"They seek it here, they seek it there, they seek it everywhere. Is it in sink or is it it composter, that darned elusive, latest waste bit of bluster."
It started so innocently. One of the many forums/feeds I subscribe to mentioned in sink disposal.
In my quest for the best enviROI answers I decided to weigh in. As I speak it is ongoing. I must say, whilst still civilised, I am finding some of the retorts now a tad testy and pointed. My urge, naturally, is to kick back. When will these ardent 'greenies' ever learn about human nature:
Initial Post: A request for help please! I am working with a new team and we are looking for a range of exciting environment ideas to showcase at a major new exhibition.
· Theme: kitchen – just as a case study – what could be done in this room of a house? Ideas for what people can do in their own homes, and possibly work kitchens.
Ans 1: My friend has recently had an ‘Insinkerator’ installed (a waste disposal shoot fitted into a secondary, smaller sink next to the main sink). The idea is you put all your green waste in there; it gets shredded and washed down the drain by the water flow in the sink. It makes its way into the sewerage system and is eventually filtered and processed like the rest of the waste water in your house.
Reply 2: Obviously there are issues (water use, electricity use, increasing load on sewers), but it does seem to be a viable alternative to the brown box scheme we currently have in London for our green waste – you fill a brown box that is collected once a week by a lorry: a diesel lorry which drives around the neighbourhood, calling at every house…surely this is not the answer? The brown bins also smell terrible (which makes most of the public immediately switch off and vow never to have one in their home), and were recently labeled as ‘slop buckets’ by some newspapers. This hardly encourages take-up.
Reply 3: On balance, and as part of a suite of technologies in the home, the Insinkerator concept seems to me to offer a useful option for those wishing to recycle their green waste but who do not have the space or inclination to utilise a more hands on approach to composting their green waste, and who do not wish to use the Council’s collection scheme.
There are issues surrounding water and power use and the load on our sewers, and if anyone knows any more about these please let me know. People also need to know what can and cannot be put in there. But it seems a useful option to me, and should form a key part of the discussion about sustainable waste.
Me: My local council, Herefordshire, had an exhibition on this recently, and I'm a convert.
It seems a no-brainer, as this is a great way to get kitchen waste from the sink direct to a place where the energy is bio-extracted and the solid waste remaining reused.
I am currently assessing the half-dozen options on macerator offered, along with the grant funding in support.
My only wonder is that having done this it has vanished from the comms radar. To me it warrants a major national effort.
But then I have some doubts on the priorities applied in matters of enviROI by those who often look at targets and what will tick a Euro-box more than what's best for our kids' futures.
Reply 4: The use of an insinkerator has (like many environmental choices) trade-offs to weigh. The City of New York has been debating the use of these devices for decades and has, not surprisingly, generated a vast literature from proponents and opponents about the relative merits of managing food waste through the solid waste system versus the sewer system. A little bit of googling on insinkerator and New York City should lead you to many of the relevant studies. Note that in many parts of the US, the devices are called "garbage disposals" (pronounced dispose - Alls), so any searching should use both terms. All you are doing with one of these units is to pass the problem along the sewer to the Water Authority.
Reply 5: They have to treat and deal with it as sewage sludge and then find a disposal option for it. This may be anaerobic digestion or it may be putting onto non-food crop land. You’ll end up paying for it in higher water rates anyway. Much better to deal with it as close to source as possible, home composter, wornery , bokashi bin or kerbside collection.
Me: Forgive me, this was/is not my understanding.
As sold to me (at least, so far) they WANT this, and don't see it as a problem, but rather an opportunity.
As far as I can gather they have in place the means to deal with it - with luck on a enviROI+ basis.
It might be naive of me to hope such energy from 'free' waste may even reduce my rates, though.
And though my appreciation of the subtleties of composting, bio-degradability, etc is not that great (and I'd welcome more informed feedback), if the problem we face right now is C02 going into the atmosphere I would tend (with my limited science B/G) to prefer that the gasses of decomposition get captured and used rather than waft away
Reply 6: My reasoning was more of self sufficiency and not passing it on to someone else with all the embedded carbon in the transportation, processing etc. Another option is to community compost locally. I’m not sure that the water companies in the South and East will want extra solids in their sewerage system. With the push for reduction in water demand particularly in new homes build to Code for Sustainable Homes 4 and above, there may not be enough water flushed down the sewers to push it along and it will lead to blockages.
It seems to depend more on where you live and hence the council area.
Me: I am in South Hereford and Severn Trent seem to be OK with the solids.
Try this for more info. Reply 7: All kerbside collection schemes for anaerobic digestion and the methane produced is burnt to make electricity. That’s what I suggested, not putting it down the sink for the water company to deal with who might use AD or just bury the solids on non-food crop land.
Me: I don't know about all kerbside schemes, but ours takes just glass, metal and paper.
I wasn't even aware there were even such collections of matter for anaerobic digestion, which just shows the rather unhelpful diversity of options we seem to have countrywide.
I was told by my council that putting it down my sink would result in appropriate energy conversion and the solids would be used appropriately. I have to trust them that it's a bit more than 'might' on that... for now.
I do compost and bring major garden waste to the bring site by walking it there in a hand-towed trolley (it's flat en route, good exercise and then brambles don't kill the car fabric - plus I can take a nice big (volume) load, as oddly you need to pay for a trailer licence and hence most make multiple trips... in their cars).
But as I have no other option than a black bin liner and hence landfill for the rest of the organic matter, the sink system still seems good for where we are.
It would appear to be yet another case for some form of UK-wide, easy-to-assess, chart of the options and their relative enviROIs.
Reply 8: The reason for the diversity of collections is many fold, however it is mainly a mixture of the nature of the area, the aspirations of the Council through pressure from their residents and whether the private sector is willing to invest in processing facilities for different materials and take these from Local Authority collections. Why would a rural Local Authority want to collect green waste when most people practise home composting? Why would a Local Authority collect plastics, tetra paks, batteries when there are no processing facilities for hundreds of miles? Why would a Local Authority collect food waste when there are no AD or In Vessel Composting Facilities for hundreds of miles? Your Council would say put food waste down the sink as it divests them of the problem of collecting it. Councils are measured against a number of indicators and total waste arisings is one of them. The more they can divert away from what they collect whether it be to landfill or for composting, AD, etc. then the better their performance indicator looks. Also it improves the recycling percentage by decreasing the denominator in the calculation. The other main reason for diverting organic matter, particularly food waste away from collection and landfill is that it helps Local Authorities avoid the potential fines of £150 per tonne set by the EU if Local Authorities do not meet their ever increasing targets for diverting bio-degradable waste from landfill.
Reply 9 - I am confused. Where are the brambles and copious amounts of yard waste coming from? If you have enough outdoor space to produce so many trimmings, why can't you set up a composter or worm bin for your kitchen waste? It's dead easy, saves and recycles resources, and even gratifying when you remove the finished compost and feed it to your garden. As for assurances from Councils, well...it's been said already. There are unfortunately too many box-tickers and not enough creative thinkers in the average Council, and sending the problem waste downstream allows for better looking stats closer to the source.
Me - Golly you, and some others, don't sound the least bit confused. And that is to be envied.
I spent most of my time in a state of confusion on almost anything environmental.
Ever since I started up my little website, with its focus on practical at-home things to DO that can help the planet though reuse and repair, etc, I have also found myself very interested in all the other things out there that the general public can do to help. And as average family man and homemaker, in sharing my efforts many others have taken an interest in my various quests to find out more to do what one can for the best. Many have also been kind enough to contribute.
By doing a tad more reading and gaining exposure to the issues, I perhaps have become better informed than some, but of course a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Which is why I am careful always to caution on the limits of what I find or get told. All too often there are agendas, targets, boxes to be ticked and lucrative careers being forged that make what was on the surface so simple in fact a rather daunting hall of smoke and mirrors to get to my dream goal of a clear enviROI+. And it is so critical. As has been noted, the public does need to appreciate that collecting a Tetra-Pack may not make much eco-sense in Brighton if it has to be shipped to Fife for disposal, but then this should not be where it all stops. We have to then look at why there are not processing facilities and logistical systems for all potentially recyclable waste countrywide. And if there are local difference how these can be included to best national effect.
So be it man-made climate change to man-worsened climate change to climate change to global warming at government and/or major media level, to discussions as to whether Al Gore 'won' an Oscar or more the producer of a documentary featuring him did, or whether he won a Nobel prize or shared it with an entire scientific body (whose chairman once lambasted him) appropriately for Peace, I have often found myself stumbling through many issues (at least today the BBC did make a great point on insulation... so long as you have a cavity wall. I will however wait on the real figures of the solar they were plugging), with often strident exhortations from more committed and less questioning advocates on all sides.
So it seems, I have arrived at a similar point when it comes to insinkeration (neat term!)
To this point, it all made pretty good sense, because my council said it did and my local water board said it did. Indeed, at a county meeting (which involved the excellent Wiggly Wigglers lady ) this was all debated, and the result seemed quite clear.
Now, of course, I must look further, and deeper, to try and arrive a a 'better', or at least more informed view.
I was wondering if you guys who seem not so keen have any figures or sources pro/con to accompany your definitive advocacy against this system of disposal? And I will happily upload them on my site.
And on a a more personal note, yes, I am fortunate enough to have a garden. Though at this point I'd offer that not all do, especially in more urbanised areas, so again we have to look at the totality of the demographics when it comes to assessing the best enviROIs of systems. Often less ideal may be better than nothing, and according to usage more effective than 'the best'.
There's also the 'human' factor. I was actually keen on a green cone. But with kids playing out there and a stream nearby (a healthy source of water rats) my wife was not. Some battles are not worth fighting. Hence the sink-borne system seemed, to now, to be a good solution.
The net result is I am now not committing to either until I know more.
And finally, as a poor gardener with little interest in the practice, the only thing I grow is grass. Hence I am on my third composter. What would be neat would be to have a mechanism whereby I could give (or better yet sell) what I make to those who can and would use it.
Actually, I must add that to the list of things the JunkkYard postcode recognition system can facilitate.
Wow. That didn't take long. Within hours of the above I got this:
Reply 9 -
Some cities, including New York, have outlawed kitchen-sink garbage disposals, at least in homes foor good reason.
The cost and innefiency of combining non haserdous waste with water to transport it & then having to seperate it again for disposla is nuts!
Sink garbage disposals are not the greenest way to dispose of food waste. According to Mark Jeantheau of the popular eco-website Grinning Planet, conscientious consumers interested in returning food-based nutrients back to the Earth should bypass the garbage disposal in favor of composting.
“The ground-up waste [in a garbage disposal] does not go back to nature’s water supply to be gobbled up by fish and other life forms,” he says. Sewage-treatment and septic systems remove “any food value the waste might have had.” Indeed, most modern-day sewer filtration systems utilize chemicals to rid the outflow of any life forms, beneficial or otherwise. Plus, grinding food in a garbage disposal uses a lot of freshwater, which is becoming a more and more precious commodity.
Those on their own septic systems also might want to minimize their use of the garbage disposal. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regular use of garbage disposals leads to a “more rapid buildup of scum and sludge layers in the septic tank and increased risk of clogging in the soil adsorption field due to higher concentrations of suspended solids in the effluent.” Jeantheau adds that even if a given septic system is designed to handle heavier, food-based loads, it still might not be worth the risk: “There are few homeowner nightmares worse than having your septic system go belly up.”
While composting may sound like a messy proposition, it doesn’t have to be. For starters, those doing the dishes should make sure to dump any and all food waste items into a kitchen-based composting bin with a lid that seals tight. Many municipalities now make such bins available to interested residents. A mesh strainer in the hole in the sink can catch smaller food scraps and be dumped into the composting bin when the dishes are done.
When the kitchen-based compost bin fills up, it can be dumped into a larger composting bin outside. After four to six months, you should have some nice compost to add to your garden and jumpstart the health of your soil. Companies such as The Compost Bin and Clean Air Gardening offer online sales of a wide variety of quality compost bins of different shapes and sizes, and provide a wealth of comparative information for the interested consumer.
CONTACTS: Grinning Planet, www.grinningplanet.com; The Compost Bin, www.compost-bin.org; Clean Air Gardening, www.cleanairgardening.com.
If you have to use this crazy appliance you should add another bit of plumbing to your disposal you can recapture the solids right away, for local composting. See the Kitchen Komposter
http://www.joneca.com/Komposter_Joneca.htm
Again this bit of hardware is just worthless They complicate plumbing substantially, are expensive, use electricity, and do indeed lose nutrients while increasing the load on waste water treatment plants and systems. The disposal collector I mention above is basically a
juicer for your drain, and lots of good stuff is lost in the process.
Now It looks like I have an issue on my hands to get to the bottom of. I have posted this as I said I would. However, it does seem to me that it is falling out (in every sense of the word) between two sets of 'passionate' advocacy.
What I would value is the opinion, preferably backed by enviROI relevant facts, of a more objective person with no eco-axe to grind.
ADDENDUM - In the spirit of discovery, I asked for some opinion from a very nice chap I met at a composting event. To be sure, his company is in the advocacy camp, but he has been kind enough to offer a comprehensive reply which is rich in data. I post his reply here:
Thanks for your email. It isn't an unusual subject, or to see the views polarised.
Water industry. None of the UK water companies like FWDs (Food waste disposers). because they think that they are being handed the bulk disposal costs of biodegradable municipal waste by the local government groups. Local gov has to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill on a tapering limit. The taper is severe i.s >60% reduction is needed in a relativeley short time. For every tonne over they get fined £150. An average tonne costs £60 to dispose of, so the fines are huge. Water companies want to use FWDs as a mechanism to increase charges in their 2014 pricing settlement with Offwat. They say that if FWDs are allowed to expand in use, then their systems will need to be changed in order to handle it, and hence an increase in money will be needed. If they are not going to be allowed to get more money, then they will want to see their use curtailed.
Water UK is the trade body, and has entered into a 3yr research programme with WRC to establish the implications of FWDs on the sewer system.
There is already a body of evidence that says even in very high concentrated use that there is a negligible impact on sewer systemns and treatment processes. There is a town in Sweden where 30% of the homes were fitted with domestic FWDs and the impacts on the sewage treatment system measured. - I don't know the town's name or have a copy of the report.
If you want to think about the green issues of CO2 footprint and other greenhouse gases then you need to think about what happens to the Carbon atoms. Composting has a super following becuase it looks like the ultimate in get something for nothing. You can turn a tonne of waste into 200kg of fabulous compost. The old school scientists worked out some time ago that energy cannot be made nor destroyed. It just changes form - hence perpetual motion machines are unlikely. Energy also = mass (e=mc2) so a pile of waste material is an energy store. If the mass reduces say from 1 tonne to 0.2 tonnes, then the energy associated with the .8 tonnes has to be accounted for.
0.8 tonnes started life as chemical energy (i.e. carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, Hydrogen, and others bound together looking like an old tomato or onion, or whatever.)
Some will become heat
None will become light
None becomes kinetic
Some of it becomes worms and bugs - there is a great technical term for this but I can't remember what it is
Some of it was water and is evaporated and stays as water
The rest probably stays as chemicals, but in different forms/compounds:
Depending on where you are in the compost bin, there are bugs and worms. Where there is oxygen present (air) the bugs will be aaerobic. They will respire, using oxygen and generating CO2 - at the same time converting carbon in the waste into bug.
Where there is no oxygen, then the bugs are anaerobic and will be busy converting the waste into bug but will generate CH4 (Methane). A clue - if the compost is warm (heat being generated) then there is anaerobic digestion happening.
Worms it seems produce NOX.
All of this chemical activity goes unnoticed by the casual observer, so the process is considered to be something like a miracle solution.
There is a multiplier though: every ounce of CH4 is 23 times more agreessive as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and NOX is a frightening 296 times more agressive - see article below.
It is worth saying at this stage that sewage treatment processes are like big scale composters. The sludge is the byproduct compost. There are aerobic sections and aaerobic sections in any process. The trick is to capture the anaerobic output (Methane) in anaerobic digesters, because then you can do something with it that is positive - i.e. turn it into CO2 by burning it to get energy out - thus the Methane fraction doesn't act as a 23 times multiplier to greenhouse gas, but as a 1 times multiplier with a positive energy creation. If that is harnessed, then the energy might be used to offset CO2 generation in conventional power generation.
FWDs are one piece of technology in reducing landfill (CH4 is emitted in vast quantities at landfill). They have a role to play along with other things like composting. There actually needs to be a "live and let live" approach - it is a pity that there are folks around who want to ban this or ban that.
There are other manufacturers than Insinkerator.
He also directed to a Telegraph piece: Wormeries 'may add to greenhouse gases' , which actually validates (if true) my concerns from the outset on how anything that churns out greenhouse gasses can surely not be helping the immediate cause of a reduction of same. This would seem to suggets there may be soem value in looking at capturing the gasses from such composters, though on a domestic scale this might not be practical.
I have to say as I oscillate about, this latest certainly makes sense to me and I tend to stick with my initial views. But I am sure there will be more to come. This seems almost as charged as climate change!
ADDENDUM 2 - I have now had a reply - a most helpful one (well, bar the 53 page bit!)- from the local council:
You could point people towards our Environmental Impact Study for all this info, environmental and financial etc. It was funded by the County Surveyors' Society. It's 53 pages long so we've also published a 3-page synopsis.
REPLY 10 - A polite, if still rather dogmatic response from one who seems to be very much in the 'compost' camp. I could also cock an eyebrow at the first and last of his company's interest area: a CONSULTANCY on LIVING TECHNOLOGIES, SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND CARBON OFFSETTING. Me, I do it all for free. Also he has missed, or avoided, some of my points. I do compost the garden waste. It's the few meat and non-compostable scrapings I am looking at. And it's between a green cone and FWD on an enviROI basis (I'm guessing the cone will be cheaper than the unit, and not incur any subsequent operating costs) I am interested in. There is really not a difference in effort between them. He also seems to again ignore the human element on a pragmatic basis, especially when thinking on flat dwellers. Worth replying to? Not sure. I have enough fun with such mindsets on Guardian CiF.
Peter, I am sure many can relate to and appreciate your dimemma and voyage of discovery. Thanks for sharing the process so openly, I think it helps the rest of us.
As for those with or without access to gardens, I believe that part of what we need to change about our strategies and cultural mindset is the idea that a solution is only viable when it is universal. One of the big lessons about sustainability is the importance of nurturing diversity. In this instance, it's about the diversity of situations, personal specifics, options and ideas. The fact that some have space for a composter and others do not does not minimise the value of a home composting solution. If you subtracted all the homes with garden or balcony space from the total kitchen waste production, it would have a significant and positive impact. If you subtract even a few, it's still worth doing.
If you limit your composting to grass clippings, bits of paper and cardboard (for the carbon balance) and uncooked vegetable and fruit scraps, the rats will have less interest. A wire cage around the composter would deter them anyway. A worm bin would happily dispose of pretty much all the cooked scraps, meats and other 'smellies', and if caged, would keep out the rats anyway. Finished compost can be raked into the lawn as a top dressing, or offered to gardening neighbours.
Don't forget that the value of compost making is much more than simply disposing of waste.
ADDENDUM 21/Nov: Press release (as is, at tad editted for space, but I really need to fight through the 'shock' copy a tad when I get a 'mo):
GREEN CONE TO LOBBY GOVERNMENT OVER NEW GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION FINDINGS -centralised treatment of food waste produces between 10 and 40 times more CO2 emissions than garden food waste digesters-
According to garden Food Waste Digester (FWD) company Green Cone, transporting and treating food waste at a centralised treatment facility produces between 10 and 40 times more CO2 emissions compared to disposing of waste in a householder’s garden using a digester.
The shock statistics follow a recent paper by environmental consultant Dr Alan Knipe (previously group managing director of Nuclear Technology at international energy and environmental company AEA Technology), which has been peer reviewed by SLR Consulting.
Furthermore, the significant environmental findings are in addition to annual cost savings identified in earlier studies illustrating that by introducing FWDs, local authorities could expect to save between £3-4 million per 250,000 households.
In his latest study, Dr Knipe compared greenhouse gas emissions from the life cycles of specified centralised and household management strategies in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2E). Whilst anthropogenic (manmade) greenhouse gas emissions associated with the manufacturing and end-of-life disposal of both treatment plants and FWDs were shown to be relatively small, emissions arising from the day-to-day operation of the treatment plant, and transportation of waste to the plants, were proven to be alarmingly high.
Dependent on household dispersion and waste management strategy employed, total emissions from the day-to-day operations of a centralised approach typically generated between 50 to 214kg of CO2 per tonne of food waste each year. This figures reduces by 14kg of CO2E per tonne if the resulting composting were to genuinely replace existing emission-intensive inorganic fertilisers, soil improves or peat.
By comparison, household treatment generates around 5kg CO2E per tonne of food waste annually and produces zero day-to-day greenhouse gas emissions.
The study’s findings based on the uncontaminated segregation of food waste and all significant components of the life cycles of both the centralised and household management strategies for food waste, were included in the calculations. A copy of the paper: “The Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Centralised and Household Treatments of Food Waste” can be found here
Link - Sink Your Waste
Let's Recycle - Ruddock backs anaerobic digestion for food waste - that settles it; it must be a con!
RWM - "Food waste disposal systems are like fly-tipping" says water company
MRW - Environment Minister says AD is the best process to tackle food waste
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sunday, October 14, 2007
No magic from these puffed up Dragons
I just watched a BBC trailer for the new Dragon's Den.
If this is what the participants (who must have agreed the script) and the BBC think is what makes it a good example of TV in any form, other than at last admitting it is pure Coliseum and nothing to do with good ideas and supporting business, then I say they need to look very carefully in the mirrors.
We have a coven of moody egotists huddled together, surrounding a blonde lady whose interestingly shapely leg, thanks to the camera angle, crushes a poor insect.
That insect is the person has an idea, and the guts to try and make something of it. And this is how they see themselves, and how to treat it. Nice one, guys. And as yet another metaphor for Brown's Britian, I can't think of a more telling one.
BBC - New Dragon offers tips for success
James Caan joins the Dragons for the new series
Entrepreneur, venture capitalist and multi-millionaire James Caan is joining Dragon's Den for the autumn series on BBC Two.
He offers these top 10 tips for would-be entrepreneurs looking to replicate his success.
1. Observe the masses and do the opposite
It is much easier to be part of the crowd than not, but an entrepreneur may need to swim against the tide.
2. Ambition is nothing without passion
Anyone can be enthusiastic. Passion is having the character to continue with an idea once that initial emotion has gone. You have got to have that conviction and unquestioning belief in what you are doing in order to be successful.
3. Presentation and preparation matter
If you do not make the best of yourself and present your idea in a clear manner, how can anyone believe that you will do the best for your business?
4. Prove your product
Have you got a good product with verified market acceptability?
Market acceptability means that it has been demonstrated to a number of people who have come back and said yes, this is something I would like to buy.
I certainly wouldn't invest in something that is no more than a plan on a piece of paper. Showing that you are able to execute your plans effectively is paramount.
5. Do your sums
Make sure that the figures stack up. Nobody is going to be interested in doing business with you if they can't see a return.
6. You can and must learn from failure
Entrepreneurs need to be prepared for things not working out as planned. They have to be prepared to make sacrifices for the business and be prepared for taking risks. Persistence is essential - who dares wins!
7. If you win, somebody else doesn't have to lose
Adopt a win-win formula. A lot of businesspeople walk around with an attitude of "I must win", which in practice often means "winning" at the expense of someone else.
To really succeed in the long term, you need to make sure that the people around you win too.
8. Your people are your business
How are your leadership skills? Successful entrepreneurs are rarely one-man bands and exceptional communication skills are vital.
9. Complacency is your enemy
No matter how successful you are, you should never rest on your laurels. Every year you should be wondering how to replicate or build on the success of the year before. It's an ongoing thing - you're never home and dry.
10. Don't work too hard
There are times in business when you have to put everything on one side and really go for it, but there's no point working seven days a week if you don't take time to enjoy life.
If this is what the participants (who must have agreed the script) and the BBC think is what makes it a good example of TV in any form, other than at last admitting it is pure Coliseum and nothing to do with good ideas and supporting business, then I say they need to look very carefully in the mirrors.
We have a coven of moody egotists huddled together, surrounding a blonde lady whose interestingly shapely leg, thanks to the camera angle, crushes a poor insect.
That insect is the person has an idea, and the guts to try and make something of it. And this is how they see themselves, and how to treat it. Nice one, guys. And as yet another metaphor for Brown's Britian, I can't think of a more telling one.
BBC - New Dragon offers tips for success
James Caan joins the Dragons for the new series
Entrepreneur, venture capitalist and multi-millionaire James Caan is joining Dragon's Den for the autumn series on BBC Two.
He offers these top 10 tips for would-be entrepreneurs looking to replicate his success.
1. Observe the masses and do the opposite
It is much easier to be part of the crowd than not, but an entrepreneur may need to swim against the tide.
2. Ambition is nothing without passion
Anyone can be enthusiastic. Passion is having the character to continue with an idea once that initial emotion has gone. You have got to have that conviction and unquestioning belief in what you are doing in order to be successful.
3. Presentation and preparation matter
If you do not make the best of yourself and present your idea in a clear manner, how can anyone believe that you will do the best for your business?
4. Prove your product
Have you got a good product with verified market acceptability?
Market acceptability means that it has been demonstrated to a number of people who have come back and said yes, this is something I would like to buy.
I certainly wouldn't invest in something that is no more than a plan on a piece of paper. Showing that you are able to execute your plans effectively is paramount.
5. Do your sums
Make sure that the figures stack up. Nobody is going to be interested in doing business with you if they can't see a return.
6. You can and must learn from failure
Entrepreneurs need to be prepared for things not working out as planned. They have to be prepared to make sacrifices for the business and be prepared for taking risks. Persistence is essential - who dares wins!
7. If you win, somebody else doesn't have to lose
Adopt a win-win formula. A lot of businesspeople walk around with an attitude of "I must win", which in practice often means "winning" at the expense of someone else.
To really succeed in the long term, you need to make sure that the people around you win too.
8. Your people are your business
How are your leadership skills? Successful entrepreneurs are rarely one-man bands and exceptional communication skills are vital.
9. Complacency is your enemy
No matter how successful you are, you should never rest on your laurels. Every year you should be wondering how to replicate or build on the success of the year before. It's an ongoing thing - you're never home and dry.
10. Don't work too hard
There are times in business when you have to put everything on one side and really go for it, but there's no point working seven days a week if you don't take time to enjoy life.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Ay Trace, wot's 'n eng'nier do?
Dunno Shaz, summat to do wiv drivin' trains?
This from EnvironmentTimes highlights the lack of awareness amongst teenagers of Engineering as a career.
"Ninety per cent of 14 and 15 year olds know little or nothing about careers in engineering and technology, a study by Europe's largest professional society for engineers, the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), has revealed."
At a time when it looks as if some fairly hefty engineering projects are going to happen along (Severn barrage, expanding the Thames tidal barrier etc.) I find that really disheartening: And its probably a sad reflection of the state of our current education system too.
This from EnvironmentTimes highlights the lack of awareness amongst teenagers of Engineering as a career.
"Ninety per cent of 14 and 15 year olds know little or nothing about careers in engineering and technology, a study by Europe's largest professional society for engineers, the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), has revealed."
At a time when it looks as if some fairly hefty engineering projects are going to happen along (Severn barrage, expanding the Thames tidal barrier etc.) I find that really disheartening: And its probably a sad reflection of the state of our current education system too.
Conserving Biodiversity
Our government has today published a new approach to conserving the UK's wildlife and habitats. As reported by Government News Network, 'Conserving Biodiversity - the UK approach' sets out a new vision.
"this vision will require a more holistic or ecosystems approach, where we recognise the interconnections between living things, their environment, and the services they provide. Our climate is changing, and it is more vital than ever before that our conservation efforts help our most important wildlife habitats to adapt and increase their chances of survival."
Sounds a little bit vague and woolly on plans and targets. Oh well, let's hope its a little more successful than the Assets Recovery Agency!
"this vision will require a more holistic or ecosystems approach, where we recognise the interconnections between living things, their environment, and the services they provide. Our climate is changing, and it is more vital than ever before that our conservation efforts help our most important wildlife habitats to adapt and increase their chances of survival."
Sounds a little bit vague and woolly on plans and targets. Oh well, let's hope its a little more successful than the Assets Recovery Agency!
Nobel Cause
Gore unlikely peace hero
'...the motivation behind the committee handing the award to Gore and the IPCC, is less about future gazing and more about wanting to make a clear and unequivocal statement ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali this December'
Studiously trying to avoid any actual comment in any way (the MMGW optimist/pessimist keyboards are being sharpened as a write, I'm sure), I get a bit concerned reading such analysis of such 'awards' if/when it may be seen that they are being used more to send messages and/or plug future events.
That can result in consequences that often cause more problems down the line than they solve.
Guardian - Gore and peace - Unless the the BOFDis are better organised than I give them credit for, bearing in mind this is The Guardian the blog posts tell a tale
Guardian - The truth will out - Trouble with a headline like that is when what comes out isn't true. And while a person's background does not always have any bearing on what they have to say or how they say it, I seem to recall this chap calling the cancellation on Planet Relief 'a right-wing conspiracy when the truth was the BBC sensed no one fancied another Live Earth.
'That's not a game I want to play with my kids. Do you?'
No.
But then again, I'd prefer messengers whose message doesn't immediately leave itself open to the absolutist 'tis/tisn't, all-or-nothing MMCC exchanges that inevitably ensue. See above.
There are a lot of folk DOING a lot more that may not be as sexy as celeb-fuelled 'awareness' talkfests, but might achieve more. And with luck are not over-egging the case to the point a lot of good gets compromised by trivia or, worse, inaccuracies. Or sulking and making wild accusations when the majority of the public show resistance to fondly cherished notions, such as Planet Relief.
And messengers are as important, if not more so, as message these days. Choose them with care.
The headlines reporting this are really as polarised as any discussing the causes of climate change. There's also the small matter of how thew facts of the award get reported. As with teh Oscar, it often seems Mr. Gore alone won it. This from Science Daily is perhaps a more appropriate summary:
Climate Change Research Recognized - In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
As to whether using Mr. Gore's efforts... and views... were the best way to 'send a message', especially via a Peace prize, and it seems targeted rather unsubtly at the US, remains to be seen.
LA Times - Gore's Nobel win stirs hope — and speculation - It seems odd to see this being projected to a potential presidential effort. Especially like this.
BBC - Indian's surprise at Nobel award - Interesting back story
BBC - Gore says prize must spur action
'...the motivation behind the committee handing the award to Gore and the IPCC, is less about future gazing and more about wanting to make a clear and unequivocal statement ahead of the UN climate change conference in Bali this December'
Studiously trying to avoid any actual comment in any way (the MMGW optimist/pessimist keyboards are being sharpened as a write, I'm sure), I get a bit concerned reading such analysis of such 'awards' if/when it may be seen that they are being used more to send messages and/or plug future events.
That can result in consequences that often cause more problems down the line than they solve.
Guardian - Gore and peace - Unless the the BOFDis are better organised than I give them credit for, bearing in mind this is The Guardian the blog posts tell a tale
Guardian - The truth will out - Trouble with a headline like that is when what comes out isn't true. And while a person's background does not always have any bearing on what they have to say or how they say it, I seem to recall this chap calling the cancellation on Planet Relief 'a right-wing conspiracy when the truth was the BBC sensed no one fancied another Live Earth.
'That's not a game I want to play with my kids. Do you?'
No.
But then again, I'd prefer messengers whose message doesn't immediately leave itself open to the absolutist 'tis/tisn't, all-or-nothing MMCC exchanges that inevitably ensue. See above.
There are a lot of folk DOING a lot more that may not be as sexy as celeb-fuelled 'awareness' talkfests, but might achieve more. And with luck are not over-egging the case to the point a lot of good gets compromised by trivia or, worse, inaccuracies. Or sulking and making wild accusations when the majority of the public show resistance to fondly cherished notions, such as Planet Relief.
And messengers are as important, if not more so, as message these days. Choose them with care.
The headlines reporting this are really as polarised as any discussing the causes of climate change. There's also the small matter of how thew facts of the award get reported. As with teh Oscar, it often seems Mr. Gore alone won it. This from Science Daily is perhaps a more appropriate summary:
Climate Change Research Recognized - In 2007 Nobel Peace Prize - The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.
As to whether using Mr. Gore's efforts... and views... were the best way to 'send a message', especially via a Peace prize, and it seems targeted rather unsubtly at the US, remains to be seen.
LA Times - Gore's Nobel win stirs hope — and speculation - It seems odd to see this being projected to a potential presidential effort. Especially like this.
BBC - Indian's surprise at Nobel award - Interesting back story
BBC - Gore says prize must spur action
The lost questions?
I post this for one reason only. We have all struggled to put into terms something to express the maelstrom of argument, debate and counter-debate that ensues whenever climate change / global warming is discussed. The sub-head and first line from this article by Philip Mote on PhysOrg.com just about sums it up perfectly.
"Public discussion over global warming is often caught in a vortex of misinformation perpetuated by extreme forces who say it’s all just a big hoax. This often causes the most relevant scientific questions to get lost."
There's also an interesting little snippet on Kilimanjaro's receding snowline - definitely not global warming - according to Mote.
"Public discussion over global warming is often caught in a vortex of misinformation perpetuated by extreme forces who say it’s all just a big hoax. This often causes the most relevant scientific questions to get lost."
There's also an interesting little snippet on Kilimanjaro's receding snowline - definitely not global warming - according to Mote.
COMPETITION - Ideas for awareness campaign
WHEN: Now
WHAT: FaceBook Group 'Somewhat strident who cares'
WHAT... MORE?: "I have to ask you all a favour. Recently I’ve been feeling increasingly oppressed by the media in general. I am highly aware of these things immediately making me feel shit about myself, to the point where I am spitting with rage. Up to now I’ve not done anything about this for fear of falling into some kinds of ‘always strident, never funny’ category, but I don’t care anymore.
I’m bothered by magazines and adverts in particular, like those cosmetic surgery ads on the tube, or ads for Heat, Grazia, Nuts, Zoo and so on. So basically I’m starting small. If I print up stickers that say things like:
‘By women who hate women. For women who hate themselves’
‘Reading will cause self-hatred’
‘Fake boobs are vile’
‘You are normal. This is not.’
Would you be willing just to carry a few around in your bag and put them on things that you find especially offensive? I’m open to suggestions about what’s on them. I’m also looking into a greener option than stickers, or recycled stickers."
HOW MUCH: Free! But there is actually no prize either, save for having a nifty idea in a good cause... and promoting the cause of reuse in the promoting of causes.
URL: Where I found it. There is a link to a FaceBook thingie, but you have to be a member (which I/Junkk.com am/is already): http://www.brandrepublic.com/Blogs/showpost/0d737814-ebcc-443d-85d3-8854574ba6c1/
COMMENTS: There is actually no prize either, save for having a nifty idea in a good cause... and promoting the cause of reuse in the promoting of causes.
WHAT: FaceBook Group 'Somewhat strident who cares'
WHAT... MORE?: "I have to ask you all a favour. Recently I’ve been feeling increasingly oppressed by the media in general. I am highly aware of these things immediately making me feel shit about myself, to the point where I am spitting with rage. Up to now I’ve not done anything about this for fear of falling into some kinds of ‘always strident, never funny’ category, but I don’t care anymore.
I’m bothered by magazines and adverts in particular, like those cosmetic surgery ads on the tube, or ads for Heat, Grazia, Nuts, Zoo and so on. So basically I’m starting small. If I print up stickers that say things like:
‘By women who hate women. For women who hate themselves’
‘Reading will cause self-hatred’
‘Fake boobs are vile’
‘You are normal. This is not.’
Would you be willing just to carry a few around in your bag and put them on things that you find especially offensive? I’m open to suggestions about what’s on them. I’m also looking into a greener option than stickers, or recycled stickers."
HOW MUCH: Free! But there is actually no prize either, save for having a nifty idea in a good cause... and promoting the cause of reuse in the promoting of causes.
URL: Where I found it. There is a link to a FaceBook thingie, but you have to be a member (which I/Junkk.com am/is already): http://www.brandrepublic.com/Blogs/showpost/0d737814-ebcc-443d-85d3-8854574ba6c1/
COMMENTS: There is actually no prize either, save for having a nifty idea in a good cause... and promoting the cause of reuse in the promoting of causes.
CSI Brussels
No, not another of those crime scene investigation programs from the USA, but the Cement Sustainability Initiative.
Now I knew that cement production generated CO2, what I didn't realise was quite how much. This from The Guardian provides some very interesting data.
"The summit was not called by the aviation industry - that is comparatively clean in comparison. Nor was it made up of car makers, oil companies, shipping firms or any other business that has traditionally drawn the fire of green campaigners."
It turns out that worldwide, the cement industry accounts for more than 5% of all CO2 emissions! And there is no obvious way of cleaning up the process. This is going to cause much heated debate down the line; as cement has become mankind's basic building material.
"There were no climate change protesters waiting to jeer as the chief executives and other senior figures of one of the world's biggest industries gathered on Wednesday."
Now this is out, how long before FoE and its ilk are picketing the cement works and limestone quarries that are dotted all over the UK?
Now I knew that cement production generated CO2, what I didn't realise was quite how much. This from The Guardian provides some very interesting data.
"The summit was not called by the aviation industry - that is comparatively clean in comparison. Nor was it made up of car makers, oil companies, shipping firms or any other business that has traditionally drawn the fire of green campaigners."
It turns out that worldwide, the cement industry accounts for more than 5% of all CO2 emissions! And there is no obvious way of cleaning up the process. This is going to cause much heated debate down the line; as cement has become mankind's basic building material.
"There were no climate change protesters waiting to jeer as the chief executives and other senior figures of one of the world's biggest industries gathered on Wednesday."
Now this is out, how long before FoE and its ilk are picketing the cement works and limestone quarries that are dotted all over the UK?
Criminal Waste
As we're on a roll today as regards public money being p*ssed away when it could help save the planet, here's what I wrote to Newsnight first thing this morning.
Clostridium difficile
The funding of and hence governing of any public service is fast acquiring the levels of farce.
As it stands I remain unclear whether this lady resigned or was dismissed, and hence in either case (though accepting there are differences under the current 'interesting' employment laws) why she would be getting any payment at all escapes me.
That only a case so grotesque as this highlights the protagonists, their actions and the sums from the public purse involved can only lead one to wonder just what else, if marginally less awful, results in any from the public sector - who range from the simply inefficient to the venal - getting swathes of cash for no good reason I can see. Well, other than allowing the clowns who oversee it all to dig their sorry careers out of another hole with other people’s money. Meanwhile a solider mutilated in battle gets grudgingly upgraded to a similar amount to live on for the rest of his life.
And now, today, I turn on the TV to find out that yet another highly trumpeted body (the Crim Combo Crowd) takes 3 times more money to administer than it doles out to those who need it, and not a civil servant's salary and gold-plated pension.
A classic, if sorry metaphor for Blair/Brown's Britain now, whilst the previous 'case' shows just what the effect of 10 years of pouring money without any concept of control can(not) achieve.
Clostridium difficile
The funding of and hence governing of any public service is fast acquiring the levels of farce.
As it stands I remain unclear whether this lady resigned or was dismissed, and hence in either case (though accepting there are differences under the current 'interesting' employment laws) why she would be getting any payment at all escapes me.
That only a case so grotesque as this highlights the protagonists, their actions and the sums from the public purse involved can only lead one to wonder just what else, if marginally less awful, results in any from the public sector - who range from the simply inefficient to the venal - getting swathes of cash for no good reason I can see. Well, other than allowing the clowns who oversee it all to dig their sorry careers out of another hole with other people’s money. Meanwhile a solider mutilated in battle gets grudgingly upgraded to a similar amount to live on for the rest of his life.
And now, today, I turn on the TV to find out that yet another highly trumpeted body (the Crim Combo Crowd) takes 3 times more money to administer than it doles out to those who need it, and not a civil servant's salary and gold-plated pension.
A classic, if sorry metaphor for Blair/Brown's Britain now, whilst the previous 'case' shows just what the effect of 10 years of pouring money without any concept of control can(not) achieve.
This is criminal!
The Assets Recovery Agency was set up in 2003 with a remit to seize the assets of convicted criminals. As reported by The Times today, it has not exactly produced particularly good results.
Having spent over £65 Million in four years, it had recovered, by December last year, some £23 Million in illegally obtained assets.
A return on investment of -£40 Million; now that sounds like it was really well thought out and considered!
Just think about this; at an average cost of £400 per household that's some 100,000 UK houses that could have been fully insulated; substantially saving both energy and CO2 emissions.
What's the betting that no heads will roll, no gold-plated pensions will be put at risk, and that all those in senior positions involved will end up in some alternative cushy number to continue practicing their incompetence? They ought to be put on trial themselves for misappropriation of taxpayers money!
Having spent over £65 Million in four years, it had recovered, by December last year, some £23 Million in illegally obtained assets.
A return on investment of -£40 Million; now that sounds like it was really well thought out and considered!
Just think about this; at an average cost of £400 per household that's some 100,000 UK houses that could have been fully insulated; substantially saving both energy and CO2 emissions.
What's the betting that no heads will roll, no gold-plated pensions will be put at risk, and that all those in senior positions involved will end up in some alternative cushy number to continue practicing their incompetence? They ought to be put on trial themselves for misappropriation of taxpayers money!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Fancy a change? Or.. a change.. fancy.
It was the title that caught my eye: Blears challenges councils to match Government on Devolution
Seemed quite combative for those tasked to work together to serve us.
But it is worth sharing as there are some green bits (well, one) in there:
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears today unveiled a radical re-engineering of the relationship between the state and local councils and communities bringing Government much closer to local people.
The full-set of Whitehall performance indicators that will come into force for local councils next April are published today. They show the Government has slashed the number from 1200 to just 198 giving councils major new freedoms to direct their focus and resources at the issues local people care about from tackling anti-social behaviour, cracking down on gun culture, stepping up work to improve local education standards and tackling climate change.
In a speech to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace) in Cardiff, Ms Blears also delivered a direct challenge to local government - who have long called for greater freedom - saying they must use this "once in a generation" opportunity to deliver better services and make a positive difference in their local community.
Ms Blears also set out other major new freedoms for local Government including:
* Up to £5billion to be transferred out of ring-fenced budgets - this will allow local councils and communities to shift resources to local priorities such as tackling crime or worklessness.
* Business Rates Supplements - a powerful new tool enabling local authorities to work with business to invest in projects that could not otherwise proceed to promote the long-term economic growth and productivity of their areas.
* From next April there will be no new mandatory targets on councils (apart from the 17 statutory targets for educational attainment and early years). The Government will not prescribe any of the targets in Local Area Agreements (LAAs), but will aim to agree them with local partners as part of the negotiation, and councils will be required to involve local communities in the process.
The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partners: Single Set of National Indicators is published today
What do you reckon?
Seemed quite combative for those tasked to work together to serve us.
But it is worth sharing as there are some green bits (well, one) in there:
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears today unveiled a radical re-engineering of the relationship between the state and local councils and communities bringing Government much closer to local people.
The full-set of Whitehall performance indicators that will come into force for local councils next April are published today. They show the Government has slashed the number from 1200 to just 198 giving councils major new freedoms to direct their focus and resources at the issues local people care about from tackling anti-social behaviour, cracking down on gun culture, stepping up work to improve local education standards and tackling climate change.
In a speech to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (Solace) in Cardiff, Ms Blears also delivered a direct challenge to local government - who have long called for greater freedom - saying they must use this "once in a generation" opportunity to deliver better services and make a positive difference in their local community.
Ms Blears also set out other major new freedoms for local Government including:
* Up to £5billion to be transferred out of ring-fenced budgets - this will allow local councils and communities to shift resources to local priorities such as tackling crime or worklessness.
* Business Rates Supplements - a powerful new tool enabling local authorities to work with business to invest in projects that could not otherwise proceed to promote the long-term economic growth and productivity of their areas.
* From next April there will be no new mandatory targets on councils (apart from the 17 statutory targets for educational attainment and early years). The Government will not prescribe any of the targets in Local Area Agreements (LAAs), but will aim to agree them with local partners as part of the negotiation, and councils will be required to involve local communities in the process.
The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partners: Single Set of National Indicators is published today
What do you reckon?
Going to waste
Sorry, I meant going into waste: Defra to get £4 billion a year by 2010
Preventing it, that is. Not meeting targets, hiring countless measuring monkeys or anything.
Because... all together now... 'we need to act now if we are to avoid dangerous climate change'.
My enviROI+ antennae are twitching!
Preventing it, that is. Not meeting targets, hiring countless measuring monkeys or anything.
Because... all together now... 'we need to act now if we are to avoid dangerous climate change'.
My enviROI+ antennae are twitching!
As Oedipus would say, 'Everything is relative'
This from (DEFRA) - Tougher targets for packaging waste
Always a tad dubious about the suffix 'er', as that sets you off on the trail of 'in comparison to what'? But it's the right direction , I guess.
I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, 'would be' might infer in the great can/could/might scheme of PR, though. Enjoy:
More packaging would be recovered and recycled under proposals set out in a consultation published by Environment Minister Joan Ruddock today.
New business targets would come into effect in January 2008 to help the UK meet its obligations under the EC Packaging Directive. Higher targets are proposed for 2009 and beyond to increase the level of recovery and recycling.
After 2008 it is at the discretion of Member States to set targets beyond the minimum required by the Packaging Directive and the UK has made clear that its aim is to continue to improve performance on packaging waste because of the environmental benefits this brings.
Joan Ruddock said:
"Since the introduction of the UK Packaging Regulations packaging recycling has improved significantly, from just 27% in 1997 to over 57% last year. But there is much more to be done. Further cuts in packaging waste are an essential part of reducing our reliance on landfill and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"The higher targets can also act as a driver to help design out unnecessary packaging in future."
The EU minimum recycling and recovery targets are 55% and 60% respectively. The Government's preferred option would increase the recycling target to 55.7% in 2008, 56.8% in 2009 and 58.4% in 2010, and the recovery target to 60.6%, 61.8% and 63.4% in the same years.
Recycling packaging reduces CO2 emissions because less energy is used to extract and process recycled materials than virgin ones, particularly materials like aluminium.
As well as the environmental benefits of cutting CO2 emissions and reducing reliance on landfill, the proposals have cost benefits of around £1.1m - the difference between the estimated costs to producers of £7.7m, and carbon savings estimated at £8.8m.
The proposals are consistent with the Government's 'polluter pays' principal, and the aims of the new Waste Strategy for England which was published in May.
The consultation is published here
The target system applies to businesses that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year and with an annual turnover of over £2m. It encourages producers to reduce their packaging levels because this reduces the cost to them of recycling and recovering their waste.
Proposed targets (weeeee!) of the Government's preferred option:
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Paper 67.5% 68.5% 69.5% 70.5% 71.5%
Glass 78.5% 80.0% 81.0% 82% 84%
Aluminium 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 41% 42%
Steel 68.0% 68.5% 69.0% 70% 71%
Plastic 26.0% 27.0% 29.0% 31% 33%
Wood 20.5% 21.0% 22.0% 23% 24%
Recovery 69.0% 70.0% 71.0% 73% 75%
Always a tad dubious about the suffix 'er', as that sets you off on the trail of 'in comparison to what'? But it's the right direction , I guess.
I'm still trying to figure out what, exactly, 'would be' might infer in the great can/could/might scheme of PR, though. Enjoy:
More packaging would be recovered and recycled under proposals set out in a consultation published by Environment Minister Joan Ruddock today.
New business targets would come into effect in January 2008 to help the UK meet its obligations under the EC Packaging Directive. Higher targets are proposed for 2009 and beyond to increase the level of recovery and recycling.
After 2008 it is at the discretion of Member States to set targets beyond the minimum required by the Packaging Directive and the UK has made clear that its aim is to continue to improve performance on packaging waste because of the environmental benefits this brings.
Joan Ruddock said:
"Since the introduction of the UK Packaging Regulations packaging recycling has improved significantly, from just 27% in 1997 to over 57% last year. But there is much more to be done. Further cuts in packaging waste are an essential part of reducing our reliance on landfill and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
"The higher targets can also act as a driver to help design out unnecessary packaging in future."
The EU minimum recycling and recovery targets are 55% and 60% respectively. The Government's preferred option would increase the recycling target to 55.7% in 2008, 56.8% in 2009 and 58.4% in 2010, and the recovery target to 60.6%, 61.8% and 63.4% in the same years.
Recycling packaging reduces CO2 emissions because less energy is used to extract and process recycled materials than virgin ones, particularly materials like aluminium.
As well as the environmental benefits of cutting CO2 emissions and reducing reliance on landfill, the proposals have cost benefits of around £1.1m - the difference between the estimated costs to producers of £7.7m, and carbon savings estimated at £8.8m.
The proposals are consistent with the Government's 'polluter pays' principal, and the aims of the new Waste Strategy for England which was published in May.
The consultation is published here
The target system applies to businesses that handle more than 50 tonnes of packaging a year and with an annual turnover of over £2m. It encourages producers to reduce their packaging levels because this reduces the cost to them of recycling and recovering their waste.
Proposed targets (weeeee!) of the Government's preferred option:
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Paper 67.5% 68.5% 69.5% 70.5% 71.5%
Glass 78.5% 80.0% 81.0% 82% 84%
Aluminium 38.0% 39.0% 40.0% 41% 42%
Steel 68.0% 68.5% 69.0% 70% 71%
Plastic 26.0% 27.0% 29.0% 31% 33%
Wood 20.5% 21.0% 22.0% 23% 24%
Recovery 69.0% 70.0% 71.0% 73% 75%
Laugh, I could have...
Fox's Glacier Mints 'carbon footprint'
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
Nice to see the funny side being aired. I'm sure Al Gore* would approve!
But the way things might be headed, Fox might just soon be able to walk up* there by pushing the sand all around into a ramp:)
*Peppy having drowned on his 60 mile swim.
It will ride up with wear
I noted this: Tesco measures carbon footprint of own products
Well, 30 of them, anyway. As a test. And being part of a project to assess and develop a carbon labelling standard. I guess it's a start. So long as it goes somewhere soon.
I didn't even know we had a Climate Change Minister, but I can see why she gets the big bucks.
To her stunning insights here I might add that having measured them, there is getting them across in a meaningful way to the poor consumer. Cue another initiative.
The project will provide information on how the standard, called the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, can be applied in a cost-effective, simple way.
I wonder when? I'm assuming that number at the end is not the date.
Well, 30 of them, anyway. As a test. And being part of a project to assess and develop a carbon labelling standard. I guess it's a start. So long as it goes somewhere soon.
I didn't even know we had a Climate Change Minister, but I can see why she gets the big bucks.
To her stunning insights here I might add that having measured them, there is getting them across in a meaningful way to the poor consumer. Cue another initiative.
The project will provide information on how the standard, called the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) 2050, can be applied in a cost-effective, simple way.
I wonder when? I'm assuming that number at the end is not the date.
So, do YOU feel like doing what THEY say?
MPs question government 'savings'
We could always fine them, but then who pays the bill... oh.
Gaurdian - Sir John Bourn, guardian of the public purse. In three years he's run up bills of £365k on travel and £27k on meals. Then there's opera, grand prix, polo ...
He scratches their backs? They scratch...?
We could always fine them, but then who pays the bill... oh.
Gaurdian - Sir John Bourn, guardian of the public purse. In three years he's run up bills of £365k on travel and £27k on meals. Then there's opera, grand prix, polo ...
He scratches their backs? They scratch...?
Maybe we will see some trees not for the wood
I need a good news fix: “Zero" Amazon Deforestation Possible by 2015, Brazilian NGOs say
Mind, there is that word... 'possible'.
Mind, there is that word... 'possible'.
Spinning yarns. Telling tales.
The e-blogosphere, from Newsnight to BBC is Biased, is humming a tad on this: Inconvenient verdict delivered on Gore's climate change film
As stated before, I can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The thing is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo di Caprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available.
Bearing in mind this is the Indy I find this rather telling: 'But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.'
But this is where I get annoyed, not with the 'deniers', but those who keep handing them easy ways to cast doubts: 'Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers.' I am seeing it in every post out there. And the other stuff, the actual worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no/] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. '
I just want to know what we know, and no more and no less, and be guided as best I can to do what is best for my kids' futures. The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides'.
BBC - Gore climate film's 'nine errors'
'... this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.' Ya think?
Guardian - Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
Newsnight - Wednesday, 10 October, 2007
Having now watched this, I wish politicians of all hues (and a few media types, though JP was a noble exception in referring to 'us', I believe, as 'they', which I presume to be a separate breed of human to those who haunt studios) would resist from telling me what I think when I haven't been asked. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has the rest of the country in any meaningful way.
It makes it very hard to stay objective on what IS happening and gets DONE, and resist reacting and seeking the exact opposite just as payback for the presumption.
Which brings me to the world being consumed in a ball of fire by next Tuesday. Or... not.
The eco-blogosphere is humming a bit on this.
And I really can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The piece (as noted) is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo diCaprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available. So what the government was/is doing punting it out anyway escapes me.
Where I do get annoyed in this is with those who keep handing climate optimists easy ways to cast doubts. I am seeing it in every post out there. While the other stuff, the actual for real worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no?] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue', as I read by way of a comeback in the paper. It's always extremes.
So we get a guy up against JP, whose job it is to seek weaknesses in argument and tear them apart, and I am left with ' 'bits' of it were... um... wrong, but not wrong'? Do what? On this basis what else could get the green ('scuse pun) light to be aired at school, so long as it comes with a teacher's disclaimer training manual. I know how that is going to go down having run it by my own kids; 'Er, dad, what are you on about???'. I want them educated in more than box-ticking.
And, as an aside, I was not aware that 'we' 'know' that climate change IS man-made. I am passionately committed to practical (a lot in that), effective (even more there) reduction and/or mitigation on an urgent basis, but just on a slightly different one that I, personally, 'believe', which is 'man' and our activities sure may not be helping much.
And if the MMCC absolute does get disproved (which in some other ways I pray it does, though my business plan might need changing a tad once the party starts) or even just further chipped away, it sets back the entreaties of the less dogmatic advocates. Cry wolf, anyone?
Like greenwashing ads, why push the claim to the point that it is shown to be hyped, or worse false, and undo all the other good the brand has been building? I know it can seem so urgent to some (me inc.) that any means necessary can be tempting to take to get the message out, but not if this is the result.
I can only speak personally to say I just want to know what 'we' know now - no more and no less, with all caveats - and to be guided as best I can be to do what is best for my kids' futures.
The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides' feeding off this as we speak.
Green cannot be viewed just in black and white.
ADDENDUM
* 33.* Baz wrote:
Thank you for this. As one interested but who cannot face the prospect of wading through mammoth reports I can't complain so much if I rely on those who do if the information I get is 'selective'.
I have been convinced enough by what I have been served up to concede that there is the distinct possibility of Man-worsened Climate Change, and even if this ends up being proven in error there seems no great harm in a cautious approach to our race's activities from now on. In any case, moderation, cutting down/out pollution and prevention of waste are no bad things to practice simply in financial terms.
Semantically, do I read this as saying it's a given that climate change in human-induced? You obviously did. I could see it more as looking at 'whether', which seems valid.
That said, I have heard the BBC's main enviro spokespersons/experts (whose qualifications are?) refer to the 'fact' that climate change is caused by man. Is it?
Because then there is also such as this: "the risk is the public might misunderstand what campaigners are saying with what the scientists are actually finding out."
Quite.
As stated before, I can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The thing is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo di Caprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available.
Bearing in mind this is the Indy I find this rather telling: 'But, in a somewhat more damaging move, the judge forensically examined the documentary's "one-sided" case and found "nine scientific errors" in its content.'
But this is where I get annoyed, not with the 'deniers', but those who keep handing them easy ways to cast doubts: 'Yesterday's ruling will no doubt be greeted with glee among climate-change deniers.' I am seeing it in every post out there. And the other stuff, the actual worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no/] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue. '
I just want to know what we know, and no more and no less, and be guided as best I can to do what is best for my kids' futures. The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides'.
BBC - Gore climate film's 'nine errors'
'... this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.' Ya think?
Guardian - Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
Newsnight - Wednesday, 10 October, 2007
Having now watched this, I wish politicians of all hues (and a few media types, though JP was a noble exception in referring to 'us', I believe, as 'they', which I presume to be a separate breed of human to those who haunt studios) would resist from telling me what I think when I haven't been asked. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has the rest of the country in any meaningful way.
It makes it very hard to stay objective on what IS happening and gets DONE, and resist reacting and seeking the exact opposite just as payback for the presumption.
Which brings me to the world being consumed in a ball of fire by next Tuesday. Or... not.
The eco-blogosphere is humming a bit on this.
And I really can't for the life of me figure how it has come to this. The piece (as noted) is pretty much ancient history anyway, and AG has a new version (with solutions) coming, and there are two others I am aware of (Leonardo diCaprio's and another whose name escapes me) which are also more proactive available. So what the government was/is doing punting it out anyway escapes me.
Where I do get annoyed in this is with those who keep handing climate optimists easy ways to cast doubts. I am seeing it in every post out there. While the other stuff, the actual for real worrying stuff, gets ignored in the noise.
And in the spirit of 'two wrongs..', I could give a stuff that '...green opponents [how is it so clear cut as all pro vs all no?] have come under similar criticisms over their own claims on the hotly contested issue', as I read by way of a comeback in the paper. It's always extremes.
So we get a guy up against JP, whose job it is to seek weaknesses in argument and tear them apart, and I am left with ' 'bits' of it were... um... wrong, but not wrong'? Do what? On this basis what else could get the green ('scuse pun) light to be aired at school, so long as it comes with a teacher's disclaimer training manual. I know how that is going to go down having run it by my own kids; 'Er, dad, what are you on about???'. I want them educated in more than box-ticking.
And, as an aside, I was not aware that 'we' 'know' that climate change IS man-made. I am passionately committed to practical (a lot in that), effective (even more there) reduction and/or mitigation on an urgent basis, but just on a slightly different one that I, personally, 'believe', which is 'man' and our activities sure may not be helping much.
And if the MMCC absolute does get disproved (which in some other ways I pray it does, though my business plan might need changing a tad once the party starts) or even just further chipped away, it sets back the entreaties of the less dogmatic advocates. Cry wolf, anyone?
Like greenwashing ads, why push the claim to the point that it is shown to be hyped, or worse false, and undo all the other good the brand has been building? I know it can seem so urgent to some (me inc.) that any means necessary can be tempting to take to get the message out, but not if this is the result.
I can only speak personally to say I just want to know what 'we' know now - no more and no less, with all caveats - and to be guided as best I can be to do what is best for my kids' futures.
The only winners here are those who thrive under a cloud of controversy. And there are a lot of them on both 'sides' feeding off this as we speak.
Green cannot be viewed just in black and white.
ADDENDUM
* 33.* Baz wrote:
Thank you for this. As one interested but who cannot face the prospect of wading through mammoth reports I can't complain so much if I rely on those who do if the information I get is 'selective'.
I have been convinced enough by what I have been served up to concede that there is the distinct possibility of Man-worsened Climate Change, and even if this ends up being proven in error there seems no great harm in a cautious approach to our race's activities from now on. In any case, moderation, cutting down/out pollution and prevention of waste are no bad things to practice simply in financial terms.
Semantically, do I read this as saying it's a given that climate change in human-induced? You obviously did. I could see it more as looking at 'whether', which seems valid.
That said, I have heard the BBC's main enviro spokespersons/experts (whose qualifications are?) refer to the 'fact' that climate change is caused by man. Is it?
Because then there is also such as this: "the risk is the public might misunderstand what campaigners are saying with what the scientists are actually finding out."
Quite.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
I saw three ships a belchin' forth...
Anything that starts with 'New research suggests..' gets my eyebrow well primed, but I do wonder if this is another biggie we are ignoring in favour of trivia: Shipping pollution 'far more damaging than flying'
BBC - Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'
BBC - Ships' CO2 'twice that of planes'
Why 'greens' don't want to solve climate change
An interesting and well structured piece from Spiked which argues that environmentalists are against major technological solutions to climate change as it robs them of their raison d'etre.
Well worth a read.
Well worth a read.
Don't call us. And we won't call you.
Inspiring stuff: EVEN GORDON GETS CONFUSED ABOUT TPS!
I am intrigued by big businesses who are on/hide behind TPS.
It rather begs the question as to how they find out anything new.
Having been challenged by a mentor to call (I really, really... don't like cold calling) a major fmcg Marketing Director up to get a chance to pitch my green eco-packaging invention, my first attempt was Trace on reception 'Hoodisayscallin'?" and through to Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric: 'Does he KNOW you?'. To my answer that no, he did not, but I was pretty sure he and his company would like to be aware of a green innovation that made money and saved the planet, she shrieked 'But we're on TPS - I am reporting you!' I quake as I write.
And that was just me going via their website.
Ahhh... doing business in Brown's not very green and very unpleasant land.
I am intrigued by big businesses who are on/hide behind TPS.
It rather begs the question as to how they find out anything new.
Having been challenged by a mentor to call (I really, really... don't like cold calling) a major fmcg Marketing Director up to get a chance to pitch my green eco-packaging invention, my first attempt was Trace on reception 'Hoodisayscallin'?" and through to Mrs. Miggins on her IBM Selectric: 'Does he KNOW you?'. To my answer that no, he did not, but I was pretty sure he and his company would like to be aware of a green innovation that made money and saved the planet, she shrieked 'But we're on TPS - I am reporting you!' I quake as I write.
And that was just me going via their website.
Ahhh... doing business in Brown's not very green and very unpleasant land.
Worked for me
EXCEEDING EXPECTATIONS IS THE WRONG STRATEGY
I ran my agency on one simple service principle: promise slightly lower than you know you can deliver... and then, when you do, exceed it by as much as you can.
Never failed.
I ran my agency on one simple service principle: promise slightly lower than you know you can deliver... and then, when you do, exceed it by as much as you can.
Never failed.
But will he get it?
Greenpeace sends message to "Gordon"
Not always a fan of Greenpeace, but sometimes they can do more than most to get our 'we're listening', if rather deaf, leadership to at least confront some stuff they seem to wish didn't exist.
Management Today - Labour’s entrepreneur tax - I know, it's not the same thing. I just needed a palce to stick it before I jumped off the roof.
Indy - Green Taxes: Chancellor accused of stealing Tory idea
Not always a fan of Greenpeace, but sometimes they can do more than most to get our 'we're listening', if rather deaf, leadership to at least confront some stuff they seem to wish didn't exist.
Management Today - Labour’s entrepreneur tax - I know, it's not the same thing. I just needed a palce to stick it before I jumped off the roof.
Indy - Green Taxes: Chancellor accused of stealing Tory idea
Dim thinking on a bright problem
And it's positive!
I'm not in the habit of giving too much ad space for free to just one outfit, but as this is an issue of topicality I thought this warranted inclusion now - Energy saving dimmable light bulbs!
The lack of a dimming facility has been a (slightly trivial, in my view) reason for resistance from both architects and the public in this debate.
I hope this may serve to solve that aspect.
Others remain. There is the subjective area of light cast, which can put off some purists, and my own, which is on reliability (posted before).
ADDENDUM 17/10 - for comparison (on price), I have just been advised of this from Light Bulbs Direct.
I'm not in the habit of giving too much ad space for free to just one outfit, but as this is an issue of topicality I thought this warranted inclusion now - Energy saving dimmable light bulbs!
The lack of a dimming facility has been a (slightly trivial, in my view) reason for resistance from both architects and the public in this debate.
I hope this may serve to solve that aspect.
Others remain. There is the subjective area of light cast, which can put off some purists, and my own, which is on reliability (posted before).
ADDENDUM 17/10 - for comparison (on price), I have just been advised of this from Light Bulbs Direct.
BLOG ACTION DAY
This has been under my nose each time I log on to the blog admin for how long and only now do I notice it!
Bit of a no brainer, really. That's me... and taking part.
Note: I was totally thrown by the need for an RSS number. I have no clue. I need to find out, and if can help I'd be very grateful. If it is connected to the Junkk.com site I could say 120-150,000 unique visitors/month, which would impress!
Apparently, it will work if I just stick a number in. I hate to say 0 as it isn't, but to move on I guess I'll be honest and say I don't know so... zero:(
ADDENDUM - Logo up now. Don't know what went wrong with my upload
What you see...what you get?
It's not that eco, sorry, but my blood was boiling already on the disconnect on what happens and how it gets reported: Newsnight - PRE-BUDGET REPORT
7.At 10:49 PM on 09 Oct 2007,
sue smith wrote:
Stephanie Flanders is wrong, wrong, wrong!
Was/is she? When am I going to get objective information and analysis without layers of agenda overlaid that I need to labour (no relation) over and cross-index to get anywhere near what is going on.
This morning on Breakfast I leaned that 'we' the people, thought that Mr. Darling had cunningly pulled a fast one. I don't recall being asked, nor do I remember a valid poll to substantiate such a statement from what one would hope to be objective journalism.
So it is here on the blog posts (missed the show, sadly) that I actually get close to some analysis that guides me to an informed view on yesterday's efforts by Mr. Darling.
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'. Such as Polly Toynbee on the Andrew Marr show, invited, one presumes, to show balance.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
And for a presenter to say no one will remember who did what at the booth when the time comes, I speak solely for myself in saying 'Oh yes I will.'
7.At 10:49 PM on 09 Oct 2007,
sue smith wrote:
Stephanie Flanders is wrong, wrong, wrong!
Was/is she? When am I going to get objective information and analysis without layers of agenda overlaid that I need to labour (no relation) over and cross-index to get anywhere near what is going on.
This morning on Breakfast I leaned that 'we' the people, thought that Mr. Darling had cunningly pulled a fast one. I don't recall being asked, nor do I remember a valid poll to substantiate such a statement from what one would hope to be objective journalism.
So it is here on the blog posts (missed the show, sadly) that I actually get close to some analysis that guides me to an informed view on yesterday's efforts by Mr. Darling.
In the 'fight back', I have noticed the well-trained..er.. briefed cabinet clones and supporting sympathetic/sycophantic media are spinning this as applicable to a very small number of folk and dependents who don't deserve 'it'. Such as Polly Toynbee on the Andrew Marr show, invited, one presumes, to show balance.
I'll have to leave the reality of that to the lies, damn lies and political number crunchers to fight over.
All I know is that when my Mum hit 75 she could no longer look after herself. So we sold her big house and popped her in a small one next to ours so I could keep an eye on her.
Thing is, at 50, and having worked from home for a decade, with my old CV, any attempt to hit the workforce as a consequence of various downturns, combined with the farce that is the equal opportunity legislation on any practical application (ask anyone over 40 - who admits to it - how a CV gets treated), means I am looking at a very long creek ahead and a very short paddle.
What's left of Mum's legacy would go a long way to mitigating that and help me feel a bit better about where my future will be placed without being a burden on the kids or society either.
So to all those well paid and golden pensioned Ministers and media luvvies who can't see how this might play well with those who do work hard and try and keep things in the family, I have a very short phrase for you: at least I still have my vote.
And for a presenter to say no one will remember who did what at the booth when the time comes, I speak solely for myself in saying 'Oh yes I will.'
I defend the BBC...ish
I had to weigh in on a discussion prompted by the reporting of the opening up of the Northwest Passage for [insert time period here according to relative MMGW persuasion]
'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'
Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.
As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.
So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.
The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.
Speaking of which...
I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.
I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.
ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!
For this:
I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':
Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481
Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.
I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.
And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.
[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #
I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:
OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.
I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.
I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?
As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.
Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.
That serves who well, exactly?
Their site. Their ball. Their loss.
ADDENDUM:
It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.
ADDENDUM 2:
Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.
Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #
Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.
ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.
ADDENDUM 3:
A challenge:
Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.
I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.
Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.
The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.
My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.
I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.
So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.
And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.
All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.
And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.
Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.
How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.
Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).
Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.
Didn't take long. I got a reply.
We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.
We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".
We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.
If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.
I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.
As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.
I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.
Plus my RSI might improve.
'.. if we're likely to see Dr. David G. on the news explaining the lack of evidence for man-made global warming'
Not quite fair. If the combined might of everyone from the IPCC to RealClimate can't 'prove' anything one way or another to the satisfaction of all then I doubt he could... or should be asked to. Though the BBC’s role in sharing pertinent, objective information is of course both topical and of interest.
As previously head-above-parapetted, personally I think there is climate change; it is negative; it is getting worse and it is worth looking at ways to mitigate man's possible influences. And pronto. But I do have some strong views on how, and how the current cabal of government, media, interest groups and activists are clouding an already murky issue to the extent that the general public are kicking back.
So I do think flying a reporter up to an iceberg to do a noddy in front of a snowman sends out a mixed message at best. And every time I see a twee reporter skipping around a G-Wiz saying it doesn't pollute it makes me wince.
The message is too important to be compromised by sloppy reporting or pandering to targets or box ticking agendas. And I especially feel every overkill story sets the cause of rational argument back by giving those who are more vocal in their ‘optimism’ (I find denier to be a pejorative) a chance to attack detail at the expense of the bigger picture.
Speaking of which...
I was wondering if any from the BBC, and perhaps the Department of Denial that is JR (though I'd prefer a more qualified and less selective responder) has any thoughts on the BBC erring on the side of the 'green trap' policy wisdom by the government in terms of political discussion (the Conservatives and Lib Dems and Greens all being a tad more considered, if often confused, in at least discussing options, and often unpopular ones) whilst bombarding us with ‘we're all doomed scenarios on ice’ that may just be coincidental in the great climatic scheme of things. Or getting a set of Islington knickers in a twist on issues which, while certainly part of the overall scheme of things, are less of a priority or concern right now than, say, home insulation or deforestation.
I was amongst a covey of 'mentalists (I am one!) last night who had ventured out from the big city in their Priuses (nothing like lugging a battery down the M4 to make you feel good about the planet) . But perhaps Tewksbury was the wrong place to suggest that 4x4s and bottled water were not necessary, especially when we find out just how well our political masters have, are and might be thinking of handling the consequences of avoiding the green trap with their flood plans.
ADDENDUM - I GOT MODERATED!!!!
For this:
I do not want or intend to get into a 'tis/t'isn't MMGW argument (they go nowhere and simply consume precious energy pointlessly), but simply share this 'for the pot':
Sustainability: A Nobel Cause
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=481
Ignoring all the warmly-debated science, I merely note who is chatting, and the key fact that they do not seem to be obsessing too much on matters of idealism, rather cold hard cash.
I have great respect for RealClimate (though the posters are getting a little more feisty of late - I like my science objective), and hence the comments in reply to the original post make for equally interesting reading by way of balance.
And noting the mere hint that a pol is doing stuff not for the mid/far future but to prop up economics now really does damage.
[Peter, I'm afraid you can't say "I don't want to get into an argument about this", and then present a provocative article! The Moderator.]
Peter | Homepage | 10.10.07 - 10:59 am | #
I'm afraid I felt to delete my post (and leave in what they did) like this was unwarranted:
OK, stick the RealClimate article I featured back up without that opener (I guess you'll have to delete that - but will it remain in Googlecache?), along with the rest of my thoughts on how it and the post in reply highlighted some interesting politico/media MMGW issues and how people can respond to them.
I'll then let the various extremes fight over whether 'it' exists at all whilst missing the actual point.
I will then engage or not if I so wish. Happy?
As it stands, and perhaps despite my poor wording, I'd say the chop you have instigated serves the cause of moderation poorly. I'd have thought leaving the totality up and saying what you think about it to be more appropriate. I don't think anything I wrote contravened any of the site rules. I just shared some info pertinent to the thread and in advance advised I was not terribly keen on arguing about something no one knows about for sure one way or another yet.
Currently no one has a clue what you/we are on about.
That serves who well, exactly?
Their site. Their ball. Their loss.
ADDENDUM:
It went up. And then it got deleted. An interesting insight into the actions of those who talk of bias.
ADDENDUM 2:
Another day, and the possibility of another moderator. So I popped this in.
Removing the option of the public to comment! Now who'd do a thing like that?
bob | 11.10.07 - 8:04 am | #
Can't imagine. But, as oft noted, it is free and the owner's ball to play with. See how long this stays up.
ps: I put in a link to RealClimate to make a point on the MMGW 'debate' being about 'tis/t'isn't happening (at all) vs. looking ahead at reasonable solutions. Shame no one got a chance to see, much less comment on it and my sloppy first line was used as an excuse to whip out the entire (pretty innocuous) rest of the post.
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
I might be heading for my first ban, which will be a milestone! Shame, as I do value some of what gets discovered, shared and discussed, but not when the discussions get steered in the same way as the entity they purport to accuse of dodgy practices.
ADDENDUM 3:
A challenge:
Peter:
[The Moderator: Peter, if you want to discuss our moderation policy, e-mail us on biasedbbc@googlemail.com (but in short, off-topic comments are likely to be deleted).]
Peter | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 9:55 am | #
Thank you for the opportunity for discussion.
I think BBBC has some fine minds at work, and I value the information I glean. As well as the debate.
Sadly, I rather felt the moderation in the case that prompted my subsequent comment to have been an example more of what the BBC is often accused of, with reason, and seriously affected my view of the site as a consequence.
The piece in question was on a thread concerning climate change, which has been very much in the news and indeed on the BBBC site on numerous occasions, but really quite frequently of late, as associated with Mr. Gore's movie and Nobel.
My point in the 'moderated' piece has been quite eloquently made by subsequent events, namely that anything regarding sensible debate on anything climatic gets immediately co-opted into two extreme camps: the so-called 'deniers' and the 'green at all costers', with suitable descriptive ing/ist/zi perjoratives added to taste, and a lot of playing the man and not the ball.
I'd guess that most on BBBC fall into the former. OK, it's a private blog. Most in the BBC fall into the latter. No so fair enough, as they are my public broadcaster. I get very unhappy when I read about such as Roger Harrabin's qualifications and editorial memos or Mr. Gore's various less than noble activities. Not because I don't think there is a climate issue, or indeed that man might well be rather unhelpful, but because I don't think the negative exposure these inaccuracies and exaggeration and secret agendas in the cause of 'doing what's best' for 'the people' are working or help. Especially when they boomerang.
So I am dedicated to information, and as well shaped opinion as I can get it. Which is why I watch BBC and read BBBC. The truth is often in the middle.
And hence I like to share as well, to see what might come back.
All I said is that I didn't want to get into a pointless MMGW argument. For a start, to my best assessment, even though that acronym is used by rather extreme 'denier' posters, the fact of man's causing it is nowhere to be found. I allow for possibly 'man worsened' at best.
And my post discussed that, cited highly valid sources such as Real Climate, but also quoting Chancellor Merkel to show how where you start from in this issue always pretty much predicts where the argument will end up.
Yet all this was deleted. What was left was the first line, alluding to 'a provocative article'. On the basis of my saying I didn't want the argument hijacked in the usual direction it always does.
How that is off topic fails me. But if as I presume you refer to my dropping a point about editing to support a view in a thread about the BBC doing just that, I'd say a little self-analysis may be in order.
Here's the sequence as you may have deleted it all and Google cache may not be available: (see above).
Keep up the good work. Try and stop the less so.
Didn't take long. I got a reply.
We delete a *lot* of comments every day. I don't know why you have
presumed it's just yours that has been deleted (or why you have
presumed that we only delete comments that we don't agree with).
Perhaps it's because we usually just delete a post without comment,
which we didn't do in your case (because of your newbie status). Or
perhaps it's because you're very much a "me" blogger.
We get far more comments on global warming than we want, and we
delete a lot of them. They are by far the most numerous category of
comments that we delete. About 90% of those that we delete are
arguing *against* the existence and/or severity of GW. (Similarly,
about 90% of the comments we delete are taking an anti-BBC line). It
is simply not justified for you to assume that you were deleted
because you didn't "toe a party line".
We do leave some comments on GW in, but only the better, more
relevant and more concise ones. You gave us a good excuse to delete
yours because you said you were "adding one for the pot", which
created the impression that you were leaving us something that would
create a blizzard of comments which you could step away from. In
addition, we had noticed that you had a tendency for long, rambling
off-topic comments, and we're not very interested in that.
If you want to discuss GW in-depth online, then I suggest you go to a
dedicated site.
I'll leave it all in, critique and all. You know what? They're right. Sometimes I do post over-long screeds. I may even ramble, though I'd like to think that without the benefit of time it is just exploring all the options. We live in a sound bite culture that suffers from the whole issue not being considered properly.
As to the rest, I'd say quite breathtaking, defevensive, illogical arrogance. Not a little less than pleasant, too, as I was invited to get in touch. And as they have admitted to an approach of censoring what they feel like, I can't see they are any different to the BBC TV/online efforts they critique for being 'selective', or what they call biased.
I'll still use 'em to find stuff. But as for their status as an online place of even debate, for me at least, their reputation is shot. I have learned a lot about moderation from this, and I hope it will make my blog the better for it.
Plus my RSI might improve.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
We live in a world of crazy decisions
This article from Effect Measure (who I have to confess I hadn't come across until today), highlights how governmental agencies still take crazy decisions.
It relates to the interim approval by the EPA for the use of Methyl Iodide as a fumigant to replace highly toxic Methyl Bromide; approval for which has been withdrawn under the Montreal protocol as it is regarded as a ozone depleter.
Now anyone with an iota of chemistry knowledge might suspect that replacing one halogen with another is not really likely to make too much of a change in a chemical's characteristics. And in this case you would be correct; Methyl Iodide is also highly toxic, being both a "neurotoxin and carcinogen that has caused thyroid tumors, neurological damage and miscarriages in lab animals".
"methyl iodide is nasty. If you want to use it you must employ a certified applicator, establish a buffer zone of 25 to 500 feet around the fields, no use within a quarter mile of a school, day care facility, nursing home, hospital, prison or playground. And if you are a shoveler, tractor driver or applicator you have to be trained and you have to wear a respirator. Farm workers can't re-enter the fields for five days after application."
The EPA is supposed to be the US 'Environmental Protection Agency': what the hell is going on over there?
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - The author has kindly posted a correction which I repeat here:
"Note there was an inadvertent error in that post. Methyl bromide is an ozone depleter, not a greenhouse gas. My error. I corrected it in the post. "
It still doesn't sound like a very welcome addition to the gaseous cocktail we are sharing with future generations.
It relates to the interim approval by the EPA for the use of Methyl Iodide as a fumigant to replace highly toxic Methyl Bromide; approval for which has been withdrawn under the Montreal protocol as it is regarded as a ozone depleter.
Now anyone with an iota of chemistry knowledge might suspect that replacing one halogen with another is not really likely to make too much of a change in a chemical's characteristics. And in this case you would be correct; Methyl Iodide is also highly toxic, being both a "neurotoxin and carcinogen that has caused thyroid tumors, neurological damage and miscarriages in lab animals".
"methyl iodide is nasty. If you want to use it you must employ a certified applicator, establish a buffer zone of 25 to 500 feet around the fields, no use within a quarter mile of a school, day care facility, nursing home, hospital, prison or playground. And if you are a shoveler, tractor driver or applicator you have to be trained and you have to wear a respirator. Farm workers can't re-enter the fields for five days after application."
The EPA is supposed to be the US 'Environmental Protection Agency': what the hell is going on over there?
ADDENDUM by Junkk Male - The author has kindly posted a correction which I repeat here:
"Note there was an inadvertent error in that post. Methyl bromide is an ozone depleter, not a greenhouse gas. My error. I corrected it in the post. "
It still doesn't sound like a very welcome addition to the gaseous cocktail we are sharing with future generations.
An interesting snippet on Peak Oil
From Andrew Leonard of Salon.com, who takes a slightly bemused view of the rather optimistic stance that some in the oil industry are still taking; 'there's loads more left to be extracted from the planet' and 'climate change will make the extraction of oil from hostile polar regions easier'.
"The oil companies are going to be in business for a long long time, extracting every last milliliter of oil and gas from every last nook and cranny in the earth. Whether we can afford to pay for the resulting product is an entirely different question."
Quite!
________________
Well, unless you believe the Russian's theory that crude oil and natural petroleum gas are simply primordial materials erupted from the depths of our planet and nothing to do with being a biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains. As reported on Scoop in September.
"The oil companies are going to be in business for a long long time, extracting every last milliliter of oil and gas from every last nook and cranny in the earth. Whether we can afford to pay for the resulting product is an entirely different question."
Quite!
________________
Well, unless you believe the Russian's theory that crude oil and natural petroleum gas are simply primordial materials erupted from the depths of our planet and nothing to do with being a biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains. As reported on Scoop in September.
More warnings from Flannery
This quite intrigued me. According to The Mirror, Tim Flannery (who now appears to have become accepted as 'a world recognised climate change scientist') states that the forthcoming report from the IPCC (due in November) will "show that greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in mid-2005 had reached about 455 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent -- a level not expected for another 10 years."
Now that appears to be significantly important news; we are ten years ahead of schedule against what was actually one of the worst scenarios as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.
"What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change."
OK, so where's the rest of the British press? This has been reported worldwide, across all types of publications, but so far, only the Mirror appears to have covered it here. This isn't a scare scenario, it is apparently reporting on scientifically measured levels of what is already in our atmosphere. It is extremely significant information.
Why the deafening silence from the UK meejah?
Addendum:
Just spotted that The Metro also carried this story yesterday too. Cannot immediately see any mention of it in the rest of the press though, yesterday or today.
Now that appears to be significantly important news; we are ten years ahead of schedule against what was actually one of the worst scenarios as far as greenhouse gasses are concerned.
"What the report establishes is that the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that could potentially cause dangerous climate change."
OK, so where's the rest of the British press? This has been reported worldwide, across all types of publications, but so far, only the Mirror appears to have covered it here. This isn't a scare scenario, it is apparently reporting on scientifically measured levels of what is already in our atmosphere. It is extremely significant information.
Why the deafening silence from the UK meejah?
Addendum:
Just spotted that The Metro also carried this story yesterday too. Cannot immediately see any mention of it in the rest of the press though, yesterday or today.
Same hollow words - different acronym
My heart sank as I read this from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development now has a management speak acronym; you'd all better get used to 'SD'. Having only got to the end of the second paragraph, my memory was triggering 'I've read this before somewhere' alarms. By the time I'd reached the bullet points, the light dawned.
This is almost verbatim the same management speak that was used back in the 70's & 80's for Quality Improvement, in the 80's & 90's for Business Process Re-engineering, in the 90's for Information Management and in the late 90's & early this millennium, for Knowledge Management!
The words are pretty much all the same; simply substitute BPR, IM, KM or QI and its the same hollow meaningless management speak! I worked in a number of multi-nationals throughout those decades and there were literally hundreds of people who actually spoke like this!
"The third level comprises a critical analysis of skills in relation to key (enter buzzwords or acronym) issues outside of the company to inspire different ways of thinking about (enter buzzwords or acronym). The target audience for this level is people who will act as (enter buzzwords or acronym) ambassadors. An external partner conducts this training and each employee is assessed individually and must present an idea for possible implementation. A set proportion of an ambassador’s time is spent on this and it will soon be part of their job description."
"While it is reasonable for top management to be aware and involved [in (enter buzzwords or acronym)], that alone does not guarantee success. The top leadership must show that they support the direction the company is headed, but it still needs to be tied to the rationale of the business, the nuts and bolts; conviction is not enough."
I rest my case. We are now in the management speak era of 'SD'.
The problem is, this one is potentially critical to the future of our little planet and possibly even the future existence of humanity; I hope it doesn't get as hopelessly stuffed up as it has been in each previous iteration.
This is almost verbatim the same management speak that was used back in the 70's & 80's for Quality Improvement, in the 80's & 90's for Business Process Re-engineering, in the 90's for Information Management and in the late 90's & early this millennium, for Knowledge Management!
The words are pretty much all the same; simply substitute BPR, IM, KM or QI and its the same hollow meaningless management speak! I worked in a number of multi-nationals throughout those decades and there were literally hundreds of people who actually spoke like this!
"The third level comprises a critical analysis of skills in relation to key (enter buzzwords or acronym) issues outside of the company to inspire different ways of thinking about (enter buzzwords or acronym). The target audience for this level is people who will act as (enter buzzwords or acronym) ambassadors. An external partner conducts this training and each employee is assessed individually and must present an idea for possible implementation. A set proportion of an ambassador’s time is spent on this and it will soon be part of their job description."
"While it is reasonable for top management to be aware and involved [in (enter buzzwords or acronym)], that alone does not guarantee success. The top leadership must show that they support the direction the company is headed, but it still needs to be tied to the rationale of the business, the nuts and bolts; conviction is not enough."
I rest my case. We are now in the management speak era of 'SD'.
The problem is, this one is potentially critical to the future of our little planet and possibly even the future existence of humanity; I hope it doesn't get as hopelessly stuffed up as it has been in each previous iteration.
Byte me
Whitehaven switchover: a view from the local paper
When it rains (and in the UK it does on occasion), my digital reception ceases.
So as far as I can gather, I trashed the environment getting a bunch new kit and ditching a bunch of perfectly good old stuff to get a worse service.
As metaphors go for how the public are steered by government and mostly compliant media into a greener future I'd say that about covers it.
When it rains (and in the UK it does on occasion), my digital reception ceases.
So as far as I can gather, I trashed the environment getting a bunch new kit and ditching a bunch of perfectly good old stuff to get a worse service.
As metaphors go for how the public are steered by government and mostly compliant media into a greener future I'd say that about covers it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)