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!

Will the next target please step up...

Because you're worth it...

Can't disagree. A ton of marketing to flog a very small amount of goo that is of questionable use. Thing is, it all rather smacks of another tokenistic 'Planet Ban-it'. In the example I allude to below, the total of my aftershave commitment (no other regime for this old-age male, bar soap, shampoo and toothpaste... all packaging under constant Junkk-potential probing) is about ten small glass bottles. Plus a few cardboard boxes that got recycled. In the great totality of all waste, I am not too sure this is up there priority-wise...again.

Mind you, this one might be fun, as I rather suspect it will see quite a few luvvies on board with these rather puritan advocacies finding things hitting home... or at least the mud-pack-coated weekend retreats this bunch seem to be able to afford.

A wee check in the bathroom cabinets of those (male and female) often very vocal in other 'green' related ban-advocacy might indeed be interesting. Maybe they are just lucky to be able to afford very good skin.

As to my Fahrenheit aftershave, after several years' loyalty I almost have enough empty bottles to make my bathroom mirror light shade surrounds.

Indy - Cosmetics and Excess Packaging

I'm sorry, but I think in this case the best way is to allow the consumer to decide, but provide such as Lush and Body Shop every opportunity to promote their less impactful options. As I will.

Mind you, I still need a few more of those Fahrenheit bottles to finish my mirror! Oh, the dilemma.

Public Doomains

I've about had it with storms in teacups being cranked out almost hourly by a self-serving nanny and 24/7 news culture that needs to talk about something new every two seconds.

Take this: Call for ban on employers searching social networking sites

A ban on 'someone' searching for something (or 'someone' else) via information is online in the public domain? How daft is that?

It's getting so a raft of NGOs, quangos, government departments and most of today's media... certainly BBC Breakfast News... would collapse for lack of content without a call to get knickers in a twist over, and then an attempt to ban something. Followed by spirited debates all round involving 'experts' that serve only to drive ratings. Quite a lucrative industry, and one set to grow even more in the future, I suspect.

I just have to agree with Johnny R... how exactly would this WORK... IN PRACTICE? It is, by almost any measure, impossible to police. While I am sure a raft of well-funded do-gooders have decided anti-ageist hiring practices are now neatly sorted and filed under 'Job Done' via EU box-ticking rules, the reality is a bit different. So yet again the process is all that matters, with the result irrelevant. At least in this case there is some merit in the legislation, and a slim chance of it being policed.

I am not saying that many hiring processes and practices may be anything from flawed to venal, and need to be discussed, but such credence to calls for things that are frankly impossible seem essentially pointless, at least in the po-faced forms the original PR gets issued.

'Unacceptable practice'? Bless. This needs referring to the Ministry of Dim Views Being Taken, which is now hiring all the talents from Board to Local Officer level.

Right result? Right reasons?

Yesterday, at the height of the Daily Mail/M&S 5p bag frenzy, I popped into a LIDL, a store proudly pointing out it was tackling the scourge of the bag by charging for them.

And, in a telling example of personal shopping choice I made a purchase: this cutter set.

Now how much was my decision based on the fact that I could see all the blades I would use? Hence the box in which they were contained was splayed open, and then popped in a blister pack.

Totally, and I don't fling this word about lightly, unnecessary. But certainly it, and my actions in being seduced (would a poster or image on the lid have worked to attract me as well?), are pretty much key to the whole issue.

While some small 'victories' may be scored in trying to cut down on waste and our addiction to buying more and more 'stuff', this little war on plastic bags rather conceals the fact that the last thing these noble manufacturers and retailers, and the media industry who serves them, want us to do is buy any less.

Hence we get bought off (ironically by paying more) with a bag levy, and perhaps get distracted from pondering any more about what we are buying in the first place.

Here's the latest press release that has popped into my in-box, which I re-print verbatim:

IKEA SAVES 100 MILLION PLASTIC BAGS SINCE 2006 In support of the Daily Mail's campaign to ban the use of all single-use disposable plastic bags, IKEA UK today announced that a total of 100 million plastic bags have been saved since first launching a 10p charge in June 2006 and then a complete phasing out of plastic bags in July 2007. In 2005 IKEA UK gave away 32 million bags. Laid out, they would stretch 19,200 kilometres, or the equivalent of a return journey from London to Tokyo. After a successful two year trial in its Edinburgh store, on World Environment Day in June 2006, IKEA UK announced it was to stop offering free plastic carrier bags to customers introducing a 10p charge for them.� All money raised by the charge of plastic bags was to be donated to the organisation �Community Forests�.� It was part of a three step initiative that included changing the material of standard plastic bags to a biodegradable material and encouraging customers to use reusable bags by reducing the cost of the iconic �big blue bag�. It was estimated that this would reduce plastic bag consumption in IKEA UK stores by 20 million to 12 million bags a year. However, pricing plastic bags at 10p saw a 95% reduction in use to just 1.6 million a year � much higher than ever expected. As a result IKEA UK took the decision that plastic bags were no longer needed and completely removed plastic bags from all stores throughout the UK in July 2007. Charlie Brown, IKEA UK Environment Manager, said: �'It�s fantastic to see other retailers taking such positive steps to minimise plastic bag usage. Our role as retailers is to help customers make small changes that will reduce their environmental impact. Together we have a huge opportunity to make a real difference.'� The phase out of single-use plastic bags follows far-reaching steps already taken by IKEA to reduce energy consumption, cut emissions and to source products from sustainable suppliers.

I must say I stumbled over 'today announcing' something they have been doing for a while, which just shows what the impact of the weight of the Daily Mail readership and M&S PR machine is; all sorts of guys are tripping overthemselves to be first to be second to tell people they were first. Hardly edifying.

And I still don't see how a 10p bag doesn't choke a turtle any more than a 5p one.

The only bit of sensible insight is buried away at the end (highlighted), and at least shows the potential value of this campaign, even though I think it has been orchestrated by the wrong folk in the wrong way for mostly all the wrong reasons. But maybe the end (still unsure on the impact of the alternatives being scattered about) result could yet be worth it. Maybe a few eggs need to be broken for this omelette.

But let's now see who they turn their sights on next, and in what way the mob is directed. Just so long as the enviROI ends up positive, and it's all not just for show and ratings and a short term feel-good for the chattering classes, at the expense of those less able to cope with impositions and costs.... or even the planet.

I just wonder how long the likes of the Daily Mail or M& S will stay true to the overall cause, though both look like riding a hell of a decent wave for now.

But I rather suspect that even if Al Gore invented a $100 wind turbine, if GM offered a free Humvee to every reader or BA a free flight to Hawaii, the paper's front page would look a tad different. And even if editorial did move on to the 'necessity' of cut flowers and New Zealand lamb (ignoring the debate that the carbon consequence of their rearing cancels out the food miles in the shipping vs. buying local), the ad department may have a few words to offer via their client feedback.

Interesting times. What we really need is more positives that serve the consumer process AND the environment. Now, where on earth might we find such a concept? Oh... say... a nice little website that advocates reuse, both from existing packs and, in future, designed-in?

Sadly, I could only open that pack above by destroying it. So no reuse ideas there. I will walk it round the plastics skip, but have litte faith that it will be recycled effectively. Which, at about the equivalent of 50 plastic bags in one shot, is the real concern I have.

Careful what you wish for

I do believe the whole plastic bag thing is now a done deal. Just like any attempt at discussing climate change. At least for reasoned debate. You are either for the ban, or you are an enemy of Gaia. No matter whether it, other in the most simplistic, absolutist terms, might or might not be effective on a few key environmental levels, at least without some other more pressing and vital areas (such as sorting out our woeful waste collection and disposal systems) being addressed first.

Some noisy people have spoken, the media mob has seen a soft target, decided, and it's all over bar the P45s... and possible worse planetary enviROI from the as yet not very clearly explained alternatives (Paper? Much worse for carbon. Biodegradables/compostables? Not really ready to be dealt with properly as yet. Bags for life? Well, yes, but these do seem to be getting rushed out a bit).

No issue that these things are not optimal on about any level, but I'd love such as the Daily Mail to please explain how 'M&S banishing the FREE bag' (today's headline) stops 5p plastic bags getting into the waste stream and choking a turtle. Or at least becoming part of a toxic soup solution. It's mankind's consumerism, and the fact there are an awful lot of us (and growing) consuming ever more, that is pumping ever more crud into the air, land and sea, mostly thoughtlessly or carelessly, that is doing for these precious icons of nature.

And it is driven by a much broader set of entities all complicit in this, including those placing the ads such as those on p24 of the Mail, for M&S, suggesting we dash out and buy Mum a nice bunch of posies (from where?) and chocolates (wrapped in what?). Ditto Tesco on P30. Plus booze. Pampers at Sainsbury’s p18, if you fancy the next cause, guys. I personally support Green Nappies, but not sure what their ad budget is.

But I guess fewer bags might help... maybe along with those in papers that hold the inserts and FREE CDs, etc. And I do notice that on top of the efforts of the Indy and Guardian, the Telegraph today has a FREE 'eco-friendly bag' for each reader... which you need to send off for. Oh, just noticed; the Daily Mail too. What are they giving away next week to persuade us to buy their papers that gets posted back? The container ships (shipping is an issue, too, I imagine, for anything in the sea) from the East must be bulging! Bless.

And in the spirit of jumping bandwagons, as I was listening to the Jeremy Vine show today, there was the delicious irony of one caller in favour of an immediate Planet Ban-it (all anti's selected by being rabid 'who cares about nature' nutters), who had just 'flown in' from her dive business on the Red Sea... and these things were spoiling her UK clients' weekend getaways. Bless. Hope they cycle there and don't use sunscreen (apparently it kills coral).

Yes, things that are harmful to the environment do need to be identified and phased out where alternatives can be found (and maybe even if they cannot). But when the barely informed (I'm still on a steep learning curve ) mob rules, careful what you wish for. Who knows what... or who... may be next in line?

Mail - Marks & Spencer joins The Mail's campaign to Banish the Bags by charging for them

Everything is relative

Just ask the Ancient Pharoahs where it got 'em!

Not quite how to categorise this: Porsche launches second attack on congestion charge rise

Having a dirty great 4x4 Cayenne Turbo in Islington is not perhaps the most eco-laundable thing in the world. So no great sympathy there.

Nor is thrashing around looking for another mode of transport to drag into the mire with you, as airlines are trying on with shipping now. But oh, the irony... 'The German car marque claims the amount of emissions saved in a year as a result of the charge will be equal to the emissions produced at Heathrow Airport in less than four hours.'

However, my greater concern is priorities. And that stat, if proven, speaks volumes about where our leaders' brains are at in seriously dealing with things rather than dicking around with showboat Planet Ban-Its.