Got to be done:
BBC - Questions raised over quango fees
BBC - FSA fesses up on Rock - I don't know if they are a quango or not. Or care. We are country 'run' by over-compensated, irresponsible fools who oversee other highly-paid, unaccountable fools to not protect us from totally immune charlatans.
epolitix.com - Carbon Trust
Guardian - Remploy bosses opt for top-end company cars - I'd love to see this one explained away... but it will be.
Guardian - Is that all, Mr Pocklington? - Priceless
Guardian - Satirists once had real bite. Not any more - from an odd direction. But telling.
Greenbang - Carbon Trust gets government slap down over targets - plus direct link to report. Yes that's a report. Now, what the heck gets done?????!
Indy - Ministers allowed officials to 'hit the jackpot' in MoD privatisation
Indy - Quangos' spending kept secret - A pretty well kept secret in itself
Times - English Heritage
Times - DEFRA - Going to pot
Times - Government spending on quangos soars
Times - Consultants cash in on state works - I really don't know why we put up with paying numpties to outsource paying other numpties to do their jobs. And how that manages “to do something for the good of the community”
Times - - Waste mounts as £100 billion web of quangos duplicates work - Not funny; not funny at all. And they don't mention the half of it
Times - It could be you – if you’re a lottery quango
Sunday Tel - How much do you think the head of Transport for London is paid? - Worth it for a useful link at the end, plus the comment on what these highly paid folk spend their money on, which often doesn't square with a reducing or mitigating lifestyle.
WRAP - there are a few. Just use the label search for others under 'WRAP' or Quango
Telegraph - WASTE WATCH - NEW
There will be more, trust me... because I, sadly, do not trust 'them' any more.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Can the can?
To Save Fuel, Airlines Find No Speck Too Small
I wonder if they are still lugging litre upon litre and kilo upon kilo of duty frees and cuddly toys to and fro in hope of a sale?
Or putting out newspapers with such crucial sections as today’s classifieds or appointments?
But I guess the public gets what the public…can.
I wonder if they are still lugging litre upon litre and kilo upon kilo of duty frees and cuddly toys to and fro in hope of a sale?
Or putting out newspapers with such crucial sections as today’s classifieds or appointments?
But I guess the public gets what the public…can.
Would the gent glowing at the back like to speak
(DEFRA) Government invites communities for 'no commitment' discussions on hosting geological disposal facility* for radioactive waste
I'd love to be a 6' fly sitting cross-legged on a chair, taking notes and multi-tasking on his non-mutated Blackberry at that one!
If only to see who lobs up.
*dump
I'd love to be a 6' fly sitting cross-legged on a chair, taking notes and multi-tasking on his non-mutated Blackberry at that one!
If only to see who lobs up.
*dump
42 Days is a long time ......
.... to be held without charge.The genius that is Matt of the Telegraph strikes again!
The thing is, there was a heated debate about the 42 days for suspect terrorists yesterday evening in my local. Now I didn't read or hear this, but two people were absolutely adamant that the way that the Bill was worded, it effectively gave the police the powers to hold anybody for 42 days whatever the offense! I've had a quick browse and cannot confirm this one way or another. Can anyone out there cast any light on this?
So, if it is true, whether you are a potential terrorist, or naughty enough to have put the wrong plastic in the wrong recycling bin, beware!
COMPETITION - Our first...
Well, the genesis of one at least. Its working title is... 'Whizz. No Bang'.
Because it's funny how things pan out.
I subscribe to many feeds and forums and lists to not only gain knowledge but also debate with knowledgeable others on various issues, often with a view to getting a... well, view... that might go beyond these pages and on to the site and newsletter. At least in a form that in being shared objectively may help others.
I am in the middle of one currently about the state (and it is sorry) of our nation's flood systems, warning and public comms. Interestingly, I had to go 'off grid' because one of those who know, or think they know better bemoaned having to put up with the input of mere mortals who often cop the sharp end of their highly-resourced conferences, consultations, research and trips all over the shop. And I can find their pronouncements from on high a crock of 'potential energy-from-biomass material'.
However, having gone off grid a while (sadly, you can't get profile and the good stuff without being noticed above parapet), I have found myself in highly productive discussions with some on an other area, namely wind farms.
The reason I am posting here, and hence also in the next newsletter, is that as a result of one conservation I am pondering a competition.
This is to see if there is/can be a low tech, low cost way of preventing bird strikes on wind farm turbine blades that simply make Jonathan Livingstone Eagle avoid the things, and hence at least get this 'yes highly important, yet pretty minor and distracting' issue (in the great scheme) off the cons list for a lot of folk, especially all major media with an eye to what sells papers and generates ratings, if not actually addressing pressing issues.
Thing is... first... we need a prize.
Suggestions?
Offers?
If juicy enough we will then ged our heads round the competition structure and on to as much PR as we can crank up. You never know... it may get spun (geddit?) to greater prominence by those with the media muscle to do so.
Because it's funny how things pan out.
I subscribe to many feeds and forums and lists to not only gain knowledge but also debate with knowledgeable others on various issues, often with a view to getting a... well, view... that might go beyond these pages and on to the site and newsletter. At least in a form that in being shared objectively may help others.
I am in the middle of one currently about the state (and it is sorry) of our nation's flood systems, warning and public comms. Interestingly, I had to go 'off grid' because one of those who know, or think they know better bemoaned having to put up with the input of mere mortals who often cop the sharp end of their highly-resourced conferences, consultations, research and trips all over the shop. And I can find their pronouncements from on high a crock of 'potential energy-from-biomass material'.
However, having gone off grid a while (sadly, you can't get profile and the good stuff without being noticed above parapet), I have found myself in highly productive discussions with some on an other area, namely wind farms.
The reason I am posting here, and hence also in the next newsletter, is that as a result of one conservation I am pondering a competition.
This is to see if there is/can be a low tech, low cost way of preventing bird strikes on wind farm turbine blades that simply make Jonathan Livingstone Eagle avoid the things, and hence at least get this 'yes highly important, yet pretty minor and distracting' issue (in the great scheme) off the cons list for a lot of folk, especially all major media with an eye to what sells papers and generates ratings, if not actually addressing pressing issues.
Thing is... first... we need a prize.
Suggestions?
Offers?
If juicy enough we will then ged our heads round the competition structure and on to as much PR as we can crank up. You never know... it may get spun (geddit?) to greater prominence by those with the media muscle to do so.
Tides of Opinion
I am aware on various issues regrading the controversial Severn Barrage tidal proposal; too much to hope our national news will help clarify matters sensibly.
I have written:
I have just watched the BBC Breakfast News 'report' on the Severn Barrage. Being already aware of the ecological objections I was keen to learn more objective information on the claim that it makes no economic sense, but this only amounted to a member of the RSPB saying so (if based on a 'report'). Hardly in depth. Or objective. 'Balance' was provided by an 'expert' who was quoted more on what the alternatives, specifically wind, would involve... to wildlife. What about the economic arguments we were promised? Or any hint as to this scheme's potential in reducing greenhouse emissions effectively?
I am also intrigued at the comment passed that governments should not be involved in huge energy projects. Er... do what?
Is the BBC just a mechanism to read out press releases, or can we ever hope to get news and analysis in forms these days that allow sensible understanding of the issues?
BBC - Concern over tidal barrage cost
I have written:
I have just watched the BBC Breakfast News 'report' on the Severn Barrage. Being already aware of the ecological objections I was keen to learn more objective information on the claim that it makes no economic sense, but this only amounted to a member of the RSPB saying so (if based on a 'report'). Hardly in depth. Or objective. 'Balance' was provided by an 'expert' who was quoted more on what the alternatives, specifically wind, would involve... to wildlife. What about the economic arguments we were promised? Or any hint as to this scheme's potential in reducing greenhouse emissions effectively?
I am also intrigued at the comment passed that governments should not be involved in huge energy projects. Er... do what?
Is the BBC just a mechanism to read out press releases, or can we ever hope to get news and analysis in forms these days that allow sensible understanding of the issues?
BBC - Concern over tidal barrage cost
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Style will save us!
Just felt like sticking an oar in...
Green Branding: Why Originality Matters
Well, it seems we can save the planet, and without it costing the earth:)
I tend to agree with much here, and picking up on the design/copy aspects if I see one more ad, mainly tinged green, with a flower poking out of an exhaust pipe, I think I'll choke on my Fairtrade tap water.
However, my only caution is to ensure that in seeking to be 'creative' and 'different' one does not end up serving the cause of a good [insert acceptable environmentally beneficial product/service/call to action word phrase here] communication less well, especially as it gets presented to an audience who may not obsess quite so much about the innermost emotional resonances of Bodoni Extra Clio Capturing and some obscure art shot nicked from last year's design annual.
I have found on occasion that the odd cliche still seems to work with the majority That's how they end up as cliches), so in seeking to be new and trendy let not all that might still work well go to waste.
Green Branding: Why Originality Matters
Well, it seems we can save the planet, and without it costing the earth:)
I tend to agree with much here, and picking up on the design/copy aspects if I see one more ad, mainly tinged green, with a flower poking out of an exhaust pipe, I think I'll choke on my Fairtrade tap water.
However, my only caution is to ensure that in seeking to be 'creative' and 'different' one does not end up serving the cause of a good [insert acceptable environmentally beneficial product/service/call to action word phrase here] communication less well, especially as it gets presented to an audience who may not obsess quite so much about the innermost emotional resonances of Bodoni Extra Clio Capturing and some obscure art shot nicked from last year's design annual.
I have found on occasion that the odd cliche still seems to work with the majority That's how they end up as cliches), so in seeking to be new and trendy let not all that might still work well go to waste.
At least you'll know in advance that your screwed
Two pieces on flood issues just in.
One is a full quote from an LGA PR; the other a BBC story.
LGA response to flooding report - press release - 11 June 2008
In response to the Environment Commission report into last year's flooding, the Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.
The LGA is calling for a change in the law and a new statutory framework which would compel water companies and others to co-operate with councils, share information and prepare flood prevention plans. Any organisation that failed to co-operate would be penalised.
Cllr Paul Bettison, Chairman of the LGA Environment Board, said:
“The current system is fundamentally flawed. We simply cannot continue to have a situation where it is not clear who is responsible for dealing with vitally important functions such as drainage.
“There are glaring gaps in this country’s readiness to cope with widespread and prolonged flooding. Last summer’s floods were no fluke, and we run the real risk of witnessing a repeat – or worse – unless urgent action is taken now.
“We need to get back to basics. There should be no opt-out, no excuses and clear penalties for anybody who refuses to co-operate with managing our water systems. Councils should be allowed to start banging heads together so we can be better prepared to protect people and property.”
“More extreme weather is an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Last summer’s floods exposed flaws in how prepared the country was and the effect of years of under-funding. Greater investment now will save much bigger costs in the future.”
Under the current system, it is often unclear who has responsibility for managing flood risk and maintaining drainage systems. In some parts of the country a myriad of different bodies – including the Environment Agency, councils, private landowners and water companies – have these powers but often do not share information with each other.
BBC - Laser maps flood-prone areas
Hence I am again frustrated and concerned, if not surprised to read such as this:
'The Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.'
What? You mean they are not... yet??? Such as Cllr. Bettison are bang on, and the wonder is how this is still the case, after all that has gone before and will transpire again.
And while whizz bang techno stuff is all well and good, if those theoretically 'in charge' cannot organize themselves, getting better warnings seems to be unlikely to inspire most of the population much, especially if many of the replies in the BBC HYS section are to be taken as a measure.
I welcome better data, but it has to be provided and supported with tangible actions.
I live in a low point of a town on the River Wye. I bought the house following a survey that discovered that since it was built, in the 17th century, it has never been flooded. Those old folk knew a thing or two about building, and what was meant by... flood plains. So I pay attention in advance to such wise experience.
And I am glad to say my insurers are happy to go along with that (for now), despite the Enviro Agency's current map having got my house slap bang in one. Oddly, it also has my neighbours' three houses up in it too, despite being about 40' (80x the 6” that makes all the difference) higher up the hill.
Anyway, being a believer in prevention being better than cure, I have for the last few years tried to pursue with various bodies - council, Environment Agency, Waterways Board - how I might better protect my property should things deteriorate. I think Ican do so and weather future storms rather than wailing and claiming compo, as seems the vogue. Not big on the victim culture.
Thing is, I need some advice at least (help if its available, but being practical I'd say dream on). I have a mark on the wall showing the level AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). All I need to know is what, in the next 50-100 years, are the chances of something going above that, and to what height. Then I can prepare coffer walls and entryway/hole covers to deploy on warning (very prompt system on email and mobile, though a little lacking on much beyond screaming 'prepare for the worst!!'. Wolf and crying kicks in a tad here).
Sadly, to no avail so far. Each, as suggested here, points at the other, and/or various colourful websites that are pretty of little use.
Officers are 'busy', and have been for years. But I got the offer of 'a' sandbag once.
If this is the level of support to a householder who is prepared to DIY, and pay for it all himself, I am not too inspired as to how it's going to improve very much for those in less of a position to do so.
But I am sure many reports will get prepared, boxes ticked, and sombre spokespersons from multiple, overlapping public bodies explaining how it happened this time due to ‘unexpected circumstances’.
One is a full quote from an LGA PR; the other a BBC story.
LGA response to flooding report - press release - 11 June 2008
In response to the Environment Commission report into last year's flooding, the Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.
The LGA is calling for a change in the law and a new statutory framework which would compel water companies and others to co-operate with councils, share information and prepare flood prevention plans. Any organisation that failed to co-operate would be penalised.
Cllr Paul Bettison, Chairman of the LGA Environment Board, said:
“The current system is fundamentally flawed. We simply cannot continue to have a situation where it is not clear who is responsible for dealing with vitally important functions such as drainage.
“There are glaring gaps in this country’s readiness to cope with widespread and prolonged flooding. Last summer’s floods were no fluke, and we run the real risk of witnessing a repeat – or worse – unless urgent action is taken now.
“We need to get back to basics. There should be no opt-out, no excuses and clear penalties for anybody who refuses to co-operate with managing our water systems. Councils should be allowed to start banging heads together so we can be better prepared to protect people and property.”
“More extreme weather is an unavoidable consequence of climate change. Last summer’s floods exposed flaws in how prepared the country was and the effect of years of under-funding. Greater investment now will save much bigger costs in the future.”
Under the current system, it is often unclear who has responsibility for managing flood risk and maintaining drainage systems. In some parts of the country a myriad of different bodies – including the Environment Agency, councils, private landowners and water companies – have these powers but often do not share information with each other.
BBC - Laser maps flood-prone areas
Hence I am again frustrated and concerned, if not surprised to read such as this:
'The Local Government Association has called for the Government to introduce a legal requirement for all organisations to co-operate and fight the risk of flooding.'
What? You mean they are not... yet??? Such as Cllr. Bettison are bang on, and the wonder is how this is still the case, after all that has gone before and will transpire again.
And while whizz bang techno stuff is all well and good, if those theoretically 'in charge' cannot organize themselves, getting better warnings seems to be unlikely to inspire most of the population much, especially if many of the replies in the BBC HYS section are to be taken as a measure.
I welcome better data, but it has to be provided and supported with tangible actions.
I live in a low point of a town on the River Wye. I bought the house following a survey that discovered that since it was built, in the 17th century, it has never been flooded. Those old folk knew a thing or two about building, and what was meant by... flood plains. So I pay attention in advance to such wise experience.
And I am glad to say my insurers are happy to go along with that (for now), despite the Enviro Agency's current map having got my house slap bang in one. Oddly, it also has my neighbours' three houses up in it too, despite being about 40' (80x the 6” that makes all the difference) higher up the hill.
Anyway, being a believer in prevention being better than cure, I have for the last few years tried to pursue with various bodies - council, Environment Agency, Waterways Board - how I might better protect my property should things deteriorate. I think Ican do so and weather future storms rather than wailing and claiming compo, as seems the vogue. Not big on the victim culture.
Thing is, I need some advice at least (help if its available, but being practical I'd say dream on). I have a mark on the wall showing the level AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). All I need to know is what, in the next 50-100 years, are the chances of something going above that, and to what height. Then I can prepare coffer walls and entryway/hole covers to deploy on warning (very prompt system on email and mobile, though a little lacking on much beyond screaming 'prepare for the worst!!'. Wolf and crying kicks in a tad here).
Sadly, to no avail so far. Each, as suggested here, points at the other, and/or various colourful websites that are pretty of little use.
Officers are 'busy', and have been for years. But I got the offer of 'a' sandbag once.
If this is the level of support to a householder who is prepared to DIY, and pay for it all himself, I am not too inspired as to how it's going to improve very much for those in less of a position to do so.
But I am sure many reports will get prepared, boxes ticked, and sombre spokespersons from multiple, overlapping public bodies explaining how it happened this time due to ‘unexpected circumstances’.
You pay me to not buy my product, OK?
Sorrell advises agencies to help people consume less
Hey, works for me (well, Junkk.com...RE:tie...)
'...keep the wheels of the industry turning in the coming tough times by investigating communications strategies that will persuade consumers to change their behaviours or even to consume less, which led to mutterings...'
Interesting. Was anything shared on how this would work in practice?
I'm keen to learn how and hence share it. Sadly, to date, economy seldom goes hand in hand with environment... at least, when it comes to using, and hence consuming less. Salaries to pay; budgets to fund.
Making things that still get bought and impact less... now that I can see as quelling the mutterings a tad. I have a few ideas on this... if anyone is interested.
Hey, works for me (well, Junkk.com...RE:tie...)
'...keep the wheels of the industry turning in the coming tough times by investigating communications strategies that will persuade consumers to change their behaviours or even to consume less, which led to mutterings...'
Interesting. Was anything shared on how this would work in practice?
I'm keen to learn how and hence share it. Sadly, to date, economy seldom goes hand in hand with environment... at least, when it comes to using, and hence consuming less. Salaries to pay; budgets to fund.
Making things that still get bought and impact less... now that I can see as quelling the mutterings a tad. I have a few ideas on this... if anyone is interested.
Well, they asked
The UK’s top-30 cleantech startups
Consider this a cautious loud whisper:
The RE:tie -
New - not to mention unique (as, well, it's often the same thing)
Exciting to us for any reason - dunno, how do you feel about an idea that turns 2 billion bits of plastic a day from pure waste to totally second useful?
Promising future - depends on whether those who claim to be keen on green are more into talking about it or doing something tangible. And I mean making more profit, though there is that whole CSR malarky, too.
Solid potential earnings - see above. How many consumers out there ready for an end-benefit with their latest green initiative as opposed to a fee, fine, nag, nanny, fright or guilt-trip?
Ecologically sound - one less piece in the bin, one less in the landfill, one less new item needing to be made and shipped.
Business model or technology that has clear environmental benefits - See above.
Obvious targets for investment or already invested in - See above. But did you have to mention 'targets'. P-EU. No one we've showed it too so far has said it stinks.
Has good news stories to tell - an eco-initiative with a win for consumers, a win for manufacturers, a win for supermarkets, a win for LAs, a win for a government looking to promote eco-innovation... and the planet doesn't do too shabby either. Call that a yes.
Did I miss anything?
Having a good idea is the easy part. Making it a great business is much trickier, which is why exposure for small outfits to bigger guys with reach and expertise is invaluable. Ta for the opportunity.
We're just looking for the right partners without the UK malaises of being mainly interested in process over result ,and only ever risking enough to be first to be second.
It would be a shame to see this go overseas.
Consider this a cautious loud whisper:
The RE:tie -
New - not to mention unique (as, well, it's often the same thing)
Exciting to us for any reason - dunno, how do you feel about an idea that turns 2 billion bits of plastic a day from pure waste to totally second useful?
Promising future - depends on whether those who claim to be keen on green are more into talking about it or doing something tangible. And I mean making more profit, though there is that whole CSR malarky, too.
Solid potential earnings - see above. How many consumers out there ready for an end-benefit with their latest green initiative as opposed to a fee, fine, nag, nanny, fright or guilt-trip?
Ecologically sound - one less piece in the bin, one less in the landfill, one less new item needing to be made and shipped.
Business model or technology that has clear environmental benefits - See above.
Obvious targets for investment or already invested in - See above. But did you have to mention 'targets'. P-EU. No one we've showed it too so far has said it stinks.
Has good news stories to tell - an eco-initiative with a win for consumers, a win for manufacturers, a win for supermarkets, a win for LAs, a win for a government looking to promote eco-innovation... and the planet doesn't do too shabby either. Call that a yes.
Did I miss anything?
Having a good idea is the easy part. Making it a great business is much trickier, which is why exposure for small outfits to bigger guys with reach and expertise is invaluable. Ta for the opportunity.
We're just looking for the right partners without the UK malaises of being mainly interested in process over result ,and only ever risking enough to be first to be second.
It would be a shame to see this go overseas.
Transport of delights - Turkish 3rd class, mainly
Sometimes it is refreshing to find others not so easily swayed by green-tinted press releases or 'it's eco so it must be 100% fine' blinkers.
So I'll leave this little review on our transport structure to Greenbang.com - Public transport failing - (shocking latest news)
So I'll leave this little review on our transport structure to Greenbang.com - Public transport failing - (shocking latest news)
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Winning ways
Time to muse on awards... again.
And my feelings are no less mixed than they were the last time.
I just feel the urge, and the timing is optimal as we have not just won any... or lost any either, recently.
That said, a few are bubbling, hence prompting the ponder.
At the end of the day, why the heck enter? I guess it boils down basically to three main areas: ego, money... and PR (which really means serving the first two).
And what does it cost? Basically, time (always) and money (usually). But then there are a few other factors in the mix, and which should not be forgotten, namely reputation and... waaaay too often, blood pressure. These things can't half wind you up, especially if you have invested a lot in entering.
For fairly simple reasons, we seldom enter anything that costs. As an ex-ad man I have also got a lot fussier about the brief (or criteria) than I used to, and now, thanks to a few major 'Huh???'s' have got a lot more picky based on the organisers and especially the judges.
Money is a great excluder, especially when it comes to talent. You can have no talent and lots of money, and enter almost anything you fancy. You can have oodles of talent and no money and find your options are much more restricted.
And let's not forget awards are big business, from entries to galas, so those who organise are always going to be conscious of where the money comes from. And will be keen to keep it coming.
A lot is therefore down to the guidance to, and integrity of judges.
But these days there is even more, and that is their qualifications. In many 'people's choice' awards there can be no more egalitarian choice of judge than the people, but once celebrity laypersons get in there odd things can happen.
It's not so important in something that is still about, say creativity and how it plays to the public, but of late I have had to wonder what BB reject or supermodel has by way of insight into an invention. It's all become a bit too cosy, and clubby, especially when money is in the mix.
As a few Junkk and RE:tie advisers have pointed out, awards are nice, but you can't eat them, so prioritising which will lead to the next meal is probably a good idea. So from now on I'll try and leap more with my head than my heart.
And my feelings are no less mixed than they were the last time.
I just feel the urge, and the timing is optimal as we have not just won any... or lost any either, recently.
That said, a few are bubbling, hence prompting the ponder.
At the end of the day, why the heck enter? I guess it boils down basically to three main areas: ego, money... and PR (which really means serving the first two).
And what does it cost? Basically, time (always) and money (usually). But then there are a few other factors in the mix, and which should not be forgotten, namely reputation and... waaaay too often, blood pressure. These things can't half wind you up, especially if you have invested a lot in entering.
For fairly simple reasons, we seldom enter anything that costs. As an ex-ad man I have also got a lot fussier about the brief (or criteria) than I used to, and now, thanks to a few major 'Huh???'s' have got a lot more picky based on the organisers and especially the judges.
Money is a great excluder, especially when it comes to talent. You can have no talent and lots of money, and enter almost anything you fancy. You can have oodles of talent and no money and find your options are much more restricted.
And let's not forget awards are big business, from entries to galas, so those who organise are always going to be conscious of where the money comes from. And will be keen to keep it coming.
A lot is therefore down to the guidance to, and integrity of judges.
But these days there is even more, and that is their qualifications. In many 'people's choice' awards there can be no more egalitarian choice of judge than the people, but once celebrity laypersons get in there odd things can happen.
It's not so important in something that is still about, say creativity and how it plays to the public, but of late I have had to wonder what BB reject or supermodel has by way of insight into an invention. It's all become a bit too cosy, and clubby, especially when money is in the mix.
As a few Junkk and RE:tie advisers have pointed out, awards are nice, but you can't eat them, so prioritising which will lead to the next meal is probably a good idea. So from now on I'll try and leap more with my head than my heart.
AWARD - Green Awards 2008
WHEN: 10 Sept 2008
WHAT: Green Awards for Creativity in Sustainability
WHAT... MORE?: Green Awards were set up to recognise and reward creative work that communicates the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility, sustainable development and ethical best practice in any sector and across any marketing discipline.
HOW MUCH: £75 + VAT if you are wee, £250 if you could care less on the fee
URL: http://www.greenawards.co.uk/about/background
COMMENTS: You pays yer money and you take your chances. No doubt winning something is good for PR. We will not be entering. The fee, even for a small sME, is a lot. We also have our doubts on the set-up having entered (and paid) in the first year in the sub-budget sector and found our entry 'amalgamated at the discretion of the jury' with mega-bucks projects. And, sadly, awards outfits know where the big fees come from. Seeing highly creative eco-marketing sidelined in favour of blu-chip and LA greentosh campaigns, especially multi-piece DM packs, was more than we could stomach.
WHAT: Green Awards for Creativity in Sustainability
WHAT... MORE?: Green Awards were set up to recognise and reward creative work that communicates the importance of Corporate Social Responsibility, sustainable development and ethical best practice in any sector and across any marketing discipline.
HOW MUCH: £75 + VAT if you are wee, £250 if you could care less on the fee
URL: http://www.greenawards.co.uk/about/background
COMMENTS: You pays yer money and you take your chances. No doubt winning something is good for PR. We will not be entering. The fee, even for a small sME, is a lot. We also have our doubts on the set-up having entered (and paid) in the first year in the sub-budget sector and found our entry 'amalgamated at the discretion of the jury' with mega-bucks projects. And, sadly, awards outfits know where the big fees come from. Seeing highly creative eco-marketing sidelined in favour of blu-chip and LA greentosh campaigns, especially multi-piece DM packs, was more than we could stomach.
NEWS/Commercial PR - Water, water, not as everywhere as it could
Two things. Water is becoming a key aspect of our planetary future. Where it is... and isn't. Where it can be used. Or can't.
Second, as the first company to upload their product data to our second use ideas section, we have a soft spot for ecover.
They tend to walk the walk as much as (and often before) they talk the talk. So their press releases on matters eco tend to actually be worth something. All the more so when it goes hand in hand with charity. This one looks well worth supporting.
So, E&OE....
ECOVER AND WATERAID LAUNCH GROUND-BREAKING PARTNERSHIP
Ecover has launched a three-year partnership with international charity WaterAid. This partnership supports a project in Ethiopia, providing sustainable and ongoing access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene education.
Ecover and WaterAid share the objective to provide effective, sustainable solutions for the hygienic needs of people around the world, and it is this common interest that has led to the formation of the partnership. This is the first time WaterAid has worked with a business where both parties are actively working together to drive change.
The partnership will focus on the area of Hintalo Wajerat in the Tigray region where only 22% of the population currently has access to safe water and just 6% have access to adequate sanitation. More shocking is the fact that 17 out of every 100 children will die before they reach their fifth birthday. On completion of the project 14,750 people across eleven villages in the region will have access to safe water and effective sanitation.
From the end of June the partnership will be promoted on 1.5 million Ecover products across 10 lines.
Second, as the first company to upload their product data to our second use ideas section, we have a soft spot for ecover.
They tend to walk the walk as much as (and often before) they talk the talk. So their press releases on matters eco tend to actually be worth something. All the more so when it goes hand in hand with charity. This one looks well worth supporting.
So, E&OE....
ECOVER AND WATERAID LAUNCH GROUND-BREAKING PARTNERSHIP
Ecover has launched a three-year partnership with international charity WaterAid. This partnership supports a project in Ethiopia, providing sustainable and ongoing access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene education.
Ecover and WaterAid share the objective to provide effective, sustainable solutions for the hygienic needs of people around the world, and it is this common interest that has led to the formation of the partnership. This is the first time WaterAid has worked with a business where both parties are actively working together to drive change.
The partnership will focus on the area of Hintalo Wajerat in the Tigray region where only 22% of the population currently has access to safe water and just 6% have access to adequate sanitation. More shocking is the fact that 17 out of every 100 children will die before they reach their fifth birthday. On completion of the project 14,750 people across eleven villages in the region will have access to safe water and effective sanitation.
From the end of June the partnership will be promoted on 1.5 million Ecover products across 10 lines.
Monday, June 09, 2008
They aims, they shoots... who cares?
'Goal', in sport, it a pretty definitive thing.
You score one. And that's a result.
In politics and business it seems to be a very different beast.
Just in the last few days I must have had a dozen press releases about someone or other setting a goal, ranging from the next few years to the next century. And, more often than not, I have seen this blatant PR faithfully trotted out in some major media.
This blog will not be one. While I can laud any worthy aim, until the evidence that it has been achieved is in, it's about worth the paper it has been emailed upon.
You score one. And that's a result.
In politics and business it seems to be a very different beast.
Just in the last few days I must have had a dozen press releases about someone or other setting a goal, ranging from the next few years to the next century. And, more often than not, I have seen this blatant PR faithfully trotted out in some major media.
This blog will not be one. While I can laud any worthy aim, until the evidence that it has been achieved is in, it's about worth the paper it has been emailed upon.
Wish you were here... VISA
Like today, yesterday was gorgeous.
And we are lucky; we live in a part of the UK that when it is gorgeous we don't actually need to go any further than our front door to enjoy it.
In fact we ventured only as far as the back garden.
I attacked the jungle, and then me and the boys pulled my trolley round the dump.
Then we had a BBQ, having picked up the makings en route home.
And then we did sod all the rest of the day. Bliss.
I'd advocate this to anyone.
Thing is, I also see why it might not always be that great, and especially when it's part of a holiday that might fall in a period of unplanned (unlike the trip) bad weather.
The horrifying cost of Britain's top attractions
Been there, been overcharged for that, and got the rip-off T-shirt.
Which is why a holiday to sunnier climes where the boys need no more than water, sand and a spade to spend a blissful 12 hrs is still a pretty good option.
So I think some balance in the 'stay at home' advocacy is in order. To deny the facts is silly.
And we are lucky; we live in a part of the UK that when it is gorgeous we don't actually need to go any further than our front door to enjoy it.
In fact we ventured only as far as the back garden.
I attacked the jungle, and then me and the boys pulled my trolley round the dump.
Then we had a BBQ, having picked up the makings en route home.
And then we did sod all the rest of the day. Bliss.
I'd advocate this to anyone.
Thing is, I also see why it might not always be that great, and especially when it's part of a holiday that might fall in a period of unplanned (unlike the trip) bad weather.
The horrifying cost of Britain's top attractions
Been there, been overcharged for that, and got the rip-off T-shirt.
Which is why a holiday to sunnier climes where the boys need no more than water, sand and a spade to spend a blissful 12 hrs is still a pretty good option.
So I think some balance in the 'stay at home' advocacy is in order. To deny the facts is silly.
Space wars
Polluting cars to carry cigarette-style warnings?
Actually.... I am almost on board with aspects of this.
Now, taking as read that all cars (bar my kids box-versions) are polluting to some degree, I think in ad terms it boils down more to good old selfish end-benefit. Or. in this case, end-less pain.
It seems daft to ask folk to get their heads round full life cycle analyses (enviROI of making though using to disposing), and in any case that is a can of worms.
In fact the only figures that are relevant are the tax, running and resale.
Trouble is these are a moving target and changed as soon as issued at the tick of a box-tickers biro in Brussels.
So, I tend to agree, if for slightly different reasons. Cars don't kill people living on planets; people driving them does... er... may So as one moves from what you are doing to yourself to what you might be to others, I'd say that if the space is going to be used for an 'eco' reason, use it for a better one than what is proposed.
Or charge them 'protection' money of 20% on the media cost like the mob, and donate the proceeds to bike lanes or public transport initiatives that might actually work and get money to where it is of value and not some pol or quango's back pockets.
Actually.... I am almost on board with aspects of this.
Now, taking as read that all cars (bar my kids box-versions) are polluting to some degree, I think in ad terms it boils down more to good old selfish end-benefit. Or. in this case, end-less pain.
It seems daft to ask folk to get their heads round full life cycle analyses (enviROI of making though using to disposing), and in any case that is a can of worms.
In fact the only figures that are relevant are the tax, running and resale.
Trouble is these are a moving target and changed as soon as issued at the tick of a box-tickers biro in Brussels.
So, I tend to agree, if for slightly different reasons. Cars don't kill people living on planets; people driving them does... er... may So as one moves from what you are doing to yourself to what you might be to others, I'd say that if the space is going to be used for an 'eco' reason, use it for a better one than what is proposed.
Or charge them 'protection' money of 20% on the media cost like the mob, and donate the proceeds to bike lanes or public transport initiatives that might actually work and get money to where it is of value and not some pol or quango's back pockets.
GOOD PACK, BAD PACK - Tiger Tiger Cup Noodle
PROF's POSER - Killer Cure?
Carbon capture, but where’s the polluter?
A little science is a dangerous thing. Which is why I lack the certitude of many in the climate arena, and usually content myself with simply asking often daft or at least possibly naive questions. If they are really daft then I get politely put back on track. If they are daft like a fox then it's fun seeing the experts get busy.
I was at school doing Physics, Chemistry and Biology when Isambard K Brunel was in short stovepipes. I did 2/3 of a vet degree but dropped out when it was clear I would not be meeting the lady who played James Herriot's missus in the TV series, and then went on to a Civ. Eng degree I was mainly granted on the strict understanding I didn't try an build anything. So detail is not my strong suit. However I still often have a fair grasp of the bigger pictures.
Some notions may yet go astray. I have merely wondered what might happen if we suck the energy out of all the wind that blows ashore before it gets to where it used to. And while I appreciate the vastness of the earth, I do still concern myself as to the possible consequences of sucking a bunch of heat from down there to up and out on top. I guess all pale to the as yet unconfirmed consequences of sucking bazillions of litres of oil up as well over the last several decades. I have seen the 'Crack in the Earth', you know. Mind you, many of my doubts on nuclear are based on Space 1999.
Anyhoo, this latest wheeze has promoted my next 'but what about...'.
I'm going to plump for the scientific term osmosis. I know it's usually associated with fluids and movements of short distances in liquids, but basically I thinking that basically Nature likes balance, just as it abhors a vacuum. Hence you have a bunch of stuff in one place and less in another, so it will migrate.
Now, ignoring the vastness of our Earth, and even in the form of its wafer thin crust coating and micro-bubble of atmosphere, assuming these calumpter-calumpter machines do what they say on the tin, is there not a slight danger that if they don't suck at sucking, pretty soon there will be less Co2 overall globally to be sure, but won't here also be some very odd pockets where there is an extremely low concentration, namely in a gradient to the hemisphere centered on these things.
So, and just asking here, bearing in mind that some C02 is still part of the old natural balance, is there not a danger that there might be large areas where the plant life is gasping a bit and ends up prevented from its millenia-long task of Co2 scrubbing... and O2 emitting?
In passing...
Junkk.com has oft noted the value of the Pringles can (if not that of the contents - tasty, mind) and even its lid.
Hence we would like to give credit to its creator, though sadly now as an RIP - Dr. Fredric J. Baur
Junk Food Container Urns - Inventor of Pringles Can Buried in One
Hence we would like to give credit to its creator, though sadly now as an RIP - Dr. Fredric J. Baur
Junk Food Container Urns - Inventor of Pringles Can Buried in One
Sunday, June 08, 2008
A tale of two pities
While work in favour of what Junkk.com is trying to do, and the greater even more so, but a small note in this piece highlights the pitiful state of our environmental awareness:
New recycling plant to create a virtuous circle for plastic
'..a quarter of UK adults now believe that the huge amounts of waste packaging that we are producing and failing to recycle is extremely worrying, compared with just 15 per cent who are worried to the same degree about the impact of greenhouse gases.'
I think the fact that we are more worried about an obvious but relatively minor component of the overall issue is telling.
New recycling plant to create a virtuous circle for plastic
'..a quarter of UK adults now believe that the huge amounts of waste packaging that we are producing and failing to recycle is extremely worrying, compared with just 15 per cent who are worried to the same degree about the impact of greenhouse gases.'
I think the fact that we are more worried about an obvious but relatively minor component of the overall issue is telling.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Look, but don't touch
The lifestyle media, especially many of the 'green' (well those that think they are, and/or speak for the rest of 'us' in this area) ones, face a dilemma.
They also tend to do quite well telling readers about exotic things and places. And that usually means going there. Trouble is, it also rather encourages those who have read about it to want to go, too.
But I am not sure the guilt-tripping anti-trip attempts at sorting this out are working out very well.
To coldly go
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I totally agree with the rational concerns, but then, in this more populated, often more affluent world, with proposed solutions one runs into what is ideal, and what is.
Because, whatever happens there will immediately need to be an exclusion for BBC climate analysts and others to scoot up there at the drop...er... calving of an iceberg to do a piece to camera in front of some white stuff to highlight the damage 'we' are doing scooting places on business (less important business than reporting, one presumes) or pleasure. Then there are pop stars, pols, etc, plus attendant media caravans, on 'awareness' missions. Oh, and prize winners of climate competitions, plus attendant hangers-on, on 'study/awareness' raising (I am planning to re-designate my bucket and spade 10 days with the kids somewhere sunny (and not a £500 a day ecoYurt in sight) as a 'fact-finding tour').
I fear it is too late now to avoid all this coming across as 'don't you lot dare do what we say... but still expect to do', as too many green messengers have devalued the message by their rather elitist attitudes... and actions.
And, sorry to say this, this publication separating the writings of editorial from the actions of media sales in squeezing the last £ from air tours to eco destinations halfway around the world has been pretty complicit throughout.
They also tend to do quite well telling readers about exotic things and places. And that usually means going there. Trouble is, it also rather encourages those who have read about it to want to go, too.
But I am not sure the guilt-tripping anti-trip attempts at sorting this out are working out very well.
To coldly go
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I totally agree with the rational concerns, but then, in this more populated, often more affluent world, with proposed solutions one runs into what is ideal, and what is.
Because, whatever happens there will immediately need to be an exclusion for BBC climate analysts and others to scoot up there at the drop...er... calving of an iceberg to do a piece to camera in front of some white stuff to highlight the damage 'we' are doing scooting places on business (less important business than reporting, one presumes) or pleasure. Then there are pop stars, pols, etc, plus attendant media caravans, on 'awareness' missions. Oh, and prize winners of climate competitions, plus attendant hangers-on, on 'study/awareness' raising (I am planning to re-designate my bucket and spade 10 days with the kids somewhere sunny (and not a £500 a day ecoYurt in sight) as a 'fact-finding tour').
I fear it is too late now to avoid all this coming across as 'don't you lot dare do what we say... but still expect to do', as too many green messengers have devalued the message by their rather elitist attitudes... and actions.
And, sorry to say this, this publication separating the writings of editorial from the actions of media sales in squeezing the last £ from air tours to eco destinations halfway around the world has been pretty complicit throughout.
Friday, June 06, 2008
We are not alone
The Junkk notion on the causes and hence value of surveys gets expressed a lot.
As we can't think of a better way to express our views than these guys, we won't:
Greenbang - Survey: environment is simply a marketing tool
Nice to be in good company, mind
As we can't think of a better way to express our views than these guys, we won't:
Greenbang - Survey: environment is simply a marketing tool
Nice to be in good company, mind
CATEGORY - STAND-BY & ENERGY SAVING DEVICES
From in-built systems (or not) to add on plugs, the power electric and electronic devices draw down is a pretty significant aspect of our energy demand.
I've dabbled a bit to now, but in answering a question put together a reply that is worth kicking this of with:
While topical and important, it is surprising how little actual info there is.
There's what allows power to get as far as the box, and what the box
needs power for, and does with it, if and when it gets to it.
Most standby systems are just remote switches, doing no more than
cutting off the juice as you would simply by clicking off.
So in-box. there's keeping settings and there's updates.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6076658.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3118713.ece
These need some power reserve. Can't imagine it's a lot, so why it
could not be some temporary storage system I can't imagine.
This looks fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative
I also met a very interesting chap at the Sky Big Idea (he was the
people's choice winner) and Geneva Invention show, called Karl Dorn - http://www.karldorn.com/
He had invented a plug that I recall allowed a trickle though,
which was enough to keep the clocks ticking. I also recall a Dragon's
Den where all five got excited about the same thing, though the IP was
in doubt - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6913848.stm . The BBC
News was full of it when 'hot', but I guess dropped it. You'd have
thunk the researchers and the Dragon's might have checked a wee thing
like that before taking it to full national exposure, winning and PR
mode.
I guess it's down to money and consumer preference, as per usual.
For more info you could do worse than ask these guys: http://www.intellectuk.org/
I've dabbled a bit to now, but in answering a question put together a reply that is worth kicking this of with:
While topical and important, it is surprising how little actual info there is.
There's what allows power to get as far as the box, and what the box
needs power for, and does with it, if and when it gets to it.
Most standby systems are just remote switches, doing no more than
cutting off the juice as you would simply by clicking off.
So in-box. there's keeping settings and there's updates.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6076658.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3118713.ece
These need some power reserve. Can't imagine it's a lot, so why it
could not be some temporary storage system I can't imagine.
This looks fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative
I also met a very interesting chap at the Sky Big Idea (he was the
people's choice winner) and Geneva Invention show, called Karl Dorn - http://www.karldorn.com/
He had invented a plug that I recall allowed a trickle though,
which was enough to keep the clocks ticking. I also recall a Dragon's
Den where all five got excited about the same thing, though the IP was
in doubt - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6913848.stm . The BBC
News was full of it when 'hot', but I guess dropped it. You'd have
thunk the researchers and the Dragon's might have checked a wee thing
like that before taking it to full national exposure, winning and PR
mode.
I guess it's down to money and consumer preference, as per usual.
For more info you could do worse than ask these guys: http://www.intellectuk.org/
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Millions, I tell you... millions!
I am please to sahre this PR from DEFRA: One million people turn to ACT ON CO2 calculator for advice on fighting climate change
As provided, E&EO:
WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY: The ACT ON CO2 calculator - which helps people to work out and reduce their carbon footprint - has received its one millionth unique visitor, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced today.
The calculator, which was launched last Summer, enables people to reliably calculate their carbon footprint from home energy, appliances and transport. It then develops a personalised action plan for users, with practical steps they can take to cut their emissions.
Climate Change Minister, Joan Ruddock, said:
"A significant part of the fight against climate change is about the action we can take as individuals. On World Environment Day it is really encouraging that so many people are deciding to Act on CO2 to help the environment. Our calculator has received a million visitors in a year."
Addendum:
I was prompted to ask some clarfication questions, which the press departemnt has kindly, quickly and comprehensively now got answers to:
* Might I ask you to amplify on what is meant by 'Turn to'?
The ACT ON CO2 calculator received one millionth unique visitors.
*Is this million all distinct? No repeats? Are these names and emails logged on a database?
One million unique PCs (ISP addresses) have connected with the calculator. This is without repetition. It is not compulsory to enter an email to use the web-site, although entering an email address allows a user to return to view or update their footprint. The database which supports the calculator holds information on answers and footprints. We only use the information to generate anonymised statistics. Because we don't collect names, or the second half of postcodes, the calculator does not collect or hold personal information.
* What were the numbers of those who looked vs. acted? And what actions were taken?
We can't say what actions have been taken as a result of the calculator. Two evaluation studies have, however, shown that the calculator is received very positively and meets its objective of informing people about their carbon footprint, what contributes to it, and what they can do about reducing it.
* How much has been spent creating and running the site, and promoting it to date?
The Government's “ACT ON CO2” campaign aims to increase awareness and understanding of the relationship between climate change and CO2 and encourage genuine sustained behaviour change. Defra has spent around £750k creating and maintaining the site since the project started in 2006 and in 2007/08 Defra spent approximately £5.5M on the core ACT ON CO2.
So, that's £6 a head then. In one year. I look forward to seeing how this great result is shared in other media.
As provided, E&EO:
WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY: The ACT ON CO2 calculator - which helps people to work out and reduce their carbon footprint - has received its one millionth unique visitor, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced today.
The calculator, which was launched last Summer, enables people to reliably calculate their carbon footprint from home energy, appliances and transport. It then develops a personalised action plan for users, with practical steps they can take to cut their emissions.
Climate Change Minister, Joan Ruddock, said:
"A significant part of the fight against climate change is about the action we can take as individuals. On World Environment Day it is really encouraging that so many people are deciding to Act on CO2 to help the environment. Our calculator has received a million visitors in a year."
Addendum:
I was prompted to ask some clarfication questions, which the press departemnt has kindly, quickly and comprehensively now got answers to:
* Might I ask you to amplify on what is meant by 'Turn to'?
The ACT ON CO2 calculator received one millionth unique visitors.
*Is this million all distinct? No repeats? Are these names and emails logged on a database?
One million unique PCs (ISP addresses) have connected with the calculator. This is without repetition. It is not compulsory to enter an email to use the web-site, although entering an email address allows a user to return to view or update their footprint. The database which supports the calculator holds information on answers and footprints. We only use the information to generate anonymised statistics. Because we don't collect names, or the second half of postcodes, the calculator does not collect or hold personal information.
* What were the numbers of those who looked vs. acted? And what actions were taken?
We can't say what actions have been taken as a result of the calculator. Two evaluation studies have, however, shown that the calculator is received very positively and meets its objective of informing people about their carbon footprint, what contributes to it, and what they can do about reducing it.
* How much has been spent creating and running the site, and promoting it to date?
The Government's “ACT ON CO2” campaign aims to increase awareness and understanding of the relationship between climate change and CO2 and encourage genuine sustained behaviour change. Defra has spent around £750k creating and maintaining the site since the project started in 2006 and in 2007/08 Defra spent approximately £5.5M on the core ACT ON CO2.
So, that's £6 a head then. In one year. I look forward to seeing how this great result is shared in other media.
It takes two
A nice ad concept from 'we can solve it' : Unlikely Alliances
Here was my suggestion:
Do you guys get BBC's Top Gear? It would take something to get Jeremy Clarkson on that couch. Underneath the bluster and shock-jock is a keen mind and a definite soft-spot for engineering. Got a Lockheed green champ?
Ran out of space, but so long as the message is not too hairshirt, planet ban-it, JC might be up for it. Especially if he meets a science/inventor type he respects.
And if you get him onside, even a bit, you get a lot of fence-sitters to at least think more challengingly on the issues, which to me is more powerful than some green icon preaching to the converted.
Here was my suggestion:
Do you guys get BBC's Top Gear? It would take something to get Jeremy Clarkson on that couch. Underneath the bluster and shock-jock is a keen mind and a definite soft-spot for engineering. Got a Lockheed green champ?
Ran out of space, but so long as the message is not too hairshirt, planet ban-it, JC might be up for it. Especially if he meets a science/inventor type he respects.
And if you get him onside, even a bit, you get a lot of fence-sitters to at least think more challengingly on the issues, which to me is more powerful than some green icon preaching to the converted.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
One for you; three for us
UK Floats Idea Of Carbon Allowance For Individuals
Nice in theory, but by coming from this nation's politicians, rather unlikely to get off the ground (sorry, I should say 'avoid sinking without trace') here for a wee while, especially in light of previous expertise shown in managing such matters in the name of green. Anything that involves box-tickers from government, and especially traders from the City, to oversee and profit from, is a tad tainted, sadly.
Nice in theory, but by coming from this nation's politicians, rather unlikely to get off the ground (sorry, I should say 'avoid sinking without trace') here for a wee while, especially in light of previous expertise shown in managing such matters in the name of green. Anything that involves box-tickers from government, and especially traders from the City, to oversee and profit from, is a tad tainted, sadly.
Share and share alike
A useful new post from the Guardian: Ten ways to save money by going green
I have turned it up to 11. Feel free to crank more.
It needs 'em.
What's odd is that, despite being a blog post on CiF (and that almost demands 'antis'), this is no nanny opinion piece but simply info sharing. Yet the volume of negative feedback is vast... and worrying.
I have turned it up to 11. Feel free to crank more.
It needs 'em.
What's odd is that, despite being a blog post on CiF (and that almost demands 'antis'), this is no nanny opinion piece but simply info sharing. Yet the volume of negative feedback is vast... and worrying.
Space, the final insult
I have been less than inspired by many aspects of space tourism. But apparently I was wrong on one count: it is greener. Apparently.
ESA: space tourism greener than ordinary airline flights
I stand corrected.
ESA: space tourism greener than ordinary airline flights
I stand corrected.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
An "A-B-C-D Approach to Making Better Products" - a report
The Greening of Design, from A to D
I wonder if I should have used such as this when developing the RE:tie?
Seriously.
48 pages. Wow.
I used to present logos by holding 'em up and saying 'Here it is'. Then I got wise and added the document with all the blurb on the why, who, where... etc. The latter seemed to get a better hit rate, and oddly no one ever asked if the consumer would ever be issued with this information as the delivery van zipped by.
It seems a shame that in this day and age that, without a lot of process, product is now seldom going to be the driver, no matter how pertinent.
Wouldn't it be nice to get back, at least a little, to the old aircraft designers' adage that 'if it looks right; it'll fly right'.
I wonder if I should have used such as this when developing the RE:tie?
Seriously.
48 pages. Wow.
I used to present logos by holding 'em up and saying 'Here it is'. Then I got wise and added the document with all the blurb on the why, who, where... etc. The latter seemed to get a better hit rate, and oddly no one ever asked if the consumer would ever be issued with this information as the delivery van zipped by.
It seems a shame that in this day and age that, without a lot of process, product is now seldom going to be the driver, no matter how pertinent.
Wouldn't it be nice to get back, at least a little, to the old aircraft designers' adage that 'if it looks right; it'll fly right'.
Another one bites the dust!
We are talking about another Labour Party environmental pledge that was even included in a Government White Paper commitment.
It was "one of just five official Labour Party environmental pledges" announced by David Milliband when he was Environment Secretary. But now, "the little clip-ons which you can attach, and which vividly reveal how much electricity you waste by leaving the iron on when doing something else, or when running the spin-dryer on a sunny day" have gone the way of so many other environmental initiatives that have turned out to be little more than hot air or spin.
Full report is from the Telegraph.
Another abysmal failure, or perhaps, to try to put a more +ve spin on it, a tremendous piece of successful ineptitude? Boy, am I glad I wasn't one of the poor businesses that threw everything into manufacturing these devices. I wonder if they'll be able to claim against the failure to follow through an "Environmental Pledge"? My guess? No chance! Because any 'pledge' coming from a Pol means absolutely sweet Fanny Adams!
It was "one of just five official Labour Party environmental pledges" announced by David Milliband when he was Environment Secretary. But now, "the little clip-ons which you can attach, and which vividly reveal how much electricity you waste by leaving the iron on when doing something else, or when running the spin-dryer on a sunny day" have gone the way of so many other environmental initiatives that have turned out to be little more than hot air or spin.
Full report is from the Telegraph.
Another abysmal failure, or perhaps, to try to put a more +ve spin on it, a tremendous piece of successful ineptitude? Boy, am I glad I wasn't one of the poor businesses that threw everything into manufacturing these devices. I wonder if they'll be able to claim against the failure to follow through an "Environmental Pledge"? My guess? No chance! Because any 'pledge' coming from a Pol means absolutely sweet Fanny Adams!
The mouths of those who teach our babes...
We'd love to go green. But who's going to pay for the solar panels?
'We'd love to go green. But who's going to pay...'
Sort that little one out across the board, and I think we have the whole issue covered.
Certainly those who can afford to pay quitting lambasting those who cannot would seem a good start.
There's also the not insignificant factor in making sure that one has a good handle on what is 'green' and whatever you pay to go there is best directed. Assuming the aim is to improve the future for our kids and not just tick the odd box.
It seems astounding to me that there is not centralised research and purchasing on this by government departments to ensure the best product for the job is sourced (Ok, I am ignoring history), and in volumes to generate highly beneficial costs (and, again).
Like so much in the environmental arena, our government seems excellent at lobbing around silly targets that it cannot meet itself, and then making it up to anyone but itself to solve the messes they have created.
And the lack of joined up thinking evidenced by the reduced transport diktat, going hand in hand with increased needs to travel all round, is breathtaking.
'We'd love to go green. But who's going to pay...'
Sort that little one out across the board, and I think we have the whole issue covered.
Certainly those who can afford to pay quitting lambasting those who cannot would seem a good start.
There's also the not insignificant factor in making sure that one has a good handle on what is 'green' and whatever you pay to go there is best directed. Assuming the aim is to improve the future for our kids and not just tick the odd box.
It seems astounding to me that there is not centralised research and purchasing on this by government departments to ensure the best product for the job is sourced (Ok, I am ignoring history), and in volumes to generate highly beneficial costs (and, again).
Like so much in the environmental arena, our government seems excellent at lobbing around silly targets that it cannot meet itself, and then making it up to anyone but itself to solve the messes they have created.
And the lack of joined up thinking evidenced by the reduced transport diktat, going hand in hand with increased needs to travel all round, is breathtaking.
Wait for me!
Like so many posts of this nature, the way the question is phrased seems rather designed to give the answer one wants.
Give your colleagues a lift
Would you risk the early-morning conversation of your work colleagues in order to reduce your impact on the planet?
Were it only a matter of enduring a deconstruction of last night's putting a ball in the other sides net or what who said to who about what that is just, like, soooooo unreal.
For many of us, especially not living in an urban ideal, the bus or train may not be a real option, at least within a reasonable timeframe. Ditto cycling, and I find it just so cute how this admirable form of personal transport is so often gaily mentioned with none of the actual downsides. Doing a day's work soaked to the skin is hardly a pleasure.
Hence driving may well still be the only practical means to get to work on time, and in a fit state to carry out one's job, which I think to be fair goes a bit beyond just seeking 'comfort and convenience'.
Hence sharing does very much make sense. However, before scooting off on yet another 'why are you all so beastly to the planet?' tirade, one has to again look at certain practical issues.
While mutual start times are more predictable (hence the rush hour jams), and hence matches easily made, I do often wonder about the return. I've never worked 9 to 5 (and am now a happy..ish homeworker), but what happens when Mr. Brent asks you to stay back 30 minutes to finish off the report. 3 cheerful co-jaunters dodging wardens in the bus layby, relishing the chance to catch up on more Chris Evans?
The notion of a 'day' to address this is both laudable but also in danger of coming across as a bit more like the other 364 we get each year to raise awareness of this or that (it's currently a recycling week, apparently - which might explain the 20 press releases on £200 home furnishings I am getting 'in celebration of'). I hope it works, but do wonder if it's more for a bit of a PR/slow news media mutually-assured back-patting than really addressing the issue.
What I am more interested in is the mechanisms of the matchmaking services there are, how they can be coordinated better to complement local authority systems, and how the power of the web, IT and personal comms might be harnessed to better engage those out there who are not, for possibly selfish but also often highly understandable reasons.
Give your colleagues a lift
Would you risk the early-morning conversation of your work colleagues in order to reduce your impact on the planet?
Were it only a matter of enduring a deconstruction of last night's putting a ball in the other sides net or what who said to who about what that is just, like, soooooo unreal.
For many of us, especially not living in an urban ideal, the bus or train may not be a real option, at least within a reasonable timeframe. Ditto cycling, and I find it just so cute how this admirable form of personal transport is so often gaily mentioned with none of the actual downsides. Doing a day's work soaked to the skin is hardly a pleasure.
Hence driving may well still be the only practical means to get to work on time, and in a fit state to carry out one's job, which I think to be fair goes a bit beyond just seeking 'comfort and convenience'.
Hence sharing does very much make sense. However, before scooting off on yet another 'why are you all so beastly to the planet?' tirade, one has to again look at certain practical issues.
While mutual start times are more predictable (hence the rush hour jams), and hence matches easily made, I do often wonder about the return. I've never worked 9 to 5 (and am now a happy..ish homeworker), but what happens when Mr. Brent asks you to stay back 30 minutes to finish off the report. 3 cheerful co-jaunters dodging wardens in the bus layby, relishing the chance to catch up on more Chris Evans?
The notion of a 'day' to address this is both laudable but also in danger of coming across as a bit more like the other 364 we get each year to raise awareness of this or that (it's currently a recycling week, apparently - which might explain the 20 press releases on £200 home furnishings I am getting 'in celebration of'). I hope it works, but do wonder if it's more for a bit of a PR/slow news media mutually-assured back-patting than really addressing the issue.
What I am more interested in is the mechanisms of the matchmaking services there are, how they can be coordinated better to complement local authority systems, and how the power of the web, IT and personal comms might be harnessed to better engage those out there who are not, for possibly selfish but also often highly understandable reasons.
Ugly truths
It was only after a while in my Civ. Eng. training that I realised an ugly truth.
Foundations are the most important aspect of any project. They take the most time, cost the most money.... but once the mostly trivial, pretty, above-ground bits are in place, few will even know they are there.
Well, unless they fail.
I was minded of this by an article about a US windfarm that is all nicely in place, but essentially delivering very poorly on its promise, by virtue of there being no infrastructure for it to deliver what it generates.
It's a sorry metaphor for so much I see in matters mega-green these days. Loads and loads of cash and attention given to high-profile, high-vis symbols of 'solutions', but very little thought it seems given to the highly necessary preceding infrastructures that these need to rest upon to actually deliver meaningful deliverables.
And why should there be, when targets, votes and subsidies seem to revolve around the pretty facades rather than any substance below.
Greenbang - Texas ponders its ‘thousands’ of idle wind farms
BBC - Wind power supply to be boosted
I just hope that this is part of a genuine attempt to deliver renewable energy to a positive enviROI, and not some box-ticking, target-meeting effort. I write this looking at a piece on a wind farms in Texas that make mighty purty lookin' twirly doo-dads, but are not, as such connected to anything as the visible, sexy bits were stuck up first, with little thought to unsexy infrastructure. And for the life of me I still cannot understand (though suspect and dread) why such reports use terms such as 'could' and 'hoped'. Don't they blooming well know???! This aspect interests me a lot more than 'controversy' over the odd shredded seagull.
Foundations are the most important aspect of any project. They take the most time, cost the most money.... but once the mostly trivial, pretty, above-ground bits are in place, few will even know they are there.
Well, unless they fail.
I was minded of this by an article about a US windfarm that is all nicely in place, but essentially delivering very poorly on its promise, by virtue of there being no infrastructure for it to deliver what it generates.
It's a sorry metaphor for so much I see in matters mega-green these days. Loads and loads of cash and attention given to high-profile, high-vis symbols of 'solutions', but very little thought it seems given to the highly necessary preceding infrastructures that these need to rest upon to actually deliver meaningful deliverables.
And why should there be, when targets, votes and subsidies seem to revolve around the pretty facades rather than any substance below.
Greenbang - Texas ponders its ‘thousands’ of idle wind farms
BBC - Wind power supply to be boosted
I just hope that this is part of a genuine attempt to deliver renewable energy to a positive enviROI, and not some box-ticking, target-meeting effort. I write this looking at a piece on a wind farms in Texas that make mighty purty lookin' twirly doo-dads, but are not, as such connected to anything as the visible, sexy bits were stuck up first, with little thought to unsexy infrastructure. And for the life of me I still cannot understand (though suspect and dread) why such reports use terms such as 'could' and 'hoped'. Don't they blooming well know???! This aspect interests me a lot more than 'controversy' over the odd shredded seagull.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Another day, another demographic
What is your 'green' level?
Hardly a day goes by without some highly paid research group releasing some highly....um... whatever results. This time, our cross-pond cousins...
Some Consumers Green in Action, Others in Theory
I'm wishing now I had started listing them as we go along, because at the rate we're going we'll each have our own personal term... to go with our own personal green guide to help us on the path of eco-righteousness. Not sure being a member of a green group should be an essential to being Good Green In Practice.
I have to say, I quite like the notion of the 'Un-Green', but only as a term, mind.
Hardly a day goes by without some highly paid research group releasing some highly....um... whatever results. This time, our cross-pond cousins...
Some Consumers Green in Action, Others in Theory
I'm wishing now I had started listing them as we go along, because at the rate we're going we'll each have our own personal term... to go with our own personal green guide to help us on the path of eco-righteousness. Not sure being a member of a green group should be an essential to being Good Green In Practice.
I have to say, I quite like the notion of the 'Un-Green', but only as a term, mind.
CATEGORY - PAINT
Articles
Greenerchoices - NEW - The lowdown on low-VOC paints
Indy - Eco Paints
Information
easy2diy.com - paint coverage calculator
Suppliers
ecospaints.com
Lili - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi
Greenerchoices - NEW - The lowdown on low-VOC paints
Indy - Eco Paints
Information
easy2diy.com - paint coverage calculator
Suppliers
ecospaints.com
Lili - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi
CATEGORY - PVC-U
Several years ago, mainly for reasons of cost, we opted to replace our windows with PVC-U units.
What troubled me subsequently was discovering that this was not considered an eco option, despite them being airtight fits with double-glazing, etc, and hence making a big difference to our insulation and heating needs.
The cost factor was against other options such as wood, which sadly were in the realms of funny money.
As a key component in our homes, I think this material deserves a category of its own to track the latest news and views.
ARTICLES
PRW - PVC-U windows win green rating - A positive, it would seem, and my reason for kicking off this rating as I'd been feeling bad about my choices.
INFORMATION
What troubled me subsequently was discovering that this was not considered an eco option, despite them being airtight fits with double-glazing, etc, and hence making a big difference to our insulation and heating needs.
The cost factor was against other options such as wood, which sadly were in the realms of funny money.
As a key component in our homes, I think this material deserves a category of its own to track the latest news and views.
ARTICLES
PRW - PVC-U windows win green rating - A positive, it would seem, and my reason for kicking off this rating as I'd been feeling bad about my choices.
INFORMATION
Chip & Dim
What seems to me another idiotic source of waste is highlighted.
Chipping away at high fuel costs
If cars can have their fuel economy and performance improved, however, why are the manufacturers not performing the operation at the factory gates? The answer is that like any product that is sold worldwide, car makers must produce performance figures that are consistent whether the car is driven in Abu Dhabi or Aylesbury. Because of this, and in order to get past the Single Vehicle Approval test (which forces cars to conform to British safety standards), car makers set the engine parameters to the lowest common denominator so it will perform equally well with low-grade fuel or bad servicing in, for example, eastern Europe, as it will in Britain.
At risk of sounding daft, if there is more mileage to be had by these methods, why on earth would it not be incorporated as a matter of course, and hence an immediate campaign launched to change the daft law/requirement that has created this wasteful situation? Lots more is done for much less.
Chipping away at high fuel costs
If cars can have their fuel economy and performance improved, however, why are the manufacturers not performing the operation at the factory gates? The answer is that like any product that is sold worldwide, car makers must produce performance figures that are consistent whether the car is driven in Abu Dhabi or Aylesbury. Because of this, and in order to get past the Single Vehicle Approval test (which forces cars to conform to British safety standards), car makers set the engine parameters to the lowest common denominator so it will perform equally well with low-grade fuel or bad servicing in, for example, eastern Europe, as it will in Britain.
At risk of sounding daft, if there is more mileage to be had by these methods, why on earth would it not be incorporated as a matter of course, and hence an immediate campaign launched to change the daft law/requirement that has created this wasteful situation? Lots more is done for much less.
Getting God on your side
It's an often invoked incentive. I am less sure about how it's serving in t'other direction.
Bishop compares those who ignore climate change to Josef Fritzl
We've had it from the Vatican and now The Bishop of Stafford adds hsi valued opinion to imspire and effect the necessary engagement from the global flock. Not.
Bishop compares those who ignore climate change to Josef Fritzl
We've had it from the Vatican and now The Bishop of Stafford adds hsi valued opinion to imspire and effect the necessary engagement from the global flock. Not.
NEWS/Commercial PR - Good news... and less so
It's a survey Jim, but a tad more than we usually know it.
I got from this - Packaging helps supermarkets bag top spots in green poll - in the Guardian, to this from a wee while while ago, but still of interest, especially in comparison:
Research by WPP companies reveals UK consumers ripe for green business
As posted, E&EO:
A UK survey of 1,525 British adults found that although support for many green ideas is now mainstream, understanding of what it means to be green is shallow, confused and easily swayed by company messages. The Body Shop is the UK green brand of the year, according to the survey. It is viewed as far and away the most green company against brands in the eight tested categories. Next in line came car company Smart which manufactures small chic urban run-arounds. Others in the top twenty UK green brands include three supermarkets, two petrol companies and an airline. “There is no doubt that the universal adoption of basic green ideas has been possibly the swiftest shift in consumer attitudes we have witnessed in recent times. It has certainly been faster than the internet revolution and faster than the take-up of mobile phones,” said Phil Gandy, Planning Director of Landor Associates. “It is now almost the unquestioned norm that we all embrace some shade of green philosophy and behaviour. Yet just a year ago, the green agenda was out on the lunatic fringe for most people,” he added. The research also paints a picture of British consumers as deeply concerned and pessimistic about the state of the environment but not quite sure what to do about it. Climate change is seen as the most important environmental issue we face by two thirds of those questioned and more than seventy per cent of those asked rate society’s performance in addressing the issue as neutral or worse. Other environmental concerns include population growth, technology and international trade. Government is widely perceived to be ineffective in driving a green agenda. And in a clear warning to businesses that choose to ignore the environment, eighty per cent of those questioned believe that it is important that companies are environmentally friendly. However when it comes to defining what exactly being ‘green’ means in terms of their own behaviour, consumers have a rosy but confused view. The primary focus is on reducing their waste rather than reducing consumption. So over half of respondents reported driving cars that are fuel efficient, and most wash their cars by hand and without a hosepipe these days. The next most common green behaviour is recycling plastic bags followed by use of products that do not deplete the ozone layer. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions comes third, while ‘supporting organisations that protect the rain forest’ comes fourth. “It is clear that being green means different things to different people,” says Gandy. “There is a general awareness of an urgent problem and there is widespread belief that we are all part of that problem. But consumers have not yet come to the view that they need to address their consumption. It seems that most of us are still thinking in terms of reducing waste – throwing away less, rather than consuming less.” The research found that we may be very interested in greenness but when it comes to companies and brands, many can’t identify what that means. Twenty-three per cent of the population could not identify any steps a company should take to make itself green. Nonetheless companies that promote themselves as green or present themselves as ethically concerned can reap substantial rewards. Green brands are perceived as having higher quality and consumers say they are prepared to pay a ‘green premium’ for them. Six in ten for instance will spend more on energy saving household appliances. “The onus is squarely on brands to take a lead in setting the green agenda,” adds Gandy. “The almost universal take-up of recycling in the UK shows how people will get involved, if actions they can take to make a difference are made clear and simple to understand.” But the study also reveals that many of the brands widely perceived by the public as green simply include the colour green in their logo or use more natural packaging for their products. Overall winner The Body Shop has long used both the colour green and ‘alternative’ packaging. Said Gandy, “Just how consumers judge the greenness of brands is a complex mixture of perception and reality. Being seen to be ethically concerned is important but just being ‘modern and likeable’ – like Virgin or Google – can be enough to bestow a powerful green halo effect. “What is certainly clear is that consumers want to do the right thing but need genuine help to carry through into action. Brands which align themselves with environmental concerns at this relatively early stage of the debate can expect to secure a competitive advantage given that environmental concern can only grow in future.”
Industry ranking by greenness: 1. Body care 2. Grocery 3. Appliances 4. Automotive 5. Energy/Petroleum 6. Banking 7. Online Technology 8. Travel
Top 20 UK Green Brands: 1. The Body Shop 2. Smart 3. Waitrose 4. The Co-operative Bank 5. Tesco 6. Marks & Spencer 7. Dyson 8. Sainsury’s 9. BP 10. Aveda 11. Asda 12. Toyota 13. Virgin Atlantic 14. Nivea 15. Shell 16. Indesit 17. Npower 18. Bosch 19. Google 20. Eurostar
I got from this - Packaging helps supermarkets bag top spots in green poll - in the Guardian, to this from a wee while while ago, but still of interest, especially in comparison:
Research by WPP companies reveals UK consumers ripe for green business
As posted, E&EO:
A UK survey of 1,525 British adults found that although support for many green ideas is now mainstream, understanding of what it means to be green is shallow, confused and easily swayed by company messages. The Body Shop is the UK green brand of the year, according to the survey. It is viewed as far and away the most green company against brands in the eight tested categories. Next in line came car company Smart which manufactures small chic urban run-arounds. Others in the top twenty UK green brands include three supermarkets, two petrol companies and an airline. “There is no doubt that the universal adoption of basic green ideas has been possibly the swiftest shift in consumer attitudes we have witnessed in recent times. It has certainly been faster than the internet revolution and faster than the take-up of mobile phones,” said Phil Gandy, Planning Director of Landor Associates. “It is now almost the unquestioned norm that we all embrace some shade of green philosophy and behaviour. Yet just a year ago, the green agenda was out on the lunatic fringe for most people,” he added. The research also paints a picture of British consumers as deeply concerned and pessimistic about the state of the environment but not quite sure what to do about it. Climate change is seen as the most important environmental issue we face by two thirds of those questioned and more than seventy per cent of those asked rate society’s performance in addressing the issue as neutral or worse. Other environmental concerns include population growth, technology and international trade. Government is widely perceived to be ineffective in driving a green agenda. And in a clear warning to businesses that choose to ignore the environment, eighty per cent of those questioned believe that it is important that companies are environmentally friendly. However when it comes to defining what exactly being ‘green’ means in terms of their own behaviour, consumers have a rosy but confused view. The primary focus is on reducing their waste rather than reducing consumption. So over half of respondents reported driving cars that are fuel efficient, and most wash their cars by hand and without a hosepipe these days. The next most common green behaviour is recycling plastic bags followed by use of products that do not deplete the ozone layer. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions comes third, while ‘supporting organisations that protect the rain forest’ comes fourth. “It is clear that being green means different things to different people,” says Gandy. “There is a general awareness of an urgent problem and there is widespread belief that we are all part of that problem. But consumers have not yet come to the view that they need to address their consumption. It seems that most of us are still thinking in terms of reducing waste – throwing away less, rather than consuming less.” The research found that we may be very interested in greenness but when it comes to companies and brands, many can’t identify what that means. Twenty-three per cent of the population could not identify any steps a company should take to make itself green. Nonetheless companies that promote themselves as green or present themselves as ethically concerned can reap substantial rewards. Green brands are perceived as having higher quality and consumers say they are prepared to pay a ‘green premium’ for them. Six in ten for instance will spend more on energy saving household appliances. “The onus is squarely on brands to take a lead in setting the green agenda,” adds Gandy. “The almost universal take-up of recycling in the UK shows how people will get involved, if actions they can take to make a difference are made clear and simple to understand.” But the study also reveals that many of the brands widely perceived by the public as green simply include the colour green in their logo or use more natural packaging for their products. Overall winner The Body Shop has long used both the colour green and ‘alternative’ packaging. Said Gandy, “Just how consumers judge the greenness of brands is a complex mixture of perception and reality. Being seen to be ethically concerned is important but just being ‘modern and likeable’ – like Virgin or Google – can be enough to bestow a powerful green halo effect. “What is certainly clear is that consumers want to do the right thing but need genuine help to carry through into action. Brands which align themselves with environmental concerns at this relatively early stage of the debate can expect to secure a competitive advantage given that environmental concern can only grow in future.”
Industry ranking by greenness: 1. Body care 2. Grocery 3. Appliances 4. Automotive 5. Energy/Petroleum 6. Banking 7. Online Technology 8. Travel
Top 20 UK Green Brands: 1. The Body Shop 2. Smart 3. Waitrose 4. The Co-operative Bank 5. Tesco 6. Marks & Spencer 7. Dyson 8. Sainsury’s 9. BP 10. Aveda 11. Asda 12. Toyota 13. Virgin Atlantic 14. Nivea 15. Shell 16. Indesit 17. Npower 18. Bosch 19. Google 20. Eurostar
Time for a change on change?
As we're on an alliterative roll.
Cooling on warming
At first when I read this I thought... easy Tiger, what's all this past tense lark?
But it was... is worth reading on. Lots to digest, agree with, but also some still to crank an eyebrow at.
For instance I very much doubt climate change can be tackled through research and adaptation, and do believe that trying to transform human behaviour needs to stay on the menu. Just, not in the cack-handed way that has been tried by most advocates to date.
Which rather makes me worried that we end up with different, or differently spun messages, but from the same bunch of messengers who have seen fit to be our global nannies to date.
An d I mean virtually the entire political, academic and media establishment. Huge quantities of hot air were pumped out, and many tonnes of pollutants were expelled by planes carrying concerned dignitaries to global conferences. Last I looked, by the by, they still are. But however vast, they were also piecemeal, and remain so. From front pages in this paper to Milliband interviews on Newsnight about 'the single greatest thread...yadayada...' little forays soared and were dropped at the first sign of a Royal misbehaving or a pol mis-speaking. So if you lot can't stay interested, why should the rest even start getting concerned?
Especially when the current crop of messengers are pushing such contradictory messages from, as you say, digging up more oil to buy a vote or two, or flogging a getaway to the sun on the side to help keep the group profits up.
And whilst accepting the 'most of us' disclaimer, enough of the 'we'. I am certainly not impressed by sanctimonious gestures, nor have I attended the occasional concert of clapped-out superstars.
So yes, it's time to get real. An odd admission that, until now, few Ministers, Editors and Directors of Climate Advocacy have.
But dealing with gunk seems a rather short term fix if pursued at the total expense of cutting back on making it in the first place. Especially with that dratted population thing that was all the rage last week.
So I think both should be pursued, but perhaps with a little less of the target-meeting, box-ticking, pedestal-standing, finger-waving, guilt-tripping, fine-imposing, fear-inducing rampant hypocrisy from a whole industry - political, academic, activist and media - making hay, lots and lots of hay, while the sun shines ever hotter.
And yes, a bit more sensible, practical research that can give the people information they can trust and get behind. I saw a claim on Newsnight a wee while ago that to truly come up with definite answers on climate we'd need 1,000 times more support for the modelling.
Not sure if that was not just another nifty BBC-parroted Press Release from the research community to put their kids through college, but if true I'd say go for it. Now.
If (and it's a biggie) we can see where we are, where we'll be and what we can credibly do about it, I think you'll find a lot more folk go straight through hand wringing to action. The action just has to add up though.
Cooling on warming
At first when I read this I thought... easy Tiger, what's all this past tense lark?
But it was... is worth reading on. Lots to digest, agree with, but also some still to crank an eyebrow at.
For instance I very much doubt climate change can be tackled through research and adaptation, and do believe that trying to transform human behaviour needs to stay on the menu. Just, not in the cack-handed way that has been tried by most advocates to date.
Which rather makes me worried that we end up with different, or differently spun messages, but from the same bunch of messengers who have seen fit to be our global nannies to date.
An d I mean virtually the entire political, academic and media establishment. Huge quantities of hot air were pumped out, and many tonnes of pollutants were expelled by planes carrying concerned dignitaries to global conferences. Last I looked, by the by, they still are. But however vast, they were also piecemeal, and remain so. From front pages in this paper to Milliband interviews on Newsnight about 'the single greatest thread...yadayada...' little forays soared and were dropped at the first sign of a Royal misbehaving or a pol mis-speaking. So if you lot can't stay interested, why should the rest even start getting concerned?
Especially when the current crop of messengers are pushing such contradictory messages from, as you say, digging up more oil to buy a vote or two, or flogging a getaway to the sun on the side to help keep the group profits up.
And whilst accepting the 'most of us' disclaimer, enough of the 'we'. I am certainly not impressed by sanctimonious gestures, nor have I attended the occasional concert of clapped-out superstars.
So yes, it's time to get real. An odd admission that, until now, few Ministers, Editors and Directors of Climate Advocacy have.
But dealing with gunk seems a rather short term fix if pursued at the total expense of cutting back on making it in the first place. Especially with that dratted population thing that was all the rage last week.
So I think both should be pursued, but perhaps with a little less of the target-meeting, box-ticking, pedestal-standing, finger-waving, guilt-tripping, fine-imposing, fear-inducing rampant hypocrisy from a whole industry - political, academic, activist and media - making hay, lots and lots of hay, while the sun shines ever hotter.
And yes, a bit more sensible, practical research that can give the people information they can trust and get behind. I saw a claim on Newsnight a wee while ago that to truly come up with definite answers on climate we'd need 1,000 times more support for the modelling.
Not sure if that was not just another nifty BBC-parroted Press Release from the research community to put their kids through college, but if true I'd say go for it. Now.
If (and it's a biggie) we can see where we are, where we'll be and what we can credibly do about it, I think you'll find a lot more folk go straight through hand wringing to action. The action just has to add up though.
Us, us, us
It seems a shame that sensible discussion on climate change seems to have been turned into factional media spats.
Whose eco-disaster is it, anyway?
It seems simply incredible that the whole issue breaks down so simply, and divisively, on such clear cut, and unfortunate lines.
Why do I suspect the engagement will be more between the media protagonists, when serving the public, and the cause of the future, less well.
Whose eco-disaster is it, anyway?
It seems simply incredible that the whole issue breaks down so simply, and divisively, on such clear cut, and unfortunate lines.
Why do I suspect the engagement will be more between the media protagonists, when serving the public, and the cause of the future, less well.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Of buckets and blogs: a salty tale
This one has it all: Of buckets and blogs
Worth reading to see where we are, hwo we got here... and where it's all going.
Yo, ho, oh, sh*t.
Worth reading to see where we are, hwo we got here... and where it's all going.
Yo, ho, oh, sh*t.
Amazing the little things you pick up
Almost ignored this for comment: We should not let the chattering classes undermine supermarkets
Though I do have certain opinions on the 'chattering classes' and their undue influence on what the rest of us should.. and can do, being usually less financially or Metro-location (or rural second-home idylls) blessed.
But actually it was this I noted, in mostly (the motivations for improving being hardly noble) positive terms:
'Cereal boxes are notoriously oversized for their contents because manufacturers like the on-shelf advertising that large boxes give their brands. So Wal-Mart has been telling suppliers that if they cut the size of the box (which saves transport costs), they will still be given the same shelf space, which is apparently working.'
Though I do have certain opinions on the 'chattering classes' and their undue influence on what the rest of us should.. and can do, being usually less financially or Metro-location (or rural second-home idylls) blessed.
But actually it was this I noted, in mostly (the motivations for improving being hardly noble) positive terms:
'Cereal boxes are notoriously oversized for their contents because manufacturers like the on-shelf advertising that large boxes give their brands. So Wal-Mart has been telling suppliers that if they cut the size of the box (which saves transport costs), they will still be given the same shelf space, which is apparently working.'
Counter argument
Fed up with too much packaging? Just leave it on the counter
Just sharing. With a small pitch for our RE:tie second use design that gives consumers a small, but tangible reason to want to keep, and reuse their packaging.
On a personal note, and accepting it is a reflection of my parenting skills, while the ripe aroma of bruised fruit and buttery croissants is a heady reminder of childhood picnics past, I rather fear it would also be more than enough to see the food in question being rejected for consumption by my kids... and many adults I can think of, too.
All I can say is think of the enviROI before engaging in the next symbolic protest.
Telegraph - There is a Plan B
Maybe we'll end up with Plan G? I must say that it struck me from the off as odd that the notion of charging for a still turtle choking bag was somehow PM-endorsingly 'better' than the reuse concepts already underway at such as Tesco (points) and Waitrose (fast-track). Good to see the Daily Mail stuck with the whole thing for, well, almost a week.
On the enviROI vs. eco (no doubting the litter/wildlife penalties) I also keep meaning to figure out how many of our 200+ bag annual bag addiction (dropping a lot, which is a result) equates in terms of actual plastic to the hordes of bottles and trays we still end up with.
For what it's worth, I have not thrown any out in several years, and in many cases am finding decent second uses for them. But where none is possible, or the space/desire exits, I fully endorse that sensible, centralised, coordinated recycling systems are essential to show this is being taken seriously, and help folk willing to do so to engage.
corporateresponsibility.net - Oh great, a row about who is greener than thou. Just let the poor consumer know when all the boxes at dawn have been ticked and we can find out how next we are supposed to make the world a better place for our kids. I'm thinking a summit might help... again.
MRW - The end of the shrink-wrapped coconut?
Just sharing. With a small pitch for our RE:tie second use design that gives consumers a small, but tangible reason to want to keep, and reuse their packaging.
On a personal note, and accepting it is a reflection of my parenting skills, while the ripe aroma of bruised fruit and buttery croissants is a heady reminder of childhood picnics past, I rather fear it would also be more than enough to see the food in question being rejected for consumption by my kids... and many adults I can think of, too.
All I can say is think of the enviROI before engaging in the next symbolic protest.
Telegraph - There is a Plan B
Maybe we'll end up with Plan G? I must say that it struck me from the off as odd that the notion of charging for a still turtle choking bag was somehow PM-endorsingly 'better' than the reuse concepts already underway at such as Tesco (points) and Waitrose (fast-track). Good to see the Daily Mail stuck with the whole thing for, well, almost a week.
On the enviROI vs. eco (no doubting the litter/wildlife penalties) I also keep meaning to figure out how many of our 200+ bag annual bag addiction (dropping a lot, which is a result) equates in terms of actual plastic to the hordes of bottles and trays we still end up with.
For what it's worth, I have not thrown any out in several years, and in many cases am finding decent second uses for them. But where none is possible, or the space/desire exits, I fully endorse that sensible, centralised, coordinated recycling systems are essential to show this is being taken seriously, and help folk willing to do so to engage.
corporateresponsibility.net - Oh great, a row about who is greener than thou. Just let the poor consumer know when all the boxes at dawn have been ticked and we can find out how next we are supposed to make the world a better place for our kids. I'm thinking a summit might help... again.
MRW - The end of the shrink-wrapped coconut?
Talking from on high
I agree with sentiment, but continue to question the abilities and qulifications of those who keep telling us 'we' need to cut back.
Now is not the time to abandon our ambition to be green
Oh dear.
This, and the comments it has generated, shows that whatever the value of the message(s), the current crop of elected, appointed and/or especially self-appointed messengers seem to be less than effective in getting them across.
Now is not the time to abandon our ambition to be green
Oh dear.
This, and the comments it has generated, shows that whatever the value of the message(s), the current crop of elected, appointed and/or especially self-appointed messengers seem to be less than effective in getting them across.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Finding where to stick it. Or sticking where to find it.
The Guardian asks a semi-rhetorical question: Can recycling bins be evil?
Well, I don't know about evil. But how about (depending on the measure chosen) effective? It may not be that simple... or populist. I am more interested in the facts and deliverables.
With such 'any negative so long as it sells a paper' from such as the Daily Mail in one corner, and 'it's claimed to be green so it must be good and you're not if you don't' wide-eyed, uncritical cheerleading in other media, I am tending to find the actual good ideas that might actually serve our kid's futures are usually to be found somewhere between the extremes.
But, by heavens, with all the conflicting, partisan rubbish churned out in the name of enviro-information and debate, it's not made very easy for the average consumer just trying find what to do that's best for their family and community.
Well, I don't know about evil. But how about (depending on the measure chosen) effective? It may not be that simple... or populist. I am more interested in the facts and deliverables.
With such 'any negative so long as it sells a paper' from such as the Daily Mail in one corner, and 'it's claimed to be green so it must be good and you're not if you don't' wide-eyed, uncritical cheerleading in other media, I am tending to find the actual good ideas that might actually serve our kid's futures are usually to be found somewhere between the extremes.
But, by heavens, with all the conflicting, partisan rubbish churned out in the name of enviro-information and debate, it's not made very easy for the average consumer just trying find what to do that's best for their family and community.
Big News?
Coming across across this in Grist, I thought 'Wow!': Well, You Don't Say - White House admits humans causing climate change
Not a hint of doubt there. Even to the extent, at least as I read it, that one of the more persistent climate optimist entities not only grant that negative climate exists, but it is all down to man. No other factors at all, it seems.
I find this highly significant, but do wonder why it has not...yet... had more coverage? The US titles quoted are significant, but what about here? So far, nothing. Not even in some media one is quite used to being keen to push the 'pessimist' agenda.
If this is as billed, might one hope that there may be a more concerted effort at pinning down causes and practical, enviROI+ solutions as a consequence now we can move on from the 'tis/t'isn't exchanges.
Addendum - Meanwhile...
No more hyperbole, let's discuss the facts about global warming
Now there is a turn-up for the books... blogs and broadcasts.
I welcome the latest information, but rather dread the further twists and turns of the discussions that will follow.
Especially as I have, albeit with a rather cocked eyebrow, recently shared this with those who might fairly be described as being on the fence, and hence apathetic at best. I rather think they politely tolerate my zeal to get to the crux of what I consider a key question to allow sensible future planning to take place, and in a timely manner. While my personal views are known (Man-worsened negative climate change is a distinct possibility, and any reasonable mitigations seem well worth considering as soon as possible, but before rushing into knee-jerk 'solutions' of dubious enviROI I still need a lot more convincing on most proposed, as few seem to sensibly address waste or increased pollution whilst recognising global socio-political realities), it really doesn't do my... the cause of environmental caution much good when you are running to and fro week on week saying, in effect, 'the sky is falling... no it isn't... yes it is'. And especially when most governments and media seem to address something claimed to be serious in such an erratic, piecemeal and often frankly hypocritical manner.
I just hope we don't now see a spate of 'tis/t'isn't' exchanges, especially as these usually devolve into attacking the person as opposed to the wisdom, or otherwise, of the message. While the qualifications of those making pronouncements is important, I have long since ceased to be too impressed with even Professorships. A Nobel Prize is however nifty, and this one is recent. Mind, I had thought the prize Al Gore shared was with the head of the IPCC (I guess symbolically, then, and in the face of diverse views within that organisation), and by what I understand, the views of S Fred Singer are not exactly going hand in hand with with Mr. Gore's, are they? Hence trying to work out the definitions of winning that 'accolade' (it has of course been called into question as being more a means of sending political messages rather than signifying any objective values) and the provenance it (or most other cited substantiations these days) bestows, and who gets to share them, just got very murky. To me at least.
I have to say that some aspects of what he is quoted as saying here do resonate. There often does seem a rather over-egged desire to see in every aspect of climate a rather dire reason. And then a green solution comes along that can sometimes be sold more on its perceived greenness than any actual value to our futures. The AGW victim du jour on Breakfast TV was Puffins, I think. Such things don't really help if it turns out that colony numbers ebb and flow just as do the tides... or climate... over certain periods. I have also just left a debate on vegetarianism where I pondered the effect such enforced policies might have on such as the poster kids of saving the planet, such as polar bears or tigers.
The key is to look at the trends over more significant periods, and then do whatever we can to identify causes... and practical, sensible solutions.
Oh well, I guess it shows debate is alive, and healthy. I just hope we are not going to be subjected now to too much more on the absolutes of the A in AGW... or not... such that worthwhile tangible efforts, which we might not have the time to afford, get further delayed. An inevitable penalty of a flawed system I guess, but with luck it's still the best we have. If not, the future may have just got even more 'interesting'.
Addendum 2 -
It seems very clear that the description 'Nobel Prize Winner' was an exaggeration, though down to whom I am still not sure. And for sure that needs correcting. What has been a worry to me is that almost every response I have seen has been to tackle the man and not the argument; with some going so far as to say that no dissenting positions should be allowed or given exposure. Not, I would suggest, the most sensible way to avoid the notion that there are those who think they know better what is got for the rest. And that, especially in the Internet age, does tend to backfire.
Not a hint of doubt there. Even to the extent, at least as I read it, that one of the more persistent climate optimist entities not only grant that negative climate exists, but it is all down to man. No other factors at all, it seems.
I find this highly significant, but do wonder why it has not...yet... had more coverage? The US titles quoted are significant, but what about here? So far, nothing. Not even in some media one is quite used to being keen to push the 'pessimist' agenda.
If this is as billed, might one hope that there may be a more concerted effort at pinning down causes and practical, enviROI+ solutions as a consequence now we can move on from the 'tis/t'isn't exchanges.
Addendum - Meanwhile...
No more hyperbole, let's discuss the facts about global warming
Now there is a turn-up for the books... blogs and broadcasts.
I welcome the latest information, but rather dread the further twists and turns of the discussions that will follow.
Especially as I have, albeit with a rather cocked eyebrow, recently shared this with those who might fairly be described as being on the fence, and hence apathetic at best. I rather think they politely tolerate my zeal to get to the crux of what I consider a key question to allow sensible future planning to take place, and in a timely manner. While my personal views are known (Man-worsened negative climate change is a distinct possibility, and any reasonable mitigations seem well worth considering as soon as possible, but before rushing into knee-jerk 'solutions' of dubious enviROI I still need a lot more convincing on most proposed, as few seem to sensibly address waste or increased pollution whilst recognising global socio-political realities), it really doesn't do my... the cause of environmental caution much good when you are running to and fro week on week saying, in effect, 'the sky is falling... no it isn't... yes it is'. And especially when most governments and media seem to address something claimed to be serious in such an erratic, piecemeal and often frankly hypocritical manner.
I just hope we don't now see a spate of 'tis/t'isn't' exchanges, especially as these usually devolve into attacking the person as opposed to the wisdom, or otherwise, of the message. While the qualifications of those making pronouncements is important, I have long since ceased to be too impressed with even Professorships. A Nobel Prize is however nifty, and this one is recent. Mind, I had thought the prize Al Gore shared was with the head of the IPCC (I guess symbolically, then, and in the face of diverse views within that organisation), and by what I understand, the views of S Fred Singer are not exactly going hand in hand with with Mr. Gore's, are they? Hence trying to work out the definitions of winning that 'accolade' (it has of course been called into question as being more a means of sending political messages rather than signifying any objective values) and the provenance it (or most other cited substantiations these days) bestows, and who gets to share them, just got very murky. To me at least.
I have to say that some aspects of what he is quoted as saying here do resonate. There often does seem a rather over-egged desire to see in every aspect of climate a rather dire reason. And then a green solution comes along that can sometimes be sold more on its perceived greenness than any actual value to our futures. The AGW victim du jour on Breakfast TV was Puffins, I think. Such things don't really help if it turns out that colony numbers ebb and flow just as do the tides... or climate... over certain periods. I have also just left a debate on vegetarianism where I pondered the effect such enforced policies might have on such as the poster kids of saving the planet, such as polar bears or tigers.
The key is to look at the trends over more significant periods, and then do whatever we can to identify causes... and practical, sensible solutions.
Oh well, I guess it shows debate is alive, and healthy. I just hope we are not going to be subjected now to too much more on the absolutes of the A in AGW... or not... such that worthwhile tangible efforts, which we might not have the time to afford, get further delayed. An inevitable penalty of a flawed system I guess, but with luck it's still the best we have. If not, the future may have just got even more 'interesting'.
Addendum 2 -
It seems very clear that the description 'Nobel Prize Winner' was an exaggeration, though down to whom I am still not sure. And for sure that needs correcting. What has been a worry to me is that almost every response I have seen has been to tackle the man and not the argument; with some going so far as to say that no dissenting positions should be allowed or given exposure. Not, I would suggest, the most sensible way to avoid the notion that there are those who think they know better what is got for the rest. And that, especially in the Internet age, does tend to backfire.
Silly Question
Newsnight - Energy Policy
16. At 11:58 am on 29 May 2008, bookhimdano :energy policy
There's the rub. Who knows? And why do the majority of the population (inc. me) not?
The German example you share seems inspirational, proactive, positive and profitable.
Yet, apparently... 'the uk govt refuse to have a two way grid as they do not believe there is any evidence it would work'.
Now belief is all well and subjective. Surely to heavens it is not beyond the wit of media to help us get to find out what the actual facts and/or truth is? Then the people can lobby for what is good for pocket... and planet.
I would dearly love some clear information and discussion on this (and others), and not a 'tis/t'isn't twofer with extremes from the dogmatic activist or box-ticker/lobbyist/subsidy junkie end of a debate.
And even if we do get actual engineers and/or number crunchers, if they still have opposing viewpoints might we hope for a host with experience and training enough to actually get to definitive answers we can act/vote on than a 'that's all we have time for' ratings segment that gets filed and forgotten in days?
16. At 11:58 am on 29 May 2008, bookhimdano :energy policy
There's the rub. Who knows? And why do the majority of the population (inc. me) not?
The German example you share seems inspirational, proactive, positive and profitable.
Yet, apparently... 'the uk govt refuse to have a two way grid as they do not believe there is any evidence it would work'.
Now belief is all well and subjective. Surely to heavens it is not beyond the wit of media to help us get to find out what the actual facts and/or truth is? Then the people can lobby for what is good for pocket... and planet.
I would dearly love some clear information and discussion on this (and others), and not a 'tis/t'isn't twofer with extremes from the dogmatic activist or box-ticker/lobbyist/subsidy junkie end of a debate.
And even if we do get actual engineers and/or number crunchers, if they still have opposing viewpoints might we hope for a host with experience and training enough to actually get to definitive answers we can act/vote on than a 'that's all we have time for' ratings segment that gets filed and forgotten in days?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)