Oh yes we do! Oh no we don't!
Remember our much discussed post on nuclear power generation development and the problems of disposing of nuclear waste?
Well, a response from emeritus professor Keith Barnham appears in today's Guardian. He argues that we just don't need nuclear power at all, and proposes that solar, especially, and wind technology, will rapidly make the suggested expansion of nuclear power generation facilities a non-starter.
The usual clutch of comment posters have already been busy, most falling in to diametrically opposing camps, as usual, but there are some very interesting comments, facts (well, some, maybe, and some a bit questionable....ish) and figures quoted.
Interestingly, there are a few posters who, (maybe with some justification?), question the veracity of an author who is a founder of a solar panel development business.
Me? Well, I'm still confused. I still harbor doubts that 'renewables' technology can develop fast enough to fill the gap that carbon based power generation will surely hit in the future. And I still believe that storing nasty nuclear waste for when future generations can dispose of it safely and securely with a workable industrial scale transmutation technology is not really the correct thing to do.
As ever, there seem to be more questions than answers; and more 'facts'(?) flying about than you can shake a stick at. I'm open to persuasion either for or against nuclear, especially as it does seem to offer the most obvious stop-gap solution. But I think I'll stay sitting on the fence for now.
Anybody want to persuade me to drop down one side or the other?
Addendum:
Well, interestingly, despite Italy banning nuclear power station construction years ago, some at The Vatican do seem to be in favour of nuclear power! Plus they intend to become the planet's first carbon neutral sovereign state! See article from USA Today. Pity that it appears that most of this is to be achieved via offsetting.
____________________
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Your tax £ at work
I am grateful to Dave of Solarventi for forwarding this: Recycling body hunts direct agency
This... 'its £40m marketing programme to tackle climate change' is a lot of money. However, in light of what we are facing, large sums are needed to tackle huge issues. But what about the ROI to derive a worthwhile enviROI?
My views on 'not-for-profit' as a model are well known (basically a good way to not make a profit is to blow as much internally as possible - real estate, staff, satellites, trips, conferences, pensions, bonuses, etc), especially when 'backed' (what does that mean?) by the Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
The aims - to encourage businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more often, helping to minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve the environment - are laudable, but I simply question the methods and accountability.
Like the BBC (you hold those near and dear to a higher standard), I actually think a lot of what is being done by some departments is very good indeed, and probably more than worthwhile, but when it comes to comms and marketing, which I do know a bit about, the whole thing gets a lot murkier. And I still think there has to be some conflict in getting bonuses (why are public servants and guys like these, and the Environment Agency, on bonuses simply to do their jobs anyway? And it seems you get them even if you foul up) when they are based on targets and rates that will inevitably increase if your throw enough public money at them with awareness campaigns.
I ask a lot, but do intend to try and find some answers out if I can. But if anyone can help with deriving figures for what we spend vs. what we get back (they must be around surely, as a publicly accountable body?) with this mob, I'd be grateful.
Maybe they are worth every penny. But at the moment, I'm am not feeling the benefits of £40M.
And let's remember the vast number of other such entities getting similar amounts to play with, and which often seem, to me at least, to be overlapping if not actually confusing the issue with different messages all the time.
This... 'its £40m marketing programme to tackle climate change' is a lot of money. However, in light of what we are facing, large sums are needed to tackle huge issues. But what about the ROI to derive a worthwhile enviROI?
My views on 'not-for-profit' as a model are well known (basically a good way to not make a profit is to blow as much internally as possible - real estate, staff, satellites, trips, conferences, pensions, bonuses, etc), especially when 'backed' (what does that mean?) by the Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra).
The aims - to encourage businesses and consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more often, helping to minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve the environment - are laudable, but I simply question the methods and accountability.
Like the BBC (you hold those near and dear to a higher standard), I actually think a lot of what is being done by some departments is very good indeed, and probably more than worthwhile, but when it comes to comms and marketing, which I do know a bit about, the whole thing gets a lot murkier. And I still think there has to be some conflict in getting bonuses (why are public servants and guys like these, and the Environment Agency, on bonuses simply to do their jobs anyway? And it seems you get them even if you foul up) when they are based on targets and rates that will inevitably increase if your throw enough public money at them with awareness campaigns.
I ask a lot, but do intend to try and find some answers out if I can. But if anyone can help with deriving figures for what we spend vs. what we get back (they must be around surely, as a publicly accountable body?) with this mob, I'd be grateful.
Maybe they are worth every penny. But at the moment, I'm am not feeling the benefits of £40M.
And let's remember the vast number of other such entities getting similar amounts to play with, and which often seem, to me at least, to be overlapping if not actually confusing the issue with different messages all the time.
Joined up at the HIPS?
Today sees the Home Information Packs kick in, and the Housing Minister is on BBC Breakfast to explain why they are 'dead good'.
I sent in the following questions which, if asked, the BBC editors will hopefully not 'enhance for greater truth' this time:
1) If this is largely to address environmental impacts and not a social penalty, what is the proportion of 4+ bedroom houses as a % of the total, energy consuming housing market?
2) If older properties are inevitably going to be less 'efficient', is this grading just to enable market force choices, or is there an intention to use this information as a factor in future levies imposed by central and/or local government on the householder?
3) Are issues such as risk of flooding included as this would obviously represent a huge negative in terms of protections and/or clear ups with new builds no matter how eco?
These are, as stated, questions, but they do raise certain issues.
I suspect that the of 4+ housing I am asking for is not that high, and hence one wonders what impact targeting this sector will have on the planet.
Then there is the actual use of this rating system. I can get my head around one on a fridge, but a house? Choosing a white box that keeps things cold is pretty much just down to the op costs... to me at least. But if I fall in love with a property am I really going to reject that stone cottage (on a hill, 'cos the old folks figured that living where it gets wet is daft) and buy that 90's newbuild (on a flood plain, 'cos all that is left) because it is a few ratings lower? I doubt it. And hence one wonders what value this information ultimately has, and to whom?
And speaking of (well alluding to) those who would use green as a stealthy way to tax us without much explanation as to how those taxes get ploughed back, I do finally wonder if other environmental issues such as being built on a flood plain will score badly. Versus the lack of a cavity wall, one can only imagine that digging up the floors of a soaked property and renovating the whole thing will not offer the greatest global enviROI.
But maybe it's more a matter of boxes being ticked and grabbing some quick green dosh?
I just watched (How street cred is she? All bob and yoof speak!!?) and there was a bunch of... nothing. The key questions (just one was asked - nice one, BBC! I have to share this I read on a less than favourable blog as to their abilities: 'Double standards but half the quality') were almost all avoided or 'future mysteries' alluded to without being tasked to actually answer.
Indy - How ministers turned a help into a hindrance - like everything else they touch
Guardian - Home information packs are dealt new blow by lenders - Hmnnn
I sent in the following questions which, if asked, the BBC editors will hopefully not 'enhance for greater truth' this time:
1) If this is largely to address environmental impacts and not a social penalty, what is the proportion of 4+ bedroom houses as a % of the total, energy consuming housing market?
2) If older properties are inevitably going to be less 'efficient', is this grading just to enable market force choices, or is there an intention to use this information as a factor in future levies imposed by central and/or local government on the householder?
3) Are issues such as risk of flooding included as this would obviously represent a huge negative in terms of protections and/or clear ups with new builds no matter how eco?
These are, as stated, questions, but they do raise certain issues.
I suspect that the of 4+ housing I am asking for is not that high, and hence one wonders what impact targeting this sector will have on the planet.
Then there is the actual use of this rating system. I can get my head around one on a fridge, but a house? Choosing a white box that keeps things cold is pretty much just down to the op costs... to me at least. But if I fall in love with a property am I really going to reject that stone cottage (on a hill, 'cos the old folks figured that living where it gets wet is daft) and buy that 90's newbuild (on a flood plain, 'cos all that is left) because it is a few ratings lower? I doubt it. And hence one wonders what value this information ultimately has, and to whom?
And speaking of (well alluding to) those who would use green as a stealthy way to tax us without much explanation as to how those taxes get ploughed back, I do finally wonder if other environmental issues such as being built on a flood plain will score badly. Versus the lack of a cavity wall, one can only imagine that digging up the floors of a soaked property and renovating the whole thing will not offer the greatest global enviROI.
But maybe it's more a matter of boxes being ticked and grabbing some quick green dosh?
I just watched (How street cred is she? All bob and yoof speak!!?) and there was a bunch of... nothing. The key questions (just one was asked - nice one, BBC! I have to share this I read on a less than favourable blog as to their abilities: 'Double standards but half the quality') were almost all avoided or 'future mysteries' alluded to without being tasked to actually answer.
Indy - How ministers turned a help into a hindrance - like everything else they touch
Guardian - Home information packs are dealt new blow by lenders - Hmnnn
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Drive, he didn't say
I could have sworn I had seen, and mentioned, this before, but no harm no foul in doing so again: CO2 car rankings site launched
Can't hurt. Though I'd hazard more will look at the tax than what comes out of the pipe.
Which still means you can drive all day, emitting away, in a 'good' car, and drive a few miles and park but still get slaughtered by buying a 'bad' one. Not quite so sure how the latest Minister for Jams and Sources (of income) arrives at his figures, but I'm sure a full department created them, which means they must be good.
Maybe the best solution is buy a good one and not drive it very far. Or not drive it. Or not buy it at all! Or...
Can't hurt. Though I'd hazard more will look at the tax than what comes out of the pipe.
Which still means you can drive all day, emitting away, in a 'good' car, and drive a few miles and park but still get slaughtered by buying a 'bad' one. Not quite so sure how the latest Minister for Jams and Sources (of income) arrives at his figures, but I'm sure a full department created them, which means they must be good.
Maybe the best solution is buy a good one and not drive it very far. Or not drive it. Or not buy it at all! Or...
Just call me the lean, green love machine
Well, the green bit maybe.
As I look at a stack of worthy press releases that should be properly written up and archived on the main site (lack of holiday support being my reason, if not excuse), I just have to post this here, and now, pretty much as is. And in so doing, give much needed PR and cred to that well known environmental magazine, Nuts. But it's fun, so... um.. oh, nuts. See, I have been seduced to the trivial side already!
MOVE OVER FUNNY MAN, THE GREEN MAN IS THE NEW DATING KING
Key to a modern woman’s (well, 1,500 at least, which is a better sample than most research I've seen on actual issues that matter) heart is saving the planet. Of the personality traits that they found most attractive in men topping the list is showing you care about the environment. Demonstrating you’ve got green credentials and is now the number one quality modern British women seek in a partner.
This change in attitude can in a large part be put down to the recent green- avalanche of star-studded eco events such as Live Earth. Global heart-throbs from George Clooney and Brad Pitt to Justin Timberlake and Johnny Borrell (who?) all now all proudly endorsing the green agenda - meaning that being green is no longer just trendy – it’s down right sexy.
The results set a precedent for legions of UK Green Men who may soon need to trade in their gas guzzling cars for greener bicycles in a bid to impress women. Toppling the classic ‘Good Sense of Humour’- GSOH - for the first time, the research proves once and for all that recycling and growing vegetables in the back garden are no longer the preserve of wellie toting hippies.
Nuts magazine relationship expert (a what?) Louise Prior said: “There’s something sexy about a man who recycles, it shows that he cares about more than just himself and shows he has a sensitive side and thinks about the future. As for some of the other traits, you can’t go wrong with making a woman laugh, but modern women want their men to be caring. It started with the new man back in the 90s, more recently we’ve had the whole Metrosexual phenomena and green man is an extension of that really!”
The top-ten personality traits women find attractive:
Caring about the environment - tick
Good sense of humour - er, have you seen my bank statement?
Confidence - in spades. No really, I think they are the best for digging holes for compost.
Intelligence - moving quickly on.
Well travelled and worldly-wise - that would be 'then', 'cos if we're saving the planet travelling anywhere, much less well, would be a 'no-no', surely? And that makes me wise, hmmn?
Empathy and understanding - I feel your pain... reading this.
Good dress sense / style - Er, we are talking guys who mess around with rubbish here.
Ambition - If wanting to make the planet a better place counts... tick! An Aston Martin would be nice, too. Once they have the hybrid version sorted out.
Knowledge of current affairs - Hilary who? Go on, ask me....
Good with children - I'll ask the boys when they have finished sanding the roof lintels all day.
So OK, laydees, who would like to see my composting bin?
As I look at a stack of worthy press releases that should be properly written up and archived on the main site (lack of holiday support being my reason, if not excuse), I just have to post this here, and now, pretty much as is. And in so doing, give much needed PR and cred to that well known environmental magazine, Nuts. But it's fun, so... um.. oh, nuts. See, I have been seduced to the trivial side already!
MOVE OVER FUNNY MAN, THE GREEN MAN IS THE NEW DATING KING
Key to a modern woman’s (well, 1,500 at least, which is a better sample than most research I've seen on actual issues that matter) heart is saving the planet. Of the personality traits that they found most attractive in men topping the list is showing you care about the environment. Demonstrating you’ve got green credentials and is now the number one quality modern British women seek in a partner.
This change in attitude can in a large part be put down to the recent green- avalanche of star-studded eco events such as Live Earth. Global heart-throbs from George Clooney and Brad Pitt to Justin Timberlake and Johnny Borrell (who?) all now all proudly endorsing the green agenda - meaning that being green is no longer just trendy – it’s down right sexy.
The results set a precedent for legions of UK Green Men who may soon need to trade in their gas guzzling cars for greener bicycles in a bid to impress women. Toppling the classic ‘Good Sense of Humour’- GSOH - for the first time, the research proves once and for all that recycling and growing vegetables in the back garden are no longer the preserve of wellie toting hippies.
Nuts magazine relationship expert (a what?) Louise Prior said: “There’s something sexy about a man who recycles, it shows that he cares about more than just himself and shows he has a sensitive side and thinks about the future. As for some of the other traits, you can’t go wrong with making a woman laugh, but modern women want their men to be caring. It started with the new man back in the 90s, more recently we’ve had the whole Metrosexual phenomena and green man is an extension of that really!”
The top-ten personality traits women find attractive:
Caring about the environment - tick
Good sense of humour - er, have you seen my bank statement?
Confidence - in spades. No really, I think they are the best for digging holes for compost.
Intelligence - moving quickly on.
Well travelled and worldly-wise - that would be 'then', 'cos if we're saving the planet travelling anywhere, much less well, would be a 'no-no', surely? And that makes me wise, hmmn?
Empathy and understanding - I feel your pain... reading this.
Good dress sense / style - Er, we are talking guys who mess around with rubbish here.
Ambition - If wanting to make the planet a better place counts... tick! An Aston Martin would be nice, too. Once they have the hybrid version sorted out.
Knowledge of current affairs - Hilary who? Go on, ask me....
Good with children - I'll ask the boys when they have finished sanding the roof lintels all day.
So OK, laydees, who would like to see my composting bin?
Environmental Audit Committee Report Issued
For anyone with sufficient time on their hands to wade through all 216 pages, including all the oral evidence given, the Seventh Report of Session 2006–07 from the Environmental Audit Committee was published yesterday.
Entitled "Beyond Stern: From the Climate Change Programme Review to the Draft Climate Change Bill", it is a huge tome of information covering every issue you can shake a stick at. Sorry but I personally could not possibly find the time to go through in depth, so a few choice excerpts from a speed read skim are all that I can manage for now.
"Climate change is on a different scale from any other political challenge. Its potential effects could be both physically and economically devastating."
Can't see anyone arguing with that.
"The science linking 550ppmv to 2°C has moved on:
550ppmv CO2 has ~88% chance of exceeding 2°C
450ppmv CO2 has ~70% chance of exceeding 2°C
(% probabilities from Meinshausen, 2007)"
"It is clear to us that the Government will have to introduce more radical policies into its Climate Change Programme very soon if it is to meet even the 2020 target as currently set."
"The Government’s policy towards the UK’s 2050 target is clearly incoherent. The Government remains committed to limiting global warming to a rise of 2oC; but it also acknowledges that, according to recent scientific research, a cut in UK emissions of 60% by 2050 is now very unlikely to be consistent with delivering this goal."
I.e. The targets are NOT going to be met with the current plans.
"We recommend that the Government should admit the uncertainty range of its emissions projections. It should also regularly publish a review of its previous projections, comparing them against outturn data and latest projections, and analyse what it got right, what it got wrong, why it did so, and what lessons it has learned."
So that'll be something radical, a government that might have to admit that it got things wrong! Maybe if there's an X in the month!
All in all it doesn't look too good. Science is refining the temperature predictions and suggesting that less CO2 may well produce the 2C effect, and although the UK's targets were some of the most stringent on the planet, they are already inadequate and woefully behind schedule.
Addendum: 3/8/2008
But, of course, any criticism was bound to be rapidly and effectively deflected by the government. Apparently ignoring the key points made, Hilary Benn in The Guardian, insists that the Climate Change Bill is a world's first, and "ambitious by any standard and consistent with our leading position internationally".
Are the facts that: a) its probably not enough, and b) its way behind schedule already, not considered important?
Entitled "Beyond Stern: From the Climate Change Programme Review to the Draft Climate Change Bill", it is a huge tome of information covering every issue you can shake a stick at. Sorry but I personally could not possibly find the time to go through in depth, so a few choice excerpts from a speed read skim are all that I can manage for now.
"Climate change is on a different scale from any other political challenge. Its potential effects could be both physically and economically devastating."
Can't see anyone arguing with that.
"The science linking 550ppmv to 2°C has moved on:
550ppmv CO2 has ~88% chance of exceeding 2°C
450ppmv CO2 has ~70% chance of exceeding 2°C
(% probabilities from Meinshausen, 2007)"
"It is clear to us that the Government will have to introduce more radical policies into its Climate Change Programme very soon if it is to meet even the 2020 target as currently set."
"The Government’s policy towards the UK’s 2050 target is clearly incoherent. The Government remains committed to limiting global warming to a rise of 2oC; but it also acknowledges that, according to recent scientific research, a cut in UK emissions of 60% by 2050 is now very unlikely to be consistent with delivering this goal."
I.e. The targets are NOT going to be met with the current plans.
"We recommend that the Government should admit the uncertainty range of its emissions projections. It should also regularly publish a review of its previous projections, comparing them against outturn data and latest projections, and analyse what it got right, what it got wrong, why it did so, and what lessons it has learned."
So that'll be something radical, a government that might have to admit that it got things wrong! Maybe if there's an X in the month!
All in all it doesn't look too good. Science is refining the temperature predictions and suggesting that less CO2 may well produce the 2C effect, and although the UK's targets were some of the most stringent on the planet, they are already inadequate and woefully behind schedule.
Addendum: 3/8/2008
But, of course, any criticism was bound to be rapidly and effectively deflected by the government. Apparently ignoring the key points made, Hilary Benn in The Guardian, insists that the Climate Change Bill is a world's first, and "ambitious by any standard and consistent with our leading position internationally".
Are the facts that: a) its probably not enough, and b) its way behind schedule already, not considered important?
It wasn't me, Guv!
From that well-known bastion of eco-awareness, the Guardian, about another, er, bast... newspa.. er... well, anyway, The Sun:
Yet more embarrassment for a TV indie. Production company Renegade Pictures has apologised for fly tipping while filming a documentary... about green living. The Sun reports today that crew members left piles of cardboard on a street in Bath after shooting Fix the World in the city. Producer Paul O'Connor apologised 'unreservedly' for the mishap, telling the paper the crew expected the rubbish to be picked up by binmen. The Sun P16
Couldn't find it on the Sun's woeful website (though they do have a 'green' section, and it's not just naked girls sprayed with broccoli*) to link to, but what a hoot.
And that excuse! Up there with Pete (I was just doing research) Townsend et al.
ADDENDUM - Keeley Hazell's ten green tips - stand (oo, missus) corrected. I was joking.
I wonder if they got away with it? ''Wot, I left them 20 old fridges on the layby 'cos I expected the bin men to pick it up!' Bless.
I am still giggling at the EST 'Do your 20% ad' that had everyone swithcing off their lights in a leafy London subaurd before jumping into a dirty great balck VW Touran to go to the shops. I bet that was the director's car!
Yet more embarrassment for a TV indie. Production company Renegade Pictures has apologised for fly tipping while filming a documentary... about green living. The Sun reports today that crew members left piles of cardboard on a street in Bath after shooting Fix the World in the city. Producer Paul O'Connor apologised 'unreservedly' for the mishap, telling the paper the crew expected the rubbish to be picked up by binmen. The Sun P16
Couldn't find it on the Sun's woeful website (though they do have a 'green' section, and it's not just naked girls sprayed with broccoli*) to link to, but what a hoot.
And that excuse! Up there with Pete (I was just doing research) Townsend et al.
ADDENDUM - Keeley Hazell's ten green tips - stand (oo, missus) corrected. I was joking.
I wonder if they got away with it? ''Wot, I left them 20 old fridges on the layby 'cos I expected the bin men to pick it up!' Bless.
I am still giggling at the EST 'Do your 20% ad' that had everyone swithcing off their lights in a leafy London subaurd before jumping into a dirty great balck VW Touran to go to the shops. I bet that was the director's car!
Meanwhile, what comes down the pipe to your home is...
It's a better than nothing, I guess but I couldn't help but crank a slight eyebrow at this: NPower launches eco-friendly ads
I've always been a bit dubious on nPower since seeing their activities at the Ideal Home Show 'eco' (Ahem, not) theme year, when they were a major sponsor. And Juice has been low on my estimation since seeing a bunch of Greenpeace cardboard stuck on 4x4s at Gloucester train station, sponsored by same.
At least the Guardian has at least put it that 'the energy company says the initiative is the UK's first eco-friendly campaign'. Up there with carbon neutral, I am unsure what the heck that means, or does. Or anything.
Or indeed what the actual enviROI is, as opposed to just winning advertising awards and spinning a green story.
I've always been a bit dubious on nPower since seeing their activities at the Ideal Home Show 'eco' (Ahem, not) theme year, when they were a major sponsor. And Juice has been low on my estimation since seeing a bunch of Greenpeace cardboard stuck on 4x4s at Gloucester train station, sponsored by same.
At least the Guardian has at least put it that 'the energy company says the initiative is the UK's first eco-friendly campaign'. Up there with carbon neutral, I am unsure what the heck that means, or does. Or anything.
Or indeed what the actual enviROI is, as opposed to just winning advertising awards and spinning a green story.
Read all abart it!
Is Thelondonpaper's recycling push enough?
We'll take that as a 'no' then.
On the positive, proactive side, I have to say I prefer the notion of a reward to encourage good behaviour as opposed to a fine or somesuch to penalise bad.
I don't live there so I don't know, but what are the others doing?
But realistically, it's probably going to need to be a mixture of both.
We'll take that as a 'no' then.
On the positive, proactive side, I have to say I prefer the notion of a reward to encourage good behaviour as opposed to a fine or somesuch to penalise bad.
I don't live there so I don't know, but what are the others doing?
But realistically, it's probably going to need to be a mixture of both.
The future of wind power?
These have been talked about for a few years now, but this is the first time I've come across any comments on their potential size and projected efficiency. This article from Gizmag details the design and concept of giant maglev wind turbines. With no friction to overcome, it is claimed that these will prove to be very low maintenance, but more importantly, will be efficient at wind speed as low as 1.5 Metres per second.
The concept projects that a single maglev turbine as big as a block of flats could have an output of almost 1 gigawatt and have an ROI of less than 1 year!
No doubt some will find them objectionable as being ugly, evil, unnecessary or even just a touch of NIMBYism may come into play. But, if the ROI is as low as claimed and running costs are as low as stated then perhaps we can expect to see these appearing on the UK landscape over the next 10 to 20 years.
Hmmm, I wonder if anyone is working on a domestic property scale model?
Putting green in the shade
I recently read this - Who's the greenest of them all? , and decided to pursue it a bit further. The editor has kindly replied.
It kind of highlights what has been mentioned earlier about 'looking' green without actually 'being' it becoming a worrying trend.
It kind of highlights what has been mentioned earlier about 'looking' green without actually 'being' it becoming a worrying trend.
3 into 2 will go
I guess I do have what it takes when it comes to (vast) sums: WRAP Board Extends Its Strategic Skills Base With Appointment Of Three New Non Executive Directors
We look forward to their contribution.
Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000, WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I wonder if they have a bonus structure like the Environment 'but we promised them huge amounts before it all went pear-shaped on their watch' Agency?
I'm still trying to get to grips with the lack of conflict in interest to using public money to spend on comms budgets, to drive up rates that their measures of success are based on, and then subsequently richly rewarded on a personal basis for meeting such 'targets'.
Since when did not-for profit public service end up with such money-dripping schemes beyond a decent salary for a good job?
We look forward to their contribution.
Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000, WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I wonder if they have a bonus structure like the Environment 'but we promised them huge amounts before it all went pear-shaped on their watch' Agency?
I'm still trying to get to grips with the lack of conflict in interest to using public money to spend on comms budgets, to drive up rates that their measures of success are based on, and then subsequently richly rewarded on a personal basis for meeting such 'targets'.
Since when did not-for profit public service end up with such money-dripping schemes beyond a decent salary for a good job?
Monday, July 30, 2007
Focus on carbon and miss the point
That's the conclusion of Eamon O'Hara in a thought provoking piece about this week's story for The Green Room.
His general suggestion is that by concentrating almost entirely on reducing carbon emissions, we are missing the underlying cause, which is a direct consequence of our western, unsustainable mode of living.
This, he says, "has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies."
Which is (and I like this analogy) like "relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroine."
"We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability."
I don't think anybody can realistically disagree with that statement. (Well, except perhaps the usual 'anti-brigade' comment posters who have immediately branded him as a hippy!)
It's a well and logically argued article, well worth a read. And as one of the comment posters has pointed out - look what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they had consumed all their available resources; they became extinct!
Human beings tend to have a habit of NOT learning the lessons of history and commonly missing the point. Maybe now is time to take a more over-arching view whilst keeping historical precedents in mind?
________________
His general suggestion is that by concentrating almost entirely on reducing carbon emissions, we are missing the underlying cause, which is a direct consequence of our western, unsustainable mode of living.
This, he says, "has led to the assumption that if we reduce emissions then our problems are solved, hence the focus on carbon sequestration, renewable energies and environmental technologies."
Which is (and I like this analogy) like "relying on methadone to cure an addiction to heroine."
"We urgently need to think about the more fundamental concept of sustainability and how our lifestyles are threatening not only the environment, but developing countries and global peace and stability."
I don't think anybody can realistically disagree with that statement. (Well, except perhaps the usual 'anti-brigade' comment posters who have immediately branded him as a hippy!)
It's a well and logically argued article, well worth a read. And as one of the comment posters has pointed out - look what happened to the inhabitants of Easter Island when they had consumed all their available resources; they became extinct!
Human beings tend to have a habit of NOT learning the lessons of history and commonly missing the point. Maybe now is time to take a more over-arching view whilst keeping historical precedents in mind?
________________
It's not just what you switch off. But what you are now switching on.
This is worth a gander: The Ampere Strikes Back
I am so relieved that we set up Junkk.com to be inspirational as opposed to judgemental. Because there are a lot out there who are telling us what do or simply being snotty that I reckon would fall pretty foul of a few pithy comebacks.
Don't like my bottle or Perrier? Betcha ditched the old TV for flatty as soon as Comet dropped the prices, eh?
And look a DAB radios. This is the direction we are being forced in... by whom?
Pass the remote vicar!
I am so relieved that we set up Junkk.com to be inspirational as opposed to judgemental. Because there are a lot out there who are telling us what do or simply being snotty that I reckon would fall pretty foul of a few pithy comebacks.
Don't like my bottle or Perrier? Betcha ditched the old TV for flatty as soon as Comet dropped the prices, eh?
And look a DAB radios. This is the direction we are being forced in... by whom?
Pass the remote vicar!
Looks vs. deeds
An interesting dissection of the current state of political, commercial and consumer 'engagement' with things 'green' : The Make-Believe of Green Politics
I'm not very interested in lifestyle statements. More just getting on with mine best I can ... and not screwing up the kids' future too much in the process.
As a consequence I know a bit, but was surprised with some things that I read here.
Like the notion of driving a car means you are doing 'your bit' to save the planet. Sweet.
The comparison with the Civic shocked me. Though to be fair I'd say a full 11mpg on the city cycle, at 20% better gives the Prius quite an edge in the thrift stakes. At least for this usage. I recently visited the Hay Festival here in the West of the UK, and this year was very green themed. So the car park was like a Prius lot. Trouble is, almost all had probably come from London down the motorway, which means they were mainly lugging a dormant, and vast amount of weight. Image is all, as you suggest. I'm interested as to where the Prius get used in the US to assess the actual value it does confer, for which I have coined the term enviROI.
This is the actual benefit of any product/ initiative to the planet, and future generations. It can have a woeful financial ROI, (most do), but so long as in making running and disposing of the thing it means less of what's 'bad' (definitions seem to vary daily, so I'm not getting into footprints), then more power to you elbow... or electric drivetain.
I'd have to agree that the Prius has a distinct design, but, subjectively, it is a dog. It looks like something out of a 70's futuristic TV show. And that is a shame, because that may mean appealing only to a minority who are only governed by making a statement, rather than a lot to more who simply have other factors (style being one) that do matter along with (and may outweigh) a few mpg.
Pity. And yes, hence a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Along with the positive suggestions, well said.
I'm not very interested in lifestyle statements. More just getting on with mine best I can ... and not screwing up the kids' future too much in the process.
As a consequence I know a bit, but was surprised with some things that I read here.
Like the notion of driving a car means you are doing 'your bit' to save the planet. Sweet.
The comparison with the Civic shocked me. Though to be fair I'd say a full 11mpg on the city cycle, at 20% better gives the Prius quite an edge in the thrift stakes. At least for this usage. I recently visited the Hay Festival here in the West of the UK, and this year was very green themed. So the car park was like a Prius lot. Trouble is, almost all had probably come from London down the motorway, which means they were mainly lugging a dormant, and vast amount of weight. Image is all, as you suggest. I'm interested as to where the Prius get used in the US to assess the actual value it does confer, for which I have coined the term enviROI.
This is the actual benefit of any product/ initiative to the planet, and future generations. It can have a woeful financial ROI, (most do), but so long as in making running and disposing of the thing it means less of what's 'bad' (definitions seem to vary daily, so I'm not getting into footprints), then more power to you elbow... or electric drivetain.
I'd have to agree that the Prius has a distinct design, but, subjectively, it is a dog. It looks like something out of a 70's futuristic TV show. And that is a shame, because that may mean appealing only to a minority who are only governed by making a statement, rather than a lot to more who simply have other factors (style being one) that do matter along with (and may outweigh) a few mpg.
Pity. And yes, hence a parable for the broader politics of global warming. Along with the positive suggestions, well said.
Have your say on the future of nuclear power.
The government has launched a public consultation on the future use of nuclear power generation in a 'low carbon UK economy'.
Anyone in the UK can contribute, all you have to do is register. See Nuclear Consultation for full details.
They claim that "Your views will contribute to the shaping of the policy on the future of civil nuclear power".
Well, as they say, time will tell; this government's track record on listening isn't exactly one to be proud of.
Anyone in the UK can contribute, all you have to do is register. See Nuclear Consultation for full details.
They claim that "Your views will contribute to the shaping of the policy on the future of civil nuclear power".
Well, as they say, time will tell; this government's track record on listening isn't exactly one to be proud of.
Who's dissin' who?
When is branding disingenuous?
As with all things, it can span a range. I certainly think a lot are making things worse for themselves and the message by being so darn clunky, especially with the environment. If a plane is more fuel efficient or a bank goes 'carbon neutral' then great, but it really only helps their bottom line or CSR report at the AGM. Hardly worth an ad. And cars with leaves blowing out their exhausts are plain daft. And some are just desperate. I have AdSense on my blog and often click on intriguing, if vague, ads covering many green areas. Almost all seem to lead to Exxon Mobil. If I thought poorly of them before, I think even less now.
Best Global Brands: How valuable is green?
I think consumers do care about the environment more than some reports claim, and this may be a reflection on the questions asked and/or actions measures.
For a start, it's hard to care too much if there is no end-benefit. Sounds selfish, but it's true. I still get a PR almost daily expecting me to run a piece on why so-and so has gone carbon neutral. Despite that term having almost no rational meaning and now being almost worthless, while it's great a bank recycles its paper or uses green energy, that really only effects their own internal bottom line or CSR report.
Also so much is about things you can DO. It's hard to get very excited about anything that simply says 'isn't green lovely' when that's about the substance of it all.
The consumer needs to feel a sense of reward. This can be 'making a difference', so long as it is clear and measurable, and trusted, but there is little better than saving time, saving money... and the planet. Few brands deliver on that yet.
Exploiting a brands's green appeal
As with all things, it can span a range. I certainly think a lot are making things worse for themselves and the message by being so darn clunky, especially with the environment. If a plane is more fuel efficient or a bank goes 'carbon neutral' then great, but it really only helps their bottom line or CSR report at the AGM. Hardly worth an ad. And cars with leaves blowing out their exhausts are plain daft. And some are just desperate. I have AdSense on my blog and often click on intriguing, if vague, ads covering many green areas. Almost all seem to lead to Exxon Mobil. If I thought poorly of them before, I think even less now.
Best Global Brands: How valuable is green?
I think consumers do care about the environment more than some reports claim, and this may be a reflection on the questions asked and/or actions measures.
For a start, it's hard to care too much if there is no end-benefit. Sounds selfish, but it's true. I still get a PR almost daily expecting me to run a piece on why so-and so has gone carbon neutral. Despite that term having almost no rational meaning and now being almost worthless, while it's great a bank recycles its paper or uses green energy, that really only effects their own internal bottom line or CSR report.
Also so much is about things you can DO. It's hard to get very excited about anything that simply says 'isn't green lovely' when that's about the substance of it all.
The consumer needs to feel a sense of reward. This can be 'making a difference', so long as it is clear and measurable, and trusted, but there is little better than saving time, saving money... and the planet. Few brands deliver on that yet.
Exploiting a brands's green appeal
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Floods & Tears 2 - Apres le deluge
It's still raining, and it's still wet. It's also Sunday, so the supps are out, along with the TV round-ups, and this is not quite going away.
I have just returned to my keyboard with the dulcet tones of Hazel Blears, Minister for something, ringing in my ear. I'm not sure, but I don't think she answered a single question, but told us all sorts of stuff we probably already knew about how awful it all was. And how she, personally, had been to see it. It was also interesting how she, personally was going to look at doing at lot, which begs the question as to what she had been doing the last decade.
And again, the thing to remember is that it was/is all unprecedented, and could not have been predicted. When is wasn't, and was.Hmmn. I guess if they say it enough we'll end up accepting it.
I've decided therefore to pop in another staging post of what's out there so far to see what we do know, and can do. Don't hold your breath.
Times - Flood chiefs get big cash bonuses - good start. I am really unclear as to why all our quango heads seem to be on nice little extra earners at all, much less like this. Especially when “The management of flood defences in recent years has been a sorry tale of budget cuts, failure to act on planning policies and inadequate precautionary measures"
Times - Century of neglect means the land can’t take it any more - "All this has happened despite the furrowed brows of the insurance industry and the protestations of the Environment Agency, which until recently was not even a statutory consultee in planning for flood plains." ps: I have Sea Change standing ready to read and review soon.
Times - After the flood, a surge of anger - And no wonder: “Yvette Cooper, the housing minister, might look at these and say, ‘Great! They didn’t flood, so you can build on flood plains!’ But that’s because they raised the level of the ground under the new houses - which meant that our road flooded instead.' That's the ways to a bonus these days, or a boosted career: shunt the problem downstream, preferably long enough to not be held to account by moving job.
'A recently leaked memo from the government’s spending review shows that before Gordon Brown became PM he was planning to cut millions from the EA’s flood defence budget later this year.'
There will be more.
Telegraph - 'I warned ministers of extreme flooding' - So... it couldn't be predicted then?
Telegraph - Why it is ministers who must carry the can - Quite: "Ministers were warned they should have reassessed the risks three years ago. My bet it was them, not the agency, that slept on their watch.'
Express - BROWN'S £1BILLION FLOOD PROFIT - That's an interesting stealth 'income generation scheme': spend 10 years doing sod all, blame God, 'unprecedented' events that have happened before and unpredictable situations which were warned about for whatever happens, pledge a pittance and then rake in the gravy mopping up. No wonder Dear Leader and his merry crew are happy to create ever more departments and bonus-bought-off, crony-headed quangos to keep the wheels of revenue spinning through ineptitude.
Guardian - Up to our necks in hype Plus quite a lot of precedented, predictable and hence avoidable flood water.
I have just returned to my keyboard with the dulcet tones of Hazel Blears, Minister for something, ringing in my ear. I'm not sure, but I don't think she answered a single question, but told us all sorts of stuff we probably already knew about how awful it all was. And how she, personally, had been to see it. It was also interesting how she, personally was going to look at doing at lot, which begs the question as to what she had been doing the last decade.
And again, the thing to remember is that it was/is all unprecedented, and could not have been predicted. When is wasn't, and was.Hmmn. I guess if they say it enough we'll end up accepting it.
I've decided therefore to pop in another staging post of what's out there so far to see what we do know, and can do. Don't hold your breath.
Times - Flood chiefs get big cash bonuses - good start. I am really unclear as to why all our quango heads seem to be on nice little extra earners at all, much less like this. Especially when “The management of flood defences in recent years has been a sorry tale of budget cuts, failure to act on planning policies and inadequate precautionary measures"
Times - Century of neglect means the land can’t take it any more - "All this has happened despite the furrowed brows of the insurance industry and the protestations of the Environment Agency, which until recently was not even a statutory consultee in planning for flood plains." ps: I have Sea Change standing ready to read and review soon.
Times - After the flood, a surge of anger - And no wonder: “Yvette Cooper, the housing minister, might look at these and say, ‘Great! They didn’t flood, so you can build on flood plains!’ But that’s because they raised the level of the ground under the new houses - which meant that our road flooded instead.' That's the ways to a bonus these days, or a boosted career: shunt the problem downstream, preferably long enough to not be held to account by moving job.
'A recently leaked memo from the government’s spending review shows that before Gordon Brown became PM he was planning to cut millions from the EA’s flood defence budget later this year.'
There will be more.
Telegraph - 'I warned ministers of extreme flooding' - So... it couldn't be predicted then?
Telegraph - Why it is ministers who must carry the can - Quite: "Ministers were warned they should have reassessed the risks three years ago. My bet it was them, not the agency, that slept on their watch.'
Express - BROWN'S £1BILLION FLOOD PROFIT - That's an interesting stealth 'income generation scheme': spend 10 years doing sod all, blame God, 'unprecedented' events that have happened before and unpredictable situations which were warned about for whatever happens, pledge a pittance and then rake in the gravy mopping up. No wonder Dear Leader and his merry crew are happy to create ever more departments and bonus-bought-off, crony-headed quangos to keep the wheels of revenue spinning through ineptitude.
Guardian - Up to our necks in hype Plus quite a lot of precedented, predictable and hence avoidable flood water.
Swords & Ploughshares
It must be hard for those who see livelihoods threatened not to see some issues in terms of potential conflict: BPF to battle green backlash
So I am pleased to see the tone being adopted here.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is much in the world of plastics that may not be 'necessary', and hence contribute poorly in an environmental sense. And yes, packaging is copping more than its fair share, again probably with some deserved. But I am trying to assess if all I see and hear in the media, from politicians, pressure groups and, indeed, the media, is warranted in the greater enviROI scheme of things.
For good or ill, we are talking about a fundamental part of a capitalist, consumerist society, along with everything else that may be associated with buying and selling, from design to advertising. So when it comes to what is, and isn't 'necessary', I find the icons of evil that get selected to be so far very, well, selective.
And way too much onus is being placed on the consumer to effect change using hype, spin and, in many cases guilt or threat. I guess you guys may not like where I am going with this, but a lot is simply at the wrong end. If a 4x4 or a bottle of water (which may have been missed in some areas of late if 'banned') is legal to make and market, if they are so bad why on earth is there all this official effort to stop 'us' buying them only once they arrive on the shelves?
So maybe this can work to 'your' advantage. Once you get to legislative measures the argument has to be a bit more sensible, with all pros and cons evaluated. Which will eliminate the ill-informed, the knee-jerk and the bandwagon jumpers. Having been to such as Total Packaging recently and been persuaded by some of the arguments and explanations, I think the public has a right, and definitely need to know the reasoning behind many choices to help them arrive at sensible purchase decisions. But there are limits. I live in dread of the CD-Rom that will come with my crisp packet to explain its health, food miles and carbon consequences in every format accepted by all parties just to tick a few more boxes.
One simple fact that struck me from the show was simple economics. Why would anyone spend all this money if they didn't have to (ok, there are truly excessive design/materials to encourage purchase - who decides, though, what is and isn't... in any industry?). But also there is such as the enviROI of food waste versus that of the packaging to prevent it. Or the cost to consumer, and planet, of damaged rejects.
Green cannot, and should not be viewed just in terms of black and white.
All concerned have a duty to make the decisions behind what is done with good reason clear. And, I would suggest, not as an industry on the defensive but, as a brand that is, as you suggest... confident, but concerned. But make sure the public believes you are concerned for the right reasons or, as with Live Earth, the message can be undermined by the credibility of some messengers.
While I have mixed views on plastic bags (and certainly on all that is wrong with the massively wasteful bits of media-nonsense such as the 'I am not a plastic bag' effort), they should be, as you say, a pretty trivial issue. Yet you need to be careful how you defend them. If they stand up environmentally in comparison to other options then I would like to hear the justification. And would be more impressed if it's not just on a point of principle, but rationality. If the argument strays into whether it's 'worth it' as the money is mostly from overseas then one moves to murkier waters.
The environment is not a problem to be dealt with; it is an opportunity to embrace. And to secure your industry's part in protecting the future you need to demonstrate how integral it is to every aspect of consumer life... and that there is a commitment to mitigating the potential downsides.
I'm not so sure where the fault (opportunity?) lies, but speaking as a consumer I for one am astounded at how woeful the provision of adequate mechanisms of proactive disposal (primarily via recycling, or my personal favourite for obvious reasons: reuse!) still are, or indeed adequate information on how, when and where to do anything 're' properly. Despite the squillions so far blown on campaigns that may better have been first invested in infrastructure. So yes... be part of the solution and be seen to take a lead in making sense of all this... and embarrass into silence, or support, those who would seek easy capital as a consequence.
Stick with the facts, but remember we do live in a world where these get dressed up for 'sale' just as a slickly by all protagonists as a box of Ferrero Rocher (I am sure every Lib Dem's and Independent journalist's partner looks forward to their bag of boiled sweets on Valentines as they pop off for a weekend in Barcelona). So I look forward to some interesting times ahead.
So I am pleased to see the tone being adopted here.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is much in the world of plastics that may not be 'necessary', and hence contribute poorly in an environmental sense. And yes, packaging is copping more than its fair share, again probably with some deserved. But I am trying to assess if all I see and hear in the media, from politicians, pressure groups and, indeed, the media, is warranted in the greater enviROI scheme of things.
For good or ill, we are talking about a fundamental part of a capitalist, consumerist society, along with everything else that may be associated with buying and selling, from design to advertising. So when it comes to what is, and isn't 'necessary', I find the icons of evil that get selected to be so far very, well, selective.
And way too much onus is being placed on the consumer to effect change using hype, spin and, in many cases guilt or threat. I guess you guys may not like where I am going with this, but a lot is simply at the wrong end. If a 4x4 or a bottle of water (which may have been missed in some areas of late if 'banned') is legal to make and market, if they are so bad why on earth is there all this official effort to stop 'us' buying them only once they arrive on the shelves?
So maybe this can work to 'your' advantage. Once you get to legislative measures the argument has to be a bit more sensible, with all pros and cons evaluated. Which will eliminate the ill-informed, the knee-jerk and the bandwagon jumpers. Having been to such as Total Packaging recently and been persuaded by some of the arguments and explanations, I think the public has a right, and definitely need to know the reasoning behind many choices to help them arrive at sensible purchase decisions. But there are limits. I live in dread of the CD-Rom that will come with my crisp packet to explain its health, food miles and carbon consequences in every format accepted by all parties just to tick a few more boxes.
One simple fact that struck me from the show was simple economics. Why would anyone spend all this money if they didn't have to (ok, there are truly excessive design/materials to encourage purchase - who decides, though, what is and isn't... in any industry?). But also there is such as the enviROI of food waste versus that of the packaging to prevent it. Or the cost to consumer, and planet, of damaged rejects.
Green cannot, and should not be viewed just in terms of black and white.
All concerned have a duty to make the decisions behind what is done with good reason clear. And, I would suggest, not as an industry on the defensive but, as a brand that is, as you suggest... confident, but concerned. But make sure the public believes you are concerned for the right reasons or, as with Live Earth, the message can be undermined by the credibility of some messengers.
While I have mixed views on plastic bags (and certainly on all that is wrong with the massively wasteful bits of media-nonsense such as the 'I am not a plastic bag' effort), they should be, as you say, a pretty trivial issue. Yet you need to be careful how you defend them. If they stand up environmentally in comparison to other options then I would like to hear the justification. And would be more impressed if it's not just on a point of principle, but rationality. If the argument strays into whether it's 'worth it' as the money is mostly from overseas then one moves to murkier waters.
The environment is not a problem to be dealt with; it is an opportunity to embrace. And to secure your industry's part in protecting the future you need to demonstrate how integral it is to every aspect of consumer life... and that there is a commitment to mitigating the potential downsides.
I'm not so sure where the fault (opportunity?) lies, but speaking as a consumer I for one am astounded at how woeful the provision of adequate mechanisms of proactive disposal (primarily via recycling, or my personal favourite for obvious reasons: reuse!) still are, or indeed adequate information on how, when and where to do anything 're' properly. Despite the squillions so far blown on campaigns that may better have been first invested in infrastructure. So yes... be part of the solution and be seen to take a lead in making sense of all this... and embarrass into silence, or support, those who would seek easy capital as a consequence.
Stick with the facts, but remember we do live in a world where these get dressed up for 'sale' just as a slickly by all protagonists as a box of Ferrero Rocher (I am sure every Lib Dem's and Independent journalist's partner looks forward to their bag of boiled sweets on Valentines as they pop off for a weekend in Barcelona). So I look forward to some interesting times ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)