You were expecting what else, exactly?

I hate to be a party pooper, but I found the following - Updated list adds more threatened species - sad, true, and pretty much proving the point I have been making for a fair old while.

Because, global warming or no global warming, most things end up extinct, and with us on the planet usually sooner rather than later. Especially big predators or huge territorial herbivores who require large areas of land all to themselves and the subtle biological balance of flora and flora around them, and which they are at the top, or rather were until we lob up and decided to build a golf course, have a war or opt for a 4x4 to get to work in Washington, London, Shanghai or New Dehli.

With finite land (and that due to reduce when the sea level goes up) and an ever-expanding human population, they simply won't be allowed that space much longer. 

Enjoy them while you can.

All the news that's fit to buy

This weekend trawl through the week's back issues really has got me
on a hobbyhorse about the actual independence and objectivity of the
media, especially when it comes to environmental stuff.

This time it's local. Having scooted past the front page top story,
doubtless about another drill having been swiped from a shed, I quite
perked up to see a spread entitled 'Recycle. Reclaim. Reuse.', and
indeed there was some editorial on it. But not very much. And not
very comprehensive. It may seem to be sour grapes, but as it was on
local re-issues, and them being well aware of Junkk.com and all we
have done and are doing both locally and nationally from our local
base, this seemed a fair (or rather unfair) omission.

Perhaps there wasn't space inbetween all the ads. Surprisingly, the
ads seemed to be for businesses mentioned in the editorial. But maybe
the hint as to why was in the last sentence: '...why not call one of
the companies advertising here to help you'.

Why do we have to buy coverage for what is clearly topical, useful
public interest, especially as we are free?

Whatever you get in a local paper, I'd suggest it is rarely news, and
as information often less than comprehensive. If I want ads and puff,
I'll use the free sheet.

Cunning Stunts

Playing catch up on the last week's papers, I found myself again wading through a few editions of the Daily Mail, this time having purchased some copies for my Mum to get her a few nice DVDs. 

And in the Wednesday edition there was an interview  with Zac Goldsmith, who is getting a lot of press these days. This one was billed as being with 'the Tories' Green Guru', but some odd agenda seemed to be at work as the headline was 'One of these men runs the Tory party. But which one?' and the picture of ZG and David cameron side by side seemed designed to push one in the direction intended.

I hope one day to meet this chap, and may get the opportunity at MAD*, as he will be there too. So I guess I need to be careful to avoid matching the inevitable point where 'MC' (media celebrity) Martin Lewis meets 'MC' Carol Vorderman. Well, first I need to be heard of to hit 'MC' status, but with Junkk.com we are on our way to being invited to more interesting places of interaction.

I always try to avoid the personal, especially when I have not met anyone in person to make a judgement, but when one is propelled into the public eye and has at least sanctioned (if not approved the version put out) one's thoughts being committed to print, I guess you have to expect some commentary based on it all.

There is no doubt that he has been a significant part of the movement to bring 'Green issues' to the fore, and this can only be to the good, though my views remain on how engaged we mere mortals can be with those less troubled by day-to-day concerns - like living expenses. But at least he is not too sanctimonious 'You don't have to live like a monk to be green', though that often seems code for 'I'll keep the helicopter'.

I guess I'll only really be able to judge as time passes, more information (and quotes) becomes available, and maybe one day having a chat.

Until then I'll close on the first section of the piece, where the glacier trip was a stunt deemed good, so I guess he was part of it. I'm afraid I can't agree. Flying a ton of folk to the Antartic to 'study' the effects of global wraming backfired big time with me, and another ruddy-faced Tory young thing was rather wonderfully savaged about it by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight at the time if the link doesn't work go via the BBC site to Ethical man 'Shoegate' video - it's worth it.

Pie (or Cake, and Eat it) in the Sky

A wee while ago I was browsing through Fortune magazine, and came
across a feature on the boom in private business flying, which
obviously was littered with a ton of ads. It would have been easy to
simply move on, but what did strike me was the number of these ads
that mentioned the 'environmental benefits'.

This stuck me as a bit of a stretch, as shunting a couple of people
in something not much different to a plane that can take a hundred
surely cannot add up carbonally, but I decided to make note and one
day write a piece about it. Even with air travel, I am prepared to
accept it is a fact of life, and hence the best thing is to point out
the best options for the planet if you really have to do it, for
pleasure or business.

However, this morning I was watching a BBC feature in the breakfast
news called 'Fastrack' ( tried to find a link on the BBC website, but
could not - A failing of their search system, even if it was through
me being dumb), which was covering pretty much the same issue from
some jolly exhibition in Europe.

Speaking of jolly, having recently mused the uncomfortable
relationships that exist in some media between pro (my main issue
being sanctimoniously so) environmental editorial and other features
(often in the same edition) and advertising that is almost directly
contradictory, I was again struck by the tone adopted. And let us not
forget this was the Beeb, so at least the ad dilemma is spared them.

But by golly, this piece, and not a short one, was really nothing
more than a commercial to the 'good life' and conspicuous
consumption. I know that it is entertainment, but with so much of
their output (broadcast, written and online) so devoted to
environmental considerations and good (not to mention tut-tutting
over bad) practice, I don't think there was a single mention of how
this booming industry may (I stand ready to be convinced, but with
eyebrow cocked, that it can help climate change) be flying (pun
intended) in the face of good CSR practice, no matter what the time
and motion arguments.

Indeed, the reporter seemed to be enjoying himself very much indeed,
parked in an overstuffed leather seat, giving the salesman the
opportunity to offer gold panels as an option. Just how much more
emissions will be generated by the fuel that will be required to lug
that extra weight into the air?

Dawntrails

A big weekend ahead, preparing for Internet World and my seminar
talk. Again it's a big 'thank heavens' for friends in London kindly
putting me up (and up with me) to spare us the additional cots of
accommodation. It's also going to be the first time I've gone on my
own, so setting up will be... fun. Actually it's more the getting to
& from the car, as I can't be at both ends at the same time to guard
stuff. Plus I hope it doesn't rain

Anyway, I do tend to up quite early, and am well timed to greet the
dawn. This morning it was rather nice, so I popped off a picture.

No great work of art, but one thing did strike me; even in this rural
idyll, a large chunk of the airspace was already occupied by the hard
lines of new and whispy remnants of old contrails.

And I imagine its a scene repeated over pretty much every square mile
of sky around the globe.

DEF(Con)RA 2

With all the other excitement of the day (and we have had more than enough here) regarding HMG and a few, shall we say, 'higher-profile-for-all-the-wrong-reasons' ministers, it looks like in the reshuffle we're getting a new boss of DEFRA.

In bidding Margaret Beckett a fond farewell, it seems somehow apt that she becomes Foreign Secretary, considering the air miles she was so fond of cranking up whilst telling the rest of us what we should do to save the planet. It remains to be seen how well she performs in the new role, which now gives her new and improved ways to proactively blow it up in short order.

As it reads like a press release from the department, I do have to raise a 'brow at this: "In her time at Defra, Mrs Beckett has presided over a doubling of household waste recycling rates in England and the first real cut in the tonnage of waste being sent to landfill."

All I can say is, after all this time and all the money, I should blooming well hope so!

Let us be optimistic that her successor, David Milliband, only the second boss that DEFRA has ever had, will be able to move things forward in directions that we at Junkk.com will feel better in terms of ROI.

Better than nothing (again)?

This is like some kind of self-fulfilling do-dad, because by writing and asking here, I am in fact already answering, or at least putting in motion, the very process I'm questioning.

I subscribe to a fairly (it sends out an awful lot of stuff daily) useful (a few nuggets... rarely) online PR service, and just saw the following subject/headline Jewelrypayless.com Helps Fight Global Warming.  How could I resist?

But this at first seemed a stretch in the continuing 'Any product you can think of, just spray it green' saga the consuming public are being subjected to.

This online jewelry company is pitching a 50% discount to Hybrid car owners who buy from them.

Not quite sure how your prove your choice of transport, but I'm sure they have that figured out.

I  have to say I thought this was plain daft, but then on balance I guess it's better that if they are going to flog diamonds (which are not that eco to extract as I recall) anyway, they try to mitigate it somehow. 

And while I guess that in comparison (all things are relative) to a store who doesn't encourage gem buyers to drive a hybrid they ARE helping fight global warming, but it's a... stretch.

Then again, we do say that we are helping save the planet, so all's fair....

Planning for the world family

I felt a faint glimmer of hope when I read this: Is Pope poised to sanction condoms?. Though my interest was more environmental than the obvious humanitarian positives outlined in the piece.

This is but a vague hint about a small concession, but as I personally consider the expanding population of our finitely-resourced planet to be well up there in terms of 'problems that need addressing on a global scale about.. er.. now', this can only be a step in a direction I would encourage.

Built-in ob....noxiousness

Time was when people were shaking their heads (but still tacitly accpeting) at the concept of built-in obsolescence, especially when it came to cars. I dreaded the first bubble of rust along the seams of my first Mini, and that was only after a few years. But even if certain things have been addressed, others still lurk to get my eyebrow twitching.

Like this example, from the excellent Honest John Telegraph column I have mentioned before:

My body repair man tells me the fashion for integral, colour-coded, plastic-covered "bumpers" is the biggest trade bonanza for years. What was the reason for doing away with the classic chrome or black bumpers of yore?

Modern "bumpers" work more like cushions to absorb the effect of an impact, reducing damage to the car structure and helping protect the occupants. If you want old-fashioned bumpers, you can still get them on a ladder-frame pick-up or 4x4. They won't be safer for you in a crash, but they will reduce annoying minor impact damage. In the United States in the 1960s, DuPont developed a laminated plastic called Royalite. If it got dented, all you had to do was run a hairdryer over it and it would pop back into shape. General Motors immediately bought the patent and used it for the front of its cars such as the Pontiac Trans Am. But the last thing GM wanted to do was build rot-proof bodies on which damage could be repaired by a hairdryer, because then it would sell fewer replacement cars.

Getting Noticed (and good notices)

Now we're getting into our stride we are getting a bit more organised on the online/IT side of our efforts (just as well as we're exhibiting at Internet World next week!), as opposed to me don the shed trying to make another reuse masterpiece.

So our funky system has alerted us to a distinct upward blip in the sign-ups for this month, which ain't bad going as it has only just started.

Better yet, we were able to track the origins of this increased activity, and it seems we have been kindly mentioned, and in flattering terms (as a respected re:source for re:use information, in fact a niche we have pretty much carved out to be uniquely ours), in two major consumer magazines: Woman's Own and BBC Good Food (no obvious URLs for either to repay the compliment with a URL hyperlink, but they are available from all good newsagents, I'm sure!).

What's most interesting is that we haven't been in touch with either, at least recently (the problems of running a very lean operation), so it's nice to know we're are getting picked up even without committing a fortune on PR, et, and hopefully getting known and appreciated simply by having a 'product' that does the job well.

Tricky things, compromises

I sometimes permit myself a wry smile when something falls into my lap that is at the expense of those with whom we are competing, especially when it helps make my point in a pitch.

Too late for my seminar at Internet World, but this image just dropped into my in-tray and helps make my point about how as a medium Junkk.com is not only highly targeted, but also for its editorial a lot less susceptible - and in advertising terms almost (I'll leave that 'get out clause' as there will be some b*ggg*er that slips past one day) immune - to tricky compromises.

For sure we'll discuss all sorts, and take PR from most, but when it comes to ads we will and can be a lot more choosy, so our editorial is not so likely to be saying one thing and having unfortunate messages sitting above or below (in this case they are at least not running a 'you should...' green article, but I have a few gems where high horses have been rendered a little less than consistent by homages to high horsepower sitting next door).

Actually I'm happy to run a piece about such as a steam-powered Roller, but as in my blog will likely opine it's a 'nice theory, but...'. However the ad next to it will not be for a 4x4, unless its a Lexus Hybrid (sorry, I'm with Mr. Cameron on this one, and could not bring myself to have a Prius, even if I could afford it). Actually I'd prefer the Citroen C(1 or 2, can't recall which and am too busy to find out - send us your press release, you lazy sods!), which tickled me post-‘Gordon eco-silly sop Budget’ by running a Congestion Charge promo. And we may eventually have an airline ad, but it would need to be more on a 'if you have to fly, this will make the best use of the emissions' basis, rather than a 'fly lots so you can fly lots more' one like Air Miles.

I of course stand ready to be caught out on this subsequently.

Because there are always compromises to be made. And left hands missing out on what right hands are doing. By writing this I've made life perhaps a tad more tricky for our PR guys, who are trying to ask The Times’ journalists to say nice things about us while I write this about their employer. But then their PRs are having the same problem too. Not to mention their ad sales guys. At least for the latter we are able to offer a fairly uncompromising product in ours.

As to editorial? Sod it. I think I'll just call it as I see it. And so will Junkk.com, though a little more tactfully I hope.

Let's All (Well, Selectively) Get Ethical

Missed the latest episode  of BBC Newsnight's 'Ethical Man', but Emma has kindly forwarded the link to the website... and it seems it was not broadcast on air. Anyway, here it is, though I'm not sure how long it will be available:

Ethical Man web exclusive - too good for TV 

What happened when Justin attended the recent Radiohead gig for Friends of the Earth climate change campaign, The Big Ask? 
CLICK HERE 

In case it does drop off, fear not, for here's is my blow by blow (well...ish) account, with a few eyebrow twitches along the way. I don't think I was too far off in my blog a few days ago in anticipation of not 'being seen at the right event' (as billed in the piece): the Big (Ask) Event.

The title was a good start: 'Ethical man Meets The Green Elite'. I felt sooo part of it all already, which is what a subsequent Green Elite talking head (couldn't quite tell who at 36kb/s) said it was all about, reaching out to all walks of life... with celebrities alongside them.

Well, more like in the VIP Champagne lounge (organic canapes, and I'm sure they shopped locally for the bubbly, Camden being famous for its vineyards) bit anyways, and amazingly no queueing for the Newsnight Ethical Family (hubs and wife - I guess kids were being looked after by ethical granny, sister or possibly green nanny), who were whisked straight in by invitation. My ethical lifestyle is already diverging slightly here, but then I still have, and use, a car (see later).

However, the reporter seemed to go a bit off message if he'd been intended to make the 3Gs (great and good of green) look like they were doing 'the right thing'. I don't know if he was miffed by the major pols being there to be seen but not heard, but he certainly had a spat with the Tory Enviro-mouthpiece about David Cameron's 'Shoegate'. This ruddy-cheeked (son of the soil or a few Moet's too many?) future leader of my country seemed be trying to claim he didn't know anything about it, which was plain daft. Then he went high horse. Foot. Shoe. Shoot.

As I wrote before, this was/is a 'so what' if handled correctly, but from the big green embrace onwards it simply has not been, so they are reaping what they sowed. Onward and... er.. elsewhere...

Apparently, FoE has 'signed' up 50% of MPs to a 'commitment' to year on year cuts. Not sure quite what that means tangibly, but I guess better than nothing. Sadly, this whole effort, at least as reviewed by Newsnight, only served to distance the Green Elite even more than before from me in terms of where they are, what they are doing and how they are trying to do it. Hope it was a good concert, though.

Speaking of which, Thom did make a 'speech' (More like sentence. I think I saw the edited version). He did make a good point about our 'outdated notion of economic growth', and how 'we' should stop assuming everything was limitless'. And that we shouldn't. Spiffy.

Would I have gone if invited? Like a shot. Would I have had fun? For sure. Would I be a hypocrite? No, because we're not telling everyone how they should behave from rather shaky pedestals. We know we are deeply flawed, if often constrained by circumstance and trying to be sincere. 

So, it's back to trying to do some more in our own little way. Not easy as it's costing us a lot. But feel free to join us. Which it is (free). Wonder how much this latest effort cost?  And/or made? And for what/who? And did all the employees of the various particpating organisations claim O/T and travel? Who covered all that?

ps: Apparently no limos (on presumes there is a stretch Prius now, as he surely jests when he said there were big cars outside) for EM & Spouse. They just caught a night bus after being ignored by one. Nice image for Mayor Ken to explain. 

pps: What was interesting in passing was this, in another section:

IN THE AIR 

"Newsnight 1" has taken to the skies. 

Michael Crick is spending the day assessing the damage to the government caused by every political woe imaginable - perhaps excluding plagues of frogs, and an outbreak of boils (though, given events of recent days, perhaps these can never completely be ruled out.) 

Michael will be landing in the political stamping grounds of John Prescott (Hull) and Charles Clarke (Norwich). 

I'm presuming by 'to the skies' that "Newsnight 1" is not a train or even a Prius (actually, as we know, not the best for loping along motorways). Seems the Green Elite are not the only selective ones in what to do and what to say we do, then.

What lies beneath the barrel bottom?

As she thought I could not resist a blog, Emma just sent me this: 

Public find the government more credible than the media

I'd hate to disappoint.....

All things are of course relative, so let me just add that in light of the esteem our government is currently held, one can only imagine what we all really think of the media.

I was however deeply wounded by this later on:  "People found it difficult to decide what they can believe when it comes to internet blogs."

However, as they are dead right, it only shows how smart the public actually is, and hence the validity of the main headline (in the Daily Mail. Bless).

If you can believe me, that is.

Semantics

More of a general musing for the Bank Holiday (which, defying the
forecasters, has been gorgeous, making it very hard to be stuck in
front of a PC writing a seminar), but I did grab a few moments to go
through the Sunday papers, which were naturally enough dominated by
the series of small problems besetting our elected leadership at the
moment.

I'm still trying to get to grips with the logic of how the guy at the
top of a failing organisation (in this case the UK Home Office) seems
to think (and, amazingly, gets supported in doing so by a wide spread
of folk) that the best way to resolve what he couldn't before is to
be left in charge.

But I'm afraid John 'Family Guy' Prescott, 2nd in charge of the
country, has really lost me on why he is till around.

I guess they all figure if Bill 'Cuban' Clinton pretty much got away
with it, then they can give it a whirl and see who salutes. I'm
afraid I trace a lot of the downward spiral in the collective moral/
ethical compass from that point on.

Yeh, there's private vs. public life. Yada-yada.

But at the end of the day if anyone in high office does anything they
know they shouldn't, especially if they know the damage that result
should anyone find out about it, then all bets are off.

I'd just like to ask his wife this question: 'If you can't trust him
with your marriage, please tell me why I should trust him with my
country?'.

Not to mention, while I think about it, the fate of this planet for
future generations.

Who says there's too much 'street furniture'?

....Surely not here in sunny Ross on Wye!

Because we are proud to be told how fast we can accelerate from 30 to
derestricted, though, along with the guys who put the signs up,
perhaps a tad confused what to do as we come in.

Maybe there's a revenue generation device (oops, safety camera)
around the corner for those who trying to obey countless confusing
signs rather than looking at the road and using common sense:)

An Englishman's home is.. a government cash cow

I almost passed over this one - Council tax bills 'to rise by over 40pc' - as being irrelevant to an environmental blog (though I have strayed into Cross of Ross territory before, and doubtless will again), but if the amount in question doesn't have me reaching for an AK-47, then the principle will.

When we moved into our current home, it was a big, rambling wreck, and having assessed our ability to maintain it (by looking at the rateable value and making reasonable projections over our lifespan) we have injected a small fortune renovating it, using contractors initially to do the big stuff, and our own DIY efforts subsequently, when we had the skills, time and, frankly, no more money spare. There has been a lot done, with lots more to do.

Amongst other things, I am seriously looking at all the various eco-things we can do,. Now these are major capital expenses, with the benefits kicking in only after a period of many years. So it is only worth doing them if we are going to stay here... and reap the rewards.

This proposal of tying the tax to the house value in this way is therefore a double whammy environmentally. For a start I now fear for our ability to afford to live here, and certainly question any additional investment which simply raises the value and hence our ability to afford to stay here.

Is everything in this cursed country now designed to supress saving, effort and forward thinking? And all to fund the money-pit that is their parasitic, unproductive administrative systems, put in place to keep 'them' in power and clover, and rest of us under their thumbs while they concoct further ways of funding them.

Bloody, barking madness.

A sober view on oil and its alternatives

It's by an academic, so I guess it will end up simply being yet one more of millions of talking points to be endlessly debated, but I took the time to read the following and found it it an interesting analysis of the current situation and, more importantly, potential future solutions to our need for personal transport: Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense: the myths about high oil prices

The first section is a bit dry (ooh, the drink related hints  in complement to my headline abound), but then it does arrive at matters environmental.

And the author makes the very same point that I have being banging on about (if in a slightly different way), that high oil prices are not a 'good thing' for carbon emission reduction, because all that's going to happen (and already is) is the oil companies look around for other places and ways to hoik the stuff out of the ground.

His solution is ethanol, hence my title.

I have always maintained an idealist view of the whole thing, and would love to see hydrogen being 'the one', with no more than water dropping out the exhausts, so long as the small matter of making it envirofectively can be sorted out, plus the small niggle caused by my reading once that water vapour was also a greenhouse 'gas'.

But as it is a looooong way off, I'm coming round to this way of thinking.  Read this and maybe you will, too. It's not a cure, but it seems a practical way to reduce emissions, though I still wonder about swathes of country being mown down to 'grow' petrol, which as a matter of scale seems likely to put in the shade the whole valid vegetarian point about the amount of land required to grow crops vs. a cow in terms of feeding a person. How many acres of the Amazon to the gallon do you get?

Now, what do we do about it? For a start there's a bit to note about tariffs to bring ethanol up to a parity cost with four star and/or protect our local farmers. 

So we have to get the pols weaned off the notion of pleasing pressure groups and making dosh. Not an encouraging thought to start on present evidence.

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.