Addendum:
Well, kudos to her. She saw a question and came back. Not a definitive answer, but it seems
I am on a worthwhile track, which kinda puts me at odds with every gov. & commercial marketing department in the land, all of whom have boxes to tick rather than enviROi's to ponder. She might be misguided on the hotter meaning whiter, mind, as it is my understanding that the water temp should not matter. Experience here does rather differ, mind.
Green gadgets can do more harm than good
This young lady seems a tad more than the usual 'punt out a press release and call it reporting', so I wonder if I might get an answer* to my questions.
Failing which, I wonder how I might get to be paid for writing such stories and/or get funded to go find out.
I'm still trying to verify what the engineer told me the last visit to fix my washing machine, namely that all these cold temperature washes are not that great at keeping the seals and pipes clean and are causing premature failures through build-ups of deposits hotter washes could keep clear.
Any links to the truth of this, and if so what the gain in eco from lower temps might be vs. the losses of having to fix or buy a new one?
I really despair the lack of balanced science and engineering reporting in the 'green arena', such that a device or initiative can be assessed not just for its 'hue & cred' but actual enviROI.
I can sort of accept an eco-option that might 'cost' more in £ terms; that's a clear choice.
But one that also makes things 'worse' seems a bad deal all round.
*Addendum:
Well, kudos to her. She saw a question and came back. Not a definitive answer, but it seems
I am on a worthwhile track, which kinda puts me at odds with every gov. & commercial marketing department in the land, all of whom have boxes to tick rather than enviROi's to ponder. She might be misguided on the hotter meaning whiter, mind, as it is my understanding that the water temp should not matter. Experience here does rather differ, mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)