Plane Crazy

I get many business newsletters, and one I do enjoy is from the Telegraph Business Club. It does have interesting articles, and often rather challenging debates, many initiated by their editor, David Sumner Smith. One of which I have pitched into. I can't seem to find a URL on their site, so I'll have to quote it in full here, followed by my reply:

"It's scary. The statistics we learnt at the Business Club seminars about the growth of the Chinese economy (for details click here) are impressive. But one can't help but wonder how the UK can compete with such an awesome pace of development. Take air travel, for example. Every time plans are made to build a new runway or extend a terminal at a British airport, it unleashes a furious debate. Environmentalists and 'Not In My Back Yard' local residents spend long enough squabbling with the airport authorities and local businesses for the minister for transport to have been replaced at least once. Fair enough. That would not be a problem if all the UK's competitors behaved in the same way. But compare that process with development in China. Over the next five years, China will spend £9.4bn to expand the three biggest international hub airports and build 48 more airports. While they are at it, China will buy 100 planes and recruit 1,000 new pilots every year until 2010. Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, points to the business benefits to British companies that are involved in the development programme. "Our idea is to get China wealthy as quickly as possible," he says, "so they can pay for all the value-added goods and services we can provide." In the short to medium term, that might be feasible. But it is only a matter of time before companies in China and elsewhere in Asia start providing those services. If the UK is going to retain its competitive position, then it will have to stop spending so much time listening to NIMBYs and environmentalists and give business its head. But is that what we want? Do we want to sacrifice our 'green and pleasant land' to compete in a race we can never win?

---

Yes, it is scary. The Chinese economy of course, and perhaps a few other not unrelated nor insignificant issues.

Such as air travel. As I look at the sky above Ross-on-Wye criss-crossed by contrails caused by a single flight - which I couldn't match for greenhouse gasses driving a Veyron for a lifetime with Jeremy Clarkson paragliding off the back - I do feel a slight shudder of the prospect of 50 more airports adding to the airspace race. Even if they are over the other side of the globe. Sadly jetstreams do have a habit of sharing things about evenly.

We could of course try and set a small example to get them to ignore the precedents we in the West have set and learn from our mistakes, but then again we could also simply gun the engines of commerce and see about beating them.

Trouble is, with a world of finite land and finite resources to sustain a growing population, trying to out-produce, consume and hence pollute those with whom we share a common atmosphere seems to point at a dubious end-game eventually.

I recently caught, and as it appealed quoted in my blog, the tail end of yet another academo/journalistic spat about climate warming - A Tart Counterpoint To Ibbitson's Irrelevance - and without comment on who said what to whom, why and who has had the latest laugh, would just like to share a neat analogy made that seems apt and pertinent to this topic:

[You are] flying on holiday and the plane is ½ hour out over the Atlantic. Of 150 aerospace engineers on board, 90 say that there's been a fuel leak and the plane has 40 minutes of flying time left. It's time to turn around. The other 60 say that there's no conclusive evidence of a leak and [you] should not turn around because it would inconvenience the CEOs in business class. Who [do you] listen to? The answer seems clear: You listen to the journalist who tells [you that you] should really do something about the in-flight service.

The conclusion is also worth sharing: '[The] debate is about risk, not certainty. [We] might choose to listen when more than half the experts are warning of a problem that threatens our entire species'.

Indeed.

I'm all for the need to compete, but maybe it's time we thought ahead a tad from the consequences to our green and pleasant land, to those that may affect our green and pleasant planet?

Today's debate about the A380 show the dilemmas faced. More passengers per plane: good for environment? Or just lowering prices and encouraging more flights? Personally I'd advocate designing greenhouse gas-free aero engines to flog to any of our Asian friends who may, like us, be unwilling to forgo travelling, but are enlightened enough to see that copying us to spite us literally will be losing the nose... and more than face.

-----

I don't think of myself as a NIMBY, but no one does until something happens next door they don't fancy and decide to take a stand, so I guess we all are, potentially and/or eventually. And what is an environmentalist, especially when used pejoratively? I consider myself to be no more than a guest resident on this planet, and parent of future occupants, concerned about the state of the land I leave to the coming generations.

STOP PRESS: My comment has been kindly added. Looks like it may be shaping up to be an interesting debate: http://www.telegraphbusinessclub.co.uk/default.asp?p_id=search&showresults=1&showarticle=1474

Inspirational Stuff - Mark Barthel

The other day we were going through our sign-ups, and were pleased and frustrated in equal measure to suspect that we had had a mention in Saturday's Telegraph, which of course was now well off the shelves.

I guess it is too much to ask (even though we happily inform the subjects of our editorial coverage when it happens. Why not? It's a 10 second email) that folk let us know, but it does mean we miss out on good PR to quote, and does lead us on a merry online hunt to find it if we can.

Often we are successful. This time we are not. But in searching it is is fascinating what we can stumble across. In this case a rather inspiring story about a real green lite warrior I can actually empathise with. Nice philosophy and a lot of things to 'do'.

It really does not affect what I say above, but having subsequently 'done a Google' to try and get in touch with him, I was a tad disappointed to find he really is part of our 'Green Elite', at least if he is the same guy who is a high-up in WRAP and BSI.

The hints were there, I guess, but I would have wished he was doing all this with the same level of access and resource as an average Joe. I just feel that the experiences and financing such folk share with us may not reflect reality, and could lead to disappointing experiences.

Gulp

Another from (well, Military.com, Air Force Print News, C. Todd Lopez, 15 May 2006 via) Grist: The Air Force consumes more than half the fuel used by the entire U.S. government.

This one seems to be from the 'I'll save you if it kills me (and you, too)' files'. 

Answers on a postcard... er... email...

A question from the very excellent Grist:

Can you work as an environmental consultant without losing your soul?

What do they say?....: 'Where the US leads the UK follows'.

Better Red than... well, any other colour, really

Last night I watched a re-run of Sunday's Top Gear. Actually it was just one bit, when the merry trio of presenter/pranksters were handed a radio station to play with. And play they did. I don't know if it was a success or not, but the body language of some of the staff seemed to suggest that the plan may not have fired in the direction required. When the dust has settled, the next day the workers have to clear up the debris.

And so we come to today's edition of the Independent, which unless you have been locked in a box these last few days (even other media ran features), is the one with Bono editing, to borrow a nomenclature trick from Friends' episodes. It sets an interesting precedent for any other medium looking for a circulation boost.

My first mistake was not buying a copy, because I did not get the chance to pop out first thing, and once I did it had gone. Which is a good sign, because they are forking over half the revenue to the cause. Better than nothing, when all's said and done.

So I am left with today's online, and it is all a bit daunting. As, cleverly, the RED features were in, well, red, which kind of drew the eye (distracting from some top enviro bits too, try Carbon trading chaos as Brussels gets numbers wrong). And there were a fair few of them. Lots and lots. All covering some aspect of the cause. And all contributed by the A1alpha list of UK pol, comment and celebdom.

It's hard to know what to quote from (as a few were a bit SOSO), so I won't. In fact the better summary is from yesterday, which I will: A red revolution on the high street (see, I am playing along, too).

There were many bits I liked, but I am being selfish, because I get encouarged with what we are trying to do for the environment when I see stuff like: '...brings together two of the most powerful forces in the contemporary world - the appetite of consumers and the marketing intelligence of the corporate sector - to open up an entirely new front...', and: '...they wanted to do something. So we had to come up with something for them to do - something easier" ,"You need to market this like Nike.", and "We had the churches, the student campuses, the activists. But we didn't have the high street."

And the piece is further littered with direct lifts, it seems, from our Funding Proposal:

"What was needed, was not a mere spur to the social consciousness of big business, but something more structured - a new brand. And one which iconic companies would fight to join." "Only that way would we be able to bring to bear the marketing muscle and intelligence of these big companies who, above all else, know how to sell stuff". "In between are "middle- path realists" - who want to effect change without spending much money or time," "...hoping it will also attract the kind of shoppers who look for the cheapest chicken on the supermarket shelf. "...they are no more expensive than the one you were going to buy. On top of that they are products that are aspirational, cool and look good. Where's the downside?'"

"The point of RED is that it is win-win-win - consumers, corporate business and the world's poorest people all benefit."

All I can say is good luck, and why not?

But I'm afraid my passion, and what I am a bit more interested in is GREEN, which is the totality of the environment.  And I am keen to engage as much as possible with the average person in the street, and especially those who may not be slavish adherents to media hype-driven elitist icons to feel guilty about, and then satisfied with a low effort way to buy off their guilt (not that the environment is immune from a few of these).

But we have a ways to go. As one of the top organisers is quoted:  "I got a phone call the other day from someone who works for the Global Fund. She happened to be in Cardiff and saw the RED window display in Gap and went in to see the T-shirts... The woman came out of the shop in tears of joy and called me." 

Gap. Hmn. Nice she happened to have his number handy, too.

Ross Calling, Ross Calling..

Not too sure who out there who reads this and may be in the vicinity to listen, but I've just found out that tomorrow at crack of drivetime I am to be interviewed here by BBC Hereford & Worcester. 

That their pre-show soundbites were of the order of 'What's it like to be a latter-day Womble' puts it in context, but it's shaping up as a nice bit of PR coverage, so I hope I don't mess up.

Now the big thing is to figure out how to a) record it, and b) upload it to the website. It looks like they have all sorts of onsite techno stuff so it may be possible.

If we manage, you will be the first to know. Otherwise, at 7.30ish am and again at 8.45ish  am I shall be in a living room near you.

"You were looky. In my day we had only had 512k memory and a 28k modem."

The Sunday Times has a columnist, consigned (if relevantly) to the Appointments section, by name of Andrew Taylor. His 'patch' is the trials and tribs of those at the more senior end of the workforce, which I am surprised to realise I am well into, and may well be rejoining soon, if only to secure more Junkky funding. Having read a piece of his on IT, I was moved to write:

"I enjoy your column, which often speaks to me (and about my situation). Especially your latest Technology: getting the hang of IT.

It's a bit late for me to learn from your sage advice 'think twice before launching a business on the web', but two years ago I allowed a hobby to take over the day job, and here I am, nearly 50, with many eggs in one online basket.

But has been, is and doubtless will be quite a ride.

Like you, I find many programs wonderful mysteries, often to remain unsolved after a few hours with the immortal words onscreen: '[PowerPoint, Excel, etc..] has quit for no good reason - shame you forgot to enable the regular save function'. But I persevere, and often commit my pencil and paper doodles to an odd kind of layout using the pretty pictures function on Word, which in turn a munchkin with a graphics package to make da Vinci weep converts into something pretty. Note at this point where the idea has originated. I’ve often knocked out a campaign whilst the designers are still warming up the border function of their Macs.

So of course I have a pretty good grasp of what a computer can do, and can often do it. But here I must diverge from Mr. Thomson. The details can be distractions that  lead you down very expensive and time-consuming paths. The secret (and for sure not one easily solved, in terms of personpower or finance - ie: paying for the person with the power) is applying your wealth of experience in the grey matter, and not getting hung up with the demands of that big grey box.

Actually my problems come precisely because I could care less about the manual or obsessing how the program does whatever it does. I just need to get to what it can do and figure out applying the end-benefits (to my clients, readers, etc ) in short order.  

Maybe that's the issue with people over 40: they remember the taste and sizzle is worth more than the sausage and the packaging. I am perfectly at ease with a computer; they just a boring tool between me and doing useful stuff.

Which is odd, as I use one 18/24 of 24/7 of 365 (minus a few).

And if I can avoid a meeting by using a PC and do it all by email, blog, vlog or any other way not to budge from my comfy chair rather than do battle with a conference call or a few hours on the M4, then way-hey!!! What I’m not so keen on is hitting the bars post-working hours to bond with fellow workers or clients, and that is a failing on the whole networking front (see last para) that really powers careers, new business or pr.

As you say, '...getting a website going is a lot cheaper and simpler than setting up a business with office premises, equipment, stock and all the other start-up expenses, and it’s a good way of reaching customers and building a reputation'. 

I am more in the mould of Greg Paine, though Junkk.com became a full-time job more by accident as I let the hobby take over... 'after a long and successful career in advertising'. Maybe I should get in touch with him! 

Whether letting the day job slide was a good idea is another matter, but time will tell. And you have kindly posted some very useful resources to help if not.

My start-up costs and marketing cost were/are considerably more, but then I am being a bit more ambitious with what I am trying to do (and IT does not come cheap, especially if your understanding is this side of the screen/CPU), and I wish the site was paying for itself by now, let alone turning a profit. For me it's a long term thing. But you are right to be a cynic, and the pitfalls you mention are very real (I am writing this from the bottom of a few you mention.).

It rather depends on the business you are in, so it’s missing a trick or two to think only in terms of 'widgets' you 'sell'. Often a website can sell experience and information,,. which are not so tangible.  Mr. Thomson's 'product' is surely his advice after all, and he is using his success in people seeking it to create opportunities for him to profit from this.

What I think he has touched on, is that most elusive of all things beyond the quality of the product or where it exists; and that is getting your audience (purchasing or otherwise) to know about it, love it and want it.

And that, though it can be helped in so many ways by using it skillfully, need not have anything to do with IT. Maybe I should be hitting the bars more often."

Acorns & Oaks

I was reading a Sunday Times Special insert entitled 'Companies that count' (I've popped the link in, but good luck if you can get anywhere with it being an online version of what I read - why do B2B types assume we all live in their complicated, jargon-laden worlds) along with a piece It's cool for business to be green, when ironically enough along came this from the Guardian: Five biggest polluters in UK produce more CO2 than all motorists combined .

From the Times I now have a hitlist of organisations who would in theory be open to engaging with us, though my experiences with Tracey on Reception ('Hew should I sayz callin'? Does he/she know you... no... goodbye') or Mrs. Miggins on gatekeeper duty ('Computersezno. He/she is very busy, please address all enquiries via our customer service website [oblivion]) mean it will be time well wasted.

And out of the 50 listed, it was amazing how few are in our area of 're'.

But looking at the Guardian piece, it is pretty telling the disconnect between the efforts being directed at the consumer and those selling to them by those tasked (or who have taken it upon themselves) to serve/save them.

It's a problem compounded when these figures and consequent headlines come out.

As a consumer, I am tempted to say 'sod it, I'll get the 4x4'.

But there are threads that need to be picked up.

These big polluters produce the energy which we burn inefficiently with our 18p lightbulbs from Tescos (you can see what they were pushing with the message I advocate they could/should (part of a series I did) side by side) - and ironically they are one of the top 50 CSR companies in the Times list.

So it IS worth plugging away (there's an idea in there for an 'anti-leaving electric appliances plugged in' ad) on the little things, but only when they are relevant and can be tied in to benefits.

I reckon the whole car thing is diverting way too much from more importnat areas that could be more fruitfully addressed.

Mixed Messages

At my talk at Internet World (must post it up on the site one day), I enlivened it a bit with a section called 'mixed messages', basically advocating that these should be avoided wherever possible. 

It was a thinly veiled plug for Junkk.com vs. more traditional media, because we are in a position to embrace more relevant ad opportunities and have less conflicting editorial dilemmas to deal with. I had fun showing a page from one online site which had a big blue-chip energy banner advocating renewable electricity atop an article gushing about a device that plugged in to keep your butter permanently spreadable, and a button ad offering a day trip in a Bentley as as a prize for entry next to a piece trashing 4x4 drivers.

But as I have admitted before, things can slip through. We are looking at Google adwords-style revenue for now (while we can't be choosy or find the time to place and monitor every page) that can result in 'inappropriate' clashes.

But it doesn't stop me having a chuckle at others' expense.

And today I noticed this from the invariably excellent Grist:

Arctic Tock ...

Arctic ice may be gone in one to three decades

If you've been planning a trip to the Arctic, better buy your tickets now, because it's a-meltin' fast. (Perhaps you've heard?)... 

straight to the source: The Guardian, David Adam, 15 May 2006 

I know the environmental rite of passage de jour is a trip to the snowy wastes and all (and I'm pretty sure they were just making an off the cuff funny remark - the article it links to is pretty heavy), but there is a certain perverse irony in advocating one travels up there to see it before it melts, thanks in part to people traveling up there more and more to see it... before it melts. 

And I quota... (or don't)

Drifting into politically incorrect territory for the sake of a light-hearted intro line, you can say what you like about the Germans, but they certainly know how to obey orders. While, patently, the British cannot: UK above quota, Germany within, where we are not exactly delivering the goods (or, rather, are delivering too many) on our carbon emissions EU-wide.

It's hard to find an excuse, until you read on and find out what a tortured and convoluted the whole thing is, rife I am sure with all manner of accounting tricks, back-door politico/commercial deals, smoke and mirrors and of course small fortunes being made by those who make everything out of making nothing (n this case literally as well as figuratively).

Mind you, our new national habit of blaming the pitch/track/weather/own negotiated positions for failing to do what was agreed smacks of goalpost adjusting.

I wonder what the average consumer would make of it all, especially if they know how much of their money pays these guys salaries.

There's Interest Groups, Activist Groups.. and Statistical Groupings

It's official. 100% of middle aged family men would be quite happy to never use the car again.

This is based on a sample of one (me), and did not involve any complicating factors like keeping the job going, doing the weekly 'big' shop' and getting the boys to the middle of a forest at the weekend for their night hike. Then, I fear, I think I might be one of the 100% who felt the car was an essential and could not be done without into the forseeable future.

So, what are we to make of 75 percent back new climate law ?

Well, it's a bit of a 'why not?' at the moment, up there with 99% of us recycle regularly... apparently (as Jimmy Carr would say, eyebrow cocked, in that biscuit ad).

But is such a thing worth trotting out?

75% of the UK population may support anything nice and fluffy if asked, but getting from 1000 people to the thoughts of 30 million seems a leap. Much less actions.

And it doesn't mention, but I also wonder to what extent this survey added the bit... 'and you will be required to do this in future, and it will cost you this much extra."

Wishing it doesn't make it so, and I for one tend to lean against pressure to make me bend when its coming from a direction I can get my head around.

In the bag

An almost throwaway snippet in the Daily Mirror a few days ago:
'Tesco vow to go green': Tesco is to make all its carriers [sic] bags
biodegradable by September. And it aims to slash the four billion
plastic bags it gives away free by a quarter within two years in a
new green initiative. But Lim Dem Chris Huhne said: "Biodegradable
bags themselves can have an adverse impact.'

That's it, verbatim. For such a small piece, I found a lot going on
in there.

One is the significance that only now are they tackling this issue. 4
billion bags!!!! Anyway, at least they are now. Next up is the quite
fair point Mr. Huhne made. I have still to get to the bottom of this,
but the last I heard was that biodegrading let off greenhouse gasses,
and that is high on my 'first thing to stop' list. Plus the fact that
'once they are gone, they're gone'. Of course not having them is the
optimal option, but surely recycling is better?

I'm interested to find out what this new initiative may be. Maybe the
phrase '..it gives away free...' is a hint. What's the betting
there's a cost coming? The do need the money, after all.

Power Plant

I love the internet. Especially when it works. Because I was (again) paying catch up on my reading and came across something I wanted to blog about, but thought I'd missed the e-window online. But, no. A few clicks and there it was, lovingly preserved. And allowing you to wonder why on earth I'd want to have anything to do with the Koenigsegg CCX, as reviewed a week ago by one J. Clarkson.

Well I don't really want one, if that's a help. Sideways at 180mph is not high on my 'must-have' list for a car. I have a wife, 2.2 kids (trust me, they eat 110%) and aspire only to get from A to B with my family and/orstuff in comfort and safety. Ok, I want to do it fast and fun too, which is why I'm still keen on a Saab Aero, because they do all the necessary and still squirt past a lorry nice and easy. I doubt a Prius does. But the minute something like it does, along with all the other requirements of domestic and business travel, I'm up for it (in fact I have a vague recollection that Saab do have such a thing).

And then there's the small matter of cost. Forgetting about buying for a moment, the other major bit is fuel. Which is what brings me to the Kthingie review. two things caught my eye.

One was that it did 16.6mpg. Which is not great. Except my R-reg Volvo does only about twice that, and has an engine about 1/3 the size producing 1/4 the power. It also cost about 1/20th as much, so everything is relative, but it just seemed pretty efficient is all.

But the thing that really perked me up was seeded (pun intended) in the middle: 'now with their own Swedish-made twin-supercharged 4.7 litre V8, the CCX. This is a very powerful engine. On normal petrol you get 806bhp. But here’s the good bit. If you tune it to run on eco-friendly biofuel, you get more than 900bhp.'

Not only is it good for the environment, but it's good for the adrenaline junkies too. Now, let's hope we see a bit more of this in a car I can actually aspire to owning.

Kismet by moonlight?

Well, more like 4.30am, but close enough...

I usually only buy the Sunday Times.  I'd like to say this was me doing my bit for the planet by reducing paper consumption, but really I don't have the time and, as importantly, the cash, for a raft of dailies. 

But yesterday I couldn't resist getting 'Metropolis' free (well, in the price of the paper), and was certainly not going to let the total investment in entertainment go to waste. And it has been good value.

For a start, I can add a little blog note having come across the following in the travel section:

'Climate Cost - Each week, Times Travel pays Climate Care a fee that goes towards green projects which compensate for the damage caused by aircraft emissions'

I don't know if it is the first, or indeed only regular (I have commented before on 'one-offs' that seem more cynical than doing nothing in some ways)  attempt by a medium to address the impact its 'business' has on the environment, but it is certainly welcome and better than nothing. And goes a fair way to addressing my feeling like flipping the bird at reading finger wags from correspondents for all our wasteful ways, and then turning the page to find a bunch of staff from another section off to report on FurEX 06 in LA. 

However, I remain slightly dubious about how all this works, from the costs to the mechanisms. £36.10 doesn't seem like much to plant the necessary trees (ok, investment in renewable energy is better, but even this is a rather dark black hole of obscurity to me still) or whatever to address the short and mid-haul flights of four writers. Plus I can't help but wonder where all this ends up. As regular readers know, I am more than concerned about the finite amount of land on this planet, the ever-expanding population standing on it,  our increasing tastes for moving around it and the consequential further reduction in the planet's ability to sustain it all. The conclusion one come to in extrapolating such a very not complex equation is rather dire.

There are only so many forests we can plant, or wind turbines to spin to compensate. At some point, not doing it so much has to be the only option.

Anyway, on a more positive note I also stumbled across a very interesting piece by a regular contributor named Anna Shepard, who is dubbed the 'eco worrier'.

The piece itself was about our friends at ecover - Dish the dirt and clean up your act - but also had Ms. Shepard's blog link: Eco-Blog.

It's good. Not preachy, with a hint of eyebrow-twitch very like the style I hope to convey here when it comes to encouraging progress but reserving the right to question those who think they are qualified to talk down the average person trying to muddle along.

I know I have had not had much luck with mainstream media in the past, but I do hope to see if I can establish contact... and maybe see what synergies may be explored.

A hard addiction to break

I was idly looking through some of the photos (often very striking, and most from amateurs. Such is the liberating power of digital) on the BBC weekly round up - http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/in_pictures/4765621.stm - and the caption of one (# 9), more than the image itself, struck me:

'Baghdad residents line up to get fuel, currently limited to 30 litres (8 gallons) per person twice a week.'

I wish in no way to minimise the hardships the people of that poor blighted country are suffering, or try to make a sensible comparison between the realities of work and social travel between various countries' transport systems, but if this was a rationing, 60 litres a week per person seemed quite a lot. 

And puts 'normal' consumption, and hence emissions, around the world in rather frightening consequence.

Just what we needed...

With a literal mountain of admin to catch up on post Internet World, I fear my blogs may be a tad sparse for a while.

However, some things arrive at the in-box that simply cannot pass without comment, and this is one of them: Chinese flight plan takes off

Yes, to quote the first line of the piece: "China is to build up to 50 new airports and double its fleet of passenger jets over the next five years to meet the demand for travel from its growing middle class." 

That kind of puts our finding nifty ways to reuse a Yazoo cap in context. Come to that, it stacks up rather ominously against all the Humvee drivers in the US suddenly deciding to get a G-Wiz.

Of course there will be those who say that, because of such imbalances, 'why bother?'. 

The only reply is that we need to do even more; not necessarily for the compensatory carbon emissions that will result, but more because it shows we recognise what our cultures have inflicted on the planet, realised what must be done, and are committed to making to making things better. Except I rather suspect most will see a cheap flight to China as quite a nifty holiday deal.

Ignoring reality then, with luck such a stance may persuade those with whom we share this planet that grabbing their 'due', as we did (if in ignorance and then self-denial), will serve no one wherever they stand.

Small, but perfectly formed

I'm the one at the side. Missed me?

I'm just back from our show at Internet World, which was waaaaay better than I thought. We have been told that our stand was the most interesting at the show, despite its modest nature (1m x 2m, total cost to make: about £25).

The intention was to 'sell' our anticipated 50k sign-ups from Ideal Home (working on the fact that 10% of 400,000 coming to a green-themed event was doable, especially as we are free and offer neat stuff) to marketing directors.

Perhaps it's just as well there were none of these guys at this show not to be impressed by the numbers we actually got (with a quick foot from mouth extraction by adding 'though those we did get were top quality' - but sadly media guys like BIG numbers) thanks to the Ideal Home deal being so mis-represented. How's that for a convoluted series of double-negatives?

However, IT is now about as major as it gets in any organisation, and the guys who handle the IT often handle the website, and the website is no longer a bolt-on afterthought to the marketing. So there were some folk well worth flashing our wares at. Not so many fmcg brands (but maybe that explains why most such sites are still so woeful), but a lot of very useful, and pleasant folk.

For instance, to name a few, such as BT, The Environement Agency, and Energy Savings Trust, who have already been nice enough to put us on their site. Thanks chaps!

There were also a few from the media, and we're hopeful interest shown by journalists from the Daily Mirror and The Guardian (who attended my talk, which went well) may well result in coverage. It's starting to kick in nicely. Only the other day we found out we had a nice mention in Woman's Own, and that has lead to many sign-ups.

There were also a few very helpful co-exhibitors, who may well be able to add some value to our efforts, and better yet not expect an arm and a leg upfront to to it!

So now it is a hectic rush to follow-up, and then it's all hands to the pumps for the Mad* Show. And this is shaping up to be a significant event, too. I'm even getting to talk in very exalted company.

Shame our stand is still a postage stamp, but quality rather than quantity, eh?

A 'mentalist motor even Jeremy could love

Off now for a few days to Earls Court for Internet World. Drop by if you are in the vicinity!

I thought I'd pop in a fun, positive story to tide over until my return: A car that could save the planet—fast

What's not to like?

My only caveat is that we should not forget that electric still has a carbon consequence; it's just that the pipe is in another location.

Now if we can make hydrogen using solar, and then fire up a fun motor on that juice, then I'll really be perking up!

You were expecting what else, exactly?

I hate to be a party pooper, but I found the following - Updated list adds more threatened species - sad, true, and pretty much proving the point I have been making for a fair old while.

Because, global warming or no global warming, most things end up extinct, and with us on the planet usually sooner rather than later. Especially big predators or huge territorial herbivores who require large areas of land all to themselves and the subtle biological balance of flora and flora around them, and which they are at the top, or rather were until we lob up and decided to build a golf course, have a war or opt for a 4x4 to get to work in Washington, London, Shanghai or New Dehli.

With finite land (and that due to reduce when the sea level goes up) and an ever-expanding human population, they simply won't be allowed that space much longer. 

Enjoy them while you can.

All the news that's fit to buy

This weekend trawl through the week's back issues really has got me
on a hobbyhorse about the actual independence and objectivity of the
media, especially when it comes to environmental stuff.

This time it's local. Having scooted past the front page top story,
doubtless about another drill having been swiped from a shed, I quite
perked up to see a spread entitled 'Recycle. Reclaim. Reuse.', and
indeed there was some editorial on it. But not very much. And not
very comprehensive. It may seem to be sour grapes, but as it was on
local re-issues, and them being well aware of Junkk.com and all we
have done and are doing both locally and nationally from our local
base, this seemed a fair (or rather unfair) omission.

Perhaps there wasn't space inbetween all the ads. Surprisingly, the
ads seemed to be for businesses mentioned in the editorial. But maybe
the hint as to why was in the last sentence: '...why not call one of
the companies advertising here to help you'.

Why do we have to buy coverage for what is clearly topical, useful
public interest, especially as we are free?

Whatever you get in a local paper, I'd suggest it is rarely news, and
as information often less than comprehensive. If I want ads and puff,
I'll use the free sheet.

Cunning Stunts

Playing catch up on the last week's papers, I found myself again wading through a few editions of the Daily Mail, this time having purchased some copies for my Mum to get her a few nice DVDs. 

And in the Wednesday edition there was an interview  with Zac Goldsmith, who is getting a lot of press these days. This one was billed as being with 'the Tories' Green Guru', but some odd agenda seemed to be at work as the headline was 'One of these men runs the Tory party. But which one?' and the picture of ZG and David cameron side by side seemed designed to push one in the direction intended.

I hope one day to meet this chap, and may get the opportunity at MAD*, as he will be there too. So I guess I need to be careful to avoid matching the inevitable point where 'MC' (media celebrity) Martin Lewis meets 'MC' Carol Vorderman. Well, first I need to be heard of to hit 'MC' status, but with Junkk.com we are on our way to being invited to more interesting places of interaction.

I always try to avoid the personal, especially when I have not met anyone in person to make a judgement, but when one is propelled into the public eye and has at least sanctioned (if not approved the version put out) one's thoughts being committed to print, I guess you have to expect some commentary based on it all.

There is no doubt that he has been a significant part of the movement to bring 'Green issues' to the fore, and this can only be to the good, though my views remain on how engaged we mere mortals can be with those less troubled by day-to-day concerns - like living expenses. But at least he is not too sanctimonious 'You don't have to live like a monk to be green', though that often seems code for 'I'll keep the helicopter'.

I guess I'll only really be able to judge as time passes, more information (and quotes) becomes available, and maybe one day having a chat.

Until then I'll close on the first section of the piece, where the glacier trip was a stunt deemed good, so I guess he was part of it. I'm afraid I can't agree. Flying a ton of folk to the Antartic to 'study' the effects of global wraming backfired big time with me, and another ruddy-faced Tory young thing was rather wonderfully savaged about it by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight at the time if the link doesn't work go via the BBC site to Ethical man 'Shoegate' video - it's worth it.

Pie (or Cake, and Eat it) in the Sky

A wee while ago I was browsing through Fortune magazine, and came
across a feature on the boom in private business flying, which
obviously was littered with a ton of ads. It would have been easy to
simply move on, but what did strike me was the number of these ads
that mentioned the 'environmental benefits'.

This stuck me as a bit of a stretch, as shunting a couple of people
in something not much different to a plane that can take a hundred
surely cannot add up carbonally, but I decided to make note and one
day write a piece about it. Even with air travel, I am prepared to
accept it is a fact of life, and hence the best thing is to point out
the best options for the planet if you really have to do it, for
pleasure or business.

However, this morning I was watching a BBC feature in the breakfast
news called 'Fastrack' ( tried to find a link on the BBC website, but
could not - A failing of their search system, even if it was through
me being dumb), which was covering pretty much the same issue from
some jolly exhibition in Europe.

Speaking of jolly, having recently mused the uncomfortable
relationships that exist in some media between pro (my main issue
being sanctimoniously so) environmental editorial and other features
(often in the same edition) and advertising that is almost directly
contradictory, I was again struck by the tone adopted. And let us not
forget this was the Beeb, so at least the ad dilemma is spared them.

But by golly, this piece, and not a short one, was really nothing
more than a commercial to the 'good life' and conspicuous
consumption. I know that it is entertainment, but with so much of
their output (broadcast, written and online) so devoted to
environmental considerations and good (not to mention tut-tutting
over bad) practice, I don't think there was a single mention of how
this booming industry may (I stand ready to be convinced, but with
eyebrow cocked, that it can help climate change) be flying (pun
intended) in the face of good CSR practice, no matter what the time
and motion arguments.

Indeed, the reporter seemed to be enjoying himself very much indeed,
parked in an overstuffed leather seat, giving the salesman the
opportunity to offer gold panels as an option. Just how much more
emissions will be generated by the fuel that will be required to lug
that extra weight into the air?

Dawntrails

A big weekend ahead, preparing for Internet World and my seminar
talk. Again it's a big 'thank heavens' for friends in London kindly
putting me up (and up with me) to spare us the additional cots of
accommodation. It's also going to be the first time I've gone on my
own, so setting up will be... fun. Actually it's more the getting to
& from the car, as I can't be at both ends at the same time to guard
stuff. Plus I hope it doesn't rain

Anyway, I do tend to up quite early, and am well timed to greet the
dawn. This morning it was rather nice, so I popped off a picture.

No great work of art, but one thing did strike me; even in this rural
idyll, a large chunk of the airspace was already occupied by the hard
lines of new and whispy remnants of old contrails.

And I imagine its a scene repeated over pretty much every square mile
of sky around the globe.

DEF(Con)RA 2

With all the other excitement of the day (and we have had more than enough here) regarding HMG and a few, shall we say, 'higher-profile-for-all-the-wrong-reasons' ministers, it looks like in the reshuffle we're getting a new boss of DEFRA.

In bidding Margaret Beckett a fond farewell, it seems somehow apt that she becomes Foreign Secretary, considering the air miles she was so fond of cranking up whilst telling the rest of us what we should do to save the planet. It remains to be seen how well she performs in the new role, which now gives her new and improved ways to proactively blow it up in short order.

As it reads like a press release from the department, I do have to raise a 'brow at this: "In her time at Defra, Mrs Beckett has presided over a doubling of household waste recycling rates in England and the first real cut in the tonnage of waste being sent to landfill."

All I can say is, after all this time and all the money, I should blooming well hope so!

Let us be optimistic that her successor, David Milliband, only the second boss that DEFRA has ever had, will be able to move things forward in directions that we at Junkk.com will feel better in terms of ROI.

Better than nothing (again)?

This is like some kind of self-fulfilling do-dad, because by writing and asking here, I am in fact already answering, or at least putting in motion, the very process I'm questioning.

I subscribe to a fairly (it sends out an awful lot of stuff daily) useful (a few nuggets... rarely) online PR service, and just saw the following subject/headline Jewelrypayless.com Helps Fight Global Warming.  How could I resist?

But this at first seemed a stretch in the continuing 'Any product you can think of, just spray it green' saga the consuming public are being subjected to.

This online jewelry company is pitching a 50% discount to Hybrid car owners who buy from them.

Not quite sure how your prove your choice of transport, but I'm sure they have that figured out.

I  have to say I thought this was plain daft, but then on balance I guess it's better that if they are going to flog diamonds (which are not that eco to extract as I recall) anyway, they try to mitigate it somehow. 

And while I guess that in comparison (all things are relative) to a store who doesn't encourage gem buyers to drive a hybrid they ARE helping fight global warming, but it's a... stretch.

Then again, we do say that we are helping save the planet, so all's fair....

Planning for the world family

I felt a faint glimmer of hope when I read this: Is Pope poised to sanction condoms?. Though my interest was more environmental than the obvious humanitarian positives outlined in the piece.

This is but a vague hint about a small concession, but as I personally consider the expanding population of our finitely-resourced planet to be well up there in terms of 'problems that need addressing on a global scale about.. er.. now', this can only be a step in a direction I would encourage.

Built-in ob....noxiousness

Time was when people were shaking their heads (but still tacitly accpeting) at the concept of built-in obsolescence, especially when it came to cars. I dreaded the first bubble of rust along the seams of my first Mini, and that was only after a few years. But even if certain things have been addressed, others still lurk to get my eyebrow twitching.

Like this example, from the excellent Honest John Telegraph column I have mentioned before:

My body repair man tells me the fashion for integral, colour-coded, plastic-covered "bumpers" is the biggest trade bonanza for years. What was the reason for doing away with the classic chrome or black bumpers of yore?

Modern "bumpers" work more like cushions to absorb the effect of an impact, reducing damage to the car structure and helping protect the occupants. If you want old-fashioned bumpers, you can still get them on a ladder-frame pick-up or 4x4. They won't be safer for you in a crash, but they will reduce annoying minor impact damage. In the United States in the 1960s, DuPont developed a laminated plastic called Royalite. If it got dented, all you had to do was run a hairdryer over it and it would pop back into shape. General Motors immediately bought the patent and used it for the front of its cars such as the Pontiac Trans Am. But the last thing GM wanted to do was build rot-proof bodies on which damage could be repaired by a hairdryer, because then it would sell fewer replacement cars.

Getting Noticed (and good notices)

Now we're getting into our stride we are getting a bit more organised on the online/IT side of our efforts (just as well as we're exhibiting at Internet World next week!), as opposed to me don the shed trying to make another reuse masterpiece.

So our funky system has alerted us to a distinct upward blip in the sign-ups for this month, which ain't bad going as it has only just started.

Better yet, we were able to track the origins of this increased activity, and it seems we have been kindly mentioned, and in flattering terms (as a respected re:source for re:use information, in fact a niche we have pretty much carved out to be uniquely ours), in two major consumer magazines: Woman's Own and BBC Good Food (no obvious URLs for either to repay the compliment with a URL hyperlink, but they are available from all good newsagents, I'm sure!).

What's most interesting is that we haven't been in touch with either, at least recently (the problems of running a very lean operation), so it's nice to know we're are getting picked up even without committing a fortune on PR, et, and hopefully getting known and appreciated simply by having a 'product' that does the job well.

Tricky things, compromises

I sometimes permit myself a wry smile when something falls into my lap that is at the expense of those with whom we are competing, especially when it helps make my point in a pitch.

Too late for my seminar at Internet World, but this image just dropped into my in-tray and helps make my point about how as a medium Junkk.com is not only highly targeted, but also for its editorial a lot less susceptible - and in advertising terms almost (I'll leave that 'get out clause' as there will be some b*ggg*er that slips past one day) immune - to tricky compromises.

For sure we'll discuss all sorts, and take PR from most, but when it comes to ads we will and can be a lot more choosy, so our editorial is not so likely to be saying one thing and having unfortunate messages sitting above or below (in this case they are at least not running a 'you should...' green article, but I have a few gems where high horses have been rendered a little less than consistent by homages to high horsepower sitting next door).

Actually I'm happy to run a piece about such as a steam-powered Roller, but as in my blog will likely opine it's a 'nice theory, but...'. However the ad next to it will not be for a 4x4, unless its a Lexus Hybrid (sorry, I'm with Mr. Cameron on this one, and could not bring myself to have a Prius, even if I could afford it). Actually I'd prefer the Citroen C(1 or 2, can't recall which and am too busy to find out - send us your press release, you lazy sods!), which tickled me post-‘Gordon eco-silly sop Budget’ by running a Congestion Charge promo. And we may eventually have an airline ad, but it would need to be more on a 'if you have to fly, this will make the best use of the emissions' basis, rather than a 'fly lots so you can fly lots more' one like Air Miles.

I of course stand ready to be caught out on this subsequently.

Because there are always compromises to be made. And left hands missing out on what right hands are doing. By writing this I've made life perhaps a tad more tricky for our PR guys, who are trying to ask The Times’ journalists to say nice things about us while I write this about their employer. But then their PRs are having the same problem too. Not to mention their ad sales guys. At least for the latter we are able to offer a fairly uncompromising product in ours.

As to editorial? Sod it. I think I'll just call it as I see it. And so will Junkk.com, though a little more tactfully I hope.

Let's All (Well, Selectively) Get Ethical

Missed the latest episode  of BBC Newsnight's 'Ethical Man', but Emma has kindly forwarded the link to the website... and it seems it was not broadcast on air. Anyway, here it is, though I'm not sure how long it will be available:

Ethical Man web exclusive - too good for TV 

What happened when Justin attended the recent Radiohead gig for Friends of the Earth climate change campaign, The Big Ask? 
CLICK HERE 

In case it does drop off, fear not, for here's is my blow by blow (well...ish) account, with a few eyebrow twitches along the way. I don't think I was too far off in my blog a few days ago in anticipation of not 'being seen at the right event' (as billed in the piece): the Big (Ask) Event.

The title was a good start: 'Ethical man Meets The Green Elite'. I felt sooo part of it all already, which is what a subsequent Green Elite talking head (couldn't quite tell who at 36kb/s) said it was all about, reaching out to all walks of life... with celebrities alongside them.

Well, more like in the VIP Champagne lounge (organic canapes, and I'm sure they shopped locally for the bubbly, Camden being famous for its vineyards) bit anyways, and amazingly no queueing for the Newsnight Ethical Family (hubs and wife - I guess kids were being looked after by ethical granny, sister or possibly green nanny), who were whisked straight in by invitation. My ethical lifestyle is already diverging slightly here, but then I still have, and use, a car (see later).

However, the reporter seemed to go a bit off message if he'd been intended to make the 3Gs (great and good of green) look like they were doing 'the right thing'. I don't know if he was miffed by the major pols being there to be seen but not heard, but he certainly had a spat with the Tory Enviro-mouthpiece about David Cameron's 'Shoegate'. This ruddy-cheeked (son of the soil or a few Moet's too many?) future leader of my country seemed be trying to claim he didn't know anything about it, which was plain daft. Then he went high horse. Foot. Shoe. Shoot.

As I wrote before, this was/is a 'so what' if handled correctly, but from the big green embrace onwards it simply has not been, so they are reaping what they sowed. Onward and... er.. elsewhere...

Apparently, FoE has 'signed' up 50% of MPs to a 'commitment' to year on year cuts. Not sure quite what that means tangibly, but I guess better than nothing. Sadly, this whole effort, at least as reviewed by Newsnight, only served to distance the Green Elite even more than before from me in terms of where they are, what they are doing and how they are trying to do it. Hope it was a good concert, though.

Speaking of which, Thom did make a 'speech' (More like sentence. I think I saw the edited version). He did make a good point about our 'outdated notion of economic growth', and how 'we' should stop assuming everything was limitless'. And that we shouldn't. Spiffy.

Would I have gone if invited? Like a shot. Would I have had fun? For sure. Would I be a hypocrite? No, because we're not telling everyone how they should behave from rather shaky pedestals. We know we are deeply flawed, if often constrained by circumstance and trying to be sincere. 

So, it's back to trying to do some more in our own little way. Not easy as it's costing us a lot. But feel free to join us. Which it is (free). Wonder how much this latest effort cost?  And/or made? And for what/who? And did all the employees of the various particpating organisations claim O/T and travel? Who covered all that?

ps: Apparently no limos (on presumes there is a stretch Prius now, as he surely jests when he said there were big cars outside) for EM & Spouse. They just caught a night bus after being ignored by one. Nice image for Mayor Ken to explain. 

pps: What was interesting in passing was this, in another section:

IN THE AIR 

"Newsnight 1" has taken to the skies. 

Michael Crick is spending the day assessing the damage to the government caused by every political woe imaginable - perhaps excluding plagues of frogs, and an outbreak of boils (though, given events of recent days, perhaps these can never completely be ruled out.) 

Michael will be landing in the political stamping grounds of John Prescott (Hull) and Charles Clarke (Norwich). 

I'm presuming by 'to the skies' that "Newsnight 1" is not a train or even a Prius (actually, as we know, not the best for loping along motorways). Seems the Green Elite are not the only selective ones in what to do and what to say we do, then.

What lies beneath the barrel bottom?

As she thought I could not resist a blog, Emma just sent me this: 

Public find the government more credible than the media

I'd hate to disappoint.....

All things are of course relative, so let me just add that in light of the esteem our government is currently held, one can only imagine what we all really think of the media.

I was however deeply wounded by this later on:  "People found it difficult to decide what they can believe when it comes to internet blogs."

However, as they are dead right, it only shows how smart the public actually is, and hence the validity of the main headline (in the Daily Mail. Bless).

If you can believe me, that is.

Semantics

More of a general musing for the Bank Holiday (which, defying the
forecasters, has been gorgeous, making it very hard to be stuck in
front of a PC writing a seminar), but I did grab a few moments to go
through the Sunday papers, which were naturally enough dominated by
the series of small problems besetting our elected leadership at the
moment.

I'm still trying to get to grips with the logic of how the guy at the
top of a failing organisation (in this case the UK Home Office) seems
to think (and, amazingly, gets supported in doing so by a wide spread
of folk) that the best way to resolve what he couldn't before is to
be left in charge.

But I'm afraid John 'Family Guy' Prescott, 2nd in charge of the
country, has really lost me on why he is till around.

I guess they all figure if Bill 'Cuban' Clinton pretty much got away
with it, then they can give it a whirl and see who salutes. I'm
afraid I trace a lot of the downward spiral in the collective moral/
ethical compass from that point on.

Yeh, there's private vs. public life. Yada-yada.

But at the end of the day if anyone in high office does anything they
know they shouldn't, especially if they know the damage that result
should anyone find out about it, then all bets are off.

I'd just like to ask his wife this question: 'If you can't trust him
with your marriage, please tell me why I should trust him with my
country?'.

Not to mention, while I think about it, the fate of this planet for
future generations.

Who says there's too much 'street furniture'?

....Surely not here in sunny Ross on Wye!

Because we are proud to be told how fast we can accelerate from 30 to
derestricted, though, along with the guys who put the signs up,
perhaps a tad confused what to do as we come in.

Maybe there's a revenue generation device (oops, safety camera)
around the corner for those who trying to obey countless confusing
signs rather than looking at the road and using common sense:)

An Englishman's home is.. a government cash cow

I almost passed over this one - Council tax bills 'to rise by over 40pc' - as being irrelevant to an environmental blog (though I have strayed into Cross of Ross territory before, and doubtless will again), but if the amount in question doesn't have me reaching for an AK-47, then the principle will.

When we moved into our current home, it was a big, rambling wreck, and having assessed our ability to maintain it (by looking at the rateable value and making reasonable projections over our lifespan) we have injected a small fortune renovating it, using contractors initially to do the big stuff, and our own DIY efforts subsequently, when we had the skills, time and, frankly, no more money spare. There has been a lot done, with lots more to do.

Amongst other things, I am seriously looking at all the various eco-things we can do,. Now these are major capital expenses, with the benefits kicking in only after a period of many years. So it is only worth doing them if we are going to stay here... and reap the rewards.

This proposal of tying the tax to the house value in this way is therefore a double whammy environmentally. For a start I now fear for our ability to afford to live here, and certainly question any additional investment which simply raises the value and hence our ability to afford to stay here.

Is everything in this cursed country now designed to supress saving, effort and forward thinking? And all to fund the money-pit that is their parasitic, unproductive administrative systems, put in place to keep 'them' in power and clover, and rest of us under their thumbs while they concoct further ways of funding them.

Bloody, barking madness.

A sober view on oil and its alternatives

It's by an academic, so I guess it will end up simply being yet one more of millions of talking points to be endlessly debated, but I took the time to read the following and found it it an interesting analysis of the current situation and, more importantly, potential future solutions to our need for personal transport: Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense: the myths about high oil prices

The first section is a bit dry (ooh, the drink related hints  in complement to my headline abound), but then it does arrive at matters environmental.

And the author makes the very same point that I have being banging on about (if in a slightly different way), that high oil prices are not a 'good thing' for carbon emission reduction, because all that's going to happen (and already is) is the oil companies look around for other places and ways to hoik the stuff out of the ground.

His solution is ethanol, hence my title.

I have always maintained an idealist view of the whole thing, and would love to see hydrogen being 'the one', with no more than water dropping out the exhausts, so long as the small matter of making it envirofectively can be sorted out, plus the small niggle caused by my reading once that water vapour was also a greenhouse 'gas'.

But as it is a looooong way off, I'm coming round to this way of thinking.  Read this and maybe you will, too. It's not a cure, but it seems a practical way to reduce emissions, though I still wonder about swathes of country being mown down to 'grow' petrol, which as a matter of scale seems likely to put in the shade the whole valid vegetarian point about the amount of land required to grow crops vs. a cow in terms of feeding a person. How many acres of the Amazon to the gallon do you get?

Now, what do we do about it? For a start there's a bit to note about tariffs to bring ethanol up to a parity cost with four star and/or protect our local farmers. 

So we have to get the pols weaned off the notion of pleasing pressure groups and making dosh. Not an encouraging thought to start on present evidence.

A nice analogy is a joy to read... and share

I'm not usually one for jumping into the fray of escalating email exchanges, but I caught the tail end of yet another academo/journalistic spat about climate warming - A Tart Counterpoint To Ibbitson's Irrelevance - and without comment on who said what to whom, why and who has had the latest laugh, would just like to share what has been called a parable, but I'd say is simply a neat analogy for the whole 'who do we believe?' brigade who use the ongoing confusion as an excuse for inaction:

[You are] flying on holiday and the plane is ½ hour out over the Atlantic. Of 150 aerospace engineers on board, 90 say that there's been a fuel leak and the plane has 40 minutes of flying time left. It's time to turn around. The other 60 say that there's no conclusive evidence of a leak and [you] should not turn around because it would inconvenience the CEOs in business class. Who [do you] listen to? The answer seems clear: You listen to the journalist who tells [you that you] should really do something about the in-flight service.

The conclusion is also worth sharing: '[The] debate is about risk, not certainty. [We] might choose to listen when more than half the experts are warning of a problem that threatens our entire species'.

Indeed.