Trust?
Look... there... a framed orifice through which you can pass from one place to another.
Apparently, from now on, if anyone in the BBC does something 'naughty' (my flip word for a broad tranche of policy, journalistic and editorial 'lapses'), they will be 'shown the door'.
So says an evidently irritated DG, Mark Thompson, who looks like he has much better things to do than deal with the public's views on his outfit. Apparently this is how trust will be regained. A fair task, given what's in this blog and the papers today. And will putting staff on a course (I presume at the licence payers expense) resolve this... I doubt it. And truly resent wasting such funds on a mop up which is more of a backside covering effort of tissuelike thinness than anything tangible. As are allusions to compensation. Using what mechanisms? What money? From where? To whom?
However, in the spirit of 'moving on', which is the phrase du jour of all senior (and, in the old days, responsible/accountable) executives/pols, it looks like this will be the latest free pass bestowed on all complicit in misleading the viewing public. And if that is the case again, why on earth should anyone trust anything said or done in the future.
While charitable financial dodginess is bad enough, I can't help but note that we have also moved from what in many ways I see as a much more critical issue to address, and that is the notion, which seems endemic and to pervade every level of the organisation, that reality and truth are entirely adjustable to improve ratin... er... the story.
In a cosy fire side chat with the boss, some quite remarkable things are covered and, essentially, dismissed.
I think I heard the word unacceptable several times. It becomes rather meaningless if in the same breaths it becomes pretty clear a lot has been and is accepted.
Short term contracts and pressure/ may be reasons, but they are not excuses. And while they can be responsible for a lot of things, they can surely not be held accountable for swapping critical chronologies in news items to 'enhance reality'... in the name of what? It is only now that I find out that reordering is 'not good practice'. It blooming well is a darn site more than that if it changes meaning, or has the DG not read the posts on this blog on the matter.
So there is a duty to have an 'eye to the culture'. Do what? And, er, only now? And an 'eye' will really sort it, for sure.
Great play was also made of how open 'they' are all being now. You know, if George Washington was not found standing next to that felled tree with an axe, one wonders just how open he would have been if not challenged. It's all being treated as a bit of a one off that will blow over, which of course it will.
We get the obligatory resignation question, with the standard 'best for the person who got us in this situation to dig us out of it and prevent future repeats' reply, which worked so well for Charles Clarke.
If these things happen, and they are not for 'personal gain', why do it? Of course it is for personal gain, because you gain personally from the salary and status of your career. And to progress that means satisfying the demands of your job, which means your superiors. It's hardly anything to do with training or lack of it... it is policy. Yet again we are seeing those at the sharp end being used as a buffer and deflection from those above who are really responsible and should be accountable, and then 'sacrificed' (and then pardoned) with a 'jolly good telling to' on an internal basis.
This is not a one off. It has been a whole series, and in a short time. And nothing I have heard or seen leads me to suspect that anything has or will be done beyond short-term damage limitation.
And that's all we have time for. Moving on...
Trust? Don't talk to me about trust.
Indy - BBC reveals further cases of fake phone-ins -
Indy - When broadcasters become the news
There will be more, I'm sure...
BBC - BBC boss backed in phone scandal - Well, there's a shock
Creative Match - BBC confess to 'disrespecting the audience' in phone in scam
What worries me as much, is how the 'issue' has now moved onto the equally (if not legally/financially even more) significant area of phone-ins, but we have 'moved on' (key phrase of any senior exec trying to protect tushie) from the fact that a) the truth is out there... waaaaaay out there... and b) the odd notion that there's no much wrong with a little 'enhanced reality (ie: outright fabrication) between feral fiends of the media and the public in this new Big Brother short-contract, high pressure, yoof-media 'professional' age.
I used to, only half-jokingly, write that something I read was on the BBC 'so it must be true'. Oh, the irony.
Gaurdian - Comic Relief among shows that deceived BBC viewers
Gaurdian - Trust angry over charity appeal lies
Guardian - Ofcom gets tough and says broadcasters are in denial - ya think???!
Guardian - Newsdesk notes for Thursday July 19
Guardian - Does the BBC deserve its public "shaming"?
Guardian - Don't believe all you see on TV - I think they'r ekeen on this!
I couldn't face the Tabs and Tories, as I rather suspect they will be a tad to the right of my own thinking only with a slight whiff of 'holier than thou'.
Indy - In defence of the BBC - Well it does need it a bit. Plus several side bar links worth scoping
I find this telling, though: Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, resisted calls from Conservative MPs for the Government to intervene. She told the House of Commons: "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."
I felt moved to write under the heading 'Apples. Oranges. And Lemons':
Excuse me? Harriet Harman says "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."
Our local plod have tried to excuse their inability to properly police crime by pointing out resources are tight and anyway it is a lot worse elsewhere. That's like me trying to get off a speeding conviction by saying other folk are going faster.
And one small, additional, point. Who pays... er, gets forced to pay for the BBC?
Guardian - When they stop calling - Positively Clintonian. It's 'enhancing' the truth; not lying.
Guardian - So the BBC is a subversive leftwing conspiracy? You could have fooled me
As is too often the case, we seem to be being presented a rather stark 'either/or' here.
As has been pointed out, certain distractions, now followed by near apocalyptic warnings, have rather managed to drown out the fact that some people up the executive chain in the BBC decided that telling the truth needed some enhancement. In short, portraying some things as real that were not. Which is, apparently, different to lying. Just like taking money under false pretences now seems not to be fraud.
And, in so doing, using whose money?
What I'm seeing is an attempt to blow this out of all proportion to arrange a major puff of smoke, around which mirrors will be rearranged, things will 'move on' and nothing will actually change.
Until the next time.
Maybe, just maybe, we nail down who did what, and if it was wrong hold them properly accountable?
Marketing Week - The commercial uses of BBC abuses - a worthy analysis of who should really be looked at more thoroughly in all this.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Hurricane Spiros
While I am always a tad dubious about anything that has the words 'may' and 'according to scientists' in it, this may be worth noting next time you book a break -
Warming may bring hurricanes to Mediterranean
And if it happens which, heaven forfend it does, it may be a tad difficult to explain away.
Which may get the CC deniers on board at last, which only leaves the 'man-worsened' and 'worth mitigating' steps to go.
Warming may bring hurricanes to Mediterranean
And if it happens which, heaven forfend it does, it may be a tad difficult to explain away.
Which may get the CC deniers on board at last, which only leaves the 'man-worsened' and 'worth mitigating' steps to go.
London to get huge desalination plant
Its obviously a day for water stories......
I think Peter (with his Civ. Eng. qualifications) could volunteer as project manager for this one from Reuters.
London is going to build a £200 million desalination plant to produce 140 million litres of drinking water a day.
In the meantime 25% (see below) of all of London's potable water is still lost through leakage. They reckon that at least 50% of London's water consumption could be saved by the simple promotion (a small financial household incentive would surely have been a better idea?) of rain water harvesting systems etc. (especially as climate change experts forecast that summer rainfall will actually increase over current levels.)
On the basis of other current grand projects initiated by our really sensible government, the final cost will, of course, be at least £450 million.
Oh, "the plant will only run on bio-diesel". So that's OK then because that's nice and green.
Oh, and its "only going to be used intermittently" - whatever that's supposed to mean! (If there is only a peak demand intermittment requirement, then why not sort out the current problems instead of throwing a massive project at a minor set of problems?)
(Just a thought, but, looking at current climatic trends, as most of London is likely to be at, or even below, sea level in 40 or 50 years time, maybe its not such a bad idea after all? [If they build it on 30 Metre stilts!])
That 25% of potable water currently lost via leakage amounts to the insignificant figure of some 702 million litres per day!! (Don't despair, it used to be a lot worse than that!)
Addendum:
Here's The Guardian's take on the proposals - "Green groups condemn water plant go-ahead."
Whilst, rather surprisingly, Christian Today heads up its article on the subject with "London Fights Climate Change to get Clean Water to Booming Population"
I think Peter (with his Civ. Eng. qualifications) could volunteer as project manager for this one from Reuters.
London is going to build a £200 million desalination plant to produce 140 million litres of drinking water a day.
In the meantime 25% (see below) of all of London's potable water is still lost through leakage. They reckon that at least 50% of London's water consumption could be saved by the simple promotion (a small financial household incentive would surely have been a better idea?) of rain water harvesting systems etc. (especially as climate change experts forecast that summer rainfall will actually increase over current levels.)
On the basis of other current grand projects initiated by our really sensible government, the final cost will, of course, be at least £450 million.
Oh, "the plant will only run on bio-diesel". So that's OK then because that's nice and green.
Oh, and its "only going to be used intermittently" - whatever that's supposed to mean! (If there is only a peak demand intermittment requirement, then why not sort out the current problems instead of throwing a massive project at a minor set of problems?)
(Just a thought, but, looking at current climatic trends, as most of London is likely to be at, or even below, sea level in 40 or 50 years time, maybe its not such a bad idea after all? [If they build it on 30 Metre stilts!])
That 25% of potable water currently lost via leakage amounts to the insignificant figure of some 702 million litres per day!! (Don't despair, it used to be a lot worse than that!)
Addendum:
Here's The Guardian's take on the proposals - "Green groups condemn water plant go-ahead."
Whilst, rather surprisingly, Christian Today heads up its article on the subject with "London Fights Climate Change to get Clean Water to Booming Population"
While we are on the subject of the Swiss ....
..... do read this from Magnus Linklater in TimesOnline Comment.
Twenty billion gallons of water are required to artificially make snow across the alps each winter!
"Because alpine resorts are, despite their icy surroundings, often short of water, these precious supplies must either be stored on site or ferried up by helicopter. The Swiss, veteran users of airborne travel, favour the latter. The French dig reservoirs. The Austrians do both. "
And they fly the water up in helicopters!
"It would be hard to conjure up a more potent symbol of environmental perversity than the use of carbon-spewing fossil fuels to help to dispose of millions of gallons of carefully extracted water in order that a few thousand tourists can slide down a slope for an extra week."
Quite! I can't think of anyone who can logically argue with that!
Twenty billion gallons of water are required to artificially make snow across the alps each winter!
"Because alpine resorts are, despite their icy surroundings, often short of water, these precious supplies must either be stored on site or ferried up by helicopter. The Swiss, veteran users of airborne travel, favour the latter. The French dig reservoirs. The Austrians do both. "
And they fly the water up in helicopters!
"It would be hard to conjure up a more potent symbol of environmental perversity than the use of carbon-spewing fossil fuels to help to dispose of millions of gallons of carefully extracted water in order that a few thousand tourists can slide down a slope for an extra week."
Quite! I can't think of anyone who can logically argue with that!
Renewables Strategy Just Like Swiss Cheese?
Is the government's strategy to encourage the installation of renewable energy components on new build developements failing?
The conclusion, as a consequence of loop-holes built into the legislation, appears to be a resounding yes!
Quite a while back the government introduced a new set of building regulations and these have now become enshrined in planning law. A minimum of 10% of the energy consumption of any new build must be provided via renewable energy means. At the time there was a great deal of consternation amongst developers and architects alike - it looked as if it would mean a significant increase in costs on any development - and hence a hefty premium on the cost of any new property.
Speaking to some developers a few weeks ago, I asked them about this problem. Their response ....... we just chuck in more insulation, put in low energy lighting, and we can meet the renewables requirement.
I was not quite sure at the time that I understood just how this could work, but this article from a town planner in Newcastle expains thing quite clearly.
"If green energy measures are to be included in the building, such as energy efficient lighting and extra insulation, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the building, thereby reducing the 10% requirement."
"It is usually more cost effective to cut the energy consumption of a building than to provide renewable equipment. "
So the renewables requirement can be met by ignoring renewables and by simply reducing the overall energy consumption of a new build. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think certainly not what was originally intended.
Nice piece of legislation or what? Swiss cheese with loop-holes that big you can drive an artic through!
Addendum:
Just to prevent any confusion, reducing a new build's projected carbon footprint by 10% does NOT then mean that only 10% of the remaining energy consumption has then to be met using renewables. Because of this loop-hole, the use of additional insulation and low energy lighting etc. means that the renewables requirement for new builds, in some cases, has been met without using any renewables at all! (i.e. The exact opposite of what the new regulations were trying to achieve)
Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male):
Saw this and thought of you:
Our group has been working on design/construction of
low energy/affordable housing units and finally we
have produced a 3BR house protorype that costs almost
half the price of similar size house on the market. We
are happy to share our findings with you.
Kind regards,
Dr M Hedman
SolXO Ltd.
United Kingdom
The conclusion, as a consequence of loop-holes built into the legislation, appears to be a resounding yes!
Quite a while back the government introduced a new set of building regulations and these have now become enshrined in planning law. A minimum of 10% of the energy consumption of any new build must be provided via renewable energy means. At the time there was a great deal of consternation amongst developers and architects alike - it looked as if it would mean a significant increase in costs on any development - and hence a hefty premium on the cost of any new property.
Speaking to some developers a few weeks ago, I asked them about this problem. Their response ....... we just chuck in more insulation, put in low energy lighting, and we can meet the renewables requirement.
I was not quite sure at the time that I understood just how this could work, but this article from a town planner in Newcastle expains thing quite clearly.
"If green energy measures are to be included in the building, such as energy efficient lighting and extra insulation, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the building, thereby reducing the 10% requirement."
"It is usually more cost effective to cut the energy consumption of a building than to provide renewable equipment. "
So the renewables requirement can be met by ignoring renewables and by simply reducing the overall energy consumption of a new build. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think certainly not what was originally intended.
Nice piece of legislation or what? Swiss cheese with loop-holes that big you can drive an artic through!
Addendum:
Just to prevent any confusion, reducing a new build's projected carbon footprint by 10% does NOT then mean that only 10% of the remaining energy consumption has then to be met using renewables. Because of this loop-hole, the use of additional insulation and low energy lighting etc. means that the renewables requirement for new builds, in some cases, has been met without using any renewables at all! (i.e. The exact opposite of what the new regulations were trying to achieve)
Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male):
Saw this and thought of you:
Our group has been working on design/construction of
low energy/affordable housing units and finally we
have produced a 3BR house protorype that costs almost
half the price of similar size house on the market. We
are happy to share our findings with you.
Kind regards,
Dr M Hedman
SolXO Ltd.
United Kingdom
Left Fist. Meet Right Fist. Now make a fist of things.
A wee while ago there was a tad of a spat over road pricing, which resulted in a high profile petition. Looks like there may be again - 'Big Brother' plan for police to use new road cameras
I blogged a fair bit on it (and you can, if you are so disposed, locate it by popping said phrase in the blogger search).
I was... am in favour of it, so long as a load of factors were established and guaranteed for fair and competent delivery first. Which they were not. So I joined the petition.
Now in all that debate I do recall an interview with one Doctor (as in the figures) Ladyman, who I think was challenged by a Sun columnist in whether or not 'we' were to be tracked as part of all this. The answer, for this was not perhaps a good thing to admit in a Big Brother overloaded government's term, was no. Or at least 'a looking at it' no. Few were convinced. I think I wondered how you effectively charged anyone for distance covered if you didn't track them. It was not so much the fact of the process, but the mess the fudge-up caused.
And so now we see yet another issue of trust laid bare for what it was... and is.
And they keep asking the people to cooperate with them.
Indy - Row over police use of cameras criticised - Though I don't quiet understand the headline. Are they saying having a row is to be/being criticised?
I blogged a fair bit on it (and you can, if you are so disposed, locate it by popping said phrase in the blogger search).
I was... am in favour of it, so long as a load of factors were established and guaranteed for fair and competent delivery first. Which they were not. So I joined the petition.
Now in all that debate I do recall an interview with one Doctor (as in the figures) Ladyman, who I think was challenged by a Sun columnist in whether or not 'we' were to be tracked as part of all this. The answer, for this was not perhaps a good thing to admit in a Big Brother overloaded government's term, was no. Or at least 'a looking at it' no. Few were convinced. I think I wondered how you effectively charged anyone for distance covered if you didn't track them. It was not so much the fact of the process, but the mess the fudge-up caused.
And so now we see yet another issue of trust laid bare for what it was... and is.
And they keep asking the people to cooperate with them.
Indy - Row over police use of cameras criticised - Though I don't quiet understand the headline. Are they saying having a row is to be/being criticised?
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
The Energy Solution That Dare Not Speak Its Name
Oooooh! I first thought, another perhaps daring to suggest we sort of try to limit the human population growth somewhat? But no, in a cogent and logical comment article Raymond J. Learsy argues that the US could dig its way out of the thrall of the oil barons by ......... rationing.
"it became clear to me at least, that those with a vested interest in oil, oil production, oil and energy distribution, oil governance, are all for conservation, protecting the environment, as long as it does not negatively impact the price of oil and energy."
"lets consider ethanol and alternative fuels, but we don't really have a viable infrastructure in place, and can it really displace meaningful amounts of oil. What is the environmental impact of all bio based fuels among such as cellulosic, corn, sugar based ethanol? Of course we support biofuels if they are sustainable."
His translation:-
"lets stay with oil as long as we can, or as long as we can ask questions that cause programmed doubt to derail the urgent development of alternative fuels and alternative solutions."
"the consumer is playing against loaded dice."
Well, no one will argue against that last point. What he says may, at least in part, be true, but I think he's a brave chappie who just may have stuck his head over the parapet a little too far. Those Big Oil boys have some very big guns!
And starving the planet's largest consumers of petrol is going to be an immense ask!
"it became clear to me at least, that those with a vested interest in oil, oil production, oil and energy distribution, oil governance, are all for conservation, protecting the environment, as long as it does not negatively impact the price of oil and energy."
"lets consider ethanol and alternative fuels, but we don't really have a viable infrastructure in place, and can it really displace meaningful amounts of oil. What is the environmental impact of all bio based fuels among such as cellulosic, corn, sugar based ethanol? Of course we support biofuels if they are sustainable."
His translation:-
"lets stay with oil as long as we can, or as long as we can ask questions that cause programmed doubt to derail the urgent development of alternative fuels and alternative solutions."
"the consumer is playing against loaded dice."
Well, no one will argue against that last point. What he says may, at least in part, be true, but I think he's a brave chappie who just may have stuck his head over the parapet a little too far. Those Big Oil boys have some very big guns!
And starving the planet's largest consumers of petrol is going to be an immense ask!
Are we aware yet?
I risk being ticked off as a grump, but I was just wondering how much more awareness this planet can afford: Man swims at north pole
I'm assuming he didn't swim there, and I seem to recall on the news more than few around who went with to 'share the moment'. And broadcast it to boost those ratings.
I'm thinking of starting a travel agency called Awareness Offsets, whereby you go pretty much where you fancy, but when you get back you can upload your home movies and claim it was to 'raise awareness' of the area of outstanding natural beauty you just screwed up by trampling all over it or simply by getting there.
You may even get a media outlet - especially a green one - to fund you! But only if you move in their circles, Ok, yah?
I'm assuming he didn't swim there, and I seem to recall on the news more than few around who went with to 'share the moment'. And broadcast it to boost those ratings.
I'm thinking of starting a travel agency called Awareness Offsets, whereby you go pretty much where you fancy, but when you get back you can upload your home movies and claim it was to 'raise awareness' of the area of outstanding natural beauty you just screwed up by trampling all over it or simply by getting there.
You may even get a media outlet - especially a green one - to fund you! But only if you move in their circles, Ok, yah?
'Dere was 'dese tree fellas...
It is a sorry comment on even sorrier times that I have to preface my comments on last night's Ch4 'Great Green Smokescreen' with the caution that it is a) a supposed 'news' item b) on TV and c) on Ch 4.
These are the guys who brought us another 'Great..' not so long ago. So who knows what is true?
For what it's worth, a lot did ring pretty close to what I have stumbled across and/or feel and/or has been shared by me and others on this blog.
You only have to go back a few posts to find a few eyebrows being cocked at the PR and ad onslaughts by such as HSBC, SKY and BP, who rather crudely seem to have managed to make 3/4 of a million out of 2,500 (cars, that is), and all from a few acres of pig poo under a very dodgy looking tarp. Editing for effect? Well, if the 'disclaimers' were anything to go by - 'Oops! Got us in one. We'll take that claim off right away. Byeeee!". Plus almost BBCesque fudges on how tricky the facts are to get right. Are they scientists or what? I bet if it was finding a barrel of oil at 30,000 feet they'd have the numbers down to a decimal place.
Then we get straight into the meat of the piece: the guys who sit in deckchairs flogging trendies (individual and company variety) tracts of 'land' with 'trees' (no mention of the deforestation of mature areas being a much better option) to assuage liberal guilt that does not quite extend to cutting back. £10 gets you off a flight, as in off on the next one so long as you are rich... and either very dumb or very blinkered. Along with some authority figures I'd say, as from what I saw the Forestry Commission (hold that word in mind each time you hear of guys who sell you stuff to pollute some more) was using whose money to subsidise these guys to flog whose trees?
Cut to commercial. Vauxhall ecoflex, since you didn't ask. It's a car, by the way. I think. One of those with a leaf in the exhaust. But I'm sure it's so green you can go an extra few miles on the same amount. And hence you probably will. Ok, a better than nothing, but I have a drawer bulging with car ads which really are pushing my greenwash tolerance to the limit.
Thing is, it seems no one can agree on these footprints anyway (er, why?) so they are all pretty much making it up. What next? A two for one deal? The explanations and/or mitigations offered by the offwithhisheadsetters were all less than convincing. Especially the one who offered two prices; one direct and one via their client BA. Guess which one was lower? It's all about multipliers, apparently. And so, because 'we' don't know, yet, what they are, we don't allow for them. Works for me. Well, actually, when it comes to the future of my kids' planet, it really, really doesn't guys.
It was at this point the reporter admitted to being confused and unsure who to trust. Well, there's a surprise.
Speaking of trusting the media (Neat link, huh?), there was a good case of actual facts being used, assuming, of course they were true. Some Bulgarian project or other. Claim and counter claim of whether it made any darn difference bounced around until we ended up at the bank. And when it comes to money, they don't lie. And the bank says 'no'. So yet another pot into which a load of green got consummately p*ssed away. After commission.
SKY (a CH 4 competitor, mind) didn't come out too well, if only in making big claims that didn't seem to add up. I recall them being major speakers at the Guardian Climate Change Summit, and while the vast commitments made were mentioned all right, what was not was how the regular reviews of their 12.5% investment wasn't looking too solid on enviROI. I wonder what these guys with CSR Director or Eco Advisor as titles actually do all day?
Cue next ad... for a racing car!
Then we get back to the ways to make a big difference, in London at least, with... wait for it... a Carbon Neutral (the term has been shown to be less than helpful by now - in fact DEFRA was quoted as saying companies really shouldn't call themselves that) variety show!
That'll do it!
Or... food miles on a pack of crisps. Sorted!
There was, apparently, no real comment from the Carbon Trust. There are those two words again. Only this time together.
The conclusion was that there was no real harm to it all, but the question was asked if it was a dangerous diversion. I'd rather say that if it is a dangerous diversion there is a lot of potential harm.
Seeing some London luvvie called Fanny, who rejoices in the title 'Head of Policy' for an outfit called Global Cool, lob up in a Chauffeured Prius, to share such dazzling insights as not flushing the loo hardly inspired me.
And to those of more modest means it simply made the whole thing look like a silly little fad.
Do all these things for heavens sake, but get the info for free. Why do you need to pay money to rich folk to show you care about your kids and their futures?
ADDENDUM _ just came across a note I jotted in the lounge as I watched the Ch4 news preceding this. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change (didn't even, until now, know we had one), was being challenged by Jon Snow on what the government was doing to clear all this up. Apparently they are 'working towards' a solution. Well that's it all sorted then. Now I see why they get the big bucks. Meantime, for the poor consumer's sake, let's be hoping that major multinationals have no more 'website malfunctions' to... misle.. er... 'confuse' us.
Guardian - Last night's TV: Dispatches: The Great Green Smoke Screen - I like my review better. And I didn't even snipe about the 4x4, as the Ch4 guy wasn't really preaching. As some do.
Indy - Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - It's like they watched the same programme! Oh, they did. Interesting that no one (else) is at least pointing out the provenance of the story, which tends to suggest these carbon offset schemes have a lot of explaining to do. As have any sloppy corporates who saw/see green as a quick way to look green with no real thought going into the substance.
These are the guys who brought us another 'Great..' not so long ago. So who knows what is true?
For what it's worth, a lot did ring pretty close to what I have stumbled across and/or feel and/or has been shared by me and others on this blog.
You only have to go back a few posts to find a few eyebrows being cocked at the PR and ad onslaughts by such as HSBC, SKY and BP, who rather crudely seem to have managed to make 3/4 of a million out of 2,500 (cars, that is), and all from a few acres of pig poo under a very dodgy looking tarp. Editing for effect? Well, if the 'disclaimers' were anything to go by - 'Oops! Got us in one. We'll take that claim off right away. Byeeee!". Plus almost BBCesque fudges on how tricky the facts are to get right. Are they scientists or what? I bet if it was finding a barrel of oil at 30,000 feet they'd have the numbers down to a decimal place.
Then we get straight into the meat of the piece: the guys who sit in deckchairs flogging trendies (individual and company variety) tracts of 'land' with 'trees' (no mention of the deforestation of mature areas being a much better option) to assuage liberal guilt that does not quite extend to cutting back. £10 gets you off a flight, as in off on the next one so long as you are rich... and either very dumb or very blinkered. Along with some authority figures I'd say, as from what I saw the Forestry Commission (hold that word in mind each time you hear of guys who sell you stuff to pollute some more) was using whose money to subsidise these guys to flog whose trees?
Cut to commercial. Vauxhall ecoflex, since you didn't ask. It's a car, by the way. I think. One of those with a leaf in the exhaust. But I'm sure it's so green you can go an extra few miles on the same amount. And hence you probably will. Ok, a better than nothing, but I have a drawer bulging with car ads which really are pushing my greenwash tolerance to the limit.
Thing is, it seems no one can agree on these footprints anyway (er, why?) so they are all pretty much making it up. What next? A two for one deal? The explanations and/or mitigations offered by the offwithhisheadsetters were all less than convincing. Especially the one who offered two prices; one direct and one via their client BA. Guess which one was lower? It's all about multipliers, apparently. And so, because 'we' don't know, yet, what they are, we don't allow for them. Works for me. Well, actually, when it comes to the future of my kids' planet, it really, really doesn't guys.
It was at this point the reporter admitted to being confused and unsure who to trust. Well, there's a surprise.
Speaking of trusting the media (Neat link, huh?), there was a good case of actual facts being used, assuming, of course they were true. Some Bulgarian project or other. Claim and counter claim of whether it made any darn difference bounced around until we ended up at the bank. And when it comes to money, they don't lie. And the bank says 'no'. So yet another pot into which a load of green got consummately p*ssed away. After commission.
SKY (a CH 4 competitor, mind) didn't come out too well, if only in making big claims that didn't seem to add up. I recall them being major speakers at the Guardian Climate Change Summit, and while the vast commitments made were mentioned all right, what was not was how the regular reviews of their 12.5% investment wasn't looking too solid on enviROI. I wonder what these guys with CSR Director or Eco Advisor as titles actually do all day?
Cue next ad... for a racing car!
Then we get back to the ways to make a big difference, in London at least, with... wait for it... a Carbon Neutral (the term has been shown to be less than helpful by now - in fact DEFRA was quoted as saying companies really shouldn't call themselves that) variety show!
That'll do it!
Or... food miles on a pack of crisps. Sorted!
There was, apparently, no real comment from the Carbon Trust. There are those two words again. Only this time together.
The conclusion was that there was no real harm to it all, but the question was asked if it was a dangerous diversion. I'd rather say that if it is a dangerous diversion there is a lot of potential harm.
Seeing some London luvvie called Fanny, who rejoices in the title 'Head of Policy' for an outfit called Global Cool, lob up in a Chauffeured Prius, to share such dazzling insights as not flushing the loo hardly inspired me.
And to those of more modest means it simply made the whole thing look like a silly little fad.
Do all these things for heavens sake, but get the info for free. Why do you need to pay money to rich folk to show you care about your kids and their futures?
ADDENDUM _ just came across a note I jotted in the lounge as I watched the Ch4 news preceding this. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change (didn't even, until now, know we had one), was being challenged by Jon Snow on what the government was doing to clear all this up. Apparently they are 'working towards' a solution. Well that's it all sorted then. Now I see why they get the big bucks. Meantime, for the poor consumer's sake, let's be hoping that major multinationals have no more 'website malfunctions' to... misle.. er... 'confuse' us.
Guardian - Last night's TV: Dispatches: The Great Green Smoke Screen - I like my review better. And I didn't even snipe about the 4x4, as the Ch4 guy wasn't really preaching. As some do.
Indy - Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - It's like they watched the same programme! Oh, they did. Interesting that no one (else) is at least pointing out the provenance of the story, which tends to suggest these carbon offset schemes have a lot of explaining to do. As have any sloppy corporates who saw/see green as a quick way to look green with no real thought going into the substance.
Old King Coal's comeback?
Is ol' Golden Brown's first major decision going to revive Old King Coal? A decision that could "lock Britain into the same centralised, inefficient power system that wastes two-thirds of the energy going into it as heat up the cooling towers." Not to mention a decision that would mean that the UK would entirely miss it's emission targets by a mile.
I somehow missed the original article in Sunday's Observer, but this from The Guardian CIF is a fascinating, albeit sobering, read. Should the UK break with tradition and radically transform energy production or should we re-awaken and revive Old King Coal?
"Gordon Brown has been handed a historic opportunity to break from Blair's confused and fragmented approach to energy generation. He could revolutionise our energy system by implementing renewables, energy efficiency and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) on an unprecedented scale."
So which way will he go? I hope it is not the case, but my guess is that short termism and what is perceived as the 'cheap' option will win the day yet again, almost certainly to the detriment of future generations.
If we start building new coal fired power stations, especially without utilising clean burn and carbon sequestration technologies, the UK will be taking an enormous retrograde step. Milliband would never have concurred with this - I'm beginning to wonder whether he was he moved (we all thought he was promoted but maybe it was just sideways?) to pave the way for an unpalatable decision?
I hope not. And as the first comment posted says - "fingers crossed"!
Addendum:
If Ol' Golden DOES opt for the radical approach and includes for a major expansion of renewables, I hope he's aware that some renewable technology is getting quite difficult to get hold of! According to this from The Guardian, there is now a worldwide shortage of wind turbines.
I somehow missed the original article in Sunday's Observer, but this from The Guardian CIF is a fascinating, albeit sobering, read. Should the UK break with tradition and radically transform energy production or should we re-awaken and revive Old King Coal?
"Gordon Brown has been handed a historic opportunity to break from Blair's confused and fragmented approach to energy generation. He could revolutionise our energy system by implementing renewables, energy efficiency and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) on an unprecedented scale."
So which way will he go? I hope it is not the case, but my guess is that short termism and what is perceived as the 'cheap' option will win the day yet again, almost certainly to the detriment of future generations.
If we start building new coal fired power stations, especially without utilising clean burn and carbon sequestration technologies, the UK will be taking an enormous retrograde step. Milliband would never have concurred with this - I'm beginning to wonder whether he was he moved (we all thought he was promoted but maybe it was just sideways?) to pave the way for an unpalatable decision?
I hope not. And as the first comment posted says - "fingers crossed"!
Addendum:
If Ol' Golden DOES opt for the radical approach and includes for a major expansion of renewables, I hope he's aware that some renewable technology is getting quite difficult to get hold of! According to this from The Guardian, there is now a worldwide shortage of wind turbines.
GIGO
Can't believe I've never used that acronym before. For those few who may not know it, it stands for garage in:garbage out. And it sums up my views having seen this Newsnight piece: Why are we so rubbish about rubbish?
Yes, 'we' should be ashamed. Even the two year old spoke better English than most I hear these days, even on the... yoof... BBC. So the popping of a newspaper in the bin with a shrug and the words 'I don't speak German' made the point about British practices (bought and wasted) eloquently, especially the ones we have to 'foreign' languages.
This was a very interesting piece, but to me didn't answer a key question: to what extent were we seeing the results of differences in official policy?
While the Austrians said they were 'happy to pay', even though they generate just as much rubbish (not looking quite so smart at the pack design/legislative end then) not once in the piece did I hear the mention of fines, chips and bins. Well, Ok, bins were mentioned a lot.
Now, I am looking at our RE:box right now besides my home office desk, which gets collected weekly with its paper haul, along with the basket that we fill with glass and metal. No TetraPacks or plastic, but that's because they are not accepted. Yet. Despite the efforts of some (such as Innocent - heard of their campaign?), I believe we still only have only one process plant for the former, which makes the enviROI (cost to environment) of logistics alone very poor. As to the latter, I combine (dedicated trips in the XC90 or Range Rover for two bottles of pop not perhaps the best) my trips to the supermarket with the equivalent of a yellow bag of plastics, where a lot of others seem to be doing the same. Mind you, the enviROI of a dirty great diesel truck lugging 98% fresh air around seems less than optimal.
So, sorry, I don't think the problem here is at consumer end. I think it is upstream, in terms of what is put into the system, and what 'we' are provided to deal with it all. Because, looking around, I see an awful lot of will, with too much no 'way'. And that.. is down to policy. Who in the UK can say that they are always within 500m of a recycling point... and that they know where it is all going?
I even have some sympathy with retailers. So the Austrian supermarket ships back a lot of stuff in its trucks at night. I'm pretty sure most of ours do too. I'm also aware of a few who are set to take back batteries, and even if they don't our local council site certainly does. If it's not national it should be, and that gets us back to...policy.
I don't know if ours are too timid, but they certainly don't seem very joined up, and that can, and does lead to a lot of waste with competing schemes, not to mention the vast amounts blown on different, often overlapping, 'initiatives' left, right and centre, which seem more dedicated to showing 'something' is looking like being done without actually knuckling down and coordinating anything actually (cost) effective.
Which brings me back to enviROI. Whatever we do let's make sure we do it with the actual intent of saving the planet, and not just meeting a few targets to get a quick bonus. I look at the Red Bull cup and think 'good idea!'. But is it? I don't know. It has to be collected, separated and steam cleaned, I presume, for reuse. You see, often one eco-measure (landfill) can conflict with another (energy carbon emissions). All must be (forgive the box-ticking pun) weighed up.
It's a pity the energy from waste issue is not being handled more maturely here. We are happy to live and work next to vehicles belching lord knows what out, or have a bonfire, but stick a metal chimney up and all hell breaks loose. Maybe if it looked like Willy Wonka's hookah more would be cool on the things. It's not like the quality of air can't be guaranteed... assuming you trust the contractor, operator and commissioning authority. Oh... well... moving on.
One thing that was not mentioned was the even more environmentally-friendly option of reuse.
I found it rather telling (unless it was a BBC 'edit for effect') to see a perfectly good pram go in a skip. Rather than recycling, there are some rather nifty measures for avoiding what is still an energy intensive process. Such as Freecycle or Junkk.com's (which also has hundreds of 2nd use ideas from thousands of people to spare almost anything from the bin if it can enjoy a new life) JunkkYard
You see 'we', the people, may not be any more rubbish at rubbish than our Euro cousins after all.
All 'we' need are the right tools and some effective guidance from 'our' leadership. But, speaking of which, if you put garbage in at the front, that's pretty much all you can expect at the end.
Yes, 'we' should be ashamed. Even the two year old spoke better English than most I hear these days, even on the... yoof... BBC. So the popping of a newspaper in the bin with a shrug and the words 'I don't speak German' made the point about British practices (bought and wasted) eloquently, especially the ones we have to 'foreign' languages.
This was a very interesting piece, but to me didn't answer a key question: to what extent were we seeing the results of differences in official policy?
While the Austrians said they were 'happy to pay', even though they generate just as much rubbish (not looking quite so smart at the pack design/legislative end then) not once in the piece did I hear the mention of fines, chips and bins. Well, Ok, bins were mentioned a lot.
Now, I am looking at our RE:box right now besides my home office desk, which gets collected weekly with its paper haul, along with the basket that we fill with glass and metal. No TetraPacks or plastic, but that's because they are not accepted. Yet. Despite the efforts of some (such as Innocent - heard of their campaign?), I believe we still only have only one process plant for the former, which makes the enviROI (cost to environment) of logistics alone very poor. As to the latter, I combine (dedicated trips in the XC90 or Range Rover for two bottles of pop not perhaps the best) my trips to the supermarket with the equivalent of a yellow bag of plastics, where a lot of others seem to be doing the same. Mind you, the enviROI of a dirty great diesel truck lugging 98% fresh air around seems less than optimal.
So, sorry, I don't think the problem here is at consumer end. I think it is upstream, in terms of what is put into the system, and what 'we' are provided to deal with it all. Because, looking around, I see an awful lot of will, with too much no 'way'. And that.. is down to policy. Who in the UK can say that they are always within 500m of a recycling point... and that they know where it is all going?
I even have some sympathy with retailers. So the Austrian supermarket ships back a lot of stuff in its trucks at night. I'm pretty sure most of ours do too. I'm also aware of a few who are set to take back batteries, and even if they don't our local council site certainly does. If it's not national it should be, and that gets us back to...policy.
I don't know if ours are too timid, but they certainly don't seem very joined up, and that can, and does lead to a lot of waste with competing schemes, not to mention the vast amounts blown on different, often overlapping, 'initiatives' left, right and centre, which seem more dedicated to showing 'something' is looking like being done without actually knuckling down and coordinating anything actually (cost) effective.
Which brings me back to enviROI. Whatever we do let's make sure we do it with the actual intent of saving the planet, and not just meeting a few targets to get a quick bonus. I look at the Red Bull cup and think 'good idea!'. But is it? I don't know. It has to be collected, separated and steam cleaned, I presume, for reuse. You see, often one eco-measure (landfill) can conflict with another (energy carbon emissions). All must be (forgive the box-ticking pun) weighed up.
It's a pity the energy from waste issue is not being handled more maturely here. We are happy to live and work next to vehicles belching lord knows what out, or have a bonfire, but stick a metal chimney up and all hell breaks loose. Maybe if it looked like Willy Wonka's hookah more would be cool on the things. It's not like the quality of air can't be guaranteed... assuming you trust the contractor, operator and commissioning authority. Oh... well... moving on.
One thing that was not mentioned was the even more environmentally-friendly option of reuse.
I found it rather telling (unless it was a BBC 'edit for effect') to see a perfectly good pram go in a skip. Rather than recycling, there are some rather nifty measures for avoiding what is still an energy intensive process. Such as Freecycle or Junkk.com's (which also has hundreds of 2nd use ideas from thousands of people to spare almost anything from the bin if it can enjoy a new life) JunkkYard
You see 'we', the people, may not be any more rubbish at rubbish than our Euro cousins after all.
All 'we' need are the right tools and some effective guidance from 'our' leadership. But, speaking of which, if you put garbage in at the front, that's pretty much all you can expect at the end.
Monday, July 16, 2007
A little application. Well, a lot, actually.
I saw this ad in Media Week.Being well smart, beyond 'a festival of minds' and 'the biggest names tackle the biggest issue' I figured the word green might mean something I could/should be interested in, so I logged on to the website.
Strewth, they don't make it easy, do they?
All I could find out, beyond the fact it was green and big, was it was shaping up at six hundred quid for the probable privilege of again being talked at by some guys who will need to pop off after talking, a few hundred (doubtless eco) hand-outs and stands with LCDs showing wind turbines, some eco-canapes (or not) and sitting at a table populated by a bunch of overpaid guys with titles like 'Head of Sustainability' who all knew each other, only talked amongst themselves as a consequence, and moved in packs keeping each other, and conferences like this, in business. And at the end of the day agreeing 'something should be done'. At least, enough to tick over until the next conference/summit... festival.
However, for my sins, there may be a few in there worth meeting. So in a sad repeat of my last whinge power, which got me invited to the Guardian Climate Change Summit (this being a festival, maybe I should mention I can play a mean triangle), if anyone is a speaker.......:)
The Cola Challenge
Another industry magazine that I like and hence surf on occasion for tidbits is Plastics & Rubber Weekly. And this caught my attention: Coca-Cola launches lightweighted PET bottle in UK
Especially this: Potential resin saving of 700tpa, says company.
But....
While I think all can agree that just about every aspect of this story is a very good thing, I do have to ask if (and if so, where the money went, and/or gets refunded) it was necessary for the trials to be partly funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap).
I also wonder if I could sign up to Wrap’s Courtauld Commitment to 'reduce packaging waste'. Then there would be 26 signatories to the agreement. Any why not? If money is there for the taking, you'd be silly not to get your hands on it.
So I don't blame Coke at all for going for it. But I just have to wonder, again, why it is necessary to use public money to fund multi-billion turnover (and profit) companies to help them reduce their manufacturing costs, when surely it is in their own interests to do so?
And thus allow money from the public purse to go to areas where there is perhaps more need, and less self-interest at work.
I'm sure there's a good reason, but I'll guess I'll have to keep looking, and make a note to ask £200kpa execs at the top of this generous quango the next time I see them.
I decided to see if I could get some answers:
Great news. This should be a real positive to share with all the negatives we get these days on (over)packaging.
Quick question. What does ‘partially funded’ mean? It seems unlikely that a multi-billion $/£ company needs to be funded at all, especially when, beyond savings on waste the future savings of raw material costs must surely be vast. How’s it work?
Where does this money come from? And were does it go to? How much are we talking about? Is it secret? I’m interested in the provenance chain.
And is this on the same basis of a similar thing I heard about a while ago with Heinz, and Tescos, for instance, which seemed to cause some concern at the time as to why two such vast profit making enterprises were being subsidised from the public purse. I’m presuming they’ll be paying it back which, in view of the manufacturing raw materials spared, should not be too, long, right?
Signing to this Agreement seems a good way to get oodles of public funds to play with, and hence can anyone get some money by signing it?
I’d really like to know as it seems very generous, and it would be great to have some too.
Especially this: Potential resin saving of 700tpa, says company.
But....
While I think all can agree that just about every aspect of this story is a very good thing, I do have to ask if (and if so, where the money went, and/or gets refunded) it was necessary for the trials to be partly funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap).
I also wonder if I could sign up to Wrap’s Courtauld Commitment to 'reduce packaging waste'. Then there would be 26 signatories to the agreement. Any why not? If money is there for the taking, you'd be silly not to get your hands on it.
So I don't blame Coke at all for going for it. But I just have to wonder, again, why it is necessary to use public money to fund multi-billion turnover (and profit) companies to help them reduce their manufacturing costs, when surely it is in their own interests to do so?
And thus allow money from the public purse to go to areas where there is perhaps more need, and less self-interest at work.
I'm sure there's a good reason, but I'll guess I'll have to keep looking, and make a note to ask £200kpa execs at the top of this generous quango the next time I see them.
I decided to see if I could get some answers:
Great news. This should be a real positive to share with all the negatives we get these days on (over)packaging.
Quick question. What does ‘partially funded’ mean? It seems unlikely that a multi-billion $/£ company needs to be funded at all, especially when, beyond savings on waste the future savings of raw material costs must surely be vast. How’s it work?
Where does this money come from? And were does it go to? How much are we talking about? Is it secret? I’m interested in the provenance chain.
And is this on the same basis of a similar thing I heard about a while ago with Heinz, and Tescos, for instance, which seemed to cause some concern at the time as to why two such vast profit making enterprises were being subsidised from the public purse. I’m presuming they’ll be paying it back which, in view of the manufacturing raw materials spared, should not be too, long, right?
Signing to this Agreement seems a good way to get oodles of public funds to play with, and hence can anyone get some money by signing it?
I’d really like to know as it seems very generous, and it would be great to have some too.
Smile, you can afford more stuff
Somewhere in my drafts archive is a piece I am writing about human behaviour and motivations. I can't seem to find it to finish it, but as I just came across this wanted to share as it was a telling complement: BBC - Emissions don't make Europe happy
I have a saying: 'Happiness is solar powered'. It really only was meant for my reaction to a sunny day, but maybe it can resonate further, but hopefully won't get hijacked for any undeserving low-enviROI initiatives.
I have a saying: 'Happiness is solar powered'. It really only was meant for my reaction to a sunny day, but maybe it can resonate further, but hopefully won't get hijacked for any undeserving low-enviROI initiatives.
"There used to be seven. Now there are six."
This is nothing to do with Snow White's companions, and nothing to do with fairy tales, it is what is actually happening as sea levels rise. As the climate change debate goes on and on, the evidence from communities living on low level islands is starting to become irrefutable.
This article from The Gulf Times highlights the danger to the people of Tuvalu, a tiny South Pacific nation. Thousands have already emigrated to New Zealand, others stoically remain, determined that their home will not be engulfed by rising sea levels, and the increasing frequency of typhoons and 'king' [super high] tides.
There used to be seven smaller islets surrounding the main island of Funafuti, but one has disappeared since the late 1990s, leaving a strip of rubble visible only at low tide.
For some, climate change is all a political conspiracy, oft seen as a way of increasing taxation; for others, it is literally becoming a matter of life and death.
ADDENDUM from Junkk Male
Letter in the Indy - Tuvalu is doomed no matter what - Unsubstantiated of course (but then most news is, too), but I do think worth bearing in mind.
This article from The Gulf Times highlights the danger to the people of Tuvalu, a tiny South Pacific nation. Thousands have already emigrated to New Zealand, others stoically remain, determined that their home will not be engulfed by rising sea levels, and the increasing frequency of typhoons and 'king' [super high] tides.
There used to be seven smaller islets surrounding the main island of Funafuti, but one has disappeared since the late 1990s, leaving a strip of rubble visible only at low tide.
For some, climate change is all a political conspiracy, oft seen as a way of increasing taxation; for others, it is literally becoming a matter of life and death.
ADDENDUM from Junkk Male
Letter in the Indy - Tuvalu is doomed no matter what - Unsubstantiated of course (but then most news is, too), but I do think worth bearing in mind.
What's a Boy or Girl to think?
We have lately had a spate of people telling us not only what we should (with any useful info on how being noticeable in the absence) think but, apparently with magical telepathic powers, what we are thinking.
From government to local authorities to the media, our opinions are being shaped, it seems, by telling us that what were thinking is in fact not what we are thinking. I guess that having seen the error of our ways by it coming from such trusted sources we will immediately revise them. Not.
So we have on the BBC this morning a report about the state of our rubbish laws.
What was most striking to me was a piece featuring some residents in Oxford (one of the more enlightened councils, I'd always thought) who were a bit fed up being told that there was no problem with bi-weekly collections, when in fact, by the evidence of all their senses (especially olfactory), there was. Seems they had not read the research or press releases thoroughly enough.
And so we arrive at the fact (well...) that this brainwave to force us to recycle more (nothing to do with saving money, oh, no) is, in fact, not working out: MPs: Fortnightly bin collections are an unworkable mess
Now, in my new capacity as Scoop Male, I have gone off and sourced this report. Well, I googled and clicked two links. Bernstein and Woodward look out!
I feel I must... should... as the quotes from the report writers made... gasp... a lot of sense, and were all the more refreshing by being from 'in-house' taboot, it being a Labour MP who headed it all.
Thing is, it is now in a list of several I have yet to read. Ho hum.
But things like this make it look worth the effort:
"In the long term there should be a move towards a national strategy to encourage householders and retailers to cut down on food waste. At present a third of all food bought is subsequently thrown away, wasting households on average £400 a year and adding to refuse collection costs."
“We would like the Government come up with a core definition of what householders should expect from their refuse collection. This should include no complicated rules, rubbish collected when the council says it will be and schemes to suit every household from the largest rural home to the most crowded urban area.
“What we do not want is, as Ben Bradshaw, then the Minister for Waste, put it, local authorities “blundering” into AWC before proper consideration and consultation has taken place as to whether this is the best system for that area.”
Or, let the BBC show what it is good at: MPs criticise bin collection plan Plus report. 63 b****y pages! Maybe later.
Guardian - Q&A: Rubbish collections
Guardian - Fortnightly collections not always the answer, say MPs
From government to local authorities to the media, our opinions are being shaped, it seems, by telling us that what were thinking is in fact not what we are thinking. I guess that having seen the error of our ways by it coming from such trusted sources we will immediately revise them. Not.
So we have on the BBC this morning a report about the state of our rubbish laws.
What was most striking to me was a piece featuring some residents in Oxford (one of the more enlightened councils, I'd always thought) who were a bit fed up being told that there was no problem with bi-weekly collections, when in fact, by the evidence of all their senses (especially olfactory), there was. Seems they had not read the research or press releases thoroughly enough.
And so we arrive at the fact (well...) that this brainwave to force us to recycle more (nothing to do with saving money, oh, no) is, in fact, not working out: MPs: Fortnightly bin collections are an unworkable mess
Now, in my new capacity as Scoop Male, I have gone off and sourced this report. Well, I googled and clicked two links. Bernstein and Woodward look out!
I feel I must... should... as the quotes from the report writers made... gasp... a lot of sense, and were all the more refreshing by being from 'in-house' taboot, it being a Labour MP who headed it all.
Thing is, it is now in a list of several I have yet to read. Ho hum.
But things like this make it look worth the effort:
"In the long term there should be a move towards a national strategy to encourage householders and retailers to cut down on food waste. At present a third of all food bought is subsequently thrown away, wasting households on average £400 a year and adding to refuse collection costs."
“We would like the Government come up with a core definition of what householders should expect from their refuse collection. This should include no complicated rules, rubbish collected when the council says it will be and schemes to suit every household from the largest rural home to the most crowded urban area.
“What we do not want is, as Ben Bradshaw, then the Minister for Waste, put it, local authorities “blundering” into AWC before proper consideration and consultation has taken place as to whether this is the best system for that area.”
Or, let the BBC show what it is good at: MPs criticise bin collection plan Plus report. 63 b****y pages! Maybe later.
Guardian - Q&A: Rubbish collections
Guardian - Fortnightly collections not always the answer, say MPs
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Edit,or? 2
A few days ago I decided to weigh in on the small matter of the BBC excusing editing news footage to suit a younger agenda (where dealing with the truth gives way to hitting a rating) thanks to all its new, trendy, yoof employees coming from a Big Brother mentality.
But a blog by one of the Newsnight editors seemed so grotesque in trying to steer the debate I really had to make comment (it's a ways down).
Thing is, to date, only one comment seems to have been made, with mine (and, I suspect a few others), curiously yet to appear. Though critical, and indeed very well written as I noted, it was not perhaps as stinging as some that may have been inspired.
Technical hitch? Or just another example of editing.
What was there was some kind of link thing to other blogs. The first two I looked at were quite supportive. I wish I could figure out all these new tech opportunities and take part, as they might benefit from a bit of balance to avoid looking like it's all staged. Or maybe it is by invitation only.
Anyway, here it is again:
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order
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.
Indy - Now 'Newsnight' admits doctoring a report - Just call me 'Scoop'
ADDENDUM - 9.25am 16/07 - It looks like the comments are no dripping in. The one I lauded (the only one to make it up these last few days) is lost in the middle, so how that happened I know not. Mine is yet to appear.
Guardian - Out of order - Indeed
ADDENDUM 2 - 10.30am 16-07 - It's up.
I would like to explain that I made my post (26) a few days ago, at which point post 19 by Mike S was the one and only one up there. As it remained for a few days.
I guess the order got changed. Oh, the irony:)
Indy - Production firm apologises to BBC for Queen blunder - So, give the BBC anything and they'll run it if it looks better than it is?
Guardian - Box of tricks - It's taking me a while to figure if they are saying that it's all alright as we should know it's all fixed. Or not?
I also note, at this juncture, all involved have, indeed, moved on. In their jobs. Salaries intact. Bless.
Indy - Victoria's reality check
Indy - BBC: Decline of a great institution
Indy - Ray Snoddy on Broadcasting - I was going to start watching Newswatch again, but then I saw the words 'draw a line under it all'
Indy - You can trust me, I'm a press journalist - You can't get humour this good on the... er... humour pages.
Guardian - Poll reveals how trust in BBC has plummeted after scandals - Well, there's a thing. But what is their definition of 'heads rolled'?
Biased BBC - a blog for those who may feel we are poorly served by those we pay, and have no other choice but to. Good piece here: Crisis-prone BBC needs management clear-out
But a blog by one of the Newsnight editors seemed so grotesque in trying to steer the debate I really had to make comment (it's a ways down).
Thing is, to date, only one comment seems to have been made, with mine (and, I suspect a few others), curiously yet to appear. Though critical, and indeed very well written as I noted, it was not perhaps as stinging as some that may have been inspired.
Technical hitch? Or just another example of editing.
What was there was some kind of link thing to other blogs. The first two I looked at were quite supportive. I wish I could figure out all these new tech opportunities and take part, as they might benefit from a bit of balance to avoid looking like it's all staged. Or maybe it is by invitation only.
Anyway, here it is again:
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order
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.
Indy - Now 'Newsnight' admits doctoring a report - Just call me 'Scoop'
ADDENDUM - 9.25am 16/07 - It looks like the comments are no dripping in. The one I lauded (the only one to make it up these last few days) is lost in the middle, so how that happened I know not. Mine is yet to appear.
Guardian - Out of order - Indeed
ADDENDUM 2 - 10.30am 16-07 - It's up.
I would like to explain that I made my post (26) a few days ago, at which point post 19 by Mike S was the one and only one up there. As it remained for a few days.
I guess the order got changed. Oh, the irony:)
Indy - Production firm apologises to BBC for Queen blunder - So, give the BBC anything and they'll run it if it looks better than it is?
Guardian - Box of tricks - It's taking me a while to figure if they are saying that it's all alright as we should know it's all fixed. Or not?
I also note, at this juncture, all involved have, indeed, moved on. In their jobs. Salaries intact. Bless.
Indy - Victoria's reality check
Indy - BBC: Decline of a great institution
Indy - Ray Snoddy on Broadcasting - I was going to start watching Newswatch again, but then I saw the words 'draw a line under it all'
Indy - You can trust me, I'm a press journalist - You can't get humour this good on the... er... humour pages.
Guardian - Poll reveals how trust in BBC has plummeted after scandals - Well, there's a thing. But what is their definition of 'heads rolled'?
Biased BBC - a blog for those who may feel we are poorly served by those we pay, and have no other choice but to. Good piece here: Crisis-prone BBC needs management clear-out
Sun to blame for global warming. Not! Well,.... maybe!
Who are we supposed to believe? Does anyone have a method we can follow to fight our way out of this pandora's box of utter confusion?
We suspected that this just might be the case - "this debate will still run and run and run."
First we had a counter AGW theory - climate change is not anthropogenic at all, its all to do with natural cycles in the sun's output - solar radiation levels, magnetic field changes, sunspots, solar flares etc.......
...... Then along comes research that supposedly proves that this is definitely not the case, and looking at the data graphs in the New Scientist (link below), the evidence appeared quite compelling ........
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
...... Well, further to previous posts on this subject on this very blog, it now looks as if it all comes down to "interpretation of the data". This opinion article from The Telegraph suggests that ....
"Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion."
And "Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion."
So what was conclusive last week is no longer so this week!
The argument (and debate) is over .... NOT!
Wake me up in twenty years time please.
We suspected that this just might be the case - "this debate will still run and run and run."
First we had a counter AGW theory - climate change is not anthropogenic at all, its all to do with natural cycles in the sun's output - solar radiation levels, magnetic field changes, sunspots, solar flares etc.......
...... Then along comes research that supposedly proves that this is definitely not the case, and looking at the data graphs in the New Scientist (link below), the evidence appeared quite compelling ........
"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.
...... Well, further to previous posts on this subject on this very blog, it now looks as if it all comes down to "interpretation of the data". This opinion article from The Telegraph suggests that ....
"Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion."
And "Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion."
So what was conclusive last week is no longer so this week!
The argument (and debate) is over .... NOT!
Wake me up in twenty years time please.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Consequences
What are, or rather should be, the consequences of failure?
A simple answer is more than likely impossible, because, as with all things, so much depends on circumstance.
But generally speaking, I'd say there are a few basic guidelines I would adopt, learned mainly from my experiences as an employee, owner of a company and supplier to a client base.
First up, and so long as there is no history, if it was an honest mistake then one quickly accepts this, puts things to rights and allows one and all to learn from it.
If however we are talking a deliberate mistake, and worse repetition of same, things move in another direction. Again you move quickly to put it right, and ensure (this time - asking how this notion failed as a check before) that it cannot be repeated. But the lesson is different. It must be taught. And that is you do not carry out something that is deliberately wrong, and if you do you must bear the consequences. Otherwise what message does that send to future perpetrators, and those who may gain or lose from their actions. And all who bear witness?
It gets fuzzy once you move into chains of authority. But then that is what they are for.
In commerce it was simple. If a subordinate fouled up, deliberately or not, unless the client was more than forgiving my company bore the consequences. Discipline was down to me and my partner, but in a relationship business we could forgive but clients often would not, or forget, so when it comes to who is funding whom (especially salaries), things could get... complex.
To avoid a lot of problems that could arise, we therefore had extensive, and rigourous approval chains, most of which extended to the client side as well.
So a lot of checks were made before it got to me, and then before anything was actioned it went to the client.
If there was a cock-up, that usually protected us financially, because an approval signature is a wonderful thing, but reputations and relationships could and would still suffer, often fatally.
In the end, the consequence would pretty much always end up at one place: my pocket.
Sadly, with almost all Gov, Local Gov and even NGO variations, there seems to be rather less rigorous adherence to the notion of no authority without responsibility, and that with responsibility comes accountability.
So it's hard in the current climate of 'it wasn't me, and even if it was it doesn't matter' to see how the good will prosper and the bad will get weeded out. In fact it almost seems designed to ensure that those who play a system for their own benefit, secure in their position no matter what, will rise to the top,... not like cream, but a bad smell.
A simple answer is more than likely impossible, because, as with all things, so much depends on circumstance.
But generally speaking, I'd say there are a few basic guidelines I would adopt, learned mainly from my experiences as an employee, owner of a company and supplier to a client base.
First up, and so long as there is no history, if it was an honest mistake then one quickly accepts this, puts things to rights and allows one and all to learn from it.
If however we are talking a deliberate mistake, and worse repetition of same, things move in another direction. Again you move quickly to put it right, and ensure (this time - asking how this notion failed as a check before) that it cannot be repeated. But the lesson is different. It must be taught. And that is you do not carry out something that is deliberately wrong, and if you do you must bear the consequences. Otherwise what message does that send to future perpetrators, and those who may gain or lose from their actions. And all who bear witness?
It gets fuzzy once you move into chains of authority. But then that is what they are for.
In commerce it was simple. If a subordinate fouled up, deliberately or not, unless the client was more than forgiving my company bore the consequences. Discipline was down to me and my partner, but in a relationship business we could forgive but clients often would not, or forget, so when it comes to who is funding whom (especially salaries), things could get... complex.
To avoid a lot of problems that could arise, we therefore had extensive, and rigourous approval chains, most of which extended to the client side as well.
So a lot of checks were made before it got to me, and then before anything was actioned it went to the client.
If there was a cock-up, that usually protected us financially, because an approval signature is a wonderful thing, but reputations and relationships could and would still suffer, often fatally.
In the end, the consequence would pretty much always end up at one place: my pocket.
Sadly, with almost all Gov, Local Gov and even NGO variations, there seems to be rather less rigorous adherence to the notion of no authority without responsibility, and that with responsibility comes accountability.
So it's hard in the current climate of 'it wasn't me, and even if it was it doesn't matter' to see how the good will prosper and the bad will get weeded out. In fact it almost seems designed to ensure that those who play a system for their own benefit, secure in their position no matter what, will rise to the top,... not like cream, but a bad smell.
Good question. Let's build on that.
Why not use the 420,000 empty homes to solve the housing crisis?
Makes about as much sense as fudging about obsessing about plastic bags, 4x4s and carbon offset schemes when every year deforestation accounts for more carbon consequence (in terms of 'sink') than the US produces (as emissions).
Priorities, anyone? Prevention better than cure?
It's all about seeming to do things than actually doing anything worthwhile these days.
Surely repair or restoration can be accorded value in the target-obsessed, and rewarding political cultures of today.
Makes about as much sense as fudging about obsessing about plastic bags, 4x4s and carbon offset schemes when every year deforestation accounts for more carbon consequence (in terms of 'sink') than the US produces (as emissions).
Priorities, anyone? Prevention better than cure?
It's all about seeming to do things than actually doing anything worthwhile these days.
Surely repair or restoration can be accorded value in the target-obsessed, and rewarding political cultures of today.
The last straw? Hydrogen-powered vehicle exhaust pipes
An informative article on hydrogen: Hydrogen fuel stations: Is this really the fuel of the future?
I was about to groan at the though of a media-muppet drinking from the back end of a car and exclaiming, as always happens with electric cars, 'Look, there's no pollution!'. So it is good to see the fact of its (current) production in energy (and hence emissions) terms laid out clearly.
I was about to groan at the though of a media-muppet drinking from the back end of a car and exclaiming, as always happens with electric cars, 'Look, there's no pollution!'. So it is good to see the fact of its (current) production in energy (and hence emissions) terms laid out clearly.
And if Gordon decides on igloos, polar bears are in trouble, too
And not just from global warming - How the human population explosion is threatening the Indian elephant's survival
Finite land area. Hyperbolic birth rates. Tech and ethical overrides on 'natural' checks and balances (well, tsunamis, flooding on plains, avian flu notwithstanding).
You do the math.
Indy - A deadly challenge to the environment
Finite land area. Hyperbolic birth rates. Tech and ethical overrides on 'natural' checks and balances (well, tsunamis, flooding on plains, avian flu notwithstanding).
You do the math.
Indy - A deadly challenge to the environment
The check's in the Mail
Shoppers want less packaging, survey shows
Following Dave's post a few back, let's see the Indy and the Mail slug it out in saving us from the pack-attack.
I would point out that, in surveys, almost 100% of those asked say they recycle. Not exactly borne out by the facts. So when asked in the current climate (geddit) if you are in favour of something that is patently pure consumerist waste, you are unlikely to admit you are not. Actual desires and purchase behaviour may be slightly different, I suspect.
Ho-hum, now another massive bunch of data to wade through, and interpret for methodology and agenda-bias, before commenting on in detail here.
Following Dave's post a few back, let's see the Indy and the Mail slug it out in saving us from the pack-attack.
I would point out that, in surveys, almost 100% of those asked say they recycle. Not exactly borne out by the facts. So when asked in the current climate (geddit) if you are in favour of something that is patently pure consumerist waste, you are unlikely to admit you are not. Actual desires and purchase behaviour may be slightly different, I suspect.
Ho-hum, now another massive bunch of data to wade through, and interpret for methodology and agenda-bias, before commenting on in detail here.
That's US, guys!
Money talks: How concern for the planet is changing the way we shop
But mainly if you live in London, natch.
But mainly if you live in London, natch.
Where does the money really go?
Bid to make supermarkets charge 10p for carrier bags
All I know is that I worry about that word 'could', when it comes to the redirection of the funds. One for the NAO perhaps? 9p admin, I'll bet.
I still await an answer on the actual volume/weight the 167 (down from the figure the BBC shared, and I quoted (ah, stats, damned stats, and news info) a while ago) bags 'we' use each year, and how it stacks up against other plastics in our waste stream.
And, sorry, I simply don't believe that 1 in 200 figure.
Everyone I know either reuses them (or doesn't that count? So it's OK to buy a bin liner instead?) or recycles. I'll accept a low %age, but not 1.
All I know is that I worry about that word 'could', when it comes to the redirection of the funds. One for the NAO perhaps? 9p admin, I'll bet.
I still await an answer on the actual volume/weight the 167 (down from the figure the BBC shared, and I quoted (ah, stats, damned stats, and news info) a while ago) bags 'we' use each year, and how it stacks up against other plastics in our waste stream.
And, sorry, I simply don't believe that 1 in 200 figure.
Everyone I know either reuses them (or doesn't that count? So it's OK to buy a bin liner instead?) or recycles. I'll accept a low %age, but not 1.
Worth a watch*, I'd say
Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - An episode of Dispatches on Channel 4 on Monday entitled "The Great Green Smoke Screen" will show academics and environmentalists questioning the ethics and impact of offsetting.
"Dispatches questioned whether big companies such as HSBC and Sky had any right to claim they were "carbon neutral" as a result of buying offsets to undo the effects of their pollution. Instead the programme hinted that more should be done to limit the polluting activity in the first place."
You heard it here first. Well... ish.
*Do however, bear in mind that Ch4 screened another 'Great' doco not so long ago. And if the BBC can get itself mired by editing for effect... and ratings, well, who do we believe now?
"Dispatches questioned whether big companies such as HSBC and Sky had any right to claim they were "carbon neutral" as a result of buying offsets to undo the effects of their pollution. Instead the programme hinted that more should be done to limit the polluting activity in the first place."
You heard it here first. Well... ish.
*Do however, bear in mind that Ch4 screened another 'Great' doco not so long ago. And if the BBC can get itself mired by editing for effect... and ratings, well, who do we believe now?
Maybe they have offset it?
Toxic tyre fires burn in Ulster as loyalists celebrate the Battle of the Boyne
Or will claim it's to save on landfill?
Friday, July 13, 2007
Icebergs
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!!!!
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!!!!
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!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)