I have been a tad too involved with the BBC is biased site of late (there is life outside of what Auntie does or doesn't do), and felt the need to outline why is there and what I hoped to get from it. It felt good to write, and I hope it's fair... so I share.
At risk of seeming rude, or plain daft in light writing this here, I personally don't see how 'the BBC' can be biased, any more than I would hate 'it'. The BBC is simply a vast organization, with many staff, and, on the whole, a proud history. But, especially of late, a few skeletons coming to light are compromising this big time. I have seen with my own eyes worrying trends and, as can happen, in trying to get some answers arrived at this forum. Obviously, with a Ronseal-esque moniker like that at the top, the likely thrust of the majority of comments is pretty clear. But I have to say that I am impressed that most seem to be relatively considered, and supported by fact, if mainly in the form of links. As most of these are to the BBC's own resources, it's hard to question the objectivity.
But from the replies of those courageous or at least passionate enough to 'defend' the BBC (sometimes, though from my viewing not very often, with reason), and even more so to identify themselves in this role, I have to say a worrying trend often emerges which tallies with my own concerns. And hence I can only wonder if there are now so many such individuals, pervading all levels, that indeed the corporate entity is in danger of becoming the sum of its parts. So that, even without the (impossible to conceal, or justify) policy/ies that would substantiate a charge of institutional bias, it has just crept in simply by sheer weight of numbers.
I guess that can happen, and see how. One major mechanism is the inability to acknowledge, much less accept, criticism, even of the constructive variety. And this I am seeing even here.
One of my greatest frustrations with the BBC has been the attitude of 'Whatever we do is right. And if it isn't we didn't do it. And if we did do it doesn't matter. And if it does there's nothing you can do about it so we certainly won't be making any changes. So there.' Which is why I stopped even bothering to write to Newswatch. I still write to the complaints boys and girls, if only to boost my collection of cookie-cutter replies to a point where even the Trust would have trouble keeping a straight face in saying ‘they are listening’.
Across many of these posts, I see truly amazing defenses being made that simply fly in the face of logic... or presented facts. But what has brought the BBC to its current pretty pass, yet still seems to not have sunk into almost any layer of the corporation, is that the truth is not something that can be ‘enhanced’ to suit the demands of modern broadcasting, be it at best feeding the 24/7 appetite of a multi-channel, mega-staffed machine, or, at its darkest and worst, personal agendas held in the belief that there are those who do not yet know what's best for them.
But the thing that has really knocked me offside in my attempt at seeing all sides, is the blatant attempt to derail honest debate by questioning, quite pointlessly, though with a clear attempt to tarnish, the 'origins' of those posting.
I don't care who you are, where you are from or who you may work for, so long as your tone is civil, your arguments well ordered, and your facts as honest and accurate as they can be. Then your opinion is more than worth reading and engaging with. But the minute I see any attempt, usually by those who know they are running out of legs to stand on, to say 'well, you lot are obviously all [insert perceived pejorative grouping here]', the argument has been tainted.
I like this site. I know where most are coming from. Many are very funny. Some well informed. I find out stuff I didn't know. Or leads to places to find out more. And in the debates there is a kind of balance. So I'll keep coming back. I may even try and throw a few notions into the pot. That's how debate should be.
I just hope the BBC, and those who work for us who are employed by it, can remember that.
I hope the club members appreciate the sentiment, and any BBC contributors get the message. We'll see.
ADDENDUM:
Some positive replies and, it seems the spark of a disagreement, though from an 'Anon' ,which I tend to accord less value to.
Thank you to those who have provided me a generous welcome to your ranks.
I note also the words of caution, and indeed already feel a slight twist to the key in my back as I read the progress of some discussions. Participation, it seems, can be both addictive and perhaps corrosive. Maybe I should be careful to limit my exposure, but that of course leaves one prone to being less well informed... and open to accusations of superficiality. You really can’t win.
Already I must reiterate my point about labels, and to those from all ‘sides’. One man’s Daily Mail reader can too easily be deemed - and dismissed - as a fascist, it seems, while one woman’s Guardianista (or, it seems, the entire staff complement of the BBC ) an eco-fascist.
It may be true that this group is small and niche, but even from my brief exposure I would not agree that it is from one sole section. Hence the value of the input and the debate created.
But from just the few posts in discussion topics subsequent to mine above, I see already a necessary addition to add to my idealistic considerations; and one that is apt considering this forum is about a broadcaster. That is the power of the edit suite (or, in miniature on pages such as this, the cut and paste facility of our PCs), along with those who control it, and what motivates them in their decisions. Plus the commissioners, producers, directors and journalists who can of course by personal choice decide what ingredients get fed into this mixing pot in the first place.
I laid... lay great value on facts, and at least qualified this by adding ‘honestly presented’. This is key in much we are served on air, because while what we are shown or hear can shape our views, there is equal power in doing so through influencing what is omitted. And by golly that is much harder to measure because, by definition, you probably don’t know about it!
Hence my greater concerns, not just from the BBC but any who would set themselves up to provide ‘us’ with information. And here is the value of open source blogs such as this, when a convenient fact can be exposed to be less compelling when placed in proper context, or set beside some others that may show it to be but one take of many. Which is why I am valuing this blog’s debate as I am being introduced to pieces of some jigsaws that I did not know were missing.
My personal interest is in the environment, and now more than ever the phrase ‘not all that is green can be viewed in black and white’ sums up my frustration with the media grabbing extremes (from all sides) more to stir up a ratings-fest than to adequately inform an audience enough to come to a decent personal conclusion. Hence I am often even quite critical of the oft-lauded last bastion of journalistic integrity that is Newsnight, for what I have deemed their ‘twofer’ style of debate. Here two polar opposites are wheeled in to knock spots of each other (and their arguments), with the moderator in the centre picking off morsels to keep things bubbling along. Most unsatisfying for my purposes. I want to get to the core issues, see them rationally debated by a decent cross-section of views, but of course with all nailed to what they say and then held to them. This seldom happens. Where on earth are these ‘experts’ and/or talking heads that are presented as representatives, or our proxies, sourced? The wine bar next door?
But at least in such cases there is some measure of exchange, though again shaped by the choices of those to appear. And they are live, though often what gets served up subsequently can become a version of what I call ‘enhanced reality’ (i.e.; agenda driven fabrication, for either venal (ratings) or ‘personally passionate’ (‘we’ need to be ‘helped’ to understand what’s best for us) reasons. Which is why the Newsnight ‘re-arrangement’ in the Gordon Brown piece was my tipping point (along with Andrew Marr, I believe). That, and the subsequent inability of almost all involved to comprehend why I, and others, were so outraged.
Personally (and despite the questioning of an 'Anon'), while I would still hesitate to use the word ‘biased’ for the whole organisation, I hope I may be semantically accurate in offering the subjective view that I think the BBC is often... perhaps too often... unbalanced. Whilst recognising it’s easy to expect, and much more difficult to practice. Or ever be seen to be carrying out perfectly.
I don’t want rid of the BBC. But I do want it to remember what made it the unique and valued entity it was, and hence get back to oscillating more evenly about, and not as wildly from a balanced mean. There are much smarter folk than I to figure out how to achieve this, assuming they want to, but I’d say a reduction in scope, and hence size would be a good step towards to getting back to focussing on doing what has been done well, well again.
Sadly, with growing populations come ever growing empires in government, quangos and public services not just to serve but also feed off them, so I am not holding my breath.
But I will continue to stick to my expectation that all the relevant facts available are presented faithfully, and in order, by my public broadcaster, ta very much.
And if they are not, I guess I will need to rely on sites such as this to find out if and when they stray.
ADDENDUM 2 - For a copywriter I can be a wordy bugger. This little lot wouldn't upload, so I tried on another PC and it still didn't work... until I chopped out a few paras. Seems there is a limit I didn' t notice applied. Mea cupla.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
I don't often fully side with Greenpeace .....
.... but, for once, I support this particular initiative, and would urge all our readers to do just the same.
We have mentioned the Arctic gold rush on a number of occasions in this very blog. See Gold Under Them There Bergs and Giant Leap Backwards, voicing the very same concerns that Greenpeace is now doing.
However, as this article from the Greenpeace web pages explains, what we really need, as the Arctic polar ice field slowly disappears, is for the Arctic resources to be protected from exploitation just as those of the Antarctic are under the 1991 international agreement. They ask that all readers sign a petition requesting the very same protection for the Arctic, and seek to have it given the status of a World Park.
I urge all readers to please visit the link and sign the petition. That is, if you prefer the Arctic to remain an untouched world park rather then see it get turned into yet another major oilfield.
And yes, I know the little film clip is utterly naff!!
We have mentioned the Arctic gold rush on a number of occasions in this very blog. See Gold Under Them There Bergs and Giant Leap Backwards, voicing the very same concerns that Greenpeace is now doing.
However, as this article from the Greenpeace web pages explains, what we really need, as the Arctic polar ice field slowly disappears, is for the Arctic resources to be protected from exploitation just as those of the Antarctic are under the 1991 international agreement. They ask that all readers sign a petition requesting the very same protection for the Arctic, and seek to have it given the status of a World Park.
I urge all readers to please visit the link and sign the petition. That is, if you prefer the Arctic to remain an untouched world park rather then see it get turned into yet another major oilfield.
And yes, I know the little film clip is utterly naff!!
Multiple choice justifications
A chap has posed the question: Why pick on us?
Well, for one reason they can. And for another, in many ways they should. But from that point on I'm mostly on board.
It's not so much for what's being done, but the hamfisted way it is being done and, worse, sold.
Just in this piece alone look at the justifications for these actions that are given, starting with 'a new pollution tax that has nothing to do with congestion'. Which is it (though I recognise that more congestion equals greater pollution. Which rather begs the question as to why the roads are permanently made to create jams). And I can't quite get my head around the sense of imposing on a car that will be stopped most of the day just because four of the wheels are powered, vs. being fine with another one buzzing about all day emitting away because it has a slightly better mileage.
And then it becomes about killing innocent pedestrians. That makes some sense, but then the guilty designs should simply be banned, full stop. Along with other slab-fronted entities, such as vans and buses. The "Also, I wouldn’t encounter so many jams on my drive to the civic centre” quote is a true peach, thank you for sharing (I hope that it is accurate).
So I really don't have much of a clue what the basis for this ban is, though most logic dictates the environment is not as high on the list as is claimed.
But to solve it, whilst admitting to no longer being an inhabitant of the 'Smoke, I would say that the best move, and one which maybe be a tad more democratic, would still be to decide it at the voting booth.
Well, for one reason they can. And for another, in many ways they should. But from that point on I'm mostly on board.
It's not so much for what's being done, but the hamfisted way it is being done and, worse, sold.
Just in this piece alone look at the justifications for these actions that are given, starting with 'a new pollution tax that has nothing to do with congestion'. Which is it (though I recognise that more congestion equals greater pollution. Which rather begs the question as to why the roads are permanently made to create jams). And I can't quite get my head around the sense of imposing on a car that will be stopped most of the day just because four of the wheels are powered, vs. being fine with another one buzzing about all day emitting away because it has a slightly better mileage.
And then it becomes about killing innocent pedestrians. That makes some sense, but then the guilty designs should simply be banned, full stop. Along with other slab-fronted entities, such as vans and buses. The "Also, I wouldn’t encounter so many jams on my drive to the civic centre” quote is a true peach, thank you for sharing (I hope that it is accurate).
So I really don't have much of a clue what the basis for this ban is, though most logic dictates the environment is not as high on the list as is claimed.
But to solve it, whilst admitting to no longer being an inhabitant of the 'Smoke, I would say that the best move, and one which maybe be a tad more democratic, would still be to decide it at the voting booth.
Another punt
The great recycler...
Crediting his efficiency in eking out the maximum from the resources to hand, Hunter Davies (Mean with Money, 26 Aug.) is not recycling very much if it remains in the back of his wardrobe, but on balance I'd still call him ' a good reuser'. But he and Lord Clarke have now suggested a new use for magazine sleeves that I had not thought of before, and would welcome being added to Junkk.com to share with others beyond these pages.
Hey, it may get printed.
ADDENDUM: It didn't, but this just in is very polite:
Thank you for your interesting letter. We would like to have been able to publish it, but there is space in our correspondence columns for only a fraction of the letters received each week. A copy of your letter has, of course, been passed on for the information of Hunter Davies and the Money Editor.
Crediting his efficiency in eking out the maximum from the resources to hand, Hunter Davies (Mean with Money, 26 Aug.) is not recycling very much if it remains in the back of his wardrobe, but on balance I'd still call him ' a good reuser'. But he and Lord Clarke have now suggested a new use for magazine sleeves that I had not thought of before, and would welcome being added to Junkk.com to share with others beyond these pages.
Hey, it may get printed.
ADDENDUM: It didn't, but this just in is very polite:
Thank you for your interesting letter. We would like to have been able to publish it, but there is space in our correspondence columns for only a fraction of the letters received each week. A copy of your letter has, of course, been passed on for the information of Hunter Davies and the Money Editor.
I'm guessing some in the Church are not big climate change supporters, then
Budget flights of faith
And that they will not be flying to this one: Pope leads eco-friendly festival
And that they will not be flying to this one: Pope leads eco-friendly festival
Tunnel vision
Merkel presses China on climate - But China said that it was still catching up economically, making it harder to reduce emissions.
With all due deference to our mucking things up westward ho (neat Euro-sino quip, no?) before and still, this rather smacks of getting a warning from below the end of the pier and saying you still need to run off the end as well first before you pay attention.
Ho (this may be a feature) hum. Let's all play doubles roulette with automatics.
With all due deference to our mucking things up westward ho (neat Euro-sino quip, no?) before and still, this rather smacks of getting a warning from below the end of the pier and saying you still need to run off the end as well first before you pay attention.
Ho (this may be a feature) hum. Let's all play doubles roulette with automatics.
From the petrolhead's mouth
An interesting FAQ from the Times about the best fuel-friendly route to take between a shorter through city vs. longer free-moving option.
I'm guessing this not referring to London, though.
Meanwhile, as we are on joined up governance and the image of helping the planet vs. the reality: Public transport 'poorly linked'
Well, D'uh! One thing that has always got my goat in various comparisons between this and that vs. automotive options is what happens once you step out of the train/bus. Ignoring what or who you are lugging along, and the time pressures you are under, the sheer fact that not all of us can afford to hail a taxi to complete the trip is one heck of an extra financial burden to add on to what is already very unattractive option to the wallet. And no, the solution is not pricing the one we have to use out of reach to all but the rich... and ministers.
I'm guessing this not referring to London, though.
Meanwhile, as we are on joined up governance and the image of helping the planet vs. the reality: Public transport 'poorly linked'
Well, D'uh! One thing that has always got my goat in various comparisons between this and that vs. automotive options is what happens once you step out of the train/bus. Ignoring what or who you are lugging along, and the time pressures you are under, the sheer fact that not all of us can afford to hail a taxi to complete the trip is one heck of an extra financial burden to add on to what is already very unattractive option to the wallet. And no, the solution is not pricing the one we have to use out of reach to all but the rich... and ministers.
A 'bang up' idea?
Groan: Norway puts "first ecological prison" on show
It's great the inmates spend so much time digging in the garden, too.
It's great the inmates spend so much time digging in the garden, too.
TUPE, brutal
That* has to get a credit from The Sun Sub-editor's subhead sisterhood.
However, I refer to a little bit of employment law that I was aware of but had not until now fully understood for the 'latest idiocy that may explain a lot': TUPE law sets off new alarm bells
No reason at all that the ad profession should not have the same protections as the rest of society, but it beggars belief that in a pitch for new business, the winner has to inherit the bozos from the losing side (who presumably were the reason for the pitch being needed - admitting it is often just down to Marketing Director insecurity/vanity).
At least it closes the loop. You can't fire anyone any more. And now you can't get rid of them by ditching their employers either. Now that's how to stay competitive.
* Ok, it's a stretch. Think Caesar's last words.
However, I refer to a little bit of employment law that I was aware of but had not until now fully understood for the 'latest idiocy that may explain a lot': TUPE law sets off new alarm bells
No reason at all that the ad profession should not have the same protections as the rest of society, but it beggars belief that in a pitch for new business, the winner has to inherit the bozos from the losing side (who presumably were the reason for the pitch being needed - admitting it is often just down to Marketing Director insecurity/vanity).
At least it closes the loop. You can't fire anyone any more. And now you can't get rid of them by ditching their employers either. Now that's how to stay competitive.
* Ok, it's a stretch. Think Caesar's last words.
Don't mention mushrooms
I would repeat the joke, but it involves where one is kept and what you are fed. So,here's a chance to not just find out, but take part: Have your say in the future of nuclear power.
So there's no excuse. Well, if you can fit it in during your free time, unpaid, wading through etc. But that's democracy, civic pride, etc. I won't be, as there's only so much I can handle, and waste is my bag, but I thought I'd share as this blog does have a watching brief on the whole nuclear thing and more than a few are interested.
At least I have now found yet another entity I'd never heard of before: The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Which is, I presume, well stocked with those who are on salaries and have pots of time to sift all they are handed. Shame there cannot be more incentive to those who could offer much to be rewarded for their contributions. As opposed to getting the same old form the lobbyists and activists who usually get to dominate.
A copy of the report is available in all sorts of options, but none that I can see which glow in the dark.
So there's no excuse. Well, if you can fit it in during your free time, unpaid, wading through etc. But that's democracy, civic pride, etc. I won't be, as there's only so much I can handle, and waste is my bag, but I thought I'd share as this blog does have a watching brief on the whole nuclear thing and more than a few are interested.
At least I have now found yet another entity I'd never heard of before: The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Which is, I presume, well stocked with those who are on salaries and have pots of time to sift all they are handed. Shame there cannot be more incentive to those who could offer much to be rewarded for their contributions. As opposed to getting the same old form the lobbyists and activists who usually get to dominate.
A copy of the report is available in all sorts of options, but none that I can see which glow in the dark.
There's being done. And there's being seen off in being done.
The bbc-is-biased blog is proving a tad too addictive, especially for my objectivity. But from this thread on some climate wheeze the Beeb has/had, can I really get my jaw of the ground that the head of Ofcom's boss has the CV he does, and yet is expected to oversee this little lot???!
I await confirmation before commenting further.
This, by the way, was my contribution (so far):
If the BBC really is trying to push the climate agenda with the aim of reducing personal environmental footprints on the part of viewers, the choice of Ross is astounding.
His 'performance' during Live Earth (which worked soooo well) was positively cringe worthy to anyone sincere in trying to share positive solutions and/or encourage reasonable self-sacrifice by positive example.
I'm afraid this all smacks/ed of simply yet another celebrity-fest for some local D-listers to play with lots more toys and uber-cool global A-listers in a very exclusive, self-serving crib.
And it's not like Live Earth even cranked up much by way of the great God 'ratings'.
As awareness went, about all I can recall is a Spice who took one week to forget she was ‘doing it all for her baby’ to getting her own private jet on tour in case she and the power sisters had hissy fits (and I’m sure half of the entertainment crew will be flying along for the ride, if they are not up in helicopters over the Antarctic to show us what ‘we’ are doing by er, taking helicopters to visit the Antarctic).
The use of 'celebrity' to promote the notion of restraint is facile. They have nothing but money and time, and the demands of screen time ensure that they have to seen with loads of 'stuff' and in as many exotic locations as possible all of the time. Popping out of the limo to walk a bit or claiming you offset your trips just doesn't cut it. Just one tabloid shot of a Lemar of Siena or Richard Branson in their new Aston, on a beach in Barbados or lighting the touch paper on a tourist spaceship undoes any positive awareness their brief dalliance with ‘doing their bit’ may achieve. The media is totally complicit because it’s a quick and lazy way to look like you are concerned and ‘doing’ something whilst getting the faces that attract the viewers and some backstage cred in the 'green' room. Message is secondary.
Yes, I think we do need to do all we can to understand and educate on what climate change is all about, and what can and should be done to address what ever it is possible and prudent to do to mitigate any adverse affects.
Having another, now possibly to be aborted, party was never going to be it.
Shame about the waste.
CAN ROCK 'N' ROLL SAVE THE PLANET?
For most of the reasons you articulate... no.
Is it any wonder we are cynical when such as a Spice Mum is up there 'doing it for [my] child' and then next week getting a personal jet to tour in 'cos she and the powersisterhood might have a spat en route.
It's not the message (though I think we are beyond needing any more awareness or consciousness raising) but the choice of messengers.
How can one empathise with someone who makes squillions and, with the best will in the world, pretty much would need to be a saint not to use them to consume and/or travel? All supported by a media industry that demands such excess to have stuff worth watching, reporting upon and getting invited along on for the ride.
The reaction to the latest 'we're in with the in-crowd and you're not' ,BBC Green Elite in The VIP Green Room notion, Planet Relief, is but another case in point. At least some news (if not ents) editorial staff are at last questioning their roles in all this.
I await confirmation before commenting further.
This, by the way, was my contribution (so far):
If the BBC really is trying to push the climate agenda with the aim of reducing personal environmental footprints on the part of viewers, the choice of Ross is astounding.
His 'performance' during Live Earth (which worked soooo well) was positively cringe worthy to anyone sincere in trying to share positive solutions and/or encourage reasonable self-sacrifice by positive example.
I'm afraid this all smacks/ed of simply yet another celebrity-fest for some local D-listers to play with lots more toys and uber-cool global A-listers in a very exclusive, self-serving crib.
And it's not like Live Earth even cranked up much by way of the great God 'ratings'.
As awareness went, about all I can recall is a Spice who took one week to forget she was ‘doing it all for her baby’ to getting her own private jet on tour in case she and the power sisters had hissy fits (and I’m sure half of the entertainment crew will be flying along for the ride, if they are not up in helicopters over the Antarctic to show us what ‘we’ are doing by er, taking helicopters to visit the Antarctic).
The use of 'celebrity' to promote the notion of restraint is facile. They have nothing but money and time, and the demands of screen time ensure that they have to seen with loads of 'stuff' and in as many exotic locations as possible all of the time. Popping out of the limo to walk a bit or claiming you offset your trips just doesn't cut it. Just one tabloid shot of a Lemar of Siena or Richard Branson in their new Aston, on a beach in Barbados or lighting the touch paper on a tourist spaceship undoes any positive awareness their brief dalliance with ‘doing their bit’ may achieve. The media is totally complicit because it’s a quick and lazy way to look like you are concerned and ‘doing’ something whilst getting the faces that attract the viewers and some backstage cred in the 'green' room. Message is secondary.
Yes, I think we do need to do all we can to understand and educate on what climate change is all about, and what can and should be done to address what ever it is possible and prudent to do to mitigate any adverse affects.
Having another, now possibly to be aborted, party was never going to be it.
Shame about the waste.
CAN ROCK 'N' ROLL SAVE THE PLANET?
For most of the reasons you articulate... no.
Is it any wonder we are cynical when such as a Spice Mum is up there 'doing it for [my] child' and then next week getting a personal jet to tour in 'cos she and the powersisterhood might have a spat en route.
It's not the message (though I think we are beyond needing any more awareness or consciousness raising) but the choice of messengers.
How can one empathise with someone who makes squillions and, with the best will in the world, pretty much would need to be a saint not to use them to consume and/or travel? All supported by a media industry that demands such excess to have stuff worth watching, reporting upon and getting invited along on for the ride.
The reaction to the latest 'we're in with the in-crowd and you're not' ,BBC Green Elite in The VIP Green Room notion, Planet Relief, is but another case in point. At least some news (if not ents) editorial staff are at last questioning their roles in all this.
And here's the weather summary - 'Extreme'
By now we have pretty much all recognised that our traditional British weather does not appear to be quite what it used to be. Today's Indy has a fascinating article on the extremes of weather that we, along with others around our little planetary lump of rock, have suffered over recent years. And yes, it all appears to be entirely consistent with global warming.
"in the UK alone, in the past 14 months we have experienced the hottest July, the hottest April and the wettest June since records began. We have seen the hottest autumn and the hottest spring, and the second-hottest winter. We have also seen the hottest single month, and - by a considerable margin - the hottest single 12-month period."
And if we manage just a few more millilitres of rainfall before August is out, then 2007 will have been the wettest ever summer on record!
Meanwhile, this from WSWS, reports on research that predicts that great tracts of Spain are set to become desert before too long! (Maybe we will see ex-pat migration coming back the other way in 20 or 30 years or so?)
Yet, despite the daily evidence of climate change, our own leaders continue to provide no cohesive climate change messages. Just days after downgrading the status of the parliamentary climate change committee to a toothless waste of time, the government requests a study to look at putting in place additional flood protection for London! It would appear that the Thames barrier (as reported by the Beeb) may not be up to the job it was designed to do as soon as 2030!
A new Thames barrier is predicted to cost some £20 Billion. Anyone care to take a wager that this will be at least £50 Billion by the time it gets built?
"in the UK alone, in the past 14 months we have experienced the hottest July, the hottest April and the wettest June since records began. We have seen the hottest autumn and the hottest spring, and the second-hottest winter. We have also seen the hottest single month, and - by a considerable margin - the hottest single 12-month period."
And if we manage just a few more millilitres of rainfall before August is out, then 2007 will have been the wettest ever summer on record!
Meanwhile, this from WSWS, reports on research that predicts that great tracts of Spain are set to become desert before too long! (Maybe we will see ex-pat migration coming back the other way in 20 or 30 years or so?)
Yet, despite the daily evidence of climate change, our own leaders continue to provide no cohesive climate change messages. Just days after downgrading the status of the parliamentary climate change committee to a toothless waste of time, the government requests a study to look at putting in place additional flood protection for London! It would appear that the Thames barrier (as reported by the Beeb) may not be up to the job it was designed to do as soon as 2030!
A new Thames barrier is predicted to cost some £20 Billion. Anyone care to take a wager that this will be at least £50 Billion by the time it gets built?
I have seen the future, and it hurts
Without coming over all commy, I saw this and cannot not help but reiterate something that I have blogged before (and will doubtless do so again): City bonuses hit record high with £14bn payout - Executives fuel spiralling demand for luxury goods.
There are more and more of 'us'. And as a percentage, there seems to be more and more of 'us' (present compnay excepted) with a fair wadge of wonga. Most have acquired this whilst also becoming more and more time poor.
So what else, exactly, can they be expected to do than blow the money and precious moments on stuff and travel simply to justify the process of acquiring it? It's not an excuse, but it certainly is a reason. One that needs to be faced up to. Meanwhile the self-same media who purport to be concerned about all this continue to feed the process, with editorial on weekend breaks in the Maldives and articles on long distance affairs or cosmetic tourism.
And ads such as the one from Volkswagen on one page advocating using as little fuel as possible on one page, with a nice big glossy one to plug the Touran on another. With, for good measure, a Castrol ad showing the ideal car to be stuck in a traffic jam to be... a Touran! No wonder the cute little engine from the ActonCO2 ad is looking like it's running out of steam (I really recommend blowing the money where it might do some good, guys, as this ain't it).
They really like letting these modern day Marie Antoinettes have their cake so long as the get to go along for the ride to eat the scraps.
There are more and more of 'us'. And as a percentage, there seems to be more and more of 'us' (present compnay excepted) with a fair wadge of wonga. Most have acquired this whilst also becoming more and more time poor.
So what else, exactly, can they be expected to do than blow the money and precious moments on stuff and travel simply to justify the process of acquiring it? It's not an excuse, but it certainly is a reason. One that needs to be faced up to. Meanwhile the self-same media who purport to be concerned about all this continue to feed the process, with editorial on weekend breaks in the Maldives and articles on long distance affairs or cosmetic tourism.
And ads such as the one from Volkswagen on one page advocating using as little fuel as possible on one page, with a nice big glossy one to plug the Touran on another. With, for good measure, a Castrol ad showing the ideal car to be stuck in a traffic jam to be... a Touran! No wonder the cute little engine from the ActonCO2 ad is looking like it's running out of steam (I really recommend blowing the money where it might do some good, guys, as this ain't it).
They really like letting these modern day Marie Antoinettes have their cake so long as the get to go along for the ride to eat the scraps.
Negative media. Negative press.
A gorgeous weekend. A green, secluded garden. So, for the first time in a while, I decided to invest in actually buying the paper to read under a tree as opposed being glued to the PC.
And while there is much that is available, not to mention free, it also served to remind me that, beyond enjoying the process a lot more, there is a great deal one can miss by not being confronted with a page rich in eye-corner editorial delicacies... and even the ads. So look out for a bumper crop of blogs soon... if I remember to go through the tearsheets.
While by no means the most significant, I'd like to share this first. It was from the TV section, and was/is a review for a show on BBC3 tonight, called Outrageous Wasters. Tellingly, it is entitled 'Recycling is bad', and as I doubt it's online, will reproduce the rest here: 'A good example of outrageous waste is making a four-part series, with all the use of resources that entails (a point many finger-wagging production outfits should remember, especially when a helicopter is sent up to show us how dire the land below is becoming), when the key points can be put over in a single programme (or have been covered to death elsewhere, though I guess I should watch to see what new 'insights' we are offered). Pointless, energy-guzzling duplication is certainly evident here, as the family learn essentially the same lessons as last week. They are simply told off for their prodigal ways, and then sent to boot camp as penance and face pressure to repent and reform.'
Quite. I was aware of this programme, but really could not be bothered to watch, as even by its own trailers could see the format that was coming. And I am bored to death with being confronted with extreme examples who are then sent to a gulag. Neither aspect is a true representation of what most of us face, and how we behave, and the 'solutions' simply make me want to go and buy a Humvee.
Where are the positive stories that I know exist and can be used to inspire? Why can't we get an eco-Plue Peter or Tomorrow's World to show people all the great ways there are to profit and save from innovative e-practices, rather than this endless raft of shame, humiliate and punish? Yes, we do get a a few such as 'It's not easy being green', but these are quickly identified as being very idealised situations, funded by massive production company input.
Makes me start to think about Junkk.tv, if I could afford the URL.
But at least it may avoid the kind of review that has a headline like the one above, and a consumer reaction like mine. May even help towards saving the planet, in case that ever really is the makers actual intention.
And while there is much that is available, not to mention free, it also served to remind me that, beyond enjoying the process a lot more, there is a great deal one can miss by not being confronted with a page rich in eye-corner editorial delicacies... and even the ads. So look out for a bumper crop of blogs soon... if I remember to go through the tearsheets.
While by no means the most significant, I'd like to share this first. It was from the TV section, and was/is a review for a show on BBC3 tonight, called Outrageous Wasters. Tellingly, it is entitled 'Recycling is bad', and as I doubt it's online, will reproduce the rest here: 'A good example of outrageous waste is making a four-part series, with all the use of resources that entails (a point many finger-wagging production outfits should remember, especially when a helicopter is sent up to show us how dire the land below is becoming), when the key points can be put over in a single programme (or have been covered to death elsewhere, though I guess I should watch to see what new 'insights' we are offered). Pointless, energy-guzzling duplication is certainly evident here, as the family learn essentially the same lessons as last week. They are simply told off for their prodigal ways, and then sent to boot camp as penance and face pressure to repent and reform.'
Quite. I was aware of this programme, but really could not be bothered to watch, as even by its own trailers could see the format that was coming. And I am bored to death with being confronted with extreme examples who are then sent to a gulag. Neither aspect is a true representation of what most of us face, and how we behave, and the 'solutions' simply make me want to go and buy a Humvee.
Where are the positive stories that I know exist and can be used to inspire? Why can't we get an eco-Plue Peter or Tomorrow's World to show people all the great ways there are to profit and save from innovative e-practices, rather than this endless raft of shame, humiliate and punish? Yes, we do get a a few such as 'It's not easy being green', but these are quickly identified as being very idealised situations, funded by massive production company input.
Makes me start to think about Junkk.tv, if I could afford the URL.
But at least it may avoid the kind of review that has a headline like the one above, and a consumer reaction like mine. May even help towards saving the planet, in case that ever really is the makers actual intention.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Damned if you do. Or don't.... Or if I know.
The Beeb gets a rare old bashing these days, not least on these pages and such as this 'does what it says on the tin' blog - biased-bbc - that has often questioned its dedication to quite overt climate change propaganda, and especially some rather dubious proponents with odd agendas). So it was interesting to note this: BBC news chiefs attack plans for climate change campaign
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I have concerns about a retreat from rational discussion (caused, to be sure, by the backlash against massive, and pretty uncritical espousal of anything 'green' no matter what it is , or the enviROI), but then I can only be thankful we might be spared yet more 'awareness' or "consciousness raising" from such as Jonathan Ross. Like his part in Live Earth worked out so well.
This is pretty definite stuff: Asked [by whom, I wonder] whether the BBC should campaign on issues such as climate change, Mr Horrocks said: "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it." Mr Barron said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped." I'm not sure what the 'it' is, but I presume that this means the notion of those who think it's the BBC's job to save the planet. There's a lot to read into those words. Pendulums swinging too far the other way, for one.
If Planet Relief appears [wondering how this is that tricky to decided definitively ] to contradict BBC guidelines on impartiality, then that's pretty clear cut. Rules are rules.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But somehow, I don't see the planet, or those upon it, doing too well out this. Ratings maybe. Chattering class forums maybe. Ho hum.
Daily Mail - Why saving Earth is not the BBC's job, by Newsnight boss
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I have concerns about a retreat from rational discussion (caused, to be sure, by the backlash against massive, and pretty uncritical espousal of anything 'green' no matter what it is , or the enviROI), but then I can only be thankful we might be spared yet more 'awareness' or "consciousness raising" from such as Jonathan Ross. Like his part in Live Earth worked out so well.
This is pretty definite stuff: Asked [by whom, I wonder] whether the BBC should campaign on issues such as climate change, Mr Horrocks said: "I absolutely don't think we should do that because it's not impartial. It's not our job to lead people and proselytise about it." Mr Barron said: "It is absolutely not the BBC's job to save the planet. I think there are a lot of people who think that, but it must be stopped." I'm not sure what the 'it' is, but I presume that this means the notion of those who think it's the BBC's job to save the planet. There's a lot to read into those words. Pendulums swinging too far the other way, for one.
If Planet Relief appears [wondering how this is that tricky to decided definitively ] to contradict BBC guidelines on impartiality, then that's pretty clear cut. Rules are rules.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. But somehow, I don't see the planet, or those upon it, doing too well out this. Ratings maybe. Chattering class forums maybe. Ho hum.
Daily Mail - Why saving Earth is not the BBC's job, by Newsnight boss
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Who Culpa?
Jeremy Paxman's address to the TV biz is worth reading in Newsnight: The James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture
I almost didn't, as what got trailed with the first para, on top of the homage to Gordon (Ramsay)'s favoured communication techniques, it all came across a bit too much as 'so what if it isn't real?'.
But as one progresses there is more of a mea culpa.
And while such as the following are no more than many have already mentioned, I do wonder if it will get beyond just being floated as yet another wheeze: 'I don’t think it will do for senior figures in this industry to stay hunkered down, occasionally lashing out at young people in the business or setting up inquiries of one sort or another.' Certainly not when those at the top who have presided over where we are now remain there. Maybe it's the Chas Clarke School of 'The best person to resolve the cock up is the cocker-upper in chief' way of thinking. Not that that worked for him.
'Whoever was responsible should be sacked.' No sh*t, Sherlock. 'Should' is one the funniest words in the English language in this regard.
But other worries remain. For instance I paused at this: 'I heard the other day of a production company which is sending its producers and researchers on a re-education course in which they’re instructed that if an interviewee does not say on camera what they have said in research, they may not be reminded or encouraged to repeat what they said previously. It would, they were told, be construed as coaching witnesses. This is ludicrous.'
Er... why? There's a lot in those words 'reminded' or 'encouraged'. And to me any attempt to get onscreen, or justify, what the broadcaster wants as opposed to what the interviewee says strikes me as not blooming well on.
And there is a slight whiff of 'who let them into the club?' to the critique of such as YouTube and blogs. I agree it's all totally Wild West out there, but then that's what happens when those in 'mainstream media' decided to play fast and loose with what was shared, and how it was shared, themselves. At least with a blog you do have a fair idea of where they are coming from, over time you can establish trust (especially that they are not bowing to commercial, political or 'career' pressures) and, more often than not (here for instance), you get a bunch of links to the source material (often diverse 'facts' where there is contention) to help you make your own mind up and not have it made for you. And a page on screen can run as far as required to cover all that's necessary, and not be constrained by 'that's all we have time for' (which is usually to either make time for the skateboarding tortoise or to avoid delving beyond the unqualified soundbite that will ensure journalistic immortality).
There are key admissions, if not exactly startling in their insights: 'To put it simply, people at the top are less concerned with content and a lot more concerned with bottom lines. There are too many people in this industry whose answer to the question what is television for? is to say ‘to make money.’' Let's not forget, A BBC salary is 'money'. And you make a bigger one by delivering the measure by which those above (and bestow career enhancements) make more money or gain power: ratings.
Plus the corporate bottom line ' ..analysis takes time, and comment is free'. It's a reason. Not a very good excuse. Much like the raft served up ('time pressures', 'inexperienced juniors', 'work placements' to field nasty lawyer letters. Well boo-hoo. If you haven't got what it takes to do a good job, don't try and do it until you have fought to resolve the shortfall. Maybe a few more researchers could be hired on a few lower celeb salaries?) to justify what was basically pretty rubbish practices by those who feel themselves immune (with, it seems, some justification. How many have actually been properly held to account on the woeful tally of the last few months?) from consequence.
I don't know if 'there has been a catastrophic, collective loss of nerve.' I'd say a lot of nerve is well in evidence, to miss the point that not telling the truth, and seeing no real problem with 'enhancing reality' (for no better reason than, at best, to suit the narrative, or worst, an agenda), is simply 'how it's done' these days. I'm looking at a letter from SKY to Ofcom that says, in essence, that it would set a bad precedent for career and/or professional reputation-influencing facts to be presented as they actually happened... in a reality show. The medium really sees feeding its needs now as more important than delivering a worthwhile message.
And while I agree with the quoted statement, let me suggest another version: 'if you spend your time telling people what you think they obviously (to whom?) should want to hear to the exclusion of fact or balance, pretty soon you will lose their trust. Or, worse, their viewing figures (remember the salary measure, chaps. Or, in the case of the BBC, the fee that pays the inhabitants of the gilded towers). Sorry Jeremy, you are down there already with the tabloids. At least they don't try and pretend they are much else than what they are any more. The Number 12 example is apt; and look how politics is viewed as a consequence.
The word trust is used a lot here. You have to earn it. And what has been built up in years can be lost in an instant. As has occurred. Maybe it can be regained, and if it can it will take time. But with the evidence of what - and who - I see before me to make this happen... I ain't holding my breath. Too many people. Too many vested interests. Too many layers. Too much 'precedent'. Too much protection. Too much greed. Too much self-justification.
I keep watching because I really don't have an alternative. But boy, you guys are making it harder to make it worth my while by the day. And, one of these days, I might just stop. At which point I really ask why I need to pay for something I can't use.
A lot of what gets done still is good. And more power to those who do it. But I leave you with this. Having played 'who, why, where..' ping pong with the latest talking (if not saying anything) head and either got a juicy answer (unlikely) or the equally career-enhancing record series of deflections, how many times do you and your media colleagues return, again, and again, to hold them to it or insist of getting one (and then hold them to it?). I'd suggest seldom. And they know it. In the current state of things it's just a game both have come out with what they need by playing without need for an actual result, even if those watching may remain none the wiser and still very poorly served by two entities in theory tasked to do so. The process is now totally dominant (as it is with government) to the product.
So... ‘And who, precisely, do you presume to speak for?’ Good question. Worth remembering. You go on to answer a slightly different one. But the real answer to this?
Good luck with rediscovering the purpose.
ADDENDUM: Note post 71. And the several who thought, as did I, the washing powder analogy ludicrous.
Paxman voices concerns over BBC
Times - Froth away, Paxo - but it’s viewers who will put TV in order - Didn't he used to work for the BBC too? And I'd be keen to see how the public can do any more than it does already.
I almost didn't, as what got trailed with the first para, on top of the homage to Gordon (Ramsay)'s favoured communication techniques, it all came across a bit too much as 'so what if it isn't real?'.
But as one progresses there is more of a mea culpa.
And while such as the following are no more than many have already mentioned, I do wonder if it will get beyond just being floated as yet another wheeze: 'I don’t think it will do for senior figures in this industry to stay hunkered down, occasionally lashing out at young people in the business or setting up inquiries of one sort or another.' Certainly not when those at the top who have presided over where we are now remain there. Maybe it's the Chas Clarke School of 'The best person to resolve the cock up is the cocker-upper in chief' way of thinking. Not that that worked for him.
'Whoever was responsible should be sacked.' No sh*t, Sherlock. 'Should' is one the funniest words in the English language in this regard.
But other worries remain. For instance I paused at this: 'I heard the other day of a production company which is sending its producers and researchers on a re-education course in which they’re instructed that if an interviewee does not say on camera what they have said in research, they may not be reminded or encouraged to repeat what they said previously. It would, they were told, be construed as coaching witnesses. This is ludicrous.'
Er... why? There's a lot in those words 'reminded' or 'encouraged'. And to me any attempt to get onscreen, or justify, what the broadcaster wants as opposed to what the interviewee says strikes me as not blooming well on.
And there is a slight whiff of 'who let them into the club?' to the critique of such as YouTube and blogs. I agree it's all totally Wild West out there, but then that's what happens when those in 'mainstream media' decided to play fast and loose with what was shared, and how it was shared, themselves. At least with a blog you do have a fair idea of where they are coming from, over time you can establish trust (especially that they are not bowing to commercial, political or 'career' pressures) and, more often than not (here for instance), you get a bunch of links to the source material (often diverse 'facts' where there is contention) to help you make your own mind up and not have it made for you. And a page on screen can run as far as required to cover all that's necessary, and not be constrained by 'that's all we have time for' (which is usually to either make time for the skateboarding tortoise or to avoid delving beyond the unqualified soundbite that will ensure journalistic immortality).
There are key admissions, if not exactly startling in their insights: 'To put it simply, people at the top are less concerned with content and a lot more concerned with bottom lines. There are too many people in this industry whose answer to the question what is television for? is to say ‘to make money.’' Let's not forget, A BBC salary is 'money'. And you make a bigger one by delivering the measure by which those above (and bestow career enhancements) make more money or gain power: ratings.
Plus the corporate bottom line ' ..analysis takes time, and comment is free'. It's a reason. Not a very good excuse. Much like the raft served up ('time pressures', 'inexperienced juniors', 'work placements' to field nasty lawyer letters. Well boo-hoo. If you haven't got what it takes to do a good job, don't try and do it until you have fought to resolve the shortfall. Maybe a few more researchers could be hired on a few lower celeb salaries?) to justify what was basically pretty rubbish practices by those who feel themselves immune (with, it seems, some justification. How many have actually been properly held to account on the woeful tally of the last few months?) from consequence.
I don't know if 'there has been a catastrophic, collective loss of nerve.' I'd say a lot of nerve is well in evidence, to miss the point that not telling the truth, and seeing no real problem with 'enhancing reality' (for no better reason than, at best, to suit the narrative, or worst, an agenda), is simply 'how it's done' these days. I'm looking at a letter from SKY to Ofcom that says, in essence, that it would set a bad precedent for career and/or professional reputation-influencing facts to be presented as they actually happened... in a reality show. The medium really sees feeding its needs now as more important than delivering a worthwhile message.
And while I agree with the quoted statement, let me suggest another version: 'if you spend your time telling people what you think they obviously (to whom?) should want to hear to the exclusion of fact or balance, pretty soon you will lose their trust. Or, worse, their viewing figures (remember the salary measure, chaps. Or, in the case of the BBC, the fee that pays the inhabitants of the gilded towers). Sorry Jeremy, you are down there already with the tabloids. At least they don't try and pretend they are much else than what they are any more. The Number 12 example is apt; and look how politics is viewed as a consequence.
The word trust is used a lot here. You have to earn it. And what has been built up in years can be lost in an instant. As has occurred. Maybe it can be regained, and if it can it will take time. But with the evidence of what - and who - I see before me to make this happen... I ain't holding my breath. Too many people. Too many vested interests. Too many layers. Too much 'precedent'. Too much protection. Too much greed. Too much self-justification.
I keep watching because I really don't have an alternative. But boy, you guys are making it harder to make it worth my while by the day. And, one of these days, I might just stop. At which point I really ask why I need to pay for something I can't use.
A lot of what gets done still is good. And more power to those who do it. But I leave you with this. Having played 'who, why, where..' ping pong with the latest talking (if not saying anything) head and either got a juicy answer (unlikely) or the equally career-enhancing record series of deflections, how many times do you and your media colleagues return, again, and again, to hold them to it or insist of getting one (and then hold them to it?). I'd suggest seldom. And they know it. In the current state of things it's just a game both have come out with what they need by playing without need for an actual result, even if those watching may remain none the wiser and still very poorly served by two entities in theory tasked to do so. The process is now totally dominant (as it is with government) to the product.
So... ‘And who, precisely, do you presume to speak for?’ Good question. Worth remembering. You go on to answer a slightly different one. But the real answer to this?
Good luck with rediscovering the purpose.
ADDENDUM: Note post 71. And the several who thought, as did I, the washing powder analogy ludicrous.
Paxman voices concerns over BBC
Times - Froth away, Paxo - but it’s viewers who will put TV in order - Didn't he used to work for the BBC too? And I'd be keen to see how the public can do any more than it does already.
Friday, August 24, 2007
The Scots do it in a joined up way .....
... why can't we do it here in England? This from EDIE reports on the setting up of an advisory panel that actually looks capable of doing a genuine job on boosting energy efficiency in Scottish homes!
"An expert panel has been set up to recommend measures to make houses and buildings in Scotland more energy efficient, it was announced this week." OK, I'm already thinking yet another pointless quango, but, so far, so good.
But, reading on, by experts, they don't mean quango members, political pseudo types or politicians and civil servants with nothing (better?) to do - they actually mean 'experts'. They are going to "include designers, developers, contractors, assessors and researchers." and will "feature experts from Norway, Denmark and Austria experienced in the strict energy standards of their home countries".
Our English equivalent would have senior civil servants, junior ministers without portfolio, loads of highly paid executive directors, trades union representatives, half a dozen empty suited jobs-worths, a token Polish plumber and number 10's cleaning lady's dog on the panel! All backed up with a huge administrative bureaucracy on massive salaries and gilt edged, inflation protected pensions!
I can almost hear Sir Humphrey - "'What! Have an actual energy efficiency expert on the advisory panel! You've got a lot to learn - that's just not the way we do things around here, old boy!"
When will our lot ever learn?
"An expert panel has been set up to recommend measures to make houses and buildings in Scotland more energy efficient, it was announced this week." OK, I'm already thinking yet another pointless quango, but, so far, so good.
But, reading on, by experts, they don't mean quango members, political pseudo types or politicians and civil servants with nothing (better?) to do - they actually mean 'experts'. They are going to "include designers, developers, contractors, assessors and researchers." and will "feature experts from Norway, Denmark and Austria experienced in the strict energy standards of their home countries".
Our English equivalent would have senior civil servants, junior ministers without portfolio, loads of highly paid executive directors, trades union representatives, half a dozen empty suited jobs-worths, a token Polish plumber and number 10's cleaning lady's dog on the panel! All backed up with a huge administrative bureaucracy on massive salaries and gilt edged, inflation protected pensions!
I can almost hear Sir Humphrey - "'What! Have an actual energy efficiency expert on the advisory panel! You've got a lot to learn - that's just not the way we do things around here, old boy!"
When will our lot ever learn?
It's not just what you spend. It's where you spend it.
I don't mean to go on about HSBC because, to be fair, they are at least doing more than most other banks, and that has to be better than nothing. But this did attract my attention: Brand Barometer - HSBC is banking on the green option
Thing is, they have made a big deal of going green, so I guess that brings them into the crosshairs of those attuned to such 'interest' a bit more. The fate of the pioneer, I guess.
What is noteworthy is the analysis of the ROI for their efforts. Now as a critical CD with an eye to actual communication I could estimate that it is a tad hard to empathise that much with a goat up a tree, but there you are. And for all those seeking Gold at Cannes next year there is this fascinating, if rather depressing point of note passed on from Dave of Solarventi not long ago: Which Ads Don't Get Skipped?
What's not there is the chart I am looking at in the magazine. So far their ad spend has been around £25M. That's 25,000,000 pounds sterling.
You can save a lot of planet with that kind of dough. But looking at the results, not to mention the enviROI, I wonder if it's all being as well directed as it might?
Thing is, they have made a big deal of going green, so I guess that brings them into the crosshairs of those attuned to such 'interest' a bit more. The fate of the pioneer, I guess.
What is noteworthy is the analysis of the ROI for their efforts. Now as a critical CD with an eye to actual communication I could estimate that it is a tad hard to empathise that much with a goat up a tree, but there you are. And for all those seeking Gold at Cannes next year there is this fascinating, if rather depressing point of note passed on from Dave of Solarventi not long ago: Which Ads Don't Get Skipped?
What's not there is the chart I am looking at in the magazine. So far their ad spend has been around £25M. That's 25,000,000 pounds sterling.
You can save a lot of planet with that kind of dough. But looking at the results, not to mention the enviROI, I wonder if it's all being as well directed as it might?
Ask not what you planet can do for you...
I need help.
What with one thing (not being able to get any work placements over summer being high on the list) and another (buzzing off for two weeks R&R with no one to plug the dyke springs to mind) the whole volume of work thing is getting more out of hand than before. And it's not like before it was any more secure than the ball entrusted to a British rugby forward anyway.
Which is why, speaking of rugby, I have taken a punt on a rather promising website called environmentjobs
I don't know if they'll accept my plea, but there was a section for volunteers - and with luck my brown nose effort here may help - so fingers crossed.
Below is wot i rote, so if you think you know of anyone else who may be interested please pass it on. Ta.
Saving The Planet #101
A chance to work with an exciting national enviro-website
Junkk.com is a free-to-all, independent resource that is gaining a great reputation for telling it like it is - and being dedicated to proactive, positive efforts to DO something environmentally sound rather than just talk about it, fuss on about awareness all the time, or worry about meeting targets.
We’re doing well, but the trouble is we are drowning in work. We keep getting awards and stuff, but so far nothing to help where it really matters, namely wadges of wonga to fund the hands-on running of the site. So this is an appeal for volunteers who may be interested in being those hands to help with what we’re trying to do.
Almost all happens ‘online’ so location is not really an issue, though we can always find stuff for anyone who fancies hanging out with us at Junkk Towers in sunny Ross-on-Wye.
We need help across the board, but mainly keeping the site spiffy and fresh, which means content, content, content. Finding it. Writing it. Sharing it.
Would suit anyone from a student looking to get some work experience, to a gardening leaver who fancies a worthy diversion before hitting the corporate treadmill again, or a silver surfer keen to work the net for more than just passing the day.
The Benefits: Well, for start, there’s helping save the planet. Then there’s the invaluable opportunity to wield and/or develop many skills, from editorial to design to PR to advertising & marketing. It will give the right person(s) the perfect opportunity to be at the heart of the New Media revolution, and experience the roller-coaster ride of evolving an eco-IT site from the bottom up. This type of experience will look good on any CV, especially as employers are now looking as much for experience as well as qualifications nowadays. It can be as flexible as you like, to suit all parties.
As we as yet have no income stream we can’t pay (which is where the volunteer bit sort of comes in), but as things develop you never know where it could all lead.
Oh, and did we mention? There’s the saving the planet thing.
The Duties: Tasks will be varied and include: Online: creating and posting site content. In person: all this plus assisting with day to day tasks such as taking digital photos and measurements of reuse ideas and uploading them onto the website, web research and collecting data, administration, etc.
Or suggest something to help us make Junkk.com better for all to use and enjoy!
The Person(s): We need folk who are computer literate (well, D’uh), with knowledge of MS Word and surfing the Internet. Other IT stuff such as HTML a plus. And yoof-skills like being able to play the social networking sites would be nifty. You’ll need to be flexible and willing to share mundane tasks as well as the more challenging and/or truly wicked fun ones. Reliability and a willingness to work unsupervised essential. It would help to have good sense of humour. You’ll need it.
Email Emma, Chief of Stuff, in the first instance on info@junkk.com.
And we don’t really need a CV; we simply want YOU to convince US you’re the one to help!
What with one thing (not being able to get any work placements over summer being high on the list) and another (buzzing off for two weeks R&R with no one to plug the dyke springs to mind) the whole volume of work thing is getting more out of hand than before. And it's not like before it was any more secure than the ball entrusted to a British rugby forward anyway.
Which is why, speaking of rugby, I have taken a punt on a rather promising website called environmentjobs
I don't know if they'll accept my plea, but there was a section for volunteers - and with luck my brown nose effort here may help - so fingers crossed.
Below is wot i rote, so if you think you know of anyone else who may be interested please pass it on. Ta.
Saving The Planet #101
A chance to work with an exciting national enviro-website
Junkk.com is a free-to-all, independent resource that is gaining a great reputation for telling it like it is - and being dedicated to proactive, positive efforts to DO something environmentally sound rather than just talk about it, fuss on about awareness all the time, or worry about meeting targets.
We’re doing well, but the trouble is we are drowning in work. We keep getting awards and stuff, but so far nothing to help where it really matters, namely wadges of wonga to fund the hands-on running of the site. So this is an appeal for volunteers who may be interested in being those hands to help with what we’re trying to do.
Almost all happens ‘online’ so location is not really an issue, though we can always find stuff for anyone who fancies hanging out with us at Junkk Towers in sunny Ross-on-Wye.
We need help across the board, but mainly keeping the site spiffy and fresh, which means content, content, content. Finding it. Writing it. Sharing it.
Would suit anyone from a student looking to get some work experience, to a gardening leaver who fancies a worthy diversion before hitting the corporate treadmill again, or a silver surfer keen to work the net for more than just passing the day.
The Benefits: Well, for start, there’s helping save the planet. Then there’s the invaluable opportunity to wield and/or develop many skills, from editorial to design to PR to advertising & marketing. It will give the right person(s) the perfect opportunity to be at the heart of the New Media revolution, and experience the roller-coaster ride of evolving an eco-IT site from the bottom up. This type of experience will look good on any CV, especially as employers are now looking as much for experience as well as qualifications nowadays. It can be as flexible as you like, to suit all parties.
As we as yet have no income stream we can’t pay (which is where the volunteer bit sort of comes in), but as things develop you never know where it could all lead.
Oh, and did we mention? There’s the saving the planet thing.
The Duties: Tasks will be varied and include: Online: creating and posting site content. In person: all this plus assisting with day to day tasks such as taking digital photos and measurements of reuse ideas and uploading them onto the website, web research and collecting data, administration, etc.
Or suggest something to help us make Junkk.com better for all to use and enjoy!
The Person(s): We need folk who are computer literate (well, D’uh), with knowledge of MS Word and surfing the Internet. Other IT stuff such as HTML a plus. And yoof-skills like being able to play the social networking sites would be nifty. You’ll need to be flexible and willing to share mundane tasks as well as the more challenging and/or truly wicked fun ones. Reliability and a willingness to work unsupervised essential. It would help to have good sense of humour. You’ll need it.
Email Emma, Chief of Stuff, in the first instance on info@junkk.com.
And we don’t really need a CV; we simply want YOU to convince US you’re the one to help!
Friday Fingers Crossed!
A few nice things happening at the moment, so I am hoping this, from a very upbeat fortune cookie opened recently, refers to some income! Only a few more months to go!
As ever, the consumer foots the bill
This eyebrow twitching article from Reuters reports that European consumers are being conned by the major power generation companies.
"The electricity generators are given, free of charge, permits to emit millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide which are currently worth around 20 euros a tonne, but are then charging consumers as if they had been made to pay for the permits."
"politically and morally it is going to be hard to justify making so much money out of a scheme designed to reduce emissions -- with consumers footing the bill".
Not really that much of a surprise I suppose; yet another one-sided game ..... Big Corporate Boys 5 - Consumers 0.
And no referee to be seen anywhere!
"The electricity generators are given, free of charge, permits to emit millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide which are currently worth around 20 euros a tonne, but are then charging consumers as if they had been made to pay for the permits."
"politically and morally it is going to be hard to justify making so much money out of a scheme designed to reduce emissions -- with consumers footing the bill".
Not really that much of a surprise I suppose; yet another one-sided game ..... Big Corporate Boys 5 - Consumers 0.
And no referee to be seen anywhere!
Green can be the colour of money
An interesting article from The Daily Reporter by AP writer Thomas Wagner.
"The United States, Europe and Japan are locked in a frantic race to cash in on the exploding business of saving the planet." As in, who can profit from it the most and the quickest?
"the battle against global warming continues to offer investors an unusual chance to be idealistic and greedy at the same time." As ever, it seems that greed, in the end, will always win.
"The city of London financial district has taken the lead in making billions from the management of CO2 emissions, one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services." So the UK is doing OK in the emissions trading arena and the wall street mob are now watching it enviously.
"America, however, has emerged as the world leader in developing clean energy technologies." Well, you could have fooled me on that one: the US was the last major power to even admit that there might be a global warming problem; and they still haven't even signed up to Kyoto! To be fair, they are damned good at rapid development projects.
"There's a lot of money chasing not so many ideas, so the prices are going up fast, raising some concern that this activity by venture capitalists and hedge funds could produce the next dot-com bust" Or perhaps, the renewables bubble?
As ever, where there is a whiff of money to be made, the voracious greed merchants appear to be at the forefront. I just hope that as much effort is put in to making the future climate secure for our children and grandchildren as there seems to being put in to make a fast buck or two.
"The United States, Europe and Japan are locked in a frantic race to cash in on the exploding business of saving the planet." As in, who can profit from it the most and the quickest?
"the battle against global warming continues to offer investors an unusual chance to be idealistic and greedy at the same time." As ever, it seems that greed, in the end, will always win.
"The city of London financial district has taken the lead in making billions from the management of CO2 emissions, one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services." So the UK is doing OK in the emissions trading arena and the wall street mob are now watching it enviously.
"America, however, has emerged as the world leader in developing clean energy technologies." Well, you could have fooled me on that one: the US was the last major power to even admit that there might be a global warming problem; and they still haven't even signed up to Kyoto! To be fair, they are damned good at rapid development projects.
"There's a lot of money chasing not so many ideas, so the prices are going up fast, raising some concern that this activity by venture capitalists and hedge funds could produce the next dot-com bust" Or perhaps, the renewables bubble?
As ever, where there is a whiff of money to be made, the voracious greed merchants appear to be at the forefront. I just hope that as much effort is put in to making the future climate secure for our children and grandchildren as there seems to being put in to make a fast buck or two.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
This will make you smile somewhat
From the ever informative Anorak site - a link to a cut down version of a TV advert for the USA's first offshore wind farm. Yep, though it may be difficult to believe, that does say first!!
And Senator Kennedy is trying to stop it - something about obscuring his view!
Worth the thirty seconds or so it takes to watch.
And Senator Kennedy is trying to stop it - something about obscuring his view!
Worth the thirty seconds or so it takes to watch.
Ready. Aim.. er, who gets fired, again?
Although I loathe most targets as the box-ticking wastes of resource they can be, I can see the need for measures. But what is the point of them if there are almost no consequences to their being met. Or not? UK 'may miss 2020 target for CO2'
'Ministers rejected the think tank's claims for several years before finally conceding it was correct.'
I can think of a few ways to save money and do some stuff that may actually help.
Indy - Britain 'miles away' from hitting targets on carbon emissions - Make that 'will miss, I guess'. Standby by for some major bonus-protecting measures from those in charge that will be designed to meet targets if not actually help the planet.
Indy - A mountain awaits the Climate Tsar - Great, the big solution is to create a new job. And how many 'Tsars' can you think of that achieved diddly?
'Ministers rejected the think tank's claims for several years before finally conceding it was correct.'
I can think of a few ways to save money and do some stuff that may actually help.
Indy - Britain 'miles away' from hitting targets on carbon emissions - Make that 'will miss, I guess'. Standby by for some major bonus-protecting measures from those in charge that will be designed to meet targets if not actually help the planet.
Indy - A mountain awaits the Climate Tsar - Great, the big solution is to create a new job. And how many 'Tsars' can you think of that achieved diddly?
A little bit more on the side?
In view of the notion that spending a fortune whacking and then promoting a selection of diverse labels on the side of our packs will inform, educate and persuade us to deal with our consumer goods more environmentally, this is worth considering: Food labels 'hoodwink' shoppers
Sweet. Or, should I say, 500g/kg serving fructose.
Sweet. Or, should I say, 500g/kg serving fructose.
Arctic ice cover hits new record low
A little while back there were several predictions that this year the annual summer melt would mean that the arctic ice cover would reach a new record low. This from the BBC on August 13th is one such report.
As of the 16th August, the ice cover had already retreated to what was its previous record minimum extent. See these dramatic images from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Now, as of the 22nd August, it is "currently tracking at 4.92 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles), already below the 2005 record absolute minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles)"; and there are still perhaps 4 to 6 weeks of melting to go yet!
No wonder the Arctic gold (Oil) rush seems to have already begun!
And its getting so warm that the Innuit are now wandering around wearing T shirts and sandals! (As reported in today's Gruaniad)
As of the 16th August, the ice cover had already retreated to what was its previous record minimum extent. See these dramatic images from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Now, as of the 22nd August, it is "currently tracking at 4.92 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles), already below the 2005 record absolute minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles)"; and there are still perhaps 4 to 6 weeks of melting to go yet!
No wonder the Arctic gold (Oil) rush seems to have already begun!
And its getting so warm that the Innuit are now wandering around wearing T shirts and sandals! (As reported in today's Gruaniad)
Who are we gonna listen to?
Or, for that matter, understand. I share what I think is a very interesting post from Real Climate, telling as much for how they are saying it as what is said: Who ya gonna call?
To be honest it was an effort. But I detected two themes. One, the main one, was that a lot of science needs a lot of time before anything definitive can be arrived at. Fair enough.
Second, a lot of media don't want to wait that long. Sadly true.
I think one poster was suggesting therefore that to report on such things a journalist needs to be scientifically qualified, which is sweet in theory but ain't gonna happen.
But overall what do I, a poor schmo trying get through the fog to a answer, derive from this?
Not very much is the personal answer. There seems to be a lot of fiddling while Rome burns, and there are still too many who are happy to be vying for lead in the string section of the orchestra rather than grabbing the nearest fire extinguisher.
To be honest it was an effort. But I detected two themes. One, the main one, was that a lot of science needs a lot of time before anything definitive can be arrived at. Fair enough.
Second, a lot of media don't want to wait that long. Sadly true.
I think one poster was suggesting therefore that to report on such things a journalist needs to be scientifically qualified, which is sweet in theory but ain't gonna happen.
But overall what do I, a poor schmo trying get through the fog to a answer, derive from this?
Not very much is the personal answer. There seems to be a lot of fiddling while Rome burns, and there are still too many who are happy to be vying for lead in the string section of the orchestra rather than grabbing the nearest fire extinguisher.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
OH, SOLAR MIO
This could be a help in my quest to decide on the merits, ROI and enviROI, of solar: Solar photovoltaic panels could lead to cheques from your electricity supplier
It comes from a post in Treehugger, which has other worthy info.
Nice to see the UK on top of such issues, and with our weather that it can seem to work!
It comes from a post in Treehugger, which has other worthy info.
Nice to see the UK on top of such issues, and with our weather that it can seem to work!
Sounds.. Looks Intriguing
Frankly anything that's about the environment with a luvvie celeb attached is enough for me to head straight for the Hummer dealers, but I must say this has my interest piqued: The 11th Hour
If only for this comment: '...it’s got everything An Inconvenient Truth was missing…solutions. It should be regarded as the crown jewel for the kid movie star turned environmentalist, Leonardo DiCaprio, as an engaging review of what the global community is facing due to environmental decay and what we can do about it.'
I like solutions. And am quite aware already thank you. Let's hope it lives up to this review.
If only for this comment: '...it’s got everything An Inconvenient Truth was missing…solutions. It should be regarded as the crown jewel for the kid movie star turned environmentalist, Leonardo DiCaprio, as an engaging review of what the global community is facing due to environmental decay and what we can do about it.'
I like solutions. And am quite aware already thank you. Let's hope it lives up to this review.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
"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
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)