Maybe if flood water was made de riqueur at the table it would solve two problems at once:) H2O snobbery
Bless. A few weeks ago a piece in Newsnight highlights the fact that the loss of carbon sink through deforestation is in excess of the USA's entire annual output... and it gets just 30 posts, mostly shared billing with the next cold war.
But to worry about the snobbery of bottled water we're up to 130 and counting!
Still doesn't make much sense to me, but for a special non-alcoholic complement to the meal (I'm guessing all are still OK with a nice bottle of Aussie Chardonnay and some airflown whatever, drizzled in stuff and topped with a dusting of more stuff) I'm not sure the tap can quite match the sparkle of a Perrier (sans benzene, of course).
But we seem again to be getting into 'what's necessary' territory here.
As the majority are discussing the affronts endured at a dining venue that is not their home, one could possibly also ask how eco it is shunting one and all to another place to have a meal.
Bigger questions could be directed to those who know about such things as to how such imports are allowed, and what their relative carbon footprints are compared to other food and beverage options. And, if deemed acceptable in the consumer choice chain for sale (and taxing) by the authorities, why there are not better mechanisms to share the responsibility for viable, economic, decent enviROI recycling process amounts all through the delivery chain, from manufacturer (bottler), through consumer (sorry) to reclaim rather than landfill. Of course there are reuse options a wee bit higher up the waste hierarchy, and at http://www.junkk.com we have quite a few and are more than happy to see uploaded lots more.
However, to get with the flow (more water puns, sorry) of this pressing debate, just for personal fun, I have never understood paying for the still variety as I can't taste the difference. And how special an event is with a plastic bottle amidst the setting is also in my view an aspect to consider.
So... a sexy blue fizzy Ty Ant or bulbous green glass Perrier (see them made into gorgeous lights here: http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97 ) would be sadly missed.
The plastic flatties less so, for sure, though there is quite an industry out there that may have trouble surviving supplying only the needs of those with less comprehensive piped delivery systems. Me, I'd prefer to unemploy a few Amazonian or Sabah loggers before the staff of Pelegrino.
Kill plastics off if that's the priority to save the planet. But be careful what you wish for, as there is plenty more on your table that is really not necessary or ecologically that desirable either, and once the fingers get pointing, who knows where next they may get directed?
Nice to see Newsnight still tackling the big issues though, especially to let pass without much consideration as to why a few days ago the global concert to sort out climate awareness managed to score 1/3 the audience of the one from a sadly missed Princess. I guess it's all about priorities. And ratings.
Cheers!
ADDENDUM - Wow, we're well on our way to 250 posts. Meanwhile, as Dave has kindly been sharing, the whole climate change issue seems to be getting some welcome, if questionably-covered, additional focus.
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of comments in this (water) piece really seem to highlight the problem. A bunch of liberal yuppies arguing about the water they drink at the Ivy, vs. a few more significant issues that most, I'd hazard, won't even entertain forgoing. Yet these are the very minority yapping away at the majority from their pedestals of privilege and, I'm afraid, simply either p*ssing them off or causing a lot of deaf ears to be turned.
I drink bottled water once in a blue moon. And yes, it is usually when I am out and fancy a fizzy complement to a meal when wine is out and I'm driving. Have any of these folk on their high horses considered just how much beer is consumed in inefficient packaging, not to mention the numbers of pints of water required to make one? What's next? Eco-Prohibition?
Such obsession with trivia by the chattering classes is really obscuring the bigger picture I fear.
ADDENDUM:
NEWS FROM: Green Party in England & Wales
Londoners urged to get bottled water off the menu
Londoners are being urged to make a stand for the environment by
rejecting the social pressure which leads to them ordering bottled
water rather than asking for perfectly good tap water. The call comes
after city officials in New York launched a campaign to persuade
people to abandon bottled water.
Londoners drink the bottled water equivalent of just over 1 Olympic-
sized swimming pool per week, of which 25% is imported. Bottled water
is now the world’s fastest-growing drinks sector worth £1.2bn a year
and research shows that it is now outselling coca-cola in London.
Yet, new figures from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) show that
tap water has improved and now meets stringent quality standards in
99.98% of cases.
Jenny Jones, Green Party member of the London Assembly, has warned of
the damaging ecological impact of bottled water.
Jenny Jones said:
“Londoners need to show some independence and show that ordering tap
water with your meal, or at the pub, is fashionable and the right
thing to do. Selling water in bottles and burning massive quantities
of fossil fuels for its transportation does not make economic or
environmental sense.
“Most containers for bottled water are made from non-degradable
plastics, which take a 450 years to break down when disposed of in
landfill sites. Even glass bottles of water still take a lot of
energy to crush and recycle, whereas all we do with a restaurant
glass of water is wash it up afterwards.”
Notes to Editors (and why not you, dear readers, too):
1. Defra figures on water consumption in London are available here
2. Inspectors said 99.98% of tap samples met industry standards
in 2006, up from 99.96% in 2005.
3. Bottled Water Information Office (BWIO).
4. Jenny Jones is also chair of London Food.
But.... then they should maybe resist the urge to order a perfectly good pint, glass of Chardonnay, Thai prawn...
Then I wonder how many Olympic sized swimming pools of tap water get wasted per minute through leaks.
I know it's a 'better than nothing', but this really smacks of a rather odd rallying cry to get the public on board with, in the great scheme of things, along with oh, say, plastic bags (past and future posts)!
And when people are getting blotto at the drop of a hat, do we really need to make water less attractive (without inferring anything about 'tap', of course).
I think I'm zigging while others zag.
Gaurdian - Let's lose our bottle
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
We are all members of the blackfoot tribe
I missed seeing this last night, but then I rarely see Corrie with anything more than half an eye open.
DEFRA has launched a £5Million ad campaign aimed at making us all more aware of our carbon footprints. Full story from The Guardian.
Nice use of an excellent Kinks track (Shangri-La), but will the man in the street even understand the ad, let alone the underlying message? Let's see.
DEFRA has launched a £5Million ad campaign aimed at making us all more aware of our carbon footprints. Full story from The Guardian.
Nice use of an excellent Kinks track (Shangri-La), but will the man in the street even understand the ad, let alone the underlying message? Let's see.
The convenient solution?
A clever title for an interesting short film (10mins) from Greenpeace promoting investment in renewables and CHP schemes above the development of any further nuclear power generation capabilites.
Some quite interesting facts & figures appear, not least of which is the scale of government funding in renewables R&D compared to the funding going into existing nuclear waste clean up! A bit of a gobsmacker!
So is it the convenient solution? Well, watch the video and make up your own mind.
My major concern is more, how shall I put it .... the 'inconvenient unkown'; as in, do we actually have the time to develop and deploy large scale new renewable schemes based on things like wave and tidal power, technologies which, as yet, are still very much in their infancy?
Some quite interesting facts & figures appear, not least of which is the scale of government funding in renewables R&D compared to the funding going into existing nuclear waste clean up! A bit of a gobsmacker!
So is it the convenient solution? Well, watch the video and make up your own mind.
My major concern is more, how shall I put it .... the 'inconvenient unkown'; as in, do we actually have the time to develop and deploy large scale new renewable schemes based on things like wave and tidal power, technologies which, as yet, are still very much in their infancy?
Monday, July 09, 2007
MP. PM. WC. RIP.
The Diaries
"Tony. It's Gordon. I'm locked in the toilet."
A phone message from Gordon Brown to Tony Blair as they were discussing which one of them should run for the leadership of the Labour party. Blair is quoted as replying: "You're staying there until you agree."
As I reconcile our country being lead by someone who deals with difficult decisions by making a dash for, and seeking refuge from making any in, the loo, I can only gain solace from the scene in Jurassic Park that epitomised the notion that you can run from responsibility for just so long, but ultimately if you choose to hide, the consequences will eventually catch up and bite.
"Tony. It's Gordon. I'm locked in the toilet."
A phone message from Gordon Brown to Tony Blair as they were discussing which one of them should run for the leadership of the Labour party. Blair is quoted as replying: "You're staying there until you agree."
As I reconcile our country being lead by someone who deals with difficult decisions by making a dash for, and seeking refuge from making any in, the loo, I can only gain solace from the scene in Jurassic Park that epitomised the notion that you can run from responsibility for just so long, but ultimately if you choose to hide, the consequences will eventually catch up and bite.
Making Whoopsie
I found myself in an odd, slightly down mood last night. Mainly having watched an eclectic mix of TV (that will do it every time).
First up was the news, with a story on the new Boeing Dreamliner. Pretty much a technological marvel, it will do its job with a lot less impact on the planet than predecessors. Trouble is, a lot of folk were quick to point out, it will probably mean doing pretty much a lot more jobs for the same, slightly less than optimal impact that such craft impose.
Tricky. Certainly better than nothing. For sure a step in the right direction allowing for the fact that flying is a fact of modern consumer life (for now). But... hard to get too excited, especially if... when... we get a bunch of nasty eco-ads telling us how green it is.
Then I watched a Ch5 doco on 'the world's tallest hotel', the Burj al Arab in Dubai. As an ex Civil Engineer, I could only be transfixed as each seemingly impossible construction challenge was identified... and then solved. The sheer creativity and expertise in making something was awesome to behold, and truly envy-making to one who loves to make stuff.
But... even though I was just able to cope with the fact this was little more than a one hour ad for a pretty out-of-my-league section of the hospitality industry, some of the facts of its eco footprint were really hard to ignore, though the programme makers patently did not have this aspect in mind. They were proud that each suite sucks more juice than a small town!
My deep unease at both of these was at the heart of my depression. I have been trained to and am stimulated by making things; have been my whole life. To see something where before there was nothing is a truly great feeling, especially if it is exceptional, and better yet recognised as such.
Yet these two outstanding achievements would now be things I doubt I could feel too proud about being part of, simply because of the impact they have on the future. And it's hard to argue either would be deemed as positive, at least environmentally. And such feelings are almost totally at odds with the natural desire to want to create something new, and/or beautiful and/or useful.
I have boxes full of sketches for things I'd like to try and make real, maybe even make some money out of, but so few could I honestly put my hand on heart and say they would not have an impact on the planet from whose resources they would need to be made, or in being used would not impose a fresh burden.
And that, despite simply being a very small cog in a vast machine that has to expect you gotta do what your gotta do to support a family, is quite difficult to have nagging away in the back of your mind.
I feel the only solution is a version of the Google mantra 'do no harm'. Which is, 'make things better', embracing every aspect of the word. I think such as the RE:tie do that. I'm just hoping there are more ways to tap into our consumer society that can be viable commercially and offer some measure of mitigation.
First up was the news, with a story on the new Boeing Dreamliner. Pretty much a technological marvel, it will do its job with a lot less impact on the planet than predecessors. Trouble is, a lot of folk were quick to point out, it will probably mean doing pretty much a lot more jobs for the same, slightly less than optimal impact that such craft impose.
Tricky. Certainly better than nothing. For sure a step in the right direction allowing for the fact that flying is a fact of modern consumer life (for now). But... hard to get too excited, especially if... when... we get a bunch of nasty eco-ads telling us how green it is.
Then I watched a Ch5 doco on 'the world's tallest hotel', the Burj al Arab in Dubai. As an ex Civil Engineer, I could only be transfixed as each seemingly impossible construction challenge was identified... and then solved. The sheer creativity and expertise in making something was awesome to behold, and truly envy-making to one who loves to make stuff.
But... even though I was just able to cope with the fact this was little more than a one hour ad for a pretty out-of-my-league section of the hospitality industry, some of the facts of its eco footprint were really hard to ignore, though the programme makers patently did not have this aspect in mind. They were proud that each suite sucks more juice than a small town!
My deep unease at both of these was at the heart of my depression. I have been trained to and am stimulated by making things; have been my whole life. To see something where before there was nothing is a truly great feeling, especially if it is exceptional, and better yet recognised as such.
Yet these two outstanding achievements would now be things I doubt I could feel too proud about being part of, simply because of the impact they have on the future. And it's hard to argue either would be deemed as positive, at least environmentally. And such feelings are almost totally at odds with the natural desire to want to create something new, and/or beautiful and/or useful.
I have boxes full of sketches for things I'd like to try and make real, maybe even make some money out of, but so few could I honestly put my hand on heart and say they would not have an impact on the planet from whose resources they would need to be made, or in being used would not impose a fresh burden.
And that, despite simply being a very small cog in a vast machine that has to expect you gotta do what your gotta do to support a family, is quite difficult to have nagging away in the back of your mind.
I feel the only solution is a version of the Google mantra 'do no harm'. Which is, 'make things better', embracing every aspect of the word. I think such as the RE:tie do that. I'm just hoping there are more ways to tap into our consumer society that can be viable commercially and offer some measure of mitigation.
As a British citizen, do you have a right to a passport?
The answer, under the new super rules regime brought about by various acts of terrorism is, sadly, No!
OK, its not enviro, re:use or re:cycle centric in any way shape or form, but this needs to be exposed, and what better place to start than a blog.
As a British Citizen, under the old rules, you simply had to prove who you were - birth certificate etc., provide some pictures, get someone to act as a referee, cough up a few quid, and there you go, a valid passport acceptable and recognisable across the planet.
Nowadays, under the new 'super rules' which are rabidly enforced by yet another legion of jobs-worths who don't appear to have a single iota of common sense between them, you have to provide whole reams of evidence, navigate a complex circuit of checks and re-checks, then jump through burning hoops whilst whistling dixie backwards, and then, there you go, the document to which you are entitled - your passport. Except, however, when the passport office still says .... No! Because that proof of who you are is not acceptable under the new rules.
"Computer says ...... Noooh." for those of you who are fans of Little Britain.
This is very close to me, very close, because it involves my step-daughter's boyfriend, who just happens to live, for now, whilst they save up towards enough to at least find their own flat, and eventually a first time house, with us. Now Sids (his nickname) is a really decent, honest guy; he works hard, long hours, even at weekends (he's a self employed joiner) , has never been in trouble in his life, and will help anybody out without complaint. He has no criminal record, is not in the least bit interested in politics, and certainly has no extremist views about anything at all. But, because of some ridiculous enforcement of some ill thought out new rules, it looks as if he (plus my step-daughter) is now going to miss out on his holiday, and almost certainly have to write off all of the cost of it.
The saga of his passport application has now been going on for three months or more. All the relevant documentation has been supplied, some several times over now, but he cannot have a passport because a document from his bank, a bank statement clearly showing his (our) address, is NOT regarded as acceptable evidence of who he is and where he lives. Let's pose a riposte to this from a slightly different angle .... are HIS bank going to post HIS personal banking statements to somewhere where HE DOESN'T LIVE? I think not!
The passport office actually wrote to his referee, a local and well-respected but now retired dentist (who is also a good friend of mine) several weeks ago asking him to confirm that Sids' passport application was indeed valid; this he duly did, both verbally and in writing, and so we thought the problem had been overcome. But no, yet more documentary evidence is required - please may we have a letter from your Employer, Doctor, Dentist, Bank or your Commanding Officer [if you are in the Forces], as further evidence of who you are, and where you live.
Sids asked his Doctor - "no, we can't do that because we have known you for only two years". His dentist - he doesn't have one - he cannot afford to go private, and NHS dentists in our area are now scarcer than the proverbial rocking horse droppings! He doesn't have an Employer - he's self-employed. He is not in the forces, so that option is a non-starter, which leaves his bank. So he took time off work to go and see his bank, but they won't do him a letter because they "don't personally know him"!
They fly, supposedly, on Monday next (16th July), but as the situation is now at a total impasse, that looks increasingly unlikely. The 'super rules' require an additional letter which provides proof of identity and of address, the only option he has is his bank, who are not willing to do so, for what are, to me, quite understandable reasons (they know who he is, but not WHO he is, if you get my drift - they don't personally know him). The passport office will not, under any circumstances, move their position even one millimetre.
I fully understand that obtaining a passport needs to be something that incorporates a good deal of checks on identity, but this is now getting ridiculous. They've had his birth certificate, his NI number, his tax references, driving licence, medical cards, referee's letter (plus a second follow up letter); they know all about his family back to great-grandparents and beyond; they know about his height, weight, eye and hair colour, blood type and probably even about his moles and tattoo; they probably even know about his speeding fine from a few years ago; but they won't believe that he is who he is and where he lives until he gets another piece of evidence that he is unable to obtain.
Every other government body apart from the passport office seems to know who he is, and where he currently lives. It would seem that the 'rules' have taken over from common sense in every respect - jobs-worths enforce the rules, there are NO exceptions under any circumstances.
So, if YOU are planning an overseas holiday and do not yet have a British passport, just make sure that:......
-You are NOT self-employed,
-You DO have a dentist,
-You have been with you doctor for AT LEAST two years,
-You have NOT changed address within the last few months,
-You DO personally know your bank manager,
..... because if you don't, you can say goodbye to your holiday; you can write off whatever you've already paid for it - the new super rules enforced by the jobs-worths at the passport office will see to that very efficiently for you; whilst they ensure that any potential evil international terrorists, those just like Sids, and just like YOU, are unable to obtain passports.
And yes, you've guessed it, most travel insurance will NOT pay out if you have to cancel because you cannot obtain a passport - that's your own fault!
Addendum:
Just one little question, but can any one explain this to me? If you are NOT a British citizen, but are an asylum seeker with a criminal record, intent on killing British citizens, like Muktar Ibrahim, the leader of the July 21st suicide bombing attempt (see The Telegraph), how can you get British citizenship and then a passport without any problems?
Addendum 2:
(11/7/2007)
A single telephone call of complaint to HSBC's head office about the refusal of one of their branches to provide a letter in evidence as to who Sids is and where he lives produced an immediate reaction. HSBC's Head Office pretty much instantly overturned the branch's negative decision and a confirmatory evidence letter that should be acceptable to the passport office jobs-worths is now on its way.
Let's hope it arrives in time for Sids to get up to Liverpool and get his passport sorted in time.
Fingers crossed everyone!
Update:
(12/7/2007)
Things are not really going too well. This morning, a letter arrived from the bank (HSBC) - apparently Sids & Bex got really excited until they opened it only to find ......... another simple reprinted bank statement showing his (our) address; an exact replica of the document that the passport office jobs-worths have already rejected as unacceptable as 'additional evidence of who he is'. Is the HSBC populated by utterly inept idiots or what? They are not coming out of this saga at all well.
OK, now to bring out the big guns. Heaven help HSBC, but Sids has now gotten his mum on the job. Several calls later, with threats to sue the bank for the loss of their holiday, the HSBC head office people agreed to fax a copy of the requisite letter to our nearest branch (Market Drayton).
Hmmmm .... now why couldn't they have faxed the document directly to the passport office on the morning of the 9/7/2007?
Off the youngsters went to pick up the said letter - only to find that the MD branch do NOT have a fax machine!! More phone calls from a now somewhat violently irate mum, lots of 'fleas in ears', so to speak, and the letter has finally been faxed to a branch in the potteries, where it is being picked up, and taken forthwith, up to the Liverpool passport office.
Let's hope that the passport office jobs-worths pull their fingers out and sort things out asap. Bearing in mind that there is another 24 hour postal strike starting at midnight tonight, I'm still not overtly optimistic that Sids' passport will arrive in time for them to fly off on holiday at 6:00 am monday next.
I'll still cross my fingers! (But they probably don't come anywhere near as 'cross' as Sids' mum is!)
Conclusion:
Finally, at 6:00 pm yesterday, after 5 hours at the passport office, Sids finally received his passport. A bit lucky really, as if his original application had not been in before the deadline, he would have fallen foul of the new rule whereby passports will only be posted to applicants. Given the postal strike, it would not have arrived by Saturday.
But, all's well that ends well, and off they will fly on Monday morning.
OK, its not enviro, re:use or re:cycle centric in any way shape or form, but this needs to be exposed, and what better place to start than a blog.
As a British Citizen, under the old rules, you simply had to prove who you were - birth certificate etc., provide some pictures, get someone to act as a referee, cough up a few quid, and there you go, a valid passport acceptable and recognisable across the planet.
Nowadays, under the new 'super rules' which are rabidly enforced by yet another legion of jobs-worths who don't appear to have a single iota of common sense between them, you have to provide whole reams of evidence, navigate a complex circuit of checks and re-checks, then jump through burning hoops whilst whistling dixie backwards, and then, there you go, the document to which you are entitled - your passport. Except, however, when the passport office still says .... No! Because that proof of who you are is not acceptable under the new rules.
"Computer says ...... Noooh." for those of you who are fans of Little Britain.
This is very close to me, very close, because it involves my step-daughter's boyfriend, who just happens to live, for now, whilst they save up towards enough to at least find their own flat, and eventually a first time house, with us. Now Sids (his nickname) is a really decent, honest guy; he works hard, long hours, even at weekends (he's a self employed joiner) , has never been in trouble in his life, and will help anybody out without complaint. He has no criminal record, is not in the least bit interested in politics, and certainly has no extremist views about anything at all. But, because of some ridiculous enforcement of some ill thought out new rules, it looks as if he (plus my step-daughter) is now going to miss out on his holiday, and almost certainly have to write off all of the cost of it.
The saga of his passport application has now been going on for three months or more. All the relevant documentation has been supplied, some several times over now, but he cannot have a passport because a document from his bank, a bank statement clearly showing his (our) address, is NOT regarded as acceptable evidence of who he is and where he lives. Let's pose a riposte to this from a slightly different angle .... are HIS bank going to post HIS personal banking statements to somewhere where HE DOESN'T LIVE? I think not!
The passport office actually wrote to his referee, a local and well-respected but now retired dentist (who is also a good friend of mine) several weeks ago asking him to confirm that Sids' passport application was indeed valid; this he duly did, both verbally and in writing, and so we thought the problem had been overcome. But no, yet more documentary evidence is required - please may we have a letter from your Employer, Doctor, Dentist, Bank or your Commanding Officer [if you are in the Forces], as further evidence of who you are, and where you live.
Sids asked his Doctor - "no, we can't do that because we have known you for only two years". His dentist - he doesn't have one - he cannot afford to go private, and NHS dentists in our area are now scarcer than the proverbial rocking horse droppings! He doesn't have an Employer - he's self-employed. He is not in the forces, so that option is a non-starter, which leaves his bank. So he took time off work to go and see his bank, but they won't do him a letter because they "don't personally know him"!
They fly, supposedly, on Monday next (16th July), but as the situation is now at a total impasse, that looks increasingly unlikely. The 'super rules' require an additional letter which provides proof of identity and of address, the only option he has is his bank, who are not willing to do so, for what are, to me, quite understandable reasons (they know who he is, but not WHO he is, if you get my drift - they don't personally know him). The passport office will not, under any circumstances, move their position even one millimetre.
I fully understand that obtaining a passport needs to be something that incorporates a good deal of checks on identity, but this is now getting ridiculous. They've had his birth certificate, his NI number, his tax references, driving licence, medical cards, referee's letter (plus a second follow up letter); they know all about his family back to great-grandparents and beyond; they know about his height, weight, eye and hair colour, blood type and probably even about his moles and tattoo; they probably even know about his speeding fine from a few years ago; but they won't believe that he is who he is and where he lives until he gets another piece of evidence that he is unable to obtain.
Every other government body apart from the passport office seems to know who he is, and where he currently lives. It would seem that the 'rules' have taken over from common sense in every respect - jobs-worths enforce the rules, there are NO exceptions under any circumstances.
So, if YOU are planning an overseas holiday and do not yet have a British passport, just make sure that:......
-You are NOT self-employed,
-You DO have a dentist,
-You have been with you doctor for AT LEAST two years,
-You have NOT changed address within the last few months,
-You DO personally know your bank manager,
..... because if you don't, you can say goodbye to your holiday; you can write off whatever you've already paid for it - the new super rules enforced by the jobs-worths at the passport office will see to that very efficiently for you; whilst they ensure that any potential evil international terrorists, those just like Sids, and just like YOU, are unable to obtain passports.
And yes, you've guessed it, most travel insurance will NOT pay out if you have to cancel because you cannot obtain a passport - that's your own fault!
Addendum:
Just one little question, but can any one explain this to me? If you are NOT a British citizen, but are an asylum seeker with a criminal record, intent on killing British citizens, like Muktar Ibrahim, the leader of the July 21st suicide bombing attempt (see The Telegraph), how can you get British citizenship and then a passport without any problems?
Addendum 2:
(11/7/2007)
A single telephone call of complaint to HSBC's head office about the refusal of one of their branches to provide a letter in evidence as to who Sids is and where he lives produced an immediate reaction. HSBC's Head Office pretty much instantly overturned the branch's negative decision and a confirmatory evidence letter that should be acceptable to the passport office jobs-worths is now on its way.
Let's hope it arrives in time for Sids to get up to Liverpool and get his passport sorted in time.
Fingers crossed everyone!
Update:
(12/7/2007)
Things are not really going too well. This morning, a letter arrived from the bank (HSBC) - apparently Sids & Bex got really excited until they opened it only to find ......... another simple reprinted bank statement showing his (our) address; an exact replica of the document that the passport office jobs-worths have already rejected as unacceptable as 'additional evidence of who he is'. Is the HSBC populated by utterly inept idiots or what? They are not coming out of this saga at all well.
OK, now to bring out the big guns. Heaven help HSBC, but Sids has now gotten his mum on the job. Several calls later, with threats to sue the bank for the loss of their holiday, the HSBC head office people agreed to fax a copy of the requisite letter to our nearest branch (Market Drayton).
Hmmmm .... now why couldn't they have faxed the document directly to the passport office on the morning of the 9/7/2007?
Off the youngsters went to pick up the said letter - only to find that the MD branch do NOT have a fax machine!! More phone calls from a now somewhat violently irate mum, lots of 'fleas in ears', so to speak, and the letter has finally been faxed to a branch in the potteries, where it is being picked up, and taken forthwith, up to the Liverpool passport office.
Let's hope that the passport office jobs-worths pull their fingers out and sort things out asap. Bearing in mind that there is another 24 hour postal strike starting at midnight tonight, I'm still not overtly optimistic that Sids' passport will arrive in time for them to fly off on holiday at 6:00 am monday next.
I'll still cross my fingers! (But they probably don't come anywhere near as 'cross' as Sids' mum is!)
Conclusion:
Finally, at 6:00 pm yesterday, after 5 hours at the passport office, Sids finally received his passport. A bit lucky really, as if his original application had not been in before the deadline, he would have fallen foul of the new rule whereby passports will only be posted to applicants. Given the postal strike, it would not have arrived by Saturday.
But, all's well that ends well, and off they will fly on Monday morning.
When the sh*t hits the pan
This doesn't look good: BBC's car show in salt pan storm
For an envirophile, I am often an odd defender of Jeremy Clarkson. But of late, and despite having money and profile and money enough not to need to stray as far into shock jock territory, he has rather persisted in saying some silly things just to keep the ratings up.
Now, it seems, he is party to doing them too.
In an era when conspicuous consumption is beginning to sink in as not necessarily the best plan in the world, for the world, whilst they exist for purchase I can still only defend his and his team's right to do whatever they want in the name of entertainment with ever more stupidly configured lumps of high-velocity tin. In fact, by such excess, it's possible that they may be adding ammo to the cause.
But this doesn't seem the smartest move coming, as it does, on top of the drive through pristine countryside here just to plonk a Land Rover atop an mountaintop.
Following that, you'd reckon they might just be sensitive to such issues, or maybe they thought no one would notice 'out there'.
The only thing that rings a little odd is the use of the word 'accused', which is media speak for 'perfectly legal but worth stirring up to see what sticks'. It is either a conservation area, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then while messing up some pretty scenery isn't that nice a thing to do, sadly there is not much one can do about it.
So I guess the best one get hope for is that it just doesn't look good. Like he would care.
For an envirophile, I am often an odd defender of Jeremy Clarkson. But of late, and despite having money and profile and money enough not to need to stray as far into shock jock territory, he has rather persisted in saying some silly things just to keep the ratings up.
Now, it seems, he is party to doing them too.
In an era when conspicuous consumption is beginning to sink in as not necessarily the best plan in the world, for the world, whilst they exist for purchase I can still only defend his and his team's right to do whatever they want in the name of entertainment with ever more stupidly configured lumps of high-velocity tin. In fact, by such excess, it's possible that they may be adding ammo to the cause.
But this doesn't seem the smartest move coming, as it does, on top of the drive through pristine countryside here just to plonk a Land Rover atop an mountaintop.
Following that, you'd reckon they might just be sensitive to such issues, or maybe they thought no one would notice 'out there'.
The only thing that rings a little odd is the use of the word 'accused', which is media speak for 'perfectly legal but worth stirring up to see what sticks'. It is either a conservation area, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then while messing up some pretty scenery isn't that nice a thing to do, sadly there is not much one can do about it.
So I guess the best one get hope for is that it just doesn't look good. Like he would care.
Sunday, July 08, 2007
Earthy Thoughts
Well, Live Earth has passed, at least the day itself, and it would be difficult to let it do so without some sort of comment.
I think I'll let others mostly do the talking (I'll add links at the bottom as I come across them, hopefully from a good spread) as I had/have no real problem with people giving their time for free (it would be churlish not to - and I find the number of snipes on performance quality a bit graceless, though if you charge for a gig I guess you need to be held for review), or the notion of massive coordinated entertainment as a method of awareness raising. But, as discussed in these pages before, it is more what others - ranging from the media to those they speak to - make of it all and take away from it... now and as the subsequent days pass.
There seem to have been three basic 'camps': those who saw it as a real force for change and/or liked the idea of a party, those who really didn't like any aspect of it at all, and those in the middle, like me, who were/are simply concerned about the ultimate message created by both the medium and the messengers.
I watched sporadically, becoming one of the 2 billion who apparently did so, leaving it late afternoon perhaps before it really 'warmed up' (Can't say the vibe came across as anything like Live Aid). Frankly what I as a viewer took away from it was mostly shaped by what happened during the intervals, and that was out of the hands of the organisers and those taking part. Can't say it was too encouraging. I don't know if it was an attempt at balance, or simply poor selection of talking heads, but to a celebrity-influenced culture (which is surely who the thing was/is mostly targeted at), the rather formulaic articulations of concern, and reasons for it, seemed to be rather outweighed by the sheer number of flip celebs who were dabbling with the notion of doing good by the planet to justify being on screen, but certainly were not going to change how they spend their money. Probably smart, with a tabloid paparazzi ready to catch them stepping out of Wembley into the Cayenne to get back to Islington, but disappointing. Here's hoping that beyond the UK and the BBC, other countries were a bit more 'on message'.
But, as warned, when you play with the celeb media you have to appreciate that you cannot control it. Their priority is what sells, and while they'll go along with anything that brings celebs into the camera frame, especially in large numbers, they also know what else will shift more copies before, during and after. Especially with a readership that does not enjoy the lifestyles of those who have taken it upon themselves to offer advice/opinion on how those of more modest means should conduct theirs.
One message I did hear from the commentary box, and not from the stage as money really is not a problem for this set, was to do what you can simply because it makes financial sense. Came across quite a lot, and I endorse that. So I hope it sunk in. Not so much go green, but go greed.
Sadly, in closing, I also note some others (Sheila Hancock on the Andrew Marr show as I do) who, like me, were left a bit unsure as to what exactly they were to do now. And if that's the case, bearing in mind the objective was 'awareness', one has to wonder what message ended up being served ultimately. But at least, for now, it has at least got a lot of folk talking.
ps: As I write this I watch the opening of the Tour de France, with the cyclists preceded by a Caravan of Sponsor vehicles that throw freebies to the crowds. I guess they missed the pledge. But then it was all so last year, er, week, er, day. And imagine what the country's focus will be later today if one of our favoured sons does well at Silverstone rushing around in circles in a fairly low mpg vehicle just for fun.
Guardian - The artists formerly known as huge carbon footprints - well, the headline kinda sest the tone
Observer - Rockin' all over the world (but just watch your carbon footprint)
The Independent - Live Earth: One big gesture for man, one giant problem for the Earth - with links at end to more, like this: So, Al Gore, what's the one thing we can all do to tackle climate change? Oh, and this, from another page: The Big Spend: The vision thing
The Times - Live Earth fails to pack large-scale punch - An odd, and rather mean thing to focus on, especially for a 'quality'
The Telegraph - Live Earth concerts kick off around the world - Can Live Earth really save the world?
Ho-hum, can I really face the tabloids?
Mirror - LIGHT OF MADGE DAZZLES - I'm sure there is soemthing in there about saving the planet too, but I couldn't find it
Mail - The greatest show on Live Earth rocks Wembley but leaves the world cold - Well, there was an ad for npower 'green' energy. Live Earth is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on? - I'm guessing they were not keen.
Express - ONE WORLD, ONE BEAT - All I could find. Not exactly what one would expect following the world's biggest music event.
People - DAY THE EARTH TURNED BLUE! - nothing like getting our priorities straight
News of the World - Green star is an eco disaster - I hate to say I told you so, but there was always the danger the messengers would be vying with the message.
BBC - Live Earth Wembley - the home page link, goes to others.
BBC - Live Earth gigs send eco-warning - interesting, if depressing, to read the comments. At least they are talking, I guess.
On a more positive note - Daily Grist: Live Earth was a smash hit, and more - Not exactly the headline even here, though. And I just heard on the BBC that the concert managed 1/3 of the Diana gig last week. So as smash hits go, maybe you had to be there.
One via Dave, who has kindly noted I may have mentioned this beforehand: Pretty big footprints
So... what was the enviROI?
The Ecologist - Live Earth: a short tragedie And they were there!
I think I'll let others mostly do the talking (I'll add links at the bottom as I come across them, hopefully from a good spread) as I had/have no real problem with people giving their time for free (it would be churlish not to - and I find the number of snipes on performance quality a bit graceless, though if you charge for a gig I guess you need to be held for review), or the notion of massive coordinated entertainment as a method of awareness raising. But, as discussed in these pages before, it is more what others - ranging from the media to those they speak to - make of it all and take away from it... now and as the subsequent days pass.
There seem to have been three basic 'camps': those who saw it as a real force for change and/or liked the idea of a party, those who really didn't like any aspect of it at all, and those in the middle, like me, who were/are simply concerned about the ultimate message created by both the medium and the messengers.
I watched sporadically, becoming one of the 2 billion who apparently did so, leaving it late afternoon perhaps before it really 'warmed up' (Can't say the vibe came across as anything like Live Aid). Frankly what I as a viewer took away from it was mostly shaped by what happened during the intervals, and that was out of the hands of the organisers and those taking part. Can't say it was too encouraging. I don't know if it was an attempt at balance, or simply poor selection of talking heads, but to a celebrity-influenced culture (which is surely who the thing was/is mostly targeted at), the rather formulaic articulations of concern, and reasons for it, seemed to be rather outweighed by the sheer number of flip celebs who were dabbling with the notion of doing good by the planet to justify being on screen, but certainly were not going to change how they spend their money. Probably smart, with a tabloid paparazzi ready to catch them stepping out of Wembley into the Cayenne to get back to Islington, but disappointing. Here's hoping that beyond the UK and the BBC, other countries were a bit more 'on message'.
But, as warned, when you play with the celeb media you have to appreciate that you cannot control it. Their priority is what sells, and while they'll go along with anything that brings celebs into the camera frame, especially in large numbers, they also know what else will shift more copies before, during and after. Especially with a readership that does not enjoy the lifestyles of those who have taken it upon themselves to offer advice/opinion on how those of more modest means should conduct theirs.
One message I did hear from the commentary box, and not from the stage as money really is not a problem for this set, was to do what you can simply because it makes financial sense. Came across quite a lot, and I endorse that. So I hope it sunk in. Not so much go green, but go greed.
Sadly, in closing, I also note some others (Sheila Hancock on the Andrew Marr show as I do) who, like me, were left a bit unsure as to what exactly they were to do now. And if that's the case, bearing in mind the objective was 'awareness', one has to wonder what message ended up being served ultimately. But at least, for now, it has at least got a lot of folk talking.
ps: As I write this I watch the opening of the Tour de France, with the cyclists preceded by a Caravan of Sponsor vehicles that throw freebies to the crowds. I guess they missed the pledge. But then it was all so last year, er, week, er, day. And imagine what the country's focus will be later today if one of our favoured sons does well at Silverstone rushing around in circles in a fairly low mpg vehicle just for fun.
Guardian - The artists formerly known as huge carbon footprints - well, the headline kinda sest the tone
Observer - Rockin' all over the world (but just watch your carbon footprint)
The Independent - Live Earth: One big gesture for man, one giant problem for the Earth - with links at end to more, like this: So, Al Gore, what's the one thing we can all do to tackle climate change? Oh, and this, from another page: The Big Spend: The vision thing
The Times - Live Earth fails to pack large-scale punch - An odd, and rather mean thing to focus on, especially for a 'quality'
The Telegraph - Live Earth concerts kick off around the world - Can Live Earth really save the world?
Ho-hum, can I really face the tabloids?
Mirror - LIGHT OF MADGE DAZZLES - I'm sure there is soemthing in there about saving the planet too, but I couldn't find it
Mail - The greatest show on Live Earth rocks Wembley but leaves the world cold - Well, there was an ad for npower 'green' energy. Live Earth is promoting green to save the planet - what planet are they on? - I'm guessing they were not keen.
Express - ONE WORLD, ONE BEAT - All I could find. Not exactly what one would expect following the world's biggest music event.
People - DAY THE EARTH TURNED BLUE! - nothing like getting our priorities straight
News of the World - Green star is an eco disaster - I hate to say I told you so, but there was always the danger the messengers would be vying with the message.
BBC - Live Earth Wembley - the home page link, goes to others.
BBC - Live Earth gigs send eco-warning - interesting, if depressing, to read the comments. At least they are talking, I guess.
On a more positive note - Daily Grist: Live Earth was a smash hit, and more - Not exactly the headline even here, though. And I just heard on the BBC that the concert managed 1/3 of the Diana gig last week. So as smash hits go, maybe you had to be there.
One via Dave, who has kindly noted I may have mentioned this beforehand: Pretty big footprints
So... what was the enviROI?
The Ecologist - Live Earth: a short tragedie And they were there!
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Music, Maestros, puh-lese!?
Not the first. Won't be the last: Live Earth in Newsnight
Technical hitch? See that panel? It's what I got when I tried to post this. Seems a tad low on explanation, not to mention unhelpful as to resolutions.
Interesting to ponder the relative number of comments for this issue vs., say, JP's tie. Ho hum.
Anyway, I have just watched the piece and see it as a worthy start point to what will doubtless become a fairly healthy debate about what the individual gets exhorted to do, can do, and does. Plus those who would take it upon themselves to 'help'.
This is TV. So you get powerful imagery and snappy sound bites. I was therefore unsurprised to see scenes of heavy industry and belching smokestacks, with the VO saying something like : 'it's about stopping them doing this... '. Ok, fine, but that ore being smelted goes towards a lot of iPods, CDS and custom 737s. I wonder how many will ponder the irony, or consequences of what they campaign against, as they party away. Or care.
But to offset this we get... planting trees. A bit unfair to select just this Joss Stone quote as I am sure there are... were others, and a bit more considered than hers. Sadly, while there are still some viable offsetting options of this nature, in this member of the public's mind the principle of whacking a fir in the firmament to 'deal' with the last gig, without really worrying what happens thereafter, has been rather discredited thanks to some, rather high-profile, 'offsetbacks'.
For what it's worth, if we are going to think forest, I'd advocate considering this from Newsnight's very own archives a few weeks ago: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-can-see-forest-and-trees.html
Though over in a flash, and a perhaps a tad over simplistic, the preamble about the 'Chinese' question was still telling. Seems it's for the US to start, and they'll wait, despite their own strategy predictions. Understandable in most ways, but a bit akin to the scene in Blazing Saddles where the black sheriff holds a gun to his own head, only this time the rest of the world's 'heads' attached in line: 'Cut emissions first, or we ALL get it'. Hmmn. 'Rein in your economy (and hence military spending), to allow us to catch up, and we promise we'll stop making dolls, and tanks, as soon as we have the same number of SUVs and a/cs'. Is that gonna happen?
I also don't recall too much by way of the vox pop responders' thoughts on the concert, as such.
Anyway, interesting to see two such well versed (and one presumes, paid) members of the green elite 'industry' in such polite debate. I'd have preferred a few from more challenging viewpoints across the table, with the interviewer being allowed to be more balanced in her critiques, which of necessity seemed to be too much in that role, with the authority her chairperson position confers.
I have to agree totally with the chap from Global Cool, though: the danger is in this being packaged, and hence viewed, as a one-off event. A bit like Ethical Man, where I was very disappointed to see all the year long 'good' in information and awareness rather undercut by it all... stopping. I felt the message left was unfortunate, with an impression that this is something one dabbles in, does a bit of, and then gets back to the real world of rampant consumerism, travel and anything else money can buy in pursuit of the next 'hit', fad or rating.
As stated, these are now ambassadors of, what? Doing 'what I say but not, necessarily, do?' It was accepted that they ''have" to fly around. So, I guess, does Air 'Well, it's not really practical for ME not to' Blair, plus of course all the carbon traders from the City, and ecojournos on book promos, and... er... who is left?
While not simple at all, we can surely accept that most of the problems from CO2 emissions can be pretty much laid at the door of the affluent consuming like stink. And you don't get much more affluent than rock stars. So it's hard to imagine them having all this wonga and not being a teensie bit tempted to blow it all on a few indulgences. And I reckon when they do, a tabloid will be ready and waiting. And while they may have offset their last hat-collection flight by buying half of Africa a solar cooker to prevent the inefficient burning of wood, Mondeo Man (and maybe even Pious Person in a green broadsheet) will be sitting in his tent in a monsoon in the Mendips, reading his Daily Mirror about Huffy Diddly on the beach in the Caribbean on a jet ski. And that may not play so well to the cause.
If they believe in what they are doing, and that it is their celebrity and not so much the music that really matters, if going to walk around the country with a big banner is not going to happen, I'd like to simply ask...why?
And, to be fair to them, has anyone asked? Seems a heck on an idea. Relevant too. As noted, we get an 'awareness' concert pretty much each week now.
Hence Saint Bob's rather colourful views on the actual need for more 'awareness' beyond boosting CD sales resonates, but for perhaps not the right reasons. We have the message. But what of the messengers? Joss and her popping a sapling in? For one night? It has the same effect on me as newspaper supplements on green travel offsetting that issue to show they are on board, yet still sending a correspondent the next week to cover a fur and Ferrari catwalk show in Antarctica to promote a 'see the polar bears before they're gone' competition. Pop your green token in the slot here.
I will be mostly in the garden today, as it is shaping up as a nice one. But I will be dipping in to the show when I can, if I can. I wish it... them... well, but really hope that the tangibles that are inspired from it are as positive as intended, and go a lot further than all I have heard about, which so far seems to be a pledge. I made one a while ago, and got a low energy bulb, which was nice. And useful.
ADDENDUM 1 - 1.30pm. - Just grabbing a bit to eat and watching the initial preparation, as covered by BBC2 (love the helicopter shot, guys, no irony. Unless it's stock footage, which it could be as I think we know what the stadium looks like from the air. If so, apologies). Hmmn. Jonathon Ross. Graham Norton. Jimmy Carr. Some other guy. Maybe the more appropriate guys and gals were out enjoying the sun. By my rough estimate, from this lot it was about 10% what they might be doing/do e-wise, and 90% 'it's a bit of a lark, and I can't wait to hear Madonna's special ditty'. Oh, and to David Shukman's (BBC Enviro Correspondent, who I last saw earlier this week at Venturefest) quip about turning off the TV, oh, how we laughed, as that would mean they were out of jobs. And now we also know JR is not giving up his plasma, as well, he just isn't (I'm guessing the scores of screens in the empty green elite rooms were low energy). So far, I think the message is not being best served by those tasked, on this channel at least, to dish it out, especially as I watch Chris Moyles (well known environmentalist) introduce Genesis, to what looks like a half empty stadium if what's red is an empty seat. What's all that about? Wimbledon? It's Genesis!!! Here's hoping that the artists can compensate in getting a better message across without such media support. Anyway, I'm off back outside to pop the grass clippings in the compost. No, really. I'm afraid, as far as I'm concerned, happiness is solar powered, and not from an amp, no matter how worthy.
BBC - Running Commentary from around the world - plus a bunch of links
Addendum 2 - 4.15pm - Teabreak. Well, at least the stadium seems to have filled up. Just seems weird it wasn't packed from the off. I'm sure it would be for a Cup Final. Maybe a security issue? Crowd seems to be having fun at least. And, at least, I say this totally without tongue in cheek, they had a nice day for it. No interference from the BBC talking heads this time, but so far I haven't heard an artist offer much either. Probably a good thing. Let the fact of being there, and the fun of the music, speak for itself.
Addendum 3 - 6.00pm - Post Chili Peppers break. Cut to Graham Norton in the 'VIP' section. Quite funny, as he didn't seem to feel there were any VIPs, except for those who are green VIPs, and that seemed not to impress him a great deal. Currently watching an actually sensible discussion between JR, Kate Silverton and David Shukman.
There seems to be quite some surprise that a lot of folk are quite happy to admit they are just here to have a good time and that the whole climate thing is ok, too. Some real, and warranted, concern that even more, especially of those writing in, are of the view the science is still being debated. We've discussed this before here, and the issue must be to get what we do know out there, honestly but also with enough oompf to persuade people to accept a change in behaviour is necessary.
Finally (as we are going out tonight), I was more than interested that the BBC pundits, in fact led by David Shukman, felt the 'pledge' was a tad ambitious. I have to say I agree. In know one school of negotiating thought is to aim high but agree a trade lower that is in fact where you want to be. I'm not so sure in this case. If the target looks too unattainable, there may be a danger that people simply don't even try. Baby steps, but lots of incremental ones, may be the order of the day. Anyway, should you choose to engage with them in the way requested, here is that pledge:
1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own CO2 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become "carbon neutral;"
3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the CO2;
4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis and building a sustainable, just, and prosperous world for the 21st century.
There may be mechanisms, but I have to say that, should I wish to engage with these (and in the main, why on earth wouldn't you?), I am none to sure what exactly to do next. It would be good to ensure that the momentum created is shaped and focused as well as can be. Not sure it is.
I think I'll close this post here. Tomorrow will doubtless offer a lot of material to chew on following the day's events. It will be interesting to see how it gets reported.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Live Earth - 2
Further to the original post [and I am sure what will not be the last] on the subject of Al's music industry supported global warming awareness raising campaign, I spotted something that is a genuinely nice example of publicity for a real home spun, rather than government or quango sponsored, 'let's go green' campaign.
The village of Ashton Hayes (Cheshire) started the UK's first Carbon Neutral Village project back in Jan 2006. Although they have since been publicised across many parts of this planet, a 10 minute eco-documentary film of their project is going to be screened as part of the Live Earth bash, possibly giving them, with a potential audience of 2 billion, the title of the planet's best known 'global village'.
Full story on CheshireOnline.
Big up for Ashton Hayes, and deservedly so.
The village of Ashton Hayes (Cheshire) started the UK's first Carbon Neutral Village project back in Jan 2006. Although they have since been publicised across many parts of this planet, a 10 minute eco-documentary film of their project is going to be screened as part of the Live Earth bash, possibly giving them, with a potential audience of 2 billion, the title of the planet's best known 'global village'.
Full story on CheshireOnline.
Big up for Ashton Hayes, and deservedly so.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
When it pours, who reigns?
Newsnight has a piece tonight on floods. I thought I'd pre-empt a tad, based on a key comment in their blurb.
'...finding that it's difficult to pin down who out of the agencies and local authorities on the ground is really in charge. '
So the money pours (sorry) in, but no one in government or quango who gets paid (handsomely, to retirement and beyond) to spend it like water (bit of a theme here) can even be identified, much less held to account.
Sums up the way are 'governed' these days pretty well, I'd say.
'...finding that it's difficult to pin down who out of the agencies and local authorities on the ground is really in charge. '
So the money pours (sorry) in, but no one in government or quango who gets paid (handsomely, to retirement and beyond) to spend it like water (bit of a theme here) can even be identified, much less held to account.
Sums up the way are 'governed' these days pretty well, I'd say.
Ad in£initum
Good question: Will PM Brown cut Labour’s adspend?
Me, the guy with a public service medium: "Gord, I hope not!"
Me, the poor taxpayer: "Gord, I hope so."
Me, the adman/publisher/parent who believes that persuasion is a great thing to invest in... if done well: "Gord. Whatever you do, just make sure the ROI's add up!"
I stand in awe of the sheer amount of guff being funded, by 'us', to persuade 'us' to do stuff. Most makes a lot of sense, though one could argue 'til the cows come home about the ethics of using public money to further certain agendas that may or may not be as in in the public interest as they might.
But where I get very concerned is when the vast amounts splurged seem to be placed with quangos to dispense, and the actual numbers all get a little lost in the wash, along with who is responsible, accountable, etc.
Take my pet area, the environment. We now have literally scores of NGOs, often it seems with overlapping remits, who first of all establish empires of offices, officers and... comms budgets.
Then they blow them. And, speaking personally as a strategist and creative, they blow them on some pretty odd or poor messages.
And even if there is measurement, the measures sometimes don't add up. If I had £20M to spend, I should reckon on a 7% 'increase in awareness', as I think I saw one such quango crow recently, as being pretty average. I only just put down a PR from another, with a vast online budget and lord alone knows how many staff, bigging up a site that has had 7,000 hits! Er... my aunty's has had more.
And then, to add insult to injury, one gets the odd tabloid expose of the sheer number of board members of said quangos whose already multi hundred thou salaries are further boosted by meeting and exceeding targets.
So let me get this straight. Our money is used to punt out endless comms to get us to do more (which may or may not actually help the real issue) to boost rates that help us fork out more in bonuses?
So... let's make that a qualified no to your question.
At least, not until the accountability is improved.
Me, the guy with a public service medium: "Gord, I hope not!"
Me, the poor taxpayer: "Gord, I hope so."
Me, the adman/publisher/parent who believes that persuasion is a great thing to invest in... if done well: "Gord. Whatever you do, just make sure the ROI's add up!"
I stand in awe of the sheer amount of guff being funded, by 'us', to persuade 'us' to do stuff. Most makes a lot of sense, though one could argue 'til the cows come home about the ethics of using public money to further certain agendas that may or may not be as in in the public interest as they might.
But where I get very concerned is when the vast amounts splurged seem to be placed with quangos to dispense, and the actual numbers all get a little lost in the wash, along with who is responsible, accountable, etc.
Take my pet area, the environment. We now have literally scores of NGOs, often it seems with overlapping remits, who first of all establish empires of offices, officers and... comms budgets.
Then they blow them. And, speaking personally as a strategist and creative, they blow them on some pretty odd or poor messages.
And even if there is measurement, the measures sometimes don't add up. If I had £20M to spend, I should reckon on a 7% 'increase in awareness', as I think I saw one such quango crow recently, as being pretty average. I only just put down a PR from another, with a vast online budget and lord alone knows how many staff, bigging up a site that has had 7,000 hits! Er... my aunty's has had more.
And then, to add insult to injury, one gets the odd tabloid expose of the sheer number of board members of said quangos whose already multi hundred thou salaries are further boosted by meeting and exceeding targets.
So let me get this straight. Our money is used to punt out endless comms to get us to do more (which may or may not actually help the real issue) to boost rates that help us fork out more in bonuses?
So... let's make that a qualified no to your question.
At least, not until the accountability is improved.
Green Rush
Jumping on the big ‘green’ bandwagon - quite.
We are just at the start of a flood ('scuse the tasteless pun) of 'look how green we are' ads. Most, so far, fill me with dread, simply by the sheer crassness of the message, bolted on top of a usually pretty thin actual initiative.
And it's got me to wondering just how much longer it will... can continue. Because if in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, then if all in the land have gone green, to stand out from the crowd (which, let's face it, is pretty much what A&P is) those in charge of the purse strings may either tire or seek to differentiate. And much as it may seem attractive, I can only see Mutually Assured Greenification as being taken so far.
As one whose philosophy is pretty much predicated on the value of persuasion and seeing good environmental practice as an opportunity to embrace rather than a problem to 'deal with', I nonetheless cannot also help but think what could be DONE to help make this a better planet for future generations with £7.5M, rather than blowing it on a campaign to blow green smoke up various orifices.
No wonder the majority of the consuming public think it's all a bit of a lark.
We are just at the start of a flood ('scuse the tasteless pun) of 'look how green we are' ads. Most, so far, fill me with dread, simply by the sheer crassness of the message, bolted on top of a usually pretty thin actual initiative.
And it's got me to wondering just how much longer it will... can continue. Because if in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, then if all in the land have gone green, to stand out from the crowd (which, let's face it, is pretty much what A&P is) those in charge of the purse strings may either tire or seek to differentiate. And much as it may seem attractive, I can only see Mutually Assured Greenification as being taken so far.
As one whose philosophy is pretty much predicated on the value of persuasion and seeing good environmental practice as an opportunity to embrace rather than a problem to 'deal with', I nonetheless cannot also help but think what could be DONE to help make this a better planet for future generations with £7.5M, rather than blowing it on a campaign to blow green smoke up various orifices.
No wonder the majority of the consuming public think it's all a bit of a lark.
DEFRA Appoints Heavyweight
In ol' Golden's new team we have a new Environment Minister that we know little about at all, and have so far heard little from at all.
Hoewever, DEFRA appear to have made a significant appointment today. Professor Robert Watson, no less than the one time chair of the IPCC, and currently Chief Scientist and Senior Advisor for Sustainable Development at the World Bank, has been brought in as their new Cheif Scientific Advisor. From the Government News Network.
Let's hope his new role can prove influential in bringing Hilary Benn up to speed in what is surely going to become an increasingly important ministerial position.
Addendum:
I spotted this from BYM News - strange that nobody else seems to have reported Hilary Benn's (aka, in the tabloids now, 'Veggie Benn') comments from the Local Government Associations conference at all.
"Nothing is of greater importance to all of us today than the environment and the future of our planet. As councils and national governments we need to work together with citizens and businesses to provide a clean and green local environment and make sure that we are all tackling climate change and making best use of the world's limited resources. It's a task for all of us, G8 leader and council leader alike, and citizens too. This is the new politics; personal responsibility, not leaving it to others. I am my planet's keeper."
Well, that sounds quite encouraging, Hilary Benn certainly knows how to talk the talk - let's hope he follows up his words with genuine actions.
Hoewever, DEFRA appear to have made a significant appointment today. Professor Robert Watson, no less than the one time chair of the IPCC, and currently Chief Scientist and Senior Advisor for Sustainable Development at the World Bank, has been brought in as their new Cheif Scientific Advisor. From the Government News Network.
Let's hope his new role can prove influential in bringing Hilary Benn up to speed in what is surely going to become an increasingly important ministerial position.
Addendum:
I spotted this from BYM News - strange that nobody else seems to have reported Hilary Benn's (aka, in the tabloids now, 'Veggie Benn') comments from the Local Government Associations conference at all.
"Nothing is of greater importance to all of us today than the environment and the future of our planet. As councils and national governments we need to work together with citizens and businesses to provide a clean and green local environment and make sure that we are all tackling climate change and making best use of the world's limited resources. It's a task for all of us, G8 leader and council leader alike, and citizens too. This is the new politics; personal responsibility, not leaving it to others. I am my planet's keeper."
Well, that sounds quite encouraging, Hilary Benn certainly knows how to talk the talk - let's hope he follows up his words with genuine actions.
Houses in order
I'm sorry, I can't let this - In denial - pass unremarked.Actually a pretty decent article, and the comments in reply will be interesting (not that I can make any, as I seem to have been 'de-listed' as a verified respondent, which is frustrating).
But...
Look at the ad panel at the top. It's for Land Rover. Now I don't have as big an issue as some about 4x4s, but this is about a journey from 3 separate sources in Europe, and I very much doubt most will require four wheel drive.
So who is in denial? The public? Or the media or claim to be promoting good environmental practice whilst unable to resist making a buck or two in any way they can? I have sympathy for such as ourselves, currently subject to an automated system, but this is a major medium well able to decide it can no longer reconcile deeds that do not match words.
At least, if they wish to remain credible in my eyes.
ADDENDUM - I am now back in their good books. Apparently I got 'deleted' from the system because of bouncing emails. Sounds painful.
The delay was worth it, if only for a very interesting insight from a poster about the way the stats were interpreted. Well worth reading to see how what is published can get re-published in a different way entirely.
ADDENDUM 2 - Having been, possibly with reason, ignored for trying to raise the issue of media hypocrisy, I have decided to try a new tack to see if I can tweak a scientist to reply:
Some smart cookies here. So I'll ask a question I asked at the Venturefest in Harwell, with another bunch of very smart cookies (boffin and banker variety) all trying to figure out how to make money from climate change (there didn't seem much doubt it was happening, or that meddling with man's contribution was going to be BIG!).
What about deforestation?
A wee while ago I saw a small piece on Newsnight that had the loss of carbon sink from this as being in excess of the output of CO2 from the US.
Now it seems to me that, if we are worried about timescales and immediate enviROIs, sweating the trivia (plastic bags and 4x4s and even budget flights) pales into insignificance in importance to simply stopping the erosion of a mature, active and operational mitigation system.
Now I know the UK is but an acorn the great 'may contain nuts' collection of intolerances that make up our global Caesar's salad. But surely, with the power and influence of our City and high powered diplomats like Air Blair and David Miliband, we can devote some effort, with some degree of success, in tackling an immediate and real issue as a matter of priority? As opposed to, say, offsetting tomorrow's concert by paying for a fir being whacked in the firmament, hoping it doesn't croak and gets to do its job in a decade. Or trading some family's holiday allowance with a German construction company to help fund the subsidy for them to plant a wind farm that may not be quite as efficient, as often as the press release claims.
Ok, you can now all go back to squabbling over whether anything is happening or not.
Greenism
I'm stumped. I've been it before. I will be again. And I certainly am now. And it is epitomised by this: MEP HITS OUT AT MEDIA OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOUBT...
... from a press release which I print in full here:
LUCAS LIKENS CLIMATE SCEPTICISM TO HOLOCAUST DENIAL - GREEN MEP Caroline Lucas has hit out at the media after a poll revealed that a majority of people in the UK believe that scientists aren’t agreed about the facts of climate change – or that it is being caused by human activity. According to latest figures by pollsters Ipsos-MORI, some 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”. Just 22 per cent disagreed. Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Climate Change committees, said: “This is very worrying. Politicians will never take the steps necessary to cut emissions unless voters demand that they do so, and they won’t demand it if they remain sceptical about their role in changing the climate in the first place. “The media are, at least in part, to blame: their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t manmade, as though there is a serious ongoing scientific debate about this. “But the fact is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: almost every scientist in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that it is being fuelled by human activity, and that our best chance of ameliorating its worst impacts lies in dramatically cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. “By suggesting otherwise the media is, albeit inadvertently, promoting dangerous scepticism about climate change – and undermining our chances of doing anything about it.” Dr Lucas, who was named Politician of the Year in the recent Observer Ethical Awards 2007, likened climate change scepticism to holocaust denial. “The media’s attempt to seem balanced is in fact distorting the public’s understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue facing us all today – and it’s tragic. It doesn’t make any sense: would the media insist on having a holocaust-denier to balance any report about the second word war? Of course not - but by insisting on giving so much airtime to climate change deniers, it is doing exactly the same thing.”
This is yet another, oddly familiar salvo, that can be added to the exchanges noted of late, including some we've had most latterly on these very pages just yesterday.
Here I am, trying to do my best to do what's best for my kids' futures on this planet, and I seem to have found myself in the BOFDi camp.
Let me be clear. I think the evidence for climate change (Global warming is getting pretty discredited as a term , at least to use in public debate, as low temperatures and flash floods are hard to reconcile with the term) is pretty clear. I also believe that, at best, what mankind is doing sure isn't helping. So anything we do... now... in mitigation to slow, halt and reverse the process is a priority, especially as, to this 'live for tomorrow' society, we are talking efforts that equate to turning a supertanker, inasmuch as what we do today won't get noticed - good or bad - for several decades.
But...
I simply cannot go along with the notion that 'green is always good', and in the name of climate change action all manner of statements and/or initiatives can be allowed to go undebated as to validity and value. I guess it is one of the greater failings of the democratic process, especially when time is of the essence.
But while I have great respect for Dr. Lucas, when I see such as this '...their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening...' I have to fall on the side of a much maligned (usually by me) media.
What is she saying? That 'we' shouldn't try to be balanced? There is an inherent arrogance here, that the majority are not to fit to make up their own minds up, and need to have only what is fit to shape them spoonfed by independent sources, such (well, within certain boundaries of credibility) as the media.
If the naysayers are holding sway, why are the majority of people accepting their stances? This is what needs to be addressed, and in ways civilised society is used to and must expect: debate and persuasion.
I simply can't accept you 'rig' it to suit your point of view prevailing, not matter how urgent the need to get moving.
And let's not forget, as noted also on these pages, climate change is also being used as a very convenient tool to excuse, distract from or otherwise promote activities that do still bear scrutiny, along with the agendas of those making the most noise, and with the most to profit from ROI over enviROI, especially if... when... they become the Gods of Green, whose word is taken as gospel with no naysaying permitted.
I'd hate to get to a situation similar to the one often found, for instance with Africa, where legitimate concerns on activities conducted and claims made can be easily deflected by accusations of 'racism'.
Please not let's have 'greenism' being bandied about in the same way.
... from a press release which I print in full here:
LUCAS LIKENS CLIMATE SCEPTICISM TO HOLOCAUST DENIAL - GREEN MEP Caroline Lucas has hit out at the media after a poll revealed that a majority of people in the UK believe that scientists aren’t agreed about the facts of climate change – or that it is being caused by human activity. According to latest figures by pollsters Ipsos-MORI, some 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement: “Many leading experts still question if human activity is contributing to climate change”. Just 22 per cent disagreed. Dr Lucas, who is a member of the European Parliament’s Environment and Climate Change committees, said: “This is very worrying. Politicians will never take the steps necessary to cut emissions unless voters demand that they do so, and they won’t demand it if they remain sceptical about their role in changing the climate in the first place. “The media are, at least in part, to blame: their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening, or that it isn’t manmade, as though there is a serious ongoing scientific debate about this. “But the fact is that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change: almost every scientist in the world agrees that climate change is happening, that it is being fuelled by human activity, and that our best chance of ameliorating its worst impacts lies in dramatically cutting global greenhouse gas emissions. “By suggesting otherwise the media is, albeit inadvertently, promoting dangerous scepticism about climate change – and undermining our chances of doing anything about it.” Dr Lucas, who was named Politician of the Year in the recent Observer Ethical Awards 2007, likened climate change scepticism to holocaust denial. “The media’s attempt to seem balanced is in fact distorting the public’s understanding of perhaps the most pressing issue facing us all today – and it’s tragic. It doesn’t make any sense: would the media insist on having a holocaust-denier to balance any report about the second word war? Of course not - but by insisting on giving so much airtime to climate change deniers, it is doing exactly the same thing.”
This is yet another, oddly familiar salvo, that can be added to the exchanges noted of late, including some we've had most latterly on these very pages just yesterday.
Here I am, trying to do my best to do what's best for my kids' futures on this planet, and I seem to have found myself in the BOFDi camp.
Let me be clear. I think the evidence for climate change (Global warming is getting pretty discredited as a term , at least to use in public debate, as low temperatures and flash floods are hard to reconcile with the term) is pretty clear. I also believe that, at best, what mankind is doing sure isn't helping. So anything we do... now... in mitigation to slow, halt and reverse the process is a priority, especially as, to this 'live for tomorrow' society, we are talking efforts that equate to turning a supertanker, inasmuch as what we do today won't get noticed - good or bad - for several decades.
But...
I simply cannot go along with the notion that 'green is always good', and in the name of climate change action all manner of statements and/or initiatives can be allowed to go undebated as to validity and value. I guess it is one of the greater failings of the democratic process, especially when time is of the essence.
But while I have great respect for Dr. Lucas, when I see such as this '...their obsession with appearing to be balanced means discussions of climate change tend to have a naysayer arguing either that climate change isn’t happening...' I have to fall on the side of a much maligned (usually by me) media.
What is she saying? That 'we' shouldn't try to be balanced? There is an inherent arrogance here, that the majority are not to fit to make up their own minds up, and need to have only what is fit to shape them spoonfed by independent sources, such (well, within certain boundaries of credibility) as the media.
If the naysayers are holding sway, why are the majority of people accepting their stances? This is what needs to be addressed, and in ways civilised society is used to and must expect: debate and persuasion.
I simply can't accept you 'rig' it to suit your point of view prevailing, not matter how urgent the need to get moving.
And let's not forget, as noted also on these pages, climate change is also being used as a very convenient tool to excuse, distract from or otherwise promote activities that do still bear scrutiny, along with the agendas of those making the most noise, and with the most to profit from ROI over enviROI, especially if... when... they become the Gods of Green, whose word is taken as gospel with no naysaying permitted.
I'd hate to get to a situation similar to the one often found, for instance with Africa, where legitimate concerns on activities conducted and claims made can be easily deflected by accusations of 'racism'.
Please not let's have 'greenism' being bandied about in the same way.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Wonder if Al has an iPod?
OK, cheap (ish) shot. But in a way it's symptomatic of what 'we' are facing: Gadget boom to drive up energy demand
From Live Earth to events like the one I just attended (review still coming), I am getting more and more convinced that the wrong things are being fussed over by the wrong people for the wrong reasons... possibly to the great glee of those with vested interests in just such things happening (cripes, I'm sounding almost as Conspiracy Theorist as Dave!).
We have all this effort on the consumer end of packaging disposal when so much more can, and should be done at the point it is created. We have vast campaigns on switching off when the things are still being made... and with no easy way to operate as others would require. Flights are to be taxed, yet airports created. Quango after quango created and funded to spend bazillions telling us to do things we either don't 'get', can't do or don't believe, yet meanwhile some truly effective big hits are left ignored.
Not. Joined. Up.
From Live Earth to events like the one I just attended (review still coming), I am getting more and more convinced that the wrong things are being fussed over by the wrong people for the wrong reasons... possibly to the great glee of those with vested interests in just such things happening (cripes, I'm sounding almost as Conspiracy Theorist as Dave!).
We have all this effort on the consumer end of packaging disposal when so much more can, and should be done at the point it is created. We have vast campaigns on switching off when the things are still being made... and with no easy way to operate as others would require. Flights are to be taxed, yet airports created. Quango after quango created and funded to spend bazillions telling us to do things we either don't 'get', can't do or don't believe, yet meanwhile some truly effective big hits are left ignored.
Not. Joined. Up.
Sometimes you ask the right questions .....
.... but you get the wrong answers ..... sometimes you may get the right answers, but by asking the wrong questions. Sometimes you think you are right, and you are not.
I hate being wrong, I always have; but I hate things that hide the truth, or what potentially may be the truth, whether deliberately, or by silence, even more. So when you come across something that casts an entirely different light on a subject that you've being banging on about, you just have to swallow your pride and share it - whether it is actually right, or wrong, or neither.
Confused? .............. Then allow me to elucidate.
A little while back I posted a few items either on, or that mentioned, the potential geo-political outcomes of global warming - famine, mass migration, wars etc. and about how even the UN was assessing current conflicts such as that in Sudan as being a direct consequence of global warming that has occured already.
See 18th June - Arms dealing - the career of the future?
and 21st June - Today's forecast - heavy wars.
So it was with great interest that I came across this piece on Sudan's oil production activities.
Some very interesting facts appear in this:-
"Sudan only started producing and exporting oil in July 1999, with the completion of an export pipeline that runs from central Sudan to the Red Sea port of Bashair."
"Sudan is now the third largest crude oil producer in Africa." (I knew it had some minor oilfields - but third behind only Nigeria and Angola - in less than a decade!!)
"The Sudanese Energy Ministry estimates total oil reserves at five billion barrels." (Nice little asset to sit on.)
"Sudanese sources estimate that Darfur and Kordofan may be the areas richest in oil in the entire country."
So where is this going? Well, take another look at THAT region name in the last statement again, and then take a look at concession block 6 on the map in the attached link. Block 6 is reckoned to be the most promising as far as future production is concerned (i.e. read - the biggest oilfields).
Block 6 just happens to sit right across a big chunk of the Darfur region.
So the prolonged drought has forced conflict between the farmers and nomadic groups and there is insufficient water to go around?
Excuse me for being ironic - but now I'm beginning to think all is not at is seems, and not as we have been led to believe. Methinks I smell the very strong stench of PetroDollars in the air. And do I detect, perhaps, just a whiff of PetroDollar funded ethnic cleansing in Darfur? Perhaps I'm adding 2 + 2 and making 5, but it has certainly made me think again.
What do our readers think?
And I'm not even going to mention the fact that both the Chinese and the West, including the US (despite current sanctions), have major oil exploration and exploitation activities going on in Sudan, to muddy the mix even more.
Oh, I just did. Sorry.
And sorry for being wrong - well, maybe wrong.
Addendum:
Is there anybody out there who subscribes to The Irish Times who might let us know what the main thrust of this article (5/7/2007) is?
UN hides behind climate change to mask Darfur inaction.
I hate being wrong, I always have; but I hate things that hide the truth, or what potentially may be the truth, whether deliberately, or by silence, even more. So when you come across something that casts an entirely different light on a subject that you've being banging on about, you just have to swallow your pride and share it - whether it is actually right, or wrong, or neither.
Confused? .............. Then allow me to elucidate.
A little while back I posted a few items either on, or that mentioned, the potential geo-political outcomes of global warming - famine, mass migration, wars etc. and about how even the UN was assessing current conflicts such as that in Sudan as being a direct consequence of global warming that has occured already.
See 18th June - Arms dealing - the career of the future?
and 21st June - Today's forecast - heavy wars.
So it was with great interest that I came across this piece on Sudan's oil production activities.
Some very interesting facts appear in this:-
"Sudan only started producing and exporting oil in July 1999, with the completion of an export pipeline that runs from central Sudan to the Red Sea port of Bashair."
"Sudan is now the third largest crude oil producer in Africa." (I knew it had some minor oilfields - but third behind only Nigeria and Angola - in less than a decade!!)
"The Sudanese Energy Ministry estimates total oil reserves at five billion barrels." (Nice little asset to sit on.)
"Sudanese sources estimate that Darfur and Kordofan may be the areas richest in oil in the entire country."
So where is this going? Well, take another look at THAT region name in the last statement again, and then take a look at concession block 6 on the map in the attached link. Block 6 is reckoned to be the most promising as far as future production is concerned (i.e. read - the biggest oilfields).
Block 6 just happens to sit right across a big chunk of the Darfur region.
So the prolonged drought has forced conflict between the farmers and nomadic groups and there is insufficient water to go around?
Excuse me for being ironic - but now I'm beginning to think all is not at is seems, and not as we have been led to believe. Methinks I smell the very strong stench of PetroDollars in the air. And do I detect, perhaps, just a whiff of PetroDollar funded ethnic cleansing in Darfur? Perhaps I'm adding 2 + 2 and making 5, but it has certainly made me think again.
What do our readers think?
And I'm not even going to mention the fact that both the Chinese and the West, including the US (despite current sanctions), have major oil exploration and exploitation activities going on in Sudan, to muddy the mix even more.
Oh, I just did. Sorry.
And sorry for being wrong - well, maybe wrong.
Addendum:
Is there anybody out there who subscribes to The Irish Times who might let us know what the main thrust of this article (5/7/2007) is?
UN hides behind climate change to mask Darfur inaction.
Big Plastic. Big Oil. Big Recycle?
This, going around and coming around from the ever useful Red Ferret: Hawk 10 turns plastic back into oil - seagulls rejoice
What's not to like? Well, here's hoping they don't use the oil so gained to stick in the nearest Prius' fuel hole.
Assuming it's the ultimate in recycling, and unless I have missed a trick, there's the ocean of plastic my local council won't... yet... take, too.
Mind you, as a lot of my site is about turning them into other, equally useful things, do keep back a few. You never know when they may come in handy!
What's not to like? Well, here's hoping they don't use the oil so gained to stick in the nearest Prius' fuel hole.
Assuming it's the ultimate in recycling, and unless I have missed a trick, there's the ocean of plastic my local council won't... yet... take, too.
Mind you, as a lot of my site is about turning them into other, equally useful things, do keep back a few. You never know when they may come in handy!
RE:visitation rites
Here I am pondering how posts to old blog topics get archived and notified, and someone has helpfully added to the archive.
I think it best I repost to give it the best chance of being shared properly.
The post in question was Nothing like a good conference , and I am happy to share it again here.
Indeed, having read the link (sadly, finding the time for a 50 minute show is beyond me at the moment, much though it looks well worth the time over lunch or an evening surf) I am even happier, as it also introduces the PSFK site too.
As blogger replies can't, or at least complicates posting HTML links, let me repost the URL here.
As an ex(ish) ad-man, it is interesting to see the next generation struggling to get to grips with the dilemma of promoting rampant capitalism and one's personal duty as a green-aware individual to practice and preach the 'RE's'.
I think it best I repost to give it the best chance of being shared properly.
The post in question was Nothing like a good conference , and I am happy to share it again here.
Indeed, having read the link (sadly, finding the time for a 50 minute show is beyond me at the moment, much though it looks well worth the time over lunch or an evening surf) I am even happier, as it also introduces the PSFK site too.
As blogger replies can't, or at least complicates posting HTML links, let me repost the URL here.
As an ex(ish) ad-man, it is interesting to see the next generation struggling to get to grips with the dilemma of promoting rampant capitalism and one's personal duty as a green-aware individual to practice and preach the 'RE's'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)