TW3 - 2007

Those were the weeks that were. A year gone by.

Not the greatest, I'm sorry to say. As the less than encouraging signs of what we might be facing mount in number and severity, they have hardly been matched in number and certainly not in quality (least, as I can judge) by any person, persons or significant measures that look set to steer us in a better direction.

Even those who do care, or at least claim to, seem mostly a sorry and/or uninspiring lot. Greenwashers (out to make a quick extra buck by association but not action), greengilders (out to make a quick extra buck by painting rosy, career-enhancing solutions that all too often lack any definable enviROI+), and the 'The Rise of the Eco-Shrew' (out to make a quick buck by getting paid to talk... endlessly... about some minute and relatively pointless aspect that they demand all should embrace whilst simultaneously ignoring reality, enviROI or credibility).

And who has dominated as the year ended and a new one starts? Well, having scoured the online pages on Sunday (the traditional round-up point) and today (another common source for summaries and predictions), following the year of Stern (may have been the year before), IPCC, Valencia, Bali and the next Kyoto, all I could find by way of shaping 'the most significant crisis the world faces' was nothing from the political establishment, a Fox's Glacier Mint ad from the corporate world and from our mighty media... a few yummie-mummies who are planning on taking fewer plastic bags on their next skiing trip, and a chap who has not yet started a typhoid epidemic in Streatham with his composting outdoor loo. Plus a welter of others planning to head all sorts of places to study the impact of their job (which is not like your or my jobs, apparently) getting there is having.

With the exception of the BBC in broadcast and online form, at least one can be mostly reassured that almost no one other than those within the privileged eco/authority/media elite has a clue what they are doing, or cares very much what they have to say. But they do now wield a rather inordinate influence despite this, and it is a concern.

In two days I get back to work proper, hopefully over my man flu. And that, sadly, means a little less Junkk.com and RE:tie, and a bit more day job. Things are now tight, and I need to do a bit more of what I am good at what people really seem to want.. and are prepared to pay for.

It's simply a matter of personal and family survival. But as I need to take the longer view on this family's future I will not be leaving it all behind, but sometimes one has to prioritise.

It can only be hoped for the future that those in power, and/or with influence, can do it too, and a bit more effectively, and tangibly, and to genuine levels of enviROi+, than they have to date.

I'm looking for messages that make sense, and can lead to making a real difference. And from messengers who one can believe, and believe in, to rally every section of society and not some self-serving niche elite.

Here's hoping. Have a great 2008.

Government (or an unreasonable facsimile of) by degree

'Insidious' is not a nice word. But by heck it is apt for what seems to be happening these days.

Hardly a BBC bulletin goes by without the latest 'could' being trotted out from those who claim the responsibility of governing us, but who will seek any and all ways to avoid any accountability, from announcement through to consequences.

Hence this 'could' will ooze into an 'is' and end up as a 'has', with little or no challenge from anyone, most especially our lazy media.

Just this morning I sat amazed as just two were dutifully trotted out, with the sofa set primed with just the right balance of warm and fuzzy to ease things in.

First up was the latest on mobile phones. I've blogged on this before. If it's illegal, then fine (and I don't mean that in the fiscal manner, as too much law seems to be revenue targeted than spirit or even letter of the law), I know where I stand. But now there seems to be yet another, and predictably more aggressive, though equally vague set of ways to hold 'us' accountable for something or other at the whim of a police officer, supported by a compliant justice system.

Then there was middle-age drinking. It seems that if you go over a daily 105ml daily, you are a raving alcky bent on self-destruction. Now this would be laughable but for the less than subtle between-lines message read out by a truly frighteningly smooth government spokeslady (she had a sense of humour and so charmingly trotted out her facts that even the already pliant blonde and bouffant felt it rude to do anything else but giggle). And this seems to be that if you can even remotely be deemed to have done something in your history that may or may not be proven to be in any way due to lifestyle choices, then 'they' can decide to opt you out of the health system you have paid into all your life.

There is a sickening predictability to all this, along with inevitability.

And what really gets me is that the vagueness seems only to work one way. By being guilty until proven innocent the doors are opened for institutional abuse at every level and across every branch.

And it all seems dedicated to one simple aim, and that is to divert money away from those who work hard and pay their way (because all those who do not will be exceptions to such rules, though withdrawing votes on the basis of self-harm, poor lifestyle, non-contribution, etc would not seem on the cards) to ensure a ready supply of the dwindling cash resources to ensure this bunch of breeding parasites keep their pay, bonuses (what the heck are a raft of government types on bonuses for?) and pensions.

Sorry, today has not been a much better day than yesterday.

Living in the anthropocene

Basically, that's a scientific term coined for the particular part of the earth's history when humanity is having a noticeable impact on the planet's biosphere; it is, in fact, exactly where we are today.

[The biosphere, by the way, is that teeny-weeny microscopically thin band around our planet that all life survives in. Look really, really carefully. Why? Because it's so thin, you can't even see it on this beautiful image of our little lump of planetary rock.]

As the legions of pols, 'experts', negotiators and media hangers-on enjoy their get together in Bali, there are many commentators pondering on the possible outputs, both socio-economic and political, as well as the potential end effect of humanity failing to take significant efforts to rectify the situation. This report on BBC Comment by Malini Mehra, is one such. I found it interesting, if perhaps, at least to my mind, a little on the naive side, though I fully endorse her final comment that "As the delegates in Bali reflect on our future, they would do well to think as human beings."

Unfortunately, a human being is a pretty selfish animal, and most will, if push comes to shove, do whatever they can to protect their own family and kind. I.e. Man thinks, and largely acts, locally, not for humanity as a whole. My biggest fear is that should inaction turn out to be the primary output from Bali, significant portions of humanity will finish up over the next few decades between a rock and a hard place, with a distinct lack of survival resources (mainly food and water, but undoubtedly oil and all its derivatives, primarily fuels, will also be a major factor too), and that this will be the gunpowder that starts off a chain of (at first small and local, but later probably developing into WWIII) resource wars. Let's face it, there are already many warnings in place of food and water shortages, both current and predicted, as this from Reuters highlights this very day; and we have talked about the implications of Peak Oil many times on this very blog already. On top of that food prices have started to rise inexorably - see Fox News. "The world's agricultural production is projected to decrease by 16 percent by 2020 due to global warming". Just for a minute consider the implications of that statement; and on a planet where the human population is rising rapidly! And we've not even mentioned the potential issues that rising sea levels could heap upon the problem.

I really, really hope that I'm totally wrong, but if mankind's history can be taken as an indicative pointer to the future, then I don't see too much hope unless genuine and significant action is taken now. (Well, yesterday really.)

In reality, it would appear that the future depends upon the legions of pols, 'experts', advisers, negotiators and media hangers-on, currently sunning themselves in Bali. And you wonder why I feel pessimistic about it?

If humanity doesn't get its finger out soon, the Anthropocene could turn out to be one of the shortest eras of geological history.

Moments from a blog

While Junkk.com devotes itself to the unremittingly positive and 'nice', this blog at least affords me the luxury of having a bit of a rant and, on occasion, a go.

I really must restrain myself. But, I'd like to think, there is some justification inasmuch as I am usually only keen to pop some pompous bubble, usually being inflated with hot air by one (or collection of same) who seems to 'know' what's good for us. Or, worse, is so convinced that what some others are doing is not, see it as their mission to stop 'em. I guess there are a few areas where a ban sadly is the only recourse, but I'd really like to think we have exhausted all other options first before reaching for the speed dial to one's PR, who in turn reaches for the speed dial to their favourite Editor to launch a 'reporter' off on a slow news day. And put a few folk making stuff out of a job.

But just as I used to envy my mates at uni who got all the girls by coming all over bomb banning, whilst I had this small niggle that maybe greeting the Russians with a Lee Enfield might not quite be the best deterrent of first effectiveness, so I must confess to thinking how blooming easy it would be just to have at anything that comes across my sights, and do so from the cosy cover of it being, or even just looking, 'green'...ish. Or not even having to concern oneself with any alternatives or, if one has, then whether these really are effective anyway.

This struck me as I was working through the Telegraph blogs. What fun it would be to just let rip, and the heck with whether it's fair or justified or anything other than a good way to daub myself in an arboreal hue and bask in the approbation of half of Islington, Dorset or the South Cotswolds (well, the bits not scraping a living in real jobs, that is).

Just look what I could do (I've left out the political ones, though even a few here offer pickings of richness:

Adding elegance to a room - Fireplaces, huh? That would be the dirty great hole up which a vast amount of the central heating escapes?

Confessions of a fake blonde - How much peroxide, in how many bottles, from how many trips... get consumed to look like a BBC news reader?

A portrait's progress - 'Squeezed in a trip to South Africa'. As you do.

I could go on (and do the same for all the rest), but I think I'm coming over all Marvin (it's a HitchHiker's Guide thing), and really can't be bothered.

At least most would have got a comment. Which rather begs the question as to what these types do... and who pays them. I guess it's the travel ads.

Too good not to share

Not much to do with the planet, but in light of recent events I thought this PR headline received last night explained a lot: :Children take over a Government Department for a day

Well, they can only improve on the current lot.

In case you're interested, it's called 'Take Over Day'.

Always look on the bright side of life..' ta-dum

‘Going green’ are we - then where’s the big stick?

Agree with pretty much all... though I would have to say that there are many, though agreed mostly small and often barely significant, ways to 'go green that can confer considerable upsides in terms of time and money over warm fuzziness.

You just need to know where to look, and have a 'why not' kind of attitude to not wasting if it isn't necessary.

Less is more?

No one said it would be easy. Tackling the fossil fuel juggernaut

'So here, as Australians say, is "the big ask"' Also I had thought, what the FoE has been 'saying' for a while too, surely?

Personally, I think we need a lot fewer folk telling us (and blowing bazillions down a green hole) what to do, and a lot more working on actual tangibly THINGS to help fewer emissions go up and away.

And while no one denies the media has a role to play, I think they need to get their own house in order right away by way of example. Report Bali for sure, but not like some blooming celeb pop concert, with a row of talking heads for each programme demographic. Get one, decent, informed, trusted correspondent, and then let them cover it all... in depth.

One paper. One day. One nation. One wonders...

These were from the Indy yesterday:

The best defence against claims of spin - the process of government

Mark Steel: You can't go round telling people you've been sacked - what happens to those within who try and change it

The cost of cheap food – and hot air - and what happens to the planet when those left in charge a left free to continue with their tasks

I congratulate the Indy and its writers fro highlighting this, but wonder how many days (hours) after passing from our tables and screens these further insanities will be recalled.

It's Friday. It's 5 o'clock. And he's gone crackers, Jack!

Had to happen. I agree with the media: Eat, drink and be merry – you can ignore this unhealthy obsession with obesity

Dear Mr. Lawson,

I agree with all you say... with one small, wafer thin revision to suggest:

It is the uncritical reporting of scare stories as fact which does little service to almost anything that gets covered these days, I fear.

Yours sincerely,

Power is only positive if well directed.

I just got around to reading this: Climate change: we have the power

Not a bad summary of where we are, with a refreshing look at where we could be, by design as much as accident. However, as I found myself muttering away, I thought I'd share some of these mutterings here, along with a few key quotes that provoked them.

In October 2007, I can now reveal the net outcome of all this science. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. CO2 emissions, now approaching 30 billion tonnes a year, have continued to rise inexorably. Good start, eh?

Green Europe is actually doing worse than the sceptical United States. European emissions continue to rise while, last year, American emissions fell by 1.6%. News, and unwelcome, but not perhaps surprising, for an entity that seems totally dominated by appearance of action over action itself.

How we [address] this is the issue. Technologically it’s a problem. Politically it’s a nightmare, requiring unprecedented levels of global co-operation from a species whose second and third favourite pastimes are tribalism and war. Now, whodaathunk?

“We are kind of poised, says Rapley, “to see if technology really is the cavalry coming over the horizon or not.” The good news is that we can definitely hear hoof beats and a bugle. Not from what I saw crest the hill, I fear, at least in this piece.

First, air-scrubbing. I'm sorry, I just can't see any merit with messing with nature on an industrial scale as a solution to the mess we might have made of nature by messing with it on an industrial scale. So almost all these 'solutions' seem scary at best.

So then we come to capture/sinks: The big advantage is that, once installed, this system consumes no energy. Ignoring the vast commitment of resources under that 'once installed', so many of these proposals seem to ignore operation, maintenance and disposal. These things are almost all in hostile environments. I love the idea of 'free energy' by harnessing the elements, but nature can bend a girder or smash a concrete block in a heartbeat. Are these things credible in any sensible enviROI+ terms?

The problem, as Sir Nicholas Stern said in the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, is that climate change is the result of the greatest market failure in history: the abject failure to put a price on growth. Yes. But look at the rhetoric of every pol, business 'leader' or media editorial: it's all about growth. And how you divorce any growth from the greatest driver of all, population, lord alone knows.

Carbon trading schemes – whereby we buy and sell carbon credits that allow us to emit – look like a solution, but their record so far has been abysmal. No, they are not that good. To see why, look at who is running them.

“We have met the enemy,” says Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York, “and he is us. He’s not the Saudi oil minister or George Bush. He is us.” Fair quote. Not exactly a motivator, or very specific, but worth bearing in mind.

Painting everything white might also be a good idea. 'Might' I don't like. Is it? Surely we know by now. I blogged on the impact of bright yellow rape fields vs. darker hued crops an age ago. How does their reflective area compare to a ribbon of tarmac?

...and though fully electric cars are on the way, it is not yet clear whether they will be good enough and cheap enough to lure consumers away from petrol. Or, for that matter, how their energy supply produces any less Co2.

...there are hundreds of schemes for offsetting your carbon when you fly, but less than 1% of passengers use them. A ratio worthy of Gov/Quango overlapping awareness schemes. Why do they even exist, let alone fund the majority of venal/misguided parasites who run them?

And nuclear plants, once built, are more or less emission-free. There are also ZEPPs – zero-emission power plants that use new ways of handling coal and oil. Again, we know how to do this. We just have to find the will. Hmn.

All these divisions point to a fundamental problem for the green movement that has dogged all its campaigning and drained its political credibility. They squabble among themselves, and, beneath the surface, it’s always about the same thing: what are we trying to achieve? Quite. But they don't half consume a lot of time and generate a lot of hot air in doing so.

'There are three things nobody need argue about. First, global warning is a reality; secondly, it is largely caused by humans; thirdly, we know how to slow or reverse it.' For me it is yes, probably/silly not to assume it and... do we, really? That last seems to contradict a lot else written in this piece. The problem seems to be all the factions who think they know better and are still fighting for a piece of a stale pie. It's an almost intractable problem, because who (myself included) can resist an opinion? And, more importantly, if a vast 'fix' is to be committed to, the whole population needs to be sure it will, in fact, work. Few things I've learned of, save many reduction-based notions, have such certainty.

I will use this blog to share, discuss, critique and debate, but I will use Junkk.com and ideas such as RE:tie to try and chip away with solutions I truly believe will help do something tangible.

Just words

As Dave is allowed a non-enviro post, then so am I. It has been a bad day (got blown out on another chance at some dosh - these things really drain the time and money bank), so I need to lash out.

This is one of those doofus 'polls' that litter our media these days. OK, rarely much harm, expect when the idle clicks of bored surfers get catapulted into a 'survey shows..' headline.

Thing is, I just couldn't get past how everything these days is so darn sloppy, especially when it comes to filling in stuff and at its most hair-rending when it is human-free online and automated.

Artist or vandal? On what basis? If it's on a canvas then it may well be art. If it's on a public surface I'd say the law is clear.

And then, if you want 'the answers to...' No ! These are not answers. These are the collated responses to a question that offered two options. All you are getting is what some people thought of the options offered.

Rant over. Back to work.

LB, call Home Office

I just heard a Minster who has been convicted of making/taking a mobile phone call while driving described, by the BBC at least, as 'one of our brightest'.

Hmmn.

All this time since it was mad illegal and he a) doesn't seem to have appreciated the law's intent (he was on an important call about something, apparently. Well, that's different then. Just so long as he wasn't texting Gordon a ring tone) and b) has never heard of Bluetooth.

Nice to be governed by such special folk. At least they are not, yet, above the law. Just not so good at setting the best example in following it.

Smoking Gun

Newsnight - MET POLICE GUILTY

I feel moved to comment on an aspect of the de Menezes shooting; last night's interview with the young lady in the tube who witnessed this poor man's final moments.

To me it was telling, especially in light of what still is unfurling as I write, about the state of our governance, our law machine... and our media.

First up, it was one of the most compelling pieces of simple TV I have ever seen. A calm, dignified, controlled (though obviously with difficulty) young person recounting what must have been a truly unimaginable series of events.

The majority of the interview was fine, with the questioner also calm and off camera, but I was quite disgusted with the leading nature of the questions towards the end, putting words in her mouth, pushing an agenda and, if I heard right, trying (and failing - good on her) to elicit some morbid descriptions.

What I retain are the facts she recounted. And the simple fact that she felt the officers were 'hysterical' and that no one had a clue they were police leaves to me massive questions on the standard of training and the organisational policies behind them, right up to the top.

Not this nation's finest hour. But why, as always, do I suspect that all who should hang their heads in shame and walk with empty pockets will do no such thing. And hence the cock-ups will continue.

ADDENDUM - I feel compelled to clarify that I don't hold those brave enough to try and stop a person who might vapourise them (and those they have gone into harm's way to protect) accountable for anything. Especially here.

My concern is all that goes into and behind getting them to that point. And if the best guys for the job are not put in the best position to do it, prepared in the best way, then I think questions do need to be asked. Are they not... the bozos who disorganised it all will remain.

ADDENDUM 2 - Just watched an interview about four firemen missing in a fire. The 'reporter' actually asked the spokesperson how he felt!

Indy Blog -

Several decades ago I got taunted by my mates because a namesake had been shot in his Mini (which I also drove - car of choice for major crims) because he had been mistaken for the gangster boyfriend of his passenger. It was really story of farce from top to toe.

Now, what lessons have been learned?

Would I do the job of the officers?
Would I 'eck!

Do I respect the courage that they show to go into such harm's way?
Do I ever!

Would I want them in any way compromised in doing what they do to the best of their ability to prevent a future terrorist atrocity?
No.

As to those who managed or created or managed the systems and procedures to cause this tragic situation, all I ask is that truth be told and where someone is not up to the job they do not get rewarded for that fact by staying on to repeat their errors... at the very least.

I heard the BBC interview with the witness (an amazing young person, frankly) who sat beside the victim, and what I heard from her does not equate to what I thought I knew. Or what I expect from those tasked to defend me and mine.

Guardian - Our silence is senseless

Risky business, politics, anything... not

I think we've kind of accepted, frustratingly, that there is no such thing as being held accountable for one's negative actions any more.

However, having pondered the Sunday paper's various sections today, I have realised that in complement to this there seems a bizarre over-correction when it comes to being rewarded for positives.

I usually consign the Sports section to the bin unread. However I could not help but notice that some football manger that I was dimply aware was not in favour... now is. And his predecessor now forgotten. For now. Meanwhile another is in line for some truly remarkable pay over the next 3 years.

Thing is, I really can't see how any of these guys are making a blind bit of difference in any serious way to the outcome of their team's performance. At least to justify the fuss and froth around their hiring, tenure and ultimate departure (when the ball doesn't go in the net like it used to).

However, as I presume none of this costs me a penny, I am content for it to play out and provide entertainment to those who are entertained by it all, and dubious employment to a bunch of hangers on who ... well, I'm not sure what.

But then we get to the City. This does bother me, because what these guys do can and does cost me. Thing is, again, they seem to get paid telephone numbers by simply being right once in a while, but don't seem to have to give it back when they cock-up. How does that work?

And finally, politics. Um... ditto. Only it really, really... really gets laid on when they are around when something good (and prudent ?) happens, and they are really, really, really , really hard to shift when the chickens come home to roost. Assuming they have not bailed already.

As I have already blogged, it's not just about winning. I value much more the general who coordinates a brilliant retreat to one who squanders an easy victory. Equally the CEO who helps their company weather a storm much more than one who presides over lazy profits. And as for politics, well, there more than anywhere, the noble art of doing what is right has long been sacrificed an the altar of staying on power to tell us what we think is best for us.

Let's call it 3F's - Fab Failure Funding

Guardian - Merrill Lynch, the firm lost $8bn and the chief executive had to go - with $159m

The [unspecified Asian country water] torture

This is a rant.

It has to be because I rather fear that what I am ranting about has no possible solution, which simply makes appreciating it simply frustrating.

It has been kicked off by a small straw; a story I just read about our kids being unprepared for life's slings and arrows by everything at school being changed to only allow positives, with no allowance for competition or failure.

Some dipsy headteacher was quoted wittering on about self esteem, when the piece I read made the fair point that being told aged 8 that you are super in all things is a) unlikely to encourage good behaviour at home or out and about, and c) be poor training for when it turns out later that, in all likelihood, they are not. Bummer.

Of course where the real kicker comes is dealing with it all. Not just in the example above but across the whole governance firmament. Short of presiding over institutional murder (through target-obsessed incompetence) of innocents, lower tier individuals paid via the public purse are never going to be moved from their jobs. And if the are, and certainly if senior, they will either be moved sideways to carry on their 'skill sets' elsewhere, or get paid so much that they never need to work again. Or become consultants.

So maybe it has, at least for some, become self-fulfilling. You are super at aged 8 and then isolated from thinking otherwise by any sense of reality or critique through to adulthood and, if you stay in the cocoon of state employment, kept that way on up to early, cosy, index-linked golden pensionhood. The impact on those your efforts get directed at is... irrelevant, as there is no accountability or responsibility, at least on a personal basis (lazy managers will just pay up - using public funds - to cover up) any more.

But as I cannot see even the most effective, public-supported political party undoing all these drip-drip, society-eroding bonkers laws and the extra several hundred thousand civil servants taken on to 'cope' (keeps 'em off the dole figures, I guess. Trouble is they also often feel the need to meddle) with them, I am afraid this must stay a rant.

Who is the most important person in the world?

Your audience. Never forget it. Change the message to save the planet

He hasn't. They are the guys who pay to read him. However...

I agree.

And I disagree.

The way things get said is important. And to whom you are saying it is critical.

To business I long ago learned to avoid any hint of saving the planet up front. I wouldn't even get in the door. So it's all about 'ways to boost CSR and even PR, and often sales...' first, but I do still add at the end with a '...plus, who knows, we might get to save the planet, too.'. Makes me feel better and sets them on notice that that is what I really care about.

Equally with consumers, from the most self-absorbed Yuppie singleton to the most harassed Yummie eco-mummie to the most eager-beaver kiddie-winky, I pitch what I do as ways to 'Save time, save money and, who knows, maybe even the planet, too'.

Seems to work, still.

Maybe not with Guardian Online readers though. But I guess they might not be my audience. Or that significant in the great totality of the general public who it is still necessary to inspire to make differences... for the future of the planet.

I'm virtually ecstatic!

I have been meaning to write about my feelings (hey, it's Friday) on the subject of e-publication for a while, and now I have had the perfect prompt *(see below).

PRW is an excellent resource for folks like me (however in it's full monty title of Plastics and Rubber Weekly, a majority of Junkk.com readers may pass). It not only is an easy read, but very topical. And I get pots of good leads. I've even been known to write in.

And, as you'll gather, on top of a nifty way of making a silk purse from a sow's ear they have come up with a cunning marketing wheeze: an e-version.

I already get several. And some I pay for. In a few cases quite a lot. The Ecologist is one. Trouble is, having got to my annual renewal reminder, I have realised I have never read it... online at least. On a few occasions I have even bought a copy at the newsstand - on top.

It may just be me, but I can't get into them. I think part of it is that when I work 12 hrs a day in front of a screen anyway, adding to that eye and RSI-strain a second further with my background reading is not an appealing prospect. Because I have to remain rooted here to do it.

No deckchair in the sun. No quick few pages in the small room (excuse the image that may have created). No catch up in the train (I don't do power-exec lappy space hogging).

I know it's not perhaps very eco to admit it, but it just doesn't appeal in comparison to having a page that I can fold, tear or highlighter-pen... and then stuff in my pocket... to hand. Sorry.

So I'll look forward to my copy in the mail (while the GPO are still in business - at which point I may have no choice, and trees may breathe CO2 easier). But meantime this is a nice complement.

*Unfortunately, the postal strike is likely to delay the delivery of your copy of PRW magazine this week.

However, you can view the latest edition right now by clicking here.

The full issue is available on-line.

The digital edition is exactly the same as the printed issue, which will reach readers next week when the strike ends.

The UK is also better than the Swiss at navies (for now)

I clicked on this with some anticipation: Blue skies, yellow sand and shades of green

And this did look like encouraging news: There’s little doubt that the UK is ahead of the green game.

However, I was then moved to comment:

Well, I'll take your word for it that the UK is 'ahead' of Spain, at least.

Though I still chortle as I read my Indy and see an Evian ad or my Guardian and get a 4x4 tootling across the banner. And I must look out for bio at my local Morrisons.

Have fun at the conference. As it's a long way away and a tad pricey at £649+VAT for the day I would have loved to come but for various reasons cannot. I hope those who can afford the time and money to do so will have lots of lovely green wheezes.

Hence your report will be welcome.

Oh, you are cards

I hate to be ungrateful, but this was a bit too much not to comment upon. See that picture. It's 250 business cards.

I nice compnay had offered me free sample, and when the word gets free I'm you're man.

So when postie knocked on the door I wondered what the big box contained. I remained none the wiser as I encountered the gorgeous laminated box with a huge brochure inside listing printing prices.

And then I found it.

Guys, I love ya to death and AM impressed with the work. But if you are sending stuff out to a company that is trying to save the planet (or anyone else for that matter), I'm sure you can get you message across without quiet such a show of resource .

You're nicked. Maybe.

I am not big on some aspects of the law. Often what is obvious and/or 'fair' gets short shrift as the letter is deemed to trump the spirit, often where fines are involved.

So I was a bit confused when I heard a report on BBC Breakfast News (link coming later I hope) about the latest issuance from our dear leaders, and was moved to write in (and featured in part):

I haven't read the new Highway Code. Am I required to?

I also don't smoke, but can see how a burning, smoke-emitting stick could be a distraction whilst driving.

But how on earth 'may' this be a reason for police to deem it a reason to prosecute for dangerous driving?

It surely 'is' or 'isn't' illegal. Which is it?

Such vagueness makes a mockery of the law.

I've just watched another Minister of Mendacity waffle away, but again thanks to a National Government/Broadcaster combo remain none the wiser on my question.

How on earth can society proceed when we have all these 'things' that 'may' be a reason to prosecute in existence and being added to constantly without honest admission by the sorry crew who conjure these things up.

This clown (why do we pay for people who contribute nothing but obfuscation?) seemed to be saying that if you were not holding the wheel at 1o to 2 you are on the way to being dodgy. So... changing gear? I guess we'll all need automatics. Glancing in the mirror? Better to stare straight ahead.

Indy - Expanded Highway Code tells learners to drive with courtesy