IPPC in the news

Bearing in mind the obviously serious nature of what has been deemed 'an imminent catastrophe to humanity', I have just decided to do a quick scope of the coverage.

BBC - Pictured. And as I write, they have gone live to have a reporter be told that there's nothing new on a old murder enquiry. In fact, at 9.08 they cut away from the IPCC reporter in Valencia to something more important. Bless.

Mind you, if the best thing they can come out with is 'the next step' is to have another meeting next month in Bali, then I guess that might not exactly perk up the ratings.

Times - Top of tree online on global. Kudos! UK... er. Front page... nope!

Telegraph - Online.. well hidden if it's there! Front page... tba.

Guardian - Online... sort of. Front page.... tba.

Indy - Online. Front page... um, no.

FT - Not obvious. Front page... tba.

Tabs - Don't ask

Newsnight -

Seems the world's about to collapse. And now, on a lighter note, remember that sketch... (at least this critical piece wasn't truncated by '... and that's all we have time for, because here's a skateboarding turtle'. Oh... but wait... there IS another).

I just woke up to the Breakfast News coverage of the IPCC report. So Climate Change IS down to man and we are on the verge of a catastrophe. And this time is for sure. Well, more than the last. Not as much as the next, maybe. Odd then that it was not top priority in the national newscaster's morning report (not figuring too high in the national papers either. Pity the Spice Girls reformed on the same day as Children in Need.... as the world goes down the tube).

Anyway, watching Newsnight's coverage of the next big thing I mainly discover the Green Elite and their media caravans are off from Valencia to Bali (will we getting the same selection of ladies and gents to stand in front of the same building to say the same thing? Nice use of money, not to mention footprint example) to doubtless issue yet another 'this is the one' (Couldn't they all stay in one place, and where most are already... say... New York?) .

Ironically in the same breakfast show there was a Newswatch about a piece where a hotel in Las Vegas was covered live as it was demolished by explosion. So we waited... and waited... and almost gave up. And then it exploded, but only as many had given up waiting despite being told it was coming. Not really the BBC's fault as they had been told the time and it didn't happen as and when advised. But that's the problem with relying on uncertainties to issue endless warnings.

I am just not sure how many such 'outings' can be engaged upon, at least in this manner, before people begin to 'drift'. And such is my weariness with the assault, and lack of faith in their commitment to balanced science, despite the fact that it is clearly stated that it IS, NOW, man-made, I simply am not able to believe it and will continue to concede only man-worsened. I also rather suspect there are others who feel the same, or are even more dubious. Which all distracts from just getting on a DOING tangible things to engage with the general public rather than wittering on, going on jollies ('because our job requires it even if we're saying yours shouldn't') and giving sceptics ever more ammo.

Then we go on to learn by way of major advances in mitigation that Coke is 'thinking' of popping its carbon footprint on its cans, as have Walkers on its packs. No one had a clue what it was all about. So at least the BBC had a slight sense that this aspect was a bandwagon that was out of control. Shame they can't make the connection with the main... er.. almost main... piece. It is not up to the consumer to wade through all this, with the endless proliferation of hugely funded 'awareness' campaigns from pointless quangos we are being bombarded with... to little effect, evidently (see above, below, sideways). Or our national media.

What's going on? A crisp maker puts a label that means nothing to anyone and can be compared with nothing, yet get a load of publicity.... again. Newsnight covered this a while ago! http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/09/black-stuff.html And this on the day the IPCC report features second after an ongoing historical murder investigation. Shame the Spice Girls and Comic Relief got in on the act to distract from mankind's cat-astrophe, too. Or is that why we also got Sgt. Podge, the 4x4 hitching moggy? Is everything now totally driven by PR luvvies and their speed dial chums who only look at ratings before jumping?

No wonder no one is taking much seriously!

Absolutely the lastest and worstest... yet

I just woke up to the BBC's coverage of the IPCC report.

Seems that Climate Change IS down to man and we are on the verge of a catastrophe. Really.

Odd then that it was about third in priority the national newscaster's morning report (not figuring too high in the national papers either. Pity the Spice Girls reformed on the same day as Children in Need.... as the world goes down the tube).

Anyway, the Green Elite are off from Valencia to Bali to doubtless issue yet another 'this is the one'. Ironically in the same show there was a Newswatch about a piece where a hotel in Las Vegas was covered live as it was demolished by explosion. So we waited... and waited... and almost gave up. And then it exploded, but only as many had given up waiting despite being told it was coming.

Not really the BBC's fault as they had been told the time and it didn't happen as and when advised (the jolly piece about the urban cat being picked up daily... in a dirty great 4x4... being simply an 'interesting' piece).

That's the problem with relying on uncertainties to issue warnings.

I am just not sure how many such 'outings' can be engaged upon, at least in this manner, before people begin to 'drift'.

And such is my weariness with the assault, and lack of faith in their commitment to balanced science, despite the fact that it is clearly stated that it IS, NOW, man-made, I simply am not able to believe it and will continue to concede man-worsened, for all sorts of personal and professional and personal reasons.

I also rather suspect there are others who feel the same, or are even more dubious.

Of course, I will continue, as I have done for years, to DO all I can to mitigate our impact anyway, because I reckon what is going on it's best to get on with some less wasteful behaviour.

STOP PRESS - Coke is thinking of popping its carbon footprint on its cans, as have Walkers. No one had a clue what it was all about. So at least the BBC had a slight sense that this aspect was a bandwagon that was out of control. Sahme they can't make the connection with the main... er.. almsot main... piece. I totally agreed with The Friends of the Earth lady who said it was not up to the consumer to wade through all this, and totally despaired at the Carbon Trust executive's defence of the role of organisations such as his in the proliferation of endless awareness campaigns we are being bombarded with... to little effect, evidently (see above).

At the tipping point

This must read article is authored by Head of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, and published in the International Herald Tribune.

I hope, probably forlornly, that it is picked up by all the mainstream media.

_____________
Well, as of Tuesday morning, 20/11, the only references I've spotted are minor mentions (in the UK media) plus some serious coverage in one or two more obscure Canadian, Australian and South African publications.

IDEA- Axe deodorant

From Gizmondo.

That's toys for kids, OK.

I merely approve in principle of second use, however derived

Hydrogen from petroleum?

I missed this yesterday (well, I don't often trawl through stock exchange regulatory announcements), but feel that it is still worthy of comment.

It's about Exxon-Mobil, with partners, developing a new unique technology that "reduces carbon emissions and offers advantages over other Hydrogen delivery systems".

So I read on, with interest, the biggest of the big-oil boys looking at Hydrogen generation systems was definitely an eyebrow twitcher. Oh, the technology will use "liquid fuels ... gasoline, diesel, ethanol or biodiesel and convert them into hydrogen onboard the vehicle where it will be used in a fuel cell power train."

They claim that "it has the potential to be up to 80% more fuel efficient than today's internal combustion engine technologies and reduce CO2 emissions by up to 45%."

Now that's some claim and I'd like to see and understand more of the potential of this technology, but, and perhaps I'm being a little picky here, its fuel source is still petroleum, ethanol or bio-diesel based, so doesn't this sort of technology simply perpetuate big-oil's existing storage and distribution infrastructures.

And one other thing. Though I've forgotten an awful lot of my chemistry over the years, surely if you remove all (or most) of the Hydrogen from a bunch of complex hydrocarbon molecules as a fuel source, aren't you going to be left with an awful lot of Carbon, CO2 and other nasties to dispose of?

Well, d'uh!

Sometimes you come across pointless research that just makes you think 'what on earth is going on'!. This is one such - 'Hurricanes kill trees, fuel global warming'. Well, of course hurricanes kill trees, they destroy pretty much everything in their path. And we all know that trees are valuable carbon sinks whose destruction can take decades to recover.

Apart from some interesting numbers they've extrapolated, this seems a complete waste of research time and money!

Ouch!

This might be very painful for commercial enterprises and consumers right across the planet - Oil price could hit $150 a barrel.

On the other hand it could go down by $30 a barrel.

Isn't 'could' a great word.
____________________

Call for curb on speculators - The Guardian.

Greenhouse gas levels rising faster than predicted

This from the WBCSD reports that "Greenhouse emissions are rising faster than the worst-case IPCC scenarios".

"This paper suggests that there exists evidence that the IPCC process may have led to an underestimation of the risk of greater warming and that the impacts of climate change are occurring more rapidly than previously projected"

The report is from an independent Australian research group, who I've not come across before, but it's made me quite depressed.

Addendum:
A slightly more comprehensive report from News.com.au.

Dishing the dirt

GREENWASH AWARDS

Re: One contended for next year must be poor old BOSCH - claiming its dishwashers use less water than hand washing.

Just a question really, though it does lead to often competing aspects of 'green'. I can kind of see the water argument, though with a missus like mine to do the glasses, then the plates and then the pots we're talking at least 3 bowls' worth. I wonder how many litres a cycle actually takes?

Though this was not a factor and BOSCH and its agency can live with their choices of claim accordingly, does anyone know what the received opinion is on energy use? It was my understanding that in many circumstances a machine could be better in terms of overall enviROI.

In our climate I would trade water 'use' for energy in order of priority, at least in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

These are the kind of choices we the consumer are going to be faced with, and it would be good to know that those who would tell us, commercial or public service, for sale or for information, are talking from a common hymn book... which itself can be relied upon.

Facts, darn facts and... oh, fact!

In light of, well, everything really: The facts in the way of a good story

Blondin would be proud!

Thing is, some can be so good at balancing, and arguing about how well they are doing it, they can forget to move along - BBC's unnecessary balancing act?

And while it can be fun engaging in witty banter with the hecklers, there is a slight danger the main audience gets bored and looks elsewhere for their 'entertainment'.

Ignoring the glorious irony of so many worthy sorts whizzing about the globe to bring to us the perils of, amongst other things, whizzing about the globe (I know, it's your job, but there do seem to be some a lot more equal than oth... whose jobs require it more than those they take to task. Two? In this period? Why Bali and Valencia? Are not the majority of movers and shakers not more concentrated in, say, New York? And can combine the two more effectively? How many of 'you' will be there?), this does of course require some serious consideration, as the opinions and actions of the UK public can be markedly influenced by what the national broadcaster chooses to share. And be held to account for sharing. There are other media outlets and blogs to this, which others do read.

This is the CiF, so one knows where many are coming from, and often how they choose to view debate, especially when it comes to those less blessed with the rectitude of thought their sources of information provide.

Many do not come from the same place. And I'd love to run this sentence by the readers of the News of the World, whose ABC readership also is exposed to Aunty but might be seen to be at the other end of a scale to this mighty organ: 'We must also be smarter in the way we interpret the often vociferous views expressed by the public on climate change in our vibrant inter-active space. While welcoming a diversity of voices, we must make sure that we do not conflate self-selecting audience responses with a broad audience opinion.' Um, ok.

Many might not know much (or care) about Voltaire, but could still feel uneasy with 'I might not agree with what you have to say, but as it's silly you are obviously a [enter ist/inger/zi or other pejorative here] or just woefully misinformed, and hence unworthy of being heard 'cos we know what's right and good for you.

I'd suggest there is an argument therefore for letting all sides prevail (appreciating this is about extent), and allow the people to decide based on the merits (or not) of what they have to say (speaking personally, a classic Newsnight 'twofer' with each corner served by a grotesque extreme serves no one well). Looking here there is an uneasy sense that there are those who feel any questioning of anything with a green tag comes under the category of 'heretic' and must be excised.

Meanwhile, I really prefer things moved on a bit from getting proved right or wrong on the basis of absolutes, and some stopped worrying so much about vindication and shared more positive actions (all a bit 'ban the...' at the mo') that can be engaged with here and now, with consensus.

If, as I believe, man-worsened climate change ('man-made' being a tag I see a lot and puts me off as it has yet been shown to be true - and every sunspot, Mars-warming story chips away at such a stance. Cue the scientists: 'but you are ignorant!!!' As are most of us... that's the point. You win an audience over by understanding, not despising them) is a distinct possibility, I am much more keen on sensible, pragmatic, high enviROI + things (so I do ask more of an offshore wind farm than 'it's got to be done to save the polar bears') that can be shown to work that will engage and persuade all around to get on board.

Popping out endless apocalyptic scenarios that often give the 'deniers' plenty of comeback ammo seems counterproductive (especially when shown to be factually tenuous or in support of other lobbies), as are endless jollies that seem more about ratings and green 'in-crowd' exclusion zones rather than anything with much hope of touching the lives, hopes and aspirations of the vast working majority.

Even if it is not actually meant (and I really don't think... hope... it is. Any more than I can get my head around some Texas oil baron having no concern for their grandkids if they KNOW they are wrong), here can lie the seeds of a sense of swindle, where agenda, target and dogmatism can conflate (weeee...) with feeling the buzz of being in a driving seat, and put one out of touch with your audience. Ignore the needs, and desires, of the masses at your peril.

Inform us. Educate us and, if it can be done properly and well, persuade us. But please do not be tempted to talk down to us or, worse, select what we need to know 'for our own good'. Tricky in a sound-bite driven culture, but that's the balance you need to find.

BBC - Climate sceptics

Alas, poor world, what treasure hast thou lost!

William Shakespeare (Venus and Adonis)

That's a quote from the end of an interesting article from 2004 by Paul Thompson which suggests that we are approaching, as he sees it, a society facing oil depletion that will be unable to cope, and ultimately the twilight of the modern world. (And he doesn't even mention climate change!)

He breaks down the way he sees humanity (or at least, its remnants) surviving in an oil depleted world into four key successive phases, which he describes as 'Awareness', 'Transition' (from ordered to anarchic), 'Scavengery' and 'Self-Sufficiency', and details what he sees as the way societies change across this entire time period.

It made my eyebrows twitch in quite a few places but has certainly provided me with a lot of food for thought. Well worth a read if you can find the time.

Now whether this is the sort of thing that simply creates more noise, or is genuinely worthy of further consideration is left up to you, the reader. Does it provide interesting insights and information; or does it simply create more confusing noise? (Which is what happens when humans are presented with a surfeit of information.) Because, at a certain point, an overload of information does indeed become noise.

How do you tell the difference? Don't ask me, my head's spinning, but, to paraphrase one of the philosophers, (I forget which), wisdom is the ability to tell the difference between information and noise, and to know when you know enough to act. (It was something like that)

So you tell me. Is the guy a mentally deranged nutter, describing a set of ridiculous fantasy scenarios; or is he an extremely prescient forecaster of what may happen come the end of the fossil fuel driven industrial and technological revolution?

A few more 'facts' on plastic bags

At least the Indy has followed up on its story/campaign: Have Your Say: A ban on plastic bags?

Adds a bit. Though 'Have Your Says' from the BBC to the Indy, are getting a bad press (well, if they were not about the press. A bad blog, let's say) for trying to pass off what the editors liek the look of as 'representative'.

Q - Can you clear up the definitions of degradable and biodegradable? My understanding is that degradable is not compostable – ie, those bags break down into tiny pieces of plastic that will remain in the environment whereas biodegradable (as in BioBags) can compost and break down completely with no harmful effects to the environment.

A- Absolutely right; the only advantage of degradable bags is they pose less of a litter nuisance once they break down. Biodegradable plastic bags are only better for the environment if they are properly composted – something that isn't widely happening at the moment. As a rule, I take cotton bags on my shopping trips rather than accept free plastic bags. Every couple of months I leave the cotton bags at home and take the plastic bags, which I then use as free bin bags.

My Q - (in light of those raised here previously): So... no harmful effects to the environment. Hmmn. So does that mean there is no greenhouse gas consequence? Why do I sense a cherry pick here? And what about the total lack of official coordination and comms on what goes where? If I put my Somerfield's in with my Morrisons to recycle I do belive that's not helping.

Q - Is it better to use the plastic bags as bin bags, or is there a more environmentally sound way of dealing with rubbish?

A- Reusing bags over and over is of course the most environmentally friendly option and the fact that you do that most of the time is the most important thing. You also need to contain your residual waste somehow and I really don't think it makes a lot of difference if you reuse carrier bags or buy suitable bin liners. But do look out for those with recycled content and don't use bigger or thicker bin liners than you reasonably need.

My Q/Opinion: How can it not make a lot of difference reusing something vs. buying new ones that need to be made? That doesn't make sense!

Q - Where can I buy small black bin bags? I throw out so little that three-quarters of a standard bin bag is waste plastic, but I can't store what little waste I do throw out until the bag is full, because of smells.

A - Maybe smaller pedal-bin liners are what you need? However, some local councils now collect food waste separately which might be an answer to the odour problem. Alternatively, if you can compost your biodegradable waste like vegetable peelings, tea bags and egg shells, you can deal with most of the materials that cause smells in way that's very good for the environment.

My Opinion - Bless

Q - I work for a small children's clothes company. We use good quality polythene bags costing 4p each. I would like to change these to biodegradable bags or paper carrier bags. Can you suggest a source for them at a reasonable cost? Also, which of these is actually least harmful, bearing in mind the use of wood for paper versus land clearance for vast fields of corn for cornstarch?

A - With regard to which bags are least harmful, you need to think about what happens to the bag after you give it to the customer as well as how it's sourced. See my earlier comments regarding biodegradable bags, but also paper bags need to be recycled in order to avoid causing potentially more damage than the plastic alternatives. For information about suppliers you could try www.wrap.org.uk.

My A - And don't forget WRAP is a not-for-profit company!

Q - I was completely fed up with the number of plastic bags foisted on me, particularly as an internet shopper. So, together with a friend, I decided to take action. That was when we found it – a really clever type of shopping bag. The bags clip inside supermarket trolleys, helping to organise shopping and speed up checkout time. And so Geccobags.co.uk was born: a company specialising in utilitarian bags designed specifically for the supermarket.

A - There is a huge range of alternatives to disposable carrier bags, from organic fair trade cotton to supermarket's own Bags for Life.

My A - Nice ads! I wonder who has an 'in with who' between the Indy and the local PR agency.

Q- Thank you for your timely piece on the curse of the plastic bag. I am old enough to remember when supermarkets charged for carrier bags. I cannot believe they are so reluctant to reintroduce the charge.

A- I can also (just) remember those days! The truth is there's no such thing as a free carrier bag; nowadays we just pay for them in the cost of the goods. That is really unfair to consumers trying to reduce carrier bag use – they are subsidising others who are more wasteful.

My A/Opinion - As mentioned on the BBC 'story' this morning, one has to wonder how so much is ending up with the retailers and customers to resolve. I'm fascinated how all these good folk think it's great to be charged. Hope they feel the same as everything ends up with an overt green charge that may or may not help the enviROI and may or may not actually go where one would hope to effect the best changes.

If you want to see green living, go to 'old' Europe

Let's start with the small things. As many cross-Channel shoppers will know, plastic bags are simply not supplied at many Continental hypermarkets any more. You either buy big biodegradable bags from the check-out or bring your own bag or trolley.

I really am keen to get an answer to whether biodegradable bags do or do not create greenhouse gasses. It just seems... pertinent.

Nothing to lose but your plastic bags

Interesting Ms. JSP has opened by highlighting one oft ignored fact: it seems the bags are all that's important; not the fact that most spend all their times wanting to get stuff to stick in 'em. Which I would imagine has a footprint all of its own. A bigger one. Seems it's not the content that matters, but the presentation. And apt metaphor for this 'image is all' era.

A slight whiff of balance... But again : 'Biodegradable plastic is one option, recycled paper another.'

And is only me who sees a slight irony in this: '... picked up at the Ravello Festival in Italy, a market in Faversham, from the launch of Architecture week in London last summer, and at the British pavilion during the Venice Biennale. Much as I rate Ms. JSP, I can't help but wonder how her jaunting (unless it is in a VW Bluemotion at 3000cb/m) equates to the few thousand bags she'll rack up at Tescos.

Guardian - Throwing away a throwaway culture

I have a technical question to which I hope there is a simple answer that some expert(s) can provide me with.

I have just read a factual explanation of the issues (from one of the many, and well-funded, quangos that exist to help us in these matters), and both biodegradable and compostable options were mentioned. However this seemed to be restricted to the processes of composting as it relates to the soil only.

Are there no greenhouse gas consequences to these processes? And if so are they so negligible as to be irrelevant? I see that plastic photodegrades to some nasties. Do these include greenhouse gasses? And does this happen out of sunlight?

I simply ask as I have been working on the assumption that atmospheric CO2/methane is the main priority to reduce, and I'm trying to get my head around how some of the options proposed are actually any better on this, more immediate, basis.

I know it is much more complex, and while reuse must obviously be better in the long run (and seems to work in other countries), I am also aware that the provision of facilities here to enable effective recycling (especially without contamination) is less than it could be. With a suspicion that shunting the issue away from where it could be into a public/retailer responsibility might suit some very well.

Reduction of the things that go in the bags is of course not ... yet ... high on the agenda in the run-up to Xmas and with economies to support and grow, but one rather wonders where next those with zeal and passion for the key things to ban may turn next. Pets? Skiing trips (before the snow runs out)? Ads in newspapers for same? Plastic wrappers for newspapers that run ads for same? Cosmetics? (Now there's a totally unnecessary item - (though my wife may disagree). Or fashion items (at least the ones in the 51 other weeks to the token 'recycle' issue). Beer? How many litres of tap water to make a pint? At least it comes in glasses at the pub and not in plastic bottles.... hey.... there's a thought!

I saw a chap on the TV this morning who was positively salivating at all he could ban, or at least levy and/or fine. Not quite the sort I fancy getting their heads around saving the planet for my kids, especially when I had a sense that he rather saw the money primarily being used to fund more schemes like his, and clones of him to 'run' them.

I do see merit in proper reduction and 'paying for wasting' generating funds to be directed in genuine, effective enviROI+ directions, but this all has a rather worrying scent, at least as dished out by a media that loves an 'issue', and wins with ratings no matter how it plays out.

And while I agree a contact lens is another awful symbol of our disposable society, I rather wish the energies that might yet get devoted to eradicating these might first be directed at slightly bigger tasks of a more immediate concern.

Guardian - Q&A: Plastic bags

Telegraph - Bin those plastic bags - Interesting responses, covering paper, better priorities, etc

ADDENDUM - I made a request via the Institute of Packaging to ask for feedback to help my understanding. I have already had answers that are prompt, helpful, varied and/or interesting. And now have some work on my plate to prepare my next blog!!!! Watch this space.

One paper. One day. One nation. One wonders...

These were from the Indy yesterday:

The best defence against claims of spin - the process of government

Mark Steel: You can't go round telling people you've been sacked - what happens to those within who try and change it

The cost of cheap food – and hot air - and what happens to the planet when those left in charge a left free to continue with their tasks

I congratulate the Indy and its writers fro highlighting this, but wonder how many days (hours) after passing from our tables and screens these further insanities will be recalled.

They don't make it any easier

See those two packs on the left?

Both choccy drinks, but made by what I had thought were major competitors, Mars and Cadbury Schweppes.

I wonder why they feel the need to look so like each other, in shape terms at least? Is that what choccy drinks are 'meant' to look like?

I so miss the old Maltesers version, which presented so many useful possibilities.

Mankind, the virus on our planet?

Another mention of the 'policy that dare not speak its name', this time from outspoken MEP Chris Davies, as reported in the Cumbrian News & Star, who reckons that "young couples should have no more than one child in a bid to stop global warming."

"While every individual should be cherished, mankind’s reproduction is akin to the replication of a virus. We are swamping the planet and devouring its resources."

In a sense it's difficult to disagree with that last statement, but who is ever going to propose 'population growth control' as a mainstream policy? Perhaps, if H5N1 (the virulent strain of avian flu) ever mutates to a human to human transferable virus, such a policy may not even be necessary?

Like a beer? Get ready for £3 a pint!

Those of you that enjoy a decent pint or two every now and again, get ready to pay more for your favourite tipple. This from Harpers reports on the increasing costs of basic raw materials that has already hit the UK's breweries, with Barley increasing in price by 40% and Hops by 100% this year.

The piece, perhaps rather too pointedly, firmly lays the blame directly at the door of climate change. It seems that you can blame anything on climate change nowadays, but with the cost of diesel also going up by 12p/litre over the last 12 months too, I reckon we could be paying £3 a pint for a decent beer by the start of next year!

Are we there yet?

Does one give into pester power? It's a question I have pondered for a while on a few areas, such as this: London joins national campaign to banish the curse of the plastic bag

It's not quite on a par with 'giving in to terrorists or kidnappers', so I am tempted to go along and swallow the possible consequences of 'giving in to..'.

And it's not like I don't get the point. Plastic bags, if there are better alternatives (the enviROI of plastic vs. alternatives not having been clearly explained to me at all yet, much less convincingly. For example, I can't see a ship-load of hessian sacks getting shipped from India to be sold for a £1 and then forgotten about in the back of a drawer come the next outing - who can carry a bunch of these around all day in case they pop in the shops? - is going to help much either. But hey-ho) and are not being reused or recycled effectively (seems not), are certainly a landfill-destined waste of resource. I don't use 'em if I can help it, though have to admit that when I don't happen to have 4 hemp bags on my person would find it a bit of a pain not to have them, or wonder where the money I have to hand over is going to. Plus a small tilt towards those who have lost their jobs as a consequence of such a ban (and wonder who is next, until the truly worthy contributors to society who inhabit Islington and Westminster decide to feed on each other's productive career contributions).

But I am erring on just getting it over with, if only to get it out of the way and move on to hopefully more important things. Though the trivial obsessions of most involved in such campaigns don't encourage me too much. They'll need another outlet. And I doubt banning pets, skiing holidays or leg waxing products as 'unnecessary' will top their lists.

Especially as major proponents are such as newspapers and LAs, who don't seem so shy on sending out their own hordes of mailings in plastic wrappers.

Yesterday Modbury, today London, tomorrow the Isle of Wight... and then... ze verld!

Thing is, as an ad man, I wonder what will happen when attentions drift elsewhere.

The shop which has already set out its stall to get rid of packaging

Because if everyone is doing it, then there is no value in being different. You get in the Indy if you have 'a' shop that is eco-twee and all the luvvies get their free-range Priuses for the weekend there, but how about the real world of a 8pm Friday rainy-night dash to the Tesco on the way home down a Midlands motorway?

One wonders if you might see the genesis of ad campaigns with 'free plastic bags' like 'no VAT' to entice people in by way of being an exception.

And who is to define when a plastic carrying device is 'legal' or 'illegal'? Maybe we will get bag-leggers smuggling in dangerous loads of plastic over the Mexican border.

At least I get blogs and blogs out of it. Just not sure it's moving my kids' futures on as much as some other efforts deserving such energies.

THE CAMPAIGN COLUMN

The journey of 1,000 miles starts with the first step.

It hasn't even hit my daily trawl yet, but I've just seen on the BBC Breakfast News yet another campaign being announced, with yet another minor celeb attached. Just for fun, when they pop up I will put 'em here.

What may be interesting is to subsequently try and assess whether they lasted more than the day of the launch, a week or actually got anywhere. And what it all cost.

[name] - something to do with 'schools sustainability' - feat. Sophie Ellis Bextor - haven't seen the detail yet, but what aspect of the Government's relationship with schools it runs needs a 'campaign'. And if it is to move the students, how will this complement the raft of other stuff out there directed at the public.

AWARDS COMPILATION - Green related

Inspired by a recent post regarding awards for greenwashing, I have decided to kick off a list of my own as the mood takes me:

Advertising

Green Awards (not worth the paper...IMHO)

Business/Entrepreneurship

21st Century Challenge - we didn't make it. See who did.

Greenwashing

FoE (need to track it down)
Greenpeace (ditto)
PR watch Falsies
Spinwatch
Worstlobby

Invention

Marketing

And don't forget, even though one may have passed... there's always next year!

Just sharing

BBC - No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance

Though there is a counter-view linked, it seems odd that the BBC would give lead to 'a' person, no matter how qualified.

It will be fun... no... sad seeing how this plays out. I'm guessing he'll be accused of god knows what. The sceptics will take all sorts of stuff out of context and blow it up. The usual.

BBC - The IPCC: As good as it gets
BBC - Unravelling the sceptics
BBC - Climate scepticism: The top 10

Now... any the wiser? Going to change your ways?

Real Climate - BBC contrarian top 10 - Kind of a summary of summary of summarys, with at least more than a hint that scientists are involved. Still suffers from various main protagonists being labelled/outed as poster kids for an entrenched view (seems by various finger-pointings even IPCC contributors and the Real Science top brass are stuck in various 'camps').

The main thing to me is still how all these guys are so much happier engaged in this theoretical debate than actually thinking too much on what can be done now.

The sky is falling... I mean it!

Emergency talk costs lives?

Some people think the rhetoric of climate change is too emotive. While others, like me, would wish some could just stick to the facts and stop trying to gild various lollies, equally shrilly, for 'our' own good.

No doubt it's serious. And needs addressing.

I just can't help but notice that the current level of rhetoric doesn't seem to be working. So maybe we need a change in that approach, plus of those who see themselves as the messengers of 'the word'.

Maybe there's a lesson from the ad world (ok, it's a first when it comes to man-worsened climate change), which I have worked in most of my life, and especially life assurers. It has long been appreciated that shrieking 'we're all going to die!' doesn't sell policies as well as more subtle, end-benefit, persuasion-based approaches.

Oh, and rushing out the next half-considered survey to offer a ready target for those of a more cynical disposition to illuminate, tends to knock calmer efforts back even more.

It looks like we are playing chicken with the future, but I'm not to sure the nicely funded Green-Elite Chicken Littles who think they have grasped the wheel are best suited to turn it.

Electrohydrogenesis

OK, yet another super 'techy' word that means nothing to almost all of us as reported in the Telegraph today. This one, however, just may be a word that comes into common parlance over the coming years and decades.

So what is it? Electrohydrogenesis is a process from which "efficient and sustainable hydrogen production is possible from any type of biodegradable organic matter".

Scientists have "devised a method of hydrogen production that relies on combining electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a "microbial electrolysis cell" to belch out hydrogen gas."

The scientists' "reactor generated hydrogen gas at efficiencies up to 99% of the theoretical maximum yield. 'This process produces 288 per cent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added to the process'."

Now that is some claim. If validated, this just may represent a realistic way forward for the generation of hyrodgen as a genuine fuel source. Maybe they have even located the holy grail of the 'hydrogen as a fuel' research arena?
________________
Addendum:
Much as I like the concept of Hydrogen powered vehicles, providing, of course, that the Hydrogen itself can be produced in an environmentally acceptable and safe manner, I have to seriously question the enviROI of this from Reuters, reporting on an order for 10 hydrogen powered buses for London.
Sorry, but at a million pounds each [What the **!!!!!] I'm sure that there must be far more important and urgent things, with far more viable enviROI's for this sort of dosh to be spent on!

Where there's a will, there's a way out

This is what I clicked: China 'will agree to cut its carbon emissions'

'China, now the world's biggest greenhouse-gas emitter, will eventually agree to cut its soaring carbon dioxide emissions, one of the country's leading environmentalists forecast yesterday – but only on the basis of a deal with the United States and the rest of the developed world.'

Talk about a let-down.

Another 48 hrs, and another, and...

I don't know, but I really can't equate this button link (on an eco-page) with front pages on the evils of plastic bags - 48 hrs in Fez

I know such things are what fund them, but how many 48 hour multiples can 'we' afford before 'they' see such as this as being more part of the problem...

To win battles, use those who know how to fight... with the right weapons

Prodded, I suspect, by a post from a new 'green agency' selling their wares (I certainly had a look, but could find no portfolio of work, which was a worry - lots on the boxes they had ticked, though), the moderator on eco-innovation network asked for some thoughts on green marketing:

Having been through the 2nd green consumer wave in the late 80's and
90s - when i did my 1st greener marketing book - i am keen not to see
the re-emergence of the Friends of the Earth 'Green Con of the Year'
award in the 3rd 'green' consumer wave we are now in (certainly in the
uk)

My observation is there are many marketing services companies, ad
agencies, etc - suddenly claiming to be 'green' - my concern is that
advise may not be up to standard e.g. the green comms part of
the 'mix' is much more information-based and is not copywriting based -
failure to pick-up complexities and nuances can be disasterous

What needs to be done in terms of developing a 'code of conduct'? - is
there need? and what should be done?

Struck a chord:

As with the many carbon offsetters, traders, footprinters, soakers and all others popping up to feed off the need/desire to be ‘greener’, between the various disciplines in the marketing, advertising, promotions and media firmament there now seem to be almost as many official bodies as there are practitioners. Along with a burgeoning collection of monitoring schemes and labelers (of questionable use, having just read recently five e-performance ‘surveys’ in a week that managed shuffle Tesco and M&S from top to bottom), such that a pack of Smarties will soon need to have a CDR attached just to accommodate the various competing info charts and bars.

And most seem to have a code of practice, all about as much use as they are compulsory.

Overseeing industry there are various well-staffed quangos with, it seems, few if any teeth to effect more than a nasty wrist slap usually once the horse has well and truly bolted, run the 3.15 at Chepstow, been put out to stud and is now the principal ingredient in your tube of Thixofix.

I also assume above these guys are government, who make laws and enforce them, but that any such effective entity exists beyond hype, spin, self-interest and covering up the next Panorama exposé is really the stuff of legend.

Sadly, I rather fear the FoE will have plenty of material already for its next edition. In fact I believe Greenpeace and others have also jumped on the name and shame bandwagon too. So soon we can will be having competing hit lists to contend with: ‘When Greens Go Bad’, or, ‘Now that’s what I call a dodgy offset #66!’ (I have to confess I have been toying with my own, but for now have contented myself with a growing collection of ads that have ‘...but won’t cost the Earth’ in the headline.)

At least thanks to the efficiency of PR dissemination these days, whatever the ASA publishes each week will, if suitably entertaining or compromising, hit the major media within hours. I do believe ‘green-minded’ (or at least aspiring) brands from Innocent Drinks to Lexus to - most recently - Shell, have all found out this to their cost. Sadly sticking a flower in an exhaust pipe isn’t quite making the cut for the authorities, if not some consumers, if not backed up with some substantive justifications. Trouble is the job is usually done by the time they get pulled.

As a creative practitioner over a few decades I still keep my hand in, though I do now focus more on the karmic correction of trying to use the dark arts of persuasion to steer folk to a greener direction. I do so in the hope of offsetting the consequences of my being a tad too good at getting them to buy stuff they didn't really need and/or go places they didn't really need to travel to.

But frankly it has amazed me not that there are so many jumping on this bandwagon to 'sell' expertise in this arena, but that there are still so few. How long before Ego, Driven and Entitled (and yes, my agency boasted my name in its partner string) can boast a 'Head of Green Marketing' (please don't tell me they do already!) which will doubtless be a big box-ticker to some quango numpty looking for a 'green' agency, and with all sorts of ethical requirements to clear with the Minister and triple-bottom-line committee before s/he gets taken out to the bars of SoHo.

In a capitalist/consumerist society, ‘marketing’ in all its forms will in most cases struggle to be truly green. With a few exceptions of real mitigation/reduction, the aim is usually to compete and dominate by selling more ‘stuff’. And, to be fair, I'd go further and try to separate the agency side from the marketing a bit more, though accepting that most agencies have a philosophy of know the clients' business as well as they do themselves. It’s just a sensible practice to stay ahead of the curve (and competition) by being just so darn useful and proactive the client really wouldn't dare risk succumbing to another's entreaties... or fee reductions.

At the end of the day ad guys may well be trusted advisors, but are also mercenaries, if highly professional ones. And business is business. The brief is all, and the signature on the contact report more so. Given a task one comes up with a campaign, from creative ideas to media plans, that delivers the best ROI for the budget. It’s all about getting the most persuasive message in front of the highest number of relevant audience members, for the least money.

My agency had a simple philosophy that the client got presented with: Quick. Cheap. Good.... Pick any two (and one must always be Good).

It was up to the client to choose those that would take that fight out into the marketplace, and win it on their behalf through hard work and skill. All we asked was that they knew what they were doing. And because they choose us that meant they usually did.

We had specializations, and that allowed us to excel with various niches. It's not mandatory, but to create a message an audience will empathize with it certainly helps to have those on board who know the subject backwards (not something I see in many major media environment reporters/editors these days, who serve up some rampant dross to feed the MWCC cynics, like electric cars ‘that don’t pollute’) to find the USPs and opportunities... but also what will tickle the fancy of the person on the receiving end.

But one cannot hope to have quite the same level of insight into, or product knowledge of the person whose every waking moment is (or should be) devoted to their industry and developing their brand/product service (mind you, long-termism in these careers is not prevalent, and hence rarely reflected in strategy, resulting in quick wins that can often be damaging after the commissioner is long gone).

So I do cock an eye at who is failing whom, and the motivations of those who seem prepared to risk the bad PR of an ASA carpeting and Daily Mail inside spread, all for a few grams of carbon more or less in their claims.

The facts are indeed the facts. But unless it has moved on a bit, they still need to be legal, decent, honest and truthful (sadly ‘relevant and ‘beneficial’ are not always included in complement, often along with ethical or moral). I don't see the need for a code of conduct much beyond that. And even if there was how it would be any more enforceable than it is already under current legislation. Just ask Mr. O'Leary. We don’t need more bodies feeding off the system, just more effective ones.

At the end of the day it's down to all those within the process to ask themselves why they are doing what they do. And if they cannot come up with an honest answer, if they are still proud to stand behind their actions then that’s between them and their future generations.

I fully agree with you that it is a major worry just how much venal rubbish is being issued currently in the name of green, with more being shoveled in constantly. I had felt the only saving grace was that all of it was so creatively dire (I am hard-pressed to think of a single green marketing effort that has appealed, much less persuaded me) that at least no one was paying a blind bit of notice. But that is not the case. Thanks to less than innocently-motivated tabloids and others, some egregious examples of greenwashing are going out, being outed and getting noticed, but for all the wrong reasons. And about the only consequence I can see is that it makes the efforts of those with good, genuine products/services and messages, and those working to help promote them properly (ie: with persuasion and argument and end-benefit, not fear, guilt, nanny-nag, etc. Or all too prevalent green-tinted distractions of little actual enviROI+ value) that more difficult.

But until pros who have more in mind than profits, targets or ratings come together from all sides of the mix to make sure that the best enviROI is delivered to the consumer at the same time as ROI in the marketing process, we will see what we are seeing daily now: chancers buying bamboo couches and claiming to be a green agency because they recycle their coffee cups, and marketing commissioners with budgets in the millions and sustainability forms more designed to meet CSR objectives, getting seduced by this aspect of the process at the expense of the thing they are actually meant to be achieving: a clear objective with a good brief to develop a well-targeted execution.

I think only the market will decide what will prevail. Which, with luck, it still can. You can only sell so many cars that don’t prove to do the mileage or emit the claimed green benefits (even if the exhaust pipe is on a power station) before something catches up with you. And overtakes.

But, to be sure, what would be a real help is a single, trusted measure of what is accurate, ruthlessly enforced by a body with teeth, such the consumer can believe what they see or hear is at least accurate enough to make an informed decision upon.

However, even if all could agree on what makes for a fair ‘green’ claim, between carbon footprints, food miles, organic impacts, etc, etc, so that any such thing does become meaningful to a bewildered consumer base (and not just the jargonistic target-setters at their Bali conferences), on current evidence I don’t see most believing that the International, EU or national governments of the day are doing it for the right reasons, and not just to get out of a landfill hole, a missed target fine or to pump some subsidy dosh into an offshore engineering company with a really good lobbying consultant.

PR Watch - Falsies Awards

What comes after the Prius?

According to this from today's Times, Toyota is planning a seriously greener future. As one of the few vehicle manufacturers actually making any real money, they have a substantial pot to invest, and a good chunk of that pot is going into a greener future.

"Toyota will spend its fortune developing single-seat hybrid vehicles, fuel cells, next-generation batteries, bio-fuels and the commercialisation of humanoid helper robots."

Ooooh. I wonder if they're planning to let the robot drive for you?

O, how 'tis the end for words to compare thee to

In light of my predilection for acronyms, I thought it was funny: Today's Britain: dipso, fatso, bingo, asbo, Tesco

Actually it also reminds me of Snow White.

Which Lighbulb?

Having been attacked just now by my local Mrs. SME from the 'leccy shop, brandishing here copy, I just signed up (Lord help me - I dread the avalanche of DM that I know will ensue, plus the equally no fun procedures to get out of my sub if it's no longer of interest) fro a Which? trial sub.

Because they have done a big number on bulbs, rendering my ongoing and as yet unpublished efforts pretty meagre, I am sure.

However, it's all good extra grist t'mill, so I look forward to having a scope and reporting back any insights.

I do have many concerns, especially when it comes to reliability issues. Low energy does not always mean long life.

She was a bit more concerned with the Mercury issue, which apparently has all sorts of WEEE & H&S consequences currently lurking under various carpets in some quarters.

Wathc this space.

Incentives for renewables?

Not according to eGov Monitor, who reckon that rather than reward businesses for going green, Ol' Golden's policies imply that businesses who reduce their energy bills by installing solar panels, wind turbines and the like, are going to be hit with bigger tax bills!

"The Valuation Office Agency, an arm of Inland Revenue, is preparing to tax solar panels, wind turbines and micro-generation technology with higher business rates and council tax bills."

"a solar panel 'will never achieve a payback, but would be a continual financial drain on the company'. A typical wind turbine for commercial premises will increase the business rates bill by £1,350 a year, while a solar (photovoltaic) installation will mean an extra £2,700 a year in rates."

What the hell is going on? This is turning into an utter shambles! I despair at the inept capabilities and crass stupidity of our esteemed government. We are supposed to be encouraging the uptake of renewables, not bloody well penalising them!

And this on the day when a top UN official states that it would be criminally irresponsible not to tackle global warming!

'Peak Oil' plus 'Climate change' equals what?

Well, some quite frightening trends, and some scary scenarios, according to this piece from Saturday's Irish Times.

"Energy and climate change are now directly affecting the world's peace and prosperity. We have only a short time to cut oil dependence and slash carbon emissions."

Time for mankind to get its act together? Or too late to do so?

Could do better?

Despite recent improvements in the amount of waste that we recycle and compost here in the UK, and an actual reduction in what goes to landfill, we are still the dustbin of Europe.

The UK is still "throwing more waste into landfill than any other country in the EU."

It reminds me of the sort of comments you got in old school reports......... 'U.K. is making progress but needs to work harder to master the subject'.

BBC - You can never have enough dustbin headlines (Junkk Male addendum)

A Going Overboard Government

Yes, it's an acronym. AGOG. I think it is deserved: Motorists risk £60 fines for smoking behind the wheel

I don't smoke. But I do drive. And I do like to know what I can and can't do, so I can avoid doing the latter. This simply seems designed to create confusion enough to ensure a steady stream of revenue.

Because I am trying to grasp how these sentences, I presume provided by this country’s legislators and law enforcers, can sit together in a viable manner:

‘... inclusion of smoking ... as a potential hazard.’
“... the smoking reference in the code was an advisory one and it was down to the discretion of police forces...’
‘Transgressors could face criminal charges “if someone was deemed ...’

Is it or is it not LEGAL to smoke whilst driving? If it still is, then this seems to be a fundamental assault (and not the first) on the chances of any law-abiding person being able to understand the law enough to obey it, much less those in theory tasked to enforce it.

How can you face criminal charges on something that is advisory????

This is clear institutional anarchy.

Hot air. Spinning. Big bores.

Handed it to me a bit on a plate. Shame about the cliches.... mine), though: Wind turbine and tidal power in £20m green plan for Westminster

All I ask is that this is for real and not just for show. I am unsure if a 35m high wind turbine will work that well in Central London, no matter how bold a statement it may be, though along the river it just might. Tidal seems a lot more promising.

"It's a plant' - Or, how not to serve the cause of enviro-persuasion

Planted question damages Clinton in key primary state

It's not so much that it was done (I'd guess it is almost standard practice, at least between No 10 and the BBC) but, like Nixon, the getting caught. And being so clunky. And for such a god-awful question... but mostly for such a sad answer if it was 'prepared'.

Gaurdian - I'm glad you asked

All these messages. And where to stick them.

I was watching the Breakfast News this morning, and in an hour counted about three 'campaigns' for awareness.

One that struck home was something to do with disability, but mainly because it involves Aardman and its awesome animations. But mainly I sat there thinking just how much money had already been consumed rather than actually going where it might help. Especially as I listened to the dapper Director of Communications articulating his 'vision', doubtless outside a several storey Belgravia Office.

Beyond the amount of money going into sticking these in front of us at every turn, as a copywriter I frankly despair at the creative strategies and executions I witness.

See that pear ad? It was in the Sunday Times magazine today (guess how much that costs). It now has copy. Guess what it says: 'Sadder still, it could still be eaten'. Then a bunch of waffle about what food waste costs and a 'tip' (at last) about how to prolong its life: stick it in the fridge. Well, D'uh. Unless it's a banana, as that doesn't seem to work. Or bread. Which seems to go mouldy quicker.

I'm sure these exceptions are on the site, which I will of course share. Through gritted lack of funding.

The next was from the Grauniad. Some eco-energy effort that they have hooked up with. Ignoring the actuality of what they may be selling in competition to others, which seems not to trouble the 'supporting' (er, getting paid) medium, does that line have you, Mr/s. business person, rushing to sign up? Me, either.

And finally, a poster from my supermarket carpark. Inspired? Was I... heck. How much could this spend be better applied where it can DO some GOOD!

A week is a long time in plastic bags

It's a matter of almost biblical proportion. And so I read this: Sunday Times - Stores face ban on free carrier bags*

Last week, of course, was one 'in focus', so it was wall to wall. And, to be fair, tucked away in my magazine was a wall chart. Interestingly it highlighted a quote that stated the rather obvious point that was happening at present was more to do with making money before worrying about planet.

But we're all still at it. Government. Newspapers. Me.

See that first picture? That's today's mail. Half a dozen plastic bags containing stuff I subscribe to. (I also realised there are duplicates and am on the cancellation trail... assuming they will let me - often targets mean they are not keen on reduced numbers).

See the second picture? That yesterday's shopping and the week's plastic from mailings. Depending on whether I remember or not to bring my climate summit hessian tote, I now acquire about 3-4 carriers a week. Which get used as bin liners.

Against that there is a BINFUL of publication wrappers. All useless (though I have an idea on how to make them useful). Now I don't pretend to know the details of why they may or may not be needed, enviROI vs. ROI, but that looks to me like an awful lot of plastic bags I have seen not one squawk about from government or liberal media, with all their campaigning and protest and names and shames.

And just for fun, I have been sent a screed of stuff on a major consultation (it's in here somewhere) on it all by the London Assembly. How many people spending how much time on something of how much relevance at the expense of what else?

Shopping bag levy or ban in London?

Should there be a London-wide ban on the use of shopping bags? Or are Londoners prepared to pay for the bags they get with their shopping? What action are Londoners taking to reduce the number of plastic bags they use? And how can retailers minimise the impact their bags have on the environment?

These and other questions will be considered at a meeting of the London Assembly’s Environment Committee on Thursday 15 November 2007 at City Hall.

Committee Members will question representatives from the following organisations on how to reduce the number of shopping bags issued in London in light of proposals from London Councils to impose a ban or levy on all single use shopping bags in the capital:

· Friends of the Earth
· London Councils
· British Retail Consortium
· Carrier Bag Consortium
· Marks and Spencer
· Sainsbury’s

I know it's An issue, but is it really as big a one as this lot would make out?

* ps - small note on surveys. When I read this 'The move follows a six-week public consultation in which 60% of the 1,752 people who took part supported a ban', my eyebrow goes into orbit. What on earth does 'took part' mean? If it is 'could be bothered to reply', well, what did they think they'd say?

Stale Cream

I have a saying: 'Cream rises to the top; you can't push it'. I may have to rethink that: Quango fat cats reap the price

Recently our local prospective parliamentary candidate wrote in our local paper about DEFRA. He reveals it has spent £1.1 billion on consultants. And yet has managed to acheive almost sod all.

I still mind forking out, but wouldn't so much if the result(s) were any damn good!!! And there seems to be no effective way to get rid of them, leaving them clear to squander more and more, again and again.

Fat cat row over public sector pay

Some great, telling comments in feedback.

Slim down the fat cats

Peers help themselves to £300 a day tax-free

Indy - Pay for public sector bosses rises by 12.8 per cent

Indy - Gordon Brown's efforts to enlarge Blair's 'big tent' are beginning to backfire spectacularly - As much a Friend of..' as those he critiques, by enough smoke to indicate the presence of fire... only with no bright sparks. Just smouldering members.

Reader's Digest - November - Feeding Time in Quango Land - Sadly no link. I will write to them and post here.

Apparently, these things are set up 'to be the most effective and efficient method of conducting government business, and are closed down when no longer required'. Really? How many have been pensioned off? I use that word on purpose, because from the jobs ads I see in the papers, an awful lot look to be in it for a very long haul, golden parachutes included. Once folk are in public service jobs, they seem to be impossible to dislodge, no matter how unproductive or inept.

I also note 'Ministers are accountable'. Well, great. But how does one get a hold of the accounts to see how good they are at overseeing all this? How does one measure the ROIs on the bazzillions these guys spend? Especially when the order of priority seems to be self, bonuses, staff, offices and empires, before we get to comms budgets to drive up 'rates' that in turn are tied to bonuses, which just has to be a major conflict of interest at best. And that's before any money actually gets to doing something where it is meant to go.

My area of interest, the environment, is riven with such waste and squandering. And with no sign of a let-up. In just the last few weeks I have seen at least two 'new' campaigns doing roughly the same thing as each other, with different target-rewarded quangos at their hearts. They just seem to exist as highly expensive, rewarding (for those in them) game-playing entities with no sensible measures of value. And I can't see for the life of me see why, other than to create yet more layers of fat beholden to political masters come voting time, and perhaps a nifty unelected layer of protection for when the sh*t hits the fan and some compliant sacrificial goats are required to fall on swords for a huge payoff.

Only even this doesn't seem to apply as they all are hanging on for extremely dear life.

Pathetic!

BBC - Quango pays director's firm £2m - 'Nice work if you can get, if you can get it..'

Satisfying Sunday... so far

Though it serves to remind me to get in my shed more often and find new ones, this is still worth a share.

A long time ago our sink tap broke. And I managed to fix it, Junkk-style.

Since then I have also done the same for my Mum's, which had the same problem. Well, now the other 'side' of mine has gone. It took me about 5 minutes to repair. No longer do I have the MacD bottle, but I soon found another that had the same component.

RE:sult!

Enough's enough?

As one who has had two, I was attracted to this piece: Three's a crowd

I have to say we didn't stop at the twins through any great enviro commitment; in fact it was only their arrival that got me to embark on this journey. But even so, it was so wonderfully typical to see how an Observer chatterer could get one to being a 'modern Malthusian'. I am thinking of swapping Jedi for this on the next census or 18-page grant application 'we need to know ALL about you' section.

Actually I rather liked the simple mathematical logic described in the intro.

And, within the rest there is the odd interesting fact, such as this (if true): 'On your acre, can you grow all your food, absorb all the waste your lifestyle creates, have space for your home, recreational space, travelling space, provide the other resources you need and leave space for public services? Obviously not.' As I look at our half acre (mostly uncultivatable), that doesn't look too good when there's five (granny inc.) of us to sustain when the revolution comes or the bomb drops. I wonder what one does require? There's an attraction in having that land area (suitably stocked - including surrounding Claymores to discourage 'visitors') to hand as a fall-back.

In fact the whole piece is a fairly elegant roam around 'the issue', but really dips in, and then out, as do many of those who seem pretty active in stirring furiously in other, related e-areas the rest of the time, especially when it comes to the 'don't do that' invocations.

It all rather makes me think there are those who like flying about getting parachuted into high-profile local conflicts and winning medals for battles, but have no interest in winning a world war.

The future's bright, the future will be subject to change

I found this interesting on several levels - And you thought that the age of spin was no more

There's the fact that the media can be easily seduced, with checking, into publishing a story on something before it happens.

There's the fact that few, if any, seem worried it didn't happen after all.

There's the fact that those in senior PR at government level know this. Including the 'boss'.

The fact they don't really care what this all means.

And there's the fact that I only found it tucked away as a comment piece based on what seems an already forgotten opposition MP's campaign.

We're get what we deserve, I guess.