U-turns. Another way to spin in one place.

Why legislate when you can green market

Thank heavens I see this here as I was sure I had dreamt I heard it on a SKY News slot last night.

I can't seem to locate a dicky bird on the BBC or The Indy, etc.

Maybe they are still pondering the consequences.

I know I am.

Meantime, amen to this: 'They have little understanding of how to market green issues. Until they do, no matter how much they spend, their marketing attempts will be ignored. My advice is to save your money and bin your ads until you really get to grips with it."

It beggars the imagination how much has been blown already on such wasted efforts. And I have very dim views on the ethics of those being rewarded with bonuses based on us recycling more using our money to drive up the rates. It seems a slight conflict of interest to me, at least in the public sector.

As to the ActonCO2 site I agree and disagree. Or rather, t'other way round. It didn't work when I logged on, and most who tried I doubt will go back (web #101 - don't blow your budget sending all to a site that can't handle it). And anything that expects me to sit through that much web designer wet dream is asking for me to get bored and give up. And once there... I find out what my footprint may be? Woo-hoo. How much and how many people to and run this? And others?

My free reuse site junkk.com costs no one a bean in salaries and marketing expenses, and is currently 'run' by one. Yet it keeps winning awards by being fun and offering ideas and rewards for DOING.

Though some manpower help is desperately required and would be appreciated as I really need get back to the day job. Anyone?

Indy - Wasted opportunities

Observe... er

Observer editor Roger Alton to step down

Seems a pity, if not a rather sad commentary on the state of our 'independent' media, that a person who seems such a good communicator should be leaving over ideological disputes with the brand's agendas.

Ho hum, I guess I'll just have to take what I read with the same amount of salt as most other 'news' media these days.

Where's there a yoof when you need one!

MySpace and HarperCollins to launch environmental awareness book

I'd say we need to get in there. thing is... can I work the teenie systems required?

MySpace is teaming up with HarperCollins to publish a book on the environment for teenagers. "MySpace/Our Planet: Change Is Possible" will be the first branded book from the online social network.

The book will provide facts, tips and practical suggestions for teens looking to become active promoters of environmental causes. It will be released in March next year in the lead-up to Earth Day on April 22.

MySpace users can submit ideas for the book at www.myspace.com/ourplanet and those who make it in will be credited by their MySpace username and location. Topics will include travel, entertainment, health and money.

The OurPlanet community on MySpace has 130,000 members and is part of the MySpace Impact Channel, which helps connect users to politicians, non-profit and civic organisations.

Guardian - HarperCollins launches ebook imprint

Times - Pop in and print off that rare novel

Nice work if you can get it.

No, really.

A wee while ago (and a half-jotted blog post that never happened and now may be too late), I met and chatted with Tim Smit, he of Eden Project.

An awesome speaker on stage, he is somewhat different mano a peon, so I don't think I'll ever be working for him. With, maybe, but even then there are two whopping egos to deal with. Plus his. And don't get me on prima donna traits as well!

Anyway, there are not many jobs I would dearly love to recommend to the right person with the necessary whatevers (especially as the last incumbent - or one from the series - was so darn snotty to me and mine when we tried a hook-up we got really put off the culture), but this is one, from Marketing Week:

Job title
Marketing & Communications Director for The Eden Project

Salary Range
£60000 - 70000 - in Cornwall! What coudl you spend the other 50k on!!!!

Job description

We don't do impossible.

If we did, we wouldn't have turned a former Cornish clay pit into what has been called the '8th wonder of the world'. Since we opened our doors in 2001, we have welcomed over 9 million visitors to our unique experience which is home to the largest conservatory in the world and the tallest rainforest in captivity. Run as an educational charitable trust, we are truly passionate about providing an entertaining day out - we are one of the most visited 'paid for' attractions in the UK - whilst altering people's perceptions about the world around them in a non-preachy, empathetic way.

Reporting into the Managing Director, you will have responsibility for creating and successfully implementing our marketing communications strategy and tactical plans. Whilst appreciating our strong ethical values and charitable status, you will need to ensure that all of our marketing communications allows us to meet our annual visitor targets. It's vitally important that we are continually evolving our offering taking our audience with us and you will be the force behind this. A crucial part of this role will be to provide leadership and inspiration to our team of passionate marketeers.

We need an exceptional individual to take on this unique challenge. The successful candidate will probably come from a leisure/travel, visitor destination, FMCG, Retail, TV or agency background, but experience is only part of the spec. Among your many personal attributes you will have stamina, assertiveness, mountains of self-confidence and be a grounded, easily approachable prima donna free person. You will be intellectually robust and combine your classical marketing experience with natural creativity. All of these characteristics will give you the credibility you will need to make this role a success.

What do you want to say to your grandchildren? I'm glad I did or I wish I had?

If you get the job via this, please think kindly of us:)

I am a tad concerned about what 'reporting into' him might involve. Which may be, on top of my ancientism, may be why my getting paid work is proving so tricky. Ho-hum. One of these adventures I'm on must surely pay big dividends soon!

It ain't what you're trying to do. It's the way you're failing to do it.

I was going to bolt this to another post, but it deserves its own: Scientists say Kyoto protocol is 'outdated failure'

Now I am pretty sure those at either extreme of the the CC divide will spin this (if they refer to it at all - I pretty sure one will) in their usual ways.

But I simply note that it is the means, not the necessity, that is being critiqued.

And, frankly, not before time, with some heft.

We need to sweep away the chancers and the inept who have rushed in to seek green gold, and then discover and support those who can derive actual meaningful enviROIs for the planet from the horribly complex reality that is the global political sphere.

Indy - Sarkozy's green revolution in danger of producing nothing more than hot air - Good start:)

Indy - Is the Kyoto treaty an outdated failure based on the wrong premises? - The Charles Clarke option: 'keep me in charge as my fouling up is experienced fouling up'

Going in circles

I report no more than the facts. and invite you to cock your own eyebrow.

On BBC News this morning it is gushed that a new venue has been added to the F1 calendar: my old tramping ground of Singapore.

However, as if running around in circles for hours powered by awesomely tuned internal combustion engines were not enough, it will be held at night.

Apparently, this will require lights that are four times greater in power than a footy stadium.

Maybe they will get in extra generators.

What's a boy or girl to do?

I bang on a lot about doing here. And will continue to do so.

I have more faith in the benefits of substantive, positive creative activity than an awful lot else waaaaaay too much energy gets expended upon.

But every so often I give pause to ponder the consequences of 'doing'.

No so long ago I debated with myself at length how so much of the human condition that drives one to make stuff might indeed now be what's causing us the problems we are experiencing. There are simply so many of us making so much, the consequences of the processes are having a global effect... possibly.

Makes having a great idea... that needs manufacture... less of a thrill if you are cursed with the thought in the back of your mind that it might just add to the short-term problem. I certainly have a file full of such things. And a few might well feed the family a lot quicker than Junkk.com, I can tell you!

But actually, when it comes to 'doing', at least in this post, I am thinking of the people who don't do that much that's really very 'necessary' or 'useful', and what on earth society would do with them if they are no longer funded (via salaries, etc) to be kept occupied and in chauffeured Priuses or Bali conferences. Tricky.

The pages of government documents and the media and activist websites are full of things to ban. Some worthy of consideration; some vacuous, self-serving rants.

Trouble is, behind almost all is an entire infrastructure of folk who would be, quite simply, out of a job if these things did, in fact' cease to be'.

Take the leisure market. By some estimates, it represents 10% of the world's economy. No more flights would mean 600 million (well, a large % as 'we' returned to our roots. Though the thought of competing with 60M Brits for a campsite slot is not appealing) out of work. And they cannot all become Local government compost advisers or carbon traders.

Woah. Big, connected issues need big, coordinated thinking. Trouble is, I am not seeing any big thinkers on the horizon. At least, any who are not out for No. 1 first and only.

Indy - The ethical dilemma posed by organic food - QED
Guardian- Air-freight food must pass fair trade test to retain organic label in future

Sloppy Science Reporting Alert!

'Air freight by weight can generate 177 times more greenhouse gases than shipping'

What does that mean without any context?

ADDENDUM -

Meanwhile, where the big money is - Olympic consultants cost £1m a week - And they are doing...?

Knowing 'why' may be interesting...

... but in the case of shooting yourself in the foot nowhere near as useful as first not doing it.

Sadly I am on a self-imposed ban from commenting (though I'd get moderated anyway) on a site I still monitor for interesting facts and links. And I saw this:

We all know there’s global warming, it’s ‘why’ that needs an answer. Many scientists, based on research by the Danish Space Center, think it’s down to solar wind activity which reduce cloud cover and increase water vapourisation (clouds account for 95% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect). Just ask Al Gore why polar ice caps are melting on Mars and both Mars and Jupiter are warming up at the same rate as Earth or does he believe there are little green men on Mars belching out CO2.

Too many well paid research, media and political jobs depend on scare mongering findings. Politicians use CO2 as a means of extracting more taxes and the BBC obey their masters.

Here’s my take on the maths ....
CO2 (carbon dioxide) is 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
97% of all CO2 is natural and 3% of CO2 is man made.
Therefore man made CO2 accounts for 0.0012% of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The UK is responsible for 2% of the world’s man made CO2.
Therefore the UK’s contribution to the world’s man made CO2 emissions is 0.06%.
Therefore a 10% reduction in the UK CO2 emissions = 10% of 2% of 3% of 0.04%.
This equals 0.0000024% reduction in the world’s total emissions of greenhouse gasses.

Compelling stuff (well, Danish Space Centre vs. IPCC... hmnn). Note that the poster is on board with GW. But what I find interesting, and a little scary, is the absolutism of what I am sure is a decimal-perfect academic linear analysis.

No hint that 3% going to four may be a very bad thing in a sensitive system not in natural control (and I accept, thanks to my own eyebrow twitch, that it's hard to ignore that a Krakatoa or Mt. Pinatubo might further tilt the atmospheric nasties, but we're talking avoidable stuff here).

And speaking of avoidable, there's the age-old UK vs. the rest. The prisoner's dilemma.

I see such posts daily. And often they are fed by the latest rather extreme MMGW-pessimistic claims made by those quite high on the official/media tree I would dearly wish were more cautious, as they simply hand the optimists an easy distraction.

Take the forest fires in California. For start, if one accepts it's getting 'warmer' (is it?) a fire seems a fairly likely thing.

But interestingly all culpability claims that have pointed at 'Man' have indeed played the MMGW card. Why just that, when there is still so much to going on to discredit that notion alone!!!!!? What about all the other factors our expanding populations impose? Like sticking houses in front of fires where they used to burn away with no human contact? Or sucking the water out of every place possible to feed golf courses, etc.

There is a very complex thing at work here, and man most likely is not helping, but neither is simply pointing at the sky and shrieking global warming as you whip out your sustainability consultation fee document or recycling target estimates.

ADDENDUM - On the other hand - Science Daily - Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say - Experts, eh? One minute you have none, and the next minute a bunch come along and say all sorts of conflicting things.

BBC - Hurricanes and global warming - a link?

More spin on renewables

After all the brouhaha of the last few days, leaked cabinet documents notwithstanding, Ol' Golden still manages to come out with this today at PM questions. (As reported on the 10 Downing Street site.)

"The UK was also in full support of an EU-wide aim of generating 20 percent of all energy through renewable sources by 2020"

But his own people have been telling us that it's impossible to achieve!

Even Shane Warne would be proud of the amount of spin this topic is getting.

ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male) : Tuesday, 23 October, 2007 Newsnight

Missed the show but the blog has proven... interesting.

I was getting a bit confused by the interchangeability of the Green Party and Greenpeace. Good to see the cutback money is now being invested wisely in Strictly Come Celebanything. I guess I should ignore all BBC output at odd times as suspect in future.

And nice to see that the IT 'system' treats even those who run it with the fruits of its duplicationist nature (10 & 12) at times, too.

Still can't quite figure out why the moderator can't deal with these, though.

ps: Barely worth trying to debate the state of this country's renewables record/policies. But if I hear the word 'target' one more time I think I may just have to pin one on the self-serving clowns who see setting, and then missing (or changing) them as serving the public or their trust with funding well.

How much is being p*ssed away in this box-ticking obsessed culture these days, where hype and spin are valued so much more than actually doing a darn thing that helps or works?

ADDENDUM 2 (me again) - A PR (wish they'd pop it on a site and give a URL) from the Greens. One thing I do note is no mention of Labour. Did they do nothing? Or is this just playing wedge driving between no-government parties?

Liberal-Tory proposal on car emissions scuppers efforts to combat climate change

Efforts to tackle climate change in Europe suffered a profound setback today as the European Parliament voted to accept a joint proposal by UK Tory and Liberal MEPs to allow cars to produce higher C02 emissions.
The report adopted today outlines ways in which emissions reductions from cars should be achieved and what limit values should be proposed.
The amendment to the report by UK Tory and Liberal proposed to set weaker emissions limits for carmakers and to postpone the introduction of these limit values by a further three years to 2015 (1). This is despite the increasing urgency with which these parties are calling for tougher environmental legislation.
Commenting on today's vote and the amendment, UK Green MEP Caroline Lucas said:
"The proposal by Liberal and Tory MEPs to allow carmakers to produce dirtier cars and to delay the introduction of urgently needed emissions limits has scuppered EU efforts to combat climate change. The amendment accepted by MEPs today reveals just how cheap the media-friendly 'green-speak' of the Liberals and Tories really is.

"An independent study, presented by the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament last week, showed that only by introducing strict limit values for passenger cars as soon as possible will the sector be able to contribute sufficiently to enable the EU to meet an overall CO2 reduction target of 20% by 2020 (2). The study showed that an average CO2 emissions limit value of 120 g/km must be introduced by 2012 if cars are to contribute their share towards the EU's overall emissions reductions and that stricter limit values for 2020 will also be necessary.

“In order to meet the 30% reduction, which scientists say is absolutely vital if industrialised countries are to tackle climate change, significant measures not only to reduce vehicles emissions but also to reduce the amount of car travel are necessary.
"The EU must make these deep cuts in its CO2 emissions if it is to try and keep climate change in check. Letting the worst performing sectors off the hook, by allowing them to delay urgently needed emissions cuts, makes a mockery of the EU's climate strategy.
“The European Parliament has consistently called for strong measures to tackle climate change but by accepting the Tory-Liberal amendments to its report, it has ignored Green calls for more weighty action."
Editors notes:
(1) The European Parliament voted today, 24 October, on its report (Davies) on EU legislative measures to reduce CO2 emissions from cars. The EP Environment Committee voted in September for an average limit value of 120 g/km limit value to be set for CO2 emissions from new cars (by technical means which are influenced by driver behaviour). Liberal MEP Chris Davies and Conservative MEP Martin Callanan tabled an amendment for a limit value of 125 g/km and for the introduction to be delayed until 2015.
(2) The study gives a comparison of the actual CO2 reductions that would be achieved through the different emissions limit values currently under debate, which reveals that only with a 120 g/km limit for 2012 and a strong follow-up limit value in 2020, will the necessary emissions reductions from passenger cars be achieved. The EU will have to reduce its overall emissions by around 830 million tonnes if it is to meet its base target of a 20% reduction by 2020. Given passenger cars already account for around 12% of overall EU CO2 emissions, this means the sector will have to reduce its CO2 emissions by 80-100 million tonnes. The limit values which were proposed by the Liberals and Tories fall far short from delivering this reduction.
The study and political summary can be found at the following links:
Study
Political summary

Ah, here's the Labour bit: Leaked documents expose Labour's broken promises on climate change

Gaurdian - Surrendering our future

And why not?

As one looking for a rather rare complement to myself to help further the Junkk/RE:tie causes, this caught my eye.

It's a classified jobs ad from the Appointments section of the Sunday Times.

Interestingly, and perhaps problematically, it makes no mention of the product or indeed company/person behind it.

I guess that comes if the right candidate bites.

I have decided to write to the contact to simply ask that if they get a candidate who is good, but perhaps a tad cheaper (and hence beneath them) to send 'em my way.

Can't hurt, eh?

Green? That's rich!

I read one paper a week hardcopy: The Sunday Times.

The reason is mainly one of habit. I just like to sit and read a paper, by hand, for a few hours, and I think it was a combo of the free TV listings and an IT supplement called Doors (now absorbed into the Lifestyle section) that got me on it. Of course, I still surf all the rest online. Though interestingly, during the week I get perhaps more via online with the Indy and Guardian, as these guys send me an email daily. The Telegraph used to, but it seems to have vanished. The Times, as far as I am aware, does not.

Anyway, there is no substitute to having it in your hands to get a 'feel' for the paper. And I suddenly realised how this one (and frankly all the others, no matter what 'ing' their hue) has moved beyond where I am as a reader and, one presumes, target for ad materials.

Just to sample two articles from two sections this week:

Private jet sales breaking barrier

How green is my mansion?

Now I'm all for aspirational stuff, but it really seems to me that, between editorial such as this, and the ads that complement (?) them, there is a huge disconnect between what we are being served up as 'normal' lifestyle and what most of us are dealing with.

Especially that latter piece. Fun though it is to touch such worlds, if only by flattering shallow egos, I think the so-called 'quality's' need to drag their minions out of the rear-ends of all those in high fiance and celebdom and start reflecting some more pragmatic issues that really do affect us 'all'.

PRwatch - Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed

Peak oil - are we already there?

Peak Oil has been a much talked about event for quite a few years now, but this from The Guardian reports on the findings of Germany's Energy Watch Group, suggests that far from having many years to go before we get there, peak oil actually occurred in 2006. (Oh, and note the eye-catching and scaremongering headline, which talks of 'war and unrest', neither of which are mentioned again in the article.)

"The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel."

And I've noticed today that some futures for oil are trading around the $100+ mark.

"But the government prefers to sleep on without even doing a contingency study. For those of us who know that premature peak oil is a clear and present danger, it is impossible to understand such complacency."

There's nowt like burying your head in the sand; and this in the very week that our very own government is going to backtrack on its much vaunted renewables targets! (See Not Ready. Miss. Re-Aim below). So when big oil's pumps run dry, as they inevitably will, at least here in the UK we'll be able to fill up with alternative renewable fuels like bio-deisel and ethanol ....... NOT!!

Addendum:
More scary headlines ........ 'Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society' is the headline that Renew, Reuse, Recycle comes up with for its interpretation of this same report.

ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male)

Guardian - It's rip-off Britain, even when it comes to climate change - I so envy such as Directors of orgnaisations who get paid well to say lots of things. Post by 'askingquestions' is well worth a read.

Gaurdian - Give ministers some credit for green measures

We don't need another hero

At least, and with all due deference to Tina Turner, if this is what is meant: Heroes of the environment

I actually got that from the Guardian, but lost the link. Maybe from the horse's orifice is better.

I was going to post on the CiF 'debate' but it was already below gutter level and seemed worth avoiding.

Suffice to say, I remain pretty sure my feelings about the right messengers for the message were enhanced by the fall out. What do these journalists and editors do to compile such things? Google a few green words and assume those who get the most mentions (in any context) must be doing the most?

And I say as a very reluctantly-named Green 'Hero' in a recent competition.

Why I love the internet (and blogs)

I clicked on this because it mentioned pop concerts not being the best way forward: Anita was a true activist

But I ended up appreciating it more for what blogs can throw up (if true and proven).

Check out post #5/Principe

Seems that BOFDIs are not the only one's who have, or fund, those who might push their interests for reasons other than those stated.

One man's activist is another's agenda pusher?

But I will try and stick with the argument and ignore who is making it. Nice one, Guardian.

Not ready. Miss. Re-aim.

Labour's plan to abandon renewable energy targets

It's not MY fault that today has a bit of a target theme.

There are just so many of 'em you'd think someone could hit something.

But no.

Hence the next best thing seesm to be to remove them as anything worth going for in the first, or last, place.

Thing is, just how much has been consumed... wasted... in all the processes leading up them so far?

I think we should know. To see what else maybe we can do without.

Making a monkey of surveys

Some online surveys I get seem to be powered by a thing called 'Survey Monkey'.

Never really thought about it until now, but considering the number we get, and the value most have, you could do worse to hire a troupe of chimps to write the questions, ask 'em, collate the answers, publish the results and then report on them.

The latter brings me to the fact that according to the BBC (I'm sure some online will clarify further later) the people of Winchester need to hang their heads in shame.

Yes, in the nth survey result of the week on matters eco, and the second just today, we learn that this fair town is single-handedly causing the world to burn.

There will be a fuss, and a flurry of stuff, and then the circus will move on. What possible use is all that?

Targets, with the possibility of more targets soon

Just caught the tail end of a BBC News piece on excess packaging.

Don't know what kicked it off (will add later if any follow-up on or offline), but on the sofa was a guy from M&S and Lucy Siegel from the Observer.

He was rather copping it from her and the BBC sofa warriors, and I was wondering why. From the sound of it either a) they came bottom in 'a' survey (in which case one wonders which one, as they came top in the majority I read... ah, surveys) or b) the others didn't turn up. A few 'statements' were read out.

Other than being discomfiting for this gent, who was subject to a set of target and date demands, and agreeing that 'things need to improve', I am unsure where this piece moved us on to.

The key, certainly alluded to, is working together with those tasked to deal with the waste produced in manners such that the consumer knows what to do... and does it.

But representatives of such entities were noticeably absent. Leaving us with just another set of targets now that will be forgotten, and likely be unmet, as soon as the media turn their attention elsewhere.

ADDENDUM - That'll teach me to hang fire! it is actually a major feature. Seems that yet another survey (my fourth in a week), this time from the Local Government Association (LGA) has dumped on our major retailers for the packaging waste problem.

As to M&S, it seems they came bottom (which makes one wonder about the other surveys mentioned in these posts recently), which rather suggest that plans (even if they are 'A') are about as much cop as targets.

Actually I have no cause yet (until I read an online report in more detail) to change much else of what I wrote. I rather suspect this might stray into a bit of finger-pointing as the LAs and government (well silent so far) are not exactly innocent here.

Also, in terms of enviROI, I really hope that we won't see some knee-jerk actions away from what looks good or meets a target at the expense of common sense. I do wonder if there is more concern about what is not going into the appropriate bin and gets measured as opposed to what costs the planet. It seems disingenuous to equate what and how one buys from a street stall with the logistics of a supermarket. And a skip full of neatly sorted veg trays may be lovely to behold, but not if elsewhere there are ten full of rejected food waste.

Indy - National supermarkets criticised over failure to cut levels of packaging

Didn't take long! And yes, yet another survey. I just have to wonder... 'a market?'

This amplification doesn't change my views on reasons behind much of this, or indeed the lack of real solutions.

Indy - Customers could dump wrappers before leaving shop under new law

BBC - tried to find the story. Got as far as here. Failed as link didn't work.

One word: 'could'. Next words: Is this unfairly shunting the issue onto only one section when we need a proper, coordinated approach from all protagonists first?'

Guardian - M&S gets the lowest green rating in packaging survey - What price a £100kpa CSR guru now?

Guardian (podcast) - 'The cost is passed on to the council taxpayer' - Let the games begin.

I was on board pretty much until the end.

That came across a tad as 'Help 'us' meet targets or we'll drop the fines on 'you'.'

What if these targets are not that relevant in the overall enviROI+ scheme of things (I don't know, but would like to see how a trip to one supermarket compares in terms of 'footprint' to going to several places. Or how the consequences of packaging waste stack up vs. food waste as a consequence of rejected/disposed of foodstuffs).

When there are so many departments/quangos whose officers/directors are on bonuses based on simply getting rates up in their sectors, I am afraid my confidence is dented in the motives any comms effort, especially funded with our money, on ads and PR campaigns.

Our paying to fund the mechanism to drive up rates to improve such folks' bonuses strikes me as a conflict of interest at best.

And in a nation of 60B+ and soaring, most working 12 hrs a day just to stay on top of life's demands (and those of a growing public service in terms of salaries and pensions), I am not yet convinced just whose best interests are being served by some of these initiatives and the media efforts thrown behind them.

There's climate. And the weather. And how it gets referred to.

I liked his book. Seems a nice guy. But Leo Hickman has dropped a notch in my estimation here: And now for the weather

From the BBC pitching English grads to 'analyse' environmental data, to Al Gore being called a climate science student, I am seeing a worrying trend.

And that is some precautionary advocates getting a little out of their depth on the science side and paying the price.

Trouble is, they take a lot with them. Their past good works for one. And the task those trying to stay on a very objective course with roughly the same aim, but different methodologies.

I won't be posting as this looks like a really t'is/tisn't flame war in the making. I just hope the rebuttal doesn't end up with the now wearily familiar 'so ok it's not all accurate, but his heart's in the right place'.

Slow suicide. Or fast. It's just which method we choose.

Scientists have a new way to reshape nature, but none can predict the cost

As creative souls who are driven (through ego, desire for reward, etc) to 'make' things, it seems we have reached a rather tricky point in our race's 'development'.

The planet can no longer absorb all of us and what we do to pollute it.

Hence there are some big questions to ask, though I don't see many in a position to do anything about them even going near.

From climate change to health issues to food production, technology assuredly can buy us more time by squeezing gallons out of pint pots.

But unless we accept that there is a finite limit to which we are inexorably heading, I'd suggest most I read about and see debated with great passion here is soon going to be academic.

I'd just like to see a few priorities rearranged is all.

Compostable bioplastics - the future?

An interesting article from the Baltimore Sun, reporting on the emergence of the first biodegradable bioplastics which can actually be composted.

There appear to be a number of criticisms, not least of which is cost (three times conventional petroleum based plastics) but also that manufacture produces CO2 (as does conventional plastics manufacture?). There are also concerns from some that GM bacteria are used in some of the processes (plus GM feed crops too, in some cases), and there seem to be some unanswered questions around recycling. However, they do not produce any of the toxins involved in the production of PVC's, PET's and Polystyrenes etc.

I reckon that these warrant further watching and investigation, they do seem to provide some potential advantages for the future. There are some concern factors that will also need to be taken into account, but, as crude oil prices continue to rise (which is inevitable) the cost of conventional plastics will rise accordingly. There will come a time when bioplastics will surely become the materials of choice, if only because of the biodegradability factor.

Surveys say...

... very little, really.

Brighton's best? Well maybe...

Named by whom? And on what basis?

I know it's all terribly fun and all playing greenupmanship (as your piece ably shares) once sufficient dosh is tucked away, but it's coming to something when we don't even bother to worry much about which pointless green survey is getting touted today to tell us... nothing much really.

I'm guessing that it's the carrier bag ban thing. Which, if I am to believe the latest Volkswagen TV ad, is what we now measure the efficacy of buying new 'green' cars upon.

A simple guide to climate change

This simple to understand overview of the current scientific understanding of climate change comes from the Royal Society. It responds to eight of the common contentious arguments in simple terms, explaining where the known scientific evidence lies.

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming."

Well worth spending a little time exploring.

How green is my...well... anything?

Supermarkets fail to be “truly green”

Attracted by that headline, I have to now question the value of such surveys, especially under the rather vague catch-all banner of 'green' or indeed what makes one so... or not.

In just one week I think I was sent at least three. And while the protagonists were similar, their rankings bounced around so much as to make comparisons less than helpful.

Of course it is down to methodologies, but what consumer has the time or inclination to delve too deeply.

Which, like the plethora of existing and proposed labelling schemes, makes one question what value these things have save to create a bit of revenue for those who play with such things, those who write about them (myself included) and a a few box-tickers somewhere.

Not sure if my kids or the planet gain much, though.

Especially now, having seen the latest Volkswagen Bluemotion car TVC, our future brand new car purchases are apparently to be pitched in terms of the number of plastic bag equivalents driving one will 'save' a year. Do what???!

ps: I never did get told how much actual plastic (in weight/volume/Fairy Liquid bottles), the seeming 200+/- that 'we' use each year equates tot warrant the peculiar devotion this 'product' excites in seaside councils and Islington-residing journalists.

Guardian - A molehill of mange

While they may once have had some minor value, all polls and surveys are hardly worth the keyboard strokes that go into their creation, publishing or subsequent discussion.

For a start there are so many. And second they all contradict each other.

Last week my little website got 3 separate surveys on 'green' supermarkets. In one Tesco was top. In the next it was bottom.

I asked for methodology and got little the wiser. So I ignore them all, save on my blog where I made roughly this point.

So, in addition to the vast armies employed to create and analyse this dross, I can add myself as one more who profited slightly for their pointless existence.

Just the facts, Ma'am

It's essential that we can all see the whole picture

I think you are being unfair to those concerned with simple accuracy in the conveyance of information (especially when expecting folk to make key decisions upon it), but well said... written!

What you share has particular resonance in my main area of interests these days, the environment.

Cherry picking facts that are convenient to the agenda/message of the author is rife, and as far as I can make out serving no one (including that author) well.

You can sort of expect an advertiser to try and paint the best picture, but even here the extremes have been taken to silly levels, as the ASA weekly testifies.

But when it comes to the media, from scientific data to surveys to just about anything I am presented, usually with a sexed up headline, as 'fact', I simply don't believe it unless I can see all the source data that lead to the - often wildly unrepresentative - conclusion.

And let's not get onto our political establishment.

So, as a minor medium myself, it amazes me to see press releases I have rejected until I get follow-up substantiation (which seldom happens), dutifully cut and pasted in pretty major organs.

As you say, 'just the facts, ma'am'.

The answers my friends, are blowing in the wind

Two papers. Two views on micro-generation.

Shout it from the rooftops: you're powering the country

Should I buy a rooftop turbine for my house?

Enjoy.

Who does is cost to save the planet?

Well, it should come as no surprise as to who is trying to gain financially.

Green travellers face VAT shock

All I could manage was a slight giggle. I think it has gone beyond farce.

'Dere was dese two fellas

And I am sure there will soon be another. Thing is, do we deserve, or need them?

Charles launches campaign to save ravaged rainforests

So to the multi-billionaire Mr. Eliasch and his Cool Earth, we can now add HRH. How long before Al decides to add saving the forests to his portfolio of investment opportunities... and hence things to get us to support?

Now I am all for awareness, so long as it gets things pointed in the right direction. But three (well, two, so far) white, rich, 'not really practical for us to do, but say, why don't you guys try?' chaps splitting the whole forest saving gig into ever-more fractured, labour intensive, camps (offices, staff, jollies, etc, before a twig gets any money - unless they are joining forces (if so not mentioned in the piece), which seems unlikely as there are egos that need to be spared before anything else)seems to suggest we are heading down a familiar route... again.

Watch this space. Not knocking trees down is now 'in'.

What we need are more commitees - report

Or... not. ISBA issues guidelines to aid green ad claims

Another for the ToRoRAVA (talk or research or report always vs. action) Files.

Actually, I think Chris' 5 points about covers things, but I'm sure 'a wide-ranging set of guidelines on environmental claims written by a working group' will go on to clarify the issue greatly.

However, in light of how those from other bodies such as the ASA get treated, one wonders what, exactly, the difference will be.

Sadly it is only money that matters. Even more sadly, it seems the rewards go to those who make it short term (and move on quickly on the perceived kudos), irrespective to the eventual costs, to brand, profits... or planet.

You've got to right/left hand it to them

I no longer participate on the BBC is Biased site.

It was because I felt I had been moderated off unfairly, and indeed with slight sense of agenda, for an attempt to point out that an extreme view on one 'side' of climate change is usually inevitably 'balanced' to resultant deadlock by an equally view on another.

But its contributors can still throw up some interesting stuff, if erring on the 'optimistic' side of things.

I thought this was of note, more to highlight how we are in the hands of journalists and, possibly, editorial policy who can often serve the facts poorly and hence create doubt on their abilities and offerings.

Remember this

"The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels."

Phew, what a relief that the catastrophic consequences have been averted by this morning's news.

I for one would like to thank Mr Harrabin [at least it says 'BBC environment analyst [a what? As noted before, he is not exactly qualified in this field, yet his opinion is given such weight by this title?] Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations] for putting my mind at ease with his agenda free reporting of this issue.

Now years have passed and things change, but I really would like the BBC, with all its staff and resources, to get its act together so we don't just get served sensationalist stuff all the time, punted out without consideration by questionably qualified folk, usually from some press release.

It's simply too important not to get right, and especially not to give any how would use such woeful instances to advocate a 'do nothing' approach.

Actually, by my reading the BBBC implied 'critique' may not be fair, because it looks to me that the first is pointing out the consequent acidification due to increased CO2 absorption, and the second the possibility that the oceans have reached a limit of doing that any more. They are slightly different, if related, things. And neither are good, or a pass to keep on pumping the stuff out. Which I would point out on site (at risk of a real oceanographic chemical scientist - if such a title exists - slapping me down, but I'd like to get such things clear), but they don't seem keen on such questions. Shame. On them. On the BBC for being just untrustworthy these days and certainly creating an impression of agenda. And for the future of the planet our kids are being handed by 'us'.

If anyone more qualified could confirm or deny my initial thoughts I'd be grateful. On the one hand I envy folk so sure of themselves in this manner, but on the other I am appalled that simply be saying something 'is' in such a way gets though so often without challenge.

ADDENDUM - A bit more via a BBBC poster:

Article is based on an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research

Auto industry will get its way

Who said that the European automobile industry has no political clout anymore? This, from Reuters, suggests that at next weeks EU debate, the industry will be given an additional three years to meet the intended targets on CO2 emissions of 125 grams per kilometer, now extended to 2015.

What are targets for if not to be slipped a little?

CHP to lead the way?

This from Interactive Investor reports that our government is predicting that 10% of power needs will come from Combined Heat & Power technology by 2010.

Now I may be being a little cynical here, but in just over two months time we'll already be into 2008. Our track record at getting things done on time, on budget and to the agreed design isn't exactly one to be proud of. My bet is that this is another foolishly optimistic target that will quietly slip into oblivion.

Stern honour

Peerage for climate change economist
After publishing the report that seemed to trigger some initial movement on climate change by our government, then getting unceremoniously dumped by the very same, Sir Nicholas Stern is now to be made a life peer.

That should provide plenty of opportunity for networking and hobnobbing then.

Imdy - No wonder the British no longer trust anyone

BT, ring true?

When I first read this, I thought 'great!': BT invests £250m in wind farms

But, sadly, these days pretty much anything I read I need to question, just to make sure I am getting the full and accurate story. First for greenwash, and then for agenda.

Now I don't doubt it is probably a good thing, so please remember these are just questions, and the enviROI+ reasons they popped into my head:

'...a £250m wind farm project to generate renewable power that will supply a quarter of its energy needs by 2016.' Will? Or is this another 'at peak, 24/7 job? I just need to know because if not it is misleading, and also using one story to sell in (...puts pressure on other large UK companies with large land banks to consider similar action) others, possibly ill-considered. And I can't see that's right.

'...expects the new wind farm project to help the company hit its new target of 80 per cent by 2016.' Expects? Why not 'will'?

"... the UK derived around 4 per cent of its energy from renewable means, a figure it needs to treble over the next decade." Why? Targets? Or valid science/engineering estimates? What if this achievement does not actually reduce Co2 as well as other means?

" ... this is not the latest trend, this is the beginning of a cultural change. We all have to do this," I worry when I see it in terms like this. What matters is if these measures work. This aspect seems vague or unexplained almost every PR reprint I read.

"...could be windy enough to build wind farms, " Seeing a trend here?

"It said that its wind farms could generate a total of 250 megawatts of electricity, enough to power a city the size of Coventry. The project could save around 500,000 tonnes of carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, " Er...... And it is not even beyond being thought about. C'mon Indy, ask the questions!

"BT is looking for partners to participate in the project, " And finding them? How far off is this non story?

Bio Fools?

As the Severn Barrage may spell the end to a wildlife reserve here, so Victims of the ethanol rush: Loss of the native prairie

I've mentioned this before; and it's brutal.

While there is a slightly more immediate concern about the sacrifice of nature to meet man's energy expectations, if you don't factor in population then it's all academic in a fairly predictable timeframe anyway.

Coping with Conferences

If any are of value I'll post 'em individually, but this email sums up what I (and I presume all in the world of 'green') now face by way of info exchange:

I’m writing to inform you of five recently launched conferences on corporate responsibility to add to your diary.

1) ‘Employee engagement for a sustainable business’
- How to get your workforce 100% Committed to sustainability..............and turn actions into profit
- 3-4 December, London.

2) The Climate Change Summit 2008
- Manage the risks, create new products and get you message across to consumers
- 12-13 February, London.

3) The Global Reporting Summit
- Celebrating best practice and assessing the landscape of CR reporting around the globe.
- 3–4 March, Berlin.

4) Global Anti-corruption, Compliance and Ethics USA 2008
- How to effectively develop and manage your corporate compliance and ethics programs
- 14-15 April, Chicago. Contact ross.vincent@ethicalcorp.com

5) The Responsible Business Summit
- Europe’s largest corporate responsibility conference returns for a 7th year
- 13-14 May, London.

That's just one conference outfit's worth. How many folk shunting around the world and how much cost?

I simply boggles the mind.

I know 'we' have to communicate and meet to negotiate, but this really is becoming a very expensive (which few outside lobbyists, corporates and Gov/LA types on per diems can afford) bandwagon, which makes one wonder just how well the average person in their rice paddy is really gaining any benefit.

Here's one I made earlier... but can't any more

Saw this and had to pitch in: Package designers need to innovate

Tell me about it! Ignoring for now the immense opportunities presented by green-friendly second use design, even with those that show promise 'as is' I can testify to the woeful nature of most.

Look at those pictures above. I loved that Maltesers one, and we made several great things out of it.

Now what do we have? Some 'thing' that's just like every other jar. The new Target chewing gum is the only sphere I can find to play with now. And don't get me on Smarties!

I know it's all about shelf space and stuff, but if not to make life a bit more interesting, or to save the planet, can these guys not at least try and stand out a bit within the design constraints? They might even sell more.

It will give me a lot more source materials to adapt, too.

Free. Useful. Planet saving. And uncontroversial

With all the current fun & games surrounding what gets sent our kids with what baggage in terms of press furore and 'teacher's guides', I'm happy to share one that just makes sense.

Yesterday my boys came back with a free copy of our area's O/S map.

We had a gander together, and I am sure many walks will ensue. Obesity offset and a bit of planet appreciated, even saved, too.

And a nifty bit of marketing inspired as well. Now, with twins I have two, so we can either do a swappsies or make a bit of munny.

Were it that others could be so straightforward

No wonder there's such a rush to be seen as 'green'

I'm not what you might call a fan of surveys generally; I could never understand how a sample of '450 people interviewed on the Manchester city centre streets' can be seen as truly representative of the population as a whole.

This survey, reported in CRM Today, however, takes in 7,500 consumers in 17 countries in North America, Europe and Asia. OK, still not exactly representative, but far more likely to produce results that are to some degree realistic.

Now what's really interesting are some of the results:-

"Nearly nine out of 10 consumers worldwide said they would switch to energy providers that offer products and services that help reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions"

Now that's some response!

"Nine out of 10 of all respondents said they would have a negative perception of any energy provider that is not taking concrete action to address climate change."

Ditto!

"nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of respondents said they would be willing to pay a higher price — a premium of 11 percent, on average — for products and services that produce lower greenhouse gas emissions."

Wow, a majority of consumers are willing to pay more?!!

Now I think I'm beginning to understand just why so many businesses are rushing to air their 'green' credentials.

I just hope that the consumer can rapidly learn to distinguish between the genuinely 'green', the 'greenwash' and the totally 'green bullsh*t'.

Bums on seats. Heads in hands?

Greenpeace tears into retail 'eco-villains'

I can't be sure (there have been a lot recently in different guises), but this would be the fourth 'survey' of green goodness/badosity this week.

And what are we, the public to make of this?

At this rate we'll need to go to about 20 different outlets to get the best option of each shopping list need.

In the old days that would have been the shops in the street. However this would seem to indicate a 'green-crawl' to do the weekly shopping.

And whilst in some ways understandable, does not replying warrant an 'F'? I am unsure that not subjecting oneself to a body's 'cooperate or else' 'survey' paints the surveyor in the best light either.

I fear a battle looms, and the consumer and planet again will be the main losers.

Guardian - Sainsbury's aims to regain green ground from rivals - I'm sure they mean to 'be' the most 'yadayadagreen' retailer, not 'seen to be'...;) That would be, well, it just wouldn't wash.

Every little helps!

I had to re-read this twice and then recheck the date to make sure that it wasn't April fool's day. But no, it appears to be genuine. The article, from PendleToday, reports on Tesco's plan to use the canal system for transporting wine shipments from Liverpool to Manchester.

"The pioneering move will cut carbon emissions by 80%, according to the supermarket giant."

(I assume that means in comparison to the equivalent emissions by heavy lorries. )

"A company statement said 50 lorries will be off the road each week, which is claimed will save 1.1 million kilometres of heavy lorry journeys on British roads."

Well, I have to say that I'm initially impressed by this little initiative; let's hope that it might be a kick-start point from which others start to reassess the potential for commercial utilisation of Britain's canal network.

I wonder if they're going to look at using the horse drawn power option too?

REPAIR - Housecall

Housecall

A picture based repair terms/advice site with multi-language capability. What's not to like?

In their words:

Housecall allows customers, staff, and third parties like family members to make repair requests over the Internet. With the help of simple drawings and clear options, it gives them the power to make a specific request that you can immediately turn into an order to a contractor.

Credit to Springwise for the share, plus these other, similar sites, which I'll get to...soon.

And what baggage will Sir be checking in?

Students to be given own minister

It seems we have a 'Universities Secretary', which I didn't know about. And what does the Minister for Education (not) do in all this that we need this extra layer of taxpayer-funded departmental deadweight?

I have created a new category - GLOAT, which stands for Government bloat

'Going green's divine, but, forgive me, just green...er' is less fine.'

LESS IS NOT GREEN

Amen.

However, and I take a deep breathe as I write this, we need to walk the line between what is just plain 'wrong' (I mean ethically and morally if not factually) and allowing what's necessary to encourage better (and, one hopes, better and better...) behaviour towards a practical ideal.

If one accepts (as I do) the current necessity in a consumer driven ('scuse pun) world (with time poor demands on income earners and/or social pressures) for, say, a car, I need to know whose 'pollute' less so I may either applaud or make a purchase.

As you say, how that gets conveyed adequately, especially in a competitive framework, is key.

A shame that so few in 'marketing' seem to see it as anything other than a quick fix, at least in how it all gets conveyed to squeeze the silliest extra pantone shade of green out of any claim.

'To go green is divine, but, forgive me, just green...'er's less fine.'

ps: For now at least, you get a very irritating pop-up form Conqueror that has a rather fun doodle mouse thing, which in turn leads to a competition. I'm not sure if it is worth the effort as there seems to be no money, but then profile can be worth more.

Also I do note a lot is on carbon offsetting, and in light of the main piece that is... interesting.

Playing the playing field

BBC Environment reporters

Many issues have cropped up in the blogosphere lately, but more than usual surrounding Al Gore's legal and Nobel adventures, especially at at time of increased concern (if not at the level of our Government, it seems) in matters MWCC. Of course things have turned nasty, and now we are seeing the people who play the person and not the ball in turn being played. All very disconcerting. However, sometimes it is worth knowing more about those who would (and indeed are often paid) be trusted to serve us objective, informed facts. I just caution against missing the wood for the trees.

It is of course preferable to have those who share scientific news with us, especially where journalistically challenging, to be as qualified as possible. However to an extent I find this a slight red herring, and by playing the person we ignore not just the ball but the playing field.

In matters of Global Warming, climate change, MMCC or man-worsened climate change, from Mr. Gore to the IPCC to Bjorn Lomborg to... [it's a long list] there are a bunch of folk who either are, or quote, scientists who I presume have told them stuff. And I can honestly say that black could still equally be white in matters green from what I see served.

For sure a trusted reporter with the skill sets should be able to cut to the quick, but if the agenda surrounding him/her/them is not too keen on personal integrity (which all too easily can become subjective opinion), then it really matters little what the mouthpiece is. It's more who decides to stick 'em up there and what they get told, or choose to mouth.

I don't think he could have been trusted as an expert on much more than Spitfires (if he was more qualified I apologise to his memory), but I certainly hung on every fact that Raymond Baxter came out with as much as those from James Burke on Tomorrow's World. Because I trusted the system and the programme. Of course, I now wonder what I may have been spun even back then.

I have 2/3 of a vet degree (sheep breathe easier) and a Civ. Eng (Hons), but in the sound bite culture of today... so what? I still would prefer to see pols challenged by a Paxman... so long as he is well, and objectively, briefed.

And speaking of pols in this context, is it not amazing that we are lead at Cabinet level by folk who often get rotated in matters of months between amazingly diverse and complex areas of expertise. How many posts did Dr. (of what?) Reid hold?

But I totally agree with the basic critique in this case. Mr. Harrabin seems incapable of even getting basic facts straight, let alone challenging scientific matters of interpretation adequately.

Weekly Spin- An Ethical Look at Fake News - Not about e-stuff, but it serves here. And illustrates the pretty pickle 'we' face with what we are served... at every level. Both us, the audience, but also the time-poor, cash-strapped journos.

You get served up a nifty, packaged 'story' from a PR, so why not just run it? Well, it may not be the whole story, that's why. And even if it is something 'good', by not looking yourself at the back story you serve your audience as ill as you do the interests of the PR machine well.

Which is why I took recent 'stories' about 'surveys', which manged to put Tesco top and last (well, of 5) in some green ranking with all the salt I could stomach. This is good stuff:

"Press releases don't dwell on controversies and never explain the other sides of an issue," he stated. "They are not interested in other points of view."

Presenting promotional material as "news" has two effects: it undermines news quality, while enhancing the impact of the PR message. "Ask any public relations professional and they will tell you they want their story in television, radio and print news ... because it is more credible. Period. If we [journalists] do a story about it, the public is much more likely to believe it."

"The average viewer does not have a way of understanding whether this is fake, phony, or real." News viewers, he said, "are sophisticated and unsophisticated at the same time. They understand a lot about when they're being manipulated. But if you see a video news release -- a piece that looks like every other network or syndicated package -- on your local television station and it's introduced by your trusted local anchors, you're going to believe that that information is from a legitimate -- read, 'independent' -- news operation that's done its fact checking and has balanced its piece."

UK joins in the polar seabed grab

Even our lot are at it. This from ITN reports on how the UK intends to lay a claim with the UN to a million square kilometres of seabed off the coast of Antarctica.

This is rather against "the spirit of 1959 Antarctic Treaty, to which Britain is a signatory, which prevents all exploitation of oil gas and minerals, other than for scientific research."

But don't worry, because our claim will only be 'theoretical' for the time being. So that's OK then.

Addendum:
This from Guardian CIF (18/10/07) makes a couple of very interesting points on this very subject, not least the one pointing out that it somewhat reeks of hypocrisy....

"That's why the most reprehensible part of this latest "sea-grab" is that our government, while claiming to be a world leader on climate change, is seeking to increase its supply of the very fuels that brought about this crisis."

Spice as nice

Tesco recruits Spice Girls for Christmas campaign

I read that what they really, really want is a Lear each in case of hissy fits en route.

If true, I'll be interested to see how that gets worked into the green agenda.

Every little bit helps!

Guardian - If you wanna be my grocer

Mad - Will Tesco be the first and last Spice sponsor?

Speaking of getting 'on board', for an entity keen on 'looking' green at least, the predilections of Squander Spices will make for an interesting sell.

Hers and hers Priuses to the Lears to see how ethically the sweatshops are run?

Autumn Cleaning

It was only in looking at some stuff about Blog Action Day just now that I realised one could change the blog format. Well, D'uh.

So I had a play. Hope you like it. I think this clean style is more reflective of the main site.

If not... we can change. Don'tcha just love digital!

Not the word I'd use, but nice anyway

'Hero' is an awkward word to have applied, and after Jeremy Clarkson's notable VC winners' TV programme I have tried to avoid using it unless really warranted.

Hence it was with mixed feelings that I was surprised to find I had a) been nominated and b) won the regional round of such a thing in a competition from FOCUS DIY.

I was told a wee while ago, but have long learned to not get too excited until the cheque clears. Or, in this case, I got handed the vouchers. The missus was thrilled that at last Junkk.com has made some money until become apparent this was going on yet more DIY stuff (most likely the Forest Certified shed above).

Anyways, I came, I posed, I gurned. I even made a few suggestions on what to stand in front of. I gave a big thumbs up to the 3 for 2 insulation deal in one. And I got some Junkk goodies in camera.

I'm sure it will make the locals, but with luck it may go further.

I think that I will refer to it more as a Green Award, though.