The Greening of Design, from A to D
I wonder if I should have used such as this when developing the RE:tie?
Seriously.
48 pages. Wow.
I used to present logos by holding 'em up and saying 'Here it is'. Then I got wise and added the document with all the blurb on the why, who, where... etc. The latter seemed to get a better hit rate, and oddly no one ever asked if the consumer would ever be issued with this information as the delivery van zipped by.
It seems a shame that in this day and age that, without a lot of process, product is now seldom going to be the driver, no matter how pertinent.
Wouldn't it be nice to get back, at least a little, to the old aircraft designers' adage that 'if it looks right; it'll fly right'.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Another one bites the dust!
We are talking about another Labour Party environmental pledge that was even included in a Government White Paper commitment.
It was "one of just five official Labour Party environmental pledges" announced by David Milliband when he was Environment Secretary. But now, "the little clip-ons which you can attach, and which vividly reveal how much electricity you waste by leaving the iron on when doing something else, or when running the spin-dryer on a sunny day" have gone the way of so many other environmental initiatives that have turned out to be little more than hot air or spin.
Full report is from the Telegraph.
Another abysmal failure, or perhaps, to try to put a more +ve spin on it, a tremendous piece of successful ineptitude? Boy, am I glad I wasn't one of the poor businesses that threw everything into manufacturing these devices. I wonder if they'll be able to claim against the failure to follow through an "Environmental Pledge"? My guess? No chance! Because any 'pledge' coming from a Pol means absolutely sweet Fanny Adams!
It was "one of just five official Labour Party environmental pledges" announced by David Milliband when he was Environment Secretary. But now, "the little clip-ons which you can attach, and which vividly reveal how much electricity you waste by leaving the iron on when doing something else, or when running the spin-dryer on a sunny day" have gone the way of so many other environmental initiatives that have turned out to be little more than hot air or spin.
Full report is from the Telegraph.
Another abysmal failure, or perhaps, to try to put a more +ve spin on it, a tremendous piece of successful ineptitude? Boy, am I glad I wasn't one of the poor businesses that threw everything into manufacturing these devices. I wonder if they'll be able to claim against the failure to follow through an "Environmental Pledge"? My guess? No chance! Because any 'pledge' coming from a Pol means absolutely sweet Fanny Adams!
The mouths of those who teach our babes...
We'd love to go green. But who's going to pay for the solar panels?
'We'd love to go green. But who's going to pay...'
Sort that little one out across the board, and I think we have the whole issue covered.
Certainly those who can afford to pay quitting lambasting those who cannot would seem a good start.
There's also the not insignificant factor in making sure that one has a good handle on what is 'green' and whatever you pay to go there is best directed. Assuming the aim is to improve the future for our kids and not just tick the odd box.
It seems astounding to me that there is not centralised research and purchasing on this by government departments to ensure the best product for the job is sourced (Ok, I am ignoring history), and in volumes to generate highly beneficial costs (and, again).
Like so much in the environmental arena, our government seems excellent at lobbing around silly targets that it cannot meet itself, and then making it up to anyone but itself to solve the messes they have created.
And the lack of joined up thinking evidenced by the reduced transport diktat, going hand in hand with increased needs to travel all round, is breathtaking.
'We'd love to go green. But who's going to pay...'
Sort that little one out across the board, and I think we have the whole issue covered.
Certainly those who can afford to pay quitting lambasting those who cannot would seem a good start.
There's also the not insignificant factor in making sure that one has a good handle on what is 'green' and whatever you pay to go there is best directed. Assuming the aim is to improve the future for our kids and not just tick the odd box.
It seems astounding to me that there is not centralised research and purchasing on this by government departments to ensure the best product for the job is sourced (Ok, I am ignoring history), and in volumes to generate highly beneficial costs (and, again).
Like so much in the environmental arena, our government seems excellent at lobbing around silly targets that it cannot meet itself, and then making it up to anyone but itself to solve the messes they have created.
And the lack of joined up thinking evidenced by the reduced transport diktat, going hand in hand with increased needs to travel all round, is breathtaking.
Wait for me!
Like so many posts of this nature, the way the question is phrased seems rather designed to give the answer one wants.
Give your colleagues a lift
Would you risk the early-morning conversation of your work colleagues in order to reduce your impact on the planet?
Were it only a matter of enduring a deconstruction of last night's putting a ball in the other sides net or what who said to who about what that is just, like, soooooo unreal.
For many of us, especially not living in an urban ideal, the bus or train may not be a real option, at least within a reasonable timeframe. Ditto cycling, and I find it just so cute how this admirable form of personal transport is so often gaily mentioned with none of the actual downsides. Doing a day's work soaked to the skin is hardly a pleasure.
Hence driving may well still be the only practical means to get to work on time, and in a fit state to carry out one's job, which I think to be fair goes a bit beyond just seeking 'comfort and convenience'.
Hence sharing does very much make sense. However, before scooting off on yet another 'why are you all so beastly to the planet?' tirade, one has to again look at certain practical issues.
While mutual start times are more predictable (hence the rush hour jams), and hence matches easily made, I do often wonder about the return. I've never worked 9 to 5 (and am now a happy..ish homeworker), but what happens when Mr. Brent asks you to stay back 30 minutes to finish off the report. 3 cheerful co-jaunters dodging wardens in the bus layby, relishing the chance to catch up on more Chris Evans?
The notion of a 'day' to address this is both laudable but also in danger of coming across as a bit more like the other 364 we get each year to raise awareness of this or that (it's currently a recycling week, apparently - which might explain the 20 press releases on £200 home furnishings I am getting 'in celebration of'). I hope it works, but do wonder if it's more for a bit of a PR/slow news media mutually-assured back-patting than really addressing the issue.
What I am more interested in is the mechanisms of the matchmaking services there are, how they can be coordinated better to complement local authority systems, and how the power of the web, IT and personal comms might be harnessed to better engage those out there who are not, for possibly selfish but also often highly understandable reasons.
Give your colleagues a lift
Would you risk the early-morning conversation of your work colleagues in order to reduce your impact on the planet?
Were it only a matter of enduring a deconstruction of last night's putting a ball in the other sides net or what who said to who about what that is just, like, soooooo unreal.
For many of us, especially not living in an urban ideal, the bus or train may not be a real option, at least within a reasonable timeframe. Ditto cycling, and I find it just so cute how this admirable form of personal transport is so often gaily mentioned with none of the actual downsides. Doing a day's work soaked to the skin is hardly a pleasure.
Hence driving may well still be the only practical means to get to work on time, and in a fit state to carry out one's job, which I think to be fair goes a bit beyond just seeking 'comfort and convenience'.
Hence sharing does very much make sense. However, before scooting off on yet another 'why are you all so beastly to the planet?' tirade, one has to again look at certain practical issues.
While mutual start times are more predictable (hence the rush hour jams), and hence matches easily made, I do often wonder about the return. I've never worked 9 to 5 (and am now a happy..ish homeworker), but what happens when Mr. Brent asks you to stay back 30 minutes to finish off the report. 3 cheerful co-jaunters dodging wardens in the bus layby, relishing the chance to catch up on more Chris Evans?
The notion of a 'day' to address this is both laudable but also in danger of coming across as a bit more like the other 364 we get each year to raise awareness of this or that (it's currently a recycling week, apparently - which might explain the 20 press releases on £200 home furnishings I am getting 'in celebration of'). I hope it works, but do wonder if it's more for a bit of a PR/slow news media mutually-assured back-patting than really addressing the issue.
What I am more interested in is the mechanisms of the matchmaking services there are, how they can be coordinated better to complement local authority systems, and how the power of the web, IT and personal comms might be harnessed to better engage those out there who are not, for possibly selfish but also often highly understandable reasons.
Ugly truths
It was only after a while in my Civ. Eng. training that I realised an ugly truth.
Foundations are the most important aspect of any project. They take the most time, cost the most money.... but once the mostly trivial, pretty, above-ground bits are in place, few will even know they are there.
Well, unless they fail.
I was minded of this by an article about a US windfarm that is all nicely in place, but essentially delivering very poorly on its promise, by virtue of there being no infrastructure for it to deliver what it generates.
It's a sorry metaphor for so much I see in matters mega-green these days. Loads and loads of cash and attention given to high-profile, high-vis symbols of 'solutions', but very little thought it seems given to the highly necessary preceding infrastructures that these need to rest upon to actually deliver meaningful deliverables.
And why should there be, when targets, votes and subsidies seem to revolve around the pretty facades rather than any substance below.
Greenbang - Texas ponders its ‘thousands’ of idle wind farms
BBC - Wind power supply to be boosted
I just hope that this is part of a genuine attempt to deliver renewable energy to a positive enviROI, and not some box-ticking, target-meeting effort. I write this looking at a piece on a wind farms in Texas that make mighty purty lookin' twirly doo-dads, but are not, as such connected to anything as the visible, sexy bits were stuck up first, with little thought to unsexy infrastructure. And for the life of me I still cannot understand (though suspect and dread) why such reports use terms such as 'could' and 'hoped'. Don't they blooming well know???! This aspect interests me a lot more than 'controversy' over the odd shredded seagull.
Foundations are the most important aspect of any project. They take the most time, cost the most money.... but once the mostly trivial, pretty, above-ground bits are in place, few will even know they are there.
Well, unless they fail.
I was minded of this by an article about a US windfarm that is all nicely in place, but essentially delivering very poorly on its promise, by virtue of there being no infrastructure for it to deliver what it generates.
It's a sorry metaphor for so much I see in matters mega-green these days. Loads and loads of cash and attention given to high-profile, high-vis symbols of 'solutions', but very little thought it seems given to the highly necessary preceding infrastructures that these need to rest upon to actually deliver meaningful deliverables.
And why should there be, when targets, votes and subsidies seem to revolve around the pretty facades rather than any substance below.
Greenbang - Texas ponders its ‘thousands’ of idle wind farms
BBC - Wind power supply to be boosted
I just hope that this is part of a genuine attempt to deliver renewable energy to a positive enviROI, and not some box-ticking, target-meeting effort. I write this looking at a piece on a wind farms in Texas that make mighty purty lookin' twirly doo-dads, but are not, as such connected to anything as the visible, sexy bits were stuck up first, with little thought to unsexy infrastructure. And for the life of me I still cannot understand (though suspect and dread) why such reports use terms such as 'could' and 'hoped'. Don't they blooming well know???! This aspect interests me a lot more than 'controversy' over the odd shredded seagull.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Another day, another demographic
What is your 'green' level?
Hardly a day goes by without some highly paid research group releasing some highly....um... whatever results. This time, our cross-pond cousins...
Some Consumers Green in Action, Others in Theory
I'm wishing now I had started listing them as we go along, because at the rate we're going we'll each have our own personal term... to go with our own personal green guide to help us on the path of eco-righteousness. Not sure being a member of a green group should be an essential to being Good Green In Practice.
I have to say, I quite like the notion of the 'Un-Green', but only as a term, mind.
Hardly a day goes by without some highly paid research group releasing some highly....um... whatever results. This time, our cross-pond cousins...
Some Consumers Green in Action, Others in Theory
I'm wishing now I had started listing them as we go along, because at the rate we're going we'll each have our own personal term... to go with our own personal green guide to help us on the path of eco-righteousness. Not sure being a member of a green group should be an essential to being Good Green In Practice.
I have to say, I quite like the notion of the 'Un-Green', but only as a term, mind.
CATEGORY - PAINT
Articles
Greenerchoices - NEW - The lowdown on low-VOC paints
Indy - Eco Paints
Information
easy2diy.com - paint coverage calculator
Suppliers
ecospaints.com
Lili - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi
Greenerchoices - NEW - The lowdown on low-VOC paints
Indy - Eco Paints
Information
easy2diy.com - paint coverage calculator
Suppliers
ecospaints.com
Lili - Courtesy of Dave from Solarventi
CATEGORY - PVC-U
Several years ago, mainly for reasons of cost, we opted to replace our windows with PVC-U units.
What troubled me subsequently was discovering that this was not considered an eco option, despite them being airtight fits with double-glazing, etc, and hence making a big difference to our insulation and heating needs.
The cost factor was against other options such as wood, which sadly were in the realms of funny money.
As a key component in our homes, I think this material deserves a category of its own to track the latest news and views.
ARTICLES
PRW - PVC-U windows win green rating - A positive, it would seem, and my reason for kicking off this rating as I'd been feeling bad about my choices.
INFORMATION
What troubled me subsequently was discovering that this was not considered an eco option, despite them being airtight fits with double-glazing, etc, and hence making a big difference to our insulation and heating needs.
The cost factor was against other options such as wood, which sadly were in the realms of funny money.
As a key component in our homes, I think this material deserves a category of its own to track the latest news and views.
ARTICLES
PRW - PVC-U windows win green rating - A positive, it would seem, and my reason for kicking off this rating as I'd been feeling bad about my choices.
INFORMATION
Chip & Dim
What seems to me another idiotic source of waste is highlighted.
Chipping away at high fuel costs
If cars can have their fuel economy and performance improved, however, why are the manufacturers not performing the operation at the factory gates? The answer is that like any product that is sold worldwide, car makers must produce performance figures that are consistent whether the car is driven in Abu Dhabi or Aylesbury. Because of this, and in order to get past the Single Vehicle Approval test (which forces cars to conform to British safety standards), car makers set the engine parameters to the lowest common denominator so it will perform equally well with low-grade fuel or bad servicing in, for example, eastern Europe, as it will in Britain.
At risk of sounding daft, if there is more mileage to be had by these methods, why on earth would it not be incorporated as a matter of course, and hence an immediate campaign launched to change the daft law/requirement that has created this wasteful situation? Lots more is done for much less.
Chipping away at high fuel costs
If cars can have their fuel economy and performance improved, however, why are the manufacturers not performing the operation at the factory gates? The answer is that like any product that is sold worldwide, car makers must produce performance figures that are consistent whether the car is driven in Abu Dhabi or Aylesbury. Because of this, and in order to get past the Single Vehicle Approval test (which forces cars to conform to British safety standards), car makers set the engine parameters to the lowest common denominator so it will perform equally well with low-grade fuel or bad servicing in, for example, eastern Europe, as it will in Britain.
At risk of sounding daft, if there is more mileage to be had by these methods, why on earth would it not be incorporated as a matter of course, and hence an immediate campaign launched to change the daft law/requirement that has created this wasteful situation? Lots more is done for much less.
Getting God on your side
It's an often invoked incentive. I am less sure about how it's serving in t'other direction.
Bishop compares those who ignore climate change to Josef Fritzl
We've had it from the Vatican and now The Bishop of Stafford adds hsi valued opinion to imspire and effect the necessary engagement from the global flock. Not.
Bishop compares those who ignore climate change to Josef Fritzl
We've had it from the Vatican and now The Bishop of Stafford adds hsi valued opinion to imspire and effect the necessary engagement from the global flock. Not.
NEWS/Commercial PR - Good news... and less so
It's a survey Jim, but a tad more than we usually know it.
I got from this - Packaging helps supermarkets bag top spots in green poll - in the Guardian, to this from a wee while while ago, but still of interest, especially in comparison:
Research by WPP companies reveals UK consumers ripe for green business
As posted, E&EO:
A UK survey of 1,525 British adults found that although support for many green ideas is now mainstream, understanding of what it means to be green is shallow, confused and easily swayed by company messages. The Body Shop is the UK green brand of the year, according to the survey. It is viewed as far and away the most green company against brands in the eight tested categories. Next in line came car company Smart which manufactures small chic urban run-arounds. Others in the top twenty UK green brands include three supermarkets, two petrol companies and an airline. “There is no doubt that the universal adoption of basic green ideas has been possibly the swiftest shift in consumer attitudes we have witnessed in recent times. It has certainly been faster than the internet revolution and faster than the take-up of mobile phones,” said Phil Gandy, Planning Director of Landor Associates. “It is now almost the unquestioned norm that we all embrace some shade of green philosophy and behaviour. Yet just a year ago, the green agenda was out on the lunatic fringe for most people,” he added. The research also paints a picture of British consumers as deeply concerned and pessimistic about the state of the environment but not quite sure what to do about it. Climate change is seen as the most important environmental issue we face by two thirds of those questioned and more than seventy per cent of those asked rate society’s performance in addressing the issue as neutral or worse. Other environmental concerns include population growth, technology and international trade. Government is widely perceived to be ineffective in driving a green agenda. And in a clear warning to businesses that choose to ignore the environment, eighty per cent of those questioned believe that it is important that companies are environmentally friendly. However when it comes to defining what exactly being ‘green’ means in terms of their own behaviour, consumers have a rosy but confused view. The primary focus is on reducing their waste rather than reducing consumption. So over half of respondents reported driving cars that are fuel efficient, and most wash their cars by hand and without a hosepipe these days. The next most common green behaviour is recycling plastic bags followed by use of products that do not deplete the ozone layer. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions comes third, while ‘supporting organisations that protect the rain forest’ comes fourth. “It is clear that being green means different things to different people,” says Gandy. “There is a general awareness of an urgent problem and there is widespread belief that we are all part of that problem. But consumers have not yet come to the view that they need to address their consumption. It seems that most of us are still thinking in terms of reducing waste – throwing away less, rather than consuming less.” The research found that we may be very interested in greenness but when it comes to companies and brands, many can’t identify what that means. Twenty-three per cent of the population could not identify any steps a company should take to make itself green. Nonetheless companies that promote themselves as green or present themselves as ethically concerned can reap substantial rewards. Green brands are perceived as having higher quality and consumers say they are prepared to pay a ‘green premium’ for them. Six in ten for instance will spend more on energy saving household appliances. “The onus is squarely on brands to take a lead in setting the green agenda,” adds Gandy. “The almost universal take-up of recycling in the UK shows how people will get involved, if actions they can take to make a difference are made clear and simple to understand.” But the study also reveals that many of the brands widely perceived by the public as green simply include the colour green in their logo or use more natural packaging for their products. Overall winner The Body Shop has long used both the colour green and ‘alternative’ packaging. Said Gandy, “Just how consumers judge the greenness of brands is a complex mixture of perception and reality. Being seen to be ethically concerned is important but just being ‘modern and likeable’ – like Virgin or Google – can be enough to bestow a powerful green halo effect. “What is certainly clear is that consumers want to do the right thing but need genuine help to carry through into action. Brands which align themselves with environmental concerns at this relatively early stage of the debate can expect to secure a competitive advantage given that environmental concern can only grow in future.”
Industry ranking by greenness: 1. Body care 2. Grocery 3. Appliances 4. Automotive 5. Energy/Petroleum 6. Banking 7. Online Technology 8. Travel
Top 20 UK Green Brands: 1. The Body Shop 2. Smart 3. Waitrose 4. The Co-operative Bank 5. Tesco 6. Marks & Spencer 7. Dyson 8. Sainsury’s 9. BP 10. Aveda 11. Asda 12. Toyota 13. Virgin Atlantic 14. Nivea 15. Shell 16. Indesit 17. Npower 18. Bosch 19. Google 20. Eurostar
I got from this - Packaging helps supermarkets bag top spots in green poll - in the Guardian, to this from a wee while while ago, but still of interest, especially in comparison:
Research by WPP companies reveals UK consumers ripe for green business
As posted, E&EO:
A UK survey of 1,525 British adults found that although support for many green ideas is now mainstream, understanding of what it means to be green is shallow, confused and easily swayed by company messages. The Body Shop is the UK green brand of the year, according to the survey. It is viewed as far and away the most green company against brands in the eight tested categories. Next in line came car company Smart which manufactures small chic urban run-arounds. Others in the top twenty UK green brands include three supermarkets, two petrol companies and an airline. “There is no doubt that the universal adoption of basic green ideas has been possibly the swiftest shift in consumer attitudes we have witnessed in recent times. It has certainly been faster than the internet revolution and faster than the take-up of mobile phones,” said Phil Gandy, Planning Director of Landor Associates. “It is now almost the unquestioned norm that we all embrace some shade of green philosophy and behaviour. Yet just a year ago, the green agenda was out on the lunatic fringe for most people,” he added. The research also paints a picture of British consumers as deeply concerned and pessimistic about the state of the environment but not quite sure what to do about it. Climate change is seen as the most important environmental issue we face by two thirds of those questioned and more than seventy per cent of those asked rate society’s performance in addressing the issue as neutral or worse. Other environmental concerns include population growth, technology and international trade. Government is widely perceived to be ineffective in driving a green agenda. And in a clear warning to businesses that choose to ignore the environment, eighty per cent of those questioned believe that it is important that companies are environmentally friendly. However when it comes to defining what exactly being ‘green’ means in terms of their own behaviour, consumers have a rosy but confused view. The primary focus is on reducing their waste rather than reducing consumption. So over half of respondents reported driving cars that are fuel efficient, and most wash their cars by hand and without a hosepipe these days. The next most common green behaviour is recycling plastic bags followed by use of products that do not deplete the ozone layer. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions comes third, while ‘supporting organisations that protect the rain forest’ comes fourth. “It is clear that being green means different things to different people,” says Gandy. “There is a general awareness of an urgent problem and there is widespread belief that we are all part of that problem. But consumers have not yet come to the view that they need to address their consumption. It seems that most of us are still thinking in terms of reducing waste – throwing away less, rather than consuming less.” The research found that we may be very interested in greenness but when it comes to companies and brands, many can’t identify what that means. Twenty-three per cent of the population could not identify any steps a company should take to make itself green. Nonetheless companies that promote themselves as green or present themselves as ethically concerned can reap substantial rewards. Green brands are perceived as having higher quality and consumers say they are prepared to pay a ‘green premium’ for them. Six in ten for instance will spend more on energy saving household appliances. “The onus is squarely on brands to take a lead in setting the green agenda,” adds Gandy. “The almost universal take-up of recycling in the UK shows how people will get involved, if actions they can take to make a difference are made clear and simple to understand.” But the study also reveals that many of the brands widely perceived by the public as green simply include the colour green in their logo or use more natural packaging for their products. Overall winner The Body Shop has long used both the colour green and ‘alternative’ packaging. Said Gandy, “Just how consumers judge the greenness of brands is a complex mixture of perception and reality. Being seen to be ethically concerned is important but just being ‘modern and likeable’ – like Virgin or Google – can be enough to bestow a powerful green halo effect. “What is certainly clear is that consumers want to do the right thing but need genuine help to carry through into action. Brands which align themselves with environmental concerns at this relatively early stage of the debate can expect to secure a competitive advantage given that environmental concern can only grow in future.”
Industry ranking by greenness: 1. Body care 2. Grocery 3. Appliances 4. Automotive 5. Energy/Petroleum 6. Banking 7. Online Technology 8. Travel
Top 20 UK Green Brands: 1. The Body Shop 2. Smart 3. Waitrose 4. The Co-operative Bank 5. Tesco 6. Marks & Spencer 7. Dyson 8. Sainsury’s 9. BP 10. Aveda 11. Asda 12. Toyota 13. Virgin Atlantic 14. Nivea 15. Shell 16. Indesit 17. Npower 18. Bosch 19. Google 20. Eurostar
Time for a change on change?
As we're on an alliterative roll.
Cooling on warming
At first when I read this I thought... easy Tiger, what's all this past tense lark?
But it was... is worth reading on. Lots to digest, agree with, but also some still to crank an eyebrow at.
For instance I very much doubt climate change can be tackled through research and adaptation, and do believe that trying to transform human behaviour needs to stay on the menu. Just, not in the cack-handed way that has been tried by most advocates to date.
Which rather makes me worried that we end up with different, or differently spun messages, but from the same bunch of messengers who have seen fit to be our global nannies to date.
An d I mean virtually the entire political, academic and media establishment. Huge quantities of hot air were pumped out, and many tonnes of pollutants were expelled by planes carrying concerned dignitaries to global conferences. Last I looked, by the by, they still are. But however vast, they were also piecemeal, and remain so. From front pages in this paper to Milliband interviews on Newsnight about 'the single greatest thread...yadayada...' little forays soared and were dropped at the first sign of a Royal misbehaving or a pol mis-speaking. So if you lot can't stay interested, why should the rest even start getting concerned?
Especially when the current crop of messengers are pushing such contradictory messages from, as you say, digging up more oil to buy a vote or two, or flogging a getaway to the sun on the side to help keep the group profits up.
And whilst accepting the 'most of us' disclaimer, enough of the 'we'. I am certainly not impressed by sanctimonious gestures, nor have I attended the occasional concert of clapped-out superstars.
So yes, it's time to get real. An odd admission that, until now, few Ministers, Editors and Directors of Climate Advocacy have.
But dealing with gunk seems a rather short term fix if pursued at the total expense of cutting back on making it in the first place. Especially with that dratted population thing that was all the rage last week.
So I think both should be pursued, but perhaps with a little less of the target-meeting, box-ticking, pedestal-standing, finger-waving, guilt-tripping, fine-imposing, fear-inducing rampant hypocrisy from a whole industry - political, academic, activist and media - making hay, lots and lots of hay, while the sun shines ever hotter.
And yes, a bit more sensible, practical research that can give the people information they can trust and get behind. I saw a claim on Newsnight a wee while ago that to truly come up with definite answers on climate we'd need 1,000 times more support for the modelling.
Not sure if that was not just another nifty BBC-parroted Press Release from the research community to put their kids through college, but if true I'd say go for it. Now.
If (and it's a biggie) we can see where we are, where we'll be and what we can credibly do about it, I think you'll find a lot more folk go straight through hand wringing to action. The action just has to add up though.
Cooling on warming
At first when I read this I thought... easy Tiger, what's all this past tense lark?
But it was... is worth reading on. Lots to digest, agree with, but also some still to crank an eyebrow at.
For instance I very much doubt climate change can be tackled through research and adaptation, and do believe that trying to transform human behaviour needs to stay on the menu. Just, not in the cack-handed way that has been tried by most advocates to date.
Which rather makes me worried that we end up with different, or differently spun messages, but from the same bunch of messengers who have seen fit to be our global nannies to date.
An d I mean virtually the entire political, academic and media establishment. Huge quantities of hot air were pumped out, and many tonnes of pollutants were expelled by planes carrying concerned dignitaries to global conferences. Last I looked, by the by, they still are. But however vast, they were also piecemeal, and remain so. From front pages in this paper to Milliband interviews on Newsnight about 'the single greatest thread...yadayada...' little forays soared and were dropped at the first sign of a Royal misbehaving or a pol mis-speaking. So if you lot can't stay interested, why should the rest even start getting concerned?
Especially when the current crop of messengers are pushing such contradictory messages from, as you say, digging up more oil to buy a vote or two, or flogging a getaway to the sun on the side to help keep the group profits up.
And whilst accepting the 'most of us' disclaimer, enough of the 'we'. I am certainly not impressed by sanctimonious gestures, nor have I attended the occasional concert of clapped-out superstars.
So yes, it's time to get real. An odd admission that, until now, few Ministers, Editors and Directors of Climate Advocacy have.
But dealing with gunk seems a rather short term fix if pursued at the total expense of cutting back on making it in the first place. Especially with that dratted population thing that was all the rage last week.
So I think both should be pursued, but perhaps with a little less of the target-meeting, box-ticking, pedestal-standing, finger-waving, guilt-tripping, fine-imposing, fear-inducing rampant hypocrisy from a whole industry - political, academic, activist and media - making hay, lots and lots of hay, while the sun shines ever hotter.
And yes, a bit more sensible, practical research that can give the people information they can trust and get behind. I saw a claim on Newsnight a wee while ago that to truly come up with definite answers on climate we'd need 1,000 times more support for the modelling.
Not sure if that was not just another nifty BBC-parroted Press Release from the research community to put their kids through college, but if true I'd say go for it. Now.
If (and it's a biggie) we can see where we are, where we'll be and what we can credibly do about it, I think you'll find a lot more folk go straight through hand wringing to action. The action just has to add up though.
Us, us, us
It seems a shame that sensible discussion on climate change seems to have been turned into factional media spats.
Whose eco-disaster is it, anyway?
It seems simply incredible that the whole issue breaks down so simply, and divisively, on such clear cut, and unfortunate lines.
Why do I suspect the engagement will be more between the media protagonists, when serving the public, and the cause of the future, less well.
Whose eco-disaster is it, anyway?
It seems simply incredible that the whole issue breaks down so simply, and divisively, on such clear cut, and unfortunate lines.
Why do I suspect the engagement will be more between the media protagonists, when serving the public, and the cause of the future, less well.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Of buckets and blogs: a salty tale
This one has it all: Of buckets and blogs
Worth reading to see where we are, hwo we got here... and where it's all going.
Yo, ho, oh, sh*t.
Worth reading to see where we are, hwo we got here... and where it's all going.
Yo, ho, oh, sh*t.
Amazing the little things you pick up
Almost ignored this for comment: We should not let the chattering classes undermine supermarkets
Though I do have certain opinions on the 'chattering classes' and their undue influence on what the rest of us should.. and can do, being usually less financially or Metro-location (or rural second-home idylls) blessed.
But actually it was this I noted, in mostly (the motivations for improving being hardly noble) positive terms:
'Cereal boxes are notoriously oversized for their contents because manufacturers like the on-shelf advertising that large boxes give their brands. So Wal-Mart has been telling suppliers that if they cut the size of the box (which saves transport costs), they will still be given the same shelf space, which is apparently working.'
Though I do have certain opinions on the 'chattering classes' and their undue influence on what the rest of us should.. and can do, being usually less financially or Metro-location (or rural second-home idylls) blessed.
But actually it was this I noted, in mostly (the motivations for improving being hardly noble) positive terms:
'Cereal boxes are notoriously oversized for their contents because manufacturers like the on-shelf advertising that large boxes give their brands. So Wal-Mart has been telling suppliers that if they cut the size of the box (which saves transport costs), they will still be given the same shelf space, which is apparently working.'
Counter argument
Fed up with too much packaging? Just leave it on the counter
Just sharing. With a small pitch for our RE:tie second use design that gives consumers a small, but tangible reason to want to keep, and reuse their packaging.
On a personal note, and accepting it is a reflection of my parenting skills, while the ripe aroma of bruised fruit and buttery croissants is a heady reminder of childhood picnics past, I rather fear it would also be more than enough to see the food in question being rejected for consumption by my kids... and many adults I can think of, too.
All I can say is think of the enviROI before engaging in the next symbolic protest.
Telegraph - There is a Plan B
Maybe we'll end up with Plan G? I must say that it struck me from the off as odd that the notion of charging for a still turtle choking bag was somehow PM-endorsingly 'better' than the reuse concepts already underway at such as Tesco (points) and Waitrose (fast-track). Good to see the Daily Mail stuck with the whole thing for, well, almost a week.
On the enviROI vs. eco (no doubting the litter/wildlife penalties) I also keep meaning to figure out how many of our 200+ bag annual bag addiction (dropping a lot, which is a result) equates in terms of actual plastic to the hordes of bottles and trays we still end up with.
For what it's worth, I have not thrown any out in several years, and in many cases am finding decent second uses for them. But where none is possible, or the space/desire exits, I fully endorse that sensible, centralised, coordinated recycling systems are essential to show this is being taken seriously, and help folk willing to do so to engage.
corporateresponsibility.net - Oh great, a row about who is greener than thou. Just let the poor consumer know when all the boxes at dawn have been ticked and we can find out how next we are supposed to make the world a better place for our kids. I'm thinking a summit might help... again.
MRW - The end of the shrink-wrapped coconut?
Just sharing. With a small pitch for our RE:tie second use design that gives consumers a small, but tangible reason to want to keep, and reuse their packaging.
On a personal note, and accepting it is a reflection of my parenting skills, while the ripe aroma of bruised fruit and buttery croissants is a heady reminder of childhood picnics past, I rather fear it would also be more than enough to see the food in question being rejected for consumption by my kids... and many adults I can think of, too.
All I can say is think of the enviROI before engaging in the next symbolic protest.
Telegraph - There is a Plan B
Maybe we'll end up with Plan G? I must say that it struck me from the off as odd that the notion of charging for a still turtle choking bag was somehow PM-endorsingly 'better' than the reuse concepts already underway at such as Tesco (points) and Waitrose (fast-track). Good to see the Daily Mail stuck with the whole thing for, well, almost a week.
On the enviROI vs. eco (no doubting the litter/wildlife penalties) I also keep meaning to figure out how many of our 200+ bag annual bag addiction (dropping a lot, which is a result) equates in terms of actual plastic to the hordes of bottles and trays we still end up with.
For what it's worth, I have not thrown any out in several years, and in many cases am finding decent second uses for them. But where none is possible, or the space/desire exits, I fully endorse that sensible, centralised, coordinated recycling systems are essential to show this is being taken seriously, and help folk willing to do so to engage.
corporateresponsibility.net - Oh great, a row about who is greener than thou. Just let the poor consumer know when all the boxes at dawn have been ticked and we can find out how next we are supposed to make the world a better place for our kids. I'm thinking a summit might help... again.
MRW - The end of the shrink-wrapped coconut?
Talking from on high
I agree with sentiment, but continue to question the abilities and qulifications of those who keep telling us 'we' need to cut back.
Now is not the time to abandon our ambition to be green
Oh dear.
This, and the comments it has generated, shows that whatever the value of the message(s), the current crop of elected, appointed and/or especially self-appointed messengers seem to be less than effective in getting them across.
Now is not the time to abandon our ambition to be green
Oh dear.
This, and the comments it has generated, shows that whatever the value of the message(s), the current crop of elected, appointed and/or especially self-appointed messengers seem to be less than effective in getting them across.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Finding where to stick it. Or sticking where to find it.
The Guardian asks a semi-rhetorical question: Can recycling bins be evil?
Well, I don't know about evil. But how about (depending on the measure chosen) effective? It may not be that simple... or populist. I am more interested in the facts and deliverables.
With such 'any negative so long as it sells a paper' from such as the Daily Mail in one corner, and 'it's claimed to be green so it must be good and you're not if you don't' wide-eyed, uncritical cheerleading in other media, I am tending to find the actual good ideas that might actually serve our kid's futures are usually to be found somewhere between the extremes.
But, by heavens, with all the conflicting, partisan rubbish churned out in the name of enviro-information and debate, it's not made very easy for the average consumer just trying find what to do that's best for their family and community.
Well, I don't know about evil. But how about (depending on the measure chosen) effective? It may not be that simple... or populist. I am more interested in the facts and deliverables.
With such 'any negative so long as it sells a paper' from such as the Daily Mail in one corner, and 'it's claimed to be green so it must be good and you're not if you don't' wide-eyed, uncritical cheerleading in other media, I am tending to find the actual good ideas that might actually serve our kid's futures are usually to be found somewhere between the extremes.
But, by heavens, with all the conflicting, partisan rubbish churned out in the name of enviro-information and debate, it's not made very easy for the average consumer just trying find what to do that's best for their family and community.
Big News?
Coming across across this in Grist, I thought 'Wow!': Well, You Don't Say - White House admits humans causing climate change
Not a hint of doubt there. Even to the extent, at least as I read it, that one of the more persistent climate optimist entities not only grant that negative climate exists, but it is all down to man. No other factors at all, it seems.
I find this highly significant, but do wonder why it has not...yet... had more coverage? The US titles quoted are significant, but what about here? So far, nothing. Not even in some media one is quite used to being keen to push the 'pessimist' agenda.
If this is as billed, might one hope that there may be a more concerted effort at pinning down causes and practical, enviROI+ solutions as a consequence now we can move on from the 'tis/t'isn't exchanges.
Addendum - Meanwhile...
No more hyperbole, let's discuss the facts about global warming
Now there is a turn-up for the books... blogs and broadcasts.
I welcome the latest information, but rather dread the further twists and turns of the discussions that will follow.
Especially as I have, albeit with a rather cocked eyebrow, recently shared this with those who might fairly be described as being on the fence, and hence apathetic at best. I rather think they politely tolerate my zeal to get to the crux of what I consider a key question to allow sensible future planning to take place, and in a timely manner. While my personal views are known (Man-worsened negative climate change is a distinct possibility, and any reasonable mitigations seem well worth considering as soon as possible, but before rushing into knee-jerk 'solutions' of dubious enviROI I still need a lot more convincing on most proposed, as few seem to sensibly address waste or increased pollution whilst recognising global socio-political realities), it really doesn't do my... the cause of environmental caution much good when you are running to and fro week on week saying, in effect, 'the sky is falling... no it isn't... yes it is'. And especially when most governments and media seem to address something claimed to be serious in such an erratic, piecemeal and often frankly hypocritical manner.
I just hope we don't now see a spate of 'tis/t'isn't' exchanges, especially as these usually devolve into attacking the person as opposed to the wisdom, or otherwise, of the message. While the qualifications of those making pronouncements is important, I have long since ceased to be too impressed with even Professorships. A Nobel Prize is however nifty, and this one is recent. Mind, I had thought the prize Al Gore shared was with the head of the IPCC (I guess symbolically, then, and in the face of diverse views within that organisation), and by what I understand, the views of S Fred Singer are not exactly going hand in hand with with Mr. Gore's, are they? Hence trying to work out the definitions of winning that 'accolade' (it has of course been called into question as being more a means of sending political messages rather than signifying any objective values) and the provenance it (or most other cited substantiations these days) bestows, and who gets to share them, just got very murky. To me at least.
I have to say that some aspects of what he is quoted as saying here do resonate. There often does seem a rather over-egged desire to see in every aspect of climate a rather dire reason. And then a green solution comes along that can sometimes be sold more on its perceived greenness than any actual value to our futures. The AGW victim du jour on Breakfast TV was Puffins, I think. Such things don't really help if it turns out that colony numbers ebb and flow just as do the tides... or climate... over certain periods. I have also just left a debate on vegetarianism where I pondered the effect such enforced policies might have on such as the poster kids of saving the planet, such as polar bears or tigers.
The key is to look at the trends over more significant periods, and then do whatever we can to identify causes... and practical, sensible solutions.
Oh well, I guess it shows debate is alive, and healthy. I just hope we are not going to be subjected now to too much more on the absolutes of the A in AGW... or not... such that worthwhile tangible efforts, which we might not have the time to afford, get further delayed. An inevitable penalty of a flawed system I guess, but with luck it's still the best we have. If not, the future may have just got even more 'interesting'.
Addendum 2 -
It seems very clear that the description 'Nobel Prize Winner' was an exaggeration, though down to whom I am still not sure. And for sure that needs correcting. What has been a worry to me is that almost every response I have seen has been to tackle the man and not the argument; with some going so far as to say that no dissenting positions should be allowed or given exposure. Not, I would suggest, the most sensible way to avoid the notion that there are those who think they know better what is got for the rest. And that, especially in the Internet age, does tend to backfire.
Not a hint of doubt there. Even to the extent, at least as I read it, that one of the more persistent climate optimist entities not only grant that negative climate exists, but it is all down to man. No other factors at all, it seems.
I find this highly significant, but do wonder why it has not...yet... had more coverage? The US titles quoted are significant, but what about here? So far, nothing. Not even in some media one is quite used to being keen to push the 'pessimist' agenda.
If this is as billed, might one hope that there may be a more concerted effort at pinning down causes and practical, enviROI+ solutions as a consequence now we can move on from the 'tis/t'isn't exchanges.
Addendum - Meanwhile...
No more hyperbole, let's discuss the facts about global warming
Now there is a turn-up for the books... blogs and broadcasts.
I welcome the latest information, but rather dread the further twists and turns of the discussions that will follow.
Especially as I have, albeit with a rather cocked eyebrow, recently shared this with those who might fairly be described as being on the fence, and hence apathetic at best. I rather think they politely tolerate my zeal to get to the crux of what I consider a key question to allow sensible future planning to take place, and in a timely manner. While my personal views are known (Man-worsened negative climate change is a distinct possibility, and any reasonable mitigations seem well worth considering as soon as possible, but before rushing into knee-jerk 'solutions' of dubious enviROI I still need a lot more convincing on most proposed, as few seem to sensibly address waste or increased pollution whilst recognising global socio-political realities), it really doesn't do my... the cause of environmental caution much good when you are running to and fro week on week saying, in effect, 'the sky is falling... no it isn't... yes it is'. And especially when most governments and media seem to address something claimed to be serious in such an erratic, piecemeal and often frankly hypocritical manner.
I just hope we don't now see a spate of 'tis/t'isn't' exchanges, especially as these usually devolve into attacking the person as opposed to the wisdom, or otherwise, of the message. While the qualifications of those making pronouncements is important, I have long since ceased to be too impressed with even Professorships. A Nobel Prize is however nifty, and this one is recent. Mind, I had thought the prize Al Gore shared was with the head of the IPCC (I guess symbolically, then, and in the face of diverse views within that organisation), and by what I understand, the views of S Fred Singer are not exactly going hand in hand with with Mr. Gore's, are they? Hence trying to work out the definitions of winning that 'accolade' (it has of course been called into question as being more a means of sending political messages rather than signifying any objective values) and the provenance it (or most other cited substantiations these days) bestows, and who gets to share them, just got very murky. To me at least.
I have to say that some aspects of what he is quoted as saying here do resonate. There often does seem a rather over-egged desire to see in every aspect of climate a rather dire reason. And then a green solution comes along that can sometimes be sold more on its perceived greenness than any actual value to our futures. The AGW victim du jour on Breakfast TV was Puffins, I think. Such things don't really help if it turns out that colony numbers ebb and flow just as do the tides... or climate... over certain periods. I have also just left a debate on vegetarianism where I pondered the effect such enforced policies might have on such as the poster kids of saving the planet, such as polar bears or tigers.
The key is to look at the trends over more significant periods, and then do whatever we can to identify causes... and practical, sensible solutions.
Oh well, I guess it shows debate is alive, and healthy. I just hope we are not going to be subjected now to too much more on the absolutes of the A in AGW... or not... such that worthwhile tangible efforts, which we might not have the time to afford, get further delayed. An inevitable penalty of a flawed system I guess, but with luck it's still the best we have. If not, the future may have just got even more 'interesting'.
Addendum 2 -
It seems very clear that the description 'Nobel Prize Winner' was an exaggeration, though down to whom I am still not sure. And for sure that needs correcting. What has been a worry to me is that almost every response I have seen has been to tackle the man and not the argument; with some going so far as to say that no dissenting positions should be allowed or given exposure. Not, I would suggest, the most sensible way to avoid the notion that there are those who think they know better what is got for the rest. And that, especially in the Internet age, does tend to backfire.
Silly Question
Newsnight - Energy Policy
16. At 11:58 am on 29 May 2008, bookhimdano :energy policy
There's the rub. Who knows? And why do the majority of the population (inc. me) not?
The German example you share seems inspirational, proactive, positive and profitable.
Yet, apparently... 'the uk govt refuse to have a two way grid as they do not believe there is any evidence it would work'.
Now belief is all well and subjective. Surely to heavens it is not beyond the wit of media to help us get to find out what the actual facts and/or truth is? Then the people can lobby for what is good for pocket... and planet.
I would dearly love some clear information and discussion on this (and others), and not a 'tis/t'isn't twofer with extremes from the dogmatic activist or box-ticker/lobbyist/subsidy junkie end of a debate.
And even if we do get actual engineers and/or number crunchers, if they still have opposing viewpoints might we hope for a host with experience and training enough to actually get to definitive answers we can act/vote on than a 'that's all we have time for' ratings segment that gets filed and forgotten in days?
16. At 11:58 am on 29 May 2008, bookhimdano :energy policy
There's the rub. Who knows? And why do the majority of the population (inc. me) not?
The German example you share seems inspirational, proactive, positive and profitable.
Yet, apparently... 'the uk govt refuse to have a two way grid as they do not believe there is any evidence it would work'.
Now belief is all well and subjective. Surely to heavens it is not beyond the wit of media to help us get to find out what the actual facts and/or truth is? Then the people can lobby for what is good for pocket... and planet.
I would dearly love some clear information and discussion on this (and others), and not a 'tis/t'isn't twofer with extremes from the dogmatic activist or box-ticker/lobbyist/subsidy junkie end of a debate.
And even if we do get actual engineers and/or number crunchers, if they still have opposing viewpoints might we hope for a host with experience and training enough to actually get to definitive answers we can act/vote on than a 'that's all we have time for' ratings segment that gets filed and forgotten in days?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)