I just had through a bit of research entitled: UK consumers sit on the fence while climate change debate rages
From site Combat Climate Change, it goes on more insightfully to ask: Climate change: a real threat or an excuse for state meddling and stealth taxes? Well, as it stands, I am erring on both, and think a few agree. Which may explain the fence straddling bit.
With all due cautions* we always advise on the origins, extent, methodologies and possible agendas behind any and all research, it's worth sharing.
More than 45% of UK consumers confess they find the climate change debate confusing.
Only 45%?!
Of these, 41% of these admit they have delayed taking direct personal action to reduce their carbon footprint while they get to grips with the complex scientific arguments – even though a staggering 93% are well aware they can also save money by saving energy.
The personal action side is explicable. Why act to reduce 'fun' when there is a get out, albeit vague? The lack of desire to save money anyway is simply... inexplicable.
The survey revealed that more women (56%) than men (37%) find the climate change debate confusing – but women aren’t letting this confusion hold them back, and they equal men in their commitment to reduce their carbon footprint.
Nature vs. nurture? And without getting Germaine Greered, despite younger females now doing better at science I reckon the facts and figures being hurled around may be of more interest to the male mind.
Of those who find the climate change debate confusing, young baby boomers aged 55 to 64 are least likely (30%) to let the confusion hold them back from taking direct personal action to save energy and reduce their carbon footprint; those aged 16-24 were most likely to let the confusion hold them back (50%).
I hate to guess, but I doubt it's confusion; just an excuse for not wishing to miss out on the next iPod upgrade or stay in making something rather than hitting Ibiza. This is often the problem with research into social issues. Who and how many are going say ''Yes, I'm a selfish scumbucket and could care less!'. Other than Jeremy Clarkson, natch.
Overall, 79% of UK consumers believe the threat of climate change to be real. Those living in Greater London (87%) are most likely to be concerned about global climate change; those in the North East take a more cynical view, with 27% admitting they are non believers.
I am surprised, pleasantly, to see them so high. If concerned that belief does not seem to translate into much action.
The research also revealed:
· 40% of us leave a washing machine/dishwasher/electronic appliance on standby every day
Designers... manufacturers! Legislators! Kill the standby! In light of the tip below, which I practice, it's worth noting that once the cycle is complete, it stays 'on' 'til morning.
· 47% have yet to replace their light bulbs with low-energy alternatives
Just one word: plonkers. That said, I am testing a few brands as we speak having had a supermarket 'deal' effort blow in about two months. There are low-energy bulbs. There are long life bulbs. There are low energy, long life bulbs. And there are... ways to get us to blow money in the name of green that really has no ROI or enviROI basis at all. So be cautious!
· 19% rarely turn off home computing peripherals when shutting down their PC
Peripherals...no brainer. But on the PC front, well, here the old fence bit comes in. I don't know for sure yet. First up there's the old 'on/off' debate on damage to hard drive from spinning up and down to often being worse than leaving on... even environmentally. Also, the whole nighttime upgrade thing. Mine certainly seems to sort a few things out in the wee smalls. I wish there were a definite, trusted source of what to do on this. The science can't be that hard, surely? Mind you, if we can't get any sense yet on wind farms, what are the odds?
MD Stewart Grew, says: “Where individual consumers stand on climate change is largely irrelevant. That’s a matter of personal conscience, and we could spend years debating the finer points while millions of people sit on the fence.
“The fact is, by saving energy now, every individual can save money – and they just might save the planet at the same time. If all the concerns are real, they will have done their bit for the world. If it all turns out to be so much hot air, then they will have made their own world a better place anyway. Everyone wins.”
And I can't fault that sentiment one jot.
They also have some tips to: Save Energy, Save Money. Again, can't argue... and in fact have been banging on in a similar vein for years. Worth sharing as they are a bit more £-centric than the usual quango/committee efforts that abound:
1. Buy plug-in timers
They save you money by turning on your appliances only when they are needed. And if you are on one of the cheaper, night rates for your electricity, by running your washing machine and dishwasher overnight you could save up to 50% of the cost of running them during the day.
And timer solves the standby issue! I am, by the by, in process of doing a in-home test of several for review on the site soon.
2. Invest in a multi-plug board for your PC
Electrical equipment left on standby in the UK wastes £740 million of energy every year. By switching your computer peripherals off, rather than leaving them on standby, you can save both energy and money.
3. Replace your old GLS light bulbs
Energy saving light bulbs last up to 12 times longer than ordinary light bulbs, and can save you £100 over the bulb’s lifetime – as well as 38kg of CO2 per year!
*The survey was conducted by market research agency TNS. It was conducted over the internet from 14th – 16th August 2007 and involved a sample of 1002 GB adults aged 16-64. The sample was weighted to represent the adult population of Great Britain aged 16-64.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
All in the best possible taste
I won't list them, as it's across the board, but pretty much all the media have reported on the consequences of Jamie Oliver's healthy meals campaign.
The results... have not been encouraging. Across several areas.
I have to say the collective feral lips-licking at what I do think was a sincere effort to be a little distasteful, but to sure there are lessons to be learned and also consequences being paid, and still to pay.
Mostly I am selfishly concerned at just how difficult it is to persuade people to do good , even if it is to save their own sorry hides.
If this is the result of a multimillion PRD thrust then what chance for most things 're', which are 'good' but not always fun.
Except most on Junkk.com, of course.
The results... have not been encouraging. Across several areas.
I have to say the collective feral lips-licking at what I do think was a sincere effort to be a little distasteful, but to sure there are lessons to be learned and also consequences being paid, and still to pay.
Mostly I am selfishly concerned at just how difficult it is to persuade people to do good , even if it is to save their own sorry hides.
If this is the result of a multimillion PRD thrust then what chance for most things 're', which are 'good' but not always fun.
Except most on Junkk.com, of course.
Trouble with targets
As a morning diversion I decided to take this quiz: Highway Code
I failed. And it is an interesting metaphor to the target obsessed culture we live in why.
To pass you are allowed one miss in ten. One I am ashamed to say I did miss was a question on guide dogs. Though I would have to say any dog I treat with caution when driving, no matter what.
The other, and the one which 'failed' me, was on the diatnce you could park from a junction. I put the minimum too far away.
So I was 'wrong' by being over-cautious.
I dread to think what other numpty questions, especially key ones on safety or daft ones on 'procedure' there are in there that won't sift out good drivers and common sense driving from bad, but will tick some boxes.
I failed. And it is an interesting metaphor to the target obsessed culture we live in why.
To pass you are allowed one miss in ten. One I am ashamed to say I did miss was a question on guide dogs. Though I would have to say any dog I treat with caution when driving, no matter what.
The other, and the one which 'failed' me, was on the diatnce you could park from a junction. I put the minimum too far away.
So I was 'wrong' by being over-cautious.
I dread to think what other numpty questions, especially key ones on safety or daft ones on 'procedure' there are in there that won't sift out good drivers and common sense driving from bad, but will tick some boxes.
I sometimes forget Junkk.com is mainly about ideas
I just uploaded the Squidstand to the site.While the base is a bit of fun, I am very proud of the 'clip' system, which will hold even a floppy piece of A4 tall and proud.
And it came to me simply be staring at a collection of new-fangled tin lids.
Now I'm thinking what else can be made using this system.
Where's an old wife when you need one?
Tomorrow the boys go back to school. And as if to complement the change in domestic regime, as I fussed about the kitchen this morning it seemed a tad parky.Now what to do? The sun is still shining, and at day's end last night was a vision of topless manhood catching the last rays of the day painting an exterior wall.
But somewhere in my being is an odd notion, I suspect inserted by a young wife whose physiology is more attuned to a daily 32 degrees, that old houses with thick stone walls need to be warmed from within while it's still clement to keep roasty-toasty come winter. Miss the window and you are in a chill zone throughout.
Thing is, that hardly tallies with the eco-cred. Or the drop a degree brigade.
Now I know what our power suppliers think, because already I am seeing banners a) telling me to pop the rads on, but b) do it with their tariff... to save the environment.
I just wondered if there was any actual science on the matter out there?
Monday, September 03, 2007
What, no spin cycle first?
I point you at this, ironically via the Daily Telegraph: Google News prods newspapers towards the future
I guess getting stuff with one less level of journalistic input may be better, but I'm sure it will get spun a bit en route.
I guess getting stuff with one less level of journalistic input may be better, but I'm sure it will get spun a bit en route.
Some rubbish even I can't take
I actually applied for this, I think: Dumped recycles an old idea
I clicked on at the moment some blonde with access to considerable makeup resources was telling some bloke that he wasn't making them feel useful. And then HE said...
I'm sure it will be taken as a compliment but it was just so much of the same old rubbish I could cope with no more.
Big Brother in a bin.
A bullet got dodged, I know. And I should have stayed to watch, but even I have limits.
Telegraph - Shame on the schedulers
I clicked on at the moment some blonde with access to considerable makeup resources was telling some bloke that he wasn't making them feel useful. And then HE said...
I'm sure it will be taken as a compliment but it was just so much of the same old rubbish I could cope with no more.
Big Brother in a bin.
A bullet got dodged, I know. And I should have stayed to watch, but even I have limits.
Telegraph - Shame on the schedulers
Pipe Dreams
This seems a potentially worthwhile example of eco-cooperation: Toyota and EDF launch recharge points for electric cars
On the matter of semantics, they may be (are they in all uses, or just urban?) 'more' friendly, but no matter how wizzo cannot be deemed to actually help the environment by being made and/or driven.
On the matter of semantics, they may be (are they in all uses, or just urban?) 'more' friendly, but no matter how wizzo cannot be deemed to actually help the environment by being made and/or driven.
It must be true; it's on the BBC
Golly. You don't get much more unequivocal than this: Green taxes 'are making billions'
Though it does in turn refer to a report, there are no 'may's' here. Simply, 'The government is raising billions of pounds more in green taxes than it needs to remove the UK's "carbon footprint".
Either the BBC is in pendulum swing mode after its rather slavish eco-reporting to date, or things are getting 'interesting'. Why can't we just get the real facts???!
Personally, I am not so concerned about the amount taken in the name of green (though any excess is, well, excessive), but I do care very much where it is all going. Especially in a climate when targets take precedence over tangibles where it matters.
For a start, finding out if it is to support genuine CO2 reduction initiatives at all, and if it is how good they are. Funding a dodgy turbine scheme or the bonus for a quango re-director does not make my kids' future much better as far as I can figure.
BBC - Costing the Earth - And it has impacted on others, directing to an FoE reply which, sadly, I found a tad thin on substance.
Though it does in turn refer to a report, there are no 'may's' here. Simply, 'The government is raising billions of pounds more in green taxes than it needs to remove the UK's "carbon footprint".
Either the BBC is in pendulum swing mode after its rather slavish eco-reporting to date, or things are getting 'interesting'. Why can't we just get the real facts???!
Personally, I am not so concerned about the amount taken in the name of green (though any excess is, well, excessive), but I do care very much where it is all going. Especially in a climate when targets take precedence over tangibles where it matters.
For a start, finding out if it is to support genuine CO2 reduction initiatives at all, and if it is how good they are. Funding a dodgy turbine scheme or the bonus for a quango re-director does not make my kids' future much better as far as I can figure.
BBC - Costing the Earth - And it has impacted on others, directing to an FoE reply which, sadly, I found a tad thin on substance.
Cutting to the heart
Maybe this should be called... when good ads go bad?
I'm just not sure advocating carving your name in trees is that healthy.
But I guess it is getting knocked down soon so it doesn't matter:)
I'm just not sure advocating carving your name in trees is that healthy.
But I guess it is getting knocked down soon so it doesn't matter:)
Offsetting journalistic integrity
This will make me popular. I've tried to answer a Telegraph travel writer's (how do they get to afford 2nd homes?) question: Corporate guilt breeds corporate jargon
At least you care enough to ask the question. I'm not sure the two answers derived so far are going to help much, though. Or indeed most others you may get (from the carbon 'industry') that may seem to be more factual.
Personally I can think of worse things than a second home, so long as you don't leave the heat/aircon (preferbaly it's fan-cooled anyway) running (depending on location) when you're not there. And if it's rented out then the person there is not 'emitting' elsewhere. Other than travel... which is just the start of how complex all this is.
On balance offsetting seems to me at least marginally better than not doing anything at all in mitigation, though certainly not as good as not adding more C02 than you otherwise might (again, a tricky call. I'd prefer you in a villa in France accessed by EuroStar than flying business to report on a property fair in Dubai, staying in a 6* emissions column - read Leo Hickman's Final Call ).
So you're right that we have become a nation obsessed with our footprints, fed in no small measure by 'awareness' campaigns such as the latest, ActonC02, that really do little else than make us worry a lot with little real information. And that opens the doors for the unscrupulous to pounce, seemingly with little regulation.
Because, like you (and with the dubious advantage of being exposed to perhaps a bit more info in my line of work) I have no real idea what 'it' actually involves in all its manifestations. And until I am, preferably with help from those who profess to care about my kids' future (from activist to government - didn't Davids Miliband (when Enivro dude) and Cameron both 'float' offsets trading as part of their respective proposals?), I'll have to suspect those not being clearer about their Green intentions, and hiding behind faceless jargon, are doing so with good reason: serving their interests. I doubt corporate guilt has much to do with it, as they only have that if and when caught out.
And those seem to have naught to do with my kids' futures if it's to create a decent enviROI, which may (another debate, but I'm sold on man's negative contribution) be derived from reduced CO2. You're right that whacking a fir in the firmament hardly seems the best way (better, to me, if you are in the need to 'make up', is to reduce deforestation - I could argue the science from my own limited background, but an existing carbon sink being lost that's in excess the USA's total annual emissions annually seems like a quick fix worth not losing). Though not all offsetters, to be fair, are just in to trees as the 'solution' .
Wouldn't it be nice to have more clarity from all involved in the 'carbon' industry, including preachy media, and rather than ratings-producing 'tis/tisn't facts and debates that get us nowhere, we have tangibles that let us assess the situation and act on it sensibly and in good conscience?
I have tried to be fair and balanced. But I hope my frustration with a media more keen on stirring the pot (look at the replies she got) than getting to a useful solution does not come through too negatively that my point does not get made.
At least you care enough to ask the question. I'm not sure the two answers derived so far are going to help much, though. Or indeed most others you may get (from the carbon 'industry') that may seem to be more factual.
Personally I can think of worse things than a second home, so long as you don't leave the heat/aircon (preferbaly it's fan-cooled anyway) running (depending on location) when you're not there. And if it's rented out then the person there is not 'emitting' elsewhere. Other than travel... which is just the start of how complex all this is.
On balance offsetting seems to me at least marginally better than not doing anything at all in mitigation, though certainly not as good as not adding more C02 than you otherwise might (again, a tricky call. I'd prefer you in a villa in France accessed by EuroStar than flying business to report on a property fair in Dubai, staying in a 6* emissions column - read Leo Hickman's Final Call ).
So you're right that we have become a nation obsessed with our footprints, fed in no small measure by 'awareness' campaigns such as the latest, ActonC02, that really do little else than make us worry a lot with little real information. And that opens the doors for the unscrupulous to pounce, seemingly with little regulation.
Because, like you (and with the dubious advantage of being exposed to perhaps a bit more info in my line of work) I have no real idea what 'it' actually involves in all its manifestations. And until I am, preferably with help from those who profess to care about my kids' future (from activist to government - didn't Davids Miliband (when Enivro dude) and Cameron both 'float' offsets trading as part of their respective proposals?), I'll have to suspect those not being clearer about their Green intentions, and hiding behind faceless jargon, are doing so with good reason: serving their interests. I doubt corporate guilt has much to do with it, as they only have that if and when caught out.
And those seem to have naught to do with my kids' futures if it's to create a decent enviROI, which may (another debate, but I'm sold on man's negative contribution) be derived from reduced CO2. You're right that whacking a fir in the firmament hardly seems the best way (better, to me, if you are in the need to 'make up', is to reduce deforestation - I could argue the science from my own limited background, but an existing carbon sink being lost that's in excess the USA's total annual emissions annually seems like a quick fix worth not losing). Though not all offsetters, to be fair, are just in to trees as the 'solution' .
Wouldn't it be nice to have more clarity from all involved in the 'carbon' industry, including preachy media, and rather than ratings-producing 'tis/tisn't facts and debates that get us nowhere, we have tangibles that let us assess the situation and act on it sensibly and in good conscience?
I have tried to be fair and balanced. But I hope my frustration with a media more keen on stirring the pot (look at the replies she got) than getting to a useful solution does not come through too negatively that my point does not get made.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Wind in the willows - not great for energy generation, though
It is hard not to be more than a little perturbed by this (and the feelings expressed in the attached, if hilarious, ad): Wind farm cash-in for renewable energy companies
When trust is in such short supply, with issues of climate change seemingly so critical, we really need to get to what positive enviROI solutions there are and throw our weight behind them.
This kind of thing doesn't help much. All I can point to is the caveat '...it has been claimed', which merely makes me point to the media's role in all this.
'Experts said claims of wind farm potential were being overestimated...' Who, where, what... how? And this pointing at the BBC, who are not usually known for their green-critiques, if 'BBC is biased' current debates are to be cited.
I have to say, the figures do not look good. I just hope that I may one day get a proper analysis and something approaching the truth.
I must try and locate this Radio 4 Costing the Earth source.
The nuts of 'may'
Central targets MAY hinder long term waste objectives according to a report funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
...because reuse activities did not contribute to recycling targets.
A, blooming, men.
...because reuse activities did not contribute to recycling targets.
A, blooming, men.
Tackling the right issues head on
There seems to be a perhaps not so odd trend to try and ignore potent, but not so convenient facts when trying to push a cause and/or steer public behaviour. But in the very odd hope that people do not have eyes of their own, and brains to figure out what is affecting them the most.
Hence I fully understand why it is a good eco thing to holiday in Britain but, as I have mentioned before, beyond the weather (maybe self-correcting), the sheer cost is a massive factor in our family decisions. Beyond sitting in a tent on the Wye and eating home-cooked sausages (very nice but after four years a bit of a chore... and bore), the money one blows is prohibitive vs. a bit of sun, sea and sand overseas.
And then there's cycling. I really have not one thing to say against it on almost any basis, though the realities of a 5 mile ride up and down hills in a winter rainstorm to and from work seems to make some advocacy 'optimistic'.
However, there is one thing I'm afraid a few public service campaigns will not sway me on, and that's safety. And when it comes to my kids, that is a problem, no matter how many BBC slots on kids cycling get aired.
Yesterday I decided to take my boys on the road for the first time, them having passed their cycling proficiency. Before it was a 10 minute drive to their chum's house. This time it was 30 minutes. Nice weather. Glorious. And in having to go to a fro twice I got a work out.
Thing is, as we returned and pedalled slowly but surely in convoy up a long hill to town, I was almost knocked off by a clown who just had to get past to then immediately turn left across my bow and then, worse, a psycho decided the car he was following as it approached us at a legal 30mph needing overtaking. He only just got back into his lane as he reached my boys and I.
Short of cars being banned, which ain't gonna happen, and dangerous driving being enforced by police and not revenue robots, which has long since passed into the stuff of bad humour, and actual criminals being prosecuted rather than soft money targets, I don't think I am going to be letting my kids loose on this country's roads alone.
No matter how many boxes may get ticked trying to persuade me.
Hence I fully understand why it is a good eco thing to holiday in Britain but, as I have mentioned before, beyond the weather (maybe self-correcting), the sheer cost is a massive factor in our family decisions. Beyond sitting in a tent on the Wye and eating home-cooked sausages (very nice but after four years a bit of a chore... and bore), the money one blows is prohibitive vs. a bit of sun, sea and sand overseas.
And then there's cycling. I really have not one thing to say against it on almost any basis, though the realities of a 5 mile ride up and down hills in a winter rainstorm to and from work seems to make some advocacy 'optimistic'.
However, there is one thing I'm afraid a few public service campaigns will not sway me on, and that's safety. And when it comes to my kids, that is a problem, no matter how many BBC slots on kids cycling get aired.
Yesterday I decided to take my boys on the road for the first time, them having passed their cycling proficiency. Before it was a 10 minute drive to their chum's house. This time it was 30 minutes. Nice weather. Glorious. And in having to go to a fro twice I got a work out.
Thing is, as we returned and pedalled slowly but surely in convoy up a long hill to town, I was almost knocked off by a clown who just had to get past to then immediately turn left across my bow and then, worse, a psycho decided the car he was following as it approached us at a legal 30mph needing overtaking. He only just got back into his lane as he reached my boys and I.
Short of cars being banned, which ain't gonna happen, and dangerous driving being enforced by police and not revenue robots, which has long since passed into the stuff of bad humour, and actual criminals being prosecuted rather than soft money targets, I don't think I am going to be letting my kids loose on this country's roads alone.
No matter how many boxes may get ticked trying to persuade me.
And if we can get cows to burp into a mask...
First up, I am grateful for what I see as a genuinely positive example of sponsorship, namely Carbon Trust letting one have free access to the Econmist's editorial on the environment.
Which is how I came across this: The great submarine burp
Interesting stuff. Of course one has to be a tad concerned that the main thrust is in finding more sources and hence more ways to burn stuff, no matter how much better.
A shame there can't be a way to economically (and with decent enviROI) capture the raw gas (at its 25x climate damaging multiplier to our exhalations) capture the raw gas from such as Daisy or, more practically, the peat-bog, permafrost domes that I have rad may soon be issuing forth.
At least that way it is intercepting a problem to supply an extension on our energy addictions.
BBC - UK peatlands face future stress - QED
Which is how I came across this: The great submarine burp
Interesting stuff. Of course one has to be a tad concerned that the main thrust is in finding more sources and hence more ways to burn stuff, no matter how much better.
A shame there can't be a way to economically (and with decent enviROI) capture the raw gas (at its 25x climate damaging multiplier to our exhalations) capture the raw gas from such as Daisy or, more practically, the peat-bog, permafrost domes that I have rad may soon be issuing forth.
At least that way it is intercepting a problem to supply an extension on our energy addictions.
BBC - UK peatlands face future stress - QED
"They ain't making any more of it!"
Is the self-supplied justification of, I believe, Mark Twain to his suggestion that one should 'invest in land'. And when you read such as this - Food demand and climate straining soils - you have to see merit.
Not just as a financial motive, but simple survival.
Of course, there are a few bits and bobs such as Hong Kong and Singapore that show a tad more may be added, but not much, soglobally it's not looking too great.
Though meant as a caution, I stumbled a bit on these words: "With a rising world population and biofuels, more land is needed".
Maybe it may be better to get it into the mindset that no 'more' land should needed, as that can only mean being 'converted' into anything other than what it is doing now. Which in turn surely means figuring out - quick - how to cap demand... on housing, fuel, etc, so we can dedicate what we have to supporting who we have with what it can.
You can see where I am going, but like so many, I guess I am skirting the big issue because it's not too pop...ular. But I guess obsessing on plastic bags rather than deforestation does secure a more convenient gig for the pols, media and activist brigades.
With a head well and truly done in trying to simply cope with the datafest and slanging matches of the BOFDIs and their opposing, equally well-funded talkers, I think I need to tune back a bit and concentrate on doing my little bit to reduce waste.
Newsnight - Food production
Not just as a financial motive, but simple survival.
Of course, there are a few bits and bobs such as Hong Kong and Singapore that show a tad more may be added, but not much, soglobally it's not looking too great.
Though meant as a caution, I stumbled a bit on these words: "With a rising world population and biofuels, more land is needed".
Maybe it may be better to get it into the mindset that no 'more' land should needed, as that can only mean being 'converted' into anything other than what it is doing now. Which in turn surely means figuring out - quick - how to cap demand... on housing, fuel, etc, so we can dedicate what we have to supporting who we have with what it can.
You can see where I am going, but like so many, I guess I am skirting the big issue because it's not too pop...ular. But I guess obsessing on plastic bags rather than deforestation does secure a more convenient gig for the pols, media and activist brigades.
With a head well and truly done in trying to simply cope with the datafest and slanging matches of the BOFDIs and their opposing, equally well-funded talkers, I think I need to tune back a bit and concentrate on doing my little bit to reduce waste.
Newsnight - Food production
Gamekeeper turned gamekeeper?
I note that WRAP has a new guy in charge of what gets shared with us: WRAP Appoints New Director of Communications
His predecessor has been advised as leaving to join the BBC, though in what capacity I am not sure.
Nick Gammage brings broad communications experience from the public and private sectors to the WRAP Executive team. Having begun his career as a newspaper journalist, he held several senior communications posts in Whitehall before becoming Director of Communications at the telecoms regulator OFTEL.
In recent years, Nick has served as Director of Communications for the Consumers’ Association, the London Stock Exchange, and most recently in the City for Lloyd’s insurance market, where he set up a communications operation in the United States and helped steer the market through the aftermath of the worst hurricane season on record which led to record claims.
All of which I am sure will be of fantastic help in conveying messages to and creating engagement with consumers and the general public more attuned to the efforts of branded fmcg advertisers, as been so successfully achieved to date. Expenditures of multi-millions on campaigns to tell us, for instance, 'to recycle', have generated increased rates that have easily met the targets that warrant significant bonuses.
Here's hoping the WRAP output may now return a decent enviROI, or even just ROI on the ad spend.
His predecessor has been advised as leaving to join the BBC, though in what capacity I am not sure.
Nick Gammage brings broad communications experience from the public and private sectors to the WRAP Executive team. Having begun his career as a newspaper journalist, he held several senior communications posts in Whitehall before becoming Director of Communications at the telecoms regulator OFTEL.
In recent years, Nick has served as Director of Communications for the Consumers’ Association, the London Stock Exchange, and most recently in the City for Lloyd’s insurance market, where he set up a communications operation in the United States and helped steer the market through the aftermath of the worst hurricane season on record which led to record claims.
All of which I am sure will be of fantastic help in conveying messages to and creating engagement with consumers and the general public more attuned to the efforts of branded fmcg advertisers, as been so successfully achieved to date. Expenditures of multi-millions on campaigns to tell us, for instance, 'to recycle', have generated increased rates that have easily met the targets that warrant significant bonuses.
Here's hoping the WRAP output may now return a decent enviROI, or even just ROI on the ad spend.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Many happy returns of the day, er, 6 months, er...
RE:tie burbles along, and I'm getting to a point soon where we try and sell it. So I was amused by this: Dragons’ Den reject eyes riches abroad
And especially this: Reflecting on news of Gordon’s success, Ms Elnaugh (she'd be 'the founder of Red Letter Days, which collapsed later that year, said it was the “most ridiculous” she had ever heard of) reportedly said she is pleased he has done well, but said investors want to see a return in six months, rather than the three-year window he envisages.
I'd say I'd always like to see a return within a decent period, but so long as you make more than you spend and cover costs and time it's going to be ok. And if in being so determined to get it in 6 months rather than 3 years one ends up going bust, I think you get all you didn't deserve.
I believe there are a few Dragon's Den successes out there, but mainly I'd say all involved (with the exception of the inspired guys who gave it a go and pitched despite the obvious desire of the makers not to support or motivate the true entrepreneurial spirits, but solely to seek car-crash TV) should hang their egotistical (judges), ratings-driven (production and BBC) heads in shame.
And especially this: Reflecting on news of Gordon’s success, Ms Elnaugh (she'd be 'the founder of Red Letter Days, which collapsed later that year, said it was the “most ridiculous” she had ever heard of) reportedly said she is pleased he has done well, but said investors want to see a return in six months, rather than the three-year window he envisages.
I'd say I'd always like to see a return within a decent period, but so long as you make more than you spend and cover costs and time it's going to be ok. And if in being so determined to get it in 6 months rather than 3 years one ends up going bust, I think you get all you didn't deserve.
I believe there are a few Dragon's Den successes out there, but mainly I'd say all involved (with the exception of the inspired guys who gave it a go and pitched despite the obvious desire of the makers not to support or motivate the true entrepreneurial spirits, but solely to seek car-crash TV) should hang their egotistical (judges), ratings-driven (production and BBC) heads in shame.
Bin Money
I was listening to the radio yesterday on the way to a meeting, when Martin Lewis' moneysavingexpert slot came on the Jeremy Vine Show.
I'm attuned even more to this as I've noticed some sign-ups on Junkk.com that cite this as the source.
He certainly gets a lot of tips and tricks to share, which probably explains his success. Though I remain at little confused as to the way his business model works, falling as it does between a few I'm aware of. It's free of course, but also makes play of being ad free. However there's a lot of promotion for various offers flying about, plus his own products, such as books, via our very own public broadcast system. I must see how to get in on that act.
Anyway, they had a bit where folk phoned in with their tips, and I was aching to call in with my own, as several were eco in nature. Frankly most were a bit naff, if not daft (like some on our ideas pages!).
But they really liked one guy's list which, amongst others, involved swiping cans out of people's recycling boxes and selling them to recyclers.
Now I am not sure about the legality of that (mini-totting?), but it is telling that what 'we' are asked/required to do for free is recognised to provide a significant income from those who collect from us.
I wonder how much more people would recycle if the profit motive was payed up.. and upon?
I'm attuned even more to this as I've noticed some sign-ups on Junkk.com that cite this as the source.
He certainly gets a lot of tips and tricks to share, which probably explains his success. Though I remain at little confused as to the way his business model works, falling as it does between a few I'm aware of. It's free of course, but also makes play of being ad free. However there's a lot of promotion for various offers flying about, plus his own products, such as books, via our very own public broadcast system. I must see how to get in on that act.
Anyway, they had a bit where folk phoned in with their tips, and I was aching to call in with my own, as several were eco in nature. Frankly most were a bit naff, if not daft (like some on our ideas pages!).
But they really liked one guy's list which, amongst others, involved swiping cans out of people's recycling boxes and selling them to recyclers.
Now I am not sure about the legality of that (mini-totting?), but it is telling that what 'we' are asked/required to do for free is recognised to provide a significant income from those who collect from us.
I wonder how much more people would recycle if the profit motive was payed up.. and upon?
What's in Vogue?
Commy time! The disconnect between those who would talk about saving the palnet and what gets done around them continues: Rich pickings
Wasn't Vogue one of those that for a wee while had a 'green' phase and/or issue? Bless.
While no real excuse, but as a reason I think there may be a problem with all this climate change activity now being in the hands of celebrity and the media that serves and feeds off them to create vehicles to flog stuff to the wealthy.
And that is what on earth such folk would do with all the money they have worked so hard to accrue (or... not) if they did/could not spent it with obscene purchase sprees or jaunts to ever more exotic places.
And what, exactly, does it say that there is such a thing as a 'luxury goods specialist'?
With a bevvy of the necessary number of journalistic chroniclers in tow, of course.
Guardian - What can you do with a brick-sized Vogue?- Sounds like a question for Junkk.com!
Wasn't Vogue one of those that for a wee while had a 'green' phase and/or issue? Bless.
While no real excuse, but as a reason I think there may be a problem with all this climate change activity now being in the hands of celebrity and the media that serves and feeds off them to create vehicles to flog stuff to the wealthy.
And that is what on earth such folk would do with all the money they have worked so hard to accrue (or... not) if they did/could not spent it with obscene purchase sprees or jaunts to ever more exotic places.
And what, exactly, does it say that there is such a thing as a 'luxury goods specialist'?
With a bevvy of the necessary number of journalistic chroniclers in tow, of course.
Guardian - What can you do with a brick-sized Vogue?- Sounds like a question for Junkk.com!
News, views and whose who's?
I had better watch myself!
I was just having my breakfast when Newswatch came on with a 'special' from Edinburgh based on the recent TV Fest (was it so recent? It feels an age ago. So I had more than a splutter when they read out a quote from 'regular'.... me! It was my comment that they should stop asking for opinions and then not pay a blind bit of notice to them. So I guess I can't fault them paying attention... and sharing... though still stick by that opinion. I'm of course feeling awkward, because I think I went on to say that I'd given up commenting on Newswatch because I had no sense that it went beyond the featured edit-sneer (not Mr. Snoddy, who is in the unenviable role of posing some nasty questions to colleagues and does do so... though I too often feel that he asks, they answer and... nothing more happens) basically saying it wasn't a problem and if it was they didn't really care.
But if they are taking note maybe I will plug away a bit more.
Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to Biased BBC.
By virtue of a thing that pops up to advise me of a new comment (some RSS doo-dad I should get to figure out on here, probably), I do get seduced back a fair bit.
But it is proving a bit of a trial. I fear most of the diamonds are getting well and truly swamped by the rough, and there is a lot of rough.
I'm learning some lessons about forum and blog management for here, but one thing I certainly believe I'll keep is my moderator approval facility. It's pretty anti-democratic I guess, especially when I complain about it on several other sites, but while I am actually not so concerned about the more PC-concerns that most retain this facility to censure, I feel I need a check for (if it ever happens - so far I have found debate here to be refreshingly civilised and based on fact more than opinion) the selective cut and paste 'tis/tisn't' epic exchanges that I am seeing on the site, usually between two totally entrenched protagonists.
As I mentioned in my appeal (I guess that was what you'd call it) on their blog, cherry-picking something, and that includes a link, really doesn't serve the story or an observer's ability to track it well enough to make a judgment. And I fear that where there may be valuable debate some, like me, simply switch off and leave them to fill ether-space with usually increasing name-calling as they spiral to nowhere.
While I'm not a fan of the Newsnight 'twofer' style, I do see merit in inviting, or welcoming, diverse opinions, and then having a central, hopefully objective but informed moderator, ready to intervene to request claims are properly substantiated before moving on. Too often I see things, even in the major online media, simply popped in, and possibly countered, but not to my satisfaction, or at least enough to know what the actual facts are.
I think I will revise my participation with BBC is Biased to more of an observer role, and use it to act as a valuable potential counterpoint to some sloppy reporting I know does occur. They do catch some howlers!
One thing to note (and to be fair to the site), is that it does pin its colours to its blog title, so it's a tad silly to expect it to be that balanced in itself. It's there to find out what is perceived to be bias in the BBC. Fair enough. They can hardly be expected to fall over themselves to 'put the other side', but it looks like there are enough to provide such context (or call out the more rabid extremes) to make it a reasonable resource to use still.
I was just having my breakfast when Newswatch came on with a 'special' from Edinburgh based on the recent TV Fest (was it so recent? It feels an age ago. So I had more than a splutter when they read out a quote from 'regular'.... me! It was my comment that they should stop asking for opinions and then not pay a blind bit of notice to them. So I guess I can't fault them paying attention... and sharing... though still stick by that opinion. I'm of course feeling awkward, because I think I went on to say that I'd given up commenting on Newswatch because I had no sense that it went beyond the featured edit-sneer (not Mr. Snoddy, who is in the unenviable role of posing some nasty questions to colleagues and does do so... though I too often feel that he asks, they answer and... nothing more happens) basically saying it wasn't a problem and if it was they didn't really care.
But if they are taking note maybe I will plug away a bit more.
Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to Biased BBC.
By virtue of a thing that pops up to advise me of a new comment (some RSS doo-dad I should get to figure out on here, probably), I do get seduced back a fair bit.
But it is proving a bit of a trial. I fear most of the diamonds are getting well and truly swamped by the rough, and there is a lot of rough.
I'm learning some lessons about forum and blog management for here, but one thing I certainly believe I'll keep is my moderator approval facility. It's pretty anti-democratic I guess, especially when I complain about it on several other sites, but while I am actually not so concerned about the more PC-concerns that most retain this facility to censure, I feel I need a check for (if it ever happens - so far I have found debate here to be refreshingly civilised and based on fact more than opinion) the selective cut and paste 'tis/tisn't' epic exchanges that I am seeing on the site, usually between two totally entrenched protagonists.
As I mentioned in my appeal (I guess that was what you'd call it) on their blog, cherry-picking something, and that includes a link, really doesn't serve the story or an observer's ability to track it well enough to make a judgment. And I fear that where there may be valuable debate some, like me, simply switch off and leave them to fill ether-space with usually increasing name-calling as they spiral to nowhere.
While I'm not a fan of the Newsnight 'twofer' style, I do see merit in inviting, or welcoming, diverse opinions, and then having a central, hopefully objective but informed moderator, ready to intervene to request claims are properly substantiated before moving on. Too often I see things, even in the major online media, simply popped in, and possibly countered, but not to my satisfaction, or at least enough to know what the actual facts are.
I think I will revise my participation with BBC is Biased to more of an observer role, and use it to act as a valuable potential counterpoint to some sloppy reporting I know does occur. They do catch some howlers!
One thing to note (and to be fair to the site), is that it does pin its colours to its blog title, so it's a tad silly to expect it to be that balanced in itself. It's there to find out what is perceived to be bias in the BBC. Fair enough. They can hardly be expected to fall over themselves to 'put the other side', but it looks like there are enough to provide such context (or call out the more rabid extremes) to make it a reasonable resource to use still.
Friday, August 31, 2007
STOP PRESS! Lord Haw Haw to avoid noddies to ensure more balance!
A bit of a thing about trust in Newsnight, leading to some hairy debates on the blog about climate change, with a few equally hairy links to even more hairy debates elsewhere. As always the argument seems still to be revolving more around whether MMCC is happening or not, at the expense of DOING anything. And the media sits back and laps it all up.
I learn new things, and make decisions on information provided by the media. My trust on getting either, accurately, honestly and without agenda (skewed professional or personal/ideological) to the point that truth is 'enhanced’ to no longer be the truth, has been sorely tried of late. And not much restored by most efforts in damage control. Not least by the almost inevitable knee-jerk of broadcasters and their defiant, defensive representatives, which goes usually something like; 'It didn't happen. If it did, we didn't do it. If we did it didn't matter. If does matter, it wasn't our fault (it was a mystical 'them' of outside companies, ill-trained and, one presumes, unsupervised trainees, budgets cuts, current precedent, etc) - and if it was who cares as no one is going to be held to account at all, or if so long enough for things not to wash over. Or if it is looking like dragging on we'll have a bit of a review until it does blow out'.
So of all that could be on the agenda, the pressing issues of "noddies" and "staged questions" are not really high on mine. Which makes me wonder why it is so high, in fact to the exclusion of almost all else, from Ch5 to here. I could not be more under whelmed, though I do note that you can nod with a smile or a frown to seriously redirect the viewer’s perception of what has just transpired. And a reverse question, which I hadn't appreciated until now, seems a great way to get a seemingly horse’s mouth answer to whatever horse’s rear question you fancy asking. Artifice is all. So maybe this is, as the CH 5 editor admitted, at least a start. Just... go further. Even if it may mean changing entrenched views and practices.
All I ask is that, in future, we get told what happened, as it happened. And if we have to be subjected to commentary or analysis by vox pops from the first punter strolling by the studio to 'experts' waiting on call in the wine bar next door, there is not a sneaking suspicion that they have been preselected for what they will say, and/or post-edited to ensure that what they do say fits into place.
Meanwhile, back to saving the planet.
Let me nail my colours to the mast. I think the climate is changing, and for the worse. I think personkind and its consumerist activities may be a possible cause, and certainly cannot be helping (more people buying ever more stuff and rushing around more and more on a finite space with finite atmosphere suggest some kind of tipping point when it comes to the results of inevitable competition and pollution - or, to be polite, 'emissions' - such activity causes)
So I think some things need to be understood, and while we're at it a few other things need to be instigated. Quick. Sadly doing nothing while we argue is an option that, while seeming to be balanced, tends to favour the status quo, and of that I am not in favour.
Hence I tend to err on simply showing folk, and hopefully persuading them, that consuming more than we need, or can use, is perhaps not the best thing to do. Or better yet share the amazing number and scope of things that can be done to avoid pollution and save waste that exist already, and which can go a long way to saving the planet along with a bunch of money.
Another celeb fest ain't it.
To paraphrase Mr. Geldof a wee while ago about another mighty waste of [insert a load of nouns here], I don't need my 'consciousness' raised any more than it is already, ta very much. And I certainly don't need the kind of awareness boost that happened as a result of Live Earth.
My enduring memories are mainly of the negative coverage before, during and after, inspired, with some validity, by such as a Spice holding her child and 'doing it for her', and a week later getting a personal jet with each of her power sisters in case they have too much shopping or get into a hissy fit as they tour the world. Or, on the day, Mr. Ross and such mates who could be bothered to come for a bit of profile and cheap weekend entertainment, basically playing the fool and pretty much saying that all this cutting back really wasn't for them... but they do wee-cycle, like that's all it takes.
If you are a high-profile mega-star, with squillions to burn, with few exceptions ( I think there are some), you are going to have trouble resisting that wadge of wonga and not buy stuff and/or going lots of places to show it off. And a vast media industry depends on you doing so to get the shots they need.
It's just lazy, celeb-obsessed programming to get a few execs and D-list interviewers to play all day in the Green-elite VIP room, and fill a long slot on the cheap in the cause of 'awareness’.
Stick with what's going to make a difference please. I was convinced by your piece on deforestation. It may not be sexy, but not cutting down a tree seems to make more sense than planting a sapling to make up for Puff Diddly's hairdresser's dog's helicopter trip. Or, for that matter, the one to show us what a potentially infectious virus-infected barn may look like if you blow enough wind around it. Or the iceberg in the Far North the entire crew has flown up to look at with a totally white background in shot, to impress upon us the damage of unnecessary trips.
And if we are sincere in moving public behaviour in a real sense that has a decent enviROI, what about such issues as reducing domestic energy consumption and preventing unnecessary waste through loss. Get creative and educate and convince with these first... in major way. Not some 2 second ‘turn the thermostat down’ piety to a bunch of waste-junkies sent to a hair-shirt camp for 24 hrs. Real life, and people, don’t live like that, or face the issues in that way. And, I believe, turn off when confronted with such nonsense.
And don't jump on bandwagons. I don't know, so I simply ask. Are carrier bags and plastic bottles and 4x4s the things that are top of the list in dragging us to oblivion? If energy production and consumption is the single greatest home (and hence viewer) influenced protagonist in all this, can we devote serious journalistic energy and investigation and balanced debate to what is being spent and what the actual benefits (or not) are of alternatives? If an offshore wind farm is not making as much sense as it might, I’d like to know, and why (I actually thought Justin's piece on home turbines went a long way to rasing some key issues and questions on this aspect).
I am appalled that thanks to almost total superficiality devoted to such topics by our major media, I am in the position of being swayed by other sources who are questioning what government is doing (with the support of media capable of little more than rehashing press releases) to help my kids' futures, and simply seem more concerned with meeting a target, boosting a political career or a quango exec's bonus cheque.
I simply can't understand why the facts of these huge issues cannot be found, or made clearer, to help us figure out for ourselves what's best for our futures.
Or we not to be trusted with such decisions?
Divide and rule, guys. Divide and rule.
ClimateChangeCorp - Buying green energy: A corporate power play, with unintended consequences
BBC is Biased - A few points on the wind power issue. I still await answers to my questions, on Newsnight, sadly. Maybe better luck here.
"Windmills get a big thumbs up from the BBC" - er... like this BBC Costing The Earth programme
Is there a link to something online about this?
I have one major concern with climate issues, and that is the enviROI of proposed solutions. I don't mind, and can even applaud doing something 'for the planet' though it may not make great sense financially (on a personal level... blowing public funds is another story if there are better uses environmentally), but for my kids' sake I get very unhappy if whatever it is may not even make sense on a carbon reduction basis from instigation through operation to 'retirement'.
Hence if, for instance, the massive weight of support in the media for such as offshore wind farms may be less than balanced, I'm keen to know more. With facts and true expert opinion. Not PR from subsidised-body/contractor/operator spokespersons.
BBC Newsnight - Noddy's not dead - Nice title!
'The first thing to say is that the issue of editing shots is in a different league from the incidents of deception and dishonesty which have caused turmoil in the TV industry in recent months.'
And well said. Plus, it is to be hoped, to also be well acted upon.
Credit too, at least, for listening.
Noddies - well, ok, but please ensure that there is no hint of anything in the interviewer's manner other than being to accept the narrative flow.
Reverse questions - Hmn. Still sounds to me like an opportunity to alter perception, if only by changing the tonality of the question. I can't quite figure out why the actual question and actual answer can't sit together. In this day and age the lack of another digicam locked off on a tripod as an excuse seems poor.
Walking shots - Yaaay! Along with those awful 'door open/first time we've met... not' efforts, I hope. A view, I suspect, shared by many interviewees, who just look silly. Big up to your cameraman. I just wonder how easy it is to get a truly 'natural' shout with a crew, boom mike, lights and whatnot.
Note: This rejected, again, by what I suspect to be another technological glitch. This time to prevent 'abuse' though multiple posts. Thing is, this is my first attempt at this thread. At least the message is polite. Patience, Peter, patience.
ADDENDUM - Spinwatch on Newsnight - a link I gleaned from BBC is Biased, so it does indeed still have values making it worth scoping. It's a long piece and covers a lot but as a thorough blow by blow it's hard to fault. The analysis could be argued to set out to prove an agenda, but again some of the facts, skillfully presented to be sure, are again hard to fault. They go further than have I, but for sure this is a shared frustration of the 'twofer' interviewee technique I don't feel contributes much beyond stirring things up, both through the selection of who speaks, and what they are steered to say. Transcript - don't know how they do it (well, I guess I do. I often record and jot stuff down and capture images, so what am I talking about. ) but it's very handy!
Guardian - The camera sometimes lies - Who cares, wins
I learn new things, and make decisions on information provided by the media. My trust on getting either, accurately, honestly and without agenda (skewed professional or personal/ideological) to the point that truth is 'enhanced’ to no longer be the truth, has been sorely tried of late. And not much restored by most efforts in damage control. Not least by the almost inevitable knee-jerk of broadcasters and their defiant, defensive representatives, which goes usually something like; 'It didn't happen. If it did, we didn't do it. If we did it didn't matter. If does matter, it wasn't our fault (it was a mystical 'them' of outside companies, ill-trained and, one presumes, unsupervised trainees, budgets cuts, current precedent, etc) - and if it was who cares as no one is going to be held to account at all, or if so long enough for things not to wash over. Or if it is looking like dragging on we'll have a bit of a review until it does blow out'.
So of all that could be on the agenda, the pressing issues of "noddies" and "staged questions" are not really high on mine. Which makes me wonder why it is so high, in fact to the exclusion of almost all else, from Ch5 to here. I could not be more under whelmed, though I do note that you can nod with a smile or a frown to seriously redirect the viewer’s perception of what has just transpired. And a reverse question, which I hadn't appreciated until now, seems a great way to get a seemingly horse’s mouth answer to whatever horse’s rear question you fancy asking. Artifice is all. So maybe this is, as the CH 5 editor admitted, at least a start. Just... go further. Even if it may mean changing entrenched views and practices.
All I ask is that, in future, we get told what happened, as it happened. And if we have to be subjected to commentary or analysis by vox pops from the first punter strolling by the studio to 'experts' waiting on call in the wine bar next door, there is not a sneaking suspicion that they have been preselected for what they will say, and/or post-edited to ensure that what they do say fits into place.
Meanwhile, back to saving the planet.
Let me nail my colours to the mast. I think the climate is changing, and for the worse. I think personkind and its consumerist activities may be a possible cause, and certainly cannot be helping (more people buying ever more stuff and rushing around more and more on a finite space with finite atmosphere suggest some kind of tipping point when it comes to the results of inevitable competition and pollution - or, to be polite, 'emissions' - such activity causes)
So I think some things need to be understood, and while we're at it a few other things need to be instigated. Quick. Sadly doing nothing while we argue is an option that, while seeming to be balanced, tends to favour the status quo, and of that I am not in favour.
Hence I tend to err on simply showing folk, and hopefully persuading them, that consuming more than we need, or can use, is perhaps not the best thing to do. Or better yet share the amazing number and scope of things that can be done to avoid pollution and save waste that exist already, and which can go a long way to saving the planet along with a bunch of money.
Another celeb fest ain't it.
To paraphrase Mr. Geldof a wee while ago about another mighty waste of [insert a load of nouns here], I don't need my 'consciousness' raised any more than it is already, ta very much. And I certainly don't need the kind of awareness boost that happened as a result of Live Earth.
My enduring memories are mainly of the negative coverage before, during and after, inspired, with some validity, by such as a Spice holding her child and 'doing it for her', and a week later getting a personal jet with each of her power sisters in case they have too much shopping or get into a hissy fit as they tour the world. Or, on the day, Mr. Ross and such mates who could be bothered to come for a bit of profile and cheap weekend entertainment, basically playing the fool and pretty much saying that all this cutting back really wasn't for them... but they do wee-cycle, like that's all it takes.
If you are a high-profile mega-star, with squillions to burn, with few exceptions ( I think there are some), you are going to have trouble resisting that wadge of wonga and not buy stuff and/or going lots of places to show it off. And a vast media industry depends on you doing so to get the shots they need.
It's just lazy, celeb-obsessed programming to get a few execs and D-list interviewers to play all day in the Green-elite VIP room, and fill a long slot on the cheap in the cause of 'awareness’.
Stick with what's going to make a difference please. I was convinced by your piece on deforestation. It may not be sexy, but not cutting down a tree seems to make more sense than planting a sapling to make up for Puff Diddly's hairdresser's dog's helicopter trip. Or, for that matter, the one to show us what a potentially infectious virus-infected barn may look like if you blow enough wind around it. Or the iceberg in the Far North the entire crew has flown up to look at with a totally white background in shot, to impress upon us the damage of unnecessary trips.
And if we are sincere in moving public behaviour in a real sense that has a decent enviROI, what about such issues as reducing domestic energy consumption and preventing unnecessary waste through loss. Get creative and educate and convince with these first... in major way. Not some 2 second ‘turn the thermostat down’ piety to a bunch of waste-junkies sent to a hair-shirt camp for 24 hrs. Real life, and people, don’t live like that, or face the issues in that way. And, I believe, turn off when confronted with such nonsense.
And don't jump on bandwagons. I don't know, so I simply ask. Are carrier bags and plastic bottles and 4x4s the things that are top of the list in dragging us to oblivion? If energy production and consumption is the single greatest home (and hence viewer) influenced protagonist in all this, can we devote serious journalistic energy and investigation and balanced debate to what is being spent and what the actual benefits (or not) are of alternatives? If an offshore wind farm is not making as much sense as it might, I’d like to know, and why (I actually thought Justin's piece on home turbines went a long way to rasing some key issues and questions on this aspect).
I am appalled that thanks to almost total superficiality devoted to such topics by our major media, I am in the position of being swayed by other sources who are questioning what government is doing (with the support of media capable of little more than rehashing press releases) to help my kids' futures, and simply seem more concerned with meeting a target, boosting a political career or a quango exec's bonus cheque.
I simply can't understand why the facts of these huge issues cannot be found, or made clearer, to help us figure out for ourselves what's best for our futures.
Or we not to be trusted with such decisions?
Divide and rule, guys. Divide and rule.
ClimateChangeCorp - Buying green energy: A corporate power play, with unintended consequences
BBC is Biased - A few points on the wind power issue. I still await answers to my questions, on Newsnight, sadly. Maybe better luck here.
"Windmills get a big thumbs up from the BBC" - er... like this BBC Costing The Earth programme
Is there a link to something online about this?
I have one major concern with climate issues, and that is the enviROI of proposed solutions. I don't mind, and can even applaud doing something 'for the planet' though it may not make great sense financially (on a personal level... blowing public funds is another story if there are better uses environmentally), but for my kids' sake I get very unhappy if whatever it is may not even make sense on a carbon reduction basis from instigation through operation to 'retirement'.
Hence if, for instance, the massive weight of support in the media for such as offshore wind farms may be less than balanced, I'm keen to know more. With facts and true expert opinion. Not PR from subsidised-body/contractor/operator spokespersons.
BBC Newsnight - Noddy's not dead - Nice title!
'The first thing to say is that the issue of editing shots is in a different league from the incidents of deception and dishonesty which have caused turmoil in the TV industry in recent months.'
And well said. Plus, it is to be hoped, to also be well acted upon.
Credit too, at least, for listening.
Noddies - well, ok, but please ensure that there is no hint of anything in the interviewer's manner other than being to accept the narrative flow.
Reverse questions - Hmn. Still sounds to me like an opportunity to alter perception, if only by changing the tonality of the question. I can't quite figure out why the actual question and actual answer can't sit together. In this day and age the lack of another digicam locked off on a tripod as an excuse seems poor.
Walking shots - Yaaay! Along with those awful 'door open/first time we've met... not' efforts, I hope. A view, I suspect, shared by many interviewees, who just look silly. Big up to your cameraman. I just wonder how easy it is to get a truly 'natural' shout with a crew, boom mike, lights and whatnot.
Note: This rejected, again, by what I suspect to be another technological glitch. This time to prevent 'abuse' though multiple posts. Thing is, this is my first attempt at this thread. At least the message is polite. Patience, Peter, patience.
ADDENDUM - Spinwatch on Newsnight - a link I gleaned from BBC is Biased, so it does indeed still have values making it worth scoping. It's a long piece and covers a lot but as a thorough blow by blow it's hard to fault. The analysis could be argued to set out to prove an agenda, but again some of the facts, skillfully presented to be sure, are again hard to fault. They go further than have I, but for sure this is a shared frustration of the 'twofer' interviewee technique I don't feel contributes much beyond stirring things up, both through the selection of who speaks, and what they are steered to say. Transcript - don't know how they do it (well, I guess I do. I often record and jot stuff down and capture images, so what am I talking about. ) but it's very handy!
Guardian - The camera sometimes lies - Who cares, wins
Thursday, August 30, 2007
World Bank & HSBC Investing In Deforestation?
Having put themselves forward as the world's leading 'green' bank, the HSBC, in compliance with the World Bank no less, and the Royal Bank of Scotland, amongst others; and having put themselves up on a 'green' pedestal to be shot at; seem to be taking every opportunity to provide people with ammunition.
This article, from Greenpeace, provides what appears to be fairly substantial evidence that the World Bank have heavily invested in, and HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland provide financial services, to a business, 'Olam International', who are accused of illegal logging activities. These activities are directly contradictory to HSBC's much vaunted and publicly stated policy on forestry.
As the article states:- "If financial institutions put their money quite literally where their mouth is, they can force companies to adopt more responsible practices - without investment, companies like Olam can't continue to make vast profits from environmental destruction. "
Sorry, but if you want to crow about being green, then you cannot possibly be seen to be supporting or providing services to a business involved in illegal logging operations.
Nuff said!
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) - Climate change and the environment: UK business turns a paler shade of green
No excuse, but a reason may be the simple inevitability of massive organisation's structures. A cock-up is inevitable. That said, how the ethos has not been expressed and hence pervaded every pore by now, especially after £25M external comms in the UK alone, begs the question as to whether what they say is the same as what they feel... and hence do.
This article, from Greenpeace, provides what appears to be fairly substantial evidence that the World Bank have heavily invested in, and HSBC and the Royal Bank of Scotland provide financial services, to a business, 'Olam International', who are accused of illegal logging activities. These activities are directly contradictory to HSBC's much vaunted and publicly stated policy on forestry.
As the article states:- "If financial institutions put their money quite literally where their mouth is, they can force companies to adopt more responsible practices - without investment, companies like Olam can't continue to make vast profits from environmental destruction. "
Sorry, but if you want to crow about being green, then you cannot possibly be seen to be supporting or providing services to a business involved in illegal logging operations.
Nuff said!
ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) - Climate change and the environment: UK business turns a paler shade of green
No excuse, but a reason may be the simple inevitability of massive organisation's structures. A cock-up is inevitable. That said, how the ethos has not been expressed and hence pervaded every pore by now, especially after £25M external comms in the UK alone, begs the question as to whether what they say is the same as what they feel... and hence do.
Trading post
Eco-innovation again. This time on carbon trades/offsets.
I played a part, but one post realy nails it well, I feel.
I hope it's OK to share it here:
Changing people's habits is a very complicated task. We can all speak
for ourselves in this point.
Certainly, saving money or making money is one of the most effective
arguments to get people moving towards a goal. Sometimes, even more
effective than necessity, logic, or intelligence.
In that sense, putting individuals into the Carbon Market is a very
interesting and creative concept. But what's the gain in these
cell-phone products besides the yearly
30-dollars-discount-in-your-cell-phone-bill?
Nothing against making profit. Sustainable, green businesses are the solution!
But let's see how this business really works: Each individual gets
US$30 a year, some peace of mind, and an argument to talk about the
environment. The cell phone companies will have a new product, a few
millions, and a green marketing campaign. And the carbon market system
will just be less, and less effective. So what's up for the
environment?
And what is this premise that people would be "on the road in a car
putting loads of CO2"? If I walk 2 blocks for groceries I'll be
entitled for carbon credits??? Is it so much more natural to choose
the car than the bike?
What we're seeing in these products is that it's easier to make profit
with global warming than to actually deal with it.
And that's precisely the problem with the carbon market itself. Is it
a palliative, or is it just a new, interesting business opportunity?
Obviousely, alone, it is not a solution. And certainly, it needs more
regulation before carbon ends up as another highly over-rated
commodity in some emerging country's stock market bubble.
I played a part, but one post realy nails it well, I feel.
I hope it's OK to share it here:
Changing people's habits is a very complicated task. We can all speak
for ourselves in this point.
Certainly, saving money or making money is one of the most effective
arguments to get people moving towards a goal. Sometimes, even more
effective than necessity, logic, or intelligence.
In that sense, putting individuals into the Carbon Market is a very
interesting and creative concept. But what's the gain in these
cell-phone products besides the yearly
30-dollars-discount-in-your-cell-phone-bill?
Nothing against making profit. Sustainable, green businesses are the solution!
But let's see how this business really works: Each individual gets
US$30 a year, some peace of mind, and an argument to talk about the
environment. The cell phone companies will have a new product, a few
millions, and a green marketing campaign. And the carbon market system
will just be less, and less effective. So what's up for the
environment?
And what is this premise that people would be "on the road in a car
putting loads of CO2"? If I walk 2 blocks for groceries I'll be
entitled for carbon credits??? Is it so much more natural to choose
the car than the bike?
What we're seeing in these products is that it's easier to make profit
with global warming than to actually deal with it.
And that's precisely the problem with the carbon market itself. Is it
a palliative, or is it just a new, interesting business opportunity?
Obviousely, alone, it is not a solution. And certainly, it needs more
regulation before carbon ends up as another highly over-rated
commodity in some emerging country's stock market bubble.
Symbolic, Shambolic
A poster on the Eco-innovation blog asked what some IKEA box symbols meant. I may not have been much help:
They're a sure sign that with waste and almost all to do with saving the planet, the process is too often usually more important than the result, symbolized by things going round and round in circles. It doesn't matter if the consumer doesn't have a clue what these things mean or what they can do to help mitigate their inevitable participation in the waste generation process, so long as the manufacturer and/or retailer meet some standards, rules or regs and at least look like they are trying to make things better. Actually it’s the same for most government/LA/quango efforts too, where bazzillions are blown telling us to recycle but few coordinated systems are provided to allow the public to do so sensibly or indeed share what can (or jar or bottle...) go where. All inspired mainly by bonus-driven targets of questionable enviROI, and way too often enforced by threats. I often stop to help folk standing in front of a skip with ‘PEP & HDPE (1-??) only’ written on the side to tell 'em the first is usually a fizzy pop bottle and the second is, or maybe isn't, the other stuff. Probably with a surveillance squad in the house opposite in case Fifi, aged 6, puts the wrong box in the slot. Jargon is all. And just what we need to save the planet is another set of complex initiatives. I’m half expecting a CDR attached to my next pack of Smarties to explain the various carbon footprint and air mile labeling schemes on top of the various supermarket opted-in charts, roundels and traffic lights on health. With a CDR on that to explain the best options for dealing with it too. Which I will not have time to get my head around as I cruise the aisles, and hence ignore. But at least it makes for a good CSR story to run an ad campaign on and wave at the legislators. I'd suggest the time may be ripe for actually getting the disposal systems in order from the moment anything comes out the ground to the point we try and avoid it going back in, with well-spaced process plants, sensible logistical systems, segregation points clearly placed and even more clearly marked and really, really clearly explained and.... a proper incentive programme in place to encourage people to believe it all goes to the right place and makes a big difference. Or, if it doesn't, or can't, be honest enough to explain that too, so folk don't drive their XC90s to the carpark to then find it's off to a Chinese landfill and get disillusioned. Treat the environment and its proactive initiatives as branded items or services to ‘sell’ like any other product, and not some complicated dirty chore with secret stuff only those ‘in the know’ can be allowed to deal with, and there may be a better level of engagement. And if a recycling option isn't ready yet, try reuse (Plug: http://www.Junkk.com is ready to share or take your suggestions on what to do with just about anything destined for the bin, which may enjoy another life). I've dallied with this arena a while, and didn't really even know what the first two meant other than 'something to do with recycling’. Or care too much anyway if no one can be bothered to help me understand easily. I just figure if it's a primary packaging material it should be and can be recyclable by now (and, while interesting and nifty, doubt I have ever bought anything or not because its pack is made from recycled materials, though it seems worthy to do and hence advise), so stick cardboard, glass, metal and probably even the odd wrong plastic in whatever doorstep box or supermarket container that comes my way. I think the 3rd symbol means you can turn the thing into a BBQ pit, and the last a Step Reebok stand, but I may be wrong:)
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
While we revert to doing nothing ......
.... others at least try to address the problem properly.
We have commented on the recent downgrading of the UK parliamentary committee on climate change several times recently; see final paragraph in Met Office Prediction - Heatwaves and Here's the weather summary posts as examples.
So whilst our own parliamentary committee has been turned into a toothless and clawless tiger by Ol' Golden Brown, why is it that other countries are setting up special committees with power to start to address the climate change problem? In Ireland, for example, as reported in the Belfast Telegraph.
Does Gordon simply hate the topic of climate change? Is he hoping that the problem will just go away if he ignores it? Or has the prospect of spending £20 billion plus [as mentioned in the second of the two posts above] on protecting London (as the seat of power) from future flooding scared him into silence?
The two things he does seem to be good at are saying nothing and being invisible!
We have commented on the recent downgrading of the UK parliamentary committee on climate change several times recently; see final paragraph in Met Office Prediction - Heatwaves and Here's the weather summary posts as examples.
So whilst our own parliamentary committee has been turned into a toothless and clawless tiger by Ol' Golden Brown, why is it that other countries are setting up special committees with power to start to address the climate change problem? In Ireland, for example, as reported in the Belfast Telegraph.
Does Gordon simply hate the topic of climate change? Is he hoping that the problem will just go away if he ignores it? Or has the prospect of spending £20 billion plus [as mentioned in the second of the two posts above] on protecting London (as the seat of power) from future flooding scared him into silence?
The two things he does seem to be good at are saying nothing and being invisible!
'America's going to have to change'
A very brave, or perhaps, prophetic, comment from Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards; as reported today in Guardian Unlimited.
Edwards, currently running third in the nomination polls behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, seems to be pinning his chances on pricking the consciences of the American masses; even to the extent of suggesting that they have to give up their SUV's!!
He also moots "a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions that is lowered each year".
He's either, a very brave man with clear and eco-friendly ideas and visions, or, desperately trying to get himself some improved poll ratings!
Edwards, currently running third in the nomination polls behind Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, seems to be pinning his chances on pricking the consciences of the American masses; even to the extent of suggesting that they have to give up their SUV's!!
He also moots "a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions that is lowered each year".
He's either, a very brave man with clear and eco-friendly ideas and visions, or, desperately trying to get himself some improved poll ratings!
LA stories
I subscribe to a (by invitation to comment I think, but hopefully free to access) website called the 'eco-innovation network, which shares interesting e-snippets and of course subsequent forum feedback.
It just occurred to me that what I write I should share here.
One of the latest struck a chord, whereby a post about grants for alt- energy projects elicited an interesting response from an obviously cluey local Authority officer and prompted me to ask a few questions of my own. It is ongoing and will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Below is what I wrote by way of some questions, which I really hope to get answers to because if there is no such collation of resource there blooming well should be. To much in this country is about fractured empires, and not enough about coherent national policy. Especially when it comes to saving our kids' futures. These guys have a wealth of experience and it should be shared if it is not, and shared better than now if it is.
I was wondering:
a) Is there a single, trustworthy, accurate, easy-to-comprehend analysis anywhere of the relative merits of various alt. energy systems the UK consumer can consider (allowing that there will of course be variations based on local conditions (wind speed/duration, sun exposure, etc))?
b) Is there any listing comparison of the experiences and considerations behind, plus support for (in the form of grants as you have listed) initiatives by local authorities countrywide.
As a simple consumer making decisions based on the enviROI (cost to planet) as much as the ROI (to self) of all such options, I find what you have written of great interest and find it odd that I cannot find (at least easily) such invaluable collected wisdom on what works and may not be so great, with associated cost/benefit analyses.
I'd very much like to see this collated and indeed would consider offering to try and do so on behalf of consumers via my site (your council, as have others, is already always welcome to its own free page to share such information, and anything else of an enviro+ nature already, but this issue could benefit from being tabulated for easy access and comprehension). It's possible the information may exist, but either in fragmented form or in specialist areas. Or simply not in a public-friendly form. Or... I have missed it!
If not, it would seem a very worthy thing to do to try and pull it all together.
Frankly I see such initiatives, and the support behind them by authorities such as yours, as much more valuable to my kids' futures than the bazillions being blown on a few high-profile communications exercises floating about of late.
By my understanding, on a personal/domestic basis the reduction of waste and reduced dependence on energy from fossil fuels will offer the best and most immediate chances for carbon reduction, and I can't quite figure why more is not being done to coordinate and support this nationally.
ADDENDUM - he has kindly replied, if slightly in the way I'd expect from an LA officer:
Every District/Borough/Unitary Council in England has a statutory duty to promote, educate, inform and advise on energy conservation and many have taken this a step further to include renewable, sustainable energy, carbon reduction and climate change.
There are national agencies such as the Energy Saving Trust (EST) and the Carbon Trust that will offer the same advice to householders and businesses respectively.
The EST fund a nationwide chain of 52 energy efficiency advice centres that are designed to advise householders. These are situated in most Counties if not Regions.
If you are fortunate enough to live in the East of England there is a regional agency, Renewables East, set up to promote renewable energy in this region.
I belong to an organisation called the Association of Environmentally Conscious Builders, AECB, have a look at their website it will help plus they have a discussion board.
The British Wind Energy Association, BWEA, the National Energy Foundation, NEF, are both good sources.
If you do searches on any of these organisations you will find their websites, most have further links to others.
As have I in return:
That answers my questions, but also, I'd say, still suggests some opportunities if any agree with my notion that such localised expertise and data could be usefully pooled and shared nationally in a consumer-friendly, and persuasive manner.
All would benefit from knowing what works and would be best to improve one's domestic enviROI (with possible/probable healthy actual ROI, too), from the consumer to the LA to the planet, if we know what can be done, how easy it is to do it ... and what cost savings can be made.
I think this deserves a lot more effort than some others that are getting way too much attention, as reducing energy usage and insulating against waste has to be one of the more sensible areas to tackle first to see some big wins.
I'm sorry, but as a householder with a greater than average interest in, and engagement with such issues, those entities you point me at just don't seem to be reaching me. I wonder if they are others. But I will look at the sites you suggest, ta.
Edie - Councils leading the way with green technology - bearing in mind Dave's comment, that may be 'a' view, certainly.
It just occurred to me that what I write I should share here.
One of the latest struck a chord, whereby a post about grants for alt- energy projects elicited an interesting response from an obviously cluey local Authority officer and prompted me to ask a few questions of my own. It is ongoing and will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Below is what I wrote by way of some questions, which I really hope to get answers to because if there is no such collation of resource there blooming well should be. To much in this country is about fractured empires, and not enough about coherent national policy. Especially when it comes to saving our kids' futures. These guys have a wealth of experience and it should be shared if it is not, and shared better than now if it is.
I was wondering:
a) Is there a single, trustworthy, accurate, easy-to-comprehend analysis anywhere of the relative merits of various alt. energy systems the UK consumer can consider (allowing that there will of course be variations based on local conditions (wind speed/duration, sun exposure, etc))?
b) Is there any listing comparison of the experiences and considerations behind, plus support for (in the form of grants as you have listed) initiatives by local authorities countrywide.
As a simple consumer making decisions based on the enviROI (cost to planet) as much as the ROI (to self) of all such options, I find what you have written of great interest and find it odd that I cannot find (at least easily) such invaluable collected wisdom on what works and may not be so great, with associated cost/benefit analyses.
I'd very much like to see this collated and indeed would consider offering to try and do so on behalf of consumers via my site (your council, as have others, is already always welcome to its own free page to share such information, and anything else of an enviro+ nature already, but this issue could benefit from being tabulated for easy access and comprehension). It's possible the information may exist, but either in fragmented form or in specialist areas. Or simply not in a public-friendly form. Or... I have missed it!
If not, it would seem a very worthy thing to do to try and pull it all together.
Frankly I see such initiatives, and the support behind them by authorities such as yours, as much more valuable to my kids' futures than the bazillions being blown on a few high-profile communications exercises floating about of late.
By my understanding, on a personal/domestic basis the reduction of waste and reduced dependence on energy from fossil fuels will offer the best and most immediate chances for carbon reduction, and I can't quite figure why more is not being done to coordinate and support this nationally.
ADDENDUM - he has kindly replied, if slightly in the way I'd expect from an LA officer:
Every District/Borough/Unitary Council in England has a statutory duty to promote, educate, inform and advise on energy conservation and many have taken this a step further to include renewable, sustainable energy, carbon reduction and climate change.
There are national agencies such as the Energy Saving Trust (EST) and the Carbon Trust that will offer the same advice to householders and businesses respectively.
The EST fund a nationwide chain of 52 energy efficiency advice centres that are designed to advise householders. These are situated in most Counties if not Regions.
If you are fortunate enough to live in the East of England there is a regional agency, Renewables East, set up to promote renewable energy in this region.
I belong to an organisation called the Association of Environmentally Conscious Builders, AECB, have a look at their website it will help plus they have a discussion board.
The British Wind Energy Association, BWEA, the National Energy Foundation, NEF, are both good sources.
If you do searches on any of these organisations you will find their websites, most have further links to others.
As have I in return:
That answers my questions, but also, I'd say, still suggests some opportunities if any agree with my notion that such localised expertise and data could be usefully pooled and shared nationally in a consumer-friendly, and persuasive manner.
All would benefit from knowing what works and would be best to improve one's domestic enviROI (with possible/probable healthy actual ROI, too), from the consumer to the LA to the planet, if we know what can be done, how easy it is to do it ... and what cost savings can be made.
I think this deserves a lot more effort than some others that are getting way too much attention, as reducing energy usage and insulating against waste has to be one of the more sensible areas to tackle first to see some big wins.
I'm sorry, but as a householder with a greater than average interest in, and engagement with such issues, those entities you point me at just don't seem to be reaching me. I wonder if they are others. But I will look at the sites you suggest, ta.
Edie - Councils leading the way with green technology - bearing in mind Dave's comment, that may be 'a' view, certainly.
Maybe the first, but it won't be the last!
Greenwashing and greencloaking seem to be all the rage at the moment, but businesses need to beware just what they claim; tell porkies and you WILL be outed.
This from PRWatch details one such case from the Australian Woolworths business, outed by an anonymous blogger, and creating a glorious own-goal. They even went so far as to invent an organisation! They have now had to withdraw the entire product range involved!
That's the first goal to the consumers that I've seen documented so far.
Greenwash Corporates 0 - Consumers United 1.
And we're only in the first minutes of the game yet!
_______________________
And now this from today's Indy - not greenwashing, but a case of deliberate corporate obfuscation (charge-cloaking?) from the HSBC where charges are, according to them, well, not charges!
This from PRWatch details one such case from the Australian Woolworths business, outed by an anonymous blogger, and creating a glorious own-goal. They even went so far as to invent an organisation! They have now had to withdraw the entire product range involved!
That's the first goal to the consumers that I've seen documented so far.
Greenwash Corporates 0 - Consumers United 1.
And we're only in the first minutes of the game yet!
_______________________
And now this from today's Indy - not greenwashing, but a case of deliberate corporate obfuscation (charge-cloaking?) from the HSBC where charges are, according to them, well, not charges!
Telly addicts
We need a change of climate at the BBC - An interesting commentary from a writer at the Indy.
While the caveat in mitigation seems almost obligatory, but as a fellow 'unbeliever' in the value of 'these great on-air festivals of niceness', I'd prefer to think of reasoned lack of enthusiasm not as being 'grumpy', but rational.
Live Earth, the last great punt of its type, was pants.
This analysis is interesting: '...while they may be good for the Corporation's image and even for ratings, these orgies of public conscience are not raising awareness at all. They are raising emotion. Mass expressions of analysis-free caring, they are essentially mass expressions of faith.'
Especially as it leads to this: 'When faith replaces thought and T-shirt slogans take the place of discussion, then people quite soon are only prepared to hear the message in which they already believe. Any talk of the more difficult issues is regarded as a disguise for apathy, yet another game that cynical politicians like to play.'
While the caveat in mitigation seems almost obligatory, but as a fellow 'unbeliever' in the value of 'these great on-air festivals of niceness', I'd prefer to think of reasoned lack of enthusiasm not as being 'grumpy', but rational.
Live Earth, the last great punt of its type, was pants.
This analysis is interesting: '...while they may be good for the Corporation's image and even for ratings, these orgies of public conscience are not raising awareness at all. They are raising emotion. Mass expressions of analysis-free caring, they are essentially mass expressions of faith.'
Especially as it leads to this: 'When faith replaces thought and T-shirt slogans take the place of discussion, then people quite soon are only prepared to hear the message in which they already believe. Any talk of the more difficult issues is regarded as a disguise for apathy, yet another game that cynical politicians like to play.'
At the end of the tunnel.... vision...
EU urged to scrap light bulb duties
Makes sense.
Though I personally think there is some merit in looking at the reliability aspects of some low cots, low energy options that claim multiple hours but don't actually deliver them.
I bemused my local supermarket by showing them the felt-tip date I'd scrawled on one such blown beauty and asking how it came anyway near its claimed lifespan.
Got a newbie out of it.
Makes sense.
Though I personally think there is some merit in looking at the reliability aspects of some low cots, low energy options that claim multiple hours but don't actually deliver them.
I bemused my local supermarket by showing them the felt-tip date I'd scrawled on one such blown beauty and asking how it came anyway near its claimed lifespan.
Got a newbie out of it.
Creating an html link in comments
If you comment and want to post a link to something, use the following code:-
<@ href="http://www.link-to-goes-here.htm">link-title-in-here<##>
then replace the '@' with the letter 'a' and the '##' with '/a' .
<@ href="http://www.link-to-goes-here.htm">link-title-in-here<##>
then replace the '@' with the letter 'a' and the '##' with '/a' .
The looming food crisis?
Finally, one of the UK majors has picked up on what Peter was predicting in this very blog many, many months ago. The fact is that the switch of land use to grow crops for bio-fuels rather than for foodstuffs IS having an impact on food prices already.
This from the Guardian Environment highlights just what is already happening in parts of the world. The world price of maize has doubled, whilst UK wheat prices have also doubled over the last two years, from ~£100/tonne to ~£200/tonne (admittedly part of this increase is down to this years yield, which is down from the norm). A loaf of bread in the UK has increased in cost by 20% already this year.
In the US, "where nearly 40 million people are below the official poverty line, the Department of Agriculture recently predicted a 10% rise in the price of chicken. The prices of bread, beef, eggs and milk rose 7.5 % in July, the highest monthly rise in 25 years."
'A "perfect storm" of ecological and social factors appears to be gathering force, threatening vast numbers of people with food shortages and price rises. Even as the world's big farmers are pulling out of producing food for people and animals, the global population is rising by 87 million people a year; developing countries such as China and India are switching to meat-based diets that need more land; and climate change is starting to hit food producers hard. Recent reports in the journals Science and Nature suggest that one-third of ocean fisheries are in collapse, two-thirds will be in collapse by 2025, and all major ocean fisheries may be virtually gone by 2048. "Global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record this year. Outside of wartime, they have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer," says the US Department of Agriculture.'
All in all, prospects don't look too good for the future. A substantial part of the food production in China and India is dependent on what are rapidly depleting (and non-replenishable) water sources. Experts believe that some two thirds of the planet's major fisheries are now at levels where serious and rapid decline in yields is starting to happen. When you then throw in climate change predictions from the IPCC, which suggested that some 20% of the planets crop production will be directly endangered by temperature and rainfall changes; plus the switch by major western farmers to agrofuels; the picture for the planet's poor and undernourished is beginning to look markedly bleak!
"Technologists pin their faith on GM crops, or drought- resistant crops, or trust that biofuel producers will develop technologies that require less raw material or use non-edible parts of food. The immediate best bet is that countries such as Argentina, Poland, Ukraine and Kazakhstan will grow more food for export as US output declines."
Me? I'm uncertain. I know mankind is incredibly adaptable and is capable of amazing things; but these just may be the early warning signals that our voracious appetite for food and resources is reaching the point where self-sustainability is going to become increasingly difficult.
Look what the fuel crisis (as a consequence of a handful of HGV drivers blockading refinery depots) a few years ago did to the UK economy in only a week and a half. Then imagine just what the impact would be if food was largely unavailable in the supermarkets for a similar time period.
Scary isn't it?
This from the Guardian Environment highlights just what is already happening in parts of the world. The world price of maize has doubled, whilst UK wheat prices have also doubled over the last two years, from ~£100/tonne to ~£200/tonne (admittedly part of this increase is down to this years yield, which is down from the norm). A loaf of bread in the UK has increased in cost by 20% already this year.
In the US, "where nearly 40 million people are below the official poverty line, the Department of Agriculture recently predicted a 10% rise in the price of chicken. The prices of bread, beef, eggs and milk rose 7.5 % in July, the highest monthly rise in 25 years."
'A "perfect storm" of ecological and social factors appears to be gathering force, threatening vast numbers of people with food shortages and price rises. Even as the world's big farmers are pulling out of producing food for people and animals, the global population is rising by 87 million people a year; developing countries such as China and India are switching to meat-based diets that need more land; and climate change is starting to hit food producers hard. Recent reports in the journals Science and Nature suggest that one-third of ocean fisheries are in collapse, two-thirds will be in collapse by 2025, and all major ocean fisheries may be virtually gone by 2048. "Global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record this year. Outside of wartime, they have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer," says the US Department of Agriculture.'
All in all, prospects don't look too good for the future. A substantial part of the food production in China and India is dependent on what are rapidly depleting (and non-replenishable) water sources. Experts believe that some two thirds of the planet's major fisheries are now at levels where serious and rapid decline in yields is starting to happen. When you then throw in climate change predictions from the IPCC, which suggested that some 20% of the planets crop production will be directly endangered by temperature and rainfall changes; plus the switch by major western farmers to agrofuels; the picture for the planet's poor and undernourished is beginning to look markedly bleak!
"Technologists pin their faith on GM crops, or drought- resistant crops, or trust that biofuel producers will develop technologies that require less raw material or use non-edible parts of food. The immediate best bet is that countries such as Argentina, Poland, Ukraine and Kazakhstan will grow more food for export as US output declines."
Me? I'm uncertain. I know mankind is incredibly adaptable and is capable of amazing things; but these just may be the early warning signals that our voracious appetite for food and resources is reaching the point where self-sustainability is going to become increasingly difficult.
Look what the fuel crisis (as a consequence of a handful of HGV drivers blockading refinery depots) a few years ago did to the UK economy in only a week and a half. Then imagine just what the impact would be if food was largely unavailable in the supermarkets for a similar time period.
Scary isn't it?
Confused!*!
There was an interesting article on this morning's Indy on-line version about how both the Lib Dems and the Tories had developed plans for major CO2 emissions cuts for the whole of the UK.
But coming back to it to review it for comment, the article has now been removed from their site!
What gives? Has someone dropped a major clanger? Or was someone telling porkies and they withdrew it as soon as it was realised?
______________________
Update:
The article is now back in place, albeit looking slightly amended, though I cannot honestly state just what has actually changed. The original was timed at something like 07:09, this version is timed at 09:15.
Maybe a minor editorial change was all that happened?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - This from the Greens: Lucas questions grey parties' commitment to tackling climate change - 'Grey parties'. I like that... clever.
But coming back to it to review it for comment, the article has now been removed from their site!
What gives? Has someone dropped a major clanger? Or was someone telling porkies and they withdrew it as soon as it was realised?
______________________
Update:
The article is now back in place, albeit looking slightly amended, though I cannot honestly state just what has actually changed. The original was timed at something like 07:09, this version is timed at 09:15.
Maybe a minor editorial change was all that happened?
ADDENDUM (by Junkk Male) - This from the Greens: Lucas questions grey parties' commitment to tackling climate change - 'Grey parties'. I like that... clever.
Do they know something we don't?
This little snippet from Product-Reviews suggests that Safeway Homes are now starting to build new UK properties that are capable of withstanding hurricane force winds without suffering major structural damage.
Now, I don't recollect the UK ever being hit by a genuine hurricane, so just who is predicting that we may be seeing one or two in the future?
And then I spotted this from Sustainable Development International, which, albeit US based, is predicting that Super Hurricanes are now to be expected, at least on their particular side of the big pond.
Maybe its time to reconsider building that same underground bunker that my parents always talked about doing during the cold war?
Now, I don't recollect the UK ever being hit by a genuine hurricane, so just who is predicting that we may be seeing one or two in the future?
And then I spotted this from Sustainable Development International, which, albeit US based, is predicting that Super Hurricanes are now to be expected, at least on their particular side of the big pond.
Maybe its time to reconsider building that same underground bunker that my parents always talked about doing during the cold war?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
And the award goes to....
First the really good news.
I... well, Junkk.com, well...RE:tie just got shortlisted for the finals of the Fillip grant.
That means we already have a little bit of money to spend on IP, and are in the running to get a lot more to secure the concept worldwide. The money itself is great, but the fact that this was against a hundred other great ideas, and the consequent PR value that alone will carry, is a real boost.
And it also reminded me that a nice framed award arrived recently (pictured). No money, but a welcome bit of recognition.
The whole awards gig is a heck of an industry, and almost a job here in its own right (like I don't have a few others). And the whole thing has got me to pondering.
I guess I/Junkk.com/RE:tie are doing pretty well, but it's really playing the odds, and in some ways the whole thing has become a bit of a turkey shoot.
I currently have about a dozen, all with deadlines at the end of this month, to complete.
Some are free; some have fees attached. Some are a matter of a few paras; some require extensive form-filling and attaching of acres of guff.
Which are worth the effort, and/or investment of money (I don't have) on top of time?
The Focus Green Hero mentioned a few blogs back is a no-brainer. Quick, free and easy.
The Green Awards I am being chased on are equally easy to decide. No way! I entered last year and paid a lot to do so because I figured we were in with a good chance. It was not to be. Now I know creative awards, and this was/is the pits. For a start the categories I entered for got 'adjusted'. Then when I saw what won it was obvious what was at play, and judging merit was not high on the list. I was tempted to have a go as it seemed near fraudulent, but there are only so many windmills one can tilt at.
The there's the EAST awards. These look worth it as they are free, though the effort aspect is quite heavy.
There's even one called Home Business Award, which looks worth a punt, as I have a business and it's at home. Can't lose. Well...
The latest is Green Challenge, and I haven't even had time to go through that yet.
All I really need to get on the Junkk.com AWARDS section to share around, but time is really not with me on doing all this as well as that... and that. I am so desperate for help on admin, though the blog support I am getting really helps keep the site 'live' hourly, and is much appreciated.
Money is always good. And exposure often even better. Look how my winning the Gold in Geneva spun out. But sometimes I figure just getting under a judge's nose can be worth it, depending on who they are.
For instance, there is a major effort to produce an ecoTVC from an outfit called Current TV, and I am chatting with a local chum from a video company about entering. Imagine getting seen by the judges listed there. Tricky though, because one has to try and figure what a celeb thinks is 'good' vs. what might actually be doing the best job. Not always the same thing. So you often have to second guess the judges or the award organiser agendas more than doing what's best.
And that, sadly, is what awards are really all about.
STOP PRESS: Fancing going Japanese?: Cool the Earth
And I have just 3 days left to submit for all this lot. Sheesh.
Who's In Charge?
I publish this, if a tad belatedly, in full: Caroline Lucas: The greens need a clear voice – and a leader
Published: 23 August 2007
At Heathrow and around the country, last weekend, the climate camp deservedly hit the headlines, with its urgent message on the action needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. Now, it's time for the follow-up. The green movement needs to gain some of the levers of power, in order to transform protest into policy implementation.
The Green Party needs to rise to that challenge. Despite the steady osmosis of its policies and ideas into the political mainstream and an increase in support at the ballot box, the urgency of climate change suggests that we should be far bigger players than we currently are.
A look at the way political commentators describe the state of the parties' popularity tells us what the problem is, straight away: Brown "bounces" while Cameron "wobbles".
But not a single column inch has told the story of the Greens' near-doubling in support over a number of polls taken during the past two years – and why? Partly at least because the party doesn't have a figurehead that can represent our ideas.
The truth is that the media – and most voters – don't relate to abstract concepts: rather they relate to the people who espouse and embody them.
After 30-odd years of trying to ignore that reality, we are running out of time. The need for Green political influence has never been so urgent, and never has there been so much at stake.
Scientists tell us that the next eight to 10 years will be critical in terms of whether we have any chance of avoiding the worst of climate change.
It is still the case that only the Green Party has both the radical policies and the political commitment that are so desperately needed to make sure we do.
For example, the cosy Westminster consensus has brought us a Climate Change Bill with hopelessly inadequate targets. According to scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, rather than constraining warming to less than two degrees which is essential to our chances of being able to stabilise the climate, the Bill's targets are more likely to contribute to a world that's four or five degrees warmer than in pre-industrial times.
This isn't just a terrifying prospect – it's a political scandal, and the Greens have to be in Parliament, challenging it and exposing it.
The trouble is Government advisers only give advice that they deem to be "politically realistic" – in other words, advice that won't require any major transformation of the economy or business as usual.
Greens have to be heard saying what others refuse to say: that the definition of what is "politically realistic" has to be, first and foremost, that which guarantees a habitable planet, not that which guarantees the greatest possible financial returns to companies and to their shareholders.
The real irony, of course, is that a radical transformation of the way we live our lives and do business will actually create a whole series of social win-wins: warmer homes, stronger communities, tastier food, less time spent stuck in traffic jams – even an end to the "status anxiety" which makes so many of us unhappy or even depressed.
But as the public debate over cutting emissions moves on, politicians, businesses and the media remain focussed on the costs and hardships of moving to a low-carbon economy. Rare are the voices talking about the benefits. We're not talking about huddling around a candle in a cave; rather, about chatting over a sumptuous meal of locally produced food, in a warm, well-insulated house, with friends and neighbours, having arrived by bike (easy, along uncongested streets), on foot or by public transport.
So our message is urgent, our skills and approach are needed now more than ever, and our electoral support is rising. Yet without an identifiable leadership team, we're just not getting the media attention and political success we deserve.
That's why the Green Party is looking at its internal structures: holding a referendum of all of its party members on whether to build on the set-up of having two "principal speakers" to the vital next stage: having a leader and a deputy leader (or two co-leaders) to act as recognisable, inspiring, leading voices for the thousands of dedicated party activists who collectively make the party what it is. Such a leadership wouldn't have the authority, so beloved of Brown and Cameron, to ignore party members' wishes and draw power to the centre.
They would be a very "green" leadership, elected by members every two years and remaining entirely accountable to the Greens' supreme policy-making body, our biannual conferences, and subject to recall.
Leadership doesn't have to be top down and authoritarian. Green leadership is about empowering and enabling voters to act, a leadership that inspires and motivates rather than one which dictates.
We think that the time is right to take radical Green policies and radical Green politics into the mainstream – and that by voting for identifiable and accountable leadership party members will be taking a vitally important step towards being able to do just that.
The author is the Green Party's MEP for South-east England. The article was written with the
assistance of Darren Johnson, Leader of the Green Group on Lewisham Council
The first thing that struck me was that I hadn't actually realised the Green's didn't have a leader (and I'm guessing our Caroline has her hat ready). And that this might explain a lot about how I feel about them as a viable political entity. They just seem like a bit of a nice bunch who oppose a lot of stuff. Would a leader bring them and what they are seeking to do into voter focus? No idea.
But looking at the alternatives, the presence of a leader doesn't seem to help much. We have Mr. Cameron who seems to stand for everything and nothing. Meanwhile Mr. Brown seems to be proving that the best way to stay on top is to stay out of the way and remain invisible. How long this will succeed who knows, but if polls (that's two 'l's') are to believed he has got away with the last 10 years plus the last few months pretty well on this basis. And surrounding himself with the most colourless collection on non-people I have ever had the misfortune to shake my head in disbelief at has not hurt either.
Maybe we do get who we deserve.
Greens decry lack of Government action on climate change
I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for this link - Green party pragmatics - which adds further to this discussion in some detail. Sadly, I think it still rather confirms the feeling of some that the lack of a leader makes it hard to 'place' them in this media age, no matter how g*d-awful all the other leaders with their 'please all the people all the time' antics are in serving their parties and the country. Maybe the Greens have a point, though it seems to serve them poorly at the polls if one comment is to be believed.
Published: 23 August 2007
At Heathrow and around the country, last weekend, the climate camp deservedly hit the headlines, with its urgent message on the action needed to prevent catastrophic climate change. Now, it's time for the follow-up. The green movement needs to gain some of the levers of power, in order to transform protest into policy implementation.
The Green Party needs to rise to that challenge. Despite the steady osmosis of its policies and ideas into the political mainstream and an increase in support at the ballot box, the urgency of climate change suggests that we should be far bigger players than we currently are.
A look at the way political commentators describe the state of the parties' popularity tells us what the problem is, straight away: Brown "bounces" while Cameron "wobbles".
But not a single column inch has told the story of the Greens' near-doubling in support over a number of polls taken during the past two years – and why? Partly at least because the party doesn't have a figurehead that can represent our ideas.
The truth is that the media – and most voters – don't relate to abstract concepts: rather they relate to the people who espouse and embody them.
After 30-odd years of trying to ignore that reality, we are running out of time. The need for Green political influence has never been so urgent, and never has there been so much at stake.
Scientists tell us that the next eight to 10 years will be critical in terms of whether we have any chance of avoiding the worst of climate change.
It is still the case that only the Green Party has both the radical policies and the political commitment that are so desperately needed to make sure we do.
For example, the cosy Westminster consensus has brought us a Climate Change Bill with hopelessly inadequate targets. According to scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, rather than constraining warming to less than two degrees which is essential to our chances of being able to stabilise the climate, the Bill's targets are more likely to contribute to a world that's four or five degrees warmer than in pre-industrial times.
This isn't just a terrifying prospect – it's a political scandal, and the Greens have to be in Parliament, challenging it and exposing it.
The trouble is Government advisers only give advice that they deem to be "politically realistic" – in other words, advice that won't require any major transformation of the economy or business as usual.
Greens have to be heard saying what others refuse to say: that the definition of what is "politically realistic" has to be, first and foremost, that which guarantees a habitable planet, not that which guarantees the greatest possible financial returns to companies and to their shareholders.
The real irony, of course, is that a radical transformation of the way we live our lives and do business will actually create a whole series of social win-wins: warmer homes, stronger communities, tastier food, less time spent stuck in traffic jams – even an end to the "status anxiety" which makes so many of us unhappy or even depressed.
But as the public debate over cutting emissions moves on, politicians, businesses and the media remain focussed on the costs and hardships of moving to a low-carbon economy. Rare are the voices talking about the benefits. We're not talking about huddling around a candle in a cave; rather, about chatting over a sumptuous meal of locally produced food, in a warm, well-insulated house, with friends and neighbours, having arrived by bike (easy, along uncongested streets), on foot or by public transport.
So our message is urgent, our skills and approach are needed now more than ever, and our electoral support is rising. Yet without an identifiable leadership team, we're just not getting the media attention and political success we deserve.
That's why the Green Party is looking at its internal structures: holding a referendum of all of its party members on whether to build on the set-up of having two "principal speakers" to the vital next stage: having a leader and a deputy leader (or two co-leaders) to act as recognisable, inspiring, leading voices for the thousands of dedicated party activists who collectively make the party what it is. Such a leadership wouldn't have the authority, so beloved of Brown and Cameron, to ignore party members' wishes and draw power to the centre.
They would be a very "green" leadership, elected by members every two years and remaining entirely accountable to the Greens' supreme policy-making body, our biannual conferences, and subject to recall.
Leadership doesn't have to be top down and authoritarian. Green leadership is about empowering and enabling voters to act, a leadership that inspires and motivates rather than one which dictates.
We think that the time is right to take radical Green policies and radical Green politics into the mainstream – and that by voting for identifiable and accountable leadership party members will be taking a vitally important step towards being able to do just that.
The author is the Green Party's MEP for South-east England. The article was written with the
assistance of Darren Johnson, Leader of the Green Group on Lewisham Council
The first thing that struck me was that I hadn't actually realised the Green's didn't have a leader (and I'm guessing our Caroline has her hat ready). And that this might explain a lot about how I feel about them as a viable political entity. They just seem like a bit of a nice bunch who oppose a lot of stuff. Would a leader bring them and what they are seeking to do into voter focus? No idea.
But looking at the alternatives, the presence of a leader doesn't seem to help much. We have Mr. Cameron who seems to stand for everything and nothing. Meanwhile Mr. Brown seems to be proving that the best way to stay on top is to stay out of the way and remain invisible. How long this will succeed who knows, but if polls (that's two 'l's') are to believed he has got away with the last 10 years plus the last few months pretty well on this basis. And surrounding himself with the most colourless collection on non-people I have ever had the misfortune to shake my head in disbelief at has not hurt either.
Maybe we do get who we deserve.
Greens decry lack of Government action on climate change
I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for this link - Green party pragmatics - which adds further to this discussion in some detail. Sadly, I think it still rather confirms the feeling of some that the lack of a leader makes it hard to 'place' them in this media age, no matter how g*d-awful all the other leaders with their 'please all the people all the time' antics are in serving their parties and the country. Maybe the Greens have a point, though it seems to serve them poorly at the polls if one comment is to be believed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)