In the interview referred to in my last post, Mr. Miliband made a fair point when challenged about relative actions. But it's hard not be struck by today's Guardian lead - China passes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter - and a rather smaller associated plea - 'Are you doing your bit?' - in the same piece.
Now, as my sons titter, and some quango-funded PC-brigade try and figure out how to bust me for that headline, I can only agree with Mr. M that it does probably make his job a lot harder when he meets his Chinese counterpart if we are doing diddly to put our own house in order.
But....
I'm afraid that, as the man to convince me of anything, much less the wisdom of saving my own future, he is not proving the most inspired of choices... or messengers.
Bar this one reasonable retort, in the interview he was not convincing at all. And the examples of what 'we' are being called upon to engage with and/or do are not doing much either.
Even his 'defence' of the point regarding the example of his soon-to-be-ex-boss' predilection for jumping on a plane at the sound of an envelope being opened was fudged, and deliberately spun away without giving any answer. So why should we listen... or act? And speaking of China, the book I am reviewing, Last Call, paints one heck of a picture of the imminent Asia tourist industry. Scary.
You need more than facts to persuade. You need trust. And passion.
I am looking for what's right to support and do, but on this basis I'm afraid Minister. M is not looking like the one to deliver it.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Maybe we need a calculator to calculate the best calculator
Just watched on BBC Breakfast TV Environment Minister David Miliband (for some, unexplained, reason sitting in an internet cafe) talking about the latest 'carbon calculator'.
The first question from the interviewer was the best: why do we need another?
It's a fair point. There are many. According to Mr. Miliband it is 'the gold standard' (see my initial review below). So that's OK then.
And, having calculated away, I wonder what exactly I'll do except file and forget.
Why do I get the odd feeling that a few boxes got ticked in the Ministry and Television Centre (today's eco-slot... check), but little else will get done.
Anyway, it has been done, and as I was about to post I got this nice letter, which I duly pass on:
20/06/2007 08:00
Dear Sir
I know readers increasingly want to do their bit to help combat climate change - and knowing about your carbon footprint is a good way to start.
That's why we have this week launched a new online CO2 calculator, where people can find out their carbon footprint. The calculator will also suggest the practical steps we can take to cut our emissions and, often, save some money as well.
Things we do in our everyday lives have an effect - good or bad - on the environment. And more than 40 per cent of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions come from our homes and travel.
Most of us have become a bit greener already - for example, nearly all of us are into recycling now - but there are lots of other things we can do to reduce our impact on climate change.
Whatever your lifestyle, the Act on CO2 calculator will give you practical pointers about how to cut your emissions, tailored to the way you live.
To check out your carbon footprint, and find out what you can do about it, log on to: http://www.direct.gov.uk/actonCO2
David Miliband
Environment Secretary
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
London
SW1P 3JR
Sadly, having logged on, I was confronted by a wall of complicated, slow, time and energy-sapping fancy graphics that got in the way of simply getting to the point. So I gave up. And I have fast broadband. I wonder if others, and especially those at home with possibly slower lines, will be more dedicated.
Junkk.com gets a few justified brickbats for some aspects of design and navigation, but it gets a lot more bouquets for being quick, and giving you what you want, or pointing you at it, very quickly. And in a fun, interactive, real-person to real-person web 2.0 way.
So as an exercise in genuine ROI, I wonder how much this committee-created, ministry multi-layer sanctioned drain on the taxpayer cost, and what it will achieve for that money?
Should you have any thoughts, they are keen to hear from you: Feedback on the calculator can be emailed to calculator.feedback@defra.gsi.gov.uk
The first question from the interviewer was the best: why do we need another?
It's a fair point. There are many. According to Mr. Miliband it is 'the gold standard' (see my initial review below). So that's OK then.
And, having calculated away, I wonder what exactly I'll do except file and forget.
Why do I get the odd feeling that a few boxes got ticked in the Ministry and Television Centre (today's eco-slot... check), but little else will get done.
Anyway, it has been done, and as I was about to post I got this nice letter, which I duly pass on:
20/06/2007 08:00
Dear Sir
I know readers increasingly want to do their bit to help combat climate change - and knowing about your carbon footprint is a good way to start.
That's why we have this week launched a new online CO2 calculator, where people can find out their carbon footprint. The calculator will also suggest the practical steps we can take to cut our emissions and, often, save some money as well.
Things we do in our everyday lives have an effect - good or bad - on the environment. And more than 40 per cent of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions come from our homes and travel.
Most of us have become a bit greener already - for example, nearly all of us are into recycling now - but there are lots of other things we can do to reduce our impact on climate change.
Whatever your lifestyle, the Act on CO2 calculator will give you practical pointers about how to cut your emissions, tailored to the way you live.
To check out your carbon footprint, and find out what you can do about it, log on to: http://www.direct.gov.uk/actonCO2
David Miliband
Environment Secretary
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
London
SW1P 3JR
Sadly, having logged on, I was confronted by a wall of complicated, slow, time and energy-sapping fancy graphics that got in the way of simply getting to the point. So I gave up. And I have fast broadband. I wonder if others, and especially those at home with possibly slower lines, will be more dedicated.
Junkk.com gets a few justified brickbats for some aspects of design and navigation, but it gets a lot more bouquets for being quick, and giving you what you want, or pointing you at it, very quickly. And in a fun, interactive, real-person to real-person web 2.0 way.
So as an exercise in genuine ROI, I wonder how much this committee-created, ministry multi-layer sanctioned drain on the taxpayer cost, and what it will achieve for that money?
Should you have any thoughts, they are keen to hear from you: Feedback on the calculator can be emailed to calculator.feedback@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Careful what you wish for
An interesting question in Brand Republic, that leads to a Marketing article that doesn't seem to work (for me at least. Curse these Mac/Safari browsers): Can the industry manage more than a long-term pledge to cut packaging?
All I ask is that such cuts are done in the name of genuine enviROI (actual benefit to the planet's future, which may or may not mean any fiscal returns) and not just for cosmetic or PR purposes.
I was at Total Packaging at the NEC not long ago, and one telling (if as yet unconfirmed) stat was that of such 'waste', 95% came from food and 5% from the packaging.
Now I know they will not compromise... much... on what helps shift from the shelves, but what I don't want to find is that the reduction goes in areas where the consumer gets stuff home and for whatever reasons do not consume fully - hidden bruising, shorter lifespan, etc.
For sure more effort needs to go into what enters the waste stream from the moment of manufacture, but we need a much more coherent approach, and cooperation between all necessary parties (govt, local, govt, etc) on joined up thinking towards effective recycling (and NOT another 'Recycle - it good for our tonnage-based bonuses' campaign) and, my personal favourite, re:use.
All I ask is that such cuts are done in the name of genuine enviROI (actual benefit to the planet's future, which may or may not mean any fiscal returns) and not just for cosmetic or PR purposes.
I was at Total Packaging at the NEC not long ago, and one telling (if as yet unconfirmed) stat was that of such 'waste', 95% came from food and 5% from the packaging.
Now I know they will not compromise... much... on what helps shift from the shelves, but what I don't want to find is that the reduction goes in areas where the consumer gets stuff home and for whatever reasons do not consume fully - hidden bruising, shorter lifespan, etc.
For sure more effort needs to go into what enters the waste stream from the moment of manufacture, but we need a much more coherent approach, and cooperation between all necessary parties (govt, local, govt, etc) on joined up thinking towards effective recycling (and NOT another 'Recycle - it good for our tonnage-based bonuses' campaign) and, my personal favourite, re:use.
I post this. And simply wonder why it is not on every other front page
The Earth today stands in imminent peril'...and nothing short of a planetary rescue will save it from the environmental cataclysm of dangerous climate change. Those are not the words of eco-warriors but the considered opinion of a group of eminent scientists writing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.'
It's fairly clear-cut. And not too encouraging, really.
So why are we all not popping down to B&Q to get our self-assembly ark kit?
There could be many reasons. Climate fatigue, maybe? A bit like charity fatigue, only we're no longer up for saving ourselves.
Or a few too many headlines like this, that go on to copy like this: 'Six scientists from some of the leading scientific institutions in the United States...'. And an awful lot of ''might may be right".
I don't know. So I still wonder. And that... may be the problem.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Mea Culpa?
"This is your captain speaking .......... I'd like to welcome you aboard our low CO2 emission flight to the south of France."
The airline pilots association are claiming that the airline industry is being unfairly targeted as the worst of the contributors to climate change. Full ABTN article.
“Air travel has just been an easy target. But not any more. World air travel actually accounts for only 2% to 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions according to the International Panel on Climate Change and while air travel is proving more popular, carbon dioxide emissions will not be more than 6% by 2050 – a tiny amount compared to the big polluters.”
Isn’t it amazing just how easily human nature forces all of us to adopt an ‘it’s not us, it’s them’ type of attitude? Just one question – who is giving us the real numbers and the actual facts?
But we all may stop jetting off to the Mediterranean sun anyway if the researchers at New Scientist are correct – it will be waaaay tooooo hot for us Brits to handle! See Dangerously hot.
Back to sunny Skegness it is then.
Arms dealing - the career of the future?
Meanwhile, how to profit from Global Warming - become an arms dealer! Taken from The Observer.
'Expect huge migrations of people looking for food and shelter as they flee areas that become uninhabitable because of crop failure or flooding,' he says. 'You are already seeing this happen in places such as Bangladesh. That will force western governments to increase their military spending to keep people out.'
Now that’s how to put an optimistic slant on forthcoming geo-political disasters caused by global warming! Just to be fair though, he has hedged his bets by putting some huge investments into Green technologies too. Heads he wins, tails he wins?
He mentions Bangla Desh – the UN reckons the disastrous Darfur conflict, as well as smaller episodes in Somalia and Ivory Coast, are also a direct consequence, to some degree, of global warming, too. Sci-Tech Today story.
The airline pilots association are claiming that the airline industry is being unfairly targeted as the worst of the contributors to climate change. Full ABTN article.
“Air travel has just been an easy target. But not any more. World air travel actually accounts for only 2% to 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions according to the International Panel on Climate Change and while air travel is proving more popular, carbon dioxide emissions will not be more than 6% by 2050 – a tiny amount compared to the big polluters.”
Isn’t it amazing just how easily human nature forces all of us to adopt an ‘it’s not us, it’s them’ type of attitude? Just one question – who is giving us the real numbers and the actual facts?
But we all may stop jetting off to the Mediterranean sun anyway if the researchers at New Scientist are correct – it will be waaaay tooooo hot for us Brits to handle! See Dangerously hot.
Back to sunny Skegness it is then.
Arms dealing - the career of the future?
Meanwhile, how to profit from Global Warming - become an arms dealer! Taken from The Observer.
'Expect huge migrations of people looking for food and shelter as they flee areas that become uninhabitable because of crop failure or flooding,' he says. 'You are already seeing this happen in places such as Bangladesh. That will force western governments to increase their military spending to keep people out.'
Now that’s how to put an optimistic slant on forthcoming geo-political disasters caused by global warming! Just to be fair though, he has hedged his bets by putting some huge investments into Green technologies too. Heads he wins, tails he wins?
He mentions Bangla Desh – the UN reckons the disastrous Darfur conflict, as well as smaller episodes in Somalia and Ivory Coast, are also a direct consequence, to some degree, of global warming, too. Sci-Tech Today story.
Vivoleum - made for the people by the people.
Ashes to ashes? Perhaps that should be Oil to Oil?
This is absolutely hilarious – it has to be one of the best stunts ever pulled on the Big Oil fraternity. See Daily Kos - Vivoleum .
It does, however, have some potentially serious undertones – they couldn’t really be thinking of making a replacement fuel out of human carcasses ……… could they?
Shades of Soylent Green ….. but this time as a fuel rather than as feedstuff?
This is absolutely hilarious – it has to be one of the best stunts ever pulled on the Big Oil fraternity. See Daily Kos - Vivoleum .
It does, however, have some potentially serious undertones – they couldn’t really be thinking of making a replacement fuel out of human carcasses ……… could they?
Shades of Soylent Green ….. but this time as a fuel rather than as feedstuff?
More or Less?
David Cameron told us today what his big idea is for government. To do much less of it: Power to the people? Hmmn. I am just interested in the numbers:
Sounds awesome! But...
Do we still have to pay for all the meddling, overseeing, assessing, policing, etc public servants and over-funded, empire-quangos that have been stuck on the roster to keep themselves occupied 'doing' government?
And if a way can be found to ditch them without too many redundancy compo claims that would render it all a fiscal disaster, do we get a refund?
Sounds awesome! But...
Do we still have to pay for all the meddling, overseeing, assessing, policing, etc public servants and over-funded, empire-quangos that have been stuck on the roster to keep themselves occupied 'doing' government?
And if a way can be found to ditch them without too many redundancy compo claims that would render it all a fiscal disaster, do we get a refund?
Council tax funds pensions!!
DAILY MAIL
So now I'm beginning to understand just why some councils are moving to fortnightly bin collections - much of their (sorry, but shouldn't that be OUR?) allocated cash goes straight into 'gold-plated', index linked pensions. .... And they can still retire at 60 whilst the plan is that the rest of us will have to work until 68!
Wasn't council tax supposed to pay for essential services? I don't remember agreeing to help provide super pensions for the faceless bureaucrats who spend all day pen-pushing and inventing new and ever more meaningless targets. But I suppose they have to employ someone to decode the data collected from the "Chip 'n Bin" devices.
So now I'm beginning to understand just why some councils are moving to fortnightly bin collections - much of their (sorry, but shouldn't that be OUR?) allocated cash goes straight into 'gold-plated', index linked pensions. .... And they can still retire at 60 whilst the plan is that the rest of us will have to work until 68!
Wasn't council tax supposed to pay for essential services? I don't remember agreeing to help provide super pensions for the faceless bureaucrats who spend all day pen-pushing and inventing new and ever more meaningless targets. But I suppose they have to employ someone to decode the data collected from the "Chip 'n Bin" devices.
Lord Above. Well, until next year.
I'm afraid I had a few thoughts about The Green Bishop?
Whilst endorsing the notion of something is better than nothing, I have to express some concern about the preponderance of those in the public eye who are publicised as 'giving up [insert eco-damaging indulgence here] for a [acceptable media-worthy personal/corporate inconvenience period here].
As we're on a theological bent, what kind of message does it send that these things can bought off by a brief period of abstinence?
That's like flying half the planet around for a climate change awareness concert about the damage of flying halfway around the planet, and making a big play about offsetting the travel... then going straight back afterwards to... oh.
Let he whose business doesn't 'require' travel cast us back into the Stone Age.
For me, in such cases, the messenger can often be as important for credibility as the message.
Whilst endorsing the notion of something is better than nothing, I have to express some concern about the preponderance of those in the public eye who are publicised as 'giving up [insert eco-damaging indulgence here] for a [acceptable media-worthy personal/corporate inconvenience period here].
As we're on a theological bent, what kind of message does it send that these things can bought off by a brief period of abstinence?
That's like flying half the planet around for a climate change awareness concert about the damage of flying halfway around the planet, and making a big play about offsetting the travel... then going straight back afterwards to... oh.
Let he whose business doesn't 'require' travel cast us back into the Stone Age.
For me, in such cases, the messenger can often be as important for credibility as the message.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Click. Clunk. When you switch.
Now, how many hours of standby will we need to save to compensate for this: TVs 'dumped after digital switch'
Thanks to Junketeer PJ for sending this in from the BBC (so we know it must be true), 'About eight million TVs and video recorders will be dumped after the digital switch-over, a survey suggests'.
The rest of the piece makes equally interesting reading. But what's the betting we end up with a quango and csar in charge of fining us for leaving a little red dot glowing at night. OK, I know it's more than that (and I don't), but really.....
Thanks to Junketeer PJ for sending this in from the BBC (so we know it must be true), 'About eight million TVs and video recorders will be dumped after the digital switch-over, a survey suggests'.
The rest of the piece makes equally interesting reading. But what's the betting we end up with a quango and csar in charge of fining us for leaving a little red dot glowing at night. OK, I know it's more than that (and I don't), but really.....
Of Pods, Vlogs and Wormcasts
I have just returned to the blogseat having had the privilege of sharing a breakfast networking event that had as its guest speaker Heather Gorringe of Wiggly Wigglers.
Beyond the obvious inspiration of her business success, as an engaging and highly entertaining speaker it was also fascinating to be given a true 'warts and all' account of her struggles to get going, get established, and overcome hurdles.
I also learned a neat trick for post-talk Q&A time: have some giveaways ready for the first to pipe up. Breaks the ice nicely. I was, I am proud to say, the first beneficiary of this clever motivational technique. What's more, I now have another nice book to add to my Junkk RE:view section collection (with a rather embarrassing backlog)!
My question was actually about her adventures into the world of web 2.0, which are many, varied.. and highly successful. Her weekly podcast recently won a top award, and is picked up worldwide.
I really need some help and advice to make more of all that Junkk.com can engage with in this regard, and she has kindly extended an invitation to chat more and see how we can help each other, though I suspect it may be more in my direction (that said, we did pop them on our diRE:ctory years ago).
Another nice part of the event was the realisation that this area does seem to be throwing up more than its fair share of entrepreneurial spirits to complement a fairly healthy level of official interest in all things environmental. So I was also pleased to reacquaint myself with Herefordshire's new Cabinet Member for the Environment, who I hope will take me up on my invitation to visit. I certainly feel there are synergies to explore.
I'll end with a but, if only a small one. In fact it simply highlights how so much that is green cannot be easily popped in black and white pigeon holes.
Readers will recall that recently I was enthusiastic about a local initiative to encourage the practice of macerating waste and sending it down the plug hole for recovery.
So imagine my surprise and disconsternation when Heather referred to this... and was not in favour. Showing the surprising breadth of representation our fair county can throw up, she was then challenged by Sir. Colin Shepherd, who declared an interest (he apparently pioneered such things) but really rather disagreed with her. Sadly the debate did not get taken to quite to the satisfactory conclusion I'd hoped. Nor, really, did a further point from the floor regarding the use of Green Cones, about which I have also blogged in the past (but can still not persuade the sales guys to take the 10 minutes it would require to add to our diRE:ctory). Again there was some debate, as Heather rightly pointed out its positive products are 'wasted'. However I do think there are other, practical aspects of consumer behaviour she may not have truly appreciated, and for which I will accord it a 'better than nothing'. Mind you, I am feeling a DIY Junkk.com solution may be in the offing.
In chatting to another guest, more than knowledgeable on the subject, I must say it is a tricky one. Obviously any form of useful reclamation is better than none. But, if we do look at my favourite umbrella measure, the enviROI, then if the priority we face globally is reduction in airborne greenhouse gasses, recovery must come at the top. Hence, for now, I do think I am erring on the macerator route as best for my kids... with some healthy composting on top in complement.
Unless, as I think they used to say on 'That's Life"... you know different!
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Not a lot of people know that..
I just had a press release from an agency that's not about a thing. It's about what 'we' think about things Climatic, niftily entitled 'Climate What?'
Now, as I continue to struggle with finding the time, or the money to find the people with the time, to help me upload this stuff on our steam-driven site's admin system, I figure why not pop it here on the blog for now?
What caught my eye was that these guys have paid (using bmrb and a sample size of 1,000, which is fair, though having sat through too many focus groups in my ad days how the questions get asked is pretty key, and you seldom know that background) to have confirmed what I have suspected for a while, namely that, despite all the gazzillions being spent and acres of media devoted to it all, most still haven't got a clue.
Or as they say (which is shorthand for I can just cut and paste from now on):
Coverage in the media has never been so high, with the term 'carbon neutral' by all acccounts appearing in the UK media almost 500 times in the past two weeks alone (how do you check that?). However the complex message of climate change and environmentalism is still not being properly communicated to the public.
A recent Environment Agency poll has stated that, despite the hype, less than half of the people in the UK are changing their behaviour to reduce their carbon footprint, and that less than a quarter of these are recycling. Their figures also reveal that 73% of the UK population do not understand what is meant by the term 'carbon neutral'.
"Our findings show that there is still a huge gap in public understanding about the terms used in the media, by government and by big business", says MD Sara Tye, managing director.
Which makes me wonder what the heck the disconnect is, especially when we are seeing bazillions being poured into all sorts of enviro-comms efforts with, seemingly, so little effect. Maybe that odd notion we at Junkk have often floated may be something to do with it, namely scare, guilt, nanny and fine don't quite cut it. A little fun and incentive could go along way, if done right, but the protagonists mentioned don't do that too well, and even if those they commission can, the dead hand of a committee will always lurk in the background.
I'll also nick the following bit (nothing like choosing facts you like) for my own presentation to the VCs next week, but apparently for those companies with an environmental policy (not too sure myself what that actually translates into, but hey) there is a 'potential market of more than 9 million ethical customers who are willing to put their money where their mouth is'.
However, the newly motivated eyebrow-twitching journalist would like to know more about the 65 % of the respondents in the study who do understand what 'carbon neutral' means, and said they would pay more for products that they knew were going to help the environment [my italics].
As we've discussed here many times before, there is a subtle, but yawning gap between not doing as bad as you might, and actually doing good. And while better is better than nothing, education does need to get to grips with the total ramifications of the purchase of a product or service. Otherwise we will soon find ourselves with something like, oo, say... ethical space tourism: 'I blasted 6 billion litres of greenhouse gasses to get up here, and all I needed to do was plant a forest the size of Belgium to buy it off!'.
What I did rather like was my age range (45-54. Not telling you where in that, though) is the savviest, and would be prepared to pay a premium if they knew it was helping the environment (note my bold). Apparently only 24% of the 25-34 age group understood the term carbon neutral, despite being the most likely to be willing to pay more for carbon neutral products. Which leads me to ponder whether greens wash best with those more inclined not to ask awkward questions. Or care. Green is in danger of becoming a fashion item, and consequently just as easily dropped later on.
And without trying to get to Ecky-thump as to why, it seems there is is something of a North/South environmental awareness divide. Only 18 per cent of residents in Yorkshire/ Humberside are carbon neutral savvy. This contrasts with the 32 per cent of the population living in the South West as the most eco aware area of the UK. Maybe those Priuses are not so good on the Dales?
WHAT IS CARBON NEUTRAL?
Without attribution I'm taking this definition slightly on trust, but it seems to be fair enough, but of course we get into the detail of further terminology such as 'offsetting', which opens up whole new cans of worms. (I'm seeing Heather Gorringe of Wiggly Wigglers today, by the way).
The term Carbon Neutral can be applied when an activity has a Net Zero Emissions of carbon. This can be achieved through an investment which offsets the carbon produced by the relevant activity. This offsetting is most often achieved through Carbon sequestration which is the term describing processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by capturing and storing carbon (while releasing oxygen) both naturally and artificially.
Of course I have come up with enviROI, which Carbon Neutral can loosely be factored into. No wonder the general public is often confused!
Now, as I continue to struggle with finding the time, or the money to find the people with the time, to help me upload this stuff on our steam-driven site's admin system, I figure why not pop it here on the blog for now?
What caught my eye was that these guys have paid (using bmrb and a sample size of 1,000, which is fair, though having sat through too many focus groups in my ad days how the questions get asked is pretty key, and you seldom know that background) to have confirmed what I have suspected for a while, namely that, despite all the gazzillions being spent and acres of media devoted to it all, most still haven't got a clue.
Or as they say (which is shorthand for I can just cut and paste from now on):
Coverage in the media has never been so high, with the term 'carbon neutral' by all acccounts appearing in the UK media almost 500 times in the past two weeks alone (how do you check that?). However the complex message of climate change and environmentalism is still not being properly communicated to the public.
A recent Environment Agency poll has stated that, despite the hype, less than half of the people in the UK are changing their behaviour to reduce their carbon footprint, and that less than a quarter of these are recycling. Their figures also reveal that 73% of the UK population do not understand what is meant by the term 'carbon neutral'.
"Our findings show that there is still a huge gap in public understanding about the terms used in the media, by government and by big business", says MD Sara Tye, managing director.
Which makes me wonder what the heck the disconnect is, especially when we are seeing bazillions being poured into all sorts of enviro-comms efforts with, seemingly, so little effect. Maybe that odd notion we at Junkk have often floated may be something to do with it, namely scare, guilt, nanny and fine don't quite cut it. A little fun and incentive could go along way, if done right, but the protagonists mentioned don't do that too well, and even if those they commission can, the dead hand of a committee will always lurk in the background.
I'll also nick the following bit (nothing like choosing facts you like) for my own presentation to the VCs next week, but apparently for those companies with an environmental policy (not too sure myself what that actually translates into, but hey) there is a 'potential market of more than 9 million ethical customers who are willing to put their money where their mouth is'.
However, the newly motivated eyebrow-twitching journalist would like to know more about the 65 % of the respondents in the study who do understand what 'carbon neutral' means, and said they would pay more for products that they knew were going to help the environment [my italics].
As we've discussed here many times before, there is a subtle, but yawning gap between not doing as bad as you might, and actually doing good. And while better is better than nothing, education does need to get to grips with the total ramifications of the purchase of a product or service. Otherwise we will soon find ourselves with something like, oo, say... ethical space tourism: 'I blasted 6 billion litres of greenhouse gasses to get up here, and all I needed to do was plant a forest the size of Belgium to buy it off!'.
What I did rather like was my age range (45-54. Not telling you where in that, though) is the savviest, and would be prepared to pay a premium if they knew it was helping the environment (note my bold). Apparently only 24% of the 25-34 age group understood the term carbon neutral, despite being the most likely to be willing to pay more for carbon neutral products. Which leads me to ponder whether greens wash best with those more inclined not to ask awkward questions. Or care. Green is in danger of becoming a fashion item, and consequently just as easily dropped later on.
And without trying to get to Ecky-thump as to why, it seems there is is something of a North/South environmental awareness divide. Only 18 per cent of residents in Yorkshire/ Humberside are carbon neutral savvy. This contrasts with the 32 per cent of the population living in the South West as the most eco aware area of the UK. Maybe those Priuses are not so good on the Dales?
WHAT IS CARBON NEUTRAL?
Without attribution I'm taking this definition slightly on trust, but it seems to be fair enough, but of course we get into the detail of further terminology such as 'offsetting', which opens up whole new cans of worms. (I'm seeing Heather Gorringe of Wiggly Wigglers today, by the way).
The term Carbon Neutral can be applied when an activity has a Net Zero Emissions of carbon. This can be achieved through an investment which offsets the carbon produced by the relevant activity. This offsetting is most often achieved through Carbon sequestration which is the term describing processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by capturing and storing carbon (while releasing oxygen) both naturally and artificially.
Of course I have come up with enviROI, which Carbon Neutral can loosely be factored into. No wonder the general public is often confused!
All in the best possible taste
As it says: Finally some common sense
Couldn't agree more. But I doubt it will make a gosh-darn bit of difference.
There are vast industries feeding off (sorry) anything like this, from government to quango to the media, where stirring it up, talking about it in excited ways and then taking steps can lead to lots of lovely jobs and lucre researching, assessing, running campaigns and getting Shocked on a Sunday.
I am beginning to wonder if everything we buy will have so much that we 'need' to know it will come with its own CDR that will need viewing pre-consumption. Which is about as likely as me figuring out what all the guff on there already means.
Mind you, I just saw a news item where it seems that parents have not figured that letting their kids eat all the pies may explain why they look like the DPM.
But I'm sure they are not the kind plonked in front of the telly 24/7, so maybe another COI-budget hike may be the answer? Adland awaits the siren call. There's almost as much to be made saying don't as promoting the culprit in the first place.
How sweet is that?
Couldn't agree more. But I doubt it will make a gosh-darn bit of difference.
There are vast industries feeding off (sorry) anything like this, from government to quango to the media, where stirring it up, talking about it in excited ways and then taking steps can lead to lots of lovely jobs and lucre researching, assessing, running campaigns and getting Shocked on a Sunday.
I am beginning to wonder if everything we buy will have so much that we 'need' to know it will come with its own CDR that will need viewing pre-consumption. Which is about as likely as me figuring out what all the guff on there already means.
Mind you, I just saw a news item where it seems that parents have not figured that letting their kids eat all the pies may explain why they look like the DPM.
But I'm sure they are not the kind plonked in front of the telly 24/7, so maybe another COI-budget hike may be the answer? Adland awaits the siren call. There's almost as much to be made saying don't as promoting the culprit in the first place.
How sweet is that?
Awwwwwwww!
And ad with babies.
Ford 'next generation' by Ogilvy
And then, my attempt at answering a question:
I am still absorbing the exchanges of a day spent at the Guardian Climate Change Conference, which included a 'breakout' session for 'the media'.
One thing was clear: there were a lot of folk there from a lot places with a very definite 'interest' in the environment. What their motivations were, and what they were saying vs. what they were doing remains to be seen. The main sponsor was Shell, and the hand that fed got a little bitten, if reports the next day were anything to go by. Of a lot that was shared to show what they were doing, more seemed to pick up on a fair old bunch they were not. Feral media in action? Or a slight kickback against tokenistic greenwash? It's a really difficult one.
So let me apply a purely consumer view on this effort, fuelled (!) by a more than passing awareness of and interest in things ad, marketing and, as you may gather, planet-saving.
Thanks to this ad, I know of a thing called Flexifuel. I know little else. It's for future generations, apparently, but that's it.
So, a company making and promoting the means to travel about may (or may not) be making something that addresses climate change caused by exhaust emissions, if not the all the other consequences of manufacture, use and disposal (though car companies are pretty ahead in this regard).
Do I care? Do I feel warm and fuzzy? Do I see the brand most associated with mass transport and mass-production of consumer goods as a delicate, planet-saving flower? Yes, no and maybe, in various measures across all. They didn't make the ad for fun, so its intention was to sow a seed of mitigation against the name. Not flog Jeremy Clarkson another F40.
And why not? Others do nothing. Some do worse. The ASA report seems to be getting more and more packed with dodgy greenwash claims masquerading as responsible ads/services to address such issues.
I can think of worse things to have on screen. I just hope what lies behind it is genuine and sincere. And if it is not, those involved to feel very proud.
If a client comes to you and says 'Here's a thing we'd like you to sell for us that's a tad better for the planet', I'd admire any who say 'No thanks, we'll stick with the Party Poker TVC brief. It's more honest'.
If we are serious about climate change it will take a lot more, a lot earlier in the chain, to do the necessary. What happens later, especially at the consumer end, is really just window-dressing.
Now, where's that Massive Attack 'Best Of'?
Ford 'next generation' by Ogilvy
And then, my attempt at answering a question:
I am still absorbing the exchanges of a day spent at the Guardian Climate Change Conference, which included a 'breakout' session for 'the media'.
One thing was clear: there were a lot of folk there from a lot places with a very definite 'interest' in the environment. What their motivations were, and what they were saying vs. what they were doing remains to be seen. The main sponsor was Shell, and the hand that fed got a little bitten, if reports the next day were anything to go by. Of a lot that was shared to show what they were doing, more seemed to pick up on a fair old bunch they were not. Feral media in action? Or a slight kickback against tokenistic greenwash? It's a really difficult one.
So let me apply a purely consumer view on this effort, fuelled (!) by a more than passing awareness of and interest in things ad, marketing and, as you may gather, planet-saving.
Thanks to this ad, I know of a thing called Flexifuel. I know little else. It's for future generations, apparently, but that's it.
So, a company making and promoting the means to travel about may (or may not) be making something that addresses climate change caused by exhaust emissions, if not the all the other consequences of manufacture, use and disposal (though car companies are pretty ahead in this regard).
Do I care? Do I feel warm and fuzzy? Do I see the brand most associated with mass transport and mass-production of consumer goods as a delicate, planet-saving flower? Yes, no and maybe, in various measures across all. They didn't make the ad for fun, so its intention was to sow a seed of mitigation against the name. Not flog Jeremy Clarkson another F40.
And why not? Others do nothing. Some do worse. The ASA report seems to be getting more and more packed with dodgy greenwash claims masquerading as responsible ads/services to address such issues.
I can think of worse things to have on screen. I just hope what lies behind it is genuine and sincere. And if it is not, those involved to feel very proud.
If a client comes to you and says 'Here's a thing we'd like you to sell for us that's a tad better for the planet', I'd admire any who say 'No thanks, we'll stick with the Party Poker TVC brief. It's more honest'.
If we are serious about climate change it will take a lot more, a lot earlier in the chain, to do the necessary. What happens later, especially at the consumer end, is really just window-dressing.
Now, where's that Massive Attack 'Best Of'?
What she said
I have been having a go a lot lately. Time to let someone else do it (and cop the 'you're just being beastly, as it is all in a good cause' flak): Janet Street-Porter: The awful conceit of these New Puritans
Bet they will all be getting gussied up for Live Earth as we speak. But I'm also thinking our Janet may fancy a bit of a party, too.
I will mostly not be going, but only 'cos I haven't been invited. I think I am doing quite enough for eco-awareness without having to pay a bunch of climate offset brokers more than they already have.
ps: Shame she managed to rather dyslexificate the TRAID acronym. Though it may get a few Chinese gangsters running the eco-sweatshops on board.
Bet they will all be getting gussied up for Live Earth as we speak. But I'm also thinking our Janet may fancy a bit of a party, too.
I will mostly not be going, but only 'cos I haven't been invited. I think I am doing quite enough for eco-awareness without having to pay a bunch of climate offset brokers more than they already have.
ps: Shame she managed to rather dyslexificate the TRAID acronym. Though it may get a few Chinese gangsters running the eco-sweatshops on board.
Hear no evil. See no evil. Certainly don't write about it. And that way many comfy, high paid jobs can enjoy the status quo.
It was ever thus. Probably.
But here I must commit the seemingly terrible, unsporting, and un-British crime of wondering if things are as good as they could be, and seek in the only ways I know to understand why. And, if not as good as is possible, see how they may be improved, through word and, preferably, deed.
A few weeks ago, I wrote to our local paper. We live in a lovely market town, enjoying a lifestyle which most city chums envy like mad. However, one Friday night I was walking my kids home from a club and we had to endure a trip that was something out of a bad post-apocalyptic C-movie. Screaming harridans. Drunken aggression. Roving cars with more spent on the turbo dump than the MOT. It was not pretty. And I thought it needed addressing. So I appealed to those in power, or tasked to assist, but there was no reply.
The next week the banner was taken up by another, who coined the rather colourful phrase 'Beirut in Bloom', and advocated vigilante groups. Now, this seemed a tad in excess of requirements, but certainly this time got a reaction. A lesson learned?
Thing is, the reaction from councillors was pretty much 'don't trash our town by talking it down'. I won't go into the rest, but suffice to say there will be a lot of 'discussing', 'looking at', and 'raising of' during the next voting period with, one suspects, a flurry of 'initiatives' pre-election.
And while it did not figure too highly in the Guardian Climate Change Conference (review well underway, trust me), there was a hint of what I see waaaay too often these days by way of a diversion by those who get called upon to explain the frilly kickers around their ankles.
And this is the time-honoured cry that there should be no criticism, as it doesn't help make things better. To an extent this is true, but there is criticism, and there is criticism.
As our outbound Dear Leader tried, in his best 'am I bovvered?' way, to point out, there can be an extreme whereby it is simply 'damn at any cost, and fire a full salvo of torpedoes as something bad is bound to get hit'. Sadly, for those like me who mostly agreed with him this was rather unproductive, this came from a guy who also kinda, sorta is on a shaky pedestal when it comes to legitimate investigation and commentary. You know, things like being caught in, at best, a failure to deliver on promise or, at worst, a total porkie.
I honestly don't know what to do for the best, but I don't think it's an option to shut up and trust that the system, and those who run it are always competent or indeed often honest enough to be let off without being called to explain, if not account.
So I won't.
Hence I will be asking a few local councillors and the county plod what 'Total tosh" actually means by way of an official reply to charges of failures to police under-age drink sales, anti-social behaviour and potentially dangerous driving.
As I will also continue to do with those in government, local government and associated multi-million £ quangos, when to legitimate questions raised by a lot of savvy folk, I mostly seem to find the reply is "Don't rock the boat, as ... we are 'discussing'/'looking at'/ 'raising' it...'.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
ADDENDUM
I recently wrote a review of the Wiggly Wiggler event, and offered it to the local paper who were more than keen. But some sod has obviously distracted them from this nice, positive piece with more on this issue. And this person seems to have been... me.
Seems that in chatting to them about one thing, another got into the mix and, well, you know what sells papers. So now I am, if in the most sincere manner, complicit. I don't know if the Ross Gazette content is online to point to what appeared, both as article and letter, but as this is long archived at least I feel I should add my notes to them when asked to comment further.
Let the tush-tissue operation commence!
Oo-eck. Am I going to get in trouble? I feel I started all this with my letter to you guys a while ago! So long as it comes across as trying to improve things as opposed to just having a go that's fine. I did not feel the vigilante aspect was going in a helpful direction, and wrote to the Journal (who jumped on the bandwagon a bit sensationally) to clarify, and am glad they printed that.
However, looking at what you reported* our councillors as coming up with in response, it all seemed a bit low on.... tangibles. And if we are to sort out what, despite the 'tosh' dismissal, they seemed to agree was a problem that needing nipping in the bud, I think a tad more substance may be in order. And it may surprise them that I am not alone.
*'Cllrs agree a stronger police presence was needed... and are requesting a visit... so they can relay their fears' - so they have them too, it's not really 'tosh' then? And fears have not be relayed before? Surely not? If so, why not?
*Cllr Lucas - 'We don't need reminding that we only have one policeman dedicated to the town' - Well, from reading the rest maybe it seems they do. What else don't they feel in need of reminding of? Not a great bit of feedback. As to tanks, well, I suspect Mr. Jenkins was being 'colourful'. There are no AK-47s either, but can Cllr Lucas argue that, at times, there are not groups occupying certain areas outside of normally accepted levels of behaviour, with the forces of law a tad absent? I think his rebuttal was disingenuous at best.
*Cllr Cutter - 'the lack of a police presence needed addressing' - to address what, if not real and legitimate concerns?
*Cllr Ravenscroft, whilst offering at least one suggestion (a community police officer. Hmn. Powers? Authority? Support? We are talking some rather nasty stuff to deal with here) - 'Ross is not alone' - So, as Beirut (ok, some Yardie areas of Brum) has it bad then we can't look at putting our own town in order? This is an oddly dismissive comparison and justification to make. I for one don't care about elsewhere. My family lives here. If it's about stretched resources that is well worth bringing to the fore. Why are they stretched? What can be done? Who is not doing their job(s), as a shrug and 'life's tough' isn't really going to cut it.
*Cllr Bartrum - '2/3 of a recent forum felt there was a perception of lawlessness' - And yet it's 'tosh' to be concerned, then? Two thirds!!! I don't know what forum it was, but as a reflection of the town that's a fairly hefty sample!
Whilst agreeing Mr. Jenkins may have been a tad OTT, especially with his vigilante talk, it's what gets you noticed by the media... and politicians.
And can these worthy gents really argue that there are not people under the influence (if underage why, how?), and who do drive in ways that are not reasonable (why?), and who are likely responsible for the town's other possible twinning moniker: Ross-in-Shuttering, for all the smashed and boarded windows.
To deny this, and that some people at least are aware, unhappy and even threatened that not all is as rosy as it could and should be, seems... interesting, at least to this voter assessing the new team as they settle in. As is what I sensed was a slight message of 'butt out', which did not sit well. But maybe, and I hope this was the case, this was by reading it without the benefit of hearing it being said.
But here I must commit the seemingly terrible, unsporting, and un-British crime of wondering if things are as good as they could be, and seek in the only ways I know to understand why. And, if not as good as is possible, see how they may be improved, through word and, preferably, deed.
A few weeks ago, I wrote to our local paper. We live in a lovely market town, enjoying a lifestyle which most city chums envy like mad. However, one Friday night I was walking my kids home from a club and we had to endure a trip that was something out of a bad post-apocalyptic C-movie. Screaming harridans. Drunken aggression. Roving cars with more spent on the turbo dump than the MOT. It was not pretty. And I thought it needed addressing. So I appealed to those in power, or tasked to assist, but there was no reply.
The next week the banner was taken up by another, who coined the rather colourful phrase 'Beirut in Bloom', and advocated vigilante groups. Now, this seemed a tad in excess of requirements, but certainly this time got a reaction. A lesson learned?
Thing is, the reaction from councillors was pretty much 'don't trash our town by talking it down'. I won't go into the rest, but suffice to say there will be a lot of 'discussing', 'looking at', and 'raising of' during the next voting period with, one suspects, a flurry of 'initiatives' pre-election.
And while it did not figure too highly in the Guardian Climate Change Conference (review well underway, trust me), there was a hint of what I see waaaay too often these days by way of a diversion by those who get called upon to explain the frilly kickers around their ankles.
And this is the time-honoured cry that there should be no criticism, as it doesn't help make things better. To an extent this is true, but there is criticism, and there is criticism.
As our outbound Dear Leader tried, in his best 'am I bovvered?' way, to point out, there can be an extreme whereby it is simply 'damn at any cost, and fire a full salvo of torpedoes as something bad is bound to get hit'. Sadly, for those like me who mostly agreed with him this was rather unproductive, this came from a guy who also kinda, sorta is on a shaky pedestal when it comes to legitimate investigation and commentary. You know, things like being caught in, at best, a failure to deliver on promise or, at worst, a total porkie.
I honestly don't know what to do for the best, but I don't think it's an option to shut up and trust that the system, and those who run it are always competent or indeed often honest enough to be let off without being called to explain, if not account.
So I won't.
Hence I will be asking a few local councillors and the county plod what 'Total tosh" actually means by way of an official reply to charges of failures to police under-age drink sales, anti-social behaviour and potentially dangerous driving.
As I will also continue to do with those in government, local government and associated multi-million £ quangos, when to legitimate questions raised by a lot of savvy folk, I mostly seem to find the reply is "Don't rock the boat, as ... we are 'discussing'/'looking at'/ 'raising' it...'.
Monkey see. Monkey do.
ADDENDUM
I recently wrote a review of the Wiggly Wiggler event, and offered it to the local paper who were more than keen. But some sod has obviously distracted them from this nice, positive piece with more on this issue. And this person seems to have been... me.
Seems that in chatting to them about one thing, another got into the mix and, well, you know what sells papers. So now I am, if in the most sincere manner, complicit. I don't know if the Ross Gazette content is online to point to what appeared, both as article and letter, but as this is long archived at least I feel I should add my notes to them when asked to comment further.
Let the tush-tissue operation commence!
Oo-eck. Am I going to get in trouble? I feel I started all this with my letter to you guys a while ago! So long as it comes across as trying to improve things as opposed to just having a go that's fine. I did not feel the vigilante aspect was going in a helpful direction, and wrote to the Journal (who jumped on the bandwagon a bit sensationally) to clarify, and am glad they printed that.
However, looking at what you reported* our councillors as coming up with in response, it all seemed a bit low on.... tangibles. And if we are to sort out what, despite the 'tosh' dismissal, they seemed to agree was a problem that needing nipping in the bud, I think a tad more substance may be in order. And it may surprise them that I am not alone.
*'Cllrs agree a stronger police presence was needed... and are requesting a visit... so they can relay their fears' - so they have them too, it's not really 'tosh' then? And fears have not be relayed before? Surely not? If so, why not?
*Cllr Lucas - 'We don't need reminding that we only have one policeman dedicated to the town' - Well, from reading the rest maybe it seems they do. What else don't they feel in need of reminding of? Not a great bit of feedback. As to tanks, well, I suspect Mr. Jenkins was being 'colourful'. There are no AK-47s either, but can Cllr Lucas argue that, at times, there are not groups occupying certain areas outside of normally accepted levels of behaviour, with the forces of law a tad absent? I think his rebuttal was disingenuous at best.
*Cllr Cutter - 'the lack of a police presence needed addressing' - to address what, if not real and legitimate concerns?
*Cllr Ravenscroft, whilst offering at least one suggestion (a community police officer. Hmn. Powers? Authority? Support? We are talking some rather nasty stuff to deal with here) - 'Ross is not alone' - So, as Beirut (ok, some Yardie areas of Brum) has it bad then we can't look at putting our own town in order? This is an oddly dismissive comparison and justification to make. I for one don't care about elsewhere. My family lives here. If it's about stretched resources that is well worth bringing to the fore. Why are they stretched? What can be done? Who is not doing their job(s), as a shrug and 'life's tough' isn't really going to cut it.
*Cllr Bartrum - '2/3 of a recent forum felt there was a perception of lawlessness' - And yet it's 'tosh' to be concerned, then? Two thirds!!! I don't know what forum it was, but as a reflection of the town that's a fairly hefty sample!
Whilst agreeing Mr. Jenkins may have been a tad OTT, especially with his vigilante talk, it's what gets you noticed by the media... and politicians.
And can these worthy gents really argue that there are not people under the influence (if underage why, how?), and who do drive in ways that are not reasonable (why?), and who are likely responsible for the town's other possible twinning moniker: Ross-in-Shuttering, for all the smashed and boarded windows.
To deny this, and that some people at least are aware, unhappy and even threatened that not all is as rosy as it could and should be, seems... interesting, at least to this voter assessing the new team as they settle in. As is what I sensed was a slight message of 'butt out', which did not sit well. But maybe, and I hope this was the case, this was by reading it without the benefit of hearing it being said.
The curse of Junkk
There was a time when I pretty much jogged along, did what I did, tried, a la Google, 'to do no harm', and accepted pretty much all that those who knew better - government, teachers, doctors, police... media - served up almost without thinking.
That has now rather drastically changed, so when I see such as this I really can't resist a scope and a ponder. And, often, get moved to put RSI-riddled wrist to keyboard rest. Which is a curse, because throughout the day I seem to do it a lot.
Take this: World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists
My first thought was 'So what?', and the second was 'What scientists?'. Well, let's look at the second first.
First up, it seems this headline has taken a rebuttal by group of scientists to one from another group, which seem to be saying there's a bit of it still sloshing about. This is shaping up like a climate change debate, and we know by now where those get us.
To my very simplistic 'So what?' the kicker is at the end. Of course, if it's the stuff we are addicted to and messing the place up, then having no more to play with would seem to sort out the problem... er.. wouldn't it?
Well, as this clearly shows... no.
And I am now cursed some more with trying to get my head around it all.
So it must be true...
I am almost immediately wary of anything that is billed under the title 'The Truth About...', but in a media environment currently dominated by factual extremes, - from over-funded, target-based ads to spoil-at-any-costs tabloids splashes - The Economist can usually be relied upon to provide slightly more journalistic integrity in its research and analysis: The Truth About Recycling
Or... can it?:)
Or... can it?:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)