We're all "doomed", well, some* of us... maybe

It's a great headline: Possible unease over climate model stretching

Well, for a blogger like me it is at least.

I don't usually 'do' climate: too polarised.

But I do do communications, especially how the system persuades the people. And this is a doozy.

All very tricky. And one I don't envy the various 'powers that be', what with the massive authority, moral, trust and every other-wise that they currently enjoy with the (growing, but let's not worry about that) population.

I am just not sure that trying to unease the public into things slowly is quite working on past and present evidence, and when every flurry of climate foreboding is often followed by loooong fallow periods where navels get gazed at and economies get weighed (especially in terms of getting re-elected), if can often come across as tokenistic at best, half... um.. considered or, worse, when taxes heave into view, a tad opportunistic.

I must say that following what has doubtless been a very thorough briefing, that even as supportive a medium as the state broadcaster is littering its latest report with a preponderance of qualifying "quote" marks on every claim is hardly encouraging. *Especially on top of the "might's" and "depending's". The only certainties seem to be that as the grids get smaller, the derriere-covering gets greater. And, IMHO, that negates the whole exercise.

And if eyebrows are cranking here, I can only imagine what they will be like in some media, and how that will in turn be absorbed by some a wee bit preoccupied paying their Mum's annual care bills with less than certain leaders by example reckon is needed annually to sort out swirly ceilings, house ducks or faux timber their 50" TV rooms. Or certain quango senior execs still seem to score mega-bonuses for when what they are supposed to be doing fails and they try and blame the consequences of blocked drains or concreting over greenfields on a bit of weather.

At least Mr. Benn can hold his head high in this regard, but whether a disenchanted, distracted public will notice the distinction is doubtful.

ps: When it says 'on Thursday' on a blog dated Thursday, can I presume we are talking a weeks' time for the launch of this "research"?

Addendum - Having just found this via a Guardian writer Twitter feed, I am guessing not.

Why I love research. And newspapers. And activists. And...

Maybe in different ways for different reasons, mind.

Green idealists fail to make grade, says study

Amazingly, from the Gaurdian.

All the research that's fit to print

WRAP research shows four main barriers to recycling

The study found that the barriers are:

Physical – when containers for collecting recycling are unsuitable; when there is no space for storage, when collections are unreliable; when people have no way of getting to recycling sites

Behavioural – if people are too busy; if they struggle with establishing a routine for sorting out recycling; if they forget to put it out

Lack of knowledge – not knowing which materials can be recycled; not understanding how their local scheme works

Attitudes and perceptions – not believing recycling is good for the environment; not wanting to sort waste; not feeling personally rewarded for recycling

The phrase 'Well, D'uh!' springs to mind, Closely followed by 'Has this not been done before?', and then 'If not why not; if so, why again?" and... "How much this time?"

Let's see who dutifully reports this 'wishful list'...

Buddy, can you spare a lime?

Crunch-hit consumers restricted by price of green products, report says

Well, there's a thing.

After my initial 'Well, d'uh!', there are a few interesting aspects to note.

'.... widespread dissatisfaction over the variety of green products offered by retailers,' is one I was not aware of.

'...shoppers on average paid 45% more for environmentally friendly and fair trade goods.' is one that amazed me.

'Shoppers said they are only willing to pay a premium of about 20% for greener products.' made me think there are a lot of folk with a lot of money.

"Consumers want to make sustainable choices, but are hampered by unclear messages. Confusion, coupled with high prices, leads to a lack of trust...'' comes as no surprise.

While 'More than 6 in 10 consumers questioned said reducing the amount of packaging on products was the most important action retailers and consumer goods companies could take to help the environment' makes me wonder why Junkk.com and RE:tie are proving real challenges to get across with the business community.

I really am starting to think the marketers and business brains in this country would would miss an opportunity even if it folded itself in neat notes in their wallets.

NEWS/GO3 PR - Stats, darn stats, and those inconvenient humans

This just in from the Office for National Statistics - Attitudes to the environment still mixed Social Trends

PR as received, edited with a few comments (that might be answered by reading the report, but life's too short:

Domestic energy consumption has risen as a third of adults admit they find
it hard to change their habits and go green.

These facts and others appear in a new edition of Social Trends, the ‘state of the nation’ statistical digest from the Office for National Statistics which is launched this year with a theme of societal well-being.

The new edition brings together a wide range of statistics on the environment, including figures which show that energy consumed by lighting and appliances in the UK increased by 136 per cent between 1971 and 2005 (well... D'uh. I'm amazed it wasn't more. With luck, low energy bulbs and better efficiencies may show a result in the last 3 years).

The data also show that carbon dioxide emissions attributable to transport saw a 101 per cent increase between 1970 and 2005 while the number of motorists in Great Britain increased by more than 14 million (from ?) between 1975/76 and 2006.

Figures from 2007 also indicate that 33 per cent of adults in England strongly agreed or tended to agree that they found it hard to become (what does 'become' mean) more environmentally friendly (er... ditto) , while 28 per cent said the environment was a low priority for them.

The same study also showed that 29 per cent of adults didn’t believe their behaviour and lifestyle contributed to climate change (how was the question asked, bearing in mind the precise nature of PMWNCC is not yet known?).

Available free (hey, we do get stuff for our taxes!) on the National Statistics website.

Leagues of their own

I have blogged before on the pre-selective, exclusive nature of a lot that takes place in the world of 're'.

Conferences and events that you need to pony up thousands for just to sit in an audience. No wonder those that are 'in' often don't relate as well as they might to those who are not.

Of course, all things that take time and money to create and need paying for (even Junkk.com, one day), so market forces will dictate.

But I must say I just had an eye-opner as to where I am vs. where others can afford to be in the wonderful world of being informed about your market.

Amongst many others, I subscribe to a (free) online news feed called PackWire. And I often get the odd useful tidbit through.

So when I saw this in my subject line, with all that I am in the thick of with RE:tie, I really perked up:

Consumer Attitudes Towards Packaging: New Insights and Future Perspectives

Today, it is widely acknowledged that packaging decisions can have a significant impact on sales. This report explores the changing nature of consumer attitudes and behaviors towards packaging in consumer packaged goods. It examines all the key trends shaping packaging led choices and ultimately offers actionable recommendations for industry players going forward.

Reasons to purchase...
• Access a blend of quantitative and qualitative data aggregating the most compelling and recent research in this increasingly important topic

• Gain a detailed insight into consumer views towards packaging and understand the implications for design

• Improve your marketing by following best-practice guidelines enabling more effective targeting with on-trend products and relevant communications

• Download Brochure

Sadly, a short-lived moment of excitement at further valuable market intel, for it was follwed by this:

• $5695

Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wing it some more! But one does have to wonder hwo those who can afford access to such things seem to pretty much get it wrong so often still!

NEWS/Commercial PR - NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH

Normally I am a bit dubious about research, especially on things green... and even more so when part of a press release on behalf of an energy company.

But I thought this was worth sharing, as provided, but suitably editted to share the insights with a little less of the sales pitch. But I will pop in a few links for you to find out more on their offering if so inspired. But would also always advise doing a bunch of research before committing to anything. I rather fancy I have had a few other PRs of late suggesting they are also the only odd ones rewarding you for cutting back. Indeed. But to be encouraged by both suppliers and consumers to be sure!

NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH Despite increasing pressure to go ‘green’, new research released today (5 February 2008) by Southern Electric shows many Britons remain unconvinced that they can afford to live greener lives. The Southern Electric survey reveals that over half of Britons think the environment is of vital importance and 85% are willing to consider lifestyle changes to save energy within the next 10 years. The majority also believes that making greener choices as a consumer usually involves spending more money; and lack of money is cited as the main reason for not making changes to save energy at home. Independent financial expert and TV money man, Alvin Hall, says: “The Southern Electric research suggests that, while people ‘talk the talk’ on green issues, few ‘walk the walk’ and many use money as an excuse. Some green products do cost a premium but helping to save the planet doesn’t have to break the bank or be a chore. In fact, the average home can actually save around £300 a year by simply being more energy efficient. “Home insulation, energy saving appliances and cutting down on energy consumption all help and will lead to cheaper energy bills in the long run as well as benefiting the environment.” Southern Electric is the first energy company to actively encourage customers to cut back on energy use through ‘better plan’, its unique green energy product. ‘better plan’ is a home energy service that pays customers to cut their bills – giving bonuses, discounts and cash credits for using less energy . The cash credits are then applied as a reduction to the customers’ energy bills.

NEWS/Commercial PR - 64 per cent of Brits are wasting valuable energy by leaving home appliances on standby

Still getting into the groove of posting such things as 'News' without too much provenace checking or editorialising, but I'm getting there.

I actually owe these guys a product review* anyway, so here you go, hot off the press... releases. All due cautions/caveats for info posted as supplied.

Brits are wasting valuable energy by leaving home appliances on standby

People are still contributing to the four million tonnes of extra carbon dioxide emissions per year caused by standby power according to survey conducted by Bye Bye Standby.

64 per cent of the 1000 people surveyed said they have more than ten appliances plugged in at home at any one time. It has been measured that around 10 per cent of the average household bill is wasted through gadgets left on when not in use.

The survey also asked consumers to select which of the following appliances they think have a standby power (ie. washing machines, televisions, tumble dryers and dishwashers). The correct answer is in-fact that ALL of the appliances use a standby power when they are not in use.

Not surprisingly, the survey revealed that the majority of respondents (90 per cent) knew that televisions have a standby power. However, a large number of people questioned didn’t pick out some of the worst standby offenders. 77 per cent had no clue that tumble dryers can guzzle as much as 38 per cent of their power whilst waiting at the end of a cycle. Equally as confusing, 67 per cent didn’t regard dishwashers as having a standby mode – a worrying finding as most are turned on at the end of the day and left on all night. Washing machines can use around 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby, and in contrast 66 per cent of people in the survey didn’t even know that a washing machine has a standby power!

Not all products have an obvious standby power, which is where the confusion lies. If it has an external power supply it will use electricity even when off.

Here's a plug (sorry), as they deserve it:

Bye Bye Standby is an energy saving kit for the home which allows you to control appliances with the aid of a remote control. An innovative new web based system has also just been launched to allow users to control home appliances from a remote location via the Internet.

What appliances are the worst standby offenders?

Dishwashers left on at the end of their cycle consume 70 per cent of the power used when they are running.

The average television is left on standby for up to 17.5 hours a day. Last year Britain's 62 million television sets consumed about eight per cent of their energy consumption in standby mode.

Washing machines use just under 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby.

Tumble-dryers can use 38 per cent of power while waiting at the end of a cycle.

If lights were turned off when not in use it would prevent 375,000 tons of CO2 emissions and save £55million in bills.

There is little difference between the power requirement of digital receivers when they are being used and on standby.

Other appliances with high standby power are cordless telephones, radios and stereos.

*Meanwhile, you can always try Which?

Stretch to fit

I am all for positives, but some do stretch things a tad: Defra hails 'positive green' readers

The up side is that one in five of the population are 'positive greens', though the definition requires an eyebrow cock between self-perception, research definition and actual enviROI+ behaviour.

Where I am a little intrigued is the the leap from the Indy's readership that I believe numbers a few hundred thousand.

Sounds an interesting report and I'd like to see it. Odd that I have never heard of it 'til now, and it is not linked to.

Actually, many of the subsequent insights were/are very telling, and frankly deserve greater consideration.

I leave you with this: 'Some people in the greenest categories have higher carbon footprints than others because of their high incomes'. Mainly Indy readers and BBC employees and supporters, I'd hazard all now planning their next skiing trips along with the next ban-it campaign for some minor enviro-nuisance.

It all rather smacks of being happier with looking good rather than doing it to me.

Call for funding for Hydrogen research

This report from Engineering Talk details how a leading transport expert is calling for significant government investment into research to make Hydrogen a realistic fuel of the future.

"Prof Smith ......... believes hydrogen is one of the best fuel alternatives for the future, but said a significant Government investment is needed now to overcome technical and cost difficulties in sourcing, storing and transporting hydrogen."

Interesting little comment on the Northern Rock support too - "If the Government spent GBP 10 billion - only a third of what they spent on Northern Rock - we could build a high speed railway from London to Birmingham, reducing the need for domestic flights and long-distance car travel."

Now we will have to wait and see whether our gov's plan to surround the UK with offshore wind farms is going to eat all available funds to the exclusion of everything else. However, perhaps we may already have an indication of where the extra revenue to fund such projects may come from?

Well, d'uh!

Sometimes you come across pointless research that just makes you think 'what on earth is going on'!. This is one such - 'Hurricanes kill trees, fuel global warming'. Well, of course hurricanes kill trees, they destroy pretty much everything in their path. And we all know that trees are valuable carbon sinks whose destruction can take decades to recover.

Apart from some interesting numbers they've extrapolated, this seems a complete waste of research time and money!

Trivial TV

I think I can see a reason (though, sadly, no solution) to why the message of MWGW is washing over the majority of the population.

In just a one hour period on our national broadcaster's breakfast slot I was cheerfully informed that it's now OK to be fat, fasting is good for you, vitamin D from sunlight helps prevent ageing but you can get cancer sunbathing. Oh, and if you blow $25k on a dessert you get in the news. And tomorrow it will probably be the exact reverse.

Too many people with too much airspace to fill... and not enough to fill it with.

Trivial TV (from news down), conveying the half-thought, half-a*sed and half-cocked, is killing any chance of anything being taken seriously any more.

So we don't.

Indy - Now doctors say it's good to be fat - Make that print, too. At least they seem equally incredulous. One slightly off-topic, but related point of consideration, especially in an era when overpopulation is looking to be an issue, is the implication of simply 'living longer'. It is surely as vital how one lives that life that is the key.

Indy - This research may bring sanity to the weight debate - what I actually found/find interesting, is the presumption of a 'correct' level. Who set/s that? It seems more designed to suit prevailing dogma, and all this counter-evidence just further erodes faith in the systems that create these notions 'for our own good'.

Gaurdian - Ageing process may be slowed by vitamin D, say scientists - Ah, the nuts of 'may'

You don't love me? You really don't love me?

According to this - The demand for expert generated content - research showed that less than 1 per cent trusted blogs as a reliable source of information.

Say it ain't so!

Especially when... if... 'This trend is further supported by research into the information sources web users consider trustworthy. The BBC is the UK’s most reliable source of information, according to 58 per cent of people who have faith in Auntie to provide accurate news.

If you say so, Bub.

What did and didn't surprise is that Wikipedia is only trusted by 2 per cent of the people surveyed, and recently had to remove swathes of content found to be written by prejudiced individuals. Unlike....?

Well, you know what I think of research. Until I see who asked what of whom, pinches of salt all round. Where's the Tequila?

Man causing climate change - poll headline claims

Large majorities of people across the world agree that humans are causing global warming, a BBC poll indicates.

Now, as all would know, I have a few views on polls; how they are conducted, what the questions are and then how they get applied. I am no statistician, so I am in no position to comment on detailed methodology, but I can cock an eyebrow at how detail gets turned into a sound-bite.

So I do wish that such significant findings, in all their complexity, hadn't quite been offered up in such a way as to give the contrarians the chance to have a go at a headline like that. It surely should read as the subhead does to avoid any charges of trying to sway opinion. It is powerful enough already.

And I note that it's not that man has made and is making things worse, but indeed has caused it. So that perception now has taken hold, and maybe a good thing. But is it proven yet? I don't know if it is. And if shown to be shaky, does such absolutism help or hinder those trying to ease us back to less wasteful ways, or simply hand a 'get out of any responsibility free card' to those needing little incentive to grab such a thing if the science raises doubts on nature's total exclusion from the deal?

And while representatives from about 150 countries, including 80 heads of state or government, were at the meeting, I note it is noted that US President George W Bush was not present. Instead, he is hosting a meeting of 16 "major emitter" countries in Washington on Thursday and Friday.

Who else world-leading emitter-wise, but not mentioned, was not there I wonder? Talk about serving up a distraction on a plate to those who would challenge the motivations of the commissioners? Just give us the facts, and explain them rationally, guys. We don't need to be lead.

And on a final note, what does the team think the actual move to action will be of those strongly moved to respond with... words?

ADDENDUM - speaking of what happens 'twixt headline and what follows:

Guardian Home - Benn rallies US on emissions targets - Do what? Rather, who what?

But click on that to get - Benn calls on US to adopt binding aims on emissions - That's more like it. Nothing like a good call. As to who will pay any more attention this time...

Apparently, 'Mr Benn made his appeal (is that more or less than a call, or better than a rally?) at a climate change summit at the United Nations headquarters in New York... attended by more than 80 heads of state and government...' but '...President George Bush was not at the meeting.'

Now where have I heard that before? Meanwhile, who else wasn't there? Or, for that matter, who was?

Maybe Mr. Brown was less not there than Mr. Bush. Which makes him 'Green God Gordo' by not being something as bad as he could be. Yeah, that'll work.

Guardian - Has the US stand-off run out of steam?

I've read everywhere from the Guardian to the BBC that George Bush did not attend this, but other than Hillary Benn am having trouble finding out which 'world leaders' actually did. Can anyone help?

If this is the 'single, greatest (etc)..' I'd just like to see which of our global great and good didn't feel there was something more pressing at the 'mo.

Guardian - The new climate change pioneer

As the BBC and the Guardian seem to be linking back and forth I have so far gathered that George Bush isn't there, but other than Mr. Benn am having trouble finding out which other 'world leaders' (Does his boss know?) were. Anyone?

Anyway, big up to NZ for some national initiative on the DOING vs. talking front. Maybe it's the perfect entire country for eco-tourism, once the whole flying thing can be addressed.

Mind you, I do have a certain sympathy with those who try and point out certain comparisons need to be matched with a few realities.

Some Singaporean chums once challenged me to explain why the UK could not be more like their city state in terms of economy, transport, etc. I had to point out that if one put a wall round London it would be a pretty rich place with a public tube and bus system that's... well, it would be a pretty rich place.

At least I managed to note that their thirst for oil per head was also top of the list, too. So being small doesn't automatically make it easier to go green.

ADDENDUM - Having had little that made sense from our media here, I have turned to Google. And roamed a world of headlines, from Thailand's Bangkok Post to some Canadian effort. What was first of all interesting was how many had either taken a lead from the same press release, or had a very similar take on it all. Like, word for word.

At least I now know that a fair number of 'world leaders' were there: France, Germany, Canada at least. Plus Al Gore. I also know, A LOT, that George Bush wasn't. Condi Rice was. What I didn't see was that the Prime Minister of the UK also didn't quite make it, but sent our A team instead. For some reason the Chinese just sending their Foreign Minister was OK, too. No word yet on Putin being there or not, or indeed what the Indian contingent comprised.

One thing's for sure, it didn't come across as the be-all-and-end-all that some media seemed to wish it was, but mainly because of the way it was reported.

Grist - Every Momentum Counts
U.N. hosts one-day climate meeting to spur climate-agreement fever

They usually talk sense.

I loved this though: Gathering momentum for a United Nations climate conference in Bali, - at last I can make it up!

And an answer, of sorts: The conference attracted 150 nations, about 80 of which sent at least their heads of state, making it the best-attended climate meeting in U.N. history among high-level officials

Plus a certain, welcome, pragmatism: 'However, since it's being hosted by the binding-agreement-wary U.S., critics see little coming out of the meeting but voluntary actions and vague technology-sharing agreements. Oh, and probably press releases and goodie bags too'. Darn, I forgot to mention the goodie bags. I wonder if Mr. Benn will have spares?

8 out of 10 cats

I think the numbers cited here speak for themselves : What's Behind the Green Consumer Research?

Plus:

'...a more robust labeling effort would make a difference.'

Fair, well-considered posts all. Thank you.

I am interested in labelling as this is becoming something of a cause du jour here in the UK, with all our usual national clarity of purpose.

I have joked (I hope) that a pack of kids' candies will soon need a CDR attached to carry all the various (and competing - we have several systems already up... and coming) decision-making background info we are deemed to need to act.

And I do question with that is ever going to happen, no matter how well, or consistently, it's shared at Point of Purchase.

Taking Care of Business - I asked if we could join. Which would make two. Little acorns...

The value of research

A lot revolves around research. Which probably explains why it is such a vast industry.

And why so many reply upon it to help in what they do. From those with a point to make, to those with ratings to drive up.

On these pages I have quoted some, if usually with a caution as to origins, and methodologies, etc, so let's just say I treat most with a large dose of salt.

That said, Blogger has created a poll function that looks a giggle, so maybe Junkk.com can get in on the act to.

Amongst many considerations, one I may not have mentioned before is how the pollsters vet the answers. All too often, and especially if done by public contribution, and even more so by an online amount of effort, the results must almost inevitably be skewed not just by who gets asked, but who can be bothered (or fund) the time to fill the things out.

Take this one. On the promise of getting the results, I got cracking, and on the first page was fine with some multiple-choice (though I usually hit a wall when none apply and I want to argue that the question sucks) stuff on the environment. But then I hit going through a few score of individuals, giving each a rating, and could not just jump on because a) I didn't know and b) didn't care. So as it expected too much of me I gave up.

I imagine those who are listed there may be more inspired to devote the time, or get others to help.

In which case, what value?

Stating the bleedin' obvious

Yet again, we have a study that has dug up an amazing fact - research, as reported by Reuters (amongst many others) has shown that rock stars have a tendency to die younger than most!

Well, slap my thighs, that's just an amazing discovery - I can hardly believe it!

This is yet another in the long line of pointless, stupid, wasted research projects that conclude with what everybody knows to be the case anyway. It's from the same mold as the study in the early 1980's which concluded that people who smoked cigarettes tended not to suffer from Alzheimer's - whilst totally ignoring the fact that people who smoked heavily actually died before they were old enough to develop Alzheimer's disease.

Why is so much money squandered on such bloody useless research?

Sometimes a fence is the best place to be when surrounded by weeds

I just had through a bit of research entitled: UK consumers sit on the fence while climate change debate rages

From site Combat Climate Change, it goes on more insightfully to ask: Climate change: a real threat or an excuse for state meddling and stealth taxes? Well, as it stands, I am erring on both, and think a few agree. Which may explain the fence straddling bit.

With all due cautions* we always advise on the origins, extent, methodologies and possible agendas behind any and all research, it's worth sharing.

More than 45% of UK consumers confess they find the climate change debate confusing.

Only 45%?!

Of these, 41% of these admit they have delayed taking direct personal action to reduce their carbon footprint while they get to grips with the complex scientific arguments – even though a staggering 93% are well aware they can also save money by saving energy.

The personal action side is explicable. Why act to reduce 'fun' when there is a get out, albeit vague? The lack of desire to save money anyway is simply... inexplicable.

The survey revealed that more women (56%) than men (37%) find the climate change debate confusing – but women aren’t letting this confusion hold them back, and they equal men in their commitment to reduce their carbon footprint.

Nature vs. nurture? And without getting Germaine Greered, despite younger females now doing better at science I reckon the facts and figures being hurled around may be of more interest to the male mind.

Of those who find the climate change debate confusing, young baby boomers aged 55 to 64 are least likely (30%) to let the confusion hold them back from taking direct personal action to save energy and reduce their carbon footprint; those aged 16-24 were most likely to let the confusion hold them back (50%).


I hate to guess, but I doubt it's confusion; just an excuse for not wishing to miss out on the next iPod upgrade or stay in making something rather than hitting Ibiza. This is often the problem with research into social issues. Who and how many are going say ''Yes, I'm a selfish scumbucket and could care less!'. Other than Jeremy Clarkson, natch.

Overall, 79% of UK consumers believe the threat of climate change to be real. Those living in Greater London (87%) are most likely to be concerned about global climate change; those in the North East take a more cynical view, with 27% admitting they are non believers.

I am surprised, pleasantly, to see them so high. If concerned that belief does not seem to translate into much action.

The research also revealed:

· 40% of us leave a washing machine/dishwasher/electronic appliance on standby every day

Designers... manufacturers! Legislators! Kill the standby! In light of the tip below, which I practice, it's worth noting that once the cycle is complete, it stays 'on' 'til morning.

· 47% have yet to replace their light bulbs with low-energy alternatives

Just one word: plonkers. That said, I am testing a few brands as we speak having had a supermarket 'deal' effort blow in about two months. There are low-energy bulbs. There are long life bulbs. There are low energy, long life bulbs. And there are... ways to get us to blow money in the name of green that really has no ROI or enviROI basis at all. So be cautious!

· 19% rarely turn off home computing peripherals when shutting down their PC

Peripherals...no brainer. But on the PC front, well, here the old fence bit comes in. I don't know for sure yet. First up there's the old 'on/off' debate on damage to hard drive from spinning up and down to often being worse than leaving on... even environmentally. Also, the whole nighttime upgrade thing. Mine certainly seems to sort a few things out in the wee smalls. I wish there were a definite, trusted source of what to do on this. The science can't be that hard, surely? Mind you, if we can't get any sense yet on wind farms, what are the odds?

MD Stewart Grew, says: “Where individual consumers stand on climate change is largely irrelevant. That’s a matter of personal conscience, and we could spend years debating the finer points while millions of people sit on the fence.

“The fact is, by saving energy now, every individual can save money – and they just might save the planet at the same time. If all the concerns are real, they will have done their bit for the world. If it all turns out to be so much hot air, then they will have made their own world a better place anyway. Everyone wins.”

And I can't fault that sentiment one jot.

They also have some tips to: Save Energy, Save Money. Again, can't argue... and in fact have been banging on in a similar vein for years. Worth sharing as they are a bit more £-centric than the usual quango/committee efforts that abound:

1. Buy plug-in timers
They save you money by turning on your appliances only when they are needed. And if you are on one of the cheaper, night rates for your electricity, by running your washing machine and dishwasher overnight you could save up to 50% of the cost of running them during the day.

And timer solves the standby issue! I am, by the by, in process of doing a in-home test of several for review on the site soon.

2. Invest in a multi-plug board for your PC
Electrical equipment left on standby in the UK wastes £740 million of energy every year. By switching your computer peripherals off, rather than leaving them on standby, you can save both energy and money.

3. Replace your old GLS light bulbs
Energy saving light bulbs last up to 12 times longer than ordinary light bulbs, and can save you £100 over the bulb’s lifetime – as well as 38kg of CO2 per year!

*The survey was conducted by market research agency TNS. It was conducted over the internet from 14th – 16th August 2007 and involved a sample of 1002 GB adults aged 16-64. The sample was weighted to represent the adult population of Great Britain aged 16-64.

Just call me the lean, green love machine

Well, the green bit maybe.

As I look at a stack of worthy press releases that should be properly written up and archived on the main site (lack of holiday support being my reason, if not excuse), I just have to post this here, and now, pretty much as is. And in so doing, give much needed PR and cred to that well known environmental magazine, Nuts. But it's fun, so... um.. oh, nuts. See, I have been seduced to the trivial side already!

MOVE OVER FUNNY MAN, THE GREEN MAN IS THE NEW DATING KING

Key to a modern woman’s (well, 1,500 at least, which is a better sample than most research I've seen on actual issues that matter) heart is saving the planet. Of the personality traits that they found most attractive in men topping the list is showing you care about the environment. Demonstrating you’ve got green credentials and is now the number one quality modern British women seek in a partner.

This change in attitude can in a large part be put down to the recent green- avalanche of star-studded eco events such as Live Earth. Global heart-throbs from George Clooney and Brad Pitt to Justin Timberlake and Johnny Borrell (who?) all now all proudly endorsing the green agenda - meaning that being green is no longer just trendy – it’s down right sexy.

The results set a precedent for legions of UK Green Men who may soon need to trade in their gas guzzling cars for greener bicycles in a bid to impress women. Toppling the classic ‘Good Sense of Humour’- GSOH - for the first time, the research proves once and for all that recycling and growing vegetables in the back garden are no longer the preserve of wellie toting hippies.

Nuts magazine relationship expert (a what?) Louise Prior said: “There’s something sexy about a man who recycles, it shows that he cares about more than just himself and shows he has a sensitive side and thinks about the future. As for some of the other traits, you can’t go wrong with making a woman laugh, but modern women want their men to be caring. It started with the new man back in the 90s, more recently we’ve had the whole Metrosexual phenomena and green man is an extension of that really!”


The top-ten personality traits women find attractive:

Caring about the environment - tick
Good sense of humour - er, have you seen my bank statement?
Confidence - in spades. No really, I think they are the best for digging holes for compost.
Intelligence - moving quickly on.
Well travelled and worldly-wise - that would be 'then', 'cos if we're saving the planet travelling anywhere, much less well, would be a 'no-no', surely? And that makes me wise, hmmn?
Empathy and understanding - I feel your pain... reading this.
Good dress sense / style - Er, we are talking guys who mess around with rubbish here.
Ambition - If wanting to make the planet a better place counts... tick! An Aston Martin would be nice, too. Once they have the hybrid version sorted out.
Knowledge of current affairs - Hilary who? Go on, ask me....
Good with children - I'll ask the boys when they have finished sanding the roof lintels all day.

So OK, laydees, who would like to see my composting bin?

Well, at least they were honest:(

We get a lot of surveys. And there is usually a disconnect between what folk say, what they really think, and actually do. So this is... interesting: Consumers reject "green" taxes

When it comes to social behaviour, we are a little less prone to the truth, if the discrepancy between those who say they recycle and those who actually do is to be reconciled.

But when it comes to cold, hard cash, well, the people have spoken.... at least to a guy flogging insurance policies.

I just wonder how many resent paying more tax (well, D'uh), but in terms of green don't see how paying it actually ends up helping the planet with the gold-plated shower we have in charge of things these days.

Meanwhile...

BBC - Teenagers support 'green' schools - as opposed to...?