Foot in mouth disease

I thought today may be the first working day when I didn't post a blog, but as I watch the sun sink over the Wye there is too much worth sharing.

This morning I weighed up a round trip of about 150 miles, parking, munchies and two of us out of the office, and still decided in favour of going to the Materials Recycling Week ( http://www.mrw.co.uk ) RWM 05 (there'll be a link off MRW I'm sure) exhibition at the NEC. About 2 hrs later, having diverted to pick up Emma at home, we arrived.

At first it didn't look good. More big bits of kit than you could shake a WEEE directive at. Great for an ex-Civ Eng who still has a poster of Raymond Baxter on his wall (RIP Tomorrow's World), but perhaps not so relevant to our core audience. And Emma's toecaps, while dainty, can express 'Focus' in a very sharp manner.

But as we scooted up and down the aisles, we did find a few nuggets of gold. People who we could help, and people we may be helped by. I was especially taken with a young man from DEFRA who got quite taken with Junkk.com and vowed to make 'them' take note. I have to say, from councils to community groups to govt. departments, there is a promising new generation I have high hopes of engaging with positively.

Anyway, pitches were pitched, cards were exchanged, and I truly look forward to seeing a fair bit more professional activity of the site very soon.

The thing that helped us most in this was my deciding to take my laptop sling with me. This simple but (if I may so, and despite feedback from a few grinches who have said the exact opposite) stylish example of reuse (I must finish my vacuum cleaner rucksack... soon!) caught a lot of eyes and opened up a lot of conversations.

One of which was with Penney Poyzer (between the Google links and MRW's posts, I'm not too sure how her name is spelled), the host of BBC2's 'No waste like home', to whom we were kindly introduced by the lovely Anna, Rebecca and (whatever the male equivalent of lovely is, becuase he really is a nice chap, and I sit here still singed by the attitude of most editors) Paul of MRW. Thanks guys, and I hope the link is a good 'thank you' start, and I will add to your blog soon... promise.

Anyway, back to Penney. And the reason for today's title.

Followers of this blog will remember that I have not been overwhelmingly complimentary about the show in the past, though looking back my blogs were, I feel, balanced in what was good and what was bad. At least on a personal basis, which is what a blog is!

So finding myself presented to the frontperson I was basically thinking to myself 'Whoopsidaisy', or words to that effect. In the end I decided to 'fess up. And here a very nice thing happened. It is obvious from the show that she is a very pleasant and gracious lady (though I think the script and editing does her few favours, as in real life she is a different, and much more interesting person), but she immediately accepted that there may be alternative viewpoints, and did so with good humour. She even waived aside our apologies for driving there (she had trained in) by pinting out that we had car-shared, a fact that had not occured to us.

She also seemed to express more than a passing interest in Junkk.com which, from someone much further advanced towards the Holy Grail of public awareness (to our... er.. zero. When will that launch plan kick in???) was more than welcome. I might also add that, having appreciated more her professional background, it was very encouraging.

I sincerely hope we will be able to engage with her some more, and more often. I overheard her comments in the press briefing (see MRW, above, I guess next week, to read it) and this is one highly informed, passionate yet pragmatic lady. She is also, like us, not so bound by various affiliations to be 'on message' to the detriment of objective public communication, which was one area with which I had felt the TV series was not doing such a good job. That said, it does seem to be getting better each week, and I'm sorry I missed the last episode.

I have also just read Rebecca Allmark of MRW's review of her book, and it looks like it is more what we have been advocating, and one we will buy. Without having read it myself I will hold comment, but by way of atonement to a very nice person, and astoundingly youthful grandma, let me point you in its direction:


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0753510278/amphlettcom-21/202-4893740-7340631

Penny, I hope we will talk more, help each other... and, in so doing, the planet.

By coincidence, her next show features student life. And next week we hit London's University Fresher's Fairs to see how we can inspire students to save money and time via reuse.

Coincidence? No. I'd like to think it's karma:)

Peter is visiting the factory

It was only yesterday that I read of one of our major literary figures (typically his name now escapes me) who named his garden workplace of inspiration 'London', so that if anyone called they could be told that he was 'away in London'.

Hence today's title.

With our imminent roll-out and all that entails (and there is a lot), plus our visiting the the Materials Recycling Weekly (check out some nice things they said about us here:  http://www.junkk.com/index.asp?slevel=0z301z739z870&parent_id=870 ) Recycling Waste Management exhibition this week (fuel protests, or indeed  fuel, permitting - I may have something to say about this soon), I need some more tangible examples of what we're on about.

So, I'm off down the she... to the factory.

If you don't learn from history...

I don't usually write at the weekend, especially one when I am under threat of serious sighing from our Chiefs of Stuff and Prose & Comms if I do not get down my shed and make something. 

 

But things conspire to thwart me. 50% of my shed time was lost by spending most of yesterday picking my kids up from a birthday party in a neighbouring village. A small matter of floods, landslides, closed motorways and jobsworths blocking access to 'their’ town for some odd notion that failed to compute, or turn out to be justified, when it came to getting to my kids. How the 4x4 brigade must have giggled, even though it is of course all their fault it's all happening.

 

Anyway, as I at last prepare to head for the shed, I was idly watching a BBC programme that seemed to be about predictions from the 60's, and coverage of them (how I miss Tomorrow's World). It featured fascinating insights from a variety of folks, including a set of 9-year-olds from a London comprehensive who were frankly outstanding in terms of intellect, creativity and expression. Don't tell me an ‘education, education, education’, education has resulted in a better, er, education.

 

But there was one contributor whose thoughts really resonated: Isaac Asimov.

 

He'd been asked what he saw come the end of the century. Basically he focused on population control and all that failing to address it would lead to in the next 50 years. He mentioned a bunch of stuff including pollution and its consequences, famine, wars of desperation. But he said that really was a most pessimistic view because he was sure we'd sort it.

 

Well, we're here. And guess what. He was right. And he was wrong.

 

Sadly all has happened just the way he said it could. And it’s because we haven't, are not, and it doesn't look like we will address the big issues first, if at all.

There's a welcome... initiative... in the hillsides

I'm looking out of my window towards the River Wye.

Honestly, there could be fewer places than Ross nicer to live and work. But it's not the best of places to do business, because as part of the service industry, and in particular one heavily involved with fmcg marketing and high level government (aspiring, that is) access, we're not exactly at the heart of the action.

And for all the wonderful opportunities offered by the net, there really is no substitute for good 'ole fashioned networking. Face to face, 'what do you do' events that put you in direct touch with a person with whom some mutually beneficial synergies may be explored.

Why I am writing this, now, is that yesterday at crack of dawn I set off to Cardiff University, where I had been invited to participate in an all-day event called 'Adding Value to your Work Through Creativity and Innovation.'. With a title like that you can see why I was tempted.

I walked into a room with a large number of folks, perhaps 90 in all. They were naturally weighted to learning institutions but with a fair number of Council representatives, the odd business (like me, and they don't come much odder than that!), plus the usual 'gawd knows what they do' consultants.

The day was pretty much split into two lectures, one given by a very passionate sociology lecturer, and the other by his direct opposite, a very quietly spoken, wry but equally committed Professor of Engineering.

In between these talks, we were set tasks, both as individuals and as small groups, basically to 'set our minds free'.
And, fair enough, they had an agenda too. Money. To develop what they had started. Did you know that when it comes to global inventions, one fifth of all of them, and 70% of all the significant ones came from the UK? That was courtesy of the Japanese government, back in 2001. Thing is, the guys overseas are not too concerned about us any more. Apparently we are squandering our talent for invention. That is a BIG PROBLEM. And these guys, are trying to do something about it.

Well, I'm up for it. And without being too self-centred (we'll do what we can, when we can, to help in return, but it won't be with money) I think Junkk.com could be not only a beneficiary of their desire to DO something, but a poster child to inspire all those in the equation... public, government, authorities, business and funders.

Because Junkk.com is about taking a new approach to the ‘waste’ problem, by giving consumers, manufacturers and retailers end benefits. Consumers save money and in doing so, put less into landfill. And manufacturers/retailers make money by giving their product/packaging and extra selling point – a second use for things that they produce (packaging/products) and that people might otherwise put in the bin.

Trouble is, the innovators and creators are not the gatekeepers of progress any more. It's the po-faced, grey folks with Specsavers twofers and a meta-matrix that needs creating and box that needs ticking. So we have a certain... challenge... ahead of us.

And they were talking ‘We South Welsh’, which may exclude me/us (a few miles the wrong side of the border), and raises another issue as I see it of diluted efforts through too much being frittered away in separate empires. But in this case I think it’s a matter of ‘you need to start somewhere’, so more power to their elbow.

Was it worth it? Yes. I had fun, learned a bit... and, most important of all.. made a few valuable new contacts which may, if they choose to develop the relationship, work to Junkk.com’s and their advantage equally.

Businesses like mine (creative, innovative, call it what you will – basically people who look at the world in a different way) need to hook up with people like these guys who recognize the value of creative solutions, and are willing to do something about it.

I’m looking forward to the ride.

Charity begins in SW19..?

Fresh from a seminar on such things the other night and with our
launch imminent, plus the initiation of our own news feed, I'm
drowning in press releases; both those we're putting out and those
we're getting in. Such immersion has made me interested in how what
is written can get re-interpreted subsequently.

So I'm wondering what happened here: <bold>Oxfam tells Britons: "Don't
give us your rubbish"

</bold>

The facts are clear, and fair enough.

Seems we're a scummy lot and dump a bunch of tat on the poor old
charity, which costs them half a mil to sift. That's half a mil not
going to where it should.

The Association of Charity Shops has estimated that in total about
£4.5 million was wasted each year on the problem, and went on to ask
people use common sense in deciding whether the items are suitable to
donate to charity shops or whether they should be recycled elsewhere.

You know it's coming...

The thing is, was this the right way to go away about it?

In our high street, there are half a dozen charity shops. I've pretty
much given up going most of the big names because they really don't
give out the vibe that some stuff we didn't want but did not seem
skipworthy was, well, up to scratch. So it all goes to a local animal
shelter, who seem cheerful and happy to look, hand pick and generally
sift away. So I'm happy to see stuff go to a good home and in a good
cause, but they wouldn't be my first choice; I'm a bit more human
before animal in my charitable preferences, and a lot more teaching
and assisting than giving. Hard to teach a cat to fish and all… well,
at least better.

So I just wonder if this message a) was the right one, and b) got
broadcast as it should. I don't know about others, but frankly I felt
that I'd just give all the swanky charities a wider berth, and I'm not
sure that was the best result.

Especially as I don't think those that do drop off the real tat will
be in any way dissuaded from continuing to do so. And that means what
exactly, by way of a result? About the only positive message I could
get was as a potential consumer, that they have high standards, but
really what's incoming doesn't bother me, and I kind of expect some
quality control prior to that which I exercise on my own as I rummage
away.

So hate to say it, but it’s simply a cost of doing business,
especially when your supplier chain is out of your control. But at
least it’s free! And there may be a chance the supply may be reduced.
Unless they're trying to get to new stuff, which is unfair competition
to local shops and away from Junkk.com's reuse support.

An example of unwanted goods that fell in the 'how could they’
category was a box of assorted false teeth donated on Monday to the
charity's store in Wimbledon.

Now that seemed a hoot to me. Certainly not for the bin. I couldn't
say for sure, but wouldn't it be great if instead of a problem they
spun it positively by taking a quick pic with the mobly, and popping
it on some website that catered to the SW 19 area in such matters,
especially with a FREE service for charities, and maybe lured in some
Damien Hirstesque cove with Tate Modern in his sights. he may even buy
some other stuff while browsing.

Now, if only such a site existed.. if, oh...!

Talk softly, but carry a big thesaurus?

I have mixed feelings on forums, even though we have one on Junkk.com,
we take part in more than a few as part of our daily grind, and this
blog itself sort of being an area of open comment.

There is no doubting the absolute value of a like-minded group sharing
information and thoughts. Better yet when others can be attracted to
seek help and contribute.

And sometimes there can be even greater benefits to be derived from
spirited debate.

But there's that small niggle that even in areas of comparative calm
(though to be sure all things environmental can be pretty heavy and
hence stir the mightiest passions) there are those who get more than
they bargained for when they make an 'innocent' suggestion that ends up
with some quite negative feedback.

It is very relevant to Junkk.com, because we live and breathe by the
contributions of our audience, young and old, novice planet saver to
eco-warrior. Indeed, it now occurs to me that even on individual idea
posts, there is an opportunity to comment, so these in effect become
mini forums.

So now I'm wondering if that is a problem. And also part of a bigger
issue we need to address.

I'd like to think that there will be no such thing as a bad idea on
Junkk.com. Common. Obvious. Maybe even poorly thought through. But
never bad.

Such thoughts were brought to mind by a series of exchanges on a forum
we follow.

Basically a nice person had shared a reuse (hence our interest)
opportunity she had discovered. And for a while the subsequent posts
were positive. Then came the now almost inevitable 'but is it truly
environmental on a global scale?' question.

Now that in itself was entirely valid. Frankly I had a whole set more
that sprung to mind, though most were more on a practicality basis. But
on balance I figured, hey, it's cute, it's neat, and why not? But like
the whole disposable vs. cotton nappies episode, which somehow seemed
to drag in the environmental costs of donkey transport in India, it can
all get a bit 'deep'. Matters of tone can then make things worse. While
'I'm not sure that going to work because...' is a possible route to an
alternative viewpoint, 'That's the most stupid thing...' tends to end
in MAD. It's a feeling I get when I watch BBC Question Time when
everyone, panel experts and audience alike, are so informed and
impassioned (and chosen to be that way), that I don't feel the true
contributions, appreciations and feelings of normal folk are adequately
represented.

And that's what happened in this forum: Much Deepness in the Mire
(which is also a small village West of here:). Average person ends up
having a big green finger been wagged at her, backed by all sorts of
shaming stats.

I'm not sure what the outcome was, but it seems pretty certain that by
the end all concerned were wishing they had never touched the keyboard,
which is a pity. Especially because I'd suspect that the initial
contributor, and those like them, may not be as keen to share again in
the future.

Hence I'm inclined to relook at our posting system, because I never
want anyone to feel they can't post without risking ridicule from those
more vocal or who 'know better'. Junkk.com is for all those who care,
even if it is a little bit, and I don't want to see things getting
dominated by those who care perhaps too much.

Of course it would be a shame to lose the chance of feedback, as it
can be used to improve an idea, and indeed there may be a need for wise
caution.

I'm not quite sure how we're going to walk the line, but to ensure even
the softest voices are heard I do think we need to create a totally
welcoming environment.

Hmn, 'a totally welcoming environment'; not a bad phrase at all on
which to end.

The 'F-word'

Life can be hectic - and stressful - at Junkk Towers, so that word is
heard a lot. And it is invariably directed at me:

'Focus!!!!!'

Of course, it is easier to say than to do, especially when there is
just soooooo much neat stuff to investigate, create... and share.

Also some recent events have contributed significantly to complicating
matters. Many good. Some perhaps less so. In fact I'm beginning to hate
my 'ra-ra' maxim that problems are merely opportunities that have only
just presented themselves, for solutions that simply await discovery.
No, mostly they are stuff I could do without and wish would go away.

On the up side, our Chiefs of Stuff and Prose and Comms headed off
recently to forge some worthy alliances. This seemed to show that when
I'm not around things work out a lot better, and the logical
extrapolation of that is... I should stay in my shed. So off I go.

Also our launch roll-out is 'imminent'. And our marketing agency is
getting serious interest all around, from schools, unis, councils.. you
name it. All, so far, except the number of sponsors we'd hoped for at
this stage. The very people with the most to gain are the ones who are
dragging their feet. And worse, we can't seem to get a handle of what
is inducing such lethargy. If we know we'd address it... if we could.

So rather than beat ourselves up on unfathomable issues, we're just
going to go and concentrate where we feel most comfortable. No more
worrying about corporate decision chains for now; we're targeting real
people, not targets.

We've built it, and we're going to devote our efforts to seeing if we
can make the people come.

Hence our focus is going to be on our core message and site function:
re:use. And we're devoting our efforts to getting this out, via our
roadshows, PR, etc, in the hope of getting the public enthused, and
onboard. And if the everyday folk back us, the media will take note.
And if the public and the media back us, then we figure that eventually
we'll get the corporate and commercial support we've been seeking.

And if we don't? Even if all else fails, the site is unique, it's
there, it's WYSIWYG, it's free and it can be used by one and all for
common good. It can, and will grow, no matter what.

That's a heck of a legacy already.

Lessons from New Orleans?

Here's my simplistic view of the whole planetary environmental problem.

There are now a lot of us.
Some of us can afford to buy stuff we don't need.
And we all like to travel a lot if we can.

Addressing even one of those issues effectively is political dynamite
no current statesperson I can think of, or even group of same, is/are
capable of, much less articulating, at least not at the same time as
staying elected.

Especially because of how things now get shared and perceived, thanks
to our being connected in a communications sense in ever more immediate
and intimate ways, which are not always helpful in getting considered,
balanced views. The stampede of hype and its thirst for short-termism
can trample any slowly developing shoot that needs time to adapt and
grow.

All topics for another time. But for now let me concentrate on New
Orleans.

A week or more on from Katrina, there seem to be many - in most cases
justified - angry questions raised and passions roused, but also a few
opportunistic camps being staked out that are getting in the way of
looking at this as objectively as I'd like.

'Maybe Bush will address global warming now'. 'The world's superpower
reduced to a 3rd world nation'. ‘It’s all the fault of school Moms’.

Responsibility for actions and (lack of) reactions maybe topics for yet
more blogs, for sure, but the main issue here seems to be that a vast
area was flattened or flooded, and more critically a modern city of
millions of souls was built below sea level, and the barrier designed
to keep it all out was designed to withstand a force a few notches down
from what can, and did, eventually happen. And this despite a lot of
warning, for instance...

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/

D'oh.

But has there never been a category 5 hurricane before? Or is this just
the first time it came ashore where a whole bunch of people were
concentrated? It's a numbers game that can obscure what is actually the
problem and how best to solve it.

There seems no doubt that there is some nasty stuff brewing around the
planet, and 'we' are likely responsible for a significant percentage of
it and almost certainly making things worse, though I'm still trying to
get a handle on how much.

Unless the bigger issues in the mix get prioritised first, much that
grabs the headlines seems a tad like worrying about whether the
deckchairs on the Titanic were made from recycled cans and fairtrade
cotton (PC-alert! That's just making a glib point. Junkk.com’s efforts
at encouraging reuse are much less in the great scheme of things,
though we all become cumulatively significant).

And just like all the other positive-intentioned, proactive guys out
there, at Junkk.com we'll continue doing our little thing, because
that's all we can do. It’s also possible that beyond our inherent
usefulness to users, maybe we will have value beyond our service in the
future, when we have an audience who can be motivated to respond and
are significant enough be listened to. At the end of the day, it is the
actions of individuals which will count.

But for now, to those in power, activism and the media, I have one
thing to suggest:

'Focus, people... focus!

Don't look for the soft or symbolic targets; the easy victories. Ignore
the lobbyists from greedy corporations, and at other extremes those
eco-pressure groups with their own agendas. And don't pander to the
media's desire for ratings-rich stories. Now is the time to concentrate
on the big stuff.

All we need to do is prioritise what that is. Peat burning in
Indonesia? Air travel? Carbon-based power generation vs. nuclear?
Amazon logging? Please let's address them in sequence… pronto.

What's in a word?

I DEMAND that you read this. Not keen?

How about I ASK you to do so? Better?

Actually, I'd say I do neither. I write it, and you're welcome to read
it, but by inference I'd say I'm closer to inviting you than requiring
you to read, for free, and with no pressure, what I feel like sharing.

So I was a bit perturbed by the tone and words adopted by a BBC online
programme today, regarding anonymous surfing. It surrounded the age-old
debates about what a site can and should ask of its potential users.
It's public domain, so here is the URL to the online article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/4207778.stm

I guess it was as balanced as any piece of journalism can be (they who
control the medium control the message, a fact is a objective as the
editor who oversees its inclusion... or not, and the writer’s choice of
adjective immediately confers a certain subjectivity to any sentence)
but I raised my eyebrow at some of what was written:

"We are not necessarily buying at these sites, and they do not charge a subscription, but they still demand we register our details before we take a good look around"

"They might want an e-mail address from you in order to send you the information you need in order to get onto the site; that's often quite a sneaky way of getting information out of you."

As this goes to the core of what Junkk.com is trying to do it hit home.
So as there was a request for feedback, I gave it. And in case it gets
consigned to BBC cyber-ether, here it is (aren’t blogs great!):

[Junkk.com] do not DEMAND details; to operate effectively we simply
need to ASK for them. It is an important distinction in terminology
worth making. The option exists to do some things without them, but to
use most of the site we do need them.

Why? Well for a start we have a localisation facility, and it's pretty
hard to tell you what's happening in your area if we don't know where
it is. To avoid any concerns about snail junk mail, we just ask for the
first block of the postcode to get a rough geographic area.

Other than that, we ask a name so we can greet in person on the next
visit, and an email address.

We need the latter because we invite uploads of information that can,
sadly, be abused. Hence our asking for terms and conditions to be
accepted, to focus minds on responsibilities and protect those taking
part for genuine reasons from those who may do so for those that are
less so.

Again questioning matters of terminology used, it is hard to see how
adopting a system to make sure you are who you say you are (at least
briefly) and are accountable for what you say or suggest is ‘sneaky’.

We are debating a few other requests, such as an age, primarily to try
and tune content more appropriately on subsequent visits. Doesn't it
make sense to deliver information to our different viewers in ways they
would enjoy and value more? And so what if the ads are complementary?

It seems odd that where money is involved there is less concern. eBay
is doing ok. And no one seems very worried about the ads in their
newspaper, or the commercials on their TV. How else does anyone imagine
one funds a free-to-user website? It’s not like we have a licence fee.
A few bits of personal information that are hardly intimate seem a
small price to pay. My spam filter deals with pretty much all unwanted
ads these days, and I can set it to accept newsletters that have
further information I do want.

At the end of the day, one just has to ask whether the value of what
you are getting, for free, outweighs the… er... what were the downsides
again?...

It should simply a matter of choice. But one wonders how long it will
be before minority agitation, legislation and fines follow (and not
necessarily in that order), and we end up all the poorer as a result.

I simply cannot understand the acres of scaremongering that gets
committed to putting off those less experienced on matters nettly and
emaily from enjoying the vast resources on offer. It simply falls into
the hands of those who seek more control by constraining those who seek
to offer as much as possible for free.

We'll do all in our power to make you want to use Junkk.com, and as
easy as possible to so. If there's an issue that's causing a problem,
tell us, and we'll change it if we can. But if, despite all our
efforts, you don't want to be part, then we're sorry not to have been
able to share all we'd like with you and sadly bid you a fond farewell.

Plus there’s always the ‘unsubscribe button or the 'delete' key.

Fin.

Neros 'R Us

We're pretty powerless against Mother Nature. New Orleans shows that.

When it comes to pollution, she's got some of the nastiest, smelliest,
global warmingest ways imaginable in her repertoire.

And as one looks at a contrail etch across the sky it's hard to imagine
how that, and the daily thousands more like it, stack up when the
planetary engine kicks over and the exhaust vents itself out of a Mt
St. Helens or Pinatubo.

There's not much that can be done about such events, especially on this
scale, because we have no control over them.

But we do over our own actions.

So I simply share the following from the news today, quoted from the
Royal Geographical Society's annual international conference in London:
'Burning peat bogs set alight by rainforest clearance in Indonesia are
releasing up to a seventh of the world's total fossil fuel emissions in
a single year'.

One seventh. 14%.

Now I'm sure there'll be some debate, and another bunch of experts who
will pop up to make a counter-assessment, but the RGS seem like a
pretty well informed bunch to me. So I'll go with these facts.

As you know, my greatest concern in the whole planet-saving debate is
global warming, and in turn that seems to be tracing back to greenhouse
gasses.

So anything that tackles these emissions gets my full attention. And I
really rather hope it will attract those others who profess to share my
concerns so that they commit as much effort to this... seventh... as
they do to the [how much?] popping out of the back of a Fiat Panda 4x4.

In saying this of course I do not advocate we do not still address all
other areas of man-created pollution and waste, as this would indeed
represent a joining the Hoe-down in the Forum. But not to prioritise
our efforts in the face of such information as above is surely
Emperor-level folly on an equal scale.

It will be interesting to see what noises get made by the major noise
makers about all this. I'm sure they'll need a conference about it. So
if it helps, Bali is right next door.

No waste like a TV waste... Nappy Every After?... #3

Having got back only in time to watch the last 5 minutes of last night's show, it is really not for me to offer much of a coherent review, but
I'll quickly plonk this up now in case it gets repeated soon or can be
located elsewww.here.

What little I saw seemed more balanced than previous comparisons. And the numbers on the nappy costs were telling. Again, I'm relying on fleeting memory, it was a weekly/daily (?) £8 on laundered green nappies, £6 on disposables and £3 on home-laundered greenies, which was a 60% saving on disposables. That's pure cash. but it does not factor in the work involved, though it was mentioned. And this is a major issue, even with full-time mums, which cannot be ignored.

Personally, I think this shows a clear opportunity. Green Nappies should be subsidised to make them launderable. Some kind of voucher system to encourage genuine use. Easy for me as a local taxpayer to say so, but it must be worth checking out the numbers, which I'm sure have been and 'it can't be done'. So let's look at them again, and see what can work.

For a family like the one shown, the amounts of money saved were obviously a real incentive, though I'd really like to find out what the heck they were doing before to 'waste' 60% on gas and another whopping
% on water (we're non-metered here, so that isn't an issue, though we don't abuse it).

At least it has got people talking, and that's all to the good. I'm feeling that I'd have preferred a broader spread of different families
and opinions. One size does not fit all, especially with kids.

Jumping through the oops

I have many abiding memories of my days in the ad world. Not all of
them good.

One high (well, low) on the list was looking at acres of
freshly-printed, palleted brochures all heading off to the recyclers
(or, in those days, more likely the incinerator) because the client guy
who briefed us didn't mention to the guy up and slightly to the left of
him in the pecking order what he had commissioned. Hence, what was once
approved now was not. And in fact all trace had to be eradicated...
pronto.

Which is why I love websites. I especially love our website because we
can pretty much do what we like with it. And change is but a matter of
moments, depending on the availability, skill and experience of the
necessary writers and designers. Those factors also have a bearing on
cost, too. But at least one is not looking at vast wastes of printed
material as well.

You can whip stuff out. Or you can pop some stuff in.

Last week we had a 'bit of a do'. For reasons not yet exactly clear, we
got some rather nice coverage in a rather useful weekly e-newsletter
publication from London Community Recycle Network

(thanks guys.. here's a little return favour: http://www.lcrn.org.uk).

Trouble was, the coverage was about something we're still finalising and had yet to post on site.
It was therefore with some relief that we were able to whip up a quick
'patch' to at least let any who clicked on know we were on the case.
Can you imagine matching that in hard copy print??

And yesterday we were in deep discussion with our nice IT guys

(http://www.sound-i.co.uk/ )

who have convinced us use the imminent introduction of our newsfeed from adfero

( http://www.adfero.co.uk)

to let them have a crack at the homepage and at least some of the subsequent
navigation to make the concept of Junkk.com easier to 'get' right away.
Plus we're looking at some serious fun functionality to make the site
even easier to understand and engage with. As we're racking up the roll
out, this will need to be.. soonish.

Exciting times. So... watch this space... well, backspace and look at
the one to the left.

ps: We've looked out of the window and decided to go camping again. If
we find a site (spontaneity is all) we'll be overnighting, so maybe no
blog tomorrow).

Cat skinning #101b - recycling vs. biodegrading

Having mused that it's all pretty much going into the landfill anyway,
because no one reads the logos in the first place, this is going to be a
bit of a contradiction in blogs.

This long (in the UK at least) weekend my family got all spontaneous
and decamped from home to encamp up the road at a local site. And if
you're wondering at the logic of that, frankly when you live in the
part of the world we do, piling up and down a Bank Holiday motorway
route to sit in some gorgeous bit countryside doesn't make much sense
when it's on your doorstep. And a good time was had by all.

Plus I was provided with a unique opportunity to study, in microcosm,
the stuff we bought, used and discarded over a three day period of
eating, drinking and abluting. Ironically, upon our return, I came back
to more than one advisory on how one should recycle responsibly on such
excursions, which sadly bore little relation to the facts and
practicalities of life under canvas, the facilities at the camps we've
ever visited to and one's predilection to do much more than survive
above squalour level until the next day.

For this reason I have also decided to create a series of articles on
such specific areas of activity, such as, in this case, Junkk Goes Camp.

Anyway, back to the point. As I was looking at the various recyclable
and biodegradable bits and bobs going into the carrier bag
(biodegradable, of course) 'bin', and it struck me that a lot of these
things could go in two directions, and it all rather depended on where
you were at the time.

I'm presuming that it is better to recycle than biodegrade (as you'll
gather, I'm having trouble with the correct way to articulate this
term), but as with all things it may be a case of the lesser of several
evils. If you can't recycle, at least biodegrading is better than
nothing?

Take my family's waste from the weekend. One big bin, and it all went
in. I'm presuming that little lot's headed for a hole. At least the
biodegradable part should, er, biodegrade.

But then I read that biodegrading actually generates greenhouse gases.
Now I don't know... yet… if the processes of recycling do too, and to
what level in comparison, but I'm guessing not as much (a lot of
unanswered questions here). So with biodegrading we're also heading for
a bit of a tug of war on the enviro-front between popping stuff in the
ground and letting it mulch away… and what that does for global warming.

You can tell I'm a bit confused as to what's best. On balance I'm least
in favour of global warming, and so I'm starting to question the whole
biodegrading thing which by my current best assessment is contributing
towards it. Stuff in the ground is unsightly, but stuff in the air is
proving hazardous.

I guess the moral to this is; don't get too close to nature. If you
care about it too much, it will do your head in. Don't worry, though.
Now I’ve asked a few dumb questions like this, maybe we'll soon have a
few smart answers.

Which Junkk.com will happily share in its info section when they come
in.

No waste like... a TV waste #2

I caught the last half of the second episode of the re-programme last night, and it's telling that it is not shaping up as a must-see, or even record, at least on a personal basis.

But professionally I'm kicking myself. It's the nearest thing we have to a complimentitor (in case I haven't explained this term before, we don't see ourselves in competition with anyone if the idea is to encourage good environmental practice. However, as commercial pressures revolve around audience share, then by definition we are seeking valuable attention from the same crowd, so there is a sense of competition at least. Other than that, we're doing our thing in a very different way). They are making waste at least mainstream and 'fun'.

I put ‘fun’ in quotes because what I did see again made me feel that it was at the expense of some less than credible guinea persons being set a variety of Big Brother-esqe tasks, with a lurking camcorder, video editor and snide voice-over to chart their hapless efforts. Do you empathise with such folk? Do you respond to nanny knows best? At Junkk.com we're aiming for 'a mate with advice'.

And again it didn't ring true, at least to me, on a practical basis. They were given a Toyota Prius, but I think I heard (one day we'll be sent review copies of such programmes) that they were told to use it only for long trips. Recalling Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear (salts for our now recumbent lovely PR lady!) isn't that when the electric component doesn't do its thing and in fact a small diesel is way better? And I really must find out what exactly comes out of its pipe - combined with the power station pipe - in comparison with the single pipe on most cars. Do they count the carbon emissions of electric generation at source?

Speaking of diesels, it was awfully quaint popping in Dad’s now converted van to the chippy to top up with sunflower and a saveloy, but I don't quite see Ross High Street coping with the town waiting in line to fill the tank using a funnel with a litre bottle.

And again we end with the savings. 'You now have £90 something quid, extra'. Um. Do they get to keep the £17k Prius? Who paid for the biodiesel conversion on the van? Yes, the savings would eventually add up on that but not, I suspect, before the car in question had bought that great end of life certificate in the sky. That’s the calculation I’m looking at for an LPG conversion on my R-reg Volvo. Does Gordo slap more tax on next budget?

It's good to see various worthwhile issues raised, but on behalf of real consumers I'd like them to be more constructively critical and pragmatic.

Speaking of which, we have heard back on the 'all waste' composter, though of course not from the guys who make it (who we had approached with an offer of free coverage). Galls me to say it, but I think we're going to have to get one from them, unless there are other guys out there. By all accounts it is intended to deal with dead bodies, but it takes a heck of a lot longer than the time period inferred in the programme, and that's before winter turns it into a cold storage for slowly... very... slowly… decaying animal matter. Nice.

Next week it's all about nappies. We know a lot about this through our involvement with Green Nappies

http://www.enviroability.org.uk/

(with BIG news on this soon!) and it will be interesting to see what the balance of facts to fantasy will be.

Cat Skinning #101a - Logo inertia

That didn't take long. I'm right back to those nice logos and labels
you see on stuff. Little swirly arrows with letters and numbers.
Percentages of recyclablity, biodegradability, etc.

And here at Junkk.com almost daily we see all the amazing technology we
see being committed to justifying these labels.

But...

Is anybody listening?

By anyone, I mean the person in the st.. well.. kitchen. Possibly the
carpark skip. As they survey the debris field left after preparing a
normal family meal, do they really conduct a serious audit of the
cardboard, bottles and polystyrene trays before assigning them to their
most effective re-use or recycling stream? I'm reckoning not.

Where they care enough and/or are supported by a kerbside scheme, it's
likely that the glass and metal goes in one box and the paper goes in
another. Maybe, just maybe, the plastic bottles (bathroom products
anyone) too. If we're keen and have the resources the vegetable matter
goes off to be composted (I'm still hunting down the 'all kitchen
waste' composter - it turns out we did get in touch with a manufacturer
months ago to find out more but they didn't reply... no surprise there,
they’d doubtless prefer to advertise for money in a trade journal).
Even the shopping bags may get bundled up and used, or taken back to
any retailer who will accept them.

But that still leaves a fair old pile. Cellophane wrapping, posted
magazine sleeves, blister packs and a myriad, usually black, trays.

It's all well and good having spiffy logos on all these, but it's a fat
lot of good if no one has much idea of what can be done with them.

So here at Junkk.com we're going to try and start addressing this
issue. A bit of brainpower on reuse. A bit of information and promotion
on recycling. I’m thinking of calling it ‘PEP talking’. And it must
have a spiffy logo, of course.

Now, will the guys who got the guys to pop the logos on there, and
those guys themselves, plus the guys who collect the stuff with these
logos on help us out here if we ask nicely?

No cost to them. Just sharing some info and maybe a bit of effort on
coordination.

Watch this space. All I hope is they won't see it as an opportunity to
dispose of a bit more virtually before they actually have to.

Cat-skinning #101

Early in the days of Junkk.com, I was in a far-flung outpost of the
empire to sell our wares at some conference or other. Holding my
gold-plated pass (it should have been for the price) I recall entering
a plush hotel lobby to be confronted with surrounding ranks of booths
from those more blessed with funds so as to actually afford a stall.

It was at this point I realised that it is simply worth not attending -
at least for us - unless you have one of these; the chances of bumping
into a useful connection are almost zilch unless you spend the day in
the loos, which has some drawbacks - socially and legally - depending
on one's gender.

But at least I could talk with these static guys. Trouble was, few
wanted to interact in any meaningful way with me. The minute it came
out that we were operating on a commercial model, the shutters came
down. 'Oh no, we only deal with charities or not for profits' was the
mantra. This distinction is one I intend to return to, as many
delegates from these 'acceptable' areas were busy parking very big, new
cars and heading up to their £300 per night rooms. I was tubing in from
sleeping on a mate's floor. Who is costing the public less? Hint: we
also don’t cost the public anything to operate.

Maybe such 'structured' thinking was responsible for the next thing
that stuck me having done my rounds. Almost every one of these guys
happily shunted off on me a brochure/pack (despite everything I at
least seemed to count to the volume of such items handed out, which
doubtless ticked a box somewhere), usually stuffed to the gunnels with
bits of paper and various disposable trinkets.

And all were handed over with the excited pitch that… ‘it's made from
[add percentage here] cardboard, and/or is/may be [fully] recyclable’.
I was then pointed at the large recycling bins at the exit kindly
provided by the sponsors. Keep the A4 paper; ditch the folder.

I'm afraid I had a problem with this. The process of producing and
disposing of the message seemed to take precedence to the message
itself. And it is a matter for another blog the way in which various
re-logos can slapped on everything… and that, seemingly, is the end of
it.

Which is why our Folda Holda was created. In any promotional effort, it
is inevitable that information needs to be shared, and in such a way
that it gets noticed, read, understood and retained… all in competition
with others. Hence we developed a solution that enabled us to provide
facts and figures that could be retained, but also found a second use
for the folder itself which, having done it's conveying/attracting job,
turns into a CD tower. And we only give it to those who really want
and/or deserve one. It’s too expensive otherwise, and I have no clue
how many we’ve shifted, but they are in good homes.

Yes, it is for sale. And I'd like to think that such innovative
thinking may prove better for the environment too. Even if it is
commercial.

Don't do as I do

OK, I'm at it again. Double standards. I have often claimed Junkk.com
is not in the business of getting in 'who's got the biggest green
todger' (not the nicest visual image I know) slanging matches, but on a
blog-basis I can't resist a slightly twitchy eyebrow every so often by
way of 'just wondering'. I think we’re allowed, because as a business
we accept that certain things are just necessary, and try to avoid
‘don’t do’ stuff on our pages.

Today, under the banner 'Talks renew vigour to tackle warming', the/a
(I wonder how many of them there are?) BBC environment correspondent
opens his piece with the following:

"Maybe it was the night cruise with ice crunching against the prow of
the boat and icebergs the shape and size of medieval castles floating
serenely past.
Maybe it was the helicopter flight over the ice-packed fjord to witness
one of the fastest-melting glaciers in the world.
Perhaps it was the expert presentations warning that if carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions continue to rise, the melting Greenland ice sheet will
drive up global sea levels. Whatever the reason, politicians from all
around the world visiting the Arctic on a fact-finding trip left
professing new determination that action to tackle climate change must
be taken everywhere. "

It goes on to explain that Danish environment minister Connie Hedegaard
said she wanted to create a forum where politicians could enjoy
(operative word) a genuine dialogue on climate.

And at the summit, all leading nations agreed climate change was a
serious problem that had to be tackled.

Bless.

They went all the way up to the Arctic for a night cruise and
helicopter rides. And they came away agreeing that climate change was a
serious problem that had to be tackled.

Me, I just go online and find out the permafrost is melting and
Birmingham, West Midlands just got whisked by tornado, along with
Dorothy, to Alabama (which is quite near Kansas, I'm sure).

Is it just me, but are all those involved in telling us what we should
be doing perhaps missing some rather obvious tricks here? Like setting
examples?

No waste like... TV waste

Last week I watched a new BBC programme: No Waste Like Home. Basically a reality/makeover hybrid revolving around consumer environmental issues. So far, so planet-saving (they seem to have nicked a lot of the clichés we have already 'homaged' - the difference is of course subtle, like eccentrics being mad people only with more money).

And at this point, I must declare an interest, in that we (well, my family) applied for a slot, on the basis of 'any publicity...' . And no, we didn't get selected, which is getting to be a habit at the moment. But I think I know why. We were too normal.

Though it was not car crash TV... quite... it was clear that the primary objective was extremes.

I'll dispense with the other of the two families featured in three words: Stepford and Sons (ok, seven: plus daughters and wife). Some purpose built CGI (though it was real, I think, as were the occupants) eco-dream home. Then a few quick allusions to stuff that's great when you do it from scratch, but tricky and costly in the kind of home most of us live in. And that was about as much time as the programme spent on them, too.

Then we got to the other extreme... family. About as nuclear as you could hope in composition, plus the fact that they needed a power station powered by same in their garden to run their lifestyle.

And what a lifestyle! For reasons not fully explained (we should have a gas supplier so generous) they hadn't had a gas bill for a couple of years, and so it was ‘turn up that dial’ on the thermostat (the use of which, mysteriously, no one explained to them despite it being ok to install a full solar system on the roof). The place was also lit up like Margaret Beckett's office during summer recess, and they specifically bought pineapples to throw away.

The slightly sanctimonious voice-over left us in no doubt as to their wicked ways, complemented by an affable but rather peripheral presenter who tut-tutted and came out with statistics that meant little to me.

There was some car-crash, and the inevitable post-shoot editing, with the main victim being the hapless housewife. She actually did have a few good points to make (if anyone has tips on how to make a towel dry in the sun without ending up like an emery board I'd like to hear it. And also what one does when it rains which, in the real world, it does in the UK).

But the show did have some nuggets that I would have liked to have seen developed further. For instance the fact that there is no need to wash anything above 40 degrees as modern washers/powders are designed to work at that. My wife would take some more convincing on that, but it was just kind of stated and that was that. Also there’s a composter that takes dead bodies… well, meat and gravy. I wasn’t convinced about that. But if I can so dispose, then our weekly bin bag gets even lighter.

It ended with the £10,000 pa annum saving the family was in line to make if they followed the new regime. Minus, one presumes, the cost of the new solar system, the spiffy chicken run (no old stuff here - all brand new plastic huts) and if they all live in the dark wearing jumpsuits (a fashion trend I reckon the tweens may tire of ‘in, like, ‘bout a munnet, Vickuy!’) to save washing.

I'm afraid this show did not engage with me at all, as it completely involved, if I can say something so contradictory: unrealistic stereotypes. Neither was anything like my family, which is trying, and doing, its best, with mixed information and the practicalities of modern life almost all but ignored. Reuse was mentioned, but not in any way I could really get to grips with, at least in ways we're trying to do with Junkk.com.

But something is better than nothing, and getting people to think about re-everything is always to be lauded. Just so long as they don't alienate those who could be swayed in the process. Next week it looks like we have an Osbournesque teen saying 'whatever' when she gets grounded for leaving a light on.

Not another convert I suspect, but still good for ratings?

And the winner isn't...

I really must figure out how to check my blog archives. Somewhere back there is one I recall posting about our entering this awards thingy. It was a fair amount of work, and all last minute dashing over a weekend, but we made deadline. Plus it was only (hah!) about £30 to enter.

As you'll gather from the way this is going, we did not make the shortlist. I only found this out because I just had an email saying who had.

I really thought we were in with a chance, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Awards can be a real distraction, and an expensive one. But like a gambling addict, you always wonder what would happen with that next roll.

It's the same with a funding application. It's great when you 'win', but when you don't you're just left wondering why. Not always for sour grapes reasons, but it can be hard not to go: 'what...them? But ours was...' At least with awards you do get to see who won, as I have often had my requests to get more information on even the names of successful funding applicants provided, let alone why ours did not make the cut.

More pragmatically, to avoid future wastes of time and money, you really wish you knew if it was it not 'on brief'? Did it fall down the back of the cabinet? Was it pushed? Sadly, the rules of entry usually preclude those unbestowed upon from posing such questions.

As no one is doing what we're doing, there's nobody 'better', so below is a link to the guys who made it. If you have an idle 5, see how you think to they stack up against our offering in the various categories. Feel free to say 'you wuz robbed' to make me feel better.

http://www.startupsawards.co.uk/finalists2005.html

And may the best .com... make the greatest impact, and positive difference via their online audience.

Winners are not always those who win awards.

And a blog is much better therapy than punching out the wastebin.

The best **** for the job?

In these PC days, that **** stands for a term applying equal gender preference and descriptive correctness to those about whom this blog is about.

At one of (long story) my universities, I had my first real taste of organisational politics. A very popular and respected professor died, and obviously a successor needed to be found. I had assumed that the gently grazed quadrangles of academe would simply move in concert to arrive, unhurried and in a civilised manner, at the most appropriate choice, and life would continue as it had, and always would.

What transpired was feeding time at Jurassic Park. The gloves were off and the claws were out. Every half-baked doctor, senior lecturer and visiting whatever had kicked off their tweeds and were in full combat mode, slashing and burning their way to the top, taking no prisoners and laying waste to peaceful hamlets of teenage (or in my case, early twenties) naiveté and belief in the goodness of man (or woman).

Once the cement dust had settled, the victor got their spoils, and spoiled they were. Camps had been set up and though a hierarchy had been re-established, it was one based on fear. Because the person who made it was not the best choice for the department, the students or the profession, but the guy who had sucked up, been seen to be doing (at the expense of doing) and devoted most time to their careers at the expense of their job.

And so it continued. My father, a hugely successful and popular sales director, found himself shafted and sidelined within months of the firm’s founder, and his friend and mentor, dying and the 'board' taking over. Anyone from the old guard had to be removed, no matter what. Even if, as it transpired, the sales crashed as a result. Back then I wondered what the shareholders thought of that, unless the link was not made clear to them by the guys in char.. oh.. well.

Golly, I could go on. Suffice to say that in my 'employed' ad-career, every time a memo hit my desk saying ‘I’m pleased to announce a new... [senior to me anyway], I dug out my CV. Within a month I knew I’d be mysteriously ‘no longer quite who we need in this position’, when their mate was.

So I read with interest, and a certain deja d’oh, new research that suggests 'ambition, authority and assertiveness are the main characteristics that shareholders look for in a business leader but they are, in fact, the most likely traits to hold a business back… while staff sought leaders that nurtured, supported and empowered them and were willing to delegate key tasks and share knowledge; and managers who are willing to listen to what they have to say and engage in open and honest dialogue.'

I once pinned up one of those inspirational do-dads that said something like 'Truly great leaders only employ those who are [more talented] than them'. As the owner of my company I could but agree, though felt the need to add 'so long as you’re at the top or own 51% of the company.'

I was then at the peak of my then profession, and dealt only with the same level of those with whom we engaged. On the whole, they were a pretty good bunch. Now I am at the bottom, and am again having to work, alongside colleagues, with too many petty folks who would do more for their organisations, and those they are supposed to serve, if they spent as much time actually doing their jobs as trying to jostle for status, title and short-term points.

Fortunately, there are those who make the effort we invest worthwhile. They’ll be the ones reading this blog. And I’m pretty safe, thinking about it, saying the others will not.

I can only hope their current and future leaders are smart enough to figure out which ones are which.