Bad Dragon's breath

Boo hiss.

Peter Hopton, Very PC interview

I have not seen the actual show (gave up watching ages ago, when I got booted in the auditions for seeing clean through the set-up but not being smart enough to hide the fact I was only interested in PR exposure - mind you they can edit any negative stuff that shows them up out).

What I have read is a few reviews by folk who know a bit about VCs, as well as the actual technology, and by all accounts not only are the Dragons a bunch of egoistical bullies (like we hadn't sussed that) dancing to the tune of a ratings-obsessed medium (nice one, BBC) at the expense of quality programming, they, and especially 'byte-me' guru Peter Jones, apparently were not quite as acronymically on top of IT as they thought. And to cover this up (if they knew), the best solution was to but the boot in.

I don't know which is the more sad. The people involved (from these iconic business 'stars' to Evan Davis and the outfits he works for, or the national culture that has given rise to them.

Makes you proud to be a UK-based eco-entrepreneur.

Businesszone - Dragons' Den episode three: Lessons learned

Oh, for heaven's sake.

This is as relevant to business as my Dad getting excited at a 70s Jackie Pallow vs. Mick MacManus wrestling match being 'unfair'.

It is entertainment, pure and simple, successfully aiming at the rules of the Coliseum to get ratings.

The only wonder is that these 'successful' business folk have sold their souls so easily just to be the right side of a very nasty one-sided exchange.

I gave up ages ago when the BBC News trumpeted some eco-effort that 'was the only one that had all 5 Dragon's applauding and wanting to invest', with acres of free national PR to help it along.

Only thing was, despite it all, no one seems to have bothered to ask, or cared, before, during or until much later what the IP was.

Quietly shelved; job done for all parties concerned. Except for any accurate reflection of how business works or how partnerships are forged.

Does anyone serious, seriously think anyone with a great idea and all the numbers is going to accept chump change (that might buy a director for 3 months or a 1/2 page in a tabloid) from some bozo who has not shown any real evidence of what else they can bring to the table bar the support of our national, commercial-free broadcaster?

What's the successful hit rate?

All I can recall is Reggae-reggae sauce, and while big up to the lad who came up with it and played the 'any publicity' card well, I rather suspect major retailers might not have been so keen to offer rack-space without a full crew from Aunty showing lots of logo love and boardroom-level furrowed brows for weeks afterwards.

As that other inspirational titan of the pinstripe suit, Siralun, might say: 'Do us a favour!'

I cannot tell a lie: He did it!

Survey: Should outsourced CO2 count?

Love it. 'Outsourced Co2' indeed. You'll be saying they'll be trading it next.

Sorry, almost every survey I am sent/get confronted with leaves me seeking an option usually not there.

'Should an iPod’s pollution be counted as Apple’s or China’s?'

Er... both? That way the company and the country can be held to account for the stuff going into the global atmospheric pot. Anything else would suggest all sorts of neat ways to shunt a problem out of line of sight, not that anyone would dream...

Win win?

There have been a few today (except, possibly, the planet*).

Scargill challenging (no hyperbolic headline grabbing there) Monbiot to go into respective rooms full of Co2 and radioactive waste.

And in some sort of luvvie melt-down of the Guardian pages' favourite sons and daughters, Monbiot having a go at Burchill.

I'd rather be a hypocrite than a cynic like Julie Burchill

'Handbags', or should it be 'book launches at dawn''.

I'm just trying to get my understanding of English sorted, especially when it come to matters environmental.

A cynic is, generously, one who might have a questioning attitude expressed in a not altogether 'nice' way, or, at worst , 'suggests a disbelief in the sincerity of human motives':

Which would seem not altogether unreasonable when dealing with, say, 'a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc.', or.... 'that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs'.

Tough call. A person with a cranked eyebrow at all they are supposed to swallow, or one who effectively says one thing but does another.

The planet breathes easier in such company, I am sure.

Where will it end? In tears, I fear. Especially when class is brought in for good measure.

*George Monbiot won the day in tussle with Julie Burchill

Telling. Outside a rather insulated bubble quite far from where I live, I am not sure who 'won' or not, Mr. White, but I rather suspect my kids' futures on this planet were net losers. Hope you all got what you needed from the exchange.

Personally I'd leave environmental commentary to people who do care and actually DO positive stuff than endlessly count debating points. But I thought your contribution to this morning's piece of Dear Leader's fitness to govern regime was cutting edge. Keep up the good work in the BBC studio next door. They do have space to fill, as you say. Mind you, what they choose to fill it with... Might one ask why such a critical debate is booked between two sound bite extremes and not any who may bring rational information and even decently subjective debate to the table. That's rhetorical. All any of you in the media want... need... are addicted to... is ratings. Which is how you are measured and make your money. Mind you, when it comes to the other 'green' that gets sampled as an issue on occasion, what can... do you all spent it on?

Telegraph - Class will matter more, not less -

Gaurdian - NEW - Old King Coal is a brave old soul, but he is talking utter nonsense - I'll post it, but can muster little interest to read or comment on what now seems personality-driven issues. Coming soon: Eco-'celebrity' mudslinging tag team action... the DVD, book and world (while it lasts, but might as well make some serious dosh on the back of its demise) tour!
Dire. Meanwhile, elsewhere, there might be some actually quietly working away on DOING positive, proactive things that might make a difference.

...OI

Not really worth adding to the Hydrogen category (but it will be linked via Labels), I add this for the glimmer that enviROI and even ROI is getting an airing.

Boris: no more energy for sustainability?

Not by the activists and the media that support them, of course, but the beauty of the blogging system is that casually thrown out rallying cries can now be challenged to support the practicalities behind the headlines.

Great. Now we've got past how it looks, maybe we can look at what still needs DOING!

Suddenly being green is not cool any more

Not that this has sunk into the thick, superficial skulls of the majority of most media reporters or columnists.

All These Green Taxes And Rules Are Just Witless Nods To Fashion

Sticks and stones... and degrees... and QEDs

I usually steer clear of the whole CC thing, but this caught my attention: Planning for the worst

First up there was the 'planning for' vs. 'avoiding' shift (albeit with an inevitability slant), but also the first line resonated: 'Just like blades, phrases can be blunted by overuse. Talk of avoiding "catastrophic climate change" is so familiar, the words no longer instantly stir up apocalyptic images. '

All, sadly, true. And one must wonder why.

Even more sadly, I tended to skip through the SOSO text in a pretty cursory manner, and then alighted on the comments in reply, of which this was the first: 'I see the climate change 'denier' nutters are on here as usual.'

And so I gave up. QED.

CATEGORY - Flood

I think this deserves its own gig

ARTICLES

Guardian - Chaotic flood defences leave large areas at risk, say MPs - Surprise, surprise. But next time what's the betting we hear 'It's AGW... no one expected this level of...'

BBC - Benn denies flood plan 'chaos' - 'Did too'...'Do not, so muhr...'. Edifying

Indy - Is flooding really as big a risk to Britain now as terrorism?

Times - Thousands more face floods - break out the wellies!

BBC - Insurers agree flood cover deal - Helps a bit

Telegraph - NEW - Flood game shows UK cities under water - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi, though given his reasons I am not so sure I'm that thrilled: 'Given your proximity to a river prone to flooding, I think I should leave this one to you.'

INFORMATION

Environment Agency Floodline - actually quite useful, with email and text warnings
Flood Maps
Flood forum
Floodsim - NEW - a game, though maybe not too much fun for some
Homecheck -
Association of British Insurers -

I'll need to add more when they come in, or collate later. For now, check out the labels below

Aphids versus Computer Models?

Now there have been raging debates about the validity and accuracy (or not) of the complex computer models used to assess climate change possibilities and actualities; but this article from PhysOrg suggests that some of the UK's natural inhabitants, namely Aphids, are much better indicators of just what climate change is actually occurring.

One particular species is now appearing almost four weeks ahead of the 42 year average. The big problem is that these tiny little insects, although invaluable in the food chain for many native species, are a serious threat to many of our food crops. With the possible onset of an EU pesticide ban that could remove a whole raft of the chemical treatments used to protect UK crops, this could (yes, its that word 'could' again) lead to food shortages.
(OK, so the pesticide ban story is from the Daily Mail which actually used the word 'WILL', but you get the point.)

Next bout, Aphids versus Pesticides? Sounds like another interesting dilemma in the offing.

Yet another Government Website ......

..... on, you've guessed it, climate change.

This new section on DEFRA's website is all about 'Adapting to climate change'.

OK, so what does it tell us? Well, at first glance, it would seem very little that any of the other Gov. developed websites devoted to what they are doing (I couldn't resist a little snigger then) about climate change.

All the links appear to be to existing Gov. website sources already devoted to, errrr, climate change. All the usual suspects, 'Office of climate change', 'Energy savings trust', 'UKCIP', 'ActOnCO2', the new climate change bill etc. But very little new.

I can't help pondering that our Gov's entire raison d'etre here is to be seen to be doing something, whilst actually doing, well, very little. ("Yes, minister, we've put online another fantastic website for the public to access loads of information from").

And what was the cost of this latest 'joining up the web-links' site? Not provided. But you would be forgiven for guessing that it has cost at least a few tens of thousands of pounds.

Oh, sorry, it is a Gov. sponsored website extension. So let's make that a few hundreds of thousands of pounds shall we? Plus how many additional civil servants with ring-fenced gold plated pensions to administer?

Well worth it ...... not!

What's your excuse

Blog Traffic Is Getting Bigger and Bigger
Do you write for a blog?
If so................why?

Money. I realised that I read a lot to help stock my site, so it wasn't a stretch to stick links to what I read on my blog and add a comment or two.

People like what I find and/or share, and some even like my comments.

So they visit more. More visitors=more money.

Plus I get invited to things.

Which is neat, 'cos I don't get out much.

The irony is of course, that until I put AdSense or something on here, I am not making a bean. So it must be for love, not money. Go figure.

I'm greener than you... I've screwed up more!

How far will the climate campers go?

Hilarious.

If one thing to me defines the state of things 'environmental', it's that whatever happens*, one bunch will be getting the hump and having a go at another bunch and ending up in a bit of snit.

Which is why I tend to prefer and hence favour associations with those who work quietly, effectively, proactively and tangibly in DOING what they can, where they can, whenever they can to make a tangible, positive difference, and inspire engagement in the general public by the power of their example, empathy and commitment.

But I guess protests and bans do get more media and hence feed systems that depend on 'awareness' (even if communications and getting one's point across are not always a strong suit, evidently) rather more effectively.

*Interestingly, I have noticed a rather concerning trend, at least for the principle of free speech and the spirit of debate. And that's on blogs and forums folk being 'accused' (Witch! Burn... well, give 'em a nasty pallor with a CFL light!) of undermining 'the cause' by disagreeing with the group think du jour.

So careful what you wish for. 'And then they came for the lite greens who did not (want, feel like, see the need to, etc) foreswear their all, and there was no one left to speak...'

Addendum - The Mancunian way - see comment 11:16 to 11.25am.

Gaurdian - NEW - Dirty tactics to defend a dirty industry

Gaurdian - NEW - The stakes could not be higher. Everything hinges on stopping coal - Whilst I might agree that coal needs a serious look at in the mix, I have to say I tend these days to stop at most that starts with 'stopping' (if you get my drift).. at least as a call to action in this regard. Kinda sweet that the first para to such pieces now has to start with a mitigating planet-commitment action... 'Sitting in a teepee eating Fairtrade..', '...boarding a train.'. I wonder how it plays with those sitting at work 9-5, 5 (or more) days a week? No matter how important, and valid, the message, the cred of most self-appointed messengers is really going South.

Newsnight - NEW - Climate change - Ta for the tip, Chlo_F:

One other, worthy aspect of the 'green' debate is how it is running past the general/consuming public from many sources, especially those who see themselves as 'guiding lights'.

Rather topical as the subject of communicating with the great unwashed, er, me... has cropped up of course with the VED, too.

Another from the Guardian - on the topic of medium and messengers - worth a gander:

Here

Meanwhile here's another aspect that seems... pertinent:

I do have to wonder how those who may agree that we are in a pickle (but also may not agree with some aspects as outlined by other advocates) might seek the week off from our day jobs were they not funded in some way by more sympathetic employers. Maybe the relevant minister could be asked for her opinions on our rights to do this on the basis that we are looking after a needy planet?

Meanwhile, I shall now for all due balance pop over to the Times**, Telegraph**, and maybe even such as the News of the World*** (circulation what, and to whom, versus the Guardian readership?) to see how all this is playing there:)

Over the past few months the voters who read such tomes seem to have had an influence it would be silly to (try to) ignore (or, worse, dismiss), eh?

**Nothing so far..

***Shudddrs

Newsnight - ADDENDUM - (had to edit a bit... got carried away)

We are, seemingly, facing a global crisis (the single greatest we face I believe, according to a UN head) based on some predictions that point to our growing numbers and what each one of us needs (heat, stuff, travel) and likes (more stuff & more travel), that inevitably lead to the generation of emissions and... consequences (I do note that some views as to man’s relative contribution, or not, have not been included in this particular debate, which is hence taking this as a given, which in turn some might feel a slight omission given the weight public opinion and hence political action that can and should hold sway in such matters, but oh, well).

Thanks to some interesting PR surrounding a protest at a power facility, an aspect of this topic has again come to the fore for a brief flurry under the sun before we worry about JP’s undies again.

In yesterday’s blog preamble, I wondered how all this was playing with the various options we, the public, get our information from.

Well, certainly some mention in such as The Independent and Guardian for print, and on broadcast news the BBC.

However, not a lot I could glean from many other places, including anything much originating from our government. There’s a surprise.

So I turn to a late night news programme in the hope of some objectivity to help me learn the issues, to help me shape an option should I ever be asked to vote sensibly on the directions we take (assuming voting is still in fashion in the near future – I do notice that these days the majority not voting the ‘right’ way can get frowned upon, and to quite extensive coverage in some places, by minority commentators who seem to think, and are often accepted by the bookers who give them airtime, as ‘knowing better’).

And what, or rather who do I find? An ‘environmental activist’ of questionable qualifications (‘Leading’? By what measure and whose agreement?), who seems to have carved a career by writing provocative articles in a very minor broadsheet, who seems to be saying ‘Oh heck, anything but coal.. let’s go nuke, then’. Words, if loose, that are deemed (again, er.. why and by whom) to have sent ripples throughout, well, parts of North London at least.

I’m not sure, but I have this small notion that the issue is not that simple. And spans not just the choices we face on energy, but also economic vs. environmental balances, geo-political considerations, immigration, population and a host of other stuff I really don’t envy those staked with unraveling this Gordian knot (and not Gordon, for sure).

But a group have decided they don’t fancy an aspect, and so we get a ratings punt by a broadcast medium using a media-friendly person’s dubious pontifications as a basis, or more like bedrock for a whole discussion. Does the BBC not have anyone of relevance to add to this critical discussion at the level one would expect from a premier news programme? Or is the speed dial restricted to the half-dozen usual suspects who write for the Guardian and live in the mews next door when not in their country cottage? I have no problem with opinions from all walks, but surely they need to be balanced (and not a blooming classic ‘two/threefer wheeling out extremes from far sides... a nuke industry spokesperson for heaven’s sake, but billed – I need to find from fellow posters - as a ‘former energy minister’. No wonder the whole thing is a farce and trust in media and government is out the window). And can we not get some objective science and engineering FACTS in the mix? Possibly a bit of rational economic pragmatism and/or political realism too?

Beyond the beliefs, not all of us obviously have the financial ability to scoot hither and thither looking for the next ban or protest, so when it comes to how we heat our homes and other factors self interest may guide us. And this is, very possible short-term thinking. So I was stuck by the comment ‘There largely to protest’, that rather sums up how many may come to view these efforts, when rarely is there much by way of viable alternatives presented (though I think I did glean a few halfway sensible tilts towards efficiency gains). ‘Ruining my day’ vs. ‘status quo’. Tough call.

So what’s going to get me, or my kids’ kids first? A C02 (man-caused/worsened or not still a little up in the air, ‘scuse pun) dawn, or a nuclear one (Space 1999 style)?

So far, I have no blooming clue, and nothing sensible to help try and figure it out. Certainly not when it is ignored or treated piecemeal and often in a contradictory manner by the majority of most read (and watched) media, or served up in such a daft fashion by the minority of the rest.

I am not at all keen in playing the person and not the argument, but we really do need more sense of objectivity, and ‘opinion former’s’ backgrounds do become very pertinent... What stance they are taking? Where are they getting their money from? A book deal? A lobby group? Quango target bonus? An activist board salary/pension? The message can often end up being very coloured by the messengers, especially self-proclaimed ones deemed ‘expert’. Is there anyone left who is not in someone’s pocket? Including the media? Jonathan Porritt seemed the only halfway rational person in the whole lot. Maybe he did have alternatives to mitigate the pain of mitigation, but I didn’t catch many.

I see James Lovelock mentioned. As with a few others in this Heat’ed debate, I am afraid the more I see his opinion in an article with ‘his new book is published.. at £16.95 by [coincidental news media publishing arm]’ at the end, the less I feel inclined to read on without a very cranked eyebrow.

Especially when I also read ‘his opinion is that CO2 is far more lethal than compact bunkers of nuclear waste’ not so long after I find he may be one of the first passengers atop a column of greenhouse gasses on the Virgin orbital gawping (rich) tourist shuttle.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-goes-up.html

Maybe this thing is ‘the future’, but if we are talking about emissions now, exhaust smoke on a jolly seems a contradictory, if not smoke and mirrors foundation upon which to base one’s argument.

Do I like the idea of coal (especially without any viable CCS) as proposed? No. But do I like the idea of nuclear much better, especially as many key aspects seem still unresolved... disposal, ROI, enviROI, etc). No, not yet.

But I see how delay can be viewed as frustrating. However the way the issues are portrayed certainly don’t help... well, me at least. ‘The environmental movement is split’ I heard the reporter say, well, challenge at one stage, doubtless for a provocative response. What the heck IS ‘the environmental movement’. It seems a rather odd, artificial construct almost designed to create a ‘them’ vs. others quality that can help nobody, and especially the quality of discussion.

Stop giving sound bite airtime on a hobby horse basis. If it is as serious as has been suggested, treat it seriously and get a decent spread of sensible views who can at least explain where we currently are rationally. It has to be better than the sensationalist spinning that passes for news I see in this arena, and I’m frankly fed up with it.

Gaurdian - NEW - Kingsnorth protester diary: Come to the camp - Working as planned, is it?

It's a cold, wet Tuesday. How to cheer myself up?

I know I don't have writer's block. But I certainly have newsletter writer's block.

It's August, and although 90% complete, I still can't seem to find the oomph to finish and send the April Junkk newsletter.

Anyway, when I do (and I must), I do hope that I will manage to ensure that it gets personalised properly by integrating the template with the mailing list.

However, if I fail up (it has been known), I can take comfort that those who might be a tad better funded, staffed and experienced can still miss a trick:)

See how the fields are drawn up, I also note that it is often best to do something (as I do) like Hi in case they only give a first or no name at all.

You got it free here first

But if you have a spare $1ok, you can get it confirmed, probably in a tad more detail here:

The Media’s Key Role in ‘Greenwashing Washout’

I am ashamed to admit (and hence pondering whether to ask) what a LOHAS consumer is (I suspect... it's me. Addendum: Oh, it is), but really this is the key section:

'...consumers express more distrust of the media, underscoring the importance of communicating only the most meaningful, memorable and relevant environmental news to have the best chance of regaining consumer trust.'

Certain media... take note. You know who you are. If you care.

Enviromental Leader - Greenwashers Get Site Of Their Very Own

The climate change smokescreen

The title of an interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which focuses on the on-going PR campaign to deny climate change that has, at least in part, been funded by the big oil boys.

"There are at least three other reasons the oil companies' PR campaign has had success for climate change deniers. First, the implications of the science are frightening. Shifting to renewable energy will be costly and disruptive. Second, doubt is an easy product to sell. Climate denial tells us what we all secretly want to hear. Third, science is portrayed as political orthodoxy rather than objective knowledge, a curiously postmodern argument."

Interesting to note that Exxon Mobil has announced that it will "cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change." This piece claims that it took a shareholder revolt to get that decision. I seem to recollect that they denied funding any such organisations a couple of years ago.

Interesting conclusion too .....

"The tide slowly turned on tobacco denial and the science finally was accepted. Some people still choose to smoke and some pay a price for it.

But climate is different. There are no 'smoke-free areas' on the planet. Climate denial may turn out to be the world's most deadly PR campaign."

(Hmmmm ... no smoke free areas? Try a British pub. Mind you, you'd better hurry, at the rate they are closing there will be very few left soon.)

I wonder if the UK press will pick up on this? It could perhaps be the signal for another extremely entrenched and divisive war of words. With the great majority stuck in the middle in no-mans land again!

Addendum: From the International Herald Tribune, a piece entitled 'Convincing the skeptics'.

Rubbish Facts

I have been alerted by Dave of Solarventi to a 'debate' raging on the Jeremy Vine show (actually Matthew Bannister) on R2 regarding fines for bin taxes.

A lot of arguments made (and coming in as I write) are now well recycled (!), but one issue raised by the 'experts' struck me and hence I have written in:

Just listening to the 'debate', where the facts flying around, especially without much context, are worth as much as stats.

If there have been 'only' 1,000 prosecutions so far, one presumes these to have been successful. How many have not been? What have been the costs to the taxpayer of people and systems to generate this deterrent/revenue generator, over and above the ever so slight public negative perception of anything green hued these days (VED anyone?).

I suspect the £70k garnered so far might not have covered the costs of a few Civ. Servants for one year, and hence how much has been wasted that could have gone in much greener and more efficient directions?

Driving Miss, Crazy Thinking?

Just watching a BBC Breakfast News report on a plan to tax folk out of older, less efficient cars into new, more efficient ones.

I'm all for efficiency measures; not sure keen on taxes, to be blunt.

Featuring Tim Yeo MP, it is an interesting situation. Actually, interesting to me was also the fact that I think I heard that of his committee of 17, um, 16 were not in favour (tbc* - it hasn't been repeated in any subsequent slots, oddly), but he was sure 'it would have got though if they hadn't had to rush 'cos they were all off on hols now.' Hmn.

To be sure, he was 'balanced' by a lady from the RAC, but I notice she has been dropped in subsequent clips. Which is a shame, because she is making the fair point that it is hardly fair, or very eco (what is the carbon consequence of a new car's manufacture?), to hit folk who still have the car they bought under available rules a while ago, and then try and force them to buy a new one in the name of green.

Mr. Yeo at least was advocating that revenue generated remained within the eco-pot, but again I think I caught he was talking about paying folk like me to scrap my 11-year old Volvo.

Now, I don't know what he is proposing, but it is currently something like £180 for a junker. But my car is, to all intents and purposes, perfect. Admittedly, it is only worth £2000 at best, but even if they compo'd me that value, just what the heck can I get? There seems to be some odd, dare I say, London pol/chatterati notion, that I happen to have the extra £15,000 on top to buy a Prius, assuming they did an estate that carries what mine does.

For possibly selfish reasons, but also with my eco-eyebrow cranked as well, I am not too thrilled the direction which this one is going, nor with the way our national broadcaster is trying to rather over-enthusiastically push the agenda of those who would claim one thing but possibly not have it all thought out as well as it might. And not for the first time.

Addendum - looks like Mr. Yeo was early morning only. There was a follow-on with a chap from the Society of Motor Traders (who one presumes might have a vested interest in flogging new, but possibly second hand across the board as well) and the point I am making was at least alluded to, namely the cost of the upgrade.

*Links, I am sure, to come...

Didn't take long:

BBC - MPs sceptical over car tax rise

Indy - 'Pay to scrap gas-guzzlers'

Indy - Driven to distraction

Telegraph - Government's green car tax plans in disarray - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi

BBC - Plans for a graduated car tax

Autoindustry - NEW - Another link from Dave of Solarventi - A light right foot will do more to reduce CO2 than retrospective road tax, says the IAM - this tends to support the logic of more useage-based 'influence', which must translate into fuel tax. But this obviously becomes a political and 'fairness' (since when was that a problem) issue with those for whom driving, and over fair distances, is not really an option.

Gaurdian - NEW - The Mancunian way - Whilst being fine with all sorst of views being expressed, in light of the way media is shaped by what we are first served, I have to have a certain sympathy with the poster who notes this: 'I thought that Dr Huq was an academic specialising in pop music at a London Poly. I don't mean that in a nasty way. It is just that I don't see the connection with Manchester or transportation. Transportation is a complex issue that usually needs post-graduate training in engineering or mathematics to talk about in a sensible way. Some economics would not go astray either.'

Greenbang - NEW - Emissions car tax – a load of hot air? - I've been a bit rude, too. Sorry.

Gaurdian - NEW - Golf's water waste means only the fairways are green - Why here? Read on:

Telegraph - NEW - Anyone for green humbugs? Read to the end:)

Do-do

A bit of Monday philosophy...

There's what's right to do.
There's what I should do.
There's what some want me to do.
There's what others want me to do.
There's what I could do.
There's what I want to do.
There's what I can afford to do.

And, there's what I will do.

It might be worth some remembering those options, especially in terms of the way they present their views to me when seeking to influence my behaviour through cooperation or coercion.

It just might help us all avoid mutual.. do-do.

Weights & measures

European trend to recycling leads to mass shortage of wheelie bins in UK

Just being naughty, but turtle-chocking aside, I wonder how many plastic bags' worth of plastic ends up in a wheelie bin?

And, more importantly, I wonder why I have not heard much on these things being made from recycled plastic, though I guess there may be QC issues under the elements.

Just hope the various designs have been thought through for the best enviROI with the most efficient collection and disposal systems and not just to meet targets or score a profit. What are the odds?

The colour of complexity

I have long claimed that little that's green can only be viewed in black and white.

Perhaps now the time has arrived to work and appreciation of red in to the picture?

Greens: Abandon economic growth to beat CO2 offshoring

Since the first passionate debates in my mid-teens, through Uni and beyond, I have always envied those who latched on to a noble cause, sought and often gained glory (and now nice careers) by being very single minded in (usually) being just against something.

I don't know if it is a curse, but I have always tended to look beyond the core issue, and certainly have got in a tangle as a consequence.

Which can of course also affect the arguments often put forward by some proponents: 'As to how that should be done, Bond was reluctant to give specifics.'

It's all well and good saying 'how awful...' and there is some legitimacy in saying 'this is bad; we need to stop...', but frankly having nice little jobs (involving using a lot of the toys 'progress' has generated, because, well, that's different... it's their jobs. As opposed to the ones we do, apparently) just lurking in these areas without coming up with much by way of credible alternative seems frankly parasitic at best.

And I do wonder at the value of all of this, at least in this form, as it seems to exist in a bubble occupied mainly occupied by the usual suspects from the various extremes who seem to have carved lucrative niches taking each other on, and more often than not way over the head, and hence engagement of the general public.

I am not saying that much of what is being raised doesn't need to be, but do concern myself at the sanctimonious pedestal mounters that think they are the key ones who need to do so.

Indy - NEW - The WMD that really should be worrying us - By way of... I'm not sure what, actually.

Priorities, Gordon... priorities

Plus a smidge of political savvy, maybe...?

Overfill your bin and you’ll be treated worse than a shoplifter

Another fine mess you've got yourself into, I'd say.

Relative values

Golf's water waste means only the fairways are green

'To ease your emissions that little bit extra, decline the golf cart and get some exercise, and pack some biodegradable golf balls and environmentally friendly tees.'

Yup, that'll do it.

Debateable

One thing so often missing in matters of debate is effective, balanced moderation.

I have just written to the BBC:

I have just watched the 'debate' between the climate activist and the industry representative.

At one point both 'sides' clearly stated totally stated a report stated diametrically opposite things.

Is there any chance of the moderators/interviewers letting us know who was/is right?

I am already fed up with the classic 'twofer' technique serving ratings more, butbeing allowed to mouth off without being checked adds zero value and the media just gives any old tossed off claim credence in this manner.

Tectonic Divides

A worthwhile read: Bridging the divides

Shorter. Cheaper. Greener

Speed Conferences - Ever Been To One?

Hold 'em on 2nd Life for free and I'm in.

I'm still plotting my revolutionary new conference format:)

Something stinks

And I think it is this:

Auctioning off the right to emit carbon dioxide is likely to net the UK government nearly €2.5bn (£2bn) over the next four years, under plans to be announced today.

Telegraph - Green light for carbon credit sale

And now I know why: 'The Government, which has said the money raised will go to the Exchequer, remains on a collision course with the EU, which has insisted that any monies raised from carbon permit trading should be used to fund projects designed to combat climate change.'

Telegraph - A windfall tax will not solve our energy crisis - 'The Treasury perennially refuses to ring-fence revenues from "green" taxes - thereby undermining its credibility.'
Just thought it was worth repeating for effect:)

Times - NEW - Gordon Brown plans ‘green tax’ on energy firms to help poor

Look out Kermit!

These are early days PR punts I'm guessing, so I won't accord them fully fledged category status as yet, but looks like your pond is a teeming fuel dump:

Indy - How to turn water into rocket fuel – scientists unlock power of the sun

Guardian - 'Oil from algae' promises climate friendly fuel

Both interesting, but also sort of focusing still on our desire to still combust, ultimately, rather than doing it less and less.

Still, it's nice to get a space story in without it being a major green eyebrow crank.

And the good news is...

'Reports'... in the BBC... about the UK government and its handling of emissions:

UK in 'delusion' over emissions

Three of my most trusted sources of objective information. At least the sources of the 'reports' are 'most trusted', but it's not clear by whom. If it is by the BBC, then that's a wee problem, as I do believe I have read their trust factor is down to single figures. As for HMG...

What on earth is a boy to make of it all?

PETITION - A lot fewer allotment spaces if we are not careful

As just received:

Please help protect green sites and request they are included in urban design. They help build community cohesion and provide a welcome retreat for wildlife habitat. Please sign and forward to fellow citizens. The petition below to the Government has only got 850 signatures and closes on 2 August - please sign and forward to all your friends - to demonstrate the breadth of support for allotments and land for growing more generally. It takes 2 seconds!

'We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it compulsory that local authorities and developers make provision for allotments and community gardens on every new development. Waiting lists are huge we need more allotment sites.'

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/moreallotments/

I wish em luck. Shame the deadline means this will probably miss our next newsletter.

These petitions can be pretty hit or miss (look at my last few), and it's amazing how the deadline comes round.

AFFRONT TO NATURE - Electric Wheelbarrow

Now I know it's good to stay at home and garden.

And I know some need a little help to assist in getting out and about and around.

But this really does seem to be pushing it (sorry). £200 for a small motor that might help with pulling a tad but still needs lifting (it also looks to be about as far from the axis as it can get, too). And really, how big are most gardens and who uses a wheelbarrow that far?

Frankly beefing up the footprint of the wheel would look like it would help more for most situations I have been in.

Let the flames be... switched off?

Energy to burn

The boss of e.on. Guardian CiF posters. Who needs the Olympics?

Gaurdian - NEW - A dangerous untruth

Eastern Promise?

China can lead the way to a low-carbon economy

A must read (if you have time)

Well, it does have the word 'sustainable' in it

(DEFRA) Sustainable development indicators in your pocket 2008

A free little book published by Defra provides a statistical overview of the country's progress in tackling key economic, social and environmental issues, by bringing together an extensive range of indicators that can literally fit in your pocket. They cover a wide range of topics of everyday concern such as health, housing, jobs, crime, education, and our environment, all of which may affect whether we can live more sustainably in the future.

The aim of this booklet is to make indicators easily accessible to a wide audience and to enable everyone to judge where change for the better or worse is occurring and where the challenges are. It should be a useful reference to experts but also to others less familiar with the concept of sustainable development or indicators. Around 60,000 copies of the booklet are distributed annually and they are particularly popular with schools and colleges.

This edition includes as new contextual information:

* An update to the life satisfaction wellbeing measure, showing how people rate their lives [page 118 of publication]

* An extension of the wellbeing measures to now include child wellbeing [pages 129 to 135].

* Estimates of carbon dioxide emissions associated with the UK's consumption of goods and services, whether or not the emissions occur within the UK i.e. including through the production of imported goods (often referred to as embedded emissions) [page 24 of publication]

Key results

The 68 indicators comprise 126 measures and using these it is possible to get an overview of change compared with earlier years, based on the number of measures showing improvement, little change or deterioration. However it is essential to look at the individual indicators too as this does not take account of the relative importance of particular indicators.

All indicators1

Compared with the position in 1999, 53 measures show improvement (representing over half of those for which it is possible to make an assessment), and 11 show a deterioration.

A wide range of measures show improvement including:

* renewable electricity
* emissions of air pollutants
* waste recycling
* agricultural emissions and land stewardship
* river water quality
* land recycling for development
* crime and fear of crime
* childhood and pensioner poverty
* death rates from circulatory disease, cancer and suicides
* people killed or seriously injured in road accidents
* housing conditions, fuel poverty and rough sleepers
* local environmental quality.

The eleven measures showing deterioration since 1999 are specifically:

* aviation emissions of greenhouse gases
* fossil fuels used for electricity generation
* nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generation
* carbon dioxide emissions from the service sector
* energy supply (consumption exceeding UK production)
* household waste arisings
* wintering wetland bird populations
* range of life expectancy between local authorities
* walking and cycling
* ozone pollution in urban areas
* households living in temporary accommodation

UK Framework Indicators

Twenty of the 68 indicators are also 'UK Framework indicators' covering key impacts and outcomes that reflect the priorities shared by the UK Government and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
[page 16 of publication]

These include:

Greenhouse gas emissions: emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, were about 8 per cent lower than in 1990. Emissions decreased by about 3 per cent between 2006 and 2007 as a result of switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation.
[page 23 of publication]

River water quality: between 1990 and 2006 the percentage of rivers of good biological quality in England rose from 60 to 71 per cent and in 2006, 54 per cent of rivers in Northern Ireland and 82 per cent of rivers in Wales were of good biological quality. In 2006, 66 per cent of English rivers were of good chemical quality (up from 43 per cent in 1990), this figure was 74 per cent in Northern Ireland (up from 44 per cent in 1991). In all years since 1993 over 90 per cent of rivers in Wales have been of good chemical quality. In Scotland, the percentage of rivers of good quality has remained stable at around 87 per cent between 2000 and 2006, based on a combined chemical, biological and aesthetic assessment.
[page 59 of publication]

Bird populations: Farmland bird populations fell by 42 per cent between 1970 and 1993, but remained fairly stable thereafter. Woodland bird populations in 2006 were about 30 per cent lower than the peak of the early 1970s and about 16 per cent lower than 1990. The UK's breeding seabird populations increased between 1970 and 1987 by 37 per cent but have fallen again since 1999.
[page 46 of publication]

Crime: In England and Wales, from the British Crime Survey (BCS), vehicle thefts fell by 61 per cent and burglary fell by 47 per cent between 1991 and 2007-8. Violent crime has fallen by 30 per cent since 1999.
[page 68 of publication]

Health inequality: In 1991-3 the difference in average life expectancy for men between local authority areas in the UK with the highest and lowest average life expectancy was 9.7 years. This widened to 12.6 years in 2004-6. For women the difference was 7.5 years in 1991-3 and widened to 10.2 years in 2004-6.
[page 82 of publication]

Theme summaries

The 68 indicators can provide an overview of change for four themes as set out in the UK Government's Sustainable Development Strategy, Securing the Future (though there is some overlap in the messages where some indicators support more than one of the themes). The four themes are:

* Sustainable consumption and production
* Climate change and energy
* Natural resource protection and environmental enhancement
* Creating sustainable communities

Sustainable consumption and production

Indicators1 for sustainable consumption and production mainly cover emissions, resource use and waste.

Twenty measures (over half) show improvement compared with 1999. Those showing improvement include emissions of air pollutants, waste recycling, agricultural emissions, and land recycling.

Measures showing deterioration since 1999 are greenhouse gases from aviation, service sector carbon dioxide emissions and household waste arisings.

Climate change and energy

Indicators1 for climate change and energy mainly cover greenhouse gas emissions, electricity generation and energy supply.

Six measures show improvement since 1999 and five show deterioration.

Those showing improvement since 1999 are renewable electricity, greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, sulphur dioxide emissions from electricity generation, carbon dioxide emissions from manufacturing and the public sector, and methane emissions associated with agriculture.

Those showing deterioration are aviation emissions of greenhouse gases, energy supply, fossil fuels used in electricity generation, nitrogen oxide emissions from electricity generation and service sector carbon dioxide emissions.

Natural resource protection and enhancing the environment

Indicators1 for natural resource protection mainly cover wildlife and biodiversity, farming, land use, fish stocks, air pollution and rivers.

Sixteen measures show improvement since 1999 and one shows deterioration.

Those showing improvement since 1999 include river water quality, farming management and emissions, land recycling, air pollution, and the impact of acidification from air pollution.

Compared with 1990, wintering wetland birds show a decline. Farmland and woodland bird populations show a decline since 1990.

Creating sustainable communities and a fairer world

Indicators1 for creating sustainable communities mainly cover poverty, health, crime, access, mobility, and local and domestic environments.

Twenty-four measures show improvement since 1999, nineteen show little or no change, and four show deterioration.

Those showing improvement include poverty and housing conditions, local environment quality, crime and fear of crime, mortality rates, and road accidents.

Those showing deterioration are the difference in life expectancy between local authority areas, the number of households in temporary accommodation, walking and cycling, and ozone pollution in urban areas.

International indicators

Some international data have been compiled to enable some comparisons to be made for the UK and other countries. International data are available for 32 of the 68 national indicators, consisting of 45 component measures. The indicators are presented on the UK Government sustainable development website (see notes.)

International data are presented for the UK and twelve other countries: France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Japan, Australia and the United States of America. However owing to data availability not all countries are included in every international measure. The choice of countries was partly driven by data availability but also assumptions about comparative levels of development.

It should be noted that the international data have been used as provided by the originating organisation (for example Eurostat for the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD), and others) and reliance has been placed upon these organisations' efforts to ensure that the data are as comparable as possible. Defra statisticians are not responsible for reliability or comparability of the international data, and the international indicators are not National Statistics.

International data are in many cases much older than data available nationally. So the position in the UK and other countries may well have changed compared with the situation presented by the international data.

International comparisons should be always treated with extreme caution as definitions and measurement methods differ between countries (despite considerable efforts by Eurostat and OECD in particular, to ensure consistency in coverage between countries).

The measures presented are the nearest available international equivalent measure to that included in the national indicators. However definitions and coverage may different from the national measure.

An attempt has been made to summarise the international data and to do so a number of criteria have been applied:

(i) Data should be available for the UK and all the 12 other selected countries.

(ii) For assessing the position for the latest year, data should be available for 2002 or later.

(iii) For assessing the recent change, data need to be available for the mid to late 1990s and for 2002 or later.

Applying these criteria, for only 20 of 45 measures for which there are international data are there data for 2002 or later for the UK and all 12 other countries.

Similarly for only 15 of the 45 measures are there sufficient data to assess progress from a year in the mid to late 1990s to 2002 or later.

Summaries are presented below based on the measures that meet the criteria. The measures that are included do cover a wide range of issues related to sustainable development, but they are inevitably extremely limited in the extent to which they present a representative summary of the UK or any other country.

UK's levels compared with 12 other countries in latest available year *

* Out of 20 measures for which data were available for all 13 compared countries and for 2002 or later, 4 measures showed the UK positioned as one of the 4 countries with the most favourable conditions. These measures were: energy consumption, water abstractions, carbon monoxide emissions and road fatalities. The UK's highest position was second, for water abstractions.

* For 6 measures the UK was positioned as one of the bottom 4 countries with the least favourable conditions. These were: renewable energy production, infant deaths per 1,000 live births, average life expectancy, deaths from cardio-vascular disease and cancer and incidences of obesity. Of these measures the UK was positioned 13th for renewable energy production and 12th for incidences of obesity.

* For the remaining 10 measures the UK was in the middle range (5th to 9th position) in relative terms. These measures were greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, emissions of air pollutants from nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide and volatile organic compounds, bird species threatened, protected land, Gross Domestic Production per capita, public social expenditure and percentage of adults with tertiary (higher) level educational qualifications.

Change since mid to late 1990s for UK and 12 other countries

* For the 15 measures for which comparisons of progress can be made from the mid to late 1990s with 2003 or later, the UK showed an improvement for 11 measures (73 per cent).

* Both the United States of America and Denmark showed an improvement for 12 measures (80 per cent). Of the compared countries Canada, France, Japan and Australia had the fewest measures showing improvement with 8 (53 per cent). However these assessments of change do not take account of the different baselines for each country, only the extent to which a change has occurred relative to the individual country's status in the mid to late 1990s.

Games... and fun

...and maybe a little education?

electrocity.co.nz - 'ElectroCity is a new online computer game that lets players manage their own virtual towns and cities. It’s great fun to play and also teaches players all about energy, sustainability and environmental management in New Zealand.'

I like the bit about popping nuclear in there even though they don't have any.

Pledge, target... what exactly are they for?

Its green medal hopes are lost but Beijing must race on - Failure to meet the Olympic cleanup pledge will embarrass China.

I wish I could run my business as most governments (are alloweed to) run theirs.

"So... what I said wee'd do to get the job hasn't happened. Oh, and it's tripled in price, ta very much'.

Flash mob

I am watching a segment on our passionately eco-aware national broadcaster.

Seems yet another turtle has lobbed up on our shores on account of global warming.

Sadly this wee fellow, Flash, is not feeling too well.

So, to help him, at half-hourly intervals he gets yanked out of his tank and stuck under the lights. Way to go, Aunty.

Oh, and when he gets better, it seems he, plus handler and TV crew will scoot off to Gran Canaria to release him back into the wild.

At least plastic bags may not get him any more, but I do wonder a tad at the consequences of all those folk flying. Must be another department at the BBC who handles rampant irony, if not total hypocrisy.

A bit sus...

I recently got hounded off a 'list' (I thought it was a forum, but such words, and distinctions, seemed to matter to them) that had the word 'sustainability'.

It appears my notion of what it meant didn't gel with theirs.

Frankly I am not sure if anyone knows what it means.

But I'd have loved to pop this one over their way as a parting gift:

Sustainable living? It's only a game

I may or may not agree with what many folk write, but if they have lived within a population I tend to give them some credit for knowing a bit more than some armchair luvvies who seem to base their world view on a Guardian slow-travel eco-tour.

Just when I was going to log off and relax...

NESTA shows the ineffectiveness of Britain's quangocracy

I thought I might have entered this one. Can't recall as there are so many they kind of blur into one another. Makes me wonder how many there actually are, all with their own little cabal of administrators, comms budgets, offices, mutual exchange programmes to each other's events (travel, accom, per diems all covered), etc.

Then I see those wonderful words 'not for profit'. Well, I kind of would like to try and make one, so I can create a better, growing business. Now I know one good way to not make a profit is to create all sorts of board members on £200k salaries and many trips overseas to study how others blow funds like water, but I have this old-fashioned notion of DOING something rather than talking about looking like it is being done, and drumming up some awareness targets to meet to score a nifty bonus.

Mind you, the few in the innovation arena I have entered where making a profit is in theory part of the plan seem to have been staffed by career social workers or brain-dead bean-counters who would know a bright spark if it set fire to their EU-funding forms, and often 'judged' by folk whose qualifications seem to be playing golf with the CEO of the quango doling out the money on the taxpayers' behalves, or some Z-list celeb chosen to try and score a column inch in a tabloid.

Yes, it is sad. On so many counts. So... is it going to change (a word used once in a Third Sector puff speech I spluttered over by some chap who saw our country's future was in innovation when on work experience as Minister for that Department, for a few weeks one summer. Now gunning for PM, I believe)?

BOGOF... in a nice way

UK: Sainsburys two-sided paper receipt a success

Can't fault it. Hence it goes up.

Spin cycle

Clothes Washin' Man (a pedal-powered alternative to wringing)

Now, combine this with the local laundry and health club, and you have a business!

Probably the best explantion in the world?

You know those A5 sales flyers for gizmos you can get?

Most headlines propose an absolute claim but sort of get out of a challenge by making it a question: 'Could this be the best electric toenail buffer in the world?'.

I was minded of this when I read an ASA ruling on a topic I am interested in, namely regrading solar and the claims made by manufacturers.

As one still considering solar, though dubious about the efficiency and hence payback period in our climate, I am not sure I am too encouraged by what the consumer is left with here.

FWIW, I have looked at my exploding collection of packaging junkk and have in mind a S/SW wall structure made out of them by way of a solar experiment. Watch this space.

The message, the medium, the media, the mess

I know I usually stay out of the (PMWN) CC 'debate' for various reasons.

But I do want to share this as it relates to a major interest of mine, namely how information is communicated to the public and/or how they then engage with what they are served.

Real Climate - Journalistic whiplash

Now, Real Climate are definitely in the 'climate pessimistic' camp, but they are much more sincere than many, and the rational tone adopted, along with factual references, certainly makes them worth listening to. Plus of course there are often those who post counters (and do get rebutted by the majority quite forcefully, which can often seem like group bullying, but if they are asking for a challenge and it's done well, why not engage in robust debate).

There is certainly still a tone of 'well it's true, so why don't people accept the obvious?', but at least there is also some acceptance that however the issues are being portrayed, the public, via the media, are not quite getting the message, at least in the way this group would like it to be received.

Of course, I could just as easily post links to other sites with the word climate in their titles which pretty much mirror all this from the other side.

Which is kind of the problem. And the default of 'not sure'/'don't understand', as the Irish EU referendum demonstrated, is, quite reasonably, often to err on the current status quo.

Hence I applaud the fact that this group is trying to understand this issue better, hopefully with a view to better communications. Certainly hectoring by most does not seem to have worked to well to date.

Pols? Or Engineers?

Decide for yourself.

This interesting article from New Consumer argues that Engineers hold the keys to sustainable transport solutions, not Politicians.

What do I think? Well, our pols don't really have a great track record on sustainable transport, other than one of caning those of us stuck in rural areas without any options, whilst heavily subsidising urban transport systems. And engineering IS what originally made our once proud nation 'Great'.

"if low-carbon technology is to be successful, engineers must continue working towards providing viable solutions that are not only low-emission, but low in price."

Yes, yes and yes again. But what's the chance that our pols will follow through with anything like this when it is far easier to make billions out of schemes such as auctioning off the rights to CO2 emissions options? (see Peter's post below)

A simple answer ....... zilch!

You gotta laugh...

...especially at others' misfortunes.

We all use automated doo-dads on our sites; I just wonder if the 'Most Popular' icon had/has been fully appreciated up to this rather unfortunate manifestation. Especially on an enviro site where, one presumes, this is not quite what they had in mind.

What goes up...

... is different to what comes out, on occasion, apparently.

Bearing in mind the BBC's commitment to the cause of promoting 'environmentally sound behaviours' (and decrying those that are less so in their eyes), I am a tad intrigued at a piece just on the Breakfast News about Space Tourism.

In a gushing commercial, er, report for one Sir. Richard Branson's latest money-making venture, a reporter has flown out to give us such gems as how very rich folk can 'enjoy stunning views'... whilst asking few questions as to the consequences of the column of greenhouse gasses they will be atop when having a gawp at the planet they have just hastened to oblivion. I am pretty sure there will be a correspondent in the first flight to accompany Sir R and get his views on biofuel Jumbos and towing planes to save fuel... eventually.

As the BBC seems fairly adept at ignoring news that does not suit its narrative, surely they could have given this jolly a pass, or at least look at the total picture.

Or is missing out on a fun trip by actually getting objective not part of a funded news organisation?

Guardian - Branson unveils mothership in latest step towards putting tourists into space - 'Among the first to fly will be the physicist Stephen Hawking, the environmentalist James Lovelock and former Dallas actress Victoria Principal.'
I guess the paper will be selling tickets. Business is business. Maybe not on the eco page when they rail against 4x4s or plastic bottles, though.

BBC - Branson unveils space tourism jet - ... to uncritical acclaim:) Ahh... now I get why: '... It has enormous weight capability, so if there were a [humanitarian] crisis in Africa it could carry enormous loads [for aid]'

Treehugger - (beat 'em by a mile!) - Virgin Galactic Unveils the World’s Largest All Carbon Composite Aircraft, WhiteKnightTwo - I am however, obviously missing something here as this effort is getting a heck of a pass compared to some others of 'confused' e-value. I think it's an awesome technological leap, but having it under the green banner seems hard to wash as green.

The Register - NEW - Branson unveils Virgin Galactic mothership

EVENT -

WHEN: 15 & 16 October 2008
WHAT: European Biofuels Expo & Conference
WHERE: NEWARK, Nottingham
WHAT... MORE?: From the PR:

With the cost of fuel rising on an almost daily basis everyone is
looking for alternatives. One of those alternatives is Wood Energy
& the good news is that it is sustainable too.

There are already many success stories in the UK of schools and local
authorities converting to pellet or wood burning boilers to provide
their power requirements.

The experience in Europe is that wood pellets offer a low cost, clean
burning, efficient and sustainable way of providing biomass energy,
mostly utilising waste wood that would have gone to landfill. Millions o
f households, companies and community buildings across Europe have made
wood energy their primary source of heat. The UK is set to adopt more
widespread use of wood pellets and by looking at the European experience
the UK can benefit from years of growth in this market.

Working in conjunction with the National Energy Foundation (NEF) the Wood
Energy Conference, on Thursday 16 October includes speakers sharing their
experiences of this market in Europe, mobile pellet production and the
implementation of biomass heating solutions both large and small scale.

Companies or individuals wishing to start small to medium scale production
facilities are well catered for at the show with many exhibitors showing
the latest production processes.

In addition to Wood Energy, the event will be showcasing biodiesel, biogas
and bio-home heating oil. With over 100 exhibitors and three conference
streams, anyone interested in the bioenergy market, producing, using,
implementing an alternative fuel will be able to access the information,
products and services they need.

As the home heating oil market looks to adopt biofuels, and CO2 target
legislation becomes a reality, they are working with OFTEC to
ensure that the Conference includes coverage of the key issues in the home
heating industry. UK Home Heating Oil consumption is 3 billion litres/year
and represents a biofuel growth market. OFTEC will be discussing the
transition of Home Heating Oil to a bio-based fuel and report on field trials
that are currently in progress.

HOW MUCH: £25 it seems, but they snag your details before you get to that. Not so user-friendly IMHO.
URL: www.biofuels-expo.com
COMMENTS: It's an area worth knowing more about, but bear in mind the costs and the potential objectivity of what you'll find

NEWS/Commercial PR - Good things in little packages

Shameless plug time.

I was recently asked if I would like a free sample of an eco-product to test. Does Al Gore not need frequent flyer miles?

And lo, they have arrived. Even more lo, or actually hi, because someone cares what we think at Junkk.com about their efforts to do better by the future, they do indeed get a mention.

Better yet, they also get to see their pack uploaded to the re:use ideas section, to show that whatever washing might be going on, there's a lot of mitigation possible too.

There may even be a RE:view to follow, as these goodies will not be wasted (Jute bag already put to good use as a fabbo 6 x bottle carrier last night) and will soon be fighting stains in our eco-wash.

Meanwhile, here's the PR, E&OE:

Washday greens

Sainsbury's is launching a new range of Sainsbury's Super Concentrated Liquid Gels, which are kinder to the environment whilst still caring for clothes, and that deliver great results time after time.

· The products are super concentrated so only half the amount of a standard liquid is used

· This lightens the load on the environment using 40% less packaging, 50% fewer lorries on the road and 50% less water

The range comprises:

- Super Concentrated Liquid Non Bio 735ml
- Super Concentrated Liquid Bio 735ml
- Super Concentrated Liquid Colour 735ml
- Concentrated Liquid Lavender and Jasmine 735ml

The products are now available at all stores at £2.48, which at 21 washes per 735 ml bottle works out at just under 12p per wash. Prices have been kept in line with their other liquid detergents and do not carry a price premium.

There's still hope

Lego: a toy of gentle genius

I was once approached by a young designer who loved what Junkk.com stood for. He subsequently emailed me to say he was off to work with LEGO and would try and find ways to promote reuse there.

Here's hoping.