Or... here's somebodies we flew in earlier: Bono and Gore have an answer, not a solution
Eco(nomic) development vs. Eco(logical) preservation.
Hmmn. Tricky.
Sadly I have to agree that with a growing global population with some major concentrations about to make the leap from 3rd to 1st world (is there a second? I never seem to hear of that stage) status (with all the aspirations and consequences that will bring) I can't see the result being that great for the latter.
So, like many, I have a lot of questions, a load of answers... and precious few solutions (well, a couple that do try to involve motivating and doing, rather than depressing and berating) that at least that have a political ice cube's chance in the sheer hell of a Bali post-conference poolside cocktail. Or a refugee overnighting in a Davos storm drain.
Thing is, I rather suspect there are quite a lot of others in the same boa... er... cattle class... er... business... er... first... er... private plane seat, all with same lack of tangibles to provide. It does now provide a nice little earner for an ever-growing cabal.
But having too long been fed a domestic diet of 'not acceptable', 'needs looking at' and 'won't be easy' by those addicted to gobbling down and squandering funds into holes of various hues (most lately green ones on endless quango comms budgets to tell us to do stuff as consumers - or else - which the systems have not yet been prepared to accommodate to a decent enviROI+), I'm a tad tired with yet more pointless wittering from those totally isolated from any consequences of anything. And those camp followers chasing them about the globe with a vested interest in not rocking the gravy train, comortably along for the ride in the observation carriages
So I have to agree with such as Post 8, Mr. McGilloway, that whatever messages do get spouted, we need a new breed of messenger PDQ. Because if they have lost me, then what effect their 'situations' and how they get portrayed by the inevitable cynical mechanisms that exist (so you now need to work with this fact, which is why you don't hire Pete and Kate to front a health lifestyle campaign) in this modern age has on much lite-er greens can only be imagined.
One has to presume their sincerity and applaud their commitment (nice not to have to worry too much about paying the rent, mind, but hey), but it does seem that there are mental blocks in place in pondering if they are really getting things across to the masses in the best ways possible, and not just pandering incestuously more to their mates behind the VIP Green Room velvet ropes? Warm and fuzzy, to be sure, but not making my kids' futures look any rosier, I'm afraid.
So yes, these two talking about, much less commenting upon cutting back on lifestyle excesses does indeed seem a stretch to empathise, and engage with if you are more Fiesta Family than 'One of my other car's is a Prius' Person.
And they are more than pandered to by an equally illogical, nannying media, who seem to be operating on set agenda and box-ticking mode in trotting out anything 'green' without thought, and yet to see no irony in flying en masse to the snowy wastes to see if they can find a melting glacier, or Tuvalu to dip a toe in the azure rising waters and solemnly intone to camera...' and it's you lot flying EasyJet who are to blame.'
Acts. Together. Get.
Houses. In. Order. First.
And if not 'practical' as in Tony 'Well, y'know, it's not really practical for the likes of me not to... as I have a stonking mortgage to feed [like the rest of us don't]' Blair, then step out of the frame and leave it to leaders who can lead by examples worth following.
Until then, I reckon this lot are just knocking back even further the chances of any coherent, rational, public changes in opinion and/or consequent behaviour.
This addiction to 'awareness' without also thoroughly assessing overall consequences is looking increasingly more short-sighted and self-serving the more we get fed it.
ADDENDUM - I don't know if it is a Mac thing (it's better but not 100% on a PC), but the BBC site is woeful in getting replies through these days. Either an error message or rejection. And then, just for good measure, it either has missed or hasn't so you end up duplicating!
Friday, January 25, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Climate change denial adverts
Interesting to note that most of these examples of climate change denial adverts come from the motor industry in one form or another.
My fave is No. 5 - surely someone at EDF (or their ad agency) ought to have recognised the wonderful irony of using an image of the Easter Island statues?
My fave is No. 5 - surely someone at EDF (or their ad agency) ought to have recognised the wonderful irony of using an image of the Easter Island statues?
CATEGORY - PR COVERAGE - FoE
Also known as 'backscratching #101'.Noticed a surge in sign-ups, and lo, there is a reason; this nice plug from FoE in their 'Tip of the Day', a worthwhile daily.
Happy to return the compliment.
A debate worth having
I'm copping out here: SHOULD WE STOP CARING ABOUT GROWTH?
From the tag I have given it you'll see that it's an issue that needs focusing upon: (Eco)nomy vs. (when the naive hope would be 'with') (Eco)logy (well, Environment, but I'm playing with common spellings).
I don't know enough to really comment sensibly. The two do seem relatively hard to reconcile, especially in the face of growing populations, 3rd World countries turning 1st (is there a second?) and watching the coverage of Davos so hard on the heels of Bali. Apparently Al Gore is lobbing up.
So yes, a debate worth having. The conclusions will be... interesting.
I just hope they are worthwhile and don't represent an exercise in hamster-like wheel spinning that only serves those within the wheel who at least get paid to talk and report on the talking.
I just heard Aunty's reporter call them the 'Great and good'. Hmmn. The cars looked great and the bubbly looked good at all the parties, for sure.
From the tag I have given it you'll see that it's an issue that needs focusing upon: (Eco)nomy vs. (when the naive hope would be 'with') (Eco)logy (well, Environment, but I'm playing with common spellings).
I don't know enough to really comment sensibly. The two do seem relatively hard to reconcile, especially in the face of growing populations, 3rd World countries turning 1st (is there a second?) and watching the coverage of Davos so hard on the heels of Bali. Apparently Al Gore is lobbing up.
So yes, a debate worth having. The conclusions will be... interesting.
I just hope they are worthwhile and don't represent an exercise in hamster-like wheel spinning that only serves those within the wheel who at least get paid to talk and report on the talking.
I just heard Aunty's reporter call them the 'Great and good'. Hmmn. The cars looked great and the bubbly looked good at all the parties, for sure.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Switching Off
As many know, I hold Newsnight to a high standard.
Few serious, in-depth news shows remain, and even fewer give you a slim chance of the issues being challenged and discussed.
More often than not these days even they seem to have excavated below the base of the barrel in terms of trivia and are often almost rivalling BBC Breakfast News in the blonde and bouffant sofa set stakes when it comes to cringeworthy topics, one presumes in an attempt to broaden their appeal.
However I did not consider Ethical Man to be in that category. When it started it seemed a decent attempt to inform and debate, to which I often contributed.
But it lost its way a bit, especially when the reporter (and his family) seemed to become more important than what he was saying. And the needs of TV took precedence over the theoretical example being set. Flying to Jamaica to install a low energy bulb being just one rather dubious example.
And at the end I was more than disappointed. Instead of a rational round-up, the overwhelming feeling was one of 'thank heavens that is over'. It was portrayed as a rather unpleasant (Jamaica?) exercise in doing without that was disposed of like this week's refuse. Been there, done that, got the hemp T-shirt... and the promotion.
Were sharing environmental issues always so convenient to package, and then move on from.
Hence I was intrigued to see it reappear again, somewhat out of the blue.
And the topic was not one that had really excised me as barely relevant, namely the human remains element of composting (which obviously still does as a daily household task).
Is it legal to compost your loved ones?
It seems that some anorak has nagged him/them on a point of order, and so he/they (possibly as a requirement of charter) have replied.
It could have been a worthwhile addendum I guess, but came back more as a snipe. But for me, one small thing bubbled up again and made me see red.
'...after the demise of Ethical Man I wanted to move on. I didn’t want to let his shadow affect the rest of my working life...'
Is this just personal, or BBC-endorsed corporate practice after any piece or editorial regarding potentially environmentally sound practices by individuals?
It just rather comes across as a tad 'well, we only got all nanny-eco on you viewers for the programme at the time. That was then. Now there are new ratings to climb.'
So... all back in the 4x4s and off on the international bus... holiday jollies swigging imported water again?
That's the problem one runs into when some messengers undercut the value of the messages they claim to be promoting. Like a Spice doing 'Planet Earth Cool' one week 'for her kids' and hopping a Lear the next.
With luck any future promoters of what 'we' should (or was it always just 'could', a stance I'd favour but seldom how most finger-wagging ecoslots I see tend to come across: 'Ban all plastic bags - except composting ones of course, which only work in vessel and hence are no good in the back garden with Uncle's corpse - and buy a fashion hemp job from my mate's bijou shopette now!!!!') do for 'our' own good may inspect the story chalice they are handed from every angle before they grab the career-enhancing, if limited duration, profile it represents. And fully consider the consequences if not done for all the right reasons.
'Nice, middle class, middle income Yuppie journo dabbled in some cute eco stuff and found it wasn't much fun and cramped a lot of style, not to mention career and social avenues, and so quietly dropped it for the next in line to pick up equally temporarily as he headed to less carbon-friendly pastures'.
Like Mr. Cameron's wind turbine, it may be better to not do it at all than make it seem like a bit of a passing fad.
That is, if Aunty does really think there is a bit of a potentially man-worsened climate change issue it mightn't hurt motivating the public around.
Or is this 'do as we say, not necessarily need to do'?
On reflection I wonder if I was being totally fair. He was just doing his job, and mostly what he was told to do. But that's the point. There is a bigger issue here, and that is the media, and especially our national broadcaster's role in how we portray environmental issues.
On the one hand we have near daily nags and finger-wags and guilt-trips about how we as individuals are not doing all we can to save the planet, and yet so often when it is treated less superficially with a special or an in-depth report the science is so skimpy, the agenda so blatant and/or the reporter so flip that the whole thing just comes across as playing at it to score a cheap topical rating or to fill a target or box-tick.
And so very rarely are real-life, practical ways the normal consumer can do something and still have fun, maybe save some real money get portrayed. Possibly because they are often mundane, and hence not very televisual. Hence we don't get an investigation into why we have packaging that is 'compostable' but actually not unless it is at a special facility (which few will know) or what might happen if we all decided on back-garden loos, a health issue on par with planting Uncle I hazard.
It seems depressingly symbolic. Doing right by the environment seems to be 'so last year'. At least in the way those in the public eye are now coming across. Which is serving the cause poorly.
One reason I have not set myself up as a great example is that I may yet falter. And while what I am doing now is as good as I can be, the demands of career or social pressures may yet also drag me to do things that are not the best examples to set. But at least I have not been saying folk should be doing these things from a very high, but very temporary pedestal. With good reason. Many just don't seem reasonable, or practical, for the vast majority in modern life, and especially without first putting place much better mechanisms to help us.
So the next time we get some well-funded, camera-crew surrounded (it's amazing how the whole town turned out to help) extreme 'eco-hero', I hope those that create the concept bear in mind the consequences when the hero is revealed to be all-too human. Especially when it comes across as not mattering much anyway.
Few serious, in-depth news shows remain, and even fewer give you a slim chance of the issues being challenged and discussed.
More often than not these days even they seem to have excavated below the base of the barrel in terms of trivia and are often almost rivalling BBC Breakfast News in the blonde and bouffant sofa set stakes when it comes to cringeworthy topics, one presumes in an attempt to broaden their appeal.
However I did not consider Ethical Man to be in that category. When it started it seemed a decent attempt to inform and debate, to which I often contributed.
But it lost its way a bit, especially when the reporter (and his family) seemed to become more important than what he was saying. And the needs of TV took precedence over the theoretical example being set. Flying to Jamaica to install a low energy bulb being just one rather dubious example.
And at the end I was more than disappointed. Instead of a rational round-up, the overwhelming feeling was one of 'thank heavens that is over'. It was portrayed as a rather unpleasant (Jamaica?) exercise in doing without that was disposed of like this week's refuse. Been there, done that, got the hemp T-shirt... and the promotion.
Were sharing environmental issues always so convenient to package, and then move on from.
Hence I was intrigued to see it reappear again, somewhat out of the blue.
And the topic was not one that had really excised me as barely relevant, namely the human remains element of composting (which obviously still does as a daily household task).
Is it legal to compost your loved ones?
It seems that some anorak has nagged him/them on a point of order, and so he/they (possibly as a requirement of charter) have replied.
It could have been a worthwhile addendum I guess, but came back more as a snipe. But for me, one small thing bubbled up again and made me see red.
'...after the demise of Ethical Man I wanted to move on. I didn’t want to let his shadow affect the rest of my working life...'
Is this just personal, or BBC-endorsed corporate practice after any piece or editorial regarding potentially environmentally sound practices by individuals?
It just rather comes across as a tad 'well, we only got all nanny-eco on you viewers for the programme at the time. That was then. Now there are new ratings to climb.'
So... all back in the 4x4s and off on the international bus... holiday jollies swigging imported water again?
That's the problem one runs into when some messengers undercut the value of the messages they claim to be promoting. Like a Spice doing 'Planet Earth Cool' one week 'for her kids' and hopping a Lear the next.
With luck any future promoters of what 'we' should (or was it always just 'could', a stance I'd favour but seldom how most finger-wagging ecoslots I see tend to come across: 'Ban all plastic bags - except composting ones of course, which only work in vessel and hence are no good in the back garden with Uncle's corpse - and buy a fashion hemp job from my mate's bijou shopette now!!!!') do for 'our' own good may inspect the story chalice they are handed from every angle before they grab the career-enhancing, if limited duration, profile it represents. And fully consider the consequences if not done for all the right reasons.
'Nice, middle class, middle income Yuppie journo dabbled in some cute eco stuff and found it wasn't much fun and cramped a lot of style, not to mention career and social avenues, and so quietly dropped it for the next in line to pick up equally temporarily as he headed to less carbon-friendly pastures'.
Like Mr. Cameron's wind turbine, it may be better to not do it at all than make it seem like a bit of a passing fad.
That is, if Aunty does really think there is a bit of a potentially man-worsened climate change issue it mightn't hurt motivating the public around.
Or is this 'do as we say, not necessarily need to do'?
On reflection I wonder if I was being totally fair. He was just doing his job, and mostly what he was told to do. But that's the point. There is a bigger issue here, and that is the media, and especially our national broadcaster's role in how we portray environmental issues.
On the one hand we have near daily nags and finger-wags and guilt-trips about how we as individuals are not doing all we can to save the planet, and yet so often when it is treated less superficially with a special or an in-depth report the science is so skimpy, the agenda so blatant and/or the reporter so flip that the whole thing just comes across as playing at it to score a cheap topical rating or to fill a target or box-tick.
And so very rarely are real-life, practical ways the normal consumer can do something and still have fun, maybe save some real money get portrayed. Possibly because they are often mundane, and hence not very televisual. Hence we don't get an investigation into why we have packaging that is 'compostable' but actually not unless it is at a special facility (which few will know) or what might happen if we all decided on back-garden loos, a health issue on par with planting Uncle I hazard.
It seems depressingly symbolic. Doing right by the environment seems to be 'so last year'. At least in the way those in the public eye are now coming across. Which is serving the cause poorly.
One reason I have not set myself up as a great example is that I may yet falter. And while what I am doing now is as good as I can be, the demands of career or social pressures may yet also drag me to do things that are not the best examples to set. But at least I have not been saying folk should be doing these things from a very high, but very temporary pedestal. With good reason. Many just don't seem reasonable, or practical, for the vast majority in modern life, and especially without first putting place much better mechanisms to help us.
So the next time we get some well-funded, camera-crew surrounded (it's amazing how the whole town turned out to help) extreme 'eco-hero', I hope those that create the concept bear in mind the consequences when the hero is revealed to be all-too human. Especially when it comes across as not mattering much anyway.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
NEWS/GO3 PR - EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST
Next up we have News from the Green Party, which gets it in the GO3 category, but might need to be viewed in a possibly partisan light.
For now, my edit contents itself with a few highlights of the release as provided. I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas flying about, but certainly do recall cocking an eyebrow at the difference between setting targets and actual doing stuff.
So, remind me... how long ago was Bali?
EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST, WARNS GREEN EURO-MP AS COMMISSION FINALLY PREPARES TO UNVEIL POLICY PACKAGE
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, has called on the EU to
strengthen its resolve on climate change today, as the European Commission
prepares to present its long-awaited proposals on climate and energy
legislation.
Commenting on the proposals to be announced tomorrow, Dr Lucas said: “The EU
must ensure that it maintains ambition on its climate targets, so that this
new package – which already falls short of what is needed – does not prove
to be full of empty promises.
“In the proposals on emissions trading, Member States have committed to a
30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 – the reduction scientists agree is the
minimum necessary – assuming an international agreement is reached. The most
crucial aspect of the Emissions Trading Scheme for meeting the reductions
target is the emissions cap, which must be based on this 30% reduction
target.
“Sadly, the leaked Commission proposals show that the use of CDM/JI and
other external credits will be permitted towards even the 20% unilateral
target. This is in stark contradiction to the Bali decisions where the EU
recognised that keeping climate change to below 2 degrees requires
reductions at the very least in the range of 25-40% for industrialised
countries by 2020. Thus the EC runs thus the risk of rendering the ETS a
toothless instrument.
“At the Bali climate talks, the international community made a commitment to
achieve a comprehensive post-2012 climate agreement by 2009. If such an
agreement is insufficient to prevent unfair environmental dumping to EU
energy-intensive sectors, a climate levy should be introduced with the
revenue invested in a climate adaptation fund - or a requirement to buy EU
emissions allowances corresponding to imports from those sectors (from
countries without reduction commitments for the corresponding sectors)."
Furthermore, Dr Lucas criticised the short-sightedness of Member States on
the fledgling renewables industry and called for stronger legislation which
puts development of renewables at the core of energy policy.
"Member States have been balking at potential renewables targets for some
time now, but expanding renewables is not some punitive means of achieving
climate goals – it is a key means of reducing our dependence on imported
fossil fuels and creating jobs in Europe.
She continued: "Crucially, the target is based on final consumption, so if
you reduce consumption, the target will be easier to meet. Therefore energy
saving and energy efficiency are central to meeting the target."
On the specific EU target for agro-fuels, Dr Lucas concluded:
"The warning signs have been there from the beginning but there is now a
growing consensus among experts, even within the Commission, that agro-fuels
are not a panacea for our climate and energy problems. Worse than that, this
generation of 'biofuels' risks wreaking serious social and environmental
damage without delivering any real emissions reductions.
“The oft-discussed sustainability criteria are very difficult to enforce
and, based on current drafts, would not guarantee any net emissions
reductions in the short-term.
“The exemption from environmental sustainability criteria until 2013 for
biofuels produced by installations that were in operation in January 2008 is
completely unacceptable, as is the proposal that Member States cannot
determine their own broader sustainability criteria. The 10% target for
biofuels (by 2020) is already an anachronism. Member States must scrap it,
and replace their current biofuels policy with a more sustainable
alternative."
For now, my edit contents itself with a few highlights of the release as provided. I don't necessarily agree with all the ideas flying about, but certainly do recall cocking an eyebrow at the difference between setting targets and actual doing stuff.
So, remind me... how long ago was Bali?
EU LOOKS SET TO FAIL KEY POST-BALI TEST, WARNS GREEN EURO-MP AS COMMISSION FINALLY PREPARES TO UNVEIL POLICY PACKAGE
Green MEP for the South East, Caroline Lucas, has called on the EU to
strengthen its resolve on climate change today, as the European Commission
prepares to present its long-awaited proposals on climate and energy
legislation.
Commenting on the proposals to be announced tomorrow, Dr Lucas said: “The EU
must ensure that it maintains ambition on its climate targets, so that this
new package – which already falls short of what is needed – does not prove
to be full of empty promises.
“In the proposals on emissions trading, Member States have committed to a
30% greenhouse gas reduction by 2020 – the reduction scientists agree is the
minimum necessary – assuming an international agreement is reached. The most
crucial aspect of the Emissions Trading Scheme for meeting the reductions
target is the emissions cap, which must be based on this 30% reduction
target.
“Sadly, the leaked Commission proposals show that the use of CDM/JI and
other external credits will be permitted towards even the 20% unilateral
target. This is in stark contradiction to the Bali decisions where the EU
recognised that keeping climate change to below 2 degrees requires
reductions at the very least in the range of 25-40% for industrialised
countries by 2020. Thus the EC runs thus the risk of rendering the ETS a
toothless instrument.
“At the Bali climate talks, the international community made a commitment to
achieve a comprehensive post-2012 climate agreement by 2009. If such an
agreement is insufficient to prevent unfair environmental dumping to EU
energy-intensive sectors, a climate levy should be introduced with the
revenue invested in a climate adaptation fund - or a requirement to buy EU
emissions allowances corresponding to imports from those sectors (from
countries without reduction commitments for the corresponding sectors)."
Furthermore, Dr Lucas criticised the short-sightedness of Member States on
the fledgling renewables industry and called for stronger legislation which
puts development of renewables at the core of energy policy.
"Member States have been balking at potential renewables targets for some
time now, but expanding renewables is not some punitive means of achieving
climate goals – it is a key means of reducing our dependence on imported
fossil fuels and creating jobs in Europe.
She continued: "Crucially, the target is based on final consumption, so if
you reduce consumption, the target will be easier to meet. Therefore energy
saving and energy efficiency are central to meeting the target."
On the specific EU target for agro-fuels, Dr Lucas concluded:
"The warning signs have been there from the beginning but there is now a
growing consensus among experts, even within the Commission, that agro-fuels
are not a panacea for our climate and energy problems. Worse than that, this
generation of 'biofuels' risks wreaking serious social and environmental
damage without delivering any real emissions reductions.
“The oft-discussed sustainability criteria are very difficult to enforce
and, based on current drafts, would not guarantee any net emissions
reductions in the short-term.
“The exemption from environmental sustainability criteria until 2013 for
biofuels produced by installations that were in operation in January 2008 is
completely unacceptable, as is the proposal that Member States cannot
determine their own broader sustainability criteria. The 10% target for
biofuels (by 2020) is already an anachronism. Member States must scrap it,
and replace their current biofuels policy with a more sustainable
alternative."
CATEGORY - UK COUNCILS
The start of something... long, I'd hazard.
To tie in with the Junkk main site, I'll list as they come in by postcode designation
N1 - Islington
Main Site
Enviro-related
eyesmagazine - a littel bit of Junkk.com on the latest cover!
To tie in with the Junkk main site, I'll list as they come in by postcode designation
N1 - Islington
Main Site
Enviro-related
eyesmagazine - a littel bit of Junkk.com on the latest cover!
What goes around?
Here's a nice surprise.I was at a pre-Xmas event in London, and met a nice lady from Islington Council.
She was rather taken with my 'Green Santa' outfit and asked if she good borrow it for an event they were holding, and I glady agreed.
Well I just got it back and inside was a rather fun image in the form of the Council's eco-publication 'eyesmagazine', and look at the front!
This has now inspired me to create a new set of categories to help further my Blog/site cross pollination. Watch this space. In fact just read the next blog.
NEWS/Commercial PR - 64 per cent of Brits are wasting valuable energy by leaving home appliances on standby
Still getting into the groove of posting such things as 'News' without too much provenace checking or editorialising, but I'm getting there.
I actually owe these guys a product review* anyway, so here you go, hot off the press... releases. All due cautions/caveats for info posted as supplied.
Brits are wasting valuable energy by leaving home appliances on standby
People are still contributing to the four million tonnes of extra carbon dioxide emissions per year caused by standby power according to survey conducted by Bye Bye Standby.
64 per cent of the 1000 people surveyed said they have more than ten appliances plugged in at home at any one time. It has been measured that around 10 per cent of the average household bill is wasted through gadgets left on when not in use.
The survey also asked consumers to select which of the following appliances they think have a standby power (ie. washing machines, televisions, tumble dryers and dishwashers). The correct answer is in-fact that ALL of the appliances use a standby power when they are not in use.
Not surprisingly, the survey revealed that the majority of respondents (90 per cent) knew that televisions have a standby power. However, a large number of people questioned didn’t pick out some of the worst standby offenders. 77 per cent had no clue that tumble dryers can guzzle as much as 38 per cent of their power whilst waiting at the end of a cycle. Equally as confusing, 67 per cent didn’t regard dishwashers as having a standby mode – a worrying finding as most are turned on at the end of the day and left on all night. Washing machines can use around 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby, and in contrast 66 per cent of people in the survey didn’t even know that a washing machine has a standby power!
Not all products have an obvious standby power, which is where the confusion lies. If it has an external power supply it will use electricity even when off.
Here's a plug (sorry), as they deserve it:
Bye Bye Standby is an energy saving kit for the home which allows you to control appliances with the aid of a remote control. An innovative new web based system has also just been launched to allow users to control home appliances from a remote location via the Internet.
What appliances are the worst standby offenders?
Dishwashers left on at the end of their cycle consume 70 per cent of the power used when they are running.
The average television is left on standby for up to 17.5 hours a day. Last year Britain's 62 million television sets consumed about eight per cent of their energy consumption in standby mode.
Washing machines use just under 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby.
Tumble-dryers can use 38 per cent of power while waiting at the end of a cycle.
If lights were turned off when not in use it would prevent 375,000 tons of CO2 emissions and save £55million in bills.
There is little difference between the power requirement of digital receivers when they are being used and on standby.
Other appliances with high standby power are cordless telephones, radios and stereos.
*Meanwhile, you can always try Which?
I actually owe these guys a product review* anyway, so here you go, hot off the press... releases. All due cautions/caveats for info posted as supplied.
Brits are wasting valuable energy by leaving home appliances on standby
People are still contributing to the four million tonnes of extra carbon dioxide emissions per year caused by standby power according to survey conducted by Bye Bye Standby.
64 per cent of the 1000 people surveyed said they have more than ten appliances plugged in at home at any one time. It has been measured that around 10 per cent of the average household bill is wasted through gadgets left on when not in use.
The survey also asked consumers to select which of the following appliances they think have a standby power (ie. washing machines, televisions, tumble dryers and dishwashers). The correct answer is in-fact that ALL of the appliances use a standby power when they are not in use.
Not surprisingly, the survey revealed that the majority of respondents (90 per cent) knew that televisions have a standby power. However, a large number of people questioned didn’t pick out some of the worst standby offenders. 77 per cent had no clue that tumble dryers can guzzle as much as 38 per cent of their power whilst waiting at the end of a cycle. Equally as confusing, 67 per cent didn’t regard dishwashers as having a standby mode – a worrying finding as most are turned on at the end of the day and left on all night. Washing machines can use around 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby, and in contrast 66 per cent of people in the survey didn’t even know that a washing machine has a standby power!
Not all products have an obvious standby power, which is where the confusion lies. If it has an external power supply it will use electricity even when off.
Here's a plug (sorry), as they deserve it:
Bye Bye Standby is an energy saving kit for the home which allows you to control appliances with the aid of a remote control. An innovative new web based system has also just been launched to allow users to control home appliances from a remote location via the Internet.
What appliances are the worst standby offenders?
Dishwashers left on at the end of their cycle consume 70 per cent of the power used when they are running.
The average television is left on standby for up to 17.5 hours a day. Last year Britain's 62 million television sets consumed about eight per cent of their energy consumption in standby mode.
Washing machines use just under 20 per cent of their normal electricity requirement on standby.
Tumble-dryers can use 38 per cent of power while waiting at the end of a cycle.
If lights were turned off when not in use it would prevent 375,000 tons of CO2 emissions and save £55million in bills.
There is little difference between the power requirement of digital receivers when they are being used and on standby.
Other appliances with high standby power are cordless telephones, radios and stereos.
*Meanwhile, you can always try Which?
Ethics is as ethics don't
Is ethical marketing an impossibility?
I don't pretend to have fully thought through, and hence comprehended the full consequences of the literal semantics involved in joining the words 'ethical' and 'marketing' (pause to gulp down a breath), but allowing for a pragmatic acceptance of the realities of existing in a consumer-driven society I don't see why not.
Having gone through the whole ethical is/isn't/and/or/complement thing with Newsnight's Ethical (or did they mean sustainable) Man a while ago, the definition is a bit broad. Are we talking putting sweat shops completely out of business because they employ kids and it's better the West feels warm 'n fuzzy now than they get fed tomorrow, or advertising a hybrid Chelsea tractor?
Ain't easy. If it's planet saving I'd say flogging any new stuff at the expense of reducing, reusing or repairing it's hardly the best green option, but in reality some are better than nothing if they move us in a better direction.
I don't pretend to have fully thought through, and hence comprehended the full consequences of the literal semantics involved in joining the words 'ethical' and 'marketing' (pause to gulp down a breath), but allowing for a pragmatic acceptance of the realities of existing in a consumer-driven society I don't see why not.
Having gone through the whole ethical is/isn't/and/or/complement thing with Newsnight's Ethical (or did they mean sustainable) Man a while ago, the definition is a bit broad. Are we talking putting sweat shops completely out of business because they employ kids and it's better the West feels warm 'n fuzzy now than they get fed tomorrow, or advertising a hybrid Chelsea tractor?
Ain't easy. If it's planet saving I'd say flogging any new stuff at the expense of reducing, reusing or repairing it's hardly the best green option, but in reality some are better than nothing if they move us in a better direction.
Ok, it's been a tough day so far
It’s green Gordon versus Felix, the filthy rich forester
What we need is a few more breath's of pragmatic air like this around to make a real difference.
And it seems to be the individual entrepreneurs we need to turn to.
Like politicians and hence governments and LAs and NGOs, even corporations are more concerned with what looks good than does any.
Hence we have more going down in the name of green that is either sidelining major issues or possibly plain not making the planet better for my kids.
For an example of how complex it can be, see here:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
Maybe we need the likes of Mr. Dennis or maybe a Dyson to go the route of Google and fund genuine 'doing' ideas that are trying to make a difference, rather than the current crop of bottomless green pit quangocracies that are designed mainly to fund their bloated, self-serving infrastructures and comms budgets first before doling anything out to things that mainly tick the right boxes.
What we need is a few more breath's of pragmatic air like this around to make a real difference.
And it seems to be the individual entrepreneurs we need to turn to.
Like politicians and hence governments and LAs and NGOs, even corporations are more concerned with what looks good than does any.
Hence we have more going down in the name of green that is either sidelining major issues or possibly plain not making the planet better for my kids.
For an example of how complex it can be, see here:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html
Maybe we need the likes of Mr. Dennis or maybe a Dyson to go the route of Google and fund genuine 'doing' ideas that are trying to make a difference, rather than the current crop of bottomless green pit quangocracies that are designed mainly to fund their bloated, self-serving infrastructures and comms budgets first before doling anything out to things that mainly tick the right boxes.
Enter the Dragon('s Den)
In the next few weeks/months I face the prospect of dealing with potential BAs, VCs and/or direct customers at major companies. Dilbert understands.
A tale of two Macs
And what a tale it is. The good, the bad... and the ugly.
We have a rare case of genuine good design and service. Some rather less wonderful bits. And perhaps the most annoying... and telling example of corporate greed I can imagine.
The Good
See that picture? That what a very powerful computer came in. I was/am impressed. Not just what didn't need to go into the making of the thing, but also how little required to be packaged.
Also there has been the basic plug and play nature of the handover.
And finally the support. Free (for 90 days, local tel rates) and so far all problems solved
The Bad
The fact that it now won't work some old stuff that was/is still perfectly good.
The Ugly
The attitude of a software company, FileMaker, to this situation. I was going live with it and fester. Luckily, I had a vent source presented:
Guardian - Buy a new Mac running Leopard, or wait?
On a related issue, 'The quick tale of the £30 software that became several hundred', which does not reflect in my view well on the marketing policies of some companies and indeed can often have serious consequences to the environment. A few weeks ago I was mailed by FileMaker about Bento, which looked a nifty little bit of £30 Address Book software to add to my Mac Mini. Trouble was, it only would work with Leopard, and mine was a first model running Tiger. Ok... time for a software upgrade. Now it was an extra £100. Trouble was, Leopard was going to stretch the hardware capabilities of my aging Mini, so for various other reasons (more memory, USB 2.0, etc) I decided to get a new one. Trouble is... having gone through all that, guess what? My new Mac Mini running Leopard will not now run my current version of FileMaker. It would be funny if it were not tragic. Now I have come to accept, if not like, that if one wants to run the latest bloatware version of some software, you often need to upgrade to, and pay for the latest bloatOS taboot, to run it. With all hardware consequences. But this new wrinkle just miffs me. I have perfectly good software running perfectly well and my brand new machine is not backward compatible. And FileMaker's response? 'Tough! It's not supported. No upgrade. Start again. Buy v9... that's £250 please.' I'm sure Apple are probably not innocent in all this, but for what it is worth, and hugging a Redwood Tree as I write, the new machine is a honey, and while I did need the phone support several times to help the migration (bit of fun with the assumption that in going from a Mini to a Mini two monitors would magically exist on my desk), this was truly slick, along with the auto back-up Time Machine, which is awesome. Also, on a small eco note. I am looking at a packaging box about the size of two telephone directories with a bit of foam inside as big as last night's meal tray. I know Mac are not the highest on the green IT list, but to get a wee box tucked away on my desktop doing all I could wish with so little manufacturing and delivery consequences impressed a lot. Anyway, as I don't feel like giving FileMaker my continued custom, as they are stuffing me back to square one can anyone suggest an alternative database software I can put in my new Mac that will grow with me into the far future?
Times - Get a green glow in your home office - Spreading the joy
Writing about two sets of wrong
A top-sliced licence fee will trigger the BBC's destruction
'...the BBC, which is more loved and trusted than any government can hope to be.'
Everything is relative, I suppose. So an interesting defence position.
But I really wish those who enjoy our attention by virtue of where they are rather than who, and often seek/claim to speak for us (by claiming they 'know' what 'we' are thinking but usually are content to simply hector at instead) would stop this habit of making sweeping statements of fact that lack any valid substantiation.
For a start I rather doubt the whole country feels the same way about anything.
And now moving onto percentages, I reject the notion that a pol on a fact-finding tour surrounded by minders has any hope in hell of finding out what most average, working, licence-fee paying without option under threat of prison folk feel about Aunty than those they have on speed dial to pop into the studios from their North London boudoirs.
Parts of the BBC are great. Some of the BBC staff are great. A whole bunch else is/are not. And needs to change... or be changed.
'...the BBC, which is more loved and trusted than any government can hope to be.'
Everything is relative, I suppose. So an interesting defence position.
But I really wish those who enjoy our attention by virtue of where they are rather than who, and often seek/claim to speak for us (by claiming they 'know' what 'we' are thinking but usually are content to simply hector at instead) would stop this habit of making sweeping statements of fact that lack any valid substantiation.
For a start I rather doubt the whole country feels the same way about anything.
And now moving onto percentages, I reject the notion that a pol on a fact-finding tour surrounded by minders has any hope in hell of finding out what most average, working, licence-fee paying without option under threat of prison folk feel about Aunty than those they have on speed dial to pop into the studios from their North London boudoirs.
Parts of the BBC are great. Some of the BBC staff are great. A whole bunch else is/are not. And needs to change... or be changed.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Add a jummy you Yummy Mummies!
A bit of a big up as I read this: Patio heaters axed
In light of the eco(nomic) vs. eco(logical) dilemma faced, well done Ian Cheshire, B&Q’s chief executive and Wyevale Garden Centres.
They really are a tad hard to justify.
ADDENDUM - Patio Heaters, not DIY/Gardening Centre bosses:)
Indy - A waste of energy - Couldn't have said it better, or earlier, myself
In light of the eco(nomic) vs. eco(logical) dilemma faced, well done Ian Cheshire, B&Q’s chief executive and Wyevale Garden Centres.
They really are a tad hard to justify.
ADDENDUM - Patio Heaters, not DIY/Gardening Centre bosses:)
Indy - A waste of energy - Couldn't have said it better, or earlier, myself
NEWS/GO3 PR - Do you have a local hero?
Way hey! This journalism lark is a doddle when you just cut 'n paste press releases.
I can't keep saying the same thing about caveats and cautions every post, so in time we'll juts have to take 'em as read. ok?
Even if, as here, this time we are talking what, in theory, should be a more trusted, trustworthy and/or objective source.... HMG.
In fact I have created a new category for news from guys with such provenance, titled GO3, which is actually one of my acronyms from way back and stands for GOGOGO, from GOV, Local GOv and nGO. The last by the way, does include some with more obvious and less objective agendas, so should be viewed accordingly.
Anyhooo... here we go:
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling on communities across the country to identify the local heroes who they believe should be honoured by the nation.
Gordon Brown said:
"All of us know someone in our street or someone in our community who spends all their spare time helping others. They are always raising money for charity, running errands for elderly neighbours, coaching kids, or doing something to bring the town together.Carers, helpers, or just good neighbours, nothing is ever too much trouble or too much effort: they are the people who inspire us all, make our lives happier or easier, and make our neighbourhoods safer and stronger. And how many times do we say to each other: 'That person deserves a medal'. Well I think it is time they got what they deserved. And that is why I want us to see more of our local heroes presented with an MBE or an OBE by Her Majesty The Queen."
DETAILS
In this year's New Year's Honours List, more than 4 in 5 of all the OBEs and MBEs awarded went to people who have carried out valuable charitable or voluntary work, either as a career or in their own spare time.
The honours presented by HM The Queen are highly-valued. There are only around 2,000 awarded each year and only the most worthy candidates succeed.
Anyone is allowed to make a nomination - you do not need to be an official of any organisation. To find out how, go to http://www.honours.gov.uk, call 020 7276 2777, send an e-mail to ceremonial@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk or write to the Ceremonial Secretariat, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ.
Nominations are considered by the independent Honours Committees, and their recommendations on who should be honoured are announced twice a year in the New Year's Honours and HM The Queen's Birthday Honours.
The nomination process is very rigorous and can take some time. And unfortunately, because receiving an honour is rare, not everyone can succeed in achieving this special recognition, but that should not stop them being considered, and your local hero has the same chance as everyone else.
Now my distaste for the term 'hero' in such a context is well known, and documented here, so moving swiftly on... still seems worth passing on.
I can't keep saying the same thing about caveats and cautions every post, so in time we'll juts have to take 'em as read. ok?
Even if, as here, this time we are talking what, in theory, should be a more trusted, trustworthy and/or objective source.... HMG.
In fact I have created a new category for news from guys with such provenance, titled GO3, which is actually one of my acronyms from way back and stands for GOGOGO, from GOV, Local GOv and nGO. The last by the way, does include some with more obvious and less objective agendas, so should be viewed accordingly.
Anyhooo... here we go:
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling on communities across the country to identify the local heroes who they believe should be honoured by the nation.
Gordon Brown said:
"All of us know someone in our street or someone in our community who spends all their spare time helping others. They are always raising money for charity, running errands for elderly neighbours, coaching kids, or doing something to bring the town together.Carers, helpers, or just good neighbours, nothing is ever too much trouble or too much effort: they are the people who inspire us all, make our lives happier or easier, and make our neighbourhoods safer and stronger. And how many times do we say to each other: 'That person deserves a medal'. Well I think it is time they got what they deserved. And that is why I want us to see more of our local heroes presented with an MBE or an OBE by Her Majesty The Queen."
DETAILS
In this year's New Year's Honours List, more than 4 in 5 of all the OBEs and MBEs awarded went to people who have carried out valuable charitable or voluntary work, either as a career or in their own spare time.
The honours presented by HM The Queen are highly-valued. There are only around 2,000 awarded each year and only the most worthy candidates succeed.
Anyone is allowed to make a nomination - you do not need to be an official of any organisation. To find out how, go to http://www.honours.gov.uk, call 020 7276 2777, send an e-mail to ceremonial@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk or write to the Ceremonial Secretariat, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ.
Nominations are considered by the independent Honours Committees, and their recommendations on who should be honoured are announced twice a year in the New Year's Honours and HM The Queen's Birthday Honours.
The nomination process is very rigorous and can take some time. And unfortunately, because receiving an honour is rare, not everyone can succeed in achieving this special recognition, but that should not stop them being considered, and your local hero has the same chance as everyone else.
Now my distaste for the term 'hero' in such a context is well known, and documented here, so moving swiftly on... still seems worth passing on.
NEWS/Commercial PR - BAG A RECYCLED AD BANNER AT BANNERBAGS.CO.UK
Ok, part of the new 'sreamling'. And having slagged off major news media long enough for sticking up any old bit of PR they get sent as news, here I am doing the same.
Thing is, some are often worth a mention as a decent attempt at 're' or 'eco' something, and sticking 'em in a folder 'til I get round to it just isn't happening (literally). So I'll have to forgo the in-depth provenance check and hope it's all kosher. Not like soem better funded news outlets do much more. Eh, Auntie?
So here you go, with due caveats and cautions of enviROI advised, a cut and paste (maybe with a small edit or comment here and there) job:
Bannerbags.co.uk, the only UK manufacture of fashion bags crafted from recycled advertising banners, is launching a new range based on banners from Liverpool, European Capital of Culture events.
Including totes, handbags, sports bags, courier bags, weekend and laptop bags – all bearing the Liverpool European Capital of Culture Official Logo, the high quality accessories are made from wholly recycled street banners, and each item is an individual product that no-one else owns.
Paul Gilbraith, managing director, comments: “Thousands of advertising banners are produced for festivals, concerts and advertising campaigns using PVC and polypropylene, which do not biodegrade. Instead of disposing of unwanted banners in landfill sites, we turn seemingly valueless items into eco-friendly fashion. The result is a reasonably priced bag that most discerning fashion conscious people would like to carry.”
Gilbraith continues: “We’ve already approached five major supermarkets with our product samples and are keen to work with companies that manufacture or commission banners to reduce their carbon footprint and improve their green profile and profits”.
Seems a 'why not?' to me. Good luck to 'em. And knowing what's it's like approaching supermarkets myself... they'll need it!
But if the idea is good and all concerned make money... plus save the planet a bit better... why not?
Thing is, some are often worth a mention as a decent attempt at 're' or 'eco' something, and sticking 'em in a folder 'til I get round to it just isn't happening (literally). So I'll have to forgo the in-depth provenance check and hope it's all kosher. Not like soem better funded news outlets do much more. Eh, Auntie?
So here you go, with due caveats and cautions of enviROI advised, a cut and paste (maybe with a small edit or comment here and there) job:
Bannerbags.co.uk, the only UK manufacture of fashion bags crafted from recycled advertising banners, is launching a new range based on banners from Liverpool, European Capital of Culture events.
Including totes, handbags, sports bags, courier bags, weekend and laptop bags – all bearing the Liverpool European Capital of Culture Official Logo, the high quality accessories are made from wholly recycled street banners, and each item is an individual product that no-one else owns.
Paul Gilbraith, managing director, comments: “Thousands of advertising banners are produced for festivals, concerts and advertising campaigns using PVC and polypropylene, which do not biodegrade. Instead of disposing of unwanted banners in landfill sites, we turn seemingly valueless items into eco-friendly fashion. The result is a reasonably priced bag that most discerning fashion conscious people would like to carry.”
Gilbraith continues: “We’ve already approached five major supermarkets with our product samples and are keen to work with companies that manufacture or commission banners to reduce their carbon footprint and improve their green profile and profits”.
Seems a 'why not?' to me. Good luck to 'em. And knowing what's it's like approaching supermarkets myself... they'll need it!
But if the idea is good and all concerned make money... plus save the planet a bit better... why not?
One day, the machine will stop
That's a quote taken from John Gray's piece in Sunday's Guardian CIF.
I found the article quite interesting, mainly for the plethora of viewpoints that the usual gamut of posters on CIF bring, but also for Gray's analogy of our planet being an obese patient hooked up to a life support system.
"To some extent, technology may be able to replace the biosphere that has been destroyed, but, like an obese patient hooked up to an artificial life-support system, we will be living on borrowed time. One day, the machine will stop."
He also manages to hint at the policy that dare not speak its name.
"Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now."
Oh, by the way, you'll need a good 20 minutes spare if you want to read all the comments posted.
And, just for balance, as I found the article interesting reading, one poster terms Gray "a flip-flopper who has perfected an incredibly irritating style of writing which is best characterised as 'smugism' : statement of large philosophical beliefs expressed with loads of magisterial certainty, without any argument."
Ouch!
I found the article quite interesting, mainly for the plethora of viewpoints that the usual gamut of posters on CIF bring, but also for Gray's analogy of our planet being an obese patient hooked up to a life support system.
"To some extent, technology may be able to replace the biosphere that has been destroyed, but, like an obese patient hooked up to an artificial life-support system, we will be living on borrowed time. One day, the machine will stop."
He also manages to hint at the policy that dare not speak its name.
"Far more than fantastical schemes for renewable energy, we need to ensure that contraception and abortion are freely available everywhere. A world of fewer people would be far better placed to deal with climate change than the heavily overpopulated one we are heading for now."
Oh, by the way, you'll need a good 20 minutes spare if you want to read all the comments posted.
And, just for balance, as I found the article interesting reading, one poster terms Gray "a flip-flopper who has perfected an incredibly irritating style of writing which is best characterised as 'smugism' : statement of large philosophical beliefs expressed with loads of magisterial certainty, without any argument."
Ouch!
First, find your venue... pref: tropical
A long time ago I think I read about Paradise or Bust / Tribewanted.com, and may even have applied. Or asked to find out more.
Never heard back.
So, without reading up on it in detail and with little intention of watching (life is too short) I learn of the latest eco-initiative that seems to involve going somewhere (I presume by air) sunny, cutting down the foliage and setting fire to stuff . I guess saving the planet in Manchester lacks visual appeal (though there was that one in a rubbish tip recently, which was another massive hit. Not).
As it is essentially a reality TV show I guess it will get a certain media following, but I simply am getting fed up with unrepresentative efforts that are almost totally for ratings rather enlightenment or worthwhile information reasons.
Having lived on the equator for a while, minor matters like heating can be ignored. And if you are not working then travel and cooling are easily addressed. So it's down to eating, sleeping and finding a way to get rid of your waste with causing an epidemic. But then I'm presuming the population density isn't too serious either.
I'm sure it will pass a few weeks. But as any sensible mirror of how we live now and sustainably in the future....?
Easy to critique I guess, so maybe I should watch. But it is telling that when I hear of such things where once I was on board I now face the prospect with dread. I guess getting such coverage will help them no end and we'll soon see the terminals at Heathrow packed with other keen planet-savers.
Apparently, according to the BBC News, today is officially (though they also claim not to know who in officialdom made it thus, so one wonders how this slot arose) the 'lowest' day. We even had a chap they wheeled on who was promoting his several week programme to charge you to avoid it all.
Maybe the best solution to most ills would be to stop watching the idiot box.
ADDENDUM;
Times : It’s all tribal and strife in paradise - Having read this, I have softened to their intentions, but remain unsure as to the outcome or its value. It still seems to me more an idealistic activist and cynical reality TV producer's wet dreams coming togther, that will suck up and spit out the players, with little positive result to the planet, as claimed.
Never heard back.
So, without reading up on it in detail and with little intention of watching (life is too short) I learn of the latest eco-initiative that seems to involve going somewhere (I presume by air) sunny, cutting down the foliage and setting fire to stuff . I guess saving the planet in Manchester lacks visual appeal (though there was that one in a rubbish tip recently, which was another massive hit. Not).
As it is essentially a reality TV show I guess it will get a certain media following, but I simply am getting fed up with unrepresentative efforts that are almost totally for ratings rather enlightenment or worthwhile information reasons.
Having lived on the equator for a while, minor matters like heating can be ignored. And if you are not working then travel and cooling are easily addressed. So it's down to eating, sleeping and finding a way to get rid of your waste with causing an epidemic. But then I'm presuming the population density isn't too serious either.
I'm sure it will pass a few weeks. But as any sensible mirror of how we live now and sustainably in the future....?
Easy to critique I guess, so maybe I should watch. But it is telling that when I hear of such things where once I was on board I now face the prospect with dread. I guess getting such coverage will help them no end and we'll soon see the terminals at Heathrow packed with other keen planet-savers.
Apparently, according to the BBC News, today is officially (though they also claim not to know who in officialdom made it thus, so one wonders how this slot arose) the 'lowest' day. We even had a chap they wheeled on who was promoting his several week programme to charge you to avoid it all.
Maybe the best solution to most ills would be to stop watching the idiot box.
ADDENDUM;
Times : It’s all tribal and strife in paradise - Having read this, I have softened to their intentions, but remain unsure as to the outcome or its value. It still seems to me more an idealistic activist and cynical reality TV producer's wet dreams coming togther, that will suck up and spit out the players, with little positive result to the planet, as claimed.
On yer bike
Watching Minister Ruth Kelly (one who I really have trouble taking seriously on anything) as we speak advocating cycling (ok) and justifying a vast amount of money to make us do so (not so ok). Ruth Kelly launches £140million cycling fund
Rather interestingly, the reporter banged on constantly that she does not cycle to work, which really was not too fair, but inevitable. Her answer was not the best, namely that she needs to take the car to do work (so that's ok) and she has an eco-friendly one!
Like recycling, I see so much wrong with the practice of such initiatives, if not the principle.
Quite rightly, the issue of safety was raised as the most serious issue. I am sorry, but a bit of training is not going to make me feel my kids are any safer against the numpties on the roads these days. So on that basis it is a non-starter for this parent until they are a lot older and the lanes are protected (how I have no idea).
Also there is the issue of weather. In this country it rains a lot. Unless there are amazing levels of new facilities being created (in addition to safe storage... so how much is all this going to really cost, or is it just going on another awareness comms effort - like most recycling - that has no chance of being engaged because the advanced practicalities have been ignored and are not in place) such as changing rooms and showers, what is proposed or when they set off and get soaked?
Sorry, all mouth and no trousers. Again. But cute seeing a couple of munchkins wheeled on to trot out the memorised slogans, which for me made it even less credible.
Rather interestingly, the reporter banged on constantly that she does not cycle to work, which really was not too fair, but inevitable. Her answer was not the best, namely that she needs to take the car to do work (so that's ok) and she has an eco-friendly one!
Like recycling, I see so much wrong with the practice of such initiatives, if not the principle.
Quite rightly, the issue of safety was raised as the most serious issue. I am sorry, but a bit of training is not going to make me feel my kids are any safer against the numpties on the roads these days. So on that basis it is a non-starter for this parent until they are a lot older and the lanes are protected (how I have no idea).
Also there is the issue of weather. In this country it rains a lot. Unless there are amazing levels of new facilities being created (in addition to safe storage... so how much is all this going to really cost, or is it just going on another awareness comms effort - like most recycling - that has no chance of being engaged because the advanced practicalities have been ignored and are not in place) such as changing rooms and showers, what is proposed or when they set off and get soaked?
Sorry, all mouth and no trousers. Again. But cute seeing a couple of munchkins wheeled on to trot out the memorised slogans, which for me made it even less credible.
Non news is ? news?
This 24/7 news culture and its thirst for any bit of PR to fill its column inches and/or airwaves is getting beyond a joke.
As the father of two, whose on-smoking wife was/is teetotal but not averse to a cup of coffee or two, one has to wonder what next half-a*ed bit of maybe research will get trotted out, with varying experts saying it's anything from a disaster to no problem.
How we can have the threat of miscarriage on two cups go out in the same slot as a Doctor saying 'a moderate amount is ok' beats me. Is coffee (plus chocolate and colas) a baby killer or not? Trying to pin it down seems simply daft science and serves no one.
The net result is that the media spews out everything and ends up saying nothing. Which means we (well, I) just get unnecessarily disconcerted... and then do sod all about it.
As with most eco-pronouncements, it is a vain hope that the media could resist waiting until there is a definitive peer-reviewed conclusion, with coherent advice attached.
Fat chance. Oh, but speaking of fat...
As the father of two, whose on-smoking wife was/is teetotal but not averse to a cup of coffee or two, one has to wonder what next half-a*ed bit of maybe research will get trotted out, with varying experts saying it's anything from a disaster to no problem.
How we can have the threat of miscarriage on two cups go out in the same slot as a Doctor saying 'a moderate amount is ok' beats me. Is coffee (plus chocolate and colas) a baby killer or not? Trying to pin it down seems simply daft science and serves no one.
The net result is that the media spews out everything and ends up saying nothing. Which means we (well, I) just get unnecessarily disconcerted... and then do sod all about it.
As with most eco-pronouncements, it is a vain hope that the media could resist waiting until there is a definitive peer-reviewed conclusion, with coherent advice attached.
Fat chance. Oh, but speaking of fat...
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Today is the first Sunday of the rest of my blogging life
More pondering, sorry.
I've just completed the Sunday Times. I say 'completed' but it would be very inaccurate to say I read it all. I have certainly seen each page (except the Sports section, which is now ready to light the fire, along with several ad inserts), and indeed many have been torn out and lie ready to prompt me to hit the online page of the forthcoming week to capture links and maybe make a comment or two.
Thing is, it all took a good couple of hours. And while there were more than a few eco bits in there it has all become a chore, and frankly I question how relevant it is whether some sqillionaire has warmed his outdoor pool with ground heat or Audi has made a 27 litre diesel supercar. Not my zone really. Nor is it likely to be that of most reading here or surfing Junkk.com for a nice idea on what to do with their TV dinner packaging tray.
So I have decided to give the rest a miss. No Observer. No Indy. No Telegraph. So I guess I might miss out on how to offset my ski holiday by doing a Husky-swap with a Finnish family who are over to stock up on organic cheddar in one's farmhouse weekend retreat.
I think I still may keep up with some of the e-mailed dailies to stay abreast of a few things (frankly I can see most of the press releases I get at Junkk.com here reprinted in most, and pretty much verbatim), and when something truly relevant to moving the enviROI crops up add it to the pot.
SO I can then spend the time on perking up the bits that may help sell the site a bit more to the audience I really want to reach a bit better.
Mind you, once I can afford to get a bit of help I probably won't resist getting back in the sniping set again. It is, after all, quite fun seeing a pompous green balloon self-inflating at 1000 metres... and then trying to pop it.
I've just completed the Sunday Times. I say 'completed' but it would be very inaccurate to say I read it all. I have certainly seen each page (except the Sports section, which is now ready to light the fire, along with several ad inserts), and indeed many have been torn out and lie ready to prompt me to hit the online page of the forthcoming week to capture links and maybe make a comment or two.
Thing is, it all took a good couple of hours. And while there were more than a few eco bits in there it has all become a chore, and frankly I question how relevant it is whether some sqillionaire has warmed his outdoor pool with ground heat or Audi has made a 27 litre diesel supercar. Not my zone really. Nor is it likely to be that of most reading here or surfing Junkk.com for a nice idea on what to do with their TV dinner packaging tray.
So I have decided to give the rest a miss. No Observer. No Indy. No Telegraph. So I guess I might miss out on how to offset my ski holiday by doing a Husky-swap with a Finnish family who are over to stock up on organic cheddar in one's farmhouse weekend retreat.
I think I still may keep up with some of the e-mailed dailies to stay abreast of a few things (frankly I can see most of the press releases I get at Junkk.com here reprinted in most, and pretty much verbatim), and when something truly relevant to moving the enviROI crops up add it to the pot.
SO I can then spend the time on perking up the bits that may help sell the site a bit more to the audience I really want to reach a bit better.
Mind you, once I can afford to get a bit of help I probably won't resist getting back in the sniping set again. It is, after all, quite fun seeing a pompous green balloon self-inflating at 1000 metres... and then trying to pop it.
Babel
Just watched the Andrew Marr show. There's a new BBC service that let's you re-view (I think for a week) it here.
Now in line with my new notion of getting all philosophical, what struck me was just how much of what was trotted out, covering a wealth of rather depressing areas, could surely be put down to simple overcrowding and, possibly, by extension population.
That said, having lived in cities like Hong Kong, where population density makes London look like the moors, it is certainly true that there have to be cultural failings as well that lead to societal breakdown of the scale we are seeing.
But what really worried me was the ongoing total lack of quality when it comes to our public service leadership and those in the media they deal with, to actually say anything meaningful, let alone, true, or factually correct, such that one can get anywhere near forming an informed opinion on what is happening, what the people in charge think about it or what they plan to do. If I heard 'looking at' once I must have heard it a hundred times! I do not pay folk to look at things. They have had 10 years to gaze. And if it is broke it needs fixing. Not looking at any more.
So we had the likes of the Home Secretary and the leader of the Lib Dems wittering on about generalities and saying nothing. Or if they did it didn't compute or get caught up by the interviewer.
For instance, and it is telling that I cannot now recall whether it was the Labour lady or Lib Dem man who said it after just an hour, there was the claim that in an area of the country a young person would die 14 years earlier if poor than their richer counterparts.
Well... d'uh. Thing is, this was in relation to a conversation to the NHS. How the heck can a figure like that be trotted out on the specific area of health care whilst ignoring all other societal factors?
In combo none is a great reflection, but a poorer person is more likely surely to eat a poorer diet, perhaps smoke and drink more due to less guidance on the perils, have more exposure to dangerous drugs or be in the wrong pub at the wrong time or drive a car without ABS and an airbag.
It was a silly soundbite that spoke volumes... of mush. And it came from a national leader and stayed unchallenged in its simplicity and, I'd maintain inaccuracy, by a national broadcaster's supposedly top interviewer.
Nuts.
ADDENDUM :
Times - Jacqui Smith admits 'I won't walk down a street alone at night'
My main concern is that in an interview on a major BBC show (Andrew Marr), this was mentioned and she said it was not true that she'd said it [like this]. And I'm pretty sure the question was raised because of this article.
Maybe this might explaina bit: '...but the words are unquotable – the kind of robot-speak perfected by Labour ministers who never deviate from the script.'
But to the quote. Well here is the relevant section:
Would she feel safe walking alone at night in, say, Hackney, east London? She looks alarmed: “No. Why would I do that?”
Perhaps deprived Hackney is an unfair example – what about well-heeled Kensington and Chelsea? “No. But I would never have done, at any point in my life. I just don’t think it’s a thing that people do. I wouldn’t walk around at midnight. I’m fortunate that I don’t have to do so.”
Later an aide calls me fretting about these comments.
I can see why. The robot-speak actually had a short-circuit and a glimmer of truth came out. Allowing for editorial licence (and not very much in this case) it seems a fair version if that is how the interview went.
So how then was she allowed to fudge like she did? Either the Sunday Times was wrong or she was. And now it has all dribbled away. Not feeling very well served by my government... or media these days, sadly.
Now in line with my new notion of getting all philosophical, what struck me was just how much of what was trotted out, covering a wealth of rather depressing areas, could surely be put down to simple overcrowding and, possibly, by extension population.
That said, having lived in cities like Hong Kong, where population density makes London look like the moors, it is certainly true that there have to be cultural failings as well that lead to societal breakdown of the scale we are seeing.
But what really worried me was the ongoing total lack of quality when it comes to our public service leadership and those in the media they deal with, to actually say anything meaningful, let alone, true, or factually correct, such that one can get anywhere near forming an informed opinion on what is happening, what the people in charge think about it or what they plan to do. If I heard 'looking at' once I must have heard it a hundred times! I do not pay folk to look at things. They have had 10 years to gaze. And if it is broke it needs fixing. Not looking at any more.
So we had the likes of the Home Secretary and the leader of the Lib Dems wittering on about generalities and saying nothing. Or if they did it didn't compute or get caught up by the interviewer.
For instance, and it is telling that I cannot now recall whether it was the Labour lady or Lib Dem man who said it after just an hour, there was the claim that in an area of the country a young person would die 14 years earlier if poor than their richer counterparts.
Well... d'uh. Thing is, this was in relation to a conversation to the NHS. How the heck can a figure like that be trotted out on the specific area of health care whilst ignoring all other societal factors?
In combo none is a great reflection, but a poorer person is more likely surely to eat a poorer diet, perhaps smoke and drink more due to less guidance on the perils, have more exposure to dangerous drugs or be in the wrong pub at the wrong time or drive a car without ABS and an airbag.
It was a silly soundbite that spoke volumes... of mush. And it came from a national leader and stayed unchallenged in its simplicity and, I'd maintain inaccuracy, by a national broadcaster's supposedly top interviewer.
Nuts.
ADDENDUM :
Times - Jacqui Smith admits 'I won't walk down a street alone at night'
My main concern is that in an interview on a major BBC show (Andrew Marr), this was mentioned and she said it was not true that she'd said it [like this]. And I'm pretty sure the question was raised because of this article.
Maybe this might explaina bit: '...but the words are unquotable – the kind of robot-speak perfected by Labour ministers who never deviate from the script.'
But to the quote. Well here is the relevant section:
Would she feel safe walking alone at night in, say, Hackney, east London? She looks alarmed: “No. Why would I do that?”
Perhaps deprived Hackney is an unfair example – what about well-heeled Kensington and Chelsea? “No. But I would never have done, at any point in my life. I just don’t think it’s a thing that people do. I wouldn’t walk around at midnight. I’m fortunate that I don’t have to do so.”
Later an aide calls me fretting about these comments.
I can see why. The robot-speak actually had a short-circuit and a glimmer of truth came out. Allowing for editorial licence (and not very much in this case) it seems a fair version if that is how the interview went.
So how then was she allowed to fudge like she did? Either the Sunday Times was wrong or she was. And now it has all dribbled away. Not feeling very well served by my government... or media these days, sadly.
Less is, well, less, but with luck as good as it should be
There is a major spring clean stuttering along at Junkk Towers.
Mostly it is because, between the site evolution and the blog demands, there is simply too much going on for little old me to handle properly. And as I feel I am doing all poorly, until I can find, and fund, a way to do all well, the only real option is to cut back and do as much as I can better.
And that includes the blog.
I've claimed this before mind, and the addiction is hard to resist. And even as the backlog of simple articles and links worth having on the site extends to the hundreds, so almost all also are hard to resit commenting upon in some way. which currently is not simply possible.
So... what to do?
Well, on this blog you will, when I get a moment, be soon discovering some new, and I hope exciting interim plans for the site, many of which will also involve the blog, as I have mentioned before the interface here is now so superior to my site's management system it is easier to create here and import over. Not that I have been much... like a year. And having hit 3,000 for the opt in newsltter, I think a new one might be... overdue.
And all this does have a bearing on the blog.
I am hence planning to try and restrict myself to two main areas: the factual and the philosophical. By factual I refer to pure information, probably under category headings that you will have seen cropping up of late. Not much more than a link, attribution and maybe a line or two of top line opinion or a caveat or somesuch.
Then there is the more philosophical. This is musing on the overall scheme of things rather than much specific, though there will almost always be a story and/or link that has inspired.
Anyway, between with these two bookends from me and Dave's more than useful and welcome additions to any I might find it hard to resist to add inbetween I hope the blog will remain of use and stimulating.
If not, please let me knwo and tell me what I can do btter. Given time.
Mostly it is because, between the site evolution and the blog demands, there is simply too much going on for little old me to handle properly. And as I feel I am doing all poorly, until I can find, and fund, a way to do all well, the only real option is to cut back and do as much as I can better.
And that includes the blog.
I've claimed this before mind, and the addiction is hard to resist. And even as the backlog of simple articles and links worth having on the site extends to the hundreds, so almost all also are hard to resit commenting upon in some way. which currently is not simply possible.
So... what to do?
Well, on this blog you will, when I get a moment, be soon discovering some new, and I hope exciting interim plans for the site, many of which will also involve the blog, as I have mentioned before the interface here is now so superior to my site's management system it is easier to create here and import over. Not that I have been much... like a year. And having hit 3,000 for the opt in newsltter, I think a new one might be... overdue.
And all this does have a bearing on the blog.
I am hence planning to try and restrict myself to two main areas: the factual and the philosophical. By factual I refer to pure information, probably under category headings that you will have seen cropping up of late. Not much more than a link, attribution and maybe a line or two of top line opinion or a caveat or somesuch.
Then there is the more philosophical. This is musing on the overall scheme of things rather than much specific, though there will almost always be a story and/or link that has inspired.
Anyway, between with these two bookends from me and Dave's more than useful and welcome additions to any I might find it hard to resist to add inbetween I hope the blog will remain of use and stimulating.
If not, please let me knwo and tell me what I can do btter. Given time.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Taking from Peter to pay Pa... Choo Feng?
I have never really understood the concept of 'aid'.
The nearest I came was during the Live Aid stuff when it seemed all a bit dodgy. Rich folk gave money to poor folk to buy stuff from the rich folk. Seemed sort of OK, but somehow the poor folk seemed to still owe the money so ended up worse off.
So you can see my grasp of such things.
And I'm still grappling with it all.
Take today (link(s) to follow I'm sure).
Just watched a slot where our Dear Leader got away from the important issues of reporting on plane crashes (a classic bit of 24/7 media non-news scrabble where, after a few days, we have got no further than the startling notion that it hit the ground early by virtue of not flying any more) seemed to be saying that broke Britain is giving aid to the biggest and fastest growing economies in the world. Don't get it at all.
Now, somewhere in there is the worthy notion of our exporting (and getting paid for... but with our won money) 'expertise' in clean technology, but it all seemed a bit drop in the ocean and tenuous at best.
Meanwhile there are oodles of dirty great and just plain dirty coal fired stations still going up, and the 3 Gorges seems to be an eco disaster already.
I wonder what the Chinese for enviROI is?
The nearest I came was during the Live Aid stuff when it seemed all a bit dodgy. Rich folk gave money to poor folk to buy stuff from the rich folk. Seemed sort of OK, but somehow the poor folk seemed to still owe the money so ended up worse off.
So you can see my grasp of such things.
And I'm still grappling with it all.
Take today (link(s) to follow I'm sure).
Just watched a slot where our Dear Leader got away from the important issues of reporting on plane crashes (a classic bit of 24/7 media non-news scrabble where, after a few days, we have got no further than the startling notion that it hit the ground early by virtue of not flying any more) seemed to be saying that broke Britain is giving aid to the biggest and fastest growing economies in the world. Don't get it at all.
Now, somewhere in there is the worthy notion of our exporting (and getting paid for... but with our won money) 'expertise' in clean technology, but it all seemed a bit drop in the ocean and tenuous at best.
Meanwhile there are oodles of dirty great and just plain dirty coal fired stations still going up, and the 3 Gorges seems to be an eco disaster already.
I wonder what the Chinese for enviROI is?
Friday, January 18, 2008
All the 'news' that's fit to be... minted?
Newsnight last night seemed to have an odd set of priorities, if you look at some blog comments. I tended to agree.
We all seek the holy grail of a slot on national TV, but what chance do we have if those with deeper pockets seem to have magic ways to not only gain better access, but a pretty blank canvas handed them as well.
There has always been a fine, and difficult to navigate line between 'news' and 'current affairs'.
News is pretty simple. Stuff happens and your report it... who, what, why, where, etc.
Current affairs drifts into other territories, and much muddier waters (to mix my metaphors) once a product or service that is there to be sold (and hence can benefit from being seen and/or talked about) is involved.
While 'the arts' have always had a pretty easy ride (they are still flogging their wares after all), most still seems fair enough in the name of public information and/or entertainment.
But lately it does seem that a lot of PRs have a pretty direct line to the BBC's producers.
Especially those from the, much grubbier, corporate world. I was watching BBC Breakfast's 'business' section this morning, and there was some CEO so desperate to score just one more sale that whatever topic was being discussed he might as well have run a sales video. Even the presenter was embarrassed, if too late to intercede.
I even recall a while ago Sir Michael Rose was allowed on with a rack of garments and given public broadcast time to flog 'em for Xmas like some market trader.
Yes, there is a balance to be struck, and in return for a story about their stuff you do give an opportunity for profile. But really guys, are they slipping bungs out now or what? Or is it just sooo much easier (and in these cost-cutting days cheaper) to let your mates from the lobby firms pitch an idea, set up the meet and provide the script?
Maybe we need a story on payola rearing its profitable, if ethically-questionable head again. And even if no money exchanges hands, who knows what mutual back-scratching deals get done over a nice lunch in SoHo? On 'ex's, natch.
We all seek the holy grail of a slot on national TV, but what chance do we have if those with deeper pockets seem to have magic ways to not only gain better access, but a pretty blank canvas handed them as well.
There has always been a fine, and difficult to navigate line between 'news' and 'current affairs'.
News is pretty simple. Stuff happens and your report it... who, what, why, where, etc.
Current affairs drifts into other territories, and much muddier waters (to mix my metaphors) once a product or service that is there to be sold (and hence can benefit from being seen and/or talked about) is involved.
While 'the arts' have always had a pretty easy ride (they are still flogging their wares after all), most still seems fair enough in the name of public information and/or entertainment.
But lately it does seem that a lot of PRs have a pretty direct line to the BBC's producers.
Especially those from the, much grubbier, corporate world. I was watching BBC Breakfast's 'business' section this morning, and there was some CEO so desperate to score just one more sale that whatever topic was being discussed he might as well have run a sales video. Even the presenter was embarrassed, if too late to intercede.
I even recall a while ago Sir Michael Rose was allowed on with a rack of garments and given public broadcast time to flog 'em for Xmas like some market trader.
Yes, there is a balance to be struck, and in return for a story about their stuff you do give an opportunity for profile. But really guys, are they slipping bungs out now or what? Or is it just sooo much easier (and in these cost-cutting days cheaper) to let your mates from the lobby firms pitch an idea, set up the meet and provide the script?
Maybe we need a story on payola rearing its profitable, if ethically-questionable head again. And even if no money exchanges hands, who knows what mutual back-scratching deals get done over a nice lunch in SoHo? On 'ex's, natch.
Share and share... not alike?
Still smarting a bit from being told that I wasn't going to get any NGO-assistance to move to a revenue-generating model because... I didn't yet have enough revenues.
That's up there with the one a few years ago that rejected my application because it was 'too left filed and nothing like it had be doen before'. It's name? The Creative Innovation Fund.
I was pondering this as I watched today's BBC Breakfast local/Midlands section, with a report on a Birmingham Council carshare initiative (no link I can find, thanks to the woeful BBC online search - subject to confirmation, it might be referring to this).
Any road up, seems that this initiative has been in place a while now (and I'm betting with a few more folk and a few more involved than any that has come my solo, mostly self-funded way), and has netted... 60 sign-ups. This puts me in mind of a press release for a national green online effort recently that was trumpeting 50,000 monthly hits . That's... not great, bearing in mind I'm gunning for 500,000 unique visitors, which is a lot different (and tougher) measure.
The platitude offered was that such things are 'slow-burners'. Well yes, that's what I have been saying about us, but this slow burner seems to be doing a lot better than many, yet can't get arrested, yet bazillions get poured down green holes to a very questionable enviROI+ degree at the drop of an inter-departmental hat... er.. memo.
The even more annoying thing is that I have in the wings tripsplitters, which is a whole new take on car sharing that I really think could work and make some serious money, and acts in complement to the Junkk.com local postcode facility.
To get this off the ground I would need help, mainly in time (but that is, at the end of the day, still money). But considering the effort to reward ratio of applying for help from these bodies, and where their heads are at as to what you get and how they connect you with the right folk to help the ideas person turn it into a business, I am not so keen any more.
If ever there was a system designed to drain the creative soul out of an innovator, these seem to be perfectly crafted for the task.
That's up there with the one a few years ago that rejected my application because it was 'too left filed and nothing like it had be doen before'. It's name? The Creative Innovation Fund.
I was pondering this as I watched today's BBC Breakfast local/Midlands section, with a report on a Birmingham Council carshare initiative (no link I can find, thanks to the woeful BBC online search - subject to confirmation, it might be referring to this).
Any road up, seems that this initiative has been in place a while now (and I'm betting with a few more folk and a few more involved than any that has come my solo, mostly self-funded way), and has netted... 60 sign-ups. This puts me in mind of a press release for a national green online effort recently that was trumpeting 50,000 monthly hits . That's... not great, bearing in mind I'm gunning for 500,000 unique visitors, which is a lot different (and tougher) measure.
The platitude offered was that such things are 'slow-burners'. Well yes, that's what I have been saying about us, but this slow burner seems to be doing a lot better than many, yet can't get arrested, yet bazillions get poured down green holes to a very questionable enviROI+ degree at the drop of an inter-departmental hat... er.. memo.
The even more annoying thing is that I have in the wings tripsplitters, which is a whole new take on car sharing that I really think could work and make some serious money, and acts in complement to the Junkk.com local postcode facility.
To get this off the ground I would need help, mainly in time (but that is, at the end of the day, still money). But considering the effort to reward ratio of applying for help from these bodies, and where their heads are at as to what you get and how they connect you with the right folk to help the ideas person turn it into a business, I am not so keen any more.
If ever there was a system designed to drain the creative soul out of an innovator, these seem to be perfectly crafted for the task.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
For every snake... a ladder
I think I'm losing my touch with funders. Another bites the dust:(
This one also looked promising, as it was a local (well, regional) award designed to offer creative/media enterprises a chance to run a feasibility study on what they could do to improve revenues.
Now if ever there was something Junkk.com could do with, that was just what the doctor ordered! We've awards up the whazoo, tripping over nice PR at every turn... but... no major advertisers... yet. And there's no doubt the site needs a spring clean.
And again with the funding types the sticking point seemed to be I didn't already have what I was applying for the funding to put in place to get. Frankly if I was well on the way to having my media sales act together I really wouldn't need to bother with such funding. It's always welcome and gratefully-received, but is one heck of a lot of effort often for not that much to warrant what goes in.
And in this case a lot did. Not just from me, but the consultancy I'd selected to help me knock the site media structure into shape and kick-start some sensible ad sales efforts on top.
So I was feeling pretty glum when I had to share with them the sad news that I was getting anything and couldn't afford to do it on my own.
So imagine how it perked me up to find they hadn't just shrugged their shoulders and moved on, but decided to do a bit more on Junkk.com's behalf spreading a few nice words around, simply because they saw/still see merit in what we're up to. Plus a few more than useful poniters on what might be doen to move things along.
Naturally, with such belief in place they will be the first I call when I do have the money for such expertise.
So, if you are ever in need of some new media specialists, I'd be happy to not only recommend the skills sets and professionalism on offer, but also the commitment of Generator.
Tell 'em Peter sent you. But please, make sure you have a budget first!
This one also looked promising, as it was a local (well, regional) award designed to offer creative/media enterprises a chance to run a feasibility study on what they could do to improve revenues.
Now if ever there was something Junkk.com could do with, that was just what the doctor ordered! We've awards up the whazoo, tripping over nice PR at every turn... but... no major advertisers... yet. And there's no doubt the site needs a spring clean.
And again with the funding types the sticking point seemed to be I didn't already have what I was applying for the funding to put in place to get. Frankly if I was well on the way to having my media sales act together I really wouldn't need to bother with such funding. It's always welcome and gratefully-received, but is one heck of a lot of effort often for not that much to warrant what goes in.
And in this case a lot did. Not just from me, but the consultancy I'd selected to help me knock the site media structure into shape and kick-start some sensible ad sales efforts on top.
So I was feeling pretty glum when I had to share with them the sad news that I was getting anything and couldn't afford to do it on my own.
So imagine how it perked me up to find they hadn't just shrugged their shoulders and moved on, but decided to do a bit more on Junkk.com's behalf spreading a few nice words around, simply because they saw/still see merit in what we're up to. Plus a few more than useful poniters on what might be doen to move things along.
Naturally, with such belief in place they will be the first I call when I do have the money for such expertise.
So, if you are ever in need of some new media specialists, I'd be happy to not only recommend the skills sets and professionalism on offer, but also the commitment of Generator.
Tell 'em Peter sent you. But please, make sure you have a budget first!
Who's in charge of the who should be in charge brigade?
Here's an interesting post: Bypassing the blockage of nations
As much for what is written as the answers it has already acquired.
As one who has long maintained that who we have in charge don't seem to be 'fit for purpose', the notion of of a change seems attractive. However this seems to err more on hiring yet more.... as well as. Not a course I'd honestly favour.
Nice that such issues are being pondered, mind.
As much for what is written as the answers it has already acquired.
As one who has long maintained that who we have in charge don't seem to be 'fit for purpose', the notion of of a change seems attractive. However this seems to err more on hiring yet more.... as well as. Not a course I'd honestly favour.
Nice that such issues are being pondered, mind.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Bluebirds over?
We are getting a few climate-related stories at the mo'. Some credible and worrying. Some... less credible and even more worrying because of what fall might follow the set up: 'Big climate impact' on UK coasts
I don't know, so I merely ask, but this - The coasts of Britain, especially England, are being eroded - seems hard to relate to this - Climate change is having a major impact on Britain's coast, the seas around the coast, and the life in those seas, a government-sponsored report concludes.
At least, from what I read here. I would have thought that erosion was a simple fact of geological life, be it by wind or water. Hence my being one of those dubious by folk gunning for compo when they bought their property on the edge without pondering (or getting a survey) what might happen as time passes.
The key is the extent.
That has not come across to me as well as it should. And hence allows some to mock as alarmist what is in fact an ongoing process.
I read on to find out more on how and where seas 'are becoming more violent', but though there was a lot else could not find anything much to back up this claim.
Surely if that is the main issue, it would help to substantiate it better? I roesume such data exists.
ps: I also didn't know until recently that the wartime song was penned by an American, and there are in fact no bluebirds in the UK.
I don't know, so I merely ask, but this - The coasts of Britain, especially England, are being eroded - seems hard to relate to this - Climate change is having a major impact on Britain's coast, the seas around the coast, and the life in those seas, a government-sponsored report concludes.
At least, from what I read here. I would have thought that erosion was a simple fact of geological life, be it by wind or water. Hence my being one of those dubious by folk gunning for compo when they bought their property on the edge without pondering (or getting a survey) what might happen as time passes.
The key is the extent.
That has not come across to me as well as it should. And hence allows some to mock as alarmist what is in fact an ongoing process.
I read on to find out more on how and where seas 'are becoming more violent', but though there was a lot else could not find anything much to back up this claim.
Surely if that is the main issue, it would help to substantiate it better? I roesume such data exists.
ps: I also didn't know until recently that the wartime song was penned by an American, and there are in fact no bluebirds in the UK.
Reporting news, or influencing... making policy?
It's a fine line. I have long considered Newsnight to be one of the few credible broadcast news shows left, but of late there's a lot that really makes me think another media plot is being lost.First up is a rather odd notion of balance when it comes to their reporting of various members of various political parties not, as such, following various rules. A quick look at the show blog will see how this is going down. I, for one, was not ' glued to my seat ' on the rather minor distraction of the opposition party's possible admin/reporting failures, but a tad more interested in the role of a government Minister in setting up a shell company to conceal massive loans to come almost last in a key, if internal, election.
But as I was pondering the ever more defiant and desperate bunker-bulletins coming out of Auntie to try and prop up their editorial and journalistic standards, I happened across this, by way of a bit of news: Newsnight report leads to cotton ban
It struck a chord, because a wee while ago I cut out an ad about cotton, which bearing in mind the client was unsurprisingly upbeat.
Now, I don't know much about it, but I have this notion that it's not that great a crop eco-wise. For one, I believe (subject to confirmation) that it is water intensives. Hence a mission is embarked upon.
And this piece will form part.
Thing is, while I can appreciate the information, the whole ethical thing comes across just a tad to smugly as another luvvie ban-fest. Which in my book cannot be good unless the complexities are are all ironed out, as to assuage Western guilt in one small area can often have major negative influences in all sorts of others.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Ethanol from household waste and old tyres?
Seems like a good day for interesting developments so far. This one from motortorque.com reports how general motors and Coskata have signed an agreement to utilise Coskata's technology to "derive cellulosic ethanol from household waste, wood, plastic bottles and old tyres using bacteria."
They "believe the process is cleaner than using crops - with one study claiming that study cellulosic ethanol up to 90% less greenhouse gas than petrol and 30% cheaper to produce." "The company says it can turn four tyres into seven gallons of ethanol and two bales of hay into five gallons for under $1 per gallon."Sounds a lot better than turning corn into ethanol to me. There are an awful lot of used tyres lying around our planet and anything that can turn household waste into a potentially useful fuel has surely got to be better than dumping it into landfill?
They "believe the process is cleaner than using crops - with one study claiming that study cellulosic ethanol up to 90% less greenhouse gas than petrol and 30% cheaper to produce." "The company says it can turn four tyres into seven gallons of ethanol and two bales of hay into five gallons for under $1 per gallon."Sounds a lot better than turning corn into ethanol to me. There are an awful lot of used tyres lying around our planet and anything that can turn household waste into a potentially useful fuel has surely got to be better than dumping it into landfill?
Another new technology ......
.... that just might be a major breakthrough. Introducing the LETG (Light Electric & Thermal Generator), which appears to be a combined hybrid PV (Photovoltaic cell) and thermal energy capture (much like Solar Water Heating arrays) device. See Global Warming Solutions.
"The LETG captures and stores sunlight using a hybrid module design that differs from previous combination module devices, making possible the year-round production of thermal and electric energy. Its spectral-selective thermal liquid circulates on the reception surface of a photoelectric circuit, which makes it possible to increase the quantity and to change the quality of incident solar radiation spectral distribution as well as carry out the thermal energy recovery with minimum loss. To put its potential power in perspective, the LETG can increase electric power 250% and thermal output by 170%."
Their press release (via Fox Business News) claims - "Global Warming Solutions, Inc. ....... today announced successful testing of novel, hybrid (heat and electricity generation) solar modules created for the LETG (Light Electric Thermal Generator) project. The combined energy efficiency of the modules reached values of 85%, even exceeding energy harvesting efficiency of green plants."
Considering that most current photovoltaics are considered to be outstanding when achieving anything approaching 20% efficiency, that's one hell of a set of claims. I will await with interest to see what commercialisation of this technology brings.
"The LETG captures and stores sunlight using a hybrid module design that differs from previous combination module devices, making possible the year-round production of thermal and electric energy. Its spectral-selective thermal liquid circulates on the reception surface of a photoelectric circuit, which makes it possible to increase the quantity and to change the quality of incident solar radiation spectral distribution as well as carry out the thermal energy recovery with minimum loss. To put its potential power in perspective, the LETG can increase electric power 250% and thermal output by 170%."
Their press release (via Fox Business News) claims - "Global Warming Solutions, Inc. ....... today announced successful testing of novel, hybrid (heat and electricity generation) solar modules created for the LETG (Light Electric Thermal Generator) project. The combined energy efficiency of the modules reached values of 85%, even exceeding energy harvesting efficiency of green plants."
Considering that most current photovoltaics are considered to be outstanding when achieving anything approaching 20% efficiency, that's one hell of a set of claims. I will await with interest to see what commercialisation of this technology brings.
UK facing stringent renewables targets
This from the Financial Times (you need to register [free] to read the entire article) suggests that the EU targets that the UK will receive next week are going to be pretty tough to meet.
"officials in Brussels and Whitehall have told the Financial Times that Britain will have to increase its use of renewables as a share of all energy use from about 2 per cent to 13-14 per cent by the end of the next decade."
"Britain has the lowest renewables share of any major EU country: only Malta and Luxembourg have less."
Given that Tony Blair was warned that his agreement to the overall 20% target by 2020 was unachievable, this could get very interesting. "Mr Blair was warned by the former Department of Trade and Industry that the scheme was unachievable and costly, but he overruled ministers."
I wonder what the level of fines the UK is going to have to pay for failing to meet the targets will be?
"officials in Brussels and Whitehall have told the Financial Times that Britain will have to increase its use of renewables as a share of all energy use from about 2 per cent to 13-14 per cent by the end of the next decade."
"Britain has the lowest renewables share of any major EU country: only Malta and Luxembourg have less."
Given that Tony Blair was warned that his agreement to the overall 20% target by 2020 was unachievable, this could get very interesting. "Mr Blair was warned by the former Department of Trade and Industry that the scheme was unachievable and costly, but he overruled ministers."
I wonder what the level of fines the UK is going to have to pay for failing to meet the targets will be?
Seen, but heard enough? And by the right people?
Further to my last post, it's telling that I almost skimmed over this: Founder of bottled water company honoured for work in Third World
I wouldn't call it 'tucked away', but considering what it was/is it will be interesting to see how much coverage this gets elsewhere.
I know a bit about it because I entered myself. Junkk.com and RE:tie. I think we qualified: Its model and eco-friendly bottle technology are highly replicable – one of the key criteria for the judging panel.
Obviously not even close and no cigar here (I am still looking for 'wealthy benefactors'... who may also help with the business side I am so woeful at, plus perhaps knowing a few more of the 'right' folk), but the winner is deserving. Not so sure about some of the other, usual suspects. No probelm with something good that does the job getting lauded, and often, but often it seesm that nominees and winners are more on the basis of familiarity than seeking new possibilities.... who may need and deserve the profile and/or money to get going more.
I am also intrigued as to who constitutes 'the community of 120 social entrepreneurship winners, who will meet before the World Economic forum at Davos next week', and how they were deemed to be so.
ps: On another topic, note this: '...or commercially composted back to soil in just eight weeks.' Which means popping it in your back garden ain't going to do it. Who the heck knows this, and hence does whatever is necessary with whoever can help to actually make it work properly? Surely the disposal system should be addressed to a satisfactory degree before getting too excited by the thing that may be disposed. Or not. Otherwise it's useless.
I wouldn't call it 'tucked away', but considering what it was/is it will be interesting to see how much coverage this gets elsewhere.
I know a bit about it because I entered myself. Junkk.com and RE:tie. I think we qualified: Its model and eco-friendly bottle technology are highly replicable – one of the key criteria for the judging panel.
Obviously not even close and no cigar here (I am still looking for 'wealthy benefactors'... who may also help with the business side I am so woeful at, plus perhaps knowing a few more of the 'right' folk), but the winner is deserving. Not so sure about some of the other, usual suspects. No probelm with something good that does the job getting lauded, and often, but often it seesm that nominees and winners are more on the basis of familiarity than seeking new possibilities.... who may need and deserve the profile and/or money to get going more.
I am also intrigued as to who constitutes 'the community of 120 social entrepreneurship winners, who will meet before the World Economic forum at Davos next week', and how they were deemed to be so.
ps: On another topic, note this: '...or commercially composted back to soil in just eight weeks.' Which means popping it in your back garden ain't going to do it. Who the heck knows this, and hence does whatever is necessary with whoever can help to actually make it work properly? Surely the disposal system should be addressed to a satisfactory degree before getting too excited by the thing that may be disposed. Or not. Otherwise it's useless.
Stretch to fit
I am all for positives, but some do stretch things a tad: Defra hails 'positive green' readers
The up side is that one in five of the population are 'positive greens', though the definition requires an eyebrow cock between self-perception, research definition and actual enviROI+ behaviour.
Where I am a little intrigued is the the leap from the Indy's readership that I believe numbers a few hundred thousand.
Sounds an interesting report and I'd like to see it. Odd that I have never heard of it 'til now, and it is not linked to.
Actually, many of the subsequent insights were/are very telling, and frankly deserve greater consideration.
I leave you with this: 'Some people in the greenest categories have higher carbon footprints than others because of their high incomes'. Mainly Indy readers and BBC employees and supporters, I'd hazard all now planning their next skiing trips along with the next ban-it campaign for some minor enviro-nuisance.
It all rather smacks of being happier with looking good rather than doing it to me.
The up side is that one in five of the population are 'positive greens', though the definition requires an eyebrow cock between self-perception, research definition and actual enviROI+ behaviour.
Where I am a little intrigued is the the leap from the Indy's readership that I believe numbers a few hundred thousand.
Sounds an interesting report and I'd like to see it. Odd that I have never heard of it 'til now, and it is not linked to.
Actually, many of the subsequent insights were/are very telling, and frankly deserve greater consideration.
I leave you with this: 'Some people in the greenest categories have higher carbon footprints than others because of their high incomes'. Mainly Indy readers and BBC employees and supporters, I'd hazard all now planning their next skiing trips along with the next ban-it campaign for some minor enviro-nuisance.
It all rather smacks of being happier with looking good rather than doing it to me.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Biofuels not a silver bullet
"Biofuels risk failing to deliver significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from transport and could even be environmentally damaging unless the Government puts the right policies in place"
That's from a report issued by the Royal Society which warns that "without the right support, including of the research and development community, there is a risk that we will miss out on developing the biofuels that could bring greater benefits and that we could become locked in to using inefficient biofuels."
Let's hope that our government, for once, listens, takes note, and acts accordingly. The crazy subsidies that the US government put in place for the production of ethanol from corn has already started to cause a disaster. I hope our lot can learn from that. It's not too much to ask, is it?
That's from a report issued by the Royal Society which warns that "without the right support, including of the research and development community, there is a risk that we will miss out on developing the biofuels that could bring greater benefits and that we could become locked in to using inefficient biofuels."
Let's hope that our government, for once, listens, takes note, and acts accordingly. The crazy subsidies that the US government put in place for the production of ethanol from corn has already started to cause a disaster. I hope our lot can learn from that. It's not too much to ask, is it?
Both poles now suffering
We have commented many times on the staggering effect that the warming of our little planet has had on the Arctic ice. At no time had anyone reported or suggested that anything similar was happening in the Antarctic, indeed, some scientific studies reported that the temperature in the heart of Antarctica was actually decreasing and going against the trend of the rest of the planet.
However, that seems to be changing, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience, and as reported by the Houston Chronicle. The study reports that "researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years — as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world." The areas worst hit are the enormous western ice shelf, which covers an area something like the size of Texas, and the peninsula that points up towards S. America.
Given that Antarctica holds something approaching 90% of the planet's ice that starts to become quite worrying; the loss of the western ice shelf alone could theoretically account for a sea level rise of several metres.
However, that seems to be changing, according to a study published in Nature Geoscience, and as reported by the Houston Chronicle. The study reports that "researchers found that the rate of ice loss in the affected areas has accelerated over the past 10 years — as it has on most glaciers and ice sheets around the world." The areas worst hit are the enormous western ice shelf, which covers an area something like the size of Texas, and the peninsula that points up towards S. America.
Given that Antarctica holds something approaching 90% of the planet's ice that starts to become quite worrying; the loss of the western ice shelf alone could theoretically account for a sea level rise of several metres.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
If ever there was one for DDAIDDAIS*
Assuming it's factually true (my faith even in news media's accuracy levels has been tested a tad too often): BIN TAX WILL HIT EVERYONE...UNLESS YOU ARE AN MP
Another wedge between those who are imposing eco 'initiatives' and the odds of those upon whom they get imposed being positively inspired by them.
*Don't do as I do, do as I say
Another wedge between those who are imposing eco 'initiatives' and the odds of those upon whom they get imposed being positively inspired by them.
*Don't do as I do, do as I say
Friday, January 11, 2008
Now who's a lucky monkey?
No, not M&S's version.
Some might recall that a while ago I latched onto a pretty positive fortune cookie that rather specifically indicated a lot of hefty nice stuff in the work arena by year's end.
Well, hard to say that came to pass.
Anyhoo, here's hoping that as the exact reverse happened with this (as Dave cautioned/predicted) then the same will apply here, being that I am a Monkey in the Chinese Lunar Calendar:)
The Monkey will not have an easy year compared to last year. But while the financial loss star will affect your luck this year, you also have some measure of protection with the Golden Deities star. Helpful people will rescue you out of any predicament. There is a tendency for the Monkey to lose his cool this year and this could lead to problems with relationships. So watch your temper. Carry the Four Heavenly King Protection Amulet and wear the Dragon Eye Dzi for protection. Activate Golden Deities luck by inviting a Golden Kuan Yin into your home and display her in the Northeast corner of your living room. Protect your house against burglary by displaying the Black Precious Elephant in the Southwest. For personal luck, wear the "Om Ah Hum" Pendant in gold . To enhance for better income, display a Dzambhala Water Feature in the Southwest of your living room. To enhance for relationship luck and good networking, place glitter lamps in the Southwest 3, Southeast 1 and North 2 corners of your home as this completes the 'Tien Ti Ren' formation which is very auspicious.
Anyone know if Tesco carry a Four Heavenly King Protection Amulet or associated artifacts?
Some might recall that a while ago I latched onto a pretty positive fortune cookie that rather specifically indicated a lot of hefty nice stuff in the work arena by year's end.
Well, hard to say that came to pass.
Anyhoo, here's hoping that as the exact reverse happened with this (as Dave cautioned/predicted) then the same will apply here, being that I am a Monkey in the Chinese Lunar Calendar:)
The Monkey will not have an easy year compared to last year. But while the financial loss star will affect your luck this year, you also have some measure of protection with the Golden Deities star. Helpful people will rescue you out of any predicament. There is a tendency for the Monkey to lose his cool this year and this could lead to problems with relationships. So watch your temper. Carry the Four Heavenly King Protection Amulet and wear the Dragon Eye Dzi for protection. Activate Golden Deities luck by inviting a Golden Kuan Yin into your home and display her in the Northeast corner of your living room. Protect your house against burglary by displaying the Black Precious Elephant in the Southwest. For personal luck, wear the "Om Ah Hum" Pendant in gold . To enhance for better income, display a Dzambhala Water Feature in the Southwest of your living room. To enhance for relationship luck and good networking, place glitter lamps in the Southwest 3, Southeast 1 and North 2 corners of your home as this completes the 'Tien Ti Ren' formation which is very auspicious.
Anyone know if Tesco carry a Four Heavenly King Protection Amulet or associated artifacts?
Something for nothing ..... for once, yes!!
I've re-read this twice looking for the inevitable get-out clause, but am unable to find one - it really does look like a genuine something for nothing offer ........ providing you are over 70 years of age (or on certain benefits).
As reported in the The Guardian (article is dated Saturday 12th although it is not yet 17:00 on the 11th Jan?), British Gas are offering free loft and cavity wall insulation [worth an average £600 per house] to anyone over the age of 70, and you don't even have to be a customer of British Gas! It appears to be a subset of the government's CERT {Carbon Emissions Reduction Target} scheme which "obliges energy suppliers to promote reductions in carbon emissions for households. The companies are required to spend £1.5bn over the next three years to install energy efficiency measures in the homes of people on low incomes and the elderly."
For once I'm almost lost for words .... a genuine case of something for nothing!
______________________
Addendum:
Actually there IS a teeny-weeny little catch in there - the rest of us will pay for it! I quote - "Ofgem, the energy regulator .............. said this week that around £38 is being added to each household's gas and electricity's (I assume they meant to include 'bills' here) to pay for the Cert scheme."
At least it's a start, and given that £1 in every £3 spent on heating homes is lost because of inadequate insulation, it will have quite an impact on household CO2 emissions, at least for the over 70's.
As reported in the The Guardian (article is dated Saturday 12th although it is not yet 17:00 on the 11th Jan?), British Gas are offering free loft and cavity wall insulation [worth an average £600 per house] to anyone over the age of 70, and you don't even have to be a customer of British Gas! It appears to be a subset of the government's CERT {Carbon Emissions Reduction Target} scheme which "obliges energy suppliers to promote reductions in carbon emissions for households. The companies are required to spend £1.5bn over the next three years to install energy efficiency measures in the homes of people on low incomes and the elderly."
For once I'm almost lost for words .... a genuine case of something for nothing!
______________________
Addendum:
Actually there IS a teeny-weeny little catch in there - the rest of us will pay for it! I quote - "Ofgem, the energy regulator .............. said this week that around £38 is being added to each household's gas and electricity's (I assume they meant to include 'bills' here) to pay for the Cert scheme."
At least it's a start, and given that £1 in every £3 spent on heating homes is lost because of inadequate insulation, it will have quite an impact on household CO2 emissions, at least for the over 70's.
Snow in Baghdad!
Yet another example of our climate going crazy, just like the cold snap that killed 20 people in India at the new year.
This from Reuters reports that despite all the strange climatic things happening (we mentioned the problems that they were having at the ice carving festival in Harbin only the other day), the planet is still inexorably warming.
This from Reuters reports that despite all the strange climatic things happening (we mentioned the problems that they were having at the ice carving festival in Harbin only the other day), the planet is still inexorably warming.
If all you fight are corners, the rest of the room gets ignored
Newsnight - Galloway v Frum - not an eco aspect in sight, but goes to the set up for debate we are subjected to these days.
What a spectacular show... and follow up... if all you are gunning for is to win is a ratings war with the WWF.
A typical Newsnight twofer sandwich, with unpalatable, rock hard, entrenched extremes pitched either side of a soft,squishy bland centre.
All I got was a series of dogmatic vitriol that informed me little as I trusted no one's 'facts', or that they might be called to account on them, and hence all that was spewed around were just so many rabble-rousing words. As with so many issues, the choice of messenger can too often colour the message, as 'colourful' seems to be the dominating characteristic being sought by the 'expert' guest booker.
Par for the course.
Is it not possible to get a few more, or at least more rounded (even if it means possibly less 'entertaining") folk on to debate such important topics - such that one feels a slim hope that the issues are being discussed rationally and hard questions are being posed with cool heads, all moderated by someone who actually might attempt to get to to some decent answers and insights?
Thought not. Ho hum. Ding. Round #287.
What a spectacular show... and follow up... if all you are gunning for is to win is a ratings war with the WWF.
A typical Newsnight twofer sandwich, with unpalatable, rock hard, entrenched extremes pitched either side of a soft,squishy bland centre.
All I got was a series of dogmatic vitriol that informed me little as I trusted no one's 'facts', or that they might be called to account on them, and hence all that was spewed around were just so many rabble-rousing words. As with so many issues, the choice of messenger can too often colour the message, as 'colourful' seems to be the dominating characteristic being sought by the 'expert' guest booker.
Par for the course.
Is it not possible to get a few more, or at least more rounded (even if it means possibly less 'entertaining") folk on to debate such important topics - such that one feels a slim hope that the issues are being discussed rationally and hard questions are being posed with cool heads, all moderated by someone who actually might attempt to get to to some decent answers and insights?
Thought not. Ho hum. Ding. Round #287.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)