A piece in the Guardian (where else?).
It's costly having a carbon conscience
And if one of their own can't seem to sort it sensibly, then I despair the rest of us (with a lot less money, connections, etc) doing so.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Saturday, April 05, 2008
IDEA - Solar & Reuse... what a combo!
I was having a surf around the BBC site to try and find out more on their notions on the efficacy of solar, when I happened upon this:
** Set designer creates solar home **
An inventor in Downpatrick has come up with an efficient way of using the sun to heat his water.
What's not to like? Especially as it seems to work pretty well. What I really liked was the reuse of the radiator and double glazing panel; two items in my 'what the heck, they may yet find a use' pile at the end of the garden. Ok, it's rubbish dump.
Actually, if this has worked as well as the piece indicates, I have a few notions of my own that would possible improve the efficiencies of this set up. There are actually scores on the web, from all over the globe, some a lot more sophisticated, but every bit as easy to make, and from spare 'junk', so maybe this can become a mission.
To the shed!!!!
** Set designer creates solar home **
An inventor in Downpatrick has come up with an efficient way of using the sun to heat his water.
What's not to like? Especially as it seems to work pretty well. What I really liked was the reuse of the radiator and double glazing panel; two items in my 'what the heck, they may yet find a use' pile at the end of the garden. Ok, it's rubbish dump.
Actually, if this has worked as well as the piece indicates, I have a few notions of my own that would possible improve the efficiencies of this set up. There are actually scores on the web, from all over the globe, some a lot more sophisticated, but every bit as easy to make, and from spare 'junk', so maybe this can become a mission.
To the shed!!!!
PROF's POSER - Solar, so long...?
Just watched a series of BBC Brekky slots on solar.
Here's a pretty bald statement: 'It's not going to save your bank balance so you'll just be doing it to save the planet'. That'll have them rushing to sign up at B&Q, for sure.
In fact, in a later piece with two commentators, a chap from the Green Alliance (Pro) and a Prof. James Woudhuysen (less so) the knives were pretty much out for any financial sense involved in advocating the things... at least as good ROIs. The GA guy at least was flying the flag for 'better than nothing', at least in an enviro sense.
So in mitigation the talk turned to subsidies.
It was a pity not to have a government spokesperson present (who are scarcer than hen's teeth on anything these days, as it is all pretty much falling down around them and the bunker boys seem to have decided that absence makes the voter grow forgetful) to actually discuss why the support to help such microgeneration is so woeful.
I had to disagree with the good Prof. on one point, where he said that what we do at home doesn't matter at it all takes place at the power stations. True, but if we are not drawing from the power stations then we are surely acting in some mitigation on an individual level where the big boys seem to be failing at every turn on the big stuff?
But there is still one area that still troubles me. And I can't yet get a handle on it from guys paid, a lot, to deal in this area of expertise.
That is the enviROI. What if the planet doesn't get saved either? I don't know, but before committing to what seems a poor financial choice for sure, I'd certainly like to be more certain it is helping the kids' futures if I choose to take the hit for other reasons.
The point was made that these things currently only pay back over a few decades... but that is also their lifespan. What are the consequences in pure eco terms of their being made, shipped, installed, operated, maintained and then being disposed of, when weighed against the obvious benefits of their producing 'free', clean, solar energy through their lifespans?
Is solar heating sensible on any measure in the UK?
ADDENDUM:
Following Dave's suggestion of where I should go in the comments section, OK, I should clarify, and hence have added the key word heating in the last sentence above.
Because here I am referring to the major rooftop installations that are touted, and were featured in the slot, to heat your water and/or home.
My Solarventi dehumidification system does a pretty good job and today, despite it being chilly, is whirring away in the sun, at least for the last few hours, and with luck, a few hours more. I recall we sat down and figured out beforehand the pros and cons based on the purchase costs and operational logistics in comparison, in this case, to an electric dehumidifier running essentially 24/7, 365/365.
I believe we assessed a payback period of around 3 years, which is way within the lifespan of the unit, and therefore a worthy investment simply on cost grounds. I actually think we may need to extend the time period to account for our rather dire national delivery of sun, and the simple problems of getting it on panel when it shines around trees and neighbours' houses (especially when the angle is lower in the winter months). But even so I consider it well worth it. In addition, thanks to the relative lack of moving parts (though many other solar installations are relatively free as well) the maintenance is essentially zero and the lifespan hence very long.
Hence I am pretty confident that both the ROI and enviROI are in the + column.
But this is my point. Especially with stonking great outlays required on the major efforts, the lack of government support and very vague guidance, householders need to get to these figures quickly, easily and with confidence that they are doing right, if not by their pockets but also by the future, too. Do these exist, and if so where?
If our national broadcaster, who is by no means shy when it comes to green advocacy and often none too challenging to all the considerations pro and con, can pretty much damn 'solar' in all its forms in such a piece with the faint praise of 'only being good for the planet', and tar all beneficial aspects with the near certainty of being a financial negative (probably inaccurately, even for some solar rooftop systems - the Germans seem to be doing OK), it seems clear to me that where these things are worthwhile we need clear means to find out and reply upon.
Hence as this is a Prof's Poser I'd welcome information that can be shared to counter this view.
Here's a pretty bald statement: 'It's not going to save your bank balance so you'll just be doing it to save the planet'. That'll have them rushing to sign up at B&Q, for sure.
In fact, in a later piece with two commentators, a chap from the Green Alliance (Pro) and a Prof. James Woudhuysen (less so) the knives were pretty much out for any financial sense involved in advocating the things... at least as good ROIs. The GA guy at least was flying the flag for 'better than nothing', at least in an enviro sense.
So in mitigation the talk turned to subsidies.
It was a pity not to have a government spokesperson present (who are scarcer than hen's teeth on anything these days, as it is all pretty much falling down around them and the bunker boys seem to have decided that absence makes the voter grow forgetful) to actually discuss why the support to help such microgeneration is so woeful.
I had to disagree with the good Prof. on one point, where he said that what we do at home doesn't matter at it all takes place at the power stations. True, but if we are not drawing from the power stations then we are surely acting in some mitigation on an individual level where the big boys seem to be failing at every turn on the big stuff?
But there is still one area that still troubles me. And I can't yet get a handle on it from guys paid, a lot, to deal in this area of expertise.
That is the enviROI. What if the planet doesn't get saved either? I don't know, but before committing to what seems a poor financial choice for sure, I'd certainly like to be more certain it is helping the kids' futures if I choose to take the hit for other reasons.
The point was made that these things currently only pay back over a few decades... but that is also their lifespan. What are the consequences in pure eco terms of their being made, shipped, installed, operated, maintained and then being disposed of, when weighed against the obvious benefits of their producing 'free', clean, solar energy through their lifespans?
Is solar heating sensible on any measure in the UK?
ADDENDUM:
Following Dave's suggestion of where I should go in the comments section, OK, I should clarify, and hence have added the key word heating in the last sentence above.
Because here I am referring to the major rooftop installations that are touted, and were featured in the slot, to heat your water and/or home.
My Solarventi dehumidification system does a pretty good job and today, despite it being chilly, is whirring away in the sun, at least for the last few hours, and with luck, a few hours more. I recall we sat down and figured out beforehand the pros and cons based on the purchase costs and operational logistics in comparison, in this case, to an electric dehumidifier running essentially 24/7, 365/365.
I believe we assessed a payback period of around 3 years, which is way within the lifespan of the unit, and therefore a worthy investment simply on cost grounds. I actually think we may need to extend the time period to account for our rather dire national delivery of sun, and the simple problems of getting it on panel when it shines around trees and neighbours' houses (especially when the angle is lower in the winter months). But even so I consider it well worth it. In addition, thanks to the relative lack of moving parts (though many other solar installations are relatively free as well) the maintenance is essentially zero and the lifespan hence very long.
Hence I am pretty confident that both the ROI and enviROI are in the + column.
But this is my point. Especially with stonking great outlays required on the major efforts, the lack of government support and very vague guidance, householders need to get to these figures quickly, easily and with confidence that they are doing right, if not by their pockets but also by the future, too. Do these exist, and if so where?
If our national broadcaster, who is by no means shy when it comes to green advocacy and often none too challenging to all the considerations pro and con, can pretty much damn 'solar' in all its forms in such a piece with the faint praise of 'only being good for the planet', and tar all beneficial aspects with the near certainty of being a financial negative (probably inaccurately, even for some solar rooftop systems - the Germans seem to be doing OK), it seems clear to me that where these things are worthwhile we need clear means to find out and reply upon.
Hence as this is a Prof's Poser I'd welcome information that can be shared to counter this view.
Friday, April 04, 2008
The end of the cheap takeaway?
Think it will never happen? Think again, as it looks more than likely given that the cost of rice, the staple diet of some 3 billion inhabitants of our little lump of planetary rock, has jumped from $580 per ton to $760 per ton in a matter of a few weeks. A ~30% increase in price simply cannot be absorbed by most outlets, and on top of ever increasing energy bills, huge rises in transportation costs, we should all be prepared to spend a fair bit more than we have been used to on our Saturday night 'special fried rice' and curry sauce.
But the full story, and its potential impact worldwide, from the Toronto Star, seems to have escaped most of the world's meejah. (Well, ours are far more heated up about plastic bag bans, council taxes, the credit crunch, MP's expenses, some head honcho from F1 who has supposedly been enjoying himself a little too much, and what's happening in Eastenders!)
For poverty stricken people in parts of Asia (a large proportion of that 3 billion souls), where 50% to 70% of their tiny subsistence income goes on food, the situation looks dire. And given that demand is ever increasing, with transport and energy costs doing the same, and with an extra 70 million mouths to feed on our planet each year (now that's what I call a damned scary fact!), the long term outlook appears grim.
And wheat and corn prices are still rising too. Maybe I should bring my forecast of the £5 loaf by 2015 forward a few years?
But the full story, and its potential impact worldwide, from the Toronto Star, seems to have escaped most of the world's meejah. (Well, ours are far more heated up about plastic bag bans, council taxes, the credit crunch, MP's expenses, some head honcho from F1 who has supposedly been enjoying himself a little too much, and what's happening in Eastenders!)
For poverty stricken people in parts of Asia (a large proportion of that 3 billion souls), where 50% to 70% of their tiny subsistence income goes on food, the situation looks dire. And given that demand is ever increasing, with transport and energy costs doing the same, and with an extra 70 million mouths to feed on our planet each year (now that's what I call a damned scary fact!), the long term outlook appears grim.
And wheat and corn prices are still rising too. Maybe I should bring my forecast of the £5 loaf by 2015 forward a few years?
Category - GLOBAL CLIMATE DISCUSSIONS
Yes, another category. I think it is time to bring all the various international attempts at 'doing' 'something' under one umbrella. Kyoto, Bali, etc.
I just hope I don't depress myself. The chronological list as it evolves will be interesting I guess.
Guardian - The road from Kyoto - Or... no way to run a planet (other than down)
I just hope I don't depress myself. The chronological list as it evolves will be interesting I guess.
Guardian - The road from Kyoto - Or... no way to run a planet (other than down)
CATEGORY - CSS (Carbon Capture & Sequestration)
This has cropped up enough now to warrant its own category. I am sure there will be more to come.
Guardian - Carbon ambivalent - Some facts of note. And the main piece rather highlights a major problem in that 'green' groups are arguing, which doesn't play well with public, put plays very well into the hands of those of a more statist mindset. The thread comments also pretty soon dissolve into 'tis/'tisn't CC arguments, though some 'optimists' have noticed that it's not being called 'global warming' any more. I wish I got paid more for my consults. With a cold snap this weekend advised, it would not have been a great way to phrase our funky weather patterns.
Guardian - Carbon ambivalent - Some facts of note. And the main piece rather highlights a major problem in that 'green' groups are arguing, which doesn't play well with public, put plays very well into the hands of those of a more statist mindset. The thread comments also pretty soon dissolve into 'tis/'tisn't CC arguments, though some 'optimists' have noticed that it's not being called 'global warming' any more. I wish I got paid more for my consults. With a cold snap this weekend advised, it would not have been a great way to phrase our funky weather patterns.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Solar activity not responsible for warming
That's the conclusion of research from Lancaster University reported by the Beeb today.
Now this was a key piece of evidence (based on Svensmark's theory) used in the Great Global Warming Swindle indicating that the warming of the earth was not caused by human activity.
Seems now to be pretty much debunked as a factor as to why the planet is warming. So we probably really do need to carry on trying to reduce carbon emissions, otherwise we could start to see other unwanted visitors arriving in the UK.
Maybe soon we will need to teleport to a new planet?
Now this was a key piece of evidence (based on Svensmark's theory) used in the Great Global Warming Swindle indicating that the warming of the earth was not caused by human activity.
Seems now to be pretty much debunked as a factor as to why the planet is warming. So we probably really do need to carry on trying to reduce carbon emissions, otherwise we could start to see other unwanted visitors arriving in the UK.
Maybe soon we will need to teleport to a new planet?
BAA, humbug!
Golly, I am having to tread the April Fool plank carefully today. They're everywhere!
But sorry, no, this is not another, late dig at the T5 debacle.
It's about your mates and mine: For we like sheep*
I actually posed the question a few days ago to the BBC:**
Kevin Spacey opines that the BBC is not a commercial organisation and seems to be a tad selective with who or what it 'supports' with its 'advertising'. Bless.
Tricky one I know, especially with the arts. When does getting informed turn into undue promotion?
However, having just watched some fluff slot on dating... again... might I ask if the BBC retains a commercial interest in the company of the ex-BBC employee wheeled out every week to 'comment', but also promote his dating website?
And I got an answer! You won't believe it. But I can't print it in public so please email info [at-darnspammers] junkk.com to find out what.
*I just realised how that reads. Maybe it's for the Welsh/NZ audiences.
**By the by, check out the HYS postings and see how many in agreement with KS there are... and where the one putting the BBC's POV across that was highlighted came from. Just saying's all..
Addendum - Newsnight
'Yesterday it was Kevin Spacey... today it's Ben Elton's turn to attack the BBC.'
Of course the biggest joke is the system that decides which comments to 502 er... moderate out.
What's with the martyr attempt?
The BBC is a multi-billion organisation of tens of thousands. Through personal experience I think that a lot it produces is excellent entertainment, and are there are many dedicated to, for instance, objective, informative journalism.
However some, mainly at the top, are not.
Yet when a critique, excuse me, attack, of certain aspects comes in, from any quarter, the corporate knee jerks are to close ranks and try and turn it into a polarised issue that embraces all.
It is a technique that would do your good mate Dubya proud.. 'if you are not with me, you must be against us'.
It's hard enough not to think of BBC as a single, collective group think entity at the best of times, but when those who write the editorial cannot separate out individuals and their actions from the consequences how are the rest of us meant to?
But sorry, no, this is not another, late dig at the T5 debacle.
It's about your mates and mine: For we like sheep*
I actually posed the question a few days ago to the BBC:**
Kevin Spacey opines that the BBC is not a commercial organisation and seems to be a tad selective with who or what it 'supports' with its 'advertising'. Bless.
Tricky one I know, especially with the arts. When does getting informed turn into undue promotion?
However, having just watched some fluff slot on dating... again... might I ask if the BBC retains a commercial interest in the company of the ex-BBC employee wheeled out every week to 'comment', but also promote his dating website?
And I got an answer! You won't believe it. But I can't print it in public so please email info [at-darnspammers] junkk.com to find out what.
*I just realised how that reads. Maybe it's for the Welsh/NZ audiences.
**By the by, check out the HYS postings and see how many in agreement with KS there are... and where the one putting the BBC's POV across that was highlighted came from. Just saying's all..
Addendum - Newsnight
'Yesterday it was Kevin Spacey... today it's Ben Elton's turn to attack the BBC.'
Of course the biggest joke is the system that decides which comments to 502 er... moderate out.
What's with the martyr attempt?
The BBC is a multi-billion organisation of tens of thousands. Through personal experience I think that a lot it produces is excellent entertainment, and are there are many dedicated to, for instance, objective, informative journalism.
However some, mainly at the top, are not.
Yet when a critique, excuse me, attack, of certain aspects comes in, from any quarter, the corporate knee jerks are to close ranks and try and turn it into a polarised issue that embraces all.
It is a technique that would do your good mate Dubya proud.. 'if you are not with me, you must be against us'.
It's hard enough not to think of BBC as a single, collective group think entity at the best of times, but when those who write the editorial cannot separate out individuals and their actions from the consequences how are the rest of us meant to?
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
in case you missed it
April Fools penguin joke
Must be down to the unique way the BBC is funded.
I thought it was superb.
However, I am amazed at the rather odd relationships that exist with my licence-fee funded national broadcaster these days. This required an ad agency to create and a production company to execute and digital agencies to 'seed'? Was it pro bono? Or is there another funding/revenue relationship at work here?
Anyway, I was totally fooled. I really thought our Tel was flown up to the icy wastes with a full crew, and all ready to get my dander up about the carbon consequences.
So now if they can do this here, can we expect the same every time they feel the need to have a reporter with icicle boogers in a branded puffer standing on something white to tell us something beastly is happening to the icy wastes... because of folk flying all the time to exotic locations?
Must be down to the unique way the BBC is funded.
I thought it was superb.
However, I am amazed at the rather odd relationships that exist with my licence-fee funded national broadcaster these days. This required an ad agency to create and a production company to execute and digital agencies to 'seed'? Was it pro bono? Or is there another funding/revenue relationship at work here?
Anyway, I was totally fooled. I really thought our Tel was flown up to the icy wastes with a full crew, and all ready to get my dander up about the carbon consequences.
So now if they can do this here, can we expect the same every time they feel the need to have a reporter with icicle boogers in a branded puffer standing on something white to tell us something beastly is happening to the icy wastes... because of folk flying all the time to exotic locations?
Beautiful Creatures
I tend to steer clear of overt ecological stuff as it really doesn't fall under the Junkk.com remit, but here's a link from a film director chum of mine's promo of a feature with a famous Chinese actress.
Zhang Ziyi 'A Conservation Story'
He assures me that this lady is very sincere in her advocacy (and not likely to be off by Lear next week to a fur Expo), so the key is how this is impacting on local audience... not usually noted for being too worried about nature when 'to be rich is glorious' kinda comes first.
I guess celeb endorsement can be a good thing, but needs managing very carefully.
I promised I'd pop it up.. and so here you are!
Zhang Ziyi 'A Conservation Story'
He assures me that this lady is very sincere in her advocacy (and not likely to be off by Lear next week to a fur Expo), so the key is how this is impacting on local audience... not usually noted for being too worried about nature when 'to be rich is glorious' kinda comes first.
I guess celeb endorsement can be a good thing, but needs managing very carefully.
I promised I'd pop it up.. and so here you are!
It's good to share
Politicians' lack of commercial experience exposed by survey
They'd be the ones telling those of us mostly concerned with keeping the country going through commerce how to run things, right?
Mind you, we only have ourselves to blame: we're voting them in (well, 25% of 40% or whatever the 'mandate of the people' our stuffed electoral system manages).
They'd be the ones telling those of us mostly concerned with keeping the country going through commerce how to run things, right?
Mind you, we only have ourselves to blame: we're voting them in (well, 25% of 40% or whatever the 'mandate of the people' our stuffed electoral system manages).
More DEFRA initiatives
are announced on the DEFRA website today.
There is the new ActOnCo2 Advice Line which purports to provide "free, tailored, impartial advice from the Energy Saving Trust on how to reduce your carbon footprint." (Hey, stop laughing, I didn't write it!) The EST gets "more than £100 million over the next three years to deliver a broader programme for green homes."
Then there's the Green Neighbourhood Initiative which will give "a green makeover to up to 100 neighbourhoods in England with an aim to reduce their carbon footprints by more than 60 per cent." This one is also delivered by the Energy Savings Trust and is "backed by potentially more than £10 million over the next three years from the Government’s domestic Environmental Transformation Fund."
And of course the CERT scheme comes into effect today which "doubles previous obligations by energy companies to help people make their homes more energy efficient and reduce household emissions. The total investment is estimated at around £1 billion a year for three years."
Anyone else spot the rather strange disparity? The Gov spends 'potentially' £110 Million over the next three years, but the energy company's are 'obliged' to spend an estimated £3 Billion over the same period.
And the difference? Well, CERT will almost definitely achieve something, whilst the EST's new doodads are yet more 'advice lines' and 'initiatives', and we all know what happens with 'initiatives' don't we?
Addendum (Junkk Male): Green drive 'neglects old homes'
There was also an interesting set of questions raised in a post on a safe2say 'government pessimistic' site that was rather spoiled by diving off into some very un-PC territory ranting. I feature a sample of the key points:
'Benn prattles on about "zero carbon homes" and other fantasies like THREE MILLION new homes etc! Hot lines and targets and grand plans and all of this tripe and hot air left unchallenged! THREE MILLION NEW HOMES????
Just where are these fantasy houses going to be built? Just who is going to pay for these homes? How many are council houses? With waiting lists for council homes at record levels and mass third world immigration at record levels just how will services be created to service all these new homes? How many more hospital/school places are needed?
NuLiebour have been allowed to get away with blatant lies about how many houses they are going to build for years now!
I do feel the British public are getting weary of spin without hint of substance.
Addendum 2 - Concern over 'zero carbon' homes - It just gets better, or worse, depending on your view. Well worth a read (net pie chart on consumption). I am intrigued as to how a target can be met when the definition of the measure is still in doubt. It is also depressing how few deem any of these measures as very useful in comparison to a new kitchen, especially when they mostly will save money... to afford the new kitchen. That said, there is a real fear that green means expensive, and that needs addressing. A good start would be by those in power not screwing things so that's exactly what it does mean!
There is the new ActOnCo2 Advice Line which purports to provide "free, tailored, impartial advice from the Energy Saving Trust on how to reduce your carbon footprint." (Hey, stop laughing, I didn't write it!) The EST gets "more than £100 million over the next three years to deliver a broader programme for green homes."
Then there's the Green Neighbourhood Initiative which will give "a green makeover to up to 100 neighbourhoods in England with an aim to reduce their carbon footprints by more than 60 per cent." This one is also delivered by the Energy Savings Trust and is "backed by potentially more than £10 million over the next three years from the Government’s domestic Environmental Transformation Fund."
And of course the CERT scheme comes into effect today which "doubles previous obligations by energy companies to help people make their homes more energy efficient and reduce household emissions. The total investment is estimated at around £1 billion a year for three years."
Anyone else spot the rather strange disparity? The Gov spends 'potentially' £110 Million over the next three years, but the energy company's are 'obliged' to spend an estimated £3 Billion over the same period.
And the difference? Well, CERT will almost definitely achieve something, whilst the EST's new doodads are yet more 'advice lines' and 'initiatives', and we all know what happens with 'initiatives' don't we?
Addendum (Junkk Male): Green drive 'neglects old homes'
There was also an interesting set of questions raised in a post on a safe2say 'government pessimistic' site that was rather spoiled by diving off into some very un-PC territory ranting. I feature a sample of the key points:
'Benn prattles on about "zero carbon homes" and other fantasies like THREE MILLION new homes etc! Hot lines and targets and grand plans and all of this tripe and hot air left unchallenged! THREE MILLION NEW HOMES????
Just where are these fantasy houses going to be built? Just who is going to pay for these homes? How many are council houses? With waiting lists for council homes at record levels and mass third world immigration at record levels just how will services be created to service all these new homes? How many more hospital/school places are needed?
NuLiebour have been allowed to get away with blatant lies about how many houses they are going to build for years now!
I do feel the British public are getting weary of spin without hint of substance.
Addendum 2 - Concern over 'zero carbon' homes - It just gets better, or worse, depending on your view. Well worth a read (net pie chart on consumption). I am intrigued as to how a target can be met when the definition of the measure is still in doubt. It is also depressing how few deem any of these measures as very useful in comparison to a new kitchen, especially when they mostly will save money... to afford the new kitchen. That said, there is a real fear that green means expensive, and that needs addressing. A good start would be by those in power not screwing things so that's exactly what it does mean!
Tipping point?
Just watched a piece on the BBC proposed increases on Landfill Tax being imposed by the guv'mint on Local Authorities... and hence on to us.
I do hope this is an April fool, like the flying penguins (great CGI)**.
Because the other day I opened my council tax demand, and it was not small*. In fact on top of massive increases across the board in other areas, from energy costs, food, BBC licence fee, car tax, etc, I am still trying to cope with a council rise of 4.5%, with police and fire broken out on top at 4.9%.
So when is this new one going to kick in?
And, as noted in the piece, no matter how good at reusing or recycling we might be, it seems it is to be imposed on you no matter what. I thought there were 'per use' proposals in mind, or is that too close to the 'poll tax' nemesis of Mrs. T's era?
I also thought the BBC piece was a bit twee, showing a householder*** strolling out to the garden to deal with the food waste in 3 separate bins. Good on her. But what was not mentioned is the poor sods without such land area options, or the fact that no matter how diligent one is there is going to be a load more that really is very hard to deal with. I have every plastic tray stacked up in the basement in testimony!
________
*Or...apparently not (My house is perhaps the exception?):
PR as received, edited for length (ie: deleting bullsh*t obfuscation from various breeding groups of over-salaried and golden-pensioned senior public parasites, whose empires and personal nests all this is really to fund than any better services):
(CLG) Lowest increase in council tax for 14 years announced
Eleven successive years of above inflation grant increases from Government - and a continued threat of tough action against excessive increases - have led to the lowest increase in council tax for 14 years, and the second lowest ever, Local Government Minister John Healey has announced.
Figures for 2008/09 published today show that the average Band D increase in England will be 4.0%. 265 (58%) authorities will have increases below the 4.1% Retail Price Index, 69 (15%) below the 2.5% Consumer Price Index, 18 (4%) have no increase and three (0.66%) are reducing council tax bills.
Ministers have said consistently that they expect the average council tax rises to be substantially below 5% and the vast majority of local authorities have complied.
"Our commitment to take action combined with our 45% above inflation increase in Government grant for local services up to 2010-11 has helped bring down council tax rises to a fourteen year low, and most councils have contained their costs and budgeted prudently.
The Minister announced that authorities' 2008-09 budget requirements are excessive if they set a budget requirement increase of 5.0% between 2007-08 and 2008-09, and a council tax increase of more than 5.0% in the same period. Authorities must exceed both principles to be designated for action.
All of the authorities designated for action have 21 days in which to make their case. The Government will carefully consider any representations made before taking further decisions.
Information on capping principles, budget requirement and council tax increases for all authorities is available on the Communities and Local Government website.
**Brand Republic - BBC launches iPlayer campaign with flying penguin footage
Penguins
***I owe the lady in question if not an apology but at least a clarification. In her blog - 'The Rubbish Diet' - she makes very clear the case pro and con. And shows herself to be highly thoughtful on all the issues. I still have maintain that I often find the major media less diligent in what they punt out, from slavish agenda propaganda by some government supported entities, to highly superficial scare stories that ignore commercial realities or local conditions such as LAs can face from tabloid rags. The losers, inevitably, are the consumer, and in their confusion or kicking back, the environment.
ADDENDUM - STOP PRESS!!!!
But it's all OK. prices of things such as vacuum cleaners and TVs have gone down. So... let me get this straight... they are really trying to offset trying to put a roof over our heads, eat and stay warm with buying a bunch of tat once a decade?
ADDENDUM 2 -
I am grateful to reader Christine of isitfair (hope I have the correct URL link) for some nice humour, albeit gallows, on the subject!
I do hope this is an April fool, like the flying penguins (great CGI)**.
Because the other day I opened my council tax demand, and it was not small*. In fact on top of massive increases across the board in other areas, from energy costs, food, BBC licence fee, car tax, etc, I am still trying to cope with a council rise of 4.5%, with police and fire broken out on top at 4.9%.
So when is this new one going to kick in?
And, as noted in the piece, no matter how good at reusing or recycling we might be, it seems it is to be imposed on you no matter what. I thought there were 'per use' proposals in mind, or is that too close to the 'poll tax' nemesis of Mrs. T's era?
I also thought the BBC piece was a bit twee, showing a householder*** strolling out to the garden to deal with the food waste in 3 separate bins. Good on her. But what was not mentioned is the poor sods without such land area options, or the fact that no matter how diligent one is there is going to be a load more that really is very hard to deal with. I have every plastic tray stacked up in the basement in testimony!
________
*Or...apparently not (My house is perhaps the exception?):
PR as received, edited for length (ie: deleting bullsh*t obfuscation from various breeding groups of over-salaried and golden-pensioned senior public parasites, whose empires and personal nests all this is really to fund than any better services):
(CLG) Lowest increase in council tax for 14 years announced
Eleven successive years of above inflation grant increases from Government - and a continued threat of tough action against excessive increases - have led to the lowest increase in council tax for 14 years, and the second lowest ever, Local Government Minister John Healey has announced.
Figures for 2008/09 published today show that the average Band D increase in England will be 4.0%. 265 (58%) authorities will have increases below the 4.1% Retail Price Index, 69 (15%) below the 2.5% Consumer Price Index, 18 (4%) have no increase and three (0.66%) are reducing council tax bills.
Ministers have said consistently that they expect the average council tax rises to be substantially below 5% and the vast majority of local authorities have complied.
"Our commitment to take action combined with our 45% above inflation increase in Government grant for local services up to 2010-11 has helped bring down council tax rises to a fourteen year low, and most councils have contained their costs and budgeted prudently.
The Minister announced that authorities' 2008-09 budget requirements are excessive if they set a budget requirement increase of 5.0% between 2007-08 and 2008-09, and a council tax increase of more than 5.0% in the same period. Authorities must exceed both principles to be designated for action.
All of the authorities designated for action have 21 days in which to make their case. The Government will carefully consider any representations made before taking further decisions.
Information on capping principles, budget requirement and council tax increases for all authorities is available on the Communities and Local Government website.
**Brand Republic - BBC launches iPlayer campaign with flying penguin footage
Penguins
***I owe the lady in question if not an apology but at least a clarification. In her blog - 'The Rubbish Diet' - she makes very clear the case pro and con. And shows herself to be highly thoughtful on all the issues. I still have maintain that I often find the major media less diligent in what they punt out, from slavish agenda propaganda by some government supported entities, to highly superficial scare stories that ignore commercial realities or local conditions such as LAs can face from tabloid rags. The losers, inevitably, are the consumer, and in their confusion or kicking back, the environment.
ADDENDUM - STOP PRESS!!!!
But it's all OK. prices of things such as vacuum cleaners and TVs have gone down. So... let me get this straight... they are really trying to offset trying to put a roof over our heads, eat and stay warm with buying a bunch of tat once a decade?
ADDENDUM 2 -
I am grateful to reader Christine of isitfair (hope I have the correct URL link) for some nice humour, albeit gallows, on the subject!
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
NEWS/Commercial PR - A view from the other side
At least I didn't say the 'dark' side!
Actually it is not a press release, but an article in Marketing Week that I cannot print out for obvious reasons, but can link to: Tesco chief Richard Brasher: Why going green must appeal to the wallet
The reason I have it down as 'PR' is to cover my ethical a**e, as it is a one-sided view. But, that said, in the context of the piece (ignoring a few other Tescoploy-motivated adventures) there is not much I can disagree with.
I've already grabbed credit for inspiring the lightbulb idea for them four years ago, but here's a couple more I can only nod along with (being we've been saying it from the off - I guess that's why some get the big bucks... timing, not originality), especially as we try to flog the RE:tie concept.
'...working hard to help our customers take small steps towards living more environmentally friendly lives. Rather than preying on feelings of fear or guilt to motivate people to change their habits, we are finding simple ways to show people that greener living can be easy and cost-effective.' ... a different tack by making going green something that they will find simple – and possibly even enjoyable. We want them to feel good about their decision to save energy or reduce their waste, rather than feeling that they are being punished, or forced to give something up.'
Hope they reply to our calls soon, then:)
Actually it is not a press release, but an article in Marketing Week that I cannot print out for obvious reasons, but can link to: Tesco chief Richard Brasher: Why going green must appeal to the wallet
The reason I have it down as 'PR' is to cover my ethical a**e, as it is a one-sided view. But, that said, in the context of the piece (ignoring a few other Tescoploy-motivated adventures) there is not much I can disagree with.
I've already grabbed credit for inspiring the lightbulb idea for them four years ago, but here's a couple more I can only nod along with (being we've been saying it from the off - I guess that's why some get the big bucks... timing, not originality), especially as we try to flog the RE:tie concept.
'...working hard to help our customers take small steps towards living more environmentally friendly lives. Rather than preying on feelings of fear or guilt to motivate people to change their habits, we are finding simple ways to show people that greener living can be easy and cost-effective.' ... a different tack by making going green something that they will find simple – and possibly even enjoyable. We want them to feel good about their decision to save energy or reduce their waste, rather than feeling that they are being punished, or forced to give something up.'
Hope they reply to our calls soon, then:)
It's going to be a loooong day
Shell, BP and Esso combine to launch new environmental 'A Fuel' with record £5bn budget
Fun, mind:)
Addendum/a:
Gizmag - BigBelly solar-powered garbage compactor - They got me! I don't know if it is or not a wind up, I mean solar, I mea... how much energy does it take to comapct trash???!
Fun, mind:)
Addendum/a:
Gizmag - BigBelly solar-powered garbage compactor - They got me! I don't know if it is or not a wind up, I mean solar, I mea... how much energy does it take to comapct trash???!
NEWS/GO3 - What goes up... should stay up, wherever possible
As reuse/repair, rather than constantly slapping another few hundred acres of low-cost voters on greenfield sites in newbuilds, is high on our agenda, we're interested this one.
Mind you, it does rather read as getting more money into the system first, and not so much (least, as I can see) positively encouraging renovation for release to the market.
Also, I am not sure Ross-on-Wye's commercial retail market can stand the competition from many more charity shops who don't need to pay.
Hmn.
PR reprinted as provided, with the odd edit for length.
New reliefs in force to bring empty buildings back into use
Changes to update empty property reliefs come into force today acting as an incentive to encourage owners to bring empty properties back into productive use, increasing access to existing premises for business, helping to reduce rents and increase the competitiveness of the UK.
Until today, empty commercial property, such as office and retail properties, received 100 per cent relief from paying business rates for the first three months, and were only liable to a 50 per cent rate thereafter; whilst empty industrial properties, such as warehouses and factories, received a permanent exemption from rates. Empty property relief last year cost £1.3bn. It is not right that empty properties are subsidised by taxes elsewhere.
We can no longer justify offering tax reliefs for buildings to sit empty, subsidised by taxes elsewhere, when UK rents are among highest in the world. Manchester for example has higher office occupation costs than Manhattan and Milan, and seven UK cities are in the World's top 20 list for the most expensive office occupation costs.
From today empty commercial property will be liable for the full business rate after an initial rate-free period of three months, or six months for factories and warehouses. Charities, community amateur sports clubs and companies in administration will be granted a complete exemption from rates on their empty properties.
Businesses that rent premises will particularly benefit through an increase in the availability of properties, thereby reducing rents and increasing the UK's competitiveness.
Local Government Minister John Healey said:
"No-one wants to live or work in a ghost town of empty offices and closed-down shops. These changes will help bring empty buildings back into use, reduce rents for small independent shops and create thriving high streets and town centres."
Billing authorities already have wide ranging and tough powers in place to enforce the changes including measures to take action against deliberate dereliction to try and avoid liability such as removing roofs from buildings.
Work is underway with the Local Government Association, the Valuation Office Agency and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation to monitor the impact of the reforms and assess whether new anti-avoidance regulations should be introduced in future if necessary.
The reform of empty property relief is part of a wider package designed to increase UK competitiveness and promote more efficient land and property markets. Measures such as the new 100 per cent capital allowance for renovating or converting empty business property in Assisted Areas will encourage owners to bring empty properties back into productive use and discourage deliberate dereliction.
Anti Avoidance regulations
1. Following consultation responses to the 2007 consultation Modernising Empty Property Relief last year the Government accepted that there was no substantive evidence to suggest that the risk of avoidance activity would be anything more than low. Accordingly the Government decided it would be sensible to defer making anti-avoidance regulations.
2. However, the Government will be actively monitoring the impact of the reforms, working closely with the Local Government Association, the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation, and the Valuation Office Agency. If, through monitoring the impact of the reforms, evidence indicates that avoidance activity is taking place, the Government will use its new powers in section 66A of the LGFA (inserted by the Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007) to make anti-avoidance regulations.
Mind you, it does rather read as getting more money into the system first, and not so much (least, as I can see) positively encouraging renovation for release to the market.
Also, I am not sure Ross-on-Wye's commercial retail market can stand the competition from many more charity shops who don't need to pay.
Hmn.
PR reprinted as provided, with the odd edit for length.
New reliefs in force to bring empty buildings back into use
Changes to update empty property reliefs come into force today acting as an incentive to encourage owners to bring empty properties back into productive use, increasing access to existing premises for business, helping to reduce rents and increase the competitiveness of the UK.
Until today, empty commercial property, such as office and retail properties, received 100 per cent relief from paying business rates for the first three months, and were only liable to a 50 per cent rate thereafter; whilst empty industrial properties, such as warehouses and factories, received a permanent exemption from rates. Empty property relief last year cost £1.3bn. It is not right that empty properties are subsidised by taxes elsewhere.
We can no longer justify offering tax reliefs for buildings to sit empty, subsidised by taxes elsewhere, when UK rents are among highest in the world. Manchester for example has higher office occupation costs than Manhattan and Milan, and seven UK cities are in the World's top 20 list for the most expensive office occupation costs.
From today empty commercial property will be liable for the full business rate after an initial rate-free period of three months, or six months for factories and warehouses. Charities, community amateur sports clubs and companies in administration will be granted a complete exemption from rates on their empty properties.
Businesses that rent premises will particularly benefit through an increase in the availability of properties, thereby reducing rents and increasing the UK's competitiveness.
Local Government Minister John Healey said:
"No-one wants to live or work in a ghost town of empty offices and closed-down shops. These changes will help bring empty buildings back into use, reduce rents for small independent shops and create thriving high streets and town centres."
Billing authorities already have wide ranging and tough powers in place to enforce the changes including measures to take action against deliberate dereliction to try and avoid liability such as removing roofs from buildings.
Work is underway with the Local Government Association, the Valuation Office Agency and the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation to monitor the impact of the reforms and assess whether new anti-avoidance regulations should be introduced in future if necessary.
The reform of empty property relief is part of a wider package designed to increase UK competitiveness and promote more efficient land and property markets. Measures such as the new 100 per cent capital allowance for renovating or converting empty business property in Assisted Areas will encourage owners to bring empty properties back into productive use and discourage deliberate dereliction.
Anti Avoidance regulations
1. Following consultation responses to the 2007 consultation Modernising Empty Property Relief last year the Government accepted that there was no substantive evidence to suggest that the risk of avoidance activity would be anything more than low. Accordingly the Government decided it would be sensible to defer making anti-avoidance regulations.
2. However, the Government will be actively monitoring the impact of the reforms, working closely with the Local Government Association, the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation, and the Valuation Office Agency. If, through monitoring the impact of the reforms, evidence indicates that avoidance activity is taking place, the Government will use its new powers in section 66A of the LGFA (inserted by the Rating (Empty Properties) Act 2007) to make anti-avoidance regulations.
It is, after all, April Fool's Day
I reprint this PR in full, and without comment (which, given the first para, was hard). Actually, encouraging innovation in our civil servants is fine. I just wonder whether it ever gets put into practice, especially when dealing with all in the private sector trying to suggest efficiencies. Anyway... enjoy.
Civil Service Live to inspire and showcase the best in innovation
Civil Service Live opens today, bringing together the inspirational people running today's and tomorrow's civil service, to showcase and learn from best practice and innovation across government.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who will be speaking at the event said: "I am grateful to the thousands of civil servants who work so hard, day in, day-out, to provide Britain with its vital public services.
"These services support each of us as individuals to realise our personal ambitions: for excellent education and lifelong learning, for good health and well being throughout our lives, for safety in our communities, and for security at work and in retirement.
"But we need more reform to ensure continued high standards. I want to see Whitehall working to empower schools, hospitals, local councils and the voluntary sector to deliver the very best in public services - matching new rights for people to choose and shape services around their needs with a new professionalism from service providers."
Over the next three days civil servants across all grades and from all parts of the UK will take part in interactive seminars, tailored training programmes and hear from a range of speakers from the wider public, private and third sectors including;
* Sir Gus O'Donnell, Cabinet Secretary
* Peter Jones, TV Dragon and Entrepreneur
* Matt Dawson, member of the 2003 world cup winning England rugby team
* John Denham, Secretary of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
* Cabinet Office Minister Ed Miliband
* Lin Homer, Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency
* Lesley Strathie,Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus
Sir Gus O'Donnell said: "Civil Service Live is an opportunity not only to showcase all that is best about the civil service but also to learn from our partners in the wider public, private and third sector.
"The Prime Minister recently set out the key challenges that the nation will face in the next 10-15 years and the civil service has a central role to play in meeting these challenges.
"The civil service is working within an ever-changing environment to deliver public services to a diverse range of users. It will be challenged to do more with less and to respond to an evolving and competitive global market. To meet these challenges we must be better at innovating. I am looking for all civil servants attending the event to take an active part and then go back to their departments and put into practice the innovative lessons they have learnt."
Earlier this year civil servants were encouraged to submit ideas, no matter how big or small, which could make an effective difference to their place of work. More than 300 people submitted ideas from which eleven were chosen. These eleven were then filmed presenting their idea to the Lions Lair panel which included Peter Jones, TV Dragon, Helen Ghosh, Permanent Secretary DEFRA, Howell James, Permanent Secretary for
Government Communications, Alan Bishop, Chief Executive COI and Robin Tye, Ernst & Young.
The film of these best eleven ideas will be shown at the event while TV Dragon Peter Jones, Sir Gus and Minister for the Cabinet Office Ed Miliband will present sessions challenging perceptions of innovation in the private and public sectors.
Peter Jones said: "The biggest asset of any organisation is its people - the Lions' Lair event was really important to give civil servants the chance to showcase and pitch their ideas for improving the public sector. It's vital for the Civil Service to use the entrepreneurial and creative skills of its employees to keep streamlining and modernising what is often seen as a slow and overly bureaucratic organisation. I've been impressed by Sir Gus' efforts to support this beyond the scope of CS Live, and I've enjoyed working alongside him sharing public sector and private sector knowledge.
"I hope this is the start of something special within the Civil Service and that the many passionate and determined employees come forward and drive positive change throughout the organisation, knowing that Sir Gus will actually help them by taking action."
The people shortlisted for their Lions Lair ideas were ;
* Kash Walayat, DCSF; Learning on the job through Supershadowing.
* Philip John, Job Centre Plus; Using technology to improve customer service through using text messages
* John McGregor, DWP; A tool to calculate arrears of benefit.
* Kathleen Lindsey, Access to Work, Job Centre Plus; Reducing water usage in departments.
* Gavin Duffy, Environment & Heritage Service; To run Government vehicles on environmentally friendly and sustainable fuel.
* Clare Merrills and David Gostelow, HMRC; Improve community understanding of policies by training staff to explain complex information in clear and understandable language and recruit staff who are multi-lingual
* Rob Murphy: Home Office, create a portal across central Government that will enable civil servants to access business directories for all Government departments. This will assist civil servants who deal with issues which cut across the responsibility of more than one Government Department or agency by enabling them to identify colleagues in other
* Jonathan Lepper, HM Treasury; A cross Whitehall on-line job share notice board to create a formal market place for job sharers accessible to all civil servants.
* Doug Roberts, HMRC; Unify the coding for Company Tax to allow all depts. to access the information they need easily.
* Rupert Cryer, Cabinet Office; Highlight success in departments through Headlines - a short, monthly note from each department setting out the key successes for each directorate.
* Geoff Bantock, HMRC; A "Unified Tax System" that can work out straightaway household's net disposable monthly income.
Civil Service Live to inspire and showcase the best in innovation
Civil Service Live opens today, bringing together the inspirational people running today's and tomorrow's civil service, to showcase and learn from best practice and innovation across government.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who will be speaking at the event said: "I am grateful to the thousands of civil servants who work so hard, day in, day-out, to provide Britain with its vital public services.
"These services support each of us as individuals to realise our personal ambitions: for excellent education and lifelong learning, for good health and well being throughout our lives, for safety in our communities, and for security at work and in retirement.
"But we need more reform to ensure continued high standards. I want to see Whitehall working to empower schools, hospitals, local councils and the voluntary sector to deliver the very best in public services - matching new rights for people to choose and shape services around their needs with a new professionalism from service providers."
Over the next three days civil servants across all grades and from all parts of the UK will take part in interactive seminars, tailored training programmes and hear from a range of speakers from the wider public, private and third sectors including;
* Sir Gus O'Donnell, Cabinet Secretary
* Peter Jones, TV Dragon and Entrepreneur
* Matt Dawson, member of the 2003 world cup winning England rugby team
* John Denham, Secretary of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
* Cabinet Office Minister Ed Miliband
* Lin Homer, Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency
* Lesley Strathie,Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus
Sir Gus O'Donnell said: "Civil Service Live is an opportunity not only to showcase all that is best about the civil service but also to learn from our partners in the wider public, private and third sector.
"The Prime Minister recently set out the key challenges that the nation will face in the next 10-15 years and the civil service has a central role to play in meeting these challenges.
"The civil service is working within an ever-changing environment to deliver public services to a diverse range of users. It will be challenged to do more with less and to respond to an evolving and competitive global market. To meet these challenges we must be better at innovating. I am looking for all civil servants attending the event to take an active part and then go back to their departments and put into practice the innovative lessons they have learnt."
Earlier this year civil servants were encouraged to submit ideas, no matter how big or small, which could make an effective difference to their place of work. More than 300 people submitted ideas from which eleven were chosen. These eleven were then filmed presenting their idea to the Lions Lair panel which included Peter Jones, TV Dragon, Helen Ghosh, Permanent Secretary DEFRA, Howell James, Permanent Secretary for
Government Communications, Alan Bishop, Chief Executive COI and Robin Tye, Ernst & Young.
The film of these best eleven ideas will be shown at the event while TV Dragon Peter Jones, Sir Gus and Minister for the Cabinet Office Ed Miliband will present sessions challenging perceptions of innovation in the private and public sectors.
Peter Jones said: "The biggest asset of any organisation is its people - the Lions' Lair event was really important to give civil servants the chance to showcase and pitch their ideas for improving the public sector. It's vital for the Civil Service to use the entrepreneurial and creative skills of its employees to keep streamlining and modernising what is often seen as a slow and overly bureaucratic organisation. I've been impressed by Sir Gus' efforts to support this beyond the scope of CS Live, and I've enjoyed working alongside him sharing public sector and private sector knowledge.
"I hope this is the start of something special within the Civil Service and that the many passionate and determined employees come forward and drive positive change throughout the organisation, knowing that Sir Gus will actually help them by taking action."
The people shortlisted for their Lions Lair ideas were ;
* Kash Walayat, DCSF; Learning on the job through Supershadowing.
* Philip John, Job Centre Plus; Using technology to improve customer service through using text messages
* John McGregor, DWP; A tool to calculate arrears of benefit.
* Kathleen Lindsey, Access to Work, Job Centre Plus; Reducing water usage in departments.
* Gavin Duffy, Environment & Heritage Service; To run Government vehicles on environmentally friendly and sustainable fuel.
* Clare Merrills and David Gostelow, HMRC; Improve community understanding of policies by training staff to explain complex information in clear and understandable language and recruit staff who are multi-lingual
* Rob Murphy: Home Office, create a portal across central Government that will enable civil servants to access business directories for all Government departments. This will assist civil servants who deal with issues which cut across the responsibility of more than one Government Department or agency by enabling them to identify colleagues in other
* Jonathan Lepper, HM Treasury; A cross Whitehall on-line job share notice board to create a formal market place for job sharers accessible to all civil servants.
* Doug Roberts, HMRC; Unify the coding for Company Tax to allow all depts. to access the information they need easily.
* Rupert Cryer, Cabinet Office; Highlight success in departments through Headlines - a short, monthly note from each department setting out the key successes for each directorate.
* Geoff Bantock, HMRC; A "Unified Tax System" that can work out straightaway household's net disposable monthly income.
'Dose crazee 'mericans!
Guess which one is for real?
Once More for Gore?
Gore to recruit 10m-strong green army
Come to think of it, which would a) give him more votes or (they are different) b) more power or (they are really different) c) more opportunity to swan around the world meeting nifty folk and being adored?
Answers on a dimpled chad...
Once More for Gore?
Gore to recruit 10m-strong green army
Come to think of it, which would a) give him more votes or (they are different) b) more power or (they are really different) c) more opportunity to swan around the world meeting nifty folk and being adored?
Answers on a dimpled chad...
Why I try to apply the enviROI
It isn't easy, but I try to be focused when attempting to decide what might be best to support and, more importantly act upon, when it comes to my kids' futures.
To this end I have tended to commit to the enviROI, and by my assessment to the various environmental issues we face, this means (to me) priority to reducing greenhouse gasses first. Ironically Junkk.com probably does precious little in this regard, but by advocating and encouraging reduction in waste through reuse and repair, and making thinking 'eco' more fun, I figure we can hold our heads up still.
However, when I read such as this - Food miles are just a form of protectionism - I can see that the whole thing is going to be darn difficult to navigate, as the message and most media are very much in the hands of way too many whose main interest does not seem the making of this planet a better place for future generations. Green is more often than not a being used as a weapon to pursue and promote many other agendas than the ones I feel should be. It may only be a matter of time before the next Planet-Ban-it is wheeled out, and which may actually serve a very different interest to those in the headline.
Hence a rare, timely reminder to always think before you l...E-ap. Well done Mr. Lawson and the Indy.
To this end I have tended to commit to the enviROI, and by my assessment to the various environmental issues we face, this means (to me) priority to reducing greenhouse gasses first. Ironically Junkk.com probably does precious little in this regard, but by advocating and encouraging reduction in waste through reuse and repair, and making thinking 'eco' more fun, I figure we can hold our heads up still.
However, when I read such as this - Food miles are just a form of protectionism - I can see that the whole thing is going to be darn difficult to navigate, as the message and most media are very much in the hands of way too many whose main interest does not seem the making of this planet a better place for future generations. Green is more often than not a being used as a weapon to pursue and promote many other agendas than the ones I feel should be. It may only be a matter of time before the next Planet-Ban-it is wheeled out, and which may actually serve a very different interest to those in the headline.
Hence a rare, timely reminder to always think before you l...E-ap. Well done Mr. Lawson and the Indy.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Antarctica under threat
This time, not from climate change, but from the thousands of 'saga generation' (I wonder if they count me in that category?) tourists and the shipping that brings them down under.
According to the Telegraph, last year more than 40,000 tourists visited the Antarctic. Staggering!
I suppose it is still probably the best place to spot whales, penguins and various southern seal species before they all become extinct?
According to the Telegraph, last year more than 40,000 tourists visited the Antarctic. Staggering!
I suppose it is still probably the best place to spot whales, penguins and various southern seal species before they all become extinct?
EVENT - JIIC Open Day Invitation - Prototypes in action!
MONTH - April
FIELD: Industry-related (especially design/innovation)
WHEN: 8th and 9th April 2008, 3.30pm to 6pm
WHAT: The Jewellery Industry Innovation Centre (JIIC) team invite you to tour the facilities and newly upgraded technologies available at the Centre.
WHAT... MORE?: This is an opportunity for anyone with an interest in Rapid Manufacturing, Rapid Prototyping, 3-Dimensional CAD, Surface decoration and embellishment, Laser welding and marking, Design and New Product Development.This open invitation is a chance to view a unique collection of complementary technologies in action:
v Z Corp 3D Printer
v CNC Milling
v InVision HR 3D Printer
v EnvisionTec Perfactory 3D printers
v Objet Polyjet 3D printers
v Solidscape 3D wax printers
v Dimension FDM 3D printer
v Laser welding
v Laser marking, cutting and scanning
v Anodising of aluminium and titanium
WHERE: The JIIC is located opposite the School of Jewellery, at:
85-87 Vittoria Street,Birmingham, B1 3PA.
WHO: Some very nice folk with some really great stuff... that can help a lot of folk!
HOW: Free, I'm guessing
URL: www.jewellery-innovation.co.uk
COMMENTS: These the guys that have and are helping us with the prototypes for our RE:tie invention. And trust me, if a picture is worth 1,000 words, holding the thing in your hand is chapter and verse! Some amazing kit that has to be seen to be believed.
A must go to be inspired!
PR COVERAGE - Greenbang.com
OK, I'm cheating a tad.
The notion is that 'they' talk about me/us, and if/when we find out we pop it here by way of a 'thank you', and mutual back scratch. Plus I get a prompt to update the now 1 year out of date PR clippings section on the site.
So... Our readers have $1m+ to spend on sustainability
The cheating bit is that they haven't actually mentioned Junkk.com, but see if you can guess who was the author of the one comment they really liked:)
So I say it counts. If not for much as useful PR. 'Hey... I wrote that!' doesn't quite cut it.
The notion is that 'they' talk about me/us, and if/when we find out we pop it here by way of a 'thank you', and mutual back scratch. Plus I get a prompt to update the now 1 year out of date PR clippings section on the site.
So... Our readers have $1m+ to spend on sustainability
The cheating bit is that they haven't actually mentioned Junkk.com, but see if you can guess who was the author of the one comment they really liked:)
So I say it counts. If not for much as useful PR. 'Hey... I wrote that!' doesn't quite cut it.
Reasons. No Excuses.
Any system that results in this is broke, and needs fixing, fast: Airline in row over free tickets on extra flights
While I concede that such as plastic bags are 'an' issue and may well be worth addressing, even just in terms of public awareness (though getting them to do the right thing with reusables would be optimal), things such as the above are what our political masters should be addressing.
Indy - A stunt that exposes the truth about corporate greed - I am not alone!
While I concede that such as plastic bags are 'an' issue and may well be worth addressing, even just in terms of public awareness (though getting them to do the right thing with reusables would be optimal), things such as the above are what our political masters should be addressing.
Indy - A stunt that exposes the truth about corporate greed - I am not alone!
Credit where it is due
I have, it is fair to say, some problems with many of the directions our national broadcaster is going.
Every-increasing fee hikes that we have no option but to pay, yet it seems to be expanding into all sorts of commercial areas in all sorts of other places... and frankly the standard of reporting and level of agenda across almost all its offerings is getting farcical to impose on those who have no way to object (all mechanisms, up to and including BBC Trust, are a joke, so essentially it is a £3.5Billion fund for a rather exclusive club to play with pretty much how they like).
However, there are diamonds in the rough. And, if given the choice, I would have paid (or tuned in to give ad revenue to the channel that aired it) for last night's doco on an Indian tiger reserve, using new remote camera techniques.
Superb!
And not a single bit of editorialising in sight. Coincidentally, it did actually make me think a bit about the sheer impacts of population. The reserve is huge, but finite, and with one mother cranking out four cubs who will grow and need territory, I do wonder about how this evolves.
And that is before we introduce the human factor. The area looked gorgeous. Either to a farmer or a holiday development. Sadly, I see no easy solution.
Every-increasing fee hikes that we have no option but to pay, yet it seems to be expanding into all sorts of commercial areas in all sorts of other places... and frankly the standard of reporting and level of agenda across almost all its offerings is getting farcical to impose on those who have no way to object (all mechanisms, up to and including BBC Trust, are a joke, so essentially it is a £3.5Billion fund for a rather exclusive club to play with pretty much how they like).
However, there are diamonds in the rough. And, if given the choice, I would have paid (or tuned in to give ad revenue to the channel that aired it) for last night's doco on an Indian tiger reserve, using new remote camera techniques.
Superb!
And not a single bit of editorialising in sight. Coincidentally, it did actually make me think a bit about the sheer impacts of population. The reserve is huge, but finite, and with one mother cranking out four cubs who will grow and need territory, I do wonder about how this evolves.
And that is before we introduce the human factor. The area looked gorgeous. Either to a farmer or a holiday development. Sadly, I see no easy solution.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Words and Deeds
I was just catching up on my Sunday reading online, after a most productive day making some kitchen units and pottering in the garden in the sun.This little effort caught my eye.
It seems that while villages can still score a bag-ban mention (latest is in Norfolk) we have now moved to country level in the green competition stakes.
Well, I can think of worse things to strive for.
It was an relatively interesting piece I guess, but really the accolade rather seems to boil ('scuse pun) on whether you are sitting on top of a volcano or have near limitless hydro on tap. Basically how you make your 'leccy. And having lucked out on that score, you can offset your ethics away and buy anything you fancy, secure in the knowledge that the overall tally will look better than the next person..
Anyhoo, the Indy has kindly provided some ideas on the same page for what form of transport you might opt for where your home might be.
Olympics coverage? Or a new type 'big brother'?
When I saw the number of staff that the BBC were sending to Beijing this summer, to cover the 'Orympic Games', of course, that was my initial silly thought. According to this from the Daily Mail, they are sending 100+ more staff (437!!) than Great Britain is sending competitors!
Now, why so many staff? That's what; perhaps a full camera crew for every five competitors? Are they going to be filming the entire squad 24/7 while they eat, sleep, do their ablutions and train - a la 'big brother' style?
Or just maybe it just happens that it's time for the four yearly jolly, for as many as possible of the Beeb's great and good (and bad?), to the planet's largest sporting event?
Seems to be an awful lot of staff for what will probably be the usual crappy coverage ("sorry, the local director cut the shot just as the finalists were approaching the finishing line - we'll find out what happened for you later").
I just want to know who the hell will be left here in the UK? Imagine the possibilities:-
- Breakfast News with Katie the tea lady?
- The Evening News presented by Sonya the night cleaning lady?
- Cricket highlights presented by the BBC Centre Security Doorman (2nd cousin twice removed of Michael Vaughan)?
Well, I suppose our license fee has to be put to some good use! And, of course, there will be a full explanation of the cost breakdown, and full accountability, after the event, won't there?
What a waste!
Now, why so many staff? That's what; perhaps a full camera crew for every five competitors? Are they going to be filming the entire squad 24/7 while they eat, sleep, do their ablutions and train - a la 'big brother' style?
Or just maybe it just happens that it's time for the four yearly jolly, for as many as possible of the Beeb's great and good (and bad?), to the planet's largest sporting event?
Seems to be an awful lot of staff for what will probably be the usual crappy coverage ("sorry, the local director cut the shot just as the finalists were approaching the finishing line - we'll find out what happened for you later").
I just want to know who the hell will be left here in the UK? Imagine the possibilities:-
- Breakfast News with Katie the tea lady?
- The Evening News presented by Sonya the night cleaning lady?
- Cricket highlights presented by the BBC Centre Security Doorman (2nd cousin twice removed of Michael Vaughan)?
Well, I suppose our license fee has to be put to some good use! And, of course, there will be a full explanation of the cost breakdown, and full accountability, after the event, won't there?
What a waste!
Saturday, March 29, 2008
QUOTE OF THE DAY - DDAIDDAIS
Of course, I only have a blog poster's word for it, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised:
'Fantastic coverage on the BBC of Earth Hour, starting in Sydney: all the lights turned off to save the planet. And how was this footage obtained? From a helicopter.'
Must be a wind up. The motive power for the helicopter I mean. 'Pong! More spicy soup!'
'Fantastic coverage on the BBC of Earth Hour, starting in Sydney: all the lights turned off to save the planet. And how was this footage obtained? From a helicopter.'
Must be a wind up. The motive power for the helicopter I mean. 'Pong! More spicy soup!'
Every lite bit helps?
I'd actually missed it all 'til now, but having just Googled something and found a reversed out screen have discovered 'Earth Hour'.
Not awfully sure what I am supposed to/can do (sitting around in the dark tonight around a burning candle seems daft, if not questionable enviROI), and my views on 'awareness' are well known.
I guess I could switch off my PC and not blog for an hour, which might mean something. I'm guessing such as Google and the BBC will not be going quite that far (mind you, BBC's woeful Forum system might just be doing the same thing), switching off power-hungry servers and all. There's raising awareness and not making such massive pots of money as you could, I guess.
See you in an hour, then.
Google
BBC
Observer - Lights out? - An odd piece in an odd place, designed it seems mostly to crank up some COCP (hey.. another acronym - for Climate Optimist/Pessimist, and pronounced 'Cock-up) 'tis/t'isn't ratings 'heat' and little less. What was interesting were his stats on actual enviROIs, which I'd tend to believer as he is quite good on this count.
Not awfully sure what I am supposed to/can do (sitting around in the dark tonight around a burning candle seems daft, if not questionable enviROI), and my views on 'awareness' are well known.
I guess I could switch off my PC and not blog for an hour, which might mean something. I'm guessing such as Google and the BBC will not be going quite that far (mind you, BBC's woeful Forum system might just be doing the same thing), switching off power-hungry servers and all. There's raising awareness and not making such massive pots of money as you could, I guess.
See you in an hour, then.
BBC
Observer - Lights out? - An odd piece in an odd place, designed it seems mostly to crank up some COCP (hey.. another acronym - for Climate Optimist/Pessimist, and pronounced 'Cock-up) 'tis/t'isn't ratings 'heat' and little less. What was interesting were his stats on actual enviROIs, which I'd tend to believer as he is quite good on this count.
Too little of a good thing?
In the commercial world (and a few others, but especially PR), 'calling for' equates to 'looking at' in politics.
Whatever is being referred to is important, and the author acknowledges the fact, but actually there's either b-all that can be done, or they actually intend to do. But they do care, so that's OK. And it gets some PR.
Marketing Week - Sorrell calls for an end to deliberate obsolescence
There is some small significance that someone such as Martin Sorrell might feel the urge to opine this way, but that's about it.
I somehow don't see Steve Jobs grabbing the hotline to R&D to say 'Guys... the new i-Ownyourfirstborn.... make it last a lifetime!'.
But market forces do tend to work through. Speaking of Apple, though I can do sod all about it I am well miffed that I am now bound to FileMaker and its upgrades to work on Leopard no matter what, and will badmouth 'em at every turn. But I am well impressed that both our 12-year old cars have not a trace of rust on them yet. I have had to ditch a few in my time just because the floor pan dropped out.
But it would be nice if we could see a move to this: 'If people are less willing to buy items in large volumes because they have less money, make a virtue in advertising of how long your products last. Charge slightly more for them. That’s good for the landfill sites and good for your sales.' or this 'Or what about finding ways of getting people paying to ‘upgrade’ old products? It shows that you’re thinking about obsolescence while still offering people the sexy new functions and features they desire.'
It is, after all, what I have been advocating for long enough. I'll look forward to how Mr. Sorrell intends to turn his ideas into actions and not just talk about it all. Or, at best, stand ready to carry the next ad from someone who claim they are.
Whatever is being referred to is important, and the author acknowledges the fact, but actually there's either b-all that can be done, or they actually intend to do. But they do care, so that's OK. And it gets some PR.
Marketing Week - Sorrell calls for an end to deliberate obsolescence
There is some small significance that someone such as Martin Sorrell might feel the urge to opine this way, but that's about it.
I somehow don't see Steve Jobs grabbing the hotline to R&D to say 'Guys... the new i-Ownyourfirstborn.... make it last a lifetime!'.
But market forces do tend to work through. Speaking of Apple, though I can do sod all about it I am well miffed that I am now bound to FileMaker and its upgrades to work on Leopard no matter what, and will badmouth 'em at every turn. But I am well impressed that both our 12-year old cars have not a trace of rust on them yet. I have had to ditch a few in my time just because the floor pan dropped out.
But it would be nice if we could see a move to this: 'If people are less willing to buy items in large volumes because they have less money, make a virtue in advertising of how long your products last. Charge slightly more for them. That’s good for the landfill sites and good for your sales.' or this 'Or what about finding ways of getting people paying to ‘upgrade’ old products? It shows that you’re thinking about obsolescence while still offering people the sexy new functions and features they desire.'
It is, after all, what I have been advocating for long enough. I'll look forward to how Mr. Sorrell intends to turn his ideas into actions and not just talk about it all. Or, at best, stand ready to carry the next ad from someone who claim they are.
NEWS/GO3 PR - We're 'on track', apparently
Like so much here that involves a track, or conveyor, works out so well..
PR (from DEFRA) as provided, with no edit or further comment at all from me:
UK on track to meet kyoto targets as emissions continue to fall
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn today said that the UK is making progress on cutting Greenhouse Gas emissions, but there is still much work to do.
Provisional statistics published today for total UK Greenhouse Gas emissions for 2007 showed a drop of two per cent over the previous year, with 639.4 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent, down from 652.3 million tonnes in 2006.
They also show that in 2007, UK net emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) were provisionally estimated to be 543.7 million tonnes. This was two per cent lower than the 2006 figure of 554.5 million tonnes.
The decrease in CO2 emissions resulted from fuel switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, combined with lower fossil fuel consumption by households and industry.
Secretary of State for the Environment, the Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn said:
"These figures show we are making progress in cutting emissions and are on target to go beyond our Kyoto targets. But there's much to do at home and abroad if we are to going to avert dangerous climate change.
"We need to see a major change across the whole of the UK economy if we are to meet the ambitious emissions reduction targets set in the Climate Change Bill. To aid this, the Government will develop carbon markets and promote the development of low carbon technology, while continuing to work to get international agreement on global emissions targets.
"But while the Government can provide encouragement and incentives, we also need individuals and businesses to do their bit to cut their carbon footprint because it's only by all of us tackling climate change that we will achieve success."
Energy Minister, the Rt. Hon. Malcolm Wicks said:
"Today's figures show that we are on the way to a low carbon future. Energy efficiency, more renewable energy, new nuclear and carbon capture and storage technology will all play a key part in ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions continue to fall."
Notes to editors
1. All the statistics released today are estimated in accordance with the rules agreed internationally for reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the European Union. As a consequence the statistics include domestic flights but not international flights since there is currently no internationally agreed method to take account of international aviation emissions.
2. These provisional emissions estimates will be subject to revision when the final estimates are published in early 2009; however, they provide an early indication of emissions in the most recent full calendar year. The majority of provisional estimates are within 1 per cent of the final figures.
3. The figures for 1990 to 2006 in this statistics release are from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI), produced for Defra and the Devolved Administrations by AEA Energy & Environment. Additional results will be released as they become available, including a full report published towards the end of the year. For further information on the UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, see the NAEI web site.
4. The climate change indicator is one of the 68 indicators supporting the Government's Sustainable Development Strategy.
5. There are uncertainties associated with all estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. However, although for any given year considerable uncertainties may surround the emissions estimates for a pollutant, it is important to note that trends over time are likely to be much more reliable. It is also important to note that the provisional 2007 estimates are subject to a greater range of uncertainty than the final figures for earlier years. For more information on these uncertainties see the Digest of Environmental Statistics.
6. Further details of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme can be found at the EU ETS section of the Defra website.
PR (from DEFRA) as provided, with no edit or further comment at all from me:
UK on track to meet kyoto targets as emissions continue to fall
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn today said that the UK is making progress on cutting Greenhouse Gas emissions, but there is still much work to do.
Provisional statistics published today for total UK Greenhouse Gas emissions for 2007 showed a drop of two per cent over the previous year, with 639.4 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent, down from 652.3 million tonnes in 2006.
They also show that in 2007, UK net emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) were provisionally estimated to be 543.7 million tonnes. This was two per cent lower than the 2006 figure of 554.5 million tonnes.
The decrease in CO2 emissions resulted from fuel switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation, combined with lower fossil fuel consumption by households and industry.
Secretary of State for the Environment, the Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn said:
"These figures show we are making progress in cutting emissions and are on target to go beyond our Kyoto targets. But there's much to do at home and abroad if we are to going to avert dangerous climate change.
"We need to see a major change across the whole of the UK economy if we are to meet the ambitious emissions reduction targets set in the Climate Change Bill. To aid this, the Government will develop carbon markets and promote the development of low carbon technology, while continuing to work to get international agreement on global emissions targets.
"But while the Government can provide encouragement and incentives, we also need individuals and businesses to do their bit to cut their carbon footprint because it's only by all of us tackling climate change that we will achieve success."
Energy Minister, the Rt. Hon. Malcolm Wicks said:
"Today's figures show that we are on the way to a low carbon future. Energy efficiency, more renewable energy, new nuclear and carbon capture and storage technology will all play a key part in ensuring that greenhouse gas emissions continue to fall."
Notes to editors
1. All the statistics released today are estimated in accordance with the rules agreed internationally for reporting to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the European Union. As a consequence the statistics include domestic flights but not international flights since there is currently no internationally agreed method to take account of international aviation emissions.
2. These provisional emissions estimates will be subject to revision when the final estimates are published in early 2009; however, they provide an early indication of emissions in the most recent full calendar year. The majority of provisional estimates are within 1 per cent of the final figures.
3. The figures for 1990 to 2006 in this statistics release are from the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI), produced for Defra and the Devolved Administrations by AEA Energy & Environment. Additional results will be released as they become available, including a full report published towards the end of the year. For further information on the UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, see the NAEI web site.
4. The climate change indicator is one of the 68 indicators supporting the Government's Sustainable Development Strategy.
5. There are uncertainties associated with all estimates of greenhouse gas emissions. However, although for any given year considerable uncertainties may surround the emissions estimates for a pollutant, it is important to note that trends over time are likely to be much more reliable. It is also important to note that the provisional 2007 estimates are subject to a greater range of uncertainty than the final figures for earlier years. For more information on these uncertainties see the Digest of Environmental Statistics.
6. Further details of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme can be found at the EU ETS section of the Defra website.
In the soup?
I am no great defender of plastic. But it is hard to imagine how we would exist without it and, that said, cease to use it.
Hence I tend to approach efforts like this with eyebrow-cocked: Warning on plastic's toxic threat
There's no doubt that the stuff is not great once it moves from its first use and gets disposed of.
But all the media/PR effort seems to ignore the main issue, which is correct disposal.
And, frankly, most of us are powerless in this regard, and hence there is little we can DO.
Hence a piece like this seems to be rather pointless other than being another 'woe is us' piece that gets a bunch of folk on a nice (if polluted) island to raise 'awareness'.
I can't see the value as a consumer news piece unless there is some connection to mitigation made.
However the science is interesting, and I do wonder how some of this relates to the effects of so-called 'biodegradables', which are often touted as 'solutions', but as matter can neither be created or destroyed do simply cease to be visible. The potential negative impact remains.
Hence I tend to approach efforts like this with eyebrow-cocked: Warning on plastic's toxic threat
There's no doubt that the stuff is not great once it moves from its first use and gets disposed of.
But all the media/PR effort seems to ignore the main issue, which is correct disposal.
And, frankly, most of us are powerless in this regard, and hence there is little we can DO.
Hence a piece like this seems to be rather pointless other than being another 'woe is us' piece that gets a bunch of folk on a nice (if polluted) island to raise 'awareness'.
I can't see the value as a consumer news piece unless there is some connection to mitigation made.
However the science is interesting, and I do wonder how some of this relates to the effects of so-called 'biodegradables', which are often touted as 'solutions', but as matter can neither be created or destroyed do simply cease to be visible. The potential negative impact remains.
Friday, March 28, 2008
QUOTE OF THE DAY - time and place
"You can't change the past,
but you can ruin the present
by worrying over the future."
Shared with thanks to Aunty Rosalind in Singapore.
One I think I should live by more.
But as I can't seem to resist some forward-looking... 'concerns'.. might I suggest the addition of '...worrying too much over...'? That has a suitably 'getoutclausey' ring to it.
but you can ruin the present
by worrying over the future."
Shared with thanks to Aunty Rosalind in Singapore.
One I think I should live by more.
But as I can't seem to resist some forward-looking... 'concerns'.. might I suggest the addition of '...worrying too much over...'? That has a suitably 'getoutclausey' ring to it.
CATEGORY - TATE Gallery
For an explanation, see here.
For possible examples, as they come in/get suggested see here:
Indy - Ecological disaster area: Sydney's dirtiest little secret - At least they are trying to improve, but I'd say they have a ways to go. Maybe they could try twinning with Modbury?
For possible examples, as they come in/get suggested see here:
Indy - Ecological disaster area: Sydney's dirtiest little secret - At least they are trying to improve, but I'd say they have a ways to go. Maybe they could try twinning with Modbury?
ACRONYM - TATE Gallery
Haven't coined one in a few hours. So here's TATE, as in 'Gallery'.
It stands for 'Tinkering Around The Edges', but is about the same as 'Rearranging Deckchairs On the Titanic' (RDOT), but rolls off the tongue better.
In fact, I think it deserves it's own category.
It stands for 'Tinkering Around The Edges', but is about the same as 'Rearranging Deckchairs On the Titanic' (RDOT), but rolls off the tongue better.
In fact, I think it deserves it's own category.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
PR COVERAGE - Greenfinder
A little bit of trumpet-blowing never hurts.Or, for that matter, some mutual backscratching.
We have been mentioned, in flattering terms, in the newsletter of a green directory called GreenFinder.
So, in true rapid-blog style, a compliment is returned:)
Actually looks like a nifty little resource, too.
POLL - MW/YouGov green issues marketers’ poll
You need to take a large dose of salt with them usually, but they're always worth a gander if only for a laff: MW/YouGov green issues marketers’ poll
I seem to recall taking part even. Not sure what that says about me. I think I may have skewed the result, mind.
A few points, which are acknowledged. One is the difference between 'doing' and 'being seen to be doing'. Which can equate to getting credit more for dropping a ton of dough claiming stuff than actually doing any of it. And with even major media having the attention span of gnats these days, much less checking stories, if it gets punted out as green it will get printed as green. Even if it might all wash away with the first shower.
Plus I loved this: 'Other fascinating insights gleaned from our research include the aversion of marketers to the idea that brands should pay a green tax. They believe it is the Government’s responsibility to take care of the costs associated with going green.' I believe that is a classic MaRiDa (Mandy Rice Davis) comment: 'well, they would say that, wouldn't they?'
Speaking from personal experience, I am also not at all surprised to find 'that it is senior people who are the main force pushing green issues rather than marketers lower down the scale.'
Most in the profession (which also often seems very short lived, which may explain a lot else. No sooner do I hone in on a promising lead than he/she has left 'to pursue their own interests'. Or to become a football manager, doubtless for the increased job security) seem to see their role more as gatekeepers of the status quo, and actually getting innovative on anything without the nod from on high ain't gonna happen. Even getting from Trace on reception to Mrs. Miggins in the PA pool is tricky enough. I know of one company who got their knickers in a twist about a call to see who best to pitch a green initiative to because they were on the Telephone Preference Service list!
There does seem to be a disconnect. But to be fair, I also suspect those big bosses who make big green noises are the first on the horn when any initiative dents the bottom line. Black trumps green when it comes to bonus time, even though staying the course can work out better on all counts in the long run. But as long runs don't seem a factor in mid-level marketing careers, it may explain why the short term gain is favoured more.
The full survey, by the by, is not free. £999+VAT not free. Those marketing tinkers, if it had been over a grand I wouldn't have considered it, but at that price...
Addendum:
Greenbang - And the ten least green brands are…
Great... er... minds...!
At least these things give folk like us something to write about.
That said, I rather dread seeing those perhaps surprisingly higher than warranted whacking out a 'Top 10 Green Brand' logo in the next few days.
Having taken part (and only having done so to find out what the questions might be... I wonder how many 'so much to do, so little time' top marketing gurus would have devoted the time), and now basking in the glow of being deemed a 'top marketing professional' (the qualification criteria were ruthless, I tell you), it is refreshing to see that 'we' are only human: 'Quick... name a green brand!!!!!' Er... Toyota Prius? No... HSBC (er, actually, what happened to them? They have spent oodles!).
Like Brucie might say (well, once have said); 'Good game, good game!'.
I seem to recall taking part even. Not sure what that says about me. I think I may have skewed the result, mind.
A few points, which are acknowledged. One is the difference between 'doing' and 'being seen to be doing'. Which can equate to getting credit more for dropping a ton of dough claiming stuff than actually doing any of it. And with even major media having the attention span of gnats these days, much less checking stories, if it gets punted out as green it will get printed as green. Even if it might all wash away with the first shower.
Plus I loved this: 'Other fascinating insights gleaned from our research include the aversion of marketers to the idea that brands should pay a green tax. They believe it is the Government’s responsibility to take care of the costs associated with going green.' I believe that is a classic MaRiDa (Mandy Rice Davis) comment: 'well, they would say that, wouldn't they?'
Speaking from personal experience, I am also not at all surprised to find 'that it is senior people who are the main force pushing green issues rather than marketers lower down the scale.'
Most in the profession (which also often seems very short lived, which may explain a lot else. No sooner do I hone in on a promising lead than he/she has left 'to pursue their own interests'. Or to become a football manager, doubtless for the increased job security) seem to see their role more as gatekeepers of the status quo, and actually getting innovative on anything without the nod from on high ain't gonna happen. Even getting from Trace on reception to Mrs. Miggins in the PA pool is tricky enough. I know of one company who got their knickers in a twist about a call to see who best to pitch a green initiative to because they were on the Telephone Preference Service list!
There does seem to be a disconnect. But to be fair, I also suspect those big bosses who make big green noises are the first on the horn when any initiative dents the bottom line. Black trumps green when it comes to bonus time, even though staying the course can work out better on all counts in the long run. But as long runs don't seem a factor in mid-level marketing careers, it may explain why the short term gain is favoured more.
The full survey, by the by, is not free. £999+VAT not free. Those marketing tinkers, if it had been over a grand I wouldn't have considered it, but at that price...
Addendum:
Greenbang - And the ten least green brands are…
Great... er... minds...!
At least these things give folk like us something to write about.
That said, I rather dread seeing those perhaps surprisingly higher than warranted whacking out a 'Top 10 Green Brand' logo in the next few days.
Having taken part (and only having done so to find out what the questions might be... I wonder how many 'so much to do, so little time' top marketing gurus would have devoted the time), and now basking in the glow of being deemed a 'top marketing professional' (the qualification criteria were ruthless, I tell you), it is refreshing to see that 'we' are only human: 'Quick... name a green brand!!!!!' Er... Toyota Prius? No... HSBC (er, actually, what happened to them? They have spent oodles!).
Like Brucie might say (well, once have said); 'Good game, good game!'.
CATEGORY - Space Tourism
As an SF-addict, engineer a reacher for the stars creator-type, I am in awe of every development.
As one who has also bought into the notion that at the moment we have a bit of a gas problem, I find myself on the horns of a dilemma.
Best to make it a category, post what's out there and maybe we can all decide.
WSJ - Economy Fare ( $100,000) Lifts Space-Tourism Race
Gaurdian - NEW - Virgin Galactic: Richard Branson's pledge to prospective space tourists
And this being the right-on Grauniad, as part of the franchise, and commercial (was it paid for? If not, then big up to Mr. Branson for pulling a fast one on the ad sales guys via editorial), I look forward to the breathless gushing announcement of Virgin Space of Waste Carbon Offsets soon, too.
I guess saying 'more environmental' several times must make it so.
In case not, I wonder if any pictures from this £200k Kodak moment afforded the attractive collection of rich folk featured might capture the Earth weeping?
ps; Check Space, Tourism and Virgin Galactic at the least in the labels at end for more
As one who has also bought into the notion that at the moment we have a bit of a gas problem, I find myself on the horns of a dilemma.
Best to make it a category, post what's out there and maybe we can all decide.
WSJ - Economy Fare ( $100,000) Lifts Space-Tourism Race
Gaurdian - NEW - Virgin Galactic: Richard Branson's pledge to prospective space tourists
And this being the right-on Grauniad, as part of the franchise, and commercial (was it paid for? If not, then big up to Mr. Branson for pulling a fast one on the ad sales guys via editorial), I look forward to the breathless gushing announcement of Virgin Space of Waste Carbon Offsets soon, too.
I guess saying 'more environmental' several times must make it so.
In case not, I wonder if any pictures from this £200k Kodak moment afforded the attractive collection of rich folk featured might capture the Earth weeping?
ps; Check Space, Tourism and Virgin Galactic at the least in the labels at end for more
EVENT - Homes4Good '08
MONTH - This!
FIELD: Enviro-related
WHEN: 28-29 March
WHAT:Homes4Good '08
WHAT... MORE?: Showing ways to create sustainable buildings: from constructing buildings using local, natural materials, energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technology, to promoting lifestyles that help reduce consumption, save energy and make sustainable living easy.
WHERE: Showering Pavilion at the Bath and West’s royal county showground
WHO: Well, at the very least co-blogger Dave of Solarventi is exhibiting there!
HOW: £5
URL: http://www.ecostrust.org.uk/h4g/index.html
COMMENTS: Looks like a nice day out!
FIELD: Enviro-related
WHEN: 28-29 March
WHAT:Homes4Good '08
WHAT... MORE?: Showing ways to create sustainable buildings: from constructing buildings using local, natural materials, energy efficiency measures and renewable energy technology, to promoting lifestyles that help reduce consumption, save energy and make sustainable living easy.
WHERE: Showering Pavilion at the Bath and West’s royal county showground
WHO: Well, at the very least co-blogger Dave of Solarventi is exhibiting there!
HOW: £5
URL: http://www.ecostrust.org.uk/h4g/index.html
COMMENTS: Looks like a nice day out!
'Biogasoline'
We've all heard about bio-diesel, but this was a new term to me, so I reckoned it would be worth bringing to everyone's attention.
This from Reuters explains that Shell and Virent Energy Systems are teaming up to "research a petrol alternative from non-food crops that would reduce CO2 emissions without driving up food prices."
It is not ethanol, and it is interesting that the 'fuel' will use non-food plants and will not use land otherwise suitable for food crops. On top of that, unlike higher % ethanol/petrol mixtures, the biogasoline can used used without modification to most engines.
There is no explanation of the actual technology, but it uses a 'similar technology' to the research the same players started last year using biomass to produce hydrogen.
Possibly one to watch?
This from Reuters explains that Shell and Virent Energy Systems are teaming up to "research a petrol alternative from non-food crops that would reduce CO2 emissions without driving up food prices."
It is not ethanol, and it is interesting that the 'fuel' will use non-food plants and will not use land otherwise suitable for food crops. On top of that, unlike higher % ethanol/petrol mixtures, the biogasoline can used used without modification to most engines.
There is no explanation of the actual technology, but it uses a 'similar technology' to the research the same players started last year using biomass to produce hydrogen.
Possibly one to watch?
CATEGORY - Greenhouse Gasses
A lot of discussion still on what they are doing, but it is worth getting a handle on what they are to try and get to an informed opinion.
Here's a start:
BBC Green - 60 second guide to... Greenhouse gases - Bear in mind that this is 'a' view by 'a' medium. Take the opinions in that spirit. But the facts are worth noting. And it's rare when one hears of the more 'influential' ones, such as NOx which, whilst less in volume in comparison to CO2 or Methane can actually be more serious. And these often crop up in very significant places.
Here's a start:
BBC Green - 60 second guide to... Greenhouse gases - Bear in mind that this is 'a' view by 'a' medium. Take the opinions in that spirit. But the facts are worth noting. And it's rare when one hears of the more 'influential' ones, such as NOx which, whilst less in volume in comparison to CO2 or Methane can actually be more serious. And these often crop up in very significant places.
CATEGORY - ETHICAL INVESTING
Though related to carbon offsetting in a few ways, it is pretty different in most others. So I think worth a seperate category.
Indy - Now it can pay to go green
Marketing Week - DiCaprio aids HSBC Green card launch - Not investing as such, but as its finance related I thought I'd stick it here for now. Yet another 'trial' that's 'not yet in the UK', so make of that what you will. They printed it. I printed it. Leo got some dosh for his pet project. HSBC looked a bit greener still... and the planet has a few less plastic credit cards to worry about.
You can tell I'm impressed.
BBC Green - NEW - Ethical banking uncovered
Indy - Now it can pay to go green
Marketing Week - DiCaprio aids HSBC Green card launch - Not investing as such, but as its finance related I thought I'd stick it here for now. Yet another 'trial' that's 'not yet in the UK', so make of that what you will. They printed it. I printed it. Leo got some dosh for his pet project. HSBC looked a bit greener still... and the planet has a few less plastic credit cards to worry about.
You can tell I'm impressed.
BBC Green - NEW - Ethical banking uncovered
Where's the real damage being done?
Map shows toll on world's oceans
NEW addenda at end.
The other day, at my boy's parent/teacher day, we ended up sitting with their IT tutor. Far from being just about bits and bytes, it seems the course delves much deeper than I imagined in how they use their computers to increase their knowledge base.
So we got onto resources. Several were mentioned, from Google to Wikipedia, and I was reassured to find that nothing was to be taken at face value, and multiple sources from a broad span surveyed to try and arrive at a fair view, even in matters of 'fact'.
But I was suprised when the the BBC site was mentioned, and this was laughed off with the most derision of all.
I came to the link above via a site that, it is fair to say, is 'climate optimistic' and not very pro-BBC.
So in no way was the thrust of this concerned with the rather sobering notion of what mankind is doing to the planet it inhabits.
But it did highlight how our national broadcaster, by 'doing science' in this way, just adds to the waffle and fudge on this subject, that ends up meaning so little.
I have to say I immediately stumbled on the 4% stat. Not 3% or 5%; somehow it is known that '...only about 4% of the world's oceans remain undamaged by human activity'. I think as they refer to 'sqkm' it is by area and not volume, but am not to sure. It would surely make a difference. Especially after the recent piece on the plastic vortex we noted here.
'The authors say the data is a "wake-up call" to policymakers.' I'll say, and to all of us. But at 96% down I'd say our work is cut out. This just seems so...vast... so... total... what on earth can credibly be done?
Apparently, '...the two biggest drivers in destroying marine habitats were climate change and over-fishing.' Surprising. I would have thought pollution would have rated higher than over-fishing. I also now have another niggle when it comes to 'CC'. Hence I am thinking of extending my personal acronym to PMWNICC. Climate changes all the time. To be meaningful in this context surely they mean 'Probably Man-Worsened Negative Impact CC'?
And to counter 'climate change' of this nature, the notion seems to be more conservation efforts. Hmmn.
To quote this critic, 'they [the BBC] thunder, but with characteristic vagueness don't say what this action, management or rolling up of sleeves actually entails.'
I tend to agree. Yes, we need to be aware of this stuff. But not get fed it in a way that either makes us tune out, feel helpless, ignore it or, worse, treat it as immediately suspect and irrationally, but perhaps inevitably, rebound more to a cosier counterview.
I continue to think with such sloppy reporting and agenda-driven editorial the BBC are simply making things worse.
Addenda -
Huge study gives wake-up call on state of world's oceans
And this... 'Human activity damages more than 40% of seas'
BBBC - NEW - I include the full comment with the link. No question that this sea-borne rubbish is nothing short of littering or even vandalism. I simply have a problem equating what washes up in a Pacific island with what I as a consumer put in my bin. Which seems to be the link trying to be made. Whilst all efforts at reductions in unnecessary plastics are sensible, in the shorter term I'd have thought it more worthwhile to look much more at disposal systems, from collection to reprocessing. Someone lobbing something over the side of a Panama-registered ship is harder to identify with as we grapple with PMWNICC.
NEW addenda at end.
The other day, at my boy's parent/teacher day, we ended up sitting with their IT tutor. Far from being just about bits and bytes, it seems the course delves much deeper than I imagined in how they use their computers to increase their knowledge base.
So we got onto resources. Several were mentioned, from Google to Wikipedia, and I was reassured to find that nothing was to be taken at face value, and multiple sources from a broad span surveyed to try and arrive at a fair view, even in matters of 'fact'.
But I was suprised when the the BBC site was mentioned, and this was laughed off with the most derision of all.
I came to the link above via a site that, it is fair to say, is 'climate optimistic' and not very pro-BBC.
So in no way was the thrust of this concerned with the rather sobering notion of what mankind is doing to the planet it inhabits.
But it did highlight how our national broadcaster, by 'doing science' in this way, just adds to the waffle and fudge on this subject, that ends up meaning so little.
I have to say I immediately stumbled on the 4% stat. Not 3% or 5%; somehow it is known that '...only about 4% of the world's oceans remain undamaged by human activity'. I think as they refer to 'sqkm' it is by area and not volume, but am not to sure. It would surely make a difference. Especially after the recent piece on the plastic vortex we noted here.
'The authors say the data is a "wake-up call" to policymakers.' I'll say, and to all of us. But at 96% down I'd say our work is cut out. This just seems so...vast... so... total... what on earth can credibly be done?
Apparently, '...the two biggest drivers in destroying marine habitats were climate change and over-fishing.' Surprising. I would have thought pollution would have rated higher than over-fishing. I also now have another niggle when it comes to 'CC'. Hence I am thinking of extending my personal acronym to PMWNICC. Climate changes all the time. To be meaningful in this context surely they mean 'Probably Man-Worsened Negative Impact CC'?
And to counter 'climate change' of this nature, the notion seems to be more conservation efforts. Hmmn.
To quote this critic, 'they [the BBC] thunder, but with characteristic vagueness don't say what this action, management or rolling up of sleeves actually entails.'
I tend to agree. Yes, we need to be aware of this stuff. But not get fed it in a way that either makes us tune out, feel helpless, ignore it or, worse, treat it as immediately suspect and irrationally, but perhaps inevitably, rebound more to a cosier counterview.
I continue to think with such sloppy reporting and agenda-driven editorial the BBC are simply making things worse.
Addenda -
Huge study gives wake-up call on state of world's oceans
And this... 'Human activity damages more than 40% of seas'
BBBC - NEW - I include the full comment with the link. No question that this sea-borne rubbish is nothing short of littering or even vandalism. I simply have a problem equating what washes up in a Pacific island with what I as a consumer put in my bin. Which seems to be the link trying to be made. Whilst all efforts at reductions in unnecessary plastics are sensible, in the shorter term I'd have thought it more worthwhile to look much more at disposal systems, from collection to reprocessing. Someone lobbing something over the side of a Panama-registered ship is harder to identify with as we grapple with PMWNICC.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)