Watching over the offsetters - Will a voluntary code of conduct make us any more confident when choosing a carbon offset scheme?
Good original post, and some very worthwhile subsequent ones in reply. Hard to add much more of value.
Speaking personally, in answer to your question at the top, even with a voluntary code the answer will still be a resounding 'no'. And such is my faith in officialdom, frankly a mandatory, gov... er... quango (they'll farm it out to create a whole new set of beholden gravy-boaters, plus extra layer of deniability) - endorsed effort wouldn't exactly reassure me much better.
I can't see how they work or even IF they work. There are too many (I'm talking Coffsetters here, not quangos, but similar duplication, cost/benefit concerns apply) and I have no the time to weigh them up. Plus I have no reason to trust most of them, often with good reason, sadly tarring the possible worthy ones with the negative brush.
But as night follows day, I await the next half dozen to soon be announced by either a compliant media, rudderless government or 'buy-off-a-blip' business to help us 'deal' with the consequences of a growing number of us doing stuff and then wanting to do even more.
That is, IF we can afford it.
DEFRA - Benn announces Government offsetting code
Addenda (as promised to reply posters):
These are a couple of press releases that have come in to Junkk.com from the industry by way of response to the above. Hence read them in that light. They are merely what has been supplied and only from those who seem to have us on their mailing lists. As mentioned on the comments section, I don't know enough to offer much beyond how I feel as a consumer:
Carbon Clear response to DEFRA’s draft carbon offset code:
Carbon Clear has always championed transparency & measurable standards within the carbon offset industry. However, even after 12 months of consultation and deliberation we believe the Draft Code of Best Practice for Carbon Offset Providers issued by DEFRA raises as many questions as it answers.
One area of concern is the lack of definition over what a consumer is; the original draft code (Jan 2007) aimed to protect individuals and remove confusion in a fledgling industry, a move which we applaud. The code has now been extended to businesses in a way that we feel is completely inappropriate. We use an array of emissions factors to calculate and reduce a company’s carbon footprint prior to offsetting unavoidable emissions. Under the draft code we would have to pay an additional £2,000 every time we need to use a new emission factor not included in DEFRA’s current list. This cost could discourage many smaller businesses from participating in the carbon market and taking responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, our experience is that bigger businesses and corporates want a mix of compliance-market CERs and beyond-compliance VERs and prefer to perform their own quality checks to find projects that meet their requirements. CER schemes can be slow, bureaucratic, expensive to administer and limited in variety. Existing quality standards like the highly respected Voluntary Gold Standard and Voluntary Carbon Standard address the need for verified reductions and allow more of the money to go towards projects that help poor communities around the world make the transition to a low carbon future. Thus, while we welcome the Government’s embrace of the quality principles we have long supported, we feel there is still a lot of work to be done before this draft code is fit for purpose.
Carbon Clear is the first full-service carbon management firm with ISO 14001 certification to be listed in the United Kingdom Register of Quality Assessed Companies, which includes entries for over 100,000 organisations. The ISO 14001 is a global environmental management standard. The Register includes companies both within and outside the UK.
Carbon Clear is a carbon management company that works with businesses and individuals to reduce their carbon footprint. In addition to advising on emission reductions Carbon Clear also invests in projects to cancel out the pollution that is generated by everyday activities such as driving, home and business energy usage, flying and even nappy use. Corporate customers include Eurostar, Innocent Drinks, and 3M.
All of the projects Carbon Clear invests in are selected based on both carbon reduction and a wider social benefit for the communities implementing them. A great deal of care is taken to ensure money is directed to activities that genuinely improve the environment and the lives of real people and all projects must meet the following criteria:
Our projects must make verifiable pollution reductions over and above their normal level. We follow the guidelines developed by the Clean Development Mechanism and Voluntary Carbon Standard.
Projects must provide additional, long-term benefits to the communities that undertake them; these range from better health and improved incomes to job creation and the protection of endangered plants and animals.
Projects must be efficient; funds should support the projects, and not be diverted to unnecessary bureaucratic overheads, waste or middlemen.
Carbon Clear is supporting a wide variety of emissions reduction projects that produce clear development benefits. These range from improved cookstoves in Sudan, to wind farms in India and energy efficient brick kilns in Nicaragua.
Carbon Capital Markets Welcomes Defra's Offset Code of Conduct
Commenting on today's launch of Defra's Code of Conduct for Carbon Offsetting, Lionel Fretz, CEO of Carbon Capital Markets®, a leading trader and fund manager in carbon and clean energy markets, said:
"We welcome this strict code from Defra for the carbon offset markets. We have always taken the position that offsetting should only use credits from the regulated market as it is only these that have been through such a strict process of auditing and verification to guarantee their worth.
I would urge anyone purchasing offsets to make sure they are buying regulated credits only, using an FSA authorised and regulated supplier to ensure that both the offset supplier and the offsets they provide, are subject to the highest standards of regulation."
Carbon Capital Markets is involved in all aspects of the regulated, Kyoto-compliant carbon markets. It was recently cited by Point Carbon, a leading provider of news and analysis, as an industry leader for its management of the Carbon Assets Fund, which invests in Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Projects.
DEFRA Government Offsetting Code to remain open to quality VERs (Verified Emission Reductions).
Eight leading international carbon offset companies, together supplying both CERs and VERs to the beyond-compliance market, have today welcomed the UK Government’s Offsetting Code and its recognition of the important role played by Verified Emissions Reductions (VERs).
When Defra in the UK published its draft version of the Code (Jan 2007) ‘Kyoto-compliant’ carbon credits only were included. However, following a twelve month consultation that saw support for VERs from experts as varied as NGOs and academics through to Parliament’s own Environmental Audit Committee, Hilary Benn stated yesterday that “we recognise that credits from the unregulated market may be innovative and of a very high standard”.
As a group of eight leading carbon offsetting companies, representing most of the leading suppliers by volume in the beyond-compliance carbon (voluntary) market, we welcome the government’s adoption of the key principles already used by the market for selection of VER and CER emission reduction programmes – from additionality and leakage through to permanence and verification. It’s appropriate and welcome that Defra has listened to the market and is taking a lead from it.
The beyond-compliance carbon market, which kick-started carbon trading in the mid-nineties, is global, cross-sectoral and growing extremely fast. The industry has professionalised over the last 5 years, and has seen in the launch of new quality standards for VERs including the Gold Standard (GS VER) and the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), with registries for the VCS and GS in development along with a planned project database linking the two. (see Notes below)
We firmly believe that there is increased interest from people and business in acting beyond compliance, i.e. reducing emissions because they want to not because they have to. This is the carbon market coming of age, and we look forward to working with the UK Government to keep them informed participants in the global development of this innovative and fast-paced emergent market – one that is already generating important investments and innovative solutions towards tackling climate change.
Jonathan Shopley, Executive Director,The CarbonNeutral Company
Jamal Gore, Managing Director, Carbon Clear
Edward Hanrahan, Chief Operating Officer, ClimateCare
Steve Green, Carbon Strategy and Partnerships Manager, Climate Friendly
Mike Rigby, Director,co2balance
Tom Stoddard, Vice President, NativeEnergy
Kerryn Schrank, Programme Director, targetneutral
Adam Stern, Vice President of Policy and Strategy, Terrapass
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Ethical Problems
10 tips for ethical living
Let's get this clear right away. I have no problem at all with being, eating, flying (snuck that in, eh?) , sleeping.... or doing, buying , etc pretty much anything that may be deemed more 'ethical'.
Why would I? Why would anyone? It's pretty much in the (well, the MS Word dictionary) definition: 'consistent with agreed principles of correct moral conduct'. Though of course one might argue (no, really, one might) over who is 'agreeing' what is 'correct'.
And there does to me seem to be some blurring of what it does mean, should mean, could mean and has come to be used, interpreted, etc.
(Is it just me, or is every sentence a mass of commas to infinity with all the possible, and often competing, options?).
Anyway, every so often , for those who need such things as a guide, along comes a list from 'someone' to give 'you' a 'how to'.
So here, via the Indy, and thanks to the organisers of the One Life Live event at Olympia (which I might have heard of, but obviously missed. Darn not living in that great city) who have found nearly 73 per cent of us (that's more than 72% I'm guessing. But then I always find such precise figures fun) believe that a more sustainable lifestyle is essential to the future of the planet. Not sure if sustainable (exploiting natural resources without destroying the ecological balance of a particular area) is quite the same as ethical, but that debate has been, is and will be raging on for ever.
And I don't know if they are in order, but the first is a no-brainer:
1. The appliance of science - though, oddly, to date I have so far seen no guidance on the various consequences of dumping a working, but less efficient model now vs. allowing it to die of natural causes. Beyond the money, it must surely matter, enviROI-wise.
2. Fuelling change - no argument. Mind you, looking at the M4 from London end when you have 3hrs drive ahead, at 2am, and when you have 200bhp on tap...
3. Sounds fishy - OK... fish.
6. Be cool! - Yup. Mind you, unless you are paying the bills (like me), with two kids in t-shirts and a wife in a puffer jacket, local conditions can make this tricky.
4. Fashion conscious - don't get me started.
5. Growth industry - of course, there's lots we could do without. And as I recall, the total carbon footprint of flowers from Africa may be less than those grown locally. As I have a brown thumb, we have no flowers, cut or in pots. The garden however is blooming. With weeds.
7. Shower power - logically, yes. I notice no mention of having fewer showers. Wife, daily. Me, every 3 days. The boys? What month is it?
8. Running flush - well, me and the boys operate a 'let it mellow' policy until the missus gets wind of it... literally. As to buying a piece of plastic to do the job of what several pieces of plastic you lob out weekly, well....
9. A sparkling success - see fashion. Grrrrr.
10. Off to a tea - tea. Well, yes. That will do it, I guess.
All.... well, most fairly good stuff. But year on year, this is what is served up? Sheesh. And while some may live in a world of ethically deciding on one's jewellery purchases, it's not a planet I'm sure I'm on (or would get saved that quick anyway).
Let's get this clear right away. I have no problem at all with being, eating, flying (snuck that in, eh?) , sleeping.... or doing, buying , etc pretty much anything that may be deemed more 'ethical'.
Why would I? Why would anyone? It's pretty much in the (well, the MS Word dictionary) definition: 'consistent with agreed principles of correct moral conduct'. Though of course one might argue (no, really, one might) over who is 'agreeing' what is 'correct'.
And there does to me seem to be some blurring of what it does mean, should mean, could mean and has come to be used, interpreted, etc.
(Is it just me, or is every sentence a mass of commas to infinity with all the possible, and often competing, options?).
Anyway, every so often , for those who need such things as a guide, along comes a list from 'someone' to give 'you' a 'how to'.
So here, via the Indy, and thanks to the organisers of the One Life Live event at Olympia (which I might have heard of, but obviously missed. Darn not living in that great city) who have found nearly 73 per cent of us (that's more than 72% I'm guessing. But then I always find such precise figures fun) believe that a more sustainable lifestyle is essential to the future of the planet. Not sure if sustainable (exploiting natural resources without destroying the ecological balance of a particular area) is quite the same as ethical, but that debate has been, is and will be raging on for ever.
And I don't know if they are in order, but the first is a no-brainer:
1. The appliance of science - though, oddly, to date I have so far seen no guidance on the various consequences of dumping a working, but less efficient model now vs. allowing it to die of natural causes. Beyond the money, it must surely matter, enviROI-wise.
2. Fuelling change - no argument. Mind you, looking at the M4 from London end when you have 3hrs drive ahead, at 2am, and when you have 200bhp on tap...
3. Sounds fishy - OK... fish.
6. Be cool! - Yup. Mind you, unless you are paying the bills (like me), with two kids in t-shirts and a wife in a puffer jacket, local conditions can make this tricky.
4. Fashion conscious - don't get me started.
5. Growth industry - of course, there's lots we could do without. And as I recall, the total carbon footprint of flowers from Africa may be less than those grown locally. As I have a brown thumb, we have no flowers, cut or in pots. The garden however is blooming. With weeds.
7. Shower power - logically, yes. I notice no mention of having fewer showers. Wife, daily. Me, every 3 days. The boys? What month is it?
8. Running flush - well, me and the boys operate a 'let it mellow' policy until the missus gets wind of it... literally. As to buying a piece of plastic to do the job of what several pieces of plastic you lob out weekly, well....
9. A sparkling success - see fashion. Grrrrr.
10. Off to a tea - tea. Well, yes. That will do it, I guess.
All.... well, most fairly good stuff. But year on year, this is what is served up? Sheesh. And while some may live in a world of ethically deciding on one's jewellery purchases, it's not a planet I'm sure I'm on (or would get saved that quick anyway).
Monday, February 18, 2008
A worthy answer. Odd how there are so few questions.
Or anything. Not one comment at time of posting. Why environmental treaties don't work
Thank you for sharing this.
I am a little amazed, and not a little depressed, to find so few taking an interest in what I'd have thought was a very key, major aspect of the whole PMWCC (Probably man-worsened climate change) issue and our global attempts to address it.
But I guess we need to fret the big stuff first, like bottled water.
Thank you for sharing this.
I am a little amazed, and not a little depressed, to find so few taking an interest in what I'd have thought was a very key, major aspect of the whole PMWCC (Probably man-worsened climate change) issue and our global attempts to address it.
But I guess we need to fret the big stuff first, like bottled water.
Government Incompetence?
Or deliberate policy?
The second question is mine, the first is from an interesting article in today's Guardian.
I've questioned the ridiculous state of government grants for renewables before, but somehow it seems to have got even worse than it was!
Whilst the DBERR is set to under spend the £18m low carbon buildings programme by £10m over the three years to March 2009, we get this!
"Last May BERR simply slashed the grants and made them more difficult to get. The result, entirely predictably, was a collapse. ............ Throughout much of 2006, for example, it was making 30-40 grants a month for ground source heat pumps. In the last three months of 2007, no such grants were made. There is a similar decline for solar thermal (hot water) and micro wind turbines. Not a single grant was allocated for a domestic solar PV system last month while the Germans installed about 12,000 systems."
And the DBERR is making no energy contingency plans for the eventuality of peak oil in case it causes panic! This no longer sounds like a bit of a shambles - it IS a bloody shambles!
The second question is mine, the first is from an interesting article in today's Guardian.
I've questioned the ridiculous state of government grants for renewables before, but somehow it seems to have got even worse than it was!
Whilst the DBERR is set to under spend the £18m low carbon buildings programme by £10m over the three years to March 2009, we get this!
"Last May BERR simply slashed the grants and made them more difficult to get. The result, entirely predictably, was a collapse. ............ Throughout much of 2006, for example, it was making 30-40 grants a month for ground source heat pumps. In the last three months of 2007, no such grants were made. There is a similar decline for solar thermal (hot water) and micro wind turbines. Not a single grant was allocated for a domestic solar PV system last month while the Germans installed about 12,000 systems."
And the DBERR is making no energy contingency plans for the eventuality of peak oil in case it causes panic! This no longer sounds like a bit of a shambles - it IS a bloody shambles!
Had to be done
Richard Branson ‘has a lot of making up to do’
But he does give the media lots to gush.. er.. write about. Which is really all that matters.
How are all those nifty ideas going, actually?
There's also the small matter of that mighty column of something probably less than climatically benign that pops out of Virgin Galactic, to enable a few mega-rich punters have their Kodak moment before availing themselves of the wee bag in the seat back.
But then if we don't have stuff like this we can't explore new worlds, and boldy go and propagate and pollute where no ma... er.. person has before.
Beam me up, Scotty! (I believe his ashes are on the tour).
But he does give the media lots to gush.. er.. write about. Which is really all that matters.
How are all those nifty ideas going, actually?
There's also the small matter of that mighty column of something probably less than climatically benign that pops out of Virgin Galactic, to enable a few mega-rich punters have their Kodak moment before availing themselves of the wee bag in the seat back.
But then if we don't have stuff like this we can't explore new worlds, and boldy go and propagate and pollute where no ma... er.. person has before.
Beam me up, Scotty! (I believe his ashes are on the tour).
Serving interests
Grinch time.
I have no real problem with a lot in the business that is charity, but all too often I stumble on 'efficiencies'... perhaps it could be termed 'chaROI', namely what is involved in getting a pound from the public to 'how much?' and in what useful form to the most worthy beneficiaries.
Without naming names, and without knowing the back-story, this was prompted by a fairly hefty news item about a not small group who went to South America to paraglide off a mountain, and raised... £3k. About the cost of the flight of one, plus gear, I'd hazard.
Now if they paid for all and this was just a nice little donation via sponsorship on top, then fine. But having been asked more than a few times to chip in on such things these can often be 'after expenses', meaning the charity goes a long way to paying for a lot of other stuff that doesn't really help those most in need.
So before I donate, or put these up on the site to encourage others, forgive me if I tend delve a bit more into the the provenance chain a bit more.
I have no real problem with a lot in the business that is charity, but all too often I stumble on 'efficiencies'... perhaps it could be termed 'chaROI', namely what is involved in getting a pound from the public to 'how much?' and in what useful form to the most worthy beneficiaries.
Without naming names, and without knowing the back-story, this was prompted by a fairly hefty news item about a not small group who went to South America to paraglide off a mountain, and raised... £3k. About the cost of the flight of one, plus gear, I'd hazard.
Now if they paid for all and this was just a nice little donation via sponsorship on top, then fine. But having been asked more than a few times to chip in on such things these can often be 'after expenses', meaning the charity goes a long way to paying for a lot of other stuff that doesn't really help those most in need.
So before I donate, or put these up on the site to encourage others, forgive me if I tend delve a bit more into the the provenance chain a bit more.
Doing the Necessary, Priority-wise
It's a rare situation when I can put hand on heart and comment on something from the remote position that not being too fussed about it all confers.
And so I listen to the BBC breakfast news, with an interesting series, and sequence of items.
So we have them quoting a government minister (I think one of our 'several' enviro grade ones) pondering the morality of bottled water. Yup, pretty bonkers flying stuff in from Fiji, and now shipping water over water to a place with water is also... odd.
Thing is, I then ponder the messengers. The BBC obviously fessed up to their internal complicity* (I think to the tune of £300k. No mention of what they'll do about it). I also need to check if the Panorama programme in question really did need to fly* round the planet to make their case (though doubtless offset; lord knows where and to what effect). And beyond what gets served up in the Commons Bar. I do also have to crank an eye at how this stands, enviROI-wise vs. blowing £110 billion propping up a dodgy financial business using our money.
Then we skip to a piece about the new trend of having baby showers, with gifts of £1000 exchanged.
It all rather goes into what is... necessary. And in what priority.
I also crank an eyebrow at how long this will be flavour of the month between the government/media cabal that seems to exist to focus the public's attention on one set of things, often at the expense of, how to say, 'bigger' issues.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There are of course those who will suffer any reduction/ban rather more tangibly and immediately, namely all involved in the industry. I have to concern myself whether those with worthy, mitigating aspects, such as Belu or Frank, will weather this. I guess it's possible they may even do better out of it.
As, of course, will all fizzy pops (if I do ever opt for bottled water I like it sparkling to feel liek it is 'special', so maybe I'll still get Perrier for artist Jason B to turn into lamps) and booze.
Funny old world.
Addendum 1 - You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. I just watched a live feed from a helicopter of Mr. Al Fayed's car trip to the Diana inquest. The world has gone mad.
Addendum 2 - Bottled water industry faces growing eco pressures - I quote this because I have to question the adequacy of the industry response, at least as reported and, I presume, as intended.
For a start, when I read upfront “simplistic comments such as ‘oil from the Middle East is turned into plastic and ‘many of the bottles that are thrown away end up in our rivers and canals.’” I have to cock an eyebrow. The first needs amplification (where do the raw materials come from?) and the second, well, seems pretty clearly right.
The thing is, why, what, how... etc? In this cases reasons can serve in place of excuses.
Good luck with the campaign they intend, but it's all coming across, to this consumer at least, as a little bit 'from on high' and unnecessarily defensive.
It's not fair and they have been singled out in flagrant diregard to other, possibly equally worse 'culprits' of our conucmer choice society, but I'm not sure what I read here is going to cut it.
And so I listen to the BBC breakfast news, with an interesting series, and sequence of items.
So we have them quoting a government minister (I think one of our 'several' enviro grade ones) pondering the morality of bottled water. Yup, pretty bonkers flying stuff in from Fiji, and now shipping water over water to a place with water is also... odd.
Thing is, I then ponder the messengers. The BBC obviously fessed up to their internal complicity* (I think to the tune of £300k. No mention of what they'll do about it). I also need to check if the Panorama programme in question really did need to fly* round the planet to make their case (though doubtless offset; lord knows where and to what effect). And beyond what gets served up in the Commons Bar. I do also have to crank an eye at how this stands, enviROI-wise vs. blowing £110 billion propping up a dodgy financial business using our money.
Then we skip to a piece about the new trend of having baby showers, with gifts of £1000 exchanged.
It all rather goes into what is... necessary. And in what priority.
I also crank an eyebrow at how long this will be flavour of the month between the government/media cabal that seems to exist to focus the public's attention on one set of things, often at the expense of, how to say, 'bigger' issues.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There are of course those who will suffer any reduction/ban rather more tangibly and immediately, namely all involved in the industry. I have to concern myself whether those with worthy, mitigating aspects, such as Belu or Frank, will weather this. I guess it's possible they may even do better out of it.
As, of course, will all fizzy pops (if I do ever opt for bottled water I like it sparkling to feel liek it is 'special', so maybe I'll still get Perrier for artist Jason B to turn into lamps) and booze.
Funny old world.
Addendum 1 - You are either part of the solution, or part of the problem. I just watched a live feed from a helicopter of Mr. Al Fayed's car trip to the Diana inquest. The world has gone mad.
Addendum 2 - Bottled water industry faces growing eco pressures - I quote this because I have to question the adequacy of the industry response, at least as reported and, I presume, as intended.
For a start, when I read upfront “simplistic comments such as ‘oil from the Middle East is turned into plastic and ‘many of the bottles that are thrown away end up in our rivers and canals.’” I have to cock an eyebrow. The first needs amplification (where do the raw materials come from?) and the second, well, seems pretty clearly right.
The thing is, why, what, how... etc? In this cases reasons can serve in place of excuses.
Good luck with the campaign they intend, but it's all coming across, to this consumer at least, as a little bit 'from on high' and unnecessarily defensive.
It's not fair and they have been singled out in flagrant diregard to other, possibly equally worse 'culprits' of our conucmer choice society, but I'm not sure what I read here is going to cut it.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Doom-mongering, or extremely prescient?
I came across this article in RIA Novosti considering the Kyoto protocol, and its potential outcomes, by chance, and it makes for quite interesting reading. The author is one Viktor Danilov-Danilyan, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Now some of you will undoubtedly dismiss his considerations as outright doom-mongery, others may regard them as quite plausible forecasts of just what could happen in the decades to come.
I'll leave you to make up your own mind. Me? I just hope his prescience does not turn out to be overtly accurate!
Now some of you will undoubtedly dismiss his considerations as outright doom-mongery, others may regard them as quite plausible forecasts of just what could happen in the decades to come.
I'll leave you to make up your own mind. Me? I just hope his prescience does not turn out to be overtly accurate!
The alternative fuel of the future?
I mentioned the possible use of ammonia as a fuel the other day in a post about peak oil (see lower down) and having 5 minutes free this afternoon thought I'd have a quick look.
It seems that the technology is already just about in place. In fact nH3ydrofuel of Canada is literally on the verge of marketing a conversion kit allowing petrol engined vehicles to run on ammonia ($6000). Now at first sight that might seem a hefty price, but with petrol at $1+ per litre ammonia is comparatively cheap at ~50 cents per litre. The technology will also allow you to fill the special tank with LPG so you car effectively becomes a tri-fuel hybrid.
OK, so what are the environmental impacts of running an internal combustion engine on ammonia? The good news is that CO2 emissions are minuscule (you have to start the vehicle on petrol for 15 seconds in order to purge the equipment, but that's negligible) and once the ammonia feed kicks in it produces virtually no CO2. My immediate concern was that NOX emissions might be a problem, but they claim that they are only 25% of the NOX emissions from burning petrol. So this would appear to be an extremely environmentally friendly fuel.
They have filed some 20 patents covering all types of engines (including diesel) and several very interesting ones around power plants running ammonia for developing local electricity supplies. These also include patents for taking domestic, commercial and human waste and converting it to ammonia; the idea being that local authorities could generate their own electricity from waste that would otherwise go to landfill.
Despite the action of the Canadian government 25 years ago (Greg Vezina demonstrated a vehicle running on ammonia back in the 1980's but promised developmental assistance was withdrawn in preference to oil subsidies), ammonia energy technology definitely seems like one to watch for the future.
Remember, you heard about it first here on Junkk.
Addendum:
Just for the sake of providing balance, the potential downside to the use of ammonia as a fuel is that the only cheap way of producing it is from a natural gas feedstock, which is, of course, a finite and non-renewable source.
Addendum2 (via Junkk Male):
A welcome (if contrary) new contribution from, I believe, a new poster in the comments section. As this is an interesting and important issue I have updated the whole post, and it also gives me a chance to pop in his link hyperwhizzbang attached.
I think we need to figure a way of adding Dave's tip on how to do that on comments in the main body somehow. Maybe we should suggest it to Blogger?
Addendum 3 (Dave):
Geoff, thanks for the contribution. If you read through all of the posts in the forum discussion from the link you provided ( direct link above), it actually concludes that Ammonia could well be a viable alternative fuel, at least from a theoretical scientific viewpoint. "It takes 46 kj/mol to turn the ammonia into N2 and H2, then releases 363 kj/mol when you burn the H2. So you get a net energy output of about 317 kj/mol of NH3."
Addendum 4 (JunkkMale):
Greenbang - NEW - Chilled ammonia: the new carbon capture star - Would you like an olive with that? Not quite the right place, but the stuff is getting about!
It seems that the technology is already just about in place. In fact nH3ydrofuel of Canada is literally on the verge of marketing a conversion kit allowing petrol engined vehicles to run on ammonia ($6000). Now at first sight that might seem a hefty price, but with petrol at $1+ per litre ammonia is comparatively cheap at ~50 cents per litre. The technology will also allow you to fill the special tank with LPG so you car effectively becomes a tri-fuel hybrid.
OK, so what are the environmental impacts of running an internal combustion engine on ammonia? The good news is that CO2 emissions are minuscule (you have to start the vehicle on petrol for 15 seconds in order to purge the equipment, but that's negligible) and once the ammonia feed kicks in it produces virtually no CO2. My immediate concern was that NOX emissions might be a problem, but they claim that they are only 25% of the NOX emissions from burning petrol. So this would appear to be an extremely environmentally friendly fuel.
They have filed some 20 patents covering all types of engines (including diesel) and several very interesting ones around power plants running ammonia for developing local electricity supplies. These also include patents for taking domestic, commercial and human waste and converting it to ammonia; the idea being that local authorities could generate their own electricity from waste that would otherwise go to landfill.
Despite the action of the Canadian government 25 years ago (Greg Vezina demonstrated a vehicle running on ammonia back in the 1980's but promised developmental assistance was withdrawn in preference to oil subsidies), ammonia energy technology definitely seems like one to watch for the future.
Remember, you heard about it first here on Junkk.
Addendum:
Just for the sake of providing balance, the potential downside to the use of ammonia as a fuel is that the only cheap way of producing it is from a natural gas feedstock, which is, of course, a finite and non-renewable source.
Addendum2 (via Junkk Male):
A welcome (if contrary) new contribution from, I believe, a new poster in the comments section. As this is an interesting and important issue I have updated the whole post, and it also gives me a chance to pop in his link hyperwhizzbang attached.
I think we need to figure a way of adding Dave's tip on how to do that on comments in the main body somehow. Maybe we should suggest it to Blogger?
Addendum 3 (Dave):
Geoff, thanks for the contribution. If you read through all of the posts in the forum discussion from the link you provided ( direct link above), it actually concludes that Ammonia could well be a viable alternative fuel, at least from a theoretical scientific viewpoint. "It takes 46 kj/mol to turn the ammonia into N2 and H2, then releases 363 kj/mol when you burn the H2. So you get a net energy output of about 317 kj/mol of NH3."
Addendum 4 (JunkkMale):
Greenbang - NEW - Chilled ammonia: the new carbon capture star - Would you like an olive with that? Not quite the right place, but the stuff is getting about!
Friday, February 15, 2008
The carbon capturing car?
Here's yet another twist on hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles as reported by Channel4.
"The Georgia Tech car can run on conventional petrol or diesel, but has an on-board processor to separate out the hydrogen in the fuel. The hydrogen is used to run the car, as in a fuel cell vehicle, giving zero-emissions operation (the only waste product is water) and the carbon is stored in a liquid solution."
The idea is that the remaining hydrocarbon liquid contains all the carbon, which is then reprocessed to create yet more fuel. Sounds like an interesting concept. Let's see how it develops.
"The Georgia Tech car can run on conventional petrol or diesel, but has an on-board processor to separate out the hydrogen in the fuel. The hydrogen is used to run the car, as in a fuel cell vehicle, giving zero-emissions operation (the only waste product is water) and the carbon is stored in a liquid solution."
The idea is that the remaining hydrocarbon liquid contains all the carbon, which is then reprocessed to create yet more fuel. Sounds like an interesting concept. Let's see how it develops.
3 degrees of separation
I just missed the opportunity to get all kultur'd up thanks to Homie Brown and his boys 'n girls from da Westminster hood's new plan, so I think I'm mixing a few literary icons.
I know there's something about 6 degrees of separation and how we're all just a few links off being Royal, but that'll teach me for giving up at O level.
Anyhoo, it's a snappy title, which I have hijacked to describe the fine art of talking about something, mainly to stir it up a bit, but in ways that isolate me from the consequences. A bit like when a reporter says 'some say...', and you just wish the interviewee won't budge 'til they 'fess up that it's actually them and no one else has said a thing.
But here I quote a blog that quotes others, so I'm pretty golden. Well, other than now, when I say that these two pieces make pretty clear that my concerns on enviROI of so-called 'green' initiatives and the associated (lack of) joined up thinking around them. Plus some 'solutions' not actaully, as such, doing much more than make a few folk rich and a few others feel better about themselves. Oh, and a few media keeping occupied talking things up and then down, which is a win-win. I just need one win: what works.
Greenbang.com - The £50 million wave fund that no one wants - whack up a windmill (with a few issues pending), no problem. Daily, regular, reliable tides.... hmnnn.
Greenbang.com - Hybrid cars: a misinformed craze? OK, it has a question mark. Good question mind.
I have an acronym coming... O, DTTTI.. Only delaying tactics 'til the inevitable?
I know there's something about 6 degrees of separation and how we're all just a few links off being Royal, but that'll teach me for giving up at O level.
Anyhoo, it's a snappy title, which I have hijacked to describe the fine art of talking about something, mainly to stir it up a bit, but in ways that isolate me from the consequences. A bit like when a reporter says 'some say...', and you just wish the interviewee won't budge 'til they 'fess up that it's actually them and no one else has said a thing.
But here I quote a blog that quotes others, so I'm pretty golden. Well, other than now, when I say that these two pieces make pretty clear that my concerns on enviROI of so-called 'green' initiatives and the associated (lack of) joined up thinking around them. Plus some 'solutions' not actaully, as such, doing much more than make a few folk rich and a few others feel better about themselves. Oh, and a few media keeping occupied talking things up and then down, which is a win-win. I just need one win: what works.
Greenbang.com - The £50 million wave fund that no one wants - whack up a windmill (with a few issues pending), no problem. Daily, regular, reliable tides.... hmnnn.
Greenbang.com - Hybrid cars: a misinformed craze? OK, it has a question mark. Good question mind.
I have an acronym coming... O, DTTTI.. Only delaying tactics 'til the inevitable?
They're out there
For my forthcoming speeches at ECOPACK '08, I put out a call via the IoM website to ask for examples of second use design.Here's the first to come in.
From Clifford Packaging.
My car currently has three purpose built efforts from Morrisons, whilst my desktop filing systems uses 6xwine boxes I collect separately to support the cereal box dividers within.
So I'd say this was a pretty good plan.
It's academic... apparently. Still
Close the loop on plastic, says leading academic
Couldn't agree more with Dr. Thompson. Though why it is an academic issue... still... now... rather defeats me.
But then, I'm only a consumer.
And that, 'scuse the pun, seems to make me just... fine.
Couldn't agree more with Dr. Thompson. Though why it is an academic issue... still... now... rather defeats me.
But then, I'm only a consumer.
And that, 'scuse the pun, seems to make me just... fine.
Taking the wrap
I just wanted to share this morning's mail delivery. And (left/top) the week's so far.In it were three magazines, two of an eco bent.
Now I understand all the issues faced in safe delivery, so I am not going there.
What is more of interest to me is the disconnect between all those who should be dealing with this, from the suppliers to publishers to consumers to waste disposal entities, commercial and public, for profit and legislative.
Two of my haul claim to be safely disposable in landfill. Rather confusingly (well, to this consumer) one is oxy-degradable and the other biodegradable. Same thing?
The other is 'recyclable'.
Now I know enough to wonder whether the landfill-friendly efforts are only going to work if processed properly. And that by being mixed with the other the whole thing is probably a mess anyway.
I doubt many would be even so troubled. And in the absence of any information to the contrary, or mechanisms to deal with it properly anyway, it's all going in the same basket, and I'll then let the supermarket decide this weekend when I stick it in the bag box, or the swimming pool carpark skip's plastic bag binliner.
Not, I imagine, the best enviROI, really.
Tilting Windmills
My ad agency had a motto: Quick. Cheap. Good: pick any two (and whatever happens one will always have to be good)
It came to mind as I read this: Backlogs threaten Government targets for renewable energy
So we have a target or two. That means the timing is not negotiable. So... I'm guessing the price will be going up even more than antcipated, which makes my enviROI concerns even more presssing.
Or, of course, quality might suffer. Hope not. But in meeting a target today there is a dubious history already of leaving the mess of tomorrow for others to clear up.
It came to mind as I read this: Backlogs threaten Government targets for renewable energy
So we have a target or two. That means the timing is not negotiable. So... I'm guessing the price will be going up even more than antcipated, which makes my enviROI concerns even more presssing.
Or, of course, quality might suffer. Hope not. But in meeting a target today there is a dubious history already of leaving the mess of tomorrow for others to clear up.
News, Views and what you lose
I share this for a variety of reasons: Boris's manifesto? He'll teach Ken how to ride a bike
It's actually about the debates between London's mayoral candidates. I almost didn't click on as that's not what the headline link seemed to indicate. Interesting choice from a paper accusing others of not taking issues, such as Darfur/Olympics, seriously enough.
And having read on, unless it was the reporting, I have to say just how thin the whole 'enviro' claims came across, especially when set against the demands of running and funding a city of several millions.
I'm not sure that, and this is as quoted in the Indy remember, 'Vote Liberal Democrat for lower fuel bills –and feeling cold', is the way to win hearts, minds... or votes.
Addendum;
Gaurdian - Green talk - It's cheap, too
It's actually about the debates between London's mayoral candidates. I almost didn't click on as that's not what the headline link seemed to indicate. Interesting choice from a paper accusing others of not taking issues, such as Darfur/Olympics, seriously enough.
And having read on, unless it was the reporting, I have to say just how thin the whole 'enviro' claims came across, especially when set against the demands of running and funding a city of several millions.
I'm not sure that, and this is as quoted in the Indy remember, 'Vote Liberal Democrat for lower fuel bills –and feeling cold', is the way to win hearts, minds... or votes.
Addendum;
Gaurdian - Green talk - It's cheap, too
All nature's creatures
I was tempted recently to get a biosphere.
It's one of those do-dads that is a sealed globe that mimics the earth's eco-system. Though I suspect without a few complicating factors, such as animals... and especially the human variety.
It set me to thinking a bit about some of the ideals put about, especially by those who see nature as the best architect and homo sapiens as the fly in the ointment, rather forgetting that we are merely part of Gaia's grand design.
So I just pondered an arbitrary, isolated area sustaining 'life'. Ignoring more global factors, the sun shines, it rains, the seasons change. The plants grow. Herbivores graze, and the availability of food and water regulates their numbers. And, just for good measure, predator carnivores do that job too, with a bit of Darwinian culling going on to on the herbivores and between themselves. On balance, that seems to work. In times of plenty, numbers go up. And in times of hardship they go down. And whatever happens there is an upper limit the land can, and hence will sustain.
Then along comes man. Well, the first to go will be the predators. For a start they are dangerous, and then for another they are competition. Next to go will be the herbivores, at least if they need the land man requires to live upon and grow crops (though we may keep some for burger purposes). And then we do what we do best. And as our numbers grow we occupy this finite space more and more, and cleverly squeeze more and more out of whatever remains to sustain ourselves.
But... and here's the rub... there still has to be a limit. It seems odd that so few seem to have admitted, much less addressed this notion.
Anything else, from plastic bag bans to renewable energy subsidies, seem more tinkering (albeit profitable, at least short term and just to some) simply to buy some more time.
It's one of those do-dads that is a sealed globe that mimics the earth's eco-system. Though I suspect without a few complicating factors, such as animals... and especially the human variety.
It set me to thinking a bit about some of the ideals put about, especially by those who see nature as the best architect and homo sapiens as the fly in the ointment, rather forgetting that we are merely part of Gaia's grand design.
So I just pondered an arbitrary, isolated area sustaining 'life'. Ignoring more global factors, the sun shines, it rains, the seasons change. The plants grow. Herbivores graze, and the availability of food and water regulates their numbers. And, just for good measure, predator carnivores do that job too, with a bit of Darwinian culling going on to on the herbivores and between themselves. On balance, that seems to work. In times of plenty, numbers go up. And in times of hardship they go down. And whatever happens there is an upper limit the land can, and hence will sustain.
Then along comes man. Well, the first to go will be the predators. For a start they are dangerous, and then for another they are competition. Next to go will be the herbivores, at least if they need the land man requires to live upon and grow crops (though we may keep some for burger purposes). And then we do what we do best. And as our numbers grow we occupy this finite space more and more, and cleverly squeeze more and more out of whatever remains to sustain ourselves.
But... and here's the rub... there still has to be a limit. It seems odd that so few seem to have admitted, much less addressed this notion.
Anything else, from plastic bag bans to renewable energy subsidies, seem more tinkering (albeit profitable, at least short term and just to some) simply to buy some more time.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
ONLINE E-INFO SITES
Yup, another 'e-volver'
UK
Ad/Greenwash
climatedenial.org - mainly for it's pick-up on daft car ads
Food Waste
lovefoodhatewaste.com
General
carboncommentary.com
repak - NEW - for Eire
The Green Guide - UK based - via Junkk RE:view
Transport
Auto
cleangreencars.co.uk
There'll be more ('specially if you tell me!)
UK
Ad/Greenwash
climatedenial.org - mainly for it's pick-up on daft car ads
Food Waste
lovefoodhatewaste.com
General
carboncommentary.com
repak - NEW - for Eire
The Green Guide - UK based - via Junkk RE:view
Transport
Auto
cleangreencars.co.uk
There'll be more ('specially if you tell me!)
The new London gaz guzzler charges.....
..... that we commented upon the other day may not have quite the effect that TFL actually wants. This article from AutoWired argues that the "new emission-based London congestion charge rules are likely to increase CO2 emissions, increase pollution and increase congestion."
Given that the new charging system will target individual vehicle emissions, they suggest that "While encouraging the sales of low emission models is to be applauded, the framing of the new rules is likely to encourage greater use of cars within the capital". The consequences may be "significant numbers of charge-exempt models on the roads, potentially leading to higher carbon dioxide emissions, and more congestion"
Looks like repositioning a scaled congestion charge against individual vehicle emissions may not be quite as well thought out as TFL intended.
Given that the new charging system will target individual vehicle emissions, they suggest that "While encouraging the sales of low emission models is to be applauded, the framing of the new rules is likely to encourage greater use of cars within the capital". The consequences may be "significant numbers of charge-exempt models on the roads, potentially leading to higher carbon dioxide emissions, and more congestion"
Looks like repositioning a scaled congestion charge against individual vehicle emissions may not be quite as well thought out as TFL intended.
REVIEW - The Green Guide
greenguide.co.uk
Bit of a quickie, and a shortie, to make a bit of a point about how those in the business of green can help each other, and the cause, by doing very little that can make such a big difference.
The other day I got a call from a nice lady checking my details for Junkk.com. Well, one thing lead to another, and The Green Guide has kindly put a link up on their site.
And so, just for the purposes of mutual back massage, I have returned the compliment. Happy to.
Thing is, I can only do it, and then write about it here, and add it in the next newsletter (don't ask), because they took the 5 minutes to upload their stuff.
Odd how few do, even after I have invited them, and especially if they have mentioned us!
Anyway, back to the 'review'.
It's hard to do a better summary than their own:
There are currently more than 12,400 entries in the Green Guide Directory which makes it probably the largest and most comprehensive resource of green, sustainable and planet-friendly goods, services and organisations in the UK.
It's a very simple, clean design, mainly aiming to 'do what it says on the tin', with about a dozen main headings in a taskbar that lead you where you might wish to go.
No obvious search, but probably not needed. And maybe just as well, as Junkk.com's can often be a tad too 'inspired' to be of use!
But they are a more than welcome addition to the growing sources of info out there to help us all... and benefit without the dead hand of offcial agenda. Oh, and are, of course, free, to both use and add your buiness to.
Bit of a quickie, and a shortie, to make a bit of a point about how those in the business of green can help each other, and the cause, by doing very little that can make such a big difference.
The other day I got a call from a nice lady checking my details for Junkk.com. Well, one thing lead to another, and The Green Guide has kindly put a link up on their site.
And so, just for the purposes of mutual back massage, I have returned the compliment. Happy to.
Thing is, I can only do it, and then write about it here, and add it in the next newsletter (don't ask), because they took the 5 minutes to upload their stuff.
Odd how few do, even after I have invited them, and especially if they have mentioned us!
Anyway, back to the 'review'.
It's hard to do a better summary than their own:
There are currently more than 12,400 entries in the Green Guide Directory which makes it probably the largest and most comprehensive resource of green, sustainable and planet-friendly goods, services and organisations in the UK.
It's a very simple, clean design, mainly aiming to 'do what it says on the tin', with about a dozen main headings in a taskbar that lead you where you might wish to go.
No obvious search, but probably not needed. And maybe just as well, as Junkk.com's can often be a tad too 'inspired' to be of use!
But they are a more than welcome addition to the growing sources of info out there to help us all... and benefit without the dead hand of offcial agenda. Oh, and are, of course, free, to both use and add your buiness to.
Ask not what gets done for the planet, but what the planet gets from our meeting targets.
Addendum: Top and bottom. I just thought I'd post this grab of the chat page. When it says 'let yourself go', bearing in mind the topic and context, I wonder if this is what Expedia and the Gaurdian had in mind?
Gaurdian - Join our web chat on renewable energy
'...how we are going to reach that 15% target and whether 2008 will be a key year for the renewables market.'
Is there not a danger in all this that, as this sentence suggests, the the aim becomes more the meeting of a target and/or the creation of lucrative business models, at the expense of actually achieving a result? Too often I see the product delivery hijacked by the process and those with careers involved in it.
If, to put things simplistically, it is believed that it is the carbon dioxide and other 'pollutant' greenhouse gasses going into the atmosphere that are responsible for PMWCC (Probably man-worsened climate change), should not the reduction of these be viewed more in totality?
Once we break things out into convenient, isolated chunks it for sure makes things awfully easy to measure, tick boxes and/or reward, but perhaps does not adequately challenge the overall worth to our kids' futures on this planet.
I can live with a poor ROI in many cases. And hence have a concept of enviROI that allows for not 'making' money as an option for doing something if it has an environmental benefit.
But it does have a lower limit, as it can be argued that ploughing funds into something when they may be used more productively elsewhere might be equally flawed.
Hence my concern at having a set number of 'renewables' laid out in this manner, with still no clear idea as to how they get there, what they do, how well they do it and what their relative contributions to mitigation of our energy demands are.
The last such webchat - in the country's top online forum, and arguably most 'green', too - attracted a few dozen. Let's see how this pans out.
Addendum:
Wow. I was first up. And got an answer, too:
This raises some interesting issues. I’d say that having attractive business models is actually essential to achieving the targets, rather than a distraction. Even though governments play an essential role in the move to a low carbon economy, most of the required investment needs to come from the private sector. Fortunately, there are already very strong commercial opportunities in renewable and other low carbon technologies, and these are growing rapidly. As for breaking down the target into ‘chunks’, I agree there’s some sense in this and actually, it’s a necessary next step for the UK. Currently under debate is how much of the 15% should come from electricity, heat and transport, with one scenario being around 45%, 10% and 10% of the total usage of each. Since renewable electricity currently supplies about 4.5% and heat and transport around 1% each, this represents a tenfold increase on all fronts.
Was it was the one I was seeking? Not really. One has to question the value of these efforts as they inevitably (have to) deal in generalities, but I really din't quiet get to where I wanted on enviROI's, especially with thinsg getting stonkking subsidies just to exist and tick a box, without worrying too much on what they might do to help.
So who do you believe?
Our chancellor, yesterday on the radio - "It will be a difficult year right across the world, but the fundamentals of the British economy are strong because of what we have done over the last 10 years. They will remain strong."
The Governor of the Bank of England - "The higher level of energy and food prices is a genuine reduction in our standard of living relative to where it would otherwise have been. ..... This is because of the higher prices that all of us are having to pay." And "Looking several years ahead, there’s no reason to expect house prices to be markedly above where they are now. It’s conceivable there might be falls in house prices."
Full story from The Telegraph.
So there you have it. Everything's fine, the economy is robust and will remain strong. That's the message from our Gov. But the boss of the Bank of England issues a strong warning that all is not well and we had all better tighten our belts.
Also interesting to note that whilst inflation reaches an official 2.2% (I think that was what they said yesterday) the real cost of living increase is some 6-7%, and that excludes any forthcoming council tax increases.
I guess who you believe the most rather depends on how thin you wallet is feeling. I know mine is beginning to feel that it's been put on rations. And my dilemma? All this is happening just when I was considering what I could spare in terms of putting in extra insulation in order to mitigate the ever increasing heating bills somewhat.
Ho hum! Spend now to Save later, or, Save now to Spend later? Now that's a predicament under these circumstances. What do you recommend?
The Governor of the Bank of England - "The higher level of energy and food prices is a genuine reduction in our standard of living relative to where it would otherwise have been. ..... This is because of the higher prices that all of us are having to pay." And "Looking several years ahead, there’s no reason to expect house prices to be markedly above where they are now. It’s conceivable there might be falls in house prices."
Full story from The Telegraph.
So there you have it. Everything's fine, the economy is robust and will remain strong. That's the message from our Gov. But the boss of the Bank of England issues a strong warning that all is not well and we had all better tighten our belts.
Also interesting to note that whilst inflation reaches an official 2.2% (I think that was what they said yesterday) the real cost of living increase is some 6-7%, and that excludes any forthcoming council tax increases.
I guess who you believe the most rather depends on how thin you wallet is feeling. I know mine is beginning to feel that it's been put on rations. And my dilemma? All this is happening just when I was considering what I could spare in terms of putting in extra insulation in order to mitigate the ever increasing heating bills somewhat.
Ho hum! Spend now to Save later, or, Save now to Spend later? Now that's a predicament under these circumstances. What do you recommend?
CATEGORY - SHIPPING
I think this deserves a category of its own.
For previous posts just search the 'Shipping' label below. One day I'll find time to archive 'em here.
This is shaping up to be a major issue, especially to one, such as me, who professes to be most concerned about enviROI. I have in the past given a pass to various activities that took place by boat (such as Dave's kite-towed post recently) on the notion that it must be oodles 'better'. Maybe we need to rethink. As with so much that involves an emission, maybe it's just the fact that we want something that is more the issue, rather than how it gets to us.
It's worth considering, and talking about, but let us not forget there is other stuff going on too. Some worse, and/or more pressing maybe.
Gaurdian - True scale of C02 emissions from shipping revealed
Guardian - NEW - No more plain sailing - A view from a side. Some interesting comments in reply.
For previous posts just search the 'Shipping' label below. One day I'll find time to archive 'em here.
This is shaping up to be a major issue, especially to one, such as me, who professes to be most concerned about enviROI. I have in the past given a pass to various activities that took place by boat (such as Dave's kite-towed post recently) on the notion that it must be oodles 'better'. Maybe we need to rethink. As with so much that involves an emission, maybe it's just the fact that we want something that is more the issue, rather than how it gets to us.
It's worth considering, and talking about, but let us not forget there is other stuff going on too. Some worse, and/or more pressing maybe.
Gaurdian - True scale of C02 emissions from shipping revealed
Guardian - NEW - No more plain sailing - A view from a side. Some interesting comments in reply.
CATEGORY - VALENTINE'S DAY
Ok, so others have been/are banging on about this for an age. Best I can do at short notice!
I now they (the packaging) are the antichrist, but maybe as they exist we can share the love in some small effort at mitigation.
Left/top. Right/bottom.
About.com - quick, cheap ideas
Guardian - Keep Valentine's day green - some are not exchaging cards, apparently
Reuters - Valentine's Day - it's not so much about love - no, it should be about re:love and presents from the heart!
I'll add more if I find 'em or get told.
Who knows, Cupid may approve?
I belive I recall posting once that green-friendly folk now appeal more to the opposite sex:)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
One for the plot
In a month I stand in a lonely box at the NEC trying to persuade FMCG brands and retailers to buy into RE:tie. So this pigued my interest: Tesco back Dragons' Den-style show to reward unknown brands
Sadly, while there are clues to pursue, at the moment it remains more tantalising than tangible.
Especially as it is probably shot and in the can already. Anyway, nothing ventured...
Sadly, while there are clues to pursue, at the moment it remains more tantalising than tangible.
Especially as it is probably shot and in the can already. Anyway, nothing ventured...
Well, they did ask.
Green bling - Can luxury mean more than excess consumption?
It's all a matter of what your definitions are, and where you set the bars (and the link to the article didn't work for me so I can't reflect the detail).
That said, it is hard to reconcile the words with consequent actions, especially 'environmental and ethical messages' followed, almost inevitably, with 'excess consumption' in the next sentence.
It's why I find a Sunday supp special on 'recycled fashion' hilarious when by the following Friday it's all 'so early this week' and they've all scooted off in the Lear to Tokyo to gush on making barstool covers out of Willy's, er... well...
Take that as a no. And all trying to jump on board the bandwagon should feel deep shame. Well, if they had any shame. Or the ability to feel.
It's all a matter of what your definitions are, and where you set the bars (and the link to the article didn't work for me so I can't reflect the detail).
That said, it is hard to reconcile the words with consequent actions, especially 'environmental and ethical messages' followed, almost inevitably, with 'excess consumption' in the next sentence.
It's why I find a Sunday supp special on 'recycled fashion' hilarious when by the following Friday it's all 'so early this week' and they've all scooted off in the Lear to Tokyo to gush on making barstool covers out of Willy's, er... well...
Take that as a no. And all trying to jump on board the bandwagon should feel deep shame. Well, if they had any shame. Or the ability to feel.
Smiling because you don't drive a chelsea tractor?
Well, you may have to drive that smile off your face if you have cause to stray into the London congestion zone on occasion, as Ken's new £25 'gas-guzzler' charge is going to catch an awful lot of ordinary family cars out too.
This from BBC News reports that non 4x4's, but still categorised as members of the chelsea tractor club, such as the Peugeot 407 SW and several models of the Vauxhall Zafira range will also fall into the £25 bracket because their emissions exceed the 225g/km emissions limit.
As they say, if you don't catch enough fish, spread the net further.
This from BBC News reports that non 4x4's, but still categorised as members of the chelsea tractor club, such as the Peugeot 407 SW and several models of the Vauxhall Zafira range will also fall into the £25 bracket because their emissions exceed the 225g/km emissions limit.
As they say, if you don't catch enough fish, spread the net further.
Darfur - is the deafening silence broken at last?
The genocide in Darfur has been going on for what seems years now. Ostensibly, at least according to the current Sudanese government, this dispute between local farmers started over water (the shortage thereof), has caused the deaths of over 200,000 people and created the displacement of an even greater number to refugee camps within Sudan and in its neighbours. The fighting has even spread over the border into Chad and supposedly into Ethiopia too.
Yet the world's major media seems to have generally ignored the entire issue, until now. So what appears to have made the media realise that there is actually an important story behind Darfur?
Ahhhhh, I see, an internationally renowned member of the big screen fraternity, Stephen Spielberg, no less, has made the media luvvies sit up and take notice by stepping down from his role as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics opening and closing ceremonies. Now that's something really worth getting worked up about.
Isn't it amazing how a bit of celebrity can raise the media image of an issue whilst the deaths of hundreds of thousands can't?
Yet still not a peep about the fact that Darfur lies right across what is probably the largest potential oilfield in Sudan. Is it me?
Yet the world's major media seems to have generally ignored the entire issue, until now. So what appears to have made the media realise that there is actually an important story behind Darfur?
Ahhhhh, I see, an internationally renowned member of the big screen fraternity, Stephen Spielberg, no less, has made the media luvvies sit up and take notice by stepping down from his role as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics opening and closing ceremonies. Now that's something really worth getting worked up about.
Isn't it amazing how a bit of celebrity can raise the media image of an issue whilst the deaths of hundreds of thousands can't?
Yet still not a peep about the fact that Darfur lies right across what is probably the largest potential oilfield in Sudan. Is it me?
Sticks and.. well just sticks may warm my bones
Of late, and with some justification, anything involving 'bio' and 'fuel' seesm enough to get the Council excorcists out. So it's nice to stumble on something that seems a bit more enviROI+ in this regard.
FT.com - Green shoots from dead wood
At least, I'm hoping it is from the 'dead wood' aspect. But just looking at the money flying about... it's eye-watering!
FT.com - Green shoots from dead wood
At least, I'm hoping it is from the 'dead wood' aspect. But just looking at the money flying about... it's eye-watering!
REVIEW - Moneysavingexpert.com
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/
If you don't know about it, it's well worth a look... and signing up.
Hey, it's free. What's to lose? Actually, what's to save, or gain, more like!
And I say this still smarting from a few attempts to get in touch with more than the inevitable 'whoshudIsayzcallin'?' gatekeeperette and hence being ignored. Shame, as I like what Martin Lewis has done, is doing and can do. And I think he'd appreciate Junkk.com.
The reminders are weekly and usually contain well worthy nuggets of gold.
Such as this, which prompts my review here and now: Time to switch energy supplier. He even has my outfit, Swalec, sussed as pitching today but bumping up soon.
My only niggle is the email, like the site, is a navigation nightmare. But then Junkk.com is not exactly the London Tube map.
If you don't know about it, it's well worth a look... and signing up.
Hey, it's free. What's to lose? Actually, what's to save, or gain, more like!
And I say this still smarting from a few attempts to get in touch with more than the inevitable 'whoshudIsayzcallin'?' gatekeeperette and hence being ignored. Shame, as I like what Martin Lewis has done, is doing and can do. And I think he'd appreciate Junkk.com.
The reminders are weekly and usually contain well worthy nuggets of gold.
Such as this, which prompts my review here and now: Time to switch energy supplier. He even has my outfit, Swalec, sussed as pitching today but bumping up soon.
My only niggle is the email, like the site, is a navigation nightmare. But then Junkk.com is not exactly the London Tube map.
Must fly
It has been a good day so far for not only finding 'interesting' stories or opinion, but also being pleasantly surprised where I find them.
Indy - Revealed: the £1.2m spent by select committees on travels around the globe
I wonder how many were on trips to assess the impact of air travel?
Indy - Revealed: the £1.2m spent by select committees on travels around the globe
I wonder how many were on trips to assess the impact of air travel?
Peak soil as well as peak oil?
That's just a little snippet from a well reasoned article by George Monbiot, on biofuels. Monbiot argues that many of the crops (and even crop wastes) grown for biofuels actually create a net carbon debt of decades (and even centuries in some cases), and lead to soil exhaustion, not to mention competing with land for food production.
"Removing crop wastes means replacing the nutrients they contain with fertiliser, which causes further greenhouse gas emissions. A recent paper by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggests that emissions of nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful than CO2) from nitrogen fertilisers wipe out all the carbon savings biofuels produce, even before you take the changes in land use into account. Growing special second generation crops, such as trees or switchgrass, doesn’t solve the problem either: like other energy crops, they displace both food production and carbon emissions."
So just when we were beginning to think that some selected biofuels were the way forward, the counter arguments appear to become more convincing.
"All these convoluted solutions are designed to avoid a simpler one: reducing the consumption of transport fuel. But that requires the use of a different commodity. Global supplies of political courage appear, unfortunately, to have peaked some time ago."
Political courage? Come on George, we haven't see any of that for decades!
"Removing crop wastes means replacing the nutrients they contain with fertiliser, which causes further greenhouse gas emissions. A recent paper by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen suggests that emissions of nitrous oxide (a greenhouse gas 296 times more powerful than CO2) from nitrogen fertilisers wipe out all the carbon savings biofuels produce, even before you take the changes in land use into account. Growing special second generation crops, such as trees or switchgrass, doesn’t solve the problem either: like other energy crops, they displace both food production and carbon emissions."
So just when we were beginning to think that some selected biofuels were the way forward, the counter arguments appear to become more convincing.
"All these convoluted solutions are designed to avoid a simpler one: reducing the consumption of transport fuel. But that requires the use of a different commodity. Global supplies of political courage appear, unfortunately, to have peaked some time ago."
Political courage? Come on George, we haven't see any of that for decades!
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Thousands of deaths by 2012
That could be the scenario here in the UK as a direct consequence of climate change, according to this from The Guardian.
Heatwaves, Malaria, skin cancer, Lyme's disease, plus huge increases in food poisoning cases from nasties like Salmonella, as well as increased rates of air pollution health problems, could account for thousands of additional deaths. It reads a bit like the proverbial pestilence stories from the bible - all that seems to be missing are the plagues of locusts!
It's all going to be OK though, because our Gov is on the case - "health minister Dawn Primarolo said the national health service would have to adapt to deal with the problems posed by climate change. ......... Measures would include: ensuring that hospitals were equipped to deal with the effects of heat, gales, and floods; developing local plans for heatwaves, gales and flooding; disaster preparation; and advising people how to adapt to climate change."
Errrr ..... wouldn't it be better to put more effort into mitigating climate change rather than adapting to it?
But, and again, it's all down to one little word - the report uses that word 'could' again - which seems to be the main culprit for most of this alarming reporting.
Heatwaves, Malaria, skin cancer, Lyme's disease, plus huge increases in food poisoning cases from nasties like Salmonella, as well as increased rates of air pollution health problems, could account for thousands of additional deaths. It reads a bit like the proverbial pestilence stories from the bible - all that seems to be missing are the plagues of locusts!
It's all going to be OK though, because our Gov is on the case - "health minister Dawn Primarolo said the national health service would have to adapt to deal with the problems posed by climate change. ......... Measures would include: ensuring that hospitals were equipped to deal with the effects of heat, gales, and floods; developing local plans for heatwaves, gales and flooding; disaster preparation; and advising people how to adapt to climate change."
Errrr ..... wouldn't it be better to put more effort into mitigating climate change rather than adapting to it?
But, and again, it's all down to one little word - the report uses that word 'could' again - which seems to be the main culprit for most of this alarming reporting.
Leagues of their own
I have blogged before on the pre-selective, exclusive nature of a lot that takes place in the world of 're'.
Conferences and events that you need to pony up thousands for just to sit in an audience. No wonder those that are 'in' often don't relate as well as they might to those who are not.
Of course, all things that take time and money to create and need paying for (even Junkk.com, one day), so market forces will dictate.
But I must say I just had an eye-opner as to where I am vs. where others can afford to be in the wonderful world of being informed about your market.
Amongst many others, I subscribe to a (free) online news feed called PackWire. And I often get the odd useful tidbit through.
So when I saw this in my subject line, with all that I am in the thick of with RE:tie, I really perked up:
Consumer Attitudes Towards Packaging: New Insights and Future Perspectives
Today, it is widely acknowledged that packaging decisions can have a significant impact on sales. This report explores the changing nature of consumer attitudes and behaviors towards packaging in consumer packaged goods. It examines all the key trends shaping packaging led choices and ultimately offers actionable recommendations for industry players going forward.
Reasons to purchase...
• Access a blend of quantitative and qualitative data aggregating the most compelling and recent research in this increasingly important topic
• Gain a detailed insight into consumer views towards packaging and understand the implications for design
• Improve your marketing by following best-practice guidelines enabling more effective targeting with on-trend products and relevant communications
• Download Brochure
Sadly, a short-lived moment of excitement at further valuable market intel, for it was follwed by this:
• $5695
Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wing it some more! But one does have to wonder hwo those who can afford access to such things seem to pretty much get it wrong so often still!
Conferences and events that you need to pony up thousands for just to sit in an audience. No wonder those that are 'in' often don't relate as well as they might to those who are not.
Of course, all things that take time and money to create and need paying for (even Junkk.com, one day), so market forces will dictate.
But I must say I just had an eye-opner as to where I am vs. where others can afford to be in the wonderful world of being informed about your market.
Amongst many others, I subscribe to a (free) online news feed called PackWire. And I often get the odd useful tidbit through.
So when I saw this in my subject line, with all that I am in the thick of with RE:tie, I really perked up:
Consumer Attitudes Towards Packaging: New Insights and Future Perspectives
Today, it is widely acknowledged that packaging decisions can have a significant impact on sales. This report explores the changing nature of consumer attitudes and behaviors towards packaging in consumer packaged goods. It examines all the key trends shaping packaging led choices and ultimately offers actionable recommendations for industry players going forward.
Reasons to purchase...
• Access a blend of quantitative and qualitative data aggregating the most compelling and recent research in this increasingly important topic
• Gain a detailed insight into consumer views towards packaging and understand the implications for design
• Improve your marketing by following best-practice guidelines enabling more effective targeting with on-trend products and relevant communications
• Download Brochure
Sadly, a short-lived moment of excitement at further valuable market intel, for it was follwed by this:
• $5695
Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wing it some more! But one does have to wonder hwo those who can afford access to such things seem to pretty much get it wrong so often still!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
Monday, February 11, 2008
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?
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.
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.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, February 08, 2008
'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.
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'
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.
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
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.
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).
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?
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)