Political common sense shock!

Of course it may be a tad early to cheer too much: Brown to lobby EU on greener VAT

Words and phrases like 'to (as opposed to 'will') lobby (as opposed to 'get in their faces')' and 'push for' (which means?) or 'would seek' (and ye need not necessarily find?) rather make it in the realms of a punt... or, rather, pledge.

And you have gotta love this bit: 'The European Commission welcomed the initiative but said it would require agreement from all 27 member states.' I stand ready to be disabused, but that sounds like 'Yo, Gordo. Still settling in and need to show you're in charge, eh? Sure, we'll help a bit. But the answer is going to be no, ok? But you knew that, right?'

Huge idea, though. Wonder why no one thought of, and/or suggested it before/

Especially as we're trying to encourage better enviro-practice all round.

ps: Is it just me, but is everyone's nearby river coming through their front door?

Swings. Roundabouts. And other low carbon exercises.

More like snakes and ladders! I have just had though an advisory that there is now a bunch of stuff up on the Guardian Climate Change Summit site.

That's the good news. The bad news is that it has reminder me that I completely forgot to finish off my review, and now can't find my notes.

Watch this space (well, key it in to the labels box).

Well, 3 out of 4 ain't bad

It's a wet, grey, miserable Friday. So let's start with a grump.

I can see it's a lawnmower, and that's it's cordless. I'll accept quiet.

But... pollution-free?

Yet again, there seems to be confusion as the existence of an exhaust pipe in the process of delivering the energy to the wheels.

Keep off the grass

I was going to spend the day's end linking to all the Auntie-bashing in the tabs, but really, life is too short.

I think we know what they'll all be saying, and then doing exactly the same on their own pages tomorrow.

So I figured I'd share this instead, which I noticed as I walked the boys home today.

I'm guessing that Woolies haven't quite got their heads round greenwashing as a dark art quite yet. Refreshing honesty, though.

Yee-haa! Blast that lawn with the best the labs can brew up!

Google Bads

As it's 'in vogue', I will apologise unreservedly for something unacceptable.

What might make me a tad different to a few others who one might mention, is that I will try and sort this out for real.

I can't fire anyone. And I can't withhold my business (well I could, I guess, but I think trying to sort it out may be the best solution as they are free, and the only game in town).

However, I am going to try and track a person in Google Ads and ask them to stop allowing ads for things that really are not appropriate going on my site.

It's a long shot, and does highlight a problem, not just for me, but the mighty Google.

Because these puppies are automated, and it looks like a few greenwashing corporates have figured out that adding a key phrase or two on your sadder than sad message does get you places who would not ordinarily open their door to you.

Smart sods. But we will foil your plan! Hahahaha... manically.

Yours in sorrow...

FIRST STAB: I new this wouldn't be easy. So far all I have found is a help link that takes me to a Forum

My blog is on my site, and both have ads placed by AdSense.

Now I know that these things are (have to be) automated), but I just got - rightly - ribbed for an ad sitting atop my environmental site blog, from ExxonMobile.

I guess it is because they were/are claiming that they are helping the environment... er... somehow, but really.

Who the heck do I get in touch with to discuss filtering such guff out.

And, frankly, if major greenwashing corporates can circumvent the system this easily, then Google needs to up its vetting game.

What next? Porn ads in kids' sites simply by adding the word 'toys' to their tags?

ADDENDUM -

Hey the system works! A most useful reply already. On the case.

Door show

Trust?

Look... there... a framed orifice through which you can pass from one place to another.

Apparently, from now on, if anyone in the BBC does something 'naughty' (my flip word for a broad tranche of policy, journalistic and editorial 'lapses'), they will be 'shown the door'.

So says an evidently irritated DG, Mark Thompson, who looks like he has much better things to do than deal with the public's views on his outfit. Apparently this is how trust will be regained. A fair task, given what's in this blog and the papers today. And will putting staff on a course (I presume at the licence payers expense) resolve this... I doubt it. And truly resent wasting such funds on a mop up which is more of a backside covering effort of tissuelike thinness than anything tangible. As are allusions to compensation. Using what mechanisms? What money? From where? To whom?

However, in the spirit of 'moving on', which is the phrase du jour of all senior (and, in the old days, responsible/accountable) executives/pols, it looks like this will be the latest free pass bestowed on all complicit in misleading the viewing public. And if that is the case again, why on earth should anyone trust anything said or done in the future.

While charitable financial dodginess is bad enough, I can't help but note that we have also moved from what in many ways I see as a much more critical issue to address, and that is the notion, which seems endemic and to pervade every level of the organisation, that reality and truth are entirely adjustable to improve ratin... er... the story.

In a cosy fire side chat with the boss, some quite remarkable things are covered and, essentially, dismissed.

I think I heard the word unacceptable several times. It becomes rather meaningless if in the same breaths it becomes pretty clear a lot has been and is accepted.

Short term contracts and pressure/ may be reasons, but they are not excuses. And while they can be responsible for a lot of things, they can surely not be held accountable for swapping critical chronologies in news items to 'enhance reality'... in the name of what? It is only now that I find out that reordering is 'not good practice'. It blooming well is a darn site more than that if it changes meaning, or has the DG not read the posts on this blog on the matter.

So there is a duty to have an 'eye to the culture'. Do what? And, er, only now? And an 'eye' will really sort it, for sure.

Great play was also made of how open 'they' are all being now. You know, if George Washington was not found standing next to that felled tree with an axe, one wonders just how open he would have been if not challenged. It's all being treated as a bit of a one off that will blow over, which of course it will.

We get the obligatory resignation question, with the standard 'best for the person who got us in this situation to dig us out of it and prevent future repeats' reply, which worked so well for Charles Clarke.

If these things happen, and they are not for 'personal gain', why do it? Of course it is for personal gain, because you gain personally from the salary and status of your career. And to progress that means satisfying the demands of your job, which means your superiors. It's hardly anything to do with training or lack of it... it is policy. Yet again we are seeing those at the sharp end being used as a buffer and deflection from those above who are really responsible and should be accountable, and then 'sacrificed' (and then pardoned) with a 'jolly good telling to' on an internal basis.

This is not a one off. It has been a whole series, and in a short time. And nothing I have heard or seen leads me to suspect that anything has or will be done beyond short-term damage limitation.

And that's all we have time for. Moving on...

Trust? Don't talk to me about trust.

Indy - BBC reveals further cases of fake phone-ins -
Indy - When broadcasters become the news

There will be more, I'm sure...

BBC - BBC boss backed in phone scandal - Well, there's a shock
Creative Match - BBC confess to 'disrespecting the audience' in phone in scam

What worries me as much, is how the 'issue' has now moved onto the equally (if not legally/financially even more) significant area of phone-ins, but we have 'moved on' (key phrase of any senior exec trying to protect tushie) from the fact that a) the truth is out there... waaaaaay out there... and b) the odd notion that there's no much wrong with a little 'enhanced reality (ie: outright fabrication) between feral fiends of the media and the public in this new Big Brother short-contract, high pressure, yoof-media 'professional' age.

I used to, only half-jokingly, write that something I read was on the BBC 'so it must be true'. Oh, the irony.

Gaurdian - Comic Relief among shows that deceived BBC viewers
Gaurdian - Trust angry over charity appeal lies
Guardian - Ofcom gets tough and says broadcasters are in denial - ya think???!
Guardian - Newsdesk notes for Thursday July 19
Guardian - Does the BBC deserve its public "shaming"?
Guardian - Don't believe all you see on TV - I think they'r ekeen on this!

I couldn't face the Tabs and Tories, as I rather suspect they will be a tad to the right of my own thinking only with a slight whiff of 'holier than thou'.

Indy - In defence of the BBC - Well it does need it a bit. Plus several side bar links worth scoping

I find this telling, though: Harriet Harman, Labour's deputy leader, resisted calls from Conservative MPs for the Government to intervene. She told the House of Commons: "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."

I felt moved to write under the heading 'Apples. Oranges. And Lemons':

Excuse me? Harriet Harman says "It is of course important they have the trust of all their viewers but this is not just an issue for the BBC but across all broadcasters."

Our local plod have tried to excuse their inability to properly police crime by pointing out resources are tight and anyway it is a lot worse elsewhere. That's like me trying to get off a speeding conviction by saying other folk are going faster.

And one small, additional, point. Who pays... er, gets forced to pay for the BBC?

Guardian - When they stop calling - Positively Clintonian. It's 'enhancing' the truth; not lying.
Guardian - So the BBC is a subversive leftwing conspiracy? You could have fooled me

As is too often the case, we seem to be being presented a rather stark 'either/or' here.

As has been pointed out, certain distractions, now followed by near apocalyptic warnings, have rather managed to drown out the fact that some people up the executive chain in the BBC decided that telling the truth needed some enhancement. In short, portraying some things as real that were not. Which is, apparently, different to lying. Just like taking money under false pretences now seems not to be fraud.

And, in so doing, using whose money?

What I'm seeing is an attempt to blow this out of all proportion to arrange a major puff of smoke, around which mirrors will be rearranged, things will 'move on' and nothing will actually change.

Until the next time.

Maybe, just maybe, we nail down who did what, and if it was wrong hold them properly accountable?

Marketing Week - The commercial uses of BBC abuses - a worthy analysis of who should really be looked at more thoroughly in all this.

Hurricane Spiros

While I am always a tad dubious about anything that has the words 'may' and 'according to scientists' in it, this may be worth noting next time you book a break -
Warming may bring hurricanes to Mediterranean

And if it happens which, heaven forfend it does, it may be a tad difficult to explain away.

Which may get the CC deniers on board at last, which only leaves the 'man-worsened' and 'worth mitigating' steps to go.

London to get huge desalination plant

Its obviously a day for water stories......

I think Peter (with his Civ. Eng. qualifications) could volunteer as project manager for this one from Reuters.

London is going to build a £200 million desalination plant to produce 140 million litres of drinking water a day.

In the meantime 25% (see below) of all of London's potable water is still lost through leakage. They reckon that at least 50% of London's water consumption could be saved by the simple promotion (a small financial household incentive would surely have been a better idea?) of rain water harvesting systems etc. (especially as climate change experts forecast that summer rainfall will actually increase over current levels.)

On the basis of other current grand projects initiated by our really sensible government, the final cost will, of course, be at least £450 million.

Oh, "the plant will only run on bio-diesel". So that's OK then because that's nice and green.
Oh, and its "only going to be used intermittently" - whatever that's supposed to mean! (If there is only a peak demand intermittment requirement, then why not sort out the current problems instead of throwing a massive project at a minor set of problems?)

(Just a thought, but, looking at current climatic trends, as most of London is likely to be at, or even below, sea level in 40 or 50 years time, maybe its not such a bad idea after all? [If they build it on 30 Metre stilts!])

That 25% of potable water currently lost via leakage amounts to the insignificant figure of some 702 million litres per day!! (Don't despair, it used to be a lot worse than that!)

Addendum:

Here's The Guardian's take on the proposals - "Green groups condemn water plant go-ahead."

Whilst, rather surprisingly, Christian Today heads up its article on the subject with "London Fights Climate Change to get Clean Water to Booming Population"

While we are on the subject of the Swiss ....

..... do read this from Magnus Linklater in TimesOnline Comment.

Twenty billion gallons of water are required to artificially make snow across the alps each winter!

"Because alpine resorts are, despite their icy surroundings, often short of water, these precious supplies must either be stored on site or ferried up by helicopter. The Swiss, veteran users of airborne travel, favour the latter. The French dig reservoirs. The Austrians do both. "

And they fly the water up in helicopters!

"It would be hard to conjure up a more potent symbol of environmental perversity than the use of carbon-spewing fossil fuels to help to dispose of millions of gallons of carefully extracted water in order that a few thousand tourists can slide down a slope for an extra week."

Quite! I can't think of anyone who can logically argue with that!

Renewables Strategy Just Like Swiss Cheese?

Is the government's strategy to encourage the installation of renewable energy components on new build developements failing?

The conclusion, as a consequence of loop-holes built into the legislation, appears to be a resounding yes!

Quite a while back the government introduced a new set of building regulations and these have now become enshrined in planning law. A minimum of 10% of the energy consumption of any new build must be provided via renewable energy means. At the time there was a great deal of consternation amongst developers and architects alike - it looked as if it would mean a significant increase in costs on any development - and hence a hefty premium on the cost of any new property.

Speaking to some developers a few weeks ago, I asked them about this problem. Their response ....... we just chuck in more insulation, put in low energy lighting, and we can meet the renewables requirement.

I was not quite sure at the time that I understood just how this could work, but this article from a town planner in Newcastle expains thing quite clearly.

"If green energy measures are to be included in the building, such as energy efficient lighting and extra insulation, this will reduce the carbon footprint of the building, thereby reducing the 10% requirement."

"It is usually more cost effective to cut the energy consumption of a building than to provide renewable equipment. "

So the renewables requirement can be met by ignoring renewables and by simply reducing the overall energy consumption of a new build. Not a bad thing in itself, but I think certainly not what was originally intended.

Nice piece of legislation or what? Swiss cheese with loop-holes that big you can drive an artic through!

Addendum:

Just to prevent any confusion, reducing a new build's projected carbon footprint by 10% does NOT then mean that only 10% of the remaining energy consumption has then to be met using renewables. Because of this loop-hole, the use of additional insulation and low energy lighting etc. means that the renewables requirement for new builds, in some cases, has been met without using any renewables at all! (i.e. The exact opposite of what the new regulations were trying to achieve)

Addendum 2 (from Junkk Male):

Saw this and thought of you:

Our group has been working on design/construction of
low energy/affordable housing units and finally we
have produced a 3BR house protorype that costs almost
half the price of similar size house on the market. We
are happy to share our findings with you.

Kind regards,
Dr M Hedman
SolXO Ltd.
United Kingdom

Left Fist. Meet Right Fist. Now make a fist of things.

A wee while ago there was a tad of a spat over road pricing, which resulted in a high profile petition. Looks like there may be again - 'Big Brother' plan for police to use new road cameras

I blogged a fair bit on it (and you can, if you are so disposed, locate it by popping said phrase in the blogger search).

I was... am in favour of it, so long as a load of factors were established and guaranteed for fair and competent delivery first. Which they were not. So I joined the petition.

Now in all that debate I do recall an interview with one Doctor (as in the figures) Ladyman, who I think was challenged by a Sun columnist in whether or not 'we' were to be tracked as part of all this. The answer, for this was not perhaps a good thing to admit in a Big Brother overloaded government's term, was no. Or at least 'a looking at it' no. Few were convinced. I think I wondered how you effectively charged anyone for distance covered if you didn't track them. It was not so much the fact of the process, but the mess the fudge-up caused.

And so now we see yet another issue of trust laid bare for what it was... and is.

And they keep asking the people to cooperate with them.

Indy - Row over police use of cameras criticised - Though I don't quiet understand the headline. Are they saying having a row is to be/being criticised?

The Energy Solution That Dare Not Speak Its Name

Oooooh! I first thought, another perhaps daring to suggest we sort of try to limit the human population growth somewhat? But no, in a cogent and logical comment article Raymond J. Learsy argues that the US could dig its way out of the thrall of the oil barons by ......... rationing.

"it became clear to me at least, that those with a vested interest in oil, oil production, oil and energy distribution, oil governance, are all for conservation, protecting the environment, as long as it does not negatively impact the price of oil and energy."

"lets consider ethanol and alternative fuels, but we don't really have a viable infrastructure in place, and can it really displace meaningful amounts of oil. What is the environmental impact of all bio based fuels among such as cellulosic, corn, sugar based ethanol? Of course we support biofuels if they are sustainable."

His translation:-

"lets stay with oil as long as we can, or as long as we can ask questions that cause programmed doubt to derail the urgent development of alternative fuels and alternative solutions."

"the consumer is playing against loaded dice."

Well, no one will argue against that last point. What he says may, at least in part, be true, but I think he's a brave chappie who just may have stuck his head over the parapet a little too far. Those Big Oil boys have some very big guns!
And starving the planet's largest consumers of petrol is going to be an immense ask!

Are we aware yet?

I risk being ticked off as a grump, but I was just wondering how much more awareness this planet can afford: Man swims at north pole

I'm assuming he didn't swim there, and I seem to recall on the news more than few around who went with to 'share the moment'. And broadcast it to boost those ratings.

I'm thinking of starting a travel agency called Awareness Offsets, whereby you go pretty much where you fancy, but when you get back you can upload your home movies and claim it was to 'raise awareness' of the area of outstanding natural beauty you just screwed up by trampling all over it or simply by getting there.

You may even get a media outlet - especially a green one - to fund you! But only if you move in their circles, Ok, yah?

'Dere was 'dese tree fellas...

It is a sorry comment on even sorrier times that I have to preface my comments on last night's Ch4 'Great Green Smokescreen' with the caution that it is a) a supposed 'news' item b) on TV and c) on Ch 4.

These are the guys who brought us another 'Great..' not so long ago. So who knows what is true?

For what it's worth, a lot did ring pretty close to what I have stumbled across and/or feel and/or has been shared by me and others on this blog.

You only have to go back a few posts to find a few eyebrows being cocked at the PR and ad onslaughts by such as HSBC, SKY and BP, who rather crudely seem to have managed to make 3/4 of a million out of 2,500 (cars, that is), and all from a few acres of pig poo under a very dodgy looking tarp. Editing for effect? Well, if the 'disclaimers' were anything to go by - 'Oops! Got us in one. We'll take that claim off right away. Byeeee!". Plus almost BBCesque fudges on how tricky the facts are to get right. Are they scientists or what? I bet if it was finding a barrel of oil at 30,000 feet they'd have the numbers down to a decimal place.

Then we get straight into the meat of the piece: the guys who sit in deckchairs flogging trendies (individual and company variety) tracts of 'land' with 'trees' (no mention of the deforestation of mature areas being a much better option) to assuage liberal guilt that does not quite extend to cutting back. £10 gets you off a flight, as in off on the next one so long as you are rich... and either very dumb or very blinkered. Along with some authority figures I'd say, as from what I saw the Forestry Commission (hold that word in mind each time you hear of guys who sell you stuff to pollute some more) was using whose money to subsidise these guys to flog whose trees?

Cut to commercial. Vauxhall ecoflex, since you didn't ask. It's a car, by the way. I think. One of those with a leaf in the exhaust. But I'm sure it's so green you can go an extra few miles on the same amount. And hence you probably will. Ok, a better than nothing, but I have a drawer bulging with car ads which really are pushing my greenwash tolerance to the limit.

Thing is, it seems no one can agree on these footprints anyway (er, why?) so they are all pretty much making it up. What next? A two for one deal? The explanations and/or mitigations offered by the offwithhisheadsetters were all less than convincing. Especially the one who offered two prices; one direct and one via their client BA. Guess which one was lower? It's all about multipliers, apparently. And so, because 'we' don't know, yet, what they are, we don't allow for them. Works for me. Well, actually, when it comes to the future of my kids' planet, it really, really doesn't guys.

It was at this point the reporter admitted to being confused and unsure who to trust. Well, there's a surprise.

Speaking of trusting the media (Neat link, huh?), there was a good case of actual facts being used, assuming, of course they were true. Some Bulgarian project or other. Claim and counter claim of whether it made any darn difference bounced around until we ended up at the bank. And when it comes to money, they don't lie. And the bank says 'no'. So yet another pot into which a load of green got consummately p*ssed away. After commission.

SKY (a CH 4 competitor, mind) didn't come out too well, if only in making big claims that didn't seem to add up. I recall them being major speakers at the Guardian Climate Change Summit, and while the vast commitments made were mentioned all right, what was not was how the regular reviews of their 12.5% investment wasn't looking too solid on enviROI. I wonder what these guys with CSR Director or Eco Advisor as titles actually do all day?

Cue next ad... for a racing car!

Then we get back to the ways to make a big difference, in London at least, with... wait for it... a Carbon Neutral (the term has been shown to be less than helpful by now - in fact DEFRA was quoted as saying companies really shouldn't call themselves that) variety show!

That'll do it!

Or... food miles on a pack of crisps. Sorted!

There was, apparently, no real comment from the Carbon Trust. There are those two words again. Only this time together.

The conclusion was that there was no real harm to it all, but the question was asked if it was a dangerous diversion. I'd rather say that if it is a dangerous diversion there is a lot of potential harm.

Seeing some London luvvie called Fanny, who rejoices in the title 'Head of Policy' for an outfit called Global Cool, lob up in a Chauffeured Prius, to share such dazzling insights as not flushing the loo hardly inspired me.

And to those of more modest means it simply made the whole thing look like a silly little fad.

Do all these things for heavens sake, but get the info for free. Why do you need to pay money to rich folk to show you care about your kids and their futures?

ADDENDUM _ just came across a note I jotted in the lounge as I watched the Ch4 news preceding this. Joan Ruddock, Minister for Climate Change (didn't even, until now, know we had one), was being challenged by Jon Snow on what the government was doing to clear all this up. Apparently they are 'working towards' a solution. Well that's it all sorted then. Now I see why they get the big bucks. Meantime, for the poor consumer's sake, let's be hoping that major multinationals have no more 'website malfunctions' to... misle.. er... 'confuse' us.

Guardian - Last night's TV: Dispatches: The Great Green Smoke Screen - I like my review better. And I didn't even snipe about the 4x4, as the Ch4 guy wasn't really preaching. As some do.

Indy - Raft of flaws found in popular carbon offsetting schemes - It's like they watched the same programme! Oh, they did. Interesting that no one (else) is at least pointing out the provenance of the story, which tends to suggest these carbon offset schemes have a lot of explaining to do. As have any sloppy corporates who saw/see green as a quick way to look green with no real thought going into the substance.

Old King Coal's comeback?

Is ol' Golden Brown's first major decision going to revive Old King Coal? A decision that could "lock Britain into the same centralised, inefficient power system that wastes two-thirds of the energy going into it as heat up the cooling towers." Not to mention a decision that would mean that the UK would entirely miss it's emission targets by a mile.

I somehow missed the original article in Sunday's Observer, but this from The Guardian CIF is a fascinating, albeit sobering, read. Should the UK break with tradition and radically transform energy production or should we re-awaken and revive Old King Coal?

"Gordon Brown has been handed a historic opportunity to break from Blair's confused and fragmented approach to energy generation. He could revolutionise our energy system by implementing renewables, energy efficiency and combined-heat-and-power (CHP) on an unprecedented scale."

So which way will he go? I hope it is not the case, but my guess is that short termism and what is perceived as the 'cheap' option will win the day yet again, almost certainly to the detriment of future generations.

If we start building new coal fired power stations, especially without utilising clean burn and carbon sequestration technologies, the UK will be taking an enormous retrograde step. Milliband would never have concurred with this - I'm beginning to wonder whether he was he moved (we all thought he was promoted but maybe it was just sideways?) to pave the way for an unpalatable decision?

I hope not. And as the first comment posted says - "fingers crossed"!

Addendum:

If Ol' Golden DOES opt for the radical approach and includes for a major expansion of renewables, I hope he's aware that some renewable technology is getting quite difficult to get hold of! According to this from The Guardian, there is now a worldwide shortage of wind turbines.

GIGO

Can't believe I've never used that acronym before. For those few who may not know it, it stands for garage in:garbage out. And it sums up my views having seen this Newsnight piece: Why are we so rubbish about rubbish?

Yes, 'we' should be ashamed. Even the two year old spoke better English than most I hear these days, even on the... yoof... BBC. So the popping of a newspaper in the bin with a shrug and the words 'I don't speak German' made the point about British practices (bought and wasted) eloquently, especially the ones we have to 'foreign' languages.

This was a very interesting piece, but to me didn't answer a key question: to what extent were we seeing the results of differences in official policy?

While the Austrians said they were 'happy to pay', even though they generate just as much rubbish (not looking quite so smart at the pack design/legislative end then) not once in the piece did I hear the mention of fines, chips and bins. Well, Ok, bins were mentioned a lot.

Now, I am looking at our RE:box right now besides my home office desk, which gets collected weekly with its paper haul, along with the basket that we fill with glass and metal. No TetraPacks or plastic, but that's because they are not accepted. Yet. Despite the efforts of some (such as Innocent - heard of their campaign?), I believe we still only have only one process plant for the former, which makes the enviROI (cost to environment) of logistics alone very poor. As to the latter, I combine (dedicated trips in the XC90 or Range Rover for two bottles of pop not perhaps the best) my trips to the supermarket with the equivalent of a yellow bag of plastics, where a lot of others seem to be doing the same. Mind you, the enviROI of a dirty great diesel truck lugging 98% fresh air around seems less than optimal.

So, sorry, I don't think the problem here is at consumer end. I think it is upstream, in terms of what is put into the system, and what 'we' are provided to deal with it all. Because, looking around, I see an awful lot of will, with too much no 'way'. And that.. is down to policy. Who in the UK can say that they are always within 500m of a recycling point... and that they know where it is all going?

I even have some sympathy with retailers. So the Austrian supermarket ships back a lot of stuff in its trucks at night. I'm pretty sure most of ours do too. I'm also aware of a few who are set to take back batteries, and even if they don't our local council site certainly does. If it's not national it should be, and that gets us back to...policy.

I don't know if ours are too timid, but they certainly don't seem very joined up, and that can, and does lead to a lot of waste with competing schemes, not to mention the vast amounts blown on different, often overlapping, 'initiatives' left, right and centre, which seem more dedicated to showing 'something' is looking like being done without actually knuckling down and coordinating anything actually (cost) effective.

Which brings me back to enviROI. Whatever we do let's make sure we do it with the actual intent of saving the planet, and not just meeting a few targets to get a quick bonus. I look at the Red Bull cup and think 'good idea!'. But is it? I don't know. It has to be collected, separated and steam cleaned, I presume, for reuse. You see, often one eco-measure (landfill) can conflict with another (energy carbon emissions). All must be (forgive the box-ticking pun) weighed up.

It's a pity the energy from waste issue is not being handled more maturely here. We are happy to live and work next to vehicles belching lord knows what out, or have a bonfire, but stick a metal chimney up and all hell breaks loose. Maybe if it looked like Willy Wonka's hookah more would be cool on the things. It's not like the quality of air can't be guaranteed... assuming you trust the contractor, operator and commissioning authority. Oh... well... moving on.

One thing that was not mentioned was the even more environmentally-friendly option of reuse.

I found it rather telling (unless it was a BBC 'edit for effect') to see a perfectly good pram go in a skip. Rather than recycling, there are some rather nifty measures for avoiding what is still an energy intensive process. Such as Freecycle or Junkk.com's (which also has hundreds of 2nd use ideas from thousands of people to spare almost anything from the bin if it can enjoy a new life) JunkkYard

You see 'we', the people, may not be any more rubbish at rubbish than our Euro cousins after all.

All 'we' need are the right tools and some effective guidance from 'our' leadership. But, speaking of which, if you put garbage in at the front, that's pretty much all you can expect at the end.

A little application. Well, a lot, actually.

I saw this ad in Media Week.

Being well smart, beyond 'a festival of minds' and 'the biggest names tackle the biggest issue' I figured the word green might mean something I could/should be interested in, so I logged on to the website.

Strewth, they don't make it easy, do they?

All I could find out, beyond the fact it was green and big, was it was shaping up at six hundred quid for the probable privilege of again being talked at by some guys who will need to pop off after talking, a few hundred (doubtless eco) hand-outs and stands with LCDs showing wind turbines, some eco-canapes (or not) and sitting at a table populated by a bunch of overpaid guys with titles like 'Head of Sustainability' who all knew each other, only talked amongst themselves as a consequence, and moved in packs keeping each other, and conferences like this, in business. And at the end of the day agreeing 'something should be done'. At least, enough to tick over until the next conference/summit... festival.

However, for my sins, there may be a few in there worth meeting. So in a sad repeat of my last whinge power, which got me invited to the Guardian Climate Change Summit (this being a festival, maybe I should mention I can play a mean triangle), if anyone is a speaker.......:)

The Cola Challenge

Another industry magazine that I like and hence surf on occasion for tidbits is Plastics & Rubber Weekly. And this caught my attention: Coca-Cola launches lightweighted PET bottle in UK

Especially this: Potential resin saving of 700tpa, says company.

But....

While I think all can agree that just about every aspect of this story is a very good thing, I do have to ask if (and if so, where the money went, and/or gets refunded) it was necessary for the trials to be partly funded by the Waste and Resources Action Programme (Wrap).

I also wonder if I could sign up to Wrap’s Courtauld Commitment to 'reduce packaging waste'. Then there would be 26 signatories to the agreement. Any why not? If money is there for the taking, you'd be silly not to get your hands on it.

So I don't blame Coke at all for going for it. But I just have to wonder, again, why it is necessary to use public money to fund multi-billion turnover (and profit) companies to help them reduce their manufacturing costs, when surely it is in their own interests to do so?

And thus allow money from the public purse to go to areas where there is perhaps more need, and less self-interest at work.

I'm sure there's a good reason, but I'll guess I'll have to keep looking, and make a note to ask £200kpa execs at the top of this generous quango the next time I see them.

I decided to see if I could get some answers:

Great news. This should be a real positive to share with all the negatives we get these days on (over)packaging.
Quick question. What does ‘partially funded’ mean? It seems unlikely that a multi-billion $/£ company needs to be funded at all, especially when, beyond savings on waste the future savings of raw material costs must surely be vast. How’s it work?
Where does this money come from? And were does it go to? How much are we talking about? Is it secret? I’m interested in the provenance chain.
And is this on the same basis of a similar thing I heard about a while ago with Heinz, and Tescos, for instance, which seemed to cause some concern at the time as to why two such vast profit making enterprises were being subsidised from the public purse. I’m presuming they’ll be paying it back which, in view of the manufacturing raw materials spared, should not be too, long, right?
Signing to this Agreement seems a good way to get oodles of public funds to play with, and hence can anyone get some money by signing it?
I’d really like to know as it seems very generous, and it would be great to have some too.

Smile, you can afford more stuff

Somewhere in my drafts archive is a piece I am writing about human behaviour and motivations. I can't seem to find it to finish it, but as I just came across this wanted to share as it was a telling complement: BBC - Emissions don't make Europe happy

I have a saying: 'Happiness is solar powered'. It really only was meant for my reaction to a sunny day, but maybe it can resonate further, but hopefully won't get hijacked for any undeserving low-enviROI initiatives.

"There used to be seven. Now there are six."

This is nothing to do with Snow White's companions, and nothing to do with fairy tales, it is what is actually happening as sea levels rise. As the climate change debate goes on and on, the evidence from communities living on low level islands is starting to become irrefutable.

This article from The Gulf Times highlights the danger to the people of Tuvalu, a tiny South Pacific nation. Thousands have already emigrated to New Zealand, others stoically remain, determined that their home will not be engulfed by rising sea levels, and the increasing frequency of typhoons and 'king' [super high] tides.

There used to be seven smaller islets surrounding the main island of Funafuti, but one has disappeared since the late 1990s, leaving a strip of rubble visible only at low tide.

For some, climate change is all a political conspiracy, oft seen as a way of increasing taxation; for others, it is literally becoming a matter of life and death.

ADDENDUM from Junkk Male

Letter in the Indy - Tuvalu is doomed no matter what - Unsubstantiated of course (but then most news is, too), but I do think worth bearing in mind.