Alberta's 'Black Goo' Rush

We all knew that a great deal more R&D funding would be redirected into renewables as the price of crude oil stayed high, right? Well, not really ...... in fact, hardly at all.

Although some of the Big Oil players ARE looking at some renewable energy forms, and indeed, buying up the rights to quite a few patents in this field, the renewables R&D spend pales into insignificance in comparison to what is happening right now in the Canadian oil shale belt.

The extended high crude oil price has finally made Alberta's Black Goo commercially exploitable, and the cost to the planet is ........ even higher CO2 emissions!

"The industry already contributing to climate change more than any other is frantically turning up the heat. The process of refining bitumen emits three to four times the greenhouse gases produced by extracting oil from traditional wells, making the tar sands the largest single contributor to Canada's growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the industry plans to more than triple production by 2020, with no end in sight. If prices stay high, it will soon become profitable to extract an additional 141 billion barrels from the tar sand, which would place the largest oil reserves in the world in Alberta."

For a depressing read see the full article by Naomi Klein at Rabble News. The black goo rush was recently described by the FT as "north America's biggest resources boom since the Klondike gold rush"

All in all a bit of a one-sided match: Renewable Energies 0 - Big Oil 6

And the winner of the prize for the newest destructive eco-disaster is .......... Northern Alberta.

But, what's being brought to bear to WIN?

I always say, something is a lot better than nothing: Glastonbury fights climate change

You can almost sense it coming...

But.

We seem to now have yet another awareness campaign to play with. At which you go to, and ... sign-up.

And in return you get a wristband, made (no matter what) from...?

At least there are a bunch of other BTNs in the rest of the piece.

I'm sure it pays a lot on campaign managers' salaries and airmiles offsets, at least.

So long as he* is so spot on, I just have to share

The ongoing genius of *Scott Adams' Dilbert satire (Green poke era)




And, sometimes, opportunities just get presented: NHS urged to cut carbon emissions

So the next time you go in for a one thing...

"Fill 'er up please." "Certainly sir ..... apple or pear?"

Could we be filling up our cars on fruit juice based fuels one day?

An interesting article on the potential of producing a new type of bio-fuels from fruit sugars. The chemistry appears sound but I'd like to know a little more about the catalysts they are using, and just how much energy is required in the generation of the fuel in order to determine its exact enviROI. Full text at Economist.com.

Imagine the FT headlines in perhaps 30 to 40 years time .....
"Big Oil takes backseat to Big Fruit!" Or,
"Granny Smiths lines up hostile bid for Exxon-Mobil".

IP, IP 'ooray!

I was away dawn 'til dusk yesterday at an ultimately very useful conference on Intellectual Property hosted by a West Midlands organisations called Fillip.

At first I thought I made a big mistake and was in for a loooong day, as I sat surrounded by what seemed every lawyer in the region, to be talked at by every other lawyer in the region. The seminar pack was certainly not encouraging, as the curse of PowerPoint was again to be unleashed - I cringed when one speaker actually said "I'll just read what's on the screen and, of course, in your notes". Thank the lor' that we were not being billed by the minute!!!

But, as with all things, you have to sift a lot of silt to get a nugget, and they did appear. A fact here, an anecdote there. Bearing in mind the target audience was the SME market, I was getting quite frustrated to have presentation after presentation that was pitched at companies to whom 'only a few thousand' is not a real issue to find, albeit for a key aspect of business such as IP. But one real beacon was Mandy Haberman, of anywayup cup fame, who was a real inspiration (her turning point was sending a prototype, filled with Ribena, in an unpadded box to a Tesco buyer... who called with and order by return), much like Heather of Wiggly Wigglers the other week, not just for her success but the fights she had to (successfully) take on to emerge triumphant. Though it must be said the sheer number of scumbuckets around worldwide (mainly in major corporates) there are ready to screw anyone for a penny is depressing.

I was there mainly for the RE:tie but, thanks to the trusty Lappy Sling, Junkk.com got a look in, too.

One of the speakers was from CadburySchweppes, and seemed keen to talk more and introduce me to the right people.

I certainly came away more than ever convinced of the vale of IP, but also the sheer complexity and cost of it. This honestly does put best practice out of the reach of many at the small 's' of the SME spectrum, and it is always worth trying to get that across.

That was my message, and it was welcomed. In fact, as a consequence of the day, I am now more than happily off on a another tangent, but one I hope will for once be more than productive and even profitable.

"Driving towards a brick wall"?

So just what were the actual outcomes of the G8 meeting last week?

I found little in the outputs that made me feel any the more secure - it was all 'moving towards', 'look at', 'review our position', 'agree to think about' - all talk, and very little actual do or will, and certainly no actual definitive targets at which to aim. I concur that it was more of a 'tactical political shift', rather than a positive way forward.

So, rather than attempt to review the entire G8 gamut, this rather eyebrow raising item from freelance journalist Ralph Surette pretty much says it all. Although written very much from a Canadian perspective, I can't find anything in it with which to disagree.

The "Captains of no progress" are still at the helm, and the "dirty, lumbering supertanker called the world economy" shows but only minimal signs of changing course.

How far off is that wall? Is there time to brake and/or change course? How about listening to the G8 String Octet? Maybe they sound a little similar to Nero fiddling as Rome burned? Or the band on the Titanic playing as she slowly went down?
Fading out .... 'For those in peril on the sea........'

Thanks due to David Suzuki for the title of this post.

Today's forecast - Heavy Wars

Oh dear ..... another frightening glimpse of the future?

The UN's top environment official is now predicting massive geo-political disasters caused by water shortage and migration wars in Africa and East Asia. Full story from The Independent.

"Climate change has become a major security issue that could lead to "a world going up in flames", the United Nations' top environment official has warned. From rising sea levels in the Indian Ocean to the increasing spread of desert in Africa's Sahel region, global warming will cause new wars across the world, said Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). "

It looks like our bet-hedging arms dealer (See Monday's blog - Arms dealing - the career of the future?) is possibly a very perceptive chappie indeed.

The slooooowest crash in IT history

You can't get humour like this any more.

You may recall (and by skipping back a few posts actually read - oh heck here it is) that I shared the news of the latest Govt. eco/carbon/climate website to consume more funds to 'help' 'us' go greener, namely ActonCo2 (as opposed to EalingCo2...har-har. They may titter in West London).

Well, possibly thanks to the most concerted PR campaign by every Govt. PR agency (I must have had thirty emails) in the land, and the cooperation of the likes of me, it seems that it doesn't work after 5pm (no civil service jokes, please).

Having pointed a few of you at it, I had a flood (well, two) of emails to say that it says 'come back later'. And, checking myself, this seems to be the case.

Now the explanation is that it's because it's so popular. And I would wish for such a 'happy problem'.

Or, just maybe, it's because all the complicated guff I mentioned in my quick review (slow review not possible as there is not access for now) means that it's all tied up dealing with the few folk who can get through. And having failed, and once the PR has worn off, how many will go back?

Expensive. Useless. And looks a lot better than it delivers. Ring any bells?

He IS reading my blog...

... and then making a brilliant satirical cartoon out of it: Dilbert.

OK, so it's just coincidence.


Memo to all Pols, activists and holier-than thou media: try leading by example before climbing in the driving seat. Your lack of deeds vs. the words is starting to grate.

But... is it art?

Well, I don't know much about it, but I know what I like: Turning the place over.

Very little to do with saving the planet (probably a negative enviROI, truth be told, as it obviously had construction and has operational costs. Plus it is only temporary), but as life is about a bit more than that, if we are going to p*ss stuff away, I am quite impressed with this.

Back now to being an eco-grinch.

Two Wongs don't...

In the interview referred to in my last post, Mr. Miliband made a fair point when challenged about relative actions. But it's hard not be struck by today's Guardian lead - China passes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter - and a rather smaller associated plea - 'Are you doing your bit?' - in the same piece.

Now, as my sons titter, and some quango-funded PC-brigade try and figure out how to bust me for that headline, I can only agree with Mr. M that it does probably make his job a lot harder when he meets his Chinese counterpart if we are doing diddly to put our own house in order.

But....

I'm afraid that, as the man to convince me of anything, much less the wisdom of saving my own future, he is not proving the most inspired of choices... or messengers.

Bar this one reasonable retort, in the interview he was not convincing at all. And the examples of what 'we' are being called upon to engage with and/or do are not doing much either.

Even his 'defence' of the point regarding the example of his soon-to-be-ex-boss' predilection for jumping on a plane at the sound of an envelope being opened was fudged, and deliberately spun away without giving any answer. So why should we listen... or act? And speaking of China, the book I am reviewing, Last Call, paints one heck of a picture of the imminent Asia tourist industry. Scary.

You need more than facts to persuade. You need trust. And passion.

I am looking for what's right to support and do, but on this basis I'm afraid Minister. M is not looking like the one to deliver it.

Maybe we need a calculator to calculate the best calculator

Just watched on BBC Breakfast TV Environment Minister David Miliband (for some, unexplained, reason sitting in an internet cafe) talking about the latest 'carbon calculator'.

The first question from the interviewer was the best: why do we need another?

It's a fair point. There are many. According to Mr. Miliband it is 'the gold standard' (see my initial review below). So that's OK then.

And, having calculated away, I wonder what exactly I'll do except file and forget.

Why do I get the odd feeling that a few boxes got ticked in the Ministry and Television Centre (today's eco-slot... check), but little else will get done.

Anyway, it has been done, and as I was about to post I got this nice letter, which I duly pass on:

20/06/2007 08:00

Dear Sir

I know readers increasingly want to do their bit to help combat climate change - and knowing about your carbon footprint is a good way to start.

That's why we have this week launched a new online CO2 calculator, where people can find out their carbon footprint. The calculator will also suggest the practical steps we can take to cut our emissions and, often, save some money as well.

Things we do in our everyday lives have an effect - good or bad - on the environment. And more than 40 per cent of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions come from our homes and travel.

Most of us have become a bit greener already - for example, nearly all of us are into recycling now - but there are lots of other things we can do to reduce our impact on climate change.

Whatever your lifestyle, the Act on CO2 calculator will give you practical pointers about how to cut your emissions, tailored to the way you live.

To check out your carbon footprint, and find out what you can do about it, log on to: http://www.direct.gov.uk/actonCO2

David Miliband
Environment Secretary
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
London
SW1P 3JR

Sadly, having logged on, I was confronted by a wall of complicated, slow, time and energy-sapping fancy graphics that got in the way of simply getting to the point. So I gave up. And I have fast broadband. I wonder if others, and especially those at home with possibly slower lines, will be more dedicated.

Junkk.com gets a few justified brickbats for some aspects of design and navigation, but it gets a lot more bouquets for being quick, and giving you what you want, or pointing you at it, very quickly. And in a fun, interactive, real-person to real-person web 2.0 way.

So as an exercise in genuine ROI, I wonder how much this committee-created, ministry multi-layer sanctioned drain on the taxpayer cost, and what it will achieve for that money?

Should you have any thoughts, they are keen to hear from you: Feedback on the calculator can be emailed to calculator.feedback@defra.gsi.gov.uk

It's funny because well, because it's...

Dilbert - call it a humour offset

Careful what you wish for

An interesting question in Brand Republic, that leads to a Marketing article that doesn't seem to work (for me at least. Curse these Mac/Safari browsers): Can the industry manage more than a long-term pledge to cut packaging?

All I ask is that such cuts are done in the name of genuine enviROI (actual benefit to the planet's future, which may or may not mean any fiscal returns) and not just for cosmetic or PR purposes.

I was at Total Packaging at the NEC not long ago, and one telling (if as yet unconfirmed) stat was that of such 'waste', 95% came from food and 5% from the packaging.

Now I know they will not compromise... much... on what helps shift from the shelves, but what I don't want to find is that the reduction goes in areas where the consumer gets stuff home and for whatever reasons do not consume fully - hidden bruising, shorter lifespan, etc.

For sure more effort needs to go into what enters the waste stream from the moment of manufacture, but we need a much more coherent approach, and cooperation between all necessary parties (govt, local, govt, etc) on joined up thinking towards effective recycling (and NOT another 'Recycle - it good for our tonnage-based bonuses' campaign) and, my personal favourite, re:use.

I post this. And simply wonder why it is not on every other front page

The Earth today stands in imminent peril

'...and nothing short of a planetary rescue will save it from the environmental cataclysm of dangerous climate change. Those are not the words of eco-warriors but the considered opinion of a group of eminent scientists writing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.'

It's fairly clear-cut. And not too encouraging, really.

So why are we all not popping down to B&Q to get our self-assembly ark kit?

There could be many reasons. Climate fatigue, maybe? A bit like charity fatigue, only we're no longer up for saving ourselves.

Or a few too many headlines like this, that go on to copy like this: 'Six scientists from some of the leading scientific institutions in the United States...'. And an awful lot of ''might may be right".

I don't know. So I still wonder. And that... may be the problem.

Mea Culpa?

"This is your captain speaking .......... I'd like to welcome you aboard our low CO2 emission flight to the south of France."

The airline pilots association are claiming that the airline industry is being unfairly targeted as the worst of the contributors to climate change. Full ABTN article.

“Air travel has just been an easy target. But not any more. World air travel actually accounts for only 2% to 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions according to the International Panel on Climate Change and while air travel is proving more popular, carbon dioxide emissions will not be more than 6% by 2050 – a tiny amount compared to the big polluters.”

Isn’t it amazing just how easily human nature forces all of us to adopt an ‘it’s not us, it’s them’ type of attitude? Just one question – who is giving us the real numbers and the actual facts?

But we all may stop jetting off to the Mediterranean sun anyway if the researchers at New Scientist are correct – it will be waaaay tooooo hot for us Brits to handle! See Dangerously hot.

Back to sunny Skegness it is then.


Arms dealing - the career of the future?
Meanwhile, how to profit from Global Warming - become an arms dealer! Taken from The Observer.

'Expect huge migrations of people looking for food and shelter as they flee areas that become uninhabitable because of crop failure or flooding,' he says. 'You are already seeing this happen in places such as Bangladesh. That will force western governments to increase their military spending to keep people out.'

Now that’s how to put an optimistic slant on forthcoming geo-political disasters caused by global warming! Just to be fair though, he has hedged his bets by putting some huge investments into Green technologies too. Heads he wins, tails he wins?

He mentions Bangla Desh – the UN reckons the disastrous Darfur conflict, as well as smaller episodes in Somalia and Ivory Coast, are also a direct consequence, to some degree, of global warming, too. Sci-Tech Today story.

Vivoleum - made for the people by the people.

Ashes to ashes? Perhaps that should be Oil to Oil?

This is absolutely hilarious – it has to be one of the best stunts ever pulled on the Big Oil fraternity. See Daily Kos - Vivoleum .

It does, however, have some potentially serious undertones – they couldn’t really be thinking of making a replacement fuel out of human carcasses ……… could they?

Shades of Soylent Green ….. but this time as a fuel rather than as feedstuff?

More or Less?

David Cameron told us today what his big idea is for government. To do much less of it: Power to the people? Hmmn. I am just interested in the numbers:

Sounds awesome! But...

Do we still have to pay for all the meddling, overseeing, assessing, policing, etc public servants and over-funded, empire-quangos that have been stuck on the roster to keep themselves occupied 'doing' government?

And if a way can be found to ditch them without too many redundancy compo claims that would render it all a fiscal disaster, do we get a refund?

Council tax funds pensions!!

DAILY MAIL

So now I'm beginning to understand just why some councils are moving to fortnightly bin collections - much of their (sorry, but shouldn't that be OUR?) allocated cash goes straight into 'gold-plated', index linked pensions. .... And they can still retire at 60 whilst the plan is that the rest of us will have to work until 68!

Wasn't council tax supposed to pay for essential services? I don't remember agreeing to help provide super pensions for the faceless bureaucrats who spend all day pen-pushing and inventing new and ever more meaningless targets. But I suppose they have to employ someone to decode the data collected from the "Chip 'n Bin" devices.

I could hardly not share this, could I?

The ongoing satirical genius of Dilbert

Lord Above. Well, until next year.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click. Clunk. When you switch.

Now, how many hours of standby will we need to save to compensate for this: TVs 'dumped after digital switch'

Thanks to Junketeer PJ for sending this in from the BBC (so we know it must be true), 'About eight million TVs and video recorders will be dumped after the digital switch-over, a survey suggests'.

The rest of the piece makes equally interesting reading. But what's the betting we end up with a quango and csar in charge of fining us for leaving a little red dot glowing at night. OK, I know it's more than that (and I don't), but really.....

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?