Like today, yesterday was gorgeous.
And we are lucky; we live in a part of the UK that when it is gorgeous we don't actually need to go any further than our front door to enjoy it.
In fact we ventured only as far as the back garden.
I attacked the jungle, and then me and the boys pulled my trolley round the dump.
Then we had a BBQ, having picked up the makings en route home.
And then we did sod all the rest of the day. Bliss.
I'd advocate this to anyone.
Thing is, I also see why it might not always be that great, and especially when it's part of a holiday that might fall in a period of unplanned (unlike the trip) bad weather.
The horrifying cost of Britain's top attractions
Been there, been overcharged for that, and got the rip-off T-shirt.
Which is why a holiday to sunnier climes where the boys need no more than water, sand and a spade to spend a blissful 12 hrs is still a pretty good option.
So I think some balance in the 'stay at home' advocacy is in order. To deny the facts is silly.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Space wars
Polluting cars to carry cigarette-style warnings?
Actually.... I am almost on board with aspects of this.
Now, taking as read that all cars (bar my kids box-versions) are polluting to some degree, I think in ad terms it boils down more to good old selfish end-benefit. Or. in this case, end-less pain.
It seems daft to ask folk to get their heads round full life cycle analyses (enviROI of making though using to disposing), and in any case that is a can of worms.
In fact the only figures that are relevant are the tax, running and resale.
Trouble is these are a moving target and changed as soon as issued at the tick of a box-tickers biro in Brussels.
So, I tend to agree, if for slightly different reasons. Cars don't kill people living on planets; people driving them does... er... may So as one moves from what you are doing to yourself to what you might be to others, I'd say that if the space is going to be used for an 'eco' reason, use it for a better one than what is proposed.
Or charge them 'protection' money of 20% on the media cost like the mob, and donate the proceeds to bike lanes or public transport initiatives that might actually work and get money to where it is of value and not some pol or quango's back pockets.
Actually.... I am almost on board with aspects of this.
Now, taking as read that all cars (bar my kids box-versions) are polluting to some degree, I think in ad terms it boils down more to good old selfish end-benefit. Or. in this case, end-less pain.
It seems daft to ask folk to get their heads round full life cycle analyses (enviROI of making though using to disposing), and in any case that is a can of worms.
In fact the only figures that are relevant are the tax, running and resale.
Trouble is these are a moving target and changed as soon as issued at the tick of a box-tickers biro in Brussels.
So, I tend to agree, if for slightly different reasons. Cars don't kill people living on planets; people driving them does... er... may So as one moves from what you are doing to yourself to what you might be to others, I'd say that if the space is going to be used for an 'eco' reason, use it for a better one than what is proposed.
Or charge them 'protection' money of 20% on the media cost like the mob, and donate the proceeds to bike lanes or public transport initiatives that might actually work and get money to where it is of value and not some pol or quango's back pockets.
GOOD PACK, BAD PACK - Tiger Tiger Cup Noodle
PROF's POSER - Killer Cure?
Carbon capture, but where’s the polluter?
A little science is a dangerous thing. Which is why I lack the certitude of many in the climate arena, and usually content myself with simply asking often daft or at least possibly naive questions. If they are really daft then I get politely put back on track. If they are daft like a fox then it's fun seeing the experts get busy.
I was at school doing Physics, Chemistry and Biology when Isambard K Brunel was in short stovepipes. I did 2/3 of a vet degree but dropped out when it was clear I would not be meeting the lady who played James Herriot's missus in the TV series, and then went on to a Civ. Eng degree I was mainly granted on the strict understanding I didn't try an build anything. So detail is not my strong suit. However I still often have a fair grasp of the bigger pictures.
Some notions may yet go astray. I have merely wondered what might happen if we suck the energy out of all the wind that blows ashore before it gets to where it used to. And while I appreciate the vastness of the earth, I do still concern myself as to the possible consequences of sucking a bunch of heat from down there to up and out on top. I guess all pale to the as yet unconfirmed consequences of sucking bazillions of litres of oil up as well over the last several decades. I have seen the 'Crack in the Earth', you know. Mind you, many of my doubts on nuclear are based on Space 1999.
Anyhoo, this latest wheeze has promoted my next 'but what about...'.
I'm going to plump for the scientific term osmosis. I know it's usually associated with fluids and movements of short distances in liquids, but basically I thinking that basically Nature likes balance, just as it abhors a vacuum. Hence you have a bunch of stuff in one place and less in another, so it will migrate.
Now, ignoring the vastness of our Earth, and even in the form of its wafer thin crust coating and micro-bubble of atmosphere, assuming these calumpter-calumpter machines do what they say on the tin, is there not a slight danger that if they don't suck at sucking, pretty soon there will be less Co2 overall globally to be sure, but won't here also be some very odd pockets where there is an extremely low concentration, namely in a gradient to the hemisphere centered on these things.
So, and just asking here, bearing in mind that some C02 is still part of the old natural balance, is there not a danger that there might be large areas where the plant life is gasping a bit and ends up prevented from its millenia-long task of Co2 scrubbing... and O2 emitting?
In passing...
Junkk.com has oft noted the value of the Pringles can (if not that of the contents - tasty, mind) and even its lid.
Hence we would like to give credit to its creator, though sadly now as an RIP - Dr. Fredric J. Baur
Junk Food Container Urns - Inventor of Pringles Can Buried in One
Hence we would like to give credit to its creator, though sadly now as an RIP - Dr. Fredric J. Baur
Junk Food Container Urns - Inventor of Pringles Can Buried in One
Sunday, June 08, 2008
A tale of two pities
While work in favour of what Junkk.com is trying to do, and the greater even more so, but a small note in this piece highlights the pitiful state of our environmental awareness:
New recycling plant to create a virtuous circle for plastic
'..a quarter of UK adults now believe that the huge amounts of waste packaging that we are producing and failing to recycle is extremely worrying, compared with just 15 per cent who are worried to the same degree about the impact of greenhouse gases.'
I think the fact that we are more worried about an obvious but relatively minor component of the overall issue is telling.
New recycling plant to create a virtuous circle for plastic
'..a quarter of UK adults now believe that the huge amounts of waste packaging that we are producing and failing to recycle is extremely worrying, compared with just 15 per cent who are worried to the same degree about the impact of greenhouse gases.'
I think the fact that we are more worried about an obvious but relatively minor component of the overall issue is telling.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Look, but don't touch
The lifestyle media, especially many of the 'green' (well those that think they are, and/or speak for the rest of 'us' in this area) ones, face a dilemma.
They also tend to do quite well telling readers about exotic things and places. And that usually means going there. Trouble is, it also rather encourages those who have read about it to want to go, too.
But I am not sure the guilt-tripping anti-trip attempts at sorting this out are working out very well.
To coldly go
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I totally agree with the rational concerns, but then, in this more populated, often more affluent world, with proposed solutions one runs into what is ideal, and what is.
Because, whatever happens there will immediately need to be an exclusion for BBC climate analysts and others to scoot up there at the drop...er... calving of an iceberg to do a piece to camera in front of some white stuff to highlight the damage 'we' are doing scooting places on business (less important business than reporting, one presumes) or pleasure. Then there are pop stars, pols, etc, plus attendant media caravans, on 'awareness' missions. Oh, and prize winners of climate competitions, plus attendant hangers-on, on 'study/awareness' raising (I am planning to re-designate my bucket and spade 10 days with the kids somewhere sunny (and not a £500 a day ecoYurt in sight) as a 'fact-finding tour').
I fear it is too late now to avoid all this coming across as 'don't you lot dare do what we say... but still expect to do', as too many green messengers have devalued the message by their rather elitist attitudes... and actions.
And, sorry to say this, this publication separating the writings of editorial from the actions of media sales in squeezing the last £ from air tours to eco destinations halfway around the world has been pretty complicit throughout.
They also tend to do quite well telling readers about exotic things and places. And that usually means going there. Trouble is, it also rather encourages those who have read about it to want to go, too.
But I am not sure the guilt-tripping anti-trip attempts at sorting this out are working out very well.
To coldly go
I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I totally agree with the rational concerns, but then, in this more populated, often more affluent world, with proposed solutions one runs into what is ideal, and what is.
Because, whatever happens there will immediately need to be an exclusion for BBC climate analysts and others to scoot up there at the drop...er... calving of an iceberg to do a piece to camera in front of some white stuff to highlight the damage 'we' are doing scooting places on business (less important business than reporting, one presumes) or pleasure. Then there are pop stars, pols, etc, plus attendant media caravans, on 'awareness' missions. Oh, and prize winners of climate competitions, plus attendant hangers-on, on 'study/awareness' raising (I am planning to re-designate my bucket and spade 10 days with the kids somewhere sunny (and not a £500 a day ecoYurt in sight) as a 'fact-finding tour').
I fear it is too late now to avoid all this coming across as 'don't you lot dare do what we say... but still expect to do', as too many green messengers have devalued the message by their rather elitist attitudes... and actions.
And, sorry to say this, this publication separating the writings of editorial from the actions of media sales in squeezing the last £ from air tours to eco destinations halfway around the world has been pretty complicit throughout.
Friday, June 06, 2008
We are not alone
The Junkk notion on the causes and hence value of surveys gets expressed a lot.
As we can't think of a better way to express our views than these guys, we won't:
Greenbang - Survey: environment is simply a marketing tool
Nice to be in good company, mind
As we can't think of a better way to express our views than these guys, we won't:
Greenbang - Survey: environment is simply a marketing tool
Nice to be in good company, mind
CATEGORY - STAND-BY & ENERGY SAVING DEVICES
From in-built systems (or not) to add on plugs, the power electric and electronic devices draw down is a pretty significant aspect of our energy demand.
I've dabbled a bit to now, but in answering a question put together a reply that is worth kicking this of with:
While topical and important, it is surprising how little actual info there is.
There's what allows power to get as far as the box, and what the box
needs power for, and does with it, if and when it gets to it.
Most standby systems are just remote switches, doing no more than
cutting off the juice as you would simply by clicking off.
So in-box. there's keeping settings and there's updates.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6076658.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3118713.ece
These need some power reserve. Can't imagine it's a lot, so why it
could not be some temporary storage system I can't imagine.
This looks fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative
I also met a very interesting chap at the Sky Big Idea (he was the
people's choice winner) and Geneva Invention show, called Karl Dorn - http://www.karldorn.com/
He had invented a plug that I recall allowed a trickle though,
which was enough to keep the clocks ticking. I also recall a Dragon's
Den where all five got excited about the same thing, though the IP was
in doubt - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6913848.stm . The BBC
News was full of it when 'hot', but I guess dropped it. You'd have
thunk the researchers and the Dragon's might have checked a wee thing
like that before taking it to full national exposure, winning and PR
mode.
I guess it's down to money and consumer preference, as per usual.
For more info you could do worse than ask these guys: http://www.intellectuk.org/
I've dabbled a bit to now, but in answering a question put together a reply that is worth kicking this of with:
While topical and important, it is surprising how little actual info there is.
There's what allows power to get as far as the box, and what the box
needs power for, and does with it, if and when it gets to it.
Most standby systems are just remote switches, doing no more than
cutting off the juice as you would simply by clicking off.
So in-box. there's keeping settings and there's updates.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6076658.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3118713.ece
These need some power reserve. Can't imagine it's a lot, so why it
could not be some temporary storage system I can't imagine.
This looks fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Watt_Initiative
I also met a very interesting chap at the Sky Big Idea (he was the
people's choice winner) and Geneva Invention show, called Karl Dorn - http://www.karldorn.com/
He had invented a plug that I recall allowed a trickle though,
which was enough to keep the clocks ticking. I also recall a Dragon's
Den where all five got excited about the same thing, though the IP was
in doubt - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6913848.stm . The BBC
News was full of it when 'hot', but I guess dropped it. You'd have
thunk the researchers and the Dragon's might have checked a wee thing
like that before taking it to full national exposure, winning and PR
mode.
I guess it's down to money and consumer preference, as per usual.
For more info you could do worse than ask these guys: http://www.intellectuk.org/
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Millions, I tell you... millions!
I am please to sahre this PR from DEFRA: One million people turn to ACT ON CO2 calculator for advice on fighting climate change
As provided, E&EO:
WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY: The ACT ON CO2 calculator - which helps people to work out and reduce their carbon footprint - has received its one millionth unique visitor, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced today.
The calculator, which was launched last Summer, enables people to reliably calculate their carbon footprint from home energy, appliances and transport. It then develops a personalised action plan for users, with practical steps they can take to cut their emissions.
Climate Change Minister, Joan Ruddock, said:
"A significant part of the fight against climate change is about the action we can take as individuals. On World Environment Day it is really encouraging that so many people are deciding to Act on CO2 to help the environment. Our calculator has received a million visitors in a year."
Addendum:
I was prompted to ask some clarfication questions, which the press departemnt has kindly, quickly and comprehensively now got answers to:
* Might I ask you to amplify on what is meant by 'Turn to'?
The ACT ON CO2 calculator received one millionth unique visitors.
*Is this million all distinct? No repeats? Are these names and emails logged on a database?
One million unique PCs (ISP addresses) have connected with the calculator. This is without repetition. It is not compulsory to enter an email to use the web-site, although entering an email address allows a user to return to view or update their footprint. The database which supports the calculator holds information on answers and footprints. We only use the information to generate anonymised statistics. Because we don't collect names, or the second half of postcodes, the calculator does not collect or hold personal information.
* What were the numbers of those who looked vs. acted? And what actions were taken?
We can't say what actions have been taken as a result of the calculator. Two evaluation studies have, however, shown that the calculator is received very positively and meets its objective of informing people about their carbon footprint, what contributes to it, and what they can do about reducing it.
* How much has been spent creating and running the site, and promoting it to date?
The Government's “ACT ON CO2” campaign aims to increase awareness and understanding of the relationship between climate change and CO2 and encourage genuine sustained behaviour change. Defra has spent around £750k creating and maintaining the site since the project started in 2006 and in 2007/08 Defra spent approximately £5.5M on the core ACT ON CO2.
So, that's £6 a head then. In one year. I look forward to seeing how this great result is shared in other media.
As provided, E&EO:
WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY: The ACT ON CO2 calculator - which helps people to work out and reduce their carbon footprint - has received its one millionth unique visitor, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced today.
The calculator, which was launched last Summer, enables people to reliably calculate their carbon footprint from home energy, appliances and transport. It then develops a personalised action plan for users, with practical steps they can take to cut their emissions.
Climate Change Minister, Joan Ruddock, said:
"A significant part of the fight against climate change is about the action we can take as individuals. On World Environment Day it is really encouraging that so many people are deciding to Act on CO2 to help the environment. Our calculator has received a million visitors in a year."
Addendum:
I was prompted to ask some clarfication questions, which the press departemnt has kindly, quickly and comprehensively now got answers to:
* Might I ask you to amplify on what is meant by 'Turn to'?
The ACT ON CO2 calculator received one millionth unique visitors.
*Is this million all distinct? No repeats? Are these names and emails logged on a database?
One million unique PCs (ISP addresses) have connected with the calculator. This is without repetition. It is not compulsory to enter an email to use the web-site, although entering an email address allows a user to return to view or update their footprint. The database which supports the calculator holds information on answers and footprints. We only use the information to generate anonymised statistics. Because we don't collect names, or the second half of postcodes, the calculator does not collect or hold personal information.
* What were the numbers of those who looked vs. acted? And what actions were taken?
We can't say what actions have been taken as a result of the calculator. Two evaluation studies have, however, shown that the calculator is received very positively and meets its objective of informing people about their carbon footprint, what contributes to it, and what they can do about reducing it.
* How much has been spent creating and running the site, and promoting it to date?
The Government's “ACT ON CO2” campaign aims to increase awareness and understanding of the relationship between climate change and CO2 and encourage genuine sustained behaviour change. Defra has spent around £750k creating and maintaining the site since the project started in 2006 and in 2007/08 Defra spent approximately £5.5M on the core ACT ON CO2.
So, that's £6 a head then. In one year. I look forward to seeing how this great result is shared in other media.
It takes two
A nice ad concept from 'we can solve it' : Unlikely Alliances
Here was my suggestion:
Do you guys get BBC's Top Gear? It would take something to get Jeremy Clarkson on that couch. Underneath the bluster and shock-jock is a keen mind and a definite soft-spot for engineering. Got a Lockheed green champ?
Ran out of space, but so long as the message is not too hairshirt, planet ban-it, JC might be up for it. Especially if he meets a science/inventor type he respects.
And if you get him onside, even a bit, you get a lot of fence-sitters to at least think more challengingly on the issues, which to me is more powerful than some green icon preaching to the converted.
Here was my suggestion:
Do you guys get BBC's Top Gear? It would take something to get Jeremy Clarkson on that couch. Underneath the bluster and shock-jock is a keen mind and a definite soft-spot for engineering. Got a Lockheed green champ?
Ran out of space, but so long as the message is not too hairshirt, planet ban-it, JC might be up for it. Especially if he meets a science/inventor type he respects.
And if you get him onside, even a bit, you get a lot of fence-sitters to at least think more challengingly on the issues, which to me is more powerful than some green icon preaching to the converted.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
One for you; three for us
UK Floats Idea Of Carbon Allowance For Individuals
Nice in theory, but by coming from this nation's politicians, rather unlikely to get off the ground (sorry, I should say 'avoid sinking without trace') here for a wee while, especially in light of previous expertise shown in managing such matters in the name of green. Anything that involves box-tickers from government, and especially traders from the City, to oversee and profit from, is a tad tainted, sadly.
Nice in theory, but by coming from this nation's politicians, rather unlikely to get off the ground (sorry, I should say 'avoid sinking without trace') here for a wee while, especially in light of previous expertise shown in managing such matters in the name of green. Anything that involves box-tickers from government, and especially traders from the City, to oversee and profit from, is a tad tainted, sadly.
Share and share alike
A useful new post from the Guardian: Ten ways to save money by going green
I have turned it up to 11. Feel free to crank more.
It needs 'em.
What's odd is that, despite being a blog post on CiF (and that almost demands 'antis'), this is no nanny opinion piece but simply info sharing. Yet the volume of negative feedback is vast... and worrying.
I have turned it up to 11. Feel free to crank more.
It needs 'em.
What's odd is that, despite being a blog post on CiF (and that almost demands 'antis'), this is no nanny opinion piece but simply info sharing. Yet the volume of negative feedback is vast... and worrying.
Space, the final insult
I have been less than inspired by many aspects of space tourism. But apparently I was wrong on one count: it is greener. Apparently.
ESA: space tourism greener than ordinary airline flights
I stand corrected.
ESA: space tourism greener than ordinary airline flights
I stand corrected.
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
An "A-B-C-D Approach to Making Better Products" - a report
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'.
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'.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)