Can stand the competition...

... plus bottles, jars, cartons, etc.

On matters triple bottom line, I noticed this story and asked for the Press Release (much too lazy to rejig much as it doesn't need it). Seems some can make green out of, well... green:

‘Innocent’ named as most admired brand for its environmental approach to packaging

Packaging professionals have named ‘Innocent’ their most admired brand for its environmental approach to packaging according to a new survey released today.

The survey, put together by packaging trade show specialist’s easyFairs, questioned 289 packaging professionals, asking them a number of questions, of which one was to openly name a brand that they really admired for its green packaging approach. In response 10% suggested the ‘Innocent’ brand, followed by ‘Marks & Spencer’ (7%) and ‘Kenco’ (5%).

Matt Benyon, managing director at easyFairs UK and Ireland comments: “Innocent have made tremendous steps over the last few years in making their packaging better for the environment, from using food grade recycled plastic in their bottles, to making their cartons from 100% Forest Stewardship Council certified material. They also have a very strong sustainable packaging policy in place.”

He continues: “What impresses me most, is that we asked all those surveyed to name any brand they like, so to have 10% come back saying ‘Innocent’ is quite amazing, and just shows how Innocent get things right in not only the green packaging side of things, but conveying their green message across to its peers and consumers. A lot of companies are doing great things out there, just they don’t tell us, which is a real shame.”

Indeed, over a quarter (27%) surveyed, admitted that they were doing lots when it comes to environmental packaging but not shouting about it.

However, when asked what is driving their packaging decisions at the moment, top of the list was cost, with a huge 69% stating this. Over half (58%) also said that the tougher economic climate means they are less likely to introduce more environmentally sound packaging unless it saves them money as well.

This shows that there is still a battle between keeping costs to a minimum and improving environmental performance of packaging for most professionals working in the industry.

Matt explains: “Our survey showed that 46% are interested in greener materials, but it’s paying that bit extra for these materials that is the problem. It’s that catch 22, companies need to keep costs down, but also understand the importance of having a proactive approach to environmental packaging. At the moment too many companies are still afraid to take that risk to switch to a greener solution, unless it costs them less, which in most cases is unlikely. We all know that Innocent is not the cheapest of products on the market, but it has educated the market place on environmental issues and how purchasing their products can help, which is why they have become so successful.”

Without a doubt, and issues that many professionals identify and agree with. For example over a third (35%) said that it is the brand owner’s responsibility to educate consumers on the positive effect that environmental packaging has. 75% of those surveyed also admitted that it is the customer who is driving them to improve their green packaging and 66% said that their environmental performance was important to their consumers of their products. It’s just delivering at a cost that works for them.

Matt comments: “I do think we’ve come along way, and packaging professionals are doing a lot more than they ever have done compared to previous years to meet the ‘green’ demand from consumers. For example, we asked our respondents to be truly frank, and rate on a scale whether they could be doing any more to reduce the environment impact of their packaging, where 10 meant they couldn’t be doing anything more. 65% wrote down either 7 or above, which is very promising.”

Elsewhere the survey also showed that the toy industry is the most guilty of over-packaging, with 26% thinking this. Whilst 61% thought that the cosmetics/perfumery/toiletries industries were the most innovative when it comes to packaging.

Now this is all very interesting, given Junkk.com's ongoing efforts to promote RE:tie, especially given the latter's latest research to show that there are ways that consumer can be delivered eco-innovation that also translates into sales. Extra and/or sucking share from competitors.

By sheer coincidence, Innocent, or at least one of its founders, has cropped up today with a competition we have been invited to enter: BBC's 'Be Your Own Boss'

Now, I have entered too (sadly Innocent have shown no interest in RE:tie, despite its obvious relevance to their brand and environmental commitments, so no point rehashing that route. Luckily, Yoda-like, 'there is another') so if, in sharing this you enter and kick me off... at least put in a good word!

There's saving votes, and there's saving...

How scrappage is reviving the world economy

If not the world environment.

'Green' was so yesterday... and might be tomorrow. But for now....

Just popped in a wee plug for one of those odd win-win notions I happen across that just don't seem to tick the right boxes for the target bonus brigade.

Talking of such things… and (anthro) global warming (which we weren’t, but some in high places often do, as and when it suits):

http://reheatbritain.org.uk/

More is still more

Still not settling well.

Just too many folk either not getting it of trying to make out of it.

With even more thinking fixes will be free and easy.

Hence I cannot resist sticking my oar in still.

BBC - Yukio Hatoyama's golden carrot

"The answer to climate change is nuclear power + electric cars."

At best not so much an answer as a very minor possible help in postponement.

I'd say fewer folk around wanting (or allowed... eek) to go elsewhere all the time might be closer to it, but with the politico-media Caravans of Carbon making their green elite - either deluded or venal - ways 1st class from one world venue to the next, if occasionally offset, only to pronounce but not practice, that doesn't seem likely.

We need much more fundamental appreciations of causes and effects... cures and consequences.

What we are getting at the moment from the greeleets is none of the above.

CATEGORY - WIND

As with any renewable, I love the idea. I just cast an engineer's eye around the enviROI in practice in many cases.

Try and make your own mind up. Though between most media and governments I'd say you'd often be struggling to be totally clear.

Articles

Guardian - Big oil to big wind: Texas veteran sets up $10bn clean energy project
FT.com - Setback for UK wind farm push - Were it me, I'd have gone for 'Blow to...' Especially when one reads this: 'The large subsidies paid by electricity users to fund the drive towards wind power are generating profits for existing wind farm owners – without producing many new turbines'
Indy - Save peatlands from wind turbines - More facts than I have seen anywhere in a while. Thing is... are they accurate? I am guessing we'll not hear more as the caravan rolls on.
The Register - Shell pulls out of Thames Estuary mega-windfarm -
Telegraph - Shell disappoints with wind farm withdrawal - I merely note the competencies and responsibilities and agendas of those 'disappointed', but look also at this: Quite simply, the costs of wind farms are spiralling out of control. I think in terms of enviROI+, but most talk seems to be of image. Which is better for our kids?
Indy - Shouldn't local people have a say on wind farms? - There are many factors to be considered here; and most are important, if often different ones to different people.

However what often gets lots is clear data on the actual deliverables of energy to meet these 'targets'.

With expanding economies, and populations, there are frankly going to be demands of land and resources for all sorts of reasons.

In making tricky choices my major concern is that whatever else is going on, we are allowed to assess the merits of these alternative energy options on clear issues of ROI and enviROI (environmental benefits to our kids' futures), and not certain narrow, short-term definitions that are more to help box-tickers' careers, lobbyists bonus payments and contractors' subsidy-supported profits.

Telegraph - Wind Weekend to celebrate wind power - Another week/end, another feature/celebration of stuff that is 24/7, 365/365. I guess it must be good for PR with lazy media. Like me! I'll confess to having linked but not read.

The Register - Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought - I have been asking for more meaningful data, especially on enviROI as well as deliverables, for a while. Ta-da! However, doubtless there will soon be a ton more that totally contradicts this. Seems a heck of a lot of uncertainty still to be pinning £100B and the country's energy needs on.

Telegraph - Wind won't solve energy gap - A piece from a 'side', so the real value is in the thread replies.

Times - Giant turbines to make north Windy Central - 'Each could [my italics] generate up to 7.5 mega-watts of power, enough for 4,000-5,000 homes.' What, I wonder, do we know they can... and will generate. Why is this always left unknown? I am keen to be convinced, but such reporting leaves me always wondering.

Telegraph - Homeowners living near windfarms see property values plummet - A problem, but also something to bear in mind before accusing some of unthinking, unreasonable NIMBYism.

Telegraph - When the wind stops - the other side of the wind turbine argument - Some science (if from a clear 'side' - check the comments in reply. One only, so far)

Gaurdian - A blot of turbines - With a title like that...

Greenbang - Wind power: “Expensive and unreliable” - worth reading on as the headline is not all there is to it

The Register - Greenpeace: UK gov trying to strangle wind power - Um, why? I don't say they are not, but they say they are in favour. Confused?

Guardian - Report finds US is world's top wind producer

Times - Host of new pylons to carry wind farm power

Greenbang - UK wind: only for the rural - Now there's a thing. Who'da thunk and why did no one mention this before? Could have spared all sorts of eco-savvy folk money and looking like enviROI-numpties... like our next PM, for instance. Arthur, bring up more coal from the bunker, if you please! George, throw a few more rods in the reactor! Gives me a warm glow (I hope that's all it is) just thinking of the brain power being deployed on our behalves.

The Register - Carbon Trust: Rooftop windmills are eco own-goal

Times - Country out-performs towns in household wind turbine trials

Gaurdian - Wind farms are not only beautiful, they're absolutely necessary - Just gotta love objective headlines

RenewableEnergyWorld - Software Predicts Electricity Output for Wind - Now this looks more promising, but note reply

ASA - Interesting insights via ad complaint

Telegraph - Giant Upside Down Kitchen Whisks (GUDKW) to save the planet? - Can it be beaten? Personally I'd have gone for 'Blender Blades'... snappier.

Times - Wind turbines generate bonus for homeowners

Guardian - Spinning to destruction - Not anticipated by whom (Whilst being cautiously in favour, as an ex- Civ. Eng I recall wondering how a gearbox in the North Sea stood up), and when, exactly? At what cost? (ROI & enviROI?) And why?

BBC - When the wind doesn't blow - I read this as I read about a chap who 'saves' by using the energy from his next door neighbours' homes to radiate into his. Not too sure this system works too well.

EU Referendum - Trouble at t'grid

Inhabitat - Groundbreaking Energy Ball Wind Turbine for Home Power - Interesting comments and links to this

EU Referendum - Candour from the Beeb - I am starting to sense that not only has the cart been put before the horse, no one actually seemed to figure out that first you need a path to follow. This lack of informed foresight, intelligent planning and sensible, objective, agenda-free media oversight from major public media with immense resources is nothing short of a scandal.

Telegraph - Wind farms, hot air and spin , Wind farms fail to deliver value for money, report claims -

I tend to share most of the concerns articulated here, especially (ignoring a few other pertinent parameters) those of the actual enviROI.

But as an ideal I want the idea to succeed and remain ready to be persuaded. The advocates have not yet, at least in many UK locations, but may win me round.

However, in the same way, those in favour of nuclear also still have a job ahead, at least for this microscopic jury of one.

'...nuclear energy is the most realistic option for meeting our long-term energy needs.'

May be true economically (though I have seen rather scary numbers on simple ROI here, at least without subsidy - which comes from whom?), but I'd hazard that to tick my environmental boxes as well, a few questions need to be answered. Especially... long term... I'd like to have more confidence that there's a better notion of what will be done with the waste, beyond hoping that eventually a solution will be found.

Daily Mail - A load of hot air: Why spending £100bn on windfarms to please the EU is Labour's greatest act of lunacy - Caution: as the title might suggest, this is not what you might call a 'Pro' stance. I also query the claim; Labour might have had a hand in a few other odd and fiscally unwise efforts to challenge this assertion.

And no mention of enviROI.

Times - Wind power plans may be blown off course - Having just watched a YouTube of one that sounded quite noisy, before it exploded, I wonder what rpm was meant when the guy says 'You can easily hold a conversation under the blades as they whizz around'?

Guardian - Wind farms must be nearer coast to meet targets, says report - I always thought they had to be out there to get the wind (or they could all be stuck on David Cameron's roof) , but nearer at least improves the enviROI of maintenance.

Observer - UK wind farm plans on brink of failure

Times - Shell pulls out of its last UK wind farm project

Guardian - UK overtakes Denmark as world's biggest offshore wind generator

Newsnight - Some interesting, if unproven and possibly partisan comments in the comments at the end.

Indy - Winds of change: A beacon of optimism

Greenbang - Wind energy “capacity” - just hot air?
So, here’s a surprise. In one corner a pretty extreme climate optimist. And in the other the leader of our country, a very smart man… who spins on his own axis pretty much whenever the political winds shift. Currently a bastion of ‘green’. Who to believe? No help from the Telegraph. Any experts out there who can help. It’s just numbers after all.
Max/min/average ratings. Wind speeds. Efficiencies. Maintenance schedules. Lifespans. Etc.
With a few less clear influences as work: Targets. Bonusses. Subsidies. Fines. Lobbying. Etc.
So… what delivers an enviROI from construction through to decommissioning that has an enviROI my kids’ futures can depend on?
Anyone?

Times - Wind investment at a standstill

Indy Letters - I missed the piece that inspired it, but I reprint this with my usual caveats about being impressed by titles and concerns that today's major media seem quite content to share black and white in sequence, without really being too concerned that teh reader aquires any sense of subtle shades of green...

When the wind does not blow

It is all very well for Michael Meacher to call for a higher proportion of electricity to be supplied by renewables (Letters, 3 December) but he ignores the main objective of the supply industry: to provide low-carbon electrical power continuously, on demand.

Wind is intermittent and variable. The "cube law" is hardly ever mentioned. (When a 30 mph wind falls to 10 mph, the power output falls by 96 per cent.) The deficiency usually has to be made up by gas or coal generators. Other countries do not have to rely so heavily on carbon credits. The Scandinavian countries have available hydro-electricity. Germany can import electricity from up from up to nine countries. We have one cross-channel cable.

Professor Charles Hughes, FREng

Guardian - Spinning to destruction - Actually an old one I just stumbled across. My main concern with reliability is how it affects the enviROI (gearboxes and salt air don't seem happy bedfellows), but safety is also a maintenance-related issue and concern, too. However, the failure rate, so far, still seems low.

Telegraph - Do you really want a wind turbine? - Oo, facts. There's a novelty.

Guardian - Keep the blades of wind power turning

Guardian - Opposing wind farms should not be socially unacceptable

Telegraph - Wind Farms: the death of Britain - Wind still grabbing the headlines, and not always good ones. And this is a good (bad?) example. Between the piece and the comments in reply the divide makes a climate change discussion seem almost an exercise in polite compromise. It is important, as there is so much money involved. And my main concern remains the enviROI. What beggars my belief is that we have got to this point and there seems still no clear cut trustworthy, objective facts. And when those making the most noise are a target-obsessed government I wouldn't trust to build a sandcastle vs. an often very reactionary press, the issue remains downright obscure. Criminally so.

Telegraph - When wind power blows, jobs will fall - Can't comment on the objectivity of the facts (see above) but certainly a sober outline of some critical issues. Can't help be suspect that an article from a more supportive source would paint a different picture.

Telegraph - How can wind turbines generate so much lunacy? - Ditto. I guess you need to review the comments for 'balance'. But I do prefer cold, hard numbers. And the examples of how badly some media can apparently get them wrong...is concerning.

Guardian - Live Q&A: George Monbiot on wind power - It's a shame, but I rather find the Grauniad and Torygraph to be bookends when it comes to eco-objectivity, so at least this is likely to provide some 'balance' and maybe even facual considerations to the last few I have come across. I hope. I'd pose a question or two, but seom blogs are now too flamey for comfort. but worth a gander IMHO tomorrow.

Indy - Wind power plan blown off course - Don't know where the Indy rates for objectivity, but that headline doesn't bode well.

BBC - Newsnight - The iPlayer is only good for a week. But the follow up comments offer an interesting mix of viewpoints. I think the BBC really needs to address the qualifications of its 'reporters' in what is a very science/engineering-dependent topic (with a fair mix of enviROI economics in the mix - preferably without box-ticking targets and or subsidy-addicted lobbyists skewing decisions). Both to understand the issues and, as important, share them both objectively AND understandably.

Guardian - Wind power: Local difficulty - an interesting debate sparked and, indeed, still brewing, especially as more on the 'Two E's' aspects come out.

Guardian - Wind power: the silent majority must speak out, says Miliband - Always a tad concerned when minority groups (esp: pols) invoke the majority. Even more when mandates are presumed.

Guardian - A wind farm is not the answer - Get the feeling this is topical... and about as polarised as climate change? How is it that there seem yet to be few numbers that anyone can trust, and hence agree upon?

Grants

Information

BERR - UK Windspeed Database -
UK Wind Speed Database -
EERE - Wind Powering America - Its a start. An odd one; but interesting.
energy4all.co.uk - For setting up community projects
warwickwindtrials -
windpowertv.com - NEW - Clear advocates, but lots of useful information to add the knowledge base

Carbon Trust - Small-scale wind energy

Suppliers

allsmallwindturbines.com - Looks useful!
encraft.co.uk -
windandsun.co.uk -
weatherworks.co.uk

See labels below, especially under 'Alt. Energy' for previous notes. If you have anything to add to the headings above... share 'em! Direct to info[at]junkk.com or via the comments on the blog.

Useful Media

renewableenergyworld.com -

CASH FOR CLUNKERS. The cars, not the concept?

An interesting follow up on 'scrappage'

Cash for clunkers, signs of life

Especially in the comments. I empathised with this one.

POOOiNTS to ponder

Polluted Olympics

I share this merely as a prompt to ponder various issues, from 'The Two E's - Economy vs. Environment' to enviROI, especially with things that may be billed as 'green', and even more so at a point in time that may not reflect the totality of impacts.

SIR – Your report (July 31) on the air quality around the Stratford Olympic site paints a stark picture of athletes breathing polluted air, but the residents are already doing so, and there is a solution – now.
The Rail Freight Group has calculated that 800,000 truck movements could be saved in the area if rail freight were used for deliveries of steel, precast concrete and prefabricated building elements, all of which were transported by rail for the construction of Heathrow Terminal 5. Rail could also be used for the removal of contaminated waste.
The rail facilities on the Olympic site are hardly used. The Olympic Delivery Authority could require contractors to use rail, but relies instead on the media swallowing their green hype rather than confronting the facts that, unless they take urgent action, this will be the most polluted Olympics in history.
Lord Berkeley
Chairman, Rail Freight Group
London WC1

Tricky one. There can be little doubt that in terms of emissions, the mere creation of and consequences of this event cannot in any way be viewed as making the world 'greener'.

China sin dumb?

What can China do about climate change?

I must say I am wondering when China does get to qualify as a first world country, with all the joys we have to offer, and share in.

Maybe we could send back our GOATs (Guv of all talents) in a couple of containers to help work the same magic on their economy that has been conjured here?

Meanwhile...

Guardian - NEW - India gets serious on climate change

THE TWO E"s - On your wagon

Turning on to Nano-man

'Regularly these days we hear appeals from politicians... It's urgent, they say, and - this is the key message - it can be done, if everyone and every country does his/her/its bit.'

A very key comment. And one I find hard to rationalise with what issues forth from many politicians, and the media that carry their press releases.

The only appeals I have heard of late are to support the car industry, and often ones that would be hard-pressed to be called 'green'. In crowded urban centres as described above, I agree mass transit initiatives would seem a much 'better' commitment.

But here the latest wheeze I heard of was paying the likes of me £2k to ditch my old car and buy a new Jag (who makes those?). Or maybe an LDV van? Sadly (financially, if not environmentally, from manufacturing impact to running) , I opted for a second hand LPG.

I'd just love to square the whole reduced eco-impact vs. growing economy thing, but just can't. I don't think it can be, at least in the ways being currently attempted, and with such blatant fudging if not dishonesty from the establishment.

Guardian - India launches 'world's cheapest car' - Enjoy the other threads and comments. George Monbiot's is 'lively'. I liked one of his supporters' claims against a few eyebrow-crankers that he has a car 'because he needs one'. Ahhhh... that's where I have been going wrong with my finger-wa... oh... I don't do that.

CATEGORY - The Two E's

I think this deserves its own category now.

For those who have seen it before, this refers to discussions or debates where the needs of the Environment might end up at odds with Economic drivers (I have often called this the two 'Ecos' before, but actually environment and ecology are distinct and, sadly if ironically, can also compete).

Greenbuzz - Taking Care of Business

Guardian - It's the economists, stupid - I'd have to say that, while opinions are fine, if I were not an economist, I'd tread a wee bit cautiously, especially on an open blog, telling those who are their business.

Indy - The eco-crunch: Can Britain still afford to go green? - And in case you wonder who is an eco-expert, they are in here, too. Apparently.

The Guardian - The green squeeze - Do read the comments.... they're free.

Times - Trade minister Lord Jones hits out at green tax on flights

Guardian - Will the Green New Deal deliver? - There are an awful lot of folk on an awful lot of pedestals telling those below what's good for 'em these days. Glad to be spending more time on doing stuff to help most of my day. Might help when the revolution comes.

The Register - The FDRs of Green explain the gentle art of planet saving

Real Climate - A worthwhile read: Bridging the divides

Guardian - Free trade breakdown

The Register - What's the cost of global warming?

Gaurdian - Green routes to growth

BBC - Climate law 'could cost billions' - Of course, it 'might' not.

Guardian - NEW - The green revolution postponed

The Two E's, enviROI... and a plug

I wonder if he posted it anywhere other than the Gaurdian?

A limited, almost certainly hostile audience unlikely to be open to changing entrenched beliefs. Would this not serve more, in every sense of the word, being in a more mainstream arena (maybe it is, but if so I have missed it. Ergo...), where advocates from either side of the arguemnt can debate and 'sell' their points of view?

Maybe a bun-fight is better for ratings... and sales.

The green pseudo-revolution

Worth a ponder or, well, four trillion

I certainly would prefer it go to some of these vs. a pol's pension or City type's bonus.

What would the bank-bail out money buy for the environment?

Oh, what a state(sperson)

Finding a climate for growth

As to the agreeable (new adjective du jour?:) Mr. Brown, it might be worth looking back and seeing what he has said (or, more likely open-endedly mis- or possibly not spoke) vs. what he has done, on most things but in particular anything to do with my kids' futures on this planet.

As to the awesome thought and authority that has gone in to this... "This is not the time to abandon a climate change agenda which is important for the future... The climate change agenda is part of the solution for many of the problems we face as a world economy"... well, I bet those words stopped all those rowing in their tracks with their substance, depth, detail and insight.

But at least some, somewhere, will be happy. 'We' have yet another, brand new target. Apparently.

Let the lobbyists out of the traps and the subsidies flow!

Telegraph - Ed Miliband promises less hot air

Well, when it comes to assessing talent, everything is relative I suppose. Is there a bar on the shores of the Dead Sea?

Newsnight -

You know what I found most telling about Mr. Miliband (the Even Younger)'s vox pop was his acknowledging that he, and indeed most, involved would not be around in 2050.

For a pol today, that is enough for me to know that a) it ain't going to happen, but b) a lot of folk are going to see target-based careers enhanced and/or making a load of money in the short term looking like they are trying.

Meanwhile, this is another press release that I imagine is already filed.

If we are going to be exposed to this government's latest whirly wheeze, and especially with a ringing stamp of 'You're all doing very well, aren't I' from Young PM Queeg, might we at least have a bit of historical context from the last decade to see how the latest claims might stand up and/or work out.

INdy - Loophole in minister's new emissions target - Rather sets the tone: like "telling everyone you're going on a calorie-controlled diet but not counting cream cakes".

Guardian - Can Ed Miliband deliver?

Guardian - Post-bubble possibility

Guardian - Saving the economy or saving the planet is not an either-or

See, there I was, getting all awed by the massive brainpower and seduced by the compelling skills of persuasion that score one the big bucks in the halls of power, and then I got to this:

"I am confident that we have the bold and challenging leadership we need."

I am sure you are, dear.

Is the Guardian now in the business of posting job applications as well?

At least the posts in reply made the energy consumed reading on worthwhile.

Guardian - Another green dream?

I am continually amazed by the way some manage to divorce 'Britain' from its 'government' - especially in terms of words and deeds carried out in its name - and the 'people' who in theory have given their mandates through 'votes' to others, especially to blow their money in their name via taxes.

Telegraph - Ed Miliband, Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has his work cut out

Indy - Miliband's blueprint for greener homes - while I was on board with much here, some of the suggestions do fail on my current enviROI measures, and hence rather colour the overall thing with a wash of green.

Guardian - On our present course, the bold new carbon target is worthless

When one's course is set by PM Queeg of the U.S Less 'I feel your pain (well, the pay, perks and pension might help ease it a bit)', cheered on at every repeated Titanic iceberg-ramming by a collection of Westminster Useful Village Idiots already nice and comfy in the few lifeboats, I must say 'worthless' is what first sprang to mind, too.

This is one mutineer ready to sign up on this 'ship in a state'.

Guardian - The greening of Brown

So, if I read the first para right it is basically: 'A distracting chance to just look good to your mates in high places whilst blowing yet more on saying a lot but again doing b-all'.

If his 'towering intellect' hadn't understood and/or got interested until now, then he's a few gigawatts short of a becalmed wind farm.

You damn the man with the faintest of praise.

Indy - Rebels to force climate change Bill concessions

I'd just be happy with a world-class climate my kids can enjoy.

But hey-ho....

Unleash the targets, crank up the bonuses and let the box-ticking commence!

Rule 1: If it seems obvious to you, it may still not be

Environmentalism needs to take account of cost

While I can only agree, and applaud the sober attempt to articulate and expand upon this, I fear I still have my first thought ringing in my ears:

'Well...D'Uh!'

But then, maybe it does need repeating. Seems an awful lot have not connected a few rather basic dots. Just so long as in getting from ROI to enviROI those coming from a more bean-counting, as opposed to bean-eating, viewpoint don't ignore the social aspects of our continued healthy existence on this planet in the rush to make even more green by now being, or being seen to be it.

Jobs for the boys, and girls

Green growth is the path to economic recovery

An interesting essay, as are some of the comments in reply.

Pitching envROI

Subsidised recycling is poor value for money

An interesting piece. Whilst there is little to disagree with in matters of fact, the slant taken become significant. Here an almost pure approach to the financial aspects in terms of return is considered. One can almost imagine that at the other extreme there might be one in the Guardian with uncritical green-tinted glasses advocating the 'environment', no matter what.

Such a shame, as surely between the enterprise and the social there is something more valid in terms of money possible, that can both serve the needs and interests of the planet and those upon it.

An attempt to encapsulate these economic AND environmental principles is attempted in the definition of enviROI*

It is hard to put subsidy and value for money together in the same sentence without accepting the 'value' of the social benefits that are gained.

Rationally, 'wasting' anything cannot be a good thing, and sticking raw materials back in the ground lacks a certain logic, unless one looks at it in a purely short term, time-dependent monentary manner. Surely this is evident by virtue of some landfills being considered for mining now? One has to wonder, much as one would putting one's 1960's mass-production sports coupe on blocks until now, what the 'value' might have been of setting aside useful materials in a segregated manner ready for economies re-embracing into the manufacturing system now. Nothing is infinite. So anything that does not tackle a problem and shunts it away is only a delaying tactic imposed on the future. Understandable, if not laudable if there is no imperative to even think about the problem, much less solutions, but very dubious if clear issues have been identified on the horizon.

I fear I must therefore take issue with the defence of landfill just on the basis of there being more places to stick stuff. It doesn't seem very nice, and it doesn't seem to make much sense.

Therefore my personal advocacy is much more energy (mental, that is) is devoted to more creative ways of reducing our waste in the first place, and making more of that which is, I accept, inevitably produced and discarded. Reduction, reuse...recycling. I fear the current cabal who should have/be addressing this for long enough - government, LAs, quangos (so many quangos), manufacturers, retailers, and even many media - have so far been WOEFUL, if not plain dishonest. At best we have bazzillions going on disjointed systems, little empires and epic comms budgets, all of which seem primarily designed to make it the poor public/consumer's problem.

I agree about the targets. I agree about the jobsworths. But also I agree about the green-blinkered groups, who see anything that is not consumerist as therefore automatically 'good' when, if I understand the debate correctly, the key issue now is Co2 emissions rather than stuff in the wrong place... or generating methane in an unmanaged way. Hence silly ban-wagons that make some feel good when in fact pumping more up in the air than was before.

Sadly, this debate already seems polarised. It's either landfill or recycling. I rather like to think there may be something in between that occupies a satisfactory middle ground and even, god forbid, ticks a few boxes, too.

A lot is explained

Politicians need wisdom when chosing green regulation

An interesting discussion around the Two E's, plus a worthy link as well.

Thing is... are we really surprised?

Main parties 'reneging on green promises'

Well, we all know what a 'pol's promise' is owrth at best. Butthis could equally lurk in the 'Two E's" category as a reson if not excuse.

Getting the answers she wanted?

Feasting on famine - As the food crisis intensifies, no one is asking why the companies making huge profits from increased prices remain unaccountable

I almost passed on this one. The comments in the thread make it worth reading. Tricky things, blogs.

Times - Britain's dirty business - Also as applicable to the post before regarding a LabourMP/Liberal Media luvvie's notions on what 'we' should be doing.

Times - Is your job bad for the Earth? - Rats... My day jobs are down there twice.

NEWS/GO3 PR - 12 Lords a... tilting at windwills

Bit heavy for a Friday afternoon, but as I have been banging on about it for long enough... this just in:

LORDS ECONOMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ECONOMICS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY

PR as received, E&EO*. Some top lordly names in there. Only one I recognise, and he is out and about at the moment not seeing what all this climate fuss is about.

The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee are today launching a new
inquiry into the economics of renewable energy.

The Committee will look in detail at the prospects for the increased use
of renewable energy which under EU targets should make up 15% of the
UK's total energy use by 2020. Figures show that only 1.8% of Britain's
energy came from renewable sources in 2006.

The inquiry aims to set out the costs and benefits of renewable energy
and compare those with other sources of energy. The Committee will
deliver an objective analysis that provides an economic assessment of
the Government's policy towards the increased use of renewable energy.

Commenting, Lord Vallance, Chairman of the House of Lords Economic
Affairs Committee, said:

"Renewable energy is expected to play an important role in reducing
carbon emissions but we know comparatively little about the possible
costs and benefits.

"Our Committee will analyse in detail the potential costs and benefits
of an increased use of renewable energy sources and how they stack up
against non-renewable sources.

"We would welcome evidence from any interested parties to what will be a
thorough and detailed inquiry."

Some of the issues the Committee will examine are:

* How does and should renewable energy fit into Britain's overall
energy policy? How does the UK's policy compare with that of other
countries?

* What are the barriers to the greater use of renewable energy?
Are there technical limits to the amount of renewable energy the UK can
absorb? Will technological changes make renewable energy cheaper and
more viable?

* What can the government do to promote the greater use of
renewable energy and encourage more investment in the associated
technology?

* How much investment in Britain's electricity transmission and
distribution networks will be necessary to enable a significant increase
in the use of renewables?

* What are the external costs associated with different forms of
renewable energy, such as the impact on rural areas of an increase in
wind farms?

* How do the costs of generating electricity from renewable
sources compare with fossil fuels and nuclear power? What are the
estimated costs of carbon capture and storage technologies in future and
how do these compare to renewable generation? What impact do these
various forms of generation have on carbon emissions?

* What are the costs and benefits of the current generation of
bio-fuels? Will there be a second generation of bio-fuels and, if so,
how will its costs and benefits differ?

The Committee welcome written evidence from any interested parties.
Evidence should reach the Committee by the 16 June 2008.

The current membership of the Committee is:

Lord Vallance of Tummel (Chairman) Lord Macdonald of Tradeston
Lord Best
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach
Lord Moonie
Lord Kingsdown
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Lord Paul
Lord Lawson of Blaby
Lord Turner of Ecchinswell
Lord Layard

*See label links for explanation(s)

I really must start the day job

From a blog that I have no idea how to link to:

BBC - Begging for more than small change

This is quite a thought provoking article which focuses on the need
for intrinsic change in behaviour rather than focussing on small
scale changes in the hope it will lead to bigger ones. The main
arguments are:

"Having embraced one simple change, some people then tend to rest on
their laurels and be less likely to engage in other more significant
changes"

"Environmental problems can often be traced to our appetite
for "stuff", items that demand resources and energy in their
manufacture, sale, use and disposal"

"unless I am careful about how I spend the money that I've saved. As
long as campaigns to encourage us to change our behaviour are based
on appeals to self-interest or financial incentive, they will be
fraught with difficulties"

Hence marketing green products could be counterproductive.

Whilst I agree with this, somewhat more worrying is the belief that
Businesses will be interested in this philosophy, it continues:

"The Environmental organisations should also work with leading
businesses....to think beyond the opportunities offered by green
consumerism; preparing for a world where we will inevitably need to
consume not just differently, but less"

But why should they? Private Businesses and the political doctrine
that underpins them are driven by the desire for growth and profit.
To expect them to think otherwise is as irrational as expecting an
Abrahamic religion to stop believing in God. Even if some did change
how could they survive in a commercial market? Perhaps the only
solution is a control type economy, not traditional socialism, but
one that is focussed on quality of life rather than material
production? I can't see this happening anytime soon.

If ever this was one for The Two E's, this was it. Hence I have been moved to reply/add (to the blog, not the BBC site, which is a poor effort/reward one, as I often try and point out to them):

Good share. And thoughts on it. I saw this as well, and not in the most positive of ways, in another blog which, charitably, could be deemed 'climate optimistic'.

I passed on, but then it came back to the top of my mind as I surfed through some debates on Earth Day, again not very complimentary to the cause of green (at least in its rather unfortunate, and over-simplistically used and abused sense).

I am not so sure it's the changes, large or small, that deserve the attention and debate, but many of the messengers bearing a welter of them that are not always easy to get behind, and for all sorts of reasons (including, now, the fact that the pain of paying is biting at more fundamental levels than just buying off guilt).

On top of the negatives of greenwashing/toshing/cloaking by some rather cynical bandwagon jumpers in the corporate world, there seem to be vast armies of well-paid and pensioned folk from governments to LAs to NGOs to charities all doing very nicely just talking up a storm, and thrusting many plump fists out for funds to keep the conversations bubbling along.

I, for one, would be keen to see a lot more from the public purse going into DOING stuff.

I totally agree that the principles of marketing in the capitalist, consumer-driven world mean it's unlikely that reduction is high on the agenda, but at least one can often see some efforts that may still work, a bit, in mitigation. So bashing them for not doing more to do less seems optimistic, at best. And, without more coherent strategies for dealing with a global population of 6B+ and growing, mostly with the vote and tightrope-walking 'lead...er... followership' who know it, a tad in the 'idealistic' corner.

Meanwhile I am struggling to see much enviROI in the bazillions going to an awful lot that is not going anywhere (Executive salaries in quangos or activist groups to come up with such stuff, for one) much that is actually making positive differences.

Addendum: To some responses, I have amplified thus:

I'm not sure but suspect (rather proving my following point) we're all agreeing with each other as to what is most desirable, but might see different routes to this common end point.

The situation reminds me of a very down-to-earth client I had in my advertising days in Asia.

I was doing my best pitching to him and made the mistake at one point of saying 'I think you're not understanding me', which really meant I had yet to see him come round to seeing the obvious brilliance of my concept.

"No,' he said, 'I don't think you are making your case clearly enough to persuade me yet'.

I think we all agree that green cannot be viewed in black and white, so immediately we are into that scary no man's land of greys between what is and should be, can be and will.

And bearing in mind my town of a few thousand has, well, a few thousand opinions, with all sorts of influences (money, ego, selfish-interest, concern, money...) shaping them, it's a miracle any consensus happens at national much less international levels.

However, sadly, if what a lot of us are swayed by is to be believed, we don't have much time to get to some sort of global consensus.

Now there's an ideal, but just like the Prisoner's Dilemma the fly in the ointment is human nature.

Thus it only seems sensible to accept certain realities rather than rail against them.

The trick therefore is to push as far as you can before those you need to persuade push back.

Hence my advocacy is one of end-benefit and persuasion via incentive and reward. Unsurprising perhaps, considering my background.

That said, I do have to concede a certain amount of stick might be needed to ease the effect of the carrot. Not an easy balance I'll admit, but that's why there are some gunning for the big bucks running the show.

Sorry, but most, as far as I am concerned, so far do not warrant them. And/or the soapboxes they enjoy.

They are spinning in one place very nicely with some core converts for sure providing enough to suck in a fair amount each day to keep the thing whirling, and self-sustaining quite healthily for those within. Especially at the top.

What I am not seeing is the necessary outreach and successful conversion of those, in the vast majority, who need to opt to flag down a ride that may be bumpy, but which they have come to accept is a heck of a lot better than staying where they are.

If the bandwagon's message is not proving attractive or comprehensible enough for the audiences to stick their hands out and up, that's not their fault. Maybe it's just that the message is just not being pitched right yet.

I for one am a little less than inspired now by 'awareness' and such like, yet still seem bombarded by vast numbers of meesages citing this alone, supported by immense comms budgets I'd prefer directed more more tangibly.

This started with a piece on marketing green products. Some may well be getting pitched 'as well as', which is a shame. As a mitigation of lifestyle 'instead of' seems more acceptable if genuine. But the Holy Grail is not to buy, which is a hard sell to guys whose rent gets paid on profits.

So yes, let's recognise good works that are about doing and add to these indeed.

Addendum :

Somehow I fear I have stumbled into an arena where, possibly by my replies, I have become a minority of one who is 'them', vs. a mightier 'us'. Whilst more than polite, my point (which maybe I still could not make myself, to all the ironies) seems lost that telling someone something is so does not make it thus. However, we now are in culture where process dominates over product, and you get paid by the word and not the result. In fact, it seems you get a bonus by spinning extra words to explain why even the few targets you do accept you were aiming for, and missed, were not the actual ones those who bought into the initial argument thought they were.

Not sure how I ended up as (or deserve the honour of - I did not initiate this thread) a prefix to an &Co or et al (Gore?), but you find me this sunny morn still fresh, if jaded from being told by my government, national broadcaster and some media that their inability to explain how night becomes day is actually my fault for not being able to decipher the wisdom of their actions and reporting of same.

And it extends as far as it does wide. Take the recent issue of that wind farm being denied planning in Scotland.

In the black (Big Oil? Birdwatchers? Strange bedfellows) corner we have those quite passionately 'anti'. They would seem, for now, to have prevailed, for good or ill, as inertia will.

While in the green corner, an overwhelming tide of analysts, senior researchers, lobbyists, quangos, carbon traders and whatnot (whom I am sure can all easily afford the time and costs of limitless courses as much as they can conferences in Bali) telling the other side how wrong they are.

Me, I am stuck in the middle, still bereft of clear, concise, persuasive (if often subjective, which is still cool) argument, backed by well-considered objective facts that I can grasp and engage with.

Hence, if I were not through interest fairly well informed on some aspects of what my future family faces, there is a powerful incentive to sit back, accept the status quo and pay the mortgage.

If those who would claim to speak for the future - so many (and growing into empires so vast) and so well funded - seem unable to get things across persuasively enough as yet to those still in the majority paid for more traditional labours, I simply question whether they are of much value, and hence simply represent a vast green hole redirecting funds that could be used to make real differences.

I love to debate, but it can be time consuming and though talk is cheap it still imposes a cost. I sense my notions are not favoured by the majority in reply. So be it. But to do justice to maintaining the exchanges I would need to devote a lot more resources than I currently have access to or can afford. Equally, the vast swathes of material often (not just here) that get lobbed around, often by those paid to stay abreast of the issues in minute detail, still seem not to be changing my core views either.

And here we are, I think, in agreement on the objectives, if not methodologies. Fundamental changes to governance are for governments, and/or oppositions to pitch to me as a voter. I am feeling a little overwhelmed by many, too many, whose responsibilities, accountabilities and allegiances are none too clear. And while often their hearts may be in the right places, speaking personally (and it is amazing how many challenge me on what my own mind thinks, or should be allowed to) I feel that by staking too radical and/or extreme a claim on redirecting a global supertanker of hundreds of nations, there is the chance that the opposite of what is intended, and necessary, may be achieved.

I deal in the world of selling by changing how people feel about things. And it is so comforting when you work with a USP or a receptive target and can spin away to positive responses and accolades. It is much tricker when you are dealing with minds already filled with white noise to start, and competing pitches on top. Just saying 'but my view is clearly correct and you are foolish to not see that' is certainly a way to advocate. Equally you can rarely sell life assurance successfully by telling folk they are going to die, no matter what the truth of it may be.

So, with regret, and meaning no disrespect by ducking out, I fear I must get back to doing something I think will help in mitigation, whilst also advocating by word and deed reduction. And hope it continues to bring a few like-minded souls along for the ride after their day jobs, school and/or commitments, until those we place in power grasp the bigger picture and sell the necessary solutions to us all.

But I do very much enjoy and value the exchanges here, and especially the links provided, but will simply from now be content to simply lurk.

You know, one day I'd dearly love to know just how many folk their are now on the public purse (GO3, GOv, Local GOv & NGO), plus charity funded and essentially corporate parasitic (Carbon trading sprigs to mind) as a % of the working population. Not to say some don't have value, but to mix twenty metaphors, most seem to be making hay out of green like moss on a well-wedged rock.

I know what I am DOING as I write and debate. My patience with and respect for those who make no real tangible contributions, especially from high, salaried pedestals simply saying 'we're doomed... unless (usually preceded by 'fund us first')', is wearing quite thin. And I do have a day job.

Addendum - NEW: Oh, the irony. I am now spending the next hour fielding off-bog replies direct from those who agreed/agree with (some of/all of) my views, but didn't want to stick their heads over the parapet lest the green snipers picked 'em off (our emails hence employers are open fro all to see). At least there is that 'off-blog' feature. But when you fear your 'own' 'side' more, then that is a time for concern.

BBC Green (it's different, and odd to see ads on Aunty!) - Save money and the planet?