As a free public information website, I was as equally fascinated by what was in this piece - Government urged to improve Web sites - as what was not.
First up, tell us what we don't know: they are too complex and are difficult to navigate. Well, D'uh.
The we get to the provision of information about the cost and usage of government Web sites.
I find it MIND-BOGGLING that the government spends £208 million a year (of whose money?) on its Web sites... but knows little about who access them or how they are used.
If ever there was a case to get them out of the public sector's dead hands this was it. They don't know what they're doing. They patently don't know why they're doing it. And they don't seem to care whether it works so long as it looks like they are doing something. And the heck with any ROI, which any sane business would apply to its comms efforts.
These are tools. Their only value is in being used. Not just for being there. I mentioned recently about a site that was all excited about 7,000 'hits', which a kennelcam of a dead dog rotting would exceed.
I'd also love to know what the breakdown of costs of design , build, operation and maintenance are for some, especially in the enviro-arena.
I'm betting several have 'departments' (which explains them looking like camels), all on salary with pension. Junkk.com has one bloke... so far... plus a few nice mates helping. And as and when it does need to grow, it will be funded by ads.
Which is better value?
ADDENDUM
That'll teach me. Now, when the heck will I find the time to read it?
Report
Exec summary
Another thing - 89 pages!!!!
Friday, July 13, 2007
Postives and negatives
Carbon neutral homes for mere mortals
You cover a lot of interesting, and valid points, and it is hard to disagree with most, if not all.
But the devil can be in the details, so in the spirit of debate may I raise a few points for consideration.
First up, and it's a doozy, is to try and get towards an acceptable definition of 'carbon neutrality'. To my eyes and ears it is ever so slightly loose and, depending on who decides to embrace it, the poor old public/consumer could be forgiven in thinking it is all manner of things that it may not actually be.
Personally, I have been trying to advocate the notion of enviROI, which is different to the financial version because the amount of money is nowhere near as relevant (though a factor - money poured into black holes may more usefully be redirected to green ones) as the impact on our planet, and hence kids' futures. So you may never get a return on an eco-investment, but it is still worth doing if reducing CO2 is your bag. The corollary of this is that you may make all sorts of noise on the green hue of it all, but actually the initiative may work out worse once every factor has been taken into account. This does have a bearing on construction issues as mentioned later.
In defence of aged rockers, so long as Metallica insulate their homes with their beards, and otherwise do as they say, I see nothing odd at all. What I do find less than compelling, however, is Squander Spice standing up with her newborn to plug her next concert whilst saying her presence was 'for her daughter's future', and then barely a week goes by before it turns out the group is getting a Lear jet each in case they have a hissy fit with each other. One reason why some felt the messengers rather undercut the message in this case. So which topic actually did get out there? I'd hazard it's more 'anyone else but me', which is hardly a motivational kickstart to the masses.
And while the last few days the media wires have been humming with such vastly critical topics as plastic bags and water bottles, I am glad to see that here we do have some thoughts on what is a more major issue, namely personal home energy consumption.
Back to the CN definition, even without heating I'd say that, without offsetting (a whole other, and equally mine-strewn topic), the CNzeroHome is still going to err on the negative simply because quite a lot would be involved in making it. See, new stuff does have a carbon consequence, the minute you dig its building blocks from the soil.
And while I am very happy to consider solar, heat-pumps, wind turbines, etc, beyond ROI I still have to be convinced with some on the enviROI.
Insulation is a bit of a no-brainer, so I can't quite figure out why vast amounts of effort is not being made to maximise this aspect's benefits RIGHT NOW. How many homes, for instance, could be insulated with the £5M blown on the latest carbon footprint ad campaign?
And as one who lives in a dwelling where carbon footprints are what you walk from the fireplace to the outside loo, I get nervous when the ODPM new-builds on flood plains look like getting a tip-top rating in the HIPS stakes, but without a cavity wall to fill in my very much already existing structure, I worry about being unfairly discriminated against by some rampant, half-cock, ill-considered box-ticking process over product.
But if we are to have new-builds, then yes, for heaven's sake let them be as you describe.
UK builders will of course take note, and will charge accordingly, no doubt.
You cover a lot of interesting, and valid points, and it is hard to disagree with most, if not all.
But the devil can be in the details, so in the spirit of debate may I raise a few points for consideration.
First up, and it's a doozy, is to try and get towards an acceptable definition of 'carbon neutrality'. To my eyes and ears it is ever so slightly loose and, depending on who decides to embrace it, the poor old public/consumer could be forgiven in thinking it is all manner of things that it may not actually be.
Personally, I have been trying to advocate the notion of enviROI, which is different to the financial version because the amount of money is nowhere near as relevant (though a factor - money poured into black holes may more usefully be redirected to green ones) as the impact on our planet, and hence kids' futures. So you may never get a return on an eco-investment, but it is still worth doing if reducing CO2 is your bag. The corollary of this is that you may make all sorts of noise on the green hue of it all, but actually the initiative may work out worse once every factor has been taken into account. This does have a bearing on construction issues as mentioned later.
In defence of aged rockers, so long as Metallica insulate their homes with their beards, and otherwise do as they say, I see nothing odd at all. What I do find less than compelling, however, is Squander Spice standing up with her newborn to plug her next concert whilst saying her presence was 'for her daughter's future', and then barely a week goes by before it turns out the group is getting a Lear jet each in case they have a hissy fit with each other. One reason why some felt the messengers rather undercut the message in this case. So which topic actually did get out there? I'd hazard it's more 'anyone else but me', which is hardly a motivational kickstart to the masses.
And while the last few days the media wires have been humming with such vastly critical topics as plastic bags and water bottles, I am glad to see that here we do have some thoughts on what is a more major issue, namely personal home energy consumption.
Back to the CN definition, even without heating I'd say that, without offsetting (a whole other, and equally mine-strewn topic), the CNzeroHome is still going to err on the negative simply because quite a lot would be involved in making it. See, new stuff does have a carbon consequence, the minute you dig its building blocks from the soil.
And while I am very happy to consider solar, heat-pumps, wind turbines, etc, beyond ROI I still have to be convinced with some on the enviROI.
Insulation is a bit of a no-brainer, so I can't quite figure out why vast amounts of effort is not being made to maximise this aspect's benefits RIGHT NOW. How many homes, for instance, could be insulated with the £5M blown on the latest carbon footprint ad campaign?
And as one who lives in a dwelling where carbon footprints are what you walk from the fireplace to the outside loo, I get nervous when the ODPM new-builds on flood plains look like getting a tip-top rating in the HIPS stakes, but without a cavity wall to fill in my very much already existing structure, I worry about being unfairly discriminated against by some rampant, half-cock, ill-considered box-ticking process over product.
But if we are to have new-builds, then yes, for heaven's sake let them be as you describe.
UK builders will of course take note, and will charge accordingly, no doubt.
Packaging & Marketing 5 – Consumer & Environment 0
"What’s that you’re doing Walt?"
"It’s a new idea I’m working on for marketing products that are waaaaaay too cheap."
"Really? So how’s it gonna work?"
"Well, you take a dirt cheap product, like a really cheap shower gel, and you put it into sexy bottles that cost three times the product it contains. It’s a real winner."
"Come on Walt! Get real! So just how do you plan to make people buy it then?"
"Easy, you spend huge wadges on neat advertising, like loads of telly time; price it at five or six times what the entire package is worth, and people will rush to buy it like lemmings."
"But that makes no sense at all Walt!"
"Maybe not to you, but I reckon I’ll make a fortune out of it."
"Sorry Walt, I’m not really with you on this one ……. I just can’t see how it can possibly work, people just aren’t that stupid. And just what do they do with the sexy bottles when they’ve used up the shower gel? Oh ...... I’m with it now ....... they’re paying for the sexy plastic bottle so they can use it for something else, aren’t they?"
"No! They just chuck ‘em away!"
_________________________________
It all sounds absolutely crazy, doesn’t it, but that’s exactly what’s happening with many health and beauty products on the market today. Another little expose from the Daily Mail which neatly demonstrates the massively over-inflated cost to the consumer of some products, and even touches on the downstream cost (to the environment) of throwing the container (that cost three times more than the contained product, and will take more than 400 years to decompose) into landfill sites.
"It's crazy. You pay more for the packaging than the ingredients and then you have to pay again to chuck the wretched stuff away."
Quite! I couldn’t have put it better myself. We live in a mad, mad world.
"It’s a new idea I’m working on for marketing products that are waaaaaay too cheap."
"Really? So how’s it gonna work?"
"Well, you take a dirt cheap product, like a really cheap shower gel, and you put it into sexy bottles that cost three times the product it contains. It’s a real winner."
"Come on Walt! Get real! So just how do you plan to make people buy it then?"
"Easy, you spend huge wadges on neat advertising, like loads of telly time; price it at five or six times what the entire package is worth, and people will rush to buy it like lemmings."
"But that makes no sense at all Walt!"
"Maybe not to you, but I reckon I’ll make a fortune out of it."
"Sorry Walt, I’m not really with you on this one ……. I just can’t see how it can possibly work, people just aren’t that stupid. And just what do they do with the sexy bottles when they’ve used up the shower gel? Oh ...... I’m with it now ....... they’re paying for the sexy plastic bottle so they can use it for something else, aren’t they?"
"No! They just chuck ‘em away!"
_________________________________
It all sounds absolutely crazy, doesn’t it, but that’s exactly what’s happening with many health and beauty products on the market today. Another little expose from the Daily Mail which neatly demonstrates the massively over-inflated cost to the consumer of some products, and even touches on the downstream cost (to the environment) of throwing the container (that cost three times more than the contained product, and will take more than 400 years to decompose) into landfill sites.
"It's crazy. You pay more for the packaging than the ingredients and then you have to pay again to chuck the wretched stuff away."
Quite! I couldn’t have put it better myself. We live in a mad, mad world.
A week is a long time in climate change
I hate to tell you I told you so, but: Tell Us What You Flaunt, What You Really Really Flaunt
This would not be the same Geri Halliwell who stood up at Wembley and reckoned that it was 'for her daughter's sake' was it?
Nothing blows cred like a two-faced celeb.
ADDENDUM
Meanwhile, across the pond: Will.I.Am Scraps Plan to Blow Up Hummer
With the funniest comment I've seen: 'He could ship it to Baghdad. That'd be like recylcing it and blowing it up.'
And was this the follow-up 'awareness' the organisers were really after: Where is Fergie's love for her HUMMER?
BBC - Jeremy Vine Show - Interesting debate, if a twofer
I wrote to Prof: Luckhurst:
I was just sent an email linking to the Jeremy Vine discussion you had (I presume a while ago at the time of the BBC withdrawal) regarding Live Earth.
I just wanted to say how nice it was to hear a calm, rational and considered analysis of the situation.
As a committed environmental campaigner and sometime commenter, I was saddened how polarised the discussion around this issue became, though not surprised in light of how anything climate change is immediately consigned to extremes. The media is more than complicit in setting up this situation. So your comment on the blue waters in between that are seldom acknowledged or addressed really resonated.
As did the point, which was key to my lack of enthusiasm, that previous such efforts simply had not worked. And if 'awareness' (itself a rather vague target at best) was all, then as far as I could see the main result was the vast majority of normal folk were further put off by the superficial posturings of a celebrity-obsessed green elite.
And frankly we are seeing it again with the latest surrounding Mr. Gore. However sincere he might be, I cannot separate the messenger from the message. And there seems a huge disconnect between what is being said by a minority of hugely rich and privileged folk who can afford to play with such things (and not really doing that much to mitigate their own lifestyle excesses, frankly), and the general population that are being talked down to from rather shaky pedestals with populist pronouncements that are almost exclusively negative, scaremongering, guilt-tripping, fine-laden or... plain wrong and open to damaging rebuttal (and what will get remembered more? The good stuff or the cons?). Which makes the efforts of methodical, reason-based, pragmatic and incentive-based attempts at persuasion all the harder to 'sell'.
I want to see this planet turned around. It's my greatest possible legacy to my kids. But by heavens those who have taken it upon themselves to do it 'for our own good' are making a mess of it so far. And the media sure is not helping. And I often have to wonder what the motivations are.
This would not be the same Geri Halliwell who stood up at Wembley and reckoned that it was 'for her daughter's sake' was it?
Nothing blows cred like a two-faced celeb.
ADDENDUM
Meanwhile, across the pond: Will.I.Am Scraps Plan to Blow Up Hummer
With the funniest comment I've seen: 'He could ship it to Baghdad. That'd be like recylcing it and blowing it up.'
And was this the follow-up 'awareness' the organisers were really after: Where is Fergie's love for her HUMMER?
BBC - Jeremy Vine Show - Interesting debate, if a twofer
I wrote to Prof: Luckhurst:
I was just sent an email linking to the Jeremy Vine discussion you had (I presume a while ago at the time of the BBC withdrawal) regarding Live Earth.
I just wanted to say how nice it was to hear a calm, rational and considered analysis of the situation.
As a committed environmental campaigner and sometime commenter, I was saddened how polarised the discussion around this issue became, though not surprised in light of how anything climate change is immediately consigned to extremes. The media is more than complicit in setting up this situation. So your comment on the blue waters in between that are seldom acknowledged or addressed really resonated.
As did the point, which was key to my lack of enthusiasm, that previous such efforts simply had not worked. And if 'awareness' (itself a rather vague target at best) was all, then as far as I could see the main result was the vast majority of normal folk were further put off by the superficial posturings of a celebrity-obsessed green elite.
And frankly we are seeing it again with the latest surrounding Mr. Gore. However sincere he might be, I cannot separate the messenger from the message. And there seems a huge disconnect between what is being said by a minority of hugely rich and privileged folk who can afford to play with such things (and not really doing that much to mitigate their own lifestyle excesses, frankly), and the general population that are being talked down to from rather shaky pedestals with populist pronouncements that are almost exclusively negative, scaremongering, guilt-tripping, fine-laden or... plain wrong and open to damaging rebuttal (and what will get remembered more? The good stuff or the cons?). Which makes the efforts of methodical, reason-based, pragmatic and incentive-based attempts at persuasion all the harder to 'sell'.
I want to see this planet turned around. It's my greatest possible legacy to my kids. But by heavens those who have taken it upon themselves to do it 'for our own good' are making a mess of it so far. And the media sure is not helping. And I often have to wonder what the motivations are.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Edit, or?
This from Newsday, or is it night (it seems they can now be one in the same)? The Queen and the BBC
Not long ago I had a pathetic, insincere, form (I have had others that are lifted from the same template - sorry for the delay, we know it's important, we've had a check, so we screwed up, so what, yadayada...) 'apology' from the BBC following a complaint about a piece where what I had written got 'edited' to make it the exact reverse of what I said.
Having just had a complaint to OFCOM about an edit that featured me and my company - which turned black into white - upheld, SKY has replied in its defence to the effect that because it was only a few seconds long it doesn't matter (so showing Fidel Castro on the Grassy Knoll would be fine), and in any case it would set 'a bad precedent' for reality TV shows to accurately represent, er, reality. Astounding.
And to show this extends to every level of our current media, this is the Editor's full reply in my local paper to a letter from a reader (rightly) complaining that they edited his letter to completely change its meaning: 'Apologies to... It is not our normal practice to alter the sense of letters.'
Well all I can say is that it seems to be a pretty prevalent, abnormal practice nowadays across the whole sorry industry (even news, apparently), and getting more and more frequent as ever more sad ways are sought to drive up ratings through 'enhancing' actuality. Bear in mind that when they say 'Tell us what you think..' and you do so, that what they say you think may end up a very different version in this edit-obsessed, unaccountable, fake media age.
And now, on top of Blue Peter, etc, we have this.
I created a while ago a category on my blog called tushtissue. It refers to the gobsmacking front to try and weasel out of the fact that you were caught with your pants down. More appropriately, with them round your ankles deliberately trying to score a cheap rating, or political point, or column inch by conveying something totally untrue. And then denying it.
So, who would like to take a bet that no one, anywhere, will be found to carry the can, or bear the consequences? A myriad fingers will point in every direction, and the whole thing will get lost in the 'What's?'.
It's a sad, sad state we are in. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. Thanks BBC. Thanks Fleet Street. Thanks every miserable overpaid 'senior executive' out there who laps the cream but will never shoulder the pain - of their own sorry actions.
I am sure we can look forward to a bumper edition of Newswatch, where all three of those up at dawn at the weekend can review the arrogant troupe of executive 'mea not blooming culpas' for whopping abuses of editorial standards broadcast to millions during prime time, fobbing off Uncle Ray during his cozy file-size chat with the usual 'it wasn't me, or if it was it wasn't that bad, or if it was it didn't matter, or if it does who cares?'
BBC Trust? Interesting, oxymoronic choice of words.
You cannot lie and expect to get away with it. Repeat. You should not be able to lie and get away with it. Repeat. You can lie and get away with it.
Now that's what I call editing.
Daily Mail - BBC's grovelling apology to Queen over 'tantrum' film - Well, they had to, really. It's the DM, after all. And read the comments. Not one cares about the changing of facts.
Times - Crisis of trust after BBC says sorry again - And sorry seems to be the easiest word...
I'm sure there 'll be more...
Guardian - Fincham: I'm staying put - there's a surprise: BBC exec not going to accept consequences shock. Plus the footage. Sweet. And not a thing ... yet... in CiF
Indy - Now we are really not amused: BBC forced to apologise for claiming Queen had a tantrum - Which would be, let's see... an outright lie? No, we really should leave it be and move on now.
Telegraph - Should the controller of BBC1 step down over the Queen gaffe?
Telegraph - Trust, the BBC and the Queen
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order - the first (very well articulated) comment says it all.
Me, I'm a gobby sod:
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
BBC Breakfast 14/07
I just watched your comment piece on the BBC 'Queen' edit.
At risk of finding my comments here edited, I have to take issue with some of the things said.
It is astounding that any justification could be spun out of the culture of reality shows being 'known' to be... er... not real. And that this is accepted by the chattering classes is a real worry.
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality. There are no blurred boundaries, from 'entertainment' to hard news. No exceptions.
I have an upheld complaint with OFCOM underway based on this very point.
GUARDIAN - BBC orders inquiry as pressure mounts
Cif - Don't believe everything you see - some amazing stuff about the Blue Peter issue I didn't know before. The rest of the posts show all that's wrong with blogging.
Indy - Pressure on BBC1 chief mounts over Queen slur
Times - BBC chief knew Queen footage was misleading 17 hours before apology
Telegraph - Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
Telegraph - Fincham should stay
Not long ago I had a pathetic, insincere, form (I have had others that are lifted from the same template - sorry for the delay, we know it's important, we've had a check, so we screwed up, so what, yadayada...) 'apology' from the BBC following a complaint about a piece where what I had written got 'edited' to make it the exact reverse of what I said.
Having just had a complaint to OFCOM about an edit that featured me and my company - which turned black into white - upheld, SKY has replied in its defence to the effect that because it was only a few seconds long it doesn't matter (so showing Fidel Castro on the Grassy Knoll would be fine), and in any case it would set 'a bad precedent' for reality TV shows to accurately represent, er, reality. Astounding.
And to show this extends to every level of our current media, this is the Editor's full reply in my local paper to a letter from a reader (rightly) complaining that they edited his letter to completely change its meaning: 'Apologies to... It is not our normal practice to alter the sense of letters.'
Well all I can say is that it seems to be a pretty prevalent, abnormal practice nowadays across the whole sorry industry (even news, apparently), and getting more and more frequent as ever more sad ways are sought to drive up ratings through 'enhancing' actuality. Bear in mind that when they say 'Tell us what you think..' and you do so, that what they say you think may end up a very different version in this edit-obsessed, unaccountable, fake media age.
And now, on top of Blue Peter, etc, we have this.
I created a while ago a category on my blog called tushtissue. It refers to the gobsmacking front to try and weasel out of the fact that you were caught with your pants down. More appropriately, with them round your ankles deliberately trying to score a cheap rating, or political point, or column inch by conveying something totally untrue. And then denying it.
So, who would like to take a bet that no one, anywhere, will be found to carry the can, or bear the consequences? A myriad fingers will point in every direction, and the whole thing will get lost in the 'What's?'.
It's a sad, sad state we are in. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. Thanks BBC. Thanks Fleet Street. Thanks every miserable overpaid 'senior executive' out there who laps the cream but will never shoulder the pain - of their own sorry actions.
I am sure we can look forward to a bumper edition of Newswatch, where all three of those up at dawn at the weekend can review the arrogant troupe of executive 'mea not blooming culpas' for whopping abuses of editorial standards broadcast to millions during prime time, fobbing off Uncle Ray during his cozy file-size chat with the usual 'it wasn't me, or if it was it wasn't that bad, or if it was it didn't matter, or if it does who cares?'
BBC Trust? Interesting, oxymoronic choice of words.
You cannot lie and expect to get away with it. Repeat. You should not be able to lie and get away with it. Repeat. You can lie and get away with it.
Now that's what I call editing.
Daily Mail - BBC's grovelling apology to Queen over 'tantrum' film - Well, they had to, really. It's the DM, after all. And read the comments. Not one cares about the changing of facts.
Times - Crisis of trust after BBC says sorry again - And sorry seems to be the easiest word...
I'm sure there 'll be more...
Guardian - Fincham: I'm staying put - there's a surprise: BBC exec not going to accept consequences shock. Plus the footage. Sweet. And not a thing ... yet... in CiF
Indy - Now we are really not amused: BBC forced to apologise for claiming Queen had a tantrum - Which would be, let's see... an outright lie? No, we really should leave it be and move on now.
Telegraph - Should the controller of BBC1 step down over the Queen gaffe?
Telegraph - Trust, the BBC and the Queen
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order - the first (very well articulated) comment says it all.
Me, I'm a gobby sod:
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
BBC Breakfast 14/07
I just watched your comment piece on the BBC 'Queen' edit.
At risk of finding my comments here edited, I have to take issue with some of the things said.
It is astounding that any justification could be spun out of the culture of reality shows being 'known' to be... er... not real. And that this is accepted by the chattering classes is a real worry.
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality. There are no blurred boundaries, from 'entertainment' to hard news. No exceptions.
I have an upheld complaint with OFCOM underway based on this very point.
GUARDIAN - BBC orders inquiry as pressure mounts
Cif - Don't believe everything you see - some amazing stuff about the Blue Peter issue I didn't know before. The rest of the posts show all that's wrong with blogging.
Indy - Pressure on BBC1 chief mounts over Queen slur
Times - BBC chief knew Queen footage was misleading 17 hours before apology
Telegraph - Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
Telegraph - Fincham should stay
Bag, bag, you're dead!
I like an industry magazine called Recycling & Waste World, and have been meaning to write in for a while. At last I have, following an editorial on plastic carrier bags.
The IPPC report barely makes a page, let alone a few broadsheet fronts, before being dropped in favour of the latest BB antics. The concert for Diana gets three times the audience of Live Earth. Nice to see we have our priorities firmly figured out. Speaking of which, witches' kickers yet again seem to be rearing their heads. No doubt inspired by Newsnight's investigation earlier in the week as to bottled water in restaurants contributing to global warming (quaffing airflown food or imported beer or wine, or simply going out to eat didn't seem to figure in the discussion), only yesterday we had an expose on BBC Breakfast of the shifty shifting habits of home delivery supermarket services. Actually it was pretty shocking, especially one chain managing to use 15 where 3 would have done, but at least we got a two-for-one deal on talking heads to explain it was being looked at... now this issue has been brought to their attention. Being such a recent thing 'n all. I await the green TVC claims to wash o'er the airwaves in due course.
Anyway, may I use these pages to ask a question of those more than able to answer. Apparently, 'we' use 290 of things annually. And with all sorts of other options available, as the editorial pointed out, that really cannot be good, or make much sense, at least environmentally. But is this really the most pressing issue we face when compared to, say, deforestation (more C02 sink lost than the USA emits in a year), or home insulation (what is it? 25% of our consumption of energy)? I was just wondering what this amount of plastic actually represented as a block, especially when most surely does get reused as bags, as a substitute for bin liners or recycled in store bins? In, say, 2L Evian bottle terms? Or 500ml sun lotion jars.
I don't know, and hence that why I ask. Because I simply wonder if all this effort, from political to corporate to media levels, is the best place to direct various energies, especially when it demands so much of consumers' attention, and diverts it from, how to put it, areas with perhaps a more significant enviROI (imposition on the planet, which can still be positive even if financially the ROI is negative. A noble call to make).
Big up to IKEA, for 'taking the plunge' I guess, and I'm sure they will assess the customer reaction as it transpires, but I really hope that such efforts, and the usually immense PR and ad cost thrown behind them (which may often be a tad more usefully invested elsewhere if the planet is the actual priority) are matched equally in areas that may produce more, and more significant results.
Your point on the actual facts of bio/compostables are well taken (a degradable bag will not do too well in your composter), vital for the consumer to be aware of and, to this one at least, almost a complete mystery still. That is woeful. On the part of all who would claim to be concerned. There's no point asking for an eco-pack/bag, or using it, if you don't know much more than it is 'green-ish',. Where it comes from and where it goes to is a critical part of the decision chain, one which the consumer is too often being dumped with handling.
The 'bag for life' story you highlight typifies the process vs. product mentality too many 'in the know' are complicit in propagating, mainly because this often means more sales or awareness boxes being ticked, even if the planet is no better off, much less the poor sap who thinks they are helping. And when 'exposed', as was the infamous version you highlight Anya Hindmarch's 'I'm not a plastic bag', imported from Asia), the backfire, and 'average' consumer's reaction to it of 'well if a bunch of rich folk are going to play silly, then why should I bother?' often makes it all simply more difficult to persuade with genuine initiatives.
Like you say, wherever possible bring your own, because if it's not always possible to remove or reduce then reuse. I reckon that's the way. But then I would, wouldn't I?
Daily Mail - The £5 a bottle mineral water - from a cloud in the South Seas - the other side of the coin
The IPPC report barely makes a page, let alone a few broadsheet fronts, before being dropped in favour of the latest BB antics. The concert for Diana gets three times the audience of Live Earth. Nice to see we have our priorities firmly figured out. Speaking of which, witches' kickers yet again seem to be rearing their heads. No doubt inspired by Newsnight's investigation earlier in the week as to bottled water in restaurants contributing to global warming (quaffing airflown food or imported beer or wine, or simply going out to eat didn't seem to figure in the discussion), only yesterday we had an expose on BBC Breakfast of the shifty shifting habits of home delivery supermarket services. Actually it was pretty shocking, especially one chain managing to use 15 where 3 would have done, but at least we got a two-for-one deal on talking heads to explain it was being looked at... now this issue has been brought to their attention. Being such a recent thing 'n all. I await the green TVC claims to wash o'er the airwaves in due course.
Anyway, may I use these pages to ask a question of those more than able to answer. Apparently, 'we' use 290 of things annually. And with all sorts of other options available, as the editorial pointed out, that really cannot be good, or make much sense, at least environmentally. But is this really the most pressing issue we face when compared to, say, deforestation (more C02 sink lost than the USA emits in a year), or home insulation (what is it? 25% of our consumption of energy)? I was just wondering what this amount of plastic actually represented as a block, especially when most surely does get reused as bags, as a substitute for bin liners or recycled in store bins? In, say, 2L Evian bottle terms? Or 500ml sun lotion jars.
I don't know, and hence that why I ask. Because I simply wonder if all this effort, from political to corporate to media levels, is the best place to direct various energies, especially when it demands so much of consumers' attention, and diverts it from, how to put it, areas with perhaps a more significant enviROI (imposition on the planet, which can still be positive even if financially the ROI is negative. A noble call to make).
Big up to IKEA, for 'taking the plunge' I guess, and I'm sure they will assess the customer reaction as it transpires, but I really hope that such efforts, and the usually immense PR and ad cost thrown behind them (which may often be a tad more usefully invested elsewhere if the planet is the actual priority) are matched equally in areas that may produce more, and more significant results.
Your point on the actual facts of bio/compostables are well taken (a degradable bag will not do too well in your composter), vital for the consumer to be aware of and, to this one at least, almost a complete mystery still. That is woeful. On the part of all who would claim to be concerned. There's no point asking for an eco-pack/bag, or using it, if you don't know much more than it is 'green-ish',. Where it comes from and where it goes to is a critical part of the decision chain, one which the consumer is too often being dumped with handling.
The 'bag for life' story you highlight typifies the process vs. product mentality too many 'in the know' are complicit in propagating, mainly because this often means more sales or awareness boxes being ticked, even if the planet is no better off, much less the poor sap who thinks they are helping. And when 'exposed', as was the infamous version you highlight Anya Hindmarch's 'I'm not a plastic bag', imported from Asia), the backfire, and 'average' consumer's reaction to it of 'well if a bunch of rich folk are going to play silly, then why should I bother?' often makes it all simply more difficult to persuade with genuine initiatives.
Like you say, wherever possible bring your own, because if it's not always possible to remove or reduce then reuse. I reckon that's the way. But then I would, wouldn't I?
Daily Mail - The £5 a bottle mineral water - from a cloud in the South Seas - the other side of the coin
How much petrol does the USA consume each day?
OK, so we all think ...... a lot, its probably the largest single consumer on the planet as far as nations go.
So how about as much as South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, Spain, Venezuela, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil combined?
Nope, nowhere near.
So what if we also add the consumption of France, Australia, Iran and Italy?
Nope, still nowhere near.
OK, so if we also add Britain, Mexico, Germany and Russia into the equation, we must be getting close?
Nope! Even if you add and Canada, China and Japan into the equation, you still don't get a cumulative figure that reaches the daily gas (petrol) consumption of the USA.
They say a picture paints a thousand words - but this is simply a jaw-dropper. Take a look at the graphic from Treehugger.
Gob-smacking!! As someone who invariably has an opinion on just about anything, as far as this goes I'm, well ......... simply speechless!!
So how about as much as South Korea, South Africa, Taiwan, Spain, Venezuela, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil combined?
Nope, nowhere near.
So what if we also add the consumption of France, Australia, Iran and Italy?
Nope, still nowhere near.
OK, so if we also add Britain, Mexico, Germany and Russia into the equation, we must be getting close?
Nope! Even if you add and Canada, China and Japan into the equation, you still don't get a cumulative figure that reaches the daily gas (petrol) consumption of the USA.
They say a picture paints a thousand words - but this is simply a jaw-dropper. Take a look at the graphic from Treehugger.
Gob-smacking!! As someone who invariably has an opinion on just about anything, as far as this goes I'm, well ......... simply speechless!!
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Bag Lads
Like I say, this morning's Breakfast was a rich seam.
So along with all the other vastly crucial environmental issues covered of late, our Declan does an expose of... plastic bags. There's a novelty.
I simply don't get it. And have still to find out just what amount of plastic the 290 a year 'we' 'use' actually amounts to as a block when compared to say, the half dozen Fairy Liquid bottles we get through each year. Or if it really matters vs., well, most other things, really.
Anyway, the target was online deliveries, and it was actually quite surprising that these bozos use plastic bags, and just how many they do use, with Declan's best buds ASDA swinging in at 50% above the rest (15 for a normal 3-bag shop).
What was not surprising was that, good golly, they are all 'looking at' new ways. Now, let's see, home delivery have been going on how long? And NOW they decide to get all proactive. Sad.
And then we get a two-for-one deal on spokespersons, with the classic retail clone of sharp-suit, shaved-head and monotone mantra from a couple of high-power (in their minds) 'executives'. I bet a brace of 318 Beemers were being waxed in the underground garage as we watched. And 'make some noise' parties to Ibiza with Linda in accounts getting finalised on the Bluetooth as they headed back to shopping-central.
Their families must be so proud. I'm sure they are worth every penny. As is my licence fee.
So along with all the other vastly crucial environmental issues covered of late, our Declan does an expose of... plastic bags. There's a novelty.
I simply don't get it. And have still to find out just what amount of plastic the 290 a year 'we' 'use' actually amounts to as a block when compared to say, the half dozen Fairy Liquid bottles we get through each year. Or if it really matters vs., well, most other things, really.
Anyway, the target was online deliveries, and it was actually quite surprising that these bozos use plastic bags, and just how many they do use, with Declan's best buds ASDA swinging in at 50% above the rest (15 for a normal 3-bag shop).
What was not surprising was that, good golly, they are all 'looking at' new ways. Now, let's see, home delivery have been going on how long? And NOW they decide to get all proactive. Sad.
And then we get a two-for-one deal on spokespersons, with the classic retail clone of sharp-suit, shaved-head and monotone mantra from a couple of high-power (in their minds) 'executives'. I bet a brace of 318 Beemers were being waxed in the underground garage as we watched. And 'make some noise' parties to Ibiza with Linda in accounts getting finalised on the Bluetooth as they headed back to shopping-central.
Their families must be so proud. I'm sure they are worth every penny. As is my licence fee.
Sun to blame for global warming. Not.
Some new evidence from eminent British & Swiss researchers concludes that variability in the sun's energy output cannot be responsible for recent global warming. Full report from Reuters, though I'm certain it will be all over the press like a rash later today; it's already been mentioned by Wogan on Radio 2.
"There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming. "
"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures".
That rather takes one of the major planks out from the BOFDis' none AGW case.
I wonder just how many will take any notice? And what's the betting that some other eminent solar scientists will come up with data that indicates just the opposite within a few days?
This debate will still run and run and run and run ..................
Want to reassess this and other evidence for yourself? Probably the best start point can be found in the New Scientist - Environment section: "Climate change: A guide for the perplexed".
Some other takes on the same research.
"the temperature increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up." The Guardian
"This should settle the debate," - BBCi
"All quiet on the solar front" - The Register.
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous." Royal Society spokesman - as quoted in The Telegraph.
"Find another culprit" - Guardian CIF - some interesting debate in the many comments already, the majority coming from the 'deniers' side already.
______________
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) - Real Climate
"There is little doubt that solar variability has influenced the Earth's climate in the past and may well have been a factor in the first half of the last century, but British and Swiss researchers said it could not explain recent warming. "
"Over the past 20 years, all the trends in the sun that could have had an influence on Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures".
That rather takes one of the major planks out from the BOFDis' none AGW case.
I wonder just how many will take any notice? And what's the betting that some other eminent solar scientists will come up with data that indicates just the opposite within a few days?
This debate will still run and run and run and run ..................
Want to reassess this and other evidence for yourself? Probably the best start point can be found in the New Scientist - Environment section: "Climate change: A guide for the perplexed".
Some other takes on the same research.
"the temperature increase should be slowing down but in fact it is speeding up." The Guardian
"This should settle the debate," - BBCi
"All quiet on the solar front" - The Register.
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous." Royal Society spokesman - as quoted in The Telegraph.
"Find another culprit" - Guardian CIF - some interesting debate in the many comments already, the majority coming from the 'deniers' side already.
______________
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) - Real Climate
Damage Limitation
A rich seam on Breakfast News this morning.
Only getting around to it now as I have found out I have an actual ad job tomorrow. No money, but a speaking gig for the local Chamber. Still all promo and no dinero!
I am prompted to comment having watched a piece about the new government's commitment... or indeed obsession (simply put, they need to house Labour voters quick or they won't vote Labour any more) with 'affordable' home building. But what made me actually get pondering in depth was connecting it with another piece later on about youth services, highlighted by kids this summer apparently being at a loss what to do in the new built-up areas, and finding less than productive activities to occupy themselves as a consequence.
I guess I should own up to being a wiMOANby - which is 'Why in my, or anyone's back yard?' - here, as we look to be facing such issues even in rural Herefordshire.
A town of 10,000 is being required to bolt on a ton (make that several) more dwellings on the outskirts. Frankly, the area can probably afford it without great impact on the look of the place, but I'm not so sure about the ability of the land to cope with the loss of rainfall run-off (concrete drives do not soak up as well as farmland), or the infrastructure with all those extra loos flushing, hoses watering, etc.
And then there are the kids. As the guest in the show wisely commented, Mr. Brown is throwing all these efforts at sticking up ever more boxes, but what about the social networks to cope with the needs of those who live in them? Even he, bless him, had to slap down one of his already unruly underlings for getting waaaay to ahead of the game in this regard (with, I am sure, a nice big pad of her own to retreat to, on full pension, when the time comes).
It's such a tricky one, but I can't see how the end point, even locally, in rich Western 'here', is being so ignored in favour of short-term fixes. Where does one draw the line? Or don't we? Do we just keep expanding and expanding until all the towns and cities are joined up, and then we start to point to the sky, like some Blade Runneresque nightmare. Ridley Scott's genius vision was not far off the mark, even down to the climatic consequences.
Of course there needs to be some consideration for 'key workers', but on the other hand I can't see why, or indeed how the solution to people's expectations of living can be accommodated by simply sticking on more, especially in places that simply may not be suitable. And while our population may not be growing as fast as some other places, it patently still seems to be placing a burden on the finite land area that exists to support us. So, along with a few other things, maybe now is the time to look at achieving a balance, and/or managing expectations of what we can now afford. Maybe my kids will need to dwell in my cave with their families after all. Not like they'll be going far. And then the little sods can look after me in my dotage as well. Ain't nature... er, nurture wonderful?
ADDENDUM:
To Newsnight - GORDON'S GRAND DESIGNS
Would someone who knows, or cares, like to inform me (and anyone else interested) at what point this country cannot absorb any more concrete before its green and pleasant land area can sustain habitable living no further?
I just ask because there has to be such a point. As Mark Twain said about investing in land (if defied by Hong Kong and Singapore), they are not making any more of it. Now we've expanded to pretty much score every viable bit, with some left over to live off as opposed to on, I'd say a rethink may be in order.
But if ever-expanding populations are not to be addressed, and it's all a bit iffy on the re-election front to not ensure every man, woman, child and their dog get guaranteed their own abode in wilful defiance of logic if not market forces, I can only be reassured that I won't be around when it sinks in that maybe you don't get what you want, have to learn to expect less than you're used to, and that three into two may well have to go.... again.
Only getting around to it now as I have found out I have an actual ad job tomorrow. No money, but a speaking gig for the local Chamber. Still all promo and no dinero!
I am prompted to comment having watched a piece about the new government's commitment... or indeed obsession (simply put, they need to house Labour voters quick or they won't vote Labour any more) with 'affordable' home building. But what made me actually get pondering in depth was connecting it with another piece later on about youth services, highlighted by kids this summer apparently being at a loss what to do in the new built-up areas, and finding less than productive activities to occupy themselves as a consequence.
I guess I should own up to being a wiMOANby - which is 'Why in my, or anyone's back yard?' - here, as we look to be facing such issues even in rural Herefordshire.
A town of 10,000 is being required to bolt on a ton (make that several) more dwellings on the outskirts. Frankly, the area can probably afford it without great impact on the look of the place, but I'm not so sure about the ability of the land to cope with the loss of rainfall run-off (concrete drives do not soak up as well as farmland), or the infrastructure with all those extra loos flushing, hoses watering, etc.
And then there are the kids. As the guest in the show wisely commented, Mr. Brown is throwing all these efforts at sticking up ever more boxes, but what about the social networks to cope with the needs of those who live in them? Even he, bless him, had to slap down one of his already unruly underlings for getting waaaay to ahead of the game in this regard (with, I am sure, a nice big pad of her own to retreat to, on full pension, when the time comes).
It's such a tricky one, but I can't see how the end point, even locally, in rich Western 'here', is being so ignored in favour of short-term fixes. Where does one draw the line? Or don't we? Do we just keep expanding and expanding until all the towns and cities are joined up, and then we start to point to the sky, like some Blade Runneresque nightmare. Ridley Scott's genius vision was not far off the mark, even down to the climatic consequences.
Of course there needs to be some consideration for 'key workers', but on the other hand I can't see why, or indeed how the solution to people's expectations of living can be accommodated by simply sticking on more, especially in places that simply may not be suitable. And while our population may not be growing as fast as some other places, it patently still seems to be placing a burden on the finite land area that exists to support us. So, along with a few other things, maybe now is the time to look at achieving a balance, and/or managing expectations of what we can now afford. Maybe my kids will need to dwell in my cave with their families after all. Not like they'll be going far. And then the little sods can look after me in my dotage as well. Ain't nature... er, nurture wonderful?
ADDENDUM:
To Newsnight - GORDON'S GRAND DESIGNS
Would someone who knows, or cares, like to inform me (and anyone else interested) at what point this country cannot absorb any more concrete before its green and pleasant land area can sustain habitable living no further?
I just ask because there has to be such a point. As Mark Twain said about investing in land (if defied by Hong Kong and Singapore), they are not making any more of it. Now we've expanded to pretty much score every viable bit, with some left over to live off as opposed to on, I'd say a rethink may be in order.
But if ever-expanding populations are not to be addressed, and it's all a bit iffy on the re-election front to not ensure every man, woman, child and their dog get guaranteed their own abode in wilful defiance of logic if not market forces, I can only be reassured that I won't be around when it sinks in that maybe you don't get what you want, have to learn to expect less than you're used to, and that three into two may well have to go.... again.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Water, water, everywhere. And yet we import so much to drink.
Maybe if flood water was made de riqueur at the table it would solve two problems at once:) H2O snobbery
Bless. A few weeks ago a piece in Newsnight highlights the fact that the loss of carbon sink through deforestation is in excess of the USA's entire annual output... and it gets just 30 posts, mostly shared billing with the next cold war.
But to worry about the snobbery of bottled water we're up to 130 and counting!
Still doesn't make much sense to me, but for a special non-alcoholic complement to the meal (I'm guessing all are still OK with a nice bottle of Aussie Chardonnay and some airflown whatever, drizzled in stuff and topped with a dusting of more stuff) I'm not sure the tap can quite match the sparkle of a Perrier (sans benzene, of course).
But we seem again to be getting into 'what's necessary' territory here.
As the majority are discussing the affronts endured at a dining venue that is not their home, one could possibly also ask how eco it is shunting one and all to another place to have a meal.
Bigger questions could be directed to those who know about such things as to how such imports are allowed, and what their relative carbon footprints are compared to other food and beverage options. And, if deemed acceptable in the consumer choice chain for sale (and taxing) by the authorities, why there are not better mechanisms to share the responsibility for viable, economic, decent enviROI recycling process amounts all through the delivery chain, from manufacturer (bottler), through consumer (sorry) to reclaim rather than landfill. Of course there are reuse options a wee bit higher up the waste hierarchy, and at http://www.junkk.com we have quite a few and are more than happy to see uploaded lots more.
However, to get with the flow (more water puns, sorry) of this pressing debate, just for personal fun, I have never understood paying for the still variety as I can't taste the difference. And how special an event is with a plastic bottle amidst the setting is also in my view an aspect to consider.
So... a sexy blue fizzy Ty Ant or bulbous green glass Perrier (see them made into gorgeous lights here: http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97 ) would be sadly missed.
The plastic flatties less so, for sure, though there is quite an industry out there that may have trouble surviving supplying only the needs of those with less comprehensive piped delivery systems. Me, I'd prefer to unemploy a few Amazonian or Sabah loggers before the staff of Pelegrino.
Kill plastics off if that's the priority to save the planet. But be careful what you wish for, as there is plenty more on your table that is really not necessary or ecologically that desirable either, and once the fingers get pointing, who knows where next they may get directed?
Nice to see Newsnight still tackling the big issues though, especially to let pass without much consideration as to why a few days ago the global concert to sort out climate awareness managed to score 1/3 the audience of the one from a sadly missed Princess. I guess it's all about priorities. And ratings.
Cheers!
ADDENDUM - Wow, we're well on our way to 250 posts. Meanwhile, as Dave has kindly been sharing, the whole climate change issue seems to be getting some welcome, if questionably-covered, additional focus.
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of comments in this (water) piece really seem to highlight the problem. A bunch of liberal yuppies arguing about the water they drink at the Ivy, vs. a few more significant issues that most, I'd hazard, won't even entertain forgoing. Yet these are the very minority yapping away at the majority from their pedestals of privilege and, I'm afraid, simply either p*ssing them off or causing a lot of deaf ears to be turned.
I drink bottled water once in a blue moon. And yes, it is usually when I am out and fancy a fizzy complement to a meal when wine is out and I'm driving. Have any of these folk on their high horses considered just how much beer is consumed in inefficient packaging, not to mention the numbers of pints of water required to make one? What's next? Eco-Prohibition?
Such obsession with trivia by the chattering classes is really obscuring the bigger picture I fear.
ADDENDUM:
NEWS FROM: Green Party in England & Wales
Londoners urged to get bottled water off the menu
Londoners are being urged to make a stand for the environment by
rejecting the social pressure which leads to them ordering bottled
water rather than asking for perfectly good tap water. The call comes
after city officials in New York launched a campaign to persuade
people to abandon bottled water.
Londoners drink the bottled water equivalent of just over 1 Olympic-
sized swimming pool per week, of which 25% is imported. Bottled water
is now the world’s fastest-growing drinks sector worth £1.2bn a year
and research shows that it is now outselling coca-cola in London.
Yet, new figures from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) show that
tap water has improved and now meets stringent quality standards in
99.98% of cases.
Jenny Jones, Green Party member of the London Assembly, has warned of
the damaging ecological impact of bottled water.
Jenny Jones said:
“Londoners need to show some independence and show that ordering tap
water with your meal, or at the pub, is fashionable and the right
thing to do. Selling water in bottles and burning massive quantities
of fossil fuels for its transportation does not make economic or
environmental sense.
“Most containers for bottled water are made from non-degradable
plastics, which take a 450 years to break down when disposed of in
landfill sites. Even glass bottles of water still take a lot of
energy to crush and recycle, whereas all we do with a restaurant
glass of water is wash it up afterwards.”
Notes to Editors (and why not you, dear readers, too):
1. Defra figures on water consumption in London are available here
2. Inspectors said 99.98% of tap samples met industry standards
in 2006, up from 99.96% in 2005.
3. Bottled Water Information Office (BWIO).
4. Jenny Jones is also chair of London Food.
But.... then they should maybe resist the urge to order a perfectly good pint, glass of Chardonnay, Thai prawn...
Then I wonder how many Olympic sized swimming pools of tap water get wasted per minute through leaks.
I know it's a 'better than nothing', but this really smacks of a rather odd rallying cry to get the public on board with, in the great scheme of things, along with oh, say, plastic bags (past and future posts)!
And when people are getting blotto at the drop of a hat, do we really need to make water less attractive (without inferring anything about 'tap', of course).
I think I'm zigging while others zag.
Gaurdian - Let's lose our bottle
Bless. A few weeks ago a piece in Newsnight highlights the fact that the loss of carbon sink through deforestation is in excess of the USA's entire annual output... and it gets just 30 posts, mostly shared billing with the next cold war.
But to worry about the snobbery of bottled water we're up to 130 and counting!
Still doesn't make much sense to me, but for a special non-alcoholic complement to the meal (I'm guessing all are still OK with a nice bottle of Aussie Chardonnay and some airflown whatever, drizzled in stuff and topped with a dusting of more stuff) I'm not sure the tap can quite match the sparkle of a Perrier (sans benzene, of course).
But we seem again to be getting into 'what's necessary' territory here.
As the majority are discussing the affronts endured at a dining venue that is not their home, one could possibly also ask how eco it is shunting one and all to another place to have a meal.
Bigger questions could be directed to those who know about such things as to how such imports are allowed, and what their relative carbon footprints are compared to other food and beverage options. And, if deemed acceptable in the consumer choice chain for sale (and taxing) by the authorities, why there are not better mechanisms to share the responsibility for viable, economic, decent enviROI recycling process amounts all through the delivery chain, from manufacturer (bottler), through consumer (sorry) to reclaim rather than landfill. Of course there are reuse options a wee bit higher up the waste hierarchy, and at http://www.junkk.com we have quite a few and are more than happy to see uploaded lots more.
However, to get with the flow (more water puns, sorry) of this pressing debate, just for personal fun, I have never understood paying for the still variety as I can't taste the difference. And how special an event is with a plastic bottle amidst the setting is also in my view an aspect to consider.
So... a sexy blue fizzy Ty Ant or bulbous green glass Perrier (see them made into gorgeous lights here: http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97 ) would be sadly missed.
The plastic flatties less so, for sure, though there is quite an industry out there that may have trouble surviving supplying only the needs of those with less comprehensive piped delivery systems. Me, I'd prefer to unemploy a few Amazonian or Sabah loggers before the staff of Pelegrino.
Kill plastics off if that's the priority to save the planet. But be careful what you wish for, as there is plenty more on your table that is really not necessary or ecologically that desirable either, and once the fingers get pointing, who knows where next they may get directed?
Nice to see Newsnight still tackling the big issues though, especially to let pass without much consideration as to why a few days ago the global concert to sort out climate awareness managed to score 1/3 the audience of the one from a sadly missed Princess. I guess it's all about priorities. And ratings.
Cheers!
ADDENDUM - Wow, we're well on our way to 250 posts. Meanwhile, as Dave has kindly been sharing, the whole climate change issue seems to be getting some welcome, if questionably-covered, additional focus.
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of comments in this (water) piece really seem to highlight the problem. A bunch of liberal yuppies arguing about the water they drink at the Ivy, vs. a few more significant issues that most, I'd hazard, won't even entertain forgoing. Yet these are the very minority yapping away at the majority from their pedestals of privilege and, I'm afraid, simply either p*ssing them off or causing a lot of deaf ears to be turned.
I drink bottled water once in a blue moon. And yes, it is usually when I am out and fancy a fizzy complement to a meal when wine is out and I'm driving. Have any of these folk on their high horses considered just how much beer is consumed in inefficient packaging, not to mention the numbers of pints of water required to make one? What's next? Eco-Prohibition?
Such obsession with trivia by the chattering classes is really obscuring the bigger picture I fear.
ADDENDUM:
NEWS FROM: Green Party in England & Wales
Londoners urged to get bottled water off the menu
Londoners are being urged to make a stand for the environment by
rejecting the social pressure which leads to them ordering bottled
water rather than asking for perfectly good tap water. The call comes
after city officials in New York launched a campaign to persuade
people to abandon bottled water.
Londoners drink the bottled water equivalent of just over 1 Olympic-
sized swimming pool per week, of which 25% is imported. Bottled water
is now the world’s fastest-growing drinks sector worth £1.2bn a year
and research shows that it is now outselling coca-cola in London.
Yet, new figures from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) show that
tap water has improved and now meets stringent quality standards in
99.98% of cases.
Jenny Jones, Green Party member of the London Assembly, has warned of
the damaging ecological impact of bottled water.
Jenny Jones said:
“Londoners need to show some independence and show that ordering tap
water with your meal, or at the pub, is fashionable and the right
thing to do. Selling water in bottles and burning massive quantities
of fossil fuels for its transportation does not make economic or
environmental sense.
“Most containers for bottled water are made from non-degradable
plastics, which take a 450 years to break down when disposed of in
landfill sites. Even glass bottles of water still take a lot of
energy to crush and recycle, whereas all we do with a restaurant
glass of water is wash it up afterwards.”
Notes to Editors (and why not you, dear readers, too):
1. Defra figures on water consumption in London are available here
2. Inspectors said 99.98% of tap samples met industry standards
in 2006, up from 99.96% in 2005.
3. Bottled Water Information Office (BWIO).
4. Jenny Jones is also chair of London Food.
But.... then they should maybe resist the urge to order a perfectly good pint, glass of Chardonnay, Thai prawn...
Then I wonder how many Olympic sized swimming pools of tap water get wasted per minute through leaks.
I know it's a 'better than nothing', but this really smacks of a rather odd rallying cry to get the public on board with, in the great scheme of things, along with oh, say, plastic bags (past and future posts)!
And when people are getting blotto at the drop of a hat, do we really need to make water less attractive (without inferring anything about 'tap', of course).
I think I'm zigging while others zag.
Gaurdian - Let's lose our bottle
We are all members of the blackfoot tribe
I missed seeing this last night, but then I rarely see Corrie with anything more than half an eye open.
DEFRA has launched a £5Million ad campaign aimed at making us all more aware of our carbon footprints. Full story from The Guardian.
Nice use of an excellent Kinks track (Shangri-La), but will the man in the street even understand the ad, let alone the underlying message? Let's see.
DEFRA has launched a £5Million ad campaign aimed at making us all more aware of our carbon footprints. Full story from The Guardian.
Nice use of an excellent Kinks track (Shangri-La), but will the man in the street even understand the ad, let alone the underlying message? Let's see.
The convenient solution?
A clever title for an interesting short film (10mins) from Greenpeace promoting investment in renewables and CHP schemes above the development of any further nuclear power generation capabilites.
Some quite interesting facts & figures appear, not least of which is the scale of government funding in renewables R&D compared to the funding going into existing nuclear waste clean up! A bit of a gobsmacker!
So is it the convenient solution? Well, watch the video and make up your own mind.
My major concern is more, how shall I put it .... the 'inconvenient unkown'; as in, do we actually have the time to develop and deploy large scale new renewable schemes based on things like wave and tidal power, technologies which, as yet, are still very much in their infancy?
Some quite interesting facts & figures appear, not least of which is the scale of government funding in renewables R&D compared to the funding going into existing nuclear waste clean up! A bit of a gobsmacker!
So is it the convenient solution? Well, watch the video and make up your own mind.
My major concern is more, how shall I put it .... the 'inconvenient unkown'; as in, do we actually have the time to develop and deploy large scale new renewable schemes based on things like wave and tidal power, technologies which, as yet, are still very much in their infancy?
Monday, July 09, 2007
MP. PM. WC. RIP.
The Diaries
"Tony. It's Gordon. I'm locked in the toilet."
A phone message from Gordon Brown to Tony Blair as they were discussing which one of them should run for the leadership of the Labour party. Blair is quoted as replying: "You're staying there until you agree."
As I reconcile our country being lead by someone who deals with difficult decisions by making a dash for, and seeking refuge from making any in, the loo, I can only gain solace from the scene in Jurassic Park that epitomised the notion that you can run from responsibility for just so long, but ultimately if you choose to hide, the consequences will eventually catch up and bite.
"Tony. It's Gordon. I'm locked in the toilet."
A phone message from Gordon Brown to Tony Blair as they were discussing which one of them should run for the leadership of the Labour party. Blair is quoted as replying: "You're staying there until you agree."
As I reconcile our country being lead by someone who deals with difficult decisions by making a dash for, and seeking refuge from making any in, the loo, I can only gain solace from the scene in Jurassic Park that epitomised the notion that you can run from responsibility for just so long, but ultimately if you choose to hide, the consequences will eventually catch up and bite.
Making Whoopsie
I found myself in an odd, slightly down mood last night. Mainly having watched an eclectic mix of TV (that will do it every time).
First up was the news, with a story on the new Boeing Dreamliner. Pretty much a technological marvel, it will do its job with a lot less impact on the planet than predecessors. Trouble is, a lot of folk were quick to point out, it will probably mean doing pretty much a lot more jobs for the same, slightly less than optimal impact that such craft impose.
Tricky. Certainly better than nothing. For sure a step in the right direction allowing for the fact that flying is a fact of modern consumer life (for now). But... hard to get too excited, especially if... when... we get a bunch of nasty eco-ads telling us how green it is.
Then I watched a Ch5 doco on 'the world's tallest hotel', the Burj al Arab in Dubai. As an ex Civil Engineer, I could only be transfixed as each seemingly impossible construction challenge was identified... and then solved. The sheer creativity and expertise in making something was awesome to behold, and truly envy-making to one who loves to make stuff.
But... even though I was just able to cope with the fact this was little more than a one hour ad for a pretty out-of-my-league section of the hospitality industry, some of the facts of its eco footprint were really hard to ignore, though the programme makers patently did not have this aspect in mind. They were proud that each suite sucks more juice than a small town!
My deep unease at both of these was at the heart of my depression. I have been trained to and am stimulated by making things; have been my whole life. To see something where before there was nothing is a truly great feeling, especially if it is exceptional, and better yet recognised as such.
Yet these two outstanding achievements would now be things I doubt I could feel too proud about being part of, simply because of the impact they have on the future. And it's hard to argue either would be deemed as positive, at least environmentally. And such feelings are almost totally at odds with the natural desire to want to create something new, and/or beautiful and/or useful.
I have boxes full of sketches for things I'd like to try and make real, maybe even make some money out of, but so few could I honestly put my hand on heart and say they would not have an impact on the planet from whose resources they would need to be made, or in being used would not impose a fresh burden.
And that, despite simply being a very small cog in a vast machine that has to expect you gotta do what your gotta do to support a family, is quite difficult to have nagging away in the back of your mind.
I feel the only solution is a version of the Google mantra 'do no harm'. Which is, 'make things better', embracing every aspect of the word. I think such as the RE:tie do that. I'm just hoping there are more ways to tap into our consumer society that can be viable commercially and offer some measure of mitigation.
First up was the news, with a story on the new Boeing Dreamliner. Pretty much a technological marvel, it will do its job with a lot less impact on the planet than predecessors. Trouble is, a lot of folk were quick to point out, it will probably mean doing pretty much a lot more jobs for the same, slightly less than optimal impact that such craft impose.
Tricky. Certainly better than nothing. For sure a step in the right direction allowing for the fact that flying is a fact of modern consumer life (for now). But... hard to get too excited, especially if... when... we get a bunch of nasty eco-ads telling us how green it is.
Then I watched a Ch5 doco on 'the world's tallest hotel', the Burj al Arab in Dubai. As an ex Civil Engineer, I could only be transfixed as each seemingly impossible construction challenge was identified... and then solved. The sheer creativity and expertise in making something was awesome to behold, and truly envy-making to one who loves to make stuff.
But... even though I was just able to cope with the fact this was little more than a one hour ad for a pretty out-of-my-league section of the hospitality industry, some of the facts of its eco footprint were really hard to ignore, though the programme makers patently did not have this aspect in mind. They were proud that each suite sucks more juice than a small town!
My deep unease at both of these was at the heart of my depression. I have been trained to and am stimulated by making things; have been my whole life. To see something where before there was nothing is a truly great feeling, especially if it is exceptional, and better yet recognised as such.
Yet these two outstanding achievements would now be things I doubt I could feel too proud about being part of, simply because of the impact they have on the future. And it's hard to argue either would be deemed as positive, at least environmentally. And such feelings are almost totally at odds with the natural desire to want to create something new, and/or beautiful and/or useful.
I have boxes full of sketches for things I'd like to try and make real, maybe even make some money out of, but so few could I honestly put my hand on heart and say they would not have an impact on the planet from whose resources they would need to be made, or in being used would not impose a fresh burden.
And that, despite simply being a very small cog in a vast machine that has to expect you gotta do what your gotta do to support a family, is quite difficult to have nagging away in the back of your mind.
I feel the only solution is a version of the Google mantra 'do no harm'. Which is, 'make things better', embracing every aspect of the word. I think such as the RE:tie do that. I'm just hoping there are more ways to tap into our consumer society that can be viable commercially and offer some measure of mitigation.
As a British citizen, do you have a right to a passport?
The answer, under the new super rules regime brought about by various acts of terrorism is, sadly, No!
OK, its not enviro, re:use or re:cycle centric in any way shape or form, but this needs to be exposed, and what better place to start than a blog.
As a British Citizen, under the old rules, you simply had to prove who you were - birth certificate etc., provide some pictures, get someone to act as a referee, cough up a few quid, and there you go, a valid passport acceptable and recognisable across the planet.
Nowadays, under the new 'super rules' which are rabidly enforced by yet another legion of jobs-worths who don't appear to have a single iota of common sense between them, you have to provide whole reams of evidence, navigate a complex circuit of checks and re-checks, then jump through burning hoops whilst whistling dixie backwards, and then, there you go, the document to which you are entitled - your passport. Except, however, when the passport office still says .... No! Because that proof of who you are is not acceptable under the new rules.
"Computer says ...... Noooh." for those of you who are fans of Little Britain.
This is very close to me, very close, because it involves my step-daughter's boyfriend, who just happens to live, for now, whilst they save up towards enough to at least find their own flat, and eventually a first time house, with us. Now Sids (his nickname) is a really decent, honest guy; he works hard, long hours, even at weekends (he's a self employed joiner) , has never been in trouble in his life, and will help anybody out without complaint. He has no criminal record, is not in the least bit interested in politics, and certainly has no extremist views about anything at all. But, because of some ridiculous enforcement of some ill thought out new rules, it looks as if he (plus my step-daughter) is now going to miss out on his holiday, and almost certainly have to write off all of the cost of it.
The saga of his passport application has now been going on for three months or more. All the relevant documentation has been supplied, some several times over now, but he cannot have a passport because a document from his bank, a bank statement clearly showing his (our) address, is NOT regarded as acceptable evidence of who he is and where he lives. Let's pose a riposte to this from a slightly different angle .... are HIS bank going to post HIS personal banking statements to somewhere where HE DOESN'T LIVE? I think not!
The passport office actually wrote to his referee, a local and well-respected but now retired dentist (who is also a good friend of mine) several weeks ago asking him to confirm that Sids' passport application was indeed valid; this he duly did, both verbally and in writing, and so we thought the problem had been overcome. But no, yet more documentary evidence is required - please may we have a letter from your Employer, Doctor, Dentist, Bank or your Commanding Officer [if you are in the Forces], as further evidence of who you are, and where you live.
Sids asked his Doctor - "no, we can't do that because we have known you for only two years". His dentist - he doesn't have one - he cannot afford to go private, and NHS dentists in our area are now scarcer than the proverbial rocking horse droppings! He doesn't have an Employer - he's self-employed. He is not in the forces, so that option is a non-starter, which leaves his bank. So he took time off work to go and see his bank, but they won't do him a letter because they "don't personally know him"!
They fly, supposedly, on Monday next (16th July), but as the situation is now at a total impasse, that looks increasingly unlikely. The 'super rules' require an additional letter which provides proof of identity and of address, the only option he has is his bank, who are not willing to do so, for what are, to me, quite understandable reasons (they know who he is, but not WHO he is, if you get my drift - they don't personally know him). The passport office will not, under any circumstances, move their position even one millimetre.
I fully understand that obtaining a passport needs to be something that incorporates a good deal of checks on identity, but this is now getting ridiculous. They've had his birth certificate, his NI number, his tax references, driving licence, medical cards, referee's letter (plus a second follow up letter); they know all about his family back to great-grandparents and beyond; they know about his height, weight, eye and hair colour, blood type and probably even about his moles and tattoo; they probably even know about his speeding fine from a few years ago; but they won't believe that he is who he is and where he lives until he gets another piece of evidence that he is unable to obtain.
Every other government body apart from the passport office seems to know who he is, and where he currently lives. It would seem that the 'rules' have taken over from common sense in every respect - jobs-worths enforce the rules, there are NO exceptions under any circumstances.
So, if YOU are planning an overseas holiday and do not yet have a British passport, just make sure that:......
-You are NOT self-employed,
-You DO have a dentist,
-You have been with you doctor for AT LEAST two years,
-You have NOT changed address within the last few months,
-You DO personally know your bank manager,
..... because if you don't, you can say goodbye to your holiday; you can write off whatever you've already paid for it - the new super rules enforced by the jobs-worths at the passport office will see to that very efficiently for you; whilst they ensure that any potential evil international terrorists, those just like Sids, and just like YOU, are unable to obtain passports.
And yes, you've guessed it, most travel insurance will NOT pay out if you have to cancel because you cannot obtain a passport - that's your own fault!
Addendum:
Just one little question, but can any one explain this to me? If you are NOT a British citizen, but are an asylum seeker with a criminal record, intent on killing British citizens, like Muktar Ibrahim, the leader of the July 21st suicide bombing attempt (see The Telegraph), how can you get British citizenship and then a passport without any problems?
Addendum 2:
(11/7/2007)
A single telephone call of complaint to HSBC's head office about the refusal of one of their branches to provide a letter in evidence as to who Sids is and where he lives produced an immediate reaction. HSBC's Head Office pretty much instantly overturned the branch's negative decision and a confirmatory evidence letter that should be acceptable to the passport office jobs-worths is now on its way.
Let's hope it arrives in time for Sids to get up to Liverpool and get his passport sorted in time.
Fingers crossed everyone!
Update:
(12/7/2007)
Things are not really going too well. This morning, a letter arrived from the bank (HSBC) - apparently Sids & Bex got really excited until they opened it only to find ......... another simple reprinted bank statement showing his (our) address; an exact replica of the document that the passport office jobs-worths have already rejected as unacceptable as 'additional evidence of who he is'. Is the HSBC populated by utterly inept idiots or what? They are not coming out of this saga at all well.
OK, now to bring out the big guns. Heaven help HSBC, but Sids has now gotten his mum on the job. Several calls later, with threats to sue the bank for the loss of their holiday, the HSBC head office people agreed to fax a copy of the requisite letter to our nearest branch (Market Drayton).
Hmmmm .... now why couldn't they have faxed the document directly to the passport office on the morning of the 9/7/2007?
Off the youngsters went to pick up the said letter - only to find that the MD branch do NOT have a fax machine!! More phone calls from a now somewhat violently irate mum, lots of 'fleas in ears', so to speak, and the letter has finally been faxed to a branch in the potteries, where it is being picked up, and taken forthwith, up to the Liverpool passport office.
Let's hope that the passport office jobs-worths pull their fingers out and sort things out asap. Bearing in mind that there is another 24 hour postal strike starting at midnight tonight, I'm still not overtly optimistic that Sids' passport will arrive in time for them to fly off on holiday at 6:00 am monday next.
I'll still cross my fingers! (But they probably don't come anywhere near as 'cross' as Sids' mum is!)
Conclusion:
Finally, at 6:00 pm yesterday, after 5 hours at the passport office, Sids finally received his passport. A bit lucky really, as if his original application had not been in before the deadline, he would have fallen foul of the new rule whereby passports will only be posted to applicants. Given the postal strike, it would not have arrived by Saturday.
But, all's well that ends well, and off they will fly on Monday morning.
OK, its not enviro, re:use or re:cycle centric in any way shape or form, but this needs to be exposed, and what better place to start than a blog.
As a British Citizen, under the old rules, you simply had to prove who you were - birth certificate etc., provide some pictures, get someone to act as a referee, cough up a few quid, and there you go, a valid passport acceptable and recognisable across the planet.
Nowadays, under the new 'super rules' which are rabidly enforced by yet another legion of jobs-worths who don't appear to have a single iota of common sense between them, you have to provide whole reams of evidence, navigate a complex circuit of checks and re-checks, then jump through burning hoops whilst whistling dixie backwards, and then, there you go, the document to which you are entitled - your passport. Except, however, when the passport office still says .... No! Because that proof of who you are is not acceptable under the new rules.
"Computer says ...... Noooh." for those of you who are fans of Little Britain.
This is very close to me, very close, because it involves my step-daughter's boyfriend, who just happens to live, for now, whilst they save up towards enough to at least find their own flat, and eventually a first time house, with us. Now Sids (his nickname) is a really decent, honest guy; he works hard, long hours, even at weekends (he's a self employed joiner) , has never been in trouble in his life, and will help anybody out without complaint. He has no criminal record, is not in the least bit interested in politics, and certainly has no extremist views about anything at all. But, because of some ridiculous enforcement of some ill thought out new rules, it looks as if he (plus my step-daughter) is now going to miss out on his holiday, and almost certainly have to write off all of the cost of it.
The saga of his passport application has now been going on for three months or more. All the relevant documentation has been supplied, some several times over now, but he cannot have a passport because a document from his bank, a bank statement clearly showing his (our) address, is NOT regarded as acceptable evidence of who he is and where he lives. Let's pose a riposte to this from a slightly different angle .... are HIS bank going to post HIS personal banking statements to somewhere where HE DOESN'T LIVE? I think not!
The passport office actually wrote to his referee, a local and well-respected but now retired dentist (who is also a good friend of mine) several weeks ago asking him to confirm that Sids' passport application was indeed valid; this he duly did, both verbally and in writing, and so we thought the problem had been overcome. But no, yet more documentary evidence is required - please may we have a letter from your Employer, Doctor, Dentist, Bank or your Commanding Officer [if you are in the Forces], as further evidence of who you are, and where you live.
Sids asked his Doctor - "no, we can't do that because we have known you for only two years". His dentist - he doesn't have one - he cannot afford to go private, and NHS dentists in our area are now scarcer than the proverbial rocking horse droppings! He doesn't have an Employer - he's self-employed. He is not in the forces, so that option is a non-starter, which leaves his bank. So he took time off work to go and see his bank, but they won't do him a letter because they "don't personally know him"!
They fly, supposedly, on Monday next (16th July), but as the situation is now at a total impasse, that looks increasingly unlikely. The 'super rules' require an additional letter which provides proof of identity and of address, the only option he has is his bank, who are not willing to do so, for what are, to me, quite understandable reasons (they know who he is, but not WHO he is, if you get my drift - they don't personally know him). The passport office will not, under any circumstances, move their position even one millimetre.
I fully understand that obtaining a passport needs to be something that incorporates a good deal of checks on identity, but this is now getting ridiculous. They've had his birth certificate, his NI number, his tax references, driving licence, medical cards, referee's letter (plus a second follow up letter); they know all about his family back to great-grandparents and beyond; they know about his height, weight, eye and hair colour, blood type and probably even about his moles and tattoo; they probably even know about his speeding fine from a few years ago; but they won't believe that he is who he is and where he lives until he gets another piece of evidence that he is unable to obtain.
Every other government body apart from the passport office seems to know who he is, and where he currently lives. It would seem that the 'rules' have taken over from common sense in every respect - jobs-worths enforce the rules, there are NO exceptions under any circumstances.
So, if YOU are planning an overseas holiday and do not yet have a British passport, just make sure that:......
-You are NOT self-employed,
-You DO have a dentist,
-You have been with you doctor for AT LEAST two years,
-You have NOT changed address within the last few months,
-You DO personally know your bank manager,
..... because if you don't, you can say goodbye to your holiday; you can write off whatever you've already paid for it - the new super rules enforced by the jobs-worths at the passport office will see to that very efficiently for you; whilst they ensure that any potential evil international terrorists, those just like Sids, and just like YOU, are unable to obtain passports.
And yes, you've guessed it, most travel insurance will NOT pay out if you have to cancel because you cannot obtain a passport - that's your own fault!
Addendum:
Just one little question, but can any one explain this to me? If you are NOT a British citizen, but are an asylum seeker with a criminal record, intent on killing British citizens, like Muktar Ibrahim, the leader of the July 21st suicide bombing attempt (see The Telegraph), how can you get British citizenship and then a passport without any problems?
Addendum 2:
(11/7/2007)
A single telephone call of complaint to HSBC's head office about the refusal of one of their branches to provide a letter in evidence as to who Sids is and where he lives produced an immediate reaction. HSBC's Head Office pretty much instantly overturned the branch's negative decision and a confirmatory evidence letter that should be acceptable to the passport office jobs-worths is now on its way.
Let's hope it arrives in time for Sids to get up to Liverpool and get his passport sorted in time.
Fingers crossed everyone!
Update:
(12/7/2007)
Things are not really going too well. This morning, a letter arrived from the bank (HSBC) - apparently Sids & Bex got really excited until they opened it only to find ......... another simple reprinted bank statement showing his (our) address; an exact replica of the document that the passport office jobs-worths have already rejected as unacceptable as 'additional evidence of who he is'. Is the HSBC populated by utterly inept idiots or what? They are not coming out of this saga at all well.
OK, now to bring out the big guns. Heaven help HSBC, but Sids has now gotten his mum on the job. Several calls later, with threats to sue the bank for the loss of their holiday, the HSBC head office people agreed to fax a copy of the requisite letter to our nearest branch (Market Drayton).
Hmmmm .... now why couldn't they have faxed the document directly to the passport office on the morning of the 9/7/2007?
Off the youngsters went to pick up the said letter - only to find that the MD branch do NOT have a fax machine!! More phone calls from a now somewhat violently irate mum, lots of 'fleas in ears', so to speak, and the letter has finally been faxed to a branch in the potteries, where it is being picked up, and taken forthwith, up to the Liverpool passport office.
Let's hope that the passport office jobs-worths pull their fingers out and sort things out asap. Bearing in mind that there is another 24 hour postal strike starting at midnight tonight, I'm still not overtly optimistic that Sids' passport will arrive in time for them to fly off on holiday at 6:00 am monday next.
I'll still cross my fingers! (But they probably don't come anywhere near as 'cross' as Sids' mum is!)
Conclusion:
Finally, at 6:00 pm yesterday, after 5 hours at the passport office, Sids finally received his passport. A bit lucky really, as if his original application had not been in before the deadline, he would have fallen foul of the new rule whereby passports will only be posted to applicants. Given the postal strike, it would not have arrived by Saturday.
But, all's well that ends well, and off they will fly on Monday morning.
When the sh*t hits the pan
This doesn't look good: BBC's car show in salt pan storm
For an envirophile, I am often an odd defender of Jeremy Clarkson. But of late, and despite having money and profile and money enough not to need to stray as far into shock jock territory, he has rather persisted in saying some silly things just to keep the ratings up.
Now, it seems, he is party to doing them too.
In an era when conspicuous consumption is beginning to sink in as not necessarily the best plan in the world, for the world, whilst they exist for purchase I can still only defend his and his team's right to do whatever they want in the name of entertainment with ever more stupidly configured lumps of high-velocity tin. In fact, by such excess, it's possible that they may be adding ammo to the cause.
But this doesn't seem the smartest move coming, as it does, on top of the drive through pristine countryside here just to plonk a Land Rover atop an mountaintop.
Following that, you'd reckon they might just be sensitive to such issues, or maybe they thought no one would notice 'out there'.
The only thing that rings a little odd is the use of the word 'accused', which is media speak for 'perfectly legal but worth stirring up to see what sticks'. It is either a conservation area, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then while messing up some pretty scenery isn't that nice a thing to do, sadly there is not much one can do about it.
So I guess the best one get hope for is that it just doesn't look good. Like he would care.
For an envirophile, I am often an odd defender of Jeremy Clarkson. But of late, and despite having money and profile and money enough not to need to stray as far into shock jock territory, he has rather persisted in saying some silly things just to keep the ratings up.
Now, it seems, he is party to doing them too.
In an era when conspicuous consumption is beginning to sink in as not necessarily the best plan in the world, for the world, whilst they exist for purchase I can still only defend his and his team's right to do whatever they want in the name of entertainment with ever more stupidly configured lumps of high-velocity tin. In fact, by such excess, it's possible that they may be adding ammo to the cause.
But this doesn't seem the smartest move coming, as it does, on top of the drive through pristine countryside here just to plonk a Land Rover atop an mountaintop.
Following that, you'd reckon they might just be sensitive to such issues, or maybe they thought no one would notice 'out there'.
The only thing that rings a little odd is the use of the word 'accused', which is media speak for 'perfectly legal but worth stirring up to see what sticks'. It is either a conservation area, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then while messing up some pretty scenery isn't that nice a thing to do, sadly there is not much one can do about it.
So I guess the best one get hope for is that it just doesn't look good. Like he would care.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Earthy Thoughts
Well, Live Earth has passed, at least the day itself, and it would be difficult to let it do so without some sort of comment.
I think I'll let others mostly do the talking (I'll add links at the bottom as I come across them, hopefully from a good spread) as I had/have no real problem with people giving their time for free (it would be churlish not to - and I find the number of snipes on performance quality a bit graceless, though if you charge for a gig I guess you need to be held for review), or the notion of massive coordinated entertainment as a method of awareness raising. But, as discussed in these pages before, it is more what others - ranging from the media to those they speak to - make of it all and take away from it... now and as the subsequent days pass.
There seem to have been three basic 'camps': those who saw it as a real force for change and/or liked the idea of a party, those who really didn't like any aspect of it at all, and those in the middle, like me, who were/are simply concerned about the ultimate message created by both the medium and the messengers.
I watched sporadically, becoming one of the 2 billion who apparently did so, leaving it late afternoon perhaps before it really 'warmed up' (Can't say the vibe came across as anything like Live Aid). Frankly what I as a viewer took away from it was mostly shaped by what happened during the intervals, and that was out of the hands of the organisers and those taking part. Can't say it was too encouraging. I don't know if it was an attempt at balance, or simply poor selection of talking heads, but to a celebrity-influenced culture (which is surely who the thing was/is mostly targeted at), the rather formulaic articulations of concern, and reasons for it, seemed to be rather outweighed by the sheer number of flip celebs who were dabbling with the notion of doing good by the planet to justify being on screen, but certainly were not going to change how they spend their money. Probably smart, with a tabloid paparazzi ready to catch them stepping out of Wembley into the Cayenne to get back to Islington, but disappointing. Here's hoping that beyond the UK and the BBC, other countries were a bit more 'on message'.
But, as warned, when you play with the celeb media you have to appreciate that you cannot control it. Their priority is what sells, and while they'll go along with anything that brings celebs into the camera frame, especially in large numbers, they also know what else will shift more copies before, during and after. Especially with a readership that does not enjoy the lifestyles of those who have taken it upon themselves to offer advice/opinion on how those of more modest means should conduct theirs.
One message I did hear from the commentary box, and not from the stage as money really is not a problem for this set, was to do what you can simply because it makes financial sense. Came across quite a lot, and I endorse that. So I hope it sunk in. Not so much go green, but go greed.
Sadly, in closing, I also note some others (Sheila Hancock on the Andrew Marr show as I do) who, like me, were left a bit unsure as to what exactly they were to do now. And if that's the case, bearing in mind the objective was 'awareness', one has to wonder what message ended up being served ultimately. But at least, for now, it has at least got a lot of folk talking.
ps: As I write this I watch the opening of the Tour de France, with the cyclists preceded by a Caravan of Sponsor vehicles that throw freebies to the crowds. I guess they missed the pledge. But then it was all so last year, er, week, er, day. And imagine what the country's focus will be later today if one of our favoured sons does well at Silverstone rushing around in circles in a fairly low mpg vehicle just for fun.
Guardian - The artists formerly known as huge carbon footprints - well, the headline kinda sest the tone
Observer - Rockin' all over the world (but just watch your carbon footprint)
The Independent - Live Earth: One big gesture for man, one giant problem for the Earth - with links at end to more, like this: So, Al Gore, what's the one thing we can all do to tackle climate change? Oh, and this, from another page: The Big Spend: The vision thing
The Times - Live Earth fails to pack large-scale punch - An odd, and rather mean thing to focus on, especially for a 'quality'
The Telegraph - Live Earth concerts kick off around the world - Can Live Earth really save the world?
Ho-hum, can I really face the tabloids?
Mirror - LIGHT OF MADGE DAZZLES - I'm sure there is soemthing in there about saving the planet too, but I couldn't find it
Mail - The greatest show on Live Earth rocks Wembley but leaves the world cold - Well, there was an ad for npower 'green' energy. Live Earth is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on? - I'm guessing they were not keen.
Express - ONE WORLD, ONE BEAT - All I could find. Not exactly what one would expect following the world's biggest music event.
People - DAY THE EARTH TURNED BLUE! - nothing like getting our priorities straight
News of the World - Green star is an eco disaster - I hate to say I told you so, but there was always the danger the messengers would be vying with the message.
BBC - Live Earth Wembley - the home page link, goes to others.
BBC - Live Earth gigs send eco-warning - interesting, if depressing, to read the comments. At least they are talking, I guess.
On a more positive note - Daily Grist: Live Earth was a smash hit, and more - Not exactly the headline even here, though. And I just heard on the BBC that the concert managed 1/3 of the Diana gig last week. So as smash hits go, maybe you had to be there.
One via Dave, who has kindly noted I may have mentioned this beforehand: Pretty big footprints
So... what was the enviROI?
The Ecologist - Live Earth: a short tragedie And they were there!
I think I'll let others mostly do the talking (I'll add links at the bottom as I come across them, hopefully from a good spread) as I had/have no real problem with people giving their time for free (it would be churlish not to - and I find the number of snipes on performance quality a bit graceless, though if you charge for a gig I guess you need to be held for review), or the notion of massive coordinated entertainment as a method of awareness raising. But, as discussed in these pages before, it is more what others - ranging from the media to those they speak to - make of it all and take away from it... now and as the subsequent days pass.
There seem to have been three basic 'camps': those who saw it as a real force for change and/or liked the idea of a party, those who really didn't like any aspect of it at all, and those in the middle, like me, who were/are simply concerned about the ultimate message created by both the medium and the messengers.
I watched sporadically, becoming one of the 2 billion who apparently did so, leaving it late afternoon perhaps before it really 'warmed up' (Can't say the vibe came across as anything like Live Aid). Frankly what I as a viewer took away from it was mostly shaped by what happened during the intervals, and that was out of the hands of the organisers and those taking part. Can't say it was too encouraging. I don't know if it was an attempt at balance, or simply poor selection of talking heads, but to a celebrity-influenced culture (which is surely who the thing was/is mostly targeted at), the rather formulaic articulations of concern, and reasons for it, seemed to be rather outweighed by the sheer number of flip celebs who were dabbling with the notion of doing good by the planet to justify being on screen, but certainly were not going to change how they spend their money. Probably smart, with a tabloid paparazzi ready to catch them stepping out of Wembley into the Cayenne to get back to Islington, but disappointing. Here's hoping that beyond the UK and the BBC, other countries were a bit more 'on message'.
But, as warned, when you play with the celeb media you have to appreciate that you cannot control it. Their priority is what sells, and while they'll go along with anything that brings celebs into the camera frame, especially in large numbers, they also know what else will shift more copies before, during and after. Especially with a readership that does not enjoy the lifestyles of those who have taken it upon themselves to offer advice/opinion on how those of more modest means should conduct theirs.
One message I did hear from the commentary box, and not from the stage as money really is not a problem for this set, was to do what you can simply because it makes financial sense. Came across quite a lot, and I endorse that. So I hope it sunk in. Not so much go green, but go greed.
Sadly, in closing, I also note some others (Sheila Hancock on the Andrew Marr show as I do) who, like me, were left a bit unsure as to what exactly they were to do now. And if that's the case, bearing in mind the objective was 'awareness', one has to wonder what message ended up being served ultimately. But at least, for now, it has at least got a lot of folk talking.
ps: As I write this I watch the opening of the Tour de France, with the cyclists preceded by a Caravan of Sponsor vehicles that throw freebies to the crowds. I guess they missed the pledge. But then it was all so last year, er, week, er, day. And imagine what the country's focus will be later today if one of our favoured sons does well at Silverstone rushing around in circles in a fairly low mpg vehicle just for fun.
Guardian - The artists formerly known as huge carbon footprints - well, the headline kinda sest the tone
Observer - Rockin' all over the world (but just watch your carbon footprint)
The Independent - Live Earth: One big gesture for man, one giant problem for the Earth - with links at end to more, like this: So, Al Gore, what's the one thing we can all do to tackle climate change? Oh, and this, from another page: The Big Spend: The vision thing
The Times - Live Earth fails to pack large-scale punch - An odd, and rather mean thing to focus on, especially for a 'quality'
The Telegraph - Live Earth concerts kick off around the world - Can Live Earth really save the world?
Ho-hum, can I really face the tabloids?
Mirror - LIGHT OF MADGE DAZZLES - I'm sure there is soemthing in there about saving the planet too, but I couldn't find it
Mail - The greatest show on Live Earth rocks Wembley but leaves the world cold - Well, there was an ad for npower 'green' energy. Live Earth is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on? - I'm guessing they were not keen.
Express - ONE WORLD, ONE BEAT - All I could find. Not exactly what one would expect following the world's biggest music event.
People - DAY THE EARTH TURNED BLUE! - nothing like getting our priorities straight
News of the World - Green star is an eco disaster - I hate to say I told you so, but there was always the danger the messengers would be vying with the message.
BBC - Live Earth Wembley - the home page link, goes to others.
BBC - Live Earth gigs send eco-warning - interesting, if depressing, to read the comments. At least they are talking, I guess.
On a more positive note - Daily Grist: Live Earth was a smash hit, and more - Not exactly the headline even here, though. And I just heard on the BBC that the concert managed 1/3 of the Diana gig last week. So as smash hits go, maybe you had to be there.
One via Dave, who has kindly noted I may have mentioned this beforehand: Pretty big footprints
So... what was the enviROI?
The Ecologist - Live Earth: a short tragedie And they were there!
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Music, Maestros, puh-lese!?
Not the first. Won't be the last: Live Earth in Newsnight
Technical hitch? See that panel? It's what I got when I tried to post this. Seems a tad low on explanation, not to mention unhelpful as to resolutions.
Interesting to ponder the relative number of comments for this issue vs., say, JP's tie. Ho hum.
Anyway, I have just watched the piece and see it as a worthy start point to what will doubtless become a fairly healthy debate about what the individual gets exhorted to do, can do, and does. Plus those who would take it upon themselves to 'help'.
This is TV. So you get powerful imagery and snappy sound bites. I was therefore unsurprised to see scenes of heavy industry and belching smokestacks, with the VO saying something like : 'it's about stopping them doing this... '. Ok, fine, but that ore being smelted goes towards a lot of iPods, CDS and custom 737s. I wonder how many will ponder the irony, or consequences of what they campaign against, as they party away. Or care.
But to offset this we get... planting trees. A bit unfair to select just this Joss Stone quote as I am sure there are... were others, and a bit more considered than hers. Sadly, while there are still some viable offsetting options of this nature, in this member of the public's mind the principle of whacking a fir in the firmament to 'deal' with the last gig, without really worrying what happens thereafter, has been rather discredited thanks to some, rather high-profile, 'offsetbacks'.
For what it's worth, if we are going to think forest, I'd advocate considering this from Newsnight's very own archives a few weeks ago: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-can-see-forest-and-trees.html
Though over in a flash, and a perhaps a tad over simplistic, the preamble about the 'Chinese' question was still telling. Seems it's for the US to start, and they'll wait, despite their own strategy predictions. Understandable in most ways, but a bit akin to the scene in Blazing Saddles where the black sheriff holds a gun to his own head, only this time the rest of the world's 'heads' attached in line: 'Cut emissions first, or we ALL get it'. Hmmn. 'Rein in your economy (and hence military spending), to allow us to catch up, and we promise we'll stop making dolls, and tanks, as soon as we have the same number of SUVs and a/cs'. Is that gonna happen?
I also don't recall too much by way of the vox pop responders' thoughts on the concert, as such.
Anyway, interesting to see two such well versed (and one presumes, paid) members of the green elite 'industry' in such polite debate. I'd have preferred a few from more challenging viewpoints across the table, with the interviewer being allowed to be more balanced in her critiques, which of necessity seemed to be too much in that role, with the authority her chairperson position confers.
I have to agree totally with the chap from Global Cool, though: the danger is in this being packaged, and hence viewed, as a one-off event. A bit like Ethical Man, where I was very disappointed to see all the year long 'good' in information and awareness rather undercut by it all... stopping. I felt the message left was unfortunate, with an impression that this is something one dabbles in, does a bit of, and then gets back to the real world of rampant consumerism, travel and anything else money can buy in pursuit of the next 'hit', fad or rating.
As stated, these are now ambassadors of, what? Doing 'what I say but not, necessarily, do?' It was accepted that they ''have" to fly around. So, I guess, does Air 'Well, it's not really practical for ME not to' Blair, plus of course all the carbon traders from the City, and ecojournos on book promos, and... er... who is left?
While not simple at all, we can surely accept that most of the problems from CO2 emissions can be pretty much laid at the door of the affluent consuming like stink. And you don't get much more affluent than rock stars. So it's hard to imagine them having all this wonga and not being a teensie bit tempted to blow it all on a few indulgences. And I reckon when they do, a tabloid will be ready and waiting. And while they may have offset their last hat-collection flight by buying half of Africa a solar cooker to prevent the inefficient burning of wood, Mondeo Man (and maybe even Pious Person in a green broadsheet) will be sitting in his tent in a monsoon in the Mendips, reading his Daily Mirror about Huffy Diddly on the beach in the Caribbean on a jet ski. And that may not play so well to the cause.
If they believe in what they are doing, and that it is their celebrity and not so much the music that really matters, if going to walk around the country with a big banner is not going to happen, I'd like to simply ask...why?
And, to be fair to them, has anyone asked? Seems a heck on an idea. Relevant too. As noted, we get an 'awareness' concert pretty much each week now.
Hence Saint Bob's rather colourful views on the actual need for more 'awareness' beyond boosting CD sales resonates, but for perhaps not the right reasons. We have the message. But what of the messengers? Joss and her popping a sapling in? For one night? It has the same effect on me as newspaper supplements on green travel offsetting that issue to show they are on board, yet still sending a correspondent the next week to cover a fur and Ferrari catwalk show in Antarctica to promote a 'see the polar bears before they're gone' competition. Pop your green token in the slot here.
I will be mostly in the garden today, as it is shaping up as a nice one. But I will be dipping in to the show when I can, if I can. I wish it... them... well, but really hope that the tangibles that are inspired from it are as positive as intended, and go a lot further than all I have heard about, which so far seems to be a pledge. I made one a while ago, and got a low energy bulb, which was nice. And useful.
ADDENDUM 1 - 1.30pm. - Just grabbing a bit to eat and watching the initial preparation, as covered by BBC2 (love the helicopter shot, guys, no irony. Unless it's stock footage, which it could be as I think we know what the stadium looks like from the air. If so, apologies). Hmmn. Jonathon Ross. Graham Norton. Jimmy Carr. Some other guy. Maybe the more appropriate guys and gals were out enjoying the sun. By my rough estimate, from this lot it was about 10% what they might be doing/do e-wise, and 90% 'it's a bit of a lark, and I can't wait to hear Madonna's special ditty'. Oh, and to David Shukman's (BBC Enviro Correspondent, who I last saw earlier this week at Venturefest) quip about turning off the TV, oh, how we laughed, as that would mean they were out of jobs. And now we also know JR is not giving up his plasma, as well, he just isn't (I'm guessing the scores of screens in the empty green elite rooms were low energy). So far, I think the message is not being best served by those tasked, on this channel at least, to dish it out, especially as I watch Chris Moyles (well known environmentalist) introduce Genesis, to what looks like a half empty stadium if what's red is an empty seat. What's all that about? Wimbledon? It's Genesis!!! Here's hoping that the artists can compensate in getting a better message across without such media support. Anyway, I'm off back outside to pop the grass clippings in the compost. No, really. I'm afraid, as far as I'm concerned, happiness is solar powered, and not from an amp, no matter how worthy.
BBC - Running Commentary from around the world - plus a bunch of links
Addendum 2 - 4.15pm - Teabreak. Well, at least the stadium seems to have filled up. Just seems weird it wasn't packed from the off. I'm sure it would be for a Cup Final. Maybe a security issue? Crowd seems to be having fun at least. And, at least, I say this totally without tongue in cheek, they had a nice day for it. No interference from the BBC talking heads this time, but so far I haven't heard an artist offer much either. Probably a good thing. Let the fact of being there, and the fun of the music, speak for itself.
Addendum 3 - 6.00pm - Post Chili Peppers break. Cut to Graham Norton in the 'VIP' section. Quite funny, as he didn't seem to feel there were any VIPs, except for those who are green VIPs, and that seemed not to impress him a great deal. Currently watching an actually sensible discussion between JR, Kate Silverton and David Shukman.
There seems to be quite some surprise that a lot of folk are quite happy to admit they are just here to have a good time and that the whole climate thing is ok, too. Some real, and warranted, concern that even more, especially of those writing in, are of the view the science is still being debated. We've discussed this before here, and the issue must be to get what we do know out there, honestly but also with enough oompf to persuade people to accept a change in behaviour is necessary.
Finally (as we are going out tonight), I was more than interested that the BBC pundits, in fact led by David Shukman, felt the 'pledge' was a tad ambitious. I have to say I agree. In know one school of negotiating thought is to aim high but agree a trade lower that is in fact where you want to be. I'm not so sure in this case. If the target looks too unattainable, there may be a danger that people simply don't even try. Baby steps, but lots of incremental ones, may be the order of the day. Anyway, should you choose to engage with them in the way requested, here is that pledge:
1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"
3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.
There may be mechanisms, but I have to say that, should I wish to engage with these (and in the main, why on earth wouldn't you?), I am none to sure what exactly to do next. It would be good to ensure that the momentum created is shaped and focused as well as can be. Not sure it is.
I think I'll close this post here. Tomorrow will doubtless offer a lot of material to chew on following the day's events. It will be interesting to see how it gets reported.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Live Earth - 2
Further to the original post [and I am sure what will not be the last] on the subject of Al's music industry supported global warming awareness raising campaign, I spotted something that is a genuinely nice example of publicity for a real home spun, rather than government or quango sponsored, 'let's go green' campaign.
The village of Ashton Hayes (Cheshire) started the UK's first Carbon Neutral Village project back in Jan 2006. Although they have since been publicised across many parts of this planet, a 10 minute eco-documentary film of their project is going to be screened as part of the Live Earth bash, possibly giving them, with a potential audience of 2 billion, the title of the planet's best known 'global village'.
Full story on CheshireOnline.
Big up for Ashton Hayes, and deservedly so.
The village of Ashton Hayes (Cheshire) started the UK's first Carbon Neutral Village project back in Jan 2006. Although they have since been publicised across many parts of this planet, a 10 minute eco-documentary film of their project is going to be screened as part of the Live Earth bash, possibly giving them, with a potential audience of 2 billion, the title of the planet's best known 'global village'.
Full story on CheshireOnline.
Big up for Ashton Hayes, and deservedly so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)