Hero Time!

Ok, now, Focus people, Focus.

In case you are wondering, I am selling out to... er... being seduced by the corporate sector. But it is in a good cause.

While I was away a PR agency asked me if I would be interested in a competition, and while I am always up for an adventure have to confess that it slipped my mind.

Well, big up to them for not letting me forget, and so here it is:

Calling all you Green Heroes!

Have you got what it takes to be the King or Queen of Green?

Are you a recycling Queen or a composting King? Do you regularly collect the drain water to keep the roses in bloom? Or, perhaps you know someone who goes out of their way to protect the environment in everything they do? If so, then you could be the ultimate Green Hero as Focus DIY launches a search for environmental champions across the country - no compost heap too big or watering can too small - to be crowned Green Hero 2007.

The nominations come as new research shows three quarters of people have taken positive steps to go green and save the planet for their children and grandchildren. Despite this, there's still a lot to be done. A third of drivers admitted they will drive less than a mile - easy walking distance - to see friends, drop the kids off at school or simply to pop to the shops. To help you go green and celebrate the start of the Green Thinking from FOCUS campaign we have compiled some simple top tips to a greener life:

* Buy Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) recommended wood products, They contain wood from legal and well-managed forests.

* Use peat free multi-purpose compost. Peat is best kept in its natural state in the countryside - providing a home for unique types of plants, butterflies and insects.

* Use energy saving products e.g. light bulbs or check out the Energy Saving Trust.

* If you see a light on, that doesn't need to be, why not turn it off and do the earth a favour.

* Don't just throw it in the bin. Is it glass, plastic, cans, cardboard or paper that can be recycled. Where is your nearest recycling centre? Better yet... reuse it on Junkk.com (Ok, so I added that)!

* Donate unwanted household or gardening items to charities. Or give it away via JunkkYard (uh-huh... that too).

* By taking garden waste to a local recycling centre, or recycling through their doorstep collection service for it to be turned into compost, gardeners are saving valuable space in landfill

The efforts of people who go that extra green mile make a huge difference to the environment and set a great example to others in the community. So if you are, or know someone who cares about the environment and takes the green option when doing jobs around the home and garden then visit and nominate your Green Hero. You could be in with a chance of winning great prizes.

Thing is I am being a smidgen selfish here as I do note the words '...if you are...' in there, so I will be applying for yours truly too. Don't feel you can't say nice things about us too, though.

But if in learning about this from me and you get to win instead, think kindly of your old mates at Junkk.com... pretty please?

I may even add this to our February newsletter if I can find the time.

Blue Oval. Greenwashing?

Try as I might, I am really struggling to see what the heck this ad... and this product... have to do with it at all!

Does it all add up?

Just had a press release from WRAP's Recycle Now: Media success for Recycle Now Week

The final numbers are in and our major publicity campaign for Recycle Now Week delivered widespread national and local media coverage and 57,000 hits to the Recycle Now website.

An astonishing 170 regional events took place and analysis of the media coverage shows that over 60 million opportunities were generated for people to see the campaign and its ‘Transform Something Today’ message.

TV presenter Denise Van Outen was the public face of Recycle Now Week and appeared in national media including The Daily Star, Hello magazine and Closer. Denise also featured in The Daily Telegraph and BBC online in a dress made from recycled materials, which was specially designed for the campaign.

Interviews with Denise were aired on GMTV and 50 local radio stations. A centre page spread in the Guardian and a mini-newspaper dedicated to recycling in the Daily Mirror also helped to make Recycle Now Week a success.

Local council recycling teams, community groups and businesses rose to the challenge organising activities across the country and generating publicity on a local level.

All things considered in terms of staff and money expended, if anyone in the world of online is out there, what does 57,000 hits to a website mean by way of an achievement? Especially when how much was blown on ads and PR to point at the site?

I just ask, because I'm (that's all one of me - no quango board slary or bonus either) trying to drive Junkk.com to a monthly target of 500,000 unique visitors (having been told hits mean diddly) before I can claim to have a significant public medium to attract advertisers.

Bush Administration Must Publish Climate Change Reports

Environmentalists won a court case on Tuesday over the white house's reticence to publish climate change reports which are required by law. The full story is from Associated Press.

"Judge Saundra Armstrong ruled Tuesday that the Bush administration had violated a 1990 law when it failed to meet deadlines for an updated U.S. climate change research plan and impact assessment."

"The plaintiffs - the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace - said the ruling was a rebuke to an administration that has systematically denied and suppressed information on global warming."

So it appears to be true - even the big guys do lose sometimes. It will be very interesting to see just what the report, when eventually issued, has to say, especially if some of the Big Oil funded boys are involved in its creation.

Talking of what really blows

A useful Category 5 editorial on hurricanes from the Indy: The Big Question: Are there more hurricanes, and are they the result of global warming?

Especially as Dean did not quite deliver what the news media obviously were hoping. This seems a very balanced piece, though.

My only caution beyond this is that casualty figures do not get used willy-nilly to support things getting 'worse', rather meteorological facts. The sad fact is that there are more of us, in more exposed places than ever before, so death and damage are inevitably going to increase.

'Course, it won't help if there are more of the things and they are bigger too.

Flying in the face of reality

I'm just back from my first holiday in a while, and intend to share some thoughts inspired by my travels soon, but first would like to share a press release from the NCC (National Consumer Council).

UK holidays are good for the environment but bad for the pocket

The NCC calls for collective action on climate change by urging government, business and regulators to address the domestic tourist industry and make UK destinations more attractive and better value for consumers.

As record numbers of Britons fly abroad, the NCC argues that far more could be done for climate change by making UK holidays better value, in particular by reversing the high costs of rail fares, accommodation and leisure facilities.

Despite the UK being hit by floods this summer, a new report reveals that many people think Britain is becoming warmer and a better place to spend holidays. Around one in three (32%) say they are prepared to switch future holiday plans to avoid flying. But, in the face of high costs and inertia, only one in twenty five (4%) do so. Examples emerging from research show that:

· Barcelona is cheaper than Blackpool. For example, the total cost of travel to Blackpool with accommodation in mid-August can work out more expensive than a similar trip to Barcelona. A return flight with seven nights’ accommodation costs £518. This compares to £554 for a return train ticket from London to Blackpool and a week’s accommodation.

· Planes are cheaper than trains. Seven in ten people have decided not to travel by train because of the cost of a ticket, according to fellow consumer organisation Passenger Focus. Only 40% of people who do travel on trains feel they are getting value for money. However, the vast majority (80%) would travel more on trains if the fares were a bit cheaper.

Ed Mayo, NCC Chief Executive said: ‘People are increasingly being asked to think before flying, but poor value at home means that this is a stick without a carrot.’

The NCC’s report: The Environmental Contract: How to harness public action on climate change

I couldn't agree more with almost all of this, but there are certain facts that cannot be escaped.

While my holiday was mainly to see relatives, it did coincide with being in a place that had sun, sea and sand.

Ignoring costs of travel and accommodation, the simple fact is that because of these factors (plus being happy with a $2 bowl of noodles for lunch), I sat in a deckchair for several days doing sod all (and spending same), while my kids played in the sea and made sandcastles. Sadly, in the UK each day of any holiday requires at least £100 to feed and entertain, sun out or not (more if not).

This is a simple matter of money. And a lot of it. And little here will change that, though many of the initiatives suggested will help. Along with global warming... if that is indeed what is going to happen. This summer has not bee the best evidence for this, though.

A holiday is about relaxing. Sitting in a wet tent seeing your bank account getting sucked dry hourly is not really going to do that. Sorry.

Trading places

This is a hoot: Rich 'can pay poor to cut carbon'

"Rich nations should be absolved from the need to cut emissions if they pay developing countries to do it on their behalf,"

Actually I have no problem wit the rich paying the poor to reduce emissions (with such as my still much vaunted, but sadly poorly supported, championing of buying up the mature rainforests as opposed to whacking a fir in the firmament), but to suggest that this is in exchange for going on doing what you're doing is plain daft. Who pays his salary?

In passing, I see this has angered environmental groups. What is an 'environmental group anyway? is Junkk.com one? How do you get such an accolade?

Dirty deals, done dirt cheap..

I don't know about you, but I have long since given up even trying price comparison sites as they simply are not worth the effort: Price comparison sites -- how impartial are they?

The reason was simple: they are obviously not very impartial and seldom, if ever, lead to a good deal. So it frankly amazes me how they exist, let alone proliferate and, it seems, make pots of money.

Insurance, shopping, utilities... all of them are simply a waste of space.

An interesting piece (and piece of logic) from Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert at the end, too.

Comparing the comparison sites

Dilemma, etc

It has been a short while, so it's nice to see another celebrity has been wheeled out to help us with our climate unawareness.

And to do so by travelling the world to visit lots of poor, but film-worthy places.

So this time I was treated to a very agitated Sienna Miller on BBC News 24 saying 'bring it on' to all those the blonde and the bouffant indicated my be being a bit cynical.

Thing is, I was pretty much on board until we we treated to how she offsets all her flights as 'it really wouldn't be practical, etc, etc... for her not to' . A bit of a mea culpa in this regard will be following at some juncture soon.

But what really cranked the eyebrow was how she has teamed up with Vodafone... yes, that's acres of free public broadcast PR for Vodafone... on a scheme to recycle your old mobiles. And what's really great is that the poor folk get some pounds too! I don't know, but popping 10% of value to charity on such a vast contributor to carbon as a 2"x5" mobly hardly seems top of the enviROI list to me, but hey-ho.

And now, having got that out of the way, her new film, which she's shooting next week, is...

It's a dilemma. Sure something needs to be done. But I remain unsure that these are the best people to do it. The media plays along because they get ratings from sticking a blonde celeb on screen, and can also gush a bit about global warming but also stir it up by asking here if she has a 4x4 or drinks Evian. I for one just find it a real trivial distraction.

And speaking of dilemmas, check out the picture above from today's Guardian. They will help us with ours!

Thing is, the only reason I saw that ad is because I clicked on a piece advertising an exclusive interview with conductor Claudio Abbado... (cue awestruck 'Oooooo') '..on a private jet'. I guess this was relevant because they were at least Lear-sharing.

Personally, I don't think celebrity and eco-cred mixes. So I really wish the media wouldn't do it.

There's Gold in them thar (Green) Hills!

This from the Indy: Democrats in $7bn plan to turn US green

What I liked most about the potential of this was that the green collar jobs referred to seem to be mostly productive, focusing on actually making something that makes a positive enviROI difference.

While over here, almost anything I see promoting the cause of green seems to be in the areas of trading or researching or managing or awareness, etc. Whilst some oversight and complementary admin is necessary, as I often say, if you have nothing but folk counting beans on the backs of those making 'em, soon all will starve. I just look at what is being blown on quango board level salaries or public/commercial 'green' comms budgets that could be invested in tangibles, and weep.

A lot of what I read here makes sense, though of course this is from the opposition, and some areas do pose a concern, such as this: 'Sensing winds of change, American businesses are also lobbying for subsidies for everything from corn to ethanol plants and coal-to-oil, despite dubious environmental benefits.'

Whenever I see the word 'lobby', especially associated with 'subsidy', I fear the enviROI goes out the window.

And considering the scale of the problem, $7B seems pretty modest.

STABO £

Still smarting from being banned by the Beeb, I have decided to pick on someone my own si... er... someone else: Recycle Now Urges Holiday Makers to Get on-Board and Recycle their Brochures

Recycle Now the national recycling campaign for England, is issuing a reminder urging all holidaymakers to recycle their used holiday brochures instead of binning them and sending them to landfill.

Now, while it is a perfectly fine and logical message, if (as is claimed by the same mob) we are a nation of recyclers now, why on earth would I not pop my holiday brochure in my paper kerbside RE:box along with all the rest? Do I really need to be told this?

This just smacks of Statin' The Absolute Bleedin' Obvious and blowing a wadge of wonga in the process that could be better applied elsewhere.

Now, as Aunty asked...

Gotta love those 'we're listening' types at Newsnight, with their ironically titled (my message was rejected 'as I am not allowed to post comments' any more, it seems): Send a message to the TV industry

"Be as rude as you like, but no obscenities please or we won't be able to put your comment up."

No problem. I'll just pop down and catch some on my kids' TV shows:)

Meanwhile, back to answering the question, though some posters have already served up some beauts... which will be consummately ignored....

So here's one. Stop asking for opinions and then not paying a blind bit of notice to them. Stop taking serious, considered critiques and showing them only the contempt a dawn slot on Newswatch - with a sniffy producer/editor who could care less as he/she knows they are immune from consequence - can deliver.

And while everything in life needs a measure, can the BBC at least stop using the acquisition of ratings as the way in which 'executives' are rewarded? That way they might just try and actually serve the people and deliver quality programming as opposed to just trying to climb the corporate ladder as high as they can before bailing to land a nice cushy number elsewhere (or, better yet, promoted up or sideways internally after a cock-up).

Try reporting the news rather than making it (up).

Share with us the truth. We can handle it. It doesn't need to be 'enhanced'. Editing should be to make a story as clear as possible; not steer an agenda.

Finally, please remember that while it is the people who help make the brand, the brand makes the person. So stop being so damn lazy as to claim some individuals are not replaceable and hence lead to the obscene levels of pay that celebrity can create.

The exposure of the BBC is a gateway to riches enough already without using the licence fee to boost the salaries even more. I want my money used responsibly and accountably, with due humility and gratitude to the awesome privilege and career opportunity it represents to be in such a job.

Treat those who are forced to pay to watch as clientele to respect, inform and entertain, not some cash cow to support a nifty, gold-plated, privileged exclusive club lifestyle.

ps:

Find a better, more helpful and less arrogant way to help me post than getting this waaaaay too often, and having to use 'other methods':

Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
You are not allowed to post comments.
Return to the original entry

ADDENDUM;

I have now tried two other computers with no success at avoiding this message.

The SOBs really don't make it easy, do they? Or improve their own sorry reputations. For all the good it will do me, I have written to them on one of their 'we're here to respond' forms:

What, exactly, is this [reply] meant to mean? And how, exactly, is it meant to help resolve what may be a technological glitch but simply comes across as gross censorship?

Guardian - Give TV bosses a piece of your mind - do the guys working in the London media scene actually do any work, or just occupy these posts to snipe at each other?

Guardian - BBC scandals stoking crisis of distrust, say Paxman and Marr
Guardian - After the trust has gone - executives reflect on a turbulent year for TV
Guardian - The BBC has squandered trust. But we will win it back - If he says so, Same people. Same system.

Merton rule is/not to be abolished

Please feel free to delete 'is' or 'not' - whichever you find appropriate!

According to this article from yesterday's Guardian Unlimited central government is planning to torpedo the Merton rule; a rule under which local councils sign up to an agreement whereby 10% of all energy requirements on any new development will be met by using renewables.

"housing minister Yvette Cooper, who last year wanted all local authorities to adopt a Merton rule, will soon publish a new draft planning policy statement which outlines the abolition of the rule."

So it appears that our government is reverting to a regressive mode yet again.

But ........ today's Daily Mail reports an entirely different perspective.

"Contrary to fears expressed by some environmentalists, Ms Cooper will not be abolishing the Merton Rule"

"A spokesman for the Department of Communities and Local Government denied the planning guidance would ditch the Merton approach."

Now I know that the media always want to portray their stories as the most up-to-date and correct, but here there are two entirely poles-apart comments on the same subject.

OK, so which one represents the truth and which is a load of porkies? Or is it all intended to add to the plethora of obfuscation? I give up! I really don't know who to believe now!

ADDENDUM from Junkk Male

Recycling Waste World - Lib Dems slam plans to abolish Merton Rule
Guardian - Don't scrap green housing rule, urge campaigners

Gone. And probably forgotten.

Well, I'm back.

But I must take the chance to thank co-poster Dave (and other respondents) for keeping the blog-flame (alt.energy sourced hydrogen as fuel, of course) burning.

So much has happened. So much is happening. So much yet to happen. But I think maybe it's best to simply start anew (as soon as I have cleared the e and snail post mountain that needs dealing with) rather than trying any major historical catch-ups. It's not like I was keeping up too well real-time, without trying to deal with archives as well.

It's still worth looking back a few as it needed me to get back to authorise a few replies from the control panel, and there have been some good ones, thank you.

Also, one that is a real hoot.

Catch you later.

Nuclear will produce as much CO2 as fossil fuel plants

This argument, as we have pointed out many times already on this very blog, will run and run.

In an admittedly fairly lengthy video clip from E&ENews On-Point show, Nuclear Policy Research Institute founder Helen Caldicott discusses her new book, and makes a claim that as uranium ore gets scarcer then the equivalent CO2 output of a nuclear plant will increase and eventually equate to the CO2 output of a fossil fuel plant.

At one point she claims that "the nuclear industry lies"! She also claims that terrorists could very easily cause a nuclear plant meltdown!

So what many of us viewed as a stop-gap technology is perhaps as nasty at CO2 emission as fossil fuel power plants?

Now I'm confused even more!

When the best choice is less choice?

The title is taken from an interview with Jonathan Porritt - full detail from NewConsumer.com.

As ever with Porritt, the article is well worth a read, making lots of very salient points on our full blown consumerism and how we may have to change our ways.

"But the truth is that in the rich world very large numbers of us need to get used to consuming less. That’s just inevitable, we will either have to do so because our carbon budgets won’t be big enough to sustain our patterns of consumption – and everything has a carbon price tag attached to it – or because more and more people will recognise that that’s part of the responsibility of living on a shared earth – we have to make the limited resources available to all, not just the lucky ones living in rich countries like ours."

Anybody want to argue with that?

Never let it be said .....

..... that we don't put both sides of the argument.

This from the International Herald Tribune presents counter arguments to the level of zealousy that some believers in anthropogenic climate change have climbed.

It has quite a hefty dig at Sharon Begley, whose article we featured on this very blog recently.

"Anthropogenic global warming is a scientific hypothesis, not an article of religious or ideological dogma. Skepticism and doubt are entirely appropriate in the realm of science, in which truth is determined by evidence, experimentation, and observation, not by consensus or revelation."

Valid points both, but I would point out in response that empirically measured scientific data, and not just scientific consensus or hypothesis alone, has already largely concluded that man made global warming is almost certainly a reality.

Maybe the argument will never really be over until millions start dying of flooding and starvation. And, of course, by then, perhaps it may well be way too late?
_______________
And according to this from the Salt Lake Tribune, because I worry about climate change and the impact that it may have on my children and grandchildren, then I'm a "global warming fundamentalist" who is "pushing planet worship on us in a manner that would make a jihadist proud"!

This from another using the NASA data correction argument - data which only applies to the central USA (downgrading some years average temperatures by 0.03 degrees C) - he conveniently ignores the fact that the data (and any extrapolation from it) is still perfectly correct for the rest of the planet. (As explained in The Times - 16/8)

I've been called some things in my time, but never a jihadist!

And, just for the sake of argument - here, from SanDiego.com, is some scientific data about Lake Tahoe - especially for those who won't believe that there is any actual empirically measured scientific data.

Recycle your sex toys?

This certainly made me smile, an article about a 'rabbit amnesty' (no, not the cuddly white tailed bunny version!) from 24dash.com.

Better than going to landfill I suppose!

ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - Just got my latest issue of The Ecologist. And guess what... there it was! And no reason why not. Hey. we noticed, and shared, it as soon as we stopped giggling. But it does show the mentality all who publish have, and what's going to get exposure ('oh, missus) first these days!

Green Tax On Air Travel?

It must be the season for surveys and public polls.

It would seem that a green tax on flights will probably be applied to all your flights before too long. Oft talked about and partly fudged already, but not genuinely implemented, probably because it has always been regarded as a vote loser, this from today's Indy suggests that public perceptions have changed to such an extent that almost half those polled are now "in favour of a tax on air travel to try to curb harmful the CO2 emissions that cause global warming."

Let's just hope that if (or perhaps when) it is implemented in one form or another that:-

a) It is implemented in a sensible and logical, understandable manner.
b) It isn't a typical bodge job.
c) The monies raised are actually used to help against global warming.

Well ...... its not too much to ask .... is it?
_______________

Meanwhile, on the other side of the big pond, the US FAA is planning to double or triple air traffic capacity by 2025. This from In These Times asks a very pertinent question - "is it [The FAA] giving concerns about aviation’s effects on climate change the attention they deserve?"

Given the political clout of the US aviation industry, I think I can hazard a good guess at what the answer is. Can you?

Climate Change Perceptions Study

Today has seen the publication of a study of people's perceptions of climate change in the NW of England. The study from the Northwest Climate Change Partnership (NWCCP) highlights the differences with which which people regard climate change and it's causes.

For instance:- "56.3 per cent are personally concerned about climate change" So the other 43.7% apparently just don't give a fig?

Yet only "20% of people are doing nothing to address climate change" ... so the numbers just don't add up.

It all just shows that, as Peter has commented many times before, the answers that you get from surveys don't necessarily reflect the actions that people actually take.

The good news, however, is that "68.8 per cent believe that they are doing something to help slow down climate change but are aware that there is more that they could do".

I find that number quite encouraging ...... well, providing it is a genuine reflection of what people actually meant rather than what they answered.

A Proactive Council That's Getting Things Right

Its not often that I find myself commending a local council initiative, but this one is really worth a mention. This from the Society Of Procurement Officers highlights a scheme introduced by the London borough of Richmond whereby the first 1,000 residents who install cavity wall or loft insulation will be given a £100 rebate on their council tax bill. Even when that particular pot is empty, anyone else will still receive £50 from British Gas.

A typical cost for installing cavity wall insulation in a three bedroomed semi is ~ £250 and for loft insulation ~£275. OK, the rebate's not earth shattering, but its a start, and, as they say, every little helps. And I commend the Richmond councilors for pushing this through.

What a shame that central government doesn't appear to be able to learn something from the initiatives driven by their more local brethren.
_____________

And while central government prevaricates (see 'Coming clean on going green' below), the local councils forge ahead. Now more than 130 local councils have signed up to the Nottingham declaration - as reported in the Plymouth Herald.

Coming clean on going green?

Well, it would seem that our esteemed government has once again shot itself through both bollo ..... errrm, feet. This from The Guardian highlights a leaked internal briefing memo in which they admit that the UK has absolutely no chance of meeting it's 'renewables' targets.

Uncle Tony signed up to the EU target of 20% of energy from 'renewables' by 2020 under a blaze of publicity and a great deal of self congratulatory crowing. Now it appears that we will be lucky to even meet 5% by 2020!

"It said that Britain had achieved 'little so far' on wind, solar or hydroelectric sources of power, and even getting to 9% from the current level of 2% would be 'challenging'. On current policies, renewables would only account for 5% of Britain's overall energy mix by 2020."

And worse, the re-badged DTI (have this lot never read Gaius Petronius?) advised "lobbying EU member states to agree that the target could be interpreted more flexibly by including investment in solar farms in north Africa, or by counting nuclear energy as 'renewable'."

And there's a section in the briefing memo that "asks ministers to examine 'what options there are for statistical interpretations of the target that would make it easier to achieve'."
Good lord! That's an instruction to feel free to make up numbers and tell lies any time you need to!

In summary, it looks now as if the target was an unachievable sham, and while the publicity made our ex-leader look good at the time, the real truth is that our current leadership team are simply looking for ways to prevaricate their way out of the mess by dissembling, skull-duggery, statistical manipulation and even downright cheating.

It's all too reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burned - perhaps they could have entitled the piece - 'Coming clean on going Brown'? And of course no-one will get sacked, side-lined, punished or admonished at all, whilst still maintaining their gold plated pensions and salaries; it will all be smoothed over with more bull.

Arse covering, spin and blame deflection seem to be the only things our wonderful government are any good at all, under whatever leader!

The EC might be showing its teeth, but our lot appear to be simply passing lies through theirs!
___________________

More on this story from View London.
"Officials at the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform would not comment on the document". Well, there's a surprise!

Ooooh look! We now have an official response from the PMS. See Downing Street Says.
Hmmm, they argued their way out of that one well didn't they?
___________________
Addendum:
Today's Guardian (14/8) has another interesting article from George Monbiot, who can always be relied upon to stir up the angst and ire of the masses. He points out, quite correctly, that back in March this year he questioned the government's 20% target. To be fair to Monbiot, he hardly crows about this at all (just an in passing 'lying bastards'), as the main thrust of his piece is the apparent contradiction that the media portrays whereby an editorial on one page exhorts us to become greener, whilst advertising alongside is for 4x4's and exotic travel holidays. Definitely well worth a read.

Addendum 2:
Well, it seems that the EC is still confident that the UK will meet its 20% emissions reduction target. See this from the International Local Government Association.
Given the chicanery and statistical manipulation that is going on I rather feel that that confidence is spectacularly misplaced!

The EC shows its teeth over vehicle CO2 emissions!

The EC industry commissioner seems to be taking a tough line with the European motor manufacturers.

The EC has been talking about limiting new vehicle CO2 emissions for what seems like years now, and is still nowhere near implementing any enforceable legislation. However, this article from Auto Industry suggests that the let out clause that all the motor manufacturers in Europe assumed that they would be able to use once legislation came in is not going to be available to them.

Essentially, most of the motor manufacturers thought that they would be able to buy their way out of their environmental responsibility for any models they produced with excessive CO2 emissions, (a type of offsetting?), but this looks like it will no longer be a future option for them.

Its rare for me to say this, but, for once, a big up to the EC. (If they carry it through!)

Met Office Prediction - Heatwaves

The latest UK meteorological office weather predictions provide an interesting set of long term 'forecasts', although I think I prefer the term predictions. This from The Guardian provides a concise summary.

"Powerful computer simulations used to create the world's first global warming forecast suggests temperature rises will stall in the next two years, before rising sharply at the end of the decade."

So the prediction for the next few years is that temperature increases will plateau at current levels until 2009/2010; something to do with natural shifts in climate canceling out the global warming caused by greenhouse gases. After that though, we are in for steadily climbing temperatures, increasingly warmer summers and increasingly heavy rainfall periods.

"From 2010, they warn, every year has at least a 50% chance of exceeding the record year of 1998 when average global temperatures reached 14.54C."

Weather forecasting is an inexact science, and they often cannot even get it right a few days ahead, so many may question the accuracy of their powerful computer simulations. But if they are correct, then perhaps now is the time to stock up on sunscreen, brollies and sandbags?

There's a fuller article with perhaps better explanation on the National Geographic News site.

Hmmmm, even the Daily Mail has picked up on this story.
___________________

Meanwhile, in a rather worrying move, Ol' Golden Brown seems to have downgraded the status of the cabinet committee on climate change - see this article from EDIE. And we all thought that he considered climate change a 'major challenge to mankind'!
___________________

"One giant leap backward for life on Earth"

Further to the post on the potential riches hidden on the sea bed under the arctic ice cap comes a second article, this time from the LA Times, which provides another set of alarming information.

Apparently, geologists believe that something like 25% of the planet's as yet undiscovered oil and gas may lie under the arctic ice, so its no real surprise that the Russian two miles deep flag planting stunt took place last week. And now "Norway, Canada and Denmark (through its possession of Greenland) are all using the continental-shelf argument to claim the Arctic seabed as an extension of their own sovereign territories".

OK, not specifically alarming in its own right, though the geo-political arguments that will ensue as these and other major world powers start to argue about just how to divvy up the arctic's riches are the sort of thing that has caused major conflict throughout human history. No, this worry concerns something else that is locked up under the ice, and in the permafrost in the surrounding continental land masses.

"While governments and oil giants are hoping the melting ice will allow them access to the world's last treasure trove of oil and gas, climatologists are deeply worried about something else buried under the ice that, if unearthed, could wreak havoc on the biosphere, with dire consequences for human life."

The big worry is the release of CO2 and, more importantly, methane, which scientists have long known to be the most potent of the greenhouse gases, as organic matter locked up in the permafrost and on the seabed decays when warming occurs. I'll let these quotes from the article make the key points.


" ... researchers warned of a tipping point sometime within this century, when the release of methane could create an uncontrollable feedback effect, dramatically warming the atmosphere, which would in turn warm the land, lakes and seabed, further melting the permafrost and releasing more methane. Once that threshold is reached, there will be nothing humans can do. Scientists suspect that similar events have occurred in the ancient past, between glacial periods."

"A global tragedy of monumental proportions is unfolding at the top of the world, and the human race is all but oblivious to what's happening. "

I've always found some human behaviour very strange, and this is no exception. Here we have climatologists warning of an atmospheric methane injection tipping point that may cause runaway global warming; yet all the various governments appear to worry about is how to grab as much of the arctic's potential resources as possible.

It was ever thus.

So does it eat cheese?

Every now and again along comes a gadget that makes you think 'what a great idea'. This is one such, from Product-Reviews.Net, a solar powered wireless computer mouse.

However, most computer mice are in heaviest use during the daytime, and it does need direct sunlight to gain sufficient charge; so perhaps the only solution might be to buy two and alternate their use, using mouse 1 whilst mouse 2 is on charge on the windowsill? (Clever bit of marketing or what?)

Don't leave it charging while the cat's about though!

The Truth About Denial

I recommend an eye-opening article from Sharon Begley in Newsweek Science & Technology which attempts to show just how much effort Big Oil and its friends and cohorts have put into supporting the 'climate change isn't man made' club.

"the denial machine is running at full throttle—and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion."

"There was an extraordinary campaign by the denial machine to find and hire scientists to sow dissent and make it appear that the research community was deeply divided"

The article describes a good deal of the politics and chicanery that has gone on at top level in the US; including how several attempts to pass legislation on CO2 emissions have been strangled etc. All in all, well worth a few minutes perusal.

"It's enough to make you wish that climate change were a hoax, rather than the reality it is."

Quite!

Addendum: 7/8/2007

According to this article from Canada.Com, the media isn't helping too much either. It would seem that the US and Canadian media have quite a strong tendency to tone down any climate change article in comparison with their brethren in Europe.
I just loved this example - "the New York times ran an article noting that 'global warming is an unequivocal fact likely to make summers hotter and winters warmer for the next few centuries, with potentially dire consequences for the ecosystem' -- then spent the next 17 paragraphs discussing the likely effect on groundhogs."

Gone, but not forgetting

There is something rather sad that on this, the first day of my annual (well, first in 5 years) holiday, here I am logging on to see what's what on the blog!

Already a rich seam of commentary from the new papers I am reading, but my wife says that I can keep the cuttings but can forget more than a few minutes a day online to do more than check emails.

But I may just sneak a few in.

Yet another international conference

Today's announcement that Dubbya has invited a host of the planet's leaders to a september climate conference may well be seen by many as a signal that the USA is finally getting involved.

Perhaps yes, perhaps no. Me, I'll reserve judgment for now until I hear something genuinely concrete coming from the US Pols. Perhaps I shouldn't be overtly cynical, but surely the time for talking is over and its now the time for actually doing something about it?

Oh well, at least they now seem to be saying that they will support something if it is mandated by the UN.

Meanwhile, Lake Superior appears to be slowly going down a hidden plughole somewhere, as this from Yahoo News explains.

Some blame global warming, some blame a lack of rain (errrrm, wasn't that one of the things that global warming was predicted to do, as in alter weather and precipitation patterns?), others blame hidden water extraction to other states.

Whatever the real underlying reason, it does seem to be a major cause for concern. Worse still, [with my Friday afternoon smiling head on], this is the really shocking bit!, some of the pleasure boaters can no longer dock at many of the lake's moorings! Bless.

Addendum:
It looks as if there is now a growing consensus within the UN too. This from BusinessWire says that more than 100 countries speaking at the UN General Assembly have "signaled strong support for negotiations on a new international deal to tackle global warming."

Good stuff, a growing global consensus is what is desperately needed.

Oh. That's soured it a little for me - they're all having a two week jolly to Bali to discuss it.

There's gold under them there bergs!

It has not taken very long for some to realise that as global warming takes hold, and the Arctic ice disappears, there is a huge gamut of potentially useful resources that will become accessible for exploitation.

An article from Economist.com signals the starting gun for the race for the Arctic's available riches; as they headline it - The Gold Rush Under The Ice.

Amongst others, at stake are potentially huge mineral, oil and gas resources.

"They may include 10 billion tonnes of oil and gas deposits, tin, manganese, gold, nickel, lead, platinum and diamonds, plus fish and perhaps even lucrative freight routes. Exploiting them will be technically tricky, and is probably decades away. But as the ice melts, the row is hotting up about who owns what’s underneath it."

Although it may yet be a few decades yet before these resources become feasibly accessible, our Soviet friends are already attempting a massive geo-political annexation of an enormous portion of the Arctic area.

I wonder just how long it will be before the world's super powers get together to divvy up this untouched region amongst themselves?

Resource greed seems to have become the primary driving factor for mankind. And, not for the first time, I feel ashamed at being a member of our resource ravenous human race.
____________________

And the next islands going under are?

First to start disappearing under the sea were the islands of Tuvalu, now it looks like the next in line are the Torres Straits islands where rising sea levels are threatening to eradicate centuries old communities.

This report from the Australian Daily Telegraph provides another graphic example of what we will probably be seeing increasingly more of over the next few decades.

"Roads have been swallowed whole, buildings washed out, graveyards swamped and houses flooded in six of the most vulnerable low-lying island communities."

Try telling the people of the Torres Straits and Tuvalu islands that global warming and rising sea level is a load of bull!

Addendum:
Literally within a few days of this post a report comes out that predicts the projected rises in sea level are being seriously under-estimated. See this from the Free Internet Press for details.
It looks to me like the list of disappearing islands might be growing too fast to keep up with in a couple of decades time. Oh well, perhaps governments around the planet will actually start to act once the water's lapping around their feet.

No We Don't Need Nuclear Power!

Oh yes we do! Oh no we don't!

Remember our much discussed post on nuclear power generation development and the problems of disposing of nuclear waste?

Well, a response from emeritus professor Keith Barnham appears in today's Guardian. He argues that we just don't need nuclear power at all, and proposes that solar, especially, and wind technology, will rapidly make the suggested expansion of nuclear power generation facilities a non-starter.

The usual clutch of comment posters have already been busy, most falling in to diametrically opposing camps, as usual, but there are some very interesting comments, facts (well, some, maybe, and some a bit questionable....ish) and figures quoted.

Interestingly, there are a few posters who, (maybe with some justification?), question the veracity of an author who is a founder of a solar panel development business.

Me? Well, I'm still confused. I still harbor doubts that 'renewables' technology can develop fast enough to fill the gap that carbon based power generation will surely hit in the future. And I still believe that storing nasty nuclear waste for when future generations can dispose of it safely and securely with a workable industrial scale transmutation technology is not really the correct thing to do.

As ever, there seem to be more questions than answers; and more 'facts'(?) flying about than you can shake a stick at. I'm open to persuasion either for or against nuclear, especially as it does seem to offer the most obvious stop-gap solution. But I think I'll stay sitting on the fence for now.

Anybody want to persuade me to drop down one side or the other?

Addendum:
Well, interestingly, despite Italy banning nuclear power station construction years ago, some at The Vatican do seem to be in favour of nuclear power! Plus they intend to become the planet's first carbon neutral sovereign state! See article from USA Today. Pity that it appears that most of this is to be achieved via offsetting.
____________________

Your tax £ at work

I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for forwarding this: Recycling body hunts direct agency

This... 'its £40m marketing programme to tackle climate change' is a lot of money. However, in light of what we are facing, large sums are needed to tackle huge issues. But what about the ROI to derive a worthwhile enviROI?

My views on 'not-for-profit' as a model are well known (basically a good way to not make a profit is to blow as much internally as possible - real estate, staff, satellites, trips, conferences, pensions, bonuses, etc), especially when 'backed' (what does that mean?) by the Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).

The aims - to encourage businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more often, helping to minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve the environment - are laudable, but I simply question the methods and accountability.

Like the BBC (you hold those near and dear to a higher standard), I actually think a lot of what is being done by some departments is very good indeed, and probably more than worthwhile, but when it comes to comms and marketing, which I do know a bit about, the whole thing gets a lot murkier. And I still think there has to be some conflict in getting bonuses (why are public servants and guys like these, and the Environment Agency, on bonuses simply to do their jobs anyway? And it seems you get them even if you foul up) when they are based on targets and rates that will inevitably increase if your throw enough public money at them with awareness campaigns.

I ask a lot, but do intend to try and find some answers out if I can. But if anyone can help with deriving figures for what we spend vs. what we get back (they must be around surely, as a publicly accountable body?) with this mob, I'd be grateful.

Maybe they are worth every penny. But at the moment, I'm am not feeling the benefits of £40M.

And let's remember the vast number of other such entities getting similar amounts to play with, and which often seem, to me at least, to be overlapping if not actually confusing the issue with different messages all the time.

Joined up at the HIPS?

Today sees the Home Information Packs kick in, and the Housing Minister is on BBC Breakfast to explain why they are 'dead good'.

I sent in the following questions which, if asked, the BBC editors will hopefully not 'enhance for greater truth' this time:

1) If this is largely to address environmental impacts and not a social penalty, what is the proportion of 4+ bedroom houses as a % of the total, energy consuming housing market?

2) If older properties are inevitably going to be less 'efficient', is this grading just to enable market force choices, or is there an intention to use this information as a factor in future levies imposed by central and/or local government on the householder?

3) Are issues such as risk of flooding included as this would obviously represent a huge negative in terms of protections and/or clear ups with new builds no matter how eco?

These are, as stated, questions, but they do raise certain issues.

I suspect that the of 4+ housing I am asking for is not that high, and hence one wonders what impact targeting this sector will have on the planet.

Then there is the actual use of this rating system. I can get my head around one on a fridge, but a house? Choosing a white box that keeps things cold is pretty much just down to the op costs... to me at least. But if I fall in love with a property am I really going to reject that stone cottage (on a hill, 'cos the old folks figured that living where it gets wet is daft) and buy that 90's newbuild (on a flood plain, 'cos all that is left) because it is a few ratings lower? I doubt it. And hence one wonders what value this information ultimately has, and to whom?

And speaking of (well alluding to) those who would use green as a stealthy way to tax us without much explanation as to how those taxes get ploughed back, I do finally wonder if other environmental issues such as being built on a flood plain will score badly. Versus the lack of a cavity wall, one can only imagine that digging up the floors of a soaked property and renovating the whole thing will not offer the greatest global enviROI.

But maybe it's more a matter of boxes being ticked and grabbing some quick green dosh?

I just watched (How street cred is she? All bob and yoof speak!!?) and there was a bunch of... nothing. The key questions (just one was asked - nice one, BBC! I have to share this I read on a less than favourable blog as to their abilities: 'Double standards but half the quality') were almost all avoided or 'future mysteries' alluded to without being tasked to actually answer.

Indy - How ministers turned a help into a hindrance - like everything else they touch
Guardian - Home information packs are dealt new blow by lenders - Hmnnn

Drive, he didn't say

I could have sworn I had seen, and mentioned, this before, but no harm no foul in doing so again: CO2 car rankings site launched

Can't hurt. Though I'd hazard more will look at the tax than what comes out of the pipe.

Which still means you can drive all day, emitting away, in a 'good' car, and drive a few miles and park but still get slaughtered by buying a 'bad' one. Not quite so sure how the latest Minister for Jams and Sources (of income) arrives at his figures, but I'm sure a full department created them, which means they must be good.

Maybe the best solution is buy a good one and not drive it very far. Or not drive it. Or not buy it at all! Or...

Just call me the lean, green love machine

Well, the green bit maybe.

As I look at a stack of worthy press releases that should be properly written up and archived on the main site (lack of holiday support being my reason, if not excuse), I just have to post this here, and now, pretty much as is. And in so doing, give much needed PR and cred to that well known environmental magazine, Nuts. But it's fun, so... um.. oh, nuts. See, I have been seduced to the trivial side already!

MOVE OVER FUNNY MAN, THE GREEN MAN IS THE NEW DATING KING

Key to a modern woman’s (well, 1,500 at least, which is a better sample than most research I've seen on actual issues that matter) heart is saving the planet. Of the personality traits that they found most attractive in men topping the list is showing you care about the environment. Demonstrating you’ve got green credentials and is now the number one quality modern British women seek in a partner.

This change in attitude can in a large part be put down to the recent green- avalanche of star-studded eco events such as Live Earth. Global heart-throbs from George Clooney and Brad Pitt to Justin Timberlake and Johnny Borrell (who?) all now all proudly endorsing the green agenda - meaning that being green is no longer just trendy – it’s down right sexy.

The results set a precedent for legions of UK Green Men who may soon need to trade in their gas guzzling cars for greener bicycles in a bid to impress women. Toppling the classic ‘Good Sense of Humour’- GSOH - for the first time, the research proves once and for all that recycling and growing vegetables in the back garden are no longer the preserve of wellie toting hippies.

Nuts magazine relationship expert (a what?) Louise Prior said: “There’s something sexy about a man who recycles, it shows that he cares about more than just himself and shows he has a sensitive side and thinks about the future. As for some of the other traits, you can’t go wrong with making a woman laugh, but modern women want their men to be caring. It started with the new man back in the 90s, more recently we’ve had the whole Metrosexual phenomena and green man is an extension of that really!”


The top-ten personality traits women find attractive:

Caring about the environment - tick
Good sense of humour - er, have you seen my bank statement?
Confidence - in spades. No really, I think they are the best for digging holes for compost.
Intelligence - moving quickly on.
Well travelled and worldly-wise - that would be 'then', 'cos if we're saving the planet travelling anywhere, much less well, would be a 'no-no', surely? And that makes me wise, hmmn?
Empathy and understanding - I feel your pain... reading this.
Good dress sense / style - Er, we are talking guys who mess around with rubbish here.
Ambition - If wanting to make the planet a better place counts... tick! An Aston Martin would be nice, too. Once they have the hybrid version sorted out.
Knowledge of current affairs - Hilary who? Go on, ask me....
Good with children - I'll ask the boys when they have finished sanding the roof lintels all day.

So OK, laydees, who would like to see my composting bin?

Environmental Audit Committee Report Issued

For anyone with sufficient time on their hands to wade through all 216 pages, including all the oral evidence given, the Seventh Report of Session 2006–07 from the Environmental Audit Committee was published yesterday.

Entitled "Beyond Stern: From the Climate Change Programme Review to the Draft Climate Change Bill", it is a huge tome of information covering every issue you can shake a stick at. Sorry but I personally could not possibly find the time to go through in depth, so a few choice excerpts from a speed read skim are all that I can manage for now.

"Climate change is on a different scale from any other political challenge. Its potential effects could be both physically and economically devastating."

Can't see anyone arguing with that.

"The science linking 550ppmv to 2°C has moved on:
550ppmv CO2 has ~88% chance of exceeding 2°C
450ppmv CO2 has ~70% chance of exceeding 2°C
(% probabilities from Meinshausen, 2007)"

"It is clear to us that the Government will have to introduce more radical policies into its Climate Change Programme very soon if it is to meet even the 2020 target as currently set."

"The Government’s policy towards the UK’s 2050 target is clearly incoherent. The Government remains committed to limiting global warming to a rise of 2oC; but it also acknowledges that, according to recent scientific research, a cut in UK emissions of 60% by 2050 is now very unlikely to be consistent with delivering this goal."

I.e. The targets are NOT going to be met with the current plans.

"We recommend that the Government should admit the uncertainty range of its emissions projections. It should also regularly publish a review of its previous projections, comparing them against outturn data and latest projections, and analyse what it got right, what it got wrong, why it did so, and what lessons it has learned."

So that'll be something radical, a government that might have to admit that it got things wrong! Maybe if there's an X in the month!

All in all it doesn't look too good. Science is refining the temperature predictions and suggesting that less CO2 may well produce the 2C effect, and although the UK's targets were some of the most stringent on the planet, they are already inadequate and woefully behind schedule.

Addendum: 3/8/2008
But, of course, any criticism was bound to be rapidly and effectively deflected by the government. Apparently ignoring the key points made, Hilary Benn in The Guardian, insists that the Climate Change Bill is a world's first, and "ambitious by any standard and consistent with our leading position internationally".

Are the facts that: a) its probably not enough, and b) its way behind schedule already, not considered important?

It wasn't me, Guv!

From that well-known bastion of eco-awareness, the Guardian, about another, er, bast... newspa.. er... well, anyway, The Sun:

Yet more embarrassment for a TV indie. Production company Renegade Pictures has apologised for fly tipping while filming a documentary... about green living. The Sun reports today that crew members left piles of cardboard on a street in Bath after shooting Fix the World in the city. Producer Paul O'Connor apologised 'unreservedly' for the mishap, telling the paper the crew expected the rubbish to be picked up by binmen. The Sun P16

Couldn't find it on the Sun's woeful website (though they do have a 'green' section, and it's not just naked girls sprayed with broccoli*) to link to, but what a hoot.

And that excuse! Up there with Pete (I was just doing research) Townsend et al.

ADDENDUM - Keeley Hazell's ten green tips - stand (oo, missus) corrected. I was joking.



I wonder if they got away with it? ''Wot, I left them 20 old fridges on the layby 'cos I expected the bin men to pick it up!' Bless.

I am still giggling at the EST 'Do your 20% ad' that had everyone swithcing off their lights in a leafy London subaurd before jumping into a dirty great balck VW Touran to go to the shops. I bet that was the director's car!

Meanwhile, what comes down the pipe to your home is...

It's a better than nothing, I guess but I couldn't help but crank a slight eyebrow at this: NPower launches eco-friendly ads

I've always been a bit dubious on nPower since seeing their activities at the Ideal Home Show 'eco' (Ahem, not) theme year, when they were a major sponsor. And Juice has been low on my estimation since seeing a bunch of Greenpeace cardboard stuck on 4x4s at Gloucester train station, sponsored by same.

At least the Guardian has at least put it that 'the energy company says the initiative is the UK's first eco-friendly campaign'. Up there with carbon neutral, I am unsure what the heck that means, or does. Or anything.

Or indeed what the actual enviROI is, as opposed to just winning advertising awards and spinning a green story.

Read all abart it!

Is Thelondonpaper's recycling push enough?

We'll take that as a 'no' then.

On the positive, proactive side, I have to say I prefer the notion of a reward to encourage good behaviour as opposed to a fine or somesuch to penalise bad.

I don't live there so I don't know, but what are the others doing?

But realistically, it's probably going to need to be a mixture of both.

The future of wind power?

These have been talked about for a few years now, but this is the first time I've come across any comments on their potential size and projected efficiency. This article from Gizmag details the design and concept of giant maglev wind turbines. With no friction to overcome, it is claimed that these will prove to be very low maintenance, but more importantly, will be efficient at wind speed as low as 1.5 Metres per second.

The concept projects that a single maglev turbine as big as a block of flats could have an output of almost 1 gigawatt and have an ROI of less than 1 year!

No doubt some will find them objectionable as being ugly, evil, unnecessary or even just a touch of NIMBYism may come into play. But, if the ROI is as low as claimed and running costs are as low as stated then perhaps we can expect to see these appearing on the UK landscape over the next 10 to 20 years.

Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is working on a domestic property scale model?

Putting green in the shade

I recently read this - Who's the greenest of them all? , and decided to pursue it a bit further. The editor has kindly replied.

It kind of highlights what has been mentioned earlier about 'looking' green without actually 'being' it becoming a worrying trend.

3 into 2 will go

I guess I do have what it takes when it comes to (vast) sums: WRAP Board Extends Its Strategic Skills Base With Appointment Of Three New Non Executive Directors

We look forward to their contribution.

Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000, WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I wonder if they have a bonus structure like the Environment 'but we promised them huge amounts before it all went pear-shaped on their watch' Agency?

I'm still trying to get to grips with the lack of conflict in interest to using public money to spend on comms budgets, to drive up rates that their measures of success are based on, and then subsequently richly rewarded on a personal basis for meeting such 'targets'.

Since when did not-for profit public service end up with such money-dripping schemes beyond a decent salary for a good job?

Focus on carbon and miss the point

That's the conclusion of Eamon O'Hara in a thought provoking piece about this week's story for The Green Room.

His general suggestion is that by concentrating almost entirely on reducing carbon emissions, we are missing the underlying cause, which is a direct consequence of our western, unsustainable mode of living.

This, he says, "has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies."

Which is (and I like this analogy) like "relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroine."

"We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability."

I don't think anybody can realistically disagree with that statement. (Well, except perhaps the usual 'anti-brigade' comment posters who have immediately branded him as a hippy!)

It's a well and logically argued article, well worth a read. And as one of the comment posters has pointed out - look what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they had consumed all their available resources; they became extinct!

Human beings tend to have a habit of NOT learning the lessons of history and commonly missing the point. Maybe now is time to take a more over-arching view whilst keeping historical precedents in mind?
________________

It's not just what you switch off. But what you are now switching on.

This is worth a gander: The Ampere Strikes Back

I am so relieved that we set up Junkk.com to be inspirational as opposed to judgemental. Because there are a lot out there who are telling us what do or simply being snotty that I reckon would fall pretty foul of a few pithy comebacks.

Don't like my bottle or Perrier? Betcha ditched the old TV for flatty as soon as Comet dropped the prices, eh?

And look a DAB radios. This is the direction we are being forced in... by whom?

Pass the remote vicar!

Looks vs. deeds

An interesting dissection of the current state of political, commercial and consumer 'engagement' with things 'green' : The Make-Believe of Green Politics

I'm not very interested in lifestyle statements. More just getting on with mine best I can ... and not screwing up the kids' future too much in the process.

As a consequence I know a bit, but was surprised with some things that I read here.

Like the notion of driving a car means you are doing 'your bit' to save the planet. Sweet.

The comparison with the Civic shocked me. Though to be fair I'd say a full 11mpg on the city cycle, at 20% better gives the Prius quite an edge in the thrift stakes. At least for this usage. I recently visited the Hay Festival here in the West of the UK, and this year was very green themed. So the car park was like a Prius lot. Trouble is, almost all had probably come from London down the motorway, which means they were mainly lugging a dormant, and vast amount of weight. Image is all, as you suggest. I'm interested as to where the Prius get used in the US to assess the actual value it does confer, for which I have coined the term enviROI.

This is the actual benefit of any product/ initiative to the planet, and future generations. It can have a woeful financial ROI, (most do), but so long as in making running and disposing of the thing it means less of what's 'bad' (definitions seem to vary daily, so I'm not getting into footprints), then more power to you elbow... or electric drivetain.

I'd have to agree that the Prius has a distinct design, but, subjectively, it is a dog. It looks like something out of a 70's futuristic TV show. And that is a shame, because that may mean appealing only to a minority who are only governed by making a statement, rather than a lot to more who simply have other factors (style being one) that do matter along with (and may outweigh) a few mpg.

Pity. And yes, hence a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Along with the positive suggestions, well said.

Have your say on the future of nuclear power.

The government has launched a public consultation on the future use of nuclear power generation in a 'low carbon UK economy'.

Anyone in the UK can contribute, all you have to do is register. See Nuclear Consultation for full details.

They claim that "Your views will contribute to the shaping of the policy on the future of civil nuclear power".

Well, as they say, time will tell; this government's track record on listening isn't exactly one to be proud of.

Who's dissin' who?

When is branding disingenuous?

As with all things, it can span a range. I certainly think a lot are making things worse for themselves and the message by being so darn clunky, especially with the environment. If a plane is more fuel efficient or a bank goes 'carbon neutral' then great, but it really only helps their bottom line or CSR report at the AGM. Hardly worth an ad. And cars with leaves blowing out their exhausts are plain daft. And some are just desperate. I have AdSense on my blog and often click on intriguing, if vague, ads covering many green areas. Almost all seem to lead to Exxon Mobil. If I thought poorly of them before, I think even less now.

Best Global Brands: How valuable is green?

I think consumers do care about the environment more than some reports claim, and this may be a reflection on the questions asked and/or actions measures.

For a start, it's hard to care too much if there is no end-benefit. Sounds selfish, but it's true. I still get a PR almost daily expecting me to run a piece on why so-and so has gone carbon neutral. Despite that term having almost no rational meaning and now being almost worthless, while it's great a bank recycles its paper or uses green energy, that really only effects their own internal bottom line or CSR report.

Also so much is about things you can DO. It's hard to get very excited about anything that simply says 'isn't green lovely' when that's about the substance of it all.

The consumer needs to feel a sense of reward. This can be 'making a difference', so long as it is clear and measurable, and trusted, but there is little better than saving time, saving money... and the planet. Few brands deliver on that yet.

Exploiting a brands's green appeal

I share, in the hope that they will share back

That doesn’t have to go on the dump...