One good turn...

How do you resist someone who writes to say how nice your site is... and would you mind helping her help others get on TV?

Well, you don't (plus it looks like a nifty show - just watch out for what is said will be shot, what is shot... and what ends up on the cutting room floor).

Karma, I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Climate change bill to be 'stronger'?

Every now and then something the government does surprises me, and this is no exception. The original draft climate change bill has been out for public consultation since last March, something that almost inevitably results in a major watering down of the proposed measures.

But, as reported in the Guardian this afternoon, in this case not; the amended proposals have actually come back with the recommendations potentially strengthened!

For example, they are now talking about including the emissions from the aviation and shipping industries (and quite right too!), and "the revised bill also raises the possibility of raising the emissions reductions further". (Oh, that's spoiled it a little for me, there's that word 'possibility' again.)

"The bill will make the UK the first country to put reducing carbon emissions into law. The bill, to be published next month, will put a legal duty on the government to cut emissions by at least 60% by 2050".

Well, let's see, if we cannot meet the 20% from renewables by 2020, I see it getting rather more difficult to meet a target of reducing ALL emissions by 60% by 2050. But then, of course, this lot won't be in power, and it will be a different government who has to meet (or, of course, lower to something that is achievable) that historically set target.

Addendum:
The proposed bill now also includes for some statutory powers for local councils to "pilot incentives for household waste minimisation and recycling." As reported by letsrecycle.com. And, yes, you've guessed correctly, what that almost certainly means is the introduction of pay as you throw schemes.

However, the statement "Any new schemes must be revenue neutral and should not lead to an increase in the overall cost to local residents." rather fills me with dread. In my experience, 'revenue neutral' normally means I finish up paying more for the same services!

Addendum 2:
There is now a useful Q&A section on the climate change bill in the Guardian too.

IDEA - SpagScale

Having been prodded to do what I really should more (ie: what I'm good at, making stuff down me shed), I have at last added this to the site.

Interesting, but...

I know there's a certain irony in this ad banner being on my site unpaid, let alone at all but hey-ho. Maybe it will be next year's winner?


Any Rowan & Martin Laugh-inophiles out there? I give you: Honda Racing F1 takes top accolade at Green Awards

I haven't gone to and through, it all yet, but this time there can be no sense of unsweetened grapes 'cos this year we didn't enter. The small matter of what won last year being 'odd' (to this ex creative-judge adman) and the more major fact that our money was taken to then have two sets of categories subsequently 'amalgamated'. So our modest concept found itself judged against mega-£ quango-funded monsters (who probably have a staffer to enter such things, paid with...?). No change there then, though it looks they +/- £100k categories stayed this time.

And, so, of all the things to laud, it was... an F1 car. All seen that have we? Noted and acted? Reappraised you relationship with F1 have we? Bernie? I'm sure it will stand out well in Singapore as they race all night under burning arc lamps.

'The judging panel awarded the Grand Prix to the campaign which it believed exemplifies an outstanding environmental message and has the greatest capacity to raise awareness among the general public.' I beg to differ. Or, if so, the rest must have been woeful (as always, it will be interesting to see what the comparisons were/are - more often than not you don't get to see).

Apparently, if 1% of fans who follow Formula 1 were to switch to energy saving light bulbs, according to a Honda spokesperson, the resulting energy savings would mitigate the emissions produced over three seasons by Honda's racing team. Or... if you drive a Volks Bluemotion you can use 25,000 plastic bags. But whatever you do, don't stop driving guys! And fast!

As to the rest, I hope you remember them well and were persuaded to act. Were you?

ADDENDUM - Winners - shame we can't see 'em. I'm sure linking to their sites will get you there.

Best Press Advertisement under 100k : Sustrans
Best Press Advertisement over 100k: DEFRA
Best Radio Advertisement: Capital Radio
Best Outdoor Advertisement: Transport for London
Best Website: The Carbon Trust
Best New Media: ECOutlet
Best Direct Mail: Worcestershire County Council - they won last year. Wonder what this one was?
Best Use of Copy: Stop Climate Chaos
Best use of Art Direction: London Borough of Islington
Best CSR Report: The Guardian
Best Internal Communications under 100k: MCM Architecture
Best Internal Communications over 100k: Marks & Spencer - internal... over £100k!
Best Audio Visual under 100k: Stop Climate Chaos
Best Audio Visual over 100k: Central Office of Information and DEFRA
Best Packaging Design: Greenbottle Ltd
Best PR campaign under 100k: Radio Taxis
Best PR Campaign over 100k: Honda
Best Integrated Campaign under 100k: London 21
Best Integrated Campaign over 100k: British Sky Broadcasting

Media Week - Big ads pick up green awards

Times - Bernie Ecclestone holds £10m garage sale

Guardian - Strictly Come Dancing: what would John Stuart Mill make of it? - I pop this in simply to show that even the notion of the 'popular' vote has its limitations. Actually, mixing 'professional' judges with the public seems now to be about as bad a combo as you can get. If only because as a contestant you cannot opt on a strategy that can be directed to please both, and hence will likely fall between the two.

Weather, climate and man inter-related? Never!

A fascinating lightning image I was sent over the weekend by one of my colleagues was a real eye-opener!

And, just for fun, here's a link to a video on You Tube which argues that inaction is not a viable option on climate change. Quite persuasive!

Painting into corners before building the room

I just saw this and saw red: More heat than light

We cannot allow institutions like the World Bank to impose ill-conceived carbon-based energy reforms on developing nations.

Not so much with what was being said, but the presumption of the way it was laid out, and how that played with me and hence mmight with others... such as those who may well need to be persuaded to rethink.

Whatever the merits (or not) of the subsequent piece and its arguments, I would have to opine that anything that starts 'We cannot allow...' rather sets up a few issues of sensible negotiation practice.

Such as who the heck is 'we'? And who put 'you/(or is it presuming...)us' in charge? And in what way are 'we' in a position to 'allow' anything? And doesn't it all rather suggest a mindset that is 'our way is the only way' which doesn't establish a very helpful basis to effect change?

I'll go read it now.

Yet another 'green' quango?

According to the Guardian, Hilary Benn, now of DEFRA, is looking at creating yet another government advisory service to inform citizens just how to 'green' their homes.

They are going "to create a one-stop "green homes service", making it easier for householders to change their lifestyles by offering advice, installation services and loans for equipment such as solar panels".

Now isn't that pretty much the identical remit that the Energy Savings Trust already has? On top of them we have Low Carbon Buildings, ActOnCo2, Blue Skies, the BRE, the Carbon Trust, Sustainable Development Gov. and Envirowise, as well as multiple regional and local council initiatives.

Sorry, but I can help feeling that this is just yet another example of something that our government can shout about - 'look what we've created to help out' - that is simply replicating exactly what's gone before, and achieving, well, probably, absolutely nothing! Not to mention creating another raft of civil servant, gilt-edged pensioned jobs-worth roles, controlled by a set of meaningless and ever changing targets, where promotion is earned and rewards are granted for doing sod all, and where 90% of the funding goes on staff, administration and internal projects!

Everything is talk, quangos, advisory services and waffle.
Where the hell is the DOING?

Addendum:
Even the civil servants themselves reckon the government is failing on climate change!

And, "half-hearted measures are as dangerous as the 1930s appeasement of Hitler".

Addendum (Junkk Male) - When in doubt (and having screwed up with what you have already), hire more: MPs in call for new climate body BBC

Light weights

Light bulbs - making the switch

davenorfolk - Anyone have suggestions for other useful uk sites on the same subject?

If you are into reuse as a positive, proactive notion you may fancy http://www.junkk.com/

For complements to the light ideas of this thread, there's such as this:

http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97

Plus discussion, too. I am grateful to the share of the sust-it site.

There may be one already, but when it comes to listings and comparisons, on low-energy I am keen to find an easy to weigh long-life measures, too.

I find a lot of shops will sell something that seems a good deal but serves pockets and planet poorly by blowing within months.

So far the key is to write the date of installation on the body and point out the maths of the lifespan to the retailer if they fail well before time. Not ideal, but may encourage a move to better standards of reliability which will also help the global enviROI of the industry too.

Risky business, politics, anything... not

I think we've kind of accepted, frustratingly, that there is no such thing as being held accountable for one's negative actions any more.

However, having pondered the Sunday paper's various sections today, I have realised that in complement to this there seems a bizarre over-correction when it comes to being rewarded for positives.

I usually consign the Sports section to the bin unread. However I could not help but notice that some football manger that I was dimply aware was not in favour... now is. And his predecessor now forgotten. For now. Meanwhile another is in line for some truly remarkable pay over the next 3 years.

Thing is, I really can't see how any of these guys are making a blind bit of difference in any serious way to the outcome of their team's performance. At least to justify the fuss and froth around their hiring, tenure and ultimate departure (when the ball doesn't go in the net like it used to).

However, as I presume none of this costs me a penny, I am content for it to play out and provide entertainment to those who are entertained by it all, and dubious employment to a bunch of hangers on who ... well, I'm not sure what.

But then we get to the City. This does bother me, because what these guys do can and does cost me. Thing is, again, they seem to get paid telephone numbers by simply being right once in a while, but don't seem to have to give it back when they cock-up. How does that work?

And finally, politics. Um... ditto. Only it really, really... really gets laid on when they are around when something good (and prudent ?) happens, and they are really, really, really , really hard to shift when the chickens come home to roost. Assuming they have not bailed already.

As I have already blogged, it's not just about winning. I value much more the general who coordinates a brilliant retreat to one who squanders an easy victory. Equally the CEO who helps their company weather a storm much more than one who presides over lazy profits. And as for politics, well, there more than anywhere, the noble art of doing what is right has long been sacrificed an the altar of staying on power to tell us what we think is best for us.

Let's call it 3F's - Fab Failure Funding

Guardian - Merrill Lynch, the firm lost $8bn and the chief executive had to go - with $159m

What floats your boat?

It is billed as a dilemma - How much greener are ships than planes?

I guess we can soon expect to see sea miles added to the book attached to the packaging as the responsibility is dumped, pointlessly, on us at point of purchase.

Leftover policies

It's one of those things where you can't help but agree, but equally have to wonder what the heck is going to happen if 'the Man' decides to get involved: Watching your waste

I just hope to heck we don't get subjected to some multi-million £ piece of pointless ad campaigning (shoot, I just read on. We are) where the money could be so easily, and effectively, be applied elsewhere.

I think we have to think laterally.

Speaking personally on a family issue, we are looking at reducing waste still further on a money and health basis. At the moment, we do still waste a portion, but it's mainly the kids, and that then gets consumed by yours truly either on the spot or the next day. I'm not getting any thinner.

One area we are looking at portions a lot more closely. The other month my godmother gave* me a piece of wood with four holes in it to measure 1-4 portions of spaghetti. Works a treat.

ADDENDUM - Just finished a lunch comprised mainly of what the boys didn't eat last night. I'm not sure a governminted campaign, a couple of slots on the BBC news and the nice lady from Good Housekeeping saying it's what Granny used to do is going to swing them much. But we can hope.

Meanwhile I have been asked for a piccy of Aunty's SpagScale. I reminded me that I spend too much time talking and not enough doing. So it's up on this blog now, with a link to the site with instructions (well, drill a hole in a plank... D'uh).

*I fibbed a bit. She gave me 'the plan', a utensil rubbing of her fancy effort. And it only had 3 holes. Sorry. If you can do the maths I'm sure you can do one for any number. I'm guessing 40mm for four, and there's bound to me some whizzo numb3rs way to plot it.

Corporal Fraser would be proud, I tell ye... proud!

It's half-time - and we're already 3-0 down

Tricky things, dilemmas.

It cannot have escaped most folks' notice that quite an industry has sprung up around the whole planet saving (from itself) thing.

What I am not so sure is that the balance is right between those doing vs. those talking, especially when it comes to the media talking about those doing the talking.

And it's throwing up a small problem. Facts are nice things to hang a headline on. Especially when they have dates attached.

Trouble is, if you are in the business of persuasion (no matter how sincere), once you commit to one you are kinda bound by the consequence.

So all this 'we're all doomed' stuff is causing me a slight problem. Tell it as it is, or as it might be, and risk the rather obvious deleterious consequence of going past a stated point of no return and hence rather logically acknowledging the point that there is... um... no point trying any more.

Or perhaps simply focus more on all sorts of nifty, proactive, incentive-driven, reward-based ways to get people on aboard with doing better by the planet because they want to and feel like it as opposed to scare stories, guilt-trips, fines, nags and all the other stuff that has worked sooooo well to now. Puts a lot of folk in cushy little numbers plugging those notions, from activists to target-driven pols and quangos to carbon-trading suits to....etc, out of business, but I could live with that at a pinch.

Tricky, eh?

The positives are out there. It's just it doesn't make for a good career in media to report them. So most don't. Yet still get paid well for it.

Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. Farmer Giles

Biofuels 'crime against humanity'

And yes, before you can cry 'rapeseed', the headlines have taken an issue worthy of consideration and elevated it to the level of the Judgement of Nuremberg.

Oo, 'eck. There's a point in there, but golly is this the way to make it?

Glad I didn't opt for the Saab biodiesel now. Actually, opt isn't quite the word. In fact the words 'couldn't afford' are more like it.

Anyway, yesterday the old Volvo was serviced and passed with flying colours. 11 years old, tuned to perfection, tyres at right inflation, etc.

What was interesting was a certificate I got 'for when plod stops me to do an emissions check' (it clears me, and passes the buck to the garage, at least for 6 months). Seems that beyond the MOT, you can get hauled up and have a probe stuck up your pipe. And if you fail... £80 on the spot. Nice that the priorities are again tip top.

Maybe when they stop the joyrider with no tax, insurance or MOT they can get 'em on a dodgy tune job. That'll hit 'em where it hurts... their pride.

Indy - Ditto

PROF'S POSER - Paper Cuts

This is one I'd been pondering awhile, and have been tilted to pose following a reader post about recycled book stock.

It certainly should be prefaced with a LiKADaT (little knowledge is a dangerous thing - all together now in a good Italian accent: 'Jus' a likeadat!') tag!

Let's start with the down sides of what I think I know.

Getting virgin paper needs trees. And energy. You have got to cut 'em down, munch 'em up, tidy it all with chemicals and then lay it out and stuff. That means where once there was a tree there isn't any more, and a wadge of CO2 is produced, and a load of water (I think) consumed just to get to the raw stock (we're ignoring logistics of printing and distribution, say, versus a PDF).

Getting recycled paper needs old paper. And energy. And, I believe, quite a few chemicals, too. And for some reason or other, it all costs a lot more, though the gap is closing. But what it doesn't do is consume new trees.

But.... and as I am oft minded to say, it's a big one.... here's my poser: is the former quite as bad as made out, enviROI+wise? Especially in comparison to the latter?

I am set on this trail by the logic, ironically, of offsetting. In simplistic (and now more often than not less practiced) terms it has been sold as good for the planet in the form of planting a tree, which will grow and act as a carbon sink.

So I guess my poser would be whether one could view using virgin paper, so long as it is derived from properly managed forests (and I need to sort out my FSC-certified from my stewardship-thingie. I'm guessing there are as many schemes and logos to confuse as any other e-industry), as logically being an encouragement of good environmental practice? If so, in fact the perverse logic of projection would be that using more paper from such sources is actually even better, as it promotes the planting and tending of forests to full term as opposed to say, a bio-diesel field.

Just how does it compare to recycled which, if one accepts where I am going with the above (which is in the form, at present, of a question I stress!!!) actually seems to be rather stuck in a cycle of energy consumption from collection to reprocessing. And no new trees going up taboot.

I guess ignoring the latter, a key factor in weighing them is the amount of CO2 that gets from raw material (tree vs. waste paper) to new stock. With a few pollutant nasties factored in too, but in another enviROI- tick box, which makes comparison more tricky.

For every snake... a ladder

And, this week only, at half price...!

But seriously folks, who needs the dubious accolade of an international competition seen by mill... well, a few thousand... and a Prius... when you can be regional Green Champion (I can't quite get on with the 'hero' handle) for FOCUS DIY.

Actually I was being a tad bitter, twisted and sarky there, but in many ways this is here, now, real and does really mean something. For a start, £125 in vouchers (see 'em there in the Squidstand holder I designed and made for the occasion. You may notice I also dragged along and got into shot as much else reused as I could carry!).

So far these shots have made it to Wyenot.com, the local online news of the guy commissioned to take 'em (and who has some nice words, ta very much). But I am hoping that these will radiate out at least to the rest of the patch my 'award' covers.

Watch this space. Or that one. Or...

Now you can cast your votes

for the worst examples of greenwashing and EU lobbying.

I assume that this is a rather tongue in cheek, whilst exposing some of the worst cases to a greater public view.

Save the world. A list.

A little while ago some chums and I made a TV commercial for a contest (oddly, in that it was 30" and we cut to that, it is now ":60 to Save the Earth" ecospot). Seems we didn't get into the finals. So now it's free to use, here it is:



As a creative soul, and in the spirit of unsweetened grapes (it's all how you say it these days), here's my purely subjective review (hey, it's what blogs are for, and I've found that playing coy gets you nowhere) of what beat us:

1. Are You Game? – First up. Mentions Al Gore. Twice. Darn, should have thought of that!

2. Change the way you think. – Some nice imagery, I guess.

3. Cheeto and Vinn – OK. Singled-minded and funny. Gets the point across. I’m wishing we’d gone the 60’ option now.

4. Decisions – Again, not bad imagery. But hard to get ‘into’.

5. Gaia's Lament – yeah, well. Whatever.

6. Get Your Green on – And there’s a single out soon, too:)

7. Green – Nice. Yet one of the lowest ratings so far.

8. I Did Nothn' – A good line in there somewhere.

9. Keep it Equal – Nice idea. Neat editting.

10. Lights Out – OK, so it’s campaignable. Worth two in the finals?

11. Perry the Cockroach – Um, pass.

12. Plastic Ocean – Nice, simple idea.

13. Roachie Enviro Contest – If you’re going to use music, it seems it is better if wra... er... rapped.

14. Small Changes – I’m just guessing, but I think going with plastic bags would make one a shoe-in.

15. Small Steps – Sort of cute.

16. Support Good Hot – Energy – Interestingly, only the first that seems to have had some production money on it. The line ain’t worth it.

17. The Bags – OK, and here’s another. I’m sure the COI will buy it.

18. The Little Things – Lists are good, too. With a song.

19. The Sky is Falling – Some more production bucks. Not a bad line. Motivated? Highest rate to date.

20. Think Again – Yeah, well. The money is coming out now. Where from?

21. This is not a test – Yay! Another list!

22. This is the World – Or... don’t cut a tree down that’s already doing its job. Nice production on low budget, though.

23. What Can Regular People Do? – Follow more lists. It works in creative eco ads, anyway.

I still think ours is... was pretty good.

Here's the submission notes:

A simple ad for a simple notion: green IS good, but only if you really think about all aspects very carefully.

Many of us have bought into the notion of offsetting the carbon consequences of our lifestyles. And it is certainly better than nothing, But only so long as the initiative is worthy and well run.

Some schemes still operate on the basis of planting a tree to achieve a balance that will be unlikely to make itself felt for many years, if at all. And time is of the essence, as tipping points are being talked of in terms of decades.

Some of these can of course still be viable and good to support. But, as with all things sold in the name of ‘green’, one needs to always challenge such efforts to justify their environmental value, their envIROI (which is not the same as monetary ROI, as you can make a financial investment in our kids’ future that may not pay back monetarily) before committing hard-earned, and highly useful, funds without thinking, simply to ‘buy-off’ a sense of responsibility for one’s actions.

The facts of deforestation and national emissions of the world’s current greatest greenhouse gas polluter are a matter of public record. The logic of where our priorities should lie in this instance, are our own. There will be hurdles, to be sure, and this is of course a plea more for preservation rather than reduction, but we think it is one worth making, to be considered and, if necessary, sensibly debated.

Other than a bit of time, this ad cost nothing and used no resources... at all. Which is quite an ideal metaphor for the message being conveyed...

IF you think about it!

ps: No trees were harmed in the making of this commercial. But a nice weed didn’t make it. Sorry.

Maybe I should have been nicer about daft celebs and meaningless platitudes. They were the judges after all. Maybe not so daft to see who it was aimed at.

And now... YouTube!

Which reminds me, it's the Green Awards to... night? I entered last year but decided against this ever again having seen who the judges were (for a creative contest - even if it's a people's choice, which I often prefer, there is always pre-selection... and agendas) and what they voted into the finals.

Here's one that may win there (it shows a lady's naught bits, which always helps, if you're being viral.): http://www.green.tv/brazilian

And maybe they'll deliver to your door in person! By hybrid!

Time for a picture.

This little button has been popping up on a few articles I have perused of late in such as the Indy, Guardian, etc.

It's for a hybrid. Which, as we all know, must be better for the planet.

Maybe so; maybe no. And I doubt the brochure will do much other than err on the first.

Thing is, and here's why I write, I can't really find out unless I get the brochure. Excuse me, brochures. And guess what? A PDF download doesn't seem to be an option.

What does that say to you?

And what a state it's in!

BBC - state of the planet

Irony Alert!

Next post down: 3m extra homes 'still not enough'

The predictability of global warming is ..... uncertain

How much the earth's climate will change as a result of global warming is unpredictable.

Well, tell me something that I didn't know.

This from National Geographic News reports on a new study which looks at the levels of certainty involved in calculating estimated temperature rises as a result of us humans continuing to pump too much CO2 into the atmosphere.

Now, apart from one or two crazy luddites, we all accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we all know that if we continue to pump ever more into the atmosphere then there is going to be an effect. All the scientists and climatologists tell us that this WILL cause a rise in the temperature of the earth's biosphere. What we don't know is just how much temperature rise equates to what level of CO2 there is, hence, at least to some extent, the endless stream of tis/tisn't arguments, and counter arguments that the earth is not doing anything different than it ever has.

The majority of scientists (the consensus?) tell us that temperature rise is bad on a rising scale, a couple of degrees perhaps maybe OK, but too much and we'll all fry, along with most of the other flora and fauna. (Hence recent headlines warning of mass extinctions.)

What we don't know is just what constitutes too much, the models are so complicated and involve so many interrelated variables that no computer model we can currently produce can provide any answer with any degree of certainty. And that's without starting to factor in natural feedback systems and amplification loops, which make it impossible to predict future temperature rises with any degree of accuracy at all.

All in all the 'science' of temperature rise prediction is a huge can of worms, and those of us not endowed with brains the size of a planet simply have to accept what the scientific consensus tells us, that the numbers are uncertain and that they actually don't know, other than the temperature IS going to increase.

Fossil evidence through geological history over 100's of millions of years shows us that in cool times, flora and fauna have multiplied and genera and species diversity has increased rapidly. It also shoes us that in the much warmer periods, many of the planet's life forms disappear, and that in a few, very short, very hot periods, life forms have almost been wiped out entirely (90%+ of all life forms in one catastrophic event alone). [And that's without mentioning what humanity is already doing to our current flora and fauna.]

Now I'm no scientist (well, in comparison to most of the clever people out there researching away on all of this) but that still worries me significantly. We ARE warming the earth, we simply don't know by how much, or if the temperature rise will accelerate due to natural feedback systems. What we DO know, from fossil evidence that more warmth means less life forms, and that excessive warmth means but very few life forms survive.

Now surely that's a compelling case for looking at reducing our CO2 emissions now, rather than risk hitting some sort of temperature acceleration point in a few decades or so? The science of predicting global warming temperature increases may be uncertain, but I'm pretty sure that if we sit and do nothing, then the consequences appear to be rather dire.