Respec'

I have always shared Jeremy Clarkson's view on what makes a hero, so I read this Who is the greenest of them all? carefully. Some here are, by his (and my) definition worthy: lives were put on the line, and in a few cases lost. Others are simply too facile to worry about.

Anyway, here's what I added:

'Ah, top 100 lists; what would life be without them? You know, despite being introduced each time as the result of a ‘massive poll’, I have always missed my chance to vote either as a member of the general public or member of a niche industry. I guess I’m not on the right PR/researchers speed-dial. Or they don’t fancy going outside of London to ask.

As pointed out, in the absence of any apples vs. apples, or indeed any real stated criteria, it’s all a bit of a laugh really. Though it was nice to pick on some thoughtful suggestions I wouldn’t have considered, but now will.

Personally, I would vote for all those who DID/DO something over those who whitter away a lot (with a few exceptions, whose manner of saying made a difference - and as opposed to those simply booked a seat as an employer's (usually a medium) rep at the next Bali climate conference, or as an ‘expert’ or commentator).

Speaking of Santa, especially a Green one, you may be interested in the Science Museum’s ‘I’m Dreaming of a Green Christmas’ show next week:
http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=286'

In Inconvenient Blog?

Here's another organ of the media that seems to have a problem accepting my contributions: Coca-Cola in early stages of green tea variant launch

Anyways, bearing mind the names Coca-Cola Green and Green by Coca-Cola I thought this was worthy of posing:

"Those clever tinkers. Just wondering whether, in due deference to the tea's colour, and with the exception of being one presumes healthier (ie: less sugar packed), there is any aspect of this product or packaging that has an environmental or ethical angle?"

With friends like these...

BBC Newsnight Ethical Man's been at it again - Save thousands and live longer with ethical living, and so have I:

What I do with these posts is copy and paste what’s been written, with the comments below, and then work through jotting away to come up with my contribution. Here you go:

The first thing I thought was “Oh, wow. He’s managed to persuade someone else to give up their car.” But then I find that what looks like a fairly OK piece of kit has been crushed and sent off to the recycler (how much energy in the air from all that... right now), and replaced by the Saab. Now at least that’s not a new car (at 5-25% bad eco-stuff, depending on who you believe, in the making), but really...

So basically you still get to use the car almost as much as you would (ie: when you only need it) and Gid gets to drive around the rest of the time, emitting away. It’s not the car that pollutes (figure above notwithstanding), it’s the driving it around that does, isn’t it?

So basically more traveling is going to happen, and you save on capital and most running costs, and Gid covers the rest. Neat.

You can afford a lot more than most obviously, but then you shunt the cost elsewhere anyway.

I wish I could be so ethical. Or have such friends. I have a bit of swamp in Florida should you wish to get in touch.

For those (Justin, you’re welcome – it’s in London. But I’m afraid I’m driving in as it’s all the demo gear and the family!) wishing to find a few more fun and practical things to do whilst staying at home, pop along and visit us and a few other sat ‘I’m Dreaming Of A Green Christmas at the Science Museum

If only the trains ran... at all

If you're going to p*ss people off, you may as well make it all sides.

So I decided to reply* to this: If only the trains ran on time . . .

Let me begin, as I always do to articles penned by the great and good of British journalism, in London, to note that for some of us the option of a tube is not always open, with children or without, outside your fair city. There is, of course, the bus, and here we start to meet on matters of... 'delivery'. I am sure we will have many a merry tale of those raped and pillaged catching the last bus home on one side, and various photo ops of HRH, Ken and whoever is the eco-pol of the day on the other (won't say anything about a possible mix of the two livening things up). Moving on, we then become as one: defunct routes. I look out on the Ivy-covered arches of Mr. Beeching's brainwave. And hence to make any kind of trip I need a car to even start with the train , and once I get there, I may as well keep going, not just for convenience (last back to catch the connection , if it comes, is around 6pm), but also the price. With those darn kids in tow, we're looking at £200 vs. about £7 a head. And to some in the country, that is a saving still worth making, planet or no planet. And I say this as one doing all I can to help save it in other ways.

*It won't get printed as they seem to 'moderate' (see pic) me every time. Ah, Freedom of the Press.

Sticks and stones

Will never hurt me, but poor ratings will with luck sink in with the producers and sponsors, where what a few brave souls were trying to point out from the outset once we saw what was going on (and saw ourselves being vilified by the few acolytes - one suspects mainly staff of the production (the website numbers tell their own sorry tale) and, worse, the vindictive twists of the edit suite :

Media Guardian: On Saturday night, another of Sky One's big hopes for the autumn, The Big Idea, a business reality show featuring The Apprentice's Ruth Badger as a judge, ended its seven-week run with a whimper. The final installment of The Big Idea attracted just 24,000 viewers on Sky One between 9pm and 10pm.

Am I in 'told you so' mode/mood? A bit. But I take no pleasure in the failure, as we invested a lot in getting seen.... by a rapidly diminishing audience, with almost no media coverage in complement.

One can only wonder what may have been had they not tried to engineer the heats to suit whatever bizarre notion they had of the kind of audience they were trying to reach.

My personal view is that this could have been a BIG idea, but a slow burner. People of passion getting involved, pitching genuine ideas with substance that could go on to make a difference, and creating a groundswell of support from those fed up with Dragon's Den egos and similar editorial manipulations.

Sad.

Well, at least they are consistent.

Or should I say symmetrical?

It all started so well. We didn't go into the SKY Big Idea expecting it to be Shakespeare, but it was a good chance to get some exposure and win some seriously useful money.

What I didn't anticipate was just what lengths the organisers would go to to steer the show the way they wanted. And the more I became aware of this, the more I asked questions, as did others - the website is worth a read, especially the Forum, to see the disconnect between what was promoted to both contestants and audience (25p a go texters).

And the more I asked questions, the more such coverage as Junkk.com got went down the pan. At the beginning we were those kooky guys with the neat idea. By the finale, they had edited us with a very nasty voice over and judges all saying it was the worst thing ever. Which of course they did not. Fear the man in the edit suite!

Well, fear too the man with a hard disc recorder.

I just had a scope through the footage, and another thing about the final has been raised:

From the sequence above, in addition to getting first pitch of the night (and hence the most chance for people to vote), who had their glee club right in shot at the back, and with a convenient, perfectly positioned placard throughout the entire show and all other contestant's pitches?

I'll give you a few hints: he won. He is the only one not there (there were seven, so I decided on symmetry, too). And even at this pathetic size and resolution, do you notice that curiously well contrasted yet back illuminated bluish panel at top right, often right next to the guy's heads. That's his product... in everyone else's pitch!

For what it's worth I doubt he knew, but I am prepared to bet the production guys did. No camerman or producer would let that by more than once. Even the guy holding it looks like a stagehand (I've been called paranoid once, but at full res in digital... it would be fun to find out who he is)!

Thing is, on balance it was about the only truly innovative idea in the final, but having micro-structured the set-up over the last several weeks, with all sorts of odd things befalling those who thought they had a chance by the originally stated criteria, it seems they couldn't take a chance even on that.

Who says you can't trade in Carbon?

I don't know if they were here (that is, compared to saving the planet) first, but for a bunch of folk with sod all to do with anything to do with it, these guys are certainly making the most of that name.

This should be a no-brainer.

I'm not really in the business of pushing new cars, but I'm a red-blooded male and I've seen hyrids overtaken by milkfloats and Smarts as the custard filling between two Euro-lorries, so when the trusty R-reg gives up the ghost I will need another. Unless, of course, they sort out the transport syst... well, it was worth half-mentioning.

So I really got excited by this.

SAAB 9-5 2.3t BIOPOWER

Price £23,270-£29,015 (not so excited by this)

Performance 0-62mph: 7.9sec (yup, that worked)

Top speed: 147mph (when using E85 fuel) (well, if you are an off-duty copper or judge maybe)

Power/Torque 210bhp / 228 lb ft (when using E85) (that's more when it's eco!)

It's cleaner faster, gruntier and greener. So then this just plain doesn make sense:

Only 13 places in the UK sell E85 and they’re all Morrisons supermarkets, mainly in Norfolk and Somerset. Until cars are taxed on net carbon dioxide emissions, there is no cash advantage to buying.

Boogger.

What's 'It's a Shame To Waste' In A Dozen Languages?

Make sure you are abreast as many of the facts first, but this looks like a well worthwhile campaign to support.

The link to find your local MEPs is a very nice tool, and useful in its own right, too!

The European Union (EU)'s main waste law is currently being reviewed, which forms the basis for waste policy in every EU country.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are about to vote on a revision of this law, and environmental groups across Europe are calling on MEPs to improve waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting around Europe - without encouraging more incineration.

Please join our campaign to Stop the Waste - email your MEPs at http://www.stopthewaste.eu

If at first you don't succeed..

As I prepare to take on yet another brick wall, I can at least find consolation and inspiration in stories of others who have tried, and succeeded, against major obstacles (often put) in their way by those tasked to help them. Better yet, an example of actually winning award from the very system that in some cases was there to thwart them: Tradecraft wins over the judges

However, I have to groan and applaud this from another section:

Chris Manze, a partner in Nottingham's The Stone Soup Project, which teaches teenagers rejected by the school system about music and film production, welcomed the initiatives. He said the Government needed to improve delivery. "If they could do anything to support social enterprises it would be to fund teams of bid writers to support the new social enterprises, because you don't have the resources to do it," he said.

Amen.

You couldn't make it up. Well, you can.. and get it on air, probably!

I've been a grumpy bunny of late, so a littel levity is in order.

This rather excellent clip on the notion of UGC (user generated content. Or, as lampooned here, 'You do the work, don't get piad (or vetted for accuracy too much) and we rake it in still) via Newsnight.

When the spinning has to stop

I almost passed this one by, but having sat with my Mum in the (not local, oh, no, we had to go to the big city) hospital for 2 hrs beyond appointment time (staring at two posters, attached. Is it just me who sees a slight disiencentive to trying to help out?) because there was only one doctor (served, it seemed, by about a dozen gossiping, tea-making, paper-shuffling staff, all of whom left bang on clock-off), I have more than an interest in what is claimed to be delivered and what is.

Hence I did read this; Sack Hewitt (and not just for her voice)

Now the Torygraph has obviously decided that Cross of Ross is persona non grata, so it won't get published (big up to the Guardian for at least embracing some measure of free speech), but here's what I wrote:

'And today's target is...

Substitute (in the case of my area of interest) the environment for health, the suits can pretty much stay as is for all the difference their expertise can add (though salaries to match, and trips to Bali to discuss climate change inc.), and add appropriate talking head plus meaningless, open-ended, non-accountable (for all the targets) platitude ('this IS a problem and needs looking into...'), and we have another day of this nation’s governance in the media.

Yet it all seems to work out. Because will careers or salaries or perks be affected? No. A flurry of fuss and then the system moves on to the next issue, with detail lost in the whole.

So things will change how? Thank heavens for the vote. Now all I need is someone (as opposed to an amorphous entity like a constantly morphing party collection of ministers) to vote for.'

Matters of fact

This will take some careful phrasing: I was recently taken to task on my blog for expressing doubts (actually I was just being cautious about what was expressed there as fact) about some advice, and in doing so cited some other facts that had lead me to do so.

If nothing else, it confirmed my oft stated view that we are in a world of extremes, where black and whit are the only shades of green, and whatever makes the best headline or pushes the most vocal agenda is what will be served up.

So, despite being the one who freely admitted to still being confused, I was required to fall into a camp. Which I won't do.

All I know is that at present, my request to the authors of the two polar opposite views, respected experts in their fields as may be, have not replied to my request for clarification of their methods and how they arrived at their results.

So for now, I think I'll follow the advice of my mate Dave, who wrote to me in a private email. He is a definite 'man who can' and Junkk.com guru, who says ' in such cases about all you can do is split the difference between the two extremes'.

No way to save a planet, but probably the best we have. And that's the fact of the matter.

Bottom of the class

Anyone who knows us, what we do, how long we've been going, and who we have done (or tried to do) business with may find this interesting.

Nice to see public money supporting another 'non-profit' organisation with some ad branding, as opposed to little old free us, with our terrible 'commercial' stigma

We're getting noticed... and published!

Just put down the phone to a Daily Express reporter (Very nice. I hope she stays that way about me/us in print) following my 'Bin Loading' blog.





And the mail has just arrived with a very nice Green Guide for Christmas, which I'll hopefully be reviewing very soon.

Great. More money where it's really needed.

Another one to which it will be interesting to see if my reply gets posted: London launches recycling push in supermarkets

"Cool. Encouragement is to be applauded over the recent high-profile spate of threats and (mostly?) failed attempts at convictions.

The film (which I had never heard of until now - so thanks for that) sounds like a true heir to the Wombles and Clangers.

I would point out that this is more about reuse, and there are many worthy complements to recycling in this and the related sphere or repair, which deserve equal support, though their target-meeting, box-ticking potential is less attractive to some funders.

Learn more via a nifty exhibition on having fun with environmental initiatives, by visiting ‘Dreaming of a Green Christmas' at the Science Museum on Dec. 6: http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=286

We look forward to greeting such as Mr. Barlow there, and sharing how doing their bit for the environment can also benefit local taxpayers in their own homes.

And considering the online resource I'm posting this in, we are also keen to show a few marketers how they can turn green into gold, and their primary producer responsibilities into great enviro-pportunities, too."

Bin Loading - the new terrorism?

This made my blood boil: £100 fine if you dump food in the wrong bin

So I wrote:

"Bin there, done that, got the ASBO

Have you been a victim of Britain’s bin bureaucracy? If you have contact us on
0871 520 2982 or email news.desk@express.co.uk

Forgive me writing slightly off question, but as the "Have your say' section didn't seem to have a topic for this yet I hope you'll understand.

As a committed believer in not wasting anything (one look at the site signature will show you by how much), I am totally in support of anything to encourage recycling (though it’s a shame that householders not being acknowledged better for their unpaid labour role as daily sorters). Reuse & repair is even better, but the box-tickers don't seem to like that as much as it can't be measured as easily to claim a met target).

Such extreme methods of enforcement can only lead to a total backlash, and result in an even worse environmental situation... and possibly civic disobedience.

We are talking fines, and possible criminal records, for 'offences' that are pretty minor anyway, but for which people might not have committed. Where is the burden of proof going to be? Who is paying for all these new officials (and their qualifications are...?), not to mention the lawyers and court time for the inevitable appeal and case dismissal. So far they forces of Bin Loading have scored how many convictions? At least the courts still have some sense of justice, sometimes.

We need to get people to want to do the right thing: being their mates, helping and advising. Not by nannying, not by threatening... but by incentivising and rewarding. Show the ones that do will that they are appreciated and others will follow. Ignore the small minority and concentrate on the majority. This country is getting obsessed by fines first, workable procedures (to actually avoid the fines) second. Our authorities are almost running a protection racket: "Shame if this Tesco carrier ended up in your paper wheelie squire... whoops.. look at that. That'll be a pony or you're nicked"

Come to the Science Museum next month to see how much fun we can have... whilst saving."

Sorry (again, all round), the guy's a genius

Dodging a bullet

This story in the Telegraph caught my eye: Cheap bullets put lives of paratroopers at risk

I've pretty much given up on not being 'moderated' by their blog pages, so I wrote a letter:

Should the story about the low-cost, defective ammo supplied to our troops prove as shocking as reported, may I suggest as a way of establishing who is responsible and punishing them via a modern-day version of an ancient practice: a witch hunt. We release all involved into the woods and let our fine armed forces pursue them, armed with the ammunition in question. If there is no problem, then their innocence (post mortem) will be established. If however they survive, guilt will be clear and they can be suitably promoted sideways with full pension and benefits. Why is we reward officials only for saving money as opposed to getting best value to do a job right? I'm still waiting to find out who thought not making Navy warships (Sheffield/Falklands) fireproof was a good idea.

Actually, and having sent it, there seem to be two extremes. Penny-pinching to an unsafe degree. Or spending waaaay over the odds (in the case of anything environmental - consultants, research, contractors, etc). Something to do with villas being free for compliant signatories perhaps? Whichever way, those who have the power seem to see careers and benefits develop nicely no matter what.

It's (Not All) A Gas, Gas, Gas

Good news, in that it is 25 times more, er, bad a greenhouse gas: Global methane rise slowing down