My reply to this: A first-class rip-off
"The planet breathes easier as we speak. Not.
Interesting that the PR airline machine has here decided to go for a fiscal comparison.
There is a lesson in this, however. If our leaders (especially those in capital cities) are sincere in us using the most eco-effective method of travel, it may make sense to make them cost-effective as well, by way of incentive?"
Monday, January 08, 2007
Martin in the Middle
As predicted, and feared, I am seeing eco-issues being stretched to extremes by the various camps with vested interests: If the eco-snobs had their way, none of us would go anywhere
I see our value now in trying to be a voice (hopefully of reason) for the middle ground:
'In the world of green, things are seldom black or white. Unless of course, you are in government, an activist... or the media.
For the rest of us poor slobs, weighing information and exhortation can be less than satisfying.
Things tend only to get published if they are at extremes. Or have extreme solutions.
Hence if you think everything is more tickedy boo than being doomsaid you are a climate denier, and if you think things may being erring on the dodgy and may need some allowances you are an ecosnob.
Here’s a bit of engineering for you. If one person takes a pebble from a dyke it will hold. If they keep on doing it likely will still hold as they are just one. But if they are joined by more and more it will eventually fail. And no technology can plug that gap if the combined efforts of individuals are determined to erode them.
Even those who demand freedoms have a responsibility to themselves, their fellows and the future to adjust their expectations and actions.
It’s a mess. Something has to be done. But what has been, is being and looks like being done doesn’t fill me with much confidence. All I see is battle lines. And while wars get fought little else happens and certainly nothing much positive. Meanwhile those who could be harnessed to help hunker down as the broadside sail overhead.
Maybe we have become too used to mobility, not just socially but also though necessity, especially for business. And here the policy makers have to figure out what they want and facilitate it.
But then the ‘its my right’ brigade need to meet somewhere (I’ll avoid halfway). I can visit my relatives in Singapore by means other than air, just as my Victorian ancestors did. If I am demanding the convenience and time and cost of an airplane that’s another matter. It isn’t the only method.
With an ever expanding and more affluent population, worldwide (China: fifty airports coming soon. They do of course have a child limitation policy to compensate, though it seems the rich can circumvent this. Was it ever thus), what does the author anticipate? Sorry if it takes her a bit longer to get to the opera or pop over to Verbier to catch the snow before it has gone for ever (there’s always a longer haul to Canada), but some poor sods walking across the Kalahari to find water, not factored into the carbon trading scheme, may feel certain restrictions of movement are in order.
Of course the government has seen what’s coming, but if yesterday's report is to believed and their solution is to tax households who add ‘value’ to homes via double glazing then we can see what their motivations and hence use as leaders really is.
Personally, I’d prefer to see about avoiding a Malthusian scenario by assuming that if something didn’t happen once before it won’t again. That’s a bit like jumping off a building and because you land on a truck full of mattresses (it happens all the time in movies) it will be there if you do it again.
If we really are facing an environmental crisis, maybe we can innovate and engineer our way out of it, but to give us the time to do so (it would be great for instance if we had figured out what to do with all that nuclear waste we assumed we’d have a solution for by now) before we are all toast, I’d suggest we accept we all need to cut back a tad.
Doing it fairly and equitably of course, is where the real fun begins. At least DOING whatever we can is a good start. But perhaps accepting that we DON'T DO everything we need not is a reasonable thing to consider as well?'
I see our value now in trying to be a voice (hopefully of reason) for the middle ground:
'In the world of green, things are seldom black or white. Unless of course, you are in government, an activist... or the media.
For the rest of us poor slobs, weighing information and exhortation can be less than satisfying.
Things tend only to get published if they are at extremes. Or have extreme solutions.
Hence if you think everything is more tickedy boo than being doomsaid you are a climate denier, and if you think things may being erring on the dodgy and may need some allowances you are an ecosnob.
Here’s a bit of engineering for you. If one person takes a pebble from a dyke it will hold. If they keep on doing it likely will still hold as they are just one. But if they are joined by more and more it will eventually fail. And no technology can plug that gap if the combined efforts of individuals are determined to erode them.
Even those who demand freedoms have a responsibility to themselves, their fellows and the future to adjust their expectations and actions.
It’s a mess. Something has to be done. But what has been, is being and looks like being done doesn’t fill me with much confidence. All I see is battle lines. And while wars get fought little else happens and certainly nothing much positive. Meanwhile those who could be harnessed to help hunker down as the broadside sail overhead.
Maybe we have become too used to mobility, not just socially but also though necessity, especially for business. And here the policy makers have to figure out what they want and facilitate it.
But then the ‘its my right’ brigade need to meet somewhere (I’ll avoid halfway). I can visit my relatives in Singapore by means other than air, just as my Victorian ancestors did. If I am demanding the convenience and time and cost of an airplane that’s another matter. It isn’t the only method.
With an ever expanding and more affluent population, worldwide (China: fifty airports coming soon. They do of course have a child limitation policy to compensate, though it seems the rich can circumvent this. Was it ever thus), what does the author anticipate? Sorry if it takes her a bit longer to get to the opera or pop over to Verbier to catch the snow before it has gone for ever (there’s always a longer haul to Canada), but some poor sods walking across the Kalahari to find water, not factored into the carbon trading scheme, may feel certain restrictions of movement are in order.
Of course the government has seen what’s coming, but if yesterday's report is to believed and their solution is to tax households who add ‘value’ to homes via double glazing then we can see what their motivations and hence use as leaders really is.
Personally, I’d prefer to see about avoiding a Malthusian scenario by assuming that if something didn’t happen once before it won’t again. That’s a bit like jumping off a building and because you land on a truck full of mattresses (it happens all the time in movies) it will be there if you do it again.
If we really are facing an environmental crisis, maybe we can innovate and engineer our way out of it, but to give us the time to do so (it would be great for instance if we had figured out what to do with all that nuclear waste we assumed we’d have a solution for by now) before we are all toast, I’d suggest we accept we all need to cut back a tad.
Doing it fairly and equitably of course, is where the real fun begins. At least DOING whatever we can is a good start. But perhaps accepting that we DON'T DO everything we need not is a reasonable thing to consider as well?'
Sunday, January 07, 2007
The Gord giveth. And the Gord taketh it all back (and some)
A monstrous tax , if the article is true, says it all.
Already pointed out a few times, the fact that adding double glazing gets you penalised is about as insane as it gets.
"I've just up in to read this after a hard week's work followed by an equally hard, if satisfying, weekend of DIY to try and make more of my
home (including some more eco-additions). For which it seems I am now going to be further taxed!!!!!
So here's one not-very-well-off, very enviro-aware homeowner with a family to provide for, then self and spouse to get through retirement, who also happens to be a registered voter and knows what their vote is for.
I know who is not getting it. I just hope I can find someone in (or trying to get there) the lunatic asylum that is Westminster who can demonstrate they have enough of what it takes (common sense, sesne of duty, statespersonship, courage, no spin-doctor gatekeeper/mouthpieces, etc) to attract mine their way.
Small tip: you don't get a good grasp of what the average, normal, decent, hard-working people of Britain are managing on and think about the state of it all in a multi-millionaire's pad in Florida, cozying-up with the chattering classes on a Breakfast TV or Sunday paper political columnist's sofa, hugging a husky or selling on a gas-guzzler to keep on guzzling.
I just hope that the claim about this tax is not true - I went from 'Homes TO BE valued...' to ...WITH A VIEW to extending them in the UK... to 'a similar system is BEING PLANNED for England'.
Before I start boiling the oil: is it or isn't it going to be attempted? - as I am at the end of my tether with the whole sorry, unfireable, hypocritical, index-linked, golden handshaken lot of them.
And, sadly, what is true there are an awful lot now. I'm guessing it has at last sunk in they’ll need paying for. But THIS is not the way to try and solve that little self-created problem.
Trust me."
Already pointed out a few times, the fact that adding double glazing gets you penalised is about as insane as it gets.
"I've just up in to read this after a hard week's work followed by an equally hard, if satisfying, weekend of DIY to try and make more of my
home (including some more eco-additions). For which it seems I am now going to be further taxed!!!!!
So here's one not-very-well-off, very enviro-aware homeowner with a family to provide for, then self and spouse to get through retirement, who also happens to be a registered voter and knows what their vote is for.
I know who is not getting it. I just hope I can find someone in (or trying to get there) the lunatic asylum that is Westminster who can demonstrate they have enough of what it takes (common sense, sesne of duty, statespersonship, courage, no spin-doctor gatekeeper/mouthpieces, etc) to attract mine their way.
Small tip: you don't get a good grasp of what the average, normal, decent, hard-working people of Britain are managing on and think about the state of it all in a multi-millionaire's pad in Florida, cozying-up with the chattering classes on a Breakfast TV or Sunday paper political columnist's sofa, hugging a husky or selling on a gas-guzzler to keep on guzzling.
I just hope that the claim about this tax is not true - I went from 'Homes TO BE valued...' to ...WITH A VIEW to extending them in the UK... to 'a similar system is BEING PLANNED for England'.
Before I start boiling the oil: is it or isn't it going to be attempted? - as I am at the end of my tether with the whole sorry, unfireable, hypocritical, index-linked, golden handshaken lot of them.
And, sadly, what is true there are an awful lot now. I'm guessing it has at last sunk in they’ll need paying for. But THIS is not the way to try and solve that little self-created problem.
Trust me."
Friday, January 05, 2007
DMlemma
Asa creative person, especially one who had some fun and did some good (King of the Die-Cut!)with Direct Mail, I am always now on the horns of a dilemma when it comes to this as a medium of advertising.It's not looking too good for the industry: Industry braced for fresh backlash
Mind you, as I survey the DL sized kuk from banks, etc in my rubbish bin, I'm pretty sympathetic to the public's view.
But every so often a little bit of creative magic finds its way to being opened and read.
One such is this from Save the Children.
Basically, it's a boring brochure. But by making it a kid's exercise book and shooting holes I was hooked by it and the message. Which isn't a bad one either.
I doubt an email would have worked the same way. And I also assume that it did not cost a fortune to make this impact.
Year End Sail
This is another one that's a bit late, but still relevant: Santa's ship swaps gifts for garbage
But it also allows me to further test the links between our site articles, this blog and the newsletter.
Other than that, it rather makes you think... and want to weep.
But it also allows me to further test the links between our site articles, this blog and the newsletter.
Other than that, it rather makes you think... and want to weep.
An oldie, but a goodie
Long term blog partner Dave of Solarventi (see how sending us stuff brings its own re:ward) has kindly sent me this - Carbon trading for all will save the planet! - from last year.
He is old, I am old. The article is old. But we are all still gold!
It also lets me christen a new Blog category - CARB - which is where what I suspect a slew more 'let's make a killing out of green' tripe will appear more and more.
I have written to the author, as he is on the ball and I find his style more than in keeping with ours:
"I have just been forwarded your July posting (we may be slow, but we get there).
Bearing in mind how Sir Young and Thrusting is shaping up elsewhere in the environess, I found it fascinating, if a worry. I want to save the planet for my kids. Not end up making no difference except to some pols' careers and various interest groups' short, medium and long term cash cow rearing.
I'd be please if you could let me know when you publish any similar such analyses."
We may not want to beat them, but we can at least keep trying to knock them back onto the straight and narrow:)
He is old, I am old. The article is old. But we are all still gold!
It also lets me christen a new Blog category - CARB - which is where what I suspect a slew more 'let's make a killing out of green' tripe will appear more and more.
I have written to the author, as he is on the ball and I find his style more than in keeping with ours:
"I have just been forwarded your July posting (we may be slow, but we get there).
Bearing in mind how Sir Young and Thrusting is shaping up elsewhere in the environess, I found it fascinating, if a worry. I want to save the planet for my kids. Not end up making no difference except to some pols' careers and various interest groups' short, medium and long term cash cow rearing.
I'd be please if you could let me know when you publish any similar such analyses."
We may not want to beat them, but we can at least keep trying to knock them back onto the straight and narrow:)
If a tree gets recycled in a Council shredder, does the planet smile?
This is a 'just askin', because I don't know.
I just watched BBC lunchtime news, and at the end we had the obligatory and expected post-Xmas eco-pitch.
First up we had the tree man from the council, and then the Xmas card man from Woodland Trust giving us some free ads for Tescos, TKMaxx and WH Smiths, who will take back your old cards and 'use them' (not sure how) to plant trees. If I remember a recent Tesco ad right, they also get turned into loo paper. So no leaving any holly in them, now!
All better than nothing, I guess. Well, of course nothing is better than making, buying, sending, delivering and recycling cards that say 'Happy Xmas, How's Things' each year. I must did out my blog on how they really mean 'Hope you're still alive. We are', for all the useful information they ever hold.
We're on our 15th Xmas with out fake tree, bought in Singapore waaay before I decided to do right by the planet. And it will stay with us until the loft gives up.
Next year I intend to get to the bottom of the real vs. fake debate. No idea how it will turn out. On balance I figure letting a new one grow must be good for the carbon thing, but there is all the other stuff to factor in. Our fake comes down, goes up. That's it.
And it was the scene at the end as the vanilla with the mic and the worthies in their parkas watched a fir tree enter the maw of something like the 'Dip Dispenser' in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'. It was huge. And had a huge diesel that revved and belched and turned out wood chips. I just wonder whether that met a target for recycling at the expense of serving the environment
I just watched BBC lunchtime news, and at the end we had the obligatory and expected post-Xmas eco-pitch.
First up we had the tree man from the council, and then the Xmas card man from Woodland Trust giving us some free ads for Tescos, TKMaxx and WH Smiths, who will take back your old cards and 'use them' (not sure how) to plant trees. If I remember a recent Tesco ad right, they also get turned into loo paper. So no leaving any holly in them, now!
All better than nothing, I guess. Well, of course nothing is better than making, buying, sending, delivering and recycling cards that say 'Happy Xmas, How's Things' each year. I must did out my blog on how they really mean 'Hope you're still alive. We are', for all the useful information they ever hold.
We're on our 15th Xmas with out fake tree, bought in Singapore waaay before I decided to do right by the planet. And it will stay with us until the loft gives up.
Next year I intend to get to the bottom of the real vs. fake debate. No idea how it will turn out. On balance I figure letting a new one grow must be good for the carbon thing, but there is all the other stuff to factor in. Our fake comes down, goes up. That's it.
And it was the scene at the end as the vanilla with the mic and the worthies in their parkas watched a fir tree enter the maw of something like the 'Dip Dispenser' in 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'. It was huge. And had a huge diesel that revved and belched and turned out wood chips. I just wonder whether that met a target for recycling at the expense of serving the environment
Mouths of Babes
There's a site called postsecret, where folk post 'confessions'.I only share this one because so far it is the one that's been used in every review I've ever read.
I wonder why?
A Mighty Wind
Nimbys can't be allowed to put a block on wind farms
Oh, really?
"Currently there is no turbine on my house roof. I got all excited by a B&Q ad that told me I could go green without going into the red, and with the initial endorsement of Newsnight's Ethical Man and one D. Cameron (though I believe both have now either decided against or been turned down), I charged ahead. And then stopped. The numbers didn't seem to add up. Not just the financial, but even the environmental ones. It's one thing to pay a bit more to save the planet, but quite another to pay a bit more to hasten its demise. I'm still checking, but when ROIs (on any measure) don't add up you have to question the value. I'm also assessing 'green' electricity. But now tempered by some legitimate questions.
A long time ago, I was granted a Civ. Eng degree, if only on the strict proviso I didn't try and build anything. So I ended up in advertising and, now, by way of karmic correction for the consequences of that career move, the cause of making the planet a better place for my ancestors. What this gives me is a fair grasp of science, with a slight sense of how the public respond to information, be it purveyed by government, experts, NGOs, the media, etc.
And to repeat the clichés trotted out before and here, what is amazing is the amount of hot air and/or wind being generated to so little effect. Almost without exception, we have 'them vs. us’ lines being drawn, just as they are with other enviro-issues, such as 4x4s.
The article author bears some responsibility. I rather view 'Nimbys' as a pejorative right away, closely followed by '...can't be allowed...' as presumptuous. The political leanings of councils is noted, but in a democracy they can be seen to reflect the wishes of those who voted for them.
"Every year, wind energy gets closer to profitability" is interesting. While profitability is one thing, what about enviro-ROI? Charge what you like to make it make money, but the eco-cost stays the same, especially if no one can afford to use its 'product' and stays away. It becomes a white elephant.
Labour should not feel smug if the things don't work on the bases they are supposed to do. It merely means they have gone for an easy option for short-term political gain.
And so I turn to the responses for enlightenment. Few moved my knowledge ahead.
"hoodlight - So close to a fact, but no more use than Ms. T's. I would love to see it attributed.
Rumplestiltskin - No answer to the question there then. As noted.
Swoosh - No facts there, either.
NickRouse - some good 'pro' stuff there, ta. I shall enjoy checking this out (sadly, I have found even facts to be subject to rather huge levels of interpretation/substantiation) and cross fingers.
addicksboy - Valid pros and cons, ta.
NevNumbat - I was aware of these, though they may be addressed, at least as e-ROI by the claims made in support of the cost of build and maintenance over lifespan vs. benefits of generation. I'd have to question the 'waste' argument, sorry.
tomper - A stat often ignored. And with finite earth upon which to stand, where does an ever-increasing population suggest as an end point?
redsquare - Another near fact. Any attribution to test reliability and assess capacity/capability.
MalachiConstant - If you would care to get in touch via http://www.junkk.com, I would value your contribution and substantiation behind such claims for an attempt I am making to at least state the pros and the cons to help people decide, free of political, commercial or sociological bias.
snoepje - A very good point. But that simple?
shlick - An equally good point, and in part may be tied to the one before. Ignoring enviro and £-ROI's, can a windmill run our economy and expanding population?
ColvilleAndersen - I just ask, because I don't know (in the process of finding out), but what is the population of Denmark, and what is the ratio of wind available to power the demands of their economy?
Bonzaboy - The information exchanged here is certainly making a difference to me, and I intend it to make one to others. As to leaving it to the pols... yes, do all you suggest. As well.
contractor000 - The same offer applies to you as to your learned colleague. While citing qualifications helps validate opinions, I would hope that we can still allow those with training in assessing facts to stray into other areas. Otherwise we end up with a MoMo (Monckton/Monbiot) spat about who is more qualified to speak on a subject and/or for us mere mortals.
xhenry - Covered, but well worth repeating.
Personally, I think they can be structures of rare beauty, when placed with care. And if they provide 'free' power after payback that’s even better.
But for anything to be so pushed down our throats by the 'green is good no matter what, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi' brigade, they also need to be proven as delivering environmentally. Which I do not see from this article, and still have several reasons to doubt.
Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."
Oh, really?
"Currently there is no turbine on my house roof. I got all excited by a B&Q ad that told me I could go green without going into the red, and with the initial endorsement of Newsnight's Ethical Man and one D. Cameron (though I believe both have now either decided against or been turned down), I charged ahead. And then stopped. The numbers didn't seem to add up. Not just the financial, but even the environmental ones. It's one thing to pay a bit more to save the planet, but quite another to pay a bit more to hasten its demise. I'm still checking, but when ROIs (on any measure) don't add up you have to question the value. I'm also assessing 'green' electricity. But now tempered by some legitimate questions.
A long time ago, I was granted a Civ. Eng degree, if only on the strict proviso I didn't try and build anything. So I ended up in advertising and, now, by way of karmic correction for the consequences of that career move, the cause of making the planet a better place for my ancestors. What this gives me is a fair grasp of science, with a slight sense of how the public respond to information, be it purveyed by government, experts, NGOs, the media, etc.
And to repeat the clichés trotted out before and here, what is amazing is the amount of hot air and/or wind being generated to so little effect. Almost without exception, we have 'them vs. us’ lines being drawn, just as they are with other enviro-issues, such as 4x4s.
The article author bears some responsibility. I rather view 'Nimbys' as a pejorative right away, closely followed by '...can't be allowed...' as presumptuous. The political leanings of councils is noted, but in a democracy they can be seen to reflect the wishes of those who voted for them.
"Every year, wind energy gets closer to profitability" is interesting. While profitability is one thing, what about enviro-ROI? Charge what you like to make it make money, but the eco-cost stays the same, especially if no one can afford to use its 'product' and stays away. It becomes a white elephant.
Labour should not feel smug if the things don't work on the bases they are supposed to do. It merely means they have gone for an easy option for short-term political gain.
And so I turn to the responses for enlightenment. Few moved my knowledge ahead.
"hoodlight - So close to a fact, but no more use than Ms. T's. I would love to see it attributed.
Rumplestiltskin - No answer to the question there then. As noted.
Swoosh - No facts there, either.
NickRouse - some good 'pro' stuff there, ta. I shall enjoy checking this out (sadly, I have found even facts to be subject to rather huge levels of interpretation/substantiation) and cross fingers.
addicksboy - Valid pros and cons, ta.
NevNumbat - I was aware of these, though they may be addressed, at least as e-ROI by the claims made in support of the cost of build and maintenance over lifespan vs. benefits of generation. I'd have to question the 'waste' argument, sorry.
tomper - A stat often ignored. And with finite earth upon which to stand, where does an ever-increasing population suggest as an end point?
redsquare - Another near fact. Any attribution to test reliability and assess capacity/capability.
MalachiConstant - If you would care to get in touch via http://www.junkk.com, I would value your contribution and substantiation behind such claims for an attempt I am making to at least state the pros and the cons to help people decide, free of political, commercial or sociological bias.
snoepje - A very good point. But that simple?
shlick - An equally good point, and in part may be tied to the one before. Ignoring enviro and £-ROI's, can a windmill run our economy and expanding population?
ColvilleAndersen - I just ask, because I don't know (in the process of finding out), but what is the population of Denmark, and what is the ratio of wind available to power the demands of their economy?
Bonzaboy - The information exchanged here is certainly making a difference to me, and I intend it to make one to others. As to leaving it to the pols... yes, do all you suggest. As well.
contractor000 - The same offer applies to you as to your learned colleague. While citing qualifications helps validate opinions, I would hope that we can still allow those with training in assessing facts to stray into other areas. Otherwise we end up with a MoMo (Monckton/Monbiot) spat about who is more qualified to speak on a subject and/or for us mere mortals.
xhenry - Covered, but well worth repeating.
Personally, I think they can be structures of rare beauty, when placed with care. And if they provide 'free' power after payback that’s even better.
But for anything to be so pushed down our throats by the 'green is good no matter what, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi' brigade, they also need to be proven as delivering environmentally. Which I do not see from this article, and still have several reasons to doubt.
Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Wonder what you can recycle in Boreham Wood
And I don't mean timber!When I was Creative Director of my agency, we isntituted a thing called the Creative Review Commitee (CRC), whereby, David Brent-wise (cue holding up two fingers as in apostrophes), 'nothing is a bad idea'.
Well, of course there is a lot that can be, how do you say, 'not necessarily a good idea', either. And that was where the CRC was used as a first line of defecne to shoot down the dire, the obvious, the silly, the trite, the cliched, the boring and, hand in hand with this, the really bad puns.
Out they'd trot, we'd laugh, say no and move on to create the good, make a difference concepts that communicate and effect a useful result.
So seeing money my taxes contributed to (then given (minus cut) to the EU to give back (minus cut) to HMG to give (minus cut) to a Quango NGO to give to (minus cut) and agency to create and give to (minus cut) the media) used for such tripe is... a bother.
At best I, who has a sliver of interest in all this, may say 'Huh?, but what exactly is yer average SKY mag reader going to do? Drive from Reading to Cardiff to recycle their cards?
I love posters, and banner ads. You have to get a full story and message across in eight words or less.
My views on blowing all this dosh to tell people to recycle and what they can recycle are well known. But to do it this badly is a real waste. Especially when it's so self-serving, as the only direction to ad is pointing is at the website, and the stats on the website will be used to justify the spend.
Meanwhile, a lot of great little initiatives (ours included) are either not being funded or finding themselves competed with by those staked to aid us. Nuts.
Just make sure you wash them
Nothing wrong with this ad at all. It's very... 'green'But what does 'British Grown' mean, environmentally?
Especially when they may or may not get shipped to another country to be packed. And is grown in a heated bubble 400 miles away really that good?
That's the trouble with greenwashing. What you have done, or do elsewhere can stain the rest.
'Up to' their old tricks?
My eye was caught by this ad, which offers 28 miles extra per tank, which is almost 10% of mine, or £5.What it doesn't say is how many p/litre extra we're talking, but I guess at that gain it's worth doing the maths.
But what, exactly, and without any asterisks, does 'up to' mean?
So much to hear. So little to say.
I would love someone to explain what the point is to this news snippet.Other than the choice 'efforts' (as in, 'nothing need come of it, but we can say we tried... and issued a PR'), did the publication in question ponder for a moment asking where or how this could take place, if it does at all?
Everyone's (still) talking at me, but I can't (be bothered to listen, let alone) hear a(ny more) word(s) they're saying (...again)
It's the new year!
Let's talk conferences. Not just ways to meet and talk, but also make money meeting and talking. As to actually doing anything, well...
Sorry, I'm jaded.
Here's the first of what will be many, but it's a goodie:
BP, Ford, Ben & Jerry's, Stop Climate Chaos, and others talking climate change 7-8 March in London
Dear Colleague,
Everyone is talking - if not going - carbon neutral. At least that's the way it seems. "Carbon neutral" was recently named Word [or two words, or phrase, shouldn't that be?] of the Year [that, or rather they, say a lot right there] for 2006 by The New Oxford American Dictionary.
Looking back, last year may end up remembered as the year that climate change went "mainstream," catapulted to the spotlight by major media outlets around the globe. And if 2006 was the Year of acknowledging climate change, it's time to make 2007 the Year of communicating AND acting on climate change.
Yaaaay, and this will cost me...how much?
I got to '...and to take advantage of the £100 early registration discount.' and gave up. That means they want at least £1k to talk some more.
Talk... about a waste.
Let's talk conferences. Not just ways to meet and talk, but also make money meeting and talking. As to actually doing anything, well...
Sorry, I'm jaded.
Here's the first of what will be many, but it's a goodie:
BP, Ford, Ben & Jerry's, Stop Climate Chaos, and others talking climate change 7-8 March in London
Dear Colleague,
Everyone is talking - if not going - carbon neutral. At least that's the way it seems. "Carbon neutral" was recently named Word [or two words, or phrase, shouldn't that be?] of the Year [that, or rather they, say a lot right there] for 2006 by The New Oxford American Dictionary.
Looking back, last year may end up remembered as the year that climate change went "mainstream," catapulted to the spotlight by major media outlets around the globe. And if 2006 was the Year of acknowledging climate change, it's time to make 2007 the Year of communicating AND acting on climate change.
Yaaaay, and this will cost me...how much?
I got to '...and to take advantage of the £100 early registration discount.' and gave up. That means they want at least £1k to talk some more.
Talk... about a waste.
Frying pan. Fire. No food.
Go green, Farmer Giles
"As with so many things in environmental debates, I confess to suffering from a slight lack of objective, factual information to help me follow debates.
One issue involving the above that has generated concerns for me surrounds so-called bio-fuels.
I have a vision of, and hence problem with the notion of driving, carbon-neutrally, through our green (or whatever colour bio-fuel crops are) and pleasant land, trying to find something locally-produced to eat. Should we not be encouraging moves towards less transport and more local production of essentials?
While it may work for Brazil (on the assumption they haven't whacked down green-lung rain forests to do so), they have a tad more space to play with. Do we?
Given the option, I'd prefer to stick with food."
"As with so many things in environmental debates, I confess to suffering from a slight lack of objective, factual information to help me follow debates.
One issue involving the above that has generated concerns for me surrounds so-called bio-fuels.
I have a vision of, and hence problem with the notion of driving, carbon-neutrally, through our green (or whatever colour bio-fuel crops are) and pleasant land, trying to find something locally-produced to eat. Should we not be encouraging moves towards less transport and more local production of essentials?
While it may work for Brazil (on the assumption they haven't whacked down green-lung rain forests to do so), they have a tad more space to play with. Do we?
Given the option, I'd prefer to stick with food."
It's a gas, gas, gas
Couldn't resist: An Ill Wind
"For my sins, I once did two years of a vet degree, before deciding it was nothing like James Herriot and gave up. However, having witnessed my tutor stick a pipe in a heifer's exhaust and generate a jet of flame, I even then wondered if this could be harnessed (what does methane produce on combustion... I must find out. Carbon dioxide I bet), much like I wondered about those flames at oil refineries.
Meanwhile, back on the farm, if methane is 25 times more onerous a greenhouse gas to carbon dioxide, and the rest of the stats that will be bandied about (stated as fact, rebutted, climate denied, accused of being in the pay of big oil, accused of shoring up charity directors' pension funds, etc) approximate to something significant, then while it originates in humour it should be taken seriously.
I have hence decided to add a section to my website http://www.junkk.com on matters effluent, and it shall be called 'Pooh Corner'. It should entertain my ten-year-olds at least, but if they get some kind of message after the Beavis & Butthead snickers subside, it will be worth doing.
For what it's worth, a while ago I noted a small piece about some UK researchers, I think in Scotland, who had made serious progress on a feed that did in fact reduce the toots and, as mentioned above, make for a better 'product'. I’ll dig it out and add it.
Maybe we'll soon be seeing less of the 'Angus' burgers being advert, but more where the 'g' - standing for 'green', is silent?"
"For my sins, I once did two years of a vet degree, before deciding it was nothing like James Herriot and gave up. However, having witnessed my tutor stick a pipe in a heifer's exhaust and generate a jet of flame, I even then wondered if this could be harnessed (what does methane produce on combustion... I must find out. Carbon dioxide I bet), much like I wondered about those flames at oil refineries.
Meanwhile, back on the farm, if methane is 25 times more onerous a greenhouse gas to carbon dioxide, and the rest of the stats that will be bandied about (stated as fact, rebutted, climate denied, accused of being in the pay of big oil, accused of shoring up charity directors' pension funds, etc) approximate to something significant, then while it originates in humour it should be taken seriously.
I have hence decided to add a section to my website http://www.junkk.com on matters effluent, and it shall be called 'Pooh Corner'. It should entertain my ten-year-olds at least, but if they get some kind of message after the Beavis & Butthead snickers subside, it will be worth doing.
For what it's worth, a while ago I noted a small piece about some UK researchers, I think in Scotland, who had made serious progress on a feed that did in fact reduce the toots and, as mentioned above, make for a better 'product'. I’ll dig it out and add it.
Maybe we'll soon be seeing less of the 'Angus' burgers being advert, but more where the 'g' - standing for 'green', is silent?"
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Trust me, I'm a Pol trying to save my bac.. the planet.
The enemy of my enemy...?
Who would have thought I'd ever side with Mr. O'Leary?
But with this - Fight over Brown’s ‘green’ levy - I have.
" am no great fan of Mr. O'Leary or his airline, but good luck to him.
Retroactive legislation is the thin end of a very steep wedge.
"... the tax, which the Chancellor claims will benefit the environment, will be applied to any passenger with a current booking made before the announcement was made."
Good claim. How, exactly, will this benefit the environment? The flight is taking place anyway. EasyJet may considering barring those who refuse (who would/can?) and that may mean a few kg less to lift, but the actual environmental impact is the same. Just some extra money going to... what, exactly?
Yes, ways must be found to resolve the environmental impact of travelling, and soon, but this will just create a 'them and us' divide which will make conversion of opinion and behaviours that much more difficult."
Just last night I was watching TV and in one break there were two ads for cereals. One with actor Ray Winstone talking about the nanny state, and the other with a load of 'official robots' trying to stop you eating tasty food. The industry and the government going to head to head, with the latter using our money to wage it so they can play with the ad agencies.
Pathetic.
ADDENDA:
Let's get this straight. I don't think the existence, financial incentives and hence proliferation of a mjaor greenhouse gas industry can be a good thing.
What I don't like is when 'green' is used to 'bash and tax' without thought, or only with a view to making a money and not a difference.
Knock yourselves out trying to figure who is coming out of this well:
BBC - Airlines savaged over environment
Reuters - Minister criticises Ryanair on emissions
Guardian - Labour targets airlines over carbon emissions
Guardian - Rise of low-cost flights comes at high price
Telegraph - Virgin holds talks on low-cost long-haul flights
Telegraph - Ryanair 'unacceptable face of capitalism'
Who would have thought I'd ever side with Mr. O'Leary?
But with this - Fight over Brown’s ‘green’ levy - I have.
" am no great fan of Mr. O'Leary or his airline, but good luck to him.
Retroactive legislation is the thin end of a very steep wedge.
"... the tax, which the Chancellor claims will benefit the environment, will be applied to any passenger with a current booking made before the announcement was made."
Good claim. How, exactly, will this benefit the environment? The flight is taking place anyway. EasyJet may considering barring those who refuse (who would/can?) and that may mean a few kg less to lift, but the actual environmental impact is the same. Just some extra money going to... what, exactly?
Yes, ways must be found to resolve the environmental impact of travelling, and soon, but this will just create a 'them and us' divide which will make conversion of opinion and behaviours that much more difficult."
Just last night I was watching TV and in one break there were two ads for cereals. One with actor Ray Winstone talking about the nanny state, and the other with a load of 'official robots' trying to stop you eating tasty food. The industry and the government going to head to head, with the latter using our money to wage it so they can play with the ad agencies.
Pathetic.
ADDENDA:
Let's get this straight. I don't think the existence, financial incentives and hence proliferation of a mjaor greenhouse gas industry can be a good thing.
What I don't like is when 'green' is used to 'bash and tax' without thought, or only with a view to making a money and not a difference.
Knock yourselves out trying to figure who is coming out of this well:
BBC - Airlines savaged over environment
Reuters - Minister criticises Ryanair on emissions
Guardian - Labour targets airlines over carbon emissions
Guardian - Rise of low-cost flights comes at high price
Telegraph - Virgin holds talks on low-cost long-haul flights
Telegraph - Ryanair 'unacceptable face of capitalism'
Wild of the call
Cameron's 'buy British food' call
My take:
"A clear way to see what you are eating, where it came from and how it gets to you?
Logical. Simple. Effective.
Let's see when and if it ever happens, and how 'the system' makes it into an unworkable monster."
So far, so talk. I await with interest how any of this gets translated, if ever, into action.
A less thrilled view from Janet Street Porter
My take:
"A clear way to see what you are eating, where it came from and how it gets to you?
Logical. Simple. Effective.
Let's see when and if it ever happens, and how 'the system' makes it into an unworkable monster."
So far, so talk. I await with interest how any of this gets translated, if ever, into action.
A less thrilled view from Janet Street Porter
Chuffed
"Are we being priced off the trains?"
Good one. But I shall answer, with an equally straight face: Yes; and have been for ages. This just makes things even worse.
No matter what one's environmental commitment, when you are faced with a service of limited flexibility and/or reliability, £25 for a spontaneously-committed tank of petrol - and the option of coming straight home rush hour, mid-late evening or early morning if needs be - looks pretty good vs. being forced to wait 'til 7.30pm to return and then risk being stranded at a mid-West connection point, all requiring paying a month in advance at £80. Plus £4 for a tube ride once there, I now gather!
But in the name of Green, why do I suspect that the option to use the train will not be made more attractive, but the alternatives will simply be penalised even more? Talk about a drag and drop menu for disaster.
Thank heavens I work from home, but sadly, and my heart goes out to those who have to do it daily, one will always need to travel.
Indy: Planes, trains, and the road to ruin
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Fix in the mix
As part of my daily trawl I try to take in a broad spread of 'leanings', media-editorial-wise. And it can be a hoot to see how some perceptions get shaped.
Take this: Pro-hunting lobby group accused of fixing poll
For a start I found it fun that they were accused of 'fixing' in the headline, but this got downgraded in copy to 'distorting'.
And I loved that there were "suspicions that there was an organised campaign at work", bearing in mind our dealings with the BBC on matters of voting. What, exactly, is the point of such a poll, if you are going to worry about the result of those who care enough to vote investing the time and/or money in distorting the result you want?
It's also worth seeing how others treated the same piece of slooooow news:
THE INDEPENDENT
Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.
DAILY TELEGRAPH
Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.
THE TIMES
More than half the voters in a Today programme poll wanted to abolish
the law banning fox hunting.
DAILY MAIL
Hunt supporters have swamped a Today poll to discover the law most
people want scrapped.
Take this: Pro-hunting lobby group accused of fixing poll
For a start I found it fun that they were accused of 'fixing' in the headline, but this got downgraded in copy to 'distorting'.
And I loved that there were "suspicions that there was an organised campaign at work", bearing in mind our dealings with the BBC on matters of voting. What, exactly, is the point of such a poll, if you are going to worry about the result of those who care enough to vote investing the time and/or money in distorting the result you want?
It's also worth seeing how others treated the same piece of slooooow news:
THE INDEPENDENT
Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.
DAILY TELEGRAPH
Today listeners have voted to scrap the law banning fox hunting.
THE TIMES
More than half the voters in a Today programme poll wanted to abolish
the law banning fox hunting.
DAILY MAIL
Hunt supporters have swamped a Today poll to discover the law most
people want scrapped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)