Hardly a flying start!

Back in December 2006, Ol' Golden, then our chancellor, trumpeted a major tax relief policy that would see all new homes deemed to be zero carbon (in terms of emissions) free of stamp duty. Despite the apparently vague definition of what zero carbon meant exactly, this created quite a bit of excitement at the time, and many pundits were forecasting that the savings involved for buyers would entirely offset the additional construction costs.

OK, so a year and a bit on, just how many thousands of new homes have been constructed to qualify for this major tax relief?

Go on, have a guess. Any idea? No? Well, the answer is six. No, not six thousand, but the single digit only - i.e. six new homes have qualified for stamp duty exemption. Report is from This Is London.

"Clearly this does fall into the camp of green-tax con. The Government is not putting forward serious policies to tackle climate change and this is a classic example. ........ It is all talk and no action. If the Government were serious about benefiting the environment, they would offer everyone a rebate if their houses were properly insulated."

Quite! Despite the government spokesman's claim that numbers will rapidly rise this year, for once I agree with the Green Party's economic spokesman wholeheartedly.

On yer bike!

That seems to be the message from Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, as reported by NaturalChoices today.

Can't argue with any of the ideas at all; it all looks very sensible and would be for any major urban conurbation. But just look at that cost, £1 Billion! That seems an awful lot of bucks for a few cycle ways!

And I'll be interested to see what any 'out of city' local equivalents might be. An express cycleway from Shrewsbury to Ludlow? I can't quite see it happening somehow.

A very cheap shot

And I am making it. Sorry.

Just watching the BBC morning news about a wind farm proposal in Scotland, with those involved making the case for and agin'.

Mainly it surrounds the energy needs vs. other factors such as, ironically, 'environmental damage'.

Thing is, from the start to the finish of the piece, live and to camera, the reporter was in front of a mighty windmill that wasn't actually turning, with a couple behind also acting as nifty perches for seagulls.

At least I am now joined in this less than helpful, and rather superficial, observation by the anchor. Tricky. Becuase of course if they had opted for the library shots the BBC could have been accused of potraying an overly favourable scenario.

It's just as shame that, given the choice to do it live, it wasn't considered helpful to also address the enviROI of the operational facts to round out the case. All I know is that I went away with a vision of a great, big... still turbine.

NEWS/GO3 PR - Pocket battles

A PR last night from the Green (Party) Machine (London) has strirred a musing in me. Let me share it here as supplied, but I do propose to comment:

ABOLISH ROAD TAX AND CHARGE THE POLLUTERS, DARLING

The Green Party's Principal Speaker, Caroline Lucas MEP has today
urged the government to reward responsible motorists by abolishing
the Road Tax, and shifting the responsibility onto gas-guzzlers
through the fuel duty. The call comes as road lobbyists meet with the
Chancellor to plead for a smaller increase in fuel tax.

Dr Lucas said:

"The flat road tax on vehicle ownership takes no account of road
usage, and provides no incentive or reward for making less polluting
travel choices. A far fairer alternative would be to scrap it and move
the responsibility onto fuel tax.

"But today we see the road lobby arguing against this fairer measure.
The AA has consistently argued for more roadbuilding, more traffic,
more pollution. They have attempted to block every effort to reduce
our dependency on petrol. Now the price has inevitably risen, and
they want the rest of us to pay for it through our taxes, or in cuts
to services.

"Most car owners would like to take more public transport, but some
lobbyists seem determined to make it as hard for them as possible.
Does Alasdair Darling have the guts to stand up to them?"

At first blush, what is not to agree with? Polluter pays. Simple.

Thing is, this is issued by a self-evidently London-centric source (not suprisingly, as their candidate is gunning for mayor. Which, by the way, I was totally unaware of, for which the major media might be asked why. It's the Boris & Ken show, with Hugh coming in on occasion. No one else gets a peep). But to the best of my interpretation, this call refers to a national issue.

And there be the rub. And it's our old chum again. The politics of the pocket. Or Eco(nomics) vs. Eco(logy).

In London, you don't really need a car, especially to do your job. Distances are shorter. Cycling is an option. Tubes and trains and busses abound. So the Prius is really just to get the luvs to cello practice without paying the congestion charge.

But elsewhere you might need to drop a few hundred miles a week in your Fiesta just to earn a crust.

So what seems so simple need not necessarily be so... or certainly fair. It's a tricky balance, but whoever starts trying to do it properly will get my vote. Make that whenever...

There are ethical funds and there are ............errrr .... ethical funds

This from the Guardian highlights a few little nuances that may surprise you if you are lucky enough to have a few spare quid and choose to invest in one of the so called 'ethical funds'.

Reading it made me smile. There are obviously rather varying shades of ethical just as there are varying shades of green.

So, if you thought that your ethical fund investment was directly helping to tackle climate change, you just may have to reconsider having read this.

It's just not easy being green, or ethical, is it?

Bureaucrats - 200. Rainforests - Nil

And my brain into minus figures, if not near meltdown.

What I should be doing is getting cracking on filling this lot out. But all I can think of doing is taking a picture and blogging (yes, I need help. In more ways than one).

You are looking of stacks of up to a dozen pages, from A to O, though with a few letters rating subsets from (i) to (iv), so probably around 30 stacks in all.

It all started so well. I stumbled across some nice folk who liked what I was doing and offered to help with the prototypes of the RE:tie for the show next month. So I went up to Brum to see what they could do and explain what was needed; we communed, and lo... it was good.

And it's all ready to kick off. With precisely a month to go. But... just... a bit of paperwork.

I didn't pay much attention as it was just one Excel document, but when it came time to address it (OK, deadline) it just kept on printing... and printing. No first born required, nor pint of blood, but amounts and levels of data required that go back in the past and project into the future that I can barely grasp the relevance of for this task, yet alone imagine how I will aquire... or complete.... ever.

Even the lovely lady who sent it to me was sympathetic, for she is but an intermediary working for the University and hired just to handle their responsibilities with such paperwork, as demanded from 'above' by... now who is that? A blue square with a circle of golden stars at the bottom of each page (only part-funded by, mind. Lord help me if I get another set from another bunch later!). Layer upon layer of 'EU-what!' to 'help' them 'help' me get a prototype ready.

And I must do it as I have no choice now but to. I am committed.

But sadly, I do not seem to have the luxury of a lovely lady hired for the sole purpose of filling such forms out.

Nope, despite writing that, the monkey is still very much resting full square on my shoulders.

And so, with a heavy everything I must now turn to Form A (i).....

You gotta larf

Sorry, but this just appealed to my sense of irony.

On the page devoted to a piece on climate science (well, the apparent supression of a scientist in the field - Climate scientist they could not silence), I could not help but note what rather dominated the rest of the page. Not quite the same on the online version.

There's the medium. There's the message. There's mixed. And there's just, plain 'off'.

The media really does just love it all ways.

Just in case they don't 'moderate' it in:

Meanwhile, in the print edition, the majority of the page with this piece seems to be dominated for a Tesco ad for cheap petrol - 'Every litre helps'.

Not quite clear as to what, in the circumstances.

Delicious irony?'

Bet they're in with a chance at the Sunday Times "Best Green Companies" slot, mind.

To the winners, whoever they are, the spoils.

Zadie Smith sinks teeth into book awards - it is about the world of literature, but applies pretty much everywhere.

I've won a few. Lost more than I care to think on. But it's certainly hard these days to think of many that are judged purely on merit, without soem agenda creeping in.

Awards are, like most things these days, are merely products of an industry whose prime motivation is its own survival and the interests of those who work within it or feed off it to survive.

Winning is nice (and useful) if you are a winner. Not so great if you don't. But those nominated andhence competing are essentially irrelevant. It is the process, more than anything, that drives the system, rather than the product (though to some remoras, sorry, reporters, controversy can extend the period they can suck the life out of the topic).

So it is refreshing to say the least, if necessary to avoid accusations of sour grapes, to find a winner rather plainly stating it like it is.

Which, with luck, may briefly make for uncomfortabel reading for those who are paid way too much and have much more influence than they deserve, simply for being in the industry rtaher than contributing anything worthwhiel to it.

But though flawed, I see no hope for improvemnt, and hence the real winners will continue to be those nowhere near the podium.

Led by donkeys; reported on by jackals

Watching the Andrew Marr show and decided to make a commment.

I simply could not let pass a continued notion coming across that I, as a member of the public, am apparently very happy with our Dear Leader's performance so far, or indeed upon the reporting on it.

I simply could not believe a News 24 report the other night, which was the first in as long as I could recall that involved our PM having an opinion, when the reporter seemed to be parroting a press relase, and casting an amazingly glow on the man's character based on the subjective belief of the reporter. I do not think it is an objective newsperson's' job to say how calm and confident a politcal indivdual is, or how genuine and honest his beliefs. This was a character endorsement too far in my view.

However, the main reason for my post is a comment made by the host regarding the fact we are enjoying some unseasonably warm weather that is described as showing Global Warming in action.

Just watched the slot with Peter Mandelson, where the competencies of our PM were raised. With all the huge issues swirling about us I can of late recall no peep from him, bar a glowing mention the other day by a BBC reporter who positively misted up at Mr. Brown's common person empathy via his deep interest in... football.

ps: Andrew, when the weather is unseasonably nice, if you have to come up with a reason it might be better to refer to the possible explanation as climate change rather than global warming. Otherwise you may hand yet another piece of ammo to 'climate optimists' who often cite often rather loose science and editorial, especially when comparisons are made with historical records, or when it ends up very cold somewhere.

Voyages of discovery

Amazing what leads to what.

I was scoping one of my many sources of stuff, and came across this from SHARKRIDE: A retail experience with negative externalities minimized and reflected in the labeling and pricing.

Now I can't say the headline did a lot for me, or indeed the cause of bringing the e-word to the near-indifferent masses, but it was worth persevering.

And I did pop in a plug, as it seems there may be guys, like Bob, who 'know people'.

I have to say I rather stumbled on the, er, ‘negative ex-thingies’. But a nice share, ta.

For any, like Bob, interested in mitigating efforts via design, may I point you at http://www.junkk.com, which tries to matchmake those with ideas for second uses with those keen not to throw stuff away if not necessary.

But I have to agree that the more potent notion is building this in from the off. If any are in the UK in March there is a show at the NEC called Innovative Packaging, with a sub-section called EcoPack, at which I am exhibiting (a bottle/jar cap re:evolutionary design called RE:tie) and also speaking on the joys of re:use!

However there was, in the words of Yoda, 'one more'. And that was the little gizmo called Snapshot, which looks a well nifty effort to, as the name suggests, give folk a thumbnail of your site.

Edit, dit, it... it isn't what you thought it was

For reasons that will soon become clear, I am highly sensitive to the accuracy of what gets served up to us by our publishers and broadcasters.

Especially when it comes to matters of 'fact', but also when subjective agendas and techniques get introduced that can at best steer the way they are viewed with subjective enhancements, or at worst plain be fiddled to fit.

And all to often it seems to get explained away airily by all sorts of excuses that simply are not good enough, with a total lack of tangible accountability or consequence to at least have some incentive not to play fast and loose again.... and again.

Worse, there seem now to be justifications based on what would once be inexcusable, simply because 'everyone does it', or the need to enhance reality to make things more 'entertaining'.

Just now I was one of the few in the nation up early enough to watch the BBC's weekly, meekly 'mea culpa' programme, Newswatch. The one where they atone in 5 minutes in a dead air slot for things that have gone out in prime time. With a successive or arrogant, defensive journalists and/or editors who are wheeled on to say they don't really see what the fuss is about.

And today my jaw was on the floor. And it was thanks to the actual footage shown, so credit to the Newswatch Editors. Basically there was a BBC TV news slot involving an ex-army chap making a comment about some issue, but whose words were then lifted and dumped elsewhere as some kind of response to a totally different story on a BBC Radio item.

Whilst grudgingly accepting the error, the morning's flak absorber airily dismissed it based on a variety of reasons that were certainly not excuses, and which we are hearing waaaay to often of late, and will doubtless continue to do for ever more unless addressed PDQ. Lack of time. Lack of money. Lack of trained staff. Ooops. This from what is meant to be a premier news organization with tens of thousands of trained bodies, funded by £3.5B of licence fee payers' money. Not blooming good enough!

There is now an all too prevalent notion that chunks of content can be used and abused to strip down and reassemble in the edit suite whatever you fancy for whatever your reasons, with truth, context and/or accuracy going out of the window so long as it makes for a 'good' story!

And they don't seem very interested in dealing with it at all, much less putting anything right, preferring to work on the (probably accurate) basis that if you leave it long enough it will all blow over.

Take this from the other day, where a possible ill-advised comment by a reporter was raised on the Newsnight blog. All I wanted, and at time of writing still want to know, is what she actually said:

1. At 08:33 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - Ms Kay made a clear statement in which she said 'thank god the Democrats have won Arkansas', she then tried to backtrack on her comment but the damage was done.

3. At 10:29 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - I didn't notice that last night and I have just re-watched it and didn't notice it then

9. At 05:34 PM on 07 Feb 2008, - May we have the 'purple box' official facts of what this reporter Ms. Kay did or did not say soon, please?

Any time you are ready. For the benefit of those who still like to weigh issues based on objective information.

There seem to be a bunch of 4th formers now in senior editorial positions more than happy to make snitty, silly rebuttals elsewhere, but on issues of cold, hard, key matters of fact they seem to suddenly scoot off elsewhere to throw their toys out of other prams.

'I got wet 'cos it was raining' shock!

I'm probably setting myself up for a fall here, but this made me giggle (and at this time on a Friday you need to): Yell Group blames reduced advertiser budgets for revenue drop

Thing is, like the mighty Junkk.com publishing empire (and indeed many commercial entities), their main product seems (to me at least) to be, well, dependent on clients buying their stuff.

So if the clients buy less, then one presumes revenue will follow.

I know it could be a bunch of other stuff, like the CFO running off with the Xmas petty cash, but it just seemed an odd way to put it. Maybe saying such stuff in this way is why they get the big bucks.

More facts, figures and statistics!

Yet another set of facts and figures that may be open to question.

Addendum below. Post redated from 02/02/08 accordingly.

I spotted the gov's official CO2 emission figures the other day and thought that as the supposed reduction was so small, it was hardly worth commenting on. However, as reported by Channel 4, some green campaigners claim the figures are 'misleading', especially as they "ignore emissions from international flights, which are increasing."

In fact, they reckon that if you add in the international flights factor, the gov's figure would show a 5.5% year on year INCREASE in CO2 emissions.

Errrm ....... just who the hell are we supposed to believe?

We are simply left in an unknowing dilemma when facts, figures and statistics are massaged to suit a particular argument, as we have already commented on before.

ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Now here's a useful thing. A little effort of C4's I subscribed to only recently, called Fact Check. And looky here: FactCheck: have UK emissions really gone down? Neither hyped up nor spun down? I think they're being generous.

ps; And as the typo king I'm one to talk, but have to love their spelling of 'largerly'

Tears in me eyes

From Greenbang - Gordon Brown’s nightmare

Maybe there is a chance that people might get interested in politics again!

What amazed me was the smiles I saw and laughs I heard from t'other side!

On a totally... well almost related topic, I have often found in environmental legislation, and reporting of same, that green and Brown keep trying to be brought together.

But the result seems to be a rather unappealing fudge.

How does he do it?

Now I know he is reading my blog!
After all the fun and games I have been moaning about these last few days, dealing with funders and VCs and the like, and not being very good at making up 'projections' that are in fact wild guesses, but po-faced stating them as done deals... this is who gets the money.

Well, there's a thing

Marketers warned against making false eco-claims

From Mad - Companies trying to ‘out-green’ each other in the battle for consumers’ hearts and minds are creating a potentially dangerous minefield for marketers, warns a new study from Getty Images.

Getty, which specialises in the creation and distribution of visual images, has launched its latest MAP (What Makes ...

Want to read more? If you do, you can, and it's free. But it's a trial. Here.

I think I've seen enough to get the message. Think is, have the... 'companies'.

ADDENDUM - polar-bears-fail-to-give-right-message - the full-er, story. So see, it pays to know folk who know folk

Just look at the blogger label below

Life as low-carbon man

I say no more.

Well, other than to add it does keep luvvies in Fleet Street and Islington occupied. Plus me:)

Shame we can't run things on 'awareness', especially of the misguided kind.

Plugging away!

When it comes to doing good by Gaia, glory is good, but I'm always keen to up the ante to actaul, tangibel re:wards: The glory of glass recycling

In the spirit of ‘every little helps’, and acknowledging the minute (though still relevant) extra it may contribute, let's not also forget re:use, too!

Not so great for helping meet targets, but often a lower energy option... and a highly self-rewarding one!

Take this for example, a stunning lamp design made from Perrier bottles:

http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97

Inspired by Jason, I have a few more modest projects underway. One is a shaving mirror surround that is awaiting the dozen Fahrenheit after shave bottles I have almost accrued in the last several years (I knew I'd find a use one day! However you may find your local Boots may be able to speed things up with discarded testers), a transparent wall section from 1l Lambs Navy Rum hexagonal bottles, and a solar-powered driveway buried lawn edge night landing system covered with wine bottles.

Still trying to figure what to do with the several thousand other varieties now spilling into the living room which the missus is none to happy about.

Any ideas?

Actually, I forgot to mention I am also looking for some on pledge caps (the cans are a no-no, being pressurised).

Could ya? Would ya?.... Should ya?

Thanks to being told by the missus to get back to the day job, I have of late been attending a welter of networking events.

More abbreviations than you could throw a spellcheck at (still busted, eh, Blogger?), there are only so many 'Full Englishes' or personal coaches and aloe vera sales ladies I can afford, both financially and psychologically.

But I have noticed something.

At three recent events, the near obligatory mortgage broker/IFA has stood up and said ''What if I said I could wipe out your mortgage obligation? Would you be interested?'.

It would appear that there is the potential for some bit of legal jiggery-pokery to do just that.

I don't know the full details, because those making the pitch suddenly got all vague, but this is not compo for mis-selling, more a bit of 'no-win, no-fee' financial ambulance chasing based on no actual wrong-doing, but simply poor contract wording.

So the issue is not so much 'could', which it may well be possible to, or 'would', which it seems many might. But what about 'should'? This does rather strike me as a short-term pyramid at best, which will profit some but damage the majority, from the rates of those paying now, to the chances of those to come in getting a good deal.

So I said so. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the room agreed with me. Now it may be this is not being explained very well, but as it stands it's looking like the next 'dodge' from an already bizarre sector that I hope will get sorted... quick.

What's this to do with matters eco? Not a lot. But I am minded of the time a very big multi-national got a few £M from a very big quango to help them cut the size, and hence costs of making their commercial product.

If it's there for the taking, why not grab it? But really, and ignoring the more pressing question of the responbility to the public of those doling out the dough, should they have done?

Sticking your oar in

I've cut back a lot on stuff that flies around the e-ther via other media, and am especially dubious about sharing the welter of stories that involve research or scientists, but this is worth popping up: Biofuels make climate change worse, scientific study concludes

No 'may' or 'suggests' here. We have a 'make' and a 'concludes'. So I take more notice. And, though noting it is 'just' in a UK quality national, according to The Independent this is the '...first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.'

And the words used subsequently are not minced: 'damning evidence' ... 'biggest environmental con-tricks' ... 'actually make global warming worse'.

Hold that last thought. enviROI anyone? I take no pleasure in this, but here we have a very telling example of what headlong rushes into 'anything green that must be good' can possibly lead to.

It is to be hoped that we can expect this salutory lesson be applied to ensure the real e-value of all manner of other green initiatives, from wind turbines... to simply banning plastic bags with no thought for the consequences of the alternatives (or lack of).

So I would wish government, activists... and media... would all learn to give pause before the leap on the green band, and/or banwagon as they too often do.

Indy - Michael McCarthy: 'Free lunch' that could cost the earth

Gaurdian - Biofuel farms make CO2 emissions worse

Go Figure

As all will, well... should know, I have set up Junkk.com (and this associated blog) to not only do good, but make good, too.

As yet, while I think the first can warrant a tick, I'm still kinda working on the second. Getting there, but... a ways to go.

I think I blogged a short while ago about an educational foray back into the world of online media, and the help and insights I gained, though to date can't do much about becuase they need major dosh. Hence my scoping out the weird and wondeful laternate universe of VCs Business Angels.

But one thing has rung in my memory since, which is the advised target of 500k unique visitors to get taken serioulsy as an ad medium.

I think I can do it. I just have to focus on what will make the offering unique, attract an audience and keep them loyal... and telling others.

Which is all quite an ambition. Especially as, at the 'mo, there is one of me trying to do this.

So I was quite interested in this piece about an outfit called Shiny Media. All very inspirational, and a big up to them. Thing is, for their 3.5M unique visistors they have a staff of 20+! That's one person per 150,000, which is what I have managed. So, at the end of the day, it remains a numbers game.

No wonder it's taking me a while. I must get in touch.

The world's larget rubbish dump

Reported in the Independent this morning, this is absolutely amazing!

"A 'plastic soup' of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said."

Known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", it is estimated to contain some 100 million tons of flotsam!

"The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world's largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting 'soup' stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan."

"Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic."

And some people still insist that rubbish thrown out to sea doesn't constitute a problem!

Addendum (Junkk Male) - Well, someone seems to think there's an angle.

Kite ship makes significant fuel savings

I saw a piece on the MS Beluga Skysail on TV a few weeks back and wondered just how much energy the giant kite might save in terms of fuel costs.

Well, Reuters are now reporting that the vessel saved some 15 to 20% of its daily fuel needs by deploying the giant kite, cutting fuel consumption by some 4 tonnes per day. Now that's not an insignificant saving. I wonder if they're thinking about fitting giant kites onto many more cargo vessels now. Strange how things go full circle - from Sail, to Steam, to Oil & Diesel, and back to Sail.

I wonder what Firebird.com might be worth?

Sadly, not for sale.

But what I did find rather suprising, in a nice way, is to see what something do do with 're' was up for. Though quite how they funded that cocks an eyebrow.

So, maybe that bodes well for Junkk.com?

Also, and again sadly, not for sale though.

Creativematch - The million dollar 's' bought for UK domain name

NEWS/GO3 PR - Reading below the lines

I normally have a fair bit of time for what comes out of the Green Party Press Office, and am usually happy to print it with little, if any comment 'as is'.

I fear that this must be an exception; not so much for the content (which you, as big boys and girls, can make judgements upon for yourselves), but as an example of what I personally don't like seeing, and as much as I do, in matters of headline grabbing.

Here's what I got:

CANCER ‘CAUSED BY POLLUTION’, MEP LUCAS TO TELL BRIGHTON WOMEN

Event: MEP Caroline Lucas speaks at ‘C’s the Day’ cancer prevention event
Place: Friends’ Meeting House, Ship St, Brighton
Time: Saturday, February 9th, 10am-4pm. Dr Lucas to speak at 2.15pm

CANCER is often caused by environmental factors including toxic chemicals added to household goods, pesticides and poor air quality, local Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas will tell a Brighton cancer-prevention day.

Dr Lucas said: “Levels of breast cancer are rising across the EU – especially in eastern Europe and the UK, where one woman in nine will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives.

“An increasing number of scientists are pointing to the link between toxic chemicals – especially so-called gender-bending hormone-disruptors – and breast cancer, which kills more than 10,000 people each year in the UK alone.

“Similarly links are being found between pesticide use and cancers. Yet these technologies are all growing apace – the Government and EU simply must exercise caution, and put human health above the profits of their friends in the companies that manufacture them.”

I am in no doubt that amongst many consequences of modern life, 'pollution' (however that may be defined) is high on the probable causes of cancer.

However, I do not believe that headline to be an accurate representation of the situation, and while the more qualifying statements below do express it better I fear that, to me at least, this did not come across at all well, no matter how worthy the thinking (and, one presumes, call to action) of that last para.

Desperately seeking Susan. Or Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice

Last night I attended an investment funding event at (and, I think, co-sponsored by) the University of Worcester School of Business.

There were others involved, with the lead being a brokerage called Beer & Partners, but also Advantage West Midlands as well.

Initially billed as a 'Dragon's Den', I almost didn't go because of the connotations of that sick show, but in the form of a 'Business Angel' Panel, which it was, I am glad I did.

A well-attended event, there was a good 100 folk there, so interest was high. And I recognized a few faces.

The panel comprised some experienced investors, though the names meant little to me: Mike Weaver (head of Beer in this neck 'o the woods), Kerry Jones, and Jim Walker.

The latter came out with the quote of the evening, which at least made it for me: 'Any product which addresses environmental issues is now really important, and top of any investor's list'.

And the pitches were all from 'green' businesses, which was a complete, if pleasant, surprise. There was an automotive fuel efficiency device and two energy monitoring devices/systems, which is an area I know quite a lot about of course.

At about 10mins, with feedback from panel and Q&A, it all scooted through in a very interesting hour.

I was mainly there as all that I am up to has hit the next hurdle of actually getting what I am doing to market, and into profit, and for that I know I need people with me. So, interestingly, earlier that day I had been engaged in just such an effort. And pretty encouraging it was, too. One was an interview, whereby a very talented and savvy post grad was seeing why she would want to spend a month here. I hope she got the answers she sought, and hence will. The other was with a marketing guy who for once was not looking for an upfront fee before doing anything. And he is both local, experienced and connected.

But as I do think investors may well still be part of the mix, I was keen to see how one might package the proposition.

Three interesting products. Three personable chaps pitching. But I was encouraged, because I had been thinking what I was up to and capable of would not be up to the task. Yet I felt my pitch, when it comes, would stack up very well in comparison. And the judges, though I suspect being very nice about it all, seemed interested and keen to develop things with these guys, though I actually had some reservations from my knowledge of market conditions, in several areas, for at least a couple of them.

Also interesting was the pitches. All were cut off. And all were cut off by spending too much time on what it was at the expense of how it would make money, and where, with who, etc. An easy mistake to make, and one I have done a lot by being the creator and not so focused on the profit motive aspects.

Also of note was the amounts requested, especially with some fairly hefty capital-requiring proposals, and/or also with significant staffing levels of senior folk for as yet unproven market concepts. Numbers of £150k were being mentioned, which can get gobbled up in a flash! Heck, I could do that with Junkk just on a sales director for a year.

Speaking of which, one the angels mentioned something I did not know, which is that supermarkets expect associated marketing budgets to be attached to any 'product' they engage. Worth bearing in mind for RE:tie.

There were also several other panel questions that seldom were addressed in the pitches, but were good to know as being important for inclusion and also as points of priority in such pitches.

IP was seldom highlighted, but is obviously key.

But the one thing that stood out above all that these guys were looking for is the management team. In place... and on the case.

And that is what I don't yet have, and must soon get.

Thing is, this event got me no further, just as have any conversations I have had with in theory 'innovator-supportive' Gov//NGO organizations, as to how I find such folk.

But I'm clawing closer... I think.

Water, water, everywhere......

..... and but few drops of common sense in sight!

Today, our esteemed gov. (through DEFRA) launched its strategy for the future of securing water supplies in England. See this report from Government Network News.

The strategy's proposals include:-

- "The aim to reduce water usage to 120 litres per person per day by 2030 from the current level of roughly 150 litres per person per day, through a combination of efficient technology, metering and tariffs."

i.e. We'll all pay more through new tariffs. Sounds like all stick and no carrot to me!

- Possible mandatory metering

Shouldn't this have been done years ago? At least for any new developments?

- New proposals to tackle surface water drainage.
"proposals include introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity, clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, and reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically into the public sewer."

'introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity' - Meaning what exactly? Make it up as you go along?
'Clarifying responsibilities' - like, admitting that now one has any that they are accountable for now?
'connect surface water automatically into the public sewer' - errrrm, no! Surface water runs off into the public storm drain system. And the ideal thing would be to make such surface water run-off much slower in order to inhibit flooding.
And wouldn't it have made really good sense to make it mandatory for all new development to incorporate rain water harvesting systems for grey water usage? That would achieve a much bigger consumption reduction target very easily.

And, of course, lots of proposals for consultations on things like flooding and erosion.

But not a single comment about better enforcement to make the various water authorities fix and repair the zillions of leaks that our current potable water distribution system has.

All in all, it looks like another complete waste of taxpayers money, designed to provide jobs for government sponsored quangos and agencies who talk, talk, talk and talk, and do, well, very bloody little! Sorry, there is one outcome that is inevitable; it will hit every one of us in the pocket, as usual, as it will certainly make us pay more for the water that we do use.

EVENT - ECOPACK '08

I can't believe it has taken me this long to post this up.

Probably one of the biggest events we're taking part in so far, with hopefully major benefits for the cuases of both the RE:tie and Junkk.com message of second use design.

MONTH - Next

FIELD: Enviro-related
WHEN: 12-13 March
WHAT: ECOPACK '08 (and Packaging Innovations)
WHAT... MORE?: Does what it says on the... er... pack. The premier UK trade event for what can, and should, come in the world of packaging. Note that in addition to 'Innovation' they also are talking 'ECO'. Of course, some can honestly, if immodestly, make the claim to be both.
WHERE: NEC, Brum
WHO: Me!!!!!! I have just been asked to be a speaker on both days, which is a genuine honour and real endorsement of the concept. Now all I have to do is figure out what to say!!!
HOW: As far as I'm aware, it's free if you register.
URL: http://www.easyfairs.com/shows/detail.aspx?ShowID=464
COMMENTS: It's a trade event, so you'd need to be pretty keen on your packaging to go just for general public interest. But the Junkk.com stand is ready and waiting to tickle your fancy!!!!

This is posted as a new blog feature.

The little things

With a Mum next door I need to keep an eye on all day, I am quite sympathetic to those in a similar position, and appreciative of any efforts to help.

Hence I was more than interested in a BBC piece, fronted by Tony Robinson, pointing at a booklet by the Alzheimers Society, called 'Putting Care Right'.

However, in downloading this PDF, I am minded of some design principles I'd really like to advocate, especially when it comes to web publishing (and a few hard cover books taboot).

It can be done, and may even be an option here, but as it is not obvious that is in fact a good first point:

1 - clearly point upfront to a/the eco-print option!

Then there are a couple of others:

2 - Don't use reverse text. It gobbles ink!

3 - Make the most of the page. If you have to have a super-cool design, fine, but for printing just get the info across in as economical a way possible. Small pictures and fill the page.

Yes I know, I should leave it on screen. But at often a few Meg I actually deem printing and deleting the file possibly more eco (see a previous Prof's Poser), and in any case defy most to say this is not something they'd prefer printed out to refer to and carry about, for instance when visiting a home.

What is it bears do in the woods again?

I fear I am getting oversensitive to anything that smacks of overkill on the MWCC front, so must tread cautiously here.

I merely pose a question, having watched a BBC news slot about bears not hibernating in a UK zoo on account of the warm weather.... caused by.... you guessed it.

Do they usually do this? I'd have thought things were tad different as they are in an less than typical enviornment, namely a zoo pen in the more temperate UK.

So are our ursine chums usually tucked up over the winter months?

Sadly these days my trust factor in the science I am fed is so low that lack of such context simply makes me even more dubious.

And for some, if shown to be 'a stretch', it simply provides ammo to discredit other stuff that certainly should be making us take note at unusual weather/climate (whatever, I just gave up on a blog with two scientists knocking spots off each other on the correct usage of these. Who cares!!) anomalies.

No sh*t!

NEWS/Commercial PR - NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH

Normally I am a bit dubious about research, especially on things green... and even more so when part of a press release on behalf of an energy company.

But I thought this was worth sharing, as provided, but suitably editted to share the insights with a little less of the sales pitch. But I will pop in a few links for you to find out more on their offering if so inspired. But would also always advise doing a bunch of research before committing to anything. I rather fancy I have had a few other PRs of late suggesting they are also the only odd ones rewarding you for cutting back. Indeed. But to be encouraged by both suppliers and consumers to be sure!

NEW RESEARCH REVEALS BRITS THINK GOING ‘GREEN’ COSTS THE EARTH Despite increasing pressure to go ‘green’, new research released today (5 February 2008) by Southern Electric shows many Britons remain unconvinced that they can afford to live greener lives. The Southern Electric survey reveals that over half of Britons think the environment is of vital importance and 85% are willing to consider lifestyle changes to save energy within the next 10 years. The majority also believes that making greener choices as a consumer usually involves spending more money; and lack of money is cited as the main reason for not making changes to save energy at home. Independent financial expert and TV money man, Alvin Hall, says: “The Southern Electric research suggests that, while people ‘talk the talk’ on green issues, few ‘walk the walk’ and many use money as an excuse. Some green products do cost a premium but helping to save the planet doesn’t have to break the bank or be a chore. In fact, the average home can actually save around £300 a year by simply being more energy efficient. “Home insulation, energy saving appliances and cutting down on energy consumption all help and will lead to cheaper energy bills in the long run as well as benefiting the environment.” Southern Electric is the first energy company to actively encourage customers to cut back on energy use through ‘better plan’, its unique green energy product. ‘better plan’ is a home energy service that pays customers to cut their bills – giving bonuses, discounts and cash credits for using less energy . The cash credits are then applied as a reduction to the customers’ energy bills.

NEWS/Commercial PR - All that glitters?

I've often maintained that where there is green there can be gold.

Nothing wrong with that at all. Where it is not so great is when those who are trying to do their ethical best for the planet and our kids' futures end up thinking they are doing stuff, often for considerable investments of time and money, that may not be as green as they seem.

Hence I reproduce an editted down, but as provided PR, with all due caveats as always, which nonetheless should give you pause for thought.

And as they have been nice enough to share information, I am happy to add the links, but do of course advise that you go into any dealings with anyone with eyes wide open.

Ethical does not mean Environmental, New Report Finds

A study of ethical and SRI funds' Top 10 holdings available in the UK - which purport to be socially responsible and ethical - has shown that very few actually invest in companies which are directly tackling climate change.

The report, 'A Guide to Climate Change Investment' available via the authors' website, by independent financial adviser Holden & Partners, examined the Top 10 holdings of all SRI, ethical and environmental funds available to UK private investors.

It found that most SRI and Ethical funds' top ten holdings are surprisingly mainstream, with names like Vodafone and Royal Bank of Scotland occurring time and again. However, many also have holdings in large mining corporations as well as BP, Shell, Total and other oil majors.

As a result, investors in SRI and ethical funds, who were hoping to support the low-carbon economy, may find that they are buying into multinationals more associated with being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Of the SRI funds that gave full information about their holdings, Henderson's Industries of the Future scored most highly with 51.1% of its fund in environmental solutions providers. In contrast, environmental stocks make up less than one per cent of L&G Ethical Funds portfolio.

The new generation of environmental and climate change funds is far more focused on companies developing global solutions to environmental problems. However, some of these also throw up some curious holdings, including Porsche, Renault, Nestlé and Danone.

The report highlights that there are a number of 'pure-play' environmental investment vehicles available with 100% exposure to environmental solutions providers. These include listed funds investing in worldwide listed stocks.

About the Guide to Climate Change Investment

The Green Guide shows investors how to participate in and benefit from investment flows into environmental markets. There is a huge range of funds available but not all of them are tackling climate change in their investment approach. The Guide helps shed light on this dynamic and complex sector.

The information was gathered directly from investment managers. It was as complete as possible at time of going to publication. Where no data was supplied, this was after several attempts at contacting the fund managers to ask for the data.

Mark Hoskin, partner at Holden & Partners is quoted as saying: "The world is changing very fast. As an investor in twenty years will you look back and wonder why you did not read the signals. The global market for environmental goods and services is incredibly exciting and we believe there is a good chance that within the Climate Change Funds you may find the Microsoft of the future."

Now, wouldn't it be nice if Junkk.com were one?

What a difference a year makes!

Back in January 2007, Peter posted an interesting piece on an interview with three big cheeses at Davos. Having heard the piece, and commented accordingly, about the facile answers given, I remembered a quote from Shell's big cheese, Jeroen van der Veer, who, responding to a pertinent question from John Humphrys about the possibility of peak oil, said, “In 20 years time we’ll use more oil and gas than we do today”.

Well, according to this report from ThisIsScotland, van der Veer appears to have changed his mind somewhat.

"In an e-letter to staff that must surely be splattered right across the Big Oil community by now, and be doing the rounds of NOCs (national oil corporations), Shell's CEO basically says that conventional oil output will peak in seven years - oh, and gas shortages are on the way, too."

Now that's what I call an about face! And if the CEO of Shell is now admitting that the planet is going to have an energy problem (due to the lack of petroleum resources and natural gas) sooner rather than later, then it looks as if the human race's need to get into renewable technologies is going to be even more urgent than any of us ever realised.

Limiting food choice to cut carbon emissions?

I don't recollect anybody actually saying this, other than on the ultra green, vegan fringes, but it seems to be exercising the mind of one of Sainsbury's directors as reported by First4Farming.

"Managing needs versus demand seems like a form of communism, he said. It's something the world we are living in isn't ready for."

The thing is, if climate change does tick past any of the theoretical tipping points some time in the future, we all may have no option but to eat only what is available locally (if amongst the lucky ones). However, in the meantime, the idea of a 'meat tax' might just have our erstwhile chancellor licking his lips in anticipation of yet another way to fill the coffers!

PROF'S POSER - Burning questions

As a result of this blog post, and subsequent comments, I was wondering if anyone knew what the rules on burning domestic waste actually were?

More grist to the mill?

I've always been fascinated with water mills and have never really understood why so many disappeared during my younger days. I guess that cheap electricity made them largely uneconomic to run.

But, water mills themselves can, and do, in a few instances, generate electricity in their own right. However, the DBERR's (it used to be the simple to understand DTI) rules on awarding double ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) on all micro-generation projects appear to be pushing many water mills out of the equation as reported in CarbonFree.

"For example at Tellisford, with Declared Net Capacity (DNC) of 55kW, the site will generate about 280,000 kWh per year, on which the income including its single ROC will be about £26,600. Yet a slightly smaller site with DNC of 50kW would generate about 231,000 kWh per year, on which including double ROCs it would earn about £33,500. Thus a mill generating 17% less electricity would receive 26% more money."

Now that is simply insane. Yet another example of rules being ill thought out, poorly implemented and actually forcing the opposite of what they were intended to do in the first place.

Well done (extremely sarcastically, of course) DBERR.

Addendum:
I meant to include this too. It rather reminds me of the retired engineer who rebuilt a derelict old water mill into a highly desirable property somewhere in Derbyshire some 15 to 20 years ago. He didn't want the mill wheel working and doing nothing, so he adapted it to generate enough power for his own benefit. All was going well until Severn Trent Water Authority decided that it would charge him thousands of pounds a year for using their water to generate electricity!

Of course, he simply shut down the mill wheel.

Understatement of the Year

Pickles voices concern over possible ‘bin bailiffs’

Claims that councils will be able to employ bailiffs to collect unpaid bills from save-as-you-throw pilots have not been denied by Defra and the Local Government Association (LGA)

The latest 'Nu-speak' is it? 'Does not deny’ means what, exactly? Is that a yes, or a no? Or is it the latest fudge in a whole candy store of sickly treats to see what can be got away with, obfuscated or plausibly denied later. At least it used to be 'Yes, Minister'. Now it's 'That is clearly not acceptable, and does need looking at...maybe' Minister'.

Bearing in mind that politicians of all hues, and from every area that requires a vote to stay in power seek public support, I am amazed that such things get floated at all in this way, and then when they do to such muted responses from the opposition. Are such sources of revenue really so attractive as to blind these people to how this is playing out in the real world?

No wants to see unnecessary waste or litter, and hence the punitive options may well still need to be considered. But not as a first resort. And not in such a blanket manner. And not in the hands of the folk who currently seem to be being given the keys to the baton cupboard.

I the other day watched a YouTube video of an bailiff assaulting an old boy trying to gain access to his home to 'enforce' the BBC license fee. And these are the kind of thoroughly discredited individuals that it is proposed to let loose as agents of a ‘guilty until proven innocent’ culture that is developing today, by increasingly over-staffed, overpaid, yet responsibility and accountability-shy public servants who like to hide behind quangos, consultants and other 3rd parties to try and distance themselves from the possible (!) negative consequences of their decisions and/or actions.

Before addressing all ways to impose and profit from public compliance, I'd suggest a lot more effort goes first into ensuring every possible way had been established to ensure they can, and preferably WANT to comply. So there’s a lot of joined up thinking needed... and waaaay before one demands anything of the public!

As to using one's vote I could not agree more. But it is also a rather disingenuous argument. How many can really claim to be able to pinpoint the individual numpties messing our lives up at local or national level with sufficient accuracy any more (they all change so much it's hard to even keep up with who carries what responsibility) to target one's electoral protest?

I'm sorry, as with the road pricing, this is one environmental campaigner who will be fighting a potentially highly enviROI+ measure simply because in its current form I have zero trust in the reasons behind and competencies of those trying to instigate it.

Animal welfare more important than climate change

That's one of the quite surprising (well, at least to me) outcomes of a poll conducted by the Co-op of 100,000 members as reported in Money Observer.

Now I don't normally like surveys, but 100,000 completed questionnaires has got to represent a reasonable statistical sample, even if only of Co-op members and customers.

"Only 4% rate climate change as their top ethical priority, compared with 21% who think animal welfare is the most important issue and 14% who rate fair trade as their key concern."

"Shoppers' worries about the environment are focused on issues other than climate change. Twice as many are concerned about the amount of packaging on their food as think global warming is the most important issue."

So there you have it. Climate change is a minor issue amongst consumers. Packaging, animal welfare and ethical trading are far more important.

What does this tell us? Well, I reckon that this result is clearly an indication of just how consumers have switched off from the debate on climate change as a result of the constant tis/tisn't arguments, the obfuscation coming from our own gov (and its appointed quangos etc.), the general feeling that our gov sees it as a way of sanctioning various additional taxes and the generally media led opinion that there's nothing we can do about it anyway.

Now all that is simply going to make moving forward on tackling climate change even more difficult. We are going to need some very strong leadership. Anybody see any sign of that about at the moment?

The Hot Topic

I was wondering just what David King had been up to of late - things had gone very quiet. Well, it seems he has been co-authoring a new book 'The Hot Topic', which is not written "by eco-warriors, but by pragmatists, who care about understanding the science, examining the problems, and looking for technological and political solutions."

This is the first review (from The Telegraph) of the book that I've spotted. And I just might have to put my hand in my pocket to get hold of a copy.

An interesting conclusion is drawn by the reviewer - "when it comes to the question of who you should believe, Al Gore's rhetoric is much closer to the truth than Channel 4's fairy tales."

I think I'd worked that one out for myself, but it's interesting to see such a conclusion in one of the broadsheets.

HSBC Bank is carbon neutral!

Add.. er (Pre?)endum/Prefix (by Junkk Male): I have reloaded this post, from its original origination date of 6/07/07 (why do Americans insist of flipping the dd/mm? It took some finding), for a few reasons:

1) It has to be the most commented/followed up upon (interestingly). Sorry HSBC.
2) I am impressed it is still being commented upon after all this time, but worry many might miss it in archive (I get a notification; I'm not sure if others do).
3) It has attracted a lot of very thoughtful, considered feedback, which is just how I like things here to proceed. The most recent is typical and most welcome. Check 'em out.

I think not! That's a claim waaaaaaay too far!

Further to the post earlier about 'green banking' (below the Live Earth post), HSBC now claims to be carbon neutral! From Carbon Free news.

"HSBC says it is the world's first major bank to become carbon neutral and has committed a further US$90 million over five years to reduce the bank's impact on the environment through a series of initiatives ...."

That's a hell of a claim, and seeing as there is no clearly agreed definition of carbon neutral - I'd love to see just how they attempt to justify it! Is every branch and office now generating its own renewable energy? Or does every branch and office now only use electricity from renewable sources? Does no-one travel? Are all new branches and offices built to be super energy efficient? Are all existing branches and offices being updated to be super energy efficient? Are all consumables and replacement equipment items that they purchase manufactured to zero carbon emission standards?

I'll bet they can't answer yes to any of them!

The only possible way they can justify this claim is by using considerable carbon offsetting, by paying someone else to recompense for their carbon emissions; which, as we have already pointed out on several occasion on this blog, is akin to ordering a diet coke alongside your double burger and claiming it to be part of your dieting program!

Greenwash, green-bullsh*t, green-veneer, green-smoke and green-mirrors. A veritable green smorgasbord of false, sickly green tosh. What's the betting that they are claiming to be carbon negative within a few years time?

ADDENDUM (via JunkkMale):

HSBC gives key marketer ‘golden handcuff’ offer - may explain something (or not), about the state of ads (especially 'green' ones) these days, if bankers are running the marketing.

ADDENDUM 2 (JunkkMale):

To add a hyperlinked URL to the comment posts

ADDENDUM 3

HSBC on climate change and Stern - well, they are devoting a lot of people and stuff to talking about it!

This sounds sooooo far fetched .........

... that it might just be crazy enough to be another 'free energy' breakthrough.

For the days when the sun simply won't shine and the cats and dogs are falling from the overcast sky in bucket-loads, how about a mechanism for generating electricity from raindrops? As reported in PhysOrg.com, scientists from CEA/Leti-Minatec, Grenoble, France, have "recently developed a system that recovers the vibration energy from a piezoelectric structure impacted by a falling raindrop. The system works with raindrops ranging in diameter from 1 to 5 mm, and simulations show that it’s possible to recover up to 12 milliwatts from one of the larger 'downpour' drops."

What they have to do now is work out a way to store the recovered electrical power in order to provide a steady current for day to day use.

Altogether now - 'I'm generating in the rain, just generating in the rain, what a beautiful feeling ........'

CATEGORY - Media - Industry

Took me long enough. I'll be adding..

Packaging

Packaging International - Online. Free

Spreading the word (and the Junkk lurve)

Someone thinks we publish news on hoovers…

Looking for a product story that doesn't suck? Well, not any more.

As it's Friday and you all are feeling gracious, here's a notion about Hoovers that IS about Eco-tech (and business, if any green minded outfit sees the potential of their audiences finding ways to reuse their products and second use their packaging):

http://www.junkk.com/junkkdetail.asp?slevel=0z622z709&parent_id=709&renleewtsapf=1730

That's the beauty of thinking in rubbish terms. Pretty much anything can be made (and/or) to fit if you try hard enough:)

Have a good weekend!

Friday Fun - Smoking gun

Green Gordon?

Nice one Newsnight (And, may I say, Greenpeace. I don't always endorse what they do or say, but in this they are back to what they do best).

I tried mixing Brown and Green, and it came out a kind of fudge. Seems apt, especially having watched the performance of the only government spokesperson landed with weaseling this one.

Still, as I recall our Dear Leader did throw his full weight behind that other massive eco-concern, and likely mitigation for something as trivial as how we produce our energy.... plastic bags.

When, oh when are we going to get folk in charge who can prioritise and concern themselves with initiatives that may actually help make this planet a bit better for future generations, rather than fussing with hype, spin, targets and cosy agendas.

While I see the constant dilemma of eco(nomic growth) vs. eco(logical harmony) creating headaches, it's not like there are not some targets looming here that this odd hesitancy will certainly not help assuage.

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

...but words may well end up seeing us off.

I have long given up trying to engage the whole MWCC 'debate', on any 'side', especially in a ratings driven media frenzy environment where only the next big extreme gets highlighted, so merely point you (with little comment) at this latest - Just the standard climatic imbalance... - for two reasons.

1) Yes, the media, including most in our national broadcaster, are totally complicit in the past, current and liklely future state of our understanding of, and reaction to climate change, by totally woeful reporting and hysterical, agenda-following editorialising.

2) Just like investments 'can go up as well as down', climate can change to hot and cold. The funky thing is when it does it to a serious degree, not where you'd expect, more often than it should... etc. So pointing at a cold day in summer is silly.

I don't know for certain, but I'm just seeing enough weird sh*t around to think that it is not behaving rationally.

Now, as to whether mankind is causing it, making it worse, or simply about to be a powerless casualty of Nature's whimsy is another matter. For another set of blogs.

Me? For now I am just trying my best to stop making things worse if I can help it. Unlike a lot... for all sides.

ps: 'Course, if you still fancy chatting and have a spare grand, you can always try here.

Talks ..... for the sake of talk?

It looks very much as if the next round of climate change talks has resulted in ......... well, nothing.

As reported by Channel 4, the much hyped Hawaiian negotiations have agreed no deal on targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Lots of hot air, and again no progress. What a waste of time!

Addendum:
But, as ever, it does rather depend on just who is doing the reporting, as this from CNN.com exemplifies - "participants praised what they saw as a new willingness by the United States to discuss possible solutions", and, "Delegates said the U.S. showed a new flexibility since earlier climate change meetings, and that they were able to talk frankly about their differences."

Perhaps our friends over the pond ARE slowly starting to make a slight shift in their stance?

Wasting money deliberately? Or just plain incompetence?

Those were the two questions that popped into my head when I spotted this in The Times earlier today.

The Olympic aquatics centre (the posh name for the swimming pool complex) was originally estimated (and budgeted) at some £70 million. The current costing (errrm, no, still not actually fixed) now stands at some £214 million.

Now an additional £144 million might not seem an obscene increase in the overall governmental scheme of Olympics expenditure, but, to me, it smacks of utter incompetence in the initial estimating process. What the hell did they do? Sit around a table and pull random numbers out of a tombola?

Ah, OK, they blame the increase on VAT and inflation. "much of the disparity is explained by VAT and inflation. While venue costs estimated during the bidding process were in 2004 prices, they must be stated in 2012 prices."

So, with VAT fixed at 17.5% (or, just maybe, our gov knows that VAT will be set at a rate of 100% by 2012?), and inflation at the official government figures of just over 2.3% (not that any single one of us believes that anyway), we get a tripling in cost between 2004 and 2012? Come on, we are NOT that stupid!

And, what a surprise, the bidding contract was won and assigned to ..... deep intake of breath ..... a sole bidder! "The Olympic Delivery Authority is set to sign a construction contract with Balfour Beatty, the sole bidder."

As well as incompetence and profligacy, this smacks to me of profiteering, greed and may even be tinged with a hint of fraud. And all that money is coming out of your own back pocket one way or another to be trousered elsewhere!

Whatever happened to accountability? LOL!

Addendum: (1/2/08)
The Daily Mail appears to have identified a few 'fat cats' which just might partly explain why costs are overrunning so much.

Build it and they will come. And go. And..

Local news is, by definition, going to be focussed on local issues. But often a story can make me ponder much weighter national issues. One such was in today's Midlands Today.

Addendum - extra info attached, see below.

The BBC site has again let me down on finding more info or a link (though I have asked - LATEST - I am doing well at the moment with helpful replies for follow-up information. It's always well worth trying to locate the author and ask. In this case, the correspondent himself has kindly provided this: Report is there under the TOP STORIES link on the right hand side (I suspect this will have a finite time it's up though. The one to look at is the next under 'Possible commuter problems', though all are worthy of noting)). There's also a specific page for reports from this week's transport features), but there was a report by correspendent Robert Punt that really struck a chord.

Today, in 2008, with all else we have swirling around us, it seems national government is requiring local government to plonk several thousand new homes on some rolling green belt land.

That's bad enough. I just wonder what they plan for when the last blade of grass has been concreted over to provide 'affordable housing' to buy off 'lower-income ratepay... er.. voters' property-owning aspirations.

Thing is, if I heard right, there is also no money, and hence no alowance for any support infrastructure. Bad enough for the plight of the community that this probably includes schools, hospitals, flood systems, etc, but one thing for sure ain't there is transport.

And it's next to a motorway. So, as this valauble piece pointed out, this not so little additional collection of working stiffs will be jumping in their Fiestas each day to earn a crust.

Barking. I look forward to the bin fines to offset the carbon. Not.

Addendum 2 - 1/02

As he was nice enough to show an interest and asked, I have sent the link to this to Mr. Punt. Of course I couldn't avoid a bit of context... which sort of turned into more a rant. But it was a good one and worth sharing here:

There just seems to be no joined up thinking when it comes to environmental matters between government, LAs and, often, business. But always the consumer cops it in the end.

I get livid when I hear the latest anti-car edict issued from Westminster, slavishly (and uncritically) printed by Fleet Street (though often also broadcast by the national BBC) and endorsed by Islingonistas. Very few out here have a tube line at the end of the road. So the car is often the only option. I choose to write for Fiesta family rather than 'My other car is a Prius' Person, the former of whom have lower incomes, mortgages, kids to get to distant schools, 2 weeks tops to spend, with luck, somewhere sunny, and the chance to do one weekly shop of a Friday evening at Tescos.

There's so much more I could highlight where the onus is thrown on those least able to cope, from plastic bags to, like I infer, the latest recycling wheezes. Just how much is spent of massive ad campaigns and how much effort put into punitive legislation, when there are still no credible, coherent systems put in place for the willing consumer to actually do what is best, easily, affordably and to a decent enviROI?

Sorry, rant over. Back to trying to DO something rather than just box-ticking, narrow-agenda-serving exercises in guilt, fear, threat or nanny that so far seem to have achieved little (OK, a teensie bit more of a rant). I sincerely believe the public DO understand the issues, and DO want to help. But they need to have their situations understood better and see things shared that are designed from the ground up to help them help.

And, speaking as an ad man, all lead by end benefit and incentive bolted on to logical, persuasive communications, which seems a much more productive route to consider.

Their starter for...

I make no apology for printing this in full: Join the debate on a low-carbon economy

Note: Post event Addendum added below.

It looks like they could do with a bit of a kick-start is all.

Huge Issue. Top quality paper. One of the most significant blogs. Multimillion, if not billion NGO.

So far, no input as far as I can see. Maybe most emailed direct, as that seems to be what was asked. I am not so shy. Also, it's a shame not to see the questions posed in open forum. Leads one to suspect that those chosen might be edited for suitability first.

Post your questions for the Observer's science editor and the Carbon Trust
January 29, 2008 11:00 AM
On Thursday January 31 at 11am, guardian.co.uk will be hosting the first of three web chats exploring how Britain can create a low-carbon economy.

The Observer's science editor, Robin McKie, will be joined by the Carbon Trust's director of innovations, Mark Williamson, to discuss what is in store for low-carbon technologies in 2008 and the innovations we can expect over the coming year.

Topics for discussion include:

What technologies are being developed (photovoltaic solar cells, micro-CHP, wave and wind powers) and how are companies/scientists/engineers improving on existing technologies?

Can these technologies help the UK meet its targets?

Who needs to take the lead in implementing new technologies?

What are the most exciting developments happening in low-carbon technology?

Is 2008 the year for these technologies to really start to hit mainstream, or are we still a few years away?

You can find out more about the Carbon Trust here, and more details about the chat here.

Email your questions for Robin and Mark to carbontrustinnovation@guardianunlimited.co.uk and log on at 11am on Thursday to follow the debate

'Last night I was honoured to be a co-speaker and panellist at The Centre for Sustainable Design - http://www.cfsd.org.uk/ - in a session entitled 'Resourceful Innovators', where the main topic for discussion coincidentally revolved around the level and quality of support for ideas and entrepreneurs developing low carbon solutions.

Without speaking for the College or those present, it seemed agreed that almost all focus of support was on big-ticket, high profile, hi-tech, but not necessarily that great ROI or often even enviROI+ initiatives.

Also that vast sums seem to be going into logistics, administration and comms budgets of those tasked with doling out funding, but a possibly less than healthy percentage was getting from taxpayers' pockets to those doing the most good (especially seeking to become self-sustaining without ongoing subsidy as a business model), in the most cost-effective and planetary beneficial ways.

So a couple of top-of-mind questions to pose are:

Why are there so many bodies tasked with forking out the money to help such private, and possibly highly worthy initiatives, why do so many overlap, why are they so 'big system driven' and what are the actual breakdowns involved in getting say, £100M from UK taxpayers to amounts tangibly provided to money in hand for things that might actually help their families' futures?

Just in round figures.

It's also a pity not to see more of the possible questions that may be posed in open forum here on the site as there is that option.'

However, there is is opportunity here, and you need to work with what is on offer. hence I hope this may push the right kind of buttons and may stand a better chance of being embraced:

'On a more proactive and pragmatic front, what more can be done to matchmake those with good ideas with the necessary business skills to bring these to self-sustaining, and soon profitable market. This country abounds with innovators, and by all accounts we are also well served with the service sector and business brains that know how to make money. In few cases are these two skill sets complementary within one person (save, perhaps, a Dyson or Baylis). And possibly in the area of the environment it may be further complicated by the driving forces being often at odds. Great inventions can often be driven by a desire to make money, yet more often than not they are more idealistically inspired. But one thing I have learned early on is that to have any chance of success in pushing the business case, the priority you outline is much more 'IT WILL MAKE OODLES OF DOUGH..' first, with '... and will also serve the future of this planet and those on it well' very quietly, and last, at the end. It is almost as though a desire to do right by next generations is seen as a negative in the macho universe of the Masters of the Business of Administration. A curse of denigration by Dragon. Which is a pity.

We are in a much more complex world, with many realities that need to be faced. And high amongst them is that most successes need teams of complementary talents to shape a concept, especially a new, left field one, and bring it to market. So in management, especially financial, one would have hoped for more forward thinking and indeed a desire to recognise and pleasure in seeing potential, and then building the necessary structures around it to make it happen. Not expect... or demand... a fully fledged done-deal from the off. Were it only as easy as ploughing in dosh and lighting the blue touch paper. There are people to meet, deals to be struck.... consumers to convince. Few can do that and make magic in their shed, too.

With the wealth of contacts across the board, and indeed in boards, could not more be done at official level to bridge the gap that I believe exists between those business minded creative souls that do have the talent and belief to think in terms of the next generations of products and services that can serve the environment, and the hopefully creative minded folk in business who can see potential in such ideas, and are looking for a legacy that is not just measured in pounds, pennies, Lears and Flaming Ferraris. Readers of this paper who do appreciate the environmental lead, but are not so interested in spending their money any longer on an advertised weekend trip to an Eco-lodge in the Maldives, and more on being part of a method to help mitigate the chances of the azure waters lapping higher than desirable.

So, of course, we are now in a world driven by bean counters, and hence we need them to work, and to work with them. But if more and more are counting beans and fewer and fewer making them, soon there will be no beans for anyone to live off.

Can we do more to free those who this country's unique systems and institutions still inspire to create great and unique ideas, from the all too crushing constraints of being things and personalities that they may not be best suited to deliver? Can we not seek ways to identify those areas that do have potential at an early stage, and then marry them and their creators with the now necessary skill sets to produce the business plans, P&Ls, forecasts and other instruments (though often, it seems that are mainly backside covering, and hence highly speculative 'best guesses'. It is my experience that an innovator, whilst passionate, may tend to be honest enough to say I haven't a clue' when asked to provide market forecasts for the next decade, which often does not tick the right boxes in more 'correct financial procedures concerned' cultures. Mind you. ... Dome? Wembley? Olympics? Nulclear? Some Alt. Energy schemes?) that are indeed necessary and essential to bring solid business concepts to fruition and profitable, socially serving reality?'

ADDENDUM:

Well, I think it's over. Actually was a bit hard to say. Probably me being an IT-numptie, but I did not find the 'process' that easy. From the original site link (at the top/start) it was a bit of a kerfuffle getting 'registered', and then I was none too sure where I was once 'live'....

Here... or here.

So, how was it for me... you?

I'd say, at best, an 'interesting' experiment in communication at best. Though I dipped in and out that was 1 and a half hours of time, and really what Q&A result was there? Especially as to pressing enviro issues involving the lives millions of folk and billions of £.

At least some my question sets did get posed, and by the editorial taboot. Not sure I got many answers, mind. It was all very... general. And this from a chap whose title is Director of Innovation, and if you click on the link to his bio he sits amongst a bunch of other 'Directors of..' who I doubt very much are on expenses only. So still no clue as to how a £100M in funding get carved up before the public sees any money going to 'doing' vs. 'talking' or 'doling'. And I do have to note one medium that is the beneficiary of a lot of this comms largesse. But at least they allowed me to pose my question, so big up there.

Not sure how the other questioners felt, either. As I indicated, we are talking via one of the more significant online news entities, with a definite interest in things green, involving senior editors with a high official in a hugely-significant green quango... and between the options I attempted, would be hard pressed to see much more than, what, twenty involved?

Not sure what it says exactly, but it doesn't seem that encouraging, really.

I doubt I'll be investing such time or effort again on this basis in a hurry. Which considering the importance of, and sums involved in such an issue, is a worry.