'The journey of two thousand more ideas starts with the first second use concept'

All a bit 'doom and gloomy' on the economy front at the moment, so it's nice to share a bit of breaking, ongoing and all-round re-evolving news from Junkk Towers!

Frequent readers of this blog will recall that a wee while ago we were rather chuffed that budget family retail (you know, the ones who are now doing better and better in the current, if sadly looking more and more austere economic climate) chain Poundland had got in touch to say they liked what we're up to, thought re:use was well worth promoting as another 'green' option, and hoped it was OK if they pointed at our site as a way for folk to seek alternative options to the bin and landfill with what they buy.

Well, having recently already noticed a few, we have to say often rather confused/incredulous sign-ups already already on the site, we were pleased to a few days ago at last make these nice folks' acquaintance.

Seems a bit grand to call it a 'meeting', but we had a good chat with both the packaging and PR division heads, and whilst the order of the day is till 'softly-softly' baby steps, we're rather excited at what can, and hopefully will be done by them, by Junkk.com and the two organisations together.

Somewhat of a priority is to get as many bits of data and/or ideas as we can up on site to help and/or inspire those who are tempted our way by the URL on pack. This does actually get rather daunting as we have been told that there is the order of 2,000 lines coming on stream.

Anyway, the journey of two thousand more ideas starts with the first second use concept, so here's one I made just before the progamme (er, blog - you know Junkk is on record as 'Blue Peter on steroids, right?) having been given a sample of the coming Xmas range:

http://www.junkk.com/junkkdetail.asp?slevel=0z622&parent_id=622&renleewtsapf=1858

So... the first, perhaps not the best (yet), but then it won't be the last. All you need to do is engage (left) brain and see what transpires.

Ideally...

It needn't cost the earth

A few good points to a well meant article.

I'd just offer that instead of trying to be 'green' (whatever that is) but being allowed to be and (as you say) properly supported in becoming green-er would, as any baby knows, make the steps easier to cope with, learn and seek to master if not improve upon.

Being slammed with all-or-nothing from what is more and more looking like a truly double-standard ridden 'industry'... not so much.

Why I love research. And newspapers. And activists. And...

Maybe in different ways for different reasons, mind.

Green idealists fail to make grade, says study

Amazingly, from the Gaurdian.

Have celebrity, will travel

It has already been noted that 'environment' is creeping down the agenda.

Even on Aunty it hasn't cropped up in a while.

So I guess there is no one around to concern themselves with all these celebrities and crews off hither and thither to raise awareness on this and that. Just two today.

Message and messengers again. While the topics may be valid, when Zoe Ball tells me Mrs. Brown and hubby are with her off to sorts things out elsewhere I am not sure my reaction is the one being sought.

At least she dodn't seem to have a book/show to sell.

Rule 1: If it seems obvious to you, it may still not be

Environmentalism needs to take account of cost

While I can only agree, and applaud the sober attempt to articulate and expand upon this, I fear I still have my first thought ringing in my ears:

'Well...D'Uh!'

But then, maybe it does need repeating. Seems an awful lot have not connected a few rather basic dots. Just so long as in getting from ROI to enviROI those coming from a more bean-counting, as opposed to bean-eating, viewpoint don't ignore the social aspects of our continued healthy existence on this planet in the rush to make even more green by now being, or being seen to be it.

In the 'no'

In many ways this is more appropriate for the more political 'El Burro Hotay' sister blog.

Especially today, as our Dear Leader articulates his vision for the future (for the next 10 years?) at the Labour Party Conference.

Thing is, I have come to feel that people, myself often included, seem 'persuaded' by those who claim to know all (and actually know sod) above those honest enough to say they are not too sure, especially about things in the future which, often, and by obvious examples in the past, are hard to predict with accuracy.

Pity.

Talk... or action?

The methane time bomb

Whatever your climate change combo of choice (man-made, nature only, etc), I would imagine few would argue that methane being released is not a good thing.
Now... is this rather serious, and relatively immediate concern going to be tackled directly, with thought and deed, or will it just get rolled into the ongoing, endless debate about 'global warming' and calls to devote money (in large amounts) to combat 'it'? And oodles on 'awareness', of course.

As with the logic of not cutting down trees (ok, it is inaction, but still counts) that surrounds deforestation as part of the totality, I rather feel this little scenario rather deserves some thought perhaps not so much on stopping it (which seems unlikely as any global fix is still being discussed endlessly) by dealing with it.

No idea how, even if it is possible. But if we can cover half the Atlantic in plastic maybe that's an avenue for here, with a a hole connected to a pipe to capture and then use it.

(Sadly the replies to the theme have tended to fall into the 't'is/t'isn't' camp already.)

I didn't have space to raise the point in more detail, but by way of contradiction/devil's advocacy there is also the need to understand the problem more, or at least to the point that addresses the enviro vs. ecomomic challenges. Still huge, but maybe more manageable than dealing with the whole planet.

Indy - The ultimate gas leak that scientists have long dreaded

Indy Letters - NEW - Methane threat to the climate

In the article "The methane time bomb" (23 September), the common misconception is reiterated that methane is "a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide". In fact the situation is worse than this, and methane is actually around 100 times more potent than CO2.

If equal masses, say one tonne each, of CH4 and CO2 were emitted simultaneously into the atmosphere, over 100 years the effect of methane would be 20 times that of CO2, 60 times over 20 years but 100 times when their warming potential is compared directly. If both methane and CO2 are being emitted continually, rather than as one-off events, the factor of 100 is the more salient.

Thus, alarming though the tale of the melting permafrost is, as told, its consequences may prove far worse. Runaway melting of permafrost will almost certainly cause a steady or accelerated release of methane over decades, and so climate models will need to be compensated.

Professor Chris Rhodes

CATEGORY - COMMERCIAL/PROMO 'GREEN' SITES

With a suggestion to keep eyebrows cranked ready for any signs of greenbait or greenwash, at least there can be freebies:

generationgreen.co.uk - from British Gas
savetodaysavetomorrow.com - from edf (see a theme here?)

Note: I might forget in time, so make sure any you check have not expired.

Cold Comfort

Loopholes in £1bn insulation plan mean millions struggling with ‘fuel poverty’ will lose out

Aren't loopholes what dodgy folk use to get out of Government obligations; not the other way round?

Despite my wife's best efforts, thanks to Junkk.com and RE:tie's investment/return plot I think we might have qualified, except..

For example, any home with more than 60mm of loft insulation will not qualify for the scheme The recommended standard is 270mm. - er, tick

Nor will most homes built before the 1930s, which are unsuitable for cavity-wall insulation. - tick, again.

Two strikes and we're already out.

“It’s a classic piece of government spin — it sounds great, but it is actually a completely unworkable plan,”

However, looks like we're not the only ones with not as much as we could have upstairs.

Jobs for the boys, and girls

Green growth is the path to economic recovery

An interesting essay, as are some of the comments in reply.

You'll wonder where the yellow went

Well, strike one for planet... and pocket.

For a while now we have had a policy of 'When it's yellow, let it mellow' when it comes to flushing practice.

The boys have been on baord, mainly because they usually forgot anyway and now they had an excuse. I just have becoem a bit more keen since we had the water meter installed.

She who must be obeyed was never keen.

Anyway, one warm day (and we haven't even had the heating on yet), a less used little boys room and an early return from work on Friday means that from now on we're back to 'once in the loo, pull the handle too, and not just for... well, you can guess the rest'.

Tricky, this green lark.

Numbers games

I debated a wee while before plumping for this blog to post upon.

It's nothing to do with enviro issues (well, a tad), but does go to reaching audiences.

Americans get the internet, and are British bloggers' best market

I just found the numbers interesting.

Not just the ones quoted (which is how they attract, and get paid by advertisers), but just a few observations of my own in complement.

I blog prodigioulsy here, but I also often get moved to comment elsewhere.

It just seemed intriguing to me that the author got/gets 65k weekly visitors, yet only 7 commented here for instance. Meanwhile over at the Guardian blog I posted a few days back on the Clean Technology 100, so far... zippy. OK, maybe my crass punt was a put off, but no one else reading felt like lobbing in a wee hello too?

All these folk lurking, with so little to say.

I just have to figure out how to seduce them over here... and then how to make a crust having doen so.

Quote of the day - it doesn't always need to look black

If from an ironic source (the person, not the piece), all things considered, currently:

“Don't find fault, find a remedy. Anybody can complain.”

Henry Ford

News from the retail front

I have had of late to get a bit closer to the innermost workings of the retail world than is healthy.

And a few things have become clear: the shenanigans of their marketing would do Machiavelli proud, and the corporate structures are so rigid, and the level of fear of making a mistake so palpable so as to make the Russian military look like an anarchists' brainstorming session.

A few months ago we approached the manager of our local supermarket with a proposal to hold a little research on shoppers attitudes to packaging by using the RE:tie as the focus. It would help us get data, him get PR, and the store some 'we care about the future' kudos. Win-win-win.

He was well up for it. But... he needed to run it by head office. To OK a stand in the local carpark.

Several months and countless cross shuntings and requests for more and more info (Ans: 'Er, we'd have a table, and we'd ask if folk would see merit in second use ideas being put in pack designs. Maybe like the way Innocent did it, with a 'Yes/no' bin you pop bottles in. Bit of fun, really. Bound to get the local press covering it') from a bevvy of backside-concerned minions later, we got our answer.. from board level: No, best not.

Bless.

So I wonder how many person hours in meetings this bit of genius required:

The Grocer - Tesco Extra takes bags under the counter

'Don't ask..don't tell'. Hey, it works in the military!

Talking Retail - Tesco Extra pushes plastic bags under the counter

MRW - Tesco introduces 'bag on demand' initiative

PRW - NEW - Tesco points scheme cuts bag use - This, however, adds up

Plugging away*

Clean technology 100

Don't know if it counts, but...'...don't try, don't get...'

http://www.junkk.com/ - finding uses for rubbish

Leading to:

http://www.junkk.com/junkkdetail.asp?slevel=0z622&parent_id=622&renleewtsapf=1828

A bit like another cable tie idea in the news today, but sadly not yet as Dragon Den-friendly. Though we'd like to think it also offers business, consumers... and planet certain benefits.

*Sorry, had to go first.

And why not..?

A wee bittie too much doom and gloom around. Time for a wee boost of +vity:)

Meet the CarrotMob

Forget negative campaigning, why not reward green businesses instead - Yay!

...with a group spending spree? - Oh, that's us out then:(

Carrotmob.com

PLAYING THE PERSON - how not to serve the future

On a more than slightly Climate Optimistic blog (all sides need to be understood) I frequent this review was posted:

When I Am King

Which garnered this by way of slick rebuttal. By, no surprise, 'Anon':

'And Delingpole's qualification's for commenting on scientific matters are? He even decribes the programme presenter as a 'Doctor of Geology'. Thee is no such thing.'
I fear a green mist descended:

As it is so critical to some... er... one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iai...ki/ Iain_Stewart

Holy heatwaves! He is not a Doctor of Geology, he is.. a Senior Lecturer instead.

This obviously undermines any credibility a subjective (if one-sided, sort of by definition) humourous critique might have on the value of this person's programme and how it may play with a non-scientific audience.

Sod the arguments pro and con... the critic got the main protagonist's title wrong!!!

I am a committed environmental campaigner, and subscribe to the notion of 'Probably Man-worsened negative climate change, so it's possibly best to find out what we can and then do what's practical and possible to deal with the potential consequences before it's too late.'

OK, it's not as snappy as 'Global warming' but seems to me a bit more accurate scientifically and may even serve to act as a better basis for helping the vast majority of the public to understand the issues, make their own minds up and, if so motivated, DO what they can to help self, others and future.

So I also passionately believe in the power of persuasion as a tool, through education, fact, logic, debate, sharing, understanding and empathy.

I DO NOT see any merit to the cause of encouraging environmentally positive behaviours though the mindset of 'I'm/we're right. If you disagree you're wrong. And it's our ball, pitch and everything in it, so nar-nee-na-na until we bludgeon you into seeing things our... 'correct' way'.

And this is typified by any, and I mean any eyebrow crank on dogma, and/or its various publicists' methods, getting slapped back with totally facile counter-argument. Pretty much top of this list - which never works and simply serves to undermine credibility still further - is to play the person rather than the ball in an irrelevant manner.

Dr. Stewart - scientist, and climate change programme maker: qualified, eligible and well capable of dishing out and taking science-related bouquets and brickbats

Mr. Delingpole - humourist writer and commentator on TV and how it relates to the public: eligible and well capable of dishing out and taking media writing-related bouquets and brickbats

Such as Roger Harrabin, the face of climate change to 60M UK citizens via our objective national news reporting broadcast medium - arts graduate yet (I may have his title a bit wrong, so sue me) environment analyst: questionably qualified, not really eligible and well capable of dishing out if not taking science-related bouquets and brickbats.

At least he is now joined by Dr. Stewart, but some might argue this hardly adds to the heft of the BBC's output on this critical issue, nor indeed the level of balance.

In their little airmiles-cranking bubble ('But... I flew to the Artic to do this piece to camera to raise awareness'!) it might all seem tickedy boo, but whatever a late-night BBC2 or Guardian piece might do for the already converted (though the level of slap being laid on in these major-lite media almost makes even me want to buy a Humvee) hardly serves when hung out to dry in media that do reach a slightly broader audience.

I know that the green-elite ('you don't get backstage at the concert like we do') 'Coven of Climate Concern' wishes the likes of the Daily Mail, Sun/Clarkson or Ch4 'Axis of Denial' did not exist, but they do. Live with it.

Then work around that fact... and their much bigger, more influential (I know they are deemed unworthy of votes in some quarters by never coming up with the 'right' result, but it's still a democracy... just) audiences.

People join you if they like the invitation; not if you threaten them if they don't.

Me, I'm now off to do my thing, make a few more fun things, and share what I'm up to to try make a bit of dough, feed the family and with luck make the future for them a bit better by being a good provider, slightly less selfish world citizen (I hope) and example (I need the audience ratings).

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/ - Sept 18

http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2008/09/earth-climate-wars.html

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/09/biased-broadcasting-climate.html 4:

Caan Do

Just watching James Caan, Dragon's Den entrepreneur, on the BBC News.

I do note that he has a book to sell, but he comes across as a rather charming bloke.

However, I do note major reference to a product he backed, called the 'Rapstrap', by another nice, lucky chap, Andrew Harsley. It is a cable tie variant. Using existing polyprop grade plastic and part-selling on eco-savings.

I think I need look into this. It's not like there is not a precedent.

PROFS POSER - Idle talk saves planets

This is the 'inspiration':

Stuck at a level crossing? Turn off the engine or pay £20 fine

Thing is, if you are not in Prius or snazzy Beemer, when is the right time to switch off, and even if there is one (there must be, like for flourescent bulbs) how can it be assessed in advance (ever switched off in a jam afater 5 minutes, only to find that's when it moves off?).

Thing is, I have an old wife nagging that says starting ans stoping uses 'more' (over a period tba) than shutting down.

All the research that's fit to print

WRAP research shows four main barriers to recycling

The study found that the barriers are:

Physical – when containers for collecting recycling are unsuitable; when there is no space for storage, when collections are unreliable; when people have no way of getting to recycling sites

Behavioural – if people are too busy; if they struggle with establishing a routine for sorting out recycling; if they forget to put it out

Lack of knowledge – not knowing which materials can be recycled; not understanding how their local scheme works

Attitudes and perceptions – not believing recycling is good for the environment; not wanting to sort waste; not feeling personally rewarded for recycling

The phrase 'Well, D'uh!' springs to mind, Closely followed by 'Has this not been done before?', and then 'If not why not; if so, why again?" and... "How much this time?"

Let's see who dutifully reports this 'wishful list'...

We shall fight then in the malls, we shall fight them in the car parks...

Lib Dems oppose eco-towns, back CCS and £2,500 ‘4×4′ tax

Just wondering and all (it's not covered here but may be elsewhere), but when 'Transport spokesman Norman Baker proposed road taxes of up to £2,500 per year on gas guzzling 4×4s, which would help fund £1,000 payouts to those buying more fuel efficient cars', where any plans in place to help my neighbours here in the country who use them on their farms? And when this aspect of car industry collapses through there being insufficient market to warrant production (along with local food production, possibly), I question how well our troops gad about various un-tarmac'd hotspots in armoured Priuses.

Not saying certain areas don't need addressing, but have to say I am a little nervous about the priorities and focus and capabilities of those who would choose to lead outside a rather small village in London.

From your other post they may have a rethink on CCS, but nice to see they suss the wind is blowing on 'eco' (they almost come with quotes now as standard, eh?) towns.

Another day, another 'Day'

It's more a 'why not' than a BTN, but I will still pass it on:

National Carbon Footprint Day

I will pass personally however, as I do most other such days, weeks, pledges, etc. They tend to blur into one another, and I am coming to wonder what the total enviROI adds up to vs. not having any at all, and simply applying the cash and energy to doing more enviro stuff than getting on the awareness/measuring roundabout. And I am still rather unclear what a carbon footrpint is.

But I guess some need rallying points. So here is another, neatly hyperlinked for your convenience: www.nationalcarbonfootprintday.org

NEWS/GO3 PR - Greenprofs.com Directory

Just been told of a new directory that looks well worth being part of if you qualify:

greenprofs.com

And the best part is that it is our favourite kind.... free!

Junkk lauds LA councillor shock!

Barmy bureaucratic bin laws make a mockery of justice says Enfield councillor and magistrate

Go, Tel.. go!

But seriously, this does show such 'initiatives' are not just the scares whipped up by the tabloids.

Data, and how to use it...

Had a few dealings with NISP, and they seem to have a better idea than some...

NISP data may kickstart government waste campaign

Careful you don't wake up next to a horse's head

WRAP seeks packaging partner

I see Dick Searle in there, who I have met and seems pretty straight. Let's see, eh?

• Full details are here . The deadline for submissions is 12.30pm on 8 October.

I doubt it's worth us having a go, mind.

As opposed to 'ineffective', I guess...

Effective mixed plastics collection needed in UK

Not quite being fair, but it does highlight how we are here, and now, at a point where such a headline in an industry magazine is still on the front page.

Interesting also to note my chums WRAP in there, too. Mixed messages are a problem I guess, unless of course you get paid whatever the message is.

EU new car CO2 rules

The EU's rules on all new cars averaging CO2 emissions of under 130 g/km now look as if they are not going to come to pass, as the EU's own internal legal committee has declared the new rules to be illegal, according to this from AutoWired.

Oh, the joys of large scale bureaucracy. You simply couldn't make this up, could you?

PROF'S POSER - Don't chill, man?

For once the question is answered as posed (well, presuming the answer(s) provided by the author below are universally agreed).

Is it better to buy canned or frozen food?

I had actually thought fresh was best, but allowing this option to be a given (or...is it? If an NZ lamb can have a better enviROI than near home... as I have heard it suggested).

The points on freezing being an ongoing energy draw are well taken (which is why we have decommissioned one big effort to no more than an insulated larder in fvaour of a wee one to keep the ice cream and a few other, er, 'essentials'), and the recycling aspect of cans is 'interesting' (another PP on the ground to ground cycle of steel/alumimium per gram of food vs. a plastic sack). As to chilled, well, today I fear I (other 3 not too keen) might well enjoy a salad sideplate with lunch, and mostly for coneveince, but also with a hat-tip to waste (too many soggy, smelly, leaves ejected if not used that day), it may well be an option I still consider.

Priorities People

Indy - The City and keeping the rainforests alive

'Rainforest is worth 75 times more alive than dead.'

'..more good for the cause of climate change than any amount of carbon sequestration projects, wind farms, electric cars, and so on.'

And this is tucked away here because...?

Is there a ban-wagon looming that needs front page treatment more?

The rain in Oz..

...is not was.

My concerns are still more about reporting standards than bias as such, but I have to wonder about this from the BBC email digest:
Wind power speed record bid fails A team hoping to break the world land-speed record for a wind-powered vehicle blames global warming for its failure.

Once you get in at least it settles back on 'climate change'.

I happen to be one that thinks it is daft to trade hot and colds, wet and drys on a year by year basis when dealing with climatic or geographical issues, and hence get rather frustrated when those of a more climate pessimistic bent, and their supporters in the media, throw such things about with gay abandon to try and make cases that seem almost set up to be demolished.

I fear that all I could think was that lack of wind seemed a new one on me, and hard to equate with some reports only the other day with increased hurricane activity. And was it not so long ago there was a lack of rain in Oz? (I am one who will admit to thinking that such extremes are worth wondering about, but not yet ready to pin on man as the only cause).

Can't they all just belt up 'til they, and the rest of us, have a slim chance of knowing what the heck might be going on?

This kind of thing just makes even folk like me want to kick back, which surely has to be counter-productive to their charter-busting, social-re-engineering, subjective agendas.

A plug for plugs

Thanks to a post on a blog, I have been introduced to this:

Plug-in hybrid boosts electric motoring

Of course, I have been moved to write:

I have noted that there are some well-informed contributors here whose education and experience in technical matters I have come to trust more than almost any BBC 'analyst' I have to pay for, especially when overseen by editorial selection by agenda rather than objective fact.

This is an interesting and in many ways exciting story as we confront a future of ever-reducing fossil fuels.

Now I have to confess I fully accept that in an urban setting an internal combustion engine, especially running at idle (though a lot of ads I see - BMW - seems to suggest this can be addressed with ic too) is looking less and less ideal.

But then we need to consider urban and non-urban usage in totality. Being that most of these 'reports' are in the city, by the city and of the city (where one trusts, for the sake of one's charging reliability unless you post an armed guard at the parking bay, no local lads have a pair of tin snips), the whole thing seems to focus on this aspect, ignoring those who live and work in the country and have to pile up and down motorways. I am really hoping that the mindset in luvvie central is not a Prius or G-Wiz in the garage for the CC, and then one jumps in the Range Rover to get to Hay-on-Wye to discuss global warming. Frankly, in the city, why does anyone need a car at all? At least the caption on the wee orange jobbie raises the dilemma that presents. To meet my family/work needs/desires we have to plump for one Volvo estate, which we're looking at converting to LPG (which seems better for planet, and pocket if they don't monkey with the fuel taxes). Many (not all) of these things seem only suitable for singles or in combo with others.

I was thrilled to see that at least we no more have a moppet gurgling that electric is 'pollution free'.

But I'd still just like to know how 'environmentally-better' this option is beyond reduced localised pollution, and against all other options, including hydrogen. I am already wondering about the costs and wisdom of pursuing two such options at once, as the infrastructures are surely going to compete and hence dilute the possible eco-benefits of reduced Co2 emissions (which I gather is the main 'problem') NOW?

Ignoring for now the costs of getting the power of these new sources of energy to the wheels (isn't 'leccy soaring? No wonder our Vince at EDF is a fan, er, 'sous la lune' as we say not in the UK'. Seems also that nuke energy is coming in as a dun deel as I'm guessing the Kingsnorth half dozen have done for coal), I would love to know a bit more about the enviro claims, as that is how they come across here... just claims: if the wording of this, again from an EDF (does the BBC have shares?) rep is scrutinised more closely:

'Toyota's plug-in hybrid offers a 40% reduction in overall CO2 emissions compared with conventional petrol vehicles, according to Mr Hofman.'

I'm sorry, but this reads less and less like an objective report, and more and more like a PR for a bunch of various folk who have a fair bit of dosh to make from taking this direction.

No problem at all with that if it also serves my kids' futures well (by their own definitions of what is important to reduce, now), but not so great if this is just helping a bunch of folk use green, and the BBC's unthinking 'anything that claims to be green is good' to jump on a bandwagon.

Any proper tech/eco/economic insights appreciated. Grin:) (as all involved seemd to share their wisdom with them if you read the piece.

With luck I may get some feedback, and will share any that helps.

It also gives me another new acronym: PR As News - PAN Reporting.

Indy Letters - Been here before

I am old enough to remember both the fanfare that accompanied the launch of the Sinclair C5 – an electric vehicle boasting cutting-edge technology that, we were told, would do away with the need for cars – and its descent to popular object of ridicule ("Make way for the Segway", 8 September). If the Segway finishes its days as spectacular a commercial disaster as its British predecessor, it will be because it failed to take into account its cheaper, faster, greener and greatly more efficient rival – the bicycle.

Yannick Read
Environmental Transport Association

CATEGORY - VEGETARIANISM

Dilemmas abound in the world of green.

And, sadly, nature is not always the best guide. I think I am safe in saying that we, humin beans, are essentially omnivores. And that includes eating meat. It's not strictly essential, but what we were designed for (OK, actually raw, but that can be covered in an appendix... geddit).

And, in the great climatic scheme of things, that is actually a bit of a design fault, if we are also to ignore our developing intellectually beyond the level of pragmatic and practical population balance measures.

There's no getting around the fact that, for a day's worth of sun, an acre of crops feed a lot more folk than an acre of crops feeding a cow... feeding some folk.

So... and accepting it is just another delaying tactic, vegetarianism is another potential mitigation in our march to destruction. Though it does I suppose leave around an awful lot of belching and windy Friesans to serve the cause of greenhouse reduction less well. So, just one last T-bone then?

Note: National Vegetarian Week in May

Links (evolving, natch, as advised or I stumble over new ones)

ARTICLES

Indy - Can you reduce your carbon footprint with a vegan diet?
Guardian - Credit crunch? The real crisis is global hunger. And if you care, eat less meat - I think this is the right place for it. A few other sacred cows ('scuse pun) get dragged in, too - biofuels, population, etc. Nice holiday ads though... somewhere to stay when writing about those on $2 a day I guess)
Indy - The Big Question: Is changing our diet the key to resolving the global food crisis?
Observer - It is time to become a vegetarian?
BBC Newsnight - Is it time to turn vegetarian? I argue with the 'facts' of the statement, not the ethics: In environmental discussions, Mother Nature, or doing what's 'natural' is often cited, in my view rightly, as a good thing. As one of her creations, it seems odd that our omnivorous design is now deemed by many as a flaw.

And the meat-banning advocacy might not serve too well some of the poster children of the climate change movement. Polar Bears or Tigers, for instance.

Whilst seeing the logic in part of what he says, I have to disagree with Mr. de Boer that this option is 'a solution'. At best it is a measure that buys some more time if other factors are not addressed.

Especially with greater affluence bringing currently already quite carnivorous cultures to the... er... table. In their billions. I kinda think we've been here before, too.

Guardian - UN says eat less meat to curb global warming - married to a Chinese with a great culinary repertoire, 'one meat free day' is not a stretch for us.

Guardian - Meathead mayor - I didn't post his piece because I thought he was being a bit silly and unnecessarily provocative (basically 'bacon breakfast, lunch and dinner 24/7, 365/365 - which is how to wind up the Guardian readers and ensure a high rating). QED.

Spiked - Why I’ve got a beef with going vegetarian

Guardian - NEW - Eating less meat won't save the planet

INFO

Veggievision - source of info

SUPPLIERS

One law for the [ ]*

*insert exceptions/interest groups that will not be you here.

I think this op-ed from Ch 4 sums it up best:

We’ve just heard that Greenpeace have won in their legal battle over their protest at the Kingsnorth power station in Kent. They’ve been found not guilty of causing criminal damage in their protest against the coal-fired station. Essentially the Greenpeace argument was that climbing up a chimney and daubing “Gordon” on it was not criminal damage, as it was lawfully right because it was needed to prevent the greater damage caused by the government’s energy policy and resulting carbon emissions. If you like, it was the old argument: you can bash down a door legally, to put out the fire on the other side of it. So where now? Can you go home tonight and chuck paint over the neighbour’s 4x4, to make a case against emissions? Anyone up for super-gluing the gates of the nearest coal-fired power station? I could go on whilst the lawyer is out of the room. But does it actually open any precedent at all? We take a look, hopefully with a lawyer. Precedent is doubtful. Environmentalists have already pulled something similar to this before, damaging GM crops, but beware of wider precedents.

So now, to add to when I go on holiday overseas I can claim I am raising awareness of climate change, I might try spinning some bit of local law-breaking as part of addressing a greater truth, possibly elsewhere. Worth a try, I guess. Always wondered what lay beyond those flood gates.

Guardian - Policy, not protesters, should be on trial

Times - Protesters cleared over damage to power plant

Spectator - Greenwashing A Jury - Not a good few days for jury decisions to some, but also not great to those who then decide they don't like the result. The system was used, and delivered its result. Seesm to me there was a failure by the prosecution to prove their case. Maybe not enough irony-free experts flown over from the USA to further help, um, 'awareness'?

Pitching envROI

Subsidised recycling is poor value for money

An interesting piece. Whilst there is little to disagree with in matters of fact, the slant taken become significant. Here an almost pure approach to the financial aspects in terms of return is considered. One can almost imagine that at the other extreme there might be one in the Guardian with uncritical green-tinted glasses advocating the 'environment', no matter what.

Such a shame, as surely between the enterprise and the social there is something more valid in terms of money possible, that can both serve the needs and interests of the planet and those upon it.

An attempt to encapsulate these economic AND environmental principles is attempted in the definition of enviROI*

It is hard to put subsidy and value for money together in the same sentence without accepting the 'value' of the social benefits that are gained.

Rationally, 'wasting' anything cannot be a good thing, and sticking raw materials back in the ground lacks a certain logic, unless one looks at it in a purely short term, time-dependent monentary manner. Surely this is evident by virtue of some landfills being considered for mining now? One has to wonder, much as one would putting one's 1960's mass-production sports coupe on blocks until now, what the 'value' might have been of setting aside useful materials in a segregated manner ready for economies re-embracing into the manufacturing system now. Nothing is infinite. So anything that does not tackle a problem and shunts it away is only a delaying tactic imposed on the future. Understandable, if not laudable if there is no imperative to even think about the problem, much less solutions, but very dubious if clear issues have been identified on the horizon.

I fear I must therefore take issue with the defence of landfill just on the basis of there being more places to stick stuff. It doesn't seem very nice, and it doesn't seem to make much sense.

Therefore my personal advocacy is much more energy (mental, that is) is devoted to more creative ways of reducing our waste in the first place, and making more of that which is, I accept, inevitably produced and discarded. Reduction, reuse...recycling. I fear the current cabal who should have/be addressing this for long enough - government, LAs, quangos (so many quangos), manufacturers, retailers, and even many media - have so far been WOEFUL, if not plain dishonest. At best we have bazzillions going on disjointed systems, little empires and epic comms budgets, all of which seem primarily designed to make it the poor public/consumer's problem.

I agree about the targets. I agree about the jobsworths. But also I agree about the green-blinkered groups, who see anything that is not consumerist as therefore automatically 'good' when, if I understand the debate correctly, the key issue now is Co2 emissions rather than stuff in the wrong place... or generating methane in an unmanaged way. Hence silly ban-wagons that make some feel good when in fact pumping more up in the air than was before.

Sadly, this debate already seems polarised. It's either landfill or recycling. I rather like to think there may be something in between that occupies a satisfactory middle ground and even, god forbid, ticks a few boxes, too.

What a waste of a country

I sometimes wonder if I am getting too jaded by the system.

In passing, I added a few blogs past a link to an ITV recycling expose with little comment as I was not terribly surprised. I have long known, and been disgusted by the fact that recycling collection targets are based on amounts that tick boxes rather than actual value of recyclate. So big fat bonuses and careers are forged on the acquisition of a spurious 'thing' that makes bureaucrats wet themselves but serve the environment little. And yet it happens so often, in so many places, I cease to bat an eye.

But then I happened to read a blog post from some others who, it is safe to say, care, and until this point had some faith in the system. I still care, a lot, but as to faith in the system...

A Rubbish Service TV programme on ITV1

Addendum - It may be viewed for a period here*

Their sense of anguish and frustration was... is frankly palpable. And little wonder.

With all we know. And all that is being said, and claimed, and claimed to be done, and spent, and even after the exact same thing being brought out by the BBC (remember the Grosvenor situation? Though the Fred Pearce book (reviewed here) does have an extra insight into some aspects) years ago, the general public gets shown this.

How on earth will any group cohesion be possible on a national level when we are exposed to fines and abuses in the name of green at one end, and such rampant disarray (being charitable) at the other?).

It seems to me it is only by letting the will, and good will of the people to blossom will anything sensible take shape. Almost all the pols, LAs, consultants, advisors, officers, research and myriad of other 'eco-posts' are but expensive, distracting, 'jobs for the boys' drains on actually doing what's right and proper for our kids' futures.

My only concern is that the main way I can try and effect change, through my vote, will be ineffective these days as I simply cannot pin down, and hence target those who are responsible and give them the career and financial kicking they deserve. And so the rumbling ship of.. in a state will simply plough on, regardless. What a waste of a country.

Newsnight -

Last night ITV ran an expose of the state of our national recycling policies and systems, whereby an OAP seems eligible to be sent to Elba for popping an extra cabbage leaf to their bin, yet the person in charge of such a policy at their LA has no clue where container loads of 'recycling' (note: the tonnages box-ticked are only on what it is (might be); nor whether it is any use to man nor beast) goes, but for sure will be ready first in line to get their bonus for an all round sterling job.

http://www.itv.com/News/tonight/episodes/Arubbishservice/default.html

I am minded of a BBC expose back in Dec 2005 that covered pretty much the same thing.

http://junkk.blogspot.com/2005/12/tiger-in-turkey-hut-more-like.html

What, if anything, has changed, bar the bonus structures on an index-linked basis, plus what's shaping up as a terrific 'guilty 'til proven still guilty' revenue-collection system?

Maybe when our convoy of governance has got back from its outing to trying to run the country again without more wheels falling off, maybe one of the succession of environment Ministers (past and present... maybe even Mr. Milliband?) might be invited to waffl... comment on how we have come so... er.. far.

I really don't see much point in all these stories if they are not followed up and the protagonists held to account.

* I have now watched the programme - first up the usual quango talking heads waffling and promising investigation and action. Heard that before? What amazes me is that this still goes on and those involved (inc. pols, LAs, etc) seem to think that they are immune from the consequences. But on such evidence, maybe they are right.

It is good that there are such programmes, but I have to wonder what the follow-up will be.. after the last one. But at least this time the point was made about the level of penalties we are being subjected to in the UK on a personal level, and maybe if enough of us get miffed enough at such rampant inequality and hypocrisy we may decide to get angry enough to react.

I did/do have to wonder how it came to be that the UK waste processor seemed to accept some highly contaminated waste quite stocially and simply passed it on as 'damaged goods'. Surely they should fire it straight back as rejected? Money talks, surely?

These highly paid government servants and fat cats cannot be allowed to weasel out of this based simply on a huge number of 'don't knows'. One agrees the public may feel 'let down', but suggests we continue recycling. That's all well and fine (note that word). But there are people accountable, and they should be held to it.

Green Halo

It's a new term I am playing with for things that seem to be fine in a 'why not?' way, but seem to have also been accorded a clunky bit of green in the process to , er, 'help'.

And this is a terrible example by being actually the exact reverse.

Driving instructors get green light from DSA to teach students 'eco-safety'

It's a bit of green with a clunky bit of 'why not?' attached.

Thing is, I am not sure it is serving the message of either too well by being so clunky.

I can get my head around driving safely, and being taught how to be even more so. I can also sort of get an eco-version, though much is plain common sense, but a few I have read about (Not here) might save a bit of gas but are certainly not helping safety at all.

But all in all, if I ever hear 'Eco-safety' like this, I'll ru... drive a mile... fast.

Good job I am not being asked to do another test... yet.

Times - Eco-safe driving: more lessons, more money - All becomes clear. And gives sensible green advocacy and even steeper slope to surmount... in 3rd, of course.

Newsnight - Post 3.

A lot is explained

Politicians need wisdom when chosing green regulation

An interesting discussion around the Two E's, plus a worthy link as well.

A small reminder

I thought this letter in the Indy today was well articulated:

Energy policy about to hit the iceberg

Your correspondents ("Bringing down the cost of solar panels", 4 September) are not just re-arranging the Titanic's deckchairs, they are busily hammering holes in her hull. Yes, you can make anything appear viable by offering subsidies, but artificial "feed-in" tariffs, renewables obligation certificates and support for biofuel producers merely transfer the economic costs to the taxpayer and the environmental costs to the planet.

Most renewables, particularly micro-generation, do not just leave users out of pocket; in many cases their production and distribution absorb more energy and emit more carbon than the units will ever pay back. By contrast, turning down the central heating or putting out some lights costs nothing and saves money on the next bill, not in 160 years.

We must recognise that reducing our energy consumption is essential, because all forms of fuel are running out, because we are increasingly dependent on foreign regimes for our supplies and because most energy use causes CO2 emissions. We must have an energy policy which includes sustainable sources such as underground coal gasification, geothermal energy and community-based combined heat and power. Unlike most renewables, these offer energy 365 days a year. Wind and solar have a place when they can be installed on an industrial scale at the point of use, but those who believe they will allow us to continue our squanderous lifestyle while saving the planet are recklessly deluded.

Thing is... are we really surprised?

Main parties 'reneging on green promises'

Well, we all know what a 'pol's promise' is owrth at best. Butthis could equally lurk in the 'Two E's" category as a reson if not excuse.

What's missing from this headline...

..is 'Probably Man-Worsened...', my preferred prefix.

Found after 300m years: rainforest fossils show how climate change could look

Mainly because we are looking some 299m years before the first Humvee.

A point not missed by some already or, I suspect to come, others.

Doesn't make things easy, does it?

PROF'S POSER - Where's an actuary when you need one?

The other day these bits of paper arrived.

At first I was going to bin them, but then I had a read, and as a consequence of that called up the sender.

You see, our washing machine is at last 10 years old. Still doing a sterling job, bar a few hiccups year on year that have been resolved.

Thing is, I don't recall ever seeing such an insurance before, so they must n=know what they are doing.

The deal is not cheap, coming in at well over £100 a year. But the up side is tempting. They either fix it if...when it dies, or give us a new one.

Now, my main aim is environmental (no, really) in that I like the notion of repair if at all possible (lord knows what the enviROI on a call-out is), but I was also wondering about the numbers.

Being that a new one is around £2-300, does it make any sense to take out such a policy at this stage?

Oh, what a tangled web...

Now I am the first to admit that this little spit 'n sawdsut operation is more than prone to the odd IT-boo-boo.

You don't want 'em, or like 'em, but they happen.

So it is always reassuring when someone oodles bigger cocks up.

Assuming they didn't mean to address me this way, of course.

How to get in the news: screw up a bit less

Or, 'Stats they way, uh-huh, I like it'.

I know it is good to big up positives and if it's local it has to be good, but you have to wonder what basis news rooms shape their stories. Mabye just a great press release?

Seems our very own Severn Trent water service is the most improved for complaints with some measure or other (I'd never heard of it before). I know this thanks to BBC Midlands Today (will try and get the link - er, good luck via the awful BBC search feature).

Great.

Thing is, as far as I could gather, this accolade is more a matter of the % they have improved from a rather dire level before. So, from god awful to just awful gets you in the media, it seems.

I wonder if there are any out there just doing well and no better than before, and how they feel?

I even had a category ready

This deserves its own gig. More so by being in the Guardian:

Elitist evangelists

I am hard-pressed to figure out what the £30k 'damage' was/is, but 'if you commit the crime, you do the time', etc, I guess.

However, this is one CiF I'll watch from the sidelines.

Telegraph - NEW - Climate change chicanery - The author is a major climate optimist, and hence all written should be viewed in this light but, if true, the point about the function of an expert witness in a legal trial is a good one, and I'd like that question on how two advocates came to be used in this role was allowed.

CATEGORY - TV SHOWS

Haven't created a category in a while. Here's a new one.

BBC

Earth: The Climate Wars - one down, 2 & 3 next Sunday and the one after

ITV

A Rubbish Service -

I might even get round to a re:view every so often. Mind you, I keep missing 'em! Most najors now have a week long follow-up window. Then... YouTube/iPod is your friend?

Where does what we recycle go to?

Of course our local authorities ensure that all recycled rubbish is accounted for and properly and usefully handled, don't they?

Well, not so, according to this from the Telegraph a few days ago.

200 authorities DO know exactly where recycled rubbish ends up.....
but, 135 are unable to confirm where recycled rubbish goes......
and 20 have no idea whatsoever where it goes to!!

I had cause to be briefly back at home when the recycling lorry made it's collection last week, and my eyebrows rose considerably higher as I watched the guys empty our carefully separated paper, glass and metal into, you've guessed it, one single mixed container! On top of this, now it seems that no-one can genuinely account for where it goes too!

Its beginning to make me wonder whether the weekly rubbish sort out is worth the effort.

Addendum (JM) -
Telegraph - Do we waste too much?
Telegraph - The European Union's recycling regulations are a failure

ITV - A Rubbish Service - Missed it, but really there are too many these days. Sounds like more of the same. Worth doing, but the lack of change in the face of such exposes is telling.

RE:VIEW - Confessions of an Eco Sinner, Fred Pearce

The things I end up doing.

Here I am (well, there I was, so long, so very long ago now), on holiday, chilling out, and yet still one in my literary entertainment armoury was still work.

And there it is. On the table of a Turkish sailing yacht, surrounded by the paraphernalia of a decent sunny break.

Thank heavens for the title, then. It's hard to do a re:view, especially if it is of an eco-tome, without at least giving nod to the fact that where one is, what one is doing and how one got there cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be deemed to be very 'green'. In fact, and this is something I intend to revisit later, during my two week break I had to concede that almost no aspect of the travel industry is designed (even if reasons may vary) to involve much that is reduce, reuse, recycle or anything else that helps the planet. It's all short term, lots of using, going and quick bucks which, when it comes to economics vs. ecology, presses the scales pretty much one way.

Now this book is not only about tourism and, in fact, though there is a lot of travel involved, deals with this aspect rarely (unlike Leo Hickman's 'Final Call', which I have yet to address (and still mocks me over there with all its sticker notes poking out) despite having read it a long time previously - this is just fresher in my mind). It is more to do with the stuff of our day to day lives, and the wheres, whens, whys and hows of how it gets to be here from a lot of there.

First the good news. I learned a lot I did not know before, and it is written in a style that is easy to digest. I do wonder, as I have and will with all such publications, who the audience might be, especially who might fork out £12.99 (now £11.69) for the privilege. Though well researched, ordered and presented, the facts are all pretty much 'out there', for free, thanks to the likes of Tim, Larry, Sergey et al. So you are paying more for the authority of the author to access worthy sources, and his ability to put things in meaningful context. Which, for the most part Fred Pearce does very well.

I'm pondering a book myself, as it is (well, seems) a good way to at least crank some profile and maybe even make a few bob. But there are dilemmas abounding. No matter how recycled the stock, and offset the endeavours, there is no getting around the certain irony of something designed at the very least to stir some critical awareness of the consequences our consumer-driven, travel-addicted ways on the planet and others... pretty much through involving a whole bunch of consuming and travelling. I continually wonder how much awareness Mother Earth can withstand, but only so long as those whose careers and funding depends on them being entitled to go about their business (which can often be a pleasure, too) whilst in essence laying out why it is 'bad' for anyone else to do so.

These are to me the blinkers of the 'green elite', who somehow can't, or won't, get their heads around the fact that most could only dream of being paid to follow a global path over sea, sand or snow, or be called to chat with a multi-billionaire in his castle about his legacy visions.

On balance, the author mostly steers this dodgy path quite well, though there is no doubt his is a career built on saying rather than doing. And not doing a fair bit of what he says others shouldn't, or should at least feel just awful about if they do. At least he does not come across as holier than thou, and more valuably often does raise certain 'truths' as being less great for the planet than some advocates would have you believe.

So, from the gold in your ring to the offset (I didn't) not on your conscience, if this is the kind of thing you like to read to raise your awareness/information levels sensibly, I'd say it's a good one.

Junkk Rating: JJJJ

At last, a less than ideal solution

I tend to find that most eco-initiatives seem to take as their base a rather ideal start point.

Hence I am pleased to share this, sent in by one of the forums I am member of:

Old Home Superhome

As it says:

Old Home SuperHome is an ongoing programme to transform the energy efficiency of existing housing stock in the UK, with the ultimate aim of reducing domestic carbon emissions by 60%.

Read more here...

The scheme is building and promoting a network of exemplar, energy-efficient old dwellings, which will be local and publicly accessible, within 15 minutes, to nearly everyone in the country.

Click here to use the interactive map and find a superhome near you!

There are not too many (yet) but guess what, there is one near me! I feel a visit is in order. With a house whose structure covers six eras, and but one room with cavity walls, I have felt a lot trotted out by various bodies was totally irrelevant to my living situation.

This seems much more practical.

Camden Council - Low energy Victorian house refurbishment

Applications on a (recycled) postcard...

'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Well, for sure there have not been many brilliant minds applied so far, at least of those that have made the most noise.

'What if Tim Berners Lee had been working in a solar [power] laboratory? Perhaps he would have done it there as well. '

Hmnn, and if Einstein had been working for Greenpeace, he could have invented biofuel.

Guardian - NEW - Reach for the stars

Karma

Funny.

I was just pondering what best to go with this, the latest genius insight from Dilbert, when I was sent this by Dan of Greenbang.

UK clean tech innovators look to move abroad for cash.

Don't know about 'young talent..' but the way things are "There is a danger that some very smart technologies could move offshore..' can add another to its list.

Maybe the US is no better? I doubt it. I guess I should head to Birmingham today. I hear the government is there.. listening away.

Making a splash

This is not so much about the environment, but about the state of science and its reporting.

Last night I watched a doco on a tsunami that was supposed to have happened in the Cro-Magnon era of human existence in the Mediteranean.

Seems a slab of Etna on Sciliy may have slid down and sent out a wave a 100' high that washed the East shores clear.

And I recall a similar recent progamme about the Caanry Islands whereby the US eastern seaboard is soon to be wiped out.

Now, I am all for awarness and preparation, but I do rather wonder what, other than getting some worried, such as the latter really achieves.

But I also wonder about the science. In both shows, the most telling demo is when a slab of material is rushed down a slope in a lab to impact a model of a water feature. Sure enough, by the end a dirty great wave was impacting the other end.

Thing is, whilst accpeting the sheer power of the forces, but I do have to wonder about the relative sizes we're talking about here. A small section of an island in an entire ocean does not seem comparable. Nor does the 'route' being a narrow channel constrained by perspex. The energy disapation in a radial manner over tens of thousands of square miles would surely absorb a heck of a lot?

However, when an entire undersea shelf drop/rise over multiple miles takes place, as it did with the Boxing Day tragedy, that is a different kettle of fish.

Watching the box

I don't sense the main thrust is enviro, but this may be worth following:

The Box takes off on global journey

2 B or nt 2 B?

Texting is doing for our bees?

Electronic smog 'is disrupting nature on a massive scale'

Worth noting that a lot of what 'we' do/demand/expect in our modern lifestyles can adversely affect nature.

Now, the odds of many, especially vocal eco-types (esp. yoof), giving up their moblys...?

Green tops

I'm sure that it has been/will be mentioned (I usually get a PR from them on everything), but this is so far how I came by some not insignificant Green political news of note:

Ch4 - GREENS PICK FIRST LEADER
The Greens have elected their first outright leader, after many years getting by with mystifying multiple arrangements. Caroline Lucas MEP.

There were always passionate defences of the old system, but it did seem to have problems. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Inspiring, no?

Robbing us of renewables

Let's have a look inside that pudding, then

I have long cautioned against throwing about sky falling stats and deadlines that can prove problametic if they don't deliver, even if it is just within timeframe.

This is especially true of matters climatic, where nature seldom moves to the beat of the next soundbite.

We live in a literal world, and if your prediction fails to meet claim or expectation, that's going to be a problem.

I vaguely recall a twinge of unease in this regard when this was first outed.

Now, while such as this is littered with 'likely's' and 'could's', the confidence level was pretty high that this would 'make people more aware of the effects of climate change'.

But all I am seeing is references to this, the fact that his wish was granted and he couldn't make it, and not really always in the best way to inspire a climate cautious outlook. So, simplistically, does the fact that he was unable to get there mean "we really are no longer in deep trouble."

I don't know, but I am not sure that he proved what he set out to in the best way possible. There are positives and supporters, but in today's media age I fear I have read a lot more on the fact that the point was not made, and hence...?

'If the glove doesn't fit only works' if it doesn't... and you have a got lawyer. Of course it helps to have a team. And a PR crew. And lots more shrinking wilderness to highlight by all going there (how?) mob handed next time. Hmnn.

BBC - Kayaker's climate change trip

EU Referendum - Idiots Abroad - An unfair headline in my view, but it does rather show how these things need to be throught through.

Times - All this rain . . . obviously global warming - QED

I spent 40 years forecasting the weather, and I can tell you that this was in many ways as normal a British summer as we could expect

Michael Fish, the former BBC weatherman famed for his “no hurricane” forecast in 1987

In the deep end

I am just watching the news coverage of the consequences of the last few days heavy weather.

My ears pricked up at a report from Tenbury Wells which, it seems, suffered badly. But, and taking the media's rather spectacular way of quoting things into account, it seems the mood there is 'why were we not warned?'.

Contrast this with my situation. Here in Ross-on (and, at times -in) -Wye we are not unfamiliar with the perils of flooding. Nothing as bad (yet and, fingers crossed, ever) as others around, but it can get quite hairy.

So I was perturbed, and took quite seriously the message on my mobile and complementary email that arrived soon after to tell me that we were up for a serious flood and I should take all measures and hit the high ground. I even called the Environemnt Agency to ask what was meant by that. The chap said that it meant what I said. So I called BBC Hereford & Worcester. A nice lady there said she didn't know as they just read out what the EA gave 'em, but a lot of folk like me were calling up to ask the same thing.

Thing is, 18 hours later... nada. Well, a puddle. As I look out the window not even the lake on the footy pitch between my house and the Wye, which is a regular feature of swollen rivers in the frequent past.

Now, I am all for 'better safe than sorry', but I have to now question the value of all these systems. On the one had they either didn't work or didn't apply where they were needed... and frankly were a more than a little OTT where they patently were not... at last this time.

I just have a nasty sense of a box being ticked and backside being covered. If our house had been hit then smug smiles all round. No actual help, but I couldn't say I hadn't been told. But inasmuch as I paid little heed this time, with reason, I fear my faith in the next means its value may be even more reduced.

I guess it is difficult, but the sheer level of inaccuracy seems astounding to me in this day and age (this is not where Gustav may make landfall; this is the progress of a surge down a river valley of about 20 miles in length that could have had me evacuating my family overnight), and I have to wonder how much is ploughed into looking like stuff is being done vs. actually doing things. In this day and age, why am I not surprised?

Addendum - Mon 9, 10am - Interestingly, having been warned Friday, if have just been advised that there is no longer any concern. Thing is, as I look out my window the waters are about as high as they have been so far.

Times - Bad building, not heavy rain, made these houses flood

AWARD - environmentawards.net

Not so much an award; more a route to applying

AWARD - Shell Springboard 2008

WHEN: Deadline Nov 7
WHAT: Shell Springboard 2008
WHAT... MORE?: A programme that provides a financial boost to innovative, low carbon business ideas from across the UK. The idea behind the programme is that the business response to climate change should not be all about compliance and cost. There is a huge business opportunity if society is to move from a carbon-constrained world.
The criteria for those businesses which apply are very simple. Applications will be considered if the product or service will lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emmissions, is commercially viable and is innovative.
HOW MUCH: Free, but work required
URL: http://www.shellspringboard.org/about/
COMMENTS: We've tried before. But will go again. Seems worth a punt.

EVENT - Big Debate: young leaders or green saviours?

WHEN: 15th September
WHAT: Big Debate: young leaders or green saviours?
WHERE: ICC, Birmingahm
WHAT... MORE?: The event, organised by Birmingham City University, follows research into attitudes and influences in developing green policies, reviewing how individuals can proactively apply green lifestyle choices in the workplace.
HOW MUCH: Free, but limted spaces
URL: http://www.bcu.ac.uk/green/debate.html, http://www.thebigdebatebirmingham.co.uk/
COMMENTS: See you there... watch out for the pink Junkk Vac:Sac backpack!

Whoops, he said. From his cosy study.

UK's top boffin: Renewables targets were 'a mistake'

"I think there was some degree of confusion at the heads of states meeting dealing with this,"

Fortunately, the poor loves 'confused' by such complex issues will not be likely to suffer the consequences as much as those who have paid them all their lives to get to grips with such things.

Along with, apparently, CEOs of vested interest energy supply companies, etc.

As to my dear old Mum, however...

Left Hand. Right Hand. And what's inbetween

I often derive a small measure of amusement from unintentional combinations, and have been known to share in other's misfortune.

So here's one of mine I just noticed as a bit of Friday fun:)

It's not just who you know

There's a rather dusty, cobweb-bedecked page on the main site called 'Legal Eagles'.

It's there to post and share little snippets from the legal world of business that affect us and, in possibly you too.

Hence I'd like to pass on this from dotmailer, who handle our regular (I'd love to write 'monthly', but that's still an ambitious commitment I am unsure I can meet yet) newsletter mailouts.

Are you registered as a Data Controller?

As pointed out the fee vs. fine makes it a smart thing to do if you have a mailing list.

We have been registered from day 1. And have in place all checks possible to protect the data held on our behalves. Not too terribly sure what the ICO does to make things better, as all they have ever done is sent us an invoice, but there you are.

Little acorns?

In the spirit of pushing BTNs I share...

Sainsbury's and HP buddy up on recycling jamboree

However, a day at a store smacks of a stretch.

See, oh... who cares? If it has carbon in it something will stick

Keeping up with carbon jargon

All I know is an awful lot has already been committed to stuff based on definitions no one has yet to agree on, let alone understand or get behind.

Just the facts, Ma'am

A worthwhile piece (ongoing series) by Auntie:

What the survey didn't say...
The myth of counting
Putting percentages in context
Just what is average?
Just because?

With luck her reporters, anlaysts and commentators (and others) may take heed.

What the guys who sell you stuff think...

Will consumers pay more to buy green?

So... who can think of a way to go green without asking anyoen to pay more?

Anyone?

Thrift usurps green at top of the new consumer agenda

...5...4...3...2....1...then what?

Recently I have been rather bombarded by PR, reports, and then reports about PR, and then stories about reports about PR about a movement behind our race having 100 months to a 'tipping point'.

As this is all a bit close to the whole climate change 'discussions' I have wearied of, I have tended to ignore it all as, rather typically, we have ended up with two camps, 'pro' & 'con', though I am not exactly sure, if they are either, of what they are advocating, or why.

If it's a hurry up call, well OK, but history has kind of shown me that the chicken little approach seems to be brought out a tad too often, and a tad too precisely, and often to serve all sorts of other agendas.

What concerns is that, though this is dealing in matters of years (well, a decade), it is still a) a bit far off for most folk to get their heads around (especially pols fighting for their jobs and families their finances) and b) once (if?) we get that far and at 9 years, 11 months and 30 days if the measure is missed for any reason (and there could be many), it will be yet another (and there have been a few), for the more vocal climate optimists to add another alarmist scalp to their rather one-sided view of what's what.

Thing is, outside of some rather, how to put it, usual suspectesque outlets, this essentially 'end-of-the world is nigh' prediction hasn't exactly yet set the major media or many 'official' outlets alight as yet. And while I am more than concerned, self evidently, the origins of all this have already got my eyebrow cranking simply because of what is being said, they way it is being said and the provenance of some of those saying it all.

Here's 'a' link about it from the Guardian, though I do wryly note their non main-news g2 section, so I almost missed it: The final countdown

Can you imagine if a telescope spotted a meteorite that in 10 years was going to write our race off?*

ps; What got me on this eventually was being berated for not replying to a 'poll' on a forum that offered me only choices of tipping point from 2 years to twenty. As I am not qualified and hence have no idea, as this was not an option I declined to respond.

Rather typically, of those that did the 10 year assessment is now being touted as a more substantive measure. I am unsure of the make up of the rest of those 'polled' (don't forget the only correct answers presumed a certain view), but I very much doubt they are much different to me, so this already smells of a pr exercise that can and will lead to some rather uncritical journalistic reporting as 'fact' very soon.

Which, IMHO, serves few of us well. Well, some may disagree:

Spread the word about OneHundredMonths.org

(Early pollsters can give themselves a small back-pat for being in the 1-10 years bracket... 100 months being around 8.3 years...)

Personally I feel this adds some fresh light to the recent discussions around “putting more coal on the global bonfire” and highlights the importance and wisdom of Climate Camp...

I am not saying they (who ever they are) might not be sincere an have many good points, but in my main area of interest - how things play with the public - if I am already cranking an eyebrow there have to be questions, again, on methodology.

BBC - Climate crisis: Roosevelt revisited

Guardian - NEW - How can we save the planet in 99 months? Over to you - When this latest little effort popped up I must confess I passed; along with pledges, I rather view deadlines in this arena as at best pointless and at worst a potential set up for a fall. However, in reading this the intention seems at least noble and with latest reminder there at least looks to be a spirit of proactivity. So good luck.

I of course would advocate reuse and designed in second use, as espoused and promoted by such as http://www.junkk.com , representing a worthy compromise between economic constraints, majority consumer (ie: those who may not select the Guardian as first choice of daily, and hence actually are more significant as a public force of influence) behaviours and the chance that we really should get around to re-addressing a lot of what we currently do pronto.

Sadly, at current count this is but one of only a few that actually have tried to answer the invitation. The rest, totalling some 15 to date, being the near inevitable 't'is/t'isn't' 'warmings' (a sort of climatic flame exchange) from various camps that rarely seem to serve much bar heating things up a tad more. Sigh.



*In case you are interested

Well, they asked... in the Guardian

A pensioner who uses the wrong recycling bin is fined more than a violent thug. Call that justice?

More Geo-engineering Ideas

The latest in a long line of suggested methods of geo-engineering the earth to limit warming involves throwing large sprays of salt water into the air to encourage cloud formation as reported today in the Yorkshire Post.

There is also a summary of other geo-engineering concepts in the Indy today too.

Some ideas seem rather off the wall, but it is all very interesting stuff.