And why not?

As one looking for a rather rare complement to myself to help further the Junkk/RE:tie causes, this caught my eye.

It's a classified jobs ad from the Appointments section of the Sunday Times.

Interestingly, and perhaps problematically, it makes no mention of the product or indeed company/person behind it.

I guess that comes if the right candidate bites.

I have decided to write to the contact to simply ask that if they get a candidate who is good, but perhaps a tad cheaper (and hence beneath them) to send 'em my way.

Can't hurt, eh?

Green? That's rich!

I read one paper a week hardcopy: The Sunday Times.

The reason is mainly one of habit. I just like to sit and read a paper, by hand, for a few hours, and I think it was a combo of the free TV listings and an IT supplement called Doors (now absorbed into the Lifestyle section) that got me on it. Of course, I still surf all the rest online. Though interestingly, during the week I get perhaps more via online with the Indy and Guardian, as these guys send me an email daily. The Telegraph used to, but it seems to have vanished. The Times, as far as I am aware, does not.

Anyway, there is no substitute to having it in your hands to get a 'feel' for the paper. And I suddenly realised how this one (and frankly all the others, no matter what 'ing' their hue) has moved beyond where I am as a reader and, one presumes, target for ad materials.

Just to sample two articles from two sections this week:

Private jet sales breaking barrier

How green is my mansion?

Now I'm all for aspirational stuff, but it really seems to me that, between editorial such as this, and the ads that complement (?) them, there is a huge disconnect between what we are being served up as 'normal' lifestyle and what most of us are dealing with.

Especially that latter piece. Fun though it is to touch such worlds, if only by flattering shallow egos, I think the so-called 'quality's' need to drag their minions out of the rear-ends of all those in high fiance and celebdom and start reflecting some more pragmatic issues that really do affect us 'all'.

PRwatch - Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed

Peak oil - are we already there?

Peak Oil has been a much talked about event for quite a few years now, but this from The Guardian reports on the findings of Germany's Energy Watch Group, suggests that far from having many years to go before we get there, peak oil actually occurred in 2006. (Oh, and note the eye-catching and scaremongering headline, which talks of 'war and unrest', neither of which are mentioned again in the article.)

"The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year, comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 (£44) a barrel."

And I've noticed today that some futures for oil are trading around the $100+ mark.

"But the government prefers to sleep on without even doing a contingency study. For those of us who know that premature peak oil is a clear and present danger, it is impossible to understand such complacency."

There's nowt like burying your head in the sand; and this in the very week that our very own government is going to backtrack on its much vaunted renewables targets! (See Not Ready. Miss. Re-Aim below). So when big oil's pumps run dry, as they inevitably will, at least here in the UK we'll be able to fill up with alternative renewable fuels like bio-deisel and ethanol ....... NOT!!

Addendum:
More scary headlines ........ 'Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society' is the headline that Renew, Reuse, Recycle comes up with for its interpretation of this same report.

ADDENDUM (from Junkk Male)

Guardian - It's rip-off Britain, even when it comes to climate change - I so envy such as Directors of orgnaisations who get paid well to say lots of things. Post by 'askingquestions' is well worth a read.

Gaurdian - Give ministers some credit for green measures

We don't need another hero

At least, and with all due deference to Tina Turner, if this is what is meant: Heroes of the environment

I actually got that from the Guardian, but lost the link. Maybe from the horse's orifice is better.

I was going to post on the CiF 'debate' but it was already below gutter level and seemed worth avoiding.

Suffice to say, I remain pretty sure my feelings about the right messengers for the message were enhanced by the fall out. What do these journalists and editors do to compile such things? Google a few green words and assume those who get the most mentions (in any context) must be doing the most?

And I say as a very reluctantly-named Green 'Hero' in a recent competition.

Why I love the internet (and blogs)

I clicked on this because it mentioned pop concerts not being the best way forward: Anita was a true activist

But I ended up appreciating it more for what blogs can throw up (if true and proven).

Check out post #5/Principe

Seems that BOFDIs are not the only one's who have, or fund, those who might push their interests for reasons other than those stated.

One man's activist is another's agenda pusher?

But I will try and stick with the argument and ignore who is making it. Nice one, Guardian.

Not ready. Miss. Re-aim.

Labour's plan to abandon renewable energy targets

It's not MY fault that today has a bit of a target theme.

There are just so many of 'em you'd think someone could hit something.

But no.

Hence the next best thing seesm to be to remove them as anything worth going for in the first, or last, place.

Thing is, just how much has been consumed... wasted... in all the processes leading up them so far?

I think we should know. To see what else maybe we can do without.

Making a monkey of surveys

Some online surveys I get seem to be powered by a thing called 'Survey Monkey'.

Never really thought about it until now, but considering the number we get, and the value most have, you could do worse to hire a troupe of chimps to write the questions, ask 'em, collate the answers, publish the results and then report on them.

The latter brings me to the fact that according to the BBC (I'm sure some online will clarify further later) the people of Winchester need to hang their heads in shame.

Yes, in the nth survey result of the week on matters eco, and the second just today, we learn that this fair town is single-handedly causing the world to burn.

There will be a fuss, and a flurry of stuff, and then the circus will move on. What possible use is all that?

Targets, with the possibility of more targets soon

Just caught the tail end of a BBC News piece on excess packaging.

Don't know what kicked it off (will add later if any follow-up on or offline), but on the sofa was a guy from M&S and Lucy Siegel from the Observer.

He was rather copping it from her and the BBC sofa warriors, and I was wondering why. From the sound of it either a) they came bottom in 'a' survey (in which case one wonders which one, as they came top in the majority I read... ah, surveys) or b) the others didn't turn up. A few 'statements' were read out.

Other than being discomfiting for this gent, who was subject to a set of target and date demands, and agreeing that 'things need to improve', I am unsure where this piece moved us on to.

The key, certainly alluded to, is working together with those tasked to deal with the waste produced in manners such that the consumer knows what to do... and does it.

But representatives of such entities were noticeably absent. Leaving us with just another set of targets now that will be forgotten, and likely be unmet, as soon as the media turn their attention elsewhere.

ADDENDUM - That'll teach me to hang fire! it is actually a major feature. Seems that yet another survey (my fourth in a week), this time from the Local Government Association (LGA) has dumped on our major retailers for the packaging waste problem.

As to M&S, it seems they came bottom (which makes one wonder about the other surveys mentioned in these posts recently), which rather suggest that plans (even if they are 'A') are about as much cop as targets.

Actually I have no cause yet (until I read an online report in more detail) to change much else of what I wrote. I rather suspect this might stray into a bit of finger-pointing as the LAs and government (well silent so far) are not exactly innocent here.

Also, in terms of enviROI, I really hope that we won't see some knee-jerk actions away from what looks good or meets a target at the expense of common sense. I do wonder if there is more concern about what is not going into the appropriate bin and gets measured as opposed to what costs the planet. It seems disingenuous to equate what and how one buys from a street stall with the logistics of a supermarket. And a skip full of neatly sorted veg trays may be lovely to behold, but not if elsewhere there are ten full of rejected food waste.

Indy - National supermarkets criticised over failure to cut levels of packaging

Didn't take long! And yes, yet another survey. I just have to wonder... 'a market?'

This amplification doesn't change my views on reasons behind much of this, or indeed the lack of real solutions.

Indy - Customers could dump wrappers before leaving shop under new law

BBC - tried to find the story. Got as far as here. Failed as link didn't work.

One word: 'could'. Next words: Is this unfairly shunting the issue onto only one section when we need a proper, coordinated approach from all protagonists first?'

Guardian - M&S gets the lowest green rating in packaging survey - What price a £100kpa CSR guru now?

Guardian (podcast) - 'The cost is passed on to the council taxpayer' - Let the games begin.

I was on board pretty much until the end.

That came across a tad as 'Help 'us' meet targets or we'll drop the fines on 'you'.'

What if these targets are not that relevant in the overall enviROI+ scheme of things (I don't know, but would like to see how a trip to one supermarket compares in terms of 'footprint' to going to several places. Or how the consequences of packaging waste stack up vs. food waste as a consequence of rejected/disposed of foodstuffs).

When there are so many departments/quangos whose officers/directors are on bonuses based on simply getting rates up in their sectors, I am afraid my confidence is dented in the motives any comms effort, especially funded with our money, on ads and PR campaigns.

Our paying to fund the mechanism to drive up rates to improve such folks' bonuses strikes me as a conflict of interest at best.

And in a nation of 60B+ and soaring, most working 12 hrs a day just to stay on top of life's demands (and those of a growing public service in terms of salaries and pensions), I am not yet convinced just whose best interests are being served by some of these initiatives and the media efforts thrown behind them.

There's climate. And the weather. And how it gets referred to.

I liked his book. Seems a nice guy. But Leo Hickman has dropped a notch in my estimation here: And now for the weather

From the BBC pitching English grads to 'analyse' environmental data, to Al Gore being called a climate science student, I am seeing a worrying trend.

And that is some precautionary advocates getting a little out of their depth on the science side and paying the price.

Trouble is, they take a lot with them. Their past good works for one. And the task those trying to stay on a very objective course with roughly the same aim, but different methodologies.

I won't be posting as this looks like a really t'is/tisn't flame war in the making. I just hope the rebuttal doesn't end up with the now wearily familiar 'so ok it's not all accurate, but his heart's in the right place'.

Slow suicide. Or fast. It's just which method we choose.

Scientists have a new way to reshape nature, but none can predict the cost

As creative souls who are driven (through ego, desire for reward, etc) to 'make' things, it seems we have reached a rather tricky point in our race's 'development'.

The planet can no longer absorb all of us and what we do to pollute it.

Hence there are some big questions to ask, though I don't see many in a position to do anything about them even going near.

From climate change to health issues to food production, technology assuredly can buy us more time by squeezing gallons out of pint pots.

But unless we accept that there is a finite limit to which we are inexorably heading, I'd suggest most I read about and see debated with great passion here is soon going to be academic.

I'd just like to see a few priorities rearranged is all.

Compostable bioplastics - the future?

An interesting article from the Baltimore Sun, reporting on the emergence of the first biodegradable bioplastics which can actually be composted.

There appear to be a number of criticisms, not least of which is cost (three times conventional petroleum based plastics) but also that manufacture produces CO2 (as does conventional plastics manufacture?). There are also concerns from some that GM bacteria are used in some of the processes (plus GM feed crops too, in some cases), and there seem to be some unanswered questions around recycling. However, they do not produce any of the toxins involved in the production of PVC's, PET's and Polystyrenes etc.

I reckon that these warrant further watching and investigation, they do seem to provide some potential advantages for the future. There are some concern factors that will also need to be taken into account, but, as crude oil prices continue to rise (which is inevitable) the cost of conventional plastics will rise accordingly. There will come a time when bioplastics will surely become the materials of choice, if only because of the biodegradability factor.

Surveys say...

... very little, really.

Brighton's best? Well maybe...

Named by whom? And on what basis?

I know it's all terribly fun and all playing greenupmanship (as your piece ably shares) once sufficient dosh is tucked away, but it's coming to something when we don't even bother to worry much about which pointless green survey is getting touted today to tell us... nothing much really.

I'm guessing that it's the carrier bag ban thing. Which, if I am to believe the latest Volkswagen TV ad, is what we now measure the efficacy of buying new 'green' cars upon.

A simple guide to climate change

This simple to understand overview of the current scientific understanding of climate change comes from the Royal Society. It responds to eight of the common contentious arguments in simple terms, explaining where the known scientific evidence lies.

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming."

Well worth spending a little time exploring.

How green is my...well... anything?

Supermarkets fail to be “truly green”

Attracted by that headline, I have to now question the value of such surveys, especially under the rather vague catch-all banner of 'green' or indeed what makes one so... or not.

In just one week I think I was sent at least three. And while the protagonists were similar, their rankings bounced around so much as to make comparisons less than helpful.

Of course it is down to methodologies, but what consumer has the time or inclination to delve too deeply.

Which, like the plethora of existing and proposed labelling schemes, makes one question what value these things have save to create a bit of revenue for those who play with such things, those who write about them (myself included) and a a few box-tickers somewhere.

Not sure if my kids or the planet gain much, though.

Especially now, having seen the latest Volkswagen Bluemotion car TVC, our future brand new car purchases are apparently to be pitched in terms of the number of plastic bag equivalents driving one will 'save' a year. Do what???!

ps: I never did get told how much actual plastic (in weight/volume/Fairy Liquid bottles), the seeming 200+/- that 'we' use each year equates tot warrant the peculiar devotion this 'product' excites in seaside councils and Islington-residing journalists.

Guardian - A molehill of mange

While they may once have had some minor value, all polls and surveys are hardly worth the keyboard strokes that go into their creation, publishing or subsequent discussion.

For a start there are so many. And second they all contradict each other.

Last week my little website got 3 separate surveys on 'green' supermarkets. In one Tesco was top. In the next it was bottom.

I asked for methodology and got little the wiser. So I ignore them all, save on my blog where I made roughly this point.

So, in addition to the vast armies employed to create and analyse this dross, I can add myself as one more who profited slightly for their pointless existence.

Just the facts, Ma'am

It's essential that we can all see the whole picture

I think you are being unfair to those concerned with simple accuracy in the conveyance of information (especially when expecting folk to make key decisions upon it), but well said... written!

What you share has particular resonance in my main area of interests these days, the environment.

Cherry picking facts that are convenient to the agenda/message of the author is rife, and as far as I can make out serving no one (including that author) well.

You can sort of expect an advertiser to try and paint the best picture, but even here the extremes have been taken to silly levels, as the ASA weekly testifies.

But when it comes to the media, from scientific data to surveys to just about anything I am presented, usually with a sexed up headline, as 'fact', I simply don't believe it unless I can see all the source data that lead to the - often wildly unrepresentative - conclusion.

And let's not get onto our political establishment.

So, as a minor medium myself, it amazes me to see press releases I have rejected until I get follow-up substantiation (which seldom happens), dutifully cut and pasted in pretty major organs.

As you say, 'just the facts, ma'am'.

The answers my friends, are blowing in the wind

Two papers. Two views on micro-generation.

Shout it from the rooftops: you're powering the country

Should I buy a rooftop turbine for my house?

Enjoy.

Who does is cost to save the planet?

Well, it should come as no surprise as to who is trying to gain financially.

Green travellers face VAT shock

All I could manage was a slight giggle. I think it has gone beyond farce.

'Dere was dese two fellas

And I am sure there will soon be another. Thing is, do we deserve, or need them?

Charles launches campaign to save ravaged rainforests

So to the multi-billionaire Mr. Eliasch and his Cool Earth, we can now add HRH. How long before Al decides to add saving the forests to his portfolio of investment opportunities... and hence things to get us to support?

Now I am all for awareness, so long as it gets things pointed in the right direction. But three (well, two, so far) white, rich, 'not really practical for us to do, but say, why don't you guys try?' chaps splitting the whole forest saving gig into ever-more fractured, labour intensive, camps (offices, staff, jollies, etc, before a twig gets any money - unless they are joining forces (if so not mentioned in the piece), which seems unlikely as there are egos that need to be spared before anything else)seems to suggest we are heading down a familiar route... again.

Watch this space. Not knocking trees down is now 'in'.

What we need are more commitees - report

Or... not. ISBA issues guidelines to aid green ad claims

Another for the ToRoRAVA (talk or research or report always vs. action) Files.

Actually, I think Chris' 5 points about covers things, but I'm sure 'a wide-ranging set of guidelines on environmental claims written by a working group' will go on to clarify the issue greatly.

However, in light of how those from other bodies such as the ASA get treated, one wonders what, exactly, the difference will be.

Sadly it is only money that matters. Even more sadly, it seems the rewards go to those who make it short term (and move on quickly on the perceived kudos), irrespective to the eventual costs, to brand, profits... or planet.

You've got to right/left hand it to them

I no longer participate on the BBC is Biased site.

It was because I felt I had been moderated off unfairly, and indeed with slight sense of agenda, for an attempt to point out that an extreme view on one 'side' of climate change is usually inevitably 'balanced' to resultant deadlock by an equally view on another.

But its contributors can still throw up some interesting stuff, if erring on the 'optimistic' side of things.

I thought this was of note, more to highlight how we are in the hands of journalists and, possibly, editorial policy who can often serve the facts poorly and hence create doubt on their abilities and offerings.

Remember this

"The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels."

Phew, what a relief that the catastrophic consequences have been averted by this morning's news.

I for one would like to thank Mr Harrabin [at least it says 'BBC environment analyst [a what? As noted before, he is not exactly qualified in this field, yet his opinion is given such weight by this title?] Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations] for putting my mind at ease with his agenda free reporting of this issue.

Now years have passed and things change, but I really would like the BBC, with all its staff and resources, to get its act together so we don't just get served sensationalist stuff all the time, punted out without consideration by questionably qualified folk, usually from some press release.

It's simply too important not to get right, and especially not to give any how would use such woeful instances to advocate a 'do nothing' approach.

Actually, by my reading the BBBC implied 'critique' may not be fair, because it looks to me that the first is pointing out the consequent acidification due to increased CO2 absorption, and the second the possibility that the oceans have reached a limit of doing that any more. They are slightly different, if related, things. And neither are good, or a pass to keep on pumping the stuff out. Which I would point out on site (at risk of a real oceanographic chemical scientist - if such a title exists - slapping me down, but I'd like to get such things clear), but they don't seem keen on such questions. Shame. On them. On the BBC for being just untrustworthy these days and certainly creating an impression of agenda. And for the future of the planet our kids are being handed by 'us'.

If anyone more qualified could confirm or deny my initial thoughts I'd be grateful. On the one hand I envy folk so sure of themselves in this manner, but on the other I am appalled that simply be saying something 'is' in such a way gets though so often without challenge.

ADDENDUM - A bit more via a BBBC poster:

Article is based on an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research