Martin in the Middle

As predicted, and feared, I am seeing eco-issues being stretched to extremes by the various camps with vested interests: If the eco-snobs had their way, none of us would go anywhere

I see our value now in trying to be a voice (hopefully of reason) for the middle ground:

'In the world of green, things are seldom black or white. Unless of course, you are in government, an activist... or the media.
For the rest of us poor slobs, weighing information and exhortation can be less than satisfying.
Things tend only to get published if they are at extremes. Or have extreme solutions.
Hence if you think everything is more tickedy boo than being doomsaid you are a climate denier, and if you think things may being erring on the dodgy and may need some allowances you are an ecosnob.
Here’s a bit of engineering for you. If one person takes a pebble from a dyke it will hold. If they keep on doing it likely will still hold as they are just one. But if they are joined by more and more it will eventually fail. And no technology can plug that gap if the combined efforts of individuals are determined to erode them.
Even those who demand freedoms have a responsibility to themselves, their fellows and the future to adjust their expectations and actions.
It’s a mess. Something has to be done. But what has been, is being and looks like being done doesn’t fill me with much confidence. All I see is battle lines. And while wars get fought little else happens and certainly nothing much positive. Meanwhile those who could be harnessed to help hunker down as the broadside sail overhead.
Maybe we have become too used to mobility, not just socially but also though necessity, especially for business. And here the policy makers have to figure out what they want and facilitate it.
But then the ‘its my right’ brigade need to meet somewhere (I’ll avoid halfway). I can visit my relatives in Singapore by means other than air, just as my Victorian ancestors did. If I am demanding the convenience and time and cost of an airplane that’s another matter. It isn’t the only method.
With an ever expanding and more affluent population, worldwide (China: fifty airports coming soon. They do of course have a child limitation policy to compensate, though it seems the rich can circumvent this. Was it ever thus), what does the author anticipate? Sorry if it takes her a bit longer to get to the opera or pop over to Verbier to catch the snow before it has gone for ever (there’s always a longer haul to Canada), but some poor sods walking across the Kalahari to find water, not factored into the carbon trading scheme, may feel certain restrictions of movement are in order.
Of course the government has seen what’s coming, but if yesterday's report is to believed and their solution is to tax households who add ‘value’ to homes via double glazing then we can see what their motivations and hence use as leaders really is.
Personally, I’d prefer to see about avoiding a Malthusian scenario by assuming that if something didn’t happen once before it won’t again. That’s a bit like jumping off a building and because you land on a truck full of mattresses (it happens all the time in movies) it will be there if you do it again.
If we really are facing an environmental crisis, maybe we can innovate and engineer our way out of it, but to give us the time to do so (it would be great for instance if we had figured out what to do with all that nuclear waste we assumed we’d have a solution for by now) before we are all toast, I’d suggest we accept we all need to cut back a tad.

Doing it fairly and equitably of course, is where the real fun begins. At least DOING whatever we can is a good start. But perhaps accepting that we DON'T DO everything we need not is a reasonable thing to consider as well?'

The Gord giveth. And the Gord taketh it all back (and some)

A monstrous tax , if the article is true, says it all.

Already pointed out a few times, the fact that adding double glazing gets you penalised is about as insane as it gets.

"I've just up in to read this after a hard week's work followed by an equally hard, if satisfying, weekend of DIY to try and make more of my
home (including some more eco-additions). For which it seems I am now going to be further taxed!!!!!

So here's one not-very-well-off, very enviro-aware homeowner with a family to provide for, then self and spouse to get through retirement, who also happens to be a registered voter and knows what their vote is for.

I know who is not getting it. I just hope I can find someone in (or trying to get there) the lunatic asylum that is Westminster who can demonstrate they have enough of what it takes (common sense, sesne of duty, statespersonship, courage, no spin-doctor gatekeeper/mouthpieces, etc) to attract mine their way.

Small tip: you don't get a good grasp of what the average, normal, decent, hard-working people of Britain are managing on and think about the state of it all in a multi-millionaire's pad in Florida, cozying-up with the chattering classes on a Breakfast TV or Sunday paper political columnist's sofa, hugging a husky or selling on a gas-guzzler to keep on guzzling.

I just hope that the claim about this tax is not true - I went from 'Homes TO BE valued...' to ...WITH A VIEW to extending them in the UK... to 'a similar system is BEING PLANNED for England'.
Before I start boiling the oil: is it or isn't it going to be attempted? - as I am at the end of my tether with the whole sorry, unfireable, hypocritical, index-linked, golden handshaken lot of them.


And, sadly, what is true there are an awful lot now. I'm guessing it has at last sunk in they’ll need paying for. But THIS is not the way to try and solve that little self-created problem.

Trust me."

DMlemma

Asa creative person, especially one who had some fun and did some good (King of the Die-Cut!)with Direct Mail, I am always now on the horns of a dilemma when it comes to this as a medium of advertising.

It's not looking too good for the industry: Industry braced for fresh backlash

Mind you, as I survey the DL sized kuk from banks, etc in my rubbish bin, I'm pretty sympathetic to the public's view.

But every so often a little bit of creative magic finds its way to being opened and read.

One such is this from Save the Children.

Basically, it's a boring brochure. But by making it a kid's exercise book and shooting holes I was hooked by it and the message. Which isn't a bad one either.

I doubt an email would have worked the same way. And I also assume that it did not cost a fortune to make this impact.

Year End Sail

This is another one that's a bit late, but still relevant: Santa's ship swaps gifts for garbage

But it also allows me to further test the links between our site articles, this blog and the newsletter.

Other than that, it rather makes you think... and want to weep.

An oldie, but a goodie

Long term blog partner Dave of Solarventi (see how sending us stuff brings its own re:ward) has kindly sent me this - Carbon trading for all will save the planet! - from last year.

He is old, I am old. The article is old. But we are all still gold!

It also lets me christen a new Blog category - CARB - which is where what I suspect a slew more 'let's make a killing out of green' tripe will appear more and more.

I have written to the author, as he is on the ball and I find his style more than in keeping with ours:

"I have just been forwarded your July posting (we may be slow, but we get there).

Bearing in mind how Sir Young and Thrusting is shaping up elsewhere in the environess, I found it fascinating, if a worry. I want to save the planet for my kids. Not end up making no difference except to some pols' careers and various interest groups' short, medium and long term cash cow rearing.

I'd be please if you could let me know when you publish any similar such analyses."

We may not want to beat them, but we can at least keep trying to knock them back onto the straight and narrow:)

If a tree gets recycled in a Council shredder, does the planet smile?

This is a 'just askin', because I don't know.

I just watched BBC lunchtime news, and at the end we had the obligatory and expected post-Xmas eco-pitch.

First up we had the tree man from the council, and then the Xmas card man from Woodland Trust giving us some free ads for Tescos, TKMaxx and WH Smiths, who will take back your old cards and 'use them' (not sure how) to plant trees. If I remember a recent Tesco ad right, they also get turned into loo paper. So no leaving any holly in them, now!

All better than nothing, I guess. Well, of course nothing is better than making, buying, sending, delivering and recycling cards that say 'Happy Xmas, How's Things' each year. I must did out my blog on how they really mean 'Hope you're still alive. We are', for all the useful information they ever hold.

We're on our 15th Xmas with out fake tree, bought in Singapore waaay before I decided to do right by the planet. And it will stay with us until the loft gives up.

Next year I intend to get to the bottom of the real vs. fake debate. No idea how it will turn out. On balance I figure letting a new one grow must be good for the carbon thing, but there is all the other stuff to factor in. Our fake comes down, goes up. That's it.

And it was the scene at the end as the vanilla with the mic and the worthies in their parkas watched a fir tree enter the maw of something like the 'Dip Dispenser' in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'. It was huge. And had a huge diesel that revved and belched and turned out wood chips. I just wonder whether that met a target for recycling at the expense of serving the environment

Mouths of Babes

There's a site called postsecret, where folk post 'confessions'.

I only share this one because so far it is the one that's been used in every review I've ever read.

I wonder why?

A Mighty Wind

Nimbys can't be allowed to put a block on wind farms

Oh, really?

"Currently there is no turbine on my house roof. I got all excited by a B&Q ad that told me I could go green without going into the red, and with the initial endorsement of Newsnight's Ethical Man and one D. Cameron (though I believe both have now either decided against or been turned down), I charged ahead. And then stopped. The numbers didn't seem to add up. Not just the financial, but even the environmental ones. It's one thing to pay a bit more to save the planet, but quite another to pay a bit more to hasten its demise. I'm still checking, but when ROIs (on any measure) don't add up you have to question the value. I'm also assessing 'green' electricity. But now tempered by some legitimate questions.

A long time ago, I was granted a Civ. Eng degree, if only on the strict proviso I didn't try and build anything. So I ended up in advertising and, now, by way of karmic correction for the consequences of that career move, the cause of making the planet a better place for my ancestors. What this gives me is a fair grasp of science, with a slight sense of how the public respond to information, be it purveyed by government, experts, NGOs, the media, etc.

And to repeat the clichés trotted out before and here, what is amazing is the amount of hot air and/or wind being generated to so little effect. Almost without exception, we have 'them vs. us’ lines being drawn, just as they are with other enviro-issues, such as 4x4s.

The article author bears some responsibility. I rather view 'Nimbys' as a pejorative right away, closely followed by '...can't be allowed...' as presumptuous. The political leanings of councils is noted, but in a democracy they can be seen to reflect the wishes of those who voted for them.

"Every year, wind energy gets closer to profitability" is interesting. While profitability is one thing, what about enviro-ROI? Charge what you like to make it make money, but the eco-cost stays the same, especially if no one can afford to use its 'product' and stays away. It becomes a white elephant.

Labour should not feel smug if the things don't work on the bases they are supposed to do. It merely means they have gone for an easy option for short-term political gain.

And so I turn to the responses for enlightenment. Few moved my knowledge ahead.

"hoodlight - So close to a fact, but no more use than Ms. T's. I would love to see it attributed.

Rumplestiltskin - No answer to the question there then. As noted.

Swoosh - No facts there, either.

NickRouse - some good 'pro' stuff there, ta. I shall enjoy checking this out (sadly, I have found even facts to be subject to rather huge levels of interpretation/substantiation) and cross fingers.

addicksboy - Valid pros and cons, ta.

NevNumbat - I was aware of these, though they may be addressed, at least as e-ROI by the claims made in support of the cost of build and maintenance over lifespan vs. benefits of generation. I'd have to question the 'waste' argument, sorry.

tomper - A stat often ignored. And with finite earth upon which to stand, where does an ever-increasing population suggest as an end point?

redsquare - Another near fact. Any attribution to test reliability and assess capacity/capability.

MalachiConstant - If you would care to get in touch via http://www.junkk.com, I would value your contribution and substantiation behind such claims for an attempt I am making to at least state the pros and the cons to help people decide, free of political, commercial or sociological bias.

snoepje - A very good point. But that simple?

shlick - An equally good point, and in part may be tied to the one before. Ignoring enviro and £-ROI's, can a windmill run our economy and expanding population?

ColvilleAndersen - I just ask, because I don't know (in the process of finding out), but what is the population of Denmark, and what is the ratio of wind available to power the demands of their economy?

Bonzaboy - The information exchanged here is certainly making a difference to me, and I intend it to make one to others. As to leaving it to the pols... yes, do all you suggest. As well.

contractor000 - The same offer applies to you as to your learned colleague. While citing qualifications helps validate opinions, I would hope that we can still allow those with training in assessing facts to stray into other areas. Otherwise we end up with a MoMo (Monckton/Monbiot) spat about who is more qualified to speak on a subject and/or for us mere mortals.

xhenry - Covered, but well worth repeating.

Personally, I think they can be structures of rare beauty, when placed with care. And if they provide 'free' power after payback that’s even better.

But for anything to be so pushed down our throats by the 'green is good no matter what, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi' brigade, they also need to be proven as delivering environmentally. Which I do not see from this article, and still have several reasons to doubt.

Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."

Wonder what you can recycle in Boreham Wood

And I don't mean timber!

When I was Creative Director of my agency, we isntituted a thing called the Creative Review Commitee (CRC), whereby, David Brent-wise (cue holding up two fingers as in apostrophes), 'nothing is a bad idea'.

Well, of course there is a lot that can be, how do you say, 'not necessarily a good idea', either. And that was where the CRC was used as a first line of defecne to shoot down the dire, the obvious, the silly, the trite, the cliched, the boring and, hand in hand with this, the really bad puns.

Out they'd trot, we'd laugh, say no and move on to create the good, make a difference concepts that communicate and effect a useful result.

So seeing money my taxes contributed to (then given (minus cut) to the EU to give back (minus cut) to HMG to give (minus cut) to a Quango NGO to give to (minus cut) and agency to create and give to (minus cut) the media) used for such tripe is... a bother.

At best I, who has a sliver of interest in all this, may say 'Huh?, but what exactly is yer average SKY mag reader going to do? Drive from Reading to Cardiff to recycle their cards?

I love posters, and banner ads. You have to get a full story and message across in eight words or less.

My views on blowing all this dosh to tell people to recycle and what they can recycle are well known. But to do it this badly is a real waste. Especially when it's so self-serving, as the only direction to ad is pointing is at the website, and the stats on the website will be used to justify the spend.

Meanwhile, a lot of great little initiatives (ours included) are either not being funded or finding themselves competed with by those staked to aid us. Nuts.

Just make sure you wash them

Nothing wrong with this ad at all. It's very... 'green'

But what does 'British Grown' mean, environmentally?

Especially when they may or may not get shipped to another country to be packed. And is grown in a heated bubble 400 miles away really that good?

That's the trouble with greenwashing. What you have done, or do elsewhere can stain the rest.

'Up to' their old tricks?

My eye was caught by this ad, which offers 28 miles extra per tank, which is almost 10% of mine, or £5.

What it doesn't say is how many p/litre extra we're talking, but I guess at that gain it's worth doing the maths.

But what, exactly, and without any asterisks, does 'up to' mean?

So much to hear. So little to say.

I would love someone to explain what the point is to this news snippet.

Other than the choice 'efforts' (as in, 'nothing need come of it, but we can say we tried... and issued a PR'), did the publication in question ponder for a moment asking where or how this could take place, if it does at all?

Everyone's (still) talking at me, but I can't (be bothered to listen, let alone) hear a(ny more) word(s) they're saying (...again)

It's the new year!

Let's talk conferences. Not just ways to meet and talk, but also make money meeting and talking. As to actually doing anything, well...

Sorry, I'm jaded.

Here's the first of what will be many, but it's a goodie:

BP, Ford, Ben & Jerry's, Stop Climate Chaos, and others talking climate change 7-8 March in London

Dear Colleague,

Everyone is talking - if not going - carbon neutral. At least that's the way it seems. "Carbon neutral" was recently named Word [or two words, or phrase, shouldn't that be?] of the Year [that, or rather they, say a lot right there] for 2006 by The New Oxford American Dictionary.

Looking back, last year may end up remembered as the year that climate change went "mainstream," catapulted to the spotlight by major media outlets around the globe. And if 2006 was the Year of acknowledging climate change, it's time to make 2007 the Year of communicating AND acting on climate change.

Yaaaay, and this will cost me...how much?

I got to '...and to take advantage of the £100 early registration discount.' and gave up. That means they want at least £1k to talk some more.

Talk... about a waste.

Frying pan. Fire. No food.

Go green, Farmer Giles

"As with so many things in environmental debates, I confess to suffering from a slight lack of objective, factual information to help me follow debates.

One issue involving the above that has generated concerns for me surrounds so-called bio-fuels.

I have a vision of, and hence problem with the notion of driving, carbon-neutrally, through our green (or whatever colour bio-fuel crops are) and pleasant land, trying to find something locally-produced to eat. Should we not be encouraging moves towards less transport and more local production of essentials?

While it may work for Brazil (on the assumption they haven't whacked down green-lung rain forests to do so), they have a tad more space to play with. Do we?

Given the option, I'd prefer to stick with food."

It's a gas, gas, gas

Couldn't resist: An Ill Wind

"For my sins, I once did two years of a vet degree, before deciding it was nothing like James Herriot and gave up. However, having witnessed my tutor stick a pipe in a heifer's exhaust and generate a jet of flame, I even then wondered if this could be harnessed (what does methane produce on combustion... I must find out. Carbon dioxide I bet), much like I wondered about those flames at oil refineries.

Meanwhile, back on the farm, if methane is 25 times more onerous a greenhouse gas to carbon dioxide, and the rest of the stats that will be bandied about (stated as fact, rebutted, climate denied, accused of being in the pay of big oil, accused of shoring up charity directors' pension funds, etc) approximate to something significant, then while it originates in humour it should be taken seriously.

I have hence decided to add a section to my website http://www.junkk.com on matters effluent, and it shall be called 'Pooh Corner'. It should entertain my ten-year-olds at least, but if they get some kind of message after the Beavis & Butthead snickers subside, it will be worth doing.

For what it's worth, a while ago I noted a small piece about some UK researchers, I think in Scotland, who had made serious progress on a feed that did in fact reduce the toots and, as mentioned above, make for a better 'product'. I’ll dig it out and add it.

Maybe we'll soon be seeing less of the 'Angus' burgers being advert, but more where the 'g' - standing for 'green', is silent?"

Trust me, I'm a Pol trying to save my bac.. the planet.

The enemy of my enemy...?

Who would have thought I'd ever side with Mr. O'Leary?

But with this - Fight over Brown’s ‘green’ levy - I have.

" am no great fan of Mr. O'Leary or his airline, but good luck to him.

Retroactive legislation is the thin end of a very steep wedge.

"... the tax, which the Chancellor claims will benefit the environment, will be applied to any passenger with a current booking made before the announcement was made."

Good claim. How, exactly, will this benefit the environment? The flight is taking place anyway. EasyJet may considering barring those who refuse (who would/can?) and that may mean a few kg less to lift, but the actual environmental impact is the same. Just some extra money going to... what, exactly?

Yes, ways must be found to resolve the environmental impact of travelling, and soon, but this will just create a 'them and us' divide which will make conversion of opinion and behaviours that much more difficult."

Just last night I was watching TV and in one break there were two ads for cereals. One with actor Ray Winstone talking about the nanny state, and the other with a load of 'official robots' trying to stop you eating tasty food. The industry and the government going to head to head, with the latter using our money to wage it so they can play with the ad agencies.

Pathetic.

ADDENDA:

Let's get this straight. I don't think the existence, financial incentives and hence proliferation of a mjaor greenhouse gas industry can be a good thing.

What I don't like is when 'green' is used to 'bash and tax' without thought, or only with a view to making a money and not a difference.

Knock yourselves out trying to figure who is coming out of this well:

BBC - Airlines savaged over environment
Reuters - Minister criticises Ryanair on emissions
Guardian - Labour targets airlines over carbon emissions
Guardian - Rise of low-cost flights comes at high price
Telegraph - Virgin holds talks on low-cost long-haul flights
Telegraph - Ryanair 'unacceptable face of capitalism'

Wild of the call

Cameron's 'buy British food' call

My take:

"A clear way to see what you are eating, where it came from and how it gets to you?
Logical. Simple. Effective.

Let's see when and if it ever happens, and how 'the system' makes it into an unworkable monster."

So far, so talk. I await with interest how any of this gets translated, if ever, into action.

A less thrilled view from Janet Street Porter

Chuffed

"Are we being priced off the trains?"

Good one. But I shall answer, with an equally straight face: Yes; and have been for ages. This just makes things even worse.

No matter what one's environmental commitment, when you are faced with a service of limited flexibility and/or reliability, £25 for a spontaneously-committed tank of petrol - and the option of coming straight home rush hour, mid-late evening or early morning if needs be - looks pretty good vs. being forced to wait 'til 7.30pm to return and then risk being stranded at a mid-West connection point, all requiring paying a month in advance at £80. Plus £4 for a tube ride once there, I now gather!

But in the name of Green, why do I suspect that the option to use the train will not be made more attractive, but the alternatives will simply be penalised even more? Talk about a drag and drop menu for disaster.

Thank heavens I work from home, but sadly, and my heart goes out to those who have to do it daily, one will always need to travel.

Indy: Planes, trains, and the road to ruin

Fix in the mix

As part of my daily trawl I try to take in a broad spread of 'leanings', media-editorial-wise. And it can be a hoot to see how some perceptions get shaped.

Take this: Pro-hunting lobby group accused of fixing poll

For a start I found it fun that they were accused of 'fixing' in the headline, but this got downgraded in copy to 'distorting'.

And I loved that there were "suspicions that there was an organised campaign at work", bearing in mind our dealings with the BBC on matters of voting. What, exactly, is the point of such a poll, if you are going to worry about the result of those who care enough to vote investing the time and/or money in distorting the result you want?

It's also worth seeing how others treated the same piece of slooooow news:

THE INDEPENDENT
Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.

DAILY TELEGRAPH

Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.

THE TIMES

More than half the voters in a Today programme poll wanted to abolish
the law banning fox hunting.

DAILY MAIL

Hunt supporters have swamped a Today poll to discover the law most
people want scrapped.

Spammers are people too!

I write this not as a defence, but an observation. And one that , if there is a cyber-god, can be used to get at these sods.

I had somehow resigned myself to the fact that spamming was an automated evil against which there was no real defence. And that which does not kill you makes you stronger.

But over the last ten days the assaults on my in-box slowed to a trickle. I noticed this more because today they are back.... with a vengeance. And it is worse for me/us, because we also get the bounces from all the spams who have hijacked Yuri@junkk.com to sell their dodgy Russian stock.

I am just hoping this means that if there is a person who switches these things on, there is one who can be got at to stop them.

BA Humbuggers

Shame to start the New Year (Happy, happy, by the way) with an eyebrow heft, but this is a blog after all, and does rejoice in the title '...RE:view'.

If I were to pin myself down to one thing that summed up the last year and, as it was not great to witness, wish to see less of it, it was a lot of folk saying stuff and not doing anything. Or, worse, doing something rather at odds with what they were/are saying.

Though not the best (or worst, to be strictly accurate) example, most topically (as business, NGOs and government were all still abed with an organic hangover), I can cite from yesterday a sample from the media, in the form of our good mates the BBC.

It started laudably enough, with an early news slot filled by a recycled piece from their environment correspondent David Shukman on global warming. Basically a rehash of Al Gore's AIT (An Inconvenient Truth - now out of DVD by the way), it was rather too much more of a familiar same (and not because the repeat). But what to do? The icebergs are melting. Summer is getting hotter. Yadayada. How do you make that message any more grim and relevant?

I'm not sure they did, but they did try and perk it up. And this is where my first twinge in the eyebrow department happened. After about the 5th quick cut per sentence, I realised he was saying the paragraph around the world. Reporter and crew, zooming hither and thither, staying in hotels, renting vans, driving and flying, to say a few words before moving on... courtesy of the world's most fogged in airline. I know it's all about entertainment and it's their jobs (nice if you can get them) to inform, but it was... ironic... that few, if any, of these comments were made in Milton Keynes. Perhaps it's not such a fun place to be at this time of year.

I'm afraid what I was left with was more 'so it's ok for you to fly about, so long is I don't'.

But thus sensitised, the next 'slot' rather compounded the whole thing, to me at least.

In quick succession, we had trailers where a group were filmed saving the rainforest, it seemed mainly by looking at it or from it (nice views at the top) and saying 'Wow', and another lot building a nature refuge (lots of 4WD's there, though no Humvees, but I couldn't resist getting that in the title) in Africa. There was also one about how great it was to scuba dive in the Red Sea (beats a quarry in Wales) but as that involved a guy who lost the use of his legs it's best left there. At least there was a message about politics and getting on with each other.

About the only one advertised for our future delectation that really seemed on message, if your message is consistency, was good old Ray Mears, who is staying in the UK to teach us how to eat off the country. I presume that doesn't mean popping into Welsh Tescos to find how local their avocados are.

I'm sure I lay myself open to accusations of being a humbug and even hypocrisy, but I'd like to think I do not tell people to one thing and then do something else myself. I'm also not a national broadcaster.

All these shows are potentially entertaining, but I do question the real motives messages and especially the actual results. Ignoring what effect of an untrained bunch of folk descending for a TV-moment will have on their selected area, the sheer photogenetics of the whole thing seems to me more likely to have folk watching say 'Oh, luvlee, let's book Easter right now', and due to time constraints not worry so much about the sea/train options in getting there. And any eco-message will be tucked away at the back of mind.

But at least all involved will have a nice holiday, and the station will have some ratings it can file under 'civic lessons'. I'm sure they'll have a little offset thingy pop up in the credits. Perhaps the guys in Africa can join the guys in the Amazon at the end to plant a few acres to make up for all the global gadding in the cause of educating us on how global gadding is hurting the environment.

Anyway, I for one will be watching, and at the expense of EastEnders. I wonder what its carbon footprint is?

ADDENDUM: Yes, but

Bad Science. Good Blog.

I've mentioned this chap before.

Decided to write a year-end big up to him and hope we may do something to burst a few bubbles together in the coming year.

'Keep 'em coming!

It is a rare treat to see such deserving bubbles burst (I was going to add with pricks usually on the inside) with humour and wit. Sort of an iron fist inside a multi-striped, open- fingered woolly mitten.

The only shame is that so many that should not continue after such exposure still do, and how so few who one would imagine are tasked to take note have the talent, energy, commitment, passion and plain balls to do doing anything substantive to put things right. Perhaps it's because it can take more than the span of a few headlines. So they just sail on in their ratings-worshiping, target-meeting, agenda-driven, vote-catching, index-linked, gold-plated ways, and concern themselves more with feeding off hype rather than seeing the long-term damage it does.

If you'd ever like to turn your attentions to the world of the environment, I'd suggest there are rich pickings already, with more to come. There's money to be made in them thar 'green' hills. But not everyone seems to be too concerned with the scientific facts in separating those who are sincere from theirs, in the name of saving the planet. From governments down (or up, depending on your views).

Anyway, a Happy New Year to you!"

Firefighting with pound notes?

OK, so there are no more £ notes. Bear with me.

Bearing in mind that we are starting to hear the first glimmers of printed carbon footprints on things we buy (my initial thoughts: great in theory, probably necessary, but on present evidence the practice will simply make things worse, expect for those involved who will make a killing consulting and administering it) I found these two pieces worth pondering as the health aspects of what we consumer are further ahead in the whole politico/legislato/lobbyo/mediaballyhoo mix than environment:

Food agency takes on industry over junk labels
&
Why Kellogg's saw red over labelling scheme

Those tasked with looking after us seem to have an addiction to 'communication'. To someone whose careers, past, present and future, revolve around this, that would seem a good thing. But I do see a rather unhealthy trend to taking an easy option, namely an 'ad campaign', which may be visible, may well cause a blip in target measurement, but costs a heck of a lot to a poor ROI.

Much as I'd blooming well hope the multi-millions of our money 'invested' in improving recycling rates (and champagne toasts in agencies, government departments, quango, recycling company and council offices to the profits (and returned?) made a careers forged) did manage a few %, I still question if that was/is the best use of such vast amounts.

So now we have directors and departments scooting off to SoHo and shoots to create an air something that the very industry it's targeted at won't wear and can swamp in a weekend's ad spend.

Hmnn.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the 'industry' in any way. But isn't it amazing commerce, authorities and even the media can compartmentalise?

I know the issue du jour here is health, but with greenwashing so last month, but doubtless back 'in' the next, I can't help but raise an eyebrow at this:

"Early last year Kellogg's flew a handful of journalists in a private jet to its Old Trafford cornflakes factory."

Nice work if you can get it. I guess they may have felt it rude to ask why a train ride would not have sufficed.

Bite your lip

Over the Christmas period there have been many re-runs and screenings of old favourites. One such was the 'Back to the Future' trilogy. For its day it was a technical tour de force, but also, deep down, was a message in there.

The main protagonist, Marty McFly, is a decent, passionate, short hothead, who just can't back down. Within the mighty Junkk organisation is one such: me. I can't stand hypocrisy, rudeness, cheating, incompetence... plus a load of other stuff. More than this, it frustrates me to see such unfair and/or inefficient manifestations get let alone to spread and prosper. Especially when levelled by bullies at those less able to defend themselves. So I weigh in.

I'd like to think I do so with humour and civility, but the fact is, where a lot of friends and colleagues say 'drop it', I just can't. The words of Pastor Martin Neimoller ring too loud in my mind to commit another oft quoted sin of omission: 'Evil only prevails when good men [it was pre-PC]... guys... do nothing'.

But in the same way my kids are told not to lie, but White ones/fibs are OK for the right reasons, I think I have to get a grading system in place and learn to restrain myself on occasion to end up with a better result.

The problem is I like to debate and, frankly, win. In writing. And especially when I feel I am right or, more nobly, when the other party is wrong and an attempt needs to be made to correct them in the hope of avoiding repetition.

But just as Marty McFly eventually discovers that there are only losers all round when you race with those who don't know when to back off, so must I.

I think I'm learning. I really wanted to make the BBC minions explain with to sincerity to a senior person in their organisation who could hurt their careers how they understood why using a monolithic entity and its reputation and its resources to threaten a legitimate, lone questioner was not really on. But I decided to leave that one at the non-apology and move on.

I really wanted to take apart the obsessive poster on the SKY Big idea website, who with each blow by humour and logic I inflicted, came back with ever more irrational and extreme versions of 'bring it on', like some manic Black Knight from Monty Python's Holy Grail. But I realised it had got to a point where it was moving this person to a dark place, and serving my/our interests no purpose any more. I'm hoping their threats and abuse as the last post will serve as suitable epitaph to any who read it.

And so I was this morning going to reach for the keyboard and reply to the replies of a few disgruntled new 'registrants' who seemed unable to to accept that they had been unnecessarily cruel, critical and/or not very thorough (though we must at Junkk accept a failing for still not getting our instructions and warnings clearly enough labelled), and my post (adapted to an FAQ we sent to them) was a sincere attempt at generic explanation but also a plea for understanding. But I did not. They are few, and as is the way have taken precious time away from the many who either coped, didn't mind, didn't see a problem or simply managed, and are now quietly working with us.

The shame of it is that these guys cared enough to write, and often had valid points or suggestions.

But boy, when someone calls it 'whinging' when the simple answer to the 'ridiculous, anti-American... [insert further rant here] postcode registration system' accusation is that we can't afford to pay for the US (or any other) system yet, and simply ask they pop in a UK one for now, it's hard not to wish to point out just how many unpleasant words they used in their email, how many clear online instructions and explanations they chose to ignore to get so wound up, and how it is so simple just to live in the bitter world they prefer to inhabit and leave the rest of us to get on and share info and even critiques in a pleasant and mutually rewarding way.

But I bit my lip.

Money goes where it gets made

A rather typical festive post from a usual suspect, one suspects: 'Tis the season to be wasteful

He's right, of course, if a little bit too 'don't/nanny' for the season*. And you do wonder who it is targeted to is reading it. But the replies were interesting. I especially liked the fact that a certain monopolistic govt. quango with millions to (spend on) waste (but not us), was mentioned a few times. It seems like a few others are not sure what they do, whether they do whatever it is well at all, and who is accountable for the ROI we are covering for offices, staff, boards, salaries and pensions.

My addition:

'We could, of course, also consider the benefits of reuse (and repair).

While recycling is vastly more significant (after reduction) in the great Re-scheme of things, other than to those with boxes to tick and targets to meet it can often be less stimulating. The sense of doing our bit is a great one, but let's not forget the individual is doing a lot of work standing at the kitchen sink each night separating stuff, boosting other folks' profits or career-making quotas. So it's a shame that it still takes millions of our money to tell us that a can can become a plane or another can, to achieve 'significant increases in our rates' (that's recycling rates, not local taxes). Or injecting more public cash into ways to catch the public when they get confused with cotradictory or inadequate initiatives. So I'm hoping to see a lot more incentive based schemes in 2007 and a little less of the 'fine first' stuff we've been seeing this last year.

Reuse is directly and tangibly rewarding personally, often quite a lot of fun, and can save some time (all those trips out to buy something that's been lurking in the back of a cupboard all along), some money (if it's junk in your home it's free, and simply gains in value as junkk) and the planet (no reprocessing energy/consequences in collection, etc).

And, best of all, it provides an immediate sense of making a difference in your own home.

Today I'm making a Warhammer Necron Monolith with my kids out of bits and bobs from blister packs and debris from other plastic presents (not everything is practical to avoid). It's going to be unique, awesome, the envy of their mates and save me thirty odd quid... I hope (to the awesome claim).

Season's Greetings!

http://www.junkk.com'

*I'm hoping mine comes across as a bit more you can do rather than not do. 'It's is the way of Junkk, Grassshopper'.

Bad Aunty. Good Aunty.

That last post (about getting a bit of grief from overseas visitors) we've traced to 'a' programme on the BBC World Service. I've asked if they can help narrow it down.

As mentioned, it is to be hoped that it was complimentary, in which case we have a lot to be thankful for. Though I would wish they just got in touch first to get the full story (like mentioning we do have some limitations to international visitors) and so's we can listen and get a copy.

Anyway, a bit of a year-end plus, on balance.

Speaking of which (balance that is), I guess I need to put to bed the whole Working Lunch episode, mentioned before (wouldn't it be great to have a way to quickly cross-reference to previous posts?).

Having told the complaints guys I didn't think 'we didn't mean anything by it, and anyway when we asked you a question we didn't bother to read the reply' quite cut it, I asked to go further up the chain.

That didn't happen. What I got was some guy call me who said he had thoroughly investigated, and 'we didn't mean anything by it, and anyway when we asked you a question we didn't bother to read the reply'.

This was looking like going in circles and, with 2007 beckoning, I reckoned one less minor fight for a fresh new year was the least worst option. So I accepted whatever it was, even though it was not an apology.

The BBC is not doing too well at the moment. There are some knives out, from other media to the political establishment. I'd say they needed all the mates they could get, and this process did/does not seem like the best way. It is no good having a complaints procedure if the intention is to make it go away rather than address it.

Anyway, Aunty is a vast and on the whole fine outfit, staffed with mostly dedicated, talented folk. I just hope I get to meet a few more of these guys in the next year's Junkk.com promotion efforts.

Sergey, Larry... and me

That sounds like the title of some critically-acclaimed, but financially doomed movie that was all the rage at an art festival in a mid-Western US (we'll come back to that country, and a few others, later) resort last year.

There is not much I have in common with the founders of Google. They are billionaires, atop a squillion-making media empire. They have each other, and oodles of staff. And I'm pretty sure there are a few munchkins in the mix to cop the flak, if and when it comes.

I do not.

But we do share a few similarities.

We have created websites (in their case Google and, more pertinently to this blog, Blogger). They did so hoping to make money (in their case... well... we'll leave that for now), but also made their service free. And if theirs can go 'a la direction d'une poire' on occasion, so can mine (it's more buggy than the Louisiana Bayou or Northern Queensland in mid-summer), and it frequently does. They just have a few more resources to make theirs work better, and fix them, and I don't.

Even so, despite the squillions and the staff, as it's all free, I find it hard to be too hard on them when it all does go not according to best plan, 'cos... it's free. So when I write in (as you will see I did recently on the blog thread below), it is with understanding and constructively critical feedback. Because I truly believe they have great products, don't really mind that they are using them to make some dough, 'do no evil', etc, because I know the score, read the FAQs, and voluntarily gave them my details because I believe that they are in sincere in trying to make them as good and useful as it all can be.

I sometimes wish that others cut me and Junkk.com the same slack.

But let's start with some good news. Sometime, over the last few days, it seems a BBC radio show beamed globally and told the world about us, I truly hope in glowing terms (why can't they tell us, or better yet ask a few questions first to make sure they understand us). I'm guessing so, because we have a lot of new sign-ups as a consequence. I mean A LOT.

Most are now sitting in our database, able to use most (we'll come back to this, too) of our facilities, and now capable (if they have tuned their SPAM filter) of getting our newsletter. Shame they missed the Xmas edition.

But a few had a poor experience, and for this I am truly sorry. And some wrote in, for which I am truly grateful, because they cared enough to do so. But though a few prefaced or ended their feedback with 'like what you are trying to do', a few were a little harsh for the Season of Goodwill, especially to be read by a lone guy who has returned to his humble home office PC early Boxing Day before the kids wake up, to keep his other 'baby' ticking over as near to 12/24, 345/365 (I'm getting a Blackberry soon, I hope, to make it 365/365).

Their grievances were/are legitimate, and I... we... (my poor, got-a-day-job-but-knows-some-HTML (I don't)-wife) are aware of all and try and address them as best we can.

But as we can't address them all... yet... and have still evidently not explained things well enough on the site (Notice: We're aware of some postcode changes lately that our system cannot yet accept. Please bear with us while we work on it, and if you get an error, pop in the closest that works... When you register, you will receive a confirmation email, usually instantly (or at least very soon), to the address you have entered above, to which you will need to reply to activate the account), I will try to do so here, all over the site and in the next newsletter in the hope of some understanding, cutting of slack and, maybe, with luck the offer of positive solutions.

The critiques are falling into these areas:

AGREEING TO T&Cs

A lady in the US successfully sued McDonalds because the coffee she stuck between her thighs to drive away with was not labeled as hot, and it was a surprise when it scalded her when she braked (it's surprising that she didn't get the car maker for not advising that things move internally when you apply them).

We can't afford such litigation. And we won't attract sponsor data or ideas if they can run a similar risk.

Plus, on top of everything, our content is user-generated, so we cannot be on top of it all, all of the time (especially as we're low on munchkin support). We rely on being told of an abuse, and getting to it asap.

So when a Junkk user emulates a reuse concept with a Coke can and tin snips, that's between them and the A&E surgeon's skill in getting the pinky sown back on. But we have tried wherever possible to put in warnings.

We have also tried to comply with all the very latest data protection stuff. Opt-ins, rather than outs. We can't see what more we can do. The site is free, the options to use it are clear and voluntary (not coming back being one). We would hope that those who do see our value would support us by allowing our commercial model to kick in using their traffic and eyeballs. We don't see an occasional ad or better yet offer about some green product/service being too onerous. And there is always the unsubscribe button.

REGISTERING

The site was dreamt up in the UK. It was created here. It is run here. One nifty feature we put in from the outset was a localisation feature, so we could matchmake information from one area with folk who may be interested in that same area - JunkkYard, news, products, services.

No way of knowing where you are... no can do.

We specified the site, and to an extent designed it. But in so doing also took a lot of (very expensive) advice from consultants in doing so. Guys who work for eBay, Amazon, etc.

Our registration is based on these systems. A few key facts are asked, and then a very common security system kicks in.

An email goes back to 'your' email to make sure 'you' are 'you'. Which you then confirm, with a password. That way we know who we are dealing with (no spammers trying to access our system) and you know we are looking after your best interests.

Sometimes firewalls and filters intercept this and there's not much we can do to help that. So we have polite reminder to find out if you really did want to register or not. 999 out of 1000 say 'yes'.

POSTCODE V. ZIPCODE V. ALL OTHER CODES - WHY ALL THIS HASSLE & WHY WON'T IT WORK IN MY COUNTRY?

Money.

Money to pay for the postcode (we looking at £1000 to upgrade the UK alone)/zipcode/ozcode/bundescode/barcode data for the countries. Money to handle the admin of coordinating the flood of issues that would result (imagine getting a question from Tulsa or Woolagong or Narita asking where the local blue glass collection is? We do, still, try to answer), though we are trying to make this all as community and self-help based as we can. But country/county/state coordinators are in the plan and if anyone wants to volunteer... (for now, we do believe in re:ward for re:use, so if you make us money, we'll happily share, once it kicks in). Or, if you do know of any like-minded folks in your country who might be interested in partnering/franchising this project, we would be most delighted to be in touch with them.

And money to evolve the site to cope. Servers. Finding stuff out. Calling people to check. Buying things to review. And uploading it all.

Professional programmers are not cheap. They hire Linda Evangelista to get them out of bed (which she famously claimed she would not do for less than £10k) to tweak some code. And between the bugs, the glitches, the odd new feature I really, really want, and things like making our registration system international, for now the cheque Mum gave me for Xmas ain't going to cover one keystroke.

But, one day, it will. Because, one day, a major marketer - or two, or three... - will take out a dirty great big banner ad on our site, or sponsor our newsletter to reach you, our audience, to sell their second use pack, hybrid car, rechargeable battery, etc. And on that day, I will pay our family back for 8 years' investment, pay me a salary for the first time in 10, and if there's any left over pay the Royal Mail, the US Postal Service, Deutsche Post, etc for their codes, and get Linda E to stop hitting the snooze button and roust the SQL whizz from his or her slumbers.

Deal?

ADDENDUM:

Coincidentally, after posting this, I have had a missive from another, not exactly poor, fairly well staffed, 'tell us a bit about you and click accept here', free online outfit, MySpace:

Hey folks – should I say mates? – We just launched the UK version of MySpace. We're featuring more UK music and some of the features should work better with local postal codes, etc.

As a result, my lawyers told ME what I have to tell YOU: now that MySpace is looking more UK-ish, you should know that we are still running our site from the US, all your data still resides in the US, and that MySpace's data management practices are still governed by US laws.

Click HERE to show me you read this.

We can't afford lawyers at the 'mo either. So with luck the money we spent on them at the outset is still a good investment

Fine

Not going well. I've lost this post twice now.

Anyway, nothing ventured.

I read this today: A tax on the absent-minded

Now while it may seem a bit more political than environmental, we are in an era when it's ok to impose a £1k fine before putting in place adequate means for the public to avoid it ('Bin there, done that.. got the ASBO.

My reply was simple: 'When's the next election? We can soon sort it out then'.

I should have added, 'assuming there will be another election, they way things are going.'

Oh, Blogger!!!!

It has been a short while.

Partly trying to sort a few things out pre-Xmas (like our next newsletter!!! About 16 hrs to write that baby), and mainly that Blogger has 'evolved'.

This is my first post in its new incarnation, and there are a lot of new buttons, some of which look useful, and doubtless I will mess up trying to work.

Making the switch was also not easy. See the comments made by me and fellow beta-blockheads.

More from the more equal...

This chap and I have exchanged views before: A Stern warning

'You find yourself amazed that people are deploying in camps? This was discussed when you accused car journos of being‘selfish’. I felt such absolutes can lead to lines being drawn, and the majority left cowering beneath artillery exchanges of those who think they know best, or at least better than each other, and certainly the rest of us. See what we can read today, from varied but worthy sources: Care needed with carbon offsets - Deal will let airlines carry on polluting - Eat the world

The ‘carbon’ issue is, to me, critical. So I pay heed to those who have sensible things to say, along with credible solutions. Here’s a new word to share – Vorsorgeprinzip – basically, ‘better safe than sorry’. And in this, I believe we are at one. However... We have an all-time low in trust. With a fair reason. Statespersonship has given way to self-interest. Even those once relied upon to be the voice of the public (media) and minority interests (NGOs) are now corporate in structure, with suspect, self-serving agendas. Who to believe? A huge issue we face is population expansion. We can’t handle it now, so no matter how spiffy the toys we deploy, they won’t make much difference, at least in time. It’s an uncomfortable issue, best left to more courageous souls to address. So let’s make the most of what we’ve got and, if possible, make less use of it as well. Who goes first? Drivers? The travel industry? The supermarkets? The utilities? The individual? Trouble is, they all kinda want to stay at the top of the list... human nature. So... leave it to government... who few believe or trust to do anything other than secure revenue to stay in charge. As you point out, do it they must, and will have to. But it’s not as simple as you make out, which brings us back to lines. Some live outside cities. A few through choice; many through circumstance. Most through necessity. So placing the car-load on this segment, simplistically,via cost on fuel or miles (more logical than for drivetrain arrangement), is not going to work. Because . it . would . not . be . fair. Any more than it would hitting someone in a cottage for eco-rates, while an ODPM newbuild on a flood plain gets a subsidy. Equally rationing, while fairer, is a problem allowing that we all share the world’s air (to breathe or pollute). So to avoid a “some of ‘us’ are more equal than others” allusion, you’ll find ‘they’ will need to figure out an equitable trade between ‘us’ and ‘them’, and do it PDQ so we don’t fry. I see fun with a financier or travel writer being given the same allotment as a Kalahari bushman. Done on a global basis, they’re going have to trade with a lot to fly to the annual NYC do. That’s too many negatives, but it’s pragmatic to try to see the totality of the issue, and be at a level of society to sense how those who may not be able to swap a £2k Mondeo for a £17k Prius feels. Or be told by bi-monthly carbon offsetting ski-trippers to forgo a bit of Majorca sun once a year. We’re in it together. So please, while necessary to share the scale of the problem, try and resist the easy route of criticism from on high in fighting a selective cause. That’s why, on a column such as this you will find such spirited views from those who don’t happen to share them, or have other areas of priority they are frustrated at seeing ignored. I'm proactively pushing an area I believe in and can see the potential for making a positive difference: reuse. Concentrate on encouraging the same in your area of expertise, which is automotive. If we have to travel, how do we do it and survive now as families and as a race into the future?'

Also sent it direct to the editor, with this:
ps; I'm guessing the XC90 ad was ironic:)

Make, mend, and/or save?

I got excited by this just now: A more efficient tumble drier - using a vacuum pump?

Couldn't resist a reply and plug:
Interesting. No reason why it shouldn�t work, though I�d imagine you need a mechanism to repeat the process over and over to vent the damp air and provide a fresh dry zone to migrate to, which would require the drum with the clothes to be connected through the spindle to a fairly robust valve/seal arrangement. But certainly the bearing could possibly be reduced, and the power of the motor, if one accepted a level of user participation load and seal.
There�s also some safety issues, but our pressure cooker already scares the willies out of me, so an implosion seems a better risk!

Would the elf and safety guys go for it? Or consumers if it�s a hassle. I�d don�t see the clothes suffering, especially if you pop them in with a dryer ball.

When it�s done, let me know. Of course, it's all still got an eco-cost.

Our dryer died not so long ago and we sealed up the hole in the wall:
here
&
here
and the metal panels are now doing good service as trays and the door as a salad bowl:

(sorry about the loooong URLs - these take you direct, with luck, otherwise you need to register and search)

The non- urgent we hang all week in the conservatory and the urgents dry overnight (and still get fluffy in the void in the cupboard over the immersion heater, despite it now being very well lagged with that bonded blue stuff. We donated the old red lagging locally via JunkkYard:

But at least you can offset the flight... er...

Further to that last post, try this: Care needed with carbon offsets

The operative word here is 'care'.

I have, obviously, been moved to write to the the author:

'In my job (well, hobby for now, until it pays), I am blessed, or maybe more accurately cursed, with sifting through the information and commentary of each day. Acres of print from the great, the good, the hopeful, those with agendas and, like you suspect, those with PRs... and, of course, politicians.

Amongst those I choose to rely upon is the BBC, confident it will be factual, well researched and in context as well as topical, which is why I tend to read it first. And often I pass the most significant on with my blog.

Your posting today was a 'wow'.

But even more so when I connected few dots with one I read a little earlier.

Just about the only vindication I see and hear from enviro-active media and the lite-green consumers they cater to, is that it's fine to ski in Verbier (while the snow lasts, but then the Rockies beckon), so long as you offset.

I do hope what you have shared will give them something to ponder in being satisfied with that equation.'

Sky High?

It's in a major paper, so it must be true: EU deal will let airlines carry on polluting

I'm losing count of the number of debates if been in and am in regarding this, and it all boils down to trust in those who would create and manage (that would be corporations, travel, and financial, and the governments who depend on them, or at least allow themselves to be 'lobbied' - is a 'lob' the same as a 'bung'?) these initiatives for the public to get on board (pun intended).

So, as I couldn't put it any better, let's leave it to Dave of Solarventi:

"And we all thought that the whole concept of the Emissions Trading Scheme was to ensure, at least in the longer term, that the airlines' pollution could somehow be mediated. The above is like saying 'Carry on chaps - we've told the public that the ETS will help save the planet longer term - please don't let on to everybody that you will actually make money out of trading your carbon permits. Oh, please remember to chuck some of the additional free profits we're giving you back to us as additional tax revenue. Just don't tell the man in the street.' Latest football result:- Corporate profits & government taxation combined eleven 3 Climate change & humanity's future 0."

It all still adds up to greed

Another excellent post from Bad Science: (MediaSlut - Ideas) + Money = CorporateWhore

My reply, well, addition:

'Ho, ho, ho (as we say at the Noth Pole, which is due soon to get a beach it seems). He, and Walls, must be so proud.

Actually, he may inadvertently have hit on something, and I have you to thank for pointing it out:

'...you can have an infinitely good weekend by staying at home and cutting your travel time to zero.'

Actually, that's not too far from a desireable truth, at least environmentally. And, indeed, at this festive time of the year, socially, too. Me, the wife & kids, at home, making new stuff out of old stuff together. Bliss. Merry Xmas.'