A nice analogy is a joy to read... and share

I'm not usually one for jumping into the fray of escalating email exchanges, but I caught the tail end of yet another academo/journalistic spat about climate warming - A Tart Counterpoint To Ibbitson's Irrelevance - and without comment on who said what to whom, why and who has had the latest laugh, would just like to share what has been called a parable, but I'd say is simply a neat analogy for the whole 'who do we believe?' brigade who use the ongoing confusion as an excuse for inaction:

[You are] flying on holiday and the plane is ½ hour out over the Atlantic. Of 150 aerospace engineers on board, 90 say that there's been a fuel leak and the plane has 40 minutes of flying time left. It's time to turn around. The other 60 say that there's no conclusive evidence of a leak and [you] should not turn around because it would inconvenience the CEOs in business class. Who [do you] listen to? The answer seems clear: You listen to the journalist who tells [you that you] should really do something about the in-flight service.

The conclusion is also worth sharing: '[The] debate is about risk, not certainty. [We] might choose to listen when more than half the experts are warning of a problem that threatens our entire species'.

Indeed.

PC = Petrified of Consequences?

I had a call from one of the organisers of the MAD show yesterday. It was rather flattering, and encouraging for Junkk.com, that they sought my advice and a few useful leads on something. Though considering the topic maybe I am not so sure!

Seems that, as part of the show, they are setting up a debate on a theme of something like 'can we spend our way out of the environmental mess we're in?', I believe meaning Fairtrady, Ethical shopping, to which my immediate reply was 'of course not, as just about any consumerist activity we partake in can only add to the environmental consequence if what we are really trying to sort out is global warming as a priority'. Which would have put me on track for what they were looking for, which was someone to argue against the motion... except they needed someone famous.

But we did go on to have a great discussion on who may be suitable, and it proved very tricky, if not impossible, to think of anyone. Because, like me, those up for a bit of 'head above the parapet' debate don't really live lifestyles that would sustain the position, unless it was accepted by fellow debaters it was more from a philosophical standpoint -  guys like Bjorn Lomborg and David Bellamy. Best I could come up with is that guy (Ethical Man) from Newsnight's wife , but she turns out to be on a par with our household commitment-wise, or Swampy of road protest fame, though he's probably a local councillor by now, en route to a seminar on global warming in Bali. 

What was equally interesting was the number, and composition, of those lining up in support of the motion, to which I had to add myself, selfishly, because Junkk.com is in the business of advocating buying environmentally... if we must trade and buy at all, which in any consumer society on a planet of ever-expanding population we are fated to do.

But there were a few surprises in there, and in discussion with MAD it did strike us how few, even from the more activist end, are seeing merit in being confrontational any more, or at least taking a high contrast stance. In a way it's sad. The fear of being ridiculed or lambasted has already bleached the colour from most debate, but PC-considerations, now backed by draconian powers of legislative muscle in support, have rendered it all pretty much blank. 

 

Maybe that's why we're drowning in so much talk with so little do. Because unless the talk gives clear direction its hard to take action, so everyone just keeps on waffling.

 

Learn from history

I just learned about something from history that I though was inspiring, by stumbling across the fact that the other day was 'Arbour Day' in the US.

No biggie, but it does serve to remind us that our forbears were aware of environmental issues and prepared to do as much as they could to improve things through concerted public engagement and action.

Nanny State. Nanny Do.

Yesterday I was walking the boys to school (no eco-upmanship meant
here. It was lovely morning, we don't live too far away and I like
the exercise), with part of the trip taking me past the local council
offices. And I noticed one the 'officers' waiting at the bus stop
outside, I presumed to go to 'head office' at Hereford.

How laudable is that? By contrast, the same day my Mum's Health
Visitor dropped by... in her car.

Contradictions abound. On the one hand, are we prepared to accept
someone we pay essentially spending half a day traveling for work on
our behalf by taking public transport, or would we prefer them to
make the most of the day and their services to us by rushing around
in the most efficient (if not eco) mode of transport?

Sadly, the environment is usually something 'we' advocate as far as
we can, but often without wishing the requirements of actually making
a difference to our lifestyles impede the most efficient and/or
effective (will I be taken to task for these words?) ways of working.
In all the critiques of government policy, this is something to bear
in mind.

The biggest obstacle to making much difference environmentally is the
human condition, dominated by the need to compete. This, combined
with now instantaneous global communication and access, means that
you can't do much in your local sphere that sets you at a
disadvantage for fear of someone else not too far (or very far away)
gaining the upper hand and putting you out of business - be you a one
person band, a multinational or a country.

I could tell every ad client I am hoping to acquire that to meet with
them will take all day (and who pays for my time traveling?), but I
don't think I'll get many, or make much. Equally it is obviously
necessary to do something about air travel. But it can't be
unilateral. And the UK can do all it wants with emissions, but if
China doesn't...

I have not set myself up to say how this can be tackled at a macro
level (because I can’t see how other than by advocating some drastic
solutions which would be career suicide even to ponder out loud in
this PC-age), choosing instead to hide behind commentary and, to be
immodest and a tad more noble, a certain amount of small tangible
doing via Junkk.com.

But there are those who do claim to be up to the task, and I don't
envy them. Especially as, so far, they seem to be making a pig’s ear
of it. I can accept the failings if they are honest, but just too
many are down to greed, self-interest, ego, vanity... (and a lot of
other less than complimentary words).

I really live for the big picture, blue sky statesperson who means
what they say, says what they mean, and can actually get the ball
rolling with something tangible.

Stand and deliver

It's all getting a bit hectic here, with the dust still not yet settled from the Ideal Home show, we are looking at Internet World early next month, and the MAD show at the start of the next.

And while our stands are considerably smaller and the display 'dressing' now well established and safely ready to be wheeled out, the amount of work still seems to pile on.

One is pretty much my own doing, because for Internet World I asked for a speaking slot as a condition of commitment, and now the consequences have come home to roost. Not just doing the thing, and hence preparing for it, but also having to get it all ready - about now - for inclusion in the various programme packs.

And while I have it all pretty much sorted out, getting into PowerPoint now as I hope it will be on the day is proving a bit of a challenge. For a start , things are moving so fast there are things i included originally that are already redundant, and new stuff that really begs to be included. Plus my Mac doesn't seem to want to cooperate too well with Emma's PC on this, and as she is the one who knows who the programme works, she's going to need to transcribe my notes into pretty, clickable screen shots. And she's away 'til Tuesday on well-earned leave.

Equally the commitment to MAD is accelerating a bit beyond turning up and looking pretty for a few days. For a start we have decided to take the opportunity to recoup a bit of the investment by selling some stuff on behalf of a few Junkk.com partners, and the logistics of that is a whole new ball game. 

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Having penned my initial feelings about Tesco's announcement of a £100 million fund to cut carbon emissions and increase energy efficiency, it has been interesting to see how it has been received. And on balance, so far it has panned out quite predictably.

The general mood across the 'green lobby' (the composition of which I am a little unsure, but seems, unsurprisingly, to be mainly those activist organisations with well-developed access to the media. It is important, as ‘they’ do seem to be allowed to speak for ‘us’) seems to have been cool, though in many ways not as cool as I'd imagined.

But some pols are happy. With, for instance Liberal Democrat spokesman on the environment, Chris Huhne MP, making a fair point that the amount committed by the supermarket was double the £50 million the Government had allocated to micro generation in its budget. 

I am currently ambivalent. For sure, 'every little bit helps', and £100m out of profits of £2billion is not that much when you look at what else gets 'invested’ in.

There is also the small matter of the balance between what helps them out (wind turbines do, eventually, reduce power consumption... and costs) and what is of any tangible end benefit to me as a shopper (though as a person living in the same county as several, reducing environmental impact is always a plus).

 

I just wonder how much impact we are going to see on what we get presented on the shelves, and spend our one in eight pounds on with every visit to the supermarket.

Ask not what you can do for your country, but help your country do more for the planet

There's little not to like about a charity gig. If you are a music lover you end up getting a load of great entertainment, often at a fraction of the cost. If you are a performer, you get a load of publicity, often at a fraction of the cost. And if you are the beneficiary, you get a load of coverage and money (assuming it does not all get consumed in expenses, no matter how generous the contributors' time).

So I cheerfully endorse all behind 'The Big Ask' gig.

After Thom's little spat courtesy of the Times a while ago, when his last tour's carbon costs were lobbed back at him, I'm sure this one will be a truly no-waste, no eco-cost deal at all. All turning up in Priuses and drinking tap water rather than bottled, and only snorting coke grown in Penge rather than flown in from Columbia. And definitely every effort to maximise the public access and financial contribution without tons of freeloading media luvvies and celebs hogging backstage going for a ratings/career-boosting soundbite about how they make sure their tour jets use biodiesel.

It reminded me of a 'green' (there's that word) event we attended, and at which First Lady PJ was to sing, where I read in the blurb that the sound system was to be powered by solar. As it was a night gig that was going to be a feat, and when I arrived sure enough about 3 40' artics had disgorged a lot of very big black boxes that had dirty great big cables running off diesel transformers. It would have been a very quiet gig without them, so I think one can get a bit carried away when you start worrying too much about 'cons e-quences'.

Not so sure about the 3% 'target' it's all about, as you know what I feel about targets by now, and it all still seems a bit vague to me, but as awareness building it's a BTN (better than nothing). I guess I'd just like to see more energy and effort going into motivating and educating folk with realistic tangibles.

Me, I'll keep on with looking for more end-benefits for the individual consumer with our gig: 'the small, but often, DO'.

Any colour you like, so long as it's....?

I feel sorry for the Green party. They bagged the colour (oddly left lying around by those who got first dibs on the others - though I do recall that in marketing focus groups it's not a good one for branding purposes), and have been banging on faithfully for years on pretty much the exact thing all the others have woken up to in about the last... er... week... it seems.

So now we have 'Vote Blue. Go Green' from the Tories! What's next? 'Let's not go into the Red' (as in 'consumed by ball of flame', though with Labour the more traditional fiscal allusion may not see this being taken up currently), and 'The Future's Bright, The Future's Green' (with due deference to the jumble of the Lib Dems and Orange in terms of colours, slogans, etc). What ever happened to Go Green. Vote... er... Green?

Frankly, I am worried that the trusty colour, and indeed term, may be losing its appeal and hence power. 

We certainly vetoed it for the Junkk.com website and branding, along with any swirly re-arrows, as we felt it was all too associated with actions and views that were not reflective of where we wanted to be (how ad-speak is that?) and what we thought the public we seek to attract and serve were thinking any more.

But with green being the new black in all but name, what the heck can we use as a colourful rallying call?

Piper Paying, part deux

I recently quoted 'He who pays the piper calls the tune' with an example of the exception that proves the saying, namely a lot of senior folk 'investing' money, which we pay them to improve our lot, a bit too much and too often in areas designed primarily to improve theirs.

Anyway, karmic balance of sorts is sort of re-established when one reads Asda suppliers rail at demands for marketing payments , though it does seem pretty extreme.

It seems the store's suppliers are not too thrilled at being asked to fund its marketing activities. I'm presuming this does not mean co-op ventures involving their products in the store, but a sort of generic tithe just to keep the store competitive overall against its rivals. 

I've blogged on this before, and it seems a lot of other retailers are jumping on the bandwagon. But it all does seem rather quaint. But also surprising, as one can only presume the stance being taken implies that the suppliers need the stores rather than vice versa, though one does have to accept who is paying whom. I guess this holds true if all the stores gang up, becuase if you can't see it you can't buy it. Which would be naughty, wouldn't it?

But I have to say that for my favorite brands I do go where they are available, and these days do tend to shop across a spread of big stores, especially as I am trying to 'buy local' and this gets me to a few more locations each week. And if that means I can only get my Ginger Ale at the Spar, so be it.

The future's bright, the future's... being squandered

We're not big on waste here. Of anything, and that includes money. 

So when I read something like this - Orange ditches £10m Animals work after a month - I have to shudder, plus the ad man in me thinking of the sheer amount of blood, sweat and tears that this would have represented as well.

I'm well aware of the importance of brand consistency 'n all, but I really hope the shareholders are happy at what the seemingly rather disjointed processes that were behind this lead to. And please god it was not just the vanity of some newly hired individual making his or her mark. Mind you, it may explain why each day I do see that another Marketing Director is 'pursuing other options'.

I can only imagine what could be done with £10 million, especially in the area of, say, reusing and recycling phones.

The enemy of my enemy... will stab me in the back as soon as they can

I am one of the few people in the world that doesn't use eBay (more than compensated for by my wife,  so the household is still pretty well covered). Odd, really, as I can only admire them across every level that has inspired its success. These include the consequential, and ever more significant environmental benefits, which I doubt were highest on the agenda from the outset, but are nonetheless very welcome now (except perhaps, by charity shops, who are seeing the really good stuff that brought customers in now drying up by being diverted for pocket money).

It is part laziness, as I can't really be bothered with all the negotiating and payment hassles followed by all that wrapping and sending. And I must confess to living up to my role as Junkk.com's LCD (Lowest Common Denominator) screener by simply giving up in horror whenever I dip in to see what may be available or how I might try to participate. To me, it is simply a bewildering zoo, and when we were debating our own site's shortcomings a while ago, it was so frustrating when I tried to cite eBay's failings vs. our own when all, quite correctly, pointed out that it didn't matter because they were an established, successful brand and people worked with it despite the... challenges. 

So I read with interest that 'eBay [is] rumoured to be starting 'anyone but Google' alliance (note well the word rumoured as I pass on this xth hand piece of ether-based gossip).

I must declare an interest as I really like, and use, Google. I also can see how their site/navigation works, and presume that it looked pretty much like this from the beginning, when they were not a major, successful brand. Ho hum.

The piece does point out that this (if it is true) is/would be a defence against Google's inroads into what eBay does, which I guess makes most things fair enough.

But I just don't like the negativity associated with that headline, whose provenance of course may not rest with eBay.

All I know is that when you make alliances on such a basis, it may be wise to look over your shoulder a lot. Which must be such a fun way to spend your day.

Cars

I read an online column by a motoring correspondent/agony uncle who rejoices under the moniker 'Honest John'. He makes for a worthwhile read, especially as, like me, he delights in the odd punning headline and a rather light-hearted if barbed and eyebrow-twitchy style of commentary. ButI'm not sure if I have quite forgiven him yet for accusing me of being tiddly once when i wrote to him (at least he wrote back).

Here's a typical exchange that I do trust shows why I include him in my weekly reads for this blog and Junkk.com's growing store of objective viewpoints:

Two drags Prescot

Six months ago, I paid £2,000 to convert my Land Rover Discovery V8 to liquefied petroleum gas, which then cost about 30p per litre. Since then, two things have happened to make me despair. First, LPG has shot up to 44p per litre. Second, Tesco has taken over two of my local forecourts and withdrawn LPG. I tackled Tesco about this, but it dismissed my concerns and waffled on about its green, bio-fuel credentials. It will soon be impossible to purchase LPG in some towns.

D.K., Prescot 

The price has gone up because, due to favourable tax treatment, the base fuel represents a higher proportion of the cost. Whenever LPG becomes popular, the price seems to go up. Funny, that. 

'Let me tell you a story 'bout a guy called Said...

... who stuck to his guns, and without meaning to be rude, said '!@$£ off' to pumping out crude. Oil, that is, black gold...

(with apologies to the Beverly Hillbillies).

I always wondered what I do, taking pot shots down from the bedroom window with the BB gun, if up bubbled the UK's only inland oil field.

Would I stick a cork in it and keep Mum? Or would I take the money and run (or become a hedge fund manager and screw everyone over. Why do these guys exist again?).

Anyway, it was inspiring to read in the following: Eco-friendly Belize wary of oil fever, that PM Said Musa has said: "We have to make sure not to skew the whole economy of the country by becoming dependent on oil," adding, "In everything we do, environmental conservation and protection is a central concern. We can't sacrifice that for short-term gain," 

But there are reasons for less optimism, if you listen to the head of the Belize Alliance of Conservation NGOs, who has said: "The country will close its eyes to environmental degradation when the dollar is flashed." 

Here's hoping he's wrong and Mr. Said sticks to his guns.

Black holes generate ‘green’ energy

No sooner do I/we get a bit of a boost about the quality of our blogging than I find myself caught with my 'blog pro' knickers round my ankles.

Because I've come across something I feel worth blogging about, but have no clue how best to credit it for alll sorts of 'ethico-legaloid-copyrighty-'it's the right thing tado-ist' reasons.

I first read about it in a nifty science summary newsletter called 'Science in the News', but the link was a tiny thingy that got me to an MSN site, but they in turn seem to have lifted it off a site called Space.com (which I do also subscribe to and read... usually, but missed this effort) who they link to but I can't see it anywhere.

Anways, as the only URL is from the mighty Bill & Co, here it is so you can figure out who to credit http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12465712/

Me, I just blog here.

And all I know is that I caught the headline Black holes generate ‘green’ energy. Apparently new study reckons these jobbies are the most fuel-efficient engines in the universe, and if you could make a car engine that was as efficient as one of these black holes, you could get about a billion miles out of a gallon.

There is also the small matter of getting to the filling station. Is it just me, but is the word 'green' being bandied about an awful lot lately? I don't mind reading such fun stuff, but let's not forget that energy, in any form, is only of value if you can acquire it for less (and that covers many parameters) than it generates. Which is a yardstick to apply to some closer to home.

I'm doing my bit!

Vindication! If from a slightly odd quarter.

Boys' toys are all very well, but a second-hand Volvo is better

'Producing a car accounts for more than 10 per cent of its environmental impact, so second-hand is better. By chance, I own the perfect second-hand blue Volvo if they want to buy it, but that wouldn't be as much fun as showing off their new high-tech gadgets.'

Me, I own a perfect-ish R-reg Volvo. What's more, it's as green as grass. I'm thinking of having a sign made up: 'The green, mean Junkk machine', and if anyone asks how its' green simply pint at the colour. The mpg is woeful, but I can't afford to swap.... yet.

It's funny, but most of the useful commentary (not to mention compelling environmentally beneficial information) seems to be from those in the media not directly associated with the environment. Which is, perhaps, why they better reflect what most of us are feeling.

MAD. And a little bit bonkers.

We're getting ready for our next batch of shows, and it's amazing the paperwork one has to wade through.

Oddly, now we are fast becoming 'veterans', and in the case of the next two they are at the same venue (Earl's Court 2, just like Ideal Home), what we are asked to do is seldom the same.

But we had to chuckle a bit with one fun piece of paper that has been uncovered for the forthcoming MAD show.

And that's the 'Telephone Bomb Warning Checklist'.

Not to be flippant about a deadly subject, but we were wondering if they were serious when it says to 'complete this form as you go along', or 'follow up your call [to the Control Centre] with a copy of this completed form', which has a list of questions such as 'What kind of bomb is it (type of explosive)?'.

I have read it. It will be somewhere on the stand. But even if we did have a phone I'm afraid I'd ask a few pithy, pertinent questions and possibly offer a few opinions to the caller before legging it to the nearest exit to tell someone.

But at least I now have my very own boxes to tick. And can only imagine what resources went into creating this form which, if I am any judge, will never be used by anyone, even if circumstances dictate, which of course one prays it will not. I'm just surprised there is not a fine for not complying.

The Blog God has smiled a wry smile

Nice to share a bit of good news...

A wee while ago, in one of my tangential trawls off e-Broadway, I stumbled across a site 'Does what it says on the tin'-styly entitled, in confident fashion, 'Best of the Web Blog'.

Anyways, I had a gander at the environment section, and it certainly had a fine selection, including several I am happy to subscribe to already.

It's interesting to note that 'blog' spans a fair spectrum, as a few are more what I'd deem online magazines, rather than my preferred personal definition of a personal journal, but all are very good company to be in.

"What's this," you cry, "...in!!!!!?"

Well, yesiree. Because nothing ventured, nothing gained 'n all, I rather immodestly put Junkk Male RE:View up for, er, review, and have just been kindly informed as follows:

Congratulations!

Best of the Web is pleased to inform you that the blog you submitted http://junkk.blogspot.com/ has been approved and added to the following category within the Best of the Web Blog Directory:

http://blogs.botw.org/Science/Environment/

Your blog will appear in the directory after our next update, typically within the next 24 hours.

Thank you for helping to grow the BOTW Blog Directory. We are happy to list your blog amongst the best.

Cordially,

Best of the Web Blogs

Not sure who I thank, but if you're reading this: 'ta muchly!'. And to any who have passed this way as a consequence 'Welcome!'.

I think it is also time we had a little look at how we up our game 'feed' and promo-wise.

Not to mention getting on that 'Best of the Web' with Junkk.com. When you're on a roll...

Back-scratching #101

It's nice when it works. And it's even nicer to help those who help us... help everyone.

So I am pleased to say that we have had our first 'mass upload' of data  from a major fmcg brand, and it is frankly quite a milestone for us.

Better yet, they have decided to gild that lily and attach ideas as well, with some really neat ones in the mix.

So a big 'thank you' to ecover, who now pretty much 'own' the 'E's' of the Ideas section for now.

I'm sure they won't mind us hoping that they soon find a few more joining them.

And we'll be doing all we can to keep spreading the word about them and their lovely products.

Paying To Promote The Piper, Who Still Calls Their Own Tune

I have figured out that it is pretty pointless (other than a bit of venting, which can be therapeutic) writing in to most media forums (though the Telegraph blogs do seem a notable exception), as the anonymity imposed makes the value of such effort altruistic at best. And the sheer volume of these things, and numbers contributing to them, has fast diluted any value I can assess in moving a view or cause forward. It simply serves to add to the media owners archive of nifty facts and quotes.

But I still can't resist writing to someone who at least has the grace to put a contact address on their work (mine is info@junkk.com), even though there is scant chance of them replying.

At least, thanks to this blog, the words need not be lost, and can be preserved in a relevant environment. 

So here's a little something I just sent to Sunday Times Columnist Rod Liddle:

Re: 'Brown's African squanderlust' & 'Bin the rubbish bag police'

I have not long returned (if not recovered) from a month exhibiting at the Ideal Home Show (supposed theme: Recycling & Sustainable Living. Not.) to catch up on a few back issues of the Sunday Times and, naturally, your columns. It gave me the chance to read two in sequence, and though you may wonder how (or why), link them together. 

A real frustration, to this householder/consumer-as-source-of-funds at least, is the sheer amount of money being wasted in the name of cutting back on... er... waste. We are seeing millions of pounds poured into meeting targets at the expense of real environmental benefits, with quangos, and even commercial businesses being funded to duplicate each other and set up massive administrative systems, ad campaigns, etc, before much money actually goes where it could do some good. 

I'd prefer investment to be made in making it impossible for people not to be able to behave responsibly, and better yet see the value in doing so. Sadly this seems an less favoured approach, with predictable consequences -  News story. 

Before we start forcing anything or finding countless ways to fine, we must get the mechanisms, infrastructures and incentives in place first... and efficiently. The trouble is there is little being done to hold anyone accountable, much less take those responsible to task for so woefully failing to do so.

The problem is that we now live in a culture that values being seen to do something more than actually doing anything. And which rewards success but fails to penalise failure. It happens because 'they' know they can get away with it. Just like Mr. Brown.

Sure it makes a lovely photo. And for that, and not following up, relentlessly, is where most of the media must share in some of the blame. And while any copy highlighting an abuse may score a temporary rating point, then letting it pass simply makes one part of the problem.

You say in your piece Mr. Brown flew some hacks for this photo op. You mean the taxpayer paid (on top of the planet, unless they planted over Belgium to compensate carbonally - another story) for this???! 

There seems to be an addiction to squandering cash on hype over substance, unsurprisingly with those who do not bear the consequences of the commitments made to boost their status. ROI is often used in business as a fair measure of a project's value. And, simplistically, the checks and balances of someone paying for it and seeking to be paid back are fairly effective. When the return is not viewed as a financial gain against a financial commitment, the waters muddy. And it must be accepted that there is undoubted value in many worthwhile social enterprises. But what we are seeing more and more is the return being much more in favor of the commissioning individuals, or at least their empires (which is pretty much the same thing). 

And it doesn't really matter much whether we're talking rich western waste or third world poverty, one thing above all matters most, and that's overpopulation. Stick several thousand more homes on a flood plain in Surrey, and where their extra rubbish ends up (in a hole or up in smoke) is not going to be counterbalanced by savings elsewhere, no matter how many Priuses get made for them to drive. Equally, pumping money at any group that have little else to do other than that which comes naturally is unlikely to reduce their impact on the immediate environment's ability to sustain them.

Like you, I am no mathematician, but it doesn't seem too hard to imagine the closing gap between finite resources and an ever-expanding global consuming society. Especially as we now have a new component to the equation, in the form of the negative impact our consumption is having on the resource-production side, which serves only to speed the process up.

Malthus had a point. And it's looking like Mother Nature may be gearing up a few tricks to rectify the imbalance. 

We can't stop it, but we can reduce it. But not when it's being guided by politicians who view their legacy no further than the day they retire on gold-plated pensions, idealists who would prefer to be loved now than share in hard decisions (the benefits of which will only kick in when they're long gone), and populations who are easily seduced by a media that seeks the instant gratification of big ratings hits rather than the ongoing, campaigning effort that goes into shaping futures.

Truth & Consequences

Like most of us, I feel I was made to make things. Some do so more
than most, and more tangibly, and I guess I fall somewhere in the
middle ground of those who 'create' concepts, or words (or websites),
etc, as opposed to actually constructing a 'thing'.

And so it has been since the start of time. But now a rather odd fly
that has always lurked in the ointment has started to really make its
rotting presence felt, and that is the consequence of making
something, and especially in terms of its global impact.

For sure, it was only sensible to be concerned how one's new
invention would perform across all sorts of criteria, from safety to
economics, but there really was no question to the value of trying to
make it.

But now I wonder. As populations ever-expand, the potential for
people to dream up and then wish to see through their ideas will
surely keep pace. Which inevitably means the consumption of
additional resources to meet new demand, should it be generated, when
a successful product comes on line. And though I have no clue on
economics, I suspect that it is the only way for things to proceed
without falling into chaos.

I recall the dilemma of my ad agency's success, which I saw as being
like a shark (a fair analogy in other ways, too): to survive we had
to swim, and in swimming we consumed, which in turn made us grow. So
we had to swim and consume a little faster to grow a little bit more,
ad infinitum.

I know where I am going with this, and I don't think I want to make
the journey. But the sad fact is, thanks to the situation we find
oursleves in, I feel cursed by worrying about the consequences of
creating, which is a heavy burden to bear.

For most, ignorance (or at least blissful unconcern) is profitable
bliss, but I am not sure how long the system can sustain it as an
excuse.