Can this really save the planet? Is the question posed, surrounding by more ads with the word green than you could shake a self-powered torch at.
And, for fun (if not irony), right next to this: Aston Martin tops cool brands list (Junkk.com oddly, not yet there).
I have of course been banging on about big vs. small picture for a while. But as he sets them out initially it's in a different area. All the small tips cited are 'why nots?', easy to effect and usually save money. The ones that get me going are diversions, and often divisive ones, such as bottled water witch hunts, which over-shadow campaigns (are they any?) to coordinate 'ground to grounded' life cycle systems that involve all in the waste chain and don't just throw a bunch of targets and jargon at the poor consumer to sort out. Plus insulation (we'll, in all senses of the word, come back to that).
Of course if you 'take these simple steps today... they really do "make a difference". Do 'em!
Only later do we get to easier agreement. With some facts I can only assume are correct. There will be others incoming as I write, I'm sure.
A long time ago in a publication I asked those who know (I think it was either a plastics or recycling trade mag), just how much 'plastic', the 100-300 (estimates vary) carriers 'we' use (and 'I' reuse; a fact often not factored in by those who still purchase bin liners) represents? Sadly, to date, no answer. I just wondered if it would equate to the number of Fairy Liquid bottles not reused at the BBC, insert sleeves/DVDs at the Indy or water fountain bottles at the LibDem HQ... each week.
I have to disagree on the standby thing. While I rail against those who get over eco-puritan about where their definitions of 'what's necessary' stops (usually at what they deem is required for a comfy, green-glow lifestyle), these things simply are not. And the figures I have seen suggest that they gobble a lot that is pure waste. So... bad call.
And these things are cumulative y'know. So I am very happy, both financially and economically, with my Ecokettle.
Which is a pity, because it all set a tone that coloured what I do agree with way down the piece: that there is any equivalence between these lifestyle preferences and the serious decisions that really reduce emissions - stopping flying, living close to work and living in a well-insulated house. (I critique as I read, so OK it's here... at last. No apologies for leaving mine up there.
And I have to agree , a tad, about the wallpaper. The latest blonde celeb to get wheeled out to promote her film/TV/book on the back of some green effort she was the face of, managed recycling, having a shower and... er... that was it. Meanwhile, she was off to Bali for a shoot next week.
Which brings one to the role of media in all this, as discussed on these posts many times before. They really can't have both, and both ways. Either stick with the line on climate or not, but don't try the first whilst promoting celebrity and consumer excess at every turn via editorial and ads. Or getting snitty because some green commentators (if I may make so bold as to include myself) and, more importantly, most public (and, eventually, the BBC), don't see such as Live Earth and/or Planet Relief as the best way forward.
But as one more than critical of blowing money that could be better spent elsewhere than on quango board members' bonus-boosting comms budgets, I am more than interested (assuming it's true - so pending attribution/confirmation) that 'making the solutions easy is no guarantee that anyone will carry them out.' And that, ' The government spent £22m on the Do Your Bit campaign and has subsequently admitted that it produced no measurable change in personal behaviour.' How much so far on telling us to recycle, for instance? And what does ActOnCo2 do exactly for the money? And what was the ROI, much less the enviROI of these efforts?
Especially if, with such as recycling, Mori (assuming... yada.. I need an acronym for these points. Subject To Unequivocal Follow-Up Proof - STUFUP) 'concluded that it was becoming an act of "totem behaviour" and that "individuals use recycling as a means of discharging their responsibility to undertake wider changes in lifestyle".
And I really can't fault this: 'Governments and businesses are, if anything, even more prone to tokenistic behaviour than individuals. Encouraging small voluntary actions by the public, customers or staff looks good and is much safer than passing restrictive legislation or rethinking your entire business model.'
So, in conclusion...
... what we need is a sense of proportion. No question.
We also need to rethink the way we talk about climate change. Ditto. Plus those who have taken it upon themselves to be considered leaders of the charge, whilst often charging (or earning) so lucratively in the process, as I can't say the job most are doing amounts to much that helps my kids' futures.
And let's be clear that voluntary action will never be enough - we will need radical political, economic and social change. I hear you, brother!
So let's start by doing away with that wretched phrase "you can save the planet". Well, it doesn't bother me, but I usually bolt 'and save money, too' on the end, at least with Junkk.com (I popped in a hyperlink and forget that the full point makes a big difference. D'Oh!) . Seems to work.
But I will add one more, teensie bit: 'And your positive suggestions would be...?" They may be around, but here would be a good place to share too.
Read Bibi van der Zee's response to this article: What's wrong with turning lights off?
Again interesting, but again the order of priority had me thrown. At least Fiesta family gets a mention. And again the notion that 'awareness' is worth it if it translates into action, but with little regard that some efforts may actually have a reverse effect. As has, say , the city-centric but nationwide anti 4x4 campaigns out in the country.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Fishing for evidence?
Sometimes you just don't have to - the evidence comes to you!
Every now and again we hear reports of unusual species turning up off the coast of the UK. The Basking Sharks that are now commonly observed off Cornwall on an almost daily basis were very rarely sighted 30 years ago. But it seems that bigger is better as far as reporting is concerned - species such as a Loggerheads Turtle generate a local influx of umpteen television crews turning up to record the event. Scary species are good too - just look at the hours of recent coverage on the TV and in the press about the Great White Shark - which turned out to be, well, not a member of that particular family.
Now many marine species are highly sensitive to even minuscule changes in temperature, salinity and interruptions to the food chain, whether they are large and/or scary (and hence worthy of major news coverage) or small.
But when something that has only been recorded 42 times in the last 150 years starts arriving off our coast in noticeable numbers you would think that it just might get some serious news coverage. The trouble is, this particular chap, a warm, temperate marine species, only grows to a couple of pounds or so, so it just doesn't have the newsworthiness clout that a large turtle or a big shark has.
This from local website thisiscornwall, highlights the arrival of the Amberjack in British coastal waters. Now 42 sightings in 150 years doesn't sound too important, but when you consider that 12 of those sightings have been over the last three months, and 4 of those were over the last weekend alone, then it just has to be significant.
Now the Amberjack isn't exactly a handsome little fish, nor is it big or scary, but what it does present is genuine and almost incontrovertible evidence of just what is happening to the seas off our coast as climate change slowly increases water temperatures.
Little fish may be sweet, but unfortunately they don't increase the media ratings, despite the importance of what they might portend.
____________________________
n.b.1 I have since found out that there are several species of Amberjack, one of which can grow to a whopping 170 lb in weight. The ones currently appearing are all of the smaller species.
n.b.2 Wasn't the guy in the photo in 'Village People' years ago?
Every now and again we hear reports of unusual species turning up off the coast of the UK. The Basking Sharks that are now commonly observed off Cornwall on an almost daily basis were very rarely sighted 30 years ago. But it seems that bigger is better as far as reporting is concerned - species such as a Loggerheads Turtle generate a local influx of umpteen television crews turning up to record the event. Scary species are good too - just look at the hours of recent coverage on the TV and in the press about the Great White Shark - which turned out to be, well, not a member of that particular family.
Now many marine species are highly sensitive to even minuscule changes in temperature, salinity and interruptions to the food chain, whether they are large and/or scary (and hence worthy of major news coverage) or small.
But when something that has only been recorded 42 times in the last 150 years starts arriving off our coast in noticeable numbers you would think that it just might get some serious news coverage. The trouble is, this particular chap, a warm, temperate marine species, only grows to a couple of pounds or so, so it just doesn't have the newsworthiness clout that a large turtle or a big shark has.
This from local website thisiscornwall, highlights the arrival of the Amberjack in British coastal waters. Now 42 sightings in 150 years doesn't sound too important, but when you consider that 12 of those sightings have been over the last three months, and 4 of those were over the last weekend alone, then it just has to be significant.
Now the Amberjack isn't exactly a handsome little fish, nor is it big or scary, but what it does present is genuine and almost incontrovertible evidence of just what is happening to the seas off our coast as climate change slowly increases water temperatures.
Little fish may be sweet, but unfortunately they don't increase the media ratings, despite the importance of what they might portend.
____________________________
n.b.1 I have since found out that there are several species of Amberjack, one of which can grow to a whopping 170 lb in weight. The ones currently appearing are all of the smaller species.
n.b.2 Wasn't the guy in the photo in 'Village People' years ago?
It's not. But if it was. Oh it is. And it's ok. Or...
As a fearless parapet head-sticker-over of a contrary but good nature, I usually have some time for 'sceptical environmentalist' Bjorn Lomborg. So I decided this may be worth a gander: Global Warming, the Great Lifesaver
However, I have a rule of thumb, and that is 'if they're promoting a book to you, careful how you look, too'. Sure enough, there's a new tome in tow (Junkk.com, by the way is available now, price: free).
I stand ready to be corrected, but the main premise seems a stretch, for two reasons alone (what, Peter pithy?):
1 - If it's a trend, I'm guessing we may go through balmy and hit roasty toasty pretty quick. Not all of us can survive by sunbathing for a living. Or under water. Or...
2 - This all seems a bit centric on those parts of the world which do, admittedly, get cold. What about those that are already hot all the time? I know he's blond and blue-eyed and all, but don't they count? Maybe that's covered elsewhere in the book.
But, at least, Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, believes that “global - that's global - warming is real and man-made.”
Indy - Stark warning of extinction list: 'Life on Earth is disappearing' - The thing about ignoring lists is that you might one day find yourself on them. Ask Pastor Neimoller.
Guardian - Heeding the right global warnings - By the man himself. Hard to equate to the other one I read. Ho hum. Selective editing is all. Very good links in the posts.
However, I have a rule of thumb, and that is 'if they're promoting a book to you, careful how you look, too'. Sure enough, there's a new tome in tow (Junkk.com, by the way is available now, price: free).
I stand ready to be corrected, but the main premise seems a stretch, for two reasons alone (what, Peter pithy?):
1 - If it's a trend, I'm guessing we may go through balmy and hit roasty toasty pretty quick. Not all of us can survive by sunbathing for a living. Or under water. Or...
2 - This all seems a bit centric on those parts of the world which do, admittedly, get cold. What about those that are already hot all the time? I know he's blond and blue-eyed and all, but don't they count? Maybe that's covered elsewhere in the book.
But, at least, Bjorn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, believes that “global - that's global - warming is real and man-made.”
Indy - Stark warning of extinction list: 'Life on Earth is disappearing' - The thing about ignoring lists is that you might one day find yourself on them. Ask Pastor Neimoller.
Guardian - Heeding the right global warnings - By the man himself. Hard to equate to the other one I read. Ho hum. Selective editing is all. Very good links in the posts.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Doom, Gloom and more Doom
Climate change already seems to be hitting parts of the Mediterranean very hard. Having spoken to several friends who have recently returned from holiday in various Mediterranean locations such as Greece, Sicily and Malta (lucky lot!), and having listened to all of them moaning that at 40C+ in the shade (48C in one instance!), it was just too damned hot to go out during the early afternoon, I wasn't too surprised to come across this from the International Herald Tribune which reports that the Mediterranean Sea itself may be at risk.
"temperature rises could wipe out 'up to 50 percent of the species,' the study said. The decline in the algae population measured last winter also reduced by 30 percent the sea's ability to absorb carbon dioxide"
Now that's getting scary.
And on the same day we get a story from Reuters Africa suggesting that the impact of global warming could be as devastating as nuclear war!
"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war"
That's very worrying!
Meanwhile, as reported in the Guardian yesterday, our own MOD has commissioned a study "to identify countries where battles could break out over increasingly scarce supplies of food and water, as well as predict the likely conditions in which British troops may have to fight in future". The study is attempting to identify just what the consequences of an over-populated planet undergoing significant climatic change might be, but it sounds more like significant pre-preparation for some nasty worst case future scenarios.
Now that's really filled me full of doom and gloom!
"temperature rises could wipe out 'up to 50 percent of the species,' the study said. The decline in the algae population measured last winter also reduced by 30 percent the sea's ability to absorb carbon dioxide"
Now that's getting scary.
And on the same day we get a story from Reuters Africa suggesting that the impact of global warming could be as devastating as nuclear war!
"The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war"
That's very worrying!
Meanwhile, as reported in the Guardian yesterday, our own MOD has commissioned a study "to identify countries where battles could break out over increasingly scarce supplies of food and water, as well as predict the likely conditions in which British troops may have to fight in future". The study is attempting to identify just what the consequences of an over-populated planet undergoing significant climatic change might be, but it sounds more like significant pre-preparation for some nasty worst case future scenarios.
Now that's really filled me full of doom and gloom!
Arctic Ice Watch - Update
A little while back, we commented on the new record for a minimum of ice coverage across the Arctic ocean. See Arctic Ice Hits New Record Low.
Well, only a few weeks later, as reported by the National Snow & Ice Data Centre, the disappearance of the ice coverage has continued at an astonishing and unprecedented rate. As of the 9th September, the Arctic sea ice extent has dropped "to 4.24 million square kilometers (1.63 million square miles), falling yet further below the previous record absolute minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) that occurred on September 20–21, 2005".
With still perhaps two more weeks of melt, we may actually see the mythical North-East passage open at this rate. (The North-West passage has already been fully navigable for several weeks.)
And, dear readers, what colour will you be?
Kelly - extra £1.2million to turn white van man green - I'm going for a red (burst blood vessel) or maybe blue (ceased to breathe).
I do declare this comes on the same day I saw a BBC report on doing the limit to save the planet as well. Do I feel a campaign coming on?
As it exists I feel obligated to share, and as the link doesn't work in full. I feel unable to comment (which I may have done when this was last trumpeted) too much, save to say that, as an ex-whit van man (misspent Univeristy days), I can't help but feel an extra £1.2M might be better spent than on this black hole.
Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, today announced an extra £1.2million to train van drivers in greener, safer driving techniques.
The Safe and Fuel Efficient Drivers (SAFED) scheme aims to encourage driving techniques that save fuel, thereby cutting costs and CO2 emissions. Since its launch, the Department for Transport has invested nearly £2.2million in the scheme.
The training has been immensely popular and so far the programme has trained nearly 7,800 drivers. Drivers who completed the training found they achieved an average 16% improvement in miles per gallon, giving a potential annual fuel saving of £3.3million and CO2 emissions reduction of 9,350 tonnes, equivalent to an average of £425 for each van driver and a reduction for CO2 emissions of around 1.2 tonnes.
Ruth Kelly said:
"White van man is turning green. By learning safe, fuel efficient driving techniques, van drivers are playing a vital role in cutting CO2 emissions. They're helping tackle climate change, saving money and improving safety without impacting on customer delivery times
The new money will part fund training for new instructors, new assessors and up to 6,500 drivers over the next three years.
SAFED is a one-day training course involving a mix of classroom and on-the-road tuition. It teaches drivers how techniques such as better use of gears and brakes (avoiding over-revving and unnecessary gear changes), keeping correct braking distances (not braking hard) and better road awareness (seeing junctions in good time) can improve both fuel efficiency and safety.
Fleet managers and van drivers interested in finding out how SAFED for Vans could benefit their business should visit http://www.safed.org.uk and navigate to the 'find a trainer' page, or call 0870 190 8440.
It's a question to me of enviROI. I can't fault the facts, but are they really the best wins for the money? We are talking £3.4M for 10k tonnes of CO2, assuming the figures are right (are we talking employed as well as owner drivers?), along with my maths.
SAFED was originally launched in 2006. It followed a successful pilot project that found significant financial and environmental gains could be made by using advanced driving techniques without any noticeable impact on delivery times.
A series of case studies and guides have also been published by the DfT funded Freight Best Practice programme
I do declare this comes on the same day I saw a BBC report on doing the limit to save the planet as well. Do I feel a campaign coming on?
As it exists I feel obligated to share, and as the link doesn't work in full. I feel unable to comment (which I may have done when this was last trumpeted) too much, save to say that, as an ex-whit van man (misspent Univeristy days), I can't help but feel an extra £1.2M might be better spent than on this black hole.
Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, today announced an extra £1.2million to train van drivers in greener, safer driving techniques.
The Safe and Fuel Efficient Drivers (SAFED) scheme aims to encourage driving techniques that save fuel, thereby cutting costs and CO2 emissions. Since its launch, the Department for Transport has invested nearly £2.2million in the scheme.
The training has been immensely popular and so far the programme has trained nearly 7,800 drivers. Drivers who completed the training found they achieved an average 16% improvement in miles per gallon, giving a potential annual fuel saving of £3.3million and CO2 emissions reduction of 9,350 tonnes, equivalent to an average of £425 for each van driver and a reduction for CO2 emissions of around 1.2 tonnes.
Ruth Kelly said:
"White van man is turning green. By learning safe, fuel efficient driving techniques, van drivers are playing a vital role in cutting CO2 emissions. They're helping tackle climate change, saving money and improving safety without impacting on customer delivery times
The new money will part fund training for new instructors, new assessors and up to 6,500 drivers over the next three years.
SAFED is a one-day training course involving a mix of classroom and on-the-road tuition. It teaches drivers how techniques such as better use of gears and brakes (avoiding over-revving and unnecessary gear changes), keeping correct braking distances (not braking hard) and better road awareness (seeing junctions in good time) can improve both fuel efficiency and safety.
Fleet managers and van drivers interested in finding out how SAFED for Vans could benefit their business should visit http://www.safed.org.uk and navigate to the 'find a trainer' page, or call 0870 190 8440.
It's a question to me of enviROI. I can't fault the facts, but are they really the best wins for the money? We are talking £3.4M for 10k tonnes of CO2, assuming the figures are right (are we talking employed as well as owner drivers?), along with my maths.
SAFED was originally launched in 2006. It followed a successful pilot project that found significant financial and environmental gains could be made by using advanced driving techniques without any noticeable impact on delivery times.
A series of case studies and guides have also been published by the DfT funded Freight Best Practice programme
Commy time once more
I almost skipped over this - NOWADAYS, IT SEEMS, YOU ARE WHAT YOU DON'T EAT. But then, I didn't.
Hardly the most representative sample, but for my discussions with others on motivating eco-friendly notions of lifestyle reductions, at the very least in terms of waste, still a nifty selection of thoughts.
I have been banging on for a while that, if everyone is so cash rich because they are so time poor, getting 'em to consume less, move less far... and slower... is going to be quite a task. No point having all that money if you can't blow it, hmnn?
Did someone mention Marx?
Hardly the most representative sample, but for my discussions with others on motivating eco-friendly notions of lifestyle reductions, at the very least in terms of waste, still a nifty selection of thoughts.
I have been banging on for a while that, if everyone is so cash rich because they are so time poor, getting 'em to consume less, move less far... and slower... is going to be quite a task. No point having all that money if you can't blow it, hmnn?
Did someone mention Marx?
Every little helps .......
.... or so it would seem.
This from Interactive Investor reports on Tesco's £25 Million investment, in conjunction with the University of Manchester, in setting up the 'Sustainable Consumption Institute' (SCI).
The SCI has a nice aim - to "help both customers and retailers create a sustainable, greener future".
But I can't help raising an eyebrow over some of the 'projects'. E.g. "making paper from chicken feathers and fuelling delivery vans with plastic milk bottles." What???***!!!
"Tesco's chief executive Sir Terry Leahy said the Institute - one of the key elements of its climate change strategy announced in January - was further proof the company's long-term commitment to making a positive contribution to tackling environmental issues."
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. I can't help suspecting that there's more than a little of 'keeping up with the Jones's' (or perhaps I should say Rose's?), along with a large dollop of greenwash, going on here. And I'm certain that there must be more realistic, and more genuinely planet sustainable ideas, that could be concentrated on with such a huge budget, rather than faffing about trying to make paper from chicken feathers!
ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male
Indy - Tesco funds 'green consumption' studies - Nice press release cut and paste job, guys. In light of what follows, I do share this: 'This is independent research. The industry partner has a right to talk to us about what problems it wants to have addressed, but it cannot manipulate the findings."
But I thought I'd seldom find myself agreeing with (most here from) this lady:
Janet Street-Porter: Spare me these supermarket saints
It's not making our job easier, is it? And what could we do (that's 'DO') with £25M? Note the action verb there. It's important in the context of her conclusion:
None of the parties are prepared to admit that accepting money from retailers to fund education and research just compromises the results.
It also goes to the defensive reaction to such critiques... If they are valid. Are such 'initiatives' helping the overall cause, when this is what can be levelled by major media commentators almost by return. Plugging sprung leaks as you still tilt full speed into icebergs is not good prioritising.
Guardian - Sustainable living, sponsored by Tesco - With soem more views. But, thanks to Dave, you heard it here fi.. er , earlier. I'm erring on the BTN end of the debate. It is a lot of dough. Just wish it went to a better cause.
This from Interactive Investor reports on Tesco's £25 Million investment, in conjunction with the University of Manchester, in setting up the 'Sustainable Consumption Institute' (SCI).
The SCI has a nice aim - to "help both customers and retailers create a sustainable, greener future".
But I can't help raising an eyebrow over some of the 'projects'. E.g. "making paper from chicken feathers and fuelling delivery vans with plastic milk bottles." What???***!!!
"Tesco's chief executive Sir Terry Leahy said the Institute - one of the key elements of its climate change strategy announced in January - was further proof the company's long-term commitment to making a positive contribution to tackling environmental issues."
Well, he would say that, wouldn't he. I can't help suspecting that there's more than a little of 'keeping up with the Jones's' (or perhaps I should say Rose's?), along with a large dollop of greenwash, going on here. And I'm certain that there must be more realistic, and more genuinely planet sustainable ideas, that could be concentrated on with such a huge budget, rather than faffing about trying to make paper from chicken feathers!
ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male
Indy - Tesco funds 'green consumption' studies - Nice press release cut and paste job, guys. In light of what follows, I do share this: 'This is independent research. The industry partner has a right to talk to us about what problems it wants to have addressed, but it cannot manipulate the findings."
But I thought I'd seldom find myself agreeing with (most here from) this lady:
Janet Street-Porter: Spare me these supermarket saints
It's not making our job easier, is it? And what could we do (that's 'DO') with £25M? Note the action verb there. It's important in the context of her conclusion:
None of the parties are prepared to admit that accepting money from retailers to fund education and research just compromises the results.
It also goes to the defensive reaction to such critiques... If they are valid. Are such 'initiatives' helping the overall cause, when this is what can be levelled by major media commentators almost by return. Plugging sprung leaks as you still tilt full speed into icebergs is not good prioritising.
Guardian - Sustainable living, sponsored by Tesco - With soem more views. But, thanks to Dave, you heard it here fi.. er , earlier. I'm erring on the BTN end of the debate. It is a lot of dough. Just wish it went to a better cause.
And in the green corner - Bin Laden!
I missed this from The TimesOnline yesterday, reporting on Osama Bin Laden's latest video appearance on the anniversary of 9/11. A date which still makes me shudder, especially as I should have been in the World Trade Centre on the day of the attack; luckily (for me) my meeting was cancelled a few days beforehand.
Anyway, it would seem that the new Grecian 2000 enhanced version of the leader of Al-Qaeda is standing fair and square in the 'green lobby'.
"The life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations. Yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord".
I suppose that there's a first time for everything - I have to confess that I don't think I can recall ever agreeing with anything in a statement from an international terrorist before!
ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male
Guardian - Can we fight terrorism by reducing CO2 emissions?
Anyway, it would seem that the new Grecian 2000 enhanced version of the leader of Al-Qaeda is standing fair and square in the 'green lobby'.
"The life of all of mankind is in danger because of the global warming resulting to a large degree from the emissions of the factories of the major corporations. Yet despite that, the representative of these corporations in the White House insists on not observing the Kyoto accord".
I suppose that there's a first time for everything - I have to confess that I don't think I can recall ever agreeing with anything in a statement from an international terrorist before!
ADDENDUM - from Junkk Male
Guardian - Can we fight terrorism by reducing CO2 emissions?
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
So good, he posted it twice!
Pop back a few posts and see one about our being on a long/shortlist for the EAST Awards. It just got a tad better....
Congratulations! Your entry from your organisation to the 2007 EAST Awards has been shortlisted by the Judging Panel for an Environmental and Sustainable Technology (EAST) Award. Once again congratulations on being shortlisted for a 2007 EAST Award from a very competitive entry list.
Paul McBride
Managing Editor
The EAST Journal
...which was nice.
Congratulations! Your entry from your organisation to the 2007 EAST Awards has been shortlisted by the Judging Panel for an Environmental and Sustainable Technology (EAST) Award. Once again congratulations on being shortlisted for a 2007 EAST Award from a very competitive entry list.
Paul McBride
Managing Editor
The EAST Journal
...which was nice.
Anita Roddick, R.I.P
It's a funny old world. If, perhaps, a pretty complex and often not very nice one.
When I heard of her death, I was indeed saddened at the loss of someone who by any measure did, has and will have a real impact on how the cause of capitalism and environmentalism could go hand in hand for the common good.
In fact I'd applied to a Science Museum mentor thingie with the sole aim of trying to get some advice from her on how best to do this btter (mainly the making moeny bit). Sadly, now not to be.
But is surprises me just what else there was that made up the person and her deeds. Some not always as good as others. There were many who screamed betrayal when Body Shop got swallowed by a corporate giant, but I have to say I saw no problem at all. At worst it was hers to do with as she wished, but at best she was then in a position to effect greater change from within.
What I hadn't appreciated before were some of her other activist views which, if true, I could not honestly endorse.
Do these therefore taint how she should be remembered? Well, as I often bang on, it's hard these days to dissociate the messenger from the message, and if there are... distractions... maybe they may not be the best poster persons to choose.
I think I can be Solomonesque in this case. Divorcing some of her personal views and activist activities in other areas, I'd choose to remember a small shop that went on to be a global brand, based on the notion that people could be persuaded to buy 'better' products without guilt, nannying or threat. Simply by making the option appealing.
Brand republic - Speaking well of whom
When I heard of her death, I was indeed saddened at the loss of someone who by any measure did, has and will have a real impact on how the cause of capitalism and environmentalism could go hand in hand for the common good.
In fact I'd applied to a Science Museum mentor thingie with the sole aim of trying to get some advice from her on how best to do this btter (mainly the making moeny bit). Sadly, now not to be.
But is surprises me just what else there was that made up the person and her deeds. Some not always as good as others. There were many who screamed betrayal when Body Shop got swallowed by a corporate giant, but I have to say I saw no problem at all. At worst it was hers to do with as she wished, but at best she was then in a position to effect greater change from within.
What I hadn't appreciated before were some of her other activist views which, if true, I could not honestly endorse.
Do these therefore taint how she should be remembered? Well, as I often bang on, it's hard these days to dissociate the messenger from the message, and if there are... distractions... maybe they may not be the best poster persons to choose.
I think I can be Solomonesque in this case. Divorcing some of her personal views and activist activities in other areas, I'd choose to remember a small shop that went on to be a global brand, based on the notion that people could be persuaded to buy 'better' products without guilt, nannying or threat. Simply by making the option appealing.
Brand republic - Speaking well of whom
West is West, but EAST... is best!
EAST magazine is rather good. It's fun, glossy, nicely written and, oddly but generously, free ( a bit like a certain website and blog I hear you say.... er... hello?).
Now that I have got the brown-nosing out of the way, please bear in mind that I have said this only now, and not before, mainly because I was only aware of one issue and had not got around to mentioning it, along with a few thousand other worthy aspects of note, such as February's newsletter.
Anyway, my latest edition has just come in, and perusing the online PDF copy my eye alighted on the not so small matter of their recent awards. Which I had decided was worth having a go at being a) prestigious, b) got us in front of some decent judges anyway and c) was free. And I must confess I then forgot all about it.
Well, golly-gosh and cor-blimey, lookee there (well, it's too small to see, but trust me it is - or go to the magazine site and register to read in A4 glory) - who do we see as a semi-finalist? And in good company ,too.
I just hope not too good company, as the shortlisted guys get a free invite, and at £200+ I kinda need to be in there to go. Which would be nice.
Wish us luck!
Celeb pity
I thought this - Celebrity Eco-Hypocritique - was going to be another media industry sulk about how their green parties are being spoiled by grumpy old commoners not being supportive enough of whatever jolly they deem we need.
But it is actually more thoughtful than that.
And, as always, some good comments pro and con to follow.
For some reason, I was moved to pitch in:
An interesting analysis, with equally interesting posts in response.
There is a slight sense of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't..' that makes it hard not to sympathise with the motives and probable frustrations of a passionate, committed 'activist' celeb.
I really felt sorry that someone such as Bono was copping so much flak because of who he was and what he earned, whilst being a man with a view almost being required to shut up and sing.
But then ego comes into play. What if by what they are doing they are not serving the greater enviROI or indeed the most effective message? They may well be genuine and have opinions and want to speak out or even do, but there are, sorry guys, bigger factors than what they want, and especially if that somehow needs to translate into column inches or airtime.
Sadly the good of intention will get tarred by the less so, especially when the PR machine/media support systems see opportunity. I have lost count of the number of slots where some blonde or buff gets wheeled on to give us 10 seconds of cause before we move on to 'so how's the new movie?'.
We are in an era when the messenger is more important than the message, so that messenger has to be pretty squeaky clean and on message. As pointed out, with the best will in the world that's hard to do when you are making squillions and few outlets exist to spent it on are that environmentally sound. Again the 'machine' has demands. Walking to the shops, buying domestic and holidaying in the back yard are hardly the stuff of glamour magazine front pages. There's the dilemma. If that's the job, then fine, but don't ask those who not enjoying such a lifestyle not to note that and only empathise with selected aspects of what is being shared by way of example.
Bob Geldof had a rather colourful view on how much more 'awareness of the problem' that we all needed when Live Earth was in the news. I would value an objective analysis of how it did indeed serve the actual aims. Were the collective greenhouse emissions of all involved (protagonists and audience) reduced as a consequence? Was the awareness raised (of?) positively and, more importantly, call to actions embraced?
Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK it was not the greatest example of motivation and publicity that one could have hoped for. Especially for any plugging the causes of green.
Hence the next effort in this mould, Planet Relief, as mooted by the BBC, didn't get off the ground, to the surprise of many in the media world just waiting for all the opportunities they would have had to feed off it. And some, with spectacular sour grapes, took to blaming all but their own inability to read the public mood for its downfall.
There was even an attempt to portray this as a victory for politically-motivated, climate denier-funded campaigning. Not so. But there were many from very committed environmental standpoints who simply didn't feel that such things were very effective, and may even set the cause back. Frankly the most damage I see to the whole cause of promoting a 'greener' lifestyle are those unelected, self-appointed spokespersons who for too long have enjoyed an un-earned position to tell 'us' what's good for us and, worse, brook no critique whatsoever. These days any doubts on the efficacy of some green scheme that may not be all it is claimed, especially when vindicated, are usually met with accusations in the same way the cry of '-ist' was thrown around in earlier times.
Interestingly, the BBC has cited the main reason for pulling Planet Relief was fact that their audience - the nation's Joe & Jill Average - had fed back that rather than another green elite party they'd really prefer balanced information on what's going on, and ways to cope within already pressurised calls on time and budget.
Why does a celeb NEED a private jet? They are cash rich and time poor. But if that's necessary to manage the demands of their chosen lifestyle, when it comes to how that example plays out then maybe they need to reassess, with their managers, their personal values of what is 'enough'. Make a few less movies, go on fewer tours... and don't earn as many millions as last year. Stay at home more. Travel slower. Buy better stuff and not only the latest and glitziest just because you can.
You'll set a better example and maybe even enjoy life more. And rather than issuing press release about it via your people, let it be simply found out about and appreciated by getting 'out there' organically rather than stuffing it down other folk's throats as part of a rounded CV.
Living a more eco lifestyle is, for now, a mostly more expensive choice and/or in complement a less income-acquisitive one. Many don't have the luxury of limitless funds to match up to what some can afford to do with chump change. Do it, fine. Let it be shared, well, ok. Preach from a shaky pedestal... fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
A guy took exception, and unfortunately in a rather selective manner that also embraced the 'brook no criticism' stance that I find very tiresome. I had to reply:
Who is tearing who down? This seems a rather grotesque - and all too common - knee-jerk dismissal to the notion of simply asking any questions on the efficacy of certain aspects of promoting environmental good practice. Plus having an opinion.
As it happens, I think that Leo seems to be one of the more substantial 'celebrities' trying to make their mark under the difficult, but realistic spotlight that has been acknowledged.
Then again, to those who don't fly so much, and usually if we do once a year in cattle class, taking 'A' trip to Europe by commercial air came across as a tad... unfortunate as a comeback. Though the question, in the spirit of things at the time, was not very nice. But that... is the reality of the system. So understand it to play it to best advantage.
I guess I am keen on making a change, but I do wonder who else with green intentions is simultaneously trying to 'destroy' whose.... own leaders? I think I missed that election.
As to real points, I did sit in a [demographically sensitive location definition deleted] with 20 of my [demographically sensitive group definition deleted] chums who tolerate what I bang on about all the time. The result was that the concert set back my efforts. They didn't buy it and thought the way it was set up was silly. It seemed to give 'em a good excuse to revert to more profligate ways as 'those that are telling [them] how to behave' seemed to be doing so from a 'not us, of course, that wouldn't be practical to do our jobs' camp'. Some business persons not in the ents/media world do need to travel to stay employed, too. So who is left? It's a tough sell to some poor family looking at a guilt-tripped (there's an idea for a travel agent) 2 weeks a year in the sun to be fed 'Here's XX in her designer T an entourage at such and such a camp in 'Exotic place 101', especially when combo'd with their latest kid-buying sleepover in a 5* resort a world away down the road.
You may have a different experience. That was mine and it influenced my view on this as a mechanism of change.
As to only supporting uncritically those who do pollute and depend on us to use them to do so, I'm afraid I will need to remain in favour of phased reduction.
I can recommend Leo Hickman's book, Final Call, which does a good job of looking at the issues surrounding 'our' need and/or desire to travel, but also as quickly as possible. More efficient engines are indeed a worthy instrument of mitigation and delay, and I am sure will allow more of a movement to commercial craft that can offer the necessary facilities to lure some from 'going private'.
But it is actually more thoughtful than that.
And, as always, some good comments pro and con to follow.
For some reason, I was moved to pitch in:
An interesting analysis, with equally interesting posts in response.
There is a slight sense of 'damned if you do; damned if you don't..' that makes it hard not to sympathise with the motives and probable frustrations of a passionate, committed 'activist' celeb.
I really felt sorry that someone such as Bono was copping so much flak because of who he was and what he earned, whilst being a man with a view almost being required to shut up and sing.
But then ego comes into play. What if by what they are doing they are not serving the greater enviROI or indeed the most effective message? They may well be genuine and have opinions and want to speak out or even do, but there are, sorry guys, bigger factors than what they want, and especially if that somehow needs to translate into column inches or airtime.
Sadly the good of intention will get tarred by the less so, especially when the PR machine/media support systems see opportunity. I have lost count of the number of slots where some blonde or buff gets wheeled on to give us 10 seconds of cause before we move on to 'so how's the new movie?'.
We are in an era when the messenger is more important than the message, so that messenger has to be pretty squeaky clean and on message. As pointed out, with the best will in the world that's hard to do when you are making squillions and few outlets exist to spent it on are that environmentally sound. Again the 'machine' has demands. Walking to the shops, buying domestic and holidaying in the back yard are hardly the stuff of glamour magazine front pages. There's the dilemma. If that's the job, then fine, but don't ask those who not enjoying such a lifestyle not to note that and only empathise with selected aspects of what is being shared by way of example.
Bob Geldof had a rather colourful view on how much more 'awareness of the problem' that we all needed when Live Earth was in the news. I would value an objective analysis of how it did indeed serve the actual aims. Were the collective greenhouse emissions of all involved (protagonists and audience) reduced as a consequence? Was the awareness raised (of?) positively and, more importantly, call to actions embraced?
Don't know about anywhere else, but here in the UK it was not the greatest example of motivation and publicity that one could have hoped for. Especially for any plugging the causes of green.
Hence the next effort in this mould, Planet Relief, as mooted by the BBC, didn't get off the ground, to the surprise of many in the media world just waiting for all the opportunities they would have had to feed off it. And some, with spectacular sour grapes, took to blaming all but their own inability to read the public mood for its downfall.
There was even an attempt to portray this as a victory for politically-motivated, climate denier-funded campaigning. Not so. But there were many from very committed environmental standpoints who simply didn't feel that such things were very effective, and may even set the cause back. Frankly the most damage I see to the whole cause of promoting a 'greener' lifestyle are those unelected, self-appointed spokespersons who for too long have enjoyed an un-earned position to tell 'us' what's good for us and, worse, brook no critique whatsoever. These days any doubts on the efficacy of some green scheme that may not be all it is claimed, especially when vindicated, are usually met with accusations in the same way the cry of '-ist' was thrown around in earlier times.
Interestingly, the BBC has cited the main reason for pulling Planet Relief was fact that their audience - the nation's Joe & Jill Average - had fed back that rather than another green elite party they'd really prefer balanced information on what's going on, and ways to cope within already pressurised calls on time and budget.
Why does a celeb NEED a private jet? They are cash rich and time poor. But if that's necessary to manage the demands of their chosen lifestyle, when it comes to how that example plays out then maybe they need to reassess, with their managers, their personal values of what is 'enough'. Make a few less movies, go on fewer tours... and don't earn as many millions as last year. Stay at home more. Travel slower. Buy better stuff and not only the latest and glitziest just because you can.
You'll set a better example and maybe even enjoy life more. And rather than issuing press release about it via your people, let it be simply found out about and appreciated by getting 'out there' organically rather than stuffing it down other folk's throats as part of a rounded CV.
Living a more eco lifestyle is, for now, a mostly more expensive choice and/or in complement a less income-acquisitive one. Many don't have the luxury of limitless funds to match up to what some can afford to do with chump change. Do it, fine. Let it be shared, well, ok. Preach from a shaky pedestal... fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
A guy took exception, and unfortunately in a rather selective manner that also embraced the 'brook no criticism' stance that I find very tiresome. I had to reply:
Who is tearing who down? This seems a rather grotesque - and all too common - knee-jerk dismissal to the notion of simply asking any questions on the efficacy of certain aspects of promoting environmental good practice. Plus having an opinion.
As it happens, I think that Leo seems to be one of the more substantial 'celebrities' trying to make their mark under the difficult, but realistic spotlight that has been acknowledged.
Then again, to those who don't fly so much, and usually if we do once a year in cattle class, taking 'A' trip to Europe by commercial air came across as a tad... unfortunate as a comeback. Though the question, in the spirit of things at the time, was not very nice. But that... is the reality of the system. So understand it to play it to best advantage.
I guess I am keen on making a change, but I do wonder who else with green intentions is simultaneously trying to 'destroy' whose.... own leaders? I think I missed that election.
As to real points, I did sit in a [demographically sensitive location definition deleted] with 20 of my [demographically sensitive group definition deleted] chums who tolerate what I bang on about all the time. The result was that the concert set back my efforts. They didn't buy it and thought the way it was set up was silly. It seemed to give 'em a good excuse to revert to more profligate ways as 'those that are telling [them] how to behave' seemed to be doing so from a 'not us, of course, that wouldn't be practical to do our jobs' camp'. Some business persons not in the ents/media world do need to travel to stay employed, too. So who is left? It's a tough sell to some poor family looking at a guilt-tripped (there's an idea for a travel agent) 2 weeks a year in the sun to be fed 'Here's XX in her designer T an entourage at such and such a camp in 'Exotic place 101', especially when combo'd with their latest kid-buying sleepover in a 5* resort a world away down the road.
You may have a different experience. That was mine and it influenced my view on this as a mechanism of change.
As to only supporting uncritically those who do pollute and depend on us to use them to do so, I'm afraid I will need to remain in favour of phased reduction.
I can recommend Leo Hickman's book, Final Call, which does a good job of looking at the issues surrounding 'our' need and/or desire to travel, but also as quickly as possible. More efficient engines are indeed a worthy instrument of mitigation and delay, and I am sure will allow more of a movement to commercial craft that can offer the necessary facilities to lure some from 'going private'.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Talk is cheap. Not even talking is, therefore...
Me, I'm into reducing waste. So, enough already on my plate. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it in not leaping into this one: Greens need to grasp the nettle: aren't there just too many people?
Frankly, between the article and the posts (never seen so many either edited or deleted by the moderator - passions running high, I guess), the whole issue has been pretty well thrashed out.
However, it was not until the end that I caught one who tried to answer the question, and did so quite well, I thought, for all the good it does us:
'There's no profit, politically or economically in population reduction. It's laughable to suggest that people would accept this, as the green lobby and government are only too aware . 'Green taxes', however, will potentially bring in billions of pounds for the Exchequer and private finance, the public will begrudgingly feel they're doing their bit to save the planet and we can all go home and have a nice cup of tea.'
More milk, vicars?
Frankly, between the article and the posts (never seen so many either edited or deleted by the moderator - passions running high, I guess), the whole issue has been pretty well thrashed out.
However, it was not until the end that I caught one who tried to answer the question, and did so quite well, I thought, for all the good it does us:
'There's no profit, politically or economically in population reduction. It's laughable to suggest that people would accept this, as the green lobby and government are only too aware . 'Green taxes', however, will potentially bring in billions of pounds for the Exchequer and private finance, the public will begrudgingly feel they're doing their bit to save the planet and we can all go home and have a nice cup of tea.'
More milk, vicars?
APEC - a step forward or just so much hot air?
Some say that the APEC meeting in Sydney was a huge success, others moot that its outputs, as least as far as climate change mitigation are concerned, are no more than a load of hot air.
As reported by Reuters, many environmental groups have labeled Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'Sydney Declaration' useless; "Green groups immediately dismissed the 'Sydney distraction' as so much hot air adding to the warming of the globe." Although some level of agreement appears to have been reached, the final declaration wording is "voluntary and non-binding", so it seems to permit some of the planet's worst emitters to carry on regardless.
What I thought quite funny was Dubya's accidental referral to 'OPEC' rather than 'APEC'; he obviously still has oil on his mind in a big way.
And it was interesting to note that the biggest amount of international media coverage was not for the Sydney Declaration itself, but for the stunt pulled by ABC TV's staff:-
"Posing as the Canadian delegation, members of ABC TV's The Chaser show drove a 'motorcade' through two checkpoints to within metres of Bush's hotel -- one of them made up to look like Osama bin Laden, and the designation 'Insecurity' written on their convention passes. Police arrested 11 of them".
As reported by Reuters, many environmental groups have labeled Australian Prime Minister John Howard's 'Sydney Declaration' useless; "Green groups immediately dismissed the 'Sydney distraction' as so much hot air adding to the warming of the globe." Although some level of agreement appears to have been reached, the final declaration wording is "voluntary and non-binding", so it seems to permit some of the planet's worst emitters to carry on regardless.
What I thought quite funny was Dubya's accidental referral to 'OPEC' rather than 'APEC'; he obviously still has oil on his mind in a big way.
And it was interesting to note that the biggest amount of international media coverage was not for the Sydney Declaration itself, but for the stunt pulled by ABC TV's staff:-
"Posing as the Canadian delegation, members of ABC TV's The Chaser show drove a 'motorcade' through two checkpoints to within metres of Bush's hotel -- one of them made up to look like Osama bin Laden, and the designation 'Insecurity' written on their convention passes. Police arrested 11 of them".
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Bird Brains
'Sustainable' flood defences call Odd that such a sensible notion should come from such a quarter, if not first, but to the exception of any other I have seen elsewhere.
By way of an update I still remain unanswered in my attempts to render my home safer form any future water-related issues.
By way of an update I still remain unanswered in my attempts to render my home safer form any future water-related issues.
Carrot Tops
I just watched the newly-celeb billed (why?) Andrew Marr show, with one guest being Zac Goldsmith, who was there to explain the new Conservative proposals on the environment.
These are by all accounts discussed in the papers today and I will add links as I come across them later. And then there is the report itself, which is due soon.
I must say how well he came across, though Andrew Marr is not exactly the most challenging of interviewers, and was encouraged by the commitment to 'carrot first, stick second' initiatives.
One obvious one, though smart in its thinking, is to put the incentives at the best point. Hence lowering stamp duty at the point of a house being exchanged in a sale, when there is the best opportunity to upgrade.
Just... I wonder about the logistics of assessment to ensure it is carried out as intended. Also, as one who is committed to eco-upgrades at every opportunity, I remain concerned at forthcoming incentives to those who improve, which leaves hanging whether those who have already may see less reward for having done so. Targets based on improvements are OK, but not if they favour those who hold back to get a better bonus. That is bad enviROI as well as being unfair.
He was also quite clear on the matter of celebrity 'awareness', which was refreshing. By birth and position he cannot help to be who and where he is, but as a multi-millionaire his stated beliefs came across as quite Fiesta Family friendly as to Prius Person Pontificating.
BBC - Tory group urges 'green rebate' - nice to see the FoE on baord
Indy - Tories bite tax bullet in battle for the green vote
Guardian - Tory green package targets short-haul flights and landfill
These are by all accounts discussed in the papers today and I will add links as I come across them later. And then there is the report itself, which is due soon.
I must say how well he came across, though Andrew Marr is not exactly the most challenging of interviewers, and was encouraged by the commitment to 'carrot first, stick second' initiatives.
One obvious one, though smart in its thinking, is to put the incentives at the best point. Hence lowering stamp duty at the point of a house being exchanged in a sale, when there is the best opportunity to upgrade.
Just... I wonder about the logistics of assessment to ensure it is carried out as intended. Also, as one who is committed to eco-upgrades at every opportunity, I remain concerned at forthcoming incentives to those who improve, which leaves hanging whether those who have already may see less reward for having done so. Targets based on improvements are OK, but not if they favour those who hold back to get a better bonus. That is bad enviROI as well as being unfair.
He was also quite clear on the matter of celebrity 'awareness', which was refreshing. By birth and position he cannot help to be who and where he is, but as a multi-millionaire his stated beliefs came across as quite Fiesta Family friendly as to Prius Person Pontificating.
BBC - Tory group urges 'green rebate' - nice to see the FoE on baord
Indy - Tories bite tax bullet in battle for the green vote
Guardian - Tory green package targets short-haul flights and landfill
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Money, money, money
Commy time again! At first I was ready to dismiss this - Call the fat cats’ bluff and tax their preposterous pay fairly - as another Peter Hainsian bit of political rabble-rousing (only this time in a journalistic, sociological way) drag-down nonsense, but I feel it is well considered and worth reading.
A bit like population, this is a BIG issue with little incentive for any statespersonlike individual (if such exists) to tackle, but the fact of the matter seems to me that if there are a lot of folk with a load more money than they can handle (celebs, big City types, ex-PMs), they are going to splurge in a consumer-driven orgy of excess spending on stuff and travel just to validate having it all.
Which, in turn, the media will serve and feed off. Which in turn, makes it seem unlikely that those less blessed will see why they should cut back.
The circle of strife?
A bit like population, this is a BIG issue with little incentive for any statespersonlike individual (if such exists) to tackle, but the fact of the matter seems to me that if there are a lot of folk with a load more money than they can handle (celebs, big City types, ex-PMs), they are going to splurge in a consumer-driven orgy of excess spending on stuff and travel just to validate having it all.
Which, in turn, the media will serve and feed off. Which in turn, makes it seem unlikely that those less blessed will see why they should cut back.
The circle of strife?
What a waste?
This - Poor communication plagues waste industry - from Recycling and Waste World looks a promising start to helping the public.... if it gets heeded.
It's good to read some in the waste management industry feel the issue of communications with the consumer needs addressing, but I'd suggest that shouldering it as indicated is bearing too much of the burden alone.
Every aspect of waste, from the moment it gets dug out the ground as raw materials to the moment it is returned to it as landfill (or not) at point of disposal, needs to be properly coordinated at national level. Beyond simple improvements in enviROI, only then can the consumer be properly expect to play their - highly necessary - part.
There surely have to be coherent, complementary, KISS explanations at point of sale (and associated advertising) agreed and shared by all involved in the chain that leads to purchase and beyond - government, LA, quangos, manufacturers, retailers - as well as those tasked to deal with it all.
The current system(s) regarding healthy food show how different information may tick some boxes but not best serve the optimum desired result. Once we have food miles and/or carbon footprints in the several competing ways already embraced and/or mooted, plus a litter of marketing logos (Future Friendly looking like the latest player), I half expect to have a CDR attached to my Smarties just to explain all it’s deemed necessary I know!
And while online resources can do a lot, and recognizing the first quoted case is more industry based, simply pointing at a website cannot be the solution. Especially as one holds a bottle in one’s hand over the bin. So Hampshire CC is to be commended and I look forward to seeing how they address this issue.
Currently, as I look at a pack with at least three types of plastic on it, and up a slot on the skip that says such as 'HDPE 1 only' on it, I remain unsure as to what to do for the best and don't feel much has been made easy to help me... to help.
So, for now, I'll just find a reuse for it.
It's good to read some in the waste management industry feel the issue of communications with the consumer needs addressing, but I'd suggest that shouldering it as indicated is bearing too much of the burden alone.
Every aspect of waste, from the moment it gets dug out the ground as raw materials to the moment it is returned to it as landfill (or not) at point of disposal, needs to be properly coordinated at national level. Beyond simple improvements in enviROI, only then can the consumer be properly expect to play their - highly necessary - part.
There surely have to be coherent, complementary, KISS explanations at point of sale (and associated advertising) agreed and shared by all involved in the chain that leads to purchase and beyond - government, LA, quangos, manufacturers, retailers - as well as those tasked to deal with it all.
The current system(s) regarding healthy food show how different information may tick some boxes but not best serve the optimum desired result. Once we have food miles and/or carbon footprints in the several competing ways already embraced and/or mooted, plus a litter of marketing logos (Future Friendly looking like the latest player), I half expect to have a CDR attached to my Smarties just to explain all it’s deemed necessary I know!
And while online resources can do a lot, and recognizing the first quoted case is more industry based, simply pointing at a website cannot be the solution. Especially as one holds a bottle in one’s hand over the bin. So Hampshire CC is to be commended and I look forward to seeing how they address this issue.
Currently, as I look at a pack with at least three types of plastic on it, and up a slot on the skip that says such as 'HDPE 1 only' on it, I remain unsure as to what to do for the best and don't feel much has been made easy to help me... to help.
So, for now, I'll just find a reuse for it.
Friday, September 07, 2007
A blonde. A cause. A new book/film/TV series.
I'm kind of losing count of how many Estuary blondes there are on the roster, but the more they crank out the more causes can be found. And as Green is the new 'du jour', so another I have to try and figure out gets launched on the box.
This one is something like Future Friendly, and will need tracking down as I don't recall in the slot much else before we moved to the real point: the 'goss..
Actually the blonde plugging (who showers and doesn't bath, apparently. Which is nice) tried gamefully to get back on the subject a few times, despite the blonde asking doing the usual 'so you have a cause? Well, great, now about the film and what was it like to lick Tom's...'
At least it's not their job to trivialise such an important issue.
ADDENDUM - Didn't take long...
Guardian - Future friendly? - Just guessing mind, but even they don't seem quite as enamoured at the Gaurdian as do the BBC. Remind me again, whose job is it to report the news and not....
Is the best default they have 'let's have a thing and get celebs along to talk about it to raise awareness 'n stuff'? Again?
Is this the same one I saw Tamsin Outhwaite promoting on, I believe, the BBC? That would be the BBC who is not in the business of... [fill in here]? And certainly not to trivialise huge issues in the name of celebrity ratings fests.
At least she tried to stretch to a few things about helping the planet in (she doesn't bath, apparently. Showers only. Which is nice) before she and her blonde oppo got into her new book/play/series/whatever, which, I must say, seemed to be what all parties present seemed really more interested in.
This one is something like Future Friendly, and will need tracking down as I don't recall in the slot much else before we moved to the real point: the 'goss..
Actually the blonde plugging (who showers and doesn't bath, apparently. Which is nice) tried gamefully to get back on the subject a few times, despite the blonde asking doing the usual 'so you have a cause? Well, great, now about the film and what was it like to lick Tom's...'
At least it's not their job to trivialise such an important issue.
ADDENDUM - Didn't take long...
Guardian - Future friendly? - Just guessing mind, but even they don't seem quite as enamoured at the Gaurdian as do the BBC. Remind me again, whose job is it to report the news and not....
Is the best default they have 'let's have a thing and get celebs along to talk about it to raise awareness 'n stuff'? Again?
Is this the same one I saw Tamsin Outhwaite promoting on, I believe, the BBC? That would be the BBC who is not in the business of... [fill in here]? And certainly not to trivialise huge issues in the name of celebrity ratings fests.
At least she tried to stretch to a few things about helping the planet in (she doesn't bath, apparently. Showers only. Which is nice) before she and her blonde oppo got into her new book/play/series/whatever, which, I must say, seemed to be what all parties present seemed really more interested in.
Sleeping Partners?
Or strange bedfellows? Ok, enough of the bed metaphors. Well, one more. I don't really care who hooks up with whom and will sleep easier so long as the intent is genuine and the results tangible.
Much has been made of Johan Eliasch's move (note: I'm pretty sure they mean 'donate' and not denote in the write-up) from Tory to Labour camp, and as is they way with the navel-gazing, feral beasties of the Westminster Village the environmental issues have taken second billing to the 'defection'.
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay), I am hopeful.
BBC - Ex-Tory donor to be Brown adviser
BBC - A welcome hand - to which i added this above, with a couple of additions:
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear (rather obvious point about talking in opposition vs. doing in government taken) then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out. The whole jet/offset thing is a pity, as the concept of buying off excess shouldn't be allowed to fly, but I guess I can live with it so long as Mr. Eliasch doesn't end up on air at every stage telling us what to do even though 'it would not be, like, you know, practical for him not to'.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay) after the Newsnight piece, I am hopeful.
Much has been made of Johan Eliasch's move (note: I'm pretty sure they mean 'donate' and not denote in the write-up) from Tory to Labour camp, and as is they way with the navel-gazing, feral beasties of the Westminster Village the environmental issues have taken second billing to the 'defection'.
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay), I am hopeful.
BBC - Ex-Tory donor to be Brown adviser
BBC - A welcome hand - to which i added this above, with a couple of additions:
But if... big IF... this means a guy who does seem to be smart and committed gets to whisper in Mr. Brown's ear (rather obvious point about talking in opposition vs. doing in government taken) then it looks a pretty good thing. If... Mr. Brown listens.
It will be interesting to see how this trend for multi-millionaires advising political leadership on motivating the masses in matters green pans out. The whole jet/offset thing is a pity, as the concept of buying off excess shouldn't be allowed to fly, but I guess I can live with it so long as Mr. Eliasch doesn't end up on air at every stage telling us what to do even though 'it would not be, like, you know, practical for him not to'.
In this case, as I have always seen merit in Cool Earth as a quick, big fix (well, delay) after the Newsnight piece, I am hopeful.
Will they walk the walk ......
..... as well as they talk the talk?
This rather interesting snippet from offshore-technology.com which reports on Robert Olson, Chairman of ExxonMobil no less, speaking in Aberdeen about "the need for innovation in one of the most contentious issues affecting the offshore industry – climate change."
"Describing how ExxonMobil is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, he stated that the company is supporting breakthrough technological research to help 'reduce the 'gap' tomorrow'."
As a major financial supporter of research to fund the denier's side in the climate change debate, this strikes me as almost a case of the leopard changing its spots.
I guess we'll have to wait and see just how this plays out.
This rather interesting snippet from offshore-technology.com which reports on Robert Olson, Chairman of ExxonMobil no less, speaking in Aberdeen about "the need for innovation in one of the most contentious issues affecting the offshore industry – climate change."
"Describing how ExxonMobil is taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, he stated that the company is supporting breakthrough technological research to help 'reduce the 'gap' tomorrow'."
As a major financial supporter of research to fund the denier's side in the climate change debate, this strikes me as almost a case of the leopard changing its spots.
I guess we'll have to wait and see just how this plays out.
Biting both ways
I am still engaging, perhaps more than is good for my RSI, with Biased BBC. They do seem to catch some howlers worth noting. As a check and balance they can be useful in highlighting errant reporting.
However, I can also see how a small drop of ink can stain a large bowl. Hence a comment of global warming, and its reporting (or, in this case, as I felt it, not), required a reply:
I also came up with some more bon mots I like:
PPCC - Person-produced climate change
MWCC or PPPCC - man-worsened/Personal-pollution promoting climate change
A virus comes to Europe and it's all the fault of global warming.
I am still on a steep learning curve (which I suspect will soon be near vertical), so forgive my remaining unsure on certain factual aspects of this issue.
There's climate change (which I believe most accept is happening. And, probably, for the worse (definitions vary, and indeed death tolls can be skewed in historical comparisons by virtue of there being more people on the ground to cop a natural disaster. Equally perceptions, as there are A LOT MORE reporters on the ground to capture every terrible moment).
Then there's global warming. Which to me is not the best term because while most 'stuff' is getting laid at its door, and it seems a convenient if broad way to refer to an overall trend, on a local and day-to-day basis there's an awful lot that is cold and wet. So I wish it were not used so much, or as it usually is. Especially by BBC reporters, if it was used in such as the Scottish radio report (and I must confess I did not see it in the mosquito piece).
So let's move to man-made (sorry to be un-PC (Person-produced?) climate change. This seems to 'accept' that the activities of man are pretty much responsible, exclusively, for the whole deal. In astronomical and geographical terms, especially considering the forces involved, I find such an absolute unlikely. And I don't think it has yet been proven. So to use it would seem... premature.
Which brings me to my own, favoured, definition: man-worsened (Personal-pollution promoting?) climate change. This is the area where the fun seems to be, if you enjoy mutually dependent extremes such big oil funded 'deniers' and 'activists' en route to endless conferences in Bali knocking spots off each other with single statistics and lone hyperlinks.... fun.
To nail my colours to the mast, I'm still floating in the middle, erring on the more 'green' corner, if only because rationally I can't see that bazillions (and counting) of folk polluting (emissions always seems so coy) away on finite ground and into finite air space cannot but have an unhappy end point. So, speaking of points, I figure maybe it's best to consider the tipping one a tad more proactively before it's too late. In this case 'I told you so' to the do-nothing brigade will be of little comfort to me or my kids. Conversely, they may not feel being wrong to be a huge problem in the great scheme of things, so it’s a lose-lose.
But it's all very complicated made more so with, in the modern world, democratic institutions populated by those more interested in process than product, and now near paralysed by the power and extent of media (new and old) and its ability to sway the masses. There is not a statesperson amongst them and, probably, even if there were, the moment they tried to do anything radical based on sincere beliefs, the ratings whores would ensure they were hounded out before you could say 'ist', ‘inger’, ‘zi’.... or 'tomorrow's headlines'.
So we're down to information, education, and, where possible (yawning chasm in there), persuasion. And as I like winnable wars, I’m a big woos by sticking more to doing something about reducing waste and leaving the waaaaay bigger issues to braver folk. I just ask that they don’t get tempted to cut corners doing what they think is best for me as my experience is that, even if it is (which it may not be) getting caught out negates and often pushes things further back.
I have to say that in this case, having read the piece, I was more simply educated and informed about a fact of biology that by my own extrapolation is likely to attributable to climate change.
No more. No less. But the additional info is appreciated, thanks.
Equally the subsequent fact (forgive me for now having to let it remain as un attributed and unconfirmed, though it sounds convincing) from Archduke on sea levels.
However, I can also see how a small drop of ink can stain a large bowl. Hence a comment of global warming, and its reporting (or, in this case, as I felt it, not), required a reply:
I also came up with some more bon mots I like:
PPCC - Person-produced climate change
MWCC or PPPCC - man-worsened/Personal-pollution promoting climate change
A virus comes to Europe and it's all the fault of global warming.
I am still on a steep learning curve (which I suspect will soon be near vertical), so forgive my remaining unsure on certain factual aspects of this issue.
There's climate change (which I believe most accept is happening. And, probably, for the worse (definitions vary, and indeed death tolls can be skewed in historical comparisons by virtue of there being more people on the ground to cop a natural disaster. Equally perceptions, as there are A LOT MORE reporters on the ground to capture every terrible moment).
Then there's global warming. Which to me is not the best term because while most 'stuff' is getting laid at its door, and it seems a convenient if broad way to refer to an overall trend, on a local and day-to-day basis there's an awful lot that is cold and wet. So I wish it were not used so much, or as it usually is. Especially by BBC reporters, if it was used in such as the Scottish radio report (and I must confess I did not see it in the mosquito piece).
So let's move to man-made (sorry to be un-PC (Person-produced?) climate change. This seems to 'accept' that the activities of man are pretty much responsible, exclusively, for the whole deal. In astronomical and geographical terms, especially considering the forces involved, I find such an absolute unlikely. And I don't think it has yet been proven. So to use it would seem... premature.
Which brings me to my own, favoured, definition: man-worsened (Personal-pollution promoting?) climate change. This is the area where the fun seems to be, if you enjoy mutually dependent extremes such big oil funded 'deniers' and 'activists' en route to endless conferences in Bali knocking spots off each other with single statistics and lone hyperlinks.... fun.
To nail my colours to the mast, I'm still floating in the middle, erring on the more 'green' corner, if only because rationally I can't see that bazillions (and counting) of folk polluting (emissions always seems so coy) away on finite ground and into finite air space cannot but have an unhappy end point. So, speaking of points, I figure maybe it's best to consider the tipping one a tad more proactively before it's too late. In this case 'I told you so' to the do-nothing brigade will be of little comfort to me or my kids. Conversely, they may not feel being wrong to be a huge problem in the great scheme of things, so it’s a lose-lose.
But it's all very complicated made more so with, in the modern world, democratic institutions populated by those more interested in process than product, and now near paralysed by the power and extent of media (new and old) and its ability to sway the masses. There is not a statesperson amongst them and, probably, even if there were, the moment they tried to do anything radical based on sincere beliefs, the ratings whores would ensure they were hounded out before you could say 'ist', ‘inger’, ‘zi’.... or 'tomorrow's headlines'.
So we're down to information, education, and, where possible (yawning chasm in there), persuasion. And as I like winnable wars, I’m a big woos by sticking more to doing something about reducing waste and leaving the waaaaay bigger issues to braver folk. I just ask that they don’t get tempted to cut corners doing what they think is best for me as my experience is that, even if it is (which it may not be) getting caught out negates and often pushes things further back.
I have to say that in this case, having read the piece, I was more simply educated and informed about a fact of biology that by my own extrapolation is likely to attributable to climate change.
No more. No less. But the additional info is appreciated, thanks.
Equally the subsequent fact (forgive me for now having to let it remain as un attributed and unconfirmed, though it sounds convincing) from Archduke on sea levels.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
The best question yet!
From today's Guardian article by Guy Edwards.
Sometimes you just happen across something where the question that you knew you always wanted to ask, but couldn't quite phrase it just in the terms you wanted to, is asked for you! So here it is ........
"How can it be that one man is able to persuade the UK parliament to go to war in Iraq based on weak intelligence, causing thousands of people to protest on the streets, and at the same time millions of people cannot convince their own leaders to take the threat of climate change seriously when even the chief scientific adviser to the government says it is a far greater threat than international terrorism."
Quite! And deserving of some valid answers!
"Brown's recent decision to downgrade the ministerial committee on energy and the environment has demonstrated an uneasy truth, that there is little substance behind 'Brown's green facade'."
You heard it here first! See last paragraph of Met Office Prediction.
"We are running out of time. Brown must take it upon himself to act - putting a stop to climate change requires the power of strong leadership."
Well, let's see if Ol' Golden is up to the task. I have my doubts.
Sometimes you just happen across something where the question that you knew you always wanted to ask, but couldn't quite phrase it just in the terms you wanted to, is asked for you! So here it is ........
"How can it be that one man is able to persuade the UK parliament to go to war in Iraq based on weak intelligence, causing thousands of people to protest on the streets, and at the same time millions of people cannot convince their own leaders to take the threat of climate change seriously when even the chief scientific adviser to the government says it is a far greater threat than international terrorism."
Quite! And deserving of some valid answers!
"Brown's recent decision to downgrade the ministerial committee on energy and the environment has demonstrated an uneasy truth, that there is little substance behind 'Brown's green facade'."
You heard it here first! See last paragraph of Met Office Prediction.
"We are running out of time. Brown must take it upon himself to act - putting a stop to climate change requires the power of strong leadership."
Well, let's see if Ol' Golden is up to the task. I have my doubts.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
What a relief?
I was never too convinced about it, so I welcome the BBC climate special decision.
What I don't like is how it now plays out.
I don't think I'm any 'wing'. In fact I have the notion that the best way to soar higher is to have both, and evenly balanced.
But by virtue of trying to do a bunch of stuff to help my kids' futures, I guess I could be thought of as an 'Environmental campaigner' of sorts. My thoughts on the decision were however not solicited. Who activist and writer Mark Lynas is and what qualifies him to speak on behalf of those who 'do care more than others' (I would not presume, hoping we all do equally) about our planet and its direction is not clear.
And while I may be vociferous, and small, I am not a climate 'sceptic' lobbying against taking action.
I just thought this effort sounded like another, misconceived green elite luvvie jolly like the last one. And like that it sucked big time whilst not helping me at all in my mission to inspire the public to see environmentally good practice not as a chore, or a guilt-trip or a nanny-duty, but as a bit of collective (we're in this together) fun and often a way to save some money. If I can sneak in a bit of reduction (ie: self-sacrifice), I will try though. Sneaky like that.
Hence to the point that 'poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change', it was hard to see how the new effort was going to improve matters. From the moment I switched on Live Earth the choice of Mr. Ross as presenter, and his musings, along with those 'guests' wheeled in to do the 'I recycle and offset' mantra whilst 'not quite finding it practical to cut back personally, as such' on the trappings only immense wealth and celebrity can bring, I felt most of the messengers were ill serving the message. That a Spice took but one week to go from 'doing it for her baby' to getting a personal private jet (as reported) kinda sealed the notion thereafter. And handed papers (tab and broad of all hues) a blinder that eclipsed most else.
Hence I think we might value again such as one Mr. Geldof's views on just how much more 'awareness' and 'consciousness-raising' of this nature we can cope with. Or the planet afford.
I happen to share the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance may well be raising temperatures around the world, and believe that clear, honest education, balanced information, example and incentive are the ways to sway public opinion and behaviour to help mitigate it. It is all urgent, so the temptation to cut corners 'for our own good' exists, but in this new media age whatever temporary gain you may get from 'enhanced truth', it will be set back tenfold when it gets caught out. As it does and will.
A ratings fest with a 'green elite only' green room that most outside the jetset and its reporting chums won't be invited to, on top of the last, was not my top choice for the money and logistical expertise that could be brought to bear, sorry.
So to try and plonk me in some group just because I have other, 'not ours' views certainly ain't helping the cause. Argue with me for sure, but only as you also get on and 'do' something real to mitigate or reduce the production of unnecessary green house gasses that doesn't owe more to massive self/career interest. Falling back on invoking a collection of 'ing's', 'ist's' and 'zi's' as the toys don't get put back in the pram won't get me on side one jot.
If, that is, your primary concern really is helping make a better future.
ADDENDUM:
I'd missed this before - No line - the comments are telling. The usual 'tis/t'isn't selective hyperlink quoting BOFDI/GAAC exchanges to be sure, but an awful lot who just don't like to be patronised. I'd have loved to have been here - How green is TV?. The synopsis end line sums it up.
ADDENDUM 2:
This... sucks: Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - I can live with the line they are taking; that's their prerogative and how I accord value to the paper's place in the debate. But that most of this front page piece was either lifted from the same PR as the BBC version, or lifted from that if it was the originator, is just plain shoddy journalism and editorial. And proves some claims that this is a mantra to be chanted and not an issue to be considered.
My respect for the Indy, and trust that it's MMGW reporting can be viewed in any way as objective, is shot.
It's so depressing. This issue is tearing folk apart, but I have to say that the main culprits are those who thing they know better, will brook no critique, and savage any in the most childish terms if they don't get their way. I would have hoped those genuine in a desire to help save this planet would not so easily find themselves amongst them.
Guardian - Getting the balance wrong - Funny the word 'balance' is used
I had to reply, and hence evolved a prvious post:
At least I can rely on CiF, between the post and a mix of subsequent comments, to try and suss out a bit of balance.
Not so sure about elsewhere.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
The text seems to be almost interchangeable with the BBC Online piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Where did this originate (I'm presuming the BBC piece) that it is shared so (pretty lazy journalism by the Indy, in which case) between these separate media entities?
I remain less than impressed that any criticism of this particular jolly gets such dismissal as a 'right wing conspiracy', and to try and paint it that way is serving the environmental cause poorly.
There were many, like me, who just didn't feel this was the best way to do it. From the moment I read Ross was top billing, after his and his mates' efforts before, I knew whatever it was about, helping my kids' future was not top of the agenda. And, as noted... it bombed. Badly. I was dubious before, took no pleasure in seeing the fall out, but made a reasoned call on this effort to consider the likely outcome of the next in its planned form, as outlined by those proposing it (who now are throwing a load of toys around with near zero self-analysis of what has taken place, is happening and how they could evolve their strategy to better assist their aims in future).
I have a really vain hope this will not simply turn into an excuse for yet another fruitless slanging match between those who have massive agendas pro and con the notion of MMGW, with selective facts and cited hyperlinks that 'prove' whatever you fancy, and ways to mitigate adverse effects, at the expense of reasoned ways to discuss, move on and DO something that can have an impact that can still work within the current climate of debate... or debate of climate.
Telling me what I am, when I am not, especially in knee-jerk frustration, is not the best way to do it. I'd like to think the BBC made an editorial call on certain pertinent facts of science, life and the media world.... not in response to 'pressure' from boogey men.
I personally think the climate IS changing.
And whatever man is doing, we are not likely to be helping (6 billion and counting folk with improving economies will need to live on something, eat something else and doubtless travel a lot socially and/or professionally to do it all. There has to be a tipping point logically as the area of land and volume of air is finite to cope with such hyperbolic growth and consequent poll... emissions).
Hence, I figure a bit of mitigation, if not reduction is not a bad thing to get on board with now.
However, we live on a mostly free planet with a bunch of connected folk with their own opinions.
So they need to be persuaded. democratically and with balanced argument. Not by telling them they are deluded. And certainly not by patronising them or cherry-picking what they get to decide with, 'for their own good'.
And certainly not by dishing up an already discredited notion to serve a bunch of less than credible messengers to parrot a message that many seem unable to live by example personally, as, 'well, it's not really practical, y'know'.
Then sulking for England when a green room/elite jolly doesn't get the rapturous support expected, and often demanded without question in the name of gr..atings. It may play well with Prius Person, but I didn't see it sway Fiesta Family much. And they need to be invited on board as they are still the majority, don't all have 4x4s, don't live next a tube or all night bus and usually only buy bottled water when they are flooded.
But stuff, for sure, does (I believe) need doing.
So where in all this are the political establishment? Or is the Nu-, and so far highly successful, strategy of saying nothing and being nowhere (save non-controversial or feel-good events), paralysing those voted in to lead, and handle the course of our futures?
Guardian - Impartiality is a turn-off
'...audiences sit up and take notice. If that means more work for Jonathan Ross, then sign the cheque.'
If this is referring to Planet Relief R.I.P, one would rather question the wisdom of pitching it in the first place on the back of the actual results derived in 'making audiences sit up and take notice' (much less acting) that was Live Earth. Anchored, as I recall, by one less than inspiring (by way of example) cheque-cashing celeb.
I rather think the way most of the general public viewed this new green jolly, punted for the exclusive benefit of the luvvies in entertainment-related PR and their media hangers-on, was the reason it died. Not any lack of desire to do right by our kids' futures.
Missing that point puts most crying into their Fairtrade lattes at the loss of yet another 'awareness opportunity' right out of step with the reality most folk face... but are prepared to act upon sensibly to rectify.
I believe the BBC feedback was that most people simply wanted to be better informed. Not told what some feel is good for them.
BBC -
"(Only fair to say that the Independent was critical of the BBCs decision to drop Planet Relief - they must have felt very let down.)"
Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
Well, yes. But they did have some things in common:
The BBC climate special decision - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Replete with such choice shared comments as this:
"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action.'
Nothing to do with Live Earth being a total bomb, and the new version being pitched imaginatively as a total duplicate, replete with the 'line-up' of celebrity presenters to really get the common folk to empathise with their glowing examples of restraint. So I would suggest there were other reasons, and some of the loudest voices came from those truly concerned with getting consensus on positive, practical actions to mitigate possible catastrophic climate change before any tipping point may be reached. I can live with 'told you so' if I'm wrong for erring on the side of caution. But 'living with' anything may be tricky if such as I get entitled to say it instead.
Finally, if I am right this 'toys out of pram' reaction ignores either feedback or maybe even a poll of viewers to the effect that they'd like to get the facts, ta very much, and not another luvvie green-in to further boost the 'awareness'.
BBC - Relief relief
ADDENDUM - NEW - Planet Relief redux
What I don't like is how it now plays out.
I don't think I'm any 'wing'. In fact I have the notion that the best way to soar higher is to have both, and evenly balanced.
But by virtue of trying to do a bunch of stuff to help my kids' futures, I guess I could be thought of as an 'Environmental campaigner' of sorts. My thoughts on the decision were however not solicited. Who activist and writer Mark Lynas is and what qualifies him to speak on behalf of those who 'do care more than others' (I would not presume, hoping we all do equally) about our planet and its direction is not clear.
And while I may be vociferous, and small, I am not a climate 'sceptic' lobbying against taking action.
I just thought this effort sounded like another, misconceived green elite luvvie jolly like the last one. And like that it sucked big time whilst not helping me at all in my mission to inspire the public to see environmentally good practice not as a chore, or a guilt-trip or a nanny-duty, but as a bit of collective (we're in this together) fun and often a way to save some money. If I can sneak in a bit of reduction (ie: self-sacrifice), I will try though. Sneaky like that.
Hence to the point that 'poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change', it was hard to see how the new effort was going to improve matters. From the moment I switched on Live Earth the choice of Mr. Ross as presenter, and his musings, along with those 'guests' wheeled in to do the 'I recycle and offset' mantra whilst 'not quite finding it practical to cut back personally, as such' on the trappings only immense wealth and celebrity can bring, I felt most of the messengers were ill serving the message. That a Spice took but one week to go from 'doing it for her baby' to getting a personal private jet (as reported) kinda sealed the notion thereafter. And handed papers (tab and broad of all hues) a blinder that eclipsed most else.
Hence I think we might value again such as one Mr. Geldof's views on just how much more 'awareness' and 'consciousness-raising' of this nature we can cope with. Or the planet afford.
I happen to share the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance may well be raising temperatures around the world, and believe that clear, honest education, balanced information, example and incentive are the ways to sway public opinion and behaviour to help mitigate it. It is all urgent, so the temptation to cut corners 'for our own good' exists, but in this new media age whatever temporary gain you may get from 'enhanced truth', it will be set back tenfold when it gets caught out. As it does and will.
A ratings fest with a 'green elite only' green room that most outside the jetset and its reporting chums won't be invited to, on top of the last, was not my top choice for the money and logistical expertise that could be brought to bear, sorry.
So to try and plonk me in some group just because I have other, 'not ours' views certainly ain't helping the cause. Argue with me for sure, but only as you also get on and 'do' something real to mitigate or reduce the production of unnecessary green house gasses that doesn't owe more to massive self/career interest. Falling back on invoking a collection of 'ing's', 'ist's' and 'zi's' as the toys don't get put back in the pram won't get me on side one jot.
If, that is, your primary concern really is helping make a better future.
ADDENDUM:
I'd missed this before - No line - the comments are telling. The usual 'tis/t'isn't selective hyperlink quoting BOFDI/GAAC exchanges to be sure, but an awful lot who just don't like to be patronised. I'd have loved to have been here - How green is TV?. The synopsis end line sums it up.
ADDENDUM 2:
This... sucks: Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - I can live with the line they are taking; that's their prerogative and how I accord value to the paper's place in the debate. But that most of this front page piece was either lifted from the same PR as the BBC version, or lifted from that if it was the originator, is just plain shoddy journalism and editorial. And proves some claims that this is a mantra to be chanted and not an issue to be considered.
My respect for the Indy, and trust that it's MMGW reporting can be viewed in any way as objective, is shot.
It's so depressing. This issue is tearing folk apart, but I have to say that the main culprits are those who thing they know better, will brook no critique, and savage any in the most childish terms if they don't get their way. I would have hoped those genuine in a desire to help save this planet would not so easily find themselves amongst them.
Guardian - Getting the balance wrong - Funny the word 'balance' is used
I had to reply, and hence evolved a prvious post:
At least I can rely on CiF, between the post and a mix of subsequent comments, to try and suss out a bit of balance.
Not so sure about elsewhere.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
The text seems to be almost interchangeable with the BBC Online piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Where did this originate (I'm presuming the BBC piece) that it is shared so (pretty lazy journalism by the Indy, in which case) between these separate media entities?
I remain less than impressed that any criticism of this particular jolly gets such dismissal as a 'right wing conspiracy', and to try and paint it that way is serving the environmental cause poorly.
There were many, like me, who just didn't feel this was the best way to do it. From the moment I read Ross was top billing, after his and his mates' efforts before, I knew whatever it was about, helping my kids' future was not top of the agenda. And, as noted... it bombed. Badly. I was dubious before, took no pleasure in seeing the fall out, but made a reasoned call on this effort to consider the likely outcome of the next in its planned form, as outlined by those proposing it (who now are throwing a load of toys around with near zero self-analysis of what has taken place, is happening and how they could evolve their strategy to better assist their aims in future).
I have a really vain hope this will not simply turn into an excuse for yet another fruitless slanging match between those who have massive agendas pro and con the notion of MMGW, with selective facts and cited hyperlinks that 'prove' whatever you fancy, and ways to mitigate adverse effects, at the expense of reasoned ways to discuss, move on and DO something that can have an impact that can still work within the current climate of debate... or debate of climate.
Telling me what I am, when I am not, especially in knee-jerk frustration, is not the best way to do it. I'd like to think the BBC made an editorial call on certain pertinent facts of science, life and the media world.... not in response to 'pressure' from boogey men.
I personally think the climate IS changing.
And whatever man is doing, we are not likely to be helping (6 billion and counting folk with improving economies will need to live on something, eat something else and doubtless travel a lot socially and/or professionally to do it all. There has to be a tipping point logically as the area of land and volume of air is finite to cope with such hyperbolic growth and consequent poll... emissions).
Hence, I figure a bit of mitigation, if not reduction is not a bad thing to get on board with now.
However, we live on a mostly free planet with a bunch of connected folk with their own opinions.
So they need to be persuaded. democratically and with balanced argument. Not by telling them they are deluded. And certainly not by patronising them or cherry-picking what they get to decide with, 'for their own good'.
And certainly not by dishing up an already discredited notion to serve a bunch of less than credible messengers to parrot a message that many seem unable to live by example personally, as, 'well, it's not really practical, y'know'.
Then sulking for England when a green room/elite jolly doesn't get the rapturous support expected, and often demanded without question in the name of gr..atings. It may play well with Prius Person, but I didn't see it sway Fiesta Family much. And they need to be invited on board as they are still the majority, don't all have 4x4s, don't live next a tube or all night bus and usually only buy bottled water when they are flooded.
But stuff, for sure, does (I believe) need doing.
So where in all this are the political establishment? Or is the Nu-, and so far highly successful, strategy of saying nothing and being nowhere (save non-controversial or feel-good events), paralysing those voted in to lead, and handle the course of our futures?
Guardian - Impartiality is a turn-off
'...audiences sit up and take notice. If that means more work for Jonathan Ross, then sign the cheque.'
If this is referring to Planet Relief R.I.P, one would rather question the wisdom of pitching it in the first place on the back of the actual results derived in 'making audiences sit up and take notice' (much less acting) that was Live Earth. Anchored, as I recall, by one less than inspiring (by way of example) cheque-cashing celeb.
I rather think the way most of the general public viewed this new green jolly, punted for the exclusive benefit of the luvvies in entertainment-related PR and their media hangers-on, was the reason it died. Not any lack of desire to do right by our kids' futures.
Missing that point puts most crying into their Fairtrade lattes at the loss of yet another 'awareness opportunity' right out of step with the reality most folk face... but are prepared to act upon sensibly to rectify.
I believe the BBC feedback was that most people simply wanted to be better informed. Not told what some feel is good for them.
BBC -
"(Only fair to say that the Independent was critical of the BBCs decision to drop Planet Relief - they must have felt very let down.)"
Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
Well, yes. But they did have some things in common:
The BBC climate special decision - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Replete with such choice shared comments as this:
"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action.'
Nothing to do with Live Earth being a total bomb, and the new version being pitched imaginatively as a total duplicate, replete with the 'line-up' of celebrity presenters to really get the common folk to empathise with their glowing examples of restraint. So I would suggest there were other reasons, and some of the loudest voices came from those truly concerned with getting consensus on positive, practical actions to mitigate possible catastrophic climate change before any tipping point may be reached. I can live with 'told you so' if I'm wrong for erring on the side of caution. But 'living with' anything may be tricky if such as I get entitled to say it instead.
Finally, if I am right this 'toys out of pram' reaction ignores either feedback or maybe even a poll of viewers to the effect that they'd like to get the facts, ta very much, and not another luvvie green-in to further boost the 'awareness'.
BBC - Relief relief
ADDENDUM - NEW - Planet Relief redux
And the question goes 'Pop' to a resounding sleince again
I make my point by this time being silent (ish): Stop procreating, or the baby gets it
I had finger poised over computer to weigh in when I read this: 'I don't have any bright ideas, either. So, what would you do?'
Stumped. At least in a PC-age where such discussions don't just get you no where, there are 'ist' laws against a lot and 'zi' fingers for the rest to make it 'there be dragon's' territory. Which is why, I suspect, those who might, even some tasked to do so by an electorate expecting leadership, don't fancy 'going there'.
So... aren't plastic carrier bags sooo last year?
I had finger poised over computer to weigh in when I read this: 'I don't have any bright ideas, either. So, what would you do?'
Stumped. At least in a PC-age where such discussions don't just get you no where, there are 'ist' laws against a lot and 'zi' fingers for the rest to make it 'there be dragon's' territory. Which is why, I suspect, those who might, even some tasked to do so by an electorate expecting leadership, don't fancy 'going there'.
So... aren't plastic carrier bags sooo last year?
Unless I'm missing something
As part of my 'if we have more and more bean-counters being carried by fewer and fewer bean makers...' question, we have: Caution doesn't pay
The public sector is a pretty broad church, and kicking off with underpaid nurses kinda focuses on but one area a tad.
And no matter what looks rosy now, there is the small matter of the pensions kicking in, which as it stands looks like being funded by about six folk actually making stuff and the rest in 'the public sector' and equally well-looked-after quangos assessing, monitoring etc, on their backs.
At which point yes, a well-paid nurse or two may be necessary to handle the fall out... er... down.
Odd to be on the side of Gordon, though.
The public sector is a pretty broad church, and kicking off with underpaid nurses kinda focuses on but one area a tad.
And no matter what looks rosy now, there is the small matter of the pensions kicking in, which as it stands looks like being funded by about six folk actually making stuff and the rest in 'the public sector' and equally well-looked-after quangos assessing, monitoring etc, on their backs.
At which point yes, a well-paid nurse or two may be necessary to handle the fall out... er... down.
Odd to be on the side of Gordon, though.
Well, they asked... about Aunty
Relaunching bbc.co.uk
The BBC is looking for digital agencies to help it redesign BBC Online to encourage user -generated content and give it a more web 2.0 feel (a.... what!!!?). What should it overhaul?
Well there's the trust thing, see.
Will what content I generate as a user get even acknowledged, much less used? And if it does will it be 'moderated' or edited?
Otherwise, for this content creator, the duck is dead.
And why I tend to reply on places like this rather more than on the BBC (Newsnight blog excepted, so far).
The BBC is looking for digital agencies to help it redesign BBC Online to encourage user -generated content and give it a more web 2.0 feel (a.... what!!!?). What should it overhaul?
Well there's the trust thing, see.
Will what content I generate as a user get even acknowledged, much less used? And if it does will it be 'moderated' or edited?
Otherwise, for this content creator, the duck is dead.
And why I tend to reply on places like this rather more than on the BBC (Newsnight blog excepted, so far).
Green is so now, dah'ling.
I don't argue with the statement of the first line to this - Linda Loudermilk Blends Green and Gold - at all: Environmentalism and luxury are recurring themes appearing everywhere from mass fashion to designer brands to exclusive couture collections.
But reading the rest was hard to do without more than the twitch of an eyebrow at all involved in writing such tosh and repeating it without tongues very much in cheeks.
As far as I can assess, almost all to do with “eco-couture” is greencloaking of the highest order.
I, for one, have not before heard of the “Luxury Eco Stamp of Approval” which is “an accreditation given to the top echelon of certain products, services and business processes,” and “involves detailed review of a company’s product, manufacturing processes, energy uses, labor practices, and environmental impacts as well as a product’s aesthetic design and luxury-quality status.” And wonder what its provenance is.
ADDENDUM:
No sooner do I print this, but I get in this (and simply cut 'n paste - my eyebrow twitch above covers it, too, though this is more considered. Though 'looking into' doth not a great leap forward make:) from Her Maj's Govt PR: Starting on the road to sustainable clothing
Representatives from the fashion, clothing, and textile industry as
well as environmental and ethical groups are meeting today for the
first time to look at how they can work with government to improve
the sustainability of clothing throughout its life cycle.
Opening the event, Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change,
Biodiversity and Waste, said:
"Increasingly, consumers really care about the environment and the
social impacts associated with clothing. And clothes, almost more
than any other product, fill magazines and get column inches. Not
only are consumers really getting their teeth into this, but fashion
journalists are increasingly keeping pace with the green game.
"There are plenty of examples of people in the industry already
seeing sustainability as an opportunity, not a threat. There are
people taking an active role in ethical sourcing, designing and
producing clothing throughout the supply chain.
"That's why Defra is aiming to work collaboratively with the clothing
and fashion industry to improve the sustainability of clothing."
Speaking at the event, Katharine Hamnett, one of the industry's most
ethical and environmentally aware designers, said:
"Sustainable clothing doesn't have to be more expensive. It can be
more affordable and it should be more affordable."
Clothing, across its life cycle, generates a range of environmental,
social and economic impacts - with the growth in fast fashion and
consumption being a key factor in this.
In 2006, UK clothing and textiles produced up to two million tonnes
of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 and 70 million tonnes of waste
water. Clothing imports into the EU as a whole now account for 42
per cent of the global market. In the UK only 10 per cent of our
clothing is manufactured at home, the rest is imported.
Following this event, the clothing and fashion industry will be
invited to be involved in developing the sustainable clothing roadmap
coordinated by Defra. The roadmap examines all stages of clothing's
life cycle (from raw materials to end of life), charts the
environmental and social impacts arising at each stage, and proposes
ways of limiting those impacts where most effective.
Notes to Editors:
1. UK clothing consumption is high at approximately 2 million tonnes
(£23 billion) per annum. For the period 1996-2005, consumer
expenditure on clothing and textiles has grown 34%, with predicted
demand increases.
2. The fast/discount fashion/value clothing sector accounts for one
fifth of the UK market and has doubled its growth during 1999-2006.
3. In 2006, UK clothing and textile impacts included up to 1.5-2
million tonnes of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent and 70
million tonnes of waste water generated.
4. In terms of its economic impact, clothing is a high value sector
globally worth over £500 billion. It contributes to 7% of world
exports and employs approximately 26 million people, supporting a
significant number of economies and individual incomes around the
world.
5. Just 10% of clothing consumed within the UK is manufactured here.
The UK textile and clothing industry is small in comparison to the
global industry, accounting for approximately 0.78% of UK GDP, 3.3%
of UK manufacturing (valued at £9.5 billion) and employing
approximately 170,000.(1)
6. Further information is available here
7. Katherine Hamnett's video address is available here
But reading the rest was hard to do without more than the twitch of an eyebrow at all involved in writing such tosh and repeating it without tongues very much in cheeks.
As far as I can assess, almost all to do with “eco-couture” is greencloaking of the highest order.
I, for one, have not before heard of the “Luxury Eco Stamp of Approval” which is “an accreditation given to the top echelon of certain products, services and business processes,” and “involves detailed review of a company’s product, manufacturing processes, energy uses, labor practices, and environmental impacts as well as a product’s aesthetic design and luxury-quality status.” And wonder what its provenance is.
ADDENDUM:
No sooner do I print this, but I get in this (and simply cut 'n paste - my eyebrow twitch above covers it, too, though this is more considered. Though 'looking into' doth not a great leap forward make:) from Her Maj's Govt PR: Starting on the road to sustainable clothing
Representatives from the fashion, clothing, and textile industry as
well as environmental and ethical groups are meeting today for the
first time to look at how they can work with government to improve
the sustainability of clothing throughout its life cycle.
Opening the event, Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change,
Biodiversity and Waste, said:
"Increasingly, consumers really care about the environment and the
social impacts associated with clothing. And clothes, almost more
than any other product, fill magazines and get column inches. Not
only are consumers really getting their teeth into this, but fashion
journalists are increasingly keeping pace with the green game.
"There are plenty of examples of people in the industry already
seeing sustainability as an opportunity, not a threat. There are
people taking an active role in ethical sourcing, designing and
producing clothing throughout the supply chain.
"That's why Defra is aiming to work collaboratively with the clothing
and fashion industry to improve the sustainability of clothing."
Speaking at the event, Katharine Hamnett, one of the industry's most
ethical and environmentally aware designers, said:
"Sustainable clothing doesn't have to be more expensive. It can be
more affordable and it should be more affordable."
Clothing, across its life cycle, generates a range of environmental,
social and economic impacts - with the growth in fast fashion and
consumption being a key factor in this.
In 2006, UK clothing and textiles produced up to two million tonnes
of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 and 70 million tonnes of waste
water. Clothing imports into the EU as a whole now account for 42
per cent of the global market. In the UK only 10 per cent of our
clothing is manufactured at home, the rest is imported.
Following this event, the clothing and fashion industry will be
invited to be involved in developing the sustainable clothing roadmap
coordinated by Defra. The roadmap examines all stages of clothing's
life cycle (from raw materials to end of life), charts the
environmental and social impacts arising at each stage, and proposes
ways of limiting those impacts where most effective.
Notes to Editors:
1. UK clothing consumption is high at approximately 2 million tonnes
(£23 billion) per annum. For the period 1996-2005, consumer
expenditure on clothing and textiles has grown 34%, with predicted
demand increases.
2. The fast/discount fashion/value clothing sector accounts for one
fifth of the UK market and has doubled its growth during 1999-2006.
3. In 2006, UK clothing and textile impacts included up to 1.5-2
million tonnes of waste, 3.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent and 70
million tonnes of waste water generated.
4. In terms of its economic impact, clothing is a high value sector
globally worth over £500 billion. It contributes to 7% of world
exports and employs approximately 26 million people, supporting a
significant number of economies and individual incomes around the
world.
5. Just 10% of clothing consumed within the UK is manufactured here.
The UK textile and clothing industry is small in comparison to the
global industry, accounting for approximately 0.78% of UK GDP, 3.3%
of UK manufacturing (valued at £9.5 billion) and employing
approximately 170,000.(1)
6. Further information is available here
7. Katherine Hamnett's video address is available here
The value of research
A lot revolves around research. Which probably explains why it is such a vast industry.And why so many reply upon it to help in what they do. From those with a point to make, to those with ratings to drive up.
On these pages I have quoted some, if usually with a caution as to origins, and methodologies, etc, so let's just say I treat most with a large dose of salt.
That said, Blogger has created a poll function that looks a giggle, so maybe Junkk.com can get in on the act to.
Amongst many considerations, one I may not have mentioned before is how the pollsters vet the answers. All too often, and especially if done by public contribution, and even more so by an online amount of effort, the results must almost inevitably be skewed not just by who gets asked, but who can be bothered (or fund) the time to fill the things out.
Take this one. On the promise of getting the results, I got cracking, and on the first page was fine with some multiple-choice (though I usually hit a wall when none apply and I want to argue that the question sucks) stuff on the environment. But then I hit going through a few score of individuals, giving each a rating, and could not just jump on because a) I didn't know and b) didn't care. So as it expected too much of me I gave up.
I imagine those who are listed there may be more inspired to devote the time, or get others to help.
In which case, what value?
More questions than answers
Not just the Indy (though Cheap Shirts is what prompts this post), in this 'we're listening (but not hearing, much less saying anything if it doesn't suit)' age I often wonder whether the number of questions posed is matched by an equal number of answers.
Sir: We are advised that we can buy polo shirts for our children for school for £1 (Save and Spend, 1 September). Would The Independent also like to advise us where these shirts are made and how much those who make them are paid?
Sir: We are advised that we can buy polo shirts for our children for school for £1 (Save and Spend, 1 September). Would The Independent also like to advise us where these shirts are made and how much those who make them are paid?
Wine - the barometer of global warming
This from the Arizona Republic, reports on French viticulturists who are harvesting their grape crops ever earlier each year.
"The evidence, scrawled in black ink, is the first day of the annual grape harvest for the past three decades. In 1978, it was Oct. 16. In 1998, the date was Sept. 14. This year, harvesting started Aug. 24 - the earliest ever recorded, not only in Mure's vineyards but in the entire Alsace wine district of northeastern France."
"Throughout the wine-producing world, from France to South Africa to California, vintners are in the vanguard of confronting the impact of climate change. Rising temperatures are forcing unprecedented early harvests, changing the tastes of the best-known varieties of wine and threatening the survival of centuries-old winegrowing regions."
It seems that vines are one of the most sensitive of crops when it comes to even slight temperature increases, and some growers are now having to doctor their wines with acidic compounds to prevent them becoming too sweet.
As the harvesting dates get earlier each year, the barometer that is wine, shows that the climate is indeed warming significantly.
"The evidence, scrawled in black ink, is the first day of the annual grape harvest for the past three decades. In 1978, it was Oct. 16. In 1998, the date was Sept. 14. This year, harvesting started Aug. 24 - the earliest ever recorded, not only in Mure's vineyards but in the entire Alsace wine district of northeastern France."
"Throughout the wine-producing world, from France to South Africa to California, vintners are in the vanguard of confronting the impact of climate change. Rising temperatures are forcing unprecedented early harvests, changing the tastes of the best-known varieties of wine and threatening the survival of centuries-old winegrowing regions."
It seems that vines are one of the most sensitive of crops when it comes to even slight temperature increases, and some growers are now having to doctor their wines with acidic compounds to prevent them becoming too sweet.
As the harvesting dates get earlier each year, the barometer that is wine, shows that the climate is indeed warming significantly.
If you want to get people to sign up to a pledge to fight global warming .......
.... offer them a half price Big Mac!
On online offer of a half price McDonald's Big Mac actually brought down a Japanese government website server as thousands tried to fill in the pledge in order to qualify for the offer. As reported by Yahoo News.
"The Japanese unit of the US burger giant Tuesday offered a Big Mac for 150 yen (1.3 dollars), about half the normal price, to anyone demonstrating a commitment to preventing climate change."
"We started seeing a rise in access yesterday and it surged this morning. We are now trying to restore the system."
"It was the ministry's first system crash following a corporate offer related to environmental efforts."
Despite being the home of the Kyoto protocol, the Japanese are well behind their own targets in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, so the government is using tie ups with many businesses offering incentives to get people to sign up to the pledge to reduce their emissions.
I suppose, in some circumstances, every little helps; but, I do wonder, just what is the relative CO2 emission output of a Big Mac?
On online offer of a half price McDonald's Big Mac actually brought down a Japanese government website server as thousands tried to fill in the pledge in order to qualify for the offer. As reported by Yahoo News.
"The Japanese unit of the US burger giant Tuesday offered a Big Mac for 150 yen (1.3 dollars), about half the normal price, to anyone demonstrating a commitment to preventing climate change."
"We started seeing a rise in access yesterday and it surged this morning. We are now trying to restore the system."
"It was the ministry's first system crash following a corporate offer related to environmental efforts."
Despite being the home of the Kyoto protocol, the Japanese are well behind their own targets in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, so the government is using tie ups with many businesses offering incentives to get people to sign up to the pledge to reduce their emissions.
I suppose, in some circumstances, every little helps; but, I do wonder, just what is the relative CO2 emission output of a Big Mac?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)