I just saw this and saw red: More heat than light
We cannot allow institutions like the World Bank to impose ill-conceived carbon-based energy reforms on developing nations.
Not so much with what was being said, but the presumption of the way it was laid out, and how that played with me and hence mmight with others... such as those who may well need to be persuaded to rethink.
Whatever the merits (or not) of the subsequent piece and its arguments, I would have to opine that anything that starts 'We cannot allow...' rather sets up a few issues of sensible negotiation practice.
Such as who the heck is 'we'? And who put 'you/(or is it presuming...)us' in charge? And in what way are 'we' in a position to 'allow' anything? And doesn't it all rather suggest a mindset that is 'our way is the only way' which doesn't establish a very helpful basis to effect change?
I'll go read it now.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Yet another 'green' quango?
According to the Guardian, Hilary Benn, now of DEFRA, is looking at creating yet another government advisory service to inform citizens just how to 'green' their homes.
They are going "to create a one-stop "green homes service", making it easier for householders to change their lifestyles by offering advice, installation services and loans for equipment such as solar panels".
Now isn't that pretty much the identical remit that the Energy Savings Trust already has? On top of them we have Low Carbon Buildings, ActOnCo2, Blue Skies, the BRE, the Carbon Trust, Sustainable Development Gov. and Envirowise, as well as multiple regional and local council initiatives.
Sorry, but I can help feeling that this is just yet another example of something that our government can shout about - 'look what we've created to help out' - that is simply replicating exactly what's gone before, and achieving, well, probably, absolutely nothing! Not to mention creating another raft of civil servant, gilt-edged pensioned jobs-worth roles, controlled by a set of meaningless and ever changing targets, where promotion is earned and rewards are granted for doing sod all, and where 90% of the funding goes on staff, administration and internal projects!
Everything is talk, quangos, advisory services and waffle.
Where the hell is the DOING?
Addendum:
Even the civil servants themselves reckon the government is failing on climate change!
And, "half-hearted measures are as dangerous as the 1930s appeasement of Hitler".
Addendum (Junkk Male) - When in doubt (and having screwed up with what you have already), hire more: MPs in call for new climate body BBC
They are going "to create a one-stop "green homes service", making it easier for householders to change their lifestyles by offering advice, installation services and loans for equipment such as solar panels".
Now isn't that pretty much the identical remit that the Energy Savings Trust already has? On top of them we have Low Carbon Buildings, ActOnCo2, Blue Skies, the BRE, the Carbon Trust, Sustainable Development Gov. and Envirowise, as well as multiple regional and local council initiatives.
Sorry, but I can help feeling that this is just yet another example of something that our government can shout about - 'look what we've created to help out' - that is simply replicating exactly what's gone before, and achieving, well, probably, absolutely nothing! Not to mention creating another raft of civil servant, gilt-edged pensioned jobs-worth roles, controlled by a set of meaningless and ever changing targets, where promotion is earned and rewards are granted for doing sod all, and where 90% of the funding goes on staff, administration and internal projects!
Everything is talk, quangos, advisory services and waffle.
Where the hell is the DOING?
Addendum:
Even the civil servants themselves reckon the government is failing on climate change!
And, "half-hearted measures are as dangerous as the 1930s appeasement of Hitler".
Addendum (Junkk Male) - When in doubt (and having screwed up with what you have already), hire more: MPs in call for new climate body BBC
Light weights
Light bulbs - making the switch
davenorfolk - Anyone have suggestions for other useful uk sites on the same subject?
If you are into reuse as a positive, proactive notion you may fancy http://www.junkk.com/
For complements to the light ideas of this thread, there's such as this:
http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97
Plus discussion, too. I am grateful to the share of the sust-it site.
There may be one already, but when it comes to listings and comparisons, on low-energy I am keen to find an easy to weigh long-life measures, too.
I find a lot of shops will sell something that seems a good deal but serves pockets and planet poorly by blowing within months.
So far the key is to write the date of installation on the body and point out the maths of the lifespan to the retailer if they fail well before time. Not ideal, but may encourage a move to better standards of reliability which will also help the global enviROI of the industry too.
davenorfolk - Anyone have suggestions for other useful uk sites on the same subject?
If you are into reuse as a positive, proactive notion you may fancy http://www.junkk.com/
For complements to the light ideas of this thread, there's such as this:
http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97
Plus discussion, too. I am grateful to the share of the sust-it site.
There may be one already, but when it comes to listings and comparisons, on low-energy I am keen to find an easy to weigh long-life measures, too.
I find a lot of shops will sell something that seems a good deal but serves pockets and planet poorly by blowing within months.
So far the key is to write the date of installation on the body and point out the maths of the lifespan to the retailer if they fail well before time. Not ideal, but may encourage a move to better standards of reliability which will also help the global enviROI of the industry too.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Risky business, politics, anything... not
I think we've kind of accepted, frustratingly, that there is no such thing as being held accountable for one's negative actions any more.
However, having pondered the Sunday paper's various sections today, I have realised that in complement to this there seems a bizarre over-correction when it comes to being rewarded for positives.
I usually consign the Sports section to the bin unread. However I could not help but notice that some football manger that I was dimply aware was not in favour... now is. And his predecessor now forgotten. For now. Meanwhile another is in line for some truly remarkable pay over the next 3 years.
Thing is, I really can't see how any of these guys are making a blind bit of difference in any serious way to the outcome of their team's performance. At least to justify the fuss and froth around their hiring, tenure and ultimate departure (when the ball doesn't go in the net like it used to).
However, as I presume none of this costs me a penny, I am content for it to play out and provide entertainment to those who are entertained by it all, and dubious employment to a bunch of hangers on who ... well, I'm not sure what.
But then we get to the City. This does bother me, because what these guys do can and does cost me. Thing is, again, they seem to get paid telephone numbers by simply being right once in a while, but don't seem to have to give it back when they cock-up. How does that work?
And finally, politics. Um... ditto. Only it really, really... really gets laid on when they are around when something good (and prudent ?) happens, and they are really, really, really , really hard to shift when the chickens come home to roost. Assuming they have not bailed already.
As I have already blogged, it's not just about winning. I value much more the general who coordinates a brilliant retreat to one who squanders an easy victory. Equally the CEO who helps their company weather a storm much more than one who presides over lazy profits. And as for politics, well, there more than anywhere, the noble art of doing what is right has long been sacrificed an the altar of staying on power to tell us what we think is best for us.
Let's call it 3F's - Fab Failure Funding
Guardian - Merrill Lynch, the firm lost $8bn and the chief executive had to go - with $159m
However, having pondered the Sunday paper's various sections today, I have realised that in complement to this there seems a bizarre over-correction when it comes to being rewarded for positives.
I usually consign the Sports section to the bin unread. However I could not help but notice that some football manger that I was dimply aware was not in favour... now is. And his predecessor now forgotten. For now. Meanwhile another is in line for some truly remarkable pay over the next 3 years.
Thing is, I really can't see how any of these guys are making a blind bit of difference in any serious way to the outcome of their team's performance. At least to justify the fuss and froth around their hiring, tenure and ultimate departure (when the ball doesn't go in the net like it used to).
However, as I presume none of this costs me a penny, I am content for it to play out and provide entertainment to those who are entertained by it all, and dubious employment to a bunch of hangers on who ... well, I'm not sure what.
But then we get to the City. This does bother me, because what these guys do can and does cost me. Thing is, again, they seem to get paid telephone numbers by simply being right once in a while, but don't seem to have to give it back when they cock-up. How does that work?
And finally, politics. Um... ditto. Only it really, really... really gets laid on when they are around when something good (and prudent ?) happens, and they are really, really, really , really hard to shift when the chickens come home to roost. Assuming they have not bailed already.
As I have already blogged, it's not just about winning. I value much more the general who coordinates a brilliant retreat to one who squanders an easy victory. Equally the CEO who helps their company weather a storm much more than one who presides over lazy profits. And as for politics, well, there more than anywhere, the noble art of doing what is right has long been sacrificed an the altar of staying on power to tell us what we think is best for us.
Let's call it 3F's - Fab Failure Funding
Guardian - Merrill Lynch, the firm lost $8bn and the chief executive had to go - with $159m
What floats your boat?
It is billed as a dilemma - How much greener are ships than planes?
I guess we can soon expect to see sea miles added to the book attached to the packaging as the responsibility is dumped, pointlessly, on us at point of purchase.
I guess we can soon expect to see sea miles added to the book attached to the packaging as the responsibility is dumped, pointlessly, on us at point of purchase.
Leftover policies
It's one of those things where you can't help but agree, but equally have to wonder what the heck is going to happen if 'the Man' decides to get involved: Watching your waste
I just hope to heck we don't get subjected to some multi-million £ piece of pointless ad campaigning (shoot, I just read on. We are) where the money could be so easily, and effectively, be applied elsewhere.
I think we have to think laterally.
Speaking personally on a family issue, we are looking at reducing waste still further on a money and health basis. At the moment, we do still waste a portion, but it's mainly the kids, and that then gets consumed by yours truly either on the spot or the next day. I'm not getting any thinner.
One area we are looking at portions a lot more closely. The other month my godmother gave* me a piece of wood with four holes in it to measure 1-4 portions of spaghetti. Works a treat.
ADDENDUM - Just finished a lunch comprised mainly of what the boys didn't eat last night. I'm not sure a governminted campaign, a couple of slots on the BBC news and the nice lady from Good Housekeeping saying it's what Granny used to do is going to swing them much. But we can hope.
Meanwhile I have been asked for a piccy of Aunty's SpagScale. I reminded me that I spend too much time talking and not enough doing. So it's up on this blog now, with a link to the site with instructions (well, drill a hole in a plank... D'uh).
*I fibbed a bit. She gave me 'the plan', a utensil rubbing of her fancy effort. And it only had 3 holes. Sorry. If you can do the maths I'm sure you can do one for any number. I'm guessing 40mm for four, and there's bound to me some whizzo numb3rs way to plot it.
I just hope to heck we don't get subjected to some multi-million £ piece of pointless ad campaigning (shoot, I just read on. We are) where the money could be so easily, and effectively, be applied elsewhere.
I think we have to think laterally.
Speaking personally on a family issue, we are looking at reducing waste still further on a money and health basis. At the moment, we do still waste a portion, but it's mainly the kids, and that then gets consumed by yours truly either on the spot or the next day. I'm not getting any thinner.
One area we are looking at portions a lot more closely. The other month my godmother gave* me a piece of wood with four holes in it to measure 1-4 portions of spaghetti. Works a treat.
ADDENDUM - Just finished a lunch comprised mainly of what the boys didn't eat last night. I'm not sure a governminted campaign, a couple of slots on the BBC news and the nice lady from Good Housekeeping saying it's what Granny used to do is going to swing them much. But we can hope.
Meanwhile I have been asked for a piccy of Aunty's SpagScale. I reminded me that I spend too much time talking and not enough doing. So it's up on this blog now, with a link to the site with instructions (well, drill a hole in a plank... D'uh).
*I fibbed a bit. She gave me 'the plan', a utensil rubbing of her fancy effort. And it only had 3 holes. Sorry. If you can do the maths I'm sure you can do one for any number. I'm guessing 40mm for four, and there's bound to me some whizzo numb3rs way to plot it.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Corporal Fraser would be proud, I tell ye... proud!
It's half-time - and we're already 3-0 down
Tricky things, dilemmas.
It cannot have escaped most folks' notice that quite an industry has sprung up around the whole planet saving (from itself) thing.
What I am not so sure is that the balance is right between those doing vs. those talking, especially when it comes to the media talking about those doing the talking.
And it's throwing up a small problem. Facts are nice things to hang a headline on. Especially when they have dates attached.
Trouble is, if you are in the business of persuasion (no matter how sincere), once you commit to one you are kinda bound by the consequence.
So all this 'we're all doomed' stuff is causing me a slight problem. Tell it as it is, or as it might be, and risk the rather obvious deleterious consequence of going past a stated point of no return and hence rather logically acknowledging the point that there is... um... no point trying any more.
Or perhaps simply focus more on all sorts of nifty, proactive, incentive-driven, reward-based ways to get people on aboard with doing better by the planet because they want to and feel like it as opposed to scare stories, guilt-trips, fines, nags and all the other stuff that has worked sooooo well to now. Puts a lot of folk in cushy little numbers plugging those notions, from activists to target-driven pols and quangos to carbon-trading suits to....etc, out of business, but I could live with that at a pinch.
Tricky, eh?
The positives are out there. It's just it doesn't make for a good career in media to report them. So most don't. Yet still get paid well for it.
Tricky things, dilemmas.
It cannot have escaped most folks' notice that quite an industry has sprung up around the whole planet saving (from itself) thing.
What I am not so sure is that the balance is right between those doing vs. those talking, especially when it comes to the media talking about those doing the talking.
And it's throwing up a small problem. Facts are nice things to hang a headline on. Especially when they have dates attached.
Trouble is, if you are in the business of persuasion (no matter how sincere), once you commit to one you are kinda bound by the consequence.
So all this 'we're all doomed' stuff is causing me a slight problem. Tell it as it is, or as it might be, and risk the rather obvious deleterious consequence of going past a stated point of no return and hence rather logically acknowledging the point that there is... um... no point trying any more.
Or perhaps simply focus more on all sorts of nifty, proactive, incentive-driven, reward-based ways to get people on aboard with doing better by the planet because they want to and feel like it as opposed to scare stories, guilt-trips, fines, nags and all the other stuff that has worked sooooo well to now. Puts a lot of folk in cushy little numbers plugging those notions, from activists to target-driven pols and quangos to carbon-trading suits to....etc, out of business, but I could live with that at a pinch.
Tricky, eh?
The positives are out there. It's just it doesn't make for a good career in media to report them. So most don't. Yet still get paid well for it.
Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. Farmer Giles
Biofuels 'crime against humanity'
And yes, before you can cry 'rapeseed', the headlines have taken an issue worthy of consideration and elevated it to the level of the Judgement of Nuremberg.
Oo, 'eck. There's a point in there, but golly is this the way to make it?
Glad I didn't opt for the Saab biodiesel now. Actually, opt isn't quite the word. In fact the words 'couldn't afford' are more like it.
Anyway, yesterday the old Volvo was serviced and passed with flying colours. 11 years old, tuned to perfection, tyres at right inflation, etc.
What was interesting was a certificate I got 'for when plod stops me to do an emissions check' (it clears me, and passes the buck to the garage, at least for 6 months). Seems that beyond the MOT, you can get hauled up and have a probe stuck up your pipe. And if you fail... £80 on the spot. Nice that the priorities are again tip top.
And yes, before you can cry 'rapeseed', the headlines have taken an issue worthy of consideration and elevated it to the level of the Judgement of Nuremberg.
Oo, 'eck. There's a point in there, but golly is this the way to make it?
Glad I didn't opt for the Saab biodiesel now. Actually, opt isn't quite the word. In fact the words 'couldn't afford' are more like it.
Anyway, yesterday the old Volvo was serviced and passed with flying colours. 11 years old, tuned to perfection, tyres at right inflation, etc.
What was interesting was a certificate I got 'for when plod stops me to do an emissions check' (it clears me, and passes the buck to the garage, at least for 6 months). Seems that beyond the MOT, you can get hauled up and have a probe stuck up your pipe. And if you fail... £80 on the spot. Nice that the priorities are again tip top.
Maybe when they stop the joyrider with no tax, insurance or MOT they can get 'em on a dodgy tune job. That'll hit 'em where it hurts... their pride.
Indy - Ditto
Indy - Ditto
PROF'S POSER - Paper Cuts
This is one I'd been pondering awhile, and have been tilted to pose following a reader post about recycled book stock.
It certainly should be prefaced with a LiKADaT (little knowledge is a dangerous thing - all together now in a good Italian accent: 'Jus' a likeadat!') tag!
Let's start with the down sides of what I think I know.
Getting virgin paper needs trees. And energy. You have got to cut 'em down, munch 'em up, tidy it all with chemicals and then lay it out and stuff. That means where once there was a tree there isn't any more, and a wadge of CO2 is produced, and a load of water (I think) consumed just to get to the raw stock (we're ignoring logistics of printing and distribution, say, versus a PDF).
Getting recycled paper needs old paper. And energy. And, I believe, quite a few chemicals, too. And for some reason or other, it all costs a lot more, though the gap is closing. But what it doesn't do is consume new trees.
But.... and as I am oft minded to say, it's a big one.... here's my poser: is the former quite as bad as made out, enviROI+wise? Especially in comparison to the latter?
I am set on this trail by the logic, ironically, of offsetting. In simplistic (and now more often than not less practiced) terms it has been sold as good for the planet in the form of planting a tree, which will grow and act as a carbon sink.
So I guess my poser would be whether one could view using virgin paper, so long as it is derived from properly managed forests (and I need to sort out my FSC-certified from my stewardship-thingie. I'm guessing there are as many schemes and logos to confuse as any other e-industry), as logically being an encouragement of good environmental practice? If so, in fact the perverse logic of projection would be that using more paper from such sources is actually even better, as it promotes the planting and tending of forests to full term as opposed to say, a bio-diesel field.
Just how does it compare to recycled which, if one accepts where I am going with the above (which is in the form, at present, of a question I stress!!!) actually seems to be rather stuck in a cycle of energy consumption from collection to reprocessing. And no new trees going up taboot.
I guess ignoring the latter, a key factor in weighing them is the amount of CO2 that gets from raw material (tree vs. waste paper) to new stock. With a few pollutant nasties factored in too, but in another enviROI- tick box, which makes comparison more tricky.
It certainly should be prefaced with a LiKADaT (little knowledge is a dangerous thing - all together now in a good Italian accent: 'Jus' a likeadat!') tag!
Let's start with the down sides of what I think I know.
Getting virgin paper needs trees. And energy. You have got to cut 'em down, munch 'em up, tidy it all with chemicals and then lay it out and stuff. That means where once there was a tree there isn't any more, and a wadge of CO2 is produced, and a load of water (I think) consumed just to get to the raw stock (we're ignoring logistics of printing and distribution, say, versus a PDF).
Getting recycled paper needs old paper. And energy. And, I believe, quite a few chemicals, too. And for some reason or other, it all costs a lot more, though the gap is closing. But what it doesn't do is consume new trees.
But.... and as I am oft minded to say, it's a big one.... here's my poser: is the former quite as bad as made out, enviROI+wise? Especially in comparison to the latter?
I am set on this trail by the logic, ironically, of offsetting. In simplistic (and now more often than not less practiced) terms it has been sold as good for the planet in the form of planting a tree, which will grow and act as a carbon sink.
So I guess my poser would be whether one could view using virgin paper, so long as it is derived from properly managed forests (and I need to sort out my FSC-certified from my stewardship-thingie. I'm guessing there are as many schemes and logos to confuse as any other e-industry), as logically being an encouragement of good environmental practice? If so, in fact the perverse logic of projection would be that using more paper from such sources is actually even better, as it promotes the planting and tending of forests to full term as opposed to say, a bio-diesel field.
Just how does it compare to recycled which, if one accepts where I am going with the above (which is in the form, at present, of a question I stress!!!) actually seems to be rather stuck in a cycle of energy consumption from collection to reprocessing. And no new trees going up taboot.
I guess ignoring the latter, a key factor in weighing them is the amount of CO2 that gets from raw material (tree vs. waste paper) to new stock. With a few pollutant nasties factored in too, but in another enviROI- tick box, which makes comparison more tricky.
Friday, October 26, 2007
For every snake... a ladder
And, this week only, at half price...!But seriously folks, who needs the dubious accolade of an international competition seen by mill... well, a few thousand... and a Prius... when you can be regional Green Champion (I can't quite get on with the 'hero' handle) for FOCUS DIY.
Actually I was being a tad bitter, twisted and sarky there, but in many ways this is here, now, real and does really mean something. For a start, £125 in vouchers (see 'em there in the Squidstand holder I designed and made for the occasion. You may notice I also dragged along and got into shot as much else reused as I could carry!).
So far these shots have made it to Wyenot.com, the local online news of the guy commissioned to take 'em (and who has some nice words, ta very much). But I am hoping that these will radiate out at least to the rest of the patch my 'award' covers.
Watch this space. Or that one. Or...
Now you can cast your votes
for the worst examples of greenwashing and EU lobbying.
I assume that this is a rather tongue in cheek, whilst exposing some of the worst cases to a greater public view.
I assume that this is a rather tongue in cheek, whilst exposing some of the worst cases to a greater public view.
Save the world. A list.
A little while ago some chums and I made a TV commercial for a contest (oddly, in that it was 30" and we cut to that, it is now ":60 to Save the Earth" ecospot). Seems we didn't get into the finals. So now it's free to use, here it is:
As a creative soul, and in the spirit of unsweetened grapes (it's all how you say it these days), here's my purely subjective review (hey, it's what blogs are for, and I've found that playing coy gets you nowhere) of what beat us:
1. Are You Game? – First up. Mentions Al Gore. Twice. Darn, should have thought of that!
2. Change the way you think. – Some nice imagery, I guess.
3. Cheeto and Vinn – OK. Singled-minded and funny. Gets the point across. I’m wishing we’d gone the 60’ option now.
4. Decisions – Again, not bad imagery. But hard to get ‘into’.
5. Gaia's Lament – yeah, well. Whatever.
6. Get Your Green on – And there’s a single out soon, too:)
7. Green – Nice. Yet one of the lowest ratings so far.
8. I Did Nothn' – A good line in there somewhere.
9. Keep it Equal – Nice idea. Neat editting.
10. Lights Out – OK, so it’s campaignable. Worth two in the finals?
11. Perry the Cockroach – Um, pass.
12. Plastic Ocean – Nice, simple idea.
13. Roachie Enviro Contest – If you’re going to use music, it seems it is better if wra... er... rapped.
14. Small Changes – I’m just guessing, but I think going with plastic bags would make one a shoe-in.
15. Small Steps – Sort of cute.
16. Support Good Hot – Energy – Interestingly, only the first that seems to have had some production money on it. The line ain’t worth it.
17. The Bags – OK, and here’s another. I’m sure the COI will buy it.
18. The Little Things – Lists are good, too. With a song.
19. The Sky is Falling – Some more production bucks. Not a bad line. Motivated? Highest rate to date.
20. Think Again – Yeah, well. The money is coming out now. Where from?
21. This is not a test – Yay! Another list!
22. This is the World – Or... don’t cut a tree down that’s already doing its job. Nice production on low budget, though.
23. What Can Regular People Do? – Follow more lists. It works in creative eco ads, anyway.
I still think ours is... was pretty good.
Here's the submission notes:
A simple ad for a simple notion: green IS good, but only if you really think about all aspects very carefully.
Many of us have bought into the notion of offsetting the carbon consequences of our lifestyles. And it is certainly better than nothing, But only so long as the initiative is worthy and well run.
Some schemes still operate on the basis of planting a tree to achieve a balance that will be unlikely to make itself felt for many years, if at all. And time is of the essence, as tipping points are being talked of in terms of decades.
Some of these can of course still be viable and good to support. But, as with all things sold in the name of ‘green’, one needs to always challenge such efforts to justify their environmental value, their envIROI (which is not the same as monetary ROI, as you can make a financial investment in our kids’ future that may not pay back monetarily) before committing hard-earned, and highly useful, funds without thinking, simply to ‘buy-off’ a sense of responsibility for one’s actions.
The facts of deforestation and national emissions of the world’s current greatest greenhouse gas polluter are a matter of public record. The logic of where our priorities should lie in this instance, are our own. There will be hurdles, to be sure, and this is of course a plea more for preservation rather than reduction, but we think it is one worth making, to be considered and, if necessary, sensibly debated.
Other than a bit of time, this ad cost nothing and used no resources... at all. Which is quite an ideal metaphor for the message being conveyed...
IF you think about it!
ps: No trees were harmed in the making of this commercial. But a nice weed didn’t make it. Sorry.
Maybe I should have been nicer about daft celebs and meaningless platitudes. They were the judges after all. Maybe not so daft to see who it was aimed at.
And now... YouTube!
Which reminds me, it's the Green Awards to... night? I entered last year but decided against this ever again having seen who the judges were (for a creative contest - even if it's a people's choice, which I often prefer, there is always pre-selection... and agendas) and what they voted into the finals.
Here's one that may win there (it shows a lady's naught bits, which always helps, if you're being viral.): http://www.green.tv/brazilian
As a creative soul, and in the spirit of unsweetened grapes (it's all how you say it these days), here's my purely subjective review (hey, it's what blogs are for, and I've found that playing coy gets you nowhere) of what beat us:
1. Are You Game? – First up. Mentions Al Gore. Twice. Darn, should have thought of that!
2. Change the way you think. – Some nice imagery, I guess.
3. Cheeto and Vinn – OK. Singled-minded and funny. Gets the point across. I’m wishing we’d gone the 60’ option now.
4. Decisions – Again, not bad imagery. But hard to get ‘into’.
5. Gaia's Lament – yeah, well. Whatever.
6. Get Your Green on – And there’s a single out soon, too:)
7. Green – Nice. Yet one of the lowest ratings so far.
8. I Did Nothn' – A good line in there somewhere.
9. Keep it Equal – Nice idea. Neat editting.
10. Lights Out – OK, so it’s campaignable. Worth two in the finals?
11. Perry the Cockroach – Um, pass.
12. Plastic Ocean – Nice, simple idea.
13. Roachie Enviro Contest – If you’re going to use music, it seems it is better if wra... er... rapped.
14. Small Changes – I’m just guessing, but I think going with plastic bags would make one a shoe-in.
15. Small Steps – Sort of cute.
16. Support Good Hot – Energy – Interestingly, only the first that seems to have had some production money on it. The line ain’t worth it.
17. The Bags – OK, and here’s another. I’m sure the COI will buy it.
18. The Little Things – Lists are good, too. With a song.
19. The Sky is Falling – Some more production bucks. Not a bad line. Motivated? Highest rate to date.
20. Think Again – Yeah, well. The money is coming out now. Where from?
21. This is not a test – Yay! Another list!
22. This is the World – Or... don’t cut a tree down that’s already doing its job. Nice production on low budget, though.
23. What Can Regular People Do? – Follow more lists. It works in creative eco ads, anyway.
I still think ours is... was pretty good.
Here's the submission notes:
A simple ad for a simple notion: green IS good, but only if you really think about all aspects very carefully.
Many of us have bought into the notion of offsetting the carbon consequences of our lifestyles. And it is certainly better than nothing, But only so long as the initiative is worthy and well run.
Some schemes still operate on the basis of planting a tree to achieve a balance that will be unlikely to make itself felt for many years, if at all. And time is of the essence, as tipping points are being talked of in terms of decades.
Some of these can of course still be viable and good to support. But, as with all things sold in the name of ‘green’, one needs to always challenge such efforts to justify their environmental value, their envIROI (which is not the same as monetary ROI, as you can make a financial investment in our kids’ future that may not pay back monetarily) before committing hard-earned, and highly useful, funds without thinking, simply to ‘buy-off’ a sense of responsibility for one’s actions.
The facts of deforestation and national emissions of the world’s current greatest greenhouse gas polluter are a matter of public record. The logic of where our priorities should lie in this instance, are our own. There will be hurdles, to be sure, and this is of course a plea more for preservation rather than reduction, but we think it is one worth making, to be considered and, if necessary, sensibly debated.
Other than a bit of time, this ad cost nothing and used no resources... at all. Which is quite an ideal metaphor for the message being conveyed...
IF you think about it!
ps: No trees were harmed in the making of this commercial. But a nice weed didn’t make it. Sorry.
Maybe I should have been nicer about daft celebs and meaningless platitudes. They were the judges after all. Maybe not so daft to see who it was aimed at.
And now... YouTube!
Which reminds me, it's the Green Awards to... night? I entered last year but decided against this ever again having seen who the judges were (for a creative contest - even if it's a people's choice, which I often prefer, there is always pre-selection... and agendas) and what they voted into the finals.
Here's one that may win there (it shows a lady's naught bits, which always helps, if you're being viral.): http://www.green.tv/brazilian
And maybe they'll deliver to your door in person! By hybrid!
Time for a picture.This little button has been popping up on a few articles I have perused of late in such as the Indy, Guardian, etc.
It's for a hybrid. Which, as we all know, must be better for the planet.
Maybe so; maybe no. And I doubt the brochure will do much other than err on the first.
Thing is, and here's why I write, I can't really find out unless I get the brochure. Excuse me, brochures. And guess what? A PDF download doesn't seem to be an option.
What does that say to you?
The predictability of global warming is ..... uncertain
How much the earth's climate will change as a result of global warming is unpredictable.
Well, tell me something that I didn't know.
This from National Geographic News reports on a new study which looks at the levels of certainty involved in calculating estimated temperature rises as a result of us humans continuing to pump too much CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now, apart from one or two crazy luddites, we all accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we all know that if we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere then there is going to be an effect. All the scientists and climatologists tell us that this WILL cause a rise in the temperature of the earth's biosphere. What we don't know is just how much temperature rise equates to what level of CO2 there is, hence, at least to some extent, the endless stream of tis/tisn't arguments, and counter arguments that the earth is not doing anything different than it ever has.
The majority of scientists (the consensus?) tell us that temperature rise is bad on a rising scale, a couple of degrees perhaps maybe OK, but too much and we'll all fry, along with most of the other flora and fauna. (Hence recent headlines warning of mass extinctions.)
What we don't know is just what constitutes too much, the models are so complicated and involve so many interrelated variables that no computer model we can currently produce can provide any answer with any degree of certainty. And that's without starting to factor in natural feedback systems and amplification loops, which make it impossible to predict future temperature rises with any degree of accuracy at all.
All in all the 'science' of temperature rise prediction is a huge can of worms, and those of us not endowed with brains the size of a planet simply have to accept what the scientific consensus tells us, that the numbers are uncertain and that they actually don't know, other than the temperature IS going to increase.
Fossil evidence through geological history over 100's of millions of years shows us that in cool times, flora and fauna have multiplied and genera and species diversity has increased rapidly. It also shoes us that in the much warmer periods, many of the planet's life forms disappear, and that in a few, very short, very hot periods, life forms have almost been wiped out entirely (90%+ of all life forms in one catastrophic event alone). [And that's without mentioning what humanity is already doing to our current flora and fauna.]
Now I'm no scientist (well, in comparison to most of the clever people out there researching away on all of this) but that still worries me significantly. We ARE warming the earth, we simply don't know by how much, or if the temperature rise will accelerate due to natural feedback systems. What we DO know, from fossil evidence that more warmth means less life forms, and that excessive warmth means but very few life forms survive.
Now surely that's a compelling case for looking at reducing our CO2 emissions now, rather than risk hitting some sort of temperature acceleration point in a few decades or so? The science of predicting global warming temperature increases may be uncertain, but I'm pretty sure that if we sit and do nothing, then the consequences appear to be rather dire.
Well, tell me something that I didn't know.
This from National Geographic News reports on a new study which looks at the levels of certainty involved in calculating estimated temperature rises as a result of us humans continuing to pump too much CO2 into the atmosphere.
Now, apart from one or two crazy luddites, we all accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we all know that if we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere then there is going to be an effect. All the scientists and climatologists tell us that this WILL cause a rise in the temperature of the earth's biosphere. What we don't know is just how much temperature rise equates to what level of CO2 there is, hence, at least to some extent, the endless stream of tis/tisn't arguments, and counter arguments that the earth is not doing anything different than it ever has.
The majority of scientists (the consensus?) tell us that temperature rise is bad on a rising scale, a couple of degrees perhaps maybe OK, but too much and we'll all fry, along with most of the other flora and fauna. (Hence recent headlines warning of mass extinctions.)
What we don't know is just what constitutes too much, the models are so complicated and involve so many interrelated variables that no computer model we can currently produce can provide any answer with any degree of certainty. And that's without starting to factor in natural feedback systems and amplification loops, which make it impossible to predict future temperature rises with any degree of accuracy at all.
All in all the 'science' of temperature rise prediction is a huge can of worms, and those of us not endowed with brains the size of a planet simply have to accept what the scientific consensus tells us, that the numbers are uncertain and that they actually don't know, other than the temperature IS going to increase.
Fossil evidence through geological history over 100's of millions of years shows us that in cool times, flora and fauna have multiplied and genera and species diversity has increased rapidly. It also shoes us that in the much warmer periods, many of the planet's life forms disappear, and that in a few, very short, very hot periods, life forms have almost been wiped out entirely (90%+ of all life forms in one catastrophic event alone). [And that's without mentioning what humanity is already doing to our current flora and fauna.]
Now I'm no scientist (well, in comparison to most of the clever people out there researching away on all of this) but that still worries me significantly. We ARE warming the earth, we simply don't know by how much, or if the temperature rise will accelerate due to natural feedback systems. What we DO know, from fossil evidence that more warmth means less life forms, and that excessive warmth means but very few life forms survive.
Now surely that's a compelling case for looking at reducing our CO2 emissions now, rather than risk hitting some sort of temperature acceleration point in a few decades or so? The science of predicting global warming temperature increases may be uncertain, but I'm pretty sure that if we sit and do nothing, then the consequences appear to be rather dire.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The [unspecified Asian country water] torture
This is a rant.
It has to be because I rather fear that what I am ranting about has no possible solution, which simply makes appreciating it simply frustrating.
It has been kicked off by a small straw; a story I just read about our kids being unprepared for life's slings and arrows by everything at school being changed to only allow positives, with no allowance for competition or failure.
Some dipsy headteacher was quoted wittering on about self esteem, when the piece I read made the fair point that being told aged 8 that you are super in all things is a) unlikely to encourage good behaviour at home or out and about, and c) be poor training for when it turns out later that, in all likelihood, they are not. Bummer.
Of course where the real kicker comes is dealing with it all. Not just in the example above but across the whole governance firmament. Short of presiding over institutional murder (through target-obsessed incompetence) of innocents, lower tier individuals paid via the public purse are never going to be moved from their jobs. And if the are, and certainly if senior, they will either be moved sideways to carry on their 'skill sets' elsewhere, or get paid so much that they never need to work again. Or become consultants.
So maybe it has, at least for some, become self-fulfilling. You are super at aged 8 and then isolated from thinking otherwise by any sense of reality or critique through to adulthood and, if you stay in the cocoon of state employment, kept that way on up to early, cosy, index-linked golden pensionhood. The impact on those your efforts get directed at is... irrelevant, as there is no accountability or responsibility, at least on a personal basis (lazy managers will just pay up - using public funds - to cover up) any more.
But as I cannot see even the most effective, public-supported political party undoing all these drip-drip, society-eroding bonkers laws and the extra several hundred thousand civil servants taken on to 'cope' (keeps 'em off the dole figures, I guess. Trouble is they also often feel the need to meddle) with them, I am afraid this must stay a rant.
It has to be because I rather fear that what I am ranting about has no possible solution, which simply makes appreciating it simply frustrating.
It has been kicked off by a small straw; a story I just read about our kids being unprepared for life's slings and arrows by everything at school being changed to only allow positives, with no allowance for competition or failure.
Some dipsy headteacher was quoted wittering on about self esteem, when the piece I read made the fair point that being told aged 8 that you are super in all things is a) unlikely to encourage good behaviour at home or out and about, and c) be poor training for when it turns out later that, in all likelihood, they are not. Bummer.
Of course where the real kicker comes is dealing with it all. Not just in the example above but across the whole governance firmament. Short of presiding over institutional murder (through target-obsessed incompetence) of innocents, lower tier individuals paid via the public purse are never going to be moved from their jobs. And if the are, and certainly if senior, they will either be moved sideways to carry on their 'skill sets' elsewhere, or get paid so much that they never need to work again. Or become consultants.
So maybe it has, at least for some, become self-fulfilling. You are super at aged 8 and then isolated from thinking otherwise by any sense of reality or critique through to adulthood and, if you stay in the cocoon of state employment, kept that way on up to early, cosy, index-linked golden pensionhood. The impact on those your efforts get directed at is... irrelevant, as there is no accountability or responsibility, at least on a personal basis (lazy managers will just pay up - using public funds - to cover up) any more.
But as I cannot see even the most effective, public-supported political party undoing all these drip-drip, society-eroding bonkers laws and the extra several hundred thousand civil servants taken on to 'cope' (keeps 'em off the dole figures, I guess. Trouble is they also often feel the need to meddle) with them, I am afraid this must stay a rant.
Its a different 20%
ADDENDUM - Junkk Male - Dilbert, as always, nails it. Though actually, it is my experience that the most talentless numpties I have ever come across almost always tell you as soon as you meet them how 'they can't stop/help/do anything' because they are so stretched for time. Like the rest of us are not.Well I'm gob-smacked. Further to our previous posts on this very subject (see More Spin), that's the response to a direct question about the 20% from renewables by 2020 according to DowningStreetSays.
That had me rolling around on the floor laughing for 15 minutes.
How do these people have the balls to come out with pathetic spin that's such ..... utter balls!
ADDENDUM - (Junkk Male) - Guardian - Or change 'em!
Watch-dog watched. Snared. And bitten!
Sir John Bourn, Auditor-General.
So who is he? He is currently the head of the government's national audit office, essentially the spending watch-dog, whose role is to ensure that the government doesn't waste taxpayer's money on pointless, ridiculous or frivolous projects. (Not done much of a job really, if you ask my opinion!)
Why the mention? Well, Sir John has today announced (just been on radio 2) that he will resign in January 2008. So what's he done? Well, according to this from The Times, over the last three years he has run up a few bob on his expenses account.
So what's wrong with a civil servant blowing a few bob?
Well, if you are a civil servant, then how about these as examples to try and emulate:-
"Sir John travelled first-class with his wife on 22 occasions, including to San Francisco, Bahamas, Brazil, Lisbon and Venice, costing £76,000."
"164 lunches and dinners since 2004, including meals at the Ritz, Savoy, Dorchester, Wiltons, Mirabelle and Bibendum. The bills, nearly all for two people, vary from £80 to £301."
Do we need to mention "appearing to accept hospitality from companies such as BAE which compromises the independent and professional standing essential to someone in this post."?
Probably not, but racking up a total of £336,000 in expenses on various globe-trotting trips has just got to be taking the p*ss, so to speak, for someone in the role of a spending watch-dog.
As one of the posted comments states - 'he'll probably come out of it all with a big fat pension', and 'completely immoral'. Quite!
£110k+ per year in expenses only - now that's nice work if you can get it!
So who is he? He is currently the head of the government's national audit office, essentially the spending watch-dog, whose role is to ensure that the government doesn't waste taxpayer's money on pointless, ridiculous or frivolous projects. (Not done much of a job really, if you ask my opinion!)
Why the mention? Well, Sir John has today announced (just been on radio 2) that he will resign in January 2008. So what's he done? Well, according to this from The Times, over the last three years he has run up a few bob on his expenses account.
So what's wrong with a civil servant blowing a few bob?
Well, if you are a civil servant, then how about these as examples to try and emulate:-
"Sir John travelled first-class with his wife on 22 occasions, including to San Francisco, Bahamas, Brazil, Lisbon and Venice, costing £76,000."
"164 lunches and dinners since 2004, including meals at the Ritz, Savoy, Dorchester, Wiltons, Mirabelle and Bibendum. The bills, nearly all for two people, vary from £80 to £301."
Do we need to mention "appearing to accept hospitality from companies such as BAE which compromises the independent and professional standing essential to someone in this post."?
Probably not, but racking up a total of £336,000 in expenses on various globe-trotting trips has just got to be taking the p*ss, so to speak, for someone in the role of a spending watch-dog.
As one of the posted comments states - 'he'll probably come out of it all with a big fat pension', and 'completely immoral'. Quite!
£110k+ per year in expenses only - now that's nice work if you can get it!
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
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.
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
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!
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'
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.
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...?
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?
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?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
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
"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?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
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
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
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Monday, October 22, 2007
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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'.
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'.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)