Human Nature?

That was the question that sprung into my mind when I first saw this from TreeHugger.

Although the sample is fairly small, I am pretty sure that it is almost certainly quite representative of mankind's mindset. The article reports on a survey about global warming and it's impacts, and it certainly did not surprise me that most people believe global warming will have major impacts elsewhere but not on themselves.

Perhaps it is just coincidental that this comes on the day that swine flu (is this worse than bird flu?) panic has hit Mexico and the USA, sparking concerns of a global epidemic. Oh well, nothing to worry about, it won't affect us, will it?

A nail in the coffin of old king coal?

That's what some new scientific research reported by SoftPedia suggests; that coal is far more damaging in terms of CO2 emissions than is burning petroleum or gas.

"by burning fossil fuel, power plants emit 40 percent more deadly CO2 than facilities using natural gas or crude to generate electricity."

"by using oil and gas alone, humankind may be safe from the effects of global warming for a long time".

So we all have to give up burning coal. Hmmmm, I don't think it is going to be quite that simple, even though the evidence is slowly building up - see TreeHugger.

When switching off just won't do

7-Eleven Getting Big Gulp-Sized LED Upgrade

'in order to do its part to reduce GHG emissions'

I am glad that they have 'seen the light', but let us not get too carried away with echoing the PR.
'The savings will be worth it as the lights will use about 75% less energy than fluorescents.' '..after they see what kind of savings 7-11 reaps.'

Not to mention the kudos... oh... they can see that already.

Please, let there not be vast acres of print media issued to tell one and all about this measure.

Actually I'd be keen to know exactly how long the $1B investment will take to get to payback... and then accrue major operational savings; not really for the eco-cred but just to stamp on some beancounters' foreheads to show that green can make green.

It needn't be an 'either/or'.

Celeb-beration

Comes to something when Treehugger has a go at those having a dabble:

7 Celebrity Environmentalists in Need of Green 101

I must revisit my definition of 'Environmentalist', mind:

Environmentalist (n): Any schmuck who thinks they might have sorted out the planet and/or their part in trashing it by getting their people to call other people's people about something they have been told/advised to do in one aspect of their lives that might, just, mitigate a tad.

Celebrity-environmentalist (n): As above, with the added extra of setting back the cause of actual grass-roots environmentalism in the eyes of the general public by dabbling for a day as an environmentalist (under new definition) and then going back asap to blowing obscene amounts of cash on stuff and going places, as really, what else can they do to pass the time?

See: Helicopter Enviromentalist (n):

Style will save us!

Just felt like sticking an oar in...

Green Branding: Why Originality Matters

Well, it seems we can save the planet, and without it costing the earth:)

I tend to agree with much here, and picking up on the design/copy aspects if I see one more ad, mainly tinged green, with a flower poking out of an exhaust pipe, I think I'll choke on my Fairtrade tap water.

However, my only caution is to ensure that in seeking to be 'creative' and 'different' one does not end up serving the cause of a good [insert acceptable environmentally beneficial product/service/call to action word phrase here] communication less well, especially as it gets presented to an audience who may not obsess quite so much about the innermost emotional resonances of Bodoni Extra Clio Capturing and some obscure art shot nicked from last year's design annual.

I have found on occasion that the odd cliche still seems to work with the majority That's how they end up as cliches), so in seeking to be new and trendy let not all that might still work well go to waste.

Oo, look, a wolf! And another one. And this time it's HUGE!

I like Treehugger. They have a nice wadge of fun stuff and info and articles and even spirited debate.

However, I don't think they are doing themselves, or any with a concern about what's going on climatically (just had hail and sunshine alternating 3 times in the last hour) and how to address it, many favours with headlines like this:

Bye bye Greenland

Whatever else might happen, I doubt that Greenland is going bye bye. The name itself suggests an earlier incarnation. I believe vineyards were harvested by the Vikings.

All this will do is pit the Two Opposing Corners of the Apocalypse (acronym alert: TOCOTA) against each other... again.

It doesn't really matter much what the end point is, or is not, really, but if there is a direction we're headed, and certain stuff might be wise now, I simply advocate, again, that we look at sensible mitigations.

There is a case for figuring it all out as well long term to ensure resources get directed when and where they will do most good, but this end of the world stuff now kinda just feeds fuel to the absolutists (on both sides - you are either for us or agin' us) to talk us to death for longer.

Hence my not pitching in over there. I think that one is a fight that will last forever, with no middle ground allowed.

Saved!

Just, not sure by whom, or if in the right way.

Earth Day Roundup: Cool Things You Can Do

Rather unfortunate ad currently on this page from 'we can solve it', to this Brit at least (footage of the Normandy landings with the line 'we didn't wait'. Well, not until Pearl Harbor, anyway).

But if tactlessly put, perhaps a better message than the one from SJ Johnson at top (also currently), a family company who are working on making better the health of our family and the environment with... Windex, Pledge & Shout?

I kinda feel 'working on' and anything suffixed '-er' might best be kept in the 'Jobs in progress' file before splashing on the media spend, especially for Earth Day. Lest one be accused, however unfairly, of allowing Corporate America to co-opt and monetize it.

But, is it art?

This in Treehugger: Stockholm's Feeling...Pale Green

This from me:

I may be missing something here, but in the great environmental awareness scheme of things, how does 'emblazoning with massive mood lighting' work, exactly, enviROI-wise?

How is this different to chiding anyone with a massive outdoor Xmas display (which, if one is serious, and Grinch-accusation immune, a fair point)?

Maybe we shoudl get 747's to do coloured contrails and call it art?

Celeb pity

I thought this - Celebrity Eco-Hypocritique - was going to be another media industry sulk about how their green parties are being spoiled by grumpy old commoners not being supportive enough of whatever jolly they deem we need.

But it is actually more thoughtful than that.

And, as always, some good comments pro and con to follow.

For some reason, I was moved to pitch in:

An interesting analysis, with equally interesting posts in response.

There is a slight sense of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't..' that makes it hard not to sympathise with the motives and probable frustrations of a passionate, committed 'activist' celeb.

I really felt sorry that someone such as Bono was copping so much flak because of who he was and what he earned, whilst being a man with a view almost being required to shut up and sing.

But then ego comes into play. What if by what they are doing they are not serving the greater enviROI or indeed the most effective message? They may well be genuine and have opinions and want to speak out or even do, but there are, sorry guys, bigger factors than what they want, and especially if that somehow needs to translate into column inches or airtime.

Sadly the good of intention will get tarred by the less so, especially when the PR machine/media support systems see opportunity. I have lost count of the number of slots where some blonde or buff gets wheeled on to give us 10 seconds of cause before we move on to 'so how's the new movie?'.

We are in an era when the messenger is more important than the message, so that messenger has to be pretty squeaky clean and on message. As pointed out, with the best will in the world that's hard to do when you are making squillions and few outlets exist to spent it on are that environmentally sound. Again the 'machine' has demands. Walking to the shops, buying domestic and holidaying in the back yard are hardly the stuff of glamour magazine front pages. There's the dilemma. If that's the job, then fine, but don't ask those who not enjoying such a lifestyle not to note that and only empathise with selected aspects of what is being shared by way of example.

Bob Geldof had a rather colourful view on how much more 'awareness of the problem' that we all needed when Live Earth was in the news. I would value an objective analysis of how it did indeed serve the actual aims. Were the collective greenhouse emissions of all involved (protagonists and audience) reduced as a consequence? Was the awareness raised (of?) positively and, more importantly, call to actions embraced?

Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK it was not the greatest example of motivation and publicity that one could have hoped for. Especially for any plugging the causes of green.

Hence the next effort in this mould, Planet Relief, as mooted by the BBC, didn't get off the ground, to the surprise of many in the media world just waiting for all the opportunities they would have had to feed off it. And some, with spectacular sour grapes, took to blaming all but their own inability to read the public mood for its downfall.

There was even an attempt to portray this as a victory for politically-motivated, climate denier-funded campaigning. Not so. But there were many from very committed environmental standpoints who simply didn't feel that such things were very effective, and may even set the cause back. Frankly the most damage I see to the whole cause of promoting a 'greener' lifestyle are those unelected, self-appointed spokespersons who for too long have enjoyed an un-earned position to tell 'us' what's good for us and, worse, brook no critique whatsoever. These days any doubts on the efficacy of some green scheme that may not be all it is claimed, especially when vindicated, are usually met with accusations in the same way the cry of '-ist' was thrown around in earlier times.

Interestingly, the BBC has cited the main reason for pulling Planet Relief was fact that their audience - the nation's Joe & Jill Average - had fed back that rather than another green elite party they'd really prefer balanced information on what's going on, and ways to cope within already pressurised calls on time and budget.

Why does a celeb NEED a private jet? They are cash rich and time poor. But if that's necessary to manage the demands of their chosen lifestyle, when it comes to how that example plays out then maybe they need to reassess, with their managers, their personal values of what is 'enough'. Make a few less movies, go on fewer tours... and don't earn as many millions as last year. Stay at home more. Travel slower. Buy better stuff and not only the latest and glitziest just because you can.

You'll set a better example and maybe even enjoy life more. And rather than issuing press release about it via your people, let it be simply found out about and appreciated by getting 'out there' organically rather than stuffing it down other folk's throats as part of a rounded CV.

Living a more eco lifestyle is, for now, a mostly more expensive choice and/or in complement a less income-acquisitive one. Many don't have the luxury of limitless funds to match up to what some can afford to do with chump change. Do it, fine. Let it be shared, well, ok. Preach from a shaky pedestal... fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

A guy took exception, and unfortunately in a rather selective manner that also embraced the 'brook no criticism' stance that I find very tiresome. I had to reply:

Who is tearing who down? This seems a rather grotesque - and all too common - knee-jerk dismissal to the notion of simply asking any questions on the efficacy of certain aspects of promoting environmental good practice. Plus having an opinion.

As it happens, I think that Leo seems to be one of the more substantial 'celebrities' trying to make their mark under the difficult, but realistic spotlight that has been acknowledged.

Then again, to those who don't fly so much, and usually if we do once a year in cattle class, taking 'A' trip to Europe by commercial air came across as a tad... unfortunate as a comeback. Though the question, in the spirit of things at the time, was not very nice. But that... is the reality of the system. So understand it to play it to best advantage.

I guess I am keen on making a change, but I do wonder who else with green intentions is simultaneously trying to 'destroy' whose.... own leaders? I think I missed that election.

As to real points, I did sit in a [demographically sensitive location definition deleted] with 20 of my [demographically sensitive group definition deleted] chums who tolerate what I bang on about all the time. The result was that the concert set back my efforts. They didn't buy it and thought the way it was set up was silly. It seemed to give 'em a good excuse to revert to more profligate ways as 'those that are telling [them] how to behave' seemed to be doing so from a 'not us, of course, that wouldn't be practical to do our jobs' camp'. Some business persons not in the ents/media world do need to travel to stay employed, too. So who is left? It's a tough sell to some poor family looking at a guilt-tripped (there's an idea for a travel agent) 2 weeks a year in the sun to be fed 'Here's XX in her designer T an entourage at such and such a camp in 'Exotic place 101', especially when combo'd with their latest kid-buying sleepover in a 5* resort a world away down the road.

You may have a different experience. That was mine and it influenced my view on this as a mechanism of change.

As to only supporting uncritically those who do pollute and depend on us to use them to do so, I'm afraid I will need to remain in favour of phased reduction.

I can recommend Leo Hickman's book, Final Call, which does a good job of looking at the issues surrounding 'our' need and/or desire to travel, but also as quickly as possible. More efficient engines are indeed a worthy instrument of mitigation and delay, and I am sure will allow more of a movement to commercial craft that can offer the necessary facilities to lure some from 'going private'.

Lord Above. Well, until next year.

I'm afraid I had a few thoughts about The Green Bishop?

Whilst endorsing the notion of something is better than nothing, I have to express some concern about the preponderance of those in the public eye who are publicised as 'giving up [insert eco-damaging indulgence here] for a [acceptable media-worthy personal/corporate inconvenience period here].

As we're on a theological bent, what kind of message does it send that these things can bought off by a brief period of abstinence?

That's like flying half the planet around for a climate change awareness concert about the damage of flying halfway around the planet, and making a big play about offsetting the travel... then going straight back afterwards to... oh.

Let he whose business doesn't 'require' travel cast us back into the Stone Age.

For me, in such cases, the messenger can often be as important for credibility as the message.

Nothing like a good conference

I've never heard of PSFK until this: Green Marketing: Mind the Gap

Sorry I missed it. Sounds interesting, what with all the insights.

I'd have to say that aviation probably is the most unfriendly brand right now, and is unlikely to improve much with people like Richard Branson of Virgin talking about new planes and fuels and trying to look "less bad"... whilst announcing all Business Class services (see my earlier post - why won't the Times print mine?).

The rest reads like a list (Google did throw up a link to Ariel's effort, which didn't work too well on my streaming. Looks a hoot). Maybe you had to be there.

FUTURE POST 4/July:

Here I am pondering how posts to old blog topics get archived and notified, and someone has helpfully added to the archive.

I think it best I repost to give it the best chance of being shared properly.

The post in question was Nothing like a good conference , and I am happy to share it again here.

Indeed, having read the link (sadly, finding the time for a 50 minute show is beyond me at the moment, much though it looks well worth the time over lunch or an evening surf) I am even happier, as it also introduces the PSFK site too.

As blogger replies can't, or complicate posting HTML links, let me repost it here.

As an ex(ish) ad-man, it is interesting to see the next generation struggling to get to grips with the dilemma of promoting rampant capitalism and one's personal duty as a green-aware individual to practice and preach the 'RE's'.

May is so over

I just read a short, but interesting piece in the Indy.

And without apology, but due accreditation, print it fullishly here, with a few highlights of my own:

All goods may be labelled with 'carbon footprint'

A new eco label may show the environmental damage done goods and services in shops. The Government has begun a "carbon footprint" project to work out how to count emissions from everything from crisps to flights [Let us pray the enviROI derived is genuine, and that we, the public, are able to get to grips with it such that it is not just another vast, money-sucking box-ticking exercise].

The scheme, which could be the first step towards an international standard [like all previous efforts at local - we seem to have two health standards already, so the packs are going to get pretty crowed with this guff - and global cooperation have been successful so far. No reason not to try, but I do trust the basis is not so much to line consultants' pockets in the effort as to actually move policies] for measuring the greenhouse effect, will [well, that's more positive] be used on packaging to allow consumers to weigh up [so it's back to us doing the tricky stuff again, is it? And doubtless fined if we don't do it right. What about a bit more effort on what goes into the system at the front end????!] the climate change impact [please.... make it an effective measure!] of different products [I... we... are going to stand there, assessing - if we are able - every item going into our baskets. This is asking us to weigh apples vs. oranges, literally]

The Carbon Trust, a government body briefed to create a low carbon economy [with how much money to be blown on salaries and comms, with almost no ROI and/or enviROI that is publicly accountable to an effective degree?] is developing the scheme with companies such as [why these guys? Are they enough? Are they being funded or helping out for free...if so big up to them. If not... hmnnn.] Tesco, Boots, B&Q, Marks & Spencer and BT. A panel of technical experts will take around 18 months [Dome. Olympics. NHS. Air traffic. Need I infer more?] to finalise the measurement of stages such as production and transport.

Announcing the plan yesterday, the Environment Minister, Ian Pearson, said: "Businesses are looking for ways [Looking's good. Finding is better. Committing the best] to reduce their impact on the environment. To help them achieve that we need a consistent way [Just like the health standards, eh?] to measure these impacts that businesses recognise, trust and understand." [Let's not forget the consumer recognising, trusting, understanding... and being able to engage with in a meaningful way, as well]

That's an awful lot of doubts I have raised from just a few paras. I wonder why? Maybe it is because this consumer doesn't recognise much so far in this area that has made sense, trusts little these protagonists do to actually have my kids' future enviROI at heart, or ever get shared in a way that is understandable of capable of rational engagement.

But we can hope this time it will be different. Here's hoping the mainstream media stay on their case (packaging pun intended).

Guardian - Carbon labels to help shoppers save planet

Treehugger - Carbon Footprint Labels for UK Produce

In the piece I read, in the Independent, the announcement was littered with words like 'may' and 'could', which usually presages a lot of money getting spent on a bunch of consultants, and then sod all of any use happening once the requisite boxes have been ticked.

There is also the small matter of what happened with the health composition labelling. In some places we get a traffic light system, and in others a row of figures that look like the periodic table.

It's going to get pretty crowded on the side of each pack, and I have my doubts anyone will have the slightest clue what they are looking at, much less be able to make a coherent decision based on it. I for one have not bothered to scrutinise each item I select. For start, what am I comparing? Apples and oranges? Well, of course a Spanish orange may be better than a South African apple, but who on earth is going to get into that????!

If there is any serious intent to make a difference here, it needs to be at the in-point, not throwing it on the poor blooming consumer to try and sort out the fudge government and industry are trying to shuffle around.

So do I feel my kids' future is being protected by this? Well, may... be... not.

Nice guys don't get printed

Hey, it has been a long day...

Working from Home May Produce More CO2 than Going to Office

pfft. I like that.

These days there are too many studies that seem intended to achieve little more than stirring the pot and getting the issuer some PR. Job done, I'd say.

It's all been pretty much said already, but as I'm in my home office in the UK let's offer 2 cents. Yes, in winter the heating is still on during the day, but there are these odd little fellas over here we call radiator thermostats, that allow you to tune the room. And, frankly, with a wife and two kids the rooms being heated the rest of the time don't go too low either as they would howl spousal/parental abuse if they are not erring on the toasty on arrival. And there is the notion (upon which I stand ready to be educated), that it may be better to maintain a well-insulated trickle constant rather than allowing to cool and boost heat up too often.

As to a/c... not yet! With global warming... give it a few years. All I know is when I lived in Singapore, with a daily 32 degrees C and 98% humidity, I did just fine with a fan to keep the air moving.

And for the kettle, well, we have a nifty number here called the ecokettle. Does one cup on demand in 30 environmentally-friendly seconds. And I don't have to make one for a bunch of folk that no one quite knows what they produce or even do anyways. Wit titles like 'Director of...' well, you can think of one.

Plus I get to walk with my kids to and from school and work whilst watching the swans on the River Wye.

It's all a tad moot, as I ain't about to budge, and I doubt many others are either.

Interesting headline though. Bet it did wonders for the ratings, despite that 'may' get out clause. Movin' on...