From that well-known bastion of eco-awareness, the Guardian, about another, er, bast... newspa.. er... well, anyway, The Sun:
Yet more embarrassment for a TV indie. Production company Renegade Pictures has apologised for fly tipping while filming a documentary... about green living. The Sun reports today that crew members left piles of cardboard on a street in Bath after shooting Fix the World in the city. Producer Paul O'Connor apologised 'unreservedly' for the mishap, telling the paper the crew expected the rubbish to be picked up by binmen. The Sun P16
Couldn't find it on the Sun's woeful website (though they do have a 'green' section, and it's not just naked girls sprayed with broccoli*) to link to, but what a hoot.
And that excuse! Up there with Pete (I was just doing research) Townsend et al.
ADDENDUM - Keeley Hazell's ten green tips - stand (oo, missus) corrected. I was joking.
I wonder if they got away with it? ''Wot, I left them 20 old fridges on the layby 'cos I expected the bin men to pick it up!' Bless.
I am still giggling at the EST 'Do your 20% ad' that had everyone swithcing off their lights in a leafy London subaurd before jumping into a dirty great balck VW Touran to go to the shops. I bet that was the director's car!
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Meanwhile, what comes down the pipe to your home is...
It's a better than nothing, I guess but I couldn't help but crank a slight eyebrow at this: NPower launches eco-friendly ads
I've always been a bit dubious on nPower since seeing their activities at the Ideal Home Show 'eco' (Ahem, not) theme year, when they were a major sponsor. And Juice has been low on my estimation since seeing a bunch of Greenpeace cardboard stuck on 4x4s at Gloucester train station, sponsored by same.
At least the Guardian has at least put it that 'the energy company says the initiative is the UK's first eco-friendly campaign'. Up there with carbon neutral, I am unsure what the heck that means, or does. Or anything.
Or indeed what the actual enviROI is, as opposed to just winning advertising awards and spinning a green story.
I've always been a bit dubious on nPower since seeing their activities at the Ideal Home Show 'eco' (Ahem, not) theme year, when they were a major sponsor. And Juice has been low on my estimation since seeing a bunch of Greenpeace cardboard stuck on 4x4s at Gloucester train station, sponsored by same.
At least the Guardian has at least put it that 'the energy company says the initiative is the UK's first eco-friendly campaign'. Up there with carbon neutral, I am unsure what the heck that means, or does. Or anything.
Or indeed what the actual enviROI is, as opposed to just winning advertising awards and spinning a green story.
Read all abart it!
Is Thelondonpaper's recycling push enough?
We'll take that as a 'no' then.
On the positive, proactive side, I have to say I prefer the notion of a reward to encourage good behaviour as opposed to a fine or somesuch to penalise bad.
I don't live there so I don't know, but what are the others doing?
But realistically, it's probably going to need to be a mixture of both.
We'll take that as a 'no' then.
On the positive, proactive side, I have to say I prefer the notion of a reward to encourage good behaviour as opposed to a fine or somesuch to penalise bad.
I don't live there so I don't know, but what are the others doing?
But realistically, it's probably going to need to be a mixture of both.
The future of wind power?
These have been talked about for a few years now, but this is the first time I've come across any comments on their potential size and projected efficiency. This article from Gizmag details the design and concept of giant maglev wind turbines. With no friction to overcome, it is claimed that these will prove to be very low maintenance, but more importantly, will be efficient at wind speed as low as 1.5 Metres per second.
The concept projects that a single maglev turbine as big as a block of flats could have an output of almost 1 gigawatt and have an ROI of less than 1 year!
No doubt some will find them objectionable as being ugly, evil, unnecessary or even just a touch of NIMBYism may come into play. But, if the ROI is as low as claimed and running costs are as low as stated then perhaps we can expect to see these appearing on the UK landscape over the next 10 to 20 years.
Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is working on a domestic property scale model?
Putting green in the shade
I recently read this - Who's the greenest of them all? , and decided to pursue it a bit further. The editor has kindly replied.
It kind of highlights what has been mentioned earlier about 'looking' green without actually 'being' it becoming a worrying trend.
It kind of highlights what has been mentioned earlier about 'looking' green without actually 'being' it becoming a worrying trend.
3 into 2 will go
I guess I do have what it takes when it comes to (vast) sums: WRAP Board Extends Its Strategic Skills Base With Appointment Of Three New Non Executive Directors
We look forward to their contribution.
Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000, WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I wonder if they have a bonus structure like the Environment 'but we promised them huge amounts before it all went pear-shaped on their watch' Agency?
I'm still trying to get to grips with the lack of conflict in interest to using public money to spend on comms budgets, to drive up rates that their measures of success are based on, and then subsequently richly rewarded on a personal basis for meeting such 'targets'.
Since when did not-for profit public service end up with such money-dripping schemes beyond a decent salary for a good job?
We look forward to their contribution.
Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000, WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I wonder if they have a bonus structure like the Environment 'but we promised them huge amounts before it all went pear-shaped on their watch' Agency?
I'm still trying to get to grips with the lack of conflict in interest to using public money to spend on comms budgets, to drive up rates that their measures of success are based on, and then subsequently richly rewarded on a personal basis for meeting such 'targets'.
Since when did not-for profit public service end up with such money-dripping schemes beyond a decent salary for a good job?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Focus on carbon and miss the point
That's the conclusion of Eamon O'Hara in a thought provoking piece about this week's story for The Green Room.
His general suggestion is that by concentrating almost entirely on reducing carbon emissions, we are missing the underlying cause, which is a direct consequence of our western, unsustainable mode of living.
This, he says, "has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies."
Which is (and I like this analogy) like "relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroine."
"We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability."
I don't think anybody can realistically disagree with that statement. (Well, except perhaps the usual 'anti-brigade' comment posters who have immediately branded him as a hippy!)
It's a well and logically argued article, well worth a read. And as one of the comment posters has pointed out - look what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they had consumed all their available resources; they became extinct!
Human beings tend to have a habit of NOT learning the lessons of history and commonly missing the point. Maybe now is time to take a more over-arching view whilst keeping historical precedents in mind?
________________
His general suggestion is that by concentrating almost entirely on reducing carbon emissions, we are missing the underlying cause, which is a direct consequence of our western, unsustainable mode of living.
This, he says, "has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies."
Which is (and I like this analogy) like "relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroine."
"We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability."
I don't think anybody can realistically disagree with that statement. (Well, except perhaps the usual 'anti-brigade' comment posters who have immediately branded him as a hippy!)
It's a well and logically argued article, well worth a read. And as one of the comment posters has pointed out - look what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they had consumed all their available resources; they became extinct!
Human beings tend to have a habit of NOT learning the lessons of history and commonly missing the point. Maybe now is time to take a more over-arching view whilst keeping historical precedents in mind?
________________
It's not just what you switch off. But what you are now switching on.
This is worth a gander: The Ampere Strikes Back
I am so relieved that we set up Junkk.com to be inspirational as opposed to judgemental. Because there are a lot out there who are telling us what do or simply being snotty that I reckon would fall pretty foul of a few pithy comebacks.
Don't like my bottle or Perrier? Betcha ditched the old TV for flatty as soon as Comet dropped the prices, eh?
And look a DAB radios. This is the direction we are being forced in... by whom?
Pass the remote vicar!
I am so relieved that we set up Junkk.com to be inspirational as opposed to judgemental. Because there are a lot out there who are telling us what do or simply being snotty that I reckon would fall pretty foul of a few pithy comebacks.
Don't like my bottle or Perrier? Betcha ditched the old TV for flatty as soon as Comet dropped the prices, eh?
And look a DAB radios. This is the direction we are being forced in... by whom?
Pass the remote vicar!
Looks vs. deeds
An interesting dissection of the current state of political, commercial and consumer 'engagement' with things 'green' : The Make-Believe of Green Politics
I'm not very interested in lifestyle statements. More just getting on with mine best I can ... and not screwing up the kids' future too much in the process.
As a consequence I know a bit, but was surprised with some things that I read here.
Like the notion of driving a car means you are doing 'your bit' to save the planet. Sweet.
The comparison with the Civic shocked me. Though to be fair I'd say a full 11mpg on the city cycle, at 20% better gives the Prius quite an edge in the thrift stakes. At least for this usage. I recently visited the Hay Festival here in the West of the UK, and this year was very green themed. So the car park was like a Prius lot. Trouble is, almost all had probably come from London down the motorway, which means they were mainly lugging a dormant, and vast amount of weight. Image is all, as you suggest. I'm interested as to where the Prius get used in the US to assess the actual value it does confer, for which I have coined the term enviROI.
This is the actual benefit of any product/ initiative to the planet, and future generations. It can have a woeful financial ROI, (most do), but so long as in making running and disposing of the thing it means less of what's 'bad' (definitions seem to vary daily, so I'm not getting into footprints), then more power to you elbow... or electric drivetain.
I'd have to agree that the Prius has a distinct design, but, subjectively, it is a dog. It looks like something out of a 70's futuristic TV show. And that is a shame, because that may mean appealing only to a minority who are only governed by making a statement, rather than a lot to more who simply have other factors (style being one) that do matter along with (and may outweigh) a few mpg.
Pity. And yes, hence a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Along with the positive suggestions, well said.
I'm not very interested in lifestyle statements. More just getting on with mine best I can ... and not screwing up the kids' future too much in the process.
As a consequence I know a bit, but was surprised with some things that I read here.
Like the notion of driving a car means you are doing 'your bit' to save the planet. Sweet.
The comparison with the Civic shocked me. Though to be fair I'd say a full 11mpg on the city cycle, at 20% better gives the Prius quite an edge in the thrift stakes. At least for this usage. I recently visited the Hay Festival here in the West of the UK, and this year was very green themed. So the car park was like a Prius lot. Trouble is, almost all had probably come from London down the motorway, which means they were mainly lugging a dormant, and vast amount of weight. Image is all, as you suggest. I'm interested as to where the Prius get used in the US to assess the actual value it does confer, for which I have coined the term enviROI.
This is the actual benefit of any product/ initiative to the planet, and future generations. It can have a woeful financial ROI, (most do), but so long as in making running and disposing of the thing it means less of what's 'bad' (definitions seem to vary daily, so I'm not getting into footprints), then more power to you elbow... or electric drivetain.
I'd have to agree that the Prius has a distinct design, but, subjectively, it is a dog. It looks like something out of a 70's futuristic TV show. And that is a shame, because that may mean appealing only to a minority who are only governed by making a statement, rather than a lot to more who simply have other factors (style being one) that do matter along with (and may outweigh) a few mpg.
Pity. And yes, hence a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Along with the positive suggestions, well said.
Have your say on the future of nuclear power.
The government has launched a public consultation on the future use of nuclear power generation in a 'low carbon UK economy'.
Anyone in the UK can contribute, all you have to do is register. See Nuclear Consultation for full details.
They claim that "Your views will contribute to the shaping of the policy on the future of civil nuclear power".
Well, as they say, time will tell; this government's track record on listening isn't exactly one to be proud of.
Anyone in the UK can contribute, all you have to do is register. See Nuclear Consultation for full details.
They claim that "Your views will contribute to the shaping of the policy on the future of civil nuclear power".
Well, as they say, time will tell; this government's track record on listening isn't exactly one to be proud of.
Who's dissin' who?
When is branding disingenuous?
As with all things, it can span a range. I certainly think a lot are making things worse for themselves and the message by being so darn clunky, especially with the environment. If a plane is more fuel efficient or a bank goes 'carbon neutral' then great, but it really only helps their bottom line or CSR report at the AGM. Hardly worth an ad. And cars with leaves blowing out their exhausts are plain daft. And some are just desperate. I have AdSense on my blog and often click on intriguing, if vague, ads covering many green areas. Almost all seem to lead to Exxon Mobil. If I thought poorly of them before, I think even less now.
Best Global Brands: How valuable is green?
I think consumers do care about the environment more than some reports claim, and this may be a reflection on the questions asked and/or actions measures.
For a start, it's hard to care too much if there is no end-benefit. Sounds selfish, but it's true. I still get a PR almost daily expecting me to run a piece on why so-and so has gone carbon neutral. Despite that term having almost no rational meaning and now being almost worthless, while it's great a bank recycles its paper or uses green energy, that really only effects their own internal bottom line or CSR report.
Also so much is about things you can DO. It's hard to get very excited about anything that simply says 'isn't green lovely' when that's about the substance of it all.
The consumer needs to feel a sense of reward. This can be 'making a difference', so long as it is clear and measurable, and trusted, but there is little better than saving time, saving money... and the planet. Few brands deliver on that yet.
Exploiting a brands's green appeal
As with all things, it can span a range. I certainly think a lot are making things worse for themselves and the message by being so darn clunky, especially with the environment. If a plane is more fuel efficient or a bank goes 'carbon neutral' then great, but it really only helps their bottom line or CSR report at the AGM. Hardly worth an ad. And cars with leaves blowing out their exhausts are plain daft. And some are just desperate. I have AdSense on my blog and often click on intriguing, if vague, ads covering many green areas. Almost all seem to lead to Exxon Mobil. If I thought poorly of them before, I think even less now.
Best Global Brands: How valuable is green?
I think consumers do care about the environment more than some reports claim, and this may be a reflection on the questions asked and/or actions measures.
For a start, it's hard to care too much if there is no end-benefit. Sounds selfish, but it's true. I still get a PR almost daily expecting me to run a piece on why so-and so has gone carbon neutral. Despite that term having almost no rational meaning and now being almost worthless, while it's great a bank recycles its paper or uses green energy, that really only effects their own internal bottom line or CSR report.
Also so much is about things you can DO. It's hard to get very excited about anything that simply says 'isn't green lovely' when that's about the substance of it all.
The consumer needs to feel a sense of reward. This can be 'making a difference', so long as it is clear and measurable, and trusted, but there is little better than saving time, saving money... and the planet. Few brands deliver on that yet.
Exploiting a brands's green appeal
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Floods & Tears 2 - Apres le deluge
It's still raining, and it's still wet. It's also Sunday, so the supps are out, along with the TV round-ups, and this is not quite going away.
I have just returned to my keyboard with the dulcet tones of Hazel Blears, Minister for something, ringing in my ear. I'm not sure, but I don't think she answered a single question, but told us all sorts of stuff we probably already knew about how awful it all was. And how she, personally, had been to see it. It was also interesting how she, personally was going to look at doing at lot, which begs the question as to what she had been doing the last decade.
And again, the thing to remember is that it was/is all unprecedented, and could not have been predicted. When is wasn't, and was.Hmmn. I guess if they say it enough we'll end up accepting it.
I've decided therefore to pop in another staging post of what's out there so far to see what we do know, and can do. Don't hold your breath.
Times - Flood chiefs get big cash bonuses - good start. I am really unclear as to why all our quango heads seem to be on nice little extra earners at all, much less like this. Especially when “The management of flood defences in recent years has been a sorry tale of budget cuts, failure to act on planning policies and inadequate precautionary measures"
Times - Century of neglect means the land can’t take it any more - "All this has happened despite the furrowed brows of the insurance industry and the protestations of the Environment Agency, which until recently was not even a statutory consultee in planning for flood plains." ps: I have Sea Change standing ready to read and review soon.
Times - After the flood, a surge of anger - And no wonder: “Yvette Cooper, the housing minister, might look at these and say, ‘Great! They didn’t flood, so you can build on flood plains!’ But that’s because they raised the level of the ground under the new houses - which meant that our road flooded instead.' That's the ways to a bonus these days, or a boosted career: shunt the problem downstream, preferably long enough to not be held to account by moving job.
'A recently leaked memo from the government’s spending review shows that before Gordon Brown became PM he was planning to cut millions from the EA’s flood defence budget later this year.'
There will be more.
Telegraph - 'I warned ministers of extreme flooding' - So... it couldn't be predicted then?
Telegraph - Why it is ministers who must carry the can - Quite: "Ministers were warned they should have reassessed the risks three years ago. My bet it was them, not the agency, that slept on their watch.'
Express - BROWN'S £1BILLION FLOOD PROFIT - That's an interesting stealth 'income generation scheme': spend 10 years doing sod all, blame God, 'unprecedented' events that have happened before and unpredictable situations which were warned about for whatever happens, pledge a pittance and then rake in the gravy mopping up. No wonder Dear Leader and his merry crew are happy to create ever more departments and bonus-bought-off, crony-headed quangos to keep the wheels of revenue spinning through ineptitude.
Guardian - Up to our necks in hype Plus quite a lot of precedented, predictable and hence avoidable flood water.
I have just returned to my keyboard with the dulcet tones of Hazel Blears, Minister for something, ringing in my ear. I'm not sure, but I don't think she answered a single question, but told us all sorts of stuff we probably already knew about how awful it all was. And how she, personally, had been to see it. It was also interesting how she, personally was going to look at doing at lot, which begs the question as to what she had been doing the last decade.
And again, the thing to remember is that it was/is all unprecedented, and could not have been predicted. When is wasn't, and was.Hmmn. I guess if they say it enough we'll end up accepting it.
I've decided therefore to pop in another staging post of what's out there so far to see what we do know, and can do. Don't hold your breath.
Times - Flood chiefs get big cash bonuses - good start. I am really unclear as to why all our quango heads seem to be on nice little extra earners at all, much less like this. Especially when “The management of flood defences in recent years has been a sorry tale of budget cuts, failure to act on planning policies and inadequate precautionary measures"
Times - Century of neglect means the land can’t take it any more - "All this has happened despite the furrowed brows of the insurance industry and the protestations of the Environment Agency, which until recently was not even a statutory consultee in planning for flood plains." ps: I have Sea Change standing ready to read and review soon.
Times - After the flood, a surge of anger - And no wonder: “Yvette Cooper, the housing minister, might look at these and say, ‘Great! They didn’t flood, so you can build on flood plains!’ But that’s because they raised the level of the ground under the new houses - which meant that our road flooded instead.' That's the ways to a bonus these days, or a boosted career: shunt the problem downstream, preferably long enough to not be held to account by moving job.
'A recently leaked memo from the government’s spending review shows that before Gordon Brown became PM he was planning to cut millions from the EA’s flood defence budget later this year.'
There will be more.
Telegraph - 'I warned ministers of extreme flooding' - So... it couldn't be predicted then?
Telegraph - Why it is ministers who must carry the can - Quite: "Ministers were warned they should have reassessed the risks three years ago. My bet it was them, not the agency, that slept on their watch.'
Express - BROWN'S £1BILLION FLOOD PROFIT - That's an interesting stealth 'income generation scheme': spend 10 years doing sod all, blame God, 'unprecedented' events that have happened before and unpredictable situations which were warned about for whatever happens, pledge a pittance and then rake in the gravy mopping up. No wonder Dear Leader and his merry crew are happy to create ever more departments and bonus-bought-off, crony-headed quangos to keep the wheels of revenue spinning through ineptitude.
Guardian - Up to our necks in hype Plus quite a lot of precedented, predictable and hence avoidable flood water.
Swords & Ploughshares
It must be hard for those who see livelihoods threatened not to see some issues in terms of potential conflict: BPF to battle green backlash
So I am pleased to see the tone being adopted here.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is much in the world of plastics that may not be 'necessary', and hence contribute poorly in an environmental sense. And yes, packaging is copping more than its fair share, again probably with some deserved. But I am trying to assess if all I see and hear in the media, from politicians, pressure groups and, indeed, the media, is warranted in the greater enviROI scheme of things.
For good or ill, we are talking about a fundamental part of a capitalist, consumerist society, along with everything else that may be associated with buying and selling, from design to advertising. So when it comes to what is, and isn't 'necessary', I find the icons of evil that get selected to be so far very, well, selective.
And way too much onus is being placed on the consumer to effect change using hype, spin and, in many cases guilt or threat. I guess you guys may not like where I am going with this, but a lot is simply at the wrong end. If a 4x4 or a bottle of water (which may have been missed in some areas of late if 'banned') is legal to make and market, if they are so bad why on earth is there all this official effort to stop 'us' buying them only once they arrive on the shelves?
So maybe this can work to 'your' advantage. Once you get to legislative measures the argument has to be a bit more sensible, with all pros and cons evaluated. Which will eliminate the ill-informed, the knee-jerk and the bandwagon jumpers. Having been to such as Total Packaging recently and been persuaded by some of the arguments and explanations, I think the public has a right, and definitely need to know the reasoning behind many choices to help them arrive at sensible purchase decisions. But there are limits. I live in dread of the CD-Rom that will come with my crisp packet to explain its health, food miles and carbon consequences in every format accepted by all parties just to tick a few more boxes.
One simple fact that struck me from the show was simple economics. Why would anyone spend all this money if they didn't have to (ok, there are truly excessive design/materials to encourage purchase - who decides, though, what is and isn't... in any industry?). But also there is such as the enviROI of food waste versus that of the packaging to prevent it. Or the cost to consumer, and planet, of damaged rejects.
Green cannot, and should not be viewed just in terms of black and white.
All concerned have a duty to make the decisions behind what is done with good reason clear. And, I would suggest, not as an industry on the defensive but, as a brand that is, as you suggest... confident, but concerned. But make sure the public believes you are concerned for the right reasons or, as with Live Earth, the message can be undermined by the credibility of some messengers.
While I have mixed views on plastic bags (and certainly on all that is wrong with the massively wasteful bits of media-nonsense such as the 'I am not a plastic bag' effort), they should be, as you say, a pretty trivial issue. Yet you need to be careful how you defend them. If they stand up environmentally in comparison to other options then I would like to hear the justification. And would be more impressed if it's not just on a point of principle, but rationality. If the argument strays into whether it's 'worth it' as the money is mostly from overseas then one moves to murkier waters.
The environment is not a problem to be dealt with; it is an opportunity to embrace. And to secure your industry's part in protecting the future you need to demonstrate how integral it is to every aspect of consumer life... and that there is a commitment to mitigating the potential downsides.
I'm not so sure where the fault (opportunity?) lies, but speaking as a consumer I for one am astounded at how woeful the provision of adequate mechanisms of proactive disposal (primarily via recycling, or my personal favourite for obvious reasons: reuse!) still are, or indeed adequate information on how, when and where to do anything 're' properly. Despite the squillions so far blown on campaigns that may better have been first invested in infrastructure. So yes... be part of the solution and be seen to take a lead in making sense of all this... and embarrass into silence, or support, those who would seek easy capital as a consequence.
Stick with the facts, but remember we do live in a world where these get dressed up for 'sale' just as a slickly by all protagonists as a box of Ferrero Rocher (I am sure every Lib Dem's and Independent journalist's partner looks forward to their bag of boiled sweets on Valentines as they pop off for a weekend in Barcelona). So I look forward to some interesting times ahead.
So I am pleased to see the tone being adopted here.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is much in the world of plastics that may not be 'necessary', and hence contribute poorly in an environmental sense. And yes, packaging is copping more than its fair share, again probably with some deserved. But I am trying to assess if all I see and hear in the media, from politicians, pressure groups and, indeed, the media, is warranted in the greater enviROI scheme of things.
For good or ill, we are talking about a fundamental part of a capitalist, consumerist society, along with everything else that may be associated with buying and selling, from design to advertising. So when it comes to what is, and isn't 'necessary', I find the icons of evil that get selected to be so far very, well, selective.
And way too much onus is being placed on the consumer to effect change using hype, spin and, in many cases guilt or threat. I guess you guys may not like where I am going with this, but a lot is simply at the wrong end. If a 4x4 or a bottle of water (which may have been missed in some areas of late if 'banned') is legal to make and market, if they are so bad why on earth is there all this official effort to stop 'us' buying them only once they arrive on the shelves?
So maybe this can work to 'your' advantage. Once you get to legislative measures the argument has to be a bit more sensible, with all pros and cons evaluated. Which will eliminate the ill-informed, the knee-jerk and the bandwagon jumpers. Having been to such as Total Packaging recently and been persuaded by some of the arguments and explanations, I think the public has a right, and definitely need to know the reasoning behind many choices to help them arrive at sensible purchase decisions. But there are limits. I live in dread of the CD-Rom that will come with my crisp packet to explain its health, food miles and carbon consequences in every format accepted by all parties just to tick a few more boxes.
One simple fact that struck me from the show was simple economics. Why would anyone spend all this money if they didn't have to (ok, there are truly excessive design/materials to encourage purchase - who decides, though, what is and isn't... in any industry?). But also there is such as the enviROI of food waste versus that of the packaging to prevent it. Or the cost to consumer, and planet, of damaged rejects.
Green cannot, and should not be viewed just in terms of black and white.
All concerned have a duty to make the decisions behind what is done with good reason clear. And, I would suggest, not as an industry on the defensive but, as a brand that is, as you suggest... confident, but concerned. But make sure the public believes you are concerned for the right reasons or, as with Live Earth, the message can be undermined by the credibility of some messengers.
While I have mixed views on plastic bags (and certainly on all that is wrong with the massively wasteful bits of media-nonsense such as the 'I am not a plastic bag' effort), they should be, as you say, a pretty trivial issue. Yet you need to be careful how you defend them. If they stand up environmentally in comparison to other options then I would like to hear the justification. And would be more impressed if it's not just on a point of principle, but rationality. If the argument strays into whether it's 'worth it' as the money is mostly from overseas then one moves to murkier waters.
The environment is not a problem to be dealt with; it is an opportunity to embrace. And to secure your industry's part in protecting the future you need to demonstrate how integral it is to every aspect of consumer life... and that there is a commitment to mitigating the potential downsides.
I'm not so sure where the fault (opportunity?) lies, but speaking as a consumer I for one am astounded at how woeful the provision of adequate mechanisms of proactive disposal (primarily via recycling, or my personal favourite for obvious reasons: reuse!) still are, or indeed adequate information on how, when and where to do anything 're' properly. Despite the squillions so far blown on campaigns that may better have been first invested in infrastructure. So yes... be part of the solution and be seen to take a lead in making sense of all this... and embarrass into silence, or support, those who would seek easy capital as a consequence.
Stick with the facts, but remember we do live in a world where these get dressed up for 'sale' just as a slickly by all protagonists as a box of Ferrero Rocher (I am sure every Lib Dem's and Independent journalist's partner looks forward to their bag of boiled sweets on Valentines as they pop off for a weekend in Barcelona). So I look forward to some interesting times ahead.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
It's not natural
I just had to share this as the wording struck me as funny (even if the message isn't): Green Party Speaker to appear opposite man-made climate change denier Johnny Ball.
Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall will this Sunday appear
opposite man-made climate change denier Johnny Ball, of children's TV
fame, on Sky News at 11.20 AM.
Anthropomorphic Man!
Sorry, it's the weekend, it's early and I needed a laugh.
Green Party Principal Speaker Dr. Derek Wall will this Sunday appear
opposite man-made climate change denier Johnny Ball, of children's TV
fame, on Sky News at 11.20 AM.
Anthropomorphic Man!
Sorry, it's the weekend, it's early and I needed a laugh.
I am not a plastic bag.
Or... just another over-hyped, negative enviROI, truly insane way to make even more useless rubbish on the back of a bunch of faddish green sheep and their trendy magazine cheerleaders. Or this, the real thing: Make Plastic Bag Yarn
Then you can make it into fleeces to offer customers who need to keep warm outside the pub instead of using patio heaters!
Then you can make it into fleeces to offer customers who need to keep warm outside the pub instead of using patio heaters!
Bears thinking about
And that's not all they do in the woods. Along with many other furry friends of a more domestic nature: The Pet Economy
You know those Clarks shoes we had when we were kids. The ones with the footprints?
I wonder what the carbon version of a Tibby or Rover is?
See how that one plays with the HuggyLuvvies.
BBC
You know those Clarks shoes we had when we were kids. The ones with the footprints?
I wonder what the carbon version of a Tibby or Rover is?
See how that one plays with the HuggyLuvvies.
BBC
Friday, July 27, 2007
How hungry are you?
Last night I was watching, shock-horror... Dragon's Den!
Now some may know that I have not been a fan. I watched the first series and really didn't take to the set up. Then I was invited to take part and managed to get myself bounced pre-heats (I suspect by letting on too much of my 'no such thing as bad PR' agenda) so sulked a bit. Then I met several lovely people who had taken part and really didn't like it for hwo they had been treated. Then I took part in SKY's Big Idea and saw just what I could have got into, and so liked the whole thing even less.
But this was a 'where are they now?' compilation.
Now, as we all know, many things can be conjured in the edit suite, so it's odd that I hung in for the first 50 minutes because it conformed to all my worst imaginings. Mostly this was a bunch of poor sods being set up for a nasty fall. And the sheer arrogance of the judges was simply breathtaking. All my previous misgivings about how poorly this represented the inventor/entrepreneur/VC process was reinforced in spades. Why does it have to be like that... well, good TV of course! At least a few who were ill-served by the finance process were still doing OK riding the wave of the BBC audience base.
Then we got to the final one. And this was a true success. So its position was not surprising assuming the BBC has a modicum of ethics and desire to at least tilt to the notion that it's trying to promote a public service, and not just muck about boosting ratings. How that Evan guy has any cred elsewhere as a consequence is a mystery.
Ignoring for now that the BBC machine is putting a scag load of wonga in other people's pockets by playing along (and if I could do it, I would, so no harm, no foul), this was an interesting set-piece in how it could/should be done.
Shame the product was vile, being some kind of TellyTubby Teddybear (I would have thought the IP would have been interesting) so your kid can truly do without any parental input at all (which the usually less than my favourite Duncan noted and bailed from the off), and bust it within a day.
But the process was more than interesting. The pitcher, a bright young lad, had really got his plan together, and it pushed the moneymens' buttons big time. Plus he sucked up to them in all the right ways, which got them on board. But he also seemed to listen and respond... quickly, which really got them proactive. To the extent that, instead of almost all else I have seen pumped out on the BBC news by way of a commercial for whatever they are trying to push to success to justify the show, the principals actually seemed to be taking part beyond dropping chump change... along with the poor sods they toy with.
Of course, the lure of personal profile with a running camera (oddly Argos got a mention, plus a corporate shot... nothing to do with their being a partner) and the chance of turning a buck may have helped.
I still think the whole thing is pretty despicable, but at least with this one, small exception, I saw a glimmer how all the parties could pull together to make something work.
Something to bear in mind as today I have just posted the package for the IP competition to throw some serious weight behind RE:tie. I just hope that when I hit the VC trail, they are nothing like most of what I saw on display last night.
If I am putting money in another's pockets, I not only want to do so knowing it's justified, but they deserve it too. Plus I'd prefer to like 'em and know they at least have some soul.
Now some may know that I have not been a fan. I watched the first series and really didn't take to the set up. Then I was invited to take part and managed to get myself bounced pre-heats (I suspect by letting on too much of my 'no such thing as bad PR' agenda) so sulked a bit. Then I met several lovely people who had taken part and really didn't like it for hwo they had been treated. Then I took part in SKY's Big Idea and saw just what I could have got into, and so liked the whole thing even less.
But this was a 'where are they now?' compilation.
Now, as we all know, many things can be conjured in the edit suite, so it's odd that I hung in for the first 50 minutes because it conformed to all my worst imaginings. Mostly this was a bunch of poor sods being set up for a nasty fall. And the sheer arrogance of the judges was simply breathtaking. All my previous misgivings about how poorly this represented the inventor/entrepreneur/VC process was reinforced in spades. Why does it have to be like that... well, good TV of course! At least a few who were ill-served by the finance process were still doing OK riding the wave of the BBC audience base.
Then we got to the final one. And this was a true success. So its position was not surprising assuming the BBC has a modicum of ethics and desire to at least tilt to the notion that it's trying to promote a public service, and not just muck about boosting ratings. How that Evan guy has any cred elsewhere as a consequence is a mystery.
Ignoring for now that the BBC machine is putting a scag load of wonga in other people's pockets by playing along (and if I could do it, I would, so no harm, no foul), this was an interesting set-piece in how it could/should be done.
Shame the product was vile, being some kind of TellyTubby Teddybear (I would have thought the IP would have been interesting) so your kid can truly do without any parental input at all (which the usually less than my favourite Duncan noted and bailed from the off), and bust it within a day.
But the process was more than interesting. The pitcher, a bright young lad, had really got his plan together, and it pushed the moneymens' buttons big time. Plus he sucked up to them in all the right ways, which got them on board. But he also seemed to listen and respond... quickly, which really got them proactive. To the extent that, instead of almost all else I have seen pumped out on the BBC news by way of a commercial for whatever they are trying to push to success to justify the show, the principals actually seemed to be taking part beyond dropping chump change... along with the poor sods they toy with.
Of course, the lure of personal profile with a running camera (oddly Argos got a mention, plus a corporate shot... nothing to do with their being a partner) and the chance of turning a buck may have helped.
I still think the whole thing is pretty despicable, but at least with this one, small exception, I saw a glimmer how all the parties could pull together to make something work.
Something to bear in mind as today I have just posted the package for the IP competition to throw some serious weight behind RE:tie. I just hope that when I hit the VC trail, they are nothing like most of what I saw on display last night.
If I am putting money in another's pockets, I not only want to do so knowing it's justified, but they deserve it too. Plus I'd prefer to like 'em and know they at least have some soul.
The Big Green Gathering
It's on the site, but I really should mention it here as well: http://www.big-green-gathering.com
Because, amongst many other fine things, our very own First Lady and her band greenhaus will be appearing there!
I'll be the one with the bright pink Vac:Sac on his pack taking pictures.
ps: Yes, we're driving down (4-up plus tents... what to do?). No we're not likely to pledge much that we need to do more than we are. And until I can trust one, my offsetting choice is blowing yet more on Junkk.com and RE:tie.
Because, amongst many other fine things, our very own First Lady and her band greenhaus will be appearing there!
I'll be the one with the bright pink Vac:Sac on his pack taking pictures.
ps: Yes, we're driving down (4-up plus tents... what to do?). No we're not likely to pledge much that we need to do more than we are. And until I can trust one, my offsetting choice is blowing yet more on Junkk.com and RE:tie.
Funny Ha...ah?
Last night I was watching the very derivative, but still hugely funny 'Mock the Week', where the usual comic suspects gather to show how witty they are... after some editing to 'enhance truth'.
In this case it is a stretch I can cope with, as it is in the name of entertainment.
Anyway, something did strike me, and that was/is the power of humour... for good or ill.
Because one topic was the re-designation of cannabis. And, as good, upstanding folk who get up at midday and work all night in dark clubs, the 'panels' were not in favour. So we were treated to a series of one-liners around the notions that weed is much less this and that than just about anything. Comics being on the cutting edge of such things 'n all.
Cannabis 'raises psychosis risk' would suggest that it is not really that benign.
Whoa... dudes.
BBC - Cannabis harm worse than tobacco - another channel I guess
In this case it is a stretch I can cope with, as it is in the name of entertainment.
Anyway, something did strike me, and that was/is the power of humour... for good or ill.
Because one topic was the re-designation of cannabis. And, as good, upstanding folk who get up at midday and work all night in dark clubs, the 'panels' were not in favour. So we were treated to a series of one-liners around the notions that weed is much less this and that than just about anything. Comics being on the cutting edge of such things 'n all.
Cannabis 'raises psychosis risk' would suggest that it is not really that benign.
Whoa... dudes.
BBC - Cannabis harm worse than tobacco - another channel I guess
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)