Of Pods, Vlogs and Wormcasts

I have just returned to the blogseat having had the privilege of sharing a breakfast networking event that had as its guest speaker Heather Gorringe of Wiggly Wigglers.

Beyond the obvious inspiration of her business success, as an engaging and highly entertaining speaker it was also fascinating to be given a true 'warts and all' account of her struggles to get going, get established, and overcome hurdles.

I also learned a neat trick for post-talk Q&A time: have some giveaways ready for the first to pipe up. Breaks the ice nicely. I was, I am proud to say, the first beneficiary of this clever motivational technique. What's more, I now have another nice book to add to my Junkk RE:view section collection (with a rather embarrassing backlog)!

My question was actually about her adventures into the world of web 2.0, which are many, varied.. and highly successful. Her weekly podcast recently won a top award, and is picked up worldwide.

I really need some help and advice to make more of all that Junkk.com can engage with in this regard, and she has kindly extended an invitation to chat more and see how we can help each other, though I suspect it may be more in my direction (that said, we did pop them on our diRE:ctory years ago).

Another nice part of the event was the realisation that this area does seem to be throwing up more than its fair share of entrepreneurial spirits to complement a fairly healthy level of official interest in all things environmental. So I was also pleased to reacquaint myself with Herefordshire's new Cabinet Member for the Environment, who I hope will take me up on my invitation to visit. I certainly feel there are synergies to explore.

I'll end with a but, if only a small one. In fact it simply highlights how so much that is green cannot be easily popped in black and white pigeon holes.

Readers will recall that recently I was enthusiastic about a local initiative to encourage the practice of macerating waste and sending it down the plug hole for recovery.

So imagine my surprise and disconsternation when Heather referred to this... and was not in favour. Showing the surprising breadth of representation our fair county can throw up, she was then challenged by Sir. Colin Shepherd, who declared an interest (he apparently pioneered such things) but really rather disagreed with her. Sadly the debate did not get taken to quite to the satisfactory conclusion I'd hoped. Nor, really, did a further point from the floor regarding the use of Green Cones, about which I have also blogged in the past (but can still not persuade the sales guys to take the 10 minutes it would require to add to our diRE:ctory). Again there was some debate, as Heather rightly pointed out its positive products are 'wasted'. However I do think there are other, practical aspects of consumer behaviour she may not have truly appreciated, and for which I will accord it a 'better than nothing'. Mind you, I am feeling a DIY Junkk.com solution may be in the offing.

In chatting to another guest, more than knowledgeable on the subject, I must say it is a tricky one. Obviously any form of useful reclamation is better than none. But, if we do look at my favourite umbrella measure, the enviROI, then if the priority we face globally is reduction in airborne greenhouse gasses, recovery must come at the top. Hence, for now, I do think I am erring on the macerator route as best for my kids... with some healthy composting on top in complement.

Unless, as I think they used to say on 'That's Life"... you know different!

Not a lot of people know that..

I just had a press release from an agency that's not about a thing. It's about what 'we' think about things Climatic, niftily entitled 'Climate What?'

Now, as I continue to struggle with finding the time, or the money to find the people with the time, to help me upload this stuff on our steam-driven site's admin system, I figure why not pop it here on the blog for now?

What caught my eye was that these guys have paid (using bmrb and a sample size of 1,000, which is fair, though having sat through too many focus groups in my ad days how the questions get asked is pretty key, and you seldom know that background) to have confirmed what I have suspected for a while, namely that, despite all the gazzillions being spent and acres of media devoted to it all, most still haven't got a clue.

Or as they say (which is shorthand for I can just cut and paste from now on):

Coverage in the media has never been so high, with the term 'carbon neutral' by all acccounts appearing in the UK media almost 500 times in the past two weeks alone (how do you check that?). However the complex message of climate change and environmentalism is still not being properly communicated to the public.

A recent Environment Agency poll has stated that, despite the hype, less than half of the people in the UK are changing their behaviour to reduce their carbon footprint, and that less than a quarter of these are recycling. Their figures also reveal that 73% of the UK population do not understand what is meant by the term 'carbon neutral'.

"Our findings show that there is still a huge gap in public understanding about the terms used in the media, by government and by big business", says MD Sara Tye, managing director.

Which makes me wonder what the heck the disconnect is, especially when we are seeing bazillions being poured into all sorts of enviro-comms efforts with, seemingly, so little effect. Maybe that odd notion we at Junkk have often floated may be something to do with it, namely scare, guilt, nanny and fine don't quite cut it. A little fun and incentive could go along way, if done right, but the protagonists mentioned don't do that too well, and even if those they commission can, the dead hand of a committee will always lurk in the background.

I'll also nick the following bit (nothing like choosing facts you like) for my own presentation to the VCs next week, but apparently for those companies with an environmental policy (not too sure myself what that actually translates into, but hey) there is a 'potential market of more than 9 million ethical customers who are willing to put their money where their mouth is'.

However, the newly motivated eyebrow-twitching journalist would like to know more about the 65 % of the respondents in the study who do understand what 'carbon neutral' means, and said they would pay more for products that they knew were going to help the environment [my italics].

As we've discussed here many times before, there is a subtle, but yawning gap between not doing as bad as you might, and actually doing good. And while better is better than nothing, education does need to get to grips with the total ramifications of the purchase of a product or service. Otherwise we will soon find ourselves with something like, oo, say... ethical space tourism: 'I blasted 6 billion litres of greenhouse gasses to get up here, and all I needed to do was plant a forest the size of Belgium to buy it off!'.

What I did rather like was my age range (45-54. Not telling you where in that, though) is the savviest, and would be prepared to pay a premium if they knew it was helping the environment (note my bold). Apparently only 24% of the 25-34 age group understood the term carbon neutral, despite being the most likely to be willing to pay more for carbon neutral products. Which leads me to ponder whether greens wash best with those more inclined not to ask awkward questions. Or care. Green is in danger of becoming a fashion item, and consequently just as easily dropped later on.

And without trying to get to Ecky-thump as to why, it seems there is is something of a North/South environmental awareness divide. Only 18 per cent of residents in Yorkshire/ Humberside are carbon neutral savvy. This contrasts with the 32 per cent of the population living in the South West as the most eco aware area of the UK. Maybe those Priuses are not so good on the Dales?

WHAT IS CARBON NEUTRAL?

Without attribution I'm taking this definition slightly on trust, but it seems to be fair enough, but of course we get into the detail of further terminology such as 'offsetting', which opens up whole new cans of worms. (I'm seeing Heather Gorringe of Wiggly Wigglers today, by the way).

The term Carbon Neutral can be applied when an activity has a Net Zero Emissions of carbon. This can be achieved through an investment which offsets the carbon produced by the relevant activity. This offsetting is most often achieved through Carbon sequestration which is the term describing processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by capturing and storing carbon (while releasing oxygen) both naturally and artificially.

Of course I have come up with enviROI, which Carbon Neutral can loosely be factored into. No wonder the general public is often confused!

All in the best possible taste

As it says: Finally some common sense

Couldn't agree more. But I doubt it will make a gosh-darn bit of difference.

There are vast industries feeding off (sorry) anything like this, from government to quango to the media, where stirring it up, talking about it in excited ways and then taking steps can lead to lots of lovely jobs and lucre researching, assessing, running campaigns and getting Shocked on a Sunday.

I am beginning to wonder if everything we buy will have so much that we 'need' to know it will come with its own CDR that will need viewing pre-consumption. Which is about as likely as me figuring out what all the guff on there already means.

Mind you, I just saw a news item where it seems that parents have not figured that letting their kids eat all the pies may explain why they look like the DPM.

But I'm sure they are not the kind plonked in front of the telly 24/7, so maybe another COI-budget hike may be the answer? Adland awaits the siren call. There's almost as much to be made saying don't as promoting the culprit in the first place.

How sweet is that?

Awwwwwwww!

And ad with babies.

Ford 'next generation' by Ogilvy

And then, my attempt at answering a question:

I am still absorbing the exchanges of a day spent at the Guardian Climate Change Conference, which included a 'breakout' session for 'the media'.

One thing was clear: there were a lot of folk there from a lot places with a very definite 'interest' in the environment. What their motivations were, and what they were saying vs. what they were doing remains to be seen. The main sponsor was Shell, and the hand that fed got a little bitten, if reports the next day were anything to go by. Of a lot that was shared to show what they were doing, more seemed to pick up on a fair old bunch they were not. Feral media in action? Or a slight kickback against tokenistic greenwash? It's a really difficult one.

So let me apply a purely consumer view on this effort, fuelled (!) by a more than passing awareness of and interest in things ad, marketing and, as you may gather, planet-saving.

Thanks to this ad, I know of a thing called Flexifuel. I know little else. It's for future generations, apparently, but that's it.

So, a company making and promoting the means to travel about may (or may not) be making something that addresses climate change caused by exhaust emissions, if not the all the other consequences of manufacture, use and disposal (though car companies are pretty ahead in this regard).

Do I care? Do I feel warm and fuzzy? Do I see the brand most associated with mass transport and mass-production of consumer goods as a delicate, planet-saving flower? Yes, no and maybe, in various measures across all. They didn't make the ad for fun, so its intention was to sow a seed of mitigation against the name. Not flog Jeremy Clarkson another F40.

And why not? Others do nothing. Some do worse. The ASA report seems to be getting more and more packed with dodgy greenwash claims masquerading as responsible ads/services to address such issues.

I can think of worse things to have on screen. I just hope what lies behind it is genuine and sincere. And if it is not, those involved to feel very proud.

If a client comes to you and says 'Here's a thing we'd like you to sell for us that's a tad better for the planet', I'd admire any who say 'No thanks, we'll stick with the Party Poker TVC brief. It's more honest'.

If we are serious about climate change it will take a lot more, a lot earlier in the chain, to do the necessary. What happens later, especially at the consumer end, is really just window-dressing.

Now, where's that Massive Attack 'Best Of'?

What she said

I have been having a go a lot lately. Time to let someone else do it (and cop the 'you're just being beastly, as it is all in a good cause' flak): Janet Street-Porter: The awful conceit of these New Puritans

Bet they will all be getting gussied up for Live Earth as we speak. But I'm also thinking our Janet may fancy a bit of a party, too.

I will mostly not be going, but only 'cos I haven't been invited. I think I am doing quite enough for eco-awareness without having to pay a bunch of climate offset brokers more than they already have.

ps: Shame she managed to rather dyslexificate the TRAID acronym. Though it may get a few Chinese gangsters running the eco-sweatshops on board.

Hear no evil. See no evil. Certainly don't write about it. And that way many comfy, high paid jobs can enjoy the status quo.

It was ever thus. Probably.

But here I must commit the seemingly terrible, unsporting, and un-British crime of wondering if things are as good as they could be, and seek in the only ways I know to understand why. And, if not as good as is possible, see how they may be improved, through word and, preferably, deed.

A few weeks ago, I wrote to our local paper. We live in a lovely market town, enjoying a lifestyle which most city chums envy like mad. However, one Friday night I was walking my kids home from a club and we had to endure a trip that was something out of a bad post-apocalyptic C-movie. Screaming harridans. Drunken aggression. Roving cars with more spent on the turbo dump than the MOT. It was not pretty. And I thought it needed addressing. So I appealed to those in power, or tasked to assist, but there was no reply.

The next week the banner was taken up by another, who coined the rather colourful phrase 'Beirut in Bloom', and advocated vigilante groups. Now, this seemed a tad in excess of requirements, but certainly this time got a reaction. A lesson learned?

Thing is, the reaction from councillors was pretty much 'don't trash our town by talking it down'. I won't go into the rest, but suffice to say there will be a lot of 'discussing', 'looking at', and 'raising of' during the next voting period with, one suspects, a flurry of 'initiatives' pre-election.

And while it did not figure too highly in the Guardian Climate Change Conference (review well underway, trust me), there was a hint of what I see waaaay too often these days by way of a diversion by those who get called upon to explain the frilly kickers around their ankles.

And this is the time-honoured cry that there should be no criticism, as it doesn't help make things better. To an extent this is true, but there is criticism, and there is criticism.

As our outbound Dear Leader tried, in his best 'am I bovvered?' way, to point out, there can be an extreme whereby it is simply 'damn at any cost, and fire a full salvo of torpedoes as something bad is bound to get hit'. Sadly, for those like me who mostly agreed with him this was rather unproductive, this came from a guy who also kinda, sorta is on a shaky pedestal when it comes to legitimate investigation and commentary. You know, things like being caught in, at best, a failure to deliver on promise or, at worst, a total porkie.

I honestly don't know what to do for the best, but I don't think it's an option to shut up and trust that the system, and those who run it are always competent or indeed often honest enough to be let off without being called to explain, if not account.

So I won't.

Hence I will be asking a few local councillors and the county plod what 'Total tosh" actually means by way of an official reply to charges of failures to police under-age drink sales, anti-social behaviour and potentially dangerous driving.

As I will also continue to do with those in government, local government and associated multi-million £ quangos, when to legitimate questions raised by a lot of savvy folk, I mostly seem to find the reply is "Don't rock the boat, as ... we are 'discussing'/'looking at'/ 'raising' it...'.

Monkey see. Monkey do.

ADDENDUM

I recently wrote a review of the Wiggly Wiggler event, and offered it to the local paper who were more than keen. But some sod has obviously distracted them from this nice, positive piece with more on this issue. And this person seems to have been... me.

Seems that in chatting to them about one thing, another got into the mix and, well, you know what sells papers. So now I am, if in the most sincere manner, complicit. I don't know if the Ross Gazette content is online to point to what appeared, both as article and letter, but as this is long archived at least I feel I should add my notes to them when asked to comment further.

Let the tush-tissue operation commence!

Oo-eck. Am I going to get in trouble? I feel I started all this with my letter to you guys a while ago! So long as it comes across as trying to improve things as opposed to just having a go that's fine. I did not feel the vigilante aspect was going in a helpful direction, and wrote to the Journal (who jumped on the bandwagon a bit sensationally) to clarify, and am glad they printed that.

However, looking at what you reported* our councillors as coming up with in response, it all seemed a bit low on.... tangibles. And if we are to sort out what, despite the 'tosh' dismissal, they seemed to agree was a problem that needing nipping in the bud, I think a tad more substance may be in order. And it may surprise them that I am not alone.

*'Cllrs agree a stronger police presence was needed... and are requesting a visit... so they can relay their fears' - so they have them too, it's not really 'tosh' then? And fears have not be relayed before? Surely not? If so, why not?

*Cllr Lucas - 'We don't need reminding that we only have one policeman dedicated to the town' - Well, from reading the rest maybe it seems they do. What else don't they feel in need of reminding of? Not a great bit of feedback. As to tanks, well, I suspect Mr. Jenkins was being 'colourful'. There are no AK-47s either, but can Cllr Lucas argue that, at times, there are not groups occupying certain areas outside of normally accepted levels of behaviour, with the forces of law a tad absent? I think his rebuttal was disingenuous at best.

*Cllr Cutter - 'the lack of a police presence needed addressing' - to address what, if not real and legitimate concerns?

*Cllr Ravenscroft, whilst offering at least one suggestion (a community police officer. Hmn. Powers? Authority? Support? We are talking some rather nasty stuff to deal with here) - 'Ross is not alone' - So, as Beirut (ok, some Yardie areas of Brum) has it bad then we can't look at putting our own town in order? This is an oddly dismissive comparison and justification to make. I for one don't care about elsewhere. My family lives here. If it's about stretched resources that is well worth bringing to the fore. Why are they stretched? What can be done? Who is not doing their job(s), as a shrug and 'life's tough' isn't really going to cut it.

*Cllr Bartrum - '2/3 of a recent forum felt there was a perception of lawlessness' - And yet it's 'tosh' to be concerned, then? Two thirds!!! I don't know what forum it was, but as a reflection of the town that's a fairly hefty sample!

Whilst agreeing Mr. Jenkins may have been a tad OTT, especially with his vigilante talk, it's what gets you noticed by the media... and politicians.

And can these worthy gents really argue that there are not people under the influence (if underage why, how?), and who do drive in ways that are not reasonable (why?), and who are likely responsible for the town's other possible twinning moniker: Ross-in-Shuttering, for all the smashed and boarded windows.

To deny this, and that some people at least are aware, unhappy and even threatened that not all is as rosy as it could and should be, seems... interesting, at least to this voter assessing the new team as they settle in. As is what I sensed was a slight message of 'butt out', which did not sit well. But maybe, and I hope this was the case, this was by reading it without the benefit of hearing it being said.

The curse of Junkk

There was a time when I pretty much jogged along, did what I did, tried, a la Google, 'to do no harm', and accepted pretty much all that those who knew better - government, teachers, doctors, police... media - served up almost without thinking.

That has now rather drastically changed, so when I see such as this I really can't resist a scope and a ponder. And, often, get moved to put RSI-riddled wrist to keyboard rest. Which is a curse, because throughout the day I seem to do it a lot.

Take this: World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists

My first thought was 'So what?', and the second was 'What scientists?'. Well, let's look at the second first.

First up, it seems this headline has taken a rebuttal by group of scientists to one from another group, which seem to be saying there's a bit of it still sloshing about. This is shaping up like a climate change debate, and we know by now where those get us.

To my very simplistic 'So what?' the kicker is at the end. Of course, if it's the stuff we are addicted to and messing the place up, then having no more to play with would seem to sort out the problem... er.. wouldn't it?

Well, as this clearly shows... no.

And I am now cursed some more with trying to get my head around it all.

So it must be true...

I am almost immediately wary of anything that is billed under the title 'The Truth About...', but in a media environment currently dominated by factual extremes, - from over-funded, target-based ads to spoil-at-any-costs tabloids splashes - The Economist can usually be relied upon to provide slightly more journalistic integrity in its research and analysis: The Truth About Recycling

Or... can it?:)

Whoopsie!

Prime minister's questions live - as 'interpreted', self-evidently, by the Guardian

Always interested in seeing things reported by our feral... excuse me... mainstream, good old media press.

As I have also noted a plethora of broadsheet articles and Newsnight specials lately about how blogs are dragging us into a subjective gutter zone, and hence it should only be left to the professionals to give us the facts and tell us what and how to think, I for one am very grateful that around 30% of the facts (maybe I have got that wrong.. who cares?) quoted in the original piece had an unpaid proofreader on hand in the ether to ensure it's all accurate... or at least point out where something is plain wrong.

I guess 'we' at least should be grateful this blog allows such unmoderated posts.

But it does make me wonder how much else we are served up unchallenged and/or unchallengeable hews close enough to the line.

A little... make that a LOT... on the side

The Guardian Climate Change Conference review is turning into something of a magnum opus, so I am revisiting, adding and editing to do it justice, so it may be a wee while in arriving.

So, by way of an interlude, I thought I'd share this.

One of the more relevant, useful... and welcome... additions to the delegate goodie bag was bottle of belu water.

Now, if instead of a near free, and just as good glass of tap I have to go for a bottle, I can't really think of any more deserving brand. Because its packaging is also a wee bit better than most others, too.

But... and it's a... nah.. let's make it just a niggle.

In light of my recent labelling ponderings, what with all and sundry doing all from just discussing to already jumping the entire armoury, I have to say I looked at my bottle and thought: 'what the heck does that mean?'.

Because, with the promise of food mile traffic lights, charts and all manner of other money-wasting nonsense yet to come from a doubtless wildly diverse collection of directions, I can now already add 'No Global Warming - Penguin Approved'. While one word may well make it technically accurate that this the 'first carbon neutral BOTTLED water and does not melt the ice caps (actually... I think they may struggle with justifying that second half. It probably melts them less quickly than the rest, but getting it up, in, out, back and down from production to compost does, I suspect, have a carbon consequence), I have no clue what that means.

And I rather suspect that, along with a load of meaningless other icons and initiatives yet to come, we will simply end up with more guff on the shelves for us to ignore.

Whinge Power

That title describes what got me to the Guardian Climate Change Summit - pretty much describes what I found when I got there... and, probably, a lot of what I've written here, my 1st review of the event.

I say first, as there is a danger that by trying to get everything down, the news will get old in the time it's taken me to write. So I have decided on instalments, either subsequent blogs or additions to this, as and when I get a mo'.

THIS THEN, IS INSTALMENT ONE!

As I said to the organisers, who asked me for my opinion of the day in my capacity as he who closed the event down (when you have invested this much in getting there, it rather amazed me those who blew off the end of the conference to get home early, much less not grabbing every second of networking time at the post session 'do'): "I'm very glad I came. I am even gladder I didn't pay for it".

Whilst thanked for my honesty, it was not, I think, quite what they expected, or wanted, to hear. Because being there cost £800 for the privilege. And I was only there thanks to a massive whinge, having mistaken an 'invitation' to me in my capacity as a 'mover and shaker in the environmental world, concerned about the directions we are taking', as anything more than a way to score a wadge of wonga from every govt, local govt, NGO, commercial green washer and media luvvie who see their profits and/or careers getting enhanced by being 'part' of the green wave.

The event was billed as (and indeed on several occasions throughout the day we were reminded it was...) not just a talking shop, but a genuine attempt to make a difference. Er... no. It was a talking shop. And, for the most part, it was a 'talking down' or 'talking at' shop.

So, on top of travel, per diems and accom (too early a start and too late an end to not straddle the day with a sleepover), if I had forked out that kind of cash from my wallet, I'd have been downright livid. Fortunately, thanks to the kind assistance of my benefactor, speaker David North of Tesco, plus my long-suffering London mates (that's me crashing with them rather than any comment on their fine city) I only had to contribute 3 of my days and a bit of cash getting around and back.

So, let's get into the meat... and greet. I arrived, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, to be greeted at the hotel entrance by 3 of the dirtiest-great biggest BigMobileWillies (thanks for that tip on the basics of car design, Mr. Livingstone) I'd ever seen. These were from sponsor, and acronym, BMW. Good start. 16 and 3/4 series monster cars at a climate conference. Oh well. Anyway, it seems they were the hydrogen jobbies I have 'mentioned' before. Hmnn. Here was a chance to see if I'd been fair in my eye-brow-cock (as we're on a roll), before. As they had DE plates, I asked how they'd got here. Own power? If so, petrol (at 6 litres a pop. And why 6L? Why not 2L?), or hydrogen? And if so, how were they filled? How's the H2 separated from the O? Sun, wind... or power station 'leccy? One tank for a round trip? Or followed by a truck, one presumes diesel, or maybe a hybrid 4x4, car-sharing David Cameron's lunchbox. Sadly, no one at the stand was too sure. But I did get a card from a bloke who knows a bloke, and there is a brochure (one picture and one line per double page spread jobbie, so it may take me a while to read. Plus stop giggling at how much recycled stock was used in the printing) and a website, so I'm on the case.

Are you getting the impression I was/am a man that saw a mission unfurl? And it is critical. There's what is. And there is what you get told. They can often be... different.

GOODIE GUM DROPS (Or, at least, a tube of mints)

Next up, there was the goodie bag. This is becoming sort of a thing, and I think I'll keep it up, whereby I share all that has been consumed to help me save the planet by consuming less. Check out the picture at the top. As my Vac:Sac was doing duty elsewhere I had to improvise on a mobile billboard, and so decided on a mini-trashcan on wheels, which worked well. Astoundingly though, I needed every cubic inch of it to hold all 'we' were given.

Now, just like a kid at a party, I do get a bit disappointed if I don't get something to take home, or even read on the bus. And frankly some things are just plain essential, not to mention relevant, and if one is honest unavoidably necessary, such as a bottle of water. So I was quite happy to get my belu.

As to the rest, well, it varied. For a start, I really have enough jute bags that I half expect to learn of a campaign to ban them. Because most are designed more to look eco than be useful, at least when you get home. What is great for a bunch of A4 folders and a 500ml bottle is pretty darn useless for the weekend shopping. And mine was stuffed with a large tract of the Amazon rainforest, with all sponsors, co-sponsors, etc vying for my attention with various knick-knacks (I felt a certain irony at the the left over copies of the 'Artists Taking Action Against Climate Change' CD from the Observer a while ago (so now I have two) and the pencil that was made from old CDs. Reuse vs. Recycling?).

One that was... interesting... came from our dear Mayor of LondON and the diy planet repair campaign, in the form of a 4 minute egg-timer (with instructions on use... is there something about the state of education in London we don't know?) to help save water in the shower. As one who is in there about 2 minutes, that seems generous (my wife, on the other hand...), but in the circumstances I'd also have to question the way it was presented, mounted on a card... in a plastic bag. And, in the spirit of Junkk's true DIY ethos, not really... er... DIY as such, really.

I don't have a problem with giveaways, but at events such as this I do feel some imagination could go into them to make better points at least.

One massive absence was that of a delegate list. I came to network, and squinting at five hundred folks' chests to read their badges is not optimal. I know there are data protection issues, but this smacked more of a commercial decision. And at £800 for the day, I expect to be aided in meeting and following up with all who came for the same reason.

The mints were nice though.

LOTS OF GRAVY... AND TOO LITTLE MEET

So, where do we go from here? Well, if this is what you get when you fork out the big bucks, I can now see how what gets 'decided' in our name gets decided by those who can afford to attend, but with little real incentive to do much except keep chatting to those they already know.

So I have had the germ of an idea for a truly different kind of conference. I even shared it with my benefactor to see if they would be interested in sponsoring. He didn't say yes. But then again, he didn't say no. I'll give them first refusal. It's the least I can do.

OK, let's get to the 'conference' proper.

I've never been too clear what a conference (or, the much posher 'summit') was, but always assumed it may involve some conferring. Nah. Usually it's a bunch of pretty special folk getting up on a podium and reading to you, often with a PowerPoint behind them. Maybe you get to ask some questions. Maybe you don't. Maybe they answer. Maybe they won't. Then, they scoot off before you can nab 'em, leaving little but a website URL in their wake. This was pretty much what the day consisted of.

However, there can be nuggets, which is why one tends to invest a ton of time and money to see what pans out. It can be a bit of a mixed bag, though.

First up, we had Ken Livingstone. And boy, is he a good speaker. Not a voice that you would want to listen to for long, but the delivery was 100%. I don't think he referred to any notes at all, and it was a fair old crack of time.

Being vaguely aware of his set-to with our Dear Leader I guess I should not have been surprised, but he didn't really seem to be too enamoured with HMG. And it showed. Plus this audience was... receptive. Which may have egged him on to some rather heady heights of hubris, where I honestly felt I was not in the presence of a UK elected official, rather some potentate who was most happy deciding what's good for us with his mates in the C40, which comprises the mayors of the world's biggest cities.

Despite this, there were some interesting initiatives shared, for instance a £30B fund to retrofit old buildings. Makes sense if it's just money, as the enviROI should be tops.

We were also treated to many facts. Actually, the whole day was a fair goldmine of these, but of late I have started to go 'Oh, wow, I didn't know th...' before pausing to wonder if it is, in fact, true.

Ken is not so in favour our new energy schemes, including renewables, if they are marching to the old order of centralised systems. These, he told us, account for a waste of 2/3 of energy. And that half of all water used is in cooling, and then flushed. Is this true? That's massive! And, if so... why? Apparently, the government is 'studying' it. I didn't even know about it!

Any road up (and that is, really, his main skill), he's big on micro-generation on a local level. I am prepared to be swayed, but lurking in my mind is some facts of energy production and consumer and industry demand that may render the ideal less than well, ideal. More to check. Or get advised on by 'those who know.'

I'll leave it there for now. More to come!
INSTALMENT TWO FOLLOWS SOON (RSI permitting)

Featuring:

* A politician doesn't really answer my question - shock
* 4x4s are just penis extensions - if so, why are they mostly driven by school-run Mums?
* The corporate disconnect - technology is just not meant to make doing more less polluting
* Seeing the trees - and saving the forest
* A politician refers to political will - sweet
* Q&As - almost spontaneous
* Corporate pitches - mostly guys reading their company website's CSR section (BAA was fun)
* Activist pitches - mostly guys being 'passionate' about the corporates (and government)
* Jonathan Porritt's closing speech - We are doomed. No wonder a lot had left already.

Postscript (which may also evolve as subsequent coverage is located/provided):

I have waited until Sunday following just in case there is a weekend follow-up, but interestingly, in light of the avowed significance of the event, all I have so far located about this event elsewhere is this which, if you accept my version... even just factually... gives an interesting insight into what today's media, and those seeking to inspire a story, are motivated by :

Livingstone lends support to Tory tax on frequent flyers

Businesses accused of green hypocrisy

MEP LAMBASTS SPONSOR AT CLIMATE CONFERENCE
CLIMATE CHANGE A SECURITY - NOT JUST AN ENVIRONMENTAL - ISSUE

I don't know about you, but other than a story on opposing political camps agreeing on a tax, that doesn't smack of the most positive or proactive outcomes for the public to learn about.

Pains, Trains and Automobiles

Just grabbing the opportunity to get a few more blogworthy bit and bobs off my chest from my trip before further addressing the Guardian climate change summit review again.

Thanks to a few coincidences and some nice friends, my trip was a very efficient one.

Combining another trip, my wife had dropped my off in London, so I was on public transport all the way, commuting around whilst there, and making my way back home.

I must say, probably thanks to more than clement weather, all trips around London were more than pleasant, with delightful scenery to enjoy.

Speaking of which, look at what was parked outside the station. Now, as readers of this blog will know, I find the whole 4x4 issue simplistic, trivial and a distraction, but I have to say the serried ranks of the monsters in the heart of urban London was enough to shake one's head and wonder why. I am prepared to bet that these were not en route to pulling out a stump, negotiating a rutted track or even ferrying 7 kids to school.

As noted in my conference review, Mayor Ken had a few views on the subject, most of which involved dissing those who drive them as penis extensions. I have to say that he might be missing a trick with the voters a tad here, as almost all those driving them that I saw didn't look like a penis was involved in their physical makeup.

I also include something on the back of one such behemoth that tickled me. Not so much the 'my cause is better than your cause' aspect, but simply the way I read it, which was across and not in two columns. It conveyed a slightly different message.

Thing is, I don't know what can really be done to make this 'right'. These things are patently not 'necessary' for the function but, as noted more than often before, if one gets on that kick then we end up on a slippy slope with the 'what's necessary' police telling us how to live. If these things are 'wrong', they should not be allowed to exist (+VAT), and throwing legislative pressures at the consumer at the output end on a spurious basis (M5 at dead stop parked all day: charged. Hybrid buzzing about emitting all day: free. This deals with congestion, emissions, etc, how?)) seems disingenuous. And if our farming industries and support services (plus a few private souls in my neck of the woods, literally) are to be allowed that a vehicle of some sort is necessary, then for purely commercial reasons enough must be allowed to exist to make them viable. I'm not sure we'd fancy our troops rushing round Iraq in a Prius.

The other picture is the railway station, with a lonely poster that serves to show the sheer amount of money being wasted on pointless eco-ads instead of actual doing anything (and, of course advertising that in Junkk.com. We'll take the pointless eco-ad too, mind).

The final, and significant part of the story was my trip back. London to Gloucester for £9. Amazing. It costs almost that to get from Wandsworth Common to Paddington, and a third of that for the interminable bus trip from Gloucester to Ross. Scenic, but not repeatable any time soon. The other thing was it all gobbled up most of the day, which shoots your time management to pieces.

But as value it couldn't be beaten. My only real issue was, having arrived an hour early, I could not take the earlier, almost empty train to get back sooner, as this required a new, full fare ticket. That lack of flexibility is a real turn-off.

The Truth Is Out There...

... That 'they' cannot, or will not, see that they have moved beyond caring that it is, and needs to be shared without spin or agenda or self-interest, is a tragedy.

The media is a "feral beast"

THE SPEECH

Having been away for a few days on a quite important 'mission' regarding the future of the planet, it seems extraordinary to have come back to this, and feel moved to comment on it before all else.

This is what I was moved to contribute:

As acknowledged, how 'we' reach each other in all things and, more importantly set about persuading each other to think and act perhaps differently or more quickly, is in this modern age pretty much down to 'use' of and consequent practices 'of' and 'by' the media.

I don't often agree with Tony Blair. But in much he had (and at long last felt compelled, allowed, freed from restriction, etc) to say (a tad late), I'm afraid there was great truth.

Sadly, and has already been pointed out and pounced on unmercilessly, too much in his past, both in deed and and word, makes him a blooming poor example of rectitude (on any count) to pass such comment. Good message. Not so great messenger.

But if there was some small glimmer, what has happened as a consequence is as poetic a QED as he, or anyone who thinks our media is broken could hope for. And, along with it all (not just politicians') relationships that could so productively be had, especially for the honest and professional communication and exchange of information, the betterment of 'our' understanding of issues through skilled and objective analysis, and a commitment to the value of the story over tomorrow's next set of ratings.

Whilst by no means the only one, the Newsnight piece in reaction was about typical.

Though not the usual twofer, we this time were treated to a threesome, presided over by Mr. Paxman as stirrer. If this was the best debate the BBC and Fleet Street's finest could inspire, there could have been no more eloquent live example of Mr. Blair's point.

All came from (and doubtless were selected for that very reason) extreme entrenched personal viewpoints. And they well proved that, as a pack, for petty personal point scoring they would cherry pick and boost the most extreme at the expense of considered thought and well-crafted sharing of relevant information and convincing argument.

Having just come from a conference/debate on the fate of our future where it seemed pretty obvious that top of most of the communications industry protagonists' minds - and certainly more than answering the main posed questions of what 'we'.... 'do'.... to change a patently woeful situation - pursuing personal or corporate gain through the profitable world of hype and spin and driving inflammatory talk was waaaaay more important than actually answering anything.

I was there, and the little I have seen written about it so far has been solely on who knocked spots off another. While interesting, and worthy of being in the mix, I really think those who were not there will be interested in, and deserve a lot more.

It's a shame there is a level of trust in the public's intelligence, a commitment to what society needs and deserves, and a pride in one's profession and craft to deliver that with passion, commitment, courage and honesty, which is so sadly lacking across all our major media today.

And trying to distract us by proving a politician's point by focusing solely on him rather than what he was saying is simply one thing, and one thing alone:

Sad.

And now, I must get back to my report on the Guardian Climate Change Conference I just attended.

Cif - Blair's message for the media
Guardian - Blair keen to lead way on relations with media
Indy - Blair's attack provokes anger among newspaper editors and broadcasters - No, really? And by slecting the blogs that agree with them, they prove his point really.
Indy - Simon Kelner: Would you be saying this, Mr Blair, if we supported your war in Iraq? - I take the point, but again this is using the messenger to avoid the message.
Guardian -
Spin and scandal: how New Labour made the news
Right sermon, wrong preacher - I guess this is one editor not provoked to anger, as covered by the Indy (above)
Blair still doesn't get it & Fix yourself first - there again...
The feral beast is out
The front pages he hated - Fun, but , er... so? I rather liked the ad for the paper below: 'Home entertainment made simple'. Apt.

I guess, for balance, I should post those from the Telegraph and Times, but if the mainstream press can't be fussed about facst or balance, why the heck should I?

BBC - "Feral" media - my thoughts - Bearing in mind Mr. Blair had a lot more to say than the 'feral media' bit, the lead in this case says a lot in its own right

Indy - Media standards: It's all a matter of opinion
Indy - Steven Glover on The Press - get the impression they are having trouble letting this go?

Something rotten in the state of...everything, really

Though not actually about very much to do with the environment, I'd put this forward as a short, well-crafted analysis into how the state seems to be playing things 'on our behalves' - In the drink unaware

It is about a less than sympathetic industry, booze, but there are parallels to be drawn and lessons to be learned over here in eco-land.

To kick off, I am unsure as to how much of what is proposed is going to make a blind bit of difference to the reality of the situation. And, yet again a bunch of folk, from a legal industry to those who are allowed to use its wares, seem somehow destined to be caught up in a dodgy morass of competing do-gooding, revenue-generation (let's not forget that the less we drink, the more they need to make it up in taxes elsewhere) and official ineptitude, topped off with no actual responsibility or accountability at any stage.

Dealing with what goes into the system - namely people's desire and ability (and, with life the way it is now, some might say need) to drink - not being addressed very well (I really question how many million-£ campaigns it would take to stop any strata to go' that's a good ad; I'll give the beer a miss'), a failure for 'us' on a personal level to deal with it and, at the gutter end the state's inability to cope with the consequences, this seems a hiding to nothing that will cost a lot, do not much and probably make things worse. But will make a bunch more meddlers and consultants and officers of the state richer in ever more extensive empires of control.

A bit like most green 'initiatives' that I'm seeing of late.

Today, I will be mostly staying at home...

...and, in so doing, I will help the environment a bit. Plus saving a fair wadge of wonga by not paying for travel. Now, while that is all very laudable, it is not perhaps the most relevant thing to any reader's day, nor indeed very interesting.

Hence, I am trying to figure out why ads like the one at the top, and all the press releases I still keep getting about banks now recycling their paper, are any different.

While super-dooper and all, the fact is that they are doing something that is only reasonable, and in the case of energy may even end up saving them money (will those eventual operational profits go back to the consumers?).

So, while I am happy to say 'good on ya!', I can't for the life of me see what is being served by blowing vast amounts of dosh on ads such as this, when they could be using the money to actually, oh, I don't know... DO something worth sharing, with the consumer in mind and not soem fuzzy green agenda.

Who gains? A box ticked on the CSR chart. The creative guys, ad agency and media are pretty chuffed (hey, I await the brief... or space booking). But am I going to hang a U-ee as we head for our weekly shop at the local supermarket and go to M&S because 'some' (the weasel of choice - as it's all down the same pipe, I can't also quite figure why it all can't be. You just switch tariff surely? Or is this another turbine on the roof job, as already advertised by a competitor?) of their expenditure on energy doesn't go to to npower any more?

I guess we'll be subjected to several months of these from competing sources - 'Buy your airflown spring water from ASDA because our loos are flushed with the grey variety!' - until they run out of ways to spout green, and /or all have parity with each other.

This is not just pointless advertising, it's... pretty... wasteful advertising.

So, speaking as a consumer, I'd be much more interested in ads like the one I mocked up a loooong while to show Tesco a potentially more valuable green communications route, and repeat the original and adapt here.

Crossing the pond!

Well, the old G8 may not be going so well, but I am happy to report one small bit of transatlantic special relationship-forging that is real, active... and not consuming a single gram of carbon!

Those lovely folk at American Inventorspot have kindly run a much-delayed piece I'd promised to write about the Geneva Show, and by way of chocolate sprinkles on the cherry on the cake, have said some pretty nice things about the RE:tie, too.

Read it in all its glory here.

Righting wrongs

Having just had a valued piece of input, I'd like to formally share a site that came my way today, called newscounter. Sadly, at least for my RSI and blogging addiction, I fear they will be added to my daily must read... and contribute to.... list.

For instance: How sorry does a newspaper have to be? Which deals with the woeful disconnect between a front page porky and the back page retraction.

I shake my head when I read such as this, and the state of what once could have been deemed a worthy 4th estate.

However, I also try and suppress laughing out loud trying to reconcile the all too true words in your last para with the fact we are talking about... the Mail. As papers go, they really don't get much sorrier than that.

But, as we are running a gamut of emotions here, how sad is it to feel that way, especially when you look at their readership? Sure you wouldn't want your son to admit he dated one, but they are raking it in based on a lot still listening to them.

Guardian - No vinegar for Woolmer - interesting, especially in light of a previous discussion on the Newsnight blog about how only traditional media can be trusted. I am not saying blogs are any better, but they sure as heck are no worse these days, sadly.

I know the G8 important 'n all, but....

The world moves on, and every nuance of revolution needs reporting upon I know, but that doesn't mean Dave from Solarventi can't be replied upon to push some of my buttons, especially when he uses the Daily Mail to do it with:

I thought you might be interested in the fact that the Beeb has sent 60 staff to Germany to cover G8!! See here.

Yes, I say, through gritted teeth, very 'interested', in light of the irony of the climate change main topic.

But maybe they all went over by coach... oh, no... it seems they had to fly. Anyway, here's what you get for your licence fee:

BBC - G8 leaders 'agree climate deal' - Oh, I really hope so.

Boobs.

I made a mistake last night, albeit with the best of intentions.

Though I co-designed pretty much every aspect of the site, the reality is I did it with pen and paper and briefed in 'making it so' to guys who knew/know a lot better how to make it all happen. And as it did get handed over from the first set to the current one in not the best of circumstances, there is frankly a vast amount that is somewhat of a mystery in the details.

Don't worry; nothing too awful, but just some operational functions in the admin area seem to have a slight mind of their own.

Anyway, in anticipation of our next newsletter I was looking through the system and stumbled across what seemed to be a bunch of people who had signed up but seemed to have been left in some kind of limbo. We're talking names, passwords, nicknames, where they read/heard about us, etc. Hard to see how it was not genuine. It appears they had been denied final confirmation by some discrepancy between our registration system and their personal ISP, firewalls, etc.

So I thought it would be nice to try and sort this out, and clicked on something that I hoped would allow me.. us to write and ask them if they would like to stay with us. Well, somewhere... somehow... that act simply fired off a confirmation.

Now I'm hoping that most will be cool and either be happy their confirmation has at last come through or, if for some reason it was not them (who signs up another person with such details?) will simply ask to be removed, which is easy enough to do.

Or, if I'm unlucky, someone (who will not be reading this having been, on firm demand, promptly actively removed from the system) will make rather more of it all than perhaps the situation demanded. Fingers crossed!

Telling you so.

Today was another bumper crop of eco on BBC Breakfast news.

First up was part of an ongoing series on 'Future Schools', which on the whole can only be a very good thing. So much so, I might make this something to assist with.

My only slight concern was the mantra nature of the information being dished out and played back by some of the kids, but that might have been a consequence of the terrible addiction to silly short timeslots and 'that's all we have time for' that is today's TV. I loved the science and the way the kids were getting on board, but there was a slight eyebrow twitch at what seemed to me was a trip to Japan to study what they are doing over there. It's an impossible task trying to balance our need for/addiction to travel - especially in the name of education and promoting good eco-behaviour - but I have to wonder at the symbolism of a child cranking that out without being aware of the irony. And I couldn't resist a slight guffaw at the wind turbine 'providing power for 3 homes' - except, one presumes, at the dead stop it was shown with. I fear I hear the slight sound of boxes being ticked, with targets and agendas being met too much at the expense at decent, objective, questioning education.

I want my kids to be aware, concerned and proactive about their future, but I don't want them trotting out stuff they are fed as a done deal, that may not be quite so clear cut in reality.

What I did feel was telling was that out of a £50M pot to green-up public buildings, only £1M has so far been used. Er... why? Don't tell me, £49M is required to staff the system to administer it. Oo... oo... sir, I know. Let's run an ad campaign!

Then, there was almost VERY GOOD piece about recycling, based on a Which? report. The intro inferred, to my approbation, that the big problem with all this is that consumers don't know what can and can't be recycled, and often have little help to do so correctly.

I have to say I groaned a bit that to address this we were treated to the thoughts of Neil & Christine Hamilton, though there was also a rather charming and erudite Michael Warhurst from the FoE. Sadly he was unable or not provided enough opportunity to do too much to develop on his expertise, such that we were treated to a load more 'will need looking ats' than much that moved anything on.

Funnily enough Neil, who was there as the spoiler (well, more so than Christine), posed quite a few sensible questions and legitimate concerns, and they really did not get answered very well. At least to allow the viewer to feel theirs 'as consumers' had been addressed.

As I wrote to the BBC (in the slim hope of a plug, if they have short memories):

RE:hashing

It is good to hear some thoughts on the actual enviROI (benefit to the planet) of some more target-based systems such as recycling, which can often be very uncritically served up by those with a vested interest in meeting them. Let us not forget that re:duction, re:use and re:pair all stand higher on the re:hierarchy.

ADDENDUM:

If you look in the comment section you will see there is one with a very useful lead to the Which? report via an equally great find, a website called newscounter

This is obviously an issue to follow very carefully, and I will.

It's so odd, because I was just talking this morning with the editor of Recycling and Waste World (another worthy read to stay on top of things) about this, and trying to get my head around how this story tallied with their front page that 92% of local authorities now offer plastic bottle recycling.

Gee, eight guys talking. And some.

Warm words won't save us

I am interested, and hence would value any others' views, on the relative merits of what gets hyped, talked about... and actually addressed, for anything other than political, activist or ratings-driven agendas.

For instance, the other day I stumbled across what seemed to me an extraordinary discrepancy in positive climate word vs. deed, or effort vs. result, in the form of the launch of Cool Earth

Now, I stand ready to be persuaded otherwise, but if a years' worth of deforestation is responsible for a greater CO2 consequence (in terms of absorption) than the entire pollution (a mate of mine has pointed out that word seems to have been dropped in favour of 'emissions', with consequentially rosier allusions) created by the USA, then surely this warrants a serious mention at least? Or at least decent debate?

Or are we going to keep on with all this faffing about, arguing about who says what, with the big stuff locked in inertia and eco-chancers making capital out of sideshows?

I truly wish for clear leadership, and non-agenda-skewed information, based on genuine enviROIs, such that I can make decisions and act to improve my kids' future chances.

BBC - How Gr8 is G8?

Interesting word, Wind. It can mean so many things.

There is the cool breeze. The less welcome result of combining beer, beans and a teenager. Or, of course, when pronounced and applied differently it can be a verb, as in 'to wind up'.

Change is in the wind as business climate turns green

Next week, courtesy of one of the speakers (David North of Tesco - to whom I am most grateful for the invitation), I have a rare opportunity to be present as a guest at one of these rarefied events: the Guardian Climate Change Summit.

Sadly, I missed the one referred to above. It will be interesting to see how they compare, or at least how my views tally with those of the correspondent responsible for this piece.

It's an interesting one, because it seems to be trying to be a few things at once, at least beyond the facts. In part supportive, and justifiably positive about genuine initiatives, but also in part pretty cautious, lest the promises fall short in the cold, hard light of subsequent days.

Frankly I am not sure what to expect next week, and will look forward to what I hope is a good opportunity to network, learn and contribute. I will of course be sharing it all here.

This Guardian piece is, at least, a fair preparation. It seems unlikely that those attending the same conference as I am will be much different to the other one, though on current evidence there are a heck of a lot of conferences with a heck of a lot of folk tasked to attend them, with titles to match. How "Junkk Male/Big 'Ed" will fit with "head of climate change" or "head of environmental management" or "climate change leader" remains to be seen. I think I will have to bite my lip and resist the temptation, at least with the climate change variety, and not ask them to confirm that they are least tasked with 'heading', or 'leading' it in a positive direction. Or just how far from the boardroom table where the money decisions get made they actually are.

There is no doubting it has indeed become a big issue for such as consumer brands, but I do note and also understand the scepticism created, after all that has been expended to date, of just 14% admitting to having a clear strategy for tackling the issue, while many fund managers saw companies primarily motivated by a desire to get "the green fraternity off their backs". Ouch.

And then there is the vast industry that exists to feed of this... concern... which I'm still trying to identify (ie: sincerely tackling the issue, or getting folk off various backs?). Just one 'consultancy' has a staff of 3,000! Doing what? I feel my ROI eyebrow raising to match the enviROI one here. If it is all about opportunity, I would dearly love to know how that is defined in terms of what gets spent to make my kids' future better. And I'd like to ask such as Jonathan Porritt, but he has yet to return my calls. Too busy? No money in it? Who can tell? Shame, as they are but a few miles away and I'd love to swap notes.

I was surprised at the research that indicated almost three in four British families would boycott firms that do not take real steps to cut their environmental impact. Really? I care a lot, but a boycott against a failure to act with 'real' steps, whatever they are. What is the measure? And, practically, if your local is Morrisons, are you going to go to the Tesco in the next town over just because 'a step' is not so good in comparison? I don't get it. And hence I don't trust it... or like it. Smacks of more no-people scoring fees to stir already very murky waters.

And, yet again, packaging seems the thrust when, as noted in recent blogs, I really have my doubts as to what significance it, or several other much-hyped 'issues' have vs. such as deforestation.

Maybe someone I'll bump into will be able to tell me, and in a way that makes me believe them. I hope so.

Musings from a mall

Time for a picture I feel. And as the new Olympic logo seems to need a health warning to view, let's go with one I made before the blog.

I just felt like pondering a few bits of advertising and promotion, starting with the Toyota Prius ad: Toyota ordered to drop TV commercial for hybrid vehicle

Why do 'they' do this? It's a perfectly reasonable car, with a pretty fair story to support its USP (hybrid), but they just have to go and blow the trust factor by trying to squeeze a silly set of stats out to look like it will solve climate change just by driving around all day, emitting away.

Then there's the new Tesco ad. I like it (shock horror). Makes the point, which I hope is a good one. I refer to their new local milk initiative. Now, there are some questions I'd like reassuring on (please let it be that there is a genuine enviROI to the food miles story, and it's not just a bit of natty marketing smoke and mirrors), but in addition to a nice bit of comedy theatre I now know (well, to the best of my knowledge), that I can buy milk in a local store that is produced locally. I just hope the consumer is not going to get stung too badly for going greener, and the farmers get a fair price, too. On balance a step in the right direction, with win-wins all round if done with genuine intent. With an ad like this I can't see the consumers not responding.

And finally, I come to the example pictured above. One of my local clothing outlets has some kind of a thing where you support trees by buying stuff. I haven't looked at it too carefully and perhaps should not comment without doing so. But to this consumer, I can't see it as being that big an incentive, and the fact the place was festooned with flyers and posters and cards blathering on about it all, seemed a tad contradictory at best. Actually, I have a certain view that the whole waste paper thing is not as chronic as made out, but symbolically this came across as more of a bit of excess CSR promo window-dressing (geddit?) than a serious attempt to go green.

Guardian - Easyjet attack on green Virgin Train ads fails - kinda speaks for itself

I don't think that they're betters. And I'm pretty sure they're not even my olders.

This, from Newsnight, really got the old blog-juices a-flowing (like they knew it would): The Cult of the Amateur, or, How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy

Way-hey! The gauntlet is down. And like a petulant, ego-maniacal latter Robin, what blogging, web two-pointer worth his or her salt could resist drawing up their bow and, in fine homage style, ‘aim close to the target’s centre, letting the splinters of the previous champion’s split shaft fall where they may’.

So... “If we are all amateurs, there are no experts.”

Or... looking at it another way: “Leave it to the experts, because they have done such a good job so far. Not.” Discuss.

First, though, I have a few, I guess amateur, questions....

What, exactly, is ‘informed political commentary, seemly home video, proudly professional music and readable poems, reviews, essays, and novels”?

Or, perhaps I should rather ask; who is to say? Those unelected, self-serving ‘club’ members who have been doing so until now? I think... hope... not.

If blogs are “collectively corrupting and confusing popular opinion about everything from politics, to commerce, to arts and culture”, what can be cited from the mythical, godly mainstream that has, is and will not?

How about a liberal-left quick-hit on the TV about the Middle East, or a paper campaign on plastic bags or 4x4s, when only today I found out, and blogged on, a real and massive effort to tackle the real big issues facing the climate (link in my signature... I’d appreciate the reader numbers. You see we amateur types fancy getting paid for what we create, too, but by owing allegiance to no one what we often have to say is less prone to... influence).?

If Wikipedia perpetuates a cycle of misinformation and ignorance, then more fool those who read it without a well-cocked eyebrow. If YouTube is inane and absurd, then, er.... don’t watch it.

And if old media is facing extinction, who is more to blame?
I for one am quite happy to bid farewell to all experts (who qualify as such how, again, exactly?) and cultural gatekeepers (ditto... plus who put them in charge anyway?), if these are those who have decided what I get to see and hear based on very human motivations, ranging from self-interested to greed, and agendas that are much less edifying if not down right sinister.

That you ask what, in any case, can be done, is too facile and hilarious to really try and answer. Go Canute... go, man, go! The tide is coming, and you might squeeze a few more ratings out yet before you end up being, as well as looking, very wet.

ps: Some great replies, fellow posters. Ta for a good mid-pm read and a mind-expanding giggle or two. Peace out.

COOL EARTH

This is a first for Junkk.com: a page dedicated to supporting a cause we truly feel is going to make a real difference: Cool Earth

No snappy headline, because this page will get revisited a lot so we can ensure it gets pushed to the front page of Junkk.com whenever we add something new. I think it is that important.

I became aware of it yesterday, when it launched, thanks to a short piece in Newsnight, which I blogged on earlier.

Frankly I cannot understand, with all the claimed media support for climate change initiatives, why this was not front page news, but maybe the return of the cold war of Big Brother is more pressing to some (or sells more papers and/or get more ratings).

One thing sold me. The entire annual carbon output produced by the USA is exceeded by the carbon sink LOST by deforestation. This puts d*cking about obsessing about carrier bags and 4x4s in stark focus. This planet will only be saved for our kids when we sweat the big stuff, and stop pandering to petty, negative issues (Junkk.com is a very small, but positive issue, so please keep on supporting us!).

I have already managed to contact those involved, who are very approachable.

And I will be checking out the site more thoroughly, and will revisit (I intend to score a few acres of our own to oversee) regularly with updates.

My main concern was the trading aspect, which set off some alarm bells and red flags.

I have been reassured that when you buy an acre, it is yours and will remain so, though there seems some variation on duration which I need to verify. It is also not for trading, as I very much would not want anything I had invested in being used to buy off bad behaviour elsewhere.

So, with great optimism, and the best will in the world, I am happy to say: Watch this space!

I can see the forest... and the trees!

If there is one thing to check out, I'd say it is this. To my initial way of assessing enviROI, it does add up, and could be the most exciting thing for a while in actually DOING something to help the planet: Cool Earth

Well, assuming we don't go up in a nice, quick nuclear ball of flame thanks to the new generation of small-willy testostocrats, if we are to avoid a slightly slower cook to oblivion maybe Mr. Eliasch has a more attractive long term plan to consider.

As I can't figure and/or trust most carbon sink enterprises, whose PRs get sent to my enviro site almost daily, I am prepared to give this one serious consideration.

Buy a bunch of suits' daft notions to skim off a major wadge of wonga claiming they go and plant something that will take decades to grow (assuming it works)... vs. paying a suit to help ensure an existing chunk of Earth's lungs - that's doing a nifty job already - doesn't get chopped down to make way for bio-fuel crops. The chart of the US carbon emissions vs. the consequence of deforestation says it all.

Well, D'uh.

I just hope that he's doing it for the right reason and not to make a vast killing, but even if he is it seems waaaaay better (though I shudder to hear Carbon Credits mentioned) than most alternatives.

Assuming Messrs Bush, Putin and Blair don't get us first, I'd say it seems a pretty decent idea to pursue.

I haven't seen it advertised anywhere as yet, and look forward to being pointed at it (if your PR agency is reading this, Mr. Eliasch, I'm at info [at] http://www.junkk.com, willing and happy to help - or I'm sure Google will get me there. I really like the idea of a live feed of my acre to help with the monitoring).

How it is the new colonialism is an interesting, if odd question in the circumstances, and just seems a tad of a PC stretch the way I saw it billed.